India Considers Buying More Boeing Apaches

[Abingdonboy]

Umm.....I am talking about dedicated air assault unit not airborne unit, the two are VERY different.......

Yes I know, our own "Airborne" division was used for Air Assault but the 2 concept is very different. the 101 keep their airborne tab for namesake only, not because of anything else......



Well, depending on the scale, running tank alone no doubt will be a suicide but what if you are facing a combine force??

Problem with tanks are they are vulnerable if they are alone, in fact any independent unit are vulnerable if they were left alone, that's what Yom Kippur taught us. Hence we are forming Joint Brigade in the US instead of forming a Unison division

Well in that case, India has nothing that can really compare to your 101st Airborne. The IA is only just now playing with the idea of setting up such units which will not come into play for atleast a decade.

 

[jhungary]

Well in that case, India has nothing that can really compare to your 101st Airborne. The IA is only just now playing with the idea of setting up such units which will not come into play for atleast a decade.

But you do realise from what I am seeing, India need a large Air Assault Unit and capability instead of going Airborne......

You have a mountainous terrain and your "proposed" enemy have hold cities afar from each other and uninhabitable land in between. This is an ideal blue print for air assault.....

IA probably cannot completely rout the PLAAF so Airborne is not a true option if you were in a war...Probably good enough for Pakistan but definitely not China

 

[Abingdonboy]

But you do realise from what I am seeing, India need a large Air Assault Unit and capability instead of going Airborne......

You have a mountainous terrain and your "proposed" enemy have hold cities afar from each other and uninhabitable land in between. This is an ideal blue print for air assault.....

IA probably cannot completely rout the PLAAF so Airborne is not a true option if you were in a war...Probably good enough for Pakistan but definitely not China

I get what you're saying definitely sir. I think the IA planners are of the same mind going by what they have been saying recently and going by the IA's and IAF's shopping lists.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

That's what the Egyptian thought when they deem the desert of Sinai was too harsh for Israeli tanks, yet the Israeli found a way

Man this is not golan heights we are talking about.this is the himalayas...the greatest mountain range in the world.

 

[janon]

But you do realise from what I am seeing, India need a large Air Assault Unit and capability instead of going Airborne......

You have a mountainous terrain and your "proposed" enemy have hold cities afar from each other and uninhabitable land in between. This is an ideal blue print for air assault.....

IA probably cannot completely rout the PLAAF so Airborne is not a true option if you were in a war...Probably good enough for Pakistan but definitely not China

I think the IA uses its airborne battallions (the non SF ones) as quick reaction forces, not really as an instrument to sieze sizeable territory. They are parachuted into critical positions at critical times. For example, they were parachuted into east Pakistan in 1971 in the famous tangail airdrop to capture a key bridge, to prevent the pak army from retreating back to Dhaka and defending it. However, we don't have divison sized airborne units like the US army does. The biggest airborne unit is the 50 (independent) parachute brigade.

From what I know, the proposed strike corps being raised intends to do just what you said - it will have a very large (for Asian standards) heli-lift capability. That is the only way that a corps sized formation can maneuver into China from India, given the pathetic lack of road and rail infra, and the mountainous terrain. Also, two of its divisions will be dual tasked, ie, able to move lock, stock and barrel from one front to the other in quick time.

Anyway, which is cheaper to maintain and operate, air assault units or airborne units? Which of them give more "bang for the buck"? And which of them is more effective, assuming a similar number of troops in each? Taking into consideration the costs of training, equipment, and so on?

 

[shree835]

I am talking about the combined tank forces that could possibly be faced. Not that I really wanted to focus on tanks.. but rather that 22 seemed hardly more than a token number.

It is like before we have ordered some of SU30...And now we have 200+ MKI and adding more... Aspect the unexpected.

 

[Black Eagle 90]

So can we assume that the total numbers might go up to 100 in coming 5-8 years.

 

[IND151]

^^ the total number may reach 60

 

[Manindra]

Man this is not golan heights we are talking about.this is the himalayas...the greatest mountain range in the world.

Every option should be open because who surprise their enemy definitely they win the war.

 

[Manindra]

It is like before we have ordered some of SU30...And now we have 200+ MKI and adding more... Aspect the unexpected.

Please don't use bold letter & turn off your Caps Lock.

 

[shree835]

Please don't use bold letter & turn off your Caps Lock.

You got it wrong ...I have not used bold latter and my Caps lock is off...This is all about letter size that is 3, just for clear visibility... You might be thinking about MKI and SU30...

 

[Sergi]

@sancho : now what do you think of our discussion 2/3 days ago ??? It seem like my "source" is correct again
But I am not getting how do you reach to the figure of 3 Sqd req. by IA ???

 

[Bang Galore]

Every option should be open because who surprise their enemy definitely they win the war.

Every option is a bit much, don't you think, what next? Keep a destroyer ready.....just in case they do a naval attack & bring in both their ships & the sea over the Himalayas...?

 

[faithfulguy]

India is smart this time by just buying the product instead of asking for useless TOT.

 

[Sergi]

unspecified number?

Cause no of Sqds required or proposed isn't final yet.