Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 31 Oct 2014 08:47

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3882 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 ... 98  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 03:16 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14075
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
Shrinivasan wrote:
^^^ the Tribune article talks about. Weaponized Cheetah named Lancer with an integrated GUn and Rocket pod, this is the first time I am hearing this, Gurus, can some guide to me to more info on this, hope this is not DDMites. When did IA test it and induct it?

pics
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 4.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... os/Lancer/
and a small report.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 03/Lancer/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 09:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2125
Location: Lone Star State
^^^ thanks Rahul, I learnt something new today. I hope we have couple of SQ of these with the IA. Good CASEVAC as well as Flank protection!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 10:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41
Posts: 605
Shrinivasan wrote:
I think they have already ordered 57 LCHs correct?


DNA special: 114 light combat choppers to thwart any Chinese mischief


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 11:18 
Online
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6008
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
114 LCH as per reports I've read.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 11:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31
Posts: 139
65 is for the AirForce


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 11:25 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33380
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
imo name or formation is not important, but every IA corps commander (whether strike corps, pivot corps or just regular horse cavalry) should have some LCH & WSI-Dhruv directly under his operational control without needing to call up his theater commander, IAF liaison or worse Dilli(!). his formations can take care of preparing refueling & rearming sites, hides and missions for his assets.

once that is done, the IA logistical chain will naturally evolve to support organic and frequent use of gunships. decision loop being a phone call from Col/Lt Col to the corps general staff HQ, hours can be saved in the fog of war.

even a single sqdn of 10 Rudra and another of 10 WSI-Dhruv per IA corps will be a massive force multiplier in protecting units under pressure and deftly clearing strongpoints of enemy resistance with a well aimed burst or atgm from the night sky 8) penny packets is fine, we need them all over the place, not at predictable points.

IAF can probably plan to create Shakinah massed gunship Natgeo special "hunting with the cobras" type formations of AH64D and Rudra, all spit n polish, bristling with helinas and hellfires and creeping around over swift flowing himalayan rivers below the treeline.... :wink: or 15 of these wingtip to wingtip flying slowly over the Nubra valley sand dunes, raising whirls of dust .... like pack of well fed wolves falling out in a show of strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 16:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Posts: 1635
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Singhaji,
Imaging the picture that you paint here gives me goosebumps all over.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 16:49 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33380
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
here are 23 AH64A helis flying together over south korea....in a show of force for some unknown reason. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ozCw0zaQT8

just imagine this lot flying a bit lower, line abreast forming a rough 'rohan horsemen charge line' a couple kms long, with eddies of dust from the nubra sand dunes...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 16:59 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 20 Jun 2009 12:54
Posts: 60
The LAH Rudra; Its a recon option in the mountains and meant for anti terrorist ops and certainly not a force multiplier.
There is a big diff betn LAH and LCH.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 17:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Posts: 1170
Location: mumbai
Karan M wrote:
their other helicopters in the formation supporting them.
As I've explained earlier, this is practically impossible, no aviator will fly through flares launched by others and melt his airframe and if launched by others, the physical separation will be sufficient for those flares to be outside missile seeker FoV to have any effect.

Karan M wrote:
Closely spaced targets and the missile will go after whichever is in its field of view.
Now you're coming to the point, and hence the need for the flare to originate from the aircraft.

Karan M wrote:
The fact that their methods worked in terms of requiring salvos was one thing
Stingers cannot be fired in salvoes like Grad rockets. Because unless the operator gets seeker lock, the missile wont fire. Multiple operators acquiring targets at the same time gave the impression of salvoes.

Karan M wrote:
In this case, the IAF did manage to create a formation wherein the flares managed to protect the formation from the peaks beside and below the target. How they did it is best left out of the discussion but that was what managed to protect the crew till that point
Leaving it out of the discussion wont make an apocryphal story true. This is what an Mi-17 with CMDS looks like http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 0.jpg.html. The installation is just aft of the wheel support truss.

These are images of Mi-17 at Kargil. 129 HU and 152 HU participated in those initial attacks.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... rgil25.jpg
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... rgil01.jpg
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... h.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... c.jpg.html
There are exhaust diffusers but absolutely no CMDS in sight anywhere on these birds.

The simple fact is there were no CMDS and flares on those birds. If those so-called tactics and were-there CMDS were so effective, then the Mi-17 wouldnt have been discontinued from strike missions and restricted to transport missions from the day of the loss.

The MiGs were still used for strike after their losses using revised GPS assisted high/medium altitude bombing techniques.

Nick_S wrote:
Why did the Jags not work well with LGBs in Kargil?
Because the integration work on Jaguars were not complete. From the CAG report http://www.cag.gov.in/reports/defence/2 ... apter3.htm
Quote:
The CCS approved a proposal of the Air Force in May 1996 [TS - way before Kargil] for procurement of 15 laser designator pods with thermal imagery for fitment on 10 Jaguars and 5 Mirage-2000 aircraft and modification of 30 Jaguar aircraft for carrying the pods at a total cost of Rs.125 crore. The Ministry concluded a contract with foreign firm ?D? in November 1996 for procurement of 15 laser designator pods with thermal imagery at a total cost of US $ 27.11 million, equivalent to Rs.95 ( 1 US $ = Rs.35) crore to be delivered between March 1998 and February 1999 in two phases.

The flight test and certification on Jaguar aircraft, which was planned to be conducted by March 1998, was completed by the ASTE (Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment), only in December 1999[TS - long after the war], after a delay of 20 months. The delays were attributable mainly to delay in software development and change in modification scheme of the aircraft by HAL owing to mechanical problems. Similarly, certification on Mirage-2000 aircraft was also delayed by nine months[TS - but completed in time for Kargil].

Only one twin seater Jaguar aircraft had been modified by HAL, Bangalore as of May 2000 and the fleet modification of 29 Jaguars was yet to commence.[TS - I believe this bird tried, but didnt succeed because it wasnt tested and defects ironed out]

Fitment of an auto pilot on the Jaguars is mandatory for executing missions with laser designator pods. While the availability of auto pilots for Jaguar aircraft is unlikely at least before 2002, mismatch and inadequate planning have seriously undermined the fleet modification of Jaguars with laser designator pods.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 21:55 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33380
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
>> The LAH Rudra; Its a recon option in the mountains and meant for anti terrorist ops and certainly not a force multiplier.

TFTA looks are not the Rudra's strong point. but a system that is networked, has night vision, can disappear into sniper hides upto 200km away and reappear with fresh fuel , crew and weapons , can fire 4 x ATGMs and helmet controlled cannon is a force multiplier in our context...its far more powerful than armed Lancer for example....and far more survivable than a lumbering Mi17....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2011 08:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41
Posts: 605
Image

Quote:
Burke says this latest model is also the one being offered to the IAF. The aircraft has also recently demonstrated the ability to allow its pilot to control Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). “The Indian government will get the Block III Apache – all of the improvements.” In fact, the Boeing brought a prototype of the Block III to India to undergo flight trials by the IAF. “We took an aircraft – a prototype of a Block III aircraft that had all the performance enhancements on it – we took it and we flew it in India (for the trials).”




Apache ‘last man standing’ in Indian attack helo trial


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Nov 2011 10:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 Nov 2006 10:09
Posts: 169
Location: INDIA
Guided helicopter Missiles like Hellphyrrr costs around $ 68000 (35 lakhs at todays exchange rate) as per wiki.
its probably worth to use such missles agianst tanks.
They use this (on predators) to target some mujahids in some TSP vehicles :roll: expensive affair

IMO those B-8 or B-13 pods firing unguided S-8 or more powerful S-13 (it can take out tanks ) probably would be more worthwhile to carry.
Wondering if we can integrate (read allowed) those UB pods on the 64s (S-8s and S-13s are probably cheaper than TFTA equivalents)

Philip saar
As per wiki M230 gun on the 64 has an effective range of 1500 meters (30 x 113mm rounds ) ground targets and the Shipunov 2A42 on mi-28 has effective range 2500 meters :shock: (30 x 165 mm rounds) on ground tragets. how true is it? i mean the mi-28 firing those rounds at 1500 meters would almost punch 2 times that of M230 round.
Shipunov 2A42
M230 chain gun

and the marketing of 1200 rounds carrying capability of 64s are a farce as it uses the auxillary fuel tank area to accomodate that. otherwise its same 300 rounds like mi-28
From the above link on M230->
Quote:
The Apache is capable of carrying up to 1,200 rounds for the gun in a device known as the flat pack. However, utilization by the US Army of a special internal fuel tank, the Robertson IAFS (known as the Robby Tank to the crews), reduces this capacity to 300 rounds


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Nov 2011 13:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 Nov 2006 10:09
Posts: 169
Location: INDIA
pragnya wrote:
Quote:
Burke says this latest model is also the one being offered to the IAF. The aircraft has also recently demonstrated the ability to allow its pilot to control Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). “The Indian government will get the Block III Apache – all of the improvements.” In fact, the Boeing brought a prototype of the Block III to India to undergo flight trials by the IAF. “We took an aircraft – a prototype of a Block III aircraft that had all the performance enhancements on it – we took it and we flew it in India (for the trials).”



Apache ‘last man standing’ in Indian attack helo trial


UAV controlled from Apache available to us !!! 8) That would give some serious capability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2011 05:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Posts: 565
Location: Mumbai
Recent upload from Eric, Sarang over Waddington, 2008.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2011 04:33 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38452
chiragS, I wish that DRDO develops a small 125-250 lbs bomb and fits Sudarshan based LGB kits to give more punch. It will be more cost effective than those Hellfires and will be a all purpose tank, bunker killer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2011 05:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19
Posts: 1907
Vishal Jolapara,
Wonderful pic. Thanks for sharing. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2011 11:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11164
Location: India
I echo Ramanna's sentiments.It seems incredible that the ordnance factories and other PSUs meant to develop missiles and munitions for the forces have not developed a cheap cost-effective PGM using a bomb kit as is being doem worldwide,for fitment onto "dumb bombs" tuning them into cheap PGMs.There is little point in spending millions using ATGMs crushing jihadi insects by an "elephant"! Similarly,even the IN/CG require a simple short ranged ASM.guided bomb for use against small infiltrator boats,pirate skiffs.The same could also be very effective against enemy bunkers,armoured vehicles,etc.,targets of opportunity that could be dealt with at low cost.

We were supposed to be keen on acquiring Israelii "Harpy's and Harops." DEtails of these drones are here.
http://defense-update.com/products/h/harop.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2011 00:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06
Posts: 550
helis are very sensitive to unbalanced lateral loads off from the main rotor vertical axis, which could be the reason why armament load hanging from the booms is very light compared to their payload capacity

maybe one way this is compensated is by carrying EFT's on the sides of the fuselage where fuel could be pumped between tanks as and when a lateral load is expended, like a bomb is dropped from one pylon, so as to keep the center of gravity of the heli

the Mi-17 seems to come with EFTs and yet its armament payload remains at 1500kg, what gives? carrying drop tanks on the far end pylons enables better lateral payload capacity, of course the armament boom has to be wet pylon enabled


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2011 04:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06
Posts: 550
Mi-17 with EFTs

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Czech-Republic--/Mil-Mi-17-1%28Sh%29/0903549/M/

they could very well be replaced with PGMs


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2011 08:15 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33380
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
MBDA is working on a small weapon called SABER which even small UAVs could carry
test video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lERkmjvsLWQ
http://www.defence-update.net/wordpress ... _mbda.html

looks like a kind of analogue to smaller AASM...stuff that can be triple racked onto pylons of manned a/c as well for smaller targets like BAI missions against enemy columns or infra.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2011 18:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Posts: 166
Location: Mumbai
Code:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/comanches-child-the-arh70-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter-updated-02421/


Hah. We should offer them the Rudra. Exactly what they're looking for...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Dec 2011 17:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11164
Location: India
HAL's helicopter division has been developing helicopters for our uniqure requirements rather well in recent times.The Dhruv,Rudra now,LCH,Lancer and the light helos derived from the Allouette-3 design,Cheetah/Chetak and Lama ,are all good enough to be displayed at a def.expo.There is a vast market for helos,especially medium sized helos.The robust Cold War design of the MI-8/17V series is the world's best selling helo,with a huge market even for secondhand ones.It is the helicopter's equivalent to the Kilo sub.If the MOD/HAL think visionary,the full caboodle of our indigenously designed helos should be displayed at the next international ekpo,as pricewise we should be very competitive.

We now have to think beyond light helos and develop with assitance preferably a multi-purpose medium sized helo of 10t weight,that can serve aboard our existing naval warships under construction and for the other two services too.One option is to also leverage the huge order for naval helos,60+ medium 10t and more Merlin class AW-101s for carriers and larger warship.With such a large order for 10t helos which will swell to 100+ when the IA and IAF add their wants too,why not ask for TOT just as we are doing with the MMRCA? This way there will be no need for yet another type to be developed and add to the maintenance/logistic burden?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Dec 2011 20:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 794
A new version of Arididen is out. It seems to have more power than the older shakti engine.

http://www.turbomeca.com/IMG/pdf/ardide ... l_data.pdf

Compared to older shakti engines.

http://www.turbomeca.com/IMG/pdf/fiche_ ... en_1h1.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Dec 2011 23:14 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 28 Jun 2010 02:43
Posts: 54
Location: 27°42′09″N 88°08′54″E
Cybaru wrote:
A new version of Arididen is out. It seems to have more power than the older shakti engine.

http://www.turbomeca.com/IMG/pdf/ardide ... l_data.pdf

Compared to older shakti engines.

http://www.turbomeca.com/IMG/pdf/fiche_ ... en_1h1.pdf


The shakti still seems to have more continous max power than the the newer one.
I am no guru in engine parmeters , but some educated person can throw some light on the changes and their implications. As Far as I see, the major modification seems to be the power output shaft, I am pretty sure there are other smaller changes too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Dec 2011 00:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11439
Ardiden 3g power the Ka-62 which is a 6.5T class chopper , Shakti powers the ALH which is 5.5 ton class , so the higher power compensates for greater take off weight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2011 15:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Posts: 1526
Location: Gora Paki


Hmm abduls havent seen this one posted.

some interesting info on Apache onlee GD hope you like this one!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2011 20:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23255
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=17029
Great stuff. Up until now my mind had been full of the Air Force viewpoint on the issue as enunciated by Jasjit Singh is his Air Power book. But here the Army has very clearly stated its case in elegant but easy to understand language and here I support the Army viewpoint
Quote:
But the Army feels that it should have attack helicopters of its own to perform the task since the “aviation brigade is tailor-made” to move continuously with the Army formations on ground and maintain the “forward edge in the tactical battlefield area”. Currently, the Army does not have its own attack helicopters.
Attack helicopters that are being developed for the Army by the state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) are currently undergoing trials.
“Unplanned fleeting opportunities present themselves at different points in time and space, which, if not capitalised upon, lead to a standard toe to toe slugging match. The presence of aviation brigade headquarters in the tactical battlefield area negates these misses,” said a source.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 12:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Posts: 537
Location: Bangalore
Shivji, just to debate this through; will not asking AF to setup up a 'Wing' HQ (which controls and deploys the helicopters depending on Army requirements) tagged along with the tactical Army HQ (Division level??) also work?

Added later: What is AF's view or Jasjit Singh write about in his book regarding Army operating helicopters?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 18:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23255
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
KiranM wrote:
Shivji, just to debate this through; will not asking AF to setup up a 'Wing' HQ (which controls and deploys the helicopters depending on Army requirements) tagged along with the tactical Army HQ (Division level??) also work?

Added later: What is AF's view or Jasjit Singh write about in his book regarding Army operating helicopters?


Jasjit Singh basically classifies the use of air power into close air support (support to the grunt which the grunt on the ground wants to see) and attacks into the rear lines of the enemy (interdiction) where supply routes, stores and Command and Communication are disrupted. Jasjit Singh says something to the effect that given that air power assets are limited in number what the grunt wants to see will help only in a localised area, but the attacks on the enemy's rear will eventually slow down and stop the war while the battlefield interdiction will merely blunt an offensive. Singh concludes that the grunt getting hit may be a price that has to be paid in war for the "larger issue" of taking the enemy's logistics and support. This is a very very "Air Forcy" view where the Air Force, controlling all assets gets to decide where they are best employed and may not be able to provide the grunt with support in given situations.

The army's viewpoint seems to be "Balls. You guys go ahead and do your job and we are grateful for that. But let us have our own little air force of attack and support helos to support the grunt exactly when he needs support rather than calling you and finding out that you are busy elsewhere"

The Air Force has some objections to this. They are valid, I guess, but I think the army has a point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 18:32 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33380
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
given that our wars are only likely to be 2-3 weeks at best, the effect of deep strikes on enemy logistics and movement are likely to be much less than a 'proper' war of say 3-6 months .... usually both our enemies will be the one to initiate the war and they will stock up properly before igniting the fuse.

so I have to say the IAs pov makes sense in our context. and now that they are paying for it out of their own budget, all doctrinal objections should be overruled. IA are the best guys to setup FARPs and hiding places for the attack helicopters and the divisional commander being able to call up attack helis directly is a great boost for us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 19:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Posts: 1635
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Well, I believe that if this happensit will be relagated to a secondary role in the decision making loop, behind the Army.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 19:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23255
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Bala Vignesh wrote:
Well, I believe that if this happensit will be relagated to a secondary role in the decision making loop, behind the Army.


In a larger philosophical sense the "Air Force" like those of many other nations may worry about being made redundant by other parallel air forces. That is why the AF is looking now at "aerospace commands" and it may the Air force that talks of ability to knock out satellites. But I'm speculating.

There seems to be a lot of work going on to make all 3 forces "integrated". It may be the integration issues that the Air Force worries about. For example the Air Force is tasked with Air Defence and interception of intruding aircraft. Now unless they have a very clear understanding of where the Army is using its helos - the army helos can be killed by friendly fire. Of course it would be instructive to see how the US integrates is various air forces.

The other thing is bases and maintenance. Where will the army base its helos? Who will maintain them? Is the army going to have separate areas or share them with the air force. Whose jurisdiction will this come under? The navy has its own airfileds I think. What about the army?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 19:59 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33380
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
helis do not need runways to operate from. the army bases could provide open fields that heli infra can be built around. infact its better these helis be spread all over and not concentrated into a few bases given that helis have low transit speed and low range vs fighter a/c.

I look forward to Frogfoot MKIs with the IA using sdb and hellfires - have a long list of bad guys to beat up :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 20:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23255
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Singha wrote:
helis do not need runways to operate from. the army bases could provide open fields that heli infra can be built around.


Its not so much about runways as the other infrastructure - hangars, engine maintainance. Technicians, workshops and suppliers of parts - many of which have to be duplicated by the army while they already exist with the air force. the other thing is that if a half hearted job is done (open fields) - it leaves no room for expansion should the army later need a runway to operate UAVs or some such thing. So there will be some expensive duplication unless some sharing agreement is worked out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 20:17 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33380
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
this might get resolved only if we have 'theater commands' that fold in both IAF and IA in that zone. I agree that for stuff like LCH which both IA and IAF will operate, a common infra is best. if IA operates Rudra exclusively it may not matter for rudra atleast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 20:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56
Posts: 1889
Location: Nuked State of Denialistan
Methinks that the IA needs its own Heli SQs. With direct line reporting to CORPS HQ and dotted line to the IAF.

Similarly heavy duty A2G with direct line to IAF and dotted line to IA Corps requesting for blasting enemy supplies, logistics etc. behind enemy lines

Maintenance under the IAF.

Recce by satellite and IAF A/C to be shared with all three including IN

IAF for Air Superiority, DSPA of enemy's strategic assets, enemy airspace.

AAD by all depending on the theatre. IA for its assets and attacking frontlines, IN for the coasts, theatre and assets at sea, and the IAF for strategic, populated targets and CAP over airspace ruled by it, and all Military and R&D, economic and civilain assets located on our ground.

The turf rules have to be thought out logistically, and logically to give us the best edge for a win and bang for the buck. To hell with egos.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 21:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28
Posts: 291
shiv wrote:
There seems to be a lot of work going on to make all 3 forces "integrated". It may be the integration issues that the Air Force worries about. For example the Air Force is tasked with Air Defence and interception of intruding aircraft. Now unless they have a very clear understanding of where the Army is using its helos - the army helos can be killed by friendly fire. Of course it would be instructive to see how the US integrates is various air forces.


How do the army & airforce now coordinate with regards to IAF aircrafts returning from strike are not hit by IA SAM/AA system?

I think it makes sense for IA to have its own attack helo's. The IAF can infact stick to fixed wing aircrafts. Its the grunts on the ground who needs Transport Helo's for last mile connectivity, also attack helo's for quick close support. Majority of Helo assets should be owned & operated by IA. They can share infrastructure with IAF bases for the same. Fixed wing aircrafts stay with the IAF, that way they always can operate on the "strategic level". That should keep IAF happy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 21:38 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14075
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
rajan ji, IA already has its own heli sqns for about a quarter century.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 21:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56
Posts: 1889
Location: Nuked State of Denialistan
Rahul M wrote:
rajan ji, IA already has its own heli sqns for about a quarter century.


Rahulji, but not in the numbers or strength or firepower that the IA needs?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3882 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 ... 98  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avinash, Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, GopiN, MANNY K, SSharma, Victor and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group