F-22 vs Su-30MKI

Modern PESA has about 3 dB higher losses than modern AESA in receive path and pretty much the same in transmit path due to same reasons. So AESA is more sensitive ...

To spell that estimate out in percentage terms, a 3dB PESA gain loss compared to the modern AESA exactly equates to an AESA having 41.25% more gain than the PESA, in send and receive.

Hybrid PESA mean, PESA MESA hybrid, it is PESA radar but it have antenna on gimbal mount which turn left and right for dozen degs (don't know exact number).

N035 similar story by because of smaller and lighter antenna its move similar as classic MESA antenna:

Ah yes, combing mechanical and electronic beam steering to allow missile lock over 90 degrees from direction of flight.

1.) Way under fighter strength. (Requirement 42 Squadron has "30" that have to support two fronts!)

countries that consider India a threat to their national security:
Pakistan
China

Countries that consider China a threat:
India
Japan
S.Korea
USA
Australia
Vietnam
Philippines
Taiwan
Malaysia
(NATO to some extent as they have also stepped up patrols in the SCS)

So China has more fronts to cover and is spread more thinly than India.

2.) Majority of the fighter fleet is made up from a motley mix of older types. (Jaguars, Mig-21's, Mig-29's, and Mirage 2000's)

China also relies on a lot of old model J-7s, JH-8s

3.) Most have rather poor "serviceability". Which, would be near "impossible" to support in any major conflict. Supply Chain alone would be a nightmare......

And how exactly is China better off in this aspect? In fact the assessment of their CBG composition suggest that they don't have a clue on how to operate it yet

4.) Only newer and more capable types are the Su-30MKI* and Rafale. The former are fairly capable. Yet, as mentioned above not so good serviceability.

We don't know if China will have better serviceability as well. They may be even worse for all we know.

6.) India's recent conflict with Pakistan last April was hardly stellar. When it lost two fighters!

As far as I know the PLAAF has not been involved in any shooting wars in recent memory, they can perform much worse than the IAF has.

*Note: In any conflict the Su-30MKI and Rafale's would be first on the PLAAF target list.

Yes but when we look at front line fighters and support assets. The IAF's most numerous units the Su-30MKI supported by advanced versions of the Mig-21 and Mig-29 will be at an advantage over the China's J-11 and J-10

The J-10 and J-11 forms the majority of the PLAAF's and will conduct the majority of air operations.
most are equipped with the early MSA radars that are less capable than the BARS system used by IAF Flankers.

China's higher tier units. J-20 and the J-16 which is primarily a strike platform will be deployed in small number to elite units.

I think the most glaring weakness of the China is their lack of experience. The IAF frequently trains with the US and has even attended Red Flag and European air combat exercises, to some extent the IAF has actual combat experience. Win or loose, they learn. China has no comparable training or experience. They may have more expensive toys but not the know how on how to use them

Thanks for your post Hornetfinn.

You explained far better then i ever could.

hornetfinn to the rescue!

Let me introduce you to some other gems from the mighty BARS wiki article. For example, russian article says:

В качестве преимуществ данного радиолокатора (в частности, перед РЛС AN/APG-77 для истребителей F-22) отмечаются высокое разрешение и производительность, возможность эффективно работать по наземным и воздушным целям[6].

One of the advantages of this radar set (including over AN/APG-77 used in F-22) may be considered high resolution and ability to effectively engage both air and surface targets.

The source for that is an ukranian article from 2006 that discusses the possibilities of how to upgrade ukranian AF Fulcrums in light of Ukraine-West-Russia love triangle. Of note, the original source does not talk about "high resolution" but rather the ability "to count the number of engine fan blades and hence paint a "portrait" of a fighter. I guess whoever wrote wiki entry knew (unlike ukranian aviation enthusiasts in 2006) that NCTR techniques like that existed at least since VIetnam for MSA radars and decided to obfuscate things a little.

The english wiki article part about "hybrid AESA" has no source at all, even though it has sources for other important info like spec numbers straight from the manufacturer.

Oh and speeking of official specs: "air-to-air regime, 100 deg zone, target RCS 3 m sq, clear background rear hemisphere aspect target detection range is 60 km"

https://www.niip.ru/catalog/eksportnaya ... siya/bars/

With specs like that it could be any type of "hybrid AESA", but still not the super radar that tracks Chinese J-20s however it wants.

RCS 3 m2 -60 kms

It is ridiculous Indians can talk about to detect a J-20 fighter in any serious range.

Ghostbusters.

Personally, I don't see how anyone could consider the IAF a close match for the PLAAF???

For now they are match in fact IAF is noticeable stronger in region where they could clash.

RCS 3 m2 -60 kms

It is ridiculous Indians can talk about to detect a J-20 fighter in any serious range.

Ghostbusters.

But they never said they used the Su-30's radar to "track" the J-20. It could be another system or a combination of different systems. All they said was they tracked it.

RCS 3 m2 -60 kms

It is ridiculous Indians can talk about to detect a J-20 fighter in any serious range.

Ghostbusters.

But they never said they used the Su-30's radar to "track" the J-20. It could be another system or a combination of different systems. All they said was they tracked it.

Take all this claims with a grain of salt.

First, how can they to know was a J-20 and not other airplane?

And second, how can they to know J-20 did not bring luneberg lens or external payload?

Take all this claims with a grain of salt.

First, how can they to know was a J-20 and not other airplane?

And second, how can they to know J-20 did not bring luneberg lens or external payload?

How they could know it is J-20? Simple, Su-30 doesn't detect it on its radar but Beriev A-50EI detect it so logical thing to conclude it is stealth or in case of Chinese it is J-20 because it is only operational stealth they have. If they have something like russian hunter ucav in service or B-2 then we could questioned was it J-20 or something else.

If J-20 on other hand used luneberg lens RCS would be huge so they could conclude it is J-20, same thing is J-20 carry fuel tanks (only external payload it would carry).

The 2 air arms are interesting to evaluate.

On the one hand, I think India has better pilots/tactics. On the other hand, China has so many more aircraft, better air to air weapons and a stealth card now to play. India has more combat or "near combat" experience, but their most recent showing could be called less than stellar.

They need a Flanker refresh, more capable AAM's and a decent medium weight fighter in particular to counter large numbers of J-10's, including the new J-10C. I think the Mig-35 is the odds on favorite, although more Rafale's would better fit the bill. Ultimately it's going to come down to $, and on that score the Mig-35 will be far cheaper.

It'll also have a lot more in common with their Mig-29K's, vs. say if they bought the Super Hornet or F-16I/F-21. Further on, I think they're a good candidate for a small number of SU-57's. It'll never match the J-20's numbers, but it will give India a quasi stealth heavy hitter the Chinese/PAK air forces find difficult to counter.

Useful to look at logistics. There's only 6-7 airports in Tibet, all altitude constrained (runways represented as red dots), 5 of which are dual-use. The Chinese are building 3 new "civilian" airports (blue dots) which are clearly strategically placed plus a dual runway at Lhasa Gonggar. Due to altitude, long runways are required to takeoff especially at MTOW. This makes the runway susceptible to suppression as one bomb anywhere along the runway would reduce/eliminate sortie rates. That's why China doesn't base permanent fighter brigades in this region, they rotate.

Assam is where IAF's sukhoi squadrons would be significantly outnumbered as there are a lot more runways in Yunnan/Sichuan (~20) to the east. However, as one moves west of Bhutan, the situation reverses excepting the risk of a 2 front war.

1.) Way under fighter strength. (Requirement 42 Squadron has "30" that have to support two fronts!)

countries that consider India a threat to their national security:
Pakistan
China

Countries that consider China a threat:
India
Japan
S.Korea
USA
Australia
Vietnam
Philippines
Taiwan
Malaysia
(NATO to some extent as they have also stepped up patrols in the SCS)

So China has more fronts to cover and is spread more thinly than India.

Your assuming those countries would come to the aid of India. Yet, considering India is "non aligned" and won't join any formal Alliance. I wouldn't count on much support from any of those countries in any Chinese - Indian Conflict. At least not directly....

2.) Majority of the fighter fleet is made up from a motley mix of older types. (Jaguars, Mig-21's, Mig-29's, and Mirage 2000's)

China also relies on a lot of old model J-7s, JH-8s

Correct....

3.) Most have rather poor "serviceability". Which, would be near "impossible" to support in any major conflict. Supply Chain alone would be a nightmare......

And how exactly is China better off in this aspect? In fact the assessment of their CBG composition suggest that they don't have a clue on how to operate it yet

China has a much larger fighter fleet to draw from. In addition she is the main source for Maintenance and Spare Parts. Unlike the very mixed Indian Fleet....As for Carrier Battle Groups her fleet of Aircraft Carriers is much bigger than India's and improving by the day.

4.) Only newer and more capable types are the Su-30MKI* and Rafale. The former are fairly capable. Yet, as mentioned above not so good serviceability.

We don't know if China will have better serviceability as well. They may be even worse for all we know.

On the available information I would choose China....

6.) India's recent conflict with Pakistan last April was hardly stellar. When it lost two fighters!

As far as I know the PLAAF has not been involved in any shooting wars in recent memory, they can perform much worse than the IAF has.

Honestly, in any major conflict with China or Pakistan. I think the odds are high that India would have to face both at the same time.

*Note: In any conflict the Su-30MKI and Rafale's would be first on the PLAAF target list.

Yes but when we look at front line fighters and support assets. The IAF's most numerous units the Su-30MKI supported by advanced versions of the Mig-21 and Mig-29 will be at an advantage over the China's J-11 and J-10

The J-10 and J-11 forms the majority of the PLAAF's and will conduct the majority of air operations.
most are equipped with the early MSA radars that are less capable than the BARS system used by IAF Flankers.

China's higher tier units. J-20 and the J-16 which is primarily a strike platform will be deployed in small number to elite units.

The PLAAF and PLAN will likely use whatever assets necessary to accomplish the mission.

I think the most glaring weakness of the China is their lack of experience. The IAF frequently trains with the US and has even attended Red Flag and European air combat exercises, to some extent the IAF has actual combat experience. Win or loose, they learn. China has no comparable training or experience. They may have more expensive toys but not the know how on how to use them

Clearly, China has less actual combat experience. Yet, she also operates extensive "Aggressor Fleets" and holds a number of Military Exercises similar to Red Flag....Plus, you have to look at both sides in totality. My guess is China would likely strike first in any major conflict with India. Which, she would perform strikes that would balance India's slight advantage in experiences.

Regardless, in the end many variables. It's just in my opinion that China has a far better case....

Regardless, in the end many variables. It's just in my opinion that China has a far better case....

I largely agree with your assessment. Legitimate question tho, Can a full scale scale conflict between China and India be considered a World War, they certainly have more fire power than all the major powers of the 1940s had. But this is largely due to Nukes.

Anyway, even if the conflict remains non nuclear, the US will almost certainly be involved since it will be within the US's best interest. the chances of the US or even NATO siding with India is greater than siding with China. But more likely than not, any conflict between the 2 will be relegated to boarder disputes or skirmishes.

The only thing China has been hitting India with are cellphone promotions. Beats me why China would want 1.4 billion more mouths to feeds, when it can have % of 1.4 billion more phones users to sell to. Understandable that US media plays up the "china threat" theory because that pushes India towards US (or at least that's the intent). No Huawei please, oppo ok? Reality is a bit more prosaic, bar the odd border incident.

Regardless, in the end many variables. It's just in my opinion that China has a far better case....

I largely agree with your assessment. Legitimate question tho, Can a full scale scale conflict between China and India be considered a World War, they certainly have more fire power than all the major powers of the 1940s had. But this is largely due to Nukes.

Anyway, even if the conflict remains non nuclear, the US will almost certainly be involved since it will be within the US's best interest. the chances of the US or even NATO siding with India is greater than siding with China. But more likely than not, any conflict between the 2 will be relegated to boarder disputes or skirmishes.

Yes, mostly likely conflict would be some type of boarder dispute. Yet, this could easily get out of hand.

In addition unless India makes a move to join a broader Military Alliance with the West. I see little reason for any nation to risk life and limb for India. This what many Indians just don't seem to get! They want many in the West to side with them. Yet, won't join them in an Alliance.

In short why should we fight for them. If, they won't fight for us....