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.
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.
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. 
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.