Has the poor performance of Russian Aircraft in Ukraine impacted Pak-India airforce balance?

[Domobran7]

Why would they deploy anything modern? At this point, the only weapons against Russian Air Force that Ukraine has are MANPADS and harsh language.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

... I suggest you take a look at the map again. Two of three Baltic States who NATO members have a total border with Russia of 508 km. Lithuania has no border with Russia. Total length of border between Russia and Ukraine is 2295 km.

Please do some real research before posting remarks. It's not the way to have a proper discussion on the subject.

So you want me to educate you. Lets see now.

Ukraine's land and sea border with Russia stretches to 2,295 km like you said. That makes up 3.97% of total Russian border of 57,792 km.

Is that border a threat? I mean, can the combined might of NATO forces actually encircle and contain Russia?

 

[mhosein]

So you want me to educate you. Lets see now.

Ukraine's land and sea border with Russia stretches to 2,295 km like you said. That makes up 3.97% of total Russian border of 57,792 km.

Is that border a threat? I mean, can the combined might of NATO forces actually encircle and contain Russia?

My friend, I am going ignore your arrogance on "educating me" for the time being and ask you to turn your attention toward the point I made.

Ukraine is the only country in the European region that has the longest running border with Russia. This constitutes a threat in a scenario where Ukraine is accepted into NATO and the EU.

NATO in Ukraine will mean Western arsenal right at the doorstep of Russia. This also means NATO missiles will travel a shorter distance to their targets in Russia. Shorter distance translates into little to no time for Russia to respond to incoming NATO missiles.

The long border between Ukriane and Russia also means NATO has greater geostrategic advantage in positioning it's missiles against Russia. And this constitutes a lethal threat that Russia will not allow the West to carry on with.

NATO has missile defense systems already deployed in Poland and Romania. These missile systems are dual purpose, meaning a defensive system can easily by switched an offensive system, as the hardware is by design able to fire ABMs as well as Cruise Missiles. So while NATO masquerades around telling the world that they only deploy defensive missile systems. In times of war, they can easily switch over to cruise missiles and attack Russia.

America has similar systems deployed in Japan and South Korea.

In case you were unaware, Russia is the only country on the planet, bar none, that has strategic depth which affords it unmatched defense advantage. Being the largest country on the planet also means NATO would only one chance to attack Russia and that would mean being closest to its borders, enough to attack it at short distance. Think of Ukraine as NATO's sawed off shotgun, if they successfully integrate the country into their alliance.

NATO parking it's military hardware in Ukraine, equates to Russia deploying it's missiles in Mexico. And if those missiles are hypersonic, America would be a sitting duck. Like one with a gun to its head.

Russia's actions in Ukraine are justified. Since it spent over seven years tirelessly trying to bring Kiev and Donbass to a peaceful settlement, called the Minsk Agreements l and ll.

 

[DocEinstein]

India should replace every possible Russian systems in Su30MKI before it gets too late... or buy more western jets along with Tejas for SEAD and air dominance roles... Su30MKI can be used for air to ground missions once air defenses are out.

But.. but..
That's the Raptor of the East,, That's a game changer machine.. That plane will not let PAF planes take off from their bases and will pick them off right at the runways... and

 

[satyamev]

Since Turkey shot down the Russian plane on its border, and Russia just took it without retaliating , I have had my doubts about Russian technology.
But in a India Pakistan context , with radar gaps and limited resources on both sides, the sheer disparity in number of jets , could be decisive.
Though I don't see a resurgent China sitting quietly in a indopak major conflict. It will rearm Pakistan and give it logistical and surveillance support.
Lots of countries doing well on our rivalry.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

... NATO in Ukraine will mean Western arsenal right at the doorstep of Russia. This also means NATO missiles will travel a shorter distance to their targets in Russia. Shorter distance translates into little to no time for Russia to respond to incoming NATO missiles. ...

You keep going on about this gibberish nonsense that if Ukraine joins NATO then NATO will have a border with Russia, therefore, this justifies Russian invasion of Ukraine.

I've already told you that 5 NATO countries already have a border with Russia. Which part of that you dont understand?

5 NATO countries that have a border with Russia:

• Norway
• Estonia
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Poland

Somehow, if Ukraine joins NATO it is automatically a missile threat to Russia but if Russia occupies Ukraine (annexes part of it), deploys its missiles in Ukraine, it's not a threat to any NATO country.

What kind of a logic is that you're preaching?

 

[blain2]

You are also forgetting high number of Israeli and Western equipments in our Russian Jets

My humble view, It does not matter. As an example, the Su-30MKI is a hodge-podge of updates which are already dated. There is a pretty significant camp in the IAF that has had its eyes opened up by the level of integration of capabilities in the Rafale from the get go. This is what PAF has been accustomed to with the F-16s. The aircraft and its subsystems including MLU were tested by the manufacturer over thousands of hours to remove the kinks (thus the benefit of block based approach). In the case of IAF's MKIs, it is the IAF that has been doing all of its own integration testing. There are no blocks on offer so the user has to do own feasibility studies, pick and choose what they want integrated etc., then do the integration work (think delays, serviceability challenges etc. etc.)

Add to this the extremely expensive upkeep of the aircraft in question, requiring many more spares (as per a former IAF officer, the 272 aircraft fleet has required IAF to purchase 900 engines for sparing!) and you have low serviceability rates. Yes, for a surge the IAF can probably get higher availability of aircraft but this cannot be sustained.

The MKI is a nice aircraft but times have changed. It will maintain its relevance as an aircraft that can carry a lot of ordnance, but at a significant cost.

Since Turkey shot down the Russian plane on its border, and Russia just took it without retaliating , I have had my doubts about Russian technology.
But in a India Pakistan context , with radar gaps and limited resources on both sides, the sheer disparity in number of jets , could be decisive.
Though I don't see a resurgent China sitting quietly in a indopak major conflict. It will rearm Pakistan and give it logistical and surveillance support.
Lots of countries doing well on our rivalry.

Its not about "sheer disparity in number of jets", it is about sortie generation. A smaller fleet with higher maintenance rates and a good pilot to cockpit ratio can address this issue fairly well.

Overall I agree that Russia-Ukraine example does not apply to Pak-India. Both have well trained air forces with good logistics/engineering support so the going will be tough on both sides.

 

[mhosein]

You keep going on about this gibberish nonsense that if Ukraine joins NATO then NATO will have a border with Russia, therefore, this justifies Russian invasion of Ukraine.

I've already told you that 5 NATO countries already have a border with Russia. Which part of that you dont understand?

5 NATO countries that have a border with Russia:

• Norway
• Estonia
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Poland

Somehow, if Ukraine joins NATO it is automatically a missile threat to Russia but if Russia occupies Ukraine (annexes part of it), deploys its missiles in Ukraine, it's not a threat to any NATO country.

What kind of a logic is that you're preaching?

I suggest you go look at the map.

If you don't see Ukaine's entry into NATO as an existential threat to Russia ... then you need to do some reading up on history and geography before we can discuss the matter forward.

 

[satyamev]

My humble view, It does not matter. As an example, the Su-30MKI is a hodge-podge of updates which are already dated. There is a pretty significant camp in the IAF that has had its eyes opened up by the level of integration of capabilities in the Rafale from the get go. This is what PAF has been accustomed to with the F-16s. The aircraft and its subsystems including MLU were tested by the manufacturer over thousands of hours to remove the kinks (thus the benefit of block based approach). In the case of IAF's MKIs, it is the IAF that has been doing all of its own integration testing. There are no blocks on offer so the user has to do own feasibility studies, pick and choose what they want integrated etc., then do the integration work (think delays, serviceability challenges etc. etc.)

Add to this the extremely expensive upkeep of the aircraft in question, requiring many more spares (as per a former IAF officer, the 272 aircraft fleet has required IAF to purchase 900 engines for sparing!) and you have low serviceability rates. Yes, for a surge the IAF can probably get higher availability of aircraft but this cannot be sustained.

The MKI is a nice aircraft but times have changed. It will maintain its relevance as an aircraft that can carry a lot of ordnance, but at a significant cost.


Its not about "sheer disparity in number of jets", it is about sortie generation. A smaller fleet with higher maintenance rates and a good pilot to cockpit ratio can address this issue fairly well.

Overall I agree that Russia-Ukraine example does not apply to Pak-India. Both have well trained air forces with good logistics/engineering support so the going will be tough on both sides.

the points I disagree with are that Ukraine is worse off than India in logistics and engg support. I bet their Soviet trained engineers can provide better support, though spares might be a issue .
India historically is always surprised and starts very slowly and then builds momentum. I don't see the PAF doing well in the long run unless the Chinese come to their assistance.
Most of our previous losses came from ground fire after we had attained domination in the skies.
The much derided tejas could prove to be the ace in the hole, as a work horse , once we procure high volumes.
The feb 19 conflict has proven to be invaluable to India in so many ways , could have proven fatal in a modern conflict. And I am not speaking solely wrt Pakistan.

 

[Reichmarshal]

Plz mention a time when russian ac have out performed their western counterparts on a regular basis...
Through out history they as a whole have always came out second best.

 

[Ali_Baba]

Plz mention a time when russian ac have out performed their western counterparts on a regular basis...
Through out history they as a whole have always came out second best.

Russian fighter jets are cannon fodder/target practice in every conflict they are involved - that is why I think PAF should never buy them ever. China has overtaken Russia in avionics and EW warfare and network centric concepts. China has caught up and surpassed on airframe design(J20!) and they are close to catching up on engines ( China may match thrust or exceed - but the lifespan of their newer engines, service life, MTBO are complete unknowns right now and probably less than the russian ones - if not - they would be shouting from the roof tops about it).

 

[maverick1977]

The Russian airforce has a huge numerical advantage over the Ukrainians, however they have yet to establish air superiority over Ukraine and their airforce is notably under utilised in the conflict so far. A few reasons are discussed here.

The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force

On the fifth day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, one of many unanswered questions is why Russia has launched a military campaign at huge cost with maximalist objectives, and then declined to use the vast majority of its fixed wing combat aircraft.

rusi.org

Other people have also mentioned their lack of spare parts.

Do you think this will be taken into account by PAF wrt it's views on the capability of IAF?

really? Ukraine has no more airforce unfortunately. Russia is domonating.