Why does our Navy fail so horribly?

[Mav3rick]

---

---

I dont know where the members here are taking this thread to,

BrahMos is undoubtedly the best and the most reliable ASM built to date. The chinese (or even americans) do not have any real equivalents to this missile operational in their inventories. And the funnier part is, a few members are dreaming of Pak Navy will Mach 5 hypersonic missiles!!!! Wow, where did they get this idea from?

I think I should clear up a few doubts here. BrahMos-II is by far the only hypersonic cruise missile designed for basic anti-ship role at speeds of Mach 7+. There are other hypersonic missiles like the LRCM under development in India with speeds of Mach 4 and range of 1000km approx. but nothing much is known of these missiles so I wont quote them any further here.

The BrahMos-2 will have speeds varrying between Mach 6 and 7, with a projected maximum speed reaching close to Mach 8. It'll have a range of 290km which puts it in the range class of the US AGM-84 Harpoon, but is way much faster. The kinetic energy of the missile is supposed to be thirty-six times the impact force of the Tomahawk of US, which by itself can be enough to cripple any warship.

Plus, there is an anti-aircraft carrier variant of the BrahMos-1 under development. A similar configuration can
also be found on the BrahMos-2 IMO.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...fdsaAZkXMnDVjA

By far there is no chinese/american anti-ship hypersonic missile present. Hypersonic missiles currently under development by the US like the X-51 are basically ALCMs designed to attack land targets. But there is no ASM version coming in the forseeable future. The problem is the guidance system. To keep track of a fast-moving target while itself cruisings at hypersonic speeds and maneuvering accordingly in-flight to accurately hit the target with an astonishing CEP of less than 0.2-0.8m is pretty much hard. But these systems have gained pace for development in the India/Russia JV programe and are likely to be operational within 2017 in the inventory of the Indian Navy, yes sir

The USN, IMO would get these equivalents not before 2020 and there is no definitive timeline for when the chinese might get their hands of this hypersonic tech for coming up with their own, IMO it wont be before 2025 at the latest.

[SARCASM]

Damn.....India is so bloody advanced.

[\SARCASM]

[gessler]

Slight correction. The reason India 'ignored the warning' in 1971 is because the SU dispatched its own counterforce to checkmate the American CBG. I posted the Soviet commander's personal log in another thread.

Oh wow. And when did we exactly get hint of the US assault? Before the Soviets got it. But before IN even got to know that USSR has dispatched nuke subs etc. to IOR, the INS Vikrant and its BG had already set sail towards USS Enterprise, it was only thereafter that we came to know that between us and USN, SU subs had come.

Would be better if we dont turn this into the history section any further.

[Capt.Popeye]

Slight correction. The reason India 'ignored the warning' in 1971 is because the SU dispatched its own counterforce to checkmate the American CBG. I posted the Soviet commander's personal log in another thread.

Not exactly. The Soviets sent a sub to shadow the fleet which they let out to the Americans, but they were certainly not keeping their finger on the trigger. The Soviets and the Indians were in tandem, but the reason why India could ignore the 7th Fleet was Capitol Hill and Foggy Bottom.
Nixon had scarcely any backing in Washington D.C., which India exploited thoroughly to the hilt!
That hurt his plans more than the Soviets.
It was more to do with Diplomacy (aka soft power) than a big stick (which India never had). So India just called Tricky Dick's bluff and pulled it off.

India still uses that route, and gets the 123 agreement, tacit acceptance of the missile program and so on.

[Abingdonboy]

If you read back, the entire premise of the suggestion is to interdict access to a CBG within 300 miles of the shore. When it is beyond that range, then this discussion does not apply and the missiles are not relevant. Within that range, a phalanx of cruise missiles WILL overwhelm a CBG's defence systems, the only question is how many are needed to do that. Although we certainly appreciate the false bravado of the Indian fanbois.

In the future, please exercise reading skills before engaging in a discussion.

I just don't understand what you are trying to say, you have put forward a VERY specific and illogical hypothetical situation which is completely flawed. Added to that you have made some HUGE assumptions/speculations- 1) The PN getting a Mach 5 ASM- AFAIK the US and India/Russia (Brahmos II with Mach 7+ top speed) are the only ones developing such a system so I just can't see Pakistan getting this tech unless they develop it themselves (a bit of a longshot!!) you, yourself said Bhramos-like and currently the IN/IA and soon IAF are the only users of the Bhramos. Additionally these sort of ASMs are VERY expensive ($2-3 million a peice) so the PN which already has a very tight budget is unlikely to be able to buy and thus use such ASMs in anything like the number you have mentioned. 2) an IN CBG getting within 300 miles of the Pakistani coast- why on earth would an IN CBG get this close to the Pakistani coast, especially (in this hypothetical scenario) when the IN knows the PN has mach 5 capable ASMs? The IN CBGs of the future will have carrier fighters with ranges in excess of 2000 kms so these fighters can be launched,say, 1000 km from the coast to hit targets in Pakistan without having to worry about ASMs and then return to deck easily. 3) Who's to say the ASM batteries will still be in place to harass IN CBGs if they decide (for whatever reason) to come within the 300 mile range? IN carrier fighters and/or IAF maritime strike fighters/ stealth gen fighters (after 2017) would have taken care of these long before they can threaten any Indian assets surely. Not to mention the IN MiG-29Ks, "SUPER"-30MKIs (and possibly) FGFA will all be able to launch the Bhramos 300+ km from the Pakistani coast to hit these targets.

Of course in a very specific and biased scenario you can have any side you like being a visitor but you have to base theories on FACTS and REALITY to properly present an accurate scenario. Using your logic we could have a scenario of advanced aliens joining arms with North Korea and toppling the US, this isn't based on any FACTS but is just as likely as your ill-informed and entirely fictional scenario.

[blackops]

its a very easy thing you see navy is a very costly affair a single system may cost you 300 million dollars easily with modern wepons technology its even more costly plus setting up infrastructure for naval bases is more difficult than for the army or the airforce you will have to build up ports and that too deep ports to park them () and at the end you need money for all this which your naval budget doesnt have period

[Developereo]

I just don't understand what you are trying to say

Try reading the thread and posts in context. It will help you understand the flow of the discussion and avoid repeating other people's posts.

The Soviets sent a sub to shadow the fleet which they let out to the Americans, but they were certainly not keeping their finger on the trigger.

1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis

Vladimir Kruglyakov, the former (1970-1975) Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet) remembers:

"We encircled them and aimed the missiles at the 'Enterprise'. We had blocked their way and didn't allow them to head anywhere, neither to Karachi, nor to Chittagong or Dhaka".

Anyway, I accept the rest of your reasoning about Nixon's domestic constraints, so anyway back to the dicussion....

[LeGenD]

I have already considered your question.
To scientifically analyse a hypothesis, one has to go through the hard factual evidence available.
For analysing this hypothesis, there happens to be hard factual evidence. In 1971, USA dispatched a nuclear fuelled, nuclear armed 7th fleet Of USS Enterprise, Long Beach, Bainbridge and asstd. subs to the Bay of Bengal and threatened to unleash it on India if India did not back down, cease hostilities and withdraw from the erstwhile East Pakistan.
What was India's response? India ignored the warning (like thumbed its nose at Uncle) and continued till the objective of making the adversary capitulate; was achieved.

1. USSR naval forces came to the rescue of India.
2. Fall of East Pakistan occurred sooner then expected.
3. After the fall of Dhaka, Nixon lost the initiative to attack Indian forces.

The game is about geopolitical situation. During COLD WAR period, when Indo-US relationship was bad; USA was willing to teach India a lesson.

Now the geopolitical situation of India is absolutely different. India is now an asset for China containment policy of US.

That was the Stimulus and the Response thereto.

Now fast-forward to 2012: Drone attacks in Kashmir? First of all Uncle will not dare do it. In any case, Uncle knows and remembers what a poor, weak India did 4 decades ago. India now has a much bigger thumb (including 50 tonne thumbs) to brandish at Uncle now,

Poor weak India was not in a position to do much during 1971 and neither it stands a chance now.

Main thing is that geopolitical situation of India is vastly different from that of Pakistan. Indian interests co-align with that of USA now and therefore, no chance of hostilities.

[Capt.Popeye]

1. USSR naval forces came to the rescue of India.
2. Fall of East Pakistan occurred sooner then expected.
3. After the fall of Dhaka, Nixon lost the initiative to attack Indian forces.

The game is about geopolitical situation. During COLD WAR period, when Indo-US relationship was bad; USA was willing to teach India a lesson.

Now the geopolitical situation of India is absolutely different. India is now part of China containment policy of US.


Poor weak India was not in a position to do much during 1971 and neither it stands a chance now.

Main thing is that geopolitical situation of India is vastly different from that of Pakistan. Indian interests co-align with that of USA now and therefore, no chance of hostilities.

You have come up with a lot of "literature" there, but certainly its also loaded with fiction!
However:
1.You claim that "USSR Naval Forces" came to the rescue of India which is untrue. Please enlighten us about that on a factual basis.
2.The fall of Dhaka took place faster than expected. Indeed that was so, East Pakistan was caught in the grip of an inescapable noose, that was the reason for the Pakistani Army's capitulation; sooner than later.
3.Now "After the fall of Dhaka, Nixon lost the initiative to attack Indian forces." That is pure fiction. How could Nixon (or USA) attack Indian Forces. USA had not declared War on India. If Nixon had attempted to do that his A$$ would have barbecued on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. As it is he had few takers for his "Indian Policy" there or even within his own State Dept.!
No question of Nixon losing the initiative, he just could'nt do a "jack" about it. Except to fulminate.

Then you say "USA was willing to teach India a lesson."
Willing- MAYBE. Able- a resounding NO!

Poor weak India was not in a position to do much during 1971 and neither it stands a chance now.

Main thing is that geopolitical situation of India is vastly different from that of Pakistan. Indian interests co-align with that of USA now and therefore, no chance of hostilities.

POOR WEAK INDIA in 1971 did exactly what it considered necessary and in its interests then, Nixon was left as a mute bystander!

How and Why? Simply diplomacy. Nixon could'nt grasp that and simply got side-lined, to eventually land up in the "dust-bin of US history". He had his 'come-uppance' coming to him. But he was just too stupid. While wily Kissinger rode to fame piggy-backing him.

All that said, India is still looking out for its own interests and getting there, regardless of your wishful "and neither it stands a chance now". Just keep watching.

No hostilities took place between India and USA then and will not take place now. Though undoubtedly many fervently wished for it then and may be doing so now.

[LeGenD]

You have come up with a lot of "literature" there, but certainly its also loaded with fiction!

Actually no.

However:
1.You claim that "USSR Naval Forces" came to the rescue of India which is untrue. Please enlighten us about that on a factual basis.

You guys do not know this? What else your leaders have hidden from you?

2.The fall of Dhaka took place faster than expected. Indeed that was so, East Pakistan was caught in the grip of an inescapable noose, that was the reason for the Pakistani Army's capitulation; sooner than later.

Yes. This diminished any chance for US forces to intervene on Pakistan's behalf.

3.Now "After the fall of Dhaka, Nixon lost the initiative to attack Indian forces." That is pure fiction. How could Nixon (or USA) attack Indian Forces. USA had not declared War on India. If Nixon had attempted to do that his A$$ would have barbecued on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. As it is he had few takers for his "Indian Policy" there or even within his own State Dept.!
No question of Nixon losing the initiative, he just could'nt do a "jack" about it. Except to fulminate.

Nixon was not planning to invade India. His plan was to force India to the negotiation table with Pakistan. But time was the issue. US administration initially adopted wait and see policy. However, made plans to intervene in case of prolonging of the conflict.

In fact, a senior Indian military official thinks that the Yeager's incident may have encouraged US to act. Here; http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.as...502093dca428d9

Then you say "USA was willing to teach India a lesson."
Willing- MAYBE. Able- a resounding NO!

Is this Indian ego talking? I guess so.

POOR WEAK INDIA in 1971 did exactly what it considered necessary and in its interests then, Nixon was left as a mute bystander!

How and Why? Simply diplomacy. Nixon could'nt grasp that and simply got side-lined, to eventually land up in the "dust-bin of US history". He had his 'come-uppance' coming to him. But he was just too stupid. While wily Kissinger rode to fame piggy-backing him.

All that said, India is still looking out for its own interests and getting there, regardless of your wishful "and neither it stands a chance now". Just keep watching.

No hostilities took place between India and USA then and will not take place now. Though undoubtedly many fervently wished for it then and may be doing so now.

And the assumptions continue. Indo-Pakistani war was obviously not a US issue.

However, when US decided to help Pakistan, it was already too late. Time was not on its side.

I think LeGenD is angry and cussing because we blasted Chuck Yeager's Beech U-8! He had
come to train PAF pilots how to fly with his plane and eventually had to leave pakistan
without it!

How India brought down the US supersonic man

That was NOT nice.

[LeGenD]

You misunderstood me, what I meant was that you were answering my post on a point to point basis, as did I, however the context of my post may be taken as a single instance for proper explanation and understanding. You were correct, I was merely trying to offer another way to look at my post

Brother, I understand. I felt the need to address your response on point by point basis. This is my debating style.

US is a super power with no equal today....we both agree to that. Your posts start with the assumption that the US will wage war against Pakistan if we defend our fellow countrymen against drone attacks and my assumption is that the US will strangle us some other way (economically most likely).

My friend, I am discussing the scenario which involved our nuclear capability as you originally brought up in your arguments a few pages back in this thread. If Pakistan threatens to use nukes then how US will respond? Logical assumption is that stakes will be raised accordingly.

Furthermore, you want to survive and grow stronger which is a very very long term plan while in the meantime a lot of our countrymen will be executed whereas I want to live or die for my countrymen today. We either live together or we die together but we go down fighting.

I can see a difference in mindset here. Some endorse your views and some mine. However, I believe that I am advocating an approach which sensible societies typically adopt. China is a good example IMO.

Lastly, I want to ask what makes you believe that the drones will be limited to the area where they operate? What if tomorrow the US decides to expand the role & operation of drones to Quetta, Karachi, Lahore & Islamabad?

US have made it very clear to our administration that it is not willing to stop drone strikes. Now what can we do? Some will say that shoot down the drones. However, repercussions must be kept in mind. We are in a complicated situation.

US massively expanded its drone campaign in Pakistan after refusal of military operation in North Waziristan by Kayani against Anti-US Taliban groups residing there. This is the major bone of contention between US and Pakistan.

Should I care about US hegemony & terrorism against other counties? I will think about them once I save my own hide. I agree to your advice of best path but it has not worked so far and it does not seem likely to work in the near future. Local militancy is the production of direct & indirect US actions within Pakistan, how to counter that?

My friend, Kayani needs to make his Afghan policy public. Why is he not doing anything about militancy in North Waziristan? I don't buy the 'lack of resources' based argument.

This article should make things clear to you: Drone strikes ‘may’ come up in talks with Pakistan: US officials | DAWN.COM

Some argue that by targeting Afghan Taliban factions residing in North Waziristan region, we will get involved in ongoing civil war in Afghanistan. However, these factions have made this a Pakistani issue already by using Pakistani territory as a safe heaven. They should be kicked out from Pakistani territory IMO. But then their is game of 'preserving our interests' in Afghanistan. Very messy situation, I tell you.

Well, agreed. But when do we stop bending over? Can we atleast agree that the US cannot afford to put boots on the ground here? So what will they achieve by destroying the infrastructure as it will only result in mushroom boost in militancy and exponential growth in hate against the US with consequences.

On the ground, US will use special forces. Destruction of infrastructure will set this nation back to stone age. And Pakistan does not have sufficient economic alternatives to make a successful restart afterwards. The society will crumble here and civil war may erupt within.

I am not brining in the Nuclear factor unless I am threatened with total annihilation....be it in steps or shock & awe then.

Let us hope that this stage never comes. But it is not difficult to comprehend that which side will win regardless. I have given my answer. You can also do the math.

If they stop drone strikes, respect our sovereignty and stop covert operations within Pakistan then I have no problems with them.

Hint: Afghan policy

Has Allah not ordered you to protect the weak? By saving your own skin, you are following Allah's order? You are sacrificing your fellow countrymen to drone strikes every week and remember some of them are 'alleged militants' and most of them are collateral damage......only a few actual militants have been targeted.

But are we prepared to challenge USA?

Yet both NK & Iran hold their ground against foreign aggression. This is how proud nations react to hostilities.

Difference of opinion, I guess.

You want Pakistan to be the fifth on that list? We are breaking/dividing up internally because of US involvement in our political and military setup as well as her covert operations that destabilize us even further!

Who brought US in to the Islamic world in the first place? Answer is Islamic nations. And Pakistan is as much guilty.

[RayKalm]

Because its most meaningless rank I've ever seen in my life. According to this list worthless North Korean/Iranian midget submarine = 1 and three billion nuclear supermodern monster Seawolf = 1. Gunboat = 1 and 100,000 ton aircraft carrier= 1.

As result Philippines has stronger navy than UK, Iran has stronger navy than Russia etc. etc.

Yeah, that's why I think the list is totally bogus.

[fateh71]

Nixon was 100% pro Pakistani, but his administration and lot of people in the US saw Nixon's support of a genocide fo what it was.

End of the day, India played her cards perfectly, we used our size, our importance in the world as a democratic developing world leader, our strategic relationship with USSR to make any interference by Nixon impossible. Of course we could not and can not take on the US militarily, but to think international politics is only military is silly.

The test of pudding is in eating it. To only point out USSR's role is overlooking the fact that USA had made no commitment to East Pakistan in the first place, they were only playing by the ear and trying to save Yahya's behind, i.e. west pakistan.

As always pakistan overestimated their importance, the cornerstone of pakistan's international policy.

[Rajputana]

Actually no.


You guys do not know this? What else your leaders have hidden from you?




Yes. This diminished any chance for US forces to intervene on Pakistan's behalf.

The Submarine story is just that, a story. That video proves nothing, if you have anymore solid proof pleased do share.

The Russians main role in '71 was to keep China in check which they did beautifully.

Later on on, the Russians would join hands with the US to save west Pakistan from being overrun and dismembered by India.

Bangladesh was a lost cause and all the tilt and help from the US could not have saved it once India chose to defy the US.

In the end Bhutto and Yahya were pleading to the US to save West Pakistan from being overrun, Pakistan as of today owes its existence to the US and sending of the aircraft carrier was one of the factors that made Indian leaders desist from invading west Pakistan.

[LeGenD]

The Submarine story is just that, a story. That video proves nothing, if you have anymore solid proof pleased do share.

Member Developereo has provided link to an associated article. Check it out.

[Rajputana]

---

---

Member Developereo has provided link to an associated article. Check it out.
Or is it Russian bluff?

The aircraft carrier had been moved after the fate of Bangladesh had been decided. Nixon was not ready to face accusations of threatening militarily India in favour of a perceived genocidal regime.

By the time the Carrier was ordered to move, the Russians were already co-operating with the Americans to call out a ceasefire and prevent any Indian invasion of the west. By now Nixon's and Kissingman's priority was to save at least half of Pakistan.

Here is a US presidential file acknowledging the arrival of carrier in bangladesh on dec 16th, by the time it was a foregone conclusion that bangladesh had been lost.

Reference is to the Malacca Straits separating Malaysia and Indonesia which the carrier force that had been stationed off Vietnam was expected to traverse the evening of December 12, Washington time. The force was anticipated to arrive off East Pakistan by the morning of December 16. (Note on information concerning U.S. Naval forces; National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 642, Country Files, Middle East, India/Pakistan)

Americans were infact co-ordinating their fleet movements with the Russians by December 12th, so as to prevent any misunderstanding. By now both had agreed to prevent India from invading W Pakistan and bring about an UN Ceasefire.

Transcript of Telephone Conversation Between the President's Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs (Haig) and the Minister of the Soviet Embassy (Vorontsov

V: General, how are you. You are left alone. They arrived already?2

H: Yes. I just spoke to them. He3 asked me to hold up our Seventh Fleet movements, and we are going to put that movement in orbit for 24 hours at a place so it won't surface—the fact that they are moving.

V: Still like the Vietnamese situation?

H: They are considerably south of there. So it will be no public issue.

V: For 24 hours. Very good. I think that is very necessary. During this 24 hours, we might have good results.

H: Henry wanted you to have this.

V: Thank you very much, General.

1 Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 998, Haig Chronological File, Haig Telecons 1971

It is quite clear that there could be no such face-off between fleets if the Governments were in fact co-operating.

Maybe the Russian general had had too much of his Vodka lol.