LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 30 Aug 2014 15:29

Pratyush wrote:If that's the case, then it makes perfect sense to cancel the import of the LUH.

IIRC, a lot of FUD was spread regarding the suitability of the Shakti for the LCH. That it was unsuitable for a single engine machine. However, when the FUD was viewed in the light of the Cheetal upgrade, it made no sense.

I think the problem was in the Frenchies charging an arm and a leg to certify Shakti for the LUH as this would need a slight redesign/modification. Different redesign/modification than that needed for Cheetal.

I think that make in India is a clever way to get in a foreign helo without attracting criticism against a so called nationalist government. Who will have IP in the case of make in India? The way I think of this is that Modi wants make in India as a means of employment generation and not necessarily as a means to get an aerospace ecosystem started. There is no way for an Indian private sector player to manufacture under license and then magically have the capability to design a helo in the next decade.

Also the Apache should never have been bought. A waste of money given LCH is nearing test completion. A Chinook I can somewhat understand but cannot understand an Apache unless Jaitley is afraid of pissing off the Americans.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Aug 2014 15:31

Some years ago,the head of a foreign western delegation to an aerospace conf. in Blr.,an Indian,told me that we were woefully far behind what our very own expats were developing abroad. His kith and kin who were developing AI,vehicle dynamics,etc.,also after visiting our DRDO labs were rather unimpressed with the scope and pace of development. When we have never developed and series produced an indigenous engine for any aircraft or helo,one shudders to think what if the LUH engine suffers the same fate as Kaveri.This will then result in becoming another "Late Util. Helo" programme,like the LCA.One shudders to think how the IA and IAF will support our gallant jawans freezing in the Himalayan heights ,using decades old ancient Chetaks and Cheetahs serving well beyond their scrapping date.When the desi LUH will arrive is anybody's guess. The MOD should've at least bought 80+ in the interim,leaving a large number,320 built of the indigenous LUH.

Why have we then placed an order for the LCH which is far ahead in development of the LUH and flying too,as by the same stds.,the Apache order too should've been scrapped or numbers restricted to around 24.The logic of the MOD amazes one. The appeasement of the Yanquis still survives as policy in the MOD.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Aug 2014 17:10

New Delhi approves Apache buy, cancels long-running tender

The Indian ministry of defence has cleared the procurement of attack and heavy-lift helicopters for the nation’s air force, while also cancelling a decade-long effort to acquire 197 reconnaissance and surveillance (RSH) rotorcraft.

The attack and heavy-lift procurement is cumulatively worth an estimated $2 billion, while the abandoned RSH buy was worth $1 billion.

In a decision taken on 29 August, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) – led by defence minister Arun Jaitley – cleared the purchase of 22 Boeing AH-64E Apache and 15 CH-47F Chinook helicopters.

The decision still requires final ratification from the government’s Cabinet Committee on Security, however.

Boeing earlier told Flightglobal it expects additional orders for the Apache attack helicopter, and is “bullish on finalising the contracts by the end of 2014” for both types.

Meanwhile, the DAC also decided to close the drawn-out procurement of 197 light helicopters for both the Indian army (133) and Indian air force (64). The process had been under way since 2003.

The two finalists – Airbus Helicopters’ AS550 C3 Fennec and Russian Helicopters’ Kamov Ka-226T – had been waiting for a decision on the procurement for almost six years.

The helicopters will now be acquired under the “buy and make (Indian)” category – as per India’s defence procurement policy – and a fresh request for information is expected to be issued. This would call for the supply of a certain number of helicopters in flyaway condition under the “buy” section, followed by licenced production in India under the “make”.

As part of its offer for the cancelled tender, Airbus Helicopters had said if the “Fennec is selected, deliveries will commence in 12 months, with a final assembly line being setup in India”.

India’s military currently operates the Cheetah (Aérospatiale SA-315 B Lama) and Chetak (SA-316 Aérospatiale Alouette III) light helicopters, which are built under licence by Hindustan Aeronautics in Bengaluru. The last of Cheetahs will now be retired as late as 2030.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 31 Aug 2014 08:13

Rohitvats ji:

Minor nitpick - It is 'Buy and Make', not 'Make and Buy'.

The whole idea behind B&M, now bolstered by the 49% FDI, is to build up capacities (manufacturing hopefully followed by R&D) in the Indian private sector with foreign technology and investment.

I think the NaMo Govt will build this as a parallel MIC in addition to, and not in place of, the public sector.

I am going out on a limb here to say that I think NaMo is working towards 'and', while we are all thinking of 'either-or'. In other words, I think it will be 400 'Buy and Make' and 200+ HAL-LUH.

On the same lines, it will be the T-90 and 500+ Arjun. 126 Rafale and 200+ LCA. The Apache and the LCH.

Seems impossible? Well, NaMo works on making happen what most of us have been conditioned to think as being impossible.

JMT

kit · Post by **kit** » 31 Aug 2014 12:21

Kakkaji wrote:Rohitvats ji:

Minor nitpick - It is 'Buy and Make', not 'Make and Buy'.

The whole idea behind B&M, now bolstered by the 49% FDI, is to build up capacities (manufacturing hopefully followed by R&D) in the Indian private sector with foreign technology and investment.

I think the NaMo Govt will build this as a parallel MIC in addition to, and not in place of, the public sector.

I am going out on a limb here to say that I think NaMo is working towards 'and', while we are all thinking of 'either-or'. In other words, I think it will be 400 'Buy and Make' and 200+ HAL-LUH.

On the same lines, it will be the T-90 and 500+ Arjun. 126 Rafale and 200+ LCA. The Apache and the LCH.

Seems impossible? Well, NaMo works on making happen what most of us have been conditioned to think as being impossible.

JMT

Kakkaji ..that definitely seems like the new mantra for defence deals from now on.

Buy a state of the art near cutting edge system and a near double number indigenous equivalent for a high low mix of weaponry that would provide both quality and quantity ..

MRCA is definitely going to see much lower numbers and LCA in higher number i think

FGFA with MCA ?

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 31 Aug 2014 12:54

The so called 5th & later Gen aircrafts would be carrying so much weight (considering frugal SDRE engineering reaching out to make capabilities much bigger than is normally possible with frugal engineering) and esp. volume of weapons and sensors that even MCA will become a small aircraft. It would still remain a hi-lo combination.

It is far more important to not mess up on the engine for AMCA. Doing that will require a large number of people working in the same direction and getting the small stuff right successively will provide meaningful work for the less experienced engineers. Unless the young and the old engineers can share engineering experience there would never be a conducive environment. That is probably the idea that the private participants shared with the GoI and hence the cancellation. Private participants will most likely get promising deals and the role of GoI will have to be four fold -

1) protect the private participants from vile accusations of profiteering (The accusations are going to come in from exactly the set that profits from a weaker India);

2) have an active but not intrusive role in having deals struck with foreign entities which deserve a stake in the process;

3) push the private participants to actually meet expectations; and

4) restructure the DPSUs towards items that cannot be entrusted to even the Indian private participants and to items the production of which may need to be bumped up during emergencies.

I think if the current team of politicos prospers in terms of skills and numbers then all these can be done. They have the right kind of guile and gumption needed to see difficult tasks through, to the end.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 31 Aug 2014 15:30

Pratyush wrote:Now cancel the Ah 64 deal. Increase the LCH Order by an equal number.

Thanks for beating me to the punch.

It's time to put the AH-64 deal under reconsideration as well. The LCH goes for 17.5 million. We can have 4 of them for 1 Apache. 88 LCH will give us an overwhelming advantage, in addition to the fact they will be armed with Helinas. Modi and Jaitley clearly put building a Bharat Industrial Complex over other things.

Cancel the AH-64. The reasoning is identical to LUH - Buy from India. We are at a tipping point. For the first time, we have the ability and technology to build major defence products at home. From aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, helicopters and airplanes, tanks, and artillery. The Import Raj is dead.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 31 Aug 2014 15:38

kit wrote: Kakkaji ..that definitely seems like the new mantra for defence deals from now on.

Buy a state of the art near cutting edge system and a near double number indigenous equivalent for a high low mix of weaponry that would provide both quality and quantity ..

MRCA is definitely going to see much lower numbers and LCA in higher number i think

FGFA with MCA ?

I would like to argue against that logic for the Javelin and the AH-64. We make a system that is on all the technical specifications, including cost, and sanction proofing and ToT considerations, superior. The high-low mix makes no sense when our "low" mix is superior to the imported maal.

Bharat makes SLBMs and Agni and Nirbhay. We make every kind of missile. The need to spend $1 billion on Javelin isn't there. Likewise for the Apache. 22 Apache are not needed to deal with Pakistani armor. The Al-Khalid is neither a great tank, nor given that we already have Arjun, T-90, Pinaka and 30 thousand Konkurs/Milans any issue with handling them. We beat them in 3 wars with Soviet gear.

Bharat has demonstrated we can make all kinds of missiles, and for cheaper than the US. Why pay more? Happy to see Philip and Merlin, two oldies, have also jumped on board and started asking questions about the AH-64 deal. Surrender Singh made the deal as a bribe paid to the US for the nuclear deal. Kill the Apache.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 31 Aug 2014 17:11

what is the status of Lch as of now ? is TD3 the final configuration ? TD2 performing sea trial is all I know.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 31 Aug 2014 17:31

Does anyone what are the offset conditions for the Apaches and Chinnoks? Will Tata assemble these in their Hyderabad facility?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Sep 2014 07:51

Is the AH-64 a necessity for India?. I think not!

Here are my thoughts: I understand that all armed forces in the world which have the means to adopt both light and heavy attack helicopters do adopt both. This provides nice pyramidal structure which provides great flexibility in operations. Both IA and IAF seem to subscribe on this principle though they don't see eye to eye on anything else regarding the helis. Also, there seems to be no step-motherly treatment towards LCH because of the AH-64.

Now, the countries which field both these kind of helicopters in numbers also produce both. We don't. So, how much of an handicap is it if we can't have this pyramidal structure, i.e. we have only the LCH as attack helicopters but in larger numbers?

Performance-wise, we have the following points:

1) High altitude warfare: I don't think we lose anything. If anything, I believe we will have higher payload capacity with 2 LCHs rather than 1 AH-64. But Vivekji, Nair sahab and/or raghuk can give us more details.
2) Air support: We lose here. This one is very critical. AH-64 will be able to hang around for much longer with our forward armoured formations. Historically, this has been found to be directly related to the efficacy of the air support that can be provided. Also, with a much longer range, the AH-64 can penetrate further into enemy territory and/or provide us the ability to bury our heli logistics deeper into our territory.
3) Maintaining logistics at wartime: Can't say. Maintaining parts and fuel for twice the number of helis at wartime might be more difficult. However, not having to import many parts and having common parts for all helis is a plus.
4) Availability at wartime: We win. With more number of common airframes, the overall availability is likely to be higher.
5) Survivability: Is the AH-64 more survivable? The only considerable difference I find is vis-a-vis small-arms fire. What percentage of helicopters are lost to small arms fire? Also, does anybody have any insights into how many times a AH-64 has been hit by small-arms fire but not destroyed? Is there similar data about other helicopters?

From acquisition and maintenance POV, we have the following points:

1) Acquisition costs: if we acquire 2 LCHs in place of a single AH-64, we win.
2) Fuel: With 2 LCHs for every AH-64, we lose.
3) Maintenance costs: Can't say. Cheaper but more numerous parts for 2 LCHs, vs more expensive but lesser number of parts for a single AH-64. Also, though we are not sanction-proof with the LCH, we can do much better than with the AH-64.
4) Training: Can't say. More pilots to train with more helis, but all the training is common.

Personally, I don't think we need that AH-64s, unless it is not just a military-only thing. Would like to know what others think.

OT Rant.
Please post only after you have thought a little. Your thoughts after reading the Wiki-page is not worth much. It is anyways the first link that Google throws up whenever anybody searches for anything. Please make your posts worth a little more, worth a reader's time and your reputation.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 04 Sep 2014 10:36

I only have a simple viewpoint - is the cost of the Apaches worth the capability they bring in OR can the money be better spent elsewhere? My answer is money can be better spent elsewhere beefing up capabilities that are far more important. How many additional refuellers can the money spent on Apaches buy? How many additional AEW? Heck, how many additional Chinooks?

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 04 Sep 2014 10:52

Does someone have a reference to the original background of the rationale for the Apache deal ? When was it, and what were the circumstances that made it worth pursuing ?

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 04 Sep 2014 11:56

^^^
Indranil, I completely agree with you. We do not need the Apaches and I don't believe they can give us a significant advantage in any of our operational environments.

I don't think I agree with your point 2 though. Attack helicopters can be very vulnerable to MANPADS and deep armoured thrusts into Pakistan are a pipe dream for many reasons - urban environments, lack of political will and our history of not using armour effectively - we did not even exploit the gains in Battle of Basantar. Brig Vaidya (later COAS) missed a golden opportunity created by Poona Horse under Hanut Singh. The only true protection for armoured columns is mobility and aggression and unfortunately we have become more defensive in our thinking since 71 ! Anyway 22 Apaches can't bridge the gap of 1000s of SP guns. And the army is depending upon the IAF fixed wing aircraft to give them fire support for armoured thrusts.

I think the Apaches are a waste of money especially since we have a criminal lack of basic equipment like night vision and grievous shortages in arty. Some LUHs are desperately needed. I believe this is the army view too.

I have no access to the IAF view but I would be surprised if they felt differently. I know that about 2 years ago a senior AM told me that the transport aircraft were a low priority (especially Hercules) and the IAF couldn't understand why the govt had prioritized the US deals when IAF had much higher priorities like fighters, trainers and AD. I posted this at the time.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Sep 2014 16:26

Akshay Kapoor wrote:<SNIP>

I have no access to the IAF view but I would be surprised if they felt differently. I know that about 2 years ago a senior AM told me that the transport aircraft were a low priority (especially Hercules) and the IAF couldn't understand why the govt had prioritized the US deals when IAF had much higher priorities like fighters, trainers and AD. I posted this at the time.

While I disagree with you on defensive mentality - I buy your point about critical lack of equipment which would ideally take precedence when over purchase of Apache.

Having said that, my reading of this string of purchases from USA is this: The UPA-2 under MMS had to give some quid-pro-quo to the Americans (especially when the mega-buck deals in nuclear sector did not materialize) and they asked the Services what they wanted from US repertoire. No doubt, some advise and suggestions came from Pentagon/State Department as well but it was all driven by willingness of the government to spend money on US stuff.

Long story short - each service picked up what they thought was the best stuff to come out of USA and which helped them to fill certain gaps. These purchases are akin to parents taking their kids to a Hamley store and asking them to take their pick!

As for where I stand - well, I'm not complaining. The last government sat on all major and critical purchases and inductions for over a decade for various reason; if real-politic led to Services receiving SOME equipment in double-quick time and that too w/o having to justify every nut and bolt to Finance Ministry, than so be it.

Remember, the Finance Ministry under this very same government had returned proposal to buy A-330-MRTT because of cost and stupid argument about threat from China in future. They had no qualm in signing on dotted line for purchasing C-17 for half a billion dollars!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Sep 2014 16:37

Suraj wrote:Does someone have a reference to the original background of the rationale for the Apache deal ? When was it, and what were the circumstances that made it worth pursuing ?

Suraj - the Mi-25/35 in IAF service were getting long in tooth and did require to be phased out.

So, a genuine requirement existed. It is just that GOI chose these requirements to pass money to Khan for the nuclear deal. Otherwise, nothing explains the funny situation of IAF retaining first two squadrons of Apache as replacement for Mi-35 while IA gets additional three squadrons of Apaches. Funny because those two squadrons of Mi-35 were under command of Indian army and paired with Strike Corps. So, if IA gets 3 x squadrons of Apaches for each of the Strike Corps, why does IAF need 2 x Squadrons but to just save it's turf and not loose those squadrons from IAF Orbat - which has implications in terms of avenues for helicopter pilots in IAF.

But as I said earlier - I'm not complaining. If government's act of splurging money adds capability to Services, I'm all for it. The argument that this money could have been used for other stuff does not hold - simply because this money would not be spent on anything else but a product imported from US of A.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 07 Sep 2014 12:21

^^

Hi Rohit,

I wish we could go to Hamleys but its the CSD for us;-)

It makes sense that we took advantage of a window without the FM blocking everything and I remember the Airbus deal well. But what I don't understand is, if we could have the pick of the US arsenal because of the quid pro quo why not buy Naval Helicopters, ultra light howitzers etc and LUH through that route ? They were far more critical. Why did we have to do so much drama about the ultra light howitzers ? Its sad and infuriating. I wonder how long it will take to undo the damage of the previous government.

I do believe we have become more defensive which at its core is largely political/babu driven. The Gen Kapil Vij episode is just one episode that comes to mind and by a BJP govt that too. But over time it seeps down into military thinking as well just like muscle memory. Ofcourse, Op Meghdoot was a great +ve but still on our own soil in a way. Perhaps we can have a discussion on this and on the feasibility of moving some strike corps arty to the LOC and pound the Paki's to achieve some well defined objectives. I have briefly discussed this with an ex GOC 21 Corps and Northern Army Commander. But who better than you to do a detailed analysis ? Do we have a tactics thread ? Perhaps we can also look at innovative use of the Apaches in that scenario.

Akshay

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 07 Sep 2014 17:06

Very happy with the overall posts coming to the conclusion that the Apache isn't needed. One point.

Fuel costs don't favour the Apache. It is a heavyweight chopper, compared to the LCH, which is based off the Dhruv. In addition, the use of composites in the LCH as well as its more recent design date are strong points. Composites + high altitude performance, are a strong argument against picking a heavyweight chopper like the Apache which can't perform in the Himalayas. Composites, as shown in the Tejas, are easier to maintain than metallic structures.

In any case, 22 Apaches are not going to decide any tank battle, but 88 LCHs very well might. We are already ordering 100 LCH, 88 more would give us numerical superiority compared to both Pakistan + China. 188 LCH have a better upfront cost,
allow for more indigenous content, and use native missiles like Helina. The LCH is also sanctions proof.

The LCH is also a helicopter comparable to the Eurocopter Tiger,or the Chinese Harbin Z-9,Z-19 relying on stealth, agility and speed rather than armour. Armour isn't a good move for any aircraft. They simply can't carry enough armour to protect themselves. Agility, stealth and speed make a better alternative.

So on cost, capability and creating an edge over the Chinese/Pakistani choppers, the LCH is the better choice.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 08 Sep 2014 11:01

Akshay Kapoor wrote:^^
It makes sense that we took advantage of a window without the FM blocking everything and I remember the Airbus deal well. But what I don't understand is, if we could have the pick of the US arsenal because of the quid pro quo why not buy Naval Helicopters, ultra light howitzers etc and LUH through that route ? They were far more critical. Why did we have to do so much drama about the ultra light howitzers ? Its sad and infuriating. I wonder how long it will take to undo the damage of the previous government.
Akshay

Well, the previous UPA-II government may have wanted to pay off the US as quid pro quo for the nuclear deal but at the same time also wanted to keep up the confidence building measures by buying stuff that won't have much use in a war. After all Naval Helos are much more useful and we have a critical shortage of them, so why buy them? Remember, the previous governments unstated objective was emasculating our armed forces as a confidence building measure for the Pakis and the Cheenis.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 08 Sep 2014 16:55

Apache deal is a good one and I support it, I think IAF and IA have grands plans for the Apache Fleet. The Apache block 3 is technologically superior bird, for an attack helo, it does posses a kick ass radar now with extended range, image fusion with FLIR, with very cool ability to control UAVS as well. They will be used by the IAF and IA as command and control for their respective fleets of Helos. With their longbow radars and ability to share info safely, they will command LCH and Rudra elements in the air. Keep in mind it also has littoral capability on the block 3 hence can operate from ships if needed.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0qPJQogRqw8/T ... ements.jpg

Using their ability to control UAVs, they'll be able to have a clear cut long range view of the battlefield in multiple areas and designate assets to a target or go after them on their own. With their ability to recon, they will also be able to warn ingressing helos of any dangers that lie await for them. The IAF has ordered 65 LCHs and Army 114 and I am sure they can order more. The AF also operates plenty of Mi-17V5s, for all these assets it is always nice to have a aerial command center.

Also considering the 1.4 billion for 22 apches + costs of service/maitenance/training + weapons (around 1300 Hellfires+ Stingers+ 30mm ammo) brings the price to 64 million a piece which is quite competitive for a bird that will only add value.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 08 Sep 2014 19:06

How will the Apache's communicate with the Rudras and the LCH?

Which UAV's can the Apache control? Only US ones?

koti · Post by **koti** » 08 Sep 2014 21:12

indranilroy wrote:Is the AH-64 a necessity for India?. I think not!

Now, the countries which field both these kind of helicopters in numbers also produce both. We don't. So, how much of an handicap is it if we can't have this pyramidal structure, i.e. we have only the LCH as attack helicopters but in larger numbers?

I am not aware of the tactical advantage but it should be noted that both Apache and the Super Cobra operated in parallel for US. And a few forums I read through, the pilots always preferred the Apaches due to higher range, payload and survivability. The 30mm cannon is much better against armor then 20mm.
Maybe a lo-lo profile mandates the extra survivability compared to LCH in the planes and deserts whereas LCH maybe more tailored to be useful in more hilly regions.

koti · Post by **koti** » 08 Sep 2014 21:23

merlin wrote:How will the Apache's communicate with the Rudras and the LCH?

Which UAV's can the Apache control? Only US ones?

I think this should be a solvable issue. P-8Is are communicating well arn't they?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Sep 2014 21:54

koti wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Is the AH-64 a necessity for India?. I think not!

Now, the countries which field both these kind of helicopters in numbers also produce both. We don't. So, how much of an handicap is it if we can't have this pyramidal structure, i.e. we have only the LCH as attack helicopters but in larger numbers?
I am not aware of the tactical advantage but it should be noted that both Apache and the Super Cobra operated in parallel for US. And a few forums I read through, the pilots always preferred the Apaches due to higher range, payload and survivability. The 30mm cannon is much better against armor then 20mm.
Maybe a lo-lo profile mandates the extra survivability compared to LCH in the planes and deserts whereas LCH maybe more tailored to be useful in more hilly regions.

Fine points. As you will see, I agree (in the same post) that range is a great great advantage of a heavy attack helicopter like the Apache.

indranilroy wrote: 2) Air support: We lose here. This one is very critical. AH-64 will be able to hang around for much longer with our forward armoured formations. Historically, this has been found to be directly related to the efficacy of the air support that can be provided. Also, with a much longer range, the AH-64 can penetrate further into enemy territory and/or provide us the ability to bury our heli logistics deeper into our territory.

My question is different, I understand that any country which has both a heavy and a light attack helicopter will field both. The combined advantage in combat gained, from the strengths of both platforms is undeniable. The question is if a country like ours which does not have both variants, then how much of a handicap is it to field just the local variant. Especially when the local variant is cheaper and can therefore provide more numerical strength.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Sep 2014 22:45

Rien wrote: Fuel costs don't favour the Apache. It is a heavyweight chopper, compared to the LCH, which is based off the Dhruv. In addition, the use of composites in the LCH as well as its more recent design date are strong points. Composites + high altitude performance, are a strong argument against picking a heavyweight chopper like the Apache which can't perform in the Himalayas. Composites, as shown in the Tejas, are easier to maintain than metallic structures.

Boss, if 2 LCHs are needed for equivalent payload of 1 Apache, you will have a higher fuel burn with the LCH (compare fuel burn rate).

You are right that LCH will have better performance in high altitude warfare vis-a-vis the AH-64. But it is not because LCH has more composites or that it is of a more recent design. One can make a helicopter completely out of composites, and designed today and it will not do well in high altitudes. It has been designed to do so and none of it is difficult to understand if you decide to spend some time. Otherwise, you are only diluting the discussion, and chasing away serious commenters.

Rien wrote: The LCH is also a helicopter comparable to the Eurocopter Tiger,or the Chinese Harbin Z-9,Z-19 relying on stealth, agility and speed rather than armour. Armour isn't a good move for any aircraft. They simply can't carry enough armour to protect themselves. Agility, stealth and speed make a better alternative.

Then why spend on armour at all? Also, stealth of a helicopter is not for the reason you envision it to be. It is to keep the enemy unaware, so that they don't send in the fighters ( for example the Abottabad raid). It is to maintain the element of surprise. Once that cover is blown and the fighters get in, the heli is toast. Moreover, helicopters depend more on the terrain for stealth than their shaping. Besides, stealth doesn't help much against foot soldiers. They can anyways hear the helicopter from a few kilometers away which is the range of their missiles and high calibre bullets.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 09 Sep 2014 02:13

My 2 cents: we can & should buy dessert if we can make the dal/roti ourselves. We are far from being world leaders in every field. We should make assault rifles for our Army ourselves but buy Tavors for SF. Make LCH in bulk but buy a handful of Apaches as the spear-end. Make our own artillery but buy a few M777 for mountain ops. Then slowly move up the value chain.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 09 Sep 2014 05:05

@indranil da, small arms do possess inherent risks for helis having light armour as seen during IPKF missions with MIs and the RPG attacks on Hinds in afga is well documented but again the crocodiles were respected by lttes. LCH have titnium and kevlar at strategic places but it is mainly designed for firing smart weapons from standoff distance with agility and performace at high altitude. LCH is not designed for taking harsh punishment like apaches or 35. so mix of heavy and light heli is needed.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Sep 2014 06:57

Shaun wrote:@indranil da, small arms do possess inherent risks for helis having light armour as seen during IPKF missions with MIs and the RPG attacks on Hinds in afga is well documented but again the crocodiles were respected by lttes. LCH have titnium and kevlar at strategic places but it is mainly designed for firing smart weapons from standoff distance with agility and performace at high altitude. LCH is not designed for taking harsh punishment like apaches or 35. so mix of heavy and light heli is needed.

I know and agree with you. It was a question to the previous poster who said that attack helicopters should bank more on "stealth, agility and speed rather than armour".

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 09 Sep 2014 07:36

indranil da , if you try to answer that pure baloney , you will keep on trying. he plays the quota card well and people falls for it and will brand you traitor if you appreciate a foreign maal. people like him actually lowers the value of this forum with their empty talks. my advice is to ignore him aka 3 idiot ishstyle !

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 09 Sep 2014 11:08

koti wrote:
merlin wrote:How will the Apache's communicate with the Rudras and the LCH?

Which UAV's can the Apache control? Only US ones?
I think this should be a solvable issue. P-8Is are communicating well arn't they?

Please provide a source for the P-8Is. I'm talking about them communicating with other aircraft for data, not voice.

kit · Post by **kit** » 09 Sep 2014 11:59

Interesting ., the Apache must be able to data link with the LCH ..the superior radar and sensor fusion on board the Apache networked with the rudras can enable near tactical air dominance ... if the air force and spec ops can take out the enemy radars !

kit · Post by **kit** » 09 Sep 2014 12:36

Dont know for sure but since CISMOA there might be some give way on the part of Americans ..

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 09 Sep 2014 12:42

merlin wrote:Please provide a source for the P-8Is. I'm talking about them communicating with other aircraft for data, not voice.

Koti is possibly referring to the BEL datalink2 on the indian P8Is. whether it would be allowed/integrated to the Apaches is a question that needs to be answered. if both LCH and Apaches sport it, they can communicate.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 09 Sep 2014 14:52

pragnya wrote:
merlin wrote:Please provide a source for the P-8Is. I'm talking about them communicating with other aircraft for data, not voice.
Koti is possibly referring to the BEL datalink2 on the indian P8Is. whether it would be allowed/integrated to the Apaches is a question that needs to be answered. if both LCH and Apaches sport it, they can communicate.

Hmm, I had forgotten about the BEL datalink. Or maybe even the Israeli/Indian ODL?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 09 Sep 2014 16:28

The Apache being able to control UAVs is nothing more than than a PowerPoint advantage over the LCH, not a real one.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 09 Sep 2014 16:35

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Apache doesn't even have Link 16.

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

They are only now just giving it the ability, so the reality is that of right now the Light Combat Helicopter can talk to UAVS, UCAVS and the DRDO AWACS. The Apache is a loner.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 09 Sep 2014 18:24

abhik wrote:The Apache being able to control UAVs is nothing more than than a PowerPoint advantage over the LCH, not a real one.

Tell that to the folks who will get killed with pin point accuracy and those who will get CAS. It really will be a good Power Pin Point. Now, I am not saying LCH may not be able to do it, so don't hang me.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 09 Sep 2014 18:30

Not sure if this is true.

Ritu4India ‏@RITURATHAUR 3h

Kudos to PM @narendramodi. INDIA RECOVERS Rs.1818 cr from Augusta!

vipins · Post by **vipins** » 09 Sep 2014 18:59

pankajs wrote:Not sure if this is true.
Ritu4India ‏@RITURATHAUR 3h

Kudos to PM @narendramodi. INDIA RECOVERS Rs.1818 cr from Augusta!

Happened in June 2014.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 09 Sep 2014 19:06

abhik wrote:The Apache being able to control UAVs is nothing more than than a PowerPoint advantage over the LCH, not a real one.

Really

tell that to the crews already reaping benefits of this

http://www.army.mil/article/125676/Apac ... _machine_/

Rien wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Apache doesn't even have Link 16.

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

They are only now just giving it the ability, so the reality is that of right now the Light Combat Helicopter can talk to UAVS, UCAVS and the DRDO AWACS. The Apache is a loner.

Apache doesn't need Link-16 to control UAVS, longbows improved data link already allows that, it will get the home made BEL data link 2 just like the P-8I, so no issues of net centricity. Apache's will most likely linkup with Searchers & Herons already in inventory and eventually Rustoms in the Indian context.