Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Sardaukar20 said:

Oh I see. The Indian military wants to recruit 450000 to 50000 troops per year. They want to rapidly recruit troops, but want to avoid the costly pension bills by releasing most of these troops after 4 years.

Click to expand...

6 months of basic training, then straightaway deployed to the field for 3.5 years. That's quite a rush to get fresh bodies to the field. Very suspiciously aimed at China. Rushing 6-month trained new recruits into India-China border. What could go wrong?

Click to expand...

The Indian top brass apparently only wants bodies on the frontlines, aka more Jawans. They don't really care if they can actually fight. Are they really that desperate?

Click to expand...

caudaceus said:

I mean that wasn't mandatory right? Then why do they burn trains and vandalize things if they disagree with the scheme?

Click to expand...

dengyeye said:

I thought it's already finished construction and is awaiting commissioning?

Serious question: This carrier was built with Indian steel, Russian 'aviation complex', Israeli radar & SAM. Italian guns, Russian CIWS, indigenous combat management system with Russian collaboration, US engines, Indian gearboxes, Italian or Spanish air surveillance radar.

Aren't the logistics on this thing going to be a nightmare?

Click to expand...

pakje said:

isnt the vikrant like 10 years late or something?

Click to expand...

caudaceus said:

I mean that wasn't mandatory right? Then why do they burn trains and vandalize things if they disagree with the scheme?

Click to expand...

pakje said:

anyone with a naval background knows how the lack of a bulbuous bow will affect the vikrant?

Click to expand...

ironborn said:

I can't really find a picture of the Vikrant in dry dock, I mean, it has to have a bulbuous bow. Without it, the ship would be like a car has springs but no shock absorbers, and up/down motion would make it a East LA style lowrider.

I do hope Indian ship designers aren't that stupid. Then you never know, having extra left over parts and not sure where they belong to when they overhaul a fight jet is one thing, missing a entire segment of a billion dollar ship is really something else.

Click to expand...

ironborn said:

I can't really find a picture of the Vikrant in dry dock, I mean, it has to have a bulbuous bow. Without it, the ship would be like a car has springs but no shock absorbers, and up/down motion would make it a East LA style lowrider.

I do hope Indian ship designers aren't that stupid. Then you never know, having extra left over parts and not sure where they belong to when they overhaul a fight jet is one thing, missing a entire segment of a billion dollar ship is really something else.

Click to expand...

Richard Santos said:

It’s entirely untrue that a ship can not ride well without a bulbous forefoot. Bulbous forefoot is primarily used to reduce wave making resistance at specific speeds in relatively calm seas. it tends to slam in very heavy seas, increase the stress on ship structure and make the ship’s motions more jarring.

navies that put heavy emphasis on operating in very heavy seas, such the British Royal Navy and the Canadian navy during world war 2 and the Cold War, were generally reluctant to adopt bulbous forefoot long after it has become standard on new warships of other countries.

Click to expand...