What's new

Indian Army News & Discussions

OFF TOPIC QUESTION!!
@sancho, @Abingdonboy, or anyone with knowledge

Is there any combat training exercise where all branches get together and take part???
Mate, of course there are many such exercises especially today when the Indian military is trying to emphasis "jointness". The ANC holds such EXs daily and on a large scale annually. Other commands of the IAF/IN/IA do so in mainland India too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
But why does the IAF need heavy-lift helos? I just can't see it. The majority of the missions the CH-47Fs will fly will be in support of the army so why not just give the IA the Chinooks/Heavy-lift helos?? I see the only roles the IAF needs helos for being Spec Ops and SAR/CSAR. For these roles, I agree, the ALH WSI is an excellent option although I would also like to see the CV-22 (for Spec Ops support) and the HH-60G PaveHawks (purely for the Garuds and CSAR missions). Other than that all the IAF's rotoary wing assets should be transferred to the IA or retired.

Airlift in India is still a preserve of the IAF and seems likely to remain that way for some more time to come. While TacLift of troops into battle may gradually pass into AAC's control with the Dhruvas performing that role. Later Mi-17 medium lift may also come into the AACs inventory but there are still no indications of that. With very good reasons. Let AAC manage the attack and TacLift choppers that they will get in to a cohesive and effective force with Mech and SF units. The second part is mostly done but the first is not. Then and only then will there be case for IA asking for Airlift capability. Right now that is a far-flown idea; as much as IN asking for Airlift capabilities.
 
.
The majority of the missions the CH-47Fs will fly will be in support of the army so why not just give the IA the Chinooks/Heavy-lift helos??

Not at all, please compare the reports about Mi 26 operations once again and you will see that most of the missions are simple cargo lift roles, like lifting crashed aircrafts, trucks or heavy vehicles for road and rail constructions, ISRO heavy cargo lifts and of course the disaster relief missions during floods or earthquakes, where IAF as I said, needs to combine the operations of it's fixed and rotor wing fleet.


I see the only roles the IAF needs helos for being Spec Ops and SAR/CSAR. For these roles, I agree, the ALH WSI is an excellent option although I would also like to see the CV-22 (for Spec Ops support) and the HH-60G PaveHawks (purely for the Garuds and CSAR missions). Other than that all the IAF's rotoary wing assets should be transferred to the IA or retired.

LUH and Dhruv for uttility
Rudra for escort and special ops
V22 for CSAR and special ops
CH 47 or even better, EC FTH for heavy lift

That would be the perfect mix for IAF.
 
.
Airlift in India is still a preserve of the IAF and seems likely to remain that way for some more time to come. While TacLift of troops into battle may gradually pass into AAC's control with the Dhruvas performing that role. Later Mi-17 medium lift may also come into the AACs inventory but there are still no indications of that. With very good reasons. Let AAC manage the attack and TacLift choppers that they will get in to a cohesive and effective force with Mech and SF units. The second part is mostly done but the first is not. Then and only then will there be case for IA asking for Airlift capability. Right now that is a far-flown idea; as much as IN asking for Airlift capabilities.

Sir, I'm not calling for the IA to be given fixed-wing airlift capability purely rotoary wing assets which by nature are TacLifters and, more often than not, are employed to support the IA. I just can't see what utility there is in the IAF having such assets, they can keep their fixed-wing a/c and a few specialized helos (for Spec Ops support and SAR/CSAR roles) but everything else needs to go either to retirement or to the IA.


Just my opinion.
 
.
Sir, I'm not calling for the IA to be given fixed-wing airlift capability purely rotoary wing assets which by nature are TacLifters and, more often than not, are employed to support the IA. I just can't see what utility there is in the IAF having such assets, they can keep their fixed-wing a/c and a few specialized helos (for Spec Ops support and SAR/CSAR roles) but everything else needs to go either to retirement or to the IA.


Just my opinion.

IA is simply not equipped to handle them; either by material resources, operating systems or even training. So, why make the confusion worse confounding?
 
.
Not at all, please compare the reports about Mi 26 operations once again and you will see that most of the missions are simple cargo lift roles, like lifting crashed aircrafts, trucks or heavy vehicles for road and rail constructions, ISRO heavy cargo lifts and of course the disaster relief missions during floods or earthquakes, where IAF as I said, needs to combine the operations of it's fixed and rotor wing fleet.
I was thinking you'd bring that up :azn: !! You forgot to mention the support the MI-26s have given to the BRO! I see what you are getting at but what I think needs to be done is the GoI procure a few MI-26 T2s (PAWAN HANS can do this) and then the GoI/India has access to the awesome power of this bird for civilian/disaster work without having the military saddled with this combat ineffective machine. The duties you have given aren't military missions sir and every hour they are engaged in such roles they aren't supporting the military for which they were bought and are operated and owned by.



When it comes to the CH-47F, this bird is much better (IMHO) being operated by the IA to support troops, transport arty pieces (M777), support SFs, transport supplies to FOBs etc







LUH and Dhruv for uttility
Rudra for escort and special ops
V22 for CSAR and special ops
CH 47 or even better, EC FTH for heavy lift

That would be the perfect mix for IAF.

Agreed (somewhat, the IAF can have a few LUH and ALH but majority should be given to the IA)
Agreed
Agreed (although for CSAR/SAR roles I think the HH-60G Pavehawk is ideal)
Do not agree and lol- you and your love for the EC-FTH @sancho!

IA is simply not equipped to handle them; either by material resources, operating systems or even training. So, why make the confusion worse confounding?

Sir, I am talking about long-term ie 10-15 years down the road. I agree entirely that the IA's AAC of today is in no way ready to take delivery of and operate the LCH,AH-64E, CH-47F,LUH,ALH, ALH WSI all in the next few years. The AAC needs to grow itself and get a stronger base for which to build on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
The duties you have given aren't military missions sir and every hour they are engaged in such roles they aren't supporting the military for which they were bought and are operated and owned by.

Of course they are, support building infrastructure in the northern areas is a key for an effective defence against China, disaster relief or MEDIVAC missions are totally normal for military aircrafts as well and supporting ISRO is at least a government agency, that also helps the forces, so it is important and has it's return as well. For India this cargo and transport capability is still very crucial, since many areas are not reachable by road or train and will be even more important in war times, when airstrips might be destroyed or damaged. One reason I wanted a capable heavy lift helicopter, not a compromise.


When it comes to the CH-47F, this bird is much better (IMHO) being operated by the IA to support troops, transport arty pieces (M777), support SFs, transport supplies to FOBs etc

Hehe, you still don't get over the Boeing PR isn't it? Again, what the Ch47 is in US army, is the Mi 17 for Indian forces, troop, jeep, cargo, or M777 transport, all that can and will be done by the robust and cost-effective Russian helicopter in large numbers. That's why IA needs Mi 17s and not 15 x CH 47, but why these fit in IAF better, to support heavy transport operations.


Agreed (somewhat, the IAF can have a few LUH and ALH but majority should be given to the IA)
Agreed
Agreed (although for CSAR/SAR roles I think the HH-60G Pavehawk is ideal)
Do not agree and lol- you and your love for the EC-FTH @sancho!

All forces will need LUH and Dhruv class helicopters, for basic utility roles and the V22 is far better in the CSAR role than the HH-60, because it can play out it's stong points in this role perfectly. It's not love for the EC-FTH, but a logical approach to our requirements, since it combines all the advantages of a Mi 26 and a Ch 47 together. So when we can be a partner of such a new aircraft, why should we decide between one of these old once? That simply doesn't make sense and shows that the heavy lift competition lacked foresight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Hehe, you still don't get over the Boeing PR isn't it? Again, what the Ch47 is in US army, is the Mi 17 for Indian forces, troop, jeep, cargo, or M777 transport, all that can and will be done by the robust and cost-effective Russian helicopter in large numbers. That's why IA needs Mi 17s and not 15 x CH 47, but why these fit in IAF better, to support heavy transport operations.

Could be, but what ever way you cut it the MI-17--CH-47 comparison is unfair to both sides.


Of course they are, support building infrastructure in the northern areas is a key for an effective defence against China, disaster relief or MEDIVAC missions are totally normal for military aircrafts as well and supporting ISRO is at least a government agency, that also helps the forces, so it is important and has it's return as well. For India this cargo and transport capability is still very crucial, since many areas are not reachable by road or train and will be even more important in war times, when airstrips might be destroyed or damaged. One reason I wanted a capable heavy lift helicopter, not a compromise.


Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/29550-indian-army-news-discussions-69.html#ixzz2RxnAzHsP

And again I think a purchase by PAWANS HANS ( a govt owned entity) for 4-6+ MI-26T2s would be far more beneficial to India as a whole than either the IAF getting new MI-26s or their CH-47s being seconded by any tom dick and harry to carry out any random duty they saw fit. That way India still has assess to these beasts when needing that raw power and heavy-lift capability and there isn't a drain on the IAF's resources or operational capabilities.


In the same way Govts (including the GoI) hire AN-224s for certain transport duties but don't have AN-224s in their own AFs.


The MI-26s are simply to specialised and "solo-role" to be any good to a modern military for military roles.



And yes I agree the EC-FTH is an area India should look into now. But I think it is fair enough the IAF went for Chinooks for now as there is a pressing need for a replacement to the aged MI-26s that are in service (barely) today.



The IAF chose pennies today over pounds tomorrow. In the same way they ruled out the CH-53K as it is many years away from being anywhere near operationally ready.
 
.
Could be, but what ever way you cut it the MI-17--CH-47 comparison is unfair to both sides.

On paper, but what matters is, the reality and here we have a medium to heavy class helicopter, while US A uses a heavy class helicopter for the same roles. That's why I said, don't look at other forces, since they have different requirements and aims. For us the Mi 17 is much more suitable, with heavy class helicopters only in the lift role, much similar to the mix of USMC, with V22s and CH53s.

In the same way Govts (including the GoI) hire AN-224s for certain transport duties but don't have AN-224s in their own AFs.

For specific transports, but heavy lift helicopter transports are not rare in India, especially as in the mentioned roles, the correct counterpart would be the C17s that IAF has bought, mainly for strategtic heavy transports to long distances, while MTA will be our workhorse, similar to the Mi 17 and both including tactical roles.

The MI-26s are simply to specialised and "solo-role" to be any good to a modern military for military roles.

If that would be true, why is there such a huge market for CH53s? The same base design and just a bit smaller, operated by various countries in different forces. You can argue that the Mi 26 is too big, but then again the EC-FTH is not! :smokin:

But I think it is fair enough the IAF went for Chinooks for now as there is a pressing need for a replacement to the aged MI-26s that are in service (barely) today.

No it's not, because they didn't even considered any future option, not even the CH 53K, that would be available earlier and that is a major mistake in planning. Also if there would be an urgend need, why would you go for a completely new type of helicopter, that needs time for induction and set of of training and logistics, instead of simply doing what you have suggested otherwise as well, simply leasing some new Mi 26-T2s for some years, which could be directly inducted without any delay and no compromises in the operational use, like it will be the case with the CH 47?
I would have fully supported this way, if that would be the short to medium term solution, with CH 53K or EC-FTH as the long term one, but the way IAF did it now, is simply the worst possible way of all!
 
.
Sir, I am talking about long-term ie 10-15 years down the road. I agree entirely that the IA's AAC of today is in no way ready to take delivery of and operate the LCH,AH-64E, CH-47F,LUH,ALH, ALH WSI all in the next few years. The AAC needs to grow itself and get a stronger base for which to build on.

Of course; that is the way forward and chances are that it will even happen inevitably, which will not even give us a chance to debate it then! Though my sneaky feeling is that even the Army has not thought beyond Medium-Lift Helicopters.
 
.
Though my sneaky feeling is that even the Army has not thought beyond Medium-Lift Helicopters.

I think you're right- the IA is focused on Attack helos and other things right now and the Medium-lift helo battle is quite a bit down the road.
 
.
India Prepares For Another Chinese Victory

May 7, 2013:

The recent (April 15th) Chinese incursion inside Indian Kashmir has reminded Indian military leaders that despite over five years of brave talk and bold plans, not much has actually been accomplished to rectify the shortage of access to the Indian side of the border. It was this lack of access that played a key role in the last border war with China (in 1962) which saw better prepared and supplied Chinese forces wearing down their brave but ill-supplied Indian opponents. Indians are waking up to the fact that a repeat of their 1962 defeat is in the making.

Over the last five years India has ordered roads built so that troops can reach the Chinese border in sufficient strength to stop a Chinese invasion. The roads have, for the most part, not been built. The problem is the Indian bureaucracy and its inability to get anything done quickly or even on time. The military procurement bureaucracy is the best, or worst, example of this. The military procurement bureaucracy takes decades to develop and produce locally made gear and often never delivers. Buying foreign equipment is almost as bad, with corruption and indecisiveness delaying and sometimes halting selection and purchase of needed items.

Despite the bureaucracy, some progress has been made. Three years ago India quietly built and put into service an airfield for transports in the north (Uttarakhand), near their border with China. While the airfield can also be used to bring in urgently needed supplies for local civilians during those months when snow blocks the few roads, it is mainly there for military purposes, in case China invades again. Uttarakhand is near Kashmir and a 38,000 square kilometer chunk of land that China seized after a brief war with India in 1962. This airfield and several similar projects along the Chinese border are all about growing fears of continued Chinese claims on Indian territory. India is alarmed at increasing strident Chinese insistence that it owns northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. This has led to an increased movement of Indian military forces to that remote area.

India has discovered that a buildup in these remote areas is easier said than done. Without new roads nothing else really makes much difference. Airfields require fuel and other supplies to be more than just another place where an aircraft can land (and not take off if it needs refueling). Moreover, the Indians found that they were far behind Chinese efforts. When they took a closer look three years ago, Indian staff officers discovered that China had improved its road network along most of their 4,000 kilometer common border. Indian military planners calculated that, as a result of this network, Chinese military units could move 400 kilometers a day on hard surfaced roads, while Indian units could only move half as fast, while suffering more vehicle damage because of the many unpaved roads. Moreover, China had more roads right up to the border. Building more roads on the Indian side will take years, once the bureaucratic problems are overcome (which often takes a decade). The roads are essential to support Indian plans to build more airfields near the border and stationing modern fighters there. Military planners found, once the terrain was surveyed and calculations completed, that it would take a lot more time because of the need to build maintenance facilities, roads to move in fuel and supplies, and housing for military families.

All these border disputes have been around for centuries but became more immediate when India and China fought a short war, up in these mountains, in 1962. The Indians lost and are determined not to lose a rematch. But so far, the Indians have been falling farther behind China. This situation developed because India, decades ago, decided that one way to deal with a Chinese invasion was to make it difficult for them to move forward. Thus, for decades, the Indians built few roads on their side of the border. But that also made it more difficult for Indian forces to get into the disputed areas. This strategy suited the Indian inability to actually build roads in these sparsely inhabited areas.

The source of the current border tension goes back a century and heated up when China resumed its control over Tibet in the 1950s. From the end of the Chinese empire in 1912 up until 1949 Tibet had been independent. But when the communists took over China in 1949, they sought to reassert control over their "lost province" of Tibet. This began slowly, but once all of Tibet was under Chinese control in 1959, China once again had a border with India and there was immediately a disagreement about exactly where the border should be. That’s because, in 1914, the newly independent government of Tibet worked out a border (the McMahon line) with the British (who controlled India). China considers this border agreement illegal and wants 90,000 square kilometers back. India refused, especially since this would mean losing much of the state of Arunachal Pradesh in northeastern India and some bits elsewhere in the area.

Putting more roads into places like Arunachal Pradesh (83,000 square kilometers and only a million people) and Uttarakhand (53,566 square kilometers and ten million people) will improve the economy, as well as military capabilities. This will be true of most of the border area. For decades local civilians along these borders have been asking for more roads and economic development but were turned down because of the now discredited Indian strategy.

All the roads won't change the fact that most of the border is mountains, the highest mountains (the Himalayas) in the world. So no matter how much you prepare for war, no one is going very far, very fast, when you have to deal with these mountains. As the Indians discovered, the Chinese persevered anyway and built roads and railroads anyway and now India has to quickly respond in kind or face a repeat of their 1962 defeat.

Despite the lack of roads, India has moved several infantry divisions, several squadrons of Su-30 fighters, and six of the first eight squadrons of its new Akash air defense missile systems as close to the Chinese border as their existing road network will allow. Most of these initially went into Assam, just south of Arunachal Pradesh, until the road network is built up sufficiently to allow bases to be maintained closer to the border. It may be a decade or more before those roads are built, meaning China can seize Arunachal Pradesh anytime it wants and there’s not much India can do to stop it.

Undeterred by that the Indian Army has asked for $3.5 billion in order to create three more brigades (two infantry and one armored) to defend the Chinese border. Actually, this new force is in addition to the new mountain corps (of 80,000 troops) nearing approval (at a cost of $11.5 billion). The mountain corps is to be complete in four years. The three proposed brigades would be ready in 4-5 years. By the end of the decade India will have spent nearly five billion dollars on new roads, rail lines, and air fields near the 4,057 kilometer long Chinese border. Spending the money is not the same as actually getting the roads and railroads actually built.

All this is another example of the old saying that amateurs (and politicians) talk tactics, while professionals talk logistics. China realized this first and has built 58,000 kilometers of roads to the Indian border, along with five airbases and several rail lines. Thus, China can move thirty divisions to the border, which is three times more than India can get to its side of the frontier.
 
. .
And now the circus of breast-beating, jumping, hooting and posturing hyper-patriots will troop in, proclaiming from the tree-tops (where else) that logistics does not matter, the brave Indian Army will prevail whatever happens.

Sick lot of retards.

if it makes you feel any better, same on this side of the border...
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom