LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

[prabhug]

What is that red colored rod sticking to the nose of the helicopter?

[wig]

Indigenous anti-missile system to protect Mi-17

The Indian Air Force’s Mi-17 helicopters are being retrofitted with indigenous composite armour and anti-missile systems to enhance their protection envelope and improve their operational capability.

The missile protection gear, also called counter measure dispensing system (CMDS), has been developed by state-owned Bharat Dynamics Limited and has undergone flight trials. These systems work by dispensing flares or metallic chaff to deflect or “confuse” the heat-seeking sensors or radar receivers of incoming hostile missiles. Composite armour, developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), will replace the existing imported heavy-steel armour, thereby improving their net payload capacity in high altitude areas like Ladakh.

One set of prototype armour panels has undergone successful integration and flight trials on a Mi-17 1-V version at No.3 Base Repair Depot (BRD) here and the airworthiness certification process is underway. The modification and retrofitting of the Mi-17 fleet with the CMDS and composite armour will be undertaken at 3 BRD here, which is the nodal agency for providing technical support for Soviet-origin helicopters.

The modification of Mi-17s with defensive measures is significant because of their tactical operational role that includes offensive close-air support by mounting rocket pods and machine guns, carrying out special missions, airborne assaults, supporting the Special Forces and undertaking logistic support in forward areas.

The IAF had lost a Mi-17 along with its crew while undertaking armed missions in high altitude areas during the 1999 Kargil conflict. Earlier this year, in the first incident of its kind, an IAF Mi-17 crash landed in Chhattisgarh after it was hit by ground fire from naxalites. A police radio operator on board was injured by fire. The IAF began inducting the Mi-17 in 1986, when a total of 53 such helicopters were ordered from Russia.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20131222/nation.htm#9

[John]

@prabhug, that is for measuring air speed.

[LakshO]

Question from a rookie: can we reduce the length of the wings on the LCH? I am sure there are benefits from having smaller/more compact structure (lower radar signature, lesser drag, more speed etc). As the wings are right now, they stick out and make LCH more visible.

Any gyaan on this?

[Aditya G]

Technicians work on Sikorsky S-92 helicopter's cabin in Tata Advanced Systems manufacturing facility at Ranga Reddy district, Andhra Pradesh, on Monday. Photo: Mohammed Yousuf

URL: http://www.thehindu.com/business/sikors ... 273731.ece

It has a Naval variant as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-148_Cyclone

[nash]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20663

Army to get 40 ALH, Navy one

The DAC has also given its nod to the Army to go ahead with the acquisition of 41 Dhruv advanced Light Helicopters. The choppers would be acquired at a total cost of Rs. 300 crore and one of them would serve the Navy.

300 crore, that means ~7.5 crore each, i.e. ~1210000$. It is much less than the price given in Wiki(6.1mil $).

Is it a typo of a zero or is this the cost of each chopper?

[abhik]

^^^
Must be 3000. I would speculate that a good number of the Army ones are WSI editions which would be much more expensive than the regular ones.

[tsarkar]

The single Navy order is intriguing. AFAIK, its not attrition replacement. So what's it for?

Orders of this type are typically indicators of things to come. Has it something to do with this?

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 401783.ece

[Indranil]

Question from a rookie: can we reduce the length of the wings on the LCH? I am sure there are benefits from having smaller/more compact structure (lower radar signature, lesser drag, more speed etc). As the wings are right now, they stick out and make LCH more visible.

Any gyaan on this?

1. Shorter wings have more drag. Read about aspect ratio
2. If you have a lot of ammunition close to each other, the air that has to pass between them has to be squeezed past very fast. This increases drag too. Read about interference drag.

And this is just aerodynamics

[vivek_ahuja]

1. Shorter wings have more drag. Read about aspect ratio
2. If you have a lot of ammunition close to each other, the air that has to pass between them has to be squeezed past very fast. This increases drag too. Read about interference drag.

And this is just aerodynamics

Except that this is hardly the kind of airflow environment that allows a simple analogy with high aspect-ratio wings. Yes at high forward speeds the aerodynamics becomes more favorable for that comparison, but not otherwise. So unless the mass of the larger stub wings (and hence the corresponding power requirement) is offset by the very small drag savings (and its own power equivalent), the aerodynamics argument ceases to be about drag when considering the entire mission profile. Lift is another matter. It would be nice to think of larger wings with the argument that at high forward velocities, they would be useful. And they are. But there is also their obstruction effect to the rotorwash which causes problems during lower speeds. Which one is more important? You could argue either way depending on the design and mission profile.

I suspect that weapon spacing on the hardpoints is more at play here. You see the landing gear obstruction that has to be cleared by putting the weapons further outboard:



Compare the landing gear arrangement with this, for example:

[Singha]

not sure if this pic is for real field use. but the Mi28N carries a 8-pack of ATGMs on outboard pylon and its almost touching the equally bearish rocket pod (drum really) inboard
http://www.airwar.ru/photo/mi28/small/mi28_11.jpg
http://images2.jetphotos.net/img/2/6/6/ ... 860166.jpg

gentlemen of more cunning nature like Ahuja sir will likely be more interested in these ... volcano AT mine dispensing system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmBw0B_KboA
the WSI Dhruv would be a ideal platform to dump a shitload of these to channel enemy tank movements into friendly fire zones. or emergency defensive barriers to help overmatched defenders like DBO/Demchok.

[vivek_ahuja]

not sure if this pic is for real field use. but the Mi28N carries a 8-pack of ATGMs on outboard pylon and its almost touching the equally bearish rocket pod (drum really) inboard
http://www.airwar.ru/photo/mi28/small/mi28_11.jpg
http://images2.jetphotos.net/img/2/6/6/ ... 860166.jpg

Right. But then again, the Mi-28 is not exactly reeking of streamlined-design now, is it? What's a little more drag/power requirement on that monster? Its not like its going high into the Himalayas. Same argument for the AH-64 as well. Stick a big enough engine and you can make a pig fly too (Pak-lurks: no pun intended).

The thing to notice in the Mi-28 is also what I was posted earlier: check out the spanwise clearance of the inner pylon on the stub relative to the position of the undercarriage in the frontal plane. Same thing in the LCH and AH-64 as well. Gotta clear that landing gear else you might be shooting yourself down!

[vivek_ahuja]

gentlemen of more cunning nature like Ahuja sir will likely be more interested in these ... volcano AT mine dispensing system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmBw0B_KboA

Hehe. A typical AmriKhan solution to engineering problems! Gotta love'em!

the WSI Dhruv would be a ideal platform to dump a shitload of these to channel enemy tank movements into friendly fire zones.

Maybe it might be more economical (in terms of number of mines dispersed?) if it were on a bigger bird. Like the HAL medium lift helicopter.

Speaking of which, is that HAL project dead in the water?

[Indranil]

1. Shorter wings have more drag. Read about aspect ratio
2. If you have a lot of ammunition close to each other, the air that has to pass between them has to be squeezed past very fast. This increases drag too. Read about interference drag.

And this is just aerodynamics

Except that this is hardly the kind of airflow environment that allows a simple analogy with high aspect-ratio wings. Yes at high forward speeds the aerodynamics becomes more favorable for that comparison, but not otherwise. So unless the mass of the larger stub wings (and hence the corresponding power requirement) is offset by the very small drag savings (and its own power equivalent), the aerodynamics argument ceases to be about drag when considering the entire mission profile. Lift is another matter. It would be nice to think of larger wings with the argument that at high forward velocities, they would be useful. And they are. But there is also their obstruction effect to the rotorwash which causes problems during lower speeds. Which one is more important? You could argue either way depending on the design and mission profile.

I suspect that weapon spacing on the hardpoints is more at play here. You see the landing gear obstruction that has to be cleared by putting the weapons further outboard:



Compare the landing gear arrangement with this, for example:

Where is the like button?

[nachiket]

Why is the LCH not able to carry a 4-pack of ATGMs even on the inner pylons? Haven't heard anything about such an arrangement so far. Only the dual rail launcher has been talked about.

[LakshO]

Question from a rookie: can we reduce the length of the wings on the LCH? I am sure there are benefits from having smaller/more compact structure (lower radar signature, lesser drag, more speed etc). As the wings are right now, they stick out and make LCH more visible.

Any gyaan on this?

1. Shorter wings have more drag. Read about aspect ratio
2. If you have a lot of ammunition close to each other, the air that has to pass between them has to be squeezed past very fast. This increases drag too. Read about interference drag.

And this is just aerodynamics

Indranil: Thanks for the insight! Learnt something new today.

[Singha]

it should be able to take a 4-pack if they want. in a pure play AT role would give it 10 ATGMs to play with. or carry a assymetric load of 8 ATGMs and 2 mistral AAM to deal with any roving enemy gunships found onsite.

the similar size WZ10 mounts 4-pack on outboard pylons.
the tigre mounts a big box launcher on inner pylon http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/upl ... ger_03.jpg

maybe they are first testing what is feasible to carry loadwise at 16,000ft.

[Paul]

Question on the wheels, why does the LCH not lock it's wheels in after takeoff? Same goes for the apache.

The Mi-24 does do this as can be seen the following video locking its wheels in: 15:50 - 15:53

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55LuPlmgeiw

[Aditya G]

The single Navy order is intriguing. AFAIK, its not attrition replacement. So what's it for?

Orders of this type are typically indicators of things to come. Has it something to do with this?

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 401783.ece

Replacement for 1 unit that was donated to Maldives (?)

MoD should scrap the ICG tender for medium helos and order outright purchase of ALH.

[Nick_S]

not sure if this pic is for real field use. but the Mi28N carries a 8-pack of ATGMs on outboard pylon and its almost touching the equally bearish rocket pod (drum really) inboard
http://www.airwar.ru/photo/mi28/small/mi28_11.jpg
http://images2.jetphotos.net/img/2/6/6/ ... 860166.jpg

Right. But then again, the Mi-28 is not exactly reeking of streamlined-design now, is it?

This one is a bit better.

[John]

^ It's even bigger bullseye for RPGs.

Back on topic

the similar size WZ10 mounts 4-pack on outboard pylons.
the tigre mounts a big box launcher on inner pylon http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/upl ... ger_03.jpg

Added: WZ 10 and Tiger are much bigger helos than LCH, former has take off weight of over 6 tons vs 3.5 tons for LCH.

Speaking of that it will field PARS in a twin launcher.

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].”

[member_25400]

Has anyone posted this video on IN's Ka-31 AEW choppers ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-cxkeBl-RE
Found it interesting.

BTW, The same series includes information on IN sea harrier and Mig 29K

[Shrinivasan]

Has anyone posted this video on IN's Ka-31 AEW choppers ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-cxkeBl-RE

One thing which surprised me when the narrator was mentioning the range, flight ceiling etc... the audio went MUTE... I am glad that someone had the foresight to do that...

[dinesh_kimar]

Regarding use of ALH Dhruv as a Maritime Platform:

This is wrt NATO uses a Light MR Helo like the Lynx, as well as a Heavy like NH-90 or AW-101 (Merlin). An ALH Dhruv can take up atleast the light roles.

> Spec wise, the Dhruv is better than the Lynx, which is being used by NATO Countries, among others. Lynx can carry 2 x Torpedo and a Sonar System. Shakthi Engines on ALH deliver even more power, comparable to early Seakings.

>The Endurance Problem could include bigger tanks, and reducing the no. of Seats. (Kamovs can seat 6-8 people, Dhruv need not have 12 - 14 seats)

> Automatic blade folding system can be bought off the shelf. Suppliers exist in the UK who supply for Lynx and Seaking, and an Indian order for a few of these wont create much opposition. Manual version available at present.

> The Main problem seems to be Dhruv was optimized for ASR requirements of 6000m flight, which puts it at a disadvantage in Maritime environment. Different Rotor blades and new Main Gear Box needed - (Maybe consultancy with the Big Boys like Fiat Avio or the Americans can fix this?)

> A BRFite who works in HAL had posted here about HAL's Capabilities in Helicopter Design, with a Link to Aero India Seminar. HAL admits in the seminar that Dhruv's are optimized for 6000m Operations, and hence difficulty in Maritime Environment (My take: While HAL has made good progress in Helicopters, they still find it difficult to build a Gearbox and Rotor Blades. A gearbox test rig, mathematical models of gearboxes, and specialised knowledge of bearing materials, lubricating films, and dry running conditions for Gearbox Design are not easy to come by)

[Aditya G]

It is accepted at large that the ALH Dhruv is the not the ideal maritime helicopter. The IN has been open to all indigenous solutions, and I doubt they would have rejected the Dhruv for insignificant reasons. Nevertheless, there is always scope for induction in at least some roles, like shore based SAR and coastal patrol. ICG should have less stringent criteria and embrace the chopper.

I am curious to know, weather the HELINA missile can have any maritime applications. Is the warhead enough to penetrate ship armour?

[Singha]

ship armour these days is barely 1 inch of steel or aluminium. helina will go through like it didnt exist.

[abhik]

Launching ATGMs at large warships might be a really futile excersise. Here's a vid of a sinking of a US navy ship USS Guam(a largish 20,000t amphibious assault ship) in an exercise.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=reu_0uULP5 ... eu_0uULP58
This is apprantly what they hit it with before it finally sank after 12 hours :-

Total composition- 2 HARM missiles, 2 Hellfire Missile, 2 Penguin Missiles, 4 Maverick Missiles, CBU-99 Cluster Bombs, about 40 Laser Guided Bombs (LGB) using the MK-82 500lb warhead, 1 air-launched Harpoon Missile, 9 surface-launched Harpoons, Naval gunfire, and finally a MK-48 ADCAP torpedo.

[Aditya G]

Rudra will not be able to approach most warships as it will be shot down by cannon fire. At best it can hope to engage minor warships like pns azmat and Somali pirate vessels.

Are torpedos not relevant against surface targets? Ref match chetak

[John]

Are torpedos not relevant against surface targets? Ref match chetak

Quite effective refer to sinking of General Belgrano in Falklands but it would require multiple hits to bring down large ship but LWT carried by helos might not do much damage. LCH/Rudra armed with Spike NLOS could keep it out of range AAA fire but not sure if it can do much damage to a ship, during Lebanon conflict ins hanit took a hit from C-802 and withstood it.

At 15:57 (Falkland Islands Time (FKT)[N 1]) on 2 May, Conqueror fired three 21 inch Mk 8 mod 4 torpedoes[13] (conventional, non-guided, torpedoes), each with an 805-pound (363 kg) Torpex warhead. While Conqueror was also equipped with the newer Mark 24 Tigerfish homing torpedo, there were doubts about its reliability.[14] Initial reports from Argentina claim that Conqueror fired two Tigerfish torpedoes on General Belgrano.[15] Two of the three torpedoes hit the General Belgrano. According to the Argentine government, General Belgrano's position was 55°24′S 61°32′WCoordinates: 55°24′S 61°32′W.[16]
One of the torpedoes struck 10 to 15 metres (33 to 49 ft) aft of the bow, outside the area protected by either the ship's side armour or the internal anti-torpedo bulge. This blew off the ship's bow, but the internal torpedo bulkheads held and the forward powder magazine for the 40 mm gun did not detonate. It is believed that none of the ship's company were in that part of the ship at the time of the explosion.[17]
The second torpedo struck about three-quarters of the way along the ship, just outside the rear limit of the side armour plating. The torpedo punched through the side of the ship before exploding in the aft machine room. The explosion tore upward through two messes and a relaxation area called "the Soda Fountain" before finally ripping a 20-metre-long hole in the main deck. Later reports put the number of deaths in the area around the explosion at 275 men. After the explosion, the ship rapidly filled with smoke.[18] The explosion also damaged General Belgrano's electrical power system, preventing her from putting out a radio distress call.[19] Though the forward bulkheads held, water was rushing in through the hole created by the second torpedo and could not be pumped out because of the electrical power failure.[20] In addition, although the ship should have been "at action stations", she was sailing with the water-tight doors open.

[Manish_P]

What Does It Take to Sink a Ship?

[Singha]

you are looking at wrong end of the spectrum here. I didnt say sling a brahmos under a LCH and send it after a DDG. I meant pirate trawlers, PN corvettes and patrol vessels that lack air defence except a ak630 style gun(no SAM) but pack a bunch of ASM. instead of risking underarmed CG vessels or similarly equipped IN corvette (very little AD, as ASM) in a iffy 50:50 contest, LCH could fly out of shore or LPDs and make short work with a shower of Helina missiles with 2-3 helis swarming the area at low level.

also Helina will not sink even a small patrol vessel probably unless it scores a hit on ammo magazine, but will mission kill it cheaply and force it to run back, tail between legs.

in due course perhaps even a pair of small ASM could be mounted on LCH

[shiv]

A ship need not be sunk to be put out of action. A hole below the waterline is always a good option, and any damage that causes a fire and removes vital equipment and kills/wounds 20 crew basically reduces the threat from that ship. Naval history is replete with stories of such events. A helicopter carrying a 20-30 km range antiship missile will never be within range of a ship's air defence cannon. Something else will be needed to take the helo down.

[tushar_m]

a napalm warhead for missile's could be a possibility

even a small fire can create panic on any ship,fire remains the most dangerous weapons even after 100's of years of shipping

[Sid]

There are plenty of example for helicopter fired anti-ship missile, like Kh-35 (Urans) , sea-skua (UK), penguin (US), YJ-7 (china), etc. Even Iran has Noor ASM which can be fired from helicopters.

India already operate Urans and should be able to get it on LCH if possible.


So yeah, if we can have the fire control system for an ASM on ALH, it can take on the long range anti-ship role as well.

Our Sea Kings used to carry sea eagles. Being a lumbering giants, if they can perform this duty so should a nimble and fast LCH.
http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/sea ... 528-1b.jpg

[Singha]

There are plenty of missiles in 500kg range. And at sea level the payload problems of high alt would not apply.
It will need a sea search radar above the nose.

[vasu raya]

if its going to be LCH or any chopper why not an ARM?

for that matter what is it going to take to mod a HAL manufactured Dornier to release light weapons like the P-8I

[Singha]

it would not have the range of a sea king or NH90 or merlin though....maybe thats what prevents the idea of a navalized gunship taking off except the one exception which is AH1Z seacobra flying from american marine corps ships in limited nos to support ground forces. I do not think the seacobra was ever tried with ASM.
there are also more safety systems like blind navigation that is needed for flying over the ocean....I had found an article what work was done to get the apache ready for UK amphib ships. france also operated some gazelle helis in strike role off libya.

[Karan M]

In latest news, India is closing the AW deal, we will keep 3 out of 12 choppers contracted, and pay 45% of contract value.

Wonder what good those 3 helicopters are for.

[John]

There are plenty of example for helicopter fired anti-ship missile, like Kh-35 (Urans) , sea-skua (UK), penguin (US), YJ-7 (china), etc. Even Iran has Noor ASM which can be fired from helicopters.

India already operate Urans and should be able to get it on LCH if possible.

You guys are not being serious? For starters it is highly unlikely LCH can even carry anything that large. More importantly all those radar guided missile which require target acquisition and mid course guidance.

[shiv]

MBDA Marte