No. I am saying we should shut our mouths rather than shutting down the military. Let each equipment that we induct do the talking.
IAF Chronicles - A side view of whats going on behind the closed doors in New Delhi
- Thread starter Aashish
- Start date
- Status
No. I am saying we should shut our mouths rather than shutting down the military. Let each equipment that we induct do the talking.
You have not understood the point that I was making. I was not advocating shutting down the military rather I was advocating shutting up the mouths when we are incapable to take any action.
There are multiple reasons why India does not take any action from focusing on economy to Pakistan having nukes which are all very valid and I fully support the policy being followed by the GoI.
But giving warning after warning with no action on the ground will result in India losing its credibility. This is what needs to be avoided.
More diversions! What are you trying to prove? That you can google better than me?
I can confront you with a million irrelevant question in the same breath. But that's not why we're here are we?
It means, the IAF got almost a decade to deliberate on and study their proposal and come out with new requirements when GoI agreed to consider acquiring new heavy transports.
You keep repeating the same illogical argument again and again without backing it up with actual facts.
I just proved to you there was indeed a requirement, with IAF conducting a competition, declaring the C-17 winner, and GoI making sure there was enough funds for its acquisition.
Show me one article where IAF or GoI criticizes the C-17 deal.
So the equipment is pre-positioned at the forward bases without the manpower to operate and maintain them? You are indeed a piece of work!
Do you know that the bulk of mobilization would still be done on rails? And not by air?
Only the forward elements would be airlifted that too to their respective HQs. From there, they would be transported by road or in the case of availability of ALGs, STOL transports like the An-32, IL-76 and the C-17.
And you were arguing IAF wanted more A-330s for this work *slow claps*
Tell me, have there ever been any mass mobilization exercises conducted using requisitioned civil airliners? Why do you think that is? Rack your brain, i'm sure something will click into place.
Calling for backup now are we? *tut* *tut*
I'll make it simple for you.
Show me one public document predating the C-17 and A-330MRTT competition where IAF calls for acquiring transports solely to help with mass mobilization (you did say A-330s were considered for this role and not as refullers primarily).
Then we'll talk.
@Aashish
It's been days when we got the updates..
I felt the honey moon period of Infos were spent at previous forum ..
May be we ll enjoy again after 2019 elections.
Lol, also, I hope he adds me back to his tag list here on this thread; by the time I finally got him to add me to his list at the last place, it ended up shutting down lmfao.
Absolutely, there is a Jewish saying that I read once regarding that; I don't remember it verbatim but it was something along the lines of: "there is no surer way to be hated than to be weak."
I'd like to read more details/get the background info on those points, if you're willing to share them, sounds quite interesting (especially the points I bolded).
problematic is for those who belonged to the family of those martyrs.
You are arguing in circles.
We have conventional superiority. That's why they resort to guerrilla type tactics, which we respond to in kind.
We have no interest in war. Our military buildup is not aimed at destroying countries after all. If we go to war it's because the other side forced it.
guerrilla type tactics are part of battle field tactics in conventional warfare.
Military tactics - Wikipedia
Why don’t we adopt asymmetric warfare and be proactive in it. Why should we always be reactive to their actions.
I was merely being sarcastic there. He did say that the equipment of the entire strike corp was pre-positioned.
Beyond will be imprudent. And falcon is quite bang on certain aspects here. C-17s were politically pushed. IL-76s were performing the same tasks as they are now performing. IL76s don’t have airframe life, and are being conserved as funding for new acquisition is short, not because of what you said earlier. And I would know that quite well
The whole point of contention was when @Falcon said IAF preferred A-330s over the C-17s which is factually wrong. I'm speaking from the IAFs POV here.
Inherent drawbacks with the Russian transport fleet were observed during mass exercises and mobilization, especially due to their low availability. IAF with the consensus of GoI, drew up plans to induct the C-17 (even if it was a politically motivated deal, there was an urgent requirement to bolster the heavy lift fleet as well)
IAF has never considered inducting an aircraft type merely for transporting troops, which is where i disagreed with @Falcon, especially the A-330.
Could you point me towards any open source reports that covered the exercise?
I don't believe I saw that post.
Interesting, so US-Indian relations were good enough by that point that America seriously offered India the Abrams?
I hadn't heard that before, but that's not too surprising. Was there any other involvement of SF or intel operatives? What else did India do during Op Enduring Freedom? Because I read on forums like these from time to time that India was involved, but the details are usually scarce, and the only thing that regularly gets mentioned is intel sharing but I knew there was more to it than that.
This is in regards to the point about Afghanistan or the Philippines?
The exaggeration you put in your example kills the credibility of your argument.
Do you really think that the hypotheses you mention would be sufficient for France to penalize India?
The case of Russia invading a European country is still much stronger. And in addition it was done in agreement with the Russians who had all the ToT necessary to build themselves similar boats (the initial contract provided for two boats built in France and two in Russia), which had the whole of the training crews, who were able to export helicopters to Egypt, and finally did not apply penalties to France because they were so satisfied.
My statements are as credible as @Bon Plan 's claim that French withdrew from Russian Mistral deal not under US pressure but to protect its own interests in EU.
It was well known that prior to the coup in Ukraine, Germany & France were sprinting ahead to improve the relations with Russia. All that changed after the coup and pressure from US on EU to do more.
Remember EU is Russia's one of the biggest gas customers and they did not have any incentive to make the relations worse.
- Status