Indian Defence News & Discussions

[Oracle]

All your info are belong to me?

Ready to dig latrines?

[Double Edge]

The point here is to educate you that there are better ways to spend defence dollars.

Yes there are.

Invest in the people. Good people make a good military. Not better equipment

Sticking a pilot from a blue collar background into a Rafale is like hiring an auto rick driver and making him drive your BMW. Problematic.

Background on the Rafale. I think he's being honest. Does not stop people accusing him of

- belittling our men
- american agent
- knows nothing. See this comment

seems like his opinion is based on some misinformed open sources may be on internet or chatting with few misinformed individuals like himself,
I have experience on maintenance of late III batch of MKIs, the platform offers so much space and power to operate variety of different solutions and armaments of either Rus Ind and also Isr and French origins, in air superiority either in BVR or WVR the plane is unmatched , the ECM working flawlessly in various international exercises this jet will remain untouchable to any BVR missile currently in enemy's inventory.
Regarding the event of 27th Feb, dual Aim120C5 firings from 2 F-16 BLK50 on 2 MKI from a range of 70km and 75km both of our MKIs not only dodged 4 AIM120 missiles but also gained impact angle supremacy & azimuth supremacy with in 3 minutes of BVR combat on fleeing but now super sonic F-16s, so WSO although weapons free took an Intention Judgment not to waste R-77s, critical data from amraam missile engagements were gathered thanks to brilliant ISR sensors.

Depressing listen. No matter what platform we go for, there will be a section that will slam it for whatever reason.

Russian ? Bad ASS
Western ? Too expensive
Indigenous ? we can't build a jet engine worth squat and funnily enough neither can the Chinese either

: (

The military makes do with what we can afford and uses what it has. End of story.

[Double Edge]

There's more to it. Wait for jlvfr to request me once more. :D

Well yes, the decoy actions to distract the Aussies while you capture NZ en route.

[Oracle]

Well yes, the decoy actions to distract the Aussies while you capture NZ en route.

Hah! Aussies can't even fight their Kangaroos. I'm interested only in Cook Islands. Me, the only dictator there. I'll give the Colonel lifetime visa to come and fish.

[Oracle]

The point here is to educate you that there are better ways to spend defence dollars.

Case in point. Which is better? An Indian aircraft carrier with MiG-29s or 5 squadrons of SU-27s with ariel refuelling?

Carrier with Mig-29s, the aerial tanker can be shot down.

[Officer of Engineers]

So you think 30 half load planes can do the job of 150 full load planes.

There's a 150 planes. You can do a lot of CAP.

[Oracle]

So you think 30 half load planes can do the job of 150 full load planes.

There's a 150 planes. You can do a lot of CAP.

My first thought was survival. How do I ensure survivability of my assets. Carriers are better protected with offensive battle groups (boomers, destroyers, frigates, ASW helis, jets on the AC etc). But, an aerial tanker can be shot down with ease.

If it's a war between India & Pakistan, I'll take 5 squadrons of Su-27 over AC. But, if India has to fight with China in the oceans, AC is suited better. Btw, 5 squadrons of jets makes 90 or 100 jets in IAF.

It depends on the mission objectives what hardware to choose. You haven't given any scenario, so this is what I came up with.

[jlvfr]

If it's a war between India & Pakistan, I'll take 5 squadrons of Su-27 over AC.

Even in this scenario, you'd still need a carrier, if the Indian Navy wants to blokade/attack Pakistan's ports. Did it not also carry out such ops in the past?

[Oracle]

Even in this scenario, you'd still need a carrier, if the Indian Navy wants to blokade/attack Pakistan's ports. Did it not also carry out such ops in the past?

I know. I deliberately kept that part out from my discussion with the Colonel.

[Officer of Engineers]

My first thought was survival. How do I ensure survivability of my assets. Carriers are better protected with offensive battle groups (boomers, destroyers, frigates, ASW helis, jets on the AC etc). But, an aerial tanker can be shot down with ease.

You're talking MiG-29s with half the range of a Su-27. You need air refueling regardless.

It depends on the mission objectives what hardware to choose. You haven't given any scenario, so this is what I came up with.

The Cold War provides ample examples of CBG and anti-CBG thinking.

Even in this scenario, you'd still need a carrier, if the Indian Navy wants to blokade/attack Pakistan's ports. Did it not also carry out such ops in the past?

India and Pakistan are next door to each other. If the InAF cannot attack Pakistani ports from several axis, then a 4 star needs to find a new job.

Blockades would be more political than military. Would India dare to stop Chinese, American, and more especially Iranian and Saudi freighters from docking? Consider this, India needs oil. Speaking of which, what blockade? Pakistan has land routes to China and Iran.

Plus the Indian carrier are restricted to 26 MiG-29s. Hardly an overwhelming force for blockade. A combat restricted zone would be better serve with SSKs, forcing the Pakistani Navy to spend an a hell of a lot of time doing their most hilarious version of ASW. An aircraft carrier would be an extremely tempting target to which the Pakistani AF most assuredly holds the upper hand.

[Double Edge]

You're talking MiG-29s with half the range of a Su-27. You need air refueling regardless.

The Cold War provides ample examples of CBG and anti-CBG thinking.

India and Pakistan are next door to each other. If the InAF cannot attack Pakistani ports from several axis, then a 4 star needs to find a new job.

Blockades would be more political than military. Would India dare to stop Chinese, American, and more especially Iranian and Saudi freighters from docking? Consider this, India needs oil. Speaking of which, what blockade? Pakistan has land routes to China and Iran.

Plus the Indian carrier are restricted to 26 MiG-29s. Hardly an overwhelming force for blockade. A combat restricted zone would be better serve with SSKs, forcing the Pakistani Navy to spend an a hell of a lot of time doing their most hilarious version of ASW. An aircraft carrier would be an extremely tempting target to which the Pakistani AF most assuredly holds the upper hand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trident_(1971)

It was partial

[jlvfr]

I do remember reading about carrier ops involving Sea Hawks.

[Officer of Engineers]

It was partial

That's like saying you're partially pregnant. The strategic concepts are isolation and reduction. There was no isolation.

[Double Edge]

Vipin's in town

Given that Vajpayee had said similar then Rajnath isn't saying anything new.

It's not a change of doctrine.

China would have said something by now.

[Double Edge]

Neither India nor Pakistan can destroy the other's nuclear retalitotry response. Anyone who believes so don't know the first thing about nuke wars. There's only two powers that can do that to India AND Pakistan and they're not in the Asian sub-continent. Even then, both Russia and the US will have to dig deep into their nuke reserves to accomplish this.

You're referring to an all out pre-emptive strike.

There is a second scenario where we see them moving their TNW's to the border.

What do we do ?

We're saying don't count on us to sit by and idly watch them come over.

The previous NSA did not find any contradiction between pre-emption & NFU.

We see them moving on us, they're going to use them. Take them out.