The Soaring Cost of Navy's Upcoming 3 Kalvari-Class Scorpene Submarines

The Indian Navy is set to significantly bolster its submarine fleet with talks advancing to acquire three more Kalvari-class (Scorpène) submarines. State-owned Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL) is reportedly in the final stages of negotiation for a deal estimated at a substantial ₹35,000 crore (US$4.19 billion).

While the final price remains subject to negotiations, the projected cost per submarine falls between $1.2 billion and $1.3 billion. This marks a substantial 62% increase compared to the previous six Kalvari-class submarines procured at ₹23,652 crore (US$4.1 billion in 2023).

The new submarines are expected to feature upgraded equipment and sensors, positioning them at the forefront of technological advancements. However, this significant cost increase has raised concerns.

Despite constructing six Kalvari-class submarines in the past, MDL has been unable to boost indigenous content beyond 60%. The reliance on French original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for critical components remains a major factor driving up the cost.

An upcoming price negotiation committee meeting offers a glimmer of hope for reducing the overall cost. However, the considerable price hike underscores the challenges India confronts in achieving self-reliance in its defense manufacturing sector.

Despite the cost concerns, these upgraded Kalvari-class submarines will substantially enhance India's underwater deterrence capabilities. The Navy's focus on acquiring these modern platforms highlights its commitment to maintaining a robust maritime defense posture in a geopolitically complex region.

 

[PKPRS]

The deal you are talking about is this deal the article is talking about. And the cost is 1.2billion dollars

The article is talking about buying more Scorpenes.

 

[Anant]

$1.2 to 1.3 billions per each SSK Scorpene submarine is exorbitantly expensive.
Vietnam bought 6 Kilos and training annd armaments for about $2billions.
Say no more to new Scorpenes as it is not worth throwing money at MDL which does not create any submarine building skills or technology or any local productions of subsystems.

Just pay for consultancy and manufacturing assistance to France Naval Systems to upgrade the 6 Scorpenes with Indian AIPs at each refit visits.

Go with P-75I and Indian Navy WDB P-76 submarines in future.

Factor in inflation and other things, would you? Vietnam paid around 2.1 billion USD back in 2009. Adjusting that to inflation shows a price of around 3.5 billion USD today. Sure, that works out to around 580 million USD per boat. However, there are a few points to consider here:

1. The deal included no weapons initially. There was an agreement that Russia would help build a training facility and submarine base, and weapons were to be purchased as part of that deal.

2. The purchase of torpedoes as well as the Kalibr cruise missile, as well as the aforementioned infrastructure building, seems to date back to 2011, at which point a second agreement was signed for 650 million USD, which comes to 1 billion USD today.

3. Russian weapons are generally cheaper, and that price differential factors in.

4. The Kilo-class design is an extremely mature design dating back to the late 1970s (the first Project 877 boat was commissioned at the very end of 1980). As such, considering the truly humongous number of boats built (56 Kilo-class boats had been laid down prior to the first Vietnamese boat), there are massive savings in terms of economies of scale for Russia.

5. The Kilo-class does not have an AIP system (a rather expensive piece of equipment), nor does it have any provisions for the fitting of such a system.

Finally, if you want a new Kilo-class boat today (Project 636 or even Project 636.3), you can get it built in Russia for around 700-750 million USD per boat (the Russians build new ones for themselves for around half a billion USD each).

 

[Anant]

The current government's indecision has led to a significant cost escalation. Despite many voices of reason calling for it, they have ignored pleas to place repeat orders for 3 submarines. It's an absolute waste of taxpayer's money! They need to get at least one thing right by incorporating AIP in the production phase, not after commissioning the subs.

For these follow-on Scorpenes, AIP would be integrated during construction only.

 

[Anant]

I think it is more expensive then project 75i and 76.

We don't have any cost estimate for Project 76, so let's not venture there. As for Project 75I, well, these are estimated to cost us around 950 million USD per boat (without weapons) based on inflation-adjustment of the figure released quite a while back. Yes, that does mean the new Scorpenes are considerably more expensive, but part of the cost here seems to be Naval Group charging us for DRDO's AIP integration.

 

[Anant]

I am talking about conventional diesel electric submarine based on Arihant design, not SSK.

Do you mean, perchance a diesel-electric ballistic missile submarine using the Arihant design? Doable, sure, but we have very little utility for those. We need SSKs, not SSBKs.

 

[Anant]

i dont think there is critical fighter shortage in the navy. No one is raising the alarm for that, as is the case for IAF. If navy fighter procurement is delayed by 5 years, i dont think it is major problem. If IAF fighter procurement is delayed by 5 years, that will be HUGE problem.

There is a fairly critical fighter shortage for the Navy. The Navy needs, ideally speaking and at a minimum, a grand total of two carrier air wings, which works out to between 44 and 52 fighters in total. We have 40 MiG-29Ks today. The Navy has also said on occasion that the MiG-29K does face serviceability problems every now and then, and factoring in usual availability rates, we have around 30-32 MiG-29Ks ready at any given time. That is critically low.

Moreover, with IAC-II on the way, if TEDBF ends up getting delayed for some reason and we cancel the DBMRF procurement (Rafale M as presently sanctioned), we may end up in a scenario of having 35-40 MiG-29Ks against a requirement of 66-78 carrier-based fighters, at which point one or even two of our carriers will be little more than glorified helicopter carriers.

That is to say nothing of the fact that the Navy also wants two to four squadrons' worth of fighters (again, around 50-100 fighters including spares and trainers) in the dedicated maritime strike role. For now, we have eight venerable Jaguars operated by the IAF working in this role, with plans to replace them with a dozen or so Su-30MKIs.

I have long been a proponent of the idea that once the TEDBF does come in numbers, and if we assume the Rafale Ms can be modified to make them suitable for proper ground-based operations, the Navy could potentially transfer the Rafale Ms to the IAF. Alternatively, the Rafale Ms could be set up as one of the shore squadrons. In any case, the TEDBF production run could, at this point, be around 200 fighters (78-80 for three carrier air wings + 100 for shore squadrons + 20-22 spares).

 

[PKPRS]

Do you mean, perchance a diesel-electric ballistic missile submarine using the Arihant design? Doable, sure, but we have very little utility for those. We need SSKs, not SSBKs.

Most of the non nuclear Countries are using diesel electric submarines, if we. integrate AIP in the design it is almost same as SSK in function.

 

[NSR]

Factor in inflation and other things, would you? Vietnam paid around 2.1 billion USD back in 2009. Adjusting that to inflation shows a price of around 3.5 billion USD today. Sure, that works out to around 580 million USD per boat. However, there are a few points to consider here:

1. The deal included no weapons initially. There was an agreement that Russia would help build a training facility and submarine base, and weapons were to be purchased as part of that deal.

2. The purchase of torpedoes as well as the Kalibr cruise missile, as well as the aforementioned infrastructure building, seems to date back to 2011, at which point a second agreement was signed for 650 million USD, which comes to 1 billion USD today.

3. Russian weapons are generally cheaper, and that price differential factors in.

4. The Kilo-class design is an extremely mature design dating back to the late 1970s (the first Project 877 boat was commissioned at the very end of 1980). As such, considering the truly humongous number of boats built (56 Kilo-class boats had been laid down prior to the first Vietnamese boat), there are massive savings in terms of economies of scale for Russia.

5. The Kilo-class does not have an AIP system (a rather expensive piece of equipment), nor does it have any provisions for the fitting of such a system.

Finally, if you want a new Kilo-class boat today (Project 636 or even Project 636.3), you can get it built in Russia for around 700-750 million USD per boat (the Russians build new ones for themselves for around half a billion USD each).

At about $1.25 billions per each new SSK Scorpene submarine for 3 more Scorpenes, it is way too expensive by all means for Indian budgets to stomach at all.
And it would not even beget India more than 60% indigenous. 40% still comes from OEMs in France.
Not worth it at all.

Better choice would be to buy P-75I in more numbers, and design and produce IN WDB P-76s so indigenization of submarines will commence earnestly.

 

[Anant]

Most of the non nuclear Countries are using diesel electric submarines, if we. integrate AIP in the design it is almost same as SSK in function.

You do realise that SSK represents a diesel-electric attack submarine, right? Perhaps you are confusing it with SSNs, which are nuclear-powered attack submarines?

Okay, to clarify: The Arihant-class is a 6,000 ton SSBN (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine). We can, in theory, adapt the design to a similar-sized (~6,000 ton) SSBK (diesel-electric ballistic missile submarine). Adapting the present design directly to a 5,000-ish ton SSN (nuclear-powered attack submarine) is also technically possible, but would entail us developing the 190 MW reactor under development by BARC, and would require us to lose the SLBM tubes. The most difficult thing would be to adapt the Arihant design to a SSK (diesel-electric attack submarine). SSKs have to be fairly small (~3,000 tons or less) to be effective, and miniaturising the Arihant design that much may not be possible.

Finally, regardless of whether or not you integrate AIP, a SSK remains a SSK. The advantage given by AIP is that your SSK doesn't have to come up for snorkeling that often, which means you can remain submerged for longer, which helps with detectability.

 

[Anant]

At about $1.25 billions per each new SSK Scorpene submarine for 3 more Scorpenes, it is way too expensive by all means for Indian budgets to stomach at all.
And it would not even beget India more than 60% indigenous. 40% still comes from OEMs in France.
Not worth it at all.

Better choice would be to buy P-75I in more numbers, and design and produce IN WDB P-76s so indigenization of submarines will commence earnestly.

Boss, we need 30 SSKs, ideally speaking. Even with 9 Scorpenes, 6 P-75I boats, and the proposed 12 P-76 boats (as opposed to the officially-stated 8 to 9), we are still at 27. I would say instead that we need to get an increase in P-75I to 9 boats as well, besides the 3 additional Scorpenes, plus official sanction for 12 P-76 boats in two batches.

Oh, and P-75I isn't much cheaper. Without weapons, they are poised to cost almost 950 million USD to 1 billion USD. Factor in weapons, any India-specific modifications, ToT-related charges, etc, and you may well see us paying 1.1-1.2 billion USD per boat here as well.

 

[desigandu]

Firstly, nuclear submarines cost far more than 1 billion USD. For a 4,000-ish ton SSN, you are looking at a price tag of atleast 2 billion USD, and that is if you build 5-6 boats.

Oh, and we have a SSN design in the works too. It isn't ready for construction yet.

What is our biggest challenge in fielding an SSN quickly say by 2030 - is it the B3-190 MW reactor? Can’t we use 2 - 83MW reactors tandemly in our Project Alpha which is expected of 6000ton, same as the S2/S3?

 

[Aravind Raveendran]

Its a shame that we were unable to increase the indigenous content, we should have brought it up to atleast 75-80%. Moreover we have wasted many years by being indecisive.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

There is a fairly critical fighter shortage for the Navy. The Navy needs, ideally speaking and at a minimum, a grand total of two carrier air wings, which works out to between 44 and 52 fighters in total. We have 40 MiG-29Ks today. The Navy has also said on occasion that the MiG-29K does face serviceability problems every now and then, and factoring in usual availability rates, we have around 30-32 MiG-29Ks ready at any given time. That is critically low.

Moreover, with IAC-II on the way, if TEDBF ends up getting delayed for some reason and we cancel the DBMRF procurement (Rafale M as presently sanctioned), we may end up in a scenario of having 35-40 MiG-29Ks against a requirement of 66-78 carrier-based fighters, at which point one or even two of our carriers will be little more than glorified helicopter carriers.

That is to say nothing of the fact that the Navy also wants two to four squadrons' worth of fighters (again, around 50-100 fighters including spares and trainers) in the dedicated maritime strike role. For now, we have eight venerable Jaguars operated by the IAF working in this role, with plans to replace them with a dozen or so Su-30MKIs.

I have long been a proponent of the idea that once the TEDBF does come in numbers, and if we assume the Rafale Ms can be modified to make them suitable for proper ground-based operations, the Navy could potentially transfer the Rafale Ms to the IAF. Alternatively, the Rafale Ms could be set up as one of the shore squadrons. In any case, the TEDBF production run could, at this point, be around 200 fighters (78-80 for three carrier air wings + 100 for shore squadrons + 20-22 spares).

there is a fighter shortage in the navy, no doubt. But it is not that big of a concern. Since naval fighters are not the primary fighting force of the navy. Those would be the destroyers firgates, corvettes, submarines etc. So even if fighters are in short supply, navy can still fight a war quite well. Navy does not rely on its fighters.

Similar situation would be army's AH fleet. Army can still function quite well even if it does not have its AH. they are not its primary force.

In stark contrast, fighters are the primary force of IAF. IAF is severly affected if fighters are old, unserviceable or in short supply.

My point is, that we can wait for the TEDBF, if navy does not procure rafale marine. It would not be that big a deal. I believe it is worth it to delay naval fighter induction by 5 years for TEDBF instead of paying twice as much for rafale marine.

 

[Akshat]

No it is not official, nothing is signed, they could back off from the verbal order.

That can always happen. But it has been proven that Rafale meets all the requirements and Rafale is the L1.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

Akshat has put the correct figure. All 18 Mk 1 trainers plus 3 Mk 1As were due by early February, out of which we have 5 trainers delivered by almost mid-July.

As for statements by HAL's chairman, if the statement today is, say, that the prototype of the Tejas Mk 2 will fly in 2026, and following that, the chairman makes another statement in 2026 saying the first flight will be in 2028, there is a delay here, isn't there?

Shifting goalposts doesn't change the fact that something is delayed.

regarding the trainers, 5 deliveries had been made till march end. No new info has come out since. HAL has said that deliveries for trainers will be completed till 2025 end. I dont see why it is a big deal if deliveries are completed a year late. this is the first indigenous fighter we have developed (not counting marut), lots of subsystems are new and needed to be certified, having delays at beginning of a production run is very common. I believe it is still a big achievement.

Goapost had been shifted, and i never said there was no delays, I just said that HAL chief has committed to the delivery time that i had mentioned. This is not some hypothetical aircraft development timeline which is unreliable, but rather production timeline in near term, so we can take it with certainity that it will be achieved.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

The proposed sub is going to equipped with advanced systems as per the article. So the upgradation will come with additional costs . So what's wrong if the costs go up ?

capability is not going to be increased. There are not going to be more torpedo tubes, VLS cells, or ability to use underwater drones or something of the kind. "Advanced system" just means software upgrade, modernising technology etc.

 

[beencensured]

You know you are proposing an entirely new aircraft, right? For someone to put in a second engine into a Tejas will require massive redesigns, design validations and certification, prototype construction, an entire testing regime, and then serial production. At that point, you may as well work on a clean-sheet design and avoid any limitations that a modified Tejas gives to you.

I have not proposed but HAL did for navy, but it would be better for air force as Tejas is made air-force and TEDBF for Navy. So if they plan to build it would be good for airforce. on 25/05/2024 Defence.in and wrote "to-counter-ada-hal-had-pitched-its-ownTo Counter ADA, HAL had Pitched its own Twin-Engine LCA".

 

[Dredd]

This is even more than P75I submarine cost. France is going to extract every single cent from India since this is the last order it will ever get from the navy.

I think India should say to france, either reduce the cost or we cancel naval rafale order. Naval rafale order is also not signed by now, probably due to very high price.

if france is going to act like this, just cancel both orders. Buy more P75I instead of more kalvari, and the domestic AIP can be put in the existing kalvari when they come for refit. As for naval rafale, put that money in TEDBF and order more of them.

Are you surprised.. When Dassault charged more than $1billion just to have indian specific enhancement (mostly software ) and $70 million per mirage upgrae without engine and AESA it was evident that they are leeches , India is too naive to see this. Can some one explain what's the scope of negotiation when you have already finalised someone based on fraudulent L1 bidding , What kind of negotiation involves single party ? The big fat scam of indian defence sooner or later will arise.

 

[Dredd]

both Rafale-N (with huge order book) and TEDBF (under development) are going to take time. The only concern with TEDBF is, its not proven yet. With our DPSUs we still see delays in 4th gen fighters, while countries like Turkey are progressing very fast with their 5th gen prototypes.

unless they bring in private players in lead role, nothing will change. Just commit 200 Nos of AMCA and you can see private player coming in, with just 40 AMCA commitment, even HAL is hesitant.

 

[Sandeep]

Literally tired of such news. This is going for years and nothing has been achieved. This is the biggest drawback of our defence. You talk about aircrafts or ships or submarines. All that is going on is Just Talking. Hope they soon bring everything in reality. On the other hand look at Pakistan, nothing in news but are getting aircrafts, ships, submarines.

They are buying Chinese junk where most of their technology, platforms, capabilities, weapons, equipment etc from the tanks, jets, ships, submarines, SAM etc don’t work properly, it’s defective, has constant maintenance issues, import expensive parts and spares etc.

That’s the reality rather than just saying that it’s technology is the best and it’s capabilities are the latest and best.

 

[Parthasarathi DasGupta]

My suggestion, ask quotation immediately for P75I. L1 should get all 6 to built. L2 will built 3 if they can't reduce price equal to L1. And 6 if they reduce price equal to L1

 

[Sandeep]

The current government's indecision has led to a significant cost escalation. Despite many voices of reason calling for it, they have ignored pleas to place repeat orders for 3 submarines. It's an absolute waste of taxpayer's money! They need to get at least one thing right by incorporating AIP in the production phase, not after commissioning the subs.

Explain what indecision exactly? We just about finished constructing the last Kalvari submarine and after finishing its tests and trials she will be commissioned this year. Last year an agreement was signed when the PM visited France and met Macron that we will make another 3 submarines.

Now they are taking a comprehensive look throughout the entire submarine and looking at what upgrades or technology can be replaced. Then we will agree at the amount of technology will get transferred to us along with the amount of production we make in India. Then we will negotiate a final price and it will take a bit of time but not too long as this is just a repeat order of the original contract for the first 6 submarines.

 

[Sandeep]

Any contract signed in 2005 for the first 6 submarines will be lower than the price they agree in 2024 which will cost more.

Now they are taking a comprehensive look throughout the entire submarine and looking at what upgrades or technology can be replaced or transferred to us. Then we will agree at the amount of technology that will get transferred to us along with the amount that we can make in India. One crucial aspect that we want is for them to transfer and we can make the critical technology like the engines, sonar, sensors, instruments etc rather than manufacturing common and easily made in India.

Now we can negotiate a final price and it will take a bit of time but not too long as this is just a repeat order of the original contract for the first 6 submarines.

 

[NSR]

There is a fairly critical fighter shortage for the Navy. The Navy needs, ideally speaking and at a minimum, a grand total of two carrier air wings, which works out to between 44 and 52 fighters in total. We have 40 MiG-29Ks today. The Navy has also said on occasion that the MiG-29K does face serviceability problems every now and then, and factoring in usual availability rates, we have around 30-32 MiG-29Ks ready at any given time. That is critically low.

Moreover, with IAC-II on the way, if TEDBF ends up getting delayed for some reason and we cancel the DBMRF procurement (Rafale M as presently sanctioned), we may end up in a scenario of having 35-40 MiG-29Ks against a requirement of 66-78 carrier-based fighters, at which point one or even two of our carriers will be little more than glorified helicopter carriers.

That is to say nothing of the fact that the Navy also wants two to four squadrons' worth of fighters (again, around 50-100 fighters including spares and trainers) in the dedicated maritime strike role. For now, we have eight venerable Jaguars operated by the IAF working in this role, with plans to replace them with a dozen or so Su-30MKIs.

I have long been a proponent of the idea that once the TEDBF does come in numbers, and if we assume the Rafale Ms can be modified to make them suitable for proper ground-based operations, the Navy could potentially transfer the Rafale Ms to the IAF. Alternatively, the Rafale Ms could be set up as one of the shore squadrons. In any case, the TEDBF production run could, at this point, be around 200 fighters (78-80 for three carrier air wings + 100 for shore squadrons + 20-22 spares).

Anant, instead of throwing out billions on Rafale-M, I would personally go with deploying 16 Mig-29Ks to each carriers and plow all the money into TEDBF to get it developed and produced quickly.
We are not a Blue water world travelling A/C dependent power player like USA so I think 16 Mig-29K fighters per each A/C would be enough.

Rafale-M is an entirely new system with its own armaments and logistics to take care of.
Instead of one Mig-29Ks armaments and logistics for two carriers, we will have two different systems and it will be nightmare which you only understand when you get chance to visit the Belly of aircraft carrier.

Too speak frankly and succinctly, it is all bad planning and execution on parts of GoI, MoD, and Indian Navy in equipping the A/Cs.

God bless India and its Indian Navy.

 

[Ajath Shri]

What is wrong with more cost? Well, it does not help the deal at all, when there is also project 76, and 75i are cheaper.

Inflation cost need to be factored. Every year real estate value goes up. Will the raw material cost not go up ?

 

[Pad UwU]

What’s to rebut? 60% escalation in 2 decades. That’s the price escalation we have seen in the last 7-8 years alone. This is a friends and family discount.

I would love Frenchies NAVAL GROUP if they help it go for 70~80% ToT's to win more orders but if they can't give more yummy 😋 offers it's up to Indian Navy to find deals that appealing for us especially if it's bundle with AIP technology kakakakak 😹😹😹

 

[Pad UwU]

30% inflation after 2 decades? Prices have increased by 30% since 2021 itself. He is giving us a massive friends and family discount here.

Well if the French deal has AIP or pump jet propulsion tech it's acceptable price considering the inflation 😺... Look out of all western design countries small subs German and French design are quite good. But nothing beats the dang Japanese weeboos diesel electric subs IMHO

 

[Anant]

I have not proposed but HAL did for navy, but it would be better for air force as Tejas is made air-force and TEDBF for Navy. So if they plan to build it would be good for airforce. on 25/05/2024 Defence.in and wrote "to-counter-ada-hal-had-pitched-its-ownTo Counter ADA, HAL had Pitched its own Twin-Engine LCA".

HAL's proposal was only a sketch drawing and maybe some simulations with statistics and data. That is maybe 0.25% of the work required to actually get the full design ready.

Just because they did that small bit of work doesn't mean they can handle 100% of the work in a short span of time.

 

[Anant]

Anant, instead of throwing out billions on Rafale-M, I would personally go with deploying 16 Mig-29Ks to each carriers and plow all the money into TEDBF to get it developed and produced quickly.
We are not a Blue water world travelling A/C dependent power player like USA so I think 16 Mig-29K fighters per each A/C would be enough.

Rafale-M is an entirely new system with its own armaments and logistics to take care of.
Instead of one Mig-29Ks armaments and logistics for two carriers, we will have two different systems and it will be nightmare which you only understand when you get chance to visit the Belly of aircraft carrier.

Too speak frankly and succinctly, it is all bad planning and execution on parts of GoI, MoD, and Indian Navy in equipping the A/Cs.

God bless India and its Indian Navy.

God bless India and the Indian Navy, and the Armed Forces at large. No two ways about that.

That said, boss, with all due respect, we can of course deploy 16-20 MiG-29Ks to each carrier and call it a day. However, that would hamper operations. Fighters and pilots are trained to operate in a number of groups, and a given carrier air wing size has a doctrine attached to it. If we suddenly downsize the air group, that doctrine needs to be replaced by a new one, which is very time-consuming. Moreover, 16-20 fighters would hamper the effectiveness of the carriers massively.

But, alright. Let's assume for a minute we cancel the Rafale M acquisition and send that money HAL and ADE's way for the TEDBF. The TEDBF is still some time away from the CDR, which is required to sanction funds. With the funds now available, let's assume that CCS approval is received the day after CDR is completed.

Let's also assume that with the extra funding, HAL can get tooling and stuff ready by the time TEDBF prototypes complete preliminary flight testing. These two things are about as much cost crashing as you can bring into the project. Having more funding isn't going to help hasten development in any noticeable manner beyond these.

Now for the pitfalls. HAL and ADE are already working on two aircraft projects with fairly large delays. Adding a third project will only increase that workload, and lead to more delays on all three projects. Secondly, there is no guarantee that the reduction in time will be less than any delays caused. In other words, there is a chance that the delays caused by having three projects going simultaneously will be more than the time savings you get.

There is also the fact that of you decide to deploy 16-20 MiG-29Ks per carrier, you will have to do a lot of training work and the like, which will eat into the remaining life of the jets, which potentially brings their retirement a year or two ahead, from 2038-40 down to 2036-39. Any delays in TEDBF, therefore, could prove to be catastrophic.

Finally, with IAC-II poised to enter service with 2035 or so, if we cancel the Rafale M acquisition and move forward with the TEDBF, production rates mean we won't have three complete air wings until the late 2030s at the very least.

Don't get me wrong. I am very much concerned with how much the Rafale Ms are going to cost us. However, as the timelines stand, I do not see any other options.

 

[Anant]

there is a fighter shortage in the navy, no doubt. But it is not that big of a concern. Since naval fighters are not the primary fighting force of the navy. Those would be the destroyers firgates, corvettes, submarines etc. So even if fighters are in short supply, navy can still fight a war quite well. Navy does not rely on its fighters.

Similar situation would be army's AH fleet. Army can still function quite well even if it does not have its AH. they are not its primary force.

In stark contrast, fighters are the primary force of IAF. IAF is severly affected if fighters are old, unserviceable or in short supply.

My point is, that we can wait for the TEDBF, if navy does not procure rafale marine. It would not be that big a deal. I believe it is worth it to delay naval fighter induction by 5 years for TEDBF instead of paying twice as much for rafale marine.

Fighters and naval aviation are a fairly crucial part of Naval operations, especially in our sphere of operations. The fighter shortage is a crucial concern for the Navy. However, as you pointed out, it is not as crucial a concern for the Navy as it is for the Air Force.

That said, however, the shortage of fighters is a critical problem, especially considering that availability rates will only go down as time marches on.

But, for the sake or argument, let's assume we cancel Rafale M procurement and wait for the TEDBF. I'll also assume the funding saved is diverted towards quicker clearances and the like. In doing so, the earliest you can get TEDBF into enter production is still 2032-33, as opposed to the present 2034-35 target. Factor in production rates, and getting two complete air wings will take you atleast until 2039-40, and that is if one assumes HAL can achieve 100% production efficiency on 12 aircraft per year. Three carrier air wings will take until 2042-43, which potentially leaves IAC-II without aircraft for the first 7-8 years of her service.

The other issue here is that we would be putting too much faith into ADE and HAL. As it is, present programs are highly delayed. There is absolutely no reason that suggests the same wouldn't happen here. If TEDBF starts getting delayed (which is quite probably will), then we have a situation in the late 2030s where the TEDBF is still in testing, and the MiG-29Ks are at the end of their time. That means all three carriers would be confined to staying home without aircraft for years, or just become glorified helicopter carriers.

The problem here is that there is no guarantee that cancelling Rafale M procurement and funneling that money into TEDBF will guarantee getting TEDBF five or so years later (nominally). If it's five years later, well and good. If it's eight years later, eh, we'll manage. If it's ten years later, we are in trouble. If it's more than that, we just shot ourselves in the foot.