INS Vikrant News and Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3533
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 04 Jan 2021 21:23

The comparison between air power and naval power is silly, though there is a question of whether air power is delivered from an aircraft carrier or shore. So is the comparison between Submarines and Aircraft Carriers.

At the minimum aircraft carriers, even our STOBAR variety, offer an air defence bubble for a naval task force, thus enabling sea control for the fleet. Secondly, through aircraft carriers we can strike threats and targets far away from shore. Imagine a task force with Vikramaditya, Kolkata, Nilgiri, Talwar, Kamorta sailing together - how many navies have a were withal to take that on?

Our CNS has said that IN's doctrine expects it to achieve sea control in at least 2 areas east and west to our landmass. We cannot achieve sea control with land based airpower, though it can certainly complement our fleet at sea.

I argue in favour of a second Vikrant class carrier, even though it is a compromise choice as I believe its a more realistic choice.

AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby AkshaySG » 04 Jan 2021 21:46

Aditya G wrote:The comparison between air power and naval power is silly, though there is a question of whether air power is delivered from an aircraft carrier or shore. So is the comparison between Submarines and Aircraft Carriers.

At the minimum aircraft carriers, even our STOBAR variety, offer an air defence bubble for a naval task force, thus enabling sea control for the fleet. Secondly, through aircraft carriers we can strike threats and targets far away from shore. Imagine a task force with Vikramaditya, Kolkata, Nilgiri, Talwar, Kamorta sailing together - how many navies have a were withal to take that on?

Our CNS has said that IN's doctrine expects it to achieve sea control in at least 2 areas east and west to our landmass. We cannot achieve sea control with land based airpower, though it can certainly complement our fleet at sea.

I argue in favour of a second Vikrant class carrier, even though it is a compromise choice as I believe its a more realistic choice.


What "far away" targets or battles are we planning to have which for which squadrons based at Andaman and Nicobar, Thanjavur and Goa wouldn't be close enough. Not to mention the larger loads they could carry with a land takeoff so even external fuel tanks come into play

All the crucial points like Malacca, BOB, Arabian Sea are easily covered by them. Unless the Navy wants to sail a CBG straight into the South China Sea I can't think of any defensive (or even offensive) operations the Navy may have to do which would require getting closer

I don't mind a second Vikrant class either but that's mostly because of the 2 active, 1 in refit theory rather than any extra ability it adds to the 2 already serving.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1930
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 04 Jan 2021 23:10

Malacca is not the only strait connecting the Pacific to the Indian ocean! There are others that can be used - Sunda straits, Lombok straits - as long as the flotilla is supported by tankers. Then there are foreign bases. If there is a large chinese naval presence at Djibouti, dreams of blocking the Chinese navy around Indonesia go down the drain. As Chinese power rises, its logical to think that there will be atleast a few countries in Africa or Asia who would be willing to provide them naval bases. Yes, their primary goal today is Taiwan, but a Chinese CBG permanently stationed in the Indian ocean is not such an impossibility. If they have a permanent naval presence at Gwadar, we should be ready for another round of Pak sponsored blood letting in India, this time under the cover of a Chinese treaty.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 04 Jan 2021 23:34

kit wrote:Well what will a Su do after it gets there., you are not going to bomb all the time :mrgreen:

A ship has staying power, put in place expeditionary forces, recover assets, project power and change the status quo if needed.

Very good point. Now convince the IAF and the Army :) And obviously the CDS.

There is no end to this discussion. And Air Forces and Navies the world over, argue over the value of aircraft carriers.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 04 Jan 2021 23:36

srai wrote:CDS also said this regarding MMRCA-2 :wink:

Very true. And right after that statement from the CDS, the IAF Air Chief came out the next day and said that the 114 MRFA contest is still on.

Now the Air Chief is stating that they are debating whether to take more Rafales vs continuing with the MRFA contest.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2021 01:57

A ship may have staying power,true,but an N-sub has a 90+ day endurance entirely UW, undetected,as an Akula famously did patrollling off the US coast not too long ago.An N-sub's endurance limited to the the crew's endurance and on-board supplies.

One Backfire carrying at least 10 LR supersonic ASMs is the equiv to half a sqd. of MKIs.It is also a strategic bomber and in that role can carry stand-off LRCMs tipped with N-warheads adding more nuclear teeth to our triad. No current carrier fighter from east or west possesses this capability.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3533
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 05 Jan 2021 01:57

AkshaySG wrote:...
What "far away" targets or battles are we planning to have which for which squadrons based at Andaman and Nicobar, Thanjavur and Goa wouldn't be close enough. Not to mention the larger loads they could carry with a land takeoff so even external fuel tanks come into play

All the crucial points like Malacca, BOB, Arabian Sea are easily covered by them. Unless the Navy wants to sail a CBG straight into the South China Sea I can't think of any defensive (or even offensive) operations the Navy may have to do which would require getting closer

I don't mind a second Vikrant class either but that's mostly because of the 2 active, 1 in refit theory rather than any extra ability it adds to the 2 already serving.


There is plenty of ocean where an enemy fleet may be operating - the flotilla may already be in the Indian Ocean by the time war is declared.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 05 Jan 2021 02:05

Aditya G wrote:At the minimum aircraft carriers, even our STOBAR variety, offer an air defence bubble for a naval task force, thus enabling sea control for the fleet. Secondly, through aircraft carriers we can strike threats and targets far away from shore. Imagine a task force with Vikramaditya, Kolkata, Nilgiri, Talwar, Kamorta sailing together - how many navies have a were withal to take that on?

The Chinese CATOBAR vessel can and will sink them all. That is what we are being told in this thread.

STOBAR is inferior to CATOBAR. And a STOBAR cannot provide an air defence bubble. Only a CATOBAR can.

Based on the naval strategy being displayed here, the upcoming Vikrant is a sheer waste of money because she is a STOBAR. She will be ineffective against a PLAN CATOBAR vessel.

Aditya G wrote:Our CNS has said that IN's doctrine expects it to achieve sea control in at least 2 areas east and west to our landmass. We cannot achieve sea control with land based airpower, though it can certainly complement our fleet at sea.

I argue in favour of a second Vikrant class carrier, even though it is a compromise choice as I believe its a more realistic choice.

The realistic choice would be that, considering the budgetary shortfalls currently plaguing the MoD. Also time is an issue.

10 years for another Vikrant Class vessel versus 15 to 20 years for a CATOBAR vessel. The ball lies in the Navy's court.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2644
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 05 Jan 2021 04:28

Building a 2nd Vikrant class makes a lot of sense. STOBAR or CATOBAR, the air wing provides an air bubble.

And making it domestically provides economic benefits that will outweigh the investment. Importing a carrier or other ships is bad juju - hurting economic security and making IN dependent on the vendor for 30-50 years.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4446
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby kit » 05 Jan 2021 04:32

Rakesh wrote:
kit wrote:Well what will a Su do after it gets there., you are not going to bomb all the time :mrgreen:
A ship has staying power, put in place expeditionary forces, recover assets, project power and change the status quo if needed.

Very good point. Now convince the IAF and the Army :) And obviously the CDS.
There is no end to this discussion. And Air Forces and Navies the world over, argue over the value of aircraft carriers.


An exAdmiral CDS is what we need :mrgreen:

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 05 Jan 2021 06:20

Philip wrote:A ship may have staying power,true,but an N-sub has a 90+ day endurance entirely UW, undetected,as an Akula famously did patrollling off the US coast not too long ago.An N-sub's endurance limited to the the crew's endurance and on-board supplies.

One Backfire carrying at least 10 LR supersonic ASMs is the equiv to half a sqd. of MKIs.It is also a strategic bomber and in that role can carry stand-off LRCMs tipped with N-warheads adding more nuclear teeth to our triad. No current carrier fighter from east or west possesses this capability.

where are we going to get backfires? Russia even sold their assembly line including the jigs to china.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby chola » 05 Jan 2021 07:54

^^^ What?! When the hell did this happen?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby chola » 05 Jan 2021 07:57

Rakesh wrote:10 years for another Vikrant Class vessel versus 15 to 20 years for a CATOBAR vessel. The ball lies in the Navy's court.


I think the IN would gladly order and receive a STOBAR in 10 years as long as it doesn't affect them getting a CATOBAR in 20 years.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2590
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby John » 05 Jan 2021 08:36

chola wrote:^^^ What?! When the hell did this happen?

It didn’t happen, please let’s not derail the thread with Cold War garbage that is backfire, only combat sortie it ever flew against a competent opponent it got shot down (Georgia knocked down a recon version with outdated SAM),

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 05 Jan 2021 11:04

chola wrote:^^^ What?! When the hell did this happen?

https://theaviationist.com/2012/12/29/b ... ObwpYnjlps

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby vivek_ahuja » 05 Jan 2021 11:06

John wrote:
chola wrote:^^^ What?! When the hell did this happen?

It didn’t happen, please let’s not derail the thread with Cold War garbage that is backfire, only combat sortie it ever flew against a competent opponent it got shot down (Georgia knocked down a recon version with outdated SAM),


:rotfl:

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 05 Jan 2021 11:11

vivek_ahuja wrote:
John wrote:It didn’t happen, please let’s not derail the thread with Cold War garbage that is backfire, only combat sortie it ever flew against a competent opponent it got shot down (Georgia knocked down a recon version with outdated SAM),


:rotfl:

Even during Iran Iraq war, Iran took out two of Iraq's TU-22's when they tried to bomb Iran.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 05 Jan 2021 11:14

Please take the Tu-22 discussion to another thread.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 06 Jan 2021 06:08

Will take, but just for the record of vulnerability of CBGs, pl.read the entire post and relative merits of the IN's assets.One cannot discount the vulnerability of CVs to land-based maritime strike aircraft which have a range of 4000km equipped with ASMs of 600km to 2000km range. For the benefit of RajS, China got nothing.70+ 22s are still available out of the hundreds built. The USN still regards the 22 as a v.serious threat to its carriers.

With respect to a STO vs CAT spat, the 29Ks carry KH series supersonic ASMs,and when BMos- NG arrives, the smaller version meant to equip our med. fighters across the board,will be able to carry 2 to 3 each. 29Ks also will be equipped with Astra, Astra-ER too when it arrives,with a reported 150 km+ range. Therefore it is very simplistic to say that a Chin CAT CV will prevail over an IN STO CV. It depends a lot upon who detects the other first. Secondly, upon detection of a PLAN CBG, cooperative engagement by surface combatants, LR maritime strike aircraft,subs, plus the STO CBG using a variety of missiles will be the norm. The missiles will range from BMos-S/H, Kalibir/ Klub, K-15, KH ASM series, Nirbhay,etc. In addition, land/island based BMos- S/H LRCM batteries will add to the offensive firepower. A PLAN CBG will face a massive sustained and saturated attack from the various assets mentioned. The USN too is currently pondering the survivability of its larger supercarriers against the new missile threats including drone swarms and a case for smaller light CVs to play their part too ,increase survivability with numbers ,is being made out.

PS: A Nov 11/'20 U-tube v-clip gives details about 22M3s and the US CVs being unable to set up " barrier defences " against 22M3s equipped with LR supersonic and Kinzhal hypersonic ASMs. Similarly, much lesser capable PLAN CVs will be equally vulnerable against similar weaponry of the IN from both its STO carrier fighters, other assets outlined above and IAF strike fighters like MKIs. A PLAN CBG daring to ingress into the IOR will face multiple attacks from the IN's new "maritime theatre command" which will include IAF assets,not just our STOBAR CVs and will surely be "in harms way."

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 06 Jan 2021 10:44

PPS: SoKo is to build a new 40,000 t "light" CV based upon its Dokdo amphib, but without a well deck,which will carry around 20 JSF fighters and assoryed helos. It will feature a twin island config like the RN's QE-2 CVs.

Our Vikrant class CV of 45,000 t can easily be stretched to around 50K+ t and built much faster than IAC-1, with much commonality of machinery and eqpt. If the decision to build it is taken this year, we could have it launched within 5 years time and commissioned around 2007/8 with sustained effort. Larger lifts and a more capable carrier fighter than the 29Ks could be accommodated,such as the Rafale-M ,commonality with the IAF,while extra nos. of 29Ks would ensure that they too could cross deck with IAC-2. If the IN can only get off its high horse about a 65K t EMALS CV ,which will cost a bomb and arrive only 15 yrs. later,too late for any spat with the PRC in the intervening years, before 2030 we would have 3 carriers operational,plus enough experience and foresight to see what the next flat-top
design should be for the future given the advent of hypersonic missiles,drones, and new stealthier subs. This is a v.doable option which could pass the CCS .The IN while asking for the 65K CV,should have this option B in its pocket, plus push for the 2 amphibs,essential too for defending our islands plus IOR committments,with a revised flight deck layout similar to IAC-1.
The desi NLCA could operate from these amphibs as light strike aircraft,being smaller could perhaps hold more,along with 29Ks if need be. This flexibility will give the IN several air-capable platforms which could deal with a crisis involving the PRC and Pak axis on both seaboards.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 18 Mar 2021 19:37

https://twitter.com/ThingsNavy/status/1 ... 59366?s=20 ---> Until 1997, INS Vikrant was the flagship of Eastern Fleet. After her de-commissioning in 1997, the Eastern Fleet has been without an aircraft carrier. Its aircraft carrier capability will get restored after INS Vikrant joins the Eastern Fleet.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 18 Mar 2021 22:31

Title is incorrect :)

India’s new aircraft carrier, Vikrant, may get 5th generation fighter
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... hter/?s=09
17 March 2021

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 31 Mar 2021 19:47

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13771 ... 69990?s=20 ---> The third Aircraft Carrier, INS Vishal (IAC-2) is not only essential, it will also likely see service earlier than expected. This view is not shared by some. But IN's global vision appears more congruent with the overall strategic aspirations of the nation.

https://twitter.com/vaimaniki/status/13 ... 32488?s=20 ---> Not unless IN comes up with a realistic plan rather than insisting on basically an imported CATOBAR AC + air wing - hull for the third AC and going on like the IAF with "no plan B" attitude.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2626
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 03 Apr 2021 22:01

Philip wrote:... To insinuate that they were " corrupt" just because they did not plump for Arjun is highly improper and derogatory. They deserve far more respect and for their decisions which were also approved by the govts. of the day....

Philip ji, would appreciate if you practice what you preach. You yourself have quite recently insinuated the top brass of the IN as being 'brainwashed' by the USN for wanting a large carrier.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 05 Apr 2021 11:06

Being "brainwashed" is not an allegation of corruption,but the years of IN and USN carrier interaction and huge USN pressure for the 3rd CV for the IN,mirroring the USN's sea control/ expeditionary warfare doctrine, which in reality was a push for the IN buying US carrier tech like EMALS and equipping them with Boeing's F-18 SHs which was reaching production end. This influenced a section of top brass of the IN in thinking in that direction.In fact,ad nauseum some of the IN's top brass in recent times, demanded the 3rd. CV as if it was a matter if life and death for the IN! I posted a year+ ago my interaction with 2 ex-chiefs,one an aviator himself, on the IN's lust for the 50+ naval fighters,3rd.CV,etc. He laughed and said that he was highly sceptical of it and that " it won't happen".

The decision to dump CV#3 and build SSNs instead is the best decision taken by the MOD thanks in the main to Gen.Rawat and the commanders of the IN who after much debate understood the increasing vulnerability of large CVs today to newer more deadly missiles and the huge extra cost of the accompanying carrier screen. Yesterday the CDS on telly spoke identically to what I've been saying for decades,leveraging the land mass of India and our island territories on both seaboards, where we could even station some of our lethal assets there in order to sanitise the IOR and operate in the " Indo- Pacific".

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4446
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby kit » 05 Apr 2021 13:05

I think it should be put into perspective that the IAC 2 is delayed rather than cancelled !!

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3458
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Vips » 05 Apr 2021 20:05

Philip wrote:Being "brainwashed" is not an allegation of corruption, but the years of IN and USN carrier interaction and huge USN pressure for the 3rd CV for the IN,mirroring the USN's sea control/ expeditionary warfare doctrine, which in reality was a push for the IN buying US carrier tech like EMALS and equipping them with Boeing's F-18 SHs which was reaching production end. This influenced a section of top brass of the IN in thinking in that direction.In fact,ad nauseum some of the IN's top brass in recent times, demanded the 3rd. CV as if it was a matter if life and death for the IN! I posted a year+ ago my interaction with 2 ex-chiefs,one an aviator himself, on the IN's lust for the 50+ naval fighters,3rd.CV,etc. He laughed and said that he was highly sceptical of it and that " it won't happen".


Anyone with even an iota of normal IQ would know that another (another and not 3rd) aircraft carrier is indeed a very pressing requirement. By the time it is ordered and built it will be another 10-15 years by which time the Vikramaditya (of 1987 vintage) would be 45 years old and need replacement. If the the Russians had another twin of this rust bucket available then of course the case for the 3rd aircraft carrier with the MIG 29K (no less) would have been justified. :mrgreen:

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 05 Apr 2021 21:20

Let Philip say what he has to. He has an earned a reputation of having a Russian bias. Just let him get it off his chest. Best not to reply.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 05 Apr 2021 21:34

kit wrote:I think it should be put into perspective that the IAC 2 is delayed rather than cancelled !!

As of now, it is only a press report. Until the DAC clears the acquisition of six SSNs...it will remain only a media story. Now assuming the media story turns out to be true, then IAC-2 will be pushed further down the timeline (when funds are available). Funds for IAC-2 could be released next year or it could happen in 2025 or some point in between. But it will take 15 years - at minimum - for the vessel to arrive from when the keel is laid. A lot of design changes (CATOBAR or STOBAR, tonnage of vessel, on board equipment, aircraft type(s), etc) will also occur, until the design is finalized and the keel is laid. So yes, IAC-2 is delayed but *NOT* cancelled.

Nothing is concrete as of yet. The only thing that is certain, is there is no money for every naval program to move ahead.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 05 Apr 2021 21:39

See these tweets....

https://twitter.com/cvkrishnan/status/1 ... 88672?s=20 ---> That submarine article* was just tabloid! Three lines of a unnamed source info. Two to three paragraphs of fiction and two more paragraphs of space fillers!

https://twitter.com/daeroplate_v2/statu ... 03778?s=20 ---> If you mean the six SSN, it just reflects strategic reality. No genius needed to say INS Vishal was an American planted fantasy, but without their bag of money.

https://twitter.com/cvkrishnan/status/1 ... 86821?s=20 ---> The logic was staring at our faces for more than an year. So it is not like Shishir scooped something. And the rest of the article was a mix of no nothings, speculation and pure fiction. A fifth standard kid could've written that article.

*This is the article these above tweets are referring to...
For Navy, 6 nuclear-powered submarines take priority over 3rd aircraft carrier

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 06 Apr 2021 03:43

Philip, can you please use spell check when you type? How many times must I say this?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 06 Apr 2021 03:46

Where are the errors? Sorry if they exist.
Post- Balakot we supposedly took 21 days to locate it,an Agosta AIP boat,sent to Pak's western extremities for survival!
Last edited by Philip on 06 Apr 2021 03:53, edited 2 times in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 06 Apr 2021 07:51

Philip wrote:Where are the errors? Sorry if they exist.

Click on the edit button on any of your posts and you will see.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 40 guests