RE:Guys how far we are ahead of porki's military capabilities esp in airfroce
by Shankar on Feb 28, 2008 09:34 AM Permalink
as far as my knowledge is concerned, we r a lil ahead of those guys....c..even if we r flying the coffins, we have higly skilled pilots...our MIG's are capable of killing those F16's being used by dumbass pakis...so i think we have a winning edge!!!
RE:RE:Guys how far we are ahead of porki's military capabilities esp in airfroce
by Rajeev on Feb 28, 2008 09:36 AM Permalink
we have a wiining edge if we just take into account pakistan ..But considering pak-china nexus, we have to play a balancing act which works to our disadvantage.
RE:Guys how far we are ahead of porki's military capabilities esp in airfroce
by subish achamparambil on Feb 28, 2008 09:39 AM Permalink
South east asian countries is looking into Indian supports (Malaysia, Indonasia, Thialand ..etc) because they cannot approch Australia (too much US) and China (Grr...)..
RE:Guys how far we are ahead of porki's military capabilities esp in airfroce
by Rajeev on Feb 28, 2008 09:00 AM Permalink
as far as airforce is concerned, we were better when we had sukhois, mirage 2000's but now they have got F-16's so as per my opinion, the race between porki af and iaf is neck to neck. situation will change in our favour once we get 126 fighters and also an aircraft carrier.
RE:Guys how far we are ahead of porki's military capabilities esp in airfroce
by kshitij tumbde on Feb 28, 2008 09:40 AM Permalink
Pakis have got F16s but they are not fitted with latest technology. Whereas Sukhoi MKI is a modern air superiority aircraft. F-16 is a good multirole fighter jet but its primary purpose is not air superiority. Ie air to air combat. In that F-15 and Sukhoi are top jets. F-16s are good to launch strikes near the ground but they can not be used to gain control of airspace. Hence we are much better place than pak. Only way pak airforce can overwhelm Indian on their own is to catch IAF by surprise and destroy jets on the ground , else PAK air force is doomed when comapred to Indian air force.
RE:Guys how far we are ahead of porki's military capabilities esp in airfroce
by Rajeev on Feb 28, 2008 09:43 AM Permalink
that was an informative stuff.. Thanks..
RE:Guys how far we are ahead of porki's military capabilities esp in airfroce
by subish achamparambil on Feb 28, 2008 09:31 AM Permalink
Yes that is true .. and this all shud not be just to scare our neighbors .. but to play the protector role for whole south asian countries which china failed to do..
RE:RE:Guys how far we are ahead of porki's military capabilities esp in airfroce
by Rajeev on Feb 28, 2008 09:33 AM Permalink
thats also true..As India grows, countries in the south asian region will look upon India for conflict resolution and also to play the balancing act..
RE:RE:Guys how far we are ahead of porki's military capabilities esp in airfroce
by Rajeev on Feb 28, 2008 09:35 AM Permalink
that is true.. as India progresses, other countries in the region will look upon india for conflict resolution and to play the balancing act
RE:To Praveen George and Pavan Chandra
by sadaChiddi on Feb 28, 2008 09:02 AM Permalink
Only after reservations for back ward category, India started marching ahead in recent times.he real reveolution actually started after reservation for the suppressed sections of society Loot at the pathetic state of all goovernment run agenices,it is mostly run by so called upper caset men who were at the helm of affairs. Compare this with the state of indian economy and its places pre -reservation and post -reservation a cursory glance will tell you great difference it made
RE:RE:To Praveen George and Pavan Chandra
by Vijay B on Feb 28, 2008 09:13 AM Permalink
Great! Now here's another fellow!
Mr.SadaChiddi, India started marching ahead the day Mr.PV Narasimha Rao took over as the Prime Minister of an India that had enough money in the treasury to buy oil for a week, on a minority government, and by sheer Chanakya-worthy capability, opened up the economy and ushered in a new era for all ordinary middle class Indians.
No prizes for guessing what caste PVN was born into.
RE:RE:RE:RE:To Praveen George and Pavan Chandra
by Vijay B on Feb 28, 2008 09:24 AM Permalink
One final thing that I want to say - are you guys, really, BLIND or something?
Can't you see what wrong you're doing? Work hard, earn your bread, earn your education, trust hard work - it will never fail you. But the moment you take something for free, know that a part of your soul you've sold out. It will take eternity to get it back. And a whole lot of pain.
Dear brothers, look, we're all human and we love each other. Don't simply pass on hatred. See, my caustic reaction in the beginning was only because of such an unwarranted accusation against Brahmins. I'm now repenting for having been caustic, it hurts a lot guys.
Why are you spreading hate and allowing hate to spread? There is no limit to this - it will begin against one country v/s another, then it will poison us like one religion against another, then one caste against another, then one brother against another, and then worse, children against Parents, the list is endless.
There is never any limit to anything. Good or bad. Know this.
RE:RE:RE:To Praveen George and Pavan Chandra
by Vijay B on Feb 28, 2008 09:28 AM Permalink
Looks like rediff doesn't like India's recent history.. very well. All I pointed out were the sorry conditions of the country prevailing when PVN took over. I don't know who saw abuse in that message!
RE:RE:RE:To Praveen George and Pavan Chandra
by avtar priyadarshan on Feb 28, 2008 09:25 AM Permalink
u didnt mention ur nationality. If u belong to any country except india , i will kick u out but if not, ur wish shall come true my son...
@Sudhanshu I agree missiles are useful..But now with pak,india and china all having nukes, the possibility of a full fledged war is remote. But imagine there is a stand off on a issue or some adventure like kargil..But remember missiles can still be neutralized..But an aircraft carrier is very tough to neutralize. So is the aircraft carriers which can really stop any misadventures.. if say gorskov is in arabian sea then pakistan will thing twice before starting any new drama.
RE:@Sudhanshu
by sudhanshu shilpi on Feb 28, 2008 09:04 AM Permalink
Aircraft carriers are so huge and slow moving, with submarines these can be neutralized within minutes, rendering the aircraft carrier only an expensive (including the human resource and aircrafts) coffins. To refresh your memory, MIGs were used to kick the hell out of the infiltrators during Kargil event. At your so called hypothetical situations, there is no scope of an aircraft carrier. The airfields are so close that within minutes a couple of squadrons can kick our enemy's backs. Aircraft carrier by the time can get nearer to a range where fighters can fly off, the fighters from airfields from border would have made couple of strikes. Again, aircraft carrier was not used during Kargil event and aircrafts within the border area were kicked into action.
Let it keep coming Rajeev, nice discussing with you. ;-)
RE:@Sudhanshu
by Rajeev on Feb 28, 2008 09:09 AM Permalink
hmmm..But in kargil war, you forgot one important point.. The pakis were worried about the fuel depots in karachi even though it is thousands of miles away from kargil.Why? because Indian navy was planning to block karachi port. When nawaz saw this danger, he rushed to washington. so what I want to convey is battle can be opened in any sector but once started.. there are various modes of neutralizing enemy apart from direct fight on the battle field..
RE:RE:@Sudhanshu
by sudhanshu shilpi on Feb 28, 2008 09:28 AM Permalink
Well, something was out of context I guess. I was saying that having so many airforce bases on border and nearer to Karachi also, there is very less need for an expensive aircraft carrier. Ships, aircrafts, submarines, missiles would be enough to be deterrent unless of course we have manufactured our own aircraft carrier to use it to flex our muscular might.
RE:@Sudhanshu
by Rajeev on Feb 28, 2008 09:22 AM Permalink
agreed pakistan is small and doesn't extend much beyond gujarat. But with changing situations, we have to be ready for long distance wars. Pakistan is building a gwadar port, which is 200 miles from persian gulf. What is they block ships carrying oil for us. Only an aircraft carrier can travel that far and give a devastating blow. Apart from sheer geography, we should also keep in mind, that as India is growing and becoming a super power, it needs to assert itself over long distances.
RE:@Sudhanshu
by sudhanshu shilpi on Feb 28, 2008 09:33 AM Permalink
Hey cool. No problem. May be something was not all right what I said. Anyway, my only point finally is we should not be cheated or rendered helpless even after we purchase warfare equipments from any foreign country as their only interest in profits and not the welfare of our country. Now to bring close to an interesting discussion and well placed points by you, I would say, we should leave the decision to the patriotic defense personnel (not ministers) to decide if they want to own such carriers and other warfare hardware and softwares. Bye. Have a good time.
RE:@Sudhanshu
by subish achamparambil on Feb 28, 2008 09:36 AM Permalink
what pakistan's PM told that time is "if we have a full war.. we have fuel for only 5 days".. that is just to scare India that instead of land war, Pak will go for nuclear war .. which was strongly opposed by US in strong words and they withdrawn .. but that time military was not ready to withdraw and our Indian army attacked and throw them out of kargil .. then military chief there and their pm had problem and rest is history .. heheh
Before going for an aircraft carrier the Navy should first assess the need for a huge ship which would difficult to maintain. A brief history of evolution of navies would be in order. In the early 20th century, battleships and battlecruisers of the 'dreadnought' class were the talk of the day. But with submarines gaining precedence and with airpower becoming more and more pronounced, the battlecruiser - with its weak upper deck armour plating and the battleship - with its slow speed - became sitting ducks for submarines. In World War II, the German Kriegsmarines most powerful battleship the 'Tirpitz' saw very little action and the germans depended heavily on their submarines or U Boats. After the sinking of the 'Hood' and 'Repulse', the Royal Navy also saw the battleship in a poor light. Aircraft carriers were heavily in demand. But today, the accent is on missiles which are easily launched from destroyers and frigates. Aircraft also are entering a phase when there would be more of unmanned flights piloted from the ground. So do we really need aircraft carriers?
Both the 'Gorshkov' and the 'Kitty Hawk' are old - more than 35 years old and it would be better for the Indian Navy - if it needs to police the Indian Ocean - to build a medium range nuclear powered aircraft carrier at home. If we can do so many things, we should be able to do this easily.
RE:Aircraft carriers are obsolete
by Kaushik Ganguli on Feb 28, 2008 09:18 AM Permalink
Thanks - because it is a pleasure to write on such topics other than regional parochialism and hatred which have become passe'.
RE:Aircraft carriers are obsolete
by sudhanshu shilpi on Feb 28, 2008 09:22 AM Permalink
I agree, we ourselves are the reason for the split in our community and country. If we all prefer to ignore our caste, religion and only believe we are Indians, we can kick the backs of any country in all spheres.
RE:Aircraft carriers are obsolete
by Kaushik Ganguli on Feb 28, 2008 09:33 AM Permalink
But to come back to the issue of the Aircraft carrier, I do believe we need an aircraft carrier but not one of these obsolete behemoths. If we see the trend of navies today, big ships are not the case anymore. The maximum displacement of a destroyer would be say 35,000 tons and a frigate would be say 20,000 tons. Speed is much more important and also to strike at the enemy at strategic points.
RE:RE:Aircraft carriers are obsolete
by sudhanshu shilpi on Feb 28, 2008 09:38 AM Permalink
Yes very true. My only concern is getting cheated and I have made a few points above to Rajeev if you would please refer them. Thanx for bringing out some good points. Bye.
RE:Aircraft carriers are obsolete
by kshitij tumbde on Feb 28, 2008 09:35 AM Permalink
Dear Sir:
It has been proven that aircraft carriers are aggressive security systems. They are protected by airplanes, radars, battleships and even submarines. Submarine based navy is defensive where as aircraft carriers are offeinsive. US won the WWII because of aircraft carriers could be taken near to Japanese shores to launch strikes. You can take aircraft carrier anywhere in the ocean and lauch your fighter jets there. USA itself maintains atleast 8 on each coast. total around 16. Kitty Hawk is too old and India can get a better deal elsewhere.
RE:Aircraft carriers are obsolete
by Sahadevan KK on Feb 28, 2008 09:51 AM Permalink
Gates is frightening our PM and our reformers. MMS must recognise what were happened Mushraff, Tony Blair, Japan PM, and Australian PM.
Does India really need an aircraft carrier or it is just to show the muscular bulge of our defense force? As the enemy countries are our neighbors, investing in such an expensive that too a deal strung with so many strings that we would be only dancing to the tunes of the selling country even though we might have the carrier with us. Even if we wanted to use the carrier to ward off danger, strings will be pulled by the selling nation and we would just whimper back, sit and watch things go against us. We have pretty good navy force without a carrier and air raids could be carried out from any place nearer to borders of our enemy nation. Forget the carrier, both from Russia and US, try to build your own and use the funds to become self-reliant in various areas of defense equipment and maintenance. Let countries like US, France, Britain, etc. keep begging us to purchase their wares but do not get hooked to their vested lies and smart talks. If they want India to stand out in Asia, let them kick the backs of our enemy nation. Let them give us a moral support. This, they will not do as it will not generate money for them. They need to divide and create arms race in Asia so that they can benefit by poking their noses and keep profiting from the situation. Let us just stop relying on them or at least let us also start playing games and try to get benefit out their desire to sell us their wares.
RE:Aircraft carrier?
by Rajeev on Feb 28, 2008 08:25 AM Permalink
Principally agreed that we should mfg our own stuff. But have you ever read about the reviews of our products. The DRDO after gulping billions came out with a Arjuna tank and in a battle exercise , Indian army found the tank to be useful so we had to import T-90 tanks as a priority. This is the story with most of the stuff mfd in India. With this fate, we cannot expect our soldiers to fight an enemy who has got the latest and greatest stuff..Secondly India is aspiring to become a naval super power, for controlling all the Indian ocean politics..For that we need an Aircraft carrier on each of our coasts. Thats the price to be paid for becoming big.
RE:Aircraft carrier?
by sudhanshu shilpi on Feb 28, 2008 08:33 AM Permalink
True. But as such does not India have very good vessels and newly acquired submarine enough to maintain current status of superior naval force within South Asian region? What is the need for an aircraft carrier? We are not going to take our vessels to far off lands/seas like the US does. Basically, we have threat only from our neighborhood. For this, I guess an aircraft carrier is not only quite expensive proposition but also highly strung with strings making the ownership of the carrier only a show piece, kind of muscular bulge to make wary the enemies.
RE:Aircraft carrier?
by Rajeev on Feb 28, 2008 08:38 AM Permalink
Submarines are usefull fighting machines.. But Aircraft carriers are not just fighting machines.. They are floating battlefields. They are a hugh deterrant. Just remember our aircraft carrier, vikrant.. That single ship screwed up pakistani defences.
RE:Aircraft carrier?
by sudhanshu shilpi on Feb 28, 2008 08:47 AM Permalink
Yes it did. But the current scenario is different in that we have developed precise and deadly long distance missiles, which we did not have in those times. At that time, Vikrant proved and played a vital role but now we have like said above, missiles to strike at any given time and precisely, we have airfields nearer to the borders and also satelites to get information regarding enemy activity.
Unlike US we have one very significant tactical advantage. Due to our foreign policy successes all the enemies are our immediate neighbours. I do think we can use the druv helicopters and the sarang aswell to fight against any invasion . Not to tell this would give a big ego boost to our HAL employees .
RE:Why should we require kitti hawn when we have druv advanced light helicopters
by Prashant Sharma on Feb 28, 2008 08:16 AM Permalink
Kitty Hawk is an aircraft carrier. Dhruv is an helicopter.
RE:Why should we require kitti hawn when we have druv advanced light helicopters
by Rajeev on Feb 28, 2008 08:14 AM Permalink
You can think that DRDO machinery can be used in war. But please also read what our armed forces say, they are totally frustrated by the crappy and faulty stuff invented/provided by DRDO.Thats why we have to rely on foreign nations for weapons.
RE:Why should we require kitti hawn when we have druv advanced light helicopters
by Raghu K on Feb 28, 2008 08:26 AM Permalink
Nice idea. Dhruv helicopters against Pakistan's F16 fighters... It would be a treat to watch.
RE:Why should we require kitti hawn when we have druv advanced light helicopters
by sunil yadav on Feb 28, 2008 08:44 AM Permalink
idiot LCA against F-16's will be delight to watch
RE:Why should we require kitti hawn when we have druv advanced light helicopters
by Sahadevan KK on Feb 28, 2008 10:09 AM Permalink
History will prove Indian people are not ready to sell of India to America. They remember a Gandhiji and old Congress as well as how Britishers ran away from here.
