MoD clears joint amphibious exercise at US base near China

[su-47]

I hope this isnt seen as a provocative step.

I hope so too. But IMO this step is just 'dilly-dallying' around.

The number of participants is just 14. Too low to be called 'actual military cooperation'. But the problem is that China might still perceive this as a provocative step, while USA might not consider this real cooperation. I think a decisive step by India would have been better. Either go full out for participation, or dont go at all.

Anyway, i really do hope things work out for the best and our balancing act pays off.

 

[Kinetic]

A good decision at last. I guess china's recent provocations led to such decision. Anyway its just a start, we need to look forward.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

I hope so too. But IMO this step is just 'dilly-dallying' around.

The number of participants is just 14. Too low to be called 'actual military cooperation'. But the problem is that China might still perceive this as a provocative step, while USA might not consider this real cooperation. I think a decisive step by India would have been better. Either go full out for participation, or dont go at all.

Anyway, i really do hope things work out for the best and our balancing act pays off.

maybe that was the GOI intention .....a warning....

The Chinese should not consider it a provocative step after the troop presence in P.K or the Visa denial .....but if they see this as a warning and deter from such acts in the future then it will have served its purpose.....

giving the tendencies of India's policy makers .....it is unlikely they would want to engage in a full-blown military arrangement with the U.S.....

 

[SpArK]

Indian, US Navy amphibious training exercise in East China Sea​

Amphibious Assault Ship USS Essex​

WASHINGTON (PTI): Indian and the US navy are conducting their annual amphibious training exercise - Habu Nag - in the East China Sea, which is designed to enhance their bilateral interoperability, including humanitarian assistance and disaster response.

Forward-deployed amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD 2) is participating in this exercise, while several officers of the Indian Armed Forces embarked on it to observe Navy and Marine amphibious training and to participate in a tabletop exercise.

The exercise that started on September 29 is scheduled to conclude Tuesday.

"A key aspect is that the US has Marines embedded with Navy staff, doing jobs for the Navy that are Marine Corps oriented and vice versa," said Lt Col Evan Holt, a Marine liaison officer assigned to Commander, Task Force 76, who is working with the Indian officers.

"We want to demonstrate how two different services with two different goals mesh their operations and personnel to complete those goals," Holt said.

Cmdr Gagan Kaushal, of the Indian navy said the exercise gives them the chance to get a ground view of how everything is executed. "It also gives us the chance to get a ground view of how everything is executed," he said.

Noting that it has been a wonderful experience being on a US ship, Col Manoj Tiwari, of the Indian army said: "We have learned a lot about the US Marine Corps and how they function and work with the naval element.

We have the experience on land; what we hope to learn is how the Marines perform landings and facilitate more fluid interaction between our own naval and amphibious elements."

 

[KS]

I hope so too. But IMO this step is just 'dilly-dallying' around.

The number of participants is just 14. Too low to be called 'actual military cooperation'. But the problem is that China might still perceive this as a provocative step, while USA might not consider this real cooperation. I think a decisive step by India would have been better. Either go full out for participation, or dont go at all.

Anyway, i really do hope things work out for the best and our balancing act pays off.

It can also be seen as a warning message.You keep poking us,we know what to do.

It takes two to tango and you're dancing by yourself.

If you have missed it the other is the US.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I hope so too. But IMO this step is just 'dilly-dallying' around.

The number of participants is just 14. Too low to be called 'actual military cooperation'. But the problem is that China might still perceive this as a provocative step, while USA might not consider this real cooperation. I think a decisive step by India would have been better. Either go full out for participation, or dont go at all.

Anyway, i really do hope things work out for the best and our balancing act pays off.

It is not clear why this step is considered dilly-dallying around.

As you know, there is no amphibious military doctrine in the Indian military, none whatever. There is on the contrary application of a singularly bone-headed decision, taken by the British Indian Army decades earlier, that all units of the Indian Army are liable for service in all areas.

As a result, on the only occasion in recent times when the Indian Army undertook an amphibian operation, not-very-tall Gorkha soldiers were employed, and drowned when they tried to struggle ashore in the surf, weighted by the excessive weight of a normal infantry back-pack. Stupid doesn't begin to describe it; the next time Jake Jacob blows his own trumpet, I hope somebody reminds him of this and tells him to get knotted.

It is obvious how such a capability would have helped in Sri Lanka, instead of bloody para-drops, or drives through jungle against Tigers practically bred into the jungle through intensive training, many times more intensive than Vairangte?

There are no units dedicated to amphibious warfare; there are units dedicated to para-dropping, to airborne assault by being landed on enemy soil backing up paras, dedicated special forces, and dedicated jungle troops, not to mention an apparatus apart from the Army which does counter-insurgency. Not one soldier for amphibian work.

What should have been done? Deploy a battalion of PBI/ soldiers from a Mountain Division/ paras/ special forces/ seasoned troops from Vairangte? Which? And why, considering they would all be, if this phrase can be used, all at sea?

Doesn't it make more sense to send an observer team, figure out why and how the Marine Corps should handle the initial landings, and therefore why a Marine Corps or its equivalent is needed, and how such a formation would inter-operate with the Navy, and with the regular Army?

Somehow, I think that except for the number being around two to three times the participating lot, this was the way to go.

Please do let me know if my train of thought is wrong.

Regards,

 

[Joe Shearer]

A good decision at last. I guess china's recent provocations led to such decision. Anyway its just a start, we need to look forward.

Very sincerely, other than offering an unnecessary provocation to Chinese members of this forum, it is not clear in what way "China's recent provocations" led to such a decision.

Unnecessary because to mention China in this connection is unwarranted. Is it our intention to make amphibious landings in China, or in Chinese territory? Are we planning to take over China from the sea-ward direction? I am left quite at a loss.

Please don't ask me what a possible target for building such capability could be. It is obviously Somalia. Nobody else in the world in whose military capability India is interested has a large, long stretch of unattended coastline.

Regards,

 

[Capt.Popeye]

This whole exercise is more to do with the IN and IA trying to move up the learning curve so far as amphibious operations are concerned- and as observers.

It is indeed correct that the IA has no dedicated amphibious troop units, only some units which are located so that they may become part of an amphibious operation. The IA for a long time considered "amphibious" to be synonymous with plain river-crossing. And the IN on its part had a measly sea-lift capability. Though it had some training establishments at Mandapam and Marve (since WW II) it was content doing an odd landing drill with a few LCTs and Surf-Boats. Accompanied by studious readings/discussions of "Overlord" accompanied by table-top exercises. The sum of it all was that both the IN and IA thought such ops would be like some kind of "ferry-trip". And that is how it pretty much was till the operation that Joe Shearer alluded to. All that the operation achieved was some "gongs" for some of the participants and a mention of it in some history books. How the hapless Gorkhas remember it is another matter.
Now there is/has been the formulation of some amphibious (sea-lift) doctrine. Actually it started crystallising some time ago, about the time the "Fortress Command" was created in the Andaman Islands. It has been evolving since then. At the same time, the Sea-lift capability also started growing: from one LST and few LCMs post-independence, through acquisition of Polnocny LSTs(5) which were used in 1971, to Jalashwa (LPD) in addition to the Magar and Shardul LSTs now built in India. It is a reasonably significant sea-lift capability, which will be augmented by suitable merchant ships if required. It stands to reason that the doctrine and its application has to be refined and validated. Participation in the above exercise (even as observers) is part of that process. And we are likely to see some more activity on this front.
Even Old Monkeys have to learn New Tricks.

IMHO, there is no other significant message that can be read into the exercise; least of all, any signals to China.

 

[sensenreason]

What happens during these exercises? Are they any use to improve tactics, strategy, techniques, capabilities? Dont we end up divulging any small little advantage we might have over them in any area?

 

[Joe Shearer]

What happens during these exercises? Are they any use to improve tactics, strategy, techniques, capabilities? Dont we end up divulging any small little advantage we might have over them in any area?

Is there any binding reason to avoid reading #21 and the original article?

Just curious.

 

[sensenreason]

Is there any binding reason to avoid reading #21 and the original article?

Just curious.

Watching CWG. Laziness. Read it now, got some of the answers. Thank You.