I believe they have already finalised on the propulsion and catapult part-
1. Conventional IFEP, as a pair CLWR-B2 isn't enough to power a ~300m long carrier and increasing the number of reactor will lead to delays as we don't have the capacity to build that many reactors (S5, SSN are waiting).
For comparison of conv/nuke- GAO report from 1998 stated that two CBG (1 nuke 1 conv) comprising 2 CG-47s, 2 DD-963s, 2 DDG-51s and 1 Sacramento class AOE-1 each, the conventional carrier could steam for 29 days, aviation fuel to operate in a battle tempo similar to the final days of dessert storm for 17 days and aircraft ordinance to operate for 30 days. For the CVN CBG, it was 34, 23, 41 days for the same. This comparison was for CV-63 and CVN-68 class.
2. EMALS- sensible option, will be mature enough by the time we lay the keel. Choosing steam will require a whole new generator which will take premium space => could result in lower ammunition and fuel storag which is not preferable.
3. One of the main selling point of a large deck CATOBAR is an integrated air wing, which includes AEW&C aircraft and an EW/EA aircraft. Dunno if DRDO lobby is strong enough to convince the leadership of an indigenous carrier based fixed wing AEW&C which doesn't even exist on paper rn. E2D it is ig, E2D option will look much more attractive if mericans are willing to share NIFC-CA
The first two have been reiterated by Navy officials.
