Su-30: News and Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Sep 2011 08:45

not on a permanent basis. but detachments can and will operate from dispersed basis both for exercises and during wartime.

were you holidaying there and saw a sukhoi?

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 28 Sep 2011 08:49

Singha wrote:not on a permanent basis. but detachments can and will operate from dispersed basis both for exercises and during wartime.

were you holidaying there and saw a sukhoi?

Sort of...

And yes...they were there. Not sure if it is ok to post that, though. Mods can take a call.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 28 Sep 2011 21:12

Sukhoi-30MkIs increase night flying to enhance fighting capabilities

Its getting clear now.
India dont want to take a chance when US wages a war against pakis.
A chaiwallah told me that USAF recently put an order for very quick delivery of some 1000+ PGM`s

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Sep 2011 21:22

jaladipc wrote:Sukhoi-30MkIs increase night flying to enhance fighting capabilities

Its getting clear now.
India dont want to take a chance when US wages a war against pakis.
A chaiwallah told me that USAF recently put an order for very quick delivery of some 1000+ PGM`s

Going to report this post

Wrong thread. It should go in the humor thread. The US isn't going to attack Pakistan. I will cheerfully allow my ass to be kicked online and ask for more if the US does anything of the sort.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Sep 2011 21:49

^ Gurudev I shall bend over too in case that happens.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 28 Sep 2011 22:06

^^^ No fair....

As long as we have pacifist Gandhians like Admiral Mullen and other bejewelled ladies in Pentagon, to do the "reacharound" of Pasha and Kiyani, that is one happy, writhing mass of costumed men that Indians have to watch across border.

we can bet all we want.....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Sep 2011 22:07

Stealth details are missing.. and this is where we are in the dark. I suspect that russkie-drdo combines have come out with a super skin composite construction that allows micro/nano deflection surfaces for the radar waves. But, we have to make sure our boys have a large play here., as it feeds direct to AMCA.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 30 Sep 2011 16:45

Indian Air Force (IAF) Pilots prepare for a Night Drill ahead of Air Force Day celebrations in Kalikunda airbase of IAF around 170 KM west of Kolkata on September 28, 2011.
October 8 is celebrated as the Air Force day.

ranjithnath · Post by **ranjithnath** » 30 Sep 2011 17:22

^^ absolutely stunning!!n

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 30 Sep 2011 18:06

Squadron Flying Sukhoi-30 MKIs Set to Relocate from Lohegaon
The Indian Express

Squadron Flying Sukhoi-30 MKIs Set to Relocate from Lohegaon
Pranav Kulkarni
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011

Pune : The Lions or No 31 Squadron of the Indian Air Force (IAF) at Lohegaon that flies air superiority fighter Sukhoi-30 MKIs is all set to relocate to Jodhpur, its designated operational location. The movement is part of IAF plan to deploy Sukhoi-30 MKI in Jodhpur in Rajasthan along the Pakistan border.

“The squadron is on its way out. In fact, half of the squadron has already moved out. The remaining would be shifted soon,” said an IAF officer. Lions is one of the three squadrons of Sukhoi-30 MKIs at Lohegaon Air Force Base (2 Wing) of the IAF and after the shift, Lohegaon station will be left with two squadrons - No 20 Squadron- Lightenings and No 30 Squadron- Rhinos.

Formed in Pathankot on September 1, 1963, No 31 squadron was equipped with French Mystere aircraft which it flew till 1973. The squadron then flew indigenous Marut aircraft till 1983 followed by Mig-23 till 2003 after which it was numberplated. It was in dormant stage till January 2009 when it was resurrected at Lohegaon IAF station. The squadron received Presidential standards in January this year for its meritorious service in the IAF. The squadron was deployed to support the Indian Army in western front in the Indo-Pak war of 1965 as well as 1971 war of Liberation of Bangladesh.

The IAF had earmarked IAF Stations-Lohegaon and Bareily - for raising new squadrons of Sukhoi-30 MKI aircraft. After reaching their designated strength, the squadrons are relocated to the bases they have been operationally assigned. “The plan has been to relocate the squadrons to their designated operational locations at bases that have been earmarked for these aircraft. IAF is expected to reach a strength of 270 Sukhoi-30 MKIs by 2018,” said an officer.

“Jodhpur is a centrally located airbase and has a strategic importance as far as the Pakistan border is concerned. The location and the range of the aircraft make it an effective deployment,” said Air Marshal (retd) Bhushan Gokhale.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Sep 2011 21:28

Hmm, quick question - why is the MKI being positioned that close to the border? The bird has such a reach and endurance that perhaps it can be kept more to the interiors? Ditto with those in the East as well. I'd have thought Delhi, Kalaikunda, and even Sulur might have been good locations for these birds. Being that close to the border, they risk being taken out in a surprise early hit. And they aren't exactly suited for QRA ops either. I'd rather see Bisons, Fulcrums and even the M2ks being stationed that forward.

Perhaps it is the dwindling numbers that is forcing the IAF to take such measures..

CM.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 30 Sep 2011 21:29

Time to target perhaps? Basing them closer leads to quicker reaction times in need?

sum · Post by **sum** » 30 Sep 2011 21:39

Hmm, quick question - why is the MKI being positioned that close to the border? The bird has such a reach and endurance that perhaps it can be kept more to the interiors?

Maybe to make the Pakis hear the roar of the Rambha day in and day out?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Sep 2011 21:47

jodhpur is a good location if the idea is to get some good initial punches in and impose air superiority over the typical operating areas of our strike corps (southern punjab and the barmer bulge).

that kalaikunda photo #1 shows a entire squadron on the ramp. that lot could drop a shitload of heavy bombs on someone's head. except for the 3rd plane all look ready to go and the first three atleast have pilots ready to taxi out.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Sep 2011 22:00

My guess is that an area like Jodhpur would be easily covered by PAF erieye and chinese KLJ types, and possibly Aerostat types (if they have any). A flight of MKIs is not likely to go unnoticed. Also, if war starts, I doubt it is India that will "initiate" anything - it'll be those trigger happy types who land the initial blows, and by the time the political leadership decides to do something everyone will be on high alert. At least that seems to be the case so far. Better perhaps to have some depth for counterattacks?

Also, whether the MKI is in Jodhpur or say Delhi or even Pune, with MAR available and the speed these birds are capable of - I don't think quick action is much of an issue. For pure Air superiority ops and QRA, they can set up some upgraded fulcrums in the locality. Don't they have fulcrums in Adampur for the PUnjab sector anyways?

CM

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 01 Oct 2011 01:44

Cain Marko wrote:Hmm, quick question - why is the MKI being positioned that close to the border? The bird has such a reach and endurance that perhaps it can be kept more to the interiors? Ditto with those in the East as well. I'd have thought Delhi, Kalaikunda, and even Sulur might have been good locations for these birds. Being that close to the border, they risk being taken out in a surprise early hit. And they aren't exactly suited for QRA ops either. I'd rather see Bisons, Fulcrums and even the M2ks being stationed that forward.

Perhaps it is the dwindling numbers that is forcing the IAF to take such measures..

CM.

Maybe , but I'm not sure if a shooting match starts then what will be the MKI's role from Jodhpur. I guess they are stationed in Jodhpur mainly because MKi effectually double up as mini-AWACS and will keep track of flight movements in and out of key TSP airbases since flying and IL-76 AWACS so close to border may not be prudent. Another reason could be for the IAF to familiarize themselves with the area so that if push comes to shove and MKI's have to launch strike missions using this AFB as a touch and go station then they should be able to do that effectively.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Oct 2011 02:10

Cain Marko wrote:Hmm, quick question - why is the MKI being positioned that close to the border? The bird has such a reach and endurance that perhaps it can be kept more to the interiors? Ditto with those in the East as well. I'd have thought Delhi, Kalaikunda, and even Sulur might have been good locations for these birds. Being that close to the border, they risk being taken out in a surprise early hit. And they aren't exactly suited for QRA ops either. I'd rather see Bisons, Fulcrums and even the M2ks being stationed that forward.

Perhaps it is the dwindling numbers that is forcing the IAF to take such measures..

CM.

Jodhpur is still around 300km from the border at its closest point and more from the nearest PAF airbases. The other thing is IAF will eventually have 270 MKIs in its fleet (around 15 squadrons), which means there are plenty for them to be placed in a somewhat "forward" manner.

IMO, Jodhpur is the "forward" triangle point between IAF's two Su-30MKI airbases (Pune and Bareilly) in the Western/South-Western commands. Good location for both defense and strike as well as providing continuous air-superiority for the Strike/Pivot Corps.

atma · Post by **atma** » 01 Oct 2011 08:14

srai wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Hmm, quick question - why is the MKI being positioned that close to the border? The bird has such a reach and endurance that perhaps it can be kept more to the interiors? Ditto with those in the East as well. I'd have thought Delhi, Kalaikunda, and even Sulur might have been good locations for these birds. Being that close to the border, they risk being taken out in a surprise early hit. And they aren't exactly suited for QRA ops either. I'd rather see Bisons, Fulcrums and even the M2ks being stationed that forward.

Perhaps it is the dwindling numbers that is forcing the IAF to take such measures..

CM.
Jodhpur is still around 300km from the border at its closest point and more from the nearest PAF airbases. The other thing is IAF will eventually have 270 MKIs in its fleet (around 15 squadrons), which means there are plenty for them to be placed in a somewhat "forward" manner.

IMO, Jodhpur is the "forward" triangle point between IAF's two Su-30MKI airbases (Pune and Bareilly) in the Western/South-Western commands. Good location for both defense and strike as well as providing continuous air-superiority for the Strike/Pivot Corps.

Also, Jodhpur iis almost equidistant from the border, as Karachi is. I believe it is a right move, to be able to scramble at the first sign of hostilities. I was thinking Jamnagar or Bhuj or the new air station planned for Disa would be even better. You just announce it for Salwar soiling. Keep the Infrastructure ready at all the forward bases, and keep them guessing, moving the squadron from base to base. If we keep on announcing such squadron movements from here on, there will be immence khujli @ GHQ, IMHO.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Oct 2011 10:09

Even if the MKI Squadron is based in the rear, it will need to move to forward locations as and when things hot up. And this forward movement will not happen 'after' the shooting match starts - it will happen during the escalation phase itself. So, the threat about these birds getting hit in pre-emptive strikes will remain an issue in both cases - forward as well as rear base deployment.

In all this, one question that we need to ask is - how many bases do we have in depth? For use along western/northern/central sectors, the ideal location in depth should be in central India - in MP/North Maharashtra/Eastern Rajasthan/South-Central UP. There are not many there to begin with - and I think there is a rational explanation for that. We never have had birds with long range before (and in large numbers) - save for Canberras and TpT aircraft - to warrant such a development. With passage of time and as more a/c come in, we might acually see bases in the above mentioned region expanded to host more squadrons.

Also, with so many numbers planned, my guess is that squadrons with pure play deep strike role will be based in the rear...these a/c can use their long legs and fly to their targets directly from their bases - and recover to relatively forward areas on their way back. A squadron based in Jodhpur will give lot of flexibility in terms dominating the air-space, providing the 'big-brother' support to other aircraft like Tejas and Bisons and cover to ingressing/egressing Jaguars/Mig-27/M2K.

Finally, the squadron gives SWAC the much needed teeth to dominate the air-space from Bikaner in north to Bhuj in south.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 01 Oct 2011 20:01

Cain Marko wrote:Hmm, quick question - why is the MKI being positioned that close to the border? The bird has such a reach and endurance that perhaps it can be kept more to the interiors?

rohitvats wrote:In all this, one question that we need to ask is - how many bases do we have in depth? For use along western/northern/central sectors, the ideal location in depth should be in central India - in MP/North Maharashtra/Eastern Rajasthan/South-Central UP. There are not many there to begin with - and I think there is a rational explanation for that. We never have had birds with long range before (and in large numbers) - save for Canberras and TpT aircraft - to warrant such a development. With passage of time and as more a/c come in, we might acually see bases in the above mentioned region expanded to host more squadrons.

Good points. Yes, long range birds are typically based in depth to allow second strike capabilities, though with the proliferation of ballistic and cruise missiles, earlier operational concepts have evolved. In the classicial strategy, Sukhois would have been based in SWAC and CAC, enabling these birds not only tackle threats in these sectors but long legs & payload would enable SWAC birds effectively deploy for WAC ops and CAC for EAC.

IMO, the growth in Naval Aviation should enable IAF to focus and base completely North of the Vindhyas while IN can take care of air ops South of the Vindhyas. Ofcourse, unless the legendary turf battles flare up. IAF has been adamant not to give up the MAO role to IN and medium vertical lift to AAC. It vociferously opposes the long time IA desire to operate Mi-17 class medium helos.

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 01 Oct 2011 20:31

Sargodha in Punjub is also very close to border.. most of the F-16s are based there I thought...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Oct 2011 21:13

sargodha is not really close to the border...its around 250km and well behind the fwd line of PAF bases like lahore and rawalpindi. the lahore to rawalpindi expway has been deliberately designed to pass close to sargodha so that truck missile units can quickly move north or south.

the western base PAF Samugli at quetta can also be expected to harbour many strategic assets and a place to retreat in the day(if pressure is heavy) before moving forward at night.
its around 900km one way from the nearest IAF bases which are likely jodhpur, bhuj, naliya and jamnagar...hence well outside the strike radius of M2k, Jags, Mig27s, Tejas....only the MKIs with a lighter than usual bombload might be able to make it there and back unrefuelled. but having to fly nearly 600km to the other end of TSP presents its own risks of being ambushed or cornered by superior forces.

and its around 600km from the coastline too, hence presents a problem even for CVG air wings if the CVG were to anchor at gwader itself.

akula · Post by **akula** » 01 Oct 2011 22:23

IMHO, i would term the move to place one squardon of Rambha's on the SWAC forward base as a very good move. IAF top brass would definitely have taken a close look and this should be the outcome of those things factored in. Apart from Strike capability on Pak bases during the very start of any conflict, there definitely is an AWAC view on this.
It is a very good decission by making an aggressive move to send a very tearse message to troublemakers across our western borders. In spite of all missile assets that Paki has, making it a risk to place the high value birds there, it will extract an exciting punch in case of hostilities. And folks involved will have devised a counter to the missile strike aspect on the base.
As per data available in globalsecurity.org, Jodhpur has all Mig-23 variants as of now. Rambha there, is as good as telling our western neighbors, we mean serious business.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Oct 2011 23:21

I can understand deploying a few MKIs close to the neighbors, but that can be done in the long run, after all the 270 are available. To do it with limited resources available means just one thing - they don't have enough of the right kind of birds to put in forward positions. And it is unlikely that the MKI will need to move up to forward bases when things heat up - at least not in the initial period, they have long enough endurance that can provide enough domination from deeper within (unless we want to make a statement).

THis is precisely the point though - these are not Mig-29s or even Mirages that we base them with Bisons, which by the way share the space at Jodhpur. Esp. for the western ops where not much depth is required. If theater domination is required a flight of 2-3 MKI from Pune joined by some M2ks or fulcrums from more forward locations should suffice. This is really where the need for an MRCA is seen - the ability to provide enough endurance to deal with Pak and be light enough for QRA if reqd. The MKI is not the most suited for this, still what choice do they have at this point? Currently there are no MRCAs coming in, even the upgraded M2ks are far away, perhaps the upgraded fulcrums will ease the situation a bit - but not enough. MKIs I guess will be forward deployed until the Tejas and MRCA start coming in numbers.

My thinking was that they'd be mainly based in central/south india from Bareilly, Kalaikunda, PUne and possibly Sulur, and the Andamans. THis would be the inner ring, and offer plenty of coverage in IOR. A few sqds could be forward deployed too - Jaipur I guess would be a good place, so would Tezpur, and Chandigarh. This would be the middle ring dominated by MRCA types. And then you could have the outer ring FABs with single engined LCAs/Bisons/M2ks. Supplied with adequate AWACS in the forward regions, the lighter fighters would be more than enough to handle any surprises, and along with the MRCA would offer enough offensive punch as well.

CM

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 00:19

it's not the number of flankers. it's rather the woefully inadequate number of refuellers.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Oct 2011 02:02

D Roy wrote:it's not the number of flankers. it's rather the woefully inadequate number of refuellers.

Yes, I certainly did not take into consideration this plight.

CM

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Oct 2011 06:22

with paltry refuelers around, I think best option for next few sqds would be
1- bagdogra
1-tezpur (2nd sqdn, being ex moftu it should have infra for a larger number of people and planes?)
1-kalaikunda
1-hashimara (mig27 sqdn converts out)

guwahati is unsuitable for high intensity training due to largeish number of daytime airline flights, but could be developed as a satellite base, so could jorhat.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 07:07

D Roy wrote:it's not the number of flankers. it's rather the woefully inadequate number of refuellers.

It's not that we don't need more refuellers but what do we plan to use them for?. Most Indian aircraft can reach anywhere in Pakistan and return without refuelling. In any case, if refuelling must be done it has to be done in safe airspace - over India or over the ocean.

I would ask, exactly what are we going to use refuellers for? If it is about China then we will need refuelling over China or over some SE Asian nation we are overflying which is unlikely.

