Indian Naval Aviation

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby sankum » 10 Jun 2020 22:06

The 22 minutes must be the old folding mechanism in which all the four main rotors blades were folded back.
For present modified folding mechanism only 2 rotor blade are folded back. Thus half the time.
This new method is in the 16 nos order of CG for which it's chief was satisfied and the helo will operate from CG ships.
Kaypius says about 3 bolt per blade folding system.
3b dollar for naval Panther is not possible under SP model. No such kind of money is availablel.

Let HAL develop segmented rotor folding in 2 years. Only cost effective choice.

Jay
BRFite
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Jay » 10 Jun 2020 22:36

raghuk wrote:
Jay wrote:This is painful to read. The article lays out the context of Navy's opposition to Dhruv and the working relationship it has with the supplier(HAL). The bureaucracy and the bone-headed logic that's seems to be ingrained in HAL is a site to behold, and absolutely pitiful. There is no reason to not privatize HAL as it seems to be the only answer to instill accountability at this point.

While I wouldn't comment on the author's experience, The bottom line is when you do things for the first time, there will be issues but almost all of the issues highlighted by the respected pilot have been addressed. Also, HAL is horrible in PR and we cannot put down our side as eloquently as our customers for obvious reasons.

I absolutely agree and understand that when you do things for the first time, there will be a steep learning curve that has to be climbed and I will absolutely give HAL the benefit of doubt, that it deserves, in that area.

But the impression I got from reading the article was that HAL has not learned, or is not willing to learn from the customer feedback loop. I am very dismayed by the examples listed in the column where the 'root cause analysis' to understand an issue and correct the problem seem to be not widely implemented.

If many of the design, production, issue mitigation points listed in the article have indeed been rectified as you said, then it bodes well. But right now, in the absence of any kind of message from HAL, I will take the word of this aviator. No offense.
Last edited by Jay on 11 Jun 2020 00:10, edited 2 times in total.

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 907
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby kvraghav » 11 Jun 2020 00:03

^^
This is open to interpretation. Do we have any other RFI respondents with auto folding?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 11 Jun 2020 00:05

No

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 11 Jun 2020 00:10

kvraghav wrote:^^
This is open to interpretation. Do we have any other RFI respondents with auto folding?


RFI's need to be somewhat loose to encourage a broader set of submissions including those things that you may not know you want as you finalize your requirements. A good RFI is pivotal to finalizing a good RFP (the ultimate, hard-coded requirements set) as the submissions and any formal feedback often allows the end user to develop an understanding of what requirements mean to cost, performance and schedule and make the necessary trades.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1372
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby ks_sachin » 11 Jun 2020 02:32

raghuk wrote:
Jay wrote:This is painful to read. The article lays out the context of Navy's opposition to Dhruv and the working relationship it has with the supplier(HAL). The bureaucracy and the bone-headed logic that's seems to be ingrained in HAL is a site to behold, and absolutely pitiful. There is no reason to not privatize HAL as it seems to be the only answer to instill accountability at this point.

While I wouldn't comment on the author's experience, The bottom line is when you do things for the first time, there will be issues but almost all of the issues highlighted by the respected pilot have been addressed. Also, HAL is horrible in PR and we cannot put down our side as eloquently as our customers for obvious reasons.

RaghuK,

The article also highlights a kind of culture within HAL. That has nothing to do with a first time product. How have things changed there?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4708
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby chola » 11 Jun 2020 03:23

Rakesh wrote:Fairly detailed article....

The Truth Hurts, Says Indian Navy’s 1st Dhruv Flight Commander
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/06 ... ander.html

10 June 2020, By Commander YASHODHAN MARATHE (Retd.)

And *initial* counter to the above article is here ---> https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/ ... 8773884929

Image


That is a powerful and sobering piece, Admiral.

I had always wondered why the IN needed automatic folding rotor blades when most of the Western copters of the same class didn't have them. Now I know the Navy DIDN'T ask for an automatic folding mechanism. They just wanted a better folding mechanism.

I was about to tear my hair out with the rain coming into the cabin and onto the instrument panel. Have the IA and IAF been accepting this? It is almost too much to believe.

Still I am inclined to believe this officer. The piece has a very earnest tone.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby srai » 11 Jun 2020 04:41

Aren’t the ALH certified by independent entities?
  • Directorate General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance (DGAQA)
  • Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC)

As well as other international certifications?

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10055
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby sum » 11 Jun 2020 06:46

^^ Very sobering read by the officer and points put across very well without any hyperbolics.

Can only hope and pray that the attitude and situation is better now at HAL/PSUs

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12154
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Aditya_V » 11 Jun 2020 11:21

I am sure we have made some improvements, the Pilot retired in 2008. Just like everything there is a learning curve. the Early ALH's were the engineers and various Private sector supplier learnt their basics.

I am sure HAl has now built and institutional memory, HAL also needed to crawl before it could walk. I sincerely hope the 32 ALH ordered by the Indian Navy in Mar 2017 are of much better quality.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Philip » 11 Jun 2020 11:58

There is a big diff. between operating a naval helo that can land on a helideck,operates from land and one that operates from the ship,stowed in a small hangar with limited space,where shipboard maintenance and limited repairs can be done. Our CG vessels if cardfully looked at,appear to have hangars a little larger than those on IN warships. CG helos are not tasked for ASW,anti-ship strike,etc.but more for surveillance,rescue and limited ops against smugglers,pirates and the like. They would carry less eqpt. and weaponry,though we must in the future leverage the CG assets more for ASW,mine warfare too. The CG OPVs are valuable assets.See how almost similar naval OPVs can be used to launch Dhanush. In the absence of any perfected desi naval helo,we have no alternative but to acquire SK and Chetak replacements in the form of Romeos,Panther/ KA-226,NH-90/ Eurocopter options for the ASW/MR and LUH roles.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1782
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby yensoy » 11 Jun 2020 12:55

raghuk wrote:
Jay wrote:This is painful to read. The article lays out the context of Navy's opposition to Dhruv and the working relationship it has with the supplier(HAL). The bureaucracy and the bone-headed logic that's seems to be ingrained in HAL is a site to behold, and absolutely pitiful. There is no reason to not privatize HAL as it seems to be the only answer to instill accountability at this point.

While I wouldn't comment on the author's experience, The bottom line is when you do things for the first time, there will be issues but almost all of the issues highlighted by the respected pilot have been addressed. Also, HAL is horrible in PR and we cannot put down our side as eloquently as our customers for obvious reasons.

It's not PR. There are 2 main points here:
1. Adherence to excellent engineering design, execution and quality control. That seems to be lacking per the author.
2. Adherence to engineering integrity, which means an honest and determined effort to identify, analyze, root cause and fix any problem, as well as to communicate the existence of a problem with existing customers/installations. That also seems to be lacking per the author.

Nothing that can't be fixed but will need hard nosed decision making and drive for results.

The stuff about using the global parts/supply chain to build the ALH is bogus IMHO. I have no problem if every single piece of the ALH including screws and paint is imported, but if the design and engineering ownership is ours, the aircraft is ours. Import substitution is a relatively easy practice that can follow over the years.

Larry Walker
BRFite
Posts: 287
Joined: 26 Nov 2019 17:33

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Larry Walker » 11 Jun 2020 13:59

It's like the Tata Indica vs Tata Hexa debate. Glossing over the journey and still looking at Hexa from Indica's lenses is to do injustice. Similar for ALH from Mk1 to Mk3.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2977
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby tsarkar » 11 Jun 2020 14:56

Commander Marathe and I served on the same ship during Operation Talwar, the IN part during the Kargil War. Our ship was the one closest to the enemy and had action commenced, we would have fired the first shot.

Rest assured, he is among the best and most seasoned of naval aviators who spent his career on the frontlines.

I personally stopped posting on this forum after geniuses here argued an S Band radar sensing dense traffic on Hosur Road at 10-22 km was proof of India having airborne ground mapping radar capability.

That sensing range would put a radar carrying aircraft, whether in a balance beam or blister configuration, having the maneuverability of a BEST double decker bus in the range of Pakistani SPADA and Chinese SAMs.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby nam » 11 Jun 2020 15:12

raghuk wrote:While I wouldn't comment on the author's experience, The bottom line is when you do things for the first time, there will be issues but almost all of the issues highlighted by the respected pilot have been addressed. Also, HAL is horrible in PR and we cannot put down our side as eloquently as our customers for obvious reasons.


This is not about PR, it is about showing that HAL as a organisation and production entity values Quality Control at it's core. If such a report had come out about an private company, it would have been a massive disaster to it's reputation.

Instead of fighting it out, there is no harm is telling everyone that there were lapses earlier. Describe the measures taken to improve QC in the products that HAL produces.

It is no a secret, how PSU behave given the "security" they have from GoI. The constant bad press for DRDO has led it to improve the way it does it's work.

So I strongly support services openly criticizing QC issues in Indian industries. Be it DPSU or private. National security & life of people cannot be held hostage to PSU/Private companies self interest.

Similary HAL should be open about any delays in their production run. People blame HAL for slow LCA production, but HAL has not bothered to properly explain, that there is no orders to create faster production line.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 508
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby MeshaVishwas » 11 Jun 2020 15:17

sum wrote:^^ Very sobering read by the officer and points put across very well without any hyperbolics.

Can only hope and pray that the attitude and situation is better now at HAL/PSUs

+1
I feel like I have had rose tinted glass view of many DPSU products over the years.

gunnvant
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 38
Joined: 05 Sep 2017 10:40

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby gunnvant » 11 Jun 2020 15:32

MeshaVishwas wrote:
sum wrote:^^ Very sobering read by the officer and points put across very well without any hyperbolics.

Can only hope and pray that the attitude and situation is better now at HAL/PSUs

+1
I feel like I have had rose tinted glass view of many DPSU products over the years.


High time we create multiple entities that supply to the forces, competition ensures quality. Though not sure how Navy is able to manage quality work from PSU shipyards.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby nam » 11 Jun 2020 15:35

gunnvant wrote:
MeshaVishwas wrote:+1
I feel like I have had rose tinted glass view of many DPSU products over the years.


High time we create multiple entities that supply to the forces, competition ensures quality. Though not sure how Navy is able to manage quality work from PSU shipyards.


The shipyards would have similar stories... but for IN there is a conflict of interest, as shipyards heads are ex IN.

For anyone saying that HAL should be managed by ex-IAF should look at the performance of our PSU shipyards..

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 508
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby MeshaVishwas » 11 Jun 2020 17:23

NAVY-DHRUV SPAT: Let’s Stop Fighting, HAL Test Pilot Says
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/06 ... -says.html
Correct tone and tenor.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19584
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Karan M » 11 Jun 2020 17:30

Jay wrote:
raghuk wrote:While I wouldn't comment on the author's experience, The bottom line is when you do things for the first time, there will be issues but almost all of the issues highlighted by the respected pilot have been addressed. Also, HAL is horrible in PR and we cannot put down our side as eloquently as our customers for obvious reasons.

I absolutely agree and understand that when you do things for the first time, there will be a steep learning curve that has to be climbed and I will absolutely give HAL the benefit of doubt, that it deserves, in that area.

But the impression I got from reading the article was that HAL has not learned, or is not willing to learn from the customer feedback loop. I am very dismayed by the examples listed in the column where the 'root cause analysis' to understand an issue and correct the problem seem to be not widely implemented.

If many of the design, production, issue mitigation points listed in the article have indeed been rectified as you said, then it bodes well. But right now, in the absence of any kind of message from HAL, I will take the word of this aviator. No offense.


You might do well to read this as well. We are privileged to have the author on the board as well.
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/02 ... -hand.html

But bottomline - the claim that HAL never attempts to solve design flaws and merely engages in part replacements is clearly in error. Its very likely the aviator was not in the loop re: fault rectification.

Next, it also explains why the first ALH were so "raw", the proven design partner who had the experience to add refinement, i.e. MBB walked away, after saddling HAL with problems, which latter were forced to solve. The priority items took precedence over stuff like panel fitments, door handles etc. Over time, these would be addressed but flight critical issues would be more important.

Finally, the interesting point is the aviator above likely flew one of the first SPs which as the account above clearly notes suffered from having the LSP issues which HAL did not have time to fix as should have been done. No wonder he was disenchanted. Though of course the purpose of LSPs in part is to detect flaws for rectification.

Also note the bit about Wind Tunnel testing and inexperience with modeling in the early days. Can very well explain how external fitments like GPS antennae etc snap when exposed to loads and forces which were not properly mapped out due to lack of adequate infra. Today, things are different.

Lastly, the people working on the ALH today are not the ones whom the author dealt with. That also needs to be kept in mind. Its a decade and things change.

Of course customer centricity and a responsive workforce are essential and hence any sort of chalta hain culture as he mentions re: wiring assemblies etc needs to be addressed as well. But in recent days, we don't see the level of complaints re: HAL we used to see earlier, re: QA/QC. The issues are more regarding rate of production.

Shri Parrikar stepped up and ensured HAL invested in spares centers and serviceability efforts for its ALH, Su-30 fleets. Hopefully, the former made a difference too.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12154
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Aditya_V » 11 Jun 2020 17:34

Is the "Hari Nair" who Authored that article, the same Hari Nair who posts on BRF?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19584
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Karan M » 11 Jun 2020 17:40

This is brilliant - it also backs up exactly what I posted above, about the SP/LSP issue thanks to of course Hari sir's article!

The fact we have guys like the gent below and Hari Nair with HAL (not to mention Rk) automatically gives one hope that things are being addressed.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/06 ... -says.html

Livefist
NAVY-DHRUV SPAT: Let’s Stop Fighting, HAL Test Pilot Says

By Wing Commander ANIL BHAMBHANI (Retd).
Senior Test Pilot (Rotary Wing)

Please tolerate my frankness. The current imbroglio is the outcome of sensational journalism. Well that’s how the media works (I accept that) and people play into the hands of the media. {Aroor only did this}

Usage of strong words and adjectives can only lead to bad blood (which is headline news). Is it doing any good to anyone, I suppose no, the loser in all cases is the nation? The experts may win the media war, but the nation would have lost an opportunity to move one step closer towards self-reliance.

I have been reading whatever has been published till date and have deliberately avoided getting pulled into the quick stand where nobody is going to be the winner. I am a HAL Test Pilot and I fly the Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH Dhruv) and all other HAL aircraft on a daily basis with an implicit trust that the company has done its best to offer me a safe aircraft. In more than 12 years that I have spent with HAL I have not been disappointed. Problems do occur but they are not because the men behind the machines did not do their jobs; there are limits to knowledge and one learns from experience. Tendulkar did not score his 51 test centuries in one season. Rome was not built in a day. Experience counts and one needs to build on it.

What I am penning down are some random thoughts, borne out of frustration because all experts are hell bent on flogging an old horse. It’s kind of fashionable to pull down your own product, especially if it’s from a public sector undertaking (PSU).

None of the naval pilots have flown or assessed the current generation ALH. It’s sad that with 16 ALH in the pipeline, the Naval Project Team at HAL does not have a Test Pilot or a Test Engineer on its strength. The last Test Crew was posted to the project team some 6-8 years back and that too with no mandate to participate in the ongoing ALH flight trials. Compare this to the Air Force and the Army which have a dedicated team of Test Pilots and Test Engineers co-located with HAL flight ops. These test crew participate in all the flight trials and are abreast with the current progress on them, thereby keeping the respective Service HQs updated on the changes/progress made on each program and if required provide service inputs so that they are addressed at an early stage in the program. On the naval side, the role of the project team is reduced only to following up on the aircraft that come here for maintenance. There is no one to advise NHQ on what exactly HAL’s current capability is and how it has improved over the years. So, most of what you get is hearsay.

Some background. Let’s try to see what everyone is saying in terms of criticism about the ALH. Surprisingly most of the articles have one common theme – How bad HAL is and why it should not be given further orders. Very few mention the fact that the Army and Air Force have been effectively using the ALH at high altitudes and in forward areas where it has proved its mettle. The recent rescue of stranded aircrew from 17500’, use of ALH in CI ops in Kashmir, surgical strikes, Kerala floods, Uttarakhand disaster and many other natural disasters are a few examples of the capability of the aircraft. These have also been manufactured by HAL.


All the not-so-good comments that have been made recently are based on the ALH of the year 2000, and out of experience of operating the limited ALH (Mk1s) that are in the Indian naval inventory. These ALH were from the LSP (Limited Series Production) line up and the initial batch of production. The aim of LSPs is to get feedback from the field once they start exploiting the aircraft. So what the Navy encountered was no different from what the Air Force and the Army experienced. These feedback/design shortcomings/manufacturing anomalies were addressed in a systematic manner and ALH continued to mature. It is a process followed across the world and not limited to HAL alone. This remains an ongoing process and all observations that the HAL gets are addressed in due course, with Services remaining an integral part of the process. The benefits of the series production wherein the observations have been addressed, have been passed on to the Army and Air Force in the ALH Mk III/IV versions. However the Navy continues to hold only the Mk I (LSP) variants, hence the poor experience.

Yes, I agree that ALH did not meet the NSQR of that era and HAL did accept the same. The NSQR was based on the Sea King (equipment payload and endurance for missions) which was and is still the pride of Indian Navy. If a realistic assessment had been done after the design freeze of ALH, it would have been obvious that ALH would not meet the naval requirement. No flight testing was required to know that the ALH will not meet the NSQR.

Remember, this was the first helicopter designed in India; we as a nation had no skill set or knowledge, HAL by itself had no history in designing helicopters and it had taken Germany’s MBB as a partner for the design. ALH was specifically designed for high altitude and some intensive manoeuvring which are exactly opposite to what the Indian Navy needed. Naval aircraft primarily need long period hover (time on station) and stability, which is the opposite of manoeuvrability. The design requirements were on the opposite ends of the spectrum hence there was no way that ALH would have met the NSQR. It’s easy to say in hindsight that HAL should have used a different rotor for the Naval ALH. As a nation in the 1990s we did not have any background in helicopter design, we were just learning to take baby steps, there was no margin within the project to make two different helicopters. The moment the rotor is changed, the helicopter would have become a different type entailing complete testing afresh, here we are not just talking about flight testing but ground testing also which takes much longer than flight testing.

Also, the lead service for ALH were Army and Air Force (compare their numbers with Naval requirement); their requirements were for Siachen heights and an extraordinary requirement of a max 3.5 ‘g’ limit. The performance requirement was genuine however all other requirements were taken from other contemporary helicopters of that era (BO 105/BK 117). The 3.5 g requirement and battlefield survivability for controls were the major factors affecting the design of the rotor and the rotor head. To enable ALH to make such high ‘g’ maneuvers the rotor had a large hinge offset which was partly accomplished by the large rotor head. The large rotor mast also accommodated the controls which passed through the centre of the MGB. With a large rotor head, the ALH with its blades folded became too big to manoeuvre into the ship hangars. It could enter but with inches to spare only. (Hence, ALH was destined to fail in that configuration). As for the mission equipment the contemporary systems of that era were heavy and when fitted on the ALH the time on task required could not be met.

This was all in the years of 1995 to 2005. Are these limitations valid today in 2020 for the NUH, mostly NO.

Let’s look at the current NUH requirement. Is the NSQR same as that which was issued for ALH? No, it’s been modified as the primary roles of NUH are utility based. It’s also aimed to meet what Airbus or Sikorsky have to offer and to keep ALH out. How? Let me share:

Blade Fold: HAL is ready to make a segmented blade for ALH which will meet the blade fold requirement. It’s not just a claim or a false hope; LUH uses a segmented blade (it’s been flown adequately and is well proven). The segmented blade is a proven blade and not a pipe dream. Blade folding on LUH has been demonstrated to the Navy. Time taken for blade fold was approx 6 mins, well within the requirements asked for NUH. HAL is also working on tail boom folding (yet to be flight tested). With these in place the stowed dimensions of the ALH would meet the Indian Navy criteria.

Auto Blade Fold: A lot has been said on Automatic Blade Fold, I don’t think it is asked for in the NUH. ‘Airbus Panther’ also has a manual blade fold. I am not aware of the S-76. The weight penalty for an automatic blade fold would be excessive for a 5 Ton class helicopter. (Sea King has an automatic blade fold, but it’s a 9-10T class aircraft)

Current Status of Blade Fold: In the interim, ALH is currently offered with a 2-blade fold which makes the length longer. In this configuration it can fit in some of the ship’s hangars but surely not in the old ones without the forward bulkhead being cut. The suggestion of using the space ahead of the bulkhead is not HAL’s idea in isolation. It was a recommendation from a joint team of HAL and Navy (Old timers can vouch for this). We give too much credit to HAL, no one in HAL would know what lies ahead of the hangar, how high is the armament stack up etc.

In the interim Navy has inducted a lot of new ships which have a larger hangar. Can you find out how many ships are still in service in which the ALH cannot be fitted with 2 blades folded. Remember 20 years have passed and a lot of old ships have been inducted and some phased out.

Range and Endurance: With the use of current generation contemporary systems, the mission requirements of NUH can be met easily if ALH is allowed to use its max AUW capability. The current NUH is primarily a utility helicopter while the old NSQR also included ASW roles. Remember ALH is slightly bigger/heavier than the others in the fray, its max AUW is 5.75 T. A glass ceiling of 5T has been set so that ALH cannot meet the QR. Is it a deck limitation? Surely no, because the current order of 16 ALH for the Navy does not say anything like that. Yes, the current order is for shore-based aircraft, however, all requirements for ship borne operations are also asked for and are being met.

Mission and Weapon Systems: Most of the mission systems required for NUH have already been integrated for ALH except for new generation weapon systems. If required these can be easily integrated. HAL has adequate experience and a good track record in integration of weapons systems. In fact, ALH can boast as having one of the most state-of-the-art cockpit, mission systems and sensors.

What is HAL asking? I suppose a level playing field. Allow ALH to compete and allow HAL the same margins that are given for development and integration of systems to foreign vendors. Don’t make a QR which keeps ALH out. Allow it to compete on its own merit rather than forcing it out by making a skewed qualitative requirement.

Conclusion: So, let’s stop fighting and if we are serious about “Aatmanirbhar Bharat”, then get HAL and Navy sit down together and work out what ALH as NUH should be. Give ALH a fair chance. Do not squander the national gains made in design and development of rotorcraft. Bringing an assembly line to India will help in improving the manufacturing process but not in learning the design process. If it were so, existing Indian companies would already have been designing rotorcraft and not just making airframes. Foreign vendors only care about the gains that they will make, they do not want a self-reliant India. They want an India which they can continue to milk for years.

Ending with the hope that the Indian Navy and HAL can work together and resolve their differences. Both institutions owe this to the nation.

Wing Commander Bhambhani is a veteran helicopter pilot from the Indian Air Force, currently a senior test pilot on HAL’s Light Utility Helicopter program. He has been a Senior Test Flying Instructor and Experimental Test Pilot with the IAF’s Aircraft and System Testing Establishment (ASTE), and associated with testing at HAL since 2006 while still serving, and from 2012 post retirement. His views here are personal and not to be construed as an official comment from Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL).


Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19584
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Karan M » 11 Jun 2020 17:41

Aditya_V wrote:Is the "Hari Nair" who Authored that article, the same Hari Nair who posts on BRF?


Yes.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19584
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Karan M » 11 Jun 2020 17:50

tsarkar wrote:Commander Marathe and I served on the same ship during Operation Talwar, the IN part during the Kargil War. Our ship was the one closest to the enemy and had action commenced, we would have fired the first shot.

Rest assured, he is among the best and most seasoned of naval aviators who spent his career on the frontlines.

I personally stopped posting on this forum after geniuses here argued an S Band radar sensing dense traffic on Hosur Road at 10-22 km was proof of India having airborne ground mapping radar capability.

That sensing range would put a radar carrying aircraft, whether in a balance beam or blister configuration, having the maneuverability of a BEST double decker bus in the range of Pakistani SPADA and Chinese SAMs.


That is incorrect. What was pointed out though that information from the seminar clearly showed India was using the 3rd AEW & CS type airframe as a test bed wherein they were using it to develop multiple modes, including air to ground mapping and the same was being leveraged for multiple other programs including the Uttam. That information directly comes from the developer first hand, irrespective of the fact whether anyone chooses to accept it or not.

This is the 3rd Embraer airframe which is to be now modified to a full blown AEW&CS configuration and handed over to the AF. This is the source of the radar test image shown in the seminar. I don't know how much more explicit they have to be.
Airborne Radar Test Bed, 2017
Image

Note clear reference to all mode migration from business jet testbed to LCA, and from operational AEW&CS to LCA (A2A, A2Sea). Clearly, the developer has no issues in thinking merely because a mode is developed using a different band radar, it can't be ported onto a different system with some fine tuning as will be possible via ARTB to LCA too. The gentleman below was the project director of the AEW&CS program.



And as regards, what the plans for taking dedicated Air to Ground development further are, they are here - provided proposal is funded, quite similar to the UK ASTOR systems.

https://drdo.gov.in/labs-establishment/ ... ystem-cabs
CABS acts as a system house and an integration agency, utilizing all available infrastructure and expertise in the country for development of Airborne Electronic Force Multiplier (AEFM) Systems focusing on systems such as Airborne Early Warning and Control(AEW&C)/Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS),Design and Development of Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition& Reconnaissance (ISTAR) and Multi Mission Maritime Aircraft (MMMA) systems. CABS is also the development agency of Identification Friend and Foe (IFF) for Tri-services.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digi ... ission-ai/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo8V1GDjo_o

I'd presume the NTRO and IAF specifications will be fairly comprehensive including a range that will likely keep the aircraft out of harms way when conducting its mission plus it will have a comprehensive self-defence suite.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NoR1zDbZ4q4/ ... C00768.jpg

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 795
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rsatchi » 11 Jun 2020 17:58

sum wrote:^^ Very sobering read by the officer and points put across very well without any hyperbolics.

Can only hope and pray that the attitude and situation is better now at HAL/PSUs
:roll:
Sirji
All same onleee no change;
Father-in-law retired from heli devision and quite a few stories to tell about work ethics.
Was castigated for sticking to rules and work ethics :lol: :lol:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19584
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Karan M » 11 Jun 2020 18:08

Did he retire recently? Please make the effort to make a more informative post with specific points of complaint, and details. Otherwise it just comes across as adding fuel to the fire, but without proper effort to document, and add credibility.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2977
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby tsarkar » 11 Jun 2020 18:35

Karan M wrote:Nobody argued what you are claiming. What was pointed out though that India was using the 3rd AEW & CS as a test bed wherein they were using it to develop multiple modes, including air to ground mapping and the same was being leveraged for multiple other programs including the Uttam. That information directly comes from the developer first hand, irrespective of the fact whether anyone chooses to accept it or not.

This is the 3rd Embraer airframe which is to be now modified to a full blown AEW&CS configuration and handed over to the AF.


No where in the paper is Air to Ground mode research described. Only ground clutter rejection in Air to Air mode is discussed. Both are fundamentally different things.

There are 3 A2G radar programs to my knowledge. One is Uttam, other is UAV and third is an Airborne A2G platform whose datasheets were seen in the recent Aero India/Defexpo using UK Astor Raytheon Sentinel aircraft photos. The Netra AEW&C program is not connected to either of these 3 programs.

The third program cant use a Balance Beam configuration but rather belly blisters like the photo below, so even using the Embraer as a test bed is meaningless.

Image

If the Netra configuration is used as a test bed for air to ground modes, then the wings will create blind spots for the radar in Air to Ground modes. That will make even testing meaningless. All A2G radar planes have downward facing belly blisters for this reason.

There is a larger issue as well.

We're doing great R&D as evidenced by various Air Defence Radars developed and in service, Swati WLR export, Netra during Balakot. I have absolutely no doubt that in next 5 years, radars like Uttam, UAV or astor like A2G will be developed.

However, when we embellish, or even extrapolate, we take away all credibility from the original research and actual work. We degrade ourselves to Chinese or Pakistani levels.

Let the actual work speak for itself. The IAF recently honoured the HAL Tejas Division Chief before his retirement. The IN & ADA signed up on TEDBF development. So good things and good people do get recognized.

The Chinese claim to have great fighters but over Tibet only J-7 (MiG-21) and J-11 (Su-27) are seen. Their artillery deployment via photos are old Soviet 122mm D-30. The D30 is outranged by our 105 mm guns that are being replaced by 155 mm guns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_ho ... 2A18_(D-30)

https://ofb.gov.in/unit/pages/GCF/detai ... k-ii-lfg-1

Embellishment, extrapolation, white washing serve no purpose.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8174
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Indranil » 11 Jun 2020 19:29

Rsatchi wrote:
sum wrote:^^ Very sobering read by the officer and points put across very well without any hyperbolics.

Can only hope and pray that the attitude and situation is better now at HAL/PSUs
:roll:
Sirji
All same onleee no change;
Father-in-law retired from heli devision and quite a few stories to tell about work ethics.
Was castigated for sticking to rules and work ethics :lol: :lol:

People like your father in law also exist in HAL. People who are stickers to rules and work ethics.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19584
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Karan M » 11 Jun 2020 19:53

tsarkar wrote:No where in the paper is Air to Ground mode research described. Only ground clutter rejection in Air to Air mode is discussed. Both are fundamentally different things.


The paper may not cover each and every detail. Details come out via ancillary events elsewhere! It mentioned work done in fine-tuning the radar performance against clutter and developing ECCM modes.

No, they are not fundamentally different things btw. It directly feeds into development of A2G radar modes and discerning a proper signal processing algorithm which can reject clutter and yet detect targets.

Go back to the radar thread, look at the image DRDO released from the discussion on the same radar. That image which DRDO released some of the capabilities being tested. The gent who took the pic, attended the event was kind enough to provide details and share the link. All we are doing is figuring out they are running tests.

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 92/photo/3

The paper also does not mention air to sea performance either. But that is part and parcel of the actual AEW&CS! Guess which program developed that? The X band SV-2000 and XV-2004, but weren't you convinced technologies developed for other bands could not be ported over to other systems. Well, the developers disagree.

I don't understand on what issue you are actually stuck at, TBH.

1. It doesn't even matter which radar did these trials. We now know for sure, that S-Band A2A, A2S modes can be ported on to X-Band Uttam.

2. We know work done for X-Band SV-2000, XV-2004 was used for S-Band AEW&CS.

3. We know your claim that the above GMTI mode was useless as it is not a "weapons quality track" was incorrect, as the mode shown above is a GMTI mode being finetuned on a radar testbed and the weapons quality track was actually the A2A High Precision Track. And GMTI is a wide area surveillance mode. Accusations that developers are "embellishing" have no locus standi, as they are merely demonstrating suitably sanitized work on these aspects to a technical audience.

4. We know that apart from A2A and A2S on AEW&CS, A2A, A2G, A2S is being developed for Uttam. A2G is being developed for Ku-band SAR. And per the developers themselves, they are happily swapping methods, algorithms, capabilities across all these systems, which any sane developer would do. So again, what is the issue?

5. We know they have multiple testbeds to fly their radars on, and share technologies. You mentioned this makes the platform vulnerable to SAMs - well, here is the UAV variant being developed, the slant range is clearly well out of spec for the baseline SPADA (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-t3bPr471WV8/V ... ayload.jpg) and the aim will be to make a far more powerful system for the Uttam and the one being developed as a dedicated A2G sensor for the IAF/NTRO. We also know the Ku-band SAR being developed for the UAVs was going to be used to develop a maritime patrol radar which was X-band (https://books.google.com.my/books?id=PX ... DE&f=false)

So at the end of all this, may I ask, what exactly is your point? Why this urge to stake a flag on some pointless debate on how a mere test result which was never claimed as "best in the class", "operational" is some "embellishment" and how are people who are seeking to merely understand what's going on, subject to snide comments about being "geniuses"?

There are 3 A2G radar programs to my knowledge. One is Uttam, other is UAV and third is an Airborne A2G platform whose datasheets were seen in the recent Aero India/Defexpo using UK Astor Raytheon Sentinel aircraft photos. The Netra AEW&C program is not connected to either of these 3 programs.

The third program cant use a Balance Beam configuration but rather belly blisters like the photo below, so even using the Embraer as a test bed is meaningless.

Image

If the Netra configuration is used as a test bed for air to ground modes, then the wings will create blind spots for the radar in Air to Ground modes. That will make even testing meaningless. All A2G radar planes have downward facing belly blisters for this reason.


I am sorry but at this point I am not sure if you are serious. Forget the A2G testbed stuff for a moment. This opens up a whole new confusing can of worms.

I mean you are claiming that wings will always come in the way and create blind modes for air to ground even at range? How do you think the radar addresses low flying aircraft flying just above the ground in the look down mode?

So the wings would get in the way of all balance beam AWACS, conventional AWACS?

All radar's shape the beam and direct it around areas where they perceive interference. That's the job of the radar designer. They also carry signal processors which eliminate returns from sectors deemed to have the highest interference. This is at closer ranges! At longer ranges a simple look at the basic geometry above would tell you the radar can shape its beams ignoring the wing, or even while banking the aircraft.

The AEW&CS tracks ships on the sea. Surprisingly enough, the wings don't get in the way of that either, unless the ship happens to be right in the blind spot of the radar. I mean you would be correct if it were an operational radar, its not optimal. But as a testbed, why wouldn't DRDO use every and any asset at its disposal.

If a radar test-bed tests modes using a scaled down array in the nose of an aircraft is it useless for a radar with an array on top of the aircraft? The SV-2000 and XV-2004 use radars which are in blisters below the nose of the chopper for a larger field of view. They were used to develop technologies that went into the AEW&CS and the Uttam both. Are the locations the same?

You first stated that it was a S band radar so it could not be ported to a X band system. Now we have the gent in question who led program 1 (S band) openly stating they are using it to develop X band tech, you are bringing in wings. I just dont get this.

I am unaware of a single wingless AWACs operating anywhere. But they all seem to operate very well in tracking low flying targets at a distance. This is completely not of import at all.

And no, there are easily 4 radars with air to surface (which can include A2G and/or/both A2S) being developed.

There is a larger issue as well.

We're doing great R&D as evidenced by various Air Defence Radars developed and in service, Swati WLR export, Netra during Balakot. I have absolutely no doubt that in next 5 years, radars like Uttam, UAV or astor like A2G will be developed.

However, when we embellish, or even extrapolate, we take away all credibility from the original research and actual work. We degrade ourselves to Chinese or Pakistani levels.


Nobody here is embellishing anything. At the end of the day, everyone is trying to figure out information. Nobody can be aware of everything. IMHO its ok to be mistaken, accept the SMEs are aware of what they are doing, try our best to understand it rather then attacking them merely because they display what they are doing. Only by bringing all the data together, does one get a 360 degree view. But if this sort of pointless hostility is injected into an otherwise free wheeling discussion, its completely antithetical to the spirit of a fair spirited exchange of ideas.

All DRDO did was display a slide showing that they are using their AEW&CS to test various modes, which they will use elsewhere. They have openly stated they are using each radar program to fine-tune technologies which they can use for other radars.

If you had stuck to stating that it is your personal belief that DRDO will never use the AEW&CS to test A2G modes, then that's fine, we can always agree to disagree. The issue arises when you make a mere disagreement on how they are using their test beds personal by telling people who are merely figuring out how they are using their testbed "geniuses" and start claiming the developers are "embellishing" things, that something like a "weapons quality track" needs to be demonstrated by mixing it up with the A2A high precision tracking mode(all this when they have merely shown some GMTI test results of all things indicating they are working on it). Why this pointless rudeness and desire to put folks down good sir?

You don't want to admit/agree that the AEW&CS is being used as a test-bed for different modes, fine. Feel free to skip the posts. The rest of us will continue to track what they say and try to get a better understanding. I don't even understand what the big deal is.

DRDO is using the technologies it developed for fighter radars for ground based radars. It is using the technologies it developed for its BMD program to develop AEW&CS. Its hardly as if displaying a WIP GMTI mode constitutes some earth shattering security breach or embellishing anything. Its just a good look at where they are.

Let the actual work speak for itself. The IAF recently honoured the HAL Tejas Division Chief before his retirement. The IN & ADA signed up on TEDBF development. So good things and good people do get recognized.

The Chinese claim to have great fighters but over Tibet only J-7 (MiG-21) and J-11 (Su-27) are seen. Their artillery deployment via photos are old Soviet 122mm D-30. The D30 is outranged by our 105 mm guns that are being replaced by 155 mm guns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_ho ... 2A18_(D-30)

https://ofb.gov.in/unit/pages/GCF/detai ... k-ii-lfg-1

Embellishment, extrapolation, white washing serve no purpose.


None of this has any relation to technology development and seems to come across as a refusal to accept the fact that technology development does not happen in a vacuum and modes are being tested on various different platforms and are being ported onto others.

Yes, the actions speak for themselves as does the fact they are stating what they are doing, and hence as mere external observers it is beholden upon us to attempt to understand what the true SMEs are doing and not confuse the issue further by putting their efforts down for no reason at all.

Your Chinese examples are not at all germane. They claim operational deployment. DRDO merely demonstrated one look at where they are on a testbed. Others are discussing it. No reason for hostility or angst or self-flagellation. Plus we have the same capability on our other gear already operational.

raghuk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 00:38

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby raghuk » 11 Jun 2020 20:49

Rsatchi wrote:
sum wrote:^^ Very sobering read by the officer and points put across very well without any hyperbolics.

Can only hope and pray that the attitude and situation is better now at HAL/PSUs
:roll:
Sirji
All same onleee no change;
Father-in-law retired from heli devision and quite a few stories to tell about work ethics.
Was castigated for sticking to rules and work ethics :lol: :lol:

Don't mind me asking,but what post did he serve in? In what department (design, production, marketing,IMM, etc) I'm asking because HAL is a huge organization and one department does not know what the other departments do and only a few designers know the product in its entirety. For example a production or an IMM guy would never in his lifetime know even the broad performance details. Also most retirees feel the Pvt sector is extremely efficient because all they see is IT guys slogging day and night and tend to equate this with efficiency.
Have nothing against your father in law though. Please thank him for his service.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 11 Jun 2020 20:51

Let us not get into the details of where his father-in-law worked in HAL. Lets keep that ambiguous and let him enjoy his retirement in peace.

Jay
BRFite
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Jay » 11 Jun 2020 21:20

Karan M wrote:
You might do well to read this as well. We are privileged to have the author on the board as well.
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/02 ... -hand.html

But bottomline - the claim that HAL never attempts to solve design flaws and merely engages in part replacements is clearly in error. Its very likely the aviator was not in the loop re: fault rectification.



Karan ji, thanks for taking time for providing some additional insight. My main knowledge/information related to DPSU's is from BR and it's sources. I did work at a defense lab in Hyderabad more than a decade and half ago before moving on and most of the conversations with my ex-colleagues happens in bits and pieces, which has progressively dried up over time. From all these sources, my impression of DPSU's like HAL, especially HAL was that it is a different company now, then what it was during late 90's. Talent was always there, but I could notice(as an observer) change in the mindset and vision of HAL in the way it was envisioning products and bringing them to reality. There are still some issues but I firmly believed, that HAL has entered a new phase where it's taking its lessons and making all around improvements. That is why the article from Commander Marathe came down on some of us as a crushing blow to what we thought HAL, and DPSU's were heading. Even if things are heading in the right direction, the article by the commander paints a picture of "miscommunication/mistrust" among the parties because at the end of the day "Miya Bibi has to Razi". I sincerely hope that what the good commander experienced was during the initial ramp up of Dhruv.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 11 Jun 2020 21:54

@ KaranM: Thank you for posting that rebuttal to the article I posted yesterday. Excellent piece. And yes, the press is so milking this issue. Folks will do anything for TRPs! Keep the fight alive. Dalals only want to import.

To All: Read the last para and you will see how it ties in so clearly to MMRCA as well. The IAF does need fighters in different classes, but let us not fool ourselves that doing screwdrivergiri of any platform - NUH, MMRCA, etc - is going to transform India's aviation industry. What foolishness!

https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/ ... 32161?s=20 ---> First para is 100% the crux of the matter at hand. HAL signed off on NUH through foreign “buy” process in *2011*. The landscape has entirely changed today. Stowability and service issue are solved, now they are arguing over 500KG AUW?

https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/ ... 48902?s=20 ---> Let it be clear - almost all vitriol aimed at ALH and HAL this week has been based on views that are decades old and experiences with early Mk 1/2 prototypes. Let this HAL TP’s word be the final chapter in this sorry story. He’s the only expert cited that has actually flown Mk 3.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 11 Jun 2020 21:54

https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/ ... 13345?s=20 ---> It doesn’t get more damning than this. So how exactly is NHQ making their decisions if they don’t have relevant up to date information? It’s like they got the answer they wanted (imports) in 2011 and shut down their ears since then. They’d rather push for another needless import.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaPeLYvXgAA ... name=large

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 11 Jun 2020 21:55

https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/ ... 87520?s=20 ---> As I suspected. Entire narrative spun up over last few days by former navy TPs is all based on 15++ year old encounters with the ALH MK.1 LSP airframes - effectively hand made early production models. These experiences were used to extrapolate the latest Mk3 model and HAL in 2020.

Image

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby basant » 11 Jun 2020 23:30

Fair enough reason to consider MkIII and above. But the sooner the 'chalta hai' attitude is fixed, the better. It is also to be noted that the issue is not HAL itself. Consider the experience of pilots of LCA/Tejas. IAF is mighty pleased and that's something. So leadership can make a big difference even within a not so great system. It is even more fascinating considering that HAL designed ALH whereas as it only produced LCA!

Most urgently, SoPs should be in place for HAL also to 'enforce' integrity. Just my 2c.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby sankum » 11 Jun 2020 23:48

The good TP has written a balanced rebuttal.

6 minutes folding time for segmented main rotors.
Tail rotor folding also being developed yet to be flight tested.
Present 16 nos Naval Dhruv order is for shore based but fully capable of ship operations.

Now CG has in pipeline 16 naval Dhruv mk3 for basically ship based operation which beat naval Panther in Tender.

MTOW is 5.75T.
Folded dimensions with segmented and tail boom folding can estimated to be 11.5m by 3.5m by 4 m.

Now the NUH tender needs to be cancelled in favor of Naval Dhruv.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19584
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Karan M » 11 Jun 2020 23:52

I dont think the tender should be cancelled. Let Naval Dhruv also participate and prove itself. If it meets the specs, take it. Eitherway HAL should also be asked to provide a guaranteed uptime and also a safety guarantee (the Naval guys are justifiably upset at their Gen1 machines) and focus should be on ensuring these choppers are cent per cent reliable. Also have Naval guys deputed to HAL w/decision making power. They should have the ability to flag any safety related deviations and counter them.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby sankum » 12 Jun 2020 00:53

The tender if it has to be fair has to increase MTOW to 6T.
The tender from start was to get only naval Panther by keeping MTOW limit at 4.5T and later 5T.
They knew just like CG tender if they allow naval Dhruv it will beat naval Panther both in price and performance. All kind of excuses like SP model was made to keep Naval Dhruv out even if it was financial loss to country.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7730
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby rohitvats » 12 Jun 2020 01:36

Rakesh wrote:

https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/ ... 32161?s=20 ---> First para is 100% the crux of the matter at hand. HAL signed off on NUH through foreign “buy” process in *2011*. The landscape has entirely changed today. Stowability and service issue are solved, now they are arguing over 500KG AUW?

https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/ ... 48902?s=20 ---> Let it be clear - almost all vitriol aimed at ALH and HAL this week has been based on views that are decades old and experiences with early Mk 1/2 prototypes. Let this HAL TP’s word be the final chapter in this sorry story. He’s the only expert cited that has actually flown Mk 3.


What's with posting one sided commentary from anon handles from Twitter? Or, is that your handle? Anyone can say anything on Twitter. Have you verified the accuracy of what the anon handle has written?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArjunPandit, ashthor, ernest, gauravsharma, Rsatchi and 54 guests