CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

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.
Post Reply
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 878
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by Haridas »

ks_sachin wrote:ShauryaT in this instance we make mistakes then we are up shit creek. I like the fact that we can be so glib about the massive amount of change that comes about without care in the world.

I was all for IBGs but even before we have bedded that down we have tried to tackle recruitment now theaterisation. The IBGs hopefully will be good as they were borne out of the lessons learnt from the recent past (Op Parakram), the recruitment issue I am on the fence about but I think there are more urgent and important things to solve than theaterisation.

Too much change and too soon will mean that the ball will be dropped somewhere.....If change management is applied in private sector it applies even more so the Armed Forces. The result of churn can lead to the attrition of good officers....

I have more comments on Karnad's article but will desist as it will not go down well with the BR community - but its very rare to see very cerebral officers reach the very top. Is it not strange that none of the last 5 or 6 Chiefs are ever in the mix when we talk about visionary chiefs? Gen BC Joshi always comes up or Gen Sundarji.
@ks_sachin
I fully agree.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ramana »

Folks, All 13 mountain divisions are converted into IBGs and deployed along the LAC and some parts of Northern command.
That's 3 *13 = 39 IBGs.

ShauryaT why do you say that?
ks_sachin, there is no censorship here unless its anti-national. And if your thoughts are correct they will stand on their own. So please do say your piece.
My remark about cerebral is its flash in the pan. Process-oriented will plod but get there. The system needs to stand on its own and the occasional geniuses are a bonus.
The rest of the divisions will get converted per the plan submitted for approval.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ramana »

The IBGs are larger than the traditional brigade and smaller than the divisions. And as they are integrated there should be fewer crossed wires. I suspect the command will be by a major general or brigadier based on the theatre and formation.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ks_sachin »

Ramana Sir,

I think we should not think of the IBGs in terms of size.

Our philosophy has to change to integration/jointness/effectiveness. Size does not matter and if there is appropriate appreciation of jointness then scalability becomes easy to achieve based on the objective. If philosophically officers are not indoctrinated and trained to be able to bring about jointness then IBGs and theaterisation are moot.

There is too much of an arms-based approach and we have discussed this ad-nauseam here. But an Inf IBG commander has to appreciate where and how Armr should be used, how and where and the limitation of air assets. You require this kind of education from the ground up. This has to be reflected doctrinally in how we train and equip the forces. Right now we have IBGs and theaterisation but can anyone say hand on heart that we are equipping our forces in a manner we armchair generals think the war of the future will be fought? I stand to be corrected on that.

Also, there is a train of thought that the army is ageing. If that is the case, then we may need to consider what rank commands an IBG. That said I dont think we can have two different ranks command IBGs.
Roop
BRFite
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by Roop »

Just to make sure I am with the program, does "IBG" mean "Independent Brigade Group" or "Integrated Battle Group"?
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ks_sachin »

Battle
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by Rakesh »

Roop wrote:Just to make sure I am with the program, does "IBG" mean "Independent Brigade Group" or "Integrated Battle Group"?
To further add to what Sachin said, the IBG will contain all elements of a modern fighting unit ---> infantry, artillery, armoured and the logistics required to support all this.

Prior to IBGs, you had the Strike Corps. While effective, they take a long time to get going (logistic wise). Operation Parakram proved that. IBGs are required to be much quicker in response. This theory is now being validated via multiple exercises.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 621
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by maitya »

Rakesh wrote: ...
To further add to what Sachin said, the IBG will contain all elements of a modern fighting unit ---> infantry, artillery, armoured and the logistics required to support all this.
...
... and shouldn't attack helicopters be integrated as a part of the Artillery unit of an IBG, and support helicopters (like LAH) part of the Logistics components of the IBGs.
Not sure, why IBGs ae Army specific only?

Betw what about Air-defense units?
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ks_sachin »

maitya wrote:
Rakesh wrote: ...
To further add to what Sachin said, the IBG will contain all elements of a modern fighting unit ---> infantry, artillery, armoured and the logistics required to support all this.
...
... and shouldn't attack helicopters be integrated as a part of the Artillery unit of an IBG, and support helicopters (like LAH) part of the Logistics components of the IBGs.
Not sure, why IBGs ae Army specific only?

Betw what about Air-defense units?
Indeed. What the Admiral has stated is some of the elements. Depending on the objective and threats there may be organic attack heptr / air defence components but perhpas these could also be divisional or corps assets and allocated based on needs.

In addition the AF also comes in for CAS and this another thing that may be fluid depending on the objectives and threats anticipated.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by Rakesh »

maitya wrote:... and shouldn't attack helicopters be integrated as a part of the Artillery unit of an IBG, and support helicopters (like LAH) part of the Logistics components of the IBGs.
Not sure, why IBGs ae Army specific only?

Betw what about Air-defense units?
Sorry Maitya-ji and Sachin completed what I left unfinished to say.

The IBG will be modular. Depending on what the requirement and threat level is, assets will be added if required. So whatever one can think of could likely be added depending on the need. The goal here is a rapid strike force. And no more waiting for weeks on end, for all the Strike Corps' elements to get moving. Quicker the strike, that much less the enemy has time to respond. And if the IBG is commanded by a General like the late Kapil Vij (Commanding Officer of 2 Strike Corps during Operation Parakram), then the enemy has got its task cut out.

What the IBG is designed to do is to synergise everything - personnel, equipment, tactics, etc - to be more effective with rapid movement being the key term. Our Achilles heel lies in quickly assigning assets to one theatre of conflict. By the time the Strike Corps' assets are in sync, the enemy has sufficient assets of its own in place to potentially blunt the offensive. The IBG is designed to remove that hurdle.

Back in the 80s, then General Sundarji (later Army Chief and COAS) came up with a concept called RAPID (Re-organised Army Plains Infantry Division). For its time, it was a novel and ingenious idea - combining armoured brigades and mechanized infantry brigades into one cohesive division. I believe four infantry divisions were eventually converted into RAPID units, but Sachin or ParGha Saar will have to confirm. But back in the 80s, the AAC (Army Aviation Corps) was in its genesis stages and AAC assets were just coming into existence.

The IBG further crystallizes the RAPID concept. Today's IBG - as you rightly pointed out - will have not just infantry, armoured and artillery units (not just field guns, but MBRL regiments as well) but aviation units as well. And in the future....expect drones, UAVs, UCAVs to also join in if there is a requirement for such. And once the Integrated Rocket Force (IRF) is formalized, expect those assets to also be added into the mix. The IRF will be under the sole command of the military, so expect COs of IBGs to have a wide latitude in using those assets (BrahMos, Nirbhay, Prahaar, etc). No more waiting for political masters in New Delhi to give the nod.

Now imagine multiple IBGs across a wide swath along the border, doing wonderful things that only IBGs can do :mrgreen:

The rapid pace of IBGs also serve a key political purpose. By the time international pressure is mobilized for India to pull back or stop at its current position in enemy territory, IBGs will have captured significant portions of land. From that position, the GOI can negotiate. The goal for the GOI is to negotiate from a position of strength.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ks_sachin »

Lets be clear an IBG will have some organic assets and some assets that will be provided to it. I am yet see any tactical formation that is so equipped that it is completely armed force in itself.

Remember the IBGs will be supported by higher formations which will orchestrate. Independence here is independence of action not of thinking!
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by Rakesh »

Absolutely. Apologies in advance, if my post came across as such.
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by KSingh »

Rakesh wrote:....
Whilst they are reorganising they should be creating air assault brigades also however the IA on their own don’t really have the airlift for this just with ALH, LUH/Cheetah/Chetak, they’ll need the IMRH to really make this viable. Of course the IAF have >200 MI17s but isn’t the entire point of the IBG to be a rapid combined arms ARMY formation?

The IAF having so many tactical helicopters is of course another question but it’s not likely they’ll be giving up any of their assets so the IMRH has to come to address this for AAC
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ks_sachin »

KSingh what do you define as an air assault brigade and how and where would you employ them say against China?

I will also put it to you that the scale required for an air assault brigade means what helicopters alone will not cut it. The IAFs transport fleet will be required. Helidrops are fine for much smaller sp ops type of insertions.

An air assault bde has to also be able to sustain itself till a link up is established with other ground forces.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

With respect to theater commands, IAF has valid concerns, which are independent of the size of the force. Rather than try and understand them and have an informed debate, it is depressing to see people here calling IAF and its leadership names.

Be that as it may, coming to the topic, the two key points which concern the IAF are as follows:

(A) Geographical distribution of assets -

- Current geographical distribution of assets under various IAF Commands is not same as 3 Corps under and its 3 x mountain divisions under Eastern Command or 21 Strike Corps under Southern Command.
- IAF Commands or bases are simply place holders.
- Except for must have assets in a particular sector (say, air defense squadron in Srinagar or Jaisalmer), all other assets can be moved about to carry tasks across sectors.
- Su-30MKI based in Bareilly could very well be bombing targets in Eastern Ladakh and HP and Uttarakhand or even Chumbi Valley.
- If you straight jacket asset distribution under various theater commands, this mobility will be killed. Which becomes an even bigger issue given our fighter numbers.

(B) Centralized Decision Making -

- Mobility of IAF assets is possible because decision making is centralized within IAF HQ.
- IAF HQ has the big picture and based on operational requirement, IAF HQ can allocate assets across sectors and theaters.
- Today, a Phalcon based in Agra or Netra based in Haryana can be tasked by AHQ to do snooping over UK or HP or Eastern India.

- If IAF assets are partitioned across Theater Command, then the decision making will also have to be decentralized.
- Each Theater Command will come-up with its own air tasking basis the operational scenario in its AOR.
- The big picture at national level gets lost.
- Mobility of assets between geographies gets hampered because now you've distinct holders of assets, rather than one entity earlier (IAF HQ).
- Centralized decision making and intra-theater movement of assets are both dependent on each other.

Yes, IAF also has concern about when or what do they get to command in their theater command business but the operational issues are much more pressing. You will never have enough air assets for each Theater Command to fight its own air battle.

US Theater Commands or Combatant Commands are distinct geographical entities which need to be equipped to fight their own battles. The US Defense Secretary, with advice of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is responsible of assets between Combatant Commands.

Our situation is much more dynamic. All our Theater Commands will become active the moment anything happens in east or west. We will neither have the luxury of time or resources. The actions will have to be taken in real time. You cannot have CDS and RM deliberating on transfer of one squadron or two squadrons between theaters.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ShauryaT »

rohitvats wrote: Our situation is much more dynamic. All our Theater Commands will become active the moment anything happens in east or west. We will neither have the luxury of time or resources. The actions will have to be taken in real time. You cannot have CDS and RM deliberating on transfer of one squadron or two squadrons between theaters.
While I agree on your take on the points in your post and wrote briefly on the previous page, surprised by the blanket assertion above. While it is distinctly possible for ALL of our theater commands to become active in defense of our land borders, it is more likely especially with the advent of short, limited in time and space, hybrid wars and limited operations for each theater command to cater to their needs with enough resources to prosecute its mission. Otherwise the entire effort of integrated theater commands is moot. Each command can be allocated resources commensurate with its military-geopolitical aims and objectives. If there is a resource conflict the objectives have to adjust to capabilities at hand.

Anyways, these are my thoughts on the commands given our resources, capabilities, threats and objectives.

Western Command – Offensive – AOR: Maharashtra – Punjab, Arabian Sea
Northern Command – Offensive – AOR: Jammu - Uttarakhand
Eastern Command – Defensive – AOR: Sikkim – Odisha, Bay of Bengal
Indian Ocean Command – Offensive – AOR: IOR – Suez – Cape of Good Hope - Malacca
Special Forces Command - Offensive
Strategic Forces / Missile Forces Command – Defensive/Offensive
Logistics Command – All supply chain, training, medical, administration, Military Police, etc
Technology Command – Communication, computing, ISR (Supports Technology/communications/ISR Management and interoperability, not operations), Sensor Fusion Product Management/interoperability, Cyber, Military Intelligence

Air Defense?
Rocket/Missile Forces?

I remain conflicted on the need for a single air defense command for the entire land mass.
On rocket forces, I think rockets by themselves are an extension of artillery. It should be with the theater commands. We should evolve our SRBM/MRBM from strategic to dual use and along with cruise missile assets, it should be in the hands of our strategic / missile forces who’s purpose should be conventional as well as strategic.

I am sure there will be counterpoints. Just expressing some views.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

ShauryaT wrote:<SNIP>
The cardinal difference between army and the IAF is that IAF even now fights as a single, all-India command. Various regional commands are placeholders and facilitate the logistics of air operations.

The way I see it, one possible course of action is to dissolve all regional IAF Commands and have one IAF Command under each Theater Command. But the air assets are held centrally by the IAF HQ and allocated to each Theater Command as per requirement.

- Air Defense Command is DOA - the idea has already been shot down because IAF is by default in-charge of the country's AD.
- SFC: Makes sense to be held directly under Nuclear Command Authority.
- Integrated Rocket Forces: While administratively, these can be held under IRF Command, the assets will have to be physically distributed with various Theater Command because of storage and range issues.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

PART 1 - Integrated Battle Group (IBG)

Before we analyze the concept of IBG, we need to understand the existing command and control set-up.

(A) Division and Brigade

- A typical infantry or a mountain division consists of 3 x Infantry/Mountain Brigades.
- Each Brigade in turn typically has 3 x Infantry Battalions.
- Each Brigade has a Brigade HQ, its complement of Staff Officers, and small support elements like workshop company etc.
- But key assets are centralized and held by the Division HQ.

- A Division will have following assets:
(1) Artillery Brigade (4-5 artillery regiments and Surveillance & Target Acquisition Battery or Regiment).
(2) Engineering battalion
(3) Signal Battalion (Communication and EW)
(4) Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Bn
(5) Medical Battalions x 2
(6) Ordnance Unit (ammunition, fuel, oil, lubricants, provisions)
(7) ASC Bn (transport, ration)
(8) Tank Regiment (for infantry divisions in plains)

- Division Commander allocated these centralized resources to Brigades as per operational task.

(B) Battle Group

- Within each Brigade, battalions can be regrouped into Battle Groups.
- For example, a Tank Squadron might be grouped with an infantry battalion for an offensive task.
- This is an ad-hoc formation created on-ground for specific task(s).

(C) Brigade Group / Brigade Combat Team (US Army)

- Our IBG is a formalized Brigade Group. Let me elaborate.
- Lets take an infantry brigade from a division, give it one or two dedicated artillery regiments, add 1xArmored Regiment from the Independent Armored Brigade (IABG) of the Corps and we form a Battle Group.
- But here again, a BG is an ad-hoc structure created as per requirement.

- What we're attempting to do with IBG is create pre-defined Battle Groups with assets already allocated/attached to them as per their operational task.
- This will improve command and control, the IBG will have its task clearly defined before-hand, and it can plan and train accordingly.
- What this also means is that we will see some of the assets centralized at Division HQ level to be released to each IBG.
- For example, the way a Division Signal Battalion is structured is that it has 1 x Company dedicated to facilitate communication within one of the brigades and between the designated brigade and Division HQ and other entities.
- Same goes for the arillery.
- Will the artillery be held at Division HQ level (which has a strong merit because all assets can be brought to bear on a given target) or, to reduce the sensor-to-shooter cycle, these will be permanently devolved into IBGs?
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

PART 2 - Integrated Battle Group

For reference, this is what a Combined Arms Brigade (Medium) of the PLA looks like -

- Mechanized Combined Arms Battalion: 4
- Recce Battalion: 1
- Artillery Battalion: 1
- Air Defense Battalion: 1
- Operations Support Bn: 1
- Service Support Bn: 1

The above is a self contained maneuver and fighting formation.

Within the Indian Army the Independent Armored Brigades, or Mechanized Brigades or Infantry Brigade Groups have somewhat similar structure. They have all assets under their command.
-----

It is important to remember the Chinese have gone one step further from Combined Arms Brigades and created Combined Arms Battalions. Even their Artillery and AD Battalions are composite in nature.

* A mechanized combined arms battalion (CABn) most likely has 3 x Company of Mechanized Infantry (Tracked or Wheeled IFVs) and 1 x Tank Squadron.
* A heavy CABn has 2 x Tank Squadrons, 2 x Mechanized Infantry Companies and even 1 x Battery of 120mm self-propelled mortar.
*An Artillery Bn will have Tube Artillery, Rocket Artillery and even 1 x Battery of their long range, NLOS ATGM!
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ramana »

Rohit, Do mountain divisions have artillery components or not?
BTW the PLA combat batallion groups are based on Soviet-era formations.
I once did a study on them.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

ramana wrote:Rohit, Do mountain divisions have artillery components or not?
BTW the PLA combat battalion groups are based on Soviet-era formations.
I once did a study on them.
All divisions have organic artillery brigade, including mountain divisions.
As for the Chinese, they've tried to model themselves, and in some cases gone beyond the Brigade Combat Team (BCT) structure of the US Army.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ShauryaT »

Rakesh wrote:The IBG further crystallizes the RAPID concept. Today's IBG - as you rightly pointed out - will have not just infantry, armoured and artillery units (not just field guns, but MBRL regiments as well) but aviation units as well. And in the future....expect drones, UAVs, UCAVs to also join in if there is a requirement for such. And once the Integrated Rocket Force (IRF) is formalized, expect those assets to also be added into the mix. The IRF will be under the sole command of the military, so expect COs of IBGs to have a wide latitude in using those assets (BrahMos, Nirbhay, Prahaar, etc). No more waiting for political masters in New Delhi to give the nod.
The evolution of RAPID to the army only reorg of the IBG goes through lessons learnt from Parakram and indeed a rethink on the massive investments in strike corps structures and positioning being evolved. It indeed will involve non-army assets in an integrated command setup of the future. It is also an acknowledgment, at least to me that cold start as a doctrine was not suited for the positioning of forces at scale and objectives envisioned. It is a rethink of objectives. RYK is dead so to speak, not because we failed but because it is no longer desired.

