Indian Military Aviation

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 21 Jan 2011 17:09

IAF Theme for Republic Day Tableaux to Showcase Network Centric Operations 28 Aircraft Flypast of Fighter, Transport and Helicopters over Rajpath

The Indian Air Force Tableau for this year’s Republic Day Parade will showcase our endavour to uphold age-old military values while transforming into a modern, competent and capable force.

IAF APPEAL TO CITIZENS OF DELHI
In view of the flypast at heights varying from 60 to 500 metres and the associated flight safety concerns posed by birds, the IAF appeals to all citizens of Delhi and its neighbourhood to keep their areas clean and avoid throwing eatables, garbage, dead animals or carcasses in the open in all the days leading upto 26 January.

Responsible citizens are also requested to alert the nearest Air Force Unit or Police Station and report instances of carcasses found in the open. The vulnerable areas that come in the route include Palam, Najafgarh drains, Tihar Jail, War Cemetery and areas adjoin Rashtrapati Bhavan.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 21 Jan 2011 18:16

^^^ Did they see the incident below before deciding to showcase?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01 ... gle+Reader

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 21 Jan 2011 20:30

Finally

Indian Army Eyes Larger Aviation Corps

Indian Army Eyes Larger Aviation Corps
Jan 20, 2011
By Asia-Pacific Staff

The Indian army wants to expand its aviation corps and has asked the government to give it full control over all tactical air assets in the battlefield, including transport, observation and attack flights.

The request sets up a potentially explosive roles and missions battle with the Indian air force, which administers both the country’s Attack Helicopter squadrons and most Tactical Lift Helicopter squadrons. But army officials feel their Tactical Flexibility is encumbered by this arrangement and are once again appealing to the government to change the balance of power.

If the army has its way, the fleet is likely to see the introduction of more helicopters across the board, as well as fixed-wing assets.

“The coming decade will see the first time that the army operates Anti-Armor and Infantry Support Helicopters, so far exclusively the domain of the air force,” says an aviation corps officer currently deployed on an Alouette-II flight in Leh, the world’s highest airfield. “The thought process is simple,” he adds, “Tactical Battlefield Assets need to be under the Army’s Operational Command. It makes Fighting the War more Efficient.”

Even without the larger mandate, the army has a long aviation modernization agenda.

Army planners are close to finalizing a staff requirement for tactical fixed-wing transport, an effort that could be announced shortly. What is not certain is whether that process will yield to a procurement, since efforts in the past by the army to field such an asset have been blocked. However, army sources say that the case is stronger this time, with statistics showing that even the air force’s transport fleet is stretched, especially in the Northern and Eastern theaters.

Indications are that the army will look at light transports of the Dornier Do-228 class, license built by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) at its Kanpur facility. Sources indicated, however, that the army could look at larger aircraft as well.

More near term, the service plans to begin replacing its fleet of around 160 license-built Alouette IIs and IIIs with the winner of the ongoing competition for a light reconnaissance and surveillance helicopter. The army is currently in the final stretch of an exercise to choose between Eurocopter’s militarized AS550C3 Fennec and the Russian Kamov Ka-226.

The army will also receive an unconfirmed number of Helicopters from HAL’s Concept Light Utility Helicopter Program. The Army has asked HAL to Concurrently Develop an Armed Version.

The Service also is due to receive 150 indigenously developed Dhruv helicopters, a Substantial Number of which will be the Weaponized Dhruv-WSI currently in trials. The Army is Putting Pressure on HAL to Accelerate the Fielding of That Version.

Furthermore, the army may become the second customer for HAL’s Light Combat Helicopter (LCH), also in testing. The air force is the lead customer, and HAL officials have been reluctant to discuss the army’s potential interest owing to the interservice rivalry. Indian army sources suggest, however, that the aviation corps will induct 25-30 of the rotorcraft starting around 2013-14.

A Second Prototype of the LCH has Joined the Flight-Test Program, and will be on display at the Aero India 2011 air show and defense exhibition outside Bengalaru.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jan 2011 20:37

> The Army is Putting Pressure on HAL to Accelerate the Fielding of That Version.

good. we need WSI dhruv to be done in startup mode. its a vital force multiplier. times are desperate and elegance is not needed, just make it work and be rugged (like WW2 planes went from drawings to production inside of one year...desperate times call for tough measures). Helina also needs to be in delivery vs science proj mode.

IA could maybe ignore the Do228 (too small payload) and instead run with the basic C-130J cargo version...get around 50 for a good strong start. C27 is a cheaper option. IAF could also procure another 50 to tide over the shortages.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Jan 2011 20:39

>> Indications are that the army will look at light transports of the Dornier Do-228 class, license built by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) at its Kanpur facility. Sources indicated, however, that the army could look at larger aircraft as well.

bad idea IMO, duplication of support infra for the same type in two forces will only drive up costs.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jan 2011 20:47

It will leave the IAF to concentrate on flying 4G ++ aircraft in exercises with other air forces!

abrahavt · Post by **abrahavt** » 21 Jan 2011 21:22

You forgot the 3 legged Cheetahs

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Jan 2011 23:06

It seems IA wants to have it all. They got the strategic missiles instead of the IAF. Now they want the tactical "airforce" as well. Where does it stop? Instead of improving the joint coordination (purchases and employment), IA is looking at more wastage when it doesn't even have money to fully modernize its forces (infantry, armor, artillery).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jan 2011 23:26

They are getting ready to fight.

No more excuses.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 22 Jan 2011 00:34

Juggi G wrote:Finally

Indian Army Eyes Larger Aviation Corps
Indian Army Eyes Larger Aviation Corps
Jan 20, 2011
By Asia-Pacific Staff

The Indian army wants to expand its aviation corps and has asked the government to give it full control over all tactical air assets in the battlefield, including transport, observation and attack flights.

If the army has its way, the fleet is likely to see the introduction of more helicopters across the board, as well as fixed-wing assets.
.

Army planners are close to finalizing a staff requirement for tactical fixed-wing transport, an effort that could be announced shortly. What is not certain is whether that process will yield to a procurement, since efforts in the past by the army to field such an asset have been blocked. However, army sources say that the case is stronger this time, with statistics showing that even the air force’s transport fleet is stretched, especially in the Northern and Eastern theaters.

Indications are that the army will look at light transports of the Dornier Do-228 class, license built by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) at its Kanpur facility. Sources indicated, however, that the army could look at larger aircraft as well.

About time...
Although limit the aircrafts for tactical transportation only to supplement the Air Force's fleet.
The Spartan should fit well into this role, considering the commonality between it and the Super Hercules recently procured.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Jan 2011 00:40

IAF to get dedicated communication satellite this year

...
"We are going to soon get a dedicated satellite for communications... Satellites are common to all three services but under network centric issues, they are primarily for addressing communications," Assistant Chief of Air Staff Air Vice Marshal M Matheswaran said here.

He was responding to queries about plans to get a dedicated satellite for communications to achieve network centricity in the IAF.

As per the Defence Ministry's plans, the first dedicated military satellite would be launched by the middle of this year and would be followed by one satellite each every year till the end of the decade, sources said.
...
...
He said the IAF has already started working on networks such as the Integrated Air Command and Control System ( IACCS )) and the AFNET which will form the backbone of a network enabled IAF.

..

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Jan 2011 01:10

Bala Vignesh wrote:
Juggi G wrote:Finally

Indian Army Eyes Larger Aviation Corps
About time...
Although limit the aircrafts for tactical transportation only to supplement the Air Force's fleet.
The Spartan should fit well into this role, considering the commonality between it and the Super Hercules recently procured.

What they need is a Joint Tactical Command (JTC) - IAF provides the aerial assets (including helicopters, combat aircrafts, transport planes, pilots, technicians, facilities) while the IA has the authority over its deployment & usage. This JTC should be fully integrated with the AFNET and Army NET and have specialized integrated command centre and staff for effective coordination across all theatre.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 22 Jan 2011 01:12

Srai Sir,
If you don't mind, could you please elaborate???

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Jan 2011 01:26

Bala Vignesh wrote:Srai Sir,
If you don't mind, could you please elaborate???

All about being more resource efficient. Why duplicate the aerial infrastructure across IA and IAF? For example, both IA and IAF will need to have their own flying academies, own sets of personnel (pilots, technicians) and duplicate sets of other infrastructures (storage, parts supplies, weapons, etc). There is inefficiency in the procurement of assets and operations as well.

It would be more efficient if the two services can better coordinate each other's needs and create a structure for jointness to achieve the desired execution. IMO, a better investment would be to spend that money to create a permanent Joint Tactical Command (JTC) type of command with the necessary infrastructure and personnel for effective use of the given resources. This type of synergy is lacking and would not be solved by duplicating the aerial infrastructure.

anjan · Post by **anjan** » 22 Jan 2011 01:50

srai wrote:It seems IA wants to have it all. They got the strategic missiles instead of the IAF. Now they want the tactical "airforce" as well. Where does it stop? Instead of improving the joint coordination (purchases and employment), IA is looking at more wastage when it doesn't even have money to fully modernize its forces (infantry, armor, artillery).

Tactical airforces tend to be with Armys in the case of lots of nations. To a large extent I think it makes sense. The pilots are more likely to understand the exigencies of Army ops. I'm slightly apprehensive about whether the broader Army really 'gets' flying (As in the risks it involves) as a culture but a larger aviation corps would presumably aid in this.

While in an ideal world you can reduce duplication completely it doesn't always work well in the real world. The Navy experience of going it alone has been a lot better than the Army's current approach of joint control( for eg with the Mi-35). The ultimate expression of this reduction in duplication being the Canadian forces integration, which from what I've heard, was a massive disappointment.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jan 2011 01:53

Using that argument jointness was stymied successfully for over 40 years. There is no opposition to CDS from IN. Its the IAF and babudom that prevents this vital position. Now that economy can stand so much scam, that argument of guns vs butter is lost. Its guns and butter vs political scams.

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Jan 2011 03:04

ramana wrote:Using that argument jointness was stymied successfully for over 40 years. There is no opposition to CDS from IN. Its the IAF and babudom that prevents this vital position. Now that economy can stand so much scam, that argument of guns vs butter is lost. Its guns and butter vs political scams.

Yes. That is what has happened. Recent trends suggest forces are moving more towards jointness. For example, UK's JOINT HELICOPTER COMMAND (JHC) .

The Joint Helicopter Command was formed in 1999 to bring together under one command the Battlefield Helicopters and Air Assault Force Elements of the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force. The JHC operates 239 Forward Fleet aircraft including the Sea King and Lynx helicopters of the Royal Navy's Commando Helicopter Force; the Chinook, Puma and Merlin helicopters of the Royal Air Force and the Apache, Lynx, Gazelle and Bell 212 helicopters and the Islander fixed wing aircraft of the Army Air Corps.

The JHC is unique within the Defence Organisation, by remaining agile, interoperable, sustainable, resilient and affordable it will continue to be a vital element of the UK’s warfighting capability. Combining all 3 services has shown that jointery works, the JHC formula preserves single-service ethos and pride, whilst capitalising on the strengths of each service. The JHC has cultivated a challenging and inquisitive culture, which embraces self development and thrives on strong and intelligent leadership.
...

Code: Select all

JHC Key Facts
-------------------
 * Formed in December 1999.
 * Operates Battlefield helicopters and Air Assault Forces from all 3 Services.
 * 239 Forward Fleet of aircraft .
 * 15,000 personnel from all 3 Services and MOD civilian staff.
 * Preserves the single-Service ethos and pride whilst capitalising on the strengths of each service.
 * Has proved that jointery works.
 * Now considered to be a vital element of the UK's warfighting capability.
 * Led by strong and intelligent leadership

anjan · Post by **anjan** » 22 Jan 2011 06:54

srai wrote: Yes. That is what has happened. Recent trends suggest forces are moving more towards jointness. For example, UK's JOINT HELICOPTER COMMAND (JHC) .

If I quoted the Canadian Army website it would say similar upbeat positive things. In fact it does. Speaking to Canadian officers presents a drastically different picture however. I have no knowledge about this particular case but I suspect it is driven by the specific circumstances of drastic cut in numbers for the forces in the UK. I'll withhold judgement until we can actually hear from someone who's affected by this project. The UK also had a Joint Harrier Force. Do you suggest the Indian Navy strike assets too are subordinated to the AF structure? If not, why not?

No one is questioning joint ops. Nor am I questioning the value of reducing redundancy. In Depots and station workshops for one. There are however limits to it. In the end each service has its priorities. You can't have one service operate it, another command it and not expect conflicts in wartime. Not long ago there were a bunch of articles on the doctrinal differences between the Army and the AF on employment of aircraft for CAS. What do you expect a AF pilot on an AF bird but reporting to the Army operationally to do?

Since we're pointing at examples, I might as well argue that the US Military has attack helicopters and tactical transport helicopters organized with the Army and the Marines with the USAF operating rotary wings primarily for SAR.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jan 2011 08:07

imo we need more redundancy not less - a system with strong and redundant logisitical tail going back to base depots will take blows in wartime but adjust and show resiliency far better than these new fangled 'smart' , 'green' and 'lean manned' stuff they keep peddling. it was for a good reason ships carried extra hands for wartime watches and damage control...but now they claim a 6000t warship can be run with 20 geeks sitting on computer panels...good luck crawling out of the hole after the 1st ASM hits.

people are obsessed with the tip of the spear (teeth), its a strong shaft that provides the control and range for the javelin throw

the kind of 'strike' forces we want to unleash deep and hard on the enemy needs very strong 'american style' ground and air logistics.

imho ,fatter, more well lubricated and longer the shaft, the deeper we shall er penetrate

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jan 2011 08:12

In 2001 I reviwed a paper for BRM on on the subject of a joint chiefs of defence staff

The review is linked below but you have to scroll down

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... nandv.html

Vinod Anand, Management of Defence: Towards An Integrated And Joint Vision, Strategic Analysis, February 2001 Vol. XXIV No. 11, pp 1973-1987.

This paper deals with the questions of appointing a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and integrating the Service Headquarters with the MOD, so that defence decisions are made by designated qualified professionals, and there is a clear decision making structure from the proper civil authority to the military with little or no duplication of work. It is a very detailed account of the state of defence decision making in India and a must read for all concerned Indians, not just those in the upper echelons of government.

It is ironic that in 10 years Mr Arun Singh has submitted two reports recommending reforms - the latest being his report of the Task Force on Defence Management (TFDM). The old report was ignored and there is every risk that the latest recommendations may go the same route.

The paper may be broadly divided into 4 parts: 1) What is wrong with the Indian Defence decision-making setup today?, 2) Why and how reforms are being opposed, 3) The US and UK models and 4) What role is intended for the Indian CDS and integrated MOD.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jan 2011 09:19

Folks, for timepass I did a Google for underpowered aircraft and of course found the usual self flagellating articles. But along with that I found a few other refs to underpowered aircrfat:

Among these are:

F-18
F-35
Jaguar: The Jag of course (for India) has become even more underpowered over the years I am told.

An interesting random forum post I found about he JSF is:

the current config for the A and C has a lower (max loaded) combat radius than the F-16 and the F-35B while faster then a GR9 Harrier is also less capable, carries less ordinance and has less range.

Other unrelated titbits that I found are:
F-22 does not have interchangeable parts. They are custom built for each aircrfat - liek HF-24 and other unstandardized Indian aircraft.

F-22 combat radius=790 km

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jan 2011 11:24

>F-22 does not have interchangeable parts. They are custom built for each aircraft

why is that?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Jan 2011 11:46

As far the IA and having a fleet of the helicopters of various types is concerned, it is about time that IA gets hold of Attack helicopters.

For a simple reason that attack helicopters are all set to proliferate in IA service and you cannot have IAF manning the Heavy gunships while part of LCH fleet and WSI Dhruv are with IA. In addition, with the IA planning to raise air assault brigade, which will require integral helicopter assets (across various types), it is important that IA commands these assets. For it is not only about helicopters but also about using such a formation in battle and IA commanders need to understand the idiosyncracies of using helicopters.

On the fixed wing a/c front, couple of a/c for communication flight are OK but not duplication of efforts like squadrons of C-130 or XYZ.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jan 2011 12:16

even for the utility comms role - IA probably needs atleast 30-40 a/c - Do228/C27/IAI legacy/EMB....

IA helicopter SOAR should also be formed to match the MC-130 acquisition...a mix of Dhruv & Mi17 equipped for low level night flying and long range navigation over hostile terrain....FLIR pod, extra fuel tanks, more protection systems, door gunners ... the usual kit. WSI Dhruv and finally LCH when it comes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jan 2011 13:00

Singha wrote:>F-22 does not have interchangeable parts. They are custom built for each aircraft

why is that?

