IAF's Swing Fleet aims to counter twin attack

[arnabmit]

Oh no! let me explain...

1) India has declared NFU. After that if India does nuclear FU, India will no longer remain a "Responsible Nuclear Power", but will be clubbed with the other "crazy warmongers" like NoKo & Pak

2) Nuclear response to a conventional aggression is just plain stupid, a stupidity reserved only for Pakis. As soon as India presses the button first, every other nuke power has justification to nuke India to maintain global peace against a nuclear aggressor (India)

3) India does not have enough nukes with enough yield to take on China, leave alone other nuke powers. Again, as soon as India nukes any other country, every other country will gang up on India.

4) Nukes are the best deterrent, but useless as strategic weapons. Nuke FU is the last desperate step of mutual assured destruction which is used when a side has already lost and is on the brink of annihilation.

If India does nuke FU, just stop, think and ask yourself... "What next?" and "What after that?"

If PRC and Pakistan attack India, and if India uses nukes on Pakistani military targets, India will be estranged? I don't think so, and I am willing to support anyone who decides to take that step.

 

[agentperry]

swing fleet concept can not at any circumstances be an answer to two front aggression by enemy. there is time of response by such fleet which would give enough room to enemy to act. moreover to increase readiness planes need to fly longer and farther thus wasting much of life just wandering and not acting.
though force has validated the concept but still i feel notorious enemy wont be acting in ideal manner and will try to fool IAF by launching multiple offensive, under that condition it could be catastrophic for the force to have fighters confused where to go and splitting and getting gunned down.

we need to assign planes to specific areas, this concept is not worthy as far as i think because two war front is with single enemy( pak-china will co ordinate on what ever they can and we should count them one). bad thing is that enemy is big with more fighter, with more arms and with high degree of replenishment facility.

 

[rock127]

Pakistan really knows it cannot go on the offensive against India, even if India was being attacked by China simultaneously. The 3 strike corps and as many as 5 pivot corps with integrated armor are exclusive to Pak, and cannot be deployed to the heights of LAC. Then we are to have as many as 64+114+22=200 attack helis for operations and over 200 armed helis, not to mention over 50,000 AT missiles. Any Pak armored thrust will be ground to a halt, if for nothing then due to lack of fuel.

Pakistan is desperately low on fuel reserves for warfighting. They hold about 6 days of fuel. Precise targetting of fuel dumps, and the effective Naval blocade of pakistan ports will drain the fighting capability in a day or two. After that...

Indian Navy have to repeat the 71.

 

[ladder]

swing fleet concept can not at any circumstances be an answer to two front aggression by enemy. there is time of response by such fleet which would give enough room to enemy to act. moreover to increase readiness planes need to fly longer and farther thus wasting much of life just wandering and not acting.
though force has validated the concept but still i feel notorious enemy wont be acting in ideal manner and will try to fool IAF by launching multiple offensive, under that condition it could be catastrophic for the force to have fighters confused where to go and splitting and getting gunned down.

we need to assign planes to specific areas, this concept is not worthy as far as i think because two war front is with single enemy( pak-china will co ordinate on what ever they can and we should count them one). bad thing is that enemy is big with more fighter, with more arms and with high degree of replenishment facility.

Swing fleet is a concept validated under compulsion and not under choice.
IAF has 34 sqd. now and will go down further to a level of 28-29 (2018-2019) before picking up.

As you pointed out it not the best answer but definitely a solution to address both western and northern borders with the very limited wings that we have.

 

[JBH22]

It would have been better to add Tejas now and continue ironing out the problems through different batches.
Benefits would have been to iron out production issues that will arise in the future and also master the technical glitches that IAF officers may face.

 

[pmaitra]

Oh no! let me explain...

1) India has declared NFU. After that if India does nuclear FU, India will no longer remain a "Responsible Nuclear Power", but will be clubbed with the other "crazy warmongers" like NoKo & Pak

2) Nuclear response to a conventional aggression is just plain stupid, a stupidity reserved only for Pakis. As soon as India presses the button first, every other nuke power has justification to nuke India to maintain global peace against a nuclear aggressor (India)

3) India does not have enough nukes with enough yield to take on China, leave alone other nuke powers. Again, as soon as India nukes any other country, every other country will gang up on India.

4) Nukes are the best deterrent, but useless as strategic weapons. Nuke FU is the last desperate step of mutual assured destruction which is used when a side has already lost and is on the brink of annihilation.

If India does nuke FU, just stop, think and ask yourself... "What next?" and "What after that?"

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.

 

[sayareakd]

If you are interested in fighting with China, then we should first work on not allowing Chinese to have upper hand, even before, we reach the front line, eg their long range cruise missile threats and long range rocket artillery to our concentration of troops, equipment and other infrastructure. Once this is achieved we can fight better, plus at the same time we should work on degrading the Chinese capability to reach and fight at the border.

They have lots of tunnels, bridges etc to reach our border, we can take them out, ofcourse they can also do the same on our side.

 

[ladder]

@pmaitra a credible factor in not changing the NFU and nuclear doctrine can be 'commitment trap'

Quoting from 'India's Nuclear Policy by Rajesh Rajagopalan'

By late 2002, New Delhi was feeling particularly frustrated with Pakistan's support for terror and India's inability to do much about it, as well as the failure of Operation Parakram (the military mobilization in 2001–2002). A muscular nuclear doctrine may have been seen as one way of responding to this frustration. On the other hand, it is unclear if the government considered the problems of what Scott Sagan had called the 'commitment trap'.13 Sagan had argued that making such a commitment might force decision-makers into either using nuclear weapons unnecessarily or create credibility problems that will end up diluting deterrence. This will happen because unless you carry out your threats, threats on which your deterrence depends might not be very credible in the future

http://www.nids.go.jp/english/event/symposium/pdf/2009/e_06.pdf page 101

If you want to use nukes in two side attack as a responsible nation you have to declare that clearly beforehand as deterrence.
But if you don't use it when such a situation arrives then you have loose credibility because your deterrence was dependent on the threat for the same.
So, lowering a nuke threshold has its own demerit.

Also, I think this term is valid for non nuclear situation also where we fix red lines.

 

[sayareakd]

nukes should come into play when all things started failing. Just test a (MT) thermo nuke, that would do the trick.

 

[pmaitra]

@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!

 

[sayareakd]

@pmaitra as they say intentions can change overnight and capabilities takes years, we can throw that NFU logic any second we want to, it is not that we need approval from Parliament of India and they will do it after voting.

So dont worry on this. Enemy also know what we can do (both of them know it very well).

In any surprise attack by China (lets assume that Pak is not involve right now) they are going to use long range and mid range cruise missiles on our infrastructure, regional HQ of military. China would want any war to end with India swiftly with victory on their side, plus if this can be done without using their soldiers, it would show their capability, as superpower to the world. Once this start Pak being opportunist will create nuisance against us, by massing their soldiers in border and try to occupy our soldiers at their border.

So we have to play it smart. If we are at all serious to take on China or worse case take on both of them at the same time.

If I am China i would use something like this and in what has happen in 1962, attack India and then withdraw, thereby showing that we are military superpower and at the same time retract to point where India cant attack. This just to play at the gallery. We on our part should give them bloody nose, so much so that they cant show their face to the world, more we are capable of doing this, more Chinese feel that it is not worth doing.

The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.

Sun Tzu quote.

 

[sayareakd]

I think we should have thread to discuss what are the major realistic threats from China and how to counter that.

 

[ladder]

First thing we have to consider is what will be the objective of aggression towards India.

Whether China will singularly build up the aggression and then Pakistan sensing opportunity jump in.
Whether China and Pakistan will coordinate the aggression.

The other thing to note is we have conventional superiority over Pakistan and will have it for near future.
But in nuclear space we have to remember that the threat that we face from Pakistan is actually China in proxy.
The technological advancement that we hold over Pakistan today is only for that time till they get that from China.

In the same manner China would not go nuclear against India where they enjoy conventional superiority.

Our first use will open the gates for both of them using nukes against India( one in retaliation and the other preemptive)
But we can poke Pakistan to test their red lines by massive thrust through Raj. or Punjab sector.
This indication can be obtained when NSA Menon clarified that even midget Nuke attack on advancing column even on Pakistani soil will be answered with massive retaliation.
The term can be and is generally called "Assured retaliation".

Coming back to China they would never want to grab more than they can hold.The geography is hindrance for them also.
In a two front attack on India the objective would be to minimize the area lost and prolong the time till we access our position in the western sector.
We have to deny them a swift thrust in and moving back after giving us a bloody nose.

The most dangerous situation would be when Pakistan attacks after a time lapse when we have committed troops in eastern sector.
So, whether or not Pakistan attacks they have already raised the stakes by not giving us opportunity in thinning man and material from western border.
That's why Army wants to create separate infrastructure for China border.( But for some mutton headed bureaucrat it is difficult to understand).

And this Swing doctrine is a stop gap measure to address both the threats with the limited wings we have.

Concluding what others have said there cannot have a fixed red line for use of Nukes. but will be dependent upon the evolving situation.
Till that time we can use threat of using as a deterrence.
And, the most important factor is for our political class to come to reality of the need use of nukes.
To, have to use them is a absolute shocker for them and the very mention of it makes them to develop weak knees.

My 2 cents.

 

[arnabmit]

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.

@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!

 

[sayareakd]

Any war with China or two front war wont last more then 3 weeks at max. At the end of first week alarm bells will ring in Asia and by the second week almost in all capitals of world. We have to hit real hard at China with all we got, this is the time to make or break India for ever, since we dont anything to lose therefore we should use full force and go on all out offensive, what ever it will cost s. It is easier said then done. But it will bring all glory to us and will take care of any future threats from China. Cease fire withh come but before that we should teach them bloody lesson and we should use our media for this.

 

[p2prada]

NFU is self-imposed. We can toss it the second it no longer makes sense. But until a war really happens, it is nice to go into world forums and declare we have NFU.

Peaceful nuclear explosion, NFU are just paper terms. The Pakistanis know it, the Chinese know it and the world knows it.

 

[ersakthivel]

It would have been better to add Tejas now and continue ironing out the problems through different batches.
Benefits would have been to iron out production issues that will arise in the future and also master the technical glitches that IAF officers may face.

I don't know how IAf can operate swing fleet with more than 10 squadrons down from their original sanctioned strength,
Only way to counter a massive two front air war is to have tejas in big numers .

Simply setting up a production line of just 8 tejas per year and dreaming of the FGFA which will come only around 2020 is foolish. they should set up tejas production line with atleast 20 to 30 planes per year capacity.

It will massively improve the air defence of the country. Because if war takes place before large scale induction of chinese J-20s ,i.e within a decade of today.

This 400 Tejas (40 mk-1 s +350 mk-2s) at around 40 million each armed with ASEA radar and Meteor missile is a very cost effective solution and in fact an insurance against war.

The country is ready to invest billions of dollars in RAFALE, submarine and carrier forces. But if we have to hold the Himalayan airspace in the immediate future before the arrival of FGFA and AMCA then around 400 no of tejas is the best cost effective solution and will deter china, because tejas has lesser RCS than each and every fighter that operates in PLAF and if it gets 120 km meteor missile it will equal the max missile range of any chinese fighter in PLAF.

Just hoping that 120 RAFALEs and 200 odd Su-30 MKI along with all the old fighters in IAF can do the job against chinese swarms is not realistic. As large scale induction of around 400 tejas will free up these two fighters for strike rolls with large payloads.

Because once chines complete the WS engine there is no way of knowing how many Su clones that china is producing. So we have to be certain about numbers.So in the immediate future if IAF hopes to reach 45 sqn strength large number of Tejas alone is the realistic cost effective choice.These large number of tejas used in combination with RAFALE and SUKHOIs are the only solution .

Upgraded MIg-2i Bisons and JAGs in 200 plus number is just of no use in air defence rolls in such a scenario.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Do Not Forget the Importance Of SAM..

Beside Fighter we need to invest on SAM, Lot more..

 

[sayareakd]

Kunal sir can we make Astra as SAM, remember they have tested the same with booster.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Do Not Forget the Importance Of SAM..

Beside Fighter we need to invest on SAM, Lot more..

To be honest, amongst the big ticket inductions, only the SAMs are being inducted with a sense of urgency. 3000 Akash SAM misslies are to be inducted into the IA (2000 missiles in 2 regiments) and the IAF(1000 missiles in 8 squadrons).

This alone is bigger by 15 times the inventory of PA/PAF (200 SPADA ).

Then we also have the 2 SA-6 regiments 1500 missiles) which will gradually be retired from service. Then comes the IAF point defence SAMs being aquired, i.e. The SPYDER SAM system ( 18 batteries in 108 launchers with 750 Python-5 and 750 Derby missiles).

Even considering these purchases, a total of 3000+1500=4500 short to medium range modern SAMs are being inducted as we speak. Add to that the SA-6, and a SAM force of 6000 missiles keeps watch over Indian HVTs.

And then again, we have an undisclosed number of AAMs (some sources claim 3000 BVR missiles) with the IAF. As such as many as 9000 anti air missiles could exist in the inventory of the IA and IAF alone.

Now, again several more SAM programs are under development/testing, the most prolific among them being the Astra & the LR-SAM( Barak-8 AF version).

What we really need over NE theatre is increased surveillence and higher density deployment of radars and electro-optical trackers. The mountainous even terrain necessitates a higher density of radars to effectively maintain watch over the region, and yet we have far fewer radar systems than on the border facing Pakistan, which for most of its length is plain.