Discussion on Indian Special Forces

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 10 Feb 2011 10:14

Why retards like Mayavati and Mulayam ever had this NSG cover ?

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 10 Feb 2011 11:02

In the long run, we may get a dedicated aircraft from the government," Medhekar added.

So the babus haven't woke up even now - only God can save (or shave) this country.

bksahu · Post by **bksahu** » 10 Feb 2011 19:17

Medheker also said the West Bengal government had refused to give 30 acres of land near Kolkata for a NSG regional centre and they were now looking for land in Assam or Jharkhand for the same.

[/quote]

Why they refused to give land to them!! this is very idiotic!!

ssmitra · Post by **ssmitra** » 10 Feb 2011 20:01

bksahu wrote:Medheker also said the West Bengal government had refused to give 30 acres of land near Kolkata for a NSG regional centre and they were now looking for land in Assam or Jharkhand for the same.

Why they refused to give land to them!! this is very idiotic!![/quote]

You saw west bengal govt and Idiotic in the same quote.... HOW DARE YOU??????

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Feb 2011 11:31

pkpandey wrote:rohitvats, i think u didn't followed. probation is the screening process in para sf and i was asking about the same thing in marcos. wilki says 5 weeks culminating in a hell's week, is that correct? THANKS FOR REPLYING'

No sir, I got is quite right...I was simply trying to dispel the notion (if there was one) that MARCOS propbation is 2years (as came out in one of the replies to your query).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Feb 2011 17:41

pkpandey, unless it is a recent addition MARCOs screening didn't have a hell's week, it's probably an addition by a jingo to make them look more TFTA ala SEALs.
their training schedule was no less grueling though. there was a very nice article in India Today on it back in the 90's and I seemed to remember that BR had it too but I can't seem to find it.

it had a blow by blow account of a mock hostage rescue mission on a bombay high rig and an account of the training somewhere around INS kalinga, where the correspondent was taken blindfolded IIRC.
one of the first hurdles was trudging through a couple of km of knee deep sticky mud in sweltering heat. you had to complete it by an hour or you are sent packing then and there. the final qualifying time was 26 min and the instructors managed it in 22-23 min.
writing from memory so pardon any inaccuracies.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Feb 2011 18:30

^^^There was a pic which showed the probationers ploughing through wait deep slush....It even spoke of final one week with minimum sleep (like ~10-12 hours in a whole week).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Feb 2011 18:56

that's the one. actually it said they 'did not' have hell's week, which is what the 10-12 hours sleep/week is called in SEAL training. the wording was a little confusing and I had the same impression as you in my first reading.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Feb 2011 12:02

I do have a copy of that mag lying around somewhere but I still would like to see it on the net. jingos would appreciate it too.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Feb 2011 12:04

It is 72 hours without any sleep; well folks who go for a complete HAHO and HALO qualification do get stretched for more than 9 months.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Feb 2011 12:06

for MARCO ? thanks for the info.
in fact you are the right person to ask ! and you spend all your time in nukkad !

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 12 Feb 2011 14:30

Tarmak007 has some wonderful pics of Garudas guarding AeroIndia

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 12 Feb 2011 20:02

Thats an INSAS LMG With a Scope. Or is this a Marksmen Varient of the INSAS ?!

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 12 Feb 2011 21:13

It is INSAS LMG With a Scope

sum · Post by **sum** » 14 Feb 2011 21:26

The number of Garuds mingling with the crowd were markedly lesser than the previous AI. Either they were asked to be more discreet this time or most were actually tasked with active duties elsewhere in the country and minimal numbers were called for AI-11 duty.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 21 Feb 2011 00:02

I have a query regarding Para. Someone recently mentioned to me that SFTS, Nahan is only for Jawans and "not" for Officers? Is this true?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 21 Feb 2011 03:03

Gaur

Now I am starting to wonder on this persistent line of questioning on SF ?

Read the open source info. If the info is there - good
if not then better

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 22 Mar 2011 06:38

I think it is time.

A special command

The reasons for a JSOC are compelling. A unitary command will be best able to represent the singular as well as combined SF interests, recruit the best talent from the three services, assess the operational strengths and limitations of each type of SF, draw up special operations plans to mesh with the larger strategy, configure mission-based force mixes for maximum impact, fight for an equitable portion of the defence pie, evaluate the various capability gaps and the material and human resources requirements of the SF, and to prioritise on an inter se basis the acquisitions and augmentation programmes. It will be a radical improvement on the existing state of affairs where the armed services tamp down on their respective SF and persistently misapply SF assets.

At the conference, Lt. Gen. H.S. Lidder, a former commando and chief of IDS, proposed a JSOC under the national security adviser. An excellent idea, except he envisaged this arrangement only for peacetime, with SF reverting to the parent service in war. This last is to fall back on a bad system wherein SF, subsumed in Theatre Command plans, are penny-packeted as Army reserve and tasked mostly with trivial missions, such as blowing up culverts and ammo dumps across the Line of Control. It is akin to deputing highly trained and motivated neurosurgeons to diagnose fever and hand out aspirin.

atreya · Post by **atreya** » 04 Apr 2011 22:01

Sad news

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/PUBLIC ... tml?Mode=1

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 05 Apr 2011 07:52

atreya wrote:Sad news

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/PUBLIC ... tml?Mode=1

very sad indeed.

But how can police come to such dramatic conclusions before even postmortem reports are available?

anjan · Post by **anjan** » 07 Apr 2011 03:54

ShauryaT wrote:I think it is time.

He mentions forces under Mountbatten. I presume he is talking about the Chindits. Their record was patchy at best I think and held in certain disdain by commanders like Gen. Slim who believed they did nothing an ordinary Infantry unit could not do and pulled away motivated people from other units. I believe he was also wary of overspecialization.

The SOE/OSS are more properly intelligence agencies with operational arms I think rather than military special forces. Military special forces should be tasked with military tasks and IMO as such best placed under the Army commander. He keeps mentioning that the Army misunderstands what SF are to be used for but does not expand on what he believes they should be used for. What is this combined JSOC unit supposed to be tasked with?

This JSOC structure seems more like a turf war than anything else. Unless they own assets themselves they'll still be dependent on assets from the parent services for ingress/egress, support, air maintenance etc.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 09 Apr 2011 12:07

Cross posting some videos from Multimedia thread:

jimmy_moh wrote:nice video

http://vimeo.com/3312531

The above video contains interview of Maj Gen KC PADHA. He is a retired PARA SF officer who has operated with 9 SF, commanded 1 SF and was the Director General of Special Forces.

I am posting another interview of his below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgjp5qMVxV8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0PhR98BSuc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYL7RxRiKB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg5dlma9Q60

sum · Post by **sum** » 09 Apr 2011 13:00

^^ After watching the "Rocky and Mayur" show on GARUDs, one question:

Why is it that the IAF SF are content to keep their mainstay weapon as the INSAS whereas the IA /IN SFs are using wither MP-5s or Tavors as the mainstay? Is it just a budgetary reason( no $$ for poor IAF SF onlee) or is there more?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 09 Apr 2011 15:19

sum wrote:^^ After watching the "Rocky and Mayur" show on GARUDs, one question:

Why is it that the IAF SF are content to keep their mainstay weapon as the INSAS whereas the IA /IN SFs are using wither MP-5s or Tavors as the mainstay? Is it just a budgetary reason( no $$ for poor IAF SF onlee) or is there more?

My guess is that Tavor acquisition has little to do with being SF and more a matter of priority. PARA SF, RR & J&K SOG are actively involved in CI ops and they were the first to be equipped with Tavors. Note that RR & SOG are not even SF. Marcos are involved in CI ops in a limited way. Plus, they are actively involved in anti Piracy ops, protect the off shore assets and were involved in 26/11. And even so, they have started to be equipped with Tavors only recently.

Garuds have never took part in any operation nor are they expected to do so in near future. Also, IMO Insas and AK-47 are good enough assault rifles to do the job. So, there is no sense of emergency in this matter. Even so, with Marcos getting their first Tavors a few months back, I guess it is only a matter of time when Garuds get them too.

Again, this is just my guess. The actual reasons may be totally different.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 15 Apr 2011 09:44

sum wrote:^^ After watching the "Rocky and Mayur" show on GARUDs, one question:

Why is it that the IAF SF are content to keep their mainstay weapon as the INSAS whereas the IA /IN SFs are using wither MP-5s or Tavors as the mainstay? Is it just a budgetary reason( no $$ for poor IAF SF onlee) or is there more?

Actually the Garuds look extremely well equipped and they deserve to be. Someone had been asking about which special forces troops look badass - The Garuds certainly do!

sum · Post by **sum** » 15 Apr 2011 10:15

^^ RB-sir,

No doubt Garuds are the most "bad-ass" looking and seem to be tailor made for TFTA type poses( as confirmed by eyeball Mk.2 at AI-09 and AI-11) but i was curious as to why other SFs dont use the INSAS itself as the mainstay if Garuds find it so good...I think gaur-ji might have answered the question in the post above.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 15 Apr 2011 15:40

sum wrote:^^ RB-sir,

No doubt Garuds are the most "bad-ass" looking and seem to be tailor made for TFTA type poses( as confirmed by eyeball Mk.2 at AI-09 and AI-11) but i was curious as to why other SFs dont use the INSAS itself as the mainstay if Garuds find it so good...I think gaur-ji might have answered the question in the post above.

True, the Garuds were the first to start trying to look TFTA. But I think that MARCOS have now caught up or even surpassed them in TFTAness. Look at the following MARCOS images:
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/523/107245495.jpg
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/7218/107245215.jpg
http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dyna ... 97044f.jpg

All while all this TFTA imitation fashion parade goes around, PARA SF keeps its SDRE looks and humbly goes on doing bulk of the work.

But I must say this. Even though I find this TFTA imitation slightly off-putting and childish (feels like overcompensating to me), I admit that a little childishness is a necessity. The young Indian people who have grown up seeing Hollywood SWAT teams, feel that any force without knee & elbow pads is a second rate force.

So, a little fashion PR stunt by PARA SF will do IA some good by boosting the confidence and morale of general public and motivating more youngsters to join IA. Admittedly, after the photo ops, PARA SF soldiers would be looking at each other sheepishly and wondering what the hell were they just doing, that would be the price for psy ops.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 16 Apr 2011 00:49

Looks apart, today Garuds are the only SF unit which are co-located with a SF squadron i.e. with 77 Sqn at Hindan.

This theoretically gives them the capability to deploy nation wide with best response time compared to other SFs.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Apr 2011 12:34

^^^Is anyone even clear about the mandate of Garud SF as set down by IAF or all the talk is guess work based on what AF affiliated SF do in the west? Does anyone have any idea with whom these Garuds have trained and what parameters have they set themselves and surpassed to come up with SF tag? And from where has the manpower being drawn? Especially the officer cadre?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 16 Apr 2011 13:49

rohitvats wrote:^^^Is anyone even clear about the mandate of Garud SF as set down by IAF or all the talk is guess work based on what AF affiliated SF do in the west? Does anyone have any idea with whom these Garuds have trained and what parameters have they set themselves and surpassed to come up with SF tag? And from where has the manpower being drawn? Especially the officer cadre?

You might be interested in the following program by Rocky & Mayur. AFAIK, this is the only program which covers Garuds.
http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/jai-hi ... uds/195842

Added Later:

BTW, can anyone tell the reason why Garuds are using Glocks in large open areas instead of Insas or AK-47? I mean like at 6:54.
Thinking about it, I have never seen any photograph of PARA or Marcos using pistols during exercises or operations. So, I guess Garuds have somewhat different operating methodologies.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 16 Apr 2011 15:13

rohitvats wrote:^^^Is anyone even clear about the mandate of Garud SF as set down by IAF or all the talk is guess work based on what AF affiliated SF do in the west? Does anyone have any idea with whom these Garuds have trained and what parameters have they set themselves and surpassed to come up with SF tag? And from where has the manpower being drawn? Especially the officer cadre?

They will have to carve out their space as there is overlap with Para SF and NSG.

The originations of Garuds is clear: the IAF always maintained QRTs at important airbases to secure against attack. Incidents/needs like:

1. Sucide attack on Awantipur (?) in J&K
2. Complicated Search and rescue of 2 crashed Jaguar aircraft in J&K
3. Need to spot and designate targets on ground (like Army AOP)
4. Dependence on Army units to protect IAF assets on UN ops

triggered IAF to formally raise a specialized force that can perform these missions.

From Rocky and Mayur show it is clear that they are now training themselves to be full spec military SF.

Question is how India uses this force? Ideally MAROCOS were not required in 26/11 but they were the closest unit available. I think its only a matter of time when an emergency situation occurs in an Indian airport or airbase where we may see Garuds coming out with their first mission.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Apr 2011 21:47

^^^You don't require QRT made of SF to gaurd against assault on air-bases. Plain, line infantry is more than capable of doing the job....and it is numbers which will be the premium and not true SF level operator capability in case of such assault. A company of line infantry drawn from TA can do a good enough job of base-defence (and does in most cases)....IAF does not require SF arm for that.

Designation of targets on ground like western SF in GW-1/2 is different from role of Arty OP chaps. And Air OP (AOP) is totally different. And if the job of Garud is lasing of high-end targets deep in enemt territory, then I guess, they will need training and men of the calibre of PARA SF or MARCOS. And I have serious reservation about how IAF with such a miniscule manpower base can meet the manpower requirement for SF (even a small force) all the while catering for the expected high rejection rates. And you're talking about service which needs to build everything from ground up - you're not talking here about infantry chaps (officers/jawans) opting for Para or Para(SF). Manpower used to serious physical rigour in the first place.

And where have they trained for it? And here again, why duplicate the role of the IA?

Again, protection of SF assets in UN Ops does not require SF capability - something on the lines of RAF Regiment should be good enough for this role as well as for base protection.

The way I look at it, crew evacuation and specialized forward controllers is the most optimum role of this arm. The USAF Pararescue could be the ideal models for such a force - which is a real real specialized force.

The way I look at it, these troops are something on the line of super-infantry with requisite CQB tactics. If the public info about Garud having 15 flights (for strength of 1,500 people) is true, then I guess these are stationed in important bases as QRT and general defence. Something that does not require Para(SF) or MARCOS level training or even NSG level CQB skills.

jai · Post by **jai** » 17 Apr 2011 00:29

They seem to be offensive rather than defensive, so I am guessing HRU, capturing enemy airfields, Radar installations etc in addition to SAR may also be part of their job description. Looks like the IAF is trying out some innovative concepts with Garuds.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 17 Apr 2011 00:55

rohitvats, I believe one of the roles being assigned to Garuds is US Army Ranger type stuff - for that I would say IAF has adequate manpower pool since the attrition rate during training wont be as brutal as Para SF.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2011 01:07

jai wrote:They seem to be offensive rather than defensive, so I am guessing HRU, capturing enemy airfields, Radar installations etc in addition to SAR may also be part of their job description. Looks like the IAF is trying out some innovative concepts with Garuds.

All the above quoted by you is job which can be done quite well by Para (SF)....as I said earlier, except for SAR on the lines of USAF Pararescue, nothing makes sense. The more I look at it, the more convinced I'm that this is result of some king size ego mated with too many tom clany novels.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2011 01:12

Raja Bose wrote:rohitvats, I believe one of the roles being assigned to Garuds is US Army Ranger type stuff - for that I would say IAF has adequate manpower pool since the attrition rate during training wont be as brutal as Para SF.

Oh! and won't that be the ultimate irony? IAF raising an elite Infantry Unit? And for God's sake why?

Yes, we do need something on the lines of Ranger Regiment - to serve as a gap between SF and line infantry/Paratroopers and for large (company sized and +) operations with high-end CQB skills and tactics and team cohesion......but for crying out loud, why the IAF? As i said earlier, someone was on serious ego trip coupled with too much zam-zam cola.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 17 Apr 2011 01:20

^^Tradtionally it should be IA who does it but I dont mind if the IAF takes the initiative, provided they can ensure quality becoz we have had a serious gap in such capability and fobbing off all such tasks to Para SF is simply going to bog the SF down in terms of resources. Being an IAF unit may actually help in India's context since the interoperability between IA and IAF is still not as mature as what folks like massa have. The SF do train quite a bit but there is still an "us and them" attitude when it comes to IA and IAF working together (ARC is a different matter but then they are not IAF). We still have some of the problems though somewhat better than what happened between Sikh LI and IAF during the Jaffna campus raid.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2011 01:45

RB, that is like cutting the nose to spite the face.....IAF raising elite infantry unit because of lack of co-ordination between IAF and IA!!!

And will the same IAF place this supposed to be elite infantry unit (which I don't think it is) under IA's command? After all, it is the IA which will plan and implement all the ground operations.....so, will IAF send in Garuds to do what Sikh LI tried to do in Jaffna? And why? Because IAF may be more inclined to lend choppers and walk the extra-mile as Garud men are 'their boys'? Or has the IAF raised this formation to fight it's own little dirty wars? And in all this, where does the tag of SF come in?

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Apr 2011 02:00

Rohitvats fwiw I don't think that role of GARUDS is going to overlap with that of the Para SF; I believe it's just a case of IAF trying to achieve self sufficiency in raising a force with a certain level of CQB skills.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2011 03:04

^^^I hope does not....the last thing IAF needs to be doing is running infantry units. But I am not optimistics. And the SF tag gets my goat.