Now I understand you are quoting this one but I assume you agree with this. Where is F-35, atleast US version? It is getting quite a lot of bad press recently, doesn’t mean its not a capable fighter. How about latest Flanker derivatives?

Its always system vs system. If you want to say its superior then in what aspect? – stealth, supercruise, uptime, cost(initial/operating) etc.

you forgot the most important aspects shiny and smooth.

thinking forward could save Pakistan from being threatened again as it was after the Mumbai incident.[/QUOTE

http://www.grandestrategy.com/2010/02/russian-are-coming-t-50s-flight-to.html

Why does the site talk of a 5th generation planes as this mythical dragons that can bring about magical changes in military power?

PRC has all the money in the world to fund any future military program, it has shown a capability to build planes with recent project (even if it did so with consulting), and will in all probability come up with a new project to fulfill its 5th generation plane requirements.

Why would PRC not take help from Russian firms (as it seems they are the only option at this point) for engine, avionics and weapons development?They have the money, Russians have experience and a special liking for PRC money.

Would it not be a better idea to start a separate project with Russian firms based on the PAK-FA project, like the FGFA? If such a JV comes about what would be the Russian approach to licensing issues faced in the previous J-11 project?

I was not aware that there were any plans to reduce the no of MMRCA crafts..if anything the numbers will only grow.

The IAF is looking forward to a squadron strength of 42…plenty of place for all the new jets to come in.

The LCA(both variants) will not be needed to do deep strikes into enemy territories in any hurry there are hundreds of Su 30 MKI available for that purpose.The IAF can afford to wait a few more years for the LCA MK2 so why on earth will they buy the Gripen today.

Yes i agree, with production line being set up in India with Indian money, there is every chance that the licence production of MMRCA can end up with more numbers than currently projected.

I think a plane in service with the Indian Air Force will be required to perform many tasks including strike missions of all types, Su-30s will have to perform their primary task of keeping the skies clear of enemy air force.

Because the Gripen offers better sensor fusion, a revolutionary AESA, the best Medium Range AAM in Meteor, Long range Precision strike with Taurus, HOBS and HMDS and more payload. The NG will have towed decoys and a state of the art IRST.

Most of things the LCA ‘MAY’ get in the future MK2 avatar, but the Gripen is still a good inexpensive fighter which can be fielded in large numbers and offers an ideal balance to the soon to be ‘Top-Heavy’ IAF.

Besides that the cost will certainly be an issue, IAF had its fingures burnt with the MoF not sanctioning the A330MRTT the last thing they would need is an expensive fighter they selected being dismissed on the grounds of cost and the whole process starting from scratch.

How is the ES 05 Raven radar revolutionary? when will it be in operational service? the prototype has been tested by InAF (in the last part of presentation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shikRvsqTgU )

Will meteor be in operational service by the time the plane is selected, how will InAF be able to test the missile in any of the European planes, i think most of the tests of European planes will have the American medium range missile, hence i doubt InAF or the Ministry of Defence will consider a weapon they have not even tested as an advantage.

I doubt Europeans will transfer Taurus or other such long range weapons to India, especially as the warhead could be nuclear.

I think the MoF did not sanction the money for the tanker due to a lack of competition, which was improper implementation of the defence procurement policy, and not due to the high cost of the Tanker.

“As far as I am aware the Indian AWACs are more capable than their Pak counterparts”

followed by

“Did I say otherwise?”

No emotion here at all, but why don’t you try and get your arguments aligned properly, or try not going back on what you say. Otherwise pretty hard debating anything with you really.

I think he based his comment on the following:
Its coverage area is higher (360 degrees).
It hasspace to accomodate multiple plane crew and command and control crew ,more range, and time on station.
Much larger Payload capacity to accommodate bigger arrays and more systems.
Hence the A-50 Phalcon will cover more area than the smaller AEW planes and do so for a much longer time.

For the role of AEW planes like SAAB-2000AEW India is running a AEW program of its own, perhaps those two are better comparisons. the A-50 Phalcon and SAAB-2000AEW are both different class platforms and systems.

I think this might be a reason PAF is looking for a similar class AWAC in KJ-2000 (the chinese phalcon).

How is claiming Mistral/RBS-70 are more avdanced then Igla dubious? Do you genuinely know the difference between the systems or are you just saying this out of a misplaced sense of pride?

For Pakistans size, the PAF fleet is large enough. PAF has always assumed it will always be outnumbered by IAF.

Spyder range is 15km V SPADA 25km range. Assuming you can do math?

Both Erieye and Phalcon have strenghths and weaknesses. I would not say one is massively better then the other.

I think RBS-70 and Igla (several versions), are two different missiles, one depends on the operator to guide the missile (laser beam riding), the other has IR guidance.

In a attrition war there is a threat of the squadrons from the Indian side being reinforced, PAF might have to cut back on many operations to counter the numbers without a qualitative advantage over InAF.
your statement:

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

Aspide 2000 and Derby are two different missiles, one has semi-active radar homing, the other has active radar homing, SPADA 2000 is a MR-SR system, SPYDER has two separate versions SPYDER-SR and SPYDER-MR, both systems have different components.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/spada/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/spyder/

It seems from news reports Indian order is for the SPYDER-SR SHORAD version, with medium range air defence falling to that Akash air defence system, so the comparison between SPYDER-SR and SPADA-2000 is improper, perhaps a comparison with Akash air defence system.

What Teer meant by Pakistan miltiary not having an equivalent to SPYDER-SR system is in terms of SHORAD.

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.

I think the direction forward has been indicated to be with Indigenous tech. and Israel.

And the Anti-ballistic missile systems are under development, so i think there is no chance of S-400 or any other Russian long range SAM with ABM capacity in Indian service.

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.

Yes they are relevant for us, however a multirole aircraft that can perform in the attack role and perform in the air to air role is a better option (like a F/A-18 E/F)

As i understand it the plans to replace them have already been thought out by the InAF, the MMRCA could be a platform to replace the attack squadrons.

That’s an easy way out from what you said earlier. See your own post with map.

I don’t think IN can see any hostile nation in the IOR which require more than the projected capability(the ships work with the two fleets).
MAP

The projected capability P-15 and P-15B (none has been commissioned), working with the two fleets that will include the current ships and the planned ships, hence the projected capability projected as i have read till now, out to 2020/22.

Easy way out, from a discussion?

Of course they are. You posted a map with countries ringing the Indian Ocean. I’m just discussing the capabilities of the relevant countries.

A military should (and will) consider all possible contingencies, even if they cannot be acknowledge publicly because they deal with ‘friendlies’. IMHO, China is a very real possible FOE, which operates Su-27, Su-30, J-11 and H6. Next consider China’s allies in the more immediate area.

Your view of relevant=every country in IOR, without considering any realities of this part of the world.

There is no cold war going on that could turn hot at any time, IN has coordination plans with many nations you state, and the governments political objectives that define what is or what is not a threat to the INs objectives are to work with many of these states.

PRC has no J-11s,H-6, Su-27s or Su-30s operating in the IOR. PRC military basing allies in the area include Pakistan at most (though not really), rest of the allies PRC is developing for commercial reasons including shipping (in a naval context), the string of pearls is not a scheme for military basing, as that opens up these ‘allies’ to military retaliation.

And if you take every nation with a maritime force in IOR as a threat to IN, then a that is paranoid behavior and b there is no way you could not consider USN, which can not be met at sea with the current or projected economic and military resources, so that forces a political decision to ally with or against, see 1971, USN carrier battle group and how it was dealt with through political choices.

That’s how Nato flotilla’s in the North Atlantic evaded USSR long range assets, in the face of significant threat posed by WP forces during the cold war. IIRC, they only ‘lit up’ once sure that they had been detected.

“EMCON is used to prevent an enemy from detecting, identifying, and locating friendly forces. It is also used to minimize electromagnetic interference among friendly systems. EMCON is normally imposed by a commander to control all electromagnetic radiations. Once EMCON is imposed, general or specific restrictions may be added to the EMCON order, depending on the operational, intelligence, or technical factors for the area affected. “
http://www.tpub.com/ans/69.htm

“The objectives of EMCON are to deny the enemy any way that it may locate your position, to support the efforts to disrupt the enemy’s electiveness, and to allow your actions to go unnoticed. To accomplish these objectives, EMCON conditions are designed with the following guidelines:
– Minimize detection by enemy sensors
– Allow effective friendly command and control (C2)
– Support operations security (OPSEC)
– Support operational deception (OPDEC)
– Minimize interference among friendly systems
– Degrade effectiveness of enemy C2″
http://www.tpub.com/content/istts/14226/css/14226_61.htm

Info from EW/ESM, long range MPA surveillance, submarines mainly
Not sure how you mean the bit between brackets: I’ve indicated the threat that certain aircraft in the possession of certain countries can/may pose to IN fleet though not that such an operation would be EASY. Definitely possibilities for the IN to consider.

Planes, Bombers, and submarines are not going to carry out an attack on ships they have not detected, once the ships have been detected there is no point staying passive. No planes, bombers and submarines fire off randomly on naval targets until their are hostilities and a hot war going on.

Passive sensors and other resources (AEW, patrol and recon) will inform them about any MPA/submarine/early warning/recon planes that are out looking for naval vessels, if a attack occurs that is missed to be read by all the patrol/aew vessels/planes, and attains absolute surprise, and if a country well equipped and trained enough to attack a naval target well out at sea from multiple vectors and platforms does carry out such an attack then their is little the navy can do except hope all the defensive systems work, and yes ships will drown in such a well coordinated attack, such things happen in war.

Just that their is no such massive and well trained threat that exists till now, which might be countered with adding additional vessels to the naval vessel building plans that exist.

Not necessarily. ESM, for example, will detect e.g. radar emissions at far greater ranges than radars themselves can detect a target.

So what else is new?

The SHAR and the MiG-29K/any naval fighter will fire their missiles well within the ranges out to which the ship based and the air based sensors will give them this advantage. A planes radar is limited in the area it can view.

nothing new, just stating that the MiG-29K is primarily an air defence fighter on the carriers, optimized for that role.

And how long/often will you be running a continuous CAP, under what circumstances? The longer you have to run this, the more crew fatigue will come into play and the more the aircraft available will begin to exhibit wear and tear and defects. Over time, it may become more difficult to maintain a CAP, especially if the number of pilots and aircraft is limited (e.g. in the case of the SHAR).

Lets hope the assumed state of war does not last forever, if there are no planes of CAP or recon, then whatever planes can be launched off the deck.

No, it sounds like you missed the point.

Yes that its the quality of the systems and not the range of the missiles.
Your statement

Originally Posted by insomnia.delhi View Post
Got that covered with the planned capability to accomplish GoIs objectives in the region.

The biggest threat sails under the water, and that is where the IN lacks in offensive and defensive capability.

With 45km russian missiles and -eventually – 70km israeli missiles, you mean you don’t think AShM equipped aircraft out to 1500km from nearest shores are a problem?

Are we switching the discussion now from AAW to ASW?

I’m aware of that and that’s why I mentioned heli AEW. They are nowhere equal to fixed wing assets like E-2C in terms of capability though.

They do provide a capability to overcome the low altitude under the horizon run by planes and missiles.

To be operated from?

Land based with refueling, some news sources state changes to IAC-2 or 3 design to accommodate heavier planes through catapult launching systems, however some other news sources state that for the E2-D platform IN inquired about non-folding fixed wings with more fuel carrying capability to increase time on station, which leads me to believe that at least these planes will be land based, which should give an idea about their use.

From one or more of the countries listed previously?

What People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, Russia, Malaysia.

No PRC planes in the IOR, they don’t even have that big a naval presence.

Russia is not a threat, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia we are working together with to keep the oceans safe, besides any hostilities will occur in the Andaman and Nicobar joint commands area of influence.

By avoiding detection e.g. fly low and fast, by good planning e.g. coming in simultaneously along different vectors (forcing the CAP to split), by launching outside of opponent’s missile range etc.

They will be detected well outside of their missiles launch envelop even if they are flying low and fast.

The planes on CAP should concentrate on the targets they can deny the opportunity to launch, rest of the missiles fired will have to be absorbed by the groups defensive systems.

The biggest threat from these hypothetical Sukhoi’s will be that to other airborne platforms, ASW/AEW helicopters and planes, any MPA working with the naval vessels etc. It is here that a larger area protected by a longer ranged missile will be of more use.

The MiGs missile range?

It means that it is more dangerous to use shorter ranged AShMs. Thus the options for the attacker are limited:
a) use the limited range missiles but risk to launch platform of

b) use a longer ranged AShM and let the launch platform stand-off. Longer ranged missile may well be bigger and heavier, limiting the number that can be carried by the launch platform, which limits the size of the wave that be launched from a given set of aircraft.

Compare e.g. the 4 ton Moskit and 2,5 ton Brahmos with lengths of around 7-8 meters to smaller 4-5m missiles typically weighing well under 1 ton. The former are supersonic but only few can be carried, the latter tend to be subsonic but more can be carried.

Only the latest of the latter have sufficient range though due to air breathing motors.

Yeah they do, but you’d be better off killing launch platforms than incoming missiles as the former can return, rearm and attack you again, while the latter can’t.

The Launch Platform can fire from outside the range of most AAW missiles, in case of latest versions they can fire from outside the effective range at altitude (which i think they have to do to utilise the full range of a weapon)and as you said, or fire after coming in from under the horizon.

Trying to flip the argument? You yourself suggest current and planned capability was sufficient. My point was that I don’t think it may be sufficient.

Yes the current and planned capability of Naval vessles till 2020 for e.g the P-15A/B. Specifically in regards to IN and the Type-45.

The point was about which threats there may be against IN. You suggested there weren’t any that the current capability can’t deal with. I beg to differ.

The discussion is about the current and planned capability (which is planned to respond to the changing environment).

Originally Posted by insomnia.delhi

I don’t think IN can see any hostile nation in the IOR which require more than the projected capability(the ships work with the two fleets).

Your view of the threats that IN can face in completing its objectives that far out at sea are very all-inclusive, there are geo-political realities to consider.

For e.g: IN is not planning on taking on the oil blocks AF and Navy, if it has to then the objective has already failed and no amount of naval power can resolve it.

A ship not in EMCON will give its position away irrespective of whether or not it is stealthy. (how do ships at sea detect air threats several hundreds of km away without going active?) Besides, the aggressor by have an SSK shadowing a group of opposing vessels, again making the radar related stealthiness of ships less relevant.

Without going active and revealing the position of the stealthy ship?

when planes, bombers, naval vessels are trying to find you out and sink you with missiles and torpedoes, that does not sound like a time that requires strict emission control (rather a time to use all sensors that can operate without interfering with each other), unless they believe they have the element of surprise on their side and can move into an area undetected by relying on passive measures alone.

How does one fire a long ranged missile on to a target without knowing where the target is? (as i see you said “With 45km russian missiles and -eventually – 70km israeli missiles, you mean you don’t think AShM equipped aircraft out to 1500km from nearest shores are a problem?”)

I do see the advantage of a larger area covered by such a missile, my question was, is that enough at sea when the threat could be a long ranged antiship missile?

Yes they could, if they detected them. How well will a SHAR handle a Su-30MK#? Or a Mig-29 an F15E? How many will be available to defend the task group?

A SHAR and a MiG-29K will have the advantage of being guided to the location of the threat, and a greater situational awareness through the ship based sensors.

Primary role of the plane is fleet air defense, with anti surface and recon/attack roles.

What do you mean by ‘how many’, maintenance wise? If four planes are on a CAP and with fuel, then i suppose four are available, along with what ever planes can take off from the deck of the carrier.

Then the issue about an AAW vessel becomes a moot point because all escorting vessels are considered AAW vessels (but none of these is particularly specialized and hence all are less capable than a specialised vessel would be, unless all are top of the line AAW ships, which they aren’t)

That sounds like the choice a navy will make depending on its requirements.

With what will the IN see the incoming aircraft/missiles? AEW-H?

Another helicopter is the Russian-built Kamov Ka-31, deployed by Indian Navy on Krivak-III frigates.

Ka-31s service in Indian Navy is from aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates and shore based facilities.

It will have better performance finding anti ship missiles flying low, and surface vessels than it will have detecting aircrafts.

The helicopters will be deployed from the INS Viraat aircraft carrier

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ka31/

The navy already has a fleet of nine Ka-31 helicopters, which are deployed on India’s only aircraft carrier INS Virat and the Talwar Class guided missile stealth frigates of the navy.

They also operate from the navy’s shore-based air stations.

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/general/20090807_indian_navy.html

And the Navy is looking for fixed wing AEW options

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/06/14/AW_06_14_2010_p48-233219.xml

Su-30
Kh-31A mod 1 50 km.
Kh-31A mod 2 69 km.
Kh-31P mod 1 150 km.
Kh-31P mod 2 200 km.
Kh-59ME : 200 km (110 nmi)
Kh-59MK : 285 km (150 nmi)

A few pairs of aircraft on different vectors and there you have it.

Where are these Su-30s coming in from?

How do they attain the surprise to attack unchallenged?

What advantage does a 150km anti air missile have over a 70km anti air missile when the attacking aircraft launches its missile at 200-300kms?

The MR and SR missiles and CIWS in the service have a role of shooting down anti ship missiles.

Do you see a market opportunity (outside of Russia and India) which could help the T-50 project finance its upgrades and design work through selling the initial block?

Dont understand your point, can you eloborate? Do you mean that the India shore is vast enough that IN does not need a real AAW at sea?

The primary concern for Indian navy is to keep the energy supply secure in IOR(Indian ocean region), and to keep trade secure in the IOR, anyone reading all the commentary by Indian navy could come to that conclusion.

Look at the challenges facing the IN in this region there is no threat (untill we have to face USN, or till PLAN gets 2 large operating carriers equipped fleets into the area(which requires the construction of at-least 3 carriers), which requires more than what is planned, probably a kolkata class and its evolution with a good medium range and short range coverage backed with sensors and aircrafts from the carriers.When the time comes to respond to such a challege we will have to, and that time seems far far away (diplomatic and naval realities).

For all the BS doled out, as we keep on increasing the coast guard to handle near land issues practically all of our navy will be directed towards supporting the land and air force in the region.

Now unlike what many arrogant and pompous people assume, we have our a@ses covered.

Sending one of our planned carrier battle groups into the south China sea is not our objective.

Making life tough for any fleet that is hostile towards us is a objective in the IOR, one that our planned fleets can take care off.