LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 23 May 2014 21:57

Every day at least one is taking test rounds

vsunder wrote:Pardon my ignorance. How many Rudras have been built and inducted into the IA? At what rate are the Rudras being built every year?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 24 May 2014 16:53

Any news about the cause of the 2nd dhruv crash in Ecuador in Feb?
Is the cause of the accident known?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 May 2014 21:09

And where the hell is TD-3?

member_23364 · Post by **member_23364** » 25 May 2014 13:11

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 594339.cms

The rubber hits the road, we are getting back our money by encashing the AWIL bank guarantees. Wonder when the 3 AW-101's in India will have to be returned to AWIL?

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 26 May 2014 14:23

The best piece of news and full marks to our Defense minister.

This deal was the epitome of excesses by the Royal Gandhi family and corruption in senior ranks of armed forces (no moolah for Tyagi clan)

I mean even President Obama said no to this helicopter citing cost,imagine India buying 12 of these. Good riddance !

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 27 May 2014 20:00

I think we get to keep the 3 and pull that amount in. So effectively reducing what we paid. We should return all and ask for full refund.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 27 May 2014 22:10

100% sure spares for the 3 delivered will be priced like moon rocks so better to return.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 27 May 2014 22:30

Cybaru wrote:I think we get to keep the 3 and pull that amount in. So effectively reducing what we paid. We should return all and ask for full refund.

we should use them for reverse engineering

take what we can!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jun 2014 08:05

pics via Twinblade @keypubs

for export.

AAC dhruvs.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 01 Jun 2014 08:28

Good find for getting back to Desi bashers!

srin · Post by **srin** » 01 Jun 2014 09:43

The last pic is really "wow". TSP armored corps will start browning their salwars.

Nice to see a very SDRE pedestal fan and nilkamal plastic chair.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 01 Jun 2014 10:37

Rahul M: I am ignorant so please excuse me but out of curiosity, the multicoloured machine in the top pic for export (the one where only the tail rotor is visible may be IA ) does not seem to be a military make. Any idea when the photo was taken? The colour coding is like in the Mauritian Police Force machine though I am not sure. Inquisitive if its a new customer?

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 01 Jun 2014 16:25

Most of our exports are built to civil standards and soon ALH will be EASA certified too.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Jun 2014 04:28

Two crashes in nine months, no new deal, Siachen troops face transport crisis

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 02 Jun 2014 06:09

^I thought Dhruv was taking care of that with its ability to carry 600 kilos instead of just 20 kilos by Chetak.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Jun 2014 11:23

abhishek_sharma wrote:Two crashes in nine months, no new deal, Siachen troops face transport crisis

The issue of blades is a classic example of basic structural defects in our MIL-IND Complex.

I remember reading/watching an interview where exactly this case was brought up by IAF - it seems HAL wanted IAF to give advance orders for this type of blade for coming years (IIRC, for coming decade or so) because the manufacturer was closing the production. It never struck HAL to produce these in-house under License manufacture given the captive demand. This is how we run our MID-IND complex.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 02 Jun 2014 11:52

rohitvats wrote:
abhishek_sharma wrote:Two crashes in nine months, no new deal, Siachen troops face transport crisis
The issue of blades is a classic example of basic structural defects in our MIL-IND Complex.

I remember reading/watching an interview where exactly this case was brought up by IAF - it seems HAL wanted IAF to give advance orders for this type of blade for coming years (IIRC, for coming decade or so) because the manufacturer was closing the production. It never struck HAL to produce these in-house under License manufacture given the captive demand. This is how we run our MID-IND complex.

How do we know that manufacture was considered but dropped due to lack of economy of sale to atleast break even? We (in general not directed at any one) deride our Mil-Ind complex for re-inventing the wheel, trying to manufacture everything in house, not utilize global supply chain, etc, when it comes to turnaround time of project/ product. And yet deride them the other way when the above 'virtues' factor to screw us.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Jun 2014 12:42

KiranM wrote: How do we know that manufacture was considered but dropped due to lack of economy of sale to at least break even? We (in general not directed at any one) deride our Mil-Ind complex for re-inventing the wheel, trying to manufacture everything in house, not utilize global supply chain, etc, when it comes to turnaround time of project/ product. And yet deride them the other way when the above 'virtues' factor to screw us.

Lack of economy and scale? The version of Cheetah helicopter we use was made especially for us - by modifying the original SA-313 design a bit. And IIRC, we've close to 200 units operational as we speak. Not to mention those which would have been retired or written off due to accidents since their induction in service with IAF and IA. Also, we don't know what is the service life of such blades and how many sets are required over the lifetime of a chopper.

Situations like this reinforce the argument from Services side that PSU act more as system integrator than true vendors for some stuff they sell to Services. And which they themselves cannot service or provide customer support for and have to run to OEM for everything. All this simply adds a layer between the Service and the OEM.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 02 Jun 2014 22:10

^^ But I am not sure how this is a problem with PSU when Service side can not predict or forecast their own long term requirements. Even if the PSU was not in the middle, the OEM itself won't entertain the services here since they themselves are closing production despite knowing 100s of machines in Indian services. I believe the same was done for C17 spare by Boeing as well, IAF had to cut down the mightly attitude and provide the forecast which they loath to do when dealing with the PSU.

I am not even bringing into argument the supposedly imminent induction of LUH and the consequent scathing report by CAG for wasteful expenditure by the damn PSU for license production of obsolate equipment had they taken this up.

Lets face the fact, till the time services go for foreign systems, they will have to face these issues. The presence of PSU in India is not for the services, it is for the tax payer to reduce the cost of security via limited import substitution. And if it does not make economic sense, it won't be done; the mandate for the babus in either MOD or CAG is pretty clear on that.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Jun 2014 23:43

Picklu wrote:^^ But I am not sure how this is a problem with PSU when Service side can not predict or forecast their own long term requirements. Even if the PSU was not in the middle, the OEM itself won't entertain the services here since they themselves are closing production despite knowing 100s of machines in Indian services. I believe the same was done for C17 spare by Boeing as well, IAF had to cut down the mightly attitude and provide the forecast which they loath to do when dealing with the PSU.

I am not even bringing into argument the supposedly imminent induction of LUH and the consequent scathing report by CAG for wasteful expenditure by the damn PSU for license production of obsolate equipment had they taken this up.

Lets face the fact, till the time services go for foreign systems, they will have to face these issues. The presence of PSU in India is not for the services, it is for the tax payer to reduce the cost of security via limited import substitution. And if it does not make economic sense, it won't be done; the mandate for the babus in either MOD or CAG is pretty clear on that.

What you say makes perfect sense in an ideal world where the Service would have been dealing with OEM directly. And not through an intermediary who for some reason does not want the end user to directly talk with OEM.

Now ask yourself this - as system integrator for these helicopters and sole point of contact with IAF and IA, whose job would it be to provide heads-up on such a situation like this to Services? Why was HAL behaving as a post-man relaying message(s) between IAF and OEM? Did they even anticipate that one fine day OEM might stop producing the required blades and they need to work towards alternate solution in advance? And I'm sure blades are not the only component which OEM will stop producing in near future for these helicopters.

After all, as an entity which sold these helicopters to IAF and IA, it is HAL's job to provide required inputs. And simply wake-up one fine day and tell IAF that you're in deep sh!t. After all, are they not NOW trying to provide these blades in-house? And whose initial tests have failed?

This oversight means that IAF and IA light helicopter fleet is on a permanent decline unless new Cheetal helicopters come on-line and we subsequently see induction of LUH into service.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 03 Jun 2014 00:02

Dhananjay wrote:^I thought Dhruv was taking care of that with its ability to carry 600 kilos instead of just 20 kilos by Chetak.

Yes, there has been no news about Dhruv's being regularly used at Siachen since that article by Ajai Shukla. I wonder why, especially considering the dire situation w.r.t. helicopters there.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Jun 2014 00:21

nachiket wrote:
Dhananjay wrote:^I thought Dhruv was taking care of that with its ability to carry 600 kilos instead of just 20 kilos by Chetak.
Yes, there has been no news about Dhruv's being regularly used at Siachen since that article by Ajai Shukla. I wonder why, especially considering the dire situation w.r.t. helicopters there.

There is a whole squadron of them based to service Siachen. One Cheetah Squadron is from IAF while ALH Squadron is from IA.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 03 Jun 2014 01:06

Rohit, what you say above is correct in ideal world but I think the situation is not as simple as it appears. I am sure that IA, IAF and HAL could not provide a reasonable forecast with the LUH tamasha of 187+197 ongoing for quite some time. Remember the evaluation scandal?

If aal iz vell then imported LUH would have started flying at least 5 years back and no requirement to flog cheetah but that did not happen and none knew how long they need to flog these birds and hence no forecast and no advance spare planning.

HAL being in the middle does not cause any difference here. Treat HAL as OEM and say HAL asks services for forecast. What would be the answer? Does anybody know? Now, say HAL decides to go for license prod of these spares. But then if the foreign LUH comes onboard quickly and IAF and IA dump the old Cheetah, who will face the flak from CAG ? To HAL, it is much more important to retain the most efficient maha ratna title and show good balance sheet than any adverse comments coming from services.

It is well known that there is policy paralysis at the top of these PSU organizations due to the current meddling politician and risk averse babu culture. Without fixing the systemic issue nothing will be resolved, however much the services cry foul.

The systemic issue needs fixing at both end - producer as well as consumer.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Jun 2014 09:22

Rohit, on this issue, I'm with Picklu..this mess clearly would’ve happened whether HAL was involved or not. Had the IAF dealt directly with the OEM, they would have still seen a closure of the manufacture of those rotor blades and last minute orders may not have been satisfied.

The IAF’s job is to look ahead and predict what its requirements will be and based on those requirements, place orders with the manufacturer, be it HAL or the OEM. HAL wouldn’t have known that the IAF would at the 11th hour look for new Cheetals because its LUH procurement program was screwed up..now it’s not HAL’s fault that corrupt armed forces officers screwed up the 197 LUH acquisition. Had that not happened, the Fennec or Sergei would’ve been in service by now. As things stand, the entire deal is now on the rocks with very little chance of any forward movement..

Perhaps the best thing in this case would be an urgent one off off-the-shelf purchase of some 20-30 Fennecs or Sergei’s to meet the specific very high-altitude requirement for Siachen. No need for ToT or licence assembly in India. For the rest of the IAF’s and IA’s light helicopter requirements, let them wait for the LUH. Put pressure on HAL to speed up its development and flight testing program.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 03 Jun 2014 12:07

Don't understand why the Dhruv's cannot be used in Siachen. What specific requirement exists there that Dhruv can't meet it?

wilson_th · Post by **wilson_th** » 03 Jun 2014 14:11

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... rt-crisis/

Comment worth quoting from above article.

A Concerned Citizen >Air Warrior • 14 minutes agoDear Air Warrior, Let's please stay focused on the point that I am making. The two Dhruv MkIII accidents on the Glacier were NOT due to any technical or systems malfunction. You may please check the facts.

The case for replacement of Cheetahs is definitely justifiable, as I already said. A light helicopter is required to land on those tiny postage stamp sized helipads and on those helipads atop small ice-pillars.

However, fudging the statistics and bashing the Dhruv, so as to butress this replacement case is DEAD WRONG. Also, having flown the Mi-17, Cheetah and Dhruv Mk III on the Glacier and in the know of all performance details, I stand by my statement that the Dhruv Mk III FAR outperforms either the Cheetah or any of its intended replacements in terms of performance and handling. Have a word with the boys in the Sqn /Units out there in the field flying the Mk III to verify the facts, if you will.
And finally if I may suggest, we also need to throttle back on the scaremongering on just about everything indigenous being absolutely rotten and that only pure imports will be able to save the day. That's perfect talk for perhaps only a banana republic and is a route that leads to trouble. What is needed is a strong industrial complex based in-country (PSU, Private and Joint Ventures) supporting the military. However, that's another discussion!

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 03 Jun 2014 14:38

^+1. Funny how they imply its a technical problem with the Dhruv, when we all know that its has the best high altitude performance of any helicopter in the world. These sh!ts must be kicked out of the media as soon as possible. They will prostitute their own mothers if they get paid enough. Of course, all such news is an opportunity for the fanboys of foreign maal to jump on and whine for gold plated toys that is hardly suitable for any of the jobs needed.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 03 Jun 2014 14:47

The main reason for these kind of articles is that the import lobby is trying to revive the LUH import. We are supposed to order more foreign choppers when our own Dhruv is outperforming and doing well at the same time, the HAL LUH is very near to completion. It seems the Modi govt did did fall for this trap and is going to import about 197 LUH's. The import lobby is pretty strong.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Jun 2014 16:34

yes, there is a definite breeze blowing that indicates that the GoI will be pressurised into buying these LUHs when there is no desperate need for those..did the IAF never suffer any attrition on the Siachen glacier when the Cheetahs were newer? We've all read Hari Nair's testimonials on the Dhruv and its performance on the glacier, so its definitely not an issue related to the Dhruv..

if the IAF still hankers for those imported LUH's, then give them 20 for the Siachen glacier and ask them to wait a bit till the LUH enters service. Order more Dhruvs if required in the time being.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Jun 2014 19:04

wilson_th wrote:http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... rt-crisis/

Comment worth quoting from above article.

A Concerned Citizen >Air Warrior • 14 minutes agoDear Air Warrior, Let's please stay focused on the point that I am making. The two Dhruv MkIII accidents on the Glacier were NOT due to any technical or systems malfunction. You may please check the facts.

The case for replacement of Cheetahs is definitely justifiable, as I already said. A light helicopter is required to land on those tiny postage stamp sized helipads and on those helipads atop small ice-pillars.

However, fudging the statistics and bashing the Dhruv, so as to butress this replacement case is DEAD WRONG. Also, having flown the Mi-17, Cheetah and Dhruv Mk III on the Glacier and in the know of all performance details, I stand by my statement that the Dhruv Mk III FAR outperforms either the Cheetah or any of its intended replacements in terms of performance and handling. Have a word with the boys in the Sqn /Units out there in the field flying the Mk III to verify the facts, if you will.
And finally if I may suggest, we also need to throttle back on the scaremongering on just about everything indigenous being absolutely rotten and that only pure imports will be able to save the day. That's perfect talk for perhaps only a banana republic and is a route that leads to trouble. What is needed is a strong industrial complex based in-country (PSU, Private and Joint Ventures) supporting the military. However, that's another discussion!

Couldn't find this comment on the given link. Has it been removed?? Guess some comment from this guy "A Concerned Citizen" has been removed as he has posted in his comment:

"And kindly do publish my comments this time
around, dear Sir!
Else, it will be quite clear that this is a paid news article on behalf of the potential foreign vendors!"

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Jun 2014 22:02

Kartik/Picklu,

My comment has nothing to do with any aspect of performance of ALH in Siachen or other high-altitude areas. And I also know that the article is bogus in the sense that it tries to raise issue about LUH by quoting incidence of ALH crash. Funny thing is, Indian Army Aviation Corps (AAC) does not operate Cheetah helicopter in support of Siachen operations - it is the IAF's 114 HU which operates these choppers. And IA did not start using ALH in Siachen because it has short-fall of Cheetah helicopters. That is a well reasoned decision for obvious reasons. Fact is, IA and ALH have a strong love affair going with HAL having its order book brimming at the edges.

That article does not have case for LUH and Siachen when it quotes IA ALH crash figures and creates a scare scenario. He even presents a data-point contrary to his own argument - that of 30 contracted Cheetal helicopters, 20 with required blade type are going to IA. Well, if IA was going to induct these Cheetal helicopters for Siachen operations, there is no issue to begin with. It is IAF which is w/o new choppers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, coming to HAL and blade issue.

But before I proceed, it seems that our friend in IE is bull-shitting and mixing up data-points (and also plane lying) to create a sense of urgency for LUH import. But that still does not absolve HAL of its short-coming. And here is why.

1. Cheetal is NOT an emergency purchase:

- The contract between HAL and IAF for 10 Cheetal helicopters was signed in - 2006 - and as of February 2013, 09 of these helicopters were delivered to IAF.

(link: http://www.army-technology.com/news/new ... opters-hal)

- HAL was in negotiation with IA since 2010 for sale of Cheetal helicopters and the deal was finally signed in early 2013 for supply of 20 Cheetal helicopters over next 4-year period to IA.

(Link: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/314 ... ppers.html)

2. Cheetal seems to have been developed for high altitude operations with better engine performance and handling. My assumption is that given the primary role of IAF in Siachen operations, it went for such a machine. IA is late entrant to this party.

Description - Cheetah - Cheetal
Empty weight-1130 - 1110
Passenger (Incl. Pilot) - 3+2 - 3+2
Payload (Kg) at 6000mt - 50 - 90
Fuel consumption (Kg/Kw hr) - 0.47 - 0.38
Fuel Capacity-575-575
Cruise speed, km/hr - 192-192

(source: http://www.hal-india.com/barrackporediv ... boutus.asp)

Long story short - what seems to be happening is that HAL has run out of reserves of high-altitude blades supplied to it by the OEM. The fact that last set of 20 blades will be going to IA makes sense in light of new order - and the point about IAF being left high and dry seems to indicate no reserve blades for 10 already supplied to IAF.

HAL is trying to come up with indigenous solution to tide over this problem. And hence, the recent high-altitude tests of helicopters with HAL developed/sourced blades.

Now, since HAL had committed to supply IAF with these choppers in 2006 and had offered the same to IA in 2010, did it not bother to check on the OEM on the status of these blades? How was it going to service the future requirement for these choppers which it was selling or wanting to sell to IAF and IA? What would be the status of its contract with IA if these blades are not available?

Fact is, it received the word from OEM and simply passed it on to Services. It was caught off-guard and tried to pass the buck to the end-user.

Since we don't have the recourse to OEM now, HAL is trying to develop the blades in-house. Or source alternate vendor. Which puts to rest the theory about import-substitution happening for only those products which have necessary scale.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 04 Jun 2014 14:21

raghuk wrote:Most of our exports are built to civil standards and soon ALH will be EASA certified too.

Once it is EASA certified, obtaining a Type Certificate from FAA shouldn't be a big problem. Which means that Dhruv can operate in Massa as well.

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 04 Jun 2014 20:36

wilson_th wrote:http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... rt-crisis/

Comment worth quoting from above article.
A Concerned Citizen >Air Warrior • 14 minutes agoDear Air Warrior, Let's please stay focused on the point that I am making. The two Dhruv MkIII accidents on the Glacier were NOT due to any technical or systems malfunction. You may please check the facts......of performance and handling. Have a word with the boys in the Sqn /Units out there in the field flying the Mk III to verify the facts, if you will......
And finally if I may suggest, we also need to throttle back on the scaremongering on just about everything indigenous being absolutely rotten and that only pure imports will be able to save the day. That's perfect talk for perhaps only a banana republic and is a route that leads to trouble. What is needed is a strong industrial complex based in-country (PSU, Private and Joint Ventures) supporting the military. However, that's another discussion!

I have a confession to make here - I wrote those comments as a "Concerned Citizen" - I was and still am pretty livid by the attempts by the IAF/ Army (as I am given to understand it is most likely the IAF who have been releasing this media leak) to bolster their case by FUDGING repeat FUDGING the stats of the two Mk-III crashes on the Glacier. I stand by what I stated in that comment and I would really like to meet that Blessed Person who released that nonsense statement to the media on the Mk-III ALH (Dhruv).

I do believe that its highly UNPROFESSIONAL to release such calibrated and untruthful leaks to the media when the facts are absolutely the other way around.

If if we may forget about the hard, cold stats for a moment, may I remind all that besides the figures, it takes a fair amount of dedication and work to achieve the targets that we have, as a team.

A bit of advice to the powers that be - please read my last para in the comment - rest assured - we are definitely looking forward to meet the gents in person who put up that media article - we have a few things to ask you - and those Qs are'nt going to be easy, May I assure you......

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 04 Jun 2014 20:47

^^^ Respect, for standing up for the truth.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 04 Jun 2014 22:09

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?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 04 Jun 2014 22:15

Rohitvats et al: Manu Pubby is on Twitter. I am going to call out his lie & ask people to read Hari Nair Ji's comments (without mentioning his name of course)

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Jun 2014 22:30

rohitvats wrote:
nachiket wrote: Yes, there has been no news about Dhruv's being regularly used at Siachen since that article by Ajai Shukla. I wonder why, especially considering the dire situation w.r.t. helicopters there.
There is a whole squadron of them based to service Siachen. One Cheetah Squadron is from IAF while ALH Squadron is from IA.

Thanks. From the further posts, it appears that the problem is with replacement blades for the Cheetals already supplied to the IAF by HAL and being operated by 114HU.

My concern is, that even the improved Cheetal does not compare in payload capacity to the ALH at high altitudes. So it would be way more efficient to use the ALH exclusively to support Siachen operations. The higher ALH operating costs will be offset by being able to deliver the same amount of payload in one flight as the Cheetal can in several. The IAF has Mk.III Dhruv's (with the SHakti engine) of its own I hope (if not it should definitely order some). Why not get one of those units for Siachen support operations and rotate out the 114HU to perform other less critical duties where if they are grounded due to lack of spares it is not as serious a problem as at Siachen?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Jun 2014 00:14

^^^the answer to your question lies in the comment of Nair Sir in the column section of that article. It has been quoted in a post on previous page.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Jun 2014 01:27

rohitvats wrote:Fact is, it received the word from OEM and simply passed it on to Services. It was caught off-guard and tried to pass the buck to the end-user.

Usual practise worldwide is for system integrator to check with users about consumption/usage patterns, and take the predicted usage back to the manufacturer of any part. Overstocking is common, and a fact of life. In HAL/IAFs case, both seemed to be caught in a war of who owns the costs for stockpiling these items and also, what the actual predicted usage will be.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Jun 2014 01:29

Hari Nair wrote:I have a confession to make here - I wrote those comments as a "Concerned Citizen" - I was and still am pretty livid by the attempts by the IAF/ Army (as I am given to understand it is most likely the IAF who have been releasing this media leak) to bolster their case by FUDGING repeat FUDGING the stats of the two Mk-III crashes on the Glacier. I stand by what I stated in that comment and I would really like to meet that Blessed Person who released that nonsense statement to the media on the Mk-III ALH (Dhruv).

I do believe that its highly UNPROFESSIONAL to release such calibrated and untruthful leaks to the media when the facts are absolutely the other way around.

If if we may forget about the hard, cold stats for a moment, may I remind all that besides the figures, it takes a fair amount of dedication and work to achieve the targets that we have, as a team.

A bit of advice to the powers that be - please read my last para in the comment - rest assured - we are definitely looking forward to meet the gents in person who put up that media article - we have a few things to ask you - and those Qs are'nt going to be easy, May I assure you......

Kudos sir, for standing up for the truth.