The Kashmir conflict 2025.

Wrought said:

Chinese IADS is far more sophisticated because it is up against a far stronger enemy. But in a hot conflict, is inevitable that some munitions will get through.

No defense is perfect, and the point of air defense is to ensure military assets remain functional or at least repairable. Not that every single incoming threat is intercepted. That's completely unrealistic and impossible for anyone to achieve. Even a defense as strong as Israel's with full US backing could not manage that against such a weak opponent as Iran.

Click to expand...

Han Patriot said:

HQ9 is not meant to down cruise missiles, drones or ballstic missiles, it was meant to down jets. How are you going to down jets when the IAF went into hiding after the 5:0 incident. One HQ9 scored a SU30, another scored a S400 or Brahmos I think. That's what the Paks claim but judging from the exploded shape of the S400, I think it might have been downed.

Click to expand...

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Doctrine, though technology likely played a role as well. US sources as well as USAF have praised the skill of Indian pilots that have participated in joint exercises with the US. Indian pilots were even applauded for frequently beating USAF pilots in simulated combat exercises. The problem: every single exercise the IAF participated in excluded BVR. Likely IAF doctrine and pilot training overemphasized WVR maneuvers over BVR tactics. IAF pilots may very well be good at fighting the air battles of 30 years ago, but find themselves completely out of their depth in modern systems based BVR focused air combat. The other likely deficiency in IAF doctrine is relying on a platform centric approach to air combat, rather than a systems centric approach. Various IAF air and ground assets are in all likelihood poorly integrated, resulting in slow flow of information between various platforms, a lack of an integrated view of the battlespace, and ultimately poor situational awareness. The total absence of Indian AWACS (to which the IAF only has a very limited number of expensive, impossible to replace platforms) is a telling indicator to the backwardness of IAF doctrine. If utilized properly with AWACS support and by pilots and commanders well versed in modern air combat doctrine, the Rafale can be expected to perform on par with the J-10C (given the biggest advantage of the J-10C is its larger, more powerful, and more modern AESA).

Click to expand...

sutton999 said:

Rafale will never grow a big head though.

Click to expand...

Wrought said:

IADS is the entire system of sensors and shooters, GBAD and AEW&C and all the rest. It is designed to defend against aerial threats of all kind. I take your point, but that's not what I was talking about.

Click to expand...

Han Patriot said:

I agree if we are talking about an integrated system, Drones realistically can only be downed economically with EW or AAA gun.

Click to expand...

Han Patriot said:

I agree if we are talking about an integrated system, Drones realistically can only be downed economically with EW or AAA gun.

Click to expand...

FairAndUnbiased said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A Chinese analysis. He notes that the Indian pilots were not poorly trained or cowardly, exact opposite of what the west says. They were shot down at low altitude. This shows that they were aggressively maneuvering, likely to avoid missile tracks, they had at least rudimentary situational awareness, and did not abandon the mission at the first sign of intercept.

As a comparison, note that during Vietnam, US F-4s would dump their strike munitions at the first sign of SAMs or Mig-21s.

Their problem was not the pilots, it was actually the technology.

Click to expand...

Blitzo said:

Is that twitter account the person who wrote it, or did they copy it from elsewhere?

The general rationale of contemporary air combat described is not inaccurate, but it seems they're making a bunch of statements about the circumstances of the air battle which seem more like educated guesses than anything.


==
edit:

Okay looks like they just translated a Zhihu answer... the credbility of zhihu of course highly highly variable, and I am not sure as to the credibility of the answer-er on Zhihu.

I encourage people to read for themselves.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Analysis of May 7th battle by former PLAAF officer. He posits that the aircraft were facing each other when the missiles were fired since AAMs have a much shorter range when fired against escaping plane.

Click to expand...