What is the primary role of the Indian Air Force?

[shiv]

What is the main role that the IAF plays in our nation, and what role should it play? I would like to start off an exchange of views on this by means of a quiz - to look at which way the Indian air force and aerospace industry should be heading

[Yagnasri]

Can we really delink one from another. If the primary role is air defense and offence , the is it absolutely essential that it support Indian industry etc on long term basis so that the costs of such function and the capabilities to acquire and maintain the required force levels etc.

[johneeG]

6) Promotion of Indian industry and engineering -> is the basic necessity for doing the following:
1. Logistics
2. Logistics, and airspace vigil
3. Logistics, airspace vigil and training for combat
4. Air defence
5. Air combat - offence and defence

Without doing the 6), the first five can't be done properly. It only gives a impression that its being done while incurring a huge debt or cost to foreigners who will demand their share of cut. This is not just true for IAF but for any armed forces in any place at any time fighting anywhere.

Small armed forces don't have need for huge weapons, so perhaps they can get away with imports. But, even they have to dance to the tunes of the people who give them weapons. But, huge armed forces can never afford costly import policy.

[shiv]

Can we really delink one from another. If the primary role is air defense and offence , the is it absolutely essential that it support Indian industry etc on long term basis so that the costs of such function and the capabilities to acquire and maintain the required force levels etc.

My questions are deliberately worded. There are air forces (small ones) whose main role is logistics or surveillance.

Supporting Indian industry is desirable, but if a major role is logistics (which it is despite what people might think) how many transports has Indian industry attempted to produce for the IAF?

[shiv]

Without doing the 6), the first five can't be done properly.

Rubbish.

90% of world air forces do 1 to 5 without doing 6.

IAF does logistics 24x7x365. IAF has had combat only for 100 days or so in 68 years

What transport aircraft has Indian industry attempted to produce?

[fanne]

Poorly crafted options. I don't see option of importing foreign planes. Or seriously to fulfill the objective(s) of the nation ( mainly in the realm of conflict , but there are other objectives, even if lesser priority)- both during peace and war through air assets.

[Manish_P]

@Shiv

The option 'Air Combat - Offence and Defense' option, does it mean combat against only Aerial Components or does it include Air, Land, Sea and Underwater components ?

[Cybaru]

7. Enrich foreign vendors?
8. Enrich themselves!

[shiv]

@Shiv

The option 'Air Combat - Offence and Defense' option, does it mean combat against only Aerial Components or does it include Air, Land, Sea and Underwater components ?

Offence by definition means air land and sea.

[johneeG]

Without doing the 6), the first five can't be done properly.

Rubbish.

90% of world air forces do 1 to 5 without doing 6.

IAF does logistics 24x7x365. IAF has had combat only for 100 days or so in 68 years

What transport aircraft has Indian industry attempted to produce?

That basically means that those 90% world air forces are simply dependent on a very few weapons manufacturers from just a few countries. So, these air forces are not really controlling anything. They are just playing with toys produced in other countries. The toy makers decide whether to give the toys or not. Thats the bitter truth. Unfortunately, there is a huge difference between toys and weapons. During the time of war, every country(not just combatant countries but others) try to take advantage in whatever way possible using any loophole. So dependence on even simple day-to-day items would be exploited. But, if any country is foolish enough to be dependent for weapons, then they are just asking for it.

Let me give an example of Pakistan Army: Pakistan Army pretends to be taking care of offense, defense and logistics. But is it taking care of them? Suppose, tomorrow, US decides to give weapons(like F16s) to Balochistan Liberation Army, will Pakistan Army still win against BLA? Will the logistics hold up? So, is Pakistan Army really an independent Army or is it simply allowed to be an army by people who give them weapons?

Of course, Pakistan doesn't pay money for its weapons. So, one can say that their case is different. But, Pakistan has to still pay by other services because there is no free lunch in international politics. In short, Pakistan is forced to be puppet for those who give them money and weapons. Other countries which can afford to pay money think that they are not in as dire circumstances as Pakistan. But, fundamentally there is not much difference. If and when the time comes, their dependence will get exploited.

Basically, there are two types of countries:
- those who make their own weapons
- those who buy, borrow, beg, and steal from others.

If you are not producing your own weapons, you are dependent on others. And if you are dependent on others, they will make use of it at the right time. Thats why, India has to think 10 times before going to war. So, tell me, is IAF or IA really taking care of logistics by being dependent on foreign imports if India has to think about the 'feelings' of every country before going to war on puny Pakistan? Did US ask anyone's permission to go to war against Iraq and Libya? Did Russia ask anyone's permission to get involved in Syria or Ukraine? China pokes India on LAC whenever it wants.

Strictly speaking, this is true about any item of necessity. And this becomes more important if you control the ability to open and close the tap at your will. Weapon manufacturers have the ability to create new armies quite easily. Some basic initial training has to be given for an year, and a whole new army is ready. But, an army cannot just create weapons like that within an year.

Suppose, if Russia or China or USA(+Europe) decide to give F16s to Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, ...etc, and arm them with all other latest weapon systems and train them. What can India do to counter that? So, these 3 countries: Russia, China and USA are the most powerful countries whether they stay in UN or outside it.

IF India develops weapon manufacturing ability, we will become as powerful as them. We get the ability to create armies. We can make or break countries. So, we will get UN seat or any other seat. Otherwise, without the ability to make weapons, we are just pretenders, not a real power.

I remember that you used to raises a question sometime back: what is a superpower? Simple answer: A country which makes its own advanced weapons and exports them to others.

For sometime now, there has been a bid to get UN seats for Germany, India, Brazil, and Japan. Each of these 4 countries have the ability to be great powers. But, rightnow, they are just pretenders. Why? Because none of these 4 countries have a huge local MIC. They have it in bits and pieces, but they are still largely dependent on imports(India has the ignominy of being the biggest importer). So, will India's UN bid succeed? Most probably no because India doesn't have the ability to create mess and clean up the mess. There is one card that India can play: India supplies large number of soldiers to UN. If India sees supplying soldiers as a card to play, will not the other countries think weapon supplying also as a loophole worth exploiting? Further, if India can gain UN seat just by supplying soldiers, how much more could India have gained if India had its own MIC?

[johneeG]

To decide the role of IAF or IA, one has to first decide the status of India? Does India want to be a real power or not? If India is happy being a small power(or just a pretender), then there is no need to develop local MIC.

The good news is that India already has developed Arjun and Tejas. And has the ability to develop most other systems.

[deejay]

7. Enrich foreign vendors?
8. Enrich themselves!

WTF?

[nirav]

7. Enrich foreign vendors?
8. Enrich themselves!

WTF?

+1

Criticism is fine. But of late its going down to almost slander and bashing.

except the LCA all India can produce at the moment is thenga.

if not import Sukhois and Pakfas or even the Rafale, then do what ?

[johneeG]

Offense and Defense involves Logistics. Without logistics, neither offense nor defense is possible. And similarly, logistics is only possible if you control the nodes of logistics. And the most important node is the starting point i.e. manufacturing. Only when a weapon is made, it is going to be supplied. If someone thinks that they can offend or defend without securing the logistics, they are fooling themselves. And if someone thinks that they are securing the logistics without securing the manufacturing, they are fooling themselves.

Some dependence on foreign mercenaries or foreign imports is understandable. But, any army which is totally dependent on foreign mercenaries or foreign imports is frankly making a big mistake. In 60 years, the armed forces should have understood this simple thing. I can understand the politicians and babus promoting foreign import policy.(I don't mean to say that its right for the politicians or Babus to push imports, its just that armed forces are more likely to understand the importance of weapons than others because they live and die by the weapons and logistics). So, armed forces should have been pestering the govt for local MIC. They should have been at the back of the R&D to set the things right.

[shiv]

I think we must evolve on this forum

Time was when people assumed that air force was for dogfight and BVR air combat . We have moved forward a bit and now generally acknowledge that air force is not about dogfights alone but combat capabilities mean attack to degrade enemy assets on the ground, sea and air.

Let us move a bit further. What is the air force doing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

1. They are moving people and things
2. They maintain constant vigil - ready to intercept or investigate unidentified objects threatening to enter restricted airspace
3. They are gathering intel
4. They are training training training. Training for combat. Training for rescue. Training for efficient logistics. Training to fly safely under conditions in which Indigo and Jet Airways won't fly. Training to win wars if the powers that be allowed them to enter

Google chacha says nearly 25,000 days have passed between August 15th 1947 and yesterday.

In those 25,000 days the IAF has seen perhaps 100 days of Combat. That means combat flying has occupied about 0.1% of days. Maybe the percentage is higher in terms of sortis because more sorties are flown at wartime. Still whether we like this fact or not, whether it is unromantic or not, whether it causes cognitive dissonance or not, 99% of IAF flying is NOT combat flying

99% of IAF flying is training, airspace vigilance and logistics. It helps not to forget that. The training has helped the Air Force prevail in all its wars so far in an era when highly educated and underinformed people on social media were not calling air warriors names. The Air Force works every single day and that work is training, logistics, support for other services and civilian authorities and vigilance.

Linked below is a video of the less romantic things that the Air Force does 99% of the time. Surely, if we are going to blabber on and on about what the air force needs, we must think of what it needs 99% of the time apart from combat capability. We never do that and we have never done that on BRF - so much for our being a premier internet forum and being ahead of the curve.

Where is the urgency to design and build a transport aircraft? Heavy lift helos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj7IU1a4EMw

[shiv]

+1

Criticism is fine. But of late its going down to almost slander and bashing.

except the LCA all India can produce at the moment is thenga.

And a +1 to you too. Seeing a lot of thenga nowadays..

[Manish_P]

@Shiv

Sorry but the question seems a trick question

I would like to select one option if the period is war-time and another option if the period is non war-time.

Anyway since we have been in a war (nicely called 'low-intensity conflict') for the past few decades, i will select the option i believe to be appropriate.

[shiv]

If you exclude combat aircraft - the IAF has about 500 helicopters and transports (excluding combat helos here) (Data estimated from Wiki figures). The IAF also has 200 trainers. Each transport requires two crew maybe more. This data simply shows that more than 50% of air force aircraft and personnel are aimed at roles that are not direct air defence or combat attack roles - barring niche roles like transports dropping bombs and - of course armed helos like Mi 17s or even Chetaks

The air force has to look after the interests of all these roles. But we on here don't know and what the mind does not know, the eye does not see. The IAF has to look at maintenance and uptime of all aircraft and the training and welfare of all personnel. Being a Hindu who has been taught to be reluctant to bring up negative things - can anyone say why we hear of fewer transport accidents than fighter accidents although the fleet sizes have an approximately 2:1 fighter to transport ratio? We do hear of helo accidents. Helicopters are doing risky stuff over the mountains. But who cares? We only demand more combat aircraft, more dual pylons, more BVRAAMs. More LGBs. More Gatling guns. There are more personnel in logistics and non fighter roles than fighter pilots. Punish them curse them for wanting to make money from imports or trying to sabotage the air force is what I am reading on this forum. All because our level of information about the IAF is about the same as the level of information that one could get from comic books. But we are good at making policy. And it is people with our level of under information who become ministers and bureaucrats. And we want to "punish" the IAF. The bullshit that sprouts from these ostensibly wise portals is overwhelming. We are such Einsteins that we curse everyone. Ministers. Bureaucrats. The IAF. And at the end - we praise ourselves for being ahead of curve. Amazing.

