IAC-2 Future Aircraft Carrier Project - News & Discussions

Very very big statement you made. Can you please elaborate one aircraft which has been designed to take off from carriers and especially from STOBAR carriers? NONE.
You need to design an aircraft which is perfect fit for STOBAR carriers. The TWR of Rafale-M is good for STOBAR but the wing needs to have a sweepback of 40* or less to increase the CLmax.
OR,
They must introduce BLC to the wing to go with full load from STOBAR deck. And for that they will need to put more afterburner thrust to the engines. The take off air requirement for BLC can be supplied thru the APU also. And it can all be made automatic thru software. I have flown A320s and I am in love with French for the aircraft they have made.
Well there are no aircraft designed to operate from STOBAR carriers from the ground up.
The history of ski jump carriers dates back to WW2 when the Brits had an angled deck fitted to HMS Furious for their heavy Barracuda torpedo and dive bomber. Later on, Harriers used the ski jump for assisted takeoff as their performance improved when their takeoff was helped by an angled deck.
Ski jumps were effective and cheaper to operate compared to CATOBAR carriers.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: vstol Jockey
My opinion is bound to be a little biased!

But I'm still going to give some arguments. An aircraft carrier is not only a military tool, it is also a political tool that sends a message to opponents that things could get worse if they continue to exaggerate.

It also allows you to put it in an area where unrest is likely to occur without knowing exactly what kind of unrest it will be. And if they do occur, you will be more responsive with more options available to you.

Finally, it is a tool that allows the projection of forces at distant, very distant place: this is necessary if you want to have a global role.

All true. But from what I understand, IN has no intentions of using the carrier out of IOR, except for an ocassional foray into the SCS or port visits elsewhere. The primary role will be air defence within the IOR.

So the point I'm making is, with 40 to 80 PAK FAs on the shore, the remaining 2 carriers can do what you say all the time, without having to worry about air defence. And as a political tool, the 2 small carriers are more than enough already.

What's more, our main interest outside IOR is the SCS for now. With PAK FA and just 2 refuelers, a fleet of 4-8 PAK FAs can literally circumnavigate the SCS at any time and also remain on station there for at least 4 hours a day, so an SCS presence can be maintained for as much as 10 or even 12 hours a day with just a single sortie. With just 2 additional refuelers or perhaps Vietnam/Indonesia assisting with air refueling, a single squadron of PAK FA can maintain a 24/7 presence in the SCS. Even a carrier can't do that.

What's very scary for the Chinese is there isn't a single node for them to attack in order to stop those sorties, unlike a carrier, which can be attacked using multiple means. And personally, I don't think a single CBG will be survivable against the Chinese navy in their waters. But the PAK FAs are definitely survivable in the SCS.
 
All true. But from what I understand, IN has no intentions of using the carrier out of IOR, except for an ocassional foray into the SCS or port visits elsewhere. The primary role will be air defence within the IOR.

So the point I'm making is, with 40 to 80 PAK FAs on the shore, the remaining 2 carriers can do what you say all the time, without having to worry about air defence. And as a political tool, the 2 small carriers are more than enough already.

What's more, our main interest outside IOR is the SCS for now. With PAK FA and just 2 refuelers, a fleet of 4-8 PAK FAs can literally circumnavigate the SCS at any time and also remain on station there for at least 4 hours a day, so an SCS presence can be maintained for as much as 10 or even 12 hours a day with just a single sortie. With just 2 additional refuelers or perhaps Vietnam/Indonesia assisting with air refueling, a single squadron of PAK FA can maintain a 24/7 presence in the SCS. Even a carrier can't do that.

What's very scary for the Chinese is there isn't a single node for them to attack in order to stop those sorties, unlike a carrier, which can be attacked using multiple means. And personally, I don't think a single CBG will be survivable against the Chinese navy in their waters. But the PAK FAs are definitely survivable in the SCS.

It is as if France were saying, "We just want to act in the Mediterranean and the North Sea, and for that we do not need an aircraft carrier". But in reality we have already used the CDG in the Mediterranean, and at the moment the Turks are prospecting in the waters of the Cyprus economic zone. If we put the CDG in this area it can stop this aggression without firing a shot.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Volcano
It is as if France were saying, "We just want to act in the Mediterranean and the North Sea, and for that we do not need an aircraft carrier". But in reality we have already used the CDG in the Mediterranean, and at the moment the Turks are prospecting in the waters of the Cyprus economic zone. If we put the CDG in this area it can stop this aggression without firing a shot.

It's a different thing. Since you already have a carrier you will use it. MN wants a second carrier, so you have to consider what France will use the second carrier for. That's the same debate we are having with regards to our third carrier.

In our case we already have 2 carriers. The third one will only bring us 24/7 carrier capability, but that's about it. The problem is the third carrier will only be able to carry 40 4.5th generation jets, which is obviously not enough against China when they are planning to get many larger carriers with 5th gen jets and higher, and they are planning for their LHDs to carry a F-35B type jet as well. Who is to say China won't have 10 carriers and 10 LHDs by 2035? They have already started work on their 4th carrier and are also building 3 LHDs. I don't know how 40 older gen jets on a carrier will be able to face off against 500+ PLAN jets (not even PLAAF) in the SCS.

And our third carrier will only come between 2035 and 2040. So what's IN planning to do until that time? My plan can easily be implemented between 2025 and 2030, when China will actually end up having many carriers. 80 PAK FAs will at least assure air defence of our own skies until we also build like China in the future. What's more, with PAK FA, we get the ability to attack China in the SCS without repercussions, while China has to mobilise a CBG or two to do the same, still giving us the advantage in the air regardless.

Although carriers are important, our carrier plan is both mediocre and very late.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aniruddha
Submarines May Sink Indian Navy’s Plans For Future Aircraft Carrier

India's plans for a 3rd aircraft carrier may have been torpedoed as the defense chief prioritizes new submarines. This decision will shape the Indian Navy’s strengths and weaknesses at a time when regional players, notably China and Pakistan, are modernizing their navies.

The Indian Chief of Defense Staff, General Bipin Rawat, has been quoted as saying "When we know that there would be two aircraft carriers there, and if the submarine force is dwindling, then our priority should be for submarines". In an interview published on February 10 he also cast doubt on the third aircraft carrier. "It will be bought if it is required… but you cannot predict what the situation will be 10 years from now. We don’t know what will happen."

The submarine programs are likely to be locally developed nuclear-powered submarines. In particular a fleet of 6 next-generation attack submarines. These will extend the potency and reach of the navy, giving it the same number of nuclear attack submarines as France.


Today In: Business
India already operates nuclear boats. The first of 4 Arihant Class ballistic missile submarines has already conducted deterrence patrols. And their new K-4 ballistic missile was successfully tested in January. And a follow-on S-5 Class missile sub is also in the works.

The third carrier had been planned for years and was expected to be much larger than the other two. The unbuilt ship even has a name, INS Vishal. But India’s second carrier, INS Vikrant, is still under construction. That project has been significantly delayed and has yet to be proven in service. This may be a factor.

The defense chief’s hesitation on the aircraft carrier front is important. China already has two aircraft carriers in service. At 65,000 tons each is larger than India’s own two carriers, but Vishal would be around the same size. And China is already building its third carrier with probable plans for a forth.
1582592504735.png

But meanwhile both Pakistan and China are also improving their submarine forces. Pakistan has been upgrading its submarines for cruise missiles. And also fitting the Turkish Zargana anti-torpedo defensive system. Pakistan is buying 8 Type-039B Submarines from China. These will feature Air-Independent Power (AIP) which should increase their stealth. India’s own non-nuclear submarines do not have AIP although there is local research in this area.

Deprioritizing the Vishal project will be a blow for international defense firms. The carrier, and its aircraft, would likely have imported elements. The Vikrant Class carrier currently under construction was designed with Italian help. So international players were hoping to cash in with design assistance for Vishal. Russia may have offered their Project 23000E Shtorm nuclear-powered aircraft carrier design. This is a contender for their own future carrier. And there were some reports that Britain was offering the Queen Elizabeth class design.

Indian submarine programs have also benefited from outside help. But they are increasingly indigenous. India has been locally producing non-nuclear submarines of Russian, German and French designs. Indian nuclear-powered projects also show clear influence from Russia, but overall can be described as local designs. The Arihant Class for example has clear traces of the Russian Kilo Class submarine.

INS Vishal doesn’t seem to have been formally cancelled, and there are already hints in the Indian press of a challenge to the new direction. But if it ever materializes, it is now many many years away.

Submarines May Sink Indian Navy’s Plans For Future Aircraft Carrier
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Ginvincible
Where are the air defense ships, where are the escort submarines, where are the anti sub helicopters. Where are technical reserves for building the carriers, is it going to be another more than 10 construction? Ugh, surely Indian Navy has bigger priorities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lolwa

Former Admiral Arun prakash said, General Rawat being an officer may not understand the imperatives of maritime strategy.
 
My take on the 3rd Aircraft carrier is that we can and should wait till the need for additional submarines in our SSK fleet is adequately addressed. That said, we have 2 unsinkable Aircraft carriers in Andaman & Lakshwadeep island chains. It would be much more cheaper and easier to maintain a Brigade (maybe a Indian Marine force) each with multiple airstrips for our fighter aircrafts to be stationed. We don't need a Naval aircraft but our airforce fighters can be deployed, similar to our deployment in Andamans. We should also build underground shelters for these fighters and a submarine bases, if the sea depth allows it. India would be in a better position to patrol the Arabian sea, help Maldives / Mauritius and other African countries off the east coast of Africa. With the Quad (hope it becomes a long standing association) we may not need the 3rd carrier and to take on Pakistan we don't need a Aircraft carrier but for China, 2 should be fine and the 2 island chains will help us deal with them on Bay of Bengal & Arabian sea. But for that our IAF will need 46 - 48 squadrons and not 42 squadrons. 4-6 more squadrons of Tejas Mk1A will not hurt at all. DRDO should now start working on a AShM and deliver it in the next 3-4 years.
 
My take on the 3rd Aircraft carrier is that we can and should wait till the need for additional submarines in our SSK fleet is adequately addressed. That said, we have 2 unsinkable Aircraft carriers in Andaman & Lakshwadeep island chains. It would be much more cheaper and easier to maintain a Brigade (maybe a Indian Marine force) each with multiple airstrips for our fighter aircrafts to be stationed. We don't need a Naval aircraft but our airforce fighters can be deployed, similar to our deployment in Andamans. We should also build underground shelters for these fighters and a submarine bases, if the sea depth allows it. India would be in a better position to patrol the Arabian sea, help Maldives / Mauritius and other African countries off the east coast of Africa. With the Quad (hope it becomes a long standing association) we may not need the 3rd carrier and to take on Pakistan we don't need a Aircraft carrier but for China, 2 should be fine and the 2 island chains will help us deal with them on Bay of Bengal & Arabian sea. But for that our IAF will need 46 - 48 squadrons and not 42 squadrons. 4-6 more squadrons of Tejas Mk1A will not hurt at all. DRDO should now start working on a AShM and deliver it in the next 3-4 years.
“Shore-based strike has its own place to support naval operations and the aircraft carrier operating in the middle of the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean has a completely different role to play. To show that shore-based facility is a replacement of aircraft carriers is a complete fallacy,”
My take on the 3rd Aircraft carrier is that we can and should wait till the need for additional submarines in our SSK fleet is adequately addressed. That said, we have 2 unsinkable Aircraft carriers in Andaman & Lakshwadeep island chains. It would be much more cheaper and easier to maintain a Brigade (maybe a Indian Marine force) each with multiple airstrips for our fighter aircrafts to be stationed. We don't need a Naval aircraft but our airforce fighters can be deployed, similar to our deployment in Andamans. We should also build underground shelters for these fighters and a submarine bases, if the sea depth allows it. India would be in a better position to patrol the Arabian sea, help Maldives / Mauritius and other African countries off the east coast of Africa. With the Quad (hope it becomes a long standing association) we may not need the 3rd carrier and to take on Pakistan we don't need a Aircraft carrier but for China, 2 should be fine and the 2 island chains will help us deal with them on Bay of Bengal & Arabian sea. But for that our IAF will need 46 - 48 squadrons and not 42 squadrons. 4-6 more squadrons of Tejas Mk1A will not hurt at all. DRDO should now start working on a AShM and deliver it in the next 3-4 years.
So you will tow the unsinkable Andaman nicobal island to some where in South china sea to fight Chinese?
And you want to bet your chance on some cooperations during war?
 
Last edited:
“Shore-based strike has its own place to support naval operations and the aircraft carrier operating in the middle of the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean has a completely different role to play. To show that shore-based facility is a replacement of aircraft carriers is a complete fallacy,”

So you will tow the unsinkable Andaman nicobal island to some where in South china sea to fight Chinese?
And you want to bet your chance on some cooperations during war?
I don't think you have understood my comment. I said, the 3rd Aircraft carrier should wait till our SSK needs are fully addressed. Till then we should focus on developing the existing Unified command in Andaman and a new Unified command in Lakshwadeep with more airfields and couple of squadrons of IAF aircrafts in each of these island. I didn't tell we should abandon the idea of a 3rd carrier. It is about prioritization of your needs and enhancing your capabilities. It is not one and not the other but one over the other with the budget you have in hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killbot
I don't think you have understood my comment. I said, the 3rd Aircraft carrier should wait till our SSK needs are fully addressed. Till then we should focus on developing the existing Unified command in Andaman and a new Unified command in Lakshwadeep with more airfields and couple of squadrons of IAF aircrafts in each of these island. I didn't tell we should abandon the idea of a 3rd carrier. It is about prioritization of your needs and enhancing your capabilities. It is not one and not the other but one over the other with the budget you have in hand.
We should give priority to the priority of navy on Naval wish list, a loud mouth like Bipin Rawat & his idea on naval warfare must put it inside a trash bin. Based on the reactions on Navy people on public forums they giving stress on AC than submarine, so its clear.
And you cannot develop any solid airbase at Lakadeews, those islands are so small.
 
You have your opinion and I respect that. No arguments. At the end of the day, we both mean well for India and Indian Armed forces. But I do have my opinion and I wouldn't call anyone by names as you have done here regarding General Bipin Rawat. He will have his opinion as well, in his position as the CDS.
 
You have your opinion and I respect that. No arguments. At the end of the day, we both mean well for India and Indian Armed forces. But I do have my opinion and I wouldn't call anyone by names as you have done here regarding General Bipin Rawat. He will have his opinion as well, in his position as the CDS.
My opinion may be a stupid, your may also a stupid but that has nothing to do with our armed forces since they dont care what some key board warriors doing in some defense forums. But thats not the case with CDD Bipin, he is in a key position and has greater influence on pmo, and if his opinion contridicts what IN wants then thats a big problem. IN is not happy with his opinion.
Lastly, in my opinion Bipin as CDS is the worst thing happened to IAF & IN in 21st century, he fingering unnecessarily on IAF & IN operational requirements.
 

An informative video comparing nuclear vs diesel propulsion in aircraft carriers. For Indian Navy, a conventionaly powered aircraft carrier makes more sense than a nuclear one. Neither are we going to mass produce more AC after the 3rd one, nor do we have extensive power projection needs outside IOR. With multiple bilateral port access pacts signed with several nations operating in IOR, conventional AC makes even more sense. The costs associated with a nuclear AC are prohibitively expensive and would suck up majority of the minuscule naval budget we have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Anonymous_

An informative video comparing nuclear vs diesel propulsion in aircraft carriers. For Indian Navy, a conventionaly powered aircraft carrier makes more sense than a nuclear one. Neither are we going to mass produce more AC after the 3rd one, nor do we have extensive power projection needs outside IOR. With multiple bilateral port access pacts signed with several nations operating in IOR, conventional AC makes even more sense. The costs associated with a nuclear AC are prohibitively expensive and would suck up majority of the minuscule naval budget we have.
The original IN plan was for 6 Aircraft Carriers including 2 N powered super carriers of in excess of 80K or 90K tonnes weight capacity by 2050 . Of course, all that is water off a duck's back today . We may yet go in for 2x INS Vishal though & if the economy exceeds 10 trillion by 2035 , those plans for super carriers may well be dusted off.
 
The original IN plan was for 6 Aircraft Carriers including 2 N powered super carriers of in excess of 80K or 90K tonnes weight capacity by 2050 . Of course, all that is water off a duck's back today . We may yet go in for 2x INS Vishal though & if the economy exceeds 10 trillion by 2035 , those plans for super carriers may well be dusted off.

The problem is not just money but also Technology

We cannot put a Nuclear Reactor in a Warship as on Today

The whole art and science of Nuclear Submarines was taught to us by Russia

That is why sometimes I wonder Why Not ask for this Technology from France along with a Mega Rafale order
 
The whole art and science of Nuclear Submarines was taught to us by Russia
It's harder to studied and produce a small nuc reactor for subs than a larger one for carrier. The harder is made.

But it's better for India not to make the same error than with Tejas : too many innovations together ! and a great miss as the conclusion.

Better to fine tune a classical powered carrier, and with the RETEX to built an optimised one but this time with nuc power.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: _Anonymous_
It's harder to studied and produce a small nuc reactor for subs than a larger one for carrier. The harder is made.

But it's better for India not to make the same error than with Tejas : too many innovations together ! and a great miss as the conclusion.

Better to fine tune a classical powered carrier, and with the RETEX to built an optimised one but this time with nuc power.

Our Navy's Area of Responsibility is going to remain from Malacca straits to Gulf of Aden

Even if we deploy a few ships or submarines , sometimes in South China Sea , deploying a Carrier is ruled out simply because of the Operational Costs of a CBG

We would be totally dependent on Japan and USA in case we venture out to South China sea

So for a Limited Area of Responsibility
Convemtional Carriers.are enough
 
Our Navy's Area of Responsibility is going to remain from Malacca straits to Gulf of Aden

Even if we deploy a few ships or submarines , sometimes in South China Sea , deploying a Carrier is ruled out simply because of the Operational Costs of a CBG

We would be totally dependent on Japan and USA in case we venture out to South China sea

So for a Limited Area of Responsibility
Convemtional Carriers.are enough
I agree. Whenever we go for a 3rd carrier, we don't need a nuclear powered carrier as it will be cost prohibitive and also the need for nuclear fuel.