HAL LCH| Updates and Discussions

[Joe Shearer]

That certainly is an amusing idea!

However to bring things into a right perspective, while a MANPAD is certainly an ever-present and credible threat to a Helo; it does'nt follow that a Helo is automatically neutralised by a MANPAD.
That said, a MANPAD (if) successfully launched, has an extremely favorable cost-benefit ratio going for it. While on the other hand, a Helo (lke the LCH) is a huge force-multiplier, till its neutralised (or absent). The reality is both weapons have capabilities and functions alongside vulnerabilities built-in to them. Hence their designed capabilities will be constantly reviewed and refined.

Another thing that came up in this thread: the use of Helos (like LCH) in packs. While they will certainly be used in some numbers ( upwards of 2s and 4s), we are unlikely to see their use in 'hordes' aka the famous scene in "Apocalypse Now". Not in the South Asian context and not for some more time. AFAIK, that kind of tactics have not been perfected yet.

It will be some kind of cross between present-day South Asian AF tactics and Armor Squadron level manuevers. That seems to be the present state of affairs.

I personally believe that we should throw away our tanks, and shift to a combination of troop- and cargo-carrying choppers, attack helicopters, escort fighters, missile carrying drones, and multiple AWACS equivalent helicopters networked seamlessly.

 

[karan.1970]

I personally believe that we should throw away our tanks, and shift to a combination of troop- and cargo-carrying choppers, attack helicopters, escort fighters, missile carrying drones, and multiple AWACS equivalent helicopters networked seamlessly.

But there are climate conditions where Helis cant operate.. But a little rain never hurts a beast like a T90 or an Arjun

 

[Skull and Bones]

I personally believe that we should throw away our tanks, and shift to a combination of troop- and cargo-carrying choppers, attack helicopters, escort fighters, missile carrying drones, and multiple AWACS equivalent helicopters networked seamlessly.

Don't you think that'll be a strategic blunder? No matter how much air superiority you achieve you don't win a war unless you put your foot on the ground. And taking away tanks from armies will be like taking away their shield in the frontline. isn't it?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Don't you think that'll be a strategic blunder? No matter how much air superiority you achieve you don't win a war unless you put your foot on the ground. And taking away tanks from armies will be like taking away their shield in the frontline. isn't it?

Why not carry the soldiers along? That's all that we need to do!

 

[sancho]

Don't you think that'll be a strategic blunder? No matter how much air superiority you achieve you don't win a war unless you put your foot on the ground. And taking away tanks from armies will be like taking away their shield in the frontline. isn't it?

True, but the days of big tank wars are over and troops are mainly carried in lighter, faster and more mobile ways. Today wheeled tank destroyers, or light tanks offer the same firepower as MBTs, but are more suited for urban warfare and way more mobile to be deployed via air transport. Big MBTs today are mainly big targets that can be taken out by combat helicopter or fighters, but as well as from ground forces with RPGs or ATGMs, that are available in high numbers. Just look what happend to the Iraqi or Libyan tanks (their strategy change to armed pickups, which were hard to take out by fighters), when they didn't had air superiority anymore, or what happend to the Israeli Merkava MBTs against simple ground forces in Lebanon?

 

[Water Car Engineer]

True, but the days of big tank wars are over and troops are mainly carried in lighter, faster and more mobile ways.

Not with India and Pakistan in the Thar. Both will be field large amounts of tanks.

If tanks are irrelevant, strategist all around the world would think so too. Which they don't.

Tanks still have a place in the battlefield. Of course they'll need the proper support for them to be effective.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

 

[Dandpatta]

I am no military expert so kindly excuse my ignorance but the likelihood of conventional tank warfare with tanks facing each other (Indian-Pakistani) are perhaps history. Guerilla, proxy wars, infiltration, damage to selective collateral are the kinds of scenarios that are more likely than wasting millions / billions on Al-Khalids/Arjuns and other dick measuring stuff. I must say, whatever the Taliban and its supporters do (and what the Viet Cong did a 3 decades back), to bleed the Americans and Nato forces is a LOUD AND CLEAR example of what a force with minimal hardware can do to blow a big dent in a superpower's might.

IMHO - tanks compared to helicopter platforms have a slower mobility - and an air wing with a faster "force multiplier" is better , isn't it?

On the other hand, could anyone do the maths for me -

Per kilometer (given formidable terrain) -
1) what would be the COST for fuel for a tank (say Arjun Mk1, T-90 - versus (troop carrying) Rudra and (arms only) Apache )?
2) what would be the cost for fuel for an Al-Khalid - versus Pakistani Apache ?

 

[scarcry]

I am no military expert so kindly excuse my ignorance but the likelihood of conventional tank warfare with tanks facing each other (Indian-Pakistani) are perhaps history. Guerilla, proxy wars, infiltration, damage to selective collateral are the kinds of scenarios that are more likely than wasting millions / billions on Al-Khalids/Arjuns and other dick measuring stuff. I must say, whatever the Taliban and its supporters do (and what the Viet Cong did a 3 decades back), to bleed the Americans and Nato forces is a LOUD AND CLEAR example of what a force with minimal hardware can do to blow a big dent in a superpower's might.

IMHO - tanks compared to helicopter platforms have a slower mobility - and an air wing with a faster "force multiplier" is better , isn't it?

On the other hand, could anyone do the maths for me -

Per kilometer (given formidable terrain) -
1) what would be the COST for fuel for a tank (say Arjun Mk1, T-90 - versus (troop carrying) Rudra and (arms only) Apache )?
2) what would be the cost for fuel for an Al-Khalid - versus Pakistani Apache ?

"GOOD MORNING! You are listening to our Taliban Helpline. Dr. Hellfire is going to speak to us all on PTSD. Now back to Mullah XYZ"

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/090407_85788051.jpg

 

[帅的一匹]

Tank is a must in the war, or you don't have anything to cover your soldiers. helicopter is very fragile facing surface to air firepower, both has pros and cons. You just can't say which one is better.

 

[skysthelimit]

I am no military expert so kindly excuse my ignorance but the likelihood of conventional tank warfare with tanks facing each other (Indian-Pakistani) are perhaps history. Guerilla, proxy wars, infiltration, damage to selective collateral are the kinds of scenarios that are more likely than wasting millions / billions on Al-Khalids/Arjuns and other dick measuring stuff. I must say, whatever the Taliban and its supporters do (and what the Viet Cong did a 3 decades back), to bleed the Americans and Nato forces is a LOUD AND CLEAR example of what a force with minimal hardware can do to blow a big dent in a superpower's might.

IMHO - tanks compared to helicopter platforms have a slower mobility - and an air wing with a faster "force multiplier" is better , isn't it?

On the other hand, could anyone do the maths for me -

Per kilometer (given formidable terrain) -
1) what would be the COST for fuel for a tank (say Arjun Mk1, T-90 - versus (troop carrying) Rudra and (arms only) Apache )?
2) what would be the cost for fuel for an Al-Khalid - versus Pakistani Apache ?

A platform which -
1. Is Anti-infantry
2. Is Anti-infrastructure (both Civilian and military)
3. Is Armored (Duh)
4. Is Anti-Air (using barrel launched missiles)
6. Fast across different terrain types
7. NBC protected
8. Raises the morale of your troops while severely damaging that of your enemies (even the Mujahideens who were so good at taking down Rusky tanks would be scared shitless when they hard the rumble of a tank engine)

That's just what I can think off the top of my head - and you want to eliminate it in favor of god knows what!

Of course Tanks have limitations - and even modern ATGMs will have limited effect against the newer tanks with Active Protection suites - but that's true for all warfighting machinery. Frankly, all military action is a big f***ing game of rock, paper, scissor.

So no sense in retiring one of the versatile modern military equipments.

 

[sancho]

What's the source of this load config?

 

[BLEND]

What's the source of this load config?

He might have taken that image from this Blog.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

What's the source of this load config?

http://www.aeroindiaseminar.com/ima...sad Sampathl Paper on LCH_Aero India 2011.pdf

He might have taken that image from this Blog.

 

[sancho]

http://www.aeroindiaseminar.com/ima...sad Sampathl Paper on LCH_Aero India 2011.pdf

Excellent, I was searching for such infos!