LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 11 Aug 2010 01:39

I stand corrected

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 12 Aug 2010 05:47

Answering another query on the Dhruv helicopter, the Minister said the service ceiling of the chopper has been laid down as 6000 meters which has been achieved by it.

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) had said recently that the HAL-built indigenous chopper was not upto the mark and overweight for replacing the Cheetah/Chetak helicopter fleet of the armed forces.

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 12 Aug 2010 12:26

Marten wrote:^^^ This holds true only for the earlier version (currently delivered and serving). For the latest version with the Shakti engines (yet to be certified per CAG), the CAG report said it met all parameters. Relevant sections from my post on the previous page:
Marten wrote:Oh, and how come everyone that said the ALH did not meet the specifications conveniently forgot to read the paragraph where it says the new Shakti engine has helped overcome all of those issues?

The Management stated (December 2009) that despite the deep background and experience of helicopters by MBB, the collaborator could not achieve the guaranteed parameter of BEW which is still an open point. Shakti engine (higher-powered engine) adequately meets the requisite payload with margins as demonstrated during the hot and high trials in August 2009.

I agree with you on this. A lot is discussed about the CAG criticism by BRFites (includes me), but let us give due credit to HAL because it looks like all these performance issues were basically due to a weak engine.

If only we master engine design and manufacturing now

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 20 Aug 2010 18:15

The CAG is definitely NOT a bunch of hare-brained babus as has been made out to be. I have found some of their remarks and analyses on certain aircraft acquisitions surprisingly precise and accurate. Don’t underestimate them, they are good.
However, in the case of the ALH (Dhruv), I do believe their conclusions on 80-90% imports (probably by cost percentage) being a point for audit is incorrect. Yes, most of the avionics and quite a few systems are imported but then, consider this:-
The critical high-tech main & tail rotor blades are made locally.
The entire transmission systems are made locally – all the gear boxes including the Main Gear Box (that holds the helicopter up and provides the drive from the engines to the rotors. All these essentially amount to the very core of the helicopter. Worldwide, there are just a handful of countries making these components & we are actually one of them.
The fuselage & undercarriage are all made locally – including the very critical crashworthy sections.
The ALH has been made to a very exacting Air Staff Requirement of the IAF & Indian Army and to meet all the stated objectives, it may not be possible to use everything indigenously made. In any case, a whole lot of systems & avionics are just simply NOT available locally.
Barring the US of A (and erstwhile Soviet Union), most countries do NOT make the A to Z of an aircraft. Consider this – open up a BAE (British Aerospace) navigation system LRU and don’t be surprised to find cards & chips made in Taiwan! Check out the European helicopters – all of them are multi-country projects!
It’s a globalised economy and its just plain stupid in these times to try to make every single thing at home.
The game really is to make a reliable and maintainable helicopter – that meets the performance requirements of the Services & also has a reasonable indigenous content at its core (which I believe the ALH already has).

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 20 Aug 2010 19:18

@Prastor -"If only we master engine design and manufacturing now"
That's easier said than done - its a devilishly difficult thing to attempt - almost a black art if you look at today's state-of-art high performance turboshafts such as the Shakti with its software-control! The power-to-weight ratio benefit it bestows on the ALH & the LCH is beastly - some terrific performance at high altitude, almost addictive, if I may dare say!!

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 20 Aug 2010 19:30

indranilroy wrote:
karthik wrote: I hope so but i think i get the theory behind the mounting now, its deliberately kept independent from the cockpit frame because any serious landing would not stress the structure and instead the mounting will either bend or crumble hence absorbing the shock without harming the frame and can be replaced later separately! I think thats the rational behind it.

Thanks Kartik.
Hazarding another guess. Notice that the mounting is actually almost in the same direction as the compression. If you draw a line through the length of the absorber, it will almost pass through the welding with the body of the mount. This is unlike most cases where the shock absorbers is almost perpendicular to the chassis. So the shock will actually travel through the length of the absorber, through the absorber mount and the body mount into the body. It would not be shear stress (trying to tear away from the weld) but to compressive stress (press against it). I believe that the part behind the joint (weld) must be fortified to take that shock.

Also the mount is in the shape of a downward "V". So in the case of a hard landing, the sides of this V will be subjected to compressive stress. And compressive strength of a metal is generally much higher than tensile/shear strength. So it should hold good.

Will wait for somebody else to answer if he/she knows the exact answer! Also as always, we all are waiting for the final version to show us the real LCH

By the way: was reading that an illustrated photographer called it a crocodile. What a compliment to the aesthetics of a mean machine! If I were the designer, I would have blushed up all red

Gentlemen,
The LCH undercarriage is a two-stage crashworthy design, designed and tested to attenuate impact forces at 10 metres/sec vertical velocity - that translated from 85% survivability. Its indeed a very specialised design.

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 20 Aug 2010 20:00

@ Craig Alpert -Re -The ceiling of the ALH
Actually its cleared to 6400 m for the older TM-2222B2 engine (although at a lower weight)
and its now cleared to 6500 m for the new Shakti engine version at a fairly high All-Up-Weight
I'm not sure how CAG got its figure of 5000 m - the 6400 m ceiling is clearly specified in the helicopter's Flight Manual (older engine version) and is also practically achievable.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 20 Aug 2010 20:43

Hari Nair wrote:@ Craig Alpert -Re -The ceiling of the ALH
Actually its cleared to 6400 m for the older TM-2222B2 engine (although at a lower weight)
and its now cleared to 6500 m for the new Shakti engine version at a fairly high All-Up-Weight
I'm not sure how CAG got its figure of 5000 m - the 6400 m ceiling is clearly specified in the helicopter's Flight Manual (older engine version) and is also practically achievable.

Welcome Sir.. Welcome to BR -- it is great to have you here..

If I am guessing correctly from the tone of your posts -- some of the stuff you are saying (must be true, and it) is great positive feeling..

Added later:

Any insights on the LCH performance so far !!! And the roadmap for weight reduction in successive prototypes !!!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Aug 2010 21:46

great to have you here Sir.

manum · Post by **manum** » 20 Aug 2010 22:01

And compressive strength of a metal is generally much higher than tensile/shear strength. So it should hold good.

please check this is exactly apposite...concrete is made for compression and steel is used inside it to take tension...guess why...in any building...so property of being metal doesn't change if it's used in flying object, does it?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Aug 2010 23:50

^^^
You are mixing up things. Of course steel is much more tensile than concrete . Steel is added to concrete to add to the tensile strength of the combined structure. How can you use this as a measure between the compressive strength, tensile strength and shear strength of steel?

I am not in the field of materials, but as far as my class eleventh physics goes generally compressive strength of metals is much higher than it's tensile strength. Don't trust my physics but read it here. However this may not be the case for other non-metals. Composite materials tend to have higher tensile strengths than compressive strengths. One such example is glass fiber epoxy matrix composite.

Getting back to metals and alloys, I will give you a further example. If you take a very thick rod of some metal, and you start bending it, where do you think it will give way, on the side or outside? Remember strain is on the outside, and compression is on the inside!

Going to some numbers,
Look into the mechanical properties of Titanium Ti-6Al-4V (Grade 5), Annealed

Here's another research paper which gives Compressive and Diametral Tensile Strength of Titanium-Reinforced Composites. In the abstract

Compressive and tensile loading was performed on a modified universal testing apparatus. Ti-Core and Flexi-Flow cem with titanium were measured to have compressive strengths of 41,132 and 41,876 psi and tensile strengths of 5219 and 4930 psi, respectively.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Aug 2010 00:02

Hari Nair wrote: Gentlemen,
The LCH undercarriage is a two-stage crashworthy design, designed and tested to attenuate impact forces at 10 metres/sec vertical velocity - that translated from 85% survivability. Its indeed a very specialised design.

Thank you sir. It's an honour to have your following.

Would you know what are the two-stages? Also how do we calculate the percentage of survivability. Are there cases of how the helicopter can crash land and with this tolerance we can overcome 85% of those cases? Of the 15% of the rest of cases may be coming down on its side, top, tail, etc.

Can a helicopter with freely rotating blades come down much faster than 10 m/sec?

Natt · Post by **Natt** » 21 Aug 2010 01:06

Questions for gurus/Jingos,
Any news on when the Merlin's are scheduled for delivery?
No news of LCH flying except for VIP demo's, whats the latest?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Aug 2010 04:38

Hello Hari sir ! great to have you here on BRF.

There has been a lot of speculation about whether the design of the LCH is going to be modified later on or not. As in whether the outer mould line is frozen or not and whether or not it will be further streamlined. Regarding the LCH's canopy, it offers more visibility and less protection to the pilots than a few other gunships, so will this be modified or is this the final canopy design?

We already know that weight reduction is a stated goal of the program, so which are the possible areas where weight can be reduced ? What is your opinion on this? Also, there is speculation that the LCH already reached its highest speed during trials. Is this true ? What have been your impressions of the LCH so far ?

naird · Post by **naird** » 21 Aug 2010 05:11

Hello Hari sir...

Its an honour to have your here sir....enjoy your stay and please do share some interesting and informative tid bits (if possible) if you can....

Also please do tell us about LCH...hows your feeling...hows the handling...anything and everything would be highly appreciated.....

nits · Post by **nits** » 21 Aug 2010 14:59

India to order another 59 Russian Mi-17 helicopters -

The Indian Air Force will soon order an additional 59 Russian Mil Mi-17 helicopters on top of the 80 ordered earlier, the IAF chief said on Thursday.

The first deliveries of the 80 Mi-17 helicopters, ordered in 2008, will begin later this year, Air Chief Marshal Pradeep Vasant Naik said in an interview with India Strategic

Link

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 21 Aug 2010 16:55

Mi-17 Helicopters has occupied such a place into the minds of Indian Airforce and IA that no other helicopter seems to ever replace that place. It is good thing that IAF will soon establish another squadrans to replace its ageing fleet.

manum · Post by **manum** » 21 Aug 2010 17:42

Indranil

I found this link...while searching for my query of property of metals, non-natural metals and composites...http://www.zenithair.com/images/kit-data/ht.html
sorry if it's already posted...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Aug 2010 19:14

manum, thank you for the link.

Unfortunately I dont have the time to go through the whole website. Can you please post the sections/quotes which differ from what I posted.

Thank you.

manum · Post by **manum** » 21 Aug 2010 21:13

Aircraft structures are basically unidirectional. This means that one dimension, the length, is much larger than the others - width or height. Even a propeller has a diameter much larger than its blade width and thickness, etc.... For this simple reason, a designer chooses to use unidirectional material when designing for an efficient strength to weight structure.
Unidirectional materials are basically composed of thin, relatively flexible, long fibers which are very strong in tension (like a thread, a rope, a stranded steel wire cable, etc.)

How can you use this as a measure between the compressive strength, tensile strength and shear strength of steel.

i was trying to explain common sense in construction thats all. Steel is more or less a linear elastic material. Unlike concrete, which ismuch weaker in tension than in compression.Unidirectional fibers may be excellent in tension, but due to their small cross section, they have very little inertia and cannot take much compression. They will escape the load by bucking away.
in order to make thin fibers strong in compression, they are "glued together" with some kind of an "embedding". In this way we can take advantage of their tension strength and are no longer penalized by their individual compression weakness because, as a whole, they become compression resistant as they help each other to not buckle away.

Composites can be looked at as "artificial wood" from a structural standpoint.
http://www.zenithair.com/images/kit-data/ht.html

and you start bending it, where do you think it will give way, on the side or outside? Remember strain is on the outside, and compression is on the inside!

I am sorry, but i didnt understand the question (it's not your fault, i was always bad at structure)...but i'll give it a try, maybe i hit a point.

I was not good at structure frankly...when they taught us in college...all i understood was common sense, that few materials are inherently having few properties...better than others...and other properties can be brought in by other processes...but this tendency doesnt reverses....or in other words...yes steel is something which is good is compression in tension both...for example I section can be used as a beam and column. But steel is still inherently a tensile material...to do its linearity ratio, with respect to other materials...but things can be experimented while giving it shapes and making it better in other lacking areas...

but when design optimisation is in question...and weight of the product like aircraft is in question...they will use the material, for what it is born...

PS: here I am trying to understand myself the point...so hopefully, you won't take as if I am adamant at my point. I am still doubtful at your proposition...and mine too...may be Guru's can step in...

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 21 Aug 2010 22:57

indranilroy wrote:Would you know what are the two-stages? Also how do we calculate the percentage of survivability. Are there cases of how the helicopter can crash land and with this tolerance we can overcome 85% of those cases? Of the 15% of the rest of cases may be coming down on its side, top, tail, etc.

Can a helicopter with freely rotating blades come down much faster than 10 m/sec?

The US Army compiled statistics of crashes of their helicopters during the Vietnam war and they came with the US MIL STD 1290 for crashworthiness, which essentially charts out a percentile survivability in the event the helicopter is able to absorb specified impact loads in the vertical, longitudinal and lateral directions. As per Mil Std 1290, the highest (practical) percentile survivabile crashworthy helicopter is in which the helcopter impacts at 12.8 m/s in the vertical and the impact loads are progressively attenuated by the undercarriage (wheels & oleos), crush sections of the lower fuselage, fuel tanks and finally by the crashworthy seat that is mounted on two rails and strokes down-wards. At the end of it all, the aircrew should experience a maximum vertical deceleration of 14.5 G (tolerance of the spine). Such a design is expected to be 95% survivable - which means that for a helicopter designed to the standard, the crew should be able to survive 95% of foreseen crash conditions (with minor injuries - perhaps a broken bone)
There are other specified criteria, which I have left out to simplify- other parameters such as longitudinal velocity, reduction of cockpit volume, etc.

Incidentally, the Apache attack and the Black Hawk utility helicopters comply with the 95% crashworthy criteria (the Black Hawk actually exceeds this standard in some aspects). The Russian Mi-28 also claims to comply with 95% crashworthiness.

For the LCH, 85% survivability was chosen as a compromise between low and extreme high altitude requirements. Which essentially works out to the critical vertical impact parameter of about 10.5 m/s.

On the LCH, with both engines failed and rotors freely rotating (autorotation), it would be descending at about 10 m/s. Normally, the pilot would 'flare' close to the ground (raise the nose up to arrest the descent rate and increase the rotor RPM temporarily) to cushion the landing, which then would be at a far lower vertical speed. However, even if the pilot is unable to 'flare' to arrest the desent speed, the helicopter is still capable of absorbing the impact forces at 10 m/s.

The two stage oleo is a typical crashworthy design - it has a stage used for 'normal' operations. During crash loads, there is the need to immediately attenuate the impact loads and if the oleo was designed with just the single stage stage, it would be unable to do so, would be saturated, act as a rigid member and then just break off. The second stage is thus built-in. This stage has a diaphragm that ruptures on crash and allows transfer of larger volume of fliud to attenuate the crash loads.

Finally, there is another benefit to this crashworthy bit- a helicopter designed to this standard essentially also turns to be a tough, rugged, no-nonsense machine.

PS - I forgot that last Q - Rate-of-Descent (ROD) in autorotation. The value of ROD depends on the disc loading – which in plain English means that if you have a heavier rotorcraft with a smaller diameter rotor disc, it will come down faster. So, yes helicopters with high disc loading will come down much faster than 10 m/s in autorotation.

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 21 Aug 2010 23:13

naird wrote:Also please do tell us about LCH...hows your feeling...hows the handling...anything and everything would be highly appreciated.....

Well, the LCH shares the same rotors of the ALH, however has a different fuselage and certain other different systems. The engines are the 'Shakti', used in the latest ALH version.
Overall, the handling is very agile, crisp and there is a whole lot of power on the tap - similar to the ALH-Shakti. There are, however, certain important differences -the tail wheel layout is very different, in terms of handling for landing. The straight line stability is very good and it appears to be rather exactly what's desired for weapon aiming and launch.
The tandem seating, compared to the side-by-side seating of the ALH also results in quite different crew coordination (Crew Resource Management in flight safety jargon).
These are early days yet, and a whole lot of stuff on the machine is still evolving - so stay tuned!

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 21 Aug 2010 23:31

Kartik wrote:There has been a lot of speculation about whether the design of the LCH is going to be modified later on or not. As in whether the outer mould line is frozen or not and whether or not it will be further streamlined. Regarding the LCH's canopy, it offers more visibility and less protection to the pilots than a few other gunships, so will this be modified or is this the final canopy design?

We already know that weight reduction is a stated goal of the program, so which are the possible areas where weight can be reduced ? What is your opinion on this? Also, there is speculation that the LCH already reached its highest speed during trials. Is this true ? What have been your impressions of the LCH so far ?

Yes, you will see changes to the LCH - essentially pertaining to the tail-plane, the wings, outer-fins, addition of some streamlining (including a ventral fin incorporating the tail-wheel) and some other details.

Regarding the external view from the cockpit- we need to keep in mind that this machine is a prototype and optimisation of the cockpit transparency is a progressive activity. Its planned and is being evaluated - however, the prototype is logically expected to have the maximum external view possible - check out pics of the cockpit of the prototype Apache attack helicopter (YAH-64) and compare it with the cockpit of the production version (AH-64) and you will see what I mean.

Armour protection is obviously planned and will be incorporated.

Regarding max speed - no, we have not, as of yet opened the full flight envelope. We have not taken the helicopter to its max speed as of yet. Regards handling - already covered in my previous post!

Weight reduction - the AUW issue is a 'close tolerance' thing (!) because of our high altitude requirements. Unlike the US and Russian helicopters that are primarily designed for lower altitudes, our operational requirements are far,far more demanding to cater for the Leh-Siachen-Kargil sectors. At those altitudes and at those stated conditions, everything (aerodynamics, engine performance, control margins, handling and stability) tapers off into a point, usually well short of the target for most helicopters.

The LCH shares the ALH's rotors -some of its capabilities are routinely demonstrated by the Sarang Display Team. Its highly manoeuvrable rigid rotor system has beneficial spin-offs at high altitude – good control power, good control margins and easier handling for pilots. The typical high-altitude sluggish handling and inertia in other helicopters is absent in the ALH. The controls remain crisp with adequate control margins and good stability. Also, the Shakti engines have excellent power margin. These benefits will naturally go to the LCH.

Given the above, and the fact that certain weight reduction have already been affected on the LCH, we are fairly confident of meeting the high altitude mission requirements.

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 22 Aug 2010 00:08

naird wrote:Also please do tell us about LCH...hows your feeling...hows the handling...anything and everything would be highly appreciated.....

Well, the tandem seat and tail-wheel layout appears to be the right way to go for the dedicated role LCH.
We put the pilot in front and the co-pilot-Weapon System Operator in the back. That's different from earlier generation Attack Helicopters that had the Pilot at the back & the WSO-CoP in the front. They had it that way because the optical sights in the nose were mechanical and there were practical limits in routing of the optical tubes to the WSO cockpit-which hence had necessarily to be in the front. The pilot thus got the rear cockpit with the disadvantage of reduced visibility.
Here, with electronic displays, we have exploited its potential -the pilot gets the front cockpit and its easy and natural to fly the helicopter from there. The WSO in the rear, although with reduced external view-gets the natural station for systems & weapons control.
The aircraft has the same agile and crisp handling of the ALH with a very good power margin.
The LCH's straight-line stability is impressive - exactly what's required for a weapon delivery platform.
Expect an evolution of the design - the fundamentals appear to be correct -its polishing & optimising that's going to happen.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 22 Aug 2010 00:26

Thanks Hari Nair Sir hope your stay here is long and enjoyable. How i wish Hari Nair sir flew the tejas too

naird · Post by **naird** » 22 Aug 2010 00:44

Excellent ...excellent......Thanks Hari Sir...How many prototypes of LCH has HAL developed so far ? Also are we roping in International partners for testing guidance/direction or will it be a sole HAL effort with inputs gained from ALH program? And as rakall pointed out ..any updates on the weight reduction program ?

Sir -- since you are placed in a area what we call "Core of Indian aviation"...please be kind enough to share inputs on other programes such as LCA , ALH , etc ..in the respective threads (whatever information you can/allowed to)... We often are left wondering and fear the worst when no news comes out .....

Thanks once again...waiting for more posts !!!!!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Aug 2010 03:32

Hari Nair ... Sir you are in my humble opinion the best thing to have happened to Bharat Rakshak this year.

Manum ... you are confusing many things

. We can take this offline. You can read a little more about it. If you find anything contradicting what I said, please email me at different indranilr (at) gee-mael (dot) kaum. Different kind of materials have different characteristics. But in general think of a joint, in which case do you think you would break it first by pushing into the joint, prying the joint open and trying a shear it tangentially. It would not be the same for non metals etc etc. But lets take it offline

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Aug 2010 09:09

Hari Nair wrote:
Weight reduction - the AUW issue is a 'close tolerance' thing (!) because of our high altitude requirements. Unlike the US and Russian helicopters that are primarily designed for lower altitudes, our operational requirements are far,far more demanding to cater for the Leh-Siachen-Kargil sectors. At those altitudes and at those stated conditions, everything (aerodynamics, engine performance, control margins, handling and stability) tapers off into a point, usually well short of the target for most helicopters.

Looks like the LCH will be optimized for high altitude and fly where others cannot fly. But that would probably explain why the IAF is looking for dedicated attack helos in the plains which will not be used at high altitude. I am guessing that this is where the competition between the Apache and Ka 50 or Mi 28 or whatever will be.

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 22 Aug 2010 09:31

naird wrote:Excellent ...excellent......Thanks Hari Sir...How many prototypes of LCH has HAL developed so far ? Also are we roping in International partners for testing guidance/direction or will it be a sole HAL effort with inputs gained from ALH program? And as rakall pointed out ..any updates on the weight reduction program ?

Sir -- since you are placed in a area what we call "Core of Indian aviation"...please be kind enough to share inputs on other programes such as LCA , ALH , etc ..in the respective threads (whatever information you can/allowed to)... We often are left wondering and fear the worst when no news comes out .....

Thanks once again...waiting for more posts !!!!!

We have at present, one prototype LCH -Technology Demonstrator (TD)-1. Two more TDs are planned. Each TD (as is typical in Flight Testing) has its design objectives. Through the ALH program, we have adequate in-house capability for flight testing the LCH. Also, other project teams, although working under different groups/divisions/agencies (the IJT, LCA, etc) are not exactly in water-tight compartments and when required, obviously do share their know-how. However, integration of specialised systems & weapons requires involvement of their respective reps - nothing unusual about that & its the norm worldwide.

Regarding weight reduction -check out my earlier post!

On the ALH - what are the queries & do we have a thread for it?

re- The LCA, IJT and others- I will try and persuade my Fixed Wing Test Pilot colleagues to log in!

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 22 Aug 2010 09:49

Hari Nair wrote:re- The LCA, IJT and others- I will try and persuade my Fixed Wing Test Pilot colleagues to log in!

Welcome to BRF, sir. And if you can manage the above feat, aapke muh mein ghee shakkar.

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 22 Aug 2010 10:28

shiv wrote:Looks like the LCH will be optimized for high altitude and fly where others cannot fly. But that would probably explain why the IAF is looking for dedicated attack helos in the plains which will not be used at high altitude. I am guessing that this is where the competition between the Apache and Ka 50 or Mi 28 or whatever will be.

Well, Shiv as we had discussed during the inaugural flight ceremony, the LCH has a few low altitude roles also. The Apache & Mi-28 are the big fellas on the block at 9-10 tonnes AUW class, compared to the LCH's 5-6 tonnes. The Mi-28 is heavily armoured-check out pics of its cockpit transparency -even all its cockpit glasses are resistant to 20 mm calibre cannon fire! It also packs a heavy duty 30 mm 2A40 cannon that's a straight lift from the Army's BMP-2 IFV! However, in my opinion, the D-model Apache scores over the Mi-28 mainly due to its hyper-tech Longbow fire control radar and networked systems. Also, the Apache is no delicate helicopter - you would have seen it up close and you know what I mean. And now I guess we are chummy enough with Uncle Sam for all avionics and systems to be given to us.

The Ka-50 (typical of co-axial rotors) has amazingly good high altitude performance, also has that big 2A40 cannon (centre-line mounted without a turret, claiming accuracy up to 3000m range!). However, there is that fly in the ointment - which the Russkis euphemistically call blade 'rendezvous'. Appears to an unwanted feature of Kamov designs. Under certain sharp manoeuvres, the blades of the two contra-rotating main rotors strike each other resulting in a self-goal. I understand they had two fatal crashes during their testing, one of which had a senior officer on-board. Also, their two seat version the Ka-52 has side-by-side seating, instead of the norm of tandem seating.

Finally, I guess there's also an urgent time-line for the IAF to induct replacements to our Mi-35s, which drives the process.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Aug 2010 10:43

Hari sir, a couple of questions about LCH,

> what is the status of the DIRCM project for LCH ? has it been decided which version shall be used ?

> are there any plans for a radar equipped version in the future ?

> will the HeliNa be ready by the time LCH enters service ? if not, is the LCH team looking at any alternate ATGM's ?

> LCH info-boards mention SEAD as part of mission profile. are there any particular ARM envisaged for use on LCH ?

and one oo WSI dhruv,
> could you tell us how far has its testing progressed and when it is expected in service ?

this question is not exactly about the LCH project and I'll understand if you don't want to answer it.
> what is the role envisaged for the currently ongoing attack helicopter competition (the one in which apache etc are participating) in light of the fact that LCH can do most if not all of the functions that can be carried out by those platforms ? is it a stop-gap measure to cater for the gap between the hinds getting long in the tooth and LCH induction or for a separate role altogether ?

thanks in advance.

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 22 Aug 2010 11:02

Rahul M wrote:Hari sir, a couple of questions about LCH,

> what is the status of the DIRCM project for LCH ? has it been decided which version shall be used ?

> are there any plans for a radar equipped version in the future ?

> will the HeliNa be ready by the time LCH enters service ? if not, is the LCH team looking at any alternate ATGM's ?

and one of WSI dhruv,
> how far has its testing progressed and when is it expected in service ?

this question is not exactly about the LCH project and I'll understand if you don't want to answer it.
> what is the role envisaged for the currently ongoing attack helicopter competition (the one in which apache etc are participating) in light of the fact that LCH can do most if not all of the functions that can be carried out by those platforms ? is it a stop-gap measure to cater for the gap between the hinds getting long in the tooth and LCH induction or for a separate role altogether ?

thanks in advance.

I would like to address your last paragraph. There must be some compelling reasons for the selection of heavy weight gunship like Apache over already available LCH. There is a tones of difference between operating way of both Apache and LCH. Apache and its version are highly optimized for getting Pinpoint targetting and positive target identification. Despite Apache's multirole applications of avionics, still some of its avinioncs like Longbow radar which enable it to engage the target from stand off range doesn't allow its Co-Pilot to have positive target identification and for that matter Apache Pilot need to get closer to the target to get visual identification which make it vulnerable for Surface to Air missiles and Anti Aircraft fire.

Designers of LCH avinioncs will need to cope with its biggest hurdle like Positive target identification.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Aug 2010 11:09

bihanga, I think most people here can present the arguments for and against that view quite well.
there is however a difference between speculation (even educated speculation) and actually knowing. hope you got my point.

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 22 Aug 2010 11:24

Rahul M wrote:bihanga, I think most people here can present the arguments for and against that view quite well.
there is however a difference between speculation (even educated speculation) and actually knowing. hope you got my point.

Well, I never done any speculation rather I am putting my words based on well informed sources. If you chose to trust me then I can assure you that there is nothing pointless in my argument. Major issue is always been regarding Positive Target identification and this particuler thing itself determine the performance of attack gunship. My post was in particuler directed towards your comments of LCH fulfilling part of the operating performance as Apache.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Aug 2010 11:55

Hari Nair wrote:
re- The LCA, IJT and others- I will try and persuade my Fixed Wing Test Pilot colleagues to log in!

That would be great - the last time we had someone from that side was BB Misra - before the first flight of the LCA.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Aug 2010 12:29

Mr Nair,

If posting on this forum is not against any regulation. Then please request them to do so. We would love to hear their views.

Regards

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 22 Aug 2010 17:33

Dear sir (Hari Nair),

First of all a very warm welcome. I suggest to forum moderators to elevate your status to BRFite, you certainly are no trainee!
Now, I add to the flash flood of questions you have received:
1. Is the LCH equipped for network-warfare roles just like Apache?
2. What do you think are the major hurdles on our way? Can we meet the deadline?
3. When you say that we should expect an evolution of design, do you mean that LCH design will be further refined in this testing phase or we should expect something like LDC Mk-II.
And at the risk of going OT, how did you hear about BR and what made you join it?

Thanks!

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 22 Aug 2010 18:10

Hari Nair Sir,
When the first model of lch was shown, some people questioned as to why was the sensor pod placed above the nose and not under it like other attack helicopters. They said that this would greatly decrease the fov. Others, on the other hand, counter argued that if the target was so near that it could not be viewed by the sensor pod then it was already too late. What are your views on this?

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 22 Aug 2010 19:56

Raja Bose wrote:
Hari Nair wrote:re- The LCA, IJT and others- I will try and persuade my Fixed Wing Test Pilot colleagues to log in!
Welcome to BRF, sir. And if you can manage the above feat, aapke muh mein ghee shakkar.

Sir,
Why stop with Ghee and Shakar...