the technical differences do not matter anymore.

you will need a microscope to find left in the next parliament. there may be a couple from kerala but that’s it. without bengal left can’t be a power.

the Americans do not recognize some of the Canadian claims to sovereignty over areas such as the Northwest passage and the like and giving Canada the capability to enfore their claims is not in the American interest.

Having the Canadians with a nuke boat capability would also allow the Americans to be potentially caught red handed violating Canadian sovereignty by running their SSN’s/SSGN’s/SSBN’s into Canadian waters without permission as they so often do now with impunity.

strange became ludicrous. so I guess US would rather canada lose its subs altogether ?

The Americans are against Canada getting this capability so they would not sell Canada any boats, new or used.

strange ! why ?

That is a Turkish KC-135 in flight refuelling a Malaysian Su-30MKK!

freudian slip ? :p

MKM, not MKK.

the ‘stupidly large number of aircraft of PLAAF’ as compared to IAF argument is itself incredibly stupid. that’s what you get when your one great source of information is wikipedia.

not counting vanilla Mig-21 variants for either side *, PLAAF has ~ 700 frontline fighters to IAF’s ~ 600.
not that much of a difference considering that PLAAF can’t transfer all of that to sectors adjoining India without leaving rest of china unprotected. while India can use fighters oriented towards pak against china with relative ease because of much shorter lines of communication.

as for the 2nd artillery, the efficacy of using scud generation missiles to accurately hit air bases remains to be seen.

* PLAAF’s J-7 variants are not counted because are completely ineffective in terms of payload and range while operating from the high altitude bases in tibet, not to mention obsolete. for IAF only the bisons are counted, not the FL or M/MF’s or even the Bis, which are old and obsolete.

Thanks Boom.

Also the Mirages are somewhat of a unique case, right. We don’t have too many airframes and have 3 squadrons.

the other two squadrons have regular structure, it is only No9 which is unusual.

Boom,

Do you know how many twin seat MMRCA are planned?

it was something like 40 twins and 86 single seaters IIRC. that’s enough for 5 single seater squadrons, but more than the numbers needed for 2-seaters for 5 squadrons. so definitely there is provision for something else, I guess there would be a few designated strike/recce aircraft like the way twin seater jags are used. in a highly networked environment, which IAF is busy creating, twins could be used for the mission control, taking advantage of the extra head who is not encumbered with flying.