Why India started to build Blue Water Navy

[IND151]

Vikramaditya + IAC 1 + IAC 2 will be operational within this decade.. IAC 3 is in a cenception Phase..
IAC1 will be 40000 ton & 65000 ton IAC 2.

India precisely needs atleast 10 Nuke Subs and 20-30 Diesel-electric subs..

The Other counts are also needed to be increased to become a true Blue Navy..

there is rumor that India is planning another carrier INS Vishal which may weigh more than 60,000 tonnes and it will be nuclear powered.

 

[Break the Silence]

chill???.....when the number of poor in my country are remaing the same???
sorry i cant find sense in any such justification.

So According to you, What Can We do??
Well, i am in favour dat numbers should be increase according to increase in wealth and needs!

 

[tvsram1992]

there is rumor that India is planning another carrier INS Vishal which may weigh more than 60,000 tonnes and it will be nuclear powered.

Hope its not a rumour and it may be true.
When Navy is seriously interested in F-35c while we have Multirole Mig29's and Naval LCA under development, some thing hits to me. We are planning to have more no. of aircraft carriers.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

Yes. Australia has intervened in many countries where governments have gone crazy. East timor, solomon island, papua new guina etc. Sent troops there and restored order.

People are too focused on the U.S and forget about the major powers that support the U.S

What was the military or diplomatic capability of "East Timor " , "Solomon Islands" and " Papua New Guinea" ? Is military action in them opposed by any power bloc such as with Iraq, in the middle East ? Are the "technically" occupational forces being subjected to a fierce resistance by a coterie of militant groups , common citizens , extremists ? Are they being pressurized and condemned by several govts around the world to pull out ?

Iran is one nation often at loggerheads with Western nations and their viewpoints ( of which Australia is considered a part) . So is North Korea and Venezuela . Tomorrow if Western nations ( NATO ) as a group deem these nations a threat ...can Australia take the lead in undertaking an invasion and subsequent occupation of any of these countries ? ( admittedly NATO charter calls for allied involvement in terms of troops --but the important question is can NATO act on your Govt's lead instead of U.S ???)

Dont believe so .

If China creates a mess in the Malacca straits ( hypothetically ) ...Does Australia have the diplomatic or military /strategic clout to counter them ???

Do you have either the resources to set up a blockade on your own or get a group of nations (like the U.S does ) to collaborate and set up a blockade based on your threat perceptions ?

Hence all the examples you have provided are irrelevant to the situation at hand.

 

[xdrive]

Tomorrow if Western nations ( NATO ) as a group deem these nations a threat ...can Australia take the lead in undertaking an invasion and subsequent occupation of any of these countries ?

We could take a lead, IF we deem them a thread aswell. We don't just jump in because others are.

Australia has already proven it's self in the iraq war. During the inital invasion, it was the U.S, Britain and Australia who invaded. All the other countries came later do occupy.

dmittedly NATO charter calls for allied involvement in terms of troops --but the important question is can NATO act on your Govt's lead instead of U.S ???)

I would say no considering Australia isn't in NATO.

Does Australia have the diplomatic or military /strategic clout to counter them ???

Yep our navy is capable.

Do you have either the resources to set up a blockade on your own or get a group of nations (like the U.S does ) to collaborate and set up a blockade based on your threat perceptions

Yep, done it before.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

We could take a lead, IF we deem them a thread aswell. We don't just jump in because others are.

Australia has already proven it's self in the iraq war. During the inital invasion, it was the U.S, Britain and Australia who invaded. All the other countries came later do occupy.

U.S provided the strategic reach and weapons -- British and Australian soldiers were involved in the ground fighting yes , but without the U.S SEAD , then amphibious capability , bases in that region ( Kuwait etc ) which were allowed as a spring board for the invasion only because of U.S diplomatic clout , Australia on its won could never have dislodged Saddam .

I would say no considering Australia isn't in NATO.

Australia is a major Non-Nato ally and certainly considered part of the western bloc. The question is do you still think you have the clout to involve the U.S and by extension Important Nato allies in a war , because of your threat perceptions ? Like the U.S did with you in Afghanistan and Iraq...

Yep our navy is capable.

No your Navy doesnt have that kind of capability for power projection , yet . You dont have an AC ( smaller ones have been paid off long since ) , a nuke sub, also you ASW capability is limited i.e ineffectual against Chinese Diesel Electric subs . Your contribution to WOT as a military partner in the U.S led co-alition in Afghanistan consists of few ships , alongside U.S heavy class warships -- covering various critical areas of threat , you have extremely limited stand-alone operational capability even in the IOR.

Yep, done it before.

In which conflict zones ? could you elaborate ? Please dont refer to the Solomon Islands or Papua New Guinea cases . Any action against a country with a significant military ?

 

[xdrive]

The question is do you still think you have the clout to involve the U.S and by extension Important Nato allies in a war , because of your threat perceptions ? Like the U.S did with you in Afghanistan and Iraq...

Yep, if a country was directly a threat to us.

No your Navy doesnt have that kind of capability for power projection

Yet, we flew bombing missions over iraq and we conduct piracy patrols off the coast of Somalia.

You dont have an AC ( smaller ones have been paid off long since )

Really? Canberra class landing helicopter dock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a nuke sub,

irrelevant. nuke subs just let you stay underwater for more weeks. The subs we have can travel around the world easily.

Your contribution to WOT as a military partner in the U.S led co-alition in Afghanistan consists of few ships , alongside U.S heavy class warships -- covering various critical areas of threat , you have extremely limited stand-alone operational capability even in the IOR.

I don't even know why we have ships in afghanistan considering afghanistan doesn't have a navy and theres such a low risk. The U.S could do it on it's own. What do you expect us to do? Send our whole fleet there?

In which conflict zones ? could you elaborate ? Please dont refer to the Solomon Islands or Papua New Guinea cases . Any action against a country with a significant military ?

We have stopped ships on the way to iran with equipment in it that can be used for nukes. In WW2 we formed a blockade of the German High Seas Fleet. We participated in blockades against iraq.

The point your trying to make is that the ADF is not as powerful as the U.S military and that is correct and i'm not trying to say it is, however the ADF isn't some sort of weak push over and has proven that.

Our government has already approved USD100 billion dollars for a new military build up.

 

[Vibs]

Hey Xdrive/Grey Hound,

Try staying on the topic. Australia does have a strong Armed force. However they seem to be plagued with the same problems as India in terms of delays in procurement.
New orders of 12 submarines and 2 amphibious vehicles makes sure that the Australian Navy are no push overs.
But the navy looks to be lacking teeth in terms of Blue water capability as it does not have an aircraft carrier.

Australia must act to help protect the Pacific from Chinese dominance | Australian Conservative

 

[brational]

there is rumor that India is planning another carrier INS Vishal which may weigh more than 60,000 tonnes and it will be nuclear powered.

That is probably IAC 2

 

[Vibs]

That is probably IAC 2

If it is then the nuclear powered rumor is misleading. But you never know.

 

[brational]

If it is then the nuclear powered rumor is misleading. But you never know.

The probability is high..
1. The final design & configs are not deceided yet..
2. India has the capability to Design & Build mini reactors, as it did in Arihant, so a slightly more powerful one (for ACs) can be taken up with ease.
3. Conventional ACs are fuel hungry, so it is not viable to hav them in numbers. So there r chances that India is getting a Nuclear AC in the form of IAC2.
Let see what comes up...

 

[F-16_Falcon]

India started to build blue water navy because it fears powerful Chinese and Pakistani Navy.

 

[Black Widow]

India started to build blue water navy fear of powerful Chinese and Pakistani Navy.

Wrong Statement, Correct statement would be...

"India started to build blue water navy fear of powerful Chinese and Pakistani Armed forces. "

 

[Galaxy]

India started to build blue water navy because it fears powerful Chinese and Pakistani Navy.

Pakistan Navy ? It stands no where. Chinese Navy ? It's doesn't even have 1 base in Indian Ocean. All based in East Coast to face Japan,Sk,Vietnam,Taiwan, Philippines, etc. Our navy is strong since long time and now we are making it world class which will translate into much bigger picture.

 

[Vibs]

India started to build blue water navy because it fears powerful Chinese and Pakistani Navy.

Chinese yes..Pakistan no... Pakistan and India share the Arabian Sea. A regional Navy by either side would be enough to keep other in check. But yes, the US aircraft carrier in our waters was a wake up call.