Aero India 2009

[rakall]

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


TIA.

The IMRH is really in a very preliminary conceptual design stage.. they dont knwo which engines they will use for it.. but it will be a twin-engine helo.

For the LUH they are designing around the Turbomeca 333-2B2 right now.. may consider upgrading to Shakti, but for now it is being designed around Turbomeca 2B2

[neerajb]

Many thanks to K Prasad for updates on Dhruv/LCH. Info on AVCS was enlightening.

Cheers....

[Rahul M]

thanks a lot guys !!

you two seem like kalpabrikhsha, information continues to flow.....
on whatever we ask for !!!

[andy B]

K Prasad and Rakall (a.k.a Rock-all )

Great work guys you have provided valuable information consistently for all of BRF give yourselves a pat on the back....good job and thank you.

[k prasad]

More info on teh Helos from the CEMILAC stall:

Dhruv:

4 prototypes have completed 2500 hrs of testing and flight certification

- RSD issued in 2002 (plz expand RSD if anyone knows)
- TM 333 2B2 has been ertified.
- Shakti certification underway... almost done
- 68 Dhruvs have been delivered
- Combined fleet have completed 26,500 flying hours
- OPerations at Leh have been cleared with limitations (mostly weather related)
- Has been certified for export

Glass Cockpit:
- IOC in Sep 2007
- 12 have been delivered
- 2 have been cleared for ops from Leh

WSI:
- Certification in 2009
- Gun and Rocket firings done in late 2008 (check my previous post for details)
- LFDS from NPOL - integration completed
- TMS from ADA - Rig evaluation underway
- ESM from DLRL - has been integrated
- Armored Panel from DMSRDE - Integrated (@Muns, hope that asnwered ur qn)
- Nag - ? (I swear that the qn mark was exactly what was there!!! )

More on talk with CEMILAC ppl on Aircraft testing in another post...

{{Someone plz keep a track of all that I've promised to tell... I keep forgetting. I remember Varadarajan and Revankar}}

[k prasad]

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.

Given that 2 Shaktis are already on ALH, I'm not sure how 2 or even 3 of those can sufficiently power a craft thats twice as large... More engines also means a more complicated mechanics for interface with teh rotors. I guess they will look for a bigger engine, which will be developed. However, as of now, it is all very preliminary.

Turret Gun = weight.

However, more importantly, with a turret gun, you do end up getting bullets - with unweaponized helos, Enemy usually dont attack them (the case with teh Lancer... where earlier, cheetahs were left alone, since they were usually carrying injured, Lancers ended up getting flak).

For the LUH they are designing around the Turbomeca 333-2B2 right now.. may consider upgrading to Shakti, but for now it is being designed around Turbomeca 2B2

Hmm... interesting. Prasad Sampath clearly mentioned that it would be powered by a single Shakti... I guess the PV will be B2 and Service variants Shakti, given that Shakti is to be certified yet, and B2 has completed certification.

[k prasad]

x-post from Su-30 Thread

Wrong thread perhaps, but since everyone here has a good idea as to what happened would India be able to pull off a similar if not a better deal with the PAKFA ? Two things have changed, Russia is not what it used to be and second PAKFA design and specs are more likely to be frozen by now with little Indian input except perhaps money.

Not directly related to the qn, but apparently, the FGFA negotiations are not really going anywhere (probably why there is the resultant interest in MCA)... I'm not sure if i've posted this before, but apparently, India was not only worried about the stage the project was already in, but also asked for a written commitment in the contract that neither the aircraft nor the technologies developed from the project would be Sold to China... the Russians refused, and negotiations have been stalled.

Makes one wonder whether our northern neighbours have not paid some money under the table for the Project.

[rakall]

Great jon KP... Some additional info..

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.

Actually 1000kg is total payload.. which at high altitude decreases significantly..
So obviously the guy at stall mixedup both.. 1000kg armament at high altitude is most likely "incorrect".

(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")

As of now there is no plan for PGM's.. the armament load of LCH & WSI are exactly the same.. no differences..

- LGB's : no point using 250kg LGB's.. and LCH doesnt have payload capacity for 500kg LGB's.. At altitude it doesnt have payload capacity for 2 * 250kg LGB's.
- Have four hard points - leaving any two empty is a non-optimal solution.. So use all four - which means a mix of rocket pods, ATGMs & AAMs works best for LCH.. LGB role is probably best left to CAS planes..

That is why no PGMs/LGBs on LCH

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.

Since the services have specified a range of 7km for Helina - DRDO is struggling with Helina.. achieving the 7km range within the weight limit (<50kg).. This is the info I got from BDL stall.. Among others (which i didnt ask), One of the problems being the quality of propellant that OFB is supplying.. which is also affecting the range of Agni too..

That brings to the question of what happened to the propellant plant that DRDO was supposedly setting up in Chattisgarh hills/forest (2004-5).. was it supposed to be managed by ASL/RCI ? Or was it supposed to be managed by OFB - which exactly does not solve the problem !

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.

The placement of the EO ball is all down to "simplicity" of design.. the envisaged mission for LCH is supporting infantry & armoured coloumns.. so they are always looking for the targets in forward hemisphere.. and therefore simplicity, space management and systems engineering interms of gun placment & EO ball placmenet together drive the EO ball location on the nose.. In the case of threat from rear-hemisphere -- the defensive suit (MAWS, LWS) will immediatly elert the pilots..

Why we cant have 2 sensors like Apache etc -- weight does not support.. it is a "LIGHT combat helicopter".. Apache MTOW is 75% more than LCH MTOW.. Apache empty weight is nearly double LCH empty weight...

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.

...

Small correction.. IMRH is in prelim design. No proposal made to GoI yet & therefore no sanction also..

But LUH already got cabinet sanction.. I think it was also mentioned it Baweja's address/interview on opening day..

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.

...

Regarding Shakti ToT -- HAL will start producing 11% parts to start with and progressively it will increase to 70% parts produced by HAL in India.. but even at the end of technology assimilation - HAL will continue to import 30% parts from Turbomeca.. there will be no ToT for these 30% parts - which belong to the "hot section" of the turboshaft..

[vivek_ahuja]

Great jon KP... Some additional info..

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.

Actually 1000kg is total payload.. which at high altitude decreases significantly..
So obviously the guy at stall mixed up both.. 1000kg armament at high altitude is most likely "incorrect".

Rakall,

As K Prasad said, the guy did not state "high altitude". We don't know what altitude it is. Based on the stub wing design, the 1000 Kg is indeed probably full payload. We know from before that the capacity of the LCH around 18,000 feet is ~300 Kgs.

Also note that the 12 m/sec Rate of Climb (ROC) is mostly cosmetic. There is no way it will be used in operations unless you strip down the helicopter to bare bones. Besides, you don't need such a high number in most operational scenarios.

And that the 550 km range at sea level is correct. Go higher and you come across interesting numbers...

-Vivek

[vivek_ahuja]

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

Given that 2 Shaktis are already on ALH, I'm not sure how 2 or even 3 of those can sufficiently power a craft thats twice as large... More engines also means a more complicated mechanics for interface with teh rotors. I guess they will look for a bigger engine, which will be developed. However, as of now, it is all very preliminary.

The drive system on the IMRH poster looks dangerously close to the ALH drive system. Unless its an image which somebody cooked up from thin air (kind of like the LUH poster image), the engine will likely be more than 2 Shaktis. And as you say, it will not be sufficient to replace the Mi-17 etc. It will probably have performance similar to the NH-90...

-Vivek

[k prasad]

Nice addition to info Rakahll

Actually 1000kg is total payload.. which at high altitude decreases significantly..
So obviously the guy at stall mixedup both.. 1000kg armament at high altitude is most likely "incorrect".

Yes... I think you're right.

As of now there is no plan for PGM's.. the armament load of LCH & WSI are exactly the same.. no differences..

- LGB's : no point using 250kg LGB's.. and LCH doesnt have payload capacity for 500kg LGB's.. At altitude it doesnt have payload capacity for 2 * 250kg LGB's.
- Have four hard points - leaving any two empty is a non-optimal solution.. So use all four - which means a mix of rocket pods, ATGMs & AAMs works best for LCH.. LGB role is probably best left to CAS planes..

That is why no PGMs/LGBs on LCH

What I meant is not really the heavy 250 kg LGBs that fighters carry, but low-weight guided bombs such as what the Apache carries - the load is already small enough. We need to ensure that the ones we do carry end up hitting the target. Additionally, with the LTDs coming into widespread service, we should make use of it for LGBs (even if they are about 50 kg or so)

In fact, LGMs have been used by attack helos for targeting bunkers and houses, but I agree that ATGMs can probably do the job just as well... .my only wonder was that if we are anyway going to use bombs, why not make them accurate.

Since the services have specified a range of 7km for Helina - DRDO is struggling with Helina.. achieving the 7km range within the weight limit (<50kg).. This is the info I got from BDL stall.. Among others (which i didnt ask), One of the problems being the quality of propellant that OFB is supplying.. which is also affecting the range of Agni too..

That brings to the question of what happened to the propellant plant that DRDO was supposedly setting up in Chattisgarh hills/forest (2004-5).. was it supposed to be managed by ASL/RCI ? Or was it supposed to be managed by OFB - which exactly does not solve the problem !

Very very interesting... I've also been hearing not so good stories about the OFB - both DRDO and services seem to be happy that pvt sector is coming up so fast. Any more info on the propellant??

The placement of the EO ball is all down to "simplicity" of design.. the envisaged mission for LCH is supporting infantry & armoured coloumns.. so they are always looking for the targets in forward hemisphere.. and therefore simplicity, space management and systems engineering interms of gun placment & EO ball placmenet together drive the EO ball location on the nose.. In the case of threat from rear-hemisphere -- the defensive suit (MAWS, LWS) will immediatly elert the pilots..

Why we cant have 2 sensors like Apache etc -- weight does not support.. it is a "LIGHT combat helicopter".. Apache MTOW is 75% more than LCH MTOW.. Apache empty weight is nearly double LCH empty weight...

True sirjee, but they could have as well placed the ball right at the tip of the nose without any added penalties, and you'd get a better forward hemisphere viewing, especially for targets below the LOS of the helo. Also, wrt the mmW sensor, it isn't that heavy - I think no one would have complained if we'd lost around 40-50 kg in exchange for much better situational awareness and lethality.

Small correction.. IMRH is in prelim design. No proposal made to GoI yet & hence no sanction..

But LUH already got cabinet sanction.. I think it was also mentioned it Baweja's address/interview on opening day..

Thanks for the info.... I was wrong then.

Given that 2 Shaktis are already on ALH, I'm not sure how 2 or even 3 of those can sufficiently power a craft thats twice as large... More engines also means a more complicated mechanics for interface with teh rotors. I guess they will look for a bigger engine, which will be developed. However, as of now, it is all very preliminary.

The drive system on the IMRH poster looks dangerously close to the ALH drive system. Unless its an image which somebody cooked up from thin air (kind of like the LUH poster image), the engine will likely be more than 2 Shaktis. And as you say, it will not be sufficient to replace the Mi-17 etc. It will probably have performance similar to the NH-90...

-Vivek

Hmm... given that it is still too early, I hope that they only cooked it up from thin air... Prasad Sampath didn't mention the engine (while he did so for all other helos he talked about), so I guess the engine isn't yet decided.

[rakall]

What I meant is not really the heavy 250 kg LGBs that fighters carry, but low-weight guided bombs such as what the Apache carries - the load is already small enough. We need to ensure that the ones we do carry end up hitting the target. Additionally, with the LTDs coming into widespread service, we should make use of it for LGBs (even if they are about 50 kg or so)

In fact, LGMs have been used by attack helos for targeting bunkers and houses, but I agree that ATGMs can probably do the job just as well... .my only wonder was that if we are anyway going to use bombs, why not make them accurate.

.

I think it is a question of "availability & affordability".. Do we have kits of 50kg bombs - No. if we have to buy - how costly?
We are developing out first PGM kit for "Sudarshan".. so it may take a while before we can develop kits for smaller bombs and deploy in larger numbers..

And we have ignored the "basic" stuff -- do bombs give enough stand-off range? Do they give the helo the stand-off range that ATGM can give? I feel that is the reason why they generally go for ATGM's instead of bombs..

[Philip]

Tx Prasad.The apparent poor location of the "ball" on the helo was noticed by Shiv and myself observing the mockup at the last air show! Little seems to have changed with time.There appears to be little refining of the old design.With several foreign attack helos in the running,a close examination of the contenders,shows several superior placements of sensors including el-op devices.The stepping of the pilot's tandem seats could also be improved for better visibility from the cockpits.

There is however very good scope for the success of the LUH,required in large number and given our experience in producing the Chetak/Cheetah overd decades,plus the tech developed for the ALH.This is one project where a simple small utility helo is needed,less sophisticated than the ALH and must be designed and built locally.Barring the engine,the rest would be desi and have great potential for exports now that the ALH is being acquired in the hundreds for the services and exports have started.

[shiv]

Given that 2 Shaktis are already on ALH, I'm not sure how 2 or even 3 of those can sufficiently power a craft thats twice as large... More engines also means a more complicated mechanics for interface with teh rotors. I guess they will look for a bigger engine, which will be developed. However, as of now, it is all very preliminary.

I got some videos of the model of the 10 tonne medium helo and the info board. The topic came up when I asked an HAL guy what was up with the Navy and the Dhruv. he said that the Navy cannot get the 5 ton Dhruv to provide the same services as the 10 ton Sea King, and that they would have to go in for a helo like the Indian Meium helo and pointed me in the direction of the model.

[shiv]

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??

As Philip pointed out I had asked someone about this in 2007. The reply was that mainly a forward view will be required for targeting at standoff distances and that looking directly below the helo would mean that the chopper is flying over enemy forces and is already vulnerable for that reason.

[KiranM]

What I meant is not really the heavy 250 kg LGBs that fighters carry, but low-weight guided bombs such as what the Apache carries - the load is already small enough. We need to ensure that the ones we do carry end up hitting the target. Additionally, with the LTDs coming into widespread service, we should make use of it for LGBs (even if they are about 50 kg or so)

In fact, LGMs have been used by attack helos for targeting bunkers and houses, but I agree that ATGMs can probably do the job just as well... .my only wonder was that if we are anyway going to use bombs, why not make them accurate.

.

I think it is a question of "availability & affordability".. Do we have kits of 50kg bombs - No. if we have to buy - how costly?
We are developing out first PGM kit for "Sudarshan".. so it may take a while before we can develop kits for smaller bombs and deploy in larger numbers..

And we have ignored the "basic" stuff -- do bombs give enough stand-off range? Do they give the helo the stand-off range that ATGM can give? I feel that is the reason why they generally go for ATGM's instead of bombs..

Few other reasons why LCH may not carry LGBs:

Altitude - For LGBs to undergo course correction, have to be released from high altitude. LCH and Dhruvs will be flying at low heights (note the difference between height and altitude). Not enough time till point of impact for LGBs. At low heights cluster bombs preferred.

Speed - I thought a platform is required to have a certain speed during the bombing run. Guess not possible with helicopters. The gurus can clarify better.

[k prasad]

I think it is a question of "availability & affordability".. Do we have kits of 50kg bombs - No. if we have to buy - how costly?
We are developing out first PGM kit for "Sudarshan".. so it may take a while before we can develop kits for smaller bombs and deploy in larger numbers..

And we have ignored the "basic" stuff -- do bombs give enough stand-off range? Do they give the helo the stand-off range that ATGM can give? I feel that is the reason why they generally go for ATGM's instead of bombs..

Few other reasons why LCH may not carry LGBs:

Altitude - For LGBs to undergo course correction, have to be released from high altitude. LCH and Dhruvs will be flying at low heights (note the difference between height and altitude). Not enough time till point of impact for LGBs. At low heights cluster bombs preferred.

Speed - I thought a platform is required to have a certain speed during the bombing run. Guess not possible with helicopters. The gurus can clarify better.

Excellent points about the LGBs gurus... I admit, they weren't what I'd thought of when I posted. Especially the pt about course correction would mean that the bomb would reach about the same place corrected or uncorrected, so it'd be cheaper to use dumb bombs anyway.

As for the 50 kg bomb part, we definitely do have 50 kg bombs, which have been tested on some platforms - unfortunately, I will not be able to talk about it online due to informal secrecy. However, rest assured that 50 kg bombs exist in working condition.

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??

As Philip pointed out I had asked someone about this in 2007. The reply was that mainly a forward view will be required for targeting at standoff distances and that looking directly below the helo would mean that the chopper is flying over enemy forces and is already vulnerable for that reason.

Shiv Saar. I'm sorry to note this reply... it is like saying that a since a sword is already coming towards us, the best thing to do is to close our eyes and wait for it... when we face a risk, its best to make sure that we're prepared to face it, and use the best means to evaluate it, especially when it doesnt cost anything...

Instead, the designers have gone in for this solution, which will severely limit the operational doctrine and regime of the LCH... for example, during strafing runs, it would have been ideal to have the EO ball right in front so that it could also look down and behind. Did the designers forget about this when they put the ball up??

Additionally, given that Prasad Sampath said that the primary role is dedicated anti-armor ops, I dont buy the story that it is mainly for mountain warfare (again, something tht limits its operating areas).... a front mounted ball would have been equally effective.

I seriously suspect that there is a reason we've put the ball where it is, which has not come out yet... whether it is some operational requirement, or some weakness in our technology, we don't know. However, what is visible is that most attack helos today have large sensors right at the tip of their noses, or just below them.

[rakall]

As for the 50 kg bomb part, we definitely do have 50 kg bombs, which have been tested on some platforms - unfortunately, I will not be able to talk about it online due to informal secrecy. However, rest assured that 50 kg bombs exist in working condition.

.

KP - it is not about 50kg bombs.. We have 50kg bombs and we have dropped from "unnamed" air vehicles..
But do we have "guidance kits" for the 50kg bombs?

Anyway - if you read my post in Missile tech thread.. that is exactly what I feel should be one of the areas that DRDO should pay some attention -- "very cheap guidance kits" either laser guided or IIR or even RF.. Not necessarily for LCH, but for UAV's.. It has to be cheap and small.. if we can develop such cheap guidance kits and retrofit Nag with the cheap seekers giving reasonable accuracy, instead of the 40Lakh imported seeker for anti-tank role... we can hang the Nag's on Rustom & even the smaller UAV's and takeout bunkers, commad posts, radar sites etc..

[k prasad]

Aircraft Evaluation by CEMILAC

Some info from the talk by CEMILAC Director, Dr. Tamilmani and a chat with CEMILAC ppl at their stalls....

Most of the info spoken was not really new.... it was mostly about CEMILAC organization (which I have put here). Additionally, the notes are incomplete, so please forgive me about that, and don't presume anything based on absence.

Also, most of the testing related info has already been put up before in the LCA or ALH sections. So sorry for this somewhat dull and dreary addition, but hope there are some nice snippets in there.

Cemilac started in 1958, under a Directorate ofteh IAF.

It now has 14 units in India, including Chandigarh, Bangalore, Lucknow, Koraput, Hyderabad, Korwah, Nasik, Pune, etc.

There are different groups among CEMILAC, handling different areas.

The Military Airworthiness Group, it is handled by 5 RCMA divisions in different cities:

RCMA (Aircraft): Handles Combat a/c, UAVs and Flight Clothing evaluation
RCMA (Helicopter): Helicopter evaluation
RCMA (Nasik): Solely handles Russian Combat Aircraft due to the proximity to HAL's Nasik production lines.
RCMA (Kanpur): Transport a/c - An-32s, Avros, Do-228, HPT-32, Boeing P8I, and also Parachute certification
RCMA (Chandigarh): Russian Helicopters, HUDs, etc.

The Systems Group:

RCMA (Hyderabad)
RCMA (Lucknow): Hydraulics, Fuel systems, ECS, Electrical LRUs
EW Systems Group: Will handle the AEW&C systems.
RCMA Korwah: Su-30 systems, SS FDR, MFDs and sightign systems
ECMA (Pune): Armaments
RCMA (Missiles): For missile systems.

Propulsion Group:

RCMA (Engines): Bangalore based - handles Engines, Kaveri, GTSU, Shakti, Wankel engines, Adour, etc.
RCMA (Materials): Metallic Castings, forging, coatings, friction material composites, etc
RCMA (Koraput): purely Su-30 and Russian Engines
RCMA (Foundry & Forge): Castings, Primers, Paints, Friction materials, FOrgings, Elastomers, FOL items, etc.

There are a couple of other groups also I think, but were skipped due to paucity of time.

Anyway, regardign the testing itself, initially, CEMILAC handled very few aircraft, such as the local upgrades and locally built aircraft, but has been expanded far beyond, to include missiles and parachutes also.... now, it has got its plate full with future aircraft, including the C-130, P8I, MMRCA, MCA, FGFA, Tejas, LCH, LUH, IMRH, etc., along with all the missiles and subsystems.

Another area where they have also started doing extensive work is life-time improvement. THis is achieved by taking present aircraft and performing accelerated stress tests on them to see how much more life we can squeeze out of them - I do not remember the numbers (there was a board in teh stall... I hope someone took a pic of it), but between 250 and 500 hours more have been certified for on types like the Mig-21, Mig-27, Jaguars etc.

This previous step has been necessitated because, in the Directors own admission, the OEMs (especially the Russians) do not usually give complete data on the life cycle and how the stresses affect. This is usually done in the hope that such tests would be given to them, as also for the upgrades. Thus, CEMILAC has had to evolve its own tests and standards for these on its own.

The standards-wise, Russian standards are used for Russian aircraft, while the rest of the aircraft are according to international MIL standards. Our own aircraft will also be tested to MIL standards... in some areas, CEMILAC has or is evolving its own standards.

For testing methodologies also, many areas, the companies abroad are unwilling to help (for eg, in Missile component testing, etc), and thus, CEMILAC has had to come out with truly innovative testing solutions and standards for that. However, they still do face difficulties. This has also come out with the Tejas tests, where they are unable to accelerate tests due to lack of experience and technology, hence the foreign consultancy.

For those interested in Weight reduction, one of the reasons why most of these aircraft are overweight is the extra protection and redundancy built in... for this reason, CEMILAC also aids in weight reduction programs by testing the reliability of systems, and if the redundancy is too high, they can advice the maker to reduce components, thus saving weight.... this was also what has been done with the Tejas, and to a certain extent, the Saras (which CEMILAC is advising in).

{{As a sidenote, Saras has completed 250 out of 500 flight hrs reqd for IOC. out of the 1000 kg overweight, they have completely eliminated 75% of the excess weight by bringing in extensive composite structures (which was not the original plan). The remaining extra weight is being further shed, and with the new engines, there shouldn't be further problems. The IOC will be got probably by end of this year or the beginning of the next}}

IJT Testing:

- 424 flights done by PT1 and PT2
- Integration of Al-55I engine is being done - Flight Test Bed tests are underway, and integration is almost done.

Teh envelope cleared till now is:

Speed: 750 cleared, 750 kph flown (750 kph designed)
Altitude: 9 km cleared for and flown (design = 9 km)
G limits: -1.5 to +5/4 cleared for, -0.5 to +4.8 flown (design = -2.5 to + 7.0)

Tejas and ALH envelopes have already been mentioned on previous pages.

Just a snippet, LCA trainer is planned for a launch in March. Currently, the Conflict resolution tests and simulations are underway in the Ironbird rig.

Coming to the testing Standards themselves (a lot of ppl were interested in IOC and FOC)

I spoke to a person at the CEMILAC stall.... while this person was involved in system testing, he did mention that IOC and FOC are a mix of envelope cleared and hours flown.

For IOC, the complete flight envelope must be tested under required permissive conditions, and a minimum of around 700-1000 flight hours completed. Without the full envelope, IOC is not given

However, even after IOC is given, the plane needs to complete 2500 flight hours to test the strain and lifetime in order to give FOC. Alongwith that, the complete combat flight envelope needs to be tested and cleared. Only after that is FOC given. With IOC, a good number of aircraft come into service, which accelerates FOC, even though FOC requirements are more than IOC requirements (in terms of hours flown).... it is not to be assumed that FOC is easier than IOC because it is faster.

For helicopters, the standards of testing are different (although the FOC appears to be the same - 2500 hrs). This is especially true for the components and systems. Whereas in a fighter aircraft, they'd have to test the components at high G, high speeds and high altitude, these requirements are relaxed for helos.

The vibration tests are also different - components in aircrafts usually need to be tested for random vibrations, which in helos, they need to also be certified for sinusoidal vibrations (due to the rotors).

Missile testing is different from the two, but he didn't elaborate.

Coming to Civilian clearance, he said that it is with the DGCA, and not with CEMILAC (which only does combat clearance). DGCA looks more for the life, and especially at sustained hours of operation (that most commercial aircraft go through). The envelope is less important than passenger safety aspects (it is vice-versa in military clearance).

Qns???

[k prasad]

The Case for Fighters
- Bill Sweetman, Editor, Defense Tech International (DTI) Magazine.

Ok, I went through half of this lecture, so I'll put up what he said in that time.

The Case for a manned fighter:
The basic need for a manned fighter is its AFFORDABILITY - manned fighters have long lives (sometimes, longer than ships), which amortizes the costs.

