Bharat Rakshak

IAF pilot killed in Surya Kiran plane crash in Karnataka

TOI Link


A real sad day for us..
First came the news of Brahmos failure and now this, which hurts much more..

It's really a sad day. My deepest sympathy and prayers go out to pilot's family. May god be with him.

Shiv aroor is reporting that the IAF is trying to get both Boeing and Bell back in to Attack helicopter competition. Both had pulled out citing inadequate time for submitting their response to RFP.

Bell quit coz Cobra was not availaible for direct commercial sale. if the news is true then it seems IAF is smitten with abilities of Apache.

I Captured a couple of Crocs !

R Day practice over New Delhi.

3 Mi-25 helicopters in a 3 ship formation. I saw two others flying seperately.
Jaguars in a 5 ship arrowhead formation. flying too fast and too low to capture on camera
3 MKI's doing the Trishul maneuver, then one of them goofing off in the air - reminded me of my 'lil doggie on a fun day doing rolls all over the place.

Is this the 2nd crash involving SKAT?

yes a sqdn leader & wingco were KIA last year iirc.

nice shots saggu ji. Wondering what would have happened if the pilot saw you taking photos.

Sorry Rahul bhai couldnt resist it

chakri sahib, a gentle birdie tells me that it doesn't like pingrezi usage outside its particular niche.

what's more, a hellfire may come your way if certain unmentionable people notice it.
please edit it.
regards.

Would be great to get the Apache for IA. Sure expect the Pakistanis to demand the same from The US.

not sure why we need yet another attack chopper typewhen LCH will be able to do anything these ones can on a similar timescale of induction.

Dont know what are the capabilities of the LCH and now it compares with the Apache.

The advantages of Appaches over LCH are range and payload.
(Leaving out avionics and optronics for comparison)

However, LCH will score over the service ceiling (strangely, as per Wiki, service ceiling is almost the same for both)

Appache is in the medium class (Hind/ Havoc being the heavy class). It is ideally suited for ops in desert/ plains. Given its range, can undertake deep penetration ops. This is primarily to support the role of 101st Air Assault Division.

LCH - light class, is to be for all terrain purposes, especially at High altitudes. Given its range, LCH is more of a CAS helicopter, operating near FEBA. I believe the main advantage of LCH over Appache will be its cost and complexity. It will be way cheaper and less maintenance intensive. Hence, enabling use in larger numbers.

India's needs favour LCH more than Appache.

So they are in a different class of helicopters. LCH being light and the Hinds being heavy and doubling up as troop mover, the Apache could fit in well in the Indian scheme of things since it has a proven record in hot/desert conditions. With the rotor mounted radar, it can be a great asset to the IA.

Well, I would hold my horses till LCH gets off the ground and tests all weapon systems throughly. Any information of exactly what is delaying the first flight?

That seems to be the problem, lack of confidence on Industry.

Even after inducting Dhruv, Armed forces have not reduced their requirement of foreign helicopters. Assuming Dhruv Project never existed, Forces would import the same no. of helicopters as they are doing now.

Same happening with Attack helis. they would import helis to replace Mi-35, regardless of what happens with LCH.

Tiger, A129 and AH-1 Cobra, all belong to the LCH class of weight n size. and yet they are participating in tender.

Not really. Hinds are offensive platforms to support (by battle field interdiction) IA Strike Corps in the Thar desert or Punjab plains.

In the current scenario, we need integrated CAS in large numbers. Providing dedicated fighters to Cold Start battle groups will be under utilizing the range and capabilities of a fighter jet. LCH type helicopters fit the role snugly.

In lay man's terms:

Hinds/ Appaches for Sundarji doctrine which was to slice Pakistan deep.
LCH for cold Start doctrine which is to deliver many severe bleeding cuts.

The prevalent real politik favours CS type ops than Sundarji type annihilation.

what is the difference between capabilities offered by Apache/Hind and that of LCH??

heavy helis would carry double the payload and no. of missiles but what else?

the basic difference is the LCH is what the name suggests, a light helicopter with lesser payload. However the operating altitude remains to be seen. Also the AH-64D has the radome on top to enable the Apache to be concealed while it attacks. I dont know if that will be an option on the LCH.

while its attacking or while tracking?

how can helicopter attack a target while hiding behind a mountain or a tree.

Actually, Apache and Hinds are not on the same level.
Hind - Heavy, Apache - Medium, LCH -Light.

Each caters for a niche role/ doctrine.

Hind Mi-24/ 35:
Disadvantages - heavy, unable to fly high (restricted to ops in desert/plains/ jungles), least manoeuvrable, less range
Advantages - payload, survivability (most survivable - has more armour weight wise)
Role - an airborne extension of armour/ mechanized brigade. Best used along with armoured forces.
It also has troop carrying capacity. But in my opinion, that advantage is small. Can carry 8 extra men at the cost of armour plates removed in the rear, considering MANPADs will be targetting the 'hind' of the Hind . For the same reason, the replacement Mi -28 will carry just 3 extra men (downed pilots who are rescued).

Ah-64 Apache:
Disadvantages: manoeuvrability (comparatively more than Hind, less than LCH), survivability (armour) - less than Hind, mroe than LCH
Advantages: Payload, range, flies higher (more than Hind, less than LCH) - but passable performance at high altitudes
Role - stand alone battlefield interdiction, CAS and as airborne artillery (because of Longbow Hellfires). Primarily the last role. Its range is very useful to strike deep. Hence, also used to support and sustain air assault.

LCH (Specs very limited in open sources, hence comparison based on its stated role)
Disadvantages: range, payload, has least armour
Advantages: most manoeuvrable of the 3, to fly higher than any existing attack helicopters, more stealthy than the other 2
Role- primaily CAS - especially infantry support. Also designed with mountain/ high altitude warfare in mind. As an extension can perform in any environment.

In layman's words;
Hind class - Armour/ tank among attack choppers,
Apache class - Artillery among attack choppers,
LCH class - Infantry among attack choppers

the point i want to make is the difference is not big enough for forces to procure two different attack helicopters. LCH should be able to a decent job both in mountain terrains and anti-armor operations. for deep assault operations, may be they can carry some external fuel or have air refuelling capabilities. Is there really a need to have both Heavy and Medium weight attack helicopters dealing with different missions. besides most utility n transport helis are fitted with unguided rockets, machine guns to provide close air support, Dhruv WSI is one step ahead with 20mm Cannon, FLIR and Mistral AAM.

I personally support LCH only. India needs Infantry CAS more than tank plunking. We have/ on the way to have enough platforms for countering tank threat from Pak/ China. From man portable ATGMs on low end to fighters on high end, with anti tank special platforms like Namica in between. This in addition to our own tanks which are sufficient in quantity, if not quality.

Moreover, for heavy/ medium role, I believe India should explore a CAS specific plane. A-10 Warthog and V-22 Osprey hybrid may be?! May be we can borrow some of the 'mating' skills from our friends across the border.

So much misinformation. Check the roles.
Link

Link

Someone commented long time back that BR seems to move in circles as far as discussions are concerned. At the time I wondered how true it was, but as I now rewrite a post I had written long time back, I will have to agree with the original assertion.

The AH-64 helicopter has no equal in operations at sea level. Unfortunately, as you go higher and higher, its performance drops drastically. There were days early on in the war in Afghanistan when Apache crews complained of not having the power in the engines to hover OGE (Out of Ground Effect) at some of the higher altitude helipads. There were other cases where the engines were running on TGT and Fuel-Flow extreme limits even to clear peaks at 10,000 feet altitudes. The early model 701 engines were not designed with high altitude operations in mind.

That changed with the 701D engines. Since the designers could not reduce the weight of the airframe drastically, they put more powerful engines inside.

Even then, the altitude limitations means that the helicopter cannot operate in the high altitude regions of India. To make this clear, I have attached a chart below:

Some notes:
a) Service Ceiling is not a measure of the combat capability of the helicopter. Measured in Rate of Climb terms, it suggests that the helicopter can maintain a ROC of 0.5m/sec (Some manufacturers define these terms differently, but overall the picture does not change too drastically). This ROC is meaningless in combat operations. The minimum therefore set ROC is 2.5m/sec, and called the Combat Ceiling (See chart).

b) As you increase the ROC requirement, the payload capability decreases drastically.

c) The LCH, being lighter and designed with High altitude operations in mind, beats the AH-64D (with 701D engines) at combat ROC values.



For details on the analysis conducted, please refer the LCH analysis data on the previous pages of this thread.

Thanks.

-Vivek

the latest issue of Air Forces Monthly has a small snippet on a mutual exchange visit by 2 pilots from the RAF 'Dambusters' squadron to the No. 10 Winged Daggers based in Jaisalmer. Apparently, No.10 Squadron had sent 2 of its pilots to a Tornado squadron in the UK, where they flew a couple of sorties in the Tornado IDS, and even dropped a bomb over some range in the UK..

currently, No.10 'Winged Daggers' and No.29 'Scorpions' squadrons are the only ones equipped with the upgraded MiG-27 UPG (which should make up for the 40 upgraded MiG-27s that were planned). there was a small picture of an upgraded MiG-27 with 2 IAF pilots and 2 RAF pilots. these RAF pilots got to fly on a MiG-23UM and they too dropped a bomb over some range in Rajasthan.

@Uddu, misinformation about what? The roles I posted? Nowhere am I saying LCH is incapable of anti-tank roles. I said the primary role of LCH is for supporting the grunts on the ground. My assertion is because of importance attached to its high altitude capabilities. By that I do not claim LCH is incapable of anti-tank ops.

@Vivek ji, I think I more or less supported the fact that LCH is suited for high altitude combat than AH-64. Whom specifically are you referring to when you say 'BR seems to move in circles as far as discussions are concerned'?

My understanding of the roles envisaged for Mi-24/28, AH-64 and LCH wrong at any part?

KiranM

I was blaming no one in particular, but pointing out that the nature of the information that start off discussions on BR allow for this to happen from time to time. In other words, because the journos and Media keep on circulating the old stuff again and again, every time Shiv Aroor opens his mouth to repeat his recirculated material, we end up having a discussion on it that is also the same in terms of arguments and material.

It was in this context that a senior member (I think it was JCage, but cannot remember now) had said that BR seems to move in circles. Of course, at the time I was in my first rotation of the circle so did not believe it. But with regard to the IAF helicopter deals and so forth, I have been taking special interest in that I was posting the aircraft analysis and charts like I posted previously etc in response to questions about the capability and performance of the LCH versus other types etc. Having seen the arguments being presented here reminded me of the previous discussions we had on the same material and the same topic.

But enough OT, I guess.

Okay, here's a question to folks talking about the Apache and LCH:

Which is better: A helicopter that does a role against Pakistan but sits out a war against China or two LCH which would be needed to do the same job against Pakistan but would also take part in a war against China?

Let's not confuse capability with performance.

JMT

-Vivek

Hehe Vivek.... I guess that is normal with all forums, more so BRF with its more frequent archivals and trashing of threads... most posters are not 'career' jingos, and come here for a ready reckoner... at most, they will search the 10 pages of this thread for info. They won't look into the archives and trashcan before posting their doubts, hence the recycled arguments and qns. Hence the circular nature of the thread.

I'd call this phenomenon "poster memory" (a bit more than goldfish memory, a lot less than an elephant memory")

P.S. What does JMT mean - Just my two cents??

I think so. But Can it not be solved by archival of threads...i think archival of text based threads dont occupy much storage space..

Hi All,
VRDE displayed small UAV (Looked like vignaharta UAV displayed at AeroIndia) and 3 engines which have application in UAV at IIT techfest. Cost of these UAV was around 10 Lac (Nope you can't buy this expensive toy). It had very short range and was controlled by small hand held remote control. Will post pictures and brouchre shortly. Also, scaled version of Nishant and Lakshay were also displayed. Two lady scientists and gentlemen were patiently explaining in detail to the crowd. No typical government agency rude behaviour was noticed and I was very impressed.

Regards,
Khambat Dagha.

thanks KBD. we need 'em brochures pronto !

kp : JMT --> just my thoughts.


the circular nature of discussions is a reality. as vivek says, we had a detailed discussion on the LCH and attack helo RFP last time around, within the last 6 months.

Thanks Kartik. This confirms some of the reports from earlier as well. So only 40 Mig-27's were upgraded, without the upgraded engines (downgraded Al-31) and IFR probes.

Someone correct me, but now one of the upgraded aircraft can paint the target for the rest of the legacy aircrafts?

yes, that is the aim- to use these MiG-27s as lead aircraft in a strike formation, the rest being bomb trucks..but providing every MiG-27 with a more ergonomic cockpit and INS/GPS based navigation should have been a priority, not just a few among the fleet. BTW, there was no IFR probe on the upgraded MiG-27 on display in the pic (if it really was an upgraded MiG-27 in the pic, but looking at the HUD, it looked like an upgraded Flogger)

why just 40? are even Mig-27s become old.

they were inducted only in 80s n 90s. Is there any plan to retire aircraft which are not upgraded? we have 100+ Mig-27s, retiring them before LCA induction will add further to woes of falling squadron levels.

Most probably they will be upgraded in phases , and some will go through different upgrade programme

No, I meant without the IFR probe. That was part of the original plan, but was withdrawn because of the cost involved.

floggers will mainly be used in CAS, range will be a lesser concern in that.

I guess with the su's, jags and mirages the IAF reckons it has enough DPSA birds.