Su-30: News and Discussion

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 14:27

Karan that is a very good and credible explanation. Thanks for taking the time.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 14:29

What is BINGO?

Google uncle hain na tumhare pass? Dekh lo.

hen the loiter has ended

of course it has. the tanker comes in when I am returning to base. earlier ( i.e without any kind of A2A refuelling) I could have loitered for x minutes. now I will do it for x +y because a tanker will meet me halfway which could be within my territory or the enemy's depending on stage of conflict. There is no soosai. Naturally, depending on the stage of conflict that 'y' factor will also change. In early stages that y will be less as the tanker sits inside my airspace. in later stages it is greater as I have achieved greater air superiority.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2011 14:37

shiv wrote:In fact the concept of refuelling over Pakistan or China is a good one if we had air dominance. What we need is assets for air dominance. That means more AWACS and radar cover, and space based assets. Refuellers per se may certainly be vital in the sort of defence scenario you have quoted, but if we are talking of going on the offensive then it is not more refuelers we need in the China/Pakistan context. It is the ability to achieve dominance by taking out their air defences. I do not see a huge role for large numbers of refuelers there because of the distances we are talking about.

Ultimately air dominance over China may be a pipe dream, but robust local air superiority translates into some sort of local "air dominance". But we must get assets for that into place. If we can do that then more refuellers would be icing on the cake.

But for the navy, I think they need to get into the refuelling business now.

Problem is air dominance is intrinsically linked to persistence. Moment you don't have assets in the area and (say) mobile SAMs appear, AD is lost. So air superiority windows can be achieved, but to dominate an area you need persistence. You cannot take out their defences either in the China/Pakistan context without persistence. Tankers are critical to all aspects of the Air Superiority fight and then to the larger Air Dominance issue. Jargon apart, basically, there are two things

- Operations against air assets
- Operations against ground assets
Usual terminology used for both are counter-air ops

For the former, you have fighters versus fighters. Classical dogfighting, BVR etc
For the latter, you have attacking runways, AFB, C3I nodes, suppressing SAMS/AD (SEAD), destroying them (DEAD), going after logistics nodes, supplies - POL, munitions dumps etc

In each of these persistence is critical. In some, you can trade persistence by having quick/in and outs, but for some missions eg SEAD, to supress defences - persistence is vital as you have to stay in the area. Its a cat and mouse game at times and very dangerous - even more so than the usual fighter pilots job (already as dangerous as it gets) as they literally provoke AD to target them, get out of the way, do it again etc. If you google for wild weasels, theres hours of interesting reading on this thankless but vital task.

Tankers offer pilots the fuel required to survive close misses which make them burn fuel up at prodigious rates. If a pilot knows he has a tanker orbiting a hundred odd km away, and AWACS informs him that he can use it, he no longer has to worry about (say) flying high to maximize endurance but can (for safety) take the fuel intensive, low flying route to avoid Air Defences.

It makes mission planning and the pilots life vastly easier.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 14:40

At last Uparwale ki fitrat se somebody said this.

Problem is air dominance is intrinsically linked to persistence.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2011 14:40

shiv wrote:Karan that is a very good and credible explanation. Thanks for taking the time.

My pleasure!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 14:42

D Roy wrote:
of course it has. the tanker comes in when I am returning to base. earlier ( i.e without any kind of A2A refuelling) I could have loitered for x minutes. now I will do it for x +y because a tanker will meet me halfway which could be within my territory or the enemy's depending on stage of conflict. There is no soosai. Naturally, depending on the stage of conflict that 'y' factor will also change. In early stages that y will be less as the tanker sits inside my airspace. in later stages it is greater as I have achieved greater air superiority.

The possibility of soosai always exists if you are refuelling over enemy territory. In fact instead of sending a refueller and escorts it would make sense for the loitering fighter to be simply replaced by another rather than the dramabaazi of tanker and 4 escorts.

And you are saying that more tankers would be useful for this? To me that does not sound credible. We need weapons and electronic dominance to get air superiority in the fist place. Not more tankers.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 14:43

Yes Karan M. You are inherently suited to BRF and I daresay you have taken over the mantle held by JCage.

Are you related to him perchance? A long lost brother perhaps?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 14:45

The possibility of soosai always exists if you are refuelling over enemy territory. In fact instead of sending a refueller and escorts it would make sense for the loitering fighter to be simply replaced by another rather than the dramabaazi of tanker and 4 escorts.

And you are saying that more tankers would be useful for this? To me that does not sound credible. We need weapons and electronic dominance to get air superiority in the fist place. Not more tankers.

Arrey chod naa. Nothing I say will seem credible to you. You need spoon feeding that Karan M has already done. Be happy in your sandbox.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 14:51

Karan M wrote: Problem is air dominance is intrinsically linked to persistence.

Barring some emergent situations, the connection between tankers and persistence is distance from air bases and availability of aircraft and pilots. In the context of Pakistan and China India has a continuous land border and persistence is less dependent on tankers as long as we have the aircraft and the means to defend the air bases. I think the case for tankers in the Indian context is being overstated.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 14:54

D Roy wrote: Arrey chod naa. Nothing I say will seem credible to you. You need spoon feeding that Karan M has already done. Be happy in your sandbox.

Awww! I hope you are not upset that you are not credible. That is what I have been telling you right from the beginning.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2011 14:54

DRoy,

To be honest, I am mostly too impatient to reply coherently when it comes to most of these discussions. Too many thoughts, how to understand and remain on topic is a challenge- plus there is a topic on every topic. Better than most other forums on the net -they have topics on each issue (India buys a boat, India buys a gun) and are mostly run by non Indians where everything is "==" between India and others. Not the guy you mentioned but thanks for the kind words though!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2011 15:12

shiv wrote:
Karan M wrote: Problem is air dominance is intrinsically linked to persistence.
Barring some emergent situations, the connection between tankers and persistence is distance from air bases and availability of aircraft and pilots. In the context of Pakistan and China India has a continuous land border and persistence is less dependent on tankers as long as we have the aircraft and the means to defend the air bases.

Yes, you are right. And you have got to the crux of the issue.

the connection between tankers and persistence is distance from air bases and availability of aircraft and pilots. In the context of Pakistan and China India has a continuous land border and persistence is less dependent on tankers as long as we have the aircraft and the means to defend the air bases

However, when you say:

I think the case for tankers in the Indian context is being overstated

The point I think is that its partly because of the lack of tankers, that we continue to rely on forward bases, which were originally set up to support very short legged assets. Unfortunately, as fighter range improved, so did the threats, eg mobile SAMs.

Since we don't have enough tankers (IMO), the distance from air bases has to be minimized to keep our fighters on station longer (its one of the reasons I think not the only one, another as I mentioned earlier, is the ability to react quickly and reach the target quickly).

Ideally we'd like to base fighters deeper into India, beyond the reach of Pak/Chinese SSMs and behind many layers of AD, but since we cant do so (even modernization of air fields - MAFI is underway, and SAM procurements etc similarly) we have to get the job done with what we have, which is forward base these large expensive assets (Su-30 MKIs).

Also if you move aircraft to the rear, a large amount of time is spent in transit - so you need more fighters to constantly shuttle back and forth and a large number of fighters waiting in the air to begin with (as versus just launching them as required).

The IAF is already not at optimal strength- media reports suggested 33 odd squadrons versus 39.5 required, and 44 being the minimum now projected for both PLAAF and PAF.

So the forward basing strategy still going on with IAF seems to be a combination of all these factors, basically persistence and quick reaction. Whats the point if your AWACS detects missile launchers moving out of (say) Sargodha, if the Sukhois from Sulur (say) take so many hours to get there? The latter is also a critical reason IMO, IAF is building up these bases with Su-30 squadrons. They know the risks but if they have to support/react quickly, they need forward bases. We simply don't have enough aircraft and resources to loiter around 24/7 waiting for threats to pop up all the time. We can only do that for some highly critical targets and missions (eg SEAD or missile hunting)

Hopefully we'll get enough SAMs & ABM systems in place to protect even these forward AFB from saturation attacks. Then we truly have the best of both worlds - forward bases to recover aircraft as need be, tankers to add flexibility and give that extra persistence whenever required, and first class aircraft and sensors to attack time critical targets.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 15:18

Awww! I hope you are not upset that you are not credible

Teri certificate ki zaroorat nahin hain.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2011 15:19

This is an essential development and they really should start production ASAP both for cities and vital AFB/infrastructure.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/08/ ... ssile.html

Wonder when the LRSAM are due. Latest MOD report does not have date of induction.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 02 Oct 2011 15:25

What happens when a plane is trying to take off with it's full load of weapons from an airfield at high altitude like Laddakh ? At those altitudes it'll carry full weapon load but quantity of fuel is deliberately kept low so as to keep weight low. Plane gets up in the air, refuels at some distance from airfield and proceeds to it's mission. Same thing is/can be done on aircraft carriers too. Isn't this a way to increase range ?

I can't seem to understand what Shiv jee is trying to prove here with his posts about range, air-superiority over enemy airspace etc etc. None of his posts make sense to me.

Even if tanker is flying a few km inside our border, it's escorts, ground radars, AWACS etc can easily detect any incoming hostiles from a long distance and take preventive measures. For a Sukhoi flying in from Pune, Agra or some other airfield much deeper inside India, a tanker flying right near border provides a significant boost in range or am I missing something here ?
It's not like everything in a battlefield has to be absolutely safe for everyone. By that logic, why send any aircraft or soldiers in to battles unless it's made safe for them by djinn technology .

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 02 Oct 2011 16:28

To understand the utility of tankers like IL-78 we need to understand the fuel consumption profile of a typical strike/air dominance mission . When an aircraft like su-30 is taking off on full load it burns up upto 20% fuel in taking off and reaching the cruise altitude and get the orientation to target so that 20 percent can easily be filled up by an aerial tanker close to laucnh air base . Also there is amaximum take off weight limitationon all aircraft depending on altitude of the runway ,the weather condtion .the prevailing air temperature .cross wind etc etc all of which degrade the text book take off weight at full thrust with afterburner . For example a su-30 can lift 8 tons of weapons only under very specific conditions and those conditions may not be available in most bases specially the forward bases or air bases which are surrounded by mountains etc like Thoise so only way it can still take of with full complement of weapons is taking less internal fuel and maybe empty combat grade drop tanks and get them filled once at cruise altitude and heading .Again when back from mission depending on the nature of combat and duration of use of afterburner during such combat many of the aircraft can be critically low on fuel and the recovery bases alternate bases may be far and may need some hold in air so once again a second refuel operation in air is required . That was each squadron of sukhoi jaguar mirage need at;east two dedicated tanker after all they can carry only so much fuel before they need to be refueled them selves .

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 02 Oct 2011 18:20

Can there be a scenario where MKIs initiate a strike mission from Jodhpur and after the mission (lets say Karachi) returns over Arabian Sea? It might help them avoid retaliatory strikes? However might need additional legs.. .. just curious...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 19:27

If an Indian fighter takes off with a full warload but minimum fuel and then gets topped up with full fuel near the border can then it can go to its maximum range inside Pakistan and China. Now suppose a Sukhoi does a maximum load and top up after take off how far can it go into China? For the sake of discussion let me say the Sukhoi can penetrate 1200 km into China and return. Can it be made to go on a mission 1500 km into China?

The Sukhoi cannot do that unless it is somehow refueled inside China. If the Sukhoi taking off with full load and then taking on full fuel by AAR can go max 1200 km and return it cannot be sent on a 1500 km mission unless it can be refuelled somewhere along the way. But that refuelling will have to be done somewhere inside China. If such refuelling does not occur that Su 30 is toast. But to do that the refueller will also have to fly into danger and it may get shot down - it will be a sitting duck.If that happens we lose both refueller and the Sukhoi

The point here is that no matter how many tankers we have there are two uncomfortable facts we have to face
1. We cannot conduct missions very far into China. The total penetration into China will be a little higher than a normal take off from an air base because of the "top up" AAR just before it crosses the border.
2. Pakistan can be covered with or without refuelling. By using a top up refuelling at the border loiter time over Pakistan may be a bit higher - but the distances are not large - rarely greater than 300 km

The cosy story that a refueller can top up every single Indian aircraft after it takes off so that it can go "max range" is great in theory, but if the refueller is flying 150 km inside India we can just as well have dozens of air bases/airstrips within 150 km from the border.

Now imagine that every squadron has 2 refuellers. Where will they be based? If a "top up refuelling" is done near Nagpur or even Agra the aircraft will still need another top up near the border to have full fuel before crossing the border. So all the refuelling activity will have to take place within 100 km of the border making all air attacks from India publicly announced. After the first 24 hours the adversary will see the refuellers 100 km inside India and know what to expect.

I think the call for refuellers is being badly misinterpreted. The type of war that the US fought in Iraq and Afghnaistan involved carrier based aircraft refuelled by land based refuellers far away from the home base over neutral waters or in areas where there was air dominance.

On here I am seeing people say that refuellers are needed because our forward air bases will be destroyed and/or that we need top up refuelling because take off is costly on fuel. These are all facts, but along with these facts I want to point out that the "more refuellers" theory that people seem to be supporting here will not increase our hitting range in Pakistan or China simply because our refuellers will have to stay 100 km or more inside our own borders. It only enhances our survival after our forward air bases have been knocked out

How about a scenario where we are winning, dominating and advancing? That in fact does not need "more refuellers". It requires more attack aircrfat, AWACS and SEAD effort. It is only when that works that we can start taking our refuellers over enemy territory and increase the depth into which we can hit an enemy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 19:29

prithvi wrote:Can there be a scenario where MKIs initiate a strike mission from Jodhpur and after the mission (lets say Karachi) returns over Arabian Sea? It might help them avoid retaliatory strikes? However might need additional legs.. .. just curious...

Yes. Absolutely, They can refuel over the Arabian sea and return to Sulur if need be. That is good, sensible usage of refuellers. Or Refuel over Myanmar/Vietnam and hit Hainan Island

manum · Post by **manum** » 02 Oct 2011 19:39

it might be a kiddish asking...but still

What about buddy refueling? we can dominate a buffer region inside the enemy territory say 100 km using swarms of LCA...and let MKI's go further....secondly what about using buddy refueling in gradual format...Lets say we take 30 LCA's inside then 20 go further and 10 go beyond...after the first lethal strike of MKI's...in this interchangeable format of replacing the emptied aircraft and refueling the last line within border region...we can increase the leg of LCA's as well, using the numbers...

Though it might be totally amateurish/stupid, still my 2 cents...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Oct 2011 19:48

fighter patrols can extend their endurance over tibet by turning south over india fr aar rather than all the way back to base fr fuel. aar also needed to extend loiter fr phalcons and jstars.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 19:52

manum wrote:it might be a kiddish asking...but still

.

Not kiddish at all. Extremely good thinking. 4 Sukhois - 2 equipped for Buddy Buddy refuelling can enter low and fast into areas which may be hostile but be ready to refuel any returning Indian fighters from an earlier mission who may need escort/fuel. They are less likely to be sitting ducks than an airliner sized refueller cruising over enemy airspace. Risky but more feasible IMO

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 19:54

Singha wrote:aar also needed to extend loiter fr phalcons and jstars.

And maritime patrol aircraft or Brahmos-Sukhois closing the Malacca straits for some friends.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 02 Oct 2011 20:35

aerial refueling essentially imparts the following specific advantage 1) use of full operating range after full lad take off and climb out to cruise altitude 2) increase operational range by single or multiple refueling 3) fast intercontinental intercontinental deployment without shifting the support base infrastructure .Ofcourse certain situation may not allow us the prerogative of deploying aerial refueling but same situation will allow the tankers to fuel her own dedicated escort if need be along with the AWAC on duty . A pair or two of LCA dedicated LCA escort can effectively defend a tanker awac combo for many hours while flying a common escort mission freeing up the heavy payload sukhois or mirage 2000s or jaguars for penetration and strike missions .It is common practice in high threat environment to have dedicated escort for the AWAC and the taner can be also put in the same protection envelope with lighter more agile and dedicated air to air ordnance equipped aircraft like LCA -MIG 29 or even some su-30s with only air to air weapons . Aerial refuelling gives us the flexibility to plan for missions which otherwise will be deemed impossible

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 02 Oct 2011 20:37

shiv wrote:
prithvi wrote:Can there be a scenario where MKIs initiate a strike mission from Jodhpur and after the mission (lets say Karachi) returns over Arabian Sea? It might help them avoid retaliatory strikes? However might need additional legs.. .. just curious...
Yes. Absolutely, They can refuel over the Arabian sea and return to Sulur if need be. That is good, sensible usage of refuellers. Or Refuel over Myanmar/Vietnam and hit Hainan Island

yes .. but any loitering tankers over Arabian Ocean will give enough lead time to Porkis for any impending strike no..? will that no take away.. any element of surprise..assuming Tankers will need some lead time over the MKIs for positioning..?

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 02 Oct 2011 20:52

when discussing a highly technical issue like advantage of aerial refueling on mission planning it is imperative we talk on hard data and not on vague generic statements so just searched out the following which will make clear more sukhois we have more aerial refuelling tankers we need .normal take off weight of su-30 is 22500 kg and max take off load is 30000 kgs and normal inernal fuel load is 5270 kg and maximum is 9850 kg . so you get the answer to save the undercarriage and utilize a shorter high altitude runway the flanker need to take off with less than 5000 kg of fuel after take of and climb out to cruise refueling altitude it will have less than 4000 kg of fuel for the mission -aerial refueling will allow to increase the fuel to nearly 10000 kg more than doubling the effective range . At 75% power setting the sukhoi with full weapon load of 8000 kg and fuel load of 10000 kg can travel much further than 1500 km and back but mentioning that we shall have to discuss the specific fuel consumption at the normal operating altitude of 15000-18000 ft which better left un discussed but the inference is clear with aerial refueling after take off climb out we increase the operating range by more than 100 % and a second refueling just inside border will increase it again by another incremental 33% .

that is why refuellers are cslled force multipliers -it does away with buddy refueling in most cases freeing up combat aircraft for combat missions and multiplying the operating strike range many times over .

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 22:29

if a Sukhoi has a max fuel load of 10,000 Kg, the minute a Sukhoi enters Chinese airspace with 10,000 kg of fuel, it will be limited to that amount of fuel and the range that the fuel provides unless it can have one more refuelling somewhere in China, on the way in or on the way out. There is no way refuellers can be placed in Chinese airspace to do that, unless the Chinese oblige, or we have air dominance.

What that means is that no matter how many refuellers we have flying around inside Indian airspace the Sukhoi can still only fly with 10,000 kg of fuel max into China. So how does one make a linear relationship between number of Sukhois and number of refuellers and say that more is better? Surely there must be some optimum number below which the air force would under perform and above which the extra refuelers would be a waste.

The air force has asked for 12. Is there any data to suggest that this number is inadequate?

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 02 Oct 2011 22:51

You do realise that the fuel inside Su30s will be in range of 1000 to 3000 kg without aerial refueling, don't you ? Isn't that extra 7000-9000 kg fuel reason enough to have aerial refuelers ?The way you are talking makes it seem like it's nothing worthwhile.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 02 Oct 2011 23:10

manum wrote:it might be a kiddish asking...but still

What about buddy refueling? we can dominate a buffer region inside the enemy territory say 100 km using swarms of LCA...and let MKI's go further....secondly what about using buddy refueling in gradual format...Lets say we take 30 LCA's inside then 20 go further and 10 go beyond...after the first lethal strike of MKI's...in this interchangeable format of replacing the emptied aircraft and refueling the last line within border region...we can increase the leg of LCA's as well, using the numbers...

Though it might be totally amateurish/stupid, still my 2 cents..

this pyramid scheme based on buddy refueling is more effective if used in this sequence

Regular tanker (in friendly airspace) -> MKI (in hostile airspace) -> M2k/Tejas (extending the absolute range of IAF over enemy territory), the latter being relatively stealthy than the MKI would do a close in approach over the target area

or the MKI due to its payload capability can carry longer range PGM's to the targets from outside the enemy SAM bubbles

its similar to using a bigger fighter aircraft guiding the smaller and radio silent UCAV's like the Raffy -> Neuron combo

TSP's hankering for Afgan airspace not withstanding, Afgan air defense is non-existent and probably the Taliban can guard the afgan airfields for TSP assets

manum · Post by **manum** » 02 Oct 2011 23:35

We can also create an algorithm or a script wrt the capacities and safety factors of each aircraft like BVR and detection range and explore many forms not only pyramidal i.e. 3 dimensional spatial forms and respond as per change in scene...Though war is always a fluid condition but still we anyway make a plan...

but for all such things we need swarms of LCA's making the bulk...

added later...maybe I am talking about something already being done in flying academies.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Oct 2011 23:38

I would think aMCA more especially, if the swarm area of attack is all NE side. For NE side, AMCA numbers must be really large.

manum · Post by **manum** » 02 Oct 2011 23:56

Ya...but I think we'll see stealth LCA's first, AMCA we are not going to see for long...We'll rather mature stealth technology on a tested platform...

LCA since dont have too much range wrt to china it can be used in flip flop of defensive and offensive...i.e. if we push it in enemies border buffer in numbers they get offensive and if we keep them in ours they deny air space...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Oct 2011 05:50

jamwal wrote:You do realise that the fuel inside Su30s will be in range of 1000 to 3000 kg without aerial refueling, don't you ? Isn't that extra 7000-9000 kg fuel reason enough to have aerial refuelers ?The way you are talking makes it seem like it's nothing worthwhile.

If I make something sound like it is not worthwhile I am sure my misinformation can be set right by someone who knows.

Any publicly available cites for the figure (1000 to 3000 kg)? That is being thrown around here as a convenient argument for more tankers. But that is not what I have been asking. Are Indian tankers going to be used only for "top up refuelling" so they can have full fuel as they cross the Indian border into China or Pakistan because otherwise they would have "only 1000 to 3000 kg" of fuel? Is that why many people here are saying "More tankers needed! More tankers needed!"?

If a whole lot of tankers are being used for "top up at the border" then those huge airliner sized tankers visible on radar screens hundreds of Km away in enemy territory would be a loud announcement "Indian raid about to arrive". How many tankers do we plan to have patrolling up and down the border "topping up" fighters.

Refuelling tankers cannot be used for attacks into Pakistan or China over and beyond one full tank of fuel. For Pakistan an ability to fly 300 km and back is by and large sufficient. For China - even a penetration of 1500 km is insufficient to hit really significant targets in mainland China. And in neither case are tankers going to be flying into hostile airspace. So why do we need all those extra tankers. The IAF has said 12. Is that insufficient?

One of the reasons why I am probing so much is because everyone thinks he knows. I must admit I don't know. To me it seems that a whole lot of tankers are useful for power projection over oceans. Over the Indian ocean for example. Another thing would be in fuel saving for ferry flights across India. I think the "top up at the border" role is being overstated as a reason for "more and more" tankers.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 03 Oct 2011 06:18

For Pakistan an ability to fly 300 km

we have to think a little beyond the usual straight line attacks of old.

Tankers do give the ability to come into Pakiland from other directions as well as allow a Pune based SU 30 to do an Andamans mission.

The other advantage of the tanker is that it gives the ability for one package to strike multiple targets

now where the tankers are stationed and protected is all part of the planning

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 03 Oct 2011 06:28

Disclaimer: i don't know anything.

1. Why do we need a >1500km penetration into china unless we already secured Tibet? If we secured Tibet already our refuelers will be in indian space only.

2. Assuming the whole flight path is supersonic, a 1500km strike is a 3hr project. Can the pilots handle longer missions?

3. Don't we need at least 2 (one active and one backup) for every large mission? In a three way war, how many concurrent missions we might have? I presume they will be more than 10.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 03 Oct 2011 06:40

Can the pilots handle longer missions?

Nowadays quite a few can

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Oct 2011 06:52

With specially developed fighter pilot food intake and out-take system, it should be possible. However, for fatigue, dual seat is optimum especially during cruise periods.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Oct 2011 07:25

Surya wrote:
For Pakistan an ability to fly 300 km
we have to think a little beyond the usual straight line attacks of old.

Tankers do give the ability to come into Pakiland from other directions as well as allow a Pune based SU 30 to do an Andamans mission.

The other advantage of the tanker is that it gives the ability for one package to strike multiple targets

now where the tankers are stationed and protected is all part of the planning

Surya as long as we have neutral or safe airspace or ocean, our tankers can be secure. Refuelling over the ocean is a valid means of attacking Pakistan. That is how they will attack us in any case and we need to be ready to shoot down their tankers over the ocean (or knock them out on land). In fact - it's a bit of a stretch but "appropriate and innovative" refuelling would enable attacks as far as Hainan Island. I also believe that maritime strike aircraft and patrol aircraft would benefit greatly from refuelers. Ferry within India and yes even border top up would be valid roles.

How many refuelers do we need for these roles? What other roles are there? On what basis can anyone outside of the IAF make a call on how many tankers are needed and is there a rational explanation for calling for those numbers? From a logical viewpoint zero refuelers is too little and 200 refuelling tankers "seems like enough" . What is the number we need? In fact the number of refuelers we need would be an indicator of what sorts of role they are being used for. A foreign Intel agency would ask "How many refuelers does India have? What are they going to use them for?". Even possessing refuelers is an indicator of certain types of intent. Just like possession of ICBMs is an indicator of a certain intent. And we should be asking what the heck are China and Pakistan going to do with their refuellers?

The US is refuelling their aircraft all the time. The do top up refuels for exercises, they are constantly in military campaigns halfway across the world that require refuelling, they are sending men and material and aircraft to bases all over the world in ocean crossing flights that need refuelling. But their refuellers operate in areas where they have air dominance or no threat.

What is India's requirement? What responses are we likely to get from neighbours near and far to that requirement? How do we respond to their responses?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 03 Oct 2011 07:34

shiv

I do not have any open source info to give some idea of numbers needed.

but for discussion purposes it may be worth looking at how many strike packages were involved in GW1\2 and the sort of tanker support they needed.

even if we need a percentage of that it would give some ball park numbers

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Oct 2011 08:17

harder and deeper you hit the enemy logistical tail the better you disrupt his resupply.

tibet & sinkiang is a vast place and nobody has enough LRSAMs to bubble out the entire place. so once you are past the frontal aviation SAM net, its a vast playground with rich pickings of rail and road convoys jamming the few roads to the front. easy meat for strike a/c and cruise missiles.

thats the advantage of being able to find gaps , fly past the frontal SAM bubbles and put heavy hits into his rear.