CM-400AKG: A tough job for the Indian Navy

[Secur]

Firstly there is no reliable source to confirm the existence of the missile

Thus, I just want to state that maybe CM-400AKG has a range of about 80km-100km with 100kg warhead which is also what 900kg weight of missile signifies. And there is no good in it if missile range is 200km but can be fired from only 80km.

Thirdly seeker of missile can only guide the missile for the final 10km-20km range, and when the missile is at this range the altitude of flying can't be 10km and even if, the apogee is not 19km because missile is angled towards the target and not vertical.Though this is not my point of discussion so no issues.



Guys he was not talking about AWACS but ground based radar like 'Greenpine' and 'LRTR' which has a detection range in excess of 650km which is not present with the Pakistan's Army or PAF. And even if I talk about AWACS, our fleet has a detection range of greater than 400km but Pakistan's fleet has detection range of 250km.

Only AESA radars can be termed better than BARS of Su-30mki. No other radar comes close. BARS of Sukhoi can easily track target in greater than 135km range for RCS of 1m2-2m2. It is hybrid radar of X band and L band and almost impossible to jam. It generates power of 8ghz-12ghz good enough to jam any non-AESA radar.

It's true our submarine fleet will fall to only 12 in 2015, but that will yet be much more than your 4-5 fleet submarine. And for your information a CBG group consist of 1 AC, 2-3 destroyers, 4 frigates, 4 corvettes and 3-4 submarines. Together they will have more than 650 missiles among which 500 are air-defecne missile. Our kolkata class destroyers will have 64 cell of Barak -8 and 32 cell of Barak-1.

Really ? Is it so ? Were the Chinese and Pakistanis trolling around with potential customers at the airshow with those playcard , live displays and statements that the missile is operational on JFT ? I have posted some sources in the same thread on previous pages , even though I do not expect this ' denial mode ' of yours to stop .

Not maybe 80-100 KMs , but a confirmed range between 180-250 KMs as reported by Jane - now do not come around asking for its credibility . I have entertained enough ' kids ' for now . Those KlJ-7 ranges are for 3m2 or 5m2 targets not a ship 200 meters long and 20 meters tall , there they would be much . You know a carrier's RCS - even a rough estimate ? Ever wondered why they are called ' bomb magnets ' ?

Really ? Think and research again then or search for AN/TPS 77 .
AN/FPS-117 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Even if you talk about AWAC's , you are dead wrong here since the Saab Erieye has a detection range of 450 KMs itself . Even the newly inducted Chinese ZDK-03 have a detection range of 350 km so I really do not know why you do not research first before making these posts .

Give me a reason for that . At times , even mechanical radars have proven better than their PESA counterparts as Oscar shortly pointed out in the thread . Bars is only good for our scenarios because of its resistance to jamming but it surely doesn't mean that other radars cant function in the meantime . The distance isn't so much for you to have any advantage in detecting aircraft from 200-250 KMs away which can be achieved by AWAC's too , thus nullifying the whole advantage . The SU 30 MKi itself has a massive radar cross section of 15m2 meaning that it can be detected from far away by any Pakistani aircraft . Generation of power has nothing to do with jamming every single ' non-AESA ' radar , suggest you have a good look at the one carried by the Pakistani F16's who have just returned after being upgraded to Block 52 standard avionics .

Its true too that Indians have dual threats , meaning that they cant commit every single submarine in the Western theater and Sea denial is low cost strategy which can be achieved with far lesser assets than you are thinking of . Please , do not try to enlighten me , I know what a CBG usually consist of , what you are giving isn't the universal defined value of the ships and submarines that should accompany him , but the simple thing is ' you do not have one at the moment ' . By the time you get the carrier and actually assemble one , PN would have increased its assets , the deal has already been signed for 4 more F22Ps with improved SAM's bringing the total surface combatants to 12 more than enough to ensure denial of the seas .

 

[Secur]

Thanks for the post.

Thanks for the childish post going round and round in circles . Where goes your claim of ' it exists not ' ?

I believe it's 105 for 5m2, the other fighter I think is for blk2.

Updated to 135 KMs for a target of 5m2 . You may want to search for the official statement .

