What's new

IAF says 'No' to Army's bid to control attack helicopters

arp2041

BANNED
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
10,406
Reaction score
-9
Country
India
Location
India
The IAF today said it has rejected Army's demand to have their own attack and medium-lift helicopters contending that the country can't afford to have these "little air forces" growing up to do their "own things".

The Army has been demanding the control over attack and medium-lift helicopters saying they are mainly used for supporting its operations and that is why should be under it.

The IAF operates two squadrons of Russian-origin Mi-35/25 attack choppers and is in the process of acquiring another one from the US in near future.

"Last year in May, when the previous Army Chief was there, the IAF had made an offer that it was willing to let them have their own attack helicopters but that was not accepted as they wanted medium-lift helicopter also for which we said no," Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne told reporters here.
He was asked about Army's demand for control over attack helicopters.

The IAF chief said the world over, there was integration between the armed forces over the use of assets though these were controlled by separate wings and that "was the way of future".

"We have no major objection except for the fact that this integration model around the world is working.... We can't have these little air forces growing and doing there own things. Tomorrow if the Coast Guard asks for submarines, will we give them submarines from the Navy," he asked.

Browne said Government of India in 1986 under Services integration rules had said medium-lift and attack helicopters would be with the IAF and that arrangement "is the one which is and will continue to remain valid."

The IAF chief said attack choppers had a dual role and were used not just for destroying tanks but also for taking down enemy aircraft, helicopters and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

He said the fleet of medium-lift helicopters including the Mi-17 choppers "is and will continue to remain under the command and control of the IAF."


IAF says 'No' to Army's bid to control attack helicopters | Business Standard
 
. .
Ḥashshāshīn;3473768 said:
Doesn't the army control the air force and navy in the first place?

Sorry?? IAF, IA, IN are three independent armed forces under the control of MOD/Defence minister of India.
 
.
I was saying exactly this in that Apache thread few weeks ago :D
IAF isn't ready to give Apache to IA
 
. .
I was saying exactly this in that Apache thread few weeks ago :D
IAF isn't ready to give Apache to IA

Anyways, IA is certainly going to get the LCH, that to double in nos. of IAF.

My question to AF is...When you can have your mini Army aka Garuds then why cant the Army have a mini AF?

Though i favor IA having it's own mini-AF, i think there should be no overlapping in capabilities b/w the IA & IAF, India is a poor nation & thus it can't afford same capabilities in it's 2 armed forces, so the capabilities should be complimentary to each other.
 
.
Anyways, IA is certainly going to get the LCH, that to double in nos. of IAF.



Though i favor IA having it's own mini-AF, i think there should be no overlapping in capabilities b/w the IA & IAF, India is a poor nation & thus it can't afford same capabilities in it's 2 armed forces, so the capabilities should be complimentary to each other.

Though i too want a mini AF for the IA and know that it can be managed by the Army well and there would be no or very rare incidents of friendly kills in a war still i dont want this to happen now reason being the IA has a long way to go before it should consider something like this..first priority should be F-INSAS and modernisation of the force.
 
. .
Though i too want a mini AF for the IA and know that it can be managed by the Army well and there would be no or very rare incidents of friendly kills in a war still i dont want this to happen now reason being the IA has a long way to go before it should consider something like this..first priority should be F-INSAS and modernisation of the force.

No, the issue is that IA has a valid argument for having a mini-AF, In a time of war, IA is the first force to enter the conflict zone, so they demand close air support for there ground troops, when they ask this to IAF, a decision can take some hours, in an era where the result of a war is decided in matter of days, few hours can be a game changer, so if combat helos can be in the hands of IA it can use it whenever it deems necessary & no need to ask for IAF's help in the initial hours of a war.
 
.
No, the issue is that IA has a valid argument for having a mini-AF, In a time of war, IA is the first force to enter the conflict zone, so they demand close air support for there ground troops, when they ask this to IAF, a decision can take some hours, in an era where the result of a war is decided in matter of days, few hours can be a game changer, so if combat helos can be in the hands of IA it can use it whenever it deems necessary & no need to ask for IAF's help in the initial hours of a war.

I understand but when we are talking about mini-AF we are not only talking about Attack helos but medium transport a/cs and hence i believe the Army should take some time before considering that.You see the budget is not sufficent.The foot soldier is still ill-equipped.Having attack helos is fine but before making it large we need to modernalise other things first.
 
.
I understand but when we are talking about mini-AF we are not only talking about Attack helos but medium transport a/cs and hence i believe the Army should take some time before considering that.You see the budget is not sufficent.The foot soldier is still ill-equipped.Having attack helos is fine but before making it large we need to modernalise other things first.

The answer to all this trouble IMO is having a Chief of Defence Staff (CODS), this can make synergy b/w armed forces possible & single man is better at taking decision than 3 Chiefs having different view points about any emergency that India faces.
 
.
The answer to all this trouble IMO is having a Chief of Defence Staff (CODS), this can make synergy b/w armed forces possible & single man is better at taking decision than 3 Chiefs having different view points about any emergency that India faces.

Ya thats true...we also need something like SOCOM.Having a CDS will solve a lot of problems and prevent friendly kills plus reduce the communication time.

I feel the Army should go for Attack helos,medium-heavy weight helos,CAS role a/c and drones..not too sure about fixed wing transporters.
 
.
It is surprising that IAF is resisting such a logical demand.

To counter the advancing or defending tank formations, one needs to understand the tank tactics used by own troops as well as the adversary. This is a ground operation and not a counter air or air support for ground operations. An air force flyer may never be able to grasp the fast moving and fluid ground operations as they are unfolding. To me it is frivolous to expect that the air force should hold such a potent weapon without knowing and experiencing such kind of operations.

In my opinion it is highly inappropriate.
 
.
It is surprising that IAF is resisting such a logical demand.

To counter the advancing or defending tank formations, one needs to understand the tank tactics used by own troops as well as the adversary. This is a ground operation and not a counter air or air support for ground operations. An air force flyer may never be able to grasp the fast moving and fluid ground operations as they are unfolding. To me it is frivolous to expect that the air force should hold such a potent weapon without knowing and experiencing such kind of operations.

In my opinion it is highly inappropriate.

Yeah..and IA Pilots in Kashmir have shown tremendous skill thanks to their experience with CI operations in the past and they are a part of every stage of the operation from planning to executing it.

I believe that AF should only be there for Air Superiority and CAS role should be given to the Army.Even the Navy has its own planes.
 
.
It is surprising that IAF is resisting such a logical demand.

To counter the advancing or defending tank formations, one needs to understand the tank tactics used by own troops as well as the adversary. This is a ground operation and not a counter air or air support for ground operations. An air force flyer may never be able to grasp the fast moving and fluid ground operations as they are unfolding. To me it is frivolous to expect that the air force should hold such a potent weapon without knowing and experiencing such kind of operations.

In my opinion it is highly inappropriate.

Yeah you are rights thats why IA is getting LCH's double the IAF will be getting.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom