Malabar Naval Exercises

asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Postby asprinzl » 09 Sep 2007 16:52

I think compared to USS Forestall, the powder room explosion aboard cruiser USS New Jersey (?) in 1989 was a bigger impact. Even then the ship didn't sink.

If one looked at footage from WW2 especially the battles fought against Japan, one can see a few ships that got nearly creamed but remained standing. It is simply not that easy to bring down a big warship.

The last time nations went to war with big ships involved on both sides was the Falklands conflict. General Belgrano was hammered continuosly by British subs before she went down. The Brits had the luxury to do so because the Belgrano was without much cover. It was sailing outside the conflict zone declared by the Brits and the Argentinians bought into it. HMS Sheffield was hit by a sqd of Super Etandards with Exxocets and if I remember correctly, it took a couple of days before she went down.

I tink in both cases, the leadership of the respected ships were sleeping at the helm. Argentinians thought since they were sailing outside the declared zone, the Brits will not attack. The Brits thought the Argies have no means to mount the kind of attack the Argies mounted on Sheffield.

Well, even the ever alert Israelis were caught napping on the watch. Otherwise the Hisbollah would not have damaged the warship off the coast of Lebanon during last summer's war.
Avram

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 09 Sep 2007 17:07

the powder room explosion aboard cruiser USS New Jersey (?) in 1989 was a bigger impact. Even then the ship didn't sink.


You mean the USS Iowa turret explosion?

The USS Iowa turret explosion was an explosion that occurred in the Number 2 16-inch gun turret of the United States Navy battleship USS Iowa (BB-61) on April 19, 1989. The explosion killed all 47 of the turret's crewmen and severely damaged the gun turret itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion
Sailors quickly flooded the #2 powder magazine, likely preventing catastrophic damage to the ship

asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Postby asprinzl » 09 Sep 2007 17:48

Yes, USS Iowa.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5568
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 09 Sep 2007 17:54

venkat_r wrote:Seems like Other than US and Indian navies others had just a token presence going by the pics.


The RSN (Singapore) just had one vessel, the JMSDF (Japan) had two vessels and the RAN (Aussies) also had only two vessels. The USN led the pack with thirteen vessels which included two carrier groups and the IN had eight vessels which was actually a carrier group minus a sub, cause the IN did not want to reveal all its cards at the exercise. The only sub at the exercise was the nuclear powered attack sub, USS Chicago.

Raymond
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2006 20:41

Postby Raymond » 09 Sep 2007 19:27

vina wrote: Any ship is built to take a certain amount of damage. For eg,in commercial /cargo there must be enough reserve buoyancy so that the ship doesn't sink if a bulkhead gets penetrated and two adjacent holds are flooded. Similary, with double hull, certain allowances for keel damage and also side damage are factored in.

Without these no registrar will certify your ship and you simply will not be able to insure your ship and cargo! .

Naval vessels of course designed to take more punishment .. Primarily by greater compartmentalization/ subdivision and more robust fire fighting and damage control equipment. Carriers by nature of their big size have higher reserve buoyancies as well.

The problem with these air launched anti ship missiles is that they usually dont sink the targets right away (esp on larger ships), but cause sufficient damage for mission kill /out of action for over a year kind of thing. For a single missile to sink a large sized ship, it should be very lucky and hit something like an ammo store or something. or at best you end up creating massive damage in like a 20 cross section.which will put it out of action and. which while being serious damage, can't sink the platform.


I agree with whatever you said,and ships are getting better day by day,still I would say that that a missile hit is very dangerous and in the past single missile hits have sunk/removed from the battle, ships from merchantmen to naval vessels.Missiles are also getting better.

For eg.

-1971 war PNS Khaibar(sunk),PNS Shahjahan(destroyed beyond repair) and the merchantman venus Challenger(sunk) by an SS-N-2B each.
-Falklands war HMS Sheffield sunk,after being hit by Exocet ,even though the missile failed to explode.HMS Glamorgan (damaged and removed) after being hit my single exocet.
-Israeli Hanit(mission kill) following a single C802 hit.If the second C802 had hit then who knows?
-Two lesser examples..INS Hosdurg sunk by single Sea-Eagle during tests and the recent Brahmos tests.
There should be other examples.

So AShms may not be able to make holes below water line(or maybe they can?),but they are also very dangerous.Maybe a CVN can take multiple hits,but there is a very good chance that one missile could effect a mission kill or even sink it.So even 1 enemy aircraft evading the BARCAP and coming within missile launch distance is a very serious thing for the ship to look at and address.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Postby Kersi D » 09 Sep 2007 20:11

Raymond wrote:
vina wrote: Any ship is built to take a certain amount of damage. For eg,in commercial /cargo there must be enough reserve buoyancy so that the ship doesn't sink if a bulkhead gets penetrated and two adjacent holds are flooded. Similary, with double hull, certain allowances for keel damage and also side damage are factored in.

Without these no registrar will certify your ship and you simply will not be able to insure your ship and cargo! .

Naval vessels of course designed to take more punishment .. Primarily by greater compartmentalization/ subdivision and more robust fire fighting and damage control equipment. Carriers by nature of their big size have higher reserve buoyancies as well.

The problem with these air launched anti ship missiles is that they usually dont sink the targets right away (esp on larger ships), but cause sufficient damage for mission kill /out of action for over a year kind of thing. For a single missile to sink a large sized ship, it should be very lucky and hit something like an ammo store or something. or at best you end up creating massive damage in like a 20 cross section.which will put it out of action and. which while being serious damage, can't sink the platform.


I agree with whatever you said,and ships are getting better day by day,still I would say that that a missile hit is very dangerous and in the past single missile hits have sunk/removed from the battle, ships from merchantmen to naval vessels.Missiles are also getting better.

For eg.

-1971 war PNS Khaibar(sunk),PNS Shahjahan(destroyed beyond repair) and the merchantman venus Challenger(sunk) by an SS-N-2B each.
-Falklands war HMS Sheffield sunk,after being hit by Exocet ,even though the missile failed to explode.HMS Glamorgan (damaged and removed) after being hit my single exocet.
-Israeli Hanit(mission kill) following a single C802 hit.If the second C802 had hit then who knows?
-Two lesser examples..INS Hosdurg sunk by single Sea-Eagle during tests and the recent Brahmos tests.
There should be other examples.

So AShms may not be able to make holes below water line(or maybe they can?),but they are also very dangerous.Maybe a CVN can take multiple hits,but there is a very good chance that one missile could effect a mission kill or even sink it.So even 1 enemy aircraft evading the BARCAP and coming within missile launch distance is a very serious thing for the ship to look at and address.



The SS-N-2 used by IN to attack M/s PN Karachi & Co is a massive beast. I think it has a 450 kg warhead. Most modern AShM have a 150 kg warhead or so, which I too feel is not sufficient to sink a large ship. However a ship hit by a 150 kg warhead would be sufficiently damaged and will be out of real action. That is what the enemy wants.

INS Hosdurg was sink by a Sea Eagle fired form a Jaguar IM. What has Brahmos got to do with it ? I think you are referring to the Brahmos used to sink INS Nilgiri, somone please confirm.

Don't forget that the unused fuel is as good as an explosive warhead, ask anybody on HMS Sheffield. No captain will fire the missile at max range. He will come as close as possible (beyond the range of enemy missiles) so that the accuracy is better and he has more "warhead".

Kersi

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Postby Kersi D » 09 Sep 2007 20:16

JCage wrote:You dont need to sink a carrier- you just need to slow it down and make it vulnerable. A carriers greatest strength is its mobility. It can move where you dont anticipate, and launch. Slow it down, and it become a floating fortress- either out of the fight, or a liability for its defenders who have to defend it, come what may.



If you are very accurate and/or very lucky and you destroy two propellors the carrier may not be able to get sufficient speed to launch and recover its aircraft. Then the AC can be as good as gone for the time being.

Kersi

Raymond
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2006 20:41

Postby Raymond » 09 Sep 2007 21:18

Kersi D wrote:The SS-N-2 used by IN to attack M/s PN Karachi & Co is a massive beast. I think it has a 450 kg warhead. Most modern AShM have a 150 kg warhead or so, which I too feel is not sufficient to sink a large ship. However a ship hit by a 150 kg warhead would be sufficiently damaged and will be out of real action. That is what the enemy wants.

Interesting point.Just for comparison purposes I made out a rough list of the current missiles and their warheads..also should depend on warhead type..

