National Security Architecture Reforms & Theatre Commands : Discussions

randomradio said:
If the PLAAF is able to relocate 200 jets to Pak, then it's likely that they are using even more from their side. So I don't see the point of relocating our own jets in such a situation. But, to answer your question, if the ADC controls most of the fighter jets, then it's naturally possible to relocate them.

One nation, one command should be able to deal with this as long as the assets are assigned to it.
Click to expand...

Both 1971 and Kargil victories were
Possible due to IAF

CDS is wrong to say IAF is a supporting
Arm

By the way who will decide if a Particular target beyond the Range of Rocket Artillery , needs to be neutralised using Missiles or Air power

I feel that since IAF got a lot of limelight
And Media coverage after BALAKOT
these Army generals are getting frustrated
 
A lot of you guys are mistaking the wood for the trees. The AF in any armed forces set up is a supporting arm but it's role in modern warfare isn't limited to just that.

Let's not forget that irrespective of all the planes an AF of a nation shoots down or the total air superiority it manages to achieve, it's boots on the ground that finally helps you win the war. The same true of the Navy, any Navy. This was as true 2000 yrs ago & before as it is today. The primacy & the pecking order or the hierarchy of a particular arm of the armed force is then decided in it's achieving total victory or in it's coming to terms in it's favour with the enemy on primarily it's own strength with adequate support, which goes without saying, is what the IAF & IN is expected to be extending the IA .

This then is at the heart of what's preventing Jointness in operations between our armed forces. The IN seems to have their command, the IA it's own. The only force left out is the IAF. All that talk of lack of assets to be distributed among various commands was just that - a lot of talk with some substance .

Behind it was the massive insecurity on the part of the IAF which sought to be assuaged but given the recent exchanges , wasn't. Arguably it's this intransigence in spite of having allocated the ADC to the IAF that led to the outburst on the part of the CDS - a most uncharacteristic move on the part of a veteran armed service head of staff which can be seen as extreme frustration manifesting itself. The resolution has now become a political call.

Let's examine the concept of the ADC itself in the US where this concept was first operationalized . It may have begun with the twin intention of assuaging the USAF as well as creation of a new command which was a genuine requirement of it's time but very rapidly it became clear to everyone concerned that the concept was flawed & that such ADC assets were put to better use under the respective theatre commanders. Eventually as the forces got used to the concept of Jointness, this was duly accomplished with USAF Generals being duly accommodated within the hierarchy even heading such commands.

This is precisely what our TCs & CDS / MoD hope to accomplish in due course of time whenever that time comes. The only glitch is most nations carried out such major restructuring exercises during peace time whereas we're in the midst of a crisis. Put in dummy terms aka terms Hydra understands , if in due course of time hostilities break out & this experiment of the armed forces goes awry principally due to a lack of co ordination & / or time , there'd be a heavy price to pay by the nation.
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
Both 1971 and Kargil victories were
Possible due to IAF

CDS is wrong to say IAF is a supporting
Arm

By the way who will decide if a Particular target beyond the Range of Rocket Artillery , needs to be neutralised using Missiles or Air power

I feel that since IAF got a lot of limelight
And Media coverage after BALAKOT
these Army generals are getting frustrated
Click to expand...

What the IAF did in Kargil is what the CDS is referring to.

And what the IAF did in Balakot is what the army wants the IAF to do.

What the IAF wants to do is something else entirely, one of which is sending the enemy back to the stone age by destroying its infrastructure. But this would mean instead of killing enemy soldiers and making things easier for the IA, the IAF will be using their resources for something else. So the IAF needs to find the balance between the two.

While the army is a tactical asset, the air force is a strategic asset. The army's thinking is based on the present whereas the air force's thinking is based on the future. For example, the army wants to capture a hill or take a bridge for immediate gains, whereas the air force wants to make sure you do not have power for the next 10 years or they want to destroy an R&D facility so you don't churn out more IP etc.

While the IAF's mission is important, they also need to make sure that the army is sufficiently supported during war. Otoh, through theaterisation, the army is making sure that some assets are guaranteed for their use because the IAF is much more interested in doing everything else but supporting the army.

The IAF has a history of denying support to the army. For example, throughout our history, they did not make any technological investment into providing CAS in mountains. When support was asked for during Kargil War, only the Mirages were up for the task but were used for much more important missions and the attack helicopters were insufficient. Hence the need for the army to push for their own air assets that would suit their needs. This problem is completely of IAF's own making.

Similarly the IA needs guaranteed CAS. They have 4 SCs now, which means they need 4 fighter squadrons dedicated to CAS. Within a decade, we may get 5 SCs, hence 5 squadrons. Giving the army control over some air assets assures them of air support and not leave them to the whims and fancies of an air force commander who may not necessarily understand the ground situation. This will leave the air force to achieve its core mission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STEPHEN COHEN
randomradio said:
What the IAF did in Kargil is what the CDS is referring to.

And what the IAF did in Balakot is what the army wants the IAF to do.

What the IAF wants to do is something else entirely, one of which is sending the enemy back to the stone age by destroying its infrastructure. But this would mean instead of killing enemy soldiers and making things easier for the IA, the IAF will be using their resources for something else. So the IAF needs to find the balance between the two.

While the army is a tactical asset, the air force is a strategic asset. The army's thinking is based on the present whereas the air force's thinking is based on the future. For example, the army wants to capture a hill or take a bridge for immediate gains, whereas the air force wants to make sure you do not have power for the next 10 years or they want to destroy an R&D facility so you don't churn out more IP etc.

While the IAF's mission is important, they also need to make sure that the army is sufficiently supported during war. Otoh, through theaterisation, the army is making sure that some assets are guaranteed for their use because the IAF is much more interested in doing everything else but supporting the army.

The IAF has a history of denying support to the army. For example, throughout our history, they did not make any technological investment into providing CAS in mountains. When support was asked for during Kargil War, only the Mirages were up for the task but were used for much more important missions and the attack helicopters were insufficient. Hence the need for the army to push for their own air assets that would suit their needs. This problem is completely of IAF's own making.

Similarly the IA needs guaranteed CAS. They have 4 SCs now, which means they need 4 fighter squadrons dedicated to CAS. Within a decade, we may get 5 SCs, hence 5 squadrons. Giving the army control over some air assets assures them of air support and not leave them to the whims and fancies of an air force commander who may not necessarily understand the ground situation. This will leave the air force to achieve its core mission.
Click to expand...

Given the Number of Available Infantry , Helicopters , Artillery , Armour and Missiles under the control of the Army at present or in the near future , the Army can hold its own against the enemies

IAF must be free to Seek and Destroy
as many Enemy planes as it can

Hit First and Hit hard is the only option in a Two front war

Assuming a Two Front Air War , IAF will
Need More Resources for Air Support to the Army
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
Given the Number of Available Infantry , Helicopters , Artillery , Armour and Missiles under the control of the Army at present or in the near future , the Army can hold its own against the enemies

IAF must be free to Seek and Destroy
as many Enemy planes as it can

Hit First and Hit hard is the only option in a Two front war

Assuming a Two Front Air War , IAF will
Need More Resources for Air Support to the Army
Click to expand...

Sure. We have only 30 squadrons out of the necessary 42. But the army is in worse shape.

While the IAF's numbers have fallen, the capability increase has been much bigger than when they last had 42 squadrons. However the IA's condition hasn't changed a lot since the Kargil War. In the last two decades, the only things that have come in enough numbers are the T-90 and the INSAS rifle. That's how bad it has been for them.
 
Hydra said:
Learn from your enemy, with 1/7th of our economy they successfully stop us from doing a free run over them. Their airforce is the spear head of their defense.
Click to expand...

The Paksitanis are being protected by the West.

They don't want India to solve its neighbourhood problems and then become a major thorn in their side in the future.

Had it not been for the US, Pakistan would have ceased to exist back in the mid 80s.
 
randomradio said:
The Paksitanis are being protected by the West.

They don't want India to solve its neighbourhood problems and then become a major thorn in their side in the future.

Had it not been for the US, Pakistan would have ceased to exist back in the mid 80s.
Click to expand...
Thats a different topic all together. Any way they have given more importance to their airforce than anything and uts working too.
 
randomradio said:
Yes, but the PLAGF's capabilities have risen a lot in comparison to the IA's.
Click to expand...
The person like Bipin is responsible for modernisation of army, he & people like him cannot escape from the responsibility of not upgrading their artillery segment (a support to army as per his own words), now to compensate his incompetency he is grabbing the capability developed by airforce and wants to keep. Under IA. Such a pity.
Bipin's action reminds me of few pupils in university, who will be a loud mouth during entire accademic year but when exams arrives, he will borrow some note book prepared by some one else for photo copy aka xeroxing, after doing that these guys immediately give back that notes to him.

Guy asking navy to provide their air assets to IAF, and making IAF a support force for army.
 
jetray said:
Unless we fight a challenging war these ppl will keep playing games to protect their own turf and live in ancient age. Probably Army chief should answer why we used IAF for balakot operation instead of calling in army's artillery or ground forces. Luckily he dint go any further and say airforce is only for transportation.
Click to expand...
They dont, Kargil war has taught us a lesson. MMRCA concept is actually the baby of that lesson, its been 22 years, where is mmrca? Insted of inducting winning aircraft, we had kick started MMRCA2.
And in pre mughal era, we were over runn by enemies many times, when ever they come they looted our wealth,looted our temples, gang raped our women,killed our men etc. You see the irony, instead of reinforcing defence & making a bond between us,we keep on storing wealth in temples.
Similar things were happening now too, now no longer money & wealth is keeping in temples. But again ignoring our defence. Historically we had a habit of ignoring lessons and living in ignorance.
 
Hydra said:
They dont, Kargil war has taught us a lesson. MMRCA concept is actually the baby of that lesson, its been 22 years, where is mmrca? Insted of inducting winning aircraft, we had kick started MMRCA2.
And in pre mughal era, we were over runn by enemies many times, when ever they come they looted our wealth,looted our temples, gang raped our women,killed our men etc. You see the irony, instead of reinforcing defence & making a bond between us,we keep on storing wealth in temples.
Similar things were happening now too, now no longer money & wealth is keeping in temples. But again ignoring our defence. Historically we had a habit of ignoring lessons and living in ignorance.
Click to expand...
yup there is good reason for 1000 years of history we kept seeing invasions and learnt nothing from it. It is seemly ingrained in our culture & attitude. We are ppl self obsessed with ourselves and so called leaders are petty & short sighted who cant look beyond their turf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra
jetray said:
Unless we fight a challenging war these ppl will keep playing games to protect their own turf and live in ancient age. Probably Army chief should answer why we used IAF for balakot operation instead of calling in army's artillery or ground forces. Luckily he dint go any further and say airforce is only for transportation.
Click to expand...
1962 failed us to teach a lesson. Nothing can now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetray and Hydra
Army sees IAF as an support force while the IAF disagrees to it. There is a simple solution to it. Transfer entire attack helicopter, transport helicopters and allow IA to have it's own strike UAV force. Those are the primary things IA depends on IAF for support.

While Air Superiority remains the primary task of IAF. Problem solved.
 
m.rediff.com

David Devadas: Why the Army Needs the IAF!

In the early part of the Kargil operations, the army opted to more or less go it alone, sacrificing large numbers of men and officers in almost superhuman struggles against an enemy on higher ground. Some generals seem to think their predecessors would have succeeded better if they had had air...
m.rediff.com m.rediff.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom