Indian Military Aviation

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 13 Sep 2009 04:25

Rahul M wrote:yes, unfortunately not in the section you would expect.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 4.jpg.html

you know sections of the site that even I dont know of

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 14 Sep 2009 06:21

Light Combat Helicopter struggles to slim down

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 14 Sep 2009 07:12

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.”

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Sep 2009 07:42

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 ?

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x chopper from y country , lets order more of x till LCH meets the original specs and when they do they will say its outdated and it should meet the new specs , while we import more of x chopper due to urgent national security requirements.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 14 Sep 2009 08:58

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x chopper from y country , lets order more of x till LCH meets the original specs and when they do they will say its outdated and it should meet the new specs , while we import more of x chopper due to urgent national security requirements.

IMHO,

LCH = Tejas
New attack helos = MMRCA

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Sep 2009 09:10

nope sir, completely different categories.
the attack helos will likely be used by IAF itself for some particular roles (SEAD, CSAR, joint SF ops etc), LCH even if operated by IAF will be under ctrl of IA.
LCH even with this penalty will remain one of the best attack helos of the world in terms of T/W ratio. it will provide capabilities other helos can only dream of.

one event that really hit the ALH program hard is the refusal of the LHTEC turboshaft engine which was rated much higher than the turbomeca engines, even shakti. although shakti makes up by retaining performance at altitudes.

what HAL should do IMO is start planning right now for a more powerful engine in a 5-10 years time period for MLU. every attack helo undergoes scope creep and needs more powerful engines in due time. this will be particularly true of the LCH.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Sep 2009 09:24

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 .

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Sep 2009 09:30

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 .

turf war. IAF wants attack helo assets which it would exercise control exclusively.
apparently, having a different type bolsters the case.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 14 Sep 2009 09:40

if HAL can find an 'angel investor' in the Navy, they can build more squadrons of Naval LCA, and when the Chinese come knocking in the next 2 years, not sure about MRCA nos, however, IAF will have to use these Naval squadrons in the northern regions along with Mig-21s to 'throw everything' they have at Chipak, which means the Tejas will have chance to battle prove itself

that might change the forces mindset for good

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Sep 2009 09:47

imho none of the 'heavy' attack helis of the world can do well at Leh/Tawangish altitude (10-12kft) and their struggling performance there makes more vulnerable
to accidents and ground fire. if anyone expects a attack heli to perform there like
sea level they are dreaming of unobtainium.

the temptation to reduce weight by replacing metal with composites should imo
be resisted. this is not Tejas which will move at high speed and stay out of manpad
range easily or even outrun a launched manpad most times. attack helis can expect
to take some fire (eg. the 1st airborne divs of us army launched a major AH64D
attack on a western iraqi city expecting people to cower away..well surprise the
defenders fought back strongly and by end of day most of the helis were wounded
and beat up but somehow crawled back. AH64D is suitably armoured)

if India is serious about CAS in the Leh/Tawang+ altitude best option is a fixed
wing a/c of the Frogfoot/A10 type and even then some performance loss is to be
expected. WSI Dhruv can also help against light targets and standoff ranges.

and more tubed and rocket artillery ofcourse...cued by ACCCS

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 14 Sep 2009 12:09

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 ??

Ravishankar · Post by **Ravishankar** » 14 Sep 2009 12:15

Does Mig 27 have HMS??

Ranvijay · Post by **Ranvijay** » 14 Sep 2009 12:33

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..

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Sep 2009 13:08

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.

This is old hat. The Army will not fall for it again.

They still want the Army to fund the entire show including the recurring expenses but will use mostly Air force personnel to man and run the show.

The Army is quite capable of manning and running it's own attack sqdn.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Sep 2009 15:31

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?

@Austin: If I may use the analogy of a MBT and Light Tanks, that is the difference between the LCH and Heavy Attack Helicopter. The heavy gunships will be primarily used in the plains in conjunction with the Mechanized Formations of the IA. The present gunship sqn train very extensively with IA mechanized formations during various excercises.

LCH will be used in the HAA and to fill in the numbers which otherwise we cannot due to the expense. IIRC, I read a report which stated that Heavy Gunship Sqn. will be held in Aviation Bdes with Strike Corps HQ. Other Corps HQ will be having Aviation Bde with LCH. Th WSI Dhruv fits the bill somewhere in between. With LCH and WSI Dhruv, IA will be better positioned to spread the assets across larger no of formations. The price tag of Heavy Gunships will not allow the same to happen.

Ranvijay · Post by **Ranvijay** » 14 Sep 2009 16:07

What has your answer got to do anything with the genuine question asked by the poster?

The poster probably knows more about the subject than me and you combined.

Can you stop this nonsense and try and make intelligent and researched post? Rather than to pontificate and give unrelated answers?

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.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 14 Sep 2009 17:56

IAF’s Dhruv’s first ever Recorded Rescue Mission at unprecendented heights

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.

santoshs · Post by **santoshs** » 14 Sep 2009 18:00

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? Is there something available off the shelf that can be an effective attack chopper in Himalayan heights and has twin engines? Does any other country has such borders? Is there any attack helo that can fill in numbers for army within a specified budget....army needs other stuffs too within 2 percent (not sure it is 2 percent for Army)of GDP?

So there is LCH being developed by HAL. I think, the Army as well HAL has reason for optimism.....LCH and ALH have meny commonlities and the exp. gained from ALH operation in himalayan heights makes almost all the modules of LCH already proven. I feel now it is a question of packing those within a derived airframe...albait with different aerodynamics, vibration, speed characteristics,protection, armour,survivability, take-off/landing and fuel requirements.

I am no aerospace engineer, but this is what I think is required more based upon what I learnt in college. If we look at the the capabilities available in India(again as far as I know) we lack in packaging, material science and power pack. We are not so good industrial designers. Thats why I feel HAL is stuck up with an over weight machine.

We Indians tend to keep margin of safety too high in any design, and once all the modules are put together the weight adds up. This I attribute to lack of experience with new and exotic materials as well as fear of failure of other critical systems. Just think urself as a young designer...will u put ur career on line by being being very economical about an aluminium feed line which may burst in Himalayan weather; as you do not have data available on the behaviour of the material in those known and unknown conditions.

You can not go to field and experiment spread over two years as u will miss deadline. We will do better with passage of time till then it will be version1 200kg reduction, version2 75 kg and so on.

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.

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 14 Sep 2009 18:04

A Sharma wrote:IAF’s Dhruv’s first ever Recorded Rescue Mission at unprecendented heights

This should put to rest the recent ridiculous CAG (clowns) report that ALH cannot perform at high altitudes.

Ranvijay · Post by **Ranvijay** » 14 Sep 2009 18:36

Is there any substitute available in the international market for LCH?

Weaponised Dhruvs? If we're going for a hi-lo mix then why not weaponise the technology we have now, tech which is proven and what our pilots are familiar with? Why go for a light combat heli when the WSI dhruv might do the same job almost just as well.

Instead of spending $$'s on developing an aircraft that is fundamentally similar to the ALH why don't we just improve upon the ALH? The article says that most of the core parts between the Dhruv and the LCH remain the same, why not get in more Dhruvs than to invest in an entirely new aircraft which will see any sort of service only in 2012 while we need aircraft NOW.

In addition to improving on the Dhruv we should also float a tender for the high end stuff that we're currently unable to make. Research on the Dhruv should continue and technologies from the new batch of combat helicopters should be absorbed so that the next offering HAL produces before the IAF is a completely different and capable beast.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Sep 2009 18:54

The poster probably knows more about the subject than me and you combined.

ah yes, rohit is a babe in the woods when it comes to military knowledge !

blah blah blah

Also, learn to respect other people's views even if they might differ from yours.

cut the cr*p. respect is earned. your posts have nothing that does so.
bull $hit will not be tolerated just because it is different.
so quit hyperventilating and actually read something before going on a world tour on your high horse.

They're working on tech demonstrators and they're already overweight

as against overweight in the first production variant ? I suppose extra weight in THAT is acceptable in your world ?

are you aware that virtually ALL prototype aircrafts are overweight ? and that there is a very good reason why this is so ?
as someone said, ignorance is not a POV. at least not on BR.

Instead of spending $$'s on developing an aircraft that is fundamentally similar to the ALH why don't we just improve upon the ALH?

Ranvijay, you are embarrassing yourself.

there are HUGE differences between a combat capable helo like the WSI Dhruv and a full-fledged combat helo like the LCH.
WSI Dhruv is a parallel project that is going on concurrently and is in no way a competitor to the LCH. it's not WSI OR LCH but WSI AND 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.

Ranvijay · Post by **Ranvijay** » 14 Sep 2009 19:13

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.

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.

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. 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".

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Sep 2009 19:52

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. }

Explanation.
some people might think the above is a bit harsh.
well it is and it is meant to be that way.
people who are not aware of certain things I understand. for people who wish to learn more I try my utmost within my limited knowledge to help them as do a lot of other BRFites.
in time, these so-called newbies become gurus themselves and add to the quality of the forum.

it's the people who are ignorant AND arrogant who are nothing but a disruption to the forum.
and I'm extremely sorry but I've NO sympathy for such people, this is not a combo I've a liking for. so either change the attitude or find a different place on the net.
regards everyone,
Rahul.

Ranvijay · Post by **Ranvijay** » 14 Sep 2009 20:11

Different place it is then. You have your forum the way you want it, sir. I'll just lurk around like I have for the past what? 8 years and not post here at all.

Appreciate it.
rest of the post snipped.
Rahul.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 14 Sep 2009 21:05

Dhruv's high altitude heroics (Frontier India post)

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.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 14 Sep 2009 23:14

@santoshs, Good post.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 15 Sep 2009 02:23

^^^

Awesome post and decision, Rahul sirjee.

I have always felt that that you are a bit soft on the newbies.
Time to crack the whip, I say.

@Rohitvats:

The WSI Dhruv fits the bill somewhere in between

Its not just a matter of cost, per say

IIRC, the objective of weaponising helicopters was that they could fight their way to the target and back (say)
for a special forces operation.

LCH and Heavy attack helos on the other hand are meant to take on armoured
formation.

Just my two cents.

Regards,
Ashish.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 15 Sep 2009 05:39

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 ??

The 5.5 tonne category is the overall carrying capacity of the LCH. It does not mean that the helicopter weighed that much. This has always been a point of confusion on this thread. By the same token, the ALH is also a "5.5 tonne category".

These are very light birds with a lot of power, which is why they survive at high altitudes.

-Vivek

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 15 Sep 2009 12:32

@ RahulM sir,
Ouch... i hope i never cross you... frankly you sound damn scary...

@ Ahuja sir,
So the 5.5 tonne is the overall MTOW or the payload capacity??? Hope you don't mind clearing up this small doubt of mine..

@ misraji,
I thought that the primary role for WSI dhruv was to provide CAS, especially in COIN ops and spec ops, and interdiction of supply lines... Correct me if i am wrong...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Sep 2009 14:13

@ 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.

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.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 15 Sep 2009 15:00

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.

Useful load is the payload (weapons+pilots) + Fuel -- so the useful load 2950kg is correct... Add that to empty weight of 2550kg you get MTOW of 5500kg..

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Sep 2009 15:09

you are correct.

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 15 Sep 2009 19:21

so another round of baiting has started over why LCH is delayed.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 15 Sep 2009 22:20

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

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 15 Sep 2009 22:44

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

If i remember correctly, it was HAL's own project, not according to any ASR or GSQR... I remember reading somewhere that the HAL had proposed to build a attack helicopter to replace/supplement the Mi35...

Don't recall where.. I am sorry for that...

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 15 Sep 2009 22:48

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.

Thanks for the clarification Rahul...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Sep 2009 22:54

you are welcome.

kiran, HAL floated a proposal when there was no ASR but IAF must have prepared one before it became involved in the project. remember that IAF funds part of the LCH project out of its own coffers.

p.s. guys, it's a serious problem no doubt but IMO not one that will impact the program too seriously in the longer term.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 16 Sep 2009 01:30

A question for all Gurulog...

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?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 16 Sep 2009 02:29

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.

while I agree with what you said in the rest of your post, this particular part I really agree with..its amazing how superior some guys on this very forum act when talking about HAL and DRDO..the fact is that the inefficiencies, chalta-hain attitude is nothing but a reflection of India's psyche itself ! everyone among us would've had a parent, an uncle, an aunt or a cousin working for a PSU and they were likely to have been just as inefficient, lazy or unmotivated as the PSU employees so happily berated here..yet did anyone on this forum ever tell them that to their face ? "saale kaamchor kahike !"

Its a national problem, not just one of HAL or DRDO. it requires introspection of a much deeper level- just giving gaalis to HAL and DRDO won't do. as the old gentleman in the movie "Khosla ka ghosla" said "yeh saala desh hi bhen**** compromise pe chalta hain".

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 16 Sep 2009 02:40

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?

It might not be a good idea to reduce armour thickness to save weight. Even a mm's difference in thickness means it becomes more susceptible to certain weapons depending on the range, weight and velocity of the round.

Check some of these WW2 armour penetration study results. It will explain the importance of each mm thickness.
Armour Penetration