I literally just shared that IAF cannot mount 24-hour AWAC surveillance over 2 points of interest. The radar is capable but the plane has very low availability rate. They need 1 more AWACS platform which they do not have at the moment. I cannot re-state if you insist on things being a planning problem.
I agree on one and disagree on another point. 30 kms is a big distance in BVR. It's not a question of speed, its a question of rushing in while the counter-party has already engaged with first lock first launch capability. What I agree with is the assertion that 30 kms is a handicap that can be overcome. The issue is that almost anything can be overcome at a cost. The question is what risks and costs are worth it and which ones are not. IAF judged that it was not worth it. I am not privy to their decision-making process nor of the information available to them to comment.
Let me give you an example, during Kargil war, IAF regularly locked on PAF fighters and kept bombing PA positions on the mountain and often crossed over the LoC, even hitting an ammo dump at one point. PAF fighters never engage. The answer is not that they could not overcome lack of BVR capability at the time, the question was that PAF at the time thought it was not worth the cost because of other reasons (expecting a broader war, cost in fighters to engage a BVR equipped force for preventing tactical strikes, etc.). Kaiser Tufail has elaborated on this.
I am not giving this example as a means of 'equalling the score' of any kind. Only to share that there are cost-benefit considerations that I am not privy to at this time. So, perhaps you are right, perhaps not. I don't have enough data to be as confidant as you. Which is not a bad thing, as it gives me another perspective to consider.
You are free to decide the threat level you perceive for yourself, not to decide it for others. I can only say that the Indian Government does not share your view. Pakistan is not considered a military threat. It is considered militarily capable and capable of imposing high costs in war but not capable of winning a war against India.
I agree that India is not currently equipped to fight a two-front war. From the trends of consistently declining Indian defence budgets, I don't see that changing any time soon.
I apologise but your statements are close to sounding bombastic and don't seem backed by research, think tank, or policy statements about the Indo-Chinese relationship. Indian assessment of a two-front war is very clear. A war with Pakistan will not lead to China engaging, a war with China may lead to Pakistan engaging. A war with China is highly unlikely given other factors at play - military deterrence, economic costs, geopolitical costs among other factors. There is a reason why Indian defence budgets are declining. It is because a war with China is not expected in the short or medium term. Therefore, building capability for a two-front war is desirable but not critical at this time. Particularly as there are very pressing need of funds in developmental areas. There has been a major social and physical infrastructure push happening over the last 5 years and they are budget wreckers.
Last edited:
