Indian Army Aviation Wing

[shuvo@y2k10]

close air support fighters are very vulnerable to manpads.also,i think su-25 would be a better option since it would be cheaper and russia is a more reliable supplier when it comes to aircrafts.

 

[pmaitra]

Here is my take in the order of my preference:

• Sukhoi-25 Frogfoot
• Mil-24/35PN Krokodil/Hind
• A-10 Thunderbolt

i totally disagree that a jet can be used in maoist areas . IAF has clearly mentioned that they are only opting choppers & drones which can be used very easily

Good point. I would like to see Mi-24s for Maoist affected areas.

 

[pmaitra]

We have to keep in mind, IA needs a light weight chopper which can be mass produce in good numbers, Being indigenous is low cost when maintenance comes up, Logistics are similar to ALH as LCH share 80% what ALH have, Imports are no longer a solution to our problems..

As for Attack Aircraft IA may have at least 2-3 squadrons...

True. We need more indigenous hardware. LCH has good figures, but when if comes to pilot safety, it is not as good as the Mi-24/35.

IMHO, LCH scores over Mi-24/35 in high altitudes. Say, for anti-Maoist operations, Mi-24/35 will be more useful.

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

 

[Kunal Biswas]

but when if comes to pilot safety, it is not as good as the Mi-24/35.

Say, for anti-Maoist operations, Mi-24/35 will be more useful.

@Pmaitra,
I like to know why is that so?

 

[Tshering22]

Let's be realistic guys. No fixed wing attack aircraft will ever be inducted into the Army Aviation. Anything to do with attacking and fixed wing is IAF's job and I am sure Naik will do his last nut to pressure the MOD out of any such thoughts. The IAF as such as has a very small theatre of command compared to the Army that literally rules the upper half of Indian defence while the lower half of Indian defence sector is ruled by Navy. Hence, IAF has to share the "smaller space" with IA (this is vis-a-vis theatre of operations command only).

Granting so much autonomy to IAA will make IAF's role even smaller and "called if necessary" type. IAF will never let fixed wing attack aircraft or even more than a very few fixed wing transports ever enter Army Aviation. Dhruvs, LCH versions, a couple of transport aircraft like Saras here and there.. that's it. This is reality.

 

[pmaitra]

@Pmaitra,
I like to know why is that so?

I am sure you understand and know the armour of Mi-24/35 vis-à-vis the LCH, even better than I do.

I would expect the Mi-24/35 to successfully carry out its mission where it might have to get pretty close to the ground (like IPKF operations), and come back with the crew safe and sound. I cannot expect the same out of the LCH (correct me if I am wrong here).

You talked about similarity between ALH and LCH. Yes, they are similar (to what extent I do not know), but they are different helicopters, nonetheless.

The Mi-24/35 can perform the tasks of both. Hence, logistics or maintenance wise, this is simpler. I am sure you know that the Mi-24/35 is not really a gunship, but a combo of gunship and troop transporter. It can deploy troops, provide fire support, evacuate the troops and head back home. Most anti-Maoist operations are going on in low altitudes. Mi-24/35 will not need to perform a rolling takeoff. Moreover, it is very fast. I do not know how many people know this, but the Mi-24/35 does not fly merely by virtue of its rotors, but the wings also provide lift (efficiency in pure physical terms). LCH lacks this. Flight characteristics? I am not competent enough to say which one is better. Regarding weapons load, it is quite obvious that Mi-24/35 can carry more because it is a larger helicopter.

Several modifications are available for Mi-24/35 suited for different missions:

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I am sure you understand and know the armour of Mi-24/35 vis-à-vis the LCH, even better than I do.

I would expect the Mi-24/35 to successfully carry out its mission where it might have to get pretty close to the ground (like IPKF operations), and come back with the crew safe and sound. I cannot expect the same out of the LCH (correct me if I am wrong here).

You talked about similarity between ALH and LCH. Yes, they are similar (to what extent I do not know), but they are different helicopters, nonetheless.

I am sure you know that the Mi-24/35 is not really a gunship, but a combo of gunship and troop transporter. It can deploy troops, provide fire support, evacuate the troops

Mi-24/35 will not need to perform a rolling takeoff. Moreover, it is very fast. I do not know how many people know this, but the Mi-24/35 does not fly merely by virtue of its rotors, but the wings also provide lift (efficiency in pure physical terms).

^^LATEST VERSION HAVE ONE FOUR HARD-POINTS, INCLUDE ON MI-24 & 35..



I am not competent enough to say which one is better. Regarding weapons load, it is quite obvious that Mi-24/35 can carry more because it is a larger helicopter.

LCH is quite armored against 23mm and 12.7mm, Vital areas are protected by Kevlar which is lighter, MI-35 too armored with titanium plates but the crew cabin is not.




In IPFK operation MI-35 has a huge draw back, it cannot give fire-support for a long duration over low altitude 50m from ground, She is heavy and reaction time is low ( ON THE LONG RUN SHE IS FASTER ), which makes her tail roter vulnerable and a easy target for 50cal MG, It happen over and Over again..

MI-25 was most successful over enemy gunboats and dive bombing..

Also IA used comando not in small forces but in huge amount same as soviat SF like spetnaz and Alfa, MI-25/35 only used as a gunship, most transport work was done by MI-8..

In Indian military Aviation Gunship is kept always separate from transport, Transport unload, and gunship is for look out..




ALH & LCH share 80% of all hardware, that's include engine, fuel tanks, both roter and sub parts, the helicopter is a same as ALH just the deign is molded for Gunship purpose..

And if u compare with ALH armed version than similarities are 90%..
Also LCH is more suited to army coz Army already operate ALH..



So as per requirement, and advantages over MI-24/25/35, LCH suit better to IA..

 

[Tshering22]

The thread has little relevance as IAF has no plans to buy these and first of all, US has no plans to sell these to us. Secondly, the aerial assets unless and until in danger, will not push IAF to use them against Maoists.

Mods, please close this thread.

 

[pmaitra]

LCH is quite armored against 23mm and 12.7mm, Vital areas are protected by Kevlar which is lighter, MI-35 too armored with titanium plates but the crew cabin is not.

If I understand you correctly, the pilot and gunner (crew) are protected but the passengers (to be deployed soldiers) are not. True. Why is that a problem?

The Soviet Army deployed such tactics in Afghanistan. They would send a few Mi-24/35 helicopters to a village where they are reports of rebels' presence. They would deploy snipers around the periphery of the village, then would go and bombard the village (one helicopter after the other in circles) causing the rebels to flee while the already deployed snipers would take them out. Then the Mi-24/35 helicopters would pick up the snipers and head back.

Now, we are talking about anti-Maoist operations. Maoists are known to make rudimentary bases in the forests. Similar tactics can be employed there is well. When the helicopter is actually in combat, whether the passenger area is protected or not does not matter, because the passengers are already on the ground deployed for combat.

In IPFK operation MI-35 has a huge draw back, it cannot give fire-support for a long duration over low altitude 50m from ground, She is heavy and reaction time is low ( ON THE LONG RUN SHE IS FASTER ), which makes her tail roter vulnerable and a easy target for 50cal MG, It happen over and Over again..

MI-25 was most successful over enemy gunboats and dive bombing..

For all points: I agree or I'll take your word for it.

Also IA used comando not in small forces but in huge amount same as soviat SF like spetnaz and Alfa, MI-25/35 only used as a gunship, most transport work was done by MI-8..

The Soviet campaign in Afghanistan happened in the mountains where air density is low and Mi-24/35 has a problem taking off with passengers and weapons load. That is why Mi-24/35 rarely carried Spetsnaz, but they did carry on a few missions. The Maoist affected areas in India do not offer such high altitudes, hence we are not comparing apples to apples. Mi-24/35 can very well carry troops and do whatever I have already mentioned.

In Indian military Aviation Gunship is kept always separate from transport, Transport unload, and gunship is for look out..

I am sure the higher ups in IA know better why they are doing this. Just that, I feel using the Mi-24/35 as a pure gunship is a waste of its potential, unless such a practice is restricted to higher altitudes.

ALH & LCH share 80% of all hardware, that's include engine, fuel tanks, both roter and sub parts, the helicopter is a same as ALH just the deign is molded for Gunship purpose..

And if u compare with ALH armed version than similarities are 90%..
Also LCH is more suited to army coz Army already operate ALH..



So as per requirement, and advantages over MI-24/25/35, LCH suit better to IA..

Well, IA does not, but IAF does indeed use Mi-24/35, and we have extensive experience with this machine, which we lack with LCH. Would it be too difficult to train IA personnel with the use of Mi-24/35 by IAF personnel? I don't know how such arrangements work, and you can tell us more about it.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

If I understand you correctly, the pilot and gunner (crew) are protected but the passengers (to be deployed soldiers) are not. True. Why is that a problem?

whether the passenger area is protected or not does not matter, because the passengers are already on the ground deployed for combat.

Coz, I ( IA thinking ) want the whole chopper to be armored in that case..
What is the use of those 8 men when they are already wounded before the operation ?

I am sure the higher ups in IA know better why they are doing this. Just that, I feel using the Mi-24/35 as a pure gunship is a waste of its potential, unless such a practice is restricted to higher altitudes.

That`s the way..
Besides i told you, IA operate SF in large quantity ( Some EXCEPTION IN CT environments )

Well, IA does not, but IAF does indeed use Mi-24/35, and we have extensive experience with this machine, which we lack with LCH. Would it be too difficult to train IA personnel with the use of Mi-24/35 by IAF personnel? I don't know how such arrangements work, and you can tell us more about it.

IAF did offer IA mi-25/24/35 in past but rejected by IA, the reason is few number and huge logistical issues, training is not a problem for MI-35 or LCH Also IA aviation pilots know abt the basics feel of ALH and i am sure ALH pilots will be the one using LCH in future and training is more easy, Air-force official are always attached to IA avations units..

 

[pmaitra]

Coz, I ( IA thinking ) want the whole chopper to be armored in that case..
What is the use of those 8 men when they are already wounded before the operation ?

So this is where I still don't get the idea. Please help me out.

Why would those 8 men be already wounded? They would typically have been deployed in the periphery of the target area. I am speaking w.r.t. anti-Maoist operations.

Now, let us assume they can get wounded while they are being carried to their insertion point(s) using Mi-24/35. Is there any reason to believe that they will not get wounded if they were being transported using ALH instead of Mi-24/35?

Regarding the other things you mentioned, I agree and thanks for the clarification about IA and IAF collaboration.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Now, let us assume they can get wounded while they are being carried to their insertion point(s) using Mi-24/35. Is there any reason to believe that they will not get wounded if they were being transported using ALH instead of Mi-24/35?

First, U have to see how Maoist operate and the terrain suitable or needed for helo operations..

A helicopter is always vulnerable while unloading troopers or cargo..

Gunship is always up there for look outs and continuous on contact with all major ground and air units..

Where MI-35 is itself on ground with 8 men on board, Where ALH with 14 and MI-17 with 30 are with gunship cover..




Beside all, If u r going to put a small recon / fire-support team , why to use a MI-35 why not a ALH ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Indian Army Eyes Larger Aviation Corps

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.

"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.

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.

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.

As per the article IA air wing may consist of:

ATTACK HELICOPTER: LIGHT COMBAT HELICOPTER

TRANSPORT HELICOPTER: MI-17-V5

RECON HELICOPTER: AS550C3 Fennec / Russian Kamov Ka-226.

Transport Aircrafts: C-27J SPRATAN

Personally i feel IA should have Turbo props attack aircraft..

 

[pmaitra]

First, U have to see how Maoist operate and the terrain suitable or needed for helo operations..

A helicopter is always vulnerable while unloading troopers or cargo..

Gunship is always up there for look outs and continuous on contact with all major ground and air units..

Where MI-35 is itself on ground with 8 men on board, Where ALH with 14 and MI-17 with 30 are with gunship cover..




Beside all, If u r going to put a small recon / fire-support team , why to use a MI-35 why not a ALH ?

To me, this looks more like an issue of doctrine than LCH having an edge over Mi-24/35.

To answer your question, I wasn't talking about simply ferrying a recon/fire-support team to the insertion point. I was talking about deploying x ambush/recon teams at x insertion points by x Mi-24/35s and then these x Mi-24/35s themselves carrying out assaults on the Maoist strongholds, so that they are forced to flee and consequently get ambushed by the already deployed teams. While you have made some valid points, I am not sure if a combined group of ALHs and LCHs has an edge over a group of Mi-24/35s except in the scenario where a large number of troops are to be deployed.

Of course, any helicopter can have an edge over any other if a very specific scenario is provided, and I will concede, having a combined platform of gunship and troop-transporter may not suit certain scenarios.

Thant's how I see it, but then that's me.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

To answer your question, I wasn't talking about simply ferrying a recon/fire-support team to the insertion point. I was talking about deploying x ambush/recon teams at x insertion points by x Mi-24/35s and then these x Mi-24/35s themselves carrying out assaults on the Maoist strongholds, so that they are forced to flee and consequently get ambushed by the already deployed teams. While you have made some valid points, I am not sure if a combined group of ALHs and LCHs has an edge over a group of Mi-24/35s except in the scenario where a large number of troops are to be deployed.


Thant's how I see it, but then that's me.

Actually IA already did such operation many times over J&k with IAF, But in this case MI-8/17 were used for such role, IAF MI-17/8 use gun pods and rocket pods for fire-support..

IA use SF in large numbers ( FOR BIG OPERATIONS ) , we usually use MI-17/8 for troop ferrying role, But as IA received ALH we are using it for ferrying troops as we don't have our own medium transport helicopters here ALH provide better troop transportation than chetaks for now..

ALH used for rescue mission and for LRP units too..

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

can you please elaborate how IA use its special forces in j&k and NE as compared to allied sf in afghanistan.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

can you please elaborate how IA use its special forces in j&k and NE as compared to allied sf in afghanistan.

How i shouldn't, but we do in mass with limited fire-support..

 

[pmaitra]

Actually IA already did such operation many times over J&k with IAF, But in this case MI-8/17 were used for such role, IAF MI-17/8 use gun pods and rocket pods for fire-support..

IA use SF in large numbers ( FOR BIG OPERATIONS ) , we usually use MI-17/8 for troop ferrying role, But as IA received ALH we are using it for ferrying troops as we don't have our own medium transport helicopters here ALH provide better troop transportation than chetaks for now..

ALH used for rescue mission and for LRP units too..

Thanks for the information. Here are some photos for everyone (click to enlarge):