LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 31 Mar 2010 20:40

ArmenT wrote:From a post off of milphotos:

http://www.google.com/squared/table/agN ... hFuwwk7wfw

Comparison table of LCH and other attack helos (with references of where this information came from.)

That table is horribly wrong in some cases. Just take a look at the Chinese WZ-10 with an "empty weight" of 6000kgs ? and loaded at 5500kgs ?? and for a price of about $2 million ??? . Those figures just don't add up!

The thing that is most glaring ( IMO ) about the LCH, from that table, is how underpowered the LCH really is comparatively!

Also, they forgot to add a very important gunship there- the AH-1Z SuperCobra!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 Mar 2010 20:46

Brando wrote: The thing that is most glaring ( IMO ) about the LCH, from that table, is how underpowered the LCH really is comparatively!

That table does not mention anything about the engine power of the helos listed. The cruise speed (as per the table) isn't bad and the service ceiling is the highest. So where did the underpowered bit come from?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Mar 2010 20:47

^^ I can spot some mistakes right away.

> apache operating altitude can barely touch 20000 feet, I remember reports that apache pilots had serious trouble just crossing the mountains in afg.
LCH figure of 6500 m however is combat ceiling, it can go much higher to 26000 feet and above in clean config. if you quote combat ceiling for one (LCH) you should also quote combat ceiling for the others , it would be 4500 metres or less for all the others.

> quoted LCH speed is simply the dhruv's speed IIRC. actual speed should be significantly higher.

> the person got confused between loaded wt and max T/O weight for all helos. loaded weight = empty wt + fuel + weapon pylons.

> $ 2 mn for WZ-10 sounds extremely dubious.

even slave labour has its limits.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 31 Mar 2010 20:51

Here is a fairly decent picture of the LCH on it's maiden flight.

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4087 ... flight.jpg

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Mar 2010 20:54

Brando wrote:The thing that is most glaring ( IMO ) about the LCH, from that table, is how underpowered the LCH really is comparatively!

LCH has the HIGHEST pwr to wt ratio of all the attack helicopters in that list except rooivalk.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 31 Mar 2010 20:56

Well, the nice thing about this table is that you can make a copy and edit it to your heart's content. Perhaps a corrected BRF version of this table is in order.

All sources for the information are listed if you click on the individual cells. In the case of the Chinese chopper, the info comes from mostly Chinese sources, so take it for what it is worth.

Ashish J · Post by **Ashish J** » 31 Mar 2010 20:58

Kartik wrote:
Ashish J wrote:Matlab,, its seems only rear seat and a couple of changes are done from Dhruv WSI in LCH.
The finishing also looks a bit off....
Sori 2 insert a -ve comment, though i also feel elated dat it has finally taken off
thanks for your comments. yes only rear seat inserted baaki all same to same. shown your knowledge ? EDIT.

I think my comments have been taken out of context...
the point i was trying to make was the similarity between Dhruv WSI and LCH,which is understandable as LCH is a derivative of Dhruv only.
Regarding finish,,it was just an opinion,,,however the flak i received seemed a bit unwarranted,, as i thought everybody has a right to express his/her opinion...
I might have been wrong,,but could have been corrected by facts like Mr. Rahul did...
As far as knowlege is concerned,,i am not a military professional, just a civilian professional who happens to be a military enthusiast...and i am really sorry if that post of mine was so offensive,,,,however, still believe there was a politer way out...
JAi Hind..

SandeepS · Post by **SandeepS** » 31 Mar 2010 21:32

chetak wrote:Here is a fairly decent picture of the LCH on it's maiden flight.

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4087 ... flight.jpg

Is that the second LCH airframe behind the crash tender? The rear stabilisers/tail-planes and rear skid look similar to the in-flight LCH.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Mar 2010 21:35

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 31 Mar 2010 21:38

Nope it's a Dhruv!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 Mar 2010 21:54

SandeepS wrote:
chetak wrote:Here is a fairly decent picture of the LCH on it's maiden flight.

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4087 ... flight.jpg
Is that the second LCH airframe behind the crash tender? The rear stabilisers/tail-planes and rear skid look similar to the in-flight LCH.

Nice Observation. I have that pic as my wallpaper but hadn't noticed that. It definitely looks like an LCH.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 31 Mar 2010 21:56

It looks like a Dhruv or a Dhruv mockup. Look at the "rod-like" thing underneath the tail. That is a distinctly Dhruv feature

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 31 Mar 2010 21:58

Actually you're right. It is the Dhruv, my bad!

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 31 Mar 2010 21:59

Rahul M wrote:LCH has the HIGHEST pwr to wt ratio of all the attack helicopters in that list except rooivalk.

That's hilarious! You can believe that if you want!

Disregarding the WZ-10 and considering that the rest of them are actually operational for quite a while the LCH stats are on a poster, I'll buy into the HAL propaganda when they actually deliver!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Mar 2010 22:02

Brando wrote:
Rahul M wrote:LCH has the HIGHEST pwr to wt ratio of all the attack helicopters in that list except rooivalk.
That's hilarious! You can believe that if you want!

quit trolling and calculate the values yourself.

munna · Post by **munna** » 31 Mar 2010 22:02

Brando wrote:
Rahul M wrote:LCH has the HIGHEST pwr to wt ratio of all the attack helicopters in that list except rooivalk.
That's hilarious! You can believe that if you want!

Numbers and references please or else stop bellowing hot air.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Mar 2010 22:34

That 20mm gun where is it from?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Mar 2010 22:37

nexter, france.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Mar 2010 22:38

Does OFB make the ammo for it? And plan to make it in house eventually?

Nexter is new name for old GIAT. Which model is this 20mm gun?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Mar 2010 23:15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M621_cannon

karthik · Post by **karthik** » 01 Apr 2010 00:28

Finally finally finally..!! Its a great relief this baby is up and flying, this really makes my entire year. I was very skeptical about the March date for the maiden flight but HAL did it and three cheers for that. Its seems HAL is becoming quite the pro with Helios.

The design is a killer but the co-pilots view seems to be a bit restricted?

However i have a doubt, wasnt there an issue with attack helicopters and mountains war fare.! The Hinds where literally taken down with stones and stingers to the rotors. So is it a good idea to use attack helios for mountain warfare?

Also, considering that the LCH service ceiling is 21,000ft i am guess they severely compromised on the Armour to achieve this service ceiling. The question is would there be a more heavily armored version for the plains and desert warfare?!

P.S. Is that the "Super King" logo on the LCH!! Go HAL..

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Apr 2010 00:37

karthik wrote:......The design beats anything out there but the co-pilots view seems to be a bit restricted? {compared to other helos, no. even otherwise, co-pilot's primary instrument will be the HMDS, he won't need to see everything with eyeball Mk1.}

However i have a doubt, wasnt there an issue with attack helicopters and mountains war fare.! The Hinds where literally taken down with stones and stingers to the rotors. So is it a good idea to use attack helios at for mountain warfare? {that's because the hinds had very very low reserve power at altitude, unlike the LCH. that meant that the hinds could not hover at those altitudes and had to attack in a run. I wrote a little on it once. http://brfrahulm.blogspot.com/2008/07/m ... oviet.html

LCH OTOH will retain hover ability up to a very high altitude, well above 15000 feet.}

Also, considering that the LCH service ceiling is 21,000ft i am guess the compromised on the Armour!! {not really. the pilots area is proof against 12.7 mm fire, that's as good as any other attack helo AFAIK}The question is would there be a more heavily armored version for the plains and desert warfare?! {IMHO it would do better to keep the weight low and be nimble. the active defence systems will help immensely.}

Sandipan · Post by **Sandipan** » 01 Apr 2010 00:56

Will Rear pilots restricted view will be a problem, if LCH flies in slant manner with its chin down? The Rear pilot can look through front as well a ceiling glass with chin down flying.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 01 Apr 2010 01:12

SandeepS wrote:
chetak wrote:Here is a fairly decent picture of the LCH on it's maiden flight.

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4087 ... flight.jpg
Is that the second LCH airframe behind the crash tender? The rear stabilisers/tail-planes and rear skid look similar to the in-flight LCH.

Its the WSI Dhruv, If you look closly you can see the tail of the animal graphics of the WSI Dhruv

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Apr 2010 01:34

Yes it is Dhruv , the tail boom has more of a circular cross section unlike the angular one for the LCH .

karthik · Post by **karthik** » 01 Apr 2010 02:13

Rahul M wrote:
karthik wrote:......The design beats anything out there but the co-pilots view seems to be a bit restricted? {compared to other helos, no. even otherwise, co-pilot's primary instrument will be the HMDS, he won't need to see everything with eyeball Mk1.}

However i have a doubt, wasnt there an issue with attack helicopters and mountains war fare.! The Hinds where literally taken down with stones and stingers to the rotors. So is it a good idea to use attack helios at for mountain warfare? {that's because the hinds had very very low reserve power at altitude, unlike the LCH. that meant that the hinds could not hover at those altitudes and had to attack in a run. I wrote a little on it once. http://brfrahulm.blogspot.com/2008/07/m ... oviet.html

LCH OTOH will retain hover ability up to a very high altitude, well above 15000 feet.}

Also, considering that the LCH service ceiling is 21,000ft i am guess the compromised on the Armour!! {not really. the pilots area is proof against 12.7 mm fire, that's as good as any other attack helo AFAIK}The question is would there be a more heavily armored version for the plains and desert warfare?! {IMHO it would do better to keep the weight low and be nimble. the active defence systems will help immensely.}

I read through your blog, it was very well written and elaborate. However we have to wait and see how much of these natural flaws with attack helios the LCH will over come. Stability and accuracy at high altitude along with load carrying capability are the two main criterion HAL will be aiming, if i have understood them as the main problems. This however leaves still significant room for trails and R&D to improve on the reliability of these functions. Which means that we have still a long way to go before these criterion are meet, considering no other attack helicopter have proved in that terrain.

Apart from that they could reduce some glass on the mid row, may be the bottom middle is not necessary if its only for aesthetics, does not seem to be of any use for visibility!

All said i am very excited to see this baby evolve.

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 01 Apr 2010 02:16

This will be the year that DRDO comes into its own, with Arjun bitch-slapping the T-90, LCH flying, LCA getting MMR and becoming a true multi-role fighter, Nag getting inducted, WSI-Dhruv maturing and paving the way for the LCH, Agni V being tested or coming close to it, Akash getting inducted in large numbers...

It's so good to see so many of DRDO's programs tasting success, as they rightly deserved. The path has been difficult, but an honest struggle is always worth the sweat, and that's now being proved by DRDO. The best part about doing the hard work early on is that things only get easier and better as time progresses.

Now if we can only clear up the mess in the production houses. All the new technology coming down the DRDO pipeline needs to be efficiently and timely absorbed.

Coming back to LCH, I want a photograph of this beauty from the front! That will be my wallpaper.

karthik · Post by **karthik** » 01 Apr 2010 02:28

^^ Definitely a moral booster for every body, i agree! May be they should name it as lucky, wonder whats the right translation in Sanskrit or may be just skip the mambo jumbo and name it in Tamil. Call it Surra(Shark) or Black Shark, because it looks like one.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Apr 2010 02:28

Ashish J wrote: I think my comments have been taken out of context...
the point i was trying to make was the similarity between Dhruv WSI and LCH,which is understandable as LCH is a derivative of Dhruv only.
Regarding finish,,it was just an opinion,,,however the flak i received seemed a bit unwarranted,, as i thought everybody has a right to express his/her opinion...
I might have been wrong,,but could have been corrected by facts like Mr. Rahul did...
As far as knowlege is concerned,,i am not a military professional, just a civilian professional who happens to be a military enthusiast...and i am really sorry if that post of mine was so offensive,,,,however, still believe there was a politer way out...
JAi Hind..

Your original comment was

Matlab,, its seems only rear seat and a couple of changes are done from Dhruv WSI in LCH.
The finishing also looks a bit off....

"only rear seat and couple of changes"…seriously ? Do you want me to enumerate how many changes have been made ?
What visual similarity do you see in the fuselage of the Dhruv and LCH ? Ok, lets compare the WSI Dhruv and LCH since your original claim was that ..

The LCH is nearly half the width of the Dhruv's fuselage, it's got angles that the Dhruv doesn't, its canopy is totally different, its wing stubs are totally new (not at all similar to the WSI Dhruv either) and it has a completely different landing gear configuration, seats are totally different due to higher crashworthiness requirements and the exhaust looks and is shaped differently compared to the WSI Dhruv..

If you didn't know that the LCH was derived from a Dhruv, I can bet my bottom rupiah that you wouldn’t ever be able to guess its origins. Their visual similarities are only in the tail and the tail rotor design which has been kept unchanged..that is simply done because you don't have to change the tail on the LCH, its good enough for a gunship.

Besides, even if there were minor changes to the fuselage from a layperson's point of view (of which there are much more than minor in this case), it entails a huge amount of engineering effort in the background which will piss off anyone in the aviation business when someone comes up with flippant remarks on "seems like only couple of changes from WSI Dhruv" as if they're playing with putty or doing carpenter giri.

Do you have any idea how much effort it takes to get a new variant out with nothing more than a simple fuselage plug ? Externally the only difference may be the length but the amount of work that goes into that redesign is not to be underestimated.
They'd have had a dedicated team of designers, analysts, manufacturing engineers, etc after the preliminary work of designing the fuselage is done (which itself must have taken time considering that they actually did radar cross/section analysis with RCS models prepared by some private firm in B'lore- this is a first in India since the MCA is still to have its design frozen from what I know).

Plenty of study and analysis is required since the requirements from a dedicated attack helicopter like the LCH are somewhat different from those of a troop carrier with firepower like the WSI Dhruv. For instance, I doubt that the WSI Dhruv can take 12.7 mm hits and withstand it..maybe some localised strengthening may have been done for critical areas. They would have needed separate teams working on the armour for the LCH since it has to be lightweight and high strength. When the technology for that is ready, you start designing and analysing panels that can be built using those materials. Structure (panels, metallic frames, etc.) changes as the fuselage changes from that of the Dhruv, stress analysis is required to see that it works for the designed life of the helo (a very involved process), drawings change, integration has to be checked, more redundancy may be introduced to critical hydraulic and other systems to cater for battle damage that may otherwise cripple the gunship, manufacturing tooling changes from those for the Dhruv, certification is required..

As for finish, please point out what it is that you find on the LCH that requires better finish and for what purpose and I'll respond accordingly. Is it the access panels that you're talking about ? And please enumerate the disadvantages of the finish that the LCH has. We can discuss from there on.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 01 Apr 2010 02:52

karthik wrote:^^ Definitely a moral booster for every body, i agree! May be they should name it as lucky, wonder whats the right translation in Sanskrit or may be just skip the mambo jumbo and name it in Tamil. Call it Surra(Shark) or Black Shark, because it looks like one.

Just FYI, the Ka 50 is already called the 'Black Shark'. Did not get the idea behind naming it in Tamil.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 01 Apr 2010 06:29

Talking about visibility.. here is a picture of Apache Canopy

Notice the convex shape of the glass. Could that be to provide better visibility of things right underneath.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 01 Apr 2010 08:15

a_kumar wrote:Notice the convex shape of the glass. Could that be to provide better visibility of things right underneath.

That is doubtful. The avionics bays on either side completely block the view underneath.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Apr 2010 08:38

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-56_Cheyenne

featuring rotating gunner's seat (front seat) and a tail mounted thrusting propeller.

unique, expensive and cancelled in favour of the cheaper AH-62A later.

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 01 Apr 2010 09:22

Any jingo speculation on names for the LCH?

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 01 Apr 2010 10:16

K_Rohit wrote:Any jingo speculation on names for the LCH?

http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/reprints/sa ... waroad.jpg

"Jarawa" - the fiercely independent tribe of the Andamans. It has been a long due that those brave people get more recognition. Although the Indian naval support facility in Port Blair is named as INS Jarawa, it would have been more apt to use the legendary name known for their suprise raids and attacks for an attack helicopter rather than a naval support facility. And no, i am not trying to imitate the americans by naming the attack helicopters with tribal names. It is a genuine wish.

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 01 Apr 2010 11:32

How about Prachanda

Not as Pushpa Kumar Dhamal, but as Prachanda = Fierce in Sanskrit.

This will actually be a correct name for a naval destroyer. Just imagine INS Prachanda. Fearsome, isn't it? Also not bad for an attack chopper either.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 01 Apr 2010 12:00

Respectful greetings to all BRFites from this newbie

Continuing the Sanskrit star name convention as with Dhruv (Pole Star), then how about "Lubdhaka" (Sirius or Dog Star), translating as 'Hunter' in Sanskrit...

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 01 Apr 2010 12:14

Aagney = Sun of Fire God

Achyut = Impresihable, Stable, will also go well with the helcopter family, Dhruv, Achyut etc.

Arindam = Destroyer of Enemies

Nirbhay = Fearless (especially the pilots sitting in glass walled 'bathtub')

Rudra = Terrible

Ashish J · Post by **Ashish J** » 01 Apr 2010 12:55

Kartik wrote:
Ashish J wrote: I think my comments have been taken out of context...
the point i was trying to make was the similarity between Dhruv WSI and LCH,which is understandable as LCH is a derivative of Dhruv only.
Regarding finish,,it was just an opinion,,,however the flak i received seemed a bit unwarranted,, as i thought everybody has a right to express his/her opinion...
I might have been wrong,,but could have been corrected by facts like Mr. Rahul did...
As far as knowlege is concerned,,i am not a military professional, just a civilian professional who happens to be a military enthusiast...and i am really sorry if that post of mine was so offensive,,,,however, still believe there was a politer way out...
JAi Hind..
Your original comment was
Matlab,, its seems only rear seat and a couple of changes are done from Dhruv WSI in LCH.
The finishing also looks a bit off....
"only rear seat and couple of changes"…seriously ? Do you want me to enumerate how many changes have been made ?
What visual similarity do you see in the fuselage of the Dhruv and LCH ? Ok, lets compare the WSI Dhruv and LCH since your original claim was that ..

The LCH is nearly half the width of the Dhruv's fuselage, it's got angles that the Dhruv doesn't, its canopy is totally different, its wing stubs are totally new (not at all similar to the WSI Dhruv either) and it has a completely different landing gear configuration, seats are totally different due to higher crashworthiness requirements and the exhaust looks and is shaped differently compared to the WSI Dhruv..

If you didn't know that the LCH was derived from a Dhruv, I can bet my bottom rupiah that you wouldn’t ever be able to guess its origins. Their visual similarities are only in the tail and the tail rotor design which has been kept unchanged..that is simply done because you don't have to change the tail on the LCH, its good enough for a gunship.

Besides, even if there were minor changes to the fuselage from a layperson's point of view (of which there are much more than minor in this case), it entails a huge amount of engineering effort in the background which will piss off anyone in the aviation business when someone comes up with flippant remarks on "seems like only couple of changes from WSI Dhruv" as if they're playing with putty or doing carpenter giri.

Do you have any idea how much effort it takes to get a new variant out with nothing more than a simple fuselage plug ? Externally the only difference may be the length but the amount of work that goes into that redesign is not to be underestimated.
They'd have had a dedicated team of designers, analysts, manufacturing engineers, etc after the preliminary work of designing the fuselage is done (which itself must have taken time considering that they actually did radar cross/section analysis with RCS models prepared by some private firm in B'lore- this is a first in India since the MCA is still to have its design frozen from what I know).

Plenty of study and analysis is required since the requirements from a dedicated attack helicopter like the LCH are somewhat different from those of a troop carrier with firepower like the WSI Dhruv. For instance, I doubt that the WSI Dhruv can take 12.7 mm hits and withstand it..maybe some localised strengthening may have been done for critical areas. They would have needed separate teams working on the armour for the LCH since it has to be lightweight and high strength. When the technology for that is ready, you start designing and analysing panels that can be built using those materials. Structure (panels, metallic frames, etc.) changes as the fuselage changes from that of the Dhruv, stress analysis is required to see that it works for the designed life of the helo (a very involved process), drawings change, integration has to be checked, more redundancy may be introduced to critical hydraulic and other systems to cater for battle damage that may otherwise cripple the gunship, manufacturing tooling changes from those for the Dhruv, certification is required..

As for finish, please point out what it is that you find on the LCH that requires better finish and for what purpose and I'll respond accordingly. Is it the access panels that you're talking about ? And please enumerate the disadvantages of the finish that the LCH has. We can discuss from there on.

Mr Karthik,,this was exactly the post i was expecting to my initial post...
This post of yours clarifies all my misinformation in the most constructive manner...Thanks..Peace..

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 01 Apr 2010 13:00

We already have Agni as a name for a missile series. Our already confused DDM's won't be able to make the difference.

Nirbhay - We have it already for a cruise missile under development.

Achyut & Arindam - Even though their meaning is suitable, they are not sounding ferocious.

Rudra - Don't know. Sounds good. But, will be good for an MBT, may be.