Indian Naval Discussion

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 17 Nov 2010 15:07

Gurinder,

Ravi has already replied with the key point. Hostile Intent. Even if armed only with a box cutter like 9/11 highjackers, if hostile intent is proven, then prosecution including and up to extermination is justified.

Gurinder P wrote:what if said accused were acting under duress?

Now, even if the accused are acting under duress, they are still committing an illegal act. And they need to suffer consequences of that illegal act. Suppose A kidnaps B’s son, and forces B to murder C, B is still committing a crime on C, and needs to bear consequences of his crime towards C.

Gurinder P wrote:most of all, I am stating that if fired upon fire back. If combatant is surrendering don't fire back and take him has a prisoner.

When a combatant is surrendering with his arms and ammo because he has changed his intent from hostile to benign, then yes, his surrender is acceptable. You will find loads of pictures in BR of IA happily accepting such surrendering militants. We have also formed Rashtriya Rifles Home & Hearth battalions of such surrendering militants.

Now, some combatants fire and inflict damage until the last bullet, and when out of ammunition, they surrender. Whenever they realize their situation is disadvantageous, they surrender. They surrender to request protection under human rights and Geneva Convention.

However, have they given up hostile intent? No. If they’re able to grab another rifle, they’ll restart the carnage.
When hostile intent is not given up, then the surrender is meaningless, and unacceptable.

Same goes for pirates. When they see a warship approaching, they find their situation disadvantageous and surrender. Have they given up hostile intent? No. Will they rob another unarmed merchant ship when the situation is in their favour? Yes, they will.

In this case, since hostile intent is proven, action can be taken against them including and up to extermination.

In conclusion, Gurinder, in a free society, you have full liberty to ask tough questions like the ones you are asking. At the same time, you also have the responsibility to understand why tough and unpleasant decisions and actions are carried out.

Aditya, correct, and since the Pakistani's are not in uniform, we have no legal obligation to offer surrender, however, the Indian Army takes additional due dilligence and offers surrender as SOP. Ofcourse, this is depending on the tactical situation.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 17 Nov 2010 15:24

Tsarkar,

Just one quible. Once a bullet is fired by the terrorist. The option of surrender is no longer with him.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 18 Nov 2010 07:04

Indian Navy in Favor of Logistics Support Agreement with United States

^^ Does the LSA give IN access to U.S. bases in the Indian Ocean? What exactly does this agreement mean to IN's force projection capabilities?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Nov 2010 08:22

the monsoon climate of india is unsuitable for good horses esp at the levels of medical science prevailing then. neither were much horse activity seen in ASEAN though they were contiguous with northern china and could import any number of horses desired. the chinese themselves faced a horrible time with horses in southern china like fujian or guangzhou.

instead of trying to build huge horse cavalry from scant resources, the indic kings went for war elephants which turned out to be unsuitable for mobile warfare in open terrain of the NW.

way to deal with mongol timurlane type raiders was probably not to engage them in conditions which only suited the mongols but follow a scorched earth policy , leave them nothing to loot but give enough of a scent of loot to lure them into the swamps of the middle ganga-yamuna (then) and the hills of central india where the climate and topology would not suit them and dozens of warlike communities would fall upon them and their baggage train. instead, indians attached importance to H&D and preferred to fight in or around delhi/punjab itself. maybe because the delhi sultanate itself was itself a usurper and was afraid of entering hostile land in central india. moreover the afghan tribes whom they had sent along to loot new lands in bihar and WB wouldnt be so keen on hosting the dilli billis.

having no center of gravity was why Shivaji was so successful and auranzeb, loin of the mughal empire and leader of the legions spent 28 yrs chasing shadows in the deccan.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 18 Nov 2010 12:53

SriSri wrote:Indian Navy in Favor of Logistics Support Agreement with United States

^^ Does the LSA give IN access to U.S. bases in the Indian Ocean? What exactly does this agreement mean to IN's force projection capabilities?

The LSA would require both countries to provide their bases, fuel and other kinds of logistics support to each others' fighter jets and naval warships. Logistical support with regard to weapons facilities would involve non-offensive military equipment. This support will involve cashless transactions on a reciprocal basis.

In keeping with the directions of winds of change, I think the LSA would be the logical next step. The pact will be particularly useful for contingencies, peacekeeping operations, unforeseen emergencies and also exercises. Knowing the pace and frequency of bilateral exercises with the army, navy and air force, this definitely makes economic sense. I think it will suit our interoperability, especially during disaster management and peace keeping missions.

Another point was that usually comes up was that the US might get more out of the pact then India will. Say 10 yrs ago, it would have been a valid point but with warmer relationships, more exercises and India's increasing global presence, especially IN's role in anti-piracy ops that point stands redundant.

one spoiler could be that this would be a peace time agreement which would require a case-by-case approval during wars.

Spoiler? I think its a great idea. This means at any given time India will not be obliged to provide its bases and other logistics but will do so only on case by case basis, retaining its option to potentially deny access to sensitive bases. This clause will help silence political critics to the agreements as well and makes perfect sense.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 18 Nov 2010 15:55

perhaps navy has Diego garcia in Mind.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Nov 2010 15:58

why not guam?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 18 Nov 2010 16:26

Guam will be great idea for the Navy to base out off. LM just one question, will the basing be legal in the absence for a RFI/RFP from a competing service provider.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Nov 2010 16:59

^^^ lets restrict our procurement discussion to only one dhaga at a time!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 18 Nov 2010 17:01

Ok.....

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 18 Nov 2010 17:18

What additional benefits DG or Guam will give us that cannot be achieved from say Andaman and Lakshya deep chains.. Besides, we can have berthing and fueling arrangements with Maldives, Madagascar where we already have listening posts and other defense arrangements.. Also, we can look forward for Singapore, Vietnam (already has offered us berthing and other rights), some nations from African continents (SA,Namibia and Oman for example).

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Nov 2010 17:25

we need to be in cam ranh bay and guam to support our vietnamese and taiwanese friends when the PLAN invades the spratley islands

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 18 Nov 2010 17:28

Guam, will give a presence in the eastern pacifc basin. The assets present on location will not have to traverce the vulnerable choke points to reach the area of concern.

So it is better then the andaman base.

DG OTOH, doesnot offers any such advantages for ships IMO. But for the land based air assets one cannot really say.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Nov 2010 18:59

DG makes an ideal blackjack base

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 18 Nov 2010 19:36

do you really need DG to use blackjack... the kind of range this bird has got with Air refueling available , it hardly matters where it is based...

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Nov 2010 19:38

want to make sure we can hit other side of the antartic plateau, just in case...

vishal · Post by **vishal** » 19 Nov 2010 07:15

Those interested in knowing what an Indian Coast Guard ship takes on board as fresh provisions can get a good idea from the link below. I don't imagine this list will be very different from what an IN ship stocks up on when it leaves port (but then again, it might be).

Source is the Indian High Commission (Singapore) website which has invited tenders for supply of this stuff for a CG ship visiting Singapore in Dec 2010.

http://www.hcisingapore.com/tendernotice.pdf

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 19 Nov 2010 07:34

Indian Navy Seeks Diver Propulsion Vehicles

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 19 Nov 2010 10:13

Lalmohan wrote:DG makes an ideal blackjack base

LM,

The IAF/IN has no blackjacks in service.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Nov 2010 16:16

The US wants Indian bases and dockyards available to it for heavy repair of its warships,R&R,etc.DG cannot provide these facilities,fundamental for any large navy,which is why it uses Singapore instead.IN such a logistics agreement,the value to the IN is minimal,as how many bases does the US have that are of use to us in the IOR,or Asia-Pacific? We do not need Diego Garcia and the next nearest US base is at Guam.Okinawa is Japanese territory and if we take up Vietnam's offer,we will have the perfect base/logistic faciulities at cam Ranh Bay,from where we can monitor the PLAN at will! Other naval agrements with Indonesia and Japan,SoKo-even Taiwan will be sufficient for us in th Asia-Pacific theatre.In the IOR we have a clos relationship with Lanka despite the Chinese building Hambantota Port,and also have security agreem,ents with the Maldives,Mauritius and the Seychelles,apart from traditioinal naval visits to friendly E.African countries and most of the Gulf states too.Who needs the US? Certainly not the IN! Is the IN being seduced by the US?

PS:THat too when the IN is at the worst of the receiving end of US largesse to pak.Air launched anti-ship Harpoon missiles.Orions and Perry class FFGs!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 19 Nov 2010 16:23

vishal wrote:Those interested in knowing what an Indian Coast Guard ship takes on board as fresh provisions can get a good idea from the link below. I don't imagine this list will be very different from what an IN ship stocks up on when it leaves port (but then again, it might be).

Source is the Indian High Commission (Singapore) website which has invited tenders for supply of this stuff for a CG ship visiting Singapore in Dec 2010.

http://www.hcisingapore.com/tendernotice.pdf

Our babus cannot spell even in singapore!!

Look at item no 54 (Foul dressed in kgs)

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 19 Nov 2010 16:25

Philip,

The advantage of Guam comes from having presence at a US naval base. DG is nearly uselss to the Navy. If Camm Ramh bay is actualy availabe am all for it.

The prefrence for Guam comes because had seen a report suggestiong that it is not available as a naval base for foriegn base. About one month ago.

WRT harpoon. Inida is also getting the same weapon. It means that the navy is already aware of every thing it can do. WRT Pery class. A ship that has been seen 30 years of hard usage given to the TSPN is a threat but not one that cannot be overcome by the Fleet.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 19 Nov 2010 16:30

SriSri wrote:Indian Navy in Favor of Logistics Support Agreement with United States

^^ Does the LSA give IN access to U.S. bases in the Indian Ocean? What exactly does this agreement mean to IN's force projection capabilities?

We will get shafted onlee.

We have no need of their bases at present while they desperately need ours.

We will immediately become the target of any unemployed jehadi with an african tooth ache urgently needing to meet with his promised virgins and boys.

We should stay very very clear. They have already managed to divide the Indian Armed forces on this issue and very soon will pay off with a visa or green card and whatnot.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 19 Nov 2010 16:50

SriSri wrote:Indian Navy in Favor of Logistics Support Agreement with United States

SriSri, you are posting a link to your website that is quoting the reporter of a less known news channel who does not quote any credible sources.

Now, BR has a written/unwritten policy (maybe moderators can clarify this) that any news item referring to less than credible sources is not posted.

I dont know, as content manager, what standards you have for your website, but I request you NOT to give publicity to such unsubstantiated rumours via BR.

BR loses credibility in this process.

The Armed Forces are clear, they do not want some US radios/datalinks, when we anyways want to use ours, that work great for our requirements (refer BEL Link 2 for P-8I).

Same goes for logistic agreement, the only reason we use US bases is for joint exercises. THERE IS NO STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT WHATSOEVER. US will not allow us to refuel at Diego Garcia or Guam after a missile attack on Pakistan or China. It is simply a buyer/seller relationship. There is minor alignment on general policing of sea lanes in Malacca/Horn of Africa, but that is all about it.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 19 Nov 2010 17:11

@tsarkar, Sir your opinion on NewsX, Vishal Thapar and Indo-U.S. strategic potential is your own and I don't want to challenge that. Nor are we trying to make an authoritative statement of the like "Hey, this is what will happen in the next few weeks!".

All we do is serve as a source for information and that sometimes includes opinion. That the LSA between India and the U.S. has benefits is a valid opinion. I don't see why this should be taboo and must not be spoken of. On the other hand, if a clarification to the contrary or any further information comes from the MEA, MoD, IN or any other source, we will gladly carry that as well.

The topic of IN leveraging the LSA has generated interest in this thread, however, whether it continues or not depends on the discretion of BRadmins and BR mods.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 19 Nov 2010 17:24

Philip wrote:The US wants Indian bases and dockyards available to it for heavy repair of its warships,R&R,etc.DG cannot provide these facilities,fundamental for any large navy,which is why it uses Singapore instead.IN such a logistics agreement,the value to the IN is minimal,as how many bases does the US have that are of use to us in the IOR,or Asia-Pacific? We do not need Diego Garcia and the next nearest US base is at Guam.Okinawa is Japanese territory and if we take up Vietnam's offer,we will have the perfect base/logistic faciulities at cam Ranh Bay,from where we can monitor the PLAN at will! Other naval agrements with Indonesia and Japan,SoKo-even Taiwan will be sufficient for us in th Asia-Pacific theatre.In the IOR we have a clos relationship with Lanka despite the Chinese building Hambantota Port,and also have security agreem,ents with the Maldives,Mauritius and the Seychelles,apart from traditioinal naval visits to friendly E.African countries and most of the Gulf states too.Who needs the US? Certainly not the IN! Is the IN being seduced by the US?

Agree with you...

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 19 Nov 2010 18:18

Pratyush wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:DG makes an ideal blackjack base
LM,

The IAF/IN has no blackjacks in service.

what?!?!? you are joking me??!?!

yes, i do know. i was making an oblique reference to the long rumoured rumours of blackjacks being leased by the IN, which never came to pass

it was pun onlee

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 19 Nov 2010 18:30

SriSri,

Some chap somewhere is speculating that is given coverage and publicity, others like members here start speculating based on that speculation, and in this volume of speculation, many erroneously draw conclusion from speculation.

As responsible citizens, we need to draw a line somewhere. Not all opinion needs to be circulated widely.

For example, “A” has an opinion that women should be burned as Sati. “B”, as a rational person, will logically conclude that “A”s opinion is not worthy of circulation.

At this point, I am requesting rationality be applied, that not all opinion be circulated, especially from those in the periphery like Vishal Thapar and not in the thick of things.

Is there any press release from IN/MoD on IN official PoV/stance? No.
Is there any verbatim quote from any IN personnel/MoD bureaucrat/minister on IN official PoV/stance? No.

I rest my case.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Nov 2010 19:47

Lalmohan wrote:yes, i do know. i was making an oblique reference to the long rumoured rumours of blackjacks being leased by the IN, which never came to pass it was pun onlee

You mean the backfire "Tu-22M3"

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 19 Nov 2010 20:29

yes yes one of those soviet swing wing thingies, minor point onlee

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 19 Nov 2010 21:18

LM it seems that my advance payment for the non existent lal chix has gone to your head. Please get your head examined.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 22 Nov 2010 17:02

Jumping the gun? LM awaits clearance for F-35 sales to India... (No RFP yet)

Lockheed Martin is also hopeful that the U.S. administration will approve its request to offer the F-35B or F-35C carrier version to India, replacing the Indian Navy fleet of Sea Harrier. India had already floated a request for information (RFI) for a carrier based fighter plane earlier this year. India is planning to launch several new aircraft carriers through the decade. For the near term, MiG-29K was selected as the principal naval aviation fighter aircraft.

http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/ ... sting.html

chilarai · Post by **chilarai** » 23 Nov 2010 13:00

Navy intercepts suspect ship off Diu coast

Mumbai: The Indian Navy on Tuesday intercepted a ‘suspect ‘Bahamas-flagged merchant vessel in international waters off Diu coast and after a standoff is now escorting the rouge ship to the Mumbai port.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 23 Nov 2010 18:34

Navy intercepts fleeing vessel, FIR against 22 crew members
TOI

Firing warning shots, the Indian Navy today intercepted a foreign ship off Diu coast and forced it to return to Mumbai after the vessel left the city port without fulfilling necessary formalities here. "Naval warship INS Angre fired warning shots ahead of the fleeing merchant ship's bow and stopped it. It is being escorted back to Mumbai. It would take at least eight hours for the vessel to reach here," defence spokesperson Manohar Nambiar said. The joint operation by Navy and Coast Guard followed a police complaint about the Bahamas-flagged merchant ship, Dynamic Striker, fleeing Mumbai port without completing necessary formalities, the spokesperson said.

Initially, efforts to establish contacts with the fleeing ship failed as it had switched off the communication system on board. According to police, an FIR has been registered for criminal breach of trust by carrier at the Yellow Gate Police Station against the 22 crew members from Ukraine and Russia. The vessel, with 34,752 metric tonnes of coal on board, arrived at the Mumbai port on October 28 and it was anchored there for unloading, police said. "The buyer company, Ispat Industries, paid USD 1.7 million in instalments for coal and the last payment was made yesterday," Assistant Inspector Milind Kurde at the Police station said. The coal was supposed to be unloaded here. However, the vessel left the port without informing anybody following which agents of the buyers complained to police and an alert was sounded, Kurde said. The ship crew will be questioned once the ship reaches here, he said.

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 23 Nov 2010 22:16

Defence-Aerospace article on rear radar for Indian P8's

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... craft.html

....and details:

http://www.telephonics.com/products/APS-143C(V)3.pdf

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 24 Nov 2010 04:15

^^^ In one of the AIR Intl issues a few months back they had a nice article on the USCG anyhow they had some good infor on the HC 144 and the HC 130s in service with the USCG.

The 144 uses this same radar mounted under the belly and has very good possitive feed back in terms of performance from the USCG. Even though we probably wont be getting the gold plated standard it is a good radar never the less.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 24 Nov 2010 16:44

khukri wrote:http://www.telephonics.com/products/APS-143C(V)3.pdf

Link not working

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Nov 2010 17:19

shukla wrote:
khukri wrote:http://www.telephonics.com/products/APS-143C(V)3.pdf
Link not working

APS-143C(V)3/OceanEyeTM Maritime Surveillance Imaging and Tracking Radar System

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 24 Nov 2010 17:42

^^^ Thanks a lot!

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 25 Nov 2010 09:25

Saab receives order for coastal surveillance system in India
SAAB press release

Defence and security company Saab has received an order from the Indian Maritime Authority, DGLL (Directorate General of Lighthouses and Lightships) for supply of a system for coastal surveillance for the entire Indian coast. The order is worth approximately 116 MSEK. The system that DGLL ordered comprises sensors to be installed along the Indian coast and equipment for regional and national control centers. Users of the system apart from DGLL will be the Indian navy, Coast Guard and DG Shipping.

Saab will implement the project which includes installation, commissioning, training and support together with their Indian partner, Elcome Marine Services. The project will start immediately and will be completed within 18 months. Our opinion is that Saab with this strategic order, which contains future options, will be able to develop further business in India within the marine domain.

"Our systems for monitoring sea traffic have been installed on several of the coasts in the world and also along inland waterways in Europe and in China. With this order we are strengthening our position further," says Gunilla Fransson, head of Saab´s business area Security and Defense Solutions. "It is equally satisfying that we now deepen and enhance our relation with India. This project along with the co-operations we already have makes India an important long term market for Saab."