Are We Ready for a Two-front War ?

[atma]

other than numbers speed matters a lot! Given our airlift capabilities....its tough to consider ourselves Fast Bowlers......We are more like Robin Singh when it comes to speed of mobilisation.............


If you want to hear only what u want to,then you can not be in a democracy! What I said is India's Strategic Airlift is just 15 Il-76s while U.S has around 30 C-5s and 200 C-17s for a military of almost the same size! We need to have at leat 20% of their Strategic Airlift capability and we don't have even one percent,literally!

Kananjee, Amerikhan needs and can afford all that strategic airlift capability because it is the goonda to the world, conducting prolonged war in faraway places. It also has access to more than 1/2 of all the air bases in the world to use this capability. India does not need nor can afford 20% of that capability or access. It probably has adequate and increasing capablities in the context of this thread.

[darshhan]

Hi Manish and ramana,


Ok, Lets face it! We spend $30 billion annually on defence but the Chinese have declared $70 billion publicly but international estimates are to the north of $100 billionn that is three times our budget and they pay soldiers almost the same as we do! So, it becomes simple.......We cannot match in numbers......

Any way let us start,here goes.................

http://indiastrategic.webs.com/mysteriousmarks.htm

Are the armored personnel carrier figures given in the website correct?

By the way I have a feeling that we have a shortage of options where non-line of sight(NLOS) weapons are concerned.For eg. we are extremely short on artillery.For the last 2 decades there has been no progress on this front.We also short on missiles(includes Cruise,tactical and ballistic) which we can use to target enemy command centres and bases.According to the table given in the above website we also have a disadvantage as far as Multiple Rocket Launch Systems are concerned.

So if the war breaks down our Non line of strike option will be primarily shouldered by our Airforce(Airstrikes using Su-30,jaguar and Mirage-2000).Now this concept has a disadvantage.If the enemy has a robust air defence system(which China almost certainly has) the efficacy of air strikes will go down tremendously and our fighter attrition will go up.However China will not face the same kind of issue.Compared to us they are blessed as far as quantity of artillery,missiles and MLRS is concerned.They do not have to depend upon just their Air Force to degrade our defences.They have adequate options as far as NLOS weapons are concerned.

Suppose if India and China both have a heavily defended airspace then China will have an advantage.

To counter this in short to medium term(I do not believe that our defense manufacturing and procurement system is going to change any time soon to have a worthwile impact in this time frame) we will have to use all our resources optimally.Our tactical intelligence gathering in Tibet,Yunaan and Sichuan provinces must be of top order.Also we will have to build up our special forces capability which today is lagging behind.Unlike inducting huge no. of missiles(for which technologies are just starting to mature) and artillery(which is mired in bofors legacy) , building up a capable and robust special forces organisation will take very less time.If we can support them with adequate airlift which includes helicopters and equip them with suitable force multiplers such as laser designators for our strike aircraft and portable electronic warfare modules , we can wrest the initiative.

Since we are deficient as far as hardware is concerned for now and for the forseeable future we will have to wage an asymmetric warfare in order to gain advantage over the combined force of Chinese and Pakistanis.

I also believe and I have stated it before that some units of our Special Forces and SFF should be capable of waging unconventional warfare instead of just being used in Reconnaisance and Ambush role.Which means they should be capable of training and leading forces of indigenous gurreilas behind enemy lines.As such they can be tremendous force multipliers.And if you are able to equip these gurreillas with MANPADS(Iglas) and portable ATGMs(milan etc) you can imagine the effect that they will have on the battlefield.A significant portion of the enemy force will be tied down in engaging these gurreillas.This approach has extremely high returns for a minimal amount of cost incurred.By the way we did this in Bangladesh Liberation war when we created Mukti Bahini and it was tremendously effective.

For doing all this we need a seperate SOCOM type organisation with adequate funding and substantial autonomy.Otherwise I doubt if all this can be done.

[DavidD]

What do you support. Are you a Taiwanese. Do the Taiwanese also support the persecution of Tibetan Monks in China by PRC.

No, and no. What's your point?

It is the job of the Indians to change the mind of the people of China so that Tibet will be considered as owned by people of Tibet.

OK.

So what you are saying is that it is OK for China PRC to proliferate nuclear weapons to Pakistan even after it has accepted the international agreement on non proliferation.
So is it OK if China faces the consequence of that action and be target of India in case of nuclear war.

Yes, and yes.

Dont be childish. In another post you are saying that leaders of all countries are human beings with rational thought.

Right, they're very rational.

PRC is essentially dependent on these exports to these western countries and none of those trade relationship are permanent. So the western nations did a favor to China and its people. Now using that you are trying to intimidate Indians.

[/quote]

Pretty much, though I've argued about the level of dependence previously.

[svinayak]

Whoa! Look who is talking

[shiv]

If you want to hear only what u want to,then you can not be in a democracy! What I said is India's Strategic Airlift is just 15 Il-76s while U.S has around 30 C-5s and 200 C-17s for a military of almost the same size! We need to have at leat 20% of their Strategic Airlift capability and we don't have even one percent,literally!

Good analysis. Be like America you say? (now where have I heard that before? ) Fine.

Where will this airlift capability land in Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh. What will it carry? How will the stuff carried be moved from the airfield to the frontline? Where is the frontline likely to be given current Chinese deployments and capability?

[darshhan]

If you want to hear only what u want to,then you can not be in a democracy! What I said is India's Strategic Airlift is just 15 Il-76s while U.S has around 30 C-5s and 200 C-17s for a military of almost the same size! We need to have at leat 20% of their Strategic Airlift capability and we don't have even one percent,literally!

Good analysis. Be like America you say? (now where have I heard that before? ) Fine.

Where will this airlift capability land in Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh. What will it carry? How will the stuff carried be moved from the airfield to the frontline? Where is the frontline likely to be given current Chinese deployments and capability?

Kanan , you can build up all the airlift capacity but where is the stuff to be airlifted.Critical shortages in artillery and missiles.What will these 200 strategic airlift planes carry?

Secondly when talking of a two front war we have to keep in mind that most of our borders lie in mountainous terrain.As Shiv asked where will these planes land?

For such terrain airlift in the form of heavylift helicopters is more desirable.For eg Mi 26/Chinooks/CH 53 super stallion.I suppose India has already floated a tender for these.Lets see which one gets selected and more importantly when?

[Bhaskar]

Our infrastructure in the north east lags decades behind that of china. Purchasing tanks or airlift planes isn't going to help that much. You know it's like having a car but realizing your village has no roads to begin with. If we wanna match the Chinese. We need to be as agressive as them. We need to have an equally powerful infrastructure there and lastly, we need to have the huge tank lifters and what not. All said, if we are talking about a full blown war with China then we must also realize that China too would have trouble transporting it's troops that fast. Any activity in the region by China would be closely observed by R&AW. Knowing that China is ready for war, that's when a swift Indian transport of troops will be key.

[DavidD]

Just wondering, wouldn't the same infrastructure issues affect Chinese soldiers attempting to invade into India? Seems to me like infrastructure is best developed with civilian purposes in mind while serving military purposes only as a secondary goal.

[ManuT]

Just wondering, wouldn't the same infrastructure issues affect Chinese soldiers attempting to invade into India? Seems to me like infrastructure is best developed with civilian purposes in mind while serving military purposes only as a secondary goal.

Believe it or not, this has been the excuse of the babus as if it were a part of a larger strategy.
When you look at the other side’s infrastructure and see that it is inferior, would you consider it as not conducive for operations and call off an invasion or will you consider it as a disadvantage to the other side restricting its mobility and options.

I would think, if you can’t move it is not a disadvantage to the other side, only to yourself.

Other thing is, technology can be used to lack of infrastructure on the other’s side. Compare the climb of Mt Everest by Sir Edmund Hillary to that of the recent teenager or the sky diver who jumped to Mt Everest. It has almost become a tourist spot. Personally, I am waiting for someone to be the first women to give birth on Mt Everest, but seriously, Himalayas are a crumbling barrier, more so than it was 50 years ago. Keeping up with technology is only choice, but not only for the sake of it, but which can be brought to bear (doesn’t matter if it is civilian or military, only matters if it is in place or not on the day you need it). Armed forces are only one component, but also the last one.

---
Also, the relationship with Bhutan has been redefined with the new treaty. I do not know enough, if its defence is still tied to India’s. Even if it was, if the babus are de-sensitised to the needs of its own Armed forces, I doubt they will even be aware of Bhutan’s.

[kish]

I have read the 13 pages of comments posted under this topic. I believe i could write few lines(paragraphs) about it (as a patriotic citizen). These include these recent events which took place under the guise of WOT,FOP(Friends of Porkistan, etc).

These chinese, might have tacit support of the US to go ahead with the Nuclear deal. Because you remember "The south asian role Obama promised for the Chinese". For a very long time they wanted to do a similar nuclear deal for porkistan as well. They could not do it because of the non proliferation treaties. More important that. They wanted to have a clean image, Because of the proliferation done by the Khan network is out there in the open. These cry babies(porkistan) has got a good excuse as well, no power generation to meet the requirements for the entire population. The reality is the PA will divert it to make sure they have enough nuclear weapons to have significant impact in India, rather than to care for their poor. These Amerikans are stupid or atleast act stupid to believe all these crocodile tears are indeed true.

I Read a few comments about the Russians. Despite being a communist regime. They did their best. There were deceit or lies as in all democracies as we encounter with the western governments. They delivered what they promised atleast when they were United Socialist Soviet Republic of Russia (USSR). Now, the matter is totally different. Their economy is in doldrums. They would do whatever
it takes to straighten up their economy (E.g Gorshkov deal). But they are not offering similar technology to our eternal enemy Porkistan. Look what our western democracies are doing (US, UK, France, Germany, etc). Every country has provided advanced weapons to this terrorist sponsoring nation. Despite overwhelming evidence being provided to those nations about the involvement of porkistan in terrorist activities. That speaks volumes about friends and enemies

With all these in mind. My conclusion would be. The west would be happy to take any result. May it be Chicom + Porki gains or India win. Having this in mind. what should we do is... to make the cost of this war incredibly high for Chicom. This would naturally eliminate a two front war to a one front war. how? let me explain...

"Little Boy" and "Fat man" used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of 13 and 18 Kiloton respectively. It caused nearly 200,000 thousand deaths. Indian nuclear weapons are much more advanced than this. We just need couple of nuclear weapons to cause destruction in Pecking(Beijing) or Shangai to take their economy to a stand still. We don't need a MIRV(ed) missile. A PSLV would do the job for us (correct me if i am wrong). My guess is, that is the reason why the US of A is still having the ISRO
in the Export control list. Whatever..

Putting my selves in the Chinese shoes. They are having more issues than we actually do. They have problems with Russians, Kazakhstan, India, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, etc . Apart from US of A. If they indulge even in a limited war against India, they know for sure that they will be sitting ducks for either Russians or Taiwan(with Tacit support of Americans). So, they will never strain their resources for porkistan. They have much higher priories than porkistan. They might at best give weapons to ( Porkistan ) to keep India under check, But it would be suicidal for them to get involved in a direct conflict. So, the "All weather ally" or "The taller than the mountains.." are an illusion that they are giving to porkistan to keep India under check. In actual conflict, they won't care even if porkistan gets annihilated. But, they would be happy that some of India's resources got drained. One less problem to worry about.

This leaves us to deal with the radicalized porkistan alone. Let me leave it to your assumption what we could do to porkistan, may it be either conventional war or non conventional. I know we would be dragged down to a couple of decades( in economic terms) like what chicoms wants us to be. But, that would be the final price we would be paying for a ensuring peace and stability in our country.

[Kanan]

Lets begin this way! India and pookistan start war, India makes inroads into Kashmir and almost cut off the Paki-XXXXX highway,giving China an excuse (some of the region is still ambiguously controlled) to enter the war and it spills all across ! We will fight Pak-China combine In Kashmir and China in Sikkim and Tawang! How would we fare?

1>China's PHS-03 can allegedly hit 200 kms away (though some say only 150 kms)! India's Smerch has a range of only 90 kms! We have no answer to PHS-03!

2) Babur LACM is ready! Nirbhay is not!!!

3> We will have almost 9000 tanks to face against the 3500 we have! we have ATGMs but so do they! But indo-china border will be a difficult place to do a KURSK!

4)1000s of obselete Chinese aircraft will fly sorties! again we are no match in numbers! Can anyone list india's strengths? i can't find any and I am hating it!

[shiv]

Lets begin this way! India and pookistan start war, India makes inroads into Kashmir and almost cut off the Paki-Chinki highway,giving China an excuse (some of the region is still ambiguously controlled) to enter the war and it spills all across ! We will fight Pak-China combine In Kashmir and China in Sikkim and Tawang! How would we fare?

1>China's PHS-03 can allegedly hit 200 kms away (though some say only 150 kms)! India's Smerch has a range of only 90 kms! We have no answer to PHS-03!

2) Babur LACM is ready! Nirbhay is not!!!

3> We will have almost 9000 tanks to face against the 3500 we have! we have ATGMs but so do they! But indo-china border will be a difficult place to do a KURSK!

4)1000s of obselete Chinese aircraft will fly sorties! again we are no match in numbers! Can anyone list india's strengths? i can't find any and I am hating it!

Saar please allow me to point out some fundamental errors in your post - because everyone makes them. I am not saying you are wrong - but you are listing the wrong weaknesses and wrong strengths.

The answer to a Babur is not a Nirbhay. A sword needs a shield or armor for prorection. Not another sword.

Please look at the terrain of the India China border. Please indicate where 9000, or even 9 tanks can be used.

Please look at the same map and see the altitude of Chinese airfields in Tibet. Then check the payload versus range of those 1000s of obsolete of Chinese aircraft and see

1) If they can take off at all with a full load from 10,000 foot high airfields
2) if they can take of with a full load, how far they can fly
3) How many airfields India needs to take out before they have no airfields left

Oh yes we have already lost the two front war many times over in this thread and you have reason to be anxious, scared.depressed, suicidal whatever. But you have stated all the wrong reasons.

Like I said - a lot of people come to this topic to express anxiety and their deepest fears which often seem to be based based on misinformation.

[DavidD]

Shiv, your points are all valid except the take off thing. Just about any military plane can take off at any earthly altitude, a thinner atmosphere just means a longer runway is required.

[shiv]

Shiv, your points are all valid except the take off thing. Just about any military plane can take off at any earthly altitude, a thinner atmosphere just means a longer runway is required.

No sir. You are wrong. The engines too are affected by the altitude and do not develop the thrust required apart from the atmosphere affecting the lift on the wings and there is a reduction in either fuel load or payload.It's not the ability to take off. It is the ability to take off with a full load of both fuel and bombs. Any reduction in either make the aircraft less effective than an Indian aircrfat taking off at sea level and climbing to operate over Tibet.

At full fuel and full payload you require runways that are so long that they cannot be built in mountainous regions. And after taking off the plane still has to climb even higher to clear the mountains - which may be as much as 5000 feet higher and very close to the airfield . Remember we are talking about the Himalayas here not the Pennines.

The meaning of "Hot and High" has been defined by the Indian Air Force which has the most experience in the world operating, and conducting a conflict out of high altitude airfields.

[Gaur]

DavidD,
You should read up on the difficulties faced by IAF ranging from flight performance depreciation due to rarefied atmosphere to the problems of dumb bombs and precision munitions. On reading that you will find that longer take off length is not the only problem with operations at high altitude.

[DavidD]

Shiv, your points are all valid except the take off thing. Just about any military plane can take off at any earthly altitude, a thinner atmosphere just means a longer runway is required.

No sir. You are wrong. The engines too are affected by the altitude and do not develop the thrust required apart from the atmosphere affecting the lift on the wings and there is a reduction in either fuel load or payload.It's not the ability to take off. It is the ability to take off with a full load of both fuel and bombs. Any reduction in either make the aircraft less effective than an Indian aircrfat taking off at sea level and climbing to operate over Tibet.

At full fuel and full payload you require runways that are so long that they cannot be built in mountainous regions. And after taking off the plane still has to climb even higher to clear the mountains - which may be as much as 5000 feet higher and very close to the airfield . Remember we are talking about the Himalayas here not the Pennines.

The meaning of "Hot and High" has been defined by the Indian Air Force which has the most experience in the world operating, and conducting a conflict out of high altitude airfields.

So you're admitting that simply a longer runway is required. The Tibetan PLATEAU is not mountainous, the Himalayas is. Climbing high enough to cross over Mt. Everest isn't a problem even for WWII planes, so I doubt that any plane currently in service will have problems.

Gaur:

I agree that longer take off length isn't the only problem, but I'm only talking about take-offs here since the other problems would be encountered by both sides.

[kit]

Can someone elaborate on how the proposed new rail link between PK and CN can play out., in the various topics described for eg., IndoChina border as tank unfriendly place., the equation changes if CN tanks roll towards Indian border via PK.Not to mention the numbers.

[shiv]

So you're admitting that simply a longer runway is required. The Tibetan PLATEAU is not mountainous, the Himalayas is. Climbing high enough to cross over Mt. Everest isn't a problem even for WWII planes, so I doubt that any plane currently in service will have problems.
.

Sir you are allowed to believe what you want because this is not China. Have a look at Google earth at Tibet. All Chinese airfields are marked. Check their altitude and length and range from the Indian border. Look at the terrain they have been built in.

Then talk about what I admit or do not admit. I am not Chinee trying to save my face by winning an argument over your misinformation - so the rhetoric about what "I admit" or what I do not admit is completely meaningless.

If you have facts - lets hear them - not a dissection of my statements to check what i admit or do not admit. Leave that for the Chicom party meetings in Beijing. And the bit about WW2 planes is funny. You Chinese have a good sense of humor even when you are bluffing.

[DavidD]

You said planes cannot take off from high altitude with full fuel and armament load, I said they can but they need longer runways, you agreed. Where's the argument? The P-51 Mustang's service ceiling is over 12000 meters, and the J-7(Mig-21) is over 18000 meters, both can clear the Himalayas, even with full load. Again, where's the argument?

Please refrain from personal insults, I don't think they're contributing to the conversation.

[sunilUpa]

effect of temperature and altitude on airplane performance

David,
Even with ultra large runways, not all aircraft can take of with full payload. Now this effectively reduces.
1. Number of airbases available to PRC for offensive operations (meaningful)
2. Types of aircraft that can be used.
3. Useful load that can be carried.

So alll this talk of ziliion PRC fighters taking off from gazillion airbases are flights of fancy.

[DavidD]

effect of temperature and altitude on airplane performance

David,
Even with ultra large runways, not all aircraft can take of with full payload. Now this effectively reduces.
1. Number of airbases available to PRC for offensive operations (meaningful)
2. Types of aircraft that can be used.
3. Useful load that can be carried.

So alll this talk of ziliion PRC fighters taking off from gazillion airbases are flights of fancy.

Yes, that's certainly true, but military aircrafts can generally take off from high altitudes given enough runway space. You're right about the limited numbers of airbases and the fact it's fanciful thinking that a billion PRC fighters can swarm India though. Even if they can, the J-7's and J-8's are mostly just missile fodder so the numbers really don't mean much.

Just dug up a bit data. Apparently Boeing 767's can take off from the Gonggar airport in Lhasa, Tibet(elevation: ~3500m, highest in the world is ~4100m). The 767's T:W ratio is 0.15. I don't care how empty that 767 is, and it's obviously not too empty or it'd be pointless to fly there, if a plane with a T:W ratio of 0.15 can take off from Tibet then warplanes with T:W ratio of 0.75+ can as well.

[shiv]

You said planes cannot take off from high altitude with full fuel and armament load, I said they can but they need longer runways, you agreed. Where's the argument? The P-51 Mustang's service ceiling is over 12000 meters, and the J-7(Mig-21) is over 18000 meters, both can clear the Himalayas, even with full load. Again, where's the argument?

Please refrain from personal insults, I don't think they're contributing to the conversation.

You still have not shown me where in Tibet those runways exist that allow the takeoff off any aircraft with full ammunition and fuel?

You post rubbish first and then look for "agreement" from me which you do not have and them say that I am posting personal insults and spoiling your conversation? Of course I will tell you that you are posting rubbish when you do that. If that upsets you that's tough. You ned to get your facts straight before whining.

i am merely telling you that my "agreement" about runway length does not make facts out of the nonsense you have posted about aircraft operating out of Tibet. It is entirely possible for me to bite your trollbait and start asking about the connection between Mustangs and taking off from runways in Tibet in WW2 and Mig 21s and WW2. Clearly you are fudging facts and hoping that my "agreement" makes your fiction come alive. Kindly disabuse yourself of that delusion.

Just do not respond to my posts if you feel insulted by what I say and report my posts to the admins. I think you are talking rubbish minus any intent to check for facts and are using "agreement" from me as proof that the rubbish you say is correct.

[shiv]

Just dug up a bit data. Apparently Boeing 767's can take off from the Gonggar airport in Lhasa, Tibet(elevation: ~3500m, highest in the world is ~4100m). The 767's T:W ratio is 0.15. I don't care how empty that 767 is, and it's obviously not too empty or it'd be pointless to fly there, if a plane with a T:W ratio of 0.15 can take off from Tibet then warplanes with T:W ratio of 0.75+ can as well.

OK all you whining Indians. Just see how this guy argues. If the Chinese armed forces think like this guy we can relax. They can be handled pretty easily. This guy does not even have his basics right.

Of course the planes can take off but what useful payload will they have and what can they hit in India? Never mind. If this is the level of expertise in the PLAAF there is plenty to cheer about. The only problem is I suspect the PLAAF is not as ignorant as the representatives it sends out.

[rohitvats]

^^^the worth of such a rail link (and also Tibet-China one) is prior to the start of conflict - when this capability will be used to move troops and assorted equipment. Once the shooting match start, given the terrain and alignment, such a system will be taken out in initial stages. These links can neither be proptected nor sustained during the war.

Point is - can GOI have enough balls to pre-empt enemy and take them out before the full scale build-up?

[DavidD]

Shiv,

I've presented my arguments and backed them up with numbers and analysis, so if you wish to refute them, you may present your own numbers and analysis. I'm a guest on this forum so I'm not gonna start trading personal/national insults with you. All I'm saying is that if a plane with a T:W ratio of 0.15-0.3 can take off with some useful load then a plane with a T:W ratio of 0.75+ can probably do so with a pretty full load.

As for the railway, it's probably not a good idea to consider every Chinese infrastructure development as a military threat first and foremost. Of course all infrastructure CAN be used for military purposes, but right now China is much, much more interested in getting rich rather than getting bloodied. That type of railway can be shut down pretty easily, and LACM's can do the job without aircraft help, so it's probably intended for business use and, as someone suggested, military use only before the outbreak of a war.

[darshhan]

Lets begin this way! India and pookistan start war, India makes inroads into Kashmir and almost cut off the Paki-Chinki highway,giving China an excuse (some of the region is still ambiguously controlled) to enter the war and it spills all across ! We will fight Pak-China combine In Kashmir and China in Sikkim and Tawang! How would we fare?

1>China's PHS-03 can allegedly hit 200 kms away (though some say only 150 kms)! India's Smerch has a range of only 90 kms! We have no answer to PHS-03!

2) Babur LACM is ready! Nirbhay is not!!!

3> We will have almost 9000 tanks to face against the 3500 we have! we have ATGMs but so do they! But indo-china border will be a difficult place to do a KURSK!

4)1000s of obselete Chinese aircraft will fly sorties! again we are no match in numbers! Can anyone list india's strengths? i can't find any and I am hating it!

kanan ji , Hardware on its own doesn't win wars.Wars are decided by courage(not just of troops,but of entire nation),effective and intelligent leadership(both at tactical and strategic levels) and tenacity of the nations involved.

To give you an example in 1939 Nazi Germany had the most powerful land army in the world and one of the most capable air force.Inspite of this in 1945 germany was comprehensively defeated and occupied by the allied powers.As far as allies are concerned none of them were adequately prepared in 1939.Britain was following an appeasement policy along with France.America was in isolationist mode after world war 1.Russia's military was heavily degraded by Stalin's Purges.

Yet the allies managed to prevail.The leadership of allies(eg.Churchill and FDR) along with their tenacity(best example will be battle of Stalingrad) were the primary reasons why the allies defeated Nazi germany and Japan.

World war 2 is just one example.If you go through history there are countless such examples throughout the ages where the smaller power has managed to whack the larger one.I am not saying that Hardware is not important.All I am saying is that it is not the sole deciding factor of the outcome of a war.

However if you have a leader like nehru then you will have tremendous disadvantage.

[akshay]

kanan ji , Hardware on its own doesn't win wars.Wars are decided by courage(not just of troops,but of entire nation),effective and intelligent leadership(both at tactical and strategic levels) and tenacity of the nations involved.

To give you an example in 1939 Nazi Germany had the most powerful land army in the world and one of the most capable air force.Inspite of this in 1945 germany was comprehensively defeated and occupied by the allied powers.As far as allies are concerned none of them were adequately prepared in 1939.Britain was following an appeasement policy along with France.America was in isolationist mode after world war 1.Russia's military was heavily degraded by Stalin's Purges.

However if you have a leader like nehru then you will have tremendous disadvantage.

Germany lost becuase it went to fight two wars at once (the crux of this topic). At the end it came up short. America was pushing weapons even before it entered the war.
Right now the only solution is a masterstoke like Indira Gandhi.. She signed a Treaty with Russia ,then liberated bangladesh..China was left gaping.

Another fact in India's favor , the land on our side of the border is difficult, in 1962 China captured large parts but then withdrew. The official position says India forced them to withdraw but the logistics were just too problematic. This is the reason why GOI doesnt develop the area till today. Why facilitate Chinese invasion with roads and electricity.

[darshhan]

I was not talking about German strategy for the world war 2.I was just stating that hardware is not the sole factor for winning the wars.The will of the nation and its leadership are as important if not more.

Also you said that Germany lost because it was fighting on two fronts.But on both these fronts war was initiated by Germans themselves on the orders of Hitler himself.That itself was faulty leadership.The whimsical leadership of Hitler was one of the reasons for German defeat.

By the way even America and Britain were fighting multi front wars not just Germany.America was fighting in Europe,the Pacific and even Asia against both Germany and Japan.Britain was also fighting on multiple fronts from europe to asia and North Africa.It was a multi front war.That is why it is known as world war.

[shiv]

Shiv,

I've presented my arguments and backed them up with numbers and analysis, so if you wish to refute them, you may present your own numbers and analysis. I'm a guest on this forum so I'm not gonna start trading personal/national insults with you. All I'm saying is that if a plane with a T:W ratio of 0.15-0.3 can take off with some useful load then a plane with a T:W ratio of 0.75+ can probably do so with a pretty full load.

Taking off at high altitude the range is lower (less fuel) and if the range is more the payload is less. That makes them less effective than aircraft taking off at sea level from Indian bases with a full complement of AAMs waiting to shoot down aircrfat taking off from Tibet and any slow large refuellers waiting to refuel them.

viewtopic.php?p=453086#p453086

Guys,

Based on some of the arguments of the previous avatar of this thread, I have posted some of the analysis that I had some time ago regarding PLAAF Air-Power in Tibet. As you can imagine, the analysis is extremely convoluted and complex to present full in words here, but I figured you guys can understand the posted information's relevance (if any).

I have started out with range and load envelopes for the A-5 here:

CHINESE AIRPOWER IN TIBET: PART-1
A-5/Q-5 FANTAN FLIGHT PERFORMANCE IN THE HIMALAYAS

PERFORMANCE FOR OPTIMUM BATTLEFIELD INTERDICTION IN ARUNACHAL PRADESH. (MAX LOAD-OUT IN WEAPONS AND MINIMUM RANGE REQUIREMENT LIMIT OF 250 Km)

Typical Launch location for given range: GONGGAR, LHASA
Role: BATTLEFIELD INTERDICTION IN ARUNACHAL PRADESH (MAX LOAD IN WEAPONS)
Runway Length: 12000 FEET (MAX)


LOAD-OUT OPTIONS CHART:

a) MAX LOAD plots:
4 X 500Kg bombs
or 6 X 250Kg bombs
or 50Kg bombs depending on weapon carrying capacity (refer chart for values at different locations)
or 6 X Miscellaneous Rocket/Cluster bombs
and remainder payload capacity as internal fuel

b) MAX RANGE plots:
maximum internal fuel and two drop tanks of these sizes:
2x300 Gal
or 2x200 Gal
or 2x105 Gal
selection of either depending on payload capacity and range data and remainder payload as weapons

LOAD AND RANGE FOR GIVEN CASE OPTIMIZATION VERSUS AIRBASE ALTITUDE:
(Click for graph)
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7605/53465512wy5.jpg

LOAD AND RANGE FOR GIVEN CASE OPTIMIZATION VERSUS RUNWAY LENGTH:

This graph has been optimized for the battlefield range specified earlier with only internal fuel and full weapons load on the pylons.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2007 ... -1962.html

The airfields of Zinning, Lanchous and Kunming (2080 m) were located too far away from the international border to have any bearing on the ground battle. Nachu, though closest to the battle zone, was situated at an altitude of 4500 m, hence, was unfit for fighter/bomber operations. Jye Kundo, elevation 3800 m, and Chamdo, elevation 3230 m, were fit for MiG-19 operations against NEFA area, though with payload reduced by as much as 2000 kg, a penalty for high elevation. Thus, these fighters could use only cannons. IL-28 bomber could have operated from these bases striking cities like Dibrugarh, Jorhat, Guwahati, Shillong and Kohima. But certainly not Madras (Chennai) as stated by Mullick or for that matter even Calcutta and Kanpur. The strikes would have been with reduced payload. The IL-28 flying a high-low-high profile to extend its range would have had a radius of action of only 700 km and not 2500 km as implicated by Mullick. Even over the ground battle area, MiG-19, only with cannons would not have made significant impact.

The MiG 19 has a thrust weight ratio of 0.86

[shiv]

From Hari Sud

China’s military advantage over India vanishing
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/09 ... hing/9317/

[Kanan]

Seniors, do we have any kind of defence against cruise missiles like Babur (paki) and the more Lethal CJ-10 (ChN)? while we know the BMD is under development, is there any effort to thwart cruise missiles? Because Shiv says answer for a sword is nor another sword but shield, Do we have a shield against these?

[shiv]

Seniors, do we have any kind of defence against cruise missiles like Babur (paki) and the more Lethal CJ-10 (ChN)? while we know the BMD is under development, is there any effort to thwart cruise missiles? Because Shiv says answer for a sword is nor another sword but shield, Do we have a shield against these?

No shield that I know of other than CIWS defence that may be present over installations considered as vital.

[Aditya_V]

Or the claim that Akash and some other SAM's can should down incoming Cruise Missiles, if detected and if there is enough reaction time.

[shiv]

Cruise missile detection could be done by AWACS I guess. Shootdown is possible if detected.

[Aditya_V]

Shiv, Yes but we don't have enough Awacs today or for the next 5 years or so to have 24 hours round the clock coverage

[shiv]

Therefore we don't have protection against cruise missiles

[Aditya_V]

Agreed, then an idea poped in my Head, can any of the Aerostats deployed detect them, or if the target is really important and Viraat a bit long in the tooth, no VikramAditya for now and not enough Harriers, may be the navy could loan 4 Ka-31's to keep 24 hour coverage over a high value target. I guess thats the best we have for now.

Offcourse this assumes the Aerostat and Ka-31 Radar can be networked with our airdefence radars, CAR, Rajendra etc.

If I remember right an R-73 can shoot down cruise missiles, so if an aircraft is in the air may be they can shoot it down.

Taking hopes to extremes may an SU-30 radar can be datalinked to our airdefence network which will help in detection and shootdown.

[ParGha]

- self delete -
Doh! Escalation matrix depends on platform detected.

[ramana]

PRC has its arsenal in long tunnels with eastward facing entrances. Hence the Agni glide vehicle.

[Rahul M]

Therefore we don't have protection against cruise missiles

the problem of shooting down a CM is primarily one of detection, shooting it down is comparatively simpler, as it should be for a subsonic object moving in a straight line.

IAF has been buying a humungous amount of radars in the recent past and more are on order. the gap is definitely getting plugged.

>> If I remember right an R-73 can shoot down cruise missiles, so if an aircraft is in the air may be they can shoot it down.

all A2A missiles have that capability, once detected it's no more complex than shooting down a target drone. the vanilla su-27 had CM hunting as one of its primary roles.