I agree, India should use the acronym COL - Chinese Occupied Ladakh or COAC - Chinese Occupied Aksai Chin
Line of Actual Control (LAC) : India & Tibet Border Updates
- Thread starter Shashank
- Start date
The height towards the south overlooking dsdbo road, is on the chinese sude of LAC. So, its not the same as kargil..
We are not integrated with them, our SAMs will shoot them down.
For air defence, it's possible. We are talking about just 2 to 4 aircraft formations, which are the most basic formations.
While the pilots will be unable to use the Rafale to its fullest extent, they are nevertheless highly experienced pilots with thousands of hours on other jets. So what they lack in terms of familiarity with the jet, they can make up with experience.
As long as they stay within our SAM engagement zones and commit only to air defence, they will be able to manage things fine.
Tactics can be worked out. Either enforce no engagement below a certain altitude and friendlies keep above it or else batteries hold fire for a time window.
It has nothing to do with tactics, all to do with technology. We do not have the same communication systems. We can't earmark some altitudes as safe since enemy attacks can also come in from the same altitude. The airspace has to be foolproof.
Anyway, the IAF is confident of taking on the PLAAF without any assistance. We do not need external assistance. If they weren't, then we would have bought American tech a long time ago.
By our own estimates, the Rafale is 2x more capable than the Su-30MKI even without bringing Meteor into the equation. This gives us a level of superiority that's not matched by the Chinese or Pakistanis.
Each hour of a fighter or bomber in air is supported by a substantial hours on ground under maintenance. India has NEVER operated an American fighter or bomber. I doubt our ground crew has required tech and know how to maintain, arm and resupply the US planes. Plus US AWACS need to work with our fighters/bombers and vice versa or else friendly fire is likely. Given Chicoms and India both field one kind or another flankers, we need a way for US fighters to find enemies in the sky.
For minor tactical gains on the ground, China has strategically lost India, says former Indian Ambassador to China
Beijing’s has tried to unilaterally define LAC by taking control of territory, says Gautam Bambawale
He's obviously referring to bringing the support structure as well.
During war, air forces with two completely different systems can't work together. Friendly fire is 100% guaranteed.
Friendly fire is already extremely likely even when using our own systems. The Americans have a bad history of shooting down their own stuff, even killing their own troops on the ground. On two different systems, we are going to see each other as enemies.
For any American involvement in the air, we will need them to replace all their comm systems with what the IAF uses, or vice versa. And then they also need to train together with us for a long time before being able to operate with each other, and in the same environment. But that also means the Americans will know most of our secrets.
Sarder Patel' s Warnings in 1950
He wrote about a Two Front threat
Read the entire thread
Not that easy. That means refitting all the workshops with tools and implements to support US air crafts. Also stock all the required spares, weapons and consumables to support these birds.
Here is one really really crude analogy. If anyone maintains one of the luxary or super cars like BMWs or even higher Fararis, they will know the amount of prescriptions supplies and parts needed to keep them running and they don't work across cars of different companies. Fighters jets from LockMart take that to an even bigger extreme. Its like taking a BMW maintenance center and converting it into a Ferrari one. Sure you can do it, but it won't happen in a hurry.
It's easy. The Americans have focused a lot on expeditionary capabilities. So they require their air force to be able to move to any part of the world to operate. Which is why they make sure they can send groups of aircraft with minimum logistics. For example, both the F-22 and F-35 can be supported by 1 C-17 for a group of 4 jets. So all the men, maintenance and spares can be supplied with just 1 C-17.
And the Americans operate over 200 C-17s.
We can do the same with our jets as well. Whenever we go to Red Flag, we take multiple aircraft with all the spares and support necessary for high tempo war-like operations.
Most air forces already possess such a capability.
Rajnath's visit to Russia was planned much in advance and much before this stand off. Please read the newspapers of April and May.
Even if it is the least of provocation, India has unilaterally created an agreement and forced it on the chinese whether they like it or not, that we now have the license to hunt pigs.
Scale. And difference between war and war like tempo. It ain't the same ting.We can do the same with our jets as well. Whenever we go to Red Flag, we take multiple aircraft with all the spares and support necessary for high tempo war-like operations.
It's pretty much the same thing.
After joint military exercise, IAF team returns from US - Indian Express
The multi-lateral joint exercise of the Indian Air Force in the United States along with the air forces of United States, Korea and France recently came to an end with the Indian contingent receiving
archive.indianexpress.com
You can say that they used at least 3 or 4 days of combat capability. Also remember these sorties were not supported by new supplies from India. That entire 800 hours of flying is just by using 1 single load of supplies and personnel, including 200 hours of LFE.
The only difference is you are not losing jets to combat.