India’s Coming ‘Rocket Force’

[Speedster1]

Frankly how exactly did the IAF come to possess Brahmos & Prithvi SSMs ? Does any AF the world over have C&C of Surface to Surface missiles ? If not how come we create such C&C & further complicate matters ?

Apparently, Prithvi was initially developed to an IAF requirement to hit Pak targets beyond the reach of combat ac. This was back in the 1970s-80s. The IA signed up later.

Nuke BMs have always been under AF control in the US and SU/Russia. Though TBMs were largely the preserve of ground forces, afaik.

In our context, Prithvi was a TBM which was turned into a strategic missile after we developed nukes. (similar to the ATV prog pivoting to SSBN from SSN).

This meant the IAF naturally got a greater say in deployment and C2 in line with global practices.

Ideally they should be given all offensive rotary platforms as well . You know well where the issue lies

In the 1970s, the IAF grudgingly gave up its Super Connie MPA to the IN only after a diktat from the GoI of the day. Perhaps things will change eventually with joint staffing and reporting structures.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Apparently, Prithvi was initially developed to an IAF requirement to hit Pak targets beyond the reach of combat ac. This was back in the 1970s-80s. The IA signed up later.

That's before the SFC came into existence.

Nuke BMs have always been under AF control in the US and SU/Russia.

That was SAC in the US under the USAF before the US STRATCOM came into existence following the end of the Cold War. Something similar must have been the case in the Russia.

Though TBMs were largely the preserve of ground forces, afaik.

In our context, Prithvi was a TBM which was turned into a strategic missile after we developed nukes. (similar to the ATV prog pivoting to SSBN from SSN).

Prithvi was supposed to be a strategic missile
from the very beginning . It's just that the warhead had to be validated which happened at the Pokhran II tests.

Till such time it functioned as a TBM & later as dual use with the idea that the strategic Prithvi missiles were to be retired once the Agni 1 entered service though that didn't happen as it was originally envisaged .

Eventually both the Agni & Prithvi continued in service. Prithvi I was retired somewhere after Agni I was inducted.

This meant the IAF naturally got a greater say in deployment and C2 in line with global practices.

And while in the rest of the world that function was taken over by an SFC kind of set up with the AF in those countries returning to its remit of air defence & offence out here old habits die hard with the GoI being clueless.

In the 1970s, the IAF grudgingly gave up its Super Connie MPA to the IN only after a diktat from the GoI of the day. Perhaps things will change eventually with joint staffing and reporting structures.

Right now theater ization is what joint staffing is all about , set ups with limited staffing like the CDS , DMA , MoD etc notwithstanding & it's being opposed by the IAF.

 

[Speedster1]

That was SAC in the US under the USAF before the US STRATCOM came into existence following the end of the Cold War. Something similar must have been the case in the Russia.

ICBM silos are manned only by USAF crews, afaik. STRATCOM performs C2.

Prithvi was supposed to be a strategic missile
from the very beginning . It's just that the warhead had to be validated which happened at the Pokhran II tests.

Till such time it functioned as a TBM & later as dual use with the idea that the strategic Prithvi missiles were to be retired once the Agni 1 entered service though that didn't happen as it was originally envisaged .

Eventually both the Agni & Prithvi continued in service. Prithvi I was retired somewhere after Agni I was inducted.

P1 was unsuitable for N delivery because its liquid fuel composition was corrosive and had to be loaded just prior to launch. They were adapted for the role only after solid fuelled versions (P2 and P3) were developed, afaik.

And while in the rest of the world that function was taken over by an SFC kind of set up with the AF in those countries returning to its remit of air defence & offence out here old habits die hard with the GoI being clueless.

Tbh, all 3 services wanted N assets of their own. It is to the credit of PM ABV who oversaw the formation of a tri-service SFC back in 2003 or we'd have had 3 separate strategic commands today reporting directly to the NCA.

Right now theater ization is what joint staffing is all about , set ups with limited staffing like the CDS , DMA , MoD etc notwithstanding & it's being opposed by the IAF.

It's bizarre that the services are still bickering over theatrization even after years of experience, successfully running the ANC.

Alas, Gen Rawat passed away at a crucial stage of the planning process. It's just been chai biskoot ever since.

 

[_Anonymous_]

ICBM silos are manned only by USAF crews, afaik. STRATCOM performs C2.

If I'm not mistaken these USAF personnel are deputed to STRATCOM.

P1 was unsuitable for N delivery because its liquid fuel composition was corrosive and had to be loaded just prior to launch. They were adapted for the role only after solid fuelled versions (P2 and P3) were developed, afaik.

That was the first missile we developed indigenously under IGMDP. It was always known this was a substandard missile with severe limitations which'd be eventually replaced hopefully at the earliest.

Moreover the CEP was a few kms if I'm not mistaken. You could well target Lahore & see the missile land in Amritsar or you could target Amritsar if you wanted to see the missile reach Lahore.

But back then we had nothing to deter Paxtan. The news that Paxtan possessed a few N devices compact enough to be mated to a BM was also in the public domain courtesy an interview with A.Q .Khan Bhopali by Kuldip Nayyar for India Today.

This revelation was due to Operation Brass Tacks conducted by the IA - the brain child of the then CoAS Gen Sundarji something which scared the living daylights out of both Fauji Foundation & the original Pappu.

As soon as we launched the IGMDP , they responded in kind launching their own missile program as is their wont & came up with the TBM Hatf no doubt a good paint job of a Chinese missile itself a derivative of a Soviet missile.

Moreover IIRC the MTCR had come into effect around the same time. As you see events were moving too fast for anything to have been neatly planned & successfully executed.

Tbh, all 3 services wanted N assets of their own. It is to the credit of PM ABV who oversaw the formation of a tri-service SFC back in 2003 or we'd have had 3 separate strategic commands today reporting directly to the NCA.




It's bizarre that the services are still bickering over theatrization even after years of experience, successfully running the ANC.

Alas, Gen Rawat passed away at a crucial stage of the planning process. It's just been chai biskoot ever since.

If ABV could do it then Modi can do it now. Don't see what's preventing him especially since the Raksha Mantri is a figurehead exactly the way Modi wants it .

 

[Speedster1]

If I'm not mistaken these USAF personnel are deputed to STRATCOM.

Yes. Although the USAF has its own strategic command that manages ICBMs and bombers.

That was the first missile we developed indigenously under IGMDP. It was always known this was a substandard missile with severe limitations which'd be eventually replaced hopefully at the earliest.

Moreover the CEP was a few kms if I'm not mistaken. You could well target Lahore & see the missile land in Amritsar or you could target Amritsar if you wanted to see the missile reach Lahore.

But back then we had nothing to deter Paxtan. The news that Paxtan possessed a few N devices compact enough to be mated to a BM was also in the public domain courtesy an interview with A.Q .Khan Bhopali by Kuldip Nayyar for India Today.

This revelation was due to Operation Brass Tacks conducted by the IA - the brain child of the then CoAS Gen Sundarji something which scared the living daylights out of both Fauji Foundation & the original Pappu.

As soon as we launched the IGMDP , they responded in kind launching their own missile program as is their wont & came up with the TBM Hatf no doubt a good paint job of a Chinese missile itself a derivative of a Soviet missile.

Moreover IIRC the MTCR had come into effect around the same time. As you see events were moving too fast for anything to have been neatly planned & successfully executed.

I'd say the A1 was designed specifically for the nuke delivery role. First tested in 89, it had an hybrid solid-liquid fuelled propulsion system. It was likely only marginally better than the P1 at the time. But it had a carbon-carbon RV that provided better maneuverability, thermal protection vs a jury rigged P1.

I agree P1 was n-capable though and could've been used in a crunch situation.

If ABV could do it then Modi can do it now. Don't see what's preventing him especially since the Raksha Mantri is a figurehead exactly the way Modi wants it

In the context of theatrization, the hold out is the IAF. The other two services are more or less onboard. But even so there is no concept among the 3 services of developing complementary capabilities.

That would probably require a generational shift in the military. The babus and politicians couldn't care less.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Yes. Although the USAF has its own strategic command that manages ICBMs and bombers.

Looks like they've gone back to SAC except the other forces didn't raise any objections to it .

In the context of theatrization, the hold out is the IAF. The other two services are more or less onboard. But even so there is no concept among the 3 services of developing complementary capabilities.

That would probably require a generational shift in the military. The babus and politicians couldn't care less.

There's no time for such niceties. While a war against China won't be an existential crisis it does have the potential to come as close to it as possible.

All these lacunae & short comings will be highlighted then & as usual we'd go what if...

 

[Speedster1]

Looks like they've gone back to SAC except the other forces didn't raise any objections to it .

Iirc, each service has its own strategic forces component which reports into STRATCOM which in turn takes orders from their NCA.

There's no time for such niceties. While a war against China won't be an existential crisis it does have the potential to come as close to it as possible.

All these lacunae & short comings will be highlighted then & as usual we'd go what if...

The CDS role was instituted with the goal of pushing tri-service integration. One of the key goals would've been to optimize military opex by removing parallel functions like training, logistics across the 3 services + facilitate joint hardware acquisition.

So GoI is certainly invested in this idea but the services need better change management to quote an HR term. Theaterization is in many ways like a corporate merger and some elements feel they're losing ground.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

losing ground.

No force in the world has both its army and its airforce operating attack helicopters. Its criminal.

Losing goround seems like IAF was right but no. They are delusionals.

 

[Speedster1]

No force in the world has both its army and its airforce operating attack helicopters. Its criminal.

Losing goround seems like IAF was right but no. They are delusionals.

No doubt about that. But they seem to have sorted out their differences wrt ownership now by negotiating a joint purchase of LCHs. If this deal comes with PBL, then it would tick all the (cost + efficiency) boxes, imo.

Wish they'd taken the same approach with the Apache purchase.

 

[Rune]

The CDS role was instituted with the goal of pushing tri-service integration. One of the key goals would've been to optimize military opex by removing parallel functions like training, logistics across the 3 services + facilitate joint hardware acquisition.

So GoI is certainly invested in this idea but the services need better change management to quote an HR term. Theaterization is in many ways like a corporate merger and some elements feel they're losing ground.

Govt. and CDS can only assign missions to each service and the services decide how they can achieve them and with what equipment. The IAF is tasked with Air Defence of the country and it has decided it needs helicopters for low level air defence.

 

[babablacksheep]

No force in the world has both its army and its airforce operating attack helicopters. Its criminal.

Losing goround seems like IAF was right but no. They are delusionals.

Indeed

In U.S., U.K., Germany , France, Italy, China, SoKo, Japan.
Attack helis are operated by their army.

In russia & some eastern & northern European countries, they come under airforce.

Govt. and CDS can only assign missions to each service and the services decide how they can achieve them and with what equipment. The IAF is tasked with Air Defence of the country and it has decided it needs helicopters for low level air defence.

Then the Mandate needs to be changed, and made more flexible.

 

[Speedster1]

Govt. and CDS can only assign missions to each service and the services decide how they can achieve them and with what equipment. The IAF is tasked with Air Defence of the country and it has decided it needs helicopters for low level air defence.

LLAD is the responsibility of the Army’s CADA, esp when it comes to mobile armoured/mechanized formations. Besides, the IAFs aversion to 'flying artillery' or CAS missions is well known. They see themselves as a 'strategic' force.

In Kargil, IAF Mi-35s couldn't/didn't provide timely air support for ground ops. Since then, the IAFs contention that it's attack helos 'operate under IA control' has been proven to be hollow.

Imo, the IAF mainly needs AHs for the CSAR role, rescuing pilots and crew behind enemy lines. It is a different matter that it does not yet have a dedicated CSAR sqn like the US or France. (There were some reports a while ago about a US SOAR style helo unit being planned but no updates since)

Everything else can be taken care of by the IA.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

Govt. and CDS can only assign missions to each service and the services decide how they can achieve them and with what equipment. The IAF is tasked with Air Defence of the country and it has decided it needs helicopters for low level air defence.

either the 191 countries are right or IAF.

 

[Rune]

LLAD is the responsibility of the Army’s CADA, esp when it comes to mobile armoured/mechanized formations. Besides, the IAFs aversion to 'flying artillery' or CAS missions is well known. They see themselves as a 'strategic' force.

Low level defence happens even in rear areas. Will Army contribute its helicopters for it or no ? BAS is one of IAF stated mission set. TThey operated Mig-27 till last decade and in future Tejas Mk1A will take that role.

 

[screambowl]

Introduce this rocket force to navy, they will implement it well. IA and IAF can piss off.

 

[Rune]

either the 191 countries are right or IAF.

IADS is IAF's mission. They will decide how they will achieve it.

 

[Speedster1]

Low level defence happens even in rear areas. Will Army contribute its helicopters for it or no ? BAS is one of IAF stated mission set. TThey operated Mig-27 till last decade and in future Tejas Mk1A will take that role.

Recent reports suggest that the IAF no longer sees traditional CAS as practical. They intend to use SOWs against Pak as witnessed in Op Sindoor. China's IADS is 3X more dense.

Attritable swarm drones, LMs, stealth ucavs will be the preferred option in the near future.

 

[CATS @hunter]

nother retarded idea being forced by army shut down by IAF. Air superiority is always better than air denial.

How's IAF gonna achive air superiority ? we are literally depended on forgien country for engine, IAF always busy on importing, IAF strikes on op sindoor were successful because of long range vectors, essentially which are also happens to be missiles, and rockets are another mode of delivering missiles from the ground, and both of them can co-exist, IAF still operates ground launched brahmos why? because they know the potential of these missiles, and who in the right mind wont have missile like pralay, brahmos, lrashm,
And why doesn't the USA operates large number of Prsm, or LRHW because they are an expeditionary force and moving such assests is not a easy task, but still they operate large number of atmacs and pushing more,
and who are the top guys good at producing high end ballastic missile and leading it china, russia, usa, india, and all of them mirv, hpersonic glide weapons, have scramjet technology and working engine , RDE tech, research and advance tech, even japan has started shifting towards air denial weapons,
usa dosent operate then in big numbers because they have different doctrine, china & russia have them in big numbers, and here we are still debating that do we need a rocket force,
does retd air marshal tiwari have solution against DF21 or DF17 how are they gonna intercept it? why couldn't the patriot, thaad, SM6 failed to intercpt the orshenik at both instances nor they also provided the aftermath visuals,
still today and in the near future intercepting maneuverable high speed missile will be a challenging task,
both air superiority and air denial can coexist and rocket force will make the IAF job even easier,

 

[Rune]

Recent reports suggest that the IAF no longer sees traditional CAS as practical. They intend to use SOWs against Pak as witnessed in Op Sindoor. China's IADS is 3X more dense.

Attritable swarm drones, LMs, stealth ucavs will be the preferred option in the near future.

Traditional CAS has been dead for 20 years. That's why USAF wants to move away from A-10 and bring F-35s in the role. Loitering above the battlefield is being done by UCAVs while strikes are being handled by aircrafts/helicopters to minimise exposure to ambushes.

 

[Rune]

How's IAF gonna achive air superiority ? we are literally depended on forgien country for engine, IAF always busy on importing,

Yeah that determines ability to achieve air superiority.

IAF strikes on op sindoor were successful because of long range vectors, essentially which are also happens to be missiles, and rockets are another mode of delivering missiles from the ground, and both of them can co-exist, IAF still operates ground launched brahmos why? because they know the potential of these missiles, and who in the right mind wont have missile like pralay, brahmos, lrashm,

That's the whole point IAF is making. They want the long range vectors with services themselves. It's the army that has proposed a retarded idea to combine all ground launched long range vectors under a singular force.