Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Jun 2012 01:14

Aerospace Forum Sweden 2012: India invests heavily in unmanned technologies

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jun 2012 09:02

probably many of the AMCA features and avionics could be tested in Tejas but I dont know how internal bay can be tested in current tejas airframe. the JSF is a purpose made airframe and only twin engines have a gap between the engines to fit a smallish bay.
supersonic rated stealth underwing/CFT carriers for AAM is a must have though.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Jun 2012 08:01

^^^

IMO, I don't think full stealth is required on a small airframe like that of the LCA. Clean configuration could be made pretty stealthy from the front hemisphere. Stealth profile for limited load (such as 2 SR-AAM and 2 LR-AAM) could still be achieved by stealthy pylons and missile design. The other way to do it would be to use stealthy external weapons pod.

Stealth has to be used in conjunction with EW. Stealth enhancements will lessen the detection range from let's say 250km to 100km. From there, EW, like Spectra, would need to counter detection and weapons lock on to get closer. At 30 km range, passive sensors, like an IRST, can be used for weapons lock on -- even on the 5th-Gen stealthy aircrafts, such as the JSF and F-22. BVR AAMs (in the Mid-Range 10km - 50km) with IR sensor looks likely to remain very relevant for the foreseeable future.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Jun 2012 21:30

It just might be a mistake.

Mk2 - the regular one that flies in 2016 time frame.
Mk3 - Kaveri-snecma loaded testbed. May also be test bed for other future technology for AMCA. May not make it to production. Doesn't make sense to make Stealth LCA when AMCA / PAKFA are going to fill that role and both have been given green light.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Jun 2012 02:55

Meanwhile, Gipps Aero (subsidiary of Mahindra Aerospace) successfully test flew the GA-10 for the first time this May 3rd. I do not remember clearly, if Mahindra is going to build the plane in India, but they plan to sell it here from 2014.

Mahindra’s GA 10 turbo-prop aircraft successfully completes first flight

Target performance specifications of the GA10 include:
Maximum Take-Off Weight (minimum), kg (lb)...................................2019 (4450)
Empty Weight (estimated), kg (lb) .....................................................998 (2200)

PERFORMANCE (at MTOW)
Stall Speed with Landing Flap (KEAS)................................................60
Typical Cruise Speed at 10,000ft (KTAS)...........................................150
Range at Typical Cruise Speed, km (nm) ...........................................1390 (750)
Take-off Field Length, m (ft)...............................................................550 (1800)
Maximum Rate of Climb, (fpm) ………………………………...1000

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jun 2012 04:33

Roy,

Thanks, great post.

That sub is an Aussie company - check out that flag on the tail!!

Yet a great news IMHO. Hope Mahindra Aerospace does very well with this as a starting point.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Jun 2012 05:01

Yeah, I am aware of GippsAero being an Australian company.

The relevance of this to Indian[\b] Military Aviation is that Mahindra says it will be building that 2-20 seater prop-driiven planes at their upcoming plants at Narsapur and Malur. I am not sure about the GA-10, but GA-18 definitely may certainly have military[\b] applications.

But may be you are right ... it should go to the international aerospace thread.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jun 2012 06:01

No issues about it being here (or there). Really great to note that an Indian company is making progress. BTW, hope it ALSO helps the Aussies, their company too.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jun 2012 06:14

Massive military helicopter buys allow for indigenisation

The Indian Air Force (IAF) purchase of 126 Rafale fighters has made global headlines, and the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) could be another jaw-dropper. But Indian military aviation could see an even more prominent growth area in helicopters, where the defence services are poised to induct well over 1,000 rotary wing aircraft in the coming decade, the majority of them developed and built in the country.

Already on the anvil for the army, IAF, navy and coast guard are the following:

The IAF is inducting 139 Russian Mi-17 V-5 medium lift helicopters, for an estimated $2.4 billion. The workhorse Mi-17, which transports 26 soldiers in combat gear, or four tonnes of supplies to high altitude posts, has been in IAF service for decades, but the new-model V-5 is a vastly superior machine, with new engines, rotor blades and avionics. An IAF order for 80 Mi-17s is already being delivered, which is likely to be followed by an order for 59 more.

INDIA'S HELICOPTER BUYS
Type No. of units To be bought from
Mi-17 V-5 139 Russia
Heavy lift helicopters 15 CH-47 Chinook likely
Medium attack helicopters 22 AH-64 Apache likely
Utility twin-engine helicopters 159 HAL (Dhruv Mk III)
Naval twin-engine helicopters 50 Global market
Naval medium, multi-role 91 Global market
Weaponised utility helicopter 76 HAL (Rudra)
Light Combat Helicopter 179 HAL (LCH)
Light Utility Helicopters 197 Global market
Light Utility Helicopters 187 HAL
Source: Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL)

Fifteen American CH-47 Chinook heavy lift helicopters will be bought to replace the IAF’s Russian Mi-26 helicopters, of which just three to four remain serviceable. The Chinook, built by Boeing, has seen extensive combat, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. The IAF has evaluated the helicopter and is pleased with its avionics and power, which allows it to accurately deliver 50 fully-equipped soldiers, or a payload of 12.7 tonnes, on to the roof of a house or the edge of a cliff.

The IAF has also completed trials for the purchase of 22 medium attack helicopters, and homed on to Boeing’s AH-64 Apache. Attack helicopters, which operate from close behind the forward troops, provide immediate fire support — cannons, rockets and anti-tank missiles — to soldiers that encounter the enemy, providing them a battle-winning advantage. Unlike most other countries, India has chosen not to use attack helicopters in counter-insurgency operations for fear of collateral damage.

The IAF and army have also placed a Rs 7,000-crore order for 159 Dhruv Mark III utility helicopters. These have been designed and built by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), which builds 36 Dhruvs each year. There is an estimated need for more than 350 Dhruvs for the Army, IAF, coast guard and paramilitary forces.

The Navy is buying an additional 50 light, twin-engine helicopters, most probably from AgustaWestland. The Dhruv does not meet its needs since its composite rotors cannot be folded up for stowing the helicopter in a warship’s tight confines.

In addition, the navy is procuring another 91 medium, multi-role helicopters to replace its vintage Sea King fleet, which flies from larger frigates and destroyers. A global tender is out for 16 helicopters, to which another 75 have been added.

Riding on the Dhruv’s success is HAL’s Rudra, a heavily armed version of the Dhruv, which carries a cannon, rocket pods, anti-tank missiles and a full suite of electronic warfare (EW) equipment. The army and the air force will buy 76 Rudras.

HAL is also developing the Light Combat Helicopter, of which 179 are on order (IAF 65; army 114). This 5.5-tonne light armed helicopter features the Shakti engine, the Dhruv’s dynamic components (main rotor, tail rotor, and the gearbox), and the weapons suite that is being developed on the Rudra. The LCH will be a high altitude virtuoso: taking off from Himalayan altitudes of 10,000 feet, firing guns and rockets up to 16,300 feet, and launching missiles at UAVs flying at over 21,000 feet.

The military’s other bulk requirement is for 384 light utility helicopters, or LUH’s, to replace the army and IAF’s obsolescent Cheetahs and Chetaks. This has been divided into two streams: 197 LuHs are being bought off-the-shelf through a global tender; and 187 LuHs are being developed and built in India by HAL. To ensure timely delivery, the Ministry of Defence has specified target dates for HAL’s development milestones: building of a mock-up; the design freeze; the first flight; Initial Operational Clearance, and so on. Each time HAL misses a milestone, its order reduces from 187.

Unlike IAF’s fixed wing aircraft acquisition plan that focuses on foreign buys, its rotary wing plan leans towards indigenisation. This after a strategic assessment in the mid-1990s, when Ashok Baweja was HAL’s chairman, that indigenisation could be realistically pursued in the less challenging rotary wing field than in the cutting-edge realm of fighter aircraft.

This policy drew strength from the technological breakthroughs of the Dhruv helicopter and the Turbomeca-HAL Shakti engine. Both these were optimised for high altitude operations up to 20,000 feet, a unique feature in the army’s operating environment.

P Soundara Rajan, HAL’s helicopter chief, says the Bangalore-based division will ramp up turnover from the current 10 per cent of HAL’s turnover to 25 per cent a decade from now. Having taken 40 years to build its first 700 helicopters, which were basic second-generation machines, HAL aims at building another 700 fourth-generation within the next 15-20 years.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2012 07:35

if the Dhruv has no other shortfall in naval role other than folding rotor issue and given the eventual navy buy will total atleast 100, wouldnt it make sense to pull in whoever was needed to make a metal folding rotor for Dhruv , test it out and close the gap? Dhruv could go 4 each on our carriers, on OPVs, tankers, Marcos units, survey vessels, LHDs(future), CG patrol vessels..... none of these need a NH90 size of heli.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 06 Jun 2012 11:14

Singha wrote:if the Dhruv has no other shortfall in naval role other than folding rotor issue and given the eventual navy buy will total atleast 100, wouldnt it make sense to pull in whoever was needed to make a metal folding rotor for Dhruv , test it out and close the gap? Dhruv could go 4 each on our carriers, on OPVs, tankers, Marcos units, survey vessels, LHDs(future), CG patrol vessels..... none of these need a NH90 size of heli.

The shortfalls identified by Navy are:

1. Lack of automatic folding of rotors
2. Inadequate range (or less on station time)
3. Less than robust landing gear (required for ship landing)
4. Vibration [Resolved by HAL]

Nevertheless, I fail to understand why the Navy is not replacing Chetaks at least on some ships like survey vessels and tankers which may have a less stringent fighting requirement. At least ICG could have replaced all Chetaks.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Jun 2012 11:35

IN Chetaks have folding blades.

arijitkm · Post by **arijitkm** » 06 Jun 2012 19:57

Singha wrote:if the Dhruv has no other shortfall in naval role other than folding rotor issue and given the eventual navy buy will total atleast 100, wouldnt it make sense to pull in whoever was needed to make a metal folding rotor for Dhruv , test it out and close the gap? Dhruv could go 4 each on our carriers, on OPVs, tankers, Marcos units, survey vessels, LHDs(future), CG patrol vessels..... none of these need a NH90 size of heli.

some excerpt from GlobalSecurity on ALH program

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rogram.htm

In June 2008 the Indian Navy asked Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to improve the naval version of the advanced light helicopter (ALH) 'Dhruv' before more of the flying machines are inducted into the service. Though the Navy have asserted that it had not "written off" the helicopter as speculated, it wanted HAL to work on certain suggestions to make 'Dhruv' fulfill the requirements of the Navy.

By mid-2008 the Indian Navy has virtually written off the naval variant of the Dhruv advanced light helicopter (ALH), saying it had failed to meet basic operational requirements. The navy, which operated a fleet of six [or eight] ALHs, decided against placing further orders with the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. Navy officials said that the ALH lacked the desired endurance for mission requirements. The navy is also not satisfied with the chopper's rotor blade folding mechanism for storage on warships and its payload capacity. The requirement of Blade Folding with a width of 3.5 meters was not feasible due to the inherent design characteristics of the ALH hingeless Main Rotor Blade with an Integrated Dynamic System. The navy wanted a helicopter to spend 2 hours and 20 minutes on task (i.e. airborne with its task payload), and have an additional reserve of 20 minutes. The Dhruv is simply not capable of meeting this requirement, which is beyond the inherent payload capacity of any 5.5 ton class helicopter and can be met with difficulty by a 10-ton class helicopter. Originally the prototype was powered by navalised and corrosion-resistant twin Rolls-Royce CTS800 engines preferred by the Indian Navy. However, HAL has instead settled for the Ardiden/Shakti engine that was not navalised.

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Jun 2012 22:25

arijitkm wrote:
Singha wrote:if the Dhruv has no other shortfall in naval role other than folding rotor issue and given the eventual navy buy will total atleast 100, wouldnt it make sense to pull in whoever was needed to make a metal folding rotor for Dhruv , test it out and close the gap? Dhruv could go 4 each on our carriers, on OPVs, tankers, Marcos units, survey vessels, LHDs(future), CG patrol vessels..... none of these need a NH90 size of heli.
some excerpt from GlobalSecurity on ALH program

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rogram.htm

In June 2008 the Indian Navy asked Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to improve the naval version of the advanced light helicopter (ALH) 'Dhruv' before more of the flying machines are inducted into the service. Though the Navy have asserted that it had not "written off" the helicopter as speculated, it wanted HAL to work on certain suggestions to make 'Dhruv' fulfill the requirements of the Navy.

By mid-2008 the Indian Navy has virtually written off the naval variant of the Dhruv advanced light helicopter (ALH), saying it had failed to meet basic operational requirements. The navy, which operated a fleet of six [or eight] ALHs, decided against placing further orders with the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. Navy officials said that the ALH lacked the desired endurance for mission requirements. The navy is also not satisfied with the chopper's rotor blade folding mechanism for storage on warships and its payload capacity. The requirement of Blade Folding with a width of 3.5 meters was not feasible due to the inherent design characteristics of the ALH hingeless Main Rotor Blade with an Integrated Dynamic System. The navy wanted a helicopter to spend 2 hours and 20 minutes on task (i.e. airborne with its task payload), and have an additional reserve of 20 minutes. The Dhruv is simply not capable of meeting this requirement, which is beyond the inherent payload capacity of any 5.5 ton class helicopter and can be met with difficulty by a 10-ton class helicopter. Originally the prototype was powered by navalised and corrosion-resistant twin Rolls-Royce CTS800 engines preferred by the Indian Navy. However, HAL has instead settled for the Ardiden/Shakti engine that was not navalised.

In the excerpt you have quoted, these are two different requirements. Folding rotor blades issue is valid. But not the 10-ton class helicopter requirement (highlighted in bold). For this, IN always had the intention to go for 60+ SeaKing-sized medium helos. I think media reports have kept on confusing this issue.

As far as Dhruv-sized helo is concerned, the IN has a requirement for 50 twin-engined light helicopters. This is where Dhruv would have come in, but it seems HAL was not able to rectify rotor blade folding issues.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 06 Jun 2012 22:49

It would be nice if HAL/NAVY did an attempt again and tried to redo the solution from ground up. The Coast Guard / Navy combo could use dhruv class quite effectively. If the Navy can use cheetah/chetak they can certainly use Dhruv. It also does not have to be Auto folding. I don't think cheetah/chetak offer this. Does it make a huge difference if it is auto or manual ?

Answering my own question, here is a paper talking about manual/auto blade folding systems and heli recovery systems.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2007-03.html

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 06 Jun 2012 23:08

The 76 nos WSI Dhruv mk4 order is part of 159 nos HAL order for Army and IAF of which rest 83 are Dhruv mk3.

The split up is 105 nos for Army(45 mk3 and 60 mk4) while rest 54 nos for IAF( 38 mk3 and 16 mk4).

The delivered nos of Army was 40 nos from earlier order and 22 nos for IAF.

The total no of Army is thus 40+105=145 (60 WSI) and IAF 22+54=76 ( 16 WSI).

The parliamentary report on intended number of ALH in Army as 125 nos utility variant and 60 WSI varient i.e, total of 185nos.

Which means in future 40nos more ALH will be orderred while reports give as HAL expecting further order of 80 nos minimum.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jun 2012 14:09

using binoculars I believe just saw a red n white Sitara come in to land at HAL apt

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2012 15:18

Singha wrote:using binoculars I believe just saw a red n white Sitara come in to land at HAL apt

Allah ho Akbar

sum · Post by **sum** » 08 Jun 2012 15:38

^^ Chaiwallah had mentioned that Sitara had started flying again after modification of the FCS which caused the first crash but in his words "program is going downhill rapidly" . Didnt elaborate what it meant

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2012 17:41

sum wrote:^^ Chaiwallah had mentioned that Sitara had started flying again after modification of the FCS which caused the first crash but in his words "program is going downhill rapidly" . Didnt elaborate what it meant

Well the Tejas has been going downhill for 25 years. As per a whole lot of insiders and observers. Indians are good at this.

nash · Post by **nash** » 08 Jun 2012 17:41

sum wrote:^^ Chaiwallah had mentioned that Sitara had started flying again after modification of the FCS which caused the first crash but in his words "program is going downhill rapidly" . Didnt elaborate what it meant

may be reducing the initial number of sitara which is to be inducted in IAF or IN.

or

may be, hopefully, its gona complete soon...

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 08 Jun 2012 19:09

All over the world, the CH-47 Chinook is known as the platform of choice for high-altitude, vertical-lift operations. The Chinook’s tandem rotor configuration, which allows all of the engine’s power to be directed to lift, and its ability to lift very large loads at altitude, are just two of reasons why the Chinook holds this distinction. The fact that it can lift a 105mm Howitzer cannon — weighing 1,905kg — at an altitude of 6,096m, is validation of that designation. “We don’t furnish the guns but the provision for gun mounts is given in the chopper. At high altitude Chinook is the best in the world. It can lift one ton load at 20,000 feet. It is more than any other chopper can. It has 13 tonnes load capacity at sea level,” he stated.

Boeing bullish on Chinook for Indian heavy lift tender

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jun 2012 06:56

while the ladakhi passes and operating areas would pose payload difficulties for any helicopter(being 17,000ft or higher many of them), this Chinook can be most useful in Sikkim and Arunachal where the heights are less - Jelep La, Nathu La, Se La (enroute to tawang) are in range of 13,500ft so most of the other operating areas would be substantially lower - perhaps avging around 10,000ft or less.....chinook should be able to take a good load at such altitudes which mimic the afghanistan region.

however at those alts, what does it bring to the table that the Mi17V does not at a cheaper price? both have a cargo ramp in the back for offloading bulky supplies, both are proven to Nth degree in multiple user nations, both have strong production runs, ...... Mi17V is cheaper?

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 09 Jun 2012 12:33

The Chinook is AMERICAN whom have recently become our best friends.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Jun 2012 01:34

Chinook is a unique design and a symbol of AMERICA.
AMERICAN symbols have to be shown in the border areas so that Chini troops will figure out that it is not worth it.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 10 Jun 2012 06:25

These not too large , Possibly even smallish purchases, Of field guns,Transport aircraft,attack helis, etc
Have there been promises given that if attacked by the evil duo we will have enough trained manpower to handle larger quantities of these platforms. Just a thought, there have been lots of pow wow's at higher levels.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jun 2012 11:42

it would benefit american industry if there be a smallish border conflict followed by panic in delhi and mass orders for FMS eqpt .... with khan quietly assuring delivery even from its own stocks as a stopgap

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Jun 2012 11:29

I was reading comments section on a Livefist (Shiv Aroor's blog) post and one of the comments there provided a link to HAL's tender for the engine for HTT-40 and the ECU of the APU for AMCA (which is now called Prospective Multirole Fighter Aircraft; PMF)

link.

One could find the actual tender here.

P.S. As I read the cover letter, I find the following schedule for providing the development engines (T1 is date of signing contract):
ITEM Quantity Required Delivery Date
Mockup Engine 2 T1+12 Months (2 nos)
Flight qualified fully 3 T1+24 Months (2 nos),
Instrumented Engines T1+27 Months (1 no)
Flight qualified Engines 1 T1+30 Months (1 no)

The tender closing date is Sept'12. If the contract is signed in the first half of 2013, don't expect maiden flight before second or third quarter of 2015.

Design studies commenced in Jan 2012 (T0).

The order is for 124 (16 direct + 16 SKD + 32 CKD + 60 lic. produced.) + 300 (additional estimated order over 10 years).

They are going to deliver these planes over 8 years starting from Jan 2017.

about the plane:
Weight: 2800 - 3000 kgs.
Power >750 KW at sea level
Max. Mach no. : 0.5 Mach
Max altitude: 6 km
Load envelop: -3 G to 6 G

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Jun 2012 11:54

PMFA will be a FGFA or PAK-FA , this is HAL tender so it would be that.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Jun 2012 12:24

^^^ You are right.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2012 15:11

livefist has posted some slides V K Saraswat showed in a sweden aerospace conf about the Aura UCAV bomber.

venkat_r · Post by **venkat_r** » 12 Jun 2012 20:26

According to the pics shown in livefist calling it a bomber is a stretch. It seems to be carrying 4 at most in the internal bays

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Jun 2012 21:07

how many did the F-117 nighthawk have ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2012 21:22

2 weapons of 2000lb each.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 12 Jun 2012 23:38

This one will probably carry two 500 pounders at most.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Jun 2012 00:15

more like 500 kg I think. we do not use 2000 lb ones anyway.

>> 2 weapons of 2000lb each.

precisely. if it bombs it's a bomber.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 13 Jun 2012 02:12

This sounds like a first wave craft. two bombs for very high value and well-defended targets is pretty good. The key is to build this in large numbers. Keeping cost under control, like khan does for its Sentinel series is vital.

I would love to see an IED mubarak at Muridke being hosed down by pakis in CNN, while an IAF technician paints a mission icon on this baby.... totally unrelated events with H&D intact

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Jun 2012 05:17

Can anyone ID the LGB shown in the CAD images? Since they're using it for design studies of clearance and fit, these must be in the IAF's inventory. Sudarshan or Israeli Griffin?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jun 2012 06:18

^^^ New bie question ... Will they cut it that close? ... I think they would incorporate enough tolerance in the design so that either can be fit ... After all these would be flying 30 years into the future ... The LGBs would evolve over this period too.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jun 2012 06:24

the length & volume of the bay is also important. bunker busters tend to be long and slim. the blast effect / submunition types tend to be teardrop shaped like those JDAMs I posted in B1 bomb bay.