Russia's MiG starts new batch of fighters for Indian Navy

[binayak95]

If you could get you money back on the Vic,, i bet you could buy the Enterprize for scrap price or less, and its a real aircraft carrier not a converted Kiev class aviation cruiser which now has had 2 engine failures that has put it out of commission a fault fairly common with the Kiev class. Thats why it was laid up 20 years ago, I am not all that confindant with the repairs under way.

The repairs are complete! Russia completes Indian carrier engine repairs | Russia & India Report

 

[average american]

The repairs are complete! Russia completes Indian carrier engine repairs | Russia & India Report

Good luck.....

 

[kshkumsin]

I would like to see India as one of the strongest militaries in the world, its not going to happen if you cant face reality; I know a little about the miltiary, much more then most and I cant believe the status of Indias military.......The Trouble With India's Military - The Diplomat

on here you all sound like a bunch of cheerleaders for a team thats getting beat 20 to 1.

i believe both india and us hooked up with the wrong allies because we being democracy should have alligned with us another democracy while the so called army dictated democracy of pak should have aligned with communist soviet

what do u say and for ur mig shit(sorry for language) there is a reason for this aircraft to be in service for so many years while its contemparies like F 86 and f104 faded away

 

[Snuggy321]

Take a look at the cockpit of an Mig 29 and then look at the cockpit of the F35
about the same as the F22


F-35 glass cockpit - How to fly and drop bombs (Real Sim) - YouTube

which one would you want to fly into air combat, land on an aircraft carrier or on a ground attack, this is the future, the F29 1980s

The F35 and F22 are 5th gen fighters, you cant compare those two.

 

[Hemant Gaikwad]

Dude you have no idea what you are talking about... the Mig 29K is a completely new version and the one of the best aircraft in the region.

Watch from 26:30 the designers put everything they had into this new machine

Great share ...I guess the American / European propaganda got to me. But I think the real problem is that Russia is not an english speaking nation .... you just see so many Top 10 videos where the MIG is placed quite low that you eventually start believing it

 

[Snuggy321]

Great share ...I guess the American / European propaganda got to me. But I think the real problem is that Russia is not an english speaking nation .... you just see so many Top 10 videos where the MIG is placed quite low that you eventually start believing it

Those top 10 videos are the biggest BS anyway. Just made by fanboys...

 

[nishantgupta]

Great share ...I guess the American / European propaganda got to me. But I think the real problem is that Russia is not an english speaking nation .... you just see so many Top 10 videos where the MIG is placed quite low that you eventually start believing it

Anyone can make those top-10 videos...I saw some where Pakistani Navy was ranked second after the USN... and a comment that USN was a "declining" navy while PN along with Chinese Navy would be the top-2 in the century closely followed by the navy of Iran and no other navy anywhere in the vicinity!!!

 

[Hemant Gaikwad]

Take a look at the cockpit of an Mig 29 and then look at the cockpit of the F35
about the same as the F22


F-35 glass cockpit - How to fly and drop bombs (Real Sim) - YouTube



which one would you want to fly into air combat, land on an aircraft carrier or on a ground attack, this is the future, the F29 1980s

well what do you have to say about this? Australia says the F35 is crap

 

[Bhadra]

Prove it.

Everybody has opinions, I like to back mine up with facts.. Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal PQ Mehdi quoted that "any intervention by the Navy and the PAF into disputed land of Indian-controlled Kashmir would be perceived as an escalation to all-out declared war" was his quote to Musharraf. Kargil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a national security meeting with Prime minister Nawaz Sharif at the Joint Headquarters, General Musharraf became heavily involved with serious altercations with Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Fasih Bokhari who ultimately called for a court-martial against General Musharraf.[125] Taking participation in the arguments, Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal PQ Mehdi quoted that "any intervention by the Navy and the PAF into disputed land of Indian-controlled Kashmir would be perceived as an escalation to all-out declared war".[126] After witnessing Musharraf's criticism given to his fellow officers, ACM PQ Mehdi decided to give Musharraf a favor after issuing orders to PAF's F-16s for the patrolling missions near the Skardu Valley.[127] The Pakistan Navy largely remains camouflaged during this entire conflict, only submarines were deployed for partrolling missions.[128] With Sharif placing the onus of the Kargil attacks squarely on the army chief Pervez Musharraf, there was an atmosphere of uneasiness between the two. On October 12, 1999, General Musharraf staged a bloodless coup d'état, ousting Nawaz Sharif.

If you look at the Kargil War From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Kargil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
India had 30,000 soldiers involved, Pakistan had about 5000 soldiers and insurgent,
Indias losses were Indian Official Figures: 527 killed[3][4][5]
1,363 wounded[6]
1 POW
1 fighter jet shot down
1 fighter jet crashed
1 helicopter shot down

and if you go by Pakistans claims
Pakistan Military claims 353-453 killed[7][8]
665+ wounded[7]
8 POWs[9]

you would have to say Pakistan won this one. Even if you go by Indians claims on Pakistani losses considering that the Pakistanis were out numbered 6 to 1 I would have to calll this a win for Pakistan.

You seriously need to upgrade yourself with the latest revealation on Kargil conflict.

Live aside winning, Americans had to intervene to save Paki backsides...

May upgrade your military knowledge too. Pakistanies launched a military operation to gain / attain something. Were they able to to do that? Indians launched military operations to retake by capturing those places which were occupied by the Pakistani Army. Indian Army was able to do it.

Still you call it a victory of your Pakistan ?? Ha ...

There were Mujahids involved in entire operation.

 

[Payeng]

You seriously need to upgrade yourself with the latest revealation on Kargil conflict.

Live aside winning, Americans had to intervene to save Paki backsides...

May upgrade your military knowledge too. Pakistanies launched a military operation to gain / attain something. Were they able to to do that? Indians launched military operations to retake by capturing those places which were occupied by the Pakistani Army. Indian Army was able to do it.

Still you call it a victory of your Pakistan ?? Ha ...

There were Mujahids involved in entire operation.

Operation Frequent Wind (gone in the wind, hawa ka jhoka)

Result: U.S. tactical victory with US forces airlifting 7,000 people to safety
North Vietnamese military victory

I think our friend AA is indicating relating to this school of thought, A tactical retreat by pakistan= victory cause it saved her face from further humilation. Her begging to Unkil had paved the way for the humiliating retreat of their Army.

 

[average american]

I think our friend AA is indicating relating to this school of thought, A tactical retreat by pakistan= victory cause it saved her face from further humilation. Her begging to Unkil had paved the way for the humiliating retreat of their Army.

I really dont have a dog in this fight, but if you look at the fact that the Pakistanis were out numbered six to one, that India used its air force and Pakistan didnt, India used regular troops and military equipment and Pakistan didnt and
the results ended up with
were Indian Official Figures:
527 killed[3][4][5]
1,363 wounded[6]
1 POW
1 fighter jet shot down
1 fighter jet crashed
1 helicopter shot down

Pakistan Military
claims 353-453 killed[7][8]
665+ wounded[7]
8 POWs[9]

The US military considers any thing less then a kill ration of 10 to 1 a loss even when we have less troops.
Maybe its just India and USA have a different definition of winning and losing.

U.S. Special Operations Forces have had considerable practice by now chasing jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The JSOC headquarters at Baghram is so full of high-tech listening and tracking equipment that it resembles "something out of 'Star Wars'," says a Pentagon official who has seen the place. In recent months, says John Arquilla, a Special Ops expert at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., the U.S. military has achieved a 100-to-1 kill ratio (100 dead guerrillas to every American).

 

[pmaitra]

I really dont have a dog in this fight, but if you look at the fact that the Pakistanis were out numbered six to one, that India used its air force and Pakistan didnt, India used regular troops and military equipment and Pakistan didnt and
the results ended up with
were Indian Official Figures:
527 killed[3][4][5]
1,363 wounded[6]
1 POW
1 fighter jet shot down
1 fighter jet crashed
1 helicopter shot down

Pakistan Military
claims 353-453 killed[7][8]
665+ wounded[7]
8 POWs[9]

The US military considers any thing less then a kill ration of 10 to 1 a loss even when we have less troops.
Maybe its just India and USA have a different definition of winning and losing.

U.S. Special Operations Forces have had considerable practice by now chasing jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The JSOC headquarters at Baghram is so full of high-tech listening and tracking equipment that it resembles "something out of 'Star Wars'," says a Pentagon official who has seen the place. In recent months, says John Arquilla, a Special Ops expert at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., the U.S. military has achieved a 100-to-1 kill ratio (100 dead guerrillas to every American).

Apropos the emboldened portion:
During the Soviet-Mujahideen War, which the US considers Soviet-Afghan War, 14,453 Soviet + 18,000 Afghan army personnel (total 32,453) died while 90,000 Mujahideen died. I have always seen the US consider the Soviets lost. I suppose the definitions of winning and losing change depending upon the belligerents?

Source: Soviet war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[binayak95]

@AA please get a better idea about the performance and handling of our airforce in the war. Start by reading this Airpower at 18,000': The Indian Air Force in the Kargil War - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace by Benjamin Lambeth.

 

[Bheeshma]

I am not sure why we are comparing apple and oranges. India reclaimed the whole of Kargil. US ran away from Vietnam in defeat, have lost Iraq to iranian influence and will soon leave afghanistan without achieving anything.

 

[nishantgupta]

Indian definition of winning: The other side accepts defeat and removes itself from the field of war. Kill ratios will depend on geography as well as difference in technologies.

US definition of winning (seems to be): Good marketing of defense equipment when fighting against far inferior equipment in conditions tailor made to suite the American forces and equipment. Try fighting an able opposition with technology to match. How about competing against even a 4th gen fighter with the F-22? Or maybe that will not happen to avoid any tension if even one of those were shot down...think about the huge mauling that the "superpower" image will take then.

Yes sir. There is a difference in the way we think of what is a "win" in a war.

 

[Snuggy321]

I really dont have a dog in this fight, but if you look at the fact that the Pakistanis were out numbered six to one, that India used its air force and Pakistan didnt, India used regular troops and military equipment and Pakistan didnt and
the results ended up with
were Indian Official Figures:
527 killed[3][4][5]
1,363 wounded[6]
1 POW
1 fighter jet shot down
1 fighter jet crashed
1 helicopter shot down

Pakistan Military
claims 353-453 killed[7][8]
665+ wounded[7]
8 POWs[9]

The US military considers any thing less then a kill ration of 10 to 1 a loss even when we have less troops.
Maybe its just India and USA have a different definition of winning and losing.

U.S. Special Operations Forces have had considerable practice by now chasing jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The JSOC headquarters at Baghram is so full of high-tech listening and tracking equipment that it resembles "something out of 'Star Wars'," says a Pentagon official who has seen the place. In recent months, says John Arquilla, a Special Ops expert at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., the U.S. military has achieved a 100-to-1 kill ratio (100 dead guerrillas to every American).

We recaptured our soil from invaders and drove them back from where they came from, thats a victory for us.

 

[SilentKiller]

I really dont have a dog in this fight, but if you look at the fact that the Pakistanis were out numbered six to one, that India used its air force and Pakistan didnt, India used regular troops and military equipment and Pakistan didnt and
the results ended up with
were Indian Official Figures:
527 killed[3][4][5]
1,363 wounded[6]
1 POW
1 fighter jet shot down
1 fighter jet crashed
1 helicopter shot down

Pakistan Military
claims 353-453 killed[7][8]
665+ wounded[7]
8 POWs[9]

The US military considers any thing less then a kill ration of 10 to 1 a loss even when we have less troops.
Maybe its just India and USA have a different definition of winning and losing.

U.S. Special Operations Forces have had considerable practice by now chasing jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The JSOC headquarters at Baghram is so full of high-tech listening and tracking equipment that it resembles "something out of 'Star Wars'," says a Pentagon official who has seen the place. In recent months, says John Arquilla, a Special Ops expert at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., the U.S. military has achieved a 100-to-1 kill ratio (100 dead guerrillas to every American).

I guess u should get the facts from independent forums and not from some of your pakistani friends.
1) Troops used by pakistan were regular troops, were part of its paramilitary force. now even some ex-generals of pakistan are accepting it.
2) Troop lost for pakistan were 3000-4000 troops (till date pakistan has not accepted its bodies)
now if u calculate then the troop lose will be 1:6 or 1:8 for pakistan.

Please view the below links to get your facts corrected.

can provide u more links but u cannot support the claims other than what only mushi says.
If u believed what Bushi said u will always believe what Mushi said.

 

[SilentKiller]

I really dont have a dog in this fight, but if you look at the fact that the Pakistanis were out numbered six to one, that India used its air force and Pakistan didnt, India used regular troops and military equipment and Pakistan didnt and
the results ended up with
were Indian Official Figures:
527 killed[3][4][5]
1,363 wounded[6]
1 POW
1 fighter jet shot down
1 fighter jet crashed
1 helicopter shot down

Pakistan Military
claims 353-453 killed[7][8]
665+ wounded[7]
8 POWs[9]

The US military considers any thing less then a kill ration of 10 to 1 a loss even when we have less troops.
Maybe its just India and USA have a different definition of winning and losing.

U.S. Special Operations Forces have had considerable practice by now chasing jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The JSOC headquarters at Baghram is so full of high-tech listening and tracking equipment that it resembles "something out of 'Star Wars'," says a Pentagon official who has seen the place. In recent months, says John Arquilla, a Special Ops expert at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., the U.S. military has achieved a 100-to-1 kill ratio (100 dead guerrillas to every American).

If indian army is under attack by terrorists it doesn't call for airstrike.
as it leads to innocent deaths but u do call it almost always.
resons:
1) afghans are not americans
2) same way u used atom bomb on japan to avoid american deaths not caring that innocent civilians died
3) Japan attacked america but it attacked military units in perl harbour and not civilians.
4) If an scenario arise in US same as we in India, will u call airstikes?
may be not as it will lead to amrican deaths.

 

[average american]

If indian army is under attack by terrorists it doesn't call for airstrike.
as it leads to innocent deaths but u do call it almost always.
resons:
1) afghans are not americans
2) same way u used atom bomb on japan to avoid american deaths not caring that innocent civilians died
3) Japan attacked america but it attacked military units in perl harbour and not civilians.
4) If an scenario arise in US same as we in India, will u call airstikes?
may be not as it will lead to amrican deaths.

Would be glad to debate the subject but figure this is the place for discussing Russia's MiG starts new batch of fighters for Indian Navy which is the Mig 27 a 30 year old plane and I expect the main reason for it is to keep some 30 year old factory in operaton more to provide jobs then defend India.

 

[SilentKiller]

Would be glad to debate the subject but figure this is the place for discussing Russia's MiG starts new batch of fighters for Indian Navy which is the Mig 27 a 30 year old plane and I expect the main reason for it is to keep some 30 year old factory in operaton more to provide jobs then defend India.

Someone brought Kargil war not me...
:cool2: