Apache attack choppers to be with the IAF: Browne

[Agent_47]

New Delhi: Against the backdrop of Army's plans to seek transfer of attack helicopters from the IAF, Air Force Chief NAK Browne on Sunday said the soon-to-be-procured Apache choppers from the US would remain with it as it was an ongoing acquisition.

"The Apaches are going to be with us only as it is an ongoing acquisition process," Air Chief Marshal Browne told PTI on the sidelines of a 1971 war anniversary function here.

He was asked to clarify whether the Apaches being procured from the US would be with the IAF or the Army.

Browne said the Apaches are not just for taking out enemy tanks or for air-to-ground operations but they can be used for multiple tasks such as taking out enemy radar stations and for air-to-air missions.

Recently, the Army had said that it was planning to send a proposal to the Defence Ministry for seeking transfer of attack helicopters from the Air Force at the earliest.

Sources said the Army had also suggested that the proposal would also include transfer of the Apache helicopters which are being procured.

The IAF and the Army in the recent past have been involved in a battle of sorts for controlling the attack helicopter fleet and the Defence Ministry has decided in favour of the Army.

The Army already has an aviation wing but Defence Minister A K Antony has approved a long-pending demand of the 1.3 million-strong force for attack helicopters, overruling stiff opposition from the Air Force.

The sanction has made it clear that all "future" procurements of such helicopters would be for the Army. The Army had been demanding attack helicopters, saying these are mainly used for operations by it.

The IAF had been strongly resisting it, with Browne saying the country cannot afford to have "small air forces". The IAF is in final stages of completing the acquisition process of 22 Apache choppers from the US after the American machine edged out the Russian Mi-28 Havoc in the tender.

PTI

Apache attack choppers to be with the IAF: Browne

 

[madooxno9]

I have somehow still not understood why can't MOD just let Army have their own fleet of Attack copters ? Even though we have now new joint command and information center but still 30+ new battle proven attack helicopters will only give an edge to army and hopefully save a lot of time during any conflict.

 

[INDIAISM]

And what will they do with Apache Totte udayenge....Come on man its our Strike
Corps that need Apache's more not IAF...
Its high time MoD should step in and tell
IAF and IA that who is the boss....You can't
Keep washing your dirty lenin infront of media...

 

[Abingdonboy]

So the AAC is going to procure their own Apaches? There is too many conflicting reports but I guess you've Volta believe this report as it is straight from the horse's mouth!

 

[Dandpatta]

Somehow I am getting this impression about IAF that whatever it sees "airborne", they will claim 'IT IS OURS' to fly.
They need to understand that the attack choppers are a hell-fire platform that is needed by and for ground support missions (infantry based). This whole attitude of 'if it has wings and rotors, it is for IAF and not for Army' is something needs to be corrected.

 

[janon]

If true, this is a horrible duplication of capabilities that cannot be justified by the two reasons that the IAF chief has given. There are many other ways to take out radar installations - fixed wing jets and missiles would be far more quicker and effective. Just because the US chose to use the apache for one strike during the gulf war doesn't mean that IAF should own a fleet of uber expensive apaches for that. And air to air - is he seriously suggesting that as a reason for holding on to the apaches? By what percent is the IAF's air to air combat capability going to be increased by apache helicopters? Even a mig-21 is several times more capable in that regard. An air force that has 700+ (and set to increase) fixed wing jets shouldn't use that excuse for owning and maintaining one of the most (if not the most) expensive combat choppers in the world.

 

[sancho]

If true, this is a horrible duplication of capabilities that cannot be justified by the two reasons that the IAF chief has given. There are many other ways to take out radar installations - fixed wing jets and missiles would be far more quicker and effective.

Not only that, but if such a situation happens and combat helicopters are needed, IA could do it with Apaches the same way as IAF would do it, so there is no need for Apaches in IAF anymore if IA takes over fire support anyway. He is just trying to find reasons why the Apaches should remain under IAF, the sad thing for him might be, that IAF even gets them, since the competition was done by them, but then MoD diverts them to IA.

 

[OrionHunter]

The LCH and Rudra attack helicopter units will be part of the Army Aviation Corps and will form the main punch of the maneuver force commander and operate in support of ground forces both in the plains and mountains.

The Apache Longbow will be part of the IAF.

Light Combat Helicopter (LCH)

Dhruv ALH

Dhruv (Rudra) Attack version

All the above choppers would be part of the Army Aviation Corps. The Apache would be with the Air Force as of now.

Apache 64D Longbow multi-mission combat helicopter.

 

[Dandpatta]

Anyone with military background having worked in IA operations that involved IAF - could you please confirm (Even PA/PAF members can help shed some light on this query) :-

1) How much time does / would it take for a request by IA units on ground to call in IAF support (say Longbow platform or other gunship platforms) ?
2) Is there an approval required at higher commands for calling in IAF gunship platforms - BY IA Army units on ground ?
3) IF such an approval IS required (just a guess), would not decision making and actual real time requirements conflict the basis of support? (in plain speak, compensation of target due to 'approval' if there is)
4) How much of arsenal logistics (missiles) is in commonality between IA and IAF . Suppose if an IA unit wants an airborne rotary based platform but calls in IAF for help, what are the chances of the nearest IAF base having the exact type of missiles that can help the IA eliminate the type of target the missiles are intended for?

Mind you - I am a person WITHOUT military background, therefore knee jerk answers as "your questions are stupid", are to be avoided. Kindly reply without trolling

Peace
Dandpatta

 

[jaiind]

i feel pity on IA, because some times they need to act independently in certain conflicts.MOD is completely biased on IAF decision.
if IA had some of these attack helos. they will act very swiftly,and reduce the dependency on the IAF.

 

[Badbadman]

I think all this Helos are need to be with army. As of they will provide air support to ground troops and tank columns. Don't see any use for these machines with IAF.

 

[third eye]

Anyone with military background having worked in IA operations that involved IAF - could you please confirm (Even PA/PAF members can help shed some light on this query) :-

1) How much time does / would it take for a request by IA units on ground to call in IAF support (say Longbow platform or other gunship platforms) ?

The request would take not more than 5 minutes or less to reach where its supposed to reach
2) Is there an approval required at higher commands for calling in IAF gunship platforms - BY IA Army units on ground ?
Yes, this is to ensure scarce resources are not used to engage targets which are within reach of other tools / means of engagement. Also, certain coordination is needed before such resources reach the Tactical Battle area. Lastly, in hot combat situations all forward troops feel that the entire weight of the enemy is on them & their need is the most. Sane decision making is need to sift the numerous requirements that invariably will come.

3) IF such an approval IS required (just a guess), would not decision making and actual real time requirements conflict the basis of support? (in plain speak, compensation of target due to 'approval' if there is).

A certain delay is inevitable but remember these resources are force multipliers and not the primary means of engagement. The battle is constantly read by people along the chain of command. Even before the call for such resources is made , sometimes they are propositioned.


4) How much of arsenal logistics (missiles) is in commonality between IA and IAF . Suppose if an IA unit wants an airborne rotary based platform but calls in IAF for help, what are the chances of the nearest IAF base having the exact type of missiles that can help the IA eliminate the type of target the missiles are intended for?

Battle field logistics caters for such requirements.

Mind you - I am a person WITHOUT military background, therefore knee jerk answers as "your questions are stupid", are to be avoided. Kindly reply without trolling

Peace
Dandpatta

The point wise replies are above.

hope this helps.

 

[selvan33]

If true, this is a horrible duplication of capabilities that cannot be justified by the two reasons that the IAF chief has given. There are many other ways to take out radar installations - fixed wing jets and missiles would be far more quicker and effective. Just because the US chose to use the apache for one strike during the gulf war doesn't mean that IAF should own a fleet of uber expensive apaches for that. And air to air - is he seriously suggesting that as a reason for holding on to the apaches? By what percent is the IAF's air to air combat capability going to be increased by apache helicopters? Even a mig-21 is several times more capable in that regard. An air force that has 700+ (and set to increase) fixed wing jets shouldn't use that excuse for owning and maintaining one of the most (if not the most) expensive combat choppers in the world.

Dude whatever the purpose may be. but our air force also needs few attack choppers especially for escort purpose and all the other purposes. so ongoing apache deal surely for IAF only. if IA needs dedicated heavy attack chopper surely they can go for further orders of apache or new mi28. and also MoD clearly mention in its letter to army cheif that says future procurment will goes to AAC only and future HAL MLH also for army only.

 

[janon]

Dude whatever the purpose may be. but our air force also needs few attack choppers especially for escort purpose and all the other purposes. so ongoing apache deal surely for IAF only. if IA needs dedicated heavy attack chopper surely they can go for further orders of apache or new mi28. and also MoD clearly mention in its letter to army cheif that says future procurment will goes to AAC only and future HAL MLH also for army only.

Escorting what? And what other purposes?

Ground pounders like these need to BE ESCORTED by air combat capable jets, not the other way round. Jaguars are escorted by Mig 29s, not the other way round.

 

[janon]

Duplicate post.