LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

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.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14734
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby pankajs » 21 Sep 2013 11:58

HAL awards Saab follow-on contract for Dhruv EW suite
Saab has been awarded a SEK216 million (USD33 million) contract to supply its Integrated Defensive Aids Suite (IDAS) to Hindustan Aeronautic Limited (HAL) for its Dhruv multirole helicopter.

In a statement, Saab said the IDAS is an electronic warfare suite that "provides a timely warning against different types of threats, including radar, laser and missile approach warning; and automatically deploys the appropriate countermeasures".

HAL first ordered IDAS for the Dhruv in 2008; this contract is for series production of the system, which will be undertaken by Saab subsidiary Saab Grintek Defence (formerly Avitronics) in South Africa.

In 2011 the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Sweden's Defence Research Establishment (FOI) signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to fit Saab's Coherent All RAdio BAnd Sensing (CARABAS) foliage-penetrating airborne surveillance radar to the Dhruv.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 23 Sep 2013 12:10

imo the chinook is neither here nor there.
its purchase is being rushed through under a very flimsy argument of being able to lift the M777 which we are getting only 150 of. other than that, what can it do a Mi17V cannot? it can definitely trounce the Mi17 in PR films for sure, with glossy footage of SEAL team in a inflatable boat sliding right into the fuselage etc. its a clumsy lumerbing dabba that cannot even do a secondary gunship role unlike mi17.

if we really need heavy veritical lift in volume let us get the Merlin or CH53K.

while we dance around the attractive gori chinook and hem haw about HAL 12-t heli project, the Cheen have quietly setup their licensed production line for Mi17V latest version and will no doubt be making the engine locally as well, stealing and cloning what they can along the way.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2724
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby darshhan » 23 Sep 2013 17:39

Singha wrote:imo the chinook is neither here nor there.
its purchase is being rushed through under a very flimsy argument of being able to lift the M777 which we are getting only 150 of. other than that, what can it do a Mi17V cannot? it can definitely trounce the Mi17 in PR films for sure, with glossy footage of SEAL team in a inflatable boat sliding right into the fuselage etc. its a clumsy lumerbing dabba that cannot even do a secondary gunship role unlike mi17.

if we really need heavy veritical lift in volume let us get the Merlin or CH53K.

while we dance around the attractive gori chinook and hem haw about HAL 12-t heli project, the Cheen have quietly setup their licensed production line for Mi17V latest version and will no doubt be making the engine locally as well, stealing and cloning what they can along the way.


You are on dot Singhaji. Chinook procurement is nothing but daylight robbery of Taxpayers money. Unfortunately the current dispensation has sold its soul to USA. Defence preparedness is not their priority. Satisfying American overlords is.

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_23455 » 23 Sep 2013 17:50

darshhan wrote:
Singha wrote:imo the chinook is neither here nor there.
its purchase is being rushed through under a very flimsy argument of being able to lift the M777 which we are getting only 150 of. other than that, what can it do a Mi17V cannot? it can definitely trounce the Mi17 in PR films for sure, with glossy footage of SEAL team in a inflatable boat sliding right into the fuselage etc. its a clumsy lumerbing dabba that cannot even do a secondary gunship role unlike mi17.

if we really need heavy veritical lift in volume let us get the Merlin or CH53K.

while we dance around the attractive gori chinook and hem haw about HAL 12-t heli project, the Cheen have quietly setup their licensed production line for Mi17V latest version and will no doubt be making the engine locally as well, stealing and cloning what they can along the way.


You are on dot Singhaji. Chinook procurement is nothing but daylight robbery of Taxpayers money. Unfortunately the current dispensation has sold its soul to USA. Defence preparedness is not their priority. Satisfying American overlords is.


Thanks for dragging the thread OT - feel free to post facts to back up your claim in the relevant thread so we can understand the rationale behind that belief. Incidentally, these would be the same Americans who have undermined our defence preparedness by supplying equipment on-time, in some cases ahead of time, in contrast to our previous Russian overlords?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Viv S » 23 Sep 2013 19:42

Singha wrote:imo the chinook is neither here nor there.
its purchase is being rushed through under a very flimsy argument of being able to lift the M777 which we are getting only 150 of. other than that, what can it do a Mi17V cannot? it can definitely trounce the Mi17 in PR films for sure, with glossy footage of SEAL team in a inflatable boat sliding right into the fuselage etc. its a clumsy lumerbing dabba that cannot even do a secondary gunship role unlike mi17.

if we really need heavy veritical lift in volume let us get the Merlin or CH53K.


The Chinook is been acquired as a replacement to the IAF's Mi-26. It was selected after being pitted against the Oboronprom entry Mi-26T2. There may be a case for the CH-53K (which is what the SEAL boats deploy from), the closest competitor to the Mi-26T2. Then again its not used by the US Army for airlift and even the USAF employs only the MH variant, that too only for SF/CSAR missions. Also while CH-53E/K can lift significantly heavier loads than the CH-47F, its cabin volume is not proportionally larger. For most operations they're near comparable.

Its likely that the IAF analysed its Mi-26 fleet's operating record and concluded that a 10 ton payload was adequate for its heavy lift requirements.

(Also Merlin is a medium lift aircraft in the Mi-17 class; doesn't compare.)

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_23455 » 23 Sep 2013 22:23

Viv S wrote:
Singha wrote:imo the chinook is neither here nor there.
its purchase is being rushed through under a very flimsy argument of being able to lift the M777 which we are getting only 150 of. other than that, what can it do a Mi17V cannot? it can definitely trounce the Mi17 in PR films for sure, with glossy footage of SEAL team in a inflatable boat sliding right into the fuselage etc. its a clumsy lumerbing dabba that cannot even do a secondary gunship role unlike mi17.

if we really need heavy veritical lift in volume let us get the Merlin or CH53K.


The Chinook is been acquired as a replacement to the IAF's Mi-26. It was selected after being pitted against the Oboronprom entry Mi-26T2. There may be a case for the CH-53K (which is what the SEAL boats deploy from), the closest competitor to the Mi-26T2. Then again its not used by the US Army for airlift and even the USAF employs only the MH variant, that too only for SF/CSAR missions. Also while CH-53E/K can lift significantly heavier loads than the CH-47F, its cabin volume is not proportionally larger. For most operations they're near comparable.

Its likely that the IAF analysed its Mi-26 fleet's operating record and concluded that a 10 ton payload was adequate for its heavy lift requirements.

(Also Merlin is a medium lift aircraft in the Mi-17 class; doesn't compare.)


Largely correct, and though this topic is now going OT from its artillery focus some corrections/updates.

The MH53 was retired by the USAF in 2008 from the CSAR role. The CSAR mission then went to the HH60, a Black Hawk variant. The USAF badly mismanaged its future CSAR-X competition which had the Chinook as the winner, edging out the US version of the Merlin and Sikorsky's S-92 Super Hawk.

The CH-53K would have a hard time deploying SEAL boats as it is in flight testing. Perhaps you meant the CH53E, which has as much similarity to a K version as an F/A18 Hornet with a Super Hornet.

Hope we can get back to the thread now...

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sohamn » 24 Sep 2013 01:33

darshhan wrote:
Singha wrote:imo the chinook is neither here nor there.
its purchase is being rushed through under a very flimsy argument of being able to lift the M777 which we are getting only 150 of. other than that, what can it do a Mi17V cannot? it can definitely trounce the Mi17 in PR films for sure, with glossy footage of SEAL team in a inflatable boat sliding right into the fuselage etc. its a clumsy lumerbing dabba that cannot even do a secondary gunship role unlike mi17.

if we really need heavy veritical lift in volume let us get the Merlin or CH53K.

while we dance around the attractive gori chinook and hem haw about HAL 12-t heli project, the Cheen have quietly setup their licensed production line for Mi17V latest version and will no doubt be making the engine locally as well, stealing and cloning what they can along the way.


You are on dot Singhaji. Chinook procurement is nothing but daylight robbery of Taxpayers money. Unfortunately the current dispensation has sold its soul to USA. Defence preparedness is not their priority. Satisfying American overlords is.



I can't tolerate these rants from ignorant people. :x

This same govt. didn't hand out the biggest aircraft deal to USA but you claim they have sold their soul to US. What kind of hypocrisy is this?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 24 Sep 2013 01:37

^ Feeling is mutual birather , btw did you notice that biggest AC deal or MMRCA tender actually had competing bids and IAF trails ?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8098
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 24 Sep 2013 01:44

negi wrote:^ Feeling is mutual birather , btw did you notice that biggest AC deal or MMRCA tender actually had competing bids and IAF trails ?

Well, the heavy lift helo procurement also had competing bids. It was Chinook vs Mi-26T remember? And there were IAF trials. Personally I could never understand how the Mi-26T and Chinook were to be comparatively evaluated since they are in different classes.

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby symontk » 24 Sep 2013 06:15

Yesterday I spotted a LCH flying around at about 2PM

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby member_23455 » 24 Sep 2013 07:20

nachiket wrote:
negi wrote:^ Feeling is mutual birather , btw did you notice that biggest AC deal or MMRCA tender actually had competing bids and IAF trails ?

Well, the heavy lift helo procurement also had competing bids. It was Chinook vs Mi-26T remember? And there were IAF trials. Personally I could never understand how the Mi-26T and Chinook were to be comparatively evaluated since they are in different classes.


Which partly explains how a US system got to be L1 (lowest bidder) against a Russian system. Of course if one takes into account realistic experiences with Russian life cycle costs, it becomes even more of a no brainer.

saje
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 08 Oct 2010 16:28
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby saje » 24 Sep 2013 13:56

Can anyone confirm sighting of a Fennec-type helicopter around HAL (blore) today? I saw one flying near Silk Board and seemed headed in general HAL direction. Darkish paint. Could there be civilian users of this type? Or used by HATSOFF? If not, why is one flying around when that contract for the army has been cancelled? Fennec file photo below.

Image

atreya
BRFite
Posts: 541
Joined: 11 Dec 2008 16:33

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby atreya » 24 Sep 2013 15:19

Saje, what time? I didn't see one, but heard a chopper flying at around 10 am in Koramangala.

chiru
BRFite
Posts: 206
Joined: 17 Jun 2009 12:46
Location: mahishooru

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby chiru » 24 Sep 2013 18:11

@ saje
i did spot a dark coloured chopper with a round chin, moving towards HAL, flying quiet low. i thought it was a chetak or a cheetal but it did not have the ribbed all glass front and definitely sounded different.

saje
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 08 Oct 2010 16:28
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby saje » 24 Sep 2013 18:21

chiru wrote:@ saje
i did spot a dark coloured chopper with a round chin, moving towards HAL, flying quiet low. i thought it was a chetak or a cheetal but it did not have the ribbed all glass front and definitely sounded different.


Yes, that matches my sighting.

atreya wrote:Saje, what time? I didn't see one, but heard a chopper flying at around 10 am in Koramangala.


I spotted it around sometime past 12 p.m.

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby sohamn » 25 Sep 2013 08:26

negi wrote:^ Feeling is mutual birather , btw did you notice that biggest AC deal or MMRCA tender actually had competing bids and IAF trails ?



Brother, As far as I know most of MOD and including our maha mantri is still aligned with Russia and Israel. There is still a mistrust with USA and no one can say that either UPA or NDA is biased towards USA. It is simply not true.

MOD goes with FMS route because of three reasons
a) There is no close competitor and hence bidding can't be done. ( E.G. there is no lightweight howitzer in the same class as M777 or there is no aircraft like the versatile Super Hercules )
b) FMS can be little costly but because of the straightforward process chances of corruption and malpractice is less. ( No serious charges of corruption has been made with any recent FMS deals with USA )
c) Bidding has gone no where and Army's capability on that front has degraded to an extent that warrants immediate purchase. ( e.g. M777 howitzer, immediate and urgent requirement )

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14734
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby pankajs » 28 Sep 2013 13:39

http://idrw.org/?p=27305#more-27305

Assessing India’s rotary wing programmes and requirements

Image

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby koti » 28 Sep 2013 18:37

^^That's around 1000+ on the table :shock:
Anyway, I guess there is a miscalculation at the Rudra's price. I doubt Rudra costs more then twice that of a Dhruv. Does it?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 28 Sep 2013 19:13

The cost of Rudra would be because of its weapons suit, and the electronice package.

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

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 28 Sep 2013 19:34

the cost differential of Mi17V and Chinook is huge. I really wonder if more C130J would be better VFM than Chinook for the price.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby pragnya » 28 Sep 2013 19:37

koti wrote:Anyway, I guess there is a miscalculation at the Rudra's price. I doubt Rudra costs more then twice that of a Dhruv. Does it?


not sure if the quoted costs are correct. :roll:

but the cost will be 'appreciably' higher for Rudra because it will have IDAS EW suite, chin mounted Nexter gun, El-op sights, armoured plating, pylons/launchers and necessary mods required for the structure as a whole.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 25 Oct 2013 17:27

The 3rd LCH was to feature a weight saving of about 300 Kgs. Where are they going to shave this weight from an already light machine is some thing that only HAL can answer. Previous readings on this subject, lead me to the conclusion, that, an inability to loose weight can be a deal breaker for the machine.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24181
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby SSridhar » 04 Nov 2013 06:25

A new missile for Weaponised Dhruv. Link
Meanwhile, with MBDA awaiting India’s response for its offer of air-to-ground PARS 3 LR missile, Dr. Stammler claimed that during field evaluation trials of the weapon in Sweden in 2012 for the Indian Army and HAL officials, all requirements were fulfilled. The missile is planned to be mounted on ALH Dhruv combat helicopters.

Dr. Stammler said that to meet Indian requirements for the PARS 3 LR missile, a twin-engine launcher was designed and developed in collaboration with an Indian company. Four launchers, each carrying two missiles, would be mounted on the helicopter. The prototype of the twin launcher was seen by HAL officials soon after the field trials.

The project manager of PARS 3LR Munition, Walter Mackrodt, said PARS 3 LR was a high-precision fire-and-forget weapon that could be fired in salvo mode from the helicopter, and four missiles could be launched in 10 seconds to engage as many targets.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 04 Nov 2013 07:49

never understood why we need the pars when the helina is almost ready.

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

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 04 Nov 2013 08:19

It's apparently been tested only in Sweden. No "summer trials" in the Thar for this import.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 04 Nov 2013 08:20

It seems to be an advertorial, pretending to be a news report. As it begins with trip to MBDA facility in Europe.

WRT, tests in Sweden, it 2ont need summer trials in thar.
Last edited by Pratyush on 04 Nov 2013 08:22, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 04 Nov 2013 08:21

I wonder what is the T:W ratio of other helis like rooivalk, mangusta, tigre and wz10 of similar shape and size?
is LCH being held to some uber high t:w spec?
though shaving weight is best way, if thats not feasible (and it never really is as more weapons and avionics are added), the F-solah way of sticking in more powerful engine is only way out.
I hope turbomeca has been told to work on growth version of the ardigen engine...

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2501
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby John » 04 Nov 2013 08:45

What is key in the article is that for ALH twin missile launcher that can carry PARS-3 is complete which i assume can also be fitted with Helina.

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

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 04 Nov 2013 09:06

Pratyush wrote:...

WRT, tests in Sweden, it 2ont need summer trials in thar.

Er... Why?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 04 Nov 2013 09:20

If it was needed it would have been done, by now.

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

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 04 Nov 2013 10:31

Well then I hope they follow the same standards for the HELINA and ask it to be proved in arctic or temperate conditions onlee.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby Neshant » 04 Nov 2013 12:06

SSridhar wrote:Dr. Stammler said that to meet Indian requirements for the PARS 3 LR missile, a twin-engine launcher was designed and developed in collaboration with an Indian company.


Hopefully the Indian company was not simply turning a screw driver.

Somehow I doubt they would need the help of a local company other than to make the missile appear indigenous rather than an import.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby pragnya » 04 Nov 2013 12:27

Neshant wrote:
SSridhar wrote:Dr. Stammler said that to meet Indian requirements for the PARS 3 LR missile, a twin-engine launcher was designed and developed in collaboration with an Indian company.


Hopefully the Indian company was not simply turning a screw driver.

Somehow I doubt they would need the help of a local company other than to make the missile appear indigenous rather than an import.


your hope may not be wrong afterall.

A Bangalore-based Indian company has been co-opted by MBDA to design and develop a twin launcher, a derivative of the quad launcher fitted on German Tiger helicopter, for the launch of the missile from ALH Rudra. “The twin-launcher has been developed by the Indian company and its production will be done there [in the event of the selection of Pars 3 LR in the competition].”


http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 565403.ece?

however since the indian trials of the PARS has not happened after apr 2011 trials in Sweden, IMO Helina may have made greater progress than we think and hopefully fulfill the army's reqt. the twin launcher will come handy. :P

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 04 Nov 2013 16:08

there might already be one for the helina.

Image

Image

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2501
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby John » 05 Nov 2013 02:47

The tube launcher seems more of a temporary solution, a missile launcher would allow more versatility and simplify maintenance.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 05 Nov 2013 03:02

May be I am missing something but HELNIA and PARS 3 are very similar spec wise, it's not that PARS is lighter than HELNIA or outguns it in terms of range or say even some tactical capability like top attack or even guidance so why would we even bother to import another weapon system ?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8225
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 05 Nov 2013 06:27

The platform is ready, the missile is not. Hence the interim solution till the missile comes on board.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 05 Nov 2013 19:57

^ May be this is for the missile thread but from RahulM's pics it looks like it has already been fired from the ALH , so it is not that HELINA is in nascent stages of development I mean what kind of timeline are we talking about here ? Let's say 2-3 years ? Isn't that pretty much same as negotiating for PARS 3, getting the deal signed and then integrating it with ALH (please note trials were done in Sweden ? Which means ruggedization of seeker for Indian conditions could take longer) ? Please note even for PARS 3 MBDA had to collaborate with HAL to get the twin launcher done . I think this is a bane of our weapons development and procurement system i.e. they are pursued in silos where one does not know or knowingly ignores what other is upto and then are carried out on whim of some joker who wakes up from the wrong side of the bed.

In no other country a foreign system is imported when a domestic weapon system of similar capability is in advanced stages of development and with the kind of cost advantages DRDO has to offer this does not even make economic sense , MBDA has a huge clout over the anti tank munitions market in India via Milan series one cannot rule out the possibility of someone's pockets being loaded in this case.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 05 Nov 2013 20:08

The latest on HELINA is dated 24th of Sept 2013.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... -programme

'Helina' with a range of 7-8km, will be launched from twin-tube stub wing-mounted launchers on board the armed HAL Dhruv and HAL Light Combat Helicopter produced by state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). The first ground launches of the missiles were conducted in October 2011 during which the missile was launched onto the target. While the missile was in flight, a second target was chosen for the missile to hit, which was successfully destroyed. This demonstrated the capability of the missile to lock onto and hit another target while in flight. A two-way RF command-video data link has been released which is intended to be fired from HAL ALH.

So HELINA supports LOAL too and this was back in 2011, I am not sure what is the need for PARS then as it is under the leadership of Maan-niya PM ji I don't expect IA seeing any action in coming year , so why this hurry ? Last I checked even PARS 3 was in development until mid 2011 so on what grounds was a foreign platform in middle of a development phase was chosen over the one that we know and own ?

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Postby pragnya » 05 Nov 2013 20:49

negi wrote:So HELINA supports LOAL too and this was back in 2011, I am not sure what is the need for PARS then as it is under the leadership of Maan-niya PM ji I don't expect IA seeing any action in coming year , so why this hurry ? Last I checked even PARS 3 was in development until mid 2011 so on what grounds was a foreign platform in middle of a development phase was chosen over the one that we know and own ?


PARS is in service with the german army as of oct 2011 and the trials for the IA haven't been held as the OEM was awaiting the schedule from HAL which has not happened so far AFAIK. my guess is, as i noted earlier, this is not going to happen as HELINA may have made rapid strides in the mean time - as noted by your link, and 'possibly' would ride the Dhruvs and LCH.

fwiw.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests