LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

[Philip]

Surely the LUH requirement would suffice,if it only surveillance and drone-hunting that are the tasks? One doesn't need a flying tank for drone-hunting! The global requirement for LUHs is supposed to be over 5000.A good opportunity for us to develop our own LUH,supposedly suffering the ususal delays in development.

[Singha]

IAF has raised the canard of SEAD ops taking a leaf from the initial attack on radar site in iraq during desert storm.
what is left unsaid is they penetrated across miles of unpopulated desert from the west and this was just one glorified strike while in parallel airborne decoy drones, conventional E6 prowlers , EC135 rivet joints and who knows what else were acting in concert incl tomahawk missile strikes on C3 nodes. we also have harpy and harop drones in IAF launched from ground or AN32s I believe!
the apache has no dedicated ARM weapon or SEAD oriented mission suite....while IAF planes can use the KH31P and at long range the KH59 on the big static radars.

in the TSP/Cheen concept I would like to see IAF longbows penetrate 200km behind the frontline to take out important IADS or S300 radar systems and get back safely when the air will be crawling with fighters in lookdown-shootdown mode.

IAF Apaches imo will be doing just the same as the IA - attacking vehicular convoys and bunkers in close support. IAF has far better assets to attack supply dumps and rear area targets.

the other role could be CSAR for downed flyers escorting Dhruvs or Mi17 having the garud extraction team. not sure how feasible in TSP but might be feasible in tibet being desolate and if someone Phalcon/ARC guides into a safe radar free air corridor.

[fanne]

In all this you are missing the biggest scandal - IAF is ABDICATING ITS ROLE OF CAS (Close air support). There has been intermittent article as this is risky with advancement in shoulder fired radar and how DAPSA kind of roes are more effective It has no plans to replace the last of 40 Mig27 with anything. Well war is serious and risky. I think IAF will follow in PAF steps and declare let IA fight its own war!!

[shiv]

Sometimes our comments on BRF are no different from sensationalist media in the Hemant Rout genre. That is OK for an internet forum but may not be an accurate assessment of IAF needs or doctrine. The IAF has made it very clear for over a decade (at least from the time of Kargil) that in a hot all out war the IAF will not have assets to cover every single CAS need of the army. One IAF oficer had told me at the time of Kargil that the massive air effort was possible only because the conflcit was localized. If there had been a general, all out war over a wide area, the Kargil area would have received the attention of maybe two aircraft.

It is precisely this inability that has prompted the army to build up its own air resources. It would not be true to say that the iAF is abdicating this or that - but the IAFs decisions cannot be assessed without looking at their overall capability and shortfall in strength. We have a 66% Air Force with only 66% of its required fleet size. If we take desperate wartime measures to keep 80% of the fleet active at any given time we get a fleet strength of 80% of 66% which is 53%. Early in a hot war we are likely to lose 10-15% of our fleet in attrition losses as we try and achieve air dominance - and that would reduce fleet size to 45% of what it is now.

So we are talking about an Air Force that is trying to defend a huge country with far less than what it needs now. And then we say the Air Force is abdicating this and that. What this type of rantalysis does is to make BRF less readable and informative where the person whose rants have been heard for longest become the latest guru of armed forces strategy.

[brar_w]

Boeing proposes high-speed Apache, heavier Chinook

As the US Department of Defense pursues a family of high-speed rotorcraft, Boeing officials say two stalwarts of the current fleet – the AH-64 Apache and CH-47 Chinook – must be kept viable for decades to come.

The AH-64E entered service last year, but an F-model is already on the drawing boards. Some upgrades – the 3,000shp turboshaft in development under the army’s improved turbine engine programme (ITEP) – have been openly discussed.

Boeing officials also believe high-speed capabilities can be added to the 40-year-old Apache design. Possibilities include adding a retractable landing gear, wingstubs to offload lift from a single main rotor in high-speed cruise and a tail rotor that articulates 90° to provide forward thrust.

Meanwhile, Boeing is scheduled to deliver the last CH-47F in Fiscal 2019, ending a production run that began in 1961. Boeing now is proposing to remanufacture F-models with a higher gross weight.

In the past, Boeing has proposed a 31,800kg (70,000lb) class variant with a 30cm (1in) wider fuselage to accommodate up-armoured HMMWV (Humvee) trucks. Budget realities have forced the company to propose a more modest solution now. The “H-model” CH-47, as proposed, strengthens the airframe and the propulsion system to lift 24,500kg, or about 1,810kg more than the existing helicopter.

The proposals seem to clash with the company’s interests in the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) programme. Boeing has teamed with Sikorsky to develop the high-speed SB-1 Defiant for the joint multi-role technology demonstrator (JMR-TD), which is a intended to be a scaled down version of the FVL-Medium concept to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk after 2030.

Boeing insists there is no contradiction, however.

“The issue is it takes a long time to develop an aircraft and field it, and we [and] the army have to keep the current fleet viable and relevant,” says Mike Burke, Boeing’s director of business development for attack helicopters.

David Palm, director of business development for vertical lift, also notes that the AH-64 is not scheduled to be replaced by the attack version of the FVL aircraft until 2040. The CH-47F is not due for retirement until 2060, a full century after its first flight.

“We believe there’s going to be another – at least one more – turn of the Apache technology,” Palm says.

Boeing’s agreement with Sikorsky on the SB-1 allows both companies to transfer technologies developed for the JMR-TD programme to aircraft already in production.

[deejay]

in the TSP/Cheen concept I would like to see IAF longbows penetrate 200km behind the frontline to take out important IADS or S300 radar systems and get back safely when the air will be crawling with fighters in lookdown-shootdown mode.

IAF Apaches imo will be doing just the same as the IA - attacking vehicular convoys and bunkers in close support. IAF has far better assets to attack supply dumps and rear area targets.

Singha Sir, the use of helicopters in war is different. Some of the targets will definitely be armed / tank convoys and armament trains (area targets) which unless we have seriously large number of LCH ready and operational will be handled by the Mi-17 or helo-logisctics family in the armament role.

Primarily, the helicopters with troop carrying capacity will be assigned to army formations whose task will be to be the first to cross over (may be even before actual war is declared) with troops to capture key / strategic border defences of the enemy like radars, bridges and the like for easy penetration later by the main forces. These helicopters will be assisted by the armed helicopters which will operate in packages. Many such packages will make incursions at the same time over the entire theater of ops.

You are right, the helicopters will be easy meat. The Air Force or lets say most Air Forces know this. The IAF and IA therefore are ready to accept upwards of 90% attrition with focus being on successful ingress only and egress is secondary to mission objective. It may sound stupid but these targets where the initial troops will go are assessed to be of very high importance and hence the high risk missions to capture them and the high attrition acceptability.

The sheer size of our borders and the number of targets being so many, we do not have enough helicopters to handle the work load. But we had to make do or adjust as in the past we were economically less resourceful. The number of current Mi 25 / 35 are wholly inadequate and they are not enough by far for the strike corps we have. These gunships will form part of 'insertion' packages of the highest importance. They will play a role in SEAD too, so will other helicopters but the primary objective will be CAS to our initial entries into enemy areas.

The helicopter bases will move ahead with the advancing army. Infact, in war, forward bases will be the norm and not one off event. As we advance the helicopters will take on the next nearby bridges, radars and facilities which will need to be captured by ground forces. The whole intricate operation is a fascinating read.

IMO, our war effort will be different from the allied invasion of Iraq etc because:
>our superiority to the enemy is not such.
>the enemy will have greater will to fight given that they know we are not as superior.
>Our equipment will be limited across spectrum and therefore tasking per platform will be of a higher order.
>Air Superiority or Air Dominance may never be achieved.

Our present helicopter strength is inadequate even for peace time role (Infact, most platforms are below optimum levels). The 42 fighter squadrons was the approved strength of an economically lesser India which mostly calculated for the Western Theater. We are practically defenseless in air in the peninsula save for the IN sqns and very few IAF fighter - helicopter units.

A major eye opener was the deployment in Op Parakram and the sheer lack of equipment was staring all the three services in the face. A lot of requirements were rewritten then. Many have complained of the changes services make. I agree, the services need to be better prepared in anticipating the war of 2030 in 2010 given that from idea to op deployment will take more than a decade (mostly). It has been 12 years since Op Parakram, and the only thing we have improved in adequate quantum is our airlift capability (C17 & Helcules plus new Mi 17 family and of course Dhruv). Even here the An 32 is aging and the replacement has been marked out.

We went overtly nuclear in 1998, 16 years hence we are just testing out the Triad capability. They are not deployed yet. In between we had the Kargil War, the Op Parakram deployment and the Mumbai attacks - A nuclear nation on the cusp of war with another nuclear nation without the equipment ready. Are we being casual here?

IMO, the GOI is not equipping the Services on some future ambition but merely reacting to a need that arose in the past. When we have the resources, we will do what the rich do, till then these AH64's will help (again they are not mandatory) if we can afford them. If I could decide where the Apache's go, I would keep at least 20 of them for the Sino - Burmese theater. The hills are not very high there (mostly) but the action if it happens will be intense.

----
Shiv Ji, I think your previous post is very balanced and devoid of the POV prejudice that a few of us (including me) have erred on.

[Philip]

Surely the LUH requirement would suffice,if only surveillance and drone-hunting that are the tasks? One doesn't need a flying tank for drone-hunting! The global requirement for LUHs is supposed to be over 5000.A good opportunity for us to develop our own LUH,supposedly suffering the usual delays in development.

[deejay]

deejay, your post completely discounts any anti-tank role. Is that deliberate?

Marten ji, I have mentioned this:

Some of the targets will definitely be armed / tank convoys and armament trains (area targets)

I have deliberately not mentioned specific missions apart from the role discussed because there are many which the above broad category will cover. Anti-tank is definitely a big mission and objective for the helicopters. One thing I did not mention was that with newer capabilities being planned and discussed, changes may come in acceptable attrition. My info is dated.

And no force in the world would accept 90% attrition.
Not of men, not of assets.

Yes. I said it sounded stupid.

The IAF and IA therefore are ready to accept upwards of 90% attrition with focus being on successful ingress only and egress is secondary to mission objective. It may sound stupid but these targets where the initial troops will go are assessed to be of very high importance and hence the high risk missions to capture them and the high attrition acceptability.

However, the missions I discuss are mostly in the earliest stages of war, in aggressive mode, and for these missions, 90% plus attrition is acceptable (Sorry, no source). Successful ingress in these missions remains the objective for the helicopter. Extended stay and low speed in enemy area at a time of war when most enemy equipment will be up and running gives rise to high attrition possibility and acceptability. One big advantage of Apache's will be in the network centric ops plus FLIR and Thermal Imaging views to the crew greatly increasing survivability. Do the same thing on a Mi 17, be happy if you get 10% survivability. If you will draw an analogy the Normandy landings could have used such missions which they replaced with large airborne para drops and frontal beech assault leading to heavy casualties but not so high on percentage. It has changed to small dedicated teams with low num count on casualties but high % attrition probabilities.

Trust me 'Op Parakram', Kargil, UN Missions have been big on learning for new equipment to effectively deliver on the political objective. Remember, Parakram, we had assembled for an aggressive assault and realised a lot of short comings.

Further, I will stress on 'ready to accept' and this will be a function of the importance of the Objective to be achieved in such a mission.

In an example, the go no go till Ingress for a 05 aircraft package on such a mission will be something like 04 at target otherwise abandon. Egress, you are on your own with all support shifted to other Ingress packages or troops on ground.

The better the equipment, the easier it is to achieve objectives, hence lower attrition possible. Add the 'need' to capture these objectives, all attrition is acceptable based on this need.

[Picklu]

As far as I know, LCH, when available, will have FLIR/Thermal imager already integrated in the FCR as a legacy to rudra itself.

Question for knowledgeable gurus, how difficult it is to integrate the Shiva HADF pod to it on the stub wings? Any plan as such?

[abhik]

Considering the general level of obsolescence of our current arsenal the 24 year old Mi-35s don't sound so bad. Squeezing out a few more years so that the moneys can be spent on immediate needs and TINA items like the Chinook (which has also been stuck for sometime now).

[John]

Mi-35s are quite potent especially with upgrades put forth by Elbit, in mean time additional Rudhra can be procured to fill in any needs and converted back to transport role once LCH comes into play. Speaking of that any word on Navy going ahead with 20 Rudhra?

[fanne]

shiv sir,
To your point, CAS aircraft are not the toughest to built. The SU24 (UPGRADED SU34), uses Mig 21 engines and lots of armor. They are not also terribly costly. We can get some 200 hundred of them (10 sq, same as what we had during 45 sq strength air force). Interdiction has long term effect,, it does not stop the enemy from getting this peak or occupying that valley, which in a quick war and ceasefire is what the enemy gets to keep. It then has achieved victory and can claim to achieve its objective. We need serious mud movers to stop from that kind of eventuality.
rgds
fanne

[shiv]

shiv sir,
To your point, CAS aircraft are not the toughest to built. The SU24 (UPGRADED SU34), uses Mig 21 engines and lots of armor. They are not also terribly costly. We can get some 200 hundred of them (10 sq, same as what we had during 45 sq strength air force).

Maintenance, serviceability and fleet availability (what percentage are available for wartime sorties on average) are issues that are always a problem. Do you have any figures for these parameters among existing aircraft in the Ru AF? They are crucial. Without that information the theory is meaningless. Sellers will always say that everything is 100% fine 100% of the time.

[nachiket]

shiv sir,
To your point, CAS aircraft are not the toughest to built. The SU24 (UPGRADED SU34), uses Mig 21 engines and lots of armor. They are not also terribly costly. We can get some 200 hundred of them (10 sq, same as what we had during 45 sq strength air force).
fanne

The Su-24 and Su-34 are two completely different aircraft. So I don't know what "SU24 (UPGRADED SU34)" means. The Su-34 is a much later model developed from the Su-27 and was intended to replace the Su-24. And neither of them uses engines from the Mig-21.

[abhik]

^^^
I think he meant Su-25.

[nachiket]

^^^
I think he meant Su-25.

...which also does not use engines from the Mig-21, but does make more sense in the context of his post.

[fanne]

Sorry meant SU25. The point is, these planes are technically less challenging, less costly, and have a role to play that other planes cannot play. In a limited war, where most likely you keep the territory won, or in mountainous region, where there are many choke points (and thus a CAS aircraft can make a huge difference), these kinds of plane are valuable assets. I have read multiple articles, snippets from IAF saying that artillery is better suited, or this is inefficient use of air power or too risky...Now I am not even an armchair expert and IAF is IAF, so putting my 2 cents, I believe we should have it.

Here is the quote on the engine -
http://www.airvectors.net/avsu25.html

The T8-1 was fitted with a navigation-attack suite from the Su-17M2 and a GSh-23 twin-barreled "teeter-totter" 23 millimeter cannon. The cannon could be depressed for strafing. By this time, continued changes in service requirements for the T8 had resulted in further increases in weight. The twin RD-9 turbojets were replaced by twin Tumanskiy R-95Sh non-afterburning turbojets with 44.13 kN (4,500 kgp / 9,921 lbf) max takeoff thrust each. The R-95Sh was a non-afterburning version of the Tumanskiy R-13F-300 used on the MiG-21. It was far from a state-of-the-art solution and a more modern bypass turbojet engine would have been preferable in terms of fuel economy, but in compensation that R-95Sh had plenty of power, and was very rugged and reliable as well. It was also not fussy about the grade of fuel it used, and could even burn diesel fuel in a pinch.

The second flying prototype, the "T8-2", performed its first flight on 26 December 1975 with the less powerful RD-9 engines, though it was quickly refitted with R-95Sh engines in March 1976 to become the "T8-2D". The T8-2 was noticeably different from the T8-1 and much closer to what would become production specification. It featured a taller tail and wider-span wings with a leading-edge "dogtooth", and there were less-visible changes as well:

[John]

Apart from already brought UAVs are far cheaper to operate, can loiter longer and are much harder to shoot down than Su-25s (every jihadi in Kashmir is running around with Pakistani Manpads). If we had operated Su-25 a decade ago it would be nice but now its obsolete.

[fanne]

and UAVs can provide CAS?

[John]

Predators have been doing that since as far back as 2005.

[fanne]

I must have missed the news of predators in iaf colors. Moreover
Hitting mullahs n their goats is different from fighting war.

[John]

I missed the part about IAF flying Su-25, we are talking new procurements not existing items in inventory. Greatest threat that is currently out there is Kargil like situation involving infil. from these groups. Besides same holds true where Su-25 is pitted in CAS against Chinese or Pakistan.

[vic]

I suggest scrap 22 Apache and instead provide Army with 50 LCH and 50 HTT-40 for CAS role.

[shiv]

I missed the part about IAF flying Su-25, we are talking new procurements not existing items in inventory. Greatest threat that is currently out there is Kargil like situation involving infil. from these groups. Besides same holds true where Su-25 is pitted in CAS against Chinese or Pakistan.

Now that you bring it up - I was unable to find any information that Su-25 will be an effective attack platform at altitudes above 5000 m. Jaguars were unable to maneuver at those altitudes and could not be relied upon to avoid hitting mountains while coming off from an attack. Su 25 specs look bad to me.

[brar_w]

The US Army will soon test a new network capability that could prove to be a “game changer” for the service’s fleet of AH-64 Apache rotorcraft.

The Link 16 data network will be tested on the newer AH-64E models in August. If successful, it will give the Army Link 16 capability for a platform still widely used in Afghanistan.

“That will be a game changer,” Col. John Lynch, TRADOC Capability Manager for Reconnaissance and Attack, told reporters Wednesday. “We talk about the Apache as the joint integrating platform in Army aviation, and if you want to be joint with the other services — all the other services communicate situational awareness data using Link 16 — so that’s the Army’s first venture into the Link 16 world.”

Lynch’s comments were made at a Boeing facility in Mesa, Arizona, part of a media tour arranged by the company. Boeing paid for accommodations and travel for reporters from Defense News and other publications.

The Link 16 network allows easy transfer of tactical information, something increasingly important in a world where information is coming from multiple assets at once. It is also key to successful interoperability, as a number of international partners and other US services use Link 16 to share data in a battle space.

“All the feedback we’re getting is it works great,” Lynch said, who noted that being hooked into Link 16 makes the AH-64E “clearly much more efficient at locating and prosecuting targets” than older systems.

In addition to the Link 16 capability, Lynch praised the upgrades to the AH-64 between the Delta and Echo editions. Since arriving in Afghanistan in March, the Echos have flown 1,700 hours at what Lynch called a higher tempo than the Deltas could handle.

“The Echo model is more fuel efficient, it’s more powerful, and it’s just as deadly as a Delta model aircraft but its more lethal because of the situational awareness we can give to the pilot,” agreed Col. Jeffrey Hager, the project manager for Apache Attack Helicopter PMO.

Boeing has delivered 117 Echo models, 48 of which have gone to international customers, said Mike Burke, the company’s director of attack helicopter business development. It is currently talking to India, Indonesia and Qatar about potential sales there as well.

The Echo may be the newest edition, but Burke acknowledged that an AH-64F may be necessary in the future given the timetable for the Army to move towards its future vertical lift program.

“In addition to working on the E model Apache, we’re working for technology for a future aircraft,” Burke said. “The army hasn’t said there will be an F model or anything like that,” but Boeing is looking at what technologies might be applicable in the future

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... nk-16-Test

[vic]

We should produce CAS version of HTT-40 and LCA especially for Himalayas.

[dinesh_kimar]

^OT here, but

We should produce CAS version of HTT-40 and LCA especially for Himalayas.

or a UAV with Aircraft cannon (none exists now, right?) to do secondary A2G role after Jaguar is phased out, something like a "Commander's Personal shotgun" or an A-10.

[joygoswami]

Indian Paratroopers getting a demo of the AH-64 Apache. See at 1:05.

[youtube]IpPMbbuSOuA?t=1m5s[/youtube]

[Victor]

Sorry if this has been discussed already but I'm finding no info to show what the LCH has that the Rudra doesn't. All info available actually points to Rudra being more capable, specially since it can carry troops which LCH can't.

[brar_w]

Indian Paratroopers getting a demo of the AH-64 Apache. See at 1:05.

I think this is from last year. Also see this -

[dinesh_kimar]

Navy Dhruv with Shakti engines is more powerful than many versions of SeaKings and Kamov shipboard helos, moreover the Dhruv is lighter than the other two. I wish someone from HAL clarifies on what prevents the navy's endurance and payload requirements from being met.

http://imgur.com/o5WWS0l

[member_28640]

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.

Helicopter rotor Aerodynamics is a lot like plane wing aerodynamics... So the LCH which was designed to be a fast turning attacking helo that is near unstoppable in the mountains is also the LCH which is very difficult to handle when its lurking for the enemy tanks behind the hills or under tree cover ..
both of which are the Apache's claim to fame maybe the army would also like a mix between the both given the diversity of Indias borders...
maybe some Army professionals would like to analyse my claim

[abhik]

^^^
You have inside information that the LCH's performance degrades significantly enough to preclude its use in the plains? Or is that your analysis / speculation? BTW AFAIK the LCH uses the same engine, gearbox and rotor blades as the Dhruv.

[member_28640]

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.ca/2012 ... zw-19.html
http://legacy.vtol.org/vertiflite/halLCH.pdf
I dont have inside information.. these are the sources I used to make my claims
FBW systems which are more inclined towards hunter killer missions would be worse off on their slow hover capabilities..

[rohitvats]

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.ca/2012 ... zw-19.html
http://legacy.vtol.org/vertiflite/halLCH.pdf
I dont have inside information.. these are the sources I used to make my claims. FBW systems which are more inclined towards hunter killer missions would be worse off on their slow hover capabilities..

Let me tell you something as a MODERATOR of this forum: We generally avoid linking content from Prasun Sengupta on this website. For a simple reason that he is a known plagiarist. And nothing he says and posts on his blog can be taken at face value. There is a whole thread on BRF where his antics have been covered.

However, if you find something worthwhile and informative, please use the same judiciously to build your argument. Rather than post a link to his website and expect posters here to read his story and then go about refuting him. It is you they are here to have engagement with and not what likes of PS say or write.

[member_28640]

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.ca/2012 ... zw-19.html
http://legacy.vtol.org/vertiflite/halLCH.pdf
I dont have inside information.. these are the sources I used to make my claims. FBW systems which are more inclined towards hunter killer missions would be worse off on their slow hover capabilities..

Let me tell you something as a MODERATOR of this forum: We generally avoid linking content from Prasun Sengupta on this website. For a simple reason that he is a known plagiarist. And nothing he says and posts on his blog can be taken at face value. There is a whole thread on BRF where his antics have been covered.

However, if you find something worthwhile and informative, please use the same judiciously to build your argument. Rather than post a link to his website and expect posters here to read his story and then go about refuting him. It is you they are here to have engagement with and not what likes of PS say or write.

Point taken and duly noted.

[alexis]

Sorry if this has been discussed already but I'm finding no info to show what the LCH has that the Rudra doesn't. All info available actually points to Rudra being more capable, specially since it can carry troops which LCH can't.

Maneuverability and Protection

[Manish_Sharma]

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.

Isn't FGFA numbers already reduced from 214 to 144 already?

[sarabpal.s]

39 APACHE APPROVED as per mr Tejinderpal bagga on twitter .any body can confirm ?

[NRao]

Isn't FGFA numbers already reduced from 214 to 144 already?

The R&D price has gone up by $1 billion.

Have not seen a revised number for the total cost of $30 billion.