Here's a breakdown of the lessons learned:
1. Firepower on the LoC vs. Air Power: Effect
on Ground
The claim of "1 lakh times more"
firepower on the LoC than from the air during a four-day engagement highlights
a critical distinction. While air strikes, especially precision-guided
munitions (PGMs) and cruise missiles, offer significant strategic impact and
target high-value assets with minimal risk to personnel, the sheer volume of
conventional artillery and mortar fire on the Line of Control (LoC) indicates a
different kind of impact:
- Ground Attrition and Disruption:
Massive artillery barrages, even if less precise than air-dropped PGMs,
cause widespread destruction, inflict casualties (both military and
civilian), and severely disrupt enemy movements, logistics, and defensive
positions. This sustained ground-based bombardment aims to grind down the
enemy's resolve and infrastructure in a localized, yet intense, manner.
- Psychological Impact on Border Populations: The constant shelling, as evidenced by reports of damaged homes
and civilian casualties, creates immense fear and displacement among
border communities. This can be a deliberate tactic to create a
humanitarian crisis and exert pressure.
- Drain on Resources:
Sustained artillery duels consume vast amounts of ammunition and put a
strain on logistical chains. While air assets are expensive, the
cumulative cost of conventional shells and mortars can also be
substantial.
- Limited Strategic Reach:
Unlike air power, which can strike deep within enemy territory,
ground-based firepower on the LoC is generally limited to the immediate
border areas.
Therefore, while air power delivers precise,
strategic blows, massive ground-based firepower on the LoC aims for sustained
attrition, disruption, and psychological pressure within a more confined
geographical area.
2. Lessons for Drone Warfare
Operation Sindoor marked a significant shift
towards drone-centric warfare in the South Asian context. Key lessons include:
- Ubiquity and Versatility:
Drones were deployed extensively by both sides for a multitude of tasks,
from long-range reconnaissance and surveillance (ISR) to precision strikes
using loitering munitions and even for psychological warfare.
- Decoys and Swarms:
Pakistan reportedly used drone swarms as decoys to overwhelm Indian air
defenses and drain their interceptor stocks, a tactic seen in Ukraine.
This highlights the need for robust Identification of Friend or Foe (IFF)
systems and the ability to differentiate between weaponized drones and
decoys.
- Vulnerability to Electronic Warfare: Many drones, especially those operating on civilian frequencies,
are susceptible to jamming, spoofing, and cyberattacks. This exposed a
critical vulnerability for both sides and emphasized the need for hardened
electronics and secure military communication bands.
- Dependence on Imports:
India's drone program, despite indigenous efforts, showed reliance on
foreign components, particularly from China, which poses a strategic risk
given China's close ties with Pakistan.
- Need for Training:
Troops need to be adequately trained to effectively utilize drones as
frontline weapons, not just support systems.
3. Drones as a Weapon of Psychological Warfare
The conflict demonstrated that drones are
indeed a potent tool for psychological warfare, often more so than for
widespread physical destruction:
- Creating Panic and Fear: The
slow-moving, wailing sound of drones hovering overhead can induce
significant anxiety and panic among civilian populations, even if they
don't cause widespread casualties. This constant threat keeps people on
edge.
- Signaling and Deterrence: The
deployment of drones, even if intercepted, signals a nation's resolve and
capability to project power without resorting to more escalatory
conventional methods. It can be a low-cost way to demonstrate intent.
- Information Warfare: Drone
footage and reports of drone strikes can be used effectively in
information warfare to shape narratives, instill fear in the adversary,
and boost morale on one's own side.
While drones can deliver kinetic effects,
their pervasive presence and the uncertainty they create contribute
significantly to the psychological dimension of conflict.
4. Use of Drones for Recce, Close Air Support,
Psychological Warfare
Drones were actively used for:
- Reconnaissance (Recce) and Surveillance: Deep surveillance into enemy airspace using drones like Heron
MK-II and TAPAS-BH-201 provided real-time intelligence. This continuous
ISR capability is vital for battlefield awareness.
- Close Air Support (CAS): While
not traditional manned CAS, armed drones and loitering munitions provided
precision strike capabilities against ground targets, offering a form of
close-range firepower and target neutralization for ground forces.
- Psychological Warfare: As
discussed, drones were used to cause panic among civilians, probe enemy
defenses, and project power, contributing to the psychological dimension
of the conflict.
5. Using Soft Kill Capability Against Chinese
and Pakistani Drones
India successfully employed "soft
kill" capabilities to neutralize Pakistani (and by extension,
Chinese-origin) drones. This involves:
- Electronic Warfare (EW):
Jamming radio frequencies, GPS signals, and other communication links to
disrupt drone navigation and control.
- GPS Spoofing:
Sending false GPS signals to trick drones into believing they are in a
different location, causing them to veer off course or crash.
- Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs): While
also having "hard kill" potential, DEWs like high-powered
microwaves can be used for "soft kill" by temporarily disabling
or corrupting drone electronics.
The focus on soft kill methods is crucial as
it offers a non-lethal or less destructive way to counter threats, potentially
preserving evidence or allowing for analysis of intercepted drones. India's
indigenously developed "Iron Dome" like system, manufactured by BEL,
demonstrates a multi-layered approach combining soft and hard kill options.
6. Cheaper Technology and Affordable
Technology vs. High-End Technology
The conflict highlighted a significant
interplay between affordable, mass-produced technology and expensive, high-end
systems:
- Affordable Drones as Force Multipliers: The ability to field hundreds of relatively cheap drones, even if
some are lost, can overwhelm sophisticated air defense systems designed
for fewer, higher-end threats. This "quantity over quality"
approach, popularized in Ukraine, was evident.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Loitering Munitions: Suicide drones provide precision strike capabilities at a fraction
of the cost of manned aircraft or larger missiles, making them an
attractive option for both offensive and defensive operations.
- High-End Systems for Strategic Impact: While cheaper drones are effective for attrition and psychological
impact, high-end systems like BrahMos missiles and Rafale jets are crucial
for precision strikes on strategic targets, maintaining air superiority,
and projecting power.
- Integrated Approach is Key: The
most effective strategy involves a combination of both. Affordable drones
can saturate defenses and gather intelligence, while high-end systems
deliver decisive blows. India's success in countering Pakistani drone
swarms with both older anti-aircraft guns rigged to modern radar and
advanced indigenous counter-drone systems demonstrates this integrated
approach.
- Indigenous Development of Affordable Tech: India's focus on "Make in India" and "Atmanirbhar
Bharat" in defense aims to indigenously produce both high-end and
affordable technologies, reducing reliance on foreign suppliers and
ensuring self-sufficiency in future conflicts.
