India Considers Buying More Boeing Apaches

[Bang Galore]

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

It's all in the quantity...... simply not logical here.

 

[Manindra]

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...?

We have a plan to deploy a nuclear supercarrier in Pangong Lake

 

[Sergi]

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...?

i propose torpedo in ice

It's all in the quantity...... simply not logical here.

Reasoning function 0f the brain is permanently blocked so I advice not to waist your time

 

[Capt.Popeye]

What did the LUSH add?

AFAIK, the LUSH added hours on airframe life but not to the extent of renewing them. The LU in LUSH; stands for Limited Upgrade only.

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

Were you trying to say something sensible?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

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

Do not compare the Himalayan terrain to the Sinai. There is very litle tank country in the Himalayas; some high plateaus and some constricted passes. The Sinai that I've seen is very different.

 

[Shinigami]

@jhungary

2nd Parachute Battalion Group of the Indian Army
1971 indo pak war

 

[Capt.Popeye]

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

In the underlined part; you are absolutely right. There is indeed a great difference between Airborne and Air Assault Forces. Which is why the Indian Army has re-directed its doctrine towards Air Assault from Airborne.

Regarding the use of Armor; the IA's doctrine fromthe beginning depended on Infantry moving in tandem with Armor. Which is a must. Armor moves fast, then Infantry occupies the ground that Armor has moved into. Infantry also helps secure the flanks of Armor when the thrust becomes statinary or gets stalled. In 1965; the PA's tactics used independent Armor movement and thrusts unsupported by Infantry. Which happened to be based on US Army thinking since all the tanks in use and their training of that time was based on the US. That caused them a great deal of grief. After 1971, the IA evolved their ideas further and created Mechanised Infantry. Later they acquired the BMP, BRDM and BTR families of ICVs and APCs from the SU and other WP countries. That happened in the 80s and that is when the truly Mech Inf Bns in the IA were created. They are an integral part of the Strike Corps that the IA fields in the Western Theater. Now the idea of the Air Assault Forces is being refined to take that a notch up further. Probably the days of the "classical airborne" division is running out.

 

[jhungary]

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?

I am a Defence noob, I don't usually keep up on my defence knowledge, I just know what I knew and what I have to know so I have no idea India is raising a Quick Reaction Brigade or Taskforce.......

There are probably no country in this world would need a proper and dedicated Airborne Division in the world other than US military, the forefront of Airborne Operation is to gain Air Superiority, otherwise it will just be a Massacre of your troop from the sky. You also need to realise that Air superiority is not just required when you perform an airdrop, but during the course of your campaign until your airborne force were meet up and link up with your main supply line. How are you going to resupply your airborne troop before then? Airdrop.

There are no where in this world can any single country can at least challenge any airspace anywhere, only the US air force can.
In a war scenario when India vs China, both are even match but I have to concede the air dominance will went to China. At least IAF cannot establish effective air control in Chinese Air Space. Unless you are planning on using your airborne troop inside India where you may have Air Superiority, your Airborne troop will relegate into normal infantry.........

In a traditional sense, while both are light infantry, Airborne troop are more expensive to maintain. Basically training are more or less the same training, while the Airborne needed Jump Training, Air Assault do need to train with Helicopter stuff. But when you take inter-branch expenses into consideration, Airborne troop are more expensive to maintain.

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.

What else were Indian buyer beside Apache, Globemaster and Poseidon

Do not compare the Himalayan terrain to the Sinai. There is very litle tank country in the Himalayas; some high plateaus and some constricted passes. The Sinai that I've seen is very different.

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

you can never underestimate Ingenuity, do remember, technology and tool does not exist because men needed them, they do exist because the situation needed them, when you consider something is impossible, then you are defeated without even try

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Never thought that India will go after the Apache, good choice though. We've got 12 operational, and 70 on order.

 

[jhungary]

@jhungary

2nd Parachute Battalion Group of the Indian Army
1971 indo pak war

I said Air Assault not Airborne.........

In the underlined part; you are absolutely right. There is indeed a great difference between Airborne and Air Assault Forces. Which is why the Indian Army has re-directed its doctrine towards Air Assault from Airborne.

Regarding the use of Armor; the IA's doctrine fromthe beginning depended on Infantry moving in tandem with Armor. Which is a must. Armor moves fast, then Infantry occupies the ground that Armor has moved into. Infantry also helps secure the flanks of Armor when the thrust becomes statinary or gets stalled. In 1965; the PA's tactics used independent Armor movement and thrusts unsupported by Infantry. Which happened to be based on US Army thinking since all the tanks in use and their training of that time was based on the US. That caused them a great deal of grief. After 1971, the IA evolved their ideas further and created Mechanised Infantry. Later they acquired the BMP, BRDM and BTR families of ICVs and APCs from the SU and other WP countries. That happened in the 80s and that is when the truly Mech Inf Bns in the IA were created. They are an integral part of the Strike Corps that the IA fields in the Western Theater. Now the idea of the Air Assault Forces is being refined to take that a notch up further. Probably the days of the "classical airborne" division is running out.

I cannot say the US doctrine on Armor warfare was wrong, we just operate it on a different scale than the Pakistani.....

Theoretically, it is possible that Moving Armor alone unsupported by infantry is feasible, but one must operate with TOTAL AIR DOMINANCE, we actually done it during the first Iraq War or Gulf War when we operate on a premise of "You Move, You Die" The idea behind was we have Airborne Early warning operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, we own the sky, whenever we see your troop/armor move out of camouflage, we will kill you with a 3 prone attack, first by Cruise Missile, then Fixed-Wing Fighter Bomber, and finally rounding up with Gunship like AH-64 or AC-130. We tried on the Iraqi in the beginning of Iraq war.

This will work with us because;

1.) We never fight alone.
2.) Even if you only count USAF and USN/USMC Air asset, we have more than enough to content total air superiority anywhere in the world.
3.) Our C4ISR is probably the best in the world.

Of course when Pakistan trying to copy our doctrine, they are going to fail, simply because they do not have the premise on what American is operating on.

All in all, I agree that the true airborne op are no more, it's the thing in the past, it was over somewhere before Vietnam war and sometime after Korean War. Today we need a more precise and sudden approach for warfare and no matter how technological advance you get, you still cannot deliver those result by using a Pure Airborne force. For us, that day was when UH-1 enter our Armed Service.........

 

[DeathInvader]

Im surprised that it took that long. Considering that hypothetically.. there are some 8000 tanks that they have to face..along with countless bunkers and IFVs; that the order was just for 22.

Really? 8000 tanks in the mountains?

 

[BLING]

Great Job. But typical indian mindset Few numbers first and then Bulk order ! Wish we can get 100+ AP ,200 LCH 150+ Rudra . Its Total Pakage with Jags ,Tejas and Mirrage ! KUDOS IA

jhungary Sir I always had a doubts. Number wins the war or Tatics with small Groups ? .I belive Numbers always win with Tatics .

What is the Number of Tanks Compared between India China and PAK ? I ment the MBT s alone

Your Discussion was fruit full _/\_

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Great Job. But typical indian mindset Few numbers first and then Bulk order ! Wish we can get 100+ AP ,200 LCH 150+ Rudra . Its Total Pakage with Jags ,Tejas and Mirrage ! KUDOS IA

jhungary Sir I always had a doubts. Number wins the war or Tatics with small Groups ? .I belive Numbers always win with Tatics .

What is the Number of Tanks Compared between India China and PAK ? I ment the MBT s alone

Your Discussion was fruit full _/\_

Terrain,tactics,quality of men and then numbers.
Most important airforce though.Without air cover modern armies can't move.

 

[BLING]

But its always better to have Large numbers even if its of Low quality than Few numbers of High tech Tanks

 

[jhungary]

Great Job. But typical indian mindset Few numbers first and then Bulk order ! Wish we can get 100+ AP ,200 LCH 150+ Rudra . Its Total Pakage with Jags ,Tejas and Mirrage ! KUDOS IA

jhungary Sir I always had a doubts. Number wins the war or Tatics with small Groups ? .I belive Numbers always win with Tatics .

What is the Number of Tanks Compared between India China and PAK ? I ment the MBT s alone

Your Discussion was fruit full _/\_

You have tactics that works with limited number and/or resource, and you have tactics that works with unlimited number and/or resource. Problem is, how you would want to operate, regardless of number is the most important, not the number itself.

Tactics govern the general direction of your troop, you gave them an objective and you gave them a direction and they will move accordingly, large number mean you have more in your disposal, it does not mean anything else.

However, when you get a smaller amount of troop, it's easier to use them and they would be more effective on achieving your objective (Given your troop are competent) large number, you can still achieve your objective effectively, but your command structure will need to be very sharp, in effect, the more number you have, the harder you can control the overall environment. Depending on your command structure and/or command quality, it can swing either you finish your job effectively and efficiently, or you can get out of control from the get go.

So my answer is, if your command structure can digest the number of troop, then more troop of same quality are always an advantage, but when you started to lose control, then it will be a big no-no.

The general MBT comparison is not good on India if you try to run against a combine force of China and Pakistan. Currently you are looking at a combine of about 8000-9000 MBT on Chinese/Pakistan side vs ~4000 tank on the India side.

The number is even worst for india when you break down the detail of which tank each element have vs the tank for the others. In Armour/Cavalry Warfare, we have a classification system that allow you to work out your actual combat ability. Tanks are separated into 3 group, tier 1,2 and 3, tier 1 tank is the backbone of your MBT, you mostly engage enemy MBT using your Tier 1. Tier 2 is supporting tank, which are older generation but still capable for armor warfare, use it to supplement Tier 1. Tier 3 is mostly infantry support/static defence vehicle. Well, those are no chance you can survive with a Armor engagement and relegated into infantry supporting role.

In the US, we have M1A2 as Tier 1, M1/M1A1 as tier 2, Selected M60, M2/3 as tier 3.
Indian Classification would be Arjun as T-1, T-90 as T-2, T-72 as T-3
Chinese Classification would be T-99 as T-1, T-96 as Tier 2, T-88, T-79, T-69 as Tier 3
Pakistan classification would be Al-Khalid as T-1, T-80 as T-2, type 85, 69, 55 as Tier 3

When you compare the matrix of Tier 1, you will see you get some 150 Arjun vs some 500 Type 99 and some 300 Al Khalid. Doesn't matter how well you spin your capability, you are running a 1 v 7 odds. For ever 1 shor fire by Arjun there are 7 shot fired from Type 99 and Al-Khalid. Survival rate is not good. However, when you look at supporting roles, this is where you get really alarming when you see 900 T-90 vs ~2000 type 96 and TU-80......While it will limited your forefront armor capability but it will damage your infantry supporting capability if a combine Chinese/Pakistani assault into India.

The only way you can make do is, well, either build more tank or you need to utilise some sort of force multiplier, if you cannot defeat your enemy enmasse, you pick a field where you can defeat them in detail, C4I is very important, also important is early warning and disruption ability, that is the only way to ensure India come out ahead with an engagement between China and Pakistan