Could India and France Build Aircraft Carriers Together? A Navy Veteran Thinks So

Folks, a former big boss of the Indian Navy, Admiral Arun Prakash, has started a buzz online that could make waves in how we build our warships. He's suggesting India and France team up and build their next major aircraft carriers at the same time!

What's the big deal, you ask? Well, the idea is to build France's fancy new carrier, the PA-NG, over there and our homegrown Indigenous Aircraft Carrier-III (IAC-3) right here in India. Admiral Prakash believes this would be a win-win. We'd get to learn from the French, experts in shipbuilding, and they could tap into our knowledge. Plus, maybe we could even snag some know-how for our dream of nuclear-powered warships. And, of course, both countries could split the work and make the whole thing a smoother ride.

India's already shown how serious we are about aircraft carriers. We've got the IAC-I in action, a mighty ship at 45,000 tons, and the IAC-II on the way. But the IAC-III? That's a whole different beast, a potential 60,000-ton powerhouse.

Meanwhile, the French aren't messing around either. The PA-NG looks set to be incredible – around 75,000 tons, packed with cutting-edge tech like those cool electromagnetic catapults to launch planes. You throw in fighters like the Rafale M (which we're already getting comfy with), and that's a force to be reckoned with.

So, picture this: master shipbuilders from both countries sharing ideas, maybe even swapping engineers. It's the kind of partnership that makes India and France stronger together on the high seas.

Of course, it's not all smooth sailing. Building two monster carriers at once? That's a tricky dance, even for the best planners. And nuclear technology… well, let's just say sharing those secrets is a whole different ball game.

Still, it's a bold idea. The kind that could change how India builds its future navy. What do you think? Should we go for it?

 

[Pink Panther]

Has USA mastered technologies by collaborating with other European Nations? Not so.
Those who relentlessly work alone gain leadership not by looking for shortcuts that is so typical of Indian "Jugad" mentality.

But Dallas really don’t care about relentlessly working or not collaborating, they relentlessly wanted to milk money and nothing else.

 

[Anant]

The strength of an aircraft carrier depends upon on 3 things :

1. Catapult ability to launch powerful fighter aircrafts (Rafel-M is equal to F/A 18 Super hornet)
2. Nuclear propulsion for unlimited distance
3. No: of fighters it can launch in 30minutes
4. Amount of payload Fighter aircrafts can carry

Wat the hel r u saying Charles de gulle is old ?

It's the most powerful Non U.S carrier out there

You replied to the wrong comment. I said that CdG is more capable than any non-supercarrier today. The only true supercarriers in service are the American ones, which are all nuclear-powered and CATOBAR.

It was PP who was saying that the CdG is old. I merely pointed out that she isn't particularly old for a carrier, and despite any age, she is still exceptionally capable.

 

[Akshat]

I would suggest let us get 1 more 45000 Ton Vikrant class carrier, at best with IEC, but delivered by 2032 (if approvals come in 2024)...In parallel let us start work (design domestically or buy the British designs but with changes for IEC/EMALS) on designing conventional 65000 carriers (2 - in 5 year intervals) with IEC and potentially EMALS, if we can solve for power...then we think of nuclear propulsion once we get maturity with our 190 MW LEU reactors, whilest building 250MW HEU ones (will help with S6 SSBNs and Project Alpha 2s)...India (say by 2050) will need about 4 CBGs (2 smaller carriers and 2 mid sized ones should be good), while we focus on SSKs (36), lots (50) of Frigates/Destroyers/Corvettes in the 3000-8000 Ton class with VLS along with larger 14000 Ton (12) AIr/Missile Defense destroyers.

Won't happen, Sir. Your timelines are far, far too optimistic. The earliest we could get a second Vikrant-class carrier delivered (assuming the carrier is sanctioned by the DAC today) would be 2033-35 at the earliest.

As for supercarriers, the fact remains that CSL would struggle to build two carriers simultaneously. They simply do not have all the requisite infrastructure. Hence, without a fairly large and expensive scale-up of infrastructure, we can only build one carrier at a time for now.

However, if we can get all approvals lined up in time, then IAC-III could start construction around 2032-33, with this larger carrier entering service in the early or mid 2040s to replace Vikramaditya. We would then have about 6-7 years of a break of sorts before we would have to start construction on IAC-IV to replace Vikrant in the early or mid 2060s.

For now, we should aim for a sustained three carrier capability, and instead go for 4 LHDs.

Coming to submarines, the present plans would leave us with 27 SSKs and 6 SSNs, plus 5-7 SSBNs before we have to start serious work on replacing the Batch 1 Kalvari-class boats, at which point we could aim for 36 SSKs by the mid or late 2060s.

Surface combatants are an interesting story entirely. As of today, we have 12 destroyers with 1 more on the way (though 3 of those are at or near retirement), 12 frigates with another 11 on the way, and 10 large-ish corvettes with another 6-14 on the way (though 2 of those 10 are at the point of retirement). That already adds up to 47-60 surface combatants. Do note that I have not added small surface combatants or OPVs there. Going forwards, we need to move towards the sustained target of 15-16 destroyers (7 under Projects 15A and 15B, and 8-9 under Project 18), 25 frigates (comprising 10 large frigates under Projects 17 Ana 17A plus 7 under the Talwar-class plus 8 new Project 19 5000-ish ton frigates), and 20 large corvettes (comprising the 4 Kamorta-class, 6 NGMVs, and 10 NGCs).

One thing to note regarding our surface combatants is that our ships are fairly underarmed for their size. For instance, our destroyers are essentially frigates by most standards of armament. If we were to remove the old RBU-6000 ASSw mortars and do some reconstruction, and also add canister launchers for AShMs, our destroyers could easily manage 24-32 AShMs, plus 64 VLSAMs, while our frigates could easily manage 16-24 AShMs plus 64 VLSAMs. We also need to start putting VLSAMs on smaller surface combatants such as our OPVs.

 

[Anant]

Yes, India should explore 65-75000 Ton carriers with EMALS and nuclear propulsion with France for codevelopment, but Indian carriers made in India...we may need 2 such carriers to be delivered 5 years apart starting 2035 (if possible), if we can start now...this may reduce cost, increase interoperability and give India access to carrier nuclear propulsion (need HEU with 2/3 reactors of 150MW each).

Sir, CSL doesn't have the infrastructure to fully support teo carriers at once. That would require some massive and very expensive scaling up. For now, we are limited to building one carrier at a time. A logical thing to do would be to build a modifed IAC-I design for IAC-aiI, and a larger IAC-III testing oyt EMALS and the like. The earliest timeline for delivery of IAC-II is 2033-35, which means IAC-III can start construction around 2032-33, with a delivery in the early or mid 2040s to replace Vikramaditya. That then gives us until the early 2050s to start construction on IAC-IV, which would replace Vikrant in the early to mid 2060s. Perhaps, if we have the strategic need by then, we could push for IAC-IV (sister ship to IAC-III) in the early 2040s (delivery in early 2050s) to reach a four-carrier Navy, with a nuclear-powered IAC-V eventually replacing Vikrant in the 2060s.

 

[Pink Panther]

Yes, and why not.. ; Mo Money for Frenchies. USA, France Israel, Germany, UK .. all are drooling over our reserve dollars cache. Maybe SA, Brazil & Aussies are also going to join in the fray and the run to take our money.. Sell us anything which is shiny & looks good in pictures. Secret here is Commissions for our Babus.
We need to develop our own weapons & be ruthless in achieving it.

Absolutely not a single penny than needed, all are drooling for money, GOI already knows how to treat all the French statements with a ton load of salt, they have promised so much but have offered none, at least US tells up front that they won’t offer any TOT, all we need right now is Conventional Submarine with AIP, we some how need to work with Germany or Spain and get that done, other items including MRFA, we can do it locally ourselves, once start making GE engines locally we churn up Plenty of copies of Tejas, which is very much dooable.

 

[Anant]

If French are ready to share their Nuclear Reactor technology & co-develop EMALS then this proposition holds some potential.

Sensibly, it's better for India to develop it's own Reactors & request US-assistanc for CATOBAR Designs & EMALS.

They aren't sharing any of the things you mentioned. Nuclear reactor technology is a big no-no. Also, they aren't developing EMALs by themselves. They are simply buying EMALS and AAG from the Americans.

Coming to our case, the US had offered us EMALS and AAG several years back when it was planned that INS Vishal would enter service in the mid 2030s, but the price of those systems would be over 1 billion USD, which is too expensive for us.

 

[Anant]

South Korea is a better option.

For what, exactly? Their CVX program has been put on hold. Even if it was still running, CVX would be a 40,000-ish ton carrier, and it would more sensible for us to build IAC-II parallel to theirs.

 

[Anant]

Carrier development and technology must be only sought from Americans including 220 -250 Mw nuclear reactors with once in a lifetime Refuelling , Emals and other aircraft management systems . The aircraft carrier technology Indo American group be authorised to expedite the deal . Carrier borne AWACS ANTISUBMARINE helicopters , Launch and recovery Machinery must all be looked into . Training of Indian pilots , engineers , Deck officers and technical personnel on American carriers be sought immediately to create core groups for construction , operations , maintainence .Since the carrier will sail well into 80s the size be kept over 85000 T with capacity to carry 75 to 85 aircraft .

Sir, any nuclear technology sharing is a massive no-no for France. For instance, even though they have agreed to help Brazil build SSNs, the reactors will be completely Brazilian in origin. Coming to EMALS, the US already offered EMALS and AAG a few years back, but the price rag of over 1 billion USD put paid to any potential acquisition.

 

[desigandu]

Sir, any nuclear technology sharing is a massive no-no for France. For instance, even though they have agreed to help Brazil build SSNs, the reactors will be completely Brazilian in origin. Coming to EMALS, the US already offered EMALS and AAG a few years back, but the price rag of over 1 billion USD put paid to any potential acquisition.

We should buy the EMALs and AAG even if it is expensive, while building IAC-2 45000 Ton carriers with IEC now, but plan on using EMALS in the 2 - 65000 ton conventional IEC carriers...could be accelerated if we buy and tweak the UK designs...I agree nuclear carriers is a long shot unless the French sell them (like AUKUS) - maybe our PM could persuade French President for nuclear propulsion for SSNs and Carriers, besides pumpjet technology...French nuclear tech is its crown jewel, but we could buy it...It is possible, as no one thought the US will give 80% TOT for GE 414s...I predict by 2030 we will have a few squadrons of F-35s flying with IAF and also IN...We need to spend money if we need the technology while building stuff domestically.

 

[desigandu]

Sir, CSL doesn't have the infrastructure to fully support teo carriers at once. That would require some massive and very expensive scaling up. For now, we are limited to building one carrier at a time. A logical thing to do would be to build a modifed IAC-I design for IAC-aiI, and a larger IAC-III testing oyt EMALS and the like. The earliest timeline for delivery of IAC-II is 2033-35, which means IAC-III can start construction around 2032-33, with a delivery in the early or mid 2040s to replace Vikramaditya. That then gives us until the early 2050s to start construction on IAC-IV, which would replace Vikrant in the early to mid 2060s. Perhaps, if we have the strategic need by then, we could push for IAC-IV (sister ship to IAC-III) in the early 2040s (delivery in early 2050s) to reach a four-carrier Navy, with a nuclear-powered IAC-V eventually replacing Vikrant in the 2060s.

Could L&T build 1 of the 65000 Ton class carrier while CSL builds the 2 or 1st one - giving India the ability to concurrently (not exactly in parallel) build carriers... same theory of L&T and MDL for Project 76s, after both take 3 each of P-75Is.

 

[Anant]

Could L&T build 1 of the 65000 Ton class carrier while CSL builds the 2 or 1st one - giving India the ability to concurrently (not exactly in parallel) build carriers... same theory of L&T and MDL for Project 76s, after both take 3 each of P-75Is.

Perhaps, Sir, but I would honestly doubt that. L&T doesn't have experience in building warships that are anywhere near that in size.

As for Project 75I, I have a feeling L&T-Navantia have a better chance of winning that, so perhaps it would be better for L&T to focus on that, and position themselves as a major contender for Project 76 and midget submarine construction?

 

[Anant]

We should buy the EMALs and AAG even if it is expensive, while building IAC-2 45000 Ton carriers with IEC now, but plan on using EMALS in the 2 - 65000 ton conventional IEC carriers...could be accelerated if we buy and tweak the UK designs...I agree nuclear carriers is a long shot unless the French sell them (like AUKUS) - maybe our PM could persuade French President for nuclear propulsion for SSNs and Carriers, besides pumpjet technology...French nuclear tech is its crown jewel, but we could buy it...It is possible, as no one thought the US will give 80% TOT for GE 414s...I predict by 2030 we will have a few squadrons of F-35s flying with IAF and also IN...We need to spend money if we need the technology while building stuff domestically.

Sir, while we could EMALS and AAG from the Americans, the core challenge remains: You need a massive amount of power to make EMALS work, and a conventionally-powered carrier would have to go for a very large powerplant for using such systems. It should be doable, but there may be challenges there.

As for nuclear propulsion technology, France has outright rejected sharing it with absolutely anyone. I don't think we will be able to convince the French to share / sell the technology.

Similarly, while I have a feeling that the IAF may fly F-35s one day, the Navy won't. The F-35C is not capable of STOBAR operations presently, and the F-35B is useless for a carrier of our size.