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.
Kartik wrote:it looks the same as LCH TD-1..canopy doesn't seem to have been changed..and this must be an old pic only published now, since LCH TD-2 is supposed to fly during AI-11. But its good to hear that they lopped off 200 kgs in weight..
yeah, seems like Shukla ji was sitting on this photo for a long time only but got authorization to publish them only now.
I think canopy changes will happen only after the TD phase.
to me the canopy should be a step design like most tandem attack helos http://www.airforce-technology.com/cont ... -tiger.jpg
but LCH design not sure the vertical separation between seats of front and rear cockpits permits that...if u compare the tiger pic to the equadorian af pic, in tiger the back pilot seats at the head level of the front pilot, in LCH the back seat is atleast a foot lower.
but diff is in ah64 the front pilot still sits lower and barely has his head and shoulders sticking out, while visibility (and glass) in LCH is much more for front pilot...and we do not have the apache's uber powerful alliedsignal engines to lug around gorilla iphone4 glass
also note the tremendous luxury sedan type headroom vs claustrophobic normal cockpit canopies.
methinks they could install 12-18" more titantium bathtub armour instead of glass along the sides AND lower the canopy to save on glass weight.
it may be a recent photo. What we are seeing is final fittings. (may be painting will be carried out next) and the first flight. It seems, the photo may be a week old to the max.
I have just one grouse with the design,in that the glass portions of the pilot's side canopies are too large,which will give less protection to the pilots .If one studies designs of similar attack helos,the side canopies do not end in a straight lower line,as they do here,but are chamfered,so that while downward visibility is not impaired,the maximum area of the helo's sides protecting the cockpits is covered with armourplating. These canopies might be bulletproof but will not withstand anything of heavier calibre.
^^
1> This is a prototype vehicle and thus not the final configuration. So, do not compare a prototype to other production helicopters. See the apache prototype pictures for reference.
2> The glass can withstand 12.7mm HMG. That is pretty high caliber.
The second prototype of the Light Combat Helicopter nearing completion at HAL, Bangalore. Integrated with weapons and sensors, it is 200 kg lighter than the first prototype, which first flew last May
HAL will treat spectators at next week’s Aero India 2011 air show in Bangalore to a daring display of helicopter aerobatics by its newly built Light Combat Helicopter (LCH). HAL honchos promise that the LCH will fly manoeuvres that will eclipse the Indian Air Force’s globally acclaimed Sarang aerobatics team, which flies the Dhruv helicopter. The second prototype of the LCH is scheduled to make its first flight live at Aero India 2011.
Besides a gigantic Rs 7000 crore order of 159 Dhruvs from the Indian military, that helicopter is drawing attention from the Indonesian and Malaysian armed forces”, reveals Ashok Nayak, HAL’s Chairman and Managing Director. “But our main focus is India’s military. This year, we will give them 25 Dhruvs; and, from next year onwards, we will hand over 36 Dhruvs each year. Orders from other customers will be delivered over and above this basic production.”
^^^^
The Apache looks like a Toad in the front view but the LCH looks cool.
Badass !!
The radar cross section for LCH should be much less than the Apache.
The second prototype of the Light Combat Helicopter nearing completion at HAL, Bangalore. Integrated with weapons and sensors, it is 200 kg lighter than the first prototype, which first flew last May
------------
I just hope we do not over-stretch this TD model just to please crowd and babus.
Kartik wrote:it looks the same as LCH TD-1..canopy doesn't seem to have been changed..and this must be an old pic ... But its good to hear that they lopped off 200 kgs in weight..
Kartik & Sid, look closely, there are some changes
Kartik wrote:it looks the same as LCH TD-1..canopy doesn't seem to have been changed..and this must be an old pic ... But its good to hear that they lopped off 200 kgs in weight..
Kartik & Sid, look closely, there are some changes
Oh ho, instead of gull-wing doors now we have simple opening doors
The doors open on both the sides. Won't this cause extra weight for a dual frame for the doors and the body?
I can't be sure, but it seems that the pilot's windshield is longer in the vertical axis. Perhaps this will allow greater unhindered view to the co-pilot at the back.
Hari Nair wrote:
Kartik & Sid, look closely, there are some changes
Hari Nair Sir, I can only see the change being in the location of the canopy door hinges. But you had said that the size of the canopy could be reduced with more protection for the pilot in the future, since the LCH was only a TD as yet..any chance that this might be in the works ?
shiv wrote:The Apache above has some Abduls taking a joyride.
Hakeem ji there have been a few cases in eyeraq where khan abduls have had to hitch a ride on the Apache Iirc there was atleast one or two cases where an Apache would quickly come down n the crew of the downed kiowa evacuated by hanging on to the goonda's shoulders....
shiv wrote:The Apache above has some Abduls taking a joyride.
Hakeem ji there have been a few cases in eyeraq where khan abduls have had to hitch a ride on the Apache Iirc there was atleast one or two cases where an Apache would quickly come down n the crew of the downed kiowa evacuated by hanging on to the goonda's shoulders....
So let me argue against that and say that an armed helicopter with space inside (armed ALH/Chetak/Mi-17) will not require Abdul to hang on with this head inside the air intake and serve as body armor for people taking pot shots at the helo. Apart from the fact that an injured man may not be able to hang on that way.
This technology uses cyclonic effects (swirl vanes) in the front of the compressor together with an air pump to eject the separated particles. The device has been continually improved by GE over the years.
shiv wrote:So let me argue against that and say that an armed helicopter with space inside (armed ALH/Chetak/Mi-17) will not require Abdul to hang on with this head inside the air intake and serve as body armor for people taking pot shots at the helo. Apart from the fact that an injured man may not be able to hang on that way.
The 'outdated' Mi-24 and its export cousin Mi-35 come to mind.......the one and only true "Helicopter Gunship"
Regarding Apache The "platform" like structure on which the soldiers are sitting actually contains avionics and computers. IIRC there are more than one set for redundancy.
To me pilots of both choppers seem to have equal visibility
Showing the video of two Stinger missiles closely flying past his helicopter, Sinha described the lethality of the Mi-17: “It had a terrific record during the Russian attack on Afghanistan. It was known as ‘terror’. Kargil was one place where it was used in an offensive role. When it (MI-17) fires, there is no question of someone keeping his head up. It is like raining bombs!”
Despite adverse weather conditions, the helicopters logged on average 4 to 6 hours per day. The flights were performed at ultra-low level in poor visibility conditions and the crews were subjected to heavy stress, both moral and physical. For example, when airlifting tactical assault groups, some Mi-8 crews made as many as 52 landing a day.
When fulfilling missions associated with the delivery of tactical assault groups, conducting aerial reconnaissance and rescuing military personnel, six to eight helicopters sustained battle damage every day. Most of them were promptly repaired and put back into service. Once again Mil' hardware demonstrated its unique reliability and survivability. The powerplant and transmission of the 'eights' proved especially reliable.
The helicopter would have day/night targeting systems for the crew including the Helmet pointed sight and Electro-optical pod consisting of CCD camera/FLIR/Laser range finder/laser designator. The LRF & LD facilitate measurement of range to the target & guidance to the Laser guided Missiles respectively. A Digital Video Recorder would enable recording of the vital mission for debriefing purposes. The turret gun skewing is controlled by the helmet mounted sight of the gunner.
shiv wrote:I am sure they all can. As long as nothing vital is hit - it will keep on flying.
Well they all can for sure but dedicated attack choppers like Mi-28/Apache have extra armour protection all round specially in vulnerable areas and the crew are well protected by armour which can resist hits from higher caliber weapon , some like Ka-50/52 even have ejection seats and Mi-28 has special crew ejection mechanism which can be used above certain altitude to escape.
ALH , Mi-17 and Mi-8 are essentially transport chopper by design and specs which are converted to assault chopper to perform some role and has specific advantage like use in high altitude but have they own disadvantage as well.
shiv wrote:I am sure they all can. As long as nothing vital is hit - it will keep on flying.
Well they all can for sure but dedicated attack choppers like Mi-28/Apache have extra armour protection all round specially in vulnerable areas and the crew are well protected by armour which can resist hits from higher caliber weapon , some like Ka-50/52 even have ejection seats and Mi-28 has special crew ejection mechanism which can be used above certain altitude to escape.
Precisely my point. Why have Abduls hanging on on the outside? All that fancy armor is useless for those guys. Also the ejection seats that allow pilots to eject with those Abduls hanging on. That is where this conversation started - you will recall. The armored helo will survive better with or without those guys. The ALH/Chetak wil be better for casevac no matter how great and praiseworthy the Apache might be.
I cannot understand why you and others are singing the praises of Apache on this thread. Maybe I should have done my pranaams to Apache properly before saying anything. But Abduls hanging on the side is, in my view just plain silly. That is all I wanted to say - but yet I am treated to a series of posts saying how good the Apache really is. It still is no good for casevac if Abduls have to hang onto air intakes or avionics.
No amount of praise of Apache will convince me that an Adbul hanging off an Apache is better off then a rescued Abdul lying inside a Chetak. Again for troop insertion - Abduls hanging on the side are worse off.
No amount of praise of Apache will convince me that an Adbul hanging off an Apache is better off then a rescued Abdul lying inside a Chetak. Again for troop insertion - Abduls hanging on the side are worse off.
Siv ji, this curious case of hanging Abduls was first observed in Afgan region when on one occasion Royal Marine commando had to take a ride on Apache to rescue their fallen comrade. Resistance was so high that it was deemed impossible to send a normal chopper as their amour protect was not enough for such mission.
But this was just one of incident as it was considered suicidal (of course). We can be sure that this event did not translate to operational procedures.
shiv wrote:
No amount of praise of Apache will convince me that an Adbul hanging off an Apache is better off then a rescued Abdul lying inside a Chetak. Again for troop insertion - Abduls hanging on the side are worse off.
Shiv ji, I don't see anyone making such a point here. But if there is no other helicopter close by and a few abduls are caught in a particularly hairy situation they need to get out of, what would they choose; trying to escape by hanging off an Apache/Mi-28/LCH/whatever or waiting for an evac helo to reach them by which time they might be in several places instead of one?
Last edited by nachiket on 07 Feb 2011 06:35, edited 1 time in total.
