It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


India may Spend up to $25 billion for 3rd aircraft carrier

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 04:57 PM
a reply to: Blackfinger

Actually, the US Navy pretty much did for a long time. Along with the US Air Force.

Say Hello to my little friend called Diego Garcia.

(and that's why the Soviets wanted Somalia and courted the Indians)

posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 07:04 PM

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: blackbird9393

Probably has nothing to do with China having some facilities in Myanmar and courting Sri Lanka for a port. And its base in Djibouti. Nope. Not at all.

As if the US isn't in Djibouti. And we forward position in Thailand. Then there is Japan.

Really not beats dirt. The only thing allowing a carrier to stay off a coast is the desire not to create an incident. They are sitting ducks. Eventually stateless players will destroy one.

posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 07:51 PM
a reply to: gariac

Perhaps. Some day. Nothing is impossible. But then, why are so many countries out to build carriers now?

posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 09:02 PM
a reply to: anzha

Same reason why rich girls like stupid little purse dogs...

Other rich girls have them

posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 09:13 PM
a reply to: roguetechie

True, but then, all it takes is one clueful one to say 'the empress has no clothes.' Yet none of them have.

posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 04:45 AM
China doesnt like anyone laying claim to any bit of land near it..

edit on 2-2-2018 by Blackfinger because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 12:14 PM
a reply to: anzha

Rich girls, and nations which are remarkably similar to rich girls in many ways, are a peculiar lot. They are both very dangerous in times of great change and uncertainty.

On the carrier thing I've pretty well come to the conclusion that the US Navy has or BELIEVES IT HAS aces up it's sleeves sufficient to make carriers far more survivable than the common white world consensus says they are.

Are they right about that?

Who knows?

But they certainly appear to be pretty confident in their capability to keep carriers not only alive but operationally viable when you actually look purely at what they're doing, where they're prioritizing procurement, and etc while completely ignoring all the stuff that they're just saying / very publicly talking about!

But this is just my own very subjective interpretation of the situation we're seeing with this and the very apparent and glaring contradictions that are seemingly everywhere wrt this subject.

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 08:40 AM
The American carriers are fully armored warships. It might be easy to give a black eye to a thin skin destroyer but there would need to be significant thought and a very powerful explosion just to dent one.
edit on 4-2-2018 by Caughtlurking because: Oops

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in