We don't need carriers on the coast of africa or indonesia.We dont even need carriers against the Pakistanis and their puny fleet,we only need carriers for the chinese.And we will not fight an offensive naval campaign against the chinese at any time.We will fight a defensive naval campaign at around andaman as the first line of defense and peninsular south india as the second line.In both cases we would have strong land based air support from P-8Is and other ASW platforms as well as missile carrying fighters.We have 4 airfields now in andman -basically an unsinkable carrier.2 carriers are enough for now.
One of our main defensive lines needs to be around Sunda Strait. That's an area we cannot operate aircraft from A&N.
Carriers are used to protect an entire geographical area.
A chinese surface flotilla attempting to enter IOR through sunda or malacca will be seen coming long way back and we can converge on it from land,air ,sea surface and undersea around andaman.But the big threat is large numbers of chinese submarines which you won't pick up with satellites.Carriers wont help against submarines and infact carriers are quite vulnerable to submarines.Best defense against submarines is another submarine and proper ASW aircraft.Our goal against numerically superior chinese navy is sea denial,not sea dominance.And best weapons for sea denial are land based missile and aircraft,combined with submarines.
The idea behind controlling choke points is to keep the enemy on the other side, not wait for them to cross it.
Navy has grandiose plans considering it gets the least share of the budget.It has a carrier obsession.Being fed by exercises with the yankees.
A carrier would cost 5 billion,57 latest fighters plus AWACS would cost 10-12 billion.17 billion dollars on 1 ship-are you *censored*ing kidding me?
Over a 15 year period, that's just a little over $1B per year. Whereas our defence budget should begin hitting the $100B mark by 2027 even at current rates of growth, not double digit growth. Again, as I've said before, well after 2025, the military will have more money than they know what to do with. After 2030, you can expect them to start placing orders at the same level as the US and China are doing today.
Even if only 25% of the defence budget goes to the navy, you can expect the navy's capital acquisitions budget alone to be $10B at the minimum in 2027. The yearly cost of the third carrier will be no more than 10-15% of the navy's acquisition budget in 2027, and will likely reduce to just 5% by 2035. By then the acquisition budget for just 1 year will be $20B, enough for 1 supercarrier and a full air complement every year. To put that in perspective, the USN's average shipbuilding budget for the fleet of the same size today over the next 30 years is $22B per year.
You severely underestimate our economy. What I'm saying is, even with just 7% growth, by 2025 we will be able to afford a third carrier easily.
And best weapons for sea denial are land based missile and aircraft,combined with submarines.
Only for countries like Taiwan, maybe even Pakistan. Large countries are too big for that, because, in order to use land based missiles, aircraft and subs effectively, you need a really good surveillance system that can pick up targets over thousands of kilometers away. This kind of surveillance system does not exist. That's why you need ships.
We could have 15 good submarines for that.And let me tell you 15 subs is WAAY better than 1 carrier which you have to babysit anyway.
SSKs are not meant to hunt and kill, they are meant to ambush. They can't do what you are expecting of them. For example, a surface ship easily does 14-18 knots cruise, whereas an SSK cruises at 2-7 knots. SSKs can't chase and kill. They simply sit around somewhere waiting for enemy ships to come to them. Speed is used only to run away, which doesn't last for more than a few hours. Whereas a carrier can easily manage 30 knots for long periods of time. That's why you need SSNs.
If navy chooses a subpar aircraft which is cheaper like lca tejas or mig-29k then carrier will be low quality and unable to match the aircraft(navalized j-31) on new chinese carriers.If you pick a rafale or f-35 your bank will go bust.Remember this 17 billion dollars will be in addition to the massive naval modernization of over hundred ships already going on including planned 4 SSBNs and 6 SSNs which each will cost more than a billion dollars.
Aircraft can keep changing. We start off with Mig-29K for now, later LCA, and then either Rafale or F-35, followed by N-AMCA.
Like i said after 2035 we can build what we want,not right now.Remember china is building a 4-6 carrier fleet now ,but this is only possible because they have a freaking 14 trillion dollar GDP.They only had 1 carrier until recently,until they crossed 10 -12 trillion.Let us get to 10 trillion ,we can then go all out.Till then build subs,nothing scares a surface battlegroup like quiet submarines waiting in ambush,especially if they are far from home and deprived of land based maritime patrol aircraft and thus totally dependant on helos.Navy needs to get its priorities straight,stop being a show the flag force and focus on the less galmorous but more lethal arm.
You don't build based simply on your economy, but you build based on what your enemy has. 2035 induction is too late for a 3rd carrier already, never mind the 10-15 years it will take if we start only in 2035.
