What's new

HAL LCH| Updates and Discussions

Yes, but would it not be fun for some combat aircraft to shoot a chugging helicopter at those altitudes.
There's a reason the word "layered air defence" was coined.

So you are saying that you'd do another Kargil intentionally? That's the only circumstance under which LCH will be used to its full potential---- hight altitude aerial combat.
 
Well the Training imparted plays the role as it must. A Vehicle of such caliber must not be ditched in the terrains where its built for.

OK, let's work this out in some detail.

There are three battlefield hazards facing any helicopter in the mountains. High mountains and lower ones alike, for two of them; high mountains alone for a third.

First, weather and flying conditions. Mountain terrain is windy terrain, with wind of fluctuating strength flowing across natural features - ridges, slopes, ravines - in unpredictable manner. Helicopters are difficult, unstable flying objects. Unlike older planes, when power is cut off, they don't just glide down, they plummet, like bricks. In such uncertain wind conditions, pilots find it a full-time job to keep in the air. There are unexpected pulls and pushes, and a high state of alert is needed to merely keep flying.

Second, the enemy. The same uneven terrain that builds uncertain winds also provides a thousand and one nooks and crannies, folds in the surface and natural walls which hide shooters and their (typically now) MANPADs. After coping with wind and weather conditions quite different from the plains, pilots need to watch out for a camouflaged soldier popping out from nowhere. This, too, is substantially different from the plains, where hiding places can be spotted early.

Third, in the case of the Himalayas and the Karakorum, whiteout. Flying in snowy conditions is particularly dangerous because it is unrelieved white all around. A pilot loses orientation. It is difficult to gauge whether the machine is flying straight, at an angle, or tilted. The artificial horizon helps, but every second glancing at an artificial horizon is a second not looking out for a cliff face straight ahead.

For these reasons, flying in general in the mountains is a *****. Pilots don't like the idea. Flying an attack helicopter adds
To the tension. On top of everything else, you have targets and targets that shoot back. Attack helicopters aren't meant for the hills. In fact, listening to wise guys talking about what airpower could have done for the IA in 62 makes me feel ill. It could have done nothing, but that's a different thread.

It is a different thing that normal helicopters labour at altitudes like Saltoro. The Dhruv was specially engined for that extreme high level performance. The LCH, its derivative, handles heights as well. What it means is not normal attack helicopter operations. Instead of flying along the nap of the earth, instead of lurking in hollows or depressions and suddenly bobbing up with cannons blazing is not the norm any more, though it can be done on occasion. Instead what is likelier is closely coordinated action as mobile, airborne artillery, either offering covering fire to an assault team, or pouring in counter-preparatory fire on an assault team about to attack our own positions. The high altitude bit is not to act as an assault heli any longer, but more to provide artillery support where the other guys had never expected artillery support.

We could talk about these scenarios if you like.
 
And Blitz should read up on the strike, what preceded it .. and how it was carried out..
and not at 20000 ft before trying to make a point.

The LCH is not going to face a half baked ADGE in Pakistan, it also has to face a fairly potent one in the north..
It and the AH-64 will find themselves facing medium level SAM's...point defence LD-2000 systems.. and the like.
The LCH along with the Ah-64 will succeed in the mission by employing smart tactics and shooting first before being seen.
Not by flying at 20000 ft to avoid a single MANPAD system.


To wipe out these threats we have inducted 2 regiments of Brahmos missiles on pakistan border.

Yes, 110 missiles are already inducted by Indian Army.


And not to forget air launched Brahmos and Prahaar missile. :angel:
 
To wipe out these threats we have inducted 2 regiments of Brahmos missiles on pakistan border.

Yes, 110 missiles are already inducted by Indian Army.


And not to forget air launched Brahmos and Prahaar missile. :angel:

Sorry, I missed something somewhere.

How will cruise missiles and surface-to-surface missiles (even launched from flying platforms) affect this situation? Do you mean that the SAM sites and the LD-2000 sites will be targeted by these?
 
So you are saying that you'd do another Kargil intentionally? That's the only circumstance under which LCH will be used to its full potential---- hight altitude aerial combat.

calm down sweetheart.. not everything is a competition.
I suggest you read through again instead of finding a post that triggers your jingoism and makes you come out guns blazing.
 
Attack helicopters aren't meant for the hills. In fact, listening to wise guys talking about what airpower could have done for the IA in 62 makes me feel ill. It could have done nothing, but that's a different thread.

That is against what has been fed to non-professionals like me. Thanks for letting us know.
 
So you are saying that you'd do another Kargil intentionally? That's the only circumstance under which LCH will be used to its full potential---- hight altitude aerial combat.

Mate high-altitude warfare is but one of the serious the LCH can be employed. Just because the service ceiling was specifically called for doesn't mean this is the ONLY scenario the LCH will be employed but this is just another of the thousands upon thousands of criteria the IAF/IA has outlined and called for.
 
OK, let's work this out in some detail.

First, weather and flying conditions. Mountain terrain is windy terrain, with wind of fluctuating strength flowing across natural features - ridges, slopes, ravines - in unpredictable manner. Helicopters are difficult, unstable flying objects. Unlike older planes, when power is cut off, they don't just glide down, they plummet, like bricks. In such uncertain wind conditions, pilots find it a full-time job to keep in the air. There are unexpected pulls and pushes, and a high state of alert is needed to merely keep flying.

That is a nice one. A Naval Chopper pilot friend of mine once said to me " I fly a BRICK, an extremely manueverable BRICK; and it'll keep flying till I lose control". Which according to me, says it very well. Helicopters are the most unstable flying machines ever made. Mountain flying is one thing, even flying around in close proximity to a single ship at sea can sometimes be difficult especially in a hover. The structure of a ship especially a large ship can play tricks with the wind forces in that area. To read about the "Joys of Flying in Moutainous Terrain" like the North-East read the blog by CYCLIC an ex-IAF chopper pilot. His innate sense of humor some-what lightens the hair-raising experience that it must actually be.

Second, the enemy. The same uneven terrain that builds uncertain winds also provides a thousand and one nooks and crannies, folds in the surface and natural walls which hide shooters and their (typically now) MANPADs. After coping with wind and weather conditions quite different from the plains, pilots need to watch out for a camouflaged soldier popping out from nowhere. This, too, is substantially different from the plains, where hiding places can be spotted early.



For these reasons, flying in general in the mountains is a *****. Pilots don't like the idea. Flying an attack helicopter adds
To the tension. On top of everything else, you have targets and targets that shoot back. Attack helicopters aren't meant for the hills.

There is a nice account I read some place about helicopter flying in Afghanistan written by an American. While it has been somewhat easier for them than it had been for the Soviets; because the stingers have gone from the equation, still its not easy nor is it fun.


In fact, listening to wise guys talking about what airpower could have done for the IA in 62 makes me feel ill. It could have done nothing, but that's a different thread.

The IAF could have done something- fly the planes around and create an infernal noise. That might have at least sounded scary. :D

But there were no helicopter gunships then, just some spindly Bell G-47s and rickety Sikorsky S-55s and Mil-4s. That can be the subject of another discussion.
 
OK, let's work this out in some detail.

There are three battlefield hazards facing any helicopter in the mountains. High mountains and lower ones alike, for two of them; high mountains alone for a third.

First, weather and flying conditions. Mountain terrain is windy terrain, with wind of fluctuating strength flowing across natural features - ridges, slopes, ravines - in unpredictable manner. Helicopters are difficult, unstable flying objects. Unlike older planes, when power is cut off, they don't just glide down, they plummet, like bricks. In such uncertain wind conditions, pilots find it a full-time job to keep in the air. There are unexpected pulls and pushes, and a high state of alert is needed to merely keep flying.

Well that was quite good points you have raised. Mountains aren't the optimal helicopter environment and I do understand that. Not all mountainous terrains have wind dense enough to disturb an attack helicopters path. I understand that a Helicopter does not glide but it certainly has a feature called auto-rotation ie.a clutch automatically disconnects the engine from the gearbox in case of an engine failure making the tail and main rotors to go on a free run as the air rushes through from a descending helicopter allowing a Skilled pilot to land safely.

Not to forget, engine failure landings are a part of sortie curriculum. You are free to ask if you have an Army aviation friend.

Second, the enemy. The same uneven terrain that builds uncertain winds also provides a thousand and one nooks and crannies, folds in the surface and natural walls which hide shooters and their (typically now) MANPADs. After coping with wind and weather conditions quite different from the plains, pilots need to watch out for a camouflaged soldier popping out from nowhere. This, too, is substantially different from the plains, where hiding places can be spotted early.

Isn't this where Thermal Imaging comes into play, and please do not mix up gunner with the pilot. Pilot has an eye on the terrains and the gunner on the enemy so there is no question of confusion here.

Third, in the case of the Himalayas and the Karakorum, whiteout. Flying in snowy conditions is particularly dangerous because it is unrelieved white all around. A pilot loses orientation. It is difficult to gauge whether the machine is flying straight, at an angle, or tilted. The artificial horizon helps, but every second glancing at an artificial horizon is a second not looking out for a cliff face straight ahead.


There is no confusion for the pilot in the Karakorum or Himalayan terrains if the helicopter is straight or upside down with sophisticated State-of-the-Art Automatic Flight Control Systems in place. The possible problem which the crew might face in such terrains is Aircraft icing but modern attack choppers do have anti icing capabilities.
 
Well that was quite good points you have raised. Mountains aren't the optimal helicopter environment and I do understand that. Not all mountainous terrains have wind dense enough to disturb an attack helicopters path. I understand that a Helicopter does not glide but it certainly has a feature called auto-rotation ie.a clutch automatically disconnects the engine from the gearbox in case of an engine failure making the tail and main rotors to go on a free run as the air rushes through from a descending helicopter allowing a Skilled pilot to land safely.

Not to forget, engine failure landings are a part of sortie curriculum. You are free to ask if you have an Army aviation friend.



Isn't this where Thermal Imaging comes into play, and please do not mix up gunner with the pilot. Pilot has an eye on the terrains and the gunner on the enemy so there is no question of confusion here.




There is no confusion for the pilot in the Karakorum or Himalayan terrains if the helicopter is straight or upside down with sophisticated State-of-the-Art Automatic Flight Control Systems in place. The possible problem which the crew might face in such terrains is Aircraft icing but modern attack choppers do have anti icing capabilities.

You may be right.
 
5453579732_61de8051f4_b.jpg
 
I really Dont know Joe. Never been an Enthu of Aviation :) .

No answer to these really . I used to lead an organization working on software of various types. You never can tell what a pilot will do until he does it.

Personally I would use these helos as airborne artillery platforms, able to access targets land-based systems can not.

Who can tell what a pilot decides he can do?
 
These attack helos can be a decisive threat for enemy armor. Dedicated attack helicopters
like the Apache-type were designed to shread the threat of large enemy armored forces since
the Cold War and have promisingly done so ever since.

If I was given a choice of taking a column of attack helicopters or a regiment of MBTs, I'd choose
the chopper option anyday.
 
Back
Top Bottom