[Leaning Right]

The navy countered by pointing out when a target had to be struck from the air at, say, the Gulf of Aden, it would take at least two hours for shore-based fighters to reach.

These Indian aircraft carriers seem like expensive white elephants to me. When would India find it necessary to strike a target in the Gulf of Aden?

And even if it were necessary, unless a carrier just happened to be right on scene shore-based aircraft actually would be faster.

Perhaps someone should remind India how expensively ruinous a naval building program can be.

[okie01]

These Indian aircraft carriers seem like expensive white elephants to me. When would India find it necessary to strike a target in the Gulf of Aden?

India justifiably has a proprietary view of the Indian Ocean. Not unlike, for example, our own view of the Gulf of Mexico.

Further, there are doubtless scenarios in the Indian War College concerning war with a Middle East caliphate and blocking Chinese incursions past the Malacca Strait.

From a strategic point of view, these scenarios are plausible.

The fact is, India's land borders are reasonably secure (exc. vis-à-vis Pakistan) but, due to her peninsular geography, she is highly exposed from the oceans.

[entropy12]

Look at it this way...There are millions of graduate engineers in need of jobs in India. Defense industry is a good source of jobs.

The real intent of those carriers is not Aden, it is Karachi.