In a conflict there would be more important closer things to track, that's assuming any of the few long range radars India have are still intact. India lacks reach to touch the bombers until they fly close into India, and the air force would only do it if Indian air defense is decimated.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
In a conflict there would be more important closer things to track, that's assuming any of the few long range radars India have are still intact. India lacks reach to touch the bombers until they fly close into India, and the air force would only do it if Indian air defense is decimated.
Yea, that's called the Art of War. The fact that the PAF was able to achieve local superiority, against a much larger opponent, even after the PAF literally told the IAF that it was going to attack, that is the epic fail that the IAF has to contend with.
Anyways, 2019 has been discussed ad nauseum and I'm literally bored of it now. Let's get back to Ladakh. It's the Indian Army's turn this year and the drubbing it got at the hands of the PLA. The cruise missile deployment is interesting, I expect more stand-off munitions to trickle into theater in the coming years.
Yeah, it was Indian fault to get a 6:1 situation against Pakistan. As there is a quote : All fair in love and war. To be outnumbered by 6:1 is Indian fault, not Pakistan's cheat. It also a proof that India is lame in planning and sortie department. They also lack of battlefield awareness, and very slow in respond to answer such unforeseen situation.
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Kashgar airport the message is clear loaded coacked and ready via fool_nightmare
There seems to be an emphasis on air to surface vehicles. Are they that sure of achieving air superiority?
Ground situation as of July 22 ... note the forward Chinese positions
India confirms that except Pangong Lake disengagement has occured in every other sector.
@Nobonita Barua
I've made the point repeatedly that India, historically, seems to have an aggressive political basis; they're like India in the Civ games where you think, hey, it's Gandhi, he must be a pacifist, then the InA starts gobbling up territory like crazy.
This entire aggressive attitude, in my view, is a problem for not only India, but its neighbors, That's why I'm in favor of the InAF / InA giving the PLA an excuse and cover to blow them up; for the Indian political structure, it's an important message for them to sit down and grow up, since India's aims of regional hegemony are not viable under the present state of Indian socioeconomic development, and even if it were, it'd be a primitive hegemony based on its military might.
===
@Brumby
The essence of your point comes out to that the InAF is poorly or ineffectively trained. The problem is, for me, training is a highly subjective factor and the counterpart training of the PLAAF is in doubt. We know that the PLAAF has made many reforms to improve the quality of its pilots, but the actual combat effectiveness of the PLAAF is difficult to have demonstrated.
The other factor I'm trying to respond to is the claims by pro-Chinese posters here of total PLAAF superiority, when what I'm trying to say is that this isn't guaranteed.
===
As for J-10C; it's a J-10 with some type of ECM package installed and an AESA radar with a greater aperture (i.e, more capable given the same technology level) than that on the Rafale.
The reason I don't rate the J-10C higher than the Rafale, though, is the limitations of the airframe design. Compared to the Rafale, which uses a LERX-Canard-LERX-Delta design (close-coupled, not long-coupled as on the AMK Eurofighter or J-20), the J-10C is a relatively simple mid-coupled canard delta that uses oversized canards to compensate for the canard placement issue. The aerodynamic bells and whistles the J-10C has that the Rafale and Eurofighter wouldn't, would be, first, that the J-10C has what resembles a WW2-era inverted gull wing; the inner section of the wing is anhedral, possibly contributing to better roll rates, with a flat outer wing. Second, the J-10 design uses ventral fins on the bottom for high AoA stability, like on the F-16.
The other two factors for comparison would be, first, the J-10C's higher wing loading compared to Eurofighter and Rafale; the J-10C, compared to the Eurofighter and Rafale, has about 20% higher wing loading due to a smaller main wing. Second, the Rafale is highly thrust-limited, a dispute over using inferior French Snecma engines being one reason the French left the Eurofighter project. Depending on which WS-10 derivative is used on the J-10C, the J-10C is likely to have a strong T/W at combat weights.
===
Regarding the J-10D, it's a rumored rehash of the J-10C that will see substantial, but as yet indeterminate, modification. Goodies on the table can easily include TVC. More aggressive modifications, in order of probability, would be CFT, AMK-like aerodynamic modifications, modifications to further increase stealth, and so on. A J-10D with at least TVC and state-of-the-art EW could easily be well on par with Rafale.
I've made the point repeatedly that India, historically, seems to have an aggressive political basis; they're like India in the Civ games where you think, hey, it's Gandhi, he must be a pacifist, then the InA starts gobbling up territory like crazy.
This entire aggressive attitude, in my view, is a problem for not only India, but its neighbors, That's why I'm in favor of the InAF / InA giving the PLA an excuse and cover to blow them up; for the Indian political structure, it's an important message for them to sit down and grow up, since India's aims of regional hegemony are not viable under the present state of Indian socioeconomic development, and even if it were, it'd be a primitive hegemony based on its military might.
===
@Brumby
The essence of your point comes out to that the InAF is poorly or ineffectively trained. The problem is, for me, training is a highly subjective factor and the counterpart training of the PLAAF is in doubt. We know that the PLAAF has made many reforms to improve the quality of its pilots, but the actual combat effectiveness of the PLAAF is difficult to have demonstrated.
The other factor I'm trying to respond to is the claims by pro-Chinese posters here of total PLAAF superiority, when what I'm trying to say is that this isn't guaranteed.
===
As for J-10C; it's a J-10 with some type of ECM package installed and an AESA radar with a greater aperture (i.e, more capable given the same technology level) than that on the Rafale.
The reason I don't rate the J-10C higher than the Rafale, though, is the limitations of the airframe design. Compared to the Rafale, which uses a LERX-Canard-LERX-Delta design (close-coupled, not long-coupled as on the AMK Eurofighter or J-20), the J-10C is a relatively simple mid-coupled canard delta that uses oversized canards to compensate for the canard placement issue. The aerodynamic bells and whistles the J-10C has that the Rafale and Eurofighter wouldn't, would be, first, that the J-10C has what resembles a WW2-era inverted gull wing; the inner section of the wing is anhedral, possibly contributing to better roll rates, with a flat outer wing. Second, the J-10 design uses ventral fins on the bottom for high AoA stability, like on the F-16.
The other two factors for comparison would be, first, the J-10C's higher wing loading compared to Eurofighter and Rafale; the J-10C, compared to the Eurofighter and Rafale, has about 20% higher wing loading due to a smaller main wing. Second, the Rafale is highly thrust-limited, a dispute over using inferior French Snecma engines being one reason the French left the Eurofighter project. Depending on which WS-10 derivative is used on the J-10C, the J-10C is likely to have a strong T/W at combat weights.
===
Regarding the J-10D, it's a rumored rehash of the J-10C that will see substantial, but as yet indeterminate, modification. Goodies on the table can easily include TVC. More aggressive modifications, in order of probability, would be CFT, AMK-like aerodynamic modifications, modifications to further increase stealth, and so on. A J-10D with at least TVC and state-of-the-art EW could easily be well on par with Rafale.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I think this is a sign that China is getting serious and not just putting on a show. There would be little need to deploy JH7s otherwise, as they are very much the unglamorous workhorses of the PLAAF.
If the PLAAF was flexing for the cameras, they would be sent J16s. JH7s are for getting the job done while at the same time not placing anything too precious at higher risk.
As for air supremacy, well I don’t think the PLAAF will venture into Indian airspace in the event of combat, at least to start with.
The Chinese will focus on defence over Chinese airspace with fighters and SAMs complimenting each other while strikers and bombers spam cruise missiles form deep within Chinese airspace at Indian air bases, ground based early warning radar and other high value targets.
That puts the IAF in the impossible position of having to either pull back from most of its northern bases for fear of being obliterated on the ground, and gifting air dominance to China with a bow on top; or having to fight against overwhelming odds to try to get at Chinese bombers and strikers in Chinese airspace protected by layers of SAMs, AAA and having to fight through PLAAF fighter cap, which will almost certainly include J20s vectoring in from outside Tibet.
Forcing the IAF to fight over Tibet initially serves Chinese interests in multiple domains:
- it places the IAF at maximum disadvantage and allows the PLAAF to operate with home field advantage, which will more than offset any numerical and payload advantages the Indians enjoy due to geography.
- politically, it makes India the indisputable aggressor
- it makes it harder for India to BS away their losses as the Chinese would have actual physical evidence of shot down IAF planes and captured pilots.
Once China has cut the IAF down to size and reduced its northern air bases to rubble, the PLAAF could then counter-attack into Indian airspace and take the fight to them and start to systematically destroy the helpless IA ground forces and any dual use pieces of infrastructure it feels necessary.
At that point it would not need to even fight very hard to achieve and maintain air dominance over huge sways of northern India.
- Status