The characteristics of a good fighter are that it must be:
- Affordable - losign an a/c should not be a big loss, and must not affect operations greatly (ie, it must not be a "capital ship")
- Versatile - it must be adaptable, both across missions and through its life. An aircraft must not become so expensive to upgrade that it must be retired (like the US is doing with some AEGIS ships).

Additionally, life cycle versatility includes long term operational relevance (can ur aircraft do only one mission that may not be needed 5 yrs hence?), long term production and long term development and support.

- Cost Effective: Bang for buck.

UCAVs:
He said that UCAVs are here, for eg, the Reaper, and in Black programs. But they can fly only in permissive environments, and do not have eyes on target (thus requiring manned support vehicles). They cannot do CAS missions, only deep strike, and as he said CAS is so critical today, that if your plane cant do CAS, its not even worth as paperweight.

Basic characteristics of future fighters:
- Speed and Agility
- Range

- Survivability:
1. Speed altitude and agility - this is important, coz the a/c should be able to choose to disengage, and especially important to control an A2A engagement.
2. Vulnerability must be low - self defence impt.
3. Prevent Detection, tracking and Targeting
4. Stealth or LO.

Coming to Some myths about LO:

1. Either you have LO, or you dont
2. LO is standalone.
3. LO gives you 1st shot, 1st kill capability
4. LO lets you survive AD threads
5. Non-LO cannot win
6. Non-LO a/c are easily targetted.

All these arguments, he stated were simplistic, or just plain false. He pointed out to 3 types of LO, namely:

1. Reduced RCS,
2. LO
3. Very LO.

1. Reduced RCS:
- Present on all 4.5 Gen aircraft.
- Narrowband
- Usually is reduced RCS only over a limited aspect angle
- It is usually combined with active jamming.

2. LO
- All 5th Gen aircraft (Irrespective of US claims of "stealth")
- Wider band stealth
- Usually bowtie aspect angle LO - ie, Lateral RCS is also reduced
- There are no other active jamming instruments, except what can be achieved using the primary radar.

3. VLO:
- Future Aircrafts such as UCAVs, and B2, etc.
- Usually, stealth over all RF bands
- All aspect stealth
- IR signature is managed
- Visual signature is also managed.

However, there are some tradeoffs to LO technology in terms of:
1. Smaller wing
2. Weight penalty increases due to RAM and RAS coatings as also the antennas required
3. Lesser flexibility of operations and payload, even in non-LO mode (he cited the F-35 as an example)
4. Lower range - for eg, an F-16 can carry 1.5 times the payload of an F-35 along with fuel also.

LO can also be countered through:
1. Track-before-Detect (someone plz explain this)
2. AESA radars
3. Old VHF and OTH radars are also coming back
4. Passive detection, location, bistatic radars (again, an old tech, revived)
5. Better IR detectors.

Coming to the AESA radar, as we all know it is a super-radar
- It can track in A2A and A2G, and the modes can be interleaved, achieving full multi-role operation
- It can also act as a jammer
- High speed directional communication can also be carried out (the Raytheon radars have achieved speeds of over 248 MBps!!!)

Along with the AESA, a Targetting pod is also vital for CAS today, especially for its intelligence gathering capabilities and also due to its high accuracy.

Sweetman repeatedly stressed the importance of CAS operations.

Supercruise?
When asked about supercruise, it was his opinion that it had just become a marketing gimmick, and pointed out that the Tsagi guy who gave the talk before him had shown that even teh F-22 supercruise performance would be unsatisfactory. Contrary to popular belief, Supercruise evolved mainly as a counter to SAMs to evade them while keeping the IR signature low. Unfortunately, at present, the engines aren't advanced enough to give the high speed boost required except in relatively clean configurations, and at low supersonic speeds, which is isn;t enough... as he saw it, Supercruise was a turkey at the moment, even on the best aircarafts like the F-22.

Su-30 and American Doctrine:
I have posted somewhere else (the Su-30 thread) that he believed that the US was going in for wasteful development practices, and needed to look at the Russians to learn from their ability to make versatile platforms, like the Su-30, which has had so many changes - canards or not, Radar, SP suite, engine, etc, etc etc... That was what the US needed to do rather than make a new aircraft every 10 yrs.

JVs:
Additionally, he also spoke about the need for JVs in the modern world, and considered India as a close-aerospace power. The Tejas, he mentioned was an impressive achievement, considering the actual timespan it has come in, the tech leaps achieved, and the conditions they were achieved in (the embargos). He was cautious about india needing to pump in more money in critical areas, or be left behind.

1 engine vs 2 engine:
He mentioned that this was mainly a doctrinal approach, but a twin engine had definite advantages, since a bigger engines usually lost Thrust to Weight ratios. Additionally, a twin engine provided easier maintenance, better reliability and safety, and were easier to use. twin engines also provided a recess between the engines where sensors or fuel could be added. Plus, it made for a much smaller aircraft.

WRT the MMRCA tender, he believed that the IAF was in a pickle, and needed to be very clear about its doctrine when choosing, especially considering that two of them were 'light' (F-16 and Gripen), F-18 was 'quite heavy' and should never have been there in the first place, and the rest were in teh middle. So it was a big choice to make.

1 seat vs 2 seat:
This was something that was again based on doctrine, given taht a cockpit is an information hug and information overload could happen in the present combat situations. Specifically, missions like CAS, Forward Air Control, etc were ideally suited for 2 seater aircraft.

Given that, I think we should look at a 2 seat version.

Qns???

[k prasad]

I will try and post the following by tomorrow:

- Dr. Varadarajan's talk on Airborne Radar Development
- Dr. Revankar - EW sensor development
- Dr. Saraswat - Indian Missile developmnet
- Malkondaiah (DMRL) - Aerospace materials development in India
- Dr. Selvamurthy - Life Support Systems for Air Force.

I also have to post teh following:
- Talk with Saab ppl
- Talk with Raytheon guys
- Impressions about the F-18 simulator (I got a chance to fly it)
- Eurofighter and Eurojet CEO's talk at Aeroseminar
- Yair Ramati - Future Aerospace market trends.
- Will see if I've to add anything to the Rafale guy's talk.

Anything I've promised but forgotten??? Please remind me...

Also request you to x-post any of my posts to the concerned threads also.

Thanks
Prasad

[shiv]

Given that 2 Shaktis are already on ALH, I'm not sure how 2 or even 3 of those can sufficiently power a craft thats twice as large... More engines also means a more complicated mechanics for interface with teh rotors. I guess they will look for a bigger engine, which will be developed. However, as of now, it is all very preliminary.

I got some videos of the model of the 10 tonne medium helo and the info board. The topic came up when I asked an HAL guy what was up with the Navy and the Dhruv. he said that the Navy cannot get the 5 ton Dhruv to provide the same services as the 10 ton Sea King, and that they would have to go in for a helo like the Indian Meium helo and pointed me in the direction of the model.

Video clip of HAL's helo models
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2fO1u_9SGs

[Philip]

Fine summation Prasad of Sweetman's views.Was there any view/talk about TVC and dogfighting aspects? Also the need for a gun/cannon,as an essential item for the Israelis.

[sum]

Holy Moly,
This thread has turned into a Aladdin's cave of treasure due to the two man army effort of Rock-all and Prasad guru.

[Jagan]

quick question about this


Did the Upgraded MiG-27 get an extra set of pylons under the wings and the plumbing for it? because I am pretty much sure that I have never seen a MiG-27 with four underwing stations.

[vavinash]

Good catch. The earlier ones did not have a pylon on the swing wing. So I guess Mig-27's have 7 pylons + a bomb rack on each side at the rear now.

[K Mehta]

Friends some of my contribution
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 9/K+Mehta/

[shiv]

quick question about this


Did the Upgraded MiG-27 get an extra set of pylons under the wings and the plumbing for it? because I am pretty much sure that I have never seen a MiG-27 with four underwing stations.

blow me down!

[shiv]

Holy Moly,
This thread has turned into a Aladdin's cave of treasure due to the two man army effort of Rock-all and Prasad guru.

Absolutely - the event has been made into a resounding success for BR because of a few dedicated guys.

Many thanks.

[Kapil]

Gosh,

I missed so much this time!

Good show Prasad:Trust you have a better Valentines Day the next time

[Singha]

does the su30 cart around 20 x 50kg bombs on the famous "claw" racks.
Shiv has a video of a diving attack where it unleashes a shower of small bombs in pokhran.

[sunilUpa]

Great job guys.

A question on Dhruv WSI, in the weapon firing video, did WSI sport actual Optronic package or was it the same dummy we see in the pictures posted?

[Kanson]

does the su30 cart around 20 x 50kg bombs on the famous "claw" racks.
Shiv has a video of a diving attack where it unleashes a shower of small bombs in pokhran.

there is a pic showing the loaded config, i think.

[Kanson]

I will try and post the following by tomorrow:

- Dr. Varadarajan's talk on Airborne Radar Development
- Dr. Revankar - EW sensor development
- Dr. Saraswat - Indian Missile developmnet
- Malkondaiah (DMRL) - Aerospace materials development in India
- Dr. Selvamurthy - Life Support Systems for Air Force.

I also have to post teh following:
- Talk with Saab ppl
- Talk with Raytheon guys
- Impressions about the F-18 simulator (I got a chance to fly it)
- Eurofighter and Eurojet CEO's talk at Aeroseminar
- Yair Ramati - Future Aerospace market trends.
- Will see if I've to add anything to the Rafale guy's talk.

Anything I've promised but forgotten??? Please remind me...

Also request you to x-post any of my posts to the concerned threads also.

Thanks
Prasad

You have audio file for these ?

[shiv]

does the su30 cart around 20 x 50kg bombs on the famous "claw" racks.
Shiv has a video of a diving attack where it unleashes a shower of small bombs in pokhran.

there is a pic showing the loaded config, i think.

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKC8WuTLfM8

[Rupak]

Jagan
The MiG-27 always had hardpoints under the wing, fitted with swivelling pylons. There are older photos of our MiGs. See:

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uplo ... mig-27.jpg

The MiG-27 has nine hardpoints.

Centrline x 1
Wing Glove X 2
Fuselage x 4
Wings X 2 (for ferry tanks)

[Jagan]

Jagan
The MiG-27 always had hardpoints under the wing, fitted with swivelling pylons. There are older photos of our MiGs. See:

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uplo ... mig-27.jpg

The MiG-27 has nine hardpoints.

Centrline x 1
Wing Glove X 2
Fuselage x 4
Wings X 2 (for ferry tanks)

thanks rupak.

I remember that picture but didnt see it when I checked before posting my query. It does appear to be a rarely used config as I couldnt find any other pic with the wing tanks in place (other than the one above ofcourse!). Ofcourse considering the Aero India mig was flying in from elsewhere it makes sense to have the ferry tanks in place.

[kobe]

I will try and post the following by tomorrow:

- Dr. Varadarajan's talk on Airborne Radar Development
- Dr. Revankar - EW sensor development
- Dr. Saraswat - Indian Missile developmnet
- Malkondaiah (DMRL) - Aerospace materials development in India
- Dr. Selvamurthy - Life Support Systems for Air Force.

I also have to post teh following:
- Talk with Saab ppl
- Talk with Raytheon guys
- Impressions about the F-18 simulator (I got a chance to fly it)
- Eurofighter and Eurojet CEO's talk at Aeroseminar
- Yair Ramati - Future Aerospace market trends.
- Will see if I've to add anything to the Rafale guy's talk.
.........
Anything I've promised but forgotten??? Please remind me...
.........
Prasad

You have audio file for these ?

K. Prasad,
your info is quiet useful (both for the BR Jingoes and for the enemy). In the near future you may want to change your handle and not use your name in posts. I hope its not your real name.

BR Moderators,

need orientation session for key persons to be discrete with their content and their personal info.

just to be safe....

[Kartik]

Guys,Flight Intl. had in a recent issue an extensive feature about the latest Pilatus and its ability to leapfrog some other intermediate trainers by giving a jet like feel to the trainee pilots.I will try and locate it with excerpts.

but where did the Pilatus even figure in the IAF's plans ? its only on BR that anyone has even mentioned it..the Sitara HJT-36 has already flown more than 400 hours, and the new AL-55I engine is ready and has been installed. it would be much easier and wiser to simply wait till 2010 by when it'll reach IOC phase and then induct it in large numbers to fill the Kiran's role. there is simply no requirement for a Pilatus trainer.

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.

the Hawk deal on the other hand is one of those rare deals where everything was done on time- BAe with RAF ensured that nearly 75 IAF pilots recieved training on the Hawks in Britain and that allowed the IAF to retire MiG-21s on time. then, transfer of tools and jigs to HAL so that they could commence manufacturing the Hawk, was done on time. BAe sourced Hawks were delivered on time, so where is the problem ? obviously, minor hiccups like non-availability of spares for a completely new type in IAF service is almost unavoidable right at the start- the situation will only improve as HAL and BAe and IAF get more acquainted with the Hawk maintenance and spares systems. As far as I can see, the Hawk deal was one of the most smoothly executed deals in recent memory apart from its protracted beginnings.

Extra Jags could be built very cheaply by comparison and with more advanced SRAAMs could easily see off the Sino-Pak birds being acquired by our neighbours.The numbers issue could be eased with this approach too.

you're not seriously suggesting that the IAF buy more Jags are you ? they have more than 120 in service, that'll go on till 2020, by when they'll be seriously outdated considering the rest of the IAF fleet. what the IAF needs to do is keep the Jag fleet current, modern and this re-engining thing seems like a good idea, considering the advantages.

simply looking at the up-front costs of acquisition is not a good idea, when you consider that the Tejas can do whatever the Jag does and do the A2A role as well. SRAAMs only offer a limited defence capability and the fact is that sending Jags alone with no escorts would be risky. also, MiG-29s will be multi-role and the MRCA will definitely have a A2G strike tilt since it replaces MiG-23 and MiG-27 fleets. sinking valueable funds into a 3rd generation strike jet even with upgrades, is not a great idea.

Kartik,there was a piece in one mag picked up at the show about the MOD's procurement approach and that of the US,Russia,Europeans,etc.I will try and locate it and post excerpts from it. It recommended that we adopt a different approach to the present one,which is very rigid and allows for little felexibility insisting that the cheapest option be chosen if it meets min. specs.

I agree that the MoD has to take into consideration other factors as well, and not just go in for the L1 tender winner that just about meets the minimum specs..especially since the specs seem so loose that such different class aircraft like the Gripen NG and the SH both qualify..I'm just hoping that the MRCA deal goes like the AJT deal where MiG-AT and the L-159 were offered at much lower prices, yet the IAF insisted on the Hawk despite its procurement costs being much higher and the MoD agreed finally.

[Kanson]

You have audio file for these ?

K. Prasad,
your info is quiet useful (both for the BR Jingoes and for the enemy). In the near future you may want to change your handle and not use your name in posts. I hope its not your real name.

BR Moderators,

need orientation session for key persons to be discrete with their content and their personal info.

just to be safe....

Yes...and not in the near future, why so long ? better change the identity, address, name and possible face surgery immediately to escap from the hit list of Mossad & ISI black team who target anyone whose name is starting with the letter 'K' as Khomeini starts with K.

These seminars are public dissemination of info regarding Indian defence systems and products.