Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

[Singha]

I am sure this undisclosed euro base needed some C17 flights to ship all those JDAMs, the bomb loading gear and crewmen and engine checkers before the B1s arrived , plus additional refueling support to get the C17s across

global power is not cheap it seems.

[member_23455]

in the recent libya war,a converted ohio class apparently fired 'dozens' of thawks joined by DDG ships to wipe the libyan ADS off the map in the first hours.
with unopposed airspace, 2 B1 bombers staging out of dakotas with full bombloads refueled over the atlantic and destroyed a unspecified number of targets in libya before escaping back home. not sure what the 'global power' stmt was all about, perhaps 80 JDAMs on a sortie was deemed lot more effective than 20 sorties by french/brit strike a/c or maybe the euro strikes did not want to reach that deep to the border in the south.

That really is the crux of the matter. In what kind of scenarios can the IAF/IN expect "unopposed" airspace:
1. Attacking Pakistani land targets = no
2. Attacking Pakistani naval assets at sea = yes
3. Attacking Chinese mainland = no
4. Attacking Chinese bases in Burma etc. = yes
5. Attacking Chinese naval assets at sea = depends on what/where those assets are

So even given our near future capability set (Brahmos armed Su30s + a few more tankers + Vikramaditya), we need to pick our battles carefully...which is very different from avoiding a battle totally.

[Singha]

dont forget the B1s are fully capable of launching stealthy standoff missiles too incase of opposition.
and they are also built for low level fast penetration.

astonishing 24 JASSM per this pic...
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/load-b1.gif

even mix and match is possible
http://dmn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-c ... mb-bay.jpg

that being said, and for Indo-china distances staging out of a airbase in the deccan, these puppies would just need 1 refuel on way out and 1 refuel on way in to hit southern half of china and all of tibet and gansu....sortie rates will be low...perhaps 50% uptime in war and 25% in peace, so a full sqdn of 16 could maybe generate around 8 sorties daily, but each strike will be packing a lot of heat.

give 2 squadrons of B1/blackjacks with the right PGM/missiles and the tide of a war could be turned at a political level even.

each plane that delivers its full payload of 24 JASSM could essentially take 1 large industrial or infra target out of commission for a long time. for smaller things like bridges, multiple ones along 100s of km of river could be dropped by a daisy chain of missiles.

who would want to lose 8 major factories/refineries a day?

ps. it needs around 200 JASSMs ready for use daily. multiply by 30 and it comes to 6000 JASSMs alone. costly. if Cheen were hit like that, Gen Liu would turn all dharmic and come to negotiating table after 3 days...or war would go nuclear...

[vivek_ahuja]

dont forget the B1s are fully capable of launching stealthy standoff missiles too incase of opposition.
and they are also built for low level fast penetration.

astonishing 24 JASSM per this pic...
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/load-b1.gif

even mix and match is possible
http://dmn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-c ... mb-bay.jpg

that being said, and for Indo-china distances staging out of a airbase in the deccan, these puppies would just need 1 refuel on way out and 1 refuel on way in to hit southern half of china and all of tibet and gansu....sortie rates will be low...perhaps 50% uptime in war and 25% in peace, so a full sqdn of 16 could maybe generate around 8 sorties daily, but each strike will be packing a lot of heat.

give 2 squadrons of B1/blackjacks with the right PGM/missiles and the tide of a war could be turned at a political level even.

each plane that delivers its full payload of 24 JASSM could essentially take 1 large industrial or infra target out of commission for a long time. for smaller things like bridges, multiple ones along 100s of km of river could be dropped by a daisy chain of missiles.

who would want to lose 8 major factories/refineries a day?

ps. it needs around 200 JASSMs ready for use daily. multiply by 30 and it comes to 6000 JASSMs alone. costly. if Cheen were hit like that, Gen Liu would turn all dharmic and come to negotiating table after 3 days...or war would go nuclear...

This is why I totally love ya, Singha saar!

[Singha]

here is the fuller article on the sole known B2 and B1 strikes into libya
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... libya.aspx

we'd have to buy a separate set of 6 MRTT to support a couple smallish 2 x 12 bomber regiments if we ever got something series in that dept.

[member_23455]

While most folks on here realize that we are not going to be getting long range bombers anytime soon due to a multitude of reasons ranging from limited availability of airframes to limited availability of $$$, the other thing that gets missed out is that especially in the USAF and to a lesser extent with the Russians and Brits there has been a large constituency of "bomber command" guys all through the evolution of their air power.

That lobby has always pitched for new airframes, doctrine, and roles to ensure that the long range bomber never goes away. Who will fight that fight in the IAF - where single seat fighter types overwhelmingly dominate and who have no CONOPS/ideology for such weapon systems? How many Canberra pilots made it to Chief - at least one helo guy did and there was such a shindig over that

[Singha]

upcoming exercises with heavy IAF Involvement

Iron Fist on 22 Feb 2013 and Live Wire in March 2013.

sounds like IronFist is going to be the firepower demo in pokhran.

[Shrinivasan]

here is the fuller article on the sole known B2 and B1 strikes into libya
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... libya.aspx

Thanks for posting this article... showcases the sheer variety of optional available for Khan... compared to Khan, the rest of the world put together pales...
BTB, the latest issue of AFM has some interesting articles on ISR... read and Njoy.

[Shrinivasan]

Iron Fist on 22 Feb 2013 and Live Wire in March 2013.

Awaiting Photos from Kedar K, Wingco Chauhan etc... no expectation with the DDM... maybe Vishnu Som may produce a gem...

[aharam]

While most folks on here realize that we are not going to be getting long range bombers anytime soon due to a multitude of reasons ranging from limited availability of airframes to limited availability of $$$, the other thing that gets missed out is that especially in the USAF and to a lesser extent with the Russians and Brits there has been a large constituency of "bomber command" guys all through the evolution of their air power.

That lobby has always pitched for new airframes, doctrine, and roles to ensure that the long range bomber never goes away. Who will fight that fight in the IAF - where single seat fighter types overwhelmingly dominate and who have no CONOPS/ideology for such weapon systems? How many Canberra pilots made it to Chief - at least one helo guy did and there was such a shindig over that

As one of the "single engine fighter types", the problem India faced for the longest time was budgets. Post WWII, the dominant faction was bomber command with Curtis Lemay and Bomber Harris. That's why we even got Canberras. The basic idea was that long range heavies could defend themselves with air to air missile load outs and didn't need fighter escort even in contested air space as long as they could fly high enough. Unfortunately, the Cold War and subsequently Vietnam disabused this notion, leading to the modern fighter bomber. Back in the Vietnam era, India simply did not have the budgets to build out both a fighter force and a bomber force. Our doctrinal affinity was thus dictated by budgets to be army aviation, without the Air Force really playing a strategic role and hence no fundamental focus on bombers or an associated constituency.

Fast forward to the 90s and 2000s - we have the budgets now, but the worldwide focus is on the multi role fighter bomber. Unfortunately, while multi role aircraft have their place, they are by necessity a compromise. There is not enough lipstick you can put on that pig. It is not and never will be a heavy long range bomber - a fighter bomber is basically a fighter that can "also" act in a bombing role. But if your mission requirement is to place a large number of precision JDAM equivalents with the lowest number of sorties, and hence to some degree risk, you really need a dedicated bomber, and not a multi role aircraft. At the end of the day, even a Canberra today with fighter escort can deliver more precision tonnage than multi role aircraft. I really wish sometimes, we didn't just "make do", but actually built/bought aircraft around a doctrinal position on what we intend to achieve as an Air Force. China still sees value in its B 52 lite Badgers and I do too. Bombers are not "sexy", but then again neither are transports or refuellers, and yet we need them all the same.

Thoughts?

Aharam

[Singha]

+1 to that. But what are options now to deliver atleast a fb111 type load? Platypus?

I think we pught to sign on for the pakda project from word go. It will likely be smaller and cheaper than blackjack and we could afford some atleast in 2025

[GeorgeWelch]

The P-8I will carry JDAMs (and other weapons)

[aharam]

+1 to that. But what are options now to deliver atleast a fb111 type load? Platypus?

I think we pught to sign on for the pakda project from word go. It will likely be smaller and cheaper than blackjack and we could afford some atleast in 2025

That's a good question Singha. FB 111 is a medium bomber with a roughly 15 ton payload and 4000 mile range, essentially a lite medium bomber with about twice the payload of an MKI. The B1 and Tu 160 have a 150 ton payload with ranges between 6000 and 7500 miles - the Tu 160 is a lot larger and quite a bit faster, even though its payload is lower than a B1. Personally, for complete coverage over China we need to look at the Tu 160 category, simply because a lot of the airspace will be contested and you will have to fly well above optimal cruising speeds, which will reduce range. A cursory google shows PakDA to be in the heavy category - 100 to 120 ton payload, and that fits the bill quite well.

