LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

[vishvak]

This is a post in Siachen thread. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1638301 . See how pakis are bluffing. What we could do is mass produce wings/engine/controls portion of medium lift helos (thereby improving logistics for the same) and plug it with homemade light helo body and get that machine certified. If not convenient then pass testing phase to private corporation. This occurred to me when I was wondering how pakis have maintained ceasefire cheaply even when they can't control occupied land, which is actually ours. The current situation can't help us to reclaim what is ours even when pakis can't control it.

[Lalmohan]

interestingly those with many years of aeronautical engineering knowledge and experience have not come up with the same concept for modular helicopters...
(hint... aircraft are not easy to modularise in the way cars and trucks are...)

[shiv]

Shiv - I rebutted your base and forward base scenario with a good explanation where it falls short. You ask for facts while yourself are lacking facts in your responses. Fuel - please come with facts to prove it is important as you have raised it-no further comments.

Summary- You are saying that if IAF asks for XYZ items then we should blindly do it.

Sorry sir. Between the IAF's recommendations and yours - I think the IAF is right, not you. That is what I have been pointing out. If that upsets you - that is not my problem

We are going to continue to disagree here.

[shiv]

The IAF says it needs 100 plus light helicopters soon.

When is soon? And why do they need them? Who is in a position to supply them? And in what timescale.

[member_23694]

Sir , below is my understanding which can definitely be as usual wrong , so feel free to correct me

Sometimes, I get the distinct impression that the 'aiming index' for Requirements needs to be lowered to a more pragmatic level!

The mention of Navy as "Navy has perhaps the best structured project management for indigenous systems". Yes completely agree. However as you yourself mentioned that Naval ship made in India have all sorts of components sourced from across the world and thus imported + Indian and are integrated on locally designed hulls.
Further if it was possible then Navy would still like to go for direct import of Nuke subs since the local one is not ready for induction yet and it needs more such subs.
So probably the ships are built in India but I am not sure if the import contents are less.

Regarding IAF: It sees J-20 and J-31 flying in neighborhood and would like something to compete with it. Where should it fallback . Does the PSU have a technological base(in certain critical areas) where massive investment could lead to quick results for the armed forces. China has probably approved $16 billion on jet engine development alone which may go up to $50 billion in next 2 decade and till then using the Russian engines

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/ ... 2G20130228

What should IAF do to meet the requirements in the near future. Should it go for imports (Rafale or Su 30 does not matter) or go for LCA against J-20.

After the bofors scandal in 1990 , it is just now that some PSU is coming with an artillery gun and probably using the bofors blueprint. I simply fail to understand, Why the PSU did not make an artillery and provide it to army much earlier at least as a show of it R&D capability. Even if no orders due to import lobby etc, the PSU would have served it purpose of R&D and indigenous capability. Was pro-activeness missing from the PSU.

we do desperately need to get a system in place (we simply don't have one!) and we need it quick

Yes we definitely need one but till we have a better indigenous capability(and for that spend more on R&D) how do we cater to our defence requirements ? Imports leading to JV/offsets and FDI.
The basic idea is that the armed forces should get the best available product to counter all the possible threats with confidence and then have a good time with their family . This is the best the Govt. and the PSUs can do for them.

[shiv]

Shiv & Nik -I'm not pitching a case for PSUs - however, you will need to admit that as a country that's an aspiring regional power, we can hardly afford to carry on the way we are - importing entire aircraft & weapon systems by the dozens, every year, year-on-year, without any credible long-term plan(s). Having also seen the other side of the fence, I would hazard an opinion that the Navy has perhaps the best structured project management for indigenous systems. Although it may be fashionable for a Jet-Jock to sneer at a warship project being 'low-tech' as compared to a fighter aircraft project, the fact remains a warship project is actually very complex and the Navy has successfully managed to integrate weapons, electronic & other systems, of Russian, Western or local origin, on locally designed hulls. The Navy's project management is structured to steer and pull the project, whereas the IAF & Army release their Requirements and then do a sort of somewhat hands-off monitoring. A very basic difference in approach to the problem.

Hari you know better than me that there are two issues here and it is the point at which they meet that the most heated discussions ensue.

The first issue that really must not be compromised is operational preparedness. Over the last 3 or 4 decades the IAF has time and again had to resort to urgent imports to meet operational requirements based on current threats. It started with the MiG 21 selection. And then the Su-7 selection. And then it was MiG 23/27 and MiG 29. Then Mirage 2000. Light helicopters may well fall in that category. It may be necessary to import a largish number until HALs' own LUH can take over

The second issue is national goals to break free from the cycle of import-->sanctions-->strategic strangling due to foreign pressure.

I do agree that the navy worked like the proverbial tortoise in the hare and tortoise tale. The air force was constantly asked to "scramble" (pun unintended) to meet threats posed by American and Chinese gifts to Pakistan. But that aside, our civilian manufacturing establishment has been far below par. A a nation it appears that until recently Indians were naively unaware that power does not lie simply in weapons in hand, but the capacity to produce weapons in a robust military-industrial complex. That needs solid investments in research and much money has to be simply poured into what will appear to be a bottomless hole. But it will pay off eventually - as the navy is showing.

My particular concern is about engines. We (as a nation) need to pour in money into development of engines and we may have to emulate the Chinese in testing out engines that do not have the same efficiency and MTBF that the best engines have.

I absolutely agree with your observation:

I get the distinct impression that the 'aiming index' for Requirements needs to be lowered to a more pragmatic level!

Here is how I see it panning out with regard to the light helo saga. The IAF needs light helos urgently now for operational reasons. The IAF (I am guessing) will need the induction of helos in the next 2-3 years (or earlier because they are already late). HAL is unlikely to be able to meet this deadline with its LUH. Assume we import enough to meet the IAF's requirements while we wait for the LUH to come on stream

But here we come up with a problem. The IAF is going to ask HAL to produce an LUH that exceeds the specs of the imported LUH or has some clear advantages. But since HAL has already started - it is unlikely that the IAF's demands can be met by HAL. So a new fight starts between HAL and IAF.

The IAF IMO may be allowed urgent imports for operational preparedness now, but must make a commitment to get deeply involved with the LUH development so that the design agency, production agency and the user all work together for the specific purpose of making the LUH work and making the LUH a long term replacements to the imported LUH that we may get for operational reasons. The IAF for its part must not ask for the moon and HAL/DRDO need to bust their butts supported by the government to get the thing working.

Most forum members know that Late Wingco Suresh was my cousin and I used to regularly sit in his Bangalore HAL office with him and others talking about various issues regarding aviation and HAL. Suresh played some part in bridging the gap between HAL and IAF with regard to flight safety and accidents issues. The IAF had contempt for HAL and HAL appeared uncaring and lackadaisical. But in many instances both were wrong. HAL had issues that the IAF could not or would not understand and vice versa. There is a serious human management issue here and for the future, be it HAL or IAF the future of the nation as a manufacturer of high tech aircraft needs to be kept in mind before egos and criticism ruin the relationship.

Let me say it out loud on BRF for the first time - is there a "north Indian-south Indian" issue between IAF and HAL, with more of north in one and more of south in the other? If there is - everyone needs a sound virtual kick in the butt.

[Manish_Sharma]

Hari sir, is it possible that this sort of crane helicopter can do away with landing on siachin light helipads and just deliver without touching down:

[Shubham]

^^^ nice idea , but several issues

- just look at the dimensions of the blades, i think at some of the helipads, this size could restrict operations. Sometime back on this forum there was a comparison btw chinook & Mi-26 capabilities at high altitude and one point was the rotor dimensions which favoured Chinook at helipads which have been carved out along the slopes of a ridge.

- To be hovering in ground effect (height above gnd less than rotor dia) is immensely beneficial to helicopters, from safety and performance point of view. So it would be an issue if you are always trying to do OGE operations (outside ground effect).

- Maybe sometimes it is just necessary to land ie to pick up casualty ??

[srin]

I'd expect that hovering would be one of the most complex tasks to do in a helo. And constantly needing to adjust to the gusts of wind that is typical in high mountains, and without the reserve power to react quickly, it would be even more complex.

Having never been inside a helicopter, forget flying one (even a flight-sim), I can only speculate. I'd consider this a three-dimensional "half-clutch" with no safety net.

[Hari Nair]

Hari sir, is it possible that this sort of crane helicopter can do away with landing on Siachin light helipads and just deliver without touching down:

The Ka-226, a mini sky-crane design had participated in the evaluation trials for the LUH. This helicopter had to touch down - but its co-axial rotors should have theoretically given good hover performance ( for lifting and dropping off loads on the Glacier), since its without a tail rotor (which absorbs about 10-12% power). Not sure how it performed in the trials, though.

Hari you know better than me that there are two issues here and it is the point at which they meet that the most heated discussions ensue.

The first issue that really must not be compromised is operational preparedness. Over the last 3 or 4 decades the IAF has time and again had to resort to urgent imports to meet operational requirements based on current threats. It started with the MiG 21 selection. And then the Su-7 selection. And then it was MiG 23/27 and MiG 29. Then Mirage 2000. Light helicopters may well fall in that category. It may be necessary to import a largish number until HALs' own LUH can take over

The second issue is national goals to break free from the cycle of import-->sanctions-->strategic strangling due to foreign pressure.....

Let me say it out loud on BRF for the first time - is there a "north Indian-south Indian" issue between IAF and HAL, with more of north in one and more of south in the other? If there is - everyone needs a sound virtual kick in the butt.

Shiv, I agree, regarding the need for op preparedness - there is NO dispute whatsoever - it just CANNOT be compromised.
But, like I said earlier, if the Govt continues to leave it all to an individual Service's discretion - then we will continue in perpetuity, to witness ignominious spectacles of senior officers beaming for photo-ops in front of shiny new import acquisitions. And that's just the tip of the malaise, if you ask me!
Any nation worth its own salt has realised that the trick to ensure an effective weapon system and to maximise its life-cycle, is to have a strong military-industrial complex working in tandem.
In that context, let's take two live examples -
Example One
The Pilatus trainer - a straight import- the going's great for the IAF, as of now its all huky-dory, with good flying & good serviceability. That's all nice, we may say for now.
What about major servicing? Overhauls? Spares? Logistics? In this context, the life cycle of an aircraft is usually around 20-30 years! What happens if the 'pipeline' is throttled in the future due to strategic pressures? Or are we so cock-sure of other-wise? We better not be, because in the past (the '65 ops), the French held back shipments of overhauled engines of the Mystere & Oragaun fighters, which obviously affected the fleet serviceability. And finally the money - what about the total costs during the entire life-cycle of the Pilatus system taken as a whole? - we will continue paying the jolly old Swiss for just about every activity and every nut & bolt for the next 20-30 years!! Thereby also help maintain their pristine lifestyle for many more years!!!
Example Two
The Medium Lift Helicopter
There is an obvious requirement for the three Services and the paramilitary to have a medium (10 tonne class) lift helicopter for various roles.
So what do the Yanks do?
Develop their UH-60 Black-Hawk and use it in variants for the USAF, US Army, US Navy, US Coast Guard.
What do the French do?
Develop their Super-Puma / Cougar and use it in variants for their defence & paramil forces.
Other European countries are using their NH-90 helicopter in different variants.
-And finally - what do we do?
Instead of taking a strategic high-level decision to adopt an existing design through a joint-venture or civil-PSU partnership or any other suitable arrangement and implement it in a time-bound manner, for the three Services & paramilitary, we do precisely - NOTHING!
An attempt to make common specs gets effectively torpedoed due to wildly varying requirements that is impossible to meet in a single contemporary platform.
The IAF imports the Mi-17IV.
The Navy is possibly pondering over some other import.
The BSF is looking at leasing Mi-17s.
And we are back to Square One.

Op Preparedness may be supreme - but can we just as casually damn all the rest of the considerations, for ever?
Like I said before, its too serious a matter to be left to the discretion of an individual Service.

[Bala Vignesh]

Excellent point with the medium help eg, Hari sir.. I have been wondering the same.. If this solution has precedent across the world and is known to be effective why are the three services not able to see this??

[Hari Nair]

Excellent point with the medium help eg, Hari sir.. I have been wondering the same.. If this solution has precedent across the world and is known to be effective why are the three services not able to see this??

Other countries do NOT leave it to the discretion of the their Services. If you do, then barring rare exceptions, you are likely to end up with each Service putting up requirements that are so wildly disparate, that it cannot all be met by a single contemporary platform

[vina]

Other countries do NOT leave it to the discretion of the their Services. If you do, then barring rare exceptions, you are likely to end up with each Service putting up requirements that are so wildly disparate, that it cannot all be met by a single contemporary platform

The trouble in India is WHO will make the trade off between performance wish list vs technical, economic and timeline feasibility ? We have a culture that top to bottom passes the buck. No one will stick their neck out and make that decision and document it. So what is easiest is done , that is scan the brochures of every possible product and put the best of brochure claims down as requirements. That way, you will get 100% cover for everyone's backside and everyone will sign. But by putting down such "unobtainium" you are set up to fail.

Couple that with the entire "PSU commanding heights" and "defense is reserved for PSU" , you eliminate the contribution of a far larger private sector with greater sophistication, talent and resources in many areas. So you are hamstrung right there. Add to that the 100% indigenization fetish and not some pragmatic approach of what is vital and needs to be built and developed from scratch and what can be bought out items, and the sheer idiocy of asking someone to design a system and then inviting L3 quote for manufacture from everyone else and maybe finally directing that a PSU produce it!

The system is structurally shot. That needs far reaching reforms and a clear architecture on how to get it done. The best thing is not to reinvent the wheel, and see what the Brits/Swedes/Israelis/Americans/Koreans do and adopt something that works wholesale and junk the current system of procurement etc. But that means the DPSUs get cut down to size, lose their protection from the govt , needs to actually start investing in R&D , upgrades skills and technology, revamps management (not just senior, but line management and program and project managament). That implies DPSUs have to cut the apron strings to the Def Min, the management run professionally, workforce rationalized and the whole nine yards.

Big question. Who will bell the cat ? Until now, no one. And the new govt hasnt even been able to appoint a dedicated Defense Minister!

[member_26622]

Shiv - I rebutted your base and forward base scenario with a good explanation where it falls short. You ask for facts while yourself are lacking facts in your responses. Fuel - please come with facts to prove it is important as you have raised it-no further comments.

Summary- You are saying that if IAF asks for XYZ items then we should blindly do it.

Sorry sir. Between the IAF's recommendations and yours - I think the IAF is right, not you. That is what I have been pointing out. If that upsets you - that is not my problem

We are going to continue to disagree here.

Getting back to fact on fuel consumption ( the other point raised by you)

Looking up HAL website http://www.hal-india.com/helicopter/products.asp,
DHRUV-
Fuel capacity - 1100 KG (should be litres)
Range - 660 KMS
KMS per litre fuel - > 0.6

Cheetah
Fuel capacity - 575 litres
Range - 660 KMS
KMS per KG fuel - > 1.14

Using this measure, Cheetah will consume less fuel but that is a red herring. KEY measure is Fuel consumed per KG payload.

If DHRUV transports twice payload of Cheetah, then it actually consumes 5% less fuel per KG transported (1-0.6/(1.14*0.5)). This is as expected as a larger craft is more efficient per KG transported. Plus Dhruv is a much more safe and state of art ride.

>>> Refuting both points you made earlier and hope that you are revising your perception.

[Rahul M]

Hari Sir, your comments remind me of something I wrote on BR earlier. India's military, esp army and air force, behave like the forces of a small state like burundi rather than that of an upcoming global power.

in the US their AF funds even hardcore basic science projects in pure mathematics & theoretical physics, so that the country stays on top of the knowledge chain. in ours forces wont fund an extra screw in indigenous research if it can import it in stead.

[member_26622]

Just the sheer number of foreign firms blacklisted in last 5 years shows the extent of corruption.

Think about it - 10% commission on a 20 billion $ deal is 2 billion $. That is an astronomical amount of money to buy out anybody.

My suggestion - explode a few nuke every year and kill this interference at its source.

[Yogi_G]

Hari Sir, your comments remind me of something I wrote on BR earlier. India's military, esp army and air force, behave like the forces of a small state like burundi rather than that of an upcoming global power.

in the US their AF funds even hardcore basic science projects in pure mathematics & theoretical physics, so that the country stays on top of the knowledge chain. in ours forces wont fund an extra screw in indigenous research if it can import it in stead.

Rahul saar, correct me if I am wrong and I am trying to find out what I have missed. We do currently have expeditionary capabilities currently far above our punching weight and are slowly improving it aren't we? Wouldn't this have been driven by a vision? Hasn't the navy already taken the route in "indigenizing" and initiating such complexities as stealth ships. Wouldn't this be in a way helping the knowledge chain grow.

[Bala Vignesh]

Nik, the fuel loaded in aircraft is always calculated in weight and not in Litres as the fuel tends to shrink in the colder temperature of higher atmosphere where as the weight remains constant. So our calculations should also be tuned accordingly.

[deejay]

Wow! reading the above thread makes me wonder if the IAF is a friend or the enemy here? I thought I had served in fantastic institution. If the IAF always does this "import" thing - hang us.

Really gentlemen, are you all so convinced about the IAF's inefficiencies, deliberate undermining of the requirements of India and that the photo op with machine is what we decide our very costly imports on?

Well, if the local PSU's are so great and since IAF does not prefer them let us focus on some of the Desi Maal and see how we developed them (some may be OT but important to the point). Let us also reflect on whether these programmes saw the Services hold the torch for the PSU's at important times or not and whether the PSU's were the perfect shining light of beacon while the IAF was the great evil. I will focus on the HAL - IAF projects - draw your own conclusions mostly (especially those saying that once a basic machine is ready and accepted it can be developed further)

Kiran (HJT -16). Platform was made in MK I, Mk I A & Mk II configuration. First prototype flown in 1964. Kiran Mk II - first prototype flown in 1976 and first delivery in 1985. No further development of platform. (Source - wikipedia) Status: Awaiting replacement.

IJT (Sitara HJT-36) Replacement programme for HJT 16 started in 1997 (source wikipedia). Status - Delayed. LSP's are under production and testing. Some issues in Stall & Spin. FOC expected by Dec 14. IAF orders of further 73 aircraft to be processed after FOC.

Deepak (HPT - 32). Platform first prototype - 1977, first deliveries to IAF 1984 (source: Bharat-Rakshak). Grounded in 2009. As per wiki :" In 17 Deepak crashes so far, 19 pilots have died. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India has been reported as saying the aircraft is "technologically outdated and beset by flight safety hazards" when discussing the grounding of the fleet in 2009. ". I think this is where the heart burns between HAL and IAF was maximum. I have mixed emotions on this one and often wonder if the HAL could have done better here.

HTT 40. Replacement programme for HPT -32. The programme is in limbo after IAF procurred 73 Pilatus. From wiki: An MoD official noted, "We would be willing to pay higher rates to build indigenous capability in strategic defence equipment. But can HAL argue that the capability to build basic trainers is strategically vital[?]". In September 2012 the Air Force indicated that it had formally rejected the HTT-40 for service based on its cost per aircraft being double that of the PC-7 Mk II. (again source wikipedia). As per another source HAL will deliver 02 HTT-40 by 2019 to IAF and 10 by 2021. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/in ... -soar.html. So what do we do till then? Support the HAL, don't buy trainers and suspend Basic Stage Training, I suppose. Double the cost of Pilatus? What was HAL doing here? Killing the project?

There is also an HJT 39 programme (Something like the Hawk) but not much on the status.

ALH Dhruv: Project with HAL since 1984. Production since 2002. IAF one of many customers. Export order based on tenders won (Ecuador). Platform under constant development. LCH / LUH platforms will benefit from this. The Dhruv seems to have won over the customer confidence with its Mk III variant with the Shakti engine which is finding greater acceptability. This is one platform in my opinion HAL has constantly developed and improved and I expect it to emerge as a big winner in terms of exports and sales in future. Way to go HAL. Though, the production rates need to be increased as planned and may be more.

LUH & LCH platforms under development. Will use a lot from the ALH programme. These may take time but I expect these to be good machines because the original platform has been under constant evolution even after entering production. There is a lot of learning here and it will show in these machines.

Meanwhile, there is this requirement of 197 LUH and the IAF requirement of the LUH. How do the Services do away with this requirement. Why can't we get the HAL to be on time for once! Why should the services compromise on their Op requirement for a PSU they have helped and worked with quite often and for so long.

The villain is not the IAF. It is the PSU's which need to stay ahead of the curve and deliver on time. Please don't expect to be baby sat if you are making mistakes and time delays. Not at this level. If HAL is good then it can do its own forecasting and customer need identification in advance to come up with projects on time. It should not wait for the services to dump things on it and then HAL climbing on board, missing targets, claiming foul committed by IAF.

There are other examples of PSU lethargy and poor platform development, where the Services have carried the torch for them. INSAS anybody? But then it would be completely OT.

[member_23694]

^^^^^^^^^^^
+1
Well said. Especially the fact

If HAL is good then it can do its own forecasting and customer need identification in advance to come up with projects on time. It should not wait for the services to dump things on it and then HAL climbing on board, missing targets, claiming foul committed by IAF.

This also holds true for other DPSU

[Hari Nair]

Wow! reading the above thread makes me wonder if the IAF is a friend or the enemy here? I thought I had served in fantastic institution. If the IAF always does this "import" thing - hang us.,,,
There are other examples of PSU lethargy and poor platform development, where the Services have carried the torch for them. INSAS anybody? But then it would be completely OT.

Deejay, its NOT IAF vs PSUs.
Check out my post carefully - I said a strong military-industrial complex is essential. Industry need not mean only PSUs!
Its this "us vs them" attitude that needs change.
Check out the two examples I put forward.
We can keep arguing ad-nauseum but the fundamental fact remains that -there is no way that we can continue forever with pure imports!
In any case, whether any Service agrees or not, it is time to change.
I'm sure change will be brought in, top-down
As I said - its too important to be left to the discretion of any individual Service.

Hari Sir, your comments remind me of something I wrote on BR earlier. India's military, esp army and air force, behave like the forces of a small state like burundi rather than that of an upcoming global power.

in the US their AF funds even hardcore basic science projects in pure mathematics & theoretical physics, so that the country stays on top of the knowledge chain. in ours forces wont fund an extra screw in indigenous research if it can import it in stead.

A bit harsh on the IAF there - but yes, you are fundamentally correct - they need an attitudinal & an institutional change.

[merlin]

Can deejay state, with examples, how the IAF is helping in creating a mil-ind complex in the aviation space? What leadership are they displaying? Supporting point products (sometimes half-heartedly like Tejas) does not count.

I'm specifically looking for instances where the IAF pushed for things which would create new capabilities - transport aircraft development, stealth platforms, unmanned platforms. Where push came from the IAF and not just by stating requirements, but leadership in pushing for indigenous capabilities, sometimes even at the cost of operational preparedness.

[member_23694]

Limited knowledge but still would like to state one observation :

Please check the below link for mazagon dock limited
http://investing.businessweek.com/resea ... d=22637537

Vice Admiral Harisimran Singh Malhi Chairman and Managing Director
Mr. G. Satyanarayana Director of Finance
Rear Admiral S. V. S. Chary Director of Ship Building
Commodore L. S. Sachdev Director of Submarine & Heavy Engineering
Rear Admiral R. Bajaj Director of Corporate Planning & Personnel

In case of HAL I don't see such thing and there seems to be the issue of disconnect

http://investing.businessweek.com/resea ... Id=9141170

Further in the HAL websit I see
http://www.hal-india.com/ourcustomers.asp

IAF as a major customer and not as a partner . Please correct me, how much is HAL welcoming for IAF to take ownership/key decision maker of product development taken up by HAL

So if HAL consider IAF as a customer then what should be the response from IAF side.

BTW today's speech by President mentioned

The government announced Monday that it will liberalise foreign equity in defence production and will also encourage private investment in defence.
"Government to encourage private investments in defence production," President Pranab Mukherjee said.
He added that the government will also liberalise FDI (foreign direct investment) in defence production.
"With available human resources, India can emerge as global platform for defence," he said.

Hopefully this will help in creating a mil-ind complex in the mid-term future

[shiv]

Just found this - regarding India's arms acquisition sloth
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/may ... ers-07391/

These moves are especially notable because India has had serious problems with a number of important military programs, which remain in limbo to this day because of poor (and often late) framing of unusual requirements with no reference to the marketplace, followed by rigid insistence that vendors provide off-the-shelf, unmodified solutions. Current high-profile casualties of that approach include external link India’s LUH/RSH light helicopter program, a body armor program for soldiers, the lightweight assault rifle program, 2 armored personnel carrier programs that included an urgent deployment need, upgrades to India’s BMP-2 APCs, new anti-tank missiles, the QR-SAM and MR-SAM air defense programs, and 155mm towed and self-propelled howitzers.

[deejay]

Winco Hari Sir,

Apologies if I overstepped. (OT slightly so mods delete / move the post if appropriate) Here I remember a Cheetah accident in which HAL component had / suspected to have failed. The crew room mood was definitely anti HAL then. AVM (Retd) Bahadur, then Gr Capt, gave us younger guys such a dressing down. His talk was not just nationalistic but also based on hard, cold facts. All in all a lot of people including me had our thinking reoriented that day by the scruff of our thinking neck.

What I am saying is the people in the IAF are equally aware and hopeful about the need and delivery of home grown solutions. The constant problem is our attitude -that while I am conscientious, the other guys are not. Hence, we never have a good word for the other side. It is however, wrong to assume a hostile IAF to indigenous developments.

merlin
Post subject: Re: LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread
Can deejay state, with examples, how the IAF is helping in creating a mil-ind complex in the aviation space? What leadership are they displaying? Supporting point products (sometimes alf-hehartedly like Tejas) does not count.

I'm specifically looking for instances where the IAF pushed for things which would create new capabilities - transport aircraft development, stealth platforms, unmanned platforms. Where push came from the IAF and not just by stating requirements, but leadership in pushing for indigenous capabilities, sometimes even at the cost of operational preparedness.

merlin ji, alas, i have not been privy to top level echelons of the decision making on leadership of IAF in cutting edge work especially the ones you have asked. I will try some research and if I find something relevant I shall post. By leadership I am assuming you mean - first with the idea and then getting DPSU's or HAL or DRDO to work on these platforms. Right?

I do know that the IAF held the torch along with others (not leadership, no I don't I think said the IAF is in leadership mode here. In fact in India I am not sure how much latitude Forces get in taking leadership on any issue, and on this I may be able to provide data points) on the projects I mentioned in the above post.

And this 'half-heartedly' supporting the Tejas is an assumption?

But, really should the IAF try taking leadership in mil-ind complex. Should it be part of the IAF brief. Yes, the IAF should be playing a more proactive role, but Leadership in this by Services, I am not sure.

[Rahul M]

deejay, IAF half heartedly supporting tejas is pretty well known. the problems AM Rajkumar had to go through because of his association with the program is a case in point. it was only after ACM Tyagi's tenure that IAF started taking a keen interest in it. (past & current LCA threads document all this)

no one in their right mind would deny that a professional force like IAF doesn't have people who genuinely support domestic research & industry. however the fact remains that all that is limited to individual efforts and that there is no institutional effort to lead domestic R&D, something the navy has achieved with some success.

[deejay]

Rahul M: There is a particular period which is often spoken about. Some correlations will reveal that the period wasn't what IAF always is. That period caused the IAF a lot of grief. AM Rajkumar was an example of what a Services officer should be in many ways. I heard him only once and he was talking of data mining, network based operations and other leading edge stuff that day and that we should read about these a lot. That tenure has also caused other well known problems and as such does not reflect what IAF does as a routine (I hope for all of us that we don't see a rerun of that).

As I said before, the IAF needs to be more involved and as you say, set up an institution to support them.

Yet, the missed deadlines, improper platform developments and not staying in touch with the requirements of the very customers you service are HAL's problems. The need is to be more professional, and towards this the IAF must never get in to the 'chalta hai' attitude, if it already has that, it must drop it. Also, on existing and in use platforms, the IAF and HAL collaborate very often. There are institutions in the IAF built just for that. ASTE (not completely IAF's), Maintenance Command, BRD's are in regular communication with HAL as required and vice-versa.

What we need is some new mechanism / institution for new procurement where PSU's and Forces can sit together at the inception stages. Otherwise I believe there is a Defence Acquisition Committee or something like that which clears purchases or imports of Defence Equipment. Your idea of sponsoring research like in US at various universities / institutions is worth exploring and I think it should be done.

I wish and I hope our own HAL becomes the cynosure of global military manufacturers, at par with the Boeing's, Lockheed's, ESA, Dassault and what not, just like ISRO (in my opinion) has. Also look at the Missile Development Programme for a success story of DRDO. The HJT -16 is HAL's good show, but there were no follow up development programs. IMO we lost a trick there or we would have been better placed with the IJT program. Similarly, HAL should develop the Medium Lift Helicopter and then we can at least have the Navy and the Army buying it, since the IAF, it seems is so set against anything domestic.

Going forward, there is the whole dimension on Robotics and unmanned warfare equipment which should be where the PSU's should be researching and they are. More and more, as our Navy expands, Naval and over / under sea solutions should be the principal focus. This is just an example, there are many more things to do. But stay ahead of the curve HAL. Don't get caught napping while the customers have moved on. I am entrepreneur today, and trust me I have learnt this lesson.

[vic]

Re Hari Nair

Pls tell us, instead of importing LoH, why cannot IAF use a combination of additional Cheetal, Chetan and ALH? The costs and benefits would largely be similar if not exactly same and few yearsbdown the line HAL LUH will start rolling out.

Secondly instead of imported Pilatus and imported Hawk, why can we not use HTT-40, IJT and LCA AJT version Trainer? Again the results will be similar if not same.

What is the reason as you said that we cannot combine the requirement of 12-15 ton helo for IAF, Navy, Army, VVIP and Civilian needs and place an order for 500 helos in one go? The foreigers will line up to sell practically any technology that is required for such a big order.

All this will allow deep indigenisation, commonality, lower life cycle costs etc etc.

[merlin]

Rahul M put it better than me on the Tejas story. Perhaps the Tejas may have come online faster with better support earlier. From all accounts the IAF involvement is more now compared to, say, 5-6 years earlier.

By leadership I am assuming you mean - first with the idea and then getting DPSU's or HAL or DRDO to work on these platforms. Right?

Exactly. Driving it. HAL and other def PSUs unfortunately aren't able to do that - at least that's my reading, so its left to the IAF to do that in the absence of MoD and higher who should be the ones driving it but have shirked their responsibility.

[merlin]

Re Hari Nair

Pls tell us, instead of importing LoH, why cannot IAF use a combination of additional Cheetal, Chetan and ALH? The costs and benefits would largely be similar if not exactly same and few yearsbdown the line HAL LUH will start rolling out.

Secondly instead of imported Pilatus and imported Hawk, why can we not use HTT-40, IJT and LCA AJT version Trainer? Again the results will be similar if not same.

What is the reason as you said that we cannot combine the requirement of 12-15 ton helo for IAF, Navy, Army, VVIP and Civilian needs and place an order for 500 helos in one go? The foreigers will line up to sell practically any technology that is required for such a big order.

All this will allow deep indigenisation, commonality, lower life cycle costs etc etc.

1. Cheetal - less numbers ordered so cannot replace Cheetah 1-on-1. More can't be ordered apparently due to the OEM rotor blade line shutdown. I assume the same goes for Chetan. ALH may not be able to be used in all places and hence the apparent need for something in the LUH class. I think that requirement is genuine and needed now.

2. No HTT-40 exists anywhere close to operational status. IJT - HAL screwed the pooch on this one but here maybe the IAF can afford to wait if Pilatus/ALH can do the job in the interim.

[vic]

I must add that I have been super critical of HAL but not because they are idiots but when you give peanut budgets then HAL R&D activity is like monkeys running around in circus. We need to increase the budget by TEN times and THEN demand accountability otherwise indigenous manufacture will never reach critical mass.

[shiv]

Re Hari Nair

Pls tell us, instead of importing LoH, why cannot IAF use a combination of additional Cheetal, Chetan and ALH? The costs and benefits would largely be similar if not exactly same and few yearsbdown the line HAL LUH will start rolling out.

I am guessing that there is no comparison between modern FADEC engine and what Chetah/Cheetal have.

[shiv]

Getting back to fact on fuel consumption ( the other point raised by you)

Looking up HAL website http://www.hal-india.com/helicopter/products.asp,
DHRUV-
Fuel capacity - 1100 KG (should be litres)
Range - 660 KMS
KMS per litre fuel - > 0.6

Cheetah
Fuel capacity - 575 litres
Range - 660 KMS
KMS per KG fuel - > 1.14

Using this measure, Cheetah will consume less fuel but that is a red herring. KEY measure is Fuel consumed per KG payload.

Nik. This is nonsense and has no bearing on fuel consumption at extremes of performance.

[shiv]

Op Preparedness may be supreme - but can we just as casually damn all the rest of the considerations, for ever?
Like I said before, its too serious a matter to be left to the discretion of an individual Service.

Thanks for saying it out loud. Coming from a person such as yourself it carries more weight than you might imagine.

[vic]

Cheetal and Chetan are modernized upgraded helos with new engines and all the gizmos.

[shiv]

Cheetal and Chetan are modernized upgraded helos with new engines and all the gizmos.

Hmm - you're right- I just discovered that.

[Philip]

Unless the head of the ministry devotes himself to untangling or severing the "gordian knot" of operational capability-requires ad hoc imports,vs indigenous products,which never come on time ( often even licence production at home is much costlier than a direct import) creating serious crises in the services,leading to accidents,loss of life,reduced capability,etc.

Just look at the speed with the new dispensation has laid out its plans to speed up decision making ,etc.,not just in the defence ministry but right throughout the govt. establishment. The plan to reduce the number of desks/clearances will cause severe heartburn to babudom, who thrive on creating hurdles for any file to pass.,without paying "toll" for the same. One can only wish the new govt. well and the very best of luck in its attempt at cleaning out the cobwebs in babudom. That strict deadlines have been given to the ministers to perform or perish,is an incredible act that deserves a standing ovation.Mr.Modi is turning out to be India's Putin in this respect.Succeed or step aside for a more competent person to get the job done or on time.

I don't know how many listened to the president's speech at the opening of parliament.It was full of content and showed a clear vision of the new govt./PM across the board.Let's sincerely hope that AJ during his tenure as both FM and DM will cut decision making substantially,and usher in new innovations to accelerate indigenous defence production (part of the Pres' speech),while keeping the powder dry.

PS:Reg. the medium sized helo,the MI-17 has been found to be by far the world's best.It was used extensively in the Afghan war,where even used,ancient MI-8s were in great demand by NATO,etc. The armed versions have increased the capability of the helo.The KA-226 is very innovative with different modular cabins for diff uses,such as air ambulances,etc.From all available info,both contenders performed very well.It's all a matter of cost.The "life-cycle" costs can sometimes be misleading,when a costlier product shows a low support figure,which may be totally unrealistic in the future,and escalated costs a fait accompli. At this critical time of tight pockets,with little loose change for luxuries,,it may be better going in for the cheapest bird and try to indigenise as much as possible in whatever offset clauses are there,which also involve corporate entrants into the dev. and manufacturing process.

[SanjayC]

Cheetal and Chetan are modernized upgraded helos with new engines and all the gizmos.

Hmm - you're right- I just discovered that.

See this: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=968

[vic]

Cheetal and Chetan are modernized upgraded helos with new engines and all the gizmos.

Hmm - you're right- I just discovered that.

Pls read about upgradation of CH-47 by USA which should show that Chetal and chetan would be more than adequate.

[member_26622]

After uncovering modernization programs for HAL helicopters, the question again comes back to Why in the world we want to import LUH and other helicopters? Why trainers? Why bankruptcy inducing MRCA? I mean why float a tender in this case?

Somewhere in this picture all the services seem to forget that their names start with 'Indian' Air Force, Army or Navy not 'Import'. It's obvious their is an import lobby feeding decision makers everywhere. The Royal Gandhi family livelihood started with Bofors but they have not learnt much from the saga. Old saying holds true - Can't straighten a dog's tail!

Only good here based on Empirical proof is that under budgetary constraints, only 'Indian' Navy was forced to improvise and build platforms locally. We open the purse strings and even they went for MAD Scorpene purchase.

So more Budget meant more Imports - thank you to Anthony for blacklisting and hoping Modi sees this through. The world wants to feast on our 'ease of corruptness' and proof is seen - big budget numbers floating often. In the VVIP helicopter case, corruption was seen at senior levels in services (and alluded by Gen VK Singh).

Another fact is the whacky Service requirements. Chinese (and Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) import a few TOP line Su-35's (F-35,F-15..) and bulk of the rest is less than state of art local build.
Indian airforce and army does exactly opposite. Saddle DRDO, NAL and HAL with out of the world requirements and import bulk off the shelf end of product life stuff (T-90, LUH, ...). This strategy, if their is one to say is deeply flawed and we are paying billions for importing even basic things (like tank shells - maha chutiyapa)....we will be begging for help even in a short war. AND I don't like to beg !