Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Why Indian Air Force May Best Chinese Jets In An Air Battle Over Tibet

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by Hellfire, Aug 9, 2017.

  1. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,831
    Likes Received:
    4,418
    Country Flag:
    India

    I think I should tag this piece of crap and troll him on twitter
     
    nair and Grevion like this.
  2. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,155
    Likes Received:
    3,152
    You don't mean Vishnu Som right?
     
    Hellfire likes this.
  3. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,791
    Likes Received:
    5,765
    PLAAF will be in the same boat with damaged and destroyed runways and bases. They have more crappy aircraft than we do.
     
    Angel Eyes and HariPrasad like this.
  4. Grevion

    Grevion Think Tank TROLL ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,836
    Likes Received:
    3,040
    Country Flag:
    India
    By all means captain!:biggthumpup:
    These idiots needs to be taught a lesson anyway.
     
    Hellfire likes this.
  5. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,831
    Likes Received:
    4,418
    Country Flag:
    India
    Yep. Precisely.
     
  6. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,155
    Likes Received:
    3,152
    That would be a mistake, because the article clearly says:

    So he is only reporting about the assessment! He is one of our better defence related reporters for sure, so you would have to complain about the IAF pilot, that wrote the assessment, not Vishnu Som.
     
    Agent_47 likes this.
  7. shaktimaan

    shaktimaan Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2016
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    498
    Country Flag:
    India
    I am confused here, if an aircraft cant take flight with full fuel, how a tanker can take flight at these mountains?? Am i missimg something here
     
  8. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,831
    Likes Received:
    4,418
    Country Flag:
    India

    No idea. Are you missing something?:wink:

    Has to do with take off weight with respect to altitude of take off. I can send IL-78 from 78 Squadron from Agra with full load and refuel an aircraft taking off from say Leh with 5 KT of fuel only :)
     
  9. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,831
    Likes Received:
    4,418
    Country Flag:
    India
    So, let me get this straight, his job is only to forward absurdities? ;)
     
  10. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,791
    Likes Received:
    5,765
    I'm not convinced by the tanker argument. It's a complex process, tiring for pilots, tanking missions can be long and far away, missions end up being restricted to the capability of the tankers, you need to expend resources to ensure safe zones etc.

    Take the USAF for example, they don't believe their tanker fleet will give them an advantage against the Chinese. That's why they are now focusing on giving their aircraft more internal fuel capacity. The B-21 is expected to have 10000-12000Km range and they expect to give their PCA (next gen air superiority) a lot more range than its usual for fighters in order to escort the B-21.

    ---------
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...generation-fighter-jets-already-taking-shape/
    The Air Force has said little about what it wants in the new fighter, but range and payload are expected to be two main requirements.

    Range is useful both to self-deploy in a crisis and to accompany the new B-21 Raider bomber on deep penetration strikes, one possible mission for the new fighter. Boeing has already released early concept art of its PCA candidate. PCA could fly as early as 2028.
    -------------

    This is what @vstol jockey has also pointed out with this post.
    We too will have to fly our aircraft from far off bases to have just about 10 minutes over target.

    We have refueling capabilities, but if we lose our bases in the NE, we will have to operate from deeper inside India and that will pose problems even if we have refuellers. Refuellers in fact come with a trade off, you are replacing higher sortie rates with longer missions. And refuelling missions are a tremendous waste of time, something you don't want when you are facing an intense air war. In fact you will likely choose a 50% payload penalty for the sake of generating higher sortie rates than waste time with tanking missions.

    --------------
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...-air-what-comes-after-the-f-22-raptor-f-18081
    “Libya was a challenge for us,” Coglitore said. “The distances to conduct operations in Libya was a challenge. You had aircraft operating from Italy, flying three hours down to the Gulf of Sidra to cover the coast of Libya which is 1100 miles long. You do that math even with fighter airspeeds and you’ll find the surface-to-air threat wasn’t what we were concerned about, the tyranny of distance was itself was the challenge.”

    This is extremely important.
    To ensure that the Air Force is ready to meet the challenge, the service will be looking at its tanker requirements as part of the PCA study. “In our examination of the PCA requirements, we will eventually look at the tanker force structure,” Coglitore said. “One could argue that if you have a longer range platform, you could have a smaller tanker force structure. Conversely, smaller platforms may drive larger numbers of smaller tankers which may or may not be more advantageous.”
    --------------

    An air force with 400+ tankers is talking about making aircraft with longer range and larger payload in order to be less dependent on tankers. It's something we have to take note of considering India and China operate tankers in the single digits.
     
    vstol jockey and Hellfire like this.
  11. Golden_Rule

    Golden_Rule Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    678
    I am sure the Chinese could have innovated to explore catapult assisted launches of their war planes from Tibetian bases hidden under mountain tunnels?
     
  12. Golden_Rule

    Golden_Rule Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    678
    I think it is not just the IAF, but the whole mafia of bureaucrats, middlemen and politicians alike, and not the least the Loot-Yens mafia along with the international MICs
     
    Wolfpack and vstol jockey like this.
  13. Hjörþrimul

    Hjörþrimul FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2017
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    87
    Country Flag:
    Norway
    A couple problems I see with that:

    1) Landing. Sure you can take off from a buried runway, maybe. But you'll need an open space to land. Is that feasible when airbases, roads and runways are knocked out of action without using VTOL or Forward Refueling Point/Airbase setups?

    For VTOL or rotary wing aircraft a FRP is a viable basing option for limited warfare, requiring less resources and manpower to setup and operate. Makeshift runways, fuel supplies and armament could receive the aircraft launched from subterranean caves, though they're far from low-visibility targets themselves.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    But the problem is time and infrastructure. A skilled team can setup a limited FRP in a matter of hours for rotary wing aircraft, dependent of the availability of resources, but for larger assets like that MC-130 above, will they be able to land directly at an FRP? Or does the high altitude and lack of prepared infrastructure mean they'll need based elsewhere and have their supplies ferried to the FRP?

    Sure you can setup a limited refueling and arming point, or makeshift runways, but does that mean aircraft launched out of cave will actually be able to use them? Most aircraft China operates aren't designed to land on patchwork runways.

    The cool thing about an FRP is that it can be setup wherever there's space and resources though.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    2) Footprint. You wont hide a subterranean structure. Construction, ventilation, movement into and out of the structure, it'll be noticeable, and easier to put out of action then a runway or road that could be repaired by a fleet of engineers. Plug the holes of the caves or mountains and what'll be left?

    Both Sweden and Norway have a vast network of caves for storing or basing equipment. In peacetime they provide eyes-free basing for maintenance and storage, but in wartime rely on their lack of visibility, hopefully remaining out of sight of enemy eyes long enough to cause damage. But their long-term viability in an extensive war is suspect as once located they aren't difficult of put out of action.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    arkiv_frm2000_487_document.JPG

    Moving equipment in or out requires a noticeable footprint and ventilation, not to mention taking off in an aircraft while within the caves, will be necessary to bring in air and push out heat, creating a noticeable signature.

    The Chinese are intelligent and innovative, but there are limits to what can reasonably be done and I feel that's a bit too Hollywood.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
    Wolfpack, Sancho, Art90 and 6 others like this.
  14. Golden_Rule

    Golden_Rule Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    678
    The Chinese have already done with the submarine underground base at Hainan. And they can surely be secured with BMDs. Landing can be on an external runway, as they are all over the world.

    I guess even if it is not hidden in mountains, they can still use catapult externally to offer proper take off load with fuel and munitions?
     
  15. Hjörþrimul

    Hjörþrimul FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2017
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    87
    Country Flag:
    Norway
    They're pretty common though. A lot of nations have subterranean naval bases. All you need is a cave and access to water, naval caves are as old as Navy's themselves, but runways require patches of prepared Earth to receive aircraft. Even VTOL aircraft or rugged ones capable of landing on patchwork airfields need infrastructure - fuel, armament - and space to land.

    Haakonsvern Naval Base, Norway.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Olavsvern Naval Base, Norway.

    ed_19022009_064.jpg

    ed_18022009_038.jpg

    ed_18022009_042.jpg

    Muskö Naval Base, Sweden.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Yes, and that's the problem. They could take off from subterranean runways, possibly, but they couldn't return without extensive investment in infrastructure and resources. The benefit of aircraft is turnaround time. If they takeoff, but cannot land again at their point of origin, then that somewhat defeats the purpose of it. It forces them to seek basing, armament and fuel elsewhere and then be moved to their caves, requiring time, infrastructure and resources. Or they takeoff again from the external bases increasing their time-to-target and visibility. Could that process be reliably done during wartime? Or is this a one-shot process? External runways also face the problem of being destroyed preventing them from receiving the aircraft being launched from a cave network.

    Maybe. I'll need to check that out a bit (I'm not an aeronautics expert), but a catapult on land doesn't function the same as on a carrier so there will be some discrepancy between the two's respective performance. I'll need to look into it more before I answer definitively though.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
    Wolfpack, Sancho, Art90 and 5 others like this.

Share This Page