The Indian Navy Has a Big Problem: The Subsurface Dilemma
- Thread starter AVERAGE INDIAN
- Start date
Geography is in our favor whether it's sea or land. I personally find all this fear mongering by media and politicians very ridiculous.
China has very powerful and in most cases not particularly friendly neighbours, for eg. Russia, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam. I have serious doubts that China would leave any of it's borders weakly manned in case of tensions with any of the above mentioned neighbours or India.
lookieloo
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 468
- Likes
- 264
3-step fix:
1. Discard any SSK programs after Scorpion.
2. Buy 6 SSKs secondhand (as opportunities present themselves) to fill immediate gaps. Doesn't matter where or what, so long as current weapons inventory is compatible.
3. Expand development/production of Adherent to include an attack version and build as many as possible.
1. Discard any SSK programs after Scorpion.
2. Buy 6 SSKs secondhand (as opportunities present themselves) to fill immediate gaps. Doesn't matter where or what, so long as current weapons inventory is compatible.
3. Expand development/production of Adherent to include an attack version and build as many as possible.
Russia and South Korea will not go against China.
Japan and Vietnam can, but will they go against China "in concert" with India.
India does not have any defence treaty with either Japan or Vietnam.
China has great influence in Myanmar through its military. China can cause a coup again in days.
India needs to be realistic about Myanmar.
The geography works both ways. If it makes India secure from China, it also makes China secure from India. India's ability to go deep in Tibet is suspect.
India's economic centers are close to Tibet while China's are far from India. This plays in the hands of China.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
In case of 'tensions', it will all depend on the paradigm of the 'tension' to be able to speculate the equations that it will encourage.
There can be no generalisation or a sweeping conjecture.
As far as Myanmar is concerned, the worm has turned.
Check my thread on the same.
India and China need to coexist. India is content with the land it has and has not tried to win back the land it lost in 1962. China has claims on Indian land but has not tried to forcibly gain land since 1962.
So for 50+ years, a status quo has existed and military has been restrained. I hope this continues.
India has fallen back on economic and military parameters compared to China since 1962 and India needs time to regain its strength. India's primary challenge remains social cohesion at home. A lot more needs to be done to solidify this nation.
I think government is wise and knows what needs to be done. Nobody is jumping to conclusions.
So for 50+ years, a status quo has existed and military has been restrained. I hope this continues.
India has fallen back on economic and military parameters compared to China since 1962 and India needs time to regain its strength. India's primary challenge remains social cohesion at home. A lot more needs to be done to solidify this nation.
I think government is wise and knows what needs to be done. Nobody is jumping to conclusions.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
The point is that India cannot hunker down in a status quoism posture.
It has to exert herself to ensure that there is adequate mechanisms in place around the region to ensure that India cannot be tossed up and buffeted at the whims and fancies of whoever wishes to, as it has been happening so far.
And the Modi Govt is doing just that i.e. ensuring India's place in the sun.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
वीर à¤à¥‹à¤—à¥à¤¯à¤¾ वसà¥à¤‚धरा
Last edited:
@Ray, India has to do things in a certain order. Patience is the key.
The dispute with China are not big enough to warrant so much attention.
The real problem is the land that India gave away in 1947 which became Pakistan. This is the land that India needs to get back if a durable nation is to be created.
Fighting over cold rocks will not help India.
I do not think Modi has any plans to attack China.
The development of economy and military is the goal. That does not mean India is moving in a certain direction.
The dispute with China are not big enough to warrant so much attention.
The real problem is the land that India gave away in 1947 which became Pakistan. This is the land that India needs to get back if a durable nation is to be created.
Fighting over cold rocks will not help India.
I do not think Modi has any plans to attack China.
The development of economy and military is the goal. That does not mean India is moving in a certain direction.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
It is because you are not in the thick of it and far from the area that makes you feel that the India China dispute is not worth the candle.
Who says cold rocks are not fighting over?
You sound like Nehru, the blind bat, who said that Aksai Chin is barren and not a blade of grass grows and so it is no big deal!
China kicked him in the face and told him that is indeed a BIG deal!
Nehru gave away POK and now you want India to get it back and yet you say 'fighting over cold rocks will not help India'!
POK is what?
Fertile valley that are bountiful?
Have you any idea of the area?
Last edited by a moderator:
@Ray, even if Nehru wished otherwise, he did not have the means. So what Nehru did is besides the point.
Can India get Aksai Chin today? Maybe you can answer that question?
It is necessary to get POK because it divides not only land but people of J&K. This has become an enduring conflict. J&K shows that division of land on the basis of religion never works.
India is ready to accept LOC or LAC as actual border but the other party does not agree.
Only an event which is big enough to shake everybody can create a viable border.
Can India get Aksai Chin today? Maybe you can answer that question?
It is necessary to get POK because it divides not only land but people of J&K. This has become an enduring conflict. J&K shows that division of land on the basis of religion never works.
India is ready to accept LOC or LAC as actual border but the other party does not agree.
Only an event which is big enough to shake everybody can create a viable border.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
Nehru deliberately kept the India Armed Forces badly equipped. He had no strategic vision. Therefore, if he not to be blamed, then who is?
To quote you in the context of POK, can you capture POK?
Have you any idea of the terrain or the task and the wherewithal available?
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly I do not want to discuss Nehru as time passed cannot come back.
India should develop capability to capture POK whatever the terrain. Whether it happens or not is another thing.
If Pakistan could capture POK in 1947, then there must be a way to capture it back as well. I do have access to army folks and I have discussed such things, however such discussions is not appropriate for this public forum.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
You find capturing POK to be feasible and yet, you find it difficult and forgettable to do so with Aksai Chin.
That seems odd to me.
Have you ever been to the front in J&K or even in J&K?
I recommend that you consult some combat arms officer of the IA, who has had extensive service in J&K, preferably those who have seen wars there and of adequate seniority to understand operational art.
You think the political establishment and the military were daft that they did not capture POK, as per your desires, having fought four wars?
Or do you think that they are treacherous and purposely avoided capturing POK?
@Ray, commenting on past wars or decisions of generals in those wars is not appropriate. Also India's capability is NOT STATIC. If a capability did no exist in past, does not mean it will not exist in future.
It all depends on planning and execution. With smart weapons and big missile force, options will open.
It all depends on planning and execution. With smart weapons and big missile force, options will open.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
No one is commenting on past wars or the decisions of the political or army leadership.
It is merely to inform you that you are living in a dream world of fantasy since you have no clue of the reality and instead merely daydreaming on something you have no clue about.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
It reminds me of the Hymn '
It would require immense patience and space more that this confines of a post to narrate how warfare is conducted, how tactics come into play, the physical challenges of terrain, time and space, weaponry available, international power-play at work, combat ratio, logistics and so on and the inputs are endless.
Suffice it to say, POK is a thorn in the flesh of India. It should have been taken when it was feasible. Chacha Nehri thought he personified India and Indian Gandhian magnanimity. He was the real daft guy who has caused innumerable pain to India - POK, Aksai Chin, Coco Island and so on.
The successors of India - politicians and the military were not daft as you imagine.
They too wanted to end this festering boil.
Pakistan gave India the chance in 1965 and 1971.
Do you think they were fools to whittle away the chance?
Pragmatism and the daunting task without the adequate scenario and combat ratio prevented them.
That is the Gospel Truth.
And sadly your daydreams or should I say ultra nationalism that cannot be resolved since you don't understand ground realities makes me state
Now, if you think it is feasible, contact Modi and get a berth in the Cabinet and let Parrikar have a well deserved rest even before he takes office.
Last edited by a moderator:
@Ray, you do not have convictions. Your post is a lack of hope. Past is not always a guide to the future.
Mr Modi and Mr Parikkar will do their jobs. I am not their adviser. They have plenty of advisers.
Sometimes a nation is thrown into the lap of glory. Everything does not happen by design. Maybe something like that will happen to India.
Pakistan is not as strong as it seems.
Mr Modi and Mr Parikkar will do their jobs. I am not their adviser. They have plenty of advisers.
Sometimes a nation is thrown into the lap of glory. Everything does not happen by design. Maybe something like that will happen to India.
Pakistan is not as strong as it seems.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
I have been in Kashmir, right from my childhood and three quarters of my profession out there with a very long stint at the LC to include two wars and an undeclared war.
I sure have the same fire in me to do my country justice over Kashmir.
I do have some knowledge of operation art for that is the level I reached in my profession and a whole lot of qualifications to add to my prowess.
But then you are a better man than me.
Do go and stand vigil and tell us how we squirmed to do our job that you can do so easily.
Are you trilling or trolling?
Wishful thinking is not idealism. It is self-indulgence at best and self-exaltation at worst. In either case, it is usually at the expense of others. In other words, it is the opposite of idealism.
Last edited by a moderator:
