If IN is certain about their requirement and in a scenario of no in house r&d, we are not supposed to pitch for ToT.With ToT, we can produce any number, but the IN doesn't want more Scorpenes. They want much bigger subs.
If IN is certain about their requirement and in a scenario of no in house r&d, we are not supposed to pitch for ToT.With ToT, we can produce any number, but the IN doesn't want more Scorpenes. They want much bigger subs.
If IN is certain about their requirement and in a scenario of no in house r&d, we are not supposed to pitch for ToT.
Blame it on the MoD & CCS & by extension the GoI for letting IN having its way with the P-76I w/o exercising the follow on clause for at least 3 more Scorpenes in the previous contract.South Korea played it smart. Bought enough submarines of a similar class for a good production run brining down costs, kept buying through a single vendor , meaning excess costs on ToT acquisition and infrastructure creation was minimised and ensured that there was no break in the production activities, meaning the trained hands were never lost.
Similar models implemented by Turkey. And to some extent by Japan.
The most important thing is that the production line should not be idle. The moment the production line goes idle, we are back to square one.
And we could end up importing from them. I think that is the only design with enough VLS and displacement that we are looking for. Also its in production.South Korea played it smart. Bought enough submarines of a similar class for a good production run brining down costs, kept buying through a single vendor , meaning excess costs on ToT acquisition and infrastructure creation was minimised and ensured that there was no break in the production activities, meaning the trained hands were never lost.
Similar models implemented by Turkey. And to some extent by Japan.
The most important thing is that the production line should not be idle. The moment the production line goes idle, we are back to square one.
South Korea played it smart. Bought enough submarines of a similar class for a good production run brining down costs, kept buying through a single vendor , meaning excess costs on ToT acquisition and infrastructure creation was minimised and ensured that there was no break in the production activities, meaning the trained hands were never lost.
Similar models implemented by Turkey. And to some extent by Japan.
The most important thing is that the production line should not be idle. The moment the production line goes idle, we are back to square one.
Obviously "mera bharat mahaan" Indians will never learn any thing from this. This virtually shows how much we have stagnated. Nothing to take away from korea but until 1980s India was ahead in industry or was on par with korea. Progress is not just size of economy but also development including attitude & culture, India severely lags in every thing.
we need more ppl like you , missing the wood for the trees. Next I suppose you are going to say we have all-clear shampoo.. ..err I mean ....nuclear sub which is far more advanced.It's misleading.
The Koreans built 9 of the Chang Bogo class (Type 209, KSS-I) followed by 9 Son Won-yil (Type 214, KSS-II). Basically the 214s are not Chang Bogo.
Is it a girl.YES but the Scorpene is more beautiful
we need more ppl like you , missing the wood for the trees. Next I suppose you are going to say we have all-clear shampoo.. ..err I mean ....nuclear sub which is far more advanced.
But during war a HOOLIGAN (war fighting capabilities) doesn't matter whether if he/she is ugly is much more desirable than a beautiful CHICK....YES but the Scorpene is more beautiful
Are you referring to Scorpène class and France?During a war, I'd put more trust into materiel designed by a nation that actually fights than in a nation that says you should buy their crap but not use them in combat.
The very fact we are being compared to korea (thats great right, earlier it was with pakistan) not US should let you know where we are. As usual you are lost and cant even see the writing on the wall but keep drowning in mundane technical jargons spiraling down in your own self deceiving analysis.When someone is trying to misguide you, will you still be looking at the forest?
I had already addressed this in post 647. What the Koreans did, we couldn't afford. Next someone will say, we should have done what the Americans did and inducted 50+ SSNs from the 1970s, and once again you will be looking for a forest that doesn't exist.
We are not even designing bare minimum weapons which certified for combat by our military standard. So before making such statement try to understand the ground reality.During a war, I'd put more trust into materiel designed by a nation that actually fights than in a nation that says you should buy their crap but not use them in combat.
The very fact we are being compared to korea (thats great right, earlier it was with pakistan) not US should let you know where we are. As usual you are lost and cant even see the writing on the wall but keep drowning in mundane technical jargons spiraling down in your own self deceiving analysis.
Obviously we should compare ourselves with America if we want a UN seat or to play an important role in world politics. Seems when you are blind it makes no difference whether its trees or crows.