Rahul M wrote:yes, unfortunately not in the section you would expect.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 4.jpg.html


Rahul M wrote:yes, unfortunately not in the section you would expect.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 4.jpg.html
Kakarat wrote:Light Combat Helicopter struggles to slim down
The Managing Director of HAL’s brand new Helicopter Complex, R Srinivasan, told Business Standard that the LCH’s weight would be progressively reduced over the first three prototypes. “We will find ways of cutting down TD-1 by 180-200 kg; TD-2, which will fly in mid-2010, will be another 100 kg lighter; and TD-3, which will be ready by end-2010, will shave off another 65-75 kg.”
IMHO,Austin wrote:Or is it they would say later the LCH does not meet its original specification and since we already imported x chopper from y country , lets order more of x till LCH meets the original specs and when they do they will say its outdated and it should meet the new specs , while we import more of x chopper due to urgent national security requirements.
Austin wrote:So if LCH can perform all the task as noted , why cant it do anti-tank role with same effectiveness , what tactical advantage will lets say a AH-64D will provide , which an LCH cannot do generally speaking ?
Ok some one would claim it can take more hits and carry more weapons , but LCH will be more agile and will present a small target .
Business Standard discovered, during a visit to Bangalore, that the LCH — which should weight about 2.5 tonnes — is overweight by some 580 kilograms
If HAL is developing LCH , why does IA need a global tender for 30 odd new attack chopper ( costing ~ $1 billion ) to replace Mi-35 is beyond me , why cant they just replace the Mi-35 with a standardised all LCH fleet ?
Rahul M wrote: quote="Austin"
turf war. IAF wants attack helo assets which it would exercise control exclusively.
apparently, having a different type bolsters the case.
Ranvijay wrote:If HAL is developing LCH , why does IA need a global tender for 30 odd new attack chopper ( costing ~ $1 billion ) to replace Mi-35 is beyond me , why cant they just replace the Mi-35 with a standardised all LCH fleet ?
Because HAL claims it can build a death star and generally falls flat on its face. Given their past experiences with the underpaid, inefficient organisations that pass off as defence "R&D" centres here, I won't blame the air force for wanting 30 foreign combat choppers.
Such a sad state of affairs is pretty demoralising considering indigenous stuff should always come ahead of foreign maal simply because during emergencies we'll have factories churning out materials without having to write a 3 page long essay to the ministry asking them to import new tyres or some other small material..
What has your answer got to do anything with the genuine question asked by the poster?
Can you stop this nonsense and try and make intelligent and researched post? Rather than to pontificate and give unrelated answers?
Ranvijay wrote:What nonsense are you talking about here. Or are you going to defend HAL? Is there even one prototype of the LCH out yet? They're working on tech demonstrators and they're already overweight, with the 3rd prototype set to come out in late 2010 (unlikely but lets assume its true), and op clearance to come out god knows when, you expect the IA to seriously consider LCH's as their frontline attack choppers?
Let HAL get something ready first is what I say. Feed them money so they keep research up and when the need comes they can actually get a good product out there. Remember, your first try is more about learning.
To build a credible fleet the IA should have started yesterday, not in 2010 when TD-3 of the LCH rolls out and finally matches the "weight requirements".
Also, learn to respect other people's views even if they might differ from yours.
Is there any substitute available in the international market for LCH?
The poster probably knows more about the subject than me and you combined.
blah blah blah
Also, learn to respect other people's views even if they might differ from yours.
They're working on tech demonstrators and they're already overweight
Instead of spending $$'s on developing an aircraft that is fundamentally similar to the ALH why don't we just improve upon the ALH?
cut the cr*p. respect is earned. your posts have nothing that does so. so quit hyperventilating and actually read something before going on a world tour on your high horse.
are you aware that virtually ALL prototype aircrafts are overweight ?
there are HUGE differences between a combat capable helo like the WSI Dhruv and a full-fledged combat helo like the LCH.
LCH uses subsystems from ALH but is in no way comparable in agility, sensors, armour protection, sheer performance and even signature suppression aka stealth.
as against overweight in the first production variant ? I suppose extra weight in THAT is acceptable in your world ?
Ranvijay wrote:cut the cr*p. respect is earned. your posts have nothing that does so. so quit hyperventilating and actually read something before going on a world tour on your high horse.
You're just earning a lot of respect right here. This isn't the way mature individuals talk.
{Hello there ! I'm not in the job of earning respect here, you are, by your own admission. my job is to let people discuss meaningfully without someone ruining it.}
are you aware that virtually ALL prototype aircrafts are overweight ?
Very true, hmm, my post does make it seem like I have issues with the damn TD being overweight, wrongly phrased post I guess. I have issues with the 3rd td coming out in 2010, the line of LSP's will then follow and then it'll not see operational clearance until god knows when.
{So you are an oracle too ?! Guess what, this isn't the astrology forum !
you are in the wrong place buddy ! there are many places on the net which combine military information with oraclite prophecies. may be you will want to try out your luck at those places ? }
there are HUGE differences between a combat capable helo like the WSI Dhruv and a full-fledged combat helo like the LCH.
Which is precisely why they need to first ensure they have a sound product on their hands and then try to sell it to the armed forces.
{Why not try and come up with a sentence that actually makes sense ? it's not that hard. I think even you can manage it if you try hard enough.
coming to your non-existent point.
are they trying to 'sell' something to the forces at the moment ?
the answer is clearly 'NO', clear to all except you perhaps. so what are you on about ?}
You know as well as I do whats going to happen here, HAL releases an LSP, we'll all clap our hands and celebrate. 4 years later another LSP will come out, well again clap and wah wah it. 6 years later they'll finally give one to the IA to test , who'll promptly come back and tell them "sir, this was good in 2005, this is 2020, change it to this this this".
{see second reply above.}
In all my posts I've never been against indeginisation, just against the type of indeginisation Avadi tried to force onto the army where chunks of rubber fell of the Arjuns tracks on a marble floor.
{you know, I hate coffee because most of the tea available in India is usually cheap CTC.
makes sense ? no ? neither does your post.
we were discussing the LCH project development @ HAL. your opinions about quality control @ avadi for the arjun is not germane to the discussion.
another example of irrelevant posting masquerading as meaningful discussion.}
The LCH should obviously be built. When we're confident on our grasp of the core technologies required for building our own helis we should proceed to more adventurous designs, release and LCH mark II or whatever you want. Till then let the ALH fulfil our tank buster roles.
{ till that time the LCH project should simply sit on its a$$es and hope the project keeps ticking along magically !
btw which person here has said "hey let's stop WSI production till the LCH production starts !" ?![]()
it's only you who has come up with a ridiculous strawman of an idea and then proceeded to demolish with entire volleys of platitudes !
congrats ! }
LCH uses subsystems from ALH but is in no way comparable in agility, sensors, armour protection, sheer performance and even signature suppression aka stealth.
Doesn't the LCH use the same shakti engine as the Dhruv? yea it does, redesign the airframe for 2 people, reduce the drag, bam, theres more agility for you.{while we are at it, let's add a death ray gun too ! BAM you have a death star !
sigh ! if only it was this easy !} And I'd like to know where you get the "nowhere comparable in sensors, armor protection" from. AFAIK they both share a common sensor suite. {you will know when it comes out}
The signature suppression would probably be right though, no LCH comes without IR suppression or the like.
Also, this line here, doesn't make any sense.
as against overweight in the first production variant ? I suppose extra weight in THAT is acceptable in your world ?
Could you clarify what you meant, preferably in a non-combative mood.
{kindly go back, read it again and then again if necessary. if you apply the normal rules of the english language and remember simple things like "context" I trust the meaning will dawn upon you. }
On 13 Sep 09 the Delhi based Western Air Command was requested for an air evacuation of 19 members of an Army Mountaineering Expedition to Pin Parbati Pass, who were stranded at a height of 14,600 feet in the treacherous glaciated terrain in the higher hills of Himachal Pradesh. Due to incessant rains, heavy snowfall and bad weather the expedition members were stranded for the last five days.
The situation demanded an immediate air rescue as the team had been out of ration and were unable to either proceed or return. An Advanced Light Helicopter (Dhruv) captained by Wg Cdr Nikhil Naidu with co-pilot Wg Cdr UKS Bhaduria was pressed into service for the air rescue mission.
A detailed rescue plan was chalked out in conjunction with the crew of three Army Cheetah helicopters, also tasked for the rescue mission. The crew had to ensure the safety of the mission inspite of limited reserve of power due to high altitudes and unfavourable ambient temperatures. Though the degree of difficulty of the mission was very high, the experienced IAF pilots decided to carry out the rescue by means of conducting a low hover pickups of the stranded Army personnel. A total of 12 personnel were rescued by the single ALH in three sorties and the rest seven personnel were rescued by the Army Aviation Cheetah helicopters.
The mission carried out by the IAF helicopter was the first ever recorded rescue mission by the ALH (Dhruv) at such high altitudes. The evacuation was only possible due to meticulous planning, exceptional skill and methodical conduct of the entire mission by the helicopter crew.
sunny y wrote:From Ajai Shukla's page :Business Standard discovered, during a visit to Bangalore, that the LCH — which should weight about 2.5 tonnes — is overweight by some 580 kilograms
Since when LCH started weighing 2.5 tonnes![]()
I always thought it was in 5.5 ton category.....
Can somebody please shed some light on this ??
# Empty weight: 2550 kg (5621 lb)
# Loaded weight: 4000 kg (8818 lb) {fuel loaded}
# Useful load: 2950 kg (6503 lb) {this one I'm not sure about. should be 1500 kg at SL. this will come down to around 500 kg at higher altitude, 6000 m and above.}
# Max takeoff weight: 5,500 kg (12125 lb)
Rahul M wrote:the wiki page is reasonably accurate# Empty weight: 2550 kg (5621 lb)
# Loaded weight: 4000 kg (8818 lb) {fuel loaded}
# Useful load: 2950 kg (6503 lb) {this one I'm not sure about. should be 1500 kg at SL. this will come down to around 500 kg at higher altitude, 6000 m and above.}
# Max takeoff weight: 5,500 kg (12125 lb)
the balance 3 tonnes would be used to load up the helo with fuel, ammo for main gun and other weapons in various combinations depending upon mission requirement.
KiranM wrote:Hi,
I tried searching a bit online. But didnt find an answer. Is LCH based on ASR or GSQR? Or was it a design proposed by HAL?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Kiran
Rahul M wrote:@ bala,
hu me ? scary ?![]()
![]()
and please, no sir. plain rahul will suffice.
5.5 tonne is maximum T/O weight at sea level, out of which 2.5 tonne was supposed to be the empty weight (means helo is ready with everything except fuel and weapons) which has gone up according to the latest report. note that max T/O weight will come down drastically with height above SL.
santoshs wrote:
By the way I do not say HAL or OFB are efficient as I know lot of stories about them,they need to improve a lot. But HAL and OFB is a reflection of all of us. Do we not need to improve a lot? Its a democracy, whatever happens is a cummulative reflection of all of us.
nikhil_p wrote:Consider that the armour panels that are used to manufacture the fuselage of the LCH are 'optimised'....by which I mean reduced by a mm or so. This should 'ideally' not affect the protection characteristics...however could help to shave off some weight...is this possible?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests