What's new

Airpower Imbalance - Nuclear Pakistan's Achilles' Heel

you can,t really compare a small aviation power/country like pakistan against the massive indian air force and aviation sector.

Since you cannot read between the lines of the author's article, I would say you should rejoice in making the above statement!

Arabs combined put more money into their defense budgets than Israel does. However what Israelis do is that they invest in crucial areas. This is the key. You do not need to be the biggest, only smart to take advantage of the assets you have at your disposal and exploit them fully. For as long as we can do that, we will retain a credible deterrence against the IAF. PAF is a force in transition..the point here is that we will not be in this state of transition always.

I have read your list multiple times. I am very well aware of the quantitative disparity, however we have no intentions to dominate the skies over India. Our goals are much more reasonable and our efforts are in line to ensure that we can execute against these goals. As such your 4:1 and 10:1 superiority ratios are not everything in the equation being played out between the two countries.
 
.
who ever think Pakistan is Higly outnumber is probably the most idiotic Person on this Planet Earth Pakistan has over 583+ Aircraft including F-16,Mirages III-V,F-7s,JF-17 on the other hand India have 680+ Aircraft
 
.
umm MKI is datalinked with other MKI's (it acts like mini AWACS)

You are limited to 16 aircraft (exclusively MKI) DL network. The rest of the relaying has to be done via ground stations.
and did u forget Mig-29 and M2K

Mig-29 was upgraded in 90s to fire BVR

Avionics wise and capabilities wise, both of the above platforms are the very early versions of types that were produced by Dassault and Mig. I do not want to go into details here, but the versions of both aircraft that your IAF flies were evaluated by the PAF and rejected.
AND QUIT SAYING UR ON PAR WITH IAF IN TERMS OF QUALITY. UR NOT

Since you are offended, I wont! :lol:

u only have 40 f-16s and only 5-10 can fire bvr

BVR is not the end of the game specially when the entire JF-17 program is BVR capable. I would like to give you an inkling on how technology refreshes happen in Air Forces. When PAF inducted the ATLIS, you guys had no LGB capability. When PAF introduced the AIM-9 missile, you had no AAM. When we introduced supersonic platforms, you did not have anything as a counter.
However whenever we introduced a capability, your side went and got one of their own too. So its the same case now. BVR AAMs are one aspect of the overall capability. PAF does not have it fleet-wide, however it will in the near future.
even Indian Mig-21s can defeat ur f-16s lol

Really? Bring them on is all I have to say to that....although you folks have been riding a high horse for a while, IAF bisons were getting their ***** kicked by USAF F-16s out of Japan. I have talked to the USAF pilot who was at CI-05 myself.


India dont even have to use MKI, M2K, and Mig-29 to defeat u

if there is a BVR engagement, here's the scenario

f-16 and MKI are closing in on each other

F-16 and MKI both fire

MKI goes the other way, but missile is still locked on thanks to 90km range in rear hemisphere.

f-16 cant do that so it has to stay the same side to keep tracking

not even jf-17 can do that.



and by 2020 u will have 350 fighters similar to f-16 i'll give u that

but by 2020 IAF will have 230 MKI(delivery completed by 2014), 120 Mig-29 and M2K(Upgraded by 2012), 200 MRCA(decision will be made in 2010, starts arriving 2011-2012 and finishes in 6-8 years, 250 LCA(will get new engine and radar by 2012), PAK-FA(IOC by 2015) and 20 a year means 100 by 2020.

if u think HAL cant make that much, than think again

like the last guy said

aerospace industry in India expanding very fast, and atm 28 MKI's and 10-20 Hawks are made every year on top of upgrades.

