The carriers are not meant for strikes (except of the Russian carriers), but the fighters are and even our 2 new carriers will have multi role capable Mig 29Ks right? So be it air defence, anti ship, or strikes on shore based targets, that all is part of their duty and normally must be of N-LCA as well, but from what we see and know so far, that's not going to happen.
I don't care much it it's cheap, or indigenous, but a carrier will have only a very limited air wing, that's why the priority should be on getting the most capable fighters, not the cheapest! For IAF it makes sense to have less capable and cheaper to operate fighters at their lower end, next to MMRCA, MKI, FGFA. The IN carriers on the other side would be way more capable only with Mig 29Ks, because it offers a higher performance than N-LCA, not to forget that it is even likely that they will supplement them with the older Sea Harriers until N-LCA will be available someday and they are not much inferior.
IN Sea Harriers AFAIK uses the same Elta 2032 that this N-LCA prototype uses, just like the same Israeli derby missiles. We could have bought more 2nd hand Sea Harriers from the UK now at cheap rates, but way more capble in the strike / CAS role, because they can already can carry rocket pods, Brimstone ATGMs, 250 & 500Kg Paveway LGBs...:
IN even complained that it would have been better to develop a carrier fighter and then re-design it for the air force, instead of what they are doing with LCA to N-LCA now, because it's not a minimum change easy development, especially not with the limited experience of ADA/DRDO/HAL in this area.
Operationally the Mig 29K/Sea Harrier mix would have been better for IN and with indigenous developments in mind, it would have been better if ADA & Co developed this N-LCA MK1 tech demonstrator as a base for carrier fighter developments and then went on for N-AMCA! A NG carrier fighter, fully developed for IN carriers requirments, be it for STOBAR config to replace Sea Harriers and if needed even Mig 29Ks, or in CATOBAR config for IAC 2 if we get catapults from the US.
Would our carriers be more capable?
Would our indigenous industry benefit?
Would LCA development benefit from less delays?
Would AMCA be more useful and reasonable, when developed as a carrier fighter?
YES!
But instead, we want everything at once! Be it a fighter fully developed by our own with all the critical parts developed at the same time, that also "must" been used by the air force and the navy, although it doesn't make an operational sense and to top it all, we even start a NG development with the same silly aims (AMCA for IAF and IN, fully multi role...) and based on the same overestimations even before the first development is finished.
In this case, IN should have used Mig 29Ks and Sea Harriers as stop gap options, to develop something they really wanted and according to their requirments, to make IN carriers really capable, instead of saying that they have to commitment towards indigenisation, because they don't help themself and not LCA with their side demands and requirments, besides those of IAF.
