Where Is India's Carrier Fleet Going?

[INDIAPOSITIVE]

India is pushing hard on its carrier fleet, but does it have a good sense of where it’s going?

Reports have emerged that India’s second indigenously built carrier, expected to be the third carrier to enter service in the next two decades, may utilize nuclear propulsion. This is alongside a set of other innovations that the Vishal might adopt, including EMALS catapult technology (possibly developed in association with the United States). India has taken strides on nuclear propulsion recently, with the launch of INS Arihant, its first domestically constructed nuclear submarine.

Why would India need a nuclear powered aircraft carrier? Nuclear power doesn’t eliminate the need for local basing (even the all-nuclear task forces the USN assembled in the 1970s and 1980s required support vessels for repair and munitions), although it does reduce a task force’s overall requirements. Countries that build nuclear aircraft carriers (a group that currently includes only the United States and France) typically have either worldwide military responsibilities or worldwide military ambitions. By decreasing fueling requirements, nuclear power increases range and improves operational tempo.

But that’s only particularly useful if India expects to conduct high intensity carrier operations at some distance from its home waters. And as of the moment, it’s hard to envision missions in which nuclear power would prove decisive. The most plausible contingency might involve some kind of extended deployment in the Pacific, but it’s a struggle to figure out why the Indian Navy would seek to decisively engage the PLAN (or whomever else it might want to fight) in the Pacific, rather than astride China’s maritime supply lines in the Indian Ocean.

It also means that the maintenance, training, and operational requirements of India’s three carriers will diverge even more. India is effectively pursuing a naval aviation program that will struggle to share aircraft, pilots, and sailors. And until India’s second nuclear carrier comes on line (some sources suggest interest in an overall fleet of five flattops), INS Vishal will be the only of the three ships capable of conducting the missions that nuclear propulsion allows.

None of this is to say that the Indian Navy should eschew nuclear propulsion. But it should do so for good strategic and operational reasons. Even the United Kingdom, a country which does understand itself to have global military responsibilities, has decided against nuclear power for its carriers. If India is considering nuclear propulsion, it will need to think very hard about the kind of long-distance logistics that are necessary to support a CVN.

Where Is India’s Carrier Fleet Going? | The Diplomat

 

[lasttry]

Sounds like a farticle by a petrified white boy. Oooh, yindoos making nuke aircraft carriers!

If you want EMALS, you need a nuke powered vessal. Cant keep burning diesel to launch aircrafts. If the author has no clue about EMALs power requirements, he should not be in defence reporting

 

[mirage2K]

And the point here is? Every country is free to look after their own interests and are free to plan for contingencies and project power according to their own national policies. India has global ambitions and a blue water navy is an extension of India's policies..if so then China has no right to seek refuelling and basing rights in the Indian ocean. I am dragging China just as an example here, as it too seeks world power status and is looking to develop a blue water navy.

 

[The Headache]

@kahonapyarhai do you know what have you posted. I mean can you summarise the thread for me.

 

[Hage Tado]

Q: Where Is India’s Carrier Fleet Going?

Ans: Jamnagar, Gujarat to Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh via Kanyakumari.

 

[OrionHunter]

Why do we need a nuclear carrier?

> Longer operational endurance.
> Power projection.

 

[Lord ZeN]

@kahonapyarhai do you know what have you posted. I mean can you summarise the thread for me.

I think he is some kind of advanced Bot.

 

[Abingdonboy]

India is pushing hard on its carrier fleet, but does it have a good sense of where it’s going?

Reports have emerged that India’s second indigenously built carrier, expected to be the third carrier to enter service in the next two decades, may utilize nuclear propulsion. This is alongside a set of other innovations that the Vishal might adopt, including EMALS catapult technology (possibly developed in association with the United States). India has taken strides on nuclear propulsion recently, with the launch of INS Arihant, its first domestically constructed nuclear submarine.

Why would India need a nuclear powered aircraft carrier? Nuclear power doesn’t eliminate the need for local basing (even the all-nuclear task forces the USN assembled in the 1970s and 1980s required support vessels for repair and munitions), although it does reduce a task force’s overall requirements. Countries that build nuclear aircraft carriers (a group that currently includes only the United States and France) typically have either worldwide military responsibilities or worldwide military ambitions. By decreasing fueling requirements, nuclear power increases range and improves operational tempo.

But that’s only particularly useful if India expects to conduct high intensity carrier operations at some distance from its home waters. And as of the moment, it’s hard to envision missions in which nuclear power would prove decisive. The most plausible contingency might involve some kind of extended deployment in the Pacific, but it’s a struggle to figure out why the Indian Navy would seek to decisively engage the PLAN (or whomever else it might want to fight) in the Pacific, rather than astride China’s maritime supply lines in the Indian Ocean.

It also means that the maintenance, training, and operational requirements of India’s three carriers will diverge even more. India is effectively pursuing a naval aviation program that will struggle to share aircraft, pilots, and sailors. And until India’s second nuclear carrier comes on line (some sources suggest interest in an overall fleet of five flattops), INS Vishal will be the only of the three ships capable of conducting the missions that nuclear propulsion allows.

None of this is to say that the Indian Navy should eschew nuclear propulsion. But it should do so for good strategic and operational reasons. Even the United Kingdom, a country which does understand itself to have global military responsibilities, has decided against nuclear power for its carriers. If India is considering nuclear propulsion, it will need to think very hard about the kind of long-distance logistics that are necessary to support a CVN.

Where Is India’s Carrier Fleet Going? | The Diplomat

This genius hasn't even made the point that EMALS all but requires nuclear propulsion. Trying to belittle the need for nuclear power purely by looking through the prism of nuclear power=global power aspirations is entirely flawed. He should have conducted a technical analysis of the pros and cons of EMALS and why this system is all but discussing nuclear power for India's future ACCs instead of trying to bash India's interest in them.

Guess he knows better than the IN....

 

[Rana Thakur]

Going?
I thought it was in construction.

Saala bana kab jo jane ki baat ho rahi hai?

 

[DeathInvader]

Author is a Genius. Wow, Just Wow!!

 

[Nan Yang]

India have no strategic need for any aircraft carriers. India’s number one threat to its sovereignty is its internal Maoist insurgent followed by Pakistan. The land dispute with China is peaceful, high up in the mountains and far away from the sea. While threats from the seas are pirates and infiltrations. In all these cases you do not need any aircraft carrier.
But India wants to be recognized as a superpower. That is why they spends money on so call superpower hard power such as aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons and delivery system, nuclear submarines, Space programs, ballistic defense etc.

All this when India economy is only the size of Italy and have no strong manufacturing foundation. It is totally not sustainable. That is why they will keep having problems.

 

[Luca1]

India have no strategic need for any aircraft carriers. India’s number one threat to its sovereignty is its internal Maoist insurgent followed by Pakistan. The land dispute with China is peaceful, high up in the mountains and far away from the sea. While threats from the seas are pirates and infiltrations. In all these cases you do not need any aircraft carrier.
But India wants to be recognized as a superpower. That is why they spends money on so call superpower hard power such as aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons and delivery system, nuclear submarines, Space programs, ballistic defense etc.

All this when India economy is only the size of Italy and have no strong manufacturing foundation. It is totally not sustainable. That is why they will keep having problems.

This is sad. As a country, they strive to be recognize as a superpower more so than bring their masses out of poverty. It should be other way around.

 

[janon]

All this when India economy is only the size of Italy and have no strong manufacturing foundation. It is totally not sustainable.

We have been sustaining a carrier centric navy for 50 years, and the carrier played a major role in the previous full scale war. The IN knows more than you do about what they need or don't need, and what they can or cannot sustain. Your concern is commendable, but unwanted.

India have no strategic need for any aircraft carriers.

But Thailad, Brazil, Italy do? IN is one of the biggest in the world, with 140 major warships and soon to be 160+. Of course it needs a carrier for fleet air cover. Carriers are not merely for power projection, but also (in fact, mainly) to provide air cover for task forces, making them invincible against navies that do not have the advantage of integrated aviation.

Your "anal-ysis" is founded merely on heartburn, not facts.

 

[Nan Yang]

A country arm forces strategic needs is not based on

We have been sustaining a carrier centric navy for 50 years, and the carrier played a major role in the previous full scale war. The IN knows more than you do about what they need or don't need, and what they can or cannot sustain. Your concern is commendable, but unwanted.

The current state of affairs of India's aircraft carriers is not sustaining. It is deteriorating. Your first aircraft carrier was a brand new with a catapult. Your second carrier was second hand pass down with little or no capabilities today.
Your third carrier is another second hand pass down helicopter carrier.

But Thailad, Brazil, Italy do? IN is one of the biggest in the world, with 140 major warships and soon to be 160+. Of course it needs a carrier for fleet air cover. Carriers are not merely for power projection, but also (in fact, mainly) to provide air cover for task forces, making them invincible against navies that do not have the advantage of integrated aviation.

Your "anal-ysis" is founded merely on heartburn, not facts.

India has no threats from the sea that cannot be contained with destroyers. India brown sea navy can be much more easily and cheaper be protected by shore based fighters.

 

[janon]

The current state of affairs of India's aircraft carriers is not sustaining. It is deteriorating. Your first aircraft carrier was a brand new with a catapult. Your second carrier was second hand pass down with little or no capabilities today.

Wrong. Our first carrier was also second hand, obtained from Britain. As was the second one. Despite your unwarranted advice on what we can or cannot afford, we are fully capable of determining that for ourselves. When we were dirt poor, we bought second hand carriers to give our navy the best bang for the buck. Now that we are richer and more technologically proficient, we are building our own carriers, the first conventional and the next nuclear powered and with EMALS. Don't like it? Suck it up.

Your third carrier is another second hand pass down helicopter carrier.

If you don't know anything, best to shut up. India has never bought any helicopter carrier.

India has no threats from the sea that cannot be contained with destroyers. India brown sea navy can be much more easily and cheaper be protected by shore based fighters.

Our navy and our war planners can and will decide what we need and what we don't. If you have any incisive and thoughtful reasons to prove them wrong, your opinions and elaborations are welcome. If not, you might want to shut your mouth and let our navy decide what is good for us. Your criticisms don't sound to be based on any well thought strategy or war plans, but merely out of your hatred for and jealousy of India.

Yes, India is looking to have a 3 carrier navy in future, most likely nuclear. Don't like it? Tough luck. Deal with it.