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

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: vonclod

Who is these days?

But we LOVE our pet Canadians!!!

Everyone has problems. Everyone has infrastructure issues. Everyone has security issues, too.

And we Canadians love our American overlords

Everyone has problems true enough.

a reply to: vonclod

Part of securing your borders includes the borders at sea. India is currently in a similar situation to us. They have a large military, but much of their equipment is old.

a reply to: vonclod

And we Canadians love our American overlords

Found the fake canuck.

During the late 90s, a Canadian major proposed that Canada disband its armed forces and directly fund the US military instead. The article stated per dollar spent, Canada would have more fighting capability that way than what they did at the time.

While I am sure it was meant to be a Modest Proposal style commentary (while being true), I still strongly believe the man was never found again after it was published. I can only imagine his fate: buried in a casket far to the north embalmed in maple syrup and his mouth stuffed with brooklyn fries, ahem, poutine to make sure he never rose again.

a reply to: anzha

I can't say I care much for the Majors idea. That would mean, I can only imagine U.S. military on Canuck soil.
U.S. law enforcement had been given the green light by Harper to operate here, most Canucks didn't like the idea and it has supposedly been put on hold.
They probably just sent the major to Toronto.

a reply to: vonclod

They probably just sent the major to Toronto.

Truly a fate worse than death.

There were 3 US military installations in Newfoundland. Last one closed in 1991/1994 (officially the latter, but unused in 91).

Oh and I don't blame Canucks for not wanting foreign police running around. I mean, imagine the outcry in the States!

Any time you folks want to join the party down here, there's plenty of room on the flag for a few more stars.

a reply to: anzha

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: vonclod

Part of securing your borders includes the borders at sea. India is currently in a similar situation to us. They have a large military, but much of their equipment is old.

You can defend your border from...you know...the border. Build air bases a hundred or so miles inland and use surveillance radar.

Carriers are for projecting power away from the homeland. Bad enough the US wastes money on this, but India doesn't have that kind of money to burn.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

I'm hoping the other two Indian carriers are junk, but they certainly don't need three. Not only are carriers expensive to build, they are expensive to operate.

Russia has a carrier, as in one. Most first world counties, excluding the US, have one carrier. A few have two.

In the meantime, China is exercising soft power in the form of roads and trains.

a reply to: gariac

Meanwhile, China is building 10 carriers, and trying to grab as much territory in the sea around them as they can. They currently have two, with the third, which will be a CATOBAR just started construction.

Russia still has plans for a Nimitz sized carrier, and dreams of more than one.

India decides what they need for their military. They decided they need carriers, and STOBAR carriers are useful, but a CATOBAR would be more useful. As for shore based radar, that only defends so much territory. You need ships to patrol too. India wants a blue water force and decided this is the way to do it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

Meanwhile, China is building 10 carriers, and trying to grab as much territory in the sea around them as they can. They currently have two, with the third, which will be a CATOBAR just started construction.

Russia still has plans for a Nimitz sized carrier, and dreams of more than one.

India decides what they need for their military. They decided they need carriers, and STOBAR carriers are useful, but a CATOBAR would be more useful. As for shore based radar, that only defends so much territory. You need ships to patrol too. India wants a blue water force and decided this is the way to do it.

China stole the Spratly Islands. The whole area is an electronic snooping net. (Think sub detection.) They don't need the carriers since they have the dirt.

China builds cities that are ghost towns. Their record on planning isn't stellar. Let them build 20. It is their money to burn. Carriers are sitting ducks.

a reply to: gariac

And yet, China is building them.

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: vonclod

Part of securing your borders includes the borders at sea. India is currently in a similar situation to us. They have a large military, but much of their equipment is old.

You can defend your border from...you know...the border. Build air bases a hundred or so miles inland and use surveillance radar.

Carriers are for projecting power away from the homeland. Bad enough the US wastes money on this, but India doesn't have that kind of money to burn.

that would be true if one of their main enemies did not have carriers, and plans to build many more. a carrier may be good at projecting power away from home. but the best way to protect yourself against an enemy carrier, is to use your own carrier force against it. an airbase on land is a stationary target. where a carrier can move around and has to be found. and with all of China's pushing not just their borders, but just about every country without some sort of buffer country in between like their aggressive actions as far away from them as the Philippines. they would be crazy not to ignore the threat of the Chinese carriers. what they really need is at least as many carriers (as well as other navel units)as China has in order to be able to defend themselves against them.

originally posted by: anzha
The airwing size is also interesting: 57 aircraft. That's more than the Lizzies...

Size of air-wing is a bit of a red herring. It is meaningless if the sortie rate is low. The UKs QE carries are spec-ed for three sorties per day with their aircraft compliment.

TBH the Indian's would be better served by going for a design like the UKs QE class, but that's just my bias.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Zaphod58

They already have a huge military, if they have border issues secure the borders, I'm not sure how aircraft carriers fix that.
I'll be the 1st to admit I'm not a military strategist, and concede carriers might have relevance to that.
I will consider and look into what you have said.

Ummm...the issue stems from...border disputes...i.e....Between India and China...and also between India and Pakistan...so while securing the border is obviously of paramount importance to them...the reality on the ground is much more complicated...


Hope that helps...




YouSir

Man am I behind on this stuff. I didn't even know they had one carrier, let alone two.

a reply to: face23785

Since 1957, actually:

en.wikipedia.org...(R11)

I wonder how much of this new build. Is pressure from the USA.

Getting them to build a carrier to add weight against China?? Also if a conflict ever kicked off. Then that's 3 extra carriers in the USA coalition

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.

Royal Navy and French rule the Atlantic,USA rule Pacific,whos ruling the Indian Ocean?