Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby shiv » 17 Feb 2014 22:22

If you read stories written by helicopter pilots about the Himalayas, flights can take place only in the mornings and only in good weather in some of the worst areas. So carrying guns when things get hot is not an option. They have to be dismantled and taken up to forward areas and reassembled and moved further from there if necessary. And they need to be in place in peacetime.

Everyone talks of range of artillery being xyz. But what is the range when fired at 5000 meters up? An artillery shell fired at sea level at a 45 degree angle is sure to rise a couple of thousand meters through dense air , slowing down in the process. (too late at night to calculate - maybe tomorrow). That will not happen at high altitude. Ballistics are different for altitude - so it may well be possible to use smaller caliber and lighter artillery over longer ranges. Logistics would be much easier for those, I guess. Now which artillery pieces can be carried and what helos can do that? Any info anyone.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Indranil » 17 Feb 2014 22:27

The jury is out on whether the CH-53K is better than the CH-47 (whose further development beyond the H model may be announced soon).

The CH-47 does not hold a candle to the CH-53 near the sea. CH-53K is primarily designed for the marines and it shows. It has a smaller footprint on deck and there are some who feel CH-53K will be cheaper to maintain (around $10k/flying hour).

But at high altitudes CH-47 is better than the CH-53K owing to its twin-rotor design. Those rotors are more efficient at hot and high conditions. Not having a tail rotor stalls (major cause for many accidents) to worry about is an additional virtue in the hot, high and windy conditions of the Himalayas. Also the entire engine power is being used for generating torque from the rotor. Not having a tail rotor makes the CH-47 less susceptible to ground-fire. A CH-47 would still be flying if one of the engines is lost to ground-fire (when an engine is working alone, it can churn out 140% of max power it generates when working in a pair). However, if the tail rotor of the CH-53K is shot down, it will definitely go down.

Additionally the CH-47 supposedly has a much better EAPS than the CH-53. This makes the CH-47 much more adept to the fine dust conditions of the Afghanistan, which is the same case as in the Indian deserts. This is why the US Army is much more interested in a CH-47 upgrade than the CH-53K.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vivek_ahuja » 17 Feb 2014 22:54

shiv wrote:Everyone talks of range of artillery being xyz. But what is the range when fired at 5000 meters up? An artillery shell fired at sea level at a 45 degree angle is sure to rise a couple of thousand meters through dense air , slowing down in the process. (too late at night to calculate - maybe tomorrow). That will not happen at high altitude. Ballistics are different for altitude - so it may well be possible to use smaller caliber and lighter artillery over longer ranges. Logistics would be much easier for those, I guess. Now which artillery pieces can be carried and what helos can do that? Any info anyone.


I think at some point I had done the analysis for the Pinaka rockets which showed around ~40% increase in range as a result of decreased density-altitudes in the HImalayas. This is, of course, significant. A rocket that travels 40 km will travel about ~56 km in the Himalayas. Perhaps more or less depending on local conditions.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Singha » 17 Feb 2014 22:58

er Indranil, with one rotor out, how is the CH47 going to counteract the torque of the lone rotor with no tail rotor?

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vivek_ahuja » 17 Feb 2014 23:00

vic wrote:Sometime back, vivek made a chart of load carrying capacity of Dhruv, Mi-17 vis a vis altitude. It would seem that above 10,000 feet Chinook does not being much to table vs Mi-17. And above 15,000 feet ALH shines.


I think you mean this one for the Mi-26:

Image

And this one for the Mi-17:

Image

Blog link to originals posts here:
Blog link

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vic » 17 Feb 2014 23:13

Re Vivek, can you pls make similar charts for Mi-416, Ch-47 and ALH, pls? So we can have a more objective discussion?

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby sunilUpa » 17 Feb 2014 23:26

Singha wrote:er Indranil, with one rotor out, how is the CH47 going to counteract the torque of the lone rotor with no tail rotor?

Singha,
Indranil was referring to loss of one engine, not one rotor.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby abhik » 17 Feb 2014 23:52

After the experience in Afghanistan, "Hot and High" performance has made its way into every brochure/PPT. One shouldn't write off the performance of Ch-53K at high altitude vis a vis the Ch-47, after all it has more than twice the power, in fact about as much as the Mi-26.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby ramana » 17 Feb 2014 23:53

Indranil and Vivek_ahuja, Is there any turbofan anywhere that can fit the SU-30MKI?

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vivek_ahuja » 18 Feb 2014 00:50

vic wrote:Re Vivek, can you pls make similar charts for Mi-416, Ch-47 and ALH, pls? So we can have a more objective discussion?


Here you go. Hopefully this should shore up the current discussions with mathematical analysis.

Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Indranil » 18 Feb 2014 00:50

ramana wrote:Indranil and Vivek_ahuja, Is there any turbofan anywhere that can fit the SU-30MKI?

Any specific reason for which you ask?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Indranil » 18 Feb 2014 00:53

vivek_ahuja wrote:
vic wrote:Re Vivek, can you pls make similar charts for Mi-416, Ch-47 and ALH, pls? So we can have a more objective discussion?


Here you go. Hopefully this should shore up the current discussions with mathematical analysis.

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/680x481q90/542/dcx1.png


Wow! I would like to know how you are drawing these graphs. I am pretty sure, there are things I would learn there.

If you would deem it more appropriate, you can mail me at i n d r a n i l r at jimale . kaum

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vivek_ahuja » 18 Feb 2014 01:00

indranilroy wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote:Here you go. Hopefully this should shore up the current discussions with mathematical analysis.


Wow! I would like to know how you are drawing these graphs. I am pretty sure, there are things I would learn there.


Hybrid Momentum Disc models. Look up momentum disc models to see how propeller performance can be modeled. A variation of that model allows for the evaluation of helicopter rotors. Similar model for the tail rotors. Add a numerical iterator for the payload function and voila, you have a model that works for a first order analysis.

The key, however, is the coefficients for the functions which you cannot model accurately. These include fuselage-rotor interference, tail/main rotor interference etc. I evaluated the representative coefficients for these using standard panel method models a few years back.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Indranil » 18 Feb 2014 01:56

Thank you. Rotor dynamics is new to me and something I wanted to learn for a while. Time to shun the laziness I guess :-).

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4752
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby srai » 18 Feb 2014 06:29

vivek_ahuja wrote:
vic wrote:Re Vivek, can you pls make similar charts for Mi-416, Ch-47 and ALH, pls? So we can have a more objective discussion?


Here you go. Hopefully this should shore up the current discussions with mathematical analysis.

Image


ALH carries more payload at 12,000ft than Mi-17!

The other thing to note is the payload consistency of ALH at altitude. There is a gradual decrease when compared to steep drop for other types. Mi-26 is severely impacted by altitude.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 18 Feb 2014 08:09

Worth posting an exercpt from Austin's post .The hard fact that even so-called stealth fighters will have to fight WVR battles was lost on their designers who are now having nightmares.

For the US, Cope India should be a wakeup call. Its overreliance on stealth and long range radar is resulting in a generation of leaden footed and predictable pilots. While this strategy will prevail against puny adversaries such as Iraq and Libya, the equation is entirely different when the opponent is well trained and innovative – like India or Vietnam.

Also, not underestimating the enemy would be good idea too. For instance, while the performances of the IAF’s Mirage-2000 and Su-30 were expected, the MiG-21 Bison came as a nasty surprise to the USAF. The positive attributes of the MiG-21 such as low radar visibility, instantaneous turn rate and “jackrabbit acceleration" were critical factors at Cope India.
пустым не оставлять!!

India celebrates ‘Golden Jubilee’ of MiG-21’s association with the IAF

Plus, its new of helmet mounted sight and high-off-boresight R-73 air-to-air missiles turned the MiG-21 into a “Great Equaliser” in the WVR (within visual range) combat scenario. It also validated the claim of Russian officials that they are capable of converting second generation late-model MiG-21 fighters to Generation 4 combat platforms.

This has serious implications for air forces inducting stealth fighters. At some stage aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 will have to come within visual range and that’s when pocket rockets like the MiG-21 can be deadly. As Ben Lambeth of the Rand Corporation so succinctly put it, “In visual combat everybody dies at the same rate.”

With the benefit of hindsight, it’s good the Americans discovered their shortcomings in peace rather than war. Had the pilots of the 3rd Wing come up against the might of Russian air power during the Cold War, they probably wouldn’t have winged it back to Alaska.
inShare1

Cope India: How the IAF rewrote the rules of air combat
Rakesh Krishnan Simha

The Cope India 2004 air exercise was a landmark in combat aviation, as it highlighted the innovativeness of Indian fighter pilots, the impact of Russian jets and the potentially fatal limitations in USAF pilot training

The Economic Times

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby sattili » 18 Feb 2014 12:17

vivek_ahuja wrote:Here you go. Hopefully this should shore up the current discussions with mathematical analysis.
Image

I am getting ever more curious with this Helicopter payload discussion. I have few questions after seeing this graph and reading through internet, wanted to clarify them with the gurus.

1. As per Vivekji's graph above, Chinook has a theoretical maximum of 12.4tons at 10K feet altitude. However from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26
Afghanistan Chinook recovery
In the spring of 2002, a civilian Mi-26 was leased to recover two U.S. Army MH-47E Chinook helicopters from a mountain in Afghanistan. The Chinooks, operated by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, had been employed in Operation Anaconda, an effort to drive al Qaeda and Taliban fighters out of the Shahi-Kot Valley and surrounding mountains. They ended up stranded on the slopes above Sirkhankel at altitudes of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft) and 3,100 metres (10,200 ft). While the second was too badly damaged to recover, the first was determined to be repairable and estimated to weigh 12,000 kilograms (26,000 lb) with fuel, rotors, and non-essential equipment removed. That weight exceeded the maximum payload of 9,100 kilograms (20,100 lb) at an altitude of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft) of the U.S. military's Sikorsky CH-53E.

This means that in Afghanistan at 8500ft Chinook couldn't lift 12tons and even CH-53E has maximum payload of 9.1tons at that altitude. So what will be operational load that Chinook can lift at 10K ft?

2. As per the press release I posted earlier in this thread, Mi-26 is said to have operated in Siachen Glacier - what that means? did it lift loads to helipads there or it just flew through the valleys like site seeing :)

3. Mi-26 airlifted road rollers and JCBs to DBO which is at 16,500ft. What could be the estimated load of these equipment? 8-10tons or more?

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Austin » 18 Feb 2014 12:39

The newer Mi-17 V5 that IAF has ordered comes with VK2500 engine for improved Hot and High Performance.

I think this would improve the load carrying capability at high altitudes and in deserts

http://klimov.ru/en/production/helicopter/VK-2500/

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby sattili » 18 Feb 2014 14:02

Rahul M wrote:I believe he means the same thing by 'when in mood' i.e when it is available. the Mi-26 was also instrumental in air-lifting a full brigade to jimithang during the 1987 confrontation with PLA. but none of its abilities mask its weaknesses either.

Thanks for the clarification Rahul. I was under the impression that "Serviceability" is the biggest and most crippling weakness of Mi-26. What are the other weaknesses that you are referring to?

I found this CAG report from 2010-11 on IAF helicopter fleet: [url]www.cag.gov.in/html/reports/defence/2010-11_7AFN-PA/chap1.pdf‎[/url]
As per this report serviceability was at 76.59% 2003-04 but fell sharply until 2006-07
In respect of Heavy Lift helicopters, serviceability state showed an initial decreasing trend from 76.59 per cent in
2003-04to 30.03 per cent in 2006-07 which improved to 39.51 per cent in 2007-09.


I also found the following article in "Take-Off" magazine (June2011 edition)http://en.take-off.ru/arhiv/595
CAUSE OF INCIDENT: COUNTERFEIT PARTS
..........
A request to the manufacturer of the KAU-140 (Gidroagregat JSC in Pavlovo, Nizhny Novgorod Region, Russia) revealed
that the serial number on the case of the unit and its technical certificate had been doctored. The entry in the faulty KAU-140’s technical certificate on its delivery to the operator in 2009 indicates that the KAU-140 had been bought by IAF from a former Soviet republic.

What is the contribution of counterfeit parts in the low serviceability of the helicopter?

In fact the CAG report states the entire Mi series helicopters were plagued with the issues (2010-11). How does a western origin helicopter serviceability compares to these Russian birds?

I looked for Indian Navy Sea King helicopters for a comparisons and the chapter II of same CAG report ([url]www.cag.gov.in/html/reports/defence/2010-11_7AFN-PA/chap2.pdf‎[/url]) details IN Airwing. Serviceability of SeaKing helicopters declined year over year and is near 40% in 2007-08 timelines, along with severe spares issue.

Looks like we had bad cases both with Russian and Western helicopters in Indian service. Given that background, will Chinook be able to achieve their legendary >95% serviceability as they did for NATO countries? What will be the fate of these helicopters in case of sanctions? Seakings suffered because of sanctions and Mi series because of breakdown of Soviet union. Which event has more probability to occur again? Russia breaking down or US imposing sanctions again?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 18 Feb 2014 14:10

Tx Satilli for the info. on serviceability of our helos.In fact it would be most interesting to have comparisons with the ALH,even though it is a much smaller bird,just to compare how well our indigenous support is.

The lack of enough heavy road-building machinery is supposed to be the chief reason why our Himalayan infrastructure progress is behind schedule.It's why whatever the need for Chinooks to meet specific requirements,the MI-26 is vital for our heavy-lift tasks.NJR has posted some v.interesting facts about its use in the Indian context,especially in recovering downed aircraft and helos.In fact,possessing all 3 types,Mi-26s,Chinooks and MI-17Vs,apart from the ALH and Allouette variants,would give the IAF superb rotary lift capability,versatile enough to be used in any region and alt.Frankly,in the Indian context,where anything to be acquired has to run the gauntlet of babudom for approval,leading to delays,I doubt whether our serviceability record will be equal to the advertised % touted by the manufacturers .

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby sattili » 18 Feb 2014 16:25

sunilUpa wrote:
Singha wrote:er Indranil, with one rotor out, how is the CH47 going to counteract the torque of the lone rotor with no tail rotor?

Singha,
Indranil was referring to loss of one engine, not one rotor.

But that's apples to oranges comparison isn't it? We should compare CH47 loosing one engine vs CH53E/K loosing one. Btw, CH53E/K have 3 engines.

Or compare CH53E losing tail rotor vs CH47 losing one rotor. There are many instances where Chinook is lost for RPG or ground fire.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Singha » 18 Feb 2014 17:49

CH53K simulaton. nice work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_pAe8Gvua8

it has a long heritage of use by SOCOM as well under pave low designation including in eagle claw and ODS.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Viv S » 18 Feb 2014 19:21

sattili wrote:Looks like we had bad cases both with Russian and Western helicopters in Indian service. Given that background, will Chinook be able to achieve their legendary >95% serviceability as they did for NATO countries? What will be the fate of these helicopters in case of sanctions? Seakings suffered because of sanctions and Mi series because of breakdown of Soviet union. Which event has more probability to occur again? Russia breaking down or US imposing sanctions again?


While in general western aircraft are designed to deliver higher standards of serviceability (compare MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 even pre-1991), the issue here isn't West vs Russia. Its about the aircraft in question.

How many Chinooks are flying today and of those how many are new built? How many Mi-26s are flying today and how many are new builds? How many recent orders has the Chinook garnered? How many customers, aside from Russia, have lined up to buy the Mi-26T? For that matter, how many new units has Russia committed to acquiring? The answers to that say everything one wants to know about the serviceability and after-sales support for both aircraft.

And rather than the unlikely scenarios of sanctions or a collapsing Russia, a more pertinent factor is the willingness in Russia to respect the terms of a signed legal contract.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby sattili » 18 Feb 2014 19:57

Viv S wrote:While in general western aircraft are designed to deliver higher standards of serviceability (compare MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 even pre-1991), the issue here isn't West vs Russia. Its about the aircraft in question.

How many Chinooks are flying today and of those how many are new built? How many Mi-26s are flying today and how many are new builds? How many recent orders has the Chinook garnered? How many customers, aside from Russia, have lined up to buy the Mi-26T? For that matter, how many new units has Russia committed to acquiring? The answers to that say everything one wants to know about the serviceability and after-sales support for both aircraft.

And rather than the unlikely scenarios of sanctions or a collapsing Russia, a more pertinent factor is the willingness in Russia to respect the terms of a signed legal contract.

Good points, why don't you put that data in this thread and educate us?

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vivek_ahuja » 18 Feb 2014 21:06

sattili wrote:1. As per Vivekji's graph above, Chinook has a theoretical maximum of 12.4tons at 10K feet altitude. However from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26
Afghanistan Chinook recovery ...

This means that in Afghanistan at 8500ft Chinook couldn't lift 12tons and even CH-53E has maximum payload of 9.1tons at that altitude. So what will be operational load that Chinook can lift at 10K ft?


I think I have clarified this before, but let me state it for the record:

These charts are for hover out of ground effect (Hover OGE) with 0 m/sec rate of climb for 0 fuel and crew mass. What this means is that the charts are designed to compare apples to apples. Sattli's quote allows me to explain how these numbers work.

Essentially, for all practical conditions, no helicopter will fly with 0 fuel and crew. So you can subtract the 1000+ Kgs of fuel and crew at a bare minimum for something like a CH-47. Obviously, for smaller birds like the ALH, the number is smaller, but you get the idea.

Then there is the idea that no practical helicopter mission is designed around hover only. In reality, the pilot has to have some power available for a rate of climb out of the LZ. There are two types of standard climb rates (ROC):

a) Service ceiling ROC: 0.5 m/sec (used for record and performance calibrations)
b) Combat ceiling ROC: 2.5 m/sec for transports and 8 m/sec for combat helicopters

If you assume that inside Afghanistan, the CH-47 pilots would like to have the maximum possible ROC for evac from a possible hot LZ, the amount of payload comes down substantially to account for the energy requirements. But for the sake of argument, consider the example quoted above for a CH-47 stuck at 8,500 feet ASL. Even if the pilot was okay with a 2.5m/sec ROC, what power does he need? On evaluation, you get:

Image

So at ~8500 ft, the CH-47 cannot lift more than ~11,500 Kg without counting for fuel, crew or other mass. So this fits into the explanation given in the article.

The bottom line is that the trends seen in these plots remain the same regardless of the common ROC applied. So that is what needs to be taken away from them.

2. As per the press release I posted earlier in this thread, Mi-26 is said to have operated in Siachen Glacier - what that means? did it lift loads to helipads there or it just flew through the valleys like site seeing :)


Maybe it lifted a few tons of cargo, which it can do even at those altitudes.

3. Mi-26 airlifted road rollers and JCBs to DBO which is at 16,500ft. What could be the estimated load of these equipment? 8-10tons or more?


Also note that the Mi-26 does what is called a rolling dust-off, akin to a fixed wing aircraft, over a distance of few hundred meters. Under these conditions it can lift off considerably larger payload.

-Vivek
Last edited by vivek_ahuja on 18 Feb 2014 22:13, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Singha » 18 Feb 2014 21:20

other than being a costly wheat fed munna, does the V22 osprey have superior hi-alt capability than chinook types?

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vivek_ahuja » 18 Feb 2014 21:48

Singha wrote:other than being a costly wheat fed munna, does the V22 osprey have superior hi-alt capability than chinook types?


Nope. The V-22 in hover is especially poor at high altitude performance compared with the Chinook. It's only selling point is the conversion to fixed wing aircraft during forward flight which gives it the response speeds needed for spec-ops stuff. But while the Chinook is hauling cargo up to ~3 tonnes at 20,000 feet in hover (not counting fuel+crew), the V-22 can barely sustain itself in hover at 0 payload.

As far as my poor soul is concerned, the V-22 is a munna designed and catering to amrikhan needs onlee. Once they exit the Hindu Kush, their high-altitude limitations are no longer necessary for them. For us, we need something like the Chinook in large quantities, no matter how slow their forward speed is.

-Vivek

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby sattili » 18 Feb 2014 22:11

Thanks Vivekji for explaining, very interesting information. And sorry for making you repeat the stuff.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Indranil » 18 Feb 2014 22:17

Vivek sir,

There are two points here.
1. From the USMC report. The OGE hover with zero power margin of CH-47K at 10,000 feet, 75F is 36,768 lbs. The empty weight is 25,425 lbs. So the point on your graph should be at 5145 kgs.
2. Actually lot more should be subtracted than 1000 kgs of fuel + pilot-co-pilot weight. For example in USMC's case. The basic weight with 0 usable fuel comes to 28,397 lbs. Add pilots, personnel, flares, chaffs, straps, tool kit etc.etc, it comes to over 30,000 lbs. The same is true with the CH-53K about a 5000lbs difference between empty weight and operating weight (0 usable fuel). So I would take off at least 2000 kgs off payloads for these heavy weights even before I start adding usable fuel.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Indranil » 18 Feb 2014 22:21

sattili wrote:
sunilUpa wrote:Indranil was referring to loss of one engine, not one rotor.

But that's apples to oranges comparison isn't it? We should compare CH47 loosing one engine vs CH53E/K loosing one. Btw, CH53E/K have 3 engines.

Or compare CH53E losing tail rotor vs CH47 losing one rotor. There are many instances where Chinook is lost for RPG or ground fire.

It is a somewhat apples to oranges comparison. But what I meant was suppose you had a hit at the back of the helicopter. With the CH-47 there is chance that you would still have at least one engine working which can fly you away to safety. In the Ch-53, if the shot takes out the rear rotor, it is time for you to remember your family one last time.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vivek_ahuja » 18 Feb 2014 22:36

indranilroy wrote:1. From the USMC report. The OGE hover with zero power margin of CH-47K at 10,000 feet, 75F is 36,768 lbs. The empty weight is 25,425 lbs. So the point on your graph should be at 5145 kgs.


Indranilroy,

As always, the devil is in the details. Consider the temperature given for the above USMC CH-47 data point: 75F at 10,000 ft. This is higher than the standard atmosphere model used for the Himalayas during winter, which is 23F at 10,000 ft.

At 75F, the reduction in density compared with the standard model is about -10%.

The corresponding performance decrement for the CH-47 performance using the model I used goes from 10,815 kg to 7815 kg. And this assumes a loaded weight of 10,185 kg. If we use the loaded weight of the USMC model (which is 12,449 kg), we get a net payload of 5,550 Kg! :)

Ta da! 8)

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Lalmohan » 18 Feb 2014 22:40

the chinook has rear rotor going the other way to the front rotor i think, in which case losing it would not help
however if the drive train is common then one engine going out is survivable

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Indranil » 19 Feb 2014 00:42

vivek_ahuja wrote:Ta da! 8)

Actually, I am happier than you to find this. This means 2 things:
1. I know what you are asking me to read will be really worth my time.
2. On a cold morning the Chinooks would probably lift the M777s to 10,000 feet to the glee of many here :-). Mr. Sengupta of enormous fame claims that during the field tests it was the Mi-26s didn't have the harness and certifications to fly with the M-777 underslung and therefore the IAF (rightfully) did not risk it (I don't why it couldn't be carried internally though). May be the Chinooks will.

Lalmohan wrote:the chinook has rear rotor going the other way to the front rotor i think, in which case losing it would not help
however if the drive train is common then one engine going out is survivable

Both the engines can individually drive both the rotors. But yes, if you lose any one of the rotors, you can start counting your 72 lal-chicks.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 19 Feb 2014 10:08

Babudom/DRDO trying to scuttle independent IAF R&D centre.The services are trying to cast off their dependence upon the DPSUs because of their patchy and at times awful performance in supplying the armed forces with their mil. requirements.With the cost of imports becoming prohibitive thanks to the great economics of "ManMohanomics",which has beggared the country and devalued the rupee by almost 30%,the dawning that unless indigenisation is pursued relentlessly,we are up the creek without a paddle and heading for Jog falls.Using in-house capabilities to ease the burden of the DRDO is well meaning but being resented by it,because it thus far,the DRDO has treated the services as "captives" who have to swallow whatever is put on their plate.

While the IN cleverly a few decades ago silently "slipped its moorings" so to speak ,and has its own in-house design team,the IAF under the last chief,ACM Browne,stood firm on the issue of the basic trainer and proposed that the base repair depots could be used to build aircraft,etc.This has alarmed the DPSU dinosaurs who want to control everything and perform to their own standards without any accountability.The recent statement in the house by AKA about the many years of delay of some key projects speaks for itself.This debate is going to continue esp. as the IAF have many bones tp pick with HAL/DRDO.


IAF Think-Tank for Separate R and D Cadre; Not a Good Idea: DRDO
By Anantha Krishnan M - BANGALORE
Published: 19th February 2014

A top Indian Air Force (IAF) think-tank on Monday mooted a thought-provoking idea of setting up an independent cadre to undertake research and development (R&D) in critical technology areas. Air Marshal M Matheswaran, Deputy Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff (Policy, Planning and Development), batted for a combined R&D cadre of IAF, Army and Navy to tide over the delays, especially in electronic warfare (EW). His remarks come in the backdrop of an earlier IAF view of taking up the aircraft manufacturing at its own base repair depots. However, the DRDO has expressed its reservations.

Known for his firm views on contemporary military matters, Mathewswaran told Express that the Indian government should create a Scientific Advisory Board consisting of scientists, technocrats and armed forces personnel. "The DRDO has done its bit and its time for Indian private sector to call the shots. We cannot just depend on DRDO alone any more. We need new ideas to improve the eco system in India," he said
.

Taking a cue from the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) in the United States, Matheswaran said that India could put the development of gen-next EW projects under this new cadre. "In the US, all major concepts emulate from the AFRL and they have dedicated senior officers working on multiple programmes. In India, we focus only on operational preparedness and very little thought is going on the technology upgradation and product support. The user must question the strengths of the industry. The MoU and JV path has taken long time to materialise and the Services need EW systems as of yesterday," Matheswaran said.

He said the private industry needs to be integrated with the defence sector, bailing them out of the barriers surrounding them. "These barriers are created by our own agencies and the private industries should look beyond India and its armed forces. The idea is to join the global supply chain and compete with the market might," the IAF top official said. He said it's high time India took advantage of the IT sector and brought them to the defence sector.

Reacting to Matheswaran's thoughts, former IAF boss Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Fali Homi Major said that it's time that all high-end critical technologies are developed adopting the embedded philosophy. "The IAF has a huge bank of serving and retired officers with hands-on experience in dealing with EW systems. Creation of a separate corps for dedicated research is a great idea and I strongly feel that IAF brains should be part of some of the R&D labs running sensitive projects. The user should be the captain while developing all critical systems and our men should be embedded with the DRDO projects," Major said. He said Indian defence need to adopt out-of-the-box-ideas to outsmart the tech denials looming over many critical areas.

Speaking to Express from Delhi, K Tamil Mani, Director General Aeronautical Systems, DRDO, opposed the idea of having independent agencies taking up research in critical areas. "The thought process should be to synergise our strengths and not to channel them in different directions. Independent R&D might not take India forward. Instead, the DRDO labs, users and the industries should come together. EW systems cannot be outsourced and we need to develop them within the country itself," he said. When asked whether he was rejecting the idea of a new R&D carde in India, as suggested by Matheswaran, the DRDO DG said: "I don't deny the requirements of the IAF. But joining hands is always a better idea, than going alone."


merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby merlin » 19 Feb 2014 12:09

The services wanting an indigenous cadre for doing R&D work is unnecessary duplication of effort. If they insist, GoI should let them do that out of their own funds and not sanction additional funds to do so.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby sattili » 19 Feb 2014 12:24

http://helihub.com/2010/01/18/indian-air-force-attain-target-with-all-four-mi-26s-flying-together/
Indian Air Force attain target with all four Mi-26s flying together
18 Jan, 10
After more than a decade Mi-26, the largest helicopter in the world, possessed by IAF and being operated from this Chandigarh base have attained 100 cent serviceability and flown all together for more than 45 min

Looks like Mi-26 did have some bright days too :D

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Rahul M » 19 Feb 2014 12:29

@merlin, I disagree, a technical cadre with a certain number earmarked for R&D is very much required. it is a lack of such opportunities that led to us losing people like Cmdr Paulraj to academia.
however, barring exceptions these R&D efforts should be in the job of guiding lines of research rather than doing everything by themselves.

navy's DND is a classic example, it does the basic overall design of ships and leaves the detailed design to the shipyards. indeed, shipyards and DRDO's naval labs contain significant number of IN people. other arms would do well to follow its example.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby sattili » 19 Feb 2014 12:44

Viv S wrote:And rather than the unlikely scenarios of sanctions or a collapsing Russia, a more pertinent factor is the willingness in Russia to respect the terms of a signed legal contract.

So this is how Boeing honored the terms of a signed legal contract
http://helihub.com/2013/10/14/boeing-charges-us-army-for-new-helicopter-parts-but-uses-old-ones/
Boeing charges US Army for new helicopter parts but uses old ones
14 Oct, 13
"Boeing significantly overstated estimates" of new components needed for CH-47F helicopters and "primarily installed used parts instead" under a $4.4-billion contract awarded in 2008, according to the report, labeled "For Official Use Only" and obtained by Bloomberg News.


Shows the exemplary way of honoring contracts :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby merlin » 19 Feb 2014 14:12

Rahul M wrote:@merlin, I disagree, a technical cadre with a certain number earmarked for R&D is very much required. it is a lack of such opportunities that led to us losing people like Cmdr Paulraj to academia.
however, barring exceptions these R&D efforts should be in the job of guiding lines of research rather than doing everything by themselves.

navy's DND is a classic example, it does the basic overall design of ships and leaves the detailed design to the shipyards. indeed, shipyards and DRDO's naval labs contain significant number of IN people. other arms would do well to follow its example.


I think they want to do everything R&D on their own eventually and not be dependent on DRDO in the long run for *anything*. At least that's what I read from Matheswaran's comments. Fali Major's comments are what you say - embed them in DRDO projects which is what is actually needed and what you are referring to above with your guiding research comments.

I'm not familiar with Cmdr Paulraj's case but he could have joined DRDO instead of opting for academia right?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests