thobbesFariz, thank you so much for some very interesting insights into the RMAF.
thobbesWithout stable basing, one cannot achieve true blue water capability.
The Royal Navy of the 19th century and USN right now have true water capability because they had access to secure bases around the world. And a lot of these were in strategically important areas e.g. Singapore and Aden for RN.
Chinese opportunities for secure bases in Indian Ocean are limited – Pakistan and Myanmar are the main ones but both are in striking distance of Indian assets.
Then there’s the opportunity in African states but probably none that are in a strategically good position.
thobbesIt all depends on strategic perspective.
E.g. in 1941-42 the USSR maintained a huge reserve force in Far East despite it’s Western army being nearly obliterated by the Wehrmacht and German troops spying the spires of Moscow.
The reason was that it was viewed that forces needed to be maintained in East to counter Japan.
The Germans similarly maintained reserves to counter a Western invasion despite the troops being needed on Eastern Front.
Also what purpose would risking a Carrier Battle Group in Indian Ocean (or vice versa) achieve? It seems almost suicidal – hostile waters where enemy has home advantage (e.g. their submarine and air bases are close at hand). And then how do you resupply such a force – the transports would require large numbers of escorts too, lest they be sunk by enemy subs/aircraft.
Look at what happened to raiders ala Bismark and Graf Spee etc which operated without support. Look at the issues the Axis encountered resupplying their Africa forces in a sea infested with Allied aircraft and submarines.
Generals and admirals generally aren’t idiots. They apply assets in such a way as to accomplish goals without losing them. And carriers are especially valuable.
Oh and remember the Germans didn’t really use their surface navy much in WWI or WWII (in the end they were glorified artillery support). Sending fleets for suicidal forays don’t make for good promotional marketing.
thobbesReally, did Japan risk it’s Carriers at Pearl Harbor and Midway??? What about Great Britain when it attacked the Italian Fleet at Taranto!
Japan’s main enemy in 1941 was USA. PRC’s main enemy in >2013 is USA, not India.
China using it’s carriers against India is equivalent to Japan using its carriers to attack British forces whilst ignoring USN.
As for Taranto, it involved 1 aircraft carrier (out of 6 in RN at the time) operating in a sea where Britain had numerous and well established “safe” bases (Gibraltar, Egypt, Palestine). Brits also controlled access to Mediterranean via Gibraltar and Suez. More often than not there was also support from RAF land based aircraft (and this certainly hampered Axis operations).
Mediterranean was at that time major theatre of WWII (North Africa).
China has no safe bases in Indian Ocean and does not control access points in Malacca etc. It does not have land bases in Indian Ocean either. Pakistani bases are too close to Indians to be safe.
Any PRC carrier group operating in Indian Ocean would be alone and without support.
And as stated Illustrious was 1 carrier out of at least 6 operational at the time (others were Eagle, Ark Royal, Hermes, Furious and new Formidable).
China currently has 1 carrier and probably will only have 3 by 2025. Risking losing 1 in some sort of Indian Ocean sortie is a huge risk.
thobbesThe questions arises whether China or India will risk sending their carriers into each other’s oceans/seas.
Given value of carriers from a both deterrent and political perspective, I doubt this would happen.
I think India’s carriers would be used against Pakistan as they were in past, but that’s a relative low risk affair compared to sending a carrier group to the South China sea.
I think they would deploy attack subs those – these are far less prominent and far more useful.
Also remember China needs to maintain a deterrence force against the US and co as well.
Personally I think any war between India and PRC will be a limited border conflict ala 1962.
Any higher level escalation would run risk of nuclear exchange.
thobbesYou also need to take into account supporting infrastructure (intelligence, AWACS, EW etc etc) and how well that infrastructure works with combat elements. Modern aerial warfare is a combined arms game.
One might have a super plane with super pilots but that means little if they can’t take off without being spotted and splattered across some field before they have a chance to fight.
thobbesSri Lanka is one of the few airforces where JF-17 makes sense.
thobbesSo what if it’s not allied itself with the USA?
thobbesThose F-16s and F/A-18s aren’t in such bad condition – Indonesia has just brought 24 and the USAF is expending early versions of F-16s as drones
Besides as if the world’s only superpower would stoop so low as to operate a worthless heap of junk that generally only sold to the poorest of the poor and/or countries under embargo and with no other options.
And especially an aircraft that was obsolete 40 years ago and even at its technical peak was still a limited capability point defence fighter.
Basically they offer no capability at all. An F-16A/B or F/A-18A/B even without upgrades is a far superior aircraft.
Junky F-7s like all MiG-21 variants are also maintenance intensive with very limited Time Between Overhauls. That adds to the cost. Plus the cost of setting up logistics etc. And cost of systems integration – new communications systems, radars, weapons etc etc.
They’re also designed with limited much more limited airframe and engines lives than and F-16 and F/A-18.
Finally even if the USA swallowed the insanity pill and acquired F-7, how would that solve the need to replace hundreds of tankers, trainers and other aircraft?
Basically what you’re saying is that the solution to America’s problem in 2020-2030 is to acquire the equivalent of a slogged out second hand F-104A from a potentially hostile nation and then spend a mint creating the infrastructure needed to operate it.
Does that sound even remotely rational?!?
thobbesWhy would US lease ancient obsolete J-7s when it has thousands of F-16s and F/A-18s, many of which are stored at AMARC.
The issue is replacing old junk with new aircraft and not replacing old junk with even older, more poorly built junk that was obsolete by 1970.
thobbesWell, with the Liaoning in Service and a New Larger Carrier under construction. Looks like India is loosing the Carrier Race with China Plus, the J-15 is likely more capable platform than the Mig-29K. That of course doesn’t even take into account the development of the J-31 either.
I don’t see how it’s a carrier race given neither side shares an ocean and getting through to each other’s oceans requires access through US allied waters (e.g. Singapore, Thailand, Australia). And the US still maintains 11 aircraft carriers and even if cutbacks eventuate will still have 8 with 5 stationed in Pacific. Oh and then there’s the Gators, of which the 3 America class LHA/LHDs are light carriers equivalent in size to Indian ones.
Also India has INS Viraat to 2020 and INS Vikramaditya is expected to enter service in October. That’s an expansion from one carrier to two carriers in service.
And by 2020 INS Vikrant replaces INS Viraat.
And then in the 2020s India gains it’s third carrier.
Overall that’s a pretty good capability and excellent for maintaining enforcing Indian interests in the Indian Ocean.
thobbesRemember, it’s always about getting your opponent to fight you on your ground not his………..:dev2:
Totally true.
Tactics and skill are far more important than technology.
You could’ve put those Syrian pilots in Su-35s in 1973 and the Israelis still would’ve smashed them.
thobbesKuwait is apparently looking at F/A-18 replacement and it’s all meant to be tied in with UAE competition.
thobbesLovely to see an old bird resurrected and used once more again.
41 years between flights is impressive!
thobbesIf one is honest there are only 2 enemies in the world, which might require a large fleet of 5th generation fighters and could field those themselves in any serious numbers. Those are Russia, China and India. The problem is those countries are still taking 4th generation fighters in numbers.
The other issue is these countries don’t have global capability. Even at the height of the Cold War, the USSR lacked true global capability.
They probably won’t ever develop true global capability either.
The USA developed global capability due to WWII – large number of fleet carriers, large number of transport ships and aircraft, massive militarisation of a large industrial capability. development of R&D, as well as appropriate development of tactics and doctrine.
This reduced the amount of investment US had to put into maintaining global capability e.g. the WWII Essex class carriers lasted to the 1970s. This meant replacement could be done gradually which was thus less costly.
China, Russia and India don’t have any of the above advantages – they are building capability from a small base.
I think Russia, China and India will catch up to USA but only because US military power declines.
What this means is that the F-22/F-35/B-2 will most likely be involved in the same low intensity missions that the F-15/-16/-18 are flying now or in the last 20years and not flying missions against high tech peer level operators.
Sign In
