IAF's Swing Fleet aims to counter twin attack

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
We just need to amend our nuclear doctrine to include a point which says we can use preemptive nuclear strike in case case of multi-nation aggression on India.
Or simply put NFU doesn't hold true for multi-nation aggression.

The red lines should included what we perceive as aggression, when we are engaged in military conflict with any other nation.

This should be clearly mentioned and not in a ambiguous statement in our NFU policy.
I understand what you are saying, and trust me, I completely do. I just don't see what point you are trying to make.

I understand that nukes are a deterrent and are not meant to be used, but the point is, in a situation when India has already been invaded by Pakistan and PLA, the deterrence has already failed! In other words, this deterrence has not deterred a dual invasion. What would India do then? Pretend that since nukes are meant for deterrence only and not for use, and dump them into the Bay of Bengal?

I don't see the point in hanging on to this NFU policy when India is being attacked by two nuclear armed countries. Do you see the point? I really don't. And if India uses nukes, in that situation, India will become estranged? How? The US used atomic bombs on non-nuclear Japan; where, I don't see the US being estranged.
Times were different then (WW2 era). US of A could afford to nuke Japs & get away with it. No other nations were nuclear powers then. Might was right, then (in WW2) & even today. Today's geo-political realities just don't permit India to indulge in such "mis-adventures". Yes, resorting to nukes pro-actively, in conventional warfare is a mis-adventure that decision-makers sitting in India simply won't commit themselves too. And, it might sound far-fetched today but with every passing year, our capability to simultaneously take on both our friendly neighbors is growing steadily, albeit at a pace slower than we would expect.
 
Last edited:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
Besides the Big System smaller once are more important specially MANPAD, Something we dont manufacture and Russian sell many faulty once..
 

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
We just need to amend our nuclear doctrine to include a point which says we can use preemptive nuclear strike in case case of multi-nation aggression on India.
Or simply put NFU doesn't hold true for multi-nation aggression.

The red lines should included what we perceive as aggression, when we are engaged in military conflict with any other nation.

This should be clearly mentioned and not in a ambiguous statement in our NFU policy.
@ladder, @sayareakd, @arnabmit

Consider this:

Pakistan and PRC launch a join and simultaneous invasion of India. The invasion is conventional. India has a policy that it will not use a nuke if it is not attacked by a nuke. So far so good.

What happens after two or three weeks? If not the Pakistanis, the PLA will have taken out or decimated all of India's nuke stockpiles or delivery platforms. India will end up as a non-nuclear state, and thereafter, it will be a free-roll for both PRC and Pakistan.

This No-First-Use policy needs to be packed into a large trash bag and tossed out the window, A-S-A-P!
Our policymakers see it otherwise & for a reason. PLA decimating Indian nuke stockpile or delivery platforms is no cakewalk; we have been planning for such eventualities since quite some time & have contingency measures in place to avert such a possibility. Skirmishes with PLA would be localized conflicts over a broad theater, though with much higher-intensity than 1962 & militarily we are prepared for most of the stuff PLA would throw at us in such a conflict. IA has access to a sizeable stock of sensor-fused weapons that can quickly turn tables in such wars. Our war-reserves maybe smaller which would impact our resolve to protract & sustain such a conflict but this can be positively ameliorated by policy decisions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
We just need to amend our nuclear doctrine to include a point which says we can use preemptive nuclear strike in case case of multi-nation aggression on India.
Or simply put NFU doesn't hold true for multi-nation aggression.

The red lines should included what we perceive as aggression, when we are engaged in military conflict with any other nation.

This should be clearly mentioned and not in a ambiguous statement in our NFU policy.
There would not be a full blown war beyond 2 weeks without NATO & US mediation.

What you are talking about is MAD doctrine like the Israeli Samson Option. Agar dubna hai to sath mein le dubenge. Again, this option comes into play after conventional defeat.

Till the time we are defeated conventionally, having a MAD doctrine is just inviting trouble, and portray yourself as an irresponsible state.

BTW... Even a 2 front war cannot provide nuke disarmament due to our triad. We will always have the retaliation option. Anyway the way China is arming itself, instead of a triad we might look at nuke quad in a couple of decades with the introduction of orbiting reentry warheads with ISRO tech.
We are on same page.
 

ladder

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
7,255
Likes
12,207
Country flag
Times were different then (WW2 era). US of A could afford to nuke Japs & get away with it. No other nations were nuclear powers then. Might was right, then (in WW2) & even today. Today's geo-political realities just don't permit India to indulge in such "mis-adventures". Yes, resorting to nukes pro-actively, in conventional warfare is a mis-adventure that decision-makers sitting in India simply won't commit themselves too. And, it might sound far-fetched today but with every passing year, our capability to simultaneously take on both our friendly neighbors is growing steadily, albeit at a pace slower than we would expect.
Yes, you are correct in your assessment about USA and WW2.
coming to your third point first, yes our conventional power is growing and that I have also mentioned in my subsequent posts in this thread.
And as you rightfully said it is slower than expected.

If we analyse two Skirmishes that have taken place under nuclear overhang
1. Russia-China border skirmish.
2. India-Pakistan Kargil war.

In both the cases the world community was proactive in seeing to the fact that nuclear red lines of any of the Waring parties are not breached.
Plus a strong warning to each of them not to indulge in any "mis-adventures".

Now come to the situation of our reaction post 2001 parliament attack and operation Parakram. and past 2008 Mumbai attack.
Did Pakistan's Nuclear posturing played any part in that?

So, the world community does not decide for you what should be your red line.It merely fire-fights when a nuclear exchange seems to become eminent, to diffuse the situation.
So, as a responsible country you should declare what is absolutely un-acceptable to you. If we may call it red lines.
It should be based on many factors, as many posters have discussed here.

That's what I have said that rather than using as and when the situation arrives we should be clear in what is totally un acceptable to us i.e. opportunism and ganging up for aggression.
But, simultaneously keeping our red lines high such that we should not be provoked into using the same.
As. non use of the same in an event of breach of red lines amounts to loss of credibility.

Our deterrence in nukes lies with our threat for use of the same and if used effectively can deter Pakistan from becoming opportunist in an event of Indo-China war.

As, I had said in another thread that deterrence of any platform is only that much that you can extract from it for your strategic gain provided you don't over do it.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
India does not have a triad. Hopefully we will have it soon, and that means another ten years, if not more, because we need to have at least 4 n-subs with demonstrated capability to launch missiles from under the sea. So, this talk about a "triad," today, is redundant.

What we have right now are missiles and planes.

In case of a simultaneous attack from Pakistan and PRC, given their combined overwhelming numerical superiority, this air delivery capability could be quickly diminished. Now comes our land based missile systems, and the question is, how long we can prevent them from being decimated. Let us not forget, the armed forces will be under constant pressure to keep from losing territory, because, even in a 2 or 3 week long war, if India loses territory and ceasefire is declared, then we are done for.
 

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
Agree on jettisoning the ambiguity in our nuclear posture & being able to walk the talk when push comes to shove. However, deciding upon the "exact" nuke threshold for policy matters is a tricky matter & strategists prefer to have some degree of ambiguity in it, perhaps for the flexibility+leverage that potentially comes with being ambivalent.
Yes, you are correct in your assessment about USA and WW2.
coming to your third point first, yes our conventional power is growing and that I have also mentioned in my subsequent posts in this thread.
And as you rightfully said it is slower than expected.

If we analyse two Skirmishes that have taken place under nuclear overhang
1. Russia-China border skirmish.
2. India-Pakistan Kargil war.

In both the cases the world community was proactive in seeing to the fact that nuclear red lines of any of the Waring parties are not breached.
Plus a strong warning to each of them not to indulge in any "mis-adventures".

Now come to the situation of our reaction post 2001 parliament attack and operation Parakram. and past 2008 Mumbai attack.
Did Pakistan's Nuclear posturing played any part in that?

So, the world community does not decide for you what should be your red line.It merely fire-fights when a nuclear exchange seems to become eminent, to diffuse the situation.
So, as a responsible country you should declare what is absolutely un-acceptable to you. If we may call it red lines.
It should be based on many factors, as many posters have discussed here.

That's what I have said that rather than using as and when the situation arrives we should be clear in what is totally un acceptable to us i.e. opportunism and ganging up for aggression.
But, simultaneously keeping our red lines high such that we should not be provoked into using the same.
As. non use of the same in an event of breach of red lines amounts to loss of credibility.

Our deterrence in nukes lies with our threat for use of the same and if used effectively can deter Pakistan from becoming opportunist in an event of Indo-China war.

As, I had said in another thread that deterrence of any platform is only that much that you can extract from it for your strategic gain provided you don't over do it.
 

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
India does not have a triad. Hopefully we will have it soon, and that means another ten years, if not more, because we need to have at least 4 n-subs with demonstrated capability to launch missiles from under the sea. So, this talk about a "triad," today, is redundant.

What we have right now are missiles and planes.

In case of a simultaneous attack from Pakistan and PRC, given their combined overwhelming numerical superiority, this air delivery capability could be quickly diminished. Now comes our land based missile systems, and the question is, how long we can prevent them from being decimated. Let us not forget, the armed forces will be under constant pressure to keep from losing territory, because, even in a 2 or 3 week long war, if India loses territory and ceasefire is declared, then we are done for.
Offensive-defence as an art has been honed by IA pretty well, I expect the net territorial losses to be small because IA counterattacks in areas of tactical superiority would more or less compensate for the losses we might suffer in Tawang & western sector. In my personal experience, Chicken-neck enclave is too well defended & I won't worry much about it. On the negotiating table, unless our leaders & diplomats don't fail us like on all past occasions, we might emerge out as militarily respected nation for the bloody nose we would have delivered to the unprovoked aggression. Yes, but I agree much more needs to be done to secure our C4I2 infra & increase our A3+A5+A6 (MIRV'ed) arsenal, apart from taking up our infantry/artillery modernization full steam. Artillery/Mobile artillery I believe could really change the equation for IA on those heights.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
@pmaitra

For nuke delivery vehicles we have Agni series to be launched from our territory, then we have aircraft delivery and what people have not take into account is Dhanush missile which has given us sea launch capability for our nuke delivery.


with Desi jugaad Technology, we can modify oil tanker with stabilization fins made by L&T, we can launch Agni series specially, A3 from other side of Japan into China, if things get real real bad. Pls we have K15 land version to be launch from small ships.

I dont think we should worry much about nuke response, nuke is more of blackmail kind of weapons, any response would result in equally mad response from other side. So let it be last option for us.

We have to make sure two things, first war with China wont happen, for this China should feel that it is not in their best interest to fight the war, or they will get bloody nose, which will most likely to crush their super power hope in future.

Therefore we have to invest in tech and infra structure to do these things. Best way to win war is to win without fighting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
@pmaitra

For nuke delivery vehicles we have Agni series to be launched from our territory, then we have aircraft delivery and what people have not take into account is Dhanush missile which has given us sea launch capability for our nuke delivery.


with Desi jugaad Technology, we can modify oil tanker with stabilization fins made by L&T, we can launch Agni series specially, A3 from other side of Japan into China, if things get real real bad. Pls we have K15 land version to be launch from small ships.

I dont think we should worry much about nuke response, nuke is more of blackmail kind of weapons, any response would result in equally mad response from other side. So let it be last option for us.

We have to make sure two things, first war with China wont happen, for this China should feel that it is not in their best interest to fight the war, or they will get bloody nose, which will most likely to crush their super power hope in future.

Therefore we have to invest in tech and infra structure to do these things. Best way to win war is to win without fighting.
Can we modify the PRITHVI AIRDEFENCE missile used for ballistic missile shield on the lines of S-400 and deploy them at the border to take out the chinese AWACS and Refueling tankers in air , with the targeting help of green Pine radar?

If it can be done , it will blunt the PLAf effort considerably.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
Can we modify the PRITHVI AIRDEFENCE missile used for ballistic missile shield on the lines of S-400 and deploy them at the border to take out the chinese AWACS and Refueling tankers in air , with the targeting help of green Pine radar?

If it can be done , it will blunt the PLAf effort considerably.
over kill to shoot AWAC and air tankers. these missiles are too big and AWAC and air tankers need about half weight missile for 400-500 km range.

But out of the box thinking is needed. :thumb:
 
Last edited:

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
I think we have to take care of S300 and its clones if we have to dominate the china border. plus their large force of outdated fighters.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
This is example of out of box thinking





therefore we can launch K15 and Agni series from modified container ship or oil tanker. I dont think Pakistan would mind using their flag on our ship while going to other side of Japan........:rofl:
 

DivineHeretic

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
1,153
Likes
1,897
Country flag
Yes, you are correct in your assessment about USA and WW2.
coming to your third point first, yes our conventional power is growing and that I have also mentioned in my subsequent posts in this thread.
And as you rightfully said it is slower than expected.

If we analyse two Skirmishes that have taken place under nuclear overhang
1. Russia-China border skirmish.
2. India-Pakistan Kargil war.

In both the cases the world community was proactive in seeing to the fact that nuclear red lines of any of the Waring parties are not breached.
Plus a strong warning to each of them not to indulge in any "mis-adventures".

Now come to the situation of our reaction post 2001 parliament attack and operation Parakram. and past 2008 Mumbai attack.
Did Pakistan's Nuclear posturing played any part in that?

So, the world community does not decide for you what should be your red line.It merely fire-fights when a nuclear exchange seems to become eminent, to diffuse the situation.
So, as a responsible country you should declare what is absolutely un-acceptable to you. If we may call it red lines.
It should be based on many factors, as many posters have discussed here.

That's what I have said that rather than using as and when the situation arrives we should be clear in what is totally un acceptable to us i.e. opportunism and ganging up for aggression.
But, simultaneously keeping our red lines high such that we should not be provoked into using the same.
As. non use of the same in an event of breach of red lines amounts to loss of credibility.

Our deterrence in nukes lies with our threat for use of the same and if used effectively can deter Pakistan from becoming opportunist in an event of Indo-China war.

As, I had said in another thread that deterrence of any platform is only that much that you can extract from it for your strategic gain provided you don't over do it.
Very nicely put.

If I may just add a few points,

The response of the International community and indeed of the west is very difficult to pre-empt. In case of a future conflict with China and Pak at the same time, the response of the rest of the World will depend on primarily their own interests.

If the overall impression is that the conflict will remain a regional one and no major threat to their interests and economy exists and the possibilitu of nuclear war is very low, they will be inclined to support India in this war, both economically as well as with military assistance. Whether they do so or not is not predictable.

If the feeling is that victory for China and Pak combined is a major if not crippling threat to West's strategic interests and freedom of SLOC and security of Indian Ocean Region even if the nuclear question hangs in balance, the US (if not in conjunction with the NATO) will take a proactive stance especially in the Naval theatre, in addition to providing military assistance. However, there is almost no possibility of boots on the ground or direct support to IA/IAF as such action may encourage Russia to intervene.

If, however, the feeling in western Capitals and Russia is that the war will certainly go nuclear and could well degenerate into a WW scenario, all the nations will in no uncertain terms ask all sides to immdeiately ceasefire. In this situation, the territorial integrity of India will be a secondary, and even tertiary importance. The call for ceasefire will come irrespective of how much territory we lose. And any part lost will not be returned on the negotiating table, that I guarantee. We will in all likelyhood denied weapon and equipment assistance to facilitate the peace process, as in 1965.

The nuclear question and how the perception of nuclear war is managed will determine how the western nations will respond. But even then there is no guarantee that they will indeed come to our assistance.

In any case, This will be our war. With 1/6th the population of the world and the 3rd largest economy (2020), if we cannot deal with our problems, we do not deserve to exist. We are not Pakistan or a puny state that must beg for support to survive and face its problems. No empire or superpower ever rose to greatness by begging on its knees.

A nation and its civilization lives more in the hearts of its citizens than on the map. This is why our nation and our culture survived 5000-7000 years of history. It is only when we were humiliated and made to bow to the Mughals that the decline of the Hindu culture and mentality began. I'm no Internet Hindu but I do understand the severe psychological impact of being forced to bow to the Sultanate on the mindset of the Hindus.

