Hypothetical - Can IAF be wiped out in 10 hour or 12 hours by PLAAF?

[Joe Shearer]

Highly unlikely, see a military operation is based on cost effectiveness. Will it give the return desired to commensurate with the resources invested. Because resources are always limited they are employed in a manner so that equal if not more value is extracted. To effectively neutralise entire IAF will require a humongous investment in limited intelligence and offensive resources which may still then won’t succeed. Fir that every air base must be constantly monitored it will divert an unhealthy amount of IMINT and SIGINT resources for a considerable amount of time which will leave other sectors vulnerable. On top of that AD systems of every base needs to be neutralised first so that the strike package can not be intercepted. And if that happens than IAF will be alerted and attempt Air interception of strike package or fly off acs to civilian bases.
Also mind it such all out strike has a significantly high chance of causing collateral damage and will be very undesirable for the attacker.

I think there will be a selective approach. Also, as far as intelligence is concerned, you may have noticed that PanzerKiel knows of our Army deployment down to battalion level! You may be sure that their Air Force people know where every spanner is.

So China can win on the border.

But a much deeper conflict is not feasible.

I don't think they are planning for that, otherwise they have enough resource to fight us very deep.

PLAAF is stretched out in so many theaters. IAF can give them a bloody nose

You see, that IS the Chinese rope trick. They have practiced and practiced and practiced their logistics capabilities for their ground troops till it is a fine-honed instrument of war; one brigade to a particular spot in 3 days.

I think that the IAF would be wise to consider that the PLAAF can concentrate very, very quickly (it will take longer than ground troops, for obvious, maintenance reasons).

 

[LeGenD]

I don't think they are planning for that, otherwise they have enough resource to fight us very deep.

They certainly do.

But given the geography of Indo-China border, it forbids mass deployments. One of the Chinese members @IblinI admit that Chinese terrain is far more challenging across the border; India still have room for maneuverability. One member @dbc showed a map, and the perspective match.

@Deino and @IblinI are remarkably level-headed contributors. Knowledgeable, pragmatic, and the latter is very humble as well.

This discussion could not be fruitful without these two.

 

[meghdut]

I think there will be a selective approach. Also, as far as intelligence is concerned, you may have noticed that PanzerKiel knows of our Army deployment down to battalion level! You may be sure that their Air Force people know where every spanner is.



I don't think they are planning for that, otherwise they have enough resource to fight us very deep.

Hmm that’s true, but I was commenting on the premise of this thread “Neutralise IAF in 12 Hours” .

 

[LeGenD]

PLAAF is stretched out in so many theaters. IAF can give them a bloody nose

Yes, this is a problem.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Hmm that’s true, but I was commenting on the premise of this thread “Neutralise IAF in 12 Hours” .

Oh, that! That was sucker bait.

Yes, this is a problem.

Theoretically it can. But it has to learn battle management.

Meaning, what is my objective? How do I achieve it - which aircraft, what ordnance? What will oppose it? How do I counter the opposition before it gets going? How will I suppress their electronic warfare systems? Who will be in charge, in command? Where are my AWACS planes, and are they protected?

27 February was a bad day from THAT point of view, not from others usually cited.

 

[meghdut]

What if the conflict has naval dimension to it?

China have a two operational aircraft carriers?

Hey @Joe Shearer all yours.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Hey @Joe Shearer all yours.

Chicken!

And who writes about Kasur?

 

[meghdut]

Chicken!

And who writes about Kasur?

Okay later then.
And yes on naval warfare I’m chicken

 

[LeGenD]

Oh, that! That was sucker bait.



Theoretically it can. But it has to learn battle management.

Meaning, what is my objective? How do I achieve it - which aircraft, what ordnance? What will oppose it? How do I counter the opposition before it gets going? How will I suppress their electronic warfare systems? Who will be in charge, in command? Where are my AWACS planes, and are they protected?

27 February was a bad day from THAT point of view, not from others usually cited.

I think Chinese have a good grasp of battlefield tactics by large.

Geography however:

Look at that mountain range. It is humongous on Chinese side.

Operating over that introduce a whole new set-of-operational challenges and wear-and-tear to the equipment.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What if the conflict has naval dimension to it?

China have a two operational aircraft carriers?

Fortunately, they have not practiced air operations at sea yet. I think we are safe for another decade. BUT we are not safe from their gargantuan destroyers coming into range and totally devastating Visakhapatnam or Karwar, not to mention all the southern air bases.

 

[LeGenD]

Fortunately, they have not practiced air operations at sea yet. I think we are safe for another decade. BUT we are not safe from their gargantuan destroyers coming into range and totally devastating Visakhapatnam or Karwar, not to mention all the southern air bases.

I see dots connecting between comments of different members.

 

[Secret Service]

I think Chinese have a good grasp of battlefield tactics by large.

Geography however:

Look at that mountain range. It is humongous on Chinese side.

Operating over that introduce a whole new set of operation challenges and wear-and-tear to the equipment.

Geography plays big part here. The natural wall of mountains dont allow full scale land war which includes tanks, rather mountain warfare with use of artillery and motors. If there will be any conflict, airforce will play vital part here. More importantly winter season, which will force both armies to be in their bunkers.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think Chinese have a good grasp of battlefield tactics by large.

Geography however:

Look at that mountain range. It is humongous on Chinese side.

Operating over that introduce a whole new set of operation challenges and wear-and-tear to the equipment.

There was an interesting exchange on the subject in some other thread. @Dustom999, why don't you join in, if you are so inclined, and explain about the peculiarities of high altitude operations?


There is something very peculiar about that topography.

In the east, it is the exact mirror image of India on a plateau facing Pakistan on a lower level, with disputed ravines and ridges and high mountain ranges in between. It is tempting to think that, except for militants coming in, the Indian Army can adopt a mirror image of the tactics used against it in the Kashmir area.

MOST of Tibet is quite unlikely the Galwan River topography; it is flat plateau, interspersed by rough country. Or perhaps Galwan River magnified a thousand times - horizontally.

 

[LeGenD]

Geography plays big part here. The natural wall of mountains dont allow full scale land war which includes tanks, rather mountain warfare with use of artillery and motors. If there will be any conflict, airforce will play vital part here.

Absolutely, bro.

People usually think on theoretical level; few look at geography and logistics requirements. Two major influencing factors.

China being a military juggernaut is valid in theory, but where a major conflict materialize and what are constraints imposed by the environment on the theater, is more important consideration.

 

[JonAsad]

So China can win on the border.

But a much deeper conflict is not feasible.

Deeper conflict is not sustainable for China.
Look at how much manpower India need to oppress the people of Kashmir.
India is more than a billion people and counting...