Bharat Rakshak

Vasu,
What I don't understand is why this fixation on the Mi17??? I mean its an utility vehicle, designed to carry supplies to the troops and the troops themselves, why not let it do what it is designed for and let this business be taken care of heli's designed for this role..

Message from Mi-17 to BRF Jingos: "Leave me ALONE!!"



But seriously though: time to move this discussion to some other thread before the admin drones start taking too much interest in this little fun party here...

Good stuff from Ranjan as usual.

Note:

1. Aux fuel tanks are pictured for first time in the IAF (though common elsewhere)

2. Some of the V5s have conventional clam sheel type doors ... others with the more modern ramp. what gives?

While we are on the topic of choppers, instead of the IL 76, instead of retiring the Mi 26 we should just have them lift a Pinaka system and hover over the battlefield and fire rockets. I bet the MI 26 should have no probloem lifting a Tatra truck . Its flexibility you see. Use it on the ground when needed and in the air whenever needed.

Yes I agree. Neither the Mi 26 nor the Pinaka systems would be sitting ducks. At worst they would be flying, shootin' ducks.

seriously do folks see a role for AC130 style gunship using a modded AN32 "G" - 40mm cannon and a gatling gun.

The fact is that India posses neither the NLOS nor the SDB at the moment. The SDB by its very nature is a weapon to be deployed from a high seed platform. Read not suitable for a helo launch. Coming to NLOS, given the nature of the weapon and the likely range. Its functioning is largely independent of the launch platform. That being the case launching it from a helo is doesnot really give great a boot in terms of war fighting ability. While your suggestion has the disadvantage of removing a Mi 17, from tpt duties. Without a major gain in war fighting capabilities.

Nice and grilled

not in any of the theatres we expect to be in. those ships made sense for anti VC ops in the jungle
our wars are fought in much denser air defense environments

No I don't see a role. Not because it's not effective or attractive. But I think that was a product of an industry and economy that had excess and was able to develop machines for niche roles. The C-130s in an environment of total air dominance and the equipment - C-130, Gatling and everything else including the ability to achieve air dominance (AEW, SEAD, comm) were all manufactured in the US and every penny spent on the war was spent in feeding one's own military industrial complex, workers salaries and employment. In that environment it made sense. For India I don't see sch a situation arising anytime soon.

Small missiles are making an appearance and have promise for our forces IMO. The Scorpion, Spike, Viper Strike and Griffin precision guided missiles can be ground, shoulder or air launched, are about 2 feet long, cost about $5,000 each, have a range of 2-10 miles and can carry small explosives like a 4-pound HEAT or anti-personnel round. They can even be dropped like bombs and have pop-out glide wings. A transport plane, UAV or chopper can carry 3 in the place of 1 Hellfire. A smaller UAV like our Rustom-1 (Long EZ) can carry two.

A flight of 5 Rustom-1s guided by 10 soldiers could disable 10 tanks by blowing their tracks, take out individual artillery pieces or stop a regiment of infantry. They would be almost impossible to see or hear from a mile or two away, certainly at night and also be almost invisible to radar.

In a Kargil like situation, a soldier could fire a missile out of line of sight and guide it to the target 2 mies away using the on board TV camera.

In J&K infiltration and anti Maoist roles, they would limit collateral damage because of the small explosives.

These missiles won't be enough to blow up a tank or building but would be much more versatile in situations where it isn't necessary to flatten a building, just take out a sangar a mile away cheaply and with precision.

Absolutely but in time. A fixed wing aircraft with serious load carrying and loitering capability is essential to SF type operations. Except against PRC, I see this being used all across the region, including IOR. However, for most of these, we will have to first unlock our minds and move beyond territorial defense. What Shiv ji is saying can apply to so many other systems too. Expect AAC to get some serious capabilities through rotary assets first, the fixed wing slow moving gunships will come into play in about a decade's time.

Spot on Pratushji! let's revisit the utility part, MBRL's starting from the Grads (NLOS rocket) are serious firepower and artillery nos being our achilles heel, the mobility aspect (lateral) of Helos acts as a force multiplier. Many say we got IAF but then we shouldn't be needing MBRLs correct?

A direct NLOS rocket launch may not be suitable for fixed wing aircraft let alone Helos, which is why a drop launch is needed clearing it of the platform. And then the accuracy of the rocket requires a launch angle as well as terminal GPS guidance. A rocket designed around those parameters is short of say a full-fledged air launched missile and isn't really about the platform anymore, it could be drop launched by any Helo capable of carrying it. The low launch velocity imparted by a Helo will enable small motors in the nose to correct the necessary angle of attack of the rocket just after its release and before the rocket fires avoiding the need for launch tubes. Higher launch velocity seen in a fixed wing aircraft means, it will have to be a missile or precision munitions where a +ve AoA at launch isn't needed. Correct me if I am wrong.

Of the Helos, a transport was selected because of the reloads it could carry, however if the LCH's pylon is capable of carrying say a 250kg rocket then a transport could establish a weapon cache close to a forward location and the LCH formation could be reloaded from this temporary place. The NLOS rocket's range and lethality are much higher than what any Helo can carry today.

care to explain that we don't have NLOS , Thanks.

In a decades time, aircraft deploying and supporting SF might have to be technologically as advanced as the other aircraft up in the air at that point of time. There too, khan seems to be have thought ahead:

Imagine an AC-130 ish gunship based on this!


I'm sure HAL/DRDO can chop-y paste an ALH into something like this.

wow I didnt realize the stealth hawk had a nose shaped like a F117. even the air data probes are sheathed in their own stealthy cowl - uber cool.

wrt to the transport a/c model, is that real a transport ac ...the engine diameter is massive, almost same size as the fuselage itself....some kinda uber powerful son-of-JSF-engine has to be used if its a VSTOL craft.

Don't think that is the real stealth hawk. I remember reading somewhere that it's a movie prop - supposed to play the stealth hawk in an Op. Geronimo movie.

That "StealthHawk" looks like a fanboy photoshop job to me.

The lines across the floor mysteriously fade near the man's legs, and there is an idiotic line to the right side of the left mainwheel which is not a floor line, looks like a line used to tether helos to the ground in windy conditions - but what's it doing in the middle of a hangar and what's it fixed to on the ground?

Getting a whole man standing there slouching and looking like a spare tool or a son/husband/brother in a family photo and then half blurring his face looks like too obvious a ploy.

but has to be said its a well thought out model, using proven design of F117. not some of the STF stuff we see in malayalam kamandu movies

Cannot talk to the helo, but the other plane is a concept one (I had posted that one among others about a year ago). Here is another one. Everything is going stealth.

Those engine faces are highly unstealthy

That Stealth blackhawk pic is a movie prop used in Zero Dark Thirty. Somebody has been clever and blurred out the face of the extra playing that soldier.

Not a photoshop. Its a prop from the Kathryn Bigelow movie on the OBL intel op/raid.


You can see it in the trailer - on the tarmac and in flames :

it is a prop but I guess it looks very much like the real thing. various mags had published drawings using their 'sources'
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... models.jpg

Defending Indian Skies against the Chinese Air Force
By Air Commodore Ramesh Phadke

Little dated but the people who matter do study their threat levels. With much better information sources surely they know more than us.

Sinha saar, that is a model toy - from a Chinese company no less. They must have received the remains from the TSP

If you search for "Silent Hawk" images, you will see most of them have different front ends. I doubt they had real "sources" there. Of course the back ends are similar - those photos of the real thing were all over the net.

Here's an article from the time when that photo first hit the net.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/movie-prop-or-stealth/

I suppose since the cancelled commanche helicopter had already done the RCS analysis, this stealth hawk thing might also use that style and not this somewhat extreme "fish" look.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... nche12.jpg

By the by, the "Stealth-Hawk" or whatever its called, pays notably in its flight performance as a result of all this get up. Its heavy and bulky.

But that's not what Hollywood would have you believe (sometimes Hollywood behaves in a manner NCNA can only dream about).

Thats an odd location, given the feelings of significant percentage of population especially amoung Gulf employed, who have even bashed up Army Men holiday for suppossed atrocities in Kashmir.

^^ Vote bank politics needs no deep thought on location of the project. If so, Rai Bareli is the oddest location for the tons of industries opened there which are rotting now.

Hope that this unit will have a robust counter-intel setup

More than that, I hope it has significant Riot control police employed for security.. Its kerela for crying out loud, those guys literally call for a strike, and occasionally riots, at the drop of a feather..

if stealth adds to airframe weight, and can only compensated by higher rated engines, is this design option viable for LCH currently seen in Kamov-50, from wiki,

"Like other Kamov helicopters, it features Kamov's characteristic contra-rotating co-axial rotor system, which removes the need for the entire tail rotor assembly and improves the aircraft's aerobatic qualities—it can perform loops, rolls and “the funnel” (circle-strafing), where the aircraft maintains a line-of-sight to the target while flying circles of varying altitude, elevation and airspeed around it. Using two rotors means that a smaller rotor with slower-moving rotor tips can be used compared to a single-rotor design. Since the speed of the advancing rotor tip is a primary limitation to the maximum speed of a helicopter, this allows a faster maximum speed than helicopters such as the AH-64. The elimination of the tail rotor is a qualitative advantage because the torque-countering tail rotor can use up to 30% of engine power."

yes, the resident pilot has clarified that the co-axial rotors have a problem of blade rendevous, however given the drum type rotor shaft for LCH, increased separation between the two rotors is no more an issue?

Russian forces haven't adopted this Ka-50 fully yet, they only have small nos, (and it probably lost out in the Indian attack chopper contest), here there could be an opportunity for joint development of a stealth chopper

The LCH's technology roadmap can have one path for Russian JV, we can retain the Shakti engines and the Russian version can continue with their own.

it wont be the LCH but a entirely new project.

you could be the product definition director

The contra rotating blades and stealth are conflicting requirements, and if we don't derive anything from the LCH what are we bringing to the table for JV except maybe money? avionics?

Some snippets from an article in FORCE magazine by ex-ADG of AAC (Army Aviation Corps) on recent decision of MOD to transfer gunships to AAC:

- the first proposal for organic air arm of Army was mooted in 1963 by then COAS Gen. Chowdhary.

- AAC happened in mid 80s after 2+ decades of stonewalling by IAF. And finally, gunship transfer is happening further 20+ years after raising of AAC. The request for organic airlift helicopter force is still pending and this issue is yet to be resolved.

- Some AAC pilots are seconded to (already serving with) Mi-24/35 Squadrons. And there is an assumption that AH-64's will also come to the AAC.

- IA is looking at more Apaches to equip the Strike Corps with these platforms.

- It is looking at at-least 7-8 Squadrons of Rudra Gunships for Pivot Corps. The induction should happen sometime next year. The helicopter is going weapon qualification trials (minus the ATGM).

- Now that gunship question has been resolved, IA is also looking at 114 LCH for its arsenal. The induction should happen in 2015-2016 time frame.

- In terms of airlift capability, IA is planning on developing capability to airlift a Company worth of troops at Corps level, a Battalion at Command level and a Brigade at AHQ level. This will require organic tactical and heavy airlift capability. Hence, the issue of transport helicopters needs to be resolved.

- IAF has moved some assets closer to field formation in J&K to work closely with troops in CI Ops and reduce response time. But what IA is looking at is an "Aviation Brigade" concept as against "Base" concept of IAF. An Aviation Bde will consists of helicopter assets of all hues and all supporting elements and these will function from composite advanced bases which will be located close to the field formations.

Anyone with info. on the status of LTA-Saras? Has this effort been abandoned.
Thanks in advance.

NAL Director's Report 2011-12

During the year considerable progress was made in manufacturing activities related to parts of SARAS PT1-N and PT3. PT1-N is SARAS converted to PT2 standards and PT3 the production standard SARAS aircraft.

The laboratory achieved a significant breakthrough in the development of electronic systems for SARAS during the year. A number of unique and potentially-patentable technologies for civil aircraft avionics were developed: PCI bus-based express switching scheme for dual-redundant open architecture integrated modular avionics computing platform; dual-redundant, ARINC-818 architecture for the cockpit display system with distributed graphics processor interacting with main processor; redundant-configurable display system, and an advanced civil aircraft avionics architecture with dual-redundancy are currently in various stages of development, integration and testing.