Navy makes a case for third aircraft carrier

OPINION: The trouble with torpedoing India’s plan for a third aircraft carrier

Shelving plans for IAC-2 would affect India's blue-water navy capabilities
By Commodore Udai Rao (Retd)

India it appears is all set to torpedo its plans for an second indigenous aircraft carrier, just as China prepares to surge in to the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) with her aircraft carrier group. This, even as India’s first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-1) Vikrant—under construction at Kochi Shipyard Ltd—is reportedly ready to commence her basin trials in September 2020 and is expected to be fully operational by 2022.

Barely a month after taking over as India’s first Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Bipin Rawat, when speaking to journalists in February 2020, indicated that the Indian Navy may not get approval for a third aircraft carrier (the second indigenous aircraft carrier IAC-2) anytime soon. The reason, he said, was that since aircraft carriers are expensive to build, the priority instead should be to bolster the Navy’s submarine fleet.

Many in the defence and strategic community were alarmed at the cursory manner in which the General’s comments were made.

India currently has only one aircraft carrier—the 45,000-ton INS Vikramaditya, acquired from Russia in 2013. This is the third carrier to be operated by the Indian Navy since independence. India acquired its first aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, from the United Kingdom in 1961, being the first Asian country to do so. INS Viraat, the second carrier and also from the UK, came in 1987. Both have since been decommissioned.

Exorbitant costs involved in operation and maintenance of a carrier and vulnerability to anti -ship missiles besides submarines are touted as reasons against the carrier. While the cost factor is true, carriers take over a decade or so to build and so the expenditure gets spread over that period. Further, an aircraft carrier has a life span of about 40-50 years, which is value for money.

Warships including carriers are meant to go in harm’s way and therefore a certain amount of vulnerability will always remain in battle. However, the primary weapons of a carrier are its ‘integral aircraft’ which have a long reach, far ahead of the carrier group. The aircraft carrier and ships of the fleet/formation afford mutual defence and protection. On the other hand ‘shore based aircraft’ are limited by operational radius and even with aerial refueling; their effectiveness at extended ranges would be determined by human endurance of the pilots sitting in cramped cockpits.

The argument against a carrier therefore is mainly about the inter-se priority of the shrinking defence budget. The decision to cancel a strategic asset such as the IAC -2, if at all, must be debated at the highest level of the national security leadership and only then announced at an appropriate forum and not during journalistic interaction.

Further, the investment already incurred on carrier production facilities at Kochi Shipyard Ltd would become redundant, if the programme is closed and trained and skilled manpower would dissipate. For instance, when India closed the HDW submarine programme in 1994 for various reasons, it had difficulty in finding trained manpower when subsequently the Scorpene submarine project was approved in 2005.

Interestingly, China recently commissioned its first indigenous aircraft carrier, the Shandong, in December 2019. Earlier, China acquired the decommissioned Soviet carrier Varyag from Ukraine which was towed to China in 2002 under the pretext of turning it in to a theme park—and then later converted to a training aircraft carrier named Liaoning.

Simultaneously China spent a lot of time and effort in tailing American carriers and learning the nuances of aircraft carrier operation. China is now working on its third and fourth aircraft carriers of the Type 002 class at the Jiangnan shipyard in Shangai. The Chinese Navy aims to have at least 10 aircraft carriers by 2050.

China does not require these carriers for the South China Sea (SCS) as she has reclaimed and militarized several islands in the Paracel and Sprately group complete with airstrips, fighter aircraft and air defence systems. These are obviously meant for the IOR to protect the critical import of crude oil from West Asia and West Africa, to fuel China’s burgeoning economy. In fact China’s first overseas base at Djbouti now has a pier capable of berthing an aircraft carrier.

The Indian Navy is expected to push for a grant of ‘Acceptance of Necessity’ (AoN) for the third carrier, the IAC- 2 soon. Admiral Karambir Singh, Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) has consistently maintained that the need for a new 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier (IAC-2) remains non-negotiable, since one carrier would need to be deployed on the western and eastern seaboard respectively, while the third undergoes refit and repair. To balance the cost of the third carrier, the IN has reportedly trimmed the number of fighter jets to 36 (two squadrons) from the original 57 planned to be inducted in to the force.

Former PM Atal Behari Vajpayee had said in 2005 “India’s maritime area of interest extends from the Straits of Hormuz in the west to Malacca Straits in the east. PM Modi’s maritime vision saw the ‘Look East’ policy re-designated to the ‘Act East’ policy, enunciated to an ‘Indo-Pacific’ policy and is intent on reinvigorating the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or QUAD for short.

All of these have the maritime medium as its backbone—with the Indian Navy being the premier maritime force. The Navy may not be able to meet the political and strategic ambitions of the country without adequate number of carriers.

Several strategic analysts post the Galwan incident have opined that scrapping of the proposed mountain strike corps in 2017 was a strategic mistake; the IAC-2 should not be allowed to go the same way. A ‘Blue Water navy’ such as the Indian Navy requires both the carriers and submarines in its arsenal and, given the political will, funds can always be made available for the same.

The author is a former Principal Director Naval Intelligence and has served as a Director in the Cabinet Secretariat.

The problem with this is this new carrier will only become available after 2035, more likely after 2040.

What is the IN proposing to do during this time, since the Chinese are going to engage in a more threatening manner right after 2025, with at least 4 carriers in hand? 2 carriers each of 85kT and 110kT have started construction as of 2017. Hell, with 2 carriers launching in 2021 and 2022, both yards will be freed up for 2 more carriers. So we are talking about 6 carriers becoming available before 2030 with likely 2 more launched by then. Their plan is to match the USN's overall hardware by 2035, unlike what most observers are claiming.

In a conflict with India during this period, they can easily bring in 3 CBGs, with about 200-250 fighter jets in tow.
 
What is curious is that China is developing anti-aircraft carrier weapons that make the US navy obsolete, but at the same time it is developing its own fleet in this field. Perhaps India should also develop anti-aircraft carrier weapons.
 
The problem with this is this new carrier will only become available after 2035, more likely after 2040.

What is the IN proposing to do during this time, since the Chinese are going to engage in a more threatening manner right after 2025, with at least 4 carriers in hand? 2 carriers each of 85kT and 110kT have started construction as of 2017. Hell, with 2 carriers launching in 2021 and 2022, both yards will be freed up for 2 more carriers. So we are talking about 6 carriers becoming available before 2030 with likely 2 more launched by then. Their plan is to match the USN's overall hardware by 2035, unlike what most observers are claiming.

In a conflict with India during this period, they can easily bring in 3 CBGs, with about 200-250 fighter jets in tow.
Instead of trying to get approval for costly flashy items, it's time to get realistic and complete the basics.

Get a MR SAM detachment and two squadron's of fighter jets , a flight of P8I permanently at A&N.

Get some Minesweepers, junk P75I, order few more Scorpene and get more SSNs (instead of sinking 8-10 billion USD on 6 SSK , sink that funds on more Scorpene and more SSNs)

Give up dreams of Juan Carlos with F35B. Instead get 4-5 Landing ship tanks with a helipad and station a couple in A&N and a couple in Vizag.

The navy needs to get realistic and start filling basic holes in the capabilities before going for flashy items.
 
What is curious is that China is developing anti-aircraft carrier weapons that make the US navy obsolete, but at the same time it is developing its own fleet in this field. Perhaps India should also develop anti-aircraft carrier weapons.

The DRDO Chief mentioned making anti-carrier ballistic missiles. But these are saturation weapons with low probability of hitting anything without numbers. A better option is long range fighter jets with long range hypersonic CMs.

Regardless, we need to forward deploy in Southeast Asia's chokepoints if we are to stop the Chinese, especially the Sunda Strait and adjoining regions. For that we need carriers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bali78
Instead of trying to get approval for costly flashy items, it's time to get realistic and complete the basics.

Get a MR SAM detachment and two squadron's of fighter jets , a flight of P8I permanently at A&N.

Get some Minesweepers, junk P75I, order few more Scorpene and get more SSNs (instead of sinking 8-10 billion USD on 6 SSK , sink that funds on more Scorpene and more SSNs)

Give up dreams of Juan Carlos with F35B. Instead get 4-5 Landing ship tanks with a helipad and station a couple in A&N and a couple in Vizag.

The navy needs to get realistic and start filling basic holes in the capabilities before going for flashy items.

Most of these are already being done. Also the IN is not planning F-35Bs on the Juan Carlos, they need it as an amphibious ship for full landing operations. We need ships of this size for landing ops, and we already have plenty of ships of the class you've recommended, like the Shardul class.

More ships and submarines are necessary. We basically need to double our current fleet of ships. The carrier requirement is up and above all this. And it's most definitely necessary.

The navy is being realistic although it seems extreme, because the threat is also of an equally extreme nature. Hell, the navy is also in need of a full corps of marines, with 4 or more IBGs.

Get a MR SAM detachment and two squadron's of fighter jets , a flight of P8I permanently at A&N.

IAF recommended this and the IN has rejected it. It's because existing fighter jets do not have the range necessary to meet IN's goals. I suppose only the Su-57 Mk2 will be able to marginally meet the demands, but that's quite sometime away.

In order to meet the IN's needs, a fighter jet needs a combat range of 2500Km, and none exist with such a range today. Possibly only a modified Su-57 or the PCA might meet that goal, none of them in our control.

The navy's going to enter a pretty difficult time after 2025.
 
I dont think the CDS will agree for a 3rd AC, that post is really costing so much for IN.

The CDS is only concerned about it from PoV of finances. He won't have any problem if MoF agrees to make funds available without jeopardising other programs. This is GoI's headache, not the CDS's.
 
The CDS is only concerned about it from PoV of finances. He won't have any problem if MoF agrees to make funds available without jeopardising other programs. This is GoI's headache, not the CDS's.
CDS is more concerns about IA i guess, he doesn't want IAF to have mmrca2 & IN to have AC.
 
Most of these are already being done. Also the IN is not planning F-35Bs on the Juan Carlos, they need it as an amphibious ship for full landing operations. We need ships of this size for landing ops, and we already have plenty of ships of the class you've recommended, like the Shardul class.

More ships and submarines are necessary. We basically need to double our current fleet of ships. The carrier requirement is up and above all this. And it's most definitely necessary.

The navy is being realistic although it seems extreme, because the threat is also of an equally extreme nature. Hell, the navy is also in need of a full corps of marines, with 4 or more IBGs.



IAF recommended this and the IN has rejected it. It's because existing fighter jets do not have the range necessary to meet IN's goals. I suppose only the Su-57 Mk2 will be able to marginally meet the demands, but that's quite sometime away.

In order to meet the IN's needs, a fighter jet needs a combat range of 2500Km, and none exist with such a range today. Possibly only a modified Su-57 or the PCA might meet that goal, none of them in our control.

The navy's going to enter a pretty difficult time after 2025.


Maybe take something from how the South Koreans are building their navy. Being realistic and proactive. Not falling for white elephant projects and getting things on time.

Untill we see Mauritius or some island nation joining the Union of India, with our focus from the straits in East to the west , we have a role to fullfill and I don't see marines fitting in anywhere.

4000-5000 combat troops stationed in A&N with required equipment will be enough. And 6000-7000 ton landing ship tanks will be good enough for them.

Investing in a 20,000 ton helicopter carrier amphibian support vessel sure sounds good but we need to look into our pockets.


What Navy needs is SSNs and more P17A ships.

And then fill the holes like lack of Minesweepers, lack of torpedoes, lack of modern coastal anti shipping missiles, lack of ships which can actually carry rescue submersibles? We have a loooonnng list of small basic gaps we need to fill.

Maybe after 2030 we can look to start building a 3rd carrier.
CDS is more concerns about IA i guess, he doesn't want IAF to have mmrca2 & IN to have AC.
CDS wants IAF and IN to be realistic.

Tankers and AWACS are more important today for IAF than 114 more MMRCA.
 
CDS is more concerns about IA i guess, he doesn't want IAF to have mmrca2 & IN to have AC.

Not at all. The CDS doesn't want a large import contract for the air force. He wants MMRCA to be fulfilled through short term contracts of 36 each instead, which is not realistic 'cause such kind of contracts can only be done where we have executive control, like the LCA program.

The CDS's argument about the third carrier is it will take away 100k Cr alongside 100k Cr more for the 6 SSNs. That we can afford only 1 of the 2 programs in parallel. The IN contended that the price of the third carrier is estimated to be 40k Cr and that the MRCBF itself will become the complement of the third carrier once it's ready.
 
Not at all. The CDS doesn't want a large import contract for the air force. He wants MMRCA to be fulfilled through short term contracts of 36 each instead, which is not realistic 'cause such kind of contracts can only be done where we have executive control, like the LCA program.

The CDS's argument about the third carrier is it will take away 100k Cr alongside 100k Cr more for the 6 SSNs. That we can afford only 1 of the 2 programs in parallel. The IN contended that the price of the third carrier is estimated to be 40k Cr and that the MRCBF itself will become the complement of the third carrier once it's ready.
What i understood is he wants lcamk2 instead of mmrca2. I have read the news sometimes back.
And who is cds to dictate IN's or IAF's procurements, IN knows what they want than anyone else. Future of india's war should be made around our naval assets, AC, Maritime patrol aircraft , ssn & ssbns all are very much required. Irony is that the same cds keep his mouth shut when IA pursue for a useless light tank for mountain warfare.
 
Irony is that the same cds keep his mouth shut when IA pursue for a useless light tank for mountain warfare.

Hey hey hey, I am no big fan of the way some things happen in Army. But all this light tank saga , Army never said anything about light tanks. The last time it officially mentioned light tanks was a decade back.

And that should give you a lesson to stay away from all the so called experts who jumped the bandwagon of light tanks , defended it and even came up with ideas of K9 chassis things.
 
Maybe take something from how the South Koreans are building their navy. Being realistic and proactive. Not falling for white elephant projects and getting things on time.

Untill we see Mauritius or some island nation joining the Union of India, with our focus from the straits in East to the west , we have a role to fullfill and I don't see marines fitting in anywhere.

4000-5000 combat troops stationed in A&N with required equipment will be enough. And 6000-7000 ton landing ship tanks will be good enough for them.

Investing in a 20,000 ton helicopter carrier amphibian support vessel sure sounds good but we need to look into our pockets.

We can't even hold our own islands without larger ships. If you have even 1 island, you need a large ship.

Neither a carrier nor an AAS are white elephants.

And then fill the holes like lack of Minesweepers, lack of torpedoes, lack of modern coastal anti shipping missiles, lack of ships which can actually carry rescue submersibles? We have a loooonnng list of small basic gaps we need to fill.

All these are short term goals. None of these conflict with the timeline we are talking about.

CDS wants IAF and IN to be realistic.

Tankers and AWACS are more important today for IAF than 114 more MMRCA.

CDS made misinformed comments. Nothing strange there. He'll change his mind once he sits through a briefing. A lot of army folks think a carrier is useless and give very misinformed opinions about why that is so, while forgetting that a carrier is actually a warship. Going by his public comments, the CDS hasn't understood the concept of buying in bulk when it comes to MRFA. Buying 36 jets every few years is not realistic, plus he has a very different idea about how aircraft go into maintenance. He requires a proper briefing on both.

Pretty much every single program you named is planned for and doesn't interfere with the carrier. You are talking about short term plans, not the long term plans that get in the way of modernisation. Programs that conflict with the carrier are MRFA, MWF, FRCV, P-8I, SSN, NGD, NGF etc, and most of these are expected to be signed before the carrier construction begins anyway.

The requirements of both the IAF and IN very, very serious. And the carrier is extremely important. But the only problem I have is what the IN plans to do during the time the carrier is under construction.
 
What i understood is he wants lcamk2 instead of mmrca2. I have read the news sometimes back.
And who is cds to dictate IN's or IAF's procurements, IN knows what they want than anyone else. Future of india's war should be made around our naval assets, AC, Maritime patrol aircraft , ssn & ssbns all are very much required. Irony is that the same cds keep his mouth shut when IA pursue for a useless light tank for mountain warfare.

He was referring to production, not induction. He prefers that the LCA Mk1 and 2 are produced as planned, but wants the MRFA requirement to be completely imported in batches. According to him that's affordable since it doesn't lock up the budget for a long time.

He's basically against importing and producing foreign equipment since it becomes more expensive.

Hey hey hey, I am no big fan of the way some things happen in Army. But all this light tank saga , Army never said anything about light tanks. The last time it officially mentioned light tanks was a decade back.

And that should give you a lesson to stay away from all the so called experts who jumped the bandwagon of light tanks , defended it and even came up with ideas of K9 chassis things.

Using the K9 chassis is DRDO's idea, not the army's. Except for a small number of Sprut being bought as an emergency, the main goal for the army is to design a mountain-specific tank through FRCV. Rather wheeled vehicles are more usable on mountains right now.