Britain no longer a naval power, fleet strength depleted

[Apollyon]

What if UK MoD has the foresight to launch a Tomawk strike on Agra and wipe out the tanker squadron? Astute can do that as well as sink carriers. It is a tough call.

Tomahawk can be easily tackled by SR-SAM (possibly Maitri, India-France JV .... ), Akash, Spyder from Israel and possibly Iron-Dome ...

 

[tjpf]

What if UK MoD has the foresight to launch a Tomawk strike on Agra and wipe out the tanker squadron? Astute can do that as well as sink carriers. It is a tough call.

and when India is at war with UK, you think our generals wouldn't have thought what you did and "pre-emptive" the situation before it happens

 

[Yusuf]

What if UK MoD has the foresight to launch a Tomawk strike on Agra and wipe out the tanker squadron? Astute can do that as well as sink carriers. It is a tough call.

Same option exists for India to target DG with Agni missiles. And I am not talking nuclear warheads.

 

[p2prada]

What if UK MoD has the foresight to launch a Tomawk strike on Agra and wipe out the tanker squadron? Astute can do that as well as sink carriers. It is a tough call.

Tomahawk at a distance of over 3000Km, all the way to North India. Firstly impossible. Secondly, we are not Iraq. UK will need USN to launch a barrage. One or two won't do.

Our missile defence system that we will deploy next year will take it out anyway.

They will be better off hitting forward operating bases where the MKIs and refuelers will operate from. However they still have BMD and 3 AAW Destroyers(Barak 8) and 6 AAW Frigates(with Barak 8) to contend with apart from the MKIs, Mig-21s and Mig-29s which can engage the Tomahawks. Heck we will even have a squadron of LCAs in the region.

 

[Yusuf]

Any war gaming scenario between the UK and India in IOR will lead to a British loss. They may well have only one option and that is to empty its Tridents.

 

[balai_c]

What if UK MoD has the foresight to launch a Tomawk strike on Agra and wipe out the tanker squadron? Astute can do that as well as sink carriers. It is a tough call.

Any attack on mainland India will nudge the war to a different direction. India will be tempted to attack continental UK. Let's keep the war confined to naval conflict, shall we? India is not Iraq, or libya. We have a strategic missile force as well, don't forget. We have tested Agni5 this year.

 

[Yusuf]

Any attack on mainland India will nudge the war to a different direction. India will be tempted to attack continental UK. Let's keep the war confined to naval conflict, shall we? India is not Iraq, or libya. We have a strategic missile force as well, don't forget. We have tested Agni5 this year.

I don't think the war will head to UK. India does not have that kind of power yet.

We are confining ourselves to a hypothetical war for control of DG and shutting out the US from the equation for academic interest.

 

[balai_c]

I don't think the war will head to UK. India does not have that kind of power yet.

We are confining ourselves to a hypothetical war for control of DG and shutting out the US from the equation for academic interest.

I know. I am trying to keep the scenario contained within the confines of naval confilct. As long as Indian mainland is not attacked, like Armand suggested, it will remain a naval war. But if tommahawk is used, however, all bets are off I believe!

 

[Yusuf]

I know. I am trying to keep the scenario contained within the confines of naval confilct. As long as Indian mainland is not attacked, like Armand suggested, it will remain a naval war. But if tommahawk is used, however, all bets are off I believe!

His post about Tomahawk is flawed as it cannot be fired at Agra with the range it has. I mean, RN boat has to come near Gujarat to fire it. Good luck doing that.

 

[balai_c]

Yusuf, I am stunned with the very idea that mainland India could be attacked. Please try to understand the point I am trying to highlight here! Attacking a place inside India is akin to a whole new level of hostility here. This comes from an idea of arrogance that comes from fighting defenceless 3rd world dictatorships , where destroying a country is all in a dayÅ› work. The difference ion the capability of adversorie is staggering to say the least. We are negelecting the devastating implications of a hit inside the territories of a top of the line naval power , as opposed to a non-existant naval power( like Iraq, libya , or Afganisthan).

 

[Yusuf]

Hypothetical scenario sir.

BTW, US had readied Marines in 71.

 

[LalTopi]

One thing is for sure, Russia won't be coming to RN's rescue like France did by providing Exocet's frequencies during Falklands.

I was not aware that France supplied this information? I thought that the Argentinians had simply run out of stock of Exocet missiles?

 

[LalTopi]

Yusuf, I am stunned with the very idea that mainland India could be attacked. Please try to understand the point I am trying to highlight here! Attacking a place inside India is akin to a whole new level of hostility here. This comes from an idea of arrogance that comes from fighting defenceless 3rd world dictatorships , where destroying a country is all in a dayÅ› work. The difference ion the capability of adversorie is staggering to say the least. We are negelecting the devastating implications of a hit inside the territories of a top of the line naval power , as opposed to a non-existant naval power( like Iraq, libya , or Afganisthan).

Let's leave a mainland attack and counter attack out of the scenario. Remember there are also 1 million Indians living in the UK, and a major escalation such as this just makes the situation get out of hand. India has INS Chakra and can launch a token counte-attack, and the situation will just get silly.

One thing not considered though is that the scenario entails Mauritius asking for Indian intervention. Thus far there has not been any discussion in basing and using Indian assets in Mauritius.

 

[balai_c]

Let's leave a mainland attack and counter attack out of the scenario. Remember there are also 1 million Indians living in the UK, and a major escalation such as this just makes the situation get out of hand.

Yeah, true that! That was a silly event indeed! Besides, I do not think Brits are that stupid! They know any attack will invite a counter attack. Let's confine the scenario to a naval war as originally envisaged.

One thing not considered though is that the scenario entails Mauritius asking for Indian intervention. Thus far there has not been any discussion in basing and using Indian assets in Mauritius.

This indeed is possible, but probably not in 2016, not in near future. Maintenance of an overseas base is an expensive affair, not to mention it would require lots of money-on a scale India does not yet possess. Maybe after 2025. Of course it is possible to maintain temporary presence in the island, for the purpose pf the war, but it would require dynamic proactive feats of diplomacy, that would in turn need leaders with spine, something our nation's Heads of State are not yet known for.

 

[Armand2REP]

I was not aware that France supplied this information? I thought that the Argentinians had simply run out of stock of Exocet missiles?

We gave them all the technical data on Exocet and let them practice against it. Argies only had 5 Exocets but on the flip side, our technicians fixed them for them. They ran out after scoring several hits on the RN with just 5 shots. If they had more missiles that war could have turned out very differently.

 

[LalTopi]

Yes, I recall HMS Hermes only got saved as the Argie radar showed up one of the larger merchant ships and chose that instead of the carrier. War lost by Argies on that one decision. Prince Andrew was on Hermes at the time as well.

The effectiveness of the Exocets was also why I commented on the Brahmos earlier. If they prove even a quarter as effective. Then RN in DG would be finished.

 

[p2prada]

I was not aware that France supplied this information? I thought that the Argentinians had simply run out of stock of Exocet missiles?

How France helped us win Falklands war, by John Nott - Telegraph

 

[LalTopi]

How France helped us win Falklands war, by John Nott - Telegraph

So the most right wing British prime minister in the last 50 years gets helped out by a socialist French president, but gets a polite brush off from Ronnie Reagan, the cold war warrior, despite the 'special relationship'. Just goes to show, you cannot predict anything in war-time.

Two items from the article may give an indication of future US support for Britain in the IOR:

"For all Margaret Thatcher's friendship with Ronald Reagan, he remained a West Coast American looking south to Latin America and west to the Pacific. Sometimes I wondered if he even knew or cared where Europe was."

Caspar Weinberger, the US defence secretary, supported Britain but the State Department was "dominated by Latinos".

I.e. why should the US support Britain, if India would be the better strategic partner - and they no longer view any historical relationship with Britain.

 

[p2prada]

US is still a democracy. If they come to know the US backstabbed UK, it won't sit pretty with the voters.

 

[Apollyon]

Hypothetical scenario sir.

BTW, US had readied Marines in 71.

we have a lot strong lobby in US now, and do you think if US try to confront us now NRI's in US would keep quite ...