Exocet -165 kgs
Harpoon block II -221 kg
Brahmos 300 kgs
Uran- 135 kgs
SS-N-22 320 kgs
SS-N-2-454 kgs
Klub-200-400 kgs
Sea-eagle 230 kg
Kh-31 90 kg
RBS-15 220 kg warhead
NSM- 125 kgs
AS-34 220 kgs
INS Hosdurg was sink by a Sea Eagle fired form a Jaguar IM. What has Brahmos got to do with it ? I think you are referring to the Brahmos used to sink INS Nilgiri, somone please confirm.

I meant the Nilgiri for the Brahmos...
INS Hosdurg sunk by single Sea-Eagle during tests and the recent Brahmos tests.

Don't forget that the unused fuel is as good as an explosive warhead, ask anybody on HMS Sheffield.

Okay,so taking fuel into consideration,lets consider that the Exocet actually exploded..
No captain will fire the missile at max range. He will come as close as possible (beyond the range of enemy missiles) so that the accuracy is better and he has more "warhead".

..and also importantly allowing lesser time to the ship to react/take evasive measures..

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21821
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 09 Sep 2007 22:27

The P-700 Granit has a massive 750 kg conventional HE warhead , I guess the largest among all anti-ship missile.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Postby Raja Bose » 09 Sep 2007 22:55

Actually, most of them seem to be quite hefty. I know a few ex-SEALs and they had pretty big builds..... This probably has more to do with the gym culture amongst US jocks and heavy duty weight lifting which leads to muscle bulk. Compared to them SAS or Para SF etc. men seem to be more lean and rangy. In the end, big or small, it all comes down to training and equipment (and Loads of Luck!!).

Though still waiting for an answer to my original question re. composition of the VBSS teams....


Surya wrote:Actually Raja

big and bulky guys do not make it in Seals

Seals are mostly rangy

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12810
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 10 Sep 2007 01:27

most special forces guys are thin and wiry. they have to have huge endurance and running ability - to keep going and going and going. big guys with huge biceps can't usually do that very well. i met a marcos officer once, he looked much slimmer than i was expecting... but then he could do insane physical endurance stuff that i couldn't even imagine in my worst nightmares!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5568
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 10 Sep 2007 02:46

Raja, physiologically speaking endurance does not necessarily equal bulky muscles. To sustain muscle mass, one needs to be eating high quality protein for muscles to grow during rest and complex carbs right after a workout for the body to repair itself from the stress of working out. If you don't do that, you will begin to lose muscle mass really fast.

Special forces personnel require a high level of endurance and that is not something a bulky figure can have, even if it is muscle mass. Now you do have the odd freak that defies all laws of nature. You probably met a couple of them. Your post states "ex-Seals". Ask them if they were that bulky during their SEAL tenure and I doubt they would be. Also a lanky figure has a greater ability to twist & contort into small spaces, which Special Forces do a whole lot of. An individual with bulky muscle mass would find that quite challenging.

But talking about muscle mass...your physical structure (defined by your DNA), depending on how you train, your eating/drinking habits and even your sleeping habits all ultimately determine the kind of muscle you will gain in the long term. There are people that are hard as 3 x 9, but yet they are quite lanky. Bollywood actor Hrithik Roshan is a classic example of a lanky guy, who is still quite muscular. But then you have Salman Khan who is the exact opposite of Hrithik Roshan, but is also muscular but bulky. See the difference?

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Postby Raja Bose » 10 Sep 2007 03:40

I am intimately familiar with what you are talking about since I do weight training myself :) (incidentally thats where I know some of those guys I am referring to). I agree that endurance has nothing to do with bulkier muscles. If fact if anything high levels of bulk is likely to reduce endurance. However, when I said bulky, I did not mean something associated with 'Arnold-like supercharged pumped full of steroids' physiques which clearly wont do in SF. What I was referring to was that, compared to the avg. Indian SF trooper (or even Brits from the pics I have seen) the american SF guys (Delta incld.,....see pics of D-boys in afghanistan) seem to have a much bigger build and bulkier muscles.

Most of the ex-SEALs I am talking about are still in top physical form since they regularly compete in ironman type triathlons and crazier stuff (but then if they became SEALs they were crazy to begin with! :D). And they are pretty big (not necessarily tall though) too. In fact, if you read books written by ex-SEALs like Marcinko or Delta (I forget the author) you will find that their personnel are not necessarily the lean rangy kind.
Remember, even in sports like American football, the avg. player has much more muscle bulk than your average athlete but do have pretty good endurance levels (I used to think that they didnt but was soundly disabused of that notion!)

Anyhow, I seem to be creating too much of a diversion from my original question,.....can anybody please throw some light on composition and
training of the VBSS teams? Thanks!

Rakesh wrote:Raja, physiologically speaking endurance does not necessarily equal bulky muscles. To sustain muscle mass, one needs to be eating high quality protein for muscles to grow during rest and complex carbs right after a workout for the body to repair itself from the stress of working out. If you don't do that, you will begin to lose muscle mass really fast.

Special forces personnel require a high level of endurance and that is not something a bulky figure can have, even if it is muscle mass. Now you do have the odd freak that defies all laws of nature. You probably met a couple of them. Your post states "ex-Seals". Ask them if they were that bulky during their SEAL tenure and I doubt they would be. Also a lanky figure has a greater ability to twist & contort into small spaces, which Special Forces do a whole lot of. An individual with bulky muscle mass would find that quite challenging.

But talking about muscle mass...your physical structure (defined by your DNA), depending on how you train, your eating/drinking habits and even your sleeping habits all ultimately determine the kind of muscle you will gain in the long term. There are people that are hard as 3 x 9, but yet they are quite lanky. Bollywood actor Hrithik Roshan is a classic example of a lanky guy, who is still quite muscular. But then you have Salman Khan who is the exact opposite of Hrithik Roshan, but is also muscular but bulky. See the difference?

Pennathur
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 14 Aug 1999 11:31

Bulk vs. performance

Postby Pennathur » 10 Sep 2007 06:13

What's Marcinko's combat record? Cyclists and marathoners are contemptuous of your Linebacker variety of strongmen simply because they are too bulky. By endurance do you mean the ability to work at a sustained cardio rate for very long times?

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Postby vina » 10 Sep 2007 06:50

Kersi D wrote:
JCage wrote:You dont need to sink a carrier- you just need to slow it down and make it vulnerable. A carriers greatest strength is its mobility. It can move where you dont anticipate, and launch. Slow it down, and it become a floating fortress- either out of the fight, or a liability for its defenders who have to defend it, come what may.



If you are very accurate and/or very lucky and you destroy two propellors the carrier may not be able to get sufficient speed to launch and recover its aircraft. Then the AC can be as good as gone for the time being.

Kersi


I think Nimitz class has 4 screws.. Yes..you are right though about getting props or even jamming the rudder .. Mission kills the carrier.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3189
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Sep 2007 07:10

Raja Bose wrote:However, when I said bulky, I did not mean something associated with 'Arnold-like supercharged pumped full of steroids' physiques which clearly wont do in SF. What I was referring to was that, compared to the avg. Indian SF trooper (or even Brits from the pics I have seen) the american SF guys (Delta incld.,....see pics of D-boys in afghanistan) seem to have a much bigger build and bulkier muscles.


don't make the mistake of thinking that a guy with Arnold type physique doesn't have endurance or even flexibility. You'd be surprised how much endurance a guy like arnold has (read up his encyclopedia of body building), its truly amazing.
regards,
CM.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Bulk vs. performance

Postby Raja Bose » 10 Sep 2007 08:22

Before being 'contemptuous' of Marcinko please look up his complete combat record :roll: The guy is a big mouth at times but no one doubts his extensive combat experience.....from serving in the teams during Vietnam (incld. later commanding ST2 if i recall) to running Red Cell and founding ST6 (now known as DEVGRU)....the SEALs CT unit.

By endurance I mean having the ability to complete one's mission with only available resources(incld food) at hand without falling by the wayside, period. This is not something most cyclists, marathoners or athletes have the ability to do ( so being contemptous means jack). I have run a marathon but I really doubt I can even trek 26 odd miles over rough terrain carrying a 100lbs of gear+weapons, avoid detection, keep calm under enemy presence and fire etc. etc. The point I am trying to make is....that no doubt the average buffed up arnie type of body builder is not suitable for SF type of work but that doesnt mean the US SF (unlike a lot of other SF) doesnt have a large number of individuals of big build....in fact from their pics and personal contact the impression I get is that they do. If that is good, bad or doesnt fit the mold...who cares :)

Pennathur wrote:What's Marcinko's combat record? Cyclists and marathoners are contemptuous of your Linebacker variety of strongmen simply because they are too bulky. By endurance do you mean the ability to work at a sustained cardio rate for very long times?
Last edited by Raja Bose on 10 Sep 2007 08:47, edited 1 time in total.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Postby Raja Bose » 10 Sep 2007 08:46

Arnie did have enormous capacity for workouts (incld. cardio) in the gym as seen in Pumping Iron and other videos.
However, the endurance I was referring is more of mission oriented endurance (in context of missions pulled by SF)....so this is endurance under extreme stress, limited availability of food etc. etc. Whether Arnie had this I have no idea....he is a remarkable guy regardless (and extremely smart!...just look at where he started and where he is now :lol:).

Cain Marko wrote:don't make the mistake of thinking that a guy with Arnold type physique doesn't have endurance or even flexibility. You'd be surprised how much endurance a guy like arnold has (read up his encyclopedia of body building), its truly amazing.
regards,
CM.

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Postby alexis » 10 Sep 2007 19:03

jmaxwell wrote:
IAF Jaguars ‘sink’ USS Nimitz, F-18s return the favour to INS Viraat
Manu Pubby
Posted online: Saturday, September 08, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print Email
...
However, USS Nimitz, which headed home today after reaching the end of its deployment period, will be missed by the Indian fighters.


What is the author trying to convey here? Why would it be "missed" by Indian fighters? Besides, I nary believe the sentiment is being reciprocated.


The author is just referring to the bonhomie between the sailors of 2 countries...Chill out...

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62926
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 10 Sep 2007 19:42

as a conincidence the mid80s film Navy SEALS *ing charlie sheen was
coming on TV today. quite a well made work imo...no arnie style 6-barrel CIWS cannon in handheld mode. the kit shown used was superb for mid 80s tech level.

I guess moral of story is if u got nightclubbing in coronado island or nearby san diego fleshpots, dont get into fights with anyone no matter how small looking :twisted:

Avid
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Postby Avid » 10 Sep 2007 22:54

Isn't this exercise one of the larger ones for the US also?

I noticed how a lot of the US newspapers have been largely silent (non-mention) of the exercises after they started. Scanning NYT, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, etc. have been pretty much silent. There was some mention before exercises started about how it was disturbing China, but nothing since.

Does anyone know about the presence of U.S. press corp during the exercises?

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 11 Sep 2007 04:40

A fine set pics and perhaps an omen of things to come? ;)
Image

Image

Image

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5568
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 11 Sep 2007 07:27

The best picture of Malabar 07-02!

Sea Harriers & F-18s

Warning: The above link has a picture which dimensions are 2592 (width) x 3872 (height) and will take a while to load on slow connections.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3891
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Postby Kartik » 11 Sep 2007 07:32

oh man !! those are the finest White Tiger pics ever !!!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 11 Sep 2007 08:43

Vick wrote:A fine set pics and perhaps an omen of things to come? ;)
Image

Image

Image

Image


Only a person with some serious experience in this type of photography can take such pretty pictures.

I wish I could be him/her.

emsin

Postby emsin » 12 Sep 2007 00:55

OT....deleted.
Last edited by emsin on 12 Sep 2007 01:15, edited 2 times in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 12 Sep 2007 00:56

Sea Harrier ditched

NEW DELHI: A Sea Harrier fighter of the Navy lost power just before landing on the deck of INS Viraat during the recently concluded multi-nation exercises in the Bay of Bengal on Sunday. The pilot, Lt. Commander A. Jain, ditched the aircraft in the sea and ejected safely.

Pennathur
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 14 Aug 1999 11:31

Postby Pennathur » 12 Sep 2007 02:15

I have no idea about Marcinko's combat record. If it is good, good for him. Did u mean carrying 500 kgs of gear over difficult terrain? A marathon is pretty tough. Lance Armstrong ran his first marathon this year and achieved a respectable 3+ hours and also said it's the toughest thing he has ever done. And also combatants these days don't fight unarmed.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Postby Kersi D » 12 Sep 2007 13:13

Raja Bose wrote:Actually, most of them seem to be quite hefty. I know a few ex-SEALs and they had pretty big builds..... This probably has more to do with the gym culture amongst US jocks and heavy duty weight lifting which leads to muscle bulk. Compared to them SAS or Para SF etc. men seem to be more lean and rangy. In the end, big or small, it all comes down to training and equipment (and Loads of Luck!!).

Though still waiting for an answer to my original question re. composition of the VBSS teams....


Surya wrote:Actually Raja

big and bulky guys do not make it in Seals

Seals are mostly rangy



I have seen a couple of British SAS / Special Forces guys at DEF EXPOxx. O boy he was built like a bull, a big bad bull !

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19527
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 12 Sep 2007 13:43

I've met both Seals and ex-SAS gents.Nice chaps,down to earth humour with the Brits,no giant sized freaks,very focussed though .

More on Malabar from Frontline.Excerpts.
The battle is on
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories ... 013100.htm

JOHN CHERIAN
Despite widespread protests, India joins in the naval exercises conducted in the Bay of Bengal by the U.S. and its regional allies.

U.S. NAVY/ MCS STEPHEN W. ROWE/AFP

Aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk in the Bay of Bengal on September 5 during the Malabar-2007, one of the largest ever joint military exercises.

THE Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government went ahead with the large-scale quadrilateral military exercises despite protests from the Left parties. The navies of the United States, Japan, Australia, Singapore and India participated in the exercise, code-named Malabar-2007, conducted in the Bay of Bengal from September 4 to 9. The operational area of the exercises stretched from Visakhapatnam to the Andaman islands.

This is the first time that the Indian Navy has participated in an exercise of this scale involving the navies of countries long identified as being part of the U.S.-led military alliance in the region. The exercises came in the wake of the signing of the 123 Agreement between India and the U.S. The Congress leadership has in recent weeks sent out strong signals that it is willing to sacrifice the government it heads in order to preserve India’s close strategic partnership with the U.S. The Hyde Act passed by the U.S. Congress and statements made by leading U.S. officials have explicitly indicated that once the Indian government accepts the nuclear deal, India’s foreign policy will have to be “congruentâ€
Last edited by Philip on 12 Sep 2007 15:03, edited 1 time in total.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9801
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Postby sum » 12 Sep 2007 13:58

[quote]The former Indian Navy chief, Arun Prakash, has written that China has created “weapon-client statesâ€

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Postby Raja Bose » 12 Sep 2007 19:29

Any details if the sea harrier is salvagable...in the past only a few of the crashed aircraft were written off i think (someone like Jagan can probably clarify)...these airplanes are tough. Unfortunately for carrier ops, ditching planes into the sea is not that uncommon as I thought at first :( The important thing is that the pilot is safe and sound.

Gerard wrote:Sea Harrier ditched

NEW DELHI: A Sea Harrier fighter of the Navy lost power just before landing on the deck of INS Viraat during the recently concluded multi-nation exercises in the Bay of Bengal on Sunday. The pilot, Lt. Commander A. Jain, ditched the aircraft in the sea and ejected safely.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Postby Raja Bose » 12 Sep 2007 19:37

I doubt any person big or not can carry 500 kgs :shock: of gear on their back over any kind of terrain for a length of time even with hooters girls manning drinks stalls all along the way!
Running a marathon is the toughest physical thing I have ever done....but a lot of it is pacing yourself and not letting josh overtake your hosh (or you can even lose your hosh (ie faint) on the way) ;)


Pennathur wrote:I have no idea about Marcinko's combat record. If it is good, good for him. Did u mean carrying 500 kgs of gear over difficult terrain? A marathon is pretty tough. Lance Armstrong ran his first marathon this year and achieved a respectable 3+ hours and also said it's the toughest thing he has ever done. And also combatants these days don't fight unarmed.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 13 Sep 2007 05:32

Japan could be permanent invitee for future Malabar Exercises

[quote]Though the navy was officially silent on the Malabar exercises, sources indicated that the series will stay multilateral. In effect, the just concluded multilateral version may not be “an exceptionâ€

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Postby Victor » 13 Sep 2007 08:34

Never noticed the low-viz roundels on Indian aircraft before. Comparison with the Jaguars roundels & fin flash show that simply removing the white makes a big difference. Hope IAF adopts this too.

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 300
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Postby sohamn » 17 Sep 2007 20:02

Both Japan and Australia were initially wary of the Indo - US nuclear deal. This is probably a way to engagge them so that they become favourable to india in future.


Return to “Military Exercises Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests