IAF, not Army, will get first of the Apaches attack helicopters

[Kompromat]

i don't know, why these videos are uploaded on this issue...... if I m not wrong your means Indian helicopters no chance to survive against SAM, rights?

My question :- Will Pakistani and Chinese helicopters survive against SAM?

My Ans :- we can prepare and use better self defense and equipment for better survival chance. Indian MOD also doing the same.

No, the point being discussed is the surviveability of infantry support helos the Indian Army has against modern threats vs the surviveability of the Longbows against the same kind of threats and why keeping that in mind are they being handed over to IAF instead of the Indian Army.

 

[sancho]

These are light weight infantry support helos, they don't have either the surviveablity or the firepower and agility of an Apache.

Deploy Apache's with the Armored crops. Those two helos have very little surviveability against, advanced threats like new generation MANPADs

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/151213-hal-lch-analysis-mike-hirschberg.html#post2463937


LCH / Rudra offer any defence capability the Apache has as well, partially even more, the fire power of LCH is more than similar to the Apache and only differs by the different weapons used (normal config 2 x ATGM quadpack + 2 x rocket pods, chin mounted gun for both), the main difference will be the avionics of the Apache Block 3 and the longbow radar, which sets the Apache apart for now, but even that is just a matter of upgrades and depends on the custom systems the Apache might get.

 

[Contrarian]

No, the point being discussed is the surviveability of infantry support helos the Indian Army has against modern threats vs the surviveability of the Longbows against the same kind of threats and why keeping that in mind are they being handed over to IAF instead of the Indian Army.

Rudra is simply weaponized ALH (Advanced Light Heli - Dhruv)

LCH is designed as an attack chopper - it will take quite a lot of punishment and holds very good armament as well.
Apache is being bought for longbow and NCW primarily.

 

[Sergi]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/151213-hal-lch-analysis-mike-hirschberg.html#post2463937


LCH / Rudra offer any defence capability the Apache has as well, partially even more, the fire power of LCH is more than similar to the Apache and only differs by the different weapons used (normal config 2 x ATGM quadpack + 2 x rocket pods, chin mounted gun for both), the main difference will be the avionics of the Apache Block 3 and the longbow radar, which sets the Apache apart for now, but even that is just a matter of upgrades and depends on the custom systems the Apache might get.

What are the odds of we getting Longbow or similar system for Indian platforms ???

 

[Kompromat]

Rudra is simply weaponized ALH (Advanced Light Heli - Dhruv)

LCH is designed as an attack chopper - it will take quite a lot of punishment and holds very good armament as well.
Apache is being bought for longbow and NCW primarily.

This is what i am trying to understand, what is the rationale behind deploying it with IAF instead of the Army?

 

[sancho]

Giving the Air Force exclusive control over the Apache will cause delay and information congestion as they enemy armor can simply roll up on you. When you are teaming up Apache and the Air Force, the only thing i can see the use of it is from a Apache-CAP point of view. But the problem is, CAP cannot be used when your own guy are close to the enemy and it is only a 1 shot weapon and it does not have a good station time. using Apache-CAP is simply negating the advantage of using Apache in the first place, that is long stationing time and surprise......When bomb start dropping, everybody would know what the hack is going on.........You lose the surprise element on the get go....

This is not about operational points, this competition started as a replacement for IAFs Mi 35s, therefor if the Apache has won the competition, IAF must get them. The point however is, will they remain in IAF, or will they be diverted to IA, like the Mi 35s already are.
IAF claims that they could use it for SEAD / DEAD roles, in combination with their fighters, or that they would be fully qualified to maintain the support to IAs ground troops or tank corps, which is of course possible. With the same data capabilities you could use the Apaches for such forward recon roles like you pointed out, linked with a squadron of LCHs, basically the same tactic that IAF currently have with MKIs and Mig 21, 29s. However, I completely agree with you that operating them in different forces only slows down the process and imo it would be easier and more effective to divert some of the Apaches to IAF in case they really would be needed in SEAD/DEAD roles, instead of wasting them in IAF by waiting for a situation to come where it really would be needed.
Imo, IAF needs nothing more than Rudras for escort and fire support roles of transport helicopters, or in special operations. IA should get all LCH and Apaches to work independently in offensive roles, with Rudras providing fire support for tank corps or ground troops.

 

[Sergi]

This is what i am trying to understand, what is the rationale behind deploying it with IAF instead of the Army?

It might be cause the process is already in progress and changing shoulders at this point may cause troubles.

Secondly IA is comparatively on lower side in terms of experience. So it might have been till they manage other platforms.

One thing is sure the Apaches were brought for IA and not IAF. So if IAF keep them they have to pay for them and IA will go for follow on order

 

[sancho]

What are the odds of we getting Longbow or similar system for Indian platforms ???

Similar systems means mainly a mast mounted radar, while other avionics and datalink capability easily could be integrated with Indian or customised foreign systems. The Apache is an highly advanced helicopter, no doubt about that, but add a radar and the right avionics and we might see LCH in future guiding armed Rustom H drones to take out enemies.

 

[Contrarian]

This is what i am trying to understand, what is the rationale behind deploying it with IAF instead of the Army?

Simple reason. Bitter Turf War.

IAF refuses to accept that anything flying in the air may not belong to them.
It took over a decade to make IAF understand that Maritime Patrol Aircrafts (like P3C/P8I) should be flown by the Navy because they better understand the technics and would be able to use it better since it is hunting either ships/subs.

Similarly IAF wanted and did fly the Harriers off of the Aircraft Carrier because again, IAF thought that anything that goes in the air belongs to them inherently. It would more hours than is written easily to explain to them that it would be best that Navy should fly whatever goes off an aircraft carrier as they would be the ones using it.

This is simply more of the same. IAF has fought as hard and with determination as if they were fighting PAF, for making sure every equipment that flies is flown by them.

MoD came up with the compromise formula to placate IAF, that all "future" procurements of attack choppers would be for the IA and not the IAF. The compromise however all the current and already on order equipment will remain with the IAF.

Apache was ordered before this decision was notified by the MoD..

Fortunately, there would be more orders for Apache's as well as LCH. The army is planning a (some say ridiculously) massive buildup.

 

[sancho]

MoD came up with the compromise formula

That's the real problem, MoD should not come up with compromises to please all sides, but with a clear strategy on what is the best for the country and how we can implement these weapon systems into our forces in the most effective way!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Simple reason. Bitter Turf War.

IAF refuses to accept that anything flying in the air may not belong to them.
It took over a decade to make IAF understand that Maritime Patrol Aircrafts (like P3C/P8I) should be flown by the Navy because they better understand the technics and would be able to use it better since it is hunting either ships/subs.

Similarly IAF wanted and did fly the Harriers off of the Aircraft Carrier because again, IAF thought that anything that goes in the air belongs to them inherently. It would more hours than is written easily to explain to them that it would be best that Navy should fly whatever goes off an aircraft carrier as they would be the ones using it.

This is simply more of the same. IAF has fought as hard and with determination as if they were fighting PAF, for making sure every equipment that flies is flown by them.

MoD came up with the compromise formula to placate IAF, that all "future" procurements of attack choppers would be for the IA and not the IAF. The compromise however all the current and already on order equipment will remain with the IAF.

Apache was ordered before this decision was notified by the MoD..

Fortunately, there would be more orders for Apache's as well as LCH. The army is planning a (some say ridiculously) massive buildup.

@Contrarian;
You need to correct the underlined part of your post. The MR aircraft that the IAF initially operated, i.e. L-1049 Super Connies were handed over by the IAF to the IN in the 1980s, when ACM H. Moolgavkar was CAS and ADM Cursetji was CNS. After that it was the accepted principle that the IN would operate the Il-38s and Tu-142s when they arrived.

About Carrier-borne aircraft: the IAF did not fly any aircraft off from any Carrier, least of all the Harriers. The first Harrier pilot was CDR Arun Prakash and all the rest were IN aviators. When the first Aircraft for the IN came in 1953, viz. the Sealands and Fireflies, they were flown by the first IN aviators. Only one IAF pilot was used in the ferry flights to India from UK.
When INS Vikrant (1st one) was acquired, then again all the pilots for both the Seahawks and Alizes were IN aviators. The first Helo on board Vikrant then was an IAF S-55 for SAR and Planeguard. A few IAF pilots flew them and converted IN pilots also to fly them. But that was less than a year since the IN was then awaiting delivery of Allouette III selected for that role. BTW, the selection of the Allouette IIIs were done by the IN and the IAF went with that choice so the licence production of Allouette IIIs commenced at HAL followed by the Allouette IIs.
Just to set the record straight.

 

[surya kiran]

I guess nobody here has worked with the GoI and hence have not yet understood the underlying meaning of the MoD statement.

The way I read it is as follows:-

1. This is 'current'.
2. 'Future' procurements will be for IA. Which means there are future procurements happening.
3. You will be looking at a hi-lo for the IA. Apache + LCH or Apache + Rudra depending on requirement.

This means each strike corps is going to have aviation brigades. Which means each of these will have the above config. I will not be surprised, if in the future, we decide to go in with the Sea Apache for our LHDs.

The current decision is a good one. Why? People tend to forget the Apache can also be used for SEAD. This is a less spoken about function of the Apache, but, lethal one. In order to achieve air supremacy you will need this and hence the IAF makes more sense.

 

[sancho]

I guess nobody here has worked with the GoI and hence have not yet understood the underlying meaning of the MoD statement.

The way I read it is as follows:-

1. This is 'current'.
2. 'Future' procurements will be for IA. Which means there are future procurements happening.
3. You will be looking at a hi-lo for the IA. Apache + LCH or Apache + Rudra depending on requirement.

This means each strike corps is going to have aviation brigades. Which means each of these will have the above config. I will not be surprised, if in the future, we decide to go in with the Sea Apache for our LHDs.

The current decision is a good one. Why? People tend to forget the Apache can also be used for SEAD. This is a less spoken about function of the Apache, but, lethal one. In order to achieve air supremacy you will need this and hence the IAF makes more sense.

That's not correct, since there are no plans for something called a hi / low mix of combat helicopters, which doesn't make sense anyway as explained earlier. IA already stated that they would a "single" squadron of combat helicopters and a squad of utility / transport helicopter to each of it's strike corps.
IN is officially looking for LDPs not LHDs, so the use of combat helicopters is only speculative at this moment.
Wrt SEAD, see post #36.

 

[Dash]

Similar systems means mainly a mast mounted radar, while other avionics and datalink capability easily could be integrated with Indian or customised foreign systems. The Apache is an highly advanced helicopter, no doubt about that, but add a radar and the right avionics and we might see LCH in future guiding armed Rustom H drones to take out enemies.

@sancho. Any idea why didnt we go for a mast mounted RADAR. I guess its because of the operaional starategy right?, I mean Apaches are especially designed for hunter, killer roles while remaining undetected behind mountains, trees, bushes, while the mast mounted RADAR remains on top to gather information. Where as LCH has ben designed for ground support to infantry, and thats the reason they have a nose mounted RADAR.

Else we could have gone for mast mounted RADAR, may be in future we will see such. I think that perfectly justfy the small number of Apache and large orders of LCH.

 

[surya kiran]

That's not correct, since there are no plans for something called a hi / low mix of combat helicopters, which doesn't make sense anyway as explained earlier. IA already stated that they would a "single" squadron of combat helicopters and a squad of utility / transport helicopter to each of it's strike corps.
IN is officially looking for LDPs not LHDs, so the use of combat helicopters is only speculative at this moment.
Wrt SEAD, see post #36.

The IN is my wishlist. Nothing to do with statements. As far as deputing choppers to the IAF, when the situation arises especially for specialised missions like SEAD makes no sense.

Like I said, I am reading what the MoD says, not what anybody on this forum or IA or anybody else is saying. Most often than not they prove to be right. He specifically said "current" and "future". Like I mentioned, if one has worked with the procurement team in home or defence you learn to read between the lines of the bureaucrats.