Indian Army: News & Discussion

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 12 Oct 2011 21:39

I did not understand the PM's comment about "resources not being unlimited". The IA and IAF are basically fighting over who will control the existing and new helo assets. I don't think the IA was looking for duplication of helo assets in the AAW. That would serve no purpose. So the total number of helos planned to be bought should remain the same unless someone from the IA/IAF takes the childish view of "if they have it we should have it too".

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Oct 2011 22:18

Rahul M wrote:...
a reasonable compromise in our case would be to allot medium lift helos on semi-permanent basis to relevant brigades and divisions with complete control in army hands.

ramana wrote:...
IA needs those helis to be under control for above to occur. Those 13 studies have shown that. IAF can train and supply the pilots or IA can second its officers to the IAF helicopter schools.

That is an example of creating "Common Institutions". No need to duplicate a separate helo training facilities for the IA and the IAF along with maintenance etc. It is similar to what ACM Browne said recently on this topic:

“As per the JAAI-1986, the IAF will operate and maintain all helicopters including the light utility and attack helicopters of the Army. But the command and control will be with the Army. In the same manner, the 22 new attack helicopters will also be under the command of the Army but they will be maintained by the IAF,” Brown said.

rohitvats wrote:How is the IA supposed to have air-assualt brigade or even organic vertical lift assets with-in the proposed mountain strike corps without AAC getting hold of Mi-17 and Chinook level of assets?

According to the IAF, the command and control of the helos is with the IA. This would mean the IA can use the helos in any way they want, assign to whichever units it needs to, and position them where they need to.

atreya · Post by **atreya** » 12 Oct 2011 22:29

Another pig commander from Hizb sent to his 72s!

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/n ... 55411.html

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 12 Oct 2011 22:30

Going by that logic, the MP's can handle policing duties of the Air Force and Para(SF) teams can handle CSAR, why does the IAF want the Garuds and a separate AF Police???

I am aware that i am ranting here, but it make absolutely no sense,at least to me, to deny our army the helos which are, logically, supposed to be theirs anyway.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 12 Oct 2011 22:35

Besides the PM did make a command decision whether you like it or not. The command decision that he made was that India would not get more helicopters. He is essentially saying, "No I am not buying any more helicopters so deal with it."

Looking at the requirements of the IA, it is readily apparent that IA needs at least 1000 choppers to fully meet its full spectrum of requirements.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 12 Oct 2011 22:37

No, he didnt say that. He said "figure it out amongst yourselves". Which is no sort of leadership at all.

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Oct 2011 22:41

Bala Vignesh wrote:Going by that logic, the MP's can handle policing duties of the Air Force and Para(SF) teams can handle CSAR, why does the IAF want the Garuds and a separate AF Police???

...

IMO, Garuds came about when the IAF lost the turf battle to the IA on who controls the 2,000+Km Agni series of missiles. Basically, IA pointed out that it had the manpower (100+ soldiers) to defend the missiles in transit while the IAF didn't have that trained manpower. And so the IA got the missiles in its control even when 2,000+km Agni missiles are strategic in nature. However, now these missile regiments are under the tri-services Strategic Forces Command which means IA only operates and maintains the missiles but the command and control is with the SFC.

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Oct 2011 22:44

ASPuar wrote:No, he didnt say that. He said "figure it out amongst yourselves". Which is no sort of leadership at all.

Actually, if you read the article, PM outlined a framework on how to resolve the differences but the details he left to the services to decide on.

The prime minister has left to the two sparring services to iron out the differences.
“You are the best judges of how this can be done, but advance and long-term planning and creation of common institutions, communication networks and infrastructure are some examples of how this could be achieved,” he said.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 12 Oct 2011 23:13

This is largely just gas passed at a speech.

IAF commns are anyway largely handled by Armys corps of signals.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Oct 2011 00:26

^^^

From your postings, you seem to favor "Command" type of leadership style, which is all decisions are made from the top. However, this type of leadership style has several faults:

A leader is not an expert in all areas, as in the Prime Minister of India is not a military man to make a decision for the armed forces as to what is best for them. It is the Indian Armed Forces and its leadership that know much more better what their requirements are and how to best fulfill them. So a PM at the top making the decision for the armed forces would not necessarily be the optimal decision.
It shows the leader doesn't trust his/her subordinates to come up with a good decision. Typically, in a large organization, a leader provides the vision and decides on the strategies and targets for overall direction of the organization; he/she is not involved with the nitty-gritty details on how things are run and implemented; only on the results. Those details are left to the various sub-units within the organization to make decisions on and execute to achieve the overall targets.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 13 Oct 2011 00:28

ASPuar wrote:This is largely just gas passed at a speech.
IAF commns are anyway largely handled by Armys corps of signals.

I think IA and IAF are just going to have to Kiss and Make-up. This whole new concept of Theaterization is interesting. wonder if it would get implemented soon. I think we need to open a seperate thread to discuss this new concept.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 13 Oct 2011 01:35

Indian Army's officer training set for massive reform.

The training of Indian Army officers is set for a major change with a decision Wednesday introduce courses on national, strategic and technical aspects in the initial years the men and women of the force spend in military academies.

With this, the focus of training will transform from being structured and focused on war fighting skills to being more intellectual in content, keeping in line with the new concept of "scholar warriors".The change has been mooted by the Shimla-based Army Training Command (ARTRAC), which placed a new proposal before the commanders meet, which had begun Monday and will continue till Friday.

"The current professional development philosophy for officers was focused mainly on structured and institutionalised training, aimed at enhancing war fighting skills."The ARTRAC proposal aims at ensuring that officers gained adequate understanding of issues of national, strategic and technical importance, in their formative years, through professional military education," an Indian Army release said.

The conference also debated the major issue of maintaining equipment through its life cycle and felt the need for evolving an effective system that would comprehensively address this issue.

Much of the Indian Army's equipment has entered the obsolescence stage, with new inductions and acquisitions stagnating for decades now.For instance, India has not bought a single new artillery gun in the last 25 years since the Bofors corruption scandal broke in the late 1980s.

"On the life cycle sustainment of equipment, it was felt that there was a need for evolving an effective system that would comprehensively address equipment related issues," the release said."The aim was for the stakeholders to take a womb-to-tomb view of the equipment, right from the concept formulation stage, so that sustainment costs are lowered," the release said.

The army commanders also had an interactive session with Defence Secretary Shashi Kant Sharma on the functioning of the integrated defence headquarters and coordination between military officers and civilian bureaucrats in the defence ministry.In the next two days, the conference will debate on operational and human resource matters.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 13 Oct 2011 01:45

Hope Gen VKS stays on and the restructuring achieves the necessary momentum and get a life of its own after his departure

Aaryan · Post by **Aaryan** » 13 Oct 2011 12:05

I accept wrong pic.. Sorry

nitinr · Post by **nitinr** » 13 Oct 2011 12:20

^^
wrong thread and wrong picture..
Do they even remotely look Indian??
Sikkim had EARTHQUAKE not FLOODS..

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 13 Oct 2011 12:32

Aaryan wrote:http://imageshack.us/content_round.php? ... ad&newlp=1

Tried but was not able to post the pic so the URL is here.. Army personal helping in sikkim..

PS: If this is in wrong thread, please move it to right one.

I swear, the PLA must be

with the response this image is getting.. IA must acknowledge their mastery of the Psy ops and for once follow and learn from them..

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 13 Oct 2011 13:17

Bala Vignesh wrote: I swear, the PLA must be with the response this image is getting.. IA must acknowledge their mastery of the Psy ops and for once follow and learn from them..

Boss, what are you saying? PLA must be in tears!! They broke their backs making this pic, and IA has totally stolen all the credit!

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 13 Oct 2011 13:25

ASPuarji,
That is an angle I did not see..

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 13 Oct 2011 15:31

ASPuar wrote:This is stupid. Every army in the world has an air wing. So should the Indian army. The air force should build strategic air assets, instead of wasting time and money on light recon and transport helicopters.

Whats even stupider is the PM's typical dud reaction. Instead of taking a decision like a PM is supposed to, he has said "sort it out amongst yourselves". What is this nonsense? Is this how government is run?

Atleast in this, it was the best possible reaction (IMHO). Any other decision directing one or the other party would have caused significant heartburns.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Oct 2011 18:13

srai wrote: According to the IAF, the command and control of the helos is with the IA. This would mean the IA can use the helos in any way they want, assign to whichever units it needs to, and position them where they need to.

Well, that is the only issue. Please answer the following:

1. Who decides on the force level of attack and support helicopters? For example, if the IA wants a mix of heavy and light attack helicopter for each of the Corps, will IAF go out and buy the same for them? Similarly, if the IA wants to raise an air assualt brigade, will it need to check with IAF first on existing and planned induction of helicopter assets? Why are we ordering piddling number of CH-47? Why not more? I'm sure IA can do with more of these beasts. So, does the dog wags the tail or is it other way around?

