Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 26 Jun 2016 19:37

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 262 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2012 22:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2012 06:43
Posts: 1119
The MKI Bars radar, a PESA was classified as mini-AWACS, in the above scenario if the Phalcons can be replaced with the Bars carrier, it offers much more flexibility, maybe the proposed upgrade of high powered AESA's offer the required stand-off ranges

Active stealth such as Rafale's Spectra which tunes into the hostile radar frequencies and masks the reflected signal in near real time, it can act as a passive sensor and probably can be operated in a multi-static mode with the long range air defence radars of China itself, a fair number of sensors flying along the Himalayas can give cues of stealth aircraft flying between them and the Chinese S-300 systems

MKIs can switch on their torches towards the cueued direction for tracking purposes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 06:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 28718
Location: Sanatana Dharma: The binding force of South Asia
vivek_ahuja wrote:
Bi-Static and Multi-Static radars are one answer.

Think of it this way, if you have more than one radar illuminating a piece of real estate in the sky, any incoming fighter will have to expose its larger RCS cross-sections to one or more of the illuminating systems. If they are all networked, then the information is shared and the location passed on to the aircraft/target under threat. Alternatively, the information is given to inteceptors that will track and eliminate the targets.

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/7969 ... oncept.jpg

Another way is to increase the power of the radar systems, but this is limited to platform choice for the airborne radars. For example, it might be possible to increase the power on the Phalcon (unlikely but possible) while that is not the case on the CABS AEW. Ground based radars don't really have power limitation problem but instead have are vulnerable and restricted on line of sight.

-Vivek


Also as per the article above - use L and S band radars. What are they?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 09:08 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26
Posts: 712
Popular Mechanics wrote:
Aerospace engineers designed stealth airplanes primarily to beat the detection equipment that poses the greatest threat—X-band radar. Surface-to-air batteries use this band because it operates at wavelengths that give the optimal compromise between the range and resolution needed to identify and track a target. But when stealth airplanes are exposed to radar waves longer than this wavelength range, they generate stronger radar returns.

For this reason, well-equipped defenders have more than one kind of radar protecting the same airspace, set up at different angles. For example, a defender protecting a fixed target (like a uranium-enrichment facility) could share data from a network of several radars to get enough information to accurately launch a missile. A VHF radar could detect incoming aircraft while lower-frequency S-band or L-band radars on the flanks could paint the target from the sides. Russia sells such counterstealth radar combinations as package deals.


This isn't quite true. A layered IADS uses radars of different frequency bands for different tasks. L and S band radars are long-range search radars. Great for early warning and surveillance, but the coverage is spotty and the data rate is low, meaning they can't be used for tracking and fire control. X band radars are used for fire control. They have relatively short ranges and cannot be used to scan the sky; they are pointed at the target identified by a C band target acquisition radar. They follow that target and provide data to weapons (AAA, SAMS, etc) to be directed against it.

To say that the X band radar is the "greatest threat" paints a false picture, IMHO. Depending on the target profile and the system set up for air defence, the greatest threat may well be something else.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 00:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2012 06:43
Posts: 1119
We take border fencing seriously, probably fencing around the nuclear plants as well, so why not do that for Mumbai, the NCR, Jammu and Srinagar, create a perimeter around each place so that all movement is through checkpoints. The people living there and any one visiting should be one of the first ones that have an identification such as an Adhaar card or a Passport.

Pros:
Bomb and run campaigns by paki proxies (sleeper cells) wouldn't be easy due to checkpoints, neither is the availability of the incendiary material

The hit or miss of intelligence information on terror and acting on it in time (small time attacks such as the best bakery case still happening) can now give way to a more reassuring situation

Currently each institute or place of importance needs protection, instead of thinking point security why not adopt area security by creating sanitized zones (which is more relevant after the Headley episode)

BMD assets need protection from asymmetric targeting and they can be located inside the perimeter

For Jammu and Srinagar AFSPA can be removed in the sanitized zones

Mass riots/hysteria seen in recent times will pass since they can't take off from the place of event at will

Cell phone towers in multi static mode around the perimeter can detect stealthy cruise missiles approaching the metro area and can be shot down using VSHORADS

In future if per news reports the atomic agency decides to build underground nuclear reactors that are located within cities or SEZ's, the same security would be needed

Cons:
Traffic might face delays through the checkpoints, Mumbai and Delhi will have atleast 10 major highways leading in/out and about 5 rail lines.

For roads, we would need large US-Mexico type of border checkpoints for each highway near the perimeter, for bypass traffic existing alternate routes would have to be improved

For trains, an option is Metro rail would have to be extended upto the perimeter and transfer stations (checkpoints) to the rail network would have to happen. This gels with the Railways plan of de-congesting main stations by making all trains passing through metro regions to stop at many small stations between the outer limits of the metro and the main station. Only this time the local metro transport will take that role and the IR train itself will stop at the outermost station at the perimeter and takes a bypass to go onwards.

City growth
With rapidly growing city, containment by perimeter will be a problem so one way to mitigate this would be to forecast the growth and hence the identify the suitable outer limits which say could be revised after 25 years and hopefully the TSP problem disappears by then. A perimeter further out than the current settlement creates a buffer zone for VSHORADS deployment as well.

Tier 2 cities and towns are ignored in the security setup, with security forces having the key places covered can then focus on these areas.

In rural villages people usually know each other in the village so a neighborhood watch kind of program helps them. Just awareness needs to be made.

These are thoughts and not a Spec ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 00:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Nov 2011 22:31
Posts: 3171
Location: With/without/despite you - Andhera Chatega, Suraj niklega, Kamal khilega...[spare me, Kamal=Perfect]
shiv wrote:
Trying again

What means and technology has India developed/acquired to track stealthy aircraft?

Over the Himalayas, there are no cellphone towers for help in tracking. Perhaps IR?



Series of a cheaper version of Aslesha, even 2D perhaps, on all valley floors, looking up perhaps even in some more dense arrangement cris-crossing the valley. You cannot have angles at all places. Planes cannot be angular in dorsoventral axis. hein ji.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 00:17 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 43872
X-post...

Corruption, Bureaucracy Delay $100B India Buy
Quote:

NEW DELHI — India plans to spend more than $100 billion on weapons and equipment in the next five to seven years, but [b]if the military wants to prepare for a possible simultaneous conflict with Pakistan and China, that figure will need to rise to about $150 billion, a senior Indian Army official said[/b].

Forces on the borders with Pakistan and China will need to be increased and better equipped, the official added, especially the mountain troops. He declined to say if any plan is being developed to change the type or quantity of weapons and gear being bought.

The top five procurements for India’s services now cost more than $60 billion, a figure anticipated to increase by at least 20 percent, to $72 billion, because of inflation. Other planned purchases could push the spending figure to more than $150 billion in the next seven to 10 years.

Army: The purchase of a variety of 155mm/.52-caliber artillery guns will continue to be the top priority. All of the field guns in more than 220 artillery regiments are planned to be replaced for more than $8 billion.

Ten years of effort to buy the artillery through open competition have resulted in no purchases, as corruption cases against vendors have impeded procurement.

A program to buy wheeled guns also faces imminent cancellation because one of the competitors, Rheinmetall Air Defence, has been banned from doing business in India for 10 years. :mrgreen:

The Army has now ordered a homemade upgraded version of the 155mm/.45-caliber guns by the state-owned Ordnance Factories Board.

The Army is also buying 145 light howitzers from the U.S subsidiary of BAE, which will be deployed along the higher reaches of India’s border with China. Additional purchases are planned
.

Air Force: The Air Force is facing a shortage of combat aircraft following the retirement of MiG-23s and replacement of MiG- 21 and -29 aircraft. The service wants to increase its fleet of about 33 squadrons to at least 44 squadrons to retain its edge over Pakistan over the next 10 years. In addition, a variety of radars is needed to keep the air defense systems intact.

The big-ticket program is the Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA), costing more than $12 billion, and beginning induction of the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), being jointly developed with Russia. The FGFA is worth about $25 billion for the purchase of 250 aircraft.

The first MMRCA delivery will not begin earlier than 2015-2016, by which time the Air Force will have retired 100 more MiG-21s, the bulk of its combat fleet, and 40 more MiG-27s. To compensate, the Air Force plans to upgrade existing aircraft.

France’s Rafale was selected as the preferred aircraft in the MMRCA program, and negotiations are underway over issues pertaining to transfer of technology and offsets. The contract is expected to be finalized before March.

Navy: The Navy is retiring aging Russian warships faster than it is inducting new ones, so the service wants the Defence Ministry to take steps to reach a target of 185 warships by 2017. A Navy official said fleet strength could fall to 120 warships by 2017 from 140 now.

The Navy in 1999 had planned to build 24 submarines by 2022-2023. But so far, not a single submarine has been added, and the first lot of six conventional Scorpene submarines procured from France is behind schedule by more than three years. State-owned Mazagon Docks, where the subs are being built, has been asked to deliver one submarine every six months starting in August 2015. All six have to be commissioned by September 2018.

India’s submarine fleet has dwindled from 21 in the 1980s to 14. Meanwhile, India has leased a Russian nuclear submarine for 10 years, and the homemade nuclear submarine Arihant is expected to be ready for operational use early next year. India plans to build more of the Arihant class.

The Indian Defence Ministry has not yet issued a request for proposals for an additional six submarines, worth around $12 billion, because it has not decided whether to allow domestic shipyards to bid on the program.

The Navy also is acquiring seven stealth frigates at a cost of $7 billion. Mazagon Docks, prime contractor of the project, had invited overseas shipyards to provide modular construction technology.

The project has not been finalized because the only bidder to express interest, a joint Lockheed Martin-Hyundai Industries team, withdrew.

“All defense acquisition programs are behind schedule, some of them by over 10 years because of bureaucratic delays, which affect the combat worthiness of the Indian forces. Structural changes should be made in the purchase processes, which will include a greater role for the Indian forces and specialists hired from outside the Indian Defence Ministry,” said Nitin Mehta, defense analyst. .
:rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jul 2015 06:31 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 28718
Location: Sanatana Dharma: The binding force of South Asia
I am bumping this thread up because I have some things to say - thoughts sparked off by the recent discussions about AMCA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jul 2015 14:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 28718
Location: Sanatana Dharma: The binding force of South Asia
I want to post a few thoughts here about the philosophy of war - or, to put it differently, the thoughts and plans that a country or people have on the question of war. Whatever I write here is unlikely to be of much interest to most people but I think what I say is important in the long run, looking at the big picture of war, development and civilization. I will dump my post here and maybe come back to it in future

In the first post of this thread I stared with the following statement
Quote:

When you talk of military threats and challenges, you have to decide what you are going to be doing. Are you going to be sitting and waiting for others to attack so you can defend yourself, or are you going to go out and attack. This straightaway splits the requirements in the following way

1) If you are going to sit back and wait for an attack, who is most likely to attack you and what is it that you need to counter. Unfortunately reality demands that you must prioritize. If you think the entire world is going to attack you, your preparation is likely to be less focused and even your neighbour may take you down because you were too busy seeing far away, nearly non existent threats like asteroids

2) If you are going to go out and attack someone - you need to see where your interest lies and whom you want to attack. If Myanmar wants to attack India its preparations need to be of a particular nature. But if Myanmar wants to attack and take over Russia, the preparations have to be different.


In order to expand on how this affects India I would like to compare the US and India

The US does not wait for war to come. It imposes war on others. The last war imposed on the US was Pearl Harbour, 1945. One might argue that 9-11 was war imposed on the US but the US hardly fought the war needed to punish the perpetrators of 9-11. the US chose, instead, to impose wars on several other nations. I do not intend this to be a political post so I am not going to question US motives in imposing war. I am only going to observe the way the US prepares to impose war.

US preparations to impose war are inevitably based on experiences gained in previous wars.

Pearl Harbour brought the US into a previously European "World War" 2. World war 2 ended with a nuclear weapon.

Nuclear weapon capability started a long "cold war"

The cold war led to the Korean war. The Korean war taught the US that nuclear weapons could not be used willy-nilly and that conventional weapons would still rule the roost.

The cold war also got the US involved in Vietnam. Vietnam taught the US the importance of the following concepts in war
  • Aircraft guns are not outmoded
  • Agility and spare power are useful in air combat
  • SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) is a good idea to minimize losses to SAMs
  • Radar stealth is useful for the same purpose
  • Minimize own forces casualties to reduce political opposition at home
  • Mimimize visible collateral damage to enemy populations like the sordid Napalm burns images from Vietnam

The Vietnam war led directly to the development of the F-16, AWACS, advanced in SEAD, advances in PGMs/LGBs

Ever single one of these ideas was developed in the decades after the Vietnam war until they were first utilized in the Kosovo war. F-117s led the attacks and PGMs were used extensively. Next came the first Gulf war. SEAD, "no fly zones", pinpoint cruise missile attacks, PGMs.

Then there was 9-11. This led to back-on back US decisions to attack Afghanistan and later Iraq, then Libya and now Syria. Here was saw a refinement of no fly zones and PGM attacks and targeting by data sharing between multiple sensor platforms, all held in the air by refuellers, with air dominance being maintained by CAPs of F-16s and F/A-18s ready to shoot down at BVR.

This type of war is a game changer when you fight conventional armies. The war assumes that the enemy has an air force like yours that needs to be grounded. The type of war that needs BVR missiles for air dominance assisted by sensors on AWACS and UAVs and satcom assumes that the adversary has an air force with radars and missiles and is going to fight you in a "similar" type of war. The type of war war requires SEAD assumes that the enemy has robust radar networks and C&C centers that you will take out using your highly stealthy fighters and your PGMs.

But what would the US do if it was attacked by a force that had stealthy fighters for SEAD, a robust AWACS set up cooperating with loitering UAVs, and a huge air force backed by refuellers and BVR missiles? In other words what would the US do if it were to meet an adversary that fought like the US does? Chances are that the US will look for technologies to defeat stealth. They will look to shot down refuellers, UAVs and AWACS aircraft. And when all else fails they will ready for dogfights with agile fighters

Now what about India. From 1947 India has maintained that attitude that we will not start a war. This is the exact opposite of the US. War has been imposed on us time and but for a few exceptions that I will mention below

The Pakis attacked in 1947
The Chinese attacked in 1962
Pakis again in 1971
Pakis in 1999
India threatened, but did not make war after a Pakistani provocation in 2001

The exceptions are the Goa action, the Hyderabad action, the Maldive coup and the Sri Lanka action where Indian armed forces took the initiative.

When India is the "passive party" waiting for others to attack us, we should ask ourselves what sort of attack we can expect. The answer is a no brainer. Every country is copying the US or is being equipped with US style weapons to fight US style wars.

China will attack us in the way the US attacked Iraq
Pakistan also learns from the US and will attack us with the same equipment that the US uses for its attacks on others.

So please answer this question:

If we are going to get attacked by nations who will hit us the way the US hits its adversaries, should we be not be devising ways to defeat the types of attack that the US likes to use? Should we not develop the means to thwart and defeat attacks of the type the US did on Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? The later countries failed to survive such attacks? What do we have that can ensure that we are not defeated?

It is all very well copying the US doctrine and developing stealth aircraft etc. But India will use them only after we get attacked. Should we not be looking to defeat all the new technology that the US is developing because that is the sort of attack we will face rather than blindly doing a carbon copy of what the US is developing. We need toi be able to defeat US type war. Everyone who attacks us (Pakistan/China) will be doing so using US developed tactics and equipment

What means do we have to defeat a US like force equipped with US equipment and US support systems?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jul 2015 15:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 4243
shiv wrote:
Ever single one of these ideas was developed in the decades after the Vietnam war until they were first utilized in the Kosovo war. F-117s led the attacks and PGMs were used extensively. Next came the first Gulf war. SEAD, "no fly zones", pinpoint cruise missile attacks, PGMs.

Actually the Gulf War came first (1991), and the Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo (1998) campaigns came later.

Quote:
So please answer this question:

If we are going to get attacked by nations who will hit us the way the US hits its adversaries, should we be not be devising ways to defeat the types of attack that the US likes to use? Should we not develop the means to thwart and defeat attacks of the type the US did on Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? The later countries failed to survive such attacks? What do we have that can ensure that we are not defeated?

It is all very well copying the US doctrine and developing stealth aircraft etc. But India will use them only after we get attacked. Should we not be looking to defeat all the new technology that the US is developing because that is the sort of attack we will face rather than blindly doing a carbon copy of what the US is developing. We need toi be able to defeat US type war. Everyone who attacks us (Pakistan/China) will be doing so using US developed tactics and equipment


You seem to have skimmed over the most militarily important build-up post WWII i.e. in Cold War Europe. While they were some significant differences between the (technological intensive) NATO forces and (numerous & mobile) Warsaw Pact forces, neither side achieved any radically different solution to warfare (until the 80s when some major investments were made under Reagan in revolutionary tech).

Coming to the modern era, another fact that you've omitted is that both India and the US face the same conventional foe in the PRC. So to some extent our challenges are similar. On the other hand, we're likely to be fighting over mountainous terrain with our rear bases on plains (and the Chinese ones on a plateau), while a US-China conflict will likely take place on and over the high seas with the Americans staging out of their forward bases and carrier groups (and the PRC from the Chinese mainland).

On our front, we're going up against a numerically superior foe, with better logistics, superior manoeuvre capability and technology parity (if not superiority). We can perhaps take a leaf out of the Swedish Cold War manual and invest in decoys, camouflage, dispersed operations & better training but the 'tools-of-the-trade' available to us, are by-and-large the same as that for everybody else.

Quote:
What means do we have to defeat a US like force equipped with US equipment and US support systems?

The Chinese are also planning and training to fight not just a US-like force but an actual US-force. And some investments in niche areas like cyber warfare and ASBMs aside, the haven't diverted their focus from the basic goal of modernizing their military - mechanization of the PLA, force multipliers for the PLAAF (incl. stealth fighters), stealthier subs and AAW destroyers for the PLAN and above all a new integrated C4I system to serve as the backbone.

Both the US and China are still striving to attain and retain every little edge they can get over the other, and that includes 'disruptive' technologies (that's DARPA's primary function). However, if you can are aware of some specific strategy or tactic or philosophy or technology that they have ignored and India can adopt to help even the playing field, please do share.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jul 2015 21:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 28718
Location: Sanatana Dharma: The binding force of South Asia
Two relevant cross posts:
NRao wrote:
"War" has changed - even in the past decade+.

It WILL change even further. And, most of us are not even prepared for it.

As an example, we have seen the "war" becoming more and more PC. Guess what, check out a field called Cognitive Dominance, where the future (senior) soldier WILL be trained as a diplomat too. This ball is rolling and India is up there in this area.

Add to that "network", the ability to call-back, etc and now you have a totally diff set of criteria to fight a "war".

I do see India navigating all these areas on her own. She will borrow as and when required, will be influenced for sure, but will influence others too.

Ways to go, but that ball has started rolling.

