Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 23 Dec 2014 00:11

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4006 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 ... 101  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 22 May 2011 14:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/jai-hind-with-rocky-and-mayur/rocky-mayur-meet-the-garuds/195842
Rakshak,

It looks like IAF has Jury rigged Mi-17s (or is it a Chetak) as attack helicopters with Rocket Pods etc. in the above video (about Garuds) @ 6:09 mins, there is an excellent frontal shot of the Mi-17. Anyone has updates on this front. 116HU (Tank Busters) and 129HU (Nubra Warriors) seems to be the most likely units?

Any info would be hingly appreciated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 May 2011 17:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23808
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
cheenum wrote:
http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/jai-hind-with-rocky-and-mayur/rocky-mayur-meet-the-garuds/195842
Rakshak,

It looks like IAF has Jury rigged Mi-17s (or is it a Chetak) as attack helicopters with Rocket Pods etc. in the above video (about Garuds) @ 6:09 mins, there is an excellent frontal shot of the Mi-17. Anyone has updates on this front. 116HU (Tank Busters) and 129HU (Nubra Warriors) seems to be the most likely units?

Any info would be hingly appreciated.


Mi 17s with rocket pods ssaw action in Kargil. Mi 17s with multiple machine guns firing out the side was demonstrated in Vayu Shakti 2010 - also the rocket pods in action. The videos are available online.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 May 2011 19:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25
Posts: 5941
There is nothing Jerry rigged about those rocket pod attachments.
That is the way the helo's designers attached them in the soviet days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 14:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 6039
cheenum wrote:
VinodTK wrote:



I hope India selects Apache attack helo and get to manufacture these in India!!!



I hope that the Attack Helo compitition gets canned and the IAF/ IA work with LCH onlee. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 14:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Posts: 1636
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
^^And stick to light attach heli's??? Wouldn't it be better if we had some heavy attack helicopter to that can take a brutal pounding but still kick enemy's ass...
JMO...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 14:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 6039
Then why not design a Apache/ Mi28 class helo to begin with.

Also what is the gurantee that your enemy will oblige you with providing you with targets that will be suitable for the Heavies when they are available. What happnes when they send a target in an area that only a heavy as defined by you can deal with but, only the LCH is present (Assuming that the LCH isnt good enough for the JOB). Does the IA/ IAF loose the fight or they fight and prevail with what they have.

Changing tack, the Attack helo tender went to every helo manufacturer out there including the Tiger and the A 129. They did not participate due to different reasons. That tells me that the IAF/IA dont have clear difination of the machine they are looking for. It has to be an attack helo, its capabilities will be evaluated and only the most capable and the one performing the best in Indian conditions will be selected by the IAF/ IA. In that situation, if the LCH meets all the criteria of evaluation, then the tender ought to be scrapped and only the LCH be procured. If the LCH fails to meet the parameters then the winning design of the tender ought to be procured in the numbers ment for the LCH.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 15:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36
Posts: 537
^^^ Can some one tell what extra Apache/Mi 28 can carry (in terms of ammunitions / Missiles / ATGMS and not plain weight) over LCH and different altitude? For Eg, 16 ATGM for Apache against 8 in LCH at 3000 feet.

This needs to be compared with the cost of heavy weights V/s LCH. Will give better picture. For eg, say LCH cost is half of the others. That mean the ammunition advantage to apache is nullified as in the first eg. However, it will have additional cost by way of additional pilots, infrastructure. But that will also give me enough flexibity of deployment say more area coverage, or superior numeric proportion or fast operations with targets divided between larger no of LCHs.

Although, does not mean i dont accept the utility of heavy weights


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 18:12 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14164
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
Bala Vignesh wrote:
^^And stick to light attach heli's??? Wouldn't it be better if we had some heavy attack helicopter to that can take a brutal pounding but still kick enemy's ass...
JMO...

you know, that's debatable. many militaries use light combat helo's.

btw, interesting article on the rooivalk, good for comparing with LCH. http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/articl ... 2011-05-20


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 20:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4667
email it to all DDM idiots


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 20:24 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34029
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
a LCH class helo which has a 1000km range (ie massive loiter time @ 150kmph) and 8 x ATGMs seems more useful than a heavier heli with 16 ATGMs and normal endurance...kinda like the A340-600/A330-300 is more suitable for certain routes than a 747/A380. it can travel longer distances from secure areas in the rear, hunt targets for a longer time, engage in psyops sniping attacks and carry on the fight for a longer time. I realize a fuel tank also means addl fuel consumption in terms of carrying the metal tank, pumps and the fuel itself.

maybe some armoured conformal side bay apache style (in apache it holds avionics and fuel iirc) could be tried out on LCH too once mk1 design is stable...or catamaran outrigger style drop tanks of MH60

for H&D photos, a couple of para SF guys could also sit there and do the strong crewcut rogue warrior extraction thing for == onlee.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 20:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 May 2009 15:24
Posts: 320
Gurus saw this in Indian Express, is this DDM at work or BSF playing politics or is there a genuine problem...?

BSF calls 'Dhruv' choppers useless

Quote:
The Border Security Force (BSF) has written to the Government for replacing indigenous 'Dhruv' helicopters saying they did not fulfil its operational requirement.

"The Advanced Light Helicopters- Dhruv-- are not helpful in our operations like casualty evacuation and troop reinforcements. They are useless for us. Most of the times these helicopters are under servicing and there are issues about its capabilities to fly beyond a certain height," BSF sources said.

"We have informed the Home Ministry in this regard.

The helicopter keeps developing regular snags," they said.

The air wing in these naxal-affected areas is under the command of the Border Security Force (BSF) and is used by the personnel of CRPF, ITBP, SSB and state police forces.

The BSF air fleet at present has six ALH 'Dhruvs' and two more will soon be inducted.

The Home Ministry, meanwhile, has also finalised a deal to lease six additional helicopters from a private vendor after a tender in this regard was floated last year by the government.

"These helicopters will be in place by June this year and will help security forces deployed for anti-naxal operations,"the sources said.

The present fleet of 'Dhruvs' placed in Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) are also out of work due to reasons of want of spare parts or requirements of servicing.

The BSF air fleet, according to sources, will also be inducting a large transport plane as the two Avros that it has are non-operational due to technical reasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 20:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23808
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Marten wrote:
Vayu has a comparison of Lizardclone vs LCH. I have two images. Mods, would it be ok to post these?


It's here - kelik on thumbnail
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 20:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19
Posts: 1907
Singha wrote:
for H&D photos, a couple of para SF guys could also sit there and do the strong crewcut rogue warrior extraction thing for == onlee.

In fact, Parachute Regiment have done something even more impressive for Dhruv
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JffsYlJAf48&feature=player_profilepage#t=252s
Now top that! :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 20:59 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34029
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
I wonder who supports the BSF Dhruvs? IAF ? its upto HAL and the supporting body to work things out and give higher uptime.

higher uptime == more costs + more people that much is given. provided the money is there, it should not be an issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 21:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Posts: 1636
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Marten sir,
I guess you can upload the artice in its entirety here.. Better here than any other thread...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 22:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 1540
Location: Republic of India
Singha wrote:
I wonder who supports the BSF Dhruvs? IAF ? its upto HAL and the supporting body to work things out and give higher uptime.

higher uptime == more costs + more people that much is given. provided the money is there, it should not be an issue.


The IAF has no dealing with the BSF choppers. They are serviced by HAL.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2011 23:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Posts: 1636
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Pratyush wrote:
Then why not design a Apache/ Mi28 class helo to begin with.

Also what is the gurantee that your enemy will oblige you with providing you with targets that will be suitable for the Heavies when they are available. What happnes when they send a target in an area that only a heavy as defined by you can deal with but, only the LCH is present (Assuming that the LCH isnt good enough for the JOB). Does the IA/ IAF loose the fight or they fight and prevail with what they have.

Changing tack, the Attack helo tender went to every helo manufacturer out there including the Tiger and the A 129. They did not participate due to different reasons. That tells me that the IAF/IA dont have clear difination of the machine they are looking for. It has to be an attack helo, its capabilities will be evaluated and only the most capable and the one performing the best in Indian conditions will be selected by the IAF/ IA. In that situation, if the LCH meets all the criteria of evaluation, then the tender ought to be scrapped and only the LCH be procured. If the LCH fails to meet the parameters then the winning design of the tender ought to be procured in the numbers ment for the LCH.

Pratyushji,
The Attack heli of that class will be a derivative of the IMMRH, which is still pretty much in the planning stage. So i guess its gonna be a long time before we can make our own attack helicopter of that class.

About the Targets, there is absolutely no guarantee that our enemy will deploy exactly in the manner we want this assets to be deployed. But the ace up LCH's sleeve is its capabilities at high altitude. So apart from the high altitude areas, the Apache's/Mi28's and LCH can be co-deployed almost everywhere.

I can't speak about the spec mentioned in the RFP since i have not gone through it yet. But i can understand why they want limited numbers of these heavy hitting birds. Big is always big, irrespective if they are better or not. And that's exactly what we need for some roles, like Recon: search and destroy to name two.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 00:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Posts: 583
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
shiv wrote:
Marten wrote:
Vayu has a comparison of Lizardclone vs LCH. I have two images. Mods, would it be ok to post these?


It's here - kelik on thumbnail
Image


Some mistake there looks like.... why is the WZ-10 loaded wt greater than its MTOW??

I'm guessing the correct figures should look something like this:

LCH:

empty wt: 2.5 tons
loaded wt: 4 tons
MTOW: 5.5 tons
Useful load: 3 tons

WZ-10:

empty wt: 5.5 tons
loaded wt: 6 tons
MTOW: 7 tons
Useful load: 1.5 tons

Seems like something wrong to me, even with those numbers. But if true, brilliant stuff!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 05:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
IAF could use Apache's/Mi28's along with LCH in a strike role. An Apache with Longbow radar can guide a flight of LCHs towards their target to deadly effect. To exploit this capability IAF could be looking to buy just 28 of these big birds and buy LCHs in the hundreds.

I hope they complete the selection quickly. With the Alphabet soup of agreements from the US, the deal might swing the Mi28s way. Incidentally Mi-28 sports a radar very similar to the Longbow radar on an Apache.
A Pooch for gurus, How much do they cost?


Last edited by Shrinivasan on 24 May 2011 08:18, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 06:09 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34029
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
the twin engine AH1W supercobra weighs 4.6t empty and the Rooivalk @ 5.5t

the single engine AH1 weight around 2.6t empty

is anyone sure of the 2.5t empty for LCH ? the argiden engine weight 205kg each and then there might be external parts per engine...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 06:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23808
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
cheenum wrote:
IAF is looking to use Apache's/Mi28's along with LCH in a strike role. An Apache with Longbow radar can guide a flight of LCHs towards their target to deadly effect. This is why they are looking to by 28 of these big birds and LCHs in the hundreds.


Do you have any source to back up this description of Apaches being able to guide LCHs and the IAF having such a plan- or are you extrapolating what you know about the Apache to imagine a secure datalink between Apache and the as yet unavailable LCH.

I have a reason for asking this question. You may well be right in your thinking - but your post sounds so juicy and attractive to the jingo ear that you will find some lurker of today ask on this forum after one year (in 2012) "What happened to the plan of integrating Apache with LCH?" or if Apache is rejected someone will have a caterwaul/rant and say "MoD Babus are stupid - the IAF plan to ingrate Apache Longbow with LCH has been dashed". So your post had better not be misinformation or imagination.

In my view India will not get the Longbow even if we get Apaches for the same reason that India did not get CISMOA with the C-130s. Longbow (the radar) will come with EULA that will demand that India reveal how it will be used. Besides - secure datalinking it with LCH will mean either having some Longbow source code or asking the Americans to create a datalink to be used in LCH along with EULA etc.

Finally a mast mounted radar is something that requires intensive maintenance because of the high vibration environment it has to operate ie - and that means that American Longbow technicians will be crawling all over IAF Longbows.

Lastly - the Longbow radar is mast mounted so that the Apache can hide behind terrain features and yet use its detection and aiming capability. That means that the Longbow Apache is not an "AWACS" type design that calls for it to be somewhere far away outside the theatre of action. If the Apache is in the theater of action why use LCH - or are you suggesting a caste system where it is OK to lose a few LCHs who expose themselves but preserve the hiding Apache. If all helos, Apache and LCH are hiding behind terrain so that line of sight communication is impossible - what sort of secure communication will be used? We will need a dedicated satellite for that. Or will it be an AWACS? Is the IAF planing that as well?

Can you be a bit more clear about what you claim the IAF envisages.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 06:36 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14164
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
IAF's attack chopper competition is simply a one to one replacement of the hinds, probably because the LCH is still at least a couple of years away from completion. given that choppers with no fire-control radars, like mangusta and tiger were also sent RFPs I don't think the idea that IAF wanted to use the foreign attack chopper in co-op with LCH sticks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 06:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
shiv wrote:
cheenum wrote:
IAF is looking to use Apache's/Mi28's along with LCH in a strike role. An Apache with Longbow radar can guide a flight of LCHs towards their target to deadly effect. This is why they are looking to by 28 of these big birds and LCHs in the hundreds.


Do you have any source to back up this description of Apaches being able to guide LCHs and the IAF having such a plan- or are you extrapolating what you know about the Apache to imagine a secure datalink between Apache and the as yet unavailable LCH.


This possibility of Apache being able to do this is from a Design Engineer in McDonnel Douglas (which designed the original Apache which was since then acquired by Boeing). At the same time will the US SD/DOD allow Boeing to sell an Apache Longbow or will IAF select the Nanga Apache is a million dollar question.

My scenario is an ideal scenario, Jingo wet dream, I cannot talk for the IAF... Gurus are there for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 06:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
shiv wrote:
cheenum wrote:
IAF is looking to use Apache's/Mi28's along with LCH in a strike role. An Apache with Longbow radar can guide a flight of LCHs towards their target to deadly effect. This is why they are looking to by 28 of these big birds and LCHs in the hundreds.


If the Apache is in the theater of action why use LCH - or are you suggesting a caste system where it is OK to lose a few LCHs who expose themselves but preserve the hiding Apache. If all helos, Apache and LCH are hiding behind terrain so that line of sight communication is impossible - what sort of secure communication will be used? We will need a dedicated satellite for that. Or will it be an AWACS? Is the IAF planing that as well?

Can you be a bit more clear about what you claim the IAF envisages.


My suggestion was for Apache (1 or more) to lead a flight of LCH into a strike mission. PERIOD. There is a capability to do this. Both Apache and Mi-28 can do it. I never meant LCH would be cannon fodder. LCH would actually do its attacking from a standoffdistance(couple of KM).

Also if the enemy is going to attack this strike flight. They would actually try to take out the lead Apache/Mi-28 than the LCH as this would dis-orient the strike force.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 07:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23808
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
cheenum wrote:

My suggestion was for Apache (1 or more) to lead a flight of LCH into a strike mission. PERIOD. There is a capability to do this. Both Apache and Mi-28 can do it. I never meant LCH would be cannon fodder. LCH would actually do its attacking from a standoffdistance(couple of KM).

Also if the enemy is going to attack this strike flight. They would actually try to take out the lead Apache/Mi-28 than the LCH as this would dis-orient the strike force.


Fair enough - but if it is your suggestion, that does not translate to its being the IAF's idea. Sorry to nitpick - but your actual statement was:

Quote:
IAF is looking to use Apache's/Mi28's along with LCH in a strike role. An Apache with Longbow radar can guide a flight of LCHs towards their target to deadly effect. This is why they are looking to by 28 of these big birds and LCHs in the hundreds.


The suggestion is yours, but your have said that the "IAF is looking to use..". That is wrong. The IAF has stated no intention to use Apaches in this manner. Perhaps you meant to say "It would be good for the IAF to use Apache Longbow with LCH"?

The capability may be there - but that capability is only nascent and not a plan. Like I said - I believe that the IAF is unlikely to get Longbow along with Apache. That is my opinion because the Longbow will come with too many strings attached.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 08:06 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53
Posts: 673
Comparing article of LCH and Chinese lizard

Combat attack helicopters: Rivals in the air

It seems India and china are par on Helicopter technology if not better :eek:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 08:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
I stand corrected, will reword my post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 08:33 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34029
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
imo this whole spotter-shooter thing devolves into a easier model if a helicopter or small plane mounts a GMTI radar (Astor, french horizon), flies say 20-30km behind the edge of the desired battle (to keep out of range for mobile SAMs) and feeds the tactical picture via datalink to the attack helis. the helis by themselves have thermals and TV channels and radio comms to allocate targets and shoot.

web indicates france retired their 4 horizons in 2008 because of high cost and use of UAVs to do same job.
The helicopter is equipped with a long-range, multi-mode retractable pulse Doppler radar. A rotating antenna is carried beneath the fuselage. The radar range is 200km, with the helicopter operating at an altitude of 4,000m and a cruise speed of 180km/h.

The radar scans a ground area of 20,000km² over a depth of 200km in ten seconds, and the data is then transmitted to a ground station. For moving targets the radar provides a speed resolution of the target of 2m per second.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/horizon/

so the problem becomes simpler - mount ground surveillance radar on a large MALE UAV and feed that into shooter via some channel. I think we will see Rustom MALE variant in that role when it arrives - its a gaping hole in current IAF capability. at higher end for surveilling corps sized areas , a EMB145 variant might come along, reusing interior work from the AEW project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 08:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23808
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Singha this whole business of "network centric warfare" is the seamless integration of all sensors. It may be a man on the ground 500 meters from the enemy - a UAV, a helo or an AWACS. Everyone should be able to see what someone else sees. So an infantryman can track a tank and feed the info to the network and that tank can be taken out by any available asset.

OT here - but in this connection Prodyut Das (in his latest article from Vayu that I uploaded to Rapidshare) mentions the possibility of a 3-D cube - probably a computer rendition on a 2-D screen that allows a pilot to see his own position relative to all others - friends and threats.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 08:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26896
Location: NowHere
karan_mc wrote:
Comparing article of LCH and Chinese lizard

Combat attack helicopters: Rivals in the air

It seems India and china are par on Helicopter technology if not better :eek:

Good. wherever chips market their wheezy 10, we could take up a counter bid for LCH, provided buyer is a safe country/customer with no links to terrorism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 09:44 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 24 Oct 2010 14:34
Posts: 9
SELF DELETED


Last edited by atul.arvind on 24 May 2011 10:06, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 09:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 7111
Location: Desh ke baarei mei sochna shuru karo. Soch badlo, desh badlega!
atul.arvind wrote:
BSF dont want DHRUV heli...says its totally useless....



news :TOI Bangalore edition.will post link as soon as i get 1....



Already posted


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2011 13:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 6039
WRT, the longbow radar and the Ah64. Why can the Item be fitted to the LCH it self or be deployed like the MMwR FCS on the Ah1Z. Also why not ask the proposed LOH to be equipped with a similar radar to locate targets and guide the LCH to the target.

Also it is not necessary that you have Helo based radar onlee. Why not use some thing like the JSTAR/ ASTOR to guide the LCH where the targets are.

My point is we need to end this fascination with foreign maal. We must be the only nation where the Proposed imported solution and the domestically developed solution will have similar time line of entry into service. Yet we are wishing for an Imported solution to be acquired and add to logistical complexity.

Also considering the development efforts for the WSI Dhruv and the lineage of the LCH. We can be sure that the LCH will have a minimal time lag in terms of completing the test flight and reaching deployment.

Granted that the HELINA will take some time to enter into service (As per DDM 2013). But what prevents the LCH to be equipped as an interim measure with an imported ATGM. As it is we are ok with the Imported ATGM serving with the Imported Attack Helo.

Added later: I had not seen Singhas post


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 May 2011 05:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 1760
Russian Helicopters to be assembled in India
Quote:
The MiG setback has been a humbling experience for Russian defence contractors. Now, the Russian Helicopter company is sweetening the deal by offering local production in the race for three Indian tenders worth $4 bn.
:
In a move unprecedented in the country’s history, the Russian Helicopters, JSC announced it was ready to establish manufacturing of military equipment in India with the right to re-export to third countries. The helicopter builders are thus trying to gain the upper hand in three tenders for supplying the Indian Air Force with light highlander choppers, cargo carriers, and assault helicopters worth more than $4 billion in total.

“We may do the final assembly in India and enter other markets from the Indian market base,” Andrei Reus, CEO of United Industrial Corporation Oboronprom, said. The Russian Helicopters, JSC, an Oboronprom subsidiary, is responsible for the design and manufacturing of all helicopters in Russia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 May 2011 22:49 
Offline
Webmaster BR

Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Posts: 1248
Location: Planet Earth
DGCA certifies Dhruv simulator to Level D
http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/05/dgca-certifies-dhruv-simulator-to-level.html

added later: for all who do not known what a level 'd' flight simulator is, please click on link below and go to motion in flight simulators sub-heading;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_simulator#Motion_in_flight_simulators


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 May 2011 00:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Posts: 1261
Location: Land of Trala-la
Price row prompts HAL to look elsewhere for chopper engine

Quote:
BANGALORE: A dispute over fees may hamper French firm Turbomeca's chances of participating in the development of Shakti engines for Light Utility Helicopter programme.

Turbomeca has asked for a higher fee to fit the LUH, with Shakti engine, jointly developed with Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), prompting the state-owned defence undertaking to look elsewhere. "We have been in dialogue with other engine manufacturers," P Soundara Rajan, managing director of HAL's helicopter complex, told The Economic Times in an interview.

The LUH, which will have both civil and military variants, will replace the obsolete Chetak and Cheetah helicopter fleets of the forces. The Shakti engine currently powers the Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter-Mark-III as well as HAL's Light Combat Helicopter.

However, the Shakti has a twin-engine configuration, and HAL has been re-evaluating its options in converting it to a singleengine platform on which the LUH is based. "We will have to take a call shortly on whether the twin-engine platform will be a good fit. This should be done by the end of the year. There are design and qualification changes that have to be worked out," Soundara Rajan said.

The country's largest aeronautics company will also have to consider certification issues, such as the changes in the gearbox design, in order to incorporate the Shakti engine into the single-engine LUH, he said. "There are a number of costs involved, plus efforts in design, engineering, qualification and certification. One has to look at economic viability. These are techno-commercial decisions that have to be taken," the helicopter complex managing director said.

It is yet unclear whether the French manufacturer has drawn up a fresh proposal for the programme. In response to an email questionnaire sent by ET, Turbomeca said the Shakti engine would be "well-suited to meet the propulsion requirements of the LUH programme".

"Therefore, the possibility of its installation on this aircraft is under discussions between HAL and Turbomeca," an email from the company said. Soundara Rajan has also confirmed that HAL-Turbomeca joint venture was not under evaluation. However, companies such as Honeywell and Rolls-Royce are believed to be in talks with the state-owned defence undertaking. General Electric and Honeywell did not respond to emails sent by ET.

In an email statement, Prat & Whitney spokesperson said: "Prat & Whitney is not in discussion with HAL for engines on the LUH". In a statement, Rolls-Royce declined to comment on specifics.

"Rolls-Royce has class-leading helicopter engines that are wellmatched to LUH requirements. An opportunity to power the platform, in collaboration with Indian partners, is of high potential interest and such collaboration would draw upon our over 200 million flight hours of helicopter engine experience and decades of working in partnership with Indian industry, to serve the needs of the Indian military . However Rolls-Royce does not comment on specific on-going campaigns," it added.

Discord between partners in the defence industry is nothing new. In 2002, HAL entered into a joint venture with a Russian consortium that included aerospace giants Irkut Aviation, Ilyushin Aviation Complex and Rosoboronexport, to develop a multi-role transport aircraft for India and Russia, only for Irkut to pull out six years later. The project got back on track only in late-2009.

The Cassidian-Larsen & Toubro JV also ran into trouble after government regulator, the Foreign Investment Promotion Board , rejected their earlier proposed equity structure. The three-tonne LUH has been designated as one of HAL's future flagship products.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 May 2011 01:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26896
Location: NowHere
we will be ever rolling the stones, and gather no mass (technical knowledge).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 May 2011 01:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12
Posts: 2576
>>"There are a number of costs involved, plus efforts in design, engineering, qualification and certification. One has to look at economic viability. These are techno-commercial decisions that have to be taken," the helicopter complex managing director said.

and most substantial "cost" is not making the decision and that having ripple effect on putting LUH in user's hand. Whatever decision they need to make, they need to move swift and not hold the program hostage.

Seems like there is still a strong disconnect in our expectations and the way French business operate. I would prefer single engine solution across the board...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 May 2011 11:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
This whole article could be a Chankiyan attempt by Yindoos to army twist the VIP Frenchies (in town) to get a better deal. There are many deals which could be in the Frenchies pocket (or ...). If we are seriously looking at other options after so many years, we are shooting ourselves in the foot because the same story would be repeated with the new partner after 2-3 year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 May 2011 14:12 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 09 May 2011 17:22
Posts: 42
The news and discussion on Turbomeca-HAL dispute on provision of Shakti engines for LUH; set me off on thinking on what would be the commonality of engines for Helicopters for the Largest users and producers of Helis viz., USA and Russia. Accordingly have collected the information on an excel sheet. Tried to put it up for discussion, but did not find a way. Could somebody please provide information on putting up an excel sheet on this forum.

Thanks,
Mike.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4006 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 ... 101  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, SanjayC, Victor and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group