Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Locked
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Vivek K »

Saving all their money for the Rafale!! And starving local firms - nice way to be Atamnirbhar!! Did Atam mean "outsider"? My hindi seems to be wrongly taught.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 939
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by YashG »

ShivS wrote:Delay in induction in strength was budget related. The last 5/6 years have seen the kind of capex in the IAF that is unique (over Rs.40,000 Cr a year on average between FY 17 and FY 22).

Acquisitions had to be prioritised - that process meant the LCH got pushed back.

FY 24 onwards the budget will open up once again.
Sorry, I'm tired of hearing this argument that there is no money so no LCH.

We have discussed this ad nauseam why money isn't an issue that should hold back LCH. And we regularly find money for imports. We're abt to do so for $3b MQ9, NASAMS, ATHOS and what not. And we cud raise 10% of our GDP as debts and triple our defence budget for next 3 years, as our debt to GDP ration is less than half of china. There are plenty of ways. HAL itself cud raise more money with 10% strategic capital infusion from capital markets. Who wouldnt want to invest in HAL - it is one of the very few companies in the world who can from scratch build a 4.5 gen aircraft! How many such companies are even out there.
Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Ankit Desai »

HAL Chairman R Madhavan: LCH & Tejas MK1A update.



-Ankit
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by nachiket »

Vivek K wrote:Saving all their money for the Rafale!! And starving local firms - nice way to be Atamnirbhar!! Did Atam mean "outsider"? My hindi seems to be wrongly taught.
Vivek K you have been warned before by other Mods not to go on pointless rants against the Armed forces with rhetorical posts. I am giving you a 1 month vacation. If you continue with this after you come back the vacation will be permanent.
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by KSingh »

YashG wrote:
ShivS wrote:Delay in induction in strength was budget related. The last 5/6 years have seen the kind of capex in the IAF that is unique (over Rs.40,000 Cr a year on average between FY 17 and FY 22).

Acquisitions had to be prioritised - that process meant the LCH got pushed back.

FY 24 onwards the budget will open up once again.
Sorry, I'm tired of hearing this argument that there is no money so no LCH.

We have discussed this ad nauseam why money isn't an issue that should hold back LCH. And we regularly find money for imports. We're abt to do so for $3b MQ9, NASAMS, ATHOS and what not. And we cud raise 10% of our GDP as debts and triple our defence budget for next 3 years, as our debt to GDP ration is less than half of china. There are plenty of ways. HAL itself cud raise more money with 10% strategic capital infusion from capital markets. Who wouldnt want to invest in HAL - it is one of the very few companies in the world who can from scratch build a 4.5 gen aircraft! How many such companies are even out there.
If only there was a way to order the LCH/LUH via the 'emergency' route, that seems to be the antidote to these budget woes.


Similarly 1 billion USD was found to order just 6 AH-64E for the Army last year, I imagine you could get close to 50-60 LCH for the same money. Something is off about the LCH, there just doesn't seem to be any excitement/interest in it at all from the IA/IAF, it exists but that's about it. You don't hear about the senior staff of either branch eagerly awaiting it. Only in media reports does the 60+114 requirement get mentioned but this seems very hard to believe when they don't even seem to want 5+10 units.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Perhaps I missed something: is the PM going to be announcing the contract for these helicopters when he dedicates them to the armed forces in the ceremony? If so, then it is the only way that this whole saga avoids massive embarrassment.

Else what is the PM doing: donating somebody else's paid-for helicopters for free to the armed forces? Am I the only one seeing the embarrassment of the situation?

Also, I am guessing that there is still no decision from the armed forces on the ATGM for the LCH? Even in the midst of a semi-war situation with China?
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by vivek_ahuja »

nachiket wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Saving all their money for the Rafale!! And starving local firms - nice way to be Atamnirbhar!! Did Atam mean "outsider"? My hindi seems to be wrongly taught.
Vivek K you have been warned before by other Mods not to go on pointless rants against the Armed forces with rhetorical posts. I am giving you a 1 month vacation. If you continue with this after you come back the vacation will be permanent.
I remember a time when there were no desi alternatives to so many weapon systems, and importing them from the world was the only game in town. So of course the armed forces and the country (including BRF) held a lively discussion of comparing brochures from around the world. Like a sporting contest. It made us blind to the psychological corruption running through the system regarding homegrown products.

Now that the homegrown alternatives to almost every major weapon system are becoming available, and a stark contrast is being provided by our Chinese adversaries (who adopt every homegrown system out of necessity, and thus are massively improving over time), the reality is starting to become glaringly visible. And the disillusionment of veteran and casual (myself included in the latter) BRF members is visible for all to see. So these long-time members are being purged.

How times have changed.
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by KSingh »

vivek_ahuja wrote:Perhaps I missed something: is the PM going to be announcing the contract for these helicopters when he dedicates them to the armed forces in the ceremony? If so, then it is the only way that this whole saga avoids massive embarrassment.

Else what is the PM doing: donating somebody else's paid-for helicopters for free to the armed forces? Am I the only one seeing the embarrassment of the situation?

Also, I am guessing that there is still no decision from the armed forces on the ATGM for the LCH? Even in the midst of a semi-war situation with China?
It's not embarrassing because 99.99% of Indians do not understand these matters beyond the optics- even the defence media is going ga ga over this news but when we take a step back we have to ask what has changed? No contract exists, no money has been paid. This didn't even look like an official commissioning ceremony, the PM handed over a scale model to some officer-that was it. Does this mean the airframes are now a part of the IAF? I don't believe so so yes this was a thoroughly empty gesture and aimed purely at optics which is tragic as this PM is meant to be better than that.


Like I said above, there's something off about the LCH and the IA/IAF, they are just not showing it ANY love, less so than even the LCA program. HAL has had to fund the entire development and production of the bird and today they are flying them in IA and IAF colours but the users seem totally disinterested.

On the ATGM front, it seems like they are waiting for SANT/HELINA to be fully certified, they've had a decade to option a foreign ATGM as an interim measure but failed to get even close to that, again, totally disinterested.


I suppose the IAF feels their armed helo needs are complete with their Apaches and the IA who has next to know experience with dedicated attack helicopters doesn't have the bandwidth to absorb the LCH and their Apaches so have given preference to the latter.



The Indian armed forces simply don't seem to know what to do with the LCH but when the ballon goes up they'll suddenly be scrambling for it, remember the LCH's requirement came after Kargil's lessons.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by vivek_ahuja »

KSingh wrote:This didn't even look like an official commissioning ceremony, the PM handed over a scale model to some officer-that was it. Does this mean the airframes are now a part of the IAF? I don't believe so so yes this was a thoroughly empty gesture and aimed purely at optics which is tragic as this PM is meant to be better than that.
That's right. I forgot this event already took place today. I thought it was tomorrow. Are there any pictures and/or comments of what was said and done?

Did they not hand over the actual helicopters today?
KSingh wrote:On the ATGM front, it seems like they are waiting for SANT/HELINA to be fully certified, they've had a decade to option a foreign ATGM as an interim measure but failed to get even close to that, again, totally disinterested.
So the Hellfire which is readily available in stocks is not to be integrated with the LCH? This should have been an obvious move from the IAF/IA to request the integration. Some proactive ideas from the customer would be helpful.

Everything is moving at a snail's pace for this unfortunate helicopter.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Karan M »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
nachiket wrote: Vivek K you have been warned before by other Mods not to go on pointless rants against the Armed forces with rhetorical posts. I am giving you a 1 month vacation. If you continue with this after you come back the vacation will be permanent.
I remember a time when there were no desi alternatives to so many weapon systems, and importing them from the world was the only game in town. So of course the armed forces and the country (including BRF) held a lively discussion of comparing brochures from around the world. Like a sporting contest. It made us blind to the psychological corruption running through the system regarding homegrown products.

Now that the homegrown alternatives to almost every major weapon system are becoming available, and a stark contrast is being provided by our Chinese adversaries (who adopt every homegrown system out of necessity, and thus are massively improving over time), the reality is starting to become glaringly visible. And the disillusionment of veteran and casual (myself included in the latter) BRF members is visible for all to see. So these long-time members are being purged.

How times have changed.


There is no purge of any sort underway. There are a handful of members who refuse to heed warnings after warnings, soft requests etc and force the admins to take action. The amount of leeway shown to senior members is incredible and we've done do just so so that people take the chances proffered, keep posting productively.

The fact is we are running a huge budgetary shortfall and hence the AF are constantly prioritising. Yes, the tendency remains to order "proven" imports at great cost vs homegrown alternatives but its changing, especially given this Govts priority for aatmanirbhar bharat.

The COAS just went on record stating that out of Rs 16000 Crore spent on emergency procurement, 55% was local. And of that 50% went to MSMEs.

Unfortunately even that budgetary allocation is insufficient to make up for a decade of neglect. So the AF will constantly be juggling priorities and if LCH comes below the other needs (remember the overall IAF + IA matrix comes into account for attack choppers), the CDS will ask them to fill that other gap first.

For the record, the IA has ordered 8 Pinaka regiments, 1 Brahmos regiment, 300 Sharang, 144 Dhanush, 2 Akash regiments (2 more under negotiation), MRSAM, 118 Arjuns, 73 ALH Mk3 (across all three services and IA is ordering 25 more), EW systems, over 186,000 BPJs, 159000 helmets, swarm drones, logistic drones, HHTIs, surveillance systems, upgrades for in service kit and countless other items I can't even remember at short notice, over the past seven years. This is just the desi kit. There is a, list of imported stuff too. Point being they are not exactly ignoring local but are choosing which items to procure given budgetary shortfalls. Do they make mistakes, possibly yes, the LCH could be one. But constant rants of ineffectual Govt and traitorous AF are tiresome. First focus was on WWR and spares to bring the AF into fighting fit form, now we are seeing more platforms being procured.

And their remaining list of "missing items" is equally huge, including MGS, AAA guns, and what not. So let's have some context.

Also name calling the warfighters who are presently deployed is not exactly the best way to sway them to "our cause". That's another thing our more passionate members don't seem to understand.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Karan M »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
KSingh wrote:This didn't even look like an official commissioning ceremony, the PM handed over a scale model to some officer-that was it. Does this mean the airframes are now a part of the IAF? I don't believe so so yes this was a thoroughly empty gesture and aimed purely at optics which is tragic as this PM is meant to be better than that.
That's right. I forgot this event already took place today. I thought it was tomorrow. Are there any pictures and/or comments of what was said and done?

Did they not hand over the actual helicopters today?
KSingh wrote:On the ATGM front, it seems like they are waiting for SANT/HELINA to be fully certified, they've had a decade to option a foreign ATGM as an interim measure but failed to get even close to that, again, totally disinterested.
So the Hellfire which is readily available in stocks is not to be integrated with the LCH? This should have been an obvious move from the IAF/IA to request the integration. Some proactive ideas from the customer would be helpful.

Everything is moving at a snail's pace for this unfortunate helicopter.
The SANT is developed specifically for the Mi-35. Which also have the Russian SACLOS RF beam riders so it can take its time. The HELINA has cleared trials and the IAF is seeking to procure it too (they have an ASM version called Dhruvastra with multiple different warhead types in development as well).
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 1.ece/amp/
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Karan M wrote:The SANT is developed specifically for the Mi-35. Which also have the Russian SACLOS RF beam riders so it can take its time. The HELINA has cleared trials and the IAF is seeking to procure it too (they have an ASM version called Dhruvastra with multiple different warhead types in development as well).
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 1.ece/amp/
Thanks. But this still doesn't answer for me why we aren't aiming for commonality with the ATGM requirement, specifically regarding the Hellfire, which has been acquired at great cost to support just a handful of helicopters (literally).

The worry is that the handful of Apaches will be written off during combat operations rather early (with such few operational numbers, this is inevitable). And we will be left with a mountain of Hellfire missiles and a much larger fleet of operational LCH unable to carry them.

Or am I missing something obvious here?
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Karan M wrote:Unfortunately even that budgetary allocation is insufficient to make up for a decade of neglect. So the AF will constantly be juggling priorities and if LCH comes below the other needs (remember the overall IAF + IA matrix comes into account for attack choppers), the CDS will ask them to fill that other gap first.

For the record, the IA has ordered 8 Pinaka regiments, 1 Brahmos regiment, 300 Sharang, 144 Dhanush, 2 Akash regiments (2 more under negotiation), MRSAM, 118 Arjuns, 73 ALH Mk3 (across all three services and IA is ordering 25 more), EW systems, over 186,000 BPJs, 159000 helmets, swarm drones, logistic drones, HHTIs, surveillance systems, upgrades for in service kit and countless other items I can't even remember at short notice, over the past seven years. This is just the desi kit. There is a, list of imported stuff too. Point being they are not exactly ignoring local but are choosing which items to procure given budgetary shortfalls. Do they make mistakes, possibly yes, the LCH could be one. But constant rants of ineffectual Govt and traitorous AF are tiresome. First focus was on WWR and spares to bring the AF into fighting fit form, now we are seeing more platforms being procured.

And their remaining list of "missing items" is equally huge, including MGS, AAA guns, and what not. So let's have some context.
I missed the LCH handover ceremony details today. If the above is all true (and I sure it is), what exactly was handed over by the PM today to the armed forces?

Just a PR exercise, perhaps? Or does this ceremony signify another step in the bureaucratic journey towards HAL finally getting paid for its work?
Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Ankit Desai »

When PM ride Arjun, he did not order on same day but the order followed.

It was not only LCH hand over ceremony but EW suit for Navy, MR-20 UAV, SWITCH VTOL UAV too.

Please watch/listen R Madhavan video I posted. He is expecting 150+ LCH.

-Ankit
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Ankit Desai wrote:He is expecting 150+ LCH.
We have all been expecting that. Year after year now and its always HAL making these statements. I have grown weary of this and feel bad for HAL at this point.

I will take the order for just 15+ right now. But even that number has been a few years in the fray.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Karan M »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Karan M wrote:Unfortunately even that budgetary allocation is insufficient to make up for a decade of neglect. So the AF will constantly be juggling priorities and if LCH comes below the other needs (remember the overall IAF + IA matrix comes into account for attack choppers), the CDS will ask them to fill that other gap first.

For the record, the IA has ordered 8 Pinaka regiments, 1 Brahmos regiment, 300 Sharang, 144 Dhanush, 2 Akash regiments (2 more under negotiation), MRSAM, 118 Arjuns, 73 ALH Mk3 (across all three services and IA is ordering 25 more), EW systems, over 186,000 BPJs, 159000 helmets, swarm drones, logistic drones, HHTIs, surveillance systems, upgrades for in service kit and countless other items I can't even remember at short notice, over the past seven years. This is just the desi kit. There is a, list of imported stuff too. Point being they are not exactly ignoring local but are choosing which items to procure given budgetary shortfalls. Do they make mistakes, possibly yes, the LCH could be one. But constant rants of ineffectual Govt and traitorous AF are tiresome. First focus was on WWR and spares to bring the AF into fighting fit form, now we are seeing more platforms being procured.

And their remaining list of "missing items" is equally huge, including MGS, AAA guns, and what not. So let's have some context.
I missed the LCH handover ceremony details today. If the above is all true (and I sure it is), what exactly was handed over by the PM today to the armed forces?

Just a PR exercise, perhaps? Or does this ceremony signify another step in the bureaucratic journey towards HAL finally getting paid for its work?
We were maximizing our modernization to the point services were ordering in excess to the available budget and when the bill was tabulated it turned out we couldn't pay all the vendors on time. So obviously the cash heavy PSUs like HAL, which can take sovereign assistance from GOI, and are owned by GOI itself, were tacitly asked to help out and hence product development continued before GOI could figure out the funding. Obviously this can only go upto a limit since some programs require far more funding.

Anyhow, this is how the Tejas Mk1A program continued to run before a formal order and the LCH too, with at least key development and R&D spends undertaken and development continued. Albeit at a slower rate, and with formal metal cutting and formal deliveries pushed out for the Tejas due to the phenomenal cost of the Rafale deal.

Anyhow, the HAL approach is the advantage of owning your own state run setup, ethical concerns of retail investors getting upset about delayed payments apart. Our needs are huge and we did what we could. Remember the GOI is under a lot of stress from international ratings agencies (whom we haven't bribed or cajoled unlike the PRC) and hence existing debt servicing is a key factor, if there was a ratings impact. That apart, the current Govt is fiscally conservative and hasn't chosen to print its way out of trouble. On the con side, issues like the above, on the pro side, we retain that "ammunition" for a true crisis if we must and should go down that path (one surely hopes not).

Today's ceremony basically signified that the LCH is formally entering IAF service with the PMs presence (sort of a formal public acceptance by him), and the first tranche will be the first 15 LSP airframes which HAL had made out of its own resources pending formal delivery. For the past two years, the Defence Budget has been raised by a significant chunk (vs 2018 and earlier levels), so HAL will likely get its arrears cleared soon. The DAC has already cleared the 15 LSP units, 10 for the IAF and 5 for the Army. Three have been already handed over to the IAF and the LCH was deployed during the Ladakh show-down as a learning effort for all concerned.

Now these IAF LCHs will be put through the rigors of an operational unit and their weaponization etc will take higher priority. By the year end the IAF and IA would have received 10 LCHs, and by next year five more (to keep the production lime open). But HAL is waiting for the larger contract of 100 + LCH. Note the LCH has been put on the positive indigenization list aka you can't import this list, so it will be ordered. Its all about juggling funds.

I find a lot of the concerns about desi gear and HAL to be overblown TBH. Yes, we need more funds for R&D at DRDO for sure, they've performed miracles with their budget, but more would bring many systems to true cutting edge levels. But what's ignored is that HAL has spent around $1Bn over the past five years in R&D spend. It now has a host of programs across the entire aerospace spectrum from choppers (attack, transport, multipurpose), UAS (manned - unmanned teaming), fighters (Tejas and variants plus AMCA), trainers (three types), avionics programs, various engine programs (chopper, light jet/missiles), is licensing sensor production from DRDO and is angling for massive upgrade programs too. None of this depth was available a decade back. For HAL it's boom time, especially if the Indian economy recovers quicker and the GOI opens up the purse strings to the AF over the next decade at the same level as they've done for the past two years ($33 Bn of Capex across the three services). A lot of that will go to HAL.
ShivS
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 19 Apr 2019 23:25

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by ShivS »

150 lch is very unlikely - there are far better options available for hardened targets at elevation today.

We ignore the massive investment on, and transformation of the IAF fleet over the last 15 years. Things are tight because of the number of programs that are or were going on.

These should begin winding down in FY 23 releasing funds for new programs. Rough numbers - IAF capital budget was more than doubled in 2011-2020 over the last decade and the true capital budget (ex long lived consumables) went up even more.

It’s not been a decade of neglect, just a very aggressive program of fleet (and air defence) modernisation.
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1987
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Atmavik »

ShivS wrote:150 lch is very unlikely - there are far better options available for hardened targets at elevation today.
100 out of 150 are for IA’s Aviation wing.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Karan M »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Karan M wrote:The SANT is developed specifically for the Mi-35. Which also have the Russian SACLOS RF beam riders so it can take its time. The HELINA has cleared trials and the IAF is seeking to procure it too (they have an ASM version called Dhruvastra with multiple different warhead types in development as well).
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 1.ece/amp/
Thanks. But this still doesn't answer for me why we aren't aiming for commonality with the ATGM requirement, specifically regarding the Hellfire, which has been acquired at great cost to support just a handful of helicopters (literally).

The worry is that the handful of Apaches will be written off during combat operations rather early (with such few operational numbers, this is inevitable). And we will be left with a mountain of Hellfire missiles and a much larger fleet of operational LCH unable to carry them.

Or am I missing something obvious here?
We can always add the SAL Hellfire to the LCH or any other platform (how etc, the details are best left to the groups concerned) but the basic fact is the Hellfire is not fire and forget as HELINA is, in its semi-active laser variant. HELINA is safer for the chopper fleet, launch and run given its purely LOBL. The Hellfire F&F mmW variant needs the Longbow radar for cueing and is more tightly integrated to that platform. We can explore adding that to our choppers, but AF probably judge the effort isnt worth it in the immediate term given HELINA and Dhruvastra are around the corner. But your point is valid and I think they might well add both HF variants to enhance ammo standardization and desi chopper effectiveness, even so. Its a logical ask TBH.

The flexible use-cases (anti-armor plus general purpose) that HF brings are likely what Dhruvastra is aiming for. I get your concern about high Apache attrition but I doubt we will lose the entire 22 strong fleet - IMHO we will use them far more carefully and as force multipliers (not just individual attack elements) especially the Longbow radar variants. They will be backed by ALH-Rudra (with HELINA) and also the LCH.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by brar_w »

The Longbow variant of the Hellfire has also been taken out of production IIRC, and the type has now been replaced by the fire and forget JAGM as far as the production run is concerned (Hellfire R is still in production).
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by KSingh »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
KSingh wrote:This didn't even look like an official commissioning ceremony, the PM handed over a scale model to some officer-that was it. Does this mean the airframes are now a part of the IAF? I don't believe so so yes this was a thoroughly empty gesture and aimed purely at optics which is tragic as this PM is meant to be better than that.
That's right. I forgot this event already took place today. I thought it was tomorrow. Are there any pictures and/or comments of what was said and done?

Did they not hand over the actual helicopters today?
KSingh wrote:On the ATGM front, it seems like they are waiting for SANT/HELINA to be fully certified, they've had a decade to option a foreign ATGM as an interim measure but failed to get even close to that, again, totally disinterested.
So the Hellfire which is readily available in stocks is not to be integrated with the LCH? This should have been an obvious move from the IAF/IA to request the integration. Some proactive ideas from the customer would be helpful.

Everything is moving at a snail's pace for this unfortunate helicopter.
Hellfire on the LCH at this point would be a very sensible option for all the reasons outlined but even though the IA/IAF are happy to pay for it for their Apaches I feel like the Hellfire's high costs would be shirked at for the LCH that they want to be the 'cheap and cheerful' product.

Imports can be gold plated and horrifically expensive to operate and procure but Indian products must be frugal whilst meeting similar performance metrics, that seems to be the standard.
Atmavik wrote:
ShivS wrote:150 lch is very unlikely - there are far better options available for hardened targets at elevation today.
100 out of 150 are for IA’s Aviation wing.
With neither service seeming overly interested in this platform that seems outrageously optimistic.


I know these are the numbers HAL has spoken about for years but I really would like to know how HAL came to that calculation and if its based on any sort of agreement with the users for such?


150 attack helicopters (plus 50 or so Apaches) would be one of the largest attack helicopter fleets anywhere on the planet, it seems unbelievable considering the IAF has never operated more than 30 attack helicopters and the army has never operated any. AAC would have to be massively expanded and the IA itself would have to change its entire ORBAT and battle plans, it would have to become a much more aviation focused force, which it just isn't as of now.


Frankly getting more than 50 of these beauties into service would be a success from my perspective, the order/production saga makes me think it is doomed.


+ can anyone explain why the LCH still lacks RWR/MAWS, HAL have had no problems integrating a self defence suite on the Rudra, I assumed the same would be ported over to the LCH, I also remember seeing a system diagram of the LCH from HAL that pointed to it being designed to have a DICRM eventually but today it's without anything. This makes me think it's a customer nominated equipment issue and the users are yet to give HAL their preference like on the ATGM issue. Like I said, this helicopter seems doomed to fail.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Prem Kumar »

I don't understand the ad-nauseum trials of Helina & Dhruvastra. Are there really issues that we are not aware of?

At the least, they can arm the Rudras in service, if they are inducted
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Karan M wrote:We can always add the SAL Hellfire to the LCH or any other platform (how etc, the details are best left to the groups concerned) but the basic fact is the Hellfire is not fire and forget as HELINA is, in its semi-active laser variant. HELINA is safer for the chopper fleet, launch and run given its purely LOBL. The Hellfire F&F mmW variant needs the Longbow radar for cueing and is more tightly integrated to that platform.
This is interesting. According to the news, India purchased the following Hellfires:

180 AGM-114L-3 Longbow Hellfire missiles.
90 AGM-114R-3 Hellfire II missiles.

The R-3 variant is the semi-active laser variant. The L-3 variant is the fire-and-forget millimeter-wave (MMW) radar seeker coupled variants.

Are the acquisition numbers correct? I remember somewhere that we expected something like 500+ Hellfires at one point. These lower numbers would not merit a major integration activity with the LCH. Is there a reputable source on how many Hellfires are on order?

Also, the variant that seems to be on-par with the emerging HELINA is the L-3 Hellfire, the latter of which is also now out of production per the comment from Brar_w:
brar_w wrote:The Longbow variant of the Hellfire has also been taken out of production IIRC, and the type has now been replaced by the fire and forget JAGM as far as the production run is concerned (Hellfire R is still in production).
And the one that is in-production Hellfire (R-3) might be worse off than the HELINA when it becomes available.

Unless I am missing something, the evidence is tilting clearly for not bothering with Hellfire integration with LCH, unless the plans to acquire Hellfires far exceeds the numbers I quoted above from news reports. 180 L-3 variants across 22 helicopters is small numbers. I thought the numbers we acquired were much larger than that!
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by brar_w »

vivek_ahuja wrote:The R-3 variant is the semi-active laser variant. The L-3 variant is the fire-and-forget millimeter-wave (MMW) radar seeker coupled variants. Are the acquisition numbers correct? I remember somewhere that we expected something like 500+ Hellfires at one point. These lower numbers would not merit a major integration activity with the LCH
That could well be correct. The Longbow variant of the Hellfire is no longer in production but the decision to cut it out was recent as they anticipated reaching JAGM full rate production this year (it's been delayed to next summer). The IA/IAF order may well have been the last fresh orders for these rounds, with the USN buying its Longbow variant from US Army surplus stocks. I believe the JAGM has the same integration interfaces as the Romeo hellfire so should be an easy swap as software for AH-64 are already available and operational so any future operator looking at this type would simply just buy JAGM rounds instead. Going forward the Romeo and the JAGM will remain in production for in the med term (and the other niche types like the ninja missile etc) but long term the plan is to eventually move all production to JAGM and sunset hellfire altogether.
Last edited by brar_w on 20 Nov 2021 21:50, edited 1 time in total.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by vivek_ahuja »

And posting on from my above comment, let me also ask the reverse question: what ATGMs will the Apache use when the existing inventory of Hellfires is expended? Clearly we have no production for this missile. And the HELINA which is in local production is not integrated with the Apache. The US is not manufacturing the fire-and-forget variant of the missile anymore.

So would we perform "emergency" purchases of one of the following:
1. New JAGMs at extraordinary wartime costs.
2. Hellfire R-3 variants which would increase the risk of attrition on the Apaches because they are not as versatile as the Longbow variants.

This despite that we would have locally sourced HELINAs rolling off the production lines?

Also, considering we only purchased a few longbow radars, are the non-longbow Apaches able to effectively fire the L-3 variants of the missile? I am guessing the answer is "Yes" with qualifications. It would be good to know what those qualifications are.
Last edited by vivek_ahuja on 20 Nov 2021 21:54, edited 1 time in total.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by vivek_ahuja »

brar_w wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote:The R-3 variant is the semi-active laser variant. The L-3 variant is the fire-and-forget millimeter-wave (MMW) radar seeker coupled variants. Are the acquisition numbers correct? I remember somewhere that we expected something like 500+ Hellfires at one point. These lower numbers would not merit a major integration activity with the LCH
That could well be correct. The Longbow variant of the Hellfire is no longer in production but the decision to cut it out was recent as they anticipated reaching JAGM full rate production this year (it's been delayed to next summer). The IA/IAF order may well have been the last fresh orders for these rounds, with the USN buying its Longbow variant from US Army surplus stocks. I believe the JAGM has the same integration interfaces as the Romeo hellfire so should be an easy swap as software for AH-64 are already available and operational. Going forward the Romeo and the JAGM will remain in production for the forceable future (and the other niche types like the ninja missile etc) but long term the plan is to eventually move all production to JAGM and sunset hellfire altogether.
Thanks. I wonder if you could shed some light on whether the JAGM also requires the Longbow on the helicopter? The worry here is the handful of Longbow radars on an already small Indian Apache fleet.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by brar_w »

Once JAGM hits full rate production, most Apache users will adopt it. The US Army objective inventory requirements is in excess of 20,000 missiles so peak production rates should be very similar to Hellfire so one can expect a similar adoption rate as users begin replenishing their HF inventory over time. It is essentially the next iteration of the hellfire that combines both SAL and MMW while retaining the interface and other components of the Romeo variant (propulsion, warhead and the control section are 100% shared with the Romeo, for at least the current JAGM increment though that will change as the missile evolves).
vivek_ahuja wrote: I wonder if you could shed some light on whether the JAGM also requires the Longbow on the helicopter?
It can be used by non Longbow Apaches, USMC/non Apache helicopters or drones (it was used off of a drone for the Soleimani strike in Iraq back in 2020). You can designate a target, launch it and have the MMW seeker take over (blended mode) so can leave which wasn't possible when using the classic HF.
Last edited by brar_w on 20 Nov 2021 22:59, edited 1 time in total.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by vivek_ahuja »

brar_w wrote:Once JAGM hits full rate production, most Apache users will adopt it. It is essentially the next iteration of the hellfire that combines both SAL and MMW while retaining the interface and other components of the Romeo variant (propulsion, warhead and the control section are 100% shared with the Romeo, for at least the current JAGM increment though that will change as the missile evolves).
vivek_ahuja wrote: I wonder if you could shed some light on whether the JAGM also requires the Longbow on the helicopter?
It can be used by non Longbow Apaches, USMC/non Apache helicopters or drones (it was used off of a drone for the Soleimani strike in Iraq back in 2020). You can designate a target, launch it and have the MMW seeker take over (blended mode) so can leave which wasn't possible if you were using the standard HF.
Thanks.

It sounds to me like we have a future expensive JAGM order in the making. I mean, what choice will we have if we want the Apaches in India to have combat effectiveness beyond the first few days of war. Clearly Boeing is not going to shoot itself in the foot monetarily by agreeing to HELINA integration with the Apache...
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by brar_w »

Boeing will integrate weapons if someone pays it to do so. It has done this for Israel for example. They don't have any skin in the game as the HF and JAGM are produced by Lockheed and from the same production line. But unless exports are targeted, there won't be a strong business case to integrate for such a small order of AH-64's and simply buying JAGMs and Hellfire's for the fleet is probably going to come out cheaper.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Karan M wrote:Note the LCH has been put on the positive indigenization list aka you can't import this list, so it will be ordered. Its all about juggling funds.
I will make a personal observation here. The fact that the LCH has been put on the positive indigenization list is good news. However, I dislike (and worry about) the fact that the label "Light" will be used against it when required, simply by stating that "Light" attack helicopters are indigenized, but "Heavy" attack helicopters (a.k.a Apache) is not. And so the latter must take precedence on funds and be ordered. It also opens the door in the future for the IAF/IA shifting their mainstream requirements to the Heavy category and relegating the LCH to a few units in the Mountains. We are already seeing the repercussions of similar qualifications of "Lightweight" and "Mediumweight" in other threads on this forum.

I note rumors and comments circulating that India plans to expand it's Apache fleet from 22 to 61 helicopters eventually. Add to that the massive cost of infrastructure, the ATGM discussion we are having, etc. It is hard to see this not affecting the LCH program.

It would have been far better to put "Attack helicopters" on the positive indigenization list. That is, "Light" and "Heavy" do not differentiate. Any future attack helicopter inducted should be Indian. If that happens, then we can all agree to bite the bullet on the Apache purchase and flog them until they are no longer usable, and switch over entirely to an all-Indian attack helo fleet.

As we have discussed previously, HAL has indicated that there is definite possibility of making a "Heavy" LCH variant for the plains by giving it extra payload capacity etc., structural changes for external radar and pylons etc. at the cost of removing some of the high-altitude requirements. Maybe call it HCH?
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5415
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Manish_P »

^ +1

Never liked the LCA moniker for the Tejas either.

And always wanted the AMCA to stand for Advanced 'Multirole' Combat Aircraft.
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by KSingh »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Karan M wrote:Note the LCH has been put on the positive indigenization list aka you can't import this list, so it will be ordered. Its all about juggling funds.
I will make a personal observation here. The fact that the LCH has been put on the positive indigenization list is good news. However, I dislike (and worry about) the fact that the label "Light" will be used against it when required, simply by stating that "Light" attack helicopters are indigenized, but "Heavy" attack helicopters (a.k.a Apache) is not. And so the latter must take precedence on funds and be ordered. It also opens the door in the future for the IAF/IA shifting their mainstream requirements to the Heavy category and relegating the LCH to a few units in the Mountains. We are already seeing the repercussions of similar qualifications of "Lightweight" and "Mediumweight" in other threads on this forum.

I note rumors and comments circulating that India plans to expand it's Apache fleet from 22 to 61 helicopters eventually. Add to that the massive cost of infrastructure, the ATGM discussion we are having, etc. It is hard to see this not affecting the LCH program.

It would have been far better to put "Attack helicopters" on the positive indigenization list. That is, "Light" and "Heavy" do not differentiate. Any future attack helicopter inducted should be Indian. If that happens, then we can all agree to bite the bullet on the Apache purchase and flog them until they are no longer usable, and switch over entirely to an all-Indian attack helo fleet.

As we have discussed previously, HAL has indicated that there is definite possibility of making a "Heavy" LCH variant for the plains by giving it extra payload capacity etc., structural changes for external radar and pylons etc. at the cost of removing some of the high-altitude requirements. Maybe call it HCH?
Yes it's a weird thing to highlight and I don't know why Indian designers have gone down this approach, you almost never hear weight classes emphasised in any other defence machinery in the world but India has to highlight the 'lightness' of its platforms?


It was something that particular irked me in the Dubai airshow where the commentators (from the IAF) were echoing this and praising the lightness of the LCA and emphasising its weight class

So a LCA can only go against a LCA? What happens if LCA comes up against a heavy fighter? Capabilities are what matter, this isn't top trumps.


I feel like this is a game the services have played- let Indian agencies cater for the low rung of the ladder but create a hierarchy where the medium/heavy stuff can get imported. We all remember that the IAF changed MRCA to MMRCA.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Karan M »

KSingh wrote:+ can anyone explain why the LCH still lacks RWR/MAWS, HAL have had no problems integrating a self defence suite on the Rudra, I assumed the same would be ported over to the LCH, I also remember seeing a system diagram of the LCH from HAL that pointed to it being designed to have a DICRM eventually but today it's without anything. This makes me think it's a customer nominated equipment issue and the users are yet to give HAL their preference like on the ATGM issue. Like I said, this helicopter seems doomed to fail.
Its like you walk around with your own personal gloom and doom clock, which has to chime 24/7. Relax.

https://verticalmag.com/press-releases/ ... f-new-lch/
HAL Press Release | November 19, 2021

As in other aircraft development, LCH is also being continuously upgraded with advancement of technologies. Improved Electronics Warfare (EW) Suite, Directional Infra-Red Counter Measure (DIRCM), Air to Ground Missile (ATGM), Data link, Anti-Radiation Missile (ARM), Bombs, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) protection and Wire cutter are being incorporated.
The IEWS includes the MAWS. There are a lot of items in development, developed etc that will be added to the LCH (and other programs) over tranches.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 556641.ece
Stating that the Air Force had asked for feasibility of integrating the Helina on the soon-to-be inducted Light Combat Helicopter (LCH), Dr. Sood said this would be done and would bring in economies of scale in the production of the missile. “There is also very good export potential,” he said.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Karan M »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Karan M wrote:Note the LCH has been put on the positive indigenization list aka you can't import this list, so it will be ordered. Its all about juggling funds.
I will make a personal observation here. The fact that the LCH has been put on the positive indigenization list is good news. However, I dislike (and worry about) the fact that the label "Light" will be used against it when required, simply by stating that "Light" attack helicopters are indigenized, but "Heavy" attack helicopters (a.k.a Apache) is not. And so the latter must take precedence on funds and be ordered. It also opens the door in the future for the IAF/IA shifting their mainstream requirements to the Heavy category and relegating the LCH to a few units in the Mountains. We are already seeing the repercussions of similar qualifications of "Lightweight" and "Mediumweight" in other threads on this forum.

I note rumors and comments circulating that India plans to expand it's Apache fleet from 22 to 61 helicopters eventually. Add to that the massive cost of infrastructure, the ATGM discussion we are having, etc. It is hard to see this not affecting the LCH program.

It would have been far better to put "Attack helicopters" on the positive indigenization list. That is, "Light" and "Heavy" do not differentiate. Any future attack helicopter inducted should be Indian. If that happens, then we can all agree to bite the bullet on the Apache purchase and flog them until they are no longer usable, and switch over entirely to an all-Indian attack helo fleet.

As we have discussed previously, HAL has indicated that there is definite possibility of making a "Heavy" LCH variant for the plains by giving it extra payload capacity etc., structural changes for external radar and pylons etc. at the cost of removing some of the high-altitude requirements. Maybe call it HCH?
As you know, but for the benefit of others tracking this discussion, the light, medium, heavy classifications originally came from the forces which operated multiple classes of equipment in different categories and so this was a convenient way to distinguish between them and also use them per their differing capabilities.

Now, the AF continue to have specific requirements per these classifications in each category. So if a LCH is in the indigenization aka dont import list, that means that the product has matured to the point a foreign replacement of that category/ product will not be sought.

Unfortunately, the LCH is not - at least in the context of the forces, considered == to the Apache. So yes, if the forces go all HCH (if thats what they call the Apache) and shortchange the LCH, then that's indeed a due risk.

However, this is where political direction and the CDS's imperative both come into play. There is clearly an upper level intent to not unnecessarily rely on imports alone, as the risks that come with them are now increasingly known. So this is your real "checks and balance" vs the list not including "attack helicopters" overall.

For us to completely supplant the Apache however, we need something equal to the Longbow radar set. For that, we need more funding to accelerate the development of such a set. Our current budgetary limitations means DRDO is very wary of putting its hard fought for funds in any project which is then rejected because the services decided their requirements were not in line with what DRDO thought they needed. ATAGS is a perfect example of having changes late into the program and causing issues.

Almost everything else on the Apache, including its EW suite can be either made locally or sourced from other vendors abroad (we can handle the integration). It may not be 100% Apache level, but will offer a reasonable level of capability for sure.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Karan M »

Manish_P wrote:^ +1

Never liked the LCA moniker for the Tejas either.

And always wanted the AMCA to stand for Advanced 'Multirole' Combat Aircraft.
In IAF parlance - MiG-21, light. MiG-23, 27, 29, Jaguar and Mirage 2000, medium. Su-30, heavy.

That's where the LCA, AMCA etc come from. That's why Tejas replaces the Bison.

MWF + AMCA - replace the Jaguar, Mirage 2000, MiG-29

However, in the overall scheme of things your point is valid. As the Rafale is "medium" but can equal the Su-30, and tomorrow, AMCA can replace retiring Su-30s too. That's because technology advances have allowed lighter aircraft to get to the point they can take on previous gen heavies in several (not all) criteria.
ShivS
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 19 Apr 2019 23:25

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by ShivS »

The LCH is far heavier than the Apache. A lot lighter than the Mi35 though. For what it’s worth.

Buying 40 Apaches is very unlikely- they cost almost the same as a F16 for the latest variants with Lomgbow etc. More with full weapons, stores and a maintenance contract. It’s a wonderful weapon, but really expensive.

The Army has purchased 6 Apaches with full kit for nearly a billion and will want some more in a less expensive configuration - but not 40. Let’s see how this evolves.

What’s more interesting is how anti-tank weaponry is evolving. NLOS launched missiles are here - does that obviate the need for a chopper to launch the missile? Can a combination of spotter/targeting vehicle and land based launch vehicles do the job at lower cost and risk?

Equally relevant is the increasingly capable sensors in light SAMs - choppers are far more vulnerable now.

The move to more capable and expensive weapons (munitions) taking over from expensive and capable launch vehicles is a big change that is taking place and it has a dramatic impact on choppers.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by John »

ShivS wrote:The LCH is far heavier than the Apache. A lot lighter than the Mi35 though. For what it’s worth.

Buying 40 Apaches is very unlikely- they cost almost the same as a F16 for the latest variants with Lomgbow etc. More with full weapons, stores and a maintenance contract. It’s a wonderful weapon, but really expensive.

The Army has purchased 6 Apaches with full kit for nearly a billion and will want some more in a less expensive configuration - but not 40. Let’s see how this evolves.
What are you talking about Apache has higher empty weight than fully loaded LCH. Light vs Heavy attack helicopter
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by ramana »

Vivek Ahuja My recollection is 500+ Hellfire was th plan.

Hellfire on LCH as it has a laser designator was suggested.

IAF nods and delays it.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by John »

ramana wrote:Vivek Ahuja My recollection is 500+ Hellfire was th plan.

Hellfire on LCH as it has a laser designator was suggested.

IAF nods and delays it.
Any word on whether FZ275 has been integrated?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

Post by Pratyush »

ramana wrote:Vivek Ahuja My recollection is 500+ Hellfire was th plan.

Hellfire on LCH as it has a laser designator was suggested.

IAF nods and delays it.
https://forceindia.net/indian-military/ ... p-a-storm/

The munitions to be acquired as per the notification were 812 AGM-114L-3 HELLFIRE LONGBOW missiles, 542 AGM-114R-3 HELLFIRE II missiles and 245 STINGER Block I-92H missiles.
Details for the IAF procurement.

I presume that the Army's purchase will follow the same ratio.
Locked