Comparison between the Navies of India and China

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Ehran RE:Indian Ignorance of Weapons systems 11/28/2005 12:19:46 PM

two ships each with say 64 sams available for use. on a good day you are looking at 75% hits and without a good battle management system you will waste some of those hits on duplication.

Quote Reply

dabrownguy RE:Indian Ignorance of Weapons systems 11/29/2005 11:13:04 PM

Are you assuming that InN is stupid enough to sail into Chinese Aircover? Also I meant to say SAM not AShM. I know they have Moskit etc.. The Indian Navy didn't need the PAR for one. What are you that stupid? AWACS? I'm assuming that PLAN doesn't have AWACS sence they don't on open waters! They 052C should be limited to horizon to intercept low low AShM. Meaning 25KM. The entire PLAN has worse capability to intercept the sea skimmers! As for InN the fleet can intercept the missiles close in. But that is if enough PLAN vessels get close enough. The Harrier or Viraat is protecting the fleet. Also the BARAK is defence against AShM so is the KHASTAN! As well as the SHTIL I might add. And BTW whats this? link Also neither can. But the InN does have Ka-31. They'll have better aircoverage aswell as ASW. Also consider this. The InN has 3 Delhis with 2 rail launched Shtils guided by 6 Orekhs. Thats better than the 052B. Then they have Kashin III Class armed with the longer ranged Shtil with 4 Orekhs, and the InN has 3 of these. The Rajputs have the naval Goa SAM. Missiles not all that but the 3D Star is expecially designed to detect AShM. If I remember the InN has 5 Rajputs. The Shtil can cover an area of 35~40 KM. The fleet is already well protected against AShM considering the threat, PLAN. But thats not all. Most of the ships have their own AK-630 or Khastan, or Barak VLS. But to intercept PLAN's attacks the InN would have to get the missiles with in their intercepting range. The InN also has early warning; the Ka-31 that is equiped either on the Kashin III or Viraat. The Ka-31 woud cover over the horizon for AShH,Ships or aircraft. Similiarly PLAN does not have this capability yet! What else does the InN have? well... They also have the aircraft carrier INS VIRAAT. The vessel's air arm consist of Ka-31, Ka-28, Sea King and the Harrier. The Sea King performs the best ASW duties in the InN covering a radius of 200-300 km around the carrier. It can also be armed with the Sea Eagle AShM with a range of 110 KM. The Harrier performs almost the same task with the Harrier exept with a longer radius. It protects the fleet both from airattacks and surface threats. It deals with surface threats by launching Sea Eagles before the enemy gets close to the fleet to fire their AShM, assuming the enemy here is PLAN. Now I suppose you wanna know how can a stupid Harrier attack the PLAN fleet without being dystoryed by the HQ-9 of the 052C? Well. The PLAN lacks a important asset. AEW! The PLAN can not see the Sea Harrier if it is flyng below the horizon. It only needs to get with in 110 km to fire the AShM. If InN manages to knock out 2 052C then the airdefence coverage is reduced for the PLAN. Then they are sitting ducks to the Harriers. Now incase the PLAN do get with in range the InN can hold their own. They have better capability to intercept low flying AShM then the PLAN. Remember the horizon will limit the 052C expecially when her HQ-9 missiles could be as bulky as the S-300. The PLAN would have to deal with threats from Barhmos, Klub N, Switch Blades and Styx. The PLAN's greatest interceptor against sea-skimmers is undoubtly the Shtil on the 052B and Sovernmey's. I'm assuming all this that the PLAN and InN are not fighting on PLAAF's airspace. Because if they were fighting beyond PLAAF's aircover the advantage is InN's with her aircover provided by the Carrier and AEW.

Quote Reply

Galrahn RE:Indian Ignorance of Weapons systems 11/30/2005 12:51:10 AM

Good discussion topic mithradates. I would take India today if I had to choose, better equipment does not guarantee victory, and after the Russia/China exercises this past summer and the reports from the Russians afterwards, China still has a long way to go to get their Navy ready for a shooting war. While you stack Navy vs. Navy, you have to account for both sides Air Power. In that regard, I'd take India. Both China and India are still relatively new to using AEW tactics, with India holding a major edge today. The reason is simple, read the reports from "Cope India ?06" and compare them with the reports from the Russians after the various exercises in August. India is clearly superior given testimony and opinions of highly qualified non-biased sources. But tomorrow is a different story. China has training problems and military corruption problems that certainly need to be addressed, but there is no question the equipment favors China. If China Is fielding all new subs and ships with this bad boy, India has no answer: link For those not familiar, maybe this will help put it in perspective. link Not to mention, just because India is going to field the Gorshkov, China will be able to at least equal that with the Varyag. link link India clearly has the advantage today because India has a better Air Force, and I am not talking about equipment, I am talking about pilots. That's not only my opinion, many Russian, French, and US experts have said it many times. I would be unimpressed with the future Indian Navy though, while India has quality sub forces and continues to improve, I don't think they would last long against what China is building. China is building a modern deep water fleet that reminds me of US and Russian cold war era sea superiority ships, where India is building a modern Navy similar to what we saw from many European Nations during the cold war, ships that are multi-purpose making them suitable for any mission, but great at nothing.

Quote Reply

mithradates RE:Indian Ignorance of Weapons systems 11/30/2005 2:04:49 AM

" read the reports from "Cope India ?06" and compare them with the reports from the Russians after the various exercises in August." A few points about the exercises, and I have read both reports from Jane's. And it's "Cope India 05" btw. In anycase, one thing to note here is that the rules of the Sino-Russian wargames were INTENTIONALLY skewed against China, at China's REQUEST. The fundamental goals of the two excersizes are different. India is considering whether to form a military alliance relationship with the U.S through these military exercises, and the U.S is effectively seeking India's support as an ally(to contain China) through a bit of flattery. You can tell this by the manner of the exersize itself. In both Cope India 04 and 05, mock air combat involved Indian Su-30s guided by that nation's single Russian AWAC against American fighters without AWACS. In the 04 exersize the U.S side wasn't even allowed to use medium range aim-120 air-to-air missiles, while the Indian side were allowed to use the similar Russian AA-12s. Additionally, in all mock air-combat scenarios, the Indian fighter force outnumbered the American fighter planes usually by 3 to 1, and on occasion by 4 to 1. It's not a big deal if India's top pilots perform well under such conditions, unfortunately, such favorable conditions are unlikely to happen in a real war. In the exercise with Russia, China was trying to simulate EXACTLY what a naval and air war with American would be like. Now China has 8 domestically made AWACs, but a specific air-war scenario was that the AWACS were all taken out, and that China's fighters will have to take on an offensive force without any AWAC support. And such a scenario makes alot of sense, since in the event of a war with America, the U.S would most likely use their F-22s to take out China's AWACs before commiting the majority of their airforce. In that particular scenario, China lost 6 planes to Russia's 2. In another scenario, the assumption was that the enemy would strike a region of China which lacked the most advanced fighters. So AWAC equipped Russian SU-27s with AA-12s were pitted against Chinese upgraded J-7s(Mig-21), with the result of 7 Chinese planes taken out with a single Russian Su-27 lost. The same applied for the Naval exercises. China was pitting it's Songs and upgraded Mings against a Russian upgraded Akula nuclear submarine. And it turned out that China lost like 9(7 Mings, 2 Songs) submarines before the Akula was taken out by a Song. While the favorable conditions of Cope India is unlikely to happen to India if it was in a war with a major power. The conditions that China setup for itself is highly likely to happen to China, if in a war with America.

Quote Reply

mithradates DabrownGuy 11/30/2005 2:47:37 AM

Your points are for the Plan to fight a battle on the open seas with the Indian Navy. I can tell you right now, that's never going to happen. All strategic points from the straits of Malaca to the Taiwan Straits to the Andeman Islands, or even to Persian gulf, are within range of PLAAF ground based aircraft. We have a green water navy, and it's designed to fight and win within 500km of the coast. The good thing is that all strategic areas of importants are within 500km of the Chinese coast or the coast of one of our vassal states. Thus all the overwhelming advantages of Over the horizon targeting and fleet wide defense will be available to the PLAN but denied to the Indian Navy.

Quote Reply

Galrahn Indian Ignorance? More like Chinese Strategic and Tactical Challanges 11/30/2005 10:38:06 AM

mithradates I see your point of view, but we will disagree on what an India/China conflict would look like, and why India's training is more appropriate. First, the exercises themselves were right on the money. India has a major advantage over China in one regard, almost all of the resources India uses are imported from areas very close to India. In fact, with the exception of material imports from Australia, Japan, and the US (all of which are less than 40 billion dollars which isn't much), India imports everything from the west of India, away from China. A Chinese Navy's only offensive option against India is to blockade shipping, and it is extremely unlikely China could prevent shipping from Australia, Japan, or the US to India. The only other use of the Chinese Navy is a sea-based defense of the mainland. That would be absolutely useless to China though, because India wouldn't attack form the sea anyway. China would require sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to remain open, meaning China would have to protect tanker convoys from countries like Iran as the convoys sailed around India to China. Which means, China needs a blue water Navy to ever fight a war against India. China knows this, it is why they are building one. While the Chinese exercise might be more accurate for a potential strike at Taiwan, China has few options engaging India because quite honestly, China would run out of energy to support such a conflict. In any war against India, China will most definitely have to operate in the Indian Ocean, likely under favorable conditions for the Indian AF and Navy. India's Navy is more than capable of putting an energy blockade against China, which is exactly what the role of their Navy would be in any India vs China war. India would lock down the Strait of Malacca with ASW forces and China would be in a world of hurt to do any offensive strikes against the Indian Navy, while India destroys the Chinese economy without having to fire any major weapons from a Naval vessel by simply seizing/sinking Chinese tankers. There has not been a major conflict fought on earth since 1945, and many people forget what won that conflict. In the end it came down to 2 things, Germany unable to prevent shipping to Britain, and the US massively disrupting Japanese shipping in the Pacific. While the AIP and DE subs China has are nice for defense, the reality is against India those subs are useless unless they are able to operate in the Strait of Malacca. That option is dangerous though, considering it is likely they would piss off Japan, South Korea, or Australia if they sunk the wrong ship, and the last thing China would want to do is give India an ally in a shooting war, particularly an ally that could threaten their coast with a Navy. This makes Chinese nuke subs very important, however I am unaware of anytime in history where a nuke sub was able to provide air defense for convoys. When it is all said and done, the surface fleet for China that could fight a war against India does not match up to what India would be able to field effectively against China today, and the vast majority of Indian vessels would only have to occupy themselves with two roles, finding and sinking Chinese nuke subs and preventing tanker traffic to and from China and the Persian Gulf. China vs. India today leaves China with only 1 clear advantage, Chinese nuke submarines. Considering India has a carrier to utilize as a projected ASW platform, and considering India would be able to use every land based ASW aircraft in their arsenal to combat that threat, even the Chinese nuke boats have to overcome a lot just to utilize that advantage. If you can explain how the Chinese exercises somehow address China's main Naval concern, which is of coarse tanker shipping from the Persian Gulf, I'll be glad to continue this debate, but as of today, which was your standard, China simply has no answer to the problems they would face in a war against India?s Navy.

Quote Reply

dabrownguy RE:Indian Ignorance of Weapons systems 11/30/2005 7:41:33 PM

First off the InAF don't have AWACs so they couldn't use it in Cope India 04. Second the InAF did out number the USAF. So did the USAF. They switched sides often. The goal was to learn to intercept the bombers; MiG-27 and Jagaurs and protect them. Both airforces limited their capability in missile range to 50~ KM. I repeat both! The American pilots were impressed with Indian pilots and so were the Indian pilots. Fact is I don't think the Americans were expecting a new tactic creation in post cold war era with Russian jets. Its well known InAF pilot hours are ~200 each year. So stop spewing your crap. Also I don't see the PLAAF intercepting the InAF fleet hours away from the Chinese airbases if they don't know where they are and since a fleet does move. If you haven't noticed a fleet moves. The further away the InN fleet is from PLAAF aircover the less aircraft they can send. Also consider the proud tradition and training of InN and compare it with PLAN. I don't see foriegners too impressed with the PLA.

Quote Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan China's and India's exercises 11/30/2005 11:57:53 PM

China's exercies were to practice joint services exercises in attacking a piece of land, involving beach landings and support. In that respect is where the Russians remarked China failed miserably. It is true that the PLA had the air theatre stacked against it to simulate fighting the US, as J-6s and J-7s won't make it to the sky over Taiwan. But loosing the air war was a small part of the PLA's sloppy invasion. I'm not sure why the IAF set up COPE 05 like they did, in a war against China they'd be fighting Russian jets with Russian missiles, they should be working with the Russian air force. Maybe they wanted to test their abilities against pilots with better dogfighting skills, of course the USAF wanted to loose to build a case for getting more F-22s. A war between China and India is most likely to occur in and around Mayamar and Nepal. So all of this navy talk is almost pointless unless a small regional tiff blows up into full scale war, then China looses all central asian pipelines and inbound oil tankers. China's few submarines in the area would cause some inconvenience, but eventually get tagged by India's ASW (which may be getting gear from Japan...big trouble for the PLAN if that's the case).

Quote Reply

mithradates RE:Indian Ignorance? More like Chinese Strategic and Tactical Challanges 12/1/2005 2:18:43 AM

Clearly there are several areas where you are incorrect. "India's Navy is more than capable of putting an energy blockade against China, which is exactly what the role of their Navy would be in any India vs China war." As you've mentioned, that would require some major interdiction of tankers in the Persian gulf, and also a lockdown on the straits of Malacca. Assuming that the Indian navy could even do this(which it can't),that then leads to a few serious issues: 1. How do you identify one tanker amongst the hundreds to oil tankers that traverse these chockpoints every day? Over 30% of the world's tankers are built in China nowadays, but clearly Chinese shipping companies do not own 30% of the world's shipping business. Thus many oil Tankers(of Chinese design and manufacture) are operated by other countries. Likewise, how do you prevent a Malaysian or South Korean tanker company from supplying petrol to China from the Gulf. Now the Indian army can blindly sink every tanker that comes out of the Persian Gulf, but that'll get India into a world of hurt very quickly. Likewise, boarding or seizing the wrong(or the right ones crewed by sailors from another country) tankers can get India sanctioned almost immediately. Severely disrupting the energy supply of some 30 countries in East Asia will have huge global consequences, and not of the good kind. 2. How would India's navy deal with the eastern front? Keep in mind that while India's distance to the Persian gulf is much closer, it doesn't actually get the bulk of its petrol through shipping. Instead most of India's oil supply(~80%) is coming overland through 2 major routes: Pakistan, and the central asian republics. Pakistan is a Chinese ally(with 1 Chinese naval base and several military bases), and they could well stop the flow of energy to India. Most of the central asian republics(4 members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) are Chinese client states. These countries are beyond the power projection range of India's airforce(due to the lack of domestic in-flight refueling aircrafts),but well within range of the PLAAF and garrisoned by PLA troops. While the straits of Malacca serves as an energy conduit to dozens of Asian countries, the pipelines going through Pakistan and the central asian republics have ONLY ONE identifiable destination. Thus China would be able to DISCRIMINATELY cut off India's energy supply, while India can only INDISCRIMINATELY cut off China's supply. Disrupting the malacca straits will send energy prices through the roof, and bring many enemies to India. But cutting off the pipe lines from Pakistan and Central asia to India, hurts ONLY India without offending too many other countries. ) are Chinese client states

Quote Reply

mithradates Chinese Strategic and Tactical Challanges....part II 12/1/2005 3:15:09 AM

"India would lock down the Strait of Malacca with ASW forces and China would be in a world of hurt to do any offensive strikes against the Indian Navy" I'm afraid I can't see how this could possibly be accomplished. But lets consider your argument seriously for a moment. If India, RIGHT NOW, decides to place a lockdown on the malacca straits, it'll have to send at least one flotilla but most likely it's entire CBG(if India wants air cover). So here is the airpower that it can project to that theater of operations: 22 Sea Harriers 4 IL-38(Dedicated ASW aircrafts) The sea Harriers are armed with Magic-II missiles which has a range of 10km. Thus the Sea Harriers are INCAPABLE of BVR combat. Additionally, the Sea Harriers are not designed to operate with AWACs, thus BVR combat would be impossible even if Medium range missiles were available. Now India has significant air assets in it's closest major airbases in the Easter command territories, but the nearest large Indian air base is over 1200 nautical miles away from the straits of Malacca. The Andaman & Nicobar Command (ANC) do not as yet have an operational air squadron deployed. Now on the Chinese side here are the following ground based air assets 3 bases in Southern Hainan, ~800 nautical miles from the straits. (~170 J-8s, J-10s, J-11s) 1 base in Laos, ~600 nautical miles from the straits (~30 J-8IIs, JH-7As) 1 base in Cambodia, ~ 400 nautical miles from the straits (~30 J-8IIs) 1 base in Burma, ~200 nautical miles from the straits(~30 J-8IIs, J-7Gs) Total of 260 aircrafts. Excluding the JH-7As, all of them can be coordinated with AWACS, and are BVR capable. Both J-10s and J-11Bs can use the AA-12(80km range) The J-8IIs and the J-7G can use the PL-11 (70km range) Lets assume that at any given time 1/3 of the two side's air assets can be utilized against eachother. Then we're talking about ~80 BVR capable aircrafts, coordinated by AWACs against 7 to 8 VTOL aircrafts with only short range air-to-air missiles. I just don't see how the Indian fleet could POSSIBLY maintain control of the air. When control of the air is lost, Chinese aircraft launched ASCMs would take care of the rest of fleet. It's as simple as that. Now I could be wrong about this analysis, but just how would the Indian navy maintain control of the malacca straits?

Quote Reply

displacedjim RE:Indian Ignorance of Weapons systems 12/1/2005 10:09:01 AM

"First off the InAF don't have AWACs so they couldn't use it in Cope India 04. Second the InAF did out number the USAF. So did the USAF. They switched sides often. The goal was to learn to intercept the bombers; MiG-27 and Jagaurs and protect them. Both airforces limited their capability in missile range to 50~ KM. I repeat both! The American pilots were impressed with Indian pilots and so were the Indian pilots. Fact is I don't think the Americans were expecting a new tactic creation in post cold war era with Russian jets. Its well known InAF pilot hours are ~200 each year. So stop spewing your crap. Also I don't see the PLAAF intercepting the InAF fleet hours away from the Chinese airbases if they don't know where they are and since a fleet does move. If you haven't noticed a fleet moves. The further away the InN fleet is from PLAAF aircover the less aircraft they can send. Also consider the proud tradition and training of InN and compare it with PLAN. I don't see foriegners too impressed with the PLA. " -- DBG ======================== The IAF did not have AWACS, but they did have GCI support and apparently used it to simulate having an AWACS available. The USAF forces did not have any such support, whether on defense or offense. Both sides had restricted missile ranges, but one key difference is that the USAF was restricted to simulating pre-AMRAAM era semi-active radar missile guidance only, while the IAF Su-30K, M2000, and I think even the MiG-21 Bisons were simulating active radar missile guidance. Here's a description of it. Displacedjim ---- 3rd Wing Explains 'Cope India' Exercise � Aviation Week & Space Technology; aviationnow.com By David A. Fulghum, Elmendorf AFB [April 10, 2004] 3rd Wing explains what happened when U.S. pilots faced innovative Indian Air Force tactics The losing performance of F-15Cs in simulated air-to-air combat against the Indian air force this year is being perceived by some, both in the U.S. and overseas, as a weakening of American capabilities, and it is generating taunts from within the competitive U.S. fighter community. The Cope India exercise also seemingly shocked some in Congress and the Pentagon who used the event to renew the call for modernizing the U.S. fighter force with stealthy F/A-22s and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The reasons for the drubbing have gone largely unexplained and been misunderstood, according to those based here with the 3rd Wing who participated. Two major factors stand out: None of the six 3rd Wing F-15Cs was equipped with the newest long-range, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. These Raytheon APG-63(V)2 radars were designed to find small and stealthy targets. At India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the use of simulated long-range, radar-guided AIM-120 Amraams that even the odds with beyond-visual-range kills. These same U.S. participants say the Indian pilots showed innovation and flexibility in their tactics. They also admit that they came into the exercise underrating the training and tactics of the pilots they faced. Instead of typical Cold War-style, ground-controlled interceptions, the Indians varied aircraft mixes, altitudes and formations. Indian air force planners never reinforced failure or repeated tactics that the U.S. easily repelled. Moreover, the IAF's airborne commanders changed tactics as opportunities arose. Nor did U.S. pilots believe they faced only India's top guns. Instead, they said that at least in some units they faced a mix of experienced and relatively new Indian fighter and strike pilots. Maj. Mark A. Snowden, the 3rd Wing's chief of air-to-air tactics and a participant in Cope India, spoke for the 13 U.S. pilots who attended the exercise. They flew six F-15Cs, each equipped with a fighter data link for rapid exchange of target information, AIM-9Xs and a Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System, he says. The aircraft had been to Singapore for another exercise and for the long, six-week jaunt it was decided not to bring along the additional maintenance package needed to support AESA-equipped F-15Cs. Cope India was held Feb. 15-28 at Gwalior, about 150 mi. south of Delhi, where the Indian air force has its Tactics Air Combat Development Establishment, which operates late-model MiG-21 Fishbeds as fighter escorts and MiG-27 Floggers as strike aircraft. Aerospace officials who have heard the classified brief on the exercise say the MiG-21s were equipped with a "gray-market" Bison radar and avionics upgrade. Mica-armed Dassault Mirages 2000s are also stationed there. Brought in for the exercise were Sukhoi Su-30s (but not the newest Su-30 MKIs) carrying simulated AA-11s and AA-12 Adders. There also were five MiG-29 Flankers involved in a peripheral role and an Antonov An-32 Cline as a simulated AWACS. "The outcome of the exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected," Snowden says. "India had developed its own air tactics somewhat in a vacuum. They had done some training with the French that we knew about, but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force. That was silly. "They could come up with a game plan, but if it wasn't working they would call an audible and change [tactics in flight]," he says. "They made good decisions about when to bring their strikers in. The MiG-21s would be embedded with a Flogger for integral protection. There was a data link between the Flankers that was used to pass information. [Using all their assets,] they built a very good [radar] picture of what we were doing and were able to make good decisions about when to roll [their aircraft] in and out." Aerospace industry officials say there's some indication that the MiG-21s also may have been getting a data feed from other airborne radars that gave them improved situational awareness of the airborne picture. Generally the combat scenario was to have four F-15s flying at any time against about 12 Indian aircraft. While the U.S. pilots normally train to four versus 12, that takes into account at least two of the U.S. aircraft having AESA radar and being able to make the first, beyond-visual-range shots. For the exercise, both sides restricted long-range shots. "That's what the Indians wanted to do," Snowden says. "That [handicap] really benefits a numerically superior force because you can't whittle away some of their force at long range. They were simulating active missiles [including] AA-12s." This means the missile has its own radar transmitter and doesn't depend on the launch aircraft's radar after launch. With the older AA-10 Alamo, the launching fighter has to keep its target illuminated with radar so the U.S. pilots would know when they were being targeted. But with the AA-12, they didn't know if they had been targeted. The Mirage 2000s carried the active Mica missile. Aerospace industry officials said that some of the radars the U.S. pilots encountered, including that of the Mirage 2000s, exhibited different characteristics than those on standard versions of the aircraft. The U.S. pilots used no active missiles, and the AIM-120 Amraam capability was limited to a 20-naut.-mi. range while keeping the target illuminated when attacking and 18 naut. mi. when defending, as were all the missiles in the exercise. "When we saw that they were a more professional air force, we realized that within the constraints of the exercise we were going to have a very difficult time," Snowden says. "In general, it looked like they ran a broad spectrum of tactics and they were adaptive. They would analyze what we were doing and then try something else. They weren't afraid to bring the strikers in high or low. They would move them around so that we could never anticipate from day to day what we were going to see." By comparison, the U.S. pilots don't think they offered the Indians any surprises. The initial tactic is to run a wall with all four F-15s up front. That plays well when the long-range missiles and AESA radar are in play. "You know we're there and we're not hiding," Snowden says. "But we didn't have the beyond-visual-range shot or the numerical advantage. Eventually we were just worn down by the numbers. They were very smart about it. Their goal was to get to a target area, engage the target and then withdraw without prolonging the fight. If there were a couple of Eagles still alive away from the target area, they would keep them pinned in, get done with the target and then egress with all their forces. "All their aircraft seemed to be capable of breaking out [targets] and shooting at the ranges the exercise allowed," he says. "We generally don't train to an active missile threat [like the Mirage's Mica or the AA-12 for the Russian-built aircraft], and that was one of the things that caused us some problems." USAF planners here see Cope India as the first step in an annual series of exchange exercises.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Indian Ignorance of Weapons systems 12/1/2005 10:25:01 AM

Why doesn't the USAF train to cope with enemy active missiles?

Quote Reply

displacedjim RE:Chinese Strategic and Tactical Challanges....part II 12/1/2005 10:44:35 AM

While I don't see how any PLAAF/PLANAF fighters could cover the Malacca Strait from the PRC itself, I will agree it's possible one or more SE Asian countries would allow Chinese basing, but even from there it would be too far to put fighters over the Strait: If you're measuring to the north end of the Strait and assuming overflight rights from Thailand, then your distances of 800NM and 600NM still seem a bit low, but in the ballpark. However, that's still too far to allow any amount of persistence over the area of operations. With the same assumptions even just the 400NM from Cambodia would only allow brief loiter time over the Strait, and your 200NM from Burma must place the airbase in the southernmost tip. These last two bases certainly could provide China the capability to put fighters over the northern opening to the Strait. However, I just don't see the need for India to project itself all the way over there. If the Chinese tankers start in the Persian Gulf and end up passing through the Strait and up the Asian coast to China, then India should be able to do plenty of damage in the Arabian Sea and in the Indian Ocean south of India, and not have to try projecting itself 1000 miles east and into range of forward-deployed Chinese aircraft. The last I knew, all civilian shipping displays flags and uses other forms of "tacsigns" like colored stripes around the stack, etc., to identify themselves. I doubt it would be too hard for what little maritime reconnaisance India has, combined with a couple dozen warships and submarines, to find many of China's tankers on their way east through the Indian Ocean. I'm sure they don't need to sink them all in order to still put a huge crimp on China's energy imports. Displacedjim

Quote Reply

displacedjim RE:Indian Ignorance of Weapons systems 12/1/2005 10:48:34 AM

"Why doesn't the USAF train to cope with enemy active missiles?" -- Yimmy ---- To the extent this statement is/was true, I suspect it's because our likely enemies (therefore certainly ruling out at least NATO, France, Australia, Japan, and Israel) didn't really have any operationally deployed. Displacedjim

Quote Reply

The Lizard King China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities 12/1/2005 12:49:29 PM

link

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

	News As History - November 25, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us