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Oh thats your authenticity you are taking data from wordpress blog AKA official wensite of JF 17. O man take life.



Your believe doesnt matter to us. facts matter. as recently it increased to >135 for 5m2 target. please update your self.

it's a debate so please provide source.

 

[Anony]

Really ? Is it so ? Were the Chinese and Pakistanis trolling around with potential customers at the airshow with those playcard , live displays and statements that the missile is operational on JFT ? I have posted some sources in the same thread on previous pages , even though I do not expect this ' denial mode ' of yours to stop .

Not maybe 80-100 KMs , but a confirmed range between 180-250 KMs as reported by Jane - now do not come around asking for its credibility . I have entertained enough ' kids ' for now . Those KlJ-7 ranges are for 3m2 or 5m2 targets not a ship 200 meters long and 20 meters tall , there they would be much . You know a carrier's RCS - even a rough estimate ? Ever wondered why they are called ' bomb magnets ' ?

Read post no. 433. I have accepted other than 1 info on range, the source one member has provided has proved my points and that CM-400AKG can't be carrier killer. I said it to have a range of 100km,because other members stated that it can carry warhead of 300kg and is 900kg in weight. Simple concept of specification, no denial.

There is always a concept of maximum look down mode or maximum range. If you think look down mode is greater than 85km-90km, then give source as I have given a reliable source of klj-7 specification.

 

[Secur]

Read post no. 433. I have accepted other than 1 info on range, the source one member has provided has proved my points and that CM-400AKG can't be carrier killer. I said it to have a range of 100km,because other members stated that it can carry warhead of 300kg and is 900kg in weight. Simple concept of specification, no denial.

I asked a simple question ' Where is your claim of ' it exists not ' now ?

The range is stated to be in the range of 180-250 by the official sources and reported by Jane , there's nothing to dispute and nothing to debate about that . Accept it or move on . I am not going to take a member's word over what is already made public by the people who make the missile and those who manage the whole project . The kinetic impact at Mach 5 is enough to sink a carrier , forget the fragmentation warhead and such . Do the maths yourself or I can point you out to the one already done in this thread by @Dreamreaper .

 

[Anony]

I asked a simple question ' Where is your claim of ' it exists not ' now ?

The range is stated to be in the range of 180-250 by the official sources and reported by Jane , there's nothing to dispute and nothing to debate about that . Accept it or move on . I am not going to take a member's word over what is already made public by the people who make the missile and those who manage the whole project . The kinetic impact at Mach 5 is enough to sink a carrier , forget the fragmentation warhead and such . Do the maths yourself or I can point you out to the one already done in this thread by @Dreamreaper .

You have preminded something, I can't help or you have failed to comprehend. In my post no. 433 I accepted it has range of 180km-250km. That is the only info which I stated incorrectly from start. My Doesn't Exist claims still holds good, because I never said CM-400AKG doesn't exist but the claim of other members that CM-400AKG weights 900kg and can carry warhead of 300 kg, specifications doesn't exist.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

1. our carrier will be at 500 km distance.
2. our CBG ships will be at 300 km distance.
3. couple of sub,frigates, and destroyers etc will be brought to 200 km distance from your shore for the blockade.
3.our migs has 3000km with three drop tanks.so it can easily provide air cover, can target pak surface ships and installations.jf17 will struggle because of range limitations.
4. pak awac, P3c Orion, etc "fat guys " should keep a distance of 200 km from your shore to inside your territory .our p8i, Tu142,awac will be operating within the limits of CBG, say at 500-300 km distance from your shore.
5. being out of range CM400 can't target Our carrier.
6. CM 400 Basically is a land attack missile, to effectively attack moving ship's it needs inputs from launch platform.taking a full range shot at general direction will only work on stationary targets as I explained in post #406 and #413.
7. presence of f16 can be handled by bringing in few mki's and increasing the iaf activities at land border.

 

[gambit]

@gambit

What exactly would you put the ' seeker acquisition range ' of the CM400 AKG from the data at hand ?

If you are asking about a set distance for a specific seeker type of which the seeker will call out a target, then not possible. So unless someone violate OpSec and post the hardware data on the seeker section here for all to see...

Seeker acquisition is totally dependent on target characteristics. If your seeker is radar, then it is RCS. If your seeker is infrared, then it is intensity.

Put aside countermeasures for now. This leave only two major influence on the seeker's ability to discriminate a target: sensitivity (internal) and clutter (external). Notice I said 'clutter' and not 'interference'. For interference, such can come from internal noise, which often but not always, affects sensitivity. Clutter, on the other hand, is more specific. Clutter is unpredictable in intensity and locality, the latter meaning this external interference can be within seeker view but may be offside, allowing the seeker still a reasonable clear view of the target.

If the seeker is radar, then the usual RCS factor is appropriate for our problem. If the target is deliberately designed for low radar observability, then acquisition range will be shorter than compared against a 'non-stealth' target. A major factor from target characteristics that will help the acquisition range, as in increase it, is the Doppler component. The problem is not all missile radars are Doppler capable. Is the -400's? You will have to dig up that information yourself.

Contrary to expected belief, against fixed and/or limited mobility targets, the Doppler component to assist acquisition range is not as important as against airborne targets where such targets, due to them having propulsion, can increase or decrease Doppler while maneuvering, this accordion-like Doppler behavior can only aid the seeker in focus and eventual discrimination. Against fixed and/or limited mobility ground targets, as the seeker approaches, target intensity will suffice as a focus point. But if the target is designed for low radar observability, and ships are now incorporating such features, the Doppler component should be added in. Doppler from 'stealth' targets are low enough already so every bit helps.

Sensitivity is a major technology and engineering obstacle. A missile's radar antenna is small (up to 7 in) to start so we already have a built-in sensitivity bar that we cannot get over and must compensate elsewhere in the system such as lowering internal noise. Signal processing, sub signal integration, sub integration time, can also be worked on to increase sensitivity. But we are not working on a microwave oven or a high end stereo amplifier. We are working on weak signals from moving bodies, which includes our seeker, where as closing speed increases, increasing the signal processing time will cause a miss because the seeker was processing stale target data, most notably spatial coordinates from a few µs or even one second ago. If this is a nuclear warhead, it would not matter, but since this is non-nuclear, if the missile failed by just one meter, the defense won. Against low radar observable target? Longer signal integration time is necessary. But once again, because at least one body is moving and at Mach at that, we go back to square one with that rapidly increasing closing speed.

Clutter...??? That is a whole different can of worms, especially if the missile is facing variable terrain while on the way to target, and would require another post.

Solution...??? Command guidance from an external and larger sensor elsewhere.

 

[gambit]

Not really, was for the part of fire and forget. It's not that simple when you fire one and its on its way. It needs to be guided and the guidance is provided in the early part either by the aircraft launching or a third mechanism. Hence, its not necessarily fire and forget. Now, this means it needs to be guided till its own seekers kick in for the terminal guidance. So, if the person guiding the missile is disengaged or destroyed, assumption is that it won't be accurate. Now, if the missile has a seeker range for terminal guidance at 70 kms. Then that's a long way the launching fighter needs to hold course for guidance against any armed opponent.
@gambit and you can feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

To date, no missile is truly 'fire and forget'. We used to joke that you can forget that it will hit the target. But now technology progressed...

Still...The phrase 'fire and forget' really mean the missile still needs to be pointed towards the general direction/location of the target THEN we can let the missile's own sensor/guidance package take over. This is the 'forget' part. That command guidance does not need to be restricted to radar, as in using the parent launch aircraft radar to illuminate the target to assist the missile. That command guidance can be spatial coordinates in the form of datalinking. You are basically telling the missile that it is pointing NNE where the target is SSW. The missile will then ignore its own sensor returns, including that heavily loaded B-52, and execute a turn towards the direction you commanded it to look. In the future, may be that command guidance will be telepathy.

The bottom line is that because a missile's own radar antenna is much smaller than the parent launch aircraft's and nosecone shape and volume affects antenna sweep angle, the missile still will require some initial guidance before it can try to discriminate the target on its own.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Yes ' this enforcement by merely getting a dozen fighters in the air ' was the same as ' placing a couple of S300 system along the Pakistani border and enforce a No Fly Zone in the country ' theory , I laughed at some time ago . What you are forgetting mate that the same is true for India too , you are next door to us too . What you are stating , applies to you too . The same radar and AWAC's tracking can be done from here and alert the central command . Trust me , we have an airforce too which I am seeing constant absence of in people's argument . A war isn't fought by scrambling all of the aircraft in the arsenal at once and AA/AD ( Anti Access/Area Denial ) is more easy than trying to gain air superiority or enforce naval blockade during times of hostilities , let me assure you on that . Nobody's denying that the IAF doesn't have advantage over their counterparts , the point is that we have got other means to nullify that advantage . Ah this ' mightiness ' Let me correct you over the Brahmos part , not all SU30 MKI's can carry Brahmos without extensive structural modifications and even that you do not have any at the moment . The F16's BlK 52 are more than a match for the Flankers with extremely large RCS which makes detection far easier considering that even the JFT's KlJ-7 has a 135 KMs detection range for 5m2 target , the Sukhois are reported to be close to 15m2 , the F16's radar is of course far more better . So , nothing ' undefeatable ' as you suppose since it takes one hit of the BVR/WVR to bring a hostile down . Now , reading how just two squadrons of those invincible aircraft can bring the entire PAF down , I would think that either you know better than your planners who chose not to proceed with the ' surgical strikes ' plan and were surprised with the low response time of the PAF .

Had you read the previous post of mine , you wouldn't have been sticking with ' positioning ' a carrier some 500-600 km's away and then flying a dozen MiGs from there and doing wonders to Pakistan without facing any ' retaliation ' . Read it again .

Have you seen the location of ports and the Sea Lines of Communication of Pakistan ? . I suggest you have a look at the map again . You cant enforce a blockade from that far away . Iran and GCC countries are right next door and the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman where the country is expected to receive most of the help during the times of hostilities are no more than 350-400 KMs away and the exclusive economic zones and maritime boundaries of those countries mean that you cant station a CBG there that close to them . Out of the question keeping in mind the International laws and the influence of the Arabs . Minus those countries EEZ's and territorial water distance of 200 miles from the equation and the distance comes much close to 250 KMs value .


Neither will ours be , it goes both ways . Search the ' loiter time ' thing and the fuel spent when flying low or roaming an area and the need for constant refueling as will be the case with Mig29's . We do not have to come anywhere , simple thing , we have to wait for the Indian Navy to come close and try to block the SLOC's and then try to stop them . Sea denial is extremely easy and low cost strategy compared to dominance , which is what you are looking at . For the moment , you do not have a proper carrier , except the one being used for training which spends more of its time in docks getting refit because of its age . In the meantime , the PAF has ordered four more F22P's with improved SAMs/sensors complete with a dedicated maritime JFT squadron with C802/C803/CM400 AKG's bringing the total surface combatants to 14 augmented with 5 submarines more than capable of ensuring the denial of the seas . Your submarine fleet's strength is slated to be on an all time low by 2015 , search for it or I will provide a link . Not that easy , as you assume , you see .

We do not have to , that is the best part . Both sides will be vulnerable to attack , when assets come close . I am quite sure the JFT are more than capable of attacking surface ships and carrier when they are near 300 KMs to our coastline and this whole thing is not within the realm of fiction as some are trying to portray it , but more than possible .

well sir u dint take the whole picture into account

1. we just dont have the MKI's to keep u engaged we also have

a. 150 Jags for the ground and sea assult ....which will keep your gorund based assets bizzi while

b.There are 60 MIG29 & equal Number of Mirage 2000 both of whome are upgraded to the latest level which is better than your F16blk52 for the air support ..so it nullifies the F16 threat which you have only 32 all else are too old and good for CAS onli + some 100 bisons for backup & point defence

c. and not to forget the latest french & israeli Ground based ASEA , PESA & 3D Radars which arebacked by S300PMU, Akash,Spyder and i big inoventorry of Russian & french SAMs which are far superior to anything you have and at least twice in Numbers on the western theater while we have kept some for the eastern theater

d. MKIs with just a minor modification can carry 1 bhramos and that means all and the 42 new will carry 3 bhramos so even if we say there are 2 squads dedicated for such how will you stop them as they might be an elephant on your radars but they also carry a huge & second to none EW suits + a radar which can track a bunch of JF17 at least 250KMs away & well before you sea the MKI it will shoot you thanks to the BVRs on board and each carries twice the amount of BVRs even if it has a bharmos on board

e. what about the Novtar AWADS killer (with over 300KM range & an MKI can carry two +4 regular BVRs) and we have the Harop anty radar Drone/missile what do you think your air force will keep your ground based and your AWACS near the broder while owr phalcons with atleast 100 miles inside indian border will scan all of the pakistani airspace dening you any supremecy while we have a dedicated SAT cover too

2. now lets talk about sea blockade well sir all your subs will be taken care of thanks to P8s which are twice as good as your old P3Cs which will be already tracked by us about there movement and owr assets alerted hope u get the point sir

3. you seem to think that arabs and iranians will help you against india in time of war which is hillarious well even if they do give you gas & oil still they cant come owt openli cause if they do we have Israel & USA to take care of them .......no one takes on the mighty giant to help the stupid and weak...hope u get the point sir

So in short lets get back to the topic how will you take care of the sea blockade and take on owr CBG with JF17 wich you dont have enof numbers with there super duper CM-400AKGs

 

[Major Sam]

Read post no. 433. I have accepted other than 1 info on range, the source one member has provided has proved my points and that CM-400AKG can't be carrier killer. I said it to have a range of 100km,because other members stated that it can carry warhead of 300kg and is 900kg in weight. Simple concept of specification, no denial.

There is always a concept of maximum look down mode or maximum range. If you think look down mode is greater than 85km-90km, then give source as I have given a reliable source of klj-7 specification.

Your on post:

I have already posted the link for this.

"It's given Klj-7 has 75km detection range for 3m2 RCS object, thus U can find out what could be for 5m2 RCS object and U will find that it is coming close to 105km. But one of the member here claim that to 135km and I still accepted that taking that to be quite a realistic figure since klj-7 works at 80-85 degree azimuth, thus spreading it's power on narrower area generally should have figure close to 130km."

By Anony

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...a-development-comparison-9.html#ixzz2VytVsqtM

How many times you want us to refresh your screwed brain about KLJ-7 radar range..... now don't say you forgot. thats in your blood to deny every thing we Pakistanis have. next time be careful to troll.


Here is the weapon list package we got for JF-17.

International arms transfers
BJÖRN HAGELIN, PIETER D. WEZEMAN, SIEMON T. WEZEMAN AND NICHOLAS CHIPPERFIELD

(600) PL-12/SD-10 BVRAAM (2006) 2010-2012 (225) For JF-17 and possibly modernized Mirage-3/5 combat aircraft

(900) PL-5E SRAAM (2006) 2009-2012 (510) For JF-17 combat aircraft; PL-5E-II version

(50) C-802/CSS-N-8 Anti-ship missile (2008) 2012 (10) For JF-17 combat aircraft

(750) LS-3 Guided bomb (2008) 2010-2012 (250) For JF-17 combat aircraft

(750) LS-6-500 Guided bomb (2008) 2010-2012 (550) For JF-17 combat aircraft

(750) LT-2 Guided bomb (2008) 2010-2012 (250) For JF-17 combat aircraft

(100) WMD-7 Aircraft EO system (2008) 2009-2012 (70) For JF-17 combat aircraft

4 ZDK-03 AEW&C aircraft 2008 2011-2012 (2) $278 m deal

(30) C-802/CSS-N-8 Anti-ship missile (2010) 2012 (15) For Azmat FAC

(50) CM-400AKG Anti-ship missile (2010) 2012 (10) For JF-17 combat aircraft

(150) RD-33 Turbofan (2004) 2007-2012 (61) RD-93 version; for JF-17 combat aircraft from China

(150) JF-17 Thunder/FC-1 FGA aircraft 1999 2007-2012 (61) Developed for Pakistan; incl production of components and assembly in Pakistan; incl 8 mainly for testing and first 42 production version ordered 2009 for $800 m

13. International arms transfers — Welcome to SIPRI — www.sipri.org

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-...hunder-information-pool-31.html#ixzz2VyuHfdDx

Now STFU....

