Indian Military Helicopters

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 13 Sep 2016 14:29

JayS wrote:^^ Is it that black upright thing just above the cabin wind shield??

Yes.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 13 Sep 2016 17:44

That's an UHF antenna not a wire cutter on ALH.

In this image it's installed below the cockpit http://m.imgur.com/SqTjT6B?r

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Sep 2016 19:50

That's correct. There are no pics of Dhruv with wire cutters.

sanjayc · Post by **sanjayc** » 13 Sep 2016 19:58

A video on helicopter wire cutters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm6MwIdY4TA

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 13 Sep 2016 20:54

indranilroy wrote:That's correct. There are no pics of Dhruv with wire cutters.

Sir, if a UHF antenna is placed where a wire cutter should be, then does it not automatically play the role of wire cutter? Can you now place a wire cutter there?

In the pic Sid Sir has provided there is no "antenna". In the pics I have provided there is an "antenna" where the wire cutter should be. The wire cutter is so positioned and designed to cut the wire striking the helicopter in fwd flight (inadvertently) and preventing this wire from striking the main rotor hub. Now if a wire strikes, it will hit the antenna before the main rotor and hence the antenna (whether it succeeds or not) acts as a wire cutter.

I have seen one case of a wire strike which got cut and did not take down the helicopter. The wire broke because of protrusion short of main rotor hub. The protrusion got chaffed but was effective in saving the helicopter.

Now if the helicopter has a protrusion before the forward most location where a "wire cutter" can be placed, what is the point of having a wire cutter?

That said, I have seen images of Dhruv where I felt a wire cutter could be placed.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 13 Sep 2016 20:58

Was this image posted here before?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Sep 2016 21:28

Deejay,

No sir please. The antenna can if it is strong enough. Generally they are not.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 14 Sep 2016 01:34

Also, in a case like this, the antenna cannot be a wire cutter.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 14 Sep 2016 01:47

Deejay ji,

I was onlee pointing out the UHF antenna in the pic I shared earlier. There is a bigger antenna installed below the starboard side of cockpit. Due to limited coverage or some obstruction they may have installed one on top as well. The way it's placed wire will simply slip thru and hit the rotors.

Also all the wirecutter pics I have seen so far are on purpose built helis, like littlebird or blackhawks from SF. They are all meant to fly really really low under most of the cases.

Maybe we will see one on LUH/LAH as they will be our primary light observation/attack helis for the future. Or maybe some ALH purpose built for SFs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Sep 2016 07:52

Looking at the design of the wire cutters - they appear to be to be designed to snag the cable and push it down to a sharp cutting edge. The antenna in those Dhruv images is tilted in the opposite direction is is more likely to allow the cable to slip up and catch the rotor hub rather than force the cable to be snagged and cut.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 14 Sep 2016 13:28

Dennis wrote:Also, in a case like this, the antenna cannot be a wire cutter.

I didn't say it was The wire cutter but it acts like a wire cutter.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 14 Sep 2016 13:36

Sid wrote:Deejay ji,

I was onlee pointing out the UHF antenna in the pic I shared earlier. There is a bigger antenna installed below the starboard side of cockpit. Due to limited coverage or some obstruction they may have installed one on top as well. The way it's placed wire will simply slip thru and hit the rotors.

Also all the wirecutter pics I have seen so far are on purpose built helis, like littlebird or blackhawks from SF. They are all meant to fly really really low under most of the cases.

Maybe we will see one on LUH/LAH as they will be our primary light observation/attack helis for the future. Or maybe some ALH purpose built for SFs.

Fine.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 14 Sep 2016 16:26

That looks like a comms antenna, not the wire cutter
The wire cutters are larger, more inclined forward, & present both above & below the cockpit

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 14 Sep 2016 18:42

A fully kitted out in-service Dhruv Mk III

Picture

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 14 Sep 2016 18:49

Dennis wrote:A fully kitted out in-service Dhruv Mk III

Picture

What are these three pipes for
1. from iaf roundel to rear end of fuselage (a la car exhaust)
2. golden pipe that stars below engine nozzle and goes to tail
3. light blue on tail?

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 14 Sep 2016 21:53

adityadange wrote:
Dennis wrote:A fully kitted out in-service Dhruv Mk III

Picture
What are these three pipes for
1. from iaf roundel to rear end of fuselage (a la car exhaust)
2. golden pipe that stars below engine nozzle and goes to tail
3. light blue on tail?