2. Who pays for these assets? If these are IAF assets, who takes care of Capex and Opex? What about the budget for additional assets? If the money is coming out of IAF's pocket, will it ever allot multiple billions for increase in helicopter assets?

Well, unless one can answer the above, all is not crystal clear.

Another thing - it will be better for cohesion between formations working with heptrs if the same are manned by AAC guys. There will be no us versus them scenarios.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 13 Oct 2011 18:30

rohitvats wrote: Well, that is the only issue. Please answer the following:

1. Who decides on the force level of attack and support helicopters? For example, if the IA wants a mix of heavy and light attack helicopter for each of the Corps, will IAF go out and buy the same for them? Similarly, if the IA wants to raise an air assualt brigade, will it need to check with IAF first on existing and planned induction of helicopter assets? Why are we ordering piddling number of CH-47? Why not more? I'm sure IA can do with more of these beasts. So, does the dog wags the tail or is it other way around?

2. Who pays for these assets? If these are IAF assets, who takes care of Capex and Opex? What about the budget for additional assets? If the money is coming out of IAF's pocket, will it ever allot multiple billions for increase in helicopter assets?

Well, unless one can answer the above, all is not crystal clear.

Another thing - it will be better for cohesion between formations working with heptrs if the same are manned by AAC guys. There will be no us versus them scenarios.

Rohit Sir,
Very succinctly put, sir.. Especially the last line. I had similar questions but couldn't put them in proper words hence kept quiet..

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Oct 2011 20:14

rohitvats wrote:
srai wrote: According to the IAF, the command and control of the helos is with the IA. This would mean the IA can use the helos in any way they want, assign to whichever units it needs to, and position them where they need to.
Well, that is the only issue. Please answer the following:

1. Who decides on the force level of attack and support helicopters? For example, if the IA wants a mix of heavy and light attack helicopter for each of the Corps, will IAF go out and buy the same for them? Similarly, if the IA wants to raise an air assualt brigade, will it need to check with IAF first on existing and planned induction of helicopter assets? Why are we ordering piddling number of CH-47? Why not more? I'm sure IA can do with more of these beasts. So, does the dog wags the tail or is it other way around?

2. Who pays for these assets? If these are IAF assets, who takes care of Capex and Opex? What about the budget for additional assets? If the money is coming out of IAF's pocket, will it ever allot multiple billions for increase in helicopter assets?

Well, unless one can answer the above, all is not crystal clear.

Another thing - it will be better for cohesion between formations working with heptrs if the same are manned by AAC guys. There will be no us versus them scenarios.

I don't see why the two services couldn't work together as a seamless whole. The solution lies with a combination of joint long-term planning, and creating joint institutions, communications and infrastructure. It's not an easy process and will take time. The real problem is with the services fighting with the mentality of "us versus them" when they should be fighting as one.

The prime minister has left to the two sparring services to iron out the differences.
“You are the best judges of how this can be done, but advance and long-term planning and creation of common institutions, communication networks and infrastructure are some examples of how this could be achieved,” he said.

Besides, talking about costs, IA has its own issues with modernization and shortages in equipment that it needs to address first.

Vipul wrote:Indian Army's officer training set for massive reform.

...

The conference also debated the major issue of maintaining equipment through its life cycle and felt the need for evolving an effective system that would comprehensively address this issue.

Much of the Indian Army's equipment has entered the obsolescence stage, with new inductions and acquisitions stagnating for decades now.For instance, India has not bought a single new artillery gun in the last 25 years since the Bofors corruption scandal broke in the late 1980s.

"On the life cycle sustainment of equipment, it was felt that there was a need for evolving an effective system that would comprehensively address equipment related issues," the release said."The aim was for the stakeholders to take a womb-to-tomb view of the equipment, right from the concept formulation stage, so that sustainment costs are lowered," the release said.

...

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 13 Oct 2011 22:13

rohitvats,

Well, that is the only issue. Please answer the following:

1. Who decides on the force level of attack and support helicopters? For example, if the IA wants a mix of heavy and light attack helicopter for each of the Corps, will IAF go out and buy the same for them? Similarly, if the IA wants to raise an air assualt brigade, will it need to check with IAF first on existing and planned induction of helicopter assets? Why are we ordering piddling number of CH-47? Why not more? I'm sure IA can do with more of these beasts. So, does the dog wags the tail or is it other way around?

So the Army is the dog and the Air Force is the tail? I think I can see why the IAF feels that IA is forcing them into second fiddle.

My understanding of these issues is limited, but I'm confused by this issue. At what level should one draw the line for "vertical integration". E.g., if airborne troops need to be airlifted (like they did in Srinagar in 1948) or paradropped or inserted (Special Ops), why is it ok to rely on the Air Force for this? Perhaps all the IL-76/AN-32/C-130 aircraft should also be assigned to Army Aviation? Also, why does the Navy (and not the Army) operate the amphibious landing ships?

2. Who pays for these assets? If these are IAF assets, who takes care of Capex and Opex? What about the budget for additional assets? If the money is coming out of IAF's pocket, will it ever allot multiple billions for increase in helicopter assets?

Well, unless one can answer the above, all is not crystal clear.

Another thing - it will be better for cohesion between formations working with heptrs if the same are manned by AAC guys. There will be no us versus them scenarios.

The issues with budgets, force levels, etc. are all valid, but these questions (to me) highlight that the forces need to plan and operate more closely. However, the given proposal will have the exact opposite effect by saying that "We will plan, procure, operate and control all the assets we require," with the corollary to the IAF being "Feel free to do whatever you think you need to do."

While the proposal may decrease the "us vs them" in the Army itself, it will greatly increase the "us vs them" between the Army and the Air Force. The next time the Army faces a Longewala-like circumstance, the Air Force may well say - "You think my job is only OCA/DCA/Strategic strike - you have your Air Arm, go deal with it."

I hope the above doesn't come across as a rant. I'm genuinely interested in knowing the Army's idea of IAF's role in tactical and transport aviation, both of which exist ultimately to support the Army.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Oct 2011 23:26

Raman wrote: So the Army is the dog and the Air Force is the tail? I think I can see why the IAF feels that IA is forcing them into second fiddle.

Well, I'm surprised that it took someone this long (after my post) to write the above response. It was written firmly with tongue-in-cheek as a figure of speech. But in this case, when the CAS says that Gunships are under the operational control of the army and that should be end of the debate, it does reek of a bit of high-handedness.

My understanding of these issues is limited, but I'm confused by this issue. At what level should one draw the line for "vertical integration". E.g., if airborne troops need to be airlifted (like they did in Srinagar in 1948) or paradropped or inserted (Special Ops), why is it ok to rely on the Air Force for this? Perhaps all the IL-76/AN-32/C-130 aircraft should also be assigned to Army Aviation? Also, why does the Navy (and not the Army) operate the amphibious landing ships?

I think we are confusing the issues. If I extend your analogy then there would be no aircraft careers and naval air arm. The Mig-29K would have joined air force and F/A-18 on american CBG would have been from USAF.

But the reason(s) which make sense for IN to have Naval Air Arm and fly the TU-142 and soon to be inducted P-8I, are the very same reason(s) which say that IA should have organic gunships and medium to heavy helicopters. And IMO, the reason is quite simple - the assets, gunships/MI-17/P-8I/Mig-29K, are incidental to the core task(s) of the service. The core task of IN is to dominate the seas and for the IA to dominate the land battlefield. The assets in each case are a means to shape that battlefield.
The submarines, ships and air arm allow the IN to shape the sea-warfare while helicopters (gunships/transport helicopters) allow the IA to shape the land battle. That is why those gunships and transport helicopters need to be with the army - gunships give us good offensive and defensive capability while transport helicopters will give army the vertical envelopment capability. IA already has the capability to manage these assets and hence, does not need to develop anything new.

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 14 Oct 2011 01:41

rohitvats,

Thank you for your reply. (My "second fiddle" comment was also completely tongue in cheek, hence the smiley.)

I do understand your case. In fact, I may be agreeing with it so completely so as to result in reductio ad absurdum. Hence, I did not attempt to argue that MiG-29K/TU-142/P-8I should be in the Air Force because they fly, because I do understand that the "core task" of the Navy is different.

However, first, you raised the point that:

if the IA wants to raise an air assualt brigade, will it need to check with IAF first on existing and planned induction of helicopter assets?

Today, if the Army wants to raise a large number of amphibious formations, it has to co-ordinate with the Navy for the deployment/tasking of amphibious ships. So, should these ships be owned/operated by the Army?

