Why India's 3rd Aircraft Carrier Must Be Nuclear-Powered

India's strategic ambitions are closely tied to its naval prowess, and a central pillar of this ambition is the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier-3 (IAC-3). This proposed 65,000-tonne vessel is slated to carry 54 fighters, a testament to India's commitment to projecting power across the vast Indian Ocean Region (IOR).

As the details of the IAC-3 are hammered out, a pivotal question has emerged: should it be nuclear-powered and equipped with electromagnetic catapults? A compelling case can be made for this technological leap, based on several strategic, operational, and economic factors.

Unlimited Range and Endurance​

A nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, unburdened by the need for frequent refueling, can operate at sea for years on end. Imagine the possibilities: India's naval reach extends across the entire IOR, ensuring a continuous and reassuring presence, deterring potential threats, and responding swiftly to crises. This is particularly crucial considering India's sprawling coastline and the strategic importance of maintaining maritime dominance in the region.

Countering China's Naval Rise​

China's naval ambitions are no secret. The People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is rapidly modernizing its fleet, and reports suggest that a fourth aircraft carrier, potentially nuclear-powered, is in the works. This would give China a significant edge in maritime power projection.

To maintain strategic parity and counterbalance China's growing influence, India needs to invest in cutting-edge naval technology. A nuclear-powered IAC-3 equipped with electromagnetic catapults would signal India's resolve to remain a dominant force in the IOR.

Enhanced Operational Effectiveness​

Electromagnetic catapults (EMALS) are a game-changer for aircraft carriers. They enable the launch of heavier and more diverse aircraft, including advanced fighters, surveillance aircraft, and drones.

This versatility enhances the carrier's air wing capabilities, allowing it to undertake a wider range of missions, from air superiority to intelligence gathering.

Economic Considerations​

While the initial cost of a nuclear-powered carrier is undeniably higher than that of a conventional one, the long-term operational costs tell a different story.

Reduced refueling requirements and increased operational availability result in significant cost savings over the carrier's lifespan.

The strategic advantages and extended deployment capabilities also contribute to the economic viability of a nuclear-powered IAC-3.

Environmental Benefits​

Nuclear-powered carriers generate zero air pollution during operation, aligning with global efforts to combat climate change. They also eliminate the need for fuel convoys, reducing logistical complexity and vulnerability.

Technological Advancement and Self-Reliance​

Developing a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is a complex undertaking that requires cutting-edge technology and engineering expertise. Embarking on this project would stimulate innovation and bolster India's indigenous technological and industrial capabilities.

This self-reliance is a cornerstone of India's broader strategic goal of achieving technological sovereignty and reducing dependency on foreign defense imports.

The Way Forward​

The decision to invest in a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is a strategic one with far-reaching implications. It is a testament to India's determination to safeguard its maritime interests, counterbalance regional rivals, and maintain its position as a leading naval power.

While the initial costs and technical challenges are substantial, the long-term benefits in terms of strategic advantage, operational effectiveness, and economic viability make a compelling case for India to pursue this ambitious endeavor.

The nuclear-powered IAC-3 will not just a represent ship, but a symbol of India's unwavering commitment to a secure and prosperous future.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

I guess the writer of this article either conveniently ignores the fact that nuclear-powered vessels are abysmally expensive to operate and maintain of he is totally oblivious to it. Either way nuclear powered vessels are not for us. Russia has decided to retire 90% of its Kirov class missile cruisers and will henceforth maintain just one Kirov class cruiser that too for *political and propaganda reasons. And this writer wants the Indian Navy to embrace such uber expensive platform which in all likelihood gobble-up a vast chunk of Navy's annual budget for just maintenance of this behemoth?

No point in pursuing it, just build a 60-80,000 ton conventionally powered CATOBAR carrier that should be enough.

 

[Anant]

I guess the writer of this article either conveniently ignores the fact that nuclear-powered vessels are abysmally expensive to operate and maintain of he is totally oblivious to it. Either way nuclear powered vessels are not for us. Russia has decided to retire 90% of its Kirov class missile cruisers and will henceforth maintain just one Kirov class cruiser that too for *political and propaganda reasons. And this writer wants the Indian Navy to embrace such uber expensive platform which in all likelihood gobble-up a vast chunk of Navy's annual budget for just maintenance of this behemoth?

No point in pursuing it, just build a 60-80,000 ton conventionally powered CATOBAR carrier that should be enough.

A nuclear-powered carrier may not be an operational necessity for us today, but such a ship should be on our long-term (maybe 30 years from now) plan.

That said, you are entirely correct about nuclear-powered ships being ridiculously expensive to operate and maintain. One should remember that the US had an entire bunch of nuclear-powered cruisers and destroyers that had to be decommissioned and scrapped in the aftermath of the Cold War simply because of how expensive they were to operate, and the US' inability to do so on a post Cold War budget.

 

[shivkumar sinha]

I guess the writer of this article either conveniently ignores the fact that nuclear-powered vessels are abysmally expensive to operate and maintain of he is totally oblivious to it. Either way nuclear powered vessels are not for us. Russia has decided to retire 90% of its Kirov class missile cruisers and will henceforth maintain just one Kirov class cruiser that too for *political and propaganda reasons. And this writer wants the Indian Navy to embrace such uber expensive platform which in all likelihood gobble-up a vast chunk of Navy's annual budget for just maintenance of this behemoth?

No point in pursuing it, just build a 60-80,000 ton conventionally powered CATOBAR carrier that should be enough.

You are just unable to calculate the potential defence budget and capital budget for an economy having GDP of $4 trillions , growing @ 8% ,expected to be a $7-8 trillions economy by 2030-31 . At that point Indian defence budget can be $160 billions and $60 billions as capital budget.. Even if you consider the cost of nuclear powered carriers as about $ 6 billions and construction period as 8 years ,it comes only $750 millions a year out of $60 billions of capital budget. Bharat can quite easily afford 5-6 nuclear powered carriers in next 30 years.

 

[NSR]

India first needs to concentrate on completing the development of 190 MW miniature nuke reactors and start serial production for its much needed bigger SSBNs and new generation of fast attack submarines SSNs.

Each aircraft carrier needs two nuke reactors so instead use them to build a SSBN and SSN.

Nuke aircraft carriers time will come too in future.
But right now even the present two ACs do not even have enough Naval fighters and their reliability is not known yet.
So India should keep developing aggressively TEDBF, and in the meantime keep building some Naval Tejas IAs will come in handy.

I am sure all the readers and posters will have a sticker shock when we add up all of costs of 26 Rafale-Ms, India specific upgrades to put Indian armaments, and French weapons and missiles.

It is sad to see that Tejas Mk2 was not approved as soon as Tejas IA went into FOC.
Same thing happened with TEDBF and AMCA, even though India has about `10+ GE F-414 engines in its possession.
All delays will come haunting is massive acquisitions of foreign maals.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

You are just unable to calculate the potential defence budget and capital budget for an economy having GDP of $4 trillions , growing @ 8% ,expected to be a $7-8 trillions economy by 2030-31 . At that point Indian defence budget can be $160 billions and $60 billions as capital budget.. Even if you consider the cost of nuclear powered carriers as about $ 6 billions and construction period as 8 years ,it comes only $750 millions a year out of $60 billions of capital budget. Bharat can quite easily afford 5-6 nuclear powered carriers in next 30 years.

It's not a question of defense budget but priorities. If we do this now it will take atleast a billion dollars per year just to keep it fit for service and prevent it from leaking radioactive materials. Nuclear powered vessels are absurdly expensive as the presence of reactor significantly changes the design requirements, materials due to inherent redundancy required. A New US Regan class carrier is likely to cost in range of 10-15 billion dollars. Assuming u cut down size and displacement a bit and also apply our lower labor cost, even then we are looking at billion of 8-10 billion per vessel.

There is a reason, nobody bothers with it. Neither the UK, which by the way are premise first tier naval powers with a significant blue water navies bother with it. or the cost of building them and mantaining them is too prohibitive. Even France had to cancel replacement carrier for nuclear powered Charles Degaulle and will only build one large vessel.

It's best to ho for a conventional powered carrier of 60-80,000 tonnes somewhat comparable to USS Kitty Hawk. That should provide us with sufficient deterrent.

 

[Ranjeet Singh]

We should make a 65000 ton electric powered AC within this decade and with French tech support make two 80000+ ton nuclear powered ACs before 2040 , third largest Indian economy will provide funds for these projects !

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

You are just unable to calculate the potential defence budget and capital budget for an economy having GDP of $4 trillions , growing @ 8% ,expected to be a $7-8 trillions economy by 2030-31 . At that point Indian defence budget can be $160 billions and $60 billions as capital budget.. Even if you consider the cost of nuclear powered carriers as about $ 6 billions and construction period as 8 years ,it comes only $750 millions a year out of $60 billions of capital budget. Bharat can quite easily afford 5-6 nuclear powered carriers in next 30 years.

Dude, even latest Chinese carrier costedbthem upwards of $5 billion. Mind u jnlike us Chinese are very very good at ship building and don't have cost escalations due to delays. And, u expect Indoan shipyards to build a nuclear powered carrier in $6billion?, especially when our PSU shipyards are notorious for delays.

Besides the navy share in Capex is rather small and has historically been so with lions share given to our land forces.Thus it's irrelevant what would be our total defense budget or the defense CAPEX, when all that should matter is how much is earmarked for Navy.

 

[shivkumar sinha]

It's not a question of defense budget but priorities. If we do this now it will take atleast a billion dollars per year just to keep it fit for service and prevent it from leaking radioactive materials. Nuclear powered vessels are absurdly expensive as the presence of reactor significantly changes the design requirements, materials due to inherent redundancy required. A New US Regan class carrier is likely to cost in range of 10-15 billion dollars. Assuming u cut down size and displacement a bit and also apply our lower labor cost, even then we are looking at billion of 8-10 billion per vessel.

There is a reason, nobody bothers with it. Neither the UK, which by the way are premise first tier naval powers with a significant blue water navies bother with it. or the cost of building them and mantaining them is too prohibitive. Even France had to cancel replacement carrier for nuclear powered Charles Degaulle and will only build one large vessel.

It's best to ho for a conventional powered carrier of 60-80,000 tonnes somewhat comparable to USS Kitty Hawk. That should provide us with sufficient deterrent.

The days of US , UK , France being the first tier naval power are over . I have correctly calculated the cost of a 65000 tonnes nuclear powered carriers on today's price. Bharat can well absorb some escalation due to inflation. In coming decades , Indian economy is well poised to surpass chinese and American GDP. Keep relaxed. Bharat is well capable to build and maintain few nuclear powered carriers as they are critically required to deter chinese ambitions.

 

[Anant]

You are just unable to calculate the potential defence budget and capital budget for an economy having GDP of $4 trillions , growing @ 8% ,expected to be a $7-8 trillions economy by 2030-31 . At that point Indian defence budget can be $160 billions and $60 billions as capital budget.. Even if you consider the cost of nuclear powered carriers as about $ 6 billions and construction period as 8 years ,it comes only $750 millions a year out of $60 billions of capital budget. Bharat can quite easily afford 5-6 nuclear powered carriers in next 30 years.

We can't afford nuclear carriers in the next 15-20 years. The problem is that a good increase in GDP does not necessarily correspond to a commensurate increase in defence budget.

Looking at our defence budget from a GDP standpoint and comparing it to a Western economy is misleading. Simply put, in India, the government's revenue-to-GDP ratio (and by extension, the government's expenditure-to-GDP ratio) in India is far lower than in many developed economies. For instance, the expenditure-to-GDP ratio for us this year is about 14.5%. You can look at something like Poland, where that ratio is 40%, with most developed economies having that ratio sitting at above 30%.

What happens because of this is as follows: Let's say we say India should spend 2% of GDP on defence. With that 14.5% ratio, that comes out to about 13.8% of central government expenditure, which is very high. In Poland's case, even if they spend 4% of their GDP on defence, the share of government expenditure is only 10%.

India's GDP growth is mostly limited to the private sector. Public consumption is increasing reasonably well, and short of some major household debt crisis in the future, this is set to grow. See, you have to remember that consumption nets far more in taxes to government revenue than a simple growth in the private sector does, which means the government's revenue increases are considerably slower to how quickly the GDP grows.

Add to that the fact that we still run one of the largest state welfare budgets in the world, the fact that this won't change for years, and you can come to the realisation that the increase in government expenditure-to-GDP ratio is not going to grow too fast, though we should see it grow towards 20% in a decade or so.

What all that means is that the government simply has lesser money to spend, which means lesser budgets for all aspects of the military, including defence.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to see India's defence budget increase rapidly. However, short of either cutting funding to other crucial areas such as infrastructure or taking massive amounts of loans, I simply don't see that happening. The only thing that could be done would be to scrap political hand-outs and sops to get some more money, but that isn't politically possible.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

The days of US , UK , France being the first tier naval power are over . I have correctly calculated the cost of a 65000 tonnes nuclear powered carriers on today's price. Bharat can well absorb some escalation due to inflation. In coming decades , Indian economy is well poised to surpass chinese and American GDP. Keep relaxed. Bharat is well capable to build and maintain few nuclear powered carriers as they are critically required to deter chinese ambitions.

What u failed to account for was persistent cost escalations which are a normal in shipbuilding industry worldwide. Even Chinese vessel has suffered form cost escalation from initial estimate.

Do u realie whatnisnpresent GDP of America and China? US GDP is over $32trillion, that's right TRILLION with a capital T. China is about $17.8 trillion.Now do tge myths how long will it take us to get there.

 

[Anant]

We should make a 65000 ton electric powered AC within this decade and with French tech support make two 80000+ ton nuclear powered ACs before 2040 , third largest Indian economy will provide funds for these projects !

You do realise we don't exactly have unlimited spending money, and that our GDP growth is mostly fueled by the private sector, which adds a smaller proportion to government revenues than indirect taxes from public consumption?

Oh, and if you think France is just waiting for us to approach them and they would be willing to share all their technological secrets for a nuclear carrier, you are very, very far off the mark.

 

[shivkumar sinha]

What u failed to account for was persistent cost escalations which are a normal in shipbuilding industry worldwide. Even Chinese vessel has suffered form cost escalation from initial estimate.

Do u realie whatnisnpresent GDP of America and China? US GDP is over $32trillion, that's right TRILLION with a capital T. China is about $17.8 trillion.Now do tge myths how long will it take us to get there.

Current US GDP is about $27 trillions with growth rate around 1.6% , federal debt $34 trillions. With US federal interest rate @ 5-5.5% ,it has an annual interest liability of about $1.8 trillions against federal receipt of about $4.4 trillions. The way nations around the world are losing confidence in dollars as reserve currency, US economy is moving towards unsustainable situations, a stage is approaching fast when 50+% of US federal budget will go towards debt servicing and other nations will stop subsidising US federal interest rate by investing in US treasury bonds . US economic bubble is about to burst. Nobody believes chinese official data of $17 trillions GDP and growth rate of 5% . All economic indicators like credit flow , employment, foreign trade hint towards negative growth rate of chinese economy. Their GDP numbers are also highly inflated. Bharat, with current economy of $4 trillions and growing @ 8% can well surpass US and Chinese economy at around 2050 ,at least in PPP. Even western agencies are predicting such situations on 2075 . When you produce aircraft carriers indigenously,it is economy in PPP ( purchasing power parity) that matters ,not the numbers in nominal dollars. Current GDP of Bharat is in excess of $12 trillions in PPP.

 

[Bhishma]

You are just unable to calculate the potential defence budget and capital budget for an economy having GDP of $4 trillions , growing @ 8% ,expected to be a $7-8 trillions economy by 2030-31 . At that point Indian defence budget can be $160 billions and $60 billions as capital budget.. Even if you consider the cost of nuclear powered carriers as about $ 6 billions and construction period as 8 years ,it comes only $750 millions a year out of $60 billions of capital budget. Bharat can quite easily afford 5-6 nuclear powered carriers in next 30 years.

This must happen. We have plenty of useless socialist programs. Scrap few and invest in the nuke carrier. Make sure it creates an eco system of jobs within the country. That will grow the GDP too. Its always good to invest in the best technology and keep it for decades rather than invest in a mediocre technology and end up in a "cant spit, cant swallow" situation. We will have indirect benefits too. Having a nuke carrier advertises the safety of the country and pitches us as top power, making it a safe destination for foreign investments. So ten years from now, we dont want to be in a situation where we feel like, we should have invested in that nuke carrier. I say full steam ahead.

 

[Bhishma]

(Everytime we talk AC tech, we get chinbots dissuading us lol)

Money should not be a concern. Our economy is poised to grow at the same high rate for the next 20 years. We have demographic dividend with the young population. We can afford it. Investors are all ditching china and want to invest in India. India's economy will skyrocket. So we can definitely afford this. The only thing we should be careful is to create an eco system of local industries and jobs. So that if we need be we can cut down some welfare program and reallocate the funds to this program. We can also look at codeveloping with a friendly country like Japan.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

Current US GDP is about $27 trillions with growth rate around 1.6% , federal debt $34 trillions. With US federal interest rate @ 5-5.5% ,it has an annual interest liability of about $1.8 trillions against federal receipt of about $4.4 trillions. The way nations around the world are losing confidence in dollars as reserve currency, US economy is moving towards unsustainable situations, a stage is approaching fast when 50+% of US federal budget will go towards debt servicing and other nations will stop subsidising US federal interest rate by investing in US treasury bonds . US economic bubble is about to burst. Nobody believes chinese official data of $17 trillions GDP and growth rate of 5% . All economic indicators like credit flow , employment, foreign trade hint towards negative growth rate of chinese economy. Their GDP numbers are also highly inflated. Bharat, with current economy of $4 trillions and growing @ 8% can well surpass US and Chinese economy at around 2050 ,at least in PPP. Even western agencies are predicting such situations on 2075 . When you produce aircraft carriers indigenously,it is economy in PPP ( purchasing power parity) that matters ,not the numbers in nominal dollars. Current GDP of Bharat is in excess of $12 trillions in PPP.

You.miss the point whike US GPD may be $27 trillions still far away of a target. Even assuming we touch 7-8 trillion growing @ 8% by 2030-31, we spend just about 2.5% of GDP on defense. That is inclusive if pensions. Which comes to about $200 billion. Assuming we spend 20-25% on Capex we derive a budget of about $50 billion.

Now if u dig the data for last decade defense budget, u can see that Army accounted for 55-60% of budget, Airforce about 20% and Navy 11-15% with a stable min share of 11.6%. The rest was disbursed in the MOD civil operations. Now 15% if that is just $7.5 billion.

Of which if we assume the savings acured by the Agniveer/Agnipath scheme, we can almost add another couple of billion to almost $10-11 billion.

Now if we build nuclear carriers, Navy would have to atkeast shell out 1-2 billion annually on upkeep of these vessels snd thus leaving sparse few resources for financing the conventional submarine P75I/ P76 programs.That does not even include the inflation and upkeep requirements nuckear for ballistic submarine and upcoming attack submarine programs

 

[DG]

If nuclear submarine is a potent option for deterrence and is a viable option in terms of cost and maintenance, I feel the Aircraft Carriers of large size are right candidates to be nuclear powered.
This gives much more flexibility in terms of size, capacity, endurance, power projection, etc.
I see a future where there will be 2 to 3 aircraft carriers - one nuclear powered mega size flanked by 2 small / medium size carriers. Main one for fighter aircrafts. One flank carrier with smaller drones. Other flank with helicopters and larger drones.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

(Everytime we talk AC tech, we get chinbots dissuading us lol)

Money should not be a concern. Our economy is poised to grow at the same high rate for the next 20 years. We have demographic dividend with the young population. We can afford it. Investors are all ditching china and want to invest in India. India's economy will skyrocket. So we can definitely afford this. The only thing we should be careful is to create an eco system of local industries and jobs. So that if we need be we can cut down some welfare program and reallocate the funds to this program. We can also look at codeveloping with a friendly country like Japan.

Not when u have a whole bunch of freeloaders always expecting tge next loan waiver. Besides how are supposed to grow fast when the markets our companies depend upon for their revenues themselves are going through economic turmoil?

 

[shivkumar sinha]

You.miss the point whike US GPD may be $27 trillions still far away of a target. Even assuming we touch 7-8 trillion growing @ 8% by 2030-31, we spend just about 2.5% of GDP on defense. That is inclusive if pensions. Which comes to about $200 billion. Assuming we spend 20-25% on Capex we derive a budget of about $50 billion.

Now if u dig the data for last decade defense budget, u can see that Army accounted for 55-60% of budget, Airforce about 20% and Navy 11-15% with a stable min share of 11.6%. The rest was disbursed in the MOD civil operations. Now 15% if that is just $7.5 billion.

Of which if we assume the savings acured by the Agniveer/Agnipath scheme, we can almost add another couple of billion to almost $10-11 billion.

Now if we build nuclear carriers, Navy would have to atkeast shell out 1-2 billion annually on upkeep of these vessels snd thus leaving sparse few resources for financing the conventional submarine P75I/ P76 programs.That does not even include the inflation and upkeep requirements nuckear for ballistic submarine and upcoming attack submarine programs

You need some modifications. 2023-24 defence capital budget is about 1,72,000 crores of rupees out of which 37,000 crores went to IA ,57000 crore to IAF and 52000 crores to IN Thus about 30% of capital budget is allocated to IN . Current year ratio of capex to total defence budget is about 28% that is projected to increase to 37% of defence budget till 2032 . This is largely due to fact that government is not planning to increase menpower from present 1.4 millions. Ratio of pension is also going to reduce due to Agniveer scheme. So as you have estimated $200 billions of defence budget in 2031-32 ,it will have a capex component of about $ 74 billions and Navy capex can be about $22 billions. Therefore,U can find enough fund to build one nuclear powered aircraft carrier , 3 SSNs and 3-4 S-5 class 12000+ tonnes SSBNs as required by IN during 2030-40 timeframe.

 

[Bhishma]

Not when u have a whole bunch of freeloaders always expecting tge next loan waiver. Besides how are supposed to grow fast when the markets our companies depend upon for their revenues themselves are going through economic turmoil?

You are saying that freeloaders are getting loans in India. You have no clue about India. You've exposed yourself

 

[Pramkumar]

let us get the IAC-2 as sister ship of IAC-1 and IAC-3 as Catobar with 65K ton ship and go for the IAC4 as 70-80KT nuclear powered and need to have 3 sister ship of the same class and go for the 100T IAC7-12

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

You are saying that freeloaders are getting loans in India. You have no clue about India. You've exposed yourself

Freeloaders are not outlying out loans and yet expect additional bailout asking them as though it's their God given right. It is u who has exposed oneself not me.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

You need some modifications. 2023-24 defence capital budget is about 1,72,000 crores of rupees out of which 37,000 crores went to IA ,57000 crore to IAF and 52000 crores to IN Thus about 30% of capital budget is allocated to IN . Current year ratio of capex to total defence budget is about 28% that is projected to increase to 37% of defence budget till 2032 . This is largely due to fact that government is not planning to increase menpower from present 1.4 millions. Ratio of pension is also going to reduce due to Agniveer scheme. So as you have estimated $200 billions of defence budget in 2031-32 ,it will have a capex component of about $ 74 billions and Navy capex can be about $22 billions. Therefore,U can find enough fund to build one nuclear powered aircraft carrier , 3 SSNs and 3-4 S-5 class 12000+ tonnes SSBNs as required by IN during 2030-40 timeframe.

U need to account for inflation Numbers mean nothing if the rupee is devaluing at steady rate. So the amount of finding in USD is rather limited. Now had we had a totally independent defense industry like Russia it won't matter, but due to the limitations of our DRDO and domestic, we can atbest meet about 50-60% internally. Meaning 40-50% of defense requirements are still met by foreign vendors. So due to devaluation of currency in actual terms when considered in usd that defense budget would contract.

 

[Anant]

This must happen. We have plenty of useless socialist programs. Scrap few and invest in the nuke carrier. Make sure it creates an eco system of jobs within the country. That will grow the GDP too. Its always good to invest in the best technology and keep it for decades rather than invest in a mediocre technology and end up in a "cant spit, cant swallow" situation. We will have indirect benefits too. Having a nuke carrier advertises the safety of the country and pitches us as top power, making it a safe destination for foreign investments. So ten years from now, we dont want to be in a situation where we feel like, we should have invested in that nuke carrier. I say full steam ahead.

You do realise that most (not all, mind you) of these programs are necessary welfare programs, right? If you just scrap those, what is the difference between us and someone like Bhikaristan?

Yes, some sops can and should be scrapped, but any money we could save on them isn't going to add up to too much of a figure in the grand scheme of things, simply because you won't be able to convince most politicians to scrap them.

 

[Sandeep]

India needs to build more carriers but they are expensive and take a long time to build. The quickest, easiest, affordable and best option is to build another Vikrant carrier but with a very high amount of critical indigenous content, equipment and technology transfer.

This will give us time to design and develop a brand new 80000T carrier as the threat from China is going to increase and we need at least 4-6 carrier battle groups to maintain absolute control over the Indian Ocean and tighten the amount of trade restrictions and sanctions placed on China, its companies and key individual. In the event of a war breaking out then India can starve China of its trade that passes through our ocean and we can seize or sink those expensive cargo and oil ships. We can even kill their trade through the port they are building in Pakistan, the road and train line routes running through Pakistan until it reaches the Chinese border to bypass some of the long ship routes. That is why India needs more carriers as we can't starve China completely without a strong navy.

It will take India around 4-6 years to build another Vikrant copy and most of it will still be the same apart from some new or upgraded equipment, weapons and technology which is why they can build it quicker as they have gained a lot more knowledge and experience when building the first Vikrant carrier. Within that time they should of designed a nuclear powered carrier using the indigenous technology we developed for the Arihant submarine but we have developed a new reactor which gives us around 190MW of power rather than the current 80MW reactor used on our Arihant submarine which is a bit slow but as it's a ballistic submarine and it doesn't need to travel very fast but more silently at stand off range in case a target is given and we are ordered to launch.