Sir,
My self respect is not dependent on insulting others for its existence.
He is entitled to his opinions,point of views like everyone else .We all have our different perceptions, we can debate,explain ,agree or disagree(respectfully).
I feel a combination of small,medium and large smarter drones would be more favourable in attack.
Is a strange co incidence that the most abusive members are also the least knowledge on defence matters and make the majority of their posts in forums on culture, religion, etc...
Drones are indeed the direction in which the more advance military's are moving.
As I said, we don't want to be like Finns who are begging for sovereignty from Russia and NATO . keep that lack of self respect to yourself
This would be the same Russia which Finland had three, or more depending on how you count them, wars with last century and the same NATO which Finland has never been a part of? Read a book and spend less time here.
As long as Indian army has no history of supporting Nazis like the Finns or engaging in genocide of aborigines like in Australia it can never be at par with Finland and Australia. Right
@apple @jouni ?
Provide evidence of the Australian Army being involved in the "genocide of aborigines in Australia" or that there ever even was a genocide. Read a book
What? Defending against Nazis and Soviets in that snow-filled hell.
Try reading up on the Burma campaign.
Sure, I have a great deal of respect for all service personnel and the British Indian army did a lot of good work in WW2, and at other times.
Holy shit. Somebody tell that to the US Marine Corps. Silly fanboys buying brand new Vipers. Or to the US Army. How many Apaches do they have? 800? So Indian....
Wait...............no. Its just you are a delusional idiot.
They have the pilots, the mechanics, the weapons and the bases/ carriers set up for attack helicopters. It makes sense for them to continue their use in large numbers and they were still pretty useful in Afghanistan.
Yet, Apaches and Cobras have been working in all the theatres for such a long time with full success with only few losses. How could that be?
I said, or more accurately "translated" some one else's opinion, that they were excellent uptil the mid 90's
What other light AA system is even closer to MANPAD? I don't know any, do you?
Hmm... what else could I mean??? How about what has shot down the majority of helicopters in combat i.e. small arms fire and AAA, in particular heavy MG's
A weapon system is not procured for not using in fear of losing it, but for the gain it could get despite the risk. Do you think the modern day Anti-armour systems are any less lethal? So we should stop buying tanks and IFVs too, is that so?
Personally, I think India wastes a huge amount of money on all those tanks you'll never be using, but how is that relevant?
Yes, they are so, if they get to deal with the helos when the other side's fighters have either all fallen or had abandoned the helos. If MKIs are providing cover for the helos, I don't know what asshat would go for low flying ground hugging helos knowing full well the MKIs gonna blow their ass off if they don't get their arguments done with MKIs before.
You didn't get what I meant by "gotten more effective than they were". I meant what the words mean, which you suddenly seem to understand in your next paragraph.
Even a bloody aircraft career is more vulnerable today than it was a decade ago. Haven't seen anybody arguing to scrap them? A wise leader learns the difficulty and devices ways to skirt around the vulnerability, assessing the risk and opportunity together. What do you think, anytime the Pakistani tank column moves, the apaches and LCHs are gonna be ordered to take out those without any areal cover by the fighters and without a plan how to nutralise or evade the short range AA systems including MANPAD?
Aircraft carriers have also increased their survivability, which is problematic for rotary winged aircraft. Also, carriers can not be substituted with any alternative
No, not yet. The UAVs to take the roles of a assault helu has not come to be in service with any armed forces, unless it is a top secret one. Helicopters' ability to hover and ability to eliminate slow moving or stationery targets with pinpoint accuracy, its abilty to operate from any terrain and ability to operate with minimal support- are still not available with any of the UAVs that has come to service in any of the nations. Not even close, forget the kevel of abilities a AH64E has.
By assault helicopter presume you mean something like the Apache/ Cobra. They'd already been, largely replaced by drones in Afghanistan. The helicopters had become, basically a flying truck to deliver a hellfire missile when their wasn't a UAV available.
Know, for example, the Australian army didn't like operating with Dutch Apaches in Afghanistan as the Dutch refused to fly low enough to use their chain gun (which is the whole point of attack helicopters) as it was too dangerous down low and they (this wasn't the helicopters fault) had stupidly restrictive rules about firing Hellfires/ other missiles. Our guys preferred fast air/ a drone from a non hippy country to provide close air support.
As the first few posters on this thread, who seemed to actually know something about this subject, the Indian army will probably use their Apaches for reconnaissance and as UAV controllers
Matter of seconds?!!! How?
Do you think any military power that will come to attack Finland or its neighbours, will bring the helos in the play without blowing the AA systems away first, and without taking precaution for the safety of the helos?
You misunderstood what I said, I was talking about Finnish helicopters. Although yes, I was implying the enemies helicopters too.
Any war between Finland and Russia would at best, from the Finnish perspective, see Russia aircraft making sure no Finnish plane gets any were near it's force. A hypothetical Finnish attack helicopter crew would, I'm entirely positive, have an average life expectancy of under a minute if they flew a mission any where near Russian ground forces.[/QUOTE]
Yes, MANPADs are a great threat. But, they are not as numerous as you might have been made to think or assuredly destructive as you have been made to believe. Of course the airforces which are planning to use them knows the danger the MANPADs present, that is why every attack helo is equipped with ECM, chaffs, flares to defeat the missiles.
When pressed into battle, some of the helos may be lost, but if the possible exchange of the tasks carried out by those and other helos is worth it, the risk is always acceptable. That is how battle works. Not all the soldier that goes to fight, comes back.
Not all UAV's return to base. Glad for Indian soldiers sake that you're just another of this forum's Chairbourne Warriors.
.
yeah, Aussies viping out the aborigines of Australia is not genocide at all.
