LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

[Sancho]

I have got some questions regarding Rudra, will these stubwings be the final versions or could they be changed later? Since Rudra and LCH will have a lot of commonality, is it possible to use the latest LCH stubwings for Rudra too?
Also, if these stubwings are meant to remain, Rudra will be limited to 8 x Hellfire class ATGMs in total, while it might carry 12 to 16 LAHAT missiles, that IA uses for it's MBTs anyway. So when these helicopters are meant to provide fire support, as part of IAs strike corps, wouldn't commonality of weapons and carrying higher numbers be preferable for joint operations?
What are the pros and cons of LAHAT compared to Hellfire, Spike, or Pars 3 that IA seems to have tested?

[nachiket]

and note these MFDs have been in business since mid 80s atleast when people started putting them into planes and replace analog instruments.

Early MFD's were CRT displays, not LCD.

[Indranil]

Also, if these stubwings are meant to remain, Rudra will be limited to 4 x Hellfire class ATGMs in total, while it might carry 12 to 16 LAHAT missiles, that IA uses for it's MBTs anyway. So when these helicopters are meant to provide fire support, as part of IAs strike corps, wouldn't commonality of weapons and carrying higher numbers be preferable for joint operations?
What are the pros and cons of LAHAT compared to Hellfire, Spike, or Pars 3 that IA seems to have tested?

That picture is going to be my wallpaper for some time.

I think a lady just got her doctoral studies on studying flow of air around cylindrical objects. I think the booms for Rudra are there to stay. There is a tradeoff with the LCH type booms between lower wave drag against higher induced drag. So if there is not much to gain in terms of drag and if Rudra does not focus on RCS reduction, then there is no reason to go for the more expensive LCH type booms on Rudra.

Also, I don't understand, why the booms on Rudra can carry only 4 Hellfire in total? It should be able to carry same amount as LCH can carry, i.e. 4X2

[Raja Bose]

what kind of display tech is used in airborne MFDs as they must be visible in bright direct sunlight - typical cellphone displays do not have that property.

Many do...for example take a look at the Nokia phones with ClearBlack displays.

[suryag]

combat-chopper-programme-on-right - Tarmak update on LCH

“The sea-level trials carried out at Chennai were as per the script and the baseline reference data has been acquired. Towards complying crashworthy requirements, landing gear drop tests have been completed satisfactorily. Breakaway fuselage has been built and limit-load testing has been completed successfully,”

What is breakaway fuselage?

Btw they want to name the beast, mods should open a thread to name it

[rajanb]

combat-chopper-programme-on-right - Tarmak update on LCH

“The sea-level trials carried out at Chennai were as per the script and the baseline reference data has been acquired. Towards complying crashworthy requirements, landing gear drop tests have been completed satisfactorily. Breakaway fuselage has been built and limit-load testing has been completed successfully,”

What is breakaway fuselage?

Btw they want to name the beast, mods should open a thread to name it

Breakaway fuselage is one where after load testing, or a certain amount of flying has been done, the fuselage can be broken down into major components to enable stress testing and therefore replacement or strengthening as the case maybe.

In this case, they are subjecting the LCH to stress tests and checking the components for effects of shear and bending moment forces, to enable to make it sturdier and improve strength and increase cycle hours of flying.

In this case, they have tested to design loads and found all to be hunky dory. We seem to be learning as we go along.

[Sancho]

Also, I don't understand, why the booms on Rudra can carry only 4 Hellfire in total? It should be able to carry same amount as LCH can carry, i.e. 4X2

Sorry my mistake, it can carry 8 in total (4 x 2), while LCH can carry quad launchers at the inner hardpoint and at leas twin launchers at the outer, so a total of 12, possibly 16.
LCH can carry more, since it has different payload and weight limitations, especially with the new stubwings. The light stubwings of Rudra can't take such loads, that's why I asked if LAHAT wouldn't be the better choice?

[Indranil]

LCH can carry quad launchers at the inner hardpoint and at leas twin launchers at the outer, so a total of 12, possibly 16.

Very interesting. Can you please substantiate this part. I would love to know the quad launcher part.

LCH can carry more, since it has different payload and weight limitations, especially with the new stubwings. The light stubwings of Rudra can't take such loads

I don't think the right way of thinking is that LCH can carry more because it's stub wings can carry more. The right way of thinking would be that the stub wings of LCH were designed to carry more because LCH can carry more (because of lower empty weight).

[srin]

Given the mixed transport and attack capability of the Rudras, how does the IA intend to use them ?

Because the Army will also get the LCHs and LCH program is in fairly advanced stage, it seems unlikely that they would be dedicated attack helos. The closest analogy I can think of is an aerial ICV - strike + troop transport.

Is to tactically drop Ghataks behind the battlefield and blow the defences ?

[gnair]

The key word here is 'Tactical Assault', as opposed to a dedicated Gun ship. If you need boots on the ground, after an area has been softened up, the area commander would use the Rudra as opposed to the LCH.
Likewise, if you've got an airman down and there is an extraction requirement, it's Rudra again with the LCH possibly doing top cover. If you need to be doing high risk logistics support behind enemy lines, it'll be R..'s on call, due to the more than adequate cab/payload volume. So this one's going to be filling up a very niche area, in the tactical battlefield support role.

[Sancho]

Very interesting. Can you please substantiate this part. I would love to know the quad launcher part.

Thanks to the inactivity of MoD, IAF and IA has evaluated ATGMs separately, although the possible options are the same:

Pars 3 by Germanys Diehl BGT

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mGQi4LQz-C0/T ... S-3-LR.jpg


Spike ER by Israels Rafale

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getA ... emID=13269

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/3599/dscn0952v.jpg


And for the long shot our own HELINA

http://livefist.blogspot.de/2012/03/def ... elina.html


Some reports suggested Hellfire is on offer for our combat helicopters as well, however it's not clear if they were evaluated as well.
No matter which missile will be chosen the can be configured with 4 or just 2 missiles on the launchers, the limitation here is the weight that the hardpoint can carry. That's why I said, depending on what the weight limit for the outer hardpoint of LCH is, it might carry 2 or even 4 more missiles on each stubwing.


LAHAT missiles on the other side are available with quad launchers as well, but weigh much less compared to the above mentioned ATGMs, that's why Rudra could carry twice the number of LAHAT and why I would prefer these in the fire support role.
Rudra then would be a more cost-effective hi low mix, next to LCH / Apaches with dedicated ATGMs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... -LAHAT.jpg

I don't think the right way of thinking is that LCH can carry more because it's stub wings can carry more. The right way of thinking would be that the stub wings of LCH were designed to carry more because LCH can carry more (because of lower empty weight).

Of course LCH was designed to carry more, but how much more remains dependent on the weight limits of each hardpoint. The stubwings of Rudra doesn't seems to be very strong from a structural point, not very aerodynamic either.

[Sancho]

Given the mixed transport and attack capability of the Rudras, how does the IA intend to use them ?

Because the Army will also get the LCHs and LCH program is in fairly advanced stage, it seems unlikely that they would be dedicated attack helos. The closest analogy I can think of is an aerial ICV - strike + troop transport.

Is to tactically drop Ghataks behind the battlefield and blow the defences ?

I think it will be similar to the use of Gazelle / Fennec helicopters of French forces, or Little Birds in US forces:

http://malaysiaflyingherald.files.wordp ... tere-1.jpg

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/1048/kct06.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... e_Bird.jpg

http://www.americanspecialops.com/image ... lebird.jpg


They do escort roles for utility helicopters, providing fire support for strike corps and ground forces and carry even small teams of special forces, or snipers. When you look at the our IA/IAF helicopter mix wrt the support of IA ground forces, you will find a lot of similarity:

US Army / Indian Army and Air Force

Recon & light utility: Kiowa / Fennec or Ka 226

Utility helicopter: Black Hawk / Dhruv

Utility and transport helicopter: Chinook / Mi 17

Recon, fire support, special ops: Little Bird / Rudra

Attack helicopter: Apache / LCH

[Sancho]

P.S.

I still looking for infos or suggestions if IA have evaluated LAHAT for Rudra, or what the pros and cons might be?

[Indranil]

the limitation here is the weight that the hardpoint can carry. That's why I said, depending on what the weight limit for the outer hardpoint of LCH is, it might carry 2 or even 4 more missiles on each stubwing.

Have you come across any specific details about Rudra and LCH's payload capacity of inward and outward pylons?

Of course LCH was designed to carry more, but how much more remains dependent on the weight limits of each hardpoint. The stubwings of Rudra doesn't seems to be very strong from a structural point, not very aerodynamic either.

It is very difficult to just look at the stubwings and say anything about there strength. We do not know the characteristics of the materials used. Besides Rudra's booms are cable supported. So it is not easy to say what it can carry and what it can't. Till now I have never heard that LCH can carry more than 8 Helina-class ATGMs.

[John]

I still looking for infos or suggestions if IA have evaluated LAHAT for Rudra, or what the pros and cons might be?

LAHAT is lighter, can easily be deployed even in smaller UAVs or even patrol boats however it has smaller warhead. Like Hellfire it is Laser guided (114L is radar guided) unlike Spike or Helina, so it is not a fire and forget missile.

[member_22605]

@rajanb sir, BAF does not mean that the fuselage is broken. Infact a separate airframe(fuselage) is made for this test exclusively. The test is to prove the design limits of the structure and it is almost entirely a static test with little to no fatigue testing involved. The whole fuselage is instrumented and is subjected to loads that it would experience in flight under various cases. Limit load, ultimate load and failure load tests are carried out on the specimen(fuselage) I was personally involved in this test and i must tell you how exciting and challenging it was specially the instrumenting part because of the width of the fuselage. To give you an analogy it is similar to the MAST test on the LCA but only a bit more complex
Cheers!

[rajanb]

@rajanb sir, BAF does not mean that the fuselage is broken. Infact a separate airframe(fuselage) is made for this test exclusively. The test is to prove the design limits of the structure and it is almost entirely a static test with little to no fatigue testing involved. The whole fuselage is instrumented and is subjected to loads that it would experience in flight under various cases. Limit load, ultimate load and failure load tests are carried out on the specimen(fuselage) I was personally involved in this test and i must tell you how exciting and challenging it was specially the instrumenting part because of the width of the fuselage. To give you an analogy it is similar to the MAST test on the LCA but only a bit more complex
Cheers!

Thanks RaghukJi. My english was less than perfect!. I stand corrected on the 'flying" tests part and the breakaway specimen as you rightly pointed out would be to simulate stress conditions in static mode. And there are so many points in the airframe to consider.

We armchair flyboys think it is so simple. I realise that it is not.

I was involved with my Dad, who was in pvt. service, to change the Pushpak into a night flying a/c, to use them for training IAF pilots just after the '62 war. Just adding a headlamp on the front and the navigation lights was a complicated exercise in getting it done, but most importantly, approved by HAL and DGCA!

When I did the wiring for a IN supply barge, at MDL, it was easier. It was checked for fire hazard, besides standard stuff, because the barge wasn't going to drop out of the air!

Thanks for doing so much for us young lad. And keep it up.

[rohitvats]

P.S.

I still looking for infos or suggestions if IA have evaluated LAHAT for Rudra, or what the pros and cons might be?

Well, could be the fact that it requires continuous target illumination with laser from the launch platform. Other missiles listed by you - Spike and PARS-LR - are fourth generation fire-and-forget missiles relying on IIR as against laser designation from launch platform.

[sum]

From Livefist. AoA:


More pics in the site

[rohitvats]

I think what many people don't realize is that IA is on path of dramatic transformation with induction of so many helicopters.

On the one hand, we have the ALH which has helped fill the gap between Mi-17 class of helicopters and Chetak/Cheetah helicopters. The advent of modern LUH in such substantial numbers will help on multiple fronts - communications, recce and surveillance and scouts role. However, IMO, the Rudra (WSI Dhruv) is going to be real game changer - this helicopter is going to be inducted in large numbers and widely deployed. These choppers are going to be the versatile mobile artillery of the Corps Commanders - just imagine - if there is possibility of PA Armor break-out, the commander can press these birds into action. They can fight their way in and also land Special Forces for crucial tasks. They can augment both infantry as well as mechanized columns. Good for defense as well as offense.

They are going to be a vital link between gold plated attack helicopters like Apaches and LCH. Weapons like these really tilt the balance by increasing the combat effectiveness of formations. For example, imagine an Integrated Battle Group (IBG) of 1 x armored bde + 1 x RAPID + 2 x flights of Rudra helicopters. LCH/Apaches can be added in limited numbers, if required. The presence of 6 helicopters of this type suddenly increases the offensive potential of an IBG.

[nikhil_p]

Another possible use for the Rudra, could be based on our experience in the Kargil war and also Siachen. CasEvac needs some muscle where the enemy is trying to hit you when you are trying to do it. The Rudra gives an excellent capability as it is designed on the Dhruv, which is designed for High Alt use. It also will augment the capability in the Siachen region where currently Chetaks do the delivery role (and are limited in the load they can carry). Also in case of attacks they can be quickly used to support our troops. (Porkis dont have similar capability IIRC).

In the NE as well this makes sense to combat any issues on the border, where it can support the infantry by being a flying IFV. The LCH and Apache's will take care of the more 'heavy' roles.

On the LAHAT or HF or HeliNA - what would you prefer a smaller lighter weapon which you need 2 of to make one kill or a bigger heavier warhead assuring you of a 1 shot kill. It is similar to the 5.56 vs 7.62 debate, the 5.56 is designed to injure (at longer ranges) so the enemy has to also deal with its casualties (taking 2+1 out of th fight when only the 1 is injured), whereas the heavier 7.62 is a kill bullet. But in case of a terrorist (or the porkis) I am not sure if injuring them is a good option or killing them in one shot is better. The mijjile should help get a 1st shot kill so I dont get return fire.

[Singha]

imo Rudra is a far more important program than the LCH or Apache. we need this product in the 100s...asap.

is going to be the rahul dravid in the team...ie save our sorry hides a lot more times than "gods" like LCH/apache....while not getting the media and public hero worship of certain "gods"

the men who were there will know and thats it.

[Sagar G]

It's Helina being fired right ???

[Indranil]

Yes

[Misraji]

....
They are going to be a vital link between gold plated attack helicopters like Apaches and LCH. Weapons like these really tilt the balance by increasing the combat effectiveness of formations. For example, imagine an Integrated Battle Group (IBG) of 1 x armored bde + 1 x RAPID + 2 x flights of Rudra helicopters. LCH/Apaches can be added in limited numbers, if required. The presence of 6 helicopters of this type suddenly increases the offensive potential of an IBG....

@rohitvats:

Sirjee,
Noob question. What are the parameters/characterizations used to gauge an increase in offensive potential of a formation?

For eg: In case of attack helicopters:
The question arises as a product of looking at (say) number of attack helicopters (in service/being procured) - 2 Squadrons of Mi-35 or 22 Apaches.
Numerically these numbers are nowhere near whats procured by US armed forces.
Since numbers being procured don't "seem" impressive, then how do we reason that offensive power is increased dramatically?

Is the reasoning something like:
1. With up-times of 80%, 17 will be available at any time.
2. Operating in flights of 4 constitutes 4 flights.
3. 4 flights will be able to maintain continuous presence in 2 "sectors" (can't find a better word for battlefield)
4. In these 2 sectors, hence, we should be able to deal with enemy armored formations ...
5 ...

Any reasoning/pointers/links ala Vivek_Ahuja style would be most appreciated.

--Ashish

[ramana]

Yes thats the Helina. See those twin plumes thats a Nag characteristic.

[Indranil]

the limitation here is the weight that the hardpoint can carry. That's why I said, depending on what the weight limit for the outer hardpoint of LCH is, it might carry 2 or even 4 more missiles on each stubwing.

Have you come across any specific details about Rudra and LCH's payload capacity of inward and outward pylons?

Answering my own question. LCH and Rudra (at the moment) can carry atmost 8 Helina missiles on 4 launchers. Go to 12:00 minute mark in the following video.

[suryag]

I love the way he says helicofter and "this fellow"

Added later: i have this accent too, try and curb it as much as possible so not making fun

[Indranil]

Cross posting from missiles page:

Is stage separation on NAG class of ATGM missile possible?



I ask this, because it will allow placing the Nag's booster behind the sustainer. This will increase the range/speed, by:
1. Allowing straight exhaust from the booster instead of the oblique ones now
2. The booster can be discarded after the burnout (actually within a second of launch)

[shiv]

@rohitvats:

Sirjee,
Noob question. What are the parameters/characterizations used to gauge an increase in offensive potential of a formation?

For eg: In case of attack helicopters:
The question arises as a product of looking at (say) number of attack helicopters (in service/being procured) - 2 Squadrons of Mi-35 or 22 Apaches.
Numerically these numbers are nowhere near whats procured by US armed forces.
Since numbers being procured don't "seem" impressive, then how do we reason that offensive power is increased dramatically?

Misraji please pardon my intrusion here and I mean no offence, but I could not help noticing that you are comparing numbers with the US and then judging that the Indian numbers do not seem impressive. That also means that "impressive" by definition is something that begins to approach US-like numbers.

I think offensive potential can be gauged with respect to what potential adversaries might use as well as offensive potential as compared to what we have today. It does not necessarily have to be compared with the US.

I specifically make this post because all over the world, there is a tendency to quote US numbers as The_Standard that must be reached to be "respectable" or to be "impressed". In other threads on here we find that people ask that US specs for aircraft or weapons systems must be met or that US designs must be the designs that are the best. I personally find this an interesting indicator of how much of what the US represents, what it has done and what it is doing affects the mindset of observers.

In a bilateral India-Pakistan or India-China context, comparing with US numbers may not be illustrative of expected reality.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>
In a bilateral India-Pakistan or India-China context, comparing with US numbers may not be illustrative of expected reality.

Thanks for stating that so succinctly.

Things need to be looked in Indo-Pak or Sino-Indian context. When we converted some infantry divisions to RAPID configuration, we enhanced its strike potential considerably.

And what did we do? Added an extra tank regiment to the existing division tank regiment plus two mechanized infantry battalions. When seen in context of infantry divisions in sub-continent perspective, this represents a quantum increase in firepower. Is it any surprising that Bhatinda based X Corps, which has 2 x RAPID divisions (the Corps has total of 3 divisions - third one is plain infantry division), is considered a Strike formation by the Pakistanis. However, if you make the mistake of comparing this with Infantry Divisions of US Army, you'll be grossly disappointed. US Army Infantry Divisions are fully mechanized with AFV and MBTs and have more firepower than armored divisions of most armies.

So, in the light of above, adding a Rudra helicopter Squadron for each Corps of IA adds lot of flexibility and firepower. Imagine - we have has grand total of 2 x squadrons of attack helicopters all this while. And now, we're planning to have Rudra Squadron in each of the Corps - and then, you have LCH entering service from 2015 onward.

[abhik]

Posted on the BR main page:-
Navy plans to issue bid for over 120 multirole choppers

In could be the world's biggest tender for helicopters, the Indian Navy is planning to issue a bid for procuring more than 120 multirole choppers expected to be worth around Rs 35,000 crore.

RIP HAL Medium Lift Helicopter(Naval version).

[Sancho]

however it has smaller warhead. Like Hellfire it is Laser guided (114L is radar guided) unlike Spike or Helina, so it is not a fire and forget missile.

True, the warhead is smaller and it's not a fire and forget missile, but it's still able to attack armored vehicles, costs roughly 1/3 of the price of an hellfire, is smaller and lighter and offers even longer range. It could be even used as and A2A missile, against enemy helicopter for example.
Also interesting when used in IAs strike corps, if can benefit of laser guidance by UAVs, ground forces or even Arjun MBTs, not to mention that it don't have to return to base to re-arm, but can use supplies of Arjuns too, which usually follows tanks.
All in all, for such a light helicopter as Rudra, in fire support roles in strike corps, LAHAT offer several advantages and we already develop our own version of it too:

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/3850/scan90084.jpg

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/355/ ... thclgm.png


If you develop an own rocket pod for this missile, you could even carry more than 4 at a single hadpoint and still could carry Helina ATGMs at the outer hardpoints in a mixed config. Such a pod could be used by fighters like LCA, or Rafale in CAS roles as well.

[Sancho]

Answering my own question. LCH and Rudra (at the moment) can carry atmost 8 Helina missiles on 4 launchers. Go to 12:00 minute mark in the following video.

The video is talking about Rudra and the boom wings as they call it, not LCH. Not to mention that HAL brochures already showed, that Rudra will only carry 4 x 2 ATGMs, so that's not new:

http://hal-india.com/helicopter/armed%20role.pdf


However, LCH is a dedicated combat helicopter, designed to carry higher loads, just like the stubwings will have a higher weight limit. As the presentation shows at 13:30, the weightlimit for each hardpoint of Rudra is less than 170Kg.

2 x SPIKE ER = 68 Kg + launcher (55Kg) => total of 123Kg

4 x SPIKE ER = 136Kg + launcher (55Kg) => total of 191Kg

Which shows why Rudra can't carry quad launcher with heavy ATGMs, while LCH TD3 has a real stubwings, with harpoints comparable to Eurocopters Tiger and should have higher weight limits per hardpoint. Maybe this Aero India will give us more infos on that.

[Indranil]

however it has smaller warhead. Like Hellfire it is Laser guided (114L is radar guided) unlike Spike or Helina, so it is not a fire and forget missile.

True, the warhead is smaller and it's not a fire and forget missile, but it's still able to attack armored vehicles, costs roughly 1/3 of the price of an hellfire, is smaller and lighter and offers even longer range. It could be even used as and A2A missile, against enemy helicopter for example.
Also interesting when used in IAs strike corps, if can benefit of laser guidance by UAVs, ground forces or even Arjun MBTs, not to mention that it don't have to return to base to re-arm, but can use supplies of Arjuns too, which usually follows tanks.
All in all, for such a light helicopter as Rudra, in fire support roles in strike corps, LAHAT offer several advantages and we already develop our own version of it too:

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/3850/scan90084.jpg

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/355/ ... thclgm.png


If you develop an own rocket pod for this missile, you could even carry more than 4 at a single hadpoint and still could carry Helina ATGMs at the outer hardpoints in a mixed config. Such a pod could be used by fighters like LCA, or Rafale in CAS roles as well.

I read a lot about SAMHO yesterday too. It is a good utility missile, which I am pretty sure will be adapted for helicopter use.

But I don't think that missiles used in Arjun and the helicopters will be the same. Also, there are units which need cooling. Hence you would not see Helis borrowing missiles from MBT and vice versa.

For the LCH payload against Rudra. Well the presenter keeps naming LCH. So I don't know if LCH will be able to carry 12-16 ATGMs. Nobody will be more happy than me to see that happen. Probably a good question for AI'13 visitors to ask.

[Misraji]

So, in the light of above, adding a Rudra helicopter Squadron for each Corps of IA adds lot of flexibility and firepower. Imagine - we have has grand total of 2 x squadrons of attack helicopters all this while. And now, we're planning to have Rudra Squadron in each of the Corps - and then, you have LCH entering service from 2015 onward.

Fair enough. I recognize the futility of comparison with US.
Its the case that I cannot recognize how one Rudra helicopter squadron adds a lot of firepower.
Its most probably the case that I do not understand the strategies/tactics used for such deployments.
And somehow adding one squadron tips the outcome of the battle(s) in our favor.

Just confused. Thanks for the answer though.

--Ashish

[Prem Kumar]

The CLGM/SAMHO developments seem to have gone on under the radar. Never seen much news about them except an occasional mention here or there.

CLGM seems to be a reverse engineered version of Lahat. More power to DRDO! Our MBTs can hit the other guy before he can even see us. Plus it looks like a modular design that can be fitted onto different platforms. This baby has a lot of potential. A 105mm diameter (like Lahat) would have made this even more versatile!

Its pretty light-weight at 18.5 Kgs. Shaving down 5 more Kgs + an IIR seeker borrowed from Nag will get us a man-portable ATGM.

On a different note, Javelin is an ~12 Kg missile but with a 8.5 Kg warhead, per Wiki

[vasu raya]

Guess providing capability to armed forces is the first objective and then DRDO has the option of refining further
---------------

Now that desi AWACS is a sanctioned project, would they be able to develop a small Chatri for Dhruv as well given that its vibration control was improved?

[shiv]

Its the case that I cannot recognize how one Rudra helicopter squadron adds a lot of firepower.
Its most probably the case that I do not understand the strategies/tactics used for such deployments.
And somehow adding one squadron tips the outcome of the battle(s) in our favor.

I presume you have heard of Longewala?

[Misraji]

I presume you have heard of Longewala?

Yes I have. Its not exactly what I thought I would get to learn.
But thanks. Appreciate the response.

--Ashish