@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