this timeline means that

2011-2012: MRCA imported (40-60), Mig-29 and M2K UPG Done, Jaguar UPG done
2013: LCA and MRCA production start along with MKI (10 LCA, 10 MRCA, 30 MKI)
2014: MKI production ends, LCA and MRCA full steam ahead (30 LCA, 30 MRCA)
2015: LCA, MRCA, PAK-FA (30 LCA, 20 MRCA, 20 PAK-FA)
2016:SAME AS ABOVE
2017:SAME AS ABOVE
2018:SAME AS ABOVE
2019:SAME AS ABOVE
2020:SAME AS ABOVE


if u dont think HAL can make 70 A/C per year, then ur wrong

atm, HAL is making ~30 MKI per year, and 10-20 Hawks and doing a lot of upgrading

by 2013 upgrading will be done to M2K, Jaguar, and Mig-29 so it frees up more resources

and in the future HAL will only GROW

Nice...now lets see if your side can only execute against the above plans. There is plenty of boasting and show off here on the part of the Indians. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. When your upgrade plans are all complete and you have your starfleet ready then come back to us and remind us about your mighty IAF. Until then rest easy my friend.

"The best-laid plans of mice and men, often go awry," John Steinbeck
 
Last edited:
.
100 % kill ratio: I don’t think that any weapon system can claim this…Every system has its grey areas that once exploited, can lower their effectiveness…


Thats exactly true. A guided weapon consists of various sub-systems like rocket motor, warhead, guidance system, control system, etc. Even if we consider a very high probability of 0.9 (out of 1) for the sub-systems like

Probability of warhead initiation : 0.9
Probability of normal rocket motor operation: 0.9
Probability of normal control function: 0.9
Probability of normal guidance function: 0.9


Overall porbability of missile hit : 0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9 = 0.6561

Thus even with highly efficient sub-systems, the overall kill probability turns out to be average. The more sub-systems, the lower the kill probability shall go.
 
.
Thats exactly true. A guided weapon consists of various sub-systems like rocket motor, warhead, guidance system, control system, etc. Even if we consider a very high probability of 0.9 (out of 1) for the sub-systems like

Probability of warhead initiation : 0.9
Probability of normal rocket motor operation: 0.9
Probability of normal control function: 0.9
Probability of normal guidance function: 0.9


Overall porbability of missile hit : 0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9 = 0.6561

Thus even with highly efficient sub-systems, the overall kill probability turns out to be average. The more sub-systems, the lower the kill probability shall go.

Besides the hardware/software integrity of the system, certain other issues make a big difference. The absolute range of the BVR weapons is a marketing gimmick. Depending on where the bogey is, by simply turning away from the threat, the effectiveness of the BVRAAM can be reduced. Secondly, capabilities such as DRFM can be used to send back radar frequencies of friendly aircraft back to the tracking radar thus limiting the use of BVR at extended ranges due to IFF challenges.

I am posting a brief from a piece written by a USAF officer for the US Air Command & Staff College on the basics of WVR and BVR combat. Take note of the relevance of the Gun WEZ even in these days of BVR combat (which some take to be the end all of air combat nowadays):
Missile WEZ
Before a valid launch from a WEZ can be achieved, the missile must “see” the target.
Today’s technology provides two detection methods, temperature and radar tracking.
Temperature tracking occurs in missiles such as the AIM-9 Sidewinder by having a
seeker in the missiles’ nose track a hot emission from the target, such as engine exhaust.
Tracking can also occur by acquiring a radar lock onto the target. The radar lock can
come from on-board radar, which externally relays target information to the missile.
Some examples of these missiles are the U.S. AIM-7 Sparrow and the former Soviet AA-
10 Alamo. Finally, the missile itself can contain its own radar to achieve a solution, such
as the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile. In summary, a
technologically complex series of events must occur for a missile to detect, track, and fire on a target, assuming a launch in a proper envelope. A single failure in a software or
hardware component will result in a missed opportunity.
Missile WEZs are drastically larger than a gun WEZ. In fact, you can be in a valid
WEZ at any aspect to the enemy, in front of, or behind, as long as you are pointing
towards the enemy. Maximum range can exceed 30 miles, while minimum range can be
inside a mile, depending on missile g-capability and arming time. If the enemy is not
maneuvering, a missile can be employed at closer ranges, almost competing with a gun.
If the enemy is turning, the minimum range expands because the missile must perform a
high-g turn in order to hit the target. Modern missiles can pull over 30 g’s, or turn with
over 30 times the force of gravity. This maneuverability is required at close ranges, so
missiles can perform tight turns, thereby completing an intercept of a fast moving target.
However this can be a severe limitation if the enemy has generated a high rate of turn. If
too high, the g-limited missile will not maintain track throughout the intercept.
The minimum range of missiles is a limiting factor, but is constantly improving with
missile software updates. Today’s technology features gimbaled rocket motors that can
turn the missile and apply thrust in the direction the missile needs to travel, not just
straight ahead as in most rocket motors.2 This drastic improvement in missile
maneuverability will most likely decrease the minimum range of missiles, but will never
have the minimum range of a gun due to maneuvering limitations, required arming time,
and the limitations of its warhead.
Lethal Radius
It also takes a certain amount of time for the missiles to arm. You do not want it to
arm immediately in case it detonates in front of your aircraft within range of its lethal radius. Lethal radius highlights a physical limitation inherent in today’s air-to-air
missiles. Each missile warhead has a certain distance declared, or lethal radius, in which
detonation of whatever killing mechanism it contains proves successful in destroying a
target. In some missiles, a direct hit is not needed if it contains a proximity fuze, meaning
the warhead will detonate if it is within a certain distance of the target.
The warheads used “...are typically blast-fragmentation types, incendiary or
explosive pellets, or expanding-rod types.” 3 The rods or pellets explode outward toward
the target and cut through hydraulic lines or the cockpit itself to destroy the aircraft or
pilot. The significance of lethal radius is that a missile must complete a highly complex
intercept relatively close to an enemy aircraft, and fuze properly, in order for the warhead
to detonate. Conversely, a bullet fired from a gun contains no warhead or proximity fuze.
It causes damage by impacting the target at a high rate of speed.
Gun Benefits
This chapter has reviewed modern air-to-air principles of BFM along with key
definitions. The aerodynamic limitations inherent in employing missiles at minimum
range makes the gun weapon system crucial for tomorrow’s combat arena. The gun is a
simple weapon system to employ and maintain. It cannot be degraded by enemy
electronic counter-measures or flare decoys which all help to degrade missile
performance. Another significant benefit of using a gun is that it isn’t reliant on the
aircraft’s radar system. Radar missiles must work in concert with the aircraft’s radar,
which is very susceptible to enemy aircraft maneuver and counter measures. Finally, the
gun provides additional firepower and can be fired from an exclusive WEZ.


Summary
The gun benefits will not disappear in the 21st Century. The gun provides a fighter
pilot an additional weapon that rarely malfunctions. By highlighting the inherent
limitations of modern missiles, the requirement to equip future fighters with a short-range
weapon should remain. As previously noted, the gun has been a constant in aerial
warfare. An examination of future implications and missions will help us decide if this
constant will remain.
 
Last edited:
.
El Nino,

If wishes could ride horses and beggars could chose to be sultans----then off course we can all live in our palaces suspended on air cushions in the clouds----but the problem arises when a certain anamoly comes abegging to the soldiers in combat---death of an aviator / a colleague in combat is a very stressful event for the ones viewing it and for the ones learning about it.

Death of multiple SU30 MKI's over pakistani space one after the other, would have a terrifying effect over the psyche of the other indian pilots----that is where the term LOSE BOWEL SYNDROME came into being---now is where you would find the true mettle of your flyers----till that time it is all talk. Looking at the previous actual air battles----maybe it is GUT CHECK TIME---rather than numerical superiority time.

At least your pilot won't be killing innocent un armed muslims in gujrat at will----this time the oponent would shoot back---shoot to klill---trust me on that.
 
.
Besides the hardware/software integrity of the system, certain other issues make a big difference. The absolute range of the BVR weapons is a marketing gimmick. Depending on where the bogey is, by simply turning away from the threat, the effectiveness of the BVRAAM can be reduced. Secondly, capabilities such as DRFM can be used to send back radar frequencies of friendly aircraft back to the tracking radar thus limiting the use of BVR at extended ranges due to IFF challenges.

I am posting a brief from a piece written by a USAF officer for the US Air Command & Staff College on the basics of WVR and BVR combat. Take note of the relevance of the Gun WEZ even in these days of BVR combat (which some take to be the end all of air combat nowadays):

Electronic Warfare opens a whole new world of possibilities. Proximity fuse, that makes a missile lethal even if it misses, can be used to make the missile miss its target.

Proximity fuses are either laser-triggered or radio frequency-triggered. We know that chaff/jaff are used to cheat the radar of BVR AAM or SAM but if we have a chaff that can trigger the proximity fuse, then we would have added counter-measures against radar-guided missiles whether SAM or BVR AAM.

Currently, towed radar decoys along with various kinds of chaffs are being used as declassified technology.

Apart from last-ditch countermeasures, the RWR shall inform the pilot of any lock by a particular SAM radar or a particular fighter. The pilot should readily know whether he has been locked or tracked by Su-30 or Mig-29 or any other and thus he can expect a BVR shot.

Jammers carried by fighter jets also betray their identification. Jammers of Su-30 may be different as compared to Mig-29 or Mirage-2000. (This trick was used in Operation Bolo by USAF during Vietnam war and depicted in History Channel "Dogfights" episode "Air Ambush")

After the first lock by fighter aircraft's radar, if the pilot sees on his RWR a second lock of different type, he can be sure that its an active BVR coming in like Adder. IF there is no second lock, then it can be semi-active BVR shot like AA-10.

Another difference between radars of fighter jets and BVR AAMs is obviously of the power output. A ground radar can be the most powerful (with a longest range), then the fighter jet's radar and then at last is the BVR AAM's radar power. Its antenna size is smaller and carries a small power supply, resulting in less powerful (less range) radar.

Therefore, power alongwith frequency should make it possible to identify a radar.

The whole frequency spectrum and power outputs used by active BVR AAMs should be in the threat library of PAF's RWRs alongwith spectra used by various fighters.
 
Last edited:
.
Hi, I'm new to this forum and this thread caught my attention. Allow me to offer my thoughts on this subject:

1)As an Indian nothing pains & frustrates me more than hearing the usual nonsense about India's numerical superiority vis-a-vis Pakistan! The very concept of 'numerical superiority' is outdated since in today's defence environment quality matters more - as has been repeatedly proven by the U.S. in their Gulf Wars. And the painful & frightening truth is that Pakistan's armed forces are qualitatively superior.. read below.

2)Due to their long association with the U.S., Pakistan has always had access to the very best equipment and training in the world - from the U.S. Also, unfortunately since India is a democracy the IAF has to go begging to the babus in the MOD everytime they want to buy some new toys but not so with the PAF where the pakis can buy or demand (!) anything as and when they want it. So you're looking at a scenario where India's (IAF) acquistion & maintenance programmes are totally at the mercy of civilians whereas PAF's fleet is kept tip-top due to the iron fist of the generals.

3)Coming to the real point (finally!)... airpower imbalance (if any!) will not matter to Pakistan in the next Indo-Pak war because it is my humble opinion that the next war will be i) a missile war in which the side with the best missile/missile defences and the itchiest fingers on the missile button has the advantage. OR ii) it will be a 'shadow war' fought by irregular forces (al-qaida/taliban on the **** side) & special forces (both sides) in which the side which makes the cheekiest & sneekiest attacks will bleed the other side. Here too, I see the balance shift towards Pakistan.

Points 1 & 2 need not be discussed but I would like to have senior members' opinion on my last hypothesis. Thank you for your patience!
 
.
sir pakistan also ordered awacs some of your statics are not up to mark foxhound
 
.
1) I think only Pakistan's Erieye, Link-16 and AMRAAM-equipped F-16s will be superior to all Indian aircraft.


3) Surely a ballistic missile war could end up nuclear. More likely I think that conventional warhead cruise missile exchanges will occur I think. Even this may prove a step too far for Indian and Pakistani commanders. Large numbers of conventional cruise missiles could severely damage naval, army and air bases on both sides. Is it possible that large scale cruise missile attacks would not be used for fear of the other side doing the same?
In the case of the above occurring, how would Pakistani forces cope? I suppose plans are in place for the air force to use highways as runways and set up small forward operating bases next to these highways? Would logistics be an issue here? I think a lot of fuel and ammo trucks would be needed to keep up high sortie rates.
 
.
Hi, I'm new to this forum and this thread caught my attention. Allow me to offer my thoughts on this subject:

1)As an Indian nothing pains & frustrates me more than hearing the usual nonsense about India's numerical superiority vis-a-vis Pakistan! The very concept of 'numerical superiority' is outdated since in today's defence environment quality matters more - as has been repeatedly proven by the U.S. in their Gulf Wars. And the painful & frightening truth is that Pakistan's armed forces are qualitatively superior.. read below.

2)Due to their long association with the U.S., Pakistan has always had access to the very best equipment and training in the world - from the U.S. Also, unfortunately since India is a democracy the IAF has to go begging to the babus in the MOD everytime they want to buy some new toys but not so with the PAF where the pakis can buy or demand (!) anything as and when they want it. So you're looking at a scenario where India's (IAF) acquistion & maintenance programmes are totally at the mercy of civilians whereas PAF's fleet is kept tip-top due to the iron fist of the generals.

3)Coming to the real point (finally!)... airpower imbalance (if any!) will not matter to Pakistan in the next Indo-Pak war because it is my humble opinion that the next war will be i) a missile war in which the side with the best missile/missile defences and the itchiest fingers on the missile button has the advantage. OR ii) it will be a 'shadow war' fought by irregular forces (al-qaida/taliban on the **** side) & special forces (both sides) in which the side which makes the cheekiest & sneekiest attacks will bleed the other side. Here too, I see the balance shift towards Pakistan.

Points 1 & 2 need not be discussed but I would like to have senior members' opinion on my last hypothesis. Thank you for your patience!

If scenario 3 takes place and both countries fire missiles at each other, than God save us all. But coming back to the topic, you have made an excellent point. If a war does takes place between India and Pakistan(God Forbid), it is likely that both countries will fire conventional missiles(cruise and ballistic) against each other and special forces will be deployed along the borders to inflict the maximum pain on the enemy with quick border raids. In this regard, Pakistan has an advantage because Pakistan's special forces are better trained than their counterparts and Pakistan has a better missile program than India. But you cannot discount the fact that air power is very important in today's warfare. In this regard, India has the advantage because of the MKI's and the upgraded Mig29's. IAF can carry out precision strikes inside Pakistan which can cause damage to Pakistan's War Machinery. But PAF has some nasty surprises for India, i know this because i have talked to some PAF personal first hand. PAF has developed many different tactics to counter Indian MKI's, when i heard those tactics even i was left impressed. If a war with irregular forces is fought, i believe that Pakistan has an upper hand over here. 3 or 4 weeks ago, the Taliban inside Pakistan claimed that 5000 suicide bombers were ready to blow themselves in India. Imagine if only 10% of them are successfull, this will cause a total panic inside India.
 
.
My thanks to hj786 & notorious eagle for the valuable inputs.

At this point of time I would like to make another bold hypothesis here... It is my opinion that Pakistan's nuclear strike on India will not be delivered by the either the Pakistani Army, Navy or Airforce.

the Taliban inside Pakistan claimed that 5000 suicide bombers were ready to blow themselves in India.

... the suicide bombers might be carrying far far more powerful stuff than RDX. Any guesses?
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom