India watching China's military growth: IAF Chief

[challenger]

India cautiously watching China's military growth: IAF Chief - The Economic Times

NEW DELHI: Observing that India is watching "with caution" China's military modernisation, IAF Chief Air Chief Marshal P V Naik today said anything that impacts on the nation's growth is a matter of concern.

"Anything that upsets the growth of the nation (India)...is a matter of concern. It is viewed as such and planned for," the Air Chief said at his annual press conference here.

"All neighbours -- borrowing Chanakya's quotes -- have to be watched with caution on the impact and growth of our nation. So we watch all neighbours, be it the smallest or the largest, with caution," he said.

He was responding to a query on what he thought of the military infrastructure development of China and also by it in Tibet.

However, he said, India strongly believed in the sovereignty of every neighbour and their right to do what they wanted within their country's boundaries. "We are neighbours and we must respect the sovereignty of each country."

He said the IAF's modernisation plans were "capability-based and not adversary-specific" and that it was dictated by the national aspirations.

"Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said that India's area of responsibility extends from Hormus Straits to the Malacca Straits and beyond. Yeh hoga future mein (It will happen in the future). We see what capability is required to meet this aspiration and accordingly modernisation and procurements are planned," he added.

Naik said the procurement plans of the IAF stood on "four pillars of see, reach, hit and protect."

Asked if the IAF too was tweaking its doctrines to match the Army's new doctrine of preparing for a two-front simultaneous war with Pakistan and China, Naik said, "Air Force prepares for multi-front war. It is not single-front or other front or something.

"It is in terms of allocation of forces that you distinguish. Otherwise, we are preparing for multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, multi-front war."

 

[challenger]

After doing a research on IAF, it seems to me that IAF is more sophisticated than IA.

If any war breaks out, how much the IAF can penetrate into China is what I am curious to know. Can they reach as far as Xian? Obviously, Beijing will be their ultimate target, not Chengdu...

No trolling here. Please.

 

[TOPGUN]

Grow China in each and every way we love you our friends and we are always here for you

 

[TheWarriorIndian]

After doing a research on IAF, it seems to me that IAF is more sophisticated than IA.

If any war breaks out, how much the IAF can penetrate into China is what I am curious to know. Can they reach as far as Xian? Obviously, Beijing will be their ultimate target, not Chengdu...

No trolling here. Please.

Sure IAF at its present form can not go deep inside china, Its a defensive Force when compared to PLAAF.... U guys have some top notch air defense.... But after all these MMRCA, FGFA,T-50,AMCA, LCA Mk2 Things Might slowly start taking shape, But Again, China Is still yards ahead in this race.... Trying our best to shorten the distance... Why not Say Your Opinion about what IAF could possibly do sir?

 

[challenger]

Sure IAF at its present form can not go deep inside china, Its a defensive Force when compared to PLAAF.... U guys have some top notch air defense.... But after all these MMRCA, FGFA,T-50,AMCA, LCA Mk2 Things Might slowly start taking shape, But Again, China Is still yards ahead in this race.... Trying our best to shorten the distance... Why not Say Your Opinion about what IAF could possibly do sir?

Errr... sorry, I beg to differ. Putting aside sentiments, I think, you are over estimating China's air defense. Otherwise, this Indian official, (remember he is a professional defense personnel, not some internet fan-boy) would not have made this remark.

Regarding a joint Russian-Indian long-range multirole jet fighter/strike fighter adaptation of the Su-30, the same Indian official said "a nuclear-armed Su-30MKI could fly deep inside China with midair refueling."

U.S.-China Conflict: From War Of Words To Talk Of War

After doing a research, I believe, that was not a silly comment or over confidence. I don't know how much you know about IAF, but if you spend some hours and put some labor on internet, you will know its capability.

China is ahead, we all agree, but in terms of economy, not military. Thats plain fact, no matter whether some accept it or reject it.

If US engages China in South China sea, it would be virtually impossible for PLAAF to defend Tibet. I think, such plan exists. As far as my analysis is concerned, IA would play minor role in combat with China, rather it will be IAF which will execute all the onslaughts.

 

[challenger]

Grow China in each and every way we love you our friends and we are always here for you

Forget them, they are too busy to dream about money.... money money money... honey honey honey.... Its now a new kind of national anthem for them.

PLA is helpless. Because red tape is there and will be there. Its all about money earning party, man... today's China is not yesterday's China. Today's China is suffering from self complacency, over confidence, and arrogance. They don't care about friends... they have started believing that their money will buy them friends...

Silly guys... too much Opium effect. Money my foot... I have seen many guys who got suddenly rich, but also became beggars over night making their affluence a chapter in history.

Friendship...? I guess, today's China has removed that word from its dictionary.

 

[Ishan]

I read an Intresting article of an Chinese Analyst Worried about India's Increasing Strength of both Conventional and Nuclear Forces

What Was intresting is That He Made it clear about Indian Navy Capability of Choking Off Chinese Oil Supplies in Indian Ocean if any Crisis Occurs between Two Countries and also The US Naval Base at Diego Garcia

 

[Avatar]

After doing a research on IAF, it seems to me that IAF is more sophisticated than IA.

If any war breaks out, how much the IAF can penetrate into China is what I am curious to know. Can they reach as far as Xian? Obviously, Beijing will be their ultimate target, not Chengdu...

No trolling here. Please.

My friend, India and Indians have no aspiration to take any conflict inside China. If we fight each other, the only winner would be USA. I feel our leaders have understood this. IAF is developing itself in a defensive role vs China and I feel we can do well as long as its a defensive role. If we need to go offensive, that would phenomenally increase the scale of war and I doubt that it would limited only to India/China/Pakistan.

At least in the next 20-30 years, I cannot imagine a high scale conflict between India & China (though its a wet dream of many). We have too much to lose than what we may gain.

To answer your question, I think IAF has a better chance if China is engaged in a Multi-Frontal war. Currently IAF is very low in numbers and would avoid entering Chinese airspace unless it is confident that it can do the job. In few years we will induct the Agni V "city buster" which covers all of China.

The capabilities of PAK-FA are only speculation so far. If it's close to the F-22 (or better) then that will be China's biggest problem in a war with India.

IAF is surely more sophisticated, just like any other AF. Air power is about technology, not numbers. IA and IN are also sophisticated in their own right.

 

[challenger]

That MFA is the traitor. But the MFA guys will realize what happens to traitors. By then it would be too late to do anything. Only PLA will have to sacrifice. PLA, which always saved the @ss of the party.... will try but alas...

US: China, ASEAN should strengthen Spratlys pact
By JIM GOMEZ (AP) – 51 minutes ago

MANILA, Philippines — China and the Southeast Asian nations disputing ownership of the Spratlys islands need to turn their 2002 accord into a legally binding code to prevent clashes and keep the vast region open to commerce, the U.S. ambassador said Monday.

China and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations signed a nonbinding edict eight years ago that called for a peaceful resolution of competing claims to ownership of the Spratlys in the South China Sea and a freeze on any steps that could spark fighting.
The United States is concerned that the dispute could hurt access to one of the world's busiest commercial sea lanes. President Barack Obama and ASEAN leaders recently reiterated their support for a peaceful resolution of the disputes, which some fear could spark Asia's next conflict.

"They should develop a code of conduct," U.S. Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr. told foreign correspondents in a news forum. "This was agreed to in 2002 and it should be expanded."

Asked if a new Spratlys accord should be legally binding, Thomas replied: "Of course."

He did not specify any feature Washington wanted to see in a new Spratlys accord but added that if asked, the United States would be willing to extend help to ASEAN during negotiations for a new agreement — something that Beijing would likely resist.

The Chinese Embassy reiterated Monday that the disputes "should be resolved only between China and claimant countries."

A new code of conduct in the disputed region should "ensure regional stability and freedom of navigation for international commerce," Thomas said.

Responding to another question, Thomas said it was not up to Washington whether claimants should be required to disarm or demobilize forces stationed in the contested region under a new pact.
The disputed territories include the Spratlys, claimed in whole or in part by four ASEAN members — Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and Vietnam — plus China and Taiwan. Also contested are Scarborough Shoal, claimed by the Philippines and China, and the Paracel Islands, disputed by China and Vietnam.

Although largely uninhabited, the areas are believed to be sitting atop vast reserves of oil and natural gas. They straddle busy sea lanes and are rich fishing grounds.

Chinese Ambassador Liu Jianchao last week said that China and the other claimants have begun discussions to forge a stronger code of conduct over the Spratlys.

"The document is still in the process of being negotiated," Liu told reporters.

"We are open to different formulas and initiative in preserving peace, prosperity and stability in this region," Liu said, without elaborating.
China and ASEAN members have not specified how they want the 2002 accord to be strengthened or how provisions under a new code of conduct can be made legally enforceable.

Beijing angrily reacted after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an ASEAN regional security forum in Vietnam in July that the peaceful resolution of disputes over the Spratly and Paracel island groups was in the American national interest.

Beijing said Washington was interfering in an Asian regional issue.
The conflicting claims have occasionally erupted into armed confrontation. Chinese forces seized the western Paracel Islands from Vietnam in 1974 and sank three Vietnamese naval vessels in a 1988 sea battle.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

The Associated Press: US: China, ASEAN should strengthen Spratlys pact

 

[challenger]

My friend, India and Indians have no aspiration to take any conflict inside China. If we fight each other, the only winner would be USA. I feel our leaders have understood this. IAF is developing itself in a defensive role vs China and I feel we can do well as long as its a defensive role. If we need to go offensive, that would phenomenally increase the scale of war and I doubt that it would limited only to India/China/Pakistan.

At least in the next 20-30 years, I cannot imagine a high scale conflict between India & China (though its a wet dream of many). We have too much to lose than what we may gain.

To answer your question, I think IAF has a better chance if China is engaged in a Multi-Frontal war. Currently IAF is very low in numbers and would avoid entering Chinese airspace unless it is confident that it can do the job. In few years we will induct the Agni V "city buster" which covers all of China.

The capabilities of PAK-FA are only speculation so far. If it's close to the F-22 (or better) then that will be China's biggest problem in a war with India.

IAF is surely more sophisticated, just like any other AF. Air power is about technology, not numbers. IA and IN are also sophisticated in their own right.

My friend, Indian people, I mean, civilian population, will not fight. Your leaders will issue orders, your military will execute plan. Indian civilian population will have nothing to do here.

These days, Pentagon is silent. But that does not mean, Pentagon is not doing anything. Pentagon as usual is doing its job. It seems that Pentagon has made the US media tight lipped on US actions that involve China. Still we are getting news reports... which are not so highlighted by US media.

CIA chief in India, met top officials

 

[Avatar]

My friend, Indian people, I mean, civilian population, will not fight. Your leaders will issue orders, your military will execute plan. Indian civilian population will have nothing to do here.

These days, Pentagon is silent. But that does not mean, Pentagon is not doing anything. Pentagon as usual is doing its job. It seems that Pentagon has made the US media tight lipped on US actions that involve China. Still we are getting news reports... which are not so highlighted by US media.

CIA chief in India, met top officials

Current Indian leaders are too weak to do anything so stern. War with China will be a big risk to India's civilian population. My leaders only want votes so they can rob national wealth and ship it to swiss banks. They dont want to fight wars. India has nothing to gain with fighting China. The only conflict I can forsee is one with Pakistan post the next terrorist attack in India (once it's confirmed it orginated from
pakistan).

 

[TheWarriorIndian]

Errr... sorry, I beg to differ. Putting aside sentiments, I think, you are over estimating China's air defense. Otherwise, this Indian official, (remember he is a professional defense personnel, not some internet fan-boy) would not have made this remark.

Well, Not exactly A Su 30 MKI could Possibly Reach Bejing with mid air refueling Only If Its allowed to right, Su 30 MKI RCS is way too High for an aircraft of its class, at the same time Highly agile and Maneuverable and has got speed to Really trick an Incoming Missile...But that dosent really Happen to be a Criteria where Its successful every single time...

After doing a research, I believe, that was not a silly comment or over confidence. I don't know how much you know about IAF, but if you spend some hours and put some labor on internet, you will know its capability.

Absolutely , as I said He Is Right, He has confidence On those Who drive those Jets....

China is ahead, we all agree, but in terms of economy, not military. Thats plain fact, no matter whether some accept it or reject it.

If US engages China in South China sea, it would be virtually impossible for PLAAF to defend Tibet. I think, such plan exists. As far as my analysis is concerned, IA would play minor role in combat with China, rather it will be IAF which will execute all the onslaughts.

Well I have always had a High standard for PLAAF and I dont think You can Even Change it...

 

[Hafizzz]

After doing a research on IAF, it seems to me that IAF is more sophisticated than IA.

If any war breaks out, how much the IAF can penetrate into China is what I am curious to know. Can they reach as far as Xian? Obviously, Beijing will be their ultimate target, not Chengdu...

No trolling here. Please.

Comparison of Indian and Chinese air force :

India vs China on Military Strength - Conventional and Nuclear
India vs China on Military Strength - Conventional and Nuclear | Aby The Liberal

In air defence, China’s PLA (People’s Liberation Army) Air Force has 9,218 aircrafts of which about 2300 are combat aircrafts, operating from its 489+ air bases. The Indian Air Force has 3382 aircrafts which includes 1335 combat aircrafts operating from 334+ bases and its sole aircraft carrier INS Viraat. The air superiority in China’s PLAAF is maintained by its fleet of Russian Su-30 MK and indigenously built J-10 fighters. Indian Air Force, on the other hand has French built Dassault Mirage 2000s and Russian Su-30 MKI as the best aircrafts in its combat fleet (no indigenous fighters or aircrafts have been deployed by India so far).

Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

How effective are China's anti-air defences against Western Airforce? How well would the PLAAF fare in a defensive situation against a purely hypothetical American airstrike?

Its a pretty thick air defense with lots of fighters and layers of SAM. So it would be too costly to painful and expensive to use fighters. US would have to use stealth bombers and fighters to take out SAMs and attack fighters on the ground. Then its possible to win. Otherwise China is safe.

I tend to view strategic defense as a part of the equation as well.

for GW1, according to wikipedia, coalition forces assemebled 1820 aircraft (1376 american), 8 carriers (6 US CV), which took about a month to clear the skies and acheive total air supremacy.

if the Chinese-US tech gap remains similar to the US-Iraq back then, then by sheer area estimation where China is 20 times larger will mean that 20 times the aircraft will be required to achieve similar results. this is also not taking into consideration the majority of US strike aircraft cannot transverse the width of China nor did the US have bases surrounding China (in Russia, or India, etc).

so I would believe that China can absorb a potential US air strike because the US pocesses 11 CVBG on which around 1000 will be stationed. even with the forces Japan, Korea and Philippines - there simpliy is insufficient strike aircraft able to confidently eliminate Chinese second and third strike capability.

China's defense is as much economics as it is military. Those important Chinese coastal cities create as much wealth for American and other western nations as they do for China, and much of the world has become quite dependent on Chinese exports. To 'raid' those cities would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face, to use an old saying.

In terms of sheer military power alone, the picture isn't very clear cut either. The US has only a few air bases within range of China, all of which are not hardened and within land based missile range of PLA forces, never mind air and naval launched weapons. It will be extremely difficult to operate out of those bases for any length of time, and almost impossible to do so without heavy losses on the ground.

Without total air dominance, the US will never risk its precious B2s. They might be effective against fixed ground based SAMs, but they are by no means invisible to radar. What more, they are said to be detectable by low frequency radars. Not good enough to guide missiles with, but certainly good enough to vector in fighters. Once you get a powerful enough radar emitting close enough, any stealth target will show up, especially if its getting illuminated at an unfavorable angle, such as from above.

Point being, if you send B2s in unsupported, then there is a very good chance they will get shot down.

That means that the primary strike assets will have to come from USN carriers. In this game, detection is key. If the PLA can find the carriers, they can kill them quite comfortably since the PLAAF and PLANAF has enough strike aircraft, subs and FACs etc to launch more than enough missiles to completely overwhelm a carrier battle group's defenses. And with China relying on Chinese weapons and China's industrial capabilities, it will go for overkill and such a strike could easily wipe out an entire battle group with plenty of missiles to spare.

Until the F35 comes online, the USN's primary strike aircraft the FA18E does not enjoy many advantages against current front-line PLA fighters, so even if the PLA has trouble finding the carriers, the strike packages coming in will still have a very hard time. Especially if you factor in things like ground and PLAN naval radars and missiles, as well as the PLA's own AWACS and tanker Assets.

If the US brings all 11 carriers as well as all its SSGNs and most of all its fleets as well as be willing to take heavy losses keeping their island airbases open, then they can overwhelm the PLA conventionally. But it will come at a very heavy price, certainly at an exchange rate that will make US generals and politicians bulk. And that is not factoring in the very real possibly that the PLA might resort to the use of tactical nukes if things really started to go south for them.

The US would then be left in a very difficult position. If the PLA used nukes on US naval assets, a tactical nuclear strike against Chinese military targets based on the Chinese mainland could easily be seen as an escalation into the strategic use area, as no-one can tell exactly where the nukes will land until very close to detonation. But the PLA would be able to tell pretty early on that the American nukes are aimed at mainland China, so they may mistake that for a full strategic strike and initiate MAD against the US before the US missiles hit.

Even if the US does risk it and launch tactical attacks, its still a bad trade for them, as they loose their navy in exchange for PLA forces that must already be pretty battered at this stage to force Beijing into the use of nukes in the first place.

War between nuclear powers are always filled with massive risk and uncertainty. That's one of the reasons two nuclear powers have never gone to war with each other yet - there is just no way to tell where that will end, so all sides have been more willing to seek out peaceful compromises.

Modern SAMs travel at high supersonic speeds, there is no outrunning them unless you have a fighter designed for speed and the missile was launched at you from the edge of its engagement envelop. You get within the effective combat range of a modern SAM like the S300 or HQ9 and you are in deep trouble.

And I do not know what aircraft you are talking about that can fly above the operating ceiling of modern long range SAMs. Just as an example, the F22's service ceiling is 60,000ft, which is roughly 18,000m. The S300's operating ceiling is 25,000m.

SAMs are really a second line defense, as they are fairly static and have limited mobility. They are there to catch anything that gets past your primary line of defense, which are you own fighters.

The role of the defending fighters are to try and intercept the incoming strikers before they can launch their stand-off weapons. If they can get to the attackers, they can force mission kills as the aggressors are forced to ditch their munitions to defend themselves. If they cannot reach the attackers before they launch, a portion of the defending fighters can peel off and aim to shoot down as many of the income cruise missiles as possible before they get within SAM range. The fighters would also be able to provide the exact vector the missiles are coming in from, so that AAA and SAM sites could be read and waiting for them.

With a fighter screen in place, the PLAAF will happily intercept USN cruise missiles all day long as they have the numbers to keep enough planes on rotation 24/7.

Cruise missiles don't grow on trees, and USN ships only carry a finite amount. Cruise missiles are the scalpel of the USN, they might make deep cuts, but against someone as large and resilient as China, it will only be an irritant on its own. The USN's main hammer weapon are its freefall and glide bombs, of which they carry vast quantities of.

But to use them, they will have to get uncomfortably close to their targets. That means a requirement to neutralize the PLA's air cover as well as SAMs, or else they will never be able to land a telling blow. But it will be very difficult and costly to try and do that. With what the USN has compared to what China has.

nor could the US maintain such a fleet within strike range without the Chinese knowing and therefore reacting. Also, I doubt the US will put all its eggs in one basket, 11 tactical nuke can basically eliminate the US naval dominance.

 

[gpit]

After doing a research on IAF, it seems to me that IAF is more sophisticated than IA.

If any war breaks out, how much the IAF can penetrate into China is what I am curious to know. Can they reach as far as Xian? Obviously, Beijing will be their ultimate target, not Chengdu...

No trolling here. Please.

Friend, have you already forgotten what Gen. Kapoor said?

96 hours!

In another word, they can readily dig their graveyard in 96 hours...

 

[TheWarriorIndian]

Friend, have you already forgotten what Gen. Kapoor said?

96 hours!

In another word, they can readily dig their graveyard in 96 hours...

If an attack on us was also highlighted In his Speech , Why chose to Swallow those Lines??