Dont know 1, but 2. looks like a towel-bar antenna for HF and 3. is the protective bar to prevent accidental tail/tail-rotor strikes on ground

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 14 Sep 2016 22:02

hnair wrote:
adityadange wrote:
What are these three pipes for
1. from iaf roundel to rear end of fuselage (a la car exhaust)
2. golden pipe that stars below engine nozzle and goes to tail
3. light blue on tail?
Dont know 1, but 2. looks like a towel-bar antenna for HF and 3. is the protective bar to prevent accidental tail/tail-rotor strikes on ground

I think 1 is the fuel overboard dump line.

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 15 Sep 2016 02:21

(1) Not exactly sure, but I remember it to be a basic drainage line connected to the cabin floor OR maybe I'm mixing things up & it might be part of the fuel dump system.
(2) It is the HF antenna.
(3) What light blue? where ? Are you talking about the tail rotor ?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Sep 2016 06:25

Fuel dump system I think

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Sep 2016 07:18

adityadange wrote:
Dennis wrote:A fully kitted out in-service Dhruv Mk III

Picture
What are these three pipes for
1. from iaf roundel to rear end of fuselage (a la car exhaust)
2. golden pipe that stars below engine nozzle and goes to tail
3. light blue on tail?

My guess:
1.Simply a floor drainage pipe for spillage in the cabin
2. is seen in this image https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 133_AB.JPG
and http://i.imgur.com/Wlblyoq.jpg and appears to me to be a rail for attachment of parachute hooks for para drops
3. Looks like a tail skid to me in case tail hits the ground in rough/windy landing conditions. I has blue tints but does not appear blue to me at first glance

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Sep 2016 11:11

1. don't know.
2. HF aerial
3. Tail skid

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 15 Sep 2016 12:45

2. is an inert gas system for fuel tanks, iirc.

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 15 Sep 2016 16:43

(2) is HF antenna....take it FWIW, coz I usually have an upper hand on these matters

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 15 Sep 2016 16:48

The fuel tank is located under the cabin floor but the fuel dump system is not prominently visible from outside. The protruding pipe that you see, is part of the drainage system, connected to the cabin floor to ensure it remains clean, all the time (I'm now 400% sure).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Sep 2016 20:27

not Indian (looking for the right dhaaga actually), but very interesting simple design. Why couldn't HAL think about this?

http://www.janes.com/article/64065/next ... 17-flights

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/u ... 80x653.jpg

raghuk · Post by **raghuk** » 27 Sep 2016 21:40

1. Fuel dump pipe
2. HF antenna
3. Tail strike protection

raghuk · Post by **raghuk** » 27 Sep 2016 21:43

SaiK wrote:not Indian (looking for the right dhaaga actually), but very interesting simple design. Why couldn't HAL think about this?

http://www.janes.com/article/64065/next ... 17-flights

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/u ... 80x653.jpg

Not simple at all, extremely complex gearbox and dynamics and most importantly it is horrendously expensive. Secondly there has been no requirement for such a helicopter as yet and i am not really sure if its worth the effort for gaining just 70-80kmph.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 27 Sep 2016 22:11

Can gas turbines engines from a Heli be used for thrust as well? Or can they be augmented in a way to generate thrust in addition to powering rotors?

Sorry for this super noob question.

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 01 Oct 2016 04:57

Yes, infact such a concept was indeed put into practice. The system was called NOTAR. I guess McDonnell Douglas played around with this concept in the late 80's or early 90's & I think they were quite successful with it. I had seen the civilian versions of it more than a decade ago, not sure if a military version exists.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Oct 2016 07:01

Sid wrote:Can gas turbines engines from a Heli be used for thrust as well? Or can they be augmented in a way to generate thrust in addition to powering rotors?

Sorry for this super noob question.

While Googling for information a few months ago during a BRF discussion I discovered that in turboprops about 10-15% of thrust can come from the jet exhaust. As BobV said above thrust has been used instead of a tail rotor in NOTAR (NOTAilrotoR)

But I don't think anyone has used jet thrust to speed helos forward because that job is done much better in conventional aircraft. The USP of a helicopter is its ability to fly slow and hover and land and take off vertically. As a general comment I want to point out that the US has the greatest requirement for speed and long distance flying because all US military action is typically hundred or thousands of km away and they are doing the most work in trying to get speed and distance. A jet propelled helicopter would allow helicopter support (CAS/CASEVAC) from a carrier to ground troops hundreds of km away. The Osprey is an attempt to make a helo out of a plane. Now they are looking to get plane like specs on helos

Off topic for the Indian Military Helicopters thread

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2016 10:28

1. McDonnell Douglas NOTAR does not use exhaust gases for anti-torque. Only the Denel designed CIRSTEL did.

2. Helicopters use turboshafts engines which are designed to extract all the energy to the power the shaft and leave almost next to nothing in the exhaust. CIRSTEL primary design intent was to suppress infrared and sound signatures.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 16 Oct 2016 08:00

Explained: Kamov helicopter deal between India and Russia

1) At the India Russia Summit held in Goa today afternoon, the two nations announced the signing of the shareholders agreement for the joint venture of the Ka-226T helicopters in India.

2) The joint venture is between Russia based Rosoboronexport, Russian Helicopters and India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.

3) Russian Helicopters in a press statement said, “The signing of the joint venture will become a new stage of cooperation between Russia and India on the subject of the helicopter in the agreements provided for an intergovernmental agreement that was signed by Moscow and Delhi in December 2015.”

4) The Indian-Russian joint venture will be part of the Make in India program, as stated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

5) Under the terms of the intergovernmental agreement the holding company "Russian Helicopters", JSC "Rosoboronexport" and India's HAL corporation must arrange the localization of production and supply of 200 light multi-role Ka-226T for 9 years.

6) At the same time the first 60 helicopters will be produced in the Russian Federation, the organization of production of the remaining 140 helicopter is planned in India.

7) In addition to the assembly of helicopters, the agreement provides for maintenance, operation, repair of helicopters, as well as providing them with technical support.

(8) The joint venture is to create capacity for repair and maintenance of helicopters produced in India for 5 years, and the capacity for overhaul of helicopters - for 7 years after delivery of the first batch of helicopters.

9) "The joint venture is certainly a breakthrough project for us, because it fundamentally changes the model of our cooperation within the helicopter industry. India has been one of our most important strategic partners. The first time we are ready to offer our deep localization of helicopters, including the organization of the production of various helicopter components and assemblies. I hope that the Ka-226T Indian assembly has a great future of the world ", said the head of the holding company Russian Helicopters, Alexander Mikheyev.

Who will use it in India?
1) The helicopters will be used by the Indian armed forces.

2) These helicopters are will replace the ageing Cheetah chopper fleet which meets the demands of one of the world's highest military deployments on the Siachen glacier.

3) The military version of light multi-mission helicopter Ka-226T is designed for operation in remote areas, tough terrain, overseas, reconnaissance, surveillance and transportation of supplies and personn

el.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Oct 2016 08:10

I am personally happy to see the Ka-226 deal come through. I think the Cheetahs are too long in tooth and need replacement ASAP and I trust the IAF to have tested and vetted the Ka-226 as an appropriate replacement of the Cheetah.

If I copy paste an argument being made in other thread I could ask, "Why are we all not worrying that the Ka 226 will kill the LUH?". After all the LUH and Ka 226 are competing for the same role just like Tejas and "single engine fighter"

But I think the Ka 226 and LUH will operate concurrently. However we simply must watch the progress of LUH too.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Oct 2016 08:24

I am afread that this is going to be another Arjun vs T 90 repeat. It's time to save money by cancelling the LUH. Focus on the 226 and make it a standard helicopter its class.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Oct 2016 08:28

shiv wrote:If I copy paste an argument being made in other thread I could ask, "Why are we all not worrying that the Ka 226 will kill the LUH?". After all the LUH and Ka 226 are competing for the same role just like Tejas and "single engine fighter"

But I think the Ka 226 and LUH will operate concurrently. However we simply must watch the progress of LUH too.

Nothing is going to 'kill the LUH'.

We're merely providing Indian taxpayer money to a company producing an item that is in direct competition with an Indian product.

Not killing the LUH, just robbing it of the economies of scale that would enhance its cost-competitiveness in the global market. But of course taking a chunk out of the global market isn't our cup of tea. After all, we're not Chinese.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Oct 2016 08:50

Viv S wrote: Not killing the LUH, just robbing it of the economies of scale that would enhance its cost-competitiveness in the global market. But of course taking a chunk out of the global market isn't our cup of tea. After all, we're not Chinese.

Cannot disagree, but the armed forces are not supposed to talk about the crap they are managing with using the 1950s Alouette II in supplying hi altitude regions - so this is the usual toss up between operational necessity and industrial development and economy in India.

In that respect I repeat that the Chinese substituted the role of old junk fighters by wielding nukes and holding out a nuke missile threat to adversaries. We could do that too - but that would only reduce the fighter numbers we need but helicopters would still be needed in numbers. Indian airborne logistics is still superior to that of China - so copying China does not sound like a smart alternative. With most of us being mental fighter jocks the unromantic logistics bit takes a mental back seat.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Oct 2016 09:18

shiv wrote:Cannot disagree, but the armed forces are not supposed to talk about the crap they are managing with using the 1950s Alouette II in supplying hi altitude regions - so this is the usual toss up between operational necessity and industrial development and economy in India.

Operational necessity can only be used to justify a stop-gap acquisition. That would at best, be the first 60 off-the-shelf Ka-226s and no more. The remaining 140 is sliced off the HAL LUHs order-book.

In that respect I repeat that the Chinese substituted the role of old junk fighters by wielding nukes and holding out a nuke missile threat to adversaries. We could do that too - but that would only reduce the fighter numbers we need but helicopters would still be needed in numbers. Indian airborne logistics is still superior to that of China - so copying China does not sound like a smart alternative. With most of us being mental fighter jocks the unromantic logistics bit takes a mental back seat.

The Chinese locally manufactured the Flanker, progressively replaced the avionics with domestic alternatives, mastered the design, created a naval variant in-house while developing two successful families of fighter-bombers and one attack type. So much so that they're a supplier of components to the Russian defence industry today. And according to some recent reports, the PLAAF is replacing its AL-31s with the domestic WS-10 as well.

Net result: Between 2005 & 2015, China's defence imports halved while their exports doubled turning them into a net exporter of weapons. Meanwhile, the SAC & CAC continue to deliver 80-90 fast jets to the PLAAF annually.

But in any event, that statement wasn't referring to defence, it was a reference to vision. That India can design and manufacture a world class helicopter and then think in terms of securing for it a 'fair share' in the domestic market instead of using it at a basis for giving the industry majors a fight in foreign ones... well its sadly indicative of a type of malaise that the Chinese don't suffer from.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Oct 2016 09:28

Viv S wrote:
shiv wrote:Cannot disagree, but the armed forces are not supposed to talk about the crap they are managing with using the 1950s Alouette II in supplying hi altitude regions - so this is the usual toss up between operational necessity and industrial development and economy in India.
Operational necessity can only be used to justify a stop-gap acquisition. That would at best, be the first 60 off-the-shelf Ka-226s and no more. The remaining 140 is sliced off the HAL LUHs order-book.

I accept that as your viewpoint. Viewpoints will differ of course.

The Light Helo saga is a particularly sad one with the earlier fly off being cancelled due to reasons that I will have to Google to recall. But then again - that delay gave a chance for the LUH to "catch up", fortuitously, I guess because if the original Ecureils or whatever were bought under UPA I doubt if there would be an LUH at all.

srin · Post by **srin** » 16 Oct 2016 10:50

i'm disappointed that HAL is making the ka-226 too. If only we want to do screwdriver-giri++, it is worth while getting it done by private players - who can build infrastructure based on sure orders, and can become potential integrators for other future projects. It would also motivate HAL to push the LUH ...

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Oct 2016 11:32

mastered the design, created a naval variant in-house while developing two successful families of fighter-bombers and one attack type

Lets put some fiction writing at rest. The Chinese got the prototype carrier flanker from Ukraine along with the carrier Varyag. They have paid top dollar for that.

And believe me. The Chinese Naval Flankers would face some serious serious issues and China will have a credible carrier force only some 25 years from now. The Chinese aircraft carrier and the flanker force (Varyag/Laioning/whatever and the Ding Dong XX / SU-33 whatever) is all a massive $10b R&D effort. It is NOT an operational carrier (like what a USN, RN, AeroNavale/IN RuN) kind of force would consider as one.