Since the original thread is close and someone wanted to continue here, i think its better to provide the link of the original one if members want to find out what was the debade before
this is not a PLAAF vs IAF post
for those who want to comment on my post, pls read the link below first.thx
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/55828-chinas-front-line-fighters.html
here we go again.
do your own research, no plane will take off with full loaded(ammo and fuel) to intercept. if the are going to intecept, then at least they know where the enemies are. otherwise, that is call patrol. and patrol can be done by awacs not fighters. moreover intercept won't take place very far away form you base, so 50% is more then enough.
ofcourse, S300 can't climb mountains. but if that is a stretegic location, road will be built to there, no mountain climbing is needed. and Tibet is mostly a plateau!
AWACS will be escorts by SAMs and intecepters. they will never do anything you invented like "forwad patrol". only strategic position will be covered, and all the positions will be connected with station, mobile radar, scout post, AWACS and satalites. if IAF want to bypass all the reconnaissance post and then fly cross Tibet, never expect they will come back.
airports, i bet you didn't count the civilian airports did you? i don't know how much do you know about IAF and why will you keep thinkng that they are capabale to strike deep into China. except MKIs what kinds of ACs can reach that far, and since when MKIs are good at A2G missions.
that is not the point, can you tell me why and is that possible for IAF to operate 60-70 airport near Tibet.
oh good, you don't see into China, yet you can shoot down the bombers within China, great!
bunkers? destory all the bunkers and then PLAAF will surrender?
and i don't see anything related to the original debate. can you just concertrate to the original issue and don't drift off the topic.
again, off topic.
why IAF didn't no purchaes S300 any further is not my concern. if you got a better one, fine. but so what. are you going to use this to support
1) free sky for IAF in Tibet and IAF can fly over Tibet to bomb central China (to be contiune)
2) shoot down bombers within China (cleared, no)
3) china can not afford to fire CMs at mass quantity (cleared, no)
remember, these are the originate debate.
DH-10 enter service in 2007 remember? and following to your logic, IAF should retired all their airplanes except for MIKs. or is that beacuse IAF is not assure of what MKI could do so they kept other planes.
you ask me what supply line? yeah, what is it for? but wait, isn't that what you mention before. first, you or some one you qoute said you can destory the PLAAF supply chain,deep in china, to defeat them. later, it's about PLA Army's supply chain and then finnally, the "forward bunkers".
this is the third time, PLAAF will only launch the CMs within China, 500-1000Kms from the India border. if you can't see into China (which you acknowaged before), how can you shoot them down. and why escorts are needed. if you have a bad bad memory, pls go through all your and my post before commenting again!
you know what, losing a debate is common, but such a loser attitude is not.
this is not a PLAAF vs IAF post
for those who want to comment on my post, pls read the link below first.thx
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/55828-chinas-front-line-fighters.html
here we go again.
Reduce the fuel for payload or vice versa, either way, these aircraft are hampered.
How long do they have to fly to find the enemy? Do you think they know that they are there? or here or anywhere? You have to have patrols. Even with radar what do they have for besides one shot at maximum distance? do they fly around waiting to see if the openent has been shot down or has evaded? endurance is very important to a fighter, they need fuel for air combat which burns the majority of they're fuel. A staggering amount is burnt on take off alone expecially with older engines. Its not debatable. Either way, the PLAAF gets A LOT less out of they're aircraft at these altitudes.
do your own research, no plane will take off with full loaded(ammo and fuel) to intercept. if the are going to intecept, then at least they know where the enemies are. otherwise, that is call patrol. and patrol can be done by awacs not fighters. moreover intercept won't take place very far away form you base, so 50% is more then enough.
2d search radars are light? are u judging them just by their antenna? i have benn fed up with all you bull **** which provide no prove or source. i tell you what, modern radars are lighter then the ages one!Theres a difference between a 2d search radar or early warning that which is light and can be lifted to higher ground and a TOWED 3D tracking radar which is used for S300 and other SAM defense systems a like is heavier and portable, they can not climb a mountain and it would not be wise to have them sit on a mountain like a duck.
Even with AWACS or not the PLAAF has only a handfull bases. How are they going to support or escort they're awacs? PLANES do need to come down and with the major airbases in CHengdu they're too far from the Indian border. Tibetan border is free to fly over, theres not enough air defense that i've seen. What the PLA has there are artillery pieces for close support.
ofcourse, S300 can't climb mountains. but if that is a stretegic location, road will be built to there, no mountain climbing is needed. and Tibet is mostly a plateau!
AWACS will be escorts by SAMs and intecepters. they will never do anything you invented like "forwad patrol". only strategic position will be covered, and all the positions will be connected with station, mobile radar, scout post, AWACS and satalites. if IAF want to bypass all the reconnaissance post and then fly cross Tibet, never expect they will come back.
airports, i bet you didn't count the civilian airports did you? i don't know how much do you know about IAF and why will you keep thinkng that they are capabale to strike deep into China. except MKIs what kinds of ACs can reach that far, and since when MKIs are good at A2G missions.
officially, since 2007. "PLA DOES NOT HAVE SOOOOOOOOOO MANY CRUISE MISSILES" capitalize the letters do not support you arguments. and what makes you to think that PLA will relies on BMs only after a much cheaper option is available.The PLA DOES NOT HAVE SOOOOOOOOOO MANY CRUISE MISSILES. they have ballistic missiles and they have trained to use them. They have only had cruise missiles since? 1997? Those ballistic missiles are also proven. I shouldn't have to argue about this point. The PLA relies on ballistic missiles, more expensive they are but they get the job done.
And how many of them actually support fighter jets or squadrons? How many wings?
You wont know and you dont know because you didn't look into it.
that is not the point, can you tell me why and is that possible for IAF to operate 60-70 airport near Tibet.
They don't need to see into CHINA!. all they need to do is bomb forward bunkers around the current border. What do you think, they would waste there time on the PLA itself? when the real war is on the border!
oh good, you don't see into China, yet you can shoot down the bombers within China, great!
bunkers? destory all the bunkers and then PLAAF will surrender?
terrain hugging depending on 2 critical elements, 3D maps and GPS. and if those two are not very accurate, just pull up a little bit. still it is terrain hugging.No you don't. They have been doing it since then. Always testing its ground hugging capability. improving it. And during the strike on the Afganistan they lost a lot of cruise missiles, in the end they resorted to droping iron bombs.
and i don't see anything related to the original debate. can you just concertrate to the original issue and don't drift off the topic.
i never qestioned that. shoot as many CMs as you can. the point is how many Spyder system do you have. and how effective they are. are you trying to say if IAF can shoot down some of them and then PLAAF shouldn't fire them?Short range quick reaction surface to air missiles like the ones PLA purchased from Russia and the IAFs Spyder system are meant to shoot down things like cruise missiles and even bombs dropped from the air to protect the static assets.
again, off topic.
No just trying to prove a point. The Indian military purchased a few and never went back for more. Usually when they find the system to does do what is advertised they buy more. In this case, they figured the S300 is overpriced and the range is reduced because of radar clutter. 200 km radius is what it advertises. In reality that range is a lot shorter because of the horizion and the radar can not track properly until the threat is a lot closer.
why IAF didn't no purchaes S300 any further is not my concern. if you got a better one, fine. but so what. are you going to use this to support
1) free sky for IAF in Tibet and IAF can fly over Tibet to bomb central China (to be contiune)
2) shoot down bombers within China (cleared, no)
3) china can not afford to fire CMs at mass quantity (cleared, no)
remember, these are the originate debate.
I can. If you were smart enough you;d know as well. The PLAAF doesn't drop bombs yet. thats why the PLA have such large stock piles of short range ballistic missiles. and a seperate artillery group for them. They launch in practice 3 ballistic missiles at a time! They wouldnt need to if the PLAAF could assure them they can do it for them.
DH-10 enter service in 2007 remember? and following to your logic, IAF should retired all their airplanes except for MIKs. or is that beacuse IAF is not assure of what MKI could do so they kept other planes.
?? what supply line? Air bases dont have one. Aircraft only need a airflied to takeoff and land, fuel and stockpiles of bombs and missiles. The IAF doesn't need to threaten the PLAAF in its own airbases, they the PLAAF will have they're hands full just trying to keep off the IAf from they're front line troops on the border.
you ask me what supply line? yeah, what is it for? but wait, isn't that what you mention before. first, you or some one you qoute said you can destory the PLAAF supply chain,deep in china, to defeat them. later, it's about PLA Army's supply chain and then finnally, the "forward bunkers".
oh god! how many time more should i reply to this, will you pls read the post before you post.Those bombers you keep mentioning need air excorts other wise they can be shot down. But i wont bother insead of how effective is the IAF. Why don't you watch Kargil when the IAF bombed the Pakistanis at theyre defense position? They are no USAF but they can still drop bombs and claim the sky around the border for forward helecopter support.
this is the third time, PLAAF will only launch the CMs within China, 500-1000Kms from the India border. if you can't see into China (which you acknowaged before), how can you shoot them down. and why escorts are needed. if you have a bad bad memory, pls go through all your and my post before commenting again!
holes, so what? would you pls tell what good would it be if PLAAF sent their AWACS into India to perform a protral mission to eliminate that holes. even you, now stop talking sending your AWACS into Tibet, then why should PLAAF do that.uh huh. Do you think holes in tibet don't exist? You obviously dont know how big and unattended the IndoTibetan border is!
ANd to some it up for you. If the PLA was so sure they can bring the fight to India, why dont they take what they cliam to be Chinese terriortory? After all the Indian military can't handle the PLAAFs super cruise missile bombers. So why didn't the take what they captured during 1962? and why support Pakistan to the point they(Pakistan) recieve discount weapons?
you know what, losing a debate is common, but such a loser attitude is not.
Last edited: