Two Squadron of LCH for each Indian army Strike corps

[Abingdonboy]

Strike corps are located on flat lands (plains)....
For China we have raised mountain division. They will be provided with Ultra light howitzer and light tanks (IA is searching for 300 of those).

Hey guys, you remember a few months back there was report that all the services will jointly raise marine corps on the line of US marine corps. Is there any progress on that front ??

I think we should raise a marine corps and mountain division as 2 fully independent divisions, one under navy and other under indian army just like US navy Marine Corps. They should be given separate tanks, artillery and helicopters just like US Marines...

I think by 2018 the Indian Marine Corps will be realized, I have heard the IN is creating a HUGE amphibious training school in A&N for this exact purpose. Additionally by that time the assets for the "Indian Marine Corps" will be delivered (LHD/LPD, Heavy helos, light helos etc).

great news......


Apache
LCH
Weaponised Dhruv
Mi - 35


Army is getting some heavy metal ...

Hell yeah! by 2020 the IA AAC is going to be unrecognizable not only are the numbers increasing HUGELY BUT the capabilty is also increasing dramatically per machine meaning overall the force is transforming in to a significantly meaner and more able force.

 

[golmaal]

The main problem with IN is that it has a tiny budget compared to Army and IAF. Only these last 2 years, it has got such a huge allotment for the first time. With the allocated budget, Navy is already stretched in funding:

- 2 aircraft carriers and their fighter acquisitions.
- Stealth frigates and destroyers.
- More corvettes and support surface ships.
- nuclear submarines and also conventional ones.
- Submarine-based nuclear ballistic missiles.
- Quasi-ballistic missiles.
- More BrahMos block 2/3 missiles.

I don't think they'd have any space for Naval LCH as of yet. Maybe in the coming 4-5 years they'd consider a Sea-LCH-Dhruv MK.2 or something but at least till 2015, any such plan just doesn't seem feasible.

For us, any new weapons acquisition especially indigenous is a good news and feast to eyes but from budgetary POV, I must say Admiral Verma must be stretched to manage all these simultaneously.

But Is Ballistic Missiles and SLBMs comes under current ongoing Navy budget or a separate functional?

 

[trinity]

Strike corps are located on flat lands (plains)....
For China we have raised mountain division. They will be provided with Ultra light howitzer and light tanks (IA is searching for 300 of those).

Hey guys, you remember a few months back there was report that all the services will jointly raise marine corps on the line of US marine corps. Is there any progress on that front ??

I think we should raise a marine corps and mountain division as 2 fully independent divisions, one under navy and other under indian army just like US navy Marine Corps. They should be given separate tanks, artillery and helicopters just like US Marines...

Doesn;t 300 tanks sound ridculous when we are facing a much bigger threat and elevation? i wonder what kind of research in weapons development is India doing regarding how to stregthen their weaknessess in this particular area. The light howitzers are a great addition. But we should be looking at how IEDS took apart the US military in Iraq. More info on the chinese tanks and their weak points...unless India is dug in and have a network of tunnles in the area, it will be heard to defend....

 

[DARKY]

Doesn;t 300 tanks sound ridculous when we are facing a much bigger threat and elevation? i wonder what kind of research in weapons development is India doing regarding how to stregthen their weaknessess in this particular area. The light howitzers are a great addition. But we should be looking at how IEDS took apart the US military in Iraq. More info on the chinese tanks and their weak points...unless India is dug in and have a network of tunnles in the area, it will be heard to defend....

IEDS are good in Urban warfare... can you blow a Tank by basting an IED ?.... We would be in trouble once we enter cities... but countrysides and the Desert would be covered in no-time.... and the main objective of IA would be to make PA use IEDS by destroying the Military hardware... even US took two wars to capture Iraq.... ho do you expect IA to do the same with Pakistan in one go.

 

[nomi007]

just waste of money
just to control the region under their influence
but you can not control even srilanka

 

[kingkobra]

just waste of money
just to control the region under their influence
but you can not control even srilanka

we can not because we do not want to control any nation...just don't mess with us directly or indirectly and we are good with you..

 

[asad71]

Is it correct to say that these LCH Squadrons are not Air Assault Units or Air Cavalry?

 

[Abingdonboy]

Is it correct to say that these LCH Squadrons are not Air Assault Units or Air Cavalry?

Well they can be if needed but when working with Strike Corps their primary roles would most likely be CAS but Air Assault is a defnieat possibility as Strike Corps are made up of airborne/air assualt infantry who will also have to push and will require LCH cover.

 

[sancho]

I don't think they'd have any space for Naval LCH as of yet. Maybe in the coming 4-5 years they'd consider a Sea-LCH-Dhruv MK.2 or something but at least till 2015, any such plan just doesn't seem feasible.

It has less to do with the budget, since a sqaudron of LCH wouldn't be costly, but with the fact that IN seems not have a role for these kind of helicopters and that is very strange to me, because it seems like they are focusing on the wrong roles. They want to raise a marine corps, increase amphibious capabilities, which first of all is not useful, since there is no real target to attack with amphibious capabilities. Landing on Pakistans coastlines is totally unnecessary and impossible on Chinese coastlines. So all they could use these troops, would be defending our own islands in case someone tries to take them over, or fast deployment of troops to friendly Islands like the Maledives if the situation makes it necessary. In this case LDPs like IN already has and seems to be interested in, makes some sense (besides the disaster relief role it would be used for), but the lack of a real deck rules out the use of combat helicopters or CAS aircrafts like Sea Harriers.

IF IN has followed the Libyan war like IAF did, they must have noticed the good performance French and British combat helicopters had, operated from LHDs, when they provided critical CAS to the rebels. And just recently news reports came out, that the British wants to use an LHD with combat helicopters, to attack Somali Pirates at their harbours. IN is not able to do the same, unless they field capable vessels and at least Rudra helicopters, if not dedicated combat helicopters like LCH or Apache. INS Viraat won't be in service forever and even today isn't in service that much and that's why LHDs with real combat capabilities, that can be used in a wider range of roles than LDPs are cruicial to increase INs reach and importance in this area.

 

[Tshering22]

It has less to do with the budget, since a sqaudron of LCH wouldn't be costly, but with the fact that IN seems not have a role for these kind of helicopters and that is very strange to me, because it seems like they are focusing on the wrong roles.

It does have to do with budget too mate. How much of the $40 billion real defence spending would be allotted to IN? Remember Army alone has a whopping 40% (at least has been all these years). This is the first time IN and IAF have got more money for fleet expansion. They're funding almost 12 submarines in the coming decades with 5 nuclear ballistic missile submarines, 2 aircraft carriers and their fighters, dozens of frigates, corvettes and destroyers and expand drone capability. That all costs hell lot money.

For gunships to be operationally and financially viable, IN would need at least a squadron which is 20 helos. That's not cheap considering the amount of armaments etc that come along with it. IN is stretched with a lot of programs already.

They want to raise a marine corps, increase amphibious capabilities, which first of all is not useful, since there is no real target to attack with amphibious capabilities. Landing on Pakistans coastlines is totally unnecessary and impossible on Chinese coastlines.

I agree about the China part since our war would be only on land or in the air. But for COLD START, we might need an amphibious assault unit. However, raising a USMC level of marines would be stupid.

So all they could use these troops, would be defending our own islands in case someone tries to take them over, or fast deployment of troops to friendly Islands like the Maledives if the situation makes it necessary.

I think we can forget that now after the new taliban government that has come up in Male. We already have a big presence in A&N, so anyone attempting to take that over in BoB would be entering a suicide zone.

In this case LDPs like IN already has and seems to be interested in, makes some sense (besides the disaster relief role it would be used for), but the lack of a real deck rules out the use of combat helicopters or CAS aircrafts like Sea Harriers.

Harriers are not CAS. They are full-fledged fighters meant to devastate opposing Navies and even coastal cities and they're pretty good at it (barring their present age). Once we get more serious LHDs, LCH would find a good role in IN too. But that would take at least one more decade.

 

[sancho]

It does have to do with budget too mate. How much of the $40 billion real defence spending would be allotted to IN? Remember Army alone has a whopping 40%

For obvious reasons! If we currently go to war the participation of IN would be very limited, by the fact that it don't have any real enemy to face (unlike IA or IAF). Pak navy is too small, while Chinese navy is not present in this area so far, so the current spending for IN is even more than actually needed. In future although, IN will have to be more capable, therefor needs further spendings and that's what we see big spendings in regard to moderisation and increasing capabilities (new subs and MPAs, new nuke subs and carriers). So again, there is nothing wrong with the budget, but possibly that they don't see a need for combat helicopters as I explained, otherwise they would modernise their fleet in that direction.

For gunships to be operationally and financially viable, IN would need at least a squadron which is 20 helos. That's not cheap considering the amount of armaments etc that come along with it. IN is stretched with a lot of programs already.

An IAF Mi 35 squad includes just 11 helicopters and navy aircraft squads are usually smaller than air force squads (just think about how few combat helicopters would be used on LHDs). Not to forget that these are very low cost additions compared to more than $200 millions procurement cost for each P8I for example, so cost is defenitely not an argument against it!

But for COLD START, we might need an amphibious assault unit.

What tactical advantage would India have to deploy troops at high risk to Pakistani coastlines?
The addition of C130J-30s and C17 in future will add way more to such a doctrine and fast deployment of credible numbers of troops and vehicles to a certain area in such a close proximity. Improved infrastructure in the border regions will be another more important point for this, compared to amphibious corps.

Once we get more serious LHDs, LCH would find a good role in IN too.

But that's what I'm saying! IN was pretty direct in the RFI and talked about LDPs not LHDs and that directly rules out combat helicopters for IN, so it seems they don't see an importance in for such vessels and for LCH!

Btw, Sea Harriers are very effective CAS fighters, not only because of ther VTOL capabilities for forwarded bases, but also because their low speed low level flight performance. Be it the British in Afghanistan or more recently the US and Italy in Libya, they all used it with LGBs or ATGMs for CAS.

 

[Tshering22]

For obvious reasons! If we currently go to war the participation of IN would be very limited, by the fact that it don't have any real enemy to face (unlike IA or IAF). Pak navy is too small, while Chinese navy is not present in this area so far, so the current spending for IN is even more than actually needed. In future although, IN will have to be more capable, therefor needs further spendings and that's what we see big spendings in regard to moderisation and increasing capabilities (new subs and MPAs, new nuke subs and carriers). So again, there is nothing wrong with the budget, but possibly that they don't see a need for combat helicopters as I explained, otherwise they would modernise their fleet in that direction.

Well.. if you don't think there is nothing wrong with the budget, how come there is so much difference between the IN and IA's modernization program? IN is racing miles ahead while IA still has elements that use 80s and 90s equipment that has no value in the coming 10 years despite being allotted a massive share.

You're partly wrong when you say that Navy's role will be minimal in the eastern border. Please note that Southeastern nations are too weak to oppose a PLA march right through their territory (in worst come situation). In the even of a 2-front conflict, IA and IAF will be putting their full force behind the eastern front. We will be needing IN the most in western front at that time.

Call this exaggeration but all the defense budgets are planned keeping the most unsupportive, most hostile and worst come situations in mind. Which is why Navy is being given so much importance.

Every country that has risen whether modern or 50 years ago, has always had a strong Navy to dominate the oceans. If we have to make sure that the upper part of Indian Ocean remains virtually ours (if not territorially), we need to have a cutting edge Navy that is matchless in the region (barring USN perhaps).

An IAF Mi 35 squad includes just 11 helicopters and navy aircraft squads are usually smaller than air force squads (just think about how few combat helicopters would be used on LHDs). Not to forget that these are very low cost additions compared to more than $200 millions procurement cost for each P8I for example, so cost is defenitely not an argument against it!

That is the standard that we were following so far. The Krokodils were more or less very limited in their combat roles as IA had never really noted the full potential of gunships. The reason why LCH was pushed into development apart from high altitude requirements, the IA and IAF foresaw extensive need for CT and hunter-killer missions in dense and mountainous environments.

Please don't compare Poseidons to gunships. Both are for totally different roles. A proposed fleet of gunships would be used on a beach assault in case of a two front war in our western front. P-8Is would be used even in case of non-amphibious conventional assaults.

What tactical advantage would India have to deploy troops at high risk to Pakistani coastlines?

Before any beach assault, any hostile position is softened either by surface or aerial power. The marine corps are always sent later into the territory. Particularly holds true in our case where our nemesis is right beside us and is not extremely weak unlike US opponents who're literally no match for the USN.

Btw, Sea Harriers are very effective CAS fighters, not only because of ther VTOL capabilities for forwarded bases, but also because their low speed low level flight performance. Be it the British in Afghanistan or more recently the US and Italy in Libya, they all used it with LGBs or ATGMs for CAS.

Yeah. Harriers were the best marine jets of their times. The only thing we've to think about is, now we won't be getting VTOL jets with MiG-29Ks and Tejas-Ns so we will need bigger carriers.

 

[sancho]

Well.. if you don't think there is nothing wrong with the budget, how come there is so much difference between the IN and IA's modernization program?

Because IA is way bigger and has much more equipment to modernise (besides the internal problems of bribery and bad procurement plannings), just compare the number of LUH IA needs to replace and the same of IN. Btw, IA is ahead of replacing them, because they went for a joint competition with IAF, while IN will make an extra competition now. Not to mention the delays of sub and carrier replacements in IN, so it's not that good as you might think.

In the even of a 2-front conflict, IA and IAF will be putting their full force behind the eastern front. We will be needing IN the most in western front at that time.

That's more than unlikely, because even with 2 carriers, IN would not have enough fighters to fight PAF, nor can the carrier fighters protect Indian land borders, so IAF fighter fleet will always be splitted and IN only plays a supporting role from the sea, that's it for this decade.

If we have to make sure that the upper part of Indian Ocean remains virtually ours (if not territorially), we need to have a cutting edge Navy that is matchless in the region (barring USN perhaps).

That's the current situation anyway! There is no opponent other than USN, that would be able to pose a threat and even PLAN has "only" nuclear subs to field against IN, their surface fleet has not the range currently, just like IN hasn't to pose a threat in the Chinese Sea. That's why I said, for the roles IN has to do in a war today, IN gets more than enough funds and they already got the neccessary fundings to increase there capabilities for the future as well (carriers, nuclear subs, latest MPAs...).

Please don't compare Poseidons to gunships. Both are for totally different roles.

That's why I didn't do it, I only countered your point that there wouldn't be enough money to procure and operate a squad of LCH, which is not the case if IN can procure such expensive aircrafts too. So it was about cost not capabilty or roles.

Particularly holds true in our case where our nemesis is right beside us and is not extremely weak

Which is exactly the reason why we will never make beach landings against Pakistan, because we can't attack and weaken there defences in such a big way with the limited carrier fighters, that a safe way for the ground forces would be opened. It's simply not realistic and there for, the only reason for amphibious capabilities is aimed on countering an attack on our Island, which IN even stated in some reports. For wars with Pakistan or China, this capability is not important at all!

 

[Gessler]

awesome flight photos of this sexy creature



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[aman1981]

I don't understand... the Army Aviation has ordered 114 LCH attack helicopters. That translates to 6 squadrons while IAF ordered 65 meaning 4 squadrons.

Then how come only two squadrons is mentioned here?

Is this only initial phase induction or what?

It says....Three Strike corps will be receiving two squadron of LCH each.