Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314151617181920 LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 289

Thread: Indian Defence News & Discussions

  1. #181
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,514
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    That's like saying you're partially pregnant. The strategic concepts are isolation and reduction. There was no isolation.
    Partial is the qualifier used in wiki.

    Way i've heard it was a blockade. Nothing goes in or comes out. Isolation.

    Maybe some of the history buffs can fill in more.

  2. #182
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    There is a second scenario where we see them moving their TNW's to the border.
    There is no such thing as tac nukes. If one flies, they all fly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Partial is the qualifier used in wiki.

    Way i've heard it was a blockade. Nothing goes in or comes out. Isolation.

    Maybe some of the history buffs can fill in more.
    I've read that too and it was as it was written. Strategically, blockading that port did zero in determining the real war - the ground war.

  3. #183
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,923
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    You're talking MiG-29s with half the range of a Su-27. You need air refueling regardless.
    Why? If India is at war with China, the IN will place the carrier outside China's EEZ.

    The Cold War provides ample examples of CBG and anti-CBG thinking.
    What examples? Point me towards those. I am a civilian for Allah's sake.

    India and Pakistan are next door to each other. If the InAF cannot attack Pakistani ports from several axis, then a 4 star needs to find a new job.

    Blockades would be more political than military. Would India dare to stop Chinese, American, and more especially Iranian and Saudi freighters from docking? Consider this, India needs oil. Speaking of which, what blockade? Pakistan has land routes to China and Iran.

    Plus the Indian carrier are restricted to 26 MiG-29s. Hardly an overwhelming force for blockade. A combat restricted zone would be better serve with SSKs, forcing the Pakistani Navy to spend an a hell of a lot of time doing their most hilarious version of ASW. An aircraft carrier would be an extremely tempting target to which the Pakistani AF most assuredly holds the upper hand.
    ???
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  4. #184
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,923
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    I do remember reading about carrier ops involving Sea Hawks.
    Yes you read that right. The Indian Navy lit up Karachi harbour during the 1971 liberation war. East Pak was attacked too.

    Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  5. #185
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    There is no such thing as tac nukes. If one flies, they all fly.
    If you mean "all nukes fly"... then I wish more people would understand this...

  6. #186
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,923
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    There is no such thing as tac nukes. If one flies, they all fly.
    The Pakistan Army disagrees with you. They have built those. Why? We all know.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  7. #187
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    The Pakistan Army disagrees with you. They have built those. Why? We all know.
    They're trying to keep up with the Jones, ie India. They don't have as much fissile materials as India, so to have the same number of nukes as India, they had to go small yield, 10 to 1 kt (gun type nuke) wheras Indian nukes are at the 40kt range.

    Such small yields restrict the kind of targets the nuke can attack, mainly assembly areas and HQs, soft targets. Hence, the tac nuke designation. However, this does not change that once you toss a nuke, you can expect to receive a nuke. Only idiots would expect a nuclear power to be too scare to throw a nuke back at you.

  8. #188
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,923
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    They're trying to keep up with the Jones, ie India. They don't have as much fissile materials as India, so to have the same number of nukes as India, they had to go small yield, 10 to 1 kt (gun type nuke) wheras Indian nukes are at the 40kt range.

    Such small yields restrict the kind of targets the nuke can attack, mainly assembly areas and HQs, soft targets. Hence, the tac nuke designation. However, this does not change that once you toss a nuke, you can expect to receive a nuke. Only idiots would expect a nuclear power to be too scare to throw a nuke back at you.
    The bold part - you've said it before. I was talking about Pak tactical nukes, not contesting your claim about 1 or 100 nukes flying. And I am still correct when I say Pak has built tactical nukes for use on advancing Indian Army formations inside Pakistani territory. The sub-continent lives or not after that is a different thing.

    Frankly I am not a fan of using nukes, neither am I a fan of deterrence. Civilian you see. Our brain works in opposite directions. But when I see a country threatening nukes, I want to go all in and call their bluff. All conventional though. If I argue nukes more with you, my head will start paining like last time. So signing off for tonight.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  9. #189
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    The bold part - you've said it before. I was talking about Pak tactical nukes, not contesting your claim about 1 or 100 nukes flying. And I am still correct when I say Pak has built tactical nukes for use on advancing Indian Army formations inside Pakistani territory. The sub-continent lives or not after that is a different thing.
    You're not getting it. Those small yields are good for nothing except assembly areas and field HQs. Soft targets. Hence, that "tactical" designation. But make no mistake, their effects are anything but "tactical." You're not going to waste a tac nuke on a line company but the Corps HQ 20 miles back is sirenning the nuke.

    When one flies, they all flies (yes, jlvfr, I mean all nukes).

  10. #190
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Why? If India is at war with China, the IN will place the carrier outside China's EEZ.
    Do the math. Su-27s combat radius is 1500 kms. MiG-29 is 750 kms. In other words, your carrier would be in range of enemy fighters long before your target is in range of yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    What examples? Point me towards those. I am a civilian for Allah's sake.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=cold+war+naval+tactics

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    ???
    The Pakistanis have ~100 JF-17s and 88 F-16s both with a combat radisu fo 1500+ kms against 26 MiG-29s with a combat radius of 750 kms. Do the math.

  11. #191
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,514
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    There is no such thing as tac nukes. If one flies, they all fly.
    So if we see them being moved towards the border. What do we do ?

    According to you pre-emption is out. If we take them out they still have strategic ones which they can use. And those we cannot take out. Not all or any where close to stop them hitting us.

    Then we will just stare at them. If we can't take them out they also cannot use them against us.

    So when it comes to actual utility they're largely redundant in other words.

    Is this your fine point about no tac nukes because they're pointless as good as not being there.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Aug 19, at 03:10.

  12. #192
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,514
    Q&A part. Less controversial. With interesting anecdotes.



    Of all indian battalions deployed in Kashmir, the Nagas are the only ones that saw a reduction in violence levels in two districts. Why ? Nagas eat dogs and this habit unsettles the locals. Apparently : O

    Israeli stink spray works on Pals to disperse unruly crowds. But not very effective on Kashmiris. I guess we have a higher tolerance to smell in this part of the world.

    India still can't procure decent flak jackets that would protect soldiers. The ones used are of a 90's design and allows stone pelters to fatally stab them through the side openings. Hence the pellet guns to keep them at a distance.

    The idea of India offering MFN to Pakistan was to incentivise them to India's growth. The TAPI gas pipeline is in the same vein. This is exactly what the Americans did with China. Over the last forty years the two have become very dependent. This idea works with the CCP because principles are negotiable but money is not. It works the other way with the Paks who saw through the game and refused to get into MFN.

    US cannot develop a plane by itself anymore. F16 set the trend where parts were sourced from many countries. Self reliance is like juche. Why does India insist on developing everything on its own. ISRO is successful, DRDO is not. Why ? ISRO scientists are allowed to talk to outsiders. Collaborate even. DRDO ones cannot.

    If any govt says they agree to 100% Tech transfer its a lie. Since no one country owns more than 30% of the tech used, rest is from other companies around the world that cooperated and they will never agree. If the Indian govt says they got a deal with 100% Tech transfer it is also a lie. If any editor publishes an article stating same figure for tech transfer then he is clueless. The state of defense reporting in India is abysmal. Which explains why i haven't the faintest clue what we are doing or where we are going when it comes to arms acquisitions.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Aug 19, at 04:31.

  13. #193
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    So if we see them being moved towards the border. What do we do ?
    If you see them being moved to the border, that means that the Pakistani NCA has released their nukes to field COs and Dehli better start releasing her nukes. Do you see how this cannot be a tactical move? Anytime you need National Command Authority, it ain't tactical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    According to you pre-emption is out. If we take them out they still have strategic ones which they can use. And those we cannot take out. Not all or any where close to stop them hitting us.
    Actually, this is the only scenario for first use. Indian armies on the verge of taking Pakistani nukes, putting pressure on Islamabad to either use them or lose them. You're going to lose the nukes if Indian armies advance fast enough. Do you toss them before you lose them?

    Use them or lose them is the ONLY First Use option faced by Pakistan and India. China already answered that question. She will lose them rather than to have all her cities growing mushroom clouds.

  14. #194
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,514
    I don't get it. What is the point for Pakistan to develop these tactical nukes then. Their utility as you said is minimal. Or to be used when the bigger ones are already flying across. You've already said the same thing in the Pak tactical nuke thread years ago. But with other people talking about them since i've forgotten.

    It's all for show. To show the people they are ready and capable of keeping up with the jones.

    The counter to cold start which it ain't. Chris Fair thinks the Indian army should have shut up about Cold start then there would not be these tactical nukes. heh. no Chris.

    Does this mean Vipin's 45pg paper goes into the bin ? heh

    Wish someone would fire this off to him on twitter. Sure he'd reply.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Aug 19, at 18:31.

  15. #195
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    12,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    US cannot develop a plane by itself anymore. F16 set the trend where parts were sourced from many countries.
    The fact that components of US military aircraft are manufactured in other countries has nothing to do with an inability on the part of the US to manufacture them.

    Companies like Lockheed and Boeing farm out contracts and manufacturing work among other countries that are potential buyers, as a way of enticing them to purchase the planes. From the perspective of allied countries that purchase the aircraft, they get some return on investment for their taxpayer dollar spending, in the form of high paying manufacturing jobs.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. China Auto News and Related Discussions.
    By Inst in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11 Dec 09,, 20:02
  2. Pak-American viewpoints of Indian ABM defence
    By Tajmahal in forum Central and South Asia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22 Dec 08,, 13:44
  3. Naval Discussions
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 25 Nov 07,, 16:09
  4. Future Defence Purchases by the Indian Army
    By Su-47MKI in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 17 Aug 05,, 17:27
  5. Indian defence minister to visit Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan
    By Ironduke in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 15 Nov 03,, 09:28

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •