Debate: Countering the PLAAF

[Kunal Biswas]

There are few things, PLAAF taking off from TAR cannot be havliy armed, We know this from our own expreience at Kargil where AL-31 were not working well at those altitides, So they will be less armed ..

There are 15 airbases at TAR & all with no Serious Military infrastructure, Where as they are facing more than 30 airbases at N.E and similar number over north India, So despite the numbers they cannot be send in mass number, Unless they take risk of getting shot down with in flght refuelers from far eastern airbases ..

===============

SAM umbrella, Fighter CAPs, Surveillance with long range radar as @bengalraider said, Is an effective way to deter PLAAF ..

As of Platforms, My bet is on Tejas MK2 as it can be modified as per need and can be mass produce as per need, And yes HAL can do it if there is political will ..

But the question is how to maintain arial dominance over our skies once PLAAF invades.

Tejas can maybe take on J-10 and win with 2:1 or 3:2 ratio. But PLAAF has almost 3 times the number of Su-27+Su-30MKK+J-11+J-16 than we have Su-30MKI+Super-30.

By the time we have FGFA, PLAAF will have more J-20. By the time we have AMCA, PLAAF will have more J-31.

We have to achieve sqadron strength of 42 minimum, but 48 might be better.

So which platform should we go for to make up 42-48 sqadrons, apart from he MKI & Tejas being inducted?

Also, we do not have any answer for their J-8. That is why I said maybe we should go for 5-6 squadrons of Mig-31M.

And, the number of deep penetration platforms like our Jaguars and Mig-29UPG are too old and too few. Whereas PLAAF have many squadrons of JH-7. That is why I said that we should scrap MMRCA and go for 10 squadrons of Mig-35.

With 5-6 squadrons of Mig-31M and 10 squadrons of Mig-35, we will get good parity with PLAAF, and at much lesser cost than 126 Rafales.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Given the thread at hand, We need to have some defensive weapon which can shoot down incoming super-sonic cruise missiles at low altitude or vertical taking a dive ..

i speak of the CJ-10 "Longsword LACM". The sheer 2500km range of this missile makes it the biggest threat to Indian airbases in a long time.

 

[arnabmit]

The kill vehicle for Supersonic Cruise Missile Defence already exists in AAD @ Mach 4.5. Astra based point defence quick-reaction SAM would also add to the capability.

However the problem remains detection of enemy CM. Hope DRDO can quickly finish the 10km altitude aerostat radar they are working on. It would be much more effective and powerful than the JLENS.

Given the thread at hand, We need to have some defensive weapon which can shoot down incoming super-sonic cruise missiles at low altitude or vertical taking a dive ..

 

[p2prada]

And you still want India to continue importing & put an end to indigenous programs. The Irony

Hardly true. I am all for indigenous programs.

It is just that I am very realistic about what we can do and what we cannot.

I am all for imports for items that we cannot make at home and there's plenty of that. The problem with pro-indigenous lobby here is they don't understand the fact that we can't make 90% of the stuff at home even if we start full fledged programs for those.

We can't make wide bodied aircraft, we can't make high end fighter aircraft, we cannot even make our own medium lift and heavy lift helicopters. Even if we start programs today, we need foreign companies to do most of the design and development work while we only integrate and then manufacture.

All our successful programs today are items the western countries have already made since the '70s. The issue here is our enemies are importing as well, and they are importing way better stuff that we can develop at home. The only way to counter is to import even better stuff and we are doing that and it is currently the only way.

Here, the belief is that importing will reduce dependence on indigenous items which is nowhere close to the truth. Our LCA program in no way interferes with MKI or FGFA programs. And Rafale specifications have been done in such a way that it doesn't interfere with LCA either.

We are currently developing low end items while importing high end items. The reason I support imports is as simple as we can't win wars with low end items only. We need high end items. The buy and make category under the new DPP rules is for high end items only. So, even the govt knows very well what we can and what we cannot do.

Nowhere in the forum have I ever said we should not induct indigenous items.

I have always insisted on focusing on the things we can do and not let the things we cannot do get in the way of the things we can do.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

We don't have that yet, Its planned, To be frank we have only one system that is tungushka M1 to defeat incoming Cruise Missile at low altitude, To defeat such thread there is need for layered air-defence consist of various systems consist of both Guns and Missiles ..

Gun systems > Outer-layer by massive L70 cannon guided by radar & Inner system consist of Tungushka or ZU-23-4
Missile Systems > Outer layer by Akash & Mid layer by OSK-AK and Short range by MANPADs ..

We have already various low altitude radar, Consist of Indra series ..

The kill vehicle for Supersonic Cruise Missile Defence already exists in AAD @ Mach 4.5. Astra based point defence quick-reaction SAM would also add to the capability.

However the problem remains detection of enemy CM. Hope DRDO can quickly finish the 10km altitude aerostat radar they are working on. It would be much more effective and powerful than the JLENS.

 

[Kyubi]

Hardly true. I am all for indigenous programs.

It is just that I am very realistic about what we can do and what we cannot.

I am all for imports for items that we cannot make at home and there's plenty of that. The problem with pro-indigenous lobby here is they don't understand the fact that we can't make 90% of the stuff at home even if we start full fledged programs for those.

We can't make wide bodied aircraft, we can't make high end fighter aircraft, we cannot even make our own medium lift and heavy lift helicopters. Even if we start programs today, we need foreign companies to do most of the design and development work while we only integrate and then manufacture.

What about Chinese aircraft's sir aren't they supposed to be home made xian y-20, fighter jet programs etc they have a thriving aerospace industry don't you think we need to address this deficit by propagating a more indigenous market friendly procurement procedure, i do believe not every part is feasible to be made in India at least efforts can be made to make LRU's in India by increasing the orders wouldn't that be more advantageous in case of a possible conflict scenario.

 

[p2prada]

What about Chinese aircraft's sir aren't they supposed to be home made xian y-20, fighter jet programs etc they have a thriving aerospace industry don't you think we need to address this deficit by propagating a more indigenous market friendly procurement procedure, i do believe not every part is feasible to be made in India at least efforts can be made to make LRU's in India by increasing the orders wouldn't that be more advantageous in case of a possible conflict scenario.

If our roles were reversed, they would have been in the gutter, like Iran.

They support their indigenous industry out of compulsion, not choice. We don't need that sort of handicap or we will always be inferior to them, given our budget.

Making 500 LCAs won't mean anything if the Chinese park 200 Flankers at our doorstep. They take out one air field and they can dominate an entire sector because of the huge range advantage of Flankers. They will be running CAP missions inside our territory.

The Chinese are able to maintain an indigenous industry because they have the kind of money to run multiple R&D programs at once, in parallel. For eg: While we have one AESA project, they have multiple AESA projects within the same company and then these companies pick their best radar and compete with other companies' best radars. That's how China does things. Imagine if we have two or three DRDOs instead of one, that's China.

Even with the J-20, it was the winner of an internal competition between SAC and CAC, which CAC won. Just like American ATF and JSF programs. Here in India, we have only one company guaranteed to win any program. And that company tries its best to completely cut out competition. For indigenous development MoD will always choose ADA, for joint development, HAL.

You can say China will have 5 (perhaps 7) 5th gen designs by the time we start with one. Two were J-20 and the unknown SAC equivalent. Second program is the revealed export FA-31/J-31. Third program could be a Navy program or a joint PLAAF/PLAN program for a medium weight fighter. Or a fourth program for an independent PLAN program, heavy or medium.

You can compare with the SAC Flanker program. They have two versions for PLAAF. Third for PLAN. And a fourth as a joint PLAN/PLAAF project. Possibility of a fifth PLAAF project as well to replace the first two. Each with 100-200 planned units. You think India can have so many? And only one of these was actually licensed from Russia.

The Chinese R&D budget could very well be as big as our entire military budget.

If you want to compare indigenous industries around the world. We are only a bit better than countries like Israel, S. Korea, Turkey, Taiwan and so on. Perhaps a match to Sweden. Nowhere near the biggies like US, Russia, France, UK, Germany, China etc. In certain technologies, smaller countries like the many European countries with their small arms and artillery industries, South Africa, Singapore are ahead of India. In certain technologies like naval technologies, we are completely outclassed by S. Korea and Japan too.

See, when we compare our industry with foreign industries, we are way behind. The armed forces in the country are the number one proponents of indigenization. They know how crucial it is. But the problem is our defence industry does not know it yet.

 

[no smoking]

If our roles were reversed, they would have been in the gutter, like Iran.

The roles were reversed in last 50s/60s, at the time, India was in a far better position of any industry production comparing to China.

They support their indigenous industry out of compulsion, not choice. We don't need that sort of handicap or we will always be inferior to them, given our budget.

On contrast to what your belief, it was the result of choice. Remember in last 90s, PLAAF told CCP they need at least 600-800 Su-27 class fighter to defend the country. But finally they only got less than half of that number while the rest of money went to the indigenous R&D. The products generated from these investment were J10 and even today's J20. This shows you that Chinese were willing to keep their national defense at minimum level to gurantee the budget for indigenous industry.

Making 500 LCAs won't mean anything if the Chinese park 200 Flankers at our doorstep. They take out one air field and they can dominate an entire sector because of the huge range advantage of Flankers. They will be running CAP missions inside our territory.

The fact is that Chinese has never been able to park 200 Flankers at your doorstep. They got 600 F15 to worry about now on their coast now and around 200 F-35/F-22 to worry about in the future. The last thing they want is to have a war with india while the amercian is still sitting at their doorstep. But I believe that very few indians would see that way.

The Chinese are able to maintain an indigenous industry because they have the kind of money to run multiple R&D programs at once, in parallel. For eg: While we have one AESA project, they have multiple AESA projects within the same company and then these companies pick their best radar and compete with other companies' best radars. That's how China does things. Imagine if we have two or three DRDOs instead of one, that's China.

The chinese are able to maintain an indigenous industry because they put their indigenous industry on the top of anything else.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

I wrote this on our front page Indian Defence Analysis -

It should make sense given the scenario we are considering where the military imbalance between China and India grows dramatically. Someone mentioned we should get Japan to take out a few spears to keep Chinese jets on its east coast. Why would Japan do that unless they are under treaty obligation which means India will help Japan if its attacked.

Throw in this with a two front threat and the scenario is gloomy. India does need a security alliance.

Your article is worth reading especially in the context of this thread.

 

[p2prada]

The roles were reversed in last 50s/60s, at the time, India was in a far better position of any industry production comparing to China.

No. China received a lot of foreign help between 1975 and 1989.

On contrast to what your belief, it was the result of choice. Remember in last 90s, PLAAF told CCP they need at least 600-800 Su-27 class fighter to defend the country. But finally they only got less than half of that number while the rest of money went to the indigenous R&D. The products generated from these investment were J10 and even today's J20. This shows you that Chinese were willing to keep their national defense at minimum level to gurantee the budget for indigenous industry.

No it wasn't choice. You were denied technologies since the 90s. Only the Russians came to your aid and there were very specific clauses detriment to the contract which China broke away from.

The fact is that Chinese has never been able to park 200 Flankers at your doorstep. They got 600 F15 to worry about now on their coast now and around 200 F-35/F-22 to worry about in the future. The last thing they want is to have a war with india while the amercian is still sitting at their doorstep. But I believe that very few indians would see that way.

Lucky us. Anyway, I am aware of it as are most Indians.

The chinese are able to maintain an indigenous industry because they put their indigenous industry on the top of anything else.

Yes, it is called compulsion. You are denied western weapons anyway. And after Russia denied ToT of the Flankers, the only choice was to reverse engineer. We didn't need that option, we just had to pay a bit more and we got the same with a better technology base. And saved a lot of time in the process. We are integrating our own weapons on to the MKI, something that is not possible without ToT of radar and carriage source codes.

Before the 90s, we were actually technologically ahead for a brief period with the development of Marut and Gnat. IAF has seen consistent technological lead since the induction of Jaguar and we have not yet lost the lead.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

There are few corrections here >>

1. Either sides are not willing to have a deep penetration strike with Aircraft, The main priority for both air-forces to provide CAS and SEAD and keep up Air supremacy over each other to a limited zone under friendly forces, Carrying out deep penetration is job of cruise missile and both nations are investing more on such systems.

2. The main priority of IAF to keep Air-supremacy over battle space, This require mammoth amount of sorties in-involving CAP mostly, Due to high rate of sorties an heavy fighter cannot be used for economical reasons as the operational and maintenance cost will extremely high, Due to this very reason Light fighter concept plays a major role, That is Tejas taken the primary work of Air-supremacy in majority of Wartime where as MKI will be used when most needed ..

3. There are some very notable obvious reasons that Tejas are more suited combat in eastern front, Not just having ability to conduct triple sorties compare to an flanker but also due to its ability to operate over higher altitudes where flanker cannot specially taking TAR region, Also due to its smaller size and composite air-frame and other stealth features it is a very low observable aircraft on radar compare to an all metal aircraft such as an flanker, Giving it a higher first attack chances compare to any operational fighter PLAAF has, Tejas`s BVR consist of both Israeli and Indian ( Astra ) Missiles, Debry`s range is still officially a secret .. @ersakthivel, can shed some light on Tejas BVRs ..

4. There are advantage and disadvantages are on both sides, Due to higher ground PLAAF can monitor IAF movement very clearly with help of long range radars where as their flankers J11 and J10 are ill suited for conducting raids or CAP with heavy loads due to rarity of Air, Though this can be retified with help of air refulers., IAF on other side at lower ground has limited surveillance capability but that is not an issue when there are AWACS, IAF advantage comes from massive airfield along LAC which are military in nature compare to those in TAR regions of PLAAF, This gives IAF airfields ability to endure punishment by cruise missile attacks, The same cannot said about PLAAF once over TAR ..

 

[Srinivas_K]

Chinese and their pics

 

[CCP]

A news from XinHua (2014-2-10)

PLAAF have 10 bases 3000m above sea level , and more bases on 1500m above sea level .

空军建成10座海拔3000以上高原机场-新华网

 

[p2prada]

1) Move all or most of the rumored 6-10 S-300 class systems we are supposed to currently possess from acting as a BM shield for the NCR and retask them to provide aircover for strategically important airbases like Bagdogra ,Agra and Kalaikunda.Use the green pines to provide a long range birds eye view into china.

There are no S-300 systems in India. DRDO prevented the import.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Report is outdated, Better in picture >>

Norther sector

Eastern sector

A news from XinHua (2014-2-10)

PLAAF have 10 bases 3000m above sea level , and more bases on 1500m above sea level .

空军建成10座海拔3000以上高原机场-新华网

 

[ersakthivel]

Let's face it. We simply cannot afford Rafale now or in the near future, unless we do some magic and achieve 9-10% GDP growth, Rupee evaluation, and CA surplus.

Also the mid-evaluation change in selection parameters and the ex-Dassault head being arrested for defence scams, Rafale might just change from being the "Mother of all defence deals" to the "Mother of all defence scams".

Typhoon is equally costly, if not more. F-16 & F-18 are too old airframes and evolutionary dead-ends. We are already making an equivalent to Grippen in Tejas MkII.

When finally FGFA and AMCA will become operational in a decade and a half, they would have to be counter J-20 & J-31.

So how do we counter the JH-7, J-8, J-10, J-11, J-16, which PRC is merrily reproducing faster than jackrabbits? Not to mention the huge numbers of Su-27, Su-30, & Su-35, which alone would definitely outnumber our entire Su-30MKI inventory.

My logic says that we either go for 300 Mig-35 for less than the price of 126 Rafale, or go for 200 Mig-35 + 100 Mig-31M combo.

What do you guys think?

Please check the availability rate of various Russian platforms in IAF , before recommending Mig-35. It is not for nothing that IAF pointedly excluded MIG-35 from MMRCA. It is still not a finished fighter and like the T-90 We will be the largest operator of the Mig-35.

If we follow the import and perish policy forever the gap between china and India will widen and in a decade's time it will resemble the india-Pakistan scenario of today.

Most of the imported or copied flanker versions of china too will have poor reliability and availability rate if we see the issues IAF have with various Mig and Su-30 platforms,

So chinese running CAP in our airspace is just a juvenile thought. HAVING THE NUMBERS IS ONE THING , BUT putting them all optimally at air is another thing.

We can use Nirbhay cruise missile strikes against air bases deep inside Tibet , And pray for the quicker development of tejas mk-3 stealth version to take on legacy flanker fleet in the border area.

Defending our vital assets with Akash mk-1( and in future mk-2)and derivatives of Indo-Israeli LR naval SAM derivatives will take care of our defensive needs along with our flanker fleet.

And for any meaningful counter strike we should look for AMCA, tejas mk-3 (if developed speedily) and FGFA fleet.

There is no need for alarm as most of the J-10s will perform very poorly from high himalayan airbases with way lower TWR than tejas mk-2. SO on that count we don't have to worry much.

So a prudent strategy of fielding high in number Tejas versions (which will have more availability rate ) and using the SAM missiles along with Mig-29s and having Su-30 MKI fleet as strategic strike force will satisfy our defence need.

Going for multi billion dollar few in number RAFALE like deals will expose us in defending the skies . Because while RAFALEs may carry more load in long range ground strike mission , in air to air roles in home air space defence they will leave vast areas unchallenged to the high in number PLAF fleet.

high in number tejas mk-2s with the help of AWACS and SU-30 MKi fleet will plug help us to defend better.

The 600 F-15s facing PLAF provides us no comfort, because the indian political leadership is very good at shooting its own feet repeatedly by not going in for any strategic pact with any other asian country or US by using muddled and myopic aim of pursuing "independent foreign policy " as an excuse.

 

[Yusuf]

This thread will not serve its purpose if we dwell into the future and talk about weapons system we will acquire (iffy).

I think the point of this thread should be what if there is a war in the next 6-12 months

What are Chinese options and how will India defend. At present the Indian preparedness is questionable although we will hold out in the end IMO.

 

[arnabmit]

IAF would max receive 16 Tejas in 1yr, or 4 squads every 5yrs. So, just filling the void of 14 squadrons left by retiring Mig-21, Bisons, Mig-23, Mig-27 would take 18-20yrs.

There is very little chance that there would be multiple Tejas lines (MkI and later MkII) as by the time MKI production ends, it would be time to start the FGFA line. Also, HAL would have to start and run the medium category fighter line, 4.5G till 2022 and AMCA beyond that.

Future of IAF (2025 onwards)

Category​	4.5G​	5G​
Light Fighter	Tejas MkII	Tejas MkIII
Medium Fighter	Rafale (?)	AMCA
Heavy Fighter	MKI/Super-30	FGFA

There are few corrections here >>

1. Either sides are not willing to have a deep penetration strike with Aircraft, The main priority for both air-forces to provide CAS and SEAD and keep up Air supremacy over each other to a limited zone under friendly forces, Carrying out deep penetration is job of cruise missile and both nations are investing more on such systems.

2. The main priority of IAF to keep Air-supremacy over battle space, This require mammoth amount of sorties in-involving CAP mostly, Due to high rate of sorties an heavy fighter cannot be used for economical reasons as the operational and maintenance cost will extremely high, Due to this very reason Light fighter concept plays a major role, That is Tejas taken the primary work of Air-supremacy in majority of Wartime where as MKI will be used when most needed ..

3. There are some very notable obvious reasons that Tejas are more suited combat in eastern front, Not just having ability to conduct triple sorties compare to an flanker but also due to its ability to operate over higher altitudes where flanker cannot specially taking TAR region, Also due to its smaller size and composite air-frame and other stealth features it is a very low observable aircraft on radar compare to an all metal aircraft such as an flanker, Giving it a higher first attack chances compare to any operational fighter PLAAF has, Tejas`s BVR consist of both Israeli and Indian ( Astra ) Missiles, Debry`s range is still officially a secret .. @ersakthivel, can shed some light on Tejas BVRs ..

4. There are advantage and disadvantages are on both sides, Due to higher ground PLAAF can monitor IAF movement very clearly with help of long range radars where as their flankers J11 and J10 are ill suited for conducting raids or CAP with heavy loads due to rarity of Air, Though this can be retified with help of air refulers., IAF on other side at lower ground has limited surveillance capability but that is not an issue when there are AWACS, IAF advantage comes from massive airfield along LAC which are military in nature compare to those in TAR regions of PLAAF, This gives IAF airfields ability to endure punishment by cruise missile attacks, The same cannot said about PLAAF once over TAR ..

What if PLAAF first takes out all India's NE airfields with CJ-10 type of supersonic CM before the first PLAAF fighter takes to the skies?

200-300 CM launches can render the entire NE without air-cover. We don't have any defence to that, till the time at-least the 5Km altitude Aerostat radar is deployed (2016 onwards) along with MRSAM/QR-SRSAM.

We do not have enough AWACS platforms for 24x7 surveillance, and we would not have them in enough numbers at least for the next 5yrs.

Very few PLAAF airbases are within strike range of Brahmos LACM. It would be at least 3-5yrs more for Nirbhay to become operational, and 10+yrs for LFRJ-LRCM, if at all work is being done on it.

I don't know if Tejas can operate within a PLAAF Flanker's BVR range to fire off its own BVR load. Tejas's detection range is 90km where as Flanker's is much more. Won't Tejas take BVR hits much before it can lock on to a PLAAF Flanker? Even though Tejas's FCS is much lesser, but it is not a bona fide LO airframe.

Tejas can easily dominate if PLAAF uses J-10 instead of the Flankers though.

Please check the availability rate of various Russian platforms in IAF , before recommending Mig-35. It is not for nothing that IAF pointedly excluded MIG-35 from MMRCA. It is still not a finished fighter and like the T-90 We will be the largest operator of the Mig-35.

If we follow the import and perish policy forever the gap between china and India will widen and in a decade's time it will resemble the india-Pakistan scenario of today.

Most of the imported or copied flanker versions of china too will have poor reliability and availability rate if we see the issues IAF have with various Mig and Su-30 platforms,

So chinese running CAP in our airspace is just a juvenile thought. HAVING THE NUMBERS IS ONE THING , BUT putting them all optimally at air is another thing.

We can use Nirbhay cruise missile strikes against air bases deep inside Tibet , And pray for the quicker development of tejas mk-3 stealth version to take on legacy flanker fleet in the border area.

Defending our vital assets with Akash mk-1( and in future mk-2)and derivatives of Indo-Israeli LR naval SAM derivatives will take care of our defensive needs along with our flanker fleet.

And for any meaningful counter strike we should look for AMCA, tejas mk-3 (if developed speedily) and FGFA fleet.

There is no need for alarm as most of the J-10s will perform very poorly from high himalayan airbases with way lower TWR than tejas mk-2. SO on that count we don't have to worry much.

So a prudent strategy of fielding high in number Tejas versions (which will have more availability rate ) and using the SAM missiles along with Mig-29s and having Su-30 MKI fleet as strategic strike force will satisfy our defence need.

Going for multi billion dollar few in number RAFALE like deals will expose us in defending the skies . Because while RAFALEs may carry more load in long range ground strike mission , in air to air roles in home air space defence they will leave vast areas unchallenged to the high in number PLAF fleet.

high in number tejas mk-2s with the help of AWACS and SU-30 MKi fleet will plug help us to defend better.

The 600 F-15s facing PLAF provides us no comfort, because the indian political leadership is very good at shooting its own feet repeatedly by not going in for any strategic pact with any other asian country or US by using muddled and myopic aim of pursuing "independent foreign policy " as an excuse.

Your entire argument seems to say that we do not need any more medium category fighters than the few Mig-29B/UPG that we already have. Is that prudent?

I really do not want the Rafale deal to go through. It will break our banks! Unnecessary cost. Rafale is the iPhone of the fighter world: Great to flaunt and possess, but far better cost effective alternatives exist. Plus, Rafale will eat into AMCA development costs.

Tejas cannot take the role of a medium fighter, and AMCA is still a decade away. We need a MMRCA to fill the squadron numbers for in between 2016-2025.

Russia has already offered full ToT for MiG-35. Development is completed. Capability of full scale production was lacking as of last year.

It was rejected by IAF due to a logic of "not putting all eggs in the same basket". There were no other reasons. If it would have been allowed to compete, it would have beaten the Rafale due to it's much better specifications and newer technology. Not to mention the advantage of commonality of parts with Mig-29UPG and Mig-29K, and each fighter being 2/5th the price of a single Rafale.

Even if today India tells Russia that if they share RD-33OVT or RD-33MK engine and Zhuk-AE AESA tech, India would scrap Rafale and buy and make 200 MiG-35, Russia would gladly do that.

 

[ersakthivel]

IAF would max receive 16 Tejas in 1yr, or 4 squads every 5yrs. So, just filling the void of 14 squadrons left by retiring Mig-21, Bisons, Mig-23, Mig-27 would take 18-20yrs.

There is very little chance that there would be multiple Tejas lines (MkI and later MkII) as by the time MKI production ends, it would be time to start the FGFA line. Also, HAL would have to start and run the medium category fighter line, 4.5G till 2022 and AMCA beyond that.

Future of IAF (2025 onwards)

Category​	4.5G​	5G​
Light Fighter	Tejas MkII	Tejas MkIII
Medium Fighter	Rafale (?)	AMCA
Heavy Fighter	MKI/Super-30	FGFA

What if PLAAF first takes out all India's NE airfields with CJ-10 type of supersonic CM before the first PLAAF fighter takes to the skies?

200-300 CM launches can render the entire NE without air-cover. We don't have any defence to that, till the time at-least the 5Km altitude Aerostat radar is deployed (2016 onwards) along with MRSAM/QR-SRSAM.

We do not have enough AWACS platforms for 24x7 surveillance, and we would not have them in enough numbers at least for the next 5yrs.

Very few PLAAF airbases are within strike range of Brahmos LACM. It would be at least 3-5yrs more for Nirbhay to become operational, and 10+yrs for LFRJ-LRCM, if at all work is being done on it.

I don't know if Tejas can operate within a PLAAF Flanker's BVR range to fire off its own BVR load. Tejas's detection range is 90km where as Flanker's is much more. Won't Tejas take BVR hits much before it can lock on to a PLAAF Flanker? Even though Tejas's FCS is much lesser, but it is not a bona fide LO airframe.

Tejas can easily dominate if PLAAF uses J-10 instead of the Flankers though.



Your entire argument seems to say that we do not need any more medium category fighters than the few Mig-29B/UPG that we already have. Is that prudent?

I really do not want the Rafale deal to go through. It will break our banks! Unnecessary cost. Rafale is the iPhone of the fighter world: Great to flaunt and possess, but far better cost effective alternatives exist. Plus, Rafale will eat into AMCA development costs.

Tejas cannot take the role of a medium fighter, and AMCA is still a decade away. We need a MMRCA to fill the squadron numbers for in between 2016-2025.

Russia has already offered full ToT for MiG-35. Development is completed. Capability of full scale production was lacking as of last year.

It was rejected by IAF due to a logic of "not putting all eggs in the same basket". There were no other reasons. If it would have been allowed to compete, it would have beaten the Rafale due to it's much better specifications and newer technology. Not to mention the advantage of commonality of parts with Mig-29UPG and Mig-29K, and each fighter being 2/5th the price of a single Rafale.

Even if today India tells Russia that if they share RD-33OVT or RD-33MK engine and Zhuk-AE AESA tech, India would scrap Rafale and buy and make 200 MiG-35, Russia would gladly do that.

Google and find out , how many number of fighters the the french, british and Swedes have in each of the following category of,
1.light,
2.medium,
3. heavy fighters.

No one needs fighters in all categories. Answer will be all of them are standardizing on one size of fighters .

IAF has SU-30 MKI as heavy fighter and will be inducting FGFA as another heavy in a decade's time,

For missions with shorter range and lighter pay load we are going to have an assortment of Jags,Mirage-2000 upgraded, tejas mk-1 and tejas mk-2.

SO there is no need for another fighter category, All we need is a higher number of 4.5th gen fighters with 4.5 gen capacity for air defence .

Setting up another production line of tejas is not an insurmountable challenge, All we need is money, and the advanced ordering of engines and other crucial sub systems.

And if we have to fill the numbers without breaking the bank there are no other ways.

Regarding mig-35 , I already told you try to google and find out the satisfaction level of IAF about the engine tech of Mig series fighters and their availability rate.

This TOT is most the shameful way of cheating india. No one transfers their core tech. All TOT of critical parts on which the fighter depends upon for safe operations will be held back and will be supplied in CKD conditions .

You should think why IAF has grounded their entire series of Mig-23 fighters explicitly stating their engine problems can not be resolved. Tejas will have no such issues as it has a reliable engine and the reliability of airframe along with Fly by wire softwares have been established beyond doubt.

And fighters work as teams with a back up of Awacs land based radars ans sams . Tejas can have Su-30 MKI in a judicious mix for more effective tactics against PLAF flankers.If you still have any doubts you can see how a combo of Mig-21 and Su-30 MKi did perform with some effectiveness in the recently concluded red flag exercise..

 

[SajeevJino]

Google and find out , how many number of fighters the the french, british and Swedes have in each of the following category of,
1.light,
2.medium,
3. heavy fighters.

No one needs fighters in all categories. Answer will be all of them are standardizing on one size of fighters .

These Countries won't goes to battle with countries like China Russia or the US ..they have their medium fighters and some Fighter Bombers they Have EFT and Tornodo ..unlike Countries US and Russian Has to fight against each other one day they have Diff kind of Fighters

From the US

1.F 16 Light
2.F 15 and F 18 Medium
3.F 22 and F 35 Heavy

take the Russians

1 .Mig 29
2.Su 27 and Su 30
3.MiG 31 and Su 35

dedicated Fighter Bomber Su 24.and Su 34