Indian Military Helicopters

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Sep 2015 10:47

>>>and why is a gunship helicopter needed for SEAD ? SEAD is done with appropriately equipped a/c armed with ARMs none of which is true for the apache or hinds. they have no mission eqpt for sead and no arm. sure they could go in close and shoot up a site with rockets and missiles but why ? doing it from 50km away is so much safer.

Nap of the earth to go below radar coverage. look at this singha.
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... ache-raid/

arms are good for SEAD but not necessarily DE-AD.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... mbeth.html

US and NATO aircraft fired at least 743 HARMs against radars supporting these enemy SAMs.36 Yet, enough of the Serb IADS remained intact- mainly the persistent AAA and MANPADS threat- to require NATO fighters to operate above a 15,000-foot floor throughout most of the air effort. Although allied pilots could effectively counter the older SA-7 with flares if they saw it in time, the SA-9/13, SA-14, SA-16, and SA-18 presented a more formidable threat.
---
our NGARM will likely have a GPS/INS type fix and not just a passive seeker, but still.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Sep 2015 13:30

SEAD means multiple actions including incapacitation of runways, destruction of air assets on the ground, elimination of radar sites and AA defences and C&C centers. The Air Force is eminently suited for this and they would hardly use only Attack helos. Not sure how anyone concluded that the IAF's or Army's helos are for the SEAD role. Yeah they may help in some instances but they are hardly the only or the most appropriate asset for the job.

I don't think the army is equipped at all for SEAD. That is what the air force is there for. Quite apart from anything else SEAD is a continuous process where reconnaissance and intel reports must follow attacks. No self respecting military sits back and allows its assets to stay taken out. They have repairs, replacements and decoys so the follow up recce role is as vital as the attack role. Only the air forces can do that. Attack, follow up, reassess-attack, follow up, reassess attack- follow up reassess etc

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Sep 2015 15:05

other than helping a bit with SEAD I see no reason why the IAF should get the apaches. and its role will be marginal there as IAF has many other assets for that role. i do not think its possible to fly far into TSP and attack airbases and radar stations with helicopters in a shooting war......any roving fighter will launch an AAM from high up and bag the apaches easily.

they are dedicated anti-armour/anti-bunker platforms with a relatively short range which naturally armies all over the world operate.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Sep 2015 17:16

Singha wrote:other than helping a bit with SEAD I see no reason why the IAF should get the apaches. and its role will be marginal there as IAF has many other assets for that role. i do not think its possible to fly far into TSP and attack airbases and radar stations with helicopters in a shooting war......any roving fighter will launch an AAM from high up and bag the apaches easily.

they are dedicated anti-armour/anti-bunker platforms with a relatively short range which naturally armies all over the world operate.

Siachen - getting all those fancy Chinese wheeled vehicles that you said would run around Indian soldiers?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 01 Sep 2015 17:45

Singha wrote:other than helping a bit with SEAD I see no reason why the IAF should get the apaches. and its role will be marginal there as IAF has many other assets for that role. i do not think its possible to fly far into TSP and attack airbases and radar stations with helicopters in a shooting war......any roving fighter will launch an AAM from high up and bag the apaches easily.

they are dedicated anti-armour/anti-bunker platforms with a relatively short range which naturally armies all over the world operate.

Well TACDE simulates this and from what I have heard it is not often that a fighter gets a lock on a helicopter. A fighter has to have a side on approach as most Russian helicopter engines have exhaust on the side, so the fighter makes a big turn to get to the side and all the helicopter does to evade is a spot turn.

This is WVR of course.

BVR, the simulations picked up more ground clutter than helicopters. There is always a way... The helicopter has some unique flight characteristics and it is up to the forces to exploit these.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Sep 2015 18:13

deejay wrote:
Viv S wrote:The IA/IAF's attack helicopter fleet will be more than sufficient going into the future. Even the Apaches are entirely unnecessary.
The attack helicopter fleet is actually a very small force presently and does not permit multiple theater operations because of platform limitations.

If one studies how the IA is scaling up its attack helicopter fleet, it will be an eye opener for those who considered the present force level adequate. The LCH and the Rudra are together filling in the numbers.

Nobody's saying that the present force is adequate. But any additional capability over and above 180 LCHs + 76 Rudras (neither of which is a slouch in the attack dept) is not, or at least should not be a priority. The Apache is a firm 'like-to-have' rather than a 'must-have' acquisition.

deejay wrote:Well TACDE simulates this and from what I have heard it is not often that a fighter gets a lock on a helicopter. A fighter has to have a side on approach as most Russian helicopter engines have exhaust on the side, so the fighter makes a big turn to get to the side and all the helicopter does to evade is a spot turn. This is WVR of course.

BVR, the simulations picked up more ground clutter than helicopters. There is always a way... The helicopter has some unique flight characteristics and it is up to the forces to exploit these.

That's a rather generalized conclusion, given that the radar used to for testing hasn't been specified. The PAF's JF-17s & F-16s both field look-down-shoot-down FCRs, while the PLAAF started inducted AESA equipped fighters last year IIRC. Equally important will be the sizeable numbers of AWACS that both forces operate. Ground clutter isn't as big an issue as it used to be back in the 80s & 90s. Replicating the Apache's long range DEAD raid in 1991 isn't as doable today.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Sep 2015 18:28

Does the IAF/IA regard runway denial as a part of SEAD or a different mission set?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 01 Sep 2015 20:14

Viv S wrote:...
deejay wrote:Well TACDE simulates this and from what I have heard it is not often that a fighter gets a lock on a helicopter. A fighter has to have a side on approach as most Russian helicopter engines have exhaust on the side, so the fighter makes a big turn to get to the side and all the helicopter does to evade is a spot turn. This is WVR of course.

BVR, the simulations picked up more ground clutter than helicopters. There is always a way... The helicopter has some unique flight characteristics and it is up to the forces to exploit these.
That's a rather generalized conclusion, given that the radar used to for testing hasn't been specified. The PAF's JF-17s & F-16s both field look-down-shoot-down FCRs, while the PLAAF started inducted AESA equipped fighters last year IIRC. Equally important will be the sizeable numbers of AWACS that both forces operate. Ground clutter isn't as big an issue as it used to be back in the 80s & 90s. Replicating the Apache's long range DEAD raid in 1991 isn't as doable today.

It is a generalised conclusion, specifics I do not remember

Well, I was not involved in the exercises but did meet Helicopter Combat Leaders (HCL's) and a few discussions at unit level on the Fighter Vs. Helicopter scenario. From what I understand the exercises involved multiple aircraft type at TACDE with an aim to evolve fighter vs. helicopter tactics for both fixed wing and rotary types. These discussions were during our deployment for Op Parakram. Radar types on M2K, Bison and Su 30 may be considered for specific.

All simulations for helicopters were done in an environment where helicopters did not have any radar, so it was only after a timely visual sighting that a helicopter would turn into the fighter. If the sighting was delayed, it was good bye.

Next, WVR, equipped with Gsh23mm and TOW missiles on the Mi 35 and only the Gsh 23mm on the Mi 17, it was understood that the helicopter really did not stand a chance in getting the fighter.

Ground Clutter will be an issue tracking moving objects at 02/03 meters AGL at 60/80 kmph to 120 kmph NOE. The pick up is intermittent and sudden turns, trees and bushes, small mounds can be helpful in dodging radar locks. Basically anything which can obstruct line of sight from the direction of the radar. If a pilot knows this, the rest is working to stay 'under'. Add to this, a lot of stated radar performance is "ideal onditions" for the radar and the target. Actually, ideal conditions rarely exist.

As a helicopter pilot I would be worried more from Small Arms and MANPADS from ground any day.

Moving On ...
The Apache with its Longbow Fire Control Radar and missiles is certainly a leg up in DEAD / SEAD. What can be duplicated or not is a war time thing and will depend on enemy, terrain, stage of battle, attrition acceptance,etc, etc. Ruling out a capability and practicing only set pieces won't work.

The "Network-Centric" battlefield SA, that the Apache brings is an exciting force multiplier. It alone adds so many new dimensions and possibilities to use of both associated ground and air forces in the theater of operations. The "theater commander", I am sure would love to have the Apache up there.

I am not sure how similar are the capabilites of the LCH, but I have heard this from ASTE pilots:

LCH has an amazing Avionics suit. Its the best or equivalent of the best in class around the world.
Aerodynamically some machines may fly faster and could perhaps do crazier stunts but the LCH will hold its own anywhere else. So, for me the debate on whether Apache and LCH or only LCH is an open debate and no certian answers.

_______________________

brar_w:
Runway denial would / could form part of SEAD targets. I can't say what is the exact nomenclature for IAF. Runway capture is Special Forces mostly inserted by helicopters, Runway destruction is fighters or that is how I understood.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2015 20:46

i do not think its possible to fly far into TSP and attack airbases and radar stations with helicopters in a shooting war......any roving fighter will launch an AAM from high up and bag the apaches easily.

IF an IAF Apache is deep within PakiLand, then it means PAF planes must be in shelters in someplace in their strategic depth - China, Tajikistan or the like.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Sep 2015 22:53

brar_w:
Runway denial would / could form part of SEAD targets. I can't say what is the exact nomenclature for IAF. Runway capture is Special Forces mostly inserted by helicopters, Runway destruction is fighters or that is how I understood.

Most air forces have that aspect as a stand alone strike mission and not clubbed into their dedicated SEAD missions. Different ordinance, different tactics etc...

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 01 Sep 2015 23:56

What impact do the apaches have in our overall security calculus? I would rather induct lch rudras and hips with excellent weapons suite and 'make do' ... Unless we get cheap second hand hinds

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2015 06:34

The concept of knocking out enemy air defences (for the IAF) in 1965 was by attacking radar sites, AA batteries and airfields. There were no special weapons. Just bombs, rockets and guns. No stand off weapons other than the "standoff" range of a few hundred meters while shooting rockets.

But the concept of suppression of enemy air defences existed and that pre dates fancy expressions and acronyms like SEAD, DEAD and "Air dominance". It also pre dates the induction into the IAF of any special weapons and munitions for that purpose.

When we use expressions like SEAD it would be a mistake to copy paste the meaning and usage of those terms by their western air force inventors to what the IAF does except in a very general sense. Too many people learn words like SEAD from the internet with no prior knowledge of how the IAF implemented the idea in its early post 1947 wars even before anyone coined the acronym.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Sep 2015 12:19

HAL completes hot & high altitude trials of LCH at Leh; first attack helicopter to land at Forward Base

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 03 Sep 2015 12:32

Austin wrote:HAL completes hot & high altitude trials of LCH at Leh; first attack helicopter to land at Forward Base

Source: https://twitter.com/writetake/status/639344703738019841

member_28990 · Post by **member_28990** » 03 Sep 2015 12:46

LCH is the first attack helicopter to land in Forward Bases at Siachen, says T. Suvarna Raju, CMD, HAL.

Lungi dance time approaching it seems. Cant wait to see it fitted with the HeliNa.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Sep 2015 12:54

LCH development and flight trials are proceeding extremely fast pace , Old timers would remember when ALH was getting tested it took its own time to complete.

Its just a matter of time weapons testing would be over and we have a good chopper built by and for India for hot and high operations in 2 years

It now makes little sense to spend on Apache about $3 Billion better reinvest it in LCH and buy more of it along with Armed Dhruv

member_28990 · Post by **member_28990** » 03 Sep 2015 13:50

Austin wrote: It now makes little sense to spend on Apache about $3 Billion better reinvest it in LCH and buy more of it along with Armed Dhruv

Shouldnt we be also look at the development of a heavy attack helicopter after the LCH is inducted?

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 03 Sep 2015 14:02

Well I think all 3 services i.e IAF/IA/IN can use the Apache, equipped with longbow, they will have unprecedented capability when it comes to Helo based command and control for coordinated & networked strike ops.

They could easily act as C2/C3 nodes in the battlefield guiding and multiplying the force The Rudras and the LCH can bring to the plate. I think with the Block 3 being extensively tested on maritime roles too, I think the IN can deploy around 3 of these on each of the Juan Carlos LPDs if it chooses it. The Juan Carlos LPD can carry 10 F-35B and 12-14 more NH-90 class choppers which in our case can be 3 Apaches, 5 S-70Bs & 6 Rudras or LCH. Such a combo of aircraft/helos on the LPD would give In some serious power project capability, these are essentially mini carriers.

IN should order 22. IN should also think about basing 2 Apaches each on the carriers INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant or part of the CBG among other ships. These would prove quite effective against small mobile crafts that seek to close in with the carrier. Armed with Laser guided rockets and Helinas/Hellfires, the Apaches can be a very deadly defense against such maneuvers. That longbow radar is quite useful that way.

http://www.helis.com/database/news/ah64_block3_181/

IAF: 22, ideal for C2 policing ops in combo with LCH/Rudras over contested zones where enemy helos/LAA could pose a threat to our strike forces. Armed with Stingers & Mistrals, any enemy helos/LAA are pretty much toast. Hugging the terrain these could be quite the pain the arse.

IN: 22 ideal for Carrier close line defense, ideal for marine strikes/beach landings/raids on naval installations in combo with S-70s/Rudras/LCH

IA: 42, a sqd each for each of strike corps, against quite useful in all kinds of battle scenarios.

I think a combined fleet of 86 would also allow for plenty of offsets. With weapons such a fleet would cost around 4 billion. With local weapons that cost can be brought down. Helina can easily be integrated on it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Sep 2015 14:35

Livefist has hal press release and photos that lch has completed hot n high ladakh trials successfully incl ops from fwd bases in siachen the first attack heli to do so.

Long haul ferry missions across the country also proven.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Sep 2015 14:40

The Radar and C&C part is something they can also add to LCH in block model , wasting $3 Billion to get some better sensor and something we can always add up is waste of money , I am not sure if even Rudra has spent $3 billion so far , with that kind of money LCH would be able to do far better job

When the Apache deal was pursued LCH was not in sight , but with the fast progress it has made and promising outlook with most indiginous content its certainly worth every money put into it.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Sep 2015 14:51

shiv wrote:The concept of knocking out enemy air defences (for the IAF) in 1965 was by attacking radar sites, AA batteries and airfields. There were no special weapons. Just bombs, rockets and guns. No stand off weapons other than the "standoff" range of a few hundred meters while shooting rockets.

But the concept of suppression of enemy air defences existed and that pre dates fancy expressions and acronyms like SEAD, DEAD and "Air dominance". It also pre dates the induction into the IAF of any special weapons and munitions for that purpose.

When we use expressions like SEAD it would be a mistake to copy paste the meaning and usage of those terms by their western air force inventors to what the IAF does except in a very general sense. Too many people learn words like SEAD from the internet with no prior knowledge of how the IAF implemented the idea in its early post 1947 wars even before anyone coined the acronym.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6639&p=1895792#p1895792

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2015 16:51

Singha wrote:Livefist has hal press release and photos that lch has completed hot n high ladakh trials successfully incl ops from fwd bases in siachen the first attack heli to do so.

Long haul ferry missions across the country also proven.

India's Light Combat Helicopter Gets Hot & High
Check out the images in the link
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/09/ ... um=twitter

HAL successfully carried out the hot and the high-altitude trials of indigenously designed, developed attack chopper Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) at Leh recently. “These seasonal trials - including cold weather trials carried out at Leh during February this year - have been completed as part of the certification process. The flight trials at Leh have established hover performance and low speed handling characteristics of the helicopter under extreme weather conditions at different altitudes (3200 to 4800 m). During the trials, the helicopter and systems performed satisfactorily. LCH also has proven its capability to land and take off at Forward Landing Base in Siachen. LCH is the first attack helicopter to land in Forward Bases at Siachen”, says Mr.T. Suvarna Raju, CMD, HAL.

The trials were carried out on the third prototype of LCH (TD3) at Leh at the temperatures ranging from 13 to 27 degree centigrade with the participation of user pilots from Air Force, Army and representatives from CEMILAC and DGAQA. Various tests included assessment and validation of flight envelope in ‘Hot-and-High’ conditions, culminating in landing at forward bases at geographic elevations of 13,600 feet to 15,800 feet. These landings and take-offs were demonstrated with reasonable amount of weapon load and fuel.

Challenges at Leh:

The upper reaches of the Indus river and its tributaries, Nubra and Shyok are home to the mighty Ladakh and Eastern Karakorum Ranges, with multiple lofty peaks over 25,000 feet and an average ridgeline elevation of 20,000 feet. It is also home to the largest glaciated area outside the Polar Regions and is sometimes called the ‘Third Pole’. The Siachen is the largest glacier here and is central to this region. The area experiences a period of summer during July-August in which temperatures soar to 30 degrees above standard atmosphere conditions. This mix of extreme altitudes and relatively high temperatures (‘Hot-and-High’) saps helicopter performance and as such, a few types of helicopters are able to operate effectively all year around.

LCH Progress:

With the extensive trials carried out on three prototypes at Bengaluru, sea level at Chennai in November 2013, cold weather at Leh during January/February 2015, hot weather at Jodhpur in July 2015 and hot and high altitude trials at a few days ago at Leh, the performance and handling qualities of the helicopter have been established for basic configuration (with EO Pod, Rocket launchers, Turret Gun and Air-to-Air missile launchers). The system functionalities have been assessed and found satisfactory during the trials and long-duration ferry across India. Further development activities are under progress and the weapon firing trials are planned during in the middle of 2016.

The advantage of indigenous development of helicopters such as ALH, LCH and LUH at HAL is that the users’ requirement are well captured right from early design stage and are fine-tuned as the project progresses with the involvement of users so that the product complies to the stringent operational requirements at high altitudes (Himalayan and North Eastern terrains).

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 03 Sep 2015 18:41

deejay wrote:Ground Clutter will be an issue tracking moving objects at 02/03 meters AGL at 60/80 kmph to 120 kmph NOE. The pick up is intermittent and sudden turns, trees and bushes, small mounds can be helpful in dodging radar locks. Basically anything which can obstruct line of sight from the direction of the radar. If a pilot knows this, the rest is working to stay 'under'. Add to this, a lot of stated radar performance is "ideal onditions" for the radar and the target. Actually, ideal conditions rarely exist.

As a helicopter pilot I would be worried more from Small Arms and MANPADS from ground any day.

if there are heli mounted pods to locate the emitters and trackers, that's the starting point of a Jammer anyways, the line of sight is known and integrating with terrain following mode, survival probability does increase. Maybe the Jammer has to be mounted the way the Longbow radar is or above the tail and not on pylons to avoid getting masked by terrain.

TFR only needs to be short range.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 03 Sep 2015 19:51

Can they mount Vidhwansak in this manner on Dhruv or the LUH,

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 03 Sep 2015 20:26

LCH: September IOC or 2016 firing trials?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Sep 2015 06:00

for our eyes only!

shiv wrote:
Singha wrote:Livefist has hal press release and photos that lch has completed hot n high ladakh trials successfully incl ops from fwd bases in siachen the first attack heli to do so.

Long haul ferry missions across the country also proven.

India's Light Combat Helicopter Gets Hot & High
Check out the images in the link
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/09/ ... um=twitter

if the pics are causing problems, please to edit or tell me. thx.

i am currently seeing these pics in 4k. please do if you have one. it is fantastic

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Sep 2015 08:45

compare to early proto of the LCH, the extent of glass has now been optimized to military config.
there are 4 panes of glass on the side - the 2nd, 3rd and 4th have been reduced from the bottom.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C0dHGEcOBf0/maxresdefault.jpg

in next mk2 they could play around with a Mi28 type step windscreens or lower the glass further...the front gunner has a huge headroom at present. avionics could be moved out to cheek bays to make the cockpit more compact and impart heavier titantium and glass protection due to less volume

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Sep 2015 08:59

I would like to see those dual side helina on quadruple ejector racks

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 05 Sep 2015 22:00

Some tweets from @SJha1618 TL of today:

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 36m36 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi View translation
Helos: LCH (nearing IOC), LUH, IMRH. NRUAV (potential).

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 05 Sep 2015 23:47

Some more details in addition to the reports posted above.

India’s light combat helicopter completes crucial trials - Ajai Shukla blog

Since April 13, 1984, when the first Indian soldiers deployed along the Siachen Glacier, they have assaulted Pakistani picquets and beaten back waves of attacks without any direct fire support from heavy weapons. All they had was what they could carry on their backs.

Even whilst incredibly capturing the 21,153 feet high Qaid Post in May 1987, Param Vir Chakra winner, Naib Subedar Bana Singh, had only indirect fire support from artillery guns many kilometres away.

This will soon change. Last week, for the first time ever, an attack helicopter landed at a forward picquet in Siachen. The indigenous Light Combat Helicopter (LCH), designed and built by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), performed several such landings as a part of its “hot and high” trials in Ladakh.

In “hot and high” conditions, a helicopter operates in summertime temperatures at extreme altitudes of over 15,000 feet. In these conditions, oxygen in the air is depleted not just by the altitude, but also by the expansion of air due to high temperatures of 13-27 degrees Centigrade. This combination of conditions taxes the helicopter’s engine to the maximum.

In February, the LCH had surmounted different challenges in “cold weather flight trials” in Ladakh. In those, the LCH was “soaked” overnight in winter temperatures of minus 20 degrees Centigrade, and then required to start up on internal batteries and get airborne. Operating from a 15,000-feet-high helipad, the LCH reached altitudes of over 21,000 feet.

In June, the helicopter then faced “hot weather flight trials” around Jodhpur, soaking up desert temperatures of 40-50 degrees Centigrade, when the temperatures inside the cabin approach 60 degrees Centigrade.

“The flight trials at Leh have established hover performance and low speed handling characteristics of the helicopter under extreme weather conditions at different altitudes (3200 to 4800 m). During the trials, the helicopter and systems performed satisfactorily”, says T Suvarna Raju, the HAL chief.

The LCH is specially built to operate above 20,000 feet. HAL and French engine-maker, Turbomeca specially designed an engine called the Shakti for the LCH, which is optimised for extreme altitudes. This allows the LCH to fire its direct weapons --- a rapid-firing turret gun, rockets and missiles --- to support soldiers in battle at altitudes where the thin air does not allow humans to carry heavy weaponry.

An impressed army has already committed to ordering 114 helicopters, and the air force another 65, as soon as the flight-test programme is completed. This is being carried out by three LCH prototypes, the newest of which underwent the recent trials.

“The performance and handling qualities of the helicopter have been established for basic configuration (with electro-optical pod, rocket launchers, turret gun and air-to-air missile launchers)… Further development activities are under progress and the weapon firing trials are planned during in the middle of 2016”, says an HAL release.

The LCH has been engineered, ground-up, for combat. It is heavily armoured to protect its two pilots from enemy fire, and has a “stealthy” fuselage that is hard to detect with radar. A crash-resistant landing gear enables pilots to survive even when the LCH impacts the ground at 10 metres/second. Its state-of-the-art, all-digital cockpit has systems that enable pilots to fly and fight the LCH at night.

HAL has moved progressively in developing the LCH. The flying platform evolved from the successful Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH), which has proved itself with the army and air force. The Shakti engine powers both helicopters and they have similar main rotors, tail rotors, and gearboxes.

The LCH is designed primarily for high-altitude operations, but it is equally lethal on the mechanised battlefield. In tank battles on the plains of Rajasthan, Punjab and Jammu, the LCH can destroy enemy tanks with the indigenous HELINA guided missiles at ranges of up to 7 kilometres.

Besides its fleet of LCHs, India’s military will also operate 22 Apache AH-64E attack helicopters, the purchase of which is currently being negotiated. The Apache will replace the air force’s ageing Russian Mi-35 helicopters. {Do we really need these expensive khanic kit, now that the LCH is close to being ready?}

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 06 Sep 2015 07:07

Wow 22 Apache for Navy. It seams we have a solution (Apaches) looking for a problem. C3 Node, longbow radar....hmm what will it be used for? With just two pilots in Apache, one flying, and the other seeing the inputs from the longbow and directing 100 of helis? Even our SCM is not that capable. Kya yaar, you guys are too drunk on some U$ cool aid, and that is fine, only problem is it costs $3 billion dollars.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 06 Sep 2015 07:14

Whether we keep USD 3 Billion in US Treasury Bonds or Boeing Bank Accounts, it is same thing only Sirji!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Sep 2015 09:38

fanne wrote:Wow 22 Apache for Navy. It seams we have a solution (Apaches) looking for a problem. C3 Node, longbow radar....hmm what will it be used for? With just two pilots in Apache, one flying, and the other seeing the inputs from the longbow and directing 100 of helis? Even our SCM is not that capable. Kya yaar, you guys are too drunk on some U$ cool aid, and that is fine, only problem is it costs $3 billion dollars.

But but sirji, forsnt the naval ka31 have a similar crew and perform EW functions?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2015 10:14

At this stage buying Apache would be really waste of money when we have LCH so close to flight testing and production and something designed and built for India , I wonder how some one in MOD does not think like why not put that $3 billion in LCH program with Mark 1,2,3 model adding Radar , Electronic and what not.

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Sep 2015 12:12

Austin wrote:At this stage buying Apache would be really waste of money when we have LCH so close to flight testing and production and something designed and built for India , I wonder how some one in MOD does not think like why not put that $3 billion in LCH program with Mark 1,2,3 model adding Radar , Electronic and what not.

Requests originate from the services. MOD comes afterwards. If the services demand Apaches, MOD can't buy LCH instead for them. Besides, it seems they like to have 20 of this 40 of that sort of thing.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2015 12:31

^^ IF what you say is what it is then it is true for Rafale and other imports too ., what is wrong if service demands and MOD accepts , What about nourishing and sustaining indiginous products

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Sep 2015 13:55

Austin wrote:^^ IF what you say is what it is then it is true for Rafale and other imports too ., what is wrong if service demands and MOD accepts , What about nourishing and sustaining indiginous products

It is absolutely true for other imports too - Rafale, Ka-226, T-90, Talwar and so on. Except that in the Rafale's case, the product is very overpriced even compared to its peers.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2015 14:00

Viv S wrote:
Austin wrote:^^ IF what you say is what it is then it is true for Rafale and other imports too ., what is wrong if service demands and MOD accepts , What about nourishing and sustaining indiginous products
It is absolutely true for other imports too - Rafale, Ka-226, T-90, Talwar and so on. Except that in the Rafale's case, the product is very overpriced even compared to its peers.

Over Priced or RIghtly Priced we cant be sure unless we dont know what is part of the complete deal , TOT if any and Offsets

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 06 Sep 2015 14:39

^Trouble is no one can even speculate a credible capability acquisition through the overpriced Rafale deal. So, whatever we are getting must be somewhere outside of the aircraft itself.

At least I hope so, because otherwise, it is one that we will live to regret.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 06 Sep 2015 18:08

Cain Marko wrote: But but sirji, forsnt the naval ka31 have a similar crew and perform EW functions?

CM,
The KA31 streams its info into the ships control room where some x number of people make any decision, i.e. C3I is in the ship. For Naval Heli, it makes sense, as ship and Heli would not be far (may be LOS), and less cluttered compared to land.