Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

[brar_w]

...

USA is pushing really hard and the moment they offer F-35, mark my world we will order those. And they will offer with a riddle, buy one of the older generation platforms. So there will be 5 sources and each offering 2 types - more or less around 10 types. Add the unmanned types, so we will see the tribes growing too fast and too far.

If my wishes were horses, I would like MoD to consolidate to fewer types as much possible and stick with the local content even if we can add them slowly.

Yes. US is pushing very hard for F35. Yet it will have on its inventory for at least near future - F16s, F18s, F15s, F22s, A10s in good nos. I am not discussing the bomber fleet.

Plus US and us is not a good comparison metric. China and us is a good comparison.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2420187#p2420187

[RKumar]

MoD/IAF don't want to order three-legged cheeta but ready to order one-legged chicken. IAF is crying wolves, that they don't have a way to deal with JF-17 and F-16 and what do they expect from Hawk?? I think imports can help everyone to go innovative and local products make them sick.

Can you at least try to do basic research before ranting here? What has a follow on order for Hawk TRAINERS got to do with orders for the Tejas? How are the two comparable in any way? I do hope you understand what a jet trainer is at least.

And what Trainers gonna do with sensors/weapons on it? What is the business use case? Is this even IAF priority? My basic skills do not give me any answers.

[Arun.prabhu]

Spoken like someone who thinks unless the warplane is at the absolute cutting edge, it is useless. I'd say that, properly armed with capable BVR, WVR and sensors - of which three, we're got or are getting there with two local systems - trainers can take on the best that our neighbors can field at an exchange rate of two to 1 or better with BVR and WVR weaponry. But I mostly see them playing defense deep in our territory where any ingressing aircraft will have very little time before they are bingo and where those very same air craft are heavily laden with gravity bombs and other air to surface munitions with one or maybe two aircraft loaded for bear with AAMs and the rest having a couple of WVR missiles, if that while are trainers will be armed to the teeth with as many WVR or BVR weapons as they can carry. Trust me, there are combat use cases - not business use cases, mind, but combat use cases - for armed anything provided our men are trained well and our boys proved they are during the PAF raid post Balakot.

As for IAF priority, the IAF is limited by our government to a certain number of fighting squadrons, but the support echelons aren't so limited, I believe. Even if we were at full strength, there are benefits to having a second rung of warplanes that may not do well mano-e-mano against the enemy's best, but are good at supporting our best and freeing up their numbers to act where they are needed. More planes give us greater operational, tactical and strategic options. This is very good thinking from the IAF and shows that they are really giving serious thought to working around the number and budget problem they are facing. And it shows they are really serious about preparing to fight and defend the nation.

Can you at least try to do basic research before ranting here? What has a follow on order for Hawk TRAINERS got to do with orders for the Tejas? How are the two comparable in any way? I do hope you understand what a jet trainer is at least.

And what Trainers gonna do with sensors/weapons on it? What is the business use case? Is this even IAF priority? My basic skills do not give me any answers.

[ranjan.rao]

^^+1 arun prabhu, if it can shoot it can kill..time and again shining gold plated stuff has been found lying on ground...courtesy old cheap techniques ..and that is the nature of warfare..we can arm such things..make such things..even on offensive side..i dont think pakistan army will be able to muster numbers or Air defenses at short notice..and PAF has traditionally focussed on Air to air war more than supporting ground troops ..there also they can use be used too..
also to your point of business use, i think this can be used in exports. In areas where Air defenses are sparse..these can be used to good effect..

[RKumar]

^ Lets agree to disagree ... to use 2 Hawk-i against a fighter in a real conflict. For me, It is a suicide mission for the servicemen.

[Arun.prabhu]

I was ignoring the business side of things, but a cheap domestic jet plane built around the HTFE25 engine with the sensors and weapons package and instrumentation we've built for the Hawk-i will be a good sales prospect as it will be cheap and allow affordable and effective force projection by the buyer in their AO. For all the nations that can't buy 100 million dollar warplanes and don't want to downgrade to prop planes for fighting wars, it'd be a very good deal.

^^+1 arun prabhu, if it can shoot it can kill..time and again shining gold plated stuff has been found lying on ground...courtesy old cheap techniques ..and that is the nature of warfare..we can arm such things..make such things..even on offensive side..i dont think pakistan army will be able to muster numbers or Air defenses at short notice..and PAF has traditionally focussed on Air to air war more than supporting ground troops ..there also they can use be used too..
also to your point of business use, i think this can be used in exports. In areas where Air defenses are sparse..these can be used to good effect..

[Arun.prabhu]

I did concede the two to one exchange rate. We send our infantry into battle with not much armor, little night vision and whatnot. Do you think that pilots and warplanes are important enough to spend a lot on the best and latest, but not the infantry? There is only so much in the budget and a fifty billion dollar hardware Air Force is not realistic for another thirty or forty years. Every paise we save in the IAF - because for all the glamor of flying combat planes, no war is ever going to be decided in the air - is money for the navy and army, which components do win wars.

^ Lets agree to disagree ... to use 2 Hawk-i against a fighter in a real conflict. For me, It is a suicide mission for the servicemen.

[Manish_P]

Tactics, Numbers et al play a huge role as well. Especially when you are unmatched.

Check out the below video of a RAF pilot and imagine a mixed force of Su30MKIs, MiG 29s and... the iHawks

[Arun.prabhu]

No need to go to jolly old England for how tactics and training and numbers and sheer guts matter. If my memory serves me right, we did it with MIG-21s and SU-30MKIs in one of our early exercises with the Americans at home.

Tactics, Numbers et al play a huge role as well. Especially when you are unmatched.

Check out the below video of a RAF pilot and imagine a mixed force of Su30MKIs, MiG 29s and... the iHawks

[Aditya_V]

I did concede the two to one exchange rate. We send our infantry into battle with not much armor, little night vision and whatnot. Do you think that pilots and warplanes are important enough to spend a lot on the best and latest, but not the infantry? There is only so much in the budget and a fifty billion dollar hardware Air Force is not realistic for another thirty or forty years. Every paise we save in the IAF - because for all the glamor of flying combat planes, no war is ever going to be decided in the air - is money for the navy and army, which components do win wars.

^ Lets agree to disagree ... to use 2 Hawk-i against a fighter in a real conflict. For me, It is a suicide mission for the servicemen.

Dominance of the Air is important for winning wars, it has been true for all wars including the 1971 Bangladesh War, putting the PAF out action in East Pakistan helped us create Bangladesh.

Even the Paki Jehadis depend on Nuke Umbrella and PAF for thier safety in Paki bases and thier Networks, thats why BIF hopes Surgical strikes, Balakot strikes and Parrott the Paki line on 27 Feb19.

If you look between 65 and 71 wars while then Paki's bought some star fighters clandestinely, got some sabres and F-6(Mig-19) for which the Americans integrated the Aim-9B. We got 56 improved Hunters and what made the Difference 100 Plus SU-7B and 100 plus Mig 21 FL from the Soviets at Frendship prices.

You can never win an Air war without numbers of competent aircraft and components from Awacs to Fuels, to Drop tanks. in 71 war Su 7B had to stop their successful attacks on Shor Kot road cause the finished their 3 sets of Drop tanks.
.
Thats where the MMRCA will never get the IAF, it can only get IAF numbers for stalemates. Imports can be tip of the spear, but numbers which if LCA is ordered in 100's can form body of the spear by having an in house production ecosystem. Any new aircraft requires drop tanks, weapons, spare parts training crew it takes 4-5 years to induct a new type of aircraft. Thats why I go WTF when people on the forum want to import a few F-15- we will be better off with more Su-30MKI's to that. Israel and USA have been operating F-15 for 40 years so they have done the necessary investments and ecosystem for F-15's- we dont.

Well the powers that be have not ordered 83 Mk1A's in 3 years, some where some one has to bite the bullet and start simultaneous teams working on LCA Tejas Mk1/1A, Naval Tejas, MWF, TEDBF and AMCA so that we can start producing numbers from all these products. And this fetish for A330, why not just order Boeing 737-900 based P8I's, some for mounting Indian Awacs radars, Some as Tankers, Some as Bombers. Yes some dependency on the USA, but 737-900 parts can be stocked and widely available.