The US for example has used refuellers for long distance attack - eg from the US mainland to North Africa/Iraq. When we have oceans to cross, refuellers become vital because no one can patrol every inch of air space over ocean and refuellers can be safe. But in the Pakistan/China context the utility of refuellers is limited. The way I see it is - an aircraft taking off with a full load of weapons and limited fuel from somewhere in India, getting topped up when it is airborne, and then crossing a border. Or an aircraft on CAP being topped up to be able to monitor and protect a vast volume of airspace with AWACS support. Or refuelling of AWACS and spl ops aircraft to avoid halts in an emergency. The Navy may need them more than the AF?

The huge number of refuellers the US has is a cold war relic when the US had strategic bombers up in the air 24x7 for decades.. China could do with refuellers. Take off with a huge load at sea level/low altitude airfield east of Tibet, refuel over Tibet and be available for CAP/land attack with full load. Pakistan could use refuellers. Head south in the Arabian sea, refuel over the sea and attack Mumbai/Mangalore/Cochin. We need to shoot down other's refuellers. The more the merrier. We need long range SAMs and AAMs along with more AWACS

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Oct 2011 07:22

Singha wrote:with paltry refuelers around, I think best option for next few sqds would be
1- bagdogra
1-tezpur (2nd sqdn, being ex moftu it should have infra for a larger number of people and planes?)
1-kalaikunda
1-hashimara (mig27 sqdn converts out)

guwahati is unsuitable for high intensity training due to largeish number of daytime airline flights, but could be developed as a satellite base, so could jorhat.

Ayyo, what about someting in the South Saar - IOR also needs to see the curves of Rambha every now and then.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Oct 2011 08:14

I have been trying to locate a orbat for the PLANAF. we will need something similar and under IN. a Su30mki for now. perhaps 4 shore based sqdns (60 units) is a good start.
basing could be 1 Goa, 1 rameswaram or tambaram, 1 car nicobar, 1 greenfield airbase in A&N

the single Jag-N sqdn in Pune under IAF should be handed over to IAF either for numberplating or any other use they see fit.....long in the tooth and paltry nos.

also India (IN) should again be a lead investor in the PAKDA and commit to 40-60 units of that platform and the next generation of stealthy supersonic ASMs...whether its domestic, french, israeli or russian. it will be 2030 before we see the PAKDA in service but will be a good investment and finally get us a proper sized bomber to cover the entire IOR and Indo-China sea. by 2030 we would be 3rd largest economy in any terms if current trends pan out, and our economic interests will be global - metals from brazil, fish from chile, diamonds from south africa, food from kenya, coal from australia, motherboards from taiwan - we will have a huge finger in every scam and pie going around. we will both NEED and can AFFORD to have a dedicated long haul bomber fleet by then.

the time to start planning for that is now.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 08:21

?. Most Indian aircraft can reach anywhere in Pakistan and return without refuelling. In any case, if refuelling must be done it has to be done in safe airspace - over India or over the ocean.

This actually epitomizes the number of general statements that have been going on this thread and have indeed been made over the years.

Fuel burn in actual operational scenarios is far greater , far far greater. Which is precisely why the CR of the LCA is not going to be 600 km because it has a ferry range of xxxx. the CR of the LCA is indeed about 200 km.

I will not get into fuel burn scenarios as I really do not have the patience for a protracted discussion.

Its okay for chacha Copp to call flankers "honest 900 mile fighters' but that is again a paper fact. Neither the F-15E nor the MKI are really 'honest 900 mile' fighters.

on the other hand by positioning Flankers close to the IB we facilitate some kind of endurance CAP mission - something that others won't be able to do at all without tanking support.

The huge number of refuellers the US has is a cold war relic when the US had strategic bombers up in the air 24x7 for decades..

This is incorrect. You need to take another look at air operations over both Iraq and Afstan and you'll see just how much work refuellers have done. Far from being relics tankers are a must. absolute must if you want any decent air force action.

One could think - arrey Amrikhan has 2500 fighters, we have 800 then why is their AF said to be so much more capable?

The answer lies in less glamorous details like tankers, other support categories and things like PGMs.

For instance Unkil has an inventory of 20 k plus AGM-65 Mavericks. How many Kh-29s do we have hain?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 08:29

D Roy wrote:
?. Most Indian aircraft can reach anywhere in Pakistan and return without refuelling. In any case, if refuelling must be done it has to be done in safe airspace - over India or over the ocean.
This actually epitomizes the number of general statements that have been going on this thread and have indeed been made over the years.

And in fact if you look at the population centers and infrastructure of Pakistan - they are all within Prithvi range. (Please don't interpret that as my saying we don't need and air force). But even if that convenient fact was not true we are hardly going to have refuellers circling over Pakistan unless we have complete air dominance. So when you rue the fact that this statement is repeated and gets too much mileage, no one has yet answered exactly what refuellers are going to do when most of what you need to hit is within 300 km of the Indian border and if it is further we can't actually get refuellers flying over Pakistan. The reason whyy Pakistanis wanted the Afghan "strategic depth" is precisely geographic.

I am willing to listen. but I need someone to teach me.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 08:31

I am willing to listen. but I need someone to teach me.

Look what tankers do and why they are needed and their operational use over formerly contested airspace is not rocket science. Its quite well known and established.

You can learn it yourself quite easily. Since we are dealing only with theory and case studies here anyway.

For one refuellers will allow endurance missions which would allow many of your fighters to guard airspace even as other tactical jets pound pakistani targets onlee 300 km away.

And the tankers will fly close to the border allowing jets to egress and ingress i.e go back and forth. every tac aircraft is not going to expend its entire load on just one target.

And its not so easy to shoot down a tanker being guarded by other jets( themselves being topped off by the tanker from time to time allowing them to carry a significant clutch of BVR and WVR) unless you have something like a KS-172 and even that is frankly speaking unproven.

There are hundred of scenarios and 'tanker theory' is well developed.

In this entire discussion one obvious thing that people seem to forget is that tankers will allow your shorter legged jets to be based in the rear AAAlso Naa? thereby obviating the need to base them say at Barmer. Tankers are needed. The IAF has felt the need for a long time, but couldn't do it because of cost and the 'targets are in 300 km onlee" mentality.

Once missiles entered the fray and the economy picked up things changed dramatically and the IAF is clearly tanking up. Of course Cost has had its say there too.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 09:01

OK , let's consider another scenario.

Mig XX takes off from A. It happily bombs Army Reserve North. In revenge, Pukis render A inoperable with a chemical strike. Now where does MIg XX go? nearest usable base is also under missile threat and may not be quite ready at the time.

The Mig XX pilot sees tanker guarded by four MKIs. Tops up, thanks his ancestors and lands safely at civilian airport out of Puki range.

And Another Scenario : Mig XX pilot goes to attack pre defined target in Puki land. Upon reaching there finds that target is not what it was said to be but is instead a goat rearing facility. Intel insists that target is in the vicinity .. Pilot decides that he can LOITER a little bit, because once he crosses back into his own airspace a nice tanker is waiting to help him get back to base.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 09:16

D Roy wrote:
The Mig XX pilot sees tanker guarded by four MKIs. Tops up, thanks his ancestors and lands safely at civilian airport out of Puki range.

Where is the tanker? How long does it take to formate and top up, requiring steady level flight? Over whose airspace will this be done? When the MiG is suckling both tanker and MiG have to fly level and not maneuver. What use will 4 or even 20 Sukhois be if the tanker in level flight is is attacked by SAMs or a swarm of defenders? It cannot even use IR flares with a pipe sticking out and a MiG attached to that pipe. Why not send the 4 Sukhois out for that attack in the first place rather than risk a tanker and a MiG

Here is a map of Pakistan with red colored lines each representing 300 km and a thick yellow line to show what falls into 300 km from the Indian border. Only western Baluchistan and NWFP fall outside that line

Click on image to enlarge.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 09:26

Please figure out this air combat scenario for yourself. Again, tankers have been guarded in the past by escorts. And your swarm will be a nice target if it makes it clear that its heading straight for the tanker. As it is air combat is not about 800 vs 800. it is more like 2 vs 4 at anytime.

No "swarm" is going to "rise up suddenly" to get the tanker. Even if it does its actually going to be very valuable that a single tanker has managed to draw out this response howsoever unlikely it is. Air combat is a game of suckers not swarm battle a la WW 2.

Escorting tankers is an operational art and it has been done before. The real threat if Chacha Copp type people are to be believed comes from LRAAMs or the new "offensive" AD systems of the S-XXX family.

How long does it take to formate and top up, requiring steady level flight? Over whose airspace will this be done? When the MiG is suckling both tanker and MiG have to fly level and not maneuver.

Of course there is the whole question of efficient tanker operations and training. There is the question of whether boom refuelling is better than basket refuelling ( transfer rates et al).

And they don't need to maneuver at all. The maneuvering will be done by the escorts who would ensure that the "swarm' stays far away. That's the whole point of having BVR armed MKIs with BARS and Phalcon support. And that's essentially the point, Air combat is a game of suckers not swarms. Predictable flight paths targeting a tanker and swarming are nice ways to get yourself killed quicker. The only way to do it is if you have a LRAAM coupled with something like a Mig-31 or possibly a J-20. And that is precisely why China has invested in the mig 1.42 successor which it calls the J-20. Essentially something that will stay out of the BVR range of the MKI escorts and challenge the tanker with LRAAMs.

20 flankers to guard one tanker is also a liability and unnecessary.

Conversely I would love to see how Pukistan without enough tankers itself will keep a swarm or even 20 fighters up in the air for any duration

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 09:50

D Roy wrote:Please figure out this air combat scenario for yourself. Again, tankers have been guarded in the past by escorts. And your swarm will be a nice target if it makes it clear that its heading straight for the tanker. As it is air combat is not about 800 vs 800. it is more like 2 vs 4 at anytime.

It may have been done, but basically sending out an aircraft way beyond its radius and then refuelling over enemy territory and hoping that escorts will somehow protect both the returning fighter and the tanker sounds profoundly suicidal to me.

Why did you send just one fighter for the mission? Why do you need five aircraft (tanker and 4 escorts) to help that single fighter that you sent on a maniacal suicide mission that required only 1 MiG to achieve with not enough fuel to return? This is mindbogglingly bad planning. Anyone who does this would be a fool. How many fingers can you keep crossed for 6 aircraft over enemy territory just because someone had the harebrained idea of sending just one MiG on a suicide mission with not enough fuel to get back. And if you sent 4 MiGs and not one then it will take 4 times as long to refuel over enemy territory. Sheesh! This is sheer soosaigiri. Even if the enemy has 1/4th of a brain the first thing he will do is prang your tanker. You may get away with this once, maybe twice. The third time you will lose a tanker and more. Is that why you feel we need a lot of tankers - so we can send them on suicidal missions?

Brother this is one of the worst ideas I have heard in my life. I'm not kidding.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 09:55

Brother you will get foolish counter factual points if you foolishly question things that are well established. You may not know it, but doesn't mean that it is something that isn't well understood. its akin to questioning the need to have a squad GPMG.

Please have your brilliant reductionist eureka moment about something well known, brother.

In war many suicide missions and dumb mistakes happen. which is why you plan for contingencies by bringing in systems and approaches like tankers.
And it may not be one Mig. It could be any number, but that would only reinforce the need to have more tankers. LOITER is important and while talking about combat radius, people forget all about time over target. That is precisely why strategic bombers that you so despise have never gone out of vogue.

Brother this is one of the worst ideas I have heard in my life. I'm not kidding.

Yes but not as dumb as questioning the need to have tankers altogether.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 10:08

D Roy wrote:LOITER is important and while talking about combat radius, people forget all about time over target. That is precisely why strategic bombers that you so despise have never gone out of vogue.

Loiter of a tanker over enemy territory, and that too Pakistan or China, is what you are asking for, after sending someone out on a suicide mission. That is twin suicide. You are of course welcome to feel what you feel - but I must point out that what you are saying goes beyond "inadvisable" to absurd. But it is funny because you can't be serious

I am going to drop the subject here. I will never ever direct combat in any conflict. Neither will you.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 10:12

D Roy wrote: Yes but not as dumb as questioning the need to have tankers altogether.

Well here is a repeat of the first post I made on the subject

shiv wrote: It's not that we don't need more refuellers but what do we plan to use them for?. Most Indian aircraft can reach anywhere in Pakistan and return without refuelling. In any case, if refuelling must be done it has to be done in safe airspace - over India or over the ocean.
<snip>
The way I see it is - an aircraft taking off with a full load of weapons and limited fuel from somewhere in India, getting topped up when it is airborne, and then crossing a border. Or an aircraft on CAP being topped up to be able to monitor and protect a vast volume of airspace with AWACS support. Or refuelling of AWACS and spl ops aircraft to avoid halts in an emergency. The Navy may need them more than the AF?