Bharat Rakshak

pics
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 4.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... os/Lancer/
and a small report.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 03/Lancer/

^^^ thanks Rahul, I learnt something new today. I hope we have couple of SQ of these with the IA. Good CASEVAC as well as Flank protection!!!

114 LCH as per reports I've read.

65 is for the AirForce

imo name or formation is not important, but every IA corps commander (whether strike corps, pivot corps or just regular horse cavalry) should have some LCH & WSI-Dhruv directly under his operational control without needing to call up his theater commander, IAF liaison or worse Dilli(!). his formations can take care of preparing refueling & rearming sites, hides and missions for his assets.

once that is done, the IA logistical chain will naturally evolve to support organic and frequent use of gunships. decision loop being a phone call from Col/Lt Col to the corps general staff HQ, hours can be saved in the fog of war.

even a single sqdn of 10 Rudra and another of 10 WSI-Dhruv per IA corps will be a massive force multiplier in protecting units under pressure and deftly clearing strongpoints of enemy resistance with a well aimed burst or atgm from the night sky penny packets is fine, we need them all over the place, not at predictable points.

IAF can probably plan to create Shakinah massed gunship Natgeo special "hunting with the cobras" type formations of AH64D and Rudra, all spit n polish, bristling with helinas and hellfires and creeping around over swift flowing himalayan rivers below the treeline.... or 15 of these wingtip to wingtip flying slowly over the Nubra valley sand dunes, raising whirls of dust .... like pack of well fed wolves falling out in a show of strength.

Singhaji,
Imaging the picture that you paint here gives me goosebumps all over.

here are 23 AH64A helis flying together over south korea....in a show of force for some unknown reason. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ozCw0zaQT8

just imagine this lot flying a bit lower, line abreast forming a rough 'rohan horsemen charge line' a couple kms long, with eddies of dust from the nubra sand dunes...

The LAH Rudra; Its a recon option in the mountains and meant for anti terrorist ops and certainly not a force multiplier.
There is a big diff betn LAH and LCH.

As I've explained earlier, this is practically impossible, no aviator will fly through flares launched by others and melt his airframe and if launched by others, the physical separation will be sufficient for those flares to be outside missile seeker FoV to have any effect.

Now you're coming to the point, and hence the need for the flare to originate from the aircraft.

Stingers cannot be fired in salvoes like Grad rockets. Because unless the operator gets seeker lock, the missile wont fire. Multiple operators acquiring targets at the same time gave the impression of salvoes.

Leaving it out of the discussion wont make an apocryphal story true. This is what an Mi-17 with CMDS looks like http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 0.jpg.html. The installation is just aft of the wheel support truss.

These are images of Mi-17 at Kargil. 129 HU and 152 HU participated in those initial attacks.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... rgil25.jpg
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... rgil01.jpg
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... h.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... c.jpg.html
There are exhaust diffusers but absolutely no CMDS in sight anywhere on these birds.

The simple fact is there were no CMDS and flares on those birds. If those so-called tactics and were-there CMDS were so effective, then the Mi-17 wouldnt have been discontinued from strike missions and restricted to transport missions from the day of the loss.

The MiGs were still used for strike after their losses using revised GPS assisted high/medium altitude bombing techniques.

Because the integration work on Jaguars were not complete. From the CAG report http://www.cag.gov.in/reports/defence/2 ... apter3.htm

>> The LAH Rudra; Its a recon option in the mountains and meant for anti terrorist ops and certainly not a force multiplier.

TFTA looks are not the Rudra's strong point. but a system that is networked, has night vision, can disappear into sniper hides upto 200km away and reappear with fresh fuel , crew and weapons , can fire 4 x ATGMs and helmet controlled cannon is a force multiplier in our context...its far more powerful than armed Lancer for example....and far more survivable than a lumbering Mi17....

Guided helicopter Missiles like Hellphyrrr costs around $ 68000 (35 lakhs at todays exchange rate) as per wiki.
its probably worth to use such missles agianst tanks.
They use this (on predators) to target some mujahids in some TSP vehicles expensive affair

IMO those B-8 or B-13 pods firing unguided S-8 or more powerful S-13 (it can take out tanks ) probably would be more worthwhile to carry.
Wondering if we can integrate (read allowed) those UB pods on the 64s (S-8s and S-13s are probably cheaper than TFTA equivalents)

Philip saar
As per wiki M230 gun on the 64 has an effective range of 1500 meters (30 x 113mm rounds ) ground targets and the Shipunov 2A42 on mi-28 has effective range 2500 meters (30 x 165 mm rounds) on ground tragets. how true is it? i mean the mi-28 firing those rounds at 1500 meters would almost punch 2 times that of M230 round.
Shipunov 2A42
M230 chain gun

and the marketing of 1200 rounds carrying capability of 64s are a farce as it uses the auxillary fuel tank area to accomodate that. otherwise its same 300 rounds like mi-28
From the above link on M230->

UAV controlled from Apache available to us !!! That would give some serious capability.

Recent upload from Eric, Sarang over Waddington, 2008.

chiragS, I wish that DRDO develops a small 125-250 lbs bomb and fits Sudarshan based LGB kits to give more punch. It will be more cost effective than those Hellfires and will be a all purpose tank, bunker killer.

Vishal Jolapara,
Wonderful pic. Thanks for sharing.

I echo Ramanna's sentiments.It seems incredible that the ordnance factories and other PSUs meant to develop missiles and munitions for the forces have not developed a cheap cost-effective PGM using a bomb kit as is being doem worldwide,for fitment onto "dumb bombs" tuning them into cheap PGMs.There is little point in spending millions using ATGMs crushing jihadi insects by an "elephant"! Similarly,even the IN/CG require a simple short ranged ASM.guided bomb for use against small infiltrator boats,pirate skiffs.The same could also be very effective against enemy bunkers,armoured vehicles,etc.,targets of opportunity that could be dealt with at low cost.

We were supposed to be keen on acquiring Israelii "Harpy's and Harops." DEtails of these drones are here.
http://defense-update.com/products/h/harop.html

helis are very sensitive to unbalanced lateral loads off from the main rotor vertical axis, which could be the reason why armament load hanging from the booms is very light compared to their payload capacity

maybe one way this is compensated is by carrying EFT's on the sides of the fuselage where fuel could be pumped between tanks as and when a lateral load is expended, like a bomb is dropped from one pylon, so as to keep the center of gravity of the heli

the Mi-17 seems to come with EFTs and yet its armament payload remains at 1500kg, what gives? carrying drop tanks on the far end pylons enables better lateral payload capacity, of course the armament boom has to be wet pylon enabled

Mi-17 with EFTs

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Czech-Republic--/Mil-Mi-17-1%28Sh%29/0903549/M/

they could very well be replaced with PGMs

MBDA is working on a small weapon called SABER which even small UAVs could carry
test video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lERkmjvsLWQ
http://www.defence-update.net/wordpress ... _mbda.html

looks like a kind of analogue to smaller AASM...stuff that can be triple racked onto pylons of manned a/c as well for smaller targets like BAI missions against enemy columns or infra.

Hah. We should offer them the Rudra. Exactly what they're looking for...

HAL's helicopter division has been developing helicopters for our uniqure requirements rather well in recent times.The Dhruv,Rudra now,LCH,Lancer and the light helos derived from the Allouette-3 design,Cheetah/Chetak and Lama ,are all good enough to be displayed at a def.expo.There is a vast market for helos,especially medium sized helos.The robust Cold War design of the MI-8/17V series is the world's best selling helo,with a huge market even for secondhand ones.It is the helicopter's equivalent to the Kilo sub.If the MOD/HAL think visionary,the full caboodle of our indigenously designed helos should be displayed at the next international ekpo,as pricewise we should be very competitive.

We now have to think beyond light helos and develop with assitance preferably a multi-purpose medium sized helo of 10t weight,that can serve aboard our existing naval warships under construction and for the other two services too.One option is to also leverage the huge order for naval helos,60+ medium 10t and more Merlin class AW-101s for carriers and larger warship.With such a large order for 10t helos which will swell to 100+ when the IA and IAF add their wants too,why not ask for TOT just as we are doing with the MMRCA? This way there will be no need for yet another type to be developed and add to the maintenance/logistic burden?

A new version of Arididen is out. It seems to have more power than the older shakti engine.

http://www.turbomeca.com/IMG/pdf/ardide ... l_data.pdf

Compared to older shakti engines.

http://www.turbomeca.com/IMG/pdf/fiche_ ... en_1h1.pdf

The shakti still seems to have more continous max power than the the newer one.
I am no guru in engine parmeters , but some educated person can throw some light on the changes and their implications. As Far as I see, the major modification seems to be the power output shaft, I am pretty sure there are other smaller changes too.

Ardiden 3g power the Ka-62 which is a 6.5T class chopper , Shakti powers the ALH which is 5.5 ton class , so the higher power compensates for greater take off weight.

Hmm abduls havent seen this one posted.

some interesting info on Apache onlee GD hope you like this one!

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=17029
Great stuff. Up until now my mind had been full of the Air Force viewpoint on the issue as enunciated by Jasjit Singh is his Air Power book. But here the Army has very clearly stated its case in elegant but easy to understand language and here I support the Army viewpoint

Shivji, just to debate this through; will not asking AF to setup up a 'Wing' HQ (which controls and deploys the helicopters depending on Army requirements) tagged along with the tactical Army HQ (Division level??) also work?

Added later: What is AF's view or Jasjit Singh write about in his book regarding Army operating helicopters?

Jasjit Singh basically classifies the use of air power into close air support (support to the grunt which the grunt on the ground wants to see) and attacks into the rear lines of the enemy (interdiction) where supply routes, stores and Command and Communication are disrupted. Jasjit Singh says something to the effect that given that air power assets are limited in number what the grunt wants to see will help only in a localised area, but the attacks on the enemy's rear will eventually slow down and stop the war while the battlefield interdiction will merely blunt an offensive. Singh concludes that the grunt getting hit may be a price that has to be paid in war for the "larger issue" of taking the enemy's logistics and support. This is a very very "Air Forcy" view where the Air Force, controlling all assets gets to decide where they are best employed and may not be able to provide the grunt with support in given situations.

The army's viewpoint seems to be "Balls. You guys go ahead and do your job and we are grateful for that. But let us have our own little air force of attack and support helos to support the grunt exactly when he needs support rather than calling you and finding out that you are busy elsewhere"

The Air Force has some objections to this. They are valid, I guess, but I think the army has a point.

given that our wars are only likely to be 2-3 weeks at best, the effect of deep strikes on enemy logistics and movement are likely to be much less than a 'proper' war of say 3-6 months .... usually both our enemies will be the one to initiate the war and they will stock up properly before igniting the fuse.

so I have to say the IAs pov makes sense in our context. and now that they are paying for it out of their own budget, all doctrinal objections should be overruled. IA are the best guys to setup FARPs and hiding places for the attack helicopters and the divisional commander being able to call up attack helis directly is a great boost for us.

Well, I believe that if this happensit will be relagated to a secondary role in the decision making loop, behind the Army.

In a larger philosophical sense the "Air Force" like those of many other nations may worry about being made redundant by other parallel air forces. That is why the AF is looking now at "aerospace commands" and it may the Air force that talks of ability to knock out satellites. But I'm speculating.

There seems to be a lot of work going on to make all 3 forces "integrated". It may be the integration issues that the Air Force worries about. For example the Air Force is tasked with Air Defence and interception of intruding aircraft. Now unless they have a very clear understanding of where the Army is using its helos - the army helos can be killed by friendly fire. Of course it would be instructive to see how the US integrates is various air forces.

The other thing is bases and maintenance. Where will the army base its helos? Who will maintain them? Is the army going to have separate areas or share them with the air force. Whose jurisdiction will this come under? The navy has its own airfileds I think. What about the army?

helis do not need runways to operate from. the army bases could provide open fields that heli infra can be built around. infact its better these helis be spread all over and not concentrated into a few bases given that helis have low transit speed and low range vs fighter a/c.

I look forward to Frogfoot MKIs with the IA using sdb and hellfires - have a long list of bad guys to beat up

Its not so much about runways as the other infrastructure - hangars, engine maintainance. Technicians, workshops and suppliers of parts - many of which have to be duplicated by the army while they already exist with the air force. the other thing is that if a half hearted job is done (open fields) - it leaves no room for expansion should the army later need a runway to operate UAVs or some such thing. So there will be some expensive duplication unless some sharing agreement is worked out.

this might get resolved only if we have 'theater commands' that fold in both IAF and IA in that zone. I agree that for stuff like LCH which both IA and IAF will operate, a common infra is best. if IA operates Rudra exclusively it may not matter for rudra atleast.

Methinks that the IA needs its own Heli SQs. With direct line reporting to CORPS HQ and dotted line to the IAF.

Similarly heavy duty A2G with direct line to IAF and dotted line to IA Corps requesting for blasting enemy supplies, logistics etc. behind enemy lines

Maintenance under the IAF.

Recce by satellite and IAF A/C to be shared with all three including IN

IAF for Air Superiority, DSPA of enemy's strategic assets, enemy airspace.

AAD by all depending on the theatre. IA for its assets and attacking frontlines, IN for the coasts, theatre and assets at sea, and the IAF for strategic, populated targets and CAP over airspace ruled by it, and all Military and R&D, economic and civilain assets located on our ground.

The turf rules have to be thought out logistically, and logically to give us the best edge for a win and bang for the buck. To hell with egos.

How do the army & airforce now coordinate with regards to IAF aircrafts returning from strike are not hit by IA SAM/AA system?

I think it makes sense for IA to have its own attack helo's. The IAF can infact stick to fixed wing aircrafts. Its the grunts on the ground who needs Transport Helo's for last mile connectivity, also attack helo's for quick close support. Majority of Helo assets should be owned & operated by IA. They can share infrastructure with IAF bases for the same. Fixed wing aircrafts stay with the IAF, that way they always can operate on the "strategic level". That should keep IAF happy.

rajan ji, IA already has its own heli sqns for about a quarter century.

Rahulji, but not in the numbers or strength or firepower that the IA needs?