Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mohsin77

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
Ash the rational said:
Now talking about Kashmir.I visited kashmir and even interacted with locals.They definetly dont like Indian troop presence BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY DONT LIKE PAKISTANI TROOP PRESENCE TOO.
They carve for Independent state totally non attached either to India or Pakistan.They are already tired of petty fight between india and pakistan.
And this will never happen as nor will India and nor will pakistan will listen to this voice.
So what is the solution?
Just make Loc as international border and dont puke each other nose in internal matters.
Same apply to border of ladakh .But that wont happen too .Because China can force things and wont let demarcation line or international border to come in action.
Click to expand...


... that's a great story man. Just add some dragons and you can sell it to HBO.

Here's a dose of reality though: Do you remember those videos of the mob of civilians that descended on your captured Mig pilot last year? That was a completely random sample of liberated Kashmiris (living in Pakistan's side of Kashmir.) First they asked your pilot if he was PAF or IAF. Your pilot tried to pretend that he was PAF, but when the mob noticed the IAF patches on his uniform, they tried to beat him to death with their bare hands, even though he was armed with a handgun and fired warning shots.

That's how much Kashmiris hate India. There is an overwhelming pro-Pakistani sentiment in Kashmir (on both sides of the fence), despite any claims to the contrary. In fact, if your Mig had crashed in Lahore, your pilot probably would've gotten a better treatment than he did at the hands of those Kashmiris, who almost lynched him to death before our Army rescued him.

So I don't trust your opinion on what occupied Kashmiris (under lockdown) think. The moment India revoked article 370, it immediately de-legitimized any remaining 'neutral' Kashmiris. In any case, the LOC will never be made an international border, period. Pakistan will never accept this status quo and continue pushing until it takes what it is owed.
 
I

Inst

Captain
ougoah said:
AESA size isn't always proportional to performance. However it would also be unfair (Indian or western fanboying) to suggest Chinese AESA needs to be larger and more powerful to have similar performance to a western one. The opposite may even be true, who knows. Pakistan seems to be more than happy with the small AESAs developed for the JF-17 and have compared them to the Italian AESA offering. Anyway the RBE2 AESA is a 2012 piece of technology and France's first airborne fighter AESA.

Rafale's not designed as a dedicated dogfighter. It's a cropped delta canard, close coupled for apparently decent to good supersonic agility. That sounds like good BVR fighter to me. This design supposedly also gives fighters good AOA and nose authority. Public domain stats suggest excellent STR and ITR. Has high T/W and pretty low wing loading. So basically a great balance and good performance throughout. Carrier capable means great lower speed handling and Mirage's emphasis on high speed high altitude performance probably carries over too. There's a reason why so many 4.5 gen fighters use the delta canard configuration. It's an excellent all rounder.

Indians don't want a dedicated dogfighter in the MRCA. No airforce is stupid enough to want dedicated dogfighters in this era. If you can't do everything well, it should at least excel in BVR first. The Rafale would be a waste to expose to dogfighting where pilot skill and increasingly more luck is introduced. Even pilot eyesight and neck strength plays as much into dogfighting outcomes as high tech gizmos.



lol well another idiot could compare an upgraded J-7 with the Rafale and give the odds to the J-7 because ... well you haven't given a reason so why not.
Click to expand...

This is a fairly ignorant post; the entire point of close-coupled canards vs long-coupled canards on the Eurofighter is that you generate strong vortices at high AoA that adhere well to the main wing. Long-coupled canards tend to be inferior in that field; the reason people choose long-coupled canards is for control authority at high speeds.

It's fairly obvious if you compare the Rafale vs the Eurofighter; the Rafale has a tiny radar, the Eurofighter has a F-18 or F-35-sized radar. The Rafale has a max speed of Mach 1.8, the Eurofighter is a Mach 2 fighter.

===

And yes, the Indians ARE dumb enough to buy a dogfighter! The entire InAF doctrine seems derived from Russian doctrine where maneuverability was favored at the expense of other flight characteristics. Consider:

The Russians were selling the Su-30, in both MKK and MKI variants. The Russians offered the TVC, canards, PESA, the works to both the Chinese and the Indians. The MKI came about because the Indians picked up all the options the Russians were offering, while the Chinese said no-thanks and were happy with a strike-oriented Flanker.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Inst said:
This is a fairly ignorant post; the entire point of close-coupled canards vs long-coupled canards on the Eurofighter is that you generate strong vortices at high AoA that adhere well to the main wing. Long-coupled canards tend to be inferior in that field; the reason people choose long-coupled canards is for control authority at high speeds.

It's fairly obvious if you compare the Rafale vs the Eurofighter; the Rafale has a tiny radar, the Eurofighter has a F-18 or F-35-sized radar. The Rafale has a max speed of Mach 1.8, the Eurofighter is a Mach 2 fighter.

===

And yes, the Indians ARE dumb enough to buy a dogfighter! The entire InAF doctrine seems derived from Russian doctrine where maneuverability was favored at the expense of other flight characteristics. Consider:

The Russians were selling the Su-30, in both MKK and MKI variants. The Russians offered the TVC, canards, PESA, the works to both the Chinese and the Indians. The MKI came about because the Indians picked up all the options the Russians were offering, while the Chinese said no-thanks and were happy with a strike-oriented Flanker.
Click to expand...

You call my post ignorant and proceed to write this drivel? I hope the forum can appreciate this irony. I don't even know how and where I should begin responding and correcting you. Can't really be bothered since we know how such a conversation will go.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Inst said:
This is a fairly ignorant post; the entire point of close-coupled canards vs long-coupled canards on the Eurofighter is that you generate strong vortices at high AoA that adhere well to the main wing. Long-coupled canards tend to be inferior in that field; the reason people choose long-coupled canards is for control authority at high speeds.

It's fairly obvious if you compare the Rafale vs the Eurofighter; the Rafale has a tiny radar, the Eurofighter has a F-18 or F-35-sized radar. The Rafale has a max speed of Mach 1.8, the Eurofighter is a Mach 2 fighter.

===

And yes, the Indians ARE dumb enough to buy a dogfighter! The entire InAF doctrine seems derived from Russian doctrine where maneuverability was favored at the expense of other flight characteristics. Consider:

The Russians were selling the Su-30, in both MKK and MKI variants. The Russians offered the TVC, canards, PESA, the works to both the Chinese and the Indians. The MKI came about because the Indians picked up all the options the Russians were offering, while the Chinese said no-thanks and were happy with a strike-oriented Flanker.
Click to expand...

PLA picked the MKK because 1) they needed something ready ASAP because of deteriorating relations with Taiwan under Chen Shuibian and 2) many of the tech on MKI still had kinks that needed to be worked out. Just take a look at how long it took the Russian Air Force to adopt the Su-30SM (built on MKI tech). Mature tech with precedence of Russian usage such as the Su-35 and S-400 are readily adopted by the PLA.
 
I

Inst

Captain
siegecrossbow said:
PLA picked the MKK because 1) they needed something ready ASAP because of deteriorating relations with Taiwan under Chen Shuibian and 2) many of the tech on MKI still had kinks that needed to be worked out. Just take a look at how long it took the Russian Air Force to adopt the Su-30SM (built on MKI tech). Mature tech with precedence of Russian usage such as the Su-35 and S-400 are readily adopted by the PLA.
Click to expand...

I think part of it has to do with the fact that the Chinese had a substantial native aerospace industry, while the Indians didn't. The Indians seem to have more or less standardized on the MKI, with 272 MKIs in the InAF, while the bulk of the PLAAF Flanker force is J-11. Also, arguing that the Su-35 was readily adopted by the PLA has to note how long the negotiations over the Su-35 took.

I'm not criticizing the Chinese on selecting the Su-30MKK; they chose a specific strike platform and didn't choose bells and whistles, I just treat it as notable that the Chinese refused the TVC and PESA while the Indians went for it.

I think the implication is that the Chinese weren't trying to buy an air superiority aircraft, just a strike variant of an air superiority aircraft they already had, while the Indians were. And I think we're all aware of how unreliable the MKI's TVC was during the early stage and how the Russians basically had the Indians funding their TVC R&D. But the Indians still chose the nose-pointing ability of the MKI despite all the attendant risks.

@ougoah
I criticize your post, you respond with ad-hominem.

If you were at all familiar with the comparison between the Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale you wouldn't be surprised at the particular properties of the Rafale. The Typhoon is well-engined, has a large radar, and performs well at high speed, and this has to do, in part, with the fact that the Typhoon chose long-coupled canards. The Rafale, in contrast, is fitted with numerous aerodynamic bells and whistles including a rough analogue of the J-20's LERX-Canard-LERX-Delta platform, except with the Rafale it's close-coupled as opposed to long-coupled as on the J-20.
 
Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
My apologies, but how does Chinese J-11 compare with Su-30MKI? Does Chinese have an indigenous equivalent to Su-30MKI? I'm open to learning :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top