HAL Prachand - Light Combat Helicopter (LCH)

[Indx TechStyle]

Was there any comparison between LCH & other attack helicopters around the world?
Specially Eurocopter Tiger.

Yes,
It's some of best attack helps in world.

 

[garg_bharat]

I'd focus on the J&K part.

J&K -> high altitude.

High altitude warfare is the strength of LCH.

I beg to differ. Combat helicopters shine on flat land. Mountains are dangerous for helicopters (all types) as too many vantage points to shoot down a helicopter.

Attack aircraft like LCA/Jaguar/Mig-27 are best for mountains as the aircraft can maintain comfortable height above the target so it is not shot down by ground based defences.

Fighting in mountains will always be difficult and will claim higher casualties. Automation of war will only get you so far.

 

[garg_bharat]

The HPT-32s are grounded for a reason, they will never fly again thankfully.

And what is that reason? Perhaps you can illuminate why HPT-32 cannot fly?

 

[abingdonboy]

And what is that reason? Perhaps you can illuminate why HPT-32 cannot fly?

They (both airframe and engine) are well past their useful service life.

 

[porky_kicker]

would love to see LCH equipped with similar/equivalents of

1.Ground Fire Acquisition System (GFAS).
the GFAS is an offensive targeting system for attack helicopters. It uses infrared cameras to detect muzzle flashes from ground fire and displays the location and distance of the shooters as an icon on the pilot's display screen. this enable the aircrew to immediately move their Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensors etc onto the target at the touch of a button for immediate prosecution, it also offers the same information to others via the net-centric battlefield information system.

2.AN/APG-78 Longbow mast mounted Fire Control Radar (FCR) which is a very low peak power, millimetric band system. The low emitted power, extremely narrow beam mainlobe, and LPI features provide a system with a range of the order of 10 km in clear conditions, which is near to undetectable by established RWR technology.
The choice of millimetric band means that atmospheric water vapor and oxygen resonance losses rapidly soak up the signal, which makes it undetectable by most RWRs. The radar can track up to 128 targets and prioritize the top 16.
The radar employs both real beam mapping and Moving Target Indicator (MTI) techniques, to provide the automatic detection, tracking and non-cooperative identification of surface targets, with a secondary capability against low flying aircraft.

3.The AN/APR-48B Modernized Radar Frequency Interferometer (MRFI) system which passively detects, accurately identifies and precisely locates radar emitters in varying threat condition.

we can try to
1. buy the same or similar sub-systems
2.develop or co develop the sub-systems
which will come with the Apache helicopters already ordered to develop a unique variant of LCH ie HUNTER ( optimized for hunting only ) which will help the baseline LCH ie KILLER ( which is already optimized/gonna be optimized for killing ).

during an ambush this would enable the LCH KILLERS to lay undetected by employing terrain masking, while a LCH HUNTER would raise itself up from behind cover to detect and acquire targets and pop back to prioritize and distribute targets to the accompanying KILLERS laying in wait so that all enemy targets can be destroyed at one go in a coordinated ambush .
it would be very cool wont it

 

[abingdonboy]

would love to see LCH equipped with similar/equivalents of

1.Ground Fire Acquisition System (GFAS).
the GFAS is an offensive targeting system for attack helicopters. It uses infrared cameras to detect muzzle flashes from ground fire and displays the location and distance of the shooters as an icon on the pilot's display screen. this enable the aircrew to immediately move their Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensors etc onto the target at the touch of a button for immediate prosecution, it also offers the same information to others via the net-centric battlefield information system.

2.AN/APG-78 Longbow mast mounted Fire Control Radar (FCR) which is a very low peak power, millimetric band system. The low emitted power, extremely narrow beam mainlobe, and LPI features provide a system with a range of the order of 10 km in clear conditions, which is near to undetectable by established RWR technology.
The choice of millimetric band means that atmospheric water vapor and oxygen resonance losses rapidly soak up the signal, which makes it undetectable by most RWRs. The radar can track up to 128 targets and prioritize the top 16.
The radar employs both real beam mapping and Moving Target Indicator (MTI) techniques, to provide the automatic detection, tracking and non-cooperative identification of surface targets, with a secondary capability against low flying aircraft.

3.The AN/APR-48B Modernized Radar Frequency Interferometer (MRFI) system which passively detects, accurately identifies and precisely locates radar emitters in varying threat condition.

we can try to
1. buy the same or similar sub-systems
2.develop or co develop the sub-systems
which will come with the Apache helicopters already ordered to develop a unique variant of LCH ie HUNTER ( optimized for hunting only ) which will help the baseline LCH ie KILLER ( which is already optimized/gonna be optimized for killing ).

during an ambush this would enable the LCH KILLERS to lay undetected by employing terrain masking, while a LCH HUNTER would raise itself up from behind cover to detect and acquire targets and pop back to prioritize and distribute targets to the accompanying KILLERS laying in wait so that all enemy targets can be destroyed at one go in a coordinated ambush .
it would be very cool wont it

Remember the LCH is just that- a light attack helo and its speciality is operating at extreme heights, adding such systems will add weight and limit its high altitude performance.

Much of the advantadges of the above systems can be incorportated by utilising the Apaches on order and LCHs as "hunter killer" teams, where the Apaches designate the targets and the LCHs strike- such tactics will enable the Apaches to act as "force multipliers" and will have a devestating effect on the enemy.

 

[porky_kicker]

Remember the LCH is just that- a light attack helo and its speciality is operating at extreme heights, adding such systems will add weight and limit its high altitude performance.

Much of the advantadges of the above systems can be incorportated by utilising the Apaches on order and LCHs as "hunter killer" teams, where the Apaches designate the targets and the LCHs strike- such tactics will enable the Apaches to act as "force multipliers" and will have a devestating effect on the enemy.

what you have suggested would seem to be the obvious course of action given LCH is a light category platform and the armed forces would most likely go down the path u suggested.

i would also prefer the same but would not limit myself to it, because i want us to think like the Israelis and not Americans otherwise we will be spending 10 times more than we can afford when the same and better capabilities could be had for lesser costs.

no of Apaches with such capabilities will be limited even after additional purchase in the future , and as such would render the larger no of LCH and maybe RUDRAs devoid of much needed advance capabilities.

of course we can opt for greater nos of guardian version of Apaches , but that would not add anything to our own LCH development or other future helicopter programmes.

some of the technology for the above sub-systems is already available for drop down installation on various platforms.

eg.

Lockheed Martin’s AN/APR-48B system which was designed for the Apache Guardian helicopter is modular and light weight to be fitted on UAVs . and so can be fitted to HUNTER version of LCH will almost zero weight penalty.

as for the FCR it will have to be designed inhouse with Israeli help after studying the American one, a AESA version preferably . private companies might take up the challenge

and plus the datalinks

as already known LCH is a agile and high flying optimized bird with certain stealth qualities , these makes it a optimal platform to be branched off into a version optimized for all of these
1.scouting cum
2.observation cum
3.advance fire control and management cum
4.network node for info management and dissemination


all this will have weight penalty and power penalty so it will be armed with bare minimum defensive weapons and will use its LO features and agility and excellent high/low flying qualities to evade detection in the first place,unlike the upcoming LOH/LUH which is more of a utility helicopter rather than a agile sleek armored high flying light helicopter like the LCH which fits the bill perfectly infact it would seem was designed for it.


this will be good for
make in India or better still develop in India
a growler (ie HUNTER here ) type version of LCH will increase its appeal
its export potential will grow
Apaches (longbow) will have a smaller sibling to reduce operational load and increase overall effectiveness
never put all eggs in one basket ( USA factor )
it will lay down the technological building blocks which will be helpful when designing/building heavy next gen attack helicopters.

dont blame me i am kind of following APJ kalams advice ie to dream
so dreaming dreams of LCH

 

[abingdonboy]

what you have suggested would seem to be the obvious course of action given LCH is a light category platform and the armed forces would most likely go down the path u suggested.

i would also prefer the same but would not limit myself to it, because i want us to think like the Israelis and not Americans otherwise we will be spending 10 times more than we can afford when the same and better capabilities could be had for lesser costs.

no of Apaches with such capabilities will be limited even after addon purchase in the future , and as such would render the larger no of LCH and maybe RUDRAs devoid of much needed advance capabilities.

of course we can opt for greater nos of guardian version of Apaches , but that would not add anything to our own LCH development or other future helicopter programmes.

some of the technology for the above sub-systems is already available for drop down installation on various platforms.

eg.

Lockheed Martin’s AN/APR-48B system which was designed for the Apache Guardian helicopter is modular and light weight to be fitted on UAVs . and so can be fitted to HUNTER version of LCH will almost zero weight penalty.

as for the FCR it will have to be designed inhouse with Israeli help after studying the American one, a AESA version preferably . private companies might take up the challenge

and plus the datalinks

as already known LCH is a agile and high flying optimized bird with certain stealth qualities , these makes it a optimal platform to be branched off into a version optimized for all of these
1.scouting cum
2.observation cum
3.advance fire control and management cum
4.network node for info management and dissemination


all this will have weight penalty and power penalty so it will be armed with bare minimum defensive weapons and use its LO features and agility and excellent high/low flying qualities to evade detection in the first place,
unlike the upcoming LOH/LUH which is more of a utility helicopter rather than a agile sleek armored high flying light helicopter.


this will be good for
make in India or better still develop in India
a growler (ie HUNTER here ) type version of LCH will increase its appeal
its export potential will grow
Apaches (longbow) will have a smaller sibling to reduce operational load and increase overall effectiveness
never put all eggs in one basket ( USA factor )
it will lay down the technological building blocks which will be helpful when designing/building heavy next gen attack helicopters.

dont blame me i am kind of following APJ kalams advice ie to dream
so dreaming dreams of LCH

I appreciate what you are saying completely, I am just suggesting how the LCH/Apache combo can be maximised as it stands today. That is not to say R&D efforts on the LCH would or will cease, HAL have demonstrated with the ALH their ability to continuosly invest and develop their product and I would absolutely support the continual effort to optimise the LCH.

That said, I think the LCH will be inherently limited by its design and operational profile. Once the LCH is fully operationalised HAL should start looking at making their own heavy attack helicopter.

For now the Apache- LCH hunter killer combo will work very well, in the future naturally one would like to see the Apache replaced by an Indian product. IMO 1 Apache Longbow should be able to support 4-5 LCHs so for a combined IAF/IA LCH fleet of LCH the IAF and IA require a further 40 or so Apache Longbows. Considering the IAF has only outfitted 1/2 of their 22 Apache fleet with the FCR this could mean a further 80 Apaches being required which is feasible- the 22 order has a follow-on clause for 11 more units and the IA is to get 39 units of Apaches themselves, thus only another 30 or so Apaches need to be ordered.


+ you are right to follow the right honourable, late great, APJ Kalam's advice- as long as young Indians think like you his legacy lives on and that is what he wanted above all else

 

[porky_kicker]

I am just suggesting how the LCH/Apache combo can be maximised as it stands today.

your are absolutely right about LCH/Apache combo and my views are also same.

For now the Apache- LCH hunter killer combo will work very well

it will work splendid not a worry.

another important thing, infact a strong requirement from LCH/apache combo perspective is that the LCH will have to undergo significant changes in certain hardware and software (mostly) to enable it to take cueing/all sorts of data from the Apache.
just saying
will the US share all data related to the sub-systems / datalinks which would be required for installation on LCH for interoperability with the Apaches or india will have to develop on her own
we will have to wait and see.

 

[abingdonboy]

another important thing, infact a strong requirement from LCH/apache combo perspective is that the LCH will have to undergo significant changes in certain hardware and software (mostly) to enable it to take cueing/all sorts of data from the Apache.
just saying
will the US share all data related to the sub-systems / datalinks which would be required for installation on LCH for interoperability with the Apaches or india will have to develop on her own
we will have to wait and see.

No worries about that at all this is a minimum requirement to participate in Indian tenders- fitting "user nominated equipment" onboard. All US-origin aircraft in Indian service have had their orginal comns equipment ripped out and had Indian IFFs, datalinks and secure communication equipment installed.

There will be little issue about the LCH and Apache datalinking with one another.

 

[charlie]

your are absolutely right about LCH/Apache combo and my views are also same.



it will work splendid not a worry.

another important thing, infact a strong requirement from LCH/apache combo perspective is that the LCH will have to undergo significant changes in certain hardware and software (mostly) to enable it to take cueing/all sorts of data from the Apache.
just saying
will the US share all data related to the sub-systems / datalinks which would be required for installation on LCH for interoperability with the Apaches or india will have to develop on her own
we will have to wait and see.

It's shitty but at-least it's ours, may be it was from raytheon or GD i am guessing not really sure.

Check SoftNET Radio SDR-2010


http://www.hal-india.com/Common/Uploads/TabbedContentTemplate/1_Down_Combined_brochures.pdf

 

[charlie]

It has nothing to do with costs, it is entirely about doctrine. The ONLY use for the LCH in JK would be as ISR asset primarily because of its EO ball but then the Mi-35s have those and were not employed in JK and now ALHs are getting EO balls fitted to them and UAVs are being employed to a greater degree so it makes little sense to employ a gunship purely for its EO ball and under utilise to such an extent.

If you want to see Iraq-war like footage of LCHs engaging piggies with their 20mm chin-mounted guns then you are going to be left disappointed. The Indian Military/security forces' COIN doctrine focuses on a minimal use of force and an attempt to capture terrorists alive- this is true across the board. In 26/11 once the hostages were evacuated the NSG were aiming to capture as many terrorists as possible alive and this is often why many get frustrated at the length of certain operations but as the IA will tell you- it's better to cordon them off, try and wear them down with the hope of capturing them alive so as to make them squeal and gain valuble informaton rather than needlessly risk the lives of their soldiers.

Well I beg to differ, and I don't have time to counter your post right now. So let's hope I get a chance to post a video after 5 years of ALH and LCH over J&K doing anti-terror operation!!

 

[Chinmoy]

Was there any comparison between LCH & other attack helicopters around the world?
Specially Eurocopter Tiger.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/airc...rm&aircraft1=787&aircraft2=700&Submit=COMPARE

 

[garg_bharat]

They (both airframe and engine) are well past their useful service life.

"The HPT-32 aircraft had persistent problems of engine cuts. The aircraft was grounded due to safety reasons on 31st July, 2009 after a fatal accident due to engine cut."

There is a problem with fuel pump or fuel supply system on the aircraft. It is a technical problem.
The problem with HAL is incompetence in most cases. HAL just sits on problems.

My advice is to take help from foreign experts or private sector. Technical problems can be solved.

 

[MKM]

http://www.militaryfactory.com/airc...rm&aircraft1=787&aircraft2=700&Submit=COMPARE

Too much wrong data. Just look at weight & service celling.

 

[rotormagic]

I beg to differ. Combat helicopters shine on flat land. Mountains are dangerous for helicopters (all types) as too many vantage points to shoot down a helicopter.

Attack aircraft like LCA/Jaguar/Mig-27 are best for mountains as the aircraft can maintain comfortable height above the target so it is not shot down by ground based defences.

Fighting in mountains will always be difficult and will claim higher casualties. Automation of war will only get you so far.

This is a very simplistic view in my opinion.

Tactics have been developed over multiple years towards effective use of helicopters in hills and valleys against small, guerrilla targets or insertion packages for troops where the combat helicopter is the armed escort. It does not mean that dangers have been erased but the easy peril highlighted through the Russian Afghan campaign have been mitigated.

Fighters with their higher speeds and the advantage of height do reduce the chances of being shot down but the same factors work against tracking and targeting small enemy targets in deep valleys and ravines.
_____________________________________________

LCH, for its class of weight is a fantastic machine. Purely speaking from inputs gained in person from present operators, it is a great machine which will challenge the best in the world in terms if Avionics. In aerodynamic performance metrics, some machines may out shine it but above 3kms altitude, it is a world beater against any combat helicopter in both Avionics and Aerodynamics. The weapons systems will complete the 'combat capability package' but these are yet to be finalised though we know some weapons as of now.

 

[garg_bharat]

Hope the tactics works, as shoulder fired sams with density encountered in kargil conflict will be tons of trouble. Reliable countermeasures against ir guided sams are the key.

 

[rotormagic]

Hope the tactics works, as shoulder fired sams with density encountered in kargil conflict will be tons of trouble. Reliable countermeasures against ir guided sams are the key.

Zero casualty will be an unrealistic expectation. If you need to take an enemy from air in hills and valleys in quick time you will need helicopters. A fighter will also have to drop low to engage but in most valleys will not be able to maneuver given high speeds and turn radius requirements.

Tactics (including use of counter measures) are not developed on hope but specifically to counter threat envelopes like you mentioned - MANPADS and SAMs though I do not see much SAM action within valleys which we will most likely engage the enemy .

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Attack aircraft like LCA/Jaguar/Mig-27 are best for mountains as the aircraft can maintain comfortable height above the target so it is not shot down by ground based defences.

Yes but it is not very easy shoot the target from fast moving aircrafts in mountains. At the most you may release the costly guided bomb but you can not shoot the tagret from guns and rockets.

 

[smestarz]

Valleys are unique place in which a small well armed but highly motivated force can hold up a bigger force mainly because of the choke points of the valley in a way favour the defenders.

A jet flying at stand off range can easily shoot down the enemy with its stand off missiles but then it becomes an expensive matter, and will work only if the target is command bunker or troop or weapons concentration then it becomes worth the price

One of the advantage of the valley for defensive forces is that it becomes a nice hunting ground for them if they are using MANPADS, Every plane that enters the valley is a potential target for MANPAD with the odds favouring the MANPAD.

A highly maneuvering plane (single seat) the pilot has to do two jobs of flying the aircraft as well as targeting, and hence becomes an excellent target for a MANPAD.A twin seat (Pilot and WSO) can do a better job but then the plane has to either move slowly to target its dumb weaponry (Guns, rockets and bombs) and thus becomes easy target

Other solution is to use Helicopters, the helicopters can be armed well with rockets and missiles and also with gun. The big problem with gun is that its not accurate, it does not really have the ability to take down armoured targets and importantly, too much wastage, Usually planes carry between 150-350 rounds and the ht probablity is less and high rate of fire, and thus the guns are dry in less than minute of continued firing.

Another is use of well armoured piston engined plane, It can carry more rockets and missiles than helicopter and its more fast and maybe cheaper, but difficult to carry avionics as those carried by helicopter and its not as maneuverable as a helicopter a helicopter can turn in a moment almost on a coin and target, but for targeting the same, a plane has to make a turn which is difficult in a valley.

Thus in a valley, any aircraft of helicopter is eay target for a MANPAD ,
Helicopter can turn better than the planes in a valley,
Against guns like ZSU-23, plane can survive better due to speed, but helicopters are better armoured because they expect guns like ZSU-23 to target them where as planes are designed to be fast enough to evade them

Then in a way requirement is for Light, highly maneuverable and well armed chopper with high speed, More like Ka-52 and AH-64.. or something still better