LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Jun 2014 21:24

abhik wrote:The argument that the Apache is in a different 'class' than the LCH would matter only if thats what they looking for in the first place. AFAIK the Eurocopter tiger, the Bell attack helo and the Agusta A129, which are roughly in the same 'class' as the LCH , were also invited for the tender. I believe some of those contenders chose not to respond to the RFP for whatever reasons. In the end only the Mil and the Apache actually make it to the trial stage. The 'totally different class' justification seems to be made post facto. Something similar to the MRCA where the IAF first invites the Saab Gripen(the original one, not the heavier E/ NG/ Demo variant) , but it is claimed that they were looking for a 'Medium' fighter only after the Rafale and EF are shortlisted (and hence the LCA cannot fulfill the requirement).
What I find really curious is that IA too thinks that it should get Apaches. The current tender was held by the IAF as per its own requirement, not the IA's which possibly might be quite divergent from the IAF's. But no enunciation of their requirements, no separate trials for the IA? Now they are going to be pragmatic and 'adjust' their requirements and make space for these 'uber' helos supposedly by allocating them to the Strike-Corps and relegating the LCA to the others.

Which goes to show that there is something wrong with the way our RFP's are formulated.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 24 Jun 2014 01:58

While longbow is revolutionary,
a) can we use it on munna without massa's approval? if not, the whole point is moot
b) will there be any realistic instance in our western border when the salvo attack capabilities can be utilized? again, if not regularly in combat situation but once in a blue moon in special circumstances then moot point.

There is a cost for every capability and if the capability is not essential but good to have then economic decision should be taken (No every life is priceless rhetoric, please). They way the RFP was designed and final one selected, this economic consideration is not evident.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jun 2014 02:11

While longbow is revolutionary,
a) can we use it on munna without massa's approval? if not, the whole point is moot

Ya, I agree, it would be moot.

But then so is the P-8I revolutionary (advanced), the move to C-17s too, how about the C-130J for Special Forces? engines for Jags? Potentially other hardware?

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 24 Jun 2014 02:15

^^ For each example you are mentioning, there is something called TINA and also their absolute necessity is quite established. For Longbow, it brings to my point b.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jun 2014 07:54

it looks like IA will get a 1:1 replacement of Mi35 with Apaches after the IAF gets the initial lot for prestige issues as they were first in line
http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/arm ... e-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.

--
now if only IA top brass were half as diligent and exultant about domestic products and improvements, we would be somewhere else close to Cheen, not lagging miles behind.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 24 Jun 2014 08:25

Considering that each Apache will cost about 3 to 4 times a LCA, the order value of 61 Apaches actually exceeds the order value of 179(114+65) LCAs.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jun 2014 08:44

The Deal is an FMS deal and therefore one cannot simply divide the cost of the number with the total amount paid as an FMS deal includes a ton of other stuff including defense services.

The U.S. Department of Defense's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program facilitates sales of U.S. arms, defense equipment, defense services, and military training to foreign governments. The purchaser does not deal directly with the defense contractor; instead, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency serves as an intermediary, usually handling procurement, logistics and delivery and often providing product support, training, and infrastructure construction (such as hangars, runways, utilities, etc.). The Defense Contract Management Agency often accepts FMS equipment on behalf of the US government.

The SAR estimate for the AH-64 going out to 2015 is approximately 12 million per aircraft flyaway with the overall APUC (average per unit cost) of between 12-15 million per aircraft. The entire breakup of the deal would need to be looked at. Since its an FMS deal GOI/MOD deals directly with the Pentagon and its agencies.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Jun 2014 08:54

abhik wrote:<SNIP>What I find really curious is that IA too thinks that it should get Apaches. The current tender was held by the IAF as per its own requirement, not the IA's which possibly might be quite divergent from the IAF's. But no enunciation of their requirements, no separate trials for the IA? Now they are going to be pragmatic and 'adjust' their requirements and make space for these 'uber' helos supposedly by allocating them to the Strike-Corps and relegating the LCA to the others.

Whats with casting aspersions on everything under the sun and that too just for the sake of it?

IAF may use the Apache for a specific purpose but that does not take away from the fact that those choppers are tank-busters to begin with. On the face of it - it is the IAF which it seems intends to use the gunship for roles apart from core competency of the platform. And apart from Apache, it is even going to induct a considerable number of LCH.

And why should there be a separate trial for IA when the chopper has been practically tested in the very same environs where the army is going to be use them? There is no 'adjustment' of requirement here - IA has been asking for gunships to be under their control and this is simply an extension of that. Army Aviation Corps pilots have been seconded to the two gunship squadrons for many years now to prepare them for exactly such developments.

As for 'relegating' LCH to other formations - well, that is ignorance at its best. Has it occurred to you that these formations and LCH squadrons under them will be the first one to go on offensive under the new war doctrine? Do you understand that LCH+ALH+Rudra are central to army's effort to raise Combat Aviation Brigade for each Corps? There will be grand total of three Apache Squadrons versus at least 9-10 squadrons of LCH?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Jun 2014 08:57

Singha wrote:<SNIP>now if only IA top brass were half as diligent and exultant about domestic products and improvements, we would be somewhere else close to Cheen, not lagging miles behind.

Yeah, it's only these generals which are holding DRDO back from producing world class products!

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 24 Jun 2014 09:43

^^^ Boss, you sound more and more like the defender of army's reputation and its PR consultant than an unbiased moderator of discussion. Are you by any chance representing the army on these pages?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 24 Jun 2014 09:48

rohitvats wrote:
Singha wrote:<SNIP>now if only IA top brass were half as diligent and exultant about domestic products and improvements, we would be somewhere else close to Cheen, not lagging miles behind.
Yeah, it's only these generals which are holding DRDO back from producing world class products!

Obviously world class products can be made in isolation without any user involvement barring user disdain.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 24 Jun 2014 10:35

The times news says only 12 of the 22 IAF Apache helicopters will have the Longbow radar? deal cost 1.4 billion $.
Army wants separate 39 for additional $ 2.4 billion $.
Total Apaches - 51
Total cost - 3.8 billion $
Per unit cost - cool 75 million $

compare with
LCH cost - 18 million on wiki
3.8 billion $ gets 211 LCH

Now make a choice
51 Apache or 211 LCH

I had previously remarked that this pittance of 51 is not enough. As proof look at the number of Apaches deployed by US in Gulf War (pasted from Wiki -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH ... tates_Army)
Nearly half of all U.S. Apaches were deployed to Saudi Arabia following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.[75] During the 100-hour ground war a total of 277 AH-64s took part, destroying 278 tanks, numerous armored personnel carriers and other Iraqi vehicles.[78][81][82] One AH-64 was lost in the war, to an RPG hit at close range, the Apache crashed but the crew survived.[83] To maintain operations during the Gulf War, the U.S. Army unofficially grounded all other AH-64s worldwide; Apaches in the war zone flew only one-fifth of the flight-hours planned for.[84]

Going by above, 51 Apaches means may be 25 available beyond 1 week? What good is this going to be against paki armor of thousands of tanks ? India is not the size of Singapore last time I saw the map (euphemistically called it sultanete of Delhi in prior rant post).

Further confusion on why IAF wants to get Apaches as US Army is the user? All of this seems to be no more than showering gifts to keep armed forces happy and loyal.

Not enough bank for buck so better to skip this one and double down on LCH development. Throw 100 million $ as additional funding to HAL and see the wheels turn faster. Retrofit Longbow on LCH and connect to Helina. Keep firing!

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 24 Jun 2014 10:42

Some more feed on why we need more qty, and hence desi made goodies. We can sport 500 LCH+Rudra combinations if we use our limited resources wisely!

In comparison, China has in excess of 400 attack helicopters as per wiki - Z-9, Z-19 and WZ-10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... _Air_Force

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jun 2014 11:10

it is ok to squander national resources in a pissing H&D contest between IAF and Army (in the end both get their transformer toys, but army gets a slightly bigger one to brag about).

but is not ok to expect proper funding, orders and customer engagement from what is DRDOs only customer. its not ok to expect desi products to be the spearheads.

the cost of 35 apaches once their fat support packages are tacked on will likely buy us some 100 LCH for sure - conservatively.
and we can use it against the munna at our own peril.

I suspect 100 LCH is more useful despite half the payload of the apache as opportunities to unleash 16 missiles in a single 90 min sortie will be rather limited .... and better that 2 LCH do such a mission for survivability and hitting more points.
beyond a point, hanging more missiles on airframe or ship does not make sense...as we see in DDG a 'sane' number is probably 64-72 LRSAMs, though some pack in 128 like KDX3 or kirov(not sure) or the 055 cheen cruiser.

Khan has the money to buy and use the apache in numbers like people in other places cannot even buy observation helos. reasonable quality & numbers make a huge diff not just penny packets of gold plated kit.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Jun 2014 11:27

(No every life is priceless rhetoric, please)

So, it is a rhetoric now? And Def PSU's & DRDO shall always provide in what they think are good for the services. Even the specs for them should be easily doable so that at least they can make those. Then do away with the testing because it is not important whether the equipment works or not. That is not important. Avoid the rhetoric- that is important.

now if only IA top brass were half as diligent and exultant about domestic products and improvements, we would be somewhere else close to Cheen, not lagging miles behind.

And of-course, its the services which are a problem.

If the above is true then we must be ahead of 'cheen' in all other sphere's but Military Hardware and Software. Our IA top brass have too much authority, I guess. They seem to have so much freedom that they have kept us below 'cheen' in their ignorance and the MOD and politicians can't stop them.
The Def PSU's are so powerless that no one ever listens to them. They of-course are the reason why we will have a basic aircraft trainer in just 10 yrs time (can't we wait for 10 yrs for even something as basic as basic training?) and hopefully the CAG will not stop the services from using those, like they did unceremoniously with the previous one. The previous one was home grown one but with an imported AVCO LYCOMING Engine which, I am sure, must have been due to the import 'passand' top brass. We can any day make a piston engine, just that IAF guys never let us put one in it. So what, if the engine failure rates were fantastic. (CAG will obviously always do as bidden by the all powerful 'top brass'.) And yes the lives lost in this were not precious, but mere rhetoric.

end of rant.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Jun 2014 12:14

I would be very happy if the AH 64 deal gets cancelled, and the funds allocated for it are allocated for the additional LCH's. Along with the associated weapons.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Jun 2014 12:24

SanjayC wrote:^^^ Boss, you sound more and more like the defender of army's reputation and its PR consultant than an unbiased moderator of discussion. Are you by any chance representing the army on these pages?

First - being a moderator does not mean I don't have a POV. However, I don't use my position as a moderator to force my POV on others. The job is to ensure the discussion(s) remain within the bounds as considered appropriate for the forum. If you've any issue with me as a MODERATOR, there is an avenue to air your views.

Secondly - I've same right as any other poster to make my point. If you don't like it, you're free to ignore it and move on. Or counter it with your argument.

Thirdly - No one has stopped criticism of the Services on this forum. But if people think it is OK to pass snide remarks on the Services and that is what qualifies as criticism, then be prepared to get a response in the same vein. No party is without its fault.

Finally - you don't get to pass comments on ME and label me 'this' or 'that' just because my POV is contrary to your position. That is contrary to forum guidelines and I will report your post. Remember that next time you feel the urge to take this route.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Jun 2014 12:27

merlin wrote: Obviously world class products can be made in isolation without any user involvement barring user disdain.

The same rhetoric which gets trotted out every time - as if DRDO and Defense PSU have the N-1 ingredients ready for world class products and only thing missing is service involvement!

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Jun 2014 13:02

The need is an all round improvement in delivering decided objectives. The fault does not 'always' remain on the shoulders of services.

The 'def PSU's' etc have a lot of responsibility to shoulder if we are not using all Indian stuff yet. It will take time to get where the Chinese are. It won't happen over night. One of BRF's regular poster (Shiv) has often spoken about HAL - IAF collaboration. I agree. We collaborate, but it could be better and both sides could do with treating the other as a 'friend'.

Additionally, the PSU's need to relook at their own practices to stay on time or ahead of it. Again Shiv ji has posted a relevant article on the "Kaveri & aero-engine discussion" thread and I am posting the link here (I am sorry, without permission) for easier reference.

http://profprodyutdas.blogspot.in/

The urge to fault the services always in this procurement - requirement - Indian Origin debate (on many threads) in some cases appear to be prejudiced. Facts with out appropriate links and some times half truths are being thrown around (Some one was citing cost of AH 64 vs. LCA) with no follow ups on sources even on rebuttal. This then becomes a debate of low or zero value.

I will attract the attention of posters to what the IAF policy on localisation or Indigenisation Exposition is. Please go to the Official IAF website (http://indianairforce.nic.in/. Under Services tab drop down to Indigenisation Exposition and read the link. I don't know if this is very good or good or not, but the policy is there for all to follow and I think the PSU's would be followin

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Jun 2014 13:19

The arguments for the Apache's induction tend to gloss over the core point. Is it critical? Is it urgent?

China has been modernizing its military at a pace that far outstrips India's. So I can understand urgency when it comes to reinforcing the China front, whether its boosting the air force's squadron strength, improving communications on ground, setting up the MSC or ordering the M777 (not entirely convinced with the ULH req but.. okay).

Where is the pressing need for AH-64s (which I assume are for the western front)? Have the Pak armored/mech forces (or air defences) improved significantly over the last decade? The PA's tank strength stands at -

* 300 'Al-Khalids'
* 300 T-80s
* Hundreds of variants of the T-55.

About the same as what it was six-seven years ago. And the first two aren't particularly high end either.

At a time when our military and civilian budgets are exceptionally stressed, will it be a responsible decision to sanction an Apache purchase worth more than Pakistan's entire tank fleet put together?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Jun 2014 13:40

It's quite amusing that people are using example of a product which has full support of the Services to exemplify the issue(s) with Service-DRDO interface.

It is one thing to argue that Apache should not be bought. There can be many number of arguments to advance this case - but it simply begs logic to say that for X Apache helicopters, we can get Y LCH for use by the IA or IAF. Or that IA/IAF need to cancel to somehow show their commitment to domestic product.

The order for helicopters of various kinds by IA and IAF stand as this:

1. Rudra - 60 + 16 - 76
2. LCH - 114 + 65 - 179

That is total of 245 attack helicopters between two major kinds. And so far, from this requirement, HAL has delivered only two Rudra helicopters to Army as of 2013. Not to mention more than 150 Dhruv already in service with various arms and IA's order for 166 additional Dhruv helicopters. Long story short - Services have given commitment to HAL for more than 350 helicopter of varying kind already.

So, especially in this case, Army or IAF don't need to shelve Apache order to show their commitment to 'indigenous' product - which they've already endorsed fully.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Jun 2014 14:29

Viv S wrote:The arguments for the Apache's induction tend to gloss over the core point. Is it critical? Is it urgent?<SNIP>

That is a valid argument. And something which should be fleshed thoroughly.

Here is my thought - Please correct me on this but if everything goes all right with development of LCH, it should receive FOC by December 2016 to mid 2017 time frame. This is considering planned IOC by December 2015 as announced by HAL.

What will be the production and subsequent induction rate of LCH post that? Can the first squadron of LCH be formed in 1.5 years from mid-2017 i.e. by end 2019? And can HAL produce 1 x Squadron (10 choppers/squadron) every year with higher rate of production post after first 2-3 years? Some reports say that production rate of Dhruv stands at 25 units per annum which was projected to increase to 36 units per annum from 2012. How long will it take for something similar to be achieved in case of LCH? Especially considering that production will have to factor in feedback from user as they start putting it through paces on operational deployment. And time taken to develop and ramp-up the supply chain.

The absorption rate in the Army itself will be a limiting factor in initial years.

Production rate of Rudra - which shares lot of commonality with ALH - should be an indication of what production rates can be achieved for a machine with more complexity and which diverges a lot from base machine.

Fact of the matter is this - even assuming very healthy production rate of 25 units per annum (after slow initial rate of production), IA itself will not see full complement of LCH ordered so far (114) to enter service by 2025. Not to mention competing requirement from IAF or any additional requirement from IA itself. And apart from this, HAL would be working on orders for additional Dhruv and WSI Dhruv helicopters whose combined order book stands at higher than 200 units, so far.

Compared to this, what is the production rate of Apache in USA? Here is one link from 2012 about production rate of the latest model of this chopper - http://aviationweek.com/awin/us-army-pr ... production

As per the above linked page, production rate is 4 per month or 48 per annum for the latest model of Apache. Assuming we can ink the deal in this financial year, the whole IAF compliment of 22 choppers can be delivered by 2016-17. IA Squadrons can be formed between 2017-19 time-frame. While USA can theoretically build the whole IA+IAF combined order in 1.5 years, the absorption rate of the Services would be limiting factor. Plus, the existing manufacturing commitments of the seller.

The whole Apache edifice would be up and running in two services by the time LCH starts finding its feet. In fact, Rudra Squadrons would be also be up and running by 2020 adding lot of muscle to the army formations.

BTW - this is what IA pilots say about Rudra: (http://aviationweek.com/defense/indian- ... elicopters)

An army officer who flew the Rudra during user evaluation and confirmatory trials last year says, “The Rudra is a dependable and sturdy machine. We have had a good experience with the Dhruv, and we believe that there is much we can do with the Rudra. It brings a lot of firepower, is a robust and survivable machine, and is a proven platform. It has great present and future potential, and we look forward to flying it."

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Jun 2014 18:15

rohitvats wrote:
Viv S wrote:The arguments for the Apache's induction tend to gloss over the core point. Is it critical? Is it urgent?<SNIP>
That is a valid argument. And something which should be fleshed thoroughly.

Here is my thought - Please correct me on this but if everything goes all right with development of LCH, it should receive FOC by December 2016 to mid 2017 time frame. This is considering planned IOC by December 2015 as announced by HAL.

Why should the baseline for attack helicopter requirement for an anti-tank role run into many dozens of aircraft? For the last two decades, the fleet has consisted of just two dozen Mi-25/35s. Why is there is immediate requirement to hugely up that figure?

The only possible reason would be a hugely scaled up threat from armored/mech forces or the need to immediately phase the existing type. Neither of which applies to the case.

- The PA's tank fleet has more or less stagnated over the last decade.
- Mi-25/35 fleet at 20 units will continue to serve for a while (possibly to the end of the decade).
- HAL Rudra orders stand at about 75 units which while not a true-blue attack helicopter can take some of the load off. Deliveries are ongoing.
- The T-90s and Arjuns have been upgraded with NLOS capable barrel fired ATGMs
- The IAF's fixed wing aircraft have hugely upgraded capabilities. CBU-105 equipped Jaguars are of particular note.

Point being, if we have to wait three years for the LCH it isn't going to impact our readiness, at least not on the western front. It would be more fruitful to invest in scaling up HAL's LCH production.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 24 Jun 2014 18:52

51 Apaches is good deal, toegther with Rudra and LCH they can be that luch deadlier.

Now I know the price of the Apache block 3 is high but the capabilties are also equally unparalleled. Firslty, its ability detect to over 120 Targets, the radar is truly cool. Block 3 can also have UAVs under its direct control, so it can gather and distribute intel. Its net centricity would turn our LCHs and Rudra into well informed kill machines.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0qPJQogRqw8/T ... ements.jpg

I think the IA will order more apaches beyond the 39 they have in mind now. They will be used for commanding battlefield Ops due to their extensive set of long range capabilties.

With indigenous data links on the Apache all this info will be distrubuted to other attack helos/ground stations etc . UAS control is another Ace up its sleeve, not only can it detect and montior radar emissions but with UAVS they can monitor the battlefield extensively.

The LONGBOW UTA is a two-way, high-bandwidth data link for Apache aircrews that allows sensor and flight path control of the UAS. UTA-equipped Apaches enable aircrews to exercise control of UAS at long ranges and receive real-time, high-definition streaming video on their multi-function displays. The UTA is fully integrated into the Block III Apache mission computer. The U.S. Army’s LONGBOW system consists of either a fire control radar or the new UTA, a fire-and-forget radar frequency HELLFIRE millimeter wave-guided missile, and an all-digital M299 launcher for the AH-64D Apache helicopter. The LONGBOW UTA will be fielded on the Apache Block III aircraft beginning in 2012.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-army ... ol-options

I think eventually goal would be to have UAVS like Rustom, Searchers etc. with this ability

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jun 2014 19:04

it will be a lot easier to integrate such third party sensors and data nodes with the LCH/Rudra since we own the design and avionics.

with USA product typically it will be exactly as they supply it or deleted, with no room for tinkering and customising with our own kit else OEM will void the warranty or simply refuse to help

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jun 2014 19:18

it will be a lot easier to integrate such third party sensors and data nodes with the LCH/Rudra since we own the design and avionics.

with USA product typically it will be exactly as they supply it or deleted, with no room for tinkering and customising with our own kit else OEM will void the warranty or simply refuse to help

The software and setup is open architecture. While the UAV controlling option comes from the inherent data link and software commonality (common manned unmanned architecture) we would require interoperability from our UAV's so that these functions could be performed. As far as data links are concerned, the open architecture is there precisely for this reason that operators can work with Boeing ton integrate their own data links into the system. India does not need Link 16 (A NATO thing) so can introduce its own data links instead of it just as we added the BEL Data Link II on the Poseidon's

Its something that is made quite easy to achieve and this is one of the things Boeing and northrop grumman worked on for the E variant. The british are on record of wanting the same (with their own exclusive UAV's)

"The army is absolutely sold on [the Apache's] performance in Afghanistan," Brig Sexton said, adding: "[The Apache AH.1] has an extremely high profile with the public, mainly down to Captain Wales [Prince Harry] in Afghanistan."

As well the proven performance of the AH.1-variant Apache now in service, Brig Sexton noted that the enhanced capabilities of the AH-64E are proving to be highly alluring to the United Kingdom, especially with regard to manned-unmanned teaming. "We are watching very closely what the US is doing with this," he said, adding: "There is a lot of future potential for this with [the British Army's] Watchkeeper unmanned aerial vehicle."

http://www.janes.com/article/32844/brit ... -of-decade

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Jun 2014 20:02

Why should the baseline for attack helicopter requirement for an anti-tank role run into many dozens of aircraft?

Attack Helicopters are not meant only for anti-tank role. Operational understanding of roles would be important in understanding the need and the numbers.

The entry on Mil Mi 25 on Bharat-Rakshak has this to say:

Mil Mi-25 / Mi-35 [Hind] Akbar

The IAF currently operates two Mi-25/35 Helicopter Squadrons (No.104 Firebirds and No.125 Gladiators) and has a requirement for at least another unit.

So we were short of at least a unit strength. A squadron would be around 15 aircraft minimum to 20 aircraft complement max. 02 Sqns would be 30 -40 pieces. A unit more would mean 10 more pieces. So that would mean 40-50 pieces for operational sqns and I believe the rest would be war reserves as in all procurements.

The number of Mi 25 / 35 in service is lower (20 as per wiki) and serviceability is also an issue. We need to replace them with same or different machines or scrap the sqns as the current aircraft will shortly retire.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Jun 2014 20:20

IMO, The IAF wants at least one sqn of attack helicopters with itself in CAS roles and SEAD roles like MPDR bursting because of considerable expertise and experience in these gained over the years. The LCH will be good but the weapons payload capacity and target tracking of the Apache are way superior and the IAF has operational capacity to exploit these.

Additionally, a huge Army like IA will need many more than 02 sqns of CAS and in the past we would use Mi-17's. Hopefully, now the LCH will be the main stay with a few specialised AH 64 sqns spread in geography. Believe me we have needed more than 02 Sqns but it was always a compromise on need vs. money available.

It may still be argued that the money is too much for keeping the IAF's expertise in the high end but that is a different call.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 24 Jun 2014 20:22

The INS Kamorata ASW ship needs an ASW Helicopter, and many light types like Lynx and Harbin Z-9 exist. A closer look at the HAL Dhruv/Rudra is required.
As the Professor said on Kaveri, closer analysis and care is required to know why HAL Navy Dhruv cannot do ship board ASW. China has standardised on the Z 9 for frigate-destroyer classes, with few Ka 31 heavy ASW / AEWs thrown in for closing the gaps.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 24 Jun 2014 20:26

rohitvats wrote: What will be the production and subsequent induction rate of LCH post that? Can the first squadron of LCH be formed in 1.5 years from mid-2017 i.e. by end 2019? And can HAL produce 1 x Squadron (10 choppers/squadron) every year with higher rate of production post after first 2-3 years?

Let's not confuse current production rate which is in proportion to order size. Here is what is needed - Give an order for 500 LCH and Rudra combo to be delivered in next 5 years + 51~100% FDI for Engine makers to lower costs. That is what we want and then send an Arjun outside HAL main gate aka point a gun on their heads. If they say no, then split the order and rope in a Tata or Mahindra or anyone private. Competition works its magic better than rest of us crying hoarse about HAL non performance.

I would love for them to fail and then use it as a ruse to privatize, BUT FIRST THE HUGE ORDER TO BE DELIVERED WITHIN DEFINED TIME FRAME. Actions count more than words, and LCH can take on chinese in AP, carring on the Paki focus is BS !

p.s. each Hellfire missile will cost more than Paki junkyard tin cans. Let the Pakis boil in their own soup, we should not get anywhere close-no matter how hard they try to instigate us .

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 24 Jun 2014 20:39

brar_w wrote:The AH-64E (aka blk 3 D) comes with the longbow radar........ The Longbow weapon system supports the AGM-114L active radar guided missile, operating in the same millimetric band as the radar.

The Longbow radar is a very low peak power, millimetric band system, with extremely low sidelobes by virtue of a very large relative antenna size. The low emitted power, extremely narrow pencil beam mainlobe, and undisclosed LPI modulation features provide a system with a range of the order of 10 km in clear conditions, ..... The choice of millimetric band means that atmospheric water vapour and oxygen resonance losses rapidly soak up the signal, which is also out of the frequency band coverage of most RWRs. The radar will track up to 128 targets and prioritise the top 16.

Wow - what's with the sudden surge in the sales pitch??

-- Just in a lighter vein - does it mean we shut shop, then??

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jun 2014 20:45

Wow - what's with the sudden surge in the sales pitch??

So if someone posts something about a particular capability he is making a 'sales pitch'. You should really go thread to thread looking at discussions on various russian, american, french, british, Israeli defense equipment and accuse who so ever talks about capability or technicality of being a salesman.

does it mean we shut shop, then??

No, we should keep on building the indigenous helos that we already are and those are planned as explained by Mr. Rohit Vats. We are not going to turn 100% indigenous over night. Hundreds of LCH's being acquired is a very very big step. No one is cutting on those orders just because the AH-64 E is being procured by the armed services that evaluated it and want it. Same goes for aircraft like the Su-30, Pakfa, and Rafale. They are not at the expense of orders for the LCA and AMCA. If they are then they should be scaled back and cut. I have advocated indigenous designs for ever even advocating that we spend 6 billion on AMCA and buy the PAKFA as is without having a PAKFA MKI (FGFA).

From the post above -

The order for helicopters of various kinds by IA and IAF stand as this:

1. Rudra - 60 + 16 - 76
2. LCH - 114 + 65 - 179

That is total of 245 attack helicopters between two major kinds. And so far, from this requirement, HAL has delivered only two Rudra helicopters to Army as of 2013. Not to mention more than 150 Dhruv already in service with various arms and IA's order for 166 additional Dhruv helicopters. Long story short - Services have given commitment to HAL for more than 350 helicopter of varying kind already.

So, especially in this case, Army or IAF don't need to shelve Apache order to show their commitment to 'indigenous' product - which they've already endorsed fully.

How is this buying a firang system and being forced to shut shop?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jun 2014 20:45

BR has got to the point where if anyone says "The sun rises from the east", it is either a red herring, a sales pitch, a turkey or acceptable under the circumstances.

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 24 Jun 2014 20:59

brar_w wrote: So if someone posts something about a particular capability he is making a 'sales pitch'. You should really go thread to thread looking at discussions on various russian, american, french, british, Israeli defense equipment and accuse who so ever talks about capability or technicality of being a salesman.

does it mean we shut shop, then??
No, we should keep on building the indigenous helos that we already are and those are planned as explained by Mr. Rohit Vats. We are not going to turn 100% indigenous over night. Hundreds of LCH's being acquired is a very very big step. No one is cutting on those orders just because the AH-64 E is being procured by the armed services that evaluated it and want it....

Its in a lighter vein

- I was going through some of the jargon on the MM FCR and hence the post.
So are we looking at straight imports, then for the numbers of the Apache being suggested?
I'm sure you are aware that there is much more to a weapon systems than just buying it and hoping to use it for the next 30 years - its not exactly a 'fill-it, shut-it, forget-it' proposition for the expected lifespan of 3-4 decades.
This thread has come around a 180 degrees - pl check out the posts a couple of pages back on the discussions & opinions on straight imports.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 24 Jun 2014 21:03

An astute buyer will agree on buying Apache only if US allows export of Longbow for fitting on Indian LCH. Check their faces when you put this pre-condition.

Any change in Apaches - like connecting to UAV or Indian LCH and so on will come at huge prices - just a realistic opinion based on cost of employing a US programmer (150 K salary plus benefits+50% management overheads).

If we are going to buy Apaches, then expect them to work in isolation or with other US equipment. This mix and match/High and low is difficult to pull off even for Israelis.

Keep it simple-no fantasy play is my opinion.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jun 2014 21:11

So are we looking at straight imports, then for the numbers of the Apache being suggested?

Thats the only practical way to do it. Or are we to spend money to make a production/assembly line for 22+11 apaches?

I'm sure you are aware that there is much more to a weapon systems than just buying it and hoping to use it for the next 30 years - its not exactly a 'fill-it, shut-it, forget-it' proposition for the expected lifespan of 3-4 decades.

Yes I am aware. Point? Are you suggesting that we are incapable of operating it for the next decades (if we actually buy it)? Or are boeing not going to support the apaches once they are sold?

An astute buyer will agree on buying Apache only if US allows export of Longbow for fitting on Indian LCH. .

An astute buyer would first actually look to work out the feasibility of mounting a foreign radar and its system and blending it into the avionics and system suite of the LCH. The APG-78 is designed for ONE helicopter, its not a mountable, scalable multi platform system and has/was never designed as such. Without such a background simply asking for X to be taken out from the Apache and mounted on a Y helicopter is not going to be taken seriously by anyone including the folks that actually go out and ask for such a thing on our behalf

A better option could be to ask Northrop grumman to get clearance to share technology to develop a weapons system based on the APG-78 and its sub-systems. That could be looked at, but I am not sure what HAL's position is on this as this has never been suggested or even looked at. Its not always easy or practical to take out elements of a particular product and mount it on our own products.

Check their faces when you put this pre-condition

Just as we are learning with the Rafale TOT deal, if Northrop grumman is to be pursued to sell or integrate the Apg-78 onto the LCH they will ask for a ton of money. Its a commercial venture for them so they will value the deal according to what they see as "fair value" for the product they are selling. Just as French companies will put whatever they feel is fair value on TOT on the Rafale's major systems and sub-systems.

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 24 Jun 2014 21:19

@nik - I agree with you on the price tag !
- Also, if I may please submit, we need to moderate our enthusiasm for any weapon system to a a realistic level, imported or indigenous.
-Sales brochures, weapon videos all make for impressive viewing and reading- its much, much more sober than that in the hard, real world, especially our harsh environment.
Not meaning to put down the Apache's capability - its sure is a great attack helicopter, however, as I just said earlier - there's much more to inducting an expensive weapon system than just looking at only the performance.

@brar - as I said earlier - pl look at the posts and discussions a couple of pages back in this thread on issues of straight imports - there's little point repeating the same

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 24 Jun 2014 21:24

Just looking up on Eurocopter Tiger and noticed every user country asking for customization for different armaments (missiles, gun turrets, protection level). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_Tiger)

Integration and multiple variants seems to be the norm. LCH with mast mounted radar will be wonderful complement and round off the series.

See huge export potential after comparing price differences (easy 30~40% less), but we need to mass manufacture to go down cost curve ourselves first.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Jun 2014 21:28

deejay wrote:Attack Helicopters are not meant only for anti-tank role. Operational understanding of roles would be important in understanding the need and the numbers.

The aircraft in question i.e. AH-64 is meant primarily for the anti-tank role.

The entry on Mil Mi 25 on Bharat-Rakshak has this to say:
Mil Mi-25 / Mi-35 [Hind] Akbar

The IAF currently operates two Mi-25/35 Helicopter Squadrons (No.104 Firebirds and No.125 Gladiators) and has a requirement for at least another unit.
So we were short of at least a unit strength. A squadron would be around 15 aircraft minimum to 20 aircraft complement max. 02 Sqns would be 30 -40 pieces. A unit more would mean 10 more pieces. So that would mean 40-50 pieces for operational sqns and I believe the rest would be war reserves as in all procurements.

The IAF's original strength was 24 aircraft in two squadrons. So a requirement for another units would translate to an additional 12 units.

The number of Mi 25 / 35 in service is lower (20 as per wiki) and serviceability is also an issue. We need to replace them with same or different machines or scrap the sqns as the current aircraft will shortly retire.

Despite reduced serviceability the Mi-25/35s still have a few years left. That capability along with the HAL Rudras, an ATGM equipped armored force and a fleet of modern multi-role fighters, is more than sufficient for the Pak front.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jun 2014 21:30

Also, if I may please submit, we need to moderate our enthusiasm for any weapon system to a a realistic level, imported or indigenous.
-Sales brochures, weapon videos all make for impressive viewing and reading- its much, much more sober than that in the hard, real world, especially our harsh environment.

Videos were posted to state the differences in the basic AH-64D and the E (blk 3). Thats all that video suggests. Added capability over and above the baseline delta apache is demonstrated and operationalized.

much more sober than that in the hard, real world, especially our harsh environment.

Then lets talk about the harsh environments. The Apache has been evaluated by the IAF in Rajasthan and Leh. Its combat proven in the dusty deserts of Iraq and the altitude of Afghanistan. The British armed forcesare also on record of liking its performance in those conditions. The current model actually improves upon the high altitude performance of the Apache that we tested in Leh. It adds to the avionics and net-centricity (compared to the D) and regains the performance of the A apache which was the best performing apache of the lot.

Just looking up on Eurocopter Tiger and noticed every user country asking for customization for different armaments (missiles, gun turrets, protection level). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_Tiger)

Integration and multiple variants seems to be the norm. LCH with mast mounted radar will be wonderful complement and round off the series.

There are open systems and then there are closed systems. The Longbow is a weapons system more then just a sensor. Its mated to the avionics, missile and the architecture of just one platform (apache). If such a system is to be developed for the LCH then a new system that is open and scalable such as the FCR's being delivered now days (RACR and SABR in the US, others in europe) should be developed. Taking a system that is closed, and designed around one platform and then having to either ditch its innards or ditch the LCH's innards to replace all that requires replacement is just a bad idea and an integration mess. Better to start from scratch using an open architecture and scalable system. Not sure if one exists in the open market, so we may need to develop one from scratch.

The Longbow international consortium (lockheed and Northrop grumman) did develop a wing mounted radar based on the Longbow, for the Cobra helicopter for the marines but it was integrated with existing western mission computers and missiles. I am not sure whether mounting the longbow package on a totally alien system that has absolutely ZERO compatibility with the existing system is feasible at all or simpler then developing a new radar with scalability and cross platform use in mind.