Indian Military Helicopters

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jun 2020 05:18

basant or anyone,

Is the NUH a frontline weapon system?
What tactical or strategic role it will have?
Total cost of the procurement?

basant · Post by **basant** » 18 Jun 2020 08:56

ramana wrote:basant or anyone,

Is the NUH a frontline weapon system?
What tactical or strategic role it will have?
Total cost of the procurement?

NUH replaces Chetak, hence should have at least the those capabilities. The latter was modified to have limited combat capabilities when it was converted into Medium-range Antisubmarine Torpedo Carrying Helicopter (MATCH).

Source: Cdr KP Sanjeev Kumar

For the navy, the Chetaks provided a light deck-borne solution for many roles, stretching from basic training to urgent attack with torpedoes and depth charges.

HAL offered for its NUH combat capabilities too.

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has offered 111 Advanced Light Helicopters (ALH), the “Dhruv” for $3 billion (INR 21,738 Crore) to the Indian Navy’s Naval Utility Helicopter (NUH) procurement plan.

“The Company’s NUH is an Advanced Light Helicopter `Dhruv’ with customisation designed to meet all the operational requirements of India,” a top officer told Financial Express Online Thursday.

“The flying machine can be fitted with torpedoes, Depth Charges & Missiles, Self Protection System (SPS) & Flight Crew Data (FCD). Besides having Software-defined radio (SDR), Data Link & SATCOM, these helicopters will have the main rotor blade folding and tail boom folding to enable stowage in Navy’s ship hangars,” he added.

Rs 21,738-crore is the cost of 111 helicopters.

A video recently declassified video from elsewhere

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 18 Jun 2020 10:08

The costing of 21000Cr is for entire 111NUH under SP model.
The basic requirement of NUH is SAR/utility with secondary anti submarine attack capability with ability to carry torpedoes/depth charges guided by other platforms. it will carry no dunking sonar/ sounboys for self submarine detection capability and no maritime radar but a wheather radar with secondary surface detection ability.
For Dhruv NUH the cost will be far less than $30m/NUH for naval Panther.
For example the IA order for 6 ALH for replacement of crashed helicopter is Rs270 Cr i.e $6m/ unit which is half the price of imported solution.
Therefore there is pain in the stomach of import dalals as they known that if Dhruv is allowed in NUH it will beat others just like in CG tender. Therefore the vicious propaganda against Dhruv.

I am ok if we want to have a fleet of 150 Rafales at double the price of Tejas but for NUH, as there is no money for such grand imports.

I feel ithe 111 NUH is inflated from original 56 nos to bring down the per unit cost of NUH under SP model. The actual requirement is far less and SP model will prove very expensive and from HAL chairman it seems IN is not on board for N IMRH.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jun 2020 11:05

basant and sankum Great inputs as usual.

Helps clarify decision process.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 19 Jun 2020 01:03

https://www.verticalmag.com/news/hal-ch ... -programs/

Summary of info given by HAL MD on HAL helicopter taken from below interview with LiveFist is in this article.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 19 Jun 2020 04:06

agupta wrote:
srai wrote: It’s obvious the IN is looking for a “foreign OEM”.

If only the IN, HAL, DRDO, GoI and private sector were able to work together over the last 15+ years, this import wouldn’t have been necessary. IMO
Umm...its not a RFP - at least when I clicked the title said R F I (INFORMATION) - as does the document title. Can't really tell if Basant-ji pulled a sly Roscharch test on BRF to see what our responses will be or if it was just a slip-type

This "controversy" is very weird... you have the CTP saying that the SQRs (no visibility on that) are being written to keep an ALH variant out... and the HAL CMD is on record saying "we can meet ALL the requirements". So if HAL now feels comfortable that it can meet the 5T limit with the maturity it has gained on the AF/IA variants leading up to Mk3, then all power to its weight reduction efforts; what seem to be unclear if the previously talked about powertrain requirements for the Navy version vs IA/IAF will be handled with redesign or simple retune.

I don’t think I’ve heard anyone from HAL talk about weight reduction. Rather the HAL TP has rightly pointed out that this NSQR seems to have been formed to keep the ALH out.

I fail to see the justification for a 5t AUW hard limit, what does the ALH’s extra 750KG actually hinder? Answer doesn’t seem to be anything.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 19 Jun 2020 04:15

sankum wrote:The costing of 21000Cr is for entire 111NUH under SP model.
The basic requirement of NUH is SAR/utility with secondary anti submarine attack capability with ability to carry torpedoes/depth charges guided by other platforms. it will carry no dunking sonar/ sounboys for self submarine detection capability and no maritime radar but a wheather radar with secondary surface detection ability.
For Dhruv NUH the cost will be far less than $30m/NUH for naval Panther.
For example the IA order for 6 ALH for replacement of crashed helicopter is Rs270 Cr i.e $6m/ unit which is half the price of imported solution.
Therefore there is pain in the stomach of import dalals as they known that if Dhruv is allowed in NUH it will beat others just like in CG tender. Therefore the vicious propaganda against Dhruv.

I am ok if we want to have a fleet of 150 Rafales at double the price of Tejas but for NUH, as there is no money for such grand imports.

I feel ithe 111 NUH is inflated from original 56 nos to bring down the per unit cost of NUH under SP model. The actual requirement is far less and SP model will prove very expensive and from HAL chairman it seems IN is not on board for N IMRH.

Great points! No idea where the 111 NUH number came from, 60-80 one could understand but 111, double what the navy operates as far as Chetaks?

The navy has to cut (much needed) P8Is numbers by 40% but this circus continues? Fact is it’s still at RFI stage, when it gets even close to down selects reality will start to set in but by then the navy will be 3-4 years down the line from now and guess what they’ll use not giving HAL development funding today against them and say they have no choice but to continue with, what by then, they’ll label an “emergency requirement”.

We’ve seen this script how many times by now?

This is probably the best argument for privatising HAL- not becuase of their technical shortcomings but becuase as it stands they are FAR too wedded to the state. They need more autonomy. Hopefully HAL takes the sensible decision to self-fund the needed developments (segmented blade folding and possibly tail folding)- they did this with HTT-40 and LCH (commencing LSP production) and demonstrate it in 18 months.

This NUH is the biggest disgrace running next to the P75(I) debacle. The navy seems to keep writing cheques that the taxpayer can’t honour.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 19 Jun 2020 07:35

I am all for privatization of not only HAL but all PSU and all servicess of Central,State and Municipalities.
Cut the government employees strength from 1.75 Cr to 50 lakh of which 40 lakh will army and
police
Ruthlessly cut armed forces non combat strength and privatize as many services that can be and spend the money on capital requirement.

In a typical government organisations 10 % of staff will be very hardworking, 40% will work say 50% and rest 50 % will not work at all. Overall performance is only one third.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 19 Jun 2020 07:53

The initial requirement was 56 + 28 options for NUH.
In Shukla 2008 article IN cancelled Dhruv saying we will buy 3T NUH to replace Chetak and 10T NMRH for ASW role.
Thus no work on R&.D to develop naval Dhruv for more than decade.
Now NUH weight goes upto 4.5T to get costly naval Panther requirement goes upto 111nos.
I can agree that the required number can required over 25-30 years but immediate is 60 nos which can fulfilled by Naval Dhruv in 2.5 years @ 24/year.
The R&D for LUH, HTT40,NUH and other Projects are delayed by red tape so that imports can be made
Thus no support for N IMRH.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 19 Jun 2020 08:54

Agupta, Now I am giving the maths how I arrived at the figure 60 nos.
The original NUH requirement is 56+28 options = 84nos over a period of 12years @ 8/year .
Now IN under duress buys 16 Dhruv + 8 Chetaks as there SP model is not going anywhere and we have lack of helos.
Subtract this 24 nos from original 84 to get a figure of 60.
Some people are quoting a figure of 40 nos only as immediate requirement.
What I say the NUH saga is outright .........

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Jun 2020 09:51

^^^
Arguing over some minor semantics.

srin · Post by **srin** » 19 Jun 2020 10:19

Interestingly, HAL has three potential NUH candidates
- Dhruv, twin engine but needs segmented blade and manual folding (assuming AUW limit will be relaxed)
- LUH, has segmented blade, is within AUW limits but single engine.
- Ka226t, twin-engine and within AUW limits but stillborn and remaining so for foreseeable future, and I don't know how navalized it is, blade folding etc. Best to ignore.

In hindsight, and it's probably too late now, I wish we had a twin-engined variant of LUH for the Navy. Sacrificing the engine commonality with Dhruv (ie, no Shakti) and using something that's around half the power (similar to the Arrius engine of ka-226).

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Jun 2020 10:57

^^^
If you want to learn and grow, then you have to fail along the way.

HAL didn’t get to this naval full “mock-up” model by doing nothing all these years. They have been applying lessons learnt and tinkering with their designs.

basant · Post by **basant** » 19 Jun 2020 12:04

agupta wrote: Umm...its not a RFP - at least when I clicked the title said R F I (INFORMATION) - as does the document title. Can't really tell if Basant-ji pulled a sly Roscharch test on BRF to see what our responses will be or if it was just a slip-type

No ji please. I did see RFI but was distracted while posting. My mistake. Thanks for correction.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Jun 2020 20:56

Agupta sir,

Ofcourse sir, one can't have an aircraft optimized for both sides of the spectrum. Apaches are not optimized for hot and high. But they are at Leh, aren't they. Their payload is lower than LCH at Galwan. So should we have got the Apaches?

ALH is not optimized for sea level. But can it get the job done. I have read the RFI. It more than meets all the requirements. It can carry 12 instead of 4 personnel. It has much more payload. Ofcourse it will burn more fuel and weigh more.

As for maturity of the blade folding, it has been test flown for over 600 hours on the LUH. From sea level to over 20,000 feet. FRom -15 to +50C. Passed all IAF and IA qualifications. So ...

By the way, Kaypius is the last IN Dhruv TP. And he doesn't make any qualms about its capabilities or applicability. His only qualm is blade folding. I will wait for IN's evaluation of the new system.

basant · Post by **basant** » 19 Jun 2020 23:30

ramana wrote:basant or anyone,

Is the NUH a frontline weapon system?
What tactical or strategic role it will have?
Total cost of the procurement?

Ramana garu, sorry for a delayed response. If you see the RFI (pg. 8-9), it states:

2. Green Configuration. NUH in Green configuration would mean a helicopter with following equipment:-

(a) Radar

(b) Instrument Landing System (ILS), VHF Omni Directional Radio Range (VOR), Distance Measuring Instrument (DME), Radio Magnetic Indicator (RMI) and Radio/ Radar Altimeter (RADALT).

(c) Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponder, Automatic Identification System (AIS) receiver, Communication Sets (two VHF & UHF combined sets and one HF).

(d) Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorder, deployable Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT).

(e) Direction Finder, Rescue Hoist, Emergency Floatation Gear.

(f) Cockpit with Night Vision Goggle (NVG) compatible lighting.

(g) Standard equipment for flying in IFR conditions Class ‘D’ with a crew of two pilots and one Aircrewmen Diver.

3. Version.

...

(b) Fully Configured Version. The helicopter in the Fully Configured Version should be capable of undertaking the following missions during day and night (one mission at a time, by configuration of respective role equipment):-

(i) Search and Rescue.

(ii) Casualty Evacuation.

(iii) Communication Duties (Passenger/Cargo Role).

(iv) Anti-Piracy and Anti-terrorism missions {including capability to deploy Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS), Countermeasure Dispensing System (CMDS)}.

(v) Sub Surface Targeting.

Also read pg. 20 regarding other details sought, such as deploying torpedos, Radar performance, etc. HAL offered ability to fire missiles as well.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jun 2020 00:33

No sir, let's debate this. I have been debating it with existing TPs and ex TPs and I feel fairly comfortable sharing this.

