Indian Naval Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2012 16:06

why dont we mark the palk strait border with a system of floating buoys with night lights and moored to the bottom?

afaik the big commercial ships sail south of SL and never enter the shallow palk strait.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 13 Mar 2012 18:17

Snehashis wrote:
Austin wrote:Impressive , Thanks for putting that up Snehashis.

It shows Exocet SM-39 in action .... hits some containers it carried 160 kg odd warhead , imagine Club with 400 kg warhead. But Scorpene is quite impressive sub and the sonar can hear lot of things including dolphins , shrimps etc

Should give us a good idea on whats inside this sub when IN starts operating it.

You are welcome Austin. The ICL-20 explosive developed by DRDO will be a real game changer. Think about hitting with just 160 kg ICL-20 warhead instead of 160 kg HMX. A 160 kg ICL-20 warhead will make damage equivalent of 2400 KG HMX enough to sink a carrier.

The bolded part is patently wrong. ICL-20 is nothing but indigeniously synthesized CL-20 explosive. CL-20 explosive are ~20% more potent than HMX. This has been reported as 20 times more potent by our DDM!!!

With regards to using ICL-20 in our warheads, it's a long way out(10-15 years at least) before we do so. HMX costs about Rs.6000/kg while ICL-20 as of now costs Rs.70,000/kg. Till the time we can manufacture ICL-20 within Rs.10,000/kg, it will not be viable for mass adoption.

So 160kg of ICL-20 will give the effect of 190kg of HMX while costing 10 times more. You still want to sink an aircraft carrier?

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 13 Mar 2012 21:55

India to export warships to African countries

PANAJI: Looking for export markets for its vessels, defence undertaking Goa Shipyard is offering its smaller size naval vessels to countries in Africa and the Middle East.

In this regard, a Nigerian delegation headed by a senior Navy officer of that country visited the shipyard last week in Goa.

"The visit assumes significance in view of GSL's ongoing efforts to market its state-of-the-art Patrol Vessels to coastal African nations and Middle East etc," the shipyard said.

The delegation was headed by Senator Chris N D Anyanwu, the Chairperson Senate Committee on Nigerian Navy and held discussions with GSL chief Rear Admiral (retd) Vineet Bakshi.

The delegation was also informed about the modernisation programme and progress made thereof, the spokesman said.

Expressing satisfaction on GSL's capability to design and build sophisticated and high value ships, the visiting delegation lauded GSL's efforts to upgrade its shipyard to meet the future defence requirements.

GSL is one of the main shipyards building vessels for the Indian Navy and Indian Coast Guard. The yard has also provided speed patrol boats required for coastal surveillance.

good going india

Snehashis · Post by **Snehashis** » 14 Mar 2012 00:23

Marut wrote:

The bolded part is patently wrong. ICL-20 is nothing but indigeniously synthesized CL-20 explosive. CL-20 explosive are ~20% more potent than HMX. This has been reported as 20 times more potent by our DDM!!! With regards to using ICL-20 in our warheads, it's a long way out(10-15 years at least) before we do so. HMX costs about Rs.6000/kg while ICL-20 as of now costs Rs.70,000/kg. Till the time we can manufacture ICL-20 within Rs.10,000/kg, it will not be viable for mass adoption.

I stand corrected. Thanks Marut. Never thought it is possible to mix up with 20 percent and 20 times.

So 160kg of ICL-20 will give the effect of 190kg of HMX while costing 10 times more. You still want to sink an aircraft carrier?

Yeah! With a bigger warhead on Nirbhay.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 14 Mar 2012 01:14

Was just imagining a scenario where we have to sink the Chinkad Carrier (CC) using CM's.

Two destroyers/frigates and 2 Missile boats equipped with Nirbhay and Brahmos (Missile boats with Brahmos). When the CC is to be attacked the MB's use their higher speed and move around 100 kms ahead of the Destroyers. The Destroyers Launch the Nirbhays (12 apiece) from little under max range. When Nirbhays are around 100 kms from the CC they will likely be detected. Approximately at this time the MB's will launch Brahmos (4 apiece) from max range (300 kms) and pull back at max speed.