We cannot allow such a repeat, never ever.
 

ladder

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
7,255
Likes
12,207
Country flag
Other thing is to consider is that Chinese have a military rationale which Pakistan lacks.

If members remember it well it was China who leaked the talks between Gen. Mush. and his commanders.
Also, Chinese component to the intelligence to USA about Pakistan moving its nuke arsenal for deployment cannot be ruled out.
So, how much help would involvement of Pakistan help China in its operation against India will be a debatable subject.
Involvement of Pakistan in Sino-India conflict will also open the gates for other to get in. Will China want it?
But, by saying otherwise I am not ruling out the possibility of that happening.
It will be good to discuss what benefits China, Pakistan will have by attacking together.

China is now probably happy with its inching policy and would be happy till we strongly oppose it.
We OTH are happy till the matter is silent and there is no major snub.
But current situation of India getting assertive may change it.

We also have to remember that MTCR and NPT came into being specifically targeting India.
so, the prevailing geo-politics will also play its role in Sino-India conflict.
If USA so believes that a major snub is required before India joins strategic containment of China, She will wait till that happens.
Or, the other way round if China believes an escalation will be useful to show India its standing and level of International support she can garner.

But, again we cannot depend upon any other country to help us.
If help comes then fine otherwise "ekla chalo re".
 
Last edited:

DivineHeretic

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
1,153
Likes
1,897
Country flag
Can we modify the PRITHVI AIRDEFENCE missile used for ballistic missile shield on the lines of S-400 and deploy them at the border to take out the chinese AWACS and Refueling tankers in air , with the targeting help of green Pine radar?

If it can be done , it will blunt the PLAf effort considerably.
The BMs, including the BM Interceptors based on them are huge missiles, (typically 7-9 tons) and bulky. Then you have the problem that they are extremely fast (usually a plus point) at Mach 5-8, but due to lack of enough control surfaces these are not the most manuevrable missiles.

Indeed the SR-71 at Mach 3.2 had a turning radius of about a 100 miles, the Mig-25 was bit more respectable, but still couldn't out-turn a oil tanker. And note that these AC had huge control surfaces. The modern AAMs can achieve very high manuevrability, but they are tiny compared to the Prithvi, and most certainly are not 7-9 tons of solid fuel.

Then comes the problem of tracking. The LRTR has more than enough range, but the Himalayas are a very uneven terrain and even if A LRTR is deployed, due to presence of high peaks, massive radar blind spots will remain. Of course we could use an airborne platform for very long range tracking. The Su-30mki can track a Boeing 737 sized target at over 400-450 km, enough for our requirements, if we can prevent signal jamming.

The final problem lies in the fact that a AWACS, evem with Chinese electronics, have enormously powerful radars and a complementary EW suite. It can practically jam any active signal, meaning we'd need a passive tracking system.
 

JBH22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
6,478
Likes
17,797
Besides the Big System smaller once are more important specially MANPAD, Something we dont manufacture and Russian sell many faulty once..


SA-24 The newest variant, which is a substantially improved variant with longer range, more sensitive seeker, improved resistance to latest countermeasures, and a heavier warhead.

Btw Stinger inspite of all its hype was not an accurate MANPAD same goes for Blowpipe, Russian MANPADS are better :)
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
I dont know about Stinger but Igla in IA service are good against Choppers also many malfunction..



SA-24 The newest variant, which is a substantially improved variant with longer range, more sensitive seeker, improved resistance to latest countermeasures, and a heavier warhead.

Btw Stinger inspite of all its hype was not an accurate MANPAD same goes for Blowpipe, Russian MANPADS are better :)
 

JBH22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
6,478
Likes
17,797
I dont know about Stinger but Igla in IA service are good against Choppers also many malfunction..
India uses the nearly obsolete SA-18 Igla designed in the Mid 80s and frankly how can we expect a 100% kill with shoddy equipment :)

Its like same story with the SA-8 obsolete equipment made in the 1960s and when it doesn't work we say its Russian
 

JBH22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
6,478
Likes
17,797

The need for indigenous defence production. To start with AKASH SAM is a good step, so does the work co-developing BARAK 8 time for powerful radars such as Kolchuga, and system such as S-300
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top