| Submit your comments on this article | |
| India-Pakistan | |
| India unveils naval blueprint for Indian Ocean dominance | |
| 2005-12-03 | |
| NEW DELHI - India announced on Friday ambitious acquisition plans for its navy and said the new military hardware would give it greater clout in the strategic energy corridors of the Indian Ocean. It also said the Indian navy, besides constructing or buying ships, submarines and aircraft, was also building ties with countries in the region to expand its bluewater reach in the Indian Ocean. âThe Indian Ocean is now the highway along which over a quarter of the worldâs trade and energy requirements move,â Indian Navy chief Admiral Arun Prakash told a news conference in New Delhi. âThe Asia-Pacific region holds immense promise for political, economic and military cooperation and the vital role maritime forces play in this regard makes the Indian Navy a key component of the nationâs foreign policy.â The 137-ship navy played an international role during last Decemberâs tsunami last December when New Delhi deployed its warships to help devastated Sri Lanka and Indonesia. âIt became our defining moment as people could perceive the speed with we could react (to the tsumani),â Prakash said of the operation to help victims in two foreign countries as well as in Indiaâs far-flung Andamans archipelago. âThe exercises we undertook with various navies in the past year underline the theme that we have reached out far into the Indian Ocean region,â he added. The navy has already handed out contracts for construction of 27 vessels to state-owned ship-builders and has embarked on its grandest mission to indigenously build an aircraft carrier, Prakash said. âWeâre reducing dependence on foreign suppliers to cut down revenue drain and uncertainties in supplies,â he said, adding that a recent 2.1 billion-dollar deal to acquire six French Scorpene submarines would enhance naval strength. âThere are 36 more ships on the cards and I donât think there is any navy in the world which currently has such a large project in hand,â he said. âIndia aspires to a certain position in the world and so we must have a navy commensurate to our needs,â he said, adding New Delhi has asked Russia, its largest military supplier, to provide three latest destroyer-class warships. Senior military officials said the navy was also shopping for 30 long-range helicopters to replace its British-built Sea King rotorcraft and was awaiting a US offer to lease to India two anti-submarine warfare P-3 Orion aircraft. âWe have not yet received the offer for the Orions and we think it could turn out to be a very costly project,â the admiral said. Admiral Prakash said the navy, which has bases in the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, was also working on a complex project to link up its warships and submarines via satellite. âWeâve taken small steps in this major direction as this is a very complex and expensive project,â he said, adding the navy would fund construction of an exclusive satellite for the project if necessary.
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #8 The Kitty Hawk is nearing the end of its serviceable lifetime. There is extensive metal fatigue and the need for billions in renovation to handle the latest naval aircraft. Besides, it's oil-fired, and India has limited indigenous oil production. I'd much rather the Kitty be given to Japan as a template for developing their own carrier squadrons. Could you imagine China's reactions if Japan had a handful of aircraft carriers and the vessels to defend them, and India had the same? There would be an epidemic of heart attacks from Harbin to Hainan! |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-12-03 19:50 |
| #7 India is not on our side. India is on India's side. There is no guarantee the two sides will be aligned unless we take steps to make it so. While we look at what we could have done differently, the Indians have to want to be friends also. In the past they have not wished it to be. Regardless of how Ike was viewed as a war hero, India was not our firend in the '50's or any time later. Their number one defence supplier is Russia for a reason. India's economy could be more robust than China's were it not as xenophobic and more fabian. I'm all for strong ties with India as it makes sense so many ways. But the Indians have not wanted it in the past because of baggage from colonial days. I'd just a soon the Indian navy continued to be built by Russians. Enough to handle the Chinese and not enough to pose a threat to us. An LPD here and there but no CVs, please. |
| Posted by: Phereper Crush9533 2005-12-03 15:04 |
| #6 On the topic of dominance - what condition is the Kitty Hawk's hull in? Might be a useful purchase for the IN. This would seal the F-16 super hornet contract since both the IAF and IN would need squadrons. The new base in Karwar should be able to handle a vessel of this size though the running costs may be prohibitive.. |
| Posted by: john 2005-12-03 13:46 |
| #5 Under President Bush, relations have probably never been so good (though Eisenhower was popular - during his visit to India crowds lined the streets throwing flowers. Nehru had to take over the vehicle himself, ordering people out of the way. The trip took hours longer than usual. When the car arrived it was filled waist deep in petals). Bush's policy has turned things around remarkably. Combined with the influence of GE, Walmart etc, and with new found Indian confidence in its nuclear arsenal, relations look set to take off. Ten years ago, the idea of US troops or aircraft training on Indian soil would have been unthinkable. |
| Posted by: john 2005-12-03 13:42 |
| #4 Memories of the Enterprise battle group sailing into the Bay of Bengal to save Pakistan in 1971. One of Nixon and Kissinger's worst ever decisions (signal to China with Kissinger goading the Chinese Premier to open a front against India to distract it). The battle group arrived too late to do anything if it wanted (Indian armor was already surrounding Dhaka) and India viewed the conflict as a just war, stopping genocide. This poisoned relations between Delhi and Washington for thirty years. The US pretty much ignored India and for a few years in the late 1980s (IIRC) did not even confirm an ambassador. This left South Asia policy to be handled by Ambassador Robin Raphael in Foggy Bottom. She blamed India for the death of her husband in the Zia plane "crash" and made many pro-Pakistan noises about Kashmir. She convinced many paranoid Indians that the US was interested in Jammu and Kashmir and this made relations even worse. |
| Posted by: john 2005-12-03 13:30 |
| #3 Boy, I'm glad they're on our side. Only a couple of years ago they were still talking about confrontation with the U.S. in the Indian Ocean. |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-12-03 13:06 |
| #2 Good analogy, but I think it's more akin to the British guarantee of French North Atlantic ports during the same period, allowing the best part of the French Fleet to base in the Med. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-12-03 12:11 |
| #1 Steve, thanks for the nutshell report, nicely done..with chutney gravy no less. |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-12-03 03:07 |