Light Combat Helicopter: News & Discussion: 10 August 2020

[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 are you talking about Apache has higher empty weight than fully loaded LCH. Light vs Heavy attack helicopter

My bad - you are right

[sajaym]

After going through the past few pages of this thread and reading about how the LCH is struggling to get acceptance from the forces, I think 'Sangram' will be a fitting name.

संग्राम
Transliterated version: sangram.
पुल्लिंग
1.
युद्ध, लड़ाई (जैसे—भीषण संग्राम)।
2.
कठिनाई (जैसे—जीवन संग्राम)।
Translate sangram to
English
1. Struggle

[vivek_ahuja]

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

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

IAF nods and delays it.

Thanks, Ramana. Pratyush provided us the actual IAF numbers below. I think I had quoted the Army numbers for 6 helicopters in my previous comments. So I stand corrected on my own information: we DO have a mountain of hellfire missiles coming into the arsenal and they absolutely must be integrated with the LCH at some point.

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.

[vivek_ahuja]

One idea to explore at some point is what Karan M had suggested: the idea that Longbow apaches will serve as the target designators for a slew of L-3 hellfires carried on LCHs and other platforms. That would allow a much better utilization of such large number of missiles per platform. Also provides a unique role for the Apache until the advent of the Indian longbow-like platform.

[k prasad]

After going through the past few pages of this thread and reading about how the LCH is struggling to get acceptance from the forces, I think 'Sangram' will be a fitting name.

संग्राम
Transliterated version: sangram.
पुल्लिंग
1.
युद्ध, लड़ाई (जैसे—भीषण संग्राम)।
2.
कठिनाई (जैसे—जीवन संग्राम)।
Translate sangram to
English
1. Struggle

That'd be apt! But Arjun MBT would like a word. Honestly, they should just call any indigenous project with the appellation 'sangram'.

That said, How about Chakravaat? (Whirlwind). Or nirghaat - destruction / hurricane.

One idea to explore at some point is what Karan M had suggested: the idea that Longbow apaches will serve as the target designators for a slew of L-3 hellfires carried on LCHs and other platforms. That would allow a much better utilization of such large number of missiles per platform. Also provides a unique role for the Apache until the advent of the Indian longbow-like platform.

Vivek-ji, do we have the ability / will US give us the ability to network the systems like this?

[kit]

One idea to explore at some point is what Karan M had suggested: the idea that Longbow apaches will serve as the target designators for a slew of L-3 hellfires carried on LCHs and other platforms. That would allow a much better utilization of such large number of missiles per platform. Also provides a unique role for the Apache until the advent of the Indian longbow-like platform.

This was a query i asked when the Apache's were ordered. Apparently, the answer i got was that the Apache's are not able to relay targeting info to the LCH due to lack of integration?

Things might have moved on since we signed the alphabet treaties.
One Apache can buddy up with four or five LCH to create a strike team. Maybe a future "Blackhawk" variant of the Dhruv can be used to support assault missions along with the Apaches.

[brar_w]

The AH-64E features and is compatible with a whole host of data-links and antennas extending for cross platform collaboration to outright controlling the sensors of forward deployed UAV's like the Gray Eagle. It all depends on what the IAF/IA's AH-64E's are equipped with and what waveforms and data rates they are capable of.

https://www.army.mil/article/240283/aer ... hts_at_dpg

[KSingh]

+ 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.

They could've added the self protection suite form the Rudra on the LCH, in fact AFAIK that was the original plan, no entity in India is developing a helicopter MAWS or DIRCM so it's up to HAL or the user to select such systems from abroad, it's frankly bizarre that the LCH project has gotten this far down the road without such basic items even being tested on the airframe, what are they waiting for?


They've even sent TD LCH airframes without even RWR to the LAC last year, is this not incredibly foolish? How was an Mi17 shot down in Kargil?


If this is a HAL failure (I cannot understand why it would be) then one can understand the IA/IAF indifference to the LCH- no credible defensive or offensive systems (self protection suite or ATGMs), you can't fight with that.


Why is everyone acting oblivious to all of this? These are glaring deficiencies in the project, what is to blame?

[KSingh]

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.

The army's plans are for 39 Apaches (3 squadrons, 1 squadron for each strike corps), I don't know how these plans fit in with the IBGs but I doubt their requirements have shrunk and that they've invested heavily in the Apache means they will get plenty more and at this point they have to to make the initial order worthwhile.


The LCHs absolutely MUST be integrated with the Apaches though, this is the 21st century, network centric warfare is already a reality for the West 20 years ago, it would be absurd if the LCH and Apaches cannot share battlefield data with one another such as target solutions and secure messages, does India not fit its own datalinks on all these foreign toys to avoid this issue, that's what I thought?


The passivity being taken to getting the LCH mature and integrated with the Apache and Hellfire just makes me think it's the ugly orphan that neither service wants now the MoD has allowed both spoiled parents to get their gold plated toys.

[ramana]

One thing to look at is he avionics suite of Indian Apaches and the LCH. That would reduce the swirl.

[ramana]

Forbes had an article on LCH vs Apache.

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... it=Compare

[ramana]

Light is a misnomer.

[Karan M]

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/



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.

They could've added the self protection suite form the Rudra on the LCH, in fact AFAIK that was the original plan, no entity in India is developing a helicopter MAWS or DIRCM so it's up to HAL or the user to select such systems from abroad, it's frankly bizarre that the LCH project has gotten this far down the road without such basic items even being tested on the airframe, what are they waiting for?


They've even sent TD LCH airframes without even RWR to the LAC last year, is this not incredibly foolish? How was an Mi17 shot down in Kargil?


If this is a HAL failure (I cannot understand why it would be) then one can understand the IA/IAF indifference to the LCH- no credible defensive or offensive systems (self protection suite or ATGMs), you can't fight with that.


Why is everyone acting oblivious to all of this? These are glaring deficiencies in the project, what is to blame?

At this point I am not even sure what you are complaining about. You seem to revel in ignoring data which is presented to you on a platter, ignore it, and then go off on another tangent. The press release clearly mentions an IEWS and the IEWS includes a MAWS. IDAS has been on ALH variants for years, nothing stops HAL from having it on LCH. Its hardly a big deal.
https://www.saab.com/markets/india/stor ... -for-years

First, it was the Indian AF were incompetent for not ordering the LCH. Now, its HAL which doesnt know what its doing.

Obviously they can use the Rudra self defense suite and also intend to add other items like the DIRCM (a first on Indian defense choppers). If they sent a LCH TD up north without a RWR (evidence?), they obviously will have the sense to use it accompanied by other assets and also ensure that it is not sent into harms way. They have a bunch of things to test on the LCH in a deployment area including its flight systems, reliability etc. Its not like 1-2 LCH were going to swing any conflict with the PRC.

HAL has integrated all these items from the self-defense suite on the ALH as well, its armed variant, so its hardly as if they need us to tell them how to add it to the LCH when they have a clear intent to go ahead with the program and a self-defense suite mentioned.

[vivek_ahuja]

Light is a misnomer.

I think we have to be a bit careful about this term, though. The "Light" term applies to the LCH perfectly given its main mission up in the Himalayas. The payload capacity for that mission is more lightweight than what it could carry at lower altitudes with structural changes. A modified HCH could easily (relatively) be designed that matches the payload capacity of the Apache (or close to it), and make the vehicle suited for the plains and the deserts.

I think part of the issue here is that, at least to me, it is absolutely not clear what the IAF/IA doctrine for attack helicopters is. They have to deal with China in the high density-altitude conditions, and Paki heavy armored forces in the plains and deserts. I can see the need for both light and heavy payload modes on the attack helicopters.

But has the IAF/IA ever put down on paper their attack helicopter aviation requirements? Here, I am not talking about squadrons/units etc., but rather the vision in the use of these weapons alongside the other conventional platforms available to them?

For example, the Soviets had a clear vision for their attack helicopters working in conjunction with their deep-strike airborne and special forces teams. So they designed their Mi-24 based to those requirements (hence the cabin in that helicopter to carry troops). The Americans had a clear vision for having to deal with massed Soviet armor pouring through Germany. And so they designed the Apache to fulfill that role by carrying ungodly amounts of ATGMs, longbow radar and agile platforms. The Cobra came about from combat requirements during the Vietnam war.

What is the IAF/IA requirements similar to the above? If they need to stop the Pakis, the requirements are similar to the Americans vs. Soviets and the Apache type of helicopter makes sense. If they want to defeat the Chinese, the LCH makes sense in the mountains.

So why not come out and lay this out for the OEMs to review and respond to. For example, if they wanted an Apache type helicopter all along to deal with the Paki threat, why not tell HAL that 20 years ago so that they could design an HCH?

I am sorry to say that the opacity on attack helo doctrine requirements points to confusion within the armed forces about their exact requirements.

Either that or they are keeping their cards so close to their chest that their own weapons manufacturers don't know how to respond to their needs.

[vivek_ahuja]

One idea to explore at some point is what Karan M had suggested: the idea that Longbow apaches will serve as the target designators for a slew of L-3 hellfires carried on LCHs and other platforms. That would allow a much better utilization of such large number of missiles per platform. Also provides a unique role for the Apache until the advent of the Indian longbow-like platform.

This was a query i asked when the Apache's were ordered. Apparently, the answer I got was that the Apache's are not able to relay targeting info to the LCH due to lack of integration?

Things might have moved on since we signed the alphabet treaties.
One Apache can buddy up with four or five LCH to create a strike team. Maybe a future "Blackhawk" variant of the Dhruv can be used to support assault missions along with the Apaches.

As you can see from Brar's comment below yours, it is certainly not a technological issue. Boeing can work with the IAF/IA to make this happen. But the latter have to ask for it. With LCH, the IAF looks like it is trying to figure out what role this platform should play.

I find this very awkward given how many years we have had to address (or even ask!) these questions. It is not like the LCH just emerged from a secret HAL lab last week.

[vivek_ahuja]

Forbes had an article on LCH vs Apache.

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... it=Compare

I wonder if HAL designers saw the Apache purchases by the IAF/IA with dismay. Were they ever even asked to solve the problem of an HCH? Or did the IAF/IA just go straight to Boeing? It is possible that HAL wanted to take on the LCH project given that it had no prior experience to building dedicated attack helicopters: so why not start small and light first. But that type of development roadmap (if one existed) was thoroughly torpedoed with the Apache purchase, simply because their primary customer has now filled that capability with an imported platform.

Now the LCH is starting to look like a solution looking for a problem to solve.

As Karan M says, the LCH will definitely be purchased. But it is not currently clear how badly the Apache acquisition has affected the final numbers of LCH we will see in the forces. I seriously doubt that original 160+ numbers will be ordered at this point.

[ShivS]

The longbow has two uses - one to build a tactical picture of the battlefield without exposing the chopper and the second is to light up the target for a missile.

For the second function, it’s now being accepted that an active mw seeker in the missile is a high quality option. So the JAGM, SANT etc. These munitions have a 10 km plus range that puts their launch out of most manpad envelopes.

On situational awareness, most chopper pilots still swear by a quick pop up to look rather than rely on a radar alone but the radar definitely helps.

LCH plus SANT may be the way forward.

[ShivS]

We seem to be big on electro optical seekers. The US on semi active lasers. Not sure of the relative advantages or disadvantages

[brar_w]

We seem to be big on electro optical seekers. The US on semi active lasers. Not sure of the relative advantages or disadvantages

Thats a wrong conclusion to draw. Each serve a role and the choice depends on what is needed out of the weapon. SAL seeker requirement stems directly from the need for others to designate targets. They are cheaper but less flexible while IIR offers fire-forget capability. Likewise, the addition of a MMW seeker to the SAL seeker (JAGM) adds the ability to conduct all weather attack and through obscurants. Both the US Army and US Air Force have strictly demanded MMW seeker for that role even if IIR or a SAL seeker is present (look at SDB II for example). It is a criteria for their next gen munitions to qualify as an all weather attack weapon.

On JAGM the dual-mode (SAL and MMW) seeker allows for blended modes and fire-forget capability that didn't exist with the purely SAL equipped HFs. The MMW on the other hand retains the capability to launch using Longbow and as an all weather option in general. JAGM was to have a tri-mode seeker (both competitors flew more than a half a dozen successful demonstrations with their seeker) but IIR was dropped due to cost as it would have meant a smaller inventory and keeping both HF and JAGM in productions something they want to avoid as they eventually want to transition all production to JAGM for EOS. Ultimately, the baselined to adding a new seeker to the Romeo HF missiles motor, warhead and guidance as opposed to a completely new missile.

[shaun]

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.

Yes some variant of spike integration happened with AH64

[brar_w]

Israel operates its weapons on its Apache fleet. The US Army is itself buying the Spike NLOS as an interim weapon for its AH-64E fleet.

[shaun]

Israel operates its weapons on its Apache fleet. The US Army is itself buying the Spike NLOS as an interim weapon for its AH-64E fleet.

That's means HELINA /SANT integration into AH64 possible.

[vivek_ahuja]

Israel operates its weapons on its Apache fleet. The US Army is itself buying the Spike NLOS as an interim weapon for its AH-64E fleet.

That's means HELINA /SANT integration into AH64 possible.

With 800-1000 Hellfires on order for just 22 helicopters, would this integration even show up on the IAF radar as necessary?

Note that when (and not if) they order the next batch of Apaches, they will order again a new mountain of R-3 Hellfires and/or JAGM to go with it.

I am sorry, but you are thinking of the flow of integration in the wrong direction. It is the LCH that will receive the Hellfire and/or Longbow networking. Not the other way around. The Apaches will remain gold-plated with imported equipment.

[vivek_ahuja]

Israel operates its weapons on its Apache fleet. The US Army is itself buying the Spike NLOS as an interim weapon for its AH-64E fleet.

Do we know the context on this story? Did the Israelis look at the Hellfire and reject it to reduce costs by integrating the basic airframe with their own weapons? Also, does the Spike integrate with the Longbow?

[shaun]

That's means HELINA /SANT integration into AH64 possible.

With 800-1000 Hellfires on order for just 22 helicopters, would this integration even show up on the IAF radar as necessary?

Note that when (and not if) they order the next batch of Apaches, they will order again a new mountain of R-3 Hellfires and/or JAGM to go with it.

I am sorry, but you are thinking of the flow of integration in the wrong direction. It is the LCH that will receive the Hellfire and/or Longbow networking. Not the other way around. The Apaches will remain gold-plated with imported equipment.

No Brainer there !! If I not wrong there was this query on last page about the limited number of hellfire though, which seems not the case now.

[brar_w]

Israel operates its weapons on its Apache fleet. The US Army is itself buying the Spike NLOS as an interim weapon for its AH-64E fleet.

Do we know the context on this story? Did the Israelis look at the Hellfire and reject it to reduce costs by integrating the basic airframe with their own weapons? Also, does the Spike integrate with the Longbow?

They operate both, the Hellfire, and their local Spike family. The ordered something like 3,000 HF's in 2016 IIRC as a top up and for future needs. The Spike LR option gets them an IIR equipped missile so is used as a fire-forget option across several platforms. When you go to the larger weapons, there is no HF or JAGM family analogous to the Spike NLOS so this is why the US Army has also chosen it as an interim weapon for its AH-64 fleet as it develops a long ranged missile for its future FVL fleet.

[Pratyush]

Israel, had decided during the 50s that it will be self-reliant in terms of expendable munitions as far as it is possible for them to be.

Their rationale was that in the event of a conflict, an external munitions supplier exposes them to an existential threat. By his potential ability to deny supplies in times of war. Or it can be used to modify behaviour at certain times.

The added benefit is that they are spending for munitions in the local currency. Which makes it cheap for them.

That is the primary reason why Israel developed a domestic armament industry. Along with integration of domestic munitions with nearly all of its American supplied aircrafts.

[vivek_ahuja]

If I not wrong there was this query on last page about the limited number of hellfire though, which seems not the case now.

That query was my fault. I confused the purchase of the Hellfires for the Army's 6 Apaches with the total for the IAF. The latter were much much larger numbers (800+).

[vivek_ahuja]

Israel, had decided during the 50s that it will be self-reliant in terms of expendable munitions as far as it is possible for them to be.

Their rationale was that in the event of a conflict, an external munitions supplier exposes them to an existential threat. By his potential ability to deny supplies in times of war. Or it can be used to modify behavior at certain times.

The added benefit is that they are spending for munitions in the local currency. Which makes it cheap for them.

That is the primary reason why Israel developed a domestic armament industry. Along with integration of domestic munitions with nearly all of its American supplied aircrafts.

This just sounds like general good advice that applies to another country we all know.

But Israel worries too much. Chill. The IAF/IA will fight wars with foreign weapons and equipment and I am sure there won't be any ammunition shortages or weapon malfunctions at critical stages of the war. Our international suppliers have agreed in good faith to not do that.

[Pratyush]

Actually the numbers of Hellfire missiles acquired are not that large. If the full potential load out for an Apache is 8 missiles and rockets. Then it is only sufficient about 9 missions per helo. Assuming that it fires 8 Hellfires per mission.

I am obviously not counting the expenditure of missiles on training.

[ShivS]

Vivek

Consider this - 22 Apaches, of which 12 have the Longbow with stores and spares will cost you around 1.3/1.4 billion USD. Wouldn’t you spend USD 150 mm on 600 HF to gain full value from that massive investment? The HF are the sword arm, after all.

Brar

I really enjoy your posts.

If a missile needs a second seeker and is short ranged, a MMW seeker is a great option because of the capabilities it provides. That said the US is very comfortable and has tremendous capabilities with laser designators - technology capability, manufacturing and operational skills and tactical comfort.

As a complete outsider, it seems to me to be their go-to solution for A2G munitions.

[brar_w]

If a missile needs a second seeker and is short ranged, a MMW seeker is a great option because of the capabilities it provides. That said the US is very comfortable and has tremendous capabilities with laser designators - technology capability, manufacturing and operational skills and tactical comfort.

As a complete outsider, it seems to me to be their go-to solution for A2G munitions.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2524527#p2524527

[chetak]

This just sounds like general good advice that applies to another country we all know.

But Israel worries too much. Chill. The IAF/IA will fight wars with foreign weapons and equipment and I am sure there won't be any ammunition shortages or weapon malfunctions at critical stages of the war. Our international suppliers have agreed in good faith to not do that.

some of our suppliers are overly "generous"

like the frogs who supplied both the UK as well as argentina during the falklands war

[mody]

Apart from porting the HF on LCH or the lack thereof, the decision to not go with Stingers for the LCH and instead go for Mistral is even more puzzling.

Stingers were reportedly even cheaper than the French Mistral. The inventory for both type of helicopters would have been the same. Why opt for Mistral then?

[isubodh]

Apart from porting the HF on LCH or the lack thereof, the decision to not go with Stingers for the LCH and instead go for Mistral is even more puzzling.

Stingers were reportedly even cheaper than the French Mistral. The inventory for both type of helicopters would have been the same. Why opt for Mistral then?

Not putting all the eggs in one basket

[brar_w]

Perhaps they thought Stinger was less future proof? The US Army is finally ending Stinger production in the near term, and its replacement will begin fielding by 2026.

https://aviationweek.com/special-topics ... eplacement

[ShivS]

Mistral has just come off it’s redesign cycle too - should be good into the mid 30s

[mody]

In that case why not ask for Mistral to be ported to the Apache as well? If the Stinger is good enough for the gold plated Apache's, it should have been good enough for the LCH as well, especially as it is reportedly cheaper too. In the future, we might be able to design our own replacement, based on the man portable anti air missile that the DRDO is developing. Both the helis might operate together in the same theater and having different weapons for both, just increases the logistics requirement.
A lot of such decisions make no sense and seem to be taken in silos rather than looking at the overall picture.

[Brad Goodman]

Can I ask a dumb question? Why cant we deploy LCH for COIN operations? Considering what happened in North East with ambush and also what happened in Kashmir few weeks back with terrorists hiding in jungle these are places where LCH should thrive. Same in Naxal areas. If AF does not want it give it to Rashtriya Rifles and CISF

[John]

Perhaps they thought Stinger was less future proof? The US Army is finally ending Stinger production in the near term, and its replacement will begin fielding by 2026.

https://aviationweek.com/special-topics ... eplacement

The missiles are completely two different classes, Apache’s carry them in wingtip so need a lighter missile where as LCH which cannot do that has to use it’s pylons to carry AAM so it’s better to use heavier a missile. Mistral is not man portable missile (requires a tripod) and weights around 20kg twice as much as Stinger.

It will interesting if we integrate something along the lines of R-73 for Apache and fire them from the pylons, as Russians do use it from Mi-28.