LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

[a_kumar]

Maybe its too early to worry about glass area.

Since this is a prototype, the focus would anyway likely be on high visibility and awareness of surroundings for the pilot/operator.

[Kartik]

Afaik none of the modern attack choppers in service have ejection seats , the rotor comes in the way . Iirc there were some prototypes tested with rotors with expendable blades (using explosive bolts on the hub ) .

quite correct. it was tested out with explosive bolts that ejected the blades of the rotor to make way for the ejection seat to fire through the canopy. but helos are in general more survivable than fast movers or even light fixed wingers and with crashworthy landing gear and fuselage (as the Dhruv demonstrated in Ecuador) and onboard fire suppressants, the pilot and gunner can escape..

even the recent T129 crash in Italy is a case in point..the tail rotor lost electrical power at close to 10,000 ft and the pilot's still were able to crash and survive. auto-rotation in many cases above a certain altitude will save pilots and even the helicopter if at all there is a loss of power. its much more dauting doing a dead-stick landing in a fixed wing plane.

[Craig Alpert]

Thank you all! Much appreciated for the Ejection Seats explanation!!

Someone asked whether the rotors were made of Composite Material - the answer is YES.
Also look at the MASSIVE LCD flat panels for both the pilot and the WSO along with other digitialized goodies, hopefully they can cram all the E/W software and IR/NV capability and display those in those big screens!

[Brando]

..the canopy is too large and the cockpit is far too exposed. They need to reduce it if possible to make it safer for the pilots..the perspex glass will be bullet-proof on the sides, but still too much surface area. This is the only gripe I have with this design as of now. with all the modern electro-optic systems that gunships have, having excellent visibility is not the most important thing, but from all the designs I've seen coming out of HAL and ADA, the emphasis on visibility for the pilots is very clear (Dhruv, IJT, Tejas twin-seater)..maybe the IAF and IA are very adamant on that..

Wrong. For a helicopter gunship, visibility is everything. When you have to contend with everything from SAM's to small arms fire, you don't have time to be panning some thermal imager and staring at an LCD. You want to keep your head on a swivel and only take a cursory look at your instruments. Early Target/Threat identification is key to gunship survival.

Take a look at ANY decent (aka WESTERN) modern gunship and you can see the premium on visibility they give to their gunners and pilots (AH64. A129, Tiger ). The reason is that they are more concerned about giving their gunner the chance to spot targets below and around them than they are off building a flying tank like the Russians. If the cockpit armor were to be extended to their shoulder height-like you want, the gunner could only see whats level beside him , rather than what is "below" him- which is what is required. Also, the notion that having a large cockpit somehow increases the danger of the pilots is misplaced because, if they are going to fire a SAM or use MANPADs or fire 20mm rounds, extra armor is not going to help much, it would only add weight. You need to be fast enough to avoid direct small arms fire and versatile enough to destroy or evade prepared anti-air defenses apart from carrying out your mission.

[Sriman]

A spreadsheet comparing LCH specs with other attack Helos:

http://www.google.com/squared/table/agN ... hFuwwk7wfw

I'm not sure how accurate the numbers are..

[Prasad]

I think while talking about visibility, we are missing a key point here wrt to where the LCH might operate. In the higher stretches of the himalayas, if the LCH were to operate it would need more visibility than on the plains? Simply because threats can appear at different angles compared to SAMs and small arms fire say in the desert or punjab plains?

I remember reading an account on BR or watching a clipping of a medivac pilot in Kargil talking about taking on small arms fire while flying through the valley and being able to pinpoint them and calling in fire. LCH should be able to spot such buggers and hellphyrr them to kingdom come. In such a role, if the LCH weren't dodging but actually looking for targets more visibility = quicker detection ja?

[Kartik]

Wrong. For a helicopter gunship, visibility is everything. When you have to contend with everything from SAM's to small arms fire, you don't have time to be panning some thermal imager and staring at an LCD. You want to keep your head on a swivel and only take a cursory look at your instruments. Early Target/Threat identification is key to gunship survival.

Take a look at ANY decent (aka WESTERN) modern gunship and you can see the premium on visibility they give to their gunners and pilots (AH64. A129, Tiger ). The reason is that they are more concerned about giving their gunner the chance to spot targets below and around them than they are off building a flying tank like the Russians. If the cockpit armor were to be extended to their shoulder height-like you want, the gunner could only see whats level beside him , rather than what is "below" him- which is what is required. Also, the notion that having a large cockpit somehow increases the danger of the pilots is misplaced because, if they are going to fire a SAM or use MANPADs or fire 20mm rounds, extra armor is not going to help much, it would only add weight. You need to be fast enough to avoid direct small arms fire and versatile enough to destroy or evade prepared anti-air defenses apart from carrying out your mission.

visibility is useful, but not at the expense of armour protection for the pilots from small arms fire. In Iraq, the bulk of the Apaches lost were to small arms fire and RPGs, not to SAMs.

if the LCH were to be used in COIN ops, the primary threat will be small arms fire or machine gun fire. To detect MANPAD wielding terrorists or infantry using Eyeball mk.1 means you're already too close and if you're detecting them in an arc below the helo then its way too late. If the gunner or pilot spots a MANPAD holding infantry man right below him (which is possible if you design the canopy to be right down to his waist as in the LCH), its already too late. the armour can protect him from 12.7 mm rounds but no bullet proof glass will do that..

And please don't twist my words. I said "elbow level" not shoulder level. There is a big difference between the two. Even fighters that are dedicated to strafing like the A-10, give the pilot visibility upto their elbows and that gives adequate visibility down below as well, though possibly not exactly below him as the LCH seems to right now.

On western helos, they do aim to give maximum visibility but shape the canopy in a way as to minimize the exposed area for the crew. Thats why you have a clear stepped canopy on the Apache, Tiger and Mangusta. The LCH has a sloped canopy but no clear step.

But like I said before, it seems that all HAL products emphasize visibility with the Tejas trainer and IJT both being clear examples. They both exceed the 15 deg slant for rear seater standard requirement. It may well be that the IA and IAF prefer it that way, in which case the LCH's canopy design may stay just the way it is.

[negi]

On western helos, they do aim to give maximum visibility but shape the canopy in a way as to minimize the exposed area for the crew. Thats why you have a clear stepped canopy on the Apache, Tiger and Mangusta. The LCH has a sloped canopy but no clear step.

Yes that is true , but at a first glance it seems the two seats in LCH are spaced further apart horizontally as against vertically hence I wonder if that has something to do with absence of the stepped canopy , unless we have more clear pics of LCH from front and either of the sides it is difficult to make observations . Btw when we say the canopy glass is bullet proof are we talking about small arms fire or including 12.7mm HMG and .50 cal rounds too ?

[A Sharma]

^^
According to HAL Annual Report 2008-09 IAF did an evaluation of full scale mock up of LCH. So probably this is what the IAF wanted in terms of canopy design.

[sunilUpa]

India's Light Combat copter makes first flight

Ajai shukla, has more details.

At 3.30 pm, the twin Shakti engines roared to a crescendo and the LCH pilots, Group Captains Unni Pillai and Hari Nair, lifted off the ground. The futuristic helicopter, all angles and armoured sheets, flew for a distance just a few feet above the runway; then cheering and clapping broke out as it climbed to 50 feet. Over the next 15 minutes, Pillai and Nair put the LCH through its first flight test, doing a clockwise and then an anti-clockwise turn, hovering motionless and circling the airport four times.

“It is a big day for all of us, especially those involved in the LCH’s design and fabrication,” Ashok Nayak, chairman and managing director of HAL, told Business Standard. “We were going to have the first LCH flight in December but, for one reason or another, it kept getting delayed.”

Excess weight has been the main reason for the delay in the LCH programme. The heavy armour needed for protection against enemy fire conflicts with the need for a light, highly mobile helicopter that can twist and dodge and hover stationary to allow pilots to aim and fire their missiles. The LCH was supposed to weight just 2.5 tonnes when empty; but the design team found that it actually weighed 580 kg more than that.

At lower altitudes, this would not be a significant drawback. But, at the LCH’s flight ceiling of 6,000 metres (almost 20,000 feet), this would significantly reduce the LCH’s payload of weapons and ammunition.

Last September, the chief of HAL’s Helicopter Complex, R Srinivasan, told Business Standard that the LCH’s weight would be progressively reduced over the first three Technology Demonstrators (TDs) of the LCH. “We will find ways of cutting down TD-1 by 180-200 kg; TD-2, will be another 100 kg lighter; and TD-3 will shave off another 65-75 kg. That would leave the LCH about 200 kg heavier than originally planned, but the IAF has accepted that.”

HAL chief Ashok Nayak today confirmed to Business Standard that this schedule was on track. “The weight reduction that we had targeted for TD-1, which flew on Monday, has been met. The second prototype, TD-1, which will make its first flight by September, will be lighter still.”

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has said that it needs 65 LCHs; the army wants another 114. If the development programme is not delayed further, the LCH will enter service by 2015-2016. To meet its needs till then, the Ministry of Defence floated a global tender for 22 attack helicopters. With only three companies responding, that tender was cancelled last year.

But HAL remains confident since most of the key technologies in the LCH — e.g., the Shakti engine, the rotors and the main gearbox — have already been proven in the Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter, 159 of which are being built for the army and the air force.

Simultaneously, the LCH’s weapons and sensors are being tested on a weaponised version of the Dhruv. These include a Nexter 20 mm turret-mounted cannon, an MBDA air-to-air missile, and an EW suite from SAAB, South Africa. India’s Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) is developing an anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) for the LCH. Based on the already developed Nag ATGM, the HELINA (or HELIicopter-mounted NAg) missile can destroy tanks from a distance of seven kilometres.

[shiv]

India's Light Combat copter makes first flight


Last September, the chief of HAL’s Helicopter Complex, R Srinivasan, told Business Standard that the LCH’s weight would be progressively reduced over the first three Technology Demonstrators (TDs) of the LCH. “We will find ways of cutting down TD-1 by 180-200 kg; TD-2, will be another 100 kg lighter; and TD-3 will shave off another 65-75 kg. That would leave the LCH about 200 kg heavier than originally planned, but the IAF has accepted that.”
.

For the first time the rustic Hindoostanees of Hindoostan are being exposed to the gory details and excruciating process of real technology development - haveig been used to getting imported maal where the earlier history of painful development was already over.

[Brando]

if the LCH were to be used in COIN ops, the primary threat will be small arms fire or machine gun fire. To detect MANPAD wielding terrorists or infantry using Eyeball mk.1 means you're already too close and if you're detecting them in an arc below the helo then its way too late. If the gunner or pilot spots a MANPAD holding infantry man right below him (which is possible if you design the canopy to be right down to his waist as in the LCH), its already too late. the armour can protect him from 12.7 mm rounds but no bullet proof glass will do that..

Not if you are moving at 160miles/hour at 50 feet! MANPADs can be defeated through flares but small arms fire would be extremely unlikely!! As for the Apaches, despite a few casualties, their armor has not been increased in the Block 3 upgrades because it is not deemed necessary. Majority of incidents were small arms fire damage was taken by the Apaches, they were able to return to base. What they did change were the tactics of operation by the Apache's that led to drastic reduction in any Apaches taking small arms fire. Adding additional armor is a very bad idea for an aircraft that is required to be fast and nimble.

Even fighters that are dedicated to strafing like the A-10, give the pilot visibility upto their elbows and that gives adequate visibility down below as well, though possibly not exactly below him as the LCH seems to right now.

Even a Mig-21 is used to strafe, Strafing requires being able to see through the front of your cockpit because you can roll to your right or left to look down and below in an fighter aircraft. Also, fighter aircraft fly much higher and much faster, so even if they had much more visibility, they wouldn't be able to pick out much more and they can't turn on their vertical axis like helicopters can.

On western helos, they do aim to give maximum visibility but shape the canopy in a way as to minimize the exposed area for the crew. Thats why you have a clear stepped canopy on the Apache, Tiger and Mangusta. The LCH has a sloped canopy but no clear step.

The stepped shape or sloped shape aren't really going to give much difference in protection. An RPG or 50 cal at the cockpit will do pretty much the same damage be it stepped or slopped. Western helicopters don't all have "stepped" canopy. The Apache has a canopy much like the LCH does now though not as straight. The A129 and the Tiger present a stepped canopy shape simply because of difference in the vertical and horizontal dimensions of their two cockpits positions making a single sloped cockpit like the LCH difficult or a curved one like the Apache unfeasible. HAL's design in also cheaper and easier to manufacture apart from giving greater visibility and definitely also because the user wants it like that!

[Anujan]

For the first time the rustic Hindoostanees of Hindoostan are being exposed to the gory details and excruciating process of real technology development - haveig been used to getting imported maal where the earlier history of painful development was already over.

Shiv-ji - Just to nitpick, LCA went through progressive & painful weight reduction too! So Hindoostanees of Hindoostan are aware if weight reduction

[shiv]

For the first time the rustic Hindoostanees of Hindoostan are being exposed to the gory details and excruciating process of real technology development - haveig been used to getting imported maal where the earlier history of painful development was already over.

Shiv-ji - Just to nitpick, LCA went through progressive & painful weight reduction too! So Hindoostanees of Hindoostan are aware if weight reduction

Yes the LCA did help increase the awareness of the rustics, but no harm in allowing the difficulties to be highlighted time and again. As a meta-thought I will say something that has crossed my mind. I have no proof. Indian developments have all come bathed in an intense glow of criticism and comparison with "the best in the world". As a result it seems to me that Indian developers have had to keep their asses covered while developing stuff. And this has added to the delays but the end products appear to be pretty good. The recent news about the Arjun vs T-90 (a rumor perhaps) the LCA and the ALH (its safety in Ecuador and in Pokhran recently).

[Kanson]

The Apache has a canopy much like the LCH does now though not as straight. The A129 and the Tiger present a stepped canopy shape simply because of difference in the vertical and horizontal dimensions of their two cockpits positions making a single sloped cockpit like the LCH difficult or a curved one like the Apache unfeasible.

LCH is more like Comanche. If there is any meanigful comparison wrt shape it has to be with Comanche.

[jimit]

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ht/390258/

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has said that it needs 65 LCHs; the army wants another 114. If the development programme is not delayed further, the LCH will enter service by 2015-2016. To meet its needs till then, the Ministry of Defence floated a global tender for 22 attack helicopters. With only three companies responding, that tender was cancelled last year.

So it will take 5-6 years of testing and modifications for the LCH to be operational. Does any one know the specific number of test flights the LCH will go through before being operational?

[RamaY]

Congratulations HAL!

[Singha]

masha-allah they should try out 3-packs of Helina each on 4 pylons for a total of 12 in ATGM role instead of
settling for a 2-pack (total 8 ). with 7 km range , they should be able to POUND any armour formation from
a relatively safe distance.

Nag-MKI with a drop-off booster with enhanced range of 15-20km would be nice to have, to be fired from
sealed VL packs of 12-16 missiles slotted into back of Stallion 4x4 trucks with a simple LCD panel in cabin for
gunner and feed from 'spotter' vehicles and UAVs to get the approximate target co-ordinates.

[bodhi]

A little late to join the party but congratulations to HAL and the entire team! Looks a mean machine

[Mr_Li]

On the business side:

Various reports indicate that IAF and Army "needs" something like 65+155 LCHs. Which is a good start.

But the business wing of DRDO (if it exists), should be mindful of export customers also - including western nations.

I wonder if DRDO / HAL are geared up to close the deal with IA and IAF and plan on serial manufacturing. It would be nice if they start a parallel effort weaponizing (along with flight testing). LCH should not involve as much testing as LCA it is presumed.

with tough customers like IA and IAF, DRDO and HAL will do well to check the customer's pulse periodically to make sure they don't run after another russian beauty.

[shukla]

the Ministry of Defence floated a global tender for 22 attack helicopters. With only three companies responding, that tender was cancelled last year.

Its true that it was cancelled earlier in the year but I thought they resubmitted a proposal for 22 combat helicopters in September-October 2009..The Apache AH-64 D is in contention. Has that changed?

[vasu_ray]

so, unless the rotor supports folding of blades, neither Dhruv nor LCH will have a naval role, its such a pity, those hard points seem to be a nice fit to carry helo dropped torpedoes or sonobuoys

the P-8i drops the fish torpedo from an altitude of 20,000ft, this helo has the potential to do the same

[srai]

rohit, AAC squadrons are usually smaller aren't they ? @ 10/sqdn IIRC ? even IAF helo sqdns have smaller # of airframes than their fighter counterparts which top it at 16/sqdn.

right now we have only 2 attack helo sqdns to go around for the 3 strike corps. I'm hoping at least the XIV corp gets one sqdn. the holding corps/IBGs will be supplemented by a significant number of the WSI-Dhruvs which will be churned out in the meantime.

Sir, if memory serves right, AAC Squadron has 15 helo/squadron. Basically, 3 Flights of 4+1 helos each. These are alloted at Corp HQ level and flights are detailed for the divisions under the Orbat of Corps.

As for requirment, even if we authorize one Sqn./Corps (apart from Strike Corps), we'd need 10 Squadron worth of these which @ 15 helos/Sqn. means 150 birds. BTW, 114 helos@15 per Sqn. will be 7 Squadrons and some change (may be trg.). But the numbers that I have given are for Cheetah/Chetak Sqn. and may be apply to ALH as well ( I don't see why it should not). Not sure, how the IA spreads out these birds per Squadron wise.

Wasn't there a talk sometime ago about IA wanting to raise an airborne division? If it does, then all the 114 LCH would go to it in an airborne combat/fire-support brigade(s) (similar to the US Army's 101st/82nd).

[niran]

Never heard of a marinised attack helicopter!!

"SeaCobras" were the naval version of the attack helo Huey Cobra series
two engine and different gun the main difference.

[Bala Vignesh]

As for the protection from sea, its possible to Marine-ise it... Like we did with Dhruv...

As i have said earlier, i know this sounds completely nuts but just couldn't stop from asking...

Bala Vignesh ji,

Well, at least that was thinking out of the box!!

Never heard of a marinised attack helicopter!!

You could just as easily arm a naval chetak with a multi barrel LMG in the rear cabin, operated by the Aircrew Diver. Complete with a trap to collect the spent shells and also mechanically limited arcs of fire so that the excited ACD does not shoot off his own tail rotor!!

Seriously, it would be too heavy and consequently have very short legs. Also, Naval regulations forbid the embarkation of a non folder.

Thanks for the reply... Can't an Attack helo be used in a AShW role??? An honest doubt.. And i am guessing that if Dhruv's rotors can be folded then i am guessing that its possible to do the same on LCH...

And seriously, the level of support provided by a utility helo with a MMG/HMG is different from what a Attack helo can provide...

[narayana]

No bhai, that is not a pneumatic lever for pulling it up. Its called a shock strut, and comprises the oleo.
The exposed metal that you see is the length of the oleo stroke..that is how much it can move up (its called a fluid spring), displace hydraulic fluid or both hydraulic fluid and air for a oleo pneumatic system and absorb shock. The length of that oleo stroke (also called vertical axle travel) means that its designed to take real punishment while landing. i.e.absorb plenty of kinetic energy. That is due to the higher crashworthiness requirements for an attack helicopter.

This forum is a combi of Excellent Masters like kartik and laymen like me(in mil. tech stuff)

[rohitvats]

Wasn't there a talk sometime ago about IA wanting to raise an airborne division? If it does, then all the 114 LCH would go to it in an airborne combat/fire-support brigade(s) (similar to the US Army's 101st/82nd).

Not that I've heard of but others can clarify. An Airborne Divisions is a super expensive beast to set-up and maintain. An American style Airborne Division even at Indian prices will easily exceed $500-600 million. Not worth it. And as it is, let us first get enough airlift and more importantly, Para Battalions, to equip the 50(I) Para Brigade.

[Rahul M]

rohit, there was talk of a combat aviation brigade, an airborne mech bde if you will, with the LCH filling in the role of tanks. haven't heard of it in sometime.

[Singha]

attack helis are unsuitable for ASW/anti ship because you dont really need a gunner or direct fire weapons for that - except short range anti-FAC fights.

real needs
- capacious cabin for console operators & mission eqpt
- 500+km radius of action
- ability to carry LWT or ASMs of harpoon/NSM type (600kg each)
- big radar and ESM fitment
- brawny frames to operate in heavy sea states and storms (3 engines)
- dunking sonar
- satcom links to ships
- air to air refueling probe for emergencies when it has to venture far beyond
normal radius of action for SAR

you need EC725/Merlin/S92 (only merlin has 3 engines though)...

[rohitvats]

rohit, there was talk of a combat aviation brigade, an airborne mech bde if you will, with the LCH filling in the role of tanks. haven't heard of it in sometime.

Well, Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) is nothing but a formation tasked to take care of your aviation assets. So, tomorrow if IA feels to raise one and add, lets say, 2 LCH+2ALH+1 Mi-17IV, to it, you'll have your Combat Aviation Brigade. Question is, what do you intend to achieve? In USA, CAB is the "4th Maneuver Brigade" of the Divisions they're attached to. We've not reached anywhere near the number of rotary aircraft - logistics+attack+recon, employed by the Khan.

One possibility is that as the rotary assets rise at Corps level, they might be clubbed together in a CAB. For example, each or certain Corps in the future may have 1 Recce & Obs Squadron+1/2 ALH+1/2 LCH Squadrons; these then may well be with CAB held at the Corps HQ level.

[anirban_aim]

^^^^^ IA for quite some time has been asking for beefing up its air arm, especially after Kargil. The very fact that Army has indicated a requirement of 150+ LCH is an indication of that. It seems to me that IA slowly but surely wants to reduce dependency on IAF for providing close battle field support. And also to IAF's relief it will be left alone for only Strategic Air Dominance Roles.

[Rahul M]

an interesting viewpoint on this.
Attack: Helicopter vs OV-10

some might remember that IA had asked for fixed wing planes sometime back. army did operate some fixed wing aircraft in observation role back in 60's, if memory serves right.

[Kavu]

You can bet your bottom ruppee, that Navy boys are taking a deep look at this beauty. But it will not be for ASW, as this is not machine for it, Rather LCH is a prime candidate for air support, for our boys landing in Karachi!! Why do you think they bought that old LPD for? We are in the process of building up a Expeditionary Force, and the Navy is in the forefront.

[Kavu]

Extremely Large Image : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 080504.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 2w-112.jpg
This is what the Navy will be looking for, and it should be nothing short. For you can expect the Chinese to do this in the next 10 years.

[anirban_aim]

Rather LCH is a prime candidate for air support, for our boys landing in Karachi!! Why do you think they bought that old LPD for? We are in the process of building up a Expeditionary Force, and the Navy is in the forefront.

Insha Allah!!!!!!

This is the best piece of true blue jingo news I have heard in some time.

This mujahid will pray to Allah for your health and welfare and may the Ayatollahs of IN are listening to you.

Do you have any more on this?? or should we take it to the Naval Thread.

ANd if this turns out to be just your imagination ..... rest assured that I will come as a suicide bomber after you.

[Kavu]

Rather LCH is a prime candidate for air support, for our boys landing in Karachi!! Why do you think they bought that old LPD for? We are in the process of building up a Expeditionary Force, and the Navy is in the forefront.

Insha Allah!!!!!!

This is the best piece of true blue jingo news I have heard in some time.

This mujahid will pray to Allah for your health and welfare and may the Ayatollahs of IN are listening to you.

Do you have any more on this?? or should we take it to the Naval Thread.

ANd if this turns out to be just your imagination ..... rest assured that I will come as a suicide bomber after you.

Imagination to an extend yes and to some extend my contacts in the Navy. But it is the next natural course of action no? We are in the process of building a true blue water Navy, We do a have Brigade of Marines, and now we are figruing out more through the LPD acquisition, it is known fact that we are designing our own LPD or LHD's. It is only but natural a light helicopter gunship will be used as air support for these forces landing in KArachi.

[Samay]

an interesting viewpoint on this.
Attack: Helicopter vs OV-10

some might remember that IA had asked for fixed wing planes sometime back. army did operate some fixed wing aircraft in observation role back in 60's, if memory serves right.

Something that could substitute a heavy attack chopper is an aircraft like A10,, I have heard that it is game changer when it comes to dominate a ground attack.. Russians used their old sukhoi-25 against georgia very effectively and that saved a lot of t 90s from being blown up,
what is army's viewpoint on this?

[nachiket]

Something that could substitute a heavy attack chopper is an aircraft like A10,, I have heard that it is game changer when it comes to dominate a ground attack.. Russians used their old sukhoi-25 against georgia very effectively and that saved a lot of t 90s from being blown up,
what is army's viewpoint on this?

Aircraft like the A-10 and Su-25 require an environment of Absolute Air superiority and near total suppression/destruction of enemy anti-air assets. This is unlikely to happen in the Indo-Pak or Indo-Chinese scenarios.

[Samay]

Absolute Air superiority and near total suppression/destruction of enemy anti-air assets.

I think that work is left upto IAF isnt it?
, if army wants to dominate then A10 is irreplacable , it saves a lot of ground assets from being destroyed by the enemy and could be dubbed as ground dominance fighter
in case of Indo-pak war air dominance is expected from the IAF

[ArmenT]

From a post off of milphotos:

http://www.google.com/squared/table/agN ... hFuwwk7wfw

Comparison table of LCH and other attack helos (with references of where this information came from.)