The tanker gives better planning options to the decision makers
Boreas wrote:First ques which way to go - up north towards Rawalpindi and Peshawar or go south to Multan or Lahore.
Say it decided to go north. How will other IAF planes assigned to execute some mission in that area will handle presence of this surprise entry?
The direction and region are decided at the planning stage itself. They know the distance that the plane can cover on its own fuel. So, it allows them to choose a longer route rather than a straight dash in and out (going around air defences etc.)
No, it won't suddenly occur to the pilot to choose his direction of movement. The controllers on the ground can call him back or send him to support other IAF planes in the area, if need be. The extra fuel goes a long way in providing this flexibility to mission planners.
Boreas wrote:How will this guy handle all the other aircraft activities in the area. Will it engage other enemy aircrafts it encounter while doing so? Should it? Can it?
It depends on the situation in the air. A Su-30 MKI with AA munitions can serve AA roles for longer period. Without refuelling, the plane will have to make a dash towards India much earlier, making it a nice plump target for Paki F-16s on its tail. Refuelling will allow the planes to stay in air much longer. That extra time could be the difference between life and death.
Boreas wrote:How will IAF command centre handle a situation in which most of the planes after finishing there missions will start moving towards random locations instead of returning to there bases. Will they be able to plan things correctly? with some certainty?
How is this situation better than the case in which IAF sends a plane to bombard something, it goes there does its job and comes back. And in case IAF needs intel it sends dedicated reece missions who are better equipped for the purpose and can spend as much time as desired by IAF.
There is no randomness here. All the orders will be from ground control/AWACS depending on the situation. Tanking gives you more flexibility, allows more options and gives planes with AA munitions to deal with foes for extended periods.
War is a fluid situation and is not always a situation of go in > bomb > come back home. Any resistance met along the way adds to the fuel requirements. The pilot can choose to engage at will as long as he has the necessary fuel. You might argue that the extra fuel will not help but reaching the target through indirect routes will not spare a lot of fuel and moreover, every engagement is a calculated risk, you never know how much time is needed to deal with which contingency. Again, fuel is the lifeline for a pilot. If need be, he can be tanked close to the border rather than landing which my or may not be possible.
Boreas wrote:
Such random activities will create chaos, which no commander will desire. Let me quote what shiv said few posts above -
shiv wrote:
Oh I am sure you are right. Except that a lot of these things are carefully pre planned and not left to chance. As far as possible.
No one likes to leave to chance but you control the war only as long as the enemy does not make his moves. In any war, undesired outcomes happen and they are accounted for while making planes. Surely, not everything goes according to plan. Its the side that controls this fluid nature to his adavantage comes out better. Thats why, we have AWACS, tankers, network-centricity and recon tools to deal with the changing scenario.