Second, in fact, I'm trying to understand what, in the Army's view, is the "core task" of the Air Force? E.g., why doesn't SpecOps insertion using C-130J, para dropping with IL-76 or providing top-cover to an air assault brigade with fast jets also follow the "shaping the land battle"/"vertical envelopment" argument, and hence fall under control of the Army. Similarly, when M-2k bombed out the supply depot in Kargil using LGBs, they are also only doing so only for shaping the land battle.

In fact it seems to me that the Air Force, unlike the Army and Navy, has no independent "arena" to enforce a "core task": *everything* it does is for the development of the land battle (or the sea battle). All the tactical aviation missions (CAS, BAI, etc.) are obviously for this goal. Why does the Army not similarly believe that, at the very least, all the tactical strikers like MiG-27/Jaguars should also be in AAC. Why the artificial distinction between fixed-wing vs rotary-wing assets? Even OCA/DCA/Air Superiority are only fancy names that mean "don't let the enemy attack our land assets" i.e., also to further the land battle. This is the core of my confusion.

Taking this philosophy to its logical end (stated in completely rhetorical form only for the sake of this discussion, no disrespect intended): does the Army believe that an Air Force is needed - why not put all IAF assets into AAC, or Naval aviation for the maritime strike sqns?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 14 Oct 2011 09:17

A simpler distiction would be all tactical air assets could be with the army.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 14 Oct 2011 10:14

Again all tactical aircrafts will include tactical attack aircraft like the MiG27 and Jaguar.
A better distinction would be tactical helicopters, upto the Mi17 class, anything heavier goes to the Air Force. This will automatically ensure that thr Attack Helo's come to the Army.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 14 Oct 2011 10:46

MIG27 and Jag are mud movers, may be Mig but Jag can't be considered a tactical asset as it MIGHT also have a new-clear role.

sum · Post by **sum** » 14 Oct 2011 14:50

^^ Is Bharat Forge working on a howitzer?

Attended a talk today by a Bharat Forge VP ( ex-IN) who was mentioning his only job currently is the gun development...couldn't catch him later to confirm anything more on that.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Oct 2011 16:25

has there not been a shift in CAS of late? given the lethality of anti-air weapons for armoured columns, haven't most fixed wing "CAS" shifted to more stand-off attacks? and the role of real down and dirty CAS gone over almost entirely to helicopters? (which use nap of the earth flying and night attack). i would prefer to see much more arty for day-light "CAS" roles

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 14 Oct 2011 17:47

sum wrote:^^ Is Bharat Forge working on a howitzer?

Attended a talk today by a Bharat Forge VP ( ex-IN) who was mentioning his only job currently is the gun development...couldn't catch him later to confirm anything more on that.

Excellent news, army might get 155mm howitzer finally. Ajay Shukla mentioned that Bharat Forge is involved in the drdo project.

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 15 Oct 2011 03:50

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 360084.cms

Missing any reference to any heads rolling at OFB ...

But there is a yet unheard of twist to the Bofors scam, it now emerges. Sources said the blame for Army's stalled artillery modernization may lie closer home, with the government sitting on the transfer of technology that permits India to manufacture the Bofors gun in the country.

As the military top brass desperately look around for solutions to the crippling shortage of artillery guns, they stumbled upon the fact that India actually has the entire drawings of the Bofors guns, and had paid for the transfer of technology to manufacture the gun in India. But the Ordnance Factory Board sat on the drawings all these years, never attempting to make the gun in India.

A senior official, not very amused at the turn of events, told TOI that they have now asked OFB to manufacture six prototypes of the Bofors artillery guns within the next 18 months. "If we had indigenous capability, then all these years of effort to buy foreign guns and such crippling shortage in capabilities wouldn't have been there," he said.

A senior military source said the OFB has now been asked to manufacture two guns of the 155/39 mm caliber, the original make of the Bofors gun bought in the 80s. Two others would be of the same caliber but upgraded with new capabilities. The OFB has also been asked to make two guns of 155/45 mm caliber. All the six guns would be towed guns, sources said.

Once they are ready, the Army would put them through extensive field trials and once cleared, OFB could then resort to mass production, one of the officials said.

Despite repeated efforts, OFB representatives were not available for comments on the transfer of technology for Bofors. One OFB official said the board has "dedicated and fully integrated facility for manufacture of various calibers of artillery guns".

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 15 Oct 2011 05:31

So we have been sitting on blueprints for 25 years and done nothing??!! I cannot fathom how the artillery corps are not in shambles after getting no new equipment for a QUARTER OF A CENTURY. Now do you understand why there are so many dhoti shiverers on BRF Shiv garu? With monkeys like this running the show Krishna Menon looks like an effing genius.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 15 Oct 2011 07:37

^^^ The above story is a hit job by some insider, army or OFB or BAe and is very fishy. It is no secret that India had the option to license produce Bofors gun. The money was paid for TOT. The catch is India will have to pay license fee to BAe for each Bofors gun produced. Some vested interest is raking up this issue now to get older Bofors gun through backdoor.

They have woken up to the fact DRDO is developing 155mm howitzer in partnership with private Indian Firms such as Bharat Forge. If this effort succeeds BAe and OFB will be losers. Indian army's dislike for DRDO is legendary, so it may be have something to do with this. See following links.

http://business-standard.com/india/news ... ay/402834/

developing an indigenous 155-mm towed gun, with the DRDO partnering private industry giants such as Bharat Forge and Larsen & Toubro.

sum wrote:^^ Is Bharat Forge working on a howitzer?

Attended a talk today by a Bharat Forge VP ( ex-IN) who was mentioning his only job currently is the gun development...couldn't catch him later to confirm anything more on that.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 15 Oct 2011 09:01

Anything that can get private domestic firms in the defense business is fine by me.If it also puts a stake thru the heart of India's useless DPSUs especially the job factories that are the OFBs, all the better.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Oct 2011 09:24

sivab wrote:
sum wrote:^^ Is Bharat Forge working on a howitzer?

Attended a talk today by a Bharat Forge VP ( ex-IN) who was mentioning his only job currently is the gun development...couldn't catch him later to confirm anything more on that.
Excellent news, army might get 155mm howitzer finally. Ajay Shukla mentioned that Bharat Forge is involved in the drdo project.

Bliss to tell, how was Bharat Forge chosen by the DRDO to make the 155mm piece. What is the guarantee that just when the weapon reached completion, someone will nat cry about there being corruption in the selection of the pvt partner by the DRDO. With the whole process being reset to square one.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Oct 2011 09:36

WRT, the Helo discussion, would it not be appropriate to have role based organic capability for both the forces (IAF/ IA)? Depending upon the role they are expected to play

Ie. For Air Assault, all the transport helos be owned by the IA and operated by the IA and for CSAR all the helos be owned by the IAF along with the trained manpower for the mission.

Similarly all the assault helos be owned by the IA as the primary role being to provide the IA with close support the IA in its actions.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 15 Oct 2011 11:33

^^ related to bofors, I think it is a criminal act to hide nations capability and not develop guns at home when they could have done so. I smell vested interest here paying for hiding this capability in cupboard for this many years. I don't know how many more drawings of planes, missiles, guns are locked away this way to make them antique. This clearly shows crooks, corrupt, certified pure idiots or anti-national elements working within national security establishment. The worst thing is not one government thought to look back at the contract and read what had happened in the past. This is a real shame on part of procurement department. I can expect companies to not inform us that you stupids have drawings of gun because they want to sell more guns. Man these proves the fact that many many people who happen to be at right place at the right time happen to be leaders and managers. Funny world.

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Oct 2011 11:59

http://business-standard.com/india/news ... ay/402834/

The DRDO spokesperson in New Delhi, Ravi Gupta, confirmed to the Business Standard, “The DRDO is very keen to develop 155-mm guns for the army. We had formed a team to work on this more than a decade ago, but the army did not give us a firm requirement then. Now, the army has expressed interest in the 155-mm gun project and preliminary work has already begun.”

I believe that Army is trying to kill DRDO project by asking OFB to use Bofors tech. After wasting a couple of years BAe will/may be asked to step in Garb of JV

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 15 Oct 2011 12:19

ashish raval wrote:^^ related to bofors, I think it is a criminal act to hide nations capability and not develop guns at home when they could have done so. I smell vested interest here paying for hiding this capability in cupboard for this many years. I don't know how many more drawings of planes, missiles, guns are locked away this way to make them antique. This clearly shows crooks, corrupt, certified pure idiots or anti-national elements working within national security establishment. The worst thing is not one government thought to look back at the contract and read what had happened in the past. This is a real shame on part of procurement department. I can expect companies to not inform us that you stupids have drawings of gun because they want to sell more guns. Man these proves the fact that many many people who happen to be at right place at the right time happen to be leaders and managers. Funny world.

Just my 2 paise, but the import lobby should be directed to see benefits of indigenous development too. An example can be shown on effect of how well some exports of an Indian arms/defensive equipment is, etc.