Bharat Rakshak

stealth a/c F117 were not under much threat by radar and went in at night to baghdad area.
in parallel the apaches' led by a solitary MH53 pave low (with better blind nav instruments) went low over the western desert and hit a radar site. its claimed that once they radio'ed the OK, around 15 F-15 bombers already orbiting near their tankers over saudi airspace were the first wave of conventional a/c to go in, followed in next few hrs by everyone else.
maybe other radar sites were hit by a mix of stealth a/c and navy tomahawk missiles too in the early hrs.

its kind of puzzling why they chose the apaches to do that thing.....

Yes. Strike aircraft armed with HARMs, escorted by a few EA-6B Prowlers would have been the likelier choice perhaps. F-117s would be even better. Perhaps they were sure that the Iraqi radars would not be able to detect low flying helicopters and the Iraqis had no AWACS patrolling the airspace in any case. We won't have that luxury against the pakis or chipanda.

Well Iraq is not a small country and to conduct a simultaneous strike on all of Iraq's defences they would have required huge numbers of assets - so the Apaches were probably gap fillers while the Stealth a/c and Prowlers and Cruise missiles were being employed elsewhere.

TOI: India set to order 59 more Russian copters



A cool $1 billion to Russia and presumably much relief to the IAF. Good news.

The most important and sophisticated Iraqi AD center was assigned to the Apache.

And the reason being helicopters can fly lower than the lowest flying fighter and blend with ground clutter that even the most sophisticated radars cannot discern. With NVG and Thermal Sights, they can fly in between trees & hillocks that shield them from radar or any other sensors. If targeted by AAMs and they detect the missile on MAWS, they can manoeuver in any direction or simply land and the small missile radar will lose them in ground clutter. IR missiles can be lost in ground heat and only Imaging Infra Red missiles like Python/Spyder - or laser beam riders - like Pakistani RBS-70 is useful against them.

Even then, the window to target a helicopter is small vis-a-vis a fighter flying at altitude. A fast & low flying helicopter takes a few seconds to cross from horizon to horizon. A fighter even at its lowest altitude with take longer, giving sensors ample time to engage.

Even then a low flying helicopter gives very little reaction time to air defenses. Most air forces have started deploying helicopters for SEAD because of the vulnerability of fast jets even if accompanied by dedicated jammer aircraft.

Here is an ex-IAF helicopter pilot's views on how helicopters are used in SEAD (last few paragraphs) http://cyclicstories.blogspot.com/2011/ ... atrol.html

The Mi-17 in Kargil did not expect Stingers because they thought they were fighting irregulars instead of the Pakistani Army with its bell and whistles. The Mi-17 didnt have MAWS or flares to decoy the Stinger.

questions to regulars
Has there been a weapon to weapon and overall performance comparisons between apache and Mi-28 on this thread?

There have only been some comparisons on the sensors,weaponry and other eqpt. used by both.Open source reports say that both performed well,with the Apache superior in nightfighting and better in integration with other forces (NCW).

Interesting, more the better!

The 139 Mi-17s should replace some of the older Mi-8s and will also be easier to operationalize quickly, given our substantial experience and logistics knowledge of the basic type.



LCH orders should increase and probably will (above orders only seem for the IAF, not IA?) and the Apaches are also required more in number. Also got the chance to discuss with someone who follows these sort of things as to why the IAF is not interested in all 22 being radar equipped, simple answer - extra weight equals lower airframe performance. Hence the IAF is splitting the orders apparently between radar airframes and those without.

About Kargil, the Mi-17s did have flares; but the one used on this mission did not as its flare set malfunctioned hence, it was protected by other Mi-17s using their flares & which helped divert multiple Stinger/Anza attacks (so much for their effectiveness -unlike PR apparently they really have limited chances against fast moving unpredictable targets). However, one did get through and took down the Mi-17 because it continued with repeated salvos and gave ground troops the chance to predict its trajectory. Ultimately, the crew knew the risks and took them, out of sheer bravery and operational requirement, leading to their bravery awards from an understanding IAF.

Another interesting thing one learnt the other day is the RBS-70, regarded as the PA's pride and joy, is considered by several operators to be flawed in terms of operational performance and really cannot offer the same level of effectiveness as some of the more conventional autonomous infrared seeker equipped MANPADS. More details were however not available. Perhaps, goes some way in explaining what happened when a Mi-17 with Indian journalists and escorted by MiG-29s was fired on by PA troops (reportedly with RBS-70) and the missile was a miss-ile.

Sir IIRC the particular MI-17 didnt have the system to dispense the counter measures yet they volunteered, this was from an itnerview of Shri VP Malik or Shri Naik

I thought the order for the extra Mi-17V5s were signed and sealed already? Are these a new order or a rehash of an order already made?

AFAIK, this is a new order of 59 on top of the earlier order of 80. In addition, yet another order of 59 is being negotiated according to the RIA Novosti quote from Austin.
Looks like that second part is wrong. The article mentions an order of 59 in two places but the 2nd instance is probably just another source for the same contract.

AFAIK, we have four squadrons with Mi-8 still in service.

None of the Mi-17s flying that day had CMDS and neither did Ajai Ahuja's MiG21M. Mi-17 typically flew supply sorties along internal lines of communications, so no one thought of equipping them with flares, that have short shelf lives. Only the Mirage 2000 had flares those days, because they were supposed to take on Sidewinder armed F-16s. This is further corroborated in AVM Narayan Menon's account http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... Menon.html Despite without CMDS, the large number of MANPADS hit only one helicopter because MANPADS dont have effective control surfaces to save weight and volume and can hit only in vulnerable situations like when a helicopter is turning away from a mountain side and airspeed is low because of the turn and there is no space to manoeuver.

At Kargil, PA used Afghanistan style traps where probable helicopter & fighter approaches were covered with SAMs.

A PA sangar will open fire. Typically an IA infantry frontal or flank attack would be launched at that sangar. When the attack was mounted, hitherto silent PA sangars covering IA frontal & flank attack approaches would open fire and murder our boys. The same tactic was used by Kasab & his partner to kill Mumbai ATS officers. This was countered by effective scouting. The same tactic was adopted for helicopter and fighter approach paths.

The helicopter dived deep and the missile operator lost laser lock.

Added later - AVM Narendra Gupta is more clear http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl1614/16141230.htm

No, the Mi-17s flying that day did have CMDS & so did the one that was shot down. Ajay Ahuja's case is entirely different, because of the pathetic state (then) of our older MiG-21 fleet including the Ms, in terms of countermeasures.

Narayan Menon says "another aspect was that the counter measure dispensing system (CMDS) fitted on the helicopters, that ejected flare cartridges to lure away heat seeking missiles had been rendered unreliable due to disuse and these slower gunships had become vulnerable." He is referring in specific to the helicopter that was lost and other helicopters that suffered serviceability issues wrt their CMDS as well.

However, the ones that did have operational systems, covered the Mi-17 that was lost with their overlapping CMDS coverage. That was a big reason why the crew decided to take the calculated risk. And the method worked to a large extent allowing for multiple passes to be made. Ultimately though, one missile got through. I won't go into details as to how the formation was set up, even if discussed publicly, but the IAF's method worked brilliantly till then & still has operational relevance.

A lot of the published coverage on Kargil, including those by senior officers & otherwise excellent authors is misleading or sometimes plain wrong.

For instance, Phil Camp's statements about Atlis being used during Safed Sagar. No, it was Litening & many folks have seen the imagery from the FLIR at a public event to know the truth. I find it ironic that he went so far as to mention drop ranges & the like, but mixed up this part. The Litening imagery at both Tiger Hill and Muntho Dhalo can be seen here:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... henag.html

This flares information is similarly from those who actually investigated the mission in order to ensure the relevant lessons were learnt. Its been many years now and since the information was shared publicly, I see no reason to be hiding it. Anyhow, the Pakistanis have access to various types of MANPADS and CMDS and will know the basic details.

Gupta's information is correct when looked at about the parlous state of the earlier MiG-21s. The import proposal had been set up with a clear operational requirement in the 1980's as these earlier aircraft (unlike the Mirages) did not come with OEM equipped sets (which in any case would have been obsolete) and needed upgrade. AHQ identified several manufacturers but the mandarins at the bureaucratic level sat on the files as these and other upgrades were deemed expensive.

The state in Kargil revealed that upgrades across the IAF were limited and even premier newer airframes had limitations, but which were worked around. Far better than the pathetic condition of the PAF though.

For instance, the Mirage 2000 fleet - commonly perceived to be across the board MR - was anything but, with only a few A2G ordinance qualified, and only limited pilots plus ground crew available for such taskings . And air to ground ordinance was hurriedly sought during Kargil for the Mirage 2000, dug up from IAF stocks, qualified in a hurry and then used to effect.

LGBS were quickly qualified on the Jaguar - combat use was a flop though, leaving the Mirages as the key carrier. Only after Kargil did the fleet become extensively LGB capable.

Incidentally, the perception about Ahuja has always been that he would not have been shot down if he had not made repeated passes to "fix" Nachiketa's position and support him, any which way. That made his flight paths predictable & allowed the Manpads operator to track him successfully and shoot him down.

Ultimately, Ahuja paid the price for his own bravery and esprit de corps. The lack of CMDS did not deter him (and the other escorts) from flying their missions. Usually, they were flying high and fast and MANPADS launched had a miserable success rate.

But as the Su-22 pilots discovered in 1971, repeated passes allow the surface to air weapons operators to target them. In 1971, it was the guns. At Kargil, it was the MANPADS operators.

The lessons have been learnt, and the IAF won't be an easy catch anytime. The PAF on the other hand, or even the PLAAF - they really haven't faced any tough campaign apart from (in the formers case) bombing some ill trained tribals. I doubt whether their pilots or their engineering crew will be able to improvise on the fly when faced with such challenges.



This could be one of the repetitive issues faced by the RBS-70. For obvious reasons, details are sanitized and I don't expect anyone to come clean about them anytime soon (too many operators). But it does seem this system is not as effective as originally thought, when the Pakistanis hyped it up and claimed it was a sure shot way to deny IAF strikers their airspace at low altitude. At least one of the operators is looking actively to replace their RBS-70 inventory

By any chance was it supposed to be Su-7B and not Su-22??

Absolutely right. And it should be Su-7 not Su-22.

I am indeed referring to the Su-7 in IAF service.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... /Su-7.html



When speaking to ex-Su-7 pilot, what I learnt was since the aircraft could take so much punishment, and IAF pilots were extremely caught up in trying to inflict damage (their blood was up, exact words) - the planes used to take heavy damage as the Pak anti aircraft guns had time to position themselves as the Su-7s made repeated passes.

This is something IAF pilots are now aware of (especially considering Sq Ldr Ahuja's loss).

You make repeated attacks on a target, and the defenders will know. With some of the better sensors we have inducted, we can now attack from afar (range, altitude) and also make a single pass at the target. Even way back in WW2, repeated passes at low level were considered very dangerous, as versus a quick 1-2 strikes and then zoom off.

We also have weapons systems that allow for accurate, precision strikes. Incidentally, Russian A2G stuff is also often reliable and effective. In IAF firepower trials, Russian made ASMs struck the target, time and again!! And with huge effect.

Today, IAF fighters carry upto 500 kg Optical Guided bombs. Also LGBs. Next step is to operationalize INS+GPS/GLONASS guided bombs which the IAF would certainly be looking into.

How things changed after Kargil can also be seen from what happened when the Pakistanis again took over a position on our side of the LoC and attacked an IA patrol. After that initial success, the IAF sent across a couple of Mirage 2000's who LGB'ed the heck out of the Pakistanis and sent them scurrying across the border, post haste. Those who were left alive that is.

Today's IAF can even lase targets with UAVs. And a huge portion is PGM capable (70% of our active fighters). Not like Kargil.

When did this happen?

From what I've been told, there were dispensers but no flares, because they were not procured/deployed until the Mi-17 was shot down. After Kargil, there was a mad rush in IN and IAF to equip all planes with CMDS and buy chaff/flares cartridges.



This is the first time I am hearing this and the overlapping theory doesnt practically seem plausible. An IR seeker on a Stinger or Igla has a limited FoV. The Pakistani Stinger use proportional navigation and the FoV is limited.

Before launching, the operator uses the console to lock the target before firing. Only when the lock on music is heard is the missile fired. Hence the missile is LOBL.

Because the missile is already locked to the target before firing, the flares "have" to originate from the target to seduce the missile from the target. Otherwise the missile seeker has such limited FoV that any flare launched outside of the limited seeker FoV wont seduce the seeker. Hence overlapping flare umbrella cannot be created, because the overlapping flares will not be close to the target to seduce the missile away.

Another reason why overlapping theory is implausible is that flares are magnesium or thermite to generate high temperatures similar to engine exhaust. The flare incendiary melts airframe metal structures and control cables on contact and set hydraulics and fuel on fire. There are safety guidelines for flares deployment and it is suicidal for one aircraft to fly through another planes flares. A flare hitting a rotor is as bad as an incendiary AA round hitting the rotor blade. No plane will fly through another planes flares. If flying side by side, sufficient separation has to be maintained, that negates the primary concept of overlapping flare cover.

> Aditya_V: when did this happen?

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/other-loonda-kargil-ii.html

Very true, Mi-8s have been given some life extension and are still soldiering on, most of them in the North East but some in the Western Plains too. Why they are even deployed in the ANC!!!
It is intriguing that we are adding 120odd Mi-17V5s and all of them in the Weaponized configuration. What am I missing here?

^^^ Above article on the latest Mi-17V5 order talks about the new inductions coming up in Bhatinda AFS (done) and Srinagar AFS (by March 2012). This is a great development as these appear to be new raising rather than replacement of an existing SQ. any news of the SQ#s. A Noob pooch, what is the difference between a Helicopter SQ and a Helicopter Unit? probably the # of birds, anything else?

^^^One and onlee the same.......the nomenclature is XYZ Helicopter Unit for example 129 HU.

For some reason I was ignorant about this incident.

^^ Well that makes the two of us.. If it was published in The Hindu, I missed it completely...

There were flares with the Mi-17's and they were actually used in the event itself. Its just that the particular Mi-17 in question had a problem with its CMDS system, but given the requirement of CAS, the crew went ahead anyway, taking the risk as it were, with their other helicopters in the formation supporting them. It was a risky workaround and worked for a while. But by making repeated passes, the crew exposed themselves to danger, which after all was bound to happen given the operational requirement. That is what actually brought home the issue to me, in terms of the term "calculated risk", that these men knew what they would face and went ahead anyway. Partly why I don't buy into the entire service versus service issue engaged in by people writing post the event, because at Kargil, the IAF personnel did do what they could for their IA brethren.

Overall, since the situation is far different now, it can be said that there were two tiers of aircraft in the IAF at that point of time, the western ones - the Mirages, Jaguars etc which came with a decent fit to begin with, and also had some good PGM capabilities. But these stocks were carefully husbanded (PGMs) but they had decent RWR, chaff, flares etc as well. The MiG-29s were also ok. In the MiGs, the MiG-23 BNs had seen some local upgrades, but the rest of the older MiG-21 fleet was languishing, and the MiG-27s also per memory got their Israeli CMDS fitted later. Helicopters, we had the systems etc. for the Mi-17s at least. Overall, the IAF had not fared as badly as had the IA in terms of force modernization. They did have limited amounts of niche equipment that had a disproportionate impact when used innovatively. Eg picking up Muntho Dhalo on Litening, using Mirages to mark the target, for MiGs to literally blow it to smithereens.

PS: This report mentions data broadly similar to what I remember.



http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... hatto.html



The operator as you mentioned, targets the Stinger visually, gets a launch tone and fires. AFter which the Stinger etc is autonomous, it cannot be guided to a specific target and nor does the operator have any control over that.The operator will also quickly move away from the firing spot, as the launch smoke gives away his location and exposes him to retaliation. Basically, MANPADS have severe limitations. They are best used against targets whose trajectories are somewhat known and the operator can track them accurately. Closely spaced targets and the missile will go after whichever is in its field of view. If the seeker is heavily jammed with clutter (ie flares) all bets are off. If memory serves, the ones used at Kargil by PA were units transferred during Afghan war and not the latest. Or Chinese ripoffs of the SA-7, Anza-1s. Eitherways, not the latest Igla-S or the like which will be far harder to counter.

In this case, the IAF did manage to create a formation wherein the flares managed to protect the formation from the peaks beside and below the target. How they did it is best left out of the discussion but that was what managed to protect the crew till that point, and which is why it took multiple Stinger/Anza's to bring down that one helicopter. The crew reportedly knew this, and this was part of the mission planning.

There were also other methods the IAF came up with to reduce the risk of MANPADS post Kargil.

But the immediate conclusion from this incident was, that it was practically impossible to sanitize the entire area of MANPADS. The fact that their methods worked in terms of requiring salvos was one thing but even so, the risk meant that operations moved to medium altitude. While the bulk of the publicity was garnered by the attacks from the LGB equipped Mirages, some good results were obtained by pilots flying aircraft with portable GPS systems and synchronizing their attacks manually.

I'm glad that the LCH which flows directly from the lessons of Kargil will have a very comprehensive SPS suite. Including MAWS, CMDS and RWR. The Russians have also demo'ed a DIRCM on their Mi-28s and we are working on one with Israel. I hope that get's included as well on all our planes.

the Mi-17 sports fuel tanks on its sides, one would think that it helps with handling unbalanced loads by transferring fuel between the tanks as needed, would doing the same in Dhruv help in carrying more armaments on its booms? assuming the current limitation is due to the main rotor having to compensate for any unbalance, the latter more pronounced for outward hanging loads

also, having a NOTAR reduce the weight of the heli by getting rid of the tail rotor?

can HAL do these even as a tech demo?

Thanks Karan

+1

LOH in final stages of induction or design??

1000 pounders with paveway kit paired with ATLIS. the jag itself was not considered suitable for that terrain at the time.

Why did the Jags not work well with LGBs in Kargil?

The Jags with their underpowered engines were probably not suited for combat at those heights. Experts might be able to throw some more light.
However, its OT here

Army to get its first attack copter squadron next year





http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20111120/nation.htm#6

^^^Excellent news. But rather than give them to Strike Corps, put them with Pivot Corps - @1 Squadron per Corps for starters. Those Corps will require every bit of firepower for their D+X days of combat - till the time Strike Corps come in.

One stupid sawal??

Why give it a different name. Why not just call it an Armed Dhruv. Its not like it is a different machine.

Rudra brings forth a fiery feeling as comparedto a more timid Druv. Wonder what they will name our Apache Attack helos?!?! Any suggestions?

^^^ the Tribune article talks about. Weaponized Cheetah named Lancer with an integrated GUn and Rocket pod, this is the first time I am hearing this, Gurus, can some guide to me to more info on this, hope this is not DDMites. When did IA test it and induct it?

Rohit, let us start with the three/four STRIKE Corps and then army every Corps with one SQ of Attack helos, let us get the LCHs, then the pace of Induction of attack helos wil pick up. How many Rudra has the Army ordered? I think they have already ordered 57 LCHs correct?

Rohit, let us start with the three/four STRIKE Corps and then army every Corps with one SQ of Attack helos, let us get the LCHs, then the pace of Induction of attack helos wil pick up. How many Rudra has the Army ordered? I think they have already ordered 57 LCHs correct?