I am not expecting CAPEX to "flow like water". I am expecting it to grow in concert with India's GDP. Which has been the case till now. Take the previous decade, for example between 2011-12 and 2021-22, Defence CAPEX has grown at an average rate of 7%. Similar to the rate at which India's GDP has grown.
Note, I am talking about CAPEX, not pensions, revenue, etc. Even if you take them, between 2019-20 and 2020-21, pensions budget dropped by 1% while CAPEX grew by 10%.
Check revised figures (not initial allocations) especially of last few years (even pre-covid). Things aren't rosy for CAPEX.
Navy is downsizing IAC-2 from 65,000 tons because instead of ordering an IAC-1 this decade and then IAC-2 next decade, they are ordering the IAC-2 itself in this decade.
That was always the plan, going directly to IAC-2 after Vikrant is ready.
Nuclear IAC-2 is not being considered because of technological issues outlined by BARC, not because of lack of funds.
What issues? CLWR-B1 is proven & operational and if nuclear carrier was warranted a multiple-reactor setup was very much feasible. They're going ahead with CLWR-B2 supposed to equip S-5 SSBNs which in all likelihood will be built at the same time as IAC-2 (the dock for it is well into construction). I'm not seeing the issue if at all a nuclear carrier was required.
Not to mention, operation of EMALS with conventional propulsion is always going to be sketchy/half-a$$ed as the Chinese are about to find out.
The IAC-2 as it seems to be shaping up has "victim of circumstance" written all over it.
SSN is not an NCA asset. I don't understand why anybody would expect PMO to pay for it. Strategic Gamut is just Navy trying to pull a fast one. We have bastion strategy w.r.t. our SSBNs. Why would our precious few SSNs pull security for an SSBN in peacetime? SSN are a naval intelligence platform vital in peacetime. Maybe in wartime, they'd be deployed to pull security for the SSBN. But that doesn't mean they should be put under PMO. Or tomorrow, you'll have Army and Air Force demanding funds from PMO for all SAM systems deployed for security of ground and air based NCA assets.
Will SSN be under Strategic Forces Command? No. It will be a fleet asset. So no point asking PMO to fund it.
Yea well tell that to Navy because they were fighting tooth & nail to convince PMO to fund it. And there's a reason why they were so adamant (forgot the public spats between CDS & Navy leadership?) - they knew that if PMO won't be funding it, the SSN will take a huge chunk of funds out of Navy's plans for the LTCPP.
The powers that be (CDS/PMO) made it clear that priority will be SSN, even if it means having to ditch 3rd carrier.
The current state of IAC-2 in its defanged, downsized form is a result of hasty adjustments made in the wake of being told off by PMO. Even then, IAC-2 is still Navy's own "khwaish" - it still doesn't have support from the Executive and whether it gets funded this decade or not is still dependent on how much it ends up costing. The original plan for IAC-2 was already deemed unaffordable so now its a question of how much "tod madod" Navy can do with it to make it fit into the renewed budget plans (taking SSN into account).
Agree with your point, but F-414 is not "upscaled" version of F-404, rather its an "upgraded" version with same dimensions and stages, but newer materials.
Yea but the core is largely similar which is the point. The size of the HP/LP stages (and as consequence, airflow) is dependent on how much performance you want.
OK. But did Mirage 2000D get an engine upgrade using M88 materials or core?
No, but there wasn't any need to begin with, not to mention M88 didn't bring much of a tech leap. Rafale on the other hand always planned for a more powerful engine down the line (scenma had planned M88 ECO high thrust variant) but that hasn't happened due to cost-benefit reasons.
But with a new core & engine on the anvil which can step in to fill the gap left by ECO, it starts to make sense.
Primary use of India's carrier forces would be Naval Strike. Ground strike along Pakistani coastline can be supported by AMCA flying from AFS Bhuj. We aren't planning to strike Chinese coastline. And for naval strike, you need beast mode on your fighter anyhow. So TEDBF seems like a healthy compromise to me. Only potential downside I see is PLAN fielding J-35 from carrier. Only answer to such a situation is to rely on stealthy carrier-launched wingmen flying ahead of TEDBF to locate J-35 in advance. Not a perfect solution though. We'd be at a disadvantage there.
We can't afford to not think beyond Pak & China by 2040 as the No.3 world economy. Lot of playgrounds will be opening up in the Middle East & IOR.
Regardless, a LO/VLO aircraft with option of beast mode will always be more survivable than a non-LO. As we move into the future, its quite plausible that missile launch platforms will shift from manned fighters to loyal wingmen, the only job of the fighter will be to keep the pilot in a survivable platform while staying close enough to control the action.
A LO fighter is the way to do that.
I think our disagreement on this stems from the issue that you consider TEDBF to arrive much delayed, not in 2031.
That, and the fact I don't think the program will be feasible given the very small requirement.
While I expect TEDBF to make good on its current schedule
Then it'd be the only Indian program in history to do so
whereas I expect any attempt at an N-AMCA to lead to no indigenous carrier fighter till at least 2040.
...which is by when I believe any actual need for a new fighter for IN will really be felt (as IAC-2 air wing).
China is going to be a US/USSR like force, US is declining and we will be left at no. 2 being sanctioned and screwed royally.