First, why does it NOT matter that we have too big of a helicopter. Let's look at size. Weight is not the problem. The deck is qualified for higher weight, and so is the traverse systems. The biggest problem is the folded dimensions. ALH has two blade folding proposals. One is what you see on the mockup. The blade pointing forward disallows it because ALH doesn't fit in lengthwise into the hangars. Therefore they came up with the boom folding similar to the Sea Kings. Now it will completely fit inside the hangar. Additionally, unlike the Sea Kings, the boom folds down. This would allow Naval Dhruv to comfortably meet the height requirement. One advantage of this system is that only two of the 4 blades have to be folded. By the way, odd as it may seem. The folded blades pointing backward and forward are not uncommon. In fact, one of the imported contenders have similar folding scheme.

The folding scheme on the LUH is comepletely different from the one shown in the mockup. It looks like this

It has been flight tested, qualified and shown to Navy. One can fold the rotors in 6 minutes. 10 minutes is the time specified by the Navy. On ALH it will look like this

In this configuration, one does not need to fold the tail boom to meet the space criterion. This will save on weight.

Question is how much time would it take to prove on the Dhruv. Not much, according to everybody I know. And this includes naval helicopter TPs (including Kaypius). Basically LUH and Dhruv have the same rotor system. At the same time, Dhruv's line is humming at full speed. It is producing Dhruvs ahead of schedule. In fact, IA and IAF cannot accept them fast enough. A Dhruv based NUH will deliver the last helicopter ahead of any private company which has to set shop, stabilized the line and then produce!

Next is but doesn't a bigger helicopter use more fuel. Yes it does. But how much more: say 25% more. It's much lesser, but let's still say 25% more. What fraction of the cost of keeping a ship at sea for 3 months is the price of that extra fuel?

We have been finding excuses to keep the import gravy train learning. Let's stop those excuses. I agree with creating a competitor to HAL in the private sector. But I don't want another screwdriver turner. Create design capability and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you in support.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 20 Jun 2020 01:04

CG is happy with present two blade folding mechanism of naval Dhruv and have modified their ship hangers for present folded dimensions of 16m by 3.5m by 5.1m.
Futher the old dozen naval Dhruv main rotor folding were to be modified to new two blade main rotor folding according to news reports.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 20 Jun 2020 01:12

Futher I don't think IN will opt for tail boom folding if segmented main rotor folding is developed. They will keep it simple and okay with 13.5m by 3.5m by 5.1m.
Tail boom folding limits the service life of helicopter. It will be an option if customer needs it.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 20 Jun 2020 06:49

IN ships are designed to carry 10T ASW Helicopter with 5 hour enfurance. Carrying 5.75T ASW Naval Dhruv with 3 hour endurance will be more fuel efficient but with less range / endurance.
NUH is only for ASW attack with torpedoes/ depth charges guided by mother ship or other ASW helo with dunking sonar.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 20 Jun 2020 07:12

With the advent of USV with ASW capability the need for Ship based NUH with ASW attack ability is not required. Thus P17A class frigates will carry single 10 T class ASW helicopter.

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Jun 2020 08:08

Naval Dhruv weapon trials over the years:

Depth charge

Torpedo

Dunking Sonar

Flotation

Plus, a cabin mounted machine gun for Coast Guard.

Weapons from IA/IAF Rudra variant like the rocket pods

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 20 Jun 2020 08:16

The above version carries 360° maritime radar while the 16 present version on order will carry nose mounted 180° maritime radar.

basant · Post by **basant** » 20 Jun 2020 09:21

Indranil wrote:...
It can carry 12 instead of 4 personnel. It has much more payload. Ofcourse it will burn more fuel and weigh more.
...

If I may correct, RFI asks for 6 personnel (pg. 17). Payload of ALH is about 1t higher! So what I am wondering is, as in the case of N-LCA (NP-2 vs NP-1), why can't the additional space be used for storing fuel?

BTW, I think RFI asks for range and endurance values and does not specify it.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 20 Jun 2020 11:03

ALH has ability to carry auxillary fuel tank in the cabin to extend range. The Rudra carries it for 4 hour 20 minutes endurance. You will have to increase if there is operational requirement.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jun 2020 11:56

Basant, endurance is not a problem.

Agupta sir,
1. The rotors are not the same. The deign concept is the same: composite four-blade hinge-less Fibre Elastomer Lager (FEL) main rotor with a composite hub and titanium centre-piece.

2. The two-segment clade folding design is not new, but the team had finite resources. Their focus was to overcome enormous challenges that they faced in Mk1 and Mk2. Design only stabilized in Mk3. But now that it has stabilized, they can turn their focus to IN's requirements.

3. Not all public sector entities are inefficient and not all private sector elements are efficient. I am not a fan of many parts of HAL. But their rotary wing division is really good now. They can go from sanction to first flight in 3 years and qualification in 6 more years. That is pretty much the global standard. LUH and LCH have come up in the last decade. The rotary UAV is 2 years away. And given the sanction, I can guarantee you that they can get IMRH in the air in 3-5 years. They have produced more than 300 helis in the last decade. None of these are numbers of an inefficient unit.

basant · Post by **basant** » 20 Jun 2020 13:09

sankum wrote:ALH has ability to carry auxillary fuel tank in the cabin to extend range. The Rudra carries it for 4 hour 20 minutes endurance. You will have to increase if there is operational requirement.

Thank you, sir. Was confused with IR's 20% discussion. Read it again and it's clear now.

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Jun 2020 08:11

HAL OFFERS NEW SOLUTION FOR NAVAL ALH BLADE FOLDING
KP Sanjeev Kumar (kaypius)
May 28, 2020

Some details on proposed 2-segment 4-blade folding on ALH

KiranC · Post by **KiranC** » 21 Jun 2020 10:34

3. Not all public sector entities are inefficient and not all private sector elements are efficient. I am not a fan of many parts of HAL. But their rotary wing division is really good now. They can go from sanction to first flight in 3 years and qualification in 6 more years. That is pretty much the global standard. LUH and LCH have come up in the last decade. The rotary UAV is 2 years away. And given the sanction, I can guarantee you that they can get IMRH in the air in 3-5 years. They have produced more than 300 helis in the last decade. None of these are numbers of an inefficient unit.[/quote]

Dear Indranil sir, good day to you.
Could you kindly share a bit more on the rotary UAV you mentioned in your post?
Would you be referring to the NRUAV Chetan/Chetak conversion project, which I believe HAL, lately, was looking for new technology partners after Malat backed out or would it be the smaller 200 kg AUW RUAV displayed in the last expo. Thanks.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 21 Jun 2020 14:57

Indranil wrote:Question is how much time would it take to prove on the Dhruv. Not much, according to everybody I know.

IR, the issue here is that there are 25 Dhruvs in service/on order. 2 Mk1, 6 Mk2, 1 Maldives Mk3 all delivered and 16 Mk3 on order. 4 Coast Guard delivered and 16 Coast Guard on order. This adds to 45 Dhruv helicopter orders.

Operationally the Dhruv fleet is third largest in number after Chetak (93) matching Seaking (47) exceeding Kamovs (38)

45 is nearly half of the projected NUH numbers.

Segmented blades have been flying with Chetak since 1959 (61 years) and isn't exactly earth shattering, despite Dhruv using a much modern rotor hub and blades.

The reason the Naval fraternity is cheesed off is because despite 45 orders HAL never proactively tried to find a working solution. HAL had 159 + 41 Dhruv orders from IAF and IA and didnt show interest in meeting the Naval requirements. The 2017 IN & ICG orders are too far advanced for any changes at this point of time. IN also ordered 8 additional Chetaks that are being delivered.

Now with HAL order books empty they are aggressively trying to get into a requirement that they were disinterested in providing a working technical solution for in the earlier variants. As per the information I have, the 2017 32 orders are too far advanced to be modified.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 21 Jun 2020 16:40

12+12 naval Dhruv wil be delivered to IN and CG this FY 2020-21.
Rest 4+4 next year.
Current holding of IN.
17 Seaking B+ 12 Seaking C =29
10 Kamov 28+ 14 Kamov 31= 24 + 6 Kamv 31 on order.
50 Chetak +8 on order
8 Dhruv+ 16 on order
24 MH60R on order

Total=111 helos+ 54 on order

My data shows far lower helos than yours. Rajya Sabha TV gave the total Holding as 90 Helos

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Jun 2020 17:37

^^^
Good compilation.

MH60R will replace Seaking B ASW. Net gain of 7 units.

Another 12 MH60R could replace the remaining ASW fleet of Kamov-28.

Looks like that would be plenty enough of ASW helos (36 Romeos primary with 100+ NUH secondary) for another 15-years based on current surface fleet, including ones under construction.
10 x DDG P15 series
10 x FFG P17 series
10 x FFG Krivak series
4 x Corvettes P28 series (+6 potential)

Indian MRH has time to be R&D with a target service entry of 2035.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 21 Jun 2020 17:52

10 ASW Kamov 28 are being upgraded with new sensors engines to serve for another 15-20 years even after being 30 years old . Will serve on INS Vikramaditya.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 21 Jun 2020 18:38

The 16 Dhruv will be ASW verson with dunking sonar and NUH is not for that role as it does not cary sonar.
By 2024 50 ASW Helos will be there.

24 MH60R+ 16 ASW Dhruvs+ 10 Kamov 28= 50.

The ASW requirement
2 carrier 10 ASW+ 8 AEW Ka 31
10 x DDG P15 = 10 ASW+ 10NUH
10 x FFG P17 = 10 ASW+ 3 NUH
10 x FFG Krivak =10 AEW Ka31
4 x Corvettes P28 =4 ASW
3 P16A= 3 ASW+3 NUH

Tota=18 AEW Ka31+ 37 ASW + 16 NUH

13 ASW Dhruvs wil be spare.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Jun 2020 20:14

KiranC wrote: Dear Indranil sir, good day to you.
Could you kindly share a bit more on the rotary UAV you mentioned in your post?
Would you be referring to the NRUAV Chetan/Chetak conversion project, which I believe HAL, lately, was looking for new technology partners after Malat backed out or would it be the smaller 200 kg AUW RUAV displayed in the last expo. Thanks.

Work is going on at a feverish pace on the 200 kg AUW RUAV. Talk of having an LUH based RUAV next is also doing the rounds. The head of that project is on the forum and an active reader. He will know what more to say on these at the present time.

tsarkar wrote: Segmented blades have been flying with Chetak since 1959 (61 years) and isn't exactly earth shattering, despite Dhruv using a much modern rotor hub and blades.

The reason the Naval fraternity is cheesed off is because despite 45 orders HAL never proactively tried to find a working solution. HAL had 159 + 41 Dhruv orders from IAF and IA and didnt show interest in meeting the Naval requirements. The 2017 IN & ICG orders are too far advanced for any changes at this point of time. IN also ordered 8 additional Chetaks that are being delivered.

Agreed.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 21 Jun 2020 21:21

Instead of NUH , LUH based RUAV armed with Torpedoes/Depth charges and sounboys can be used in combination with full fledged ASW Helos.

KiranC · Post by **KiranC** » 22 Jun 2020 15:39

Indranil sir, thank you, Glad to hear of ardent efforts on the 200kgs class unit , this could have significant export potential. And that a contemporary platform has been chosen for the NRUAV is just awesome news..something I was always wondering about -why would they not consider the LUH.
Perhaps the chetak conversion was put on hold once LUH started its flight test program.

It would indeed be a privilege to hear from a program leader on plans and progress on these initiatives....look forward to it.

basant · Post by **basant** » 23 Jun 2020 17:34

Article by Commodore G Prakash (R) in Financial Express.

For a first-time manufacturer dealing with the differing requirements of the three services, we can’t fault HAL for not having focused on the unique naval requirements in the initial years. Despite the Navy highlighting the fact that good maritime helicopters have to be designed primarily as maritime helicopters, HAL went for the majority requirement and produced a helicopter primarily designed for use on land. Converting this for use at sea was an inherently flawed idea. Similar was the case for an automatic blade fold system. Strong advice from the Navy to consult Westland, which had a well-proven system, was ignored. This, despite the Navy giving a written undertaking in 1992 that it will acquire 120 helicopters. An undertaking, which was given almost ten years before the first naval version flew. How much more can any customer show genuine support?

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 23 Jun 2020 17:45

SP model requiring $3b is not economical which the article is advocating. Better develop NUH version of Dhruv and NIMRH.