mattThat is suprising as most people I have spoken to say the same thing as I am.
It would be nice to read this pole.
I can see by your emblem Avatar which side of the bed your on, but does that really represent 60% of the country?
mattWell it wont matter what this guy says, congress and the nehru dinesty will sell the country down the river as always at any given chance.
CTBT will be signed and India will become a lacky as opposed to being a contender once again.
We will have lots of useless F/A-18E/F I+ that have half the specific capability compared to most other aircraft in the competition.
mattNot sure if harry is around, guess he got bored..
Most of the debates are theoretical still..
lots of items still in stagnation no knew news ..
mattif you mean the kilo story a few months back then be informed that it was a fictional story that was lifted from an yet older issue of another rag.
Not sure of a rag, I do remember reading statments of IN down playing it.
mattWhich IN Submarine did the Chinese capture?or was it in your dreams.:p
See below. IN Navy sub is forced to surface, apologies although the chinese did not in effect capture the sub. Far as I am concerned they were not that far from it if they had forced the IN sub to capitulate.
____________________________________________________
Chinese navy sees off Indian sub
http://chinesemil.blogspot.com
Chinese warships sent to fight piracy in waters off Somalia were stalked by an Indian attack submarine and the two sides became locked in a tense standoff for at least half an hour, mainland media reported yesterday.
After rounds of manoeuvring during which both sides tried to test for weaknesses in the other’s sonar system, the two Chinese warships managed to force the Indian submarine to surface. The Indian vessel left without further confrontation.
The incident was reported by Qingdao Chenbao yesterday and was widely carried by major mainland websites such as Sina.com and QQ. Both Beijing and New Delhi were silent about the matter.
This is the first reported military standoff between China and India since a bitter border war in 1962.
The incident took place on January 15 in waters near the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, which separates Yemen and Djibouti, at the western end of the Gulf of Aden. The Chinese destroyers had picked up an unidentified submarine on their sonar, the report said.
The Chinese navy soon identified it as a 70-metre-long vessel armed with 20 torpedoes. Although the report did not directly specify the model, it provided a file photo of a Kilo-class submarine belonging to the Indian navy, which fit the description.
The submarine tried to evade the Chinese warships by diving deeper. But the warships continued the chase.
The report said the Chinese ships sent an anti-submarine helicopter to help track the submarine, which had tried to jam the Chinese warships’ sonar system.
But the two destroyers eventually cornered the submarine and forced it to surface. The report said the submarine had been trailing the Chinese ships since they had entered the Indian Ocean on the way to Somalia.
It said that at one point the Chinese commander even ordered the helicopter to have its anti-submarine torpedoes ready.
The Indian submarine is believed to have been collecting electronic signals and sonar data from the Chinese warships. Such information would be crucial in naval conflicts.
The two destroyers China sent to Somalia are among its most advanced warships. One of the destroyers, Haikou, was commissioned in 2005.
It is rare for mainland media to report such a close encounter between the Chinese navy and foreign warships. Although deemed a provocative and unfriendly gesture, it was not unusual for one country to send submarines to collect other navies’ information.
In 2006, a Chinese submarine was detected stalking the US aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk near the Japanese island of Okinawa. The Chinese submarine eventually surfaced close to the US battle group.
mattMy fav has to be the one that hits the other guys plane..
or hmm the mk1 photon torpedo.
Has anyone made swarming AAM?
mattWhy not? The Germans did it in WW2. They planted automatic weather stations on remote coastal spots around the North Atlantic, including one in Canada. I think they had batteries, charged by a wind-powered generator. Very clever, for the time – but China could do much better nowadays.
They would not have to be too big either something hand held, spread a few around the islands and bingo use India’s own island to strangle her and listen in on the whereabouts of the Indian nuclear submarines.
A stratigic master stroke!
I would not be suprised if the chinese have been planting mines and listening devices in the Indian ocean while they were on the anti piracy missions.
The ease with which they captured the Indian Diesel submarines also may give a hint.
It is what I would do if I wanted to hem India in.
mattNot sure for the others but i am sure that Indian data is a bit wrong also, far as I can remember some of the Su-30MKI’s have been marked for maritime roles, and with the addition of the air launched brahmos the anti ship capability suddenly increases.
If you then count the number of countries within the malaca straights region that will be able to launch the Brahmos then you can realise that the Carrier is going to be very vunerable.
______________________________________________________
India, Russia close to final testing of air-launched BrahMos
PTI 8 August 2009, 02:27pm IST
Print Email Discuss Bookmark/Share Save Comment Text Size: |
MOSCOW: Indian and Russian scientists are close to final development and testing of the air-launched version of the BrahMos supersonic cruise
missile.
A top Russian defence official said a new takeoff engine for launching of the missile in air and at extreme high altitudes had been developed.
Alexander Leonov, director of the Russian Machine Building Research and Production Centre, said: “we are ready for test launches.”
Leonov was quoted as saying by the Itar-Tass news agency that the initial test firing of the missile would be undertaken from the Sukhoi-30 MKI, but did not specify the exact dates.
After testing, the IAF would be launch customers for the air launched BrahMos cruise missile, which will make the Indian Air Force, the only force in Asia to have such a capability.
The BrahMos is already inducted in its ship to shore role and land-to-land versions in the Indian Navy and Army.
Leonov for the first time disclosed that Moscow and New Delhi were also “very close” to designing and testing of the submarine launched version of the BrahMos missile.
_____________________________________________________
That list of aircraft seems to be a bit off.. Why do you need aircraft to attack a aircraft carrier?
The chinese are working hard to have Ballistic missiles that can hit see targets, and i am sure many more countries have this capability as well.
mattGot this months Foriegn Affairs and there was an interesting article.. here is a snippet of it.. the guy has it very wrong and looks to be confused on many of his points.
i.e. cancel certain prgs like aircraft carreers etc because the US needs to get ready for asymetric warfare.. but order new bombers because the US needs to get ready for asymetric warfare.
The full article is worth reading..
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65150/andrew-f-krepinevich-jr/the-pentagons-wasting-assets
______________________________________
The Pentagon’s Wasting Assets
The Eroding Foundations of American Power Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr.
July/August 2009
PrintSend to friendDecrease font sizeTextIncrease font size Summary — The military foundations of U.S. dominance are eroding. In response, Washington should pursue new sources of military advantage and a more modest grand strategy.
ANDREW F. KREPINEVICH, JR., is President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and the author of Seven Deadly Scenarios.
“Diplomacy should not focus on intimidation but on moral persuasion.
”
Joseph K. comments on “The Pentagon’s Wasting Assets”
14 Comments Join The military foundations of the United States’ global dominance are eroding. For the past several decades, an overwhelming advantage in technology and resources has given the U.S. military an unmatched ability to project power worldwide. This has allowed it to guarantee U.S. access to the global commons, assure the safety of the homeland, and underwrite security commitments around the globe. U.S. grand strategy assumes that such advantages will continue indefinitely. In fact, they are already starting to disappear.
Several events in recent years have demonstrated that traditional means and methods of projecting power and accessing the global commons are growing increasingly obsolete — becoming “wasting assets,” in the language of defense strategists. The diffusion of advanced military technologies, combined with the continued rise of new powers, such as China, and hostile states, such as Iran, will make it progressively more expensive in blood and treasure — perhaps prohibitively expensive — for U.S. forces to carry out their missions in areas of vital interest, including East Asia and the Persian Gulf. Military forces that do deploy successfully will find it increasingly difficult to defend what they have been sent to protect. Meanwhile, the U.S. military’s long-unfettered access to the global commons — including space and cyberspace — is being increasingly challenged.
Recently, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued in these pages for a more “balanced” U.S. military, one that is better suited for the types of irregular conflicts now being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, he also cautioned, “It would be irresponsible not to think about and prepare for the future.” Despite this admonition, U.S. policymakers are discounting real future threats, thereby increasing the prospect of strategic surprises. What is needed is nothing short of a fundamental strategic review of the United States’ position in the world — one similar in depth and scope to those undertaken in the early days of the Cold War.
A DANGEROUS GAME
The term “wasting asset” became common among U.S. policymakers in the early days of the Cold War. At the end of World War II, the United States possessed an incalculable strategic advantage: a monopoly on nuclear weapons. So when the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb in August 1949, it triggered a sense of panic in the United States, as the U.S. nuclear arsenal had become a wasting asset.
mattDoes anyone know what is being offered to the IAF in terms of the F/A-18EF?
Is it the block II the block II+ or the block II++?
mattIf I were a strategist for the United States, I wouldn’t be too concerned about Bhutan, my worries would be Russia. And this specifically applies to defense deals and dual use tech. India probly has enough tech exchange with the russkis to be a cause for concern.
USS.
But from what I remember the USA is probably the last people we would want to buy a reactor from, i.e. their latest nuclear reactor is still 20-30 years old and possibly 10-20 years older than Russian/French reactors.
mattGuess you can not call it bad journalism because its got us talking but its just sensationalism from the BBC.
mattCan anyone clear up what is happening with the nuclear deal? Is India giving land to the US so that the US can built nuclear reactors in india?
:S
Thank god vallabhai patel cant use the internet!
mattDid india negotiate any points on the end user agreements or did it once again cow tow to american requests?
Congress seems to be well and truely in the pockets of the CIA.
mattI like this thread but I wondering where this lack of helicopters quote from David Cameron comes from is it just political blurb?
Surely the number of helicopters required is dependent on the strategy used in afghanistan and that is set by a military comander and not by the primeminister, as much as we all love to blame gordan brown for everything including seeds in the back yard not getting enough sunlight I have to wonder if this all smoke and mirrors from the tories?
Is there anyone on the forum who is ex RAF or ARMY who can shed more light on all this?
Sign In
