India's Third Aircraft Carrier Construction To Start Soon, Aims for 5-6 Carriers: Defence Minister

NEW DELHI - India is set to begin construction on its third aircraft carrier soon, Defense Minister Rajnath Singh revealed in an interview with The Tribune. This new carrier will be similar in size to the recently commissioned INS Vikrant, a 45,000-ton behemoth.

But the Minister didn't stop there. In a bold declaration, he stated, "We will not stop at that (three carriers). We will make five, six more." This marks a significant shift in India's naval strategy, with a clear ambition to match the growing maritime power of its neighbors.

Matching China's Naval Ambitions​

India's plans appear to be directly responding to China's ongoing expansion of its aircraft carrier fleet. A 2021 US Department of Defense report warned that China aims to have six carriers operational by 2030.

China currently has two carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, and recently conducted sea trials of its third, the Fujian, equipped with advanced electromagnetic catapults.

An Arms Race in Asia​

India and China are not alone in this naval arms race. Other Asian nations are also investing in aircraft carriers to project power in the region. Japan has converted its helicopter carriers, JS Izumo and JS Kaga, into aircraft carriers capable of operating F-35 fighter jets, and South Korea has plans for a carrier by 2030.

India's Aircraft Carrier Legacy​

India's history with aircraft carriers dates back to 1961 with the acquisition of HMS Hercules from the UK, renamed INS Vikrant. This carrier played a crucial role in the 1971 India-Pakistan war. A second carrier, HMS Hermes, renamed INS Viraat, served from 1987 to 2017.

This ambitious expansion of India's carrier fleet signifies a major step in solidifying the country's naval power. With multiple carriers, India will enhance its ability to project force, protect its maritime interests, and play a more significant role in the Indo-Pacific region.

While the government's commitment to expanding the carrier fleet is clear, the road ahead will be challenging. Building and maintaining aircraft carriers is a complex and expensive endeavor. It will require substantial investment in infrastructure, technology, and personnel training. However, if successful, this ambitious plan will undoubtedly mark a new chapter in India's naval history.

 

[Bharat007]

Submarines represent invisible power projection, while aircraft carriers symbolize visible power projection. During wartime, submarines are more useful, but in peacetime, it is aircraft carriers that take precedence. The point is that, as part of psychological warfare, we need both submarines and aircraft carriers. India needs both visible and invisible show of might.

Both are useful during during wartime, but Submarines are deadlier- stealthier and Aircraft carriers may be prone to air based attack nowadays.

 

[Bharat007]

IAC 2 should be between 65-70 tons. While it may seem like a sitting duck, such behemoths are necessary to assert dominance at sea and reshape foreign perceptions. Few would dare challenge India in their maritime backyard if they perceive a formidable Navy. A substantial vessel like the IAC 2 within this weight range would symbolize India's maritime prowess and influence, playing a crucial role in psychological warfare.

I am only talking about psychological warfare. There may be other uses of it but it is disputed and debatable. I better leave it to strategic planners in the Navy and New Delhi. They have better experience and know how about the way such things work in shaping strategic planning.

 

[Pink Panther]

These Carriers and the 26 $300+Mln jets are sitting ducks without submarines, just one YJ-12, YJ-18, YJ-83, DF-21, and DF-26 is enough to sink everything together and then we have to wait for another 15 years to get another 26 Rafale-M's as there will be more backlogs.

 

[Neal.B]

So Fuzian is actually blessing in disguise for India. Sister ship of Vikrant is an immediate necessity. Anyway 70000-80000 tonne IAC 3 Vishal must be nuclear powered with CATOBAR technology. It will take time and presumably not coming before 2040 if not France become a major partner as they are in the process to build another carrier for themselves.

 

[Anant]

Excellent news. The Defence Minister also spoke today of the long-term goal of having 5-6 carriers, which means the Navy could be looking at a major expansion over the next 30-40 years. In any case, with IAC-II now on the way, we can expect to see other procurement programs for the Navy also being given the green light.

 

[Bhishma]

Everytime there's talk of more ACs, chinbots lose their $hit and try to dissuade us lol. WE WILL HAVE MORE ACs THAN CHINA, DEAL WITH IT.

 

[Bhishma]

These Carriers and the 26 $300+Mln jets are sitting ducks without submarines, just one YJ-12, YJ-18, YJ-83, DF-21, and DF-26 is enough to sink everything together and then we have to wait for another 15 years to get another 26 Rafale-M's as there will be more backlogs.

that would be like sacrificing your queen to capture your opponent's queen. india can do the same to China. we have pretty much all the equivalents you mentioned. (dont bring YJ series, they are tomahawk knockoffs, their ability to land hit is questionable). so the question is, is China ready to sacrifice their AC to down our AC ?

 

[ANUP]

I don't understand one thing, can anybody try to explain me one thing , suppose we have aircraft carrier and suppose during war time enemy launched 5-6 hypersonic missiles or supersonic missiles and 4-5 subsonic cruise missile to aircraft carrier then what will happen ? Can anti missile defence system of aircraft carrier protect it , no air defence system in the world can defend 100% , their is no defence system in the world to stop hypersonic missiles then why to buy such an expensive sitting duck while we can be 10 ssn submarines from it ,which can give headache to any nation

 

[Akshat]

These Carriers and the 26 $300+Mln jets are sitting ducks without submarines, just one YJ-12, YJ-18, YJ-83, DF-21, and DF-26 is enough to sink everything together and then we have to wait for another 15 years to get another 26 Rafale-M's as there will be more backlogs.

Only in your dreams. Our Rafales will destroy anything that can track the carriers from miles away. And France will deliver fresh Rafales as and when we need them. But more than that, they will help with MRFa and make an ecosystem, helping private companies to make planes so that we never have to import again.

 

[Bharat007]

I don't understand one thing, can anybody try to explain me one thing , suppose we have aircraft carrier and suppose during war time enemy launched 5-6 hypersonic missiles or supersonic missiles and 4-5 subsonic cruise missile to aircraft carrier then what will happen ? Can anti missile defence system of aircraft carrier protect it , no air defence system in the world can defend 100% , their is no defence system in the world to stop hypersonic missiles then why to buy such an expensive sitting duck while we can be 10 ssn submarines from it ,which can give headache to any nation

By that logic, not only AC but also many large warships or even smaller S-400s will be sitting duck for Hypersonic missiles. Weapons are build not only for wars but also for peacetime activities. Think beyond wartime uses of weaponry. Wars between nations are infrequent nowadays. Nations stockpile weapons for eventuality and if there is no war then they simply use it for asserting dominance, for propaganda, psychological warfare, instill sense fear on neighbours, gangsta attitude, and to send signal that our military is deadly enough. We need Aircraft carriers to assert our dominance by patrolling vast oceans that surround India. We have vast ocean.

Even without hypersonic missile strikes, Aircraft carriers can be sunk as seen during WW2. But that doesn't mean ACs lost their value even in modern warfare. ACs are more than warship. That's why countries aspiring to have powerful Navies with vast sea coast will also aspire to have atleast one AC if possible.

 

[Pink Panther]

Only in your dreams. Our Rafales will destroy anything that can track the carriers from miles away. And France will deliver fresh Rafales as and when we need them. But more than that, they will help with MRFa and make an ecosystem, helping private companies to make planes so that we never have to import again.

We have P8 with internal weapons bafor less than half the price of Rafale and Barack 8 8 to deal with all the threats, so no need of $350Mln 4th gen foreign plane.

 

[Bhishma]

We have P8 with internal weapons bafor less than half the price of Rafale and Barack 8 8 to deal with all the threats, so no need of $350Mln 4th gen foreign plane.

Finally, Wumao came out of closet lol

 

[Bhishma]

I don't understand one thing, can anybody try to explain me one thing , suppose we have aircraft carrier and suppose during war time enemy launched 5-6 hypersonic missiles or supersonic missiles and 4-5 subsonic cruise missile to aircraft carrier then what will happen ? Can anti missile defence system of aircraft carrier protect it , no air defence system in the world can defend 100% , their is no defence system in the world to stop hypersonic missiles then why to buy such an expensive sitting duck while we can be 10 ssn submarines from it ,which can give headache to any nation

hypersonic for ASM role is not proven. it has plasma cloud probem not sure if it can hit moving targets. Rudram can hit but its mainly designed for antiradiation ground attack roles. Rudram is technically hypersonic (mach5.5), but its not hypersonic in the likes of mach9 Kinzhal.
but we do have carrier killer tech. both india and china do. so in war, its a question of escalation. if they take our carrier out, we can take theirs out for sure.

its like cop carrying gun in India - most cops have never used guns in their lives but it doesnt mean they would go without one. especially for smaller countries having an AC would stop them from having funny ideas. wrt China, AC is pretty much in stalemate. neither side would field it because of the escalation and risk associated with it.

 

[Sunil Maheshwari]

I don't understand one thing, can anybody try to explain me one thing , suppose we have aircraft carrier and suppose during war time enemy launched 5-6 hypersonic missiles or supersonic missiles and 4-5 subsonic cruise missile to aircraft carrier then what will happen ? Can anti missile defence system of aircraft carrier protect it , no air defence system in the world can defend 100% , their is no defence system in the world to stop hypersonic missiles then why to buy such an expensive sitting duck while we can be 10 ssn submarines from it ,which can give headache to any nation

Same thing can happen to USA , China or any other countries aircraft carrier. Don't forget AC travels with other ships too ie destroyers, guided missile carriers to defend the
Mothership

 

[Anant]

Everytime there's talk of more ACs, chinbots lose their $hit and try to dissuade us lol. WE WILL HAVE MORE ACs THAN CHINA, DEAL WITH IT.

No, we won't be having more carriers than China for a very long time unless either China's Navy sees some massive collapse, China's economy collapses, or China loses a war, loses a bunch id territory, and becomes a mid-sized power. What we do have here is a much-needed long-term affirmation that the Indian Navy will remain a perfectly good counter to China.

In some ways, this is a fleet-in-being strategy being followed here, that is, we are saying our Navy may not be large enough to handle China single-handedly, but we are large enough to either defeat them with others' help, or single-handedly deal them enough of a blow so as to make them vulnerable to being picked off by others. This strategy may well end up working, considering China's continued (and continuing for the future) over-reliance on international trade to keep their economy going (considering their low consumption expenditure).

Moreover, if this statement can be formalised in a naval strategy document with relevant additions of other assets for the next, say, 35-40 years, then this would also act as a guiding principle to our naval thinking and procurement strategy going forwards. That in itself is fantastic, considering that a fair amount of recent naval procurement has been rather piecemeal, so this would certainly help matters.

 

[Anant]

I don't understand one thing, can anybody try to explain me one thing , suppose we have aircraft carrier and suppose during war time enemy launched 5-6 hypersonic missiles or supersonic missiles and 4-5 subsonic cruise missile to aircraft carrier then what will happen ? Can anti missile defence system of aircraft carrier protect it , no air defence system in the world can defend 100% , their is no defence system in the world to stop hypersonic missiles then why to buy such an expensive sitting duck while we can be 10 ssn submarines from it ,which can give headache to any nation

Boss, carriers have a large escort with multi-tiered defence to handle such threats. However, covering the three main missile threats:

1. Sub-sonic and Supersonic cruise missiles: These can have a long-range from launch, but these are also the easiest for interception. Of course, if the missiles are sea-skimmimg, it makes interception harder, but as we seen in exercises and the like, it is impossible.
2. Hypersonic cruise missiles: Hypersonics are a real threat, though they are not too long-ranged. One of the ways of dealing with them is to deal with the launch platforms themselves. If that isn't done, there are still ways to deal with hypersonics. There are missile systems that can deal with hypersonic missiles, and DEWs being developed can also deal with such missiles. Moreover, hypersonic missiles arr difficult to steer at high speeds due to the layer of plasma that forms around the head of the missile, which makes maneuvering the carrier a real threat to the missiles accuracy.
3. Ballistic missiles: Ballistic missiles are very similar to hypersonic cruise missiles in most aspects. They can be launched from far longer ranges, but they arr practically impossible to steer in the terminal descent stage unless they are slowed down significantly, at which point they are far more vulnerable.

The way you would see hypersonic cruise missiles and ballistic missiles becoming a carrier-killing threat would be through saturation attacks, and, well, if you are looking at saturation attacks, then anything can work.

Oh, and you can get, on average, a single SSN with some money left over for the price of a carrier like Vikrant.

P.S. A bit of (contextually serious) humour: If you look at cost effectiveness only, it turns out the most effective military tool are boulders, since they are very cheap and easily accessible. However, that doesn't mean you see nations throwing them around, do you?

 

[Pink Panther]

Finally, Wumao came out of closet lol

Only Rafale will come out of the closet as picture LIL, not the real ones.

 

[Girish Tyagi]

Good decision. We need to completely dominate Indian ocean within next 15 years and for that we need mid size carriers and attack subs. India should start building Super carriers only after 10 years from now. Infact super carriers may become liability looking that the development in hypersonic missiles and improved targeting tech along with economy of scale in missile production