Armada India

Marinas de Guerra y Armadas del Mundo. Novedades, construcción naval. Buques de guerra, portaviones, submarinos. Aviación naval. Infantería de Marina.
Luisfer
General de Brigada
General de Brigada
Mensajes: 4956
Registrado: 27 Mar 2007, 22:48
Ubicación: Lima-Perú

Mensaje por Luisfer »

No hombre, es increpar tus afirmaciones sin data que lo sustente, subes unos enlaces y te vas al extremo de afirmar medias verdades, te doy una fuente para que la análisis pero solo tomas lo que te conviene y sin analizarlo.

Busca la info hombre, te sorprederas, solo espero sean fuentes confiables.

Saludos



Avatar de Usuario
wikingo
Teniente Coronel
Teniente Coronel
Mensajes: 2187
Registrado: 08 Ene 2003, 19:23
Ubicación: Castilla la vieja

Mensaje por wikingo »

Lo primero, la India siempre ha optado por duplicar los proveedores (recordemos que los mirage 2000 indios no son de hoy).
Lo segundo el P8 es hoy por hoy el mejor avion de patrulla maritima del mundo, no comparable a nada ruso, español u holandes.
Lo tercero Rusia esta armando al principal enemigo teorico indio (China, lo logico es comprar occidental para compensar)
Lo cuarto Rusia le ha dado a la India con el porta muchos disgustos normal que salga escaldado.
Lo quinto la armada india preferia al Rafale frente al mig29k pero los politicos mandaron por algo.
lo sexto la India esta enfrentada historicamente a los radicales islam,icos y el enemigo de mi enemigo es mi amigo de hay su acercamiento a USA.
Lo septimo y mas importante este es un foro militar NO POLITICO para soltar sandeces como el presidente de un pais caribeño antiguo golpista mejor se queda uno en casa.


Nadie es más que nadie, porque, por mucho que valga un hombre,
nunca tendrá valor más alto que el valor de ser hombre.
Así habla Castilla, un pueblo de señores,
que siempre ha despreciado al señorito

Antonio Machado.

Luisfer
General de Brigada
General de Brigada
Mensajes: 4956
Registrado: 27 Mar 2007, 22:48
Ubicación: Lima-Perú

Mensaje por Luisfer »

Pues Wikingo:

:arrow: La FR esta armando tanto a la India como a China.
:arrow: Los disgustos del porta Indio son claros , pero es extraño por seguir aun en el proyecto, lo que indica claramente hacia donde miran los indios.
:arrow: La FR también ah tenido y aun tiene enemigos islámicos.
:arrow: La India ha sufrido un embargo por parte de EE.UU. algo que de seguro lo recuerdan bien.

Saludos
Última edición por Luisfer el 17 Mar 2009, 23:20, editado 1 vez en total.



Bsrt
Cabo Primero
Cabo Primero
Mensajes: 162
Registrado: 22 Mar 2008, 19:09
Ubicación: Madrid

Mensaje por Bsrt »

^^"Ha" del verbo haber lleva la h delante, no detrás...



Luisfer
General de Brigada
General de Brigada
Mensajes: 4956
Registrado: 27 Mar 2007, 22:48
Ubicación: Lima-Perú

Mensaje por Luisfer »

Lo siento, tengo la costumbre de poner siempre ah o eh :mrgreen:

Saludos



Avatar de Usuario
Batalla de Matasiete
Coronel
Coronel
Mensajes: 3756
Registrado: 18 Ago 2008, 13:54
Ubicación: Venezuela

Mensaje por Batalla de Matasiete »

wikingo escribió:Lo primero, la India siempre ha optado por duplicar los proveedores (recordemos que los mirage 2000 indios no son de hoy).
Lo segundo el P8 es hoy por hoy el mejor avion de patrulla maritima del mundo, no comparable a nada ruso, español u holandes.
Lo tercero Rusia esta armando al principal enemigo teorico indio (China, lo logico es comprar occidental para compensar)
Lo cuarto Rusia le ha dado a la India con el porta muchos disgustos normal que salga escaldado.
Lo quinto la armada india preferia al Rafale frente al mig29k pero los politicos mandaron por algo.
lo sexto la India esta enfrentada historicamente a los radicales islam,icos y el enemigo de mi enemigo es mi amigo de hay su acercamiento a USA.



Estas en lo correcto wikingo, no puedo contradecirte ninguno de estos puntos.

Y no soy yo el que ha dicho lo contrario. Si hay razones objetivas para pensar que las relaciones entre Rusia e India no atraviesan el mejor momento.

Nadie dice que los Il-38 modernizados sean mejores que el nuevo P-8. De hecho, seguramente, si las relaciones estuviesen como estan hoy, cuando compraron las fragatas Talwar quien sabe y hubiesen preferido las F100 españolas..... ahi te la dejo :wink:


wikingo escribió:Lo septimo y mas importante este es un foro militar NO POLITICO para soltar sandeces como el presidente de un pais caribeño antiguo golpista mejor se queda uno en casa.


Este ataque esta de más, pues yo no he metido este asunto aqui.

Me parecen ridiculos estos ataques a nuestra identidad politica y militar.



Luisfer
General de Brigada
General de Brigada
Mensajes: 4956
Registrado: 27 Mar 2007, 22:48
Ubicación: Lima-Perú

Mensaje por Luisfer »

No entiendo porque se insiste en lo mismo, si la clave esta en la información :wink:

http://www.airfleet.ru/index.php?staid=1001023

Saludos



Vitali
Sargento
Sargento
Mensajes: 223
Registrado: 12 Mar 2009, 16:26
Ubicación: Valencia

Mensaje por Vitali »

Luisfer escribió:Hombre, diferencias se refiere a las necesidades que debe satisfacer un desarrollo de la envergadura del PACK-FA ....

No hombre queda clarito que el que se engaña eres tu, no es algo pues que puedas comprender aunque se te den las fuentes, que por cierto no es la única. Pero anda, sigue en lo tuyo.

Un saludo


:lol: el paquete-FA!)))
ps: Ya veo que no soy el unico en el foro que cayó en manos de Luisfer...


Solo hay MiG!
Entre el pasado y futuro.
Es lo que se llama - Vida.

Luisfer
General de Brigada
General de Brigada
Mensajes: 4956
Registrado: 27 Mar 2007, 22:48
Ubicación: Lima-Perú

Mensaje por Luisfer »

Sinceramente no te entiendo Vitali y lo eh intentado. :cool:

Corrijo entonces, PAK-FA.



Stonewall
Recluta
Recluta
Mensajes: 20
Registrado: 10 Ene 2005, 15:15

Mensaje por Stonewall »

Los EEUU bloqueian los motores de las nuevas fragatas

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



Avatar de Usuario
ZULU 031
General
General
Mensajes: 15052
Registrado: 17 Mar 2003, 12:45
Ubicación: Península Independiente de La Magdalena - EXPAÑA

Mensaje por ZULU 031 »

El Gobierno de Estados Unidos aprobó la venta a la India de ocho aeronaves Boeing P-8I de patrulla marítima, valorados en 2.100 millones de dólares. Se trata de la mayor adquisición de equipos de defensa norteamericanos realizada por el país asiático. En enero de 2008, Washington y Nueva Delhi cerraron la adquisición de seis aviones de transporte Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules por 1.000 millones. El Departamento de Estado señaló en una nota al Congreso que permitiría la operación, tras esgrimir factores políticos, militares, económicos, derechos humanos y consideraciones de control de armas. La Marina india fue el primer cliente internacional del Poseidon, cuya variante de exportación se llama P-8I y la P-8A es la destinada a la US Navy.
La plataforma se basa en el birreactor comercial 737-800ERX y es un avión multimisión de patrulla marina, capacitado para realizar patrullas de largo radio. Está equipada con modernos sistemas de lucha antisubmarina y combate anti superficie y disponde de sensores para tareas de inteligencia, vigilancia y reconocimiento (ISR). India eligió la oferta de Boeing sobre la de varios competidores, incluyendo la del Airbus A319 de EADS. La primera entrega se producirá dentro de cuatro años y se prolongarán hasta 2015. Las compensaciones industriales incluyen servicios de ingeniería, manufactura y proyectos de apoyo logístico integrado.


EX NOTITIA VICTORIA
EX PLURIBUS UNUM

Luisfer
General de Brigada
General de Brigada
Mensajes: 4956
Registrado: 27 Mar 2007, 22:48
Ubicación: Lima-Perú

Mensaje por Luisfer »

Bueno se acaba de probar con exito la segunda versión del Brahmos.

http://www.brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=74

Saludos



Avatar de Usuario
JPJ
Suboficial
Suboficial
Mensajes: 516
Registrado: 09 Abr 2003, 02:55
Ubicación: Argentina

Mensaje por JPJ »

El Kitty Hawk , sigue sonando como opción al Gorshkov

Is the Gorshkov Aircraft Carrier India’s best option?
Interview with Jason Verdugo on a possible joint carrier programme in the Austral-Asian region
0 Comments

China’s secret construction of six aircraft-carriers is now out in the open and its aggressive expansion is scaring its neighbours. The only country that can theoretically contain it is the US, but under Obama and waning domestic support in the US for solitary military campaigns, especially against a powerful enemy, support is quickly fading so they cannot be expected to intervene.

The Austral-Asian region, therefore, needs to strengthen up in groups like IONS. It needs to leave behind its history, its differences and come up with creative solutions. One such suggestion is that the Quadrilateral (Quad) Initiative countries (Australia, Japan, India and the US) should band together and operate the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk that the US decommissioned in January 2009. If China’s growth is really peaceful as it claims, then it should feel no threat because getting four diverse countries to agree on a particular course of action will be inherently difficult.

Manu Sood, Editor of the India-based online news service 8ak (http://www.8ak.in), recently interviewed US historian Jason Verdugo and writer for the magazine Wings of Gold on this topic. Comments from various Indian, US and Australian experts have been discussed with Jason Verdugo at various stages and incorporated in the responses below.


Sood: Is the Kitty Hawk a capable ship?

Verdugo: Comparing the Kitty Hawk to the Gorshkov which India is about to buy from Russia, the Kitty Hawk is a full-sized aircraft carrier, a super-carrier which the Gorshkov was never intended to be, therefore it can fly more fighter aircraft types than a Gorshkov. Even after the deck extension the Gorshkov’s full-load displacement will be 45,400 tons as against 60,933 tons surface displacement for the Kitty Hawk which is 326 meters long. By the way, some people are already questioning the stability of the extension and construction quality of the Gorshkov.

The Kitty Hawk may carry at least 48 F/A-18's in addition to 30 helicopters and radar AEW (airborne early warning) aircraft. The Gorshkov will carry 16 MiG-29K and ten additional helicopters. Note here that the MiG’s STOBAR (short take-off but arrested recovery) configuration is a disadvantage, hence, the Gorshkov is lacking in aircraft capacity, overall sortie generation and sortie sustaining capability. The Gorshkov may be younger but it was decommissioned after an internal explosion and sat idly, rusting for ten years while former USSR states dealt with their break-up and bankruptcy. The Kitty Hawk on the other hand was in full service and the reason it was decommissioned in January 2009 was because the US has the budget to constantly build newer aircraft carriers, wants a 100 per cent nuclear carrier force, and has moved on to next generation Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier.


Sood. But it is an old ship with old technology...

Verdugo: This will basically translate to higher operating costs which can be offset against the near zero capital cost for acquisition. I believe that the ship is worth $3 billion. If the US were to give to the Quad Initiative for free, then the members have saved $3 billion up front. In this case don’t compare the operational cost of a new ship because a new ship of similar construction would cost about $6 billion now. Even if you spend another $100 million in extra operational costs, you still got an aircraft carrier for free!

While a ship may be old, the attack and defence capability depends on other factors as well, for example the aircraft that fly from them. So whether you fly the MiG-29, Su-27, Rafale, or F/A-18, the capabilities of the ship are directly related to those planes.


Sood: Can it easily be re-commissioned?

Verdugo: The normal practise of severing the shaft to make it useless has not been done and unlike other ships that have been decommissioned for a longer period, the Kitty Hawk has been kept so that in case of emergency it can be ready to go. Some systems that could be used on other ships have been removed and need to be replaced, aircraft have to be bought etc.


Sood: What are the costs and how are these to be shared?

Verdugo: A study would need to be conducted to get the exact cost and details. In my estimate, it would take six months and cost $150 million to bring her back into shape, $400 million to further equip her with reasonable condition fighter jets and systems and $50 million to train the crew and bring her to Asia. $650 million and we would have a full fledged aircraft carrier, not a pretend one like the Gorshkov. Since the US is being asked to give it away for free, the operational costs other than salaries of US soldiers on board would be borne by the rest of the Quad.

A lot of the $400 million cost is the cost of the fighter aircraft. Now if India plans to purchase 126 F/A-18E Super Hornets then some of these could be deployed to the carrier for certain time and then since Japan is going to buy the latest F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s anyway, it can buy the naval version ones to put these on the Kitty Hawk. The sharing will require negotiation between the parties and while it is not too complex it will require a study to work this out.

Also, for India, you must remember that you are in a bad negotiating position with the Russians on the Gorshkov issue and the price has not been finalised. Having this operational carrier in place would put India in a much better bargaining position with the Russians as they won’t need the Gorshkov that badly anymore. Hence, I believe that the final price could be cut another $300 million. This is actual money saved by India and can be used to participate in the initiative, so it won’t cost India anything!

Luckily the price of the Gorshkov hasn’t been finalised yet and by the way, most people don’t know that the Russians have lost the blueprint of the ship. Shoot me if I suspect the Chinese have paid someone to burn it! So anyway, the carrier is more or less free especially for the Indians and extremely cheap for the rest of the Quad.

Regarding operational costs, the other main objection to the Kitty Hawk is the steam propulsion. Given the huge cost of nuclear even the British are moving back to steam generation. It is arguable that the power plant in the Kitty Hawk will be more reliable than the Gorshkov because of its American design, robustness and reliability given that it was in full service in the field. It was run for decades until last year with no major issues. Just like any other equipment it will take qualified training and maintenance. Some counties are going to AIP submarine propulsion instead of nuclear. There are two advantages that nuclear propulsion provides: 1) it does not need fuel oil, 2) the fuel onboard can be for the planes extending flight ops. There have been debates as to whether it all matters. The escort ships still need gas. We still need a fleet oiler for those. And without those the carrier is vulnerable anyway.

Specifically for India, it already has the budget to operate two aircraft carriers anyway and the Gorshkov would only be ready 2012 but given Russia’s delivery history it would be at least 2013 so operational cost is not an issue for the next four years and then for everyone the costs are shared between three countries.


Sood: What kind of support would it need?

Verdugo: Aircraft carriers require minimum six ships and one or two submarines and twelve aircrafts to move along with it. Again, quite expensive for a single nation to do this together, but combined it could be much easier and cheaper. Despite initial problems Australia has a very capable submarine, India has a good stealth frigates programme and Japan may get the F-35’s sooner than other countries and can ask for the naval version.


Sood: Does it make sense for the US to give away the carrier given that it has no history of doing so?

Verdugo: Looking purely at its own interests, the US cannot afford to go to war in this region. The Iraq and Afghanistan campaign has cost it about US$1 trillion to date. The best way of preventing a war is to ensure that aggression in the region is contained. This can be done by strengthening its allies who stand for peace. Keep in mind that all the quad countries are well functioning democracies where the will of the people is supreme unlike the region they are in. Think China, Pakistan, Myanmar, Iran etc.
Further, India can be nudged to more favourably consider buying Super Hornets in its 126 fighter jet tender so the US would get $12 billion and keep this production line open instead of the money going to Sweden, France or the Russians. This is the single biggest leverage and the US has a great offer and great price, so if India were going to buy US anyway, make the most of it.

Again for India specifically, is there any doubt that it has been a colossal mistake for the two countries to have ignored each other for so long? Politicians from Nehru to Clinton have failed us and for all the flak that George Bush got, he is loved in India for building strong relations with the US. For the US this deal would seal the coffin of an already irritated Indian public with Russian arm supplies and put us both in a very strong geo-political relationship in a strategically important part of the world.

Also, the Quad would have to agree to buy US components, labour and training for the re-commissioning of the Kitty Hawk including Helicopters, AEWS, missile defence systems etc. And finally, it costs the US a lot of money to keep it in the US in a condition that is OK with the strong environmental lobby.


Sood: Does India need this initiative?

Verdugo: Right now India’s only carrier, the INS Viraat, is in dock and will be there for more than a year while India is naked. The Gorkshov is at least four years away (Russian PM promises 2012) and India’s new carrier being built in India will only be ready by 2015 which as history shows will be delayed a few years as well. So not only does India need a carrier now, they would also benefit from having experienced, full-trained crews ready when the other carriers come online.


Sood: Do Australia and Japan need it?

Verdugo: Australia is already having trouble crewing its existing naval fleet and while a super-carrier would help it to better protect its over-sized coasts, it cannot afford to have one on its own. By law, Japan cannot own one by itself. Additionally, let us keep in mind that the Quad can be grown to include other likeminded democracies like South Korea.


Sood: What if China attacks a single country on a single issue. Would the other nations be dragged in to war?

Verdugo: This boils down to risk mitigation. Each individual country has to decide that joining this initiative is the best option in their own national interests and looking beyond that, in the interest of the planet. Does joining the Quad improve their chances of survival in the most common sense? I think it does and, secondly, any special considerations could be included in an inter-country agreement. If Australia chooses not to support the issue, then it will become an easier target. How long can Australia risk its future on a presumption that the US/UK will intervene to protect it?

It is my opinion that we urgently need to counter China. Their influence is on every continent. They are trying to corner the oil market and this will lead to conflicts as oil supplies dry up in the face of increasing consumption of 2.5 billion Indians and Chinese and resource-hungry Westernised nations. That will really ratchet things up when the price of oil goes up permanently. China will also try and leverage global control through the banks. If the US can build up countries like the Quad then it will help reduce the danger that exists with China having so much trade and investment in the US. China is extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade. It would not only cut off imp oil supplies but kill its lifeline that it has built its aggression on, exports… How long a naval blockade is required to bankrupt it?

The other obvious benefit for India is that as India’s companies buy assets globally in far off places like South America and Africa, India’s carriers can be used to better back these areas up with military support if needed.


Sood: Don’t you think negotiations will be a complex process?

Verdugo: True. A further study of the costs needs to be done and talks between the various nations should be initiated. The purpose of this discussion was to kick start a thinking process that will precede a serious consideration.


Fuente defpro.com



lords
Soldado
Soldado
Mensajes: 29
Registrado: 27 Jul 2005, 18:54
Ubicación: Gibraltar español

Mensaje por lords »

India lanza submarino nuclear

Redacción

BBC Mundo

Manmohan Singh, primer ministro indio junto a altos oficiales

Singh aseguró que India no busca amenazar a ningún país.

India lanzó su primer submarino nuclear con lo que se unió a los cinco países que cuentan con la capacidad para construir ese tipo de embarcaciones.

El primer ministro, Manmohan Singh, presentó el submarino Arihant, de 6.000 toneladas, en una ceremonia en la que destacó que Nueva Delhi no tiene intenciones de amenazar a ningún país.

Singh enfatizó en que, no obstante, "debemos tomar todas las medidas necesarias para salvaguardar nuestro país y mantener el paso con los avances tecnológicos a nivel mundial".

El submarino, que será sometido ahora a pruebas de navegación, tendrá capacidad para lanzar misiles a blancos a 700 kilómetros de distancia.

El corresponsal de la BBC en Nueva Delhi Sanjoy Majumder informa que hasta ahora India podía lanzar misiles de tierra y aire, por lo que el submarino nuclear, junto a otro que planea construir, añadirá una nueva dimensión a la capacidad defensiva del país.

La nave -añade Majumder- fue completamente fabricada en India con asistencia rusa, y la próxima será construida en breve.

El periodista agrega que el lanzamiento del submarino es una clara señal de que India intenta contrarrestar la presencia naval de China en el sur de Asia.

El lanzamiento coincide con el décimo aniversario del fin del último conflicto armado de India con su vecino Pakistán.

Hasta ahora, sólo Estados Unidos, Rusia, Francia, Gran Bretaña y China habían desarrollado submarinos nucleares.



Stonewall
Recluta
Recluta
Mensajes: 20
Registrado: 10 Ene 2005, 15:15

Mensaje por Stonewall »

India Releases $122 mn for Gorshkov Modification


(Source: Press Trust of India; issued August 14, 2009)



NEW DELHI --- India has cleared an installment of $122 mn to Russia to ensure that the modification work on aircraft carrier Gorshkov, also known as Vikramaditya, continues till a settlement on the final price is reached.

The payment was sanctioned earlier this month by the government following demands by Rosoboronexport, the sole Russian agency designated for importing or exporting defence equipment, according to India Strategic defence magazine.

India had paid around $600 million initially after an agreement between the two countries in 2004, according to which the old aircraft carrier was gifted as free but India was to pay $974 million to modify and upgrade it in accordance with Indian Navy's specifications.

In 2007, however, the Russians said they had made a mistake in their calculations to repair and modify Gorshkov, and demanded another $1.2 billion. Recently, they have added still another $700 million saying that modifications, and then sea trials, would be more expensive than as considered by them earlier.

The total demand by the Russians now touches $2.9 billion, instead of $974 million, or, approximately one billion as originally contracted.

The delivery of the aircraft carrier has also been pushed from 2008 to 2012-13, although repair work on it is continuing without break at the Sevmash shipyard in northern Russia on its Arctic coast.

The Russian government had extended $250 million to the shipyard in 2008, and now the installment of $122 million being paid by India is also to ensure that there is no break in the repair work, India Strategic quoted sources as saying.

Indian naval officials have been stationed at Sevmash for the past several years to monitor the day-to-day activity and to ensure that the repair and modifications are in line with the Naval Staff Qualitative Requirements (NSQRs), the dispute over the additional monetary demands notwithstanding.

India has naturally been reluctant to meet the post-contract Russian demands, and even the Comptroller General of India (CGI) has described the deal as a mess. But the Navy needs Gorshkov as early as possible as its only existing aircraft carrier, Viraat, is on life extension and undergoing a refit to serve for another few years.

It takes nearly 8 to 10 years to acquire an aircraft carrier. Procedures within the Indian bureaucratic system require two to three years, and then a company which is ordered to build it, should take another 5 to 8 years.

Although the Indian Navy is already building one of its two aircraft carriers in design consultancy with Italy's Fincantieri, it has no choice but to go in for Gorshkov in line with its sanctioned three-carrier planning. Ideally though, a country the size of India with 7,500 km of coastline should have at least five aircraft carriers.

A Russian defence delegation was in New Delhi in July but it refused to negotiate lower than its demand for $2.9 billion.

Discussions though will continue.

The government's Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) is reported to have asked the Ministry of Defence to continue the negotiations but has not acceded to the two revised Russian demands.

It may be noted that the Gorshkov deal also involves a related $740 million contract for 16 Mig 29K aircraft. That deal is going smoothly and the first four of these aircraft are likely to arrive at INS Hansa, the Indian Navy training facility in Goa, by year-end.

Ten pilots, initially trained by the US Navy for carrier landing at its Naval Air Station, Pensacola training facility, are now in Russia training on the Mig 29Ks.

Four of these Mig 29Ks are twin-seaters for training and the remaining 12 for routine operational flying.

The Navy will continue to operate the Mig 29Ks from its ground stations as all 16 of them are likely to be in India before the arrival of Gorshkov.

-ends-

defense-aerospace.com



¿Quién está conectado?

Usuarios navegando por este Foro: CommonCrawl [Bot] y 7 invitados