Equipment Modernization vs. "Modernization" of the Indian Army.

Equipment Modernization vs. "Modernization" of the Indian Army.

Modernization vs "Modernization"


Piecemeal 'modernization' is of no use to anyone. All arms have gone through two and a half modernisation cycles since independence. For people with less than the usual quota of a sense of humour it amounts to a three-legged arms race in which the Joneses are driving the Javeds, Joshis and Jiangs to follow suit.

At least with the Indian Army it is not really so. It is conscious of working out an edge or even proximate ability to see that a catastrophic disadvantage does not undermine operational viability. Even the most articulate and vehement critic would agree that the army is appreciative of what the country has provided to it in material, though it is somewhat hard pressed to do so.

Equipment modernisation alone is not sufficient. Or else, any banana republic collecting martial objets d'art for gracing the palace gates of the head of state would constitute a formidable foe. Modernization of the Indian Army gives rise to paradoxes of time and meaning. It constitutes in its basic form the timeless creed of the warriors and their feeling of comradeship in war and pestilence. The individual styles of the arms actually complement each other in combat. The pivot is the ability of field commanders to accept organizational, doctrinal, and equipment changes (not in that order) plus a finer perception of the strategic issues involved. With that, is their ability to mix individual assets into a combined arms and logistics team of very high combat worth.

It is in this narrow area that modernization is usually talked about. By themselves, 'equipment' may just remain well-produced ironmongery or an intricate series of integrated circuits. But when these are synthesized in a complementary mix, they come to life - and present a threat out of all proportion to their arithmetical aggregate on inventory.

Overall, the Indian Army is adequately equipped. There certainly remain areas where improvements or 'modernization' is pending, but that does not, in any way, detract from the fact that overall the Army has achieved a dissuasive quality, in which a potential aggressor will go into lip-biting conclave before deciding upon a violent course of action.

The mechanized armies in the Western Sector are mobile, balanced groupings of high striking power. The fine synthesization of cutting-edge weaponry into high-value, capital-intensive combat groups is seen at it's best here. The T-72, BMP series Infantry Combat Vehicle, Anti-tank Guided Missiles of many varieties, Aviation, fast reconnaissance vehicles, the FH-77/B-02 Medium Gun together with a number of other field pieces indigenously designed and developed, varieties of self-propelled air defence missile and gun systems, 'Black' Electronic Warfare arrays, first-class assault bridging for dry and wet crossings are found together in supportive mixes. Here, all ballyhoo of We are the queens/kings of the battlefield' is easily given a quiet burial.

In the mountains, it is light infantry and artillery, supported by engineers, signals, helicopters and animals which make for the combined-arms approach. The most visible manifestation of modernization in equipment is in Siachen, which without these assets, can not be garrisoned much less defended. This includes a combative logistical infrastructure to prevail 'AGAINST ALL ODDS'

Pakistan vs India:Military evaluation,separating boys from men

---

Background: India achieved its independence from imperial Britain in 1947, after which it was divided into two countries - India and Pakistan, as per the Mountbatten Plan. After this partition, Pakistan chose to be an Islamic republic, aligned with United States while India chose to remain politically neutral, as a secular socialist democracy. These choices turned out to the the turning points in the political and military future of both these countries.



Please note that what follows is not an evaluation of military power in combat situations, but a brief review of quantitative military balance, based on currently available manpower, equipments, infrastructure, command and strategy. Future military plans and projects are not discussed due to uncertain and volatile nature of such plans, often subject to cancellation, failure or modification. (For example, the Indian Agni 3 missile is not under consideration, as it is still under development and testing stage.)
_________________________________________________


Military Budgets and Economic Impact

Pakistan’s defence budget for the year 2006-07 was $4.1 billion (~3% of GDP) in response to India’s hike in defence budget of 2006-07 at $20.11 billion (~ 2.5% of GDP). Pakistan’s hike in military budget would be partially funded by its government coffers and partially by borrowing whereas India’s military spending would be entirely off its own funds. India’s ambitious budget prompted Pakistan to up its own military budget, despite the country’s widespread poverty and socio-political problems. Apart from its GDP, Pakistani military also gets a considerable funding from United States. Considering that India has a far larger economy overall, its military budget is also several times larger, despite being a smaller share of India’s GDP.

Manpower and Ground Forces

As of 2005, India has the second largest military manpower in the world - at 3,773,300 personell, next only to China. Pakistan’s manpower of 1,449,000 personell, although smaller in numbers, is proportionally higher than India in terms of their population ratios. Pakistan’s ground forces are equipped with American or Chinese weapons like FIM 92 Stinger SAMs, BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missiles, T-82 tanks and other equipments. Indian ground forces are equipped with mostly home-made and Soviet technologies like IR guided 9K35 Strela-10 SAMs, 3rd Gen IR guided Nag anti-tank missiles, UAVs and a large inventory of tanks and support vehicles. In terms of both numbers and equipments, Indian military dominates the Pakistani ground forces.



Comparison of Air Forces

As of 2006, Indian Air Force (IAF) has over 170,000 personnel and 3,382 aircrafts, of which 1,330 are combat aircrafts operating off 61 airbases - making it the fourth largest air force in the world. India’s strike fighters consist of Russian and French aircrafts like Mikoyan MiG-29, Dassault Mirage 2000, Sukhoi Su-30 - the last one developed under dual licensing by HAL, India’s aerospace industry in Bangalore. In addition to these, Indian Air Force also owns ground attack aircrafts, reconnaissance aircrafts, UAVs and support helicopters - a majority of them either of Soviet or French origin. Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has about 530 combat aircrafts and 65,000 active personnel, operating out of 9 airbases. Its strike fighters consist of US, Chinese and ageing French fighters like F-16 Fighting Falcon, JF-17 Thunder and Dassault Mirage ROSE-III. It also has transport aircrafts like Lockheed Martin C-130 and Airbus A310, however unlike India, there are no UAVs or reconnaissance aircrafts in the Pakistani Air Force.



Naval and Sea Based Forces

After the overwhelming losses in the 1971 war against India, Pakistan rapidly increased the size of its naval fleet which doubled in the 1980s after a massive 3.2 billion dollar military and economic aid by US President Ronald Reagan. At present, Pakistan’s navy owns over 45 vessels , most of them of US or European origin which include submarines, destroyers, frigates, patrol and mine warfare boats. It operates from its sole naval port in Karachi and sometimes from naval facilities in UK, USA and France. It had recently been involved in various humanitarian operations during the 2005 Tsunami in South East Asia. Indian Navy on the other hand, is a three dimensional naval force consisting of missile-capable warships, an aircraft carrier, mine sweepers and a host of marine aircrafts. Most of the warships in the Indian navy are indigenously built in its own dockyards. The navy operates from its major naval bases in Visakhapatnam, Mumbai, Goa and the Andaman Islands. Indian Navy has significant capabilities of being a true blue water Navy and is experienced both in war and peacekeeping operations in the Indian Ocean.



The Nuclear Club

India tested a nuclear bomb in 1974 using materials from Canada and technical help from Soviet Union. However, the embargo on heavy water export from Canada after the test stalled India’s nuclear ambitions till 1998, when it shocked the world by conducting five nuclear detonations termed as Shakti tests. The highest yield was by a 48 kiloton staged fusion device, which India claimed was a thermonuclear bomb but seismic data on the tests proved otherwise. In the same year 1998, Pakistan conducted a series of six nuclear detonations in a test termed as Chagai. The highest yield was reported to be about 25 kiloton from a two stage boosted device. At present Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile is slated to be around 30-40 warheads while India possesses 70-100 warheads. The nuclearisation of India and Pakistan became a turning point in the history of conflicts between these two countries with high tensions but no war, not very much unlike the US vs USSR Cold War



Ballistic and Cruise Missile Proliferation

In the nuclear delivery front, both India and Pakistan have a series of ballistic and cruise missiles in addition to ground attack aircrafts. The maximum range among India’s operational ballistic missiles is 2000 km achieved by Agni-2.(Note:Agni 3 already tested!) India’s Agni ballistic missiles are indigenously developed by its own missile defence industry known as IGMDP. The maximum range among Pakistan’s missiles is by Hatf V Gauri which is reported to do over 2200 kms. Pakistan’s Hatf missiles are based on North Korean No-Dong series of IRBMs. Both Pakistan’s Hatf and India’s Agni ballistic missiles are nuclear capable. India has also developed a supersonic cruise missile BrahMos which is by far the fastest cruise missile at Mach 2.6 and maximum range of 290 km. It is reported to be nuclear capable but it is not confirmed yet. On the Pakistan side, its Babur cruise missile has a reported range of 700 km and a maximum speed of 880 km/h (Mach 0.7). As with India BrahMos, Babur is also reported to be nuclear capable but there is no confirmation yet.



The Final Verdict

Both Pakistan and India are almost evenly matched head to head in nuclear and missile fronts,however India has strategic and technological superiority over the conventional forces of Pakistan.Indian Navy is larger in fleet and personnel size with a more varied range of ships including an aircraft carrier while Pakistan’s Navy is smaller and has no aircraft carriers. Indian’s IAF is equipped with highly capable fighters like 4.5th generation Su-30s(NOTE:India has already ordered 250 5th gen PAK FA!,built jointly by Russia and India,Pakistan has no such capabilities nor plans) and 4th gen Mirage 2000s which are technologically superior to Pakistan PAF’s F-16s and Mirage IIIs. Additionally Indian pilots are better trained and more capable in air combat than Pakistani forces as was demonstrated by its various wars with Pakistan or joint exercises with US and UK. In the area of conventional ground forces both the Indian as well as Pakistani Army is well equipped and highly trained to survive in extremities of topography and climate in combat conditions, like wars in the high Himalayas.



If a purely conventional war were to take place between both these countries, India would most likely overpower Pakistan owing to its superior military technology and infrastructure, larger manpower, more territorial area and a strategic advantage in its sea and air forces. It must also be noted that a war between these two countries will matter more than India’s conventional superiority as both these nations are nuclear powers on an equal deadlock. India has maintained a ‘no first use’ nuclear policy in the lines of a similar policy by China while Pakistan does not have any such policy, considering their only hope against India is in nuclear deterrance. It would be risky for India at the present scenario to go into any aggressive war against Pakistan as the repercussions would be serious a nuclear devastation for both countries.
India vs Pakistan - Evaluation on Military Strengths | Aby The Liberal
__________________________________________________ __
Nuclear use will be a serious devastation for both,considering Pakistan's size and India's,Pakistan would be at a risk of destruction.

Don't dance upon the article,it is from a famous website and not from a Pakstani or an Indian.

II. The Arjun Mark-II, Future MBT of the IA.

Announced specs/upgrades by the DRDO

The FMBT's are intended to replace the T-72 MBTs in the Indian Army in a post-2020 situation.

"For engine development, we have formed a national team comprising members from the academia, the user, industry and the DRDO. We have also gone in for an international consultant."

"We are confident that we will be ready with the FMBT prototype in five to seven years."

"We are trying to involve all the stakeholders -- the user [the Army], quality control personnel and the production agency -- in this project and the industry will be our partner. We will go for a modular design so that we can always upgrade the tank when new technology comes in."

"The immediate task for the CVRDE [Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment] is to develop the Arjun-Mk II tank and demonstrate it to the user and go for the production of 124 numbers in the HVF (Heavy Vehicles Factory]."

"With this upgrade, the commander can carry out his hunting job at night with his thermal sight and engage targets more effectively."

"The penalty for using these bricks (explosive armor reactive panel) is that they will add 1.5 tonnes to the tank's weight. But we can prevent top attack and side attack. We can add to the tank's protection from missiles and rocket-propelled grenades."

-- S. Sundaresh, Chief Controller (Armaments and Combat Engineering), DRDO.


* FMBT's engine will be two-thirds the size of Arjun Mark I MBT's engine and will generate 1,500-horsepower. First prototype of the indigenous engine would be ready by 2016. FMBT will weigh 50 tonnes.

* Project to develop the transmission for the tank is being launched. Engine and transmission ( aka "Bharat Power Pack") will meet the FMBT's mobility requirements.

* Volume occupied by the electronics package will be low.

* A total of 93 upgrades, including the advanced air defence gun system for firing at attack helicopters. Missiles firing capability to destroy long-range targets and bring down attack helicopters.

* Panoramic sight with night vision for the tank's commander. An automatic target tracking system to add accuracy when firing on a moving target.

* Explosive reactive armor panel which will comprise explosives in metallic brick form. These bricks will be mounted all round the MBT. When the enemy ammunition hits these bricks, they will explode and retard the energy of the projectile. Tanks armor will not be penetrated.

* Improvements in material, fuel injection and filtration technologies will contribute to the reduction in the engine size without compromising on power.

* Indian Army has placed an intent for production of 124 Arjun-Mk II tanks.

* Phase I, 45 tanks will roll out with 56 upgrades, including the missile firing capability and the commander's panoramic sight with night vision.

* Phase II, the remaining 79 tanks, with all the 93 improvements, will come off the assembly line. “By 2013-14, the first batch of around 30 tanks will go out,” Dr. Sivakumar said.

* 124 Arjun-Mk II tanks would cost Rs.5,000 crores.

Israel could strike Iran without US help: WikiLeaks

Updated at: 1152 PST,  Monday, January 03, 2011  WASHINGTON: The United States has told France that Israel could strike Iran without US military support but the operation might not be successful, according to a leaked document published. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave his assessment at a meeting on February 8 in Paris with former French defense minister Herve Morin, according to a secret summary of the session that was posted on WikiLeaks, part of a massive document dump of classified cables. Asked by Morin if Israel had the capability to strike Iran without US assistance, Gates "responded that he didn't know if they would be successful, but that Israel could carry out the operation," it said. But Gates downplayed the value of any military operation against Iran, according to the document. The American defense secretary told Morin that he "believed a conventional strike by any nation would only delay Iranian plans by one to three years, while unifying the Iranian people to be forever embittered against the attacker," it said.

 US diplomats pushed Boeing deals: cables

 Updated at: 1451 PST,  Monday, January 03, 2011
 WASHINGTON: US diplomats have on several occasions intervened to convince foreign governments to buy aircraft from Boeing rather than its European rival Airbus, newly released diplomatic cables show.

The cables, obtained by the New York Times from the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, document several incidents in which diplomats were involved in haggling over the billion-dollar deals seen as key to US economic growth.

One cable describes Saudi King Abdullah responding favorably to a personal request from then-president George W. Bush in 2006 that he buy as many as 43 Boeing jets for Saudi Arabian Airlines and another 13 for the royal fleet.

But the king "wanted to have all the technology that his friend, President Bush, had on Air Force One," the cable said.

Once the king's own plane was outfitted with the world's most advanced telecommunications and defense equipment, "'God willing,' he will make a decision that will 'please you very much,'" the cable said.

In November, state-owned Saudi Arabian Airlines said it had signed a contract for 12 new Boeing 777-300ER jets worth some 3.3 billion dollars.

The State Department confirmed to the Times that it had authorized an "upgrade" to the king's plane but declined to provide further details on security grounds.

In another incident, Bangladesh's Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina demanded landing rights for its national carrier at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport as a condition for a Boeing deal.

"If there is no New York route, what is the point of buying Boeing," she was quoted as saying in a November 2009 cable.

The deal went through, but so far Biman Bangladesh Airlines has not been given the landing rights, the Times said.

The Times said such practices have continued despite decades-old agreements between US and European leaders to keep politics out of airline deals.

But State Department officials interviewed by the newspaper defended their involvement, saying such high-value exports were crucial to US President Barack Obama's efforts to pull the country out of its economic slump.

"That is the reality of the 21st century; governments are playing a greater role in supporting their companies, and we need to do the same thing," Robert Hormats, under secretary of state for economic affairs, told the Times.

Airbus may receive similar aid: other US cables cited by the Times describe the Bush administration and French President Nicolas Sarkozy's government
scrambling to win a jet deal from oil-rich Bahrain in 2007.

In the end, US diplomats convinced Bahrain to buy from Boeing after linking the signing of the deal to an upcoming visit by Bush in January 2008, the first-ever by a sitting US president, the Times said.

Washington has been infuriated by WikiLeaks and launched its own criminal investigation into the disclosure of the documents.

WikiLeaks has argued that its release of documents about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the inner workings of US diplomacy exposes US military abuses on the battlefield and "contradictions between the US's public persona and what it says behind closed doors."

On Sunday, Republican Representative Darrell Issa blamed US Attorney General Eric Holder for failing to bring criminal charges against Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Issa, who takes over as the chairman of the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform committee, said that "the world is laughing at this paper tiger we've become."

He said legislation would be swiftly taken up by his committee, "so the diplomats can do their job with confidence and people can talk to our government with confidence."

Assange is on bail in Britain fighting a bid by Sweden to extradite him over allegations of sexual assault made by two women. His strict bail conditions include reporting to police daily and wearing an electronic tag.

Assange threatens to name Arab leaders with CIA ties

Updated at: 1254 PST,  Monday, January 03, 2011  LONDON: Julian Assange, the founder of whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, came out swinging against some high-level Arab officials in an interview with an Arab TV Channel, saying they maintain close ties with the CIA and are spies for the U.S. intelligence agency in their respective countries. Top officials in several Arab countries have close links with the CIA, and many officials keep visiting U.S. embassies in their respective countries voluntarily to establish links with CIA. These officials are spies for the U.S. in their countries, he was quoted in media reports as saying in the interview. Assange also alleged that a number of Arab countries run special torture centers where U.S. authorities dispatch suspects for "interrogation and torture." The WikiLeaks founder did not disclose the identities of Arab officials with alleged links to the CIA. The interviewer said Assange had previously showed him documents with some of their names.

US Navy introduces smoking ban on submarines

Updated at: 1153 PST,  Monday, January 03, 2011  WASHINGTON: Giving up smoking may be a New Year's resolution for some, but all US sailors will now have to follow suit, as the US Navy moves to ban its crews from smoking aboard submarines starting Friday. In a country where fights against Big Tobacco are common, troops deprived of fresh air and natural light for months were surprisingly allowed to smoke in submerged submarines. But no more, after a Pentagon study found the risks of second-hand smoke were severe in those highly confined spaces. Submarine Forces Commander Vice Admiral John Donnelly ordered the ban aboard 73 US subs, citing health concerns. "Our sailors are our most important asset to accomplishing our missions," he said in announcing the measure in April. "Recent testing has proven that, despite our atmosphere purification technology, there are unacceptable levels of secondhand smoke in the atmosphere of a submerged submarine. The only way to eliminate risk to our non-smoking sailors is to stop smoking aboard our submarines." About 40 percent of the 13,000 US submarine sailors smoke -- double the US national average. The order comes 16 years after a ban on smoking in military buildings and installations, as well as aboard US Navy ships. Sailors are, however, allowed to smoke on the decks of surface ships. US submarine sailors are also bracing for another major change with women being allowed to serve aboard submarines for the first time starting late next year or in early 2012. British submarine sailors are allowed to smoke on board, while the French have banned the practice except on decks when the submarine is out of the water.