Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by brar_w »

Technically the AH-64E is the AH-64D Block III. The change in nomenclature happened when the go ahead was given for full rate of production in late 2012. Throughout the development process the program was known as the Block III Delta Apache. The Echo is the current production standard and the rate since last year as bee 7 apaches a month (Not all new, but this includes 3 brand new AH-64E's per month strictly for export customers) cleared for export and Boeing is not taking orders for the older design. There are 4 firm customers for the Echo with the IAF and IA expected to be the fifth (iirc) if and when this deal goes through. England will be making the shift in the future but no timelines are yet finalized.
Zee News on You-e-tube: Bharat ke dushman kanpne lage hain...
LOL, Ballistic projectile becomes ballistic missile according to ZEE :rotfl: Next someone will jump in and say that since the Zee news confuses capability the IAF must also have done the same.. :D I guess this is why the US used RIMPAC 2014 to clear the Echo Apache on the USS Peleliu..Its a perfect way to deal with the DF-21..send up some apaches try to lure the DF21 towards the apache and the whiz bang armor on the Apache will deflect the ballistic missile. :lol:

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Aug 2014 05:01, edited 4 times in total.
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Victor »

Most khatarnak weapon.
Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Rien »

^^^^
An apples to apples comparison will revolve around Afghanistan, since the only place the US flies at high altitude over the entire service history of the Apache has been there. Likewise with nos. Only around 225 Apaches have served in Afghanistan

http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 86,00.html
The U.S. has over the past year doubled its number of helicopters based in Afghanistan to about 225, but troop numbers have risen even faster, making for a more acute chopper shortage. <snip>

Air Force Captain Matthew Miller wrote about the challenges of flying in Afghanistan after returning from a four-month deployment there in 2007. His medevac unit, from Georgia's Moody Air Force Base, had lost three helicopters and seven crew members in the two wars. Enemy fire had been a factor in none of the Afghan crashes. "In Iraq, helicopter pilots face a greater prospect of being shot at by ground fire," Miller wrote. "In Afghanistan, the greatest threat is the terrain." He described flying in Afghanistan as "'graduate level' piloting more challenging than cruising over the flatlands of Iraq. "It didn't take long to feel the perils of mountainous flying in Afghanistan," he added. "Between Iraq and Afghanistan, most helicopter pilots I've spoken to consider Afghanistan the more dangerous place to fly."
The Himalayas are both higher and more dangerous, including violent weather than Afghanistan. The Dhruv faces a harsher environmental challenge. But the Dhruv safety record beats the Apaches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Dhruv

There have only been 9 safety incidents in the entirety of the Dhruv's record since 2002. It has served in multiple high altitude nations, like Turkey, Ecuador, Peru, Nepal and Bharat of course. Let's just compare it one year of the Apache AH-64D deployed in Afghanistan shall we?

From the same Time Magazine Article linked above
"Helicopters are not shot down in battle very much in either place [Iraq or Afghanistan]," says Brookings Institution defense analyst Michael O'Hanlon. He and his colleagues are keeping running tallies of U.S. fatalities in both theaters. While 5% of U.S. deaths in Iraq have been caused by helicopter crashes — 216 out of 4,348 — the total is 12% in Afghanistan — 101 of 866 — even before Monday's losses.
101 deaths. Over the course of just one year and 250 Apaches. No matter how you choose to calculate the deaths, the Dhruv wins whether by flying hours, total accident rate or any other safety metric. :D To make it comparable to Dhruv
one has to divide by 2, so you wind up comparing 125 Apaches to 150 Dhruv.

The Dhruv has been flying since 2002, so that's over 12 years. That works out for the Dhruv to be 1.3 accidents per year.
In just one year 55 Americans have been killed in 125 Apache. Vs 1.3 deaths for 150 Dhruv over 1 year. That is a 450% difference. The Apache is a flying deathtrap. The IAF's evaluation is very much in doubt on safety grounds. It was always going to be the case that any cost analysis will favour desi maal over videshi, but safety is much more open to question.

The Apache's poor safety record at high altitude is due to

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Centers/CC ... osta03.pdf

Page 34
Aircraft engines produce less power at high altitudes, reducing maneuverability and limiting load capacity. In addition to a
reduction in engine power, helicopters lose rotor efficiency in low air pressure. Hovering is difficult and risky, and most helicopters are unable to lift normal loads at altitudes above 13,000 feet (3,965 m).

Most attack helicopters are too heavy to fly at high altitude.
And there we have it why the Apache, a helicopter that "appears" to have served well for the USA fails at altitude. It's too damn heavy!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... eferral=PM

The Dhruv on the other hand can carry a heavy load to high altitude. It's been proven in Siachen, there it crossed 8400 m. To put it in perspective, that's both a heavier load and higher altitude than the obese, obsolete, overweight Apache chopper could even dream of.

A chopper designed in 1975 vs one that was designed in 1992. It's no wonder why the Apache can't compete. It's too old, overweight and expensive. Tot requirements are something the US cannot meet. 50% offset obligations are law. Clearly the GoI is planning to give the US an exemption. This is another reason to kill this deal cold. If people are still interested I can explain the serviceability argument against the Apache. It's an old obsolete piece of junk whose only supplier of parts is the Sanction levying US. There is no way to keep the Apache operational in an Indo-Pak war, or guarantee supplies in the case of an Indo-China war.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by vic »

brar_w wrote:
We can have 3Rudra's for every Apache
This is a valid argument. Any decision to go in for a foreign helicopter, whether russian or american has to be made after weighing in an indigenous option even if that particular helo is not optimum for the sort of usage the service wants to put the particular hardware. A compromise here and another there will go a long way in reducing import culture and restricting it to areas where it is absolutely necessary.
+1
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by rohitvats »

The two Mi-25/35 Helicopter Units of IAF which 22 AH-64 Apache are supposed to replace are based in Pathankot and Suratgarh. So, I guess IAF knows where it wants to fight wars with Apaches. Similarly, the IA is going to have 1 Squadron each for its three Strike Corps - again, to be deployed from anywhere from Sambha to Barmer.

And before I forget - between IA and IAF, the order for LCH stands at 179 (114 and 65) and further 60 Rudra/Dhruv-WSI. So, if IA ever equips its mountain formations with Attack Helicopters, it would well be LCH. Though, I have no doubt that they'll also try Apaches in Ladakh.

I think we can lay this 'safety record' argument to rest - which is dubious to begin with!
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by rohitvats »

Rien wrote:<SNIP> From the same Time Magazine Article linked above
"Helicopters are not shot down in battle very much in either place [Iraq or Afghanistan]," says Brookings Institution defense analyst Michael O'Hanlon. He and his colleagues are keeping running tallies of U.S. fatalities in both theaters. While 5% of U.S. deaths in Iraq have been caused by helicopter crashes — 216 out of 4,348 — the total is 12% in Afghanistan — 101 of 866 — even before Monday's losses.
101 deaths. Over the course of just one year and 250 Apaches. No matter how you choose to calculate the deaths, the Dhruv wins whether by flying hours, total accident rate or any other safety metric. :D To make it comparable to Dhruv one has to divide by 2, so you wind up comparing 125 Apaches to 150 Dhruv.

The Dhruv has been flying since 2002, so that's over 12 years. That works out for the Dhruv to be 1.3 accidents per year. In just one year 55 Americans have been killed in 125 Apache. Vs 1.3 deaths for 150 Dhruv over 1 year. That is a 450% difference. The Apache is a flying deathtrap. The IAF's evaluation is very much in doubt on safety grounds. It was always going to be the case that any cost analysis will favour desi maal over videshi, but safety is much more open to question. <SNIP>
Dude,

Why don't you do everybody here a favor and actually read and understand your own links before posting on the forum?

You've just converted an article about dangers of helicopter operations in Afghanistan into an article about Apache's safety record in Afghanistan. Read again what you linked:
"Helicopters are not shot down in battle very much in either place [Iraq or Afghanistan]," says Brookings Institution defense analyst Michael O'Hanlon. He and his colleagues are keeping running tallies of U.S. fatalities in both theaters. While 5% of U.S. deaths in Iraq have been caused by helicopter crashes — 216 out of 4,348 — the total is 12% in Afghanistan — 101 of 866 — even before Monday's losses. "The main issues [responsible for the higher rate of helicopter-crash casualties in Afghanistan] have to do with terrain, weather and of course frequency of use," O'Hanlon says.
That excerpt from your article is about HELICOPTER operations in their totality in Afghanistan and NOT about Apache's performance. I mean, seriously, how can you mix the two?

Remember some time back you had linked a URL from Wikipedia about aviation related crashes (including helicopters) in Afghanistan? Well, five minutes spent on scanning that link gives you these figures about Apache crashes and crew casualties (mentioned in bracket):

2013 - 1 (2)/2012 - 2 (2)/2011 - 1 (1)/2006 - 2 (1)/2005-1(0)/2004-2(0)/2002-2(0)

Total crashes and casualties: 11 and 6. Of these 11 Apaches, one was from Dutch armed forces. What would be interesting to see is the total number of flying hours put in by the US Army AH-64 fleet in Afghanistan. Just for referential purpose, British Army Aviation Corps recently completed 50,000 hours in Afghanistan on their AH-64 with I think one casualty. This is for a 2006-2014 period.

So, while the operation in high altitudes argument for AH-64 holds to some extend - Vivek_Ahuja has done some phenomenal analysis on the same on this very forum with detailed technical inputs - the 'safety' argument you'd put forth against Apaches is pure bunkum!
shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by shaun »

Image

He writes all gibberish and is a complete baloney !!
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by brar_w »

Rein wrote:An apples to apples comparison will revolve around Afghanistan, since the only place the US flies at high altitude over the entire service history of the Apache has been there. Likewise with nos. Only around 225 Apaches have served in Afghanistan
Only 225? Are you serious? In addition to the LARGE fleet of AH-64's deployed to Afghanistan the Brits by 2008 had put 50,000 combat hours on the AH-64 fleet in Afghanistan alone and that made between 1/3 and 1/2 of their entire AH-64 flying time even when combined with peacetime training hours. Thats a ridiculous portion of the flying hours that is in combat. I do not recall them ever loosing an AH-64D pilot to enemy fire.
since the only place the US flies at high altitude over the entire service history of the Apache has been there
And do extract the required data from that performance based on your technical evaluation. You won't find any. Apart from the Combat operations, the AH-64 has a high altitude mountain training base, data from which must have been submitted by Boeing as required along with submissions on particular key performance criteria that the IAF ranked high up on their requirements. But don't expect the IAF to take their word for it, that is why the OEM is allowed to shell out its own money, send its aircraft along with support equipment to the home country and in IAF's case they trialled the aircraft over Leh for testing its effectiveness in that extreme performance envelope. Jaisalmer was the other extreme. One does this for flexibility even though the bulk of the aircrafts operations are going to be somewhere in the middle.
The Himalayas are both higher and more dangerous, including violent weather than Afghanistan. The Dhruv faces a harsher environmental challenge. But the Dhruv safety record beats the Apaches.
Terrain challenges are absolutely nothing new in combat. You do realize this do you not? You are taking pilots who train for a host of challenges, plucking them from their home bases and taking them 10,000+ Km out and asking them to conduct warfare in an inhospitable place that brings altitude, terrain and climatic challenges. Hardly something that is routine. No? Other challenges in Afghanistan were the vast distances that fixed winged aircraft had to cover them putting more than stresses on the airframes and using up faster than usual the tanker support. I guess those fixed winged aircraft must also be crap. The Warfighter fights where and when the political class tells it to. He/she has to overcome the challenges that have to do with things like weather, support, having depots and make shift expeditionary air bases 10000 km's out of your "comfort-zone" etc etc. The 101st for example never trained much at 10,000+ASL or above with their Apaches until they got to Afghanistan where this aspect of performance again gained a lot of emphasis. When you train for 10 different things you are going to have less time for any one particular thing. Just like the Apache is flexible and has conducted warfare in Afganistan all the up to 12000 Feet ASL and destroyed more than 500 tanks and radar sites in Iraq the Apache pilot has also shown to be flexible and reformed his/he training procedures to better cope with any one particular situation. They reformed the training with the Longbow once it came into service (had to) and did so again when the Afghanistan missions required greater emphasis on high mountain warfare. Similarly there are talks about adding changes with the Echo particularly given the ease in which UAV's operate with it and are controlled by it.

Others that are more interested in a total assessment by folks who know the aircraft inside and out can download read the Book i had provided in the appropriate thread that deals with the entire Afghanistan and Iraq deployment of the helo.
The Apache's poor safety record at high altitude is due to
Those who conducted that conflict, and those who won it decisivly are the ones who found the AH-64 to be competent and much ahead of the competing system at high altitude and desert trials in India.
And there we have it why the Apache, a helicopter that "appears" to have served well for the USA fails at altitude. It's too damn heavy!


Fails in what context? Whats the payload requirement. How many tanks are you going to burst at 10,000 Feet ASL?
There have only been 9 safety incidents in the entirety of the Dhruv's record since 2002. It has served in multiple high altitude nations, like Turkey, Ecuador, Peru, Nepal and Bharat of course. Let's just compare it one year of the Apache AH-64D deployed in Afghanistan shall we?
So combat deployment, actual combat missions at a war footing 10000-11000 km away from home base is pretty much comparable to peacetime or civilian operations of other equipment around the world?. Are you seriously going to say that with a straight face? If you do not know the difference between peacetime training and civilian flying vs wartime deployment then there isn't much to discuss further..


To put it in perspective, that's both a heavier load and higher altitude than the obese, obsolete, overweight Apache chopper could even dream of.
Is there a US system that you haven't called obese, overweight and incompetent? The Apache is a heavy attack helo while the dhruv is not. There is a place for both and both bring different tactical advantages in warfare. Go read up on the difference.
Tot requirements are something the US cannot meet. 50% offset obligations are law.
Offset requirements have been met by US companies (Its the companies that meet offset requirements not the US as a nation). Whether its 30%, 50% or 100% US Majors have met these obligations for nations around the world. The proof is out there for you to search and locate.
Clearly the GoI is planning to give the US an exemption.
Why not post the exact RFP docent and we can judge on our own?
This is another reason to kill this deal cold.
No your brilliant technical analysis was good enough, this is just icing.
It's an old obsolete piece of junk whose only supplier of parts is the Sanction levying US.
We should only be buying systems designed post 1992. Scrap the MKI fleet, scrap the Mig-29 fleet, scrap the C-130 fleet, the C-5 fleet, the P-8 fleet and basically everything other than the Dhruv. The Echo model is just a slight Bump from the YAH-64A that flew in the 70's. In fact the bump in capability is so little that the IAF would be better served in asking for the capability of the YAH-64 since it would be cheaper and offer the same level of capability as the AH-64E with the longbow. :rotfl:

Watch the vide that differentiates between the delta and the echo. Then go read up on what the A variant brought compared to the D
There is no way to keep the Apache operational in an Indo-Pak war,
Yeah, as soon as the war breaks out the apache's The Apache pilot's will get this message delivered through whattsapp.

Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by brar_w »

rohitvats wrote:The two Mi-25/35 Helicopter Units of IAF which 22 AH-64 Apache are supposed to replace are based in Pathankot and Suratgarh. So, I guess IAF knows where it wants to fight wars with Apaches. Similarly, the IA is going to have 1 Squadron each for its three Strike Corps - again, to be deployed from anywhere from Sambha to Barmer.

And before I forget - between IA and IAF, the order for LCH stands at 179 (114 and 65) and further 60 Rudra/Dhruv-WSI. So, if IA ever equips its mountain formations with Attack Helicopters, it would well be LCH. Though, I have no doubt that they'll also try Apaches in Ladakh.

I think we can lay this 'safety record' argument to rest - which is dubious to begin with!
You just had to come in and burst the bubble :wink:
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Aug 2014 20:49, edited 1 time in total.
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by member_26622 »

Why do we need gold plated Apache to take on Pakis trashcans? Oh, because we bought tin cans instead of Arjuns :roll:

Two wrong decisions do not become a correct one!
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by deejay »

nik wrote:Why do we need gold plated Apache to take on Pakis trashcans? Oh, because we bought tin cans instead of Arjuns :roll:

Two wrong decisions do not become a correct one!
No we don't need gold plated Apache to take on Pakis trashcans. We can do it with our bear hands. But, the Armed Forces just don't believe in this. They want to equip themselves with weapons like tin cans and gold plates with money which should have gone in setting up Indian MIC.

Now, that your point is taken, may be you can be more analytical in future. The thread will remain interesting.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Singha »

It is indeed a strange combo
worlds most powerful attack heli
in concert with the third worst mbt lol
shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by shaun »

Any news about the last ALH crash ?? the Ecouadorean have no news at all ..
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by brar_w »

rohitvats wrote: What would be interesting to see is the total number of flying hours put in by the US Army AH-64 fleet in Afghanistan.
Although no breakdown is available as far as I have looked the total number of combat hours for the delta in OEF and OIF combined stood at 800,000 by 2011. Of course the D continues to be in Afghanistan at the moment and the echo arrived just recently. I have also provided a tactical breakdown of the operations during both these wars including operations, mission requirements, how the units adapted and everything that went down during the deployments. The link to the book is in the Helo thread.


rohitvats wrote:That excerpt from your article is about HELICOPTER operations in their totality in Afghanistan and NOT about Apache's performance. I mean, seriously, how can you mix the two?
There is utter disregard for peacetime flying vs flying full mission combat sorties (doing CAS no less) in an expeditionary setup some 10K Km away from home base with an attack helicopter over hostile territory. If only services around the world looked at mission effectiveness and safety with the same degree of asininity..I bet the Iraqi air force would have been shocked given the record of their fleet during the Gulf war compared to routine flying during peacetime..
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Philip »

Since the LCH is already in the air flying,whyfore the need for the Apaches at all? The MI-35s can be nursed like the MIG-21s for a little longer until the LCHs start rolling off production lines,like the Dhruvs. We already have armed versions of MI-17s,Dhruvs in service,which can assist the MI-35s until the LCHs arrive. The Apache deal was just another of Quisling Singh's gifts to his master Uncle Sam.The MI-28N is an equally decent attack helo which may be even cheaper to acquire and operate.We've used the MI-24/35s well for ages,should face little problems with the MI-28Ns.If the holy grail is indigenisation and esp. the cost factor,then we should plum for the LCH,here we have a desi alternative unlike as is with the the case of the BTT.

Here is a report on the MI-28N from DID.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/rus ... et-016257/
Russia Improving its Mi-28 Attack Helicopter Fleet
Jul 03, 2014
Rostvertol report sheds light on deliveries, customers, propects, and a technical issue.

The Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant developed the Mi-28N Night Hunter, and they’ve been produced at the Rosvertol aviation plant since 2005.

June 12/14: Rostvertol report. Rosvertol’s 2013 annual report contains a number of interesting details regarding its orders. Deliveries to Russia are confirmed at 14 Mi-28Ns and 1 Mi-28UB. Evidence is conflicting, but the report also cites a 2013 prototype launch for the of Mi-28UB OP-1, and the helicopter and its and its mast mounted radar enclosure are photographed.

Iraq [foreign customer K-8] has its October 2012 order confirmed at 15 machines, and Algeria [foreign customer 012] is confirmed to have ordered 42 Mi-28NE attack helicopters on Dec 26/13. That Mi-28NE order makes them the type’s 2nd export customer after Iraq (15), but they are the largest. Other serious prospects include Egypt [customer 818], Turkmenistan [customer 795], and Uzbekistan [customer 860].

The report adds that Mi-28s have been having problems with increased vibration in the main gearbox. They decided to continue operations with an upgraded set of main gears in the 1st stage. Sources: Rostvertol PLC external link, “Annual Report ‘Rosvertol’,

In August 2012, Russian Lt. Gen. Viktor Bondarev pledged that the state would buy 60 Mi-28UB attack and training helicopters by 2020. That would be good news for the VVS, as well as the Rosvertol plant at Rostov on Don.

Russia is slowly modernizing its military, and its attack helicopter force is one of the areas being given priority. New Ka-52 Alligator and Mi-28N Night Hunter machines are beginning to replace the VVS’ 240 or so old Mi-24 gunships, but training has been an issue for the nascent Mi-28 fleet.
Reg. the IJT,it should be scrapped or consigned to tech-demo status,and one possibility is to induct PC-21s after the PC-7 BT trg. period, which can simulate jet fighters,with Hawks the next step as advanced trainers.
shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by shaun »

^^^
an import is anyway an import !!
and let me put it this way , how many mi-28 does russians have? it lost in too many counts to apaches and was considered for evaluation to avoid single vendor crisis.


an as far as ijt is concerned guess IAf gonna flog those kirans (until there is any change in training schedule ie , prop-jet-adv. jet .)till they find some thing similar to it .
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Vivek K »

[Edited]
Last edited by Raja Bose on 13 Aug 2014 20:30, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Your wit is not appreciated. Cease and desist from these type of posts.
Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Misraji »

Vivek K wrote:IAF = Imported Air Force.
Your post has been reported. Please desist from posting one-liners about your feelings for IAF today.

On the other hand, it will be most interesting to read your original analysis on why you feel so.
Please note that most forum members have been around long enough to distinguish uber-patriotism from analysis.

--Ashish.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Vivek K »

^^^^Truth hurts, right?
shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by shaun »

^^^
please refrain yourself from telling those " truths ".
Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Misraji »

Vivek K wrote:^^^^Truth hurts, right?
What I object to is not the truth. I object to your post.
I have no problem with you labeling IAF. I only request that you state your reasons for the same.
I bet that once you start putting your reasons in the post, you, me and everyone will benefit more.

--Ashish.
shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by shaun »

Isro have developed and tested technologies related to the crew
escape system which also includes
the Head-end Mounted Safe Arm for solid
motors,and the wind tunnel testing of scale model of crew escape system at
Bangalore.will this tech. have any spinoff in developing our own ejection seats ?
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:Since the LCH is already in the air flying,whyfore the need for the Apaches at all? The MI-35s can be nursed like the MIG-21s for a little longer until the LCHs start rolling off production lines,like the Dhruvs. We already have armed versions of MI-17s,Dhruvs in service,which can assist the MI-35s until the LCHs arrive. The Apache deal was just another of Quisling Singh's gifts to his master Uncle Sam.The MI-28N is an equally decent attack helo which may be even cheaper to acquire and operate.We've used the MI-24/35s well for ages,should face little problems with the MI-28Ns.
LCHs will soon arrive, yes. Rudras are being inducted, yes. Mi-25/35s can persevere a little longer, yes. The threat from PA tanks is less than daunting, yes. All in all, a good case for scrapping the Apache deal. Which makes your advocacy for the Mi-28N in the same post, utterly bizarre.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Viv S »

agupta wrote:Serious question:

How long do you think it will take us to develop the LCH "full system" (not airframe) capabilities with the kind of NCW-enabled SEAD-like search and destroy missions that will allow us to strike at jihadi clusters behind the LoC.
The fact that an Apache can be used for SEAD-like missions doesn't mean it should be used for SEAD-like missions. You can hit insurgent camps with fixed wing aircraft just as effectively (in a net-centric environment) but with a far greater degree of safety.
Make a list, assess probabilities of developing/qualifying and inducting all of those ... and you're easily into the 5+ yr timeframe. So are we advocating that India's policy towards Pak becomes. "We will hit you hard... in about 5+ years" so you better not direct those talibunnies towards India ?
Does today's non-Apache equipped IAF lack the capability to hit Pak hard? Its conventional advantage aside, the PA deployment on the LoC/IB is already at all-time lows and their adventures in the NWFP & Balochistan will carry on for a couple of years at the very least.

Our equation to the East isn't quite so comfortable and that's what the GoI's concern (and funds) should be addressing.
The LCH and Apache occupy distinct roles in the Army/IAF ConOps; to say dont do that AH-64 because you have the LCH is like saying we don't need to buy the Su-30 because you have the LCA we are developing the LCA
And yet no the other service in the world operates two classes of attack helicopters. Attack helicopters are primarily for tank-busting/anti-vehicle + anti-infantry roles. The LCH can get both jobs done. Not nearly as well as the Apache to be sure, but well enough.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by abhik »

agupta wrote:to say dont do that AH-64 because you have the LCH is like saying we don't need to buy the Su-30 because you have the LCA we are developing the LCA
The correct analogy would be we don't need to buy the MRCA because of the LCA and that is exactly what a lot of members have been suggesting.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by abhik »

agupta wrote:Serious question:

How long do you think it will take us to develop the LCH "full system" (not airframe) capabilities with the kind of NCW-enabled SEAD-like search and destroy missions that will allow us to strike at jihadi clusters behind the LoC.

Make a list, assess probabilities of developing/qualifying and inducting all of those ... and you're easily into the 5+ yr timeframe. So are we advocating that India's policy towards Pak becomes. "We will hit you hard... in about 5+ years" so you better not direct those talibunnies towards India ?
All armies fight with what they have, be it the most well equipped ones like that of the USA or cash strapped ones like ours. Not having a bunch of wet dream weapons is not what is preventing us from taking out "jihadi clusters".
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Viv S »

agupta wrote:Viv S: If India could afford or have the capability (like other countries do) to use a single fleet to cover the entire spectrum, I am sure they would standardize on one hi-end solution. And BTW, if you're thinking of the US - you may want to account for Combined Arms etc stuff - they have the luxury of differentiating roles between Army and Marine Corps etc. We don't - or at least currently don't. India has always done what it thought as efficient by mixing hi-lo solutions... seems to be a old habit.
The AH-64E has that mast mounted MMW radar that's ideal for anti-vehicle roles, but how is the LCH any less able than the EC Tiger, A129 or the AH-1 (all of which I'd imagine are hi-end aircraft)?

More importantly, does the threat on the Western front justify a large number of AH-64s? Limited air defences and the bulk of the tank fleet consisting of upgraded T-55s.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Viv S »

agupta wrote:Bingo. The answer is in WHEN ? And HOW MUCH well enough, right ?
Well.. how much higher is a high-end solution? LCH deliveries should start by 2018. AH-64E deliveries will likely begin by 2016 assuming the deal is signed in the next fiscal.

Somehow many Armies in the world do have "heavy" attack helicopters depending on the terrain/scenarios similar to ours. You have to think of the LCH as our Low-end-indigenous optimization to reduce the overall bill and have internal growth options.

Some do, some don't. The US, British, Israeli & Korean armies do as does the Russian Air Force. The USMC, French, German, Italians, Australians, Turks don't.

Rohit and others have talked earlier about how the new Strike/Mountain formations can be effective and will need to be effective. With those evolving needs, you still think we can make do with an all LCH fleet available at scale sometime??? (when?)

I think the AH-64Es are being acquired to replace the Mi-25/35s rather than for service with mountain formations. And that the LCH supported by fighter-CAS missions are more than adequate to handle the Pak military.

You expect these new armies to get ready without having any mature heliborne options... I can understand there can be more will and support - but rarely have I seen that have any significant impact when raw capability did not exist for certain aspects; and certainly overall combat systems is one such area - hell, even the Russians after so many decades can't effectively match that.
The MSC will have the (relatively mature) Rudras to start off with. They can eventually be supplemented with LCHs.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Viv S »

agupta wrote:OK. Yes .."should". How well have "shoulds" gone - can we make that prime reliant assumption for future force planning. So how long before 50+ LCHs available for full induction. We wait until then ? Perhaps we allow that the experts do know a bit about Con Ops
Why 50 LCHs specifically? Do you foresee a spike in force levels on the Pak front in the immediate future?

The IAF operates 7 different types of fighter aircraft, the IA operates three types of MBTs and the IN four classes of frigates. Planning is done by experts, but they don't always get it right.
US Army and US MC are both one country.... so the US does mix hi- and lo-. NATO (and the US Army therefore as per div. of roles and responsibilities) would have had AH-64s in Western Europe so that allowed the Germans, French and the italians to focus on the Tiger and Mangusta.
The USMC is doctrinally independent of the US Army. Its plans and trains for expeditionary operations without factoring in any support from Army Aviation even after the amphibious phase of the operation ends. The Germans, French and Italians in Western Europe would have been doing the same exact thing as the AH-64 and not necessarily in conjunction with it either.
Turks have threats on their frontiers not of their own making - including tank and mountainous terrain ? C'mon, man...
Tanks as well as mountainous terrain. Not that unsimilar to our scenario.
All right, I bet otherwise :) Some Apaches will end up supporting mountain region ops. IF the current IAF-Army joint ops doctrine (or drift - your call!), I think you'll see IAF only take on more specialized CAS work and the Army will use its AH-64s and LCHs/Rudras to do more "run of the mill" stuff.
Do they have a joint doctrine? They just ended a long and fairly public squabble over ownership of AH assets. I doubt there's any consensus about how they're to be employed.

More importantly, given the (lopsided) balance of forces in the West, can we afford to spend so much on Apaches when there's a looming mismatch on the other front? At a time of acute fiscal stress no less. Its a hard choice and only the MoD can make it.
Last edited by Viv S on 12 Aug 2014 22:39, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by NRao »

US Army and US MC are both one country.
USMC have *far* more commonality with the USN. Including being (very, very reluctantly) clubbed under them.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by brar_w »

The European cold war planning very much accounted for the US's contributing assets to carry the day. Neither the french, nor the germans (even combined) had the sort of force structure that could provide air-superiorty against combined warsaw forces without reaching out to the larger NATO and particularly the USAF for the same role. In that sense the lack of a heavy attack helicopter is rather understandable since they lacked a lot of other capability as well and having a multi-layered CAS was a luxury at that point in time given more pressing concerns such as how to deal with massive advancing troops at the border. Much of what the AH-64 does is pushing forward the advancement troops be it in Anti - Tank, Anti IAD or Anti-personall CAS/support. This was obviously given a lower priority given that the US had its heavies to support, and a lot of emphasis was paid towards providing air-superiority and SEAD if and when attacked. What a basic doctrine calls for when operating aircraft like the AH-64 is to have the entire force structure capable of allowing the Apache to go past the enemy formation and conduct offensive operations against its armor, C2C, radar installations and what not..The operator must have the air cover to push these assets a couple of hundred miles inside the front line of battle. In an active european war, neither the french nor the Germans could push 200-300 nm into Russian head positions especially when attacked..They would most likely be able to hold formation for some time before the larger NATO and American fleets began operating (this assumes that only 2 nations begin to defend themselves which would not have been the case as the entire NATO was there all along). Here the Harrier and the other STOVL assets were to play a very important role. Back in the day it was widely believed that in case the Cold war went hot the only capability that would be in the air with some degree of certainty would be STOVL and as such the germans as well as the french invested into getting STOVL capability onto full aspect fighters (as opposed to a harrier). The Brits did the same but lost interest when the USN, the arm making bulk of the investments in high speed supersonic stovl fighters changed its plans and began investing in larger carriers for the future.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Viv S »

brar_w wrote:In an active european war, neither the french nor the Germans could push 200-300 nm into Russian head positions especially when attacked..They would most likely be able to hold formation for some time before the larger NATO and American fleets began operating (this assumes that only 2 nations begin to defend themselves which would not have been the case as the entire NATO was there all along).
The principle behind the EC Tiger and the Leopard was the same that as that which drove the AH-64 and Abrams. The AH-64 was intended primarily to combat the massive Soviet/Warpac tanks armies to the East. The primary requirement spelled out for the Tiger project was the same i.e to be an anti-tank platform. It started a decade after the Apache project and then dropped to 'simmer' post-1991, so it hasn't been nearly as successful. Had the Cold War not ended, it would have served in the same front-line role as the AH-64.

The AH-64E is a better aircraft than the Tiger and also slightly cheaper upfront. Question arises - in the Indian context/threat scenario, is the AH-64E so much better than our Tiger analogue (i.e LCH) that the advantage of a significantly cheaper cost (less than half) and local production should be overshadowed. And do we urgently require that edge in capability (Germany/France/Italy were facing a far graver threat yet preferred not to buy cheap off-the-shelf Apaches).
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by brar_w »

I was referring to the Pre-TIGER days..Even with the Tiger, the entire doctrine would have been useless without broader NATO and US contribution. Your penetrating attack helo is only as useful as the ability to provide it an environment to operate..AH-64 operations over Afghanistan always had a top cover on standby in case the aircraft is shot down or develops mechanical fault. Similarly in any open ended high end conflict the air cover has to be there that deals with the air to air aspect while the Land forces use the CAS provided by the attack helo to move ahead, penetrating deeper into enemy lines.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Singha »

there was some talk the IA would put its apaches into the mountain strike corps HQ at panagarh west bengal.
rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1171
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by rkhanna »

Well if we are getting the Apache its done then and whats the point on debating on whether we are getting our dollars worth. For the Record i absolutely love the bird. I have seen them up close and witnessed their bombing runs when i was Kid (grew up in Japan - did a lot of Boyscout activities on US Mil Bases) and still get goosebumps when i think of that Ugly Nose Peaking from behind a hill ;p

I have a thought.

Imagine a Couple of Radar Equipped Apache's doing a Quaterbacking C&C role leading a squadron of LCH's and UAVs as a homogeneous strike Package. In the spirit of imbedded and combined arms would that not be beneficial to IA/IAF? An Apache With higher payload can also carry ELINT/Jammers for the mission while freeing up the LCH's to have a free hand to do their jobs.

IMO the MKI's can be radar silent be guided in by one solitary MKI's radar (dont know if this networking can transcend to other airframe types) but a similar Air Package can be built around the Apache no?
tushar_m

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by tushar_m »

Didn't read the discussion above , just wanted to put forward this information.

EC tiger Program cost €14.5bn / 19.38bn $ (France/Germany/Spain, FY2012)
Unit cost
€27.4m[1] (Tiger HAP, FY2013) = 36.62m $
€36.1m[1] (Tiger HAD, FY2013) = 48.24m $

Total orders/planned : 206

LCH

Program cost estimated at INR3.76 billion (US$62.4 million)
Unit cost = US$17.48 million

Total orders/planned : 199 ( 65 + 114 + 20)
tushar_m

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by tushar_m »

also as per wiki baba

Iraq requested the sale of 24 AH-64s in April 2013;[229] a sale was cleared by Congress in January 2014.[230][231] The sale is to consist of two parts: the helicopters and associated parts and maintenance, costing a combined $4.8 billion. Pilot training with six leased Apaches would also be included at a cost of $1.37 billion.

(although is suspect that India will pay that much for attack heli & support equipments i.e missiles spare traning etc )

The cost of our 22 or 61 (22+39) will be in billions. definitely more that the stipulated 1.4 billion figure
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by brar_w »

FMS packages depend upon the buying service and how much work needs to do done by it to prepare for the concerned hardware. Iraq is really not the best case given that their entire training will most likely be outsourced to the US military

Here is the FMS notification. If this deal goes through India would be the largest operator of new built echo 's in the world

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

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/in ... elicopters
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Aug 2014 20:29, edited 4 times in total.
LakshO
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by LakshO »

On my morning walk, I see IAF rookies learning basic flying here in Hyderabad. I guess these birds are either Polish Iskaras or HAL HJT-16 Kirans or HAL HPT-32 Deepaks or Swiss Pilatus PC-7s based out of Begumpet/Hakimpet that teaches basic flight. Will the recently inducted BAE Hawks replace these trainers?
Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Raja Bose »

Vivek K wrote:^^^^Truth hurts, right?
Vivek K, looking at your past history of shenanigans & warnings issued by other mods, any further attempts by you to derail a thread will not be tolerated. You have been warned.
Locked