Cain Marko wrote:arshyam wrote:Well, I would argue that you are comparing apples and oranges. I presume by 275+ birds, you mean the Air Force's Tejas and its derivatives. So if these birds are rendered inoperative due to sanctions, we still have a fall back in 270+ Su-30MKIs and 36 (hopefully 72 at some point) Rafales. I will ignore the ageing Jags and Mig-29s at this point. Heck, let's even ignore the Mirages. That still leaves the Air Force with a smaller, but still potent capability, that the Air Force can wield from wherever they want to, if nothing else, in a defensive role.
By your own logic saar, IF by some uber-conspiracy all of the 24 JSFs that I'm advocating as a silver bullet force are rendered inoperative, won't the entire remaining fleet be unaffected? IOWs, the IN will still operate their MiG29Ks, no different from today and the IAF remains unaffected. The downside is very little, the upside, much.
CM saar, with all due respect, you are selectively quoting a partial point and making your case.
This was your initial statement. Can we agree that by the number 275, you were referring to the Air Force, while the original point of discussion was about a silver bullet force for the Navy?
Cain Marko wrote:Actually, you totally missed the point, phorget Crux. For most purposes, they already have both testimonials, giving them a little cheek is not an issue.
Again, I'd say that the danger is far greater in having an entire fleet of 275+birds at their mercy compared to a 2 dozen birds that can seriously alter the game in our favor.
Now please read this point in its entirety, I hope it clarifies what I am trying to say - the Air Force, even with 275 birds out of commission, can operate with some capability, but the Navy with an already smaller air fleet would be disproportionately impacted. In addition, even the carrier would become useless.
arshyam wrote:Well, I would argue that you are comparing apples and oranges. I presume by 275+ birds, you mean the Air Force's Tejas and its derivatives. So if these birds are rendered inoperative due to sanctions, we still have a fall back in 270+ Su-30MKIs and 36 (hopefully 72 at some point) Rafales. I will ignore the ageing Jags and Mig-29s at this point. Heck, let's even ignore the Mirages. That still leaves the Air Force with a smaller, but still potent capability, that the Air Force can wield from wherever they want to, if nothing else, in a defensive role.
Now coming to the Navy, the F-35s will be deployed from an aircraft carrier. Let's say the same sanctions render these birds inoperative, then what? The entire aircraft carrier, built at a cost of billions of USD, is rendered inoperative. Given our budgetary limits and the Navy's plan of having 3 carriers with one in refit, that's 50% capability off the table right there. So like the fighters, the carrier itself becomes a dry-dock queen. One may argue that we can deploy some other aircraft from that carrier and still use it - which aircraft? If the carrier is STOBAR, we fall back on the MiG-29K, warts and all. This assumes the F-35 is qualified for STOBAR (I think the RN will ask this for its QE carriers), more importantly, the Navy opts for another STOBAR carrier, which doesn't look likely as of now. Whereas, if (and per the Navy's dreams), the carrier has EMALS, which other fighter in our inventory can launch using it? I am quite certain no American administration would allow us to qualify MiG-29Ks or any other Russian origin aircraft to launch using EMALS, so we are stuck with a force consisting of a single fighter type. Speaking of EMALS, the same sanctions might very well render the launch capability inoperative too, at which point, the type of fighter becomes moot.
Cain Marko wrote:You are going to places where I've never been in the above para. I'll discuss the relevant aspects and leave out the whole Vishal and EMALs bit because it is not at all relevant to current context.
Yes, you didn't bring it up, but this is very relevant in the context of an aircraft carrier. Surely you are not saying any aircraft can launch and recover off any carrier type? If we consider getting a silver bullet force for the Navy, we
have to consider which carrrier/carrier type it is going to deploy from. Not sure why that is not relevant?
Cain Marko wrote:As you say, no more than fantasy big V is! So lets discuss the italicized part - why will either of the entire aircraft carrier be rendered inoperative? Are they inoperative today? Why can't they continue to ply the MiG29K?
Saar, a silver bullet force for the Navy would need a carrier, correct? That would be either Vikramaditya or the Vikrant? Either of them can hold around 20-25 fighters today, correct? By your own point, the 29K uptimes have improved to pretty good levels. So where will this silver bullet force deploy from? And why would be spend a lot of money to arm the Vikrant again when it already has operational fighters? So I assume it would be from a new carrier, at which all the points about EMALS, qualified fighters, etc. all come into play.
If you are saying we are only going to deploy these fighters from the Vikrant, which already has a relatively young fleet with good uptimes (again, your own point), I'd say it is an egregious waste of money consider the other pressing needs the Navy has, such as ASW helis, minesweepers, submarines, etc. But despite all that, if we buy the F-35 only for the Vikrant and tell the embarked 29Ks to land bases (seems a fantasy to me, sorry),
then I agree that Vikrant would still continue to stay operational with the 29K.
Cain Marko wrote:BTW, the uptimes on this bird have improved considerably and last I checked the CNS was quoted as being quite satisfied in this regard. In fact, they are aiming for 80% uptimes, which is a big deal.
Absolutely. I have no concerns about the uptimes of the 29K at this point. I am in fact saying that the the 40-odd 29Ks will all we will have in the event this silver bullet force is rendered inoperative. I hope you are not saying that it is not a serious loss of capability
after throwing a boat load of money to get a silver bullet force.
Cain Marko wrote:here I think you totally underestimate what the JSF can bring to the table - to summarize, it is a massive gamechanger and can truly provide the Indian forces a tool whereby their ability to manage 2 front scenario is considerably boosted:
1. Even a handful of F35 gives such an untouchable and extraordinary advantage vs TSP that a large part of the remaining resources can be used vs China. Against China, esp. in areas like Tibet, again they would be of great use against the likes of the S300 and clones. Not to mention PLAAF assets.
2. In terms of projecting force such as carrying out land attacks on heavily guarded HVA e.g. Karachi area, it will allow the Migs to remain passive for most of the engagement. ACting as AEW with its multiple sensors and NCW ability, the F35 can very easily allow direct operations far away from organic AEW support such as from the Ka31s
3. The JSF will act as "openers" by kicking down the door and degrading enemy network nodes and assets even before the rest of the gang comes in to take control of the skies. There is absolutely nothing to challenge the JSF esp. wrt to TSP. The war will be over in 2-3 days with hardly much attrition for the IAF, leaving it fully capable of checking the Chinese if the latter decide to act funny.
4. As far as Chinese threats in the IOR are concerned, what do you think they are building 6 CVs for? Once these become fully operational, and that won't take long, CV vs CV becomes a real possibility in the IOR or the ICS. At such times the force with longer reaches and larger bubbles become more potent. Again, the F35 will come very handy here. Ditto vs other PLAN surface combatants that have VLSAMs aboard.
5. Ultimately war is about attrition and this will be reduced to a minimum if India starts on the front-foot using doorbangers like the F35. For example, a couple of F35 in the party at Balakote or TSP's consequent attack could've have been quite different.
I did use the words "superlative" w.r.t. the F-35's capabilities. I was just questioning how useful it would be for us, given our insistence (so far) of maintaining our own network centric capabilities, which may not be compatible with the F-35s without deep intrusion of amir khan assets. Anyway, I will concede this point as my knowledge is not as much.
Cain Marko wrote:First, a silver bullet force of a few fighters is not bought with the idea of customization, it is bought because it provides a read advantage that counters and exceeds the threats faced.
So even after spending billions on a small fleet, it would stay relatively isolated from the rest of the fleet due to a) US origin components that won't work with the existing setup because they are not khan kit, b) would need a lot of work and alphabet soup agreements with khan to use some of it (P8I comes to mind as an example), and c) khan's concerns about exposing its capabilities to Russian origin hardware. I am for now completely ignoring any objections the Russians may w.r.t. the strategic platforms they have sold/leased to us, like S-400 or the Chakra. Anyway, let's say it is still made to happen, we will still have to deal with the following type of nonsense*, but after having spent billions of dollars and on the hook to the khan supply chain:
Cain Marko wrote:For those in the US, just received this via email from HAF, seems like PJ is making some moves, PLiss TO DO NEEDFUL IT GOES IN TOMORROW!:
I was on Capitol Hill all last week and one thing is clear Rep. Jayapal's anti-India H. Res. 745 is gaining momentum.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) is scheduled to hold a vote on Wednesday, March 4th on a series of bills. Right now, H. Res. 745 is not on the agenda, but Rep. Jayapal and her allies are pushing HFAC Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY) hard to vote on this bill.
We have to stop them now because if H. Res. 745 does get added to the agenda then it's already too late.
Click here to Stop Bad, Anti-India, Anti-Hindu Resolution H. Res. 745
https://www.votervoice.net/mobile/HAF/C ... 29/Respond
* If for a minor issue like CAA this is the blowback, imagine the blowback after we try to do something major but important to us (read UCC, or even Pokharan III)? Ten years down the line, we'd still be worrying (okay, at least "observing"
) about what some two-bit lawmaker is saying about us in a whimsical Congress, and what their President would say or not say when visiting us. This worry (or "observation") would be magnified after having spent billions for the silver bullet, to the level where we may not take steps that would offend khan. If we still end up doing a Pokharan in the future, all bets are off. Another Sea King story onlee. One wonders why we hardly care about who rules France or Russia, let alone what an individual lawmaker in these countries say. But even without much buy-in (yet) into the khan ecosystem, we are dhoti-shivering (sorry that's what it is).