Just read an article on the Chinese JF17 (on Wikipedia) - realised that the Pakistanis are getting / ordering alot of this aircraft. With the specs and data, the aircrafts seems to have a serious advantage over the Indian Mig21s.....plus with the seemingly wide possibility of upgrades the JF17 seems to be able to cover a range of tasks..... it could be the possible reason why the Indians are pushing for new planes to counter them.... but the strange reason is the Indians are planning to buy substantial numbers of SU30s though....but looks like these would be to counter the Chinese more than the Pakistanis....whereas the medium planes are to take care of the Pakistanis.

Its no wonder that the Indians have an edge over the Pakistanis in terms of numbers and perhaps quality but yet they want to cover any potential gaps as the Chinese and Pakistanis could very well conduct combine ops against them.....

In any case, the Indians need to have sufficient funds for such endeavours.....but with their economy growing it should not be too tough....

The Indians have Migs, Mirgaes, Jaguars and Sukhois...whereas the Pakistanis have Chinese copies of Migs, F16s (early versions) and Mirages.....doesn't really look like the latter can threaten the Indians.

From Wikipedia, I noted that the Indians had 1700 planes(inclusive of about 850 combat jets) vs Pakistanis who owns 700 planes(inclusive 470 combat jets) - the former outnumbers the latter by 55%....that's pretty substantial. Of course if you were to take into account that the margin can be reduced via well-planned and executed surprise attacks - any air force is suceptible. But quality wise, I feel the Indians have a slight edge though they still own alot of modernised Mig21s, the Pakistanis own alot of Chinese-made jets which usually are lagging behind the Russians. With the new purchase of Medium-class jets coming up, the Indians are looking to extend the lead even more.

The Indian top notch figher is Su30-MKI while Pakistan used F16 Block 52. IAF SU30 has defeated RSAF F16 Blk52+ & USAF F-15C several times. I think IAF has the edge over Pakistan in both quality & quantity. Pakistan need to do a lot to catch up. :o

have read an article relating to Su-30.....

the PLAAF has the longest history in operating this aircraft even though in number wise the IAF has more. however, in terms of maintaining the aircraft, the chinese has more experience in fact even the russians have said that the chinese maintainence manual is much more superior than theirs....this is one of the reason why the Msians and the indonesians seeked the chinese expertise in maintaining their SU-30 fleet even though the are MKMs are different from those the PLAAF is operating....recall that the the msians first approached the indians on this...given that this plane is maintainence heavy....the logistics behind the plane is critical for the IAF to maintain high or sufficent enough servicable rate for their training and ops

downing the USAF F-15C? got article? sorry, this is one of my must-reads :P

Probably from the Red Flag exercises. Wouldn't put that much into it. Explanation of DACT.

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html

as well as

http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory.org...on-fornof.shtml

1. Read what a former Indian Air Force (IAF) pilot says in his blog on DACT and "Whether Indian pilots are better than USAF Pilots?' Specifically Vijainder said the following:

(i) "...USAF pilots... train to shoot them down much before the enemy aircraft can come in close enough to fight with them... So the question whether Indian fighter pilots are better than USAF fighter pilots is moot... Indeed, the USAF could rule the Indian skies any time it chose to."

(ii) "...I think our mainline press tends to be facetious and rather ill informed when it comes to defense matters. It is strange how it overlooks the lack luster performance of the IAF during Op Vijay while blowing the trumpets for Cope Thunder 2004."

(iii) "...While pilot skills and super maneuverability are important they can be easily negated with weapon systems. Were the USAF to supply the PAF the latest F-16s with the latest electronics and missiles the apparent superiority of IAF pilots and Su-30MKI would quickly melt away."

It is worth the time to click on the link provided, as this blog has taken the trouble to upload all the relevant information relating to the 'controversy'.


2. Modern air combat is a systems fight and to some degree a platform vs platform comparison is meaningless. Start by reading up on the evolution of the F-16 and the Air Campaign by Col. Warden, which deals with the concept of air superiority. Attaining air superiority is not simple in either concept or execution.


3. BTW, the ultimate plan for the IAF is to acquire a total of 230 Su-30MKI but they only 98 in service (as the others are still being manufactured at the current rate of 14 Sukhois per year). The IAF also has 1 AWAC delivered but that has not achieved IOC. By the time the IAF hit 230 planes, some of the first Su-30MKIs will be quite worn out. Evidently, the IAF has some systems problems, as reported in The Hindu:

Thank you for the link.

Yes, I was trying to point out that DACT results are hardly conclusive of performance. It would boil down to systems vs systems, rather than platform vs platform.

And thanks, I couldn't remember the name of the IAF/USAF (Cope India) exercises.

His point about the press can be applied to most presses around the world. I am, however, less certain about the SU-30MKI vs F-16 comparison that was brought up, but again, that would be a platform vs platform issue, which is less than realistic.

No problem, it is my pleasure.

Currently, I would not consider Pakistan or India as having tertiary air forces. Keep in mind that the RSAF has tertiary capabilities by virtue of the fact that we operate a IADS, have AWACS, have tankers and has SEAD capabilities. The difference is our guys are training at Red/Maple flag to be mission commanders - leading waves of complex strike packages (with large numbers of aircraft acting in concert), while India and Pakistan are not. Keep in mind that both Pakistan and India have not quite got their act together yet (at a systems level).

Most of Pakistan's F-16s are currently NOT BVR capable. In fact, they will get their 500 AIM-120Cs in 2010 and upgrade 42 of their F-16A/Bs. Turkish Aerospace will only commence work on the F-16s in October 2010 and the work will last 46 months. IMO, the most important limitation is financial, in that Pakistan is currently bankrupt (and their defence budget in 2008 was US$4.1 billion, in contrast to India's defence budget of US$$26.4 billion in FY 2008-2009). China is not really selling planes to Pakistan - they are actually being given planes on the assurance that one day, they may pay China back for them.

India does not have an integrated radar system to monitor their air space at their border with Pakistan and China (much less an IADS) and they currently operate mainly Russian equipment. Russian engines have a shorter lifespan and poorer availability compared to Western made aircraft. Therefore the IAF cannot generate sorties the way a Western equipped tertiary air force can. In fact, 32 IAF MiGs have met with accidents during the last five years. Further, the IAF often handicap themselves by their poor planning (like buying the Su-30MKIs but not including a Su-30 simulator purchase with it until much later). Even their own chest thumping media have noted these deficiencies (and have other problems that you have to read for yourself to believe). As such, the IAF's current capabilities is not something to be proud of.

India and Pakistan are at least 4 to 6 years away from reaching RSAF's current tertiary capabilities and when they do, we would have placed our orders for first F-35s (read this link for this June 2009 JSF backgrounder for Congress). The IAF have grand plans and they will be more capable than the RSAF one day (because they have a bigger budget) but they are not there yet because they suck at the little details. IMO, the IAF will not be comparable in capability terms with a Western equipped tertiary air force until at least 2015.

A USAF Col. said to me following the results of the India exercise that " maybe the F-15 sqn was told to take a dive in order to stress that we need the F-22" :D

Those dissimilar combat exrcise I refer is in India itself. U can google "Ex Cope India".

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-cope-india-vayu.html

http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2005/11/...t-exercise.html


Of course, one may debate the accuracy of the information as most information originate from India itself.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_...25oct04_nr.html

I believe there was a lot of BS the Indian media has been spinning. The USAF of course was using that exercise as leverage for more F22s.

If you have watched the Red Flag exercise debrief a US pilot was giving to his peers, you know that even the good old F-15 was creaming the SU-30MKI in dogfights. The thrust vectoring was overly used and the F-15 drivers waited for the SUs to lose energy and pinned them good. For BVRs shootout, my guess is that the F-15s should come close even with the older APG-63 radar.

Yup, the F-15s were set up to lose (at the request of the USAF) in that exercise, where they were out numbered, had the odds stacked against them (without their usual AWAC & EW support) and on the defensive (having to defend a point target - an airbase, rather than set up their usual Eagle Wall in a theater ops).

and I think the comments coming from the other side of the fence is that the MKI pilots were new-ish pilots, or something to that effect, which is why they mis-used the thrust vector to their disadvantage.

They (MKI) still attracted other postive compliements though ... can't remember :paiseh:

That's what I keep hearing too and we know that at the end of the day, the USAF will never fight without their whole system of sensors and ew assets. So, even if the MKI is a superior platform on a 1-on-1 comparison, they are not gonna win a battle by themselves.

Guess it was with those tots in mind that RSAF bought the F15s....but the thing is F16s being able to handle the SU30s???!! Seriously though, is it possible?? Really possible? I mean the F16 is much different plane than the SU30.....

You won't want to fight a Viper at transonic speed. You will die. The only way to fight the vipers is to slow them down. The same tactic a Bug/Superbug driver would do.

No reason why an F-16 can't handle a suk. The AIM-120C-7 has likely a longer range and a more accurate seeker than most (or all) russki missiles that equip the suks. The plane's manouvreable enough + other electronics are probably superior eg ALQ-131 or 184/AIDEWs. Pilot skill will probably differentiate the 2.

Kotay, hope you don't mind that I add to your comments...

(i) The MKI is only a comparable platform to the teen series but not a superior one, given that it has some strengths but also significant weaknesses. The MKI is an impressive multi-role plane design at an affordable price. Compared to the teen series, the MKI only lose out in avionics, engine reliability and in the range of weapons offered. Modern BVR combat don't make dog fighting obsolete, they just make it less likely. With off-bore-sight, high agility missiles, dog fighting becomes much more lethal for everyone. Weapons like these become equalizers between highly maneuverable aircraft and less maneuverable competitors. While the high maneuverability found in the MKI is still very worthwhile - it is simply not as decisive as it once was.

(ii) All Su-30 drivers without AWAC support are at a disadvantage (at a systems level) to RSAF's teen series drivers.

Absolutely, at a systems level, no air force in SEA is the RSAF's peer or near peer.

At a systems level, if any Su-30 driver meets our RSAF teen series guys without their own organic AWAC support, they are going to be at a disadvantage. Our guys are all linked to the same tactical picture (to given them a superior battle-space domain awareness) and our teen series drivers will be firing off their AIM-120C7s long before the Su-30s know what hit them.

For more details see this DT thread.

The IAF would have a significant numbers advantage though. The DT thread is in the context of RMAF in which case, the rsaf would also have a significant numbers advantage to add.

You are right the IAF significantly out numbers the RSAF in total aircraft numbers. However, if you factor readiness and sortie generation capabilities of the RSAF, the gap is reduced. [NB. I've not factored in tankers as they have them too. But the IAF is without AWACS, so we can more easily find and destroy their HVAs compared to their capability to find and destroy our HVAs.]

Currently the IAF do not have a operational AWAC squadron and we should discuss the hypothetical 'fight' scenario with what each party has currently. The IAF with its numbers is not a match because numbers without the ability to manage the complex battle-space is meaningless. That is why Syrian lost at at least 87 aircraft, over the Bekaa Valley in 1982 (please read Rebecca Grant's 2002 analysis of the Bekaa Valley air war for more details). IMHO, without proper battle-space management tools, IAF's total numbers of aircraft mean NOTHING. The Israeli tactic at Bakaa Valley was to vector fourship formations of fighters into the engagement zone, one at a time. Each air battle lasted one to two minutes. “I can only tell you that, within half an hour, we shot down about 26 MiGs,” said the IAF’s second in command was David Ivry.

India's total numbers are only meaningful if they can meaningfully concentrate their air power over the theater (which they can't without AWACS). My concern is that we will run out of air to air missiles, if we take on a opponent of that size. However, the IAF's capabilities will be much more formidable in 2015, once their 3 Phalcon AWACs are operational.

Anyway, the above discussion is moot as it does not take into consideration geography. Simply put, we are too far apart to fight like that and both the IAF and the RSAF have limited force projection capabilities to hit each others' bases.

woots! very, very interesting reads out there...yes, I did see the youtube with the USAF pilot in his mini lecture...I do recall him talking abt how the SU30s would 'sink' while doing the cobra, making them easier targets for the F-22 pilot to aim down and drill through them...

pity Pakistan isn't going to be looking at F-15s anytime soon, and that thier F-16 upgrading is going to take quite some time...

But apple to apple comparison, how well do you all think the Su30 will fare?

Since you did not read what I wrote, let me select the text for you to read below:

In case you don't understand, let me explain via an analogy. WVR air warfare is a topic pilots learn in basic air combat maneuvering (ACM). ACM is a topic pilots study, just like what we infantry men learn in BMT - bayonet fighting. If you can beat me in bayonet fighting, it does not make you a better solider. Our principle weapon is the assault rifle and we want to shoot at each other rather than mount bayonets and charge. You may train for bayonet fighting but it's a last resort kind of thing. Same with the air force and WVR air combat (or the merge) - it is a last resort kind of thing. And pilots call the merge a knife fight.

With BVR missiles we should not be trying to compare WVR ONLY (which was how the DACT with India was set up).

Certain characteristics of the MKI is superior to the F-16 in a knife fight. As Joe Black explained, at very low speeds the MKI can out turn the F-16s and gain a good AOA. But the F-16 can just avoid such a fight, just fly away to avoid such a scenario. So where is the advantage?

The other advantage I can think of the MKI is that it is faster and bigger (hence can carry more air to air missiles) than the F-16. Theoretically, it can loft it's BVR missile further (if its BVR missile is better than our AIM-120C7). However, long range launches can have low Pk, if the enemy is not within the no escape zone of your missile launch window. The problem with missile comparisons is there is no super authoritative public domain comparisons between the R-77 vs the AIM-120C7. However, given that the US has spent more money developing this missile, I believe the AIM-120C7 is as good, if not better than the R-77.

However, comparing missiles is a little like comparing different types of 7.62mm bullets for a sniper rifle, when the sniper's ability to see the enemy through his optics is just as important. Air planes see their enemy with their radar, not with their missiles. There is some speculation that the MKI's bars radar can see very far (possibly further than the AN/APG-68(V)9 on the RSAF's F-16s). BTW, the majority of the Pakistani F-16s use the older APG-66 radar (which should be inferior to the Bars radar). But there is a problem of declaring the MKI as a winner on this basis (given that newer AESA radars for F-16s are superior to the Bars radar, not only in range but also because of their LPI features). Fighter aircraft radar have a limited frontal field of view (typically 120 degrees and anything outside of the radar field of view the plane is blind). Therefore the solution is simple, our AWACS will just vector our F-16s to approach from the MKI's blind side, with their radars in the 'off mode' until the time they are ready to shoot. So even if their radar can see further, we can use appropriate tactics to counter - such that we only turn on our radar at the last minute when the MKI are within our F-16's no escape zone.

This is like when you go on an infantry fighting patrol and suddenly a member of your patrol is killed by a sniper bullet from 800m away. You can take cover but the patrol will probably have a hard time finding the sniper and returning effective fire (that is the nature of modern BVR combat - not clear cut and from a long distance).

Hope I'm not too long winded in my reply. :P

Your bayonet analogy is a tad off. While modern fighters are expected to primarily engage the enemy BVR, I've noticed that most of the time they close to visual range, typically to VID the target before firing. Granted, in a total war situation that probably wouldn't happen, but to practically completely write off WVR air combat would be premature, otherwise why would they spend so much on AIM-9X?

I don't disagree that the bayonet analogy has limitations and in some cases, it would not be valid. Keep in mind, I'm trying to explain this in a layman manner for someone who insists on trying to compare across platforms (which means he does not read much in this area). If I may, I would like to explain how I arrived at my point of view.

1. Let me contextualize your discussion on WVR engagements, which is related to the ROEs (and the ROEs existed in the context of guaranteed air supremacy). Some of the WVR engagements in the last 18 years occurred because of enforcement of 'no fly zones' by the US and their allies. These ROEs were evolved to meet the need to avoid hitting innocent civilian air traffic straying into the area of operations (given than a USN AEGIS ship had previously shot down an Iranian civilian airplane by mistake). In a worse case scenario of all out war, pilots will seek to maximize engagement range via IFF technology (which I know is subject to spoofing) and battle-space management. If you are interested in more details take a look at 'Command in Air War' by LTC Kometer, as he covers command & control issues from Desert Storm, to Allied Force, to OEF, to OIF, just to name a few).

2. IMO, ROEs exist to tie the hands of the commanders and pilots. Would the ROEs be so restrictive between near pear air forces in a fight for air superiority? I think not and I also think we are in agreement on this point. My analogy applies to an IAF vs 'x' air force fight (where 'x' could be Pakistan, China or some other hypothetical opponent like the RSAF).

3. BTW, the AIM-9X (at it's present stage of evolution) can be technically classified as a BVR class of weapon. If you remember, our RSAF were very happy with the AIM-9M (when we were initially not given access to the AIM-120) and were talking about it giving the RSAF a BVR edge. The key to understanding the AIM-9X development is not whether it is a BVR vs WVR weapon classification. Rather, it provides a different seeker head (with an imaging infrared focal plane array seeker) and has different missile kinematic characteristics when compared to the AIM-120C7, and the AIM-9X is more likely to be used a closer engagement ranges.

4. The traditional view of WVR combat is getting on each other's tail to get a shot. Keep in mind that current air warfare is very deadly and each encounter is for a very short duration (given that missiles can be fired to targets in front, to the side and even 180 degrees backwards - with the latest missile developments). The traditional view is no longer valid with the new generation of off-bore-sight missiles and helmet mounted displays. It is important to keep in mind that the nature of WVR combat has changed due to changes in technology - so even the knife fight has changed.

5. If you want to force and analogy onto the AIM-9X vs the AIM-120C, the difference between the two can be likened to the difference between the 120mm tank round vs the 155mm arty round. Direct and indirect fires exist for different effects (and to a limited extent, interchangeable), likewise the different A2A missiles exist for different types of engagements. [Edit to adopt FIVE-TWO's suggestion below]

6. In using analogies, there is always the danger that it is misapplied and context is important. Keep in mind that the USAF and the USN are geared towards expeditionary air warfare, where, in the worse case, they are expected to operate severely out numbered. Let's use the 80-20 rule to explain (see enclosed chart which shows the dramatic growth of BVR shots in modern engagements - BTW I'm don't know how the chart data was collected). The AIM-9X exists for the 20% case, where the US planes are forced into the merge. 80% of the time, they are expected to try to shoot them down from BVR. Ultimately, the US wants to dominate all aspects of the air warfare encounter and the AIM-9X aims to "reestablish the parity of US aircraft in short range air combat, vis-à-vis improved foreign export aircraft and missiles."

PS. What do I know about air warfare? I'm just sharing a layman point of view as a person with an infantry background. Please feel free to disagree as I think a frank exchange enables both of us to learn more.

instead of two high-track arty weapons, perhaps a better analogy is the tank gun comparison to howitzer (or mortar for that matter).

Yes, brilliant suggestion. That's a much better analogy to use. :P

Can't imagine how tank gun/howitzer/mortar can apply in a AIM9x-120C7 analogy,... or am I missing something here...

Think eventually the Pakistanis want more F16s (albeit those the US has in storage) when the Indians start having more SU30s....there was news that the Chinese would also sell their J10s to Pakistan (not sure if that would materialise).

One thing is for sure as some MNs have pointed out, the crucial point would be that India has a robust and growing economy as compared to Pakistan. That would mean a world of difference in terms of getting what they want.

The PAF deal is already quite substantial. They order 60 MLU units with 26 A/B re-deliveries meaning existing serviceable units are ~34. With 18 on order and another 18 options, that means total 96 F-16s or 4 sqns potentially entering PAF inventory. Add AIDEWs and APG-68(v)9s + 500 AIM-120C-5s, small wonder why the Indians are pissed to the extent that Bush probably shot the likelihood of US getting the MRCA deal in the foot.

From 34 non-BVR F-16s to 96 Amraam-equipped F-16s will tilt the South Asia balance quite a bit.

But that doesn't mean the Indians are any worst off.....numerically they do have 55% edge (not to mention that their aircrafts aren't push overs too) plus the fact that Indian pilots seem to have more training time on their planes.....

As said, think it would be a very close fight between the two air forces - Indians should still have a slight edge (my personal opinion)

Numbers as mentioned by grunt is just one factor. Plane X that can generate 4 times the sortie of Plane Y is 2 times more effective than 2 of plane Y.

So if you have double the number but less than half the sortie generation capability, then assuming equal pilot capability is likely to be worse off. In the hands of Israel, the F-16 has been an incredibly effective aircraft.

Having said that, I doubt if PAF can generate more sorties per a/c than the IAF so I'd agree that the IAF probably has an advantage.

As to training, I don't think the Pakistanis have less training time cos they have sufficient a/c to train effective pilots.

I think numerical advantage is also subjective in the context of the PAF. It is likely that PAF pilots have access to other arab nation's inventories eg UAE. If the air forces of arab nations eg UAE's 80 F-16E/Fs are added, then the numerical advantage is significantly smaller, if any. Having said that, the ability of arab air forces to integrate has not historically been spectacular (see the other IAF experience).

Again, the experience of past Indian-Pakistani conflicts has not seen India being able to convert its numerical superiority into strategic victories either (though there might be tactical ones) but personally, I don't think the current superiority that India has is "slight" but instead quite overwhelming.

Besides the number of aircraft in its inventory, other factors such as training, turnaround time, wartime logistics support is also essential. E.g the amazing turn around time for Israel keep more aircraft in the air during the 6 day war.

"On the morning of 5 June 1967, the IDF/AF launched a shattering pre-emptive strike. Virtually the entire front-line combat aircraft strength was used to fly repeated sorties against Egyptian airfields in a series of waves. By achieving an average turn-around time of only seven minutes to refuel and re-arm each aircraft, Israeli aircraft were able to fly as many as eight sorties per day. "

-http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/aa-mideast/israel/af/israel-af-hist.htm

Whether Pakistan is able to leverage onto other factors like Israel besides aircraft numbers remains to be seen. Also the likelyhood of Superpower intervention??

In addition to that, as I understand it, a lot of Pakistani pilots also wind up flying for the Arab air forces. I would assume that these are no longer active PAF personnel in most cases. This can also help maintain a pool of manpower reserves if necessary.

During the arab-israeli wars, I do read about accounts where Russian and US pilots end up flying arab/israeli a/c instead. Considering how USAF pilots fly in rsaf planes, wouldn't be surprised if they too do the same if SG goes to war.

I've heard the Russian "advisors" flying Arab aircraft, but have never heard the USAF pilots flying IAF aircraft.

why would US pilots fly IDFAF jets in combat? they wouldnt want to risk themselves in someone else's shooting war, and Israeli pilots are said to be generally better skilled than USAF ones anyway. AFAIK, in 1973 the Israelis were more short of fighter a/c than pilots, and US pilots (mostly delivering emergency-supplied F-4s) were only involved as far as the ferry flight into Israel itself, before handing over to Israeli pilots for combat duty.

on the same token, just because US pilots do fly RSAF fighter a/c at Luke and Mountain Home for testing and training doesn't mean they'll fly the planes in combat for us. at most perhaps the transpacific ferry flight, if we're short of pilots over there.

I asked my friend about excess A4 airframe in RSAF inventory last time. He told me that other country pilots may fly in our F16/A4 during emergency when SG run short of pilots. But that war abt 10 years ago & not sure whether is true or not.

The likelihood of both these countries going to full scale war again is less likely given how they restrained themselves (though it could be with presssure from the relevant powers etc behind the scene). But the possibility of small incidents could still flare up over Kashmir.....given that India has openly expressed hope and overtures of peace, and that Pakistan also has a new civilian govt, think there is hope that future changes in relationships for the better is more promising.

But despite that, the Indians are pushing ahead to improve their inventory and also add essential capabilities to their Air Force like the acquistion of the Phalcon AEW aircrafts (took delivery of the first one recently).....but understand that the Pakistanis were also considering either the US E2Cs or the Saab 340s.... not sure if that came to materialise....(gotten this off an old military magazine World Air Forces or something). Perhaps they should also look into this area, afterall if they want better control and awareness of their airspace, they should acquire this capability.