Indian Naval Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 16 Jun 2009 00:13

Maybe the Russian intention was to draw India into the contract which would stop them from looking elsewhere and then raise the prices once they were trapped
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ya if india had looked at similar ship from where india could get a fully refurbished ship of 44000 tons.and even if india could get similar ship from west and that too would have come for no less than 3.5 to 4 billion

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 16 Jun 2009 02:37

Ajatshatru wrote:Andrew wrote:
India could get a fully refurbished ship of 44000 tons


Could you by any chance be referring to one half-burnt rust bucket which had it not been sold to India would have most probably ended in some Russian scrap yard? And a ship whose blue-print are missing....And what Russia is now doing (to justify delay in delivery & periodic price hikes) is similar to someone blaming the victim to hide their own deficiency(s)....and what's worse, breaking written contracts with impunity, delays and more delays regarding the time set for delivery and, moreover, learning carrier building all over again with India's money.

even if India could get similar ship from west and that too would have come for no less than 3.5 to 4 billion


Whether the ship from the West, during the period the contract was signed for Gorshkov, would have really cost 3.5 billion to 4 billion is a question open to debate but at least such a ship would have been a brand new one....claiming once refurbishment is finally over (if and when that finally happens), 20+ year old Gorshkov would be as good as new is quite different from acquiring a brand new ship (some difference between apples and oranges)....


main thing one must see for how many years groshkov has been put to sea just for 5-6 years
and after this it was brought to dry dock

if viraat being 50 years old can work till now and will do so in next decade as well then gorshkov is much newer and all of its systems will be new and will be perfect for next 40 years

and for delay you mentioned as if is its a very easy task,and if its easy task then why much smaller scorpene got delayed.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 16 Jun 2009 07:38

Ajatshatru wrote:
main thing one must see for how many years groshkov has been put to sea just for 5-6 years and after this it was brought to dry dock


But the fact still remains Gorshkov was launced in 1982 and commissioned in 1987 so it is a 20+ year old ship.

if viraat being 50 years old can work till now and will do so in next decade as well then gorshkov is much newer and all of its systems will be new and will be perfect for next 40 years


Shifting the goalpost now, ain’t we? So from talking of price comparisons with West in your last post ('even if India could get similar ship from west and that too would have come for no less than 3.5 to 4 billion'), suddenly now your focus shifts to making comparisons of Gorshkov with Viraat. Hmm....Make up your mind as to what exactly you want to say/convey in your posts.

and for delay you mentioned as if is its a very easy task


And your point being?


2 billion for refurbished ship or 4-5 billion for new ship so whats wrong in this

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 16 Jun 2009 08:13

a new carrier ship would last 50 years and be delivered reasonably on time and budget from places like spain or italy who have economy of scale via a large commercial ship building industry. south korea and japan too.

$4-$5b is the cost (without airwing) of a Nimitz class CVN, we are talking of Cavour sized ships here.

afaik the Cavour cost $1.5b Euros without airwing. A gorshkov sized ship would probably be around $2.0b

so $2.0b for a swank new ship -vs- $2.0b for AG is the equation. :((

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 16 Jun 2009 08:33

Guys, India is stuck with the Gorky. So, either pay up or drop the whole deal - I think refund is possible. Dropping would mean a hole in IN carrier dream.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2327
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 16 Jun 2009 08:56

Why don't they work harder on the IAC? However, the Gorky will come only with the spirit of compromise shown by "both" parties. India will have to pay more and Russia will have to give value for the extra dollar. All this nonsense about "Indian Greediness" or "Corrupt Indian" thrown about by the Russian lobby will not win them any friends and could lose them a strategic partner.

There needs to be a sincere admission of a mistake by the Russians, a spirit of compromise, a promise to deliver on time with value for the extra dollar and good timely after sales service. If that is not possible then we should drop the deal and move on to other items. The Russian Navy could take the Gorshkov instead and we could get extra Akula/Mig 29ks etc.

ovein
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 16:53
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ovein » 16 Jun 2009 14:29

Do we have any update on Shivalik and the next one. Last i got read about it was a BBC article saying the trial are going on (in mumbai). And going to be inducted by DEC. Any update on this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2959541.stm

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 652
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby k prasad » 16 Jun 2009 17:42

All this talk of equating Indian 'greediness' and Ruskie 'cheating' is absolutely moot:

1. India may have been a pushy customer during negotiations, indeed, we may have been lowballing them. But that was during negotiations, and what else are negotiations for. If it wasn't acceptable, Russia should never have signed the contract.

2. The process of signing the contract meant that Russia and the yard needed to know precisely how much work and cost it would entail. This may have been a fault by the IN people, but it is most certainly the bigger fault of the russians - when you bid for a tender, you need to know precisely what is your acceptable margin, and how much the work will entail. If the customer doesn't do his homework well and puts an unacceptably low figure thanks to his ignorance, it doesn't take away from your fault in agreeing to that figure and not explaining the work involved.

3. However, once they signed the contract for the agreed terms, it is incumbent upon the shipyard to perform and deliver as agreed... NO EXCUSES. Any nonsense of more work, etc etc is complete BS.

India didn't cheat Russia, because there was no contract that we have reneged upon. However, Russia has reneged upon its clear commitments and a legal contract it signed. So who has cheated whom is quite clear.

Now, let us forget that part since past is past... Sevmash has screwed up, and there is no way that they should expect us to pay extra. However, no one will work at a loss. Hence, India must pay the extra cost, but only that much. Sevmash should not expect to make a profit because that should have been their calculations. Simple. If India decides to be a bit generous and ensure that Sevmash is somewhat compensated for the loss of revenue due to them doing this work, then that is Sevmash's luck... it is under no circumstances, an obligation on our part.

And P.S... comparisons with Viraat, other carriers, etc are total BS... those were made when we decided to go for the contract. But they remain there. Once the contract was signed, that is the basis, not any other comparisons.

trushant
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 06 Jan 2009 18:02

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby trushant » 16 Jun 2009 18:47

2. The process of signing the contract meant that Russia and the yard needed to know precisely how much work and cost it would entail. This may have been a fault by the IN people, but it is most certainly the bigger fault of the russians - when you bid for a tender, you need to know precisely what is your acceptable margin, and how much the work will entail. If the customer doesn't do his homework well and puts an unacceptably low figure thanks to his ignorance, it doesn't take away from your fault in agreeing to that figure and not explaining the work involved.


As one who is dealing with project estimation and costing day in day out, I would partially agree to the above statement...Sir, I have seen scopes and estimations going haywire for variety of reasons. Not that all of it can be justified ..just that such things DO happen in projects business. Also many a times scope of the projects heavily depend on the circumstances that might crop up when one actually initiates work on those partcularly grey areas ... areas which are difficult to estimate on the drawing board. In such cases there are provisions made in the sale agreement for price escalations due to change in scope. These changes are verified by the client before approving the escalation. In case of Gorky we have heard these statements like " increase in scope of work previously not estimated" or "growth in work" to justify the revised price tag..but the proportion is staggering....colossal under estimation of work content. Bottomline ..precise project estimation is a mirage ... but escalation of $1.2 bn cannot be justified any time.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 16 Jun 2009 18:51

trushant wrote:
2. The process of signing the contract meant that Russia and the yard needed to know precisely how much work and cost it would entail. This may have been a fault by the IN people, but it is most certainly the bigger fault of the russians - when you bid for a tender, you need to know precisely what is your acceptable margin, and how much the work will entail. If the customer doesn't do his homework well and puts an unacceptably low figure thanks to his ignorance, it doesn't take away from your fault in agreeing to that figure and not explaining the work involved.


As one who is dealing with project estimation and costing day in day out, I would partially agree to the above statement...Sir, I have seen scopes and estimations going haywire for variety of reasons. Not that all of it can be justified ..just that such things DO happen in projects business. Also many a times scope of the projects heavily depend on the circumstances that might crop up when one actually initiates work on those partcularly grey areas ... areas which are difficult to estimate on the drawing board. In such cases there are provisions made in the sale agreement for price escalations due to change in scope. These changes are verified by the client before approving the escalation. In case of Gorky we have heard these statements like " increase in scope of work previously not estimated" or "growth in work" to justify the revised price tag..but the proportion is staggering....colossal under estimation of work content. Bottomline ..precise project estimation is a mirage ... but escalation of $1.2 bn cannot be justified any time.


india isn't going to pay 1.2 billion but it will come down to 800-850 million

SivaVijay
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 19:23

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SivaVijay » 16 Jun 2009 19:08

While all the above arguments are true for commercial projects , it cannot be applied in a similar way to defence deals that has geopolitical impact. There has been instances when countries have withheld even platforms for which another country might have fully paid because it is against its stand or National interests.
There is also another interesting angle here while we are annoyed for Russia not anticipating change(justified), we equally critical of the armed forces for changing or updating the specs in case of projects like Kaveri or Arjun(These are good systems no doubt) while actually it is the DRDO who should be ready to modify its specs once a project overshoots timelines and contemporary tech improves, :lol: :lol: . Not meant to go offtrack or anything just an observation.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 16 Jun 2009 19:26

Singha wrote:a new carrier ship would last 50 years and be delivered reasonably on time and budget from places like spain or italy who have economy of scale via a large commercial ship building industry. south korea and japan too.

$4-$5b is the cost (without airwing) of a Nimitz class CVN, we are talking of Cavour sized ships here.

afaik the Cavour cost $1.5b Euros without airwing. A gorshkov sized ship would probably be around $2.0b

so $2.0b for a swank new ship -vs- $2.0b for AG is the equation. :((


can you please describe what is the definition of "reasonable timeframe" i mean how many years???

if a new carrier will last 50 year and if gorshkov doesn't last 50 then it will last 40 years in sea

and cavour with 22000 tons empty weight built by Fincantieri is much smaller than groshkov/ADS ,and this ship too took 8 years from building to operation,so building a ADS size 37500 ton ship definitely will take over 10 years

french sole aircraft carrier took 13 years to bring it to operation.

and talking of "NAVANTIA" The three 6,250-tonne destroyers for australia, fitted with the hot-selling Aegis radar and fire control system, will set Australia back by Rs 32,000 crore (US $8 billion) with total tonnage for 3 ships will be under 20000 tons

now even if aegis system cost 500 million per ship then for 3 ships it will cost 1.5 billion US
and australians paying 6.5 billion dollars US for 20000 tons ,they will do it if india is ready to pay 4 billion for refurbishing

and the military hardware cost much less for its home country but its cost way more than for a foreign customer what it costs for its home country,for same destroyers which australia buying will cost spain much less than $ 8 billion US paid by australia

and if 22000 ton cavour cost italy 1.5 billion euros then a 37500 tons ship will cost well over 2.5 billion euros to italy and it will always cost well over 3 billion euros or 4 billion US for a foreign customer and with 10 years of timeframe.

so whats wrong in fully refurbished gorshkov built inside out cost us 2 billion dollars which will last 40 years

and for the new nimitz carrier the price is over 6 billion for US navy and even if a foreign country buys this carrier its not going to cost same what american navy paying it will be much higher

so talking of european shipyards can do what russians can't that too in "reasonable timeframe" and in 946 million initially agreed by india is wrong.knowing that rebuilding a ship inside out consumes time as much as building a new ship.
Last edited by Andrew DeCristofaro on 16 Jun 2009 19:49, edited 1 time in total.

SKrishna
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 21 Jan 2008 19:18
Location: Bombay
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SKrishna » 16 Jun 2009 19:49

While the debate on Russian and Indian greediness rages on, I found some info on the Payload on the P-8I and differences with the USN P-8A. The info is at the end part of the article. Dunno if this has been posted before.

http://www.zinio.com/pagesParisAirShow/ ... 726/pg-102
The Indian configuration calls for an aft-facing radar in addition to the nose radar to achieve 360º coverage, and a depth charge has been added to the weapons load. The Indian Navy has also asked that the Magnetic Anomaly Detector, which the US Navy deleted in oder to save about 3500 pounds, be retained on their aircraft.

The one item still being worked out is the release of the active anti-missile defense system, which contains a directed IR countermeasures module from Northrop Grumman. The technology remains a sensitive issue, and the international sale of this item is currently being discussed with the US.


Looks like P-8I will be more feature packed :D :D :D

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 16 Jun 2009 19:50

SKrishna wrote:While the debate on Russian and Indian greediness rages on, I found some info on the Payload on the P-8I and differences with the USN P-8A. The info is at the end part of the article. Dunno if this has been posted before.

http://www.zinio.com/pagesParisAirShow/ ... 726/pg-102
The Indian configuration calls for an aft-facing radar in addition to the nose radar to achieve 360º coverage, and a depth charge has been added to the weapons load. The Indian Navy has also asked that the Magnetic Anomaly Detector, which the US Navy deleted in oder to save about 3500 pounds, be retained on their aircraft.

The one item still being worked out is the release of the active anti-missile defense system, which contains a directed IR countermeasures module from Northrop Grumman. The technology remains a sensitive issue, and the international sale of this item is currently being discussed with the US.


Looks like P-8I will be more feature packed :D :D :D

and the price goes up i mean if we ask for more price definitely goes up by little amount
Last edited by Andrew DeCristofaro on 16 Jun 2009 20:18, edited 1 time in total.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 816
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Shameek » 16 Jun 2009 20:04

^^ The link does not work for me. How do you know the price went up? Does the article specifically say so?

SKrishna
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 21 Jan 2008 19:18
Location: Bombay
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SKrishna » 16 Jun 2009 20:05

Andrew,

Dunno if the IN is paying more for the P-8I than what the USN is paying for P-8A. Anyway we have no info if the other tech are same or the US version has more advanced specs. So are we paying more or not is very subjective to what we are getting in return. :)

SKrishna
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 21 Jan 2008 19:18
Location: Bombay
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SKrishna » 16 Jun 2009 20:07

shameekg wrote:^^ The link does not work for me. How do you know the price went up? Does the article specifically say so?


Try this

http://www.zinio.com/pagesParisAirShow/Day1/416085726/pg-102

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 16 Jun 2009 20:14

SKrishna wrote:Andrew,

Dunno if the IN is paying more for the P-8I than what the USN is paying for P-8A. Anyway we have no info if the other tech are same or the US version has more advanced specs. So are we paying more or not is very subjective to what we are getting in return. :)

price of P8 for USN will always be less than what india pay for P8.

and if india wanted israeli electronics in P8 i mean radar,optical sensors,ELINT,COMINT and israel is more inclined to add foreign party systems but then US would simply refuse for this
Last edited by Andrew DeCristofaro on 16 Jun 2009 20:19, edited 1 time in total.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 816
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Shameek » 16 Jun 2009 20:15

SKrishna wrote:Try this


Sorry buddy. Still does not work. But my point was that unless the article specifically mentions a cost increase it is wrong to speculate on that.

SKrishna
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 21 Jan 2008 19:18
Location: Bombay
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SKrishna » 16 Jun 2009 20:19

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:price of P8 for USN will always be less than what india pay for P8.

and if india wanted israeli electronics in P8 i mean radar,optical sensors,ELINT,COMINT and israel is more inclined to add foreign party systems but then US would simply refuse for this



Remember P-8A and P-8I are not identical. They are two versions of the same platform so they can have different costs! Elementary I think! 8)

But I simply don't get it why are you after the costs. Remember this deal is not linked to Groshkov deal nor are we facing renegotiation on agreed prices and so not comparable.

SKrishna
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 21 Jan 2008 19:18
Location: Bombay
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SKrishna » 16 Jun 2009 20:23

shameekg wrote:
SKrishna wrote:Try this


Sorry buddy. Still does not work. But my point was that unless the article specifically mentions a cost increase it is wrong to speculate on that.



This the link to newsletter from my mail. Earlier links were from zinio widget
http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416085726&o=ext

Goto page 100

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 16 Jun 2009 20:24

SKrishna wrote:
Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:price of P8 for USN will always be less than what india pay for P8.

and if india wanted israeli electronics in P8 i mean radar,optical sensors,ELINT,COMINT and israel is more inclined to add foreign party systems but then US would simply refuse for this



Remember P-8A and P-8I are not identical. They are two versions of the same platform so they can have different costs! Elementary I think! 8)

But I simply don't get it why are you after the costs. Remember this deal is not linked to Groshkov deal nor are we facing renegotiation on agreed prices and so not comparable.

price of P8 for USN will be always be less because P8 is home built
and home built stuff always cost less for in home customer

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Drevin » 16 Jun 2009 20:46

Andrew, SKrishna was referring to the P8I (not p8A) having a MAD, DIRCM, aft radar, charges etc.... integrated, hence the extra cost!! What part of that didn't you get.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 16 Jun 2009 21:28

Drevin wrote:Andrew, SKrishna was referring to the P8I (not p8A) having a MAD, DIRCM, aft radar, charges etc.... integrated, hence the extra cost!! What part of that didn't you get.

so if these things were not included in agreement signed which is 2.2 billion, so govt has to pay extra for these.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2470
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 16 Jun 2009 22:01

Different topic (the Gorshkov discussion is getting boring):

Do we know if the P8I will have the NSTL developed light-weight torpedo? Will the Khans allow it or do we have to use only the MK54 torpedo?

Also, any further news on Varunaastra heavy-weight torpedo testing? The last report on this was in December, stating that all tests have been successful and it will be inducted in 2009.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Katare » 16 Jun 2009 22:05

There was no tender/bid for Gorky, it was a bilateral deal between two parties. Togather they figured what it'll take/cost to get gorky up and running as per Indian needs. Indians had all the time in the world to inspect and ascertain hull condition and what it would need to get it fixed. They also had all the time in the world to examine if Russians are capable of doing it. For 10 years, numerous Navy, shipyard and MoD expert delegations visited Russia for inspections and negotiations.

The contracts are written in details with breakout of every piece that needs to be done with its cost to customer. If in the middle they find that additional work is needed, customer has to pay for it. Although you can blame the supplier for not being competent (or honest) enough to figure it out up front.

The best analogy is "taking your car to a mechanic". He'll look into it and will give you an estimate how much it would cost you to get it all fixed-up and running on the road. You agree to the price but while he is fixing it he might find additional work that needs to be done and would charge you for it. At that point of time you feel exactly like what India is feeling with the Gorkey. You suspect incompetence, dishonesty, fram-up and may be he is right. You would want and hope he delivers the working car within initial estimate. You know if you take car away from him you'll loose the money you already paid for the work.

The best practice is to go to a mechanic that you trust and have done business with before. India did that but sh!t happens. Next thin is to carefully inspect the additional work and make sure those parts are purchased and installed, India is doing that.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 16 Jun 2009 22:26

Katare wrote:There was no tender/bid for Gorky, it was a bilateral deal between two parties. Togather they figured what it'll take/cost to get gorky up and running as per Indian needs. Indians had all the time in the world to inspect and ascertain hull condition and what it would need to get it fixed. They also had all the time in the world to examine if Russians are capable of doing it. For 10 years, numerous Navy, shipyard and MoD expert delegations visited Russia for inspections and negotiations.

The contracts are written in details with breakout of every piece that needs to be done with its cost to customer. If in the middle they find that additional work is needed, customer has to pay for it. Although you can blame the supplier for not being competent (or honest) enough to figure it out up front.

The best analogy is "taking your car to a mechanic". He'll look into it and will give you an estimate how much it would cost you to get it all fixed-up and running on the road. You agree to the price but while he is fixing it he might find additional work that needs to be done and would charge you for it. At that point of time you feel exactly like what India is feeling with the Gorkey. You suspect incompetence, dishonesty, fram-up and may be he is right. You would want and hope he delivers the working car within initial estimate. You know if you take car away from him you'll loose the money you already paid for the work.

The best practice is to go to a mechanic that you trust and have done business with before. India did that but sh!t happens. Next thin is to carefully inspect the additional work and make sure those parts are purchased and installed, India is doing that.

but people just don't understand this simple thing,
mechanic is after all a human being not god
Last edited by Andrew DeCristofaro on 17 Jun 2009 00:48, edited 1 time in total.

Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Stan_Savljevic » 16 Jun 2009 22:39


SivaVijay
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 19:23

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SivaVijay » 17 Jun 2009 02:24

DDM is running loose out of control...... :( :( :(

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2327
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 17 Jun 2009 03:08

This constant parroting of the same theme by Andrew De is getting boring and he should reconsider his single focus posts. Please lighten up and do not post like a lobbyist. Please look at things from an "Indian" POV also sometime. I'm sure you know a lot and you could contribute to the wealth of this forum's knowledge base instead to the noise.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4464
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby putnanja » 17 Jun 2009 03:31

Is andrew the same guy as Markos who used to be a russian arms fanboy earlier?

SRay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SRay » 17 Jun 2009 03:37

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:
Drevin wrote:Andrew, SKrishna was referring to the P8I (not p8A) having a MAD, DIRCM, aft radar, charges etc.... integrated, hence the extra cost!! What part of that didn't you get.

so if these things were not included in agreement signed which is 2.2 billion, so govt has to pay extra for these.


Is it your speculation that these things were not included in the agreement? Try reading the article put up (pg 100). It reads as if these things were included.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 17 Jun 2009 06:17

Vivek K wrote:This constant parroting of the same theme by Andrew De is getting boring and he should reconsider his single focus posts. Please lighten up and do not post like a lobbyist. Please look at things from an "Indian" POV also sometime. I'm sure you know a lot and you could contribute to the wealth of this forum's knowledge base instead to the noise.

i am no one's lobbyist and no one's arms fanboy

if yu guys can post what yu think which is right to post so do i according my limited thinking power.

and i never commented on anyone whether he/she is lobbying for someone or not like yu people writing about me.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests