India Needs $233B in Next 11 Years To Buy Weapons

[busesaway]

From wherever you have picked the idea, it is not compatible with Indian Requirements and Strategies.

As far as subcontinent is concerned,
Unification will happen sooner or later. I was explaining that why you can't equate SAARC with NATO.

I don't want to see SAARC integration. I primarily want Nepal/Lanka/Bhutan brought under India's fold. Those three countries can't afford to keep a strong military for defense anyway, so I'd think it would be in their interests too.

As of Sept. 30, 2012, the USAF Almanac listed the total amount of aircraft in service in the Air Force at 5,551. As of May 27, 2014, the regularly updated "status of the Navy" webpage listed the number of operational aircraft at 3,700 plus. In addition to planes, both branches of the service maintain a fleet of helicopters and unmanned surveillance aircraft.

I can understand that India isn't a sea-going nation. Its wars are mainly fought on land instead. But I guess I have a bias towards naval warfare. I consider the navy to be a very powerful.

• I'm generally supportive of India buying supercarriers and aircraft from Russia to top them with. I think India will need at least two supercarriers.
  
• Anti-submarine naval vessels and helicopters (with nuclear capabilities) need to be bought.
  
• The nukes should also be integrated with the navy, including nuclear submarines, nuclear aircraft carriers, and nuclear air craft and helicopters. India can maintain a nuclear triad.
  
• The coastguard/rescue should be an aspect individual state armed forces; so I would transfer naval vessels and rescue hardware to state defense forces too.

 

[busesaway]

@busesaway , if i may interrupt , your idea of integration of air force in navy is valid only for countries , believing in expediationary warfare.

Prime example being U.S.

They follow Admiral Mahan's Theory of Sea power , where utlising interconnectivity of all the oceans and strategic placement of aircraft carriers along choke points, make them only power to control sea lanes.

Therefore , U.S deploy more no. of carriers than all other countries put together.

Sent from my SM-A700FD using Tapatalk

• The biggest powers have usually all maintained an important navy: USA, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and Japan.
• All nuclear deterrents have a naval component. In Europe, the naval component is the most important.
• India needs to have a powerful navy in order to project its military to far away places. India will most likely become involved in the Middle East (Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf, Horn of Africa, etc...) and East Asia (South China Sea, North Korea, etc...). These require strong navies.
• India only has one land border to the north, and planes find it hard to fight over the Himalayan mountains.
• The navy is the most versatile arm of the military. It can be projected the furthest too.
• India will need to police shipping lanes, particularly off the Horn of Africa, Persian Gulf, Straits of Malacca, and South China Sea.
• India's biggest conflict with a western nation in modern times, was through naval warfare, between India and Italy. Should India rely in western navies for protection?

 

[Indx TechStyle]

I don't want to see SAARC integration. I primarily want Nepal/Lanka/Bhutan brought under India's fold. Those three countries can't afford to keep a strong military for defense anyway, so I'd think it would be in their interests too.



I can understand that India isn't a sea-going nation. Its wars are mainly fought on land instead. But I guess I have a bias towards naval warfare. I consider the navy to be a very powerful.

• I'm generally supportive of India buying supercarriers and aircraft from Russia to top them with. I think India will need at least two supercarriers.
  
• Anti-submarine naval vessels and helicopters (with nuclear capabilities) need to be bought.
  
• The nukes should also be integrated with the navy, including nuclear submarines, nuclear aircraft carriers, and nuclear air craft and helicopters. India can maintain a nuclear triad.
  
• The coastguard/rescue should be an aspect individual state armed forces; so I would transfer naval vessels and rescue hardware to state defense forces too.

My friend, India will have to fight wars in landlocked areas as well as Deep Seas in future. So, there's no point in turning Air Force's independent command down.
Our Navy is a true expeditionary force with enough Air Wing of it's own to f*ck the enemies up.:biggrin2:
They don't need Air Force, plus Air Force too big entirely be carried even on supercarriers.

 

[bengalraider]

I think the $230B etc is the amount allocated for buying weapons not the entire defense budget.
India's defense budget est., by SIPRI, for 2015 is $53B, for comparison PRC is $215B.

If we assume 1/6th of defense budget goes for buying weapons, then def, budget for 11 years will be 230x6=$1380B.
Rough calculation, have mercy.

Actually Capital expenditure budget is generally 30-35% of the total defence budget . As ive shown earlier our defence budget should cross 100$bil by 2020 so considering that we spend some 30$Bil on purchases every year after that for the next seven years we'll spend some 210$Bil no add in an average of 15$bil from now till 2020 and you have 15x4=60$Bil. Our real defence capital expenditure in the next 11 years going by trend of previous budgets should be in the region of 270$Bil.

 

[Razor]

Actually Capital expenditure budget is generally 30-35% of the total defence budget . As ive shown earlier our defence budget should cross 100$bil by 2020 so considering that we spend some 30$Bil on purchases every year after that for the next seven years we'll spend some 210$Bil no add in an average of 15$bil from now till 2020 and you have 15x4=60$Bil. Our real defence capital expenditure in the next 11 years going by trend of previous budgets should be in the region of 270$Bil.

So total DefBud would be about (270/3)*10=$900B, is what you are saying. Okay. Seems about right.

 

[bengalraider]

So total DefBud would be about (270/3)*10=$900B, is what you are saying. Okay. Seems about right.

Actually as of now may be bigger, the defence minister hinted at an increased allocation for defence in the next budget.
The last time this happened was in 1999-2004 when we spent close to 3% of GDP on defence(this funded the Su-30 & T-90 purchases)
If that happened now our defence budget would rise to 68.67$Bil .
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...aising-defence-spend/articleshow/54558981.cms

 

[ezsasa]

Actually as of now may be bigger, the defence minister hinted at an increased allocation for defence in the next budget.
The last time this happened was in 1999-2004 when we spent close to 3% of GDP on defence(this funded the Su-30 & T-90 purchases)
If that happened now our defence budget would rise to 68.67$Bil .
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...aising-defence-spend/articleshow/54558981.cms

What is the point of increasing the budget when every year Parrikar bhaisaab gives back unspent budget from capex allocation. I think it was 25 k crore the year before and about 12k crore the year after.

 

[bengalraider]

What is the point of increasing the budget when every year Parrikar bhaisaab gives back unspent budget from capex allocation. I think it was 25 k crore the year before and about 12k crore the year after.

Exactly the problem he's trying to counter as well, Our Officers have become averse to spending due to fear to Scams etc. It'll take time to solve that problem.