The Future of India’s Aircraft Carrier Strategy: Lessons from INS Vikrant and China’s Fujian
- Manoj Ambat, Editor in Chief, Strategic Vanguard
- Sep 5
- 5 min read
Aircraft carriers have long been considered the crown jewels of naval power projection. For India and China, two rising Asian powers, carriers are more than just floating airbases – they are symbols of strategic reach, deterrence, and global ambitions. As the Indo-Pacific emerges as the primary theater of 21st-century geopolitics, the debate around the future of aircraft carriers has sharpened. India commissioned its first indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant (IAC-1), in 2022, while China launched its third and most advanced carrier, the Fujian, in 2022. The trajectories of these two programs reveal important lessons for India’s naval strategy.
This blog will examine the future of India’s aircraft carrier strategy, analyzing lessons from INS Vikrant’s journey and China’s Fujian project. It will explore the challenges, opportunities, and potential directions India might take in balancing carriers with other naval assets in a rapidly evolving maritime environment.
INS Vikrant: Symbol of Indigenous Ambition
INS Vikrant represents a landmark achievement for India’s naval shipbuilding industry. At 45,000 tons, it is smaller than China’s newest carrier but nonetheless marks India’s arrival as one of the few nations capable of designing and building such a complex warship indigenously.
Design & Capabilities: INS Vikrant uses a ski-jump (STOBAR – Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) system similar to India’s existing carrier INS Vikramaditya. It can host around 30 aircraft, including MiG-29Ks and, in the future, the naval variant of the Tejas or possibly the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF).
Strategic Role: INS Vikrant enhances India’s ability to project power across the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), deter adversaries, and provide air cover for fleet operations.
Industrial Significance: It showcases India’s growing shipbuilding ecosystem, a critical step in defense indigenization.
However, Vikrant also exposes limitations: dependence on Russian-origin MiG-29Ks (which face maintenance issues), limited air wing capacity compared to U.S. or Chinese carriers, and the absence of advanced catapult launch systems (CATOBAR).
China’s Fujian: A Leap into the Future
China’s Fujian (Type 003) represents a significant leap in naval aviation. At over 80,000 tons, it rivals U.S. supercarriers in size and ambition. Its most revolutionary feature is the adoption of electromagnetic catapults (EMALS), enabling the launch of heavier and more diverse aircraft, including early warning planes and stealth fighters.
Technological Leap: The EMALS system allows China to operate advanced fixed-wing aircraft without the limitations of ski-jumps. This significantly extends operational range and payload.
Aircraft Complement: Fujian is expected to carry advanced J-35 stealth fighters and KJ-600 airborne early warning aircraft, providing China with carrier-borne capabilities closer to U.S. standards.
Strategic Implications: With Fujian, China signals its ambition to become a true blue-water navy capable of sustained operations far from its shores. For India, this poses a direct challenge in the Indo-Pacific, especially if multiple Chinese carrier groups operate in the Indian Ocean.
Comparative Analysis: Vikrant vs. Fujian
While both carriers represent national pride, their scale and ambition differ dramatically:
Size and Capacity: Vikrant’s 45,000 tons vs. Fujian’s 80,000+ tons.
Launch Systems: Vikrant – STOBAR; Fujian – CATOBAR with EMALS.
Air Wing: Vikrant – ~30 aircraft; Fujian – 60+ advanced aircraft.
Strategic Reach: Vikrant – regional dominance in the IOR; Fujian – global blue-water operations.
This comparison underscores the widening carrier capability gap between India and China. However, it also highlights important lessons for India’s future strategy.
Lessons for India from China’s Fujian
Technology Leapfrogging: India must transition beyond STOBAR carriers. The next indigenous carrier (IAC-2, tentatively named INS Vishal) should incorporate CATOBAR systems, ideally EMALS, to future-proof capabilities.
Air Wing Modernization: Without a modern carrier-borne fighter, carriers risk obsolescence. India’s TEDBF project is crucial, but interim solutions (like acquiring Rafale-M or F/A-18) must be expedited.
Integration of AWACS and Drones: A key limitation of STOBAR carriers is the inability to launch heavier aircraft like AWACS. Future Indian carriers must accommodate such platforms, possibly through EMALS. Additionally, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) should be integrated for surveillance and strike roles.
Carrier Groups as Strategic Assets: Carriers are not standalone assets – they require destroyers, frigates, submarines, and replenishment ships. India must ensure its carrier battle groups are fully supported.
Balance with Submarine Force: Carriers are vulnerable without strong submarine and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities. India should strike a balance between investing in carriers and expanding its nuclear and conventional submarine fleet.
Challenges Facing India’s Carrier Strategy
Cost vs. Capability: Carriers are enormously expensive to build, maintain, and operate. INS Vikrant’s cost exceeded $3 billion. For a developing country like India, balancing this expenditure against other defense needs is a challenge.
Vulnerability to Missiles: With the proliferation of hypersonic and long-range anti-ship missiles (such as China’s DF-21D and DF-26), carriers face existential risks. This raises questions about survivability in high-intensity conflicts.
Delays in Indigenous Projects: India’s track record with timely delivery of indigenous defense projects is mixed. Delays in TEDBF or IAC-2 could undermine carrier viability.
Logistical Support: To sustain carrier operations in distant waters, India needs a robust network of bases and replenishment capabilities. Without these, carriers may be limited to regional presence.
The Way Forward: India’s Carrier Strategy
INS Vishal and Beyond: India must commit to developing IAC-2 as a CATOBAR/EMALS-equipped carrier of at least 65,000 tons. This would bridge the capability gap with China.
Accelerate TEDBF Development: A robust indigenous fighter program is critical.
Simultaneously, India should procure limited numbers of foreign fighters (Rafale-M or F/A-18) to avoid a capability gap.
Unmanned Integration: Carriers of the future will rely heavily on UAVs for reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and strike missions. India should integrate these early.
Network-Centric Warfare: Carriers must operate as part of a larger, integrated maritime strategy involving satellites, surveillance aircraft, and cyber capabilities.
Alliances and Partnerships: Given the cost and complexity of sustaining multiple carriers, India should leverage partnerships with like-minded navies (U.S., France, Japan, Australia) to enhance operational reach.
Carriers vs. Submarines: The Strategic Debate
A recurring debate in India’s defense community is whether to prioritize expensive carriers or invest more heavily in submarines. Submarines offer stealth, deterrence, and survivability, particularly against China’s expanding naval footprint. However, carriers provide visible power projection, humanitarian assistance, and peacetime presence missions that submarines cannot.
The answer lies in a balanced approach: carriers for strategic signaling and regional dominance, submarines for deterrence and denial. Neither can fully substitute for the other.
Conclusion: Toward a Balanced Future
INS Vikrant is a milestone in India’s naval history, but it also serves as a reminder that India cannot afford complacency. China’s Fujian underscores the rapid pace at which Beijing is closing the gap with the U.S. and extending its naval reach. For India, the future of its aircraft carrier strategy hinges on bold decisions: moving beyond STOBAR limitations, accelerating indigenous fighter development, and ensuring carrier groups are survivable in a missile-saturated environment.
The Indian Navy’s vision of a three-carrier force remains strategically sound – one for each seaboard and one in reserve – but it will require sustained political will, funding, and technological innovation. As the Indo-Pacific becomes the central theater of global competition, India’s carriers will not only be instruments of military power but also symbols of its role as a leading maritime power in the 21st century.
Comments