Why India started to build Blue Water Navy

[Firemaster]

Many countries do, like Israel, Japan, Germany, Australia and Britain. Very close military relationships. The countries I named are some of the most advance countries on earth that many Indians like you would move there in a heart beat if you have an opportunity to do so.

you forgot your country Taiwan!!

 

[faithfulguy]

you forgot your country Taiwan!!

Taiwan is a special case and almost do not exist in the international politics except as an issue between US and China.

---------- Post added at 08:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 AM ----------

you forgot your country Taiwan!!

Also, many Indians would move to Taiwan if they can to get a job

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

Many countries do, like Israel, Japan, Germany, Australia and Britain. Very close military relationships. The countries I named are some of the most advance countries on earth that many Indians like you would move there in a heart beat if you have an opportunity to do so.

You are confused between high -living standards and strategic autonomy . Does Japan or Australia or Britain have the standing to unilaterally start an Iraq or Afghanistan ? or are they reduced to tow-alongs when the U.S initiates a conflict ?

Israel is a special case.

Following the U.S 's lead in international relations is not what we are going to do --so as a consequence , no "reliable " military relationship possible . Simple .

 

[harpoon]

That and also good international relation with others. Of course India need to build up a strong military and economy. But it also need to conduct itself within the reality of the existing geopolitical situation. It need to choose between the US and Russia/Chinese side. I hope India choose wisely.

Why should we?

India follows an independent foreign policy. We don't want to join any alliances.

 

[notsuperstitious]

India is developing closer relationship with the US. This is a good strategic move. The best way to avoid a situation like 1971 is by good diplomacy, not military build up. I'm not saying that India should not build up its military. But this alone would not prevent a repeat of 1971.

USA is developing closer relationship with India. This is a good strategic move. The best way to avoid a situation like 1971 is by good diplomacy, not military build up. I'm not saying that USA should not build up its military. But this alone would not prevent a repeat of 1971 and the subsequent bitterness in relationships. After all, USA also needs India, its no one way traffic, and India does not take orders from USA, like how USA tried with our western neighbor. How did that work out for you BTW? Looks like USA learned from their mistakes. Its time you did too.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

USA is developing closer relationship with India. This is a good strategic move. The best way to avoid a situation like 1971 is by good diplomacy, not military build up. I'm not saying that USA should not build up its military. But this alone would not prevent a repeat of 1971 and the subsequent bitterness in relationships. After all, USA also needs India, its no one way traffic, and India does not take orders from USA, like how USA tried with our western neighbor. How did that work out for you BTW? Looks like USA learned from their mistakes. Its time you did too.

nice turnback bro.....

 

[SR 71 Blackbird]

Many countries do, like Israel, Japan, Germany, Australia and Britain. Very close military relationships. The countries I named are some of the most advance countries on earth that many Indians like you would move there in a heart beat if you have an opportunity to do so.

When did Japan & Australia posses nuclear weapons to be prestigious global powers?

 

[pmukherjee]

TF - 74 is not the reason for opting to go for a blue water navy. That was an isolated incident and yes, the Soviets had it covered. The main reason is that most of our land borders are shared by charming friends like the Chinese and Pakistanis. We are therefore overwhelmingly dependent on the ocean for trade and commerce. The ocean is our lifeline since we import most of our energy needs. WE need a strong navy to defend our life line.

 

[brational]

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

If u r really stating about same numbers of poor Indians (Not in %, as population is growing but number of poors are the same), then u r accepting that our poverty elemination programme is doing well.. So whats wrong..
Another thought, at the time of crisis (Any misadventure frm external forces) u will act as a superman/shaktiman and bail India out, if we dont proceed with security consolidations...

Think abt it.. If u r capable, then I am taking my words back...

Do not get hurt, Ur face became red...

 

[Omega007]

TF - 74 is not the reason for opting to go for a blue water navy. That was an isolated incident and yes, the Soviets had it covered. The main reason is that most of our land borders are shared by charming friends like the Chinese and Pakistanis. We are therefore overwhelmingly dependent on the ocean for trade and commerce. The ocean is our lifeline since we import most of our energy needs. WE need a strong navy to defend our life line.

Nice told buddy.Our actions are independent and we develop at need basis,not by any one's doing.
REGARDS....

 

[Vibs]

TF - 74 is not the reason for opting to go for a blue water navy. That was an isolated incident and yes, the Soviets had it covered. The main reason is that most of our land borders are shared by charming friends like the Chinese and Pakistanis. We are therefore overwhelmingly dependent on the ocean for trade and commerce. The ocean is our lifeline since we import most of our energy needs. WE need a strong navy to defend our life line.

Well...Russia did have it covered. But I'm sure the carrier was equipped to handle submarine attacks. Not to mention it would have ended our air superiority over East Pakistan..Also since carriers are considered as Sovereign territories, an attack on Indian shores would have meant war. Although under played, the 1971 war is considered by many as the closest we came to World War 3. China was gearing to open a third front and Russians placed troops on China's North to prevent it from doing so.

But you are right about the trade lanes. Having carriers allows India to engage targets in limited combat well beyond our shorelines (which means the targets are not Pakistan and China but threats near the gulf of Eden). It's akin to the Falkland wars fought between UK and Argentina. India could have a sovereign command and control centre well beyond it's borders retaining authority to authorize military flights from it's main deck.

 

[Vibs]

Why should we?

India follows an independent foreign policy. We don't want to join any alliances.

You might want to relook that statement. After Pakistan expressed Interest in joining the SCO as a permanent member India put in a request for the same. SCO is the Asian equivalent of NATO with China and Russia in lead roles. India and Pakistan are expected to be granted membership and both have supported Afghanistan's candidature in the alliance. If..I mean when this goes through..technically India, Pakistan, China and Russia would be allied nations just like the NATO alliance.

 

[Vibs]

For a better perspective of future world scenario. India, China and US would potentially be the only 3 navies with strong Blue water capabilities.

France 'stunned' by UK navy cuts
06 June 2011

Cuts to the Royal Navy left French officials "stunned", the head of the French Navy has said.

Admiral Pierre-Francois Forissier told the Daily Telegraph that France had been surprised by the cuts made in 2010's Strategic Defence and Security Review which had stripped Britain of its carrier strike capability until at least 2019.

"From a French standpoint, I have to say that we were really stunned because the Royal Navy has always been a model for us and it is now faced with a very difficult situation," Forissier said.

The UK has recently sent its helicopter carrier HMS Ocean to conduct operations in Libya, but Forissier said the UK would be 'more efficient' if it still had carrier strike capability.

"If the UK did have another aircraft carrier in the Libyan theatre that would have been a support for the RAF because they would need less hours of travel and they would have been more efficient," he said.

"When you only have one carrier that means you don't have permanent availability because of maintenance issues and, of course, it would be better to have two carriers."

Last year the UK and France signed a major defence cooperation treaty, and Forissier said that when both of the UK's new aircraft carriers are complete, the second should be kept and shared between the UK and France for training purposes.

The government has suggested it is looking to sell the carrier on rather than keep it, having ordered the build to go ahead due to contractual obligations which would have made it more expensive to cancel the carrier than to complete it.

"If we have the necessary budget it would be useful to each have a national carrier then have an extra carrier — not as expensive and for training uses — for UK and French use," Forissier said.

"It would be useful to have a carrier in Europe for training pilots, otherwise we would need two carriers on both sides and I do not think this is economically feasible."

He also suggested British jets could fly off French carriers saying that it was "the nationality of the aircraft" that was important.

"Potentially in future you could have UK aircraft operating for a UK mission from a French base," he said.

 

[xdrive]

When did Japan & Australia posses nuclear weapons to be prestigious global powers?

rofl. Sorry, but possessing nuclear weapons does not make your country a prestigious global power. However, being AGAINST nuclear weapons does make your country rather prestigious. It shows your country is willing to stand up against countries that possess such a destructive weapon that damages the environment and people.

All nuclear weapons in ALL countries should be destroyed.

I love how people these days think their country is powerful because they have nukes, doesn't make you powerful at all.

For the record, Australia did posses nuclear weapons during the 1950's.

Does Japan or Australia or Britain have the standing to unilaterally start an Iraq or Afghanistan ?

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

 

[faithfulguy]

USA is developing closer relationship with India. This is a good strategic move. The best way to avoid a situation like 1971 is by good diplomacy, not military build up. I'm not saying that USA should not build up its military. But this alone would not prevent a repeat of 1971 and the subsequent bitterness in relationships. After all, USA also needs India, its no one way traffic, and India does not take orders from USA, like how USA tried with our western neighbor. How did that work out for you BTW? Looks like USA learned from their mistakes. Its time you did too.

I agree that USA is developing a closer relationship with India. But this is a 1 way relationship as India only care about buying the latest weaponry but do not seek any closer strategic relationship. This will serve to limit the relationship between the two countries. As for relationship with Pakistan, US and Pakistan are old cold war allies. Though US is under internal law and obligation to place sanctions, this does not diminish the friendship. Now, if its the secret service relationship, that is a totally different ball game. I do not know the details enough to comment.