Israel Hezbollah Pager Attack.

blr_p said:
How is it a great deal then?
Click to expand...
Getting Nuclear class submarines instead of diesel submarine is not a great deal?

Plus this is a transfer of technology and knowhow to Australians. Given them huge leap in such technology.

they can even start becoming manufacturing partner with them and start selling to other countries.

And maintenance has to be there anyways..whatever you buy so that is out of question.




blr_p said:
Who says they're immature?

That was Russia's fault. At what point did it become our fault?
Click to expand...
Did we made Russia compensate for that delay and overruns?

Beside the lack of transparency. It is said that even when carrier was acquired after lot of pressure from India to Russia and Russia President going himself to shipyard and scolding the company about getting the job done.

We got it in poor condition and India again had to do some refitting .

One of the Ex-Navy chief even adviced against the deal as mentioned it too old and not needing such a huge ton aircraft carrier for Indian Ocean

As India is mostly patrolling and defending around its region only. Unlike USA and Russia who have global ambitions . They require such huge aircraft carrier.

India could do with small class aircraft carrier atleast in those days.

Ofcourse now we are moving towards a bigger power .

But what I am understanding is with hypersonic missiles and UAVs...aircraft carrier will not be much used in future or atleast will be only more of status symbol.
 
solo_wing said:
Australia's only concern is rising China otherwise they are in very safe position ..no border..no territorial disputes etc and phir bhi why they want to spend so much is something I am not fully understanding.
Click to expand...
Australia is even referred to as a "de facto member of NATO". Australia is referred to by NATO as one of their "partners across the globe", agreeing to work on crisis and conflict management, post-conflict situations, reconstruction and facilitating humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
So, the cost of participating in the elite club of world's top bullies...
 
  • Like
Reactions: solo_wing
solo_wing said:
Getting Nuclear class submarines instead of diesel submarine is not a great deal?
Click to expand...
See the price
solo_wing said:
Plus this is a transfer of technology and knowhow to Australians. Given them huge leap in such technology.
Click to expand...
And it means they are point. When I mentioned this to Aussies they were shocked.

If the Americans sell you offensive gear it means you are the first out and closest to the enemy. Fair if they want American protection.
solo_wing said:
they can even start becoming manufacturing partner with them and start selling to other countries.

And maintenance has to be there anyways..whatever you buy so that is out of question.
Click to expand...
Did they need it or could they have got away for less ie. non nuclear. See i can also make arguments and call it a dumb deal.

The first SSN isn't even expected until the 2040s. So still plenty of time for things to go sideaways.

The Australians like Nepalis & Austrians are a wierd bunch. They have banned their governments from any nuclear business. So propulsion will be black box and handled by the OEM. The rest they will manage.

solo_wing said:
Did we made Russia compensate for that delay and overruns?
Click to expand...
Which other countries will loan us a SSBN without having to be in an alliance?

Not so simple

solo_wing said:
We got it in poor condition and India again had to do some refitting .
Click to expand...
That was already known beforehand. So why do it. Same answer. Who else will let us have an offensive weapon without needing to be in an alliance.
solo_wing said:
One of the Ex-Navy chief even adviced against the deal as mentioned it too old and not needing such a huge ton aircraft carrier for Indian Ocean
Click to expand...
Ex personnel can talk. They don't decide nor have any responsibility. We need a minimum of three carriers.
solo_wing said:
As India is mostly patrolling and defending around its region only. Unlike USA and Russia who have global ambitions . They require such huge aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...
Subs are for defense. Carriers are for domination. IN's doctrine has been about domination since the 60s.

India's west coast is traditionally our kill zone. Nothing survives there if we don't allow it.
solo_wing said:
But what I am understanding is with hypersonic missiles and UAVs...aircraft carrier will not be much used in future or atleast will be only more of status symbol.
Click to expand...
You should study the Falklands war and how the British handled the exocet threat with their two carriers. The same deal with hypersonic.

The short answer is look what you give up when you do away with carriers. Future superpower status.

All super power means is the ability to project force beyond your shores. The British winning Falklands qualifies them as a super power.

Why are the Chinese building carriers if they are just status symbols?
 
Last edited:
The first SSN isn't even expected until the 2040s. So still plenty of time for things to go sideaways.
Click to expand...

This is same case for India also.
Even if we go for 127 Rafale now. It is not like we will be getting it anytime soon. Last I heard by the time first batch comes it will be 2035.
And even know we havent decided. So take it 2040 for us also for our first 4.5th Generation fighter jet.

By that time Chinese would have already moved to 6th Gen trials.


blr_p said:
Ex personnel can talk. They don't decide nor have any responsibility. We need a minimum of three carriers.
Click to expand...
This is Ex-Navy chief. He knows what he is talking about I 'm not saying they are right but they do have a valid point.

Who said about not having carriers?. I mentioned we could do with smaller size ones instead of picking this old junk for billions of dollars. ( Almost price of new).

While govt. Were afraid to even talk about it because they knew they had screwed up.

blr_p said:
Subs are for defense. Carriers are for domination. IN's doctrine has been about domination since the 60s.
Click to expand...
Subs are not just for defence. They can play any role..even attack . That is why they are so deadly.
blr_p said:
India's west coast is traditionally our kill zone. Nothing survives there if we don't allow it.

You should study the Falklands war and how the British handled the exocet threat with their two carriers. The same deal with hypersonic.

The short answer is look what you give up when you do away with carriers. Future superpower status.
Click to expand...

I don't know how future wars are exactly going to play out but I do know that aircraft carriers are mostly sitting ducks against hypersonic missiles and drones and even subs.

blr_p said:
All super power means is the ability to project force beyond your shores. The British winning Falklands qualifies them as a super power.

Why are the Chinese building carriers if they are just status symbols?
Click to expand...
Again my point these countries have global ambitions.
China wants to be next super power and they are clearly emerging as one.

British already owned Falkland and when Argentinians attacked they could not sit back.

Does India has any terrority so far from it?.
None.

India's policy is very clear . It does not even want to be a global power.
It just wants to be powerful enough to defend itself.

We are too occupied with Pakistan and China and now even Bangladesh to look somewhere else to show our status symbol.

And even if for once I take your points. Btw the time India will be in position to spread its global influence.

This piece of junk ( Admiral Gorskhov) will be sold in scrap.

Beside in its entire service life with Indian Navy it has never gone further than Arabian sea and Indian Ocean.

Mostly used in Malabar excercise with foreign powers.


$2.5 billion dollars ka Tamasha.( should be above $4 billion dollars in today's time easily).

Let me tell you I was also proud at that time that India was getting this huge aircraft carrier but as when you try to see and understand the actual picture

You know it is not a proud moment for Indians...it is making of Chut*** moment by the govt. Of its people.

Atleast try to accept it was a poor decision. How much more you want to hear about this jhumla junk we got.
 
Last edited:
solo_wing said:
This is same case for India also.
Even if we go for 127 Rafale now. It is not like we will be getting it anytime soon. Last I heard by the time first batch comes it will be 2035.
And even know we havent decided. So take it 2040 for us also for our first 4.5th Generation fighter jet.
Click to expand...
2040? We already have two rafale squadrons.

As to whether to go for more is a call to be taken. It won't take as long this time.

solo_wing said:
By that time Chinese would have already moved to 6th Gen trials.
Click to expand...
There is nothing proven about Chinese defence tech. Why did the Paks rely on F16s inatead of J17s (Chinese F16 copy) after Balakote.

The Pak tank engines are overheating. The destroyers donated never leave shore. I wonder how Pak sailors would trust their lives to a Chinese sub :hilarious:
solo_wing said:
This is Ex-Navy chief. He knows what he is talking about I 'm not saying they are right but they do have a valid point.
Click to expand...
He has a point of view. Nothing more.
solo_wing said:
Who said about not having carriers?. I mentioned we could do with smaller size ones instead of picking this old junk for billions of dollars. ( Almost price of new).
Click to expand...
How long until its operational?
solo_wing said:
Subs are not just for defence. They can play any role..even attack . That is why they are so deadly.
Click to expand...
Subs are for area denial. They can't dominate.
solo_wing said:
I don't know how future wars are exactly going to play out but I do know that aircraft carriers are mostly sitting ducks against hypersonic missiles and drones and even subs.
Click to expand...
Well then those with existing carriers should start selling them for scrap as they have no value according to you.
solo_wing said:
Again my point these countries have global ambitions.
China wants to be next super power and they are clearly emerging as one.
Click to expand...
China can't project anything beyond their seaboard.
solo_wing said:
British already owned Falkland and when Argentinians attacked they could not sit back.
Click to expand...
solo_wing said:
Does India has any terrority so far from it?.
None.
Click to expand...
Can we control what passes through or not. Can't predict future wars but we may have to mount a defence or an attack further away.
solo_wing said:
India's policy is very clear . It does not even want to be a global power.
It just wants to be powerful enough to defend itself.
Click to expand...
India has been the dominant force in the region keeping the peace from the Suez to Singapore for 150 years leading up to WW2. India's traditional role is that of a net provider of security.

What the US does now we did back then in a region that still matters to us.

India is well on it's way to be a great power. A pole if you will. In twenty years that will be a certainty.

Americans are fully behind us for this role. See the hardware we got. P8 Orions. Seaking helicoptersfor sub hunting. Fusion centre near Delhi where everything in rhe IOR is tracked with officers seconded from other countries present.
solo_wing said:
We are too occupied with Pakistan and China and now even Bangladesh to look somewhere else to show our status symbol.

And even if for once I take your points. Btw the time India will be in position to spread its global influence.
Click to expand...
This is the usual left liberal claptrap that accepts China is already the boss. Why do you want to be a loser. All your posts I've corrected have this pattern.

You don't have to take my points they stand on their own.
solo_wing said:
Atleast try to accept it was a poor decision. How much more you want to hear about this jhumla junk we got.
Click to expand...
I've not heard anyone cry about this like you do. Nothing positive on the horizon for you?

Hindsight is always 20-20. What was the context under which the decision was taken. Do you even know?

China acquired its first AC from Ukraine around 1999. They towed it back. Around the cape of good hope it broke and needed emergency repairs in south Africa before it could continue to China.

If you think Gorskhov was bad, what the Chinese got from the Ukrainians was an even bigger load of junk.
 
Last edited:
blr_p said:
If you think Gorskhov was bad, what the Chinese got from the Ukrainians was an even bigger load of junk.
Click to expand...
Atleast you agree it was a junk deal.

Beside Chinese paid only $20 million for it. ......and some $120 million further cost.

Now compare that to 20 times what we paid for similar kind of junk.
 
solo_wing said:
Atleast you agree it was a junk deal.

Beside Chinese paid only $20 million for it. ......and some $120 million further cost.

Now compare that to 20 times what we paid for similar kind of junk.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's junk. I'm saying whatever the Chinese got was worse.

Money isn't the determing factor here. Either you can get an AC or not. We were unable to build one before.

You don't know the constraints under which the decision was taken. Once navy had an AC in the 60s they are not going back. Domination of the seas it is.

We are a captive arms customer of the Russians. At least they don't play funny when we need them. Israelis found out the hard way with the Americans
 
blr_p said:
I'm not saying it's junk. I'm saying whatever the Chinese got was worse.

Money isn't the determing factor here. Either you can get an AC or not. We were unable to build one before.
Click to expand...
Money is exactly what I am "crying about" we paid too much for too little. That's my point.
blr_p said:
You don't know the constraints under which the decision was taken.

We are a captive arms customer of the Russians. At least they don't play funny when we need them.
Click to expand...
In one way or the other you do seem to agree that we were taking wrong decision but you simply don't want to accept it.
 
solo_wing said:
Money is exactly what I am "crying about" we paid too much for too little. That's my point.
Click to expand...
How do you know its too little?
solo_wing said:
In one way or the other you do seem to agree that we were taking wrong decision but you simply don't want to accept it.
Click to expand...
I'm not in a position to say it's a wrong decision. Nothing you have presented persuades me.

There will always be people whining about this or that. With arms its even harder because they could be lobbyists behind. Either pushing or trashing.

And quite frankly telling the military how to do their job isn't something I'm confident doing
 
blr_p said:
India is well on it's way to be a great power. A pole if you will. In twenty years that will be a certainty.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that but what I can tell you with certainty is almost every home which can afford it will have an air purifier in their home in Delhi NCR in twenty years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiran6680
guest_999 said:
I don't know about that but what I can tell you with certainty is almost every home which can afford it will have an air purifier in their home in Delhi NCR in twenty years.
Click to expand...
And what will China be like. Old and fading away.

You control your farmers you will breathe easy. The geography around Delhi doesn't allow for stubble burning like other parts of the country.
 
China know how to mass control people, they will do what ever needed to add numbers to next generation. Let us see how it goes...
blr_p said:
You control your farmers you will breathe easy. The geography around Delhi doesn't allow for stubble burning like other parts of the country.
Click to expand...
thesouthfirst.com

Why is there no stubble burning in South India?

Stubble burning is a process of setting straw stubble on fire to clear fields before the next crop is planted.
thesouthfirst.com thesouthfirst.com
Interesting info...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6pack and blr_p
Armed drones are currently not a priority for the IAF said the airforce chief a year ago.


Still some people here think drones are the end all and be all. They're not. If you want to punish the enemy invest in attack aircraft that can go deep into their territory on a repeatable basis. This is not an area to cheap out on.
 
blr_p said:
Armed drones are currently not a priority for the IAF said the airforce chief a year ago.
Click to expand...
Yet we are ordering those for hundreds of millions from USA, govt. trying their best and advocating indigenous manufacturing of drones for defense use.
Reality is, as with everything, we lagged behind early detecting the potential of drones.
RU vs UA war is primarily a drone war as of now.
 
blr_p said:
Armed drones are currently not a priority for the IAF said the airforce chief a year ago.
Click to expand...
If airforce chief says drones are not important . It is worth to note but if Navy chief says Aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov was not required then he is not be taken seriously.

Wah.
TEUser2K1 said:
Yet we are ordering those for hundreds of millions from USA, govt. trying their best and advocating indigenous manufacturing of drones for defense use.
Reality is, as with everything, we lagged behind early detecting the potential of drones.
RU vs UA war is primarily a drone war as of now.
Click to expand...
4 billions dollar for 31 drone...almost 150million dollar for each.

About Two times more than Sukhoi which is being offer for 75 million dollars..(If I am correct).
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TEUser2K1
TEUser2K1 said:
Yet we are ordering those for hundreds of millions from USA, govt. trying their best and advocating indigenous manufacturing of drones for defense use.
Reality is, as with everything, we lagged behind early detecting the potential of drones.
RU vs UA war is primarily a drone war as of now.
Click to expand...
We are going to using them for surveillance not for attacks. Loiter time is all that matters. To monitor the Indian ocean and elsewhere.

Look at the several hundred drones Iran sent at Israel. All slow moving and were taken out. What did Iran achieve with those drones. NOTHING!

I don't hear much about Israeli drones sent to Iran. Why is that. Same reason the air chief says. Instead a big show was made over the complex maneuvering the jets had to make during the operation.

And Ru UA has been primarily an artillery/infantry war from WW2 with the German defence minister remarking Russia could replenish in three months what the entire EU required a year.

Saying its a drone war is entirely wrong. As I said earlier drones are not a game changer and cannot win wars. Thinking that the earlier Az Ar conflict was the future of warfare had shown drone fanboys to be entirely wrong in Ru UA which to everyone's surprise only highlighted artillery as the gods of war and otherwise quite traditional WW2 style.
solo_wing said:
If airforce chief says drones are not important . It is worth to note but if Navy chief says Aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov was not required then he is not be taken seriously.

Wah.
Click to expand...
Yes because one is in active service and the other is not. Are so stupid not to understand the difference?
 
Last edited:
blr_p said:
Armed drones are currently not a priority for the IAF said the airforce chief a year ago.
Click to expand...
If airforce chief says drones are not important . It is worth to note but if Navy chief says Aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov was not required then he is not be taken seriously.

Wah.
TEUser2K1 said:
Yet we are ordering those for hundreds of millions from USA, govt. trying their best and advocating indigenous manufacturing of drones for defense use.
Reality is, as with everything, we lagged behind early detecting the potential of drones.
RU vs UA war is primarily a drone war as of now.
Click to expand...
4 billions dollar for 31 drone...almost 150million dollar for each.

About Two times more than Sukhoi which is being offer for 75 million dollars..(If I am correct).
blr_p said:
We are going to using them for surveillance not for attacks. Loiter time is all that matters. To monitor the Indian ocean and elsewhere.

Look at the several hundred drones Iran sent at Israel. All slow moving and were taken out. What did Iran achieve with those drones. NOTHING!

I don't hear much about Israeli drones sent to Iran. Why is that. Same reason the air chief says. Instead a big show was made over the complex maneuvering the jets had to make during the operation.

And Ru UA has been primarily an artillery/infantry war from WW2 with the German defence minister remarking Russia could replenish in three months what the entire EU required a year.

Saying its a drone war is entirely wrong. As I said earlier drones are not a game changer and cannot win wars. Thinking that the earlier Az Ar conflict was the future of warfare had shown drone fanboys to be entirely wrong in Ru UA which to everyone's surprise only highlighted artillery as the gods of war and otherwise quite traditional WW2 style.
Click to expand...

blr_p said:
Yes because one is in active service and the other is not. Are so stupid not to understand the difference?
Click to expand...
People who fail to make a valid argument start getting personal. That is how it is always. So not going to blame you.

Basically according to you an active chief is valid but just because another chief who has respectfully honourable finished his service life has no experience backing his say.
 
From today's news:
Google's former CEO and chairman Eric Schmidt is asking for a radical shift in America's military strategy. He proposes that the US military should replace its traditional tank fleets with AI-powered drones.

RU vs UA war is fully depending on drones, to say otherwise will be merely wishful thinking and disingenuous towards oneself:
From Ukraine to Myanmar, Drone Warfare Marks a Paradigm Shift
www.geopoliticalmonitor.com

From Ukraine to Myanmar, Drone Warfare Marks a Paradigm Shift | Geopolitical Monitor

The Myanmar civil war and Ukraine war are serving as laboratories for the testing and development of drone warfare.
www.geopoliticalmonitor.com
Ukraine thrown into war's bleak future as drones open new battlefront
www.bbc.com

Ukraine thrown into war's bleak future as drones open new front

On the front line, drones are killing hundreds every day - showing the world a new kind of high-tech war.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
To hit deep inside Russia, Ukraine has built its own drones

Optic Fiber controlled FPV drones are ruling the war front now by avoiding remote / radio signal corruption, quite a development brought out by RU is this war.
Few Indian companies are very much into building drones for defense use now, stock prices of such companies skyrocketed recent months due to expected support and requirement from Indian govt.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom