Teercheers,
TR1
On the subject, I am very curious if we will see an Indian S-400 sometime within the next 5-7 years, after initial production for the Russia is complete.
MRSAM derivatives
TeerTeer
You seem to be arguing my points using different argument all together, and going about what is a simple discussion in a long winded round about way (or maybe I am getting old!)
What I am attempting to do is to look at all the items together in context, to get the big picture, otherwise we are left with lists of items, x vs y, which really add little insight.
I will go through things one by one again
1) Pakistan will not just have Anza. As I have mentioned three times
now. RBS-70, Stinger and Mistral as well. Igla does simply not compare
But India also has OSA-AK, Igla, and now, the SpyDer which has a range of 1-15 Km.
And the slant ranges of all the systems you mention is too less to effectively pose a threat to aircraft bombing at medium alt.
2) If the above assets force Indian jets to fly higher, they have actually suuceeded in there role
But the Indian jets would anyways perform defense suppression to take out the sensors that cue these assets & would anyways prefer medium altitude bombing as it exposes them to less ack-ack & even random acts of chance versus things such as balloon barrage systems. I really dont think the IAF will fly low until it has suppressed the PAF ADGES to give the short range systems very less advance warning time.
3) No doubt India will try and use PGMs to stay out of range, but these are limited in number and in addition, they will at some point need to come in close to provide CAS
Ok, we need to discuss this in the proper process, so that I may explain my point.
Igla/Mistral et al are of limited use unless there are adequate sensors on the ground, in the air which make the operators aware that there are targets heading their way.
After all, if MANPADS were so effective, then there would be no other low level SAM systems at all, or even LLTRs or LLLWRs, right.
Basically MANPADS and VSHORADs are the weapons of last resort in a multi-layered chain of defences. They are intended for point defence when other options are not on the table or have proven ineffective, but they need cueing, some amount of advance warning.
It is this vulnerability that any fighter, whether Pakistani or Indian will look at. A strike by F-16s or even Jaguars on the deck, will be over in a matter of seconds, with uncued weapon systems barely getting a chance to get off a shot.
So what does this tell us? It tells us that the AF whether it be Indian or Pak, will first – suppress those sensors, and then attack the target ASAP from as unpredictable a direction as possible, and if possible even from medium altitude, using either cluster munitions or conventional munitions. That is why I posted the pic of the Su-30 MKI’s warload. With so many odd bombs one’s way, and with a reasonably accurate radar assisted bombing method, PGMs are not necessarily the only option for area suppression.
And the fighters will not stick around for repeat passes either. It may affect their Pk., but then again, a large warload helps in that respect.
4) I have no doubt India has assets to try and take out Pakistans ADGE, but these can only succeed once PAF fighters have been put out of the equation. Of course IAF can attack “without worry”, but that is making a massive assumption that PAFs fighter fleet will just sit around
My point is that the IAF does not have to take out the whole of PAF’s ADGES or even destroy it. It has to suppress it in specific areas, for persecuting an effective attack, and based on the relative numerical and technology imbalance between the two forces, I believe this is possible. Of course, you are free to disagree.
For instance, consider that India currently has around 130 MKIs and 120 Bisons – each of these is ARM capable. Its MMRCAs will also be most certainly capable of defence suppression. India also fields both Harpy and has now ordered Harop for defence suppression. Hence, I believe, in the designated zone of conflict, the IAF can definitely create and exploit windows of opportunity. And if the PAF fighters intervene, the IAF would of course have its own fighters as escorts, as was shown in multiple IAF exercises till date.
5) Ditto above regarding high level SAMs. As I mentioned PAF have a gap in this area, but this will be well covered by its interceptors
But how many interceptors does Pakistan have, which can effectively counter India’s larger BVR equipped fleet, is my point. Currently, only the F-16 is a peer comparator. Even in the future, PAF will face a larger and more technologically advanced fleet which puts more and more stress on Pakistans high end platforms like the F-16 and possibly, one day, the J-10.
6) Incorrect on Spyder. Its range is actually shorter then that of SPADA 2000.
I meant the SHORAD comparison but now you have brought it up, look at the respective ranges. The SpyDer SR envelope spans 1-15 km, whereas the SPADA 2000 is around 20-25 km. Point is at the end of the day, these are limited point defence systems, and I’d infact give the edge to the SpyDer because it is fire and forget, conferring high survivability to the system & it has an edge in ECCM as its missiles are both RF and IIR (Imaging Infra Red) seeker equipped.
7) In correct about TPS-43, it is still in service, only being taken out of US service in 2010
Fair enough & I’ll take your word for it, but this is a system which was part of project Crystal 2nd phase, initiated in 1976 onwards. My point is that even if Pakistan chooses to use it, same as India is using its upgraded older radars, they’ll last around a decades time, these will need to be replaced one way or the other.
8) Pakistan’s 1980s vintage Siemans sets have bene upgraded, unless we know the extent of these upgrades I would not make a comparison, just as I would not compare a Dutch F-16MLU to a Dutch Block 15 F-16
Yes, but if we see a Block 15 Viper after MLU, is it equal in every which way to a Block 60 Viper today? No, right?
The advancements in technology are so rapid, that the radars Pakistan acquired in the 80’s as LLTRs (Siemens) and India did (Indra-1s, P-18s), despite upgrades or not, are not as functional as today’s systems.
That apart, refurbished systems can only go on for so long. Many of the core electronics are either not in production & need to be replaced, or are too expensive to rework again and again. It becomes a case of marginal utility, whether it be India or Pakistan.
9) The point you make on low level coverage is a valid one, but you seem to still overlook the fact this was the very reason AWACs have been purchased. As I said the TPS-77/Erieye combi will easily look after low level coverage
The problem is the AWACS are far more limited in number & more expensive. Its easier in wartime, to “risk” a bunch of LLTRs with separated operators cabins than rely on the AEW&C alone, and the LLTRs are required to back up the AEW&C.
For instance, in the Kashmir sector, there are several terrain features and valleys, where fighters cannot be tracked even by AEW&C and LLTRs and LLLWRs are used placed on high positions or at the entry and exit points of these valleys. So both countries require all three systems in sufficient number, especially since at wartime, there need to be spares to account for attrition.
10) As of now India had a total of just 3 AWACs being delivered and 2 on order. No more. That is simply not enough for a country of Indias size, and it seems future coverage will depend on their own home grown system. I dont think we can make any guesses on this yet. This does not compare well to Pakistan (a 5th of Indias size) and its 8 various systems being delivered this year. In terms of AWACs coverage that is the story
That bit is incorrect, as India has a total of 6 systems on order (3 Israeli, 3 local) and 2 planned (cleared by IAF, CCS aproval required). The budgeting for India’s homegrown system has already been done, with Embraer aircraft in production already.
The reason India can afford to go slow versus Pakistan in terms of AWACs is because of what I mentioned before, India has ordered far more radars already (100 and counting) and already operates Aerostat Radars.
In practical terms, aerostat radars are systems capable of performing the AEW role but with far more persistence. At 15,000 feet, these look out to the radar horizon of 300 km, against a low flying target at 100 feet, whereas a ground based radar can only see upto 30-35 km with a 10 mtr mast. Plus, the RFP is out for four more such systems.
Finally as we are aware, Indian purchases tend to be very well publicised, whilst Pakistani aqqusitions we only tend to hear about after the deal is done, this is especially the case with Chinese weapons. I would not count on the fact that there are no additional plans being made of PAF ADGE….
This is not necessarily always the case & I’d have to disagree with you here. After all, how many of us knew that India had acquired and even developed Long range HPRs for its ABM system until many years after the fact or had developed the capability to manufacture AESA systems.
Even acquisition wise, I can in fact point out several systems which were acquired but “flew under the radar”, as the IAF made it a point to not stress on them. For instance, the IAF purchased Master T radar/s for Kashmir. There are barely any references to this fact, but for an offhand comment by Thales.
Furthermore, we have to look at how things are on the ground regarding economic conditions. The PAF would have to compete for funds vs the Army and Navy in trying conditions, whereas the IAF so far, does not face this constraint, in my view. This makes India’s modernization far more sustainable and wide ranging.
Anyways, you are, of course, free to disagree.
TeerEvery radar set present in the area that was produced in 1970-80s is obsolete Indian or Pakistani, upgrades only take them up to a certain level, I do not think any company upgrades old analogue systems to current complete digital systems even the latest consumer items fof that era are collectors items now, one would need information that is not available to compare the level of obsolesce, which is a ridiculous exercise, the system itself is not useless until it stops detecting flying objects.
Upgraded MiG-21/27, Jaguar, F-7, Mirage-3/5, Q-5, are obsolete in todays world, that is why InAF and PAF are replacing these planes. They will still fire their missiles, guns and bombs in a war.
Exactly, obsolescence is a relative term but as far as the Indian side is concerned, the oldest sets are all actively being replaced. The ones that can be upgraded to relatively good performance even in todays conditions are being retained, after upgrades till replacements come in. Which is where the IAF Chief’s 50% figure comes from.
The IAF but recently completed its upgrade for the THD-1955 High Power Radars. These sets continue to be used in Germany & will be replaced only this year or the next per reports. In India’s case, since we upgraded them with Thales involvement, we’ll keep them around for another decade plus, and replace them with the new HPR’s currently at RFI stage, AESA and even better performance.
Point is, purely relying on imports, when the economy is not doing so well, is not going to be a successful strategy for any nation.
What India benefits from is both its strong economy, allowing for imports of upto date equipment after competitive tendering as well, as its own radar manufacturing base.
http://bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=§ionid=14
Of these, look at LHS, you can see:
5 Surveillance radars (2 Medium Range, 1 LLTR, 2 LLLWR) of local design, all current tech, while the first radar is a MPR made as a JV. Each of the radars being procured from abroad is coming with TOT for local assembly, even while local equivalents are in development (LLTR & MPR).
And regarding upgrades, the MiG-27 & Jaguar remain highly relevant with upgrades. The DARIN2 &3 fits make the Jaguar a very capable striker even at medium alt – DARIN 3 has autopilot integrated from beginning itself, and an engine upgrade is well on its way. The MiG-27 suffers from engine limitations at alt., but the Upg is DARIN2 equivalent & the EW fit is actually one of the most advanced in the IAF today.
TeerI am aware the shortage is 600 and 600 is not the overall figure.
The shortage may well be in jet fighters we dont know. IAF pilots not good enough in training are streamed to transports/choppers, so people dont automatically have a choice where they are assigned. It is dependent on skill.
The shortage of 600 pilots, as mentioned previously, is for the entire IAF fleet and the overall allocation per GOI rules, which takes into account a full complement of fighter squadrons (39.5 allocated), plus full numbers of Transport & Helicopter raisings.
However, as things stand, the IAF has 32 fighter squadrons, and even fewer transports than it wants (which it is acquiring) so it balances out. Also, as Kramer & Samsara have mentioned, its the transport guys who are the most sought after by civvie street on account of their transport aircraft background & multi-engine experience. Hence 600/32 calculations etc are incorrect.
TeerI am glad we can be civil.
Perfect.
On radars
Some of the Siemans sets are late 80s vintage and have been upgraded. Nowhere nears as obsolete as what India is using right now.
They have also been upgraed.
But they are as obsolete as the Indian sets, in fact even more so. India’s Soviet LLTRs for instance, were acquired through the 1980’s along with other radar sets, and it is these that are already being replaced by Indra -2 (2D) gapfillers, Rohini 3D radars, Thales 3D GS-100 LLTRs and LLLLWRs (~40, 3D).
Also, upgrades can only take you so far. Pakistan’s TPS-43G’s (per Pakdef/Janes) were to be retired in 2010 itself, and these too were acquired in the mid-80s. While upgrades can add some new capabilities & even extend life, against modern ECM, they have limitations. This is the reason India chose not to upgrade its oldest Pechoras and is replacing them instead. (And in this case, I refer to the entire system, which has both radars & missiles).
Pakistan can look to US and China for repalcements.
Problem is & will be cost to acquire the numbers it needs. Ideally, Pak, should have started two decades back on laying the groundwork for its own radar program, at least the simpler ones. Even local integration with imported subassemblies would cut a lot of cost away.
You have still not covered off the fact that TPS-77s/TPS-63s and TPS-43s linked into AWACs will more then make up for any gaps.
But I have, but you haven’t understood my point.
The TPS-77s and TPS-43Gs (due to be retired by 2010 per http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/surv/adges.html) and even YLC-2s are not meant for low level surveillance. They are long range, medium altitude coverage radars!
Which is why countries worldwide (including Pak., India, and China) use LLTRs and LLLWRs & now Aerostats as well, to back up MPRs and HPRs.
But guess that inconveniant point would get in the way.
Again, Arrows, for a civil discussion kindly, lets not have such rhetoric as its of no use.
India’s plans are no doubt grand, but these are all “in the pipeline”.
But they are not “all in the pipeline”.
Let me restate. India has already ordered upwards of 100 radars which are being delivered every year! Case in point, look in this thread itself for the Andaman Command to receive a long range MPR while it already has a Rohini radar.
Here, let me break it up, of radars already in delivery:
Medium Power Radars: 15 from Israel
LLTRs: 19 from Thales (GS100) & 37 + 29 from DRDO-BEL (3D Rohini & 3D TCR – these are improved/modified variants of the 3D Search radar for the Akash)
Total: 100 units already ordered
Apart from these, India has 3 Phalcons & 3 AEW & C on order. LLLWRs have also been ordered but lets even leave those out for now.
India also completed upgrades of its HPR THD-1955s and has now released a RFP for replacements by the time these retire in another decade and a halfs time, and is scouting for 4 more Aerostats to add to the two in service!
Each current Aerostat is equivalent to 30 LL Gapfillers against low level targets!! In effect, you can imagine the force multiplication effect of these systems at 15000 ft against fighters flying at 100 ft (30m in Lo-Lo-lo). A radar horizon of 300 km! Whereas, the typical mast mounted GBR (10 mtr mast) can see only till 35 km. Now see the effective coverage of a aerostat radar versus a GBR!
As of now, India has woeful radar coverage with many obsolete units. As admitted by the IAF chief of staff.
Sorry, but the IAF CAS made no such mention. He said 50% of the overall inventory was obsolete and would reduce to 20% by 2014, which clearly indicates the quantum of induction currently underway. Also, he made the point that even with the obsolescence, which of course is relative, the IAF was perfectly capable of fulfilling all its tasks. That itself indicates that the PAF is not really ahead. Note NAK Brownes comments as well of “we are ahead, Pak is catching up, but we’ll still be ahead”.
Furthermore, if one investigates this matter, thing is that the radar orders are not merely meant for the Indo-Pak border, for which thanks to the Aerostats and other systems, there is sufficient coverage.
These systems are being acquired for Central & South India, to create a seamless coverage India wide, but in a war time situation, to reach till these gaps, the PAF would have to actually somehow get through the layered defences at the border & many tens of Km inland including fighter cover, and even then, it would have to face the base defences around each base.
On to SAMS.
I clearly mentioned SPADA 2000 is medium end. 60km detection range and 25km missile range is certainly not “short range”.
Its all relative vis a vis what your opponent fields.
If your opponent is armed with Hawks with iron bombs, then those 25 km SAMs are a very dangerous proposition.
However, if your opponent has Su-30 MKIs with a massive unrefuelled range, and with munitions like the Kh-59MK, Mirages with the Popeye missile, the 25 km bubble is not sufficient.
Furthermore, the SPADAS will be under attack from these:
http://www.deagel.com/news/India-Purchases-Harop-Loitering-Munition_n000006159.aspx
And India already has the Harpy & Kh-31 & Kh-25 ARMs as well.
The main target will be the FCR (SPADA Fire Control Radars) as without them, the missile will be unguided.
You also completely overlooked that Pakistan’s MANPADs systems are in a different league to India’s altogether. In fact a generation ahead.
How so? India operates the IGLA & Pakistan has various generations of ANZAs. Orders have continued to be placed, e.g.:http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/delivry/kbm.htm
India also has units Pakistan does not have equivalents to, e.g. SpyDer, ordered in 2008, with deliveries underway.
RBS-70s cued by Giraffe radars and Stingers and Mistral with armoured formations means low level flying by the enemy may have to be avoided.
Yes, but the IAF will target the medium alt. SPADAs with a variety of assets, after which it can conduct medium alt. attacks without worry, thanks to the limited engagement ranges of the MANPADs and SAMs.
For instance, check the warload:
http://warisboring.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/su-30mki-exvayushakti2004-01.jpg
You are completely right, at the higher end of SAMs PAF has a gap. It has traditionally relied on its fighter fleet to make up for this. However, it is looking at the HQ-9, which is a Chinese S-300/400 copy.
Problem is Arrows, these have not yet been purchased, and will be very expensive to procure in effective numbers, given how many competing demands there are on the Pak. economy. The S-400 is of course, a completely different and very advanced system, currently only available from Russia.
TeerThis must surely affect aircraft utilisation rates?
If the number of pilots to planes is low.
The IAF is short of 500-600 pilots across the fleet but this needs to take into account that the IAF has a stated allotment of ~40 combat squadrons but is right now at 32, even considering that the transport & chopper squadrons are at full allocated inventory (which they arent). So the actual pilots to airframes number balances out. Of course, as more airframes are added again, the number of pilots required will increase, and which is why the IAF a couple of years back, started working on increasing the training infrastructure to produce more pilots per year, even considering that the attrition currently is below par (positive attrition) but this may not necessarily be the case once the economy picks up even more five years from now.
TeerPeople were warned not to let this get into a Pakistan V India p**sing contest, so maybe we should just focus on IAF. Happy to have this conversation in the PAF thread.
For your information (web based as you admit) is mostly incorrect. Although I doubt you would let that stop getting in the way.
There is no need for a p*ssing contest to occur as long as the tone of the conversation is civil & proceeds with the agreement that its knowledge we are after. Given that, I think a productive discussion is entirely possible, as long as we avoid statements like “Although I doubt you would let that stop getting in the way”, which tend to vitiate the tone & tenor. Sticking to facts should be fine & you could post this in the other thread. Unfortunately, due to time commitments I really cant debate multiple places so just check the one.
Now, coming to the topic at hand, my information is not incorrect. The point to look into is how the ADGES is structured & what its intended components are, and that will clarify my statements about the MPDR’s.
For instance,
TPS-43
TPS-77
TPS-77 (repetition) All are modern US radars
are not MPDR equivalents, and nor is
YLC-2 Chinese radar (specifically made for stealth detection)
These are long range & high power radars (though many countries still use the designation medium power to contrast against even more powerful systems, but either ways the usual range is around ~300+ km for a fighter class target operating at medium/high altitudes), intended to give a nation, medium level coverage.
The YLC-2 for instance is a standard L Band long range search radar, used as an EW (Early Warning) sensor. Its anti stealth claims apart, it operates in the L Band which is fairly well known to RF engineers both on the pro & anti side and its power o/p is credible but not as substantial as that of modern day AESAs used for BMD.
Eitherways, HPR & MPR and even AEW & C such as the Erieye being procured by Pak, need to be backed up by a number (unless one is lucky to be in flat terrain, geography wise, throughout) of LLTRs (Low Level Transportable Radars) which in the 80’s would usually be 2D. These are also referred to as Gapfillers.
Standard characteristics are that they are more mobile & compact than the 3D MPR/HPR designs & are less expensive! But they have a very useful and vital role.
In the Indo-Pak context both nations employ substantial number of LLTRs to plug holes which the MPR/HPRs cannot observe (terrain limitations due to line of sight & placement of MPR/HPR and due to limited scan angles).
In India’s case, these are the P-12/18, Indra-1 and now the Indra-2 radars, and now, the Thales GS-100 & an even lighter, more compact local LLLWR (3D). More LLTRs specifically for hilly terrain are also being procured.
In Pakistans case, these were the Siemens MPDR acquired in the 80’s, and which are now 20-30 years old, with the oldest from 1980 at 30. These are being refurbished locally in Pakistan.
So you see, these radars are not of the same type that you referenced or even equivalent. Their role in wartime is vital as they can be quickly used to plug holes caused by SEAD/DEAD suppression attacks against the more static, less mobile high power radars.
They need to be relocated quickly to plug ingress/egress routes which high flying AEW&C cannot get thanks to LOS blockages. Furthermore, many LLTR designs nowadays come with more effective clutter rejection and are optimized for low flying aircraft. Even an AEW&C can lose sight/track of a low flying target against difficult terrain.
In Paks case, so far Pak has acquired 10 YLC-6 (2D) radars from China for the LLTR role & these are not even a third of the original inventory of MPDRs (45km/90km).
So, the original point remains valid, that these systems are already quite old, and Pakistan is going to face a challenge in coming days, trying to meet its requirement for LLTRs/LLLWRs as it does not have a domestic radar manufacturing capability, and replacements are expensive.
The SAM system
is RBS-70/Mistral/Stinger/Anza III at low level
SPADA 2000 at Medium
Looking at HQ-9 at higher level
Crotale and HQ-2 phased out
The SAM systems mentioned above also need to be looked at in context.
The maximum slant range for the best SAM in the above inventory (SPADA) is of the order of 20-30 km. Namely, these are point defense systems at best and cannot interdict platforms using Long Range Munitions. Furthermore, the SPADA is a SARH system and will be subject to ARM attacks.
What Pakistan needs, in order to actually make up for its lack of a substantial & high end fighter fleet are strategic SAM systems, with extensive ranges & high mobility like the S-3XX series. These are also likely to be unavailable to Pakistan or fairly expensive, leading to limited numbers.
In addition to all this, all these assets can face India and the coast
Indian systems will have to cover Pakistan, China and its massive coastline
India’s procurement already takes this into account & hence the high numbers already contracted for (~100 radars not including SAM systems), many more including SAMs, an additional 30 if Ind. Army AD is factored in & then are IN aerostat orders in progress.
Plus, to harmonize all three services Comms, the DCN (Defence Communication Network is in place).
Furthermore, India is now implementing a massive coastal surveillance project with radars at over 46 locations & linked by a new information grid.
http://www.zeenews.com/news622341.html
These will be backed up by IN aerostat radars. 3 will be deployed, with each having a radius of 500 km & with the already deployed IAF aerostats covering the coastline in depth.
Teera cursory look at the PAF’s air-defence network will tell you that it is in no better state, even with the purchase of the SPADA. It is mostly obsolete.
Fair point, for instance, in the coming years Pak will have to seriously investigate into replacing its entire 2D Siemens MPDR-45/90 inventory of 60-70 units. So far, Pakistan has been refurbishing them, but these were purchased 30 years back in 1980 per the web, and there is only so much that can be done.
What makes thing tougher for Pak is that it has no domestic radar development capability, and even the most “cost effective” option, read Chinese, is going to be pretty expensive, which means Pakistan may have to compromise on acquisition & rely more on its AEW&C to pick up low flying aircraft.
TeerInterestingly this report quotes Browne and puts a different spin on things.
Indian Air Force (IAF) has sent a proposal to the ministry of defence (MoD) seeking permission to expand the airfield at Nyoma, south-east of Leh, so that it can operate fighter jets from a high altitude.
If approved, it plans to make the expanded airfield fully functional in the next four years.IAF mooted the idea after defence minister AK Antony visited the advanced landing ground (ALG) in June this year.
The Nyoma ALG, which was activated in September 2009, is at an altitude of 13,300 feet and has landing facilities for helicopters such as Mi-17 and transport aircraft such as An-32.
Just 40km from the China border, Nyoma has a compact airstrip. The runway needs an extension of at least 12,000 feet with a hard surface to enable fighters such as Sukhoi-30 and MiGs to land.
Nyoma was reactivated along with seven other defunct airfields. Its reactivation followed that of Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) and Fukche in Ladakh, which were made operational in 2009. DBO is the highest airfield in the world at an altitude of 16,200 feet.
In the run-up to the 78th Air Force Day, Air Marshal NAK Browne, air officer commanding-in-chief (AOC-in-C) of the Delhi-based Western Air Command, the sword arm of IAF, said on Friday, “There are no plans to extend the other ALGs in Ladakh — DBO and Fukche — due to limitations and challenges. When we look at the development of a base we should be able to operate each platform of IAF and the army, which includes fighters.”
Chushul, another ALG in Ladakh, will also not be extended since it is only 5km from the Chinese border.
Earlier, IAF has operated fighters such as Sukhoi-30 and Mig-29 from Leh and Thoise, both of which are at an altitude of 10,500 feet.
These airstrips have loose gravel ground and due to inclement weather and rough terrain work can be carried out for only seven months in a year, which may delay their expansion up to four years.
Browne said, “The expansion includes making a hard surface runway, infrastructure, re-fuelling, safety and air traffic control facilities. Most IAF fighters are designed to operate at a high altitude.”
Western is the largest command of IAF extending from Rajasthan to Siachen and 11 of its 18 air bases are fighter bases.Browne also said the gap between the air forces of India and Pakistan was reducing, both in terms of numbers and capability, due to the help the US and China were extending to Islamabad in terms of fighter aircraft, missiles, and sensors.
“Pakistan Air Force [PAF] is the most modernised among the neighbour’s three services. It was modernised systematically since 2005. The US and China assisted Pakistan to come up as a fairly potent force. The new F-16s sold to Pakistan by the US are a challenge to IAF,” he said.
PAF has 21 fighter squadrons as compared to IAF’s 32.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_air-force-seeks-expansion-of-nyoma-airfield-in-ladakh_1446784
Where is the different spin?
Browne has clearly said the gap will reduce but the IAF will remain ahead, when it comes to Pakistan.
Now, in the above, he is absolutely on the dot when he says the new F-16s are a challenge. In fact, they are the only truly modern aircraft in the PAF inventory. Despite limitations, they are still capable of medium range BVR, have PGM capability with LGBs & GPS guided JDAMs & night attack capability with Sniper.
However, on the flip side they are limited in number and have far too much to do, affecting pilot tasking and airframe usage. Consider the tasks ahead of PAFs fleet of F-16s, everything and anything from DPSA, to air support to air to air (they are the best PAF has in this role, so will be tasked to protect high value targets like Erieyes) etc.
Pakistan will have to conserve them and use them judiciously, as they will be facing a far larger number of more potent IAF platforms – because as far as the IAF is concerned, they are a threat & the IAF will focus on targeting the F-16 inventory in particular.
TeerPlease quote all the relevant portions, not just selective ones. So lets highlight what the CAS is saying viz the context.
As mentioned earlier, IAF is modernising, but there are still some major critical gaps,especially in its SAM network
50% of IAF equipment obsolete, says IAF chief
Read more: 50% of IAF equipment obsolete, says IAF chief – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/50-of-IAF-equipment-obsolete-says-IAF-chief/articleshow/6684392.cms#ixzz11Q9M0AAr
NEW DELHI: The Indian Air Force on Monday said that 50% of its systems and equipment were obsolete and steps were being taken to bring down the obsolescence levels in the next four to five years.
“The obsolescence percentage is 50%,” Air Chief Marshal P V Naik said here adding that “by 2014-15, it would come down to 20%”.
The IAF chief was addressing his annual press conference on the Air Force Day held on October 8 every year.
Asked which was the most critical area for the force in this regard, Naik said, “Air Defence. That will be the only word.”
The Air Chief made it clear that even with 50% obsolete equipment, the IAF was capable of handling threats from the medium of air and space. “We are fully capable of defending the country from any threat.”At present, IAF relies mainly on its Russian-origin air defence systems such as the OSA-AK and Pechora and the shoulder-fired Igla missiles, which have been in service for over two decades.
In the recent past, the IAF has been working on developing its air defence network and is looking to procure various systems in this regard.
It has already ordered for over six squadrons of the indigenously-made Akash air defence systems and the Spyder Medium-range Surface to Air Missile (MR-SAM) system from Israel along with aerostat radars to prevent any aerial attacks.
The force is looking at deploying low-level and medium-level transportable radars at different locations and is also planning to procure radars for being deployed in high altitude areas along the borders with China and Pakistan.
Read more: 50% of IAF equipment obsolete, says IAF chief – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/50-of-IAF-equipment-obsolete-says-IAF-chief/articleshow/6684392.cms#ixzz11Q9S9Uvr
If anything, the above report makes it clear that India’s modernization is wide ranging and substantive, with a clear timeframe.
As I said, around 100 radars have already been ordered. They will be operationalized in phases over the next 4-5 years, which is not really that far away.
The CAS also makes it clear that the IAF is able to handle current scenarios in its present form as well.
Lastly, you note: “but there are still some major critical gaps,especially in its SAM network”, completely missing the point that the IAF relied on SAMs for point defence as it did not have sufficient long range air superiority platforms’; airfields were sited close to Pak. At its SAM inventory peak, India had 30 SAM-3 Squadrons for that very reason.
But today, with the Sukhoi et al, the temporary fall in SAMs is not that critical, especially when there are 8 Akash squadrons, 9 SpyDers already ordered for the IAF & 9 Squadrons of the in development MRSAM are intended.
TeerIndian AEW aircraft are not only for covering the Pakistani border.
SWERVE
They are meant to guard Indian airspace from all sides. But that’s not the point I am making. In times of conflict IAF will not leave a gaping hole just to watch the Chinese. It will make sure that the airspace with Pakistan is fully covered before it uses the phalcons against the Chinese. So in a hypothetical case if war starts tomorrow you can bet both the phalcons will be deployed against the warring party be it Pakistan or China.
Fair points made, but I think we need to see that AWACS (3+2 Phalcon/IL-76) & the AEW & C (3 DRDO/Embraer) are part of an integrated ADGES and not just the key nodes all by themselves.
A very good read on the original IAF ADGES is here
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today/Contemporary/325-SAD.html
Basically, the Indian Radar Network (AF) is organized into 3 sections, by virtue of tech. Medium Power radars, High Power radars and Low Level gapfillers (usually 2D but now 3D, even AESA). So far, the network is arranged as a barrier (against Pak & PRC) and with defended zones (BADZ) for key AFB, integrated with SAMs. The radars are usually integrated with Automated Data Handling Systems, developed locally by Pvt industry and DRDO, and integrated into Command Report & Control centers which direct operations. These employ sensor fusion, repeated tracks are deleted.
Now there were significant gaps in the above as Central & South India had gaps. There were also issues with obsolescence with the oldest 2D radars not datalinked into the integrated sensor net.
In recent years, after significant criticism by the audit authority, the GOI has sped up allocations for the ongoing modernisation of the IAF network. Around 100 radars have already been ordered (if I factor in those coming with ordered SAM systems, not the in development MRSAM). Upgrades have been done to the older HPRs. And more radars, systems are being ordered/ tendered for. Including Aerostat systems.
Plus the IACCS is being inducted which basically acts as a node for fusing all sensor information and automating flight/defense operations. A datalink program is underway to datalink all airborne platforms and link it back to the IACCS nodes.
What this means is that there is significant “layering” of AD sensors and networking. The redundancy factor is also there. Simply put, India can stagger its AEW&C/AWACS platforms inductions as they are now force multipliers in the true sense, and not a substitute for huge missing capabilities. Plus these things are very expensive. The IAF has to really judge whether there is anything it needs more, eg PGMs etc before it spends around $400M per aircraft.
So to get to the point, more AWACS are definitely required but the current number should be sufficient to maintain AWACS coverage in key areas and not the entire battlefield, if a 2 front war were to ever break out. A total of 8 platforms can translate to around 3-4 operational platforms around the clock, with 4 cycling through maintenance/transit, assuming only regular maintenance & not detailed or even minor refit. The Phalcons have a detection range of around 350-400 km, the DRDO radar around 250-300 km, against fighter targets.
The biggest thing about AWACS is mobility, they are more survivable than Aerostat radars and dont need as much protection. Aerostats have round the clock persistence for long spells of time but are fixed in prepared positions. Ground Based Radars are far more mobile but suffer from radar horizon limitations against low flying targets.
India per stated plans is going to rely on a mix of all 3, to optimize its spending.
India is likely to cluster its ABM systems/AD systems around HV areas with Aerostats to prevent BM strikes on these critical radars, which are also the linchpin for Cruise Missile Defense. The ABM systems come with their own radars but which will be particularly suited for high-medium altitude targets, whereas an AESA Aerostat can be targeted for medium-low alt performance.
Overall, all the above should translate to a fairly decent coverage versus both Pak., and PRC. It will be redundant, layered and effective, with much more capability than the IAF has had before.
IMO, over the long term IAF will rely more and more on AWACS but the biggest problem is acquisition cost, which incidentally, is the reason why the IAF is so closely involved with the domestic program this time around. Foreign alternatives just break the capex budget, especially given the IAF still has to invest in many programs. Hence, a follow on order for more local AEW&C is very likely, once the initial ones are delivered
TeerAhem.
Do you chaps have any idea of how boring the rest of us find these India vs Pakistan willy-waving contests?
Give it a rest, eh? 😎
Fair enough & I for one, am in complete agreement.
In fact, its fine to even have a point that starts the thread stating any such contests are verboten. But the problem with this approach is that some amount of comparison is inevitable, as news reports will dwell on it. After all, without the PAF & PLAAF, the IAF’s capacity building would not be as contextual
The other alternative is to have a debate, but one without any rhetoric or passion or aggression, devoid of smilies & the like. Replies to any queries as triggered by news reports should be similarly factual as to why the news report is inaccurate.
TeerTo add, in a nutshell, Pakistan’s fundamental problem in facing India is not just taking on a larger adversary, but one with more economic and technological resources.
This means Pakistan has to invest far more in terms of technology or inventory to just retain some semblance of parity. Currently, Pakistan is struggling to do this, splitting acquisitions between its three services & relying increasingly on US financing for select high end items, eg F-16s etc.
India is currently following a dual procurement path. It imports for the interim, even with local assembly, and has another program for local capability. Where it does not intend to launch a similar program it either gets a deep license or has a JV.
In Pak.’s case, it is almost entirely dependent on foreign suppliers with a struggling economy, which places severe restrictions on the technology available to it, and the overall burden of long term sustainment. This also impacts training, as cuts will have to be made in terms of flight hours, equipment readiness rates etc. to conserve expensive spares, one day or the other.
TeerMatt,
What exactly have I missed?
Eitherways, seriously, it took me ~1min. to find the GE release, you could have done it so yourself & skipped the one-liners right and pointed out exactly what you meant.
TeerI agree, cliches are bad.
I will give you some proof. Some of it you may have to google/research. Some of it you can see for yourself.
1) As of right now PAF has more AWACS cover the IAF.2 Erieye V 2 Phalcon.
Two Erieyes with more limited capabilities than the Phalcon. How is that more capability? Plus, with Aerostats, the IAF may not even need as many AWACS as the PAF.
2) PAFs ADGEs is much more advanced. IAF has no competitor to TPS-77
First lets look into the radars.
The IAF has 2 Aerostat radars in service – both versus Pak., which the IAF reckons to be equal to 30 Ground Based Radars each, thanks to their high elevation. For several years now, the IAF has had the ability to look pretty deep into Pak (check out the radar horizon at 12,000 feet even for a target flying in a lo-lo-lo role at 100 feet (~290 km). And more are being acquired.
Both are AESA and derived from the Green Pine system.
BTW, you speak of a few TPS-77 as a big deal, whereas India has ordered over 94 radars in the past five years to modernize its AD network after a thorough audit, across all categories, including systems to which Pak has no comparable system, such as the Green Pine (2 ordered, and JV derivative produced locally).
And many comparable to the TPS-77 but in larger number, such as the 15 MPR AESA ordered from Israel. The best part is most of these acquisitions have been low key, but they are continuing.
Now, the ADGES. The PAF’s ADGEs is not really at an advantage, as the IAF has a fairly indepth BADZ system and ADGES of its own which has been kept current, by installing and updating existing automated data handling systems.
The IAF has already activated its IACCS node in one of the key sectors facing Pak & 4 more are on the way, while it has also activated its new fiber optic AFNET network.
So where is the superiority.
3) C-5 AMRAAM of PAF is more then capable compared to IAF missiles
Debatable, as the IAF operates the RVV-AE, and unless real world tests are done to baseline both the missiles, both have credible on paper specs. However, the IAF has far more RVV-AE than the PAF, and it has been operating them for longer than the PAF, enough to go through the entire cycle of finding flaws, fixing them, operationalizing them etc.
In the PAF’s case, this journey is just beginning.
Also, the IAF operates the R-73E w/HOBs sight in approximately, 280+ aircraft today (100+ Su-30 MKI, 120+ MiG-21 Bison, 60+ MiG-29s). The PAF has no credible equivalent and is at a disadvantage in WVR. Even the latest F-16s w/JMHCS are but limited in number and use older AIM-9M/L.
4)Compared to the percentage of pilots, it is obvious a greater portion of PAF have advanced foriegn training
So is it your contention that the PAFs training is not upto the task and it requires foreign training which is more advanced? Because that is what your statement reads as, and to some extent it is true.
The IAF btw has had more exercises than the PAF has had with foreign AF & those lessons are filtered back into training across the board. So the percentage bit is inaccurate. If anything, it is IAF pilots who are more attuned to whats been going on, since they have had access to more foreign AF doctrine and technology via exercises and procurement.
Then, it is the PAF which will have to rely more on foreign training as it is acquiring capabilities which the IAF has had for many years. The IAF has had BVR since the mid-80’s and active BVR since a decade. The processes are well in place. Only now is the PAF acquiring these systems.
Also, the IAF has access to far more local capability and reserves to enable it to understand, acquire, operationalize and maintain advanced technology, than the PAF.
Pakistan f.e. does not even make a single radar of its own design, making it critically depend on foreign suppliers for basic and advanced systems. India in the last few years itself, as a point of comparison, ordered 60 advanced radar systems locally, including 7, 2D Gapfillers, 37, 3D Medium Range radars, and 16 3D FCRs.
India makes several EW systems of its own design and has fielded its own EW equipment and tests them on its own ranges. Pakistan does not.
Such gaps in local industrial and technological capability mean that PAF will remain more dependent on foreign training than the IAF.
Sign In
