IAF Indian Air Force Better Than PLAAF?

[Guest]

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

oh god! how many time more should i reply to this, will you pls read the post before you post.

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!

uh huh. Do you think holes in tibet don't exist? You obviously dont know how big and unattended the IndoTibetan border is!

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.

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.

 

[brahmastra]

which chinese aircraft can fly at high altitude like Himalayan/leh?

 

[desimorty]

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.

They would have even less room to play around with, dont you agree or are you just going around in circles like a clown. And that patrol needs to know where the enemy is but they also need to find them! theres a difference between being sent to the battlefield and than having to fish them out. And those Awacs dont need escorts? Wow the PLAAF is mighty confident. An AWACS always has escorts. And they do need fuel because they're fight wont be near they're air bases and if the IAF is at their bases than they have already lost that battle. Where do you think the IAF would send its strike aircraft? I know, to the hills where the PLA are holed up in near the border!

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!

Look up any 3d tracking radars for missile defence systems. They are all portable if the missile defense system is. Having them on a hill, where they cant get down from is just stupid and a waste of an asset. What the PLA has are long range 2d radars for early warning that can be replaced if lost.

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!

Have you seen the Indo Tibetan border? Do you know what higher ground advantage is on the battle field?

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.

Awacs will be escorted by SAMS? what are you talking about. How does a road portable SAM defense keep up with a jet? Is it a jet with out wings?
Point being, in war there are a lot of holes. Tibet has a lot. Its not an easy task to shield the entire border. And even if they did, aircraft fitted with EW equiment are tasked with blinding radars. The Pakistani Falcons use to do this to the IAF radars quite frequently and can still do it.

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.

They dont need to strike deep into china and i never said they would.
So you are off your mark. They would only need to hit troops on forward defense bunkers that are on high ground, where getting heavily artillery is difficulte, next to impossible if your helecopters cant do the job.

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.

Why not use BMs expecially when they have so many old ones that they keep firing off in exercises!
I'm going to drop the BM thing because if you knew anything, you'd know about the second artillery group.

that is not the point, can you tell me why and is that possible for IAF to operate 60-70 airport near Tibet.

have you seen a map lately?

Notice how close India is to the LOC and how far the Main Chinese cities, air fields etc.. are. The closest military region is Cheng du which is tasked with the defence of Tibet. My my arent they far away? So how are they going to supply the troops on time? Guess what they already though of that. By 1970 they had already stockpiled near the border defenses, ammunition and light artillery. No tanks, and nothing heavy.

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?

The range of a long range AA missile like R77 is 100~ km give or take kenitic energy and altitude. The range of a AWAC when it comes to bombers is 400 km?
Likily the Awacs wont be needed, and those bombers wont come. They're will be aggresive forward patrolling just to caution the PLAAF. The PLAAF won't even use the bombers, because they'll need escorts. And they need more birds to keep the IAF of the PLA on the border so why would they waste resourcses. Do they want to loose bombers?

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.

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.

Do you know how many Tomahawks failed in afganistan because they flew off course? Do you see Russia with Terrian hugging? The tomahawk is hugging the terrian. the other cruisemissiles, dont come close. They just fly higher to avoid crashing. Like you said. And that makes them vunraible to detection, expecially when the get 40 meters above the ground.

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?

again, off topic.

Spyders are very effective. They can shoot down iron bombs at short ranges. And why would the PLAAF waste ammunition on a airbase that will not be haltered for long by a cruise missile strike? SHouldn't they be trying to protect the PLA frontline troops?

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.

Yes central China. China superpower. Right.
I get it kid.
Why would the IAF send anything to Central China? The battlefield is a a thousand miles away at the border. Shouldnt they be dropping bombs on PLAs forward positions and assisting the Indian army? Isnt that they're job?

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.

And how do they have?
I dont know what your logic is but its very diifficutle to explian to you kid.

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".

Deep in China!??? Supply lines to keep the foward troops replinished. Getting the wounded out. And getting fresh troops in. Thats the supply line.
In short from a forward base of operations like a small town 50-100 km away from the border to the actual border. Thats where the fighting is!

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!

OMG! The PLAAF would be doing this day in and night right? 500 km to 1000 km away! and how far is that going to get? That cruise missile according to you will fly past radars, SAM sites to a IAF airfield and then not get shot down by the shortrange airdefense? Why not use some old yet reliable BMs that are at the end of the life span that the PLA keep using to train the artillery corps with?

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.

? Tibet is big. Far from Chengdu. If you cant see that, than i cant help you.

you know what, losing a debate is common, but such a loser attitude is not.

i wouldnt call this a debate. More like education.

 

[desimorty]

Also like to add. that the range of the supposed cruisemissiles is 1000 km. So why even bothering with air launched varients against india? Why not place them in Tibet and have them they're where they are protected and can be fired on short notice.
....
on second thought, they do have somethine like that. Its called a Ballistic missile and thats a sure thing to make anyones hay hell.
No one wants to be around when a warhead comes down from the sky and detonates above the ground.

 

[desimorty]

Also like to add. that the range of the supposed cruisemissiles is 1000 km. So why even bothering with air launched varients against india? Why not place them in Tibet and have them they're where they are protected and can be fired on short notice.
....
on second thought, they do have somethine like that. Its called a Ballistic missile and thats a sure thing to make anyones hay hell.
No one wants to be around when a warhead comes down from the sky and detonates above the ground.

 

[!!craft!!]

this tread is crap//...both have similiar qualities of planes ...but i guess china has the numbers ..at present without the lca,mrca deal and the pakfa ..it will be china victorius...but after these future aircrafts a procured ..any thing can happen...lets wait and watch..

 

[Guest]

Also like to add. that the range of the supposed cruisemissiles is 1000 km. So why even bothering with air launched varients against india? Why not place them in Tibet and have them they're where they are protected and can be fired on short notice.
....
on second thought, they do have somethine like that. Its called a Ballistic missile and thats a sure thing to make anyones hay hell.
No one wants to be around when a warhead comes down from the sky and detonates above the ground.

will you ever try to reseach before posting bull ****

HN1 600km
HN2 1800km
HN3 3000km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongniao_missile#HN-1

DH10 4000km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DH-10

 

[xuxu1457]

They would have even less room to play around with, dont you agree or are you just going around in circles like a clown. And that patrol needs to know where the enemy is but they also need to find them! theres a difference between being sent to the battlefield and than having to fish them out. And those Awacs dont need escorts? Wow the PLAAF is mighty confident. An AWACS always has escorts. And they do need fuel because they're fight wont be near they're air bases and if the IAF is at their bases than they have already lost that battle. Where do you think the IAF would send its strike aircraft? I know, to the hills where the PLA are holed up in near the border!



Look up any 3d tracking radars for missile defence systems. They are all portable if the missile defense system is. Having them on a hill, where they cant get down from is just stupid and a waste of an asset. What the PLA has are long range 2d radars for early warning that can be replaced if lost.



Have you seen the Indo Tibetan border? Do you know what higher ground advantage is on the battle field?



Awacs will be escorted by SAMS? what are you talking about. How does a road portable SAM defense keep up with a jet? Is it a jet with out wings?
Point being, in war there are a lot of holes. Tibet has a lot. Its not an easy task to shield the entire border. And even if they did, aircraft fitted with EW equiment are tasked with blinding radars. The Pakistani Falcons use to do this to the IAF radars quite frequently and can still do it.



They dont need to strike deep into china and i never said they would.
So you are off your mark. They would only need to hit troops on forward defense bunkers that are on high ground, where getting heavily artillery is difficulte, next to impossible if your helecopters cant do the job.



Why not use BMs expecially when they have so many old ones that they keep firing off in exercises!
I'm going to drop the BM thing because if you knew anything, you'd know about the second artillery group.



have you seen a map lately?

Notice how close India is to the LOC and how far the Main Chinese cities, air fields etc.. are. The closest military region is Cheng du which is tasked with the defence of Tibet. My my arent they far away? So how are they going to supply the troops on time? Guess what they already though of that. By 1970 they had already stockpiled near the border defenses, ammunition and light artillery. No tanks, and nothing heavy.

The range of a long range AA missile like R77 is 100~ km give or take kenitic energy and altitude. The range of a AWAC when it comes to bombers is 400 km?
Likily the Awacs wont be needed, and those bombers wont come. They're will be aggresive forward patrolling just to caution the PLAAF. The PLAAF won't even use the bombers, because they'll need escorts. And they need more birds to keep the IAF of the PLA on the border so why would they waste resourcses. Do they want to loose bombers?



Do you know how many Tomahawks failed in afganistan because they flew off course? Do you see Russia with Terrian hugging? The tomahawk is hugging the terrian. the other cruisemissiles, dont come close. They just fly higher to avoid crashing. Like you said. And that makes them vunraible to detection, expecially when the get 40 meters above the ground.



Spyders are very effective. They can shoot down iron bombs at short ranges. And why would the PLAAF waste ammunition on a airbase that will not be haltered for long by a cruise missile strike? SHouldn't they be trying to protect the PLA frontline troops?



Yes central China. China superpower. Right.
I get it kid.
Why would the IAF send anything to Central China? The battlefield is a a thousand miles away at the border. Shouldnt they be dropping bombs on PLAs forward positions and assisting the Indian army? Isnt that they're job?



And how do they have?
I dont know what your logic is but its very diifficutle to explian to you kid.


Deep in China!??? Supply lines to keep the foward troops replinished. Getting the wounded out. And getting fresh troops in. Thats the supply line.
In short from a forward base of operations like a small town 50-100 km away from the border to the actual border. Thats where the fighting is!



OMG! The PLAAF would be doing this day in and night right? 500 km to 1000 km away! and how far is that going to get? That cruise missile according to you will fly past radars, SAM sites to a IAF airfield and then not get shot down by the shortrange airdefense? Why not use some old yet reliable BMs that are at the end of the life span that the PLA keep using to train the artillery corps with?



? Tibet is big. Far from Chengdu. If you cant see that, than i cant help you.


i wouldnt call this a debate. More like education.

My God~~~Look at the pic you post,Xinjiang is at that place,3000KM away from its real place????And Shenzhenis a wrong place too~~~
Foolish man~~~~

 

[Guest]

since you don't have a good memory, and very good at drift off the thread,like how much and how good the CMs are, 2D radar is lighter, holes, forward patorl, escorting AWACS etc etc.

i just want to cut the crap and do some wum up for you (base on you post)

if PLAAF bombers launch their missile 500-1000km away from india, they will be shoot down. because:

The IAF has a 5 to one ratio of airbases compared to the PLAAFs

How do you think the PLAAF can protect those bombers when they can't even protect Tibet?

The real quesion is, how will the PLAAF challege the IAF for airspace dominance when they have to fly so FAR AWAY ?

Yea, Tibet. What can the PLAAF do to support the supposed bombers against a forward patrol?

Radars don't need to and only awacs technically could see that far

pls prove your statments first.

 

[Guest]

all right the long one.

They would have even less room to play around with, dont you agree or are you just going around in circles like a clown. And that patrol needs to know where the enemy is but they also need to find them! theres a difference between being sent to the battlefield and than having to fish them out. And those Awacs dont need escorts? Wow the PLAAF is mighty confident. An AWACS always has escorts. And they do need fuel because they're fight wont be near they're air bases and if the IAF is at their bases than they have already lost that battle. Where do you think the IAF would send its strike aircraft? I know, to the hills where the PLA are holed up in near the border!

can you tell patrol and intecept apart? patrol take place when you don't konw where the emenies are. however, for intercept, intecepter will know exactly where the emenies. i never talk of anything about patrol, all i said was intercept. and i will leave the AWACS escort latter.

Look up any 3d tracking radars for missile defence systems. They are all portable if the missile defense system is. Having them on a hill, where they cant get down from is just stupid and a waste of an asset. What the PLA has are long range 2d radars for early warning that can be replaced if lost.

Have you seen the Indo Tibetan border? Do you know what higher ground advantage is on the battle field?

why PLAAF can only place their radar only alnog the border, tibet plateau has planty of space.

Awacs will be escorted by SAMS? what are you talking about. How does a road portable SAM defense keep up with a jet? Is it a jet with out wings?
Point being, in war there are a lot of holes. Tibet has a lot. Its not an easy task to shield the entire border. And even if they did, aircraft fitted with EW equiment are tasked with blinding radars. The Pakistani Falcons use to do this to the IAF radars quite frequently and can still do it.

obviously, i over-estimated you intelligence. ok, i amend it. AWACS can be guarded by SAMs and intercepter, happy.
after holes, here comes EW equiment. how far are you going to drift the topic.

They dont need to strike deep into china and i never said they would.
So you are off your mark. They would only need to hit troops on forward defense bunkers that are on high ground, where getting heavily artillery is difficulte, next to impossible if your helecopters cant do the job.

attack the bunkers again. how many times are you going to repeat this.

Why not use BMs expecially when they have so many old ones that they keep firing off in exercises!
I'm going to drop the BM thing because if you knew anything, you'd know about the second artillery group.

fisrtly, BMs are not control by PLAAF.
secondly, did anyone said ONLY CMs will be used, no BMs?
again, pls don't drift off the topic any more even if you don't have anything to reply

ave you seen a map lately?
Notice how close India is to the LOC and how far the Main Chinese cities, air fields etc.. are. The closest military region is Cheng du which is tasked with the defence of Tibet. My my arent they far away? So how are they going to supply the troops on time? Guess what they already though of that. By 1970 they had already stockpiled near the border defenses, ammunition and light artillery. No tanks, and nothing heavy.

what i was asking was "can you tell me why and is that possible for IAF to operate 60-70 airport near Tibet." and that is you answer? what answer is it?

The range of a long range AA missile like R77 is 100~ km give or take kenitic energy and altitude. The range of a AWAC when it comes to bombers is 400 km?
Likily the Awacs wont be needed, and those bombers wont come. They're will be aggresive forward patrolling just to caution the PLAAF. The PLAAF won't even use the bombers, because they'll need escorts. And they need more birds to keep the IAF of the PLA on the border so why would they waste resourcses. Do they want to loose bombers?

"forward patrolling" again, it seems everything could be settled by this. if you can "forward patrolling" deep in China for 500-1000km, why not just "forward patrolling" further.

Do you know how many Tomahawks failed in afganistan because they flew off course? Do you see Russia with Terrian hugging? The tomahawk is hugging the terrian. the other cruisemissiles, dont come close. They just fly higher to avoid crashing. Like you said. And that makes them vunraible to detection, expecially when the get 40 meters above the ground.

"Do you know how many how many Tomahawks failed"? no, i don't, do you? and i don't know much about Russia CMs. but i know Chinese CMs. but as i said, how good or how much is irrelevent here. and i don't want to play around with you any more. bcoz my previous post has tell you cleraly, China has "3D Maps and GPS".

Spyders are very effective. They can shoot down iron bombs at short ranges. And why would the PLAAF waste ammunition on a airbase that will not be haltered for long by a cruise missile strike? SHouldn't they be trying to protect the PLA frontline troops?

off course they are, just like IAF can dominant Tibet.

Yes central China. China superpower. Right.
I get it kid.
Why would the IAF send anything to Central China? The battlefield is a a thousand miles away at the border. Shouldnt they be dropping bombs on PLAs forward positions and assisting the Indian army? Isnt that they're job?

except for bombing fordward bunkers, can you share something new?
or do you mean India could win by bombing fordward bunkers.

And how do they have?
I dont know what your logic is but its very diifficutle to explian to you kid.

my logic? sorry kid, that's you logic. you said if China has CMs the she should abandon BMs. so i said, following you logic, IAF should kepp MKI only.(if you don't have a good memory, go back to see it again)

Deep in China!??? Supply lines to keep the foward troops replinished. Getting the wounded out. And getting fresh troops in. Thats the supply line.
In short from a forward base of operations like a small town 50-100 km away from the border to the actual border. Thats where the fighting is!

keep bombing the forward base , and forward bunkers, and you will win.

OMG! The PLAAF would be doing this day in and night right? 500 km to 1000 km away! and how far is that going to get? That cruise missile according to you will fly past radars, SAM sites to a IAF airfield and then not get shot down by the shortrange airdefense? Why not use some old yet reliable BMs that are at the end of the life span that the PLA keep using to train the artillery corps with?

day and night, range, how far, all doesn't matter.

about the bold part, did i said that? or did you see any illusion?

? Tibet is big. Far from Chengdu. If you cant see that, than i cant help you.

Chengdu? oh yeah, IAF air dominant in Tibet right.

i wouldnt call this a debate. More like education.

agreed!

 

[Windjammer]

hmm that was quite a surprising judgment you have ...going by this LCA will never see the republic day sky over Delhi...okay now you can mock over LCA will never be inducted

In the last few years, there has been a marked absence of the likes of MIG-21s, 23s,27s and more notably the Mirage-2000, which is surprising since it's a front liner in the IAF.
The LCA is a future prospect hence doesn't fit into the current equation of debate.

 

[LCA Tejas]

Guys Do To Obvious Reasons, Indians would Say IAF is better, China and there allies would say PLAAF is better, But the Ground Reality is that They are Soldiers Fighting for there Country, Pilot training is not compromised in any country, Every country gives the best For there Soldiers, India and China are Two Fast Growing nations, Which Gives Equal or more importance in Its defense sector, So To Judge the Quality of Which is Superior The Arena Must be set, But both The Countries cannot Afford such Settings, Would result in the Loss of Both the Countries.....

Future of IAF and PLAAF is far too good, many Upcoming projects.... This is a Good sign for Both these Airforce's .... So a Judgement between these two is not only Unnecessary but also a Waste of Time.... I kindly Ask the Mods to Do necessary precautions to Avoid such threads which Compares and We all Know what it leads to...

Thank You

 

[faithfulguy]

Guys Do To Obvious Reasons, Indians would Say IAF is better, China and there allies would say PLAAF is better, But the Ground Reality is that They are Soldiers Fighting for there Country, Pilot training is not compromised in any country, Every country gives the best For there Soldiers, India and China are Two Fast Growing nations, Which Gives Equal or more importance in Its defense sector, So To Judge the Quality of Which is Superior The Arena Must be set, But both The Countries cannot Afford such Settings, Would result in the Loss of Both the Countries.....

Future of IAF and PLAAF is far too good, many Upcoming projects.... This is a Good sign for Both these Airforce's .... So a Judgement between these two is not only Unnecessary but also a Waste of Time.... I kindly Ask the Mods to Do necessary precautions to Avoid such threads which Compares and We all Know what it leads to...

Thank You

The only each side is claiming that they are superior is because both are about equal. When compare to the USAF, Russians, Chinese and everyone else admit that no one can match USAF. This is the real superiority. If debates, is needed, than both sides are about the same and its up to other factors to determine the results.

 

[whitepanther]

I'll say what everyone else is thinking, don't get raged ladies and gentlemen...

China has about 2000+ combat aircrafts

India has about 1000 give or take...

Numbers going to 2:1:0 ratio in favor of China, but we don't know what they really have compared to India Sukhoi MKI aircrafts..(See I'm not biased towards any particular country ..) But this also goes down to who are better fighter pilots, India as of course been trained by U.S Topgun, and Israeli Topgun, so overall with the best Fighter experience goes to them... Going to the MRCA deal, I highly doubt India will go for our F-16 Viper, and F-18 S/H we are going to get snubbed... They're going to go with the their Russian Counter-parts...
Well I just made a Useless wall of Text...

Inconclusion, I don't care because > India, China Together :O...

U.S Airforce Combat aircraft: 5,200, 2,200+ combat aircraft..
U.S Navy Combat Aircraft: 3,700+
(I won't include adding of 400-500 F-35 Lightning II in the mix...)

And wat are u US army doing in afghanistan from 10 years...rying defeat simple talibans..
ur Armed forces are the most advanced in the world..but of wat use...
talibans are rough guys..
ur technology,numbers are nothing against their number...
tell me why are they taking so long years to defeat talibans......hehehehe

 

[whitepanther]

The only each side is claiming that they are superior is because both are about equal. When compare to the USAF, Russians, Chinese and everyone else admit that no one can match USAF. This is the real superiority. If debates, is needed, than both sides are about the same and its up to other factors to determine the results.

oh really..wat happend in Red flag and cope india..remember that