The Frigate Paradox, Why India’s Naval Expansion May Be Out of Step with Its Threats
The Indian Navy’s Project 17A is a ₹45,000-crore programme to build seven ‘Nilgiri’-class frigates, with anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine capabilities, as an advanced complement to the ‘Shivalik’ frigates and a precursor to Project 17B. The project delivered the INS Mahendragiri on April 30, completing six deliveries in 17 months, but had previously faced multiple delays. On paper, this represents a significant enhancement of India’s naval capabilities. But beneath the surface of these impressive numbers lies a more troubling story: a fleet facing delays, a sensor grid with incomplete coverage, a domestic industrial ecosystem that still depends on imports, and investments that may be out of step with the threats they are meant to address.
This article examines the critical gaps in India’s naval modernisation: the design changes and component shortages that delay commissioning, the disconnect between hull production and sensor integration, the overkill of using high-end frigates for low-end threats, and the fundamental question of whether India is building the right platforms for the right challenges.
Part I: The Project 17A Promise – What India Is Building
The Nilgiri-class frigates are designed to be among the most advanced surface combatants in the Indian fleet. They feature stealth design, advanced radar systems, and a versatile weapons suite capable of engaging air, surface, and submarine targets. The ₹45,000 crore investment reflects the Navy’s assessment that India needs modern, multi-role frigates to secure its maritime interests in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).
The IOR carries most of India’s energy imports as well as Chinese naval deployments. The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has been increasing its submarine presence in the region. Houthi drone and missile activity in the Arabian Sea has demonstrated that non-traditional threats cannot be ignored. On paper, the case for more frigates seems compelling.
The delivery of INS Mahendragiri on April 30, completing six deliveries in 17 months, suggests that the programme has overcome earlier delays. But the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India has flagged persistent issues that call into question the real combat readiness of these vessels.
Part II: The CAG Warnings – Design Changes, Missing Components, and Paper Commissioning
The CAG has flagged hundreds of design changes in previous warship classes during construction. What looks like a finished warship may, in reality, be a hull missing critical components. The problem is not new. In earlier projects, ships were delivered late or, worse, delivered on paper while lacking engines and sensors. This allowed projects to meet commissioning dates on paper while leaving the hull unprepared for combat.
A 2025 CAG report found that the Navy was inducting platforms without building the supporting infrastructure. A warship is not just a hull; it is a complex system of sensors, weapons, communications, and propulsion. If the supporting infrastructure—docks, repair facilities, training simulators, logistics supply chains—is not ready, the ship cannot operate effectively.
While Project 17A uses 75 per cent indigenous components by value—a commendable achievement for India’s defence manufacturing sector—many critical parts are still sourced from abroad. Engines, sensors, and weapons systems are often imported. Without these components, the vessels’ final integration is withheld. India can build most of each ship, but it exercises limited control over timelines. A frigate waiting for an imported radar is not a frigate; it is a floating warehouse.
Part III: The Sensor Gap – Detect-Decide-Respond Without the Detect
India built the Chain of Static Sensors after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, with radar hardware involving imported parts. The Chain has been extended to Mauritius, Sri Lanka, and the Seychelles, and together with naval platforms forms a detect-decide-respond system. This is sound doctrine: you cannot respond to a threat you cannot detect.
But while naval satellites and underwater sensor networks provide the ‘detect’ aspect, the frigates’ radars and sonars remain the most imported—and thus most delayed—components. A frigate without its primary sensors cannot perform its core mission. It cannot find submarines. It cannot track surface contacts. It cannot guide its weapons.
The article poses a stark analogy: “Adding more surface combatants is like adding receivers to a network still transmitting a fuzzy picture.” More hulls without better sensors do not improve situational awareness; they multiply the number of blind platforms. India needs a clear picture of what is happening in its waters. More frigates will not provide that picture if their sensors are delayed, degraded, or missing.
Part IV: The Threat Mismatch – Overkill for Some, Underkill for Others
Securing sea lanes and addressing non-traditional threats such as Houthi drone and missile activity justify some number of multi-role frigates. The Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and Arabian Sea have shown that even non-state actors can threaten commercial shipping with inexpensive drones and missiles. A frigate with advanced air defence capabilities is appropriate for such threats.
However, high-end frigates are also overkill for countering piracy and smuggling. Pirates use small boats, not submarines or anti-ship missiles. Smugglers hide in the shadows, not on radar screens. For these threats, the Indian Coast Guard, patrol vessels, and heightened surveillance are more appropriate and far more cost-effective. The 2008 Mumbai attacks (26/11) were conducted by ten men in a small boat. A frigate would not have stopped them; better coastal surveillance and Coast Guard response did.
The more serious threat is China. The PLAN has been increasing its submarine presence in the Indian Ocean region. But an Indian hull lacking the premium sensors required to find these vessels is effectively not responding to China’s presence. Submarines are detected by sonar, not by hulls. If India’s frigates are commissioned without their advanced sonars because of import delays, they cannot counter the submarine threat. India would have many ships, but few that can actually fight.
Part V: The Industrial Interpretation – Sustaining Shipyards vs. Responding to Threats
If the threat environment does not clearly justify the scale and type of frigate expansion, what then is the purpose? One possibility is to sustain domestic shipyards and absorb new technologies. The defence industrial ecosystem requires consistent orders to maintain skilled labour, infrastructure, and supply chains. Cancelling or reducing frigate orders would have economic consequences, particularly in shipbuilding clusters.
The article warns that this risks allowing industry interests to supersede the demands of the threat environment. This is not an accusation; it is a structural risk in any defence procurement system. Once a large programme is underway, it develops institutional momentum. Jobs, contracts, and political constituencies become attached to it. Cancelling or even slowing the programme becomes politically difficult, regardless of whether the threat environment has changed.
The result is a fleet that is larger but not necessarily more capable. More hulls, but with outdated or missing sensors. More steel, but less situational awareness. More expenditure, but less alignment with actual threats.
Part VI: The Way Forward – Aligning Investment with Threat
The solution is not to cancel Project 17A or stop building frigates. India needs a modern, capable navy to protect its maritime interests. The Indian Ocean region is contested, and China’s naval presence is growing. High-end frigates have a role.
But the current trajectory is imbalanced. India has:
-
A response fleet facing delays, with ships delivered without critical components.
-
A sensor grid with incomplete coverage and overdue upgrades.
-
A domestic industrial ecosystem that still depends on imports for the most critical parts.
-
Investments that are out of step with the threats they are meant to address.
The article’s most damning sentence is worth repeating: “An Indian hull lacking the premium sensors required to find these vessels is effectively not responding to China’s presence.” India could have a hundred frigates, but if they cannot detect submarines, they are useless against the most dangerous threat.
The priority must shift from building more hulls to completing the sensor grid. The Chain of Static Sensors needs to be extended, upgraded, and hardened. The imported components for the frigates’ radars and sonars must be stockpiled or indigenised. The financing and timelines for sensor integration must be as tight as those for hull construction.
Adding more receivers to a network transmitting a fuzzy picture does not clarify the picture. It only adds more confused receivers. India must first fix the picture—complete the sensor grid, resolve the import dependencies, and ensure that every hull commissioned is actually combat-ready. Then, and only then, should it add more hulls to a fleet that can see, understand, and respond.
Conclusion: A Fleet That Can See
The INS Mahendragiri is a beautiful ship. It represents engineering skill, industrial capacity, and national ambition. But a beautiful ship that cannot detect a submarine is not a warship; it is a target. A frigate that cannot track a drone is not a defence; it is a liability.
India’s maritime challenges are real. China’s submarines are in the Indian Ocean. Houthi drones are in the Arabian Sea. Piracy and smuggling persist. But the response must be matched to the threat. For high-end threats—submarines, anti-ship missiles, drone swarms—India needs high-end sensors on high-end platforms. For low-end threats, it needs the Coast Guard, patrol vessels, and surveillance. And for all threats, it needs a sensor grid that provides a clear, real-time picture of what is happening in India’s waters.
Adding more frigates to a blind fleet does not make it see. India must first open its eyes.
5 Questions & Answers Based on the Article
Q1. What is Project 17A, and what recent delivery milestone was achieved on April 30, 2026?
A1. Project 17A is a ₹45,000-crore programme to build seven ‘Nilgiri’-class frigates for the Indian Navy. These frigates have anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine capabilities and are designed as an advanced complement to the ‘Shivalik’ class. On April 30, 2026, the INS Mahendragiri was delivered, completing six deliveries in 17 months. However, the project had previously faced multiple delays, and the CAG has flagged persistent issues with design changes, missing components, and paper commissioning.
Q2. What critical issues did the CAG flag regarding India’s warship construction programmes?
A2. The CAG flagged two critical issues. First, hundreds of design changes in previous warship classes during construction have caused delays. Ships have been delivered late or, worse, delivered “on paper” while lacking critical components such as engines and sensors. Second, a 2025 CAG report found that the Navy was inducting platforms without building the supporting infrastructure (docks, repair facilities, training simulators, logistics supply chains). Without this infrastructure, ships cannot operate effectively even if they are nominally commissioned.
Q3. Project 17A uses 75% indigenous components by value. Why is this still a problem according to the article?
A3. While 75 per cent indigenous content by value is commendable, many critical parts are still sourced from abroad—particularly engines, sensors (radars and sonars), and weapons systems. Without these imported components, the vessels’ final integration is withheld. India can build most of each ship, but it exercises limited control over timelines because it depends on foreign suppliers for the most critical parts. A frigate waiting for an imported radar is not combat-ready.
Q4. What is the “detect-decide-respond” system, and why does the article argue it is incomplete?
A4. India built the Chain of Static Sensors after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, with radar hardware involving imported parts. The Chain has been extended to Mauritius, Sri Lanka, and the Seychelles. Together with naval platforms, this forms a detect-decide-respond system. However, the frigates’ radars and sonars—the most imported and most delayed components—are essential for the ‘detect’ function. Without them, “adding more surface combatants is like adding receivers to a network still transmitting a fuzzy picture.” India has the ‘decide’ and ‘respond’ parts but lacks a clear ‘detect’ picture.
Q5. According to the article, what is the risk of allowing industry interests to drive naval procurement?
A5. The article warns that sustaining domestic shipyards and absorbing new technologies—while legitimate industrial policy goals—risks allowing industry interests to supersede the demands of the threat environment. Once a large programme like Project 17A is underway, it develops institutional momentum: jobs, contracts, and political constituencies become attached to it. Cancelling or even slowing the programme becomes politically difficult, regardless of whether the threat environment has changed or whether the ships are actually combat-ready. The result is a fleet that is larger but not necessarily more capable—”investments that are out of step with the threats they are meant to address.”
