I personally dont see China exporting the J20 for a long time yet, their military industry is busy with domestic orders which are large as is. China’s economic model isnt like the wests which is a pure capitalist system. Most of the big chinese aviation companies are state owned they dont have the same profit drive as a private owned company.

SOC your title to begin with is misleading, they havnt been ordered to attack americans but to attack anybody who violates the border. And secondly I think this is news for domestic consumption after all the missile strikes this week normal people in the NWFP are not feeling safe from a government whos meant to protect them.

I think also your over reacting, pakistani PM basically ruled out a military response and said diplomatic channels would be taken, I think stopping or delaying NATO supplies through the country would have more of an impact than firing onto intruders. Also there is alot going on we dont know about, I have a feeling the americans and pakistanis have a tacit agreement on missile strikes so the locals dont turn against the pakistan army, but this is a double edge sword if they are seen not to be doing enough to protect them then they will fall into the talebans hands and go against both american and pakistani army.

And to finish off every country has a right to defend its sovereignty and its citizens, if you come into someones home uninvited then dont be shocked when you are fired at.

Crude logic to stay polite. South Ossetia is part of Georgia. The 70.000 inhabitants there are in opposition to the central government. Not even in a political way, but by armed militias. The Gaza strip is an occupied territory from Egypt. Egypt refused to take it back. Till a political solution will be find the UN does see Gaza as occupied by Israel and Israel is responsible for the security there. The question is, how much armed restistance from the Gazians Israel has to accept, if at all.
In the Kosovo 7% of the population are Serbs. They got four parts inside Kosovo with special minority rights and protection by an European security force, where Russia is part of. Kosovo was not allowed to become part of Albania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Force
Every case is special and not comparable through the different details.

You missed my argument can you deny any of which I wrote, the actions Hamas took and subsequent actions israel took are a match to what happened with georgia and russia. Gaza is still disputed, Israel (who dismantled settlements there) are in full control of the borders. This is the same with south ossetia, main difference being there are no longer any israelis left in gaza as is the case with russian citizens in south ossetia. You can swap gaza with the west bank if you wish. Most separatist conflicts have a common theme.

What I was pointing out is that India recognises this, and hence wont hand a defeat that decimates the entire Pak military, or threatens its survival as a state. In the 80’s, India’s warplan was to reach the Indus, bisect Pak etc.

Today, it will be to engage in a limited conflict with limited aims. Say to destroy a Pak brigade or two as a punitive measure etc in Kashmir, seize a couple of passes being used for infiltration by militants, or the like.

Such has been made clear by Indian warplanners, otherwise Cold Start would not be publically declared, would it? It was done so that it becomes clear that CS is not meant to destroy Pak as a viable state.

In Kargil there was a risk of escalation to all out war, as the Indian Army was prepared to do so, if the war hadnt gone its way in Kashmir, and they would have struck across at another place of their choosing. Parakram was again a mobilization without aims made clear – from the Pak side, it could have been all out war.

Cold Start aims to avoid that ambiguity. Yes, there are risks & both sides will be wary, but it helps to state the aim before hand.

I havnt looked into cold start so I dont know the doctrine that has been made by the planners in india, however I do agree with most of what you have written there, limited conflicts in the future are a real possibility.

My point was that if IAF does go “across”, then they will make sure they come back safely as well. No point in sending a limited strike package into a heavily defended zone without some basic precautions, like SEAD/ DEAD and escorts. Now whether that escalates is an entirely different issue.

I guess it boils down to what the objectives are but the danger here is a large strike package of aircraft could easily be wrongly interpreted this is the main premise of my argument.

Payload and range do matter. While both the IAF & PAF can strike their respective tactical AFB located close to the border, a greater payload & range allows the IAF tactical surprise, it can start its strike packages from an AFB deeper in India which is not being radar surveilled by PAK ADGES @ the border. That apart, with more fuel & weapon options, the IAF package can be more potent. Each aircraft can carry a SPJ, more PGMs as well as A2A – and the pilots have more leeway in mission planning. They dont have to follow “as the crow flies” to their target.

Which was my entire point about “deterrence”. The PAF’s planned F-16 fleet comes with an impressive array of JDAMs and LGBs- somebody may have the list of confirmed orders. But these aircraft will be severely overworked – they remain the best A2A asset, and now strike as well. With the Mirages to begin their phase out within the next few years & the JF-17 will definitely take at least 5-10 years to stabilise in production & induction & doctrine of employment.

Hence range also matters, because the IAF may well station only its shortlegged non IFR fighters at forward bases & keep its heavier, long ranged fighters much deeper in India, for reasons mentioned above. So to actually deter the IAF or rather at least hit back, the PAF may well have to hit bases in Central India or much deeper.

India has great strategic depth so in this respect for India both payload and range will be of paramount should they want to carry out a suprise operation. In the PAFs case a counter attack using planes on Indian assets would stretch the PAF too far borderline suicidal in carrying out a long range operation. This is why I think they would serve near pak airspace with the majority of the PAF Fleet. The lack of good A-G aircraft is a handicap for the PAF at the moment.

Stand off Munitions & CMs are expensive. Plus to churn them out in scale so as to rely on them alone, one needs the kind of extensive infrastructure set up which I havent yet seen in Pak, ie manufacture of everything from turbojets, to INS systems etc. These appear to be high value imported units procured from outside Pak, like India’s Popeye purchase for its Mirage 2000’s.

My point is that defensive & deterrence dont exactly mix together. So if the IAF ties up the PAF & vice versa (assuming the better case for PAF), how exactly does this deter the IA? It too is bent upon achieving qual & quant superiority vs the PA & is beefing up its airborne assets such as weaponised anti tank choppers, and without PAF intervention, the PA may well lose the tactical fight in Cold Start. Which serves India’s warfighting aims & not Paks.

So in that sense, deterrence didnt work at all.

stand off munitions and CM are expensive but they avoid risking lifes of pilots which are more priority. In my opinion at this moment they would serve the best offensive purpose, hitting multiple IAF bases and other military bases.

If cold start entails quick sudden action using the element of suprise, i.e an operation could be executed so fast as to not let pak forces respond as happened when Israel struck a syrian suspected site then india does have a distinct advantage with its long ranged fighters and strategic depth, I dont think the PAF would be on extensive CAP duty which would make the job all the more easier. The main thing is here how PAF react to such an operation whether their radars pick it up in time for fighters to intercept. Something like this would reduce chances of escalation and limit the deterrence factor, but a very big but as long as any strike package coming in is not interpreted as all out war, it has to be lightning quick in execution.

How many IFR assets have been ordered, and you do realise that the PAF needs them far more than the IAF.

Back in 2006 CAS ACM Tanveer Mahmood mentioned acquiring 4 aerial refueling aircraft from the Ukraine, as it stands today I dont know how far that has gone whether they are still waiting maybe someone in the know can update?.

Even without LRAAM, do you think a SAAB AEW&C platform wont be affected by half a dozen RVV-AEs fired at it? The IAF has the numbers to “surge” the escort package as well.

Those adders would have to get pretty close to get a successfull kill on the AEW&C, what is the maximum range for those around 100km? and I dont think anyone would expect to hit a moving target that far off. The Erieye platform is likly to detect the inbound fighters before they get anywhere near, but your right in saying they could have some affect as is the case in times of war.

Are you even serious to suggest that Pak will keep lowering its nuclear doctrine? What happens then, when India rescinds its NFU, is this a risk which any sane Pak security manager will take, surely not.

Second, even in the case of nuclear war, Pak comes out the loser – which is worse, to lose a brief conventional conflict & make political concessions or be wiped out? Any Pak military leader with a clear head, would make the rational choice.

“Pakistan was preparing to use nuclear missiles against India during the Kargil war”, this was alleged in a book that mentioned a conversation between Nawaz sharif, pak pm and Bill clinton. I wouldnt discount any possibility sometimes a conflict escalates very easy and both sides havnt got a crystal ball to read what the other is thinking.

In terms of pure A2A or multirole BVR capable assets, the IAF has a massive edge on the PAF (3:1) just in numbers. Qualitatively, the difference is again considerable, only the Vipers may pose some threat (and that too minimal considering the Bison’s superlative performance during the Singapore exercises). And thats not even including the strike fleet of another 190 odd a/c. Plus Phalcons and perhaps even the local AEW platform.

I think the answer is quite obvious as Nick has been trying to point out. Talk of credible deterrence is desperate jingoism at best. However, a surprise attack using the new RAAD? CM could bloody the IAF nose a bit at least initially, however, the the inevitable would just be delayed.

In a limited conflict I cant see over a hundred planes from the IAF engaging the whole of the PAF, if that happened it would be all out war which again referring to what I wrote above will reach the nuclear thresh hold and end up causing a nuclear exchange. What I would expect is a low intensity exchange where a dozen or so aircraft could be involved in an area lets say Kashmir – where the IAF may want to bomb some so called training camps. In such a case JF-17s/F-16s/ F7s (as point defence fighters) backed with Erieye and ground radars would be able to hold their own against flankers/fulcrums/bisons ect. I dont see any distinct advantage. If we play the numbers game that is a different story but you have to look at it in the context.

Nick,

The main point with regards to Hezbolla or any other group is in some eyes the group will be seen as freedom fighters in some as terrorists and some will not care at all as the conflict is too far. That is the bottom line and there wont be much changing that. One could also consider states as causers of terrorism, im sure there is plenty in the world that see america as a terrorist state with the amount of people they have killed through military action deliberate or not. Same with Israel and any other country. Also all that covert action that takes place and leads to deaths of innocent people why do people quickly ignore that? that is also terrorism itself.

I do find these lists of state sponsors of terror by the US as inconsistent especially with regards to Cuba and NK. The list is more politically motivated than terrorist related.

1MAN,

Iraq has arrested thousands of Iranian and Syrian nationals who were up to no good in Iraq. Syrian and Iranian envoys liase with the Iraqi government for the release of those Iranian and Syrian nationals. Are those Syrian and Iranian government envoys lying when they fight for the release of their detained nationals? The Iraqi’s process them and provide details of their detention to the various national envoys. You are showing complete naivety if you think all those arrested and detained have nothing to do with acts of violence in Iraq.

The Syrians also arrest and detain Arab and Muslim fighters heading into Iraq via Syria. Are you telling me that none of those arrested by the Syrians are Syrian nationals? Even the Syrian Army has suffered casualties in clashes with those fighters seeking to get into Iraq. Back in 2005 the Syrian Ambassador to the UN declared that 1200 fighters, many of them foreign nationals, were arrested at the Iraqi border. So, you naively still believe that not one Syrian fighter has been involved in the insurgency in Iraq. Not one? Not one Syrian national following his own beliefs has gone to Iraq to fight? It’s all just a huge big conspiracy to you 1MAN, isn’t it?

TJ

I think what 1man is trying to say is that no substantiative proof has been provided by anyone to say the irani and syrian government are directly involved in the insurgency in Iraq. Yes we have seen pictures of IED and other more advance versions and even some weapons they im afraid are still not conclusive for the simple reason that weapons can be planted for implication (soviet-afghan war for eg). The US has a track record of lying and providing mis-information so een if they are right people will look with doubt. They have cried wolf one too many times.

I would say though that there is support and funding but i personally think Iraqis are fed up of foreign occupiers and want them out.