What's new

Is the IAF Equipped for a Two-Front War

I am not sure if China can bring its entire air-force to bear against India - the logistics seem somewhat difficult, if not impossible. Aircraft require more than long runways - they also require fuel, munitions, servicing, spares and a lot of other support. Not sure if all that can be recreated in the roof of the world. I think bulk of China's air assets are on its coast - against Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines and S. Korea. So even if China could move the bulk of its modern aircraft to Tibet (logistically), I am not quite sure it would do such a thing.

Lets assume for a moment that China does attack India. How does India retaliate? Well, lets remember that China is the world's second largest oil importer (5.4 million barrels/day) and is slated to become the top importer in the coming years. Much of this oil comes from Saudi Arabia, Angola, Iran, Iraq, Oman, UAE and Kuwait (~65% of imports). I'll hazard a guess that all of these tankers are going to pass through the straits of Malacca. What stops India/IAF from blocking these straits to any traffic headed to China? I think tankers supplying oil to an enemy nation are fair game during a war. 5.4 million barrels/day means approx. $540 million worth of stuff passing every day through that narrow channel, within spitting distance from the Andaman Islands - or $3.8 billion/week. China also imports other raw materials from various African nations - I am pretty sure Indian Navy may have a thing or two to say about that. Secondly, China is also a major exporting/trading nation. Ships carrying China's exports to Europe, West Asia and Africa would again be passing through Malacca.

I think China's planners do understand their nations vulnerability on this front. In fact, the same vulnerability plays out closer to their coast - China's coast is dotted with large Islands which can form a barrier/blockade in times of war. Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan (though frankly, I don't know what the future holds) are all US aligned, to varying degrees. Vietnam has also been pushed off by the bullying.

I don't think China (or any rational nation - rational is the key here ;-)) is going to pick a fight of this kind unless some really core interest/existence is being threatened. So to that extent, a two front war should be in the realm of fantasy. I think Chinese planners are much smarter than that.

Having said that, it is the job of Indian planners to think of all possible eventualities - however unlike they may seem. I think in case of this particular scenario, the Indian response should be to open another front - in the Indian Ocean. If someone wants to hurt us, we should be willing to hurt right back, where it hurts!
 
.
In 21st century, wars aren't fought on borders, they are fought in WTO, IMF, UN, WB & Olympics.

This is true. Competition between great powers in future will be economic and diplomatic conflicts, not military.

Due to the nature of modern warfare, and the existence of nuclear weapons, major conflicts between great powers are just too costly. Even a war between the sole superpower (America) and Iraq/Afghanistan pushed their debt levels to what, over $15 trillion?

Debt is boring. Mutual profits are much nicer.

Lets assume for a moment that China does attack India. How does India retaliate? Well, lets remember that China is the world's second largest oil importer (5.4 million barrels/day) and is slated to become the top importer in the coming years. Much of this oil comes from Saudi Arabia, Angola, Iran, Iraq, Oman, UAE and Kuwait (~65% of imports). I'll hazard a guess that all of these tankers are going to pass through the straits of Malacca. What stops India/IAF from blocking these straits to any traffic headed to China? I think tankers supplying oil to an enemy nation are fair game during a war. 5.4 million barrels/day means approx. $540 million worth of stuff passing every day through that narrow channel, within spitting distance from the Andaman Islands - or $3.8 billion/week. China also imports other raw materials from various African nations - I am pretty sure Indian Navy may have a thing or two to say about that. Secondly, China is also a major exporting/trading nation. Ships carrying China's exports to Europe, West Asia and Africa would again be passing through Malacca.

The Malacca straits are about the same distance from India as they are from China.

To blockade us, you'll need a superior navy. Which needless to say is not something you have right now, China for example has more nuclear submarines than India has total active submarines. Not to mention our ASBM weapons such as the DF-21D which can target ships in the Malacca straits from the Chinese mainland. And the fact that we have the largest manufacturing base in the world, meaning we can pump out endless numbers of indigenous weapons platforms.

Not to mention, most commercial ships in the world use "flags of convenience", ships headed for China will probably not be using the Chinese flag, but the flag of convenience chosen by the particular shipping company in question. And we can easily make up for any shortfall via our numerous oil and gas pipelines to Central Asia (Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan) as well as Russia. As a last resort, ships can simply take the long route around Indonesia, bypassing the Malacca straits completely.
 
Last edited:
.
This is true. Competition between great powers in future will be economic and diplomatic conflicts, not military.

Due to the nature of modern warfare, and the existence of nuclear weapons, major conflicts between great powers are just too costly. Even a war between the sole superpower (America) and Iraq/Afghanistan pushed their debt levels to what, over $15 trillion?

Debt is boring. Mutual profits are much nicer.

Nicely put. With interests/trade spanning the globe and growing economies, it would be an act of idiocy for India & China to be fighting (or for that matter, any two powers).
 
.
The BS about TFW with India at receiving end is simply laughable.

1. This is 21st century where even America think 100 times about starting a war with even a small country like Iraq (& even if does it go under the flag of NATO). Forget 3 BIG & POWERFUL nations going to war.

2. China has huge ECONOMIC INTERESTS in India, & whatever claims our friends from Pakistan make, China will never FIGHT ANY OTHER's war esp. against INDIA where it's trading relations are reaching $100 billions. It looks pretty good in saying that we have Deeper than Marina Trench & Higher than Mt. Everest Friendship, but if there is one nation on earth whose every decision is based on ECONOMICS rather than on POLITICS it's CHINA & that's the only reason what CHINA is currently.

3. Even if this happen, will countries like Russia, US, UK, France, Japan will be mere SPECTATORS? I seriously DOUBT that.

4. Nuclear weapons with all three nations make even a limited war b/w the two IMPOSSIBLE, forget all 3 going to full scale war.

In 21st century, wars aren't fought on borders, they are fought in WTO, IMF, UN, WB & Olympics.

Your post makes sense!!!
Thats how practically it should happen.
But did you look around??? there's a sense of urgency in the air.Every country is busy beefing up itself, so that it can flex its pecs when required.
Every other country is busy making allies....and that's one strong reason why Japan Scrapped its age old defence policy.
Japan PM to overturn pacifist defence policy | World news | The Guardian
If not anything every country in its subconscious knows that the world is heading towards a war.....just the trigger is awaited.
 
.
This is true. Competition between great powers in future will be economic and diplomatic conflicts, not military.

Due to the nature of modern warfare, and the existence of nuclear weapons, major conflicts between great powers are just too costly. Even a war between the sole superpower (America) and Iraq/Afghanistan pushed their debt levels to what, over $15 trillion?

Debt is boring. Mutual profits are much nicer.



The Malacca straits are about the same distance from India as they are from China.

To blockade us, you'll need a superior navy. Which needless to say is not something you have right now, China for example has more nuclear submarines than India has total active submarines. Not to mention our ASBM weapons such as the DF-21D which can target ships in the Malacca straits from the Chinese mainland. And the fact that we have the largest manufacturing base in the world, meaning we can pump out endless numbers of indigenous weapons platforms.

Not to mention, most commercial ships in the world use "flags of convenience", ships headed for China will probably not be using the Chinese flag, but the flag of convenience chosen by the particular shipping company in question. And we can easily make up for any shortfall via our numerous oil and gas pipelines to Central Asia (Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan) as well as Russia. As a last resort, ships can simply take the long route around Indonesia, bypassing the Malacca straits completely.

Do try pumping 5 million barrels/day from Russia/Turkmenistan. Oil fields are not like storage tanks where you can turn the flow on/off or raise it at the flick of a switch. Pushing up the flow even by a few thousand barrels requires investments in drilling, piping, production platforms - if the reserves are big enough to support the increased production in the first place. Russia's export infrastructure is geared to service particular markets - you can't simply expect that kind of oil to start flowing to China without having the pipes/terminals in place first. If China could have imported her entire oil requirement from Russia/Kazakhastan via pipelines, she would have been doing so already - pipelines are cheaper and safer than ships. If it has not been done so far, there are usually very good (logistical) reasons for it.

Sure, flags of convenience. In wartime, any ship carrying strategically important cargo to a hostile power is a fair target.

I agree that China makes weapons in-house. But that becomes a factor only if there is a multi-year (like WW-2 for instance) war. For a 1-2 week conflict, I think new weapons being produced at factories will be immaterial.

As for distance, do look at Andaman Islands. They are much closer to Malacca than either the Indian or the Chinese mainland. A battery of cruise missiles and a squadron of aircraft will easily do the job. Yes, Chinese ships can take the long route around Indonesia - in that case, you are just making IN/IAF's job easier - any large tanker using the long route has to be Chinese. Its like painting a target on a ship. You do realize that oil tankers move at really slow speeds and are at sea for several weeks - and they need to be hit just once.

About which navy is superior, I'd rather not argue - that discussion has no end. China may have a much larger navy - because you face many more potentially hostile powers. How much of your navy can operate 1,500 km away from base, I don't know. Also, PLAN faces navies of the five coastal powers - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and Philippines. Again, China isn't going to deplete her entire front line navy to face off against India.

I don't think the planners in China or India want a war. Both the sides have too much to lose. My objective in pointing out the above scenario was to enlighten some of the strategists on this forum that war is not just the number of aircraft in a nation's inventory - it is fought on multiple fronts, and losses are not just in combat, but also in economic terms. By pointing out China's economic vulnerability, I was indicating why China would be unwilling to go to war without some very compelling reasons. I am sure that India also has similar vulnerabilities, which is why we also don't want to fight. In a war, nobody wins.
 
.
In about 7 years time the IAF will be at a level to dominate the PAF whilst simultaneously keeping the PLAAF out of Indian skies.
 
.
Is the IAF Equipped for a Two-Front War?


Gp Capt AK Sachdev
IssueVol. 29.2 Apr-Jun 2014| Date : 02 Jul , 2014

SU-30MKI

During the past decade, India’s defence preparedness has steadily and inexorably deteriorated despite constant clamour by the defence forces for modernisation and upgradation to meet assigned roles and tasks. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s anti-India stance and Chinese aggressive actions and iterations have neither helped to push away the trepidation of possible military conflagration with either one individually, nor done anything to liquidate the possibility of a two-front war. A combined and collusive threat from China and Pakistan would overstretch the Indian military machinery and, given the inordinately delayed modernisation in certain domains, could well be a recipe for an ignominious debacle reminiscent of the 1962 India-China War.

The PAF may be expected to be not far behind the leading edge of technology in the next five years…

In the past five years or so, the challenge of being militarily engaged by China and Pakistan simultaneously has exercised government and public attention visibly. On the other hand, since long, the three Services have always considered a ‘two-front war’ not just a possibility but highly probable. In February this year, the Indian Air Force (IAF) told a Parliamentary panel what the latter probably knew anyway – that it would be difficult for the IAF to manage a ‘two-front war’ although it had plans for doing so. As expected, the media played up this iteration by the IAF as ‘dropping a bomb’ and ‘an alarming admission’. No follower of military affairs is surprised though.

During the past decade, India’s defence preparedness has steadily and inexorably deteriorated despite the persistent clamour by the defence forces for modernisation and upgradation to meet assigned roles and tasks. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s anti-India stance and Chinese aggressive actions and iterations have neither helped to push away the trepidation of possible military conflagration with either one individually, nor done anything to liquidate the possibility of a two-front war. A combined and collusive threat from China and Pakistan would overstretch the Indian military machinery and, given the inordinately delayed modernisation in certain domains, could well be a recipe for an ignominious debacle reminiscent of the 1962 India-China War. The distended aerial battlefield encompassing the Western, Northern and Eastern perimeters of our extensive borders, and the air defence of our vast territorial expanse could burden the IAF to a spine shattering level. In addressing the issue of preparedness of the IAF for a two front war, it is important at the outset to study the contending air forces.

Pakistan Air Force (PAF)

The PAF is a professional service with pride in its past and current capabilities. It believes that in 1965 and 1971, it came out superior to the IAF. It has a good exposure to modern aircraft and tactics through its relations with the West, especially the US. After the Pressler Amendment, the US placed sanctions and an arms embargo on Pakistan, forcing it to look towards Europe and China. The latter has been a willing supplier of aircraft and equipment to the PAF which currently has 22 combat squadrons comprising about 465 combat aircraft (around 50 JF-17s, 75 F-16s, 75 Mirage IIIs, 80 Mirage Vs and 185 F-7s).


The JF-17 is a Chinese design (co-produced in Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Kamra in Pakistan, and Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, China) and is claimed to be a fourth generation, multi-role aircraft. The PAF plans to acquire a total of 250 to replace its Mirage IIIs and F-7s; some of these would be Block 2 aircraft with 4.5 generation features while some more would be Block 3 (entry into service 2016) which are expected to have fifth generation characteristics. The PAF is also said to have placed an order for 36 Chinese J-10 (4.5 generation) aircraft. The J-10 is expected to be inducted as the FC-20, an advanced PAF-specific variant of the Chengdu J-10. These aircraft are expected to be delivered by 2015 and, according to some reports, the FC-20 fleet may eventually be increased to 150 fighters. In addition, PAF is on the lookout for surplus F-16s from air forces using them and has recently acquired a squadron worth from Jordan. Thus, as far as combat aircraft are concerned, the PAF may be expected to be not far behind the leading edge of technology in the next five years or so.

Recent development of several airfields in Tibet and adjoining Lanzhou and Chengdu MACs are of special concern to India…

To keep up with the IAF, the PAF is also in the process of acquiring Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missiles (BVR AAM) for its fighter fleet. This is a lethal capability represented by the American AIM 120-C Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) to arm the F-16C. Another BVR AAM, the Chinese PL-12 is expected to arm the JF-17 in the future. The PAF is also acquiring four Airborne Early Warning (AEW) platforms – Swedish SAAB-2000 aircraft equipped with the ERIEYE phased array radar. In addition, it is acquiring four Y-8 AEW platforms from China. These acquisitions will enhance the PAF’s air surveillance envelope, enable combat aircraft to operate more effectively in both defensive and offensive missions against India and improve survivability of ground-based air defence network (based on the Crotale missile system).

It may be mentioned here that one can come across sporadic writing in Pakistani media expressing a hope that PAF would attain superiority over the IAF in the hazy future.

Peoples’ Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF)

The PLAAF, officially formed in 1949, remained insignificant for the first three decades of its existence. Deng Xiaoping’s Four Modernisations strategy in 1978 brought in defence modernisation and set the PLAAF on a path to turn into a modernised air force with a strategic role and reach, capable of projection of air power through classic offensive missions. Currently, the PLAAF has a total strength of 398,000 personnel and is organised into an air command each in the seven Military Area Commands (MACs) located at Shenyang, Beijing, Lanzhou, Jinan, Nanjing, Guangzhou and Chengdu.

Recent development of several airfields in Tibet and adjoining Lanzhou and Chengdu MACs are of special concern to India. In addition, it commands one airborne corps (representing strategic airlift). To meet perceived strategic offensive and defensive operational needs, the PLAAF is strengthening the development of a combat force structure that focuses on reconnaissance and early warning, air strike, air and missile defence, and strategic projection. It is concentrating on new generation fighters and ground-to-air missiles and radar systems, improving its early warning capability, command and communications networks, and raising its strategic early warning, strategic deterrence and long distance air strike capabilities.


At the beginning of 2000, the PLAAF had more than 3,500 combat aircraft; most were J-6/J-7 types (equivalent of MiG 19/21 respectively). Thereafter, it got Su-27 SK/UBK, Su-30 MKK and Su-30 MKK2 aircraft from Russia which were a quantum jump over the earlier holdings. From 2002 onwards, China produced J-10s and J-11s, which could be classified as fourth generation aircraft. It is now on a focused course to have an essentially fourth generation air force with the J-10/J-11 in air superiority roles complementing the Su-27/Su-30 fleet, JF-17 in interceptor role and the J-20/J-31 as stealth multi-role types.

The IAF aims to achieve an effective strength of 42 squadrons by 2022…

The J-20, based on the F-22 Raptor, first flew in January 2011 while the J-31, China’s second modern aircraft based on the F-35, was flight tested in October 2012.The J-20 and the J-31, talked of as fifth generation aircraft, are expected to join the PLAAF between 2017 and the end of this decade. The extent of second generation characteristics that these aircraft actually emerge with is yet to be seen as Chinese technological levels in the power plant and leading edge stealth technology appear to be far behind the US.

The power plant problem has partly been solved through buying more Su-35 from Russia. Deliveries of 24 Su-35s and an unknown number of spare engines are expected to start in 2015, while the J-20 is slated to be operational in 2017. Some experts feel that the J-20 would finally be powered by the Su-35 engine (117S engine, a derivative of the Russian AL31 which is the engine on one of the J-20 prototypes). If that be the case, the J-20 would be a formidable aircraft. Meanwhile, current holding of PLAAF is about 1,265 (around 200 J-10 variants, 125 J-11s, 40 Su-27s, 180 J-8s, 370 J-7s, 70 JH-7s, 100 Su-30s, 120 Q-51 ground attack aircraft and 60 H-6 bombers) . Thus, the combat aircraft strength is nearly double that of the IAF.

In keeping with the strategic perceptions of the PLAAF, China has ordered 70 IL-76 transport aircraft and 30 IL-78 air-to-air refuellers. In addition, China continues to upgrade its H-6 bomber fleet (originally adapted from the late 1950s Soviet Tu-16 design) with a new variant that possesses greater range and is armed with a long-range cruise missile. China has converted some of its old H-6 bombers (essentially Russian Tu-16s) to the air-to-air refuelling role for many of its indigenous aircraft, increasing their combat range. China is also developing an AWACS capability on the IL-76 airframe while the Y-8 is being modified for Airborne Early Warning (AEW) and Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) roles. China’s aviation industry is developing a large transport aircraft (referred to as the Y-20) to supplement China’s small fleet of strategic airlift assets, which currently consists of a limited number of Russian-made IL-76 aircraft.
Nice try in manipulating the facts. India has been world leader in foreign weapon acquisitions and pretending to be so far behind. This is India's strategy to play the 2-war front to keep buying weapons to become a super power. That will be a long time since the US also knows why India is building the long range ICBMs. They have no use against China or Pakistan. They are being built to checkmate the US only.
 
.
Nice try in manipulating the facts. India has been world leader in foreign weapon acquisitions and pretending to be so far behind. This is India's strategy to play the 2-war front to keep buying weapons to become a super power. That will be a long time since the US also knows why India is building the long range ICBMs. They have no use against China or Pakistan. They are being built to checkmate the US only.
Wow!
Now that theory should actually lighten up this thread because the original OP is very pessimistic.
If India can dream of challenging US then thats ambitious.
But going by India's history it has always taken a defensive stance.so somehow things dont add up.
 
.
Your post makes sense!!!
Thats how practically it should happen.
But did you look around??? there's a sense of urgency in the air.Every country is busy beefing up itself, so that it can flex its pecs when required.
Every other country is busy making allies....and that's one strong reason why Japan Scrapped its age old defence policy.
Japan PM to overturn pacifist defence policy | World news | The Guardian
If not anything every country in its subconscious knows that the world is heading towards a war.....just the trigger is awaited.

No one is stopping anyone to prepare themselves for war, but the question is will ever a war HAPPEN? I say IMPOSSIBLE.

BTW, often our military forces come out with these stories to get more funds from GOI ;)
 
.
Nope we need 60+ sqaud of fighterjet, out of which atleast % are heavy, 25% medium and remaining can be light weight fighter jet
 
.
Do try pumping 5 million barrels/day from Russia/Turkmenistan. Oil fields are not like storage tanks where you can turn the flow on/off or raise it at the flick of a switch. Pushing up the flow even by a few thousand barrels requires investments in drilling, piping, production platforms - if the reserves are big enough to support the increased production in the first place. Russia's export infrastructure is geared to service particular markets - you can't simply expect that kind of oil to start flowing to China without having the pipes/terminals in place first. If China could have imported her entire oil requirement from Russia/Kazakhastan via pipelines, she would have been doing so already - pipelines are cheaper and safer than ships. If it has not been done so far, there are usually very good (logistical) reasons for it.

Sure, flags of convenience. In wartime, any ship carrying strategically important cargo to a hostile power is a fair target.

I agree that China makes weapons in-house. But that becomes a factor only if there is a multi-year (like WW-2 for instance) war. For a 1-2 week conflict, I think new weapons being produced at factories will be immaterial.

As for distance, do look at Andaman Islands. They are much closer to Malacca than either the Indian or the Chinese mainland. A battery of cruise missiles and a squadron of aircraft will easily do the job. Yes, Chinese ships can take the long route around Indonesia - in that case, you are just making IN/IAF's job easier - any large tanker using the long route has to be Chinese. Its like painting a target on a ship. You do realize that oil tankers move at really slow speeds and are at sea for several weeks - and they need to be hit just once.

About which navy is superior, I'd rather not argue - that discussion has no end. China may have a much larger navy - because you face many more potentially hostile powers. How much of your navy can operate 1,500 km away from base, I don't know. Also, PLAN faces navies of the five coastal powers - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and Philippines. Again, China isn't going to deplete her entire front line navy to face off against India.

I don't think the planners in China or India want a war. Both the sides have too much to lose. My objective in pointing out the above scenario was to enlighten some of the strategists on this forum that war is not just the number of aircraft in a nation's inventory - it is fought on multiple fronts, and losses are not just in combat, but also in economic terms. By pointing out China's economic vulnerability, I was indicating why China would be unwilling to go to war without some very compelling reasons. I am sure that India also has similar vulnerabilities, which is why we also don't want to fight. In a war, nobody wins.

What I don't get is when Indians try to make it seem like they could blockade us, and we wouldn't do anything in return. :lol:

As for the flags of convenience, if you attack a vessel with a flag other than a Chinese flag (which will be most of them given how international shipping works), that is an act of war upon the country which the ship is flagged with. And if you try to blockade all the ships indiscriminately, the entire world would come down on you for it.

More importantly, India would have to be prepared to win a full-scale naval battle with China. Not only taking on the vastly larger and more powerful Chinese Navy, but having to contend with the world's largest arsenal of sub strategic (non-nuclear) missiles being constantly fired at the Indian Navy, and at the Indian mainland. Especially considering that Delhi is so close to the Chinese border, it is even within range of conventional rocket artillery.

How many DF-21D can your Navy absorb?

At most, India will be able to interrupt a small percentage of our oil supply for a month or so, and our strategic reserves will cover that. Not to mention our vast reserves of domestic oil, more than even America has.

This small interruption, in exchange for your ships being hit by DF-21D? In exchange for all your airbases in NE India and even Delhi coming under fire from the largest conventional missile arsenal on the planet? In exchange for what would undoubtedly be a extremely strong conventional response from the PLA over India's land borders, possibly ending up severing the entirety of NE India away?

The only Navy that could blockade us is the USN, since they are the most powerful Navy in the world. And even if we couldn't break the blockade, we could sit back and hurl DF-21D and take out their ships from thousands of kilometers away. In the end, our missiles are far cheaper and far faster to build than the targets they will be destroying, is that really worth it for a blockade of a few months, which is already covered by our reserves?

You'll have to decide if your ships and soldiers are more valuable and easily replenishable, compared to our mass-produced missiles.
 
.
Wow!
Now that theory should actually lighten up this thread because the original OP is very pessimistic.
If India can dream of challenging US then thats ambitious.
But going by India's history it has always taken a defensive stance.so somehow things dont add up.
OK, then can you clarify what is the threat to India that it is building ICBMs? People on this forum would like to know?
 
.
OK, then can you clarify what is the threat to India that it is building ICBMs? People on this forum would like to know?
ICBM are nuclear missiles, india can't respond to a conventional war with nuke
 
.
Nice try in manipulating the facts. India has been world leader in foreign weapon acquisitions and pretending to be so far behind. This is India's strategy to play the 2-war front to keep buying weapons to become a super power. That will be a long time since the US also knows why India is building the long range ICBMs. They have no use against China or Pakistan. They are being built to checkmate the US only.

Why do you think we need to make up excuses to build up our forces? If you look at India,from independence,we've been progressing in almost every field.Weapons build up is just another phase of this raising nation.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom