Integrated Rocket Force: News & Discussion

[Manish_P]

Irrespective of the journos spinning this (and they obviously are!), the retired Air Marshal did question the usefulness of drones and missiles in relation to manned fighter aircraft...

Admiral sir I felt that the Retd AM was addressing the cost vs numbers vs payload capacity equation put forth by the civilian. Yes he was biased towards his own steed (fighters) but not downright as hostile to others as it is made out to be on social.

That way I am downright prejudiced against journos.

Yes he did compare the western air warfare philosophy vs the eastern rocket warfare philosophy... to which I would say now what with the commands demarcated let's have the AF fighter style warfare on the western front and the Army have their rocket warfare style on the eastern front. Both happy

But please, please give both fighters (subs with torpedoes) and rockets (subs with missiles) to the Navy.

Am nursing a viral fever these past two days that's fogged up my brain... I wonder if I am making any sense whatsoever. I have a feeling that come next week it's going to be pretty embarrassing looking at my own posts

[SRajesh]

Rakesh
Is this a warning short fired across the bow??
Theatre Commands may be pushed through.
And more importantly CDS could go the the largest branch of the services and may stay that way for forseable time!!
AHQ probably worried and want 114 as a sweetner for the deal to go through!!

[Rakesh]

Admiral sir I felt that the Retd AM was addressing the cost vs numbers vs payload capacity equation put forth by the civilian. Yes he was biased towards his own steed (fighters) but not downright as hostile to others as it is made out to be on social.

That way I am downright prejudiced against journos.

Yes he did compare the western air warfare philosophy vs the eastern rocket warfare philosophy... to which I would say now what with the commands demarcated let's have the AF fighter style warfare on the western front and the Army have their rocket warfare style on the eastern front. Both happy

But please, please give both fighters (subs with torpedoes) and rockets (subs with missiles) to the Navy.

Let me just state at the outset that Air Marshal Tiwari spoke very eloquently and made his point, with clarity and precision.

The issue is with the substance of his argument. I suspect the argument is being borne out because the 114 Rafale deal has yet to be signed. The very platform that Air HQ is so eager to get its hands on, has a UCAV complement (nEUROn) that is expected to come on board with the F5 variant. The OEM of the Rafale is itself pitching a UCAV partner of the Rafale and Air HQ is still stuck in the fighter jock era.

Payload Capacity is a valid point, however that is what is available NOW. The future will have more advanced AI-driven drones, with VLO shaping, reduced IR signature and a platform that can carry a more varied payload. If Air HQ is still focusing on manned fighters - as a key component of air power - for the future, it will be counterproductive. And this is not just about Rafale, but even our home grown programs i.e. Tejas variants + AMCA.

Taking manned fighters into heavily defended, enemy airspace is a recipe for disaster. A F-35 got severely damaged over the skies of Iran. And that is the cutting edge of VLO 5th generation aircraft. It will be a slaughter for fourth generation aircraft. First sanitize the airspace via SEAD/DEAD and then you can dominate the skies. For that you need to probe, analyse and destroy enemy air defences aka OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide & Act). A large drone fleet (aka Ghatak, HAL CATS, etc) + an Integrated Rocket Force are crucial to that goal.

[Rakesh]

Rakesh
Is this a warning short fired across the bow??
Theatre Commands may be pushed through.
And more importantly CDS could go the the largest branch of the services and may stay that way for forseable time!!
AHQ probably worried and want 114 as a sweetner for the deal to go through!!

Air HQ has voiced significant opposition to the theaterization concept. Those concerns are being addressed, so that the IAF's fears can be assauged. But theaterization will happen and Air HQ will jump on board.

Rule in Life ---> If you don't adapt to changing circumstances in life, you will be left behind.

[Prem Kumar]

Once Rafale deal is signed, the camel now has 3 feet in the tent. The French will pitch their UCAV & say that the Rafale is compatible with *only their UCAV* and nothing else. They will refuse to share codes for inter-operability - screw whatever they signed as part of the deal (or the IAF will conveniently forget to include code-sharing of UCAV during contract signature)

We will pay more Billions to buy and integrate neuron or moron or whatever snake-oil Dassault sells us

This will also impact Ghatak orders because it wont be compatible with the Rafale fleet

[srin]

I don't understand at all the need for a dedicated rocket force. To me, all non-nuclear surface-to-surface weapons, of any range, are part of artillery. And these must be part of the respective theater commands.

[Rakesh]

I don't understand at all the need for a dedicated rocket force. To me, all non-nuclear surface-to-surface weapons, of any range, are part of artillery. And these must be part of the respective theater commands.

https://x.com/palepurshankar/status/204 ... 68520?s=20 ---> 8 Artillery Major Generals in NCC (National Cadet Corps) out of 17. Is NCC the new 'Artillery'? The God of War is being shown his resting place! "Ultima ratio regum" in the NCC. Hmm.

https://x.com/kakar_harsha/status/20425 ... 65738?s=20 ---> The Army Chief talks about raising Missile and Rocket regiments. At the same time, artillery generals, who should have been at the forefront of this initiative are sidelined to NCC. Big mismatch between intent and action. @adgpi

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/chakranewz/status/2043683 ... 13782?s=20 ---> “Why risk aircraft when missiles do the same job?” argues Lt Gen P R Shankar on the lessons from war.If targets like Rahim Yar Khan or Sargodha were are the objective, why not use BrahMos missile or ground-launched systems from day one? Air-launched or ground-launched, the effect is identical. What matters is the hit, not the platform. So why expose pilots and platforms when modern warfare is shifting from platforms to precision strike systems.

Lessons From War - Why Modern Wars Are All About Missiles

From Iran to Ukraine, the battlefield is changing fast. Fighter jets still matter but they’re no longer decisive. In this episode of Lessons From War, Lt Gen P R Shankar joins Chakra News to break down why missiles, drones, and scalable firepower are redefining modern conflict. What does this mean for India’s military strategy, air power, and future wars? And are we preparing for the war of tomorrow or the last one?

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/chakranewz/status/2043683 ... 13782?s=20 ---> “Why risk aircraft when missiles do the same job?” argues Lt Gen P R Shankar on the lessons from war.If targets like Rahim Yar Khan or Sargodha were are the objective, why not use BrahMos missile or ground-launched systems from day one? Air-launched or ground-launched, the effect is identical. What matters is the hit, not the platform. So why expose pilots and platforms when modern warfare is shifting from platforms to precision strike systems.

https://x.com/palepurshankar/status/204 ... 29406?s=20 --> Our defence establishment and planners need to understand some fundamental truths.
^^^^
https://x.com/GauravT71548031/status/20 ... 17527?s=20 ---> Selective analysis without context, cherry picking lessons of convenience. This narrative if accepted, will lead to evaporation of IAF's (and India's) scalable, graduated offensive response capability. It overlooks huge cost of protective infrastructure, without which adversary's air power will destroy missile/drone based strike capability at source. Especially as drawing back on fighters essentially cedes control of own airspace to the adversary. So surface forces are also hammered by enemy air and rendered incapable of offensive, and barely capable of defensive ops. Analysis conflates strategic impact, with operational effects, and completely disregards the differences in notions of victory in between both scenarios.

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/chakranewz/status/2043683 ... 13782?s=20 ---> “Why risk aircraft when missiles do the same job?” argues Lt Gen P R Shankar on the lessons from war.If targets like Rahim Yar Khan or Sargodha were are the objective, why not use BrahMos missile or ground-launched systems from day one? Air-launched or ground-launched, the effect is identical. What matters is the hit, not the platform. So why expose pilots and platforms when modern warfare is shifting from platforms to precision strike systems.

https://x.com/Manik_M_Jolly/status/2043 ... 45270?s=20 ---> Why approach and resolve everything like a limited binary solution? Aircraft have their own value and missiles their own. Can missiles patrol the area, carry out long dog fights, provide consistent air cover? No. A great mix of both, role and terrain dependent, will always be the ultimate solution.

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/palepurshankar/status/204 ... 29406?s=20 --> Our defence establishment and planners need to understand some fundamental truths.

https://x.com/MontyPanging/status/20437 ... 23499?s=20 ---> Despite clear indications of dominance of Air Power, shock & awe affect in ongoing wars, certain lobbies are working overtime to retain monopoly over command posts, especially the other services. In modern day joint warfare scenario, command posts should be merit & capability based; open to all & not on majority basis! Many experts feel India lost the 1962 Sino-India War due non-usage of Air Power! Are the nation's leadership about to repeat the same mistake by ignoring the preponderance of Air Power? Another Himalayan Blunder being repeated?

[Jay]

“Why risk aircraft when missiles do the same job?” argues Lt Gen P R Shankar

What an incredibly thoughtless statement made by this Shankar guy. His analysis on so many things is pure bakwaas yet he is given chance after chance to spread nonsense. Sorry, not a fan of this retired afsar at all.

[Rakesh]

What an incredibly thoughtless statement made by this Shankar guy. His analysis on so many things is pure bakwas yet he is given chance after chance to spread nonsense. Sorry, not a fan of this retired afsar at all.

See this gem

This reminds of the late General Bipin Rawat, who stated that the IAF is a supporting arm! Then-Air Chief Marshal RKS Bhadauria immediately countered this, stating that air power is not a "stand-alone supporting role" but plays a major, integrated role in modern warfare.

https://x.com/palepurshankar/status/204 ... 26616?s=20 ---> Gunners Shot Clips: LESSONS OF THE IRAN MODEL, ROCKET FORCE AND FIGHTER AIRCRAFT FOR INDIA.

1. We need to take lessons and not be dogmatic about our turfs
2. Any force is a means to an end and not the end itself
3. The revolution in air and seapower is happening from land....many of us do not seem to understand this at all.

Reactions to my views have been emotional and dismissive. That is fine, but our enemies won't be so! We need an honest debate in the interest of the nation.

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/palepurshankar/status/204 ... 29406?s=20 --> Our defence establishment and planners need to understand some fundamental truths.

https://x.com/MontyPanging/status/20437 ... 23499?s=20 ---> Despite clear indications of dominance of Air Power, shock & awe affect in ongoing wars, certain lobbies are working overtime to retain monopoly over command posts, especially the other services. In modern day joint warfare scenario, command posts should be merit & capability based; open to all & not on majority basis! Many experts feel India lost the 1962 Sino-India War due non-usage of Air Power! Are the nation's leadership about to repeat the same mistake by ignoring the preponderance of Air Power? Another Himalayan Blunder being repeated?

https://x.com/siriharusha/status/204389 ... 97961?s=20 ---> I have criticised many of his takes but this view of his is reasonable. It really doesn't matter whether a fighter or a TEL launched missile hit a static target.

https://x.com/MontyPanging/status/20439 ... 12779?s=20 ---> Having myself operated many such missile systems, man in the loop is important. Many missiles have to be guided on to the target during terminal phases. Few missiles need mid-course guidance & corrections. Most vital areas would deploy counters like smoke, jammers etc and need human interference. General seems to be unaware of missile/drone guidance & targeting technology. Missing the fairway for the woods!

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/chakranewz/status/2043683 ... 13782?s=20 ---> “Why risk aircraft when missiles do the same job?” argues Lt Gen P R Shankar on the lessons from war.If targets like Rahim Yar Khan or Sargodha were are the objective, why not use BrahMos missile or ground-launched systems from day one? Air-launched or ground-launched, the effect is identical. What matters is the hit, not the platform. So why expose pilots and platforms when modern warfare is shifting from platforms to precision strike systems.

https://x.com/Ahlawat2012/status/204389 ... 03112?s=20 ---> The good General is entitled to his opinion. We have long suspected that Army considers air force as long range artillery. That's playing out here. Nothing wrong in holding an opinion, howsoever inaccurate. However, I am surprised that the interviewer, who is erudite and very well read, did not push back. One possibility is that he agreed with the General. In that case it would make tremendous sense for him to get an alternative view from an air power specialist. Ignoring an emerging tech in warfare is as dangerous as overstating it's usefulness.

[Rakesh]

The fight is getting nasty...

https://x.com/palepurshankar/status/204 ... 29406?s=20 --> Our defence establishment and planners need to understand some fundamental truths.

https://x.com/rhinohistorian/status/204 ... 11349?s=20 ---> Deeply flawed arguments that reveal a sense of frustration and waning influence of a particular arm of the Indian Army that seeks relevance. Instead of aiming your long distance vectors at a sister service, why don’t you first regain your mojo within the service!

https://x.com/palepurshankar/status/204 ... 44664?s=20 ---> Getting personal? New facet of a historian!

https://x.com/rhinohistorian/status/204 ... 87692?s=20 ---> Nothing personal sir - just surprised with your rather unfair direct attack on the IAF and attempts to completely undermine the utility of offensive air power. I would have imagined that you would have supported MULTI domain operations.

[uddu]

The points raised are valid too. You can strike those targets with Brahmos from Day 1. The only point of contention is to state that Air Force cannot be used for the risks involved. Air Force is there to take risk. Even Navy could be used from Day 1. The choice is for the planners to decide which one to use and when. So some will come first, some second and some third.

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/palepurshankar/status/204 ... 90550?s=20 ---> Dear Arjun Subramaniam @rhinohistorian, since you have chosen to become personal, please have a look at the full video. We can discuss further. Incidentally, I am proud of my IAF but not so much of its cerebral historian!

https://x.com/Ahlawat2012/status/204393 ... 74742?s=20 ---> Every weapon system under the Sun has had its day, and then faded into irrelevance. Manned fighters too would become irrelevant- but that day is not here - yet. Missiles, drones and rockets are important, but not enough on their own. In isolation, they can delay defeat, but not ensure victory. They are defenders weapon, if not backed by offensive air power. Despite fielding the best drones, Ukraine cannot defeat Russia. Just hold them off to a messy draw. Despite significant missile technology, Iran can not beat USA or Israel, just delay capitulation. Harassment yes, victory no. However, when used in a judicious mix with manned airpower, it becomes a war winning combo. General Sahab has an opinion, I respect it and reject it completely. If one equates missiles fired from the surface at zero release velocity, from a static launcher: with a platform moving at 350 meters per second, with missile release velocity close to Mach 1, then we are not just disrespectful of a sister service, but of physics as well.

[Rakesh]

The points raised are valid too. You can strike those targets with BrahMos from Day 1. The only point of contention is to state that Air Force cannot be used for the risks involved. Air Force is there to take risk. Even Navy could be used from Day 1. The choice is for the planners to decide which one to use and when. So some will come first, some second and some third.

But when risks can be avoided, the the mission should not be followed through. Otherwise, "fighter jock" mentality will set in and we could potentially lose aircraft & personnel which could clearly have been avoided.

During Op Sindoor ---> Sending aircraft in on the night of May 06th, without conducting SEAD/DEAD was not a wise move. Now if aircraft are lost in a SEAD/DEAD mission, that is an acceptable risk. But sending aircraft into heavily contested airspace - without sanitizing that airspace - is not an effective strategy. Using ground-based, mobile or even air-launched BrahMos to conduct SEAD/DEAD should have been done. Post the conflict, the Prime Minister had to come on National TV and announce, that the next time there will be no differentiation between terrorist hideouts and military installations. But why does there have to be a next time? This strategy of non-escalatory military action was undertaken even during Balakot and no lessons were learnt.

On May 10th, the IAF bombed 11 PAF air bases - via BrahMos, SCALP, loitering munitions, etc - and Pakistan quickly threw in the towel. And with zero losses of IAF platforms or personnel. And risk avoidance is not to be equated with cowardice.

[Rakesh]

Shankar Saar not letting go!

https://x.com/palepurshankar/status/204 ... 78980?s=20 ---> How does one fight a war now? With something you will get in the future or something which you have today? There is also a harsh reality of our acquisition process! We need to learn from IRAN. Apna haath jagannath!

[uddu]

https://x.com/palepurshankar/status/204 ... 78980?s=20 ---> How does one fight a war now? With something you will get in the future or something which you have today? There is also a harsh reality of our acquisition process! We need to learn from IRAN. Apna haath jagannath!

Recent event of IAF planning acquisition of Russian bombs while our Gaurav not getting orders etc are serious questions on the IAF acquisition plans. Lot's of money is flowing into foreign lands for all kinds of things, but the Indian ecosystem is not getting supported the way they should be. This is leading to everything being in the future for the IAF. The obsession with imports while neglecting desi stuff is a serious issue of IAF. This need fixed.

[uddu]

And risk avoidance is not to be equated with cowardice.

Well said Rakeshji. I don't think IAF does suicide missions, when options are available to them. Even ground based launchers will be at risk from air attacks and IAF need to shield them along with ground based, air defense. Risk exists for the ground based Brahmos crew as well. Lot's of Iranian Missile launchers are getting destroyed, for them not having protection from their air force.

[Jay]

The points raised are valid too. You can strike those targets with Brahmos from Day 1. The only point of contention is to state that Air Force cannot be used for the risks involved. Air Force is there to take risk. Even Navy could be used from Day 1. The choice is for the planners to decide which one to use and when. So some will come first, some second and some third.

In a vaccum, everything is valid, but we are not in a vaccum. These situations escalate along a determined path and to avoid losing control we have played our part with escalation ladder and in this we have assigned a cost and consequence to a lathi/gun/missile/plane and used to accordingly.

If what the good general said is valid, then it's also valid on the eastern front where one can say there is no need for manned infantry with batons and at the first instance of disagreement we can lob a brahmos at the chinese camp. The good general disregarding all this knowledge is incredibly short sighted and illogical.

[bala]

Shankar Saar not letting go!

https://x.com/palepurshankar/status/204 ... 78980?s=20 ---> How does one fight a war now? With something you will get in the future or something which you have today? There is also a harsh reality of our acquisition process! We need to learn from IRAN. Apna haath jagannath!

I am seeing the following sequence: Air force took a shot at the Navy, now the Army takes a shot at the air force. Will wait for Navy to take a shot. The Rocket force & Drone force will take a shot at all three, I presume.

I am okay with these viewpoints since in Democracy we need this bubbled up. Otherwise it would be युक्ता which is a great Sanskrit word for getting to the boiling point, eg. नित्ययुक्ता forever united.

Hopefully the theatre commanders use the best possible mechanism to deal with situations.

Some things the next warfare takes shape includes:

a) good targeting with missiles and drones

b) ADS which needs to be multi-layered targeting and deal with saturation of a high magnitude. Most will be driven by sensors, AI. This requires Navic to be available. Also good jamming is required. Maybe we need two parallel ADS to ensure saturation does not slip in errant missiles and drones. Or maybe de-centralized cells of ADS acting autonomously. The Navy needs to consider ADS features to protect ships from drone attacks.

c) stealth is required aspect which also means unmanned systems are more attractive rather than manned ones.

d) deep penetrating bombs

[uddu]

In a vaccum, everything is valid, but we are not in a vaccum. These situations escalate along a determined path and to avoid losing control we have played our part with escalation ladder and in this we have assigned a cost and consequence to a lathi/gun/missile/plane and used to accordingly.

If what the good general said is valid, then it's also valid on the eastern front where one can say there is no need for manned infantry with batons and at the first instance of disagreement we can lob a brahmos at the chinese camp. The good general disregarding all this knowledge is incredibly short sighted and illogical.

Escalation ladder for Pakistan exists because you decided to keep it alive. The day the decisions is taken to dismember Pakistan, the first strike itself will be knockout punches, destroying anything and everything in sight and missile will play a significant role in the first strike. Other than Nuclear everything will be lobbed against them. To keep the momentum going and massive manufacturing capability within the nation for missiles is a must. If not Brahmos, after the initial days the ITCM missiles, loitering munitions, drones should keep coming. IAF can also rule the skies with desi Made bombs dropped at will wherever they see or detect any target of interest. IA will be moving in and capturing territory. Navy striking from the sea, blockading and eventually landing troops through the sea.

Even if you want to end the war quickly, the most that you could do is to keep hitting them so hard that they call and ask for ceasefire as happened during Op Sindoor. The earlier way of escalation ladder way of warfighting may be over. It has it's relevance when you go to war against reasonable opponents.

[Manish_P]

... The day the decisions is taken to dismember Pakistan, the first strike itself will be knockout punches, destroying anything and everything in sight and missile will play a significant role in the first strike. Other than Nuclear everything will be lobbed against them. ...

Need aircraft (manned and unmanned) to destroy mobile missile launchers

Recently unmanned loitering UAVs are taking on the job.

But fighters with loyal wingman UCAVs and Loitering or Kamikaze type drones possibly controlled and guided by the fighters and ISTAR aircrafts will play an integral role even on the first day/night of the war

[Manish_Sharma]

“Why risk aircraft when missiles do the same job?” argues Lt Gen P R Shankar

What an incredibly thoughtless statement made by this Shankar guy. His analysis on so many things is pure bakwaas yet he is given chance after chance to spread nonsense. Sorry, not a fan of this retired afsar at all.

Not supporting or opposing the General, but asking a question:

If a surface BrahMos is launched and a 'Swift' drone flying undetected by enemy near target provides Brahmos final coordinates & Brahmos strikes exactly there; then won't it be better than lumbering manned jet like Su-30MKI launches it giving ample warning to enemy radars & risking its neck?

[ashthor]

Will the rocket force include long range Kamikaze drones? Some of you might
nitpick on the drones so rocket powered long range drones.

[Prem Kumar]

A malnourished person is debating whether he should eat more proteins or carbs. He is lacking in both

That's our pathetic state, but Generals are busy arguing whether my ground-launched-missile is bigger than your air-launched-rocket

Neither arm (Artillery or IAF) has covered itself in glory when it comes to defense planning or acquisition

Much storm in a teacup

[Jay]

Not supporting or opposing the General, but asking a question:

If a surface BrahMos is launched and a 'Swift' drone flying undetected by enemy near target provides Brahmos final coordinates & Brahmos strikes exactly there; then won't it be better than lumbering manned jet like Su-30MKI launches it giving ample warning to enemy radars & risking its neck?

All things being equal, yes, if there is an unmanned platform that can get the job done as well as a manned platform, then using BrahMos in this case is a no-brainer. However, getting the job done is not the only consideration that mission planners and politicians need to account for.

In our case with Pakistan and China, we have a built-in escalatory logic that can be loosely translated as “man for man, gun for gun, artillery for artillery, and plane for plane”, a combat sequence that both sides follow to a certain extent. Right or wrong, this is how it has been established, and precedent has been set. To be fair, it somewhat works in keeping the fire contained, but it also fails to fully put the fire out.

If these rules of engagement did not exist, and every military campaign began with a missile barrage from standoff distances, we would essentially be starting combat near the top of the escalation ladder. There are both pros and cons to this, depending on how much pain we are willing to inflict and absorb.

This is just one specific area where using a jet is preferable to using a missile. There are also cost considerations, flexibility, and airspace denial factors, among others, where a plane is preferred over a missile. Good battle planners use these tools in conjunction with each other to derive optimal benefits, and in my opinion, neither is a substitute for the other.

[Anoop]

In terms of targeting accuracy, I would recommend reading Vishnu Som's book on Op Sindoor. He highlights how critical it was for the pilot to delay delivery until the last possible safe moment to ensure accurate strike, and how an electrical failure required a reset and a second (successful) attempt. So the question I have is - if air launched smart munition required such finesse (recall that Pak's CM400 launched on 10th May did not strike on its target), can a ground launched missile allow the same accuracy? What about the longer time available to the enemy for intercept, given the lower initial velocity? Alternatively, was the critical positioning and timing of the air launched delivery a consequence of the need to protect the platform from SAMs and enemy aircraft, which would not be a limit for a ground launched platform?

A larger point is about the preparation required for Op Sindoor to have been successful - the planning, asset positioning and dispersal, opsec, deception - was immense. This was required not only for the first strike but for the inevitable Pak response. Two corollaries - (i) A decapitation strike envisaged on this forum is not possible; Exhibit A - Iran retains its ability to strike after 40 days of intensive strikes by US and Israel, including 5000 targets struck, including 1000 targets on the first day (ii) Protection of own industrial assets in Gujarat and Maharashtra is not trivial and needs catering to, apart from force protection to continue escalation, if needed. In this context, the notion that an Integrated Rocket Force command would allow a first strike within hours - as claimed in the Swarajya article - is flawed, both from a doctrinal and operational perspective. There may be other reasons to raise such a command, but the expectations from this needs to be tempered with realism.