Are We Ready for a Two-front War ?

[Kanson]

Aerostats, Radar installed at high altitudes and vantage positions and good network of ground based radars needed to detect Cruise missile. Once the radar network for the BMD comes online, it takes care of the Cruise missile detection...I think that is what Mr. Saraswat mentioned in an interview.

[darshhan]

Aditya ji .Once subsonic cruise missiles are detected they are very easy to shoot down.Any air defence system worth its salt should be able to do it.Forget R-73 even legacy missiles and anti aircraft guns can shoot it down.The only problem comes in detecting them because most of them have a terrain hugging profile.

As far as aerostat radars go I am aware that India has ordered some of them(I think the no. is 3 or 4).Even if cruise missile detection capability is built into these aerostats there are simply too few of them to give us 100% protection.

As far as SU-30 capabilities go I have no knowledge about these aircrafts.But even if their radars can detect cruise missiles it suffices to say that they have to be in the sky.As of now we have somewhere around 100 sukhois in our service which have been inducted(150-180 etc will be delivered in the coming years).Now just make a guess.At any time how many sukhois are flying.I don't have an idea but numbers will be very less.Su-30 MKI is heavy fighter and flying it continuously will not be cheap.Also every aircraft has a lifetime based on hours.If you fly it continuously you will reach that limit earlier and then you will have to refurbish it.Su-30 is our primary air superiority fighter as well as deep strike fighter for now and it is highly unlikely that IAF would use it for continuous patrolling.Hence for cruise missile defence Su-30 is not a good option.That is not to say that sukhois are not capable of cruise missile defence.

You can implement this idea on an aircraft which is meant for persistence preferably UAVs.At least that is my opinion.

Another option to defend against cruise missile attacks or at least mitigate the consequences one can use mobility.I mean to say if you are able to get vehicle based comand centers you can protect them against attacks.

But instead of looking for 100% protection and matching our opponents tank for tank and gun for gun , it is better to look for weakness in our opponents armor and attack them accordingly.As someone said the best defense is offense


What we need is an offensive mindset.We have to figure a way out to attack and hurt our enemies instead of complaining we are weak.We need to impose high costs on our enemy if he ever decides to wage war on us.

[Kanan]

Bro,
War is no BOllywood flick where we can win just because we are the good guys! One reason China is feared is because they have invested a lot of money and effort in their Military,year after year, consistently! That is why even the US & Russia are wary of China! When dealing with such poerful enemy in a war hardware, tactics and political-will will decide who wins! If a two front war spills malacca will be the jugular vein we will attack!

[DavidD]

Shiv,

I've presented my arguments and backed them up with numbers and analysis, so if you wish to refute them, you may present your own numbers and analysis. I'm a guest on this forum so I'm not gonna start trading personal/national insults with you. All I'm saying is that if a plane with a T:W ratio of 0.15-0.3 can take off with some useful load then a plane with a T:W ratio of 0.75+ can probably do so with a pretty full load.

Taking off at high altitude the range is lower (less fuel) and if the range is more the payload is less. That makes them less effective than aircraft taking off at sea level from Indian bases with a full complement of AAMs waiting to shoot down aircrfat taking off from Tibet and any slow large refuellers waiting to refuel them.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 86#p453086

Guys,

Based on some of the arguments of the previous avatar of this thread, I have posted some of the analysis that I had some time ago regarding PLAAF Air-Power in Tibet. As you can imagine, the analysis is extremely convoluted and complex to present full in words here, but I figured you guys can understand the posted information's relevance (if any).

I have started out with range and load envelopes for the A-5 here:

CHINESE AIRPOWER IN TIBET: PART-1
A-5/Q-5 FANTAN FLIGHT PERFORMANCE IN THE HIMALAYAS

PERFORMANCE FOR OPTIMUM BATTLEFIELD INTERDICTION IN ARUNACHAL PRADESH. (MAX LOAD-OUT IN WEAPONS AND MINIMUM RANGE REQUIREMENT LIMIT OF 250 Km)

Typical Launch location for given range: GONGGAR, LHASA
Role: BATTLEFIELD INTERDICTION IN ARUNACHAL PRADESH (MAX LOAD IN WEAPONS)
Runway Length: 12000 FEET (MAX)


LOAD-OUT OPTIONS CHART:

a) MAX LOAD plots:
4 X 500Kg bombs
or 6 X 250Kg bombs
or 50Kg bombs depending on weapon carrying capacity (refer chart for values at different locations)
or 6 X Miscellaneous Rocket/Cluster bombs
and remainder payload capacity as internal fuel

b) MAX RANGE plots:
maximum internal fuel and two drop tanks of these sizes:
2x300 Gal
or 2x200 Gal
or 2x105 Gal
selection of either depending on payload capacity and range data and remainder payload as weapons

