INS Vishal (IAC- II) Aircraft Carrier

angryIndian

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
218
Likes
335
Country flag
That's stupid logic has any indian sub fired in anger in its entire indian history no.that doesn't mean you should stop building subs its not if you use it or not its the deterence value and if a type 003 comes blaring into the indian ocean it would nt be tanks or soldiers who will try to stop it.it would be subs and aircraft carriers .tanks and soldier equipment are of army's problem fighter jets are airforces problem. Navy has its requirements.
Aircraft carriers are not bad but they are so damn expensive that if the country decides to spend money on it,it will eat into budgets of other program.
India is a fiscally constrained economy and we have no option but to prioritize your spending based on need.
As i said there are many things that deserves a higher priority than an Aircraft carrier.
 

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
15,030
Likes
35,958
Country flag
It didn't take an attack from the US to crumble Soviet Union.You cannot project your external hard power if you are weak internally.
Abolition of Soviet hard power would have made them decay even faster. It was their superior military which fended off Nazis and kept directly hostile western powers at bay despite their faultlines. Nor money internally ever solved their problems.

Soviet literally gave freedoles to its citizens to "solve" its social problems but only ended up going bankrupt and abolished by its own people. Western people meanwhile hardened by struggles of capitalist system created huge eco-system independent of their governments which still run today. Their innovations became their business and solved their problems not vice versa what you wish to conduct here.


On topic,
External power and internal strength are two different things. Both of them are important but both of them may not coexist except a certain degree of internal system what has reached even in Iran and North Korea.

WW2 ended colonial goldmines for Europe and countries with large internal capacity to exert influence were left to rule the world.
So, definition of power became efficiency (technology+money) x population. China and India were dirt poor but American and Soviet populations had an infrastructure and population educated enough to exploit opportunity.

So, it was US & USSR in past, China & India in near future and may be Nigeria in distant future.

But once your country has a stable system = not being Afghanistan; you can act as a hard power.
As i said immediate threats should be prioritized over distant probabilistic threats because of the extreme financial limitations.
Both problems aren't being solved at cost of each other.

Aircraft vs submarine debate is within Navy
The need for Light Tanks and armoured vehicles,basic soldier equipments,unarmed combat vehicles,Figher jets and plethora of others far supseeds the need of an Aircraft carrier.
Those more are of parts of stuck procurement procedures and inconclusive decisions by military. They would cost a fraction of what an AC would anyway.
 

Rajaraja Chola

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Messages
456
Likes
1,221
Country flag
‘Chinese are so afraid of losing the Himalayan battle and with it loosing its prestige that they will posture but never fire a bullet. They know that to successfully invade via Himalayas, they need 6 to 8 times the numbers they have in Tibet, which they do not have. Moreover, India Army could crossover into China and give them a bloody nose like what Vietnam did to overconfident China in 1979. It is that scare that keeps them away. The other scare is copied and reverse engineered hardware and conscripts army which runs at the sight of guns firing.
Look man. Even if China loses, they will still win the propaganda war. Our propaganda sucks. Even if we capture 1000sq miles, they need to capture a small village and show to the world AP is captured and they withdraw.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top