IAF Composite Wings

[Lakshman]

IAF Composite Wings <P>Origin: In light of the Kargil crisis, it is apparent that Indo-Pak tensions will continue to rise. Most likely these tensions will result in increased intursions and cross border hostility. As Pakistan sinks deeper in debt, the military gap with India widens, and forces of religious fundamentalism tear the country apart, and its hopes of getting Kashmir dim it will engage in greater hostilities and may even step up activity along the international border. However this is not to say that the likely hood of an all out war is increased. Pakistan does not seek to go out in a blaze of glory and therefore it will use nuclear weapons to blackmail India and the world. In regards to India, it will threaten usage of nuclear weapons if India seeks to broaden the conflict. In regards to the world, it will continue to get montery funds by threatening that nuclear weapons might fall into the wrong hands if Pakistan becomes bankrupt.. Also it will continue to highligh Kashmir as a impending nuclear flashpoint in hopes for international intervention. <P>Function: The role of the IAF in the next five to ten years is to be the first response to future Pakistani mischief. I am proposing that IAF make three composite wings to be stationed in Rajasthan, Punjab, and Kashmir. These composite units are the IAF in microcosm. These IAF composite units have a difficult and versatile job to perform. They must initially repsond to Pakistani intrusions, work with ground forces and deal with the threat from the PAF and even perform a first strike on Pakistan should war break out. These units should be put together in the next 5 years<P>A typical composite unit should have these features: <BR>Air Superiority - a squadron of Mig 29 armed with BVR missiles and upgraded to SMT, as aback up a squadron of Mig -21-93 <BR>High Altitude Strike Fighter- 8 Su-30 and 8 mirage 2000s a squadron of Mig 21-93 and Mig-23<BR>Ground strike - a squadron of Mig 27 and another squadron of Jaguars <BR>Refueling Tankers - 2 or 3 tankers per unit to ensure that air superiority fighters can stay for an extended run. <BR>AWACS - one AWACS platform and another in reserve <P>Supplemental attachments: <BR>EW aircraft 2 or 3 per unit to jam SAM sites and communications<BR>Recon aircraft - 2 Mig 25 per unit<BR>Bombers: 4 bombers per unit capable of air launched cruise missiles. <BR>Helicopters (where appropriate) to supplement ground forces and ground strike aircraft as well as transport of commandos and evacuation of injured.<P>Also coordination of information from recon offices using the Mig 25 and sattillites. <BR>The unit must train as a single entity in senarios involving the deployment of commandos, evacuation, air support for ground forces, maintaining air superiority and striking border targets. <BR>These three units must also be placed on higher alert and have improved response times as well as better ground crews to improve turn around and response times. <P>Benefit: The threat that these units pose to Pakistan should be enough of a detterent. Also it will force Pakistan's government to spend more money on their armed forces, money which is already in short supply. Pakistan will be see these units as intended for a first strike, and therefore counter by increasing the readiness of its airforce consuming more money and resources as well as straining the aircraft like the F16. <P>Should such an idea be implemented? Can anyone think of other pros or cons to this idea? <P>Comments Welcome<P>Lakshman<BR>

[Lakshman]

Guys, <BR>India doesn't have alot of things that I have stated in my post. Some of the other things IAF doesn't have are Mig 29 upgraded to SMT, AWACS, refuling tankers (already mentioned). Mig 21 upgrade is in progress. Also the numbers of Su-30MKI are to be delivered. That is one of the reasons I stated that this would be part of a 5 year plan. <P>Forgot to mention all of the above aircraft / helicopters should have night vision capability. Another point - the usages of UAV in recon efforts. I beleie Nishant is about to go into production this year - according to another article on BR <P>sarvatra, <BR>I agree that the creation of these composite wings would upset the command structure and war doctrine. However this is a proposal made by me because it makes good sense. I am not sure of the trade off since am not a military strategist. I think the pros and cons of a composite wing are worth thinking about. <P><BR>Lakshman

[Badar]

Hi,<P>Lakshman, composite wing is not a new concept. The USAF has been experimenting with this idea for some time. The <a href="http://www.mountainhome.af.mil/">366th Composite Fighter Wing</a> is one such formation built to study the pros and cons of this idea. Tom Clancy's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 3">Fighter Wing</a> discusses the composite fighter wing concept in some detail. The primary objective of such a grouping in the USAF is to facilitate rapid oversea's deployment of a balanced air group.<P>I dont understand how constituting a composite wing will deter Pakistan. What is such a composite wing capable of that the current force organization of the IAF isnt? Your orginal post leaves this unclear. I will appreciate it if you could elaborate futher.<BR><p>[This message has been edited by Badar (edited 06-08-1999).]

[Sukumar]

Sarvatra, you said "The IAF has a well evolved command structure and hierarchy".<P>What is this command structure and hierarchy ? I have been trying to find out the IAF's operational structure for some time now. <P>As already stated, the composite wing is being tested out by the USAF. The new focus now is on Air Expeditionary Forces.<P>I dont know if the IAF has any operational formation above squadron. If you know the structure (not guesswork) please explain.

[Ved]

Laxman<P> The IAF has seven Commands, of which four (now five) are operational. These are Western, South Western, Central, Eastern and Southern (the most recent)Air Commands. These Commands have geographical boundaries and work in a way very similar to what you have described, with the same guiding philosophy of independance of operations - but the hi-tech resources you mentioned are another matter, most of which are already in the pipeline like AWACS, NVGs and AAR (Air to Air Refuelling). <p>[This message has been edited by Ved (edited 06-08-1999).]

[Lakshman]

Badar, <BR>Deterence:<BR>The composite wing would give us not only a large amount of fire power, but various types (air superiority/ high alt strike firghters/ ground strike etc)of it that are ready to fight. If we base these in the three areas rajasthan / punjab and Kashmir. They can work defensively of denying PAF the ability to enter our airspace in a conflict (they stayed grounded during Kargil there is no such assurance for the future - afterall they have to justify their need for new acquistions) They can work offensviely by establishing air superiority over parts of Pakistan and carry out strike missions over critical targets in Western Pakistan. <P>Advantage over current IAF organization:<BR>We would not have to move aircraft into an area at the first site of an emergency situation as in Kargil. We would have sophisticated firepower there already. We would not have to start air strikes on a slow scale and then increase after a few days. We could put up a large amount of high tech jets and firepower quickly. Also since a composite wing is a single unit they would work more fluidly with one another and improved communication between pilots of arious jets. Somehting that integrated exercises will give but not as much as a composite wing.<P>Jia, <BR>I will read the Tom Clancy book, I got this from a friend of mine whose brother is in the air force and was gushing about the composite wing concept. He elaborated quite a bit but I took the concept and modified for Indian needs eliminated transport jets, and reduced the number of bombers to a few and also eliminating thigs like JSTARS - though I wish some day India wouyld have JSTARS. Also I added helicopters as bridge between ground strike and army and also for transport of commandos and evacuation of injured. <P>schwarzkopf, agreed you bring up a point that i did not think about which was expense. Over time with defence budget increases this might become a more attractive idea. Also some of the expense migh talso be due to increasing or building a new air force base. <P>Salman, I was waiting to hear what you take is on this. <P>Shiv, <BR>I am interested in you input as well. BTW as Salman has mentioned the operational doctrine of the IAF - could you please elaborate?<P><BR>Lakshman<BR>

[Sukumar]

OK Guys. Here's the dope. This topic of IAF reorg is close to my heart, and I was hoping more facts would come to light.<P>Let's start with the USAF. In WWII the USAF was organized into many numbered airforces. The operational structure was XX Air Force - Air Division - Group - Squadron. This helped organize the vast numbers of aircraft involved into a nice hierarchy.<P>Post WWII the USAF organization looked similar except that a new type of unit - the wing was introduced comprised of many groups.<P>In the 80s the group level was eliminated and the current hierarchy was born:<P>Airforce command - numbered air force - division (only for strategic missile forces) - Wing - Squadron.<P>The wing is the operational maneuver unit of the USAF (like an Army corps). Wings used to be fighter, bomber, strike, recon, EW, air control, training wings.<P>With shrinking budgets, more roles to perform but with higher performance aircraft, the USAF was challenged to provide an adequate mix of power in their wings. Thus was born the composite wing concept (starting with the 366th at Mountain Home AFB Utah). The composite wing was a small USAF with squadrons and detachments of all types - fighter, strike, EW, aerial refuelling, recon, air control, etc with a HQ capable fo generating air tasking orders. The composite wing could deploy itself to a hot spot and commence a variety if ops. It was born out of the experience of the USAF in Desert Storm. <P>Later as the USAF's doctrine evolved from "Global Power, Global Reach" to "Global engagement" the concept of an air expeditionary force was formed. This is an expanded composite wing concept around which literally an entire air force can be built complete with C4I functions.<P>The USAF has always believed in the exercise of strategic air power, i.e. the ability of air power to be used as a strategic tool in war rather than as just supporting the army (tactical use).<P><B> The IAF</B><BR>The IAF seems to be just evolving such a strategic war fighting doctrine. Like a blue water navy the IAF has to start thinking of itself as a far reaching force that can be India's long arm of power projection. This includes the strategic nuclear strike role as well as the ability to support the army and navy in future envisageable engagements in other theatres of war far removed from the Indian subcontinent.<P><B>IAF Operational Structure</B><BR>The IAF has the 5 geographical commands - Western, Eastern, Central, Southwestern, Southern. I have read references to "Wing" and "Group" in articles about the IAF. However, it is not clear as to what these are. For example, the current SWAC used to be Group 2 under Western Command some time back. <P>This hierarchy seems more like the RAF which has commands which are then organized into groups. Each group has a geographic area of responsibility complete with C4I functions. What then is a Wing ?<P>The lack of unified theatre commands also means that while the IA has a northern command, the IAF has a western command that also includes the geographic area of responsibility of the IA's northern command. It seems obvious that the IAF needs to haver geographical sub commands below air command. There seems to be an operations group that controls air operations in Kashmir.<P>Based on this I'd deduce the IAF command structure to be Air Command - Group - Wing (??) - Squadron.<P>What is clear however is that the IAF needs to actively think of reorganizing itself to flexibly provide the necessary amount of air power where required.

[Rupak]

Sukumar<P>Let me try and answer your questions.<P>Each group has a geographic area of responsibility complete with C4I functions. What then is a Wing ?<P>A wing is composed of all squadrons + support units at a given peacetime base. Eg. No.6, No.24 and No.28 Sqn a Poona are all part of 2nd Wing (Fighter)- usually commanded by an Air Commodore. Operations groups typically span several bases and looks after a geographical area. Eg. No.1 Operations Group based in Udhampur (may have moved to Srinagar now) is responsible for air ops over Kashmir and controls units assigned to Srinagar, Udhampur and Avantipur. Ladakh (Leh, Thoise, DBO, etc.) is probably covered by a serperate Op group.<P>I'd deduce the IAF command structure to be Air Command - Group - Wing (??) - Squadron.<P>This is broadly correct.<P>

[Sukumar]

Thanks Rupak. So let's see, the IAF command structure and ops responsibility seems to be like:<P>Air Command - commanded by an Air Marshal (***) - Theatre of responsibility - made up of many groups.<P>Group - sub area of a theatre, can generate air tasking orders - commanded by an Air Vice Marshal (**) - many wings and squadrons.<P>Wing - force provider - commanded by a Air Commodore (*)- command grouping of squadrons and support elements.<P>Squadron - commanded by a Wing Commander/Grp Capt. - lowest operational unit <P>Well the pieces fit together.