LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 11 Jun 2014 06:58

^^^^^ The simple answer - A fool and his money are easily parted. Under the guise of national security, sub standard weapon systems are imported for which spares are not available and countless Indian heroes lose their lives as a result in "peace time". All the while a select few get fat Swiss cheese!

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 14 Jun 2014 20:39

Wrong Thread. Deleted.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 19 Jun 2014 16:06

Today saw an LCH flying around at 3PM after a long hiatus

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 21 Jun 2014 18:55

Some pages back merlin had asked:

Can deejay state, with examples, how the IAF is helping in creating a mil-ind complex in the aviation space? What leadership are they displaying? Supporting point products (sometimes half-heartedly like Tejas) does not count.

and Rahul M had suggested

no one in their right mind would deny that a professional force like IAF doesn't have people who genuinely support domestic research & industry. however the fact remains that all that is limited to individual efforts and that there is no institutional effort to lead domestic R&D, something the navy has achieved with some success.

I have been trying to come up with something new and recent for this but presently let me add these links on this thread as I think while not entirely aviation related, these are more relevant here -
http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravjha/2 ... nd-up.html

This article must be already on BRF but I am putting the link here. I acknowledge, that I will not be able to prove absolute leadership of IAF in driving the projects, but the IAF is clearly taking a lead in identifying and operationalising key technological advances while working with Indian entities like WIPRO.

Tying in to IAF's new digitized communication network are ICT initiatives at maintenance command that will actually generate the data that will run through the system for effective control and deployment of war fighting capability. In early November, Wipro was handed an over Rs 900 crore contract by IAF to electronically monitor and automate the management of its fleet. Wipro which has won out in competition that also featured the likes of TCS, will provide an 'electronically captured dashboard sort of system which will replace the old system of manual logbooks' according to IAF officials. Ultimately as part of the multi-year project, IAF will set up 'an enterprise-wide, online maintenance management system covering configuration management, fleet planning and management, maintenance repair and overhaul and will enable precise mobilization of assets and real time command and control optimization. The e-maintenance system will eventually be implemented in more than 170 locations, covering nearly 600 IAF units.

These ICT initiatives essentially serve as a back end to AF-NET which has replaced the IAF's old main communication network set-up using tropo-scatter technology from the 1950s. Under AF-NET all major formations and static establishments have been linked through WAN and are accessible via data communication channels. Significantly, the nationwide programme was launched by the IAF in collaboration with private industry to link all field units using a dedicated satellite which will be launched in 2014.

Additionally, there is an IAF Software Development Institute of IAF located close to ASTE and NAL for development of Software for Aircraft in coordination with HAL, NAL, ADA,DARE etc. You may check the website http://indianairforce.nic.in/show_page.php?pg_id=143

Again, this is an institutional step towards working with HAL / DRDO etc including training of engineers. It is no where close to what the USAF does. On that point I found another slightly old article:

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 065520.ece

This is where the IAF seems to be pushing a practice of USAF and DRDO opposing the practice. The basic disagreement of IAF and DRDO, IMO, is a reflection of all disagreements in the past where the user (IAF) wants the system to be under control of the user and the developer (DRDO) says the system at the most should have user representation.

Reacting to Matheswaran's thoughts, former IAF boss Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Fali Homi Major said that it's time that all high-end critical technologies are developed adopting the embedded philosophy. "The IAF has a huge bank of serving and retired officers with hands-on experience in dealing with EW systems. Creation of a separate corps for dedicated research is a great idea and I strongly feel that IAF brains should be part of some of the R&D labs running sensitive projects. The user should be the captain while developing all critical systems and our men should be embedded with the DRDO projects," Major said. He said Indian defence need to adopt out-of-the-box-ideas to outsmart the tech denials looming over many critical areas.

Speaking to Express from Delhi, K Tamil Mani, Director General Aeronautical Systems, DRDO, opposed the idea of having independent agencies taking up research in critical areas. "The thought process should be to synergise our strengths and not to channel them in different directions. Independent R&D might not take India forward. Instead, the DRDO labs, users and the industries should come together. EW systems cannot be outsourced and we need to develop them within the country itself," he said. When asked whether he was rejecting the idea of a new R&D carde in India, as suggested by Matheswaran, the DRDO DG said: "I don't deny the requirements of the IAF. But joining hands is always a better idea, than going alone."

Moreover, the IAF - DRDO disagreement here is like our disagreements on BRF on the role of IAF in supporting the development work done by DRDO / PSU's. I am sure we will all draw our own conclusions about which side is correct when we read such articles.

P.S. I seriously could not decide if this was the right thread for this post but the constant 'import lobby' black listing needed some rejoinder.

vic · Post by **vic** » 21 Jun 2014 19:09

Has Apache been tested for Rajasthan June heat and Himalayan heights? Or we impose sub standard requirements for imports while super duper requirements for Indian products?

Shubham · Post by **Shubham** » 21 Jun 2014 22:44

nik wrote:After uncovering modernization programs for HAL helicopters, the question again comes back to Why in the world we want to import LUH and other helicopters?

It was nice to getting to know about Chetan. But the fact is these modifications/ideas have come too late to be used and IAF/IA/IN have taken an absolutely correct decision to not bankroll this particular program by paying an arm and some part of the leg.

At present the condition of spares/rotatables/consumables which HAL is supposed to provide for maintaining the serviceability of Chetak helicopter is slightly below pathetic and it would be further antagonizing to even mention the price they ask for any item they supply, if they supply at all.

My point on Chetak/Cheetah/Chetal is that it would have been a great achievement if HAL had managed/manages to JUST fulfill the spares/servicing requirements of these machines.

I have seen some pics of Chetak modified to be a NOTAR as well as heard of an autopilot/auto-stab kit.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 22 Jun 2014 08:26

Shubham any links for these photos and the autopilot / auto-stab kit?

Shubham · Post by **Shubham** » 22 Jun 2014 09:28

^^^
Denel Aviation developed CIRSTEL(Combined InfraRed Suppression and Tail rotor Elimination) from Alouette III for SAAF.
https://sites.google.com/site/stingrays ... el-cirstel

For Auto-Pilot on Chetak
http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/snias_alu3.php

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 22 Jun 2014 09:40

Thank You Shubham

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 22 Jun 2014 13:13

<User warned and rant deleted.
Next time you feel the urge to criticize the Services, at least read up a little rather than simply rant and rave here. You're not adding anything to discussion here - rohitvats.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 22 Jun 2014 13:31

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Scanning the internet suggests the below

The LCH was developed to meet the requirements of the Indian Air Force and the Indian Army, who have ordered 62 and 114 units respectively. The Indian Air Force will procure 64 LCHs as part of a $4bn contract signed with Hindustan Aeronautics in March 2011.

Till now 3 LCH prototypes have been built after the first flight in 2010. Your criticism would have been fair if you could provide details for the reason why till now only 3 protos., what is the delivery schedule for LCH and if the purchase of Apache has in any way led to the Army or IAF to reconsider the initial order for LCH.
LCH, Rudra, Tejas Mk.2, Pinaka, Dhanush gun etc have the potential for high rate of production to meet the demand of the services who seem to be comfortable with them . Onus seems to be on the supply side .

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 22 Jun 2014 14:06

nik, a few posts above I have given links to support IAF's role in getting private industry to participate. Perhaps a more considered criticism of the Services in going for 'phoren maal' would be welcome to understand the objections. The LCH and Apache are in two different class and as of now we are nowhere close to the Apache in domestic manufacturing. LCH will be our weapon platform of choice and the big advantage over the TSP army, AF and PLA, PLAAF at high altitudes in my opinion.

The LCH is absolutely free of Apache burden as the DRDO / HAL budgets would be separate from military procurement budgets. Apache purchase will start now. LCH will take another 02 yrs at least.

The IAF and IA identified the need of LCH and it is their baby. Hope HAL can make it for them quickly.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Jun 2014 14:07

nik wrote:Going by recently expanded Apache orders, US has succeeded in feeding us Apaches, one more step closer to kill or create a cash crunch for LCH development.

100 % sure Army+Air Force will not 'settle' for anything less than Apache henceforth. Just enough to defend Sultanete of Delhi!

Using that yardstick the PAKFA deal must have been offered by Russia to severely set back the AMCA program, and the Rafale deal by Dassault as a means to delay the LCA MkII.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Jun 2014 14:14

vic wrote:Has Apache been tested for Rajasthan June heat and Himalayan heights? Or we impose sub standard requirements for imports while super duper requirements for Indian products?

Boeing AH-64D Seen Winning Indian Air Force Deal

The U.S. Army rotorcraft, which is said to have outperformed the rival Russian Mi-28N Night Hunter in tests, was strongly recommended by the IAF earlier this year as its choice following trials in 2010.

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.”

Another IAF source suggests that the Apache also had superior armor protection and performed well in both desert and high-altitude conditions.

Boeing said it would not comment on the outcome of the competition since nothing was known officially yet. A Rosoboronexport official says he had read local Russian media reports about the Mi-28N losing out in the contest, but was unaware of why. The Russian helicopter had proven itself in field trials, he declared, but would not say more.

The new helicopters will replace the IAF’s aging Mi-35s. The AH-64D and Mi-28 were put through field evaluation trials in mid-2010 at the Jaisalmer desert base in western India and Leh, the world’s highest operational air station, in the Himalayas. This was followed by weapons firing trials, targeting and maintenance trials in the contenders’ home countries.

It is combat proven in hot, dusty, inhospitable places such as Iraq and Afghanistan and has been evaluated by many militaries around the world. If you are interesting in a good writeup on its recent performance at the ops level I recommend that you read AH-64 Apache Units of Operations Enduring Freedom & Iraqi Freedom By Jonathan Bernstein. I've uploaded it for anyone interested here -

http://www.filedropper.com/202417816-ah ... qi-freedom

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 22 Jun 2014 15:00

The Apache Deal has been hanging for over 3 years now along with the Chinook, Airbus A330 MRTT and countless other smaller deals mostly likely because of the fund crunch.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Jun 2014 15:08

The Apache Deal has been hanging for over 3 years now along with the Chinook, Airbus A330 MRTT and countless other smaller deals mostly likely because of the fund crunch

Or rather the incompetence of the previous defense minister and the government at large that slowed everything down to a snails pace. Modi/Jaitley should either clear these deals fast or cancel them outright and let the armed forces execute a plan B or C in a timely manner. The delays are much worst then outright cancellation.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 22 Jun 2014 18:23

brar_w wrote:
The Apache Deal has been hanging for over 3 years now along with the Chinook, Airbus A330 MRTT and countless other smaller deals mostly likely because of the fund crunch
Or rather the incompetence of the previous defense minister and the government at large that slowed everything down to a snails pace. Modi/Jaitley should either clear these deals fast or cancel them outright and let the armed forces execute a plan B or C in a timely manner. The delays are much worst then outright cancellation.

How can one blame only the Government and not the Forces? Are they not aware of the financial situation of their Government, Were they not able to deduce from the memos asking them to cut down on training/exercises, halt in signing of new deals, almost shut down of the construction of the IAC etc. The deal for the first batch of Apaches are not signed yet and there is fight about who controls the next batch. Instead of playing the hand they are dealt they are playing a game of fantasy arsenal. Why are they so disjoint from reality? There is obviously something wrong with how the forces plan their weapons acquisitions.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Jun 2014 19:34

deejay wrote:The LCH and Apache are in two different class and as of now we are nowhere close to the Apache in domestic manufacturing.

Operating a heavier class to reinforce the LCH is useful no doubt. Question is, is it critical? Will we have trouble handling the PA's armor without the Apache? Don't we have thousands of MILANs in service. Didn't we just order 10,000 AT-5s and 20,000 AT-11s. Wasn't the Mi-35s upgraded just 10 years? Can't it endure for another few years?

How many services in the world operate two classes of attack helicopters? The British Army is equipped with only 'heavy' units (Apache) while the French operate only 'light' units (Tiger). Has either force been scouting the market for a second type to complement its fleet?

The LCH is absolutely free of Apache burden as the DRDO / HAL budgets would be separate from military procurement budgets. Apache purchase will start now. LCH will take another 02 yrs at least.

Its all being funded by the Indian taxpayer. Which heading that is under is irrelevant. If we have to wait another 2 years for the LCH, so be it. Its not high price to pay, especially given our immediate funding woes. Same for the LUH.

The IAF and IA identified the need of LCH and it is their baby. Hope HAL can make it for them quickly.

Our needs are endless. Our resources are not.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Jun 2014 21:38

abhik wrote: How can one blame only the Government and not the Forces? Are they not aware of the financial situation of their Government, Were they not able to deduce from the memos asking them to cut down on training/exercises, halt in signing of new deals, almost shut down of the construction of the IAC etc. The deal for the first batch of Apaches are not signed yet and there is fight about who controls the next batch. Instead of playing the hand they are dealt they are playing a game of fantasy arsenal. Why are they so disjoint from reality? There is obviously something wrong with how the forces plan their weapons acquisitions.

Its not like the Armed forces made a unilateral decision to have a competition, ask foreign players to submit their proposals, call them for evals, conduct the evals and then go to their home countries for weapons evaluation etc. The MOD signed onto this and is equally responsible for the cost and/or performance of the requirement for such a capability. Similarly, if the deal is canned the services are not to be blamed for demanding such a capability, but the MOD, economy, budgeting etc.

Same goes for the MRCA deal, its the Air force that asked for something, The MOD brought in players who were evaluated by the air force and the ball went back into the MOD's court. If the nation cannot afford to buy a 20 billion dollar Rafale it is hardly the fault of the Air force for demanding a capability and then evaluating the proposals for its needs.

Operating a heavier class to reinforce the LCH is useful no doubt. Question is, is it critical? Will we have trouble handling the PA's armor without the Apache? Don't we have thousands of MILANs in service. Didn't we just order 10,000 AT-5s and 20,000 AT-11s. Wasn't the Mi-35s upgraded just 10 years? Can't it endure for another few years?

That would be for the Army and the air force to decide based on the threat index, their own capability and how they wish to deploy the available rotary wing assets in the future as well as what capability they expect to add into this element.

How many services in the world operate two classes of attack helicopters? The British Army is equipped with only 'heavy' units (Apache) while the French operate only 'light' units (Tiger). Has either force been scouting the market for a second type to complement its fleet?

Apples and oranges. Those are expeditionary forces that would never have to fight within their borders. Their entire force structure is based upon what sort of support they wish to provide in coalition operations.

Edit: The article above states that in 2010 India evaluated the D version Apache which was available for an eval. However the same publication suggests that the IAF/IA will be getting the AH-64E Guardian version (Formerly AH-64D Blk III). Did we evaluate the block 2 or block 3 Apache? The AH-64E is much upgraded version of the D.

The first AH-64E was delivered to the Army last November, and production has ramped up since to about three deliveries per month in Boeing’s Mesa, Ariz., factory, says David Koopersmith, Boeing’s vice president of attack helicopters. The team briefed reporters on the status of the program at this week’s annual Association of the U.S. Army conference here.

International interest is growing. The first of Taiwan’s 30 E models was delivered and training is set to commence for its pilots and crews next month. 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. There are not direct commercial sales yet, Koopersmith says.

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

Some background on the AH-64E (formerly Ah-64D blk 3)

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Jun 2014 23:33

brar_w wrote:That would be for the Army and the air force to decide based on the threat index, their own capability and how they wish to deploy the available rotary wing assets in the future as well as what capability they expect to add into this element.

The army and air force would like only Apaches and lots of them. No LCHs necessary. However this planning cannot be made in isolation and the funding for it is a critical issue. In this case, one would expect a responsible MoD to over-rule the services. (That the MoD is a gutless vision-less organisation is a different issue.)

Apples and oranges. Those are expeditionary forces that would never have to fight within their borders. Their entire force structure is based upon what sort of support they wish to provide in coalition operations.

The function of the platform remains the same. Also, technically speaking, the aircraft in IA/IAF service isn't intended for use within India's borders either.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Jun 2014 23:53

In this case, one would expect a responsible MoD to over-rule the services.

I agree. Let them overrule and effectively communicate the reason for the same (economic). The "sitting" on the file for years without any visible movement is having a much worst effect on the readiness of the troops then just saying NO. Same applies to the MRCA. If the deal is not going through or if the cost is too much to handle then the "karva Sach" needs to be told to the nation and more importantly the services so that they can begin working on and executing a plan B.

The function of the platform remains the same.

There are many capabilities that they automatically obtain when they go out and fight under the NATO umbrella. Britain automatically gets A-10 CAS coverage without having any A-10s. They also get their targets nicely prepped up with a massive tomahawk barrage, and IAD's taken care of by stealthy bombers. They have much flexibility when it comes to not meeting certain requirements then we do. Also the threat is different. We plan for the way we expect the next war to be and how we wish to go about fighting it. They do so according to their own threat and capability to respond under a coalition umbrella.

Also, technically speaking, the aircraft in IA/IAF service isn't intended for use within India's borders either.

lol

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 23 Jun 2014 02:58

Summary (my source is Wiki pages of Apache, Tiger and defense budgets)

Britain - 67 Apache, defense budget ~58 Billion
French - 80 Tiger (LCH) class, budget ~ 61 billion
India - 60 odd Apache + 179 odd LCH (AF+IA to be delivered) + 76 (60 Army+12 AF) RUDRA + (outgoing inventory of Mi-25/35)
while our Budget is a massive 47 billion $.

I have no objection of buying Apache. It's a fine piece of equipment. Nor is above analysis complete but is still representative.

It's obvious that we just cannot afford this buying spree in next 5~10 years. We will get in a resource crunch and given American speed of delivery - LCH program induction will have to be slowed down to accommodate more Apache purchases.

Painful when Sri Lanka has given us orders for 20 LCH already and export potential is huge.

No one seems to consider that any American equipment cannot be relied on to even start when engaging Pakis (software soft kill likely). Will work great against china but LCH has better performance at altitude.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 23 Jun 2014 03:01

nik wrote:<User warned and rant deleted.
Next time you feel the urge to criticize the Services, at least read up a little rather than simply rant and rave here. You're not adding anything to discussion here - rohitvats.

What is the line if I may ask to define 'rant and raves'. A concerned citizen has rights to question viability+affordability of plans and not wanting to run around with a begging bowl. A little bit of spice is needed to shake us awake from our morbid acceptance of current way of progression in defense acquisitions. Need an urgent reset and need it now.

I want to see strong and independent defense services, capable of defending all of India, using what we can afford to have in decent numbers. Enough to make up numerical difference with what China can come to the game with. And I want to see this soon given increasing belligerence of China.

Strength is the best Defense - my addition is organic strength. Imported gear is like going to war with a loaded rifle but no ammo to reload. It's that obvious.

Adding , Necessity is the mother of Invention. Importing Apaches takes away necessity and we are back to the old game. No Apaches purchase and pressure builds up on HAL (with more access to funding, joint work, need to re-organize) to deliver on LCH. This is just an astute observation from our historical way of doing things....

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Jun 2014 03:44

Britain - 67 Apache, defense budget ~58 Billion
French - 80 Tiger (LCH) class, budget ~ 61 billion
India - 60 odd Apache + 179 odd LCH (AF+IA to be delivered) + 76 (60 Army+12 AF) RUDRA + (outgoing inventory of Mi-25/35)
while our Budget is a massive 47 billion $.

By that account we have the lowest defense budget out of the three yet we are looking at acquiring a 3 digit 5th gen fighter force that involves one foreign designed 5th generation fighter and one home designed, while the french are not going to have a single 5th gen aircraft, the brits are going to have them in the double digits. We are going to be buying the Rafale and the Su-30MKI and have a 4.5th gen fleet much larger then both of those forces. What we buy and what they buy is not exclusively dependent upon the budget but also the threat.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 23 Jun 2014 08:23

^^^
'Looking to buy' is the operative word. Proof of the pudding is in the eating and I will trust on these plans fructifying onlr when the equipment starts arriving. But I afraid what actually haffen is that a few of our units will get these toys while the most of the others are left holding the can.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Jun 2014 08:45

nik wrote:
nik wrote:<User warned and rant deleted.
Next time you feel the urge to criticize the Services, at least read up a little rather than simply rant and rave here. You're not adding anything to discussion here - rohitvats.
What is the line if I may ask to define 'rant and raves'. A concerned citizen has rights to question viability+affordability of plans and not wanting to run around with a begging bowl. A little bit of spice is needed to shake us awake from our morbid acceptance of current way of progression in defense acquisitions. Need an urgent reset and need it now.

I want to see strong and independent defense services, capable of defending all of India, using what we can afford to have in decent numbers. Enough to make up numerical difference with what China can come to the game with. And I want to see this soon given increasing belligerence of China.

Strength is the best Defense - my addition is organic strength. Imported gear is like going to war with a loaded rifle but no ammo to reload. It's that obvious.

Adding , Necessity is the mother of Invention. Importing Apaches takes away necessity and we are back to the old game. No Apaches purchase and pressure builds up on HAL (with more access to funding, joint work, need to re-organize) to deliver on LCH. This is just an astute observation from our historical way of doing things....

Don't act all coy now.

No one is questioning your right to be a concerned citizen and present your POV here in a cogent manner. But if you start throwing about accusations without bothering to check the data-points and ground situation, then it will be called out. As has been done in this case - where you accused IA of trying to kill LCH development through Apaches purchase. When the induction of Apaches and LCH are not mutually exclusive events. The poster who made the post after you presented that in a pretty clear manner.

Keep this in mind next time.

And if you want any further discussion on your warning, please move the discussion to Forum Feedback Thread.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 23 Jun 2014 09:49

In what areas do the Apache perform better than the LCH? One is said to be the weapon carrying capability. Other than that? Will we be able to launch our own missiles and rockets from Apaches? or that also need to be imported forever?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Jun 2014 09:57

Rohit & Nik,

On pure merits, I have no objections to the purchase of Ah 64. However, considering the fact that India is relatively a poor nation. Add to the fact the LCH has been demonstrated. With 2 flying prototypes, with the 3rd one awaited. In which is is hoped that they will save 300 Kg of weight.

I fear that, if the AH 64 deal goes ahead, we will see that the LCH will suffer. On account of common logistics or weapons load out or even tactical employment.

My fear may be unfounded. But I am looking it at from the prism of the T90 Vs the Arjun debate.

Secondly, at a tactical level, I don't believe that the Indian armed forces will get ever get into a clear cut situation where one of the machines will be an optimum solution when compared to the other.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 23 Jun 2014 11:22

http://www.filedropper.com/202417816-ah ... qi-freedom

brarji: Thank You. I liked reading the document. Very insightful operationally.

Earlier, I thought we were buying the Apache AH 64D and not the Apache AH 64D Longbow. I wasn't aware that an AH 64D Block III (aka AH 64E Guardian) was on offer to us. I was wondering whether E is for export or whether these have the radars as in the Longbow or the configs are different from both the 64D and 64D Longbow? And then I read the specs on wiki and on the Boeing sight. Have a look, enthusiasts will love the specs. Simple googling will get you there.

Also enjoyed the video on the Boeing site though it is nothing new.

I fear that, if the AH 64 deal goes ahead, we will see that the LCH will suffer. On account of common logistics or weapons load out or even tactical employment.

The above observation would be valid if the LCH can have role commonality with AH 64. The Mi-35 or the AH 64 are in a different class with different payload capacities. The LCH will be 'Light'. Even if the AH 64 can operate at high altitudes the employability,IMO, will be limited or none because most big machines in hills will have all sorts of problems like turning in narrow valleys plus of-course reduced performance at high altitude where the LCH will be better.

The LCH is not attack, but combat so the configuration of LCH in attacking ground formations will not be optimum. The Rudra will be also used. Yet, the serious CAS load will be handled by Mi 35's or the AH64 replacements which are 'attack' versions. The understanding of roles in 'combat' mode and 'attack' mode will be fundamental to understanding the possibility of co-employbility.

There is clearly an identified need for two separate machines of two different class.

Further, speculating on history (correct me if I am wrong), the Mi- 35's had major issues in crossing even the Banihal. We used the MI 17s in Kargil. The need for a High Altitude combat / attack helicopter arose, IMO, at this juncture. The performance of ALH at high altitudes convinced the Services on the utility of LCH. The shortcomings and aging of Mi 35 saw us searching for equivalent class but better alternatives.

I will hazard a guess here - The Services are growing on all fronts - Numerical, Strategic, Tactical, Role, Reach etc and there is a good reason for it. Forget, LCH suffering, the pressure is on making enough. Also look out for exports of the LCH.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 23 Jun 2014 11:32

With due respect to all the concerns about LCH, but i am still not getting it.
HAL has firm orders " Indian Air Force is to acquire 65 LCHs and Indian Army is to acquire 114 LCHs" [even when the first proto was launched] + 20 more for Sri Lanka.

If you check the link below
http://www.forceindia.net/AeroIndia2013 ... rajan.aspx

it suggests that the program is a work in progress.

The LCH has completed performance, handling trials and the first lot of sea level trials. Based on the feedback received we are preparing the third prototype along with incorporating design changes. The cabin and fuselage will be made shorter while the 20 mm gun will be moved back a little bit. We will also have a mockup to test the pilot ergonomics which is now ready and is being fitted out. In Parallel, we are getting ready for the Glass Cockpit and the Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS), both of which will be indigenous. Currently, we are flying with Glass Cockpit derived from the ‘Dhruv’ and we would like to have the Glass Cockpit ready on the third prototype. However, it is likely to be ready in time for the Limited Series Production (LSP) versions of the LCH. Developing of the AFCS is another important aspect for our future programmes as it is a critical technology.

So basically it implies that the LCH is a work in progress at the supplier end. Having a concern at the user end would have been fine if the product and the production line was ready and the user is not ready to buy it.

fact that India is relatively a poor nation

How did this come into picture for the early development closure of the LCH

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 23 Jun 2014 11:42

if india is a poor nation then ask others to selling their products here

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 23 Jun 2014 12:01

Dhiraj, otoh it implies that there were design changes requested by the User

Some reference please to suggest some mischief by the user or was it a legitimate design change request and agreed by all. Since my understanding is that both IAF and Army are very supportive for the success of LCH. The simple reason being that none of the foreign option would be able to meet the high altitude requirement of the services.

http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2013/12/se ... letes.html

HAL is in the process of accelerating the prototype development flight testing of LCH to achieve the proposed initial operational clearance (IOC) by December 2015

Hopefully we achieve the above target

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 23 Jun 2014 12:33

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

Best utilized take out armored columns with lesser number of helicopters.

The advantage of LCH includes
1) Longer range. 700+ compared to Apache's 475
2) Higher altitude operation
3) Smaller size and light weight making it difficult to target and fuel costs being lower
4) Able to customize at our will whenever there is a need to upgrade with newer sensors and weapons
5) Building Mark-II variant based on the experience gained from Mark-I
6) Option to built and deploy large numbers of them for being cheaper in terms of cost.
7) Stealth

Negatives of the Apache deal
1) Prone to Sanctions
2) The unavailability of spares and issues when government change happens in the U.S/India leading to grounding of fleet and the million dollar acquisition being utter waste when needed.
3) Most needed money meant for other acquisitions being diverted for Apache and eating up the budget over a period of time for spares and weapon systems acquisition.
4) Giving the U.S companies much needed money which can be diverted for even anti-India activities like supplying the Islamic Republics with freebies.
4) Giving bargaining capability to the U.S government

I am comfortable with the initial deal of Apache's but a follow on deal again for the Army may not be prudent. Will not be of help but more of a headache over a period of time. Do feel that the Army goes on to use the LCH which has all the capabilities required for an attack helicopter.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Jun 2014 12:40

Earlier, I thought we were buying the Apache AH 64D and not the Apache AH 64D Longbow. I wasn't aware that an AH 64D Block III (aka AH 64E Guardian) was on offer to us. I was wondering whether E is for export or whether these have the radars as in the Longbow or the configs are different from both the 64D and 64D Longbow?

The AH-64E (aka blk 3 D) comes with the longbow radar.From what it appears it is now the only Apache in production at Boeing.

An optional fit to this baseline configuration is the Longbow weapon system, comprising the Northrop-Grumman (previously Westinghouse) AN/APG-78 Longbow mast mounted Fire Control Radar (FCR), and a Lockheed-Martin AN/APR-48 Radar Frequency Interferometer (RFI) package, both designed for all weather operation through precipitation and battlefield obscurants. The Longbow weapon system supports the AGM-114L active radar guided missile, operating in the same millimetric band as the radar.

The Longbow radar is a very low peak power, millimetric band system, with extremely low sidelobes by virtue of a very large relative antenna size. The low emitted power, extremely narrow pencil beam mainlobe, and undisclosed LPI modulation features provide a system with a range of the order of 10 km in clear conditions, which is near to undetectable by established RWR technology. Only a highly sensitive channelised ESM receiver with a high gain antenna and low noise receivers can reliably detect such a signal, under optimal antenna pointing conditions. The choice of millimetric band means that atmospheric water vapour and oxygen resonance losses rapidly soak up the signal, which is also out of the frequency band coverage of most RWRs. The radar will track up to 128 targets and prioritise the top 16.

The radar employs both real beam mapping and Moving Target Indicator (MTI) techniques, to provide the automatic detection, tracking and non-cooperative identification of surface targets, with a secondary capability against low flying aircraft. Target identification algorithms in the radar's software look at the shape of possible targets, and their Doppler signatures, to identify aircraft, helicopters, SPAAGs, SAM systems, tanks, AFVs, trucks and other wheeled vehicles. The capability exists to identify stationary targets through radar transparent camouflage netting and foliage. Real beam video and synthetic imagery can be displayed.

The highly integrated system provides fusion of radar, RFI, TADS and offboard targeting data into a single Tactical Situation Display format on one of the cockpit displays. The ability to slave sensors in an arbitrary manner, using HOTAS controls, allows the TADS visual ident of radar tracks, radar ident of RFI tracks, TADS visual ident of RFI tracks, or radar or RFI ident of camouflaged or obscured visual tracks. The radar can detect targets which cannot be seen behind radar transparent camouflage or foliage, noting that radar opaque camouflage nets effective against centimetric band fighter radars may not be very opaque in the millimetric band. Targets are automatically prioritised, with anti-air assets being accorded the highest priority, followed by armour and soft skinned vehicles.

The provision of a highly automated weapon system with basic sensor fusion is unique at this time to the Apache Longbow, and provides clearly unprecedented lethality in comparison with helicopters using only thermal imaging sights and laser guided missiles. Such systems are limited to engaging one target at a time, unlike the Apache Longbow which can engage many targets concurrently. The Apache Longbow's capability however extends further, since the IDM datalinking allows an Apache Longbow to hand off targets to non radar equipped AH-64D Apaches. In effect it becomes the notional equivalent of an AEW platform vectoring shooters on to targets.

A textbook "ambush" scenario would see a Apache Longbow led AH-64D section move into position masked by terrain and coordinating via datalink. The lead ship would then raise its Longbow system to detect targets, and then drop back under cover, while the lead gunner distributes the targets via "drag and drop" to the other aircraft in the group, to avoid multiple targeting. At that point, all aircraft can salvo launch their MMWI Hellfires and back out into a new position, while the missiles attack the targets. The software "remembers" the coordinates of attacked targets and flags these on the screen with an X to avoid redundant reattack and wasting of rounds.

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

The current production schedule allows Boeing to produce 3 AH-64E's for export per month.

Also enjoyed the video on the Boeing site though it is nothing new

The 13 minute video I have posted above goes over (technically) the differences between the D version and E (blk 3D) of the apache. It by all means is a "significant" update worthy of a new designation.

Looking to buy' is the operative word

Well in that case we should not really take the PAKFA, AMCA, Rafale seriously either since we haven't received them yet, or placed firm orders etc. However, my intentions were more about the "need" aspect of the armed forces.

The above observation would be valid if the LCH can have role commonality with AH 64. The Mi-35 or the AH 64 are in a different class with different payload capacities. The LCH will be 'Light'. Even if the AH 64 can operate at high altitudes the employability,IMO, will be limited or none because most big machines in hills will have all sorts of problems like turning in narrow valleys plus of-course reduced performance at high altitude where the LCH will be better.

The LCH is not attack, but combat so the configuration of LCH in attacking ground formations will not be optimum. The Rudra will be also used. Yet, the serious CAS load will be handled by Mi 35's or the AH64 replacements which are 'attack' versions. The understanding of roles in 'combat' mode and 'attack' mode will be fundamental to understanding the possibility of co-employbility.

There is clearly an identified need for two separate machines of two different class.

Correct. 2 Different class of helos for different mission. The AH-64E's payload is closer to 6000 kg and the avionics suite is substantial and better then anything currently flying, including lessons learnt from combat over the years. It also has a UAV interface developed, tested and the AH-64E crews are capable of controlling UAV's for the scouting type missions. All that would be required would be to incorporate that open architecture interface into our own UAV's and we have 100% interoperability with the Apache if that is required (The IDF will be doing in the future iirc).

In what areas do the Apache perform better than the LCH? One is said to be the weapon carrying capability. Other than that?

Basically any mission where the heavy attack helicopter is preferred. Avionics advancements can be seen in the video I posted above. Survivability is also something that is known and tested. The Indian air force tested the AH--64 on these parameters. Durability, strength of the frame, payload, avionics, Situational awareness, hot area performance, high altitude performance etc etc. You are trying to compare a light attack helo to a heavy attack helo. Those are 2 different things altogether so a comparison is really not very useful.

Will we be able to launch our own missiles and rockets from Apaches? or that also need to be imported forever?

Current Armament -

Weapon of choice is the Hellfire II. Brimstone may be integrated by the UK fairly soon. If the IAF/IA wishes to have its own weapons on the AH-64, they must work with Boeing to integrate (software) and test these weapons before they are ready to go. It can be done but will cost us and will take time.

Higher weapon loadout of 5000kg compared to 3350 of LCH

The payload been upped by around 220-250Kg with the E variant from the weapons weight of the D variant.

Best utilized take out armored columns with lesser number of helicopters.

Or SEAD as has been done by the US army.

Apache Attack -The helicopters would open the war. They had to take out Iraq's early warning net, and they had to get it all.

At ten seconds before 2:38 in a moonless sky over Iraq, eight US AH-64 Apache helicopters zeroed in on their targets. On their forward-looking infrared screens appeared the images of two Iraqi radar sites just north of Saudi Arabia, placed there to detect intruding fighters. They were linked to four Iraqi fighter bases and to the Intelligence Operations Center in Baghdad.

The unseen Apaches hovered low, four miles south of the radars. At the controls of Number 976, 1st Lt. Tom Drew broke radio silence. "Party in ten," he said. On cue, ten seconds later, the helicopters unleashed a salvo of laser-guided Hellfire missiles. "This one's for you, Saddam ," muttered CW03 Dave Jones, the pilot of another Apache.

The shots, fired in the predawn hours of January 17, 1991, marked the start of Operation Desert Storm and were among the most critical of the war, blinding Iraq's early warning net at a key moment. US Central Command relied entirely on the Apaches and USAF special operations helicopters to do the job. "If something had happened and we didn't do 100 percent [destruction]," said one gunner, CW04 Lou Hall, "a lot of people were going to get hurt."

The Apaches did achieve 100 percent destruction, or close to it. Eyewitnesses report that, when the Hellfires hit the targets, the radar bases evaporated in clouds of smoke and flame. In the four and a half minutes it took to complete the task, the Apaches had, in the words of Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, "plucked out the eyes" of Iraq's Soviet-supplied air defenses.

Nearly 100 allied planes, arriving twenty-two minutes after the raid, roared through the gaping hole in Iraq's network and raced north to strike critical, first-night targets. Air Force F-117s, relying on their stealthiness, already had penetrated Iraqi airspace and were nearing Baghdad by the time the Apaches fired, but destruction of the early warning sites greatly eased the task of nonstealthy allied planes sent into action that night.

mody · Post by **mody** » 23 Jun 2014 13:10

All the talk about "Light" and "Heavy" attack helicopters is just plain nonsense.
The main difference between the vanila AH64D and LCH is only the total payload capacity. They both carry the same type of weapons and can both be used for the same purpose. In addition to that for our purpose, in the high mountains, the LCH will actaully fair better. Also, the additional payload advantage of the Apache, will probably, be very small or non-existent in the high mountains, vis-a-vi the LCH.

The main difference is not "Heavy", but the LONGBOW radar. The AH64D Block III or the AH64E, are the game changers.
They offer capability, that LCH will not be able to offer, for atleast 5 years, after their induction, or say about 7-10 years from now, at the earliest.

However, at what cost are we getting the capability and do we really need it, is the question.

The additional 39 Apache's will definitely take a lot out of the IA budget for the next few years.

If the Apache is to be procured, I would like to see the following points:
1). Reduce the total nos. to something that is a little more affordable.
2). Make sure that LCH and Rudra, have a datalink compatible with the AH64E, so that a couple of Apache's can lead a pack of 4-8 LCH in combat. This is crucial, so that the advantages of the Longbow radar do not remain consigned only to the Apache fleet.
3). Possibility of using Indian weapons on Apaches. We are already producing dumb unguided rockets and in future will have the Helina. Though the Helina will not be able to match the Hellfire with all its variations, but there should be the possibility to use Helina, Indian made Rockets and Indian made gun ammo, with the Apache.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jun 2014 13:22

Right now its more important to support the LCH and Armed ALH program , LCH has good potential and is coming up well.

The Apache order so far is good enough but no need to order further more , Instead just use the money to fund and purchase more LCH .....would do a lot good for us as its built for our environment and using our resource.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Jun 2014 14:11

If the Apache is to be procured, I would like to see the following points:
1). Reduce the total nos. to something that is a little more affordable.
2). Make sure that LCH and Rudra, have a datalink compatible with the AH64E, so that a couple of Apache's can lead a pack of 4-8 LCH in combat. This is crucial, so that the advantages of the Longbow radar do not remain consigned only to the Apache fleet.
3). Possibility of using Indian weapons on Apaches. We are already producing dumb unguided rockets and in future will have the Helina. Though the Helina will not be able to match the Hellfire with all its variations, but there should be the possibility to use Helina, Indian made Rockets and Indian made gun ammo, with the Apache.

In addition I would add UAV mission software upgrades so that some of our UAV's are interoperable with the AH-64. This would be a big force multiplier.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 23 Jun 2014 15:13

All the talk about "Light" and "Heavy" attack helicopters is just plain nonsense.
The main difference between the vanila AH64D and LCH is only the total payload capacity.

You say that "Light" and "Heavy" is nonsensical and then in the next sentence you make it sensible.

I drafted a big post to explain but then I deleted it because I see no point as the arguments are not in touch with 'why' we need the military machines in the first place.

In addition I would add UAV mission software upgrades so that some of our UAV's are interoperable with the AH-64. This would be a big force multiplier.

Brarji: Network centric operations and interoperability are at initial stages in our Services and the IAF is setting the pace here. You may hear shortly something on similar lines.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Jun 2014 15:48

Brarji: Network centric operations and interoperability are at initial stages in our Services and the IAF is setting the pace here. You may hear shortly something on similar lines

Sirji, I was not referring to the overall net-centricity but specific to the AH-64's ability to operate with a pack of UAV's and sharing missions. The AH-64 pilots can even control the UAV if required without requiring a ground controller to relay what the apache pilot wants. This is over and above whatever data linking and network centric ops it can do using other resources available on the network. Those resources are strategic in nature and would depend upon our own internal growth projection in net-centricity and how fast and what technologies we develop and introduce. MCAP and drone command is a tactical capability between the drones and the AH-64, it is achieved through the data links and mission computers installed in the apache and the MCAP enables it to get this job done.

The new 2,000 SHP General Electric T-700-GE-701D engines will raise the performance level of the aircraft above that of the original Alpha models, he said. The added weight put on the Delta model by adding capabilities had actually reduced the performance of the aircraft. The Echo model restores the lost performance while adding modernized capabilities.
The new engines will also include an enhanced digital electronic control unit (EDECU) for full digital control for better fuel performance and power, similar to FADEC. The aircraft will also have new avionics architecture versus the Delta model, allowing more “plug and play” capability for future hardware and software improvements.
Three major improvements for the pilots include Link 16 interoperability, a cognitive decision aiding system (CDAS) and Level 4 tactical common data link (TCDL) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control.

The Level 4 TCDL UAV control allows full communication between the aircraft’s pilots and a TCDL-controllable UAV, with a range of more than 50 kilometers, Hager said.
The pilot of the Echo can control and fire the drone, or he can use it as a “third crewmember,” with the drone’s ground controller directing the UAV wherever the Apache pilot needs it.
“The ground controller for the UAV is always watching the sensor systems, so the pilot can ask the controller to watch a building or intersection while is off servicing another target. The controller can then call the pilot, letting him know what the UAV is showing.” The pilot can view in real time what the drone is seeing, then go back and service that target. “This gives the pilot the ability to get the situational awareness very quickly,” Hager said.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/militar ... 79149.html

The E version of the apache is already in Afghanistan

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 23 Jun 2014 20:01

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