Talk:Future of the Indian Navy

Unsourced claims
@Nicky mathew, when writing about a statement made by a high ranking military official (such as Admiral RK Dhowan), you are obliged to provide a source. Also, bold claims such as Indias "lack of a strong submarine fleet have diminished its capabilities" need a reliable citation. Wikipedia is not a place or Original Research or personal opinions! Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Antiochus the Great, i understand your concerns i will provide the necessary citations for all my claims. 2 months ago only i started editing wikipedia so i am still a rookie when it comes to editing page but i created this page future ships of indian navy because i know deeply about indian navy and its future plans and. when i undo your edit i didnt mean that i was not going to provide the necessary citations,within 6 hours i will put necessary citations for all my claims ,consider it as a rookie mistake and thank you for your guidance :) Nicky mathew


 * @Nicky Mathew. Thanks you for explaining that it was only a rookie mistake! Everybody makes honest mistakes when they are new :) You have done a good job on this article, keep up the good work and welcome to Wikipedia! Bye. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Antiochus the Great, thank you for your support :).i am happy to a part of wikipedia community.Nicky mathew — Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft
Carriers are just metal boxes, little more than targets, without their airwing, for any article e.g. Future of the Royal Navy, covering future military planning of a carrier operating navy, future aircraft should be covered not just ships. There is no such myopia in the lead which includes mention "long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft" and "unmanned aerial vehicles such as the IAI Heron-1". I don't see any where that says aircraft should not be covered, if thats the case this article is misnamed and should be moved to Future ships of the Indian Navy.--KTo288 (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you When this page was created in 2014, the name given to this page was Future ships of the Indian Navy but later it was changed to future of the indian navy. Indian Naval Air Arm already have a future aircraft section so if we add future aircraft here some editors might not see the need to do that and might not agree with us. actually i don't have any problem if we add aircrafts to this page and i support that addition :) Nicky mathew (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Air arm forms a major part of the Navy. Since the article is titled Future of Indian Navy, I wish the Future of naval air arm reference also to be included. I don't think that it may cause any confusion.M.srihari (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

india is negotiating a deal for 3 to 4 additional talwar class frigate they should also be mentioned in this list and in the air arms column 16 s70 asw helicopters should also be added

india is negotiating a deal for 3 to 4 additional talwar class frigate they should also be mentioned in this list and in the air arms column 16 s70 asw helicopters should also be added

missiles section
created a new section called missiles in the article in good-faith. It is a good-idea to have a section about future missiles but won't this make the article very long if we use the table format. It is better if these missiles are mentioned in a paragraph with the concerned wikilinks instead of the table. standardengineer (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a missiles section is even needed there. There are lot more missiles in the works like Barak-8, Brahmos-II, Maitri(VL-MICA) etc. Even if we keep the section I recommend removing the picture, speed and range column as missiles do different jobs and their characteristics are detailed on their specific wikipages and there is no need to describe them in the table here. standardengineer (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Future of the Indian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120926175444/http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_indian-navy-fastens-its-seatbelt-for-light-combat-aircraft-tejas_1400112 to http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_indian-navy-fastens-its-seatbelt-for-light-combat-aircraft-tejas_1400112

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Future of the Indian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160827071937/https://southfront.org/india-to-buy-four-strategic-bombers-from-russia/ to http://in.rbth.com/economics/2014/10/20/russia_offers_india_3_additional_talwar_class_frigates_39143.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion
We need to have a clear criteria for inclusion into the page that is compliant with WP:CBALL. RFIs are meant to gather information which eventually shapes procurement. A mere issuance of RFI does not necessarily mean that a procurement is underway. Quoting from DPP-2016 of MoD, The issue of RFI is not a commitment for procurement. It would be speculation to treat RFI as start of procurement.

I propose using Acceptance of Necessity from CCS/MoD or issuance of a RFP as criteria for inclusion. The first one signals the start of procurement as MoD has accepted that the item in question is needed, while the latter is the actual start of procurement. There also needs to be two exceptions (a) Items that are developed rather than just procured, like INS Vishal (b) Government to government procurement; as they don't go through the RFI-RFP process and their mere existence proves that a procurement is under way. This would result in removal of about 5 entries in the page, which is less than 15% of the content. Gazoth (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand the difference between a RFI and a RFP and agree with your assessment that a RFI does not necessarily mean that a procurement is underway. But a RFI does indicate an intent or interest on part of the Indian Navy to acquire these vessels with details about desired characteristics. The criteria you are proposing can also be challenged on the fact that a RFP can also lead to cancellation of the tender (as it has been the case for some RFP's across the Armed forces). Similarly, a item going to be developed can be speculation at best example INS Vishal since there are reports that government might not even go for a larger carrier. Based on your criteria, it would lead to removal of the following entries: Project 75I-class submarine, High Speed Landing Craft, Next Generation Missile Vessels, Survey vessels, 3500 ton multi-utility vessels. The issue here is that some of these programs which are currently under the RFI stage but have received a lot of media attention and have separate pages with some information (meeting WP:GNG). Instead, I propose creating a second list on the page which states that these projects are under consideration which clearly differentiates them from the ones under procurement(RFP) or development. This way, we can encompass projects which are clearly WP:GNG like Project 75I-class submarine but clearly states this is still only under consideration. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I don't see any problem in including RFI programs that meet WP:GNG. We still need to remove ones that don't meet WP:GNG like High Speed Landing Craft, survey vessels and 3500 ton multi-utility vessels. Gazoth (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay. I think there is enough case for the High Speed Landing Craft for WP:GNG per . I cannot find any other media reports for the two others "survey vessels and 3500 ton multi-utility vessels". I will update the page accordingly with color coding to make it more readable. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The "Project 18" is fake
Please stop attempting to put the "Project 18 Destroyer" on this page. It originates from a fictional defense project on a geopolitics roleplay subreddit.

StSeanSpicer (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Larsen & Toubro Multi Purpose Vessel.jpg

What about INS Vikrant and Vikramaditya?
Have these aircraft carriers been decommissioned or is there another reason for omitting them? Sooku (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)