Indian Air Force admits can’t fight China, Pak at the same time

[Nuvneet Kundu]

@LETHALFORCE As part of the same non-aligned movement, Nehru also interfered in the Suez crisis against the invaders (France, Israel) and in favor of the US led coalition of pro-Egypt parties. Non-aligned was the best way to prevent us from being completely sucked into the cold war battle. Compare that to the fate of nations that actively took sides during cold war (Vietnam, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Cuba). We took some hits from proxy wars fought in our vicinity (Sri lanka, Bangladesh) but managed to keep the threat from offloading on our shores in a major way. All in all, it was a good strategy. It does not mean that Nehru wasn't an idiot

 

[garg_bharat]

Let us not call Nehru an idiot.

Nehru was sold on the socialist utopia, but he was not unique. This was the flavour of the day.

NAM's failure was pre-destined as it was a grouping of weak States. There was no significant technology or military power in this group to keep it together.

Whatever happened, India survived in one piece, which was critical for first 30 years.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

I might not fully agree with you
But yes. Space command should be independent, should not be part of air force
Air force should have air superiority, Stealth EW air domination) even the Navy should have a corresponding group but both Sea and shore based

Air transport: and air logistics should be handled by Air force

Deep strike should be handled by Air force using their bases and by Navy using their bases

CAS should be handled by each force indepedently and co-ordinating, for example
Army handles CAS using its choppers
Air force supports air force using its choppers and planes (we dont have CAS plane but can use Jaguars and Hawk)
Navy ussd its assets to support naval landing and also supported by air force .

My rationale was that it creates unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and there is a risk of leakage of sensitive data. There is never going to be a case where the airforce is going to undertake a deep strike mission as an isolated event where no other branch of the military participates. It's always going to be a joint op. In that case, the regional army headquarter in charge of the theater will have to send formal requests to the regional IAF base requesting air assets, which will require them to reveal their battle plans, and time of attack and the very fact that there is going to be an attack. Basically, if you want to engage the enemy you end up creating a massive bureaucratic footprint with the to and fro communications and there is a risk that if there are moles, then the enemy might get advance notice.

If the forward operating air bases, even though managed by the IAF, are handed over to the army command, they could use them in an integrated battle plan without too much communication to and fro. We already have such an arrangement in Andaman and Nicobar where there is a joint chief of staffs for army, navy and airforce with all assets under his command.

 

[Superdefender]

Guys, I am thinking why not add another new branch in the Armed Forces. We have Army, Navy & Air Force as major branch. New branch - Cyber Strike/Defence Corps (CSDC). It will take care of all cyber warfare, protect all online threats, keep monitoring 24x7, will hack in large no. and make enemy defence sites non-operable, have its own Supercomputers (quadrillion FLOPS capabilities). What do you say?

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

Guys, I am thinking why not add another new branch in the Armed Forces. We have Army, Navy & Air Force as major branch. New branch - Cyber Strike/Defence Corps (CSDC). It will take care of all cyber warfare, protect all online threats, keep monitoring 24x7, will hack in large no. and make enemy defence sites non-operable, have its own Supercomputers (quadrillion FLOPS capabilities). What do you say?

Parrikar inaugurated a cyber command just recently. I'd seen pictures of him doing the traditional Indian opening ceremony. I am unable to find that news now because I forgot the acronym, but I found these articles relevant to the issue :

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=131811

The Defence Minister Shri Manohar Parrikar has stressed the need to enhance the Information, Communications, Technology, Electronics and Cyber (ICTEC) infrastructure capabilities of the Indian Army to ensure protection from disruptive cyber-attacks and manipulations.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...tri-Service-commands/articleshow/48550424.cms

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/repor...ce-to-combat-espionage-threats-online-1950997

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...commands-for-space,-cyber-and-covert-ops.html

 

[Superdefender]

@Navneet Kundu, no I mean my imaginary CSDC will be on par with three major forces in status and power (if that's even possible)!! What Mr. Parikar started last month was a small group to handle hacking and online theft, etc? CSDC will perform all things possible in cyber warfare. In a full war, it can bring down enemy to its knee very easily. May be it's just my fantacy.....

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

@Navneet Kundu, no I mean my imaginary CSDC will be on par with three major forces in status and power (if that's even possible)!! What Mr. Parikar started last month was a small group to handle hacking and online theft, etc? CSDC will perform all things possible in cyber warfare. In a full war, it can bring down enemy to its knee very easily. May be it's just my fantacy.....

That institution does exactly that, it's mentioned in one of the news articles I have linked below the photos. It deals with special forces comms, centralized naval comms infrastructure, intel gathering, storing, and offensive cyber warfare.

 

[garg_bharat]

Something interesting, which shows deep collusion between Pakistan and Uncle:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden

 

[garg_bharat]

IAF can live without Rafale, but it still needs to induct new fighters, at least 30 per year. Some deficiency will be rectified by upgrades. A strong focus is needed on air defence, where a large number of new SAM systems are needed. I strongly believe if money is tight, then preference should be given to SAM batteries.

 

[Razor]

The IAF needs a dressing down. Our air assets should be split into four groups :

• Air superiority group (stealth, electronic warfare, air domination)
• Aerospace warfare group (exo-atmospheric assets like satellites, high altitude surveillance planes, strategic bombers)
• Deep strike group (fighter-bomber aircraft, anti-radiation missile carriers)
• Close air-support group (short range interceptors, multirole ground attack aircraft)

Give the first one to IAF, give the second one to a separate Space Command, third one to Navy, fourth one to Army. There is no need for IAF to have all the monopoly on these expensive toys which they are mismanaging.

Wow, this is very similar to what I was thinking a few months back.
We had a small discussion on the chit chat thread about this. Check it out from pg 497 to 499. Starting at post #9936
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/chit-chat-thread.4046/page-497

 

[no smoking]

You got to ask them how the "help" they got from the US and you Chinese actually helped them in last 60+ years.

No need to.
They are still asking the "help" from US and China even today, so it means, from their point of view, we are really helpful.

 

[smestarz]

My rationale was that it creates unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and there is a risk of leakage of sensitive data. There is never going to be a case where the airforce is going to undertake a deep strike mission as an isolated event where no other branch of the military participates. It's always going to be a joint op. In that case, the regional army headquarter in charge of the theater will have to send formal requests to the regional IAF base requesting air assets, which will require them to reveal their battle plans, and time of attack and the very fact that there is going to be an attack. Basically, if you want to engage the enemy you end up creating a massive bureaucratic footprint with the to and fro communications and there is a risk that if there are moles, then the enemy might get advance notice.

If the forward operating air bases, even though managed by the IAF, are handed over to the army command, they could use them in an integrated battle plan without too much communication to and fro. We already have such an arrangement in Andaman and Nicobar where there is a joint chief of staffs for army, navy and airforce with all assets under his command.

Bureaucratic hurdles will be there because the Bureaucrats are the one actually doing the work, they are fully employed. Now you can have secure system with lot of bureaucratic hurdles so that things are "clear" but then it does cause delays. Then there is the one with less bureaucratic hurdles which means no checks and then it creates an opportunity for corruption. Even in first case corruption is there, but the idea is to ensure that corruption is not there and the best decision is made.

For example the Rafale deal, since IAF liked Rafale (before they even tested it) they could have told GoI that they want Rafale (like they are doing now) end of the story. But on other hand doing RFP etc IAF and India came to test the best planes available for India and then selecting (even by manipulation) the "lowest bidder"
Like you can see Rafale fanboys saying that Rafale is still the lowest priced plane even when the apparent cost seems too exhorbitant. So, given the advantage of hindsight, we can always have such ideas, but then bureaucratic checks are required because we are not a small country like France or Switzerland, and we have population that can rival Europe.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

Bureaucratic hurdles will be there because the Bureaucrats are the one actually doing the work, they are fully employed. Now you can have secure system with lot of bureaucratic hurdles so that things are "clear" but then it does cause delays. Then there is the one with less bureaucratic hurdles which means no checks and then it creates an opportunity for corruption. Even in first case corruption is there, but the idea is to ensure that corruption is not there and the best decision is made.

For example the Rafale deal, since IAF liked Rafale (before they even tested it) they could have told GoI that they want Rafale (like they are doing now) end of the story. But on other hand doing RFP etc IAF and India came to test the best planes available for India and then selecting (even by manipulation) the "lowest bidder"
Like you can see Rafale fanboys saying that Rafale is still the lowest priced plane even when the apparent cost seems too exhorbitant. So, given the advantage of hindsight, we can always have such ideas, but then bureaucratic checks are required because we are not a small country like France or Switzerland, and we have population that can rival Europe.

Your views are spot on. I agree with it. My usage of the word bureaucratic was in the context of 'too many chefs spoil the soup'. I guess it was poor choice of words on my part, I shouldn't have used the word 'bureaucracy'. What I mean to say is, we need a joint chief of staffs like post, at least in forward operating areas like Pathankot. It's okay if your other air assets are parked in central India somewhere. There should be one joint command for Pakistan and China specific operations each. This is not for full fledged war but for theater level engagements which can be used as a tool for punitive actions in the event of a terror strike. We should aim for quick, short, integrated attacks skirmishes that inflict massive damage in a small time. Just the knowledge of presence of such integrated groups will be a deterrence for enemies. Currently they don't think twice before poking us, because they think "what is India going to do? impose a full scale war on us? Pff"

 

[garg_bharat]

Pakistan is already paying the price for its policy. Terrorism and insecurity is widespread in Pakistan today. Do not assume that Pakistan is some heaven for Muslims.

China will also face its day. Patience is better on the part of India. While it seems weakness, you have to remember that modern wars have rarely given benefit to warring nations.

 

[tharun]

Bring those 40 Mig-29's from navy and put it in forward bases............

 

[LETHALFORCE]

If China and pak both go to war with India . Do they think there won't be a payback from India in the future? China is going to start a long economic decline where money for military will be difficult in the future. Tpp was created to lock China (and India)
out of large chunk of world trade.

 

[Superdefender]

Both of them will not attack! This is a different world with changed times.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Both of them will not attack! This is a different world with changed times.

There has never been stability in South Asia any chance of stability and war talk start. This region needs peace and stability to prosper. With EU in chaos and China/brazil/Russia in tater this region is one of the few growth engines in the global economy.
We all share same genetics ,history and culture. Most of the hatred and division was brought by invaders.

 

[rohit b3]

People who say No to Rafale, looking for "indiginisation", but then want Mig 35/ F-18 / Gripen ..bla..bla shit - LOL.

 

[garg_bharat]

Gripen is being offered with full TOT and full local production. No comparison with Rafale.
Mig-35 is not a serious contender.
American planes are always possible, but any significant TOT is unlikely.

The advantage with Gripen is that it will help in maturing the LCA.

Gripen initial cost and operating expenses are much lower than Rafale.