India undertaking major rejig of fighter induction to meet threats from Pak, China

[Omega007]

While a large part of this discussion is now on China, I would say don't sleep on Pakistan. they are still the ones likely to be the primary focus.

China's role in any war, this is all just hypothetical, is to tie up as much Indian resources as possible, victory if possible. I don't think it is due to cost. Taking land from India is too ambitious and ultimately not our goal anymore, there are multiple signs of that.

I'm assuming any war involving both India and Pakistan will have a ground component, which means air would need to play a major role in that. China can probably tie up more than half of the SU-30s due to availability, and our sizable air force, with a few special mission aircrafts added.

This leaves India short on war fighting assets, at least when talking Pakistan who currently have more than 200 combat aircraft and quite a few special mission aircrafts.


While many Indian members laugh at JF-17, their best feature is they exist and they fly. Tejas would take a long time still to achieve a sizable number, by then Pakistan would have been very familiar with JF-17 and move on to further models.

India's preparation needs to be on Pakistan, for as much as members like to belittle Pakistan, Pakistan is no ASEAN, it's a battle hardened and resourceful military. India spending too much time trying to match China on quality is going to come up short (J-20), but most important, it would be a serious miscalculation of Chinese strategic importance on any Indo Pakistan conflict.

All of your points stand valid.The thing is,we were discussion a scenario,that was specifically aimed at PLAAF in the north east,assuming there would be no intervention from PAF.

 

[SQ8]

All of your points stand valid.The thing is,we were discussion a scenario,that was specifically aimed at PLAAF in the north east,assuming there would be no intervention from PAF.

There will be none. The fact is that despite needless and repetitive fear-mongering on the two-front war threat. It is entirely fictitious and cooked up in the minds of those that want to have money allocated. China will not intervene for Pakistan and vice versa. International dynamics are not exactly that simple for either.

Yet, the funny bit is; despite all this hulabullo about this "two front" threat and so on, the pace at which this "challenge" is being met, the utter lack of cohesion between professional arms and various civilian agencies on it.

It is odd still, that the IN gets to still quietly get its programs moving a bit faster than both; an effect of being the "lesser" arm perhaps? @Joe Shearer @MilSpec @Capt.Popeye

 

[Omega007]

There will be none. The fact is that despite needless and repetitive fear-mongering on the two-front war threat. It is entirely fictitious and cooked up in the minds of those that want to have money allocated. China will not intervene for Pakistan and vice versa. International dynamics are not exactly that simple for either.

Well,that's precisely in accordance with my understanding on this matter as well.But still,many of the members here discuss this hypothetical scenario anyway just for the fun of it.

Yet, the funny bit is; despite all this hulabullo about this "two front" threat and so on, the pace at which this "challenge" is being met, the utter lack of cohesion between professional arms and various civilian agencies on it.

What can I say here except what you have already said earlier in this very thread and let me paraphrase,"it takes more than Modi to break years of babu-raj"!!
There is no easy and ready made quick fix for severe lack of one's comprehension abilities!!

It is odd still, that the IN gets to still quietly get its programs moving a bit faster than both; an effect of being the "lesser" arm perhaps? @Joe Shearer @MilSpec @Capt.Popeye

That certainly does seem like it.

 

[Perpendicular]

It is odd still, that the IN gets to still quietly get its programs moving a bit faster than both; an effect of being the "lesser" arm perhaps? @Joe Shearer @MilSpec @Capt.Popeye

Might be the quite opposite, the realization that it will be the most important one of all.

 

[Spectre]

There will be none. The fact is that despite needless and repetitive fear-mongering on the two-front war threat. It is entirely fictitious and cooked up in the minds of those that want to have money allocated. China will not intervene for Pakistan and vice versa. International dynamics are not exactly that simple for either.

Yet, the funny bit is; despite all this hulabullo about this "two front" threat and so on, the pace at which this "challenge" is being met, the utter lack of cohesion between professional arms and various civilian agencies on it.

It is odd still, that the IN gets to still quietly get its programs moving a bit faster than both; an effect of being the "lesser" arm perhaps? @Joe Shearer @MilSpec @Capt.Popeye

Or maybe, just maybe the whole thing is smoke and mirrors - money is going where it is most useful i.e. IN - due to deterrent the only avenue where increased investment would help is protecting our overseas interest and SLOC and that is where IN is most effective.

Applying reverse deduction - IAF and IA are most laggard in terms new acquisition, domestic development and future proofing and IN the least at least for surface vessels. This might give an insight into Govt's priority list given that the resources are limited. This would even imply that Govt considers two front land war to be unlikely due to MAD and very thriving trade relationship with China.

Of-course this would suggest Govt, All the Service Arms and MoD has capacity for playing the long game, extreme deception, cohesion and competence in framing policy and total lack of self interest among various arms of the Indian state.

P.S. All assertions and speculations in the post are to treated as amateur attempt at humor and fiction

 

[Omega007]

The confusion arises from your insistence on conflating the mission objectives on the Tibetan front with the replacement task of the MiG 21 (I don't know why you brought up the MiG 27).

Why should it be confusing when the intent had been clearly stated??

Whether the IAF needs to replace all the MiG 21s in a short span or not, the Tejas is still without a clear role in aerial combat against the PLAAF.

If we are talking about its present form,your statement is totally valid.But the situation will totally change if the MkII receives all the planned upgrades like a bigger more powerful engine,weight reduction (although I still remain skeptical about it, @MilSpec ),AESA radar,OBOGS,integrated self protection suits combining MAWS and solid state jammers,FLIR,HMDS - Python V combo etc etc. it would definitely definitely be able to hold its own against fighters J10 variants.The LCA,with its 660mm nose diameter,can theoratically house quite a significantly bigger and more powerful radar than is possible with Dassault Rafale,although I'm unsure whether there would be enough power available to cater for the increased requirements.Can it be done if IAF decides to go with the uprated Ge F414s?? @MilSpec ??
Besides,I do not know the average and peak power ratings and the duty cycle of the LRDE developed X band TR modules,so I can not calculate the power requirements or the heat accumulations.Perhaps @amardeep mishra could shed some light on this.

And the MiG 27 was brought into the conversation for no clear reason.

That's what you think because I failed to be totally clear with my arguments.Ok,let me clear it now.You do realize,that apart from fighting the PLAAF intruders,IAF will also be required to provide CAS to the ground troops,against invading PLAGF columns,don't you??Being Multirole MRCAs,LCAs will come in handy in such situations,if we look at the stated payload capacities of both LCA and Mig27.

What games?

Ok,'game' was probably not the best word to describe that.Let me rephrase that,will 'puzzles' do it for you??

I am simply unable to understand why the replacement for the MiG 21 would find any role in combat against the PLAAF.

Why not??What I can not understand is your repeated attempts to just write off the LCA.

You asked for my version. Very simply, it would be the same as yours, minus the Tejas. To elaborate,

1. specifically tasked cruise missile batteries dedicated to the destruction of PLAAF airfields in Tibet;
2. layered SAM-based defenses, with Long Range, Medium Range and Short Range missile batteries combinations guarding anticipated targets for the PLAAF;
3. Combat Air Patrols backed up by AWACS aircraft;
4. Geostationary satellite surveillance of all PLAAF airfields, to spot possible low level raids by the PLAAF;

As you can readily see, there is no role for either the MiG 21 or its functional equivalent, or even slightly tweaked versions. We need aircraft which can play an effective role bringing down the PLAAF planes, not mass-produced Model Ts.

So you mean redeploy the Su 30s and Mig 29 UPGs to the China front for CAP and replace the LCAs with ground launched missiles??Well,that might actually work.............in fact this would be even better and more easily achievable than what I had proposed!!And I know the perfect candidate,Shaurya!!With its mobility,speed, a massive warhead capability coupled with a decent range makes it perfect candidate for the job.Nirbhays could do the job as well,but they are not yet ready and their warhead capacity is lower.
Funny,that I kept parroting on the same line in the Su30 thread against PAF,yet somehow I failed to apply this same logic to this scenario!!WTF!!

On a separate note,see??That wasn't too hard,was it now??Only had you posted this earlier,I wouldn't have to go through all the hassles of explaining and writing everything in detail,only to find out later that I had made a blunder and didn't even realize that!!instead,I could've just left you a small note of commendation and moved on!!

 

[Donald Trump]

We have three issues to address here.

First, meeting the immediate threat of a very well-trained and well-manned PAF. Second, coping with the sharp increase in the PLAAF strength in Tibet, which will really be impossible to match plane by plane, and has to be dealt with through an indirect approach. Third, the changing nature of the battlefield of the future.

It is the third of these that I fear is being neglected.

The first part is, imho, already taken care of. We have nothing to do but work on a steady state of the capability to neutralise any offensive by the PAF, including offensives using the blank spot in our defences over the Arabian Sea. Not done properly yet, but a bounded and clearly defined task.

The second part surely needs neutralisation through air defence capabilities, and a far greater concentration on missile defense than is now the case. We simply cannot fight the Chinese at the airfield level, not as long as they can defeat us at the photocopying machine and the forced cheap labour fronts. That, in any case, is a separate subject.

The third part needs us to overhaul our entire philosophy of war-fighting on the western front (as distinct from the eastern and northern fronts). It is this part that is worrying. We seem to be gearing ourselves up to fight the previous war, not future wars.

@Joe Shearer, if you have the time and inclination, do go through this informative article linked below....

ANALYSIS OF PLAAF POTENTIAL AGAINST INDIA | ravinder singh - Academia.edu

 

[Donatello]

SU30MKI servicability down to 55%, meaning out of 200 jets, they actually have 110 aircraft at any given time.

 

[Agent_47]

42 squadrons is taking 16-18 per squadron ~750 aircraft .
This is what they are aiming for by 2027-30.

Super sukhoi-30 = 15 squadrons(Heavy)
Mirage-2000 upgraded = 3 squadrons(Medium)
Mig-29UPG = 4 squadrons(Medium)
Modernized jaguar =6 squadrons(To end service in 2030 approx)

Now have to fill rest of 14 squadrons with LCA,FGFA and Rafale.Mirages and MIg-29s can be replaced from 2030 onwards with FGFA/AMCA.
Assuming 2 rafale squadrons.(36)
7 LCA squadrons(~120 ordered )
3 FGFA(63)

Still need 2 more squadrons of LCA or rafales or FGFA.
I don't think under any circumstance LCA numbers will exceed 200.

corrections:

We intend to have a total of 13 squadrons equipped with the Su-30 MKI aircraft. There are certain slippages in delivery but they are not alarming and are being addressed through measures at the appropriate levels.

Arming India

LCA per sqd number is 20.(all reports indicates that)

So, by 2027

MKI - 13
M29+M2K+jaguar = 12 sqd
LCA - 6 +
FGFA - 2 +
Rafale - 2 +

So, there is a chance LCA number can reach 13-14 sqd that means 280 plus 40-50 for navy.(These ordered 120 should be delivered before 2022 to start production of mk2)
Also, only around 3 sqd jaguars are getting fully upgraded fast replacement of remaining is possible .

The biggest worry should be recruitment as well. Right now, the IAF has less pilots per plane (1:0.86). Marry that to the low serviceability of the Sukhoi's (although that 55% is incorrect, its close to the higher 60s now after some serious self introspection). That still means that even with 272 Sukhoi'.. what the IAF can actually field is around 180. How many of these will have pilots constantly available to fly?

The serviceability rate of multi-role fighter aircraft Sukhoi is likely to improve to 75 per cent by this year end from the current level of 56-57 per cent, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said today.

Sukhoi's serviceability to improve by year-end: Parrikar | Business Standard News

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why should it be confusing when the intent had been clearly stated??


If we are talking about its present form,your statement is totally valid.But the situation will totally change if the MkII receives all the planned upgrades like a bigger more powerful engine,weight reduction (although I still remain skeptical about it, @MilSpec ),AESA radar,OBOGS,integrated self protection suits combining MAWS and solid state jammers,FLIR,HMDS - Python V combo etc etc. it would definitely definitely be able to hold its own against fighters J10 variants.The LCA,with its 660mm nose diameter,can theoratically house quite a significantly bigger and more powerful radar than is possible with Dassault Rafale,although I'm unsure whether there would be enough power available to cater for the increased requirements.Can it be done if IAF decides to go with the uprated Ge F414s?? @MilSpec ??
Besides,I do not know the average and peak power ratings and the duty cycle of the LRDE developed X band TR modules,so I can not calculate the power requirements or the heat accumulations.Perhaps @amardeep mishra could shed some light on this.



That's what you think because I failed to be totally clear with my arguments.Ok,let me clear it now.You do realize,that apart from fighting the PLAAF intruders,IAF will also be required to provide CAS to the ground troops,against invading PLAGF columns,don't you??Being Multirole MRCAs,LCAs will come in handy in such situations,if we look at the stated payload capacities of both LCA and Mig27.

I suppose this was lurking somewhere at the back of my mind, but I failed to pay sufficient attention to this thread.

Please look through the archives; you will find I had explained in some detail why, due to terrain, primarily, CAS would NOT be effective in hill country, and, in fact, as the example of Kargil shows, might be a trap for a force with limited resource. In that note, in the context of both the MiG27 and the Jaguar, I had pointed out that strike aircraft would be useless, and that, instead, previously-aimed cruise missiles, aimed at closing off choke points in the mountains, without pretending that such a counter would stop the PLA from using alternative rugged approaches off the road, would be more effective than air strikes.


Ok,'game' was probably not the best word to describe that.Let me rephrase that,will 'puzzles' do it for you??

Why not??What I can not understand is your repeated attempts to just write off the LCA.

I have been a staunch supporter and advocate for the Tejas, but not for force-fitting it into unsuitable roles, a sure recipe for disaster, and for the ignorant to then declare the entire procedure a failure.

At the moment, the justification for the Tejas in an interception role depends on the successful adoption of a number of upgrades, whose effectiveness and feasibility remains completely unknown. The justification for the Tejas in a ground attack role simply isn't there, because the generic ground attack role itself is suspect.

So you mean redeploy the Su 30s and Mig 29 UPGs to the China front for CAP and replace the LCAs with ground launched missiles??Well,that might actually work.............in fact this would be even better and more easily achievable than what I had proposed!!And I know the perfect candidate,Shaurya!!With its mobility,speed, a massive warhead capability coupled with a decent range makes it perfect candidate for the job.Nirbhays could do the job as well,but they are not yet ready and their warhead capacity is lower.
Funny,that I kept parroting on the same line in the Su30 thread against PAF,yet somehow I failed to apply this same logic to this scenario!!WTF!!

On a separate note,see??That wasn't too hard,was it now??Only had you posted this earlier,I wouldn't have to go through all the hassles of explaining and writing everything in detail,only to find out later that I had made a blunder and didn't even realize that!!instead,I could've just left you a small note of commendation and moved on!!

Please check your quoted note above; comments interpolated in line.

Now that you have successfully concluded your discussions and negotiations with your alter ego, may we lesser mortals be freed to do other things?

There will be none. The fact is that despite needless and repetitive fear-mongering on the two-front war threat. It is entirely fictitious and cooked up in the minds of those that want to have money allocated. China will not intervene for Pakistan and vice versa. International dynamics are not exactly that simple for either.

Yet, the funny bit is; despite all this hulabullo about this "two front" threat and so on, the pace at which this "challenge" is being met, the utter lack of cohesion between professional arms and various civilian agencies on it.

It is odd still, that the IN gets to still quietly get its programs moving a bit faster than both; an effect of being the "lesser" arm perhaps? @Joe Shearer @MilSpec @Capt.Popeye

@Oscar

That's a very shrewd observation; trust you to notice it. One of these days, when I have time and better health, I would like to share the different perspectives of the three services towards scientific development. The Navy, as you spotted, is far and away ahead of the others. And I am not caressing family affiliations when I say that.

 

[volatile]

Le lo bhai Jaan chor do hamari . Looser

 

[dray]

@Joe Shearer just trying to understand if you are against the idea of having LCAs in good numbers, because one of our two known threats Pakistan air force is/will be largely made of JF-17s apart from the more potent 50 odd F-16s, and Chinese air force also has a very large number of old Chinese copies of Russian fighters like MiG21s, LCA will be a potent fighter against both of them, especially in MK-II version. Besides, we won't probably be financially capable of buying and maintaining the desired 42 squadrons of only SU-30s, Rafales and FGFAs, we need cheaper alternatives to make up for some of the numbers. Indigenous factor is also there..

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer just trying to understand if you are against the idea of having LCAs in good numbers, because one of our two known threats Pakistan air force is/will be largely made of JF-17s apart from the more potent 50 odd F-16s, and Chinese air force also has a very large number of old Chinese copies of Russian fighters like MiG21s, LCA will be a potent fighter against both of them, especially in MK-II version. Besides, we won't probably be financially capable of buying and maintaining the desired 42 squadrons of
only SU-30s, Rafales and FGFAs, we need cheaper alternatives to make up for some of the numbers. Indigenous factor is also there..

I'm really not getting through.

I am FOR the Tejas, but NOT in the role and the configuration that you perhaps might have visualised.

The Tejas is an excellent tactical interceptor, tasked to keep battlefield formations protected from air strikes and hostile CAS. Also to protect civilian soft targets without the involvement of heavy air superiority fighters, which should presumably be duking it out over enemy air space, over enemy locations.

It will be an excellent counter to the JF-17 and to the MiG 19/ MiG 21 copies by the Chinese. It should be deployed wherever it can fight these off, preferably in larger numbers, and keep the attention of more potent resources from being diverted away from the already worrying order of battle of heavy and effective alternative aircraft.

I am NOT for the Tejas in any role, even a subordinate role, facing off the big fighters. I AM for the Tejas doing what it was designed to do, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[dray]

I'm really not getting through.

I am FOR the Tejas, but NOT in the role and the configuration that you perhaps might have visualised.

The Tejas is an excellent tactical interceptor, tasked to keep battlefield formations protected from air strikes and hostile CAS. Also to protect civilian soft targets without the involvement of heavy air superiority fighters, which should presumably be duking it out over enemy air space, over enemy locations.

It will be an excellent counter to the JF-17 and to the MiG 19/ MiG 21 copies by the Chinese. It should be deployed wherever it can fight these off, preferably in larger numbers, and keep the attention of more potent resources from being diverted away from the already worrying order of battle of heavy and effective alternative aircraft.

I am NOT for the Tejas in any role, even a subordinate role, facing off the big fighters. I AM for the Tejas doing what it was designed to do, nothing more, nothing less.

Right. I completely agree. I think IAF is also planning in similar lines.

The whole confusion is the result of that mismanaged MMRCA deal that dragged on and on to a point where it has to justify its relevance and cost against a newer generation fighter like PAK-FA/FGFA, and left a gap in the capabilities for which it was envisaged. LCA cannot be a replacement of MMRCA.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Indians are such fools. They think they can do this without a strong retaliation from us. First of all you will have to try to attack us. Even before that, we have capability to thwart such an attack.

Indians have a foot-in-mouth disease.