Discussion in 'Indian Army' started by Yusuf, Apr 19, 2009.
Well sometimes LGBs are not feasible. UAVs can do a wonderful job.
But then i read one report that the British UAVs performed horridly in Iraq, so i question their use..
and what about their operational costs?
However, in Afghanistan and Pakistan border, the UAV's done effective jobs, but that was not enough to down Talibans.
I don't suppose you have a link to that report?
And heck even if they didn't perform well in Iraq (didn't work with any myself there), they have and are performing very well in Afghanistan. I know that for a fact.
Wouldn't inductance of an Air Wing which also comprises of fixed-winged aircrafts lead to sparks between the IA and IAF and create inter-services rivalry ?
well, i couldnt find the original article, but in the wikipedia post, it states operational loses.. seems they had problems with component malfuntions.
So you have worked with UAVs in afghanistan? could you furnish us with operational costs?
@SS: It might, but would that be a problem?
I didn't operate the UAV's, I worked with them. (They helped us identify possible IED's and IED teams, as well as providing other reconnaissance for our patrols).
I think it very much will.
The Armed Forces are supposed to work in co-operation, not competition.
Each needs to complement the other.
The inducting of fixed wing aircrafts in the Army Wing might bitter the relations between the Army and AF.
The motive to get the Army to have its own CAS a/cs is because of lack of synergy between the AF and the Army. The AF has to divert its assets to the Army and stop it from conducting its own operations. Also the AF might not have assets in place when required by the Army and lives and time maybe lost in the meanwhile.
There is not going to be any rivalry between the two branches as the Army will be taking care of CAS only, Air Superiority, SEAD missions will be done by the AF. Infact SEAD will be required for successful CAS ops as well.
Me a firm beleiver that army should have there own boys in air . Tactically it is very important for swift , precise attacks with less number of troops invloved .
A Very Good examples could be seen by US Army in iraq where a advance column of infantry for marines was made to assalut on group of armoured veicheles and infantry which were already taking a beating from small gunships .
Death was swift and sure for iraqis and Marines could be re deployed for new targets with minimal effort minute with less logistic re - support /repair
In Kargil we missed these small helis. Tactically Airforce lost Mi -17's due to lack of ground covert ideology which only a ground commnder would have in forsight.
Other then gunships , Special Op's require there piece of cake and more icing would be if IA has C-130J gunships dedicated to army as well. UAV"s etc etc ..
This not only share burden with airforce but remove interdependence too
Sir I agree that the army must have its own aviation wing. But what kind?...I tell that rather than investing in fixed wing aircrafts like the A 10 Thunderbolt/Warthog we rather invest in UCAVs. The cost of operating them is lesser and they are more effective. According to me an AC 130 would be an overkill. The Americans seem to be having problems with the structural components because of the heavy caliber shells causing structural damages to the aircrafts. The MTBO of the aircraft structure of the AC 130 is lower because of the stress from the Bofors in it.
UCAVs are more suited for the hunter killed role or when there is a specific intel on high value target. It's not suitable fir CAS. It cannot carry the weapons load of say an A-10 or an Apache. Besides CAS is also requires situational awareness which is better with a piloted aircraft rather than a remotely piolted one.
Yes Yusuf...agreed but can the army do it within its budget...I dont think so. The army has a long way to go in modernization. Fixed wing aircraft has a lot of uses agreed but the budget of the army cant support it.
Mate if we can afford an Apache we can afford a fixed winger like A-10, not necessarily that one, though it's the best going around
Its my understanding that the logistical support and maintainence for a fixed winger like A-10 would require considerable expansion in the IA Air Wing.
Also, before getting too wishful....AFAIK the only A-10 user is the USAF and I don't expect them to go around selling one of the best strike aircrafts ever made to any country.
A-10 would be very vulnerable to Pakistani Stingers.
Guys we are limiting ourselves to the A-10. It may be the best around, but then India can look at other options as well. The point of discussion is having dedicated CAS aircraft for the Indian Army, operated by the Army.
The only thing that can be made common between the AF and IA is the use of airstrips and maybe over the years the IA can develop its own. We have to realize that Indo-Pak wars have been Tank heavy wars. We have to take out the columns of tanks/arti and so if the Army has control over the aircrafts,it will be better off ordering a strike rather than relaying it to IAF command who will then relay it to the fighters. Lots of lives and time can be saved and also vital posts can be lost because of that.
According to me our IJTs can make very good strike aircrafts....HJT 36 in CAS role is aso nice to hear...
I think a CAS fighter requires to be a twin engine, and be able to take a lot of punishment as it will face a lot of small gun fire, AAA etc.
The IJT is a single engine aircraft, and not big enough to carry a lot of the ammo required and also take the punishment in a CAS role. Just a little skeptical about IJTs capability in a CAS role.
Separate names with a comma.