Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
India Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: lAF vs PLAAF
serviceman101    11/13/2004 3:04:50 PM
If a war does happen betwwen China and India[not likely]india.Who will rule the skies. India will go defensive and china will go offensive. no flame posts plz
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
vinuatlast    RE:lAF vs PLAAF   11/16/2004 3:06:59 AM
China does hve a huge upper hand in terms of quantity ....but i dont know how effective they are in aerial combat..because as such they have never been in a war..and for India..it will be an advantage if we go defensive because...china will have to come up all they way from the mountain ranges and its certainly difficult for them to prepare an airforse base in such a terrain.....Both countries have some good planes..most of Chinas are reverse engineered ..so there lies a question ...as for India too many old planes in the inventory ..questions their longevity....But certainly this war wouldnt be like the one fought in 62...we have come a long way from being enemies to being friends ..
 
Quote    Reply

LogicalBuddy    RE:lAF vs PLAAF   11/17/2004 3:43:30 AM
china v/s india...lol...both will suffer casualities and it will take a long long time for both of them to become what they are now...
 
Quote    Reply

PacEMakeR    RE:lAF vs PLAAF   11/17/2004 10:52:39 AM
The thing is, by putting India on the defensive, you give it the tactical advantage, as we have an extensive air defence system backing up the IAF. Fighters: Keep in mind that the PLAAF's primary aim is to protect the Chinese mainland, a policy now changing. With exception of the 95 Su-27's and yet-to-be-acquired J-10's, China has primarily obsolete fighters for air superiority. It has 600+ MiG-21's and 300+ MiG-19's as its primary fighter contingent. While these are upgraded versions of the original Russian design, I doubt either that match up to India's MiG-21 UPG. The older Indian MiG-21's of course, are a different story (but here, pilot trainng comes into the picture, which I shall address later). India has 250+ MiG 21's in service, of which 125 have been upgraded to the UPG variant. It also has 60+ MiG-29's and 50+ Su-30's at the moment. Out of these Su-30's, I'm not certain how many are MKI variants. We also have 180+ MiG-23/27's which can engage in an A2A role if necessary, although the MiG-27's are better at ground strike. Now, the (second) best fighter India has is the Mirage 2000H, of which we have between 40-45. This is superior to any Chinese fighter in their inventory (except perhaps the Su-27). In this category, although China has the numerical advantage (a consistent trait), India clearly possesses the qualitative advantage. Deep Penetration/Ground Attack: With the Chinese Q5 (A MiG-19 Derivative) and Indian Jaguars, both sides have a nuclear ground strike capability. However, your post seems to be primarily A2A, so nuclear capability hardly comes into account. China's primary strike fighter is the Q5 Fantan, a much-improved MiG-19. They possess more than 350+ of these, while India has between 90-100 Jaguars. I feel the Jaguar is clearly the better aircraft. Since in your scenario, India is on the defensive, the only useful ground strikes in Chinese territoey will be at airbases and such. However, if some of these aircraft may participate in A2A combat (considering the Jaguar would be of little use if India is on the defensive and the Q5 can take on the A2A role), the Jaguar is better than the Q5 in this respect. Considering the number of Q5's China has though, the IAF would take quite a bashing. Other: I wont bother mentioning Transport squadrons, as both sides would do equally well in that front. Sililarly Helicopters would have little use apart from Search and Rescue (and perhaps something else which I'm missing out on). In terms of A2A missiles, I think India might have the advantage, although I cant find a source for the A2A missiles China uses. ELINT/EW-wise, I'm too unknowledgeable(is that even a word?) to offer an opinion about who has the advantage. Being on the defensive, and having some fighters with AAR (A2A refuelling) capability coupled with the fact that they are on home ground (with more bases in reach), the IAF does possess an advantage in terms of longer CAP's and the like. Intelligence on both sides cannot be commented upon, although both have satellites and ELINT/SIGINT infrastructure. The IAF has more pilot training hours than the PLAAF and follows a more western doctrine than the PLAAF, so I believe the IAF has an advantage here. So far, I havent heard of a PLAAF equivalent of TACDE or the like. Also, having an extensive intergrated ADS (Air Defense System) in place allows the IAF to shoot down more PLAAF planes. Conclusion: The IAF wins this scenario, although it would lose if the scenario were reversed. If the IAF is on the defensive, it can handle anything the PLAAF throws at it, although in a war of attrition expect the IAF to take heavy losses. The main problem for the PLAAF on the offensive, however, is that it does not possess a 4th Gen fighter in enough numbers to gain air superiority. Until 200+ J- 10's are in place, it is impossible for them to win this scenario. However, by that time, the LCA (a good aircraft) will be good enough to handle it on the defensive, and we will have the 190 Su-30 MKI's in place, along with 125 Mirage 2000-V's. So the conclusion would remain the same in that time.
 
Quote    Reply

serviceman101    RE:lAF vs PLAAF   11/17/2004 4:01:21 PM
I think 18 are su-30k and the rest r su-30 MKI[best fighter plane in service with any air force]
 
Quote    Reply

SwordFish_13    RE:lAF vs PLAAF   11/20/2004 5:30:02 AM
Hi, Since these Afgan War and Iraq war lot of people have been talking about air superiority .............and one who controld the air controls everythign ...............But one thing to remember is Both Iraq and Afgan Conflicts had one rival that ws too weak and other too strong. In a almost level playing feild trying to go for the air superiority early would not be a tactical move.............rather in and out strikes ............go in strike the target and come out . And second thing ...........you can't just compair planes like that and say oo they are superior...........Agred hardware counts but ther is one thing as tactics ...........the doctrine applied.............a proper doctroine, good tactics , intensive traning and understanding out what you have can indeed surprise a slightly superior rival............i good example of that would be the Joint Indo-US Air exercise....... named Cope India. US Air Forse faired so badly that screams could be heard in the US congress. US thought Indian air forse would use Soviet or French tactics in teh warfare They themselves admitted after the exercises........ they completely underestimated the IAF's skill and tactics .......here is a Quote form a USAF pilot 'once we saw what they were, we knew we'd get killed in this exercise." It's not just the hardware that counts . -=SF_13=-
 
Quote    Reply

SwordFish_13    RE:lAF vs PLAAF :-O   11/20/2004 6:33:26 AM
...........And Sorry for being slight off-topic
 
Quote    Reply

serviceman101    agree   11/20/2004 10:31:15 AM
I totally agree with u SF_13 Would you happen to know the chinese doctrine?
 
Quote    Reply

SwordFish_13    RE:chinese doctrine   11/21/2004 7:28:11 AM
Hi, China Follows a Different Style of Doctorine than what we call the western one.............in fact they don't call it Millitary Doctorin....what they have closest otis what they call millitary science he he he :D .............well don't except them to follow west they are not western................Doctrinal literature is developed by the PLA Academy of Military Science (AMS) under the authority of the CMC i belive..............correct me if wrong on this oone One thing that have influnsed their doctorine is the fact for a long time people have saw thwm as a hostile forse................so they have prepared for it.....................PLA's overall Doctorine (or Millitary Science as they call it ) overshadoes PLAAF’s doctorine...............As an arm of the PLA, the PLAAF has traditionally conducted its combat operations as a series of subordinate campaigns within the PLA's overall campaign One thing that is quite Noticable and strange for a foreigner is the fact ..............they don't hold on to the lamd they gane........................**Unilateral retreat ** which amases me the most ..................go into the enem,y terrotary with overwelming force................this Overwelming Forse is a part of their doctorine .................they are not afraid about casualities.................just go in with overwelming Forse ..............destroy the target and return ................most ig teh other forces would have loked to occupy the position they gain..................but not PLA they follow the principla of **Uniletaral Retreat**....................Look at all the wars they fought and you will find it quite noticable. now for the PLAAF’s ..............it'sfunction was primarily defensive, with very limited offensive capability. China did not expect to use air and space power but did expect an enemy to do so.......................China considered its air arm an extension of the army. ................and dosen't operate independentof it.................... Under such conditions, the PLA had no need for air and space power doctrin. Only recently has China reportedly granted the PLAAF an enhanced role.................the PLAAF now faces the worst of all worlds: it has a huge legacy force of obsolescent or obsolete equipment that was inadequate for the old strategy and that is utterly unsuited for the new one.............they are in a process of mordanising they fleet and Forse and it wil take a loong time ..................my best wishes to them. Cheers -=SF_13=-
 
Quote    Reply

SwordFish_13    RE:chinese doctrine    11/21/2004 7:31:16 AM
Hi, China Follows a Different Style of Doctorine than what we call the western one.............in fact they don't call it Millitary Doctorin....what they have closest otis what they call millitary science he he he :D .............well don't except them to follow west they are not western................Doctrinal literature is developed by the PLA Academy of Military Science (AMS) under the authority of the CMC i belive..............correct me if wrong on this oone One thing that have influnsed their doctorine is the fact for a long time people have saw thwm as a hostile forse................so they have prepared for it.....................PLA's overall Doctorine (or Millitary Science as they call it ) overshadoes PLAAF’s doctorine...............As an arm of the PLA, the PLAAF has traditionally conducted its combat operations as a series of subordinate campaigns within the PLA's overall campaign One thing that is quite Noticable and strange for a foreigner is the fact ..............they don't hold on to the lamd they gane........................**Unilateral retreat ** which amases me the most ..................go into the enem,y terrotary with overwelming force................this Overwelming Forse is a part of their doctorine .................they are not afraid about casualities.................just go in with overwelming Forse ..............destroy the target and return ................most ig teh other forces would have loked to occupy the position they gain..................but not PLA they follow the principla of **Uniletaral Retreat**....................Look at all the wars they fought and you will find it quite noticable. now for the PLAAF’s ..............it'sfunction was primarily defensive, with very limited offensive capability. China did not expect to use air and space power but did expect an enemy to do so.......................China considered its air arm an extension of the army. ................and dosen't operate independentof it.................... Under such conditions, the PLA had no need for air and space power doctrin. Only recently has China reportedly granted the PLAAF an enhanced role.................the PLAAF now faces the worst of all worlds: it has a huge legacy force of obsolescent or obsolete equipment that was inadequate for the old strategy and that is utterly unsuited for the new one.............they are in a process of mordanising they fleet and Forse and it wil take a loong time ..................my best wishes to them. -=SF_13=-
 
Quote    Reply

SwordFish_13    RE:lAF vs PLAAF   11/21/2004 7:32:00 AM
I can't post my reply why ............everytime i get a error message
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics