Indian Naval Discussion

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 13 Aug 2012 03:02

Saik as in the case of the Arjun - phoren > indian!! So better to buy phoren.

If the problem was with folding rotors, coould these have not been outsourced to a phoren vendor and used on the Dhruv!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Aug 2012 03:24

More than our forces are willing to go phoren, the pour-&-run (don't bother even after sale - especially the problems we are facing for parts etc) guys are playing big time in Indian market now, especially after unkill has forayed into eating the share.. I was thinking his advent actually help us get better deals rather this totally succumbing to unkill purchase, especially the FMS kind, where we get screwed royally by his inspection raaj.

If we have money, we need to invest more into home made stuffs, including facilities like kaveri flight test facility (grumov equiv), enhanced designs and work on augment existing programs etc.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Aug 2012 06:41

Of course the chiefs of the armed forces have to be kept out,otherwise they would be wiser to the racketeering going on between the babus and their poitical masters who have made Bofors,Tatra,etc., household names! Not to mention the constant fear of being ousted in a coup to bring the corrupt to justice...the hangman's noose! That instinct of self -preservation sees the ever widening gap between the politicos and the military widen,proportionate to the ever-increasing scale of corruption which has never ever in India scaled higher heights than under this "honourable" (= shameless) individual ,the mendicant of snake-oil,Dr.Singh.

PS:Read how the S.African navy is emulating that of OZ! None of their three subs is opertaional,despite billions spent on them.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2012/0 ... perational

Not one of the R8 billion arms deal submarines is operational
Bobby Jordan | 12 August, 2012
SA Navy submarines in the dry dock at Simon's Town Naval Base. S102, rear, is in for routine maintenance, while S103, front, apparently hit the ocean floor, hence the protective blue plastic hiding it from sight.
Image by: HALDEN KROG
South Africa's fleet of attack submarines, which cost an estimated R8-billion in the infamous arms deal, are all in dry dock after the only operational vessel crashed into the seabed.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Aug 2012 06:57

you guys are being unjust to IN ... it is so not so easy to change from Dhruv current rotors to folding rotors by a third party. It will be an entire cycle. IN gave Dhruv a fair chance. Dhruv did not fit the bill. It has been chronicled in great detail. Even HAL/DRDO accept this.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Aug 2012 08:22

Indra is right.In conversations with IN officers Dhruv didn't fit the bill.Here again another instance of trying to squeeze in a pre-determined design without examining in depth the end-user's spatial requirements,based upon which warship design had been frozen.

Anyway,at least we now have the 56 utility naval helo contest opened and that of the 90+ ASW medium/heavy requirement too.For the heavy requirement ,the Merlin is the clear favourite,but a toss-up as to whether the NH-90 can pip the post against the Yanqui bird,due to EU user complaints.Unless the manufacturers get their act together we may end up with an American helo replacing our Sea Kings.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 13 Aug 2012 08:39

Philip wrote:Indra is right.In conversations with IN officers Dhruv didn't fit the bill.Here again another instance of trying to squeeze in a pre-determined design without examining in depth the end-user's spatial requirements,based upon which warship design had been frozen.

Anyway,at least we now have the 56 utility naval helo contest opened and that of the 90+ ASW medium/heavy requirement too.For the heavy requirement ,the Merlin is the clear favourite,but a toss-up as to whether the NH-90 can pip the post against the Yanqui bird,due to EU user complaints.Unless the manufacturers get their act together we may end up with an American helo replacing our Sea Kings.

The airframe and transmission (minus the engines) of the Seaking is amreki any way and because of that we came under US sanctions that affected our Seaking fleet.

Pity about the Dhruv, Naval version though. It was eminently unsuitable for IN use right from the beginning. It's just that HAL, as usual, thought that they could "manage" their way out of a self created mess.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 13 Aug 2012 08:46

indranilroy wrote:you guys are being unjust to IN ... it is so not so easy to change from Dhruv current rotors to folding rotors by a third party. It will be an entire cycle. IN gave Dhruv a fair chance. Dhruv did not fit the bill. It has been chronicled in great detail. Even HAL/DRDO accept this.

I agree entirely with what indranilroy ji says.

The IN was the primary financier of the ALH in the early days.

That was a very tangible demonstration of how much hope and expectations the IN had from the project.

I have detailed explanations but espousing those ideas will definitely get me banned permanently.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 13 Aug 2012 08:56

Rahul M wrote:as compared to the chetak in use now ? other than the rotor folding, which is part of the dhruv's hingeless rotor design, the rest aren't true.

Rahul M ji,

The Naval "weaponised" Dhruv was woefully short on both range and load.

The ones currently with the Navy are much like the Coast Guard version, ie nowhere near the weaponised version that the IN was promised and indeed very badly wanted.

Without folding rotors, the rotors will very likely sustain damage even in moderate sea states.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 13 Aug 2012 10:27

Chetak - don't gloss over the issue. Rahul has asked a direct question. Pls try to answer it meaningfully.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Aug 2012 11:51

Not having foldable rotors is critical shortcoming ... Where will they put the helicopter?!!!

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 13 Aug 2012 13:48

indranilroy wrote:Not having foldable rotors is critical shortcoming ... Where will they put the helicopter?!!!

Naval Dhruvs have rotor folding mechanism but it is manual.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 13 Aug 2012 14:27

Ajai had reported on the Naval Dhruv http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2008/09/i ... n-two.html Good pictures of the rotor head here http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rotorhead.html

BTW the newspaper reporting is incorrect. It mixes two requirements. One will be a small light helo for utility and other would be a fully loaded heavy helo as Kamov and Seaking replacement for ASW.

KBDagha · Post by **KBDagha** » 13 Aug 2012 15:52

Germany Seizes Indian Naval Planes Engines

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/arti ... 66440.html

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 13 Aug 2012 19:56

Pvt firms may get nod to make subs

Larsen and Tubro (L&T) is believed to be the front runner after it proved its worth with the Arihant programme in which it successfully made the hull of the first nuclear-powered submarine “INS Arihant”. L&T yard in Gujarat is understood to have made the second nuclear-powered submarine as well.

“L&T has demonstrated its capability. It has technical expertise and manpower. It is not yet a full shipyard, which may take a few years to complete. But the company wants to know from the government about its role in naval ship and submarine building plans before it makes the necessary investment,” sources said.

AbhiJ · Post by **AbhiJ** » 13 Aug 2012 21:53

Update on Scorpenes

The first of the six Scorpene submarines will be ready by end of 2013. By end of 2012, the main pressure hull will be completed. The contract was signed in 2005. After delays, it is now expected to be implemented by 2018.

DCNS has signed contracts worth $75 million for indigenous procurement of components and systems for the submarine so far, said Bernard G. Buisson, Managing Director of DCNS India Ltd. “Our strategy is to get one company per category of the major parts of the submarine to indigenise,” he added.

To enhance expertise in domestic companies, it has already tied up with SEC Industries, Hyderabad and Flash Forge, Visakhapatnam. The indigenisation programme would begin from the third submarine.

“We will also help MDL to qualify companies to buy directly in future. For example the batteries. MDL has to buy. Its not part of our contract. DCNS is helping it to identify the right companies making batteries for the submarine,” he said.

Pipavav may build 2 Mistrals

One major partnership the French giant has forged recently is with Pipavav.

The initiative is to build modern warships for India. One of the proposals is to build a LPD (Landing Platform Deck), with capacity to have 1,400 personnel.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Aug 2012 22:14

Rus laid down its 1st mistral class a few months ago. considering our massive construction times for such ships we could also start one...

sombhat · Post by **sombhat** » 14 Aug 2012 14:39

From the article above:

The big ship, weighing 21,000 tonnes can transport a battalion and house 900 helicopters. The duo is offering three ships of this type to the Indian Navy. DCNS had bagged a contract from the Russian Navy for two such ships valued at $1.1 billion.

900 helicopters in one Mistral, a touch of DDM genius

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Aug 2012 17:25

INS Sindhurakshak , Can some one translate it ?

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/kuleshov ... 8/1000.jpg

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Aug 2012 21:43

Rahul M wrote:as compared to the chetak in use now ? other than the rotor folding, which is part of the dhruv's hingeless rotor design, the rest aren't true.

Rahul, how is Dhruv a replacement for Chetak in IN Service? Even in the army, the replacement for Chetak is the helicopter to be inducted under the LUH program. The specs of Chetak and Fennec 350 are pretty close.

(a) Chetak

Crew: 2
Capacity: 5
Length: 10.03 m (32 ft 10¾ in)
Main rotor diameter: 11.02 m (36 ft 1¾ in)
Height: 3.00 m (9 ft 10 in)
Main rotor area: 95.38 m2 (1026 ft2)
Empty weight: 1,143 kg (2,520 lb)
Gross weight: 2,200 kg (4,850 lb)

(b) Fennec 350

Crew: 2
Capacity: 4 passengers
Length: 10.93 m (35 ft 10 in) (fuselage length), 12.94 m (42 ft 6 in) (overall length, rotors turning)
Height: 3.34 m (10 ft 11 in)
Empty weight: 1,220 kg (2,690 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 2,250 kg (4,960 lb)
Main rotor diameter: 10.69 m (35 ft 1 in)
Main rotor area: 89.75 m2 (966.1 sq ft)

Now, check the specs of Dhruv:

Crew: 1 or 2 pilots
Capacity: 12 passengers (14 passengers with high density seating)
Length: 15.87 m (52 ft 0.8 in)
Rotor diameter: 13.20 m (43 ft 3.7 in)
Height: 4.98 m (16 ft 4.06 in)
Disc area: 137 m² (1,472 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,502 kg (5,515 lb)
Useful load: 2,600 kg (5,731 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 5,500 kg (12,125 lb)

From what I was able to gather about Dhruv saga and IN, IN actually wanted to use the helicopter for offensive/defensive operations and not only for communication duties. But apart from the vibration and rotor folding issues, the performance of Dhruv with all the sensors and equipment plus weapons was found to be inadequate.

From horses mouth (observer with Kamov Squadron) - "kitna utha payega or kitne door tak jaa payega"...that is the crux of the issue.

titash · Post by **titash** » 14 Aug 2012 22:25

@ rohitvats / Rahul M

The Dhrun design was not meant to complete with the 10 ton SeaKing types in ASW (longer time on station, heavier sensor/weapons load, etc)

The Chetak on the other hand (just like the Wasp) was a very barebones helicopter used to drop 2x LWT/Depth Charges and (probably) carried no sensors and had low persistence

The 5 ton Dhruv appears to be wedged in between and its role modelled on the Italian Navy's 5 ton Augusta Bell AB 212 Twin Huey - they carried 2x LWT/Depth Charges and a radar + dipping sonar, just like the Dhruv was supposed to do

IMHO, the Lynx design has been more successful...the helicopter itself is a 5 - 6 ton platform just like the Dhruv / AB 212, and carries the same payload 2x LWT/Depth Charges and a radar + dipping sonar. The difference appears to be the endurance and speed; not sure what enables that endurance/speed as opposed to the AB 212/Dhruv...perhaps the airframe design itself is more advanced or the engine is better suited to long range sea level flights as opposed to a short range hot/high kargil environment

6 ton Lynx Wildcat:
Powerplant: 2 × LHTEC CTS800-4N turboshaft, 1,015 kW (1,361 hp) each

5.3 ton Lynx:
Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce Gem turboshaft, 835 kW (1,120 shp) each

5 ton AB 212:
2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada T400-CP-400 turboshaft, 671 kW (900 shp) each

5.5 ton Dhruv:
2 x Turbomeca TM 333-2B2 turboshaft, 746 kW (1,000 shp) each...not sure about Shakti

I think the question that we should attempt to answer is what is the range-payload curve for navalized Dhruv at sea level, versus the Lynx. That should easily explain if the IN justifiably (or otherwise) found the Dhruv inadequete for ASW operations

I'm no aerospace designer, but it does seem that the SeaHawk and the Lynx have a longer aspect ratio. Perhaps that airframe shape along with a engine/gearbox optimized for sea level performance results in the better range/payload curve

Regards,

negi · Post by **negi** » 14 Aug 2012 22:46

Was navalized version of Dhruv like the N-LCA driven by the IN or was a sort of an after thought on the lines of hey we have a working heli so lets try this and see if it works for IN too ? Because when it comes to payload it cannot replace Seaking or even the Ka-28 so unless the payload is reduced so that Dhruv can carry it the latter won't be able to carry out those missions. It can replace the Chetak but then it's a question of costs both operating as well as acquisition , may be once Chetak is decommissioned it will be a sensible thing to do.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Aug 2012 22:56

titash wrote:...
IMHO, the Lynx design has been more successful...the helicopter itself is a 5 - 6 ton platform just like the Dhruv / AB 212, and carries the same payload 2x LWT/Depth Charges and a radar + dipping sonar. The difference appears to be the endurance and speed; not sure what enables that endurance/speed as opposed to the AB 212/Dhruv...perhaps the airframe design itself is more advanced or the engine is better suited to long range sea level flights as opposed to a short range hot/high kargil environment

...

It was reported that the Naval Dhruv (with its below-nose-mounted naval search radar and equipment) had unacceptable level of vibration. This probably indicates aerodynamic issue.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Aug 2012 23:03

negi, I don't know if it was an afterthought but I do have have old news reports from early 90's that showcased the naval version.

rohit, clearly the dhruv can't replace a sea king twice its weight. if that was the actual thought process it is quite unfathomable.
the only possible candidate would be the MATCH chetak, a craft it can replace while providing a higher performance (including those not available from chetak, like the SV-2000/XV-2004) with the downside of higher acquisition/running costs.

____________________
I thought the vibration problems were licked sometime back ? are they still there ? last I heard of vibration problem was from 2008-09 IIRC.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Aug 2012 23:25

Naval Dhruv were too big to replace the Chetak and too small to replace the Sea King/Kamov.

It did had vibration problems which iirc were not able to solve , naval variant also added weight making it some what heavier. Some serious effort went into developing Naval variant including developing the radar and dunking sonar but in the end IN was not satisfied with it.

It is a good CG choper for SAR role close to coast.

titash · Post by **titash** » 14 Aug 2012 23:31

@ negi

The product definition / design phase started in the early 80s where there wan't much money to go around, let alone for a customized product for a low volume customer like the IN. It made eminently more sense to make a helicopter that the IA and IAF would use in bulk (replacing the Chetaks & Cheetahs in their hundreds) and support mountains ops as well as punjab/thar desert logistics. The product itself appears to be designed as such for power derating in hot/high conditions as opposed to colder north atlantic (anti Soviet ASW) sea level operations

On that basis, the range-payload curve is probably not optimized for IN purposes. However, the aircraft does more than a Chetak will given the same footprint. It can fly off a deck, do SAR, and can carry a radar + dipping sonar...this is crucial, the Chetak cannot carry the same. The Dhruv design therefore in the 80s represented a quantum jump over the IN's Chetaks that were launched from the 2x Whitbys, 4x Leanders, and 1x Vikrant

- The Kashins were equipped with a specialized ASW helicopter, the Ka-25 from the outset --> no impact

- The last 2 Leanders were modified to embark a SeaKing from the outset --> no impact

- The Godavaris were designed from the outset to carry 2x SeaKing, but the operations apparently proved more challenging than expected and the ships usually operate with a Seaking + a Chetak --> if this air group was upgraded to a SeaKing + a Dhruv, its effectiveness would improve substantially

- The Khukris are more of an enigma; these 8 ships had a helipad but no hangar. Clearly they were meant to support shore or carrier based Chetak ASW/SAR ops --> a Dhruv in their place would be even better

If I were an IN strategic planner in the 80s, and I needed a better helicopter than the no-sensor Chetak, and I couldn't afford a Lynx/AB 212, it made eminent sense to go for an IA/IAF Dhruv suitably modified to carry a naval mission payload. It represented a compromise solution but was better than the obsolete or unaffordable alternatives

Today, the situation has changed. We have the money and the ASW threat perception has increased. Our fleet in the 80s had to contend with 5 diesel electric paki subs. Today our fleet has to contend with 3-5 (+6) AIP-equipped paki subs plus 3-5 newer generation chinese SSN. The top brass perhaps feels that a compromise design that was acceptable in the 80s is no longer an option today

Further Note:
Please note that the IA's modification of the Dhruv into the Rudra is a similar jugaad operation. The Dhruv is a large troop carrying helicopter with shape optimized for internal volume. Adding 4x Helina and a 20mm gun in no way makes it as capable as a purpose built attack helicopter - those are armoured, have a better pilot/WSO layout, and shape optimized for speed and manuverability
- Is the Rudra the best possoble solution? No way
- Is the Rudra affordable in numbers? Yes, and it comes with local support + upgrades
- Is it the best choice for the IA? Apparently the army aviation corps have figured out that 76 Rudra beats non-existent Apaches/Ka-50/Mi-28 any day

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 14 Aug 2012 23:39

The weight issue was used to drop/sink Dhruv for navy role. But now IN wants to replace a 2ton chetak with 4.5 ton foreign helicopter. if needs have changed than why not bring back 5 ton Dhruv in competition?

titash · Post by **titash** » 14 Aug 2012 23:46

@ Katare

I believe that statement is not 400% correct. The IN refused the navalized Dhruv for several reasons:
(1) no automatic-folding blades
(2) vibration issues (apparently resolved, but the fix was IIRC never trialled on a naval version...they had given up on the platform by then)
(3) poor payload-range performance at sea level

The IN in the 80s might have been willing to accept item# 3. With their increased budget and increased threat perception today, they probably feel that another engineering solution like the Lynx Wildcat is preferred. Apparently the above 3 issues are non existent with said copter

Hence the foreigh RFP. I was saddened too, but I am trying to understand the rationale

Regards,

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Aug 2012 00:21

KBDagha wrote:Germany Seizes Indian Naval Planes Engines

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/arti ... 66440.html

Customs stopped the shipment of four turboprop engines for Tu-142 reconnaissance aircraft destined for India and a shipment of MiG-29 fighter jet engines en route to Algeria because they lacked the necessary permits

The Tupolev engines, discovered at Hahn airport in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, are worth $3.3 million, the report said, citing no one. The MiG engines were stopped at Leipzig airport after being serviced in Russia, according to the report, which gave no information on their number or value.

The Indian navy has eight Tu-142 aircraft as part of its maritime surveillance fleet. The large four-engine plane is based on the Tu-95 strategic bomber.

Algeria has more than 30 MiG-29 jets as part of an $8 billion arms deal with Moscow. However, the country famously sent back 15 planes in 2008, citing quality problems.

kit · Post by **kit** » 15 Aug 2012 04:24

SaiK wrote:
KBDagha wrote:Germany Seizes Indian Naval Planes Engines

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/arti ... 66440.html

Customs stopped the shipment of four turboprop engines for Tu-142 reconnaissance aircraft destined for India and a shipment of MiG-29 fighter jet engines en route to Algeria because they lacked the necessary permits

The Tupolev engines, discovered at Hahn airport in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, are worth $3.3 million, the report said, citing no one. The MiG engines were stopped at Leipzig airport after being serviced in Russia, according to the report, which gave no information on their number or value.

The Indian navy has eight Tu-142 aircraft as part of its maritime surveillance fleet. The large four-engine plane is based on the Tu-95 strategic bomber.

Algeria has more than 30 MiG-29 jets as part of an $8 billion arms deal with Moscow. However, the country famously sent back 15 planes in 2008, citing quality problems.

This happens occasionally whenever weapons are being transferred.The russians are probably to blame for the fiasco.Btw Germans have kinda tightened inspections because of the iranian embargo.Dont read too much into it.

negi · Post by **negi** » 15 Aug 2012 08:18

Titash I think you missed my point; my question is what was the role envisaged for Naval Dhruv ? It cannot be ASW which is currently carried out by Seaking and Ka-28 for the payload required to carry out such a mission is heavier than what Dhruv can lift , I also realize that Seaking and the Kamov both were imported as is and hence it is not like they were designed around IN's requirements. It is obvious that Dhruv can replace the Chetak both from capability and operational stand point but the question is was it designed and inducted with that in mind, because we know that as we speak Chetaks are not being replaced by Dhruvs.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Aug 2012 08:37

which ships are still using Chetaks? and what is the role?

on a natgeo film I saw a admiral and a couple staff fly in and out of the viraat, so is it the light utility and plane guard role (flying close SAR during air ops) wherein a much bigger seaking type is a waste?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 15 Aug 2012 11:50

Vivek K wrote:Chetak - don't gloss over the issue. Rahul has asked a direct question. Pls try to answer it meaningfully.

Nothing is being glossed over sirji.

Answers may probably discussed in some meet or the other.

This is a well travelled road with many emotional supporters pro and con.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 15 Aug 2012 12:07

titash wrote:@ negi

On that basis, the range-payload curve is probably not optimized for IN purposes. However, the aircraft does more than a Chetak will given the same footprint. It can fly off a deck, do SAR, and can carry a radar + dipping sonar...this is crucial, the Chetak cannot carry the same. The Dhruv design therefore in the 80s represented a quantum jump over the IN's Chetaks that were launched from the 2x Whitbys, 4x Leanders, and 1x Vikrant

Some IN Chetaks did carry a radar for a short while. It was retrofitted, evaluated and later decided that it was not worth it.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 15 Aug 2012 12:29

Austin wrote:INS Sindhurakshak , Can some one translate it ?

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/kuleshov ... 8/1000.jpg

would you have a larger version of the page? OCR software not picking up the text. The text could then be run through Google Translate for a rough idea

Meanwhile, the QR code in the document lead to this page from the boat's launching ceremony [displays 86 mid-sized images]

http://kuleshovoleg.livejournal.com/77995.html

titash · Post by **titash** » 15 Aug 2012 20:42

@ Negi
You make a good point sirjee...someone with insider/operational information from the 80s is best suited to answer that question; perhaps tsarkar or chetak

@ Chetak
Can you please elaborate sir? A lightweight desi radar set or a heavier imported one used by SeaKing/Kamov etc? And why was it found inadequete

In this forum, we debate a lot about navy ops decisions and how they are irrational/anti-swadeshi/inferior to chinese, etc etc. I think it would really help to add a section to BR's main navy page regarding historical operational details and why such and such path was taken. Admiral Hiranandani's books are very good in that regard, but stuff like what chetak just said (i.e. Alouette III fitted with radar set and later deleted) would make fascinating reading if documented properly. It would give a good insight into how we used or planned to use or planned to improve our existing equipment; what the constraints were, what innovative solutions we came up with, etc

I don't mind volunteering my time to document such and such, if someone has a story to tell

Regards,

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 15 Aug 2012 22:52

titash wrote:@ Negi
You make a good point sirjee...someone with insider/operational information from the 80s is best suited to answer that question; perhaps tsarkar or chetak

@ Chetak
Can you please elaborate sir? A lightweight desi radar set or a heavier imported one used by SeaKing/Kamov etc? And why was it found inadequete

In this forum, we debate a lot about navy ops decisions and how they are irrational/anti-swadeshi/inferior to chinese, etc etc. I think it would really help to add a section to BR's main navy page regarding historical operational details and why such and such path was taken. Admiral Hiranandani's books are very good in that regard, but stuff like what chetak just said (i.e. Alouette III fitted with radar set and later deleted) would make fascinating reading if documented properly. It would give a good insight into how we used or planned to use or planned to improve our existing equipment; what the constraints were, what innovative solutions we came up with, etc

I don't mind volunteering my time to document such and such, if someone has a story to tell

Regards,

It was a Bendix weather radar that was already in IN inventory. It was a simple enough modification to do. The Chetak could not have pulled off anything heavier. This one was actually sensitive enough to pick up some small targets.

The radome stuck out in front from the middle of the outside of the cockpit between the two pilots.

The pilots were not happy because of visibility issues (because of the radome positioning) during operations off the deck.

titash · Post by **titash** » 15 Aug 2012 23:22

@ Chetak

Thank you for the info sirjee. I am guessing the radar is the one jutting out in this picture. I never noticed the difference earlier
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Chetak5.jpg

Regards,

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Aug 2012 23:56

chetak wrote:
Rahul M wrote:as compared to the chetak in use now ? other than the rotor folding, which is part of the dhruv's hingeless rotor design, the rest aren't true.
Rahul M ji,

The Naval "weaponised" Dhruv was woefully short on both range and load.

sorry I overlooked this post.

woefully short wrt which helicopter ? there must be a standard IN was measuring against ?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 16 Aug 2012 00:44

Rahul M wrote:
chetak wrote:{quote="Rahul M"}as compared to the chetak in use now ? other than the rotor folding, which is part of the dhruv's hingeless rotor design, the rest aren't true.
Rahul M ji,

The Naval "weaponised" Dhruv was woefully short on both range and load.
{/quote}
sorry I overlooked this post.

woefully short wrt which helicopter ? there must be a standard IN was measuring against ?

Seaking was always the standard for the weaponised version. I have no answers as to why. For the DHRUV, much was expected and even more was promised. A certain moronic chairman steamrollered all opposition with disastrous results.

I am well aware that they were in different classes but.........

It would probably have worked reasonably well if it was simply left as a Chetak replacement. The IN began to out grow the Chetak many years ago. A plain vanilla reliable Chetak and the MATCH Role version just did not cut the mustard anymore.

Newer and more capable ships plus evolving ASW doctrines including emerging threat perceptions demanded airborne platforms that could deliver the punch and still have enough room to grow.

The IN simply got tired of waiting on undelivered promises. It does not have any obligation to support a cottage industry of any sort. It was the first to put up serious cash for the promised development. It got zilch in return.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 16 Aug 2012 00:45

titash wrote:@ Chetak

Thank you for the info sirjee. I am guessing the radar is the one jutting out in this picture. I never noticed the difference earlier
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Chetak5.jpg

Regards,

Yes