Indian Army Aviation Wing

[AJSINGH]

as far as the army is concerned i believe they should stay the hell away from fixed- wing assets those are the airforce's babies however i do believe that each strike force should be attached to a robust and capable chopper escort, the modern attack helo can do a better job of providing CAS than any fixed wing aircraft(except maybe the frogfoot and the warthog). however the airforce needs to be involved in as to provide air cover for these helos.

i agree with you ,attack helicopters should be with IA,like the KA 52 ( formidable machine even features ejection seat ,first for any helicopter )

 

[F-14]

AJ are you out of your Mind shopping the KA-52 is not fit for naval ops at all its a huge craft the LCH or the Cobra can be adapted for naval ops as for the topic i belive that the AAC(Army avation crops ) should be given the status of a regiment or avation should be integrated in to the present regimental system

 

[bengalraider]

AJ are you out of your Mind shopping the KA-52 is not fit for naval ops at all its a huge craft the LCH or the Cobra can be adapted for naval ops as for the topic i belive that the AAC(Army avation crops ) should be given the status of a regiment or avation should be integrated in to the present regimental system

i think he meant to say IA but mistyped.I however do not believe that any traditional attack chopper has a role in the navy (the cobra or the LCH can and should be used in conjunction with marine operations)the navy can have specialized helos like the seahawk and seaking that are capable of launching anti-shipping missiles, a normal attack helo would be cannon fodder for ship launched SAM's.

 

[K Factor]

as far as the army is concerned i believe they should stay the hell away from fixed- wing assets those are the airforce's babies however i do believe that each strike force should be attached to a robust and capable chopper escort, the modern attack helo can do a better job of providing CAS than any fixed wing aircraft(except maybe the frogfoot and the warthog). however the airforce needs to be involved in as to provide air cover for these helos.

By your comment, if the IAF does need to get involved, whats the use of a separate air arm for IA? Without air-cover, helos would be flying ducks. So, in case of IA having its own gunships, the mission would need to be coordinated with the IAF. So I think it would be better to leave the flying to the Air Force boys. If we could eliminate IAF from the scenario, it would have been valid. Otherwise its the opposite face of the same coin.

 

[F-14]

the Plus side of the Army Aviation is to provide quick CASEVAC and fire support in Ultra Hot conditions apart from this the Army aviation corps can do the Following to

Logistic and battlefield support
Tactical transport both internally and externally, of personnel and material
Assault duties and anti-tank warfare
Search and rescue
Medical evacuation
Reconnaissance and fire support in a combined arms team
Surveillance
Liaison
Flying training
Disaster relief

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Aviation_Corps_(India)

 

[bengalraider]

By your comment, if the IAF does need to get involved, whats the use of a separate air arm for IA? Without air-cover, helos would be flying ducks. So, in case of IA having its own gunships, the mission would need to be coordinated with the IAF. So I think it would be better to leave the flying to the Air Force boys. If we could eliminate IAF from the scenario, it would have been valid. Otherwise its the opposite face of the same coin.

As far as achieveing air-superiority is concerned that is a job for the IAF, this will need constant air patrols over the frontlines whether or not choppers are in the air or boots are on the ground.The fixed wing assets shall need to focus on keeping enemy fixed wing assets away .The army choppers will need to co-ordinate with armor & infantry on the ground (from a airborne helo all tanks and men look the same).
I have talked about chopper escorts to be embedded with armored strike formations ,what this does is both increase the strike range of the armored formation(via helicopter launched anti-tank weapons) and provide rapid and real time intelligence updates to the armor(aka the kiowa warrior program).

 

[AJSINGH]

As far as achieveing air-superiority is concerned that is a job for the IAF, this will need constant air patrols over the frontlines whether or not choppers are in the air or boots are on the ground.The fixed wing assets shall need to focus on keeping enemy fixed wing assets away .The army choppers will need to co-ordinate with armor & infantry on the ground (from a airborne helo all tanks and men look the same).
I have talked about chopper escorts to be embedded with armored strike formations ,what this does is both increase the strike range of the armored formation(via helicopter launched anti-tank weapons) and provide rapid and real time intelligence updates to the armor(aka the kiowa warrior program).

true ,also the job of IAF is supression of air defense as well as destruction of enemy assest behind enemy lines also bombing of enemy position whereas the role of IA helicopters is CAS ,anti tank ,anti armour ,as well anti personal role,as well as evacuation of wounded soilders ,logistics , shot range transportation

 

[steelbird]

There is definitely a need for the army to have its own air division.In fact its high time we induct transport,support and attack helicopters in decent numbers.

I heard the rfp for the attack helicopters was canceled i view of good pace of work regarding the lch.
Any news wen lch will be ready??
IA needs gunships badly even pak has cobras!!:goodstuff:

 

[AJSINGH]

There is definitely a need for the army to have its own air division.In fact its high time we induct transport,support and attack helicopters in decent numbers.

I heard the rfp for the attack helicopters was canceled i view of good pace of work regarding the lch.
Any news wen lch will be ready??
IA needs gunships badly even pak has cobras!!:goodstuff:

HAL said that LCH will be ready by 2012 ,but obviously that deadline is too ambitious . as of now we have issued RFP for 22 attack helicopters

 

[F-14]

the present RFP is for the heavy Attack copters where as the LCH is a Light Attack Helicopter

 

[sandeepdg]

If army does consider an army unit it doesn't necessarily have to be deadly warplanes they can place transport planes and bombers and helicopters under army umbrella and leave the warplanes exclusively for IAF.

I agree.I personally think that all attack and transport helicopters in the IAF should be transferred to the IA, the IAF should concentrate only on fixed wing assets.This choppers can provide the lethal suppressive firepower required in ground assault ops as well as provide logistic support to the ground forces in difficult terrain and help with quick medical support and rescue.......

 

[sandeepdg]

already we are going to get three 5th gen fighters then why should we need jsf

The JSF or the F35 B can be a very good choice for the Indian Navy...... it will give a 5th gen aircraft capability to the navy.... which will give IN a big technological edge in Asia.....currently the the F35 B is only on offer to Japanese and South Koreans in Asia........

 

[Maverick007]

I completely agree that atleast half the helicopters in the IAF should be transferred the IA, especially the attack helicopters...........Speed is of the essence and in a potential war scenario, you wanna make quick decisions rather than be embroiled in a requests scenario

 

[AJSINGH]

The JSF or the F35 B can be a very good choice for the Indian Navy...... it will give a 5th gen aircraft capability to the navy.... which will give IN a big technological edge in Asia.....currently the the F35 B is only on offer to Japanese and South Koreans in Asia........

IN first needs an air craft carrier with catapult technology ,then only IN operate F-35 also i would like to see the naval version of PAK FAGA

 

[sandeepdg]

IN first needs an air craft carrier with catapult technology ,then only IN operate F-35 also i would like to see the naval version of PAK FAGA

F-35B is a STOVL aircraft which can takeoff from a short ski deck as well as capable of performing vertical takeoff and landing, so it doesn't require catapult equipped ACs. That's why Japan and South Korea are looking at it as the future acquisition for their LHDs

 

[Quickgun Murugan]

that is true
that is why we should not go for SV or SH

Ohh pls stop portraying SH and SV as junk. They are more than a match to IAF's MMRCA RFP's. I am confident that if either of them is a winner, they will definitely come with complete ToT irrespective of what you think.

 

[Quickgun Murugan]

The JSF or the F35 B can be a very good choice for the Indian Navy...... it will give a 5th gen aircraft capability to the navy.... which will give IN a big technological edge in Asia.....currently the the F35 B is only on offer to Japanese and South Koreans in Asia........

I do not think IN will opt for any 5th gen planes from US, when India has already invested much on the R&D of Pak-FA.

 

[AkhandBharat]

Ohh pls stop portraying SH and SV as junk. They are more than a match to IAF's MMRCA RFP's. I am confident that if either of them is a winner, they will definitely come with complete ToT irrespective of what you think.

LOL.

First, Raytheon has made it clear that it will only give limited ToT on its AESA APG radar compared to the full ToT offered by Mikoyan on its Zhuk-AE.

Moreover, here is a nice article explaining the ability of India to imbibe these technologies and improve on them. HAL has not shown any ability up until now to tech jump after it gets ToT on its licence manufacturing.

Tejas came to fruition when India was slapped with sanctions after the 98 nuclear tests. Maybe, India needs to focus its efforts on establishing a solid knowledge base and reuse, rather than going through the cycle over and over again everytime next generation products come into existence.

Transfer of technology has been a buzz phrase in India for defense acquisitions since decades. So far India has little to show for all the technology transfers and license production that have taken place.

I have heard the phrase being bandied by politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats, since my school days, nearly 40 years ago.

India has been manufacturing MiG-21 variants since the 70s. Let alone developing a new aircraft based on the MiG-21, HAL was never able to even improve the aircraft in any way - Adding a dorsal fuel tank, for example, as in the MiG-21 Bis.

India designed and developed the Marut HF-24 in the late 1960's with assistance from German designer Dr. Kurt Tank and a lot of British help. HAL could never come up with a follow up.

We license produced the Jaguar? What good did that do? Where did the technology that was transferred go?

Whether transfer of technology works or not is linked to the technology base that a country has developed.

Talk to any DRDO official and they tell you the Russian never transfer technology.

At Aero India 2009 the DRDO chief publically termed Russian TOT as a farce.

What DRDO officials mean is that the Russians don't tell us how to build their products from scratch. The question is not only - Should they be telling you how to do so? - but also - Can they effectively tell how to do - considering that we do not have a technological base matching theirs?

A large amount of metal alloys and composites goes into an aircraft. The alloys used differ from each aircraft component. The strength of the metal varies with the manufacturing process used to produce it. When transferring technology should the manufacturer tell from where to source the metal or how to manufacture it? If your country hasn't mastered the manufacturing processes what good would that do?

Recently someone referred to the possible French and Swedish readiness to part with source code for their AESA radars. (I am not aware this is true.)

While getting the source code along with the radar helps, it cannot be construed as transfer of technology.

Anyone who has worked with software knows the complexities of imbibing code.

Any code is based on thousands and thousands of lines of library code. Is the library source also being offered? Even if it is being, you will need to spend months, possibly years, to understand its flow and logic.

How generic is the code? How much generic can it be? Hardware specific code tends to be less generic to facilitate faster development and processing. Reuse of code is also limited by continuous improvements in hardware and software.

Code that took 100 person years to develop cannot be mastered within one or two months, even if you deploy 2,000 people for hacking it, assuming the cost of deploying 2,000 top notch software professionals on the project makes economic sense.

The example, is applicable to most electronic components fitted on a fighter aircraft, each of which uses software.

No transfer of technology allows you to copy manufacture. You can only license produce the quantity negotiated. So the vendors hold back a lot of data, like wind tunnel and flight testing data that would make it easy to modify the aircraft.

Broadly speaking, with a TOT agreement in place, the manufacturer will share with you just enough information to allow sourcing non critical components from the domestic market, or certain acceptable foreign markets.

If we buy the Rafale, the French are not going to teach us how to build a fifth generation version of the Rafale.

Talking about French friendliness, here is a detail that I have mentioned elsewhere on this site. When they supplied us the Durandal runway denial bombs for use on the Jaguars, they missed out on a small detail that prevented the Jaguar from dropping it.

The IAF discovered the flaw years after acquiring the bombs, when Jaguars attempted to test fire them on a target runway in Pokharan for the first time.

Pre acquisition trials were conducted in France and since the bomb was so expensive IAF waited for the life of the first lot of bombs to nearly expire before testing them. Three Jaguars unsuccessfully attempted to release the bombs in front of the Defense minister, COAS and other top officials.

There were a lot of red faces that day, not just in the squadron tasked with the trials but right up the chain of command.

The software patch, when it arrived from France, took minutes.

Oh! Did I mention the squadron tasked was flying HAL manufactured Jaguars.

 

[Quickgun Murugan]

LOL.


Moreover, here is a nice article explaining the ability of India to imbibe these technologies and improve on them. HAL has not shown any ability up until now to tech jump after it gets ToT on its licence manufacturing.

Two self-contradicting lines. I do not understand your point. What are you trying to say?

The article you quoted proves that ToT is of no help as Indians are not able to manipulate with it anyways. Is'nt it all the more reason to buy US stuff, if ToT is'nt of big concern?

 

[AkhandBharat]

Two self-contradicting lines. I do not understand your point. What are you trying to say?

The article you quoted proves that ToT is of no help as Indians are not able to manipulate with it anyways. Is'nt it all the more reason to buy US stuff, if ToT is'nt of big concern?

Thanks for pointing out the typo in my post. I meant to say:

Moreover, here is a nice article explaining the inability of India to imbibe these technologies and improve on them. HAL has not shown any ability up until now to tech jump after it gets ToT on its licence manufacturing.

My intention in posting the article was to show that HAL and other Indian defence research organizations try to get technology via ToT from the leverage India gets by flaunting its lucrative defence spending.

This doesn't work because the supplying countries try to withhold parts of the information (and rightly so because business practices dictate it) thus condemning HAL and other organizations to try to figure out the missing pieces in the last generation while these countries work on improving their designs thus designing the next generation products. I don't think it to be an optimal approach by India if it wishes to be self sufficient in designing comparable products.

Indian defence research organizations also tend to be lazy to incorporate routine improvements in design and try to jump generations of products (A case in point is the significant disconnect between the development of HF-24 and Tejas). Just take a look at the improvements on F-16 since it was first introduced. There has been so many blocks, with major and minor advancements incorporated in each block, which shows that solving problems in sizeable pieces is better and integration of advanced equipment is better if done in iterative fashion, since it will help in solving the root cause of failures by isolating the problem faster.

It could be that these organization lacked funds in the past because of the wars that India had to face, and hence India had to look outward to 'urgently purchase' equipment to preserve its territorial integrity. But that is not the case anymore. Thus, India should not look at buying products solely to get ToT. If HAL continues to worry about ToT, they will be stuck in this chicken-and-egg problem of decoding and licence manufacturing last generation products while the western world chips away at designing next generation defence products.

This is where I think buying F-16IN and F-18SH will not be a prudent choice for the Indian defence establishment, since EADS has offered India the option of joining as a partner in the Typhoon program, and Russia offering to work with India in designing the next generation radar. I understand that while even these organizations will try to keep as much from us as possible, it still is a much better option than buying a watered down version of AESA radar from Raytheon installed on F-16IN and F-18SH just to comply with the ToT requirements.