The Indian Navy has decided to abandon its plans to operate three aircraft carriers simultaneously and is now focusing on the development of a second indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC) to eventually replace INS Vikramaditya, ThePrint reported on Monday. According to the report, the government does not support the Navy's proposal to maintain a fleet of three carriers, which would have ensured at least two carriers were operational at all times, even during refits.
This shift comes after reports late last year suggesting China’s progress in its nuclear-powered aircraft carrier program, with signs that its fourth carrier could feature nuclear propulsion.
ThePrint states that the Navy’s decision reflects a change in naval policy, which previously aimed to establish a three-carrier force. Multiple naval chiefs, including Admiral Hari Kumar, the immediate predecessor of the current naval chief, had supported adding a third carrier.
However, it is reported that the government has opposed this stance since at least 2020, advocating for a stronger focus on submarines rather than aircraft carriers. Former Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat had publicly questioned the need for a three-carrier fleet, calling them "sitting ducks."
Former Navy Chief Admiral Hari Kumar had proposed ordering a repeat of INS Vikrant, a 45,000-tonne carrier. Yet, earlier naval chiefs had argued for a larger carrier with a greater capacity for fighter jets, believing that it would provide superior operational advantages in combat compared to a smaller carrier with fewer aircraft.
According to defence sources cited by ThePrint, INS Vikramaditya, a refurbished Russian carrier, will need to be decommissioned in the next 10–12 years.
Building an aircraft carrier typically takes around 10 to 12 years from the approval stage. Sources suggest that many within the Indian Navy view the second indigenous aircraft carrier as a replacement for Vikramaditya, rather than an additional carrier.
In May 2024, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh reportedly announced that India would soon begin construction of a third aircraft carrier, which would replace INS Vikramaditya, as per ThePrint. This announcement came in the context of the Navy's proposal for another indigenous aircraft carrier, similar in size to INS Vikrant, a 45,000-tonne warship commissioned in September 2022.
Currently, the Indian Navy operates two 45,000-tonne carriers: INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant. Both carriers are conventionally powered and use ski-jump ramps for aircraft take-offs. INS Vikrant, India's first indigenous carrier, was built by Cochin Shipyard Ltd, while INS Vikramaditya, originally from Russia, has been in service since 2014.
Each carrier can accommodate 25-30 fixed-wing aircraft and 10 helicopters. If the proposed third carrier is similar in size and uses conventional propulsion like INS Vikrant, it is expected to have comparable air wing capacity.
A study initiated during former Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s tenure had envisioned the second indigenous carrier as a 65,000-tonne CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off Barrier Arrested Recovery) warship with electric propulsion. The proposed carrier was designed to carry a 54-fighter air wing and was considered for nuclear propulsion and electromagnetic catapults. However, current plans indicate that the second indigenous carrier, and India’s third overall, will be conventionally powered.
What Led to the Decision to Reduce the Fleet to Three Carriers?
Instead of expanding its aircraft carrier fleet, the government is reportedly focusing on enhancing sea denial capabilities through submarines. Aircraft carriers are considered highly capital-intensive, not only due to their own costs but also because of the expenses related to the Carrier Battle Group and accompanying fighter aircraft. Moreover, China has developed long-range anti-ship ballistic missiles specifically designed to target aircraft carriers, particularly those of the United States, which are significantly larger and more heavily defended than India's.
The government has already revised its 30-year submarine-building plan. Rather than the originally proposed 24 conventional submarines, the approved fleet now includes 18 diesel-electric submarines and six nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs), alongside the ongoing nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) programme.
What Do We Know About China's Plans for a Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier?
In November 2024, reports indicated that China is progressing with its plans for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. The South China Morning Post emphasized growing interest in Beijing’s global naval ambitions, citing reports about a prototype nuclear reactor in development.
Unlike traditional carriers, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers can operate for long periods without refueling, providing them with greater range and the capacity to carry more fuel and weapons for their aircraft.
China’s pursuit of a nuclear-powered carrier has long been speculated, with experts seeing it as a key milestone in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy’s ambitions for blue-water capabilities. Already the world’s largest navy, the PLA aims to operate six aircraft carriers by 2035 as part of its modernization efforts.
The PLA’s third and newest carrier, the Fujian, began sea trials in 2024 and is the first non-U.S. carrier to feature an electromagnetic catapult system, enabling higher-frequency aircraft launches.
The Fujian’s successor, expected to be known as Type 004, is anticipated to be of similar or larger size. If the nuclear reactor project succeeds, future Chinese carriers may be entirely nuclear-powered.
In March 2024, the PLA Navy’s political commissar confirmed that work had begun on a fourth aircraft carrier, with an announcement on its potential nuclear propulsion expected soon.
Currently, the United States operates 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, while France has one, the Charles de Gaulle. All of China’s existing carriers are conventionally powered, although the Fujian is larger and more advanced than previous Chinese and Indian carriers.
Comments