When the CBG is busy with the Nirbhays the Brahmos punch through the CC and well that is history. Meanwhile a few Nirbhays in loiter mode will have enough time to fool targets and punch into the CC/ CBG and damage a few more ships.

Meanwhile out Destroyers/ Frigates and MB's will move back into the protective cover of a couple more destroyers as self defence.

Well, probably a lot of mistakes in this, but possible??

John · Post by **John** » 14 Mar 2012 02:04

Without AWACS or some sort of airborne platform to provide the targeting information it is not going to work.

Assuming you have that Unkil tried it with TASM it never worked out because essentially with Ashm longer range the higher probability of missing target since you have larger radius to look for the ship (Brahmos like Ship wreck with its supersonic speed and higher flight altitude gets around it). In 30 or so minutes it takes to reach the target there is good chance the missiles will be going after a shipping vessel that happens to be in theater of conflict rather than the carrier. Besides without air support a handful of Fighters can take out the Frigates and missile boats even before they even get within firing range.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Mar 2012 11:46

In the short term,with the huge gap appearing in the sub fleet,the IN has no altertnative but toi bridge the gap by leasing out more N-subs from Russia.With Russia too needing large numbers of both conventional and nuclear subs too and has accelerate its construction programme,with just 4 years needed for a new SSBN/SSGN,another two Akulas if ordered now would arrive by 2016,the first,an unfinished sub according to some reports,perhaps as early as 2015.Obtaining an extra 3-4 SSGNs from Russia would also allow the local SSBN programme to concentrate asap upon building the first 5 SSBNs planned for the strategic deterrent.This way by the decade's end,we would be able to possess 5+5 SSBNs and SSGNs,along with 6 Scorpenes,and around 8-12 of the U-209s andupgraded Kilos available,when the second line of subs starts being inducted.If a Russian boat is chosen before 2014,then we could have the first two subs in service even before 2020.This would giv ethe IN a formidable sub force of both nculear and conventional AIP subs.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Mar 2012 07:26

Ahem, can I once again make my humble plug for those Backfires? Nothing better (in the interim) to deter CBGs than half a dozen Tu-22M.3s that could sneak up at short notice, release a couple of dozen B'mos/Clubs and run away. Even if release is around 300km, time to target is not much, and carrier/assets can't get far enough away to avoid being slammed. I doubt the air defence bubble is going to work that far off from mothership so results should be pretty good. If a couple of capital ships are sunk, that is a HUGE loss for the enemy.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Mar 2012 07:28

how are they in terms of serviceability and uptime?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 15 Mar 2012 21:00

Tu-22Ms are passe .... we wants Su-34

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Mar 2012 21:37

I think we had better wait a bit for the PAKDA. renderings on web show it smaller than Tu22M, but perhaps bigger than Su34. a useful size for small stealthy ASMs or hypersonic quickstrike missiles + LO airframe.
size ofcourse varies based on the enthu of the person rendering it...all the way upto a big 73m airframe
http://weapons.technology.youngester.co ... omber.html

some concepts are probably going to be there.
- atleast a 5000km combat radius with load (given Russia's vast size and sparse strategic bases like Engels)
- big wet wings to get that range
- a modified form of the 5th gen fighter engine or a cleaner smaller version of the tu160 engines with significant gains in noise, sfc, EDE, reduced IR sig
- deeply hidden engines behind long serpentine air intakes
- internal bay for the good stuff
- option to hang a few pylons for Dday + N low risk missions
- 2-4 man crew
- massive passive & active EW suite as penetration aid
- (for Russia) - KH101 and KH65 as the prime weapon & Yakhont2 as the ASM

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Mar 2012 23:42

There are dozens of TU-22s available,many mothballed,but all need their avionics,etc. upgraded as the Russians found out in the Georgian spat where one was downed.The range and payload of the aircraft,a strategic bomber, is far superior to that of the SU-34 ,which is a tactical strike aircraft.A dozen Backfires would give the IN massive reach even without refuelling and enable the IN to operate in the Asia-Pacific theatre apart from anywhere in the IOR.

