What's new

Indian Navy will push ahead with plan for 3rd aircraft carrier despite CDS’ reservations

INDIAPOSITIVE

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
9,318
Reaction score
-28
Country
India
Location
India
New Delhi: The Indian Navy is firm on its plans to have a third aircraft carrier despite Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Gen Bipin Rawat’s scepticism, and will approach the government for permission to initiate formal design consultancy, ThePrint has learnt.

“The third aircraft carrier is an operational necessity,” a source in the Navy said. “It is not that an aircraft carrier can be bought off the shelf. Even if all permissions are given today, it will take 15 years for the carrier to be inducted.”

A second source said the Navy was moving ahead with the design consultancy phase for the carrier, adding that formal permissions would be sought.

The Indian Navy currently operates one aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya, while the second, INS Vikrant, is under construction in Cochin, due for commissioning in 2022. Both vessels have a displacement — the measure of a vessel’s weight — of 45,000 tonnes each.

While the Navy has had its eyes set on a third aircraft carrier, General Rawat, who oversees all three military branches in his role as CDS, said earlier this month that it was not a priority. Preference, according to him, would be given to submarines and air-strips on the far-flung Indian islands in the Andamans.

Third aircraft carrier part of long-term capability planning
Dismissing any budgetary concerns, sources said every force is driven by long-term capability planning that also takes into account budgeting requirements.

Asked if the Navy had budgeted for both submarines and the third carrier, a source said, “The submarines, both nuclear and conventional, are important. The third carrier is a project for the future but work has to begin now. The work that needs to be completed first is the design element. Budget is catered for.”

Navy chief Admiral Karambir Singh had said in December last year that the force’s long-term capability planning envisaged the induction of three aircraft carriers so that two are available for deployment in the Indian Ocean Region, where China has been making inroads, at all times.

A project study initiated during the tenure of former defence minister Manohar Parrikar decided that the third carrier would be a 65,000 CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off but Arrested Recovery) system with electric propulsion.

‘Shore-based air ops not enough’
Navy sources said shore-based air operations, as preferred by the CDS, were still limited by range, and this is where the aircraft carriers came into play.

They added that External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had defined the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) as including countries fringing the entire Indian Ocean, from the Strait of Hormuz to Reunion island, from East Africa to Australia, and from Lombok Strait to Malacca Strait.

This vast oceanic expanse, they said, was well beyond the capability of strike aircraft operating from the Indian mainland, which would barely cover even 20 per cent of this area and thus leave vast swathes of IOR unchallenged.

In addition, fighter jets operating in the sea would need a significant amount of time to manoeuvre, especially if challenged by enemy fighters. This limits their range too, they said.

The sources highlighted that shore-based strike aircraft from any service, be it the Navy or the Air Force, would be in a defending position at best within 1,000 km of the coast.



‘Must have two aircraft carriers operational at all times’
The sources reiterated Admiral Singh’s concerns, saying it was important to have a third carrier because it would ensure two are always ready for deployment, even when one is in for refits.

“The Vikramaditya will also age over the next two decades. Moreover, the Navy’s project for 57 fighters along with the the twin-engine Tejas, as well as the currently-used MiG-29K, caters to… three carriers,” one of the aforementioned sources said.

The sources added that the country had to decide whether it planned to “play a bigger game” in the global maritime structure.

They pointed out how the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy of China, which has been making repeated forays into the Indian Ocean Region, plans to become a four-aircraft-carrier force by the end of the decade.

By 2049, they added, China was looking to have 10 aircraft carriers.

Aircraft carriers ‘back in reckoning’
The sources sought to note how countries like the UK, which had developed doubts about aircraft carriers, had once again woken up to their potential.

The US, one of them said, “of course continues to repose their faith in aircraft carriers”.

While Russia, Italy and France operate aircraft carriers, the sources added, Japan was in the process of converting all its helicopter carriers into aircraft carriers. Australia, they said, had helicopter carriers that are equipped to operate fighter aircraft in a jiffy.



https://theprint.in/defence/indian-...raft-carrier-despite-cds-reservations/368930/
 
Well, They need ATLEAST 3. This is not a news. 1 for the East one for the West and one in Repairs.
I feel, they might be moving towards the Russian approach of All/Most of the underwater assets rather Building carriers for $5 Billion a piece.
 
Navy sources said shore-based air operations, as preferred by the CDS, were still limited by range, and this is where the aircraft carriers came into play.
This vast oceanic expanse, they said, was well beyond the capability of strike aircraft operating from the Indian mainland, which would barely cover even 20 per cent of this area and thus leave vast swathes of IOR unchallenged.

In addition, fighter jets operating in the sea would need a significant amount of time to manoeuvre, especially if challenged by enemy fighters. This limits their range too, they said.

The sources highlighted that shore-based strike aircraft from any service, be it the Navy or the Air Force, would be in a defending position at best within 1,000 km of the coast.
@aliyusuf

If you remember our discussion about this topic on another forum in reference of H-6
 
Well, They need ATLEAST 3. This is not a news. 1 for the East one for the West and one in Repairs.
I feel, they might be moving towards the Russian approach of All/Most of the underwater assets rather Building carriers for $5 Billion a piece.
It's not just the AC but the entire flotilla that accompanies it like destroyers, frigates, ASW corvettes, subs, 30-50 fighter jets, choppers, support and re-supply vessels etc. The idea is to have one CBG each for our eastern, western and southern seaboards. You can't afford to have an entire CBG sitting in the repairs dock
 
Last edited:
Imho they shouldn't stop at three they need at least eight. They should start making them now.
Yeah eight is a good number . Oh and they need to all be nuclear and run on gao tatee using reverse osmosis . But the next one should be called Shri Modi
 
Imho they shouldn't stop at three they need at least eight. They should start making them now.
Yeah eight is a good number . Oh and they need to all be nuclear and run on gao tatee using reverse osmosis . But the next one should be called Shri Modi

excellent observation by a PDF poster, quite expected from knowledgeable pakistani member.
 
Well tbh, CDS never said that 3rd carrier is not needed, just that priority is to enhance underwater capabilities with more SSNs and SSKs for now.
 
For global projection we need 3 in water at all times.
Total 4 are required.
 
@aliyusuf

If you remember our discussion about this topic on another forum in reference of H-6
Looks like they ignored the advise of CDS and gave him a middle finger. Going ahead with their plan while ignoring his advise.

It will be good if they built another AC and then have funds allocated for ACG /CBG....let them spend more on Defense procurements
 
Pakistan does not need an AC. Our enemy is on our doorstep. AC's are needed for a number of reasons. Firstly to fight a battle away from home. Which Pakistan has no intentions of doing any time soon. And secondly a di*k measuring competition. The country's that do have them all want to project their prowess in far flung places. Pakistan has no need to fight a war against the Caribbean islands that it requires a floating airfield to send away from its own waters.
I am not saying anything about non protecting/defending their own sovereign land sir and sea but that money can be utilised in other ways ie. Subs sea missiles and aircrafts for sea defence.
If bendians want to waste money on 8 AC's then let them boast about it. The more money they tie up in AC the better. If there is ever a conventional war with the bendians it will only last so long.
When it gets to the point where one seams to be loosing to the other that's when the dynamics of warfare change and we all know what options are left. Other countries get involved in order to stop the war OR it's Armageddon. That's when it doesn't matter how many AC's are in play.
Pakistan needs to focus on the people, the countries economy and being a. Prosperous nation where everyone is equal under one United country and all are equal under the law. Everything will then take care of itself.
There is a quote I remember from a movie I saw " Rise and Rise again .till lamb's become Lions"
Anyway that's my two bits worth
There is a
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom