Doesn't that change with Biden though. The Chinese have a lot more freedom of action once he takes power. So we might see a skirmish within the coming months..
Line of Actual Control (LAC) : India & Tibet Border Updates
- Thread starter Shashank
- Start date
A skirmish is likely to happen, regardless of whether Trump or Biden are in power. But I was referring to a war.
Obviously but the chances of the skirmish happening much earlier are now much higher than with trump being in office. The Chinese stock market started growing once Biden victory came closer. That means U.S pressure might go way down than what was presently in plan..
The skirmish, if it's meant to happen, will happen, regardless of who is in power, since this was decided a long time ago by the Chinese. It won't change anything much in terms of relationship between all three countries.
A skirmish is nothing much, it could just be extremely localised or could have only a few units involved. Only a war, which will see a full scale theatre action, will be very serious.
The skirmish's date has just been "preponed" with the election of Biden. That's my point. Whatever future date the Chinese had planned the skirmish has just come closer. Same for their force modernisation plan which was planned to come to fruition in 2030 and now is planned to be realised by 2027. 2035 is when they take the reigns from the U.S to start the new age of Pax-sinica...
You can takeoff runways at high altitude and longer runways are required because fighters have to speed up to attain lift. Here IAS(indicated air speed by pitot tubes) measures air pressure when wings can take load of aircraft. Leaving complex variables aside, operating from high altitude cause immense pressure on Jet engines and tires.
Again, no difference whether it's Trump or Biden. Even publicly revealing their advancement makes no difference, since Trump wouldn't be in power after 2024 even if re-elected, and they announced it long before the election anyway. The Chinese are not doing anything based on whether Trump will come back to power or not. Most of the security-related matters are handled by the Pentagon, not the president. It's not like Trump's standing between India and China. You are trying to relate things that are unrelated. The Chinese plan for many decades, not just a few years or the next month.
They have the numbers to make multiple Sorties. Their ammo has the traction to reach our FAB & ALG. It's not as rosy a picture as the IAF is trying to paint it when they say they'd have air dominance. I think that's the thrust of the tweets there.
Pentagon and American industrial help to the Chinese are also two different things.
Everything that @Falcon mentioned in his tweets are significantly disadvantageous to achieve for the Chinese.
- Longer runways and faster takeoffs would mean faster wear and tear, not a good idea for a Russian or Chinese jet.
- Restricting strike missions to particular times would mean easier planning for our side. Less work and less stress for our air force personnel.
- Using tankers would mean an impending strike is easier to predict. And it results in extremely low turnaround times for tanker missions.
- As for proximity: it's a problem for both sides. They will use SSMs, we will use ASMs. Both are quite cheap. Ours will be more survivable though and will see greater success, so we can do more with less. Attacking from the air is far, far more efficient than attacking from the ground.
The main advantage they have at this time is their greater numbers and very high assortment of SSMs and artillery. In order to change the equation here, we need to adequately modernise, which will take a few years. But they currently retain this advantage.
All we can do in a major war with what we have today is put up a fight in a losing battle. We can't do much more than that. Chinese Flankers and J-10s outstick our Flankers and Mig-29s and are technologically a generation ahead. The Jaguars are inadequate for the terrain and are yet to be upgraded. Our Rafale and upgraded M2000s are far too small in number to create a decisive advantage. Also, many of their bases in the Ladakh sector are not affected by high altitude air fields, although they are quite far away. Nevertheless, overall they have better advantages than we do. But one advantage I can think of that we have is our excellent new comm system from Israel, I hope it's been deployed in sufficient numbers, which will allow us to be more aggressive in attacking enemy comm systems.
What we can do effectively today is pound their ground positions in forward areas to kingdom come. Make the life of a PLAGF soldier hell. Ultimately, we have to win on the ground, not in the air.
- Longer runways and faster takeoffs would mean faster wear and tear, not a good idea for a Russian or Chinese jet.
- Restricting strike missions to particular times would mean easier planning for our side. Less work and less stress for our air force personnel.
- Using tankers would mean an impending strike is easier to predict. And it results in extremely low turnaround times for tanker missions.
- As for proximity: it's a problem for both sides. They will use SSMs, we will use ASMs. Both are quite cheap. Ours will be more survivable though and will see greater success, so we can do more with less. Attacking from the air is far, far more efficient than attacking from the ground.
The main advantage they have at this time is their greater numbers and very high assortment of SSMs and artillery. In order to change the equation here, we need to adequately modernise, which will take a few years. But they currently retain this advantage.
All we can do in a major war with what we have today is put up a fight in a losing battle. We can't do much more than that. Chinese Flankers and J-10s outstick our Flankers and Mig-29s and are technologically a generation ahead. The Jaguars are inadequate for the terrain and are yet to be upgraded. Our Rafale and upgraded M2000s are far too small in number to create a decisive advantage. Also, many of their bases in the Ladakh sector are not affected by high altitude air fields, although they are quite far away. Nevertheless, overall they have better advantages than we do. But one advantage I can think of that we have is our excellent new comm system from Israel, I hope it's been deployed in sufficient numbers, which will allow us to be more aggressive in attacking enemy comm systems.
What we can do effectively today is pound their ground positions in forward areas to kingdom come. Make the life of a PLAGF soldier hell. Ultimately, we have to win on the ground, not in the air.
If we treat different arms of military separately then ofcourse Chinese have advantage in air. But that doesn't necessarily means that they would achieve air dominance in a full scale war, because from the onset of war all their airbases will face the massive strike from world's best cruise missile which will make their airbases defunct and will also destroy many of their aircrafts. As they have only 4 airbases it would be easy for us to do a sustained and concentrated strike. Whereas Chinese can't do same with us as we have far more airbases in the proximity of LAC. We could spread our resources to ensure minimum damage from Chinese missile strikes. And after their quiver gets empty then launch massive retaliation. AFAIK it is the strategy of IAF for a war with China and it is best in present circumstances.
I'm pretty sure we can't compare with the Chinese when it comes to the number of missiles.
To put that in perspective.
USAF aims to double long-term JASSM production up to 10,000 units
The US Department of Defense (DoD) is increasing potential long-term production quantities of Lockheed Martin Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) from a possible maximum of 4,900 to a possible maximum of 10,000.
www.flightglobal.com
And the Pentagon still says the Chinese have them beat when it comes to missiles.
So expecting them to empty their quiver soon after a war starts will be quite irresponsible. I won't be surprised if they have 100 Brahmos class missiles to every one of ours.
Countries like the US and China can throw away as much money on missiles alone as we do on our entire yearly capital expenditure.
Lockheed Martin's Missiles & Fire Control in west Orlando won an $80.2 million contract from the U.S. Army to ramp-up production of its Hellfire missiles. Lockheed Martin will increase production to up to 11,000 missiles per year.
US seeks to buy THOUSANDS of deadly Hellfire missiles to blast enemy
THE US Pentagon wants to buy thousands more deadly Hellfire missiles to use in future warfare.
We are bacchas in this game.
I have read the posts. One thing is clear that even @Falcon agrees that there will be certain times when PLAAF will not be able to operate. We will know those limitations and we will not be constrained in our operations. so effectively, we will have windows in which we will have complete control of the skies. The aspect of longer runways is not properly understood by many. It is correct that you can overcome part of the problem of high altitude airfields by longer runways but arn't longer runways easy to interdict? We were trained to operate from taxiways and also part operational runways in case the runway is bombed. You can't do that when you need longer runway for take off. At the same time the option of operating from roads is not available to PLAAF for this very reason. Warfare is all about attrition, domination and denial. It is not about complete destruction of the enemy forces. Any air battle in Aksai Hind will be decided by just two factors-Sortie rate and weapon load. In both these cases PLAAF is at very serious disadvantage. One more aspect not understood by many is that during snowfall, the entire airbase will be become non operational for many hours till the snow is cleared from the runway. Taking off and landing on contaminated runway, especially for fighters is extremely hazardous and you can have unmitigated disasters attempting them. IAF suffers no such problem anywhere except Leh.
Well even if they do have 100 times more missiles than us still those missiles can't stop our Bramhos from attacking their airbases. And given the fact that we have to target only 4 airbases we have enough missiles to make them useless.I'm pretty sure we can't compare with the Chinese when it comes to the number of missiles.
To put that in perspective.
The US Department of Defense (DoD) is increasing potential long-term production quantities of Lockheed Martin Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) from a possible maximum of 4,900 to a possible maximum of 10,000.USAF aims to double long-term JASSM production up to 10,000 units
The US Department of Defense (DoD) is increasing potential long-term production quantities of Lockheed Martin Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) from a possible maximum of 4,900 to a possible maximum of 10,000.
And the Pentagon still says the Chinese have them beat when it comes to missiles.
So expecting them to empty their quiver soon after a war starts will be quite irresponsible. I won't be surprised if they have 100 Brahmos class missiles to every one of ours.
Countries like the US and China can throw away as much money on missiles alone as we do on our entire yearly capital expenditure.
Lockheed Martin's Missiles & Fire Control in west Orlando won an $80.2 million contract from the U.S. Army to ramp-up production of its Hellfire missiles. Lockheed Martin will increase production to up to 11,000 missiles per year.
The Pentagon asked for for 7,000 more SDB IIs compared to last year.US seeks to buy THOUSANDS of deadly Hellfire missiles to blast enemy
THE US Pentagon wants to buy thousands more deadly Hellfire missiles to use in future warfare.www.express.co.uk
We are bacchas in this game.
Now about the Chinese inventory
this is all Chinese have according to US DOD. Also remember that Chinese can only field at most 30% of their inventory against us as their primary security concern is SCS.
One more point their CMs are subsonic hence could easily be intercepted by our ADS.
Only threat our forward airbases face are the long range rocket artillery of China and I think we should protect our forward airbases with Iron dome which has an excellent record in intercepting guided and unguided rockets.
My understanding is PLAAF will not be able to launch strikes during hot days, but can during nights, but this is only while operating from the plateau. In the Ladakh sector, from Hotan (1400m), Kashghar (1400m) and Keriya (should be similar) they can operate as normally as we can since the altitudes there are no different from Srinagar and Awantipore. On the plateau, they only have Ngari as their main air base.
But what they can do from any air base at any time of the day is QRA and CAP. So their goal will be to prevent the IAF from bombing them, which will most likely be their main objective for plateau bases. With such a simple objective, they will be able to tunnel into mountains to function as hangars and operate from termporary runways that can be built very quickly. Numerous such runways can be built all along their main highway, with each operating 6 jets, presumbaly by using 1 regiment of J-11B and 2 regiments of J-10C, which gives them a pretty decent 72 jets for the mission. They also have the money to do it. With QRA and CAP being handled by such small, distributed bases, the bigger air bases with longer runways can handle more complex missions.
So their problem of low sortie rate can be dealt with by using numerous distributed bases operating more aircraft. As for payload, their 3 bases on the plains will deal with that problem.
The main threat posed by any airforce is the ability to destroy ground forces. If PLAAF is confined to its own bases for just CAP, we need not even bomb their bases. We will be happy destroying their land forces.
Not what I meant. I meant they will use their plateau bases for QRA, CAP and air denial missions. Whereas they will use Hotan and Keriya for strike missions inside India, including our air bases. Furthermore, those CAP jets operating from the plateau can even provide fighter sweeps and top cover for the strike aircraft, so the strike package can meet up with the air superiority package closer to the border to create surprise.
They are not going to make it simple in Ladakh since Hotan and Keriya are no different from Srinagar and Awantipore.
Honestly, in the Ladakh sector, I don't think the IAF has any real terrain and infrastructure advantage over PLAAF. Both of our strike packages have to come in from distant air bases as well. And our Leh, Thoise bases, and any other ALGs we have built since, will serve the same purpose as the distributed air bases that PLAAF may go for.
We have height advantage over them when it comes to location of our radars. We will pick them up much before they pick up our aircraft. We have shorter distance to travel to the battle area compared to PLAAF. That gives us an advantage of reaction time and ability to be in position to ambush them when they come over to the battle area. Whichever way you look at it, PLAAF has no advantage over IAF.
Now take another case, we know when they can mount their strikes and we take them on with our CAPs. What will happen then? Our aircraft being closer to their operating bases can hold CAP for a longer duration while PLAAF will be constrained due to distance from the operating bases. We can call up more fighters at a much shorter time to change the ratios. Can PLAAF do it?
Please recollect 27th feb 2019. PAF had the same advantage against India which we have against PLAAF. They took off from bases closer to our border and were able to create a barrier CAP with over 12 aircraft and stay in air for about one hour in station. Our SU-30MKI were at the end of their patrol time and same was the case with our M2Ks. PAF planned it well and their execution was pathetic. They did not factor in point defence fighters like Mig-21 spoiling their party. How far is Aksai Chin from Srinagar and Awantipur or Ambala and Adampur? Just the way we spoiled the party of PAF on 27th Feb 2019, we can do it with much better effect against PLAAF as PLAAF does not enjoy that advantage in terms of closeness of airfields to Aksai Chin.
"Mathe par pasina tha aur pair kaamp rahey they". Yeh kyon hua? Because our Brahmos were covering every airfield of PAF. Forward offensive deployment which PAF and PA have has its advantages and also disadvantages. Forward offensive deployment is a deterrent and a disaster in case of an all out war when the enemy also adopts offensive defence as its policy. Which India did under Doval. We have moved on from the static defence and holding pivot corps to CSD. Please try and remember my posts on another forum in which I had listed the delimma PA & PAF have in countering our IBGs. For your information, part of Mountain strike corps is deployed in Aksai Chin with its HQ also moved including the Mountain strike Corps Commander stationed in that area.