Exclusive Why Enemy Pilots Never Sleep

[Hellfire]

You have answered your own question with the highlighted part.

And precisely, so have you answered your question. The difference will be the stand off distance. You have AWACs we have the same. Difference is, you have to see over 1000s of km, we just need to be nearer to the border to cover your country. Just my two bit.


For my Indian friends this article of Feb 15, worth reading!

India's ailing air force at risk in tough neighbourhood
BENGALURU, India | By Siva Govindasamy and Tommy Wilkes

Indian Air Force (IAF) fighter aircraft jets fly past during the Republic Day parade in New Delhi January 26, 2015.
Reuters/Adnan Abidi
BENGALURU, India (Reuters) - India's air force risks a major capability gap opening up with China and Pakistan without new western warplanes or if local defence contractors can't produce what the military needs in a timely manner.
A 2012 agreement to buy 126 Rafale fighters from France's Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA) has stalled due to a dispute over the assembly of the aircraft in India.
India's first homegrown fighter, the Tejas light combat aircraft, will finally be delivered next month, 30 years after it was conceived. But senior air force officers privately said they were unimpressed, with one former officer, an ex-fighter pilot, saying the plane was "so late it is obsolete".
While the navy is undergoing an accelerated modernisation drive, experts said India was vulnerable in the skies because of its reliance on a disparate fleet of ageing Russian-made MiG and French Mirage fighters, along with more modern Russian Sukhoi Su-30s. Half of India's fighters are due to retire beginning this year until 2024.
"It could lead to humiliation at the hands of our neighbours," AK Sachdev, a retired air force officer, wrote last year in the Indian Defence Review journal.
A coordinated attack by China and arch-rival Pakistan could stretch the Indian military, he added. It's a scenario defence strategists in New Delhi have been asked to plan for, Indian air force sources say, although experts say such an event is highly unlikely to happen.
India's ties with China are still hamstrung by a dispute over their Himalayan border that led to war in 1962. New Delhi is also wary of China's expanding naval presence in the Indian Ocean and its close relations with Pakistan.
MULTIPLE CRASHES
India's air force has 34 operational squadrons, down from 39 earlier this decade and below the government approved strength of 42, a parliamentary committee said in December.
More than half of India's MiGs have crashed in recent decades, the then defence minister said in 2012.
At the same time, China is flying locally built fourth-generation J-10 fighters and is testing two fifth-generation stealth fighter jets.
Pakistan is upgrading its Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) F-16 fighters as well as using JF-17 warplanes developed with China. It is also in talks to buy J-10s, according to Pakistani and Chinese industry sources.
India would still win a war against Pakistan because of the sheer size of its air force, but the slow modernisation means victory would come with heavy casualties, said Richard Aboulafia, Washington D.C.-based vice president of analysis at the Teal Group, an aerospace and defence think tank.
To keep up, India is buying more Su-30s and upgrading other existing fighters.
"We do need to increase our defence preparedness," Prime Minister Narendra Modi told the opening ceremony of the Aero India airshow in Bengaluru on Wednesday.
Criticism of the Tejas was unfounded, said K. Tamilmani, a senior official at the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), a defence ministry agency which designed and developed the plane.
"The Tejas has a safety record that is unbeaten," Tamilmani told Reuters by telephone, adding it would provide a platform to develop more advanced fighters in the years ahead.
IMPASSE OVER RAFALE JETS
The Rafale fighters are expected to replace some of India's MiGs and Mirage jets.
But India is insisting Dassault take full responsibility for production of the aircraft at a state-run facility in Bengaluru, Indian defence ministry officials have said.
France has said it will help Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd stick to delivery schedules, but that it cannot give guarantees for production of the aircraft made at a facility over which it has no administrative or expert control.
India would decide on the fate of the deal only after March, when a defence ministry committee delivers a report on the issue, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said at the airshow.
Cancellation would be "disastrous", said Deba Mohanty, chairman at Indicia Research & Advisory, a New Delhi-based defence consulting firm.
"It's a really tricky situation in which the supplier is unhappy, the bureaucrats are unhappy and the end user is disappointed," said Mohanty.
India has successfully introduced Boeing's (BA.N) C-17 cargo plane and P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft and Lockheed Martin's C-130J transport, all bought directly, over the last few years.
That shows off-the shelf solutions work best, experts said.
However, under the Modi administration's "Make in India" programme, there is an emphasis on building a domestic defence industrial base to cut dependence on foreign supplies that have made India the world's biggest arms importer.
The DRDO for example is working on the Tejas Mark II, a slightly larger plane than the original, which will feature more powerful engines, better radars and upgraded avionics.
Local trainer jets, light transport aircraft and helicopter programmes are also under way.
"People who fly planes want the best value for money, which means off-the-shelf," said Aboulafia. "People who want jobs and technology development schemes have different priorities. That's why the two groups don't like each other much."

India's ailing air force at risk in tough neighbourhood| Reuters

 

[Windjammer]

by the analogy you have given, Mig 21s with IAF and their derivatives with you, with BVR upgrades, should be kicking everyone's but$$, isn't it?

Depends how capable their radar , BVR capability and loitering time is.

Big Radar Su -30 , can even watch when F-16 of PAF start their engines staying inside indian borders and lock and fire missiles...... lol

I am sure it can do that while still parked inside the hangar, after all the Indians have christened it Raptor of the East, however it's another matter that despite being grounded repeatedly, the IAF still only manage some 55% operational.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

Depends how capable their radar , BVR capability and loitering time is.


I am sure it can do that while still parked inside the hangar, after all the Indians have christened it Raptor of the East, however it's another matter that despite being grounded repeatedly, the IAF still only manage some 55% operational.

Yes you can bet on that, when Indian can blow tanks with recoil guns , it can also with Su 30MKI

BTW 150 in active sevice is enough to take on less 100 no of real planes anytime.... I hope you know Su-30 MKI radar can capture whole PAK ..... 200+ KM range.... ( thats why called Mini ACWAS.

Wish i an anything same for PAF.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Albeit, you have the right to your opinion, but let me add this, just like PAF will not commit anything more than say six aircraft to each target, the IAF despite it's numerical superiority will not send any more than a squadron against high value targets inside Pakistan. A war between India and Pakistan will not be like a one sided affair like coalition forces attacking Iraq or the Israelis bombing Palestinians. Say India attacks with a mix bag of 20 aircraft, Pakistan will be monitoring the situation through AWACS and other ground based radars, it has modern air defences and BVR capable interceptors, even if 50% of IAF strike force is taken out that will immediately put India on the back foot.
Deploying an aircraft like the SU-30 with a huge RCS, will be risky without first assuring complete air superiority which the IAF will never achieve over the PAF.
@gambit @MastanKhan , your opinion gentlemen will be appreciated.

salaam jammer bhaiyaso your at it again so here i post it yet again

1. its not that onli pakistan has ground based radars and AWACS well india has aswell and most of owr ground based , aerostat and AWACS based radars are AESA or PESA based 3D or even some are 4D type backed bya SAM netwrok pakistan can onli dream of which is aging given top cover by at least three types of spy sats

2.for pakistan(god forbid it ever happens) india already has 6 squads of MKi (air superiorty)and three each of upgrded mig29s & M2Ks(deep strike & air policing) +7 squads each of upgraded Jags(CAS & deep strike) & Bisons(point defence)

3.we have one of the best BVR capabillities in this theater and have a variety of the best russian , french and israeli A to A missles which are again backed by best EW &self protection jammer suits and fighter aircraft based radars money can buy today

4.an MKI with air a lunched bhramos ALCM can do more damage than u can ever imagine as almost all of PAFs & PAs vital instalations(80-190KM from indian border) are in its ground lanched versions range 289km

5.baki abhi rehne do saeen ji

 

[Hellfire]

Depends how capable their radar , BVR capability and loitering time is.

Exactly. So F-16 vs Su-30 is kind of useless right now. The advantage we have is obviously of the lack of depth in Pakistani airspace in comparison to Indian airspace. So we have advantage of detection at an earlier stage. Plus our C4I capability is slightly better off ... example is of your move of loading your F-16 in 1999 with a nuke and the immediate call by Vajpayee to your PM to desist from going on that path. You can ascertain this info at your end if you are ex-services.

I am sure it can do that while still parked inside the hangar, after all the Indians have christened it Raptor of the East, however it's another matter that despite being grounded repeatedly, the IAF still only manage some 55% operational.

Good one!!!Great sense of humour, much needed in these blogs! Appreciated! I agree ... the fantasy at times .. will go one better, it will be able to do so in assembly line stage .... lol

 

[Windjammer]

Exactly. So F-16 vs Su-30 is kind of useless right now. The advantage we have is obviously of the lack of depth in Pakistani airspace in comparison to Indian airspace. So we have advantage of detection at an earlier stage. Plus our C4I capability is slightly better off ... example is of your move of loading your F-16 in 1999 with a nuke and the immediate call by Vajpayee to your PM to desist from going on that path. You can ascertain this info at your end if you are ex-services.

Well, it can also prove to be a double edge sword, there's also the dilemma of defending the vast area for the IAF. It's also worth remembering that unlike say US and Russia or China, India and Pakistan share a common border with very limited flying and detection time. And if i remember correctly, it was an American satellite which picked up the F-16s armed and parked at a remote dessert airfield, and notified India.

Good one!!!Great sense of humour, much needed in these blogs! Appreciated! I agree ... the fantasy at times .. will go one better, it will be able to do so in assembly line stage .... lol

Well, There's no shortages of fan boys on either side.

 

[gambit]

Albeit, you have the right to your opinion, but let me add this, just like PAF will not commit anything more than say six aircraft to each target, the IAF despite it's numerical superiority will not send any more than a squadron against high value targets inside Pakistan. A war between India and Pakistan will not be like a one sided affair like coalition forces attacking Iraq or the Israelis bombing Palestinians. Say India attacks with a mix bag of 20 aircraft, Pakistan will be monitoring the situation through AWACS and other ground based radars, it has modern air defences and BVR capable interceptors, even if 50% of IAF strike force is taken out that will immediately put India on the back foot.
Deploying an aircraft like the SU-30 with a huge RCS, will be risky without first assuring complete air superiority which the IAF will never achieve over the PAF.
@gambit @MastanKhan , your opinion gentlemen will be appreciated.

I am more a fan of von Clausewitz than of Sun Tzu. I guess that is because the technical arguments from von Clausewitz have more appeal to the engineering side of me.

But here is what von Clausewitz advised about numerical superiority...

Numerical Superiority

It is very seldom that an attacking force can have overwhelming air superiority in terms of sheer numbers. In that rarity, probably the only power that can produce that level of superiority is the US, and we would include allies at that. You are correct when you mentioned Iraq.

Note what von Clausewitz said and how applicable it is to air warfare...

...always to be very strong; first in general, and then at the decisive point.

If you and a fellow soldier collide, neither of you will die or even wounded. But the same cannot be said for aviation. If you and your wingman bumped each other in flight, both of you will most likely at least be rendered worthless to the war effort, if not outright killed in the event. This make air combat inherently a chaotic affair. Even from WW II, a small group of attackers have always been able to disrupt the operation of a larger group. When two opposing sides meet, the meeting inevitably deteriorate to multiple mano-a-mano battles.

So let us say that A sent 20 fighters to attack B. Does that mean if B send only 4 fighters to intercept, A will allot only 4 fighters to meet B and the rest continue deeper into B's territory ? No, it does not mean so. If we are to be generous and say every engagement is 2-1 ratio, that will leave A with 12 fighters to continue the mission. Allowing for misses by A and that pretty much mean 4 interceptors from B managed to foil the entire attack plan from A. But the 2-1 ratio is not going to happen. Every 20 fighter-bombers from A is going to dump his load to become fighters to engage 4 interceptors.

That is exactly what happened back in the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese had only 20-something MIG-21s so those fighters' missions had to be carefully planned. Whenever a few -21s attacked a formation of heavily laden American F-100s, which numbered in the dozens for each strike mission, every American fighter-bomber in that formation dumped his bombs to improve his odds of survival simply because each man does not know if he is going to be a target for a MIG. Every American pilot know the North Vietnamese have so few MIG-21s but no one is going to place bet that he will not be a target that day.

So in theory, in order for A to complete deep incursion into B's territory, the numerical superiority would have to be something like 10-1 for each mission. Some would be allotted to deal with any interceptors from B, while the rest would execute what von Clausewitz advised: To focus that numerical superiority at a decisive point.

I am willing to speculate that unless India have perfected 'stealth' fighter operations and/or have that desirable 10-1 numerical advantage, any air conflict between India and Pakistan is going to be a long drawn out affair with control of disputed airspace swaying back and forth between the two.

 

[Paksanity]

I am more a fan of von Clausewitz than of Sun Tzu. I guess that is because the technical arguments from von Clausewitz have more appeal to the engineering side of me.

But here is what von Clausewitz advised about numerical superiority...

Numerical Superiority

It is very seldom that an attacking force can have overwhelming air superiority in terms of sheer numbers. In that rarity, probably the only power that can produce that level of superiority is the US, and we would include allies at that. You are correct when you mentioned Iraq.

Note what von Clausewitz said and how applicable it is to air warfare...


If you and a fellow soldier collide, neither of you will die or even wounded. But the same cannot be said for aviation. If you and your wingman bumped each other in flight, both of you will most likely at least be rendered worthless to the war effort, if not outright killed in the event. This make air combat inherently a chaotic affair. Even from WW II, a small group of attackers have always been able to disrupt the operation of a larger group. When two opposing sides meet, the meeting inevitably deteriorate to multiple mano-a-mano battles.

So let us say that A sent 20 fighters to attack B. Does that mean if B send only 4 fighters to intercept, A will allot only 4 fighters to meet B and the rest continue deeper into B's territory ? No, it does not mean so. If we are to be generous and say every engagement is 2-1 ratio, that will leave A with 12 fighters to continue the mission. Allowing for misses by A and that pretty much mean 4 interceptors from B managed to foil the entire attack plan from A. But the 2-1 ratio is not going to happen. Every 20 fighter-bombers from A is going to dump his load to become fighters to engage 4 interceptors.

That is exactly what happened back in the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese had only 20-something MIG-21s so those fighters' missions had to be carefully planned. Whenever a few -21s attacked a formation of heavily laden American F-100s, which numbered in the dozens for each strike mission, every American fighter-bomber in that formation dumped his bombs to improve his odds of survival simply because each man does not know if he is going to be a target for a MIG. Every American pilot know the North Vietnamese have so few MIG-21s but no one is going to place bet that he will not be a target that day.

So in theory, in order for A to complete deep incursion into B's territory, the numerical superiority would have to be something like 10-1 for each mission. Some would be allotted to deal with any interceptors from B, while the rest would execute what von Clausewitz advised: To focus that numerical superiority at a decisive point.

I am willing to speculate that unless India have perfected 'stealth' fighter operations and/or have that desirable 10-1 numerical advantage, any air conflict between India and Pakistan is going to be a long drawn out affair with control of disputed airspace swaying back and forth between the two.

There is good reason we look forward to your contribution here.

 

[Windjammer]

It is very seldom that an attacking force can have overwhelming air superiority in terms of sheer numbers. In that rarity, probably the only power that can produce that level of superiority is the US, and we would include allies at that. You are correct when you mentioned Iraq.
Allowing for misses by A and that pretty much mean 4 interceptors from B managed to foil the entire attack plan from A. But the 2-1 ratio is not going to happen. Every 20 fighter-bombers from A is going to dump his load to become fighters to engage 4 interceptors.
I am willing to speculate that unless India have perfected 'stealth' fighter operations and/or have that desirable 10-1 numerical advantage, any air conflict between India and Pakistan is going to be a long drawn out affair with control of disputed airspace swaying back and forth between the two.

Thank you sir @gambit....... here ends the lesson.

 

[abdulbarijan]

Any and every aircraft will have a RCS signature, even the raptor has one. How is the RCS signature of MKI going to help PAF?

21st century is age of BVR combat where the concept is see first, shoot first. How is PAF going to lock down and shoot down MKIs without suffering losses?

The answer to your question or rather argument is " You have to see first to have the better chance to shoot first" -- Coming with an argument like even the Raptor has a RCS signature, to argue in favor of the MKI, is like comparing an ant to an elephant and be like " Hey!! Like Elephants, we are also able to see an ant through the naked eye"

Like previously stated,
nobody doubts that MKI is indeed a very good aircraft, but saying that its invincible and has no flaws that can be exploited is a stand that will be contested by most of the people around here ---

Yes you can bet on that, when Indian can blow tanks with recoil guns , it can also with Su 30MKI

BTW 150 in active sevice is enough to take on less 100 no of real planes anytime.... I hope you know Su-30 MKI radar can capture whole PAK ..... 200+ KM range.... ( thats why called Mini ACWAS.

Wish i an anything same for PAF.

How do you define a "real plane" ? -- and if the benchmark of real planes is the MKI, then I wonder how much real planes does the IAF have when it has both PLAAF and PAF to worry about --

However, what I seriously would like to know is that -- wouldn't the IAF have contingencies in place, say if your in an airwar with the PAF or the PLAAF , would you be operating at full power leaving a historically hostile neighbor without any sort of check at all --- (speaking strictly from a managerial point of view)

 

[gambit]

People have got to understand that planning for an air combat mission is a time consuming and intelligence laden affair. Air bases are not at the border, especially at valuable ingress/egress points that may be affected by geographical features, radar coverage, and mission parameters such as whether to fly below radar coverage or not.

- Distance from border consumes fuel to get there and hopefully return to base (RTB).

- Flying over geographical features allows fairly straight routes but leave one vulnerable to radar detection.

- Flying according to geographical dictates consumes fuel.

- Is in-flight refuel possible and where ?

- Search and rescue planning, unless one is willing to abandon one's own.

- The possibility of en route enemy interception/interference.

- Are there any electronics warfare (EW) assist ? If not and if all elements must carry self protection EW, this will negatively affect ordnance load.

- Duration of time over target.

- Target type dictate ordnance which will affect flight time and fuel consumption. Interdiction and close air support are unpredictable regarding TOT.

- Rendezvous point for all elements.

- The possibility of enemy interception/interference during egress.

The attacking force must take into consideration all these major factors, of which variables like time over target may not be calculable because the demand is absolute destruction of target. For example, an ammo depot should not be merely damaged but absolutely destroyed, on the other hand, an interdiction can be to inflict damage and delay the resupply of the enemy to his front line forces. The former require the attacking force to expend vulnerable time over target area to assess if the mission is successful, whereas for the latter, a delay of resupply or damaged goods would be enough to affect the war in one's favorable direction.

Depending on the specific mission, an interception by a smaller force may compel the attacking force commander to scrap the entire mission because enough of his force is damaged or killed to make the mission tactically/strategically NOT worthwhile.

When two opposing air forces are within %10 of each other in terms of numbers of available combat ready elements, both forces are essentially at parity and this is where victory is even much greater determined by intelligence about the other side and simply put -- who has the smarter air commander.

 

[aqdus]

sexiest in my opinion is Mig-29..curved like a woman's back..

Yup and get laid like a prostitute every time.

 

[nForce]

Yup and get laid like a prostitute every time.

Was that your best effort at cracking joke ? Am I supposed to be impressed ?

 

[MastanKhan]

Albeit, you have the right to your opinion, but let me add this, just like PAF will not commit anything more than say six aircraft to each target, the IAF despite it's numerical superiority will not send any more than a squadron against high value targets inside Pakistan. A war between India and Pakistan will not be like a one sided affair like coalition forces attacking Iraq or the Israelis bombing Palestinians. Say India attacks with a mix bag of 20 aircraft, Pakistan will be monitoring the situation through AWACS and other ground based radars, it has modern air defences and BVR capable interceptors, even if 50% of IAF strike force is taken out that will immediately put India on the back foot.
Deploying an aircraft like the SU-30 with a huge RCS, will be risky without first assuring complete air superiority which the IAF will never achieve over the PAF.
@gambit @MastanKhan , your opinion gentlemen will be appreciated.

Hi,

The thing is that if they do not do that---they are damned----. Because if the PAF survives and retaliates successfully----there will be big ebarrassment to face.

I think that the only saving grace for the Indian air force is going all out----. First 24 hours is the make break period for the Paf and for the Iaf as well.

 

[Hellfire]

Well, it can also prove to be a double edge sword, there's also the dilemma of defending the vast area for the IAF. It's also worth remembering that unlike say US and Russia or China, India and Pakistan share a common border with very limited flying and detection time. And if i remember correctly, it was an American satellite which picked up the F-16s armed and parked at a remote dessert airfield, and notified India.

Yeah that is there. It was Indian TES which picked it up. Vajpayee warned against going on that path. IA was in bad shape thanks to the cut backs of the 90s which saw majority of equipment mothballed for lack of repairs and deficiencies in critical areas. We would have been left with no option but to escalate ... and I shudder to think of the consequences if we all had gone on that path.

Well, There's no shortages of fan boys on either side.

True that. Cheers!

Hi,

The thing is that if they do not do that---they are damned----. Because if the PAF survives and retaliates successfully----there will be big ebarrassment to face.

I think that the only saving grace for the Indian air force is going all out----. First 24 hours is the make break period for the Paf and for the Iaf as well.

It will not only be for IAF, but will also deny Indian Army the ability to achieve the targets as per the political directives, Hence, our calculations envisage achievement of air superiority against Pakistan alone within 24 hours. But then planning is not only for Pakistan (the all weather friend on our north is equally disturbing for us) However, our contingency planning is oriented for build up at northern frontier simultaneously with hostile action in west, and with the delay in the upgrade and enhancement of force levels in the airforce inventory, we are jittery with regards to facing potential hostile action on two fronts. We are yet not up to the mark to be able to engage in air on both sides with significant assets still intact. In short, we will be had in such a scenario.