Indian Military Aviation

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 28 May 2010 14:14

nukavarapu wrote:
I have yet to come across any aircraft which provides both Jet Engine and Turbo-Prop on same airframe. I think the strength of the structure will be different when putting a turbo-fan instead of a turbo-prop. Well they might think of a basic airframe with turbo-prop i.e. 70 Seater, and an extended, strengthened airframe for 110 seats with a Turbo-Fan. If they can achieve this, it will be feat in itself :twisted:

Here you go sir: Fairchild Packet with props and jet engine

Image

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby rohitvats » 28 May 2010 14:18

^^^ And not to forget that we are pioneers of fitting these Packets with Jet Engines to assist operation in guess where? Ladakh...

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 28 May 2010 15:05

nukavarapu wrote:
shiv wrote: Here you go sir: Fairchild Packet with props and jet engine


Don't you think the jet engine is just to provide boost and the primary thrust is achieved by the props?


saar your statement was:
I have yet to come across any aircraft which provides both Jet Engine and Turbo-Prop on same airframe.


I think you mean pylons for which jets or turboprops are switchable. I have a few comments on that. Turboprops lost out to jets because of your Y>X equation.

But your equation does not take into account one thing (it is not mentioned at all in your post) - and that is fuel efficiency/fuel consumption. Turboprops are more fuel efficient and more fuel efficient at lower altitudes. The "lower altitude" is very important. Jet engines achieve their best efficiency at heights above 25000 feet IIRC. For short flights (Puducheri-Chennai, Delhi-Agra, Mumbai-Pune) a jet aircraft will have to climb to cruising altitude and may not even get there by the time he has to descend. besides the passenger load for short distance flights may be small. For this reason turboprop makes sense.

But I think some newer hybrid engines may come up with some fancy things - we have to wait and see,

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby neerajb » 28 May 2010 15:42

VinodTK wrote:NAL plans new design for its small aircraft

The RTA was envisaged as a 70-90 seat civilian aircraft powered by a turboprop engine—a gas turbine engine used to drive a propeller.

But NAL is now thinking of using a jet engine as well and increasing its capacity to 90-110 passengers.


But NAL is now thinking of using a jet engine as well


Pretty ambiguous statement. If it means an option for an all jet aircraft instead of turboprop than it makes sense. Otherwise who is going to buy this tri engine configuration with 2 turboprops and one turbofan? Commercial aircrafts need to be easily maintainable and efficient in order to have successful sales. Now in this configuration the customer airline will require aircraft engineers with jet as well as turboprop liscence. Not to mention the demise of MD/DC/B-717 series aircraft for lack of commonality with other aircrafts. Additional training will be required for pilots to handle such a configuration. This all will include costs in maintaining/operating the aircraft which is a big turnoff to airlines nowdays no matter how cheap your aircraft is acquisition wise. It's easy to reconfigure the aircraft with more powerful engines at this early stage, if increasing the seating capacity is the criteria.

Cheers....

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby NRao » 28 May 2010 17:07

rohitvats wrote:^^^ And not to forget that we are pioneers of fitting these Packets with Jet Engines to assist operation in guess where? Ladakh...


Seen them fly as far back as the mid 70s!! So, they must have come into existence prior to that.

Don't you think the jet engine is just to provide boost and the primary thrust is achieved by the props?


IIRC the props would shut down when the jet was engaged - landings/takeoffs were with the props, flight was with the jet IIRC.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17004
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Rahul M » 28 May 2010 17:11

neerajb wrote:
But NAL is now thinking of using a jet engine as well


Pretty ambiguous statement. If it means an option for an all jet aircraft instead of turboprop than it makes sense. Otherwise who is going to buy this tri engine configuration with 2 turboprops and one turbofan?

:D I'm sure the report doesn't mean that. it says that NAL is considering both turboprops and turbofans ATM and might go for either. personally I think they should stick with turboprop, for the lower cost of operations.

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby rakall » 28 May 2010 17:46

neerajb wrote:
The RTA was envisaged as a 70-90 seat civilian aircraft powered by a turboprop engine—a gas turbine engine used to drive a propeller.

But NAL is now thinking of using a jet engine as well and increasing its capacity to 90-110 passengers.


But NAL is now thinking of using a jet engine as well


Pretty ambiguous statement. If it means an option for an all jet aircraft instead of turboprop than it makes sense. Otherwise who is going to buy this tri engine configuration with 2 turboprops and one turbofan? Commercial aircrafts need to be easily maintainable and efficient in order to have successful sales. Now in this configuration the customer airline will require aircraft engineers with jet as well as turboprop liscence. Not to mention the demise of MD/DC/B-717 series aircraft for lack of commonality with other aircrafts. Additional training will be required for pilots to handle such a configuration. This all will include costs in maintaining/operating the aircraft which is a big turnoff to airlines nowdays no matter how cheap your aircraft is acquisition wise. It's easy to reconfigure the aircraft with more powerful engines at this early stage, if increasing the seating capacity is the criteria.

Cheers....[/quote]


OK.. time to bring out AI09 notes....

It doesnt mean a 2turboprop+1jet/turbofan configuration.. No.. Not that..

NAL wants to build an airframe that is suited to installation of turboprop or turbofan engines.. When the airframe is delivered to a customer - it can be delivered with a turboprop or turbofan based on the customers choice of operation.. The idea is to build an airframe that can be used in both roles -- the feeder routes as well as regional jet routes.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Gilles » 28 May 2010 19:05

rohitvats wrote:Gilles, AFAIK, the troops carrying capacity of IL-76 is higher than 140. There is an instance quoted in one of the articles on BR (about IL-76 from No.44 Squadron) where three IL-76 were used to airlift an Infantry Battalion. That is close 800 troops.

126 is the number of paratroopers which the IL-76 can carry.


From pictures I was able to see on Airliners.net, there are about 25 folding seats along each side wall of the Il-76, for a total of 50. If you put the center back to back seats, that adds about another 50 seats, for 100 seats (very similar to the C-17 up to there, which carries about 102 troops). With the upper deck, one can add another 40 seats for a total of 140 seats. Granted, even with 140 soldiers, an IL-76 is lightly loaded, with only about 21 tonnes on board. It means that it can take close to 80 tonnes of fuel, enough for a 6 or 7 hours flight.

Anyone who carries more than that did not use any seats whatsoever, like those 275 Iranian Republican guards that died in a single Il-76 crash. Or like the Canadian C-17s that evacuated people from Haiti last January.

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=15944&site=combatcamera&catalog=photos

I do not think that this second deck is used to drop paratroopers, only to airlift troops. I may be wrong.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby neerajb » 28 May 2010 20:53

Rahul M wrote: :D I'm sure the report doesn't mean that. it says that NAL is considering both turboprops and turbofans ATM and might go for either. personally I think they should stick with turboprop, for the lower cost of operations.


Re-read that article, indeed the jurno is talking about two engine options :oops: .

But it would be really intresting to see what type of wing design they come up with which would suit both the turboprop as well as turbofan engine.

Cheers....

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Gilles » 28 May 2010 21:11

neerajb wrote:
Rahul M wrote: :D I'm sure the report doesn't mean that. it says that NAL is considering both turboprops and turbofans ATM and might go for either. personally I think they should stick with turboprop, for the lower cost of operations.


Re-read that article, indeed the jurno is talking about two engine options :oops: .

But it would be really intresting to see what type of wing design they come up with which would suit both the turboprop as well as turbofan engine.

Cheers....


There is an aircraft which exists in both turboprop and jet versions. The Dornier 328.

Image

Image

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4461
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby putnanja » 29 May 2010 00:17

From Aviataion Week, interview with HAL chairman Ashok Nayak. This is what he says regarding status of various programs that HAL is running:

HAL chairman says wrote:A.N.: (a) SU-30MKI : The present schedule will be completed by 2015-16. Additional orders are anticipated from IAF, and this will keep the production line active till 2017-18.

(b) Hawk: Technology absorption envisaged in the program is completed and production of aircraft from raw materials is under progress. Additional orders are anticipated and will keep the production line active till 2016-17.

(c) ALH: ALH with the Shakti engine suitable for high altitude operations for the IAF and the Army are under production for delivery commencing shortly in 2010. Production of armed variant with turret gun, rocket pod and air-to-air missiles along with Helmet Pointing System is planned in 2010-11.

(d) LCA: Limited Series Production is progressing at HAL. Three more aircraft from the LSP series will join the flight phase during the year. The trainer variant prototype took to the skies in November ’09. The second trainer prototype is under progress. These will hasten up the process of achieving Initial Operation Clearance, which is expected to be achieved in December 2010, and the subsequent induction of the first squadron of LCAs into IAF by 2011.

(e) IJT: The certification process is expected to be completed in 2010. Concurrent production of Limited Series is progressing, and the first aircraft under the Limited Series Aircraft was flight tested in January ’10. A contract for 73 IJT aircraft has been concluded and the production will be undertaken at Kanpur.

(f) LCH: Maiden flight of the first Technology Demonstrator (TD-1) of the Light Combat Helicopter was completed on 29 March 2010. Work on the second prototype is progressing. Initial Operation Clearance is expected by December 2011. Though LCH was intended for induction by IAF, now the Army is also considering its acquisition.

(g) LUH: Government sanction for the project was accorded in February 2009. Mockup build is completed. Design activities at RWRDC are progressing and the first flight is planned in 2012. This will be a light helicopter in the 3-ton category suitable for replacing the Cheetah/Chetak helicopters. LUH will be powered by the Shakti class of engine suitable for high altitude operations.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby tsarkar » 29 May 2010 17:33

Kartik,

Your post focused on the technical part, but completely left out the human aspect.

As I was mentioning earlier, BWR, close combat, close air support or long range strike, have demanding flight regimes. It is possible to multitask across some overlapping flight regimes, but not all simultaneously.

You can certainly ask a pilot to do so, the hardware and software will definitely support multitask, however it’s simply not possible to perform multiple roles and still achieve peak effectiveness and efficiency at the same point of time.

Hence I have the example of Kargil and Luftwaffe; that is going the Center of Excellence way via focused fighter wings. As my understanding goes, F-16 squadrons in Bosnia that flew strike were different than those that provided air cover.

Two seater mitigates, but does not remove this lacunae since there is only one pilot who has to be aware of multiple flight regimes.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 29 May 2010 17:48

.
Last edited by Singha on 29 May 2010 17:50, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 29 May 2010 17:49

does anyone know if our two old M2k squadrons (tigers and battle axes) have a similar division of role and sent people to FSL and FCL courses based on this specialized paradigm?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby rohitvats » 29 May 2010 18:36

putnanja, thank you posting that HAL link.

It seems to me that 2010-2020 is going to be the defining decade as far as IAF and other Services are concerned.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby vic » 29 May 2010 19:38

I feel that NAL should go in for 50-70-90 seater with turboprop and jet engine variants.


While HAL should go in for MRTA plus futture replacement for An-32

lastly HAL + NAL should go in for 200 seater civilian aircraft in Airbus 300 category

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby tsarkar » 29 May 2010 20:53

Singha,
The pilots may do any course as per IAF requirements & as long as they meet the criteria. However at any point, its better to focus on a specialization. Hence the IAF didnt expect the mirage bombing tiger hill to do full spectrum A2A and added cover. There was no limitation imposed by the platform.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shukla » 30 May 2010 20:55

IAF combat and heavy-lift chopper trials to begin by July

So confident is Boeing that its top executives say that Boeing is looking forward to be the first in the trials so as to set benchmarks that others in the competition cannot possibly match. The US spends so much in Research & Development (R&D) that “our products are unbeatable in hi-tech and precision engagement,” said Mr Dean Millsap, Regional Director Asia Pacific for Boeing Rotorcraft Systems. The heavy lift Chinook for instance is the only helicopter that can land on water in an emergency, and also operate just above the water level to land or evacuate troops or people in a natural disaster situation.


There is no Transfer of Technology (ToT) clause though for manufacturing the Attack and Heavy Lift helicopters in India.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3421
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Aditya G » 30 May 2010 21:35

FWIW:

Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby sathyaC » 30 May 2010 21:56

are the Ru's not offing the Kamova 50 in the attack helicopter tender

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kartik » 31 May 2010 00:25

sathyaC wrote:are the Ru's not offing the Kamova 50 in the attack helicopter tender


While capable of taking quite a bit of punishment and able to carry quite a load, there is one fatal flaw in the Ka-50- its a single seater. The workload on a pilot who also has to be the gunner, while keeping an eye out for enemy SAM or AAA fire is very high..dividing the tasks between 2 pilots and having 2 pairs of eyes scanning for targets and threats is a huge plus. If it were upto me, I'd choose the Mi-28N over the Ka-50 due to this diffference.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shukla » 31 May 2010 14:05

India, France to hold joint air combat exercise next month

Six Indian Sukhoi-30MKI fighters, two IL-76 heavy-lift aircraft and a IL-78 mid-air refueller will be leaving for France for a joint air combat exercise with the French Air Force next month.

The exercise, Garuda-IV, will be held at the Istres airbase in France from June 14 to 25. "The exercise will help to further enhance interoperability between the Indian and French air forces since pilots as well as the ground crew will get to see each other's operational, technical and administrative practices from close quarters,'' said an officer.

vijyeta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 01 May 2006 03:10
Location: Olympus Mons

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby vijyeta » 31 May 2010 18:30

Kartik wrote:
sathyaC wrote:are the Ru's not offing the Kamova 50 in the attack helicopter tender


While capable of taking quite a bit of punishment and able to carry quite a load, there is one fatal flaw in the Ka-50- its a single seater. The workload on a pilot who also has to be the gunner, while keeping an eye out for enemy SAM or AAA fire is very high..dividing the tasks between 2 pilots and having 2 pairs of eyes scanning for targets and threats is a huge plus. If it were upto me, I'd choose the Mi-28N over the Ka-50 due to this diffference.


There is two-seat version as well - Ka52. However, even the Russians seem to prefer the Mi-28N, which also offers a radar.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 31 May 2010 19:30

perhaps under violent manouvering there is a chance the two layers of rotors could collide or not work that well?

the Mi28N will sure need some indic/israeli cockpit and sensor upg but anyday preferable to YOMFMSS (yet one more FMS scam).
it would enter IOC as a Mi28MI maybe 2 yrs later than a straight up AH64D or Tiger buy but cheaper and more in our control.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 31 May 2010 20:12

Singha wrote:perhaps under violent manouvering there is a chance the two layers of rotors could collide or not work that well?


Unlikely
http://www.youtube.com/cybersurg#p/u/101/eUrolSOG5Q8

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 31 May 2010 20:15

Saw a Jag with a refuelling probe taking off today. Darin III?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Austin » 31 May 2010 20:50

vijyeta wrote:There is two-seat version as well - Ka52. However, even the Russians seem to prefer the Mi-28N, which also offers a radar.


The Mi-28N is chosen because of logistics reason , it is easier from logistics pov to move , train ,maintain existing crew of Mi-24/35 and transition to Mi-28N compared to Ka-50/52 , the ka-50/52 was chosen as a superior platform in mid-90's over Mi-28 , but with change of time other factors made Mi-28 and further derivatives more favorable platform for Russian AF.

The Ka-52 will still be continued in small numbers and will occupy niche space for command and control and special forces ops.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4461
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby putnanja » 31 May 2010 21:11

shiv wrote:Saw a Jag with a refuelling probe taking off today. Darin III?


Might be . Aviataion Week, interview with HAL chairman Ashok Nayak

Fresh orders have been received for the supply of IJT, DO-228, and an upgrade of Jaguar DARIN-III standard.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby tsarkar » 01 Jun 2010 14:39

IFR capability was on Jaguar since 2003. Starboard retractable probe.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/10/fi ... s-for.html

Note the caption here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IAF_Jaguar.jpg

Darin 3 is still on drawing board.

narayana
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 12:01

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby narayana » 01 Jun 2010 15:48

Fresh orders have been received for the supply of IJT, DO-228, and an upgrade of Jaguar DARIN-III standard.



Yep as per Vayu there is a order for 73 IJTs additional to the 12 already ordered

sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby sathyaC » 01 Jun 2010 17:43

Austin wrote:
vijyeta wrote:There is two-seat version as well - Ka52. However, even the Russians seem to prefer the Mi-28N, which also offers a radar.


The Mi-28N is chosen because of logistics reason , it is easier from logistics pov to move , train ,maintain existing crew of Mi-24/35 and transition to Mi-28N compared to Ka-50/52 , the ka-50/52 was chosen as a superior platform in mid-90's over Mi-28 , but with change of time other factors made Mi-28 and further derivatives more favorable platform for Russian AF.

The Ka-52 will still be continued in small numbers and will occupy niche space for command and control and special forces ops.

but the range of the Mi 28n is very low compared to the K50/52
K50/52 1,160 km (720 miles)
Mi28N 460 km (286 miles)
Mi28 1,100 km (640 mi)

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 01 Jun 2010 17:45

what is the reason for massive diff between Mi28 and Mi28N . I thought Mi28N = Mi28 + arbalets radar.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Austin » 01 Jun 2010 18:01

I think you are comparing the normal ( weapons loaded ) and ferry range ,The normal range is 460 km and ferry range is ~ 1,100 km prolly includes some esternal fuel tank as well.

Any ways here is something from horses mouth

Main performance characteristics of Mi-28NE helicopter

Mi-28NE round-the-clock operation combat helicopter

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Austin » 01 Jun 2010 18:04

If IAF wants to just drop out the Mi-35 and replace it with new chopper , I think Ka-50/52 is the best bet its a good match of firepower , agility , stealth and comes with an ejection seat 8)

If IAF plans to operate the modernised Mi-35 for a longer period of time then Mi-28NE logistics wise is a good choice. The Mi-28 looks like a heavy tank with wings.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22492
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby chetak » 01 Jun 2010 18:28

Gilles wrote: :D I'm sure the report doesn't mean that. it says that NAL is considering both turboprops and turbofans ATM and might go for either. personally I think they should stick with turboprop, for the lower cost of operations.

Re-read that article, indeed the jurno is talking about two engine options :oops: .

But it would be really intresting to see what type of wing design they come up with which would suit both the turboprop as well as turbofan engine.

Cheers....

There is an aircraft which exists in both turboprop and jet versions. The Dornier 328.

Image

Image



The Dornier company was in difficulties quite some time back. They had offered to sell and transfer plans, drawings and all tooling and jigs of the 328 to us at a throwaway price.

It would have been wonderful if it had purchased at that time, produced in numbers and later, practical growth options explored rather than persist with some half baked cockamamie scheme for a known troublesome pusher design and that too outsourced to some local small time company.

Such is life. The wheel has to be reinvented.

Just my 2 cents.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby NRao » 01 Jun 2010 18:37

chetak wrote:The Dornier company was in difficulties quite some time back. They had offered to sell and transfer plans, drawings and all tooling and jigs of the 328 to us at a throwaway price.

It would have been wonderful if it had purchased at that time, produced in numbers and later, practical growth options explored rather than persist with some half baked cockamamie scheme for a known troublesome pusher design and that too outsourced to some local small time company.

Such is life. The wheel has to be reinvented.

Just my 2 cents.


More out of curiosity, do you know if this offer came with "ToT" form engines too?

sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby sathyaC » 01 Jun 2010 18:58

Austin wrote:If IAF wants to just drop out the Mi-35 and replace it with new chopper , I think Ka-50/52 is the best bet its a good match of firepower , agility , stealth and comes with an ejection seat 8)

If IAF plans to operate the modernised Mi-35 for a longer period of time then Mi-28NE logistics wise is a good choice. The Mi-28 looks like a heavy tank with wings.

but the Mi28 is not very agile as compared to the other choppers

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Vivek K » 01 Jun 2010 19:31

Why can the LCH not replace the Mi 35?

sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby sathyaC » 01 Jun 2010 19:49

Vivek K wrote:Why can the LCH not replace the Mi 35?

we need chopper that can add a lot of fire power
LCH is a not in the same category choppers that are in the tender apart from the EU choppers

Mi 28- 7-8T (7,890 kg)
AH-64 Apache 5T (5,165 kg)
Denel AH-2 Rooivalk 5T (5,190 kg)

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Austin » 01 Jun 2010 19:51

sathyaC wrote: but the Mi28 is not very agile as compared to the other choppers


Agreed I dont know about others but when compared to Ka-50/52 its not very agile , If you need Agility ,Stealth ( relatively speaking ) , decent protection and crew safety ( ejection seat ) you better opt for Ka's

If you want a flying tank that can take hits and fight , decent agility , good fire power , fiery looks , and most important want as much as logistics commonality with Mi's then opt for Mi-28N , for Russia Mi made sense compared to Ka's due to large fleet of Mi's in service , May be for India Ka's are better.

But then you have Apache with proven combat experience ,good fire power , wide service and argubly a battle hardened chopper then Apache is the choice.

If you ask me between Mi, Apache and Ka then I would bet on Ka , but IAF may find Apache better for many reason and politically these days its a better choice.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests