Indian Army News & Discussions - 11 June 2014

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby srai » 21 Apr 2015 08:39

abhik wrote:
rajrang wrote:This is shocking. So, to add to this line of thought - the current Indian defense budget is about 240,000 crores. Assuming the proposed 64,000 crores on the strike core is spent over 8 years, (in India you can never tell how long this will actually take), this will be approximately 8,000 crores per year. This will translate into a 3% increase in India's defense budget. So, the defense budget which is probably 2% of India's GNP will become 2.06%. Remember this is only a one time expenditure, the recurring future annual expenditure will be a fraction of this amount

I think you are grossly over-estimating what we can actually afford. Rs 8,000 Cr/year in capital spending is an absolute HUGE amount for the Army. The entire actual capital spending for last year was only around 16,900 Cr (source). So you are talking about a 50% increase just to fund this expansion.


Union Defence Budget: Expectations and Realities

...
Aspirations apart, the ground realities of a developing nation always need to be kept in mind and answers need to be found from within. The crux of the problem at hand is that the ideal ratio of 60:40 between the revenue and capital allocation, has got disturbed over the period of time and the same is hugely pronounced in the case of Indian Army. The Revenue budget caters for operation and maintenance expenditure spanning to pay and allowances, transportation, stores (including ammunition) and other budget heads. 67% of the total revenue budget goes towards the pay & allowances and Indian Army being a manpower intensive organization takes a major chunk of the same. While the ratio of Revenue to Capital, for Air Force and Navy is still within the limits (35:65 for Air Force and 41:59 for Navy), for Army it is pegged at 86:14, which is indeed grossly inadequate for any meaningful modernization.
...
The scales tilted heavily towards the Revenue Expenditure on implementation of the 6th Pay Commission and when we are poised for another Pay Commission in 2016, the criticality is likely to compound. An increase of Rs 24,357 Crore in the Defence Budget for 2015-16, is in-fact an effective increase of just Rs 14,357 Crore, if we consider Rs 10,000 Crore going towards OROP. Hence not much relief is expected for the Indian Army already feeling the brunt of the raising of the Mountain Strike Corps as an unplanned expenditure, which did not form a part of the LTIPP. So the solution lies in correcting the anomaly between the Revenue and Capital expenditure. Consorted efforts need to be worked out to reduce the revenue expenditure.

Following remedial measures may be considered to give impetus to the modernisation of defence forces:-

- Revenue budget needs to be optimized for Indian Army at the earliest. Downsizing to a lean and modern Army to reduce the burden of Pay & Allowances is one such step which needs to be considered.
...

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Surya » 21 Apr 2015 16:46

Tsk Tsk Hari
you are supposed to take down notes especially on IPKf and relay it to us

:)

Go back and ask some more

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 22 Apr 2015 23:11

Rahul / Surya...just came across this article.....For once difficult to argue with the author who present a different/intresting view on things in perspective.

Transforming for an Uncertain Future

The former COAS, Gen K Sundarji had visualised a 40 Division army for a two front scenario that envisaged a dissuasive strategy against China and a deterrent one against Pakistan in a non nuclear environment.


Although the author goes on to justify the reasons for a larger Army, his basic premise is questionable in a nuclear scenario. At the same time, while he recognizes the plethora of Para-Military units possibly available to the Army the same is casually brushed over.

The aim should be to retain a potent deterrent capability to take the war into the adversary’s territory in
case of future conflicts, rather than concentrating on positional defence. Though there is apparently no written directive from the government that the loss of territory is unacceptable, all formation commanders proceed to make their defensive
plans based on the assumption that this is indeed so.


Lt Gen VK Kapoor states; ''The Indian Army is organised, equipped and trained for second and third generation, industrial age, and low technology conflicts. Its traditional methods favour deliberate set-piece military operations, against fixed defences, which are attrition oriented and tactically biased. The army excels in defensive operations and has considerable staying power and exceptional resilience. Over the past five decades or so, it has gathered remarkable experience in CI Ops. However, the higher leadership remains mired in conservative attrition oriented methodologies. This fact, coupled with a lack of adequate funds and a general lack of interest on the part of the political leadership have led to manpower oriented growth of the army.''


Lt Gen Vinay Shankar (Retd) has written, “Some years ago, the army had drawn up an approach paper projecting the requirement of two air-mobile divisions. This is now a definite requirement and the proposal ought to be followed up.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby ramana » 02 May 2015 03:06

I agree with need for large army. One lesson from WWII is how soon the Siegfried line broke and Berlin conquered six weeks later. Objective should be to defeat the adversary in his own lands.

JLN started kool aid of small army when biggest threat is from land powers in Asia.
And IAF is a flypast force now and Navy doesn't have enough bite.

I think Nepal rescue operations will give an idea of Himalaya ops will be.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Vipul » 02 May 2015 18:19

Delays Plague Indian Army Comm Program.

Procedural disputes are delaying development of the Indian Army's Tactical Communication System (TCS), the first weapon project slated for the "Make in India" category, said a Ministry of Defence source.

Two development agencies (DAs) were tapped to compete for TCS. The first is a consortium composed of private sector defense companies, and the other is state-owned Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL). The private company consortium said it would not proceed with development of a TCS prototype until it receives the same tax incentives as are given to BEL, and insists that the intellectual property rights of the system be vested with the developer and not the Ministry of Defence. (WTF)

Since the selection of the DAs in early 2014, no headway has been made in the development of a TCS prototype, the source added.

The private sector DA includes Larsen & Toubro, Tata Power SED and HCL Ltd., which have formed a special purpose vehicle based on an equity-sharing basis.

Under the "Make in India" category, each DA will develop two TCS prototypes at a cost of $100 million each. The government will finance 80 percent of the costs for the prototypes, which will then be evaluated, tested on the ground and one will be shortlisted for production. The process is expected to take about 36 months.

The Army will use TCS to provide a dedicated mobile communication system with anti-jamming and electronic countermeasures capabilities.

Demanding a level playing field, an executive with the private sector DA said, "The Indian government has already created facilities in BEL which would be utilized by them free of cost, whereas the private sector consortium would have to make investments that would be loaded on our offer. Ideally, the depreciation and interest of the MoD-funded facilities should at least be loaded on BEL to ensure a level playing field. This is still an issue to be resolved."

In addition, because BEL is state-owned, it gets special tax incentives on the import of technologies that are not imparted to private sector companies.

An executive from another company in the private- sector DA said, "The major problem is legal as the special purpose vehicle formed by private consortia is not yet recognized by MoD. However, in their efforts to move forward, the qualitative requirements have been shared by the user [Indian Army] for DAs to respond with their costs for the prototype. That discussion is on currently. However, even if this is cleared, the legal clearance has to happen prior to disbursement of funding by MoD."

Since TCS would be a dedicated strategic project, the Army will want to ensure the technologies built into the prototype and the final system are "sanitized," an Indian Army official said, meaning the technologies are developed exclusively for the Army and will not be shared.

Uncertainty exists among the DAs about how the Army will ensure the technologies, whether homegrown or imported, are sanitized.

"I hope this process of sanitization does not become too much of an interference in the development," said the first executive.

"The DAs have to take an undertaking from the overseas equipment manufacturers for unrestricted use of the imported technologies. The norms for checks on technologies would be uniform for both DAs," the executive added.

TCS was conceived in 2000 but was delayed because the MoD was unable to decide in which category the TCS should be built. Initially, the plan was to build the project on a "Buy and Make" basis, which would involve overseas companies. But later, BEL urged the MoD to give it the contract since it involved a strategic project.

In 2012, the MoD decided to build the project in the "Make in India" category and in early 2014 shortlisted the two DAs.

The Army needs TCS as quickly as possible, an Army official said, expressing concern the procedural dispute will cause further delays. "Even Pakistan has developed its own TCS kind of project, and further delays of the Indian project will affect the combat worthiness of the Indian Army," the official added.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 03 May 2015 12:41

ramana wrote:I agree with need for large army. One lesson from WWII is how soon the Siegfried line broke and Berlin conquered six weeks later. Objective should be to defeat the adversary in his own lands.

JLN started kool aid of small army when biggest threat is from land powers in Asia.
And IAF is a flypast force now and Navy doesn't have enough bite.

I think Nepal rescue operations will give an idea of Himalaya ops will be.


Large armies are futile in this day and age especially with an equally large Paramilitary setup...For all the calculations I have done we can mechanize all the three strike corps for ~14,000 crores and use the existing second infantry divisions with the former for the MSC. The Army needs to be streamlined further as our CI Ops requirements go down.

Even the PLA has plans to cut down to the 900,000 mark soon.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Sagar G » 03 May 2015 14:36

Vipul wrote:Two development agencies (DAs) were tapped to compete for TCS. The first is a consortium composed of private sector defense companies, and the other is state-owned Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL). The private company consortium said it would not proceed with development of a TCS prototype until it receives the same tax incentives as are given to BEL, and insists that the intellectual property rights of the system be vested with the developer and not the Ministry of Defence. (WTF)


Babaji ka ghanta, when GoI is paying 80% of the cost then it gets to hold the IP not the one who chips in with mere 20%. They should feel lucky enough that GoI is paying for the R&D cost and overlooking the cheapass behaviour of pvt. industries whom mostly are happy with screw driver production. IIRC BEL has already made a proto for the same and that should be put to test, corrected and put into production. The DA's should be told to take a hike or become supplier to the BEL product.

Though I agree with the tax incentive and the infra development issue raised by DA's but in no circumstances they should be allowed to hold IP. The IP of any defence product must rest with GoI especially when it is paying to develop the same, if any pvt. company wishes to become supplier of defence equipment then they either agree to this or go sell their products some place else.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby ramana » 04 May 2015 01:28

After the massive exercises in early 2000 decade did IA do such exercises again? We used to have many BRM articles by Vikram Vyas about them...

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby devesh » 04 May 2015 02:26

vaibhav.n wrote:
ramana wrote:I agree with need for large army. One lesson from WWII is how soon the Siegfried line broke and Berlin conquered six weeks later. Objective should be to defeat the adversary in his own lands.

JLN started kool aid of small army when biggest threat is from land powers in Asia.
And IAF is a flypast force now and Navy doesn't have enough bite.

I think Nepal rescue operations will give an idea of Himalaya ops will be.


Large armies are futile in this day and age especially with an equally large Paramilitary setup...For all the calculations I have done we can mechanize all the three strike corps for ~14,000 crores and use the existing second infantry divisions with the former for the MSC. The Army needs to be streamlined further as our CI Ops requirements go down.

Even the PLA has plans to cut down to the 900,000 mark soon.



severely confused. I have come across no source claiming the 900,000 mark. It will never happen under current PRC dispensation.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby member_22539 » 04 May 2015 09:20

^How did this lean and mean hype pan out in Iraq? We all know how "boots on the ground" were always lacking in number. Same case in Afghanistan. Now they have had to run away from both places with their tails tucked between their legs, all because they never had enough numbers on the ground. Its not a coincidence that IA has so many soldiers in Kashmir. Who would do their jobs, robotic drones?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby srai » 04 May 2015 09:38

^^^

Many boots on the ground will only get you so far. Long guerrilla-type conflict is not suited for regular armies fighting in distant lands.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby member_22539 » 04 May 2015 09:43

^That may be true, but inadequate troops help those guerrilla more than anything. Intelligence and boots on the ground are the only ways to quell such activity.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Rahul M » 04 May 2015 10:08

vaibhav.n wrote:
ramana wrote:I agree with need for large army. One lesson from WWII is how soon the Siegfried line broke and Berlin conquered six weeks later. Objective should be to defeat the adversary in his own lands.

JLN started kool aid of small army when biggest threat is from land powers in Asia.
And IAF is a flypast force now and Navy doesn't have enough bite.

I think Nepal rescue operations will give an idea of Himalaya ops will be.


Large armies are futile in this day and age especially with an equally large Paramilitary setup...For all the calculations I have done we can mechanize all the three strike corps for ~14,000 crores and use the existing second infantry divisions with the former for the MSC. The Army needs to be streamlined further as our CI Ops requirements go down.

Even the PLA has plans to cut down to the 900,000 mark soon.

precisely.
on the western front an army with good mobility can alleviate the need for a large manpower based force. with improved firepower those would be enough to carry the fight into pakistan as well.
it is on the northern/north-eastern front that you need manpower intensive forces, because lateral lines of communication might not exist, thus precluding mutual reinforcement in times of need. even then, better firepower at the disposal of the commanders combined with decent roads can mean the bulk of the forces can be held back from the border, reducing overall manpower requirement.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Rahul M » 04 May 2015 10:11

Arun Menon wrote:^How did this lean and mean hype pan out in Iraq? We all know how "boots on the ground" were always lacking in number. Same case in Afghanistan. Now they have had to run away from both places with their tails tucked between their legs, all because they never had enough numbers on the ground. Its not a coincidence that IA has so many soldiers in Kashmir. Who would do their jobs, robotic drones?

I didn't realise India was preparing to fight a counter-insurgency in pak or china. :roll:

if you dont understand the difference between what US was trying to do in Iraq/Afghanistan, India is doing in J&K and what we are talking about vis-a-vis Indo-Pak or Indo-China war, please desist from making this thread a comedy.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby member_22539 » 04 May 2015 10:33

^I wasn't being specific to the conditions in the China border. One would think that was obvious :roll:, given that I was talking about anti-insurgency. I was criticizing the general eagerness to ape everything American and forget that sometimes boots are needed on the ground in numbers.

While the mobility argument might pertain to the China border, you can't telescope that argument to the army as a whole.

I am all for making mobility a priority on the China border rather than numbers, but I would caution against jumping on the lean and mean bandwagon and adopting it as an ideology for the future of IA.

Also, even on the China border, the increased number of BOPs cannot be manned by people running around in vehicles. Someone has to hold the fort.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby KiranM » 04 May 2015 12:17

vaibhav.n wrote:For all the calculations I have done we can mechanize all the three strike corps for ~14,000 crores and use the existing second infantry divisions with the former for the MSC.

Can you please share the details of your calculations if not confidential?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Viv S » 04 May 2015 13:16

Arun Menon wrote:^I wasn't being specific to the conditions in the China border. One would think that was obvious :roll:, given that I was talking about anti-insurgency. I was criticizing the general eagerness to ape everything American and forget that sometimes boots are needed on the ground in numbers.

For counter-insurgency numbers are invaluable, and even more the Americans that's something the Brits learned the hard way in Afghanistan.

At the same time, the part of the Iraq War that gets overshadowed by the 5 years of brutal COIN campaign that followed, is the conventional military campaign in 2003. They did initiate the collapse of a 500K+ strong army in less than 10 days sustaining just 150 losses. There are lessons in there for the importance of modernization and net centric warfare.

For us, the main concern is the China border thais severely undermanned, with the terrain by and large precluding maneuver warfare. And the question that follows is, do we need over 10 full non-mechanized infantry divisions earmarked to the Western front, just to hold ground against a PA thrust. Or even to hold large tranches of enemy territory against guerrilla/insurgent forces in addition to the conventional opposition. Land that we'll inevitably return to the other side post-conflict (at least on the IB). I'd venture there are cheaper ways to achieve the same result and operational expenses incurred are having a debilitating impact on the China front as well as on the overall push for modernization.


member_28539
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby member_28539 » 04 May 2015 16:19

Army needs to be streamlined further as our CI Ops requirements go down.


Very less in knowledge compared to all the Garus here but would like to differ here with Vaibhav sir, how can the CI duties be going down? I mean with whole AF-Pak screw up that khan has done, these buggers be tumbling towards our land now & fantasy of delivering a thousand cuts hasn't died down in the baki mind(shit)-scape. I foresee an even greater need of AFSPA & boots on ground specifically w.r.t. Kashmir.

and maybe, just maybe, the whole AFSPA debate that was raging a few months back was primarily done by compromised parties to soften their operations in Kashmir. Just my 2 cents. :)

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby srai » 04 May 2015 17:12

^^^
You are forgetting about the Indian paramilitaries (BSF, RR, ITBF and AR) and police (CRF, NSG and other local) forces that operate under the Home Ministry. They are the ones who should be doing the vast majority of CI operations. The IA should reduce its role in this front and instead focus on its war-fighting capability against China and Pakistan.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 04 May 2015 19:40

I was travelling and it seems clarifications are in order!!

Sorry, I meant not the entire PLA but the Ground Forces complement.

A little recognized fact is that civilians in the PLA are included among the total numbers of China’s active duty forces. Some also work in PLA commercial activities. The exact number of PLA civilians is not known, but possibly constitute 20–25% of the total force. After the 500,000-man reduction when the PLA numbers approximately 2.5 million, a conservative estimate of the number of PLA civilians in the force would be around 500,000


1. Much like the PakArmy's Fauji Foundation, they also have immense commercial interests and numbers need to be considered as such. This IIRC, also includes their Science & Tech Institutes etc. By most accounts, their Logistics and Engineering units have massive commercial interests within country and outside. Eg: PoK/Africa/Latin America

One of the reasons why their military and non-military units operate almost seamlessly and can be dual-tasked.

2. The PLA Ground Forces has continued to correct its abnormal Officer ratio by strengthening the NCO cadre which was almost non-existent.

While the Table below is estimates, it gives us a fair picture of a more possible break-up in terms of combat forces.

PLA Active Duty Forces

Component PLA 2010
Army (1) 932,000/64%
Navy (2) 199,000/14%
Air Force (3) 334,000/23%
Total 1,465,000/101%

Furthermore:

China now has about 850,000 army servicemen in 18 combined corps and additional independent combined operational Divisions (Brigades).

The combined corps, composed of divisions and brigades, are respectively under the seven military area commands:

Shenyang (16th, 39th and 40th Combined Corps)
Beijing (27th, 38th and 65th Combined Corps)
Lanzhou (21st and 47th Combined Corps)
Jinan (20th, 26th and 54th Combined Corps)
Nanjing (1st, 12th and 31st Combined Corps)
Guangzhou (41st and 42nd Combined Corps)
Chengdu (13th and 14th Combined Corps)


Thus we can safely assume that Dennis has his number's correct with ~100,000 troops for 2nd Arty Corps also being accounted for as has been postulated.

This effectively blows out any narrative of 35 PLA Divisions being positioned across the frontage, that the media so loves to promote. It still remains a lethal force while having a higher technological edge at the same time. The Chinese reliance on rapid forces with organic airlift elements is what is most threatening. We only need to study the PLA's Aviation Brigades concept to grasp the underlying linchpins.

Consider this....
Defense of the Chinese mainland from land invasion cannot and will not be ignored by PLA planners. Neither will the PLA’s role in domestic stability be forgotten. However, large active duty ground forces may not be the most cost-effective way to perform those missions in the 21st century. For the defense of the mainland from land invasion, a larger reserve force may prove more suitable than a large standing active duty force.

A land invasion of China is unlikely to be a lightening strike or bolt from the blue. Rather, PLA planners can assume a reasonable warning period during which they could mobilize reserve forces to augment the standing army. Even with active duty ground forces numbering less than a million, many units will be located near traditional “avenues of attack” into China and will be able to act in concert with the local reserve and militia forces to trade space for time, utilizing People’s War tactics. New smaller, more mobile ground forces will be able to be shifted from one part of the country to another to reinforce units in an area under attack



Link:
PLA Strength
RAND-Dennis Blasko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never stated any issues with their MSC concept in any measure....

All i wish to enunciate is the fact as Rahul stated that at some point of time, we must leave the Pakistan fetish aside and prepare and plan for the eastern front as diligently. In all these years at BRF, I have not heard the IA even s single time having Corps level wargames along any of the formations.

That in itself says a lot, a situation that any amount of TEWT would not resolve.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Rahul M » 05 May 2015 23:19

vaibhav, the fact that PLA-GF is now < IA was mentioned in one of the annual china briefs of US DOD and discussed on BRF. so we have independent confirmation.

Arun Menon wrote:^I wasn't being specific to the conditions in the China border. One would think that was obvious :roll:, given that I was talking about anti-insurgency. I was criticizing the general eagerness to ape everything American and forget that sometimes boots are needed on the ground in numbers.

While the mobility argument might pertain to the China border, you can't telescope that argument to the army as a whole.

I am all for making mobility a priority on the China border rather than numbers, but I would caution against jumping on the lean and mean bandwagon and adopting it as an ideology for the future of IA.

Also, even on the China border, the increased number of BOPs cannot be manned by people running around in vehicles. Someone has to hold the fort.
the only thing obvious in your comment was the sheer lack of understanding about the reason for the army's existence.

CoIN is not the army's primary duty and whatever excess manpower (IMHO) is stationed on the western front is not involved in CoIN. the RR and AR models takes care of IA's CoIN committments quite nicely. our CPO's have a combined manpower of ~ 9 lakhs that is larger than most national armies.
I am all for making mobility a priority on the China border rather than numbers, but I would caution against jumping on the lean and mean bandwagon and adopting it as an ideology for the future of IA.

sheesh ! I was talking about making mobility a priority on the western front (hint : china is the other front). if you dont even understand basic things please, hold your piece.
btw, nobody has said anything about aping americans (except you). by forcing the army to stay manpower intensive and indeed, increasing the manpower component, we are adopting an inherently defensive posture.
I, for one do not at all understand why we should continue to adopt a primarily defensive posture against pak by
a) stationing a whole lot of defensive Inf Div's on the border
b) putting the bulk of the big hitters far inside from the borders

we still haven't managed to mechanize our Inf.Div's, which was part of the 25+ years old Sundarji plan.
FWIW, I would submit that even cold start would really come into its element only when the army gets its arty AND mechanized/mobile inf.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby member_22539 » 06 May 2015 06:06

^I am in no way against increasing the mobility of our forces and streamlining/modernizing them where required, lets get that straight first. Yes COIN work can be taken over by paramilitaries, but would they accompany the Army into foreign soil when needed? You can of course say that we will never face such a scenario, but lets just consider it for a second. If such a need arises I see the same thing that happened to the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan happening to a numerically depleted IA in that situation. My worry is that in our obsession over maneuver warfare, we will forget the element of holding what we win. Also, please pardon my ignorance, aren't the holding divisions of IA supposed to follow the strike corps into pakistan? Are they going to just stay in India in a defensive posture? Sure they need to have better mobility, but don't numbers have a quality of their own?

PS: If it came between choosing a large army or an agile one, I would definitely chose the latter, but isn't there any way we can have both?

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 06 May 2015 19:32

Arun,

It is the other way around for Pivot/Strike Corps....

I will post later on the specifics, but for the moment this is how it all went.

The mechanisation of the eighties had two strike corps poised for riposte or counter offensive, based on the assumption that an offensive, military-led Pakistan would be first off the block. Thereafter, the holding corps were to absorb the offensive and the strike corps would be deployed to either retrieve losses, or better still, to punish Pakistan. The conflict ending would see the two sides at the negotiation table trading the gains made in terms of captured territory -the victor being the one who makes greater territorial gains and suffers less damage. The HQ IPKF on its return from Sri Lanka, were re-designated the HQ 21 Corps and the newly raised 33 Mechanised Division was converted into India’s third armoured division. India thus managed to gain a 3:2 advantage over Pakistan in terms of strike corps.

Increased provocation by Pakistan under nuclear cover to the extent of targeting the Parliament in a terror attack combined with the NDA regime’s self-image of being more defence-oriented, fostered the offensive tendency in strategic culture. This has been consciously built into the ‘Cold Start’ doctrine. The ‘Holding’ corps became ‘Pivot corps’, with a capability for a limited offensive in real time. The strike corps with faster mobilisation were to be launched or located in a game of posturing. This enabled the creation of a wide-front with multiple pivot corps offensives going in and a strike corps under each command, poised in its wake, creating a decision predicament for the adversary whose assets would be under attrition from the air.


Piecing together the commentary on ‘Cold Start’ so far, the strategy apparently comprises launching of pivot corps limited offensives supplemented with strike corps resources. This would be done along with the Air Force wresting the initiative in the air in the early stages of the war. This phase would set the stage for punishment administered by the strike corps and by the Air Force. A combination of posturing, employment of strike corps, and application of operational level degradation fire assaults would force enemy strategic reserves into the open for the Air Force, in combination with the land forces, to degrade them. A clear aim and method emerges.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby RoyG » 06 May 2015 20:35

What sort of scenario warrants the use of cold start?

It works if Pakistan launches a military offensive (highly unlikely) or significant civil strife, but outside of that?

I feel that in a decade or so we should have the capability to launch our own proxy war with perhaps the DGMI taking a lead role.

The costs would be much less and it's a much more malleable and sustainable option and gives us a degree of deniability.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Rahul M » 06 May 2015 20:57

Arun, if we trade some of the army's size for mobility we would have 'both'. because we are already very LARGE (the Indian Army is THE largest army on this planet right now !) even without the china specific expansion.

btw, as vaibhav said, you got the order of the holding and strike corps activity wrong.
I created this map to explain the forces in Indo Pak context.

Image

the blue stars are our holding corps and the arrows depict the strike corps. (direction of arrows are not indicative of routes, just they fact that these formations would mobilize from interior towards the western border) as you can see the former are positioned closer to the border while the later are well inside our borders.

the strike/holding corps formulation, due to Gen Sundarji envisages the holding corps as anvils. by their sheer presence on the border they would force pak forces across the border to mirror their positions, thus tying them in place.
the holding corps thus acts as anvils.

the hammers or the strike corps, each spearheaded by an armoured div. then mobilize and the interior location allows them to pick and choose the most juicy pak formations, move to those places and smash them in their own territory.


btw pakis have their own strike corps -- the I corps Mangla and II corps multan, which would be held in reserve and committed only to counter our strike corps as they near the border. they also have a semi-strike corps in the karachi based V corps which has a mech div.

now, with the cold start doctrine, our holding corps are expected to start shallow push across the border on their own using their own strike formations, named Integrated Battle Group (IBG). this gives us the initiative and plays haywire with pakistan's strike corps dominated defence plan. instead of just 3 strike corps they would now have to deal with 5-6 IBG's AND the 3 strike corps.

unfortunately our manpower heavy holding corps IBG's look a little watered down, because the heavy hitters are concentrated in the hands of the strike corps. that was fine when the holding corps were essentially defensive formations but not when it has changed its role.
which is what the discussion has been all about.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18650
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Karan M » 06 May 2015 21:51

the UPA govt/MMS the joker deliberately kept the IBGs watered down (ample evidence to suggest that), so as to ensure PMO led "only peace is an option" brigade carried the day. with arty, increasing mechanization, and the new modi govt (talk talk hit hit like PVNRs dictum), expect cold start to get a fillip once critical holes in WWR/ammo are filled.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 08 May 2015 19:45

So it begins............


The ongoing Army commanders conference in Delhi, where the army's topmost leadership gathers twice a year, had a preliminary discussion on ways to balance the need to acquire an offensive capability against China and the fiscal reality.

Informed sources said the army's top brass will look at the possibility of internal accruals by tweaking its ORBAT (Order of Battle) against Pakistan. In simpler terms, an assessment is likely to be ordered to relook at the three existing strike corps (1, 2 and 21) ranged against Pakistan. Similarly, a review of the deployment of some of the dual-tasked formations like the 39 Division and 6 Division is on the cards.

The Armour and Mechanised Infantry heavy strike corps are all deployed on the Western Front. They are considered essential for the 'Cold Start' doctrine -- designed for lightening strikes against Pakistan in the event of a war -- that the Indian Army propounded after the experience of Operation Parakram in 2002, when the strike formations took a long time to mobilise, forcing the then government to go slow on its plan to punish Pakistan in the wake of the attack on Parliament.

Since both the political executive and the army brass agree that India must move from a dissuasion posture against China to a credible deterrence to maintain the power equilibrium in Asia, the necessity of a Mountain Strike Corps is well understood across the board.


In a way, the resizing of the Mountain Strike Corps is a blessing in disguise for both the Northern and Eastern Commands, ranged against the Chinese. Neither command currently have the requisite infrastructure to base new formations in the difficult terrains of Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim.

A gradually accretion in the strength of the 17 Corps which eventually will have dual tasking in the Eastern and Northern Commands, will follow once the infrastructure is in place.


Link: http://nitinagokhale.blogspot.in/2015/0 ... ntain.html

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5544
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby vishvak » 08 May 2015 23:54

The MSC would most definitely also help in tragedies such as the current one in Nepal after earthquake of very strong magnitude. In a scenario, say a natural calamity is to strike, say, Laos, would not MSC help again there too, instead of learning again something as unique and independent experience only to be re-learnt later? MSC with right funding can definitely help in such a situation probably.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3837
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 09 May 2015 02:43

Thanks Rahul, that is very simply and nicely done. Seems like the IBGs are like the "multirole" aircraft that the IAF is so enamored of...excellent move.

IIRC, you used to have a blog..still around?

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby member_22539 » 09 May 2015 06:24

Vaibhav and Rahul, thanks for the info. Yes a reduction in numbers for the sake of mobility for all would be most certainly acceptable. I just hope we have enough numbers to hold what we take, thats all. What that number is, is beyond me. What do you think would be the optimal number of troops for IA, if it were adequately mechanized?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Singha » 09 May 2015 16:09

the CAG report paints the expected picture of terrible shortages in ammunition vs the desired 40 day war reserve , with esp acute ones in high caliber artillery .
and the factory in nalanda continues to hang fire. first we ban denel, then imi and finally none were there to pick the ball.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... plans.html

Ordnance Factory Project at Nalanda, Bihar
(Source: India Ministry of Defence; issued Nov 25, 2014)

The project setting up the Ordnance Factory at Nalanda, Bihar was originally sanctioned by the Government in 2001 to create the production facilities for Bi-Modular Charge System (BMCS) for 155mm Artillery Gun at Ordnance Factory, Nalanda.

The contract for Transfer of Technology (ToT) of BMCS was signed with M/s Denel (Pty) South Africa by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), Kolkata on March 15, 2002. The contract became effective from March 15, 2003 after successful trials by Army. The ToT documents were received in March 2003 and subsequently the updated documents were received in April 2004.

However, dealing with M/s Denel was put on hold by OFB, because of its debarment in April 2005 on account of its alleged indulgence in illegal gratification.

Despite tendering twice, OFB’s efforts to get the BMCS plant in place could not materialise since foreign firm M/s IMI, Israel, on whom the contract was placed to supply, erect and commission BMCS Plant as per ToT documents provided by M/s Denel, got debarred, in March 2012, for a period of ten years due to breach of Integrity Pact.

After cancelling the contract with M/s IMI, Israel for main BMCS plant, OFB has initiated the procurement action for five individual plants through indigenous sources for manufacture of BMCS. Nitro-glycerine (NG) Plant, Nitrocellulose (NC) Plant and Sulphuric Acid Concentration / Nitric Acid Concentration (Acid Concentration) Plant have been erected.

BMCS Plant: Consequent to cancellation of contract with M/s IMI, Israel for main BMCS plant, Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) initiated the procurement action for five individual plants (NC-NG Paste, Single Base Propellant, Triple Base Propellant, Combustible Cartridge Case and Charge Assembly) through indigenous sources for manufacture of BMCS.

Meetings of Project Management Board (PMB) at the level of the Ministry of Defence and the Steering Committee at the level of OFB are being held at regular intervals to monitor the progress of the project.

As on date, no timeline has been fixed by the Government for completion of construction of this factory because of uncertainties in procurement/fabrication of BMCS plants through indigenous route.


This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Rao Inderjit Singh in a written reply to SmtRenuka Chowdhury in Rajya Sabha today.

-ends-

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21089
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Prem » 09 May 2015 22:54

Singha wrote:t
As on date, no timeline has been fixed by the Government for completion of construction of this factory because of uncertainties in procurement/fabrication of BMCS plants through indigenous route.[/b]
This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Rao Inderjit Singh in a written reply to SmtRenuka Chowdhury in Rajya Sabha today.-ends-


It was this lady Renuka who has successfully scuttled every artillery power augmentation plan for the last 10 plus years. Who does she work for ?

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby krishna_krishna » 10 May 2015 02:18

^^^ she comes from a defense family, her father was in army

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Vipul » 10 May 2015 03:41

Don't forget that she is now a politician and hence open to be an agent/lobbyist for any competing arms making company. Being from Defence family does not mean she will always necessarily behave in the best interest of the country.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3439
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby arshyam » 10 May 2015 04:56

Vipul wrote:Don't forget that she is now a politician and hence open to be an agent/lobbyist for any competing arms making company. Being from Defence family does not mean she will always necessarily behave in the best interest of the country.

Classic example is Mr Kalmadi, ex IAF.

viewtopic.php?p=1770741#p1770741

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby krishna_krishna » 10 May 2015 06:21

^^^ Guru's I have no doubt in my mind that she is corrupt to the core and anti national. The point I was trying to make is that she is a system insider. Otherwise why being a tourism minister would have to scuttle defense deals including strategic programs , the stats are depressing on kind of questions she asks(still does) .

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18650
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Karan M » 11 May 2015 01:19

Owaisi was member of std committee on defence. Go figure!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18650
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby Karan M » 11 May 2015 01:20


chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Postby chetak » 11 May 2015 01:47

Karan M wrote:Owaisi was member of std committee on defence. Go figure!


we have this knack of screwing ourselves willfully. some moron had made mufti the home minister too. can't even begin to estimate the kind of damage that would have done.

thank god that jyothi basu never became the PM.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 97 guests