The experiences learned from recent conflicts, where missile salvoes, drone swarms, and precision-guided weapons have defined the frontline of modern warfare, are the reason behind India’s consideration of a unified rocket and missile army, according to India Today.
Operation Sindoor in May 2025 highlighted this reality, as India employed BrahMos, Pralay, SCALP cruise missiles, long-range artillery and kamikaze drones to strike terrorist infrastructure and military targets across Pakistan
For strategists, the operation posed a basic que
stion: can India’s current structures adequately marshal its expanding arsenal, or should it create a separate rocket and missile force?
A single framework for India’s growing stock of conventional precision-strike weapons, including drones, would be provided by an integrated missile force. Such a force, according to military planners, would simplify resource management, reduce decision-making times, and allow for quicker reactions in times of need.
India’s rocket and missile systems are now distributed among the several services. The Army uses Pinaka and Smerch launchers to launch combat rockets, longer-range cruise missiles like BrahMos and Nirbhay, and surface-to-surface missiles like Pralay, Prahaar, and ShauryWhile both the Army and the Air Force oversee surface-to-air systems like Akash, Barak-8, and S-400, the Air Force is in charge of air-launched missiles like Astra, BrahMos-A, and SCALP.
a.The Navy uses anti-ship and land-attack missiles, ship-based air defense systems like Dhanush, and BrahMos variants launched from ships and submarines. The Strategic Forces Command is still in charge of submarine-launched K-series systems and nuclear-capable ballistic missiles like Agni.Report on Defense Manufacturing
The integration argument is strengthened by the strategic context. Both Pakistan’s Army Rocket Force Command (ARFC) and China’s People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) are specialized organizations that acknowledge long-range precision weapons as essential deterrent tools.
Experts say that India’s scattered systems are not comparable. The urgency was emphasized by outgoing Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi, who stated that India must build rocket forces in line with China and Pakistan. Although the force’s ultimate organizational placement is still up for debate, he said that it might initially be housed under the Army’s artillery branch.India’s Defense Strategy
India is developing a conventional missile force that includes short-, medium-, and long-range weaponry, according to Defense Secretary R.K. Singh. He attributed this strategic change to Pakistan’s expanding conventional missile capability and changing international crises. Although final permission is still pending, senior officials said the National Security Council strongly supports the proposal.
There is no universal paradigm for the organization of missile forces, according to analysts like Christopher Clary. While China and Russia maintain specialized forces, other nations either spread their assets among services or incorporate them into nuclear commands.Report on Defense Manufacturing
With systems like Abdali, Ghaznavi, Fatah, and Babur cruise missiles, Pakistan’s ARFC, which Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced in August 2025, relies on conventional deterrence. The Army Strategic Forces Command is still in charge of its nuclear-capable weapons.
Experts contend that Operation Sindoor revealed weaknesses in Pakistan’s deterrence, which led to the establishment of ARFC. In contrast, China’s PLARF, one of the biggest missile forces in the world, is in charge of both conventional and nuclear long-range strike operations, including cutting-edge hypersonic weapons, enabling Beijing to carry out precise strikes throughout the Indo-Pacific.
However, there is resistance among India’s defense establishment. According to Lt Gen. P Ravi Shankar, India’s three artillery divisions, which combine artillery, rockets, BrahMos, and other missiles under well-established command networks, already foInstead of creating duplicate structures, he supports growing existing divisions with more advanced long-range missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and joint-service personnel. In order to create an integrated DRAM (Drones, Rockets, Artillery, and Missiles) ecosystem connected by ISR and joint theater commands, his concept calls for the deployment of nine artillery divisions across theaters facing China, Pakistan, the Andaman and Nicobar Command, and the mainland.
rm the core of a deep-strike forcSimilarly, Lt Gen. Anil K. Ahuja contends that a missile force would necessitate significant logistical expenditures that would be better used to increase missile stockpiles. He emphasizes that the discussion should center on optimizing strike capacity at the lowest possible organizational cost and asks for more collaboration between the Army and Air Force about long-range attack responsibilities.
e.Similarly, Lt Gen. Anil K. Ahuja contends that a missile force would necessitate significant logistical expenditures that would be better used to increase missile stockpiles. He emphasizes that the discussion should center on optimizing strike capacity at the lowest possible organizational cost and asks for more collaboration between the Army and Air Force about long-range attack responsibilities.
Clary also thinks that until services disregard long-term strike priorities or cooperative processes fail, there is no need for an integrated force. He points out that the majority of military use collaborative targeting procedures and disperse striking capabilities among services.
Although experts are still divided, the administration seems to be leaning toward creating a missile force. Nonetheless, everyone agrees that India’s rocket and missile capabilities need to be continuously increased through more advanced domestic systems.India’s Defense Strategy
India is debating whether a unified missile force is the best route to deep-strike dominance or whether current structures can be enhanced to face future challenges. This argument reflects a larger contradiction between organizational change and capabilities growth.
