We bought a new fighter for IAF in 2000s (MKI)
LCA MK1 in mid 10s
Rafale in 2020
LCA MK2 is supposed to be inducted in late 20s
AMCA in 2030s.
IAF is different. Aircraft are their only big ticket item and Air the only domain to think of.
IN on the other hand has 3 different domains - Air, surface & subsurface, each of which requires large, capital-intensive investments to develop capabilities in. For Navy, aircraft, ships, submarines all are a major drain on capex.
So yes their spending will be a lot tighter.
Difference between IAF's and IN's modernisation budget has come down to just 6-7k cr from 20-25k just a few years ago, it will likely match it in the 30s and surpass in the 40s. IN can definitely afford TEDBF in the early-mid 30s (when it will be ready) & another in the mid-late 40s. New generation technologies are to be developed for AMCA MK1 & 2, advancement will be made in the same field as a decade passes.by, a NG naval combat aircraft can get it in the mid-late 40s. I have already stated why N AMCA won't have much of it's VLO capability when fulfilling the basic requirement of IN, a new aircraft after TEDBF is necessary & should be pursued. Both can work in tandem on our future carriers.
Read reply to
@Okabe Rintarou above.
I think we (inclusive of IN, MoD) are severely underestimating the costs of developing a new dedicated naval fighter.
In today's world there's only 1 country that is capable of doing so: Murica
Even then its only possible because they have 10 carriers and need 700-800 jets of a type.
Absolutely no one else is capable of such an undertaking. Rest of the carrier navies either use naval versions of Air Force jets, or plan it so both Navy & air force use the same jet.
Russia - Su-33, navalized Flanker
China - J-15, navalized Flanker
France - Rafale-M, Air Force version was actually developed from naval variant not other way around
UK - F-35B fleet shared with Royal air force
Only China aims to follow in US footsteps with J-35 (which is actually still a navalized version of J-31 on which they still hope to gain export sales). But that's only after they decided to have 6 carriers.
It's just common sense that developing a brand new airframe, especially a naval one, is a humongous undertaking and somehow everyone seems to have lost perspective of how difficult a fighter program really is and how much it costs.
what fighters? MiG-29K/KUB? or the 26 MRCBF? One of them won't have any life left and the other won't be in sufficient numbers, Navy will also need shore based fighters and fighters for IAC-2 at that time, an equilibrium can be reached with MRCBF stationed at the naval air station and TEDBF on the deck of IAC-1 & 2 (or whatever comes next) which can then be accompanied by a new generation fighter in mid-late 40s.
MRCBF.
Once a new platform has been inducted, additional orders are almost guaranteed in the event of further requirements. Either new builds if available, if not then second-hands. Both Rafale-M and SH have very long-lasting airframes so a refurbished/zero-lifed airframe is nothing to scoff at.
It will be larger at the same time, the capacity will be of making >4 nuclear powered sub simultaneously (including S5), IN only has to pay for 6 SSN (~1.2L cr), that amount is likely to be paid in full by mid 30s (the shipyard has to be allocated the funds for last subs some years b4 they are delivered, same happened with P-75), Navy believes it can build the SSN & IAC-2 simultaneously and the fact that navy will have sufficient funds for IAC-2 has been reiterated by Admiral Sunil Lamba & KB Singh. Most of the expenditure happens when the ship is at the stage of 40-65% physical completion, that will be between early-mid 30s, Navy will have sufficient funds to fund a new project and purchase TEDBF for the rest of the decade and the 40s. The expenditure and the budget will both grow, nothing is stagnating here. The procurement funds for surface & sub surface combatants will increase at the same rate.
It's not that easy - again, read reply to Okabe above regarding expenditure.
Even today MDL's capacity of warship construction is several orders of magnitude more than what they are actually building. Having capacity is one thing, actually having the moolah to make use of it is another.
Already said by the navy that this is not going to be the case, the aircraft operating from the flight deck of IAC-1 will be TEDBF, MRCBF jets can be deployed for other roles or sold off to some friendly country in the 40s, when TEDBF is a proven platform and a NG aircraft is certain.
Hence the need to fund development of a new generation naval combat aircraft & get it by mid-late 40s. TEDBF can start phasing out in the mid 60s (when initial frames would be ~30 yrs old).
We'll see.