Bharat Rakshak

Another article from Strategypage regarding the downing of F-117.I know the site is illegal on BRF but it might be relevant to our current discussion.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/ ... 51121.aspx

Does anyone know what happened to this Zoltan dude ? In any country he would be a war hero and most probably a good tactician.

From the articles above I was able to come to the following conclusions for neutralizing stealth.

1.The air defence as well as the fighter units need to extremely innovative,resourceful and adaptive in order to devise stealth defeating solutions.The officers have to be enterprising enough to take initiative.

2.The preparations will have to be made well in advance.If we try to improvise once the war starts then we will have extremely limited success.

3.Enemy airfield surveilance is going to be very important.If you have the knowledge of planes taking off then you can estimate the time when that plane will ingress inside your territory with some accuracy.As I said earlier except B-2 all other stealth aircraft are somewhat limited in range and hence cannot to experiment with their routes to a large extent.Therefore we can be reasonably effective in predicting their routes if we make some effort.Some kind of Predictive Algorithm can also be developed for this purpose.

4.The air defence units including the radars and SAMs have to be mobile.I doubt if static targets would be of much use.

5.Every effort should be made to intercept enemy communications both during peacetime as well as wartime.Lots of information could be gleaned in this way.

All the above objectives cannot be achieved by air defence units alone.They will require cooperation from Intelligence units and special forces in order to achieve some of them.Hence coordination and communication among all the participating agencies has to be smooth.

He is now running a bakery.He is a war hero.Infact we should hire him as a consultant with matters pertaining to stealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Dani

In 70s, any attack happens beyond the battlefield we know by default it is from aircraft. Things started changing with the induction of Ballistic missile in our neighbourhood. To detect the ballistic missile, we started investing & procuring techs from 90s as well as in previous decade and to this decade. When there was low level intrusion threat, we installed Aerostats in our southern sea shore to monitor such movements. Similarly we must invest in stealth detecting and neutralizing tech in the future and develop tactics for the same.

Say the stealth aircraft are after targets, CAP can be maintained by IAF with the UCAV or UAVs forming the outer ring, the inner ring by manned aircraft and the innermost by the mobile SAM system

UCAVs are small in size carry AAMs and an IRST enslaved to the manned fighters flying the inner ring

these UCAVs once they pick up the stealth aircraft or the missile plumes from them on IRST can tail them or NCW should allow for the manned fighters or the SAM system to target the stealth aircraft

the other option is varying the radar frequencies using software controlled antennas, since the stealth airframe material is not optimized across the majority of the EM spectrum. Again pushing these antennas into the civilian realm by way of standardization will help in latent capacity

forcing the stealth aircraft to use their radars so ESM can detect it far enough

Create a AWACS version for IRST, for starters they could have huge telescope optics say in the nose of the AN-32 looking for infra red sources, the optics should allow focus at long distances while aircraft altitude should allow for wide field horizon observation

Reading up the news, recently Saraswat was saying that 2 new engines are in development, which I think are

1) Turbofan for the subsonic cruise missile

2) Another engine for a loitering missile

so it could be the engine from 2) or the Kaveri for our own UCAV, being an unmanned platform it lends itself to a lot of experimentation which is where we can try out the VTOL version as well

what is the possible use of a VTOL UCAV? here are some

Can be stationed close to the borders without the need for established airbases. Even if airbases are 100km or 500km from border they can be targeted. These helipad sized places can be replenished with munitions and fuel using helis

if IA needs air support it could basically call these dispersed units to respond and need not rely on IAF all the time, these could be part of Army aviation corps.

Same goes for special forces behind enemy lines, they could call for air support without worrying too much about enemy's air defenses or armor. The heavy machine gun or the Gsh cannon on the VTOL UCAV can provide suppressing fire when needed

Just defence? No offence?



I can find no serious objection to this idea. But there are a couple of things. The India-China border is mostly not tank country. But if the Chinese were to bring in vehicles or even motorcycle borne troops in the area - these assets would certainly be useful. The other think is that they require air superiority, and it would be ideal if we could ensure air dominance by design or by accident.

This is primarily useful in open ground. Even in forested areas it could be worthless and in the mountains it may be totally useless, with simple sangars and ManPads serving as deterrent.

