What's new

Hypothetical - Can IAF be wiped out in 10 hour or 12 hours by PLAAF?

Brother, you seemed to have left out the fact that Iraq stood all alone in the region when it was attacked by the zionists. A whole coalition went up against Iraq, namely NATO and the blind leadership of the Muslim World. Iran actively wanted the Iraqi regime to fall and the Saudi regime was pathetic enough to be zionist lapdogs.

China ought to recognize the pivotal importance of having a coalition when it goes to war. China also must increase and improve it's nuclear arsenal to keep america in check.


Thank you friend, but the west did not stop the onslaught in Ukraine when Russia took over 1/4th of the country. No one wants to go to war with a former or emerging superpower.

KV
 
Brother, you seemed to have left out the fact that Iraq stood all alone in the region when it was attacked by the zionists. A whole coalition went up against Iraq, namely NATO and the blind leadership of the Muslim World. Iran actively wanted the Iraqi regime to fall and the Saudi regime was pathetic enough to be zionist lapdogs.

China ought to recognize the pivotal importance of having a coalition when it goes to war. China also must increase and improve it's nuclear arsenal to keep america in check.
You have a point. An important one. Appreciated.

These vege burgers seem up set we didn’t the Hindu god trump....
Bro, let us make do without these statements in this thread.

Convey your point but maintain modicum. This is quality.
 
It seems China will NOT engage in any major offensive.

They NO LONGER have an element of surprise.

Indian deployments are either complete or on the way to be. Any adventure will be enormously expensive on both sides.

There is little chance of an escalation from the Indian side because the Chinese withdrawal is already being celebrated in India. So there won't be any further pressure on the Govt. to do anything more.

The IAF cannot be destroyed in 10 to 12 hours simply because India has sufficient strategic depth. Bases in South Bengal or MP for instance will not be targeted.

If they are - it is a possibility but the PLAAF stands a higher risk of interdiction and therefore - humiliation AND assured WAR.

Thank you friend, but the west did not stop the onslaught in Ukraine when Russia took over 1/4th of the country. No one wants to go to war with a former or emerging superpower.

KV
You are missing a point.

Nobody cares about Ukraine.

There are no major investments the western world has in Ukraine or Crimea.

Geopolitically it matters very little to the world.
 
  • Leaving aside the emotive words :D the IAF may make strikes either to prevent a dangerous build-up of Chinese resources at a point, or to intervene if the Army is taking a beating.

    Such actions will be reported fully and freely; sometimes, things become too free, but that is a moral hazard that all democracies face, including the newly-coined Pakistani democracy, if you will forgive me for the observation. On the other hand, autocracies do not talk about these things; we still have no authentic response from the Chinese government (the authentic report of Chinese casualties in 1962 finally came to light thirty years later, accidentally). So, as far as propaganda and free reporting go, as terms, Tera kutta 'kutta', Mera kutta 'Tommy'.



  • Would you be shocked if I thought that would be a good thing?

    One of Dhanoa's biggest exercises involved mobilising the entire IAF and flying continuous sorties to test the weak spots in the maintenance and flight availability of aircraft. It showed that a very high availability rate can be achieved, and it also showed up the areas that needed improvement.

    27th February showed that we lacked the battle management that the PAF displayed (without going overboard about the actual performance, about which I am a sceptic). Strengthening this, planning a set-piece encounter, extending that to a series of planned transitions from scenario to scenario (which would be nothing more nor less than managing an air campaign), ensuring that logistics and maintenance keeps pace, ensuring pilot morale, ensuring rescue operations....strengthening these is no bad thing.

    It is quite another matter that the PLAAF will also be benefited, and will gain battle experience.

There is a difference between free reporting and Indian reporting. And we all know how the indian media bought down the F-16, and how the recent galwan incident become a number game for indian media.

If you are refering to gagan shakti, where iaf showed tremendous level of sortie generation (presumably) than IAF was not able to translate it in actual combat, on 27th it showed it lacked the confidence to take on PAF, otherwise in the same exercise it neutralized PAF in 48 hours whereas in reality they never dared to even launch a counter attack.

If IAF is to launch to prevent build up (which is happening IMO) than I hope that IAF and indian are doing proper risk assessment, because air attack of any sort will invite PLAAF response.

What if the conflict has naval dimension to it? :-)

China have a two operational aircraft carriers?

That means all out war. Carriers will not go south, it would be few destroyers and frigates and red sea task force. But it will also pull (willingly or unwillingly) PN into action.
 
There is a difference between free reporting and Indian reporting. And we all know how the indian media bought down the F-16, and how the recent galwan incident become a number game for indian media.

Nobody forces you either to read them or to listen to them. Why does your judgement get affected by what they print or broadcast? When you are on the subject, we all know a lot of other things, that are rather more shameful to the nation that perpetrated them. What are you looking for, a dhobi list to compare with your dhobi list?

If you are refering to gagan shakti, where iaf showed tremendous level of sortie generation (presumably)

Presumably? Their tally didn't match yours?

than IAF was not able to translate it in actual combat, on 27th it showed it lacked the confidence to take on PAF, otherwise in the same exercise it neutralized PAF in 48 hours whereas in reality they never dared to even launch a counter attack.

Ah, of course, my bad. A hit-and-run raid counts for the same as a simulated mobilisation against two simultaneous confrontations on a total scale. If only we had you for a strategic advisor......

They are a pusillanimous lot, these IAF good-for-nothings. What is the current conversion ratio on the havala market? One PAF pilot is equal to seventeen IAF pilots?

If IAF is to launch to prevent build up (which is happening IMO) than I hope that IAF and indian are doing proper risk assessment, because air attack of any sort will invite PLAAF response.

Give me a few minutes, let me talk to the Air Chief. He mustn't forget to do this.

Oh, thanks for the reminder.
 
It seems China will NOT engage in any major offensive.

They NO LONGER have an element of surprise.

Indian deployments are either complete or on the way to be. Any adventure will be enormously expensive on both sides.

There is little chance of an escalation from the Indian side because the Chinese withdrawal is already being celebrated in India. So there won't be any further pressure on the Govt. to do anything more.

The IAF cannot be destroyed in 10 to 12 hours simply because India has sufficient strategic depth. Bases in South Bengal or MP for instance will not be targeted.

If they are - it is a possibility but the PLAAF stands a higher risk of interdiction and therefore - humiliation AND assured WAR.


You are missing a point.

Nobody cares about Ukraine.

There are no major investments the western world has in Ukraine or Crimea.

Geopolitically it matters very little to the world.

I respectfully disagree, Ukraine is in Europe, a buffer state to Russian onslaught. This was the first litmus rest of whether Europe, America i.e. NATO will go to war for one of its protectorates. They did not giving pause to Gregoria and Poland.

to the Europeans Ukraine is far more valuable than India. So if they did not go to war for Ukraine they will keep silent on India. I have so far not seen any major policy statements in support of India by the western governments.

KV
 
Nobody forces you either to read them or to listen to them. Why does your judgement get affected by what they print or broadcast? When you are on the subject, we all know a lot of other things, that are rather more shameful to the nation that perpetrated them. What are you looking for, a dhobi list to compare with your dhobi list?

Presumably? Their tally didn't match yours?

Ah, of course, my bad. A hit-and-run raid counts for the same as a simulated mobilisation against two simultaneous confrontations on a total scale. If only we had you for a strategic advisor......

They are a pusillanimous lot, these IAF good-for-nothings. What is the current conversion ratio on the havala market? One PAF pilot is equal to seventeen IAF pilots?

Give me a few minutes, let me talk to the Air Chief. He mustn't forget to do this.

Oh, thanks for the reminder.

Its not my judgement but of the billion plus people that follow them.
Why do you exercise, definitely not for photos and videos but to simulate what will you do on the day of calling.
So you do accept IAF has way to go before it can touch the sky with glory.
Please do call MOD and ask them to give you something to be proud of.
 
The think tank and top brass are always putting their feet on the ground, but our rivals or even some Chinese people misinterpret and see it as a sign of weakness.
who is your rival ? india ?
 
Firstly, the question is extremely unrealistic. 10-12 hours, specially when the two are considered major forces in the world. Even US took more time to completely control Iraqi Air Force, and here we are talking about India. All the hate aside, Indian Air Froce is a formidable force and should not be underestimated.

In my opinion, there were three main objectives Chinese had in mind when they initiated small incursions in various territories they think belong to them:

1 - Pressuring India to not take sides between West Vs Chinese alliance;
2 - Telling India and the UN, that unilateral action in Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir is not acceptable, and Chinese are ready to move in and take what's rightfully theirs; and
3 - Helping Pakistan in securing CPEC by forcing India to spread its forces across north-eastern border.

Neither India, nor China wanted to convert the issue into a larger conflict although India had the reason and motivation to push China little bit. The reason was that China effectively denied India access to some pieces of land that earlier Indians had access to, and motivation was from the anti Chinese western alliance that had two of their own objectives in mind, (1) support their respective economies through Indian purchases in case of war, and (2) weakening China after pushing her to an unwanted war. Unfortunately, India didn't play according to their game plan and accepted a new status quo in the area on Chinese terms.

As much as Pakistanis wanted this war to happen (because we had our own objective of entering into IOJK and take whatever we could in the process), we should appreciate that Indians didn't take the bait for a small barren piece of land, and also managed the perception very well internally that they have come out as victors after the conflict.

In the last couple of decades, what I have personally realized that India is not in favor of (or lack the courage to enter into) all out wars with any country in the region. India had the best chance against Pakistan in 1999, when China was not technologically that strong, and the possibility of Chinese support was minimal. India didn't convert the localized Kargil skirmish to a full fledged war. Subsequent events also proved that India lacks the will of attacking Pakistan. In 2002, then in 2008, and then in 2016, and after that 2019, India avoided a full scale war against a much smaller enemy. India also didn't give any reason to Pakistan to expand the conflict. For example, in 2016, Pakistan was shocked at the drama of fake surgical strikes that was aimed at calming down the masses in India rather than irking Pakistan. In 2019 too, India didn't miss the target because of error, it was a deliberate calculated miss not to avoid giving any reason to Pakistan to respond heavily and forcing India to retaliate at a full scale. Here, I am not saying that India was not in a position to retaliate, but it lacked the will to enter into a full scale war against any country. Some say that India changed its priorities and wanted to follow Chinese rise and that is the main reason for avoiding a larger conflict with Pakistan.

Now, if India wants to avoid a full scale war against Pakistan, we shouldn't be expecting her to behave differently against a much larger enemy.

Now that we have discussed the possibility of war between China and India, lets discuss what if a war really breaks out between the two countries. So in case of a war, India (or even China) will never put all their forces against each other. Also, there will be a very very limited role of air forces in such a terrain characterizd by high mountains. In such a region, it takes a heavy toll on ground forces too and the chances of making changes in the border remain quite thin.

Now there are three other factors that may play a role in the conflict (not necessarily a war in the strict sense):

1 - Naval forces and their distribution across Indian ocean and SCS
2 - Electronic warfare
3 - Proxy war

We know that China has effectively achieved a couple of her objectives that I have listed above. I am not sure about Indian decision on anti Chinese alliance. In my opinion, India will show her teeth but will never become a proxy of western alliance against China. Indian decision makers are not naive to take sides in the conflict. They didn't even put their soldiers in Afghanistan where they had absolute confidence of a western walk over all the way. Against China, there is more a possibility that India is isolated by the regional countries, including Russia and those with shared borders. Isolation in the region is more disadvantagous than global one, because you can't just pick your land and put it somewhere else to avoid humiliation. India is anxiously looking towards leaving western forces from Afghanistan, and growing influence of China in her neighbors. In this scenario, it will be an extremely foolish mistake of taking side between west and China. So naval forces placement against China is out of question for now.

Electronic warfare, yes it might play a role like it did on 27th Feb, however, since the arial combat is almost out of question, that will not come into play. In case of an unlikely war, the west will support India in whatever way possible and that will be detrimental to Chinese interests too.

The third one is proxy war in which India has achieved some form of expertise. India will try to help west by motivating forces in Tibet against China and will try to bleed her through small cuts.

Therefore, in my opinion, we should wait for India to start a proxy war with western media on her side against China like how they have been doing in Pakistan for decades.
 
China has 160 fighters in 4 or 6 bases max in Tibet. No j20 in sight.
Regardless of pdf propaganda they have no s400 in Tibet either..

Indian air force has 200 planes across a dozen airbase in north alllone.
China will never win supremacy with these nos. No chance.
 
I respectfully disagree, Ukraine is in Europe, a buffer state to Russian onslaught. This was the first litmus rest of whether Europe, America i.e. NATO will go to war for one of its protectorates. They did not giving pause to Gregoria and Poland.

to the Europeans Ukraine is far more valuable than India. So if they did not go to war for Ukraine they will keep silent on India. I have so far not seen any major policy statements in support of India by the western governments.

KV
After Ukraine there is Romania. Then there is Hungary and Poland.

Then Czechia/Germany.

Romania + Poland can be considered as buffers. Not Ukraine.

Plus, their economies are of no significance.
 
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/strategic-postures-china-and-india-visual-guide

An interesting american assessment.

For me,
China's advantages include far better military industrial complex but that comes into play if war stretches out over several months.India much more dependant on imports and that is a handicap.

Intelligence capability.Both have lots of satellites and ASAT weapons.The chinese intelligence capability is better overall but most of it is focused on the SCS.India can count on japanese,aus and american intelligence sharing on chinese land and naval movements,as agreements have already been signed to this effect.

India's advantage is it has 12 mountain infantry divisions(raised since 1962) over 250,000 men with trained mountaineers,acclimatized troops,thousands of them recruited from ethnic hill tribes such as kumaonis, garwalis, dogras, ladakhis, gurkhas,ahoms,arunachali,sikkimese,nagas.China has 2-3 mountain infantry brigades only.The chinese land army is a vastly superior mechanized force - but massed vehicles dont work in the himalayas.Yes if china can deploy 3-4 armour divisions in pakistan plains beforehand then it would create a major problem for india.Indian infantry has more experience and are familiar with combat areas and already dug in.China has superior numbers of tube artillery though,but much of it is again mechanized heavy artillery.105mm and ultra light howitzers are lacking.Indian artillery modernization is ongoing and will still take 5 more years.

China has better infrastructure but India is catching up quickly.Chinese can still mobilize faster for now,while india has to compensate by forward deploying more troops.Indian airlift capability is very good -having grown leaps and bounds in last decade.20 IL-76,11C-17 heavy transports,100 an-32,11 c-130 hercules,50 dorniers and 50 avros for medium tactical transports.230 Mi-17 helicopters,100 dhruv ,100 cheetah light helos plus 15 chinooks is an excellent airlift capability for india.China's transports are handicapped by altitude limitations.

They have longer ranged MBRLs,but MBRL rockets can't fly over avg 15,000 ft himalyan peaks due to terrain obstruction.Ground hugging cruise missiles are also largely useless due to same reason,Ballistic missiles will work,as will aerial delivered PGMs and top attack steep dive cruise missiles like brahmos blk3 optimized for mountains.

China has a much larger airforce and can whittle down IAF incase of 2 front war if struggle becomes protracted.IAF has advantage of many more airfields,more experience and international exposure,but squadron strength is a major problem.IAF is at risk of attrition decimation until the S-400 and barak-8 arrive in numbers.For now we have had to emergency airlift 150 km barak-8 ER from israel for the current crisis from their stocks.3 chinese fighters pose a problem -the su-35(24),the j-10c and j-16.The latter 2 are equipped with AESA radar and apparently PL-15 missiles with on paper impressive specs.We don't have sufficient rafales or AESA equipped tejas/upgraded sukhoi jets yet.The rest of the PLAAF is not a major problem as our MKIs are superior,but if faced with these 3 we will be forced to fight defensively using AWACS and ground controlled interception to draw them in.

For attacks we will have to use terrain hugging mode to avoid radar.Thankfully terrain is rugged on our side while its flat on theirs.This facilitates stealth approach as well as defensive ambushes.Apaches with hellfire and Jaguars with CBU-97 will be very useful for ground hugging ambushes on any armour columns in the few sectors where limited mechanized warfare is possible.Altitude restrictions,fewer airfields and lack of OBOGs on majority of chinese jets will hamper china but it will handle attrition better and has better AESA jets for now.

A major advantage for china is SRBM and MRBM arsenal under strategic rocket artillery corps.Though mostly targeting taiwan they can be quickly diverted towards india.Over a 1000 of these missile types are available.This will cause heavy first day shock damage on IAF forward airbases no doubt.IAF has tried to counter this by redundancy -activating more and more airstrips,spreading out assets,making highways into emergency runways and by building hardened shelters.We will attempt to counter with brahmos and prithvi missiles,but volume of fire will be much lower.However this is an initial fire option,for protracted sustained firepower you need airforce still.We are at a definite disadvantage here until we can field our own new prahar and pralay SRBMs in number.

India's definite advantage is in the navy.PLAN does not yet have the power to win against IN in the indian ocean,especially as India fortifies andaman with brahmos and gets japanese and us naval tracking intelligence.In 10 years this might change,but not yet.PLAN naval buildup is incomplete as of now.We can choke off malacca and cut off chinese oil supply to a great extent and interdict/confiscate its trade goods in an all out war.Our economy will burn due to stress of the war,but we will torpedo theirs as well.It is very critical that india escalate immediately at sea at the outset of hostilities.Navy is an arena where pakistan is largely defenceless and we can decimate them quickly and then turn attention to china in IOR.Naval escalation is of paramount importance to india.

Chinese economy is much stronger but india has over 500 billion forex reserves for an all out war and can borrow from its allies if needed.

As of now India needs to wait for more AESA jets,s-400 and baraks,more tube artillery and SRBMs while china needs more mountain troops,more airfields and to complete naval buildup.China as far as we see it can't beat a dug in indian army in the mountains if it is unable to achieve surprise because it cant bring to bear its own strengths sufficiently.It will get bogged down and suffer huge casualities while unable to counter indian naval blockade of malacca properly.Result will be stalemate and embarassment.

If indeed it wants to win it has a deploy 3-4 armoured divisions and advanced jets in pakistan beforehand so its mechanized units can fight on the plains.However this is likely to compel India to abandon strategic autonomy and join a formal military alliance with the USA which US has been wanting for a long time.Then it will be a 2 front war for everybody,and likely world war 3.
 
Well on a Serious note

India's Northern Border is a 2,000-3840 km depending on who you talk to
  • India can't possibly defend this large area unless they split up their airforce

India_China-_Military_Comparison_0.jpg



Now the Indians are stuck in Knee deep in Srinagar pretty much 70% of their force
So who exactly will be defending the Eastern front ?



Credit @Spy Master (From 2015)
He did a awesome job with analysis
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iaf-paf-plaaf-comparison-by-indian-aerospace-blog.355196/
Fihgter%2B.jpg





Now we all know this is not 2015
Pakistan have 150 JF17 Thunders o_O


Now China must have also done something wise between 2015-2020 , if we added 100 Thunders


Indians must understand , it is better to leave Kashmir , and evacuate , rather then lose the whole country

Both India and China will not have all the resources for the war. Now the real question is how much they can spares to defend others borders as well. Situation for both parties are not good.
India
India active border (3,488 km China + 1,751 km Nepal + 3,323 km Pakistan= 8,562km out of 15,106.7) i.e. 56.67% of total border (plus 4096.7 Bangladesh untrusted border)
upload_2020-7-7_20-34-56.png


China

China active border (3,488 km India + 1300 km Vietnam + 14500 km Coastline= 19,288 km out of 36,617km(both land and sea)) i.e. 52.67% of total border)

So in real time situation China having little edge over India because if Bangladesh strikes India then total borders to defend will be 12,658.7 out of 15106.7 which is 83.79% of total border. Even without Bangladesh India will be in deep trouble.






 
The chinease are going home ......

They will be back.

But next time we will have rafale s400 and more artillary MBRL and spares and Tejas will have matured ,
 
India's degree of standardization, networked capabilities and logistics is more akin to a big Iraq than it is to US, China or Russia.

Just like Iraq, it has a confused logistics chain with 4 major suppliers for its planes (US, Russian, French, "domestic"), desperately lacks strategic recon assets (5 AWACs, 1 sigint, 1 radar tracking satellite) and cannot preemptively strike to stop a buildup due to said lack of strategic recon assets and even reliable ground strike assets.

In real war the Indian military would quickly be rendered blind, deaf and mute.
 
Back
Top Bottom