#NextGen

So, I would not worry about nomenclatures. They have little meaning. It is how you train a war fighter and what tools - not necessarily destructive ones - you provide them with.


ramana wrote:

Any war will be max 96 hours.
IAF has to generate and destroy as many targets as possible in that time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jul 2015 05:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 28718
Location: Sanatana Dharma: The binding force of South Asia
I think both ramana and nrao are right in some ways and if a future war proves them wrong it would not be because they have not thought this through but because all possibilities exist and one must think and plan for all possibilities.

Please permit me to add some meta data to the talk of war.

Here are a couple of banal truisms, but they are relevant.
1. War is always fought between at least two sides (maybe more, but the minimum is two"
2. There are two sides to every story

Let me pick two sides now - say the Taliban on one side and the US on the other side. I start with a warning - to say that we are attuned to taking the US side and seeing the US viewpoint for more than one reason. We have no love for the Taliban and we certainly love the US more, for better or for worse. By taking the US side we wil listen or believe mainly the stories that come out of the US.

If the US says that a JDAM killed Abdul bin Q'zinfuqi we believe that. Oftentimes if we listen to the Taliban side of the story we hear that 2 women, 4 kids and 2 goats were also killed. Probably both stories are true, but we believe the American one preferentially in that it was a pinpoint attack with minimum collateral damage. A perfectly true statement. Not zero collateral damage. Minimum. The Taliban do not watch the TV images that we watch that tell us that a dreaded peacenik was eliminated by a pinpoint bomb. They only see a family dead. They then send a soosai bomber to maim and murder people in a restaurant or some place. We see images of that and think,"The Taliban are bestial. The Americans have got it just right - pinpoint attacks with no colleteral damage"

The truth is that both sides are wildly killing the other side. One side appears sanitized and civilized. The other side barbarian and uncivilized. These are "mental pictures" It's all in the mind - and its all about which side we take.

When we are fighting war ourselves we really should not allow these mental pictures to block our thought processes. If our ass is on fire we need to eliminate the enemy ruthlessly and not think that "Our war should be civilized like American war and not uncivilized like Taliban war" May I point out that the so called "new normal" is the maya of "Universalism"

The old "normal" was "Geneva convention". The Geneva convention was set up simply to crate rules by which someone else could be punished. Your own people would not be punished. The hypocritical dichotomy is there for all to see if one keeps one's eyes open. We are attuned to believe that the side we support fights a just and rule-based war. This is rubbish and it has been rubbish all the way back to the time the Mahabharata was composed which has the same relationship between rules and rule breakers.

I would not waste time worrying too much about collateral damage except to lie to the media and say that you are avoiding it, the way the US does.

As regards how long wars take, the US ended its hot phase in Afghanistan and Iraq in a period of weeks or months. but there is still a conflict going on

The US has declared Afghanistan as won and is pulling out. Iraq too is over. But what is the exact truth? It is not over. One of the reasons why India has not started wars is because it is easier to start than end them. Pakistan started the Kashmir conflict in 1947. India has not stopped fighting them even without declaring hot war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jul 2015 09:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 28718
Location: Sanatana Dharma: The binding force of South Asia
How is the future of war decided and who decides it?

Typically, for a given nation state or warring entity, the future of war is decided by past experience. If there was something that did not work in the last war, plans are made to avoid that, or make it work better in the next war. Complete and utter defeat is when an entity can no longer plan for a future war. Germany and Japan at the end of world war 2 were in a state of complete and utter defeat in which they were no longer allowed to plan for a future war. But for anyone who is not utterly defeated the option always remains open to plan for future war.

Generally speaking, we in India have "followed" the west and have planned our wars the way the west plans for future wars. The broad structures of our armed forces mimic the structures of western armed forces and we modify those stuctures based on our experiences. We picked up some cues from 1962, which we applied by 1965. We picked up cues in 1965 which we applied in 1971. We applied cues picked up in 1965 and 71 and applied them in 1999.

What about Pakistan? What did they do? Did they pick up cues from 1965 to apply in 1971. No. In fact they thought they had won in 1965. They botched things badly in 1971. But they did pick up one cue - the acquisition of nuclear weapons and after they did that they actually went down a route that was not predicted.

The "predicted route" for India and the rest of the world was to take cues from the cold war and imagine that nuclear armed powers, for fear of nuclear war, would not fight direct wars. This has been "conventional wisdom". What Pakistan did was to start asymmetric war backed by nuclear weapons. Pakistanis know that they will be defeated in conventional war, and they know that they cannot win a nuclear conflict. But they have calculated that by fighting asymmetric war India will be forced to hold back both its conventional forces and its nuclear forces and be compelled to simply fight terrorism wherever it arises without actually being able to punish Pakistan. So the future of war for Pakistan changed after 1971 to "asymmetric war in a nuclear backdrop". This rendered Indian massive conventional advantage somewhat redundant.

When people are asked "What is the future of war" most people tend to pick up what they see in the media and what they see in the media is mostly what comes out of America. No one talks about "Terrorism/asymmetric war with nuclear backing" as the future of war. The future of war for most people is "Missiles, stealth aircraft, smart bombs, drones, networking, cyber war etc"

The question that must be asked is whether this particular model of future war has managed to win over either asymmetric war or asymmetric war with a nuclear backdrop? If the future of war is really "Missiles, stealth aircraft, smart bombs, small bombs drones, networking, cyber war etc" then how come this marvellous future war is unable to overcome a stupid unsmart low tech asymmetric war and terrorism and suicide bombing? As long as terrorism/asymmetric war is not defeated the way Germany and Japan were defeated, it will continue to have enough successes to be perpetuated.

The idea that future war is going to be "Missiles, stealth aircraft, smart bombs, small bombs drones, networking, cyber war etc" will be a false idea because there is an alternative and parallel future war in progress , which is of terrorism/asymmetric war/suicide attacks.

I repeat yet again, with necessary apologies that Indian future war is not going to be exactly like America's future war, and if we anticipate future war using the same words that America uses we are likely to come to grief. Let me make a paradoxical statement - but only as a joke, not seriously, and I will explain the statement

I will claim (with tongue firmly in cheek) that America is short sighted when it comes to war and that India has a long term view of war. While this may make it look like India is great, that is not true. It is the the US that knows where it is heading and makes war head the way it wants the war to head

America creates weapons for war that it wages in the next 10 years. It uses up those weapons in those 10 years and moves on to produce new weapons for a further 10 years war after that with a new enemy. Currently the US is fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS. It's newest weapons are simply created to fight those forces. The new weapons are not going to define Americas future wars. Weapons like SDB, Predator etc are great for taking out individual terrorist chiefs and their homes, but that does not mean that the US somehow imagines that the future of war will always be this way. The minute Al Qaeda and ISIS are finished (for the US) the US will come up with new weapons and new techniques for a new war.

We need to understand this. We cannot prepare for all future wars. We can prepare for the next war. Our next war will be with our adversaries, not with America's adversaries. So we must prepare for our war in our own way with our own weapons, strategies and tactics.Recognize and mark our enemies. Plan our weapons and strategies to defeat them. No need to copy either the US or ISIS or Pakistan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2015 07:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 28718
Location: Sanatana Dharma: The binding force of South Asia
In WW2 European powers simply kicked the shit out of each other. Attacks on civilian targets were normal.

In general "formal wars" after WW2 tended to avoid deliberate and indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets by the militaries, in start contrast to WW2. But in the post Ww2 era it also became "normal" for "militias/insurgents/terrorists" supported by some power or the other to deniably attack civilians - by "deniably" I mean that sponsoring and funding governments whether they were the US/CIA, Britain MI5, USSR/KGB or Pakistan/ISI claimed that they had nothing to do with the violence. Islam too in its role as a "Nation of Islam/ummah" has attacked civilians and claimed that Islam has nothing to do with it.

The question I want to ask here is "How far will India and China go in a future conflict?"

Will they attack each others' civilian population centers and cause massive casualties and seek to break the economic and social backbone of the other nation as wise and civilized European powers attempted between 1939 and 1945? If China were to conduct conventional missile attacks of population centers all over India would India sit back without some form of retaliation. Assuming that such a war ended after a finite period of time would it be possible for one side to declare victory after losing thousands of people and having cities devastated. Leave alone India - China which currently hankers for No 1 status in the world will hardly come out of such a war looking like a bright star that everyone will suddenly fear. The minute the Japanese and other pwoers see what China is doing in India - they will prepare to thwart any Chinese ideas of doing the same to them.

In my view, the chances of India and China getting into a war where they pull each other down and lose international clout as a result is quite low. Both countries will try and gain what they can be acting tough and maybe salami slicing or making diplomatic chess moves to gain influence across the world - with occasional border flare ups. This is advantageous to both China and India. As long as India tries to keep up with China there is unlikely to be a devastating conventional or nuclear war. In the absence of insane leaders in one or other country sense is likely to prevail so far as staring debilitating wars goes. Of course this is entirely dependent on both sides being strong enough not to be a pushover by which one side can make quick military gains and get away.

Just some random thoughts sparked by discussions in other threads..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2015 13:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16
Posts: 1541
All the logic towards peace is well and good ..never starting a war because you cant end it is not good logic., sometimes a pre emtive action might be the only way to prevent an all out war !.. Talk softly but carry a big stick just in case.Also have a good intelligence and surveillance capability .. know your enemies but know your friends even better .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2015 14:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 28718
Location: Sanatana Dharma: The binding force of South Asia
kit wrote:
All the logic towards peace is well and good ..never starting a war because you cant end it is not good logic., sometimes a pre emtive action might be the only way to prevent an all out war !.. Talk softly but carry a big stick just in case.Also have a good intelligence and surveillance capability .. know your enemies but know your friends even better .

What do all these homilies actually mean in terms of war between India and China?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2015 14:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 May 2014 00:15
Posts: 3622
Shiv your reference point is rather misguided because no one nation prepares for just one sort of war. The technologies you mentioned are themselves asymmetric responses developed to counter conventional and strategic advantages held by one's opponents (I have made this point earlier as well. Stealth is a counter-technology developed to negate the overwhelming superiority the Soviet Union had in integrated air defense systems). Counter terrorism, and anti-non-state actor is an ongoing source of worry and therefore constant source of investment by all the parties affected by it. It just so happens that the Indian Army and the Indian armed forces in general have been far better experienced and trained to counter it due to having fought insurgency for a lot longer. Some of the investments you mentioned are direct results of these hard pressed requirements such as attack drones (and ISR drones) that have low to moderate survivability built in to them. Yet no one military designs its structure using a short term view of things and they develop capability for the longer arc of time and to counter the sort of threats they perceive they are likely to use these things against.

The Small Diameter Bombs are not a result of counter-insurgency or anti-terror ops, they were in the works long before this as a concept and their use is going to go well beyond these missions. Additionally no one works on a 10 year technology cycle (no on in the armed forces anyway). The current set of capabilities and technologies that we see today in the US and similar technologies that the rest of the world is only now catching up to are a result of the second offset strategy and investments over a period spanning many decades starting in the 60's or 70's. Stealth, PNT (GPS), Precision Guided Munitions, Long range AESA sensors, and even early directed energy are all born out of that offset strategy that itself was designed to shed away with the conventional chess move type of competition and move to a more asymmetric advantage. The current war-on-terror and the "SUICIDE" type missions you describe have had a whole set of technologies developed and capability field at times quite rapidly. Things such as better armor, counter-IED electronic warfare (even EW pods for drones), and a many fold increase in the data pipeline supporting large scale drone operations around the world. Another area was attacking lightly armored moving or fleeing targets. Additionally there are always lessons learnt that feed into technology development. Gulf War and the Balkan campain did more to advanced SEAD than anything before it (in the west), similarly the current war on terror campaigns have considerably advanced Close Air Support capability like never before. These are consequences of looking at ones capability, identifying shortcomings and systematically improving upon them. These aren't " This is the way we wage war, and we want everyone to wage war". The whole world including the US (or India's) adversaries see these and ID shortcomings and look to neutralize the advantages they see enabling such a war fighting capability.

India's strategy and investment in its war machine have a component that is obviously unique to it and we have seen quite clearly some of the unique responses to that that are different from what others are doing. However, there are certain realities and technical challenges that are the same to all and that induce some very similar responses. For example, if your enemy (as in the eastern border) is creating an access problem there are a few roads you can take. You can either increase your deterrence and have a firm posture on that end, build counter-access denial measures that themselves can be a combination of things, or you can try to create an asymmetric advantage by creating area denial of your own in an effort to make the cost of turning the defensive advantage of the enemy into an offensive advantage - high. Some of those responses may appear to mirror what others are doing but that doesn't mean that it will be a direct one for one agreement on how to develop things and how to deploy them. Everyone one operates supersonic fighters instead of subsonic fighters because they are just better from a tactical point of view, everyone invests heavily in BVR weaponry and long range sensors because the advantages are apparent to all..Similarly there will be other strategies where a lot of the large militaries will think alike, yet others where they will take a position that is more in tune with their own asymmetric response to an existing or emerging threat.

It isn't as simple as to characterize nation X wages war in so and so ways so all nations should wage war in so and so ways. When interests and challenges align you begin to see some overlap, but how that planning works is influenced by a ton of different things..From risk appetite, to geography, and even cultural issues to economic concerns etc. In a nut shell many nations including India and the US face a myriad of threats ranging from insurgency, terrorism to nuclear armed states and both nations would obvously look to invest in areas where they care competent to deal with both. But as is apparent form even a cursory study at current plans and future investment areas one can see that the different requirements, needs and leading to different responses and investments - but that is a given. There will be somethings where the US investments will lead global investments. Precision guided munitions and using Satellites for PNT are just one of that area that has been developed by the Russians, Europeans, India and the Chinese but was first fielded in a large scale by the US. Similarly, whatever replaces GPS will most likely proliferate as well but these areas are small areas where there are agencies that are tasked to look into a crystal ball and make a call on technologies that are likely to show up 20-25 years later in the US and decades later somewhere else. Of course the uS does not have a monopoly on this, many expect China, given its budget to start to field game changing technologies over the next few decades that would have even the US play catch up.

Quote:
When people are asked "What is the future of war" most people tend to pick up what they see in the media and what they see in the media is mostly what comes out of America. No one talks about "Terrorism/asymmetric war with nuclear backing" as the future of war. The future of war for most people is "Missiles, stealth aircraft, smart bombs, drones, networking, cyber war etc"


It depends who you talk to. Of course there are many areas where these things are being actively talked about including what balance is optimum in what scenario. It depends entirely on what one uses as a source to gauge what others are talking about I guess. The future investment has a common goal for all - in winning, and every nation that intends to do so will look to go down a path that suits it. Some paths will appear to look similar to paths taken by other nations, yet others will look a lot different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2015 19:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31
Posts: 2488
I think it is more elemental:...expeditionary vs. homeland defense.

So far, India has shown no desire for expeditionary warfare. It's more concerned about it border neighbors.

However, as international trade becomes more important to the nation, will India sit back and let others enforce global freedom of the high seas, energy security, etc.?

If India thinks it is going to benefit from increased world trade and let others do the enforcing of basic commercial rights and energy security, then it may be in for a rude awakening.

The US is doing everything it can to make the Persian Gulf irrelevant for US's energy and its closest allies needs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2015 20:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 28718
Location: Sanatana Dharma: The binding force of South Asia
TSJones wrote:
The US is doing everything it can to make the Persian Gulf irrelevant for US's energy and its closest allies needs.

TSJ I think India would do well to make many of the US's actions irrelevant.

"Expeditionary forces" and keeping shipping lanes open are no doubt important, but sometimes closing those lanes is a useful exercise. Of course it all depends on the context. In 1971 Nixon wanted his dear Yahya to have all the support that the US could provide. India resorted to subterfuge by fixing it so that an old (retired) Indian Airlines aircraft was hijacked to Lahore and blown up (by men who were given toy guns by Indian intel). This gave India the best excuse possible to stop overflights of US built C-130s over India carrying Pakistani soldiers to aid the genocide in East Pakistan. Nixon must have fumed but then again anything India did was considered hostile back then.

And why did Nixon do all this? Because he wanted to befriend China. Now the US has two good friends. Pakistan and China.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2015 21:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31
Posts: 2488
shiv wrote:
TSJones wrote:
The US is doing everything it can to make the Persian Gulf irrelevant for US's energy and its closest allies needs.

TSJ I think India would do well to make many of the US's actions irrelevant.

"Expeditionary forces" and keeping shipping lanes open are no doubt important, but sometimes closing those lanes is a useful exercise. Of course it all depends on the context. In 1971 Nixon wanted his dear Yahya to have all the support that the US could provide. India resorted to subterfuge by fixing it so that an old (retired) Indian Airlines aircraft was hijacked to Lahore and blown up (by men who were given toy guns by Indian intel). This gave India the best excuse possible to stop overflights of US built C-130s over India carrying Pakistani soldiers to aid the genocide in East Pakistan. Nixon must have fumed but then again anything India did was considered hostile back then.

And why did Nixon do all this? Because he wanted to befriend China. Now the US has two good friends. Pakistan and China.


I don't what any of the above has got to do with increasing national obligations in a global forum and a military capable of serving it. Past recriminations almost 50 years ago don't mean diddley squat.

by your definition I should be fighting the Vietnam War over and over again ad nauseam in assessing my country's future military needs.


Last edited by TSJones on 04 Sep 2015 21:20, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2015 21:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 13751
shiv wrote:
Now the US has two good friends. Pakistan and China.

And also close allies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2015 21:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16
Posts: 1541
shiv wrote:
kit wrote:
All the logic towards peace is well and good ..never starting a war because you cant end it is not good logic., sometimes a pre emtive action might be the only way to prevent an all out war !.. Talk softly but carry a big stick just in case.Also have a good intelligence and surveillance capability .. know your enemies but know your friends even better .

What do all these homilies actually mean in terms of war between India and China?


@ Shiv ..Chinese activities in POK should be considered an act of aggression against India ! ..why are we keeping quiet ? If India started building some islands in the south china sea how would that be ? Actually India has more claim to POK than China on SC sea !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Sep 2015 08:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 28718
Location: Sanatana Dharma: The binding force of South Asia
TSJones wrote:

I don't what any of the above has got to do with increasing national obligations in a global forum and a military capable of serving it. Past recriminations almost 50 years ago don't mean diddley squat.

by your definition I should be fighting the Vietnam War over and over again ad nauseam in assessing my country's future military needs.

National Obligation is an interesting expression that means diddly squat.

You fought Vietnam because it was a US national obligation to fight communism. And guess what the Chinese were in 1971? And that stuff about sending expeditionary forces to keep lanes open is great if that is all those expeditionary forces did. Vietnam was an expeditionary force wasn't it?

If India fielded the economic and military power that the US has it would make sense to behave like the US. Expeditionary forces and all. Anyone with less capability should know his place in the pecking order of the world and not imagine that wars will be fought in the same way and for the same reasons that the US fights wars. That is all I have tried to say.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 262 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austin, Google Feedfetcher, nirav, pahadig, Surya and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group