Aero India 2009

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Feb 2009 14:10

Oui, mon ami! Fortunately it is not Boucher-itis!

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 18 Feb 2009 15:05

Philip wrote:Oui, mon ami! Fortunately it is not Boucher-itis!

Entharu Philipocha, your thoughts are more like Chintha bharam rodil, Maoism veetil.

You may be an old person with a cold war mindset. Today's youngsters don't have such a mindset. It's more about to succeed and nothing is impossible kind of a viewpoint. We can built much more than than anyone can. The only thing lacking is determination, especially in people like you.

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 18 Feb 2009 16:41

I love this photo of Tejas

http://www.flickr.com/photos/markdmartin/3287786485/

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Feb 2009 17:26

LCA flying display
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbbXooobp7I

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Feb 2009 17:27

RFID tag and copper antenna around it stuck to Parking area pas at Aero India. What is the copper ring for?
(click on pic to enlarge)

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 18 Feb 2009 17:36

OK, Report on HAL's Helo development and INdian Helo development.

AeroSeminar talk by Dr. Prasad Sampath, HAL Chief Designer of the Rotary Wing R&D Centre (RWR&D Centre).

Please forgive if a lot of this info was already in public... just recapping and adding in full, in case there are some new tidbits.

HAL Heli division started in 1970 in HAL Barrackpore (now is located in Bangalore only). It has first produced Alouettes and Lamas under license. It has since produced 347 Chetaks, 275 Cheetahs under license, of which 395 are in service now.

The breakup of active Helos are

Cheetah - 45 IAF + 127 Army = Total 172
Chetak - 87 IAF + 55 Army + 64 Navy + 17 Coast Guard = Total 223

The Cheetah was re-engined with the Turbomeca TM3332B in 2001, called the cheetal and set the world record of 25150 ft on Nov 04. Based on the success of that program, the Navy asked for reengining of the Chetaks, called Chetans.

Coming to the ALH, the project was launched with MBB as consultants. The design was initially a single engine, but later became a twin engine based on changed force requirements.

PV1 flew = August 1992.
Military certification = 2001
Civil Certification (DGCA) = 2002

The features of the ALH are:
- Multi-role, multi-misison
- All weather op
- FADEC control
- Hingeless main rotor and Bearingless tail rotor - the main rotor is the stiffest in existance today, which gives the ALH superb maneuverability and lot of lift, as the Sarangs demonstrate {{with teh LCH also sharing the rotor, imagine the possibilities}}

Hot Weather Trials - Jodhpur
Hot & Cold Weather Trials - Leh, Sarsawa, Manasbal

Ferry ranges of over 2000 km have been achieved (I guess this was with staging, but it demonstrates the Dhruv's long endurance and low maintenance capability):

Bangalore - leh = 2345 km
In South America, from Santiego, they travelled OVER 3000 km, over high altitudes, and across the mountainous terrain, with no glitches and faults. The South Americans were highly impressed.

Right now, the Dhruvs are in service with -

PV = 5 nos
Military = 74 nos = 40 Army + 22 AF + 8 IN
RNA (Nepal) = 3 nos
Ecuador = 2 nos (the remaining 5 were delivered in AI)
Civilian Operators = 6 nos

There are currently 5 tranches - PV, Mk1 to Mk4.

Mk4 is the WSI Dhruv.

PV -

- 5 nos in operation
- Conventional cockpit
- TM 333 2B1 engine (648 kW power)
- Vibration reduction using ARIS (Active Resonance Isolation System)

Mk 1

- 56 in service
- Conventional cockpit
- TM 333 2B2 engine (705 kW)

Mk2:

- Glass Cockpit (Basic)
- 17 in service
- TM 333 2B2 engine

- Mk 1 and Mk2 had both ARIS + FRAHM vibration reduction. FRAHM is an active vibration cancellation system, and was sourced from Lourds Corp, USA (I hope the spelling is correct - may be wrong though).
- Mk.2 onwards also had a vibration monitoring system, in order for the FRAHM to work. Mk2 had a Mk.1 VMS.

Mk3:

- Glass Cockpit (Advanced, with Israeli Avionics)
- 17 in service
- 3 more are planned for induction in the 08-09 period
- Shakti Engine (871 kW)

Prasad Sampath mentioned that one Dhruv was coming in directly from Leh to Bangalore to take part in the Air show, and would be flying down - another indicator of the ruggedness of the machine.

Mk4:

- This is the WSI Dhruv
- Has a full glass cockpit
- None in service yet, but 159 are planned for induction in the 09-10 period.
- Shakti engine.

- Mk 3 and WSI have an ARIS + AVCS vibration reduction

AVCS = Active Vibration Control System

It is an indigenously developed system, and is better than the FRAHM from US. It has been successfully trialled, and is now flight qualified.

Along with the AVCS, Mk3 and 4 have a new, upgraded Mk.2 VMS which is being currently tuned for flight operations.

The 2nd generation AVCS is almost done (I dont remember if it has been integrated already). The advantages over the 1st gen are:

- reduced wt from 80 kg to 55 kg
- Expandable
- fault tolerant
- Robust to EMI

It consists of
- Biaxial force generators (for the active cancellation) - 7 are used on the helo - #2 below the nose, and #7 close to the rotor.
- Sensors (Accelerometers)
- System Controller
- Wiring Harness
- Power supply.

The WSI Dhruv will have the following weapons suite:
- ATAM
- Rocket Pod
- 20 mm Nexter turret gun
- A2G missile
- ATGMs

As of now, the Gun and Rockets have been fired (a video was shown)... they were very worried that the gun would cause excess recoil and vibrations, but wonder of wonders, when the gun fired, there was almost zero recoil, and nothing was felt in the cockpit (the video also showed this, and the helo was completely steady).

Gun trials were conducted in Sep 08 in Nasik.
Rockets were fired at ITR Chandipur in Nov 08

Other systems include:
- Datalink (will be added)
- HPS (Helmet)
- An EO pod (Has been tested)
- EW suite (tested successfully)

As of now, it is clear that the non-WSI dhruv may end, since the forces have ordered large numbers of WSI dhruvs, and less Mk3 dhruvs. However, the Mk3 will definitely have foreign sales.

Asked about sales to Burma, he said there was no confirmation, and he wasn't aware of any such offer... got very worried if i was a journo or what.

Asked if they were looking for an mmW sensor, he said that that was not on their radars at the moment, but would look at it if the forces asked for one.... he did mention that the tech had to be developed for that first.

Will post on LCH, IMRH, NRUAV and LUH tomorrow.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 18 Feb 2009 17:40

390 IMRH (the 10-12 ton helo) are being planned for - will post on that tomorrow.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 18 Feb 2009 17:59

HAL Heli division started in 1970 in HAL Barrackpore (now is located in Bangalore only). It has first produced Alouettes and Lamas under license. It has since produced 347 Chetaks, 275 Cheetahs under license, of which 395 are in service now.

The breakup of active Helos are

Cheetah - 45 IAF + 127 Army = Total 172
Chetak - 87 IAF + 55 Army + 64 Navy + 17 Coast Guard = Total 223

......................

Right now, the Dhruvs are in service with -

PV = 5 nos
Military = 74 nos = 40 Army + 22 AF + 8 IN
RNA (Nepal) = 3 nos
Ecuador = 2 nos (the remaining 5 were delivered in AI)
Civilian Operators = 6 nos

Prasad, great stuff on the numbers - thanks. The numbers on Chetaks and Cheetahs are not easily available and this stuff is really useful.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 18 Feb 2009 18:36

k prasad wrote: Mk4:

- This is the WSI Dhruv
- Has a full glass cockpit
- None in service yet, but 159 are planned for induction in the 09-10 period.
- Shakti engine.

~160 A/Cs per year!! Here comes the charge of the Light Cavalry Brigade!

Them + light infantry make potent combo in mountain warfare.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Feb 2009 18:54

Thanks for the updates on WSI Dhruv K Prasad....

rahuldevnath · Post by **rahuldevnath** » 18 Feb 2009 19:05

Some Updates

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 18 Feb 2009 19:38

The IMRH numbers are these as per requirement by the armed forces (Do they want it?) or just guesses based on the number of Mi-17's and sea kings?

maz · Post by **maz** » 18 Feb 2009 19:46

To kprasad, mr reddy, mr devnath, rakall and all the others who are giving us all of this excellent updates: we sure appreciate your hard work. Keep up the good work people.

hopefully the grand master provided good libations at the BR meet

sum · Post by **sum** » 18 Feb 2009 19:49

Sorry if i missed it but is there ANY update on the attack helo ( 22 numbers) contest?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Feb 2009 20:14

ah, Rahul D, this made my day !!

KP, thanks a lot for the info. eagerly waiting for your post on IMRH configuration, so is vivek I'm sure !

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Feb 2009 20:23

With respect folks. I thought the LCA display in 2007 revealed the agility better with faster rolls and turns - and less hazy/dusty weather.

Start watching from 1.00 minute onwards...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywNwdqXNGvs

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Feb 2009 20:28

just watched the LCA vid.
while you are correct about 2007, I'm not complaining !

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Feb 2009 20:42

awesome vid..did seems smokey at times on climbs and turns.. ge404-in20? /again not a complain.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 18 Feb 2009 22:47

theres a small quote from Suman Sharma [dubbed in Russian

] in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdKVsGyZrnE

appears in the latter half of the video

for some strange reason, the reporter chose to depict all/only the bhelpuri and juice walla's customer as AE visitors

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Feb 2009 23:21

adder wrote: well dont forget the even in the F-35 the most expensive version is navy version F-35c,and i was in the impression that the F-35B with its lift fan was the most expensive i was wrong ,the navy version for carrier landing needs a lot of structural changes with beefed up parts,same goes to the MIG29k.the MIG-35 will for sure cost a lot cheaper compared to MIG-29k,the AESA in the MIG 35 aint gone a cost a lot,and when u order 126 or more planes the cost is certainly going to come down further.

well you're right that a naval version with its anti-corrosion coatings, special alloys and specialised heavier landing gear and undercarriage is generally more expensive, but the cost difference will not be that great when you consider that the MiG-35 will have some new features.

AESA radars are generally very expensive as compared to mechanically scanned arrays (the APG-79 costs nearly $2.5 million per set, and even if the Zhuk-AE is cheaper, it'll cost a million $ at least).

also, some of the avionics for the MiG-35 are new and not found on the MiG-29K which will make it more expensive- for instance,a new OBOGS, the new OLS and the Elettronica SPJ that the MiG-29K lacks.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Feb 2009 23:32

mig-35 has elettronica SPJ as standard fit ??

any source for that ?

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 18 Feb 2009 23:40

Rahul M wrote:mig-35 has elettronica SPJ as standard fit ??
any source for that ?

Russian Aircraft Corporation «МiG» and Italian company Elettronica S.p.A. cooperate in integrating ELT/568(V)2 self-protection jammer onboard the МiG-35 fighter

MiG Corp. press release

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Feb 2009 23:44

a present to BRFites from a guru who hasn't been seen here for a long time.

check these out.

http://www.showdailys.com/events/default.asp?id=13

comprehensive daily reports for all of u

http://www.showdailys.com/E-publisher/i ... 1_19_19_34
http://www.showdailys.com/E-publisher/i ... 2_10_07_08
http://www.showdailys.com/E-publisher/i ... 3_01_50_13

added later: thanks Jai, didn't know that.

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 19 Feb 2009 01:00

Rahul Devnath, simply superb snaps!

And Shiv, thanks for putting up the LCA video.

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 19 Feb 2009 01:18

Suman Sharma said that she took inspiration from a famous woman Cosmonaut and that even though she (Suman) hasn't reached for the stars yet, she has taken a step closer....

Hiten wrote:theres a small quote from Suman Sharma [dubbed in Russian ] in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdKVsGyZrnE

appears in the latter half of the video

for some strange reason, the reporter chose to depict all/only the bhelpuri and juice walla's customer as AE visitors

maz · Post by **maz** » 19 Feb 2009 02:48

Did anyone besides Mr Reddy and Yaswant take pics of the poster boards and info boards?

If so, please post on BR media album at http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/AeroIndia2009/

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Feb 2009 04:09

As for the MiG-35's cost, I think you're running far ahead of yourself. the MiG-29K cost escalation gave figures of nearly $80 million per MiG-29K, and I see no reason as to why a slightly superior MiG-35 (due to its new generation optical avionics and AESA) would be any cheaper.

Not true. Senor Pogo during AI09 clarified that the K still costs around $46 mil per a/c. The 75 mil figures were ddmitis/hitjob. Also, the NIIPP OLS on the MiG-35 is the same as the one on the K. No difference there. My guess is MiG knows its greatest advantage lies in low price and they'll stick to it - $ 60 mill with AESA + support, ToT would make it hard to ignore.

But then again, there could be some truth to all this escalation business going on as well.

USS.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Feb 2009 05:34

Anything on Saras? And the new 90 seater proposal?

Anything on the MTA?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 19 Feb 2009 08:13

shiv wrote:RFID tag and copper antenna around it stuck to Parking area pas at Aero India. What is the copper ring for?
(click on pic to enlarge)

Shiv Saar: I zoomed in. Not sure if what I see in this photo is one copper foil ring or is it finer wire flat coil.
If it is a foil ring then that is passive loop element to increase the antenna gain of the smaller main antenna element that is connected to the RFID chip (in the lower embedded layer) . Meant to increase the read range of the RFID tag. It is an afterthought jagaad. Never seen this afterthought product by an OEM. Many years ago I did this for another application.

The perimeter of the ring will tell you the operating frequency of this RFID (it is a multiple of the operating wavelength). Seems to me to be a 2.4GHz RFID.

If it is a finer wire that is single layer flat coil on one surface, then it is a 13MHz antenna that you will find is wired to the RFID chip.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 19 Feb 2009 08:27

maz wrote:Did anyone besides Mr Reddy and Yaswant take pics of the poster boards and info boards?

If so, please post on BR media album at http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/AeroIndia2009/

I have some, may not be of interest to you or all (not much naval stuff for e.g., but I need to check). You will have to wait though, maybe by the weekend.

pyogi · Post by **pyogi** » 19 Feb 2009 08:49

rahuldevnath wrote:Some Updates

Nice!

Lets catch up some time sir, i guess you are in bangalore, coffee any time.
You got mail...
Photoyogi

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Feb 2009 09:35

Arun_S wrote: If it is a foil ring then that is passive loop element to increase the antenna gain of the smaller main antenna element that is connected to the RFID chip (in the lower embedded layer) . Meant to increase the read range of the RFID tag. It is an afterthought jagaad. Never seen this afterthought product by an OEM. Many years ago I did this for another application.

The perimeter of the ring will tell you the operating frequency of this RFID (it is a multiple of the operating wavelength). Seems to me to be a 2.4GHz RFID.

If it is a finer wire that is single layer flat coil on one surface, then it is a 13MHz antenna that you will find is wired to the RFID chip.

Arun - looking at it with a lens and scraping with my fingers tells me it is a foil ring and not a coil. There was no wire leading from chip to coil - at least not a macroscopically detectable one. The ring with a chip in the middle were pasted on to the back of a standard Aero India car parking label by means of a sticky rectangle of some densely adherent plastic.

I have not dissected my entry pass (because I want to preserve the pass that says "Director Bharat-Rakshak"

- but this range increase thing was for the car park . Maybe they were bombarding the car parks with signals to see who was in and who was out?

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 19 Feb 2009 09:48

Philip wrote:Look,the IAF, not myself is supposedly pissed off with poor after sales support for the Hawk and the Q of building less Hawks and perhapos an LCA trainer is being mooted as a desi alternative.

I can't see how this is anti-indigenisation or pro-Russian at all! The LCA trainer sounds exciting,as it can compete very favourably with other advanced supersonic jet trainers like the Korean one.The only sticking point is going to be getting US /other approvals for exports,because of the engine and radar being foreign.

Philip saar, if you heard anything about AF being pissed off with Hawk, I didn't hear it at all.... they have entered into a dedicated, full life support contract with them, with HAL as the local partner, and barring initial glitches that would happen with ALL sales and new products, the IAF is actually quite happy with the Hawk guys.

In fact, there was a full plenary presentation about Full-lifetime servicing and maintenance partnership management during the seminar, by an RAF Air Marshal (A KBE btw), and a BAe representative.... quite a few IAF guys also attended it for info about LCC for the MMRCA tender, and the Hawk itself... spoke to a WingCo after the talk, during tea about it, and he said that the Hawk is doing quite well... there are some small issues re spares and maintenance, given that the guys at Bidar are still getting to know the craft, but otherwise, compared to what they faced when inducting the Sukhois, BAe has been absolutely fantastic - he did point out that the Sukhois were far more advanced, bigger and more complicated crafts than the Hawk, but still.

(he said that they are still yet to get some servicing booklets from the OEM, and have evolved their own maintenance plans for them. Tamilmani, Dir, CEMILAC also mentioned that the OEMs haven't given books on the life-cycle maintenance and service life, so in most cases, they have to certify it themselves, leading to the large number of airframe life improvement programs)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Feb 2009 09:52

Cybaru wrote: Anything on the MTA?

Asking about this was a frustrating experience. Initially nobody was available to make a knowledgeable comment. Later one person said in response to a specific question from me that the project was "definitely on". So I asked when the first flight would be, and the reply was something to the effect that a first flight would happen after the government gave the go ahead.

So news about the MTA is ambiguous, and if II am asked to choose between "Is something happening?" and "Is nothing much happening?" my current belief is "nothing much seems to be happening"

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 19 Feb 2009 09:53

shiv wrote:
Arun_S wrote: If it is a foil ring then that is passive loop element to increase the antenna gain of the smaller main antenna element that is connected to the RFID chip (in the lower embedded layer) . Meant to increase the read range of the RFID tag. It is an afterthought jagaad. Never seen this afterthought product by an OEM. Many years ago I did this for another application.

The perimeter of the ring will tell you the operating frequency of this RFID (it is a multiple of the operating wavelength). Seems to me to be a 2.4GHz RFID.

If it is a finer wire that is single layer flat coil on one surface, then it is a 13MHz antenna that you will find is wired to the RFID chip.
Arun - looking at it with a lens and scraping with my fingers tells me it is a foil ring and not a coil. There was no wire leading from chip to coil - at least not a macroscopically detectable one. The ring with a chip in the middle were pasted on to the back of a standard Aero India car parking label by means of a sticky rectangle of some densely adherent plastic.

I have not dissected my entry pass (because I want to preserve the pass that says "Director Bharat-Rakshak" - but this range increase thing was for the car park . Maybe they were bombarding the car parks with signals to see who was in and who was out?

I opened up mine, and it was coil... very very thin one though. NO wires from chip to coil. I guess the coil was just to increase the signal strength.

Additionally, unlike what the press was saying, the passes had no details of name, date, etc.... it didn't even tell if access was allowed, which was a letdown... I used a previous day used pass with no access for the hanger entry. The sec-wallah swiped it, and the computer said OK... I was shocked. many a times, they didnt even wait for a tone or anything. ANd the ppl at the computers werent even looking.

By the public day, they had come down to tearing the tickets.

I think the passes with the larger RFID chips had identity information.... perhaps one of our stallwallahs can open it up and put it up for us.

Muns · Post by **Muns** » 19 Feb 2009 10:20

k prasad, much thanks again for all your info. A question on the WSI Dhruv mk4. Does it provide any protection for the pilots in the form of shield armor? Thanks again...

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 19 Feb 2009 10:50

^^^ When buying the tickets they clearly asked the names of the people for whom the tickets are bought. One chap entered something on the comp. Guessing making a database entry against the name of the person who bought the tickets, the number of tickets and the ID furnished by that person.

The constable at the gate tore off the RFID part.

Got stopped at one stall but told them it was torn off, then they let me through.

Overall the B'lore cops did a messy job. The traffic cops diverted all traffic into P7. Mine was supposed to be P3. After getting in, was hunting for the exhibition stalls when I realised entered the wrong area.

The flight display was a bit too 'commercial' I feel. Over the P7 area (Rs. 300 and 400) the aircraft made few manoeuvres, except Su-30, ALH WSI, Sarang and SKAT. Most of it was over the area where Rs.800 + ticket wallahs were present.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 19 Feb 2009 10:55

More info on LCH, IMRH, LUH and NRUAV - unfortunately, due to lack of time, Dr. Prasad Sampath had to go quick on this, so extremely sorry if the info is not new:

Responding to some of the previous queries, the numbers are planned numbers, so most likely, the armed forces will be placing orders for this number. They are the projected requirements, so they can change, but may not be drastically - we're not yet like the US.

LCH:

- Prototype being built - will fly mid-late this year.
- Dedicated Anti-tank role.
- 5.5 ton class MTOW
- Max speed 275 kph
- 12.0 m/s max oblique rate of climb
- 550 km range
- 6.5 km ceiling

Weapons:

- 20 mm NEXTER Cannon
- 70 mm rocket pod (both the above have been tested on the WSI Dhruv in late 08)
- A2A missiles
- A2 sea missiles
- ATGMs
- Iron/dumb bombs

The LCH stall guy mentioned that it would be able to carry around 1000 kg of armament at altitude (this was to an AF offr and family), but I'm not sure if that is correct. He didn't specify the altitude either.

(Prasad Sampath did not elaborate on any PGMs, but i suspect that when they do add extra support elements and heliborne sensors like mmW radars, we'll see PGMs. However, given that there will already be LTDs around, it is surprising that LGBs were not considered - he did not elaborate on a question about this due to lack of time, but said, "we can look at it if users ask. It'll be easy to add anyway")

Did not elaborate on numbers, but said users will define - in fact, the users itself is a bit confusing, since he said that IAF will use it, which is surprising given the AAC's expansion. It looks like there may be a turf war going on here, since no one in the IAF or HAL was willing to elaborate on the users beyond saying that they would supply to anyone who placed orders, and it was up to them how to use it.

Additionally, about Nag, there wasn't much talk, but he did say that when Helina came, they'd integrate it. Till then, it'd be the Mistral and the Israeli Lahat (did anyone notice 3 versions on Lahat in the Israeli stall - one, the normal, heli-launched, another 105 mm one, and the 120 mm launched version). More on Helina (only a little), when I upload about Saraswat's talk.

As known, the LCH will use the same elements as Dhruv, in a thinner fuselage - this made them have to look at the vibration aspects a bit more closely. They are currently tuning the AVCS for the LCH. The rotors will be the same, but the tail is strengthened against arms fire.... due to that, and the thicker tail, they had to make some weight adjustments. I think that this will make the empty LCH a bit heavier than the ALH.

Another thing is that the rear wheel does not retract... when I asked why this was, and wouldnt it increase the signature, the person at stall said that it was a tradeoff, and with the rotors behind, an extra wheel would make little difference to the RCS. Additionally, retracting wheel would require empty space in tail, which would only make the tail weaker against small arms fire.

Coming to sensors, as of now, they are not looking at putting the EO ball to see below the helo - the placement of the gun right at the front of the helo (unlike other helos, where it is below the cockpit) precludes this. When asked why the placement was as such, there was no reply. I also asked why not have a larger ball right at the tip of the nose, like on teh Apache, and he mentioned some vague thing about requirements and design compromises being required... I guess he didn't have an idea. Any luck on this Rakall??

They aren't looking at a mmW sensor just yet - remember that the Apache latest has two such sensors, one at the front nose, and another on top of the rotor. This allows them all-weather long range targeting. However, we do have some success with mmW radars, and a bit of work with such seekers. However, without having a fieldable mmW seeker equipped weapon, having such a sensor right now might be overkill.

Light Utility Helo:

- Not much info abut this, but prelim design is going on.
- It will be 2-3 tons. IAF and Army is still formalizing the ASR.
- It will have a 4 blade hingeless rotor. Unlike the ALH, this will be less rigid, perhaps due to the vibration issue
- 2 blade composite tail rotor - the composite tail rotor, i believe, is being attempted for the first time in India, and they are trying to see how it will hold up.
- It will be powered by a single Shakti engine.

I asked the HAL person if they were looking at creating a Recon helo based on this platform, like the Bell ARC. He said that they could do that if the services asked. However, even the ALH took some time to mature from Mk1 to WSI, so a weaponized recon version would be sometime after the helo was in the air. But it wouldn't be difficult to replace the payload capacity with sensors.

No projected numbers were given - I guess the numbers haven't been finalized.

NRUAV:

They are still discussing the terms of the JV and the projected configuration, but this is one project that the Navy is extremely interested in.

The NRUAV will be powered by the Turbomeca TM 33 2M2 engine.

Sensors will be the whole kit-and-caboodle. They are also looking at seeing if they can weaponize it with torpedos, but that is for later...

What the NRUAV will do is give all Naval ships, even small ones the capability of undertaking AS(W?) operations, which will give greater situational awareness to Naval commanders.

Dr. Sampath also mentioned (in passing) that based on this, they may also look at smaller UAVs like the Fire Scout for service on smaller Naval ships and Coast Guard... however, that was just his opinion, and not planned in anyway. I suspect that it will not need as extensive range or ASW capabilities as the NRUAV, and should be feasible.

Indian Multi-role Helo (IMRH):

Sorry to disappoint vivek and group, but there is very little new info put up by Sampath on this:

Anyway, it is still being conceptualized, but will be a successor to the Mi-8 and Mi-17s, which is the void they want to fulfil.... they are also looking to try and pitch for Naval service also, given that the ALH was insufficient due to its weight class.

- 10 ton class (12 tons was what I think the board at AI had put up)
- 390 nos requirement have been planned for.
- It will have a 3.5 ton payload at sea level.
- They want to give it as far as possible, equal high altitude performance as the Dhruv, but will know about it only when they start actual work.

Right now, it hasn't been sanctioned yet (same with the LUH), so any concept designs are just to satisfy the Forces projected requirements. They are looking at first flight within 3 years of go-ahead being given, and IOC with 6 years of that.

A weaponized version is also being looked at, but is too early to say.

Overall, the impression got is that we have definitely reached a level, where the ALH has given us a technological platform to build Helos of all types... future helos will use a lo o technology from the ALH. The Shakti has been a great success for teh program, and has given a durable, high power platform. However, they need to amortize a lot of the tehcnology in the engine manufacture to be able to develop a similar engine ourselves. Also, given the lag in high technology areas, we need to be able to catch up in some technologies to be able to compete with the best in the world. However, right now, we are quite competent, and are giving Bell and Co some jitters.

Wrt Avionics, a lot of it is coming from Israel, and they are trying for JVs, and work from DARE to be able to make it ourselves.

To a question about whether we were looking at Fly-by-wire for helicopters, Dr. Sampath mentioned that they were nor really needed due to the weight advantages being minimal... the fact is that a helo is an essentially unstable platform, and FBW will not add any extra advantages that way.

however, he mentioned that we were going in for electrical actuators now (same with the aircraft side as well -- check my posts on the LCA talks), and would look at FBW after these were developed.

Muns wrote:k prasad, much thanks again for all your info. A question on the WSI Dhruv mk4. Does it provide any protection for the pilots in the form of shield armor? Thanks again...

Yes, Dhruv does have 12.7 mm resistance, in the form of composite and Kevlar armor (I think some previous Tech Focus and Ajai Shukla's blog had info on this). I think this has been quite satisfactory. If need be, they can add some extra armor, but it would add more weight, which would make the WSI lumber along, which would only increase the risk. So it is a tradeoff..

However, the LCH will have much more protection, in the form of armored plates for the pilots, and heavy duty protective glass. Another area to note is that the designers have also tried to add the same protection for all areas. Its little use of armoring the pilots when your tail is as vulnerable as tissue paper (Mi-25 and Apache had this problem), so they are looking at armoring these areas also.

Anotehr thing i forgot to add to the previous post, and which I discussed by phone with Rakall ws the difference in requirements for the Mk3 and the Mk4 WSI.... while only 3 Mk3s are planned for 08-09 period, over 159 Mk4 WSIs are planned for the 2009-10 period. This suggests taht the Armed forces are giving much more importance to the helo's lethality. I'm not certain about the prudence of this move, but what i do suspect is that they are looking at getting more flexibility by having combat ready platforms, which can be armed if required, rather than be stuck with bullet catchers without any way to react to threats.... however, given that they will continue to have the turret gun, I'm not sure how they can handle it...

any qns???

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Feb 2009 11:17

any pointers on engine configuration of IMRH (2 or 3) and which engines ?
will they continue with shakti ?

however, given that they will continue to have the turret gun, I'm not sure how they can handle it...

didn't get this. what is the problem with a turreted gun ?

TIA.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Feb 2009 11:21

shiv wrote:
Cybaru wrote: Anything on the MTA?
Asking about this was a frustrating experience. Initially nobody was available to make a knowledgeable comment. Later one person said in response to a specific question from me that the project was "definitely on". So I asked when the first flight would be, and the reply was something to the effect that a first flight would happen after the government gave the go ahead.

So news about the MTA is ambiguous, and if II am asked to choose between "Is something happening?" and "Is nothing much happening?" my current belief is "nothing much seems to be happening"

Thanks shiv...I suspect with the AN-32 upgrade in the offing, this may not be real high priority right now. I hope they do start though, will make adding AEW/Tankers/MR/Specialized EW systems in our forces easy.