India 'too late' in artillery modernisation: Army chief

[hal-fgfa]

I think 30 Billion is for 2010-11..
so by june our budget will be +13Bn USD..
and if the terrorism over then we will most of the budget is aquiring weapons..we will still hav more defence budget compare to you

you are joking ........................terrorism over when ur government stop supporting mujahidins ???????????????

 

[farhan_9909]

you are joking ........................terrorism over when ur government stop supporting mujahidins ???????????????

Naxa/moaist are terrorist in making,,:d
RAW cannot provide them suicide jakcet and money anymore..

INSHALLAH 2010 is the last year for taliban
Remember only for few years when pak govt and pak was stable our economic growth rate was 8.4%(ranking 2nd in the world)soo we cann again rise bt only if the terrorism oor war on terror finshs
Pakistan Army Zindabad

 

[Prowler]

Naxa/moaist are terrorist in making,,:d
RAW cannot provide them suicide jakcet and money anymore..

INSHALLAH 2010 is the last year for taliban
Remember only for few years when pak govt and pak was stable our economic growth rate was 8.4%(ranking 2nd in the world)soo we cann again rise bt only if the terrorism oor war on terror finshs
Pakistan Army Zindabad

Naxal and Maoist suicide Jacket? and RAW? Dude don't talk nonsense can you prove any of this BS that you just posted?

According to your logic ISI is supporting Taliban because they have the money to make suicide jackets? You really are proud of your achievement called the Taliban aren't ya?

 

[Windjammer]

When u guys call 1965 war (in which we captured twice as much terrirtory as u captured,destroyed half ur armor,crushed ur border defences and came within firing distance to lahore) a victory for Pakistan,I don see any reason why we shouldn call the 2002 standoff a victory for us considering that after this US forced Musharaff to serioulsy curtail Pakistans support to the anti-India terrorist groups

Being a tragic victim of your own propaganda, you are incompetent to comprehend the reality, hence i'll not waste my efforts, however you can read for your self and see if you can digest how the International media reported the 1965 war.

SUNDAY TIMES, London, September 19, 1965.

"Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies if they had not already run away.
Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistan's pilots and Indian officer's leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by a four and half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces".

Roy Meloni, Correspondent of ABC,
September 15, 1965.

"I have been a journalist now for 20 years and want to go on record that i have never seen a more confident and victorious groups of soldiers than those fighting for Pakistan right now.
"India is claiming all out victory, i have not been able to find any trace of it. All i can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front.
If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow?
The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes. These Muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none.
In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propaganda claims on either side are likely to be startling, but if i have to take bet today, my money would be on Pakistan side.
Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like one third of the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that the actual kills may be even higher, but the PAF authorities are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting PAF only those killing that can be checked and verified from other sources.

Patrick Seale, The Observer, London.
September 12, 1965.

"Pakistan's success in the air means that she had been able to deploy her relatively small army___ professionally among the best in Asia___ with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust.
By all accounts the courage displayed by the PAF pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war".

 

[Windjammer]

You honestly believe we lost 500 men over nothing? It was an undeclared war, its a good thing it didn't escalate.

Undeclared war ??? it was more of a brinkmanship, and yes India suffered some 500 casualties through mishaps and accidents.

The way Pakistan's headed, we'll probably be at it in a year or two. Snide comments/smack talk won't do any good then.

Even the American think tanks have done away with the doomsday clock they had ticking over Pakistan, suffice you people should come out of the nut shell. Despite all the hurdles, Pakistan has never been in such a strong position and the WOT, has merely polished it's capabilities.

 

[indiarocks]

Undeclared war ??? it was more of a brinkmanship, and yes India suffered some 500 casualties through mishaps and accidents.


Even the American think tanks have done away with the doomsday clock they had ticking over Pakistan, suffice you people should come out of the nut shell. Despite all the hurdles, Pakistan has never been in such a strong position and the WOT, has merely polished it's capabilities.

i think its useless to go off topic....both indians and paks....lets stick to our artillery disscussion..
the thing is yes india's artillery mordernisation came late but...it has come with more power and lethality...morever the trials for three different types have been started i.e for wheeled,how,spa...with m777 starting in august....after which tracked trials will start in november

 

[illuminatidinesh]

Comparing these two?

Accourding to the specs of Atak T-129 It will be the most modern and best helicopter in its catogory which is attack helicopter.
Accourding to specs and italy.

Ya Best in its category... But the question is Which category?

 

[farhan_9909]

As it is clearlt mentioned in the wiki

that kamov ka 50 to compete with turkish attack heli

LCH nt mentioned ther

because they are close to india and they knw better..

 

[gogbot]

As it is clearlt mentioned in the wiki

that kamov ka 50 to compete with turkish attack heli

LCH nt mentioned ther

because they are close to india and they knw better..

LCH is brand new still has not even made an official flight.
Of course it wont be mentioned anywhere

 

[farhan_9909]

LCH is brand new still has not even made an official flight.
Of course it wont be mentioned anywhere

when is it gonna operationa?

 

[xMustiiej70]

Comparing these two?

Ya Best in its category... But the question is Which category?

Making the biggest enemy to the tanks.
and support ground troops?
And I don't know which catogory.
I think they mean the catogory of Attak Helicopter.
The only thing that is better or more on the longbow is longer operational range(due to bigger fueltanks),maybe better armour but on the t-129 its not publiced i think(due heavier longbow) and it can carry 4 more HellFireII missiles.
but since rocketsan provides t-129 better missiles and rockets i say those 4 more will be filled with better rockets and missiles.

Also about how indigenous t-129 is..
Engine from USA from RAH-66.(increases 20% more then the a-129).
Radar from Israel(better then longbow radar).
Chassis from a-129.
Systems and armanent 100% turkish recources.
From rocketsan and aselsan(i think).. and etc...

 

[KS]

Being a tragic victim of your own propaganda, you are incompetent to comprehend the reality, hence i'll not waste my efforts, however you can read for your self and see if you can digest how the International media reported the 1965 war.

yeah i understand..being schooled in he crap propaganda of ur martial prowess i can understand ur difficulty in admitting u were beaten by "coward" Indians in the war and that we had ur alhore in our tank sights..Not Delhi in ur tank sights...mind u..

SUNDAY TIMES, London, September 19, 1965.

"Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies if they had not already run away.
Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistan's pilots and Indian officer's leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by a four and half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces".

SUNDAY TIMES, London, September 19, 1965.

"Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies if they had not already run away.
Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistan's pilots and Indian officer's leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by a four and half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces".

Yeah man...cut the crap...we all know u had the upper hand in the air war..but the bigger question is who won the war as a whole not the air battles..WE may have lost the battles ,,but we won the war..

btw clever tactic of breaking a single news item into two and posting as two sources (Sunday times).

These Muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none.

Oh..i ve heard of this 1 Pakistani(Muslim) = 10 Indian(hindu) crap.



But now its my turn to bust ur bubble..Lemme post links of how international media reported :

* According to the United States Library of Congress Country Studies:

The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.[52]

* TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily.[53] The same article stated that -

Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.

* Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[54] –

The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

* In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",[55] Gertjan Dijkink writes –

The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

* An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[56] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, is as follows:

In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

* In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote[57] –

India won the war. It gained 1,840 square kilometers of Pakistani territory: 640 square kilometers in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 square kilometers of the Sailkot sector; 380 square kilometers far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 square kilometers on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 square kilometers of Indian territory: 490 square kilometers in the Chhamb sector and 50 square kilometers around Khem Karan.

* Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war.[58]

Although both sides lost heavily in men and materiel, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.

* "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[59] –

India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 of its own.

* An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"[60] –

A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

* English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war[61] –

The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

* Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"[62] –

Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.

 

[Windjammer]

yeah i understand..being schooled in he crap propaganda of ur martial prowess i can understand ur difficulty in admitting u were beaten by "coward" Indians in the war and that we had ur alhore in our tank sights..Not Delhi in ur tank sights...mind u..

Man you people are full of it, lost for words hence copy the topic as your own POV. :lol
Any words on your General Choudhary's invitation for victory celebrations.

Yeah man...cut the crap...we all know u had the upper hand in the air war..but the bigger question is who won the war as a whole not the air battles..WE may have lost the battles ,,but we won the war..

btw clever tactic of breaking a single news item into two and posting as two sources (Sunday times).

Almost 50 years later and you people are still in merry go around, for your crappy analyst, let me remind you the war lasted some 22 days and papers don't cover only once, i could have posted articles from half dozen different papers but then we are dealing with people in denial.

Oh..i ve heard of this 1 Pakistani(Muslim) = 10 Indian(hindu) crap.

When a nation almost ten times the size is obsessed with the smaller neighbor, it's not far from the truth, is it now.

But now its my turn to bust ur bubble..Lemme post links of how international media reported :

* According to the United States Library of Congress Country Studies:

The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.[52]

* TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily.[53] The same article stated that -

Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.

* Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[54] –

The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

* In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",[55] Gertjan Dijkink writes –

The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

* An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[56] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, is as follows:

In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

* In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote[57] –

India won the war. It gained 1,840 square kilometers of Pakistani territory: 640 square kilometers in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 square kilometers of the Sailkot sector; 380 square kilometers far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 square kilometers on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 square kilometers of Indian territory: 490 square kilometers in the Chhamb sector and 50 square kilometers around Khem Karan.

* Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war.[58]

Although both sides lost heavily in men and materiel, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.

* "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[59] –

India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 of its own.

* An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"[60] –

A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

* English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war[61] –

The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

* Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"[62] –

Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.

Post 1971 and it's termed, second liberation of India. Sit in your tight corner and work that out. BTW, here is another needle into your hot air balloon.

"India cannot stand alone against Pakistan, much less against China".

This interesting disclosure was made in the New York Times by the paper's once United Nation's correspondent, Drew Middleton.
Middleton said, "In the case of India, there is little question in the minds of the officials that the US will be able to maintain increasingly close relations. If nothing else, the recent events demonstrated that India was dependent upon the West and Soviet Russia for Diplomatic, Military and Economic support and could not stand alone Pakistan much less against Communist China.

 

[indiarocks]

when is it gonna operationa?

SIR,IT HAD ITS THREE UNOFFICIAL TEST FLIGHTS IN APRIL/MAY...WILL BE OFFICIALLY FLYING ON 21MAY,2010

 

[jha]

ha... and thats why 1971 happened because india could not stand before pakistan..stop fooling yourself