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

[LeGenD]

Firstly it all depends on the objective of the war....
If it is only posturing then nothing will happen..
If the objective is annex kashmir then the deployement and strategies need to be aggresive..
Having said that india will also move its forces accordingly..
For me india knows well about china and pakistan pressure on kashmir thats why it has 2 army commands deployed there....

Spot on, bro.

You highlighted a premise.

Honestly, it was just his posts that kept me posting. There is still an enormous amount to be said, but so little time.

This is otherwise SUCH a time-killer for me personally; I have been trying to make sense of the Battle of Asal Uttar, with invaluable help from Meghdut, so that what we present is something which PanzerKiel can analyse without wasting time in correcting details.

But now that I am in, I feel that the job should be finished.

Have you read Deino's excellent post?

Sir,

Feel free to offer an engagement scenario. If India and China are to have a 'major' exchange, then what can be the potential flashpoint and how it may proceed.

Take advantage of the window provided by me in this thread. This does not happen everyday.

 

[IblinI]

Sound logic and point.

Well, you can check the opening post to have an idea of a hypothetical conflict being proposed in this thread.

I would say that a war must have a realistic objective. Fighting for the sake of it leads to nowhere, it would be chaotic with no end to it. India and China are massive countries with massive population bases.

If PLAAF is to engage and defeat IAF then there should be an objective to it. Like ground forces are to take a particular region or valley. All-out war is too dangerous for both countries to risk.

China is a military juggernaut no doubt but India can strike deep inside China and cause much harm. If population centers are blown to bits on both sides then what is the point?

You can decide a premise of a major conflict between India and China and expand upon it. What can be the cause or why can this happen.

They have 20 divisions out of 37 deployed in India/Pakistan border (please correct me if I am wrong), which means they know exactly a major war between them and us is highly unlikely to happen.

 

[LeGenD]

They have 20 divisions out of 37 deployed in India/Pakistan border (please correct me if I am wrong), which means they know exactly a major war between them and us is highly unlikely to happen.

Yes, Indo-Pak is a much hotter scenario. I concur.

I actually pointed out in my first post in this thread that Indo-Pak border geography is much different from Indo-China geography by large.

Indo-Pak border allow for deployment on a much bigger scale.

Indo-China not so much. It is mostly very tall mountains which hinder mobility on the ground.

 

[meghdut]

Sound logic and point.

Well, you can check the opening post to have an idea of a hypothetical conflict being proposed in this thread.

I would say that a war must have a realistic objective. Fighting for the sake of it leads to nowhere, it would be chaotic with no end to it. India and China are massive countries with massive population bases.

If PLAAF is to engage and defeat IAF then there should be an objective to it. Like ground forces are to take a particular region or valley. All-out war is too dangerous for both countries to risk.

China is a military juggernaut no doubt but India can strike deep inside China and cause much harm.

You can decide a premise of a major conflict between India and China and expand upon it. What can be the cause or why can this happen.

Well, total wars are things of past and no country wants to drag wars unnecessarily long. They have defined and limited political objectives and except US no country has enforced regime change in recent times through war. Even our wars were all limited in nature.
Coming to this scenario my knowledge about PLA and PLAAF forces are too limited to allow me set a sound premise. However I’ll just write a general outline of what I think.
1) The war would be no larger than 1962. Then China had the objective of enforcing Chinese boundary claims upon India , and when negotiations stalled China decided to take military action to settle it in her favour. So this time around it will be same.

2) Ir will mostly be ground action. High altitude is not very conducive to air ops as IAF learnt during Kargil. So only limited air action in form of interdiction and CAS sortie to be expected with much less emphasis on air superiority which is time consuming and may not give desired return in a limited conflict.

3) Ground based AD systems will play a significant role in a limited conflict where opposing air forces do not seek to achieve complete air dominance.

Hopefully on the basis of above premises you can drive a healthy and satisfying discussion. Cheers

 

[LeGenD]

Well, total wars are things of past and no country wants to drag wars unnecessarily long. They have defined and limited political objectives and except US no country has enforced regime change in recent times through war. Even our wars were all limited in nature.
Coming to this scenario my knowledge about PLA and PLAAF forces are too limited to allow me set a sound premise. However I’ll just write a general outline of what I think.
1) The war would be no larger than 1962. Then China had the objective of enforcing Chinese boundary claims upon India , and when negotiations stalled China decided to take military action to settle it in her favour. So this time around it will be same.

2) Ir will mostly be ground action. High altitude is not very conducive to air ops as IAF learnt during Kargil. So only limited air action in form of interdiction and CAS sortie to be expected with much less emphasis on air superiority which is time consuming and may not give desired return in a limited conflict.

3) Ground based AD systems will play a significant role in a limited conflict where opposing air forces do not seek to achieve complete air dominance.

Hopefully on the basis of above premises you can drive a healthy and satisfying discussion. Cheers

Very sound.

Spot on with 'except US no country has enforced regime change in recent times through war' remark. 18 years in Iraq and Afghanistan - do these people tire or something? Too much power in their hands.

There is another angle to American conflicts though - MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. They want to stay, experiment and give live training to soldiers for as long as possible. Perhaps this is their method to keep the war-machine battle-hardened and teach it new tricks? But this is a fools errand for majority of countries. Too costly in monetary terms and otherwise.

 

[Novice09]

This is our failing, as Indian members. We make general statements, that are easy to contradict, or to oppose with equal and opposite general statements.

Please give the member who posted that the Indian Army order of battle.

I personally think that there would be no war with China or Pakistan...
While Pakistan don't have the money... India and China cannot derail their economies... which are already under huge pressure due to Corona... No war until benefit is huge...

I know that China is not going to move back... talks continues...

 

[Joe Shearer]

Spot on, bro.

You highlighted a premise.


Sir,

Feel free to offer an engagement scenario. If India and China are to have a 'major' exchange, then what can be the potential flashpoint and how it may proceed.

Take advantage of the window provided by me in this thread. This does not happen everyday.

Dear Sir,

Your comments and inputs were the sole reason I entered, after being suckered by Nilgiri. Some propositions:

• An all-out conflict is EXTREMELY unlikely; India is not a major problem for the PRC.
• Tension on the dividing lines that are not borders is a constant factor, and will remain a constant factor until China starts to decline, as one day she must.
• The Chinese side has a long-term view, and we may expect that their thinking at conceptual level and their responses in essence will not vary. Their tactical thinking ('...we are giving in, and being seen to give in, and should play hardball a couple of times....') and their actual responses ( fisticuffs as an instrument of state policy) may differ from time to time.
• The Indian side has a policy and a conceptual framework that is mutable and changes with every government.
  • With a properly and normally democratic government, 90% of differences will be resolved through discussions and negotiations.
  • With a government like the present one, that is dependent for electoral success on maintaining the facade of strong postures and attitudes towards international issues, there will heightened probability of minor clashes.
  • This probability will be highest when simultaneously the Chinese leadership is undergoing some introspection and concludes that it is showing weakness.
    • If the Chinese top leadership thinks that it has been too soft on these matters, the chances of an armed clash are 100%.
    • If the Chinese top leadership is not particularly bothered, irritated but not to the extent of deciding on violence, the chances of an armed clash are in the 70s, but such a clash will be followed very quickly by a negotiated settlement.

This is my proposed general set of parameters for determining the probability of conflict and the kind of conflict (with some additional parameters).

@Deino

However, the question of the situation in the air is quite different, and needs to be addressed in detail. This follows.

@meghdut

I am about to send off my concluding sections to you in a few minutes, half an hour or so. Although you will not see it till you return home, it seems appropriate to complete it, so that after including your suggestions, it can be uploaded for PanzerKiel to see tomorrow. Hope you agree.

Meanwhile, immediately after doing that, it may be appropriate to respond to some points raised here.

 

[KhanBaba2]

This is unnecessary.

Just mention how many troops are in J&K.

OK. I am leaving this thread but you cannot expect this thread to be anything but a troll thread if you have a headline like it has.

 

[meghdut]

Very sound.

Spot on with 'except US no country has enforced regime change in recent times through war' remark. 18 years in Iraq and Afghanistan - do these people tire or something? Too much power in their hands.

There is another angle to American conflicts though - MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. They want to stay, experiment and give live training to soldiers for as long as possible. Perhaps this is their method to keep the war-machine battle-hardened and teach it new tricks? But this is a fools errand for majority of countries. Too costly in monetary terms and otherwise.

DD Eisenhower Warner US of Military-Industrial complex half a century ago. There is another complex you may be interested to read .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphb...the-military-industrial-complex/#31e1523967ac

 

[LeGenD]

OK. I am leaving this thread but you cannot expect this thread to be anything but a troll thread if you have a headline like it has.

If it bothers, sure.

Heading can be changed but I am keeping it original for now. This is not a requirement for having a constructive conversation.

I can easily leave this to fellow Pakistani and Chinese friends to tear you guys a new one but I am giving Indians a chance to express their views in relation to the theme in good faith. Does not happen everyday. If you can contribute, capitalize. otherwise, out.

 

[Joe Shearer]

OK. I am leaving this thread but you cannot expect this thread to be anything but a troll thread if you have a headline like it has.

Don't do that. Ignore the headline and let us discuss the underlying premises. It is very disappointing if you leave half-way.

Well, total wars are things of past and no country wants to drag wars unnecessarily long. They have defined and limited political objectives and except US no country has enforced regime change in recent times through war. Even our wars were all limited in nature.
Coming to this scenario my knowledge about PLA and PLAAF forces are too limited to allow me set a sound premise. However I’ll just write a general outline of what I think.
1) The war would be no larger than 1962. Then China had the objective of enforcing Chinese boundary claims upon India , and when negotiations stalled China decided to take military action to settle it in her favour. So this time around it will be same.

2) Ir will mostly be ground action. High altitude is not very conducive to air ops as IAF learnt during Kargil. So only limited air action in form of interdiction and CAS sortie to be expected with much less emphasis on air superiority which is time consuming and may not give desired return in a limited conflict.

3) Ground based AD systems will play a significant role in a limited conflict where opposing air forces do not seek to achieve complete air dominance.

Hopefully on the basis of above premises you can drive a healthy and satisfying discussion. Cheers

Damn! You anticipated several of my arguments.

I personally think that there would be no war with China or Pakistan...
While Pakistan don't have the money... India and China cannot derail their economies... which are already under huge pressure due to Corona... No war until benefit is huge...

I know that China is not going to move back... talks continues...

....along with minor clashes from time to time.

 

[meghdut]

Dear Sir,



@meghdut

I am about to send off my concluding sections to you in a few minutes, half an hour or so. Although you will not see it till you return home, it seems appropriate to complete it, so that after including your suggestions, it can be uploaded for PanzerKiel to see tomorrow. Hope you agree.

Meanwhile, immediately after doing that, it may be appropriate to respond to some points raised here.

Of course Joe I can check now too as I don’t have much work at office today haha. And of course your input to the points I raised will be most appreciated.

 

[Novice09]

@Novice09

Please drop the condescending tone. This thread is undergoing regulated discussion session. Address a post in polite way.

A war like zone where the Air assets cannot even fly with half of the armaments...
A place where engines' performance is reduced significantly...
A place where Air assets have a very limited role...

And we are discussing WIPEOUT IN 10/12 Hours...

There was a reason because of which SYMBOLIC raid was done on 27th Feb 2019 by the PAF... it escalated only because IAF was able to intercept the PAF jets... while PAF was no where there a day before...

hitting an army installation by India or Pakistan is not that easy...

 

[IblinI]

Yes, Indo-Pak is a much hotter scenario. I concur.

I actually pointed out in my first post in this thread that Indo-Pak border geography is much different from Indo-China geography by large.

Indo-Pak border allow for deployment on a much bigger scale.

Indo-China not so much. It is mostly very tall mountains which hinder mobility on the ground.

Geographically speaking, India is having tactical advantage in Sino-Indo border as their logistic is much easier and shorter in mainly low altitude area (except a few stand-off point), while it is totally the opposite on our side, but China is having a strategic advantage as Tibet overlook India's most populated Ganges Plains and only 300-400KM away from Dehli, while Tibet has less than 1 percent of China's total population and the nearest big city Chengdu is more than a thousand KM away.

 

[LeGenD]

A war like zone where the Air assets cannot even fly with half of the armaments...
A place where engines' performance is reduced significantly...
A place where Air assets have a very limited role...

And we are discussing WIPEOUT IN 10/12 Hours...

There was a reason because of which SYMBOLIC raid was done on 27th Feb 2019 by the PAF... it escalated only because IAF was able to intercept the PAF jets... while PAF was no where there a day before...

hitting an army installation by India or Pakistan is not that easy...

OK. You have a point.