The question I have is the following. With everyone concentrating on building the next generation multi role fighter bomber, does India have the werewithal to actually build its own heavy bomber? If we buy outside, the PakDA would be great. But if we build, even a B52 class aircraft basic heavy bomber would be very useful as long as it has the range, and that should be within the capabilities of HAL. One cannot underestimate the utility of a heavy bomber. Germany's lessons from the Second World War where they only had medium range heinkels against true heavies from England and the US are still relevant, even if the mission has changed from strategic destruction (which was worthless, other than for propaganda) to industrial interdiction. As one of the earlier posts pointed out, no country with a industrial base can afford to lose an entire territory's worth of industry in a couple of days from PGMs and continue the war for very long. The ultimate sub nuclear weapon still remains the heavy bomber.

Aharam

[member_23455]

The P-8I will carry JDAMs (and other weapons)

I call BS on that...and will be more than happy to eat humble pie if you can back that with a credible source.

Weapons notified for sale are the Harpoon and Mk.54 torpedoes, and I am assuming depth charges and mines as well will be carried.

[Singha]

maybe he meant the P8A. should be useful in places like mali, chad, mauritania, horn of africa to bombard al-keeda convoys on the sly but nothing more unless US is willing to let us integrate nirbhay and the small brahmos version planned to wage a war of on the economy of the upper yangtze basin in south china...and even then, the P8I will be dead meat if confronted by fighters over yunnan....it would need totally sanitized airspace to penetrate as a bomber which India cannot guarantee (US can --atleast against medium adversaries like Iran or Syria)

>> even a B52 class aircraft basic heavy bomber would be very useful as long as it has the range, and that should be within the capabilities of HAL.

sir we are making heavy weather of something like Saras and only big talk of something like RTA - little more than a ATR72...and you are talking of a long range bomber with heavy loads? thats WAY beyond what HAL/ADA have ever tried now. atleast cheen has got a basic Y20 platform rolling now, it will see variants in due course.

the only option is the PAKDA. Rus is hopefully smart enough not to make another B2 and price it completely out of reach even for itself! a more "pragmatic" design with higher speed, lesser VLO and stealthy weapons should be ok.

[GeorgeWelch]

The P-8I will carry JDAMs (and other weapons)

I call BS on that...and will be more than happy to eat humble pie if you can back that with a credible source.

Weapons notified for sale are the Harpoon and Mk.54 torpedoes, and I am assuming depth charges and mines as well will be carried.

It would be incredible if they didn't at some point.

The capability is built-in and JDAMs are some of the most cost-efficient weapons around. It seems practically inevitable that India will order some sooner or later.

[member_23455]

While most folks on here realize that we are not going to be getting long range bombers anytime soon due to a multitude of reasons ranging from limited availability of airframes to limited availability of $$$, the other thing that gets missed out is that especially in the USAF and to a lesser extent with the Russians and Brits there has been a large constituency of "bomber command" guys all through the evolution of their air power.

That lobby has always pitched for new airframes, doctrine, and roles to ensure that the long range bomber never goes away. Who will fight that fight in the IAF - where single seat fighter types overwhelmingly dominate and who have no CONOPS/ideology for such weapon systems? How many Canberra pilots made it to Chief - at least one helo guy did and there was such a shindig over that

As one of the "single engine fighter types", the problem India faced for the longest time was budgets. Post WWII, the dominant faction was bomber command with Curtis Lemay and Bomber Harris. That's why we even got Canberras. The basic idea was that long range heavies could defend themselves with air to air missile load outs and didn't need fighter escort even in contested air space as long as they could fly high enough. Unfortunately, the Cold War and subsequently Vietnam disabused this notion, leading to the modern fighter bomber. Back in the Vietnam era, India simply did not have the budgets to build out both a fighter force and a bomber force. Our doctrinal affinity was thus dictated by budgets to be army aviation, without the Air Force really playing a strategic role and hence no fundamental focus on bombers or an associated constituency.

The premise that India did not have the budgets in the past to build a bomber force isn't borne out by what happened on the ground. The India of limited budgets did induct the Canberra. The India of massive budgets has not. So it's not about the money.

Is it about the lack of doctrine? Absolutely...and that can be said of almost anything to do with Indian defence planning, , and while the babus and netas deservedly take the rap for many things, this is one that the faujis across the three servicescannot dodge.

But it is more than that...doctrines need champions. In the U.S. context, for airpower it was Billy Mitchell, for bombers it was Curtis Le May, for the "Light Weight Fighter"( F-16 and F-18) it was the Fighter Mafia of Boyd, Sprey, Riccioni and Hillaker, for UAVs and UCAVs it took Secretary Gates to fire both the civilian and military head of the USAF to get the message through.

In the exclusive fighter pilot club that is the top brass of the IAF who will champion that cause? That I am afraid is the bottomline, all wishful thinking on BR aside...

does India have the werewithal to actually build its own heavy bomber? If we buy outside, the PakDA would be great. But if we build, even a B52 class aircraft basic heavy bomber would be very useful as long as it has the range, and that should be within the capabilities of HAL.

YGBSM You are talking about the HAL of SKD/CKD manufacture fame, the HAL of IJT, HTT-40, HPT-32 fame?

Ironically, the lack of a doctrine on creating a MIC is also responsible for us being saddled with the white elephants of Defence Sector PSUs...

[vivek_ahuja]

It would be incredible if they didn't at some point.

The capability is built-in and JDAMs are some of the most cost-efficient weapons around. It seems practically inevitable that India will order some sooner or later.

Pardon my ignorance but isn't the JDAM a gravity weapon? If so, does that not require the platform to be significantly close and directly above the chosen target? AND if so then um, wouldn't you NOT want to do that in a large subsonic converted airliner even if it COULD be designed to drop the weapon?

[vivek_ahuja]

You are talking about the HAL of SKD/CKD manufacture fame, the HAL of IJT, HTT-40, HPT-32 fame?

HAL building B-52 type aircraft...



Ahem. Anyway, on a serious note: HAL did assemble/repair/operationalize dumped B-24s. So 24 is almost halfway to 52. Maybe once the USAF dumps the B-52 we can pick them up from their boneyard.

Piston prop versus Turbo-jet you say? I say humbug! Go away you and your aeronautical facts!

[GeorgeWelch]

Pardon my ignorance but isn't the JDAM a gravity weapon? If so, does that not require the platform to be significantly close and directly above the chosen target?

Well, not 'directly' as the stated range is 15 miles.

AND if so then um, wouldn't you NOT want to do that in a large subsonic converted airliner even if it COULD be designed to drop the weapon?

JDAMs aren't generally for use against heavily defended targets for precisely the reason you mentioned.

Of course the P-8 can also carry stand-off weapons if the situation calls for it . . .

[member_23455]

It would be incredible if they didn't at some point.

The capability is built-in and JDAMs are some of the most cost-efficient weapons around. It seems practically inevitable that India will order some sooner or later.

Ok dude! This reminds me of the saying that the first step to getting yourself out of a hole is to stop digging

How about stepping back and thinking about the infrastructure required to employ a JDAM? The U.S. which requires end use monitoring on the ancient INS Jalashwa is going to sit back and allow us to "hack" the P8I's systems so we can use GLONASS with it? Or are you suggesting the U.S will allow us to use their military GPS for JDAM employment?

Speaking of incredible things if we didn't at some point...well yes, we got AAR capability 20 years after the Air Forces of S. American banana republics had it so yes we will get around to it.

[vivek_ahuja]

Well, not 'directly' as the stated range is 15 miles.

15 kilometers at high altitude is pretty much "over the target" in today's world.

JDAMs aren't generally for use against heavily defended targets for precisely the reason you mentioned.

Of course the P-8 can also carry stand-off weapons if the situation calls for it . . .

Fair enough on the P-8, I guess. But its designed for a naval role and we should let it do just that. Its not designed to fight and survive over land and that's where specialist bombers come into play.

[vivek_ahuja]

the first step to getting yourself out of a hole is to stop digging

[srin]

Pardon my ignorance but isn't the JDAM a gravity weapon? If so, does that not require the platform to be significantly close and directly above the chosen target?

Well, not 'directly' as the stated range is 15 miles.

AND if so then um, wouldn't you NOT want to do that in a large subsonic converted airliner even if it COULD be designed to drop the weapon?

JDAMs aren't generally for use against heavily defended targets for precisely the reason you mentioned.

There are two phases of conflict where a bulky bomber would be used:
a) Contested airspace with active AD: Khan would simply launch Tomahawks or use B-2s. A bomber would need to launch missiles at standoff ranges without being inside the SAM (think S-300) envelope. Or fly low and fly fast (like Vishnu-Som-in-Rafale-video fast).

b) Uncontested airspace with no AD other than some MANPADs: Because of suppressed AD and need to keep out of MANPAD envelope, bombers need to fly high but can get close to the target and use JDAMs and PGMs.

[member_23455]

Well, not 'directly' as the stated range is 15 miles.

15 kilometers at high altitude is pretty much "over the target" in today's world.

JDAMs aren't generally for use against heavily defended targets for precisely the reason you mentioned.

Of course the P-8 can also carry stand-off weapons if the situation calls for it . . .

Fair enough on the P-8, I guess. But its designed for a naval role and we should let it do just that. Its not designed to fight and survive over land and that's where specialist bombers come into play.

To be fair he said 15miles and not 15km. JDAM-ER has a range of 60 miles

Unless you have stealth or the enemy's IADS has been severely degraded no one is going to start lobbing regular JDAMs against an opponent with any credible military strength.

[vivek_ahuja]

To be fair he said 15miles and not 15km. JDAM-ER has a range of 60 miles

Unless you have stealth or the enemy's IADS has been severely degraded no one is going to start lobbing regular JDAMs against an opponent with any credible military strength.

Aha. My bad.

Then it can't be purely gravity assist, can it? Must be having deployable wings attached to the bomb case, I think.


Added later:

Google Aunty reveals this:


So it is a stand-off weapon then.

Still, its a pure subsonic glider with a pretty substantial RCS, no momentum for violent maneuvers and predictable trajectory. Think it will hold against an S-300 type system on the way in?

[GeorgeWelch]

How about stepping back and thinking about the infrastructure required to employ a JDAM? The U.S. which requires end use monitoring on the ancient INS Jalashwa is going to sit back and allow us to "hack" the P8I's systems so we can use GLONASS with it? Or are you suggesting the U.S will allow us to use their military GPS for JDAM employment?

They already do.

India purchased the Harpoon Block II which uses GPS.

There is no issue with JDAM.

[Singha]

the MBDA diamondback range extention kit, originally developed for boeing SDB is also apparently demoed for JDAM BLU109 to get the JDAM-ER.
http://www.mbdainc.com/downloads/diamondback-data.pdf

but to get the max range needs the launch a/c to be near mach1 and at 40,000ft surely....not where a subsonic jetliner derived plane wants to be deep within Cheen landmass. a dedicated bomber will be far more survivable even in the JDAM delivery role.

>>Still, its a pure subsonic glider with a pretty substantial RCS, no momentum for violent maneuvers and predictable trajectory. Think it will hold against an S-300 type system on the way in?

yes but lobbing dozens of JDAMs from a couple of dedicated bombers will rapidly exhaust / overwhelm the far costlier SAMs needed to intercept them. and not every place can get a high quality localized SAM bubble. area defence 'big missile' SAMs are even more costlier....they would not typically be used against swarms of JDAMs flying from 50km away.

[GeorgeWelch]

Think it will hold against an S-300 type system on the way in?

1. Forcing the opponent to waste an S300 against a JDAM is a win.
2. JDAMs generally aren't for well defended airspace anyways.
3. It wouldn't be hard to swamp an S300 system with more JDAMs than it can destroy.

[Singha]

only credible standoff weapons for P8I (if US allows) would be SLAM-ER(4 under wings) and nirbhay/micro-brahmos(2 inline under fuselage)...a fairly paltry loadout and no more than a pinprick compared to what a B1 can do.

so far nothing more has emerged on the micro-brahmos after its talk was aired...could still be in design phase.

[member_23455]

How about stepping back and thinking about the infrastructure required to employ a JDAM? The U.S. which requires end use monitoring on the ancient INS Jalashwa is going to sit back and allow us to "hack" the P8I's systems so we can use GLONASS with it? Or are you suggesting the U.S will allow us to use their military GPS for JDAM employment?

They already do.

India purchased the Harpoon Block II which uses GPS.

There is no issue with JDAM.

The devil as usual lies in the details. I am not going to convert this into a GPS thread but a JDAM weapon requires "high fidelity" GPS for the CEP to be low and the bomb to do it's job.

The Harpoon uses a "GPS aided INS" to get the missile in the "general" vicinity, and then the active seeker has to take over for the missile to do its job. Also because a ship is a moving target.

The fidelity of the signal is something that the provider of GPS data controls...in this case the US. Do the Russians give us similar capability with our GLONASS agreement? No idea.

To draw a parallel to the times before our own IRS satellites, when both India and Pakistan used to get SPOT imagery but with commercial levels of resolution.

Anyway, there are enough posters on BR who have uncles, school buddies etc. in the IAF and IN who can answer the question once and for all whether we have access to U.S. GPS data to employ JDAMs.

[Austin]

This should be the one that could be of more use considering we have access to Mil Grade GLONASS Signal

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/512/563/

[member_23455]

This should be the one that could be of more use considering we have access to Mil Grade GLONASS Signal

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/512/563/

Well...this is similar to the Harpoon scenario, does GLONASS give us JDAM-like capability. I am sure someone's uncle who knows someone's uncle knows

[Austin]

Yes we have access to Mil Grade Signal via GLONASS and even Brahmos uses GLONASS a fact confirmed by Dr Pillai and he was very happy with the result

[Austin]

Mighty Ducks

http://sky-hope.livejournal.com/384692.html

[Vipul]

Airbus preparing to start contract negotiations with IAF.

European consortium Airbus today said it would provide “unquestionably” the most advanced tanker transport aircraft to India and was preparing to start contract negotiations for the supply of six mid-air refuellers to IAF.

“We are fully committed to the next stage of negotiations and ultimately to provide the Indian Air Force with what is unquestionably the next advanced tanker transport aircraft flying and certified to date,” Airbus Military CEO Domingo Urena Raso said.

Airbus Military’s A-330MRTT has emerged the lowest bidder in the IAF contract worth over Rs 8,000 crore for procuring these tanker aircraft. So far, the Indian Air Force has only been equipped with Russian-origin IL-78 mid-air refuellers.

“This has been a long and tough competition and we are honoured to have been selected,” Raso noted while interacting with visiting Indian journalists at the Airbus Military facility close to Madrid.

Separately, Airbus Military derivatives’ head Antonio Caramazana said: “We are ready to start contract negotiations... preparing to start negotiations as soon as possible and our aim is to conclude them, and the sooner it is the better.”

Refusing to divulge the price involved in the deal, he mentioned that Airbus has offered the price in a combination of euros and dollars.

[Sagar G]

Or are you suggesting the U.S will allow us to use their military GPS for JDAM employment?

They already do.

India purchased the Harpoon Block II which uses GPS.

[Singha]

indian gps usage is the 10m accuracy civilian channel I think...and this can be selectively degraded or even shut down over south asia on a running basis if khan presses a few switches for sats in those orbits.

ok for navigation , not ok for missile guidance to precise locations or PGMs like JDAM.

I dunno how the pakis expect to use their 500 JDAMs with no mil grade signal. maybe just use them for blast effect being BLU109 probably

without mil grade accuracy smaller stuff like SDB is useless.

[Sagar G]

Will mull options if ceasefire violations continue: Air Chief warns Pak

New Delhi: The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, on Saturday strongly made it clear that India will be forced to consider other options, if ceasefire violations continue from the Pakistan side.

The Indian Air Force chief expressed his grave concern over the continuous ceasefire violation and firing from the Pakistani side.

The violation took place two days after the killing of two Indian soldiers by Pakistani troops in the Mendhar Sector of Poonch district.

The tension between the two Asian neighbours has aggravated after the brutal killing and beheading of the two Indian soldiers.

Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne said: “We have a line of control, we have a ceasefire agreement, we have certain mechanisms, we have certain structures and that is sacrosanct.”

“Any violation of these with impunity, especially as to what’s been happening in the last few months, is totally unacceptable. We are monitoring the situation very carefully because if these things continue the way they are and the violations continue to take place, then perhaps we may have to look at some other options for compliance.”

Asked about his message to NCC cadets who may later on join the armed forces, he said: “If you join the armed forces, you hold certain values, you hold certain ethos, certain traditions of the country, which we have to uphold and that’s the kind of oath that you take, when you join the armed forces.”

“My message to the youth who want to join the armed forces is that when they do so, they would be treated honourably, they would be taken care of and we will make sure that everything is available for them in meeting their operational task.”

On Friday, Defence Minister AK Antony had assured that enough troops have been deployed at the Line of Control (LoC) and the government is taking all steps to protect the nation's interests and prestige of the armed forces.

[Yagnasri]

This is not the statement which should have been given important in the first place. It is for the political leadership to take suitable decision and they are simply hiding under the bed. The enduring legacy of the MMS is the name of the worst PM of the national history.