India Cold Start Doctrine and Pakistan's Tactical Nukes

[no smoking]

India didn't deploy Su30 & MiG-29 against Pakistan.

That is incorrect, on 27/02/19, India's Su-30s were in the sky near Pakistan border. These kind of long range planes have been deployed in the second line airport, the same as any other country.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

pakistan plans to deal with India’s cold-start doctrine, now re-named the pro-active strategy by boast of developing TNW to protect itself against potential offensive actions by India. in fact, Pakistan is the only country currently boasting of making tiny nuclear weapons can fit into brief case and as per their claim removed the radiation effect within days to utilize land again after detonating.

Only country? Only NATO has tactical nuclear weapons.

We know Pakistanis didn't test Plutonium warheads which are needed for miniaturization rather they tested HEU implosion type warheads to be replicated in plutonium type pit as New Labs facility at PINSTECH only came online.in may 1998 . So Pakistanis have not tested a Plutonium spherical implosion device but a Linear implosion device.

This device upon detonation the high explosive will drive the pusher plate into the tamper, which will then begin linear implosion of the fissile mass which will not only compress the plutonium but will push it inward and away from the control rods the same time, the lip on the outside of each control rod will "catch" a small portion of the force from the explosive.

Now these devices will not give more than 10% efficiency without testing which Pakistan has not , so Pakistan's triad will not be useful for countervalue targeting.


And in the end, Pakistan won't be protected by using nukes on Indian troops. It won't only kill its own people on its own territory but will be nuked to hell.
India possesses ready to fire and its much bigger response will come in minutes & seconds, not days & hours.

You are right I am not aircraft person and thanks to bear my knowledge but I can understand that Rafale would beat the JF-17 to the punch. It is a force multiplier compared to the JF-17. The Rafale possesses better first look, first shot, first kill technologies that the JF-17 A head to head BVR combat between the two aircraft would possibly be 80:20 in favor of the Rafale due to the reduced RCS of the Rafale and its superior Meteor BVR missile.

We are purchasing Rafael to boost power, improving Tejas to achieve self reliance.
You are purchasing JFT because you can't purchase anything better in numbers.

Since modern air warfare is dependant on BVR combat, it must be kept in mind that the hypothetical kill ratios of “Beyond Visual Range” missiles is an interesting topic.

BVR is only component of modern aerial warfare, not the backbone of it. However, a very important aspect.
Till IAF has meteors, Astra & SFDR operational, F-16s with AMRAAMs have qualitative edge over it.
Till getting outnumbered after a rapid escalation.

 

[Cutting Edge 2]

The conventional wisdom amongst some defense analysts is....

"Some defense analysts...." You have destroyed your whole argument right here.

in fact, Pakistan is the only country currently boasting of making tiny nuclear weapons can fit into brief case

Please read this....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device

And no, Pakistan doesn't have this capability.

You are purchasing JFT because you can't purchase anything better in numbers.

Though your argument is correct but numbers have their own advantage. It really baffles me why we aren't buying Tejas in large numbers eg. 300+

 

[Bhadra]

The conventional wisdom amongst some defense analysts is that an attacking force requires a minimum of a 1.5:1 superiority in forces at the theater level to succeed.
for India all front-war i think this paper is enough to explain you why for conventional Balance : India still not meet the 3:1 rule.
http://muse.jhu.edu/article/446798

Either you do not understand things "military" or as typical Pakistani you are hoodwinking and bluffing.

Firstly, conventional superiority of 1:3 is required at the point of breakin battles and not theatre level. Had it been so Pakistan would not had dare launch offensives in past into J&K, Akhnoor, Indian Punjab, Longewala etc with no numerical superiority but just on stupid bravado.

Right from Sialkot in North to Fort Abbas in the south, Pakistani defenses are based on linear obstacles which are held more on the strength of fire power rather than manpower. Breakin battles on these Dhussi, Canal or DCB takes place at the superiority of 1:12 - one platoon frontage will be attacked by minimum one battalion (12 platoons) with one battalion in reserve (12 platoon). That makes it 1:24 superiority. The point is a hole will be punched and expanding rod shubbed.

At theatre level, it is the capability of attacker to concentrate strength the superiority at point of decision and any thing between 1:2 or 1:3 is good enough and India has more than that strength.

For conduct of mobile / maneuver warfare other factors like superiority in firepower, mobility and protection become key factors in assessing comparative strengths. Successful maneuvers reverses the requirements of numerical comparative strengths. It is a question of favourable position.

At theatre level comparative strengths are assessed in terms of requirement of forces in time and space. With the passing of every day this keeps increasing exponentially in favour of India as their reserves start getting effective.

That is the very reason why Pakistan needs US intervention the third day itself or they will be decimated. That is the reason Pakistan wants a two days war and that too initiated by them.

But why are you worried about comparative strength when every Pakistani has been made to believe that one Muslim is equal to 10 Hindu soldiers. Because even then you do not know what you will do when 11th Hindu soldier emerges.

pakistan plans to deal with India’s cold-start doctrine, now re-named the pro-active strategy by boast of developing TNW to protect itself against potential offensive actions by India. in fact, Pakistan is the only country currently boasting of making tiny nuclear weapons can fit into brief case and as per their claim removed the radiation effect within days to utilize land again after detonating.

So you have come down to "suitcase bomb" evel because Nasar is pretty useless. Next will be nuclear suicide jackets.

You can deal with the radiation effects of your suitcase bomb but what about the effects of bombs that will rain in Indian response??

You are a gone case in al contingencies.

You are right I am not aircraft person and thanks to bear my knowledge but I can understand that Rafale would beat the JF-17 to the punch. It is a force multiplier compared to the JF-17. The Rafale possesses better first look, first shot, first kill technologies that the JF-17 A head to head BVR combat between the two aircraft would possibly be 80:20 in favor of the Rafale due to the reduced RCS of the Rafale and its superior Meteor BVR missile.
Since modern air warfare is dependant on BVR combat, it must be kept in mind that the hypothetical kill ratios of “Beyond Visual Range” missiles is an interesting topic.

De Ram ke naam, China, de de Hindustan ke naam !

 

[Tang]

I am reference all Indian media , did I took any thought process from pakistan . Look what Indian Journlist saying about feb 27 we lost , It was a good time start to start IBGs , why kept quiet.

Air Chief of Indian he says stuff like "Rafale will tip balance in our favor from PAF unlike before" while sitting on top of hundreds of Sukhoi 30MKIs and Mig-29s.
Second why choose word ISI becuase RAW intelligence means you have to provide intel hours ago rather when Indian commanders inside the base and JUST escape at the time of opponent bombing.

According to Indian Defence Expert Pravin Sawhney (Auth Force Mag), "Pakistan did not deter with our so-called Military power. PAF entered into our side in broad daylight, bomb our military installations and went back safely. That was a clear message to India, they damn care about our so-called military might. They have courage, military power, capability to hit anytime, anywhere. They did it unlike us to fool our nation with so-called dummy strikes. They have proof whereas we don't have obviously they did it in real. It's against the national narrative as well as interest if we don't accept but facts remain facts."

Don't tell me that Pravin Sawhney words have no value since he is a member of opposition Congress Party and his wife is a member of Delhi Congress women cell commitee.
So in India only BJP words count, rest of the population is all shoodar and hold no value at all?
https://theprint.in/defence/indian-...fore-paf-bomb-fell-in-compound-27-feb/241324/
You are also professional defence expert .If RAW had active intelligence then the commanders should not have been in that area, the briefing should have been cancelled.
Plus you mentioning the link of Dawn. make me laugh again, becuase as you are claimed yourself defence expert anybody who knows little ABC of defence can tell This is their Army posture ( Defensive then offensive then Soft Defensive ). Now question for you what is indian army posture ?

He is a paki.

One can interpret from his lang.

 

[itsme]

I am reference all Indian media , did I took any thought process from pakistan . Look what Indian Journlist saying about feb 27 we lost , It was a good time start to start IBGs , why kept quiet.

"

?

Lol!! Parvin you're quoting? Read his article yourself there are so many inaccuracies from our official version. He talks as if PAF did a tactical mission when they attacked in the day time. He is forgetting the fact that they just put up an show. And what proof is he talking about what PAF has provided? They have literally provided zero proof other than our crashed mig and pilot which was unexpected for both sides. This was more like an anti-Modi article to help the Congress but, we all know how that failed. Balakot images will be released just like the surgical strike 1.

 

[gryphus-scarface]

Though your argument is correct but numbers have their own advantage. It really baffles me why we aren't buying Tejas in large numbers eg. 300+

Because the Tejas doesn't make sense in large numbers. Its a very small plane, and lacks the payload capability. Its specifically useful in some roles, but the MWF makes far mores sense to buy in bigger numbers.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Though your argument is correct but numbers have their own advantage. It really baffles me why we aren't buying Tejas in large numbers eg. 300+

Because the Tejas doesn't make sense in large numbers. Its a very small plane, and lacks the payload capability. Its specifically useful in some roles, but the MWF makes far mores sense to buy in bigger numbers.

India is committed to acquire as much as 400 Tejas in various configurations. Timeline has hurted us really bad. May be it was not a safe bet given level aerospace industry.

Initial lightweight versions like Mk1 & Mk1A are competitors to Gripen and Mk2 will be our versions of F-16 & J-10, in terms of specifications, better in terms of technology.

Changing requirements year on year and integration of advanced techs, for instance an unstable design for high maneuvers which resulted into installation of more advanced software and FBWs. Tejas we made today is far more advanced than we thought of making it in 90s. But it's late as well.

Anyways, the mission of project was create an eco system of aerospace industry in India. Lot of things regarding missiles & planes from private vendors have been falling in line lately. Next decade will be a revolution for India's indigenous aerospace technology & production sector if what we are doing is actually bearing fruits.

We will either emerge as one of leaders of global aerospace sectors or will lose all hopes.

 

[armyofhind]

The conventional wisdom amongst some defense analysts is that an attacking force requires a minimum of a 1.5:1 superiority in forces at the theater level to succeed.
for India all front-war i think this paper is enough to explain you why for conventional Balance : India still not meet the 3:1 rule.
http://muse.jhu.edu/article/446798
pakistan plans to deal with India’s cold-start doctrine, now re-named the pro-active strategy by boast of developing TNW to protect itself against potential offensive actions by India. in fact, Pakistan is the only country currently boasting of making tiny nuclear weapons can fit into brief case and as per their claim removed the radiation effect within days to utilize land again after detonating.
You are right I am not aircraft person and thanks to bear my knowledge but I can understand that Rafale would beat the JF-17 to the punch. It is a force multiplier compared to the JF-17. The Rafale possesses better first look, first shot, first kill technologies that the JF-17 A head to head BVR combat between the two aircraft would possibly be 80:20 in favor of the Rafale due to the reduced RCS of the Rafale and its superior Meteor BVR missile.
Since modern air warfare is dependant on BVR combat, it must be kept in mind that the hypothetical kill ratios of “Beyond Visual Range” missiles is an interesting topic.

Bhai tu yahan time mat waste Kar. Jaake tamatar khareed le.

Im literally sick of you pakis making different accounts and coming here with your asses on fire since 27th Feb.

The worst part is that you cannot even argue logically. Your english is bad, it takes effort to understand what you're even trying to put across. Then one makes the effort to give you some real facts. Then you come up with more bullshit pulled out of your assholes.
Seriously, stop it. Fuck off.

 

[IndianHawk]

Lca mk1)mk1a are perfect as they are .
This usual criticism of their range and payload is nothing but excuse for import by iaf.

Why does Tejas has 4 ton payload and 2000km ferry range and not f16 level 7ton , 3000km ??
Because it's a bloody small airframe!

And who asked its size to be restricted to mig21 size ?? Yup you guessed it right it was genius of IAF. So now what do they accept from bird the size of mig21!

Other criticism is the bird is late
Well if it arrived 10 years earlier in 2010 with foc we would still operate it till 2040-50 .
So what's the problem with small Tejas filling the numbers of mig21 == 250 and operate from 2016-2040-50.

Then they say mk1 is overweight ya but by how much? The comparable modern fighter is gripen c/d . Lca mk1 weights about the same.

And even if lca was 500 kg lighter that means 500kg more payload. Hurray we can drop one more bomb. Seriously how many mission profile will change with 500kg more payload.

Another criticism mk1a has no space for internal jammer , irst etc. Well again who pushed for small size ? The iaf.

So IAF must accept 250 lca mk1/mk1a to replace all mig21/23.

But they won't why??

Truth is much simple back in 1980s iaf new India couldn't afford big expensive birds. So it went for small plane to minimise both procurement and operational expenses as well as to reuse mig21 shelters. But after 2000s rapid economic expansion happened and iaf knew it could afford the best of the lot anyone has to offer.

Hence it is restricting lca mk1/mk1a to 123 numbers. Even that after parrikar intervention.

Mwf/ mk2 is welcome initiative but that is a bigger bird . But iaf excuses against more mk1a have no actual ground.

Mk1a is more than enough to replace mig21 and mk1a delivers the very best anyone could from a platform that restricted in size.

If lca mk1a was on time and inducted in 2005 -15 in 250 numbers ( as was the original plan)
Then iaf wouldn't have any problem with operating 250 mk1a with limited range and payload for 30 years?? So what is there problem today ? Just that they have more options!



Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Cutting Edge 2]

India is committed to acquire as much as 400 Tejas in various configurations. Timeline has hurted us really bad. May be it was not a safe bet given level aerospace industry.

Where have we committed to acquire 400 Tejas?????

We will either emerge as one of leaders of global aerospace sectors or will lose all hopes.

We don't have to be leaders of aerospace sector. All we care about (and where gov effort is) on making good aircraft for domestic consumption to save valuable forex money in short term and create a desi aerospace industry in long run.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Where have we committed to acquire 400 Tejas?????

394 for more precision. Some 2 years back I knew but don't remember the source. Only can browse thread.

We don't have to be leaders of aerospace sector. All we care about (and where gov effort is) on making good aircraft for domestic consumption to save valuable forex money in short term and create a desi aerospace industry in long run.

Requirements of our primary domestic customer (IAF) will make us leader. Once the stuff is there, it will be left for export as well.

 

[Defcon 1]

394 for more precision. Some 2 years back I knew but don't remember the source. Only can browse thread.

It is 324 actually, 123 Tejas Mk1 and 201 Tejas Mk2. Though the numbers may if LCA Navy is ordered too.

 

[Mikesingh]

It is 324 actually, 123 Tejas Mk1 and 201 Tejas Mk2. Though the numbers may if LCA Navy is ordered too.

It's easy talking numbers. Practically, the number you have quoted will take at least 20-25 years considering our manufacturing capacity, meaning 2040-45 by which time the Tejas would have become outdated and rendered obsolete a long time before that. By then you would have 6th gen fighters as the new normal!

The United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Japan are all in the planning stages for a sixth generation of fighter jets. The jets won't fly until 2025-30, but governments around the world are already exploring designs. Artificial intelligence will play a major role, sorting data and analyzing threats to reduce the pilot's workload. Optional manning is another likely feature, with the ability to fly the fighters remotely too with total situational awareness even while sitting within the safe confines of a MCF hundreds of miles away.

Boeing's new sixth generation design.

Via Aviation Week & Space Technology

 

[Defcon 1]

It's easy talking numbers. Practically, the number you have quoted will take at least 20-25 years considering our manufacturing capacity, meaning 2040-45 by which time the Tejas would have become outdated and rendered obsolete a long time before that. By then you would have 6th gen fighters as the new normal!

The United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Japan are all in the planning stages for a sixth generation of fighter jets. The jets won't fly until 2025-30, but governments around the world are already exploring designs. Artificial intelligence will play a major role, sorting data and analyzing threats to reduce the pilot's workload. Optional manning is another likely feature, with the ability to fly the fighters remotely too with total situational awareness even while sitting within the safe confines of a MCF hundreds of miles away.

Boeing's new sixth generation design.

Via Aviation Week & Space Technology

It will be obsolete compared to the latest 5th and 6th aircraft only.

Tejas is not meant to be field against the 6th gen aircraft. Its job is to fill numbers. It will still be comparable to and even better than many other aircraft operational in 2040 such as JF17, J10, J11 series, F16 which will form the bulk of our adversary airforces. It will never be our frontline aircraft, but something which will help us defend our airspace and carry limited strikes.

For countering advanced fighters, we will be getting AMCA and maybe more.

 

[Defcon 1]

Lca mk1)mk1a are perfect as they are .
This usual criticism of their range and payload is nothing but excuse for import by iaf.

Why does Tejas has 4 ton payload and 2000km ferry range and not f16 level 7ton , 3000km ??
Because it's a bloody small airframe!

And who asked its size to be restricted to mig21 size ?? Yup you guessed it right it was genius of IAF. So now what do they accept from bird the size of mig21!

Other criticism is the bird is late
Well if it arrived 10 years earlier in 2010 with foc we would still operate it till 2040-50 .
So what's the problem with small Tejas filling the numbers of mig21 == 250 and operate from 2016-2040-50.

Then they say mk1 is overweight ya but by how much? The comparable modern fighter is gripen c/d . Lca mk1 weights about the same.

And even if lca was 500 kg lighter that means 500kg more payload. Hurray we can drop one more bomb. Seriously how many mission profile will change with 500kg more payload.

Another criticism mk1a has no space for internal jammer , irst etc. Well again who pushed for small size ? The iaf.

So IAF must accept 250 lca mk1/mk1a to replace all mig21/23.

But they won't why??

Truth is much simple back in 1980s iaf new India couldn't afford big expensive birds. So it went for small plane to minimise both procurement and operational expenses as well as to reuse mig21 shelters. But after 2000s rapid economic expansion happened and iaf knew it could afford the best of the lot anyone has to offer.

Hence it is restricting lca mk1/mk1a to 123 numbers. Even that after parrikar intervention.

Mwf/ mk2 is welcome initiative but that is a bigger bird . But iaf excuses against more mk1a have no actual ground.

Mk1a is more than enough to replace mig21 and mk1a delivers the very best anyone could from a platform that restricted in size.

If lca mk1a was on time and inducted in 2005 -15 in 250 numbers ( as was the original plan)
Then iaf wouldn't have any problem with operating 250 mk1a with limited range and payload for 30 years?? So what is there problem today ? Just that they have more options!



Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Small size of LCA is not an excuse but a reality. LCA is small because IAF was looking for a Mig21 replacement. But that aircraft was supposed to be inducted in 1990s, not 2010s. Since the product has been delayed, obviously the requirements have changed as happens in every military force around the world.

The problem with ordering more MK1As now is that threat perception has changed. In the 1990s there were no J10, J11 or J20s. Chinese navy was not present in IOR. CSD, which requires deep air interdiction did not exist. Pakistan didn't have access to large number of 4th gen aircraft. All those things are present today. Mk2 is much better equipped to handle those challenges compared to Mk1/Mk1A

 

[IndianHawk]

Small size of LCA is not an excuse but a reality. LCA is small because IAF was looking for a Mig21 replacement. But that aircraft was supposed to be inducted in 1990s, not 2010s. Since the product has been delayed, obviously the requirements have changed as happens in every military force around the world.

The problem with ordering more MK1As now is that threat perception has changed. In the 1990s there were no J10, J11 or J20s. Chinese navy was not present in IOR. CSD, which requires deep air interdiction did not exist. Pakistan didn't have access to large number of 4th gen aircraft. All those things are present today. Mk2 is much better equipped to handle those challenges compared to Mk1/Mk1A

Lca first flight was 2001. How was is supposed to be inducted in 1990s when the lca program wasn't even properly funded.

For the sake of argument even if we inducted 1st lca in 2000 then 250 lca will be produced and inducted by 2010. And they will operate till 2040-50 with mid life upgrade along the way .
By that logic iaf wouldn't have any problem with their size / payload / range .

So what is the excuse with same range , payload fighter to be operated between 2020s to 2050s.

It's bullshit.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Defcon 1]

Lca first flight was 2001. How was is supposed to be inducted in 1990s when the lca program wasn't even properly funded.

For the sake of argument even if we inducted 1st lca in 2000 then 250 lca will be produced and inducted by 2010. And they will operate till 2040-50 with mid life upgrade along the way .
By that logic iaf wouldn't have any problem with their size / payload / range .

So what is the excuse with same range , payload fighter to be operated between 2020s to 2050s.

It's bullshit.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Its not IAF's fault that the program wasn't funded properly. They gave their requirements according to the threat perception of that point.

If IAF inducted LCA in 2000, then indeed they would have served till 2050. And yes, if the threat perception changed after that, they would have to live with their choice. But that didn't happen. The threat did change before the product was ready. So it was only logical for IAF to update their requirements.

Not updating the product requirements even after changed threat perception would be a bigger crime than updating requirements midway.

Anyways, requirement changes happen everywhere, programs are updated on the basis of feedback continously. For example, Comanche got cancelled because requirements changed. So was Mig 33.

 

[IndianHawk]

Its not IAF's fault that the program wasn't funded properly. They gave their requirements according to the threat perception of that point.

If IAF inducted LCA in 2000, then indeed they would have served till 2050. And yes, if the threat perception changed after that, they would have to live with their choice. But that didn't happen. The threat did change before the product was ready. So it was only logical for IAF to update their requirements.

Not updating the product requirements even after changed threat perception would be a bigger crime than updating requirements midway.

Anyways, requirement changes happen everywhere, programs are updated on the basis of feedback continously. For example, Comanche got cancelled because requirements changed. So was Mig 33.

Threat has changed in terms of avionics , bvr missile and electronic warfare. And lca mk1a takes care of all of that. It also has air to air refueling for additional range.

For ground strike standoff weapons have evolved which lca can fire with precision thus again reducing the need of extra range.

Strictly talking in terms of size of aircraft and payload and range not much has changed in fact technological advances have made lighter fighters more capable then ever. Lca mk1a can carry 2 bramhos Ng as progress will reduce the weight of missile.

Anyway typical mission profiles don't cross 3 -3.5 ton payload unless one goes for bombing runs. Even then lca will fly in formation of multiple birds dropping bombs together while some other will be pure air to air escort.

One can always argue the more the better but by that logic even mwf or f16 or gripen E are useless as everyone should go only for su30 size fighters.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Defcon 1]

Threat has changed in terms of avionics , bvr missile and electronic warfare. And lca mk1a takes care of all of that. It also has air to air refueling for additional range.

For ground strike standoff weapons have evolved which lca can fire with precision thus again reducing the need of extra range.

Strictly talking in terms of size of aircraft and payload and range not much has changed in fact technological advances have made lighter fighters more capable then ever. Lca mk1a can carry 2 bramhos Ng as progress will reduce the weight of missile.

It doesn't takes care of range, payload, radar size and general engine power.

The positive advances made in LCA are dwarfed by similar advances made by medium weight fighters.

For example, MK1A doesn't have any space for a passive sensor such as IRST or FSO. It cannot supercruise, It doesn't have MAWS, It doesn't have OBOGS, etc.

As for standoff weapons, they are not solution to every problem. They have lower accuracy, higher chance of interception and much higher cost. Saving money on the aircraft just to spend it on standoff weapons is foolishness unless no options are available.

Anyway typical mission profiles don't cross 3 -3.5 ton payload unless one goes for bombing runs. Even then lca will fly in formation of multiple birds dropping bombs together while some other will be pure air to air escort.

It can and does crosses 3 tonnes. Why do you think B2 has such huge weapon carrying capacity? These aircraft are built to take out multiple targets in a single sortie. Tejas cannot do that. It requires multiple sorties which increase operational cost.

One can always argue the more the better but by that logic even mwf or f16 or gripen E are useless as everyone should go only for su30 size fighters.

Yes they are useless in this era and yes advanced nations are already going for Su30 size fighters. There is a reason F35's MTOW is 32 tonnes vs 19-20 tonnes for F16. There is a reason why not a single light 5th gen aircraft project exists in the World today.