LOl, We only toke what's belong to us, you still own us South Tibet.
You "toke" nothing; it's illegal occupation.
Strike Force Would Allow War on Two Fronts
- Thread starter indian_foxhound
- Start date
You "toke" nothing; it's illegal occupation.
AUSTERLITZ
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,025
- Reaction score
- 175
- Country
- Location
0.IAF does have supremacy in TAR,AS long as u invade which is only plausible scenario as india have no claims in tibet region.
1 and 3.Yes,the numbers that illustrate IAF holds another advantage over PLAAF. due to geography.
2.Keep sleeping.Won't chnage the fact that over 95% of ur air force don't have OBOGS while all IAF frontline fighters do,advantage IAF period..whether u like it or not.
4.Provide a source on y-8?Any net source will confirm PLAAF uses this.What u claiming this propeller driven huge RCS plane will operate on the edge of enemy airspace and co ordinate air battle without being a sitting duck?Lol.If u want to be taken seriously use ur head first.
5..Limited ground war with artillery,do u think u will capture arunachal with artillery bombardment?LOL.Ur advancing PLA units will need air cover or they will be smashed to pieces from the air,and their supply lines destroyed.Without supplies and ammo even 100 million men are useless.U say LAAF won't be used,fine.IAF will just pound defenselss advancing PLA units to its hearts content.
6.Already did,u have lots of UAVs but still none suited for edurance high altitdue recon missions.
7.For chinese pilots.
Defense.gov News Article: Pace Visits Chinese Air Base, Checks Out Su-27 Fighter-Bomber
Right from the mouths of ur own air force pilots and officers.And this was a su-27flanker squadron.
David shambaugh's 'modernizing china's military' states around 120-125 hrs for average pilots.
Modernizing China
Bernard cole's 'great wall at sea'-estimates same 120 hrs.
For the high end flanker top guns most recent reports mention 185-200 hrs.
As for IAF there are articles on bharatrakshak,search f-16.net archives.Many articles and aviation week magazine stated IAF top guns flying hrs at around 250.
USAF pilots named 'reagan and moose69' who directly participated in cope 2005 exercises posted there.
Here are some excerpts-
Quote:Ragins
As far as what is posted on the internet regarding news stories and who beat who, you can make your own decisions. I would venture to say that the stories of the outcome of the exercise were already written before we flew 10.5 hours across the South Pacific to get there. What really happened there? Both sides had set of notional missiles with notional ranges. Guns kills were based on aspect and range with no regard to stability of WEZ or tracking solutions. Both sides fought hard, but also had integrity for the debrief and no-one tried to skirt around the facts. Sometimes the IAF killed the Vipers and sometimes the we killed the IAF...but a lot of the operations were not designed as IAF vs USAF. Most were mixed configs on both sides.
We got some gun footage and so did they. They made some mistakes and so did we...that's what happens and you learn from it. But, throughout the entire exercise, there was not one safety incident. The USAF lost no fighter sorties due to maintenance the entire two weeks and the IAF only lost one. For two weeks of training, both sides got more out of their training than they probably would in two months.
Quote:Moose69
We started off on the first day with mixed formations doing fingertip flying, which was really cool. Next was some BFM, ACM, and Tactical intercepts. Then came the BVR Air Combat Tactics with us flying in mixed LFE formations with Su-30s, Mig 29s, Mig-27s, Mig-21 Bisons, and Mirage 2000s. The last phase was HVAA (High Value Asset) OCA and DCA. We did get into close combat with every jet they had and it was awesome... Their Sus and Migs really have a lot of power and it was impressive to see how they handled in BFM. The SU-30 was soooo easy to spot those because it makes the F-15 look like a Viper. One thing to note on the BFM strategies was that their pilots would do maneuvers that we had not really thought of before...I am not saying that we didn't know how to react to it, I just mean that when we saw them do a certain maneuver we would think "wow, I never thought of doing that before"....so it was good learning on both sides.
Quote:Moose69
Lets start with the Bison in WVR and BVR...thse are all on the unclass side of course. There were never any true 1v1 BFM against Bisons because, lets face it, it's an old airframe and can in no way turn with the Viper. There were, however, some TI to ACM with Fulcrums and Bisons together. Now keep in mind that we were fighting with fictitious weapons, and the Bison felt it had the best advantage to blow through a WVR engagement and "light the candle". On the LFE side, they did openly (because I was in an integrated "package" with them) stick with the floggers as strikers. I thought the fact that they would also do TI and 1v1 ACM with Fulcrums was interesting too.
Now the Fulcrum, I thought, has the most powerful engines as a ratio of aircraft size. Everytime one would take off it would do a slow climb at high AOA and then power out of it, a few times it looked as if it was going to stall at any moment...it was truely impressive to watch. The guys who had incentive rides in the fulcrum were impressived with it's power and maneuverability. It is a large aircraft and was not too difficult to spot in the air unless they were using haze or the sun to their advantage. Their engines tended to smoke significantly.
Quote:Moose69
As for BFM, we were all impressed with how the Fulcrum performed...very close to the viper.
Quote:Moose69
The Su-30 can perform very well, especially with an experienced pilot who knows his airplane. Their squadron commander was an outstanding pilot whom we all respect deeply. If the Su-30 ever gets into WVR without being spotted (you can see the guy a looong way off), then you are going to have your hands full.
Quote:Moose69
I am sure that they are impressed with the USAF F-16s but whether or not we were there to sell them Vipers is way above my pay-grade. As for the MKIs, they only did BFM for a few days and then split. The MKI is the pride of their fleet and the SU-30ks are eventually going away. There were only a couple of pilots that flew against them and from what I am told it handled nicely. I am not sure of what I can talk about in that area.
Quote:Moose69
The Mirages are great in BFM because they are hard to see. Their delta wings give them a good instant turn capabililty too. I would say that in a BVR arena it is essential to have the aircraft on your radar if you want to do anything...In the dogfight arena.....if you don't have visual on the aircraft then you have already lost.
I don't think I can get into details about radars but the Mirage seemed like a pretty nice jet in all arenas.
Quote:Moose69
As for flying hours, one of the Flanker pilots told me openly that he gets over 200 hours a year in the front seat...Their higher ranking dudes fly in the back seat and act as Mission Commanders.
I would feel comfortable against the MKI only in BVR...the thing has thrust vectoring for crying out loud
Having flow in mixed formations now with all of their jets i would say that they are very capable and probably the best air force in Asia. Some of their planes are old but the skill of the IAF pilots make them hold their own. I do think that the Viper holds up very well with most of them, however, because we are downright hard to see and our maneuverability is awesome. Getting slow with some of these jets is not advised.
Quote:Ragins
One question that I would like to address is that of the MiG-29 vs the Mirage. I had the priviledge to fly against the Fulcrum in ACM and the M2000 in BFM. I would say that the Fulcrum has the exclusive reign of power, but would not weight that in excess of the M2000's ability to point it's nose (which is quite impressive...trust me). However, we did not get the chance to fly with the MiG-29s in BVR combat. The M2000s could hold their own quite well (in combat as well as on the golf course). Once again, I think it is a good example of the real question being of pilot, techinique, and above all else reaction making the real difference.
8.I never backtracked from anything,in TAR only possible scenario is chinese invasio as only china has territorial claims there.And all my arguments are on that line.U are attempting to twist my words reapeatedly and failing misearbly at every point and having to resort to personal attacks.
9.And if u knew ANYTHING about warfare u would know some combat experience can never be put down,SOME exp is better than NONE.And of coursei see u cleverly ignoring that we undergo numerous foreign exercises while u none,and don't have suicidal political commissar system.Both will affect pilot ability and efficiency of air force.
10.What are U smoking?After korea u have NO exp whatsoever,even in korea ur rookie pilots used to get 24 hrs before they put him in those planes and were slaughtered by allied air forces.In sino vietnamese war ur air force played minimal to no part.
We have fought High intensity aerial warfare in 65,71..and these were our own wars not proxy fights plus low intensity ops in multiple occasions kargil,congo and goa 1961,1947 etc. IAF was also successor of royal indian air force tradition which comes from RAF.
That is typical chinese fanboy dreamer.In reality if any fool thinks in this day and age,any conventioanl war can be won without airpower he is a noob.Both ur arty and ground troops will be sitting ducks for IAF strikes and once ur fragile supply lines accross are knocked out ur whole force will starve.Where will ur arty be without shells?where will ur ground troops be without ammo and food?
As for any armour-a triple dozen cbu-105s are enough to slaughter a whole PLA armored division.No air cover..ur not a army.just meat and scrap metal.Thats modern conventional warfare,proven by history.
0.IAF does have supremacy in TAR,AS long as u invade which is only plausible scenario as india have no claims in tibet region.
1 and 3.Yes,the numbers that illustrate IAF holds another advantage over PLAAF. due to geography.
2.Keep sleeping.Won't chnage the fact that over 95% of ur air force don't have OBOGS while all IAF frontline fighters do,advantage IAF period..whether u like it or not.
4.Provide a source on y-8?Any net source will confirm PLAAF uses this.What u claiming this propeller driven huge RCS plane will operate on the edge of enemy airspace and co ordinate air battle without being a sitting duck?Lol.If u want to be taken seriously use ur head first.
5..Limited ground war with artillery,do u think u will capture arunachal with artillery bombardment?LOL.Ur advancing PLA units will need air cover or they will be smashed to pieces from the air,and their supply lines destroyed.Without supplies and ammo even 100 million men are useless.U say LAAF won't be used,fine.IAF will just pound defenselss advancing PLA units to its hearts content.
6.Already did,u have lots of UAVs but still none suited for edurance high altitdue recon missions.YEs PLA will play into your book. Happy now? It is just another Bollywood film where you write the script.
, now while we are at it. Where is your indian high-altitude UAVs?
7.For chinese pilots.
Defense.gov News Article: Pace Visits Chinese Air Base, Checks Out Su-27 Fighter-Bomber
Right from the mouths of ur own air force pilots and officers.And this was a su-27flanker squadron.
David shambaugh's 'modernizing china's military' states around 120-125 hrs for average pilots.
Modernizing China
Bernard cole's 'great wall at sea'-estimates same 120 hrs.
For the high end flanker top guns most recent reports mention 185-200 hrs.
As for IAF there are articles on bharatrakshak,search f-16.net archives.Many articles and aviation week magazine stated IAF top guns flying hrs at around 250.I think your recent reports are more accurate and consistent with my knowledge as well.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2012-0...22669138_4.htm (XinHua News/新华网
在飞行训练上，如今的解放军空军据称每年要求飞行员飞满200小时，与上世纪60到70年代每年24小时的飞行训练相比，这已经实现了巨大的提升。在这方面，解放军空军正在接近美国空军的标准。
In flight training, now PLAAF required every pilot must fly 200 hours. Compared with old training time of 24 hours per year during last 60s~70s, it has achieved great improvement. In the training time, PLAAF is close to the flight standard of U.S Airforce.
According to this from AirForce Magazine last month http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...0212china.aspx
In flight training, todays PLAAF reportedly gives pilots 200 hours a year in the air, a striking increase from the fewer than 24 hours a year during the depths of the Cultural Revolution. In this respect, the PLAAF is approaching the standard set by USAF. Chinas days of fielding obsolete air forces with poor training and outdated doctrine have clearly come to an end.
I dont think there are big difference between their training hours as you make it out to be. From your own source:
As for flying hours, one of the Flanker pilots told me openly that he gets over 200 hours a year in the front seat...Their higher ranking dudes fly in the back seat and act as Mission Commanders.
It is good you are using sources to back up your points. It makes a more interesting discussion.
I would feel comfortable against the MKI only in BVR...the thing has thrust vectoring for crying out loud
Having flow in mixed formations now with all of their jets i would say that they are very capable and probably the best air force in Asia. Some of their planes are old but the skill of the IAF pilots make them hold their own. I do think that the Viper holds up very well with most of them, however, because we are downright hard to see and our maneuverability is awesome. Getting slow with some of these jets is not advised.
Quote:Ragins
One question that I would like to address is that of the MiG-29 vs the Mirage. I had the priviledge to fly against the Fulcrum in ACM and the M2000 in BFM. I would say that the Fulcrum has the exclusive reign of power, but would not weight that in excess of the M2000's ability to point it's nose (which is quite impressive...trust me). However, we did not get the chance to fly with the MiG-29s in BVR combat. The M2000s could hold their own quite well (in combat as well as on the golf course). Once again, I think it is a good example of the real question being of pilot, techinique, and above all else reaction making the real difference.
8.I never backtracked from anything,in TAR only possible scenario is chinese invasio as only china has territorial claims there.And all my arguments are on that line.U are attempting to twist my words reapeatedly and failing misearbly at every point and having to resort to personal attacks.
9.And if u knew ANYTHING about warfare u would know some combat experience can never be put down,SOME exp is better than NONE.And of coursei see u cleverly ignoring that we undergo numerous foreign exercises while u none,and don't have suicidal political commissar system.Both will affect pilot ability and efficiency of air force.
10.What are U smoking?After korea u have NO exp whatsoever,even in korea ur rookie pilots used to get 24 hrs before they put him in those planes and were slaughtered by allied air forces.In sino vietnamese war ur air force played minimal to no part.
We have fought High intensity aerial warfare in 65,71..and these were our own wars not proxy fights plus low intensity ops in multiple occasions kargil,congo and goa 1961,1947 etc. IAF was also successor of royal indian air force tradition which comes from RAF.
That is typical chinese fanboy dreamer.In reality if any fool thinks in this day and age,any conventioanl war can be won without airpower he is a noob.Both ur arty and ground troops will be sitting ducks for IAF strikes and once ur fragile supply lines accross are knocked out ur whole force will starve.Where will ur arty be without shells?where will ur ground troops be without ammo and food?As for any armour-a triple dozen cbu-105s are enough to slaughter a whole PLA armored division.No air cover..ur not a army.just meat and scrap metal.Thats modern conventional warfare,proven by history.
You need to read more and talk less. Here is some reading for you. Written by professionals.
Read specially post #3, # 5 and # 42. If you still want to troll about any PLA invasion, then I cant really help you, kid.
http://www.**********************/ground-warfare/12154-china-vs-india.html
Seems I cant post the link to another forum. Here is an extract:
While the InAF may have somewhat of an advantage; it is nowhere near being decisive. The PLAAF's main mission is air denial. The InAF must achieved air superiority which requires alot more planes (planes to clear the skies while other planes are dropping bombs) against a concerted ground base AD system. So, any effort is not a guarrantee and would have to be extremely focus and concentrated to have any effect. In short, the InAF may tip the balance but they will not win the war. Hell, they won't even be able to shape the battlefield.
Then, there is the Chinese non-nuclear SSM batteries. The Chinese are the ONLY force that practises salvo launches. Imagine five 1000lb bombs dropping on your HQ. Not fun and they don't even have to punch through the Indian AD net.
Also, that hilly terrain would be impossible to guard against across the entire front. You will have leakage, possibly up to brigade/regiment strength. So, to assume that there would be no fighting on Indian soil is very misleading.
post # 5No matter how you arrange the forces, the whole thing is a p!ssing contest with alot of soldiers on both sides dying for bragging rights. Neither side can poise to deliver the knock out punch and the final outcome would be more or less what it is today. India can't take Tibet and China can't march out of Tibet.
The PLA may win the bragging rights simply they have a much better propaganda department than all of India combined. However, the reality is that the terrain would force alot of small unit actions where soldiers on both sides would do the dying; not knowing if their action really matters at all. The saddest thing is that most of their actions don't matter at all.
post # 42
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
And the Brigadier and I have taken pains to explain that those chokepoints are also death traps (don't know if you followed that). They're well known by both sides and well targetted by both sides. Even if you can get in, you're not going to get out.
Sir, and that is the main reason that both nations will not go to war, since a decisive victory is very, very difficult. The options for any thrust are very limited and known to both sides, and the these areas are so vital to either nation that gains by any side would force the other to take drastic and destructive measures, that both want to avoid.
The last one is from a captein in IA. So now you will understand why your ignorance amuses me.
AUSTERLITZ
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,025
- Reaction score
- 175
- Country
- Location
0.What it means fathead,is In TAR there is only one combat scenario,and in that we have air supremacy.Deal with it.
1 and 3.Same thing as is sais,PLAAF ca only deploy limited numbers of squadrons and that too with performance and load restrictions.
2.References?Show me operational PLAAF aircraft except maybe a handful j-11b that have OBOGS.THen talk about delusional.Losing every argument,then ranting.
4.Y-8F600 I think its called,got it from sino defence.
RCS only refers to visibility,jet aircraft are far less vulnerable near enemy airspace than these old turboprops.
5.There is no playing into our hand,if u want to take the land u have to advance into our space with ur forces.If PLAAF stays out of fight as u say,ur naked ground forces will be smashed to bits as any modern conventional force would be due to incredible potency of modern airpower.If u can't counter an argument..don't bother replying.
6.At least provide a link that works.
China launches high-altitude drone patrolling-and-inspection tests - People's Daily Online
Any effective PLAAF HALE drones are still being tested and not operational.
7.Again our top guys fly around 250.And what do u think those pilots were lying when they said 120.
Also u have almost no exercises with foreign airforces and ur political commissar system is a inefficient relic.
8.Indian territorial claims are in ladakh/aksai chin.india DOES NOT claim tibet.Regular exercises with which foreign exercises..european?American?Except few sporadic ones with PAF maybe..in which its rumoured u boys usually lose.
9.AAA units is air defence by ground forces not fighters in aerial warfare.When did u do high intensity constant air to air combat after korea like us in 71 and 65?Although mao wiped out most of that korean exercises durring the cultural revolution by purging all professionals and reducing flight hours to 24 if i remember correctly.
10.Unlikely chance of involving airforce?What do u think our airforce is ?Trophy?While ur ground forces attack our airforce will sit and watch?Just because ur airforce is unlikely to do anything substantial due to restrictions and lack of OBOGS and other factors,IAF is fully equipped to pound to pieces any advance and its supply lines..thats the main reason all our frontline fighters have locally manufactured OBOGS while few nations have till now equipped their jets with these.Thats because IAF has always prepared for high altitdue ops in this area,while PLAAF has not bothered nor does it seem interested in high altitude ops..perhaps because it recognizes the inherent disadvantages it would face in such a fight.
1 and 3.Same thing as is sais,PLAAF ca only deploy limited numbers of squadrons and that too with performance and load restrictions.
2.References?Show me operational PLAAF aircraft except maybe a handful j-11b that have OBOGS.THen talk about delusional.Losing every argument,then ranting.
4.Y-8F600 I think its called,got it from sino defence.
RCS only refers to visibility,jet aircraft are far less vulnerable near enemy airspace than these old turboprops.
5.There is no playing into our hand,if u want to take the land u have to advance into our space with ur forces.If PLAAF stays out of fight as u say,ur naked ground forces will be smashed to bits as any modern conventional force would be due to incredible potency of modern airpower.If u can't counter an argument..don't bother replying.
6.At least provide a link that works.
China launches high-altitude drone patrolling-and-inspection tests - People's Daily Online
Any effective PLAAF HALE drones are still being tested and not operational.
7.Again our top guys fly around 250.And what do u think those pilots were lying when they said 120.
Also u have almost no exercises with foreign airforces and ur political commissar system is a inefficient relic.
8.Indian territorial claims are in ladakh/aksai chin.india DOES NOT claim tibet.Regular exercises with which foreign exercises..european?American?Except few sporadic ones with PAF maybe..in which its rumoured u boys usually lose.
9.AAA units is air defence by ground forces not fighters in aerial warfare.When did u do high intensity constant air to air combat after korea like us in 71 and 65?Although mao wiped out most of that korean exercises durring the cultural revolution by purging all professionals and reducing flight hours to 24 if i remember correctly.
10.Unlikely chance of involving airforce?What do u think our airforce is ?Trophy?While ur ground forces attack our airforce will sit and watch?Just because ur airforce is unlikely to do anything substantial due to restrictions and lack of OBOGS and other factors,IAF is fully equipped to pound to pieces any advance and its supply lines..thats the main reason all our frontline fighters have locally manufactured OBOGS while few nations have till now equipped their jets with these.Thats because IAF has always prepared for high altitdue ops in this area,while PLAAF has not bothered nor does it seem interested in high altitude ops..perhaps because it recognizes the inherent disadvantages it would face in such a fight.
Kiss_of_the_Dragon
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 10,253
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
Funny, we said the same about India.
Obviously you have not read any of my references written by professionals including one IA captein.
I cant help you son, when you refuse to read. Stick to Bollywood then. I am out here.
AUSTERLITZ
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,025
- Reaction score
- 175
- Country
- Location
0.Nope this is not chinese fan dream scenario either,if u have any other scenario thats plausible don't avoid the point.Name it.
1 and 3.Sure there are weather and size,but weather would be a hindrance for flying in taht region in winter..similarly if u launch a invasion through himalayas in winter ,well good luck.Our planes are all weather with OBOGS,urs don't have OBOGS and are already restricted Its ur headache even more.To think weather will ground our whole air force is just wishful thinking lol.Face it u know u can't face the IAF head on in TAR and so bringing up peripheral points to somehow obscure the fact.
2.Refererances?Whats there to claim,go and look individually at the data and onboard systems of any PLAAF aircraft,except j-11b u will not find any OBOGs anywhere.Whereas IAF aircraft house OBOGS manufactured by loursen and toubro.
4.KLJ-2000 NOT KLJ-200 is the name of the phased array radar,son.The name i gave is the y-8 variant on which it would be mounted for high altitude ops.PLAAF mounts klj-2000 on both y-8 and ill-76.Hope u can differentiate between the 2.
5.There was admitting that so hard?If u have no counter argument don't bother to reply.Ur learning.
6.What do u mean indian high altitude drone?Though i never claimed anything but to satisfy ur curiosity.Here-
Our indigeneous RUSTAM-1/2 .rustam-h version will be used for high altitdue ops.Undergoing tests with 14 tests completed.
DRDO Rustom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For now we use IAI HERON israeli .Also we are on lower altitude than u people who are on the top of the tibetian plateau,so ours have far less endurance issues.
We also have RECCELITE tactical recon pod for conventional aerial recon in mountanous terrian,CHina has nothing of the sort and will have less situational awareness.
Here what makes RECCELITE unique-Do see the 3 min video.
Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd Reccelite - YouTube
7.My link says any one guy who said he had over 200.Here from airforce mag-
Washington Watch
Top indian pilots get more than 250.Close to 300.
As for u i see u are trying to wriggle away from links of 2 books of chinese experts that gave PLAAF avg pilot hrs at 120.and most of all even ur pilots and officers from their own mouths gave 120 approx figure.Ur top guns may get close to 200.But when ur pilots and officers give the truth right from their mouths..you know its time to close the argument son.
8.Ground exercises,sure.Show me the link of one pure air to air exercise with russia.Though russian air force pilot training wise is in poor shape atm,with 24 flying hrs throughout 90s and now only increased to 120.As for turkey ,u had 1 exercise..in which it was rumoured u were badly humiliated.Turkey being a NATo member whether u will have more is doubtful.
We have regular exercises with usa,france,singapore,britain plus all those who particiapet in multinational ones.
Also again no comment on political commissars?Hiding now are we?
9.Ha ha ,u think experience u gained by shooting down fighters with AA guns[something that can't even be done unless u get lucky these day] by ground troops,increases the quality of ur air to air battle doctrine.65 and 71 were ferocious air to air battles not ground to air lol.In any case mao crushed whatever u gained from korea by purging all capable officers and reducing flight hrs to 24.This situation stayed mostly same till soviet breakup.You are a young airforce .
10.Good if u have nothing contribute ,flee.
1 and 3.Sure there are weather and size,but weather would be a hindrance for flying in taht region in winter..similarly if u launch a invasion through himalayas in winter ,well good luck.Our planes are all weather with OBOGS,urs don't have OBOGS and are already restricted Its ur headache even more.To think weather will ground our whole air force is just wishful thinking lol.Face it u know u can't face the IAF head on in TAR and so bringing up peripheral points to somehow obscure the fact.
2.Refererances?Whats there to claim,go and look individually at the data and onboard systems of any PLAAF aircraft,except j-11b u will not find any OBOGs anywhere.Whereas IAF aircraft house OBOGS manufactured by loursen and toubro.
4.KLJ-2000 NOT KLJ-200 is the name of the phased array radar,son.The name i gave is the y-8 variant on which it would be mounted for high altitude ops.PLAAF mounts klj-2000 on both y-8 and ill-76.Hope u can differentiate between the 2.
5.There was admitting that so hard?If u have no counter argument don't bother to reply.Ur learning.
6.What do u mean indian high altitude drone?Though i never claimed anything but to satisfy ur curiosity.Here-
Our indigeneous RUSTAM-1/2 .rustam-h version will be used for high altitdue ops.Undergoing tests with 14 tests completed.
DRDO Rustom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For now we use IAI HERON israeli .Also we are on lower altitude than u people who are on the top of the tibetian plateau,so ours have far less endurance issues.
We also have RECCELITE tactical recon pod for conventional aerial recon in mountanous terrian,CHina has nothing of the sort and will have less situational awareness.
Here what makes RECCELITE unique-Do see the 3 min video.
Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd Reccelite - YouTube
7.My link says any one guy who said he had over 200.Here from airforce mag-
Washington Watch
Top indian pilots get more than 250.Close to 300.
As for u i see u are trying to wriggle away from links of 2 books of chinese experts that gave PLAAF avg pilot hrs at 120.and most of all even ur pilots and officers from their own mouths gave 120 approx figure.Ur top guns may get close to 200.But when ur pilots and officers give the truth right from their mouths..you know its time to close the argument son.
8.Ground exercises,sure.Show me the link of one pure air to air exercise with russia.Though russian air force pilot training wise is in poor shape atm,with 24 flying hrs throughout 90s and now only increased to 120.As for turkey ,u had 1 exercise..in which it was rumoured u were badly humiliated.Turkey being a NATo member whether u will have more is doubtful.
We have regular exercises with usa,france,singapore,britain plus all those who particiapet in multinational ones.
Also again no comment on political commissars?Hiding now are we?
9.Ha ha ,u think experience u gained by shooting down fighters with AA guns[something that can't even be done unless u get lucky these day] by ground troops,increases the quality of ur air to air battle doctrine.65 and 71 were ferocious air to air battles not ground to air lol.In any case mao crushed whatever u gained from korea by purging all capable officers and reducing flight hrs to 24.This situation stayed mostly same till soviet breakup.You are a young airforce .
10.Good if u have nothing contribute ,flee.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
Latest posts
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
-
-
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
-
-
-
