US offers Patriot(PAC-3) missiles to India

Of course they are giving them to India, they dont work! Not one patriot took down any scud missle during the gulf war

This is only partially true. The Patriot 1 wasn't designed to protect a city. It was only meant to deflect missiles. It did that very well. The later versions have been designed to fix those problems.

The PAC-3 has already beaten out the S-300. The South Koreans had their choice of either, and they took the PAC-3.

What i gave was the understatement of the mellinium.


Read :
Osama Being Treated by PAK Army

Read : Numbers of pakistani terrorists

Pakistan sponspored terrorism

Check out : www.armyinkashmir.org...

Read every section and understand the magnitude of Pakistan's ills so that you can change your views and become aware of the truth.

Deny ignorance

This is all pre-9/11. Pakistan's support of the Taliban was for the sole purpose of their conflict with India. That has all changed drastically. Pakistan's goal wasn't to target America.

India's grudge against Pakistan is Kashmir, not Taliban, though the taliban have some relations to the insurgents in kashmir. Post 9/11 things have not been rosy between India and Pakistan..Terrorists attacked the Indian parliment exactly 3 months after 9/11..though post 9/11 the pressure has been on Pakistan to cut-off funding for all insurgents..in kashmir and afghanistan..

Btw I didn't know that the Russians offered the S-300 to the S Koreans..And choosing the PAC-3 over the S-300 was not a pure decision on the SK part..We all know there has to have been some Unca Sam pressure behind that..
I guess the Indian choice will decide the winner..

Also flyer please back up your claims that the green pine israeli radar sucks

India's grudge against Pakistan is Kashmir, not Taliban, though the taliban have some relations to the insurgents in kashmir. Post 9/11 things have not been rosy between India and Pakistan..Terrorists attacked the Indian parliment exactly 3 months after 9/11..though post 9/11 the pressure has been on Pakistan to cut-off funding for all insurgents..in kashmir and afghanistan..

I never said India and Pakistan's conflict was over Afghanistan, I said that Pakistan was supporting the Taliban because of the conflict. Afghanistan would have been a useful ally against India.

Btw I didn't know that the Russians offered the S-300 to the S Koreans..And choosing the PAC-3 over the S-300 was not a pure decision on the SK part..We all know there has to have been some Unca Sam pressure behind that..
I guess the Indian choice will decide the winner..

There couldn't be pressure from Russia on India? They have strong relations with India. India has to rely on Russia for weapons. America still isn't a reliable supplier.

I'd say South Korea has more freedom to make choices then India does here.

South Korea doesn't need America militarilly anymore.

quote: Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
America might sell India a PAC-3, but I have my doubts. We want to build a relationship with India, but not at the risk of losing a friendship with Pakistan.
*********************************************
Pakistan is a military dictatorship that sponsors terrorism

Maybe so, but we've been trying to work with them to do something about the terrorists there. This was pretty evident right after Afghanistan was invaded, and Pakistan was (at least outwardly) very willing to cooperate.

I doubt they'd (Pakistan) look too favorably on this deal, but I guess making some bucks is more important than the continually stated goal of fighting terrorism huh?

This would be a bad move for the fight on terror, but a good move towards reducing the massive defecit Shrub's gotten us into,

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I never said India and Pakistan's conflict was over Afghanistan, I said that Pakistan was supporting the Taliban because of the conflict. Afghanistan would have been a useful ally against India.

There couldn't be pressure from Russia on India? They have strong relations with India. India has to rely on Russia for weapons. America still isn't a reliable supplier.
South Korea doesn't need America militarilly anymore.

Afghanistan for the most part was an ally to Paksitan in feeding the insurgency in Kashmir, and pre 9/11 it was A-okay because the afghan talibans were supported by the US then..
The russians left afghanistan in 89-90, the exact same time the kashmir problem started, while the talibans only came to power in 95.
Pakistan was supporting the talibans pre 1995, the major supply of arms to the taliban from the US was through pakistan ofcourse..
US policy in the region has been very twisted..infact Im going to oopen a thread in the terrorism forum..all are invited to partake in the discussion.

South Korea needs the US, because any NK-SK war will turn out as a bloody stalemate, especially with China around.
Agreed the S Koreans may not want the US on their soil anymore but that a different thing.

I'd say South Korea has more freedom to make choices then India does here.

You mean militarily SK is more indepedant of the US than India is from Russia??...

Listen to yourself man! SK has 30,000 US troops stationed on their soil. They don't stand a chance against NK/Chinaif the US physically pulls itself out of the region and still continues to support SK in principle (which is is ,by the way, exactly how Russia supports India)

This is hilarious:
In one thread im arguing with a guy who thinks Indo-soviet ties are nothing more than a business relationship
and here
Im arguing with a guy who says Indo-soviet ties surpass SK-US ties!!


You guys should meet each other

Afghanistan for the most part was an ally to Paksitan in feeding the insurgency in Kashmir, and pre 9/11 it was A-okay because the afghan talibans were supported by the US then..

America hardly supported the Taliban. Pressure was being put on them before 9/11. We had actually bombed Afghanistan before.

South Korea needs the US, because any NK-SK war will turn out as a bloody stalemate, especially with China around.
Agreed the S Koreans may not want the US on their soil anymore but that a different thing.

While South Korea would want American help, America would want to get involved. We have no need to station 30,000 American troops right on the border except one - to get involved with the war. It's about crushing communism. We don't want our ally being weakened.

South Korea hardly NEEDS America, either. Their military would demolish North Korea's. Their better equipped, better trained, large, and you know, well-fed. I'm sure they believe in what they're fighting for a lot more then the North Koreans do at this point.

The difference with Russia and India is that they aren't really allies. They have strictly a military connection. India's military does completely rely on Russia tech, South Korea's does not completely rely on American tech. India has no real options besides Russia, South Korea does. Russia is more desperate to sell military equipment, as well. It's a large part of their economy. Losing a customer like India isn't an option for them.

I'd like to say that India has just as many choices as the Skoreans do, except for that much of a rapport with the US...
India deals with Russia, France , sweden, UK, ukraine
(can be counted as USSR)
Ans about the war on the korean peninsula..... being well-fed only counts if the war goes beyond a efw days, this war will earn most of its casualties in the 1st few hours, scenarios estimate as many as 500000 koreans dead, in the 1 few hours of shelling on either side..the korean war will be over in under a week, definitely, and a bloody end that too with a nuke going off somewhere...

And for the american support for the taliban, I was talking about the soviet occupation times in the 80s..where'd they get all those stinger shoulder launched missiles from??
And the US only started bombing the taliban after terror attacks were linked to them...uptill 1998 the scene was pretty peaceful between taliban and the US..

[edit on 22-1-2005 by Daedalus3]

And for the american support for the taliban, I was talking about the soviet occupation times in the 80s..where'd they get all those stinger shoulder launched missiles from??
And the US only started bombing the taliban after terror attacks were linked to them...uptill 1998 the scene was pretty peaceful between taliban and the US..

It was peaceful? More like America just didn't give a damn, as no in in the world.

We didn't support the Taliban during the 80's, either. We supported Afghanis. The Taliban were just part of a large scale resistance against the Soviets, as many of the groups that fought in the Civil War.

I'd like to say that India has just as many choices as the Skoreans do, except for that much of a rapport with the US...
India deals with Russia, France , sweden, UK, ukraine

The UK and France can't sell the air superiority fighters to India. They have absolutely no stock in India. They could care less what happens to India.

The Ukraine? That's just a joke.

Ans about the war on the korean peninsula..... being well-fed only counts if the war goes beyond a efw days, this war will earn most of its casualties in the 1st few hours, scenarios estimate as many as 500000 koreans dead, in the 1 few hours of shelling on either side..the korean war will be over in under a week, definitely, and a bloody end that too with a nuke going off somewhere...

500,000 civillians would be dead. That means nothing to the military of South Korea. If that many were killed, the people of Korea would be calling to put the North down once and for all, and the South's military can do that easier then most people think.

France has sold Mirage-2000s to India when it was a frontline fighter...
The UK has sold Jaguars to India (which performed well against the USAF in Cope Thunder) when it was a frontline fighter..
The UK sold a frikkin aircraft carrier with harrier jumpjets to India just after the Falklands war ..and they'd used the same stuff there..
Both countries offer the Euro fighter typhoon to India, though it was put down for the Su-30 MKI
The Swedes sold India the Bofors artillery guns...
Ukraine sold India the IL-78 Midas air re-fueling tankers...

Im not saying that India and these countires are military "aliies" but these countries offer their military products to India as much as Russia does..
Russian stuff comes of much cheaper most of the times...
India has loads of military purchase options..The US is comparatively new to the Indian purchase market..
Do a bit of research on this..It'll bcakup whatever I've stated above..

France has sold Mirage-2000s to India when it was a frontline fighter...
The UK has sold Jaguars to India (which performed well against the USAF in Cope Thunder) when it was a frontline fighter..

They're being being fazed out. Unless someone in Europe gives India Eurofighters, it's not going to matter.

The UK sold a frikkin aircraft carrier with harrier jumpjets to India just after the Falklands war ..and they'd used the same stuff there..

The carriers were outdated by all modern standards.

Both countries offer the Euro fighter typhoon to India, though it was put down for the Su-30 MKI

The Eurofighter has supposedly been offered to a number of nations, including Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Forgive me if I don't find the claims to be that reliable.

Ukraine sold India the IL-78 Midas air re-fueling tankers...

This is just Russian tech in the end

Im not saying that India and these countires are military "aliies" but these countries offer their military products to India as much as Russia does..

Take a look at India's inventory and try and say that with a straight face:

globalsecurity.org...
globalsecurity.org...

The majority of their ground and airforces come from Russia. Without the Russian help, the Indian military would be nothing.

Besides the South Korean airforce, it's mostly developed in South Korea.

Do a bit of research on this..It'll bcakup whatever I've stated above..

Sales from Europe have been few, infrequent, and relatively minor.

If you do your research, Disturbed... you will see India has a long and very succesfull partnership with the UK dating back some years.

Uh-huh. Care to give some examples? The only thing India seems to have in inventory from the British is the Jaguar, and they're pretty limited in number.

In 1993, in response to opportunities created by the bold and imaginative liberalisation programme introduced in India, the then British and Indian Prime Ministers publicly endorsed the creation of the Indo-British Partnership Initiative (IBPI). Its mandate is to increase bilateral trade and investment with particular emphasis on small and medium enterprises and to promote technology and science links between the two countries.

Backed by the two Governments and led by industry, the initiative has become an ongoing Partnership and is now called the Indo-British Partnership (IBP). In India the IBP secretariat is managed by the Confederation of India Industry (CII) in collaboration with the Trade & Investment department of the British High Commission, and in the UK by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). It is led by co-chairmen N.R. Narayana Murthy, Chairman & CEO of Infosys Technologies Ltd and Karan Billimoria, CEO of Cobra Beer.

KEY FACTS AND FIGURES - INDO-BRITISH TRADE & INVESTMENT

Trade

* UK-India bilateral trade of goods and services at close to £5 billion in 2002 has grown by 69% since the Indo-British Partnership was formed in 1993.
* UK is India's third largest trading partner after Mauritius and the US and accounted for 5.0% of India's total foreign trade in goods in 2001/02.
* Major items of trade in goods included - UK exports to India: non-metallic minerals, gold, power generating and telecom equipment, transport equipment and industrial machinery. UK's imports from India: textiles and readymade garments, gems and jewellery, footwear, metal manufactures, power generating equipment, organic chemicals and vegetables and fruit.

New Investment

* UK has the third largest share of 9.8% of new investment approved since 1991.
* UK is the third largest inward investor to India after Mauritius and the US.
* Since 1993, when the IBP was formed, over 2000 new Indo-British joint ventures have been approved.

India to buy british Hawk jets

edition.cnn.com...

NEW DELHI, India (Reuters) -- India said on Wednesday it would buy Hawk trainer jets from Britain's BAE Systems Plc, in a $1.7 billion deal needed to end a string of accidents in the Indian air force.

The deal for 66 aircraft, training, development and infrastructure, was worth 80 billion rupees ($1.7 billion), Defence Secretary Ajay Prasad said.

The announcement follows nearly 20 years of on-off negotiations between Britain and India over the contract, which has been stalled on arguments over the price.

"This has been a marathon hurdle race,'' said ABN Amro analyst Sandy Morris, adding that one of the reasons India had delayed awarding the contract for so long was that BAE would not offer a discount on the aircraft.

"If BAE had discounted the price of the Hawk, the contract would have probably been agreed much earlier,'' he told Reuters.

India, which has the world's fourth-largest air force, badly needs trainer jets.

Pilots now go straight from a basic low speed jet to ageing Russian MiG-21 fighters, dubbed "flying coffins'' because of frequent crashes.

Prasad said 24 of the Hawk H-155 Y model planes would be build in Britain while the rest would be assembled by state-run Indian manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics.

Rolls-Royce Plc supplies engines for Hawks.

"Now that approval has come, we will be calling BAE representatives to finally settle contract terms with them, so we can move forward,'' he said, adding that pilots would go to Britain to train on other Hawks until India got its own planes.

The proposal to buy the advanced trainer jets was cleared at a meeting of the cabinet, which has been under mounting pressure to improve the air force's safety record.

Prasad also said the cabinet panel had cleared a proposal to buy five executive jets from Brazil's Embraer for about $158 million. Four would be operated by the air force's VIP fleet and the fifth would go to the Border Security Force, he said.
CZECH COMPETITION

The Hawk has long been the frontrunner for the deal since the Indian Air Force formally proposed a trainer plane in 1985.

Last year, just as the government was nearing a decision, state-run Czech firm Aero Vodochody, in which BAE's U.S. rival Boeing Co holds a 35 percent stake, entered the fray offering what it said was a cheaper trainer.

Prasad said there were no U.S. components on the Hawk, a key concern for New Delhi, which has suffered from U.S. embargoes because of its nuclear missile programme.

"Originally some components on the aircraft were of U.S. origin but during earlier negotiations we had got them to replace them with British parts,'' he said.

BAE shares were unchanged after earlier rising on news of the deal.

"In terms of BAE, it should be good for sentiment and it means the Hawk production facility can keep going for a while,'' SG Securities analyst Zafar Khan told Reuters in London.

Indian air force officials say at least 170 MiGs have been lost and more than 40 pilots killed in accidents in the past decade, particularly because pilots have not been trained adequately.

The Hawk is the mainstay trainer for the U.S. Navy and Britain's Royal Air Force, which placed a top-up order for 44 in July. Australia, Bahrain and South Africa are also recent Hawk customers.

That has what to do with the military? That's the only thing that's being discussed here.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

The PAC-3 has already beaten out the S-300. The South Koreans had their choice of either, and they took the PAC-3.

U.S. Acquires S-300 Via Croatia

Citing the Croatian newspaper Zagreb Vjesni, Geostrategy Direct reports that the U.S. acquired a Russian air and missile defense system earlier this year. While the report identifies the system only as “S-300,” it is most likely the S-300PMU, more capable than the S-300V. The weapons system was reportedly shipped to America earlier this year.

Update: Croatia was reported to have acquired an S-300P (SA-10 Grumble) system in 1994 from an unidentified country, variously identified on different occasions by Jane’s as Ukraine, Russia, or Israel—towards the end of its war with Yugoslavia, and therefore in violation of an international arms embargo. The system, reportedly incomplete, is said to have been shipped by airplane between August 10 and December of 1994. The SA-10 missile tubes were included in a military parade in Zagreb in May of 1995. In July 2000, it was reported that Croatia would return two of the S-300PMU systems to its unidentified country of origin.

My favourite is the Arrow 2 .

The Arrow 2 missile approaches the target at a maximum speed of Mach 9, or 2.5km/s, to a maximum altitude of 50,000km.


It can also engage 14 targets at once






i hope india take it. the've alredy got the green pine radar

www.israeli-weapons.com...

U.S. Acquires S-300 Via Croatia

What's your point, exactly? America didn't go buy one S-300 for missile defense. It would be to test the enemies system.

^^
what is all this paranoia about?
Obviously it was to test russian defense systems..I'm sure he meant it in no other way..


Euro fighter link:
www.telegraphindia.com...

Here's a forum filled with non-indian posters who are comtemplating the role of eurofighters/Mirage V/SAAB Grippen/F-16 block 52 in the IAF..

www.eurofighter.starstreak.net...


Also when bought the Jaguars (over 80) and the Mirage 2000 (60) were frontline fighters of the RAF and French AF..

Bofors artillery purchases from Sweden, and more howitzers are in the pipeline..

Th INS Viraat was laid down in 1950 and recommissioned in 1986 by the IN. When the Harrier Jumpjets were bought they were also the frontline of the RN air power projection which had just seen victories in the Falklands war...


Thats a lot of defence links with the EU if you ask me....

I'd say about 80% of Indian military purchases are Russia-dependant..the remaining is obtained from europe and Israel

South Korea's dependance on the US is much much more than India's dependance on the Russians for military tech..

Also when bought the Jaguars (over 80) and the Mirage 2000 (60) were frontline fighters of the RAF and French AF..

No they weren't. The Jaguar is almost 4 decades old, and the Mirage is about the same age. The 2000 isn't that young, either.

Th INS Viraat was laid down in 1950 and recommissioned in 1986 by the IN. When the Harrier Jumpjets were bought they were also the frontline of the RN air power projection which had just seen victories in the Falklands war...

They wanted to get rid of the Harriers before the Falklands, didn't they? They were thought to be obselete.

South Korea's dependance on the US is much much more than India's dependance on the Russians for military tech..

Not true. South Korea produces their own equipment really besides their fighters. India basically buys it all from Russia.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Also when bought the Jaguars (over 80) and the Mirage 2000 (60) were frontline fighters of the RAF and French AF..

No they weren't. The Jaguar is almost 4 decades old, and the Mirage is about the same age. The 2000 isn't that young, either.

Have you done any research at all into this?... you don't seem to have a clue what your talking about.

The Mirage 2000 was developed in 1983... that makes it 22 years old....
The Jaguar was brought into service in 1974... that makes it 31 years old

Th INS Viraat was laid down in 1950 and recommissioned in 1986 by the IN. When the Harrier Jumpjets were bought they were also the frontline of the RN air power projection which had just seen victories in the Falklands war...

They wanted to get rid of the Harriers before the Falklands, didn't they? They were thought to be obselete.

If they were so obsolete than why did the US order a large batch of them after seeing their performance in the Falklands?
That was in 1982 roughly 15 years after the initial design was approved... It has been upgraded continiously throughout the years and only recently has production stopped.

South Korea's dependance on the US is much much more than India's dependance on the Russians for military tech..

Not true. South Korea produces their own equipment really besides their fighters. India basically buys it all from Russia.

Both rely on foreign technology... which one imports the most relatively is a moot point. The main thing is both countries can develop their own indigenious weaponry...
It's fair to say though that South Korea relies far more on US assistance than say India... which does not at all.


[edit on 25-1-2005 by Lucretius]