Dhanoa's 'Plan B' and implications for Pakistan

[PurpleButcher]

No full scale war is ever going to happen. Nukes are not for decoration purposes, low intensity pro-longed warfare will happen at max e.g., ttp, bla and kashmir etc.

 

[Mrc]

This BS guy is tasked with making up fairy tails to keep hindutiva morale up

 

[Darth Vader]

Now you are hung up on dams? I gave that as an example, not that we are aiming to take dams.


Pakistan is not the one that will fight a two-front war, India will.


It's fine. But we have no plans of entering cities.

It's simple. There was no profit in a nuclear war. What's the objective? And is the objective worth going to war? Even in a conventional setting, like right after WW2, there was no point in going to war. WW1 ended warfare as a whole. It was just Hitler who was nuts enough to go to war. So even without nukes, there was no possibility of war between the US and SU.

The Soviet Union never operated with MAD in mind. Their belief was they would win a nuclear war. And their entire MIC was geared towards winning the conventional war that followed a nuclear war. The Soviets never believed in MAD because they had conventional superiority. With the dissolution of the SU, the US also stopped talking about MAD since they now have conventional superiority. Their withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and commencing the development of ICBM stoppers was a proof of that. The Russians followed it up with the development of the S-500.

The reason why nuclear war can be fought is because of this thing called tunnelling. You could simply tunnel your way to safety.

In India's case, it's two-fold. One, if we go to war today, we will win, but at the cost of destabilising the entire region, like in Iraq and Syria. Although the Kashmir issue will be resolved, the cost will be far too much.

Second, we want to be able to defeat Pakistan overwhelmingly, like what the US did in Iraq. We want to do it with minimum casualties, even if the war goes nuclear. We are slowly reaching a point where SR/MR/IRBMs are becoming useless because of BMD. When that happens, the nuclear threat from Pakistan will diminish considerably, and our conventional superiority would have further improved. We do not have this advantage yet.

Regardless, there is no objective worth pursuing by waging war on Pakistan as of today.

One Point you keep bringing in china as i said earlier i m giving you a response from what will happen
it might be China starts the War with india , or maybe china doesnt do anything so please keep china out of it as that will be other discussion.

and em Hung up, you have no idea what you are talking about
let me enlighten you when you are holding a important position like this big deep inside enemy it wont be easy you will need to deploy alot of units in a unfriendly area and that will only happen if you are holding that surroundings and your enemy will take advantage of that.
Unless Indian forces try to strick these civilian installation and cause major civilian deaths i wouldn't do that, what do you think will be response back from Pakistani Forces it will give them a legitimate reason to attack your civilians and cause major problems in that sense India has much to lose than Pakistan, in Start India and Pakistan mostly try to hit only military installations

a thing which you keep forgetting is Pakistan and India is the one of the most heavily patrolled and controlled border in the world
the way you are presenting your argument is that in Pakistani side there wont be No defenders no fortification and Indian army will simply run them over but in reality that another story as aggressor you need 7 against 1 defender You have BSF while Pakistan has Rangers and than Army what will happen in few areas when rangers are able to stop and on few spots Indian forces are able to push through. so the forces which are the spear heads if are too deep in enemy territory and Pakistan have decent standing air force left, it will say it will end badly for them.

Here Pakistan has one advantage the Transport infrastructure is really good so they will be able to deploy forces much quicker than Indian forces, Cold Start doctrine depends alot on everything going smooth and Indian armed forces able to keep pushing from all side which Most probably wont happen

You keep jumping from point to point at one point you say your guys where you say you want to hold rural towns you dont want to hold rural towns , if you try to secure every town before going ahead to keep your supply lines smooth what will be the result delays which will give more time for Pakistan to deploy more reinforcements
and as i said earlier you havnt seen the plans of punjab and i have been there so its not that plain anymore for you guys

You keep repeating same thing again and again no profit , in current conditions India has much more to lose than Pakistan

Us and Russia didnt have MAD in mind lol thats funny, Russia had Conventional Superiority ? in What Regards , US had much better deal than Russia, they had alot of buffer allies state right close to enemy and for russia that wasn't the option , US Air force was much superior , US NAVY was much superior only edge USSR had was in submarines and in EU with superior numbers but not the quality , thats going no where coming back to topic

Both wanted to destroy other in 1st strike so other is no response back but it was a no win scenario
and other side would have responded in same order
if you think you go full scale war with China and Pakistan at same time and win i would say stop smoking whatever you are smoking, China is building its transport capabilities much quickly than India with quality and china with the help of Pakistan will be able to do a 3 directional attack to India , while Can india do same against china ?

 

[randomradio]

One Point you keep bringing in china as i said earlier i m giving you a response from what will happen
it might be China starts the War with india , or maybe china doesnt do anything so please keep china out of it as that will be other discussion.

and em Hung up, you have no idea what you are talking about
let me enlighten you when you are holding a important position like this big deep inside enemy it wont be easy you will need to deploy alot of units in a unfriendly area and that will only happen if you are holding that surroundings and your enemy will take advantage of that.
Unless Indian forces try to strick these civilian installation and cause major civilian deaths i wouldn't do that, what do you think will be response back from Pakistani Forces it will give them a legitimate reason to attack your civilians and cause major problems in that sense India has much to lose than Pakistan, in Start India and Pakistan mostly try to hit only military installations

I already told you, civilians are not targets. The idea is to hold territory, get a ceasefire and then negotiate for concessions before releasing territory. That's the objective for Cold Start.

If it's total war, the objective is to bifurcate the country.

a thing which you keep forgetting is Pakistan and India is the one of the most heavily patrolled and controlled border in the world
the way you are presenting your argument is that in Pakistani side there wont be No defenders no fortification and Indian army will simply run them over but in reality that another story as aggressor you need 7 against 1 defender You have BSF while Pakistan has Rangers and than Army what will happen in few areas when rangers are able to stop and on few spots Indian forces are able to push through. so the forces which are the spear heads if are too deep in enemy territory and Pakistan have decent standing air force left, it will say it will end badly for them.

In the plains, you need a 3:1 advantage. But we can also ensure air superiority.

We have way more firepower in the air and it's set to drastically increase over the next 10 years. 250+ dedicated attack helicopters and 200+ UCAVs added to the mix.

Here Pakistan has one advantage the Transport infrastructure is really good so they will be able to deploy forces much quicker than Indian forces, Cold Start doctrine depends alot on everything going smooth and Indian armed forces able to keep pushing from all side which Most probably wont happen

Things have changed a lot. We no longer have Holding Corps, only Pivot Corps. Meaning, even our forces close to the border have enough offensive power to enter Pakistan at will.

The idea behind Cold Start is to force Pakistan's Holding Corps to respond to the incursions. But we will have so many different brigade and division level units entering Pakistan at various points that they will have to spread their formation and weaken their own defences. Depending on the conditions, we may end the war there, or take it further by moving the Strike Corps in.

You keep jumping from point to point at one point you say your guys where you say you want to hold rural towns you dont want to hold rural towns , if you try to secure every town before going ahead to keep your supply lines smooth what will be the result delays which will give more time for Pakistan to deploy more reinforcements
and as i said earlier you havnt seen the plans of punjab and i have been there so its not that plain anymore for you guys

Nope, we will not enter towns and cities. Any settlement with less than 5000 people is not a town or a city.

Our objective will be to hold hills, roads, bridges etc. Why is this hard to understand? If trucks stop supplying food to urban settlements, what will happen?

And I don't think you know what plains means. You were talking about attacking from Kashmir, the terrain there is mountainous. I am referring to flat lands where I can drive tanks through.

You keep repeating same thing again and again no profit , in current conditions India has much more to lose than Pakistan

I already said this. The gains from a war today will be marginal, not worth it.

War is likely if we are able to deliver overwhelming force with significantly lower casualties on our side, including nuclear. Until we achieve this, there will be no war.

Us and Russia didnt have MAD in mind lol thats funny, Russia had Conventional Superiority ? in What Regards , US had much better deal than Russia, they had alot of buffer allies state right close to enemy and for russia that wasn't the option , US Air force was much superior , US NAVY was much superior only edge USSR had was in submarines and in EU with superior numbers but not the quality , thats going no where coming back to topic

Both wanted to destroy other in 1st strike so other is no response back but it was a no win scenario
and other side would have responded in same order

The Soviets were far too powerful on land for NATO to fight back.

MAD didn't exist during the Cold War, it doesn't exist today. Their focus has now shifted towards BMD. So they believe the nukes can be stopped.

In India's case, we have far too many military targets alone for nukes to matter. And BMD will stop most of the nukes anyway. Ballistic missiles will become useless against strategic targets like cities in the mid term because the targets will be too well-defended. You can say that by next year, Mumbai and Delhi will become impervious to missile attacks launched from Pakistan, both cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, if not already.

if you think you go full scale war with China and Pakistan at same time and win i would say stop smoking whatever you are smoking, China is building its transport capabilities much quickly than India with quality and china with the help of Pakistan will be able to do a 3 directional attack to India , while Can india do same against china ?

Any Sino-India war will be a limited war. The terrain is not friendly for large scale battles. It will mainly be a tug of war between the infantries. We don't need any special transport capabilities either. All the troops we need are already at the border.

I have no idea what you mean by 3-directional attack.

 

[Dark-Destroyer]

Indian won congratulations bye world

 

[313ghazi]

Plan B is a dud. First of all we can reach anywhere in India, where cruise missiles cannot reach, ballistics missiles can. We should build up a huge force of them for exactly such a scenario.

Secondly the Pakistani response to cold start is to surge into India to take territory to exchange. India cannot start a war with jabs off the back foot, because Pakistan will take the front foot, cross the border and take under defended territory. When in Indian territory the threshold to use tactical nuclear weapons will be even lower.

As for any proposal about using foreign countries to counter - no chance. Foreign countries will not come into our war.

 

[YeBeWarned]

Vedic Mindset ..

 

[Hamza913]

At the conclusion of the recent Gaganshakti exercise, the Indian Air Chief B.S. Dhanoa delivered a lecture followed by a Q&A session. Amongst many other insights that the Air Chief provided, one very crucial piece of information stands out. Dhanoa hinted at preparing a 'Plan B', in the backdrop of Gaganshakti wherein the IAF accomplished successful movement of large number of its assets across disparate regions.

Classically, the Indian Cold Start Doctrine has been interpreted as an armored assault for a quick, decisive, incisive cut across Pakistan. In response, there have been significant moves by the Pakistan Army to disabuse any Indian notion of an easy victory. Yet, cold start in its very essence is an existential threat, one which could be brought to bear in a number of ways. And one very significant manner, is through the use of Indian strategic depth.

Consider the scenario, where instead of making an armored assault, India actually pulls its forces back from any forward positions that can be threatened by Pakistan Airforce, or by Pakistani cruise missiles and short range ballistic missiles. I will call this tactic the 'Indian Tsunami'. Just like the natural phenomenon where water recedes before the actual destructive wave arrives, the 'Indian Tsunami' would start by a strategic pull back of forces. With its own forces well within the safety of its own borders, India can launch a volley of cruise missile at Pakistani forward positions, especially airbases. Here, Pakistan is at a significant disadvantage due to lack of strategic depth. And because of India's significant depth, any potential Pakistani response would be significantly muted.

In war, if the enemy knows where you will attack from, the enemy has a significant advantage in defence. Unfortunately, all of Pakistan's military strategy is focused on an East to West threat. The reality of the situation is that India will attempt a 360 degree encirclement for a comprehensive and decisive blow against Pakistan. It will utilize assets in Afghanistan, Central Asia, Oman, Bhutan, and within the Indian mainland.

In such a situation, Pakistan must work to increase the cost of war for the enemy. Currently, other than ballistic missiles, there is no credible Pakistani offense that can represent a material 360 degree threat to India. Yes, the Indian forces will be on high alert in all sectors, but when offensive capabilities are so clearly lacking, and Pakistan's attack pattern so evidently known, we cannot say we have a credible deterrent in place that can counter the Indian Tsunami.

In this background, it must be noted that Pakistan has recently lost a golden opportunity to increase defence cooperation with Maldives. There is a reason why India wants to keep its neighbours close - the Indian government and military planners realize the deleterious effects of a 360 degree encirclement and are always on the front foot to manage this risk.

This should be a lesson learned, and an eye opener for the Pakistani security establishment. There are still significant opportunities of military cooperation when it comes to Myanmar and Malaysia. And China can play a significant role in nurturing such cooperation. An example of such cooperation could be military training facilities for special forces and fighter pilots. Pakistani forces and aircraft could be permanently stationed to provide ongoing military training.