John · Post by **John** » 15 Mar 2012 23:54

Backfire are only effective in used in large numbers to saturate the carrier defenses their size and large RCS makes them easy picking for any carrier borne fighters. Any threat would in Indian ocean so range is not a major factor. As we had discussed much better and cheaper strategy would to send a squadron of flankers (with tankers if need be) half of them can provide air cover and target designation (flying high) for low flying flankers carrying AshM.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 16 Mar 2012 08:30

Indian Naval Destroyer INS Ranjit arrives at Surabaya

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 16 Mar 2012 11:07

Cain Marko wrote:Ahem, can I once again make my humble plug for those Backfires? Nothing better (in the interim) to deter CBGs than half a dozen Tu-22M.3s that could sneak up at short notice, release a couple of dozen B'mos/Clubs and run away. Even if release is around 300km, time to target is not much, and carrier/assets can't get far enough away to avoid being slammed. I doubt the air defence bubble is going to work that far off from mothership so results should be pretty good. If a couple of capital ships are sunk, that is a HUGE loss for the enemy.

Why not TU 160? I like them.
K

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 16 Mar 2012 11:30

IS the Sea Eagle AShM still in service with the Indian Navy.Is it integrated on all aircraft of naval aviation,because wiki shows that the Sea Harrier,Sea KIng,TU-142,IL-38 and the Jaguar IM can fire this missile.Is this missile outdated because every user except us has retired the missile?I also read on Klub's wiki page that an air launched version is in development to arm Indian and Russian Navy;s tu-142.Any news on that matter ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Mar 2012 12:22

afaik only the Pune based Jaguar IM unit ever used Sea Eagle (barring the IN Sea Kings and IL38). the Sea harriers did not use it apparently. I guess its still in service until a similar option is funded like harpoon or some israeli equivalent. never heard of air launched klub...such a huge missile .... the air launched version of KH35 does exist though ... no word on us buying it.

imo we can buy something like harpoon or exocet for the MKIs and Rafales as they are the ones most long legged and payload wise can carry 2 x ASM a good distance over the ocean. the Mig29K could also use it if mil-std bus etc are in use which is likely.

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 16 Mar 2012 12:25

Singha wrote:afaik only the Pune based Jaguar IM unit ever used Sea Eagle (barring the IN Sea Kings and IL38). the Sea harriers did not use it apparently. I guess its still in service until a similar option is funded like harpoon or some israeli equivalent. never heard of air launched klub...such a huge missile .... the air launched version of KH35 does exist though ... no word on us buying it.

imo we can buy something like harpoon or exocet for the MKIs and Rafales as they are the ones most long legged and payload wise can carry 2 x ASM a good distance over the ocean.

where in pune the jaguars are stationed? i never saw any jaguar at pune airport.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Mar 2012 12:28

I have never been to pune in my life. but thats what all the literature says. maybe they moved to jamnagar or vadodara at some point?

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 16 Mar 2012 12:53

Singha wrote:I have never been to pune in my life. but thats what all the literature says. maybe they moved to jamnagar or vadodara at some point?

i just did dome research and came to know 12 jaguar IMs were built and currently they are operated by No. 6 Squadron (dragons) stationed at Tiruchirapalli.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Mar 2012 13:29

I think they are more likely to be in jamnagar.per web search brings a brf link: In 2007, the Squadron moved to Jamnagar to allow Pune to become an exclusive Sukhoi-30

earlier were in lohegaon per BRF pix
http://members.tripod.com/mani_singh/in ... force3.htm

2 x IAI Astra for ELINT visible in jamnagar

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 16 Mar 2012 14:17

i have seen lots of jaguars at pune airport

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Mar 2012 14:31

yes they used to be in lohegaon. had the pleasure of seeing them once upon a time. moved to jamnagar last I heard.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 16 Mar 2012 18:47

Rahul M wrote:yes they used to be in lohegaon. had the pleasure of seeing them once upon a time. moved to jamnagar last I heard.

Yes, saw them take off at JAM and do the sorties. Quite visible from a taxiing plane. Such a pretty sight they are.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Mar 2012 19:24

IIRC, Jamnagar also hosts the 224 Squadron which converted to Jags after retirement of Mig-23MF.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 16 Mar 2012 20:26

Singha wrote:the air launched version of KH35 does exist though ... no word on us buying it..

Both MiG-29K and IL-38SD have been photographed testing the Uran missile in Russia. 99% it is in service with the Navy as well - otherwise we are saying that the naval air arm is flying aircraft that cannot attack ships!

And then BR report says:

Weapons include RVV-AE BVR missiles, R-73 missiles and Kh-35 Uran air to surface anti ship missiles besides the standard range of bombs and an internal GShSh 30mm cannon on the port side above the wing root..

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Mar 2012 21:26

late Harry once posted a pic of a IL38 with a pylon mounted Sea Eagle I think! caused quite a stir here.

on google earth Jamnagar looks like the most Shakinah IAF base in terms of infra and size . well ahead of jodhpur for sure. it has X runways and huge aprons, with couple of alert takeoff HAS at the end of each runway to permit 1min scrambles . couple of IL38 with sea dragon radar housing is also visible, as are Dorniers, a entire squadron of Jag IM (black nose), normal Jaguars in another area, Astras for ELINT...the place must hum with activity.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 16 Mar 2012 22:05

rohitvats wrote:IIRC, Jamnagar also hosts the 224 Squadron which converted to Jags after retirement of Mig-23MF.

new build jags? 2 seaters? with the darin III?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Mar 2012 22:45

The US is planning for a naval blockade of Iran before any attacks,to prevent it from shipping its oil.In such a scenario,India would have to escort its tankers transiting the Gulf and a situ might develop where we will be opposed against US/western naval forces.The IN and IAF had better start training for such an eventuality asap as Uncle Sam is mightily p*ssed off with India and other nations who have defied its sanctions regime against Iran.
Now the need or rather the absence of LR strategic bombers like the TU-22 Backfires is sorely felt.We will not be able to operate any aircraft barring the TU-142s,without refuelling as far away as the Gulf.The sooner such an acquisition is made the better we will be able to safeguard our energy supplies.

In the interim,before the sh*t hits the fan,we should import as much oil from Iran as is possible-as much as they can ship.Iran is supposedly offering huge discounts right now and the oil imported should be used to build up a strategic reserve for many months,using even the oil tank farm at Trinco where IOC has a presence.

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDeta ... fault.aspx

Naval Blockade Of Iran Must Be Considered: US Senator
‘Boost Pressure’
WASHINGTON, March 10, (RTRS): An international naval blockade of Iranian oil exports should be considered before any resort to air strikes against the country’s disputed nuclear program, the chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee said on Friday.
“That’s, I think, one option that needs to be considered” to boost pressure on Iran to curb its nuclear program in line with U.N. Security Council resolutions, Democratic Senator Carl Levin said in an interview taped for C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” program.
He said any such blockade should be preceded by lining up alternative oil supplies to avoid a price spike on world crude markets. Iran is OPEC’s second-largest oil producer and the world’s third-largest petroleum exporter.
Levin was responding to a question about possible ways of increasing pressure short of combat, including imposition of a “no-fly zone” over Iran.
Such moves “could be very effective,” he said. “I think (these are) options that whoever is willing to participate should explore, including Israel and including the United States.”

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 17 Mar 2012 01:49

^^^^ Sorry boss, but the US spends more on it's Navy than any other service and this is with a military budget which exceeds the military budgets of the rest of the world COMBINED. India would not have a prayer trying to tackle the US navy. Not that it could put up more than a token fight against the US air force either. Asymmetric warfare is about the only hope for a turd world nation against Unkil.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Mar 2012 02:32

Would the US risk attacking a joint Indo-Sino-Russo convoy of tankers? This would not under any circumstances be a UN agreed upon blockade as neither Russia or China would allow it to go through the UNSC.In such a scenario,the US would run the risk of being branded an aggressor and invite global condemnation.We have also seen from past experience how the US reacts when it suffers a significant loss.It is in retreat all across Af-Pak and in Iraq.To imagine that we could not do the same to US warships or merchantmen transiting the IOR is to lose the plot.The US today would think several times before sending a carrier task force into the Taiwan Straits.The bragaddaccio quotient of the US is suspect,when faced with determined nations whose existence is being severely handicapped by any proposed blockade of energy supplies,is an act tantamount to war.This is why the Japanese attacked the US first in WW2.Would its brinkmanship go thus far to stop Indian or Chinese convoys? I doubt it.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Mar 2012 03:35

Singha wrote: never heard of air launched klub...such a huge missile .... the air launched version of KH35 does exist though ... no word on us buying it.

Ayyo, never heard of air launched cloob? Half the weight of a brahmos - and a bird like the Rafale or MKI could easily carry 3-5 of this mijjile. I allus thought the airlaunched sizzler was more attractive than let say, a Scalp. I love the idea of it accelerating to 3X mach in terminal phase. FWIW, I have seen models of this missile with MiG-29k, 35 and even SMT. Of course, those are models wonlee.

The NSM is another missile that looks good. If if has to be US supplied, i'd like to see the JSM instead of a Harpoon.

Kersi D wrote:Why not TU 160? I like them.

[/quote]
Rodina has only a few of these so it'll be difficult for them to spare any, around 16 in service. So, getting a sqd of these is virtually impossible. But the Backfire M3.MKI will do - appropriately modernized - this version iirc was already heavily coated with RAM and used composites specifically for RCS reduction, so with some more adequate treatment and perhaps a jammer version, which too had been developed, embedded would make early detection difficult. Hi-hi-hi radius of 4000km fwiw, not a joke.

While maintenance might be an issue, I don't see why we can't manage something like this if we can afford 8 odd TU-142s and even a single Akula. It should be considered a strategic asset and be under the SFC or IN. The SFC should have at their call:

1 sqd MKI/Rafale
1 sqd Backphyrre.

All based somewhere deep in the south, available at short notice to swoop on targets anywhere in the IOR or even central asia/SCS. The ability to send 10 backfires packing 30 Brahmos PLUS 40 odd Kh-31s at a single go, at short notice, over huge distances, in any direction, without AAR support, and just a few Rafales to keep A2A escort will give India such a shot in the arm - it opens up the options considerably in case Chipak get an idea of teaching SDREs a lesson. Such a counter attack possibility even in the very backyards of possible enemies would act as a tremendous deterrent imho.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 Mar 2012 05:09

Philip wrote:Would the US risk attacking a joint Indo-Sino-Russo convoy of tankers?

Why would we want to get into a direct military alliance with the Chinese just to show the US up? We've been training for confrontation with China and establishing closer ties with countries like Vietnam and Japan to bolster our geopolitical position. I don't see anyone taking their eyes off the bigger picture over Iran.

This would not under any circumstances be a UN agreed upon blockade as neither Russia or China would allow it to go through the UNSC.In such a scenario,the US would run the risk of being branded an aggressor and invite global condemnation.We have also seen from past experience how the US reacts when it suffers a significant loss.It is in retreat all across Af-Pak and in Iraq.To imagine that we could not do the same to US warships or merchantmen transiting the IOR is to lose the plot.

Whatever mistakes they may or may not make is their business. If they'd like India to buy less of Iranian oil, you can be damned sure the Saudis will match the Iranian offer, whatever it may be. The mandarins at the top will never let the situation spiral so far out of control that the US and Indian militaries find themselves in a direct confrontation.

The US today would think several times before sending a carrier task force into the Taiwan Straits.The bragaddaccio quotient of the US is suspect,when faced with determined nations whose existence is being severely handicapped by any proposed blockade of energy supplies,is an act tantamount to war.This is why the Japanese attacked the US first in WW2.Would its brinkmanship go thus far to stop Indian or Chinese convoys? I doubt it.

Well you'd like the US brought down a peg or two, if not more. But is that in our best interest? Is Iranian oil important enough to go war over? Before the embargo, the Japanese imported 80% of their oil from the US and were at odds or at war with everyone else who might have made up the difference. Is the India in the same shoes? Is the availability of Iranian oil at lower than market prices enough incentive to militarily oppose US sanctions?

Because the Chinese certainly won't participate in that absurdity. Taiwan is their Kashmir - red lines are drawn and they'll go to war over it. But they aren't foolish enough to risk physically tangling with the Americans over Iran.

The irony of it is - Iranian oil is cheap because its sanctioned. If China and India collude to nullify a blockade, they'll eventually drive the price right back up.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 17 Mar 2012 05:11

Philip while I think it is the height of hypocrisy to label Eyeran a terrorist state and arm and assist Pokistan, India needs to pick it's battles. I would tell the US there's no way to replace Eyeran's oil and seek as much quid pro quo on top of unkil getting saudi barbaria and possibly others to replace India's Eyeran sourced oil. The US fears if Eyeran goes nukular, so will saudi barbaria and possibly others. This will be a mortal threat to Israel besides being an inherently unstable situation in and of itself. The US will not allow this. India (thanks to the decades of incompetent leftist market distorting policies) is no China. India's economy needs to triple in size and it's MIC commensurately advance before flipping off unkil is possible.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 17 Mar 2012 06:12

S.Arabia already have N/device given by pakistan because they are one funded whole project.
And china supply the delivery system(Missiles).
All usa policy is against india.they will do anything to degrade india.Pro western lobby shuold wake up.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 17 Mar 2012 07:36

This is why the Japanese attacked the US first in WW2

and then what happened??

sigh

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Mar 2012 08:28

>> All based somewhere deep in the south, available at short notice to swoop on targets anywhere in the IOR or even central asia/SCS. The ability to send 10 backfires packing 30 Brahmos PLUS 40 odd Kh-31s at a single go, at short notice, over huge distances, in any direction, without AAR support

thats the tricky part wrt these old russian gear. looking at the Tu142 which allegedly needs a astonishing hrs of ground service for every 1 hr in the air, the backfire might be no better. the USSR had a lot of them so even with 50% uptime they could launch a good number, with just 5-10 backfires, we'd be hard pressed to send up 3-4 on a day.

I am all for Pakda though when it arrives. get 30-40 of them under IN/SFC joint command for anti shipping and n-tipped nirbhay roles. also build atleast 25-30 extra MKIs from IAPO optimized for naval strike role (drop tanks on wing), air launched Klub/KH35 integration and give them to IN in the interim. they can shore up the ramparts until Pakda comes in 2025. the naval jaguars can be retired by then...weak and short legged as they are for any IOR role.

patience and penance brothers. our time will come.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Mar 2012 15:47

Look,let's get some basic facts first.Without UN sanction-most unlikely given the stand of Russia and China,any naval blockade unilaterally by the US or its allies will be illegal and tantamount to declaration of war against nations trading with Iran. Cutting off 10-12% of India's energy supplies will be catastrophic for India.The effect upon our economy will result in nation wide chaos and the crippling of the Indian economy.Saudi oil is not an alternative for a variety of reasons.Trying to split the globe into nations "with us or against us" is the current basis of US foreign policy and those who oppose the US's neo-imperialist dreams,will be treated as enemies.

Secondly,freedom of navigating of the high seas of all nations is enshrined in all international agreements relating to maritime affairs and the Intl.law of the sea.The nations of Asia will be the worst affected and India and China will be lumped together by illegal US actions.We will have no choice but to come together along with other affected Asian nations on this single issue.

While no one is advocating a military spat with the US,US actions that dramatically affect India's sovereign international rights cannot go unanswered.I do not wish to be a prophet,but a certain trend in US foreign policy is gradually bringing together the BRICS nations and the smaller affected states of the NAM movement.If China realising the opposition building up against its own imperialist dreams, changes tack and becomes more accommodating with its Asian neighbours,then anything might happen.

For India to imagine that a spat with the US is an impossibility would be disastrous given the precedents and lessons of history."Forearmed is forewarned".We must plan for any eventuality .

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 17 Mar 2012 21:19

And that's why we must develop an ICBM.That way the US will not think that because we cannot reach them we are nothing.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Mar 2012 01:13

Philip wrote:Look,let's get some basic facts first.Without UN sanction-most unlikely given the stand of Russia and China,any naval blockade unilaterally by the US or its allies will be illegal and tantamount to declaration of war against nations trading with Iran. Cutting off 10-12% of India's energy supplies will be catastrophic for India.The effect upon our economy will result in nation wide chaos and the crippling of the Indian economy.Saudi oil is not an alternative for a variety of reasons.Trying to split the globe into nations "with us or against us" is the current basis of US foreign policy and those who oppose the US's neo-imperialist dreams,will be treated as enemies.

What do you mean 'cutting off 10-12% of India's energy supplies'? Oil is still available on the open market. The idea that fuel tanks will run dry is just plain wrong. That's not how the system works.

Now if you'd have said that global oil prices would spike in the event of a blockade, you may still have been right. Unless, as is likely, US gets the Gulf nations to step up production offsetting the drop in global supply.

Secondly,freedom of navigating of the high seas of all nations is enshrined in all international agreements relating to maritime affairs and the Intl.law of the sea.The nations of Asia will be the worst affected and India and China will be lumped together by illegal US actions.We will have no choice but to come together along with other affected Asian nations on this single issue.

Plenty of folks feel that Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza strip is illegal. If tomorrow India and Pakistan were to go to war, the Indian Navy would be tasked with carrying out a naval blockade of Karachi and Gwadar. Do you think rest of Asia would then take it upon itself to intervene?

While no one is advocating a military spat with the US,US actions that dramatically affect India's sovereign international rights cannot go unanswered.

That's exactly what you seem to be advocating. If the US has naval forces blockading Iranian ports and India tasks its navy with ensuring civilian shipping goes through the blockade, what's the outcome going to be?

I do not wish to be a prophet,but a certain trend in US foreign policy is gradually bringing together the BRICS nations and the smaller affected states of the NAM movement.If China realising the opposition building up against its own imperialist dreams, changes tack and becomes more accommodating with its Asian neighbours,then anything might happen.

Its the other way round. Its China that's been asserting itself in the Pacific and South China Sea to such an extent where East Asian and South East Asian countries have started to band together and move closer to the US and India. After declaring unilaterally that the bulk of the South China Sea was Chinese waters, for historical reasons, they shouldn't be surprised when an informal anti-China coalition appears to be forming. Its the same vis-a-vis India - after years of accepting the generally peaceful status quo, they've been asserting their claims over Tawang, a region that be briefly held in 1962, and then voluntarily pulled backed from (though overextended supply lines was at least part of the reason).

For India to imagine that a spat with the US is an impossibility would be disastrous given the precedents and lessons of history."Forearmed is forewarned".We must plan for any eventuality.

Perhaps. All the same, it isn't the US opposing ONGC drilling in Vietnamese waters and it isn't the US challenging the passage of Indian naval ships through the South China Sea.