[shiv]

@Shiv

Sorry but the question seems a trick question

I would like to select one option if the period is war-time and another option if the period is non war-time.

Anyway since we have been in a war (nicely called 'low-intensity conflict') for the past few decades, i will select the option i believe to be appropriate.

Manish the poll is unimportant other than giving a general idea of what people think. It is not going to change what the air force does. I keep repeating that "real hot combat" occupies only a small part of the IAF's role. But that is the glamorous part. I think we need to be able to rise above the glamour and look at hard reality of what the organization (Air Force) is tasked with and what it takes to run such an organization. We have one of the biggest air forces in the world but all we know about it is "Old aircraft. Falling numbers of combat aircraft. HAL bad because of manuf defects. HAL good because of Tejas.

We may curse the media but the average level of insight into the armed forces on BRF is only a few percentage points better than the lay media and what we talk about is what the lay media tell us. I wish we had as much faith in our countrymen in the forces as we have in our own judgements.

[deejay]

------delete---------

[deejay]

@Shiv

Sorry but the question seems a trick question

I would like to select one option if the period is war-time and another option if the period is non war-time.

Anyway since we have been in a war (nicely called 'low-intensity conflict') for the past few decades, i will select the option i believe to be appropriate.

The IAF and all the armed forces define their roles as a) War Time b) Peace Time

[shiv]

One thing that all "advanced" countries seem to do particularly the US is to wage war continuously. The air forces of those nations probably have war and peace ops at the same time - with neither general mobilization for war nor complete peace. I suspect they have certain theatres that are at war and other theatres are peacetime postings. To a small extent the Indian Army faces that situation and to a lesser extent the IAF. The IAF plays logistics roles in the Himalayas where they could, in theory come under fire from Pakis. The Army OTOH is actually at war in some border areas.

We talk a lot about a military industrial complex. I think that we need to have a national policy of waging war somewhere or the other to encourage such a policy. Ultimately national power goes beyond arms to questions of national economy and industrial capability. Nations like Sweden and Switzerland manage with exports and are not really waging war. But the US, Britain, France, Italy and other NATO countries have their industries supported both by exports and by waging war.

I believe we must be ready to start and wage wars - especially wars where we can get away without major defeats to encourage a thriving military economy. All our war preparations are based on "We are ready to impose cost if someone else starts a war". As long as no one starts a war we are at peace.

I can think of many domestic and international political ramifications if India were to start wars rather than simply preparing for one imposed on us. The other thing to do is to join wars abroad. These require political will and alignment with someone or the other because all wars are with someone or against someone.

Projection of force abroad is what the navy is gearing up for. The Air Force has some (fairly good) capability to provide logistical support at medium to long distances across the ocean, but we cannot do what the US does. But there is no use talking about developing the ability to project force across vast distances by air if there is no political goal defined for that projection.

Can we have an Air presence in Afghanistan?
Why not plan to start hitting Pakistan at will?
Should we attack Australia?
Should we occupy Madagascar?
Can we project air power over the middle east? No point developing "just in case" If we develop it we must hit something

All these require political decisions about why and what needs to be done. Currently it looks like for India - it is the naval air arm that can grow for force projection. The air force may remain "local" unless we can devise and produce means to enter and use airspace above China.

My guess is that we really should be looking at transports that can double up as refuelers or AWACS as the next level of industrial development for India. This will not be so easy. There is a sort of glut in the transports market and all Indian development will be risky unless we can find a niche role.

[Manish_P]

Had put a post but can't see it now. Guess it got deleted (perils of crush hour suburban railway commute )

+1

Nicely put, Shiv sir.

Agreed and appreciate your intent.

[shiv]

A few weeks ago there was a longish interview with ACM Arup Raha that we discussed on here. Of course all that we discussed was a dissection of words that he used regarding LCA "Did he say mark1 or mark 2". We did that. So did the media. But no one seemed to notice that the CAS seemed positive and part of his positivity and satisfaction was based around the induction of C-130s and C-17s. I can't remember the details but I think he also mentioned the new Mi 17s.

Of course we are a free democratic nation with freedom of expression and can choose to throw any shit we want at the CAS. But all that the media and we were bothered about were his refs to LCA. Raha also took pains to explain that aircraft inductions are planned well in advance because they cannot simply be inducted at will and that mid life updates are also vital because halfway through the life of an aircraft it would have fallen behind in capability because of various advances. But his talk indicated the breadth of responsibilities the IAF has and among these are maintaining transport and helo fleets and new acquisitions to replace old ones and mid life updates as well as his refs to LCA and the resolve that the IAF would be involved and that accountability will be sought from all parties. Raha ended on a positive note. But we don't seem to share his positivity. We know better and we have explanations to say why we know better, I am sure.

An Air Force Chief inherits a complex organization of people who perform tasks involving danger to someone every day. His view of the entire organization cannot be as simplistic as we make it out to be, ahead of curve as we think ourselves to be. We reflect what the media say and the media help us remember Neb, Keelor brothers, Nachiketa, Ajay Ahuja etc. All fighter pilots whose names appeared in the media. Most of us will not recall a single name of a pilot who flew air drop missions in various campaigns or even helicopter pilots who did daring supply drops or rescue ops. And as regards technicians and engineers and non combat cadre - we couldn't care less. There are thngs that happen every day but we don't notice because we are obsessed with air combat. And it is the media and video games that shape our views on this. Sure it is glamourous and exciting but if we are so far ahead of everyone else we should know what the IAF is actually doing no? it is not asleep between wars.

[Mihir]

My suggestion to everyone commenting on this thread. Before you write about what you expect the IAF's role to be, read their doctrine to get a better understanding of the IAF's vision and its assessment of how it fulfills its role as a component of national power.

The document is publicly available on the IAF website.
http://indianairforce.nic.in/pdf/Basic% ... 0Force.pdf

[ArmenT]

Was going to suggest that the primary role of the IAF is to support ground and water operations of the IA and IN. If you look at their history, a lot of their ops have been:
(a) Bomb enemy troops, armor, shipyards, factories etc. Shiv: your late cousin did a lot of this IIRC.
(b) Transport of troops and supplies
(c) Intel gathering (photo-recon & signal monitoring) missions

I'd say that A2A combat has been the one that they'd done the least historically.

[shiv]

In war all that you say is perfectly true. The funny thing is that in peacetime the logistics (troop and supplies transport) continue while the fighter job morphs to training for war, recce/Intel gathering and protection of airspace (what I have termed as airspace vigil)

A post on another thread asking why the armed forces should not simply be handed over to the National Disaster relief effort reminded me of a poorly built bridge before some event - maybe it was in Delhi. When it collapsed the army was called in to build one in a matter of days. The armed forces are trained and equipped to be mobile and effective in bad weather and hostile terrain. That is part of their job and that is why they get called in for disaster relief.

I think it is a naive and child like view to see services as having narrow roles in society. We constantly hear of fire services being called to rescue pets who are stuck up or down somewhere. One might ask what are they doing not firefighting. The point is that for fire firefighting they have the training and equipment and readiness to do all sorts of things. The Air Force too does not have a narrow role of simply bombing and dogfighting.

Mihir's pdf linked above is informative - but since it is 160 pages it will be ignored.

[shiv]

from @harbans RT->@Erroor pics

[JTull]

What do you mean by 'Primary' role? So you're assuming a secondary role.

Then your choices should be listed twice so people can choose primary and secondary.

I: Stands for it's primary responsibility which is the Nation. Everything they do, viz, logistics, training, disaster relief, equipment buying/maintenance should be in the context of the Nation.
A: Primary dominion is anything Above ground.
F: Force is about projecting power. Be visible and be emphatic! (btw, this includes proactively/visibly buying Indian - as above, the primary responsibility)