Indian Army News & Discussions - 11 June 2014

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 23 May 2015 17:44

srin wrote:
Singha wrote:How can a corps be in ladakh and sikkim and still have one HQ.its best to plan for offensive in Sikkim to crush the salient between Sikkim and Bhutan and eat up backside of pla tawang plans and stick to that for now.
You mean the Chumbi valley ? Yeah, but what armor maneuver can you do to get there ? On the sikkim side (Nathu La etc) is all light infantry terrain. Only space for armor is ladakh - east of pangong, south of Demchok and east of DBO.

I thought there is an armored brigade each with T-72's deployed with 14 corps and in Sikkim, including some assets in the Siliguri corridor? The last part in the above article, me thinks is not related to the MSC.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 27 May 2015 19:14

More flip-flops from the defence minister in a TV interview on Tuesday

On Tuesday Parrikar said the MSC was being pared down only as a temporary measure because of a funding shortfall. When funds became available, the MSC would be built up to the strength planned by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, he clarified.

The rate at which, he changes his mind on things, I cannot even post that fast! What does he mean by WHEN funding is available. What was the LTIPP and DAC doing, ordering things without any funds? To be fair, it was not under his watch.

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 27 May 2015 19:22

ShauryaT wrote:The rate at which, he changes his mind on things, I cannot even post that fast! What does he mean by WHEN funding is available. What was the LTIPP and DAC doing, ordering things without any funds? To be fair, it was not under his watch.

Snippet from Nitin Gokhle's article
During a couple of on-camera and off-camera (but on record) conversations, Parrikar talked to me about how the planning for the much-touted Mountain Strike Corps (MSC) was faulty. “The need for acquiring an offensive capability against the Chinese was projected (and sanctioned) but not the funds. I will not go into who is responsible for this faulty planning and projection but the fact is, they (the army) was using war reserves to equip the Mountain Strike Corps. Fortunately, we realised the mistake early and I can assure you that the reserves have not depleted to a level where it can be termed alarming. After a review, we have realised that the MSC will have to be frozen at a point where it is now..”

Later, in another interview to Hindustan Times, he confirmed the actual figures. “I have frozen the cost at Rs 38,000 crore over the next eight years. It will consist of 35,000 men,” the Defence Minister said. So from 70,000 men and Rs 88,000 crore, Parrikar has made the Army cut the size of the MSC down to almost 50 percent. And rightly so, since funds are not infinite.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 May 2015 20:09

ShauryaT wrote:More flip-flops from the defence minister in a TV interview on Tuesday
On Tuesday Parrikar said the MSC was being pared down only as a temporary measure because of a funding shortfall. When funds became available, the MSC would be built up to the strength planned by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, he clarified.
The rate at which, he changes his mind on things, I cannot even post that fast! What does he mean by WHEN funding is available. What was the LTIPP and DAC doing, ordering things without any funds? To be fair, it was not under his watch.

A friendly advise: Dont post!

Instead please post the developments on the ground. The war isn't happening in news (f)articles, it's happening on the ground.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 May 2015 22:18

Its a motivated article to diminish credibility of the minister. He is doing the right thing.

BTW even his so called flip-flop on the Rafale was projected by our member Muppalla. The 36 order was a earnest money deposit for France to deliver.
Two squadrons will not change IAF at all. So more upon delivery of things.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2015 23:34

+1

This article by Gokhale puts things in context.

Indeed, the biggest example of Parrikar’s dictum is the decision on the purchase of 36 Rafale combat jets from France. “The Air Force may want 126 Rafales and I may want to give them 500 but where are the funds? We have to be realistic. So why not go for LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) Tejas, Mark II made in India which will save us some money and give a boost to the indigenous aerospace industry? At the same time, we understood that the IAF needed the Rafale jets, so I went to the Prime Minister, who took a very bold political decision. This proves that important acquisitions have to be made at the government-to-government level,” he said.

More Rafales may come but LCA won't be ignored.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2015 23:36

The bottom line, according to the minister, an IIT Powai graduate and a voracious reader, is that people elect politicians to take a firm decisions. “Out of let’s say 10 decisions I take, five may be good, two may be average and three may turn out to be big mistakes but as long as the decisions are taken in good faith, I am willing to take them,” Parrikar told me. It’s an attitude that is not only refreshing but also reassuring. But his job has only begun. As I wrote earlier, the defence minister has a steep mountain to climb. He has only taken the first few steps towards ascending the summit.

I am afraid the INC will seek to pin a scam on this guy to scuttle his proactive work. That's what they did with George Fernandes as well. I hope Shri Doval and Parrikar are apprised of the mendacity of the so called opposition and their dirty tricks department which will rely on shady operators like Cobrapost and Tehelka to carry the water.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 28 May 2015 01:54

ramana wrote:Its a motivated article to diminish credibility of the minister. He is doing the right thing.

Part of media's job is to question things and be critical, they are supposed to be the watch dog after all. I cannot judge the the motivations of the writer. Anyways, I am neither questioning the minister's decision nor his credibility.

My issue is we were supposed to have a process in place for these things and these decisions were not supposed to be ad hoc. LTIPP was a 15 year plan approved in 2012. Out of it came the capital acquisition plan approved by the DAC in 2012 for 5 years. Now to say no funds sorry, makes a mockery of the process. What I want to see is processes being respected and if changes need to be done, then change in context of a process and not ad hoc. I had similar issues, when the UPA discarded the non-lapsable capital acquisition portion of the defense budget, initiated by RM: JS in 2004. Net-Net: Our forces have suffered due to the lack of or lack of adherence to institutionalized systems.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 May 2015 02:11

If the institutionalized systems allowed such a flawed plan to take off, then they are not worth their while and deserve to be scuppered. In the meantime, decisions can't be held up because the system is bad.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 May 2015 02:33

ShauryaT wrote:
ramana wrote:Its a motivated article to diminish credibility of the minister. He is doing the right thing.
Part of media's job is to question things and be critical, they are supposed to be the watch dog after all. I cannot judge the the motivations of the writer. Anyways, I am neither questioning the minister's decision nor his credibility.

My issue is we were supposed to have a process in place for these things and these decisions were not supposed to be ad hoc. LTIPP was a 15 year plan approved in 2012. Out of it came the capital acquisition plan approved by the DAC in 2012 for 5 years. Now to say no funds sorry, makes a mockery of the process. What I want to see is processes being respected and if changes need to be done, then change in context of a process and not ad hoc. I had similar issues, when the UPA discarded the non-lapsable capital acquisition portion of the defense budget, initiated by RM: JS in 2004. Net-Net: Our forces have suffered due to the lack of or lack of adherence to institutionalized systems.

Simply illogical argument with full of bias!

A "process" allowed a proposal to come out without any fund allocation. So-called warrior intellectual Presstitutes sat pretty on their bottoms throughout this process.

GoI makes a decision to change the proposal on the basis of funds availability. This means

1/ Process covers implementation phase: The "process" is working fine IF it includes implementation phase as well and new information is used to modify the proposal accordingly. Here GoI's decision is "part of the process".

2/ Process doesn't include implementation phase: If implementation phase doesn't fall into the "process", then the first thing a smart organization (in this case GoI) would do is to influence the proposal. Here the "process" can be left behind as is because the process doesn't cover implementation phase.

3/ Process is incomplete (Ill-defined): Now that the proposal is modified as per accurate information, GoI can take its time to change the "process" to plug such failures in future. One corrective action item can be done in PRESSTitute area as well because the biased journalists didn't do their job correctly. I hope a couple of warrior intellectuals sent to jail for not playing thier role.

It is simply stupidity to think "process" works in isolation of reality and "process" is beyond changes/modifications. Similar nonsense was peddled w.r.t constitution also where as nearly 100 modifications were done to it within first 60yrs of its life.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 May 2015 02:56

ShauryaT wrote:Part of media's job is to question things and be critical, they are supposed to be the watch dog after all.

Saar, you are correct. But our media has taken over the role of being the rabid dog, instead of the watch dog, and loves to sensationalize news when none exist. I have seen many articles in India media with the same infection - media rabies.

Classic example - fighter aircraft parked on the runway (back then we did not have the funds for shelters I guess) with their cockpits covered in some kind of material to protect its sensitive electronics from the glaring sun are immediately labelled as unserviceable and a huge waste to the exchequer!

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 28 May 2015 05:49

Shaurya has a point about the sanctity of LTIPP. So I figured I would work backwards from the known facts and see if I can come up with a political context and a doctrinal case for the MSC. This is what my guesswork led up to:

With China, as with Pakistan, we have to have forces that will enable us to address different levels of escalation in armed conflict. I believe the MSC will provide us with a level of land forces necessary to manage an intermediate level of conflict. The potential political context would be when the conflict has progressed beyond a boundary skirmish, and India wants to achieve military objectives without escalating beyond this stage. To expand and clarify, the escalation ladder would be:

- Strong diplomatic protests and localized face-offs (e.g. Depsang Plains)
- Major faceoff across all sectors of LAC (Sumdarong Chu +)
- Localized Skirmishes (Nathu La, 1967) note that the current geopolitical context makes this unlikely - either matters will be settled at the previous level, or they will go to the next one
- Localized war contained to land and air actions over the LAC
- Full out war including Naval actions
- Nuclear war

Obviously, as we mount the escalation ladder, managing to keep the conflict confined at a given level becomes increasingly difficult, and therefore identifying an appropriate military objective tailored to the geopolitical context becomes a vital necessity.

My initial skepticism stemmed from the difficulty in figuring out a politico-military objective that can be achieved by an MSC that would not involve full out war. As I mentioned in a previous post, if we try to strike deep all the way towards Lhasa, missiles will start to fly. This difficulty was, I feel, because I was thinking about it as being analogous to a thrust towards RYK. On further thinking, I have been able to come up with certain situations in the India-China context where having the extra land power can help us keep the conflict from escalating and give diplomacy a chance to work in tandem with armed force:

- If PLA presence in Pak Occupied Northern Areas exceeds acceptable thresholds for India, MSC can strike out towards the Aksai Chin highway and cut it off. That wedge can be used to go to the negotiating table from a position of strength. Being able to achieve this military objective and defend it, along with sufficient power to dissuade China from escalating, can thus be a valid politico-military use of the MSC

- Likewise, if PLA threatens Bhutan or encroaches in it, the MSC would provide the necessary augmentation to 33 and 4 corps to roll back Chinese aggression.

In both political situations above, the MSC helps India achieve objectives without having to define military objectives that run a greater risk of escalating to the use of Navy for interdiction of Chinese shipping. However, in case escalation does become necessary, MSC can be directed towards Lhasa or at least be used as a credible threat in signalling. Of course, requisite levels of Air Power would be equally essential, but that is not the subject of this post.

If I can come up with this, with all its imperfections, prognostications and vagueness after a couple of weeks of rumination, why can't anyone in India who does this kind of writing for a day job? That has long been my peeve with India's so called defense analysts - the generate too much sound and fury, they are too polemical, too insecure and immature for the actual establishment they seek to critique or represent. Discussions on MSC get reduced to simplistic wish lists and jeremiads on the lack of India's strategeic foresight and inability to counter China, when the reality is that there is steady and quiet progress in the capability to militarily engage China across the entire spectrum of conflict scenarios. And keep in mind, all of this was really conceived during a widely vilified Congress regime, when there was a horrid spell with three successive atrocious Army chiefs, the last of whom caused me to quit following Indian military developments in disgust. The big revelation in all of this is that Indian military power is truly maturing in the sophistication of its geostrategic vision and in the implementation needed to convert it into reality.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 28 May 2015 06:00

Regarding Raksha Mantriji's recent statements, consider that he may be doing some political signalling to China.

Note that NSA has been quietly talking about the border issue with the Chinese. Just before Modi goes to China, a pause is declared on the MSC. Now the honourable mantri is suddenly walking back his earlier message, but not all the way. Assist to Dovalji? An MSC is a pretty big stick to carry, and talking softly helps get the message across rather nicely.

Anyone willing to make bets onthe India-China boundary issue making dramatic positive progress within the next four years?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 May 2015 06:11

YIP,

Why should India try to keep the escalation levels low, why should we give the right-to-escalate to China?

Parikkar didn't question the need for MSC, he was simply bringing the fact forward that the visionaries (the same folks lead our nation during 2004-14) did not plan/allocate the funds necessary. So Parikkar is simply limiting the MSC number to what he can really afford to.

Look at this article: http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/4065 ... -faces.htm

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 28 May 2015 06:28

Rama,

Managing the level of conflict is vital to achieving the larger political goal for which the conflict is initiated. Not being aware of that reality only leads to victories not worth the cost, or worse, defeats. To give a somewhat facetious parallel, you want to calibrate the heat to cook a chappati, not burn it.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 May 2015 16:52

Y I Patel wrote:Rama,

Managing the level of conflict is vital to achieving the larger political goal for which the conflict is initiated. Not being aware of that reality only leads to victories not worth the cost, or worse, defeats. To give a somewhat facetious parallel, you want to calibrate the heat to cook a chappati, not burn it.

My point too. All I am saying is that India should keep the control over the stove gas switch and not China. In a conflict the other person should know that it can only get access to a burned chappati and never a cooked one.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 28 May 2015 18:49

Moutain Strike Corps

Newbie pooch - what is the composition of such a formation? Infantry divisions and artillery divisions? Who is going to do the actual 'strike thru'?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 28 May 2015 19:44

Another related question, since we apparently have no funds!!

Are we going to get the the two rapid reaction assault divisions and two amphibious brigades planned for 2017-2022 or not? I guess the DAC approval process (what process, it is all whims and fancies of the day now) closer to the date will let us know or maybe not.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 28 May 2015 21:38

@ ShauryaT

Did you see the Parriker speak on Media conclave ? or

All your doubts are based on what is reported in Main Stream Media and shuklajii kind of blogs?

Please answer to above before replying, dont be selective like our media.

I actually saw it live by mistake.

His reply was very specific and objective.

He said we approved creation of a force of a strength of around 90,000 aproxx in 2012 and no one can go back as it has been approved by parliament.

He also said that approx 35000+ is already created and he has only put on hold further expansion for couple of year's for taking care of anomalies.
Anomalies are:
- we created a force of 35000+ (to be eventually 90000+) without allocating any money in defense budget.
- we created it by using our reserves
- he also said that in couple of years he is seeking for anomalie correction, he wants to:
--- re create the reserves
--- allocate money through due process so reserves are not depleted
--- eventual aim is to create this force without depleting reserves

- Next day media did run a report for few hours that Rahulhi's has said UPA sanctioned 500cr for creating 90000+ force. ( just 500 cr)

what he has done can only be done by some one who understand the situation, why? because: (my views not DM's views)

- please answer the following
-- where did congress create a 35000+ force without allocating money for:
------ Manpower ( we have not increased manpower intake... show me a single report calming manpower intake is increased, we are any way in shortage of officers)
------ Equipment ( we all know the story, 35000 men need atleat 30000 insas + 3000+ carbine + 2000+ pistols etc, have we bought any rifle for army in last 5 years) ( we also need 1000 of vehicles to equip them, did we buy them)
------ Real Estate ( real money involved)

so eventually we did create 35000+ force with reserve equipment but can we create 90000+ force with reserve equipment?

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 28 May 2015 22:01

Shaurya,

I dont think the Air Assault Divs would be conceivable in the current environment, where we are struggling to even meet the actual numbers.

IIRC, They have 91 Inf Bde (ex 54 Div) as an amphibious ops capable. Besides, they already have 108 Bde as part of Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC).

The HQs of the 108 Mountain Brigade is located at Birchgunj military station, about 14 kms away from HQ's ANC. The Amphibians, as they are fondly called, consist of three infantry battalions - presently a Sikh Regiment, Kumaon and the Territorial Army's 154 Infantry Battalion.

Majority of the troops of 154 TA Infantry Battalion (THE ISLAND TERRIERS) hail from these islands, and being ‘Sons of the Soil’, they understand the peculiarities and requirements of these islands better. Much progress has been achieved towards sanction for a second Infantry Battalion (TA) for the ANI, which would give further impetus to employment opportunities for the islanders in to the Armed Forces.

Atleast someone is still flogging the BMP-1's

Link:
http://www.sainiksamachar.nic.in/englis ... -11/h5.htm
http://www.andamansheekha.com/2013/09/2 ... -terriers/

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 29 May 2015 01:29

d_brar: I have not heard the conclave speech yet and as said earlier, this is not about what Parikkar or this govt vs the last or who has reported it where. If there are factual errors in the reports, then please do correct.

This is about a process which has multiple stake holders, a 15 year plan - approved. Further more there are specific 5 year acquisition plans "approved" by the DAC - each 5 years. Current plan is the 12th defense plan, which we approved BEFORE starting it, unlike the 11th. If this RM is saying we have to revisit the DAC approval of 2012 then that is one thing, for there is more to the LTIPP than just the MSC. With ad-hoc decisions, it brings into question the ENTIRE government defense planning machinery.

I am not interested in comparing what the Congress did to Parikkars actions. I know only one thing, there is no process now, no credible plan and at the end of the day, our defense preparedness will suffer.

@Vaibhav: Yes, it does not look promising but still early days from the 13th defense plan, not approved yet (if it means anything anymore or ever did). IIRC, we also have an Air assault brigade and there is a long pending demand to upgrade it to a division. The ability to move a division to an area of action within 24-48 hours is the need of the day.

Thanks for posting the news-bits and pictures, but also unfortunately confirms my suspicion that our only joint command has no teeth.

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 May 2015 02:56

A lot of IA's modernization plans are incomplete. They have started but everything has been delayed in one form or the other and the list of items grows by the day. Now they have a huge resource sucking expansion in MSC. How are they going to complete all projects within budget in the next 10-years?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 May 2015 07:25

air assault bde you speak of is the para bde or something else ?

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 29 May 2015 14:27

Rahul,

The original Sundarji plan called for 54 Div to be the converted to an air assault or rapid reaction role. That however never picked up.

Possibly one of its other brigades is earmarked in an air assault/ air landing role and the other in an amphibious one.

wig · Post by **wig** » 29 May 2015 16:05

the 54 inf div as an Air Assault Division seems to be a legacy of the late Gen. Sundarji, K

excerpts from here

The raising of the army's first Mechanised Infantry Division.
Staging the most elaborate exercises in the history of the army.
The establishment of the Army Aviation Corps controlled and operated by the army, a long-standing demand that only fructified during Sundarji's tenure.
Large-scale computerisation at senior command levels and in the field to provide up-to-date information and real-time intelligence.
reorganisation of the 54 Infantry Division as an Air Assault Division.
The introduction of the rapids (Reorganised Army Plains Infantry Division) concept, a compact, integrated formation that provides greater flexibility, mechanisation, mobility, firepower and air-land battle capabilities.
The introduction of new tactics emphasising speed of movement, firepower and manoeuvrability.
The restructuring of the traditional command-staff stream that has seen staff officers posted in the field and vice versa.
An infinitely more aggressive military posture (called 'forward posture') vis-a-vis Pakistan and China as part of the new 'dissuasive and deterrent' policy.
The restructuring of the army's Parachute Regiment into three para-commando battalions modelled along the lines of the British Special Air Services.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/gene ... 29290.html

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 May 2015 23:27

FINALLY..

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/ban ... 911932.ece

The secret of T-72 Main Battle Tank’s improved night vision
If gunners in T-72 Main Battle Tanks of the Indian Army are thanking their stars for improved night vision, it has a Bengaluru connection. A city-based company is upgrading the tank’s ability to identify targets up to three kilometres at night.

Col. H.S. Shankar (Retd.), Chairman and Managing Director of Alpha Design Technologies (ADT), told The Hindu, “Hitherto, the Russian-made T-72 had night vision range of 300 metres.”

ADT is the offset partner of Israeli company Elop-Elbit, which has won the contract for T-72 upgradation. “We started fitting Thermal Imager Fire Control Systems (TIFCS) in November 2014. So far, 170 kits have been supplied to the army,” he said adding the night vision technology will be fitted in 1,000 T-72s over the next one year.

The company is also the offset partner in the Indian Army’s infantry command vehicle upgradation. It has already supplied 300 thermal imager standalone kits (TISK), which improves night vision for main gun firing and also missiles. By September this year, 969 vehicles would be upgraded, he said.

Both TIFCS and TISK are on display at Aero India 2015.

In 2013
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... vice=print

Army tanks to have night vision devices

Author: N C Bipindra

Published Date: Jan 14, 2013 9:39 AM
Nearly 3,500 battle tanks to be equipped with the devices at an estimated cost of `1,200 crore

As part of the efforts to ensure a level playing field with China and Pakistan, the Centre has decided to equip the Army’s nearly 3,500 battle tanks with night vision devices over the next five years. However, the state-of-the facility doesn’t come cheap at a staggering `1,200 cr.

The gaps in the night vision capabilities of the Army tanks was one of the poor defence preparedness issues flagged by erstwhile Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) General V K Singh in a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last year. The letter had triggered an uproar in Parliament after its contents became public.

Singh’s predecessor, General Deepak Kapoor, too had raised the issue in January 2010, stating that about 80 per cent of the Soviet-origin 2,400 T-72 ‘Ajeya’ tanks, which form the backbone of Army’s main battle tank (MBT) regiments, were night-blind.

In marked contrast, all the Chinese tanks and 80 per cent of the Pak Army tanks had been equipped with better night vision capabilities.

Apart from the 60-odd regiments of the vintage T-72s, India has two regiments of the indigenous Arjun MBT numbering around 120 and another 14 regiments of the Russian-origin T-90 ‘Bhishma’ tanks numbering over 800.

The Army deploys a majority of its 70-odd tank regiments along the 1,800 km-long international border with Pakistan in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir as the plains and the desert terrain are suitable theatres for tank battles.

Present, the T-72s have night vision devices for the three-man crew comprising the Driver, the Gunner and the Commander.

Until 1995, the T-72 Drivers could see only about 10m ahead during the night. Now, they have a night vision of about 75 to 100m due to Image Intensifiers (II) retro-fitted on the tanks during an upgrade process undertaken some 15 years ago.

“While 80 per cent of the T-72 tanks have been fitted with the intensifiers, orders for the rest 20 per cent have been issued. The entire fleet of the T-72s will be covered under the Image Intensifiers project by 2014,” an officer from the Army’s Mechanised Forces Directorate told ‘Express’.

For the Gunners, the Army is in the process of upgrading the T-72 tanks with Thermal Image Stand Alone Systems (TISAS), providing for a 5km sight range. Till 15 years ago, the Gunners had only about 150m night vision.

“About 30 per cent of the T-72s have now been fitted with TISAS for the Gunners,” the sources said.

The rest 70 per cent would get the advanced Thermal Imaging Fire Control Systems (TIFCS) with ballistic computers fitted with various atmospheric, wing and temperature sensors that can automatically calculate these factors and provide an aiming mark on enemy targets to the Gunners.

The Army’s T-72 upgrade proposals were for procuring 700 Thermal Imaging Stand Alone Systems (TISAS) and 418 Thermal Imaging Fire Control Systems (TIFCS).

