But there is a big difference in IN air arm and the transport helicopters in IAF isn't it? IN has smaller utility helicopters, just like IAF, or IA and in addition to that decicated naval helicopters to be used on their vessels, IAF in this case would be not useful. IF IA and IN now would get dedicated transport helicopter as well, for land based operations, the logistic in terms of spares and maintaince would be split and more complitcated than it is now.
I am for air wings in IA and IN, if they need aircrafts to do specific roles/missions, like the fire support of ground troops with Dhruv WSI, or LCH, or the ASW helicopters on IN and would even add the maritime attack role of IAF fighters to IN, but the transport role as a whole should be centered with IAF.
I wrote earlier about a more basic divergence that existed (and still exists to some extent) about philosophies between the three services, rather than the specifics. For many years that was the continual tug-of-war between the IAF and IN regarding an Air Element (not just helicopters). The IAF had no leg to stand on, regarding carrier-borne aircraft; but when it came to MR aircraft, the IAF (successfully) resisted IN control of those assets for many years. Simply because they were land-based. The IAF did not even want the IN to have air-bases ashore of its own for its aircraft arguing that Dabolim was sufficient for hosting the Vikrant's air-wing when Vikrant was not on operational status. Even the first Helicopters embarked on the Vikrant for "Planeguard duties" were 2 IAF Sikorsky choppers flown by IAF pilots. The IN stuck its neck out and slowly wore down the IAF resistance. A point of note, the Alouette III (later Chetak) helicopters were evaluated and selected by the IN for ship-board use; the IAF wisened up and later accepted them, thus starting the longest running saga of helicopters in India and probably else where.
The MR and LR-ASW requrements of the IN were not even understood by the IAF who were content to operate some ancient B-24 Liberators and reconditioned L-1049 Super Connies (retired from Air India) under "Maritime Air Operations". While the IN (not so silently) suffered through all that. Induction of the Il-38s and Tu-142s broke the glass ceiling for the IN once and for all, and they came out of the clutches of the IAF.
So far as the IA is concerned, the beginnings of the IA's aviation wing began with the Auster AOPs of the Artillery. Unfortunately the men at the helm of the IA in those times had no other vision of aircraft in the Army. So the Chetaks and Cheetahs just substituted for the AOPs. After Viet Nam, the Generals woke up to the accessory value of air power which needed to be
organic to the Army. However the IAF managed to bamboozle successive MoD Mandarins and Ministers that they had all that was needed. Even then there was some constant disagreements on how efficacious the IAF could be in providing CAS to the Army, and the possible lack of the desired synergy. But that got overlooked or papered over.
Now moving on, there is a need for all concerned (IAF and IA) to understand that Air-power (esp in CAS) has to be organic to the Army's capabilities. And Air-power in this context does not only mean weapon-equipped helicopters or air craft but
also Airborne transport capability. And never mind anybodys protestations, these two capabilities must be incoporated in to the IAs forces. At the most, fixed wing air-assets as
Santro has opined in his post (to which I initially responded) can remain with the IAF. But to keep tactical CAS and Air-Lift (rotary wing) assets divorced from the IA is sheer stupidity.
Santro also (very correctly) opines that let the SAR helicopters remain with the IAF. To that, I will add the VIP communication choppers as well. But that is it.
So far as as logistical and maintenance facilities in the IN and IA are concerned, they have fully matured and capable organisations of their own to manage their own resorces and assets. So even that argument does not hold any water. Todays helicopter gunships are pretty much to be used as an armored spearhead ( a tank) than as some dog-fighting fighter. How many fighter jocks understand the intricacies of Armored Warfare? There is a basic difference there.
Otherwise the churlishly idiotic mind-set of
"if it has wings (and flies), its gotta be ours (AirForces)"; will be be perpetuated
ad-infinitum.
The PA in contrast, has been foresighted enough to keep its Rotary-Winged air-assets; gunships and transports under its own wing, thus creating a more organic (and potentially more potent) force.