Apache power: US-made chopper is Indian Army's big move to control aviation assets
Official sources claim that the arrival of the Apache helicopters is not just a boost in firepower—it represents a symbolic shift in the army's growing ambitions to carve out greater control over integrated air-land warfare. The delivery of all six helicopters is expected soon, after which they will be formally inducted and operationalised for deployment.The July 22 delivery is more than just acquisition of cutting-edge hardware—it signals a strategic evolution of India's approach to modern aerial warfare. Built in Mesa, Arizona, the AH-64E is widely regarded as the most advanced multi-role combat helicopter in service globally. It forms the backbone of the US army's attack helicopter fleet and is also part of arsenals of several allied nations, including India.The AH-64E incorporates 26 new technologies to enhance battlefield performance. These include advanced digital connectivity, the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System, more powerful T700-GE-701D engines with enhanced transmissions, improved rotor blades made of composite materials, and the ability to control unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) mid-flight—allowing manned-unmanned teaming in real time. Globally, over 400 AH-64Es have been delivered, and the US army fleet alone has clocked more than 4.5 million flight hours.Even as the Apaches strengthen India's capabilities against Pakistan in the western theatre, a parallel and significant development is unfolding on the eastern front. This March, the defence ministry signed a Rs 62,700 crore (approximately $7.3 billion) contract with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for 156 'Prachand' light combat helicopters, underscoring the increasing role of rotorcraft in India's war-fighting doctrine. These helicopters—66 for the IAF and 90 for the Indian Army—will be delivered over the next five years, with deliveries starting in the third year.advertisementDesigned for high-altitude warfare, the Prachand is tailored to Indian needs, especially for deployment along the contested Himalayan border with China. With modern stealth features, armour protection and potent night-attack capabilities, the helicopter is optimised for precision strikes in extreme terrain. This makes it a vital counter to Chinese advancements in attack helicopter technology.China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) has made significant strides with its Z-10 attack helicopter, also known as the Zhishengji-10 or the 'Fierce Thunderbolt'. Also dubbed the 'Chinese Apache' due to its design resemblance and battlefield role, the Z-10 represents China's growing ambitions to rival the US and western rotorcraft platforms.Together, the arrival of the US-made Apaches and scaling up of India's homegrown Prachand fleet reflect a broader shift in India's aerial doctrine—one that emphasises on layered, terrain-specific attack helicopter capabilities across two distinct fronts. As the global strategic environment evolves, India's twin investments in American and indigenous platforms ensure it retains a credible edge in both desert and mountain warfare.Subscribe to India Today Magazine- EndsMust Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Third US Court Halts Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement the administration looked forward to "being vindicated on appeal." New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was "thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere." "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history," he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen." Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be "tailored to the States' purported financial injuries." Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. "That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes," the judge wrote. "In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic." Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration "are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question," Sorokin wrote. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said last week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is "enshrined in the Constitution," and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a "flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage." They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to "provide essential services" — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to "early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities." At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. "These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment," Jackson, the White House spokeswoman, said in her statement.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Just 50 air-launched weapons pulverised Pak, says IAF vice-chief
NEW DELHI: Less than 50 air-launched weapons fired by India at airbases and radar sites in Pakistan during Operation Sindoor compelled the western adversary to come to the negotiating table and sue for peace, IAF vice chief Air Marshal Narmdeshwar Tiwari said on Friday. "We have discussed a lot about the cost-benefit, especially of air power. There is no greater example I think than what we did in Operation Sindoor. Less than 50 weapons can bring the adversary to the talking is an example that needs to be studied and will be studied (by scholars)," Air Marshal Tiwari said, speaking at an interactive session during an aerospace power seminar here. Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan, in turn, said the armed forces need to maintain "very high" operational readiness round-the-clock and throughout the year because Operation Sindoor "still continues", while stressing that "there are no runners-up in war". Noting that the rapid advances in technology and the ongoing geopolitical churn have ushered in "a third revolution in warfare", the CDS said the Indian military needs "information warriors, technology warriors and scholar warriors" geared for multi-domain operations. It is essential for the military to learn both 'shastra' (warfare/weapons) and 'shaastra' (knowledge), he said. Though Air Marshal Tiwari did not specify the weapons that were used during the May 7-10 hostilities, IAF deployed Sukhoi-30MKI, Rafale and Mirage-2000 fighters to launch BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles as well as Crystal Maze-2, Rampage and Scalp missiles for the calibrated pinpoint strikes on the Pakistani airbases and radar sites, a few of them close to nuclear facilities as well as command and control structures The IAF vice chief also said manned systems like fighters "still have a huge advantage" over unmanned systems like drones, in terms of the "compellence" and "coercive diplomacy" to be imposed on an adversary, and will continue to do so for some time. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Dig Into the Data and Decide: Is Nvidia Still a Core AI Play? Seeking Alpha Read Now Undo "We are giving too much importance to unmanned systems. While they have a place and relevance in modern warfare, but the kind of weight of attack, the intelligence required, the kind of damage they can have to see whether they balance with what manned aerial systems bring to the table," he said. Different speakers at the "Capstone" seminar organised by the Centre for Air Power Studies and College of Air Warfare stressed the need for India to "prioritise" the development of aerospace power, which was "not escalatory" but "a strategic and effective tool for escalation control" as was witnessed during Operation Sindoor. "Operation Sindoor underlined the speed, reach and flexibility of airpower. We established escalation dominance over Pakistan," said a speaker. Others pointed out that India had drawn a new red line for Pakistan by stressing it will not be dissuaded by the western adversary's nuclear blackmail and continue to give cross-border kinetic responses to terror attacks in the future as well.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
American-born babies are American: Judge halts Trump birthright citizenship order
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents, calling the move unconstitutional and legally ruling by US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston marks the third federal court to stop the executive order in its tracks since the Supreme Court last month narrowed the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide Sorokin ruled that an exception applied in this case, where more than a dozen states demonstrated real financial harm tied to the order. 'A patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states,' Sorokin wrote, noting the high mobility of residents between states and slamming the administration's failure to explain how a more limited injunction would function.'They have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.'The decision maintains a nationwide injunction that preserves birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, pending further review by the courts. Sorokin added that his ruling is not the final word on the issue, but emphasized the constitutional implications of the executive action.'The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen,' Sorokin said. 'Trump and his administration are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment but for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.'The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of states led by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who hailed the ruling as a critical defence of constitutional norms.'American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' Platkin said in a statement. 'I'm thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.'Government lawyers had argued that the injunction should be limited in scope to states' financial interests. Still, Sorokin rejected the idea, saying the administration failed to offer any coherent legal or administrative plan for how such limits would is the third time the executive order has been blocked. Earlier this month, a federal judge in New Hampshire prohibited the rule in a class-action lawsuit. That decision went into effect after no appeal was filed. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco also ruled against the order, upholding a nationwide injunction.A fourth ruling may be on the way. A Maryland judge said she would issue a similar decision if the appeals court agrees. - EndsWith inputs from Associated Press
