What's new

INS Vikramaditya commissioned

HeHeHe, a nice exchange of posts going on; like a "ping-pong" match........

In uniform; I had a chance to meet up with Admirals, but now on the internet, I also get to meet with "Armchair Admirals" whose (virtual) Fleets can navigate through the infinite spans of 'Cyber-Space'.

So; is it time to disband the IN and send all its Mariners into the oblivion of demobbed Warriors? :azn:


As per Sacho Babu, we indians are incompetent ilk who does not know how to rule and take productive decisions. Sacho Babu would have been the proudest citizen under britishers.

Which Brings back to my earlier question, why would Navy select Naval LCA if it did not see any benefit in this. Please do not reply with " they are incompetent " .

Dont you know?? :mad:.....Indian Pride and Indian ego!!:p:
 
.
cjf7K7x.jpg

i8FMBuD.jpg

kjgaytW.jpg
 
. . . . . .
Nice pics. We should have 3 ACC at any given time once for Indian ocean, one for Arabian sea and one for Bay of Bengal.
 
.
Which Brings back to my earlier question, why would Navy select Naval LCA if it did not see any benefit in this. Please do not reply with " they are incompetent " .

That's not from me, but as I told you from IN officials themselfs!

LCA-Navy Not What We Want, But It's Ours

"It may not be what we want, but it is our own aircraft," says the Indian Navy's Flag Officer Naval Aviation (FONA) Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai on the LCA Navy in an interview to FORCE magazine. He was asked how effective the LCA Navy would be for a carrier-based role given that it "only an eight ton platform". The officer's response: "I wish wish we could straightaway develop a Rafale. But seriously, we have to look at the Indian Navy and it commitment towards indigenisation. I agree that we have made a modest start, but it has been a huge learning experience. LCA Navy will remain a modest platform with an uprated engine which will give us adequate capability at sea. While it is easy to buy from abroad, sometimes it is extremely difficult to support those platforms. Our past experiences tell us that it is worth committing resources to develop our own assets."

Livefist: "LCA-Navy Not What We Want, But It's Ours": FONA


flf952yy.png

(Article of former Indian Navy admiral Arun Prakash)


As I said...

...no operational importance that makes the fighter special for IN
...support for Indian industry to develop an "own" naval carrier fighter
...pride factor of putting India in an elite club


You have the idea that only because IN or any other of the forces takes a decision, it must be the only right thing to do and definitely right, but they are just humans like us and they makes mistakes too. When you look back at the recent years you will find plenty of such mistakes or incompetences in IN tenders and procurements:

- P75 competition, selecting a modern SSK without AIP (IN infact is one of the few navies today that is inducting modern subs without that capability, while our opponents already have it!), while it is a requirement in the P75I now)
- the mentioned misjudgement of their technical teams, on how much work must be done on the carrier and how much it will cost
- the fact that they kept procuring it, although it has nearly 6 years delay and more than twice the costs
- procuring it without air defence guns and now after commissioning setting up a tender (I will give IN the credit that the Barak 8 development delay was not their fault though)
- procuring the Migs without weapons, which limited the training to basic flight tests, since neither weapon trials, nor take off or landings could be trained by the lack of shore based facilities and of course the lack of the carrier
- not being able to set up propper RFIs/RFPs for ASW helicopters, MRMR aircrafts or LDPs, where the vendors don't even know what the navy wants, because the specs are so broad that several different aircrafts or vessels should fit the bill

Just to name a few and I am not blaming IN or Indian forces alone, such mistakes happen all over the world (German army is the only force in the world, that has a modern combat helicopter, without a chinmounted gun, because a smart official once thought that a gun pod is enough, the air force evaluated and even started the procurement of a Global Hawk varient, although it doesn't comply to Europen laws for the use in civil airspace and the deal needed to be cancelled after millions were spent...)

But in India, the pride factor for indigenous developments play a big role too, be it for the forces, even more for the industry and even for a lot of forumers. But when that comes in, rational thinking goes away and then we waste money on N-LCA, let DRDO develop radar, engine and other core parts of LCA instead of taking off the shelf parts first, or let them dream about AMCA and AWACS India before they even have delivered the predecessor developments...and at the end of the day we are weaker and not stronger, because we wanted too much and the developments got delayed or even failed.
I want indigenous developments and a time when we see 70 to 80% of Indian or joint developed arms too, but that's not going to happen with blind pride, but with being effective! Be it by making developments in a more simpler way, or by easing tenders to save time and money.
 
Last edited:
. .
LCA Navy will remain a modest platform with an uprated engine which will give us adequate capability at sea.
While it is easy to buy from abroad, sometimes it is extremely difficult to support those platforms. Our past experiences tell us that it is worth committing resources to develop our own assets."

That explains it , its far more than Pride factor as you have been repeatedly suggesting . these people have been in the Navy for decades and have the experience to make the right decisions. Clearly from the above quote the navy believes the resources and support they provide now will be far more helpful later on .. Its simply stupid that you believe they are buying an indigenous system because of "Pride". Navy clearly See's it very differently
 
.
That explains it , its far more than Pride factor as you have been repeatedly suggesting

Oh please don't try to justify it now by taking only parts of what I said! I never said it's only the pride factor, but that they want to support the indigenous naval industry, which however is possible with a tech demo program too, while the N-LCA MK2 development is as shown only based on pride, since it neither serves an operational, nor a development purpose.
 
.
Oh please don't try to justify it now by taking only parts of what I said! I never said it's only the pride factor, but that they want to support the indigenous naval industry, which however is possible with a tech demo program too, while the N-LCA MK2 development is as shown only based on pride, since it neither serves an operational, nor a development purpose.

AM just quoting what the navy themselves says , You disagree with them is of your opinion . Sorry i just don;t believe people serving in the navy does things for the sake of Pride , they aren't so shallow minded ..
 
.
AM just quoting what the navy themselves says , You disagree with them is of your opinion . Sorry i just don;t believe people serving in the navy does things for the sake of Pride , they aren't so shallow minded ..

It doesn't matter if you leave out half of what I said, or what they said, the fact is your are leaving things out to serve your purpose. That's why you miss that I don't disagree with them on the capability of N-LCA, nor that it's important to support the Indian industry to develop naval fighter know how. The only point that I ctiticize is, that they wanted MK2 version as propper carrier fighters, without an operational need for it.
Also IAF don't wanted to give IN carrier fighters or the maritime attack fighter squardon, just as they still don't want to give IA helicopters, not because they are more useful under them, but just to have them! So pride does matter for the forces when it comes to their toys, especially when it's something special like a carrier of course or to have an indigenous carrier fighter.
 
.
It doesn't matter if you leave out half of what I said, or what they said, the fact is your are leaving things out to serve your purpose. That's why you miss that I don't disagree with them on the capability of N-LCA, nor that it's important to support the Indian industry to develop naval fighter know how. The only point that I ctiticize is, that they wanted MK2 version as propper carrier fighters, without an operational need for it.
Also IAF don't wanted to give IN carrier fighters or the maritime attack fighter squardon, just as they still don't want to give IA helicopters, not because they are more useful under them, but just to have them! So pride does matter for the forces when it comes to their toys, especially when it's something special like a carrier of course or to have an indigenous carrier fighter.

I just quoted what i wanted to point out , the rest of your post is something which has been repeated a dozen times at least . You stick to your opinions of Navy having a "Pride" factor which is Ridicules in every conceivable way . Your talking about people who have served Decades in the Navy , they know what they are talking about .My point only proves that the Navy See's the long term benefits of supporting a domestic industry ...
 
.
Back
Top Bottom