By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 1st July 18
While Indian leaders
and strategists claim a pre-eminent role in the Indian Ocean Region and portray
the Indian Navy as the key guarantor of security in these waters, it remains
unclear whether the hard power capability exists for discharging such a role.
With the navy’s annual
budget steadily declining, national security planners are reluctant to green
light crucial power projection platforms, notably India’s second indigenous
aircraft carrier (IAC-2), which should have already been under construction to
join the fleet by about 2030.
India’s ambitious
maritime aspirations were outlined in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s keynote
address at the prestigious Shangri-La Dialogue on June 1. Declaring that India
would help “build economic capabilities and improve maritime security for our
friends and partners”, he claimed: “We are advancing a comprehensive agenda of
regional co-operation through Indian Ocean Rim Association. And we also work
with partners beyond the Indian Ocean Region to ensure that the global transit
routes remain peaceful and free for all.”
The prime minister was
clear about India’s maritime challenges: “We see growing mutual insecurity and
rising military expenditure; internal dislocations turning into external
tensions; and new fault lines in trade and competition in the global commons.
Above all, we see assertion of power over recourse to international norms.”
Yet, the National
Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, like the United Progressive Alliance
(UPA) government before it, continues de-prioritising the navy in allocating
financial resources. The navy’s budget, instead of growing to support the
heavily tom-tommed “Act East” strategy, is currently at a decadal low.
Since 2010-11, when
the navy got 30 per cent of the three services’ capital budget, its allocation
has dropped to 25 per cent this year. As a percentage of the military budget,
the navy’s share has fallen from 19 per cent in 2010-11 to just 15.5 per cent
this year.
Budgets to services since 2010-11
Year
|
Service
|
Revenue (excluding pensions)
|
Capital
|
Total allocation to services
|
% of capital budget
|
% of military allocation
|
% of total defence budget
|
2010-11
|
Army
|
62384
|
15856
|
78240
|
28%
|
54.5%
|
40%
|
Navy
|
9979
|
17140
|
27119
|
30%
|
19%
|
14%
|
|
IAF
|
14551
|
23625
|
38176
|
42%
|
26.5%
|
20%
|
|
Total
|
86914
|
56621
|
143535
|
||||
2011-12
|
Army
|
69133
|
14948
|
84081
|
23.5%
|
52%
|
40.5%
|
Navy
|
11904
|
19212
|
31115
|
30.5%
|
19.5%
|
15%
|
|
IAF
|
16773
|
28840
|
45614
|
46%
|
28.5%
|
22%
|
|
Total
|
97810
|
63000
|
160810
|
||||
2012-13
|
Army
|
76690
|
14761
|
91451
|
22.5%
|
53.5%
|
40.5%
|
Navy
|
11834
|
17759
|
29594
|
27%
|
17%
|
13%
|
|
IAF
|
17529
|
32980
|
50509
|
50.5%
|
29.5%
|
22.5%
|
|
Total
|
106054
|
65500
|
171554
|
||||
2013-14
|
Army
|
85031
|
14433
|
99464
|
20%
|
52%
|
38%
|
Navy
|
13034
|
20359
|
33393
|
27.5%
|
17.5%
|
13%
|
|
IAF
|
19094
|
38615
|
57709
|
52.5%
|
30.5%
|
22%
|
|
Total
|
117159
|
73407
|
190566
|
||||
2014-15
|
Army
|
95973
|
18587
|
114560
|
25%
|
56.5%
|
40%
|
Navy
|
13679
|
22270
|
35949
|
30%
|
17.5%
|
12.5%
|
|
IAF
|
19741
|
32796
|
52537
|
45%
|
26%
|
18.5%
|
|
Total
|
129393
|
73653
|
203046
|
||||
2015-16
|
Army
|
102847
|
20704
|
123551
|
29%
|
58.5%
|
42%
|
Navy
|
14992
|
19875
|
34867
|
28%
|
16.5%
|
12%
|
|
IAF
|
21020
|
31198
|
52219
|
43%
|
25%
|
18%
|
|
Total
|
138859
|
71777
|
210636
|
||||
2016-17
|
Army
|
116902
|
28462
|
145364
|
36%
|
61.5%
|
41.5%
|
Navy
|
17137
|
19997
|
37134
|
25%
|
16%
|
10.5%
|
|
IAF
|
22856
|
30415
|
53271
|
39%
|
22.5%
|
15%
|
|
Total
|
156895
|
78874
|
235769
|
||||
2017-18
|
Army
|
121452
|
25206
|
146658
|
32.5%
|
60%
|
39.5%
|
(RE)
|
Navy
|
18879
|
19348
|
38227
|
25%
|
15.5%
|
10.5%
|
IAF
|
27210
|
33570
|
60780
|
42.5%
|
24.5%
|
16.5%
|
|
Total
|
167541
|
78124
|
245665
|
||||
2018-19
|
Army
|
128077
|
26688
|
154765
|
32%
|
59.5%
|
38%
|
(BE)
|
Navy
|
19571
|
20848
|
40419
|
25%
|
15.5%
|
10%
|
IAF
|
28821
|
35755
|
64576
|
43%
|
25%
|
15.5%
|
|
Total
|
176469
|
83291
|
259760
|
The absolute figures
are even more telling. Were the naval allocations to have risen seven per cent
annually since 2010-11, roughly in tandem with the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP), the navy’s capital allocation of Rs 17,140 crore (Rs 171.40 billion) in
2010-11 would have grown to Rs 29,451 crore (Rs 294.51 billion) this year. In
reality, the navy got just Rs 20,848 crore (Rs 208.48 billion). Nor is there
recognition of the ten per cent annual inflation in defence, or of India’s
“Look East” and “Act East” policies that call for stepping up the navy’s
budget.
The reduction in naval
allocations comes despite the defence ministry’s official approval of the
navy’s Maritime Capability Perspective Plan. First drawn up in 2005, and
updated for the 15-year period 2012-2027, this committed to fielding three
aircraft carriers, so that at least two are operational at all times, one each
with the western and eastern naval fleets. “The ministry is reneging on a
solemn commitment”, says Admiral Arun Prakash (Retired), who was naval chief in
2005.
While inadequate
capital allocations affect all warship acquisitions, the drag is most apparent
in the navy’s flagship project to design and develop IAC-2, which will
reportedly be named INS Vishal. The first indigenous carrier, INS Vikrant,
which is being constructed in Cochin Shipyard, is expected to be commissioned
in 2021. IAC-2 should have begun construction, but has not even managed to get
an “in principle” approval from the defence ministry, which seems paralysed by
the fratricidal contest between the army, air force and navy for the same
depleted budget.
The air force, seeking
to canalise the budget to new fighter squadrons, has argued that the aircraft
carrier is an outdated concept, and that land-based fighters, with their ranges
extended by mid-air refulling, can strike targets far out to sea, without the
risk that aircraft carriers run of being sunk by anti-ship missiles, torpedoes,
or “carrier killer” ballistic missiles
like China’s Dong Feng–21D, which China claims can destroy enemy carriers 1,500
kilometres away.
Like predictions about
the death of the battle tank, the hobbyhorse that aircraft carriers are
anachronous has been conclusively rebutted, not least by the US Navy, which continues
basing its power projection on the “carrier battle group”. To be sure, aerial
refuelling allows shore-based fighters to strike targets at greater ranges. The
plan to station fighters on island bases – like that “unsinkable aircraft
carrier”, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands – adds weight to the air force’s
argument. But shore-based fighters must return to base after striking a
far-away target or risk running out of fuel. They have no “persistence” over
areas hundreds of kilometres from their shore bases. In contrast, an aircraft
carrier, escorted by a flotilla of multi-role destroyers and frigates,
anti-submarine warfare corvettes, a submarine or two and a range of airborne
assets, can project power and dominate areas thousands of kilometres out to sea,
where shore based fighters cannot reach even with refuelling.
* * * *
INS Vishal will be
India’s first real “power projection” aircraft carrier. None of the navy’s
earlier carriers – the original 16,000 tonne INS Vikrant and the 24,000 tonne
INS Virat, both decommissioned now, or even the 45,000 tonne INS Vikramaditya,
which is currently in service, or the new 40,000 tonne INS Vikrant – can embark
more than about 30 aircraft. That is insufficient for the dual task of
protecting the “battle group” and also dominating the seas around.
In contrast, INS
Vishal, a 65,000 tonne giant, will embark 54 aircraft, including fighters,
electronic warfare aircraft, airborne command posts and anti-submarine
helicopters. While less versatile than the US Navy’s 100,000 tonne
supercarriers, the Vishal, along with another ten-odd helicopters based on its
accompanying warships, can both protect and dominate.
Senior defence
officers have described to Business Standard the economics of an indigenous,
conventionally powered IAC-2 – since nuclear propulsion was ruled out after Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) said it would take 15-20 years
to develop a nuclear reactor large enough for a carrier. The cost of building
such a carrier at Cochin Shipyard
is estimated at Rs 40,000 crore (Rs 400 billion).
Another Rs 40-50,000
crore (Rs 400-500 billion) would be needed for a carrier aviation wing – the
aircraft it will embark. While the navy will operate three carriers once INS
Vishal joins Vikramaditya and Vikrant, senior naval planners say two “aviation
wings” will suffice since the need to refit one of the carriers, turn by turn,
would leave two operational at any time. Two air wings, therefore, would rotate
between three aircraft carriers.
Since India already
has 45 Russian MiG-29K/KUB fighters, mostly based on the Vikramaditya, the navy
has initiated the purchase of anther 57 “multi-role carrier-borne fighters
(MRCBF) for its second air wing. In this procurement,
which began in January 2017, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F will compete with Dassault’s Rafale-Marine,
Saab’s Sea Gripen and the MiG-29K.
The navy’s IAC-2
programme, therefore, requires Rs 80,000-90,000 crore (Rs 800-900 billion),
spread over 15 years, or some Rs 6,000 crore (Rs 60 billion) annually. Were the
defence ministry to revert to the funding percentages of 2010-11, allocating 30
per cent to the navy, its capital budget could cater for that annual outflow.
“It is ironic that the
budget of the navy – the service that builds its weapons platforms primarily in
India – is being gradually cut. Meanwhile, the budgets of services that mainly
buy from abroad are increasing. So much for ‘Make in India’,” says a defence
ministry official ruefully.
While the ministry
dithers over sanctioning IAC-2, a US-India joint working group (JWG), set up in
January 2015, is working with the US navy and warship industry -- acknowledged
as the gold standard in aircraft carrier operations. Consequently, the navy is
embracing American design and operating philosophies, such as catapult launch
of aircraft. The Pentagon has agreed to provide India with EMALS – the
“electro-magnetic rail gun aircraft launch system” – a system so advanced that
only the latest US Navy carrier has it. The remaining US carriers still launch
aircraft using the conventional “steam catapult”.
Meanwhile navy sources
say the Pentagon has agreed to reserve vacancies for Indian aircraft carrier
designers in US Navy design courses. Indian navy officers describe as “an eye
opener”, their exposure to US Navy operating procedures. They are learning from
their US counterparts new methodologies for final operational trials on new
carriers, which will cut down time for operationalising the Vikrant and Vishal.
All this, however,
awaits the defence ministry’s grant of “Acceptance of Necessity”, which will
open the doors for the IAC-2 project to start. However, there is no telling
when that green signal will be given. India’s grand strategy seems clear about
its maritime component. But operationalising that maritime strategy continues
to be held up by hesitant and wavering decision makers.
Ajai is toeing the US line. More than INS Vishal the necessities of the day are more submarines and anti submarine helicopters. Thankfully the recent Govt to Govt deal on MH60R happened but it should have happened long back. It also bring forth the point that often large scale defence acquisition are financed outside the budget.
ReplyDeleteWhile the political class indulges themselves with the idea of building a blue water Navy, the unfortunate reality is that they are unable to execute their MCPP made in 2005.
ReplyDeleteThe fact remains that IAC 2, MCMV's, P75 India, LPD's, ASW's are all delayed or in a limbo.
The MoD still refuses to encourage Make in India or private participation - both important factors when it comes to decreasing costs and building capabilities in country.
@ Anupam Das
ReplyDeleteActually, it's the Indian Navy line that I'm toeing. You, on the other hand, are toeing a submariner's line.
As for large scale defence acquisitions being "financed outside the budget", do give us an example. I've never known this to happen.
We need to get our basics first. Let us get helicopters for our existing fleet (NMRH & NUH), get anti mining boats up & running, reduce time to build warships. Then comes what escorts dies this giant AC need ? Make them . Later induct the IAC-2.
ReplyDeleteWe also need to learn from China to expand at lower cost. Just repeat the design of the ship IAC-1, it will be cheaper faster , rather having grand day dreams.
This will be much cheaper and existing 45 MiG will suffice.
By the way even our IAC-1 seems to be taking forever to launch.
Thankfully BARC told the truth about design time for reactor, not promise one in a few months. Great guys. Need to appauld them on their honesty.
NSR says ---
ReplyDeleteIndia does not have mature nuclear reactor technology to furnish INS Vishaal…
The day when India builds the reactor easily for its own submarines is the day they must start thinking about bigger reactor for the aircraft carrier...
Even UK is using conventional propulsion for its aircraft carrier...
India immediately start building IAC-2 on same lines of IAC-1 with some minor improvements and so it will have 3 carrier battle group...
One for Eastern and one for western and one in drydock for refurbishing and refitting as it takes long time to do repairs and refit so having 3 CBGs is a blessing...
India must develop its own Naval Tejas II and AMCA for future...
India must not bog down in something it can not extricate itself...
Even building Tejas Mk-IA seems to be tall task for India...
Who would pay $20 millions/piece for an AESA radar without full TOT??? India....
Hope that sanity prevails...