If we are get strategic safety and win our necessary wars and not think of just defensive stalemates to deter the enemy, we will need some group of people with power to take the right proactive decisions.

[Arun.prabhu]

Nope, putting the PAF out of the fight saved a lot of lives on the ground, but did not decide the war. We would have crushed E. Pakistan any ways. E. Pakistan did not have the industry, the local population was revolting, the Pakistani army did not have the numbers to ensure interior security while fighting our army - and that's not even talking about the supplies - and the Pakistani navy had no chance in hell of supplying E. Pakistan with men and materiel to maintain the defense. The only strategic mistake that Indra Gandhi made was that she did not go after W. Pakistan and instead went after E. Pakistan. We would have solved the Pakistan problem in a couple of weeks back then without any threat of nuclear weaponry. And once W. Pakistan went kaput, E. Pakistan would have died on the vine within a year.

Agree on the rest. We don't need more types. Order the Tejas in numbers. for Mid life upgrades of our current wares, use Indian as much as possible. Work on building a heavy plane to replace the SU-30MKI twenty years down the line. We need to design, build and maintain in india to have a free strategic hand.

I did concede the two to one exchange rate. We send our infantry into battle with not much armor, little night vision and whatnot. Do you think that pilots and warplanes are important enough to spend a lot on the best and latest, but not the infantry? There is only so much in the budget and a fifty billion dollar hardware Air Force is not realistic for another thirty or forty years. Every paise we save in the IAF - because for all the glamor of flying combat planes, no war is ever going to be decided in the air - is money for the navy and army, which components do win wars.

Dominance of the Air is important for winning wars, it has been true for all wars including the 1971 Bangladesh War, putting the PAF out action in East Pakistan helped us create Bangladesh.

Even the Paki Jehadis depend on Nuke Umbrella and PAF for thier safety in Paki bases and thier Networks, thats why BIF hopes Surgical strikes, Balakot strikes and Parrott the Paki line on 27 Feb19.

If you look between 65 and 71 wars while then Paki's bought some star fighters clandestinely, got some sabres and F-6(Mig-19) for which the Americans integrated the Aim-9B. We got 56 improved Hunters and what made the Difference 100 Plus SU-7B and 100 plus Mig 21 FL from the Soviets at Frendship prices.

You can never win an Air war without numbers of competent aircraft and components from Awacs to Fuels, to Drop tanks. in 71 war Su 7B had to stop their successful attacks on Shor Kot road cause the finished their 3 sets of Drop tanks.
.
Thats where the MMRCA will never get the IAF, it can only get IAF numbers for stalemates. Imports can be tip of the spear, but numbers which if LCA is ordered in 100's can form body of the spear by having an in house production ecosystem. Any new aircraft requires drop tanks, weapons, spare parts training crew it takes 4-5 years to induct a new type of aircraft. Thats why I go WTF when people on the forum want to import a few F-15- we will be better off with more Su-30MKI's to that. Israel and USA have been operating F-15 for 40 years so they have done the necessary investments and ecosystem for F-15's- we dont.

Well the powers that be have not ordered 83 Mk1A's in 3 years, some where some one has to bite the bullet and start simultaneous teams working on LCA Tejas Mk1/1A, Naval Tejas, MWF, TEDBF and AMCA so that we can start producing numbers from all these products. And this fetish for A330, why not just order Boeing 737-900 based P8I's, some for mounting Indian Awacs radars, Some as Tankers, Some as Bombers. Yes some dependency on the USA, but 737-900 parts can be stocked and widely available.

If we are get strategic safety and win our necessary wars and not think of just defensive stalemates to deter the enemy, we will need some group of people with power to take the right proactive decisions.

[Manish_P]

No need to go to jolly old England for how tactics and training and numbers and sheer guts matter. If my memory serves me right, we did it with MIG-21s and SU-30MKIs in one of our early exercises with the Americans at home.

Of course. Going to UKstan was not my intention. Just that the interview mentioned Hawks which i remembered. That's all.

[RKumar]

I completely agree with your statement and I have always been in favor of having bread n butter then gold plated equipment. But here we are on IAF thread and my frustration is with lack of straight thinking n planning. But that's my opinion, others can have different opinions

I did concede the two to one exchange rate. We send our infantry into battle with not much armor, little night vision and whatnot. Do you think that pilots and warplanes are important enough to spend a lot on the best and latest, but not the infantry? There is only so much in the budget and a fifty billion dollar hardware Air Force is not realistic for another thirty or forty years. Every paise we save in the IAF - because for all the glamor of flying combat planes, no war is ever going to be decided in the air - is money for the navy and army, which components do win wars.

[manjgu]

Arun... the mistake IG did was not to close kashmir issue during negotiations. india did not have the capacity to crush pakis on our western front. please be realistic. there was near parity/ no overwhelming superiority of forces on our western borders..anyway thats history. AF's cant win u wars..its the army which has to hold ground for victory to be declared...AF's can make the job easier only.

[Arun.prabhu]

Add the troops and materiel we committed in the east to the west and then start the war on the same day but in the west. China couldn't have intervened and we'd have at least split W. Pakistan into two.

Arun... the mistake IG did was not to close kashmir issue during negotiations. india did not have the capacity to crush pakis on our western front. please be realistic. there was near parity/ no overwhelming superiority of forces on our western borders..anyway thats history. AF's cant win u wars..its the army which has to hold ground for victory to be declared...AF's can make the job easier only.

[manjgu]

Arun... i think u r missing the point totally...a offensive force should have atleast 3 to 4 times strength in plains and 6 to 7 times strength in the mountains ..did we have that kind of strength?? no we didnt... pakis actually committed a v small force to East pakistan..the military planners of the day knew that we have to hold the fort on western border and split E Pakistan ... we can achiveve numerical/material superiority on the eastern flank and not on the western flank...fyi

[manjgu]

u can say china could not have intervened only in hindsight..planners of the day made plans for that as well..thankfully. Military planners are more realistic/circumspect that u seem to be..planning/preparing for all contigencies.

[Arun.prabhu]

Now, who's ignoring the shape of the battle space? We waited until November because that's when the Himalayan passes get closed because of snow. So, yes, China couldn't have intervened in any meaningful way before the decision was reached in the field.

You're absolutely correct that you need 3 or better numerical superiority to go on the offensive on the plains. That is, if you are going to ram your head against every strong point there is. If you bypass the strong points - blitzkrieg - you don't need that sort of numerical superiority. We used blitzkrieg in E. Pakistan. We had built up our forces after 1962 and 1965, and we had very good leadership. 1971 was the time. We missed it.

u can say china could not have intervened only in hindsight..planners of the day made plans for that as well..thankfully. Military planners are more realistic/circumspect that u seem to be..planning/preparing for all contigencies.

[manjgu]

the same very good leadership decided that we dont have capacity to cut w pakistan into two and only thing doable was cutting off bangladesh where we could achieve numerical/material superiority ! so unless you have better information lets leave it at that. Blitzkrieg or combined arms operations was something germans perfected over time and they had generals who could execute that ...we barely managed to requip ourselves after 62, 1965 wars and frankly there were no Guderians, rommels, manstiens in the sub continent armies. there was a article by Maj Amin of Pak Army writing in Defence journal ( a pak army publication) who wrote that neither the PA or IA knew about correct employment of tank forces as demonstrated both in 65, 71 wars. So talking of blitzkreig is v cute.

[manjgu]

http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/oct/handling.htm while this pertains to PA , the same applies to IA as well.... maybe after reading this ur dreams of blitzkrieg will take a reality chk...

[shaun]

From Kargil to Balakot: The continuing challenges to India’s modern air power
https://www.orfonline.org/research/from ... ssion=true

[Arun.prabhu]

What is this supposed to educate me on? That the TSP leadership were incompetent? The lead up to 1971 is enough to convince anyone of that. That our commanders in 1965 were timid and preferred set piece battles? But we're talking about 1971 here and we used pincer movements with combined arms - as combined as could be managed given our training, equipment, and communications - in the east. As for advising Indira Gandhi that bifurcating Pakistan wasn't doable, cite of who said it and when it was said. Was it when Indira Gandhi asked Manekshaw to attack E. Pakistan? I've read nothing anywhere that says that Indira Gandhi ever asked the Manekshaw or the Staff about invading W. Pakistan in March/April 1971.

http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/oct/handling.htm while this pertains to PA , the same applies to IA as well.... maybe after reading this ur dreams of blitzkrieg will take a reality chk...

[Aditya_V]

Add the troops and materiel we committed in the east to the west and then start the war on the same day but in the west. China couldn't have intervened and we'd have at least split W. Pakistan into two.

Arun... the mistake IG did was not to close kashmir issue during negotiations. india did not have the capacity to crush pakis on our western front. please be realistic. there was near parity/ no overwhelming superiority of forces on our western borders..anyway thats history. AF's cant win u wars..its the army which has to hold ground for victory to be declared...AF's can make the job easier only.

+1 Plus add 16 Airforce Squadrons from near parity in a day or so with Pakistan running out of air supplies, the Pakistani Army would be literally facing the IAF in Longewalla expanded 15 times as in the 1971 the PAf apart from a few F104 attacks at the end of the war was more about protecting its Airbases rather than challenging IAF attacks on the PA in Shahkargarg sector or defending the PN at Karachi.

But its not so simple, UK and US were with the Pakis and our media , leadership were worried about over escalating, destabilizing Pakistan etc. Thats why our people were very sympathetic that Butto should get a good enough deal for him to go back to Shimla. But such leniency bought only 10 years peace before BIF could stir up Punjab, LTTE and then ensure they could start an insurgency in Kashmir.

[manjgu]

arun...to educate u that both PA and IA were schooled in the british tradition/employment of armour... and that we neither had the training for combined arms ops nor the generalship to execute that kind of warfare... actually the article where amin talked of PA and IA was another one ..the article i posted however gave ample idea of the issues faced by IA as well...

[Arun.prabhu]

Manjgu,
You have ignored shape of the battle space. You have ignored that it was the political leadership that decided we needed to take out E. Pakistan and you haven't given any evidence even though I asked for a cite that invasion of W. Pakistan was proposed to Manekshaw or the Staff in Mar/April/May or at any time before November and that it was shot down by them. My original contention was that Indira Gandhi made a strategic mistake in going after E. Pakistan and not W. Pakistan. The ball, I believe is in your court. Why do you think that we couldn't win in the Western front if we had fought the war in the west rather than the east.

Repeating that the staff were trained in the British tradition doesn't mean a thing. It wasn't 1947 immediately after independence but 24 years after. Any failings were the fault of our political and military leadership. And whatever those failings were, we still won stinking in the East and fought W. Pakistan offensive to a standstill. So, tell me again why the units that fought in the west and east could not have taken the western half out if they'd been concentrated in the west?

arun...to educate u that both PA and IA were schooled in the british tradition/employment of armour... and that we neither had the training for combined arms ops nor the generalship to execute that kind of warfare... actually the article where amin talked of PA and IA was another one ..the article i posted however gave ample idea of the issues faced by IA as well...

[Manish_P]

And whatever those failings were, we still won stinking in the East and fought W. Pakistan offensive to a standstill. So, tell me again why the units that fought in the west and east could not have taken the western half out if they'd been concentrated in the west?

IMHO our forces could have, but at a very high cost. And holding the land would have been much tougher. In the east we had the local population on our side. were on the side of the local population, who were against the Pakis

[Manish_Sharma]

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/parlia ... ssion=true

Parliamentary panel raps government for woefully-inadequate funding for military modernization

Rajat Pandit | TNN | Mar 13, 2020, 23:01 IST

A parliamentary panel has slammed the government for not providing adequate funds for military modernization, with the armed forces getting only 65% of what they wanted to plug critical operational gaps despite the collusive threat from China and 

“Such a situation is not conducive for preparing for modern day warfare, where possession of capital-intensive modern machines are pre-requisites for not only tilting the result of war in our favour, but also having credible deterrence capabilities,” said the parliamentary standing committee on defence.

In four reports tabled in Parliament on Friday, the committee said the overall capital allocation for procuring new weapon systems and other modernization in the 2020-2021 budget was just Rs 1,13,734 crore against the projection of Rs 1,75,702 crore.

“The committee is of the view the considerable shortage (Rs 61,968 crore) in budget allocation under the capital head, which is 35% less than the projection, would affect acquisition of latest weaponry, aircraft, ships, tanks and capital-intensive projects, including land, buildings and infrastructure,” it said.


There has, in fact, been a steady decline in the actual allocations for 

Army

, IAF and Navy as compared to their projections since 2015-2016. The shortfall for the Army, for instance, increased from Rs 4,596 crore (14%) in 2015-16 to Rs 17,911 crore (36%) in 2020-21. The shortfalls for IAF and Navy, in turn, rose from 27% to 35% and 5% to 41%, respectively.


“The Navy’s fighting capabilities depend on high-value platforms like aircraft carrier, submarines, destroyers and frigates but the allocation of capital budget for the force has seen the sharpest decline percentage-wise,” said the committee, asking the government not to make any cuts in capital allocations for the three Services in the coming years.

As earlier reported by TOI, the overall Rs 3.37 lakh crore 

defence budget

 (revenue and capital) this year works out to just 1.5% of the projected GDP for 2020-2021, which is the lowest such figure since the 1962 war with China. Another Rs 1.33 lakh crore has been allocated separately for defence pensions of retired military and civilian personnel.


The ballooning salary and pension bills of the 15-lakh strong armed forces and the around 33 lakh defence pensioners, of course, cut hugely into the funds available for military modernization. But the Army vice chief Lt-General S K Saini told the committee, “We have unsettled borders, we have a very constrained internal security environment in J&K and north-east, where you require boots on the ground. Therefore, you need to have a large-standing Army.”


The revenue to capital outlay ratio, which should ideally be around 60:40, however, is becoming more and more untenable. The ratio for the Army, for instance, currently stands at 82:18. The committee said concrete measures should be implemented to rectify all this, including the long-pending proposal for creation of a non-lapsable defence modernization fund despite opposition from the finance ministry.

[manjgu]

1) arun..u shuld give a cite that the mil leadership asked IG to cut w pakistan into two or vice versa and not me. IG had given a free hand to the mil leadership..and the very good mil leadership told to IG what was doable. the reason has already been told..we neither had the training/men material superiority/generals to do the famous 'blitzkreig' as suggested by you. There was v little armour on the eastern front... our armour was majorly on the western front still it could do v little. 2) that the army was not up for blitzkrieg after 24 yrs of independence is clearly a failure of political leadership ..on that point i will agree. the armed forces were neglected till 1962 and post the debacle only we woke up. and u r expecting indian armed forces to do blitzkreig in 1971 !! u can maybe equip a army in 9 years but u cant train it sufficiently to do the combined armed ops which the germans did. None of our generals/senior commanders had experience/training of commanding anything more than a tank regiment. armour was employed in penny packets, did occassional forays etc. my last on the topic...

[Manish_Sharma]

Manjgu and arun prabhu why are you writing OT posts on Air Force Thread discussing '71 war?

[nachiket]

MRCA procurement was started 20 years ago...

Point is.... In context of that tweet, how will 6 tankers make that much difference?

Doubling the tanker capacity won't make a difference? And if we buy A330's it would more than double since they carry more fuel and have greater endurance (and possibly better serviceability). Ideally we might need more but six would be a good start.

[Cain Marko]

Point is.... In context of that tweet, how will 6 tankers make that much difference?

Doubling the tanker capacity won't make a difference? And if we buy A330's it would more than double since they carry more fuel and have greater endurance (and possibly better serviceability). Ideally we might need more but six would be a good start.

It will make some difference hence the order to begin with. But if you read the tweet, the complaint clearly is that for a force of 600+fighters, the current number is remarkably inadequate. And that the tanker to fighter ratio is the worst in the world. Questions are: What number is adequate according to said commentator for force of 600 fighters? Does India need best in world ratio? What should ratio be? why? What is iafs projected need? How prioritized is this need vs other needs - s400, additional fighters, AAMs, precision munitions, standoff weapons, Akash batteries, hardened shelters, ucavs, data links etc etc?

Whining about numbers is easy to do but there is a limit to resources and these have to be prioritized. Even the long drawn out mrca ultimately resulted in a heavily curtailed purchase.

Frankly if IAF suddenly doubled it's tanker numbers as per it's requested need, the ratio ranking is hardly going to change.

[Karan M]

[Aditya_V]

I think ACM is clear he wants a weapons edge not parity. The Amraam vs R 77 is close parity vs Rafale with Metoer gives weapons edge. I hope we move towards air dominance, as PAF is a key guarantor for Paki Jihadi s .

[eklavya]

If we deploy S-400 in say Pathankot. S-400 range is according to internet sources up to 400km. Distance from Pathankot to Sargodha is 280 km. Does this mean we can shut down the airspace to PAF between Pathankot and Sargodha? Naliya to Karachi is 260 km. Could S-400 in Naliya shut down the airspace to PAF between Naliya and Masroor?

[John]

If we deploy S-400 in say Pathankot. S-400 range is according to internet sources up to 400km. Distance from Pathankot to Sargodha is 280 km. Does this mean we can shut down the airspace to PAF between Pathankot and Sargodha? Naliya to Karachi is 260 km. Could S-400 in Naliya shut down the airspace to PAF between Naliya and Masroor?

Due to early curvature kinda impractical since only targets flying at altitudes greater than 30k ft can be detected at those ranges.

[brar_w]

Yeah basically, you are looking at around a 200-250 km radar horizon for most aircraft flying at or around 10K feet.

[eklavya]

^^^^
Of the longest range (400km) missile (40N6E), Vicky uncle says:

With an active radar homing head, climbs to designated altitude then guidance switches to search & destroy mode.[33]
Effective against low-altitude targets at extremely long range (below the radio horizon).[64

As soon as our AWACS sees their formation taking off, send in a few of these.

Anyway, I expect true capabilities and tactics are “classified”.

[kit]

If we deploy S-400 in say Pathankot. S-400 range is according to internet sources up to 400km. Distance from Pathankot to Sargodha is 280 km. Does this mean we can shut down the airspace to PAF between Pathankot and Sargodha? Naliya to Karachi is 260 km. Could S-400 in Naliya shut down the airspace to PAF between Naliya and Masroor?

Its not *exactly* that, even in "peacetime" the S400 radar system can range out and cover most of pakistan , in effect giving the IAF strat command targeting data wherever they need. You dont need the S400 long range missile per se when you have *options* , of course it is a bonus ! PAF can do what they do best ., sit out in the hangars. , unless they have a death wish.

Indias options and capabilities will improve over the coming years and reach a tipping point ... that PK will cease to be an adversary anymore., more like a nuisance. The generals seems to have woken up and decided that they are not going to fight directly, and so the enhanced " assymetric war" going on with the jihadis, the ISI has now roped in the Taliban to this effect. , but OT now.

[kit]

I think ACM is clear he wants a weapons edge not parity. The Amraam vs R 77 is close parity vs Rafale with Metoer gives weapons edge. I hope we move towards air dominance, as PAF is a key guarantor for Paki Jihadi s .

thats right , against the pakis India will have overwhelming conventional and nuclear capabilities, there is no parity. India is aiming for parity with China in several niche areas.

[srin]

If we deploy S-400 in say Pathankot. S-400 range is according to internet sources up to 400km. Distance from Pathankot to Sargodha is 280 km. Does this mean we can shut down the airspace to PAF between Pathankot and Sargodha? Naliya to Karachi is 260 km. Could S-400 in Naliya shut down the airspace to PAF between Naliya and Masroor?

Yes and no.

I don't think S400 ranges are against maneuvering targets. So, yes - probably effective against AEWs and tankers, but not really against fighters. We'll probably have to forward deploy them considerably.
Secondly, looking at the friendly fire incidents, unless the airspace is already locked down on the other side, it'll be very risky to fire against such distant targets.
Third, it'll have to be a total wartime scenario with a wholly different ROE than we've seen so far.
Lastly, IIRC the missile radars are usually not switched on 24/7. Mostly the surveillance radars. You don't want to give away the locations, electronic signature and other information. So, S400 systems need to be mobile and integrated with AWACS and aerostats, who can do the primary surveillance.