The Pakistan China friendship should be solidified by establishing a mountain warfare facility near Doklam. If fighter pilots are to take off from high altitude bases, they need to be in constant conditioning. A high altitude training facility that has Pakistani pilots and fighter jets permanently stationed near Doklam would further enhance the Iron Bond between China and Pakistan. This should be accompanied by special forces training facilities for mountain warfare.

Finally, it should be evident that an SSBN is a crucial element of deterrence to create a material 360 degree risk for India and make it think twice about 'Indian Tsunami'. Hopefully, as the negative effects of the Zardari and Nawaz Sharif governments decrease and the economy picks up, Pakistan can look into acquiring an aircraft carrier in the distant future.

If they retreat from all forward positions, doesn't that just leave them vulnerable to attack? We could take those positions and use them as a buffer to slow down their advance into Pakistan. Or, instead of taking those positions, we can just bomb the nearby cities, and it will be even easier since they will have pulled back.

As for encirclement, not happening. Their presence in neighbouring lands is weak, and can be removed fairly easily if need be.

Even if let's say Hindustan can magically succeed and launch a successful invasion of Pakistan, they will suffer heavy casualties. It's simply not worth it.

I already told you, civilians are not targets. The idea is to hold territory, get a ceasefire and then negotiate for concessions before releasing territory. That's the objective for Cold Start.

What if we just use tactical nukes to wipe out your forces occupying our land? Unless you take any cities within a short amount of time, you cannot stop that, and it's just not possible for your military to accomplish such a feat. Even if it magically did, you would have to deal with an insurgency.

War is likely if we are able to deliver overwhelming force with significantly lower casualties on our side, including nuclear. Until we achieve this, there will be no war.

Then there won't ever be a war.

 

[Darth Vader]

I already told you, civilians are not targets. The idea is to hold territory, get a ceasefire and then negotiate for concessions before releasing territory. That's the objective for Cold Start.

If it's total war, the objective is to bifurcate the country.

Cold Start is the name given to a limited-war strategy designed to seize Pakistani territory swiftly without,

But holding Territory is not not that simple, when you will be fighting civilians and armed forces , majority of people would move or try to move , Even with google maps , invading forces wont know the area properly which will slow pace and will try to clear the area town by town and defenders will be setting traps ,
and this i m implying and Pakistani forces or on retreat
But you dont want to accept the reality that its not that simple even if in some areas India forces are able to go push through , in some areas Pakistani forces will have upper hand .

In the plains, you need a 3:1 advantage. But we can also ensure air superiority.

We have way more firepower in the air and it's set to drastically increase over the next 10 years. 250+ dedicated attack helicopters and 200+ UCAVs added to the mix.

No You need 7 invading vs 1 Defender many things comes into play but this is the best number
And Pakistan has Nothing ?

I already said this. The gains from a war today will be marginal, not worth it.

War is likely if we are able to deliver overwhelming force with significantly lower casualties on our side, including nuclear. Until we achieve this, there will be no war.

Will never happen ,

And I don't think you know what plains means. You were talking about attacking from Kashmir, the terrain there is mountainous. I am referring to flat lands where I can drive tanks through.

Indian armed forces will have to do a multi prone attack, and your so called cold Start only has the best chance in Sindh not in Punjab, because of the Terrain ,as the fight in Punjab in will be slow and bloody

The Soviets were far too powerful on land for NATO to fight back.

MAD didn't exist during the Cold War, it doesn't exist today. Their focus has now shifted towards BMD. So they believe the nukes can be stopped.

In India's case, we have far too many military targets alone for nukes to matter. And BMD will stop most of the nukes anyway. Ballistic missiles will become useless against strategic targets like cities in the mid term because the targets will be too well-defended. You can say that by next year, Mumbai and Delhi will become impervious to missile attacks launched from Pakistan, both cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, if not already.

BMD lol ? haha i forgot you guys had a better Defence missile than US . man you need to get your facts if its so good why you guys are buying more from Russia US Currently has 50 % and lets Say India is not far off and its 40
now if there is simultaneous attack , with all the current countermeasures being developed what you think will happen will it go higher or Lower ?

MAD didn't exist during the Cold War, it doesn't exist today. Their focus has now shifted towards BMD. So they believe the nukes can be stopped.

MAN i cant give you history classes
and if there is no such thing as MAD than why you are media keeps crying rivers about NASR


and Please Stop wasting mine and others time

 

[ziaulislam]

Not 400, less than that.

We need 15 new squadrons to get to 39 by 2028. With 6 LCAs and 4 Rafales, we will have already hit the 34 squadron mark by 2025-26. That's an addition of 195 jets.

4 squadrons in a few years after that isn't a big deal. All the future production programs will start delivering by then, MCA and Rafale.

you are going to loose mig21, mig 27, most of the jaguars(if not all, i doubt darin3 program is feasible or even on time any more, engine issues over 10 years delay), at around that time mig29 and mirages will be be on their last foot as well(2030-35)

so no you would need 400 atleast

only mirage 2000, mig 29=100~5-6 sq
su30mki= 270~13sq(full strength)
rafale=36~ 2 sq
= 22~ sq if no additions

goes with news reports from IAF audit report
"Soviet Union origin MiG-21 and MiG-27 have been phased out as on January 1 this year, leaving the IAF with only 32 squadrons (some 16-18 planes in each). This is some 10 short of the government mandated 42 squadrons needed to tackle a simultaneous two-front war with China and Pakistan.

In simple words, the IAF will have some 576 fighter jets and will be short of the 750-strong fighter jet fleet mandated by a government sanction to wage a simultaneous two-front war with Pakistan and China.

Of the 32 squadrons, the vintage MiG-21 and MiG-27 will form 11 squadrons. The Sukhoi 30-MKI populates 10 squadron, the 1970’s design British Jaguar is in six squadrons, followed by French Mirage 2000 and Soviet Union’s MiG-29 in two and three squadrons, respectively. The last three are being upgraded with better missiles and avionics.

The country is now facing the reality of projections on IAF fighter fleet made, separately, over the past 10 years, by the Indian Air Force, strategic thinkers, successive reports of Parliamentary Committees on Defence and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). Warnings on the “lackadaisical” pace of induction of new fighter jets into the Indian Air Force and the resultant loss of “combative edge” in battle are now ringing true, sources say.

A senior official admitted: “We are in the middle of the predicted shortage.”

currently out of 32 sq 11(mig21/27)+6 (jauguars)=17 will go

by 2025
Su-30 x 14 sq.
Jaguar x 6 sq.(pretty much needs upgrades, are ineffective without upgrades)
Mirage x 3 sq.(will go by 2035)
MiG-29 x 3 sq.(40 years design life completed by 2030-35)
Rafale x 2 sq.
Tejas x 2 sq.(i can only hope they will come)
________________
Total = 30 sq.

--------------
so IAF will need to procure anther 240 aircrafts= 10 sq(in addition to LCAs~40 and MKI production=300) to get to 42 sq but by 2035 it will need to replace another 11 squardons= another 220 aircrafts

so by 2025 IAF needs 300 aircrafts and by 2035 IAF needs 500 aircrafts

this is assuming IAF will upgrade the jauguars to darin 3 which has hit snags

PAF plan is straight forward it wants to keep ~400 fighters or 19-20 squardons
at 2025
plan is 200 thunders (expect 200 by 2025)
100 f-16s(has 76 plan has hit snag due to fall in relations with US)
50 mirage ROSE/50 f-7 PG built in 2002

at 2030
250-300 thunders
76-100 f-16
possible new plateform for stop gap depedning how many f-16s it gets
this will either be j-10 or chinese flanker

by 2030 project AZM should start serial production and will start replacing the older f-16s through 2040

 

[randomradio]

What if we just use tactical nukes to wipe out your forces occupying our land? Unless you take any cities within a short amount of time, you cannot stop that, and it's just not possible for your military to accomplish such a feat. Even if it magically did, you would have to deal with an insurgency.

You forget that we have nukes as well.

Then there won't ever be a war.

Just do a compound interest calculation of our defence budget at at least 11% over the next 10 years and see if you can keep up.

 

[Hamza913]

You forget that we have nukes as well.



Just do a compound interest calculation of our defence budget at at least 11% over the next 10 years and see if you can keep up.

You won't nuke us for using tactical nukes on our own soil, get real. Even if you did, we'd just use nukes on you too. Do you now see the problem?

Our economy is growing too, and along with it so will our military. Even if it didn't, again, we still have nuclear weapons. You simply cannot cripple us, otherwise you risk nuclear warfare.

you are going to loose mig21, mig 27, most of the jaguars(if not all, i doubt darin3 program is feasible or even on time any more, engine issues over 10 years delay), at around that time mig29 and mirages will be be on their last foot as well(2030-35)

so no you would need 400 atleast

only mirage 2000, mig 29=100~5-6 sq
su30mki= 270~13sq(full strength)
rafale=36~ 2 sq
= 22~ sq if no additions

goes with news reports from IAF audit report
"Soviet Union origin MiG-21 and MiG-27 have been phased out as on January 1 this year, leaving the IAF with only 32 squadrons (some 16-18 planes in each). This is some 10 short of the government mandated 42 squadrons needed to tackle a simultaneous two-front war with China and Pakistan.

In simple words, the IAF will have some 576 fighter jets and will be short of the 750-strong fighter jet fleet mandated by a government sanction to wage a simultaneous two-front war with Pakistan and China.

Of the 32 squadrons, the vintage MiG-21 and MiG-27 will form 11 squadrons. The Sukhoi 30-MKI populates 10 squadron, the 1970’s design British Jaguar is in six squadrons, followed by French Mirage 2000 and Soviet Union’s MiG-29 in two and three squadrons, respectively. The last three are being upgraded with better missiles and avionics.

The country is now facing the reality of projections on IAF fighter fleet made, separately, over the past 10 years, by the Indian Air Force, strategic thinkers, successive reports of Parliamentary Committees on Defence and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). Warnings on the “lackadaisical” pace of induction of new fighter jets into the Indian Air Force and the resultant loss of “combative edge” in battle are now ringing true, sources say.

A senior official admitted: “We are in the middle of the predicted shortage.”

currently out of 32 sq 11(mig21/27)+6 (jauguars)=17 will go

by 2025
Su-30 x 14 sq.
Jaguar x 6 sq.(pretty much needs upgrades, are ineffective without upgrades)
Mirage x 3 sq.(will go by 2035)
MiG-29 x 3 sq.(40 years design life completed by 2030-35)
Rafale x 2 sq.
Tejas x 2 sq.(i can only hope they will come)
________________
Total = 30 sq.

--------------
so IAF will need to procure anther 240 aircrafts= 10 sq(in addition to LCAs~40 and MKI production=300) to get to 42 sq but by 2035 it will need to replace another 11 squardons= another 220 aircrafts

so by 2025 IAF needs 300 aircrafts and by 2035 IAF needs 500 aircrafts

this is assuming IAF will upgrade the jauguars to darin 3 which has hit snags

PAF plan is straight forward it wants to keep ~400 fighters or 19-20 squardons
at 2025
plan is 200 thunders (expect 200 by 2025)
100 f-16s(has 76 plan has hit snag due to fall in relations with US)
50 mirage ROSE/50 f-7 PG built in 2002

at 2030
250-300 thunders
76-100 f-16
possible new plateform for stop gap depedning how many f-16s it gets
this will either be j-10 or chinese flanker

by 2030 project AZM should start serial production and will start replacing the older f-16s through 2040

Asalamu Alaikum

We're done with the F-16 purchases, I think we could start replacing them once Project AZM roles out.

In 2025, I predict something along these lines:

200 Thunders (all upgraded extensively to be closer to the most recent block)
Roughly 70 F-16's (this is when they'd probably start experiencing some kinks due to age)
A small number of Chinese 5th gen fighters (maybe around 36, depending on several factors)
Rest will be Mirage ROSE/F-7PG

As for 2030:

250 Thunders (all upgraded extensively to be closer to the most recent block)
Roughly 60-70 F-16's (problems start to rise even more)
A decently sized fleet of Chinese 5th gen fighters (maybe around 50)
Any remaining slots would be filled with the few F-7PG's left

After that, Project AZM would be rolling out and we'd be slowly building up our inventory of Chinese 5th gen fighters, the handful of 3rd gen fighters left would be gone and the F-16 would start being phased out.

But we can never be certain, only Allah knows what will happen for sure.

 

[randomradio]

Cold Start is the name given to a limited-war strategy designed to seize Pakistani territory swiftly without,

But holding Territory is not not that simple, when you will be fighting civilians and armed forces , majority of people would move or try to move , Even with google maps , invading forces wont know the area properly which will slow pace and will try to clear the area town by town and defenders will be setting traps ,
and this i m implying and Pakistani forces or on retreat
But you dont want to accept the reality that its not that simple even if in some areas India forces are able to go push through , in some areas Pakistani forces will have upper hand .

We will win some, we will lose some.

No You need 7 invading vs 1 Defender many things comes into play but this is the best number

3:1 between "equal" forces in mechanised warfare. 12:1 in mountain warfare. Much less ratio if we get air superiority.

Note the word "equal".

And Pakistan has Nothing ?

I am assuming Pakistan will not have air superiority after a few days. So those attack helis and UCAVs will not matter in the long run. You are free to believe otherwise.

Do note that we will be creating multiple A2/AD bubbles inside Pakistan.

BMD lol ? haha i forgot you guys had a better Defence missile than US . man you need to get your facts if its so good why you guys are buying more from Russia US Currently has 50 % and lets Say India is not far off and its 40
now if there is simultaneous attack , with all the current countermeasures being developed what you think will happen will it go higher or Lower ?

Why compare Russia and US? As long as our BMD works, it works.

We will be deploying an overcapacity of BMD. Each major city will have multiple battalions of BMD.

MAN i cant give you history classes
and if there is no such thing as MAD than why you are media keeps crying rivers about NASR

Our media can't tell apart their asses from their elbows. We are yet to see actual deployment of tactical nukes in Pakistan.

This is our professional opinion.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...my-chief-bipin-rawat/articleshow/62478242.cms

and Please Stop wasting mine and others time

Yes, let's forget about what the whole world is doing with respect to BMD and let's talk about the little bubble your lot want to live in.

At least we know the PA is more realistic about their chances of going to war with India.

you are going to loose mig21, mig 27, most of the jaguars(if not all, i doubt darin3 program is feasible or even on time any more, engine issues over 10 years delay), at around that time mig29 and mirages will be be on their last foot as well(2030-35)

so no you would need 400 atleast

only mirage 2000, mig 29=100~5-6 sq
su30mki= 270~13sq(full strength)
rafale=36~ 2 sq
= 22~ sq if no additions

goes with news reports from IAF audit report
"Soviet Union origin MiG-21 and MiG-27 have been phased out as on January 1 this year, leaving the IAF with only 32 squadrons (some 16-18 planes in each). This is some 10 short of the government mandated 42 squadrons needed to tackle a simultaneous two-front war with China and Pakistan.

In simple words, the IAF will have some 576 fighter jets and will be short of the 750-strong fighter jet fleet mandated by a government sanction to wage a simultaneous two-front war with Pakistan and China.

Of the 32 squadrons, the vintage MiG-21 and MiG-27 will form 11 squadrons. The Sukhoi 30-MKI populates 10 squadron, the 1970’s design British Jaguar is in six squadrons, followed by French Mirage 2000 and Soviet Union’s MiG-29 in two and three squadrons, respectively. The last three are being upgraded with better missiles and avionics.

The country is now facing the reality of projections on IAF fighter fleet made, separately, over the past 10 years, by the Indian Air Force, strategic thinkers, successive reports of Parliamentary Committees on Defence and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). Warnings on the “lackadaisical” pace of induction of new fighter jets into the Indian Air Force and the resultant loss of “combative edge” in battle are now ringing true, sources say.

A senior official admitted: “We are in the middle of the predicted shortage.”

currently out of 32 sq 11(mig21/27)+6 (jauguars)=17 will go

by 2025
Su-30 x 14 sq.
Jaguar x 6 sq.(pretty much needs upgrades, are ineffective without upgrades)
Mirage x 3 sq.(will go by 2035)
MiG-29 x 3 sq.(40 years design life completed by 2030-35)
Rafale x 2 sq.
Tejas x 2 sq.(i can only hope they will come)
________________
Total = 30 sq.

--------------
so IAF will need to procure anther 240 aircrafts= 10 sq(in addition to LCAs~40 and MKI production=300) to get to 42 sq but by 2035 it will need to replace another 11 squardons= another 220 aircrafts

so by 2025 IAF needs 300 aircrafts and by 2035 IAF needs 500 aircrafts

this is assuming IAF will upgrade the jauguars to darin 3 which has hit snags

PAF plan is straight forward it wants to keep ~400 fighters or 19-20 squardons
at 2025
plan is 200 thunders (expect 200 by 2025)
100 f-16s(has 76 plan has hit snag due to fall in relations with US)
50 mirage ROSE/50 f-7 PG built in 2002

at 2030
250-300 thunders
76-100 f-16
possible new plateform for stop gap depedning how many f-16s it gets
this will either be j-10 or chinese flanker

by 2030 project AZM should start serial production and will start replacing the older f-16s through 2040

Squadrons are raised with much smaller numbers than the full 20 or 21 jets required.

I'll give you a better timeline.

Old squadrons that will be operational in 2025
MKI = 13.5
Mig-29 = 3
M-2000 = 3
Jaguar = 4.5... There's 6, but 1.5 squadrons worth will be removed. Some will crash.
So that's 24 squadrons.

To get to 39, we need 15.
LCA = 6
Rafale = 4

So we need 4 more to make it to 39 squadrons. These 4 squadrons will come in through the main production programs, so squadrons will be raised in parallel. HAL is pushing for 3 more LCA squadrons to make up for any delay with MCA. Since these jets are new and the dangerous jets will leave service over the next 5-7 years, attrition will be very low. Attrition replacements will become important after 2030.

Then the 3 Mig-29 squadrons will go between 2030-35. If the PAK FA becomes available earlier, then it could even exit the IAF from 2027. M-2000 have 5500 hours of service life extension. They will be upgraded with AESA radar around 2030-35, they can stay in service until 2048. The Jaguars will remain in service until 2042. Jaguar upgrade configuration has been frozen.

The IAF is not exactly worried about the PAF.

Overall, the IAF desires 1000 jets in a phased manner. The sanctioned strength is 42, will increase to 45 by 2035 and then slowly pick up pace to hit 55 after 2035. The pace can increase if the PLAAF also increase their pace. But the main focus will be on IN. The IN's aviation wing is going to increase to the point where it will rival the PAF by 2035.

You won't nuke us for using tactical nukes on our own soil, get real. Even if you did, we'd just use nukes on you too. Do you now see the problem?

Pray tell me who told you we will not use nukes based on geography?

If you kill our troops using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons on any territory, we will go nuclear. It's simple, you use WMDs, we use WMDs. It doesn't matter where our troops are.

And yes, I do see the problem here. You are basically saying you will use tac nukes on us and then allow us to commit to a first strike. It's interesting that you will allow us to go massive first.

Our economy is growing too, and along with it so will our military. Even if it didn't, again, we still have nuclear weapons. You simply cannot cripple us, otherwise you risk nuclear warfare.

We are now reaching the higher end of compounding. The level where we can start competing with the US and China. We added an entire Pakistan to our GDP only last year.

We are reaching a point where we can rebuild what you break.

 

[Hamza913]

Pray tell me who told you we will not use nukes based on geography?

If you kill our troops using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons on any territory, we will go nuclear. It's simple, you use WMDs, we use WMDs. It doesn't matter where our troops are.

And yes, I do see the problem here. You are basically saying you will use tac nukes on us and then allow us to commit to a first strike. It's interesting that you will allow us to go massive first.



We are now reaching the higher end of compounding. The level where we can start competing with the US and China. We added an entire Pakistan to our GDP only last year.

We are reaching a point where we can rebuild what you break.

I highly doubt Hindustan would commit to full blown nuclear warfare unless we target nukes at your own cities, you wouldn't cause MAD for a reason as petty as your army suffering large casualties. Even if you did, again, we will response the exact same way.

Lmao your military will never be on a similar level to the US, and as I said before, our economy is growing rapidly, so as a result so will our military. You won't gain a definitive edge for the foreseeable future (inshallah).

 

[Ultima Thule]

Why compare Russia and US? As long as our BMD works, it works.

We will be deploying an overcapacity of BMD. Each major city will have multiple battalions of BMD.

BMD is not 100% guarantee total interception of incoming warhead toward india few landed in Dlehi,Calcutta, mumbai then it will be game over for india @randomradio look US mid course defense shield, i read some US expert that If Russia and China fires 100 ICBM toward USA their BMD will intercept less than 50 ICBM, so you think you have better BMD than USA one @randomradio and reaction time also matters @randomradio