“The ‘buy global’ procurement plan for TIFCS is at the contract negotiation stage. We expect to complete the purchase and integration of the new systems in the 2012-15 five-year plan,” they said.

So in first tranche 700 TISAS, and 418 TIFCS were procured, and now we have an order for 1000 TIFCS at the minimum.

Confirmation.

MOD Report to Parliamentary Committee:

Night Vision for T-72 (TIFCS) 1629.85 Crore Israel

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 May 2015 23:34

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2010/02/r ... tanks.html

TIFCS cost is Rs 1.4 Crores.
That works around to over 1000 TIFCS per costs above. So Alpha Design Tech's statement about 1000 TIFCS is accurate

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 May 2015 02:29

Rahul M wrote:air assault bde you speak of is the para bde or something else ?

Rahul: No, was not referring to para brigades used on the lines of Op. Cactus. I should have written more clearly. The term "air assault" can be referred to anything between dropping paras with no further motorized mobility, mobile fire power or any armor to all the way to include many variants of these including tactical air assets for strike and lift. All of these are of course dependent on air lift and degrees of protection from air assets of enemy forces. Some experts broadly classify these air assault forces into light, medium and heavy categories, depending on the overall tonnage they carry. (you probably know all this).

While we have had paras forever, in the estimate of some, India's capability in circa 2000 was to lift a lightly armored/mountain guns type of brigade in 24-48 hours. While K. Sunderji wanted an "air assault" division ready by 2000, I do not know the tonnage envisioned for such a division but let us say for a reasonably equipped air brigade the number is about 5000 tons (was this just an infantry division, so like paras or something more?).

The 11th defense plan (never approved) envisioned an air assault brigade to be formed, presumably with integrated artillery but did not become a reality. The 12th defense plan (current one) apparently has an approval for an air assault brigade to be formed - not sure if this was part of MSC or outside of it. We shall see what happens to this approval and the 13th envisions two air assault divs.

One of the exciting things about the MSC was (why am I using that tense, as it it is history!) an integrated air assault division, with artillery, tactical lift and strike rotary assets and assured air assets for lift and protection. It is on these lines that I envision an air assault group to be formed. I guess, it is not to be, yet. What we seem to have is the ability to "lift" a reasonably equipped brigade but without tactical strike or air lift assets for this brigade. Also, what we do not have is the command structure by way of theater commands, where ideally this would work with air assets integrated and in the case of deployment using the oceans, the Navy would come into the picture for logistics and presumably all three depending on zone of deployment. I do not know if we have a designated brigade for this air assault deployment with integrated artillery and light armor, recon vehicles for men and materials, who are trained for these activities to act as rapid reaction forces or special forces on a special mission or as the situation demands.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 30 May 2015 03:45

China is a 10 Trillion dollar economy. India is a 2 Trillion dollar economy. Even if Indian growth rates were to outpace Chinese growth rates by 3%, (say India at 10% and China at 7%) which historically has never been possible, it will take India more than 50 years to catch up! This is the tremendous and conceivably irreparable damage that the UPA years did to us. Further, if you consider that China grew at a time when the entire world was growing very fast and there was demand for cheap manufactured goods, which demand is just not present today, you realize the scope of the challenge India has before her.

If China gets serious about a war with a large economy such as India, it will devote a larger percentage of its GDP to its armaments industry as no country goes to war with barely 3-4% of GDP into its military. Further, China can do it as most of their armaments are locally made and it can increase defense production as a stimulus to its economy. A $10 Trillion economy devoting 5% to defense will spend 500 billion on its military yearly, while we can barely manage 50 billion with our needs for welfare and poverty alleviation.

If we are serious about standing up to China in Arunachal, we need to examine which strategies have worked for countries faced with such an asymmetry in hard and soft power. Two examples are immediately apparent: Pakistan deterring India for nearly 30 years, and the West deterring overwhelming Russian conventional superiority post WW II. Both examples involved nuclear weapons, both involved a forward deployment of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

We need to forget about jokes such as MSC that will bankrupt the treasury and that are strategic dead ends* and instead deploy Prahar type short range quick reaction missiles at division or even brigade level in Arunachal with the full authority to launch given to local commanders. Hints should be dropped that India may embark on a test series to acquire MT yield weapons if the border is perturbed too much. We should use the strategic window of time that this gives us to fix up our economic and scientific base to catch up with the Chinese capability.

*Its a strategic dead end because where/what will this strike core strike at? There is no 'value' in the land beyond the Himalayas. The only thing of value to destroy there would be the PLA, and they will be able to overmatch us based on the flat terrain, better infrastructure, much bigger economy and a vastly tighter internal security apparatus on their side. A 500 billion dollars an year army will always defeat a 50 or 75 billion dollars an year army. Therefore any money spent on the MSC in the hopes of is deterring the Chinese is mostly a waste.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 30 May 2015 06:46

^Who said they will continue growing at 7% forever?

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 30 May 2015 08:14

^Who said India will keep growing at 10% for ever? Many of the markets for China and India are the same. If China slows down due to global macro economic reasons, its likely that India will also experience a slow down. Since the economic reforms, Chinese have grown at a rate thats perhaps 3% faster than India. For India to grow 3% faster consistently for decades, its certainly within the realm of possibility, but very challenging and the most likely outcome. This is just reality.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 30 May 2015 08:37

Barring a few years China's growth was below 10%, with the average at ~9%, the highest peaks were when the baseline economy was smaller in the early 90s, a few years at double digit growth. [link] India is not far behind in growth rates even during the worst of UPA years. What they have is significant lead in when they opened up their economy and starting absorbing technology from the outside world. Anyways, OT for this thread.

How can one just hope to hold on to AP without significant troop presence and a potential threat to PRC held areas of Tibet. Crossing the threshold will lead to early escalation. So we need to avoid it, and also give them no chance to make the first moves, where we are left with no choice but to escalate. A strong defense in the form of counter strike potential deep within their territory is what is required. How do we know that forward basing of missiles has not been done already by India ?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 30 May 2015 08:48

sudeepj wrote:^Who said India will keep growing at 10% for ever? Many of the markets for China and India are the same. If China slows down due to global macro economic reasons, its likely that India will also experience a slow down. Since the economic reforms, Chinese have grown at a rate thats perhaps 3% faster than India. For India to grow 3% faster consistently for decades, its certainly within the realm of possibility, but very challenging and the most likely outcome. This is just reality.

You have conveniently forgotten that China has an export led growth while we do not and that they have an aging population heading for demographic collapse soon. Add to that the drying up of foreign markets and their own growing wages, they have no prospect of having any sort of high growth rate (comparatively) in the future. In your hurry to get out your "china superior" self-flagellating rant, you have forgotten all of this. No one is going to remain ahead forever and no one ever has. The mighty US of A is on its way down, what is china compared to that?

Granted all of this is not going to happen just the next day, it will happen and the chinese, unlike you, are quite aware of it.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 30 May 2015 08:54

Bade wrote:Barring a few years China's growth was below 10%, with the average at ~9%, the highest peaks were when the baseline economy was smaller in the early 90s, a few years at double digit growth. [link] India is not far behind in growth rates even during the worst of UPA years. What they have is significant lead in when they opened up their economy and starting absorbing technology from the outside world. Anyways, OT for this thread.

Agree, that reasons and discussions are offtopic, but the factual position is that today, China is a 5 times bigger economy than India, and that its demanding the right to issue SDRs at the IMF, i.e. get reserve status for its currency. These outcomes mean, that if China puts it mind to forcing a military solution in Arunachal, we will be facing a tremendous challenge in hanging on.

How can one just hope to hold on to AP without significant troop presence and a potential threat to PRC held areas of Tibet.

A 50 billion dollar army can not hold out against a 500 billion dollar army. Thats just the way it is. Unless, the 50 billion dollar army has the capability to exercise the nuclear option. When that happens, even 5Rs armies can protect territorial integrity E.g. North Koreans and the Pakistanis.

Crossing the threshold will lead to early escalation. So we need to avoid it, and also give them no chance to make the first moves, where we are left with no choice but to escalate. A strong defense in the form of counter strike potential deep within their territory is what is required. How do we know that forward basing of missiles has not been done already by India ?

The issue is, that while the current leadership is muscular, we have no such guarantees about future leaderships. Further, being a democratic polity, Indian leadership will never be as ruthless as the generals and princelings running China. If China escalates, occupies a few thousad sq kms, and dares India to take it back, the choice for Indian leadership will be
(a) Lob nukes in PRC controlled staging areas and warn of counter value strikes. [This will surely invite retaliation perhaps on Indian countervalue targets and likely UN intervention against us.]
(b) Test a MT yield device in Pokhran, and warn China to back off. [Arunachal is still with China and a tense standoff ensues]
(c) Take our case to UN and apply for an early entry into NATO.

[Arunachal still with China and India gives a few bases to US]
(d) ..

As you can see, against such salami slicing type of operations, the nuclear deterrent in control of Delhi is not really useful because you and I (and the Chinese) know which way Delhi will go if it comes to a choice between losing Arunachal and losing Arunachal AND Delhi. In Delhi, the weapon is a paper tiger, but in Arunachal, it can be of some use.

The weapon must be with ideologically committed generals who are authorized to use it if the existence of their forces or command structure is threatened. Next time the Chinese come across a patrol along the LAC, they will shake hands with the soldiers instead of getting into a shoving match.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 30 May 2015 08:57

Arun Menon wrote:
sudeepj wrote:^Who said India will keep growing at 10% for ever? Many of the markets for China and India are the same. If China slows down due to global macro economic reasons, its likely that India will also experience a slow down. Since the economic reforms, Chinese have grown at a rate thats perhaps 3% faster than India. For India to grow 3% faster consistently for decades, its certainly within the realm of possibility, but very challenging and the most likely outcome. This is just reality.
You have conveniently forgotten that China has an export led growth while we do not and that they have an aging population heading for demographic collapse soon. Add to that the drying up of foreign markets and their own growing wages, they have no prospect of having any sort of high growth rate (comparatively) in the future. In your hurry to get out your "china superior" self-flagellating rant, you have forgotten all of this. No one is going to remain ahead forever and no one ever has. The mighty US of A is on its way down, what is china compared to that?

Granted all of this is not going to happen just the next day, it will happen and the chinese, unlike you, are quite aware of it.

So your strategic plan is to wait for a demographic collapse of China?

It sounds appealing, but I dont think the Indian Army is counting on that.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 30 May 2015 09:37

^We have to take into account the realities of the world we live in and not fixate on "500 billion dollars" like it is the be all and end all of everything. Your fantasies about war with china divorced form the realities of the world we live in and the future of it sounds like a wet dream of a typical armchair general.

By your logic, we would have crushed prokistan long ago, but that is yet to happen and that is because of the realities of the world we live in.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 May 2015 10:03

ShauryaT, thanks for the elaboration differentiating the two.

that is why I put that question, because you mentioned AA Bde as already existing while I wasn't aware of such. since the airborne 50 para bde is not exactly an AA Bde.

while we do have some ability to airdrop armour, (BMP-2's from IL-76's) I am not sure this extends to brigade level.
I also remember that since the first time MSC's combat aviation bde plans were speculated about, rohit always said it was beyond our funding capacity right now.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 May 2015 10:09

^^^ Where's Rohit?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 May 2015 10:42

Dont know, but he is active on titar.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 30 May 2015 13:48

sudeepj wrote:China is a 10 Trillion dollar economy. India is a 2 Trillion dollar economy. Even if Indian growth rates were to outpace Chinese growth rates by 3%, (say India at 10% and China at 7%) which historically has never been possible, it will take India more than 50 years to catch up! This is the tremendous and conceivably irreparable damage that the UPA years did to us. Further, if you consider that China grew at a time when the entire world was growing very fast and there was demand for cheap manufactured goods, which demand is just not present today, you realize the scope of the challenge India has before her.

If China gets serious about a war with a large economy such as India, it will devote a larger percentage of its GDP to its armaments industry as no country goes to war with barely 3-4% of GDP into its military. Further, China can do it as most of their armaments are locally made and it can increase defense production as a stimulus to its economy. A $10 Trillion economy devoting 5% to defense will spend 500 billion on its military yearly, while we can barely manage 50 billion with our needs for welfare and poverty alleviation.

If we are serious about standing up to China in Arunachal, we need to examine which strategies have worked for countries faced with such an asymmetry in hard and soft power. Two examples are immediately apparent: Pakistan deterring India for nearly 30 years, and the West deterring overwhelming Russian conventional superiority post WW II. Both examples involved nuclear weapons, both involved a forward deployment of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

We need to forget about jokes such as MSC that will bankrupt the treasury and that are strategic dead ends* and instead deploy Prahar type short range quick reaction missiles at division or even brigade level in Arunachal with the full authority to launch given to local commanders. Hints should be dropped that India may embark on a test series to acquire MT yield weapons if the border is perturbed too much. We should use the strategic window of time that this gives us to fix up our economic and scientific base to catch up with the Chinese capability.

*Its a strategic dead end because where/what will this strike core strike at? There is no 'value' in the land beyond the Himalayas. The only thing of value to destroy there would be the PLA, and they will be able to overmatch us based on the flat terrain, better infrastructure, much bigger economy and a vastly tighter internal security apparatus on their side. A 500 billion dollars an year army will always defeat a 50 or 75 billion dollars an year army. Therefore any money spent on the MSC in the hopes of is deterring the Chinese is mostly a waste.

+1. Nukes are the only way to deter the Chinese. I never got these wet dreams of using the MSC to invade Tibet. A decade and a half go the Pakies deterred India from crossing the LoC in the face of an invasion with just a handful of low yield nukes. Even if we assume that the IA starts to mount a successful assault on Tibet, what happens when the Chinese threaten us with nukes?
I'd rather we spend 200,000 Cr (the MRCA + MSC would have cost us) on expanding our strategic forces.