Is Air force capable of Two Front War?

[mayfair]

Israel does not only kill Irani criminals but also Palestinian civilians,and Israel has problems with any country,you cant invade other territory and firstly israel is built on Palestinian land,it has no right to exist because british took palestinian land and made israel without approval of palestinians.Israel is as big a rogue as IUran,atleast Iran only commits attrocities on its own civilians,unlike Israel.

Edit:Iran hates Arab states since mediev al times.
Ever since the Islamic (Arab) conquest of Persia, Iranian–Arab relations have sometimes been mixed. Arabs and Iranians share bitter cultural, historical, political, economical rivalries which fuel prominent mutual contempt between both sides. Within the Middle East historical conflicts have always colored neighbouring Arab countries' perceptions about Iran. At times peacefully coexisting, while at other times in bitter conflict. North African Arabs generally enjoyed closer relations with Iran due to limited historical connection between them and Iran.

And your theory:

Us got nukes for the sole purpose of using against Japan,so is US a rogue country.
I refuse to go off topic any further,make a thread for this discussion if you want to.

Wrong. The US nukes were developed for the purpose of defense against Nazi Germany, which at that time was believed to be very close to a nuclear bomb. Had Germany not surrendered, the bomb was very well destined to fall on Berlin. The war in the Asian theater would continue for another few months. Japan was down but not giving up. The allied casualties were mounting. Okinawa invasion alone saw 12000 allied dead and 40000 wounded, along with countless civilians and opposing Japanese soldiers. It served as a dry run for Operation Downfall i.e. the invasion of Japanese home islands. Based on the Okinawa experience, Allied casualties (deaths plus wounded in action) in the event of home island invasion were estimated to be as high as 1.2 million and at least 300,000 by the most conservative estimates. Japanese casualties were estimated to be much higher since the invasion was planned on two fronts- Kyushu and Kanto (Tokyo region). The details are all there in R.B. Frank's "Downfall: the End of the Imperial Japanese Empire". Harry Truman as the elected US president had obligation to his people and he was is no mood to sacrifice countless American lives at the altar of Operation downfall. Given a choice between the bomb and Downfall, he chose the bomb, which brought the war to an immediate end. How many of us would do the same faced with a similar situation? I guess quite a few. How one views that act, depends on the perspective. But that definitely cannot be called a rogue act. Comparisons with Iran and Pakistan are fallacious if not malicious.

P.S. Apologies for going off topic, just wanted to set the record straight here.

 

[civfanatic]

I think we need to be more realistic here. China views Pakistan as a tool to contain India, nothing more and nothing less. The Sino-Pak relationship is not a partnership based on mutual respect and trust like our relationship with Russia. If India were to go to war with Pakistan again, what are the chances that China would militarily intervene and attack India to support Pak? They have never done this before, despite their rhetoric. Why would they do it now, when there is multi-billion dollar trade occurring between our two nations and numerous opportunities for mutual economic growth? It is not in China's advantage to go to war with India.

Even in the unlikely case of war, would China be willing to risk its most valuable military equipment against India? The PLAAF may be a very large air force, but they have a very limited number of modern combat aircraft. I think the Chinese would prefer to save their most precious toys for their "true" enemies (Taiwan, Japan, and US).
I'm no military expert, but IMO a future Sino-Indian conflict will involve Chinese special infantry divisions infiltrating Arunachal Pradesh with limited air support from expendable aircraft like A-5s and J-7s, and Indian mountain/jungle divisions waging asymmetric warfare against the intruders (similar to the Kargil War and Pak infiltration into Kashmir).

A full-blown conventional war with India and China mobilizing their entire forces against each other is very unrealistic IMO.
Small-scale unconventional wars between India and China seem much more realistic.

 

[Zoravar]

We dont even have to fight their whole airforce,they will only be using a limited no. of a/c to attack us and keep the rest on standby to make sure that it's "real" enemies dont seize the moment and attack.

 

[SHASH2K2]

one of most important factor that we all are ignoring is number of countries having common boundry with china. they have russians , koreans,vietnamese, japanese and Taiwanese border areas and cannot move move all critical assets on Indian border. fortunately we need to worry about only 2 borders at a time . so moving resources should not be a big issue for us compared to chinese.

 

[samarsingh]

China did not interfere in 65, they did not meddle in 1971....I think they would never fight someone elses war for the sake of it....having said that our Airforce should be prepared for any eventualities though.....and I do feel that IAF has an edge over PLAAF.....as far as the army is considered I am afraid its the other way round......This SCO will evolve as a counter for NATO but we need to play the geopolitical game with both US and China/Russia as "allies"

 

[Kunal Biswas]

China did not interfere in 65, they did not meddle in 1971....I think they would never fight someone elses war for the sake of it....having said that our Airforce should be prepared for any eventualities though.....and I do feel that IAF has an edge over PLAAF.....as far as the army is considered I am afraid its the other way round......This SCO will evolve as a counter for NATO but we need to play the geopolitical game with both US and China/Russia as "allies"

@Samarsingh,
Their were political and international reasons during 65-71 war, Now its very different game as China is a super power it no longer listen anyone, For Indian Airforce Northeast is main concert..
my view abt the topic is military, PLA is practicing deep penetration missions with its paratroopers and its regulars are getting much needed up-gradation, In war situation Air-force is required to have full Airsuperiorty in the battle zone also it should able to provide CAS role..

1. More Airfields..
2. More radars for surveillance..
2. Proper AD cover( From short to medium )..
3. Continual of Supplys to ground troops via Air..

Western front is well organized so i wont comment on it..

 

[joy1982]

The best policy during two front war would be, creating decoy. Move your nuclear weapons . this would attract huge international attention. Before the matter escalate international Interference would lead to a ceasefire & then peaceful agreement.

 

[Illusive]

its important for India to have a foreign military base.......in case of Pakistan it can use Afghanistan(may be possible in future) and in case of China it can use Japan(highly unlikely) for counter attacks........just defending aint gonna help in a two front war........at present its really difficult scenario.............but in fututre may be possible

 

[Kunal Biswas]

its important for India to have a foreign military base.......in case of Pakistan it can use Afghanistan(may be possible in future) and in case of China it can use Japan(highly unlikely) for counter attacks........just defending aint gonna help in a two front war........at present its really difficult scenario.............but in fututre may be possible

Well i understand but for now we need to work out on our infrastructure..

 

[civfanatic]

its important for India to have a foreign military base.......in case of Pakistan it can use Afghanistan(may be possible in future) and in case of China it can use Japan(highly unlikely) for counter attacks........just defending aint gonna help in a two front war........at present its really difficult scenario.............but in fututre may be possible

We have an air force base in Tajikistan.

 

[neo29]

During 1971 war, China did not intervene because of Russian interference. Russia helped us when US was trying to interfere using its AC's. It was Russian subs that stopped them. Same would have happened if China intervened. So we do not know how honorable was chinese intention during that time but surely they opposed to bangladesh creation.

Back to main discussion. Indian navy has geographical advantage in Indian Ocean. Let the p8 poseidons come, then the chinese subs are completely vulnerable in this region. PLA-N has 5 times more ships than Indian navy but they are controlling South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. So PLA-N invasion in Indian ocean is logically bad for them. Hence they creating hype of "String of Pearls" which are mostly refuelling ports. China dont want to depend on Indian ports for their all important Oil routes. I feel String of pearls is a psychological war by china to induce fear.

In probably 5 10 years, the number of fighters between IAF and PLAF will reduce a lot. Though its likely PLAF will have more fighters but IAF will be matched up to them. PLAF has a huge inventory of obsolete fighers which they will have to retire.

Hence Indo china war will be limited and bases on ground troops with air support. Its very rare that a full scale war will happen with both countries dependent on each other for trade. In case of war with pakistan , china will help pak with covert operations.

 

[cw2005]

In case of full scale war between India and China, drawing benefit from it would be USA, EUROPE and Japan. And war would delay the ascending of India and China. The leaders of India and China know it clearly. Conclusion - NO WAR.

 

[vikramrana_1812]

In case of full scale war between India and China, drawing benefit from it would be USA, EUROPE and Japan. And war would delay the ascending of India and China. The leaders of India and China know it clearly. Conclusion - NO WAR.

When 2 countries growing and developing very fast in the same region are neighbours then a war cannot be avoided. It is just about the right time when one contry sees an oppurtunity to disrupt the economy of other.
India we know will never attack China...but the same cannot be said about China because they have actually moved 50km inside LAC.
They know that India wont attack them that is why they are just moving in to create a situation when India decides to counter threir encrochment. That day my friend WAR will definately happen because that is the oppurtunity CHINA is looking for.
It will be a breif but very modern war of this centuary.
This will be breif because when these countries will go at war then there will be a stalemate because China is lethal and INDIA is a very strong unit and in the end no one will waste their money on it.
But this war is very important because it will test India's defence capabilities and the Second Strike accuracy as INDIA always develop its warfare inventory on these two criteria.
The rule is simple "In one region there can't be 2 rulers". China currently is stronger whether we like it or not and in full scale war China can destroy India because of its strike capability.
India is strong in defending the strikes because of its second strike capabilities and india is not very lethal in Stiking at the first place. Therefore result is simple if the full scale war breaks out. But in a small scale war India can match China easily.

 

[Singh]

When 2 countries growing and developing very fast in the same region are neighbours then a war cannot be avoided

How about ? Japan and South Korea; Europe post WW2; Canada & USA !

1. When a country is developing at a rapid pace it will try to avoid a war as much as possible.
2. When a country's "neighbours" are armed with nuclear weapons it doesn't make sense going for war
3. When 2 neighbouring countries are developing it makes sense going for greater economic co-operation.

 

[vikramrana_1812]

How about ? Japan and South Korea; Europe post WW2; Canada & USA !

1. When a country is developing at a rapid pace it will try to avoid a war as much as possible.
2. When a country's "neighbours" are armed with nuclear weapons it doesn't make sense going for war
3. When 2 neighbouring countries are developing it makes sense going for greater economic co-operation.

Canada and USA cant go on War because of common interest.....USA protects Canada...Do u want china to protect india then u are correct in all aspects
Japan and SK are NATO allies...THEY CANNOT GO ON WAR.....India and China are not allies..they are enemies and China always remeber that..but we dont sometimes..
Economic Cooperation cannot be achieved if one country encroaches other.....CHINA IS DOING THAT....Now got the point MR.Singh

 

[neo29]

During 1962 war, even the CIA claims that though china had a victory due to its large force using sub machine guns compared to small contingent of indian troops using enfield rifles, the china did have huge loss which they never anticipated. This was also one of the reasons why china not participated in 1971 war. Logistics supply was also difficult for them. China had a strategic attack position during 1962 war as compared to india. they did not have much roads unlike today though. same was india's prob. we did not have much roads leading to borders and same situation today.

After 1962 war we did have 3 4 skirmishes at the border, but it did not result in full scale war and it was successfully repelled by Indian Army. Most notably the chola incident.
If war surely India can easily defend the PLA invasion. Thats no doubt. The only thing is matters is how long can they sustain and defend. In todays world how long can you wage the war decides the victor. So india's primary concern must be logistic support to all its borders. Just look at israel, a country surrounded by enemies and still has repelled many invasions time and again.

 

[x0700]

This is possible for the Air force with ease if:

1. Right logistics are setup: we have not enough transport, need more medium and heavy lifters, plus better rail road network
2. better air defense: need integrated multi-tier, spearhead defense for airstrips, airports and loophole free coverage with redundant backup systems in place, adequate material stocks inside bunker-ed warehouses for all air support infra
3. need more and better fighter with latest systems, especially aggressive fighters like EF typhoon, along with existing platforms, low cost compromise fighters like gripen will not work if we need to attack, along with support platform and intrusion multipliers like AWACS, tankers, and strategic bombers like blackjack
4. extensive X-band radar coverage for entire pak and china region, to ascertain fighter deployment and movement by the enemy.


if the above is implemented along with other strategies already in place, we can not only fight but win the 2-front war

 

[civfanatic]

This is possible for the Air force with ease if:

1. Right logistics are setup: we have not enough transport, need more medium and heavy lifters, plus better rail road network

India has one of the world's largest fleets of medium and heavy-lift transport aircraft (An-32s and Il-76s), but in the case of a conflict with China helicopters are far more useful than fixed-wing aircraft due to the mountainous terrain. This is why IAF is looking to buy CH-47s, CH-53s, or more Mi-26s (heavy-lift transport helis).
Right now our heavy-lift helicopter fleet consists of only 4 Mi-26s, which is far from sufficient.
I also agree that we need better infrastructure in NE regions, but that is more of the Army's problem than Air Force.

2. better air defense: need integrated multi-tier, spearhead defense for airstrips, airports and loophole free coverage with redundant backup systems in place, adequate material stocks inside bunker-ed warehouses for all air support infra

Hopefully IAF has already installed tactical SAMs like SA-8 and our own Akash around important airbases in NE like Tezpur.

3. need more and better fighter with latest systems, especially aggressive fighters like EF typhoon, along with existing platforms, low cost compromise fighters like gripen will not work if we need to attack, along with support platform and intrusion multipliers like AWACS, tankers, and strategic bombers like blackjack

Our Su-30MKI can do everything that the Typhoon can do, and more. But I do agree that we need more AWACS. Just six systems are not enough for complete coverage of our borders.
Please explain why IAF needs blackjacks??

 

[x0700]

India has one of the world's largest fleets of medium and heavy-lift transport aircraft (An-32s and Il-76s), but in the case of a conflict with China helicopters are far more useful than fixed-wing aircraft due to the mountainous terrain. This is why IAF is looking to buy CH-47s, CH-53s, or more Mi-26s (heavy-lift transport helis).
Right now our heavy-lift helicopter fleet consists of only 4 Mi-26s, which is far from sufficient.
I also agree that we need better infrastructure in NE regions, but that is more of the Army's problem than Air Force.



Hopefully IAF has already installed tactical SAMs like SA-8 and our own Akash around important airbases in NE like Tezpur.



Our Su-30MKI can do everything that the Typhoon can do, and more. But I do agree that we need more AWACS. Just six systems are not enough for complete coverage of our borders.
Please explain why IAF needs blackjacks??

-------------------------------------------------------

thanks mate, i am sure we are procuring more, and building more, but we need to do even more, to match up to the Chinese, that's what i meant

Blackjacks -- base anywhere, fly the whole region, bomb any part of the region with cruise missiles launched from standoff distance, give the enemy surprise by taking different and vulnerable attack routes, plus nuclear deterrence.

AF cant hold the war alone, we would also need ground infra to match up, to ensure supply flow, ground defense coverage and repairs in case of attack on our own soil.

 

[civfanatic]

-------------------------------------------------------

thanks mate, i am sure we are procuring more, and building more, but we need to do even more, to match up to the Chinese, that's what i meant

Blackjacks -- base anywhere, fly the whole region, bomb any part of the region with cruise missiles launched from standoff distance, give the enemy surprise by taking different and vulnerable attack routes, plus nuclear deterrence.

AF cant hold the war alone, we would also need ground infra to match up, to ensure supply flow, ground defense coverage and repairs in case of attack on our own soil.

Blackjacks are very nice aircraft, but I don't think India needs them. IAF relies on Su-30MKIs and Jaguars for deep strike roles. Both can carry nuclear weapons, and the Su-30MKI can carry both Prithvi-II SRBMs and BrahMos cruise missiles. I think Russia actually offered India the Blackjack a while ago, but the IAF wasn't interested. I hope they know what they're doing!
Anyway, you might find this article interesting mate: http://www.indiadefence.com/Tu-160.htm
It should be noted that the guy in the article is arguing that India should induct blackjacks into the Navy rather than the Air Force.

And I agree with you that the air force can't win the war alone. In fact, I think that in an India-China war both countries' air forces will play a VERY limited role, especially China's.
The boys on the ground will decide the victor, and remember that India has arguably the best mountain infantry in the world