Opinion INDIAN ARMY AVIATION: A CASE FOR FIXED WING CLOSE AIR SUPPORT
- Thread starter Hellfire
- Start date
NO. It is w.r.t FW aircraft. hepters do not need to fly over the target for CAS, they can stay away from the enemy and do a KIND OF STAND OFF attacks. The very basic meaning of stand off is not to have the need to overfly the target and therefore avoid entering the kill zone of defenders. The distance for stand off attacks varies, it can be as low as 4-5 kms for Hepters to over 400-500 kms for FW aircraft.Helicopters & stand off capability?
I do hope that you are aware that pilots are cross attached to sister services? IAF used to regularly attach pilots for Aviation till Indian Army Aviation took off on its own. Even now, IN Pilot was flying the Army Commander Northern Command when the ALH accident took place. The pilot from IN was flying to get greater operational experience and had a Master Green Indian Army Aviation Pilot along.
Coordination at Staff level is quite different from coordination in a battle field. Hence I had mentioned that there has to be a partnership established with integration of IAF-IA at theater level. With battle moving into multiple domains ... air, land, sea, sub-surface, information, internet, assymetric assets, space ... a new concept has come to fore - of multi domain operations, as suggested by various academia in US. While the 'multi domain' aspect of any conflict has always been a reality, the fact that the US again was the first one to concretely write something on it, must be considered while crediting them for this too.
It is this space that shall see an increased need for integration of IAF-IA at theater level, something that IBG is sorely dependent on, and IN where applicable. IAF has started moving into Space, hence, there needs to be an effort to redefine its role.
The main challenges India faces is not of insurgency, as we have to fight the same on our own territory and there an indiscriminate fire will result in catastrophic results for us. The main challenge is planning for and executing an action against a potential collusive threat, howsoever, remote it may be.
Losses will be there, irrespective of what you use. The probability of your UCAVs being jammed is also there. Whereas a FW can be used to specifically target opposing enemy forces in near proximity to own forces at frontline from a greater standoff range and height, thereby severely reducing the risk of own losses. I am not talking of FW based CAS exclusively, but a mixed formation strike force.
If someone wants, I can write a service paper once am free. This is some field I have started developing an interest in, integration of forces across a spectrum.
But then, I shall need to earn in the duration as logistics and planning for such a project needs months of dedicated and exclusive time, with actual analysis of own and enemy forces/platforms/capabilities - present and future.
If a UAV can see SAM, then SAM can see a UAV much earlier. You have your toast ready!
We have moved to what you mentioned. Multi layered CAS. FW CAS is now done from above 15k feet with PGMs. They are to take out large formations and deliver devastating blows to enemy. But below 15K is exclusive domain of Hepters.
FW CAS is also done in support of SFs operating deep inside enemy territory because they can reduce the reaction time to reach the target but we have seen that in few cases, even Americans ended up killing their own SF operatives. Reassigning a target to PGM in flight over the target or close to the target can force a pilot to punch wrong coordinates and the result can be very very bad. The slow speed of Hepters and generally a two man crew, allows for eliminating such inadvertant errors.
Curious to know what kind of weapons can be used by Hepters for CAS? In Kargil, an IAF Mi-17 was firing rocket at enemy positions. And soon, shot down by a Stinger MANPAD. So can't a MANPAD be threat for helicopters as they fly close to a target area. I know Standoff weaponary is also an option, but we can't use it in every action, can we? To use Rockets and cannon/guns, pilot need to make visual contact with the enemy to take an aim and fire. Apache has BVR capability with TADS, but Rudra, LCH and Mi-35 don't feature such system and need to fight WVR.
Mi-17 for CAS was unfit and more of a JUGAAD. It had nothing to defend itself. But LCH and Apaches have have the stuff do so. Plus Mi-17s did not have missiles and only rockets which suffered from same problem as FW CAS. You need to get in the contact zone to fire them.
The newer generations of CAS hepters come with missiles with a very long range and also equipped with DIRCM. They can safely do the job of not just bursting fortified positions but also take out tanks from a much larger range. They can even do the job by staying outside the QR missile batteries which accompany Tank regiments in battle.
That can happen to aircrafts too who many times conduct intrusion for imagery purpose. Don't tell me they don't even choppers are used. My point is save pilot for strike operations and imagery etc can be done via UAVs
But a FW aircraft piloted by a man can see the incoming missile and also initiate missile counter measures which a UCAV/UAV can't.
Then how Is India suppose to take imagery over Balochistan? IAF can't fly their piloted aircrafts over there, only drone remains the valid option.
But the satellite doesn't give real-time image all day long right? it passes over once a day for a few minutes. So if you want to attack a target you will have to wait till it passes by?
Why do you ask such questions which force me to give out a lot which I do not want to share? Have you heard of Humint? You detect something thru satellites, then you move your humint to get better sitrep, and then you get full picture.
This is the reason I did not ask you further. But now my question is what options Pakistan have to do the same on India's eastern front. Yes, they can use Bangladesh but the can't do imagery , they can deploy submarines or use China's assets?
Or should India ignore the fact that Pakistan will not be able to inflict direct damage on eastern states?
Some very interesting things have happened under MSD. We might force Pak to do Harakiri very soon. May be CAB is the ploy.