UAVs
A significant Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) capability is being developed with the acquisition of Chinese and locally developed or cloned platforms. The Chinese CASC CH-4 long-range 40-hour endurance platform similar to the US General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper, capable of weapon delivery, is reportedly being inducted. Having been both at the delivering and receiving ends of UAV reconnaissance, surveillance and firepower capabilities, Pakistan certainly has experience in drone operations.
Since the mid 1980s, the PAF has had an integrated Air Defence Ground Environment System (ADGES) with an India-centric approach…
Transport Fleet
The tactical and strategic transport capabilities remain modest based on the earlier C-130 variants and a few CASA 235s. However, the small size of the country somewhat reduces the disadvantages of not having a significant heavy lift capability. (Only types with significant numbers have been considered).
Air Defence System
Since the mid 1980s, the PAF has had an integrated Air Defence Ground Environment System (ADGES) with an India-centric approach. There is an independent AD Command with the tri-service AD system fully integrated. Due to lack of geographical depth, a forward defence posture is the only viable option. The doctrine is based on centralised control of all AD assets, achievement of air superiority over own air space and the battle area, area Air Defence and reliance on aircraft as the main weapon system with SAMs for inner layer protection.
Low level threats over the battlefield are countered by short range man-portable SAMs and radar-guided Anti Aircraft Artillery (AAA). Mobile Observer Units (MOUs), mobile surveillance radars such as the AN TPS 77, longer range Ground Control Interception (GCI) and surveillance radars, a Hughes Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (C3I) ADGES integrated with a Siemens Low Level Air Control System (SILLACS) and AEW&S systems are the main components.
There is a possibility of aerostat mounted surveillance radars being deployed. Weapons include AD fighters, Crotale R 440 and SPADA 2000 SAMs, RBS 70, Stinger, Mistral and Anza short-range SAMs, and 57, 35 and 14.5 mm AD guns with Giraffe radars. There is a deficiency in longer range SAMs. Deployed ones are older types including the US RIM 66 Standard Medium Range area defence SAM and the Chinese HQ-2B which is a Russian Dvina variant. Acquisition of the Chinese HQ-18 variant of the Russian S 300 long-range SAM system is a distinct possibility.
The IAF has lost the qualitative edge vis-a-vis the PAF and the PLAAF, and may descend into numerical parity with the PAF for the first time…
Other Missiles
Air-to-Air: The Chinese SD-10 active radar-guided BVR missile entered Chinese service in 2007. It has a reported range of over 70 km and can be carried on the JF-17. The US AIM 120 C-5 AMRAAM BVR missile, which can be carried by the newer F-16C/D variant, has a range in excess of 105 km and has been in service with the PAF since 2010. Both these give the PAF a BVR capability that it lacked earlier. Visual range missiles include the Chinese PL 5 and 9, the US AIM 9 Sidewinder, the AIM 7 Sparrow, the French Matra 550, 530 and the Super 530D.
Air-to-Surface: The locally developed H-4 Stand-off Weapon (SOW) with infra-red guidance and a claimed range of 120 km could be a version of the South African Denel. A shorter range (60 km) H-2 version also exists. These can be carried by the JF-17 and have been in service for over ten years as per claims. Some Chinese origin Anti-Tank missiles are also held. French Exocet, US Maverick, Harpoon HARM and Shrike plus Chinese C 802 and 803 missiles are available to the PAF. The Hatf VIII cruise missile with a range of 350 km has also been in service since 2007 and is nuclear capable.
Surface-to-Surface: List of missiles available in the public domain is given below. Some of them are derived from existing Chinese or North Korean missiles. The solid-fuel missiles have faster response time. Liquid-fueled missiles cannot be stored for long in the fueled state and fueling before launch takes time. Solid-fuel missiles make suitable nuclear warhead carrier platforms due to reduced response time. Given their payload capacities and accuracies (Circular Error Probable or CEP), it becomes evident that most of them are suitable only against larger area targets and that too when armed with nuclear weapons. The ranges all make them India-specific.
Surface to Surface Missiles
Implications for India
In the 1990s, the PAF had a relatively older fleet barring the early model F-16s, no AWACS or flight refueling capability, no BVR air-to-air missiles, limited night attack and Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities. It was definitely outmatched by the IAF in quantity and quality. Within 15 years, a major transformation has taken place. Similarly, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) was a qualitatively inferior force when compared to the IAF in the late 1980s but this also has changed in the last 15 years.
The PAF has nuclear-capable delivery platforms and most Pakistani surface-to-surface missiles are capable of nuclear weapons delivery…
Two factors have contributed to this. The first is the modernisation efforts of the PAF and the PLAAF, that of the former aided by infusion of US and Chinese equipment. This is obviously outside the control of our country except to try and bring diplomatic pressure to limit such transfers, a method that has not been very successful. The second factor is within our control.
The IAF has lost the qualitative edge vis-a-vis the PAF and the PLAAF, and may descend into numerical parity with the PAF for the first time in the near future because of our failure to induct new systems in time and in sufficient quantities. The IAF’s draw down will become critical by 2020 with all MiG 21s, MiG 27s and portions of the Jaguar fleet being phased out. No replacements in sufficient quantities are available as of now. While the Tejas Mk 1 LCA has technologies superior to the JF 17, the fact is that the latter has been in full operational service for some years, whereas the Tejas Mk 1 has not even been deployed and will be obsolescent soon.
The Tejas Mk 2 variant is still on paper. One cannot fight a war using an aircraft which has some aspects of advanced technology incorporated but which is not combat-ready and available in very limited numbers. This mess is of our own making. Let alone a limited conflict on two fronts, we will soon lack the capabilities for a single front conflict if the situation is allowed to deteriorate further. Not just our combat fleet, but our helicopter, medium and light transport, intermediate and advanced trainer fleets, SAMs and a whole lot of other systems are obsolete and also not available in required numbers.
In the area of nuclear weapons, considering the numerical superiority enjoyed by the Indian forces, Pakistan has developed tactical nuclear weapons to counter an Indian mechanised forces thrust into Pakistan which could cut the latter in half if not halted quickly. Pakistan’s declared first use option is meant to serve as a deterrent. What it does is give control of nuclear weapons to field commanders without the degree of safeguards available to the systems under centralised control for strategic use. The increasing radicalisation of elements in the Pakistani military and a climate wherein India has been portrayed as the enemy whose destruction is essential for the safety of Pakistan, plus growing sectarian strife and religious intolerance make for a dangerous mix.
Warfare no longer consists of independent actions on land, at sea, in the air, in space and in the cyber world…
The PAF has nuclear-capable delivery platforms and most Pakistani surface-to-surface missiles are capable of nuclear weapons delivery. Irrespective of intentions, the capabilities exist and that has to be taken into account by our political and military leadership. We do not appear to have developed tactical nuclear weapons and so that option of their use is ruled out for now.
Till such time that the IAF’s combat aircraft strengths improve, effective use of existing assets by induction of more quantities of force multipliers such as Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs), air refuellers, AWACS, greater use of Surface-to-Surface Missiles and increased numbers of weaponised and other UAVs are imperative.
To utilise scarce resources better, creation of unified Theatre Commands need to be examined. Warfare no longer consists of independent actions on land, at sea, in the air, in space and in the cyber world but is an integrated activity requiring Integrated Commands.
Military commanders have a duty to insist on actions to be taken on time to improve the capabilities of forces instead of taking paths of least resistance. The political leadership and bureaucracy have to realise that the armed forces are the guarantors of a nation’s very existence and without that existence, their own importance and relevance in the scheme of things will become zero.
Please wait...
Your own Indian has exposed your incompetency and failure, but still some shameless Indian nationalists bring here future prophecies ‘India will become this and India will become that…’ – Shameful!
You are acting as a spokesman of the PAF.
PAF advantage has not arrived yet. With all F-16 fighters they have, are of older and of lower performance fighters, except a few which will join in next two years. Again, That old technology plane JF17 are no match to even the most badly reported fighter in media, LCA.
Group Captain sir, you have too much belief in propaganda put out by PAF.
No again, there has not been significant gain by PLAAF in quality. There planes are built by themselves on copied and stolen technology, which will never be able to match the original. That is the reason that they are reluctant to put them out for the rest of the world to see. The Su-27 fighter, the best operational fighter They have is far inferior to Su-30mk1, India has. Moreover Indian fighters are world beater in excercises all over excercises in last ten years. Do I need to remind you that operational capability of Su-27 is compromised when they take off from Tibetean Pleatau.
Think carefully before you write, you and many like you are lowering the morale of the services with factitious information of the invincibility of PLAAF or even IAF.
Think five years ahead, now tell me where IAF stands with Rafale, F-16/F18 join the IAF. That with the addition in dozens of LCA, all model will become Pakistani F-16 killer just as Gnat in 1965/71 became the Sabre killer.
Cheers
Amol Hari Joshi..
You did not answer my questions and try to change the subject. You are no way better than Defense officers. You do not know how to calculate the requirement. war planes . You are comparing Tejas and MMRCA. Here comparison is MMRCA and missile.. Requirement of fighter plane is based on the destructive power of the weapons used.. After the 1971 war , PAF reported that IAF gained air superiority because the bombs used to destroy the run ways were not effective as expected. IAF was able to repair the run ways within short time and use the planes against PAF. Pakistan knows the importance of weapons better than the Indian defense officers.
@Govindan –
1. I didn’t compare Tejas & Rafale – you did. Check your earlier response.
2. Your queries can best be answered by ‘proper’ sources and/ or google. I merely cited my views.
3. In any case, your initial set of questions has been aptly answered by me to the best of my knowledge. If you couldn’t understand or interpret, I can’t help further.
4. Wrt Pak wars – check neutral data online and you shall see that number-wise IAF lost several more aircraft. It was only the numerical superiority of IAF that sustained the wars. Keeping faith in what Pak dishes out … well, no comments.
5. How indeed does one calculate requirement number of war planes ? Begin with a big budget for acquisition… I would say. Best leave that to the experts. In fact I dare say, they better start factoring in redundancy & COB (mgmt principles).
6. Are you really so naive as to compare Plane v/s Missile ? In any case I listed a few for you – do reread my earlier reply. Add to that “Reuse” and “Control over destructive operations”. Nothing gets simpler than that.
7. India no longer faces a “two-front” assault as worst case scenario. She is threatened all way North, all way West and all way East and as of now unable to defend any quarter, wet or dry, might I add. The intrusions in Arunachal and Ladhakh, the attacks on airbases and “accidental” cases of denial of usage of submarines are all case in point. The people who put India in this quagmire must be suitably dealt with and at the same time defensive and offensive reach of our Nation enhanced and expanded.
8. I feel honoured getting compared with any military officer. But I must confess that I am neither as much selflessly brave as most of them nor callous and brown-nosed as the minuscule minority of them. So thank you, Sir, for that.
IMHO an informative discussion over something as important as National security issues, should not be turned into a trivial ego massage. Having said thus – this is last from me on the topic above
Majority of defense officers in the Army, IAF and Navy do not up date their knowledge and procure all out dated equipments.
Col. GP Singh comment is a clear example. He is still thinking about field guns. In the Syrien war nobody used field gun. They do not study about the latest technological development in the world. But within 10 years the importance of fighter plane will decline in the war front.. Lockheed Martin has developed miniature missile . This miniature missiles will rule the sky during war. I f you are interested you may open the link and read
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2016/april/mfc-lockheed-martin-mini-missile-takes-flight-demonstration.html
That is the reason I am giving importace to missiles and its avionics. Do you know why is USA is avoiding direct confrontation with Russia
Read more at:.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/pentagon-worries-that-russia-can-now-outshoot-u-s-stealth-jets.html
Pentagon Worries That Russia Can Now Outshoot U.S. Stealth Jets
Quite informative – thanks.
Wars are fought tactically on multiple fronts, including attrition. It is beyond obvious that a war has/ had been waged and deliberately so to reduce India’s air superiority over Communist China and Terrorist Pakistan. Who are responsible for this shameful state of affairs ? Why aren’t they being denounced publicly and executed under charges of treason ? Why is the Cold Start doctrine in cold storage ? Why has the current RM not started revision of Nuclear Doctrine ? Unless there is some coherence between words, intentions and deeds of these two doctrines then there is no chance for a comprehensive National Security doctrine. Does India have one ? Our PM often mentions how the UN still has not identified what exactly constitutes “terrorism” – quite true dear 56″ chested PM – but has India ? Does India even know what “War” is ? IMHO India doesn’t – neither the PM nor the weight-pushed-behind-Tejas RM. Unless by some spectacular definition (now it’s Webster dictionary unlike earlier Oxford or whatever Russian is called) attacks by alien nation on Indian military personnel and fixed assets do not constitute as War. Conquest of India’s integral territory and subjugation of original Indian inhabitants (read *Citizens*) therein do not get defined as War or War Crimes. The great diplomatic success today is talked in terms of diplomatic isolation of Pakistan. Really ? In US, some Tom talks about how F-16s sale to Pakistan is no good for fight against terrorism to which some Dick responds on how India is a natural ally to which some Harry, err sorry, HOSSEIN nods politely but just as slyly rushes with the sale of F-16s in addition to millions of dollars of aid along with several hundreds of flight missiles as if they were some in-flight entertainment.
To regain India’s all-out superiority we must not only gain effective assets but also take out & reduce enemies’ assets. Bleed them through resources they paid for & not what they got/ get free.
The attitude of the IAF officers is like what is written in a Malayalam proverb “Muttethe Mullakku Manamilla !”
• Literal: The jasmine shrub in your front yard has no fragrance.
• Translation: We seldom recognise the value of people near to you**
Sri Lanka and Egypt have shown Interest in Tejas fighter plane.
The decision to send Tejas abroad was of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, who has put his weight behind the aircraft.
LCA Tejas performed 8-G (gravity) pull, vertical loop, slow fly-past and barrel roll at the air show, which the Indian officials described as “historic”.
Interestingly, soon after the announcement of Tejas’ participation in Bahrain, Pakistan had withdrawn its JF-17 aircraft from the show despite having paid the initial installment which ran into a few millions US dollars.
Tejas is perhaps the world’s smallest lightweight, multi-role single engine tactical fighter aircraft.
A nice recap. Thanks.
My take? The 36 Rafales MAY enter service in 2019. By 2020, India might have found a way to employ a lot of Rentiers from The Reservation-Extortion Raj of the Indian Republic, with suitable caste and tribe birth certificates or illegal but politically correct nepotism. They will probably make obsolete F-16s and F-18s at 35% higher cost than otherwise through the “Make in India” route. But, not to worry.. India will still have a State of Social Engineering Air Foce by 2020. Well before 2020, all Dalit and all Moslem contingents of the Indian Air Force will march up and down Raisina Hill to frighten away a US and China backed Pakistan to which India will sell the F-16s and F-18s it makes at a 50% discount as Air India’s brand new Boeings were sold to Ethihad. This will establish India’s “Peaceful”, “Democratic” and “Secular” birth certificate, the grotesque Constitution, in International fora. This will enable Adrash Apartment owners to circumvent Preet Bharara and mount yet another conclusive defensive to obtain a permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Jabberlal, Nehru probably declined such a membership in 1957, knowing full well that the India that would emerge from the policies and Constitution he had co-created with Ambedkar and others, would render India fully unworthy of respectable Nation Hood.
India is not going to accept the proposal of USA for the manufacture of F-16s and F-18s. Even I have doubt whether the Govt will be able to purchase Rafale planes. Can the MoD will be able to convince the finance department the cost difference between Tejas and Rafale at this stage. Tejas cost is Rs.300 crore. Rafale cost is more than Rs.1500 crore. Rafael maintenance cost is also high. Now Sri Lanka and Egypit have shown interest in Tejas. None of the fighter planes or helicopters will be able to escape from the multiple missile attacks. Missiles and rocket are much cheaper. The cost of PSLV is Rs. 100 crore. Missiles can be stored very easily .and no maintenance cost like bullets. It can be launched from any place. After all Fighter planes, helicopters, Air craft carriers , Warships , Frigates and submarine are weapon carrying vehicles. We are a super power in missile technology. After the commissioning of Indian GPS there is no necessity to use planes for the Aerial reconnaissance of the enemy position.
why pay 10 billion dollars for 36 French planes.Give 10 billion to China and they will put you a factory of such planes.
Amol Hari Joshi,
Do you know how many fifhter planes India has got. now? Why do we require so many fighter planes? The fighter planes, bombers, helicopters, Air craft carriers,warships, frigates and submarines are all weapon carrying vehicles. IF missiles can achieve both the functions, why do we need all these vehicles?
Mobility. Randomize location of delivery systems. Penetration of enemy territory. Ground support. Rescue. Tougher to track and crack through ground or space stations. These are the things missiles can not do. Armed aerial vehicles are indispensable especially when India adopts a defensive posture. Why was AGNI not used during the “Kargil War” ? Can TWO Tejas I planes scheduled to go up to TWENTY suffice ? Can a Tejas I or II really compare against MMRCA ? May be against JF-17 but against deep penetration multi-role aircrafts ? We might as well compare Maruti Swift with Mercedes as both are sedans. In any war, numerical superiority is as much important. So why indeed do we need all the delivery systems ? Why do we need so many different missiles ? If we have a missile with range of 8000km why spend money on one with 800 km ? Both of them are nuclear capable and we won’t ever bother to use either. The only “action” they will be put to is the R-Day parade. IMHO India should now simultaneously explore options to turn the older (& larger) aircraft like MiG-21 or Jaguars or Gnats into UAV, modified and made capable of delivering payloads they weren’t capable of earlier. It will increase lethal nature of IAF without compromising on trained human loss. It will not only project India’s dominance over IOR but also over straits of Hormuz and Malacca. A larger UAV with 2-4 large and 6-8 smaller missiles under its wings with appropriate nose-cone can itself achieve the ultimate objective of crashing into slow moving targets like oil tankers if need be after those missiles have been deployed, But all this is theory and if-but scenarios. As long as our political leaders keep explaining to us “different perception” of invading and hegemonic neighbours, world will never bother to know or understand our perception or even our plight. We might as well shore up on resources just to survive.
Mr Govindan you keep harping about missiles – Missiles are meant to destroy fixed targets, they are part of an interdiction plan. Aircraft are flexible assets. Aircraft are reusable. Missiles are fire and forget assets. Do you know how many sorties are carried out by aircraft in wars? DO you know that a missile can cause no damage to an enemy convoy or even a well dispersed gun position. You are always trying to fire missiles here – its not deepawali. Each weapon system has its own use and a mix of weapon systems is required. Please expand your knowledge on facets of warfare and how war is conducted.
Col. JP Singh,This shows your lack of knowledge about missiles. Please try to change the mind set. You people still think about World War II. My argument is that the requirement of fighter planes will come down if the destructive power of the weapon is more. It is a pity that you do not understand the simple logic. Missiles are also used to destroy fighter planes. and enemy missiles. What about Barak 8 missile. ( Surface to air missile). What about Brimstone missile ( Air to Surface missile . )Brimstone is an air-launched ground attack missile developed by MBDA for Britain’s Royal Air Force. It was originally intended for “fire-and-forget” use against mass formations of enemy armour, using a millimetric wave (mmW) active radar homing seeker to ensure accuracy even against moving targets.. Barak 8 missiles can attack multiple moving target.. So the last sentence of your reply is applicable to you and not to me. You have proved my opinion about defense officers. They are good fighters but not having required war strategy. But I never thought their knowledge is so poor.