I disagree with the idea of IRF being under the “sole” command of the military. The missile forces are escalatory assets in our context against our primary adversaries and given our limited resources in the area best that they are used with political concurrence. I would settle for our entire missile forces be designated as dual use assets. War is too important to leave to the Generals alone.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by Rakesh »

ShauryaT wrote:I disagree with the idea of IRF being under the “sole” command of the military. The missile forces are escalatory assets in our context against our primary adversaries and given our limited resources in the area best that they are used with political concurrence. I would settle for our entire missile forces be designated as dual use assets. War is too important to leave to the Generals alone.
No military formation in India will undertake an action without the approval of the GOI. That is certain.

Since the formation of the IRF, certain assets (Shaurya, Prahaar, Pralay, Nirbhay, BrahMos, etc) are in the process of being moved under that umbrella. The Strategic Forces Command, which forms part of India's Nuclear Command Authority will continue to have assets like the Agni-series of missiles that will be armed with nuclear warheads. Any missile launch from the SFC requires approval from the NCA. The IRF however gives the military broader options to engage a particular target. And options are vital to a successful military operation. If assets from the IRF are used against the enemy, rest assured approval has been given by the GOI.

Pakistan considers any Indian military action to be an escalation. The Mush was famous for crystallizing Pakistan's nuclear doctrine in the 2000s. His well known line was that if Indian forces crossed even an inch into Pakistan, it would face a mushroom cloud. He was referring to the use of tactical nukes against an Indian armoured and/or a mechanized infantry thrust into Pak. However India has conducted appropriate escalations into Pakistan on two separate occasions - PoK in 2016 and Balakot in 2019. While neither incident was an all out war, Pakistan's first thought was not to launch nuclear tipped missiles at India. Pak Gernails are well aware of that outcome and it does not end well for them. There is no path for Pakistan to come out on top or prevail in a nuclear conflict with India. Not a single one.

No Pak Gernail really believes in Jihad and Holy War against the evil RSS/Hindus who follow the MAD (Modi, Amit & Doval) doctrine. That bullsh!t narrative is for the illiterate in Pakistan to swallow and they gullibly believe it as well. What Pak Gernails say in public, is not to be taken as the gospel truth. The Punjabi Mussalman - the ruling elite in Pakistan - suffers from a severe inferiority and identity complex, sprinkled with copious amounts of self-inflicted fear about Hindus. Ghazwa-E-Hind is a bedtime/lullaby story that they tell to the Pakistani awaam to assuage those very fears. Ghazwa-E-Hind is never going to happen, no matter how much Pakistan's Propaganda C-in-C (Zaid Hamid aka Lal Topi) quotes the Quran and Prophet Mohammed.

China has sizeable conventional forces that they believe can achieve results without the need to employ nuclear weapons against India.

Whatever escalatory action that needs to be undertaken, will be done with full approval from the GOI. No Indian Army General is going to go at it alone. That is not how our system is set up. The "I" in IBG and IRF does not stand for Independent, but rather Integrated.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ShauryaT »

@Rakesh: I am advocating for dual use of ALL our SSM's and cruise missiles. As of now our deterrence posture is modeled more akin to the US/USSR asset types with clear demarcations of nuclear and non-nuclear payloads for most parts. These postures provide predictability but come at a cost and usually the conventional force structures get deprioritized. You are right to point out China does not feel the need to threaten India with nuclear postures as they feel comfortable with their conventional force structures. However, China does have the capabilities to target New Delhi and Bengaluru with conventional missile forces without escalating to the nuclear ladder. We should seek the same. The Agni series, Brahmos and Nirbhay should be made dual use. It is time to get a little unpredictable in our postures. China should get the message that India too retains credible assets to threaten Beijing and Shanghai, with conventional force and climb the escalation dominance ladder, which we do not possess as of now.

China was the primary context for my statement on escalation being under political control. On Pakistan too, I think unpredictability will wet their pants further and something our military and political leadership should factor. I am saying we should keep them on tenterhooks. They do have a use it or loose it posture for their strategic arsenal, if they know they will loose it and massive missile attacks will convey that message, we should factor their likely responses. Our enemy may bluff a lot, but their capabilities have to be factored against our objectives.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by Rakesh »

@Shaurya: With India's military posture, it actually makes perfect sense to demarcate the IRF and the SFC assets.

Click at the link below and take a look at China's population density and see how far it is from the border. Striking those population centers will require longer range missiles (Agni series). The same is not true of India. Most of our population centers are easily accessible by Chinese missiles, as you have rightfully pointed out.

Population Density in China: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The ... _348342855

Chinese military bases are a whole other story though...as a number of them are scattered in Tibet, all along the Indo-Chinese border. These are within the range of a number of missiles that are expected to join the IRF. See the link below....

PLAAF Airbases in Tibet: https://www.thedrive.com/content-b/mess ... quality=60

Attacking population centers will only escalate the conflict to its eventual end - nuclear strike. That is something that China would find politically unpalatable to do, considering how quickly that situation can spiral out of control. I made a post last year on this very topic and I am re-posting some of that below.

================================================================================

"India's infrastructure - like roads, rail lines, rail and road bridges, oil storage depots, power plants - is largely around massive population centers. When China starts attacking that infrastructure, they will invariably kill a very large number of civilians in the process. At that stage, China has basically forced India's hand to retaliate in a similar manner.

And India will respond with missiles that can hit the mainland of China. When China detects those launches, how are they to know that those missiles are armed with conventional or nuclear warheads? What assurance does China have - especially in conflict and under this Indian PM - that India will hold true to her NFU policy? The Chinese in turn will launch nuclear tipped missiles, assuming India is doing a first strike decapitation. When those Chinese missiles explode in India and kill millions more, India in turn will then launch her own set of nuclear tipped missiles and do the same. You now have nuclear winter. What is the point of teaching the evil Yindoos a lesson, when millions of their own are guaranteed to die?
"

================================================================================

The Chinese are not in the business of conducting war to lose millions of their own people. For the Chinese, it is always maximum gain with little to no loss of their own. The opposite scenario is a loss for them. This is the same reason why they never escalated at Doklam or at Galwan. They could have very well prevailed in an all out war, but at what cost? Losing large number of men & material is a loss of prestige for Xi and the ChiComs. And the Indian military is guaranteed to provide that to them. Loss of prestige for Xi & the ChiComs = Collapse.

And if you believe I am stretching that truth, see the on-going situation between the two nations on the border. China has walked into a situation, from which India is refusing to blink first or back down. As a result of the propaganda that the ChiComs have fed the Chinese populace, Indians are viewed with disdain and contempt in China. But the ChiComs are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Backing down first will result in shame. But an all out war with India is also not looking too good, due to the potential losses the PLA will have. For the ChiComs the calculation is this --> If they cannot handle us SDREs, how are they planning to tackle Taiwan?

Another good example is when Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan earlier this year. Do you remember all the noise and war mongering the ChiComs made? What was the end result? Like cute baby Pandas, the Chinese folded and acted like nothing happened. If they went against the US forces in the region, the PLAAF and the PLAN would have gotten their ass handed to them. And after the dust settles, Xi and his Communist Party will get lynched by the Chinese citizenry. This is how dictatorships and communist regimes operate. They overestimate their capability to their own people and then they have to live up to that hype, when push comes to shove.

From our perspective...the goal of the IRF is to inflict pain on the Chinese military and not attack Chinese civilians. While BrahMos and Nirbhay could very likely carry a tactical nuke warhead, it is counter intuitive to our military posture. What purpose would that serve actually? Dropping tactical nukes on Chinese military bases is not something India should ever consider doing, especially when conventional warheads can achieve a similar result and is far lower on the escalatory ladder. India - using nuclear warheads - will have unnecessarily escalated the conflict, which will result in China climbing up the escalatory ladder and result in massive loss of life on both sides.

India cannot threaten Beijing or Shanghai with a missile that does not have the range of an Agni. Look at the range of the BrahMos (500+ km) and Nirbhay (1,000+ km) and then see the distance it will have travel to China's population centers (i.e. Beijing or Shanghai). It will soon dawn on you that this is not going to work. Only the Agni (or a missile of that caliber will). Perhaps in the future, if DRDO can come up with a long range (minimum 3,000+ km) supersonic cruise missile, with a viable payload....then we can revisit the discussion of making missiles dual use.

See this picture to get a better idea ---> https://d18x2uyjeekruj.cloudfront.net/w ... issile.jpg

China is well aware of the demarcation of the assets in the IRF and the SFC. And employing IRF assets lets China know that India will not escalate the conflict to a nuclear one. But China is also aware, that nuclear assets are present and will be used against them if India is pushed to that corner. Our announcements of Arihant deployments are designed to serve that exact purpose.

Pakistan is a basket case. A large percentage of its population suffers from malnutrition which stunts brain development. Pakistanis only think tactically (short term gains) and never strategically (long term gains). The ruling elite in Pakistan control their awaam through bellicosity, fear, coercion and duplicity. For the past 75 years of its independence, they have been constantly fed on a diet of "Hindus Are Evil" by their Gernails. This narrative makes their Gernails shamelessly rich, who in turn live a life of uber luxury via corner plot bungalows in Islamabad and being chauffeured around in expensive German cars.

Pakistan will not escalate a conflict with India to the nuclear threshold. No Pak Gernail wants to see his corner plot bungalow go up in radioactive smoke, along with his many mistresses. Not worth it. Pakistan can be comfortably dealt with via conventional means. But any war - with either China, Pakistan or both - will result in losses for India. No point in getting melodramatic (i.e. when Abhinandan got shot down in PoK) during military conflicts. Expect loss of life and capture + torture of our military personnel.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ramana »

1) I disagree with the idea of IRF being under the “sole” command of the military. The missile forces are escalatory assets in our context against our primary adversaries and given our limited resources in the area best that they are used with political concurrence. 2) I would settle for our entire missile forces be designated as dual use assets. 3)War is too important to leave to the Generals alone.
1) The IRF assets are conventional armed and we see in Ukraine War that the military needs to use such assets. Target lists will be politically cleared. In a battle, the military commander needs to be able to use all assets to win the battle.
2) They will be escalatory if we declare dual use as the receiving party doesn't know what is the nature of the incoming warhead. Hence the clear decision to separate the forces into IRF and SFC.
3) War needs to be fought by generals. We saw what happened in 1962 and even 1965 to an extent.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ramana »

See IBGs and Theater commands are to keep the conventional threshold high.
As two nuke-armed powers sharing the border, potential clashes will be skirmishes at best, and implementing the Theater commands and IBGs allows rapid response and flexibility to prevail in the skirmishes.
So IRF has to be usable and not result in paralysis to defend borders
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ks_sachin »

ramana wrote:See IBGs and Theater commands are to keep the conventional threshold high.
As two nuke-armed powers sharing the border, potential clashes will be skirmishes at best, and implementing the Theater commands and IBGs allows rapid response and flexibility to prevail in the skirmishes.
So IRF has to be usable and not result in paralysis to defend borders
Ramana sir,

In my opinion that is a simplistic response you have given to a strategic problem our establishment has recognised. That strategic problem was part of the reason for RAPIDS to come into being is it not?
Last edited by ks_sachin on 20 Oct 2022 17:18, edited 1 time in total.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ks_sachin »

@ShauryaT: there are tactical rockets and strategic rockets. Ad much as you would like everything to be dual use the practicality of doing so needs to be considered.

So which of our missiles which are presently conventional would you like to nuclearise and what is the cost benefit analysis of doing so?

As usual the devil is in the detail so lets try to meet the bar set by Admiral, RohitVats, Indranil et all.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by Rakesh »

Rakesh wrote:Perhaps in the future, if DRDO can come up with a long range (minimum 3,000+ km) supersonic cruise missile, with a viable payload....then we can revisit the discussion of making missiles dual use.
I am not a missile subject matter expert by any stretch of the imagination. Folks like Indranil, Haridas-ji, Ramana-ji, KaranM are far more knowledgeable than me on the subject. But I just thought of this and ties into my earlier statement quoted above....

Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersoni ... or_Vehicle

My mango abdul knowledge on the above tells me that a hypersonic cruise missile with a long range (minimum 3,000+ km) + a 1 ton warhead, could serve as a future delivery method to strike at Beijing, Shanghai and other population centers. The gurus can provide more clarity on this.
Roop
BRFite
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by Roop »

Rakesh wrote:My mango abdul knowledge on the above tells me that a hypersonic cruise missile with a long range (minimum 3,000+ km) + a 1 ton warhead, could serve as a future delivery method to strike at Beijing, Shanghai and other population centers.
This hypothetical "delivery method to strike Beijing / Shanghai" ... do you envisage it being land-based or sea-based?

If sea-based, what platform would it be based on? How would this platform reach a position within 3000 km of Beijing / Shanghai?

If land-based, there is no spot in India within a 3000km of Beijing (or Shanghai, I believe).
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ParGha »

ks_sachin wrote:That strategic problem was part of the reason for RAPIDS to come into being is it not?
RAPIDS were setup in 1980s based on the lessons learned from the 1965 and 1971 wars. Most Indian infantry units had very little mobility, and this led to operational problems in the wars. When they couldn’t keep up with the tanks, the tanks were often ambushed by PA R&S detachments (e.g. 16 Light Cavalry, which lost a handful of tanks and complete unit cohesion during an ambush in 1965). Worse, many brigade commanders held back their tank squadrons because that was the only mobile reserves they had. By late 1970s the government had committed to IFVs to escort the tanks (Mechanised Infantry and Guards) in the Strike formations. And the plan was to eventually give every Plains brigade at least a Skot or BTR-80 battalion as mobile reserves, so that their tank squadron could be freed up for recce. Of course, the fall of Soviet Union, Balance of Payments Crisis, and India’s industrial under-development put a stop to all that.

The “strategic dilemma” started only in late 1980s.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ks_sachin »

Thanks ParGha.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ramana »

I talked to some one who knows Gen Anil Chauhan from his early days. Says he is the best suited person for CDS and will implement the vision.

JaHind!!!
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/arunp2810/status/15 ... XBLjGaNwyA ---> Some thoughts on theatre commands, air power & integration. They may well have been overtaken by developments in New Delhi....

Image
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

- IBG is not an evolution of RAPID concept.
- RAPID was aimed at converting our vanilla infantry divisions into more offensive formations.
- IIRC, the Army Plan 2000 called for 4 x Armored Divisions, 8 x Mechanized Divisions and 7 x RAPIDs (along with mountain divisions)
- RAPID were to be employed in theaters where full mechanization was of not much use due to terrain.
-------
- IBG as a concept is about smooth command and control and reducing the sensor to shooter cycle.
- An infantry brigade with 3 x infantry battalions but all other associated organic paraphernalia to make it a cohesive and independent fighting formation is an IBG.
- The composition of each IBG will depend on its task, terrain and availability of resources.
-------------
- A US Army Stryker Brigade Combat Team is a good example of an IBG
- It has 3 x Infantry Battalions (mounted on Stryker AFV), 1 x Cavalry Squadron (for Recce & Surveillance), 1 x Artillery Regiment, 1 x Engineers Bn, 1 x Support Bn.
-------------

Our tanks and mechanized assets are in Armored Divisions, RAPIDs and Independent Armored and Mechanized Brigades. Plus, each division in plain has a tank regiment as well.

For example, 9 Corps has 2 x infantry divisions. Plus, it has 2 x (I) Armored Brigades which have 6 armored and 2 mechanized infantry units between them. Have we retained the (I) Armored Brigade structure even as 9 Corps became the test best for IBG formation?

We need to wait and watch for some more data.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ramana »

The intent of creating the CDS was to restructure the military. PERIOD.
Twenty years since KRC recommended the step. So enough "making haste slowly".
If one looks at the main challengers the Chinese Western Theater Command is 3/4 the size of all Indian commands together.
Further to face it India has 7 commands that won't even talk to each other without calling Delhi HQ when there is an imminent threat.
Enough tinkering like we are in a peacetime muddle.
The Indian military and MOD have adopted all the worst of the British system while they have moved on.
reform of MOD is to make it stick to administrative functions and let the CDS prepare for war as Clausewitz put it.
The CDS will be like Gen Alan Brookes CIGS who provided operational guidance.

BTW shiv has put a tweet about the different battle zones (CAS 40km, Interdiction Zone >40km and <150Km, Deep Stike Zone >150Km and quite important to view it.

https://twitter.com/HariRam42245512/sta ... wZ_rWHQaMA

Present conflicts are settled in less than 150 km zone. IAF is geared to fight the >150 km zone.
That's the crux of the problem.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ramana »

Two Maj Generals write in USI Journal on
Theaterization the way forward
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by ramana »

USi Gold Medal Essay topic is
“Grooming of Military Officers for Joint Services Environment”
The journey of jointmanship within the Indian Forces and their counterparts in other departments has its hits and misses. The success in jointmanship can be generally attributed to charisma, inter-personal relations and training in military institutions. On the flip side, the Service-centric approach to doctrines, strategy, structures, and skills has constrained optimum integration and synergy. The world over, there is a great focus on integration and jointness. Both our adversaries, Pakistan and China, particularly the latter, have made bold strides in jointmanship.

There is a growing realisation in India about the changing nature and character of extant and future wars; Multi-Domain Wars (MDW), hybrid wars are grey zone conflicts which vividly figure out in India's strategic security calculus. With the appointment of the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), creation of the Department of Military Affairs (DMA), theaterisation, and focus on civil-military fusion, jointmanship has gained the salience it deserves. Atenure in the joint services environment has become a pre-requisite for promotion to higher ranks. Tenatingappointments in the joint services organisations, HQ IDS MOD, MEA, NSCS and other such like organisations will become a rule than exception.

It is, therefore, incumbent to groom {train} military officers for joint services environment. This is essential for them to understand and formulate joint doctrines, strategies, structures, and systems. There is a need to foster a deeper understanding of other services and agencies dealing with defence and security. Among other points that the author may wish to cover, the essay must address the following:

Reality check of India's joint services environment
Importance of jointness in the extant and future wars.
Training of officers for jointness with particular reference to PME.
Road map for promoting jointness in doctrines, strategy, structures, systems & skills.
Wish they said fostering/training and not grooming!
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions

Post by VinodTK »

Every time the Chinees intrude into in Indian terotories in the east, middle, and west are strategeically planned intrusions to gain strategic advantage; hope the stratergy folks in the office of CDS pay attention and there are no mor surprises (frankly lame excuses for lack of being prepared).

CHINESE INFRINGEMENTS INTO INDIA STRATEGICALLY PLANNED: STUDY]
Post Reply