Is it still possible to defend a carrier?
My guess: no. It sounds more like a prestige flex than something with a real warfighting advantage. I would think those rupees would be better spent on submarines and missiles / anti-missiles. But I’m no admiral, just an opinion.
A $5billion ship that can be taken out with less than $1million of smart bombs
For the U.S. at least, yes, absolutely. First line of defense is to use fifth and sixth generation stealth strike capabilities to destroy enemy missile launchers before they can threaten the carrier strike group. Second line of defense is to develop additional weapons systems with either the range, or stealth (or both) to strike an enemy from beyond the range of their anti-ship weapons, permitting the carrier to remain out of range. We’re well along the way toward developing a number of such weapons. Third line of defense is the awesome and little understood capacity of the strike group’s guided missile destroyers and cruisers to repel virtually anything launched at them, even hypersonic missiles and missile swarms. Some are even equipped to destroy ballistic missiles in space and satellites in low-Earth orbit. And finally, should any weapon survive all of that, it would be obliterated by close-in Phalanx and rolling airframe missile defenses.
And in a real war, all of these things would be happening simultaneously. The strike group wouldn’t just be sitting back trying to swat flies, they would also be penetrating enemy airspace to destroy the launchers, with F-35s, B-21s, and palletized swarms of LRAASM missiles (Rapid Dragon) among the possible systems deployed.
Now, as for India vs. China? Umm…best of luck to them, but I hope in a major conflict that they could at least distract China enough to make it easier for the big dogs to do the real damage.