The main argument is "why 30%?" At the most such troops can carry with them supplies for a couple of days and maybe a few jeeps with recoilless guns. Assume they take an area of enemy country with such an airborne assault. Who would supply them with food, ammunition and fuel? They would be very vulnerable to counterattack using artillery or MBRLs, or even tanks. What support could be given? Air supply can only go so far and unless the people at the back can "catch up" and create a supply line to the troops who have been taken forward by air, those troops will be very vulnerable to being cut off and decimated. So an investment in ability to transport will need the ability to transport very large volumes. Air supply with even heavy helos does not cut it IMO as I have indicated below. And supply by heavy transports requires air strips/safe drop zones. Having 30% airborne troops as "teeth" is fine, but with a weak tail they will be finished in short order. How will the tail be established if the terrain is unsuitable for adequate supply? If all this can't be ensured having the ability to move 30% of troops by air will be unutilized



You can place guns but you will need to supply them though bad weather, high winds, and at night, when the enemy will attack, in the highest mountains in the world where no country other than India (and maybe China and Pakitan) has the experience of fighting. Continuous air supply with such assets needs absolute air dominance but even that is not enough. Unless we have a manufacturing line to churn these out by the dozen, and huge, redundant trained manpower - attrition from ground fire after just a few weeks of war will make these assets very very precious. That means that we must have a very specific and time limited plan. In the absence of a plan that envisages whether these assets are going to be used in an offensive or for defence, how and where, - "just having them for whatever purpose" will ensure that they are not used appropriately - just like the Air Force was not used at all in 1962.



I will not argue with this although I disagree. There is no alternative to jointness. The absence of jointness reflected very ve-ry badly in the conduct of war operations by Pakistan in 1965, 1971 and 1999



Without close coordination between Army and Air Force the Air Force cannot ensure complete Air Dominance over every area all the time. The Air Force has to know exactly where its assets are needed most to be present there at that time. And the Air Force will have to perform the task of interdiction of enemy supply lines and that means knowing exactly which supply lines are the most dangerous lines for the army and require priority. So even if the Air force gives up its task of CAS to the army - it will still require to give air cover for army action as well as interdiction.

A lot of the hardware and tactics we are talking about here are lifted straight from American experience in WW2 and Vietnam, and the expected European theater in the cold war. There is no guarantee that China will allow India to fight a war on these "expected terms"

Expect attacks on satellites to disrupt all Air Force and army communications at the start of conflict. Expect ballistic missile attacks on all forward air bases. Expect massive MBRL/artillery assaults on frontline positions and multiple thrusts along a very broad front so that our assets are very badly stretched. These assaults will be equipped with intense anti-aircraft fire to take down helicopters and transport aircraft as well as fighters.

It would be a grave error to talk of fighting China using cold war era tactics from Europe tactics or Vietnam ideas for hardware Both offence and defence have to come up with absolutely new and innovative ideas that will blind a Chinese assault, cut their supply lines and starve them where they attack while making deep inroads into their territory with intense air and ground assaults. Using electronic assets, missiles. MBRLs, artillery and special forces in small numbers would be part of the game plan. But jamming comm and blinding satellites would be essential apart from symbolic blows like taking out sea assets 3000 km from the scene of action. And there should be no question of mere "defence". it has to be offence so the war is fought on what was the other guys territory.

JMT

I am not sure if this is the right thread for this , but to counter an amoured counter attack of pakistan mainly in punjab and rajasthan borders, we can have squads of high mobility hit and run troops with motorcross bikes like KX 500. these bikes can do around 70 mph in dirt tracks. Guerrilla style hit and run jobs with ATGM's at night times. These high mobility ground troops can be very usefull for also taking out forward radar installation and laser designating arty fire.

sounds a little mad manx types.. but might be surprisingly effective, what do you guys think??

^^^ Spare a thought for the guy on the bike in flesh and blood, in front of an armoured attack. I would not like any of my brothers to be in that situation. They might achieve some strikes but most of them won't return back to camp that night.

Creeping up on a armored convoy at night on sand dunes .. 25 special forces soldiers hidden in different locations ... getting the first shot.. and then getting out on dirt bikes in different directions.... it will be like fighting against ghosts in the night... motorcycles have been used widely in the past conflicts in europe and africa.. just a thought

I do not disagree with you.This kind of attack from different directions defines what is known as swarm tactics.Although instead of bikes I would suggest all terrain vehicles and 4 x 4s.

And yes special forces already practice such kinds of scenarios.I am sure most of us would have seen images of paracommandos riding on jeeps with Milan ATGM mounted.

Infact every special forces unit worth its salt employs 4x4s which can be adapted for anti armor operations using ATGMs.

An innovative thought - even if it is not used exactly as you have stated. The Chinese have already shown us that motorbikes are a valid tool in Aksai Chin.

But your idea caused a sudden "Aha" moment for me.

Humans have spent centuries devising weapons for use on open plains, but human populations have moved from being predominantly rural to predominantly urban - and an important aspect of warfare is the urban arena. About 80% of the US population lives in cities. When I was a student a few decades ago only 20% of Indian were urban, It's 40% now - or 400 million.

If you read the Mogadishu story - one of the biggest hurdles was that a Humvee got stuck in the narrow lanes of Mogadishu. Moving to India - you find that it is far easier to travel around narrow lanes with sand and construction debris and hawkers and parked vehicles in a Maruti 800 than in Tata Sumo. That is why autorickshaws do so well in India.

Autorickshaws turn within their own radius and go in roads that are just 1.5 meters wide. and two armed men in the back with guns can technically give covering over almost 360 degrees. The technology is completely local and mass manufacture has been reality for decades. An armored autorickshaw - designed to take 7.72 mm hits could be used to police narrow streets in riot hit areas or entering and negotiating narrow lanes that even jeeps cannot enter leave alone APCs. This may be useful in reclaiming Paki towns and villages at some future date?

Except that close quarters battles are the realm of Infantry units, supporting stand-off armor on elevated positions near the urban areas, indirect tube artillery and air support (drones, helicopter gunships and precision fixed wing attacks). You don't want to involve vehicles of any kind unless absolutely necessary in these environments except maybe for medevac situations, bomb disposal etc

If you ever encounter an urban area in your maneuvering thrust into enemy territory, it will have to be isolated and bypassed. Not entered but rather put under siege.

Fact is, infantry lines reduce dramatically inside urban areas. What accounts for for a Battalion wide coverage in the open plains becomes equal to Brigade level requirement inside urban areas.

Entering these sectors are totally opposite to the very momentum of battle and must be reserved for strategic leverage later.

Seal off the urban areas and use psychological warfare tactics on them. Unless your aim is territory control on vanquished lands (with its vanquished military taking to the hills and urban areas...), attempting to redesign your combat focus around urban warfare would be unfortunate.

thanks shiv vivek and darshan ,

The reason why I think high powered dirt bikes would be favorable in desert is because of the speed they can gather on sand is very high and give a very small target compared to a jeep or an hummer. Also the directional change on a motorcycle can be much more drastic as compared to four wheeled or tracked vehicle.

lets assume a unit of say 25 tanks, 20 APC's and 15 support vehicles on a offensive route. 35 special forces men setting up an ambush point on the sand dunes. each firing 2-3 rounds of ATGM's and rapidly escaping with dirt bikes. with co ordinated limited arty cover fire.

or say there is a tank battle in the sand dunes, will staggered motorcyles with ATMS be able to outflank enemy tanks to gain the upper hand?

These would have to be quad bikes or dune buggies. Normal dirt bikes are fine in dirt but may not be able to handle sand as these can slip easily, specially with a pillion rider who is holding a launcher as well. You need a very experienced rider to be able to ride fast and hard in sand on two wheels.

Here are some examples -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Patrol_Vehicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Strike_Vehicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_buggy

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Israel_ ... m_999.html


Interesting .. would it be viable in the indian context ? .. in india a low intensity warfare is more likely... how can this be adapted to provide secure and reliable information to its citizens and prevent a mass hysteria or say a rumor in times of war ? and terror attacks .. wonder why nobody thought about this in India

"It is jointly developed with the country's leading cellular companies, and is designated to provide instantaneous warning to hundreds of thousands of people via text messages" .. this could be targeted to deliver to select population.

Valid, pertinent question in the Libya thread

^^^

Let's take one thing at a time.

First the navy. It is clear that surface ships have limited utility against a modern enemy. Aircraft carriers are basically floating targets.

The logical thing would be to go easy on the aircraft carriers etc, but develop a force of at least 100 submarines.

Has there been any reflection on this in the navy?

Next issue: Air Defenses.

An air defense system has three components: Radar illuminators, radar receivers and interceptor missiles.


Solution:

(1) It is only the illuminators that are particularly vulnerable to anti-radiation munitions. So the three components of the system should be kept physically separated.

(2) deploy hundreds or even thousands of mobile illuminators instead of a few fixed ones. Mass produce to keep the costs low. Each illuminator could be mounted on a small pick-up truck, for example. Move the illuminators around frequently, especially in a war situation.

(3) Also deploy decoy illuminators to waste enemy munitions.

(4) Can AESA technology be used in the illuminators for better efficiency?

(5) The illuminators should do frequency hopping in a random manner. Each burst on a particular frequency could be for say 10 milliseconds. This may prevent enemy anti-radiation munitions from locking on. The sequence of jumps would be secret but known to the radar receivers.

(6) Each radar receiver should be capable of receiving reflections from the 10 nearest illuminators, say. Even if a few are knocked out, the system should still be functional.

A third issue: GPS guided munitions:

It is clear that there is an urgent need for anti-satellite systems to take out GPS and reconnaissance satellites.

Further, the anti-sat rockets should preferably be submarine-launched, for better survivability.

Also, it is possible to jam GPS signals, but GPS signals come in two flavours - the civilian and the military. I am not sure what the feasibility of jamming the military-grade GPS signals is.

AESA radars have a fairly narrow beam, with small side-lobes. This makes them harder to target by anti-radiation munitions. Combining with random frequency hopping will make an AESA illuminator fairly hard to take out.

Another issue is taking out surface ships and AWACS.

There was an anti-AWACS missile called K-100 Novator being developed by DRDO in collaboration with the Russians. No news of that. Not sure what we have in our inventory now.

As regards anti-ship missiles, submarine launch and air-launch capability is critical. Brahmos air-launch has been stalled by the Russians. India will need to develop its own capability ASAP. Brahmos air-launch could perhaps be replaced by a solid fuel missile.

x-post from Radar thread:



Cost of electronics can be driven down by mass production. Since one can get a pick up truck for say 5 lakhs, an illuminator system need not cost more than 10 or 15 lakh, if produced in bulk. Decoys may be cheaper. The truck engine can do double duty as a generator. For a thousand illuminators, you will spend about US $35 million.

Cross post:



I have some views on this idea of "tech gap" that exists and the Chinese may be closing. I am not going to argue in favor of or against that statement, but I merely want to point out how the statement "The Chinese are closing the tech gap with the West" states what we all believe and that is
1) The West is the best technologically
2) The Chinese are catching up

Fine. Let us accept that this is true. What I really want to point out is the way in which the "technological superiority" of the West has been used to fight wars in the last 10-15 years. The face of warfare is being changed, and AFTER the west changed the face of warfare other countries such as the Chinese and (us Indians) are looking at that changed warfare scenario and telling ourselves "Hey - that is the future. That is where we want to go!"

Let me try and list out the various ways in which the west have changed the face of warfare using technology.

1. The first advancement is SEAD (Suppression of enemy air defences). The two basic technologies in use here are stealth and PGMs and anti-radar munitions. This has made the earlier generations of SAMs and radar networks obsolete.
2) Precision guided munitions are the second aspect. Munitions that are guided by laser illumination, or GPS plus inertial navigation plus some form or terminal homing. What this has done is to allow aircraft to become smaller. You no longer need a B-5 to smash and are. An F/A 18 with two PGMs can do what a single B-52 would not be able to achieve in terms of pinpoint targets. Are bombing is passe and extraordinarily inaccurate. This is rendering the "old, inaccurate bombing with collteral damage" obsolete.
3) Massive investments in electronics is another aspect. Secure high bandwidth data links, situational awareness with moving map displays and GPS coordinated that tell everyone exactly where he is with respect to the enemy, networks that enable any entity - man on ground, pilot in aircraft, UAV controller or AWACS to see the same target and choose who is going to hit what. This has rendered removed the "fog of war" That has been the bane of all fighting forces since teh dawn of time. The indivudual soldier or platoon commander, or forward air controller or pilot would all be blind to the battlefield as a whole - but with multiple sensors and reports being collected and made into a common map - everyone knows who is where and what is what. This may be the biggest development in warfare that has rendered the old warfare obsolete.

What the west has done is to change the rules of war so that they control the war. When they control the war - everyone else is scrambling to copy them. But copying will not defeat them because they are always 20-30 years ahead and are setting the tone and pace.

If you allow western satellites to remain working and western refuelling bases for their AWACS and refuellers to survive - you will never defeat them with the equipment they have. For dominance we need to set the tone and pace.

If war is serious and we need to take war seriously we need to reset the war to the "old warfare" of men slugging it out. To me that means take out the satellites first. Take out the refuelling bases even if they are in "allied/neutral countries". Develop long range SAMs and AAMs to take out AWACS and refuelling aircraft.

Knock capital ships out of the water be swarm attacks at the start of hostilities.

Short of this - copying the west will make us dominate someone else, but not the West. We will be trying to fight on their terms.

And yet Soviet Union was decisively defeated, no? Perhaps even more so than Germany. Defeat will not just come through some nation employing total warfare Blitzkrieg attacks. In any case nuclear option minimizes the chances of the sort of events you describe here.

Point of warfare in the modern age will be acquisition and control over precious resources, not occupation necessarily. E.g. control over watersheds (see Tibet), oil, energy resources, minerals, shipping lanes, etc. The sophisticated armament will be used for proxy warfare and posturing as has been usual for the past half-century.

The weaponry exists also as a lever of control over pipsqueak nations which are important to control for whatever reason (resources, geopolitics, foreign bases). This will only get more important as population pressure and competition for scarce resources increases from now.

In every era there are "rules of war" - tactics and strategies based on your strength. Any technology that breaks the existing rules and makes new rules is a winner.

Air Dominance is the current "new rule", the game changer. The question that keeps coming back to haunt me is "Do we try and play catch up with the air dominance game" or are we intelligent enough to create new rules that render air dominance effete, useless or, like the IndiaPakistan boundary, "irrelevant"

What would those "new rules" be? The person who makes the new rules will upset the current holder of the trump cards.

I suggest the ability to blind dozens of satellites, and if possible, beam weapons or missiles to take out AWACS.

Here is a wish-list:

- Redundant mobile AESA illuminators plus decoys will go a long way to counter anti-radiation munitions. Keep the radar receivers and interceptors separate.

- take out GPS / recon / communications satellites with submarine-launched rockets

- take out AWACS

- take out surface ships with submarine-launched and air-launched anti-ship missiles

- develop the ability to take out distant bases

- Missile defense systems

- ultimately, thermonukes with SLBMs will remove any incentive to escalate for either an advanced enemy or an enemy without thermonukes. For a failed state with suicide bomber mentality all bets are off.

It seems surface ships have very limited utility in a war against an advanced enemy. Navy should focus on submarines.

Finally, have to think about false-flag scenarios, in which an enemy provides suit-case nukes to terrorist groups. What will the response be?

Some scenarios for which there is no effective defense: (a) A stealth bomber dropping LGBs or radio-guided munitions (b) submarine launched missiles with stealth features, with either inertial guidance or terrain following guidance systems.

Cross posted from LIBYA : No fly zone/air war thread





The key is networking, which the IAF is moving towards already. They can (and are) integrating all sensors - all IAF + civil aviation radars, the command and guidance structures like AWACS and the shooters. If you have a layered system of short, medium and long range sams, it is possible to separate the sensors from the shooters physically, in which case the targeting can be provided by another radar further away or an AWACS aircraft, and even if some sensors are destroyed, the system will still keep running. With additional long range sensors like the Swordfish, Kolchuga with detection ranges of over 600 kms, and others, targeting can be provided by assets much further away than the shooters - while the shooters can be mobile missile firing units, they would be able to shoot and scoot while staying networked all the while.

If you place the shooters close enough to the borders/ along expected ingress routes, you can use the weapon offensively - place S 400/500/Brahmos AD (some day !!) missile firing units closer to the paki border and que them using long range radars/AWACS, and half of paki airforce would not be able to take off from their airfields as they would be within range of our SAM's.

Coupled with a strong airforce, such a system can be a game changer and IMHO, can more than take on Paki and Cheenee missiles and fighters as they would have to come within a 300 km range to even launch anti radiation missiles (as per public-ally available range information
of ARM missiles), where they can be targeted by our LRSAMS.

End of dream !!

Pranav &Shiv sir, here's what I think few paths that maybe be taken to break the current western way of fighting.

As pointed out above by you two, this type of warfare puts emphasis on air dominance and network. First of all lets see the alternatives for breaking air dominance.
1. Option 1 : Invest heavily in very potent aircrafts, having stealth maybe, to take on enemy fighters. This also requires extensive AWACS and radar coverage to sweep our own skies and ensure that we are able to detect enemy aircrafts and vector a response either by our own fighter or by SAM. Expensive option and you try to fight the enemy on their terms.
2. Option 2 : The fighters and bombers are stealthy but there is no way you can make a runway that they depend on stealthy. Invest in heavy stealthy cruise missiles with long range. Missile able to carry 500 kg + ordinance over 1000-2500 km. Have large numbers of these dispersed throughout the country. These missile invariably use a small turbofan, why not develop a missile with a after burning turbofan. This means that most of the flight for high speed cruise it runs on dry power, thereby increasing the range. Once it is near the target, say the last 20-50Km or so the after burner kicks in and it accelerates to super sonic speeds. Please note this capability would be used for targeting enemies air base, supply base, logistic nodes etc, which are primarily fixed, hence no supersonic maneuvering required. We have already demonstrated Brahmos ( which is supersonic) with maneuvering in the mountains and also its seeker tech to target precisely in heavy cluttered environment at super sonic speed. Damage every foot of the runway.

The second option is a must have, because the ability to inflict heavy damage on the enemies static, hence non-stealthy, components of air asset would mean we can have a small to medium duration window when our aircrafts may own the skies. Also such a capability is significantly cheaper. Also this capability and strike means that we change the scenario when the enemy forces are forced to work in an environment ( even for a short duration) which they are not used to, i.e without air cover.

Invest in a over-horizon radar system. This would enable us to monitor deep into enemy territory and also see what moving in our seas. Once a enemy carrier is detected launch anti-ship version of the above cruise missile.

Folks - I have a question:

Take a look at these photos cross posted from other therads
1) Chinese clone of Global Hawk of Amreeka in the usual blurry photo like woman dropping panty behind frosted glass
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/at ... 1295259831

2) Iranian 5th gen hard on
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xgXJ ... ighter.jpg

China is 20 years behind the US. Iran maybe 35-40 years behind. Both these countries are doggedly and relentlessly copying the US and following its lead. Now tell me folks - if the US is using EXACTLY the same technologies as in the pictures posted above to exert air dominance TODAY in 2011 what is the point in dreaming of exerting US style air dominance after 20 or 30 years?

Who ya gonna dominate? Somalia? Bechuanaland? But in 20-30 years the US will have 6th gen - maybe beam weapons and will still be dominating you while you wank off and say "i dominate Somalia and Bechunanaland" . The top dog ain't gonna be dominated tomorrow by copies of his own tech that he developed yesterdy.

The US's technology of today was developed yesterday. Why is everyone trying to copy the technology developed yesterday and hoping to use it tomorrow? I can't for the life of me understand the logic. It is clearly lack of imagination.

The technology you develop today should not be the same tech that the US developed yesterday. You must develop something that can defeat the best US technology tomorrow. No coming out tomorrow with the tech that the US uses today and say "rah rah rah". The US is still dominant. If you can equal the US, you too will dominate. If you are copying what the US shows you today - you are merely copying what the US did yesterday.

Rightly said. Elucidating the above point further. Lets say that US today uses X for dominating and the rest of world is dazzled by it. Now, since US is using X every day it knows exactly what its limitations are and from today starts work on Y which would beat X hands down. Now since today the rest of the world ,salivating and aping US, starts work on X and comes up with X, only to find that Y beats it hands down. US can continue to this, knowing fully well that when they field Z rest would be on Y. The way to be at par would be forget about X, Y or even Z, but come out with something of your own which you feel would give an edge. A ॠ , which is totally different and against all expectations of the US. Well some one may say that ॠ might not beat Y or Z, but hey the operative word is "might not". X is definitely beaten by Y or Z. So whats the point of developing X or Y. Rather take chance with ॠ.

Thermonukes and SLBMs are a cheap insurance policy against an advanced enemy.

Can handle everything except suicide-bomber states and false flags.

A carrier is modern day equivalent of Ashwamegh horse. A symbol of challenge and might and whoever challenges it's free movement has to fight the powerful state. If the carrier has to change course because some countries would not allow it to pass through their waters in narrow regions then the symbol itself has already been defeated. A rush towards symbol first without having a fearsome and menacing submarine fleet is ridiculous to say the least. Symbols of might can always be embarrassed by the more effective subs. Where then shall we hide our face? In WW2, the german leader of uboats wanted 300 uboats and got only 52. But in this day and age and with such a long coastline we seem content with <20 of them is disheartening.

Even the ships being proposed nowadays increasingly appear like surfaced subs (eg DDG Zumwalt). Take out the canon and helipad and you have no reason to keep a naval vessel constrained to remain on surface when a sub carrying the same load of missiles and covered sensors could do the job. The future is subs and not fat targets.

Good thinking, we need the govt funding high tech research both at DRDO and at all the IIT's and other higher end technical colleges. Immediate areas of focus could be Electronic warefare - stealth detection, jamming of all electronic systems - including missiles, aircraft systems etc, Cyber warfare, directed energy weapons, rail guns etc of very high ranges for artillary, anti aircraft and anti missile, anti shipping roles etc.

We would also need the next generation technologies for detection and destruction of under sea platforms like submarines, small unmanned underwater combat vehicles, etc etc.

In short, we need our own DARPA and heavy research funding. Maybe the private industry should be offered tax rebates for carrying out security related research and for developing cutting edge defence products. Some amount of patronization by the govt through each of the forces is also needed - they need to start funding research and need to have programs to absorb desi developed technology and thus provide some market for such technologies.

This will have to be a big challenge for MOD and each of the forces, who seem to be happier with costly imports right now, and may therefore need to be driven by a technology friendly defence minister or prime minister. We sure need more Kalams in govt !!

In my opinion, taking into consideration the role payed by Air Dominance in recent conflicts, we should prepare ourselves for the following:
1. Prevent enemy from gaining Air dominance.
2. How to wrestle the skies and ensure our own Air Dominance.
3. Ensure that our forces are able to survive, even if the enemy is able to get local Air Dominance.

With regards to point 2, rather than trying to ensure total Air dominance over the entire region, it would be prudent to have capability to ensure local Air Dominance. So have a defensive posture over the region in terms of Aviation & SAM assets. At the same time have extra squadrons of MKI's which would rotate from region to region based on the theatre we choose to be offensive in. These extra numbers would try to wrestle the skies over enemy territory. Try to get the best ESM assets for these squadrons. Also it would be more prudent maybe to have composite squadrons of fighters, strike and EMs together.

With regards to 3, mobility is probably the easiest way to increase survivability. Move away from large formations, but rather have smaller squadrons of ground vehicles, coordinating their movement. Distribute more and more 4x4, 6x6 and other wheeled vehicles. Also disperse more and more quick reaction SAMs among each squadrons.

What do the guru' say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bo ... oject_Thor

Very interesting possibility for future development in warfare. WMDs in space are banned by treaty but not conventional weapons. US is developing "Prompt Global Strike", could elements like this be involved?

The weapon would be very hard to defend against. It has a very high closing velocity and a small radar cross-section. Launch is difficult to detect. Any infra-red launch signature occurs in orbit, at no fixed position. The infra-red launch signature also has a small magnitude compared to a ballistic missile launch. One drawback of the system is that the weapon's sensors would almost certainly be blind during atmospheric reentry due to the plasma sheath that would develop ahead of it, so a mobile target could be difficult to hit if it performed any unexpected maneuvering.[citation needed] The system would also have to cope with atmospheric heating from re-entry, which could melt the weapon.[8]

This is exactly the argument I was having with our Cheeni friends about the Aircraft Carrier killer ballistic missile allegedly being developed by the Chinese.

Air dominance as imposed over Kosovo. Iraq and Libya were IIRC marked by the following acts
1) Positioning of an overwhelming number of networked high technology aircraft platforms within striking range of the proposed war zone.
2) Imposition of a no fly zone - combined with efforts to [paralyse enemy air action by taking out his radars, anti-aircraft systems and air bases/aircrfat.

I think the key to defeating air dominance lies in
1) Destroying/rendering ineffective all the bases that are operationalizes to exert air dominance
2) developing means to shoot down AWACS and refuellers
3) Anti satellite capability.

Regarding the third option, let's say when khan & nato are amassing assets against us, either:

1. We send 6 Agni V's in different clusters of satellites, each carrying 3 to 4 n-warheads and explode them?

2. We'll need to go after each satellite separetely (in that case nuke warheads not needed, but lots of missiles)?

Which of the above option is more doable?

If we can destroy most of satellites that itself would break the back of their forces wouldn't it? Seeing there super dependency on the satellites and net-centricity?