Can China’s Top Guns Fly?

[Beast]

On tactical simulators,pune is the centre base of maximum numbers of sukhoi simulators what i got -
''Regarding the deployment of Su-30MKI squadrons, the procvedure being followed by the IAF is to have the maximum concentration in Pune only as a temporary measure, simply due to the ready availability of Su-30MKI tactical simulators, cockpit procedures trainers and weapons employment part-task simulators there.''

All new sukhoi-30mki bases have at least one such simulator.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Here mig-29 simulators in indian service.Simulators aren't incredibly high fi technology.

IAF doesn't just use LGB,IAF was using LGB in 1990s.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Jaguar launching Indegenous LGB,based on paveway.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
cbu-105 sensor fuzed weapon.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Crystal maze PGM,indian version of the israeli popeye.

Plus all the russian munitions commonly used by both PLAAF and IAF.

Also we have these.
LITENING targeting pod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Used by most nato,USAF,ISAF etc.

Plus this.The rafael israeli RECCELITE pod.
Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd.
Used again by many top airforces.

ELTA's Pod SAR - ELM-2060P - YouTube
And this.ELTA ELM-2060 SAR pod.
Since we are both learning about each other air forces let's do a quid pro quo.Whats china's comparable asset here?

As for the last line....

''Even PLAAF has a dedicated airborne unit of 15th corps full many self made and design airborne mechanized unit that can strike any place of India in short time once air superiority is achieved.''
ONCE air superiority is achieved.You can deploy a limited number of squadrons[16-21 max] in TAR,most can't fly at high altitude,u got no superior craft to the mki.Your aircraft will take off at 1/3 payloads mostly,visible on radar due to terrain,will have to first take on our air defence network,and ur UAVs are not suitable for high altitude ops,U will enter a networked ground and awacs environment with sams and aircraft at full payload.You are fighting on our turf,keep dreaming about air superiority.
And without that ur land advantage means little in modern warfare.



The same j-10 that was'CRUSHED' by j-11s in exercises.Now if j-11s did that even without BARS radar and thrust vector what will mki do to poor j-10.Ones that PAF won't even buy in place of f-16s.Ones that have reputation of maintainence nightamre.
And i gave my answer in the next post,u ranted even before reading my 2nd post on PGMs and Simulators.As usual.PLAAF power projection over whole india.HAHAHAHA.You can't even project power with those load restrictions in Tibet.U get anywhere deep those squadrons are gonna get surrounded and made mincemeat of by IAF squadrons from all over india.The fight is in our backyard not yours.And our rules,never forget that.

You are telling me its only MKI upgraded for better training? Where is the whole level you have mention? Indeed simulator arent really high tech. Training pod with network for monitoring whole exercise display by PLAAF is a real step ahead.

You keep mentioning IAF using LGB earlier than PLAAF but that does not mean PLAAF are falling behind. May I know what generation ahead of LGB has India made?

Targeting pod.. WMD-7

As for your ranting of TAR and high attitude. I don't know what's your ranting about? TAR monitoring is well cover by 2 radar regiment in Tibet monitoring Tibet right up to India airspace activities. XIanglong UAV will well supplement the high attitude monitoring.

Asian Defense: JYL-1 long range 3D air surveillance radar Poly Technologies Inc. - China

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_Xianglong

If IAF thinking they can easily sneak right into TAR with coverage. I think its a big mistake. Plus Chengdu regiment will supplement with AWACS to prevent low terrain masking into China airspace..

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

You are telling me its only MKI upgraded for better training? Where is the whole level you have mention? Indeed simulator arent really high tech. Training pod with network for monitoring whole exercise display by PLAAF is a real step ahead.

You keep mentioning IAF using LGB earlier than PLAAF but that does not mean PLAAF are falling behind. May I know what generation ahead of LGB has India made?

Targeting pod.. WMD-7

As for your ranting of TAR and high attitude. I don't know what's your ranting about? TAR monitoring is well cover by 2 radar regiment in Tibet monitoring Tibet right up to India airspace activities

Asian Defense: JYL-1 long range 3D air surveillance radar Poly Technologies Inc. - China

If IAF thinking they can easily sneak right into TAR with coverage. I think its a big mistake. Plus Chengdu regiment will supplement with AWACS to prevent low terrain masking into China airspace..

On LGBs-I never said about IAF using LGBs one genration ahead,u said PLAAF moved on to improved PGMs while IAF still using old fashioned LGBs.I said thats not so..IAF has been using LGB from way earlier and it too has moved on long ago to PGMs.I think we had a miscommunication here.

I never said only mki is upgraded for better training,already showed u pics of mig-29 simulators.Don't put word in my mouth.
As for network centric monitoring of exrecises just google exercise LIVEWIRE that IAF just concluded[as evident from name]the entire exercise,included 600 planes the biggest in IAF history and was based specifically on network centric ability.Before this YUDH ABHYAS,sudarshan shakti were all performed to check networking ability and cooperation between IA and IAF.Every year yudh abhyas is held,sometimes USA also participated.

Nice targeting pod,but no equivalent of the reccelite or elm-2060..eh?

As for the last part,there is no ranting just facts.The chinese airbases allow around 16 squadrons,if more join in max upto 21 squadrons.This doesn't mean china has 16 squadrons facing us,it would have to bring aircraft from other districts to bring it upto this number.
On TAR your main issue is that the plateau area is very high altitude 3000-4000 metres above sea level.At this height aircraft are severely restricted in their payload and endurance posing significant problems for combat.
On the indian side the area unlike on the flat plateau,is mountanous and more rugged.Therefore IAF aircraft can use cover of the mountains to use approach under radar cover.Because PLAAF side is very elevated and flat,they are easily spotted.

This doesn't mean IAF will sneak into TAR,it means IAF is more capable of springing tactical surprises in the air and pouncing on advancing invading PLA ground units and supply lines with minimal warning.War isn't just numbers on a paper,geography plays immense role.

 

[Beast]

As for the last part,there is no ranting just facts.The chinese airbases allow around 16 squadrons,if more join in max upto 21 squadrons.This doesn't mean china has 16 squadrons facing us,it would have to bring aircraft from other districts to bring it upto this number.
On TAR your main issue is that the plateau area is very high altitude 3000-4000 metres above sea level.At this height aircraft are severely restricted in their payload and endurance posing significant problems for combat.
On the indian side the area unlike on the flat plateau,is mountanous and more rugged.Therefore IAF aircraft can use cover of the mountains to use approach under radar cover.Because PLAAF side is very elevated and flat,they are easily spotted.

This doesn't mean IAF will sneak into TAR,it means IAF is more capable of springing tactical surprises in the air and pouncing on advancing invading PLA ground units and supply lines with minimal warning.War isn't just numbers on a paper,geography plays immense role.

The best way for India to defend against China assault will means need to penetrate deep in to China harden military facilities to take out the attack asset.

If you have noticed. China hardly build up a huge asset of attacking aircraft in Sino-India region. JH-7A and Su-30MKK are surprising absent from that region and what is station is only J-11A aircraft , clearly showing its merely for defending the bases around it.

I think you mistook any attack on India soil near Sino -India region will only be the means of air asset. In fact, PLA second arty will take the burden of neutralising India unit around that region. It is a brilliant plan by the PLA. First , it will force IAF to take the initiative to enter China airspace to neutralise Second arty missile bombarding the ground asset in India which will cause disadvantage to you since you need to come to our playground to fight which will be harden with air defense.

If you have noticed. second arty has build up a strong unti in TAR region and have conducted numerous co ordinate attack exercise which was demonstrated repeatly. Most of the missile deploy is the DF-15 series missile which proves hard to intercept for any of the defense system available in India. Even the Iron dome system from Israel is tested against low grade hezbollah home made rocket which flies lower and slower. Unlike the DF-15 missiles which in many technical spec far greater to counter ,especially if used in far larger number in number. I can tell you, its impossible to intercept all of them.

Knocking out the critical defense system in India side will open the floodgate for CJ-10 cruise missile deploy by PLA to further weaken any abilties of India army and further air strength, shall PLA and PLAAF decide to launch an assault into India to sue them for armstice.

Why would PLA even need to send attack aircraft to India neutralise it given the numerous disadvantage you mention?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Quite an outlandish theory to say the least,your saying missiles have made airforces obsolete[which is a incredulous claim looking at size of airforces raound the world] and PLAAF doesn't even need to come here?Why would IAF attack ur territory when pla units are invading ours,they will ofcourse be preoccupied to Blast advancing PLA units from the skies.Now the PLAAF can come over here to try and give air cover or it can stay there and allow pla units and supply lines to take a pounding.
Your not the only ones fielding cruise missiles.Brahmos and prithvi are fielded by us too.But china has a advantage in numbers here.
The bulk of the indian air force is situated deep within india and can't be targeted by missiles ,mostly forward operating bases can be done that way.As for the defence against missiles,Indian defence analysts do expect heavy damage to forward bases from missiles despite spyder and akash cover,as with the current state of missile defence some will always get through.

But what you completely ignore a missile can only be used against static targets,its useless at close air support ,logistical interdiction or devastating enemy ground advances.
A missile can never have the effect of this.

Say deliver something like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQlkNEG-5WM


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Mass graveyard of some 90 iraqi tanks destroyed by just 3 cbu-97[older version of cbu-105 without wcmd guidance]
India bought the cbu-105 with deliveries completed from usa recently for use on su-30mki and jaguars afetr IAF was very impressed with it during indo us exercise.

Now imagine the scenario ur talking about,PLA armour advancing without air support,its going to get completely wiped out in hours by these new smart anti armour cluster bombs.
Large scale ground attacks in this era without air cover is suicidal.Airpower wins wars these days.Pakistan army found thsi out even back in 1971 when 2000 pak soldiers and over 200 tanks were held up by 120 indian troops,allowing 4 iaf hunetr CAS aircraft to pound the whole force to scrap metal at battle of longewala.
There is nothing missiles can do in such a scenario.To say missiles have replaced aircraft is just ignorance.I do agree a part of the post is very logical and PLA missile arsenal is a big threat to IAF forward bases,conceded by most indian military analysts.But to say missiles will do all the job is wishful thinking really.Otherwise usaf wouldn't have bothered with aircraft,just missile carriers and drones.

 

[Beast]

2nd arty is unique in the world that no other armed forces emphasize on missile build up like it. And we have evolved from nuclear strike abilities only into conventional strike to support other armed forces.

As for your deep base, how far can it be? airfield 1500km from sino India border? There is a limit tou can be away from our missile range. Precisely our ABM DF-21D is fixed at 1500km to 1700km , is becos that will be more than the max range of US carrier combat aircraft combat radius. The missile range can be further if needed.

As for DF-15, which is cheaper to produce for high saturation attack can configure to more than 1000km attack depend on payload. EMP or Custer warhead could be fitted for different mission. Even a 200kg warhead if going at 7mach hitting the target will result a very deadly explosion.

Airfield are definitely fix target and so as ammo dump and other non movable facilities will be under targeted plus the ballistic missile travel very fast which gives enemy very little reaction time compare to cruise missile.

PLA objective will try to used missile to eliminate as much air threat like airfield and air defense before trying to use our own fighter to venture into India airspace to gain further air superiority.

Shall IAF try to venture into china airspace to eliminate missile. Air defence will bleed IAF asset as much as possible.

 

[DARKY]

Even PLAAF has a dedicated airborne unit of 15th corps full many self made and design airborne mechanized unit that can strike any place of India in short time once air superiority is achieved.

I don't think IAF has any of these.

You can take your head off the rear hole at times to see the light.

The last method was used the last time Indian Army went inside Tibet and took Chinese controlled positions in a bloodless show of strength with your PLA running back with tail between legs.. like they did recently...

China strong

 

[Beast]

You can take your head off the rear hole at times to see the light.

The last method was used the last time Indian Army went inside Tibet and took Chinese controlled positions in a bloodless show of strength with your PLA running back with tail between legs.. like they did recently...

China strong

Long time , no see darky. After CV-16 liaoning landed with J-15. You start to disappear and too ashame to answer your allegation of China capabilities

Also for your few photo show. Dropping ordinary supply pallet is easy but dropping an armour vehicle or airborne assault vehicle is out of India scope.

As for the helo dropping a vehicle. That will be too short range and not good enough for power projection

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

2nd arty is unique in the world that no other armed forces emphasize on missile build up like it. And we have evolved from nuclear strike abilities only into conventional strike to support other armed forces.

As for your deep base, how far can it be? airfield 1500km from sino India border? There is a limit tou can be away from our missile range. Precisely our ABM DF-21D is fixed at 1500km to 1700km , is becos that will be more than the max range of US carrier combat aircraft combat radius. The missile range can be further if needed.

As for DF-15, which is cheaper to produce for high saturation attack can configure to more than 1000km attack depend on payload. EMP or Custer warhead could be fitted for different mission. Even a 200kg warhead if going at 7mach hitting the target will result a very deadly explosion.

Airfield are definitely fix target and so as ammo dump and other non movable facilities will be under targeted plus the ballistic missile travel very fast which gives enemy very little reaction time compare to cruise missile.

PLA objective will try to used missile to eliminate as much air threat like airfield and air defense before trying to use our own fighter to venture into India airspace to gain further air superiority.

Shall IAF try to venture into china airspace to eliminate missile. Air defence will bleed IAF asset as much as possible.

Preparation for mass usage of ballistic missiles is easily detectable from satellites,and early warning systems [both green pine radar[used in israeli arrow-3 designed to detect Bms and also awacs]can detect them in flight,allowing for countermeasures and time.
All major IAF bases are also provided hardened shelters.They are also protected by SPYDER sams .
Also the accuracy of ballistic missiles against very precise targets like runaways would require CEP less than 10 m.Thats almost impossible to achieve with the longer and medium range missiles.It may be achievable only with srbms.Also u would need exact location of IAF airbases and over the horizon radar to guide and engage long range targets.Also as u get deeper into india the most high value target bases are covered by s-300s of our own,specifically made to deal with BMs.
So ur conclusion that df-21s fired from tibet can hit runways in punjab and pune are not realistically believable.
It still doesn't help u in anyway to provide close air support or air cover for advancing land forces.
And IAF doesn't need to come into tibet alone ,brahmos cm and prithvi bms from our side can do it.And the main land action will take place on our side,I don't see why your obsessed with IAF attacking tibet.IAF will be helping IA defend arunachal.
I do agree that if IAF needs to attack deep into tibet S-300 will make it very costly.Its a very formidable weapon.But that ur idea of the effectiveness of long range Ballistic missiles are rather far fetched,short range yes.There will be appreciable damage done.

 

[Beast]

Preparation for mass usage of ballistic missiles is easily detectable from satellites,and early warning systems [both green pine radar[used in israeli arrow-3 designed to detect Bms and also awacs]can detect them in flight,allowing for countermeasures and time.
All major IAF bases are also provided hardened shelters.They are also protected by SPYDER sams .
Also the accuracy of ballistic missiles against very precise targets like runaways would require CEP less than 10 m.Thats almost impossible to achieve with the longer and medium range missiles.It may be achievable only with srbms.Also u would need exact location of IAF airbases and over the horizon radar to guide and engage long range targets.Also as u get deeper into india the most high value target bases are covered by s-300s of our own,specifically made to deal with BMs.
So ur conclusion that df-21s fired from tibet can hit runways in punjab and pune are not realistically believable.
It still doesn't help u in anyway to provide close air support or air cover for advancing land forces.
And IAF doesn't need to come into tibet alone ,brahmos cm and prithvi bms from our side can do it.And the main land action will take place on our side,I don't see why your obsessed with IAF attacking tibet.IAF will be helping IA defend arunachal.
I do agree that if IAF needs to attack deep into tibet S-300 will make it very costly.Its a very formidable weapon.But that ur idea of the effectiveness of long range Ballistic missiles are rather far fetched,short range yes.There will be appreciable damage done.

Ballistic missile with pin point accuracy is not big tech nowadays. The fact, China can produced in very large number and attack in full saturation tells you something, it will not be a few shot off. It will come in large number and will make defender life very miserable.

During Gulf war I , mobile ballistic launch is impossible to counter. Even you have detected it. IAF needs to fly into China airspace to neutralise. This is precisely our plan to force IAF to come into our airspace to bleed as much aircraft as possible by our air defense and fighter jet. Brahmos , longest range at most 280km is not going deep enough China to cost much damage to our Ballistic missile. MKI carrying it needs to take the risk of going deeper which will once again carry the risk of missile kill (as load is ditch to escape intercepting) or get shot down by SAM or fighter jet. And the fact, China are deploying in a very large scale means tracking a few hundred of this launch proves even more impossible. They fly fast and hit fast. SPYDER system has so far prove themselves against Hezbollah low grade home made missile while against DF-15 will be a very difficult challenge especially, it will comes in wave... Yes, missile wave but not human wave this time. The key is saturation. against critical airfield and radar installation. Its worth it...

Once all this is done. You are assuming PLAAF is not able to provide air cover for airborne assault and ground troops movement. That job will lies in Chengdu regiment providing critical air refueling thru H-6D for J-10 or J-11B to venture deep enough into India air space to cover our troops movement. But if will not be too much difficulties if Ballistic Missile/cruise missile takes out India air defense and airfield in the initial wave attack.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

My point is missile attack while damaging is never enough to take out an whole air defence/airfield network.Even usa with tomahawks launched from sea,subs had to conduct extensive aerial campaign to bring pathetic iraqi air defnces down.
As for the scuds.Only 1 to 2,hit large targets.Out of hundreds launched,precision targeting was not possible.
I simply can't believe from the current state of aerial warfare around the world that for long range power projection air craft are no longer necessary,u can just sit and launch ballistic missiles and they would take care of everything.Then why isn't every major power doing the same thing?Scrapping planes and stacking ballistic missiles?SRBms yes,they are more accurate and target FOBs and nato too accepts this doctrine.
Why is china building new strategic bomber then,if it can just sit and launch BMs why need to build an aircarft to carry the munitions to their target a thousand kms away,why USAF has B-2 and russia tu-160 and making future models of new strategic bombers too.

 

[Beast]

My point is missile attack while damaging is never enough to take out an whole air defence/airfield network.Even usa with tomahawks launched from sea,subs had to conduct extensive aerial campaign to bring pathetic iraqi air defnces down.
As for the scuds.Only 1 to 2,hit large targets.Out of hundreds launched,precision targeting was not possible.
I simply can't believe from the current state of aerial warfare around the world that for long range power projection air craft are no longer necessary,u can just sit and launch ballistic missiles and they would take care of everything.Then why isn't every major power doing the same thing?Scrapping planes and stacking ballistic missiles?SRBms yes,they are more accurate and target FOBs and nato too accepts this doctrine.

In the past, nobody believes airpower alone is enough to bring down opponent in a conventional warfare. But GW 1 proves new kind of warfare emerges.

Same as war doctrine will slowly evolve as technology improves, accuracy and chips getting better. But I am not saying Missile alone will be enough just to gain air superiority. But it will be decisive enough to inflict enough damages to opponent not seem in any scale of warfare before. China is moving into this direction. As much as we are investing into our airforce. We are also investing equally among of resources into Ballistic /cruise missile not seen in scale by any countries. Only this time, its not for nuclear but coventional strike. It just that its out of the limelight compare to airforce and navy except the ABM system.

 

[DARKY]

Long time , no see darky. After CV-16 liaoning landed with J-15. You start to disappear and too ashame to answer your allegation of China capabilities

Also for your few photo show. Dropping ordinary supply pallet is easy but dropping an armour vehicle or airborne assault vehicle is out of India scope.

As for the helo dropping a vehicle. That will be too short range and not good enough for power projection

I have got other works and don't have the Chipunk bot duty in here.

Thats the problem when we discuss military with Chinese who haven't even fired a bullet... in his whole life.

Thats not ordinary load but BMP-2[Infantry Fighting Vehicle] wrapped by a parachute and ramp arrangement... for High altitude air drop.

That Helo has range of about 2000km[with aux. tanks].. good enough to enter Tibet.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

In the past, nobody believes airpower alone is enough to bring down opponent in a conventional warfare. But GW 1 proves new kind of warfare emerges.

Same as war doctrine will slowly evolve as technology improves, accuracy and chips getting better. But I am not saying Missile alone will be enough just to gain air superiority. But it will be decisive enough to inflict enough damages to opponent not seem in any scale of warfare before. China is moving into this direction. As much as we are investing into our airforce. We are also investing equally among of resources into Ballistic /cruise missile not seen in scale by any countries. Only this time, its not for nuclear but coventional strike. It just that its out of the limelight compare to airforce and navy except the ABM system.

Ok i'm getting the idea,its a interesting doctrine.Only time will tell if its a successful doctrine.Hopefully we won't find out though.

 

[gambit]

In the past, nobody believes airpower alone is enough to bring down opponent in a conventional warfare. But GW 1 proves new kind of warfare emerges.

Same as war doctrine will slowly evolve as technology improves, accuracy and chips getting better. But I am not saying Missile alone will be enough just to gain air superiority. But it will be decisive enough to inflict enough damages to opponent not seem in any scale of warfare before. China is moving into this direction. As much as we are investing into our airforce. We are also investing equally among of resources into Ballistic /cruise missile not seen in scale by any countries. Only this time, its not for nuclear but coventional strike. It just that its out of the limelight compare to airforce and navy except the ABM system.

Missiles are usually not construed as instrumental to 'air power'. If that is so, then artillery would be 'air power'.

AIR DOMINANCE -- The ability of an air force to compel other air forces, contestant and allies, to re-array themselves, usually into subordinate postures.

AIR SUPERIORITY -- The ability of an air force to gain overwhelming control of an airspace over a ground area, and if said control is temporary, said air force could repeatedly reassert itself. If there are any losses, those losses would not pose any significant statistical and tactical deterrence.

AIR SUPREMACY -- He flies, he dies.

Missiles cannot deter an enemy from exploiting air corridors and spaces to mount attacks. Only aircrafts, specifically fighters, can have persistent presence over those corridors and spaces to discourage and even absolutely deny an enemy those third dimension assets.

Currently, only the US have the ability to go from 'dominance' to 'supremacy' in short order. We can shorten or in some cases even bypass the need to engage in combat to gain 'superiority' over any airspace. And we can do this on a global scale, meaning US air power, from the US Air Force to the US Navy and the US Army, can sufficiently convince an adversary that over any contested airspace that if he fly he will die.

What Desert Storm proved was that coordinated attacks from the third dimension and eventual supreme control of that asset removed a major fear from one's own forces while at the same time impose that same fear absolutely upon the enemy. Absolutely mean undeniable and no dispute among the ranks of the enemy. The corollary is that Desert Storm proved that past attempts at using air power to win battles were grossly uncoordinated, in part because air commanders had too much independence from the overall goal of any conflict -- ground control. This lead back to the first subordinate goal, which is to remove the fear of enemy air force from one's own ground forces.

At best, missiles can temporarily deny an enemy air corridors and spaces by way of damaging his equipment such as runways and parked aircrafts. But unless there are immediate follow ups on that successful denial by establishing one's own air forces in those corridors and spaces and ground forces to expand their presence closer to enemy territory to make that denial permanent, the enemy will repair what was damaged, replenish what was destroyed, and reassert his presence in those air corridors and spaces again.

 

[UKBengali]

What Desert Storm proved was that coordinated attacks from the third dimension and eventual supreme control of that asset removed a major fear from one's own forces while at the same time impose that same fear absolutely upon the enemy. Absolutely mean undeniable and no dispute among the ranks of the enemy. The corollary is that Desert Storm proved that past attempts at using air power to win battles were grossly uncoordinated, in part because air commanders had too much independence from the overall goal of any conflict -- ground control.

Desert Storm proved nothing

Taking on a tiny state of 20 million that had no ability to manufacture advance weapons and the best it had was small numbers of downgraded versions of the latest Soviet Weapons.

Take on large, relatively advanced military powers like Russia and China and then talk big.