 

[Anony]

Your on post:

I have already posted the link for this.

"It's given Klj-7 has 75km detection range for 3m2 RCS object, thus U can find out what could be for 5m2 RCS object and U will find that it is coming close to 105km. But one of the member here claim that to 135km and I still accepted that taking that to be quite a realistic figure since klj-7 works at 80-85 degree azimuth, thus spreading it's power on narrower area generally should have figure close to 130km."

By Anony

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...a-development-comparison-9.html#ixzz2VytVsqtM

How many times you want us to refresh your screwed brain about KLJ-7 radar range..... now don't say you forgot. thats in your blood to deny every thing we Pakistanis have. next time be careful to troll.

Good to see you are following my post, but I don't have a habit of forgetting but either you do have a habit of not reading complete discussion and making out a conclusion or you don't understand the difference between detecting aerial target in lookup mode and ground/sea based target in look-down mode. I know very well now that klj-7 radar has a detection of 135 km for target having RCS of 5m2 but that doesn't mean it can detect ships from 135km as well. Read the following link of klj-7 radar specification:


JF-17 Avionics | JF-17 Thunder

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

klj radar range improvements mentioned in the kanwa interview is for jf17 blk 2, blk 1 radar range is 105 km for 5m2 target.

 

[Major Sam]

he he he well do you know at what range say an MKI can detect a JF17 well its 400 KM at least and track them at at least 200 KMs away and it can track 15 of them while engage 6 simontaniousli as it can carry upto 12 BVRs with a range of over 100KMs so even if a JF 17 sees a mki at say 200 KM till it reaches the tracking range MKI would have comfortablli launched all its BVR's so by the time it gets into position to fire its missiles the BVRs from MKI will be comfortaballi in no escape zone will it(JF17) save itself or go on to launch its missiles against MKI + it has Novotar missile which has a range over 300 KMs and it can comfortablli carry 4 of them + same amount of other BVRs

now the point is how will your JF 17 come any where close to indian CBG as it has from land deal with latest ugrades of Mirage 2000 & MIG 29 & MKI's and at sea the MIG 29k all of which have bigger radars & bigger amount of EV protection + twice the no of BVRs to unleash its CM400


please take your time and answer this simple question and yes we will be tracking your JF17s as soon as they leave the runways at any of your air bases thanks to indian ground based & Aerostat radars not to forget the mighty Phalcon

Its not a Vs thread. so ill prefer not answer.

 

[Secur]

2. now lets talk about sea blockade well sir all your subs will be taken care of thanks to P8s which are twice as good as your old P3Cs which will be already tracked by us about there movement and owr assets alerted hope u get the point sir

3. you seem to think that arabs and iranians will help you against india in time of war which is hillarious well even if they do give you gas & oil still they cant come owt openli cause if they do we have Israel & USA to take care of them .......no one takes on the mighty giant to help the stupid and weak...hope u get the point sir

So in short lets get back to the topic how will you take care of the sea blockade and take on owr CBG with JF17 wich you dont have enof numbers with there super duper CM-400AKGs

First of all , there was no need , none at all to post the entire inventory of IAF , forgetting completely in the meantime what the PAF has got to counter it with . I see a problem with this overestimation of one's own capabilities and underestimation of others . I am not denying that the Indian Airforce doesn't enjoy a conventional advantage over its counterparts , it just happens that the force on other side of the border is vigilant and ready and with the upgraded Mirages , F16's , F7 and JFT's in quite a number ( around 450 aircraft in total ) can more than hold on its own against the adversary . I will not go into details of who will engage whom since aerial engagements do not happen that why . The ground radars and AWACs you boast of and which I enlightened another member not too long on this very thread , are present on the other side of the border too so are the SAM systems . Honestly , what do you even know about PAF going by your posts ? Trust me , the SU30 MKI is just another variant of Flanker , a very capable aircraft with diverse systems but not in any way ' the God's gift to aviation ' as you portray it out to be and by no means ' undefeatable or invincible ' . Its massive RCS is a serious problem and it can be detected at longer ranges even though they hardly matters in this scenario because of the presence of AWACs on both sides of the border capable of scanning the air space of adversary at distances of 300-400 KMs . So track a bunch of JFT at 250 KMs by all means , the JFT will know the same and it only takes one missile hit to bring an aircraft down regardless of the role . Let me correct you , a structural modification like the one MKI's need to carry Brahmos are yet to be carried out and aren't minor modifications by any chance . In the meantime , the Mirages are already able to fire the Ra'ad ALCM . The Novtar K100 isn't such an effective missile to ' fire and forget ' and hit a moving AWACs to the point that till this date it hasn't been bought by any country despite being offered to be sold repeatedly , the Indians will be the first one to get it in the future . You have got it all messed up , why exactly does the PAF need to keep the AWAC's near the border when they have a range of 450 KMs and still able to detect potential threats whilst remaining deep inside Pakistani territory under cover . I explained to you earlier that aerial warfare isn't carried out by ' scrambling all the assets in the air ' at the same time . The rules of engagement and scenarios are different each time .

The ' Sea blockade ' you speak so repeatedly and know little of , isn't that easy to accomplish that a few subs and frigates move in with a carrier somewhere back and just shut down the Sea Lines of Communication without facing ' serious retaliation ' from the Pakistan Navy which is well equipped for low cost and committing far lesser assets ' sea denial ' strategy . The 11 surface combatants at the moment * not counting the newer ordered F22Ps * augmented by 5 submarines are more than enough to ensure the ' denial of the seas ' to IN . Again it appears , that you have little idea of what the PN fields . The P3C's are also used for the same role and its the Indian warships that have to come close to enforce a blockade , not our ones re read your own argument . Each asset can be tracked of , since we are right next door , it doesn't by any chance stop it from being effective against threats .

I do not seem to think that they will help us out of ' brotherhood ' but when paid , they will surely do business with Pakistan for oil and both the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman are very close geographically to be blocked by something wandering some 500-600 KMs away as you assume . The Arabs have precious oil which is the reason for their alliance with US , what exactly do you have to offer besides countering China to assume the Americans will try to stop the sale to Pakistan or somehow assist you in the war ? Israel is a non-entity running completely on US support . You aren't the mighty giant yet , as you delude yourself . Besides the Karakorum Highway is always open for Pakistan to rely on .

I want to know one thing , if honestly the things are so much in your favor and the picture is so rosy , why haven't you attacked Pakistan yet ? You have threatened , mobilized and then backed off from the border without us firing a single shot in '87 Op.Brasstacks and '02 Op.Parakram and done nothing after the repeated warnings of ' surgical strikes ' Why ? There must be a reason right ?

Remember , one more thing , the max time , the Indian armed forces have got after the commencement of hostilities is at best not more than a week because the International pressure will mount in on both sides , with the UN asking for ceasefire and knowing the risk of impending nuclear war , the major powers will exert their influence on both countries . You do not have unlimited time on your hands , my friend . Besides that , you are faced with two threats . The Chinese will be itching to take advantage of any Indian weakness . That is why you devised the ' Cold Start ' but for even that , Pakistan had an answer .

Because , the dedicated maritime squadrons of JFT the naval aviation will be getting shortly equipped with C802/803 and CM400 AKG are more than enough to try and engage the Carrier Battle Group since they can be spared for this ' important mission ' , I have already explained how close the CBG's need to be in order to enforce an ' effective blockade ' . Talking of numbers , PAF will be procuring around 200-250 JFT's in total .

please take your time and answer this simple question and yes we will be tracking your JF17s as soon as they leave the runways at any of your air bases thanks to indian ground based & Aerostat radars not to forget the mighty Phalcon

The same otherwise . Do you think we do not have ground based radars or this is merely your ignorance ? You may want to look at the map and see the location of both countries . Detect them from 600 KMs and yet you still have to come close for BVR aerial engagement , no BVR missile is effectively launched unless they get close to the 150 KMs range and even then the probability of actually hitting the target isn't that high .