Army to get expanded avation wing soon

[Kunal Biswas]

Cost does not count vs Operational effectiveness..

And if that so, MIR-2000 couldn't drop LGB to tiger hill where Manpads infested the area..

Even a/c will be on safe height due to LBGs it causes another problem for a/c especially from SAM s/s ( bez you should be on 4-5km height to drog LGBs with prcision).

 

[Anoop Sajwan]

Manpad are uncomparable to the SAM s/s like SA-6, AKASH & other QRSAM which provide air cover for infantry & armour.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

MANPADS are not SAM ( Surface to air Missile ) ?, More like you are saying medium range SAM, In that case >>

---------------
---------------

Super tucano cannot operate in such condition so does other CAS mission Jets / Helo..

To operate in such condition one need SEAD on first place then provide CAS..

Manpad are uncomparable to the SAM s/s like SA-6, AKASH & other QRSAM which provide air cover for infantry & armour.

 

[Anoop Sajwan]

MANPADS are not SAM ( Surface to air Missile ) ?, More like you are saying medium range SAM, In that case >>

---------------
---------------

Super tucano cannot operate in such condition so does other CAS mission Jets / Helo..

To operate in such condition one need SEAD on first place then provide CAS..

As infantry move/hold it posses air defense including low level as well as high level defence by QRSAM or medium range SAM.
So if we need CAS on that situation ( which is much more like in war) we will operate heli & other plane. Unlike 1st go for SEAD & than CAS.

So we need a/c which have capability to precision attack without guided munition (although LGBs are good choice but couldnt use on such restricted environment) & sustain against heavy gnd fire.

So only 2 name come on mind at first glance these are
Su-25 frogfoot
A-10 thunder

 

[p2prada]

Close Air support does not mean that the aircraft flies low all the way.

They come to the Contact Point and are guided by the FAC/ GLO and then having identified their target they dive in and destroy and pull up to safe heights.

Given the range of AD guns, one wonders if any level is 'safe'!

Ideally, when a strike goes in, the AD environment should be made safe by santising the air and AD environment.

Close air support in ending up to be more about precision bombing and less about strafing runs today.

Anyway, there is a new 5th gen Su-25 replacement being planned in Russia.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Persistent_Close_Air_Support_(PCAS).aspx

The Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS) program will allow the joint tactical air controller the ability to rapidly engage multiple, moving and simultaneous targets within his area of responsibility. PCAS's ability to digitally task a close air support (CAS) platform to attack multiple/ simultaneous targets would clearly improve the operations of U.S. ground forces and increase speed of attack. PCAS will significantly increase CAS capabilities by developing a system that provides continuous CAS availability and lethality to the supported ground commander. PCAS will be a 'system-of-systems' approach demonstrating the ability to digitally task a CAS platform from the ground. The system will be designed to reduce collateral damage and potential fratricide to friendly forces. Enabling technologies are: manned/unmanned airborne platforms, next generation graphical user interfaces, data links, digital guidance and control, and advanced targeting and visualization tools.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada406975

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

 

[arnabmit]

Been thinking about the following 2 gunships under Indian Army Aviation Wing for close air support, air interdiction and force protection.

The costly option: AC-130U Spooky
[video=youtube_share;Cddlo-jzAI4]http://youtu.be/Cddlo-jzAI4[/video]

The cheaper, durable & unique option: A-10C Thunderbolt II (PE)

Please share your views...

 

[Sam2012]

Good for army's Cold start doctrine , but what will happen if opposition bring in their airforce to intercept the gunship ? will then IAF enter or again the blame game start Army Vs Airforce , which might lead army to ask their own air defence fighter squadron

Looks very complicated for me this IAF vs IA suituation

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Both are high-maintenance, Army air aviation budget is not much so does very few resources available to them in all three>> man, money & infrastructure..

Think based on these following points :

1. Cheap to operate ( Operational cost lesser than Light - Medium Helicopter or same )

2. Cheap to Maintain ( Maintenance cost should same or lesser than a Light - Medium Helicopter )

3. Lack of space for landing and takeoff, lesser than 200m in most mountain forward areas..

4. Ability to carry large ammunition more than a Gunship such as MI-24/LCH/AH-64 as needed for dedicated CAS

5. Tough Airframe and high preformace is needed to operate in high altitudes and to take small to medium fire arms..

Been thinking about the following 2 gunships under Indian Army Aviation Wing for close air support, air interdiction and force protection.

The costly option: AC-130U Spooky

The cheaper, durable & unique option: A-10C Thunderbolt II (PE)

Please share your views...

 

[arnabmit]

Good for army's Cold start doctrine , but what will happen if opposition bring in their airforce to intercept the gunship ? will then IAF enter or again the blame game start Army Vs Airforce , which might lead army to ask their own air defence fighter squadron

Looks very complicated for me this IAF vs IA suituation

Well... the US uses the ground troops + gunships only after Air Superiority is gained. 1st step of any conventional war is lead with Air Strikes against enemy air defense locations. So gunships are a safe bet. Imagine how easy it would have been for the Warthogs or Spooky to take out infiltrator bunkers in Kargil like scenario where the PAF cannot dispatch its air force as they didn't want the world to know that it was actually them, and not Mujahideens.

Both are high-maintenance, Army air aviation budget is not much so does very few resources available to them in all three>> man, money & infrastructure..

Think based on these following points :

1. Cheap to operate ( Operational cost lesser than Light - Medium Helicopter or same )

2. Cheap to Maintain ( Maintenance cost should same or lesser than a Light - Medium Helicopter )

3. Lack of space for landing and takeoff, lesser than 200m in most mountain forward areas..

4. Ability to carry large ammunition more than a Gunship such as MI-24/LCH/AH-64 as needed for dedicated CAS

5. Tough Airframe and high preformace is needed to operate in high altitudes and to take small to medium fire arms..

1 & 2. The Warthogs are significantly cheaper in initial and continued cost than the AH-64D... I'm not talking about Rudra LCH as it simply doesnt have the required firepower.

3. Both the Warthogs & Spooky features STOL even on unprepared airfields

4. Please check the motherload of ammo the Spooky can carry... also the Warthog, with 4000 rounds of 30mm cannon shells and 8 JDAMs/Anti-Tank/Air-Air missiles (6 missiles with the extended range external fuel pod configuration)

5. Spooky is out of range for most S-A guns. for missiles, it has comprehensive countermeasures. As for Warthog's ability to take fire, check this out...

even after damage like this the Warthog completed the mission, loitered for 1hr, then returned to base due to it's triple redundant flight controls and backup manual controls.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

You did not understood the first & Second point, read my post again as i have not mention about firepower in 1st & 2nd point nor the unit price..

1 & 2. The Warthogs are significantly cheaper in initial and continued cost than the AH-64D... I'm not talking about Rudra LCH as it simply doesnt have the required firepower.

 

[arnabmit]

Sorry, no info of Operational cost or Maintenance cost in the public domain.

Any other pros n cons...?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

You cannot find that in public domain..

Its simply, Fuel consumption of a 2 x turbo-jet engine and 4 x turbo prop is more than small twin turbine engine = Operational Cost.

Regarding Maintenance, It depends on size of the engine and parts in it that need to be replaced after every flight hence the cost with it = Maintenance Cost.

-------------------
-------------------

From above two, its null to go further on other points, Affordability is must..

Sorry, no info of Operational cost or Maintenance cost in the public domain.

Any other pros n cons...?

 

[arnabmit]

..........

 

[arnabmit]

In that case how about retrofitting the soon to be replaced "low & slow" capable MiG27s with Anti-tank cannons & ATGMs? They already have MANPADS/ADS countermeasures...

And how about the AC-130U which was offered to India by Lockheed? As we already operate C-130J, we wont need any separate infrastructure...

Sorry if i sound stubborn, am just an enthusiast with very little knowhow... Need to get the voices in my head quietened by experts!

You cannot find that in public domain..

Its simply, Fuel consumption of a 2 x turbo-jet engine and 4 x turbo prop is more than small twin turbine engine = Operational Cost.

Regarding Maintenance, It depends on size of the engine and parts in it that need to be replaced after every flight hence the cost with it = Maintenance Cost.

-------------------
-------------------

From above two, its null to go further on other points, Affordability is must..

 

[kshkumsin]

In that case how about retrofitting the soon to be replaced "low & slow" capable MiG27s with Anti-tank cannons & ATGMs? They already have MANPADS/ADS countermeasures...

And how about the AC-130U which was offered to India by Lockheed? As we already operate C-130J, we wont need any separate infrastructure...

Sorry if i sound stubborn, am just an enthusiast with very little knowhow... Need to get the voices in my head quietened by experts!

First of all both a 10 and ac130 are operated by USAF,when even they havent given to army aviation then why should we.Secondly army aviation is just an extension of army mostly with heli,s so any chances of it having high flying planes(such as mig27)is nil.Moreover army aviation does'nt have airfields to support these planes.Airforce still owns most of air assets and any more divulgance would surely be a disgrace fo IAF (according to me).

 

[Kunal Biswas]

All the infrastructure and crew is of IAF not IA, IAF have budget too for maintaining and flying these Jets not IA aviation ..

C-130J is offered to IAF again not IA, Both organizations have different budgets and there own infrastructures ..

In that case how about retrofitting the soon to be replaced "low & slow" capable MiG27s with Anti-tank cannons & ATGMs? They already have MANPADS/ADS countermeasures...

And how about the AC-130U which was offered to India by Lockheed? As we already operate C-130J, we wont need any separate infrastructure...

Sorry if i sound stubborn, am just an enthusiast with very little knowhow... Need to get the voices in my head quietened by experts!