Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
You know, I'm thinking about this, and he sort of has a point. Not so much that the IAF is training better than PLAAF, but that the Indian Air Force has gotten a lot better. It may have gotten lost in the rest of the May 7 battle, but the IAF managed to assemble large units of strike and cover packages, stayed well within their ROEs, and seemingly hit the targets they were going for with their standoff weapons. It's a pretty competent application of 20th century air combat tactics. The problem is that it's now the 21th century and Pakistan has opened the book on what 21st century air combat looks like.
And I'd say that the Indians aren't alone in this. I've seen a lot of commentary about May 7 that criticized the IAF for not conducting SEAD missions, but I think this is even more outdated thinking than what the Indians actually did.
Sadly for the Indians, they had a lot of good ideas but they largely trained in what's no longer modern combat, and there are a lot of painful lessons for them to learn. Pakistan had China to help learn these same lessons, but who out there is willing to help India?
Even if you are moving forward, if everyone is moving forward as well or even more, you're not gaining an advantage.
That's why India constantly talking about how they will be better in the future alone is pointless. If everyone is also better, then so what
You do know that PLAAF and PLANAF intercepts and probes of US, Japanese and ROC aircraft run into the thousands over the years right?
“These daily scrambles are gradually wearing the F-15J fleet out. The concern is that China has some six times more fighters then the JASDF, and could further ramp up intrusions whenever it considers appropriate. The in-service life of Japan’s F-15J fleet is now almost a decision that lies with China,” Layton said.
Indians say they train in all these exercises with the West over the years. But they were badly outfought and outflown by a much smaller fellow Global South air force.
The difference is their training with the West comes with friendly invitations. China's training against Western aircraft does not. You learn more scrimmaging with opposing teams than in training sessions with friends.
May.
But those aren't omnipotent, those may or may not be given for targeting, and ultimately, it's only the first part of the equation.
China is a friend of Pakistan, but I'd be careful to expect help on Moskva level.
China has relationship with India, ultimately (and both sides try to keep it, feverish indian popular sinofobia is one thing, elites are another). Points of no return aren't likely unless really, really forced.
Twice that number, Indian carriers are comparatively small, but not that small. 12-14ish(approximately) is their deckload strike limitation, not capacity.
Their weapons now have significant stand off, and ability of Pakistani AEW to see lo- targets is ultimately controllable (horizon, rwr).
Same unpredictable darting in and out Ukrainian fighters do, but from a fast-moving, unpredictable airfield.
While destroyers certainly can and will launch such strikes, Carriers significantly exceed surface Navy's ability to lob missiles. It's a very simple math - after emptying it's missile capacity, surface vessel goes to reload(i.e. one strike at a time, 8-16 missiles per indian ship).
Indian carrier (assuming 12 pee wave) deckload is 24...48 (cheaper)missiles at more combined stand off and lesser risk(both absolute and opportunity cost), x2 waves, x2 carriers, assuming deck crews are good enough. It can be repeated again and again, until carrier is empty. Moreover, resupplying smaller missiles at sea isn't nearly as hard as resupplying brahmos or calibers.
It's all the more important, because in our context, Indian western coast is simply dangerous to resupply, it concerns both destroyers and carriers.
Pakistan can reach those without too much trouble, and the best spot to catch something mobile is at port.
Long way of saying that a big carrier navy is a pain in the ass to fight against. And Indian navy is a pretty big carrier navy. Just no way around it.
Not nearly on the USAF level, where tanker fleet is on the same order as major tacair communities.
Furthermore, tankers over sea themselves turn into targets. While useful for intensive ops (when we proactively create temporary air superiority through planned allocation of assets), I don't think they can be used to maintain maritime presence - too much work(tanker isn't airfield ultimately), and they themselves will become targets of interceptions.
We sort of forgot rafales (coastal and soon - naval) after their heavy losses in ill-fated Sindor, but they still can(will?) come with meteors. Fighter can find a way out of ramjet missiles way, but for a large force multiplier, launch is effectively a death sentence.
I.e. I think it is not worth the risk for continuous operations over sea.
Disclaimer: I'm mostly describing situation at hand, now to +3...4 years. With future procurement (fc-31) it may change.
Last edited:
Ahh he is saying that IAF can train with NATO and other exercises that PLAAF cant/isnt invited to so they are 'training' better.. Not sure if that works like that.
Hopefully their Airforce isnt doing the 'Our rafales can take out J20's' thing now.
Credit where credit is due, in 2019 they bombed trees (either intentionally or unintentionally) vs now
Hmm good point, Friendly bout vs adversarial scrambles
Also I am assuming that they (Pakistan side) already have access to chinese sats, atleast for monitoring.
You can say that they are “Coping — BJP Style”.
Sure they are improving, but without the right doctrine I don’t see how it could help? The nature of aerial warfare has changed. Instead of simple aircraft on aircraft combat which involve merge after BVR fire it is now system on system, where stuff like data linking, electronic warfare, sensors, and missile performance matter a lot more than pilot skill in BFMs.