Israel Hezbollah Pager Attack.

[solo_wing]

How is it a great deal then?

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.

Who says they're immature?

That was Russia's fault. At what point did it become our fault?

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.

 

[TEUser2K1]

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.

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...

 

[blr_p]

Getting Nuclear class submarines instead of diesel submarine is not a great deal?

See the price

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

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.

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.

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.

Did we made Russia compensate for that delay and overruns?

Which other countries will loan us a SSBN without having to be in an alliance?

Not so simple

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

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.

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

Ex personnel can talk. They don't decide nor have any responsibility. We need a minimum of three carriers.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[solo_wing]

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

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.

Ex personnel can talk. They don't decide nor have any responsibility. We need a minimum of three carriers.

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.

Subs are for defense. Carriers are for domination. IN's doctrine has been about domination since the 60s.

Subs are not just for defence. They can play any role..even attack . That is why they are so deadly.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[blr_p]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

He has a point of view. Nothing more.

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).

How long until its operational?

Subs are not just for defence. They can play any role..even attack . That is why they are so deadly.

Subs are for area denial. They can't dominate.

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.

Well then those with existing carriers should start selling them for scrap as they have no value according to you.

Again my point these countries have global ambitions.
China wants to be next super power and they are clearly emerging as one.

China can't project anything beyond their seaboard.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Atleast try to accept it was a poor decision. How much more you want to hear about this jhumla junk we got.

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.

 

[solo_wing]

If you think Gorskhov was bad, what the Chinese got from the Ukrainians was an even bigger load of junk.

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.

 

[blr_p]

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.

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

 

[solo_wing]

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.

Money is exactly what I am "crying about" we paid too much for too little. That's my point.

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.

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.

 

[blr_p]

Money is exactly what I am "crying about" we paid too much for too little. That's my point.

How do you know its too little?

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.

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

 

[guest_999]

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.

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.

 

[blr_p]

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.

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.

 

[guest_999]

And what will China be like. Old and fading away.

Well they say the only two certain things in this world are death & taxes so let time be the judge.

 

[TEUser2K1]

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...

You control your farmers you will breathe easy. The geography around Delhi doesn't allow for stubble burning like other parts of the country.

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

Interesting info...

 

[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.

 

[TEUser2K1]

Armed drones are currently not a priority for the IAF said the airforce chief a year ago.

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.

 

[solo_wing]

Armed drones are currently not a priority for the IAF said the airforce chief a year ago.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

Yes because one is in active service and the other is not. Are so stupid not to understand the difference?

 

[solo_wing]

Armed drones are currently not a priority for the IAF said the airforce chief a year ago.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Yes because one is in active service and the other is not. Are so stupid not to understand the difference?

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.

 

[blr_p]

People who fail to make a valid argument start getting personal. That is how it is always. So not going to blame you.

Watch the video.

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.

Who's word makes policy? Why does rhis even need to be explained.

 

[TEUser2K1]

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.

MSN

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

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

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

To hit deep inside Russia, Ukraine has built its own drones

https://www.npr.org/2024/11/20/nx-s1-5065480/ukraine-war-drones-russia

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.