Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC 2): News & Discussion

[bala]

Alpha Defense hindi is stating that the Indian Navy wants a 3rd carrier like Vikrant. This would take around another 7-10 yrs to commission. Navy Chief Admiral R. Hari Kumar mentioned this during launch ceremony of INS Mahendragiri. (I hope the TEDBF project is hastened and becomes standard aircrafts on the decks of Vikrant and the follow on carrier).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO4Dk4tUjsI

[drnayar]

Alpha Defense hindi is stating that the Indian Navy wants a 3rd carrier like Vikrant. This would take around another 7-10 yrs to commission. Navy Chief Admiral R. Hari Kumar mentioned this during launch ceremony of INS Mahendragiri. (I hope the TEDBF project is hastened and becomes standard aircrafts on the decks of Vikrant and the follow on carrier).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO4Dk4tUjsI

Quite a logical approach. I think the idea is to keep the technical expertise continously updated and indeed follow up with a larger 65k carrier in 2040s.

[AkshaySG]

It's been pointed out before but there won't be a "3rd carrier" anytime soon.

As soon as a new AC comes in the Navy will kick Vikramaditya (and Mig 29k)to the curb.. The maintenance costs and serviceability of that platform leave no other realistic option.

So if the Navy does want 3 concurrent carriers in Ops they need to start building 2 of them

[Rakesh]

With Boeing losing the MRCBF contest with their F-18SH, any talk of a 65K aircraft carrier (in the near future) is a moot point. The Navy realizes the better path forward is a follow on Vikrant Class aircraft carrier for IAC-2. By the next decade, the TEDBF will enter service as well. With the IAC-3, they will scale up to a larger displacement vessel.

INS Vikrant completes one year of service on 02 Sept 2023.

[Barath]

Eh ? What's the link between 65K carrier and Boeing F18SH. ? I thought the navy wanted a larger carrier irrespective of F18SH/Rafale, , but was talked down due to costs (and time) ? Not to mention the intermediate plan to have a 55K ton carrier which was UAV capable

[Rakesh]

Eh ? What's the link between 65K carrier and Boeing F18SH. ? I thought the navy wanted a larger carrier irrespective of F18SH/Rafale, but was talked down due to costs (and time) ? Not to mention the intermediate plan to have a 55K ton carrier which was UAV capable

No Sir (bolded part) Time and cost, while important issues, were not the primary factors that sunk the 65K ton IAC-2 aka INS Vishal.

Aap Chronology Samajh Lijiye



This saga - of acquiring a larger aircraft carrier - goes back at least a decade, if not longer.

Malabar Exercises (which started in 1992) were in full gung ho mode by the early 2000s. The initial series of exercises were PASSEX in nature and also involved validating VBSS concepts. With each passing year, these joint exercises got more complex and involved a larger show of force from the US Navy. This too was a carefully planned maneuver by the US Govt (GOTUS). The PLAN was obviously on top of the US Navy's (and even our own) agenda. But with increased complexity in naval exercises, along came offers of selling US hardware to India under the well-tested theory of interoperability. In the absence of the annual Malabar Exercises, the odds of a sale in India for platforms like the P-8, the MQ-9, the MH-60R, etc would be challenging. Arms sales are an extension arm of US foreign policy and usually ties in foreign customers with lengthy end user agreements. These agreements are primarily designed for one goal ---> eternally rely on the US Military Industrial Complex. It is a well thought out and proven business model.

When planning commenced for the Air Defence Ship (later changed to Indigenous Aircraft Carrier and today known as INS Vikrant) in 1999, our economy back then was not in the strong position that she is in today. The original plan was for a 32,000 ton STOBAR vessel. When the keel for the vessel was finally laid in February 2009, the design had increased to 45,000 tons. In 10 years, the tonnage had increased by 13,000 tons and was reflective of the capability required and the economy to support the increased tonnage. As the 2000s and 2010s rolled along, India's economy kept growing and post May 2014 (NaMo's election), it has been on a straight upward trajectory. This economic growth caused a cascading effect on a number of Indian military programs and IAC-2 was not immune to this.

Our Navy Admirals got smitten at the sight of Nimitz Class aircraft carriers - at annual Malabar exercises - and the capability they offered. Our Admirals had to have the same and plans were drawn up for a 65,000 ton super carrier with nuclear power and a revolutionary catapult system called EMALS. This was all backed up by an economy that was firing on all six cylinders. The 45,000 ton Vikrant was now considered not sufficient anymore, as the PLAN's growth was worrisome for everyone. The US Navy - with approval from GOTUS - started the JWGACTC (Joint Working Group for Aircraft Carrier Technology Cooperation) in partnership with the Indian Navy.

The first JWGACTC meeting was held on 15 August 2015 (cliché and cringe!) ---> https://in.usembassy.gov/u-s-india-join ... t-meeting/ and the most recent one earlier this year ---> https://indiannavy.nic.in/content/6th-m ... -operation

This joint working committee was supposed to be the impetus to the Indian Navy getting her hands on an aircraft carrier with all the bells and whistles i.e. nuclear power, EMALS and the most important component of an aircraft carrier i.e. her combat air wing. At 65,000 tons, the F-18SH would have been a perfect shoe-in for IAC-2. The expectation in the GOTUS was that with all the co-operation that the US was going to provide India on their next aircraft carrier, the aircraft of choice would be the F-18SH. Nothing else would be acceptable to the US, geopolitically speaking. After all, this is how US foreign policy has worked. And it certainly looked that way, seeing the focused co-operation that was going on in 2015 and 2016 (the waning years of the Obama Administration). The expectation was so high that Boeing was even successful in poaching a senior naval aviator (Rear Admiral rank) from the Indian Navy and made him the head of Boeing India. His sole purpose was to facilitate the sale of the F-18SH to the Indian Navy.

Our Navy Admirals were extremely bullish on IAC-2 and the corresponding MRCBF contest for 57 aircraft. Navy Admirals were announcing the program (and boldly claiming that there were no shortage of funds) at every opportunity they got i.e. navy day, press conferences, joint exercises, etc. That bullish bug even got a strong hold on BRF, with a number of posters (led by the Risk-Assessor-Commanding-in-Chief) claiming;

* IAC-2 would influence events all the way from Alaska to the South China Sea.

* A vessel like IAC-2 (with CATOBAR) is absolutely necessary for the Indian Navy. No CATOBAR and the IN fleet will all be sunk by the PLAN.

* Collaboration with Amreeka on IAC-2 and SEF contest (i.e. F-16 Block 70/72 for IAF) and would bring in Ache Din (Good Days) for Bharat.

* IAC-2 would sail alongside US Navy aircraft carriers in the South China Sea and enforce UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).

The Navy thought all the other Indian stakeholders (babus, Govt, Technical SMEs) were on-board the idea. But once again (just like in the MMRCA 1.0 and the SEF contests), our babus played spoil sport. The Navy went in for sanction of funds in 2017 and they got laughed out of the MoD office. The Navy then got another dose of reality, when they went to BARC for the nuclear reactor of IAC-2. The BARC also laughed at the Navy, because the Navy wanted BARC to fund the development of the nuclear reactor for IAC-2. What ultimately sunk IAC-2 was a lack of consensus from the other stakeholders.

The Indian Navy just assumed that everyone would gleefully jump on board the program, due to the capability this offered the country. Naval HQ was quite taken aback with the push back from the other stakeholders and the Navy tried - for years - to cajole, coerce and reason...but to no avail. This back-and-forth tamasha went on for six years (from 2017 to 2022), till finally the Indian Navy gave up (of sorts) on the IAC-2 super carrier. In comparison, the ATV (Advanced Technology Vessel) program was also expensive and also had a long lead time, but there was consensus from every stakeholder involved. There really never existed any agreement on IAC-2.

That sunk any hope for Boeing to get the Indian Navy to acquire the F-18SH. If IAC-2 had gone to plan, it would have been Boeing that the Indian Navy today would be talking with, instead of Dassault. Regardless of the limitations of INS Vikrant, the Indian Navy would have somehow made it work. Because the true promise of capability would have come in the form of IAC-2. The Navy finally made a compromise in 2022 i.e. examine a scaled up Vikrant design for IAC-2, while still holding on to the super carrier idea for IAC-3. Thus IAC-2 will likely be in the 50K - 60K ton range, while IAC-3 will be at minimum 65K, if not larger and is expected to be a CATOBAR vessel. But this plan will not work for Boeing, as the F-18SH production line is ending by 2024/25. Boeing got left holding the short end of the stick.

When the MRCBF trials finally got underway in 2022, Boeing got hamstrung by a number of factors that was just out of their control;

* Dassault's Rafale M trumps the F-18SH, when operating from INS Vikrant. In every measure, the Rafale M is just a more suitable aircraft for INS Vikrant. Dassault screwed Boeing over, simply by virtue of the Rafale M being a smaller aircraft than the F-18SH. Russia did the same to the US, albeit in a different way. The arrestor gear of INS Vikrant is not designed to handle the weight of the F-18SH, as it was designed for the MiG-29K. Boeing publicly complained about the arrestor gear, when they realized they had lost the MRCBF contest.

* INS Vikrant is a fine vessel, but she is unfit for the F-18SH. A number of improvements would have to be made on the vessel to accommodate the F-18SH. Improvements = Investment and with the planned IAC-2 no longer coming, it made little to no sense to invest large sums of money to modify a brand new aircraft carrier...just to accommodate the F-18SH. The wiser path forward for the Indian Navy was to look at acquiring a MRCBF that would work with the least minimum changes to INS Vikrant. Enter Rafale M

* The IAF's selection of the Rafale C/B was also a huge factor, considering fleet commonality. That was an issue Boeing just could not win. Each time, a US combat aircraft is offered to India...there is some extenuating factor that always hamstrings the Americans. In MMRCA 1.0 it was the unreliability of the US, in the SEF contest it was lack of choice + unreliability of the US via CAATSA and in the MRCBF contest it was INS Vikrant, along with unreliability of the US via the constant drumming over India's support for Russia on Ukraine. That unreliability train is never late.

Now the (faint) hope rests on 114 MRFA.

https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/sta ... 32609?s=20 ---> A wise MoD bureaucrat in South Block over a decade ago: “We will never buy American fighter jets… helicopters, transport planes, yes, but fighters, never.” Why Not?

“Because they will never let you fight the wars you want to.”

======================================

So what are the type of wars the bureaucrat is referring to? Below is one example...

Navy’s choice of Rafale-M endangers the naval Tejas and the entire indigenous combat aircraft programme
https://bharatkarnad.com/2022/12/08/nav ... programme/
08 Dec 2022

Email from Vice Admiral Harinder Singh (Retd), former Deputy Chief of the Naval Staff

Lastly, unsaid, who will provide the Nuclear strike capability from a long stand off distance, certainly not your LCA-N. I suspect what may have tipped the scales in favour of the French may just have been this aspect. The Navy can't wait another 2 decades for getting this capability to sea against a superior enemy Navy.

[drnayar]

Quite a succinct reply Admiral. To the point. It was the gist of all the previous threads in one post reg IAC

[Rakesh]

Quite a succinct reply Admiral. To the point. It was the gist of all the previous threads in one post reg IAC

You are welcome Dr Saab. See this one year old video. I have posted this before, but relevant to this discussion.

Shekar Gupta held an interview with Ashley Tellis and in which, the latter states that anything less than 65,000 ton for an aircraft carrier is subpar. See specifically from 4:00 minutes into the video. Then again, Mr Tellis has a documented history of peddling US hardware on to India.

Going by his logic, the Liaoning Type 001 (@ 54,500 tons normal load) and Shandong Type 002 (@ 60,000 tons normal load) are equally subpar. Only the Fujian Type 003 (@ 71,000+ tons) will be worthwhile for the PLAN

[drnayar]

Well i can only say that it should not be d$@! measuring contest !! But as of now the IN seems to be "prudently" investing its resources into potent offensive platforms [ NGD ] and pooling its submarine designing and building capabilities [ MDL with Warship Design Bureau ] . Hope we see good news on the sub front [ P 75 -> P 76 ]

[Rakesh]

Well i can only say that it should not be d$@! measuring contest !! But as of now the IN seems to be "prudently" investing its resources into potent offensive platforms [ NGD ] and pooling its submarine designing and building capabilities [ MDL with Warship Design Bureau ] . Hope we see good news on the sub front [ P 75 -> P 76 ]

I will credit Mr Tellis with one thing. At 7:15 in the video...

Shekar Gupta states this ---> "...so don't don't build it as a status symbol."

In response, Ashley Tellis says ---> "Oh absolutely not. I mean it's a horrendous way to waste money if all you're looking for is status."

For Naval HQ, IAC-2 was a status symbol. Naval HQ wanted a flag ship for the Indian Navy to showcase to the world, but none of the other stakeholders were on board the idea. In comparison, as I mentioned earlier, the ATV program never encountered this fate despite the costs and the time involved. Naval HQ had to eat some humble pie and rightfully so. The rest of the surface fleet is looking good though, as you have pointed out. The Nilgiri Class (P-17A) is the first naval project that is actually coming on time and that is impressive, considering our shipyards' prior history. Looking forward to the NGD (Project 18) as well.

The idea that 65,000 tons is the bare minimum required for an aircraft carrier is largely dependent on the idea of global force projection. The Indian Navy has not stated that in any of her naval doctrines. Keeping the IOR free from PLAN aggression, is the primary mission of the Indian Navy and a vessel that achieves that objective is what the Navy is now focusing on.

BTW, the French Navy (Marine Nationale) did not get the memo on a minimum of 65,000 tons when they were designing the Charles De Gaulle. She is even smaller than INS Vikrant @ 42,5000 tons. She is however CATOBAR capable (steam catapult) and can carry a sizeable aircraft load. See below.

A record 35 aircraft aboard French aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... de-gaulle/
14 Feb 2019

[rajsunder]

................
BTW, the French Navy (Marine Nationale) did not get the memo on a minimum of 65,000 tons when they were designing the Charles De Gaulle. She is even smaller than INS Vikrant @ 42,5000 tons. She is however CATOBAR capable (steam catapult) and can carry a sizeable aircraft load. See below.
.....................

French had so many problems while incorporating a nuke reactor in a small ship of 42K displacement. Now the next AC of France is going to be a 75K ton displacement carrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Fr ... ft_carrier

[Rakesh]

French had so many problems while incorporating a nuke reactor in a small ship of 42K displacement. Now the next AC of France is going to be a 75K ton displacement carrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Fr ... ft_carrier

Certainly. But till the PANG arrives (which just like FCAS, will be seriously delayed), the French Navy will soldier on with the Charles De Gaulle. Despite her issues, her most recent refit was completed in Sept 2018 and brought the vessel to the latest standards available. She will continue to serve France for a few decades more.

[rajsunder]

French had so many problems while incorporating a nuke reactor in a small ship of 42K displacement. Now the next AC of France is going to be a 75K ton displacement carrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Fr ... ft_carrier

Certainly. But till the PANG arrives (which just like FCAS, will be seriously delayed), the French Navy will soldier on with the Charles De Gaulle. Despite her issues, her most recent refit was completed in Sept 2018 and brought the vessel to the latest standards available. She will continue to serve France for a few decades more.

The fact is French are not happy with CDG. The best thing for India would be to work with French for our IAC-3 and work to improve French design and build for our self a 75-80K ton displacement nuke carrier.

[Rakesh]

The fact is French are not happy with CDG. The best thing for India would be to work with French for our IAC-3 and work to improve French design and build for our self a 75-80K ton displacement nuke carrier.

The Indian Navy is not happy with Vikramaditya either. But will the Indian Navy retire her right now? You have to work with what you have till an alternate becomes available.

Let's hope there is co-operation with France (or anyone else) on IAC-3. But only if required. Don't xerox copy anything and everything.

[Cyrano]

Why are we saying LCA-N cannot be N capable? Afterall, its just another missile, perhaps in a different weight class. And it will be our missile on our fighter on our carrier. Whats the "big deal"?

[Rakesh]

Why are we saying LCA-N cannot be N capable? Afterall, its just another missile, perhaps in a different weight class. And it will be our missile on our fighter on our carrier. Whats the "big deal"?

In her current avatar, the LCA-N can serve as a naval trainer. Beyond that role, it would be pushing it. See the video from Commodore Mao and you will soon realise that the LCA-N does have limitations. LCA-N was only a tech demonstrator to validate certain concepts. Those concepts will see fruition in the TEDBF.

[bala]

The planning for an Indigenous Aircraft Carrier is rather comical in the Indian context. Such strategic assets requires all stakeholders to huddle together (Indian Navy, Mod, Govt, private suppliers etc) to come up with a definite roadmap. Cannot have separate silo-ed groups investigating dil pasand stuff only to be vetoed by another. India is getting to be very large nation status even in the defence arena and such childish planning is all yesteryear stuff. With a firm plan (public can be apprised on a selective basis or not at all) then things become very clear on exactly the future structure of the Navy. India has to act and behave like a big boy in the world. Many things that are lacking like aircrafts, catapult, emals etc are projects that need to be aggressively funded to fruition. We have the talent and money to make things happen, running to yet another country for this and that makes no sense at all. Many of the items require dedicated, mission mode execution, lots of testing/iterations. The entire GOI R&D budget needs a 10x plan, no more pussyfooting (paisa nahi hai), jugaad, begging other nations for the tech, lowest cost b.s. and other favorite taglines that have been drummed into Indian discourse. The attitude should be "we can do it".

[fanne]

I am seeing this aircraft size from different perspective.
1. Aircraft carrier when fighting has to be protected 24/7 by CAP unless against an enemy that cannot launch an air attack (not bringing sub and ship based attacks, other ships/helis will cover it.
2.You need few AEW assets (perhaps 3 at least helos) and another 5-6 for anti sub, rescue, general duty (so 9-10 Helos)
3. With 26 compliments of fixed wing plane, even with very high availability of 85%, only 23 is available at any time for duty, more like 21
4. If you have a 2 plane CAP, and have one CAP for 3 hours. You need 16 planes only performing caps. Some planes will make double/triple sorties and you could have moments where there is no CAP. Say 10 planes are needed for CAP
5. You have 10 -11 planes left now for attack. Typically you will send 4 ship formation for attack (2 configured with attack and 2 in Air to air). You will have 2 groups for attacking shores or enemy ships. Most likely in a day, you can make 2-3 attacks.
6. So the AC is spending 70% to 80% resources in saving itself and the battle group (and keeping sea lanes open, thwarting enemy etc.
7. With STOBR, the plane load + fuel may not be more, maybe more planes are needed to do the same tasks as listed above. Perhaps only 4 planes are available to attack. I would say rather inefficient.
8. If you had a bigger AC and say had double the number of aircraft, steam catapult (so that plane can carry full load), and CAP etc. remained same, you would in theory have nearly 25 planes to attack against 4. That is some serious fire power.
9. We may not need 100,000 tonne AC, but a bigger one is better, perhaps with steam catapult. With any catapult, you have to change your plane (strengthen its underbelly) so that it can tale the stress of the catapult.
10. I am hoping that IAC-2 to be bigger, with catapult would be great but not likely to happen. TEDBF design will have to go to change, essentially a new aircraft .
11. Lastly a question, they say that for each 1000 tonnes one can put one plane. Vikrant should be able to support 45 planes, why it is limited to 30? Is this just being understated?

[Rakesh]

@fanne: The points you raised from 1 - 7 are generalizations. Reality varies greatly from one aircraft carrier to the next and the mission in question. Each mission requires a different set of variables. An aircraft carrier never travels alone and is supported by a carrier battle group. The CBG is symbiotic --> The assets rely on each other for mission completion and survival.

8. If you had a bigger AC and say had double the number of aircraft, steam catapult (so that plane can carry full load), and CAP etc. remained same, you would in theory have nearly 25 planes to attack against 4. That is some serious fire power.
9. We may not need 100,000 tonne AC, but a bigger one is better, perhaps with steam catapult. With any catapult, you have to change your plane (strengthen its underbelly) so that it can tale the stress of the catapult.
10. I am hoping that IAC-2 to be bigger, with catapult would be great but not likely to happen. TEDBF design will have to go to change, essentially a new aircraft .

IAC-2 will be bigger than IAC-1 (INS Vikrant). However it will retain a STOBAR configuration, as IAC-1. Expect the tonnage to be between 50K - 60K.

IAC-3 is expected to be the CATOBAR equipped aircraft carrier. Whether it comes with steam catapults or EMALS, remains to be seen.

11. Lastly a question, they say that for each 1000 tonnes one can put one plane. Vikrant should be able to support 45 planes, why it is limited to 30? Is this just being understated?

That logic is not really correct.

USS Gerald R Ford is 100,000 tons (1 lakh tons for readers in India). But she carry a max of 75+ aircraft. What happened to the remaining 25?

It comes down to dimensions of the hangar, the space on the deck and the aircraft being carried on board. Out of the 36 aircraft that INS Vikrant can carry, it will be a combination of carrier borne fighter aircraft, AEW helicopters, ASW helicopters and SAR helicopters.

[Avid]

Rakesh, thanks for the succinct post reminding of the relevant history of the evolution of needs vs. wants.

Considering the rapid evolution of drone (and associated tech.), along with major advances in ISR... IMHO, it makes little sense to incur a major capital cost of a super-carrier. A supercarrier's because of its size and escort ... its vulnerability will increase multi-fold; puts far many more assets at risk. For instance ... under cover of obfuscation and overwhelming of air-defense executed by a swarm of cheap drones (like Shahed) coupled with potent anti-ship missiles like BrahMos.

[Pratyush]

Considering the rapid evolution of drone (and associated tech.), along with major advances in ISR... IMHO, it makes little sense to incur a major capital cost of a super-carrier. A supercarrier's because of its size and escort ... its vulnerability will increase multi-fold; puts far many more assets at risk. For instance ... under cover of obfuscation and overwhelming of air-defense executed by a swarm of cheap drones (like Shahed) coupled with potent anti-ship missiles like BrahMos.

An aircraft carrier is not obsolete because there are things that can kill it.

An aircraft carrier becomes obsolete because other things can do the job it does, cheaper and better. In various readings on the topic over the last several years, I have not seen a definite tool on the horizon that can supplant the aircraft carrier.

Having said that, the systems the you have quoted at the surface level do appear to be extremely potent, in terms of reducing the utility of an aircraft carrier in isolation.

But a competently lead aircraft carrier has multiple ways and means to reduce the effectiveness of the systems that you have quoted.

Both in terms of hard kill, soft kill, and simple tactics. I have listed the various methods in increasing order of importance.

3) Hard kill is modern AGIES and it's equivalent, coupled with surface to air missiles.

2) Soft kill is disruption and hijacking of drone data link, or directed energy weapons.

1) Emissions Control.

A simple Google search shows the following documents published by serving officers of the USN.

1) DISTRIBUTED MARITIME OPERATIONS AND
UNMANNED SYSTEMS TACTICAL EMPLOYMENT
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1060065.pdf

From the Naval Post Graduate school.

2) The Aircraft Carriers Relevancy in Future Conflicts - DTIC https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1176561.pdf

3) Carrier Strike Groups Should Be Ready to Go Dark in Conflict https://warontherocks.com/2023/08/carri ... -conflict/

Published on 29th August 23.

4) Hiding in Plain Sight—The U.S. Navy and Dispersed Operations under EMCON,
1956–1972
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/v ... nwc-review

Published in 2011.

Tactics can be updated, by the underlying principles remain relevant still.

[srin]

Our IAC-1 was initially called as Air Defense Ship (ADS) !!

[Pratyush]

Indeed.

Smaller the ship, the less capacity it can deploy.

The Royal Navy during the late cold war had ships in the 20 k ton range. That were primarily designed to lead ASW taskforce in the North Atlantic.

The modern Japanese flat tops originated as ASW taskforce leaders. That are now morphing into lightning aircraft carrier.

If you want capacity to conduct ASW operations, counter air and air defence operations over a 24 *7 period. Then you need a large ship with a large size air group.

Against TSP this capacity is not required.

But TSP is no longer a serious threat.

[sajaym]

3) Navy is by definition a tool of diplomacy, a ship detached from the battle group visiting port. Sends a message, look at me, you know I am powerful.

Makes sense.

We do have to remember that:
1. INS VIRAAT - Commissioned in 1987; Decommissioned in 2017. (NEVER fought in a single war)
2. INS VIKRAMADITYA - Commissioned in 2013 and... I'm happy to inform...has never fought a war till date.

But as long as they are operating, we have a floating airbase -- a physical, visible presence, which is constantly floating around in our waters. It's like a Bharat away from Bharat...but in the middle of the ocean!

[Kersi]

My (wild) thinking would be that our IAC should be STOBAR but with provision to be retro-fitted with steam catapult / EMAL

[Cyrano]

Why are we saying LCA-N cannot be N capable? Afterall, its just another missile, perhaps in a different weight class. And it will be our missile on our fighter on our carrier. Whats the "big deal"?

In her current avatar, the LCA-N can serve as a naval trainer. Beyond that role, it would be pushing it. See the video from Commodore Mao and you will soon realise that the LCA-N does have limitations. LCA-N was only a tech demonstrator to validate certain concepts. Those concepts will see fruition in the TEDBF.

Rakesh ji,
I meant, why do we keep hearing that only Rafale or Mirage 2000N or Su30 MKI can be N capable? N missile is still a missile. I presume we are making our own N warheads that can be fitted to suitable missiles that can be carried by a fighter aircraft or dropped as a N-bomb. LCA can be made to fire such missiles or drop such bombs thus become part of the Air arm of deterrence triad. No? Am I missing something or have I mis-read some of the posts above?

[Rakesh]

Rakesh ji,
I meant, why do we keep hearing that only Rafale or Mirage 2000N or Su30 MKI can be N capable? N missile is still a missile. I presume we are making our own N warheads that can be fitted to suitable missiles that can be carried by a fighter aircraft or dropped as a N-bomb. LCA can be made to fire such missiles or drop such bombs thus become part of the Air arm of deterrence triad. No? Am I missing something or have I mis-read some of the posts above?

Saar, no -ji for me please.

Let me take the three examples you have mentioned above.

1) Rafale and Su-30MKI: Look at the payload capacity of these aircraft and see if the LCA-N has a similar capability. Next, look at the type of n-capable missile/bomb being carried by these aircraft. Can the LCA-N carry a nuclear missile and take off from a STOBAR aircraft carrier?

2) Mirage 2000N: The only missile that the aircraft could carry was the ASMP and her successor, the ASMP-A. The N variant of the Mirage 2000 had the hardwire for nuclear strike/delivery built into them at the production line. The ASMP and ASMP-A were never exported to any phoren country and neither was the Mirage 2000N. Our own Mirage 2000H/THs (now -I/TI) were no different either. However, our IAF's desi jugaad enabled them to carry some type of nuclear bomb. I don't believe it was a missile. But again, same question applies ---> Can the LCA-N do it, from a STOBAR aircraft carrier?

The LCA-N was a tech demonstrator and it will remain as such. I believe HAL is looking into making into a carrier capable naval trainer, especially now that NP-5 flew on 18 August 2023. This will be necessary for the Indian Navy, as the Rafale M does not have a twin-seat, carrier capable variant. The four twin-seaters (the B variant) that the Indian Navy is getting with the Rafale M are not carrier capable.

Beyond carrying some basic armament (internal gun or some air-to-air training missile rounds), the LCA-N in her current avatar will be hard pressed to carry anything else. The combination of the internal fuel + added weight of the strengthened undercarriage + STOBAR aircraft carrier will not permit the LCA-N to do anything else beyond serving as a trainer. The TEDBF will be a whole other story though and will have that capability.

[Rakesh]

Rakesh, thanks for the succinct post reminding of the relevant history of the evolution of needs vs. wants.

Considering the rapid evolution of drone (and associated tech.), along with major advances in ISR... IMHO, it makes little sense to incur a major capital cost of a super-carrier. A supercarrier's because of its size and escort ... its vulnerability will increase multi-fold; puts far many more assets at risk. For instance ... under cover of obfuscation and overwhelming of air-defense executed by a swarm of cheap drones (like Shahed) coupled with potent anti-ship missiles like BrahMos.

You are welcome Avid.

The Indian Navy is looking at installing counter-drone systems on their aircraft carriers. Please check out this post ---> viewtopic.php?p=2600212#p2600212

Large capital ships - as you have rightly pointed out - are now becoming increasingly vulnerable. However, countermeasures will be developed and put in place. Age old and time tested theory --> develop a weapon or a platform, the enemy develops a counter to that weapon/platform and then you develop a counter to that counter. The game of cat and mouse never ends.

[Rakesh]

Indian Navy moves mega deal to buy second indigenous aircraft carrier
https://aninews.in/news/national/genera ... 920204716/
20 September 2023

[rajsunder]

Alpha Defense hindi is stating that the Indian Navy wants a 3rd carrier like Vikrant. This would take around another 7-10 yrs to commission. Navy Chief Admiral R. Hari Kumar mentioned this during launch ceremony of INS Mahendragiri. (I hope the TEDBF project is hastened and becomes standard aircrafts on the decks of Vikrant and the follow on carrier).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO4Dk4tUjsI

Not just 3, PMO wants more than 7

[Prem Kumar]

Great news! We have the money & will make more in the next decade. We need to punch at our weight level

If its 6-7 years to commissioning (which will be quite nice if it happens), then TEDBF will be ready by then.

Will be interesting to see if its an IAC-2 replica. The timelines seem to suggest it

[Manish_P]

..
Not just 3, PMO wants more than 7
..

Did the PMO hint at the names of the 7 carriers?

Vikramaditya
Vikrant
Viraat
Vishaal
Vihangam
Vishist
Vishesh

[drnayar]

IAC 1 is 45k tons but IAC 2 will be 65+k tons. This is a given. That's the sweet spot between capability and cost
Even bigger ones could come once economy goes to high gear at 15T

[Rakesh]

Great news! We have the money & will make more in the next decade. We need to punch at our weight level

If its 6-7 years to commissioning (which will be quite nice if it happens), then TEDBF will be ready by then.

Will be interesting to see if its an IAC-2 replica. The timelines seem to suggest it

CSL has stated 7-8 years if it is a repeat of INS Vikrant. However, the Indian Navy will want - at the least - a larger vessel. It will likely be a STOBAR vessel and be in the range of 50K - 60K tons. Admiral Hari Kumar has said that they want IAC-2 to be able to launch UAVs. Until the proposal that the Navy has submitted to the DAC is made public, we will not know the specification details. I am expecting a build time of close to a decade, if the Navy does go in for a larger vessel than INS Vikrant.

Getting the MoD to approve a scaled up INS Vikrant is way more palatable than the original plan of the Super Carrier IAC-2. Once the second vessel arrives in the next decade, then the Navy will push for the super carrier proposal. They finally grasped the crawl (IAC 1) - walk (IAC 2) - run (IAC 3) concept. They followed it with all their other surface vessel programs, but lost their way with aircraft carriers. The prodigal son has returned!

[srin]

^^^ There will also be considerable delay for design time, and since the costs will go up, a delay for approval etc.

Typically in procurement, a repeat order is much more easier to get through than a new order. The paperwork is much less.

So, they should have two more Vikrant class vessels - maybe bigger lifts (if that is still an issue ?), but everything else remaining the same. Two more because I'm not sure about how long Vikramaditya is going to last.

[Nick_S]

Won't a much bigger vessel require a significant change (>60k) in the power plant? Given potential delays with the redesign, perhaps it might be safer to go for a stretched ~50k Vikrant class.

[Rakesh]

Not much details in this piece, but one interesting figure has been mentioned - Rs 40,000 crore for IAC-2.

Rs 40,000 crore is US $4.8 billion in today's dollars. Someone please point out my currency conversion error, if it is wrong.

INS Vikrant costs US $3.2 billion (as of 2023) in comparison. So the US $1.6 billion increase in cost does correspond to increased capability.

Indian Navy Aircraft Deal Details; Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-2) | 40 हजार करोड़ में बनेगा, ये बना तो हम चीन की बराबरी कर लेंगे
https://ghaziabad365-com.translate.goog ... r_pto=wapp
21 September 2023

[Rakesh]

Some more details from the Times of India, so FWIW...

With China on its radar, Navy moves case for 2nd indigenous aircraft carrier
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... s?from=mdr
21 September 2023

The Navy’s proposal submitted to the defence ministry is for a 45,000-tonne aircraft carrier, which will basically be a “repeat order” of INS Vikrant or the indigenous aircraft carrier-1 (IAC-1) that was commissioned in September last year, defence ministry sources told TOI on Wednesday.

The new proposal for the IAC-2 will have to be first approved by the defence secretary-led Defence Procurement Board, then by the Defence Acquisitions Council headed by the defence minister and finally by the PM-chaired Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). “Once the CCS gives the final nod and the contract is inked, it will take 8-10 years for CSL to build the IAC-2,” said a source. By that time, the Navy hopes, the indigenous twin-engine deck-based fighter (TEDBF) being developed by DRDO will also finally be ready for operations.

The Navy had initially wanted a much more potent, nuclear-powered 65,000-tonne carrier, which would have been able to carry more than the 30 aircraft capacity of INS Vikrant. But budgetary constraints have made it opt for a smaller electric-propulsion IAC-2. “CSL has gained the expertise and capacity by constructing INS Vikrant for around Rs 20,000 crore, which took 13 years from keel-laying to delivery. IAC-2 will be built much faster and with a higher indigenous content,” a source said.

[VKumar]

It's been pointed out before but there won't be a "3rd carrier" anytime soon.

As soon as a new AC comes in the Navy will kick Vikramaditya (and Mig 29k)to the curb.. The maintenance costs and serviceability of that platform leave no other realistic option.

So if the Navy does want 3 concurrent carriers in Ops they need to start building 2 of them

3 concurrent AC need to have at least one more as back up because at any time at least one will be in refit.

In order to safeguard India we need at least 3 concurrent. To dominate IOR we need at least 5 and to take the fight to a distant enemy we need 7.

Looks like a dream.

[drnayar]

3 concurrent AC need to have at least one more as back up because at any time at least one will be in refit.

In order to safeguard India we need at least 3 concurrent. To dominate IOR we need at least 5 and to take the fight to a distant enemy we need 7.

Looks like a dream.

Indeed .. What if we had a carrier group in the Atlantic right now [ to evacuate citizens at short notice of course !!