Pak Thunderall three submarines were in the vicinity of the epicentre
Indian ocean may be huge but since they were all close to the epicentre, they would be close to each other.
that still means nothing…
Pak ThunderPak Vs Iran => hostile neighbours – Getting interesting
Not really a contest if the US decides to take the lead….
Pak ThunderThis is couple of weeks old, but I did not find it here.
Three submarines damaged by earthquake
30 December 2004: Three submarines of the Indian, US and Chinese navies were damaged by the earthquake off Sumatra that triggered of killer tsunamis in Asia, and while two submarines have returned to their bases, there is no intelligence on the Chinese vessel.
Top sources said that while the American submarine was the first to record the intensity of the tremor, because of advanced sonographic sensors, and dashed off nearly ten messages to its headquarters in California and Pacific base in Hawaii, the Indian vessel was to first to identify the earthquake, but its signal to its mainland base did not produce realtime reaction.
“Both the US and Chinese submarines reported a ‘strange undersea development’,” said a diplomat, “but only the Indian submarine got it right the first time, but its base could not react fast enough, and if it had, the tragedy of such proportions could have been minimised.”
Diplomats say that all three submarines were in the vicinity of the epicentre, and that they could have been flipped over by the quake, suffering damages in the process.
Link:
http://www.newsinsight.net/nati2.asp?recno=3104PLAN in Indian Ocean??
Also 3 subs close to each other. US and Indian subs following Chinese???
Or it could be any other scenario
Where did it say the subs were close to each other? You seen how frickin big teh Indian Ocean is!?
Pak ThunderIts good news that Pakistan continues with the Agosta project, I have always believed that the best way for a smaller country to pose a threat to a bigger one in the naval area is to build more subs, those 3 Agostas have already made the IN buy into some quite expensive ASW assets. Pakistan should build an additional 3 Agostas and then try to get a licence for a Kilo copy Chinese sub, the force should become submarine based rather than ship based.
Sameer
PN is already in talks with DCN to extend the lisceince for another 3 subs, and with the news about the P-3Cs, I think we are seeing the PN slowly transforming into a heavily orientated MPA and Submarine force, these are the best naval assets for a DEFENSIVE force
Pak Thunderhaw! none of these are deep ocean craft just ok for shallow water and estuary patrol
which is where India uses them (Sir Creek region). I have been told the PN ones are
also destined there. a needlessly hostile area because india had offered to amicably
divide that waterbody down the middle, but no(!) pak wanted the eastern shore too.so it looks like while India has delegated the inshore & river patrol work to CG, PN
is now basically doing the CG’s job 😀my fleet is indeed bigger & better than yours. should I cry buckets over it ?
Errr…..right…well done…
Pak ThunderHigh time they got some decent stuff for the navy.The PN is really outclassed.As they say a strong enemy makes a nation stronger and in this case hopefully a stronger PN will push the Indians to really go in for a massive upgrade of the IN(a course on which they have already embarked upon. But a push really helps specially in the submarine arm).
I think thats technically called an arms race, and considering how alot of the population of Indian andd Pakistan live like, its not in anyones interests
Pak Thundercool, we seem to have finally laid this issue to rest!
Regards, Harry, Nitin, George J
😉
Pak ThunderPotentially more CN-235s for the PAF
Flight International 11 Jan 2005
Indonesian Aerospace (IAe) plans to deliver three additional CN-235s and its first CN-235 simulator in the first half of this year, but prospects for badly needed new orders look grim as several Asian operators have delayed potential procurements.
IAe and EADSCasa, both of which manufacture the CN-235, are competing for potential orders in Bangladesh, Brunei, Indonesia, Libya, Pakistan, South Korea and Thailand. For IAe the competitions are critical because its CN-235 order backlog is down to only six aircraft and there is a gap of over one year between the third and fourth delivery. The company has already stopped manufacturing the smaller C-212 – although it has been awarded a new contract to supply EADSCasa with C-212-400 subassemblies – and acknowledges no CN-235 orders are imminent.
In Bangladesh, IAe says it was in detailed negotiations last August for two maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), but a contract could not be forged because the CN-235 came in over budget. Bangladesh is now expected to reduce its requirement to a C-212-sized aircraft. Indonesia is the launch customer for IAe’s MPA variant, with an order for three aircraft. However, only the first of these has been funded. The aircraft is now about 50% complete and set for delivery in late 2006.
Both IAe and EADSCasa are in talks with Libya and South Korea but contracts are not expected until at least 2007. Libya has a potential requirement for eight transports while South Korea, which already operates 12 Spanish-built and eight Indonesian-built CN-235s, is looking for 10-20 additional aircraft. Thailand has a more near-term requirement, but requires only one additional CN-235 or C-212 rainmaker. Brunei is also expected to finally award a contract this year to meet a long-standing requirement for three or four small MPAs.
IAe also hopes to win a follow-on contract with Pakistan, but is now focused on negotiating late delivery penalties for its first batch of aircraft. Three were delivered last year and the last on contract will be delivered next month. Two VIP CN-235s will also be delivered in March and May this year to Malaysia, which already operates six transport versions. Malaysia will also receive a $12 million simulator this month from IAe to support its CN-235 fleet.
BRENDAN SOBIE / SINGAPORE
Pak ThunderThe first naval prototype, M-05, flew at Istres on November 14th 1969, with Jaques Jessberger at the controls for a 30-minute flight. The M version’s main external difference was the undercarriage, with smaller twin nosewheels and single main wheels being adopted to allow for catapult launch and arrested recovery. The undercarriage was also strengthened to withstand a sink rate of 19 ft/sec, compared with 11.8 ft/sec on land-based aircraft. The arrestor hook was strengthened and stressed to 5.5g. Avionics were basically the same as the A model, with the addition of a laser rangefinder and camera port below the top of the nose.
S-07 (XW563), assigned to development of the RAF nav-attack system, flew on June 12th 1970. It later carried out trials of the Matra Magic AAM.
Pak ThunderDon’t interpret the way it suits you. It mentions “all” Omani Jags. Now did the ex-IAF ones have the overwing pylons?
Oh you mean like your Mirage-III-ROSE with Paveway, pic? 😀
They are all good sources but not *complete* sources. For example, does it have the S/Ns or sqns or production batches of the Jags in discussion? Since you seem to think that “google” would provide all the info you need, why are you here in the first place? If you don’t want extensions or info from the actual people who were involved, then perhaps you need another “google” link to contradict another? The author himself agrees that the local production of Indian Jaguars is confusing and tedious.
Until that actually happens, you can stop flooding this thread with worthless diatribe.
Harry, I made my point and will try and prove it, the link I provided was more credible then the Indian source which (with regards to this whole issue) admits it is “confusing and tedious”.
Will try and find some other sources, lets keep away from personal attack though….if you can.
Pak ThunderThese are the sources given in the link I posted, you can decide how “credible” they are
Sources include:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avjag.html
“SEPECAT Jaguar” by Paul Jackson, WORLD AIR POWER JOURNAL, Volume 11 / Winter 1992, 52:111.
“Towards A Super Jaguar” by Jon Lake, COMBAT AIRCRAFT, October-November and December 2000.
“The Jaguar Sharpens Its Claws” by Jon Lake, AIR INTERNATIONAL, December 2000, 356:360.
“Jaguar In India” by Jon Lake, AIR INTERNATIONAL, December 2001, 344:347.
“Planned Jaguar Withdrawal Poses RAF Capability Headache” by Douglas Barrie, AVIATION WEEK, 18 February 2002, 61.
Pak ThunderAsk who you want, but we both know its a matter of time before its proven, that is the aim if the question asked in this thread, once it is proven, you will be proven wrong as simple as that.
Its got nothing to do with friends, enemies et al
Oman did receive its Jags in 1977 and they were equipped with over wing rails Nitin, it really is as simple as that
Pak ThunderThe entire point being that the PN has not declared that its outfitting the choppers with ATGMs and this discussion was sparked by some posters collation of what was offered at IDEAS plus some liberal imagination to boot.
I cant speak for the other poster, or for the PN, but just answering your questions on way the PN (or any navy) may use ATGMs on choppers
Pak ThunderRecently released unclassified documents confirming Pakistani MNNA satus
http://www.fas.org/terrorism/at/docs/2004/PakMNNAdesignation.pdf
Pak Thunder“remains to be seen how it fares in India, if at all the U.S. government allows Lockheed Martin to bid for the project.”
contridicts what alot of people on the forum have been claiming…..
Sign In
