Russia Claims to Build an Aircraft Carrier for Indian Navy

[Aepsilons]

back then was differant were countries invaded one another it had to be done and it the same ti other counties back then too france , spain, portugal and heck even japan. times have changed.

Well, i suppose the Indians have their motives: Akhand Bharat.

India is a potential super power, and a nation with tremendous weight.

I suppose it would be ludicrous for us to underestimate their national spirit and...will.

 

[Abingdonboy]

This carrier creates nothing, Brings no value. No profits and nothing to eat.

Right, let's all engage in a selective reading of history shall we? Is there no value in security?


NO nation has grown to be a global power without a robust defence and a strong navy, histroy is littered with examples. And yet when it comes to India people judge it by some sort of unique criteria that it must first eliminate all poverty and only THEN will it be allowed to have a proper military, what if I argue the two go hand in hand? Conventional military weakness is an invitation for predatory nations (there are plenty in the world and in India's region) to punish you and make the lives of your citizens far worse.

Was Britain poverty free in the 19th and 18th centuaries when the British Empire was founded on the back of military supremacy? Not even remotely. The same was true for all nations we now consider developed. Give India a chance for god's sake, when the British left in 1947 poverty levels were >75%, today they are between 20-30% depending on the measure you use and constantly plunging. India and China were the ONLY devloping nations to meet the UN's 2015 MDGs on poverty reduction and India is bringing tens of MILLIONS out of poverty every year but it isn't going to happen overnight and in fact the ability to do so may directly relate to how able the Indian state is to protect its economic interests which will only happen through military might.


Addtionally, it is entirely dishonest to say there is no value in defence spending, there will always be economic benefits to this- employment, high tech engineering in your own country, skill development, trickle down effects etc. Addtionally, how many of the technologies we have today came as a result of implicit military spending? Radar, GPS, internet etc etc

The same arguments have been made about India's space program, ISRO, but this was borne out of complete ignorance. The fact is ISRO is a profit making orginsiation, its main mandate is to serve the people of India and many of its efforts directly help the poorest through weather mapping, advanced farming technologies, monitering climate patterns etc etc.

Those people here will really love indias new aircraft carrier i guess:

Honestly i would like to know what priorities such a government has? Wonder when Madagascar builds its first space shuttle.

For developing countries,the needs to such machines should be one of the last priorities as I'd see the firsts as fighting extreme poverty and improving decaying infrastructures,improving health services etc

I agree that I would be upset to see my money spent on carriers and non top priorities if I'm hungry,living in poor conditions,but yet again,they do whatever they want,that's their money,I'm nobody to tell them what should they do or don't.

india must also recognise that such funds for such a carrier can be used for othes purposes

Poverty is an unspeakble crime BUT it IS being tackeled in India, I don't understand why in this discussion that fact is being entirely ignored. Just look at yesterday's budget- defence gets an allocation of just 1.65% of GDP (around $37 BN)

Infrastructure, healthcare,education and poverty releif recived FAR more budgetary allowances (literally 100s of billions).



It's quite an unfair comparison (for both nations) but look at the US, they spend >4% of their GDP on defence and yet they still have poverty and all sorts of social issues present in their nation, does anyone dare question their lundacrious military spending when they could easily remain the world's unchallenged super power on even 1/2 of their current defence spending?

lets just say their excuse for a carrier is quiet pathetic. who are they going to use it against?

It's their first ever home built carrier, to call it "pathetic" is grossly unfair. The ability to carry 25+ advanced 4.5+ gen fighters far from your coasts is not something many nations can boast of.


@PARIKRAMA @nair @SpArK @MilSpec @ni8mare @knight11

 

[Aepsilons]

Pakistan.

Doubt it. India is non-aligned. She is strategically ambiguous now because she is still a developing power. When she unfurls her colours , after she achieves mandate through attaining middle income status, and attaining a potent GDP, and powerful projective armed forces, she will , ultimately, challenge Western standards.

The use of China-Threat is for general consumption and western appeasement. In reality China and India have little contention besides minor border disagreements -- which can be de-stressed through bilateral means.

India has extrahorizonal agendas in Africa, as well as abroad. The West must be challenged, most importantly, the retreat of US forces from Diego Garcia is a necessity for India.

There is a high potential for India-China to form a security pact in the future.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Right, let's all engage in a selective reading of history shall we? Is there no value in security?


NO nation has grown to be a global power without a robust defence and a strong navy, histroy is littered with examples. And yet when it comes to India people judge it by some sort of unique criteria that it must first eliminate all poverty and only THEN will it be allowed to have a proper military, what if I argue the two go hand in hand? Conventional military weakness is an invitation for predatory nations (there are plenty in the world and in India's region) to punish you and make the lives of your citizens far worse.

Was Britain poverty free in the 19th and 18th centuaries when the British Empire was founded on the back of military supremacy? Not even remotely. The same was true for all nations we now consider developed. Give India a chance for god's sake, when the British left in 1947 poverty levels were >75%, today they are between 20-30% depending on the measure you use and constantly plunging. India and China were the ONLY devloping nations to meet the UN's 2015 MDGs on poverty reduction and India is bringing tens of MILLIONS out of poverty every year but it isn't going to happen overnight and in fact the ability to do so may directly relate to how able the Indian state is to protect its economic interests which will only happen through military might.


Addtionally, it is entirely dishonest to say there is no value in defence spending, there will always be economic benefits to this- employment, high tech engineering in your own country, skill development, trickle down effects etc. Addtionally, how many of the technologies we have today came as a result of implicit military spending? Radar, GPS, internet etc etc

The same arguments have been made about India's space program, ISRO, but this was borne out of complete ignorance. The fact is ISRO is a profit making orginsiation, its main mandate is to serve the people of India and many of its efforts directly help the poorest through weather mapping, advanced farming technologies, monitering climate patterns etc etc.









Poverty is an unspeakble crime BUT it IS being tackeled in India, I don't understand why in this discussion that fact is being entirely ignored. Just look at yesterday's budget- defence gets an allocation of just 1.65% of GDP (around $37 BN)

Infrastructure, healthcare,education and poverty releif recived FAR more budgetary allowances (literally 100s of billions).



It's quite an unfair comparison (for both nations) but look at the US, they spend >4% of their GDP on defence and yet they still have poverty and all sorts of social issues present in their nation, does anyone dare question their lundacrious military spending when they could easily remain the world's unchallenged super power on even 1/2 of their current defence spending?



It's their first ever home built carrier, to call it "pathetic" is grossly unfair. The ability to carry 25+ advanced 4.5+ gen fighters far from your coasts is not something many nations can boast of.


@PARIKRAMA @nair @SpArK @MilSpec @ni8mare @knight11

firstly it depends on how the gdp is calculated also it not 37 billion its 50 billion.
asmfor te air craft carrier? well....it's your money do what you want with it. i will spend it else where though

 

[Aepsilons]

just watch this i think you may find it quiet interesting

Blue,

Do not underestimate the Indians. South Asians, in general. Land Rover and Jaguar's subsumption into Tata is symbolic, you know.

 

[Abingdonboy]

firstly it depends on how the gdp is calculated also it not 37 billion its 50 billion.
asmfor te air craft carrier? well....it's your money do what you want with it. i will spend it else where though

The $50BN figure is intentionally misleading. It is $37BN, the other $13-14BN (that makes it $50-51BN) is the pensions bill that has risen extraordinarily thanks to OROP but it is misleading to include this as part of the defence budget because not a ruppee/cent/penny of this will be spent on the current day military.

 

[Aepsilons]

China would be more credible.

LOL, China and India are natural partners, you know @Vauban

 

[Taygibay]

No nation in histroy has risen to be a global super power without a powerful navy, the most glaring example is the British Empire where the British taxpayers actually paid a tax that went specifically to the navy as it was understood this was how empires are made. The French, Spanish, Portugese and recently USA are all further examples of this.

Tssssk, the short memory of a youngster, how about the Vikings, how about Rome?

GN all, Tay.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Blue,

Do not underestimate the Indians. South Asians, in general. Land Rover and Jaguar's subsumption into Tata is symbolic, you know.

if you want, pm me, but tommorow im tired if you want my true opinion

 

[Aepsilons]

if you want, pm me, but tommorow im tired if you want my true opinion

ha ha ha!

 

[mike2000 is back]

Doubt it. India is non-aligned. She is strategically ambiguous now because she is still a developing power. When she unfurls her colours , after she achieves mandate through attaining middle income status, and attaining a potent GDP, and powerful projective armed forces, she will , ultimately, challenge Western standards.

The use of China-Threat is for general consumption and western appeasement. In reality China and India have little contention besides minor border disagreements -- which can be de-stressed through bilateral means.

India has extrahorizonal agendas in Africa, as well as abroad. The West must be challenged, most importantly, the retreat of US forces from Diego Garcia is a necessity for India.

There is a high potential for India-China to form a security pact in the future.

Old boyyyyyyy.....we went from India carrier ambitions to challenging evil western powers and 'reuniting Asia??lol
Seriously, at first i thought it was a joke, what happened to you Nihonjin sama?? Seems your study/Phd in U.S somehow twisted your idea of the evil West. lol You are not even diplomatic anymore.

 

[MarkusS]

Right, let's all engage in a selective reading of history shall we? Is there no value in security?


NO nation has grown to be a global power without a robust defence and a strong navy, histroy is littered with examples. And yet when it comes to India people judge it by some sort of unique criteria that it must first eliminate all poverty and only THEN will it be allowed to have a proper military, what if I argue the two go hand in hand? Conventional military weakness is an invitation for predatory nations (there are plenty in the world and in India's region) to punish you and make the lives of your citizens far worse.

Was Britain poverty free in the 19th and 18th centuaries when the British Empire was founded on the back of military supremacy? Not even remotely. The same was true for all nations we now consider developed. Give India a chance for god's sake, when the British left in 1947 poverty levels were >75%, today they are between 20-30% depending on the measure you use and constantly plunging. India and China were the ONLY devloping nations to meet the UN's 2015 MDGs on poverty reduction and India is bringing tens of MILLIONS out of poverty every year but it isn't going to happen overnight and in fact the ability to do so may directly relate to how able the Indian state is to protect its economic interests which will only happen through military might.


Addtionally, it is entirely dishonest to say there is no value in defence spending, there will always be economic benefits to this- employment, high tech engineering in your own country, skill development, trickle down effects etc. Addtionally, how many of the technologies we have today came as a result of implicit military spending? Radar, GPS, internet etc etc

The same arguments have been made about India's space program, ISRO, but this was borne out of complete ignorance. The fact is ISRO is a profit making orginsiation, its main mandate is to serve the people of India and many of its efforts directly help the poorest through weather mapping, advanced farming technologies, monitering climate patterns etc etc.









Poverty is an unspeakble crime BUT it IS being tackeled in India, I don't understand why in this discussion that fact is being entirely ignored. Just look at yesterday's budget- defence gets an allocation of just 1.65% of GDP (around $37 BN)

Infrastructure, healthcare,education and poverty releif recived FAR more budgetary allowances (literally 100s of billions).



It's quite an unfair comparison (for both nations) but look at the US, they spend >4% of their GDP on defence and yet they still have poverty and all sorts of social issues present in their nation, does anyone dare question their lundacrious military spending when they could easily remain the world's unchallenged super power on even 1/2 of their current defence spending?



It's their first ever home built carrier, to call it "pathetic" is grossly unfair. The ability to carry 25+ advanced 4.5+ gen fighters far from your coasts is not something many nations can boast of.


@PARIKRAMA @nair @SpArK @MilSpec @ni8mare @knight11

i have respect for your space program. I think its helpful. But an aircraft carrier? I dont think so.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

India and China were the ONLY devloping nations to meet the UN's 2015

Do you have any source for this claim (India) ?

 

[Abingdonboy]

@PARIKRAMA bro, please post the outlay for healthcare, infrastrucutrue, poverty releif and education in 2016-17 to show some of our freinds how minsicule India's defence budget actually is.

 

[Aepsilons]

Old boyyyyyyy.....we went from India carrier ambitions to challenging evil western powers and 'reuniting Asia??

They are all one and the same, sweet and dear Michael. I suppose you should try to examine the greater picture, importantly, study Indian strategic affairs, India's future geostrategic goals. Trust me, it is not to be a 'junior partner' of the United States or the EU. India will aim to forge its own future as a leader in the Asian Paradigm. I believe that dialogue with China and other strategic states is essential for India's quest for national introspection.

Seriously, at first i thought it was a joke, what happened to you Nihonjin sama?? Seems your study/Phd in U.S somehow twisted your idea of the evil West. lol You are not even diplomatic anymore.

I gave a girl my heart, she tore it away, crushed it, threw it away and voila...i was transformed

syke.

LOL.

Just offering conjecture, Michael. LOL