LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

John · Post by **John** » 02 Apr 2013 19:43

Singha wrote:HAL needs to be funded to work on a heavier "growth" version of the Dhruv for the medium helo role . we cannot forever keep importing this vital utility segment . bigger engines are off the shelf available from turbomeca or allied-signal. model on something proven like the blackhawk / Mi17 and keep the cockpit and avionics common with dhruv. atleast by 2025 we should FOC this bird and end our dependence for this medium role.

That is easier said than done, developing medium helo from scratch would require tremendous expertise. Which IMO HAL doesn't have and would require JV/Private firms to step in to make it a reality.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Apr 2013 19:49

Why would it have to be from scratch. They already have the design of dhruv to start from and can look to adapt that upward. Its better to try it one our own rather than bring in a fat consultant who will only look to shaft us later.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 02 Apr 2013 20:00

pankajs wrote:IAF, not Army, will get first of the Apaches attack helicopters: Govt

Remind me why we are buying the Apache. What purpose will be served by it. What will be the cost of not having it and why the jobs envisaged from the Ah 64 cannot be executed by the LCH. Also will the enemy line up his assets to be knocked out by heavy attack helo, while hiding his assets from the light helo.

I am open to some education on this matter.

Also the weapons for it will be different from the LCH. So we need to create another logistical stream for it. Or kill HELINA and go with hellfire for the LCH, if the Yanks allow for it.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 02 Apr 2013 20:50

What about a 3 souped up engine on an enlarged Dhruv body? Can get 8-10 ton MTOW and 5 year development cycle.

But

It'll take 5 years to get A/GSQR written and approved, another 3 years for MoD's approval for phase 1 engineering development (TDs), another 2 years to get tender out for engine, 5 years to complete phase 1 TDs. ASQR changes will follow because obsolescence is setting in, next 3 years for redesign and sanctions for Phase 2. Now IA/IAF needs minimum 12 tons MTOW and 6K meter ceiling because new DM Beni Prasad verma wants to picnic at siachin every other month. to meet this demand new global tenders will be issued for higher powered engines to power Mk2 versions. In 3 years Russians will win the contract for an engine that is 40% cheaper, has 30% more power and exceeds every requirements of tender. It take 2 years for CNC to sign the contract, 3 years for Russians to deliver first engine and 1 year for HAL to find out the gap in promised and delivered performance. Next 5 years goes into convincing Ru 9while they fix the problems) that they should not charge us so much extra money for their frauds/lies and failures. They gracefully agree to limit escalation to 214% of original contract price and 5 additional years because we are great friend and al-lies of theirs. HAl produces first batch of LSP samples and askes for IOC from DG air safety, IA objects on 37 points and MoD comes up with solution to break IOC in 3 parts IOC-HAL was approved, IOC-DG will be next and IOC-IA/F will be third stage. In next 5 years IAC-IA achieved and first squd of helis supplied which were returned to manufacturer on QC grounds.

Around this time, I'll be deep into my retirement and old enough that I would stop caring but hopefully my son will have some interest in mother India and it's helicopters

No pun intended...just for fun onlee.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Apr 2013 21:25

Katare wrote:What about a 3 souped up engine on an enlarged Dhruv body? Can get 8-10 ton MTOW and 5 year development cycle.

You are oversimplifying the problem. The medium weight helicopter is just what you are suggesting. But all the 3 services need that helicopter. Please remember that the ALH is not acceptable to the IN, though it is an excellent heli for the AF and IA.

How does one build a helicopter which performs well at 6000 mtr and at sea level. Also payload requirements are different. It is incredibly difficult to draw the outlines of a common helicopter. Please see the talk given by Commander KPS Kumar and Wing Commander [Retd] Unni Krishna Pillai at Aero India 2013.

[youtube]vLm33auDAbU&list=PLUueWTRSgH723fAdE8aDGdRp2LHxxDqPQ&index=4[/youtube]

[youtube]3klS_YR-xGs&list=PLUueWTRSgH723fAdE8aDGdRp2LHxxDqPQ&index=6[/youtube]

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 03 Apr 2013 00:08

India defers purchase of 197 choppers after Finmeccanica case

NEW DELHI (Reuters) – India on Tuesday deferred a decision on a deal to buy 197 light-utility helicopters pending completion of an investigation into kickback allegations, the latest setback to efforts to upgrade the country’s ageing arsenal.

A previous tender to buy 197 helicopters for the army for $550 million collapsed in 2007 after claims of irregularities in the field trials.

Defence deals have drawn heavy scrutiny in recent weeks after Italian police arrested the head of defence group Finmeccanica(SIFI.MI) over allegations that subsidiary AgustaWestland paid bribes to win a $750 million deal to supply 12 luxury helicopters for political VIPs.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 03 Apr 2013 00:27

Cancel it and focus on LUH. Time to cut off weapons import completely. Weapon dealers are well known and should be taken out, legally or illegaly.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 03 Apr 2013 00:53

LUH completes realisation of GTV - Tarmak007

The LUH has gone past the design phase with successful realization of the Ground Test Vehicle

Mark Walpole · Post by **Mark Walpole** » 03 Apr 2013 02:40

Pratyush wrote:
pankajs wrote:IAF, not Army, will get first of the Apaches attack helicopters: Govt
Remind me why we are buying the Apache. What purpose will be served by it. What will be the cost of not having it and why the jobs envisaged from the Ah 64 cannot be executed by the LCH. Also will the enemy line up his assets to be knocked out by heavy attack helo, while hiding his assets from the light helo.

I am open to some education on this matter.

Also the weapons for it will be different from the LCH. So we need to create another logistical stream for it. Or kill HELINA and go with hellfire for the LCH, if the Yanks allow for it.

Apache and LCH generally fit two different roles.

Apache is a heavy deep penetrating heavily armed and armoured platform that will generally be used at point. It will generally go in low right after strikes by fixed wing aircraft to take out remaining enemy air defences and also take on other targets including armoured vehicles other helicopters etc.
It can do this by taking some punishment in return and survive. On top of that its longbow capability takes it a bit further by having a central command helicopter que in various other helicopters at the same time.

LCH on the other hand is more suitable for close air support roles to armoured strike formations where it has a modicum of safety from enemy air defences which would have by now been hopefully thinned out by fixed wing/ heavy gunship attacks. It's agility allows it to be quickly manoeuvred around enemy formations and pick of targets as and when they pop up.

The recent example of gunship combat has been in Afghanistan and Iraq where the heavy aka apache has gone in right at the beginning and are still being used in support of urban combat.

By comparison the light super cobra went in later and in support of the expeditionary marine forces.

Another example is the use of tiger helicopters in support of French forces in Libya and Mali where the enemy air defences were not substantial as compared to Iraq for example.

The Russian use of heavy MI28/35 has been noted in Afghanistan where lightly armoured mi8 gunships were easily targeted.

Wrt the use of hellfire vs Helina on thes platforms its anyone's guess. It would be nice to see Helina used on apaches if they are bought but by the look of things Helina has a secure future with it being used on multiple indeginous platforms aka rudra and lch.

Yes the logistic chain will be expensive and so will be the life costs of these aircraft. But unfortunately till we have a substantial industrial base which can design manufacture and maintain this type of aircraft post haste we stand at a disadvantage of relying on external suppliers and if we are buying why not try and buy the best if it can be afforded.

I hope this helps a little but that's just what I think and just my 2 cents.

MS

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 03 Apr 2013 13:31

^^^

Is the battlefield ever going to present a situation where the only a specific weapon can be used by a force? That justifies the use of Apache over LCH in the Indian context.

If not then why buy the Apache.

Mark Walpole · Post by **Mark Walpole** » 03 Apr 2013 22:23

Pratyush wrote:^^^

Is the battlefield ever going to present a situation where the only a specific weapon can be used by a force? That justifies the use of Apache over LCH in the Indian context.

If not then why buy the Apache.

One can only guess on what the battlefield will throw at your forces. I do not promote apache as the only answer what I was trying to say is that we need a heavy helicopter aka something which is much more armoured than the lch in certain high intensity conflicts. Our government has chosen to get the apache to fulfil that role but it can most probably be done by other heavy gunships like the mi28 the Italian mangusta etc.

In the Indian context if war does break out between India and Pakistan you will require these deep penetrating heavy helicopters in roles I have mentioned before. The LCH with its present armour might not be able to take on the kind of damage that can be thrown at it in the way of small to medium caliber anti air guns and even to an extent manpads.
A good example could be the use of the apache just ahead of your strike formations especially in a cold start situation where u need to hit quick and hard but also have a good chance to get back to refuel rearm and hit again.

Not knowing the entirety of the reasoning behind selection of the apaches and not going into political/ kickback realm I can only speculate that the funds to procure the most advanced platform as compared to the others atleast in cases such as avionics sensors ECM etc plus the longbow capability is not a bad solution.

These two are gunships fill different roles there is some overlap but you will not send a lightly armoured helicopter into the 'thick of it' to put it lightly. Similarly you would not use an expensive ( in terms of sortie costs) heavy for lower intensity search and destroy ,escort missions amongst others.

In the end all we can do is speculate but the armed forces know what they are doing they generally don't buy things just cuz it's shiny they have a use of it in mind and have more than likely simulated and war gamed the effects of heavy vs light helicopters.

Hope that makes sense.

MS

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Apr 2013 22:37

^^^ The issue is not really so much heavy vs light, or effectiveness of Apache, I believe no one questions that.

The question here is whether 16/22/24 type of Heli numbers make much sense. We already have a zoo of equipment. Why/how would adding another few help.

Cant the same few numbers be better substituted by say 2x LCHs? It would help in logistical commonality etc. That seems to be the point as far as I understand it.

Mark Walpole · Post by **Mark Walpole** » 03 Apr 2013 23:15

^^
Buying of these helicopters looks to be more of a stop gap measure to fill the capability gap left by the low availability/ age of mi35's.
unfortunately I don't think we can have a linear relationship wrt an x number of lch being equal to y number of apaches in the lch one might have just send two lucrative targets than one into fire.

Example being say you send in a few 4/6 apaches in for a low deep strike mission will 4/6 lch have the capability to pull that off or will you need 8/12 of those if not more to fulfil the mission and so on so forth eventually having a few do the job will make more of a logistic sense than having a many.

Yes it's gonna be a strain on our resources but the reality might be that until we have the capability to manufacture our own we have to rely on others and in this case it's the apache.

Another way to look at it will be if we end up buying a large quantities say 100+ of apaches which we could possibly have it would have the potential of killing our indigenous helicopter efforts once and for all hence buy a few fill the gap get experience possibly some tech etc and use all that in developing our own in the future that's what I would hope is the bigger picture.

MS

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Apr 2013 23:34

A related question. I read somewhere that Ka-50/52 was in the race for the HAC tender. However, I never read about them reaching the flight trials. Any info? I read that the RuA prefers the Ka-50 to the Mi-28. Wondering what went wrong.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Apr 2013 23:39

For what it is worth:

July, 2010 :: Comparison Of India's LCH Against Other Attack Choppers

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Apr 2013 00:55

I have always wondered why the LCH's top speed is comparatively lower. I am not saying that it is a handicap.

I am just trying to understand the aerodynamics. With better TWR to its compatriots and not the longest of blade diameters, I was expecting it to have a higher top speed. What am I missing?

manum · Post by **manum** » 04 Apr 2013 00:57

maybe its a tractor than a car...

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 04 Apr 2013 03:15

To increase ceiling , compromises will be made on the engine/gearbox and rotors.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 04 Apr 2013 12:08

indranilroy wrote:I have always wondered why the LCH's top speed is comparatively lower. I am not saying that it is a handicap.
I am just trying to understand the aerodynamics. With better TWR to its compatriots and not the longest of blade diameters, I was expecting it to have a higher top speed. What am I missing?

Actually there seems to be two speeds which have been mixed up in the above article.
Wiki quotes two numbers: Maximum speed vs Never-Exceed-Speed. (Speed in level flight vs speed-in-a-dive)

LCH is roughly comparable to SuperCobra/Tiger/Mangoosta/Apache in Maximum speed categories, all being in 270-290 Kph.

Ka-50 is a cut above the rest at 315 Kph. Probably its wings generate enough lift to free the rotors for forward propulsion.

--Ashish

Prashanth Kumar · Post by **Prashanth Kumar** » 04 Apr 2013 12:21

rohitvats wrote:
steve wrote:

I believe the above pic shows the first flight of LCH. Enjoy
nope..it is photoshopped and the blog owner says so..... ....

I think its a photoshop of the LCH 2 model!!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Apr 2013 12:45

Misraji wrote: LCH is roughly comparable to SuperCobra/Tiger/Mangoosta/Apache in Maximum speed categories, all being in 270-290 Kph.

Ka-50 is a cut above the rest at 315 Kph. Probably its wings generate enough lift to free the rotors for forward propulsion.

--Ashish

I understand the difference between maximum speed and never exceed speed. Maximum speed of Mi-28/SuperCobra/Mangoosta/Apache/Rooivalk/Tiger/WZ-10/LCH are 302/296/278/309(w/o mast)/309/315(w/o mast)/300/268 respectively.

The top speed of Ka-15 is understandable. Dual rotors allow it to keep the rotor diameter smaller which is very important in determining the top speed of the heli. Also it saves power by not having to power a tail rotor.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 04 Apr 2013 13:04

indranilroy wrote: I understand the difference between maximum speed and never exceed speed. Maximum speed of Mi-28/SuperCobra/Mangoosta/Apache/Rooivalk/Tiger/WZ-10/LCH are 302/296/278/309(w/o mast)/309/315(w/o mast)/300/268 respectively.

The top speed of Ka-15 is understandable. Dual rotors allow it to keep the rotor diameter smaller which is very important in determining the top speed of the heli. Also it saves power by not having to power a tail rotor.

Oh. I had thought your post had to do with the Livefist article that seemed to mix up the numbers a bit.
Apologies for the rather mundane answer. Don't really know about aerodynamics.

Will start reading up on this link for Helicopter's max speed limitations.
Please to see if it helps.

--Ashish

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Apr 2013 17:09

indranilroy wrote:A related question. I read somewhere that Ka-50/52 was in the race for the HAC tender. However, I never read about them reaching the flight trials. Any info? I read that the RuA prefers the Ka-50 to the Mi-28. Wondering what went wrong.

Ka-50 is not in production any more save the few that were built in 90's and incomplete ones left over , Ka-52 is the one taken over , when the RFP was issued Ka-52 was not ready and it was in trials/development , Mi-28N was the only one ready and inducted in RuAF.

Ka-52 is not a dedicated anti-tank chopper like Mi-28N or Ah-64D , it serves a more multipurpose role including battle field support , anti-tank ,scout etc .... if memory serves me right Ka-50 took part in chechnia operation hunting down rebels and command structures in mountain and it can fly much higher than Mi-28 , Its less armoured compared to Mi-28. There is a Ka-52K variant under development for marine for Mistral class.

Some footage of Ka-50 used in chechnia http://youtu.be/tBX8QbcFfMo

You can consider the Ka-52 as LCH equivalent for them as the latter is for us.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 04 Apr 2013 17:43

at least the IAF people I spoke to are not convinced about the design of the Ka 52 under certain maneuvers (blades hitting each other)

I believe one crashed due to that

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Apr 2013 17:46

if that was a serious flaw and indeed if that is true you wouldnt have seen co-axial rotor on most kamov choppers , probably the one that crashed must have had issue with its rotor could be an isolated issue.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Apr 2013 17:59

Misraji wrote:Will start reading up on this link for Helicopter's max speed limitations.

I remember watching a discovery channel video of an advanced rotor design being tested in wind tunnel where the advanced rotor design helped in improving the speed by few 10 km but as it reached its max speed no matter how fast the rotor move the speed wont increase and it would end up in a stall.

Reason why some countries are researching on High Speed Chopper concept where they use push prop and other innovations to push the chopper speed to beyond 450 to 550 km/hour speed , probably by the end of this decade we would see such high speed chopper being practically used for civil and military.

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 04 Apr 2013 18:07

--- World's fastest chopper X2

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 04 Apr 2013 18:17

to make the helicopter speed increase, the rotor speed has to increase much faster and soon reaches close to M=1.0 where shock effects happen on the rotors and lead to massive increases in drag and loss of lift (like a stall). so far, the idea has been to sweep and curve blade tips to move the shock out as much as possible and reduce this drag - but there is a limit to what can be achieved

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Apr 2013 19:29

Austin wrote:if that was a serious flaw and indeed if that is true you wouldnt have seen co-axial rotor on most kamov choppers , probably the one that crashed must have had issue with its rotor could be an isolated issue.

I think that was the Ka 52's problem - given that it has to be agile. I doubt if other twin rotor Kamovs were designed to be agile. The rest of them are staid, prim and propah.
Ka 28/31
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGngFSwNQqY

Ka 50 from Aero India 1996

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUrolSOG5Q8

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 04 Apr 2013 19:42

f that was a serious flaw and indeed if that is true you wouldnt have seen co-axial rotor on most kamov choppers , probably the one that crashed must have had issue with its rotor could be an isolated issue

.

As Shiv said - requirements for Ka 28\31 are diff than 50\52

dunking sonar and the odd anti sub weapon requires a steady flt

a pity really - the helo is a beauty otherwise

one other note - I believe there was also considerable debate on the side by side seating

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Apr 2013 19:54

Never came across co-axial rotor hitting each other in some manouver news before for ka-50/52 , if it was serious it wont remain hidden , Ka-52 is apparently the most manouverable chopper in its class and role but they dont pull 9G.

Likely it could have happened but could be isolated one , the last Ka-52 chopper crashed happen when it was doing night flying training and it crashed with both pilots inside the cockpit and dead ( one died later ) , the question asked was why didnt they eject when they had an ejection seat and they wernt flying low but flying night ...investigation later found that the pilot got disoriented and could not eject on time.

Apparently the only news I came across is a 1998 crash that attributed to Ka-50 co-axial hitting each other in an incident of hard manouvering in an airshow display
http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120313/172126655.html

A Ka-50 crashed in June 1998 during an air display, killing the base commander at Torzhok. An official accident report said the helicopter's co-axial rotor blades hit each other during hard maneuvering.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 04 Apr 2013 20:00

A Ka-50 crashed in June 1998 during an air display, killing the base commander at Torzhok. An official accident report said the helicopter's co-axial rotor blades hit each other during hard maneuvering.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120313/172126655.html

there are some more links with same news

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Apr 2013 20:03

Yes I found the same happened once during aerial display , no crashes later attributed to co-axial rotor hitting each other.

Here is a naval kamov Ka-52K with folding rotor and wings , apparently for Russian mistral one of the changes made they had to increase the height of the hanger to accomodate the taller rotor for Kamov

Ka-52K

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 04 Apr 2013 20:11

am also curious why the Turks backed out

I thought that would have been a great deal

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Apr 2013 20:33

Turkey is a major NATO allay , I see little reason and incentive why they should buy any big ticket item from a non-nato country .... i dont remember any NATO country buying any big ticket item from ex Warsaw/CSTO country but I could be wrong here as it from memory.

The Israel/Kamov venture was itself a non-proven system and over an above selling to a NATO country good luck to them

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 04 Apr 2013 21:21

concept Military version of the Sirkorsky X2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... aop2ePwcYg

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 04 Apr 2013 21:40

Turkey is not considered trustworthy enough since they have shown islamist tendencies. They will never be given SM-2 or equivalent like SoKo or Japan. They only have SM-1 and RAM and just maybe ESSM.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Apr 2013 21:55

Nice video Shiv your hands are rock steady , I realised the Ka-50 couldnt do a full 360 degree roll , it goes up but then it turns around.

John · Post by **John** » 04 Apr 2013 23:14

Bheeshma wrote:Turkey is not considered trustworthy enough since they have shown islamist tendencies. They will never be given SM-2 or equivalent like SoKo or Japan. They only have SM-1 and RAM and just maybe ESSM.

That would have little to no impact on US decision if they ally has $$$ US will supply them Aegis, you forgot what US was supplying the Shaw or even Saudi Arabia. Especially with Turkish-Israel relationship coming back to normal...

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 05 Apr 2013 05:47

LCH speed limitation is primarily due to drag and also the basic rotor design does not provide for a greater speed than what can be achieved now. I always thought co-axial rotors are perhaps more agile. Specially if you've flown the RC helis, the blade series micro co-axials are unbelievably agile.