LOAD AND RANGE FOR GIVEN CASE OPTIMIZATION VERSUS AIRBASE ALTITUDE:
(Click for graph)
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7605/53465512wy5.jpg

LOAD AND RANGE FOR GIVEN CASE OPTIMIZATION VERSUS RUNWAY LENGTH:

This graph has been optimized for the battlefield range specified earlier with only internal fuel and full weapons load on the pylons.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2007 ... -1962.html

The airfields of Zinning, Lanchous and Kunming (2080 m) were located too far away from the international border to have any bearing on the ground battle. Nachu, though closest to the battle zone, was situated at an altitude of 4500 m, hence, was unfit for fighter/bomber operations. Jye Kundo, elevation 3800 m, and Chamdo, elevation 3230 m, were fit for MiG-19 operations against NEFA area, though with payload reduced by as much as 2000 kg, a penalty for high elevation. Thus, these fighters could use only cannons. IL-28 bomber could have operated from these bases striking cities like Dibrugarh, Jorhat, Guwahati, Shillong and Kohima. But certainly not Madras (Chennai) as stated by Mullick or for that matter even Calcutta and Kanpur. The strikes would have been with reduced payload. The IL-28 flying a high-low-high profile to extend its range would have had a radius of action of only 700 km and not 2500 km as implicated by Mullick. Even over the ground battle area, MiG-19, only with cannons would not have made significant impact.

The MiG 19 has a thrust weight ratio of 0.86

Isn't that an analysis for 1962? I'm sure the airports built since then are much improved with longer runways. I mean, I doubt that a 767 could've taken off from Tibet back then.

[JimmyJ]

David, I think there was a detailed analysis by Vivek Ahuja on BR itself. You could get more information from it. I will post you the link if I am able to spot it.

There was a great discussion some time in the past in the China Military watch thread, you could get it by searching for 'Gonggar', the airbase in Tibet. Shiv has posted a part of it above.

[shiv]

Isn't that an analysis for 1962? I'm sure the airports built since then are much improved with longer runways. I mean, I doubt that a 767 could've taken off from Tibet back then.

Has the altitude of Tibet changed since then?

Please go back to my original comment to someone else and your response if you can be gracious enough to do that. Planes can take off and land, but the higher you go the longer the runway they need to take off and the lighter the load they can carry. A lighter load is less fuel, less armament or less of both. Depending on the height of your airfield you will need 2 or 3 planes to do the job of one at sea level. And you cannot build many airfields in such terrain. Supplies and maintenance are that much more difficult and you need a larger area to mainatin more planes for combat because of reduced efficiency. There will be fewer airfields for an enemy to bomb and disable and it will take longer to repair vital structures that are damaged.

And if the runway is high enough the plane can't take off at all. Naturally nobody will build an airport at such heights even if they could build a 250,000 foot long runway.

Do you know why the Chinese are building oxygen rich barracks in Tibet?

[DavidD]

David, I think there was a detailed analysis by Vivek Ahuja on BR itself. You could get more information from it. I will post you the link if I am able to spot it.

There was a great discussion some time in the past in the China Military watch thread, you could get it by searching for 'Gonggar', the airbase in Tibet. Shiv has posted a part of it above.

Thanks, I'll go look it up.

Shiv,

The elevation of Tibet hasn't changed, but the airports certainly have. For the same plane(i.e. the same aerodynamic layout and weight), the only things affecting lift would be its speed and the air density, so at least theoretically, a higher altitude and thus lower air density can be overcome by higher speed all the way up to the service ceiling of an aircraft. The only thing required to achieve that higher speed, again theoretically, is a runway that is long enough to allow the aircraft enough time to accelerate to the necessary speed.

Now, I used to be an engineer, so I prefer to work with numbers as much as I can, and use whatever existing numbers to extrapolate when I don't have the numbers I need. The numbers I do have is that a 0.15-0.3 T:W ratio commercial plane(the 767) can take off from a CURRENT Lhasa airport with an useful load. Even at empty weight, the T:W ratio of a 767 is only 0.56, which means that a plane with the same aerodynamic layout and a 0.56 T:W ratio at full load can take off from that airport WITH A FULL LOAD. To extrapolate, I reasoned that a 0.75+ T:W ratio warplane which is designed to generate more lift than a commercial plane should be able to take off with nearly a full load if not a full load from the same airport(i.e. same length runway). As stated above, I'll look through the older threads and see if I can find numbers that prove or disprove my point.

[shiv]

Now, I used to be an engineer, so I prefer to work with numbers as much as I can.

Please look at the numbers but allow me to point out that the T:W ratio of the 767 itself is a meaningless statistic unless you mention what the TW ratio of a 767 taking off from Lhasa airport actually happens to be.

Secondly take off is about acceleration to a given velocity - so if you have a 250,000 foot runway and a T:W ratio of 0.5 - a plane can still take off by accelerating very slowly over a long distance until the required take off velocity is attained. So T:W ratio is less important than runway length and altitude.

The Il 76 operated from 11,000 foot elevation runways by India have a T:W ratio of 0.6 when they are carrying zero fuel and zero payload (i.e technically they cannot fly - but they will be near this weight while landing with near empty tanks and no payload)

At full up weight an Il- 76 has a T:W ratio of 0.3 and can take off from sea level runways but not from Leh which is at 11,000 feet. That means that Indian Il 76s are taking off from Leh at reduced payload and or fuel with a T:W ratio of less than 0.6 but more than 0.3. What matters is not the T:W ratio but runway length and payload. Aircraft can be manufactured at Chengdu and flown to Tibet, but the runways, altitude and geography are decidedly local and cannot be made in Chengdu. Look at the article posted in the post below this which shows the limitations of operating out of mountain ranges.

Fighter aircraft differ from the Boeing 767 or Il 76 in two ways. They are designed to be faster and more maneuvarable - and a basic requirement for greater speed and maneuverability is a relatively smaller wing surface area.

A smaller wing surface area makes take off and landing speeds faster because a smaller wing generates less lift. So a fighter operating out of a 11,000 foot high airfield in Tibet has more thrust available to it, but that advantage is nullifies somewhat by the smaller wing surface area that is needed to generate lift. What is even more problematic is the distance required for a fighter to land unless you are thinking of one-way journeys for the fighter to go and get shot down.

Coming to your Boeing 767, it takes off and lands somewhere else - it is not required to land back in Lhasa. Landing distances are invariably longer than take off distances (except for carrier borne aircraft). Because of high altitude and smaller wing surface area, fighters have to approach a landing strip much faster and land at higher speeds and that makes landing distance even longer. The thrust weight ratio is of no use here, but low fuel and having no payload helps. Brake chutes are less effective at altitude and brakes cannot be used above certain speeds because they will merely melt. So even if an aircraft can take off - it is the landing that is a problem.

While you are busy looking at numbers - look at landing distances. Note that India is much more open about providing such information. I doubt if you will get a single Chinese ref for landing distance of J-10 in Tibet. Perhaps that is why you have never come across some of this stuff despite being an engineer.

[shiv]

Flying in and out of the mountains
Excerpt from Flying the Bofors into Thoise"
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ewoor.html

Preparing For Thoise.

Before we go into the details of flights into Thoise, it is relevant to understand how the max AUW for a landing at Thoise was determined. The Shyok valley at Thoise is very much narrower than the Indus valley at Leh. The lateral distance, North-South, between the peaks is not more than about 2 kms. The valley becomes even narrower as the Shyok river flows onto Chalunka region of Partapur sector. Khardung La, the link between Leh and Thoise, is way to the East near Tri-Junction and to get to it after an overshoot on RW 29 at Thoise, means turning around through 180 degrees in the Shyok valley. Those of us who know Thoise, will shudder at this prospect. The reader may well ask what has Khardung La, a road pass, got to do with the IL-76? Just as it is for vehicles, so is it for aircraft, Khardung La is the lowest point on the mountain range that separates the Indus from Shyok. Readers who may have never gone to Thoise, and even for those who have, need to be mentally with the pilots and navigators as they are deliberating and deciding what should be the max AUW for a landing at Thoise.

The overriding factor in this decision is, when should the IL-76 commence an overshoot on the approach for RW 29, so that it can climb to the desired height, and safely turn around within the Shyok valley, to either make another approach, or escape to Leh across Khardung La at a height of 5. 6 kms. It is a breath taking exercise. To decide on the max AUW for landing at Thoise, we decided to conduct trials at Agra and simulate conditions as prevalent at Thoise. The Doppler in the IL-76 allows the navigator to read off the drift from a predetermined path. Till now we were landing in Thoise at an AUW in excess of 140 tons. While that by itself may be acceptable if recorded in the aircraft Log Book Form 700, the factor of overshoot and turn-around had to be reconsidered. There was a major lacuna in the SOP with safety implications. It needed rectification to ensure that an overshoot can be safely executed at Thoise. So what we did was to make an approach at Agra at a height of 3370 metres. Why 3370 metres? Thoise is at an elevation of 3070 metres, and at a distance of 6 kms from touchdown the aircraft would be at 3370 metres. Why 6 km? If the IL-76 is to overshoot, thereafter lose one engine and yet be able to climb to the desired height, which we will come to later, and do a 180 degree turn to come back over Thoise, fly Eastwards and cross Khardung La at the prescribed height of 5.6 km, then that overshoot must be initiated at a distance of at least 6 kms East from the beginning of Thoise runway. If the aircraft comes any closer, it may not be able to clear the ridges West of Thoise, and execute a safe turn around, it would probably crash into the mountains and become a statistic.

[Nihat]

CM's Can easily be taken out by air defence network , we dont need dedicated aircrafts for that. The main issue with sub-sonic cruise missile is detection , once detected they can be taken out.

Our akash air defence system is well capable of taking care of sub sonic CM's. Ofcourse in care of a saturation attack some cm's will get through but most would be intercepted.

Otoh , the fact that we lack a missile like nirbhay is the biggest gap on our side as it can significantly reduce the no. Of offensive sorties required for t.s.p. And more jets can be deployed to china front

[DavidD]

Shiv,

The start of that thread is pretty interesting, and it seems like one thing I didn't know about and thus didn't consider is the higher performance penalty on the high bypass ratio engines fighter planes use. In rarefied air of Tibet, they may suffer much more than the low bypass engines of commercial airliners. That does make my comparison with the 767 invalid, so I don't know much about vivek's assumptions, but I assume that they're pretty close to the truth, and it seems like the older planes are essentially useless in the Tibetan plateau without a ridiculously long runway. The performance penalty on the older planes due to higher density altitude is still pretty surprising, to say the least!

[merlin]

^^^
Commercial airplane engines have high bypass ratio and fighter airplane engines have low bypass ratio, the opposite of what was said.

[DavidD]

Oops, I probably mismemorized it. I know next to nothing about turbofan designs, so it's pretty likely that that's where I made the errors in assumptions one way or another, haha.

[sachin_b_k]

I remember when I had introduced this topic at this forum, there were a lot of howls of protest and ridicule at the idea of Pakistani short conventional overt war (Pakistani cold start) backed by Chinese covert war (Chinese threat but not active support) with no nuclear exchange. I am thankful to the moderator who allowed my topic to proceed and to few stelwarts who supported it.

I think the official declaration by the defence minister in the recent past for the urgent raising of additional mountain divisions and acquiring ultra light howitzers et al, as preparing for two front war/threat, came as a great satisfaction. I do not know how much this forum contributed to this urgency (it came only a few weeks after this topic was in full swing). Of course the issue was always in the minds of the Indian military brass but the political urgency factor was lacking. As I had written on this forum, we as citizens should try to build up the pressure for the urgent action.

Even if it the timing of the defence ministry decision and our forum discussion is only a coincidence with no link whatsover, the patriotic aim of raising the topic is paritially achieved as it has initiated the red bureacratic process and I would like thank all associated with it. Now we need to monitor the progress of acquistion of the weaponary and required divisions. We all know that a lot of great ideas and initiatives in Indian context have got delayed a bit too long. Lets try and make this one implemented in the promised timeframe. Ofcourse for this we will need feed back from the horse's mouth, which is our military and famous bureacracy. We need to have contacts or use our existing contacts to track the implementation of the minsitry's announcement.

The nuclear bombs numbers and delivery routes are important for nuclear deterrence BUT the immediate defence or should I say deterrence lies in preparing ourselves in the treacherous N/NE terrain against our our cunning Chinese competitors.

[ShauryaT]

^^ Ever since 1962, the Indian military is committed to the idea of aggressive defense against PRC. The JLN plan after independence was to reduce the Indian army to a strength of 150,000 leading to the debacle of 1962. A two front war has always been a possibility, even if not highly probably. Nothing new here. Towards this the Indian military will use and should use every trick in the book, including howling and public warnings in the media to get the MoD babus and the politicians to act.

I wish they howl more and not get cowered down by the supremacy of the political class over the military and not simply accept what the politicians provide at their own leisure. The politician will act quickly, if his reputation with the electorate is in danger.

In recent years the effective military spend has been reduced to a little of 2% of GDP and the allocated budget is about 2.7% of GDP. Even if it goes higher than these numbers due to some high ticket purchase items, in the coming years, we will only be making up for the unspent monies in the previous years.

We should focus on issues that affect the preparedness of the forces, in all areas, which will hopefully help in raising the general level of awareness.

[Pratyush]

Sorry for such a late entry into this thread. If one is looking seriously at a two fron situation, then the national road infrastructure must be improved substantially. In order to faccilatate the movement of MEN and materials from one fron to another. It is already being done but the pace has to quicken.

[shiv]

Cross post

http://planetrussell.posterous.com/afce ... pdate-7810

Comment: Baluch hostility to foreigners is less interesting than that the Chinese are building an oil refinery in Gwadar, in western Pakistan. That provides the motive for building a railroad link to Xinjiang, China, or maybe a pipeline, if that is feasible.

China is developing lines of communication through Pakistan and Burma to complement oil pipelines in central Asia that will ensure crude supplies to China in the event of a crisis in Northeast or Southeast Asia in which US Naval forces would disrupt the maritime supply route through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore.

[Kanan]

To win a Two front war it would be very important to gain air superiority very quickly! No matter what the terrain is, no matter what the intent behind the war is! Israel has repeatedly beaten multiple enimies simultaneously only because of air superiority!

IMHO, we need to improve on the following............

1> We have the best AWACS in the region! But we would need to take out enemy AWACS! We need VLRAAM (300-400KM range) like Novator-K or an Indianised variant! The combined enemy forces should not have the luxury of real time co-ordiantion!

2>SEAD(UAVs/Missiles): More Harops, induct Delilahs for IAF and similar missile systems for the ARMY!

3)Mountain Divisions: Army has been CRYING for light howitzers but the babus seem to have turned deaf! Speedy induction of ultra light howitzers in good numbers!

4) Better ASW: Navy lacks ASW platforms! China has a huge submarine force and to face them effectively we need very good ASW platforms! We need to wait for the P-8s! And we need more of them complemented by UAVs/helicopters!

[jagga]

Why the Foreign Secretary met the Dalai Lama

There was thus nothing unusual or secret about her visit and meeting with His Holiness, but there is likely to be speculation connecting her meeting with India's unhappiness over China's ignoring Indian concerns over the implications to India's national security of China's decisions to help Pakistan in improving its road infrastructure in the Gilgit-Baltistan area and in constructing a railway line to Xinjiang which will pass through Gilgit-Baltistan. These decisions were announced during President Asif Ali Zardari's just-concluded visit to China.

Gilgit-Baltistan, which is de jure a part of India's Jammu and Kashmir , has been under Pakistan's illegal occupation since 1948. Pakistan had illegally ceded some of the Indian territory in the area occupied by it to China in the 1960s in return for Chinese assistance in the construction of the Karakoram Highway passing through the territory. This highway is also being upgraded now with Chinese assistance.

The Chinese have sought to play down Indian concerns over their assistance to Pakistan for improving the infrastructure in the Gilgit-Baltistan area by projecting it as meant to promote trade between Pakistan and Xinjiang, but it has serious military implications for India.

It would enable Pakistan to move its troops and military equipment to these areas across the Line of Control in J&K more rapidly than in the past. It would also enable Chinese troops in Xinjiang to move to this area to assist Pakistan in the event of a military conflict. This would further increase the military threat to the Ladakh and Kargil areas where China claims a large area as Chinese territory.

The above could be one of the reasons that made GOI telling Army to be prepared for "Two Front War"

[Venkarl]

Thanks Jagga for the article..Raman Saab has high expectations from GoI...too much of spine to be shown by GoI

Establishing open contacts with the secular Uighur elements of the Munich-based World Uighur Congress is another option.

[DavidD]

To win a Two front war it would be very important to gain air superiority very quickly! No matter what the terrain is, no matter what the intent behind the war is! Israel has repeatedly beaten multiple enimies simultaneously only because of air superiority!

IMHO, we need to improve on the following............

1> We have the best AWACS in the region! But we would need to take out enemy AWACS! We need VLRAAM (300-400KM range) like Novator-K or an Indianised variant! The combined enemy forces should not have the luxury of real time co-ordiantion!

2>SEAD(UAVs/Missiles): More Harops, induct Delilahs for IAF and similar missile systems for the ARMY!

3)Mountain Divisions: Army has been CRYING for light howitzers but the babus seem to have turned deaf! Speedy induction of ultra light howitzers in good numbers!

4) Better ASW: Navy lacks ASW platforms! China has a huge submarine force and to face them effectively we need very good ASW platforms! We need to wait for the P-8s! And we need more of them complemented by UAVs/helicopters!

Israel doesn't just have air superiority, they had air SUPREMACY, I don't think either country can achieve that. Any war between two big countries will quickly degenerate into a war of attrition since neither side can simply dominate the other.

[Varun D]

i have read the the thread and my points will be
china will not fight directly with india while india is fighting pakistan, it has a understood the pakstani policy of a thousand cuts and reformed it with a policy of a thousand back stabs, thus it would provide logistical and tactical support to pakistan to do its bit, we need to understand, china is a melting pot it has issues with

taiwan
japan
south korea
singapore

and india is building defence ties with these thru air/land joint ops

also keeping in mind the "putinish" mindset of the "russkies" they wudn't mind providing refuleling and repair services to us in favour of a few more $$$ and china wud not like india to use the russkie side for its use.

[Varun D]

now on technical side, i aint no engineer, but i know to fly at a high altitude base like leh u need a longer runway as due to less oxygen the engine takes a longer duration to develop full thrust, thus the thrust ration of every aircraft is reduced that is why we have high altitude trials for all aircraft in mmrca in which the americans failed miserably. j 10 has high altitude issues, thus i think chinese strategy will be to put strike aircrafts with less fuel and max weapon load in the tibetan bases and tank them up in the air from tankers flying from pakistani or aksai chin areas

[munna]

also keeping in mind the "putinish" mindset of the "russkies" they wudn't mind providing refuleling and repair services to us in favour of a few more $$$ and china wud not like india to use the russkie side for its use.

That is a new one!! Any more info on this or is this just a walter mitty scenario?

[Varun D]

i hope we all remember we have 1 air strips in for our use in central asia in tajikistan jointly being maintained by india and russia in ayni
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH12Df01.htm

According to Rahul Bedi, Jane's Defense Weekly's correspondent in Delhi, India supplied the Northern Alliance with high-altitude-warfare equipment worth US$8 million. The Northern Alliance also received input on strategy from Indian "advisers". Technicians from the Aviation Research Center of the Research and Analysis Wing (India's external intelligence agency) repaired the Northern Alliance's Soviet-made Mi-17 and Mi-35 attack helicopters. It was out of Tajikistan that India channeled this help to the Northern Alliance.

It is Tajikistan's geographic location that has drawn India to this former Soviet republic. Tajikistan shares borders with China, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. A narrow stretch of Afghan territory separates Tajikistan from Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
India is constructing three hangars at Ayni, two of which will be used by Indian aircraft. India will station about 12 MiG-29 bombers there. The third hangar will be used by the Tajik air force. The Indian Air Force (IAF) is also stationing trainer aircraft under a 2002 defense-cooperation agreement whereby India has been training the Tajik air force.

l

[DavidD]

i hope we all remember we have 1 air strips in for our use in central asia in tajikistan jointly being maintained by india and russia in ayni
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH12Df01.htm

According to Rahul Bedi, Jane's Defense Weekly's correspondent in Delhi, India supplied the Northern Alliance with high-altitude-warfare equipment worth US$8 million. The Northern Alliance also received input on strategy from Indian "advisers". Technicians from the Aviation Research Center of the Research and Analysis Wing (India's external intelligence agency) repaired the Northern Alliance's Soviet-made Mi-17 and Mi-35 attack helicopters. It was out of Tajikistan that India channeled this help to the Northern Alliance.

It is Tajikistan's geographic location that has drawn India to this former Soviet republic. Tajikistan shares borders with China, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. A narrow stretch of Afghan territory separates Tajikistan from Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
India is constructing three hangars at Ayni, two of which will be used by Indian aircraft. India will station about 12 MiG-29 bombers there. The third hangar will be used by the Tajik air force. The Indian Air Force (IAF) is also stationing trainer aircraft under a 2002 defense-cooperation agreement whereby India has been training the Tajik air force.

l

Not as simple as it may seem:

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/61503

Ayni air base in Tajikistan was supposed to become a showpiece for India. In the mid-2000s, India's military began renovating the facility, and New Delhi appeared poised in 2006 to announced that Ayni had become operational. But four years later, the base sits largely dormant - an airfield without any fighter jets.

In any case you'll need to overfly Pakistan/China to get to Tajikistan.

[ShauryaT]

Why the Foreign Secretary met the Dalai Lama

There was thus nothing unusual or secret about her visit and meeting with His Holiness, but there is likely to be speculation connecting her meeting with India's unhappiness over China's ignoring Indian concerns over the implications to India's national security of China's decisions to help Pakistan in improving its road infrastructure in the Gilgit-Baltistan area and in constructing a railway line to Xinjiang which will pass through Gilgit-Baltistan. These decisions were announced during President Asif Ali Zardari's just-concluded visit to China.

Gilgit-Baltistan, which is de jure a part of India's Jammu and Kashmir , has been under Pakistan's illegal occupation since 1948. Pakistan had illegally ceded some of the Indian territory in the area occupied by it to China in the 1960s in return for Chinese assistance in the construction of the Karakoram Highway passing through the territory. This highway is also being upgraded now with Chinese assistance.

The Chinese have sought to play down Indian concerns over their assistance to Pakistan for improving the infrastructure in the Gilgit-Baltistan area by projecting it as meant to promote trade between Pakistan and Xinjiang, but it has serious military implications for India.

It would enable Pakistan to move its troops and military equipment to these areas across the Line of Control in J&K more rapidly than in the past. It would also enable Chinese troops in Xinjiang to move to this area to assist Pakistan in the event of a military conflict. This would further increase the military threat to the Ladakh and Kargil areas where China claims a large area as Chinese territory.

The above could be one of the reasons that made GOI telling Army to be prepared for "Two Front War"

Not just the two front potential there is far more to this issue. Gilgit and Baltistan is sovereign Indian territory, being part of the J&K state. There is a dedicated team that monitors every whiff in Gilgit. We keep very close tabs on the region and with the inhabitants of the region. It is the raisond'etre for TSP rent potential. As far as the foreign secretary meeting goes, it is convention that to become a foreign secretary a China stint is essential.

1984 was one of our best aggressive moves in the area. The major critique of Kargil is we played defensive and should have used Kargil as an opportunity, example captured Skardu, the base of the NLI. The entire region is strategic with the Karakoram and PRC eyeing to link Aksai Chin to the Shaksgam. What we need here is to build some very specific capabilities. If India ever gets serious, then the least expensive way for us to manage TSP is through the Northern Areas. We can do some serious damage in the area but choose to hold it back

[Varun D]

Not as simple as it may seem:

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/61503

Ayni air base in Tajikistan was supposed to become a showpiece for India. In the mid-2000s, India's military began renovating the facility, and New Delhi appeared poised in 2006 to announced that Ayni had become operational. But four years later, the base sits largely dormant - an airfield without any fighter jets.

In any case you'll need to overfly Pakistan/China to get to Tajikistan.[/quote]

yeah i agree but we have had 14 trainers posted in ayni from the bulls sqdn since 2004 training the tajiks with their own equipment, we need to understand few things, what is imp is knowing the terrain and aerials routes, getting the aircraft to move to ayni will take only few weeks. and why do we need to flyover pakistan or china when the aircrafts are flying over after upgradation from moscow, mig 29 have started to go through an upgradation session is russia, on the way back they can change course and go to ayni, mig 29 bulls were supposed to be posted there in the 1st palce

[rohitvats]

This railway link-up is likely to run the same alignment as the KK Highway. IMO, what this will allow the TSPA to do is to increase the rate of induction of troops and formations into this sector "prior to conflict". Once the first shot is fired, expect this link along with KKH to be put out of operations - as they will try to do to our NH-1A. This is where the Manali-Leh link is important.

From the China side - I see this rail development as plan to by-pass the Malacca Straits; in line with the planned pipeline across Myanmar. At the time goes, the Indian military power is growing and it will develops muscles and political will (I can wish, right) to squash the macchar. Now many would argue that India is weak kneed and all but remember General Kiyani's comment -"Capability and not intent is what matters".

In future, if the PLA feels that India is serious about teaching TSPA a lesson, what the PLA can do is move troops into the area to protect "sovereign interests". And these movements need not be large - a token show of force. Attacking them will mean attacking China - and we can expect China to make enough noises and psy-ops to make it a big issue. Now, one can argue that why deploy troops only in this part - well, this is disputed territory. Finder keepers, loosers weepers. It is our land and if we can regain it - well, we get to keep it. This is the only place where we can threaten physical link between China and TSPA - any where else, and land will need to be given bacl to TSPA. Here, if we play are cards right, we can keep it - and I thing we will.

We live in interesting times.

[Venkarl]

Not as simple as it may seem:

....... posted there in the 1st palce

Varun bro...please heed to Rohitvats's advice to you on MRCA thread...I guess thats too much info..why??? not necessary to go into such details....please be welcomed to post any info thats opensource info....have some restraint bro..

Thanks.

[Kanan]

It is highly unlikely that a two front war will be as local as Kargil! China has never hesitated while dealing with weaker nations! They just bulldoze their way through! If at all awar breaks out, it tawang, Sikkim and the remaining parts of Ladakh will come under Chinese attack! They wouldn't fight a war to conquer 2sq km of land or 20sq km! The scale will be quite large! And attacks will be blitzing as to take India by surprise!

As I have said, when attacked from east & west we would need air superiority (or Air Supremacy as someone put it)to survive the war! Good reason for us to start working on:
> an AWACS killer and KALI!

>BMD and cruise missile defence: the latter will be crucial in the subcontinent!

>Beef up Andaman & Nicobar bases!

[kit]

The way I see it., India needs more economic and strategic depth to wage a 2 front war against PK and CN.A proxy war is already going on with the two., abetting extremists and terrorists inside a country is paramount to waging war against a nation.That is already happening., and there is more than sufficient proof for the involvement of BOTH countries.Something ia amazing in Indian context., given the amount of PK and CN involvement India seems only to be talking to both countries, even getting into dialogue with these two nations ! In the same context if it was the US instead of India., one would have seen real war ! Question is how much pain the elephant is willing to take before it really snaps !

[Samay]

China building 'biggest' land port to connect with South Asia via Nepal

The purpose is to make Gyirong, the "biggest land trade channel of TAR to South Asia" over the next three to five years, the local government said.

The idea is to apparently build it as a border post larger than Nathula on the India-China border and the existing border post connecting the Chinese town of Zhanmu and the Nepali town of Dram.

[Kanan]

our assets in the space are mostly civilian or shared! we need exclusive platforms for the services: three for each wing atleast! That will definetely make a difference! We need to cooperate with Israel and get the best available to us with our own best!

[Varun D]

did anyone read abt the new airbase india is taking up in nepal and bhutan

[Varun D]

the cartosat2 is a spy satelitte with 9 camera and a live feed of 50gbps as published in some forum i recall, it can take picture upto 1.5mts

[Kanan]

I googled and found this:

The Jana Disha Daily has reported that the Nepalese government has given a green signal to India to construct the airstrip for the Indian Air Force in Surkhet. It is expected that the decision in this regard was taken at a consultative meeting held between the representatives of the Government of India and Nepal, held during December 4-7, 2009 in Kathmandu.

As per the agreement the government of Nepal will have to allocate some ten hectares of lands in the area to construct the Air Strip. From the Indian perspective, Surkhet is important because it is close to the tri-junction, Kalapani, where China meets India in Nepali territory. Over the past two years, India has been opening up advanced landing grounds (ALGS) for strategic purposes. It opened the Nyoma ALG in eastern Ladakh in September this year.

Retired IAF pilot, Sqn Ldr Rajesh Kumar, who has flown in Nepal after retirement says, “the airstrip will benefit not only the IAF, but also Nepal as Surkhet airstrip is used by the Nepal government to supply basic amenities to the region, which has virtually no road connectivity and the existing airstrip is in pathetic shape, as the Nepalese government never had any money to maintain it.” It was earlier reported that India has already built air-strips deep inside Bhutan, which is an Indian protectorate.

Do you have any other info?

[Yagnasri]

One think I am concerned is the avaliability of forces to defend us. The tensions are likely to increase by 2012 or soon after that. With US running away from Afpak giving depth to Pak as per her wet dreams and China getting confident to make some mischiff. The Pak forces will have huge no of irregular Jihadis who quality is susptect in any convensional war. China has good number of divisions to spare for any war with India. There is lot of internal problems requiring presence of our paramilitory forces.

In these conditions I wonder whether our forces are sufficent to cover a two front war or even make a good presence in north to deter any mis adventure of China while fighting a war in the west with Pak. I think may be we need some 2 to 3 lac more boots. What gurus say.

[Christopher Sidor]

Currently our Armed forces state is for offensive operations in the Western Sector and defensive operations in the Easter Sector. We will need to first change this state of affairs in the Eastern Sector from defensive to offensive. And this will require a massive infrastructure upgrade in our north east and Ladakh-Himachal-Uttranchal belt.
Currently China has the capability to airlift some 2 lakh soldiers to any place within its borders. Assume that the Chinese are able to airlift troops from Xinjiang and southern/central china to tibet, we lack the capability to disrupt this airlift or match it. Most of our army is tied down in fighting some insurgency or the other. This is despite of the kargil review report, which clearly stated that Army should not be used in internal security operations. Our navy will not be able to sustain any submarine in the pacific for operations against the east coast of china. We even lack missiles, which can be fired from central india or southern india or from a submarine in the Indian ocean, which can hit the whole of china. Currently we are restricted to launch our missiles from north-east.
Forget about a two front war. We are barely able to meet our requirements in the eastern sector. We will have to first address the serious shortcomings in our eastern front and then dream about being capable of fighting a two front war.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>
-Currently China has the capability to airlift some 2 lakh soldiers to any place within its borders.
-We are barely able to meet our requirements in the eastern sector. We will have to first address the serious shortcomings in our eastern front and then dream about being capable of fighting a two front war.

Can you please elaborate on the above statements - as to how you arrived at these ^^^ conclusions? Thanx.