A View from Pakistan
Recently on 19 Dec a test firing of the Pinaka was carried out
using an operational launcher. Daily Pakistan has this to say “Pinaka is an artillery missile system capable of
destroying 900 square metres at a 20-80 kilometre range by firing a salvo of 12
rockets within 48 seconds. The Pinaka Mk-II rocket is modified as a missile by
integrating with the navigation, control and guidance system to improve the end
accuracy and enhance the range. It is believed that the guided version of the
Pinaka system is being developed in order to deliver nuclear warheads at short
ranges”[1]. They are clearly worried. They forgot to add that
Pinaka also has a range of deadly warheads – anti tank, anti-personal and
incendiary.
Trends and Developments in USA
The Army Futures Command of USA has six modernization programs.
The top priority program is Long Range Precision Fires[2].
Extending range of GMLRS is part of this high priority program. There is an
emerging worldwide trend of increasing standoff range through Artillery with a
high degree of lethality and precision using conventional warheads. There is
heavy stress on Non-Contact Warfare as part of Multi Domain Operations.
Pinaka - the Critical Midfielder
The Pinaka system must be seen in this emerging context. With a range
of about 37 km the unguided ammunition can carry out destruction roles in the
tactical sphere. With a range of up to 80 km the Guided Pinaka can carry out tasks
in the operational depth. The accuracy of the system enables surgical strikes
to be carried out. For instance, the Balakot strike could well have been
carried out by a Pinaka launcher with
equal effect and less fuss. In conventional scenarios it will enable deterrence,
interdiction and dislocation through its plethora of warheads – anti pers, anti-tank
and incendiary. The 210 mm caliber also lends itself to being nuclearized if
needed. Internationally there is clear understanding that guided Artillery with
extended ranges combined with unmanned systems will provide great complementarity
to air delivery of firepower. Artillery engagements lend themselves to better control
of escalatory dynamics. There are also circumstances when air operations are
not possible. These circumstances could be political in nature, dense air
defense environment or simply inability to fly due to vagaries of weather. Cost
effectiveness also plays a part. Overall it emerges that the Pinaka system can
be employed in multiple roles. In fact, its role is very much like a midfielder
in football and a middle order batsman in cricket. Anyone who has played these
games will know that control of the midfield field/order is often the difference
between victory and defeat. The Pinaka is similar. It is a weapon system which
allows the operational commander to control the midfield battle. As non-contact
battle becomes the norm, the midfield assumes greater importance.
The Chinese Context
In our context, the Chinese Border is inaccessible in many
places due to poor road infrastructure. In such places it is out of reach of
conventional tube Artillery either due to range or mobility factors or both.
The only way to fire across the LAC in many places is by long range guided rocket
Artillery with any degree of certainty. In case we must deter China by “Denial”
we need to have credible and accurate long-range fire capability[3].
This capability should be available in adequate quantity for simultaneous and nonlinear
engagement effectively. This means devastating multi layered fires delivered
from a compact of tube artillery, rocket artillery, cruise missiles and fighter
aircraft. Further, in Himalayas, air operations are fickle since they are dictated
by weather conditions. Hence reliance on long range guided rocket systems for
depth engagements and interdiction will be high. The key for effective deterrence will be long
range guided rocket artillery in the form of PINAKA.
The Pakistani Case
Against Pakistan we need to practice deterrence by
“Punishment”[4]. To execute such a game plan, we need to have a
capability to cause damage in depth by conventional methods whilst keeping the fragile
Indo -Pak escalatory dynamics in view. Further we need to have a counter battery ability
to destroy the much-touted NASR which has a nuclear tip. We simply need to hunt
for the NASRs[5]. The overall
stance against Pakistan should be a declared conventional capability with an
implied nuclear capability. The key for this again lies with an effective long-range
guided rocket system - PINAKA.
Non-Contact Capability Compact
To this end a credible non-contact fire capability compact
is being put in place with the induction Rafale in addition to the existing SU
30s, the Brahmos, the Pinaka MBRL and a of a slew of 155 mm Guns like the ULH,
Dhanush, K9 Vajra and Sarang. This is in consonance with the line of thought outlined
earlier – credible firepower in depth to have a non-contact deterrence capability
deep into adversary territory. While there is clarity on the rest of the systems,
it is the Pinaka MBRL, our emerging strength which needs a sharper focus.
Pinaka MBRL
The Pinaka MBRL, is a successful indigenous system. It entered
service nearly a decade back. It is a proven system which took two decades of back
breaking development. It has proven itself.
It is light weight and devastating. However, the first version had
limited range of about 37 km. Hence a range upgrade to 50 km was pursued. The
range increment without guidance was inconsistent and inaccurate. Hence, we
embarked on fitting it with a guidance system.
Our effort bore fruit in record time. Within a matter of 10 months we were able to
design and develop a guidance kit for the rocket and fire it. The initial firing
indicated a range of 70 km with perfect accuracy. All this even without a project
being sanctioned! Subsequent trials have proven that the Extended Range Pinaka system
is fine. In Mar 19, I analyzed it as an example of success in an article with
great pride[6]. It was a model
to emulate to beat the “System”. However, our “System” has caught up with it as
it appears.
Three Track Progress
The project should have progressed on three tracks in parallel.
One track to continue with the formalities of completing balance trials. The
second track to go in for a provisional set of numbers and set up production
facilities. The third track should have been to look ahead to develop variants
to extend the engagement ranges further as also to incorporate a seeker head to
have pinpoint capability. Parallel progression will enable time compression. In turn it enables enhancing operational capability at least cost. What seems to
be happening is that these actions are being done in series. Complete the trials, then
start production, and then start thinking of pinpoint accuracy. The lessons we learnt from this program itself
and the Dhanush 155 mm Gun Program where trials and setting up of production went
hand in hand seem to have been lost. Result. We are clearly getting behind in the
capability curve. By now we should have
been seriously discussing the time frames of pinpoint accuracy and if we could
nuclearize the warhead. Everyone in the” System” - the users, the developers,
bureaucrats and experts - feel that the Extended Range Guided Pinaka is a game
changer. However, when asked why it has not progressed as planned, the short answer
is that it is hostage to our “System” and its myriad procedures. The procedures
seem to have taken over the operational necessity. The Chinese and Pakistanis
will be very happy with our “System” if we cannot do something sensible.
Inverted Planning
Let us look at the numbers. Initially it was planned to
procure 22 regiments of Pinaka as per the Arty Profile 2027. However, after some “thinking and operational reassessment”
beyond logic, the number of Pinaka Regiments were reduced by 12. We have correspondingly
increased the number of 155 mm gun (max range 40 km) regiments by 12! These will
come at the tail of all other orders after 15-20 years. It is flummoxing that; we have decreased our
requirement of a fully indigenous and devastating rocket system with 70 km
range from 22 to 10. So much for “Make in India”. This inverted planning is
happening in an era where the international trend is to go in for long range
precision fires. Just imagine deployment of another 12 regiments of Pinaka with its plethora of warheads on the
LAC and the deterrence effect it will have on our adversaries. The system also
has the potential (with some ingenuity) to be converted into a common launcher
of multiple caliber and longer-range Rockets/Missiles. Is this a fallout of “Infantrisation”
of the higher echelons of Army Leadership and marginaisation of Artillery and
Mechanised Forces officers? An erstwhile
GOC in C, Western Command has alluded to this and this is being reflected by on
ground actions without understanding long term implications[7]. if this continues there is no way we will be able to defend our nation
with some sense of assurance and that too at times when budgets are going to be
tight[8].
The COAS keeps talking of “Realm of Non-Contact Warfare”. It will soon sound
hollow when matching on ground thinking is absent. In my opinion the way we have handled this gem
of an indigenous equipment is reflective of what ails our increasingly Infantry oriented operational and defense planners – missing the woods for trees.
Protecting Tomorrow – Today
I
will end this article with credo of The
Army Futures Command. The home page of its website says - “At
Army Futures Command, we believe in utilizing the best expertise,
whatever the source, to create innovative solutions faster and
better. We’re on a quest to modernize the way the
Army does business by creating a space of endless possibilities to
explore, develop, and test new methods, organizations, and technologies. Above all else, we want to make sure Soldiers
have what they need, before they need it, to protect tomorrow… today[9]. The US Army Modernization Strategy (AMS) describes how the
Total Army -- Regular Army, National Guard, Army Reserve, and Army Civilians --
will transform into a multi-domain force by 2035. The US Army’s
reform efforts have reduced bureaucracy and realigned funding towards our top
priorities to enable these modernization efforts[10].
I do hope at least one amongst
the PM, RM , NSA, the New CDS, Chiefs
and Defence Secretary take note of this approach and pay special attention to
the sentence - we want to make sure Soldiers have what they need, before they need it, to protect tomorrow… today. All I will ask from these
gentlemen is that to ensure what the soldier needs today is given to him at
least by day after tomorrow. Having put heart and soul into making sure India
has cutting edge capabilities of indigenous nature in the form of Pinaka, I am apprehensive that efforts are likely to go
down the belly of our serpentine “System”. Our “System” is the biggest threat
to India’s 5 trillion-dollar dreams. Clearly the System is out of balance!
PS
I also do not understand as to why IAF and IN are not adapting this system to their needs. There is plenty of scope. it will be a tremendously low cost effective system.
PS
I also do not understand as to why IAF and IN are not adapting this system to their needs. There is plenty of scope. it will be a tremendously low cost effective system.
Very interesting. Insight into the future.
ReplyDeleteInitiating, thought process , hard to comment upon.
ReplyDeleteIfully agree with most of your contentions Sir. To start with, long range artillery aided with precision can be a suitable complement for the airpower and the lack of fighter sqns of the IAF. The precision and low cost should be enough for us to procure the same. The precision element included in long range rockets will also moderate the myth of rockets being area weapon with limited use due higher collateral damage, especially in times when collateral damage is frowned upon. Pinaka is a better system than Smerch rockets in it's ability to be upgraded and having latest technologies, more importantly, indigenously developed. Thus the need of hour is to go in for long range precise rocket artillery which can swing accross the bandwidth of gun artillery at one end and complementary to airpower at another thus reducing need of guns for contact battle and freeing up airpower for air superiority
ReplyDeleteGreat article again sir..would you compare our system with the development and cost of an equivalent south korean system. The south korean system has a greater range
ReplyDeletethanks for your query. i am not aware of the cost of the south korean system and cannot comment on it. however, i know that the Pinaka has been built to our specifications. i also know that there have been inquiries from abroad for puchase. it has great ecport potential.
Delete