Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 16 Dec 2019 23:28

There is peace time roe and a war time roe... i think paf played by war time roe and iaf was still thinking it's peacetime roe.. v kumar. .. only point no 2 is credible

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Dec 2019 06:44

kit wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: I think the ROE explanation is most likely. The rest might not have mattered considering that being locked on by the bars should've given them plenty of pause. Iirc this is how the Chibber incident went down. Of course they didn't have the amraams then.
would the ROE hold good against the force they were up against? how do you defend yourself without going into an offensive mode? .. would be interesting to know how ROE is formulated

Even if the roe changes when attacked, it could very well be that by that time the enemy was a. Out of bvr launch range or b. too close for bvr or c. Had already launched it's own salvo.

My guess is the roe hampered the flankers from taking first shot, which would have been easily possible with the r27s at about 100km+. IOWs, scenario C above.

Once they lost this tactical advantage, the f16s were free to come closer and launch amraams. After that they were on the defensive and not in a position to launch bvrs. And remember all this would have happened in seconds.

My guess is that if the roe were favorable. The flankers would've launched first (r27s) and moved in closer for r73 launche, not giving the solah a chance to come in close at all.

kit · Post by **kit** » 17 Dec 2019 10:14

Cain Marko wrote:
kit wrote:
would the ROE hold good against the force they were up against? how do you defend yourself without going into an offensive mode? .. would be interesting to know how ROE is formulated
Even if the roe changes when attacked, it could very well be that by that time the enemy was a. Out of bvr launch range or b. too close for bvr or c. Had already launched it's own salvo.

My guess is the roe hampered the flankers from taking first shot, which would have been easily possible with the r27s at about 100km+. IOWs, scenario C above.

Once they lost this tactical advantage, the f16s were free to come closer and launch amraams. After that they were on the defensive and not in a position to launch bvrs. And remember all this would have happened in seconds.

My guess is that if the roe were favorable. The flankers would've launched first (r27s) and moved in closer for r73 launche, not giving the solah a chance to come in close at all.

ok so the guy with the first shot has an advantage, now why did we have an ROE that would prevent the first shot post-Balakot esp when we knew very well they could strike any time? .. wouldn't this incident be a failure of such a policy?

Even if we did not escalate., by the looks of it the pakis were ready to go the full monty? .. what if a Su was shot down .. would we be still thinking no-shoot first is the best policy?., i think the roe was a political decision but then ..

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Dec 2019 10:41

kit wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: Even if the roe changes when attacked, it could very well be that by that time the enemy was a. Out of bvr launch range or b. too close for bvr or c. Had already launched it's own salvo.

My guess is the roe hampered the flankers from taking first shot, which would have been easily possible with the r27s at about 100km+. IOWs, scenario C above.

Once they lost this tactical advantage, the f16s were free to come closer and launch amraams. After that they were on the defensive and not in a position to launch bvrs. And remember all this would have happened in seconds.

My guess is that if the roe were favorable. The flankers would've launched first (r27s) and moved in closer for r73 launche, not giving the solah a chance to come in close at all.

ok so the guy with the first shot has an advantage, now why did we have an ROE that would prevent the first shot post-Balakot esp when we knew very well they could strike any time? .. wouldn't this incident be a failure of such a policy?

Even if we did not escalate., by the looks of it the pakis were ready to go the full monty? .. what if a Su was shot down .. would we be still thinking no-shoot first is the best policy?., i think the roe was a political decision but then ..

I'm just guessing but the roe on our side was probably don't shoot unless shot at or unless IB is crossed. This would allow for the PAF to take bvr potshots at long ranges.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 17 Dec 2019 11:13

Many times IAF and PAF aircraft have flown close but within thier borders, PAF was keeping this up throughout 26th morning and 27th morning, when 2 PAF F-16's where doing CAP on the opposite side of the F-16's, another set of 2 F-16 came in fast and high with full afterburners to engage the Su-30 who were doign subsonic CAP. After 5-10 minutes the entire PAF retreated - they knew due to international pressure highly likely IAF would not be authorized to bomb them. They left thier airspace Nanga after that - dont believe see how PA tanks panicked when IAF aircraft came close LOC on 28- Feb-19 morning and started mingling with civilian traffic tearing up roads. Even Pakistani handles took Videos of IAF aircraft on 12-Mar-19 right on the LOC but the PAF refused to turn up.

After our 26-Feb-19 strike, IAF was tied with non escalation and PAF used to choose thier place and timing and chose to Bomb IA for losses incurred by them on 26-Feb-19 (death of 300 non uniformed Jihadis but what was hit at Chakoti and Muzaffarabad which forced PAf to respond).

After those 15 minutes PAF game was up.

Thats they 2 revelations by US and PAF are thought provoking

1) They used their whole Airforce for Operation Swift Retort - they kept flying all their aircraft round the clock till they found their numbers favoured them ( In this calculation the possibility Mig 21 Bison appearing suddenly across the Pri Panjal with full afterburner was missed).

2) PAF had spread thier F-16's to non authorized forward bases i.e to keep the F-16's on CAP on the LOC- some were moved to Murid etc. These acted as the BARCAP while the ones at Sargodha could take off use Afterburner to achieve maximum speed to try and get maximum advantage at subsonic CAP aircraft and fire AMRAAM.

It was a unique no war no peace situation along with allowance to the PAF to waste missiles and bombs which allowed PAF 5- 10 minute advantage on the morning 27-Feb-19.

Nobody asks does the AMRAAM deserve the Slammer name after 6/7 misses on 27-Feb-19 morning? In an all out war extrapolating this considering some AMRAAM's would have serviceability issues- some considering airtime in Mar-19 would have reached end of life - 400 of the AMRAAM's would have been available. PAF will be BVR Nanga after downing 50 Mig 21's loosing the available F-16's(considering 75% availability of 765 strong fleet). The JF-17 and Mirage would be like the PAF in East Pakistan int he 1971 war.

People forget Pakistan shut down its airspace- even making the Bankrupt PIA to fly Islamabad to Karachi flights along the Afghan border and surprising number of civilian aircraft took off from Pakistan to China in Mar-19- that would have never happened if the PAF thought Swift Retort was a success.

Another thing all of Pakistan wanted military action against India after 5-Aug-19- for Imran Khan to come and say that Pakistan will/could loose such a conflict would not have been without inference to what happened during the months of Feb-19 and Mar-19.

Pakistanis on tweeter are like Joseph Gobbels and Nazis- non need to take them at face value.

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 17 Dec 2019 12:00

Aditya_V wrote:... but what was hit at Chakoti and Muzaffarabad which forced PAf to respond).

And what was that? What was hit at Chakoti and Muzaffarabad?

I have often wondered the same thing myself (especially after the Half-Sanyasi's cryptic comments on Twitter) but do you have any idea what it was?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 17 Dec 2019 12:04

As a person far away power my guess is good as yours- the IAF has clammed up with no official word after the MEA briefing on 26 -Feb-19 calling it a non miltary strike. Till then IAF had informed the Media. Given the IAF and MEA behavior it was definitely something which hurt the Military in Pakistan.

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 17 Dec 2019 12:33

My memory is a little hazy on this, but I seem to remember either Rajnath Singh or Nirmalaji in a post-Balakot press conference making a veiled reference to "three targets were struck". To me that means "Balakot and two others". But I can't be certain I'm remembering this correctly.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 17 Dec 2019 12:54

Imagine if Tejas was on recee missions in any of these, how many alarm bells would go off quickly because of foreign engine/instruments not of Russian origin. Would Tejas be able to intercept well the way MiG 21.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 17 Dec 2019 14:32

I am working on 3 targets issue ..hopefully will give good news in jan/feb

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 17 Dec 2019 14:58

manjgu wrote:I am working on 3 targets issue ..hopefully will give good news in jan/feb

As much as I would love to know, please make sure it is declassified before posting.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Dec 2019 00:30

IAF declares Brahmos A integration with Su-30MKI complete

IAF declares integration of Brahmos A with Su-30MKI complete

The Indian Air Force (IAF) announced on 17 December that it has completed the integration of the BrahMos-A (Air) supersonic cruise missile onto the Sukhoi Su-30MKI multirole fighter.

The announcement was made after the service successfully launched the weapon from an Su-30MKI off the coast of Odisha against a sea-based target, achieving “a direct hit”.

“The test, conducted in user configuration, revalidated the ship-attack capability of the advanced air-launched cruise missile. During the test, the missile was gravity dropped from the air combat platform’s fuselage and the two-stage weapon’s engine fired up and the missile straightaway propelled towards the intended target positioned at the sea, piercing it with pinpoint accuracy,” said the IAF, according to a statement by the Indian government’s Press Information Bureau (PIB).

chetonzz · Post by **chetonzz** » 19 Dec 2019 15:32

sorry for one new topic- how many A2A kills are claimed by IAF in last 2-3 decades?
AFAIK- one F-16 by Mig-21-2019 and one Paki plane shot by Mig-21 in 1999...
any more in 80's and 90's?

thank you

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 19 Dec 2019 16:01

Atlantique incident comes to mind!

But if the enemy is too scared to take to air and die on the ground then nothing wrong with it. Knowing our neighbourhood, few would dare to go against us. And we're not an expeditionary force.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 19 Dec 2019 16:04

Well excluding Drones atleast half a dozen were shot down in Mar 19. IAF claims 2 A2A kills since 1971

1- Atlantique and the other F-16 on 27-Feb-19.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Dec 2019 20:09

Any idea of how many MKIs are now compatible with BMos-A? Official news only plz.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 20 Dec 2019 21:30

Philip wrote:Any idea of how many MKIs are now compatible with BMos-A? Official news only plz.

The last order of 42 Su-30MKI in October 2012 will have the structural modifications to carry BrahMos A.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 21 Dec 2019 00:28

per HVT sir, (the test pilot for other initiatives), no structural modification was carried out for this round of Brahmos test (integration related changes yes, maybe special pylon etc). That means all 270 SU30MKI can carry the current version in the current role.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 21 Dec 2019 02:57

fanne wrote:per HVT sir, (the test pilot for other initiatives), no structural modification was carried out for this round of Brahmos test (integration related changes yes, maybe special pylon etc). That means all 270 SU30MKI can carry the current version in the current role.

It can also mean all structural modifications were carried out before and they are still valid. It does not translate to 270. It would be great if it did.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 21 Dec 2019 10:29

There is a cost to strengthening the undercarriage making the aircraft heavier, so not all will be upgraded, since many will have to be top of their manuverability for A2A to dodge incoming prematurely launched Amraam's and to take out enemy fighters some of whom will be retreating to their airbases

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 21 Dec 2019 16:36

fanne wrote:per HVT sir, (the test pilot for other initiatives), no structural modification was carried out for this round of Brahmos test (integration related changes yes, maybe special pylon etc). That means all 270 SU30MKI can carry the current version in the current role.

First two
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=19

Two aircraft was earmarked by the IAF for the initial launch trials. The first Su-30MKI fighter aircraft modified for BRAHMOS supersonic cruise missile was handed over by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to the CEO & MD of BrahMos Aerospace on 19 February 2015 during Aero India at Yelahanka, Bengaluru.

Remaining 40 covered here
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 104177.cms

NEW DELHI: Work has begun to integrate the Brahmos supersonic cruise missile on 40 Sukhoi combat aircraft which is expected to fulfil critical needs of the Indian Air Force in the wake of evolving security dynamics in the region.

The fleet of 40 Sukhoi jet will undergo structural modifications at the state-run aerospace major Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL)for integration of the missile on them

A normal Su-30 has two fuselage hard points for carrying relatively lighter missiles

https://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Gall ... s.jpg.html

https://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Gall ... s.jpg.html

A BrahMos carrying Sukhoi has structural modifications to strengthen the fuselage for a single hardpoint for the heavy missile
https://images.financialexpress.com/201 ... hmos-2.jpg

Now the excess weight for strengthening obviously impacts other roles like A2A manoeuvrability. Hence only 42 are modified.

Earlier Russia was to give kits for modification for the last order of 40 placed in 2012 but HAL modified 42 of earlier 140 being manufactured.

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 22 Dec 2019 00:27

Technically, the 42 modified sukhoi should be having a separate designation -- Su-30 MKIB. B for Brahmos. Where the structure has been modified and such modification affects flight performance, it's a different bird altogether.

Also, I wonder whether these 40 will form two separate squadrons or whether they will be split equally among all the other Sukhoi squadrons.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Dec 2019 00:58

The 4+4 underwing/ tip hardpoints are still there, indicating around 8 AAMs could still be carried.4 BVR and 4 WVR AAMs apart from the BMos on the centreline.Other reports state that once BMos- NG arrives, 5 BM os NG ASMs would be carried by one MKI. We cold even forsee a mix of BMos carried, say 2 AAM variants plus 3 ASM versions. This would turn the MKI- B into the most lethal strike fighter carrying 300+ km Mach 3.5 misiles for both strike and LR BVR AWACS/ fighter killers.

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Dec 2019 04:29

^^^
Those 40 Su-30MKI will also be able to carry Nirbhay ALCM. Probably be part of the recommended two squadrons for the Strategic Command.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Dec 2019 07:24

Coming back to the old debate and requirement of a strat. bomber for both the IAF and IN.A recent statement from the US after testing an improved anti- ship ASM out to 300km range, says that just one B-1 bomber can carry upto 24 of the new missiles.
There was a report about rejigging our transports to be able to carry swarms of drones, swarms of ALCMs will be far deadlier if he acquired strat. bombers, which were offered to us as far back as 1971!

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 22 Dec 2019 12:30

Philip wrote:Coming back to the old debate and requirement of a strat. bomber for both the IAF and IN.A recent statement from the US after testing an improved anti- ship ASM out to 300km range, says that just one B-1 bomber can carry upto 24 of the new missiles.

I read a recent report where US is said to be exploring long range artillery systems because of the fact that it's adversaries are increasingly deploying very capable anti-aircraft system. And this is the mighty Khan -- the most technologically advanced and deep pocketed dude out there. Even for them, the bombers they have are useful for posturing and bombing garib log like the Iraqis, ISIS and Taliban. Let them try sending their bombers against the Ruskis and Chinkis. If their F-117 can be taken down by a mediocre SAM, their bombers will fare even worse against the likes of S-XXX, HQ-XX type of SAMs.

Think about this...the SU-30MKIB (the Bees) is the closest and next best thing to the bombers that you need:
- With the strengthened structure, the Bees can carry a much larger A2S load on the centerline apart from just the Brahmos.
- You wanna hit deep into China? I'll give you an EIGHT-ship formation of Bees -- 4 armed to teeth with all the A2S bombs & missiles you want plus the kitchen sink, and another 4 fitted with jammer pods & buddy refueling tanks.
- You want more of the Bees? Well, we already have the license...so just go build more. No additional cost for maintenance, training whatsoever. No extra begging & bargaining with the ruskis for anything more than what we already have.
- And the best part? Location of the ordinary bombers cant be hidden, so our enemies will know where they are based, what for & when they are being moved to new locations. But with the Bees, since they look like normal MKIs we can move them around and no one will know the difference!

Philip wrote:swarms of ALCMs will be far deadlier...

What will be truly deadlier will be swarms of ALCMs launched by AURA-type drones. That's coming too, but until then...we have the Bees!

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 22 Dec 2019 14:39

srai wrote:^^^
Those 40 Su-30MKI will also be able to carry Nirbhay ALCM. Probably be part of the recommended two squadrons for the Strategic Command.

No structural mods required for nirbhay. Even tejas would be able to carry it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Dec 2019 22:37

Aura and UCAVs at the most would be able to carry 2-4 large-sized stand-off missiles. But right now the Backfires, Blackjacks and even the upgraded Bears can carry a dozen or two, a far dealier number. Stealth bombers/ UCAVs have the potential of
tipping the scales.⁹

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 23 Dec 2019 23:25

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/arm ... -supergun/

Artillery is cheaper, with GPS very accurate and you can ****** up the enemy positions all day long unlike bombing from the air. The Americans, if they can build the system in enough numbers, will have a revolutionary weapon that’ll turn the whole modern warfare paradigm on its head. Just think of it, you can hit enemies thousand of more kilometers away while secure in your bunkers and with minimal risk, secure supply chains - practically the only thing that can strike at such long ranged artillery if you don’t have equally long ranged artillery is long ranged missiles and those are expensive as hell, and there aren’t too many of them. Forget planes because only the heavy warplane class has that sort of range and even those require refuelling in the air and while they Sortie, the artillery will ****** up their base and support infrastructure very nicely. And those planes have to fight through your air patrols and your ground based air defence while laden with bombs.

This is aimed at China and that makes the “intercontinental artillery” righteous in anyone’s books.

Philip wrote:Coming back to the old debate and requirement of a strat. bomber for both the IAF and IN.A recent statement from the US after testing an improved anti- ship ASM out to 300km range, says that just one B-1 bomber can carry upto 24 of the new missiles.
There was a report about rejigging our transports to be able to carry swarms of drones, swarms of ALCMs will be far deadlier if he acquired strat. bombers, which were offered to us as far back as 1971!

tandav · Post by **tandav** » 24 Dec 2019 00:11

Arun.prabhu wrote:https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/arm ... -supergun/

Artillery is cheaper, with GPS very accurate and you can ****** up the enemy positions all day long unlike bombing from the air. The Americans, if they can build the system in enough numbers, will have a revolutionary weapon that’ll turn the whole modern warfare paradigm on its head. Just think of it, you can hit enemies thousand of more kilometers away while secure in your bunkers and with minimal risk, secure supply chains - practically the only thing that can strike at such long ranged artillery if you don’t have equally long ranged artillery is long ranged missiles and those are expensive as hell, and there aren’t too many of them. Forget planes because only the heavy warplane class has that sort of range and even those require refuelling in the air and while they Sortie, the artillery will ****** up their base and support infrastructure very nicely. And those planes have to fight through your air patrols and your ground based air defence while laden with bombs.

This is aimed at China and that makes the “intercontinental artillery” righteous in anyone’s books.

Philip wrote:Coming back to the old debate and requirement of a strat. bomber for both the IAF and IN.A recent statement from the US after testing an improved anti- ship ASM out to 300km range, says that just one B-1 bomber can carry upto 24 of the new missiles.
There was a report about rejigging our transports to be able to carry swarms of drones, swarms of ALCMs will be far deadlier if he acquired strat. bombers, which were offered to us as far back as 1971!

Yeah! Wake me up when someone comes up with suitably mobile intercontinental howitzer. Gerald Bull (inventor of the GC45) tried building a supergun and that though an impressive science experiment was not a tactically deployable weapon. Saddam Hussain had the gun built and one example was destroyed in desert storm 1 in 1993. Interestingly Gerald Bull also worked for the PRC and I would wager that PRC is more likely to have better long ranged artillery than USA and indeed India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull

kit · Post by **kit** » 24 Dec 2019 00:31

very long range artillery could bring the whole of pakistan under IAs artillery range , a few barrages into isloo every time some peacefools sneak through could usher in peace !!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Dec 2019 03:51

Cybaru wrote:
fanne wrote:per HVT sir, (the test pilot for other initiatives), no structural modification was carried out for this round of Brahmos test (integration related changes yes, maybe special pylon etc). That means all 270 SU30MKI can carry the current version in the current role.

It can also mean all structural modifications were carried out before and they are still valid. It does not translate to 270. It would be great if it did.

That is correct- possibly the same Su-30MKI tail number (SB200?) might have dropped the Brahmos Ain the latest test, meaning no structural mods were required. As I recall, the new pylon that was designed for the carriage of the Brahmos A required some structural mods as the weight of the Brahmos A exceeds what the centerline hardpoint can carry otherwise.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Dec 2019 09:58

Yes,I've fantasised about a desi supergun too, but the enormous cost and inability of speedy mobility ,Germany's Big Bertha was on rails, makes it easy to take out with a tactical missile.However,R&D in this direction should be carried out as rail guns in the naval arena are around the corner, with dumb lumps of lead able to duplicate a missile's role at a fraction of the cost.

. The bombing requirement is " tous azimuth", whether dealing with the Chins in the north and east or anywhere in the IOR arc. The greatest danger to India,othrr than a surprise nuclear strike from Pak or China, is going to come in the IOR with permanent presence of the PLAN. This requires a forward presence by the IN in the ICS and LR supersonic maritime strike bombers will have the wings to carry out strikes on the enemy in his own backwaters ,the chokepoints,etc.,operating from the subcontinent and ANC ,with or without refuelling.The airstrips in the ANC must be lengthened suitably.Look at how China has converted small atolls in the Spratlys into regular naval bases with airstrips too.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 24 Dec 2019 10:26

tandav wrote:
Yeah! Wake me up when someone comes up with suitably mobile intercontinental howitzer.

I would assume at that point, the ammunition would be guided, rather than moving an intercontinental howitzer !

Like a cross between Martlet and Avangard ...

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 24 Dec 2019 19:45

But heavy guns (it could be possibly even 155 Howitzers, but with winged shells and (like Excalibur rounds) and some kind of mechanism for pin point accuracy (NAVIC/GPs, optical matching, even laser guided in limited use cases) will do wonders in mountainous regions. There is not lot of pathway where someone can move, you can place your gun say 25-30 km away from border (reverse slope, extremely hardened bunker or some kind of mobility to scoot) and if you can lay accurate fire 20-400 km further in enemy territory (total range then becomes 70 km, doable with flying shells and current guns, mainly ATAGS), you will stymie their advance in a big way.
We need satellite capability (or UAV, but chines AD is sufficiently advance to shoot them), (we have few) to be effective. I think, we should have 5-6 brother sisters of GISAT at different locations (co located with other Indian satellite) to moniter 4-5 active front any given time. I would go for low cost low altitude sats (40-50 in numbers) with revisit time in minutes. That kind of capability can come in handy for all kind of scenarios (including for artillery)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Dec 2019 00:34

Wouldn't stealthy long loiter high-alt. UAVs be cheaper and more effective for ISR? With our arty/ MBRLs now touching 100km, PGMs like BMos with a range from 300+ km, and full depth of Pak within reach of our tactical missiles, from Prahar, BMos, Prithvi and Nirbhay LRCMS, not to mention the shorter- ranged glide bombs. In the next major spat, Paki installations and targets will have a short but exciting future.ER arty rounds though upto MBRL range could be a rather interesting cost-effective alternative.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Dec 2019 13:15

Not just related to the IAF, but this article is a sobering reminder that the defence budget is likely to remain at current levels and very expensive big ticket items like MRCA, NMH, P-75I, etc. will not be signed anytime in next 2-3 years due to the state of the economy. In such a situation, the Navy's 57 CBF contest is also unlikely to see any traction, given that the Navy's need is nowhere near as urgent as that of the IAF. The Super-30 upgrade is also likely to be a very expensive affair, given the sheer number of jets to be upgraded. Under the circumstances, unless there is absolutely no indigenous alternative, there should be no imports permitted at all. Most of the capital expenditure should remain within the country rather than flowing out to various other countries.

From AW&ST

India faced major security challenges in 2019, after a terrorist attack on a police convoy in Jammu and Kashmir in February killed 40 personnel, leading to Indian airstrikes in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and an air defense battle in which an Indian MiG-21 crashed (AW&ST March 11-24, p. 9).

In August, the change in constitutional status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, and its bifurcation for direct rule from New Delhi, has kept tensions with Pakistan simmering.

But the $61 billion military budget announced in July did not increase as a result of these ongoing tensions. India’s defense accounts continue to face pressure from within and without. The military continues to struggle with the perennial problem of buying defense equipment and even may reduce planned purchases of key equipment.

One internal pressure is the burden of paying salaries to 1.8 million civilian and military personnel and pensions for 3.1 million retirees, 60% of India’s total defense budget this year. The budget is squeezed from the outside as well. Although the defense budget accounts for 15.5% of all government spending, it is only 2% of projected GDP. That is because tax collection is low in proportion to the value of economic activity in India.

And although modernization accounts are up nearly 10% across the board, according to the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA) in New Delhi, those increases are struggling to keep pace with inflation and global exchange rates. In 2018, the annual average exchange rate for $1 was 68.383 Indian rupees; in late 2019, $1 is worth 70.361 rupees.

Will next year be better? Not likely.

“There will be some growth—maybe 7% or 8%,” says Laxman Kumar Behera at the IDSA. “The important thing is money for capital expenditure, but the economy is simply not generating enough resources.”

Signs of an economic slowdown began surfacing in the second quarter of 2019, and GDP growth slowed to its lowest rate in six years in the third quarter. With consumption crashing and tax collections falling short, the budget is already tightening, and the difficulties are affecting military procurement programs.

The Defense Acquisition Council truncated a naval order for Boeing P-8I Long-Range Maritime Reconnaissance aircraft from 10 to six. And the army slashed its order for sniper rifles. The three services have requested an urgent infusion of more than $450 million to pay for critical requirements.

“There should still be enough of a budget to pay for committed liabilities like the [Dassault] Rafale and [Almaz] S-400 orders,” says Behera. “But anything more would be overoptimistic. It looks like it will take one or two years for things to turn around and start climbing again.”

It is just as well that none of the larger acquisition programs for fighters, helicopters and submarines are anywhere close to fruition. At this point, maintaining current levels of spending alone might be a real accomplishment.

“There are no large acquisition programs that are close to completion of their process right now, so there’s no question of having to find a budget for them anyway,” says Behera. “The only other way would be to try and find additional resources in case a critical requirement emerges—maybe additional taxes.”

Some force accretion is expected in 2020 and 2021. The first four Rafale fighters are anticipated to arrive in India by May 2020, with the order for 36 to be completed in fiscal 2021-22.

India is also looking forward to delivery of the first of five S-400 squadrons from Russia. Though it anticipates delivery by October 2020, with the order expected to be completed by April 2023, Russian industry officials have said the delivery will begin in September 2021 and wrap up by the first half of 2025.

India plans to float tenders for 110 air force fighter aircraft as well as six new conventional submarines, expected to be sent out next year. An invitation to vendors to submit their “expression of interest” to supply 111 Naval utility helicopters was issued in 2019, but progress is only expected next year. All three tenders will follow a new “Strategic Partnership” process, which requires an Indian partner company to be the prime and has added a layer of complexity.

kit · Post by **kit** » 25 Dec 2019 15:41

OT

Kartik wrote:Not just related to the IAF, but this article is a sobering reminder that the defence budget is likely to remain at current levels and very expensive big ticket items like MRCA, NMH, P-75I, etc. will not be signed anytime in next 2-3 years due to the state of the economy. In such a situation, the Navy's 57 CBF contest is also unlikely to see any traction, given that the Navy's need is nowhere near as urgent as that of the IAF. The Super-30 upgrade is also likely to be a very expensive affair, given the sheer number of jets to be upgraded. Under the circumstances, unless there is absolutely no indigenous alternative, there should be no imports permitted at all. Most of the capital expenditure should remain within the country rather than flowing out to various other countries.

From AW&ST

India faced major security challenges in 2019, after a terrorist attack on a police convoy in Jammu and Kashmir in February killed 40 personnel, leading to Indian airstrikes in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and an air defense battle in which an Indian MiG-21 crashed (AW&ST March 11-24, p. 9).

In August, the change in constitutional status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, and its bifurcation for direct rule from New Delhi, has kept tensions with Pakistan simmering.

But the $61 billion military budget announced in July did not increase as a result of these ongoing tensions. India’s defense accounts continue to face pressure from within and without. The military continues to struggle with the perennial problem of buying defense equipment and even may reduce planned purchases of key equipment.

One internal pressure is the burden of paying salaries to 1.8 million civilian and military personnel and pensions for 3.1 million retirees, 60% of India’s total defense budget this year. The budget is squeezed from the outside as well. Although the defense budget accounts for 15.5% of all government spending, it is only 2% of projected GDP. That is because tax collection is low in proportion to the value of economic activity in India.

And although modernization accounts are up nearly 10% across the board, according to the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA) in New Delhi, those increases are struggling to keep pace with inflation and global exchange rates. In 2018, the annual average exchange rate for $1 was 68.383 Indian rupees; in late 2019, $1 is worth 70.361 rupees.

Will next year be better? Not likely.

“There will be some growth—maybe 7% or 8%,” says Laxman Kumar Behera at the IDSA. “The important thing is money for capital expenditure, but the economy is simply not generating enough resources.”

Signs of an economic slowdown began surfacing in the second quarter of 2019, and GDP growth slowed to its lowest rate in six years in the third quarter. With consumption crashing and tax collections falling short, the budget is already tightening, and the difficulties are affecting military procurement programs.

The Defense Acquisition Council truncated a naval order for Boeing P-8I Long-Range Maritime Reconnaissance aircraft from 10 to six. And the army slashed its order for sniper rifles. The three services have requested an urgent infusion of more than $450 million to pay for critical requirements.

“There should still be enough of a budget to pay for committed liabilities like the [Dassault] Rafale and [Almaz] S-400 orders,” says Behera. “But anything more would be overoptimistic. It looks like it will take one or two years for things to turn around and start climbing again.”

It is just as well that none of the larger acquisition programs for fighters, helicopters and submarines are anywhere close to fruition. At this point, maintaining current levels of spending alone might be a real accomplishment.

“There are no large acquisition programs that are close to completion of their process right now, so there’s no question of having to find a budget for them anyway,” says Behera. “The only other way would be to try and find additional resources in case a critical requirement emerges—maybe additional taxes.”

Some force accretion is expected in 2020 and 2021. The first four Rafale fighters are anticipated to arrive in India by May 2020, with the order for 36 to be completed in fiscal 2021-22.

India is also looking forward to delivery of the first of five S-400 squadrons from Russia. Though it anticipates delivery by October 2020, with the order expected to be completed by April 2023, Russian industry officials have said the delivery will begin in September 2021 and wrap up by the first half of 2025.

India plans to float tenders for 110 air force fighter aircraft as well as six new conventional submarines, expected to be sent out next year. An invitation to vendors to submit their “expression of interest” to supply 111 Naval utility helicopters was issued in 2019, but progress is only expected next year. All three tenders will follow a new “Strategic Partnership” process, which requires an Indian partner company to be the prime and has added a layer of complexity.

OT, but even China is beefing up its Navy pulling out resources from Army and Airforce., the number of PLA personnel is coming down with an increasing focus of leaner and meaner doctrine using technology as a force multiplier... how far can the IA sustain its bloated personnel numbers ?

nam · Post by **nam** » 25 Dec 2019 16:58

It is fascinating how their is constant complains about not having enough defence budget, but the money automatically appears for Rafales, S400, P8I, AH64 for IA, T90 tanks or picking up the last C17.. etc.

There doesn't seem to be a problem in money supply when it comes to imports..

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 25 Dec 2019 17:02

bhaijaan...there is money to be made in imports..phoren trips...guided tours... domestic mein to bangalore tak hi jaana padega aur koi maal bhi nahi milega ?