a Less than a decade after its inaugural flight, the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited-designed and manufactured Light Combat Helicopter has been produced. Involved In the 143 Helicopter Unit of the Indian Air Force at Jodhpur. Christened the ragged, loud-sounding LCH was the first ‘Handed over’ to IAF In November 2021, in Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. While the LCH was ‘handed over’ by the Prime Minister to the Indian Air Force, the induction ceremony at Jodhpur was presided over by the Defense Minister.
The dual program of handing over/inducting the LCH into India’s army still doesn’t answer the age-old debate – who owns the machine? In the history of military aviation, the dispute has seen its longest running episode in India. The Army and the Air Force have fought over ownership of attack helicopters since the venerable Mi-25 Akbar was first inducted into the Indian Air Force in 1984. Unlike other countries where the debate has been settled for a long time, this conflict of ownership continues in India. finished in sight. The orders given to Prachanda are proof of this duality.
Read also: Indian armed forces can no longer turn a blind eye to religious politics
Attack helicopters and their ‘positioning’
cabinet committee on security Approved On 30 March 2022, 15 LCHs will be procured, and inexplicably, ten of these will be for the Indian Air Force and five for the Army. Being a limited series production version, the LCH Prachanda cannot live up to its fiery name Lacks critical weapons and security systems, There is still time to be fully prepared to meet its operational requirements and match the threat it carries in its name. There is still plenty of time to address the ongoing question in military aviation circles – what is the purpose of operation of attack helicopters, the nature of their deployment and ultimately the issues associated with command and control. The origins of the controversy are essentially about how to deploy attack helicopters.
The absence of codified post-fighting principles covering all spectrum operations has meant that ad-hoc over procurement of the fighter platform has continued for decades. Of course, the prime example, the purchase of the Sukhoi-30 when the IAF had no doctrine, and certainly not one for dual-seat fighter aircraft. When the lack of pilots is endemic, tying the two into one aircraft defies logic, and still happens regardless of the aircraft’s capabilities. Lack of awareness at the executive level perpetuates such decision-making, and LCH is another manifestation of that ignorance. It’s not just about splitting ownership two-to-one, but understanding the essence of attack helicopter operations.
The development of the helicopter is a result of the persistence of the army leadership to achieve a close air support platform for the troops fighting on the ground. Fighter fixed-wing aircraft, with high speeds, and limited time on target, were of little value to those keeping their boots on the ground. The supporting roles performed by helicopters gradually evolved into armed versions. And as the nature of warfare changed, the resulting post-war theories evolved, even as the types of combat and assault began to be deployed. Over time, they came to be called anything from flying tanks to gunships, such as their usefulness for ground operations.
army case
Across three continents, that old Mi-25 has destroyed tanks and other high-value targets. For example, it is also capable of enlisting eight soldiers. This versatility of roles has ensured that the Army leadership sticks to its insistence on ownership of these platforms.
As armies, around the world, have taken away ownership of combat helicopters to support their troops, close air support is less on the pegging order of the Air Force’s operational tasks. The underlying motive is that advancing troops needed dedicated air cover that could carry armored vehicles as well as bullet boxes and other fortifications. This belief in dedicated air cover comes from the uniform color uniform and shape of the flying wings. Therefore the distribution of 15 LCH disregards military logic and understanding. as they quarreled over it buy apache Earlier, both the services had to face similar debate this time too.
Which is the only fixed-wing aircraft to match or be better than a combat helicopter for destroying tanks and other targets on the ground during combat? A-10 During the first Gulf War. This was the same terrain that India may face if it ever enters a conventional conflict. It has no aircraft of its utility in any air force anywhere in the world, but it is slow, unattractive and heavy due to its armor plating. But due to fitment with air superiority, it has no buyer in India. Army planners will not say that the ultimate underwriter of air superiority is your own soldier occupying enemy airspace.
Manvendra Singh is a Congress leader, Editor-in-Chief of Defense and Security Alert and Chairman of Rajasthan Sainik Welfare Advisory Committee. He tweeted @ManvendraJasol. Thoughts are personal.
(Edited by Anurag Choubey)