Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC 2): News & Discussion

[Aditya_V]

So IAC 2 will be built with bigger lifts, while IAC 1 will use MiG-29K plus Tejas-TEDBF?

[Manish_P]

..
1. As you said most important is the what are the leaders (meaning Naval) thinking i.e., what do they want in the next 5-10 years. Given chin plan are we going to safeguard our 'Pond'!! Because each two years the goal post keep changing
..

Chinese plans have not changed in the past 2 decades (counter the US, neuter India), nor the Paki plans (ghazwa-e-hind), nor the US plans (make alphabet alliances, keep the canals & trade sea lanes under it's control)...so why do our plans/posts kept changing?

[Rakesh]

The price paid for 26 Rafale-M.

Get ready for more Rafale Ms. I seriously mean that.

Kiss TEDBF goodbye.

[Rakesh]

So IAC 2 will be built with bigger lifts, while IAC 1 will use MiG-29K plus Tejas-TEDBF?

There is a proposal for IAC-2 to be a follow on Vikrant Class vessel. Whether that will have bigger lifts (I hope so!) still remains to be seen.

MiG-29K will retire with INS Vikramaditya in the next decade. The future of fixed-wing, fighter aircraft in the Indian Navy will be as follows;

1) Rafale M (single seat, naval fighter)

2) Rafale B (twin seater, not carrier compatible trainer for cockpit/aircraft familiarization)

3) Naval Tejas (twin seater for aircraft carrier training i.e. take-offs, landings, etc)

There will be no TEDBF. No funds have been sanctioned for prototype development.

[Rakesh]

Re: carriers, nothing has been dropped.

Navy has only clarified that the new carrier being built is not the 3rd carrier per se but a replacement for Vikramaditya.

Do you remember this discussion from a little over four years ago? viewtopic.php?p=2476144#p2476144

I stated back then and will reiterate again, there was always a budget shortage. But back then, the F-18SH was in contention for the MRCBF program and forum members were throwing caution to the wind and boldly claiming that the super carrier program will be sanctioned. The famous words ---> Money should be there were uttered on the forum. Even the Navy was gung-ho about IAC-2. A senior Admiral retired from active service to become the head of Boeing India, just so that the acquisition of the F-18SH could be done with ease.

None of this worked out. Submarines won at the end of the day. You cannot engage & destroy what you cannot see. The war in Ukraine also proved that large capital vessels are more of a headache to preserve and protect, than an asset in conflict. Only the US has the financial wherewithal to have a world-class carrier program (and all the bells & whistles that come with it i.e. CBG) and a spectacular SSN program. No other country has achieved that to date, including the mighty PLAN.

IAC 2 will likely be a modified IAC-1 (INS Vikrant) with a ski jump and hopefully larger lifts. Entry into service will be at the end of the next decade (at the earliest). The super carrier dream and the three aircraft carrier dream ended at the bottom of the ocean (where it belonged in the first place). The Admirals had to learn the hard lesson ---> Cut Your Coat According To Your Cloth.

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/livefist/status/1886707430924673306 ---> Planning for INS Vikramaditya's replacement now makes sense. It could push India's heavy ‘super carrier’ out by another 20-25 years, but offers an opportunity to rectify some of Vikrant’s shortcomings, says @zone5aviation in our updated piece.

3-Carrier Plan Shelved, India Wants Sharks ASAP
https://www.livefistdefence.com/3-carri ... arks-asap/
03 Feb 2025

What’s unclear is if this fresh carrier number clarity means that clearance for IAC-2’s construction is on the horizon. The likely retirement of INS Vikramaditya by 2035 means that time to build its replacement isn’t exactly in generous supply. While it is unlikely that India will explicitly confirm plan tweaks, this reported realignment at the very least indicates that the Indian Navy is prioritising undersea warfare and deterrence over traditional carrier-based naval at least until it has the luxury to keep both on the table.

“When she was commissioned, Vikramaditya was supposed to have a 30 year service life. That would take her to the early 2040s. But the vintage of the platform, and the nature of her construction and propulsion are such that she will be incredibly difficult and expensive to maintain as she ages. Planning for her replacement now makes sense,” says air power commentator and author Angad Singh. He adds, “Unfortunately the slow pace of Indian shipbuilding means that if the Navy proceeds with an IAC-1 variant (P-71A, if you will) as VKD’s successor, it will perforce push the fielding of a heavy ‘super carrier’ out by another 20-25 years — with that ship essentially serving as Vikrant’s replacement. All that said, a “P-71A” carrier delivered in about 10 years at around $3 billion (similar to P-71) is a tantalising prospect. This ship would offer an opportunity to rectify some of Vikrant’s shortcomings — especially the aircraft lifts! — and incorporate new capabilities like IEP and maybe even a drone launch/recovery system like that on the QE class.”

[ManuJ]

Re: carriers, nothing has been dropped.

Navy has only clarified that the new carrier being built is not the 3rd carrier per se but a replacement for Vikramaditya.

Do you remember this discussion from a little over four years ago? viewtopic.php?p=2476144#p2476144
..

IAC 2 will likely be a modified IAC-1 (INS Vikrant) with a ski jump and hopefully larger lifts. Entry into service will be at the end of the next decade (at the earliest). The super carrier dream and the three aircraft carrier dream ended at the bottom of the ocean (where it belonged in the first place). The Admirals had to learn the hard lesson ---> Cut Your Coat According To Your Cloth.

We'll find out whether the plans for additional carriers have been shelved once IAC-2 is done. There was never a plan to build two carriers simultaneously anyway. In 10 years, India will be a $10 trillion economy with a $250+ billion defense budget, which will lead to very different conversations and options.

We've both been on this forum for 25+ years, what's another 10 years

[Manish_P]

....In 10 years, India will be a $10 trillion economy with a $250+ billion defense budget, which will lead to very different conversations and options.
...

20 years ago we were a $0.5 trillion economy and our forces seemed comparatively better equipped in some areas than they are now.

But one should keep the faith. I will.

[Aditya_V]

20 years ago there were very few PGMs, bulk of the airforce were Mig 21s, our Aircraft carrier INS Viraat had a few harriers and liquid fuelled Prithvi was our deterrent, we are now where near where we like to be but our progress has been huge

[Rakesh]

We'll find out whether the plans for additional carriers have been shelved once IAC-2 is done. There was never a plan to build two carriers simultaneously anyway. In 10 years, India will be a $10 trillion economy with a $250+ billion defense budget, which will lead to very different conversations and options.

We've both been on this forum for 25+ years, what's another 10 years

That is the problem ---> there is no plan. Everything is done ad-hoc.

From 2010 to 2019, when Navy Admirals were doing monkey-see-monkey-do with IAC-2 vis-à-vis Nimitz/Gerald R Ford Class aircraft carriers...any opposition to their grandiose idea was swatted down. But each time the Navy went with the proposal for the super carrier, they were laughed out of the room by the MoD and even by the then CDS (late General Bipin Rawat) himself. This previous decade is when they should have embarked on a follow-on IAC-1. They wasted that time and now have wasted 4+ years of this decade, still humming and hawing. Had they laid the keel for IAC-2 in the previous decade, she would have been ready for commissioning today.

And time that was wasted resulted in the PLAN continuing on their modernization path, while our Admirals were busying trying to ape the US Navy, but with a budget that could never match. And now these geniuses finally woke up and decided (albeit grudgingly) that their egocentric, pet project, super carrier program was not going to get sanctioned and have changed their naval strategy to submarines.

When IAC-2 arrives in the next decade, the PLAN will be far ahead. It is already too late to play catch up.

IAC-2, -3 and -4 will all come. The real question is when?

[sajaym]

Whatever they do, I hope they don't waste the hull of the Vikramaditya like they did of the old Vikrant and Viraat. After it is retired the VikAd should be run aground near the Lakshadweep islands. They should put a nuclear reactor in it and use it like a Naval Air Station with the usual complement of air assets which it was operating -- or even the 3-legged Naval Tejas (if Mig29K or Rafales can't be spared). Project Kusha SAM sites and Brahmos batteries can be set up on nearby Islands for protection. This way India can still have an almost 3-carrier navy!

[AkshaySG]

Whatever they do, I hope they don't waste the hull of the Vikramaditya like they did of the old Vikrant and Viraat. After it is retired the VikAd should be run aground near the Lakshadweep islands. They should put a nuclear reactor in it and use it like a Naval Air Station with the usual complement of air assets which it was operating -- or even the 3-legged Naval Tejas (if Mig29K or Rafales can't be spared). Project Kusha SAM sites and Brahmos batteries can be set up on nearby Islands for protection. This way India can still have an almost 3-carrier navy!

Don't even need the hull for that. A navy with blue water aspirations and more competent leadership would have multiple Naval Air Stations manned with N-LCAs, drones, P-8Is in Andaman & Nicobar, Lakshwadeep and probably even Seychelles, etc.

