F-16s no threat to IAF: Air Marshal Bhavnani

mysterious

New Member
When I see conflicting reports from Indian political establishment and the military establishment, I really feel like advising them to sit together and plan out how to respond to issues on an equal footing. Example: Entire Indian political establishment goes crazy to the point of warning and protesting strongly to the US of the proposed F-16 deal to Pakistan while on the other hand, the military establishment comes up with statements saying that F-16s dont pose any threat to IAF or India. Why make such conflicting statements? I mean, when the armed forces aren't concerned about Pakistani acquisitions why is the political side creating such rhetoric? Maybe its just all being done for the domestic audiences. :smokingc:
 

adsH

New Member
mysterious said:
Why make such conflicting statements?
Somtimes Lack of comunication is the problem the reason being Indias developed institutions feel differently the military is disciplined while the political establishment has Couple of cowboys which makes it harder for the government which is supported by these hawk to runn the system. without the support of these hawks the government would collapse so they are given open reign. While in the military you see more coherent reporting and more expert opinion of the threat but this doesn't mean they never object, there first goal would be to deny by any means there enemy access to weapons Intelligence training. A combination of the factors would make them superior to there foes.

Mod Edit: gf: Layout
 

srirangan

Banned Member
See there's no conflicting view, India has a proven history of the govt and the military knowing their respective roles. IAF has had to deal with the PAF with F16's for more than a decade; so its not a new threat, nor a very grave one.

India isn't afraid of the F16's as such, but India doesn't want the US to sell these to the Pakistani's. Let me summarize it for you, TeamA has 500 runs on the board; their bowlers have got 7/50; the team is in a good position, but still the captain of TeamA doesn't want a bowler to concede a boundry. Not that TeamA will lose if a boundry is conceded, but still the captain doesn't want to concede anything.
 

srirangan

Banned Member
AdsH,

The beauty of India is that no matter how comic the politicians are, national policy remains uniform. Since 1987 same national policy is being followed although there have been atleast 8 different govt's in New Delhi. That's the beauty and hallmark of India beurocracy, which incidently get's awfull lot of slack but very little credit/
 

insas556

New Member
The military in India is entirely apolitical and thus it does not state any political or Policy opinion which, in India is the job of the civil political establishment.
Militarily its up to the forces to decide the threat assesment for India.
The political establishment sees this in geo-politico-strategic terms. The fear is that the F-16 transfer may signify a shift or a tipping the balance in relations between PAk-US , which may open the gates for large scale arms transfers in future. So the Indian civil establisment has to i) make its objections clear ii) in case of the transfer reassess relations as to , extract a price from US or see if it too can have some thing to compensate

Its simply a democratic civil establishment at work.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Ok now I have been talkin to a PG fighter all day on F-16s vs IAF. According to him latest F-16s "are" big threat to MiG-29 & Mirage2000-5. He says mirage2000 were actualy made in competetion to F-16s when Dessault got jealous of F-16s fame in Europe. But still major NATO nations prefered F-16s.
There is no need to send F-16s to fight MiG-21 Bison/fishbed, MiG-27, Jaguars etc. For that PAF will use jets like F-7PG & Mirage3 ROSE upgrade.

Su-30 he says may very well be a problem but its not the jet that is realy a threat but the weapon system & all jets carry limited amount of Special (BVR etc) weapons. So the 1st attempt for PAF pilots on F-16 would be to force the Su pilot to use of his specialy weapons. Sukhio can go high but cant stay there for long time. It will either come down or run away flying at a high altitude.
If it comes down its doomed to go further down.Its huge & easy target.

Considering present PAF scenerio.The F-16s will wait for Sukhio to come down while F-7PG & Mirage 3 Rose will try to make sure it comes down by using their BVRs. Once we get Su in range of F-16 we can make its life a hell.

About Su attacking PAF jets he says all PAF jets r well equiped for defending them selves & we would want Suto attack us o its weapons finish off early. F-16s, F-7 & Mirage3 r very small but capable fighter & their size make sures that they escape the grasps of Su.

In the end its all upto the pilot. He ever has got the best of them can win it off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dont know if he was just bragging or telling the basic strategy.
 

adsH

New Member
mirrage 3 ROSE i doubt would be a good AtoA fighter (delta)but it may end up carrying a BVR if AIM-120 comes through it might be possible to get that integrated on it. that would mean the latest batch of the Mirage 3 ROSE has a Powerful Radar i believe it would be utilized for Bombing strategic Targets. its a very fast sprinter when it has to get out a situation and has a reasonable envelop, now i see why PAF insisted on keeping the Rose in service. I'm not too sure about the PG's they are very new(i think), so they may have the Most uptodate Avionics and are probably good enough to take onn IAF but when you put a good pilot in the cockpit it cannot be underestimated.
 

P.A.F

New Member
at the end of the day if Pakistan can get a huge order of long range SAM's from some one then the PAF would have less strain on itself. thus the f-16s can switch to aggressive/defensive mode while the F-7's mirages nanchangs, jf-17 can drop the bombs.
 

ajay_ijn

New Member
Su-30 he says may very well be a problem but its not the jet that is realy a threat but the weapon system & all jets carry limited amount of Special (BVR etc) weapons. So the 1st attempt for PAF pilots on F-16 would be to force the Su pilot to use of his specialy weapons. Sukhio can go high but cant stay there for long time. It will either come down or run away flying at a high altitude.
BVR cannot be called as special weapons,most the advanced air-forces of the world have BVR Missiles.
PAF cannot force MKI's to carry BVR missiles,becoz even in dogfight MKI will have the advantage.
But i suppose IAF will send Mig-29 for Air-superiority Missions against F-16 and Su-30MKI for Deep Strike Missions.
again the main thing would be AWACS,IAF is getting Phalcon,one of the best AWACS.
I don't know if PAF has signed Erieye deal.
Better if we discuss it in the thread "How to counter Su-30MKI".

About the US Defence deal for pakistan,An article says that Congress did not act within the stipulated 30 Day period.
Pakistan poised to get U.S. weapons



Washington, DC, Dec. 16 (UPI) -- Pakistan is poised to get a $1.2 billion arms package from the United States as Congress did not act to stop it within the stipulated 30-day period, diplomatic sources told United Press International.
The announcement said the Pentagon could conclude negotiations with Pakistan on the proposed sale unless Congress acts to stop it within 30 days.
Although the media reported the proposed package on Nov. 18, the notification to Congress was sent two days earlier, thus the required 30-day period expired on Dec. 16.
India had strongly objected to the U.S. plan for selling weapons to Pakistan, saying that it could affect the existing goodwill between India and the United States and could also jeopardize the India-Pakistan peace process.
Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran personally raised this issue during a meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice in Washington last month.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also conveyed his concerns to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld when he visited the Indian capital last week.
Pakistan, however, had rejected Indian objections as "incomprehensible," saying that its modest defense requirements should not irk New Delhi.

"It is incomprehensible that India, which has a massive weaponization and weapon acquisition program, should object to Pakistan's modest defense requirements," said a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Islamabad.

In Washington, Indian lobbies had vowed to activate pro-Indian congressmen to resist the passage of the proposed package but behind-the-scene efforts by the Bush administration prevented this.

Not only did Congress not act to stop the sale, last week it also passed a bill binding the U.S. administration to ensure a long-term engagement with Pakistan and to provide continued military and economic assistance to Islamabad until 2009.
The bill, which President George W. Bush is expected to sign into law soon, also encourages greater market access to Pakistan and urges the U.S. administration to help stabilize the Pakistani economy.

Pakistan says it intends to use the P-3 Orion to develop a long-needed fleet of maritime and border surveillance aircraft, but New Delhi says the weapons could also be against India.

The Pentagon, however, argues that the weapons it intends to provide would enhance Pakistan's search surveillance-and-control capability in support of maritime interdiction operations and increase their ability to support the U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom operations.

The P-3s also are designed to hunt ships and submarines and will enhance the "regional influence" of the Pakistani navy, the Pentagon observed.

The Pentagon in their notification statement said the TOW anti-armor-guided missiles would help Pakistan "provide for its own legitimate self-defense needs and to enable Pakistan to support U.S. operations against terrorist activity along its porous borders" with Afghanistan.

South Asian diplomats in Washington say the smooth passage of the arms package and the adoption last week of a bill favoring Pakistan show that both the U.S. and the legislature regard Pakistan as an indispensable ally in the "war against terror" and want to ensure a durable and mutually beneficial relationship with the South Asian nation.
 

adsH

New Member
ajay_ijn said:
again the main thing would be AWACS,IAF is getting Phalcon,one of the best AWACS.
I don't know if PAF has signed Erieye deal.
Better if we discuss it in the thread "How to counter Su-30MKI".

About the US Defence deal for pakistan,An article says that Congress did not act within the stipulated 30 Day period.
the Phalcon is a capable system but it cannot be termed the best since you would be implying that it's better then others that are for sale, A phalcon meets requirements for the IAF(so its best for IAF), But it doesn't mean that it would end up meeting the requirements of PAF or for that matter another Airforce. Systems quality is still a matter of Debate but there is no way these platforms cann be tested directly unless they are utilized in war. but in war situations you tend to rely onn all your defense systems not just the AWACS. phalcon "being" the "best platform" in the "world" is a "media propaganda" if that was the case then you would see all the current potential Customers (Air-forces) not opting for other systems.

the F-16 is for Air defence and if SU-30 Mki makes it into PAF airspace it would have to see PAF in a Dogfight. an F-16 in a dog fight is not something any Airforce pilot looks forward too. it Still cann put up a hell of a fight.

the person who told Sabre about the PAF strategy was speaking to Sabre and he considered him to be ignorant to the terminology so he tried his best to explain it in laymen's term. it being "special" because BVR are very important in modern Air combat scenarios.
 

srirangan

Banned Member
it would have to see PAF in a Dogfight. an F-16 in a dog fight is not something any Airforce pilot looks forward too
Yea but dogfights are 1930'ish.

The PHALCON enables an Indian fighter in Indian airspace to engage a Pak fighter in Pak airspace; such capability is not provided but the Eireye, which is more of a defensive system with limited capabilities. This may suit the PAF now, but in the long run a lesser range of the Eireye will remain a lesser range.
 

Pathfinder-X

Tribal Warlord
Verified Defense Pro
srirangan said:
Yea but dogfights are 1930'ish.

The PHALCON enables an Indian fighter in Indian airspace to engage a Pak fighter in Pak airspace; such capability is not provided but the Eireye, which is more of a defensive system with limited capabilities. This may suit the PAF now, but in the long run a lesser range of the Eireye will remain a lesser range.
Actually dogfights are not as 1930'ish as you might think. I can even give an example of it during the 1999 Indo-Pak standoff.

The Su-30K India purchased at the time was one of the most advanced in Asia, but due to some radar faults(Russian equipment always does) plague the fleet in its earlier days. The problem is the Su-30 pilot can see and lock on to Pakistani F-7's from over 70km, but the problem is that the friend/foe identification was unclear. So IAF pilot at the time was instructed to get visual identification before making any type of air to air attack. This problem was later fixed by Russians after India keep threatened to reduce the order of Su-30's.

Another scenario would be the parties involve in a conflict both have airstrips close to the front line. That would also increase the possibilty of WVR combat.

The point it that the possibility of dogfights are always there despite more and more popular BVR combat. And something you might want to know about WVR combat, once you've been locked on, you are pretty much dead meat as modern short range AAM are all capable of manoevuring 30G and have the speed of Mach 2.5.
 

aaaditya

New Member
i think a variant of p3c(blue sentinel or sea sentinel iam not exactly sure ) is used for survaillance by the us coast guard.
 

adsH

New Member
srirangan said:
[

The PHALCON enables an Indian fighter in Indian airspace to engage a Pak fighter in Pak airspace; such capability is not provided but the Eireye, which is more of a defensive system with limited capabilities. This may suit the PAF now, but in the long run a lesser range of the Eireye will remain a lesser range.
the Eireye Specs are not available in the public domain, so making assumption like it not being able to do something would just be speculations, i could agree with you about the eyrie being a shorter Ranged system, but PAF will have 7 of them there fore they will have a larger spread and a potential overlapping system. and would be able to switch aircrews and fly in turns, maintaining a good cover. it may be designed as a defensive weapon but it doesn't mean that it canot be used as an offensive weapon. like the gripen it was designed for the swedish defense needs to defend swedish territory. It can also be be an offensive system,but because it lacks autonomy, it would tend to remain within close proximity of PAF airspace (besides AWACS never operate in Conflict zones). And assumption that you made about SU-30 being able to carry out missions witin PAF territory (unhindered) with the aid of Phalcon link, is again speculations if eyrie is present its Jamming system cannot be underestimated it is a well respected platform. And did you know that the Radar onbord the Eyrie can focus in specific direction boosting its range when required.
 

aaaditya

New Member
b737-300 is outdated platform besides its engines are considered to be earbursters(they are realy noisy).they are also considered to be fuel guzzlers so this will restrict their endurance,737-800 or 900 is a more modern platform with more modern engines.
 

srirangan

Banned Member
Adsh,
The problem you stated was with the Su-27's of 1999, which have been solved sometime in 2000, and then they also received a total packaged upgrade into a Su-30.

so making assumption like it not being able to do something would just be speculations,
Yea but you'll have to agree that they aren't made over a naught. The greater reach of PHALCON over the Eireye is a fact; Eireye's range is so limited that a country such as Pakistani which has a very small airspace needs 7 of them.

Obviously none of the seven will leave the PAF airspace, or even venture anywhere near the limits, just as the PHALCONS won't be deployed close to Pak airspace. But the PHALCONS don't need to be deployed close to the border, that's the essence of the point I'm making.

Oh and you made wrong assumptions over the role of the Su-30's in the IAF. Su-30 won't be sent to dogfight with PAF's F16's over Pak skies. Su-30's are intended to provide air supremacy over battlefield positions and for tactical delivery; and they won't be used to engage incoming PAF F16's.
 

adsH

New Member
srirangan said:
Adsh,


Eireye's range is so limited that a country such as Pakistani which has a very small airspace needs 7 of them.
its not that they need seven to maintain effective coverage its the ability to have multiple platforms so they are available and crews can be swapped repairs and refueling can be done on the ground. all this is done while the AC is not being utilized and there fore they need multiple platforms to keep effective cover. its a matter of Keeping a margin of comfort in operations.

""Su-30mki won't be sent to dogfight with PAF's F16's over Pak skies.""

If the battlefield position is in POK and has to be held. SU-30 mki would have to maintain cover in POK where they would meet the F-16 which would be protecting there Small Airspace. F-16 at this point is not an offensive weapon its purely being used for defensive roles. so Dogfight would be one aspect of the meeting.
 
Top