LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4231
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by saip »

HariNair: your suspicions are right. Indian Express is a paid rag and it censures comments it does not like. I do not see your reply to airwarrior. Obviously removed.
Hari Nair
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 17:37
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Hari Nair »

putnanja wrote:What I don't get is, if Dhruv can operate at Siachen with greater payloads, won't it better than a lighter helicopter like LUH etc? One reason being that they are more powerful, and also being heavier will be more controllable in wind gusts etc?
The Glacier has small postage stamp-sized helipads and some small helipads perched on fragile ice-pillars. So the case for a small, light-weight helicopter is definitely justified . However, bad-mouthing the Mk-III to buttress their case for light helicopters is DEAD WRONG - as I had already pointed out. What's particularly galling is that chap 'Air Warrior' putting on that holier-than-thou air about all things indigenous being rotten. There are enough skeletons in the cupboard regarding the acquisitions of even Russian / Soviet helicopters such as the Mi-17, Mi-17IV, some of which have already been red-inked by the CAG. This thick-headed bloke is probably blissfully unaware of those aspects.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by putnanja »

Hari Nair wrote:
putnanja wrote:What I don't get is, if Dhruv can operate at Siachen with greater payloads, won't it better than a lighter helicopter like LUH etc? One reason being that they are more powerful, and also being heavier will be more controllable in wind gusts etc?
The Glacier has small postage stamp-sized helipads and some small helipads perched on fragile ice-pillars. So the case for a small, light-weight helicopter is definitely justified . However, bad-mouthing the Mk-III to buttress their case for light helicopters is DEAD WRONG - as I had already pointed out. What's particularly galling is that chap 'Air Warrior' putting on that holier-than-thou air about all things indigenous being rotten. There are enough skeletons in the cupboard regarding the acquisitions of even Russian / Soviet helicopters such as the Mi-17, Mi-17IV, some of which have already been red-inked by the CAG. This thick-headed bloke is probably blissfully unaware of those aspects.
Hari Nair sir, the problem is that indigenous products are not promoted publicized. Foreign manufacturers and foreign services give detailed reports of their equipment in any newsworthy issue. In India, every small issue with indigenous equipment is highlighted, while nothing bad is usually comes up about imported stuff,and even those reported are only if CAG raises a stink. HAL did good in highlighting ALH use in Uttarakhand floods. Hope it continues the effort.

Meanwhile, can you please update us on the status of LCH and LUH? :)
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by shiv »

putnanja wrote:
Hari Nair sir, the problem is that indigenous products are not promoted publicized. Foreign manufacturers and foreign services give detailed reports of their equipment in any newsworthy issue. In India, every small issue with indigenous equipment is highlighted, while nothing bad is usually comes up about imported stuff,and even those reported are only if CAG raises a stink. HAL did good in highlighting ALH use in Uttarakhand floods. Hope it continues the effort.

Putnanja there is yet another issue that I have been discussing offline with someone. There are import lobbies embedded deep in our system who have probably paid off reporters to say negative things about anything made in India. There was one curious daily version of the IDRW page that had two news reports. One was lifafa cursing IJT, and the other was the progress of IJT and the statement that 5 or 6 had been built and are flying.

I think the lesson for us on BRF is to not react to news items with a knee jerk but dissect deeper to see if a lifafa import lobby is at work. Even if the GoI has made it tough for the import lobby to have unrestricted access - the easiest thing on earth is to buy off reporters who are a dime a dozen and largely clueless.

If one looks carefully at the economies of the main aircraft and arms producing nations - their status is dependent on high tech exports. Time was when things like ships, radios and TVs were also made in the west - but gradually other countries have taken over - leaving only the really high tech aerospace and aero-engine businesses in the west. These companies and countries will do anything to ensure that others don' t catch up. If countries like India and China catch up with the west in aerospace, chemicals, metallurgy, high tech engineering and specialized materials - that will signal the decline of the west. They will fight wars before they decline. I think the larger the number of Indians who understand this - the better it will be for the future - rather than continuing in our normally clueless innocent trusting secular manner.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Rahul M »

a very cheap & effective way to counter negative propaganda would be to open a twitter handle & a FB page, bypassing all biased MSM.
similar to how the current PM went around the -ve publicity against him.
Hari Nair
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 17:37
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Hari Nair »

Rahul M wrote:a very cheap & effective way to counter negative propaganda would be to open a twitter handle & a FB page, bypassing all biased MSM.
similar to how the current PM went around the -ve publicity against him.
Rahul, that's an excellent suggestion. I'll try and take that up.
Hari Nair
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 17:37
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Hari Nair »

putnanja wrote:Hari Nair sir, the problem is that indigenous products are not promoted publicized. Foreign manufacturers and foreign services give detailed reports of their equipment in any newsworthy issue. In India, every small issue with indigenous equipment is highlighted, while nothing bad is usually comes up about imported stuff,and even those reported are only if CAG raises a stink. HAL did good in highlighting ALH use in Uttarakhand floods. Hope it continues the effort
I must admit when it comes to slick effective campaigning or advertising, PSUs are rather flat-footed, usually giving out ponderous, wheezy and lack-lustre handouts. The Uttarakhand efforts came naturally, when pilots out there flying the Dhruvs told us instances where they airlifted more passengers than even the far bigger Mi-17s from one of the high-altitude restricted-area helipads, where the Mi-17 found it difficult to operate. The weather they flew in, the type of hair-raising rescues including hoisting up stranded pilgrims with on-board winches, and even flying a Dhruv at midnight in rain, in a narrow valley to get it out of harms way after an avalanche near its helipad - we were given anecdotal and video recordings of some of these - we have to salute these braves, who always do us proud.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

Manu Pubby ran a hack job on the Arjun as well.. there is a definite slant to the dudes articles, and IE overall is completely biased, leaving out the oleaginous platitudes of its now ex-editor S Gupta.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Kartik »

Hari Nair sir, its good to see you on BRF after a long hiatus..could you please give us an update on the LCH and LUH programs? We're dying to get some details on the LCH's testing and who better to give us those updates than its test pilot?
pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by pragnya »

shiv wrote:One was lifafa cursing IJT, and the other was the progress of IJT and the statement that 5 or 6 had been built and are flying.
shiv, LSP 5 flew in sept 13. also i am unable to find a report where HAL chief IIRC talks of 6 LSPs flying.

Hari Nair sir, kudos.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Rahul M »

Hari Nair wrote:
Rahul M wrote:a very cheap & effective way to counter negative propaganda would be to open a twitter handle & a FB page, bypassing all biased MSM.
similar to how the current PM went around the -ve publicity against him.
Rahul, that's an excellent suggestion. I'll try and take that up.
glad that you think it's useful.

for pointers, ISRO's MoM FB page is hugely popular. even the tejas webpage by ADA is pretty good with excellent crisp snaps & videos.
Kartik wrote:Hari Nair sir, its good to see you on BRF after a long hiatus..could you please give us an update on the LCH and LUH programs? We're dying to get some details on the LCH's testing and who better to give us those updates than its test pilot?
second this. we are very thirsty for an update on those two projects & also if HAL is moving forward on the medium helo design.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Philip »

The PR of the DPSU's is abject.I can't understand why the heads of these massive enterprises do not have regular handouts regarding the progress of their projects,just as is done in other countries.The problem seems to be that most of the projects are inordinately delayed and it is only at the final stretch when success is at hand that we see huge announcements. Take the JSF for example.I can't remember any mil. programme that has come under so much scrutiny and monitoring in the public domain,so much info available.it is because Congress pays the bills and demands accountability.In similar fashion so too should our new parliament demand accountability and regular news for the members of the select committees in particular and the house in general.The mist of secrecy that obscures our defence establishment allows for a chalta hai attitude to permeate the system.Now that Mr.M has cracked the whip in almost every dept.,more openness on our desi programmes should be made available to the nation,successes,failures,etc.,all made transparent so that it will be easier to attain one's goal greater of self-sufficiency in a shorter timeframe.

The news that the LUH decision will be made shortly is good news.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

Hari Nair wrote:The Glacier has small postage stamp-sized helipads and some small helipads perched on fragile ice-pillars. So the case for a small, light-weight helicopter is definitely justified . <SNIP>
A question - is the dimension of planned LUH - imported or manufactured in-house - suitable for operation to these postage stamp-helipads? To the naked and untrained eye, they look bigger. Also, do these choppers have required engine performance margin to replace Cheetah/Cheetal helicopters in their Siachen support role? Thanks.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by deejay »

self delete
Hari Nair
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 17:37
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Hari Nair »

rohitvats wrote:
Hari Nair wrote:The Glacier has small postage stamp-sized helipads and some small helipads perched on fragile ice-pillars. So the case for a small, light-weight helicopter is definitely justified . <SNIP>
A question - is the dimension of planned LUH - imported or manufactured in-house - suitable for operation to these postage stamp-helipads? To the naked and untrained eye, they look bigger. Also, do these choppers have required engine performance margin to replace Cheetah/Cheetal helicopters in their Siachen support role? Thanks.
The dimensions are roughly similar, as I understand - and so are the weights (All Up Weight - AUW). So this should retain the essential 'Mosquito Class' criterion. Do remember that the helicopters in this weight class have skids for landing gear. The pilot in the Cheetah on the Glacier plans the landing precisely so as to position the skids exactly on the small 'H' marked on the snow / ice. That way he is safe- a few feet off and the helicopter may even topple over if the ice or surface crumbles....

With regard to performance, they are roughly similar - with perhaps a slight edge over the Cheetah - the point is the Cheetah's performance in that AUW class is very difficult to beat. The Cheetah still holds the absolute altitude record at 12,442 m (40,814 ft). At the altitudes for landing on the Glacier (6000 m - 20,000 ft) with relatively high temperatures for that altitude (called 'hot-and-high' conditions)- all aerodynamic limiting conditions for hover landing essentially taper down to a dreaded 'point', which is very difficult to overcome. The Cheetah (Llama) was designed for conditions specified by us way back in the 70s. The Cheetah really does qualify as an Extreme Machine - in the true sense. The Cheetal even more so, as there is practically NO engine limit (pity about the shortages though...). The difference with the new helicopters now are the quoted stats for reliability - modern engines with FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) with better reliable systems, maintainability. etc...Lets see how it all shapes up - the Glacier is a true leveler!
Last edited by Hari Nair on 05 Jun 2014 21:28, edited 2 times in total.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by nachiket »

^^Sir, is it impossible to land the Dhruv safely on these small helipads that you mention? After that Ajai Shukla article about the feats achieved by the Dhruv at Siachen (600kg payload to 20000ft etc.) I was under the impression that the heli-supply problem at Siachen would be significantly reduced when IAF switches over to using the Dhruv there exclusively. But these helipads seem to preclude that. A pity.
Hari Nair
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 17:37
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Hari Nair »

nachiket wrote:^^Sir, is it impossible to land the Dhruv safely on these small helipads that you mention? After that Ajai Shukla article about the feats achieved by the Dhruv at Siachen (600kg payload to 20000ft etc.) I was under the impression that the heli-supply problem at Siachen would be significantly reduced when IAF switches over to using the Dhruv there exclusively. But these helipads seem to preclude that. A pity.
The Mk-III can carry far more than double the Cheetah's payload at those altitudes and lands regularly at most (if not all) helipads. However, the topography and the tasks are such that a "Mosquito Class" helicopter is really essential and cannot be done away with.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Kartik »

Hari Nair sir, please provide an update on the LCH's flight testing..where is TD3? haven't yet seen any changes in the canopy the way you had described it..and will the LCH meet the 2015 deadline for IOC?
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Rahul M »

>> The Cheetah still holds the absolute altitude record at 12,442 m (40,814 ft).

:shock: had no idea choppers can reach such altitudes !
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

The presentation on Cheetah, suggests that it was designed specifically for Indian requirements. Just as the AN 32 was.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by shiv »

Pratyush wrote:The presentation on Cheetah, suggests that it was designed specifically for Indian requirements. Just as the AN 32 was.
It was made for Indian hot and high by putting the Alouette III engine on an Alouette II IIRC, just as An 28 was up engined to make An 32
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Rahul M »

An26
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by member_26622 »

How many Light beauties we need to service Siachen. Bet some bases can be serviced by Dhruv while a few need specialized gear.

So my question is - Why do we need buy foreign 100's LUH beauties? Can we not wait for HAL babies to come through? HAL's performance on Helicopters is good (Dhruv is world class actually)

Buy 10 or 15 for servicing Siachen for near term and rest should be desi design+built. Let's not kill our nascent helicopter design and mnfr. capability by importing - that's exactly what the rest of the world wants us to do - to continue importing like stup*d and staying enslaved !
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by shiv »

nik wrote: Buy 10 or 15 for servicing Siachen for near term and rest should be desi design+built.
Penny wise Pound foolish. This sounds like a defence ministry paper pushing babu's recommendation. They don't need to know how many are actually required and the air force and finance ministry will be fighting over the fuel costs to fly a 5 ton Dhruv to a small high altitude helipad rather than a 2.5 ton small helo - with both carrying a 50 kg payload of food and fuel for men.
SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by SanjayC »

^^ If Dhruv can carry more than double the payload of Cheetah to Siachin, like Hari Nair said, then one Dhruv sortie = two Cheetah sorties. Will save fuel actually. The problem I think is the small size of helipads.
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by member_26622 »

Shiv ji,

Ab ye to too much logic hai? Dhruv will carry more payload. My guess is that it will not 100 but more than that in one trip vs. two trips by a Cheetah for 50 kg payload. If someone plots a curve for empty wt vs. payload for helicopters, then would not be surprised to see a heavier machine carrying more tons per empty weight over a lighter machine.

My goal was to pull the pants down on this Import lobby creating an urgency over LUH acquisition using Siachen example. If we need 10 or 15 light helicopters than can we not do with Cheetah itself for some more time ?

Rahi bat Penny wise Pound foolish, here is the skinny

India is the 4th largest defense budget after US, Russia, China and UK (not too much difference between France, Japan and India budget size)
AND
India is the largest defense importer in the world, rest in the import list do not have sufficient volumes to justify local build!

Basically, we spend enough to design-develop and EXPORT to the rest of the world. But we are the largest importer. So the #1 chut*ya is obvious using this simple analysis (Hard Truth, no sugar coating guys).

Now, how do we bring balance to this out of kilter situation? Definitely not by following what we did for so long i.e. Importing
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by abhik »

Pratyush wrote:The presentation on Cheetah, suggests that it was designed specifically for Indian requirements.
Yes, and then the french sold it to the Pakis.
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by member_26622 »

And we are going to give a cool check of 60 billion USD to the French. :x

By the way, French are lobbying hard to remove EU arms sanctions on China after Tianneman square massacre.

It's just a matter of time before French gear and assorted tech is served to Chinese. Aur ek bar yeda ban jayege!
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Rahul M »

SanjayC wrote:^^ If Dhruv can carry more than double the payload of Cheetah to Siachin, like Hari Nair said, then one Dhruv sortie = two Cheetah sorties. Will save fuel actually. The problem I think is the small size of helipads.
when WingCo Nair himself has said that 'mosquito class' helos are essential for siachen what are you trying to prove with this arithmetic ?

just like domino's doesnt send a car for pizza delivery, oftentimes you dont need a dhurv to do a cheetah's job.
the extra payload is not always needed, it's not a truck.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by shiv »

nik wrote:Shiv ji,

Ab ye to too much logic hai? Dhruv will carry more payload.
I believe you are missing information on what the Army needs as opposed to what the Dhruv offers versus what you imagine you know.

The army has a number (we don't know the number) of high outposts manned by a handful of men who are supplied entirely by air. A post of even just 4 - 6 men also needs to be supplied. Very often these are high up and accessible only by a several km trek to a postage stamp helipad perhaps once a week. Even if you have a helicopter that can carry 2 tons - the men still have to lug that week's supply on foot to their carefully camouflaged forward posts. They can take only 50 kg and perhaps send back waste material weighing some fraction of that - maybe 20 kg.

A helo that carries five times as much is of no use and even if it carries that much - each sortie has to take off and land 2500 kg of extra helicopter weight because Dhruvs are in the 5 ton range and Cheetahs are in the 2500 kg range. So the fuel consumption is much higher. And if some helos are transiting from forward posts where fuel is stored in drums for a further sortie - the Dhruv will need even more. It's a good helo but light helos are also needed.
My goal was to pull the pants down on this Import lobby creating an urgency over LUH acquisition using Siachen example. If we need 10 or 15 light helicopters than can we not do with Cheetah itself for some more time ?
I doubt if you have adequate information to make specific recommendations. You are shooting the air with suggestions based on what you think you know without insight into what you don't know that you don't know. Every Indian has his heart in the right place but that is not a qualification for expert advice on what the Air Force should do while they weigh operational readiness versus a long wait for LUH maturity.

As regards your recommendation for 10-15 helicopters, have you factored in the need for reserve helos to take 20 times as many men and 40 times the weight in case of conflict. What makes your admittedly well intentioned recommendations anything more than uninformed timepass?
Last edited by shiv on 08 Jun 2014 10:47, edited 1 time in total.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by abhik »

^^^
I think we are just talking about some jugaad for about 4-5 years which will let us completely avoid a huge foreign procurement programme. As far a the jobs that a only a cheetah-sized helo can accomplish we still do have Cheetahs/Cheeltals in service. Also 20 fresh Cheeltals were ordered just some time back.
HAL’s Cheetal Meets Indian Army’s Urgent Needs
The Indian Army has placed a $77 million order with Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) for 20 Cheetal helicopters, a re-engined variant of the Aerospatiale SA 316B Lama that was built under license in India as the Cheetah. The order is a short-term measure for logistics support to the Indian troops on the Siachen Glacier because of delays to the twice-bid competition for 197 reconnaissance and surveillance helicopters (RSH)
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by shiv »

SanjayC wrote:^^ If Dhruv can carry more than double the payload of Cheetah to Siachin, like Hari Nair said, then one Dhruv sortie = two Cheetah sorties. Will save fuel actually. The problem I think is the small size of helipads.
And the amount a couple of men can carry over crags and crevices to get from helipad to outpost. Helipads are hidden from enemy view as far as possible - while outposts need to be in a line of sight of enemy place.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by shiv »

How much water do you need in a day?

At 20,000 feet dehydration can quickly lead to altitude sickness so a man must have (my guesstimate) at least 3 liters of water per man per day. If there are 4 men manning an outpost that means 12 kg of water per day. One 20 liter canister per day should take care of extra water needs over and above drinking water. So water alone is 20 liters/20 kg per day for 4 men - and that is 140 liters/143 kg per week (including weight of container). Add to this food and fuel, fresh clothing, batteries, maintenance equipment and any expended arms/ammunition replacement, maintenance stuff for tents/bunkers. I am only guessing all this but to me it looks like at least 300 kg per week. For 4 men. Multiply that by a factor of more than 100 and you get the needs for about 500 men in the mountains. 30 tons per week sprinkled out over a vast, cold, hostile landscape.

A Cheetah barely carries 50 kg to the highest postage stamp helipads. I am not sure that other newer light helos would be capable of carrying much more - but whatever the weight carried it has to do the final leg on foot. So 50 kg may need 2- 3 men trekking a couple or more km at over 18,000 feet where all exercise is a severe strain on the heart and muscles. Even putting 200 kg on the Helipad may be of no use because it will have to be left exposed to the elements as all of it will have to be transported to the safety of bunkers/storage.

Up in the high Himalayas high altitude landings and takeoffs are best done in the mornings becasue the air is colder and denser. As the day warms up the air is less kind. That apart, clouds build up in the afternoons making flying hazardous. So there are places that may get one sortie a week and others may get mmore. if a man falls sick then the sortie has to come no matter what.

And this is peacetime with only the minimum number of men. in this example just 4 men

I would have thought that if the Air Force says they need 100 light helos soon, they need 100 light helos soon. Who is to supply them is a different issue. You can't call the men who do the transporting as "Imported AF ch*tiyas" who need to make do with some pulled out of hat/musharraf figure.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by abhik »

shiv wrote:How much water do you need in a day?
At 20,000 feet dehydration can quickly lead to altitude sickness so a man must have (my guesstimate) at least 3 liters of water per man per day. If there are 4 men manning an outpost that means 12 kg of water per day. One 20 liter canister per day should take care of extra water needs over and above drinking water. So water alone is 20 liters/20 kg per day for 4 men - and that is 140 liters/143 kg per week (including weight of container). Add to this food and fuel, fresh clothing, batteries, maintenance equipment and any expended arms/ammunition replacement, maintenance stuff for tents/bunkers. I am only guessing all this but to me it looks like at least 300 kg per week. For 4 men. Multiply that by a factor of more than 100 and you get the needs for about 500 men in the mountains. 30 tons per week sprinkled out over a vast, cold, hostile landscape.
Do you know for a fact that water is actually supplied to the outposts? There would be abundant snow/ice to make water.
A Cheetah barely carries 50 kg to the highest postage stamp helipads. I am not sure that other newer light helos would be capable of carrying much more - but whatever the weight carried it has to do the final leg on foot. So 50 kg may need 2- 3 men trekking a couple or more km at over 18,000 feet where all exercise is a severe strain on the heart and muscles. Even putting 200 kg on the Helipad may be of no use because it will have to be left exposed to the elements as all of it will have to be transported to the safety of bunkers/storage.
There are such things as ammunition/supply dumps.
I would have thought that if the Air Force says they need 100 light helos soon, they need 100 light helos soon. Who is to supply them is a different issue. You can't call the men who do the transporting as "Imported AF ch*tiyas" who need to make do with some pulled out of hat/musharraf figure.
The IAF (or for that matter any military of any country) does not always get what they want, this is a fact of life. And with the IAF/IA lack of interest in indigenisation and the huge import/corruption lobby only a fool or a person with vested interests will give a blank check, taking everything thing the IAF etc. says at face value.
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by member_26622 »

shiv wrote: I believe you are missing information on what the Army needs as opposed to what the Dhruv offers versus what you imagine you know.....

A helo that carries five times as much is of no use and even if it carries that much - ... So the fuel consumption is much higher. And if some helos are transiting from forward posts where fuel is stored in drums for a further sortie - the Dhruv will need even more. It's a good helo but light helos are also needed.

You are shooting the air with suggestions based on what you think you know without insight into what you don't know that you don't know...... What makes your admittedly well intentioned recommendations anything more than uninformed timepass?
Looks like I hit a nerve seeing the number of cold statements trying to dissuade any further discussion. I will neglect it as good old fashioned banter.

Your points combining storing excess payload - fuel scarcity is convoluting the issue. Excess payload is exactly what we need but could not get so far. The aforementioned scenario is a base station and forward station combination. Helicopters will supply base stations in normal circumstances as forward station landings are risky. Base stations should hold excess supply as a safety margin, in case deliveries are interrupted say for weather reasons. So delivering double will reduce number of sorties and help build up resiliency in the network.

I am not challenging light helicopter requirement, just the urgency to import. An urgent need to import something worth billion dollar plus shows failures across the board (Here my knowledge is lacking, on where the communication breakdown happened).
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by member_26622 »

shiv wrote: I would have thought that if the Air Force says they need 100 light helos soon, they need 100 light helos soon. Who is to supply them is a different issue. You can't call the men who do the transporting as "Imported AF ch*tiyas" who need to make do with some pulled out of hat/musharraf figure.
Nice one to extend my comment to rank and file of IAF. No one is challenging the dedication and sacrifices of our armed forces.

But, let's not try to shy away from facts. VVIP helicopter procurement exposed that corruption does exist. Unless the guilty parties are brought forth and penalized- things will continue to be the same. As a citizen, I want to know that our system is working - best way is when corrupt folks are served justice.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by shiv »

nik wrote: Looks like I hit a nerve seeing the number of cold statements trying to dissuade any further discussion.
Your points combining storing excess payload - fuel scarcity is convoluting the issue.
No I think you are ignoring fuel consumption out of good old fashioned ignorance. Do you have information on liters per kg per sortie? Without taking that into account it is only convoluting your logic. By ignoring a sizable proportion of day to day running costs you are simply making your arbitrary numbers and arguments more to your own preference without posting any information about why the Air Force is saying something different. You are in fact killing off an important aspect of the discussion and then claiming that I want to suppress discussion.

nik wrote:I am not challenging light helicopter requirement, just the urgency to import. An urgent need to import something worth billion dollar plus shows failures across the board (Here my knowledge is lacking, on where the communication breakdown happened).
What do you know about the reasons for urgency to import? The Air Force has stated arguments and numbers which you are questioning merely on arbitrary arguments. Are you aware of the service life left in existing helicopters? Some of the information might be confidential - but if you don't have access it cannot mean that the air force is wrong.

By all means question the need to import and the fact that it would be desirable to use indigenous helicopters, but it is absurd recommendations you made like "Let the Air Force manage with 15 or 20 imported helos" and your lack of information about the reasons Air Force's urgency and reluctance to believe what the Air Force says that I am questioning.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by shiv »

nik wrote:
shiv wrote: I would have thought that if the Air Force says they need 100 light helos soon, they need 100 light helos soon. Who is to supply them is a different issue. You can't call the men who do the transporting as "Imported AF ch*tiyas" who need to make do with some pulled out of hat/musharraf figure.
Nice one to extend my comment to rank and file of IAF. No one is challenging the dedication and sacrifices of our armed forces.

But, let's not try to shy away from facts. VVIP helicopter procurement exposed that corruption does exist. Unless the guilty parties are brought forth and penalized- things will continue to be the same. As a citizen, I want to know that our system is working - best way is when corrupt folks are served justice.
Let us not shy away from the fact that whatever your recommendations are, you need to do a point by point rebuttal of the air force's demands rather than resorting to generalizations about corruption and other pejorative comments to make it seem like your completely arbitrary numbers and recommendations are valid.

Rhetoric does not amount to useful information. Your posts on the matter have simply been ill informed rhetoric.
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by member_26622 »

Shiv - I rebutted your base and forward base scenario with a good explanation where it falls short. You ask for facts while yourself are lacking facts in your responses. Fuel - please come with facts to prove it is important as you have raised it-no further comments.

Summary- You are saying that if IAF asks for XYZ items then we should blindly do it. Their is no import lobby in the works, flying 100% foreign planes from trainer to strike aircraft is OK, and no possibility of adverse interests in play when one starkly shines in front (VVIP transports)....

Sounds like the Pakistani Army expectation or way of doing things. Isn't it? Good going.
Hari Nair
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 17:37
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Post by Hari Nair »

shiv wrote:.....I would have thought that if the Air Force says they need 100 light helos soon, they need 100 light helos soon. Who is to supply them is a different issue. You can't call the men who do the transporting as "Imported AF ch*tiyas" who need to make do with some pulled out of hat/musharraf figure.
nik wrote:....Summary- You are saying that if IAF asks for XYZ items then we should blindly do it. Their is no import lobby in the works, flying 100% foreign planes from trainer to strike aircraft is OK, and no possibility of adverse interests in play when one starkly shines in front (VVIP transports)....
Shiv & Nik -I'm not pitching a case for PSUs - however, you will need to admit that as a country that's an aspiring regional power, we can hardly afford to carry on the way we are - importing entire aircraft & weapon systems by the dozens, every year, year-on-year, without any credible long-term plan(s). Having also seen the other side of the fence, I would hazard an opinion that the Navy has perhaps the best structured project management for indigenous systems. Although it may be fashionable for a Jet-Jock to sneer at a warship project being 'low-tech' as compared to a fighter aircraft project, the fact remains a warship project is actually very complex and the Navy has successfully managed to integrate weapons, electronic & other systems, of Russian, Western or local origin, on locally designed hulls. The Navy's project management is structured to steer and pull the project, whereas the IAF & Army release their Requirements and then do a sort of somewhat hands-off monitoring. A very basic difference in approach to the problem.

Add to that PSUs whose projects are usually delayed as the norm, rather than the exception and their usual lack of pro-active planning (instead of just responding to Service requirements), we have the present situation.

Also, the Services usually draft their Requirements without any consideration for the best 'bang-for-the-buck'. Its usually pitched for the very latest, if not futuristic requirements that that invariable end up costing a whole pile of money, especially so given the delays in processing the case and the steep escalation clauses that are built in for imports. And frankly, sometimes its anyone's guess whether a slightly lower-tech but less expensive system would not have sufficed for our conditions. Sometimes, I get the distinct impression that the 'aiming index' for Requirements needs to be lowered to a more pragmatic level!

There is also the need for decisive leadership at the top levels - which is now in place - one can't just replace it with a structured decision matrix! We need a clear national policy on induction of weapon systems, with clear decisions for each induction. The US, even with its imported BK-117 helicopter (the 'Lakota' UH-72), it is built in the US by the US subsidiary of the parent company Airbus Helicopters, with US avionics and mission systems. Logistics, maintenance contract management, supply chain management, contractor field teams, spare part, etc are with another US company - Sikorsky. Their project management is structured very stringently across the board, with automatic reviews scheduled at specified escalating levels in the event of delays. These include stringent financial checks and measures such as release of further funds in a project by the user monitoring team confirming the milestone, etc.

I'm not saying that we need to ape the Yanks or that the Yanks have the best system (they don't) - but for heavens sake, we do desperately need to get a system in place (we simply don't have one!) and we need it quick. The point really is - we can't continue blind imports (and have senior officers posing proudly next to imported planes or whatever, with that country's ambassador). Its too serious an issue to be left to any individual Service's discretion.
Locked