What's new

Indian Army Aviation Corps grabs Apache gunships from IAF

Robin_k

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Country
India
Location
India
Indian Army Aviation Corps grabs Apache gunships from IAF

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. 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 will 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.
 
.
Now thats something big.....:devil:
39+22=61 not bad i would say8-)

The-Apache-helciopters-ta-007.jpg
 
. . . .
The current Hinds of IAF are operated in conjuction with Army,there are Army officers who serve and fly the hinds in the IAF Squadrons.
 
.
Buying the overly expensive apache is a big mistake no matter which service it is in.

1.The wartime availability for the apache has never crossed 30% (Gulf,Kosovo,iraq,afghanistan)even for the US army which is operating it for decades,in contrast the kiowa warrior displayed 90% availability and its ease of maintenance has proven to be a life saver when compared to the apache.
2.Too many helicopters were lost,damaged or written off due to accidents and enemy action in all the wars it fought.It was because of this the apache was not used in Kosovo for frontline attack roles.
3.In comparison the A-10 was far cheaper,deadlier,more survivable,good loiter and high availability(more than 80%).
4.It is no less a failure than the cheyenne helicopter ,apachesimage has been bolstered by marketing(more like the patriot,scud fiasco).

If the services really want to save our Jawans lives they would be better off buying cheaper refurbished A-10s,ah-6,oh-58 from the USAF(coz it hates affordable,reliable,sturdy planes),US army ,instead of this complex expensive boongle doodle.The services are fighting for commissions which will come with it ,more like how USAF and army were fighting in the 1980s.
 
Last edited:
. .
Buying the overly expensive apache is a big mistake no matter which service it is in.

1.The wartime availability for the apache has never crossed 30% (Gulf,Kosovo,iraq,afghanistan)even for the US army which is operating it for decades,in contrast the kiowa warrior displayed 90% availability and its ease of maintenance has proven to be a life saver when compared to the apache.
2.Too many helicopters were lost,damaged or written off due to accidents and enemy action in all the wars it fought.It was because of this the apache was not used in Kosovo for frontline attack roles.
3.In comparison the A-10 was far cheaper,deadlier,more survivable,good loiter and high availability(more than 80%).
4.It is no less a failure than the cheyenne helicopter ,apachesimage has been bolstered by marketing(more like the patriot,scud fiasco).

If the services really want to save our Jawans lives they would be better off buying cheaper refurbished A-10s,ah-6,oh-58 from the USAF(coz it hates affordable,reliable,sturdy planes),US army ,instead of this complex expensive boongle doodle.The services are fighting for commissions which will come with it ,more like how USAF and army were fighting in the 1980s.

Not meaning to challenge your stats, but if you could provide a few references to where you got them from, it would be very helpful...... especially in the face of your scathing disdain for the Apaches.
 
.
Not meaning to challenge your stats, but if you could provide a few references to where you got them from, it would be very helpful...... especially in the face of your scathing disdain for the Apaches.
I will give you other sources, but for now please read this link,I hope these links answer you.The A-10 which performed far better than the apache had no takers except for the grunts on the ground,and the airforce didnt promote it as it underscored the impotency of expensive bombers and multirole fast jets ,while the army praised the apache inspite of high complexity,losses and failure.

"In the First Persian Gulf War, Apaches had a mission capable rate of 30% due to problems with sand, a downgrade from the average 80% (AH-64A) to 84% (AH-64D)."

Attack Helicopters losing their touch | Defence Aviation
2003 attack on Karbala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Army's Apache Helicopter Rendered Impotent in Kosovo
Why The Generals Hate The A-10
A NATION AT WAR: HELICOPTERS; Loss of Apache in Iraq Is Evidence of Vulnerability of Copters to Ground Fire - New York Times
 
Last edited:
. .
Wow that's some news.

Although would still like some clarification because it seems the IAF will still be getting the AH-64Es that will be ordered imminently and so will the 39 for the IA's AAC be ON TOP of these 22 or will the IAF hand over these 22 in the second half of this decade-very unlikely IMHO. I'm thinking that India could have 61 Apaches by 2020 and this is not even taking into account follow on orders that may (likely) be placed beyond that.


Hmm sense has prevailed at long last it seems, now waiting on the nod for the 3 new tri-service commands (cyber, aerospace and Spec Ops),

Anyway in the span of a few years the IA's AAC is going to have a complete overhaul with its capabilities expanded many fold:

60+ HAL RUDRA:

8460793633_6729747ff0_z.jpg



110+ HAL LCH:

LCH-5.jpg


39+ AH-64E:


army-ah-64e-apache-guardian-helicopters.jpg




This is a quantum jump in capabilities.
 
. .
Who better than the Army for providing close air support to their ground troops? The Air Force should concentrate on interdiction, air defence, creating a favorable air situation or even air superiority over the battle area, and Combat Air Patrols (CAPs).
 
.
@any senior's

How many prototypes will we have for LCH, Whats the status/ induction date?
Thx in advance.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom