LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jun 2014 21:49

Wbrar, perhaps you're not aware of Hari sir and his involvement with the rotorcraft discussed on this thread.

Could you please elaborate?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jun 2014 22:00

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.

?????

My recollection is that the IAF issued a RF* that pretty much fit only the Apache.

?????

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 24 Jun 2014 22:05

when was Mi-35 inducted into IAF, : 1990.

When was the requirement for attack helicopter to work at high altitude identified: 1999 Kargil war

When was the first proto of LCH launched: 2010. How many produced till now : 3

When was the RFP for attack helicopter issued by IAF : around 2010.

So for 24 years no new attack helos for services, the indigenous development (LCH definitely has lots of potential) is still ongoing, and buying 50 attack helos for the current services requirement is an offence.
Dependencies on import should be reduced drastically and quickly but till then WHAT ?
Wait for the full certification of the indigenous product ? Strange .

Did I read somewhere , make 500 LCA's !!!. Sure who is stopping. But who is responsible to make it and how many it has manufactured till now and who prevented them to manufacture more till now. What about the current requirement of 40 Mk.1
Now if someone suggest that developing product takes time then fine and i understand that. But then my request , don't suggest that services should not go for any other substitute till the indigenous product is up and ready.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jun 2014 22:18

I am all for it, but then announce such a strategy and let the armed forces plan a contingency. I don't mind if the MOD cancels the AH-64 deal. Its a very very capable heavy attack helo, and the most combat proven of the lot (50K hours over afghanistan for the brits). However if the "bitter pill" needs to be swallowed and we need to wait to get a home grown product in quantity, then develop follow on versions of the same with added capability (such as a longbow radar version, net centric version etc) then lets wait for whenever that happens. The govt should communicate this effectively to the services and the nation. Nothing wrong with that strategy. My issue is with ongoing and dangling deals that have to wait for years on end after the services have evaluated proposals for a final green signal. Those delays hurt a lot lot more.

Don't know what the raksha mantri means by this

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/milit ... home-india

But either expedite hanging deals (MRCA, choppers, etc) or scrap them and let the services plan accordingly.

srin · Post by **srin** » 24 Jun 2014 22:48

Brochure comparison-wise, I like the Ka-50. The co-axial rotors mean that there is additional lift without losing power for the tail rotor. It also has an MMW radar in the nose. And I bet it will be cheaper than the Apache. It is also in the same weight class.

We should get that, no ?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jun 2014 22:52

We should get that, no ?

Have we evaluated it? Compared its performance to the other 2 helos in parameters that we valued at the trials we conducted as well as the overall net-centricity, weapons targeting and performance of the avionics systems and sub-systems. The IAF/IA simply do not sift through brochures and compare spec for spec. They invited competition and evaluated those that showed up. How does the Radar, avionics and weapons package on the KA-50 perform compared to the Guardian? or other offerings? The Rafale has AESA, the F-16, F-18, Gripen and Typhoon too. Why did we pick the Rafale then?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 24 Jun 2014 22:55

brar_w, let me take out the mystery (and before other embarrass themselves further) . Hari Nair Sir was the chief test pilot of LCH. He took the first two birds through its paces.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jun 2014 22:58

brar_w, let me take out the mystery (and before other embarrass themselves further) . Hari Nair Sir was the chief test pilot of LCH. He took the first two birds through its paces

I figured that

. He's obviously an invaluable source for all of us on this forum.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 24 Jun 2014 23:48

^^ And a few pages back he had some comments about import and the requirement by the Gov to curb the enthu of individual services for the undoubtedly better features available in imported weapons.

That is what lead to my question about actual cost vs actual benefit of the advanced features. But deejayji latched on the every life is priceless rhetoric

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 25 Jun 2014 00:03

Historically, Americans have been happy to share technology right when we are at the cusp of developing it ourselves. Obviously, they want to handicap the rest of the world including us - not blaming them. Obviously, our armed forces have been happy to lap up imported maal, can't blame them either - right from training days they are using only imported things. Takes time to weave off any addiction!

My peeve over this Apache acquisition is again timing - LCH is around the corner (within 3~5 yrs), Mi-25/35 and Rudra can hold fort till then, and spending 5 billion $ is same as not buying 300 LCH variants. We are a country of limited resources and cannot afford Hi-low combos in everything, especially at this price. China does same but they spend wisely (minimally), copy fast and sell to rest of world - true businessmen. My other ask is for large orders with deliveries in limited (5yrs or less) time frame, to become a defense powerhouse.

Their is no good point to give up an addiction, earlier the better is obvious. It will be painful for a while but will come out stronger.

Also, please stop this kamov pitch. Russians and Chinese are brothers. Russia and India are cousins. Just want clear up the cobwebs.

member_28457 · Post by **member_28457** » 25 Jun 2014 00:27

There seems to be a piece of information about Sri Lankan order of 20 pieces of LCH which may have eluded us.

This page from 2010 makes a reference to such a order. http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft ... aft_id=787. Is this true? did we make a foreign sale and no talks about it or is this someone's fantasy?

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 25 Jun 2014 01:17

Are we selling offensive weapon to SL now? Has Vaikoji heard this news?

John · Post by **John** » 25 Jun 2014 04:10

Pure BS no one would place export order for an helo before the trials even began, not to mention they have MI 24 which are more than adequate.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 25 Jun 2014 06:10

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

A squadron and unit are different. The number of aircraft will also be different. Correct base assumptions and very initial learning is required, IMO

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jun 2014 08:03

I wonder if the radar can be mounted a donut around the rotor shaft and situated firmly on the cabin roof itself rather than complication of mounting on radar head.
with modern phased array panels it should be feasible.

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 25 Jun 2014 08:44

dhiraj wrote:when was Mi-35 inducted into IAF, : 1990.

When was the requirement for attack helicopter to work at high altitude identified: 1999 Kargil war

When was the first proto of LCH launched: 2010. How many produced till now : 3

When was the RFP for attack helicopter issued by IAF : around 2010.

So for 24 years no new attack helos for services, the indigenous development (LCH definitely has lots of potential) is still ongoing, and buying 50 attack helos for the current services requirement is an offence.
Dependencies on import should be reduced drastically and quickly but till then WHAT ?
Wait for the full certification of the indigenous product ? Strange .

Did I read somewhere , make 500 LCA's !!!. Sure who is stopping. But who is responsible to make it and how many it has manufactured till now and who prevented them to manufacture more till now. What about the current requirement of 40 Mk.1
Now if someone suggest that developing product takes time then fine and i understand that. But then my request , don't suggest that services should not go for any other substitute till the indigenous product is up and ready.

Just to clarify -
Its not about PSUs vs IAF.
Its not about PSUs vs direct imports.
Its about ensuring a strong local military-industrial arrangement is in place for any weapon system we induct.
The typical weapon system life is around 3-4 decades. Ensuring good locally based maintenance and spares support during its life-cycle is the key to successful utilisation of the weapon system. This could even be a private set-up or JV with the OEM. However, having the local support element is the essential key.
Which means -

- Induct the chosen aircraft in sufficient numbers to be a credible force and not in penny-packets of 10s and 20s. The numbers should also be sufficient to ensure a local maintenance & support base for the aircraft. In this context, any nation worth its own salt has realised that the trick to ensure an effective weapon system and to maximise its life-cycle, is to have a strong military-industrial complex working in tandem.

- Operating the aircraft is just the tip of the iceberg, believe you me. Its the not glamorous operations part, instead its the daily grind of inspections, major servicing, overhauls, spares & the complex logistics chain that keep the aircraft operational and airworthy. Slip up on any one and you have aircraft sitting as 'Hangar Queens' spending their time grounded in some dusty corner of a hangar.

- The local maintenance set-up is a buffer in the event the logistics and maintenance 'pipeline' is throttled in the future due to strategic pressures. In the past (the '65 ops), the French held back shipments of overhauled engines of IAF's Mystere & Oragaun fighters, which affected the fleet serviceability. Immediately after Pokhran-II, the Yanks demanded their T-800 engines that were being test-flown on the Navy ALH, to be removed and sent back. Which incidentally turned out to be a blessing in disguise - as we finally got the Shakti 1H1 engine as a replacement, that outperforms the T-800 in 'hot-and-high' conditions.

- And finally the money (and the economy) -the total costs during the entire life-cycle of the Attack Helicopter system taken as a whole - will we continue paying the OEM for just about every activity and every nut & bolt for the next 20-30 years, or will we get reasonable benefits by way of local offsets, overhaul set-ups and technology transfers?

@brar_w
The Apache did well in the trials with the IAF. It appears to be the preferred choice as of now. And lets be clear -the AH-64D as a platform is just about the same as any other- its the Longbow FCR that sets it apart (both in terms of performance & the money!!!)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jun 2014 09:21

with some 50 apaches total, I bet we will not have any major overhaul here, they will have rotors removed and packed into ac for the long trip back to boeing factory.
we can use the C17s for that!!

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 25 Jun 2014 09:24

End of road for major howitzer deal with US

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 110071.cms?

The way things are going, all this discussion and debate might be for nothing. If this is any inkling of the things to come, all these super duper gold plated foreign maal might just remain the wet dreams of some fanboys. The howitzer need was not by any means deferrable, but still it got junked. Compared to this the attack helicopter purchase is not even a priority (again comparatively). As for the Rafael deal, the less said the better, its a one-way trip to bankrupting LOTS of other purchases.

So, take heart Mr. Nair, seems like we have a compatriot in the PM's chair and not a vain fanboy.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2014 10:07

The Apache did well in the trials with the IAF. It appears to be the preferred choice as of now. And lets be clear -the AH-64D as a platform is just about the same as any other- its the Longbow FCR that sets it apart (both in terms of performance & the money!!!)

Sir as per the media reports on the trials -

Defense ministry sources reveal that differences in performance between the two helicopters was so great that the IAF’s case was difficult to question. The final contract, a direct commercial sale, could be worth $1.5 billion.

An IAF trial team member, who asked not to be named, says, “The Apache scored consistently over Mi-28 in several key operational criteria. Broadly, these fell under the categories of electronic warfare, survivability, situational awareness in the cockpit, night-fighting capabilities, sensor efficacy and weapons. The helicopter was also found to be far more maneuverable. We worked directly with Boeing and the U.S. Army to test this helicopter.”

http://aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-ah- ... force-deal

and this

In the battle for the attack helicopters, Boeing's AH-64D Apache Longbow met all ASQRs (air staff qualitative requirements) during the extensive field trials conducted by the IAF, while the Russian Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant's Mi-28 Havoc failed to pass muster.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 578021.cms

The deal about ruggedness, desert warfare and combat performance is also a bit importance. Ah-64's have been used extensively in combat operations of all types, and as per reports the aircraft in these conditions, forward deployed achieved an 80% availability/readiness rate . From using the Longbow's to effectively carry out networked operations to using them as rocket launchers against insurgents, to sending them in the first air strikes of war to take out key radars (without the longbow). Its a fairly combat proven system and almost all those that operate the block2 at the battlefronts have showed their inclination to upgrade to the E given how much it improves over the baseline delta.

As far as multi year support. Here is some information available from the media

The Army has notified Congress of the potential sale of eight Es to Indonesia, 24 to Qatar and 22 for India. These are all proposed foreign military sales except for India, which is requesting a “hybrid” deal that will allow for Boeing to support the helicopters for India.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/us-army-pr ... production

We evaluated the D Blk 2 Apache, and will purchasing the upgraded version. The same article mentions this about it that is quite encouraging

During testing last year, operators in the E model were able to counter realistic air defense threats in demonstrations at Naval Air Station China Lake, Calif., says Col. John Lynch, attack helicopter manager at Army Training and Doctrine Command. He says the helicopters were able to maintain their positions and maneuver as needed and had power margin while the Block II Apaches were “shot down” in similar exercises. “The Block III absolutely frustrated these folks that operate these [air defense] systems,” he says.

The added power is due in part to improved composite main rotor blades that are six inches longer and feature a new tip design for improved aerodynamic performance as well as improved General Electric T700-GE-701D engines, Koopersmith says.

As a weapons system can the others share data with each other? Control drones from up to 50km? Just for starters .

These are some of the things that are included in the FMS portion of the deal (just not the helos)

If the Government of India selects the Boeing-U.S. Army proposal, the Government of India will request a possible sale of 50 T700-GE-701D engines, 12 AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radars, 12 AN/APR-48A Radar Frequency Interferometers, 812 AGM-114L-3 HELLFIRE LONGBOW missiles, 542 AGM-114R-3 HELLFIRE II missiles, 245 STINGER Block I-92H missiles, and 23 Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensors, rockets, training and dummy missiles, 30mm ammunition, transponders, simulators, global positioning system/inertial navigation systems, communication equipment, spare and repair parts; tools and test equipment, support equipment, repair and return support, personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics support to be provided in conjunction with a proposed direct commercial sale of 22 AH-64D Block III APACHE Helicopters. The estimated cost is $1.4 billion.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 25 Jun 2014 10:40

rohitvats wrote:
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!

I would say that the only thing missing is service involvement. The services, barring the IN in a lot of cases, simply have a buyer-seller relationship with DRDO/DPSUs. Ask for a product according to some spec and then if not delivered, there is no question of working with the OEM to identify and rectify the faults. The tendency is to reject the product in toto or order only token amounts - Arjun is a case in point. We will see how it goes on the arty front - if endless trials ends and a substantial order is placed for the Dhanush. The Dhruvs are so good that IA doesn't have major cribs but anything that is less than perfect, the IA seems to have a problem with.

I wonder what the IA and IAF involvement was with even the Akash beyond placing orders. Any help in project management? Any help in refining intercept algorithms? Personnel deputed to the project with authority to take some decisions besides just observing?

I think the problem is precisely that - services expecting world-class performance with the current Indian industrial capabilities/base. Building world class products will take many decades and services help is required to get there, not service disdain and deriding indigenous development as khadi gram udyog.

mody · Post by **mody** » 25 Jun 2014 11:50

Totally agree with Hari Sir.
Serviceability and uptime of the equipment is much more important then just pure performance specs.

Instead of buying a lot of Apache's or buying 126 Rafael's, I would much rather like to see the IAF be able to sustain a very high tempo of operations. Say 1,200 to 1,500 sorties being carried out by its fleet of 600 combat aircrafts, with full air to air or air ground weapons load, over a period of 6 days.

Demonstrate that, and you will find half of PA/PAF top brass rushing out to buy adult diapers.

Spending $3.4 Billion on 51 apache helis, seems too much. The entire development budget, plus the production cost of 176 LCH, would probably cost less.
Having the Longbow radar, would definitely be a plus, but at what cost is the question.

By the way Hari sir, a repeat of the question, you ignored a few pages back, any news of TD3 of LCH? Jingoes never give up!!

srin · Post by **srin** » 25 Jun 2014 11:54

Hari Nair wrote: @brar_w
The Apache did well in the trials with the IAF. It appears to be the preferred choice as of now. And lets be clear -the AH-64D as a platform is just about the same as any other- its the Longbow FCR that sets it apart (both in terms of performance & the money!!!)

Hari Sir, just one comment. I concur about the Longbow FCR, but this would make sense if all the Apaches we're buying have Longbow radars, but no - we are buying 22 AH-64Ds but only 12 APG-78 radars.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Jun 2014 12:19

I am going to ask a missile question in the LCH thread.

The HELINA is supposed to have a MMW guided version, correct??

If HELINA is to have MMW guidance, how will the target be handed over to the missile. Would it need the launch platform to have its own radar. Or can it be launched in the general location of the observed enemy and the missile will do the rest.

If the launch platform is to have its own FCR, the LCH becomes an AH 64 in the light weight field.

The keyword is if, in my post.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2014 13:28

Hari Sir, just one comment. I concur about the Longbow FCR, but this would make sense if all the Apaches we're buying have Longbow radars, but no - we are buying 22 AH-64Ds but only 12 APG-78 radars

Not all the Apaches need to have the longbow. Its a networked helicopter. Even the US Army does not operate all longbow equipped apache's during war. Its always a mix of longbows and non longbow equipped Delta versions (Including some where the longbow has been removed)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jun 2014 13:54

perhaps a variant of the XV-2000 radar operating in X-band can be our longbow?
can X-band work in detecting metal objects over land and through vegetation?

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 25 Jun 2014 14:01

mody wrote:Totally agree with Hari Sir.
Serviceability and uptime of the equipment is much more important then just pure performance specs...By the way Hari sir, a repeat of the question, you ignored a few pages back, any news of TD3 of LCH? Jingoes never give up!!

TD-3 is expected to fly in the next 2-3 months. Unlike the first two, TD-3 has very obvious visual changes and is representative of the production version LCHs.

srin wrote:...... just one comment. I concur about the Longbow FCR, but this would make sense if all the Apaches we're buying have Longbow radars, but no - we are buying 22 AH-64Ds but only 12 APG-78 radars.

The Longbow FCR is expensive - the blokes in MoD & the IAF obviously tried to get the best mix-and-match combination for the limited money at hand. And as brar_w stated, the data-linking allows transfer of FCR data to the non-FCR equipped helicopters

uddu wrote:The comparison with terms is more like the difference between atomic and nuclear.

There are two advantages that can be seen for Apache over LCH

1) Higher weapon loadout of 5000kg compared to 3350 of LCH
2) Higher speed

Higher speed?? Is that really so...

Arun Menon wrote:....
The way things are going, all this discussion and debate might be for nothing. If this is any inkling of the things to come, all these super duper gold plated foreign maal might just remain the wet dreams of some fanboys. The howitzer need was not by any means deferrable, but still it got junked. Compared to this the attack helicopter purchase is not even a priority (again comparatively). As for the Rafael deal, the less said the better, its a one-way trip to bankrupting LOTS of other purchases.

So, take heart Mr. Nair, seems like we have a compatriot in the PM's chair and not a vain fanboy.

I am positive the right steps will be taken by the Govt under the leadership of our esteemed PM. Its important to have replacements / inductions which are on time - not delayed forever. However, as I stated earlier, its equally important doing so in a holistic and sensible manner, with benefits to the respective Service and to the country.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2014 14:30

Hari Nair wrote:Higher speed?? Is that really so...

Public sources suggest -

LCH: 268km/h
AH-64E: 300km/h+

Are the LCH figures accurate sir?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2014 14:34

Singha wrote:perhaps a variant of the XV-2000 radar operating in X-band can be our longbow?
can X-band work in detecting metal objects over land and through vegetation?

In addition to better performance in clutter and through obscurents the Ka band has better LPI performance as well.

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.

http://www.ausairpower.net/longbow-aa.html

There are also talks to upgrade the radar for the future

It will also be afforded improvements to its mast-mounted APG-78 Longbow fire control radar, which will improve range and add overwater capability.

Hager says that the army has not quite decided how the overwater capability would be used, but he says the Longbow radar in concert with the Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Hellfire missile could be used to attack landing craft or small warships. In the future, active electronically scanned array radar could be added to the aircraft.

Another addition will be the cognitive decision aiding system (CDAS), Hager says. CDAS is designed "to help the pilot and the crew with some of those tasks that tend to get a little cumbersome at times," he says. "It'll help him in those tasks in specific."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... to-380875/

Viv S wrote:
Hari Nair wrote:Higher speed?? Is that really so...
Public sources suggest -

LCH: 268km/h
AH-64E: 300km/h+

Are the LCH figures accurate sir?

Sorry to interject but these speeds are not really that important. What is important is a desired speed with a desired load. The IA's preferred payload may show no difference in desired speeds (of course load on a heavy helo will be different from a light helo but then the IA/IAF will not be operating the LCH as a heavy helo anyhow) or may show some difference.

These are D performances, the E version regains the A's performance so should show better results.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2014 14:55

brar_w wrote:TThe 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.

Thoseare old numbers referring to remanufactured AH-64Ds. The cost of a new AH-64E is about $42 million. See SAR summary table.

The LCH prototypes costed $12 million each in 2007 dollars (link). Considering the fixed costs of adding the Apache, you could probably get about four LCHs for the cost of one Apache.

While compared to its peers (i.e. EC Tiger, A129 and even the AH-1Z), the AH-64 provides better value but its not a priority given our threat scenario.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2014 14:57

brar_w wrote:Sorry to interject but these speeds are not really that important. What is important is a desired speed with a desired load. The IA's preferred payload may show no difference in desired speeds (of course load on a heavy helo will be different from a light helo but then the IA/IAF will not be operating the LCH as a heavy helo anyhow) or may show some difference.

I'm not making any claims as to its importance. Speeds in question I assume are with a clean aircraft.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2014 15:15

Viv S wrote:
brar_w wrote:Sorry to interject but these speeds are not really that important. What is important is a desired speed with a desired load. The IA's preferred payload may show no difference in desired speeds (of course load on a heavy helo will be different from a light helo but then the IA/IAF will not be operating the LCH as a heavy helo anyhow) or may show some difference.
I'm not making any claims as to its importance. Speeds in question I assume are with a clean aircraft.

Yes, but speed is of little use when you are fighting totally clean

. Also designs respond to load differently. It may well be that the LCH degrades less in its speed with a particular weapons load compared to the AH-64, or it may be the opposite. Tactically the army would have tested the speed and range with a load in mind.

I stand corrected on the cost front . Thx for the update however i must point out that you have quoted PAUC costs and I had mentioned APUC which would be a little less then what those numbers show.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2014 15:46

brar_w wrote:Yes, but speed is of little use when you are fighting totally clean .

Even with a typical load AH-64E will remain faster. LCH will carry six missiles (4+2) or a quad pack + rocket pod. That's not a lot more drag for the Apache.

I stand corrected on the cost front . Thx for the update however i must point out that you have quoted PAUC costs and I had mentioned APUC which would be a little less then what those numbers show.

No that was the APUC not PAUC. See 2012 SAR report on the AH-64 (Page 12). Same 2010 figure but under a 'procurement' heading.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 25 Jun 2014 16:06

Thoseare old numbers referring to remanufactured AH-64Ds. The cost of a new AH-64E is about $42 million. See SAR summary table.

The LCH prototypes costed $12 million each in 2007 dollars (link).

What are the updated costs for LCH? Any links / news?

but its not a priority given our threat scenario.

Any particular source for understanding priority and threat scenario?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 25 Jun 2014 19:56

rohitvats wrote: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.

Does not explain how the IA hitched on to the Apache bandwagon, why the LCH cannot fulfill 100% of its requirement.

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?

So its good enough but its not

There will be grand total of three Apache Squadrons versus at least 9-10 squadrons of LCH?

As has been discussed before the three Apache squadrons will entail an equal or greater investment than 9-10 squadrons of the LCH.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 25 Jun 2014 23:33

abhik wrote: As has been discussed before the three Apache squadrons will entail an equal or greater investment than 9-10 squadrons of the LCH.

To be very honest, I hope this Apache purchase have a similar fate as M777.

M777 was a must have equipment till confidence on Dhanus grew. Similarly Apache was a must have equipment before but not now when LCH shows such promise. It is at the most good to have.

We can double the order of LCH for the same price.
Or we can use that money more effectively by purchasing more C-130/C-17/Rafale/Su/PAK-FA for which there are no desi alternatives.
Or we can order more/upgraded self protection suite, targeting pod, PGM stock for our existing fleet increasing the general effectiveness many fold.

There is no doubt that Longbow is a very good piece of equipment but do we NEED that extra functionality over LCH and loose out on the three (and many more similar cases) above? the money is finite and there are always opportunity cost for a wrong decision. Any equipment comes later but we have to fork out a substantial signing amount (including commission even for FMS deals) right now and that amount will not be available for any alternative usage with nothing to be shown for it currently for a few years.

All of us know the fight that goes on for budget in US. If anyone says that we do not have that same situation among various groups within the services at fin min level then he lives in a fools' world.
The separate budget heads do not matter. If budgetary allocations were so sacrosanct, then mod would not return money back to finmin every year.
The modus operandi at finmin seems to be over allocate at the beginning (like airlines seat sell) and let the various groups fight it out every quarter; then depending on tax collection and govt expenditure on other items prune/fine tune in the second half.
So, make no mistake, there is always alternatives for every paisa spend on any item at mod and rigorous cost-benefit analysis needs to be done for each and every purchase.

No item can guarantee zero life loss/equipment loss at the time of war. So, we really need to see each and every feature against realistic deployment scenario in Indian situation (for example, however much we have faced the missing armed chopper in Kargil, we will not fill that gap till LCH comes on board) and then estimate how many additional life it will save or how much additional help it will do to win us the war.

Just because the existing features of Apache would have helped us win Longewala more easily today does not mean we should prepare that way.
Once the pakis know that Apaches are in our ORBAT, they will change tactics; we need to see how cost-effective and useful Apache will be in THAT scenario given all its features and limitations. For example, will they employ a tactic where we can use the advanced feature of longbow to ambush dozens of tanks simultaneous?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jun 2014 01:19

Perhaps OT for this thread, but, if cost was a major factor for the M777 (and rightly so), then it should hold for the Rafale too and the FGFA as well.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 26 Jun 2014 01:28

NRao wrote:Perhaps OT for this thread, but, if cost was a major factor for the M777 (and rightly so), then it should hold for the Rafale too and the FGFA as well.

It will.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Jun 2014 02:22

Come to think of it - Apache deal looks like a gift from MMS to USA for the nuclear deal.

But honestly, I'm not complaining and here are my preliminary thoughts on the same:

1. Mi-35 are long in the tooth. Period. They were inducted prior to Sri Lanka intervention by India and it has been 20+ years now. There is only so much up-gradation you can do or flog the air-frame. They need replacement as of yesterday and for good or for bad, Apache is what is available today.

2. For various reasons, the re-equipment required by Indian Services to achieve the transformation into a 21st century force has not happened in a smooth manner. There are few islands of success in an otherwise dark sea of failure on this front. In such a scenario, whatever becomes available for whatever reason(s) - MMS love affair with USA for nuclear deal - would be a welcome. Especially when GOI itself is pushing for the deal and will ensure it gets through.

3. As per data on internet, the original IOC for LCH was planned by December 2010 and FOC by 2011. As we stand today, the FOC is likely to come by 2016 or 2017. And production and induction subsequent to that. I don't know whether this delay was technical in nature or because funds were not released on time. But this is where we are. It is my assumption that by the time LCH Squadrons start forming all over IA, Apache Squadrons should be up and running. Which brings me back to point one - at least there will be some movement in re-equipment exercise of one of the elements of Army. And the same will not be stuck if, God forbid, there is any further delay in development of LCH.

4. Someone had commented on the thread index and requirement for Apache - in a set-up typical to sub-continent, the most powerful asset is concentrated in the Strike Corps. They pack the maximum punch and are expected to deliver the final victory (howsoever the same may be defined). From Armored Divisions to attack helicopter squadrons to Artillery Divisions. And given their role and kind of adversary they'll face, IMO only a true-heavy attack helicopter which excels in anti-tank role and carries strong punch will do.

5. It is easy to talk about X number of LCH for Y price of Apache - but I don't think it is so simple an equation. Double the number of LCH also means double the number of crew and ground support personnel across various levels of maintenance from Squadron to Depot. This multiplier will spread to other support arms as well. Like number of hospital beds required and doctors and nurses required.

But there may be an additional aspect here - the authorized manpower and ORBAT level. For example, 42 squadrons equipped only with LCA or mix of LCA/Su-30/Rafale are same as far as government is concerned. Same goes for gunship squadrons in IA. One Squadron per Strike Corps is what it is - either Apache or LCH. And if GOI wants to gift Apaches to IA, I doubt they will refuse.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having said all the above, there are some tangential points to ponder:

1. For donkey years now, IA has been crying hoarse about requirement for controlling attack helicopters. IIRC, IAF had also objected to IA showing interest in LCH. AK in his typical non-confrontational attitude, chose to make everyone happy. While IAF gets to keep 22 Apache ordered as replacement for Mi-24/35, future gunships would be controlled by IA. Now, this is an absurd argument on two counts:

(a) Those two Mi-24/35 gunships are used under 'operational' control of Indian Army and generally work alongside two of the three Strike Corps. If IA Strike Corps will themselves have a Squadron each of Apache gunships, what will these two IAF helicopter units do? Is IAF trying to post-facto assign role(s) to these units to save it's turf?

(b) IA has placed order for 114 LCH while IAF has placed order for 64 LCH - what role will these play in IAF service? Support IA ground operations? Escort duties for Mi-17 helicopters? Combat Search & Rescue? Well, why not let the IA have them in first place?

Long story short - IMO, the number of Apache to be inducted could have been reduced to 39 if IAF had given up control of it's two gunship squadrons.

2. Army is keen to setting up Combat Aviation Brigades under each Corps - which should be mix of squadron each of ALH, LCH and Dhruv. LCH is the lynch pin of these proposed CAB. So, to say that a foreign product is being preferred to a domestic one is pure BS. Domestic product stands on its own merit and was developed as per requirement of the two principal operators. Even by conservative estimate, the order from IA itself would finally stand at or above 200 units.

3. Now comes the question of incremental capability of Apache over LCH and associated cost - first, I don't think it is a case of efficient allocation of resources for reason explained in point two in beginning of the post. I consider that money would simply not have been made available but for buying the Apache gunships. But we shall let that pass.

What is required is to undertake a technical analysis (to the extend possible) to compare the tank busting capability of the two choppers? And what advantages does it bring. Simple had-waive kind of argument that two LCH are better than one Apache are of no use to anyone. It's as if LCH is half in terms of capability of Apache and 2 x LCH will make up for this differential!

Lets flesh out this point and everyone will benefit from the knowledge base.

4. LCH has the potential to develop into our very own Tiger - a multi-purpose attack helicopter which can be kitted out for various roles. But there is still time for that to happen. First lets have the baseline model enter service.

5. Finally, I'm yet to come across news source which says LCH program has suffered due to resource crunch. Also, it would be equally interesting to understand where and how does HAL intend to produce the LCH? Will a new production line be set-up? And when?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Jun 2014 04:10

I agree with Rohit.The Apaches,C-17s,etc. were all part of MMS's N-deal with the US and off record promises.
Nevertheless,the IA does need a large force of attack gunships,which fundamentally should be under its sole control.The dog-in-the-manger attitude of the IAF sometimes is sickening.They tried for decades to prevent the IN from operating LRMP aircraft,acquiring the Sea Harriers,carriers,etc. Splitting up the attack helo assets between the IAF and IA is an absurdity.The only argument that can be made out is for the transfer of such assets to be in a staged manner as the AAC has to establish its support infrastructure in the various theatres.But this is what the IAF do not want,an independent AAC that eventually possesses even light combat aircraft for close support duties that the IAF turns its nose at.

Practically,there is nothing better than building large numbers of the LCH as we are doing with the Dhruvs.The MOD must support this programme with the same concerted effort as the LCA,as it will save enormous amounts of forex,allow for better local support and even the possibility of exports.But if the production is going to be delayed,then the IA must have assets to fight with,but if Apaches are bought under their control.In fact a trade-off could be made with the IAF/IA.The IAF hand over control of all attack helos to the IA ,costs would then be part of the IA's budget,and in return the extra money for the Rafale could be found.It can't hog the major share of the entire defence budget.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 26 Jun 2014 04:47

rohitvats wrote:IA has placed order for 114 LCH while IAF has placed order for 64 LCH - what role will these play in IAF service? Support IA ground operations? Escort duties for Mi-17 helicopters? Combat Search & Rescue? Well, why not let the IA have them in first place?

They intend to use them for anti-UAV operations (I'm not sure what makes a helicopter well-suited for that sort of thing, but it is what it is), SEAD, and escort duties. The Air Force may believe that the first two roles lie squarely in its domain, and not the Army's.