Seriously??????????Yes it is........
Apache is an antiquated design with several technical upgrades to keep it relevant. It is lethal but it is also a helicopter making it vulnerable. It can be shot down just as easily as an LCH which makes having 3-4 LCH instead of one Golden plated Apache a much more cost effective solution. The more platforms you have the more eyes are on the battlefield to spot and engage targets. Having a handful of Apaches isn't enough to cover one sector of a battle. If you have enough LCH, you don't need Apache.
But you can replace an Apache with several LCH. It is actually a more flexible option as LCH can fly in the desert or the mountains where Apache is limited to low alitude operations. You might fight a war and the Apache never even comes into play.
Upgrading a platform makes it antique? Then I must say that none of the forces in world today is using state of art weapons. US on top of that is the biggest antique user.
Apache is a twin engine Copter as opposed to LCH. It means even it gets hit, its survival rate would be double of LCH. Moreover a active group of 4 LCHs would mean a spare of 4 engine opposite to a 2 engine which one Apache would require. Show me cost effectiveness in here.
Now leaving alone the longbow RADAR, the antique(!) ASQ-170 TADS developed in 1980 has an effective visual range of 50 kms (I have attached the document along with for your reference). Now show me same effectiveness in LCH.
Against 30 odd Apaches, we would be having 100 LCH. So its not like that we are diverting funds to unwanted system. We do need teeth in our attack which as of now LCH alone is unable to deliver. 100 odd LCHs are not just menat to be for mountain warfare, they are for western desert too. But saying that since we have LCH, we don't require Apache is a faulty logic.