Army scores major win over IAF, gets Apache gunships

[Koovie]

But y they r not using their home made helicopters...

Because we do not have any heavy attack helo.

 

[acetophenol]

Indian army has never operated attack helicopters so far. It's been the IAF that does that.

Bro,
IA operated the HAL Lancers in CI ops in NE and in Kashmir.

And just for your info,Army officers do fly with IAF in the Hinds.

 

[Robinhood Pandey]

But y they r not using their home made helicopters...

110 light combat helicopter ( HAL ) are also on order

but we do not have any indigenous heavy weight chopper. so Apaches

 

[Abingdonboy]

ARMY aviation, why does airforce need helos? I am still confused.

It's the same in the UK- the RAF operates Chinooks and Merlins (AW-101s) although the Army operates the Apaches and smaller recon helos (Gazelles) although the RAF also operated the MPAs (Nimrods) whereas in India the Navy (rightfully) operates the MPAs. It is in some ways a relic of the past when Air Forces were under the belief that everything that flies should be under their control. The IAF had even been under this impression and it had been a fight to get helos for IN ships under IN control. There is merit for having heavy lift helos like Mi-26s and CH-47s under AF hands but medium/tactical lift helos like UH-60s and Mi-17s should be in Army hands. Mindsets are certainly changing in the Indian military for the better in terms of less turf battles and more jointness and this decision for the IA to be allowed to induct heavy attack helos is a major win for them.

 

[janon]

Bro,
IA operated the HAL Lancers in CI ops in NE and in Kashmir.

And just for your info,Army officers do fly with IAF in the Hinds.

That's why I said attack helicopters. The lancer was a modification of the Lama/Cheetah, so I assumed that it is a helicopter gunship that can do multiple roles, like the Rudra or the Mi-17. Or was it a dedicated attack helicopter like the Mi-35 or LCH or Apache?

I know that army officers fly in the Hinds, but they are still IAF assets. Owned and maintained by IAF and jointly operated by army and AF personnel, or some such contrivance.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Apache helos for Air Force? Wut? It's the Army Aviation requirment.

It looks like BOTH the IA and IAF are getting Apaches at this point.

 

[acetophenol]

That's why I said attack helicopters. The lancer was a modification of the Lama/Cheetah, so I assumed that it is a helicopter gunship that can do multiple roles, like the Dhruv or the Mi-17. Or was it a dedicated attack helicopter like the Mi-35 or LCH or Apache?

I know that army officers fly in the Hinds, but they are still IAF assets. Owned and maintained by IAF and jointly operated by army and AF personnel, or some such contrivance.

-About Lancer,yes it isn't a dedicated attack helo.

-the bold part,I just wanted to convey some info.

 

[Hulk]

Confused so 22 for IAF and 39 for IA, that will be good.

 

[sancho]

Confused so 22 for IAF and 39 for IA, that will be good.

Nope, 22 according to the original IAF competition, 39 would be the total IA required, which would include the first 22 if the helicopters would be diverted. It doesn't make sense to spend so much money for these helicopters anyway, but even less to pay for 22 for IAF, although they have no use of combat helicopters anymore when IA has it's own fire support now. Rudra, LCH and maybe even diverting the Kamov 31 AEWs from IN would be the best option for IA to effectively support their battle groups as well as ground forces in high altitude areas.

 

[cloud_9]

Nope, 22 according to the original IAF competition, 39 would be the total IA required, which would include the first 22 if the helicopters would be diverted. It doesn't make sense to spend so much money for these helicopters anyway, but even less to pay for 22 for IAF, although they have no use of combat helicopters anymore when IA has it's own fire support now. Rudra, LCH and maybe even diverting the Kamov 31 AEWs from IN would be the best option for IA to effectively support their battle groups as well as ground forces in high altitude areas.

If the report is to be believed then it will be 22+39.

"The Army will get 39 Apache attack helicopters at an estimated cost of over $2.5 billion after the first tranche of 22 of these gunships, currently being negotiated with the US, is delivered to the IAF," disclosed an exultant officer at Army Headquarters.

 

[Rank]

The best close support(and anti armor) aircraft is A-10 warthog. It costs less than Apache. Cost less than Apache in operations and maintenance. Carries more ordinance than Apache. Can delver more accurate firepower on target than Apache. Has better survivability than Apache. Apache can only manage 2G turn capability. A-10 has much more G capability, so is less vulnerable to SAMs and ack-ack. A-10 has more loitering time and better co-ordination with ground support over battlefield. The only disadvantage of A-10 is, it requires a runway.

In some perspective your point is extremely valid :S! A10 technically better than ani gunship heli and do much more fire power and provide CAS and LIC!

 

[T90TankGuy]

Army scores major win over IAF, gets Apache gunships
​

The government has approved the raising of three squadrons of the iconic American-made Apache attack helicopters for the Indian Army. This marks a big win for the Army in its epic war with the Indian Air Force (IAF) for the control of helicopter gunships.

"The Army will get 39 Apache attack helicopters at an estimated cost of over $2.5 billion after the first tranche of 22 of these gunships, currently being negotiated with the US, is delivered to the IAF," disclosed an exultant officer at Army Headquarters.

All future acquisitions of attack helicopters will thereafter be for the Army, an indication that a reluctant IAF will gradually cede this role of providing close helicopter support for ground troops in combat entirely to the Army, which hopes to start getting its Apaches after 2018.

The new Apache squadrons will be integrated with three existing strike corps of the Army, which are tasked with an offensive cross-border role. "This was a long-standing service requirement for a combined Army team concept," explained the senior officer, arguing that an integrated attack helicopter element will mean better synergy with invading ground forces. Sources indicated that Apache elements will also be provided to the Mountain Strike Corps, which is in the process of being raised.

At the moment, India's Mi-35 and Mi-25 gunships are operated by the IAF under the command of the Army, which is now happier at the prospect of the Army Aviation Corps owning and flying the attack helicopters.

The Army's demand for integral attack helicopters gained currency after the Kargil War of 1999, where it clashed with the IAF in its insistence that helicopter gunships be used against Pakistani fighters entrenched on mountain tops. This even led to a stand-off between the then Chiefs of the Army and the IAF, General V.P. Malik and Air Chief Marshal A.Y. Tipnis.

The IAF's squadrons of heavy and slightly dated Mi-35 Russian-made gunships were not suited for operations at such heights as Kargil's. Under pressure from the Army, the IAF used an Mi-17 transport helicopter as a makeshift gunship against the Pakistanis, who shot it down with a Stinger missile, inflicting both a setback and ignominy on the IAF.

"The Army insisted on the use of attack helicopters. We kept asking them to tell us the task, and leave the choice of assets to be used to us," recalls Air Marshal P.S. Ahluwalia, a former commander-in-chief of the Western Air Command. The IAF believes that the Army does not understand application of air power as well as a specialist Air Force would.

Also, it will take many years for the Army to operate the gunships independently, cautions Air Marshal Ahluwalia. "It'll take some time for Army pilots to be trained in fighter tactics and survivability," he warns, shrugging that the process of training the Army in this role would have to be midwifed by the IAF. The slow-moving, low-flying attack helicopters are vulnerable to surface-to-air and air-to-air missile attacks.

The Army nibbling away at the Air Force turf has soured ties somewhat between the two forces, but observers believe that time is a healer. In the past, the IAF also strongly resisted relinquishing the maritime air role to the Navy, but today, naval aviation has matured into a potent specialist force operating everything from surveillance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft to contemporary multi-role fighters. The Navy's aviation arm has produced three chiefs in the last 25 years.

Having tasked blood with its success in wresting the attack helicopter role, the Army is now eyeing integral fixed-wing aircraft as well. Sensing further turf erosion, the IAF is reminding the Army that in the age of jointmanship and resource crunches, assets and roles must not be duplicated. The last word is yet to be said in the continuing inter-service rivalry.

Could you give me a link mate?

 

[sancho]

If the report is to be believed then it will be 22+39.

As the title says:

Army scores major win over IAF, gets Apache gunships

That would mean, even if the 22 will be delivered to IAF, according the competition, they would be diverted to IA. The 39 is only the speculated total requirement of the IA, which means 22 + 17 would be the final order.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

And just for your info,Army officers do fly with IAF in the Hinds.

Mindsets are certainly changing in the Indian military for the better in terms of less turf battles and more jointness and this decision for the IA to be allowed to induct heavy attack helos is a major win for them.

Air Marshal Ahluwalia. "It'll take some time for Army pilots to be trained in fighter tactics and survivability,"

army should aim to 'score' win against enemy and not IAF !

Can't the IAF transfer their Helicopter Pilots that operate the Army Helicopters to the Army?

 

[Yeti]

for rapid command chain deployment the army do need attack helicopters under their chain of command, these will work really well with the new battalions we raising for china.