Live data from Hacker News

Indian Air Force inducts natively developed light combat helicopter ‘Prachanda’

amritmahotsav.nic.in

151–160 of 174 posts

Re: Indian Air Force inducts natively developed light combat helicopter ‘Prachanda’

#151
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The runtime cost of helicopters is pretty terrible, though. You can easily exceed the cost of several expendable "switchblade" type drones simply taking off and flying to the target.

Apples and oranges. A switchblade is only ever useful against a target. It doesn't have the firepower to suppress enemy movement, to cover an allied advance, or decimate an area of ground when you cannot pinpoint a target's exact position. A helicopter with some FFARs and a machine gun can. If the helicopter can do something that no drone can, then it does compete regardless of the extra cost/complexity/manpower need…

Exactly this, it ludicrous to try and compare the cost of a handful of switchblade drones, which are single use with a warhead equivalent to a light mortar shell, to an entire attack helicopter deployment.

No question helps are very expensive, but the vast majority of the costs are incurred whether you deploy it or not. They can range over hundreds of miles performing a wide variety of tasks and carry far more capable sensor, communications and weapon systems than drones.

As I said I think drones are here and very capable, and they’re the future for these sorts of missions, but we’re not quite there yet.

Re: Indian Air Force inducts natively developed light combat helicopter ‘Prachanda’

#152
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but this is an allocation problem. Is it feasible for India to allocate 100% of its budget to toilets when it has border conflicts with its neighbors and terrorism around?

India has nukes, so they're undoubtedly overspending on defense.

Russia has nukes. Does it look like they are winning? Nukes are for last resort. No one is going to use nukes in limited conflicts.

Re: Indian Air Force inducts natively developed light combat helicopter ‘Prachanda’

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I dunno. I don't think there's any productive discussion possible with people who are (for some reason) willing to ignore context and widen your claims so you can be wrong. I feel like you may be in need of some introspection.

I agree with you, my comments were sarcastic :)

:O Oh, boy, my apologies! I fell hard to Poe's Law there...

Re: Indian Air Force inducts natively developed light combat helicopter ‘Prachanda’

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, my comments were sarcastic :)

:O Oh, boy, my apologies! I fell hard to Poe's Law there...

It was a pretty good response anyway, haha. "May be in need for some introspection" is always a classic.

Re: Indian Air Force inducts natively developed light combat helicopter ‘Prachanda’

#155
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why continue to use the incorrect and offensive term “indians”? You even quoted it, so I’m confused why you used it at all.

As I said, "in an ironic twist of linguistic history". This is a story about a new helicopter, in India. But in the america's long ago "indian" was applied to indigenous groups by people looking for a route to India who didn't know where they were. And then, centuries later, the names for those groups were adopted as names for American helicopters. It is a long joke that I guess not everyone can appreciate.

Thanks! It totally went over my head, I thought you must have had some justification due to the quotes.

Re: Indian Air Force inducts natively developed light combat helicopter ‘Prachanda’

#156
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a bit bizarre given the role the US Army played in that genocide. But the Army does only use those tribal names with formal permission from the tribes themselves.

Interesting! Do you have any more information on that? Never knew.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Inside-DOD/Blog/article/2052989...

Re: Indian Air Force inducts natively developed light combat helicopter ‘Prachanda’

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your reasoning, Germany and Italy are siding with Russia too, by buying Russian oil and gas. Physician, heal thyself. First let the EU stop buying Russian oil and gas, and then they can preach to others.

Did you read the article? "Despite U.S.-led efforts to isolate Russia’s economy and hasten the war’s end, India has chosen to increase imports of Russian oil ten-fold, while increasing that of fertilizer eight-fold. Together with China, Indian purchases of Russian goods have largely negated the effect of transatlantic energy sanctions, and India further funds Russia’s war machine by purchasing big-ticket items, such…

I read the article. And, unlike the blatantly biased article, I used my brain cells too.

"India has chosen to increase imports of Russian oil ten-fold,..."

These numbers mean nothing if we don't know the absolute numbers. So, for example, if India was buying In any case: India has slowed down purchases from Russia now: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Why-India-Is-Suddenly-...

They have always maintained that they have a large population to support, and will go for the cheapest option out there.

BTW: there is nothing stopping countries like Germany and USA from opening their checkbooks and subsidizing Indian oil purchases to help them buy more Saudi or African oil. Nothing. Don't expect a country with 1/10 the GDP of the US to harm its economy to fight someone else's war.

Re: Indian Air Force inducts natively developed light combat helicopter ‘Prachanda’

#158
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why continue to use the incorrect and offensive term “indians”? You even quoted it, so I’m confused why you used it at all.

Because it’s not offensive or incorrect. American Indians have adopted and use the term themselves. Most official American Indian organizations are named as such, and not as “Native American” or “First Nations”, though the latter is also catching on, especially in Canada.

Like the AIM -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement

Re: Indian Air Force inducts natively developed light combat helicopter ‘Prachanda’

#159
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting! Do you have any more information on that? Never knew.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Inside-DOD/Blog/article/2052989...

The only information there resembling 'formal permission' is this quote -

>On June 10, 2012, Lakota elders ritually blessed two new South Dakota Army National Guard UH-72A Lakotas at a traditional ceremony on the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota. Ceremonies like these happened often over the past several decades.

Re: Indian Air Force inducts natively developed light combat helicopter ‘Prachanda’

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article? "Despite U.S.-led efforts to isolate Russia’s economy and hasten the war’s end, India has chosen to increase imports of Russian oil ten-fold, while increasing that of fertilizer eight-fold. Together with China, Indian purchases of Russian goods have largely negated the effect of transatlantic energy sanctions, and India further funds Russia’s war machine by purchasing big-ticket items, such…

I read the article. And, unlike the blatantly biased article, I used my brain cells too. "India has chosen to increase imports of Russian oil ten-fold,..." These numbers mean nothing if we don't know the absolute numbers. So, for example, if India was buying In any case: India has slowed down purchases from Russia now: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Why-India-Is-Suddenly-... They have always maintained that th…

India now gets about 12-18% of its oil from Russia (depends on how you count "indirect" purchases). The problem with embargoing Russian oil is that they are the no. 2 exporter (about 11% of Global exports). Basically Russia produces about 10-11 million barrels per day (mbd) but only uses about 3 mbd domestically, allowing them to export the remaining 7-8 million. The US produces more, but it consumes most of what it produces, leaving it as the No. 3 exporter, and that number is falling as we pull back on oil exploration and investment, making Russia and Saudi Arabia more important each year to the global oil market.

Demand for oil is relatively inelastic -- e.g. estimates are something like -.05 in the short term and -.03 in the long term. So just disappearing Russian oil from the market would result in a ~220% increase in oil prices (a very rough estimate, but a ballpark) -- oil would cost roughly $200. That would destroy the world economy and cause mass starvation as well.

So what happens is that an embargo is created and the supply drops, and prices go up, by, say, $20, and then Russia comes along and says "We'll give you a $15 discount if you buy our oil". Then there are lots of buyers, of which India is only one, that agree to this. The end result is that Russia makes $5 more per barrel than before the embargo, but they sell a bit less oil. Everyone else pays a bit more. As this happens, word gets out that Russia is selling oil for $15 below market and the world price falls. As the price falls, the discount narrows. Presently, the discount is $5 (and it's still falling).

In the same way, the US and Europe continue to buy Russian oil, often laundered through third parties. But they all pretend that they have moved off of Russian oil, even though everyone knows it's just gone through some shell companies.

There are now attempts to set a price cap on Russian oil by the G7 nations -- Russia sells about 3 mbd to G7 nations now. But again, this same process will happen. Russia will say "no, I won't sell to you at this low price", at which point the G7 nations have to get their oil from somewhere else, and they outbid existing buyers so the price goes up, then Russia offers a discount that's a little bit lower than the price increase, and prices fall down a bit, but not all the way to what they were before. Russia makes more money per barrel, but sells a bit less. Everyone else pays more per barrel.

Many don't remember the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, but basically OPEC announced it was refusing to sell oil to Western powers in order to punish them for supporting Israel in the 1973 war. At that time, people understood that not being able to buy OPEC oil would cause them to suffer, but that knowledge appears to have been lost, and now we are imposing self-embargoes of oil against the No 2 supplier. But the world is a lot bigger now, with most of Russia's oil being sold to Asia, and Asia still understands the basic supply-demand relationships that the West appears to have forgotten. You can't expect the world to voluntarily agree to $200 oil. They will continue to buy from the lowest bidder, even if the G7 nations self-impose a higher price for their own purchases.

All these attempts to prevent two nations from trading in commodities -- e.g. banning the insurance of Russian oil in London -- don't actually work, as both China and Russia now offer insurance on Russian oil and also maintain their own fleet of tankers and there is a vast network of pipelines running across central asia. The result will again be that the market share of London insurers will fall as ships are insured elsewhere. The economic share of shipping in Europe will fall as other nations' fleets are used, etc. Oil is just too important to the functioning of the global economy for nations to agree to a doubling of its price.

Post reply on HN