I don't know, but I suspect the reason is the same as the Indian reason. Each aircraft is handbuilt and parts are shaped/moulded into place for the individual aircraft

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 22 Jan 2011 13:06

Attack helicopters all over the world are found in army aviation. The US has clearly shown the advantages of army/marines controlling attack helo flights.
One would think that an airforce so uptight on what actually constitutes a "4G aircraft" and paying 35 big ones for FGFAs wouldn't even condescend to sneer on rotary aviation of that kind.

the famous "22" will probably be block III apaches acquired for "air to air" roles and the ability to control UAVs.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 22 Jan 2011 13:10

Singha wrote:
>F-22 does not have interchangeable parts. They are custom built for each aircraft

why is that?

I don't know, but I suspect the reason is the same as the Indian reason. Each aircraft is handbuilt and parts are shaped/moulded into place for the individual aircraft
Singha wrote:>F-22 does not have interchangeable parts. They are custom built for each aircraft

why is that?

I don't know, but I suspect the reason is the same as the Indian reason. Each aircraft is handbuilt and parts are shaped/moulded into place for the individual aircraft

that issue is being seriously looked at now. with crossbreeding being the new mantra. take a look.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12 ... -fighters/

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jan 2011 13:39

Attack helicopters all over the world are found in army aviation.

there are major exceptions like israeli AF, RuAF etc.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 22 Jan 2011 14:21

agreed. but at the end of the day sub-optimal.

In the case of Israel it led to the public spat over CAS between the ground forces and the air force after the 2006 lebanon invasion. The airforce was typically hunting for rockets while the ground forces didn't get enough support.

In fact the IDF-variety is probably the kind of "integration" and "jointness" the AF wants.

RuAF etc.

Yes. But in the good old days of the Red Army and TEVDs, the Soviet Army used to fly tons and tons of Hinds(Mi-24s). They didn't need to b*tch about CAS shall we say.

Also the reason for this arrangement in the Ru Army and even with IDF right now is money.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jan 2011 15:10

actually I agree wholeheartedly that attack choppers and even transport helo's should be with AAC with AF retaining only those required for CSAR, SF and possibly VIP flight. but I strongly disagree about army getting fixed wing aircraft like transports. what's next ? IAF asking for its own army for airborne ops and a navy to protect downed pilots ?
this type of demand leads to a situation where every force has its own air force (and army and navy) as is the case in US and this is inherently wasteful and inefficient.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jan 2011 15:32

Indian Air Force to get a satellite by mid 2011

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 22 Jan 2011 16:24

i don't follow the logic of IA wanting to operate transports - except for helicopters
what surely works better is more 'jointness' in operations between the relevant units?

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 22 Jan 2011 16:24

srai wrote: All about being more resource efficient. Why duplicate the aerial infrastructure across IA and IAF? For example, both IA and IAF will need to have their own flying academies, own sets of personnel (pilots, technicians) and duplicate sets of other infrastructures (storage, parts supplies, weapons, etc). There is inefficiency in the procurement of assets and operations as well.

It would be more efficient if the two services can better coordinate each other's needs and create a structure for jointness to achieve the desired execution. IMO, a better investment would be to spend that money to create a permanent Joint Tactical Command (JTC) type of command with the necessary infrastructure and personnel for effective use of the given resources. This type of synergy is lacking and would not be solved by duplicating the aerial infrastructure.

Sir, there is no need to duplicate the required infrastructure... I am addressing the concerns raised by you in a point wise manner..

1. Academies: There have been precedences where the academies were shared by all forces. For eg, the Garuds trained with Army Para SF, NSG and the like. The same can be carried out over here too. The initial training can be provided at IMA or OTA and the advanced training can be provided by the Air Force Academies, considering its the smartest choice. This will also lead to better coordination since the training and the protocol will be uniform.
2. Personel and Equipment: The AAC has its own personal and its own equipments in any which ways so where is the point in taking them as duplication of effort. It has to happen either which ways.
3. Logistics: This can also be solved by using existing AF logistics where the Army does not have any or vice versa.

Sir, let me make it clear that i am not against a Joint Tactical Command. It is, i believe, neccessary for enhancing effectiveness of both the forces. But lets not cut the wings of the army for the sake of it. JMO.

Rahul M wrote:actually I agree wholeheartedly that attack choppers and even transport helo's should be with AAC with AF retaining only those required for CSAR, SF and possibly VIP flight. but I strongly disagree about army getting fixed wing aircraft like transports. what's next ? IAF asking for its own army for airborne ops and a navy to protect downed pilots ?
this type of demand leads to a situation where every force has its own air force (and army and navy) as is the case in US and this is inherently wasteful and inefficient.

Well Rahul sir, I believe that the force structure for the AAC and Air Force should be similar to the ideal skillsets distribution in various level of management, as in the below image.

Sorry for the long winded post. And all the points mentioned above are JMVHO.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jan 2011 16:53

>>Well Rahul sir, I believe that the force structure for the AAC and Air Force should be similar to the ideal skillsets distribution in various level of management, as in the below image.

the question you haven't answered is why you believe so.

p.s. kindly drop the sir.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 22 Jan 2011 17:05

Rahul M wrote:>>Well Rahul sir, I believe that the force structure for the AAC and Air Force should be similar to the ideal skillsets distribution in various level of management, as in the below image.

the question you haven't answered is why you believe so.

p.s. kindly drop the sir.

Well Dada,
its simply because we need the numbers and the flexibility this kind of setup provides...
In this type of situation the army does not need to depend entirely on the air force for transporting equipments and man power within a theatre, freeing the Airforce birds for carrying out inter theater transportation in case of a transport fleet.
In fighters, it frees majority, if not all, of the AF assets to concenterate on interidiction of the enemy logistics and taking out the enemy's Air infrastructure. The CAS role can be handled on the most part by their own flights.
With the situation that we face, the threat axis are on two different directions, along both North-South and West-East. So apart from the flexibility, the immediate advantage is the number that we'll have on our hands to handle a situation effectively and efficiently.
JMO
Oh BTW, nice numbers in the total post count-8899

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jan 2011 17:50

I have cobbled together this info.

HAL’s Light Utility Helicopter

arya · Post by **arya** » 23 Jan 2011 22:59

Capability Enhancement for Indian Air Force Jaguar Fleet with MBDA ASRAAMs
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4964

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 24 Jan 2011 05:51

^^ Thats a French Jaguar straight out of the Wiki page.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jan 2011 05:55

^^^^

True. India has not acquired the missiles yet. Or have they?

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Jan 2011 06:31

Bala Vignesh wrote:
srai wrote: All about being more resource efficient. Why duplicate the aerial infrastructure across IA and IAF? For example, both IA and IAF will need to have their own flying academies, own sets of personnel (pilots, technicians) and duplicate sets of other infrastructures (storage, parts supplies, weapons, etc). There is inefficiency in the procurement of assets and operations as well.

It would be more efficient if the two services can better coordinate each other's needs and create a structure for jointness to achieve the desired execution. IMO, a better investment would be to spend that money to create a permanent Joint Tactical Command (JTC) type of command with the necessary infrastructure and personnel for effective use of the given resources. This type of synergy is lacking and would not be solved by duplicating the aerial infrastructure.
Sir, there is no need to duplicate the required infrastructure... I am addressing the concerns raised by you in a point wise manner..

1. Academies: There have been precedences where the academies were shared by all forces. For eg, the Garuds trained with Army Para SF, NSG and the like. The same can be carried out over here too. The initial training can be provided at IMA or OTA and the advanced training can be provided by the Air Force Academies, considering its the smartest choice. This will also lead to better coordination since the training and the protocol will be uniform.
2. Personel and Equipment: The AAC has its own personal and its own equipments in any which ways so where is the point in taking them as duplication of effort. It has to happen either which ways.
3. Logistics: This can also be solved by using existing AF logistics where the Army does not have any or vice versa.

Sir, let me make it clear that i am not against a Joint Tactical Command. It is, i believe, neccessary for enhancing effectiveness of both the forces. But lets not cut the wings of the army for the sake of it. JMO.

...

What you are suggesting is similar to the UK's Joint Helicopter Command. They share facilities to reduce duplication.

Wondering how much of the current setup is being used both by the IAF helicopter fleet and the IA's AAC?