India’s armed forces

[VCheng]

An interesting read, and the last sentence: ouch!

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...softly-it-could-do-bigger-stick-guns-and-ghee

India’s armed forces
Guns and ghee
India is wise to speak softly, but it could do with a bigger stick

TO MANY Indians, their country’s strategic position looks alarming. Its two biggest neighbours are China and Pakistan. It has fought wars with both, and border issues still fester. Both are nuclear-armed, and are allies with one another to boot. China, a rising superpower with five times India’s GDP, is quietly encroaching on India’s traditional sphere of influence, tying a “string of pearls” of alliances around the subcontinent. Relatively weak but safe behind its nuclear shield, Pakistan harbours Islamist guerrillas who have repeatedly struck Indian targets; regional security wonks have long feared that another such incident might spark a conflagration.

So when four heavily armed infiltrators attacked an Indian army base on September 18th, killing 18 soldiers before being shot dead themselves, jitters inevitably spread. The base nestles in mountains close to the “line of control”, as the border between the Indian and Pakistani-administered parts of the disputed territory of Kashmir is known. Indian officials reflexively blamed Pakistan; politicians and pundits vied in demanding a punchy response. “Every Pakistan post through which infiltration takes place should be reduced to rubble by artillery fire,” blustered a retired brigadier who now mans a think-tank in New Delhi, India’s capital.

Yet despite electoral promises to be tough on Pakistan, the Hindu-nationalist government of Narendra Modi has trodden as softly as its predecessors. On September 21st it summoned Pakistan’s envoy for a wrist-slap, citing evidence that the attackers had indeed slipped across the border, and noting that India has stopped 17 such incursions since the beginning of the year. Much to the chagrin of India’s armchair warriors, such polite reprimands are likely to be the limit of India’s response.

There are good reasons for this. India gains diplomatic stature by behaving more responsibly than Pakistan. It is keenly aware of the danger of nuclear escalation, and of the risks of brinkmanship to its economy. Indian intelligence agencies also understand that they face an unusual adversary in Pakistan: such is its political frailty that any Indian belligerence tends to strengthen exactly the elements in Pakistan’s power structure that are most inimical to India’s own interests.

But there is another, less obvious reason for reticence. India is not as strong militarily as the numbers might suggest. Puzzlingly, given how its international ambitions are growing along with its economy, and how alarming its strategic position looks, India has proved strangely unable to build serious military muscle.

India’s armed forces look good on paper. It fields the world’s second-biggest standing army, after China, with long fighting experience in a variety of terrains and situations (see chart). It has topped the list of global arms importers since 2010, sucking in a formidable array of top-of-the-line weaponry, including Russian warplanes, Israeli missiles, American transport aircraft and French submarines. State-owned Indian firms churn out some impressive gear, too, including fighter jets, cruise missiles and the 40,000-tonne aircraft-carrier under construction in a shipyard in Kochi, in the south of the country.

Yet there are serious chinks in India’s armour. Much of its weaponry is, in fact, outdated or ill maintained. “Our air defence is in a shocking state,” says Ajai Shukla, a commentator on military affairs. “What’s in place is mostly 1970s vintage, and it may take ten years to install the fancy new gear.” On paper, India’s air force is the world’s fourth largest, with around 2,000 aircraft in service. But an internal report seen in 2014 by IHS Jane’s, a defence publication, revealed that only 60% were typically fit to fly. A report earlier this year by a government accounting agency estimated that the “serviceability” of the 45 MiG 29K jets that are the pride of the Indian navy’s air arm ranged between 16% and 38%. They were intended to fly from the carrier currently under construction, which was ordered more than 15 years ago and was meant to have been launched in 2010. According to the government’s auditors the ship, after some 1,150 modifications, now looks unlikely to sail before 2023.

Such delays are far from unusual. India’s army, for instance, has been seeking a new standard assault rifle since 1982; torn between demands for local production and the temptation of fancy imports, and between doctrines calling for heavier firepower or more versatility, it has flip-flopped ever since. India’s air force has spent 16 years perusing fighter aircraft to replace ageing Soviet-era models. By demanding over-ambitious specifications, bargain prices, hard-to-meet local-content quotas and so on, it has left foreign manufacturers “banging heads against the wall”, in the words of one Indian military analyst. Four years ago France appeared to have clinched a deal to sell 126 of its Rafale fighters. The order has since been whittled to 36, but is at least about to be finalised.

India’s military is also scandal-prone. Corruption has been a problem in the past, and observers rightly wonder how guerrillas manage to penetrate heavily guarded bases repeatedly. Lately the Indian public has been treated to legal battles between generals over promotions, loud disputes over pay and orders for officers to lose weight. In July a military transport plane vanished into the Bay of Bengal with 29 people aboard; no trace of it has been found. In August an Australian newspaper leaked extensive technical details of India’s new French submarines.

The deeper problem with India’s military is structural. The three services are each reasonably competent, say security experts; the trouble is that they function as separate fiefdoms. “No service talks to the others, and the civilians in the Ministry of Defence don’t talk to them,” says Mr Shukla. Bizarrely, there are no military men inside the ministry at all. Like India’s other ministries, defence is run by rotating civil servants and political appointees more focused on ballot boxes than ballistics. “They seem to think a general practitioner can perform surgery,” says Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, who has worked as a consultant for the ministry. Despite their growing brawn, India’s armed forces still lack a brain.

From the print edition: Asia

 

[SrNair]

An interesting read, and the last sentence: ouch!

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...softly-it-could-do-bigger-stick-guns-and-ghee

India’s armed forces
Guns and ghee
India is wise to speak softly, but it could do with a bigger stick

TO MANY Indians, their country’s strategic position looks alarming. Its two biggest neighbours are China and Pakistan. It has fought wars with both, and border issues still fester. Both are nuclear-armed, and are allies with one another to boot. China, a rising superpower with five times India’s GDP, is quietly encroaching on India’s traditional sphere of influence, tying a “string of pearls” of alliances around the subcontinent. Relatively weak but safe behind its nuclear shield, Pakistan harbours Islamist guerrillas who have repeatedly struck Indian targets; regional security wonks have long feared that another such incident might spark a conflagration.

So when four heavily armed infiltrators attacked an Indian army base on September 18th, killing 18 soldiers before being shot dead themselves, jitters inevitably spread. The base nestles in mountains close to the “line of control”, as the border between the Indian and Pakistani-administered parts of the disputed territory of Kashmir is known. Indian officials reflexively blamed Pakistan; politicians and pundits vied in demanding a punchy response. “Every Pakistan post through which infiltration takes place should be reduced to rubble by artillery fire,” blustered a retired brigadier who now mans a think-tank in New Delhi, India’s capital.

Yet despite electoral promises to be tough on Pakistan, the Hindu-nationalist government of Narendra Modi has trodden as softly as its predecessors. On September 21st it summoned Pakistan’s envoy for a wrist-slap, citing evidence that the attackers had indeed slipped across the border, and noting that India has stopped 17 such incursions since the beginning of the year. Much to the chagrin of India’s armchair warriors, such polite reprimands are likely to be the limit of India’s response.

There are good reasons for this. India gains diplomatic stature by behaving more responsibly than Pakistan. It is keenly aware of the danger of nuclear escalation, and of the risks of brinkmanship to its economy. Indian intelligence agencies also understand that they face an unusual adversary in Pakistan: such is its political frailty that any Indian belligerence tends to strengthen exactly the elements in Pakistan’s power structure that are most inimical to India’s own interests.

But there is another, less obvious reason for reticence. India is not as strong militarily as the numbers might suggest. Puzzlingly, given how its international ambitions are growing along with its economy, and how alarming its strategic position looks, India has proved strangely unable to build serious military muscle.

India’s armed forces look good on paper. It fields the world’s second-biggest standing army, after China, with long fighting experience in a variety of terrains and situations (see chart). It has topped the list of global arms importers since 2010, sucking in a formidable array of top-of-the-line weaponry, including Russian warplanes, Israeli missiles, American transport aircraft and French submarines. State-owned Indian firms churn out some impressive gear, too, including fighter jets, cruise missiles and the 40,000-tonne aircraft-carrier under construction in a shipyard in Kochi, in the south of the country.

Yet there are serious chinks in India’s armour. Much of its weaponry is, in fact, outdated or ill maintained. “Our air defence is in a shocking state,” says Ajai Shukla, a commentator on military affairs. “What’s in place is mostly 1970s vintage, and it may take ten years to install the fancy new gear.” On paper, India’s air force is the world’s fourth largest, with around 2,000 aircraft in service. But an internal report seen in 2014 by IHS Jane’s, a defence publication, revealed that only 60% were typically fit to fly. A report earlier this year by a government accounting agency estimated that the “serviceability” of the 45 MiG 29K jets that are the pride of the Indian navy’s air arm ranged between 16% and 38%. They were intended to fly from the carrier currently under construction, which was ordered more than 15 years ago and was meant to have been launched in 2010. According to the government’s auditors the ship, after some 1,150 modifications, now looks unlikely to sail before 2023.

Such delays are far from unusual. India’s army, for instance, has been seeking a new standard assault rifle since 1982; torn between demands for local production and the temptation of fancy imports, and between doctrines calling for heavier firepower or more versatility, it has flip-flopped ever since. India’s air force has spent 16 years perusing fighter aircraft to replace ageing Soviet-era models. By demanding over-ambitious specifications, bargain prices, hard-to-meet local-content quotas and so on, it has left foreign manufacturers “banging heads against the wall”, in the words of one Indian military analyst. Four years ago France appeared to have clinched a deal to sell 126 of its Rafale fighters. The order has since been whittled to 36, but is at least about to be finalised.

India’s military is also scandal-prone. Corruption has been a problem in the past, and observers rightly wonder how guerrillas manage to penetrate heavily guarded bases repeatedly. Lately the Indian public has been treated to legal battles between generals over promotions, loud disputes over pay and orders for officers to lose weight. In July a military transport plane vanished into the Bay of Bengal with 29 people aboard; no trace of it has been found. In August an Australian newspaper leaked extensive technical details of India’s new French submarines.

The deeper problem with India’s military is structural. The three services are each reasonably competent, say security experts; the trouble is that they function as separate fiefdoms. “No service talks to the others, and the civilians in the Ministry of Defence don’t talk to them,” says Mr Shukla. Bizarrely, there are no military men inside the ministry at all. Like India’s other ministries, defence is run by rotating civil servants and political appointees more focused on ballot boxes than ballistics. “They seem to think a general practitioner can perform surgery,” says Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, who has worked as a consultant for the ministry. Despite their growing brawn, India’s armed forces still lack a brain.

From the print edition: Asia

Still carry a great punch to outlaw Pakistan armed forces within one day.
But situation wont end there .Even if we build up a military that almost equal to that of US ,we cant use a conventional strike.Most of the stupidity that wrote in the is not relevant now because now our NSA is directly handling all security issues .
That is not lack of brains but perfect strategy.
Army already said that we will strike the perfect time they chose .That is all that matters.
Response can give through several methods .Most suitable would be maximum punch without a single loss from our side .GoI knows that art.

 

[VCheng]

Still carry a great punch to outlaw Pakistan armed forces within one day.
But situation wont end there .Even if we build up a military that almost equal to that of US ,we cant use a conventional strike.Most of the stupidity that wrote in the is not relevant now because now our NSA is directly handling all security issues .
That is not lack of brains but perfect strategy.
Army already said that we will strike the perfect time they chose .That is all that matters.
Response can give through several methods .Most suitable would be maximum punch without a single loss from our side .GoI knows that art.

The basic difference here is that in India, the military follows the policies set by the government, whereas in Pakistan, it is the other way around. Hence, national strategies are quite different.

 

[Indika]

An interesting read, and the last sentence: ouch!

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...softly-it-could-do-bigger-stick-guns-and-ghee

India’s armed forces
Guns and ghee
India is wise to speak softly, but it could do with a bigger stick

TO MANY Indians, their country’s strategic position looks alarming. Its two biggest neighbours are China and Pakistan. It has fought wars with both, and border issues still fester. Both are nuclear-armed, and are allies with one another to boot. China, a rising superpower with five times India’s GDP, is quietly encroaching on India’s traditional sphere of influence, tying a “string of pearls” of alliances around the subcontinent. Relatively weak but safe behind its nuclear shield, Pakistan harbours Islamist guerrillas who have repeatedly struck Indian targets; regional security wonks have long feared that another such incident might spark a conflagration.

So when four heavily armed infiltrators attacked an Indian army base on September 18th, killing 18 soldiers before being shot dead themselves, jitters inevitably spread. The base nestles in mountains close to the “line of control”, as the border between the Indian and Pakistani-administered parts of the disputed territory of Kashmir is known. Indian officials reflexively blamed Pakistan; politicians and pundits vied in demanding a punchy response. “Every Pakistan post through which infiltration takes place should be reduced to rubble by artillery fire,” blustered a retired brigadier who now mans a think-tank in New Delhi, India’s capital.

Yet despite electoral promises to be tough on Pakistan, the Hindu-nationalist government of Narendra Modi has trodden as softly as its predecessors. On September 21st it summoned Pakistan’s envoy for a wrist-slap, citing evidence that the attackers had indeed slipped across the border, and noting that India has stopped 17 such incursions since the beginning of the year. Much to the chagrin of India’s armchair warriors, such polite reprimands are likely to be the limit of India’s response.

There are good reasons for this. India gains diplomatic stature by behaving more responsibly than Pakistan. It is keenly aware of the danger of nuclear escalation, and of the risks of brinkmanship to its economy. Indian intelligence agencies also understand that they face an unusual adversary in Pakistan: such is its political frailty that any Indian belligerence tends to strengthen exactly the elements in Pakistan’s power structure that are most inimical to India’s own interests.

But there is another, less obvious reason for reticence. India is not as strong militarily as the numbers might suggest. Puzzlingly, given how its international ambitions are growing along with its economy, and how alarming its strategic position looks, India has proved strangely unable to build serious military muscle.

India’s armed forces look good on paper. It fields the world’s second-biggest standing army, after China, with long fighting experience in a variety of terrains and situations (see chart). It has topped the list of global arms importers since 2010, sucking in a formidable array of top-of-the-line weaponry, including Russian warplanes, Israeli missiles, American transport aircraft and French submarines. State-owned Indian firms churn out some impressive gear, too, including fighter jets, cruise missiles and the 40,000-tonne aircraft-carrier under construction in a shipyard in Kochi, in the south of the country.

Yet there are serious chinks in India’s armour. Much of its weaponry is, in fact, outdated or ill maintained. “Our air defence is in a shocking state,” says Ajai Shukla, a commentator on military affairs. “What’s in place is mostly 1970s vintage, and it may take ten years to install the fancy new gear.” On paper, India’s air force is the world’s fourth largest, with around 2,000 aircraft in service. But an internal report seen in 2014 by IHS Jane’s, a defence publication, revealed that only 60% were typically fit to fly. A report earlier this year by a government accounting agency estimated that the “serviceability” of the 45 MiG 29K jets that are the pride of the Indian navy’s air arm ranged between 16% and 38%. They were intended to fly from the carrier currently under construction, which was ordered more than 15 years ago and was meant to have been launched in 2010. According to the government’s auditors the ship, after some 1,150 modifications, now looks unlikely to sail before 2023.

Such delays are far from unusual. India’s army, for instance, has been seeking a new standard assault rifle since 1982; torn between demands for local production and the temptation of fancy imports, and between doctrines calling for heavier firepower or more versatility, it has flip-flopped ever since. India’s air force has spent 16 years perusing fighter aircraft to replace ageing Soviet-era models. By demanding over-ambitious specifications, bargain prices, hard-to-meet local-content quotas and so on, it has left foreign manufacturers “banging heads against the wall”, in the words of one Indian military analyst. Four years ago France appeared to have clinched a deal to sell 126 of its Rafale fighters. The order has since been whittled to 36, but is at least about to be finalised.

India’s military is also scandal-prone. Corruption has been a problem in the past, and observers rightly wonder how guerrillas manage to penetrate heavily guarded bases repeatedly. Lately the Indian public has been treated to legal battles between generals over promotions, loud disputes over pay and orders for officers to lose weight. In July a military transport plane vanished into the Bay of Bengal with 29 people aboard; no trace of it has been found. In August an Australian newspaper leaked extensive technical details of India’s new French submarines.

The deeper problem with India’s military is structural. The three services are each reasonably competent, say security experts; the trouble is that they function as separate fiefdoms. “No service talks to the others, and the civilians in the Ministry of Defence don’t talk to them,” says Mr Shukla. Bizarrely, there are no military men inside the ministry at all. Like India’s other ministries, defence is run by rotating civil servants and political appointees more focused on ballot boxes than ballistics. “They seem to think a general practitioner can perform surgery,” says Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, who has worked as a consultant for the ministry. Despite their growing brawn, India’s armed forces still lack a brain.

From the print edition: Asia

When the policies are reactive than being pro active , will always be a step behind. No strategic or long term plan is present. Entire system simply stagnates, we still persist with outdated nehruvian bureaucracy. Only recently chief of staff was introduced, but given the bickering they end up acting like bowling & batting teams.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Still carry a great punch to outlaw Pakistan armed forces within one day.
But situation wont end there .Even if we build up a military that almost equal to that of US ,we cant use a conventional strike.Most of the stupidity that wrote in the is not relevant now because now our NSA is directly handling all security issues .
That is not lack of brains but perfect strategy.
Army already said that we will strike the perfect time they chose .That is all that matters.
Response can give through several methods .Most suitable would be maximum punch without a single loss from our side .GoI knows that art.

No need for me to delve. Come try it and then let's see what will happen

 

[SrNair]

No need for me to delve. Come try it and then let's see what will happen

Even if there is anything happens you can only find it after the completion.

 

[VCheng]

Even if there is anything happens you can only find it after the completion.

The Indian government is far too wise to be drawn into a conflict where it is the aggressor. The present situation will soon cool down, and then will come the long term operation to build up Afghanistan to keep Pakistan pre-occupied with its West rather than its East. It will take a few years, but the results will be quite important. No war needed.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Still carry a great punch to outlaw Pakistan armed forces within one day.

Ya this is not a Bollywood movie and neither is Sunny Deol leading the attack against Pakistan. India at minimum needs weeks, weeks to choke Pakistan's Armed Forces.

A day? Newsflash, even the US cannot outlaw Pakistan's Armed Forces in a day.

 

[jha]

Article is very accurate. The three arms do operate in isolation. Lot needs to be done. Gladly things are slowly moving in right direction.

 

[VCheng]

Article is very accurate. The three arms do operate in isolation. Lot needs to be done. Gladly things are slowly moving in right direction.

Don't you worry Sir. A few more exercises with the Murrikans, and things will integrate quite nicely.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Even if there is anything happens you can only find it after the completion.

sure.....so lets see if belligerent hollow rhetoric across the border translates into guts and action. We're waiting

 

[SrNair]

Ya this is not a Bollywood movie and neither is Sunny Deol leading the attack against Pakistan. India at minimum needs weeks, weeks to choke Pakistan's Armed Forces.

A day? Newsflash, even the US cannot outlaw Pakistan's Armed Forces in a day.

Perhaps months ,but we can certainly do that.
IN can easily choke your lifeline.
Mig UPG &Su would be enough to wipe out PAF.Of Course we will also lose a lots.
Only thing that protecting you is that nukes.

Ya right ,please dont bring offtopic.
Americans violated your airspace and killed OBL .Pak F 16s scrambled and then forced to back off.
We need months ,but US dont even need a few weeks.

sure.....so lets see if belligerent hollow rhetoric across the border translates into guts and action. We're waiting

Ok Let see.
But it would be enough to avenge our soldiers death

The Indian government is far too wise to be drawn into a conflict where it is the aggressor. The present situation will soon cool down, and then will come the long term operation to build up Afghanistan to keep Pakistan pre-occupied with its West rather than its East. It will take a few years, but the results will be quite important. No war needed.

Agreed.
US & India have mutual interests in this case.
GoI might have multiprong strategy.
Any way we wont do a terrorist attack ,it will weaken our stance.

 

[niaz]

Quote

“Every Pakistan post through which infiltration takes place should be reduced to rubble by artillery fire,” blustered a retired brigadier who now mans a think-tank in New Delhi, India’s capital.

Unquote.

Above quote is a typical war mongering diatribe bordering on arrogance. There is basic assumption that Indian attacks on selected areas of Pakistan would not invite similar response from Pakistan. India is not US and it is certain that any overt hostile action by the Indian military would invite a similar response from Pakistan and to hell with the consequences.

There is little doubt that in conventional forces terms, even discounting the Indian Navy; India is far stronger than Pakistan. Imbalance in the conventional forces now is worse than it was in 1971. Let us hypothetically analyse likelihood scenarios of an armed conflict between India & Pakistan.

Pakistani forces may not be strong enough to withstand Indian might for a long period, but for a limited war Pakistan has sufficient strength to withstand Indian onslaught. Therefore most likely scenario would be a limited war with International powers intervening to stop the conflict before the nuclear threshold is reached. Almost a repeat of the previous three wars on the India’s western front which resolved nothing. This means needless loss of life on both sides as the status quo remains.

An Indian break- through and resulting capture of substantial Pakistani territory would certainly invite use of tactical nukes which could expand into an all-out nuclear war. Believe me, there are no victors in a war where both sides have used nuclear weapons.

In the event that Pakistanis lose their nerve and don’t use nuclear weapons and are therefore defeated; Pakistan would be like Libya or Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Russian forces. This power vacuum would most likely result in the take-over by the jihadi elements. How would Indians cope with such an overtly hostile neighbour? Even if India permanently annexed Azad Kashmir & Punjab, given the troubles in IOK, would India like to face hundreds of suicide bombers who are able to move freely anywhere because they would then be Indian citizens?

As I have mentioned in an earlier post; notwithstanding the rhetoric; both the Indian Military High Command and the Indian gov’t realize that GOP has little control over the non- state actors. And that an armed India-Pak conflict, even limited to conventional weapons, would leave Pakistan too weak to combat the likes of TTP & Al-Qaida. Certainly not in the long term interest of India.

Indian interests are best served if Pakistan remains embroiled in internal struggle with the TTP in KPK, Punjab and in Karachi and with the Baluch separatists in the west. This would leave Pakistan military too occupied to do much about Indian actions in Kashmir but still strong enough to keep Islamic extremists in check. This is why India is helping Baluch insurgents and also the TTP through her Afghan missions and a change in Indian gov’t does not and would not translate into any change in Indian policy towards Pakistan or Kashmir; only difference being in the intensity of anti-Pakistan rhetoric.

In my considered opinion Indian reluctance to attack Pakistan by senseless bombardment as advocated by the arrogant Brigadier is the result of cool and calculated thinking. A proxy war in Baluchistan inflicts maximum damage to Pakistan without any loss of Indian life.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

The basic difference here is that in India, the military follows the policies set by the government, whereas in Pakistan, it is the other way around. Hence, national strategies are quite different.

you seem to be locked in a time bubble few decades back. Indian foreign policy specially with Pakistan is driven by Hawks in civil and military establishment.

I have lost the count how many times... (WITH examples) I have countered your argument but you parrot the same thing over and over again. from Vajpai to this day.. Indian hawks advise against any leniency or normalization with Pakistan but instead advocate aggressive and hostile attitude with Pakistan and finance all anti Pakistan elements. A fact which is even acknowledged by Indians that all their headway in normalization and resolution of Siachin/ Sir Creek was torpedoed by RAW and Indian military.

this continued attitude has eventually given rise to a party with a person as a PM who has blood of innocent on his hands and who was barred from travelling to America.


in short sir.. you are not making any sense and as the experience has it.. you will continue to make false claims about who runs India.

god bless you

 

[VCheng]

Agreed.
US & India have mutual interests in this case.
GoI might have multiprong strategy.
Any way we wont do a terrorist attack ,it will weaken our stance.

All good geopolitical strategies are multi-pronged. The present re-alignments in the region will take some time to settle down, and whichever side is able to mold Afghanistan into its camp will have a much easier time furthering their goals.