AnC should be for IN what Hawaii is for USN but alas.

[SRajesh]

^^^Saar I am armchair jernail
Please draw line from Reunion to Chagos reclaimed and then to Nicobar
Now drop a line from Nicobar to Keeling
Connect point 3 to point 1
If we can build good relationship with Mauritius, Seychelles and Aussies base our assest strategically our "pond" is safe
Even Unkil wont like it forget the Chini
But as Rakesh Saar mentioned our Rear Admirals on the way up see hardly anything but the "Flaming/Rising Sun' so to speak so one see nothing else but wants Uber Ulla Flat top and all want to be 'Top Guns' in real life!!

[Rakesh]

Submarines won at the end of the day. You cannot engage & destroy what you cannot see. The war in Ukraine also proved that large capital vessels are more of a headache to preserve and protect, than an asset in conflict. Only the US has the financial wherewithal to have a world-class carrier program (and all the bells & whistles that come with it i.e. CBG) and a spectacular SSN program. No other country has achieved that to date, including the mighty PLAN.

From the Twitter account of the US Naval Institute. Admiral William Halsey served in the US Navy in World War II.

https://x.com/NavalInstitute/status/1886947709346545696 ---> #TuesdayThoughts

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/livefist/status/1924748502082715785 ---> 8th meeting of India-US Joint Working Group on Aircraft Carrier Technology Co-operation (JWGACTC) under the US Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) took place from May 13-16 in Goa.

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/Tar21Operator/status/1963874768526209440 ---> TPCR (Technology Perspective & Capability Roadmap) 2025 lists Indian Navy’s plan for a third aircraft carrier (40 year lifecycle, 1 unit). Likely IAC-2/INS Vishal under DRDO.

[Rakesh]

TPCR 2025: Nuclear-Powered Carrier at the Heart of India’s Tech-Driven Military Roadmap
https://bharatshakti.in/tpcr-2025-nucle ... y-roadmap/
06 Sept 2025

[uddu]

TPCR 2025: Nuclear-Powered Carrier at the Heart of India’s Tech-Driven Military Roadmap
https://bharatshakti.in/tpcr-2025-nucle ... y-roadmap/
06 Sept 2025

To support its operations, the Navy has flagged the need for 10 nuclear propulsion systems to power the carrier and future surface combatants.

So these 10 means 2 for Vishal and remaining 8 are for P18? P18 being nuclear powered? or are we going for 5 Nuclear powered Aircraft carriers?

[Rakesh]

To support its operations, the Navy has flagged the need for 10 nuclear propulsion systems to power the carrier and future surface combatants.

So these 10 means 2 for Vishal and remaining 8 are for P18? P18 being nuclear powered? or are we going for 5 Nuclear powered Aircraft carriers?

Highlighting the need for 10 nuclear propulsion systems has to translate into reality. Navy Admirals do make a lot of (pie-in-the-sky) plans, but they very rarely ever come to fruition. Some examples below;

1) 57 MRCBF aircraft vs 26 actually acquired
2) 90+ TEDBF vs a big FAT zero
3) 24 SSKs (30 year sub plan) versus 6 in active service
4) 3 aircraft carriers vs 1 (INS Vikrant) in active service*
*The less said about INS Vikramaditya the better

This nuclear powered propulsion for IAC-2 is yet another kick-the-can-down-the-road venture. They have gone back to the super carrier tamasha of the previous decade --> 65,000+ tons with EMALS and nuclear reactor. Good luck to Naval HQ if they believe BARC is actually going to fund the R&D for this nuclear reactor. Forget five aircraft carriers, lets see if they actually commission at least one super carrier by the next decade. Another over delayed program to drain the exchequer and massage the egos of Navy Admirals.

[uddu]

It need not be 65,000+ tons carrier. Possible that it could be slightly modified and larger variant than current one at 50,000 to 55,000 tons?

[drnayar]

It need not be 65,000+ tons carrier. Possible that it could be slightly modified and larger variant than current one at 50,000 to 55,000 tons?

65K is a sweet spot for carrier op capability., not too expensive but enough capability..

i guess admiral can explain a bit more ?

[Rakesh]

France's only aircraft carrier - Charles De Gaulle - weighs less in tonnage than INS Vikrant (42,500 tons vs 45,000 tons). Yet, CDG carries more aircraft than INS Vikrant (~40 vs ~35). The CDG's successor - PANG (Porte-avions de nouvelle génération) - will be 75,000 tons.

The issue is not with the tonnage, but rather Naval HQ's penchant for chasing after the latest, greatest thing. There was a plan to have a follow-on Vikrant Class vessel, but that got torpedoed by NHQ. For a country like India, a single aircraft carrier (INS Vikrant) is just not enough. This latest proposal will take two decades - at minimum - to become reality. India does not have two decades.

[vera_k]

The CDG is also nuclear powered with catapults. Must be a marvel of engineering to fit all that in.

[Rakesh]

Bingo!

[sanjaykumar]

The day of the dinosaur is passe. With guidance EO, radar, sonar, space based and hypersonic missiles, a carrier is only useful for threatening Socotra Island.

Not that Socotra isn’t worth it. In fact should call it by its Sanskrit name.

[V_Raman]

maybe we will buy CDG used like we used to previously for non-nuclear carriers. IMHO, I dont think we need carriers of huge tonnage beyond 50k - future is likely vertical take off combat airplanes - UAVs that too... Catapults might be mainly for planes like E2D category...

[drnayar]

maybe we will buy CDG used like we used to previously for non-nuclear carriers. IMHO, I dont think we need carriers of huge tonnage beyond 50k - future is likely vertical take off combat airplanes - UAVs that too... Catapults might be mainly for planes like E2D category...

The Brits were angling their QE or prince Charles (the carriers of course) ..they ll be more than happy to part with one ( British navy in its new delusions might not, though!)

[uddu]

The reasons for the shift in thought process could be because of:

1) Aircraft carriers Pakistan centric approach has shifted. Pakistan no more require aircraft carriers. This is taken care by Missiles and IAF maritime Su-30MKIs/Rafale/IN Surface fleet including INS Vikrant

2) Limited launch capability making it vulnerable in modern day warfare going against CATOBAR adversaries capable of launching more fighters and AEWs.

3) Nuclear powered carriers giving ability for Global reach compared to limited to Indian Ocean and needing support of slow moving tankers for current carriers.

4) Limitations on the size of aircrafts or compromise on numbers. Limited payload carrying capability including lesser missiles and fuel and range.

5) Country's current Technological capabilities can provide for a better Nuclear capable, EMALS carrier.

6) Confidence and knowhow in operating Nuclear powered Arihant class submarines and better reactors for the upcoming S5 class.

7) Aligning with the timeline of TEDBF making it true AtmaNirbhar Campaign with both carries and fighters made in India.

8] EMALS tech capable of launching UAVs (Technology demonstrated)

Indeed the second carrier to INS Vikrant must have pursued, while they plan for third one with the said capabilities. Now the decision is taken to go for nuclear carriers. Let's hope that it don't stop at one and 2 such carriers will be build.

The progress on EMALS from 2024.

DRDO showcased EMALS capable of launching UAV400kg



India's EMALS Breakthrough: DRDO and HAL Push the Boundaries of Naval Aviation Technology
https://pune.news/defence/indias-emals- ... gy-218579/

India is making significant progress in the development of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch Systems (EMALS), thanks to the efforts of the Research & Development Establishment (Engineers) (R&DE (E)), a leading research organization under the Defence Research and Development

Expected delays could come from Babudom and ministers sitting on the proposal for land based EMALS testing facility.
Future Plans - The critical next step is the establishment of a land based test facility that can simulate the conditions of an aircraft carrier.

[Rakesh]

maybe we will buy CDG used like we used to previously for non-nuclear carriers. IMHO, I dont think we need carriers of huge tonnage beyond 50k - future is likely vertical take off combat airplanes - UAVs that too... Catapults might be mainly for planes like E2D category...

The Brits were angling their QE or prince Charles (the carriers of course) ..they ll be more than happy to part with one ( British navy in its new delusions might not, though!)

We have greater odds of acquiring QE Class carriers than the CDG and that is primarily because of the powerplant.

Naval nuclear reactors - like low bypass turbofans for fighters - are some of a country's closely guarded crown jewels. You do not hand that over to anyone, no matter what. Russia assisted us with integration of the CLWR-B1 reactor (aboard the Arihant Class SSBN) and that is because of our relationship with Russia. But even here, the design of the Arihant reactor is of our own.

The French will not sell the CDG to India, even when decommissioned in the late 2030s.

P.S. Stay away from those QE Class carriers though. They are a maintenance nightmare. Look at the RN's experience with both vessels. India's next carrier must be built in India, just like with INS Vikrant. We have the skill set to do this and we have proven it. Don't squander it by getting another country's hand-me-downs. Build a follow on Vikrant Class vessel and then by all means, go in for nuclear powered aircraft carriers at whatever tonnage is desired. But in the short term (next decade), *PLEASE* build a follow on Vikrant Class vessel and call her INS Viraat.

[SRajesh]

^^ Amen to that!
We should build 2 if not three of Vikrant class.
Carry on with Rafale M and Naval LCA until TEDBF fructify.
At any given time we should have 3 CSG to cover East/ West and our Pond.
And one in docks for repair/refurbishment/regroup yada yada.
The flat tops can be the next replacement for these.
But I am just a Land-lubber what do I know of Naval Warfare.!!

[bala]

I think the DoD planners are confused between frontier tech and mission mode needs. We see this in Tejas, Tedbf, AMCA and now with EMALS/Nuclear carrier.

These two things cannot be mixed. Frontier tech requires deep R&D and engineering expertize to pull of new things. Once you establish such things then you deploy them on mission mode platforms. Our लुच्चाबुद्धि luccha-buddhi DoD IAS Babus are into cutting corners everywhere. Note that they don't sanction anything promptly for R&D, test and such things. But all these things magically are required to work in mission mode - that is the expectation for these worthies. Where is land base test facility for EMALS? Is the nuke engine being deployed in submarines, the same as those of aircraft carriers?Are the aircraft tested for EMALS takeoff? So many iffy things that need to be tested properly.

Does India need more Aircraft Carriers? Answer is YES. Why are the babus eternally clueless - yes, after writing a 1 entrance exam to qualify them as jackasses of all trade called IAS. The rest will take care of themselves, like a fruit ripening on the vine. It is frustrating to deal with non-experts in Defence field.

[Rakesh]

Blame the babus / politicians for sanctioning these white elephant projects. But specifications, design, requirements, etc...this is all lies in the lap of Naval HQ. They need to stop creating Marvel Comic-like RFIs and learn to adopt the attitude of crawl-walk-run. From crawl stage, the services want to move directly to 100m race with long jump. This is not going to work and the program will be severely delayed.

See how delayed the Gerald R Ford Class program was, despite Unkil being the global leader in aircraft carrier design & manufacture.

[drnayar]

I think the DoD planners are confused between frontier tech and mission mode needs. We see this in Tejas, Tedbf, AMCA and now with EMALS/Nuclear carrier.

These two things cannot be mixed. Frontier tech requires deep R&D and engineering expertize to pull of new things. Once you establish such things then you deploy them on mission mode platforms. Our लुच्चाबुद्धि luccha-buddhi DoD IAS Babus are into cutting corners everywhere. Note that they don't sanction anything promptly for R&D, test and such things. But all these things magically are required to work in mission mode - that is the expectation for these worthies. Where is land base test facility for EMALS? Is the nuke engine being deployed in submarines, the same as those of aircraft carriers?Are the aircraft tested for EMALS takeoff? So many iffy things that need to be tested properly.

Does India need more Aircraft Carriers? Answer is YES. Why are the babus eternally clueless - yes, after writing a 1 entrance exam to qualify them as jackasses of all trade called IAS. The rest will take care of themselves, like a fruit ripening on the vine. It is frustrating to deal with non-experts in Defence field.

good point.. i have been talking about the lead build times of one carrier .. at least 10 years for india !!

[Rakesh]

This nuclear powered propulsion for IAC-2 is yet another kick-the-can-down-the-road venture. They have gone back to the super carrier tamasha of the previous decade --> 65,000+ tons with EMALS and nuclear reactor. Good luck to Naval HQ if they believe BARC is actually going to fund the R&D for this nuclear reactor. Forget five aircraft carriers, lets see if they actually commission at least one super carrier by the next decade. Another over delayed program to drain the exchequer and massage the egos of Navy Admirals.

If this is indeed the situation with the NNR aboard the S5 Class SSBN program, imagine what is happening with IAC-2.

https://x.com/AVE_603/status/1966945677549981967 ---> There is a very funny incident I know about B2 reactors going into S5 Class SSBN. They had an argument over the technology.

https://x.com/AVE_603/status/1966951970075537920 ---> Woh naval design bureau and BARC ke beech mein....

https://x.com/AVE_603/status/1966953820963172623 ---> Gamdmasti wale haar gaye...