rangeelaraja Posted August 29, 2025 Posted August 29, 2025 8 hours ago, IndianRenegade said: We could go into Russia’s supposed justification latter. But the point I was making is explicit/outright diplomatic support aren’t uncommon as long as you are seen acting in defense or retaliation to an attack/terrorism. But because we refused to isolate Russia is why US & its allies refused to back us explicitly during Op Sindhoor. It’s a simple game of tit-for-tat, US is telling us if you claim strategic autonomy maintaining relationship with Russia then we are also entitled to hang out with Pakistan. We had Pakistan nicely isolated except for the Chinese & some bones that ummah threw. But the war ruined it for us, US needed India to move away from Russia now, not slowly as they had envisioned. Biden was doing it behind the scenes, Trump is being explicit about it. Russia should consider 1971 has been repaid. Dude, you are not this naive. Big powerful nations who are power centers don't extend outright support anywhere anytime, unless they have strong self interests. They look after their self interests. Most of what is said is factually incorrect and you are also contradicting yourself. When has US ever supported India outright ? They know the game Pak has been upto for the longest time against yet they never support us outright - because they have interests in Pak ( for Afghanistan, Iran and various other reasons ). Heck they have not even abandoned Pak fully acknowledging that Pak has played a double game for decades. After every act of t*rror against us, they ask India to show "restraint" and resolve through dialogue. Although they themselves have zero tolerance. The only ones that show outright support are poodles and lapdogs of big powers whose foreign policy is always aligned to a master.
IndianRenegade Posted August 29, 2025 Posted August 29, 2025 (edited) 1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said: Dude, you are not this naive. Big powerful nations who are power centers don't extend outright support anywhere anytime, unless they have strong self interests. They look after their self interests. Most of what is said is factually incorrect and you are also contradicting yourself. When has US ever supported India outright ? They know the game Pak has been upto for the longest time against yet they never support us outright - because they have interests in Pak ( for Afghanistan, Iran and various other reasons ). Heck they have not even abandoned Pak fully acknowledging that Pak has played a double game for decades. After every act of t*rror against us, they ask India to show "restraint" and resolve through dialogue. Although they themselves have zero tolerance. The only ones that show outright support are poodles and lapdogs of big powers whose foreign policy is always aligned to a master. Not at all. 1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said: Big powerful nations who are power centers don't extend outright support anywhere anytime, unless they have strong self interests. They look after their self interests. Of course I agree, But nothing I wrote contradicts this, they were willing to offer support to India as long on moral grounds as long as it alligned with their intrests. 1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said: Most of what is said is factually incorrect and you are also contradicting yourself. You are yet to point out one factually incorrect statement or contradication. Disagrement on why certain thing happened are't factual incurracy, they are just differences of opinion as no one has insider information as to why a certain decision was made. 1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said: When has US ever supported India outright ? They know the game Pak has been upto for the longest time against yet they never support us outright - because they have interests in Pak ( for Afghanistan, Iran and various other reasons ). Heck they have not even abandoned Pak fully acknowledging that Pak has played a double game for decades. You seem to have not read what I had written about previous US support for India. SOS Mike pompeo literally posted the following on US embassy site in Pakistan claiming Indian actions in balakot are counter terror ops & asking pak to act on terrorists in its soil, this has since been removed from the US embassy site in Pakistan: The US state department spokersperson repeteadly claimed at that time, India has the right to defend itself. This was unprecedented US support for a cross border action by India. It was noted by think thanks too: Quote One of the stark contrasts from previous crises was the delayed and desultory intervention by the United States – at least in the public arena. The statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo terming India’s airstrike inside Pakistan a “counter-terrorism action” was unprecedented and an indication of a clear American tilt in India’s favor.14 It was only after Pakistan shot down an Indian aircraft and captured its pilot and once India made retaliatory missile threats that the United States began active and visible intervention – calling for both India and Pakistan to show restraint and not escalate the crisis further. https://www.stimson.org/2020/pulwama-balakot-and-the-evolving-role-of-third-parties-in-india-pakistan-crises/ All this happened even when it had American soilders in Afg, & it probably needed Pak's support. As I previously said "As war prolongs, every country will ask the warring parties to engage in diplomacy, but the initial reaction is a give away of their diplomatic support". Pakistan immediately starts to play the nuclear card which makes US to push for restraint. You can read Mike pompeo's book for his version of what happened. You can draft a timeline of the russia-ukraine war & US-Ind-Pak relations, it should be apparent that from not taking Pak PM's call to approval of F16 aid, removal from FATF, to IMF loans, to Garcetti comments criticizing India's strategic autonomy vis-à-vis Russia to the current post Op Sindhoor fiasco. All of it can be traced back to India refusing to abandon Russia to extend pressure on it for the war in Ukraine. Russia's war has made our geopolitics hard, Modi knew a war with pakistan was not good for Indian economy at this stage, India's strategy was to diplomatically isolate Pakistan, keep it down while Indian economy hums along making Pakistan irrelevant. But Putin's was has ended our ability to isolate Pakistan diplomatically & has now started hurting us economically. Edited August 29, 2025 by IndianRenegade
rangeelaraja Posted August 29, 2025 Posted August 29, 2025 (edited) 11 hours ago, IndianRenegade said: Not at all. Of course I agree, But nothing I wrote contradicts this, they were willing to offer support to India as long on moral grounds as long as it alligned with their intrests. You are yet to point out one factually incorrect statement or contradication. Disagrement on why certain thing happened are't factual incurracy, they are just differences of opinion as no one has insider information as to why a certain decision was made. You seem to have not read what I had written about previous US support for India. SOS Mike pompeo literally posted the following on US embassy site in Pakistan claiming Indian actions in balakot are counter terror ops & asking pak to act on terrorists in its soil, this has since been removed from the US embassy site in Pakistan: The US state department spokersperson repeteadly claimed at that time, India has the right to defend itself. This was unprecedented US support for a cross border action by India. It was noted by think thanks too: https://www.stimson.org/2020/pulwama-balakot-and-the-evolving-role-of-third-parties-in-india-pakistan-crises/ All this happened even when it had American soilders in Afg, & it probably needed Pak's support. As I previously said "As war prolongs, every country will ask the warring parties to engage in diplomacy, but the initial reaction is a give away of their diplomatic support". Pakistan immediately starts to play the nuclear card which makes US to push for restraint. You can read Mike pompeo's book for his version of what happened. You can draft a timeline of the russia-ukraine war & US-Ind-Pak relations, it should be apparent that from not taking Pak PM's call to approval of F16 aid, removal from FATF, to IMF loans, to Garcetti comments criticizing India's strategic autonomy vis-à-vis Russia to the current post Op Sindhoor fiasco. All of it can be traced back to India refusing to abandon Russia to extend pressure on it for the war in Ukraine. Russia's war has made our geopolitics hard, Modi knew a war with pakistan was not good for Indian economy at this stage, India's strategy was to diplomatically isolate Pakistan, keep it down while Indian economy hums along making Pakistan irrelevant. But Putin's was has ended our ability to isolate Pakistan diplomatically & has now started hurting us economically. Dude, stop being naive. 1) You claimed that being outright in support is not unusual - which is factually wrong - no big country goes all in based on morality - the only thing that drives all out support is deep vested interests - not morality. 2) You are also wrong to compare what previous administration did - those secretary of state statements are mere lip service, thats how they make make a fool out of naive people. Could they not disable Pak access to F-16s when we attacked Pak ? Could they not sanction Pak for its repeated t*rror activities against India ? That is called outright support if you have a clue as to what outright support means. Like is being provided to Israel to badger Iran. Why did they not provide such outright support. 3) You are also wrong to compare what the previous administration did to the current one - because its all over the news that personal interests - ( Nobel Peace Prize ). Plus the whole crypto thing. Edited August 30, 2025 by rangeelaraja
IndianRenegade Posted August 29, 2025 Posted August 29, 2025 (edited) 1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said: Dude, stop being naive. repeating something doen't make it so. 1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said: 1) You claimed that being outright in support is not unusual - which is factually wrong - no big country goes all in based on morality - the only thing that drives all out support is deep vested interests - not morality. you seem to not understand what "facts" are. Life exists on earth is a fact, life only exists on earth is an opinion as there is no reliable way to determine it. There isn't a clear way to determine true extent of diplomatic support as diplomats themselves don't speak about events until years latter. Pmompeo's book though certainly hints a clear change in policy at least from the US side, whether the Indians saw it that way is question time will tell. I clearly also added caveates to US support for Indian issue with Pakistan terrorism was predicated on India siding with US on Russia. I didn't say "outright support without any constraint is not unusual", nor did I say big countries offer supoort just based on morality. Those are your opinions of what you belive I wrote, I didn't. I have been very clear that US support has been predicated on the belief that India can be slowly weaned off of russian influence. It was much easier for India to make US believe that would be the case in the absense of war against US interests, India was purchasing more US based weapons than russian, US was willing to look past s400 as long it was an exception. Indian economy was more integrated with the western sphere than russian. As time went by the old Russian weapons would mean lesser & lesser, the american weapons which need India to be integrated with NATO standards would mean India is much closer to it. US was willing to play the long game & India was willing to take US for the ride as our Economy grows. The war has put a wrench in both our plans. 1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said: 2) You are also wrong to compare what previous administration did - those secretary of state statements are mere lip service, thats how they make make a fool out of naive people. Could they not disable Pak access to F-16s when we attacked Pak ? Could they not sanction Pak for its repeated t*rror activities against India ? That is called outright support if you have a clue as to what outright support means. Like is being provided to Israel to badger Iran. Why did they not provide such outright support. How am wrong to compare? lol you asked for examples of outright support? how else should one be able to do that without using past examples? you also seem to take outright to mean something I never meant. Outright means "to indicate a direct or strightforward manner", US has never in the past supported India's actions beyond the LOC as counter terror action & termed such actions as defensive. That was probably the first time US made such statement, thats not tosay US was offering India Israel level support. You seem to not realize the diplomatic isolation of Pakistan that India has achived before the russian war. US had designated a number of Pak assets as terrorists, was helping india with UN designation too with only the chinese preventing it, wouldn't talk about Kashmir or article 370 aborgation, kept pak in FATF grey list making loans to Pakistan difficult, cut off military aid packages. We can't get Israel level support without Israel level inetgration, Israel is USs attack dog in ME. All of it got unwinded right after russian war, it is not a coincidence. 1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said: 3) You are also wrong to compare what the previous administration did to the current one - because its all over the news that T's personal interests - his desperate lust for Nobel Prize and bringing in forced peace and being dishonest about his involvement in bringing peace for his personal and selfish interests. Plus the whole crypto deal investment where his family stands to benefit. No one is saying Trump 1.0 is exactly same as Trump 2.0, I have said it multiple times Trump 1.0 was the republican establishment governing through Trump, while 2.0 is him governing through them. Peace maker trump should have achieved peace in Palestine right? what did he do? did a sham CF, the let Bibi do whatever he wants while shedding crocodile tears for palestinian civillians & getting a nomination of peace prize. He could have been cajoled to do something similar even if not to that extant if India had played the cards right, also India didn't want a prolonged war either. It is should be a matter of shame for Indian Forign Policy to say a bankrupt Pakistan bought out our startergic partner with measely crypto deal while we made no counter play. Here you have senergy of establishment aims of trying to show India its place for not abandoing Russia & trumps personal greed hurting India. Indian FP isn't able to counter either for various reason. Edited August 29, 2025 by IndianRenegade
rangeelaraja Posted August 29, 2025 Posted August 29, 2025 (edited) 1 hour ago, IndianRenegade said: I clearly also added caveates to US support for Indian issue with Pakistan terrorism was predicated on India siding with US on Russia. I didn't say "outright support without any constraint is not unusual", nor did I say big countries offer supoort just based on morality. Those are your opinions of what you belive I wrote, I didn't. I have been very clear that US support has been predicated on the belief that India can be slowly weaned off of russian influence. It was much easier for India to make US believe that would be the case in the absense of war against US interests, India was purchasing more US based weapons than russian, US was willing to look past s400 as long it was an exception. Indian economy was more integrated with the western sphere than russian. As time went by the old Russian weapons would mean lesser & lesser, the american weapons which need India to be integrated with NATO standards would mean India is much closer to it. US was willing to play the long game & India was willing to take US for the ride as our Economy grows. The war has put a wrench in both our plans. All of it got unwinded right after russian war, it is not a coincidence. US ties with Pakistan are entirely predicated on US self interests with Pakistan and has nothing to do with them siding with India on moral grounds. This has been because Pak is willing to be a rentier state , a toilet paper. There have been dozens of instances ( reported ) and probably many more unreported - where US has pressured India not to attack Pak because of the the so called war on te*or support Pak is giving on the Afghan border - below are just a handful of what has been reported - where Pak has threatened to stop fighting on the Afghan border if India ups the ante on LOC or beyond. https://www.stimson.org/wp-content/files/file-attachments/To_the_Brink_0.pdf https://www.reuters.com/article/instant-article/idUSTRE4AS1ZH20081129/ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/03/02/the-back-channel Munir met with Trump - 1/2 days before Iran's N facilities were bombed - most credible sources reported that Pak airspace and logistics was used in some shape or form. When the need of Pak goes, Pak is dumped like a used toilet paper and pressured for its with China, when Pak is required to rent out its land /logistics - suddenly they get concessions, loans, and everything is goodie good. This has nothing to do with Russian oil. This has been the history of Pak/US relationship. Quote you asked for examples of outright support? how else should one be able to do that without using past examples? you also seem to take outright to mean something I never meant. Outright means "to indicate a direct or strightforward manner", US has never in the past supported India's actions beyond the LOC as counter terror action & termed such actions as defensive. That was probably the first time US made such statement, thats not tosay US was offering India Israel level support. Quote You seem to not realize the diplomatic isolation of Pakistan that India has achived before the russian war. US had designated a number of Pak assets as terrorists, was helping india with UN designation too with only the chinese preventing it, wouldn't talk about Kashmir or article 370 aborgation, kept pak in FATF grey list making loans to Pakistan difficult, cut off military aid packages. We can't get Israel level support without Israel level inetgration, Israel is USs attack dog in ME. Wrong again. India is NOT the only country slapped with 50 % tariff, Brazil too has been slapped with 50 % tariff. https://www.internationaltradeinsights.com/2025/07/president-trump-imposed-50-tariff-on-brazil/ All of this has happened at the start of the 2nd term - an aggressive tariff attack on all BRICS countries with the attempt to dismantle BRICS in his 2nd term - China can turn off the tap of rare earth and Russia is already an adversary. So who else is left ?? 2 soft targets relatively - India and Brazil - both get slapped with 50 % tariff. What has Brazil got to do with Russian war oil ?? ZILCH. Why tariff them 50 % ---- so it has nothing to do with what you are claiming above. https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2025/us-imposed-100-percent-tariff-brics-countries-would-cause-lower-gdp International geopolitics is not simple as your little vision - so read up a little bit more. Edited August 29, 2025 by rangeelaraja
IndianRenegade Posted August 30, 2025 Posted August 30, 2025 6 hours ago, rangeelaraja said: US ties with Pakistan are entirely predicated on US self interests with Pakistan and has nothing to do with them siding with India on moral grounds. Never said its based on just moral grounds. Your inablity to comprehend more than one sentence at a time isn't my problem. 6 hours ago, rangeelaraja said: This has been because Pak is willing to be a rentier state , a toilet paper. There have been dozens of instances ( reported ) and probably many more unreported - where US has pressured India not to attack Pak because of the the so called war on te*or support Pak is giving on the Afghan border - below are just a handful of what has been reported - where Pak has threatened to stop fighting on the Afghan border if India ups the ante on LOC or beyond. https://www.stimson.org/wp-content/files/file-attachments/To_the_Brink_0.pdf https://www.reuters.com/article/instant-article/idUSTRE4AS1ZH20081129/ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/03/02/the-back-channel Munir met with Trump - 1/2 days before Iran's N facilities were bombed - most credible sources reported that Pak airspace and logistics was used in some shape or form. When the need of Pak goes, Pak is dumped like a used toilet paper and pressured for its with China, when Pak is required to rent out its land /logistics - suddenly they get concessions, loans, and everything is goodie good. This has nothing to do with Russian oil. This has been the history of Pak/US relationship. And the year is 2025, you are talking about 2008/9. War on terror is still going on, Bin Laden still at large, india - US ties were still nacent. Fast forward to 2020s, US reproachment with Pakistan started much earlier in Biden admin, US had no need to bomb Iran at that time. you have a great habbit discounting facts that don't fit your narrative. US didn't need pakistan to bomb Iran even during Trump 2.0, Munir got a meeting because he sucked up to Trump, sold him the minerals churan (see trumps obsession with greenland) & gave him a nobel peace prize nomination. i din't mention russian oil once in my entire argument, you should read better. Russian oil is just a excuse of Trump, it wasn't an issue for Biden & it wasn't an issue for Trump until he needed a reason to be harsh with India. 7 hours ago, rangeelaraja said: Wrong again. India is NOT the only country slapped with 50 % tariff, Brazil too has been slapped with 50 % tariff. https://www.internationaltradeinsights.com/2025/07/president-trump-imposed-50-tariff-on-brazil/ wrong on what? you accuse the other person is wrong without ever stating what is wong or throwing strawman to claim I am wrong. Where did I ever India is only country to be slapped with a 50% tariff? 7 hours ago, rangeelaraja said: All of this has happened at the start of the 2nd term - an aggressive tariff attack on all BRICS countries with the attempt to dismantle BRICS in his 2nd term - China can turn off the tap of rare earth and Russia is already an adversary. So who else is left ?? 2 soft targets relatively - India and Brazil - both get slapped with 50 % tariff. What has Brazil got to do with Russian war oil ?? ZILCH. Why tariff them 50 % ---- so it has nothing to do with what you are claiming above. https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2025/us-imposed-100-percent-tariff-brics-countries-would-cause-lower-gdp International geopolitics is not simple as your little vision - so read up a little bit more. All this didn't happen at the start of the second term. At the start of Trump's second term on liberation day Brazil's tariff was 10% a base rate tariff as it US had a trade surpless with US. Trump & his inner cricle has been on war path with with Lula's govt even before he won a second term Trumps own SM company & elon's X have been fighting a legal battle in Brazil which spilled into X with threats flying. Why should Russian oil be an issue with Brazil? Trump has different issue with different countries At the start of the second term Trump & Vance were hawking F35s to India, F35s meant it comes with PACs, LM was seperately hinting before F35s India needed to get into F16/21 platform, that means they were eyeing for MRFA too, Trump admin's was offering a sweetened carrot to come into it sphere of influence, abandon stratergic autonomy & kneel. India seems to have rebuffed this, then came op sindhoor where India denied credit for trump. These are personal insults for trump. All this spilt into Trade negotations, Trump just used the russian oil purchases as a more palatable line of attack, if India had signed for F35s, given him credit for CF & opened up its agri market, BRICS or russian oil won't have mattered. Contrary to what you believe the softest target in BRICS with no leverage is South Africa, it got tariffed less than India or Brazil. 8 hours ago, rangeelaraja said: What has Brazil got to do with Russian war oil ?? ZILCH. Why tariff them 50 % ---- so it has nothing to do with what you are claiming above. https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2025/us-imposed-100-percent-tariff-brics-countries-would-cause-lower-gdp International geopolitics is not simple as your little vision - so read up a little bit more. where did I ever claim Russsian oil has anything to do with Brazil or even the current problem with India? what I was caliming in that response, was a counter to the claim that US didn't do anything for India wrt pakistan. India had managed to isolate Pakistan a lot with US help, not because US thought it was the moral thing to do but because of US's stratergic interest were with Inda wrt to China & bringing under its sphere of influence. It started easing up on Pakistan after it realized India doesn't want to come into its sphere of influence.
singhvivek141 Posted August 30, 2025 Posted August 30, 2025 (edited) On 8/29/2025 at 1:27 PM, Lone Wolf said: With Safran set to Collab with us on Engines it is safe to say path is clearer for Dassault to set up a supply chain of Rafales in India as well the export variant. India is 100% going ahead with more Rafales... It is going to be out premier 4.5 gen platform. And IAF loves Rafale and our pilots are now well trained in its avionics and stuff. Meteor is coming.. It has obviously underwent severe testing phase but its quality is undeniable. I read that early batch of meteor missile is already here (not sure IAF has yet integrated it or not) we won't know that yet. Only Eurofighter is currently integrated with Meteor and perhaps India is next in line. I think many Experts have suggested to go with proven platform like Rafale over Su57 whose delivery and effectiveness are both questionable right now. Pakistan ain't getting any 5th gen fighter soon too. Focus on Tejas MK2 and fund HAL and DRDO for quicker development of Astra mk 3 and Rudram 3 Missiles for Tejas and MKI platforms. HAL seems overburdened right now. They've Super Sukhoi, Helicopter program and Tejas backlog. AMCA is an additional overload. With these many projects, we need to expand their capacity and have to build new factories, or bring in pvt players like TASL Was watching a show where an ex Air Chief mentioned currently HAL only has capacity to make 8 jets per year...which they're trying to increase now to 16 as Nashik facility is up and running. But ideally we should have to have a capability to produce 30-40 jets in a year. We then can even manufacture jets for Russia as well, which itself is struggling due to manpower issues for Su57 and next gen Su75 Edited August 30, 2025 by singhvivek141
Lone Wolf Posted August 30, 2025 Posted August 30, 2025 22 minutes ago, singhvivek141 said: HAL seems overburdened right now. They've Super Sukhoi, Helicopter program and Tejas backlog. AMCA is an additional overload. With these many projects, we need to expand their capacity and have to build new factories, or bring in pvt players like TASL Was watching a show where an ex Air Chief mentioned currently HAL only has capacity to make 8 jets per year...which they're trying to increase now to 16 as Nashik facility is up and running. But ideally we should have to have a capability to produce 30-40 jets in a year. We then can even manufacture jets for Russia as well, which itself is struggling due to manpower issues for Su57 and next gen Su75 Manufacturing speed won't increase overnight... Mk2 project is most crucial crucial for IAF. It's timeline will determine we will have an operational AMCA jet before 2035-36 or not. And Tejas MK2 is supposed to be mass produced in future for even exports. Su57 is waste of money if they went with it & with limited budget it will kill Mk2, or push the project further. I guess IAF only wants Rafale those 114 Rafales are inevitable as per reports . I don't see any Su57 deal happening https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aerotime.aero/articles/iaf-seeks-114-rafales-direct-deal/amp
singhvivek141 Posted August 30, 2025 Posted August 30, 2025 31 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said: Manufacturing speed won't increase overnight... Mk2 project is most crucial crucial for IAF. It's timeline will determine we will have an operational AMCA jet before 2035-36 or not. And Tejas MK2 is supposed to be mass produced in future for even exports. Su57 is waste of money if they went with it & with limited budget it will kill Mk2, or push the project further. I guess IAF only wants Rafale those 114 Rafales are inevitable as per reports . I don't see any Su57 deal happening https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aerotime.aero/articles/iaf-seeks-114-rafales-direct-deal/amp Hmm. If they want only Rafale then it's fine as well. Just that IAF & MoD shouldn't keep all their eggs in one basket i.e. HAL.
Lone Wolf Posted August 30, 2025 Posted August 30, 2025 (edited) 17 minutes ago, singhvivek141 said: Hmm. If they want only Rafale then it's fine as well. Just that IAF & MoD shouldn't keep all their eggs in one basket i.e. HAL. This is the case now unfortunately. Depleting fighter squadrons was always going to be an issue. GoI woke up way too late. They are doing the same with Navy. I swear to god the Navy admirals are extremely capable otherwise it's condition would have resembled IAF. 15 year since we have placed diesel submarine order 13 year destroyer 9 year frigate 13 year corvette 30 year Mcmvs India has not signed a single diesel submarine procurement in the past 15 years. And we have an assembly line lying idle with its skilled workers slowly being poached by foreign shipyards. China operates the world’s largest and most rapidly expanding navy. Its submarine fleet is projected to reach 65 this year and 80 by 2035. Indian Navy has not signed any new contract in the past two decades for acquisition of conventional submarines, the first Scorpene submarine contract being inked in October 2005. Project 75I pe itna time waste Kiya ki assembly line hi idle reh gyi. Even Bhikhari Pakistanis will have 11 AIP powered subs by early 2030's when most of our old sub fleet will be almost retiring. Edited August 30, 2025 by Lone Wolf singhvivek141 1
singhvivek141 Posted August 30, 2025 Posted August 30, 2025 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said: This is the case now unfortunately. Depleting fighter squadrons was always going to be an issue. GoI woke up way too late. They are doing the same with Navy. I swear to god the Navy admirals are extremely capable otherwise it's condition would have resembled IAF. 15 year since we have placed diesel submarine order 13 year destroyer 9 year frigate 13 year corvette 30 year Mcmvs India has not signed a single diesel submarine procurement in the past 15 years. And we have an assembly line lying idle with its skilled workers slowly being poached by foreign shipyards. China operates the world’s largest and most rapidly expanding navy. Its submarine fleet is projected to reach 65 this year and 80 by 2035. Indian Navy has not signed any new contract in the past two decades for acquisition of conventional submarines, the first Scorpene submarine contract being inked in October 2005. Project 75I pe itna time waste Kiya ki assembly line hi idle reh gyi. Even Bhikhari Pakistanis will have 11 AIP powered subs by early 2030's when most of our old sub fleet will be almost retiring. I think Navy wise as well, there are plans to retrofit AIP in older Submarines (similar to Super Sukhoi). AIP Submarines have their advantage in the coastal and shallow waters..hence are useful for defensive operations. But in open seas combat they are no match to Nuclear submarines..something which India is working on it. But given the plans do retrofit AIP in older submarines in action, it seems we are modernizing that part as well. Good thing is that unlike IAF, INS are quick to wrap around the things and explore the private players. Apart from Mazgaon docks, they took heavy help from L&T to develop Arihant & Arighat...INS, in my opinion is very much engaged in the projects which they outsource, unlike IAF. Hence, the delay in INS is still manageable. Problem is, with all GDP growth aside, we are still a low GDP pc country. Which means our purse will alwahs be on the thinner side. Plus the govt HAS TO do the so called "jan kalyan yojna's" to keep the votes intact. At times I feel, India too should be an autocracy like Russia or China. That gives the leaders time to focus on key aspects without worrying much about the games which opposition can play. Edited August 30, 2025 by singhvivek141
Recommended Posts