US set to bag $5 bn defence deals from India

[Stitch]

Holymoly that's some serious money. I don't know the ongoing market price for these toys. But according to Boeing AH-64 Apache - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: its unit cost is AH-64A: $20M (2007) AH-64D: $18M (2007).

The A is more expensive than the D? Really? So, if you pay LESS, they'll throw in the Longbow radar for free?

[cdude]

25-30 years of through life support

As I've repeatedly said before, unit price is meaningless as the context is about TLS.

Wiki unit pricing is absolutely meaningless and has no context

What does "through life support" mean? Does it include ammunition? Training? Future upgrade?

Or warranty on the helicopter only?

I am not saying India overpaid for the toys. But dayumn, those toys literally cost an arm.

[gf0012-aust]

What does "through life support" mean? Does it include ammunition? Training? Future upgrade?

Or warranty on the helicopter only?

I am not saying India overpaid for the toys. But dayumn, those toys literally cost an arm.

I believe I've covered off the issue of TLS a number of times in this forum....

At a minimum a very basic TLS contract would be between 40-60% of an undisclosed unit price (and the baseline unit price is not going to be on the internet no matter how hard people look)
Then there is a contingency element - which is usually factored in for major platforms at anywhere between 10 and 40%
It then depends on how the Exchequer has done their modeling. In current accounting models for defence acquisition, all ancillary costs are included so as to not generate any surprises. That means weapons (and a corresponding TLS), training, travel estimates etc...)

without knowing the actual Indian support reqs then everything on the pricing n a value for money discussion is speculative

but going on my prev exposure to najor weapons platform contracts, they haven't even remotely overpaid

[lemontree]

Captain,

You are wrong on this count though,

You are getting confused, no where has the IAF stated that the Garud will duplicate the Army SF role.
The Garud troopers are attached with army SF units to gain op experience, and the Spl Gp trains them.

I maintain that the Garud fullfill the need for combat search & rescue and act as a quick response team for base protection.
The most important things is that the IAF do not have commando qualified officers to lead them, they have pilots, engineers, logistic chaps - the IAF will not waste officer resources on jobs that are not its core duties.

[lemontree]

Major,

The British trials suggests that there is no appreciable difference between truck mounted howitzers and towed guns, most certainly not worth the difference in price between the two.

Sir,
The British already have their SP system in the form of the AS90. Their testing would have been to evaluate the cost benefit between a truck mounted system and an towed system. I dont see the British dumping the AS90.

Similarly, in our case, we currently have a mongrel SP system in the form of the 130mm Catapult, a Vijayant chassis. The maintenance of the mount is a nightmare.

We are looking for a viable SP system, we are not debating between towed and SPH systems. The towed systems have their advantages and we are keeping them in our mtn divs. On the other hand a SPH system can fill the gaps of mobile platfrom in the western deserts of Rann of Kutch and Thar, where the terrain permits "shoot and scoot" tactical movement for wheeled systems.

As for the ammo train - the tracked and truck mounted systems have wheeled vehicles in the ammo train so their tactical mobility has to be in an areas that can be accessed by the ammo train. The tracked system will ofcourse have better tactical movement capability over a wheeled system, but the ammo train cannot follow it everywhere with their wheeled vehicles.

With the enemy using fire finding radars - any mobile system is good enough to evade counter battery fire.

[gf0012-aust]

With the enemy using fire finding radars - any mobile system is good enough to evade counter battery fire.

I wouldn't like to test that theory

My last project when working overseas was on ballistic detection systems

the counter battery solution we tested was able to acquire in milliseconds and depending on what system was slaved to it, respond with automated counter fire in under 30 seconds. If that response system is a howitzer or a mortar then area effect kicks in

The opportunity to shoot and scoot is rapidly being eroded

we tested the same capability against snipers/marksmen. If the counter fire solution is an area effect weapon, then if they are detected their chances of rolling away and getting out of the response effect is close to zero. Hence why RO systems are becoming more popular. Lose the weapon system but don't lose the operator....

[lemontree]

I wouldn't like to test that theory

My last project when working overseas was on ballistic detection systems

the counter battery solution we tested was able to acquire in milliseconds and depending on what system was slaved to it, respond with automated counter fire in under 30 seconds. If that response system is a howitzer or a mortar then area effect kicks in

The opportunity to shoot and scoot is rapidly being eroded

we tested the same capability against snipers/marksmen. If the counter fire solution is an area effect weapon, then if they are detected their chances of rolling away and getting out of the response effect is close to zero. Hence why RO systems are becoming more popular. Lose the weapon system but don't lose the operator....

(a) Currently, none of our immediate adversaries have that capability. So I dont need to worry about that speed.

(b) This capabilty sounds good, and will be very effective while responding against a few tubes fired by insurgents in Afghanistan. Counter measures from a professional army exist and can neutralise that threat, the very fact that one is using radars that are lit up 24x7, give out their position. Multiple salvos against those locations neutralises the threat for the duration of own operations, or either the radar/ detection unit is destroyed.

(c) However, such detection systems have a great future in tank/APC protection against anti-tank fire.

[Defcon5]

You are getting confused, no where has the IAF stated that the Garud will duplicate the Army SF role.
The Garud troopers are attached with army SF units to gain op experience, and the Spl Gp trains them.

I maintain that the Garud fullfill the need for combat search & rescue and act as a quick response team for base protection.
The most important things is that the IAF do not have commando qualified officers to lead them, they have pilots, engineers, logistic chaps - the IAF will not waste officer resources on jobs that are not its core duties.

Captain,

Please read the text it is explicitly stated Gaurds is not a plain vanilla Combat search & rescue and base protection team. They are much more than that. They are the Air Force's Forward Operators.

During hostilities, Garuds undertake combat search and rescue, rescue of downed airmen and other forces from behind enemy lines, suppression of enemy air defence (SEAD), radar busting, combat control, missile and munitions guidance ("lasing" of targets) and other missions in support of air operations. It has been suggested that they undertake an offensive role including raids on enemy air bases etc

Please take a look at the load out and the training provided. Please do simple search, there are enough info out there. There are videos of Air Chief and Wing Commander who heads Garuds speaking of the role of Garuds.

[Officer of Engineers]

Defcon5,

What the Captain is saying is that the InAF has yet to provide HQ elements to perform the jobs you're suggesting. Without the HQ elements, the Gaurds are glorified mall cops.

[Doktor]

Defcon5,

According to wiki Garud unit has ~2000 members. Combining Indian order and the capacity of Super Hercules... one has to wonder if these guys will have a permanent base, or will be moved around the country.

That's of course, unless you consider landing at Daulat Beg Oldie as a special op ;)

[antimony]

Major,

The British trials suggests that there is no appreciable difference between truck mounted howitzers and towed guns, most certainly not worth the difference in price between the two.

Col.

Looking at this purely from an eng. point of view.

The truck mounted H. can carry a wood or metal plate/ board which can be deployed each time they need to set up a firing point. The plate can be affixed to the terrain, the truck can mount on it and then be affixed to the board/plate. That way, the wheels do not sink in to the terrain. It takes some additional time, but in the hands of skilled crew, it should not be that much.

Disclaimer: the idea is from an uninformed civvie trying to solve a military eng. problem.

[lemontree]

Captain,

Please read the text it is explicitly stated Gaurds is not a plain vanilla Combat search & rescue and base protection team. They are much more than that. They are the Air Force's Forward Operators.

The task of Forward obeservation Officers (FOOs)/ Forward Air Controller (FOO), was done by Arty Air OPs or IAF pilots posted on deputation to army formation HQs - none of these required SF training, least of all the guy dining in the Bde HQ officers mess.

Please take a look at the load out and the training provided. Please do simple search, there are enough info out there. There are videos of Air Chief and Wing Commander who heads Garuds speaking of the role of Garuds.

The Garuds do not have a strength of more than 1000-1200 officers and men, these will be divided into QRTs of 30 + men to be deployed on various major air bases.

They are being trained and given op experience to give them battle innoculation or they will F**k up when a terror or enemy raid takes place on the air base or during a combat rescue. The MARCOS were deployed in the valley (Dal Lake for similar reasons), without any combat exposure they were turning in-effective.

Regarding the other deep penetration roles that are being spoken about - those are wish list capabilities that may or may not be used. Reasons are simple - a simple thumb rule to be followed when sending in deep penetration OP teams:-
- Inf battalions - send their teams 5-8 km ahead in the rear of enemy forward locations.
- Corps HQ reserve Army SF teams - 10 - 20 km deep.
Any distance beyond that will daylight the movement of the OP team during their inflitration march.

The only guys who go to any distance beyond that are the SFF teams (these are taking care of strategic tgts).

Now what will the Garud teams do, that the above teams are not already doing?

The only task not being done by the army SF units is combat rescue of downed pilots and QRTs for base attacks (base protection is done by Af police, DSC and the TA), and that is what the Garud will do.

[Officer of Engineers]

Col.

Looking at this purely from an eng. point of view.

The truck mounted H. can carry a wood or metal plate/ board which can be deployed each time they need to set up a firing point. The plate can be affixed to the terrain, the truck can mount on it and then be affixed to the board/plate. That way, the wheels do not sink in to the terrain. It takes some additional time, but in the hands of skilled crew, it should not be that much.

They have to do that anyway to stabilize the gun when firing but I was referring to travel. There is no place that a truck mounted howitzer can go that a truck and tow gun cannot. And a truck and towed gun is the superior combination when considering loads and flexibility.

[Deltacamelately]

Captain,

Please read the text it is explicitly stated Gaurds is not a plain vanilla Combat search & rescue and base protection team. They are much more than that. They are the Air Force's Forward Operators.



Please take a look at the load out and the training provided. Please do simple search, there are enough info out there. There are videos of Air Chief and Wing Commander who heads Garuds speaking of the role of Garuds.

Defcon5,

They neither have the numbers, nor logistics, nor training, neither any formal combat experience. Having such a force under your command, would you still send them into a deep penetration campaign?

[Deltacamelately]

They have to do that anyway to stabilize the gun when firing but I was referring to travel. There is no place that a truck mounted howitzer can go that a truck and tow gun cannot. And a truck and towed gun is the superior combination when considering loads and flexibility.

Sir,

Were you meaning "tracked"? However, I think that even though the truck mountings generally require off-truck setup in order to unlimber the stabilizing legs these guns need, they would still be every effective. On the experience of the Brits, may be the topography and enemy capabilities largely dictated their outcome. A mix of truck, tracked and towed guns would give greater flexibility to our forces, when deployed on India's western front.