India’s Coming ‘Rocket Force’
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
Because they don't want to depend on a different force to call a missile strike every time they want to take something out. Especially in missions crucial to them like DEAD and OCA attack.
Long range air-launched vectors are limited in size, weight, payload.
While they provide flexibility, but also add delay in launching, compared to a already preposition ground launched vector that can launch in an instant.
It also takes away fighter assests that could have been used in defensive or other roles, especially given the squadron shortage IAF has.
So Air-launched vectors while they have their advantages, but they also impose their own limits.
Imo, I support a integrated rocket force.
And why do you assume an integrated rocket force will take away IAF's air launched weapons?
Even then, an integrated ground launched rocket force is envisioned as an *Integrated* force, means working closely & seamlessly with all three services, so why it will be more difficult for air force to work with them?
Or is it that air forces wants to prioritize its own goals/air-war goals in combat instead of what is considered the most optimal for ENTIRE war's perspective?
Whose fire missions will such *integrated* force prioritize if there are multiple targets to strike. Please tell me ?
Of course the air force wants to prioritize its missions. How will the air force conduct counter surface missions without gaining some form of air superiority ?
The one which is considered most optimal/beneficiary to the entire war effort.
Well, that's problem, I as a citizen want a priority to be given to the most optimal mission at hand, most optimal course of action taking into account the entire battlefield picture.
If each branch limit their focus on their own goals & if it provides a less optimal result( which it did, that's why world has moved/is moving towards integrated force structure) than as a citizen i would very much oppose it.
And who decides it ? On what parameters is it being decided on ? How can we assure no biases come into play ? Share your methodology...
*Integrated* command, lead by the head of rocket force, role being the support arm of all branches.
Input of Officers from all 4 branch.
Baises can be suppressed but not completely eliminated, gotta work with that, there no complete assuring, if you want complete assurance then *censored* you.
An IRF is obviously a threat to the IAFs primacy as the long arm of the Indian state. Same reason why it has historically opposed the INs carrier prog.
Doesn't answer my question. Still waiting...
Dynamic targeting ? have you heard of it ? Again answer my question..
It did, on all three questions.
if you can't comprehend, that's upto you.
Yeah I did, now also includes AI-driven targeting, target selected based on the highest priority & optimal targeting window to engage each tsrget, with continues updates.
But i want the basis used to determine what is optimal, when is optimal, criteria for priority, to not be segregated among each force.
It's not a threat. IRF should not be a separate force. Each branch should have its own long range vectors. Only thing we need is a coordinating authority in case a joint strike is needed. Example being Russia's Main Computation Centre of the General Staff.
Why? What benifit it brings to the overall war effort, compared to an integrated rocket force?
How are you going to achieve air superiority without a strong independent aviation ecosystem, for that you need indigenous solution, look at the USA & Isarel losses of manned & unmanned aircrafts in the current war against who don't even have a credible air forces & AD, still they suffer losses, USA has lost awacs, tankers and fighters, unmanned aircrafts, they still can afford do it because they have a strong and mature aerospace industry, and they can replace it, but how you are gonna replace the unmanned aircrafts fighter jets, tankers, awacs, without not having strong ecosystem,Yeah that determines ability to achieve air superiority.
Are you planning to send bird's and hope that it will achieve air superiority in a dense environment without any loses, and they loses will not affect your operational capabilities,
What are you going to do when you lose an Mq9 reaper, Hermes 900, rafale, Tejas or mki,
And why the IAF want's ground launch vectors, why not focus on air launched vectors and operational brahmos and Prithvi they have,
What are thier criteria for Long range ground vectors, does it only applicable to brahmos, or it will applicable to pralay, puls, pinaka, BM-04, Agni p,
Do they also want to operate that too
It was successful because of timely and accurate information fed to the missiles and mission computers onboard. Terrain mapping, geo locating the targets and aerial imagery were the key components during Op Sindoor. Both nations try to get the aerial imagery and geo locating the potential targets correctly, the whole game is to give incorrect info by deception.
Pakistan is not a big issue, the issue is Chinese electronics equipment. Almost every smart phone is a surveillance device if hacked. They can any time geo locate anything in India. Main thing is to isolate the military from the civilian network completely to reduce the vulnerability risk.
Might be breaking news for you but IAF is going to operate ground launched Pralay, Nirbhay, Brahmos and future HCM.
And maybe reading official IAF doctrine might help you a bit...
You are looking at it wrongly. Hierarchy, Rules of procedure, chain of command, Strict military discipline are some of the foundational values that a military is built upon.
Either of the three services do not fight in isolation. The soldiers, pilot , staff do, but a service doesn't. India fight as ONE. And the one with the authority takes the final decision as he/she believes to be best. The targets are not chosen as " army's" or "IAF's".. they are just targets proposed in front of the highest commanding officer. Whichever area denial will favor us the most, how crucial of a situation among the infinite possibilities that exists. That is why military doesn't compromise with strictness no matter how much lax civil counterparts are.
The limits of human biology is fixed through technology. All the Equipments talk to each other, People at various levels of chain of command use their authority/responsibility to pass that info to the appropriate personnel etc. I don't know about bollywood but any force to be reckoned with would have these issues covered at the minimum.
This reminds me of the recent controversy over Gen. navarane. RM says " So whatever you deem fit". Because that's what he is their for.. A general. But even the general delegated tasks to majors under him, who would've have taken as many tough calls as general himself would've.
Look, all i am saying is.. these are superficial "point of contention" in front of public. The real roadblocks are the ones which aren't in the public even. Most of em due to the sheer complexity and scale of transformation our military is carrying out. The sheer number of rules, point of order, management, changing the war rule books, composition etc.. combined with the lack of experience in fighting as a theater unit. But that's why military is military. They are good at doing hard things.
With the theatre commands, all the three services will be under one command. Does not matter which service.
Even if IAF commanding officer orders a army person to carry out an unfavorable(pov) action.... are stuff that only a movie has the luxury to delve into.
At last.. Under whom should the Rocket force be? Under the theatre commands. That's it. IAF or IA matters not. The whole idea of theaters is to bring together resources. It will seem daunting at the beginning but that's how a theatre works.
Edit: Oh.. before you point the missing link.. Aside from the three theatres under work, a central command will be there as a theatre in itself. Ensuring that the theatres aren't blind of each other's situation either. Hence CDS, V-CDS etc. Optimally, I believe the services like like SFC, Cyber Warfare and upcoming Sudarshan Chakra.. should be under this central command. By Chakra ( IADS 2.9) I mean the central nodes aka the brain managing chaotic information → structured information.
Last edited:
That DOES determine air superiority because our future 4.5 gen fighter program depends on engines coming from elsewhere and Rafales which have GaAs radar (inferior performance for air to air missions as seen in Sindoor) and AAM which likely can't be datalinked directly to our AWACS. You think with this IAF can even *attempt* to achieve air superiority against PLAAF?Yeah that determines ability to achieve air superiority.
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.
It will be a bloodbath, total and complete bloodbath.Only way to deal with PLAAF is to have thousands of subsonic cruise missiles and hundreds of ballistic missiles to destroy their air bases and J20 production site at Chengdu. Cuz the IAF ain't surviving a war against China if it comes down to air to air conflict. And ideally it shld be its own command specializing in maintaining storing and operating only missiles with its own personell. IAF can't even achieve air superiority against a failed state and bro wants it to handle missiles also. Let IAF handle ALCMs and whatever missiles it does have in its command already but the bulk of the missiles shld go to the integrated rocket force.
Well if they wanted to maintain the primary then maybe they should have modernized better. MoD babus have a role in their current pathetic state as well but even with the same MoD the Navy has done much better although it too has fumbled especially wrt subs.
IAF has fumbled everywhere. First not supporting LCA initially to get a good replacement of MIG21, second not prioritizing force multipliers like tankers AWACS and instead lusting after lone imported silver bullets and third for being delusional that their imported bullets are superior to the adversarys next gen fighters. Result? Their pride and joy fell on its a$$ facing an air force which has less budget than 1/9th of the IAF budget.
If they wanted to maintain the primary then they should have gotten their act together. I have 0 confidence in IAF handling ALL of our missiles like some here want to. IRF is coming whether those guys want to or not they can cope.