India finalizing plans to order three more Scorpene submarines

[Abingdonboy]

Goes without the saying we have to do the cost/benefit analysis as beyond 3 AC and SSBN - gains would be incremental considering all such assets are mainly for deterrent purpose and don't have any utility in peace time (99.999%).

Ah, the law of diminshing returns, right? However I feel as though, with all due respect, this assertion is slightly flawed sir. The very premise with which it rests "all such assets are mainly for detterent puposes" is only partially true for ACs (yes entirely accurate for SSBNs). The roles of an AC rest 1) as a detterent 2) as a means of power projection (could be tied to point 1 but I see it as an entirely seperate mandate) 3) leading expeditionary operations for strategic missions (in both a C&C capcity and with its own assets being utilised ie fighters) 4) HADR-and this is quite far behind the others as the utility of an AC in such a role is limited by its very size but precedents exsist.

So the idea that the utility of addtional ACs beyond 3 is minimal can only be true if the world remains as it is today and if India's interests remain the same. But the one thing we can count on is that change is a reality and this is even more accurate of international relations- especially in the long term. It just seems a little silly to rule out any addtional ACs sat here in 2015 when we are looking 10-15 years down the line- the world could (and will) be a very different place by then and it is the IN's job to plan for such. It is hard to imagine what the need for so many AC could be but one doesn't become a great power or an economic power by not securing your interests and not having global reach (if India is going to be at its projected GDP in 2030 then it will have to have such distant/global interests). This is not a childish/fan boy fantasy but the pursuit of securing India's interests long into the future.

In 2030 the largest navies in the world will be 1)USN..................(a long way behind) 2) PLA(N).......(not so far behind at all) 3) IN.

The USN will have 9-10 CBGs (along with an equal number of MEUs based around LHD), the PLA(N) will have 6-7 if not more judging by their current plans and the IN will look rather out of place with just 3.

Our defense doctrine as on date is primarily defense focused and not exploratory/expansionary such as China/US/Russia - as and when our strategic posture changes we can make suitable adjustments.

To date India has been a very inward looking nation and a relatively weak one and thus the defensive doctrine was rather a byproduct. To become the global giant it now seeks to be will naturally dictate a very different strategic doctrine.

The USSR/Russia and the US did not become Super Powers by harbouring defensive ideals and neither will India. China is already aware of such a fact.

For now the focus should be on improving the quality of our assets.

No arguing with this prescription but also no doubting that the IN is doing so.

 

[Spectre]

Ah, the law of diminshing returns, right? However I feel as though, with all due respect, this assertion is slightly flawed sir. The very premise with which it rests "all such assets are mainly for detterent puposes" is only partially true for ACs (yes entirely accurate for SSBNs). The roles of an AC rest 1) as a detterent 2) as a means of power projection (could be tied to point 1 but I see it as an entirely seperate mandate) 3) leading expeditionary operations for strategic missions (in both a C&C capcity and with its own assets being utilised ie fighters) 4) HADR-and this is quite far behind the others as the utility of an AC in such a role is limited by its very size but precedents exsist.

So the idea that the utility of addtional ACs beyond 3 is minimal can only be true if the world remains as it is today and if India's interests remain the same. But the one thing we can count on is that change is a reality and this is even more accurate of international relations- especially in the long term. It just seems a little silly to rule out any addtional ACs sat here in 2015 when we are looking 10-15 years down the line- the world could (and will) be a very different place by then and it is the IN's job to plan for such. It is hard to imagine what the need for so many AC could be but one doesn't become a great power or an economic power by not securing your interests and not having global reach (if India is going to be at its projected GDP in 2030 then it will have to have such distant/global interests). This is not a childish/fan boy fantasy but the pursuit of securing India's interests long into the future.

In 2030 the largest navies in the world will be 1)USN..................(a long way behind) 2) PLA(N).......(not so far behind at all) 3) IN.

The USN will have 9-10 CBGs (along with an equal number of MEUs based around LHD), the PLA(N) will have 6-7 if not more judging by their current plans and the IN will look rather out of place with just 3.


To date India has been a very inward looking nation and a relatively weak one and thus the defensive doctrine was rather a byproduct. To become the global giant it now seeks to be will naturally dictate a very different strategic doctrine.

The USSR/Russia and the US did not become Super Powers by harbouring defensive ideals and neither will India. China is already aware of such a fact.





No arguing with this prescription but also no doubting that the IN is doing so.

Well argued.

However the underlying assumption is that we want to be the next US or China for that matter. I have had lively debate on this matter with my colleagues - some believe that it is inevitable - as a rising power India would be forced to follow the same trajectory to protect it's interest in what is predicted to be a predatory world which is increasingly going to be resource scarce. Any delay in India embracing a expansionary posture would be detrimental to our Interest.

This is a tough argument to beat as the history is full of evidences that one has to keep rising till one settles at the top or risk a fall to the bottom- From Ancient Civilizations to Romans to Mongol Horde to British Empire to USA to coming China all have followed this course not counting innumerable others which have tried like French, Spanish etc.

I respectfully differ - If we have to survive and sustain and by we I mean the Humans then we have to adopt a equivalence based approach. The future holds many challenged which are predecessors never even imagined - Threat of Nuclear Annihilation, Water and food scarcity, Climate Change Unsustainable population and it's thirst for resources and energy. All these are extinction level threats and the time is running out. These challenges would force us to unite in a span of 20-30 years - in such a scenario - resources would be better utilized for something constructive like Space Exploration for resource capitalization, Large scale genetic engineering to deal with food shortage, Shift towards cleaner energy etc. As things stand there is a gap of 50 years b/w achieving the tech sufficient to address the challenges and the challenges overwhelming us and only by uniting and pooling our resources together we stand a chance.

I apologize for going off tangent but thought it would be fruitful to address the core assumption behind your arguments.

Regards

 

[Ankit Kumar]

In the numbers we forget the size and the punch the platform delivers.
Compared to 3 ACs of China, to that of ours..... ours will obviously be behind the punch.
And this is realised by the people in decision making.

I am not claiming so, but this is what if I am optimistic after some hints from a few people who have been in the service.

There will likely be INSVikramaditya and INS Vikrant , both assigned to the western command.Arabian Sea and Pakistan, straits and oil, a lot of importance.

And then an improved INS vikrant(not Vishal) to eastern command for Bay of Bengal.

Apart from these 3, 2 INS Vishal class ACs of which one will be deployed on longer missions , not only in IOR but as far as Pacific and Southern Ocean.

And these means 5 ACs in the time line upto 2030( either in construction or commissioned)

It counts
1. 3 nearly Vikramaditya size aircraft carriers.
And
2. 2 VISHAL class carriers.

And this will see additional orders for Frigates, Destroyers and Auxiliaries within next 7-8 years.

But he still has no clue about ASW helicopters..... lagta hai hamare helipads sirf show hi reh jaayenge.
But he said, a small number of Ka31 AEW is under consideration as the Vikrant and its improved version cannot carry fixed wing AWECs.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Well argued.

However the underlying assumption is that we want to be the next US or China for that matter. I have had lively debate on this matter with my colleagues - some believe that it is inevitable - as a rising power India would be forced to follow the same trajectory to protect it's interest in what is predicted to be a predatory world which is increasingly going to be resource scarce. Any delay in India embracing a expansionary posture would be detrimental to our Interest.

This is a tough argument to beat as the history is full of evidences that one has to keep rising till one settles at the top or risk a small - From Ancient Civilizations to Romans to Mongol Horde to British Empire to USA to coming China all have followed this course not counting innumerable others which have tried like French, Spanish etc.

I respectfully differ - If we have to survive and sustain and by we I mean the Humans then we have to adopt a equivalence based approach. The future holds many challenged which are predecessors never even imagined - Threat of Nuclear Annihilation, Water and food scarcity, Climate Change Unsustainable population and it's thirst for resources and energy. All these are extinction level threats and the time is running out. These challenges would force us to unite in a span of 20-30 years - in such a scenario - resources would be better utilized for something constructive like Space Exploration for resource capitalization, Large scale genetic engineering to deal with food shortage, Shift towards cleaner energy etc. As things stand there is a gap of 50 years b/w achieving the tech sufficient to address the challenges and the challenges overwhelming us and only by uniting and pooling our resources together we stand a chance.

I apologize for going off tangent but thought it would be fruitful to address the core assumption behind your arguments.

Regards

To be honest sir, you have basically made my argument for me by sharing the views of your colleagues. I can completely understand your views and, with respect, would terms them as being of a utopian fantasy. Naturally this is the world we would all like to live in where logic, reason and science trump ignorance, beligerance and greed but we has humans are far too tribal and short-sighted for such ideals to be enshrined for the foreseeable future.

I think that, as your colleagues stated, the need to militarise is inevitable and you have yourself pointed to countless examples in history where this has proven to be true. Soft power will only get India so far, unless you can support it with hard power the returns will be limited in nature. In fact, this may be increasingly relevent to our world where resources are no longer as abdundent as they once were. Without a credible military how is India going to protect its sea lines of communication? How, against an incresingly assertive China (who is building up its military),will it protect its exploration efforts in the SCS that the Vietnamese government has granted to India? The potential uses for military power to satisify(or at least safeguard) India's interests in the future is simply endless.

Of course, if India was an outlier in this respect and was unilaterally building up its military whilst the rest of the world was looking to reduce theirs and agreeing to resolve all issues on merit, sense and through diplomacy then yes, I would prescribe India to follow suit. However the opposite is true- the world is militarising and especially India's long term rivals (US and China). In the face of this, frameing this argument with a colloquialism, India shouldn't be looking to bring a knife to a gunfight.

Bare in mind that the entire argument I have made above is looking at a timeframe of 10-15 years in mind. I see no reason to think that there will be an overnight shift in our collective thinking in this period- nor ever, it will be evolutionary in nature and thus spanning decades. There is absolutely evidence that the world is ready develop collective solution to common problems, in fact I feel that the world is set to become far more factional and unstable.


As such, it is only right for the Indian military to prepare for the worst and keep its powder dry.



I would add that I beleive that framing the notion that India should militarise by using the US, China or others as points of reference is troublesome and highly misleading. All previous examples from history have faced very specific compulsions based on their very specific nature as nations and the historical context in which they have arisen. As such there is no reason to think that their actions or behaviour will be repeated by India- positive and nagative alike. Instead of saying "we want to be the next US or China for that matter" which inherently conjurs up an enourmous ammount of unease for a variety of reasons, I feel it is more approriate to say that India will be the next India- simply a more prosperous version. And thus, India as a great power will forge its own path and look to protect its own interests.

 

[Spectre]

To be honest sir, you have basically made my argument for me by sharing the views of your colleagues. I can completely understand your views and, with respect, would terms them as being of a utopian fantasy. Naturally this is the world we would all like to live in where logic, reason and science trump ignorance, beligerance and greed but we has humans are far too tribal and short-sighted for such ideals to be enshrined for the foreseeable future.

I think that, as your colleagues stated, the need to militarise is inevitable and you have yourself pointed to countless examples in history where this has proven to be true. Soft power will only get India so far, unless you can support it with hard power the returns will be limited in nature. In fact, this may be increasingly relevent to our world where resources are no longer as abdundent as they once were. Without a credible military how is India going to protect its sea lines of communication? How, against an incresingly assertive China (who is building up its military),will it protect its exploration efforts in the SCS that the Vietnamese government has granted to India? The potential uses for military power to satisify(or at least safeguard) India's interests in the future is simply endless.

Of course, if India was an outlier in this respect and was unilaterally building up its military whilst the rest of the world was looking to reduce theirs and agreeing to resolve all issues on merit, sense and through diplomacy then yes, I would prescribe India to follow suit. However the opposite is true- the world is militarising and especially India's long term rivals (US and China). In the face of this, frameing this argument with a colloquialism, India shouldn't be looking to bring a knife to a gunfight.

Bare in mind that the entire argument I have made above is looking at a timeframe of 10-15 years in mind. I see no reason to think that there will be an overnight shift in our collective thinking in this period- nor ever, it will be evolutionary in nature and thus spanning decades. There is absolutely evidence that the world is ready develop collective solution to common problems, in fact I feel that the world is set to become far more factional and unstable.


As such, it is only right for the Indian military to prepare for the worst and keep its powder dry.



I would add that I beleive that framing the notion that India should militarise by using the US, China or others as points of reference is troublesome and highly misleading. All previous examples from history have faced very specific compulsions based on their very specific nature as nations and the historical context in which they have arisen. As such there is no reason to think that their actions or behaviour will be repeated by India- positive and nagative alike. Instead of saying "we want to be the next US or China for that matter" which inherently conjurs up an enourmous ammount of unease for a variety of reasons, I feel it is more approriate to say that India will be the next India- simply a more prosperous version. And thus, India as a great power will forge its own path and look to protect its own interests.

As I said, you have argued your points well and they are not without merit.

The thing is it is a zero sum game and all countries and entities driven by logic would arrive at a similar conclusion as mine - they would be forced to sooner or later. No, We are not gonna hug and sing kumbaya, we are still gonna keep our eyes open and carry proverbial hidden knives. The age old adage of Trust but Verify is still gonna apply BUT you will see powers aligning rather than dividing.

Of-course there are gonna be outliers in form of terrorists and radicals but those are not going to be threats for which you need aircraft carriers. The battlefield of future is in urban jungles, against terrorist sleeper cells and lone rangers. The biggest fallacy observed time and again amongst military personnels is they always prepare for the last war.

1000's of jets can't help coalition of the willing in Syria nor can their nuclear missiles. The threat is not from China - they are too invested in the future and too intervined with India due to burgeoning bilateral trade. The threat are the Islamist Radicals, The Maoists, The unstable Pakistan in hands of Mullahs. We need to be smarter in the way we fight - their many tools in our arsenal - we just have to employ the right one. You can't kill a fly with hammer you use a fly swatter, similarly future wars would require Cheaper tactical Drones, HUMINT, surveillance, education, infrastructure etc not mindless pursuit of the latest and bigger hardware.

That said we do have to maintain minimum deterrence and I believe we have it covered.