What's new

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

meditate on the events of Feb 2019, nobody is going to tell you how, suffice it toa that it can be done, was done will be done again if n when the need arises. unless of course if you Manage to rope in the Americans to do the actual work bot in the air and on the ground?

One hit and run sortie with doubtful success is not a sufficient reason to convince oneself let alone others. Can it be done simultaneously to all available airbases/ strips , hardened hangers, defense and surveillance installations?

Prove nothing, please add more substance to you argument.

sure is the assumption that p8 anti maritime 737 aircraft would fight the Chinese air force ?
It is already in theater..:coffee:
It's a very good platform for ground asset surveillance and can provide real time updates from a long distance. It's a unfathomable reputation to provide ground mapping.
 
. .
Interesting take on capabilities. Please care to explain more on how will it be achieved?

Indian air force doesn't have the AWAC numbers or capabilities to keep up with PLAAF. It has less AWACS and because it's planes have 4 vendors, they don't have compatible tactical data link. For example Su-30 will have the Russian data link but the Mirage and Rafael is NATO. Between incompatible planes they can only communicate with voice radio but can't send i.e. real time sensor data to other planes. The AWACs might be able to have compatible datalinks but then that puts even more of a burden on the AWACs and makes their disabling, downing or being forced to flee more devastating.

Meanwhile all PLAAF planes have the same datalink and can transmit sensor info to each other without AWACs, that's a huge advantage.

It doesn't take much. If an IAF AWAC goes down or flees first, then the PLAAF would basically be fighting against blind, deaf mutes because the Indian pilots can't communicate effectively with each other. To make it happen, PLAAF has longer ranged missiles with active seekers like PL-15.

But taking out or forcing PLAAF AWAC to flee won't be proportionately devastating because of datalink between planes and the fact that AESA equipped J-16 and J-20 can act as mini-AWAC, while Su-30 MKI can't because it's PESA radar can't form multiple independent beams or act as a communicator.

IAF can do better if they send only Su-30 MKI against PLAAF (since they all have same datalink) but the radar inferiority is still there and that means part of the IAF is much less effective.
 
.
Interesting take on capabilities. Please care to explain more on how will it be achieved?

You are not supposed to say that.

You are supposed to take it on trust as a fair and unbiased judgement.

India would have its share of RED LINES as well. Not sure what these are.

Electoral prospects of Sanghi ministers.

One hit and run sortie with doubtful success is not a sufficient reason to convince oneself let alone others. Can it be done simultaneously to all available airbases/ strips , hardened hangers, defense and surveillance installations?

A reasonable answer has been provided, but with minor errors: please see the second post by Fair and Unbiased. He has four points:
  1. Greater number of AWACS aircraft - this is something that the Air Force has screamed itself hoarse about already. Even the PAF has more.
  2. Data link compatibility - a serious shortcoming. That is bound to happen when buying from a dozen or more sources. But part of the responsibility is that of the Air Force. Somewhere else, I made a point about battle management; this relates straight to that.
  3. Radar capability, AESA vs. PESA - this is exaggerated. The AESA radar is superior, the PESA is not a piece of junk. But some exaggeration was required to enable a strut, and some strut was required to enable a victory parade, if you get what I mean.
  4. Ability of planes to act as mini-AWACS - the SU 30 MKI does have this capability. Again, exaggerate to strut to parade applies.
#3 and #4 are serious problems but not killers. Another point he mentions that is valid is the PL-15, in fact, the whole range of air to air missiles that they have. It is incredible, bordering on the insane, that DRDO's very deep competence in missile technology at all levels, from MANPAD to IRBM, has not been focussed on this vital requirement of the IAF.

In passing, the data link incompatibility between NATO and Russian systems can be overcome, but someone has to decide to get this done, on priority, and second, there is a weight penalty - not huge, but present. In aerospace, weight is measured in fractions of a kg.; an increase in weight is a matter for mourning.

To make it happen, PLAAF has longer ranged missiles with active seekers like PL-15.

Just to clarify, the seeker issue has been cracked, and making seekers that do the job is no longer a problem. Nor is the fuel and engine design for greater range. All three design aspects have been solved at their sub-system level; somebody has to sit down and do the system integration. It is really not a tough job, it's only rocket science. We have done it and more; we can do it once heads are knocked together.
 
.
Most of the salient points have been covered by some excellent posts here.

I think the trick for such threads is to rope in @LeGenD and/or @jaibi early....they have a good finger to wind on re-orienting things to professional civil exchange as far as possible.

Let me just highlight a cpl things that I feel can be scoped out more:

China has 160 fighters in 4 or 6 bases max in Tibet.

This is very key. Wargaming wise, this is infact a huge priority for Indian military...denial of these airbases to PLAAF...with nearly every asset that can bring this about (I am sure a number of members can think of a few) and as expediently as possible.

China also would have wargamed this approach, and likely found it a crucial weakness of theirs (no matter the depth and breadth of assets)....and put in what counters they can (to a point).

I have a feeling this is large part of reason China would not escalate to begin with...not without addressing the crucial airbase infra and support....which is still some distance away given the relative priority of this theatre to China (w.r.t population centres versus buffer land in large scale war) to begin with.


India has 12 P-8's that are very capable C4ISR platforms.

Yes, actually there is some interesting networking to be had with these birds...in regards to intensely "all-out" targeting a 5 - 6 base (in immediate relevant region) opponent. How strike assets are networked, exercised in peacetime and then optimised further.

Pakistan no doubt at this very moment develops things in similar fashion against its larger opponent too.

In fact there are also broader comparisons to be had with Fall Gelb. When you are well behind in overall force level you can deploy (compared to larger opponent or two opponents making one larger one).... you must concentrate and crystallize certain objectives you develop and hold close to your chest till last moment....and you go absolutely all out on it when time comes. You do not want to fight A vs A attrition war against bigger force opponent...you must have some of the unexpected worked out best you can see too.

It applies to Land, air and sea.

Of course size discrepancies (and time involved) past a point also will inevitably eventually temper this as seen in say Fall Blau.

It very much depends on your theater + scope + objective modelling given we are all merely discussing from a limited vantage point and perspective here....and all plans seem to work till contact with enemy. Its catch 22.

@PanzerKiel
 
.
Indian air force doesn't have the AWAC numbers or capabilities to keep up with PLAAF. It has less AWACS and because it's planes have 4 vendors, they don't have compatible tactical data link. For example Su-30 will have the Russian data link but the Mirage and Rafael is NATO. Between incompatible planes they can only communicate with voice radio but can't send i.e. real time sensor data to other planes. The AWACs might be able to have compatible datalinks but then that puts even more of a burden on the AWACs and makes their disabling, downing or being forced to flee more devastating.

Meanwhile all PLAAF planes have the same datalink and can transmit sensor info to each other without AWACs, that's a huge advantage.

It doesn't take much. If an IAF AWAC goes down or flees first, then the PLAAF would basically be fighting against blind, deaf mutes because the Indian pilots can't communicate effectively with each other. To make it happen, PLAAF has longer ranged missiles with active seekers like PL-15.

But taking out or forcing PLAAF AWAC to flee won't be proportionately devastating because of datalink between planes and the fact that AESA equipped J-16 and J-20 can act as mini-AWAC, while Su-30 MKI can't because it's PESA radar can't form multiple independent beams or act as a communicator.

IAF can do better if they send only Su-30 MKI against PLAAF (since they all have same datalink) but the radar inferiority is still there and that means part of the IAF is much less effective.

IAF fighters are data linked on its AFNET satellite/fiber backbone via Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) @MilSpec
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/data-link-capability-of-iaf.351514/#post-6610494

aW03MjS.jpg
 
.
IAF fighters are data linked on its AFNET satellite/fiber backbone via Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) @MilSpec
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/data-link-capability-of-iaf.351514/#post-6610494

aW03MjS.jpg

Actual ODL (final end tier) implementation (from what I gather it was relatively piecemeal before) also seems to have gotten a much needed kick up its bottom after the Feb 26th/27th engagements. 2019 and 2020 have seen some big "less sexy" developments of note in IAF.
 
.
You are not supposed to say that.

You are supposed to take it on trust as a fair and unbiased judgement.

Electoral prospects of Sanghi ministers.

A reasonable answer has been provided, but with minor errors: please see the second post by Fair and Unbiased. He has four points:
  1. Greater number of AWACS aircraft - this is something that the Air Force has screamed itself hoarse about already. Even the PAF has more.
  2. Data link compatibility - a serious shortcoming. That is bound to happen when buying from a dozen or more sources. But part of the responsibility is that of the Air Force. Somewhere else, I made a point about battle management; this relates straight to that.
  3. Radar capability, AESA vs. PESA - this is exaggerated. The AESA radar is superior, the PESA is not a piece of junk. But some exaggeration was required to enable a strut, and some strut was required to enable a victory parade, if you get what I mean.
  4. Ability of planes to act as mini-AWACS - the SU 30 MKI does have this capability. Again, exaggerate to strut to parade applies.
#3 and #4 are serious problems but not killers. Another point he mentions that is valid is the PL-15, in fact, the whole range of air to air missiles that they have. It is incredible, bordering on the insane, that DRDO's very deep competence in missile technology at all levels, from MANPAD to IRBM, has not been focussed on this vital requirement of the IAF.

In passing, the data link incompatibility between NATO and Russian systems can be overcome, but someone has to decide to get this done, on priority, and second, there is a weight penalty - not huge, but present. In aerospace, weight is measured in fractions of a kg.; an increase in weight is a matter for mourning.

Just to clarify, the seeker issue has been cracked, and making seekers that do the job is no longer a problem. Nor is the fuel and engine design for greater range. All three design aspects have been solved at their sub-system level; somebody has to sit down and do the system integration. It is really not a tough job, it's only rocket science. We have done it and more; we can do it once heads are knocked together.


You are definitely senior in knowledge & expertise. I'm sure that you are senior to me if age is considered as factor. Now on I'll call you sir.

Sir,
1 no argument China has big advantage

2 IAF has data link capability and there is a centralize system available. Progress has been made. PLA AF is ahead fof us

3 - I'm not convinced that just being an AESA Radar make it powerful and better. ASEA provides some (many) advantages over PESA, but it may or may not be a big and deciding factor. Both systems has to be reviewed in details to pick aw winner

4 - nothing there to argue

PL15 - It's a very good platform on paper. We know squat about it's it's capability to avoid jamming, kill probability at max range, no escape zone and effectiveness in theater where adversary attacked by AAM can use terrain to his/her advantage. Let's assume it's the best long rage BVRAAM, what are the platforms are capable of carrying it and how many of the can / will be committed to Chinese south west theater?

In short I do not see any possibility of IAF destruction by PLA AF in 10 hours or 10 days.
 
.
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.
One hit and run sortie with doubtful success is not a sufficient reason to convince oneself let alone others. Can it be done simultaneously to all available airbases/ strips , hardened hangers, defense and surveillance installations?

Prove nothing, please add more substance to you argument.



It's a very good platform for ground asset surveillance and can provide real time updates from a long distance. It's a unfathomable reputation to provide ground mapping.


I would like to get some more references to this, as I personally know an atlatique, p3 and Fokker pilot and those systems were no good to us for ground survalance ...... The systems are effective for naval survalaence of ships on a the sea surface (which has no real features)and looking for submarines using a magnetic anomaly detector and suna bouys.

Also somehow folks here have weird analysis, 12 mountain divisions are not deployed in Galvan or across the Chinese border. Most of them are in Kashmir.

India’s qualitative and quadratics edge does not exist vis a vis china.

In a short or long conflict PLAAF has 3-4 times the superiority in aerial tankers, Awacs, Eleite platforms, bombers, fighter bombers, attack platforms, combat drones,
Strategic airlift capability ( they make their own c-117 and have 20 of them available today) and space platforms

This translates to strategic awareness, blinding the enemy creating much more fog of war and most of all triple as high sortie rates.

Chinese stockpiles of cruise misseles, bombs, artillery rounds, fuel , atgms and small arms at least 50 times more than Indian and what’s more they produce 100% of all spares.


China has over 200k troops in the area which have been training there and conducting offensive operations for over 5 years. The lines of supply are setup. This is why India has not been able to dislodge them. India has acknowledged that they have not conducted a single offensive operation in theater and all intuitions are land grab is from CHina

Indian forces are comparable to Pakistan not China even on pure numbers and equipment basis

China will defiantly go to war on this border issue they have never given up Chinese land. The other reason for putting up significant forces in the area is to ensure that GB land routes as part of CPEC remain open no matter what. This is Imperative to the Chinese intrest. They are ensuring this for themselves.

The Indians and us Pakistani’s are dumb enough not to sort out our differences and grow economically so both our people would benefit from prosperity. But unfortunately we have a chai Wala in India and captain incompetence in Pakistan as the leader, Robbing generations of Pakistan’s and Indians from a prosperous future.

KV.
 
.
IAF fighters are data linked on its AFNET satellite/fiber backbone via Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) @MilSpec
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/data-link-capability-of-iaf.351514/#post-6610494

aW03MjS.jpg

that's the ground based datalink (involves fiber to relay between ground stations). It is not an air to air tactical datalink like Link 16 used by NATO that can i.e. pass radar info between fighters.

  1. Radar capability, AESA vs. PESA - this is exaggerated. The AESA radar is superior, the PESA is not a piece of junk. But some exaggeration was required to enable a strut, and some strut was required to enable a victory parade, if you get what I mean.
  2. Ability of planes to act as mini-AWACS - the SU 30 MKI does have this capability. Again, exaggerate to strut to parade applies.
PESA radars typically don't have independent transmit/receive modules for each element. Instead all the transmitters are connected to a single microwave source and the direction of the beam is steered by phase shifters. That means that all emitters must emit a single frequency, and recievers cannot distinguish between different returns easily except in the time domain (i.e. pulse 1, wait for response, pulse 2, wait for response). It is very limited compared to AESA radars which can form multiple beams of different frequency simultaneously.
 
.
You are definitely senior in knowledge & expertise. I'm sure that you are senior to me if age is considered as factor. Now on I'll call you sir.

Why are you doing this to me? There's a handle to my jug, and it's 'Joe'.

Sir,
1 no argument China has big advantage

It's an advantage, it isn't a walkover. I think we both agree with that.

2 IAF has data link capability and there is a centralize system available. Progress has been made. PLA AF is ahead fof us

Yes; the gentleman is pushing his case for a complete train wreck, while actually the situation is clumsy, difficult to work but not impossible.

3 - I'm not convinced that just being an AESA Radar make it powerful and better. ASEA provides some (many) advantages over PESA, but it may or may not be a big and deciding factor. Both systems has to be reviewed in details to pick aw winner

It IS powerful and it is better; but as you said, it is not necessarily a deciding factor. An AESA radar set 'sees' more objects at one time than a PESA set does, and it can designate more targets than a PESA set can. That is not the end of the world.

4 - nothing there to argue

;)

PL15 - It's a very good platform on paper. We know squat about it's it's capability to avoid jamming, kill probability at max range, no escape zone and effectiveness in theater where adversary attacked by AAM can use terrain to his/her advantage. Let's assume it's the best long rage BVRAAM, what are the platforms are capable of carrying it and how many of the can / will be committed to Chinese south west theater?

You are right, but in these matters, it is wise to deal with 'capability'; I suggest that this metric is best defined as 'stated performance' multiplied by 'credibility factor', a number between 1 (complete and unable to be challenged credibility) and 0 (no credibility).

In short I do not see any possibility of IAF destruction by PLA AF in 10 hours or 10 days.

For the first, YES, no chance; for the second, hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

Interesting answers. More, please.

Actual ODL (final end tier) implementation (from what I gather it was relatively piecemeal before) also seems to have gotten a much needed kick up its bottom after the Feb 26th/27th engagements. 2019 and 2020 have seen some big "less sexy" developments of note in IAF.

Frankly, we needed that kick. There was too much chuntering about looking at the latest and glossiest new toys, and insufficient time spent on preparing for war-fighting.

that's the ground based datalink (involves fiber to relay between ground stations). It is not an air to air tactical datalink like Link 16 used by NATO that can i.e. pass radar info between fighters.

PESA radars typically don't have independent transmit/receive modules for each element. Instead all the transmitters are connected to a single microwave source and the direction of the beam is steered by phase shifters. That means that all emitters must emit a single frequency, and recievers cannot distinguish between different returns easily except in the time domain (i.e. pulse 1, wait for response, pulse 2, wait for response). It is very limited compared to AESA radars which can form multiple beams of different frequency simultaneously.

Your point is valid, but it is PROBABLY not an overwhelming advantage. If you are saying that it is one of the incremental advantages that sum up to a formidable total capability, no one will disagree with you.

@dbc
@Nilgiri
@sms

These are reasonable points, and, in the abstract, make sense. But these are none of them overwhelming!
 
.
Pardon to contradict to this most intersting post and - given my limited time for the moment - I'll try my very best to keep it short and on point only for PLAAF related stuff:

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.

agreed

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.

He I cannot agree:

1. I'm not sure, if India indeed has an operational combat ready ASAT weapon!?
2. and even as it seems so, that China is more focused on the SCS its primary focus since ever was and still is the ETC against Taiwan. Therefore again: For the moment the PLAAF does not care about India but this can easily change within hours if India makes stupid things.
3. And as for the point if India "can count on japanese, aus and american intelligence sharing" I'm also unsure.

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.

You are surely correct with the AH-64, CH-47, C-17 and C-130J, but all other assets are at least comparable to the Chinese ones or simply irrelevant (Do-228) and if "Indian airlift capability is very good" remains to be answered; IMO I'm not convinced. Otherwise the PLAAF now has the Y-20A in larger numbers as well as the Il-76 too and an overall much larger fleet of transport helicopters (Z-8G and Mi-171) ... so here I don't see any advantage for the IAF.


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.

Again the typical "we have more", "many more airfields,more experience", which I would rate at least questionable:

1. The PLAAF is preparing since years in dedicated large scale exercises like and also with international partners (esp. with Pakistan), so again I won't underrate them.
2. Concerning fighters you are correct, the J-16 and J-10C are indeed an issue and as if the MKI are so much superior is also debatable, since the PLAAF won't field any of the outdated types to mentions.


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.

Again WRONG by my understanding: Why do you think the IN has an advantage in the Navy? IMO neither in numbers nor capabilities and systems like brahmos is not an almighty system. Indeed the IN can make great havoc to the PLAN but IMO this won't matter anyway in an all-out war and there won't be any IN anymore afterwards.


As of now India needs to wait for more AESA jets,s-400 and baraks,more tube artillery and SRBMs ....

And how long will that take? ... the crises is now, not in a few years.
 
.
Indian air force doesn't have the AWAC numbers or capabilities to keep up with PLAAF. It has less AWACS and because it's planes have 4 vendors, they don't have compatible tactical data link. For example Su-30 will have the Russian data link but the Mirage and Rafael is NATO. Between incompatible planes they can only communicate with voice radio but can't send i.e. real time sensor data to other planes. The AWACs might be able to have compatible datalinks but then that puts even more of a burden on the AWACs and makes their disabling, downing or being forced to flee more devastating.

Meanwhile all PLAAF planes have the same datalink and can transmit sensor info to each other without AWACs, that's a huge advantage.

It doesn't take much. If an IAF AWAC goes down or flees first, then the PLAAF would basically be fighting against blind, deaf mutes because the Indian pilots can't communicate effectively with each other. To make it happen, PLAAF has longer ranged missiles with active seekers like PL-15.

But taking out or forcing PLAAF AWAC to flee won't be proportionately devastating because of datalink between planes and the fact that AESA equipped J-16 and J-20 can act as mini-AWAC, while Su-30 MKI can't because it's PESA radar can't form multiple independent beams or act as a communicator.

IAF can do better if they send only Su-30 MKI against PLAAF (since they all have same datalink) but the radar inferiority is still there and that means part of the IAF is much less effective.
Meaningful assessment. :tup:

My take is similar: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/will...-hour-or-12-hours.674827/page-2#post-12511257

"IAF has to curtail its losses no matter what. In its current form, I do not think IAF can risk open-ended confrontations with PLAAF for extended periods of time."

PLAAF can definitely dominate IAF in an open-ended confrontation.

But there are additional considerations.

1. Geographic consideration.

Link: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/will...hour-or-12-hours.674827/page-10#post-12512161

Link: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/will...hour-or-12-hours.674827/page-10#post-12512178

Link: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/will...hour-or-12-hours.674827/page-10#post-12512186

2. Limited number of Chinese airstrips along the Indian border.

One member noted as much:

Chinese doesn't have enough airbases on Indian Side

Important consideration in itself.

My take:

Deep and rich. Thanks for the share.

So PLAAF posit a major challenge to IAF and dealing with it is the hardest part? This is the impression.

China can win a limited-war over the border, this much was admitted in this thread.

However, wholesale invasion of India as well as to establish complete air superiority over its airspace in a span of a day was deemed impractical objective throughout.

You agree?
 
.
You agree?

Tactically, PLAAF is at a small disadvantage due to the geographic factors, but the gap in electronics is large, and the geographic advantage is not as large as the Indians would have you think.

Hotan in Xinjiang is just 1000 m above sea level (4000 m below Tibet), has an international airport and is only 400 km from Ladakh by air. However, the roads to Ladakh are treacherous on the Indian side, with it being a 24 hour, 800 km drive from the nearest lowland city (Shimla in Himachal Pradesh).

This makes it difficult for India to deploy SRBMs or cruise missiles to attack Hotan while a buildup occurs. And Hotan is just one international airport that's known. In addition, there is a rise from 2000 meter elevation in Shimla to 7000+ meters over the mountains, forcing ground launched cruise missiles to expend energy climbing and reducing their range. They won't be able to preemptively attack China's buildup without using IRBMs.

For the tactical air side, J-10, J-16 and even J-20 can be ferried to Hotan via one way flights/tankers, refueled and lift off with a full load. There's nothing India can do to stop this. For strategic air, H-6Ks have enough range to devastate Indian air bases from central China with air launched cruise missiles. India can't do anything about this, IAF is not stupid enough to go into central China and face the PLAAF on its home turf.

If IAF tries to go against PLAAF it will be devastated. And in the aftermath, China will still recover losses faster. There is no win for India which is why they're negotiating.
 
.
There

respectfully Poland and Romania are full NATO and eu members and cannot be considered buffer states as articles of NATO would require a military response Ukraine was the big litmus rest.
India which is not part of NATO or EU would not get any significant support in a conflict with China Is my point
Today's NATO is not the NATO of 1980. :)

Tactically, PLAAF is at a small disadvantage due to the geographic factors, but the gap in electronics is large, and the geographic advantage is not as large as the Indians would have you think.

Hotan in Xinjiang is just 1000 m above sea level (4000 m below Tibet), has an international airport and is only 400 km from Ladakh by air. However, the roads to Ladakh are treacherous on the Indian side, with it being a 24 hour, 800 km drive from the nearest lowland city (Shimla in Himachal Pradesh).

This makes it difficult for India to deploy SRBMs or cruise missiles to attack Hotan while a buildup occurs. And Hotan is just one international airport that's known. In addition, there is a rise from 2000 meter elevation in Shimla to 7000+ meters over the mountains, forcing ground launched cruise missiles to expend energy climbing and reducing their range. They won't be able to preemptively attack China's buildup without using IRBMs.

For the tactical air side, J-10, J-16 and even J-20 can be ferried to Hotan via one way flights/tankers, refueled and lift off with a full load. There's nothing India can do to stop this. For strategic air, H-6Ks have enough range to devastate Indian air bases from central China with air launched cruise missiles. India can't do anything about this, IAF is not stupid enough to go into central China and face the PLAAF on its home turf.

If IAF tries to go against PLAAF it will be devastated. And in the aftermath, China will still recover losses faster. There is no win for India which is why they're negotiating.
In attrition, eventually India will be overwhelmed.

You had a chance to beat India and reach Leh a month back. But I guess you only wanted to scare the Indian Govt. This has backfired.

Pakistan also surprised me by their inactivity. It was a golden opportunity.

Now the armed forces will be on alert and any movement / offensive will be much difficult.

If IAF tries to go against PLAAF it will be devastated. And in the aftermath, China will still recover losses faster. There is no win for India which is why they're negotiating.
IAF will not shoot first. It is in no position to do so.

PLAAF should have when it had the chance.

Shows that today's military actions are defined more due to ONLY politics rather than strategic situations.

Pardon to contradict to this most intersting post and - given my limited time for the moment - I'll try my very best to keep it short and on point only for PLAAF related stuff:



agreed



He I cannot agree:

1. I'm not sure, if India indeed has an operational combat ready ASAT weapon!?
2. and even as it seems so, that China is more focused on the SCS its primary focus since ever was and still is the ETC against Taiwan. Therefore again: For the moment the PLAAF does not care about India but this can easily change within hours if India makes stupid things.
3. And as for the point if India "can count on japanese, aus and american intelligence sharing" I'm also unsure.



You are surely correct with the AH-64, CH-47, C-17 and C-130J, but all other assets are at least comparable to the Chinese ones or simply irrelevant (Do-228) and if "Indian airlift capability is very good" remains to be answered; IMO I'm not convinced. Otherwise the PLAAF now has the Y-20A in larger numbers as well as the Il-76 too and an overall much larger fleet of transport helicopters (Z-8G and Mi-171) ... so here I don't see any advantage for the IAF.




Again the typical "we have more", "many more airfields,more experience", which I would rate at least questionable:

1. The PLAAF is preparing since years in dedicated large scale exercises like and also with international partners (esp. with Pakistan), so again I won't underrate them.
2. Concerning fighters you are correct, the J-16 and J-10C are indeed an issue and as if the MKI are so much superior is also debatable, since the PLAAF won't field any of the outdated types to mentions.




Again WRONG by my understanding: Why do you think the IN has an advantage in the Navy? IMO neither in numbers nor capabilities and systems like brahmos is not an almighty system. Indeed the IN can make great havoc to the PLAN but IMO this won't matter anyway in an all-out war and there won't be any IN anymore afterwards.




And how long will that take? ... the crises is now, not in a few years.
PLA has already delayed and now with the melting snow, further advances will be very risky.
Indian stalling tactics resemble the Finnish politics of 1939 against the Soviet Union before the winter war. @Joe Shearer
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom