Indian Military Helicopters

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 08 Oct 2020 13:59

Just like LCH latest iteration the engine exhaust in IMRH is pointed upward. Will in future it will be done in ALH and LUH also?

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 08 Oct 2020 14:05

Interview with the IAF Chief
http://www.onmanorama.com/news/nation/2 ... -iaf-.html

Unable to quote but the LCH deal is likely to be finalized this year and procurement case for LUH initial lot has started.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 08 Oct 2020 15:57

ashishvikas wrote:An interesting pic of IMRH wind tunnel test under the watchful eyes of Wg Cdr Unni Pillai (Retd), Executive Director (Flight Operations-Rotary Wing), HAL. The prog is slowly and steadily picking pace. And, that'd good news on #AFDay2020 .

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/13 ... 03/photo/1

If they're conducting wind tunnel tests with wings and rocket pods then the base model design must already be the final version.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 08 Oct 2020 16:01

IA/IAF version with 300 nos requirement.

IN navy is still not on board for naval version of IMRH. They can't wait for a decade. They want NMRH 123 nos order asap.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 08 Oct 2020 16:07

The model shows 4 *19 *70 mm pod = 4*282.5 kg=1130 kg external payload.
Should be able to 4* quad ATGM launchers/ gun pods.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Oct 2020 20:45

Why would you need ATGM launchers for a medium lift helo. This will be approximately in the same weight class as the Mi-17. There is no need for either the IA or the IAF to be arming these with ATGM's when they can easily buy as many LCH and Rudra as they require. The armed Mi-17's of Kargil came about because our Mi-35's had limitations at high altitude which the Mi-17's did not. It was a suboptimal solution that did not work very well and is no longer needed. Even those did not go beyond rocket pods.

raghuk · Post by **raghuk** » 09 Oct 2020 00:36

nachiket wrote:Why would you need ATGM launchers for a medium lift helo. This will be approximately in the same weight class as the Mi-17. There is no need for either the IA or the IAF to be arming these with ATGM's when they can easily buy as many LCH and Rudra as they require. The armed Mi-17's of Kargil came about because our Mi-35's had limitations at high altitude which the Mi-17's did not. It was a suboptimal solution that did not work very well and is no longer needed. Even those did not go beyond rocket pods.

You test all possible configurations in the wind tunnel so that any future requirement does not result in a major redesign and if the worst case scenario does not have a significant penalty then you know you've a good design. A wind tunnel configuration does not necessarily represent the final configuration

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 09 Oct 2020 11:50

Looks great! I'm glad they did not go for the MI17-type intakes which was shown in one model. This model largely follows the ALH lineage. See the way these Helicopter guys are pushing out different variants based on the ALH design...so quickly! Only a matter of time before these guys go for the Heavy Lift category also.

LCA programme will also follow the same trajectory. It's only the engine programmes which have let us down.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 09 Oct 2020 16:32

sajaym wrote:
Looks great! I'm glad they did not go for the MI17-type intakes which was shown in one model. This model largely follows the ALH lineage. .

What is wrong with the Mi17 intakes?

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 09 Oct 2020 16:55

sankum wrote:IA/IAF version with 300 nos requirement.

IN navy is still not on board for naval version of IMRH. They can't wait for a decade. They want NMRH 123 nos order asap.

The 123 NMRH deal hasn’t even gone to RFP yet, with trails, evaluations, negotiations and the typical MoD 3-4 year delays factored in there’s exactly 0 chance they get a single NMRH this decade- ZERO

The navy needs to get their house in order and stop their petty fights with HAL based on 15+ year old grievances from their experiences with the hand built N-ALH MK1 LSP

There seems to be a major disconnect between the IN’s development teams who are based in BLR with HAL who have been working with HAL on spec’ing the ALH MK.3s and even got HAL to design a bespoke version of the IMRH which is designed to fit into the Sea King’s footprint and the IN HQ who keep running to foreign market for solutions.

Best case solution- order another 24 MH-60R to take care of immediate requirements and then throw their full weight behind N-IMRH for 100+ units starting the end of this decade otherwise it will be another MMRCA saga on their hands

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 09 Oct 2020 16:57

nachiket wrote:Why would you need ATGM launchers for a medium lift helo. This will be approximately in the same weight class as the Mi-17. There is no need for either the IA or the IAF to be arming these with ATGM's when they can easily buy as many LCH and Rudra as they require. The armed Mi-17's of Kargil came about because our Mi-35's had limitations at high altitude which the Mi-17's did not. It was a suboptimal solution that did not work very well and is no longer needed. Even those did not go beyond rocket pods.

H225M has 2 weapon pylons either able to carry rocket pods, matching guns or ATGMs

I think the main utility will be for penetration missions for specialist missions like SHBO or CSAR where the helo acts as transport and weapons support when on target

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 09 Oct 2020 18:05

ks_sachin wrote:
sajaym wrote:
Looks great! I'm glad they did not go for the MI17-type intakes which was shown in one model. This model largely follows the ALH lineage. .
What is wrong with the Mi17 intakes?

Mi 17 has closely placed engines while modern helicopters like ALH and IMRH have widely placed engines on side. I think in case of battle damage survivability increases.Chances of battle damage to both engines simultaneously from frontal fire decreases.

basant · Post by **basant** » 09 Oct 2020 21:42

Can anyone tell me what are the options for IMRH's powerplant?

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 10 Oct 2020 00:07

^ HAL could use Makila from their partner Turbomeca, it's good for 1800 shp.

GE T700 is also quite good , upto 2500+ shp.

They give assembly license to HAL for F-404 and LM-2500 , might give a similar deal here too.

Russian and British engines may not cut it anymore.
(Ivenchokov and RR Gnome).

P&W PT-6 not used much, mostly for propeller jet, seems dated, support not as good as GE.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Oct 2020 00:33

Depends on the what the empty weight and MTOW values HAL is aiming for. The Klimov VK-2500 is quite powerful, but HAL might be more comfortable dealing with Turbomeca (now Safran) because of their past collaboration. In which case the Makila 2A1 is a good candidate. It has a bit less power than the VK-2500 (2100 shp at takeoff vs 2400 shp). They also have the RTM-322 used on the NH90 and AW-101. That was a JV with Rolls Royce but Safran bought the entire program later.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 10 Oct 2020 00:52

For a helicopter might be make sense to go for something like the GE-901? Either ways might be better to have an indigenous engine programme for this, though not much progress seems to have been made from the HTSE (at least going by public info).

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Oct 2020 02:39

nachiket wrote:Why would you need ATGM launchers for a medium lift helo. This will be approximately in the same weight class as the Mi-17. There is no need for either the IA or the IAF to be arming these with ATGM's when they can easily buy as many LCH and Rudra as they require. The armed Mi-17's of Kargil came about because our Mi-35's had limitations at high altitude which the Mi-17's did not. It was a suboptimal solution that did not work very well and is no longer needed. Even those did not go beyond rocket pods.

The utility of a medium helo with ATGMs/rockets makes little sense in the presence of Rudras/LCHs etc. Probably, only for contingency. But, in NMRH it will help in the carriage of torpedoes.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 10 Oct 2020 10:11

^^^^
For Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR)
Long range with extra internal fuel tanks when attack helo escort is not possible.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 13 Oct 2020 23:11

Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
Coast Guard

New Dhruv Mk3 image

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 13 Oct 2020 23:11

Would like to see two rotor folded back folding mechanism.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 14 Oct 2020 02:02

(possibly) the same helicopter in firing trials a few months back

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 14 Oct 2020 02:26

Anujan wrote:(possibly) the same helicopter in firing trials a few months back

Thanks for posting saar. Very nice looks like an M2 12.7mm or 50 cal in yankee speak, belt fed and stablised good hunting onlee.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 14 Oct 2020 13:31

‘Indian Navy Ignoring Crucial Advantages Of Dhruv As NUH’

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/10 ... s-nuh.html

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 14 Oct 2020 14:38

Great Article. Cancel the tender and both IN and HAL should work together for 111 naval Dhruv .

Naval Dhruv in present 2 rotor blade fold mechanism beat Naval Panther in CG tender and CG will be operating this 16 helos from their ships for long time to come.

The CG saw the advantage of extra 1.25T in MTOW for increased payload and range which IN does not want . That is strange as the RFP seems to tailor made for Naval Panther

basant · Post by **basant** » 14 Oct 2020 16:25

^^^^^^
+1
I fail to understand IN's persistent animosity towards NUH, which ironically is completely opposite to IAF and IA. It's not just the specs, as (I believe) one can see. Time to take a quick decision and save time and money.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 14 Oct 2020 18:04

Its evident that everyone (even someone as pro-indigenous as IN) has their pet-peeves and an inability to shed past baggage, however justified they might have been at that time.

But national objectives go beyond such peeves. Its clear that the ex-HAL chairman is making a commitment the they will deliver a world class NUH according the IN's specs. The latter has to reciprocate. Or Rajnath would need to step in & ensure that the boys play well with each other.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Oct 2020 18:55

basant wrote:^^^^^^
+1
I fail to understand IN's persistent animosity towards NUH, which ironically is completely opposite to IAF and IA. It's not just the specs, as (I believe) one can see. Time to take a quick decision and save time and money.

Since 2001, the segmented folding blades need to be demonstrated and trialed. The present blade folding is a complex exercise not possible onboard the deck of a small warship rolling, pitching and yawing at sea. Unless HAL turns around a Dhruv prototype with segmented blade folding, the words dont translate into action.

Secondly, naval requirements need to be factored right from day 1

This is from the recent LUH trials at Ladakh. This sort of access is impossible in Sea State 3 or higher without risk of death or injury to personnel. My heart sank on seeing this photo. (Note: Typo corrected after rrao's feedback)

The Seahawk and the Chetak being designed for naval requirements have a flat top enabling maintenance at sea.

The Dhurv as you see has an angled top

This was well elaborated by Cdr Marathe including injuries to maintenance personnel. But as usual people selectively read what they want and are blind to problems.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/06 ... ander.html

The engine cowlings on any helicopter are designed to open upwards, sometimes they open downwards so that people can stand on the cowlings and work on the engines. Not for ALH. The initial design required two technicians to climb on a huge platform and open about a dozen and half fasteners, and then the entire cowling had to be taken down like an egg-shell and laid on the ground. It was only after many meetings with the Navy, that HAL agreed to cowlings with hinged clamshells that would open downwards providing a platform for the worker to stand on. The quality of these clamshells was so bad, that they would bend and break at times. This point will also possibly be refuted by HAL as having been addressed, but the issue is that this should not have happened in the first place at the time.

My point was also important because it is only when you have physically worked on any helicopter in the field, will you understand the day to day problems with regard to accessibility, Human-Machine Interface (HMI) issues and the like. They will would also see how other manufacturers have addressed issues that they may have faced. Many of these are simple solutions, may not be patented and can easily be adopted. One simple example is of the hand holds provided to climb on the engine deck. The HAL has provided handles made like similar to commercial cupboard door handles, sticking out into the airflow. Even these door type handles were so badly made, that one of them broke when a sailor was climbing on top, and broke his hand. We are fortunate he was alive. What happens if he falls overboard? I’m sure HAL would have then provided a heavier hand hold, and come up with some theory that the person should be more careful when climbing up or something like that, rather than addressing the core issue. Other manufacturers have provided spring-loaded flaps, so that the flap goes in when you put your hand or foot, and the flap provides a smooth finish to reduce drag in flight.

You can see the climbing handles on Rudra behind the weapon pylon. Ease of access has still not improved in Mk4 unlike what KSingh said earlier.

There is further obfuscation by Shri Ashok Baweja

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/10 ... s-nuh.html

“I actually casually asked some of the designers whether they had ever worked on, or closely studied any other existing type of helicopter, to see the crucial design issues and other small modifications or attention to detail they had done. No, was the answer,” says Commander Marathe.

I ask, where would the HAL designers go for experience in helicopter design? Eurocopter, Bell , Augusta Westland? Desirable but not possible. Which company in the world would give exposure to design aspects in any product?

What Cdr Marathe asked was "closely studied"? The studies can happen on similar helicopters like Chetak, Seaking or AS365 that are already in Indian Service. You can strip them and study them. Instead Shri Ashok Baweja deflects attention by saying HAL designers have to go somewhere else.

It is precisely this kind of obfuscation that annoys service folks. HAL can easily strip a Chetak, Seaking or AS365 in Indian Service.

Cdr Marathe further elaborates, but everyone, whether Shri Ashok Baweja or posters on Bharat Rakshak completely ignore.

My point was also important because it is only when you have physically worked on any helicopter in the field, will you understand the day to day problems with regard to accessibility, Human-Machine Interface (HMI) issues and the like. They will would also see how other manufacturers have addressed issues that they may have faced. Many of these are simple solutions, may not be patented and can easily be adopted. One simple example is of the hand holds provided to climb on the engine deck.

To summarize, give a working helicopter built to naval stowability and maintenance standards and IN will happily evaluate it. Words at this point doesnt cut ice.

basant · Post by **basant** » 14 Oct 2020 19:12

tsarkar, as usual your posts are very informative. HAL official may very well be not completely forthcoming. However, on record he said:
"It would have still been opportune at that point in time when tasks pertaining to the naval version were being carried out for the Indian Navy to take a hard call and interact with HAL to define an aircraft which would meet their requirements of blade fold, time on task with two torpedoes etc. I don’t recall any discussion on these lines although being on the Board of HAL for 11 years."

I do not think he can make such claims with adverse documentary evidence. May be IN just gave up early on, unlike IAF and IA, and preferred to be on sidelines and now requires the features. The way IN is preventing HAL participation is wrong, and it could as well have put the requirements it needs in RFI. It still can.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Oct 2020 19:36

Dear Basant, HAL until now had large numbers of IA and IAF orders and never bothered about Naval requirements. Now that IA and IAF orders are completed and they need business, money & work, they want the naval order

IN has not prevented HAL in building a naval helicopter. It just wont stop the NUH process. Because it doesnt know how long will HAL take to develop a helicopter as per its specs.

NUH RFP specs are available. Let them build an aircraft that meets stowability and maintenance requirements and IN will be compelled to evaluate and induct it.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 14 Oct 2020 19:50

Then why have IN ordered 16 ASW Naval Dhruv and CG 16 mk3 Naval Dhruv?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Oct 2020 20:04

There is one more Indian agency with 42 helicopters having the same requirement as NUH. Pawan Hans.

They fly in very harsh monsoon conditions to ONGC Oil Rigs ferrying supplies in stormy seas and transporting and evacuating ONGC personnel.

https://www.pawanhans.co.in/english/inn ... enu_id=169

Pawan Hans is playing its crucial role in the growth of Indian economy by carrying approximately 4 lakhs passengers and 4,21,342 Kg of cargo load every year in Bombay Highto help in exploration of crude oil.

Pawan Hans is majority owned by ONGC.

For 20 years neither ONGC nor Pawan Hans have shown no interest in Dhurv.

Why?

Note Pawan Hans lady pilot in white uniform.

Ship landing

On Ship Deck

Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ayUwv_aYL4

BTW given that Pawan Hans helicopter are the only helicopters other than Coast Guard that flies into the high seas ONGC oil fields in Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal, the IN is very intimately aware of its operation.

The IN has assessed the AS565 Panther's older AS365 Dauphin very closely for 30 years in Pawan Hans service landing on small oil rig decks (similar to IN Ships) in harsh Indian monsoon conditions.

If you notice the engine, the cover hinges downwards and technicians can stand on it while repairing the engines in confined spaces of oil rig. That is what Commander Marathe was advising. To study good helicopters and copy non patented design features.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Oct 2020 20:08

sankum wrote:Then why have IN ordered 16 ASW Naval Dhruv and CG 16 mk3 Naval Dhruv?

IN - Shore based surveillance of Kasab type terrorists, pirates, drug peddlers and Search & Rescue. Most naval airbases need SAR chopper and they dont need easily foldable blades. As well as aircraft carriers
ICG - Shore based surveillance of Kasab type terrorists, pirates, drug peddlers and Search & Rescue of fisherman, rain/flood victims.

rrao · Post by **rrao** » 14 Oct 2020 20:17

sarkar sir, it is LUH high altitude trials and not of LCH!!! could be typo!!! Many a times design reviews are attended by personnel from HQ , than the actual users.so User feedback seldom reaches the designers. What ever discussed /pointed will always not enter MoM!!! The person who attends the reviews gets transferred to another base!!! so whenever a new person joins ,it will be love all and the issue gets lost!!! And more over any modifications at a later stage will have financial implications, and recertification for airworthiness remains always a pain!!! A poor Handle can always be fixed with a proper feedback from user to the right person!!! It gets lost in the chai-biscuit type meetings!!!

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 14 Oct 2020 20:31

tsarkar wrote:Dear Basant, HAL until now had large numbers of IA and IAF orders and never bothered about Naval requirements. Now that IA and IAF orders are completed and they need business, money & work, they want the naval order

HAL is expected to have orders of LCH and LUH and also kamov 226 if it finalises. So HAL is not going to run out of orders any time soon. Btw what is HAL asking now ?

1) Give time till 2022 so that it gets enough time to prove blade folding ,tail boom folding tech and get it certified.
2) Increase the AUW to 5.75 ton to be eligible in the tender.

hal has been stressing that it passes other requirements.so am I missing anything here ?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Oct 2020 20:33

rrao wrote:sarkar sir, it is LUH high altitude trials and not of LCH!!! could be typo!!! Many a times design reviews are attended by personnel from HQ , than the actual users.so User feedback seldom reaches the designers. What ever discussed /pointed will always not enter MoM!!! The person who attends the reviews gets transferred to another base!!! so whenever a new person joins ,it will be love all and the issue gets lost!!! And more over any modifications at a later stage will have financial implications, and recertification for airworthiness remains always a pain!!! A poor Handle can always be fixed with a proper feedback from user to the right person!!! It gets lost in the chai-biscuit type meetings!!!

Thank you for correcting the typo, rrao ji. I fixed it above.

I agree with your view that requirements need to be driven from the field rather than HQ. The 5.56 mm rifle saga is one such HQ driven requirement not backed by field realities and I have pointed it out in that thread.

IN personnel get transferred every 3 years for sea time, and spending time beyond 3 years in a "peace station" is seen as avoiding hardship as sea.

I do hope HAL does a HTT-40 repeat here and delivers a naval utility helicopter. All the points Shri Ashok Baweja said on lack of ToT, money spent on putting up a new production line, economically make sense.

raghuk · Post by **raghuk** » 14 Oct 2020 21:40

tsarkar wrote:....

The engine cowling opens downwards to become a platform for maintenance personnel to stand and work in the field. It is the same for the LUH too, because access to the UCS and TX system is a critical aspect of DI and we cannot expect elaborate facilities in the field, so cowlings are designed to carry the weight of one or sometimes 2 people.

In the picture attached with post it is possible that the guy was just too lazy to open the cowling or that the work involved was minor, which didn't need the opening of the cowling.

Further, all these cowlings come with quick release fastners to enable easy access.

Given all these, I'm very sure the NUH will have no problems in meeting the Navy's requirements with respect to folding time and access to the bolts. Cheers!

basant · Post by **basant** » 14 Oct 2020 21:47

Raghunathgb wrote:...
hal has been stressing that it passes other requirements.so am I missing anything here ?

Not really. The HAL CMD said the same, see 2:20 and esp 4:25. I agree with tsarkar it should qualify and meet requirements, the only real issue seems to be 0.75t additional weight.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 14 Oct 2020 22:26

shaun wrote:‘Indian Navy Ignoring Crucial Advantages Of Dhruv As NUH’

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/10 ... s-nuh.html

Superb article and just what was needed

I genuinely think that the days of the buy and make NUH tender are now numbered. It will either be scrapped and re-tendered allowing the ALH to take part or it will be scrapped entirely and the ALH ordered when the new tail and rotors are certified (likely 3-4 years from now)

More points:
https://twitter.com/ksingh_1469/status/ ... 42144?s=21

Unless you are actively trying to burn money there is ZERO justification for anything but the N-ALH MK3 (NUH) for this requirement, NONE.

The only cherry on top of this would have been if HAL had taken the initiative earlier so the new NUH compliant ALH prototype with tail folding and new rotor design was already flying or even just a year away. 18-20 months is a long wait from now and only emboldens the import lobby

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 14 Oct 2020 23:05

We see such a disconnect between buying from domestic sources vs imports. And it is not funny if you're a job seeker in India.

Great story about the door handle of the ALH. However, has such an event never happened with imports? How many Mig-21s have crashed with unfortunate loss of pilots. The loss of the pilot was a bigger blow than the loss of the machine. Why did it happen - collapse of the Soviet Union making availability of spares difficult. Could this have been avoided - yes. By investing in domestic MIC right from the start instead of taking a shortcut. And look at other nations - have aircraft crashed during evaluations? IIRC one of the first prototypes of the MKI crashed at Farnborough. Did we cancel the orders of MKIs? No - we increased the order tally from 232 to 272.

So domestic systems get all the rules thrown at them and the imports like the T90 get in without a similar review. Why has Pawan Hans not bought an ALH - they may be citing IN's lack of interest. Can HAL sell its naval Helos without IN buying them - No.

Buying these products is now a necessity because China is at our doorstep. To beat them, India will need to root out its procurement mafia and think logically. Quantity provides a quality too. Limited numbers of so called high quality purchases can only go so far before being overwhelmed by the enemy's quantity.

Call a spade a spade: If it wasn't for the political class depending on kickbacks through imports, the AK-203, Ka-226, T90, follow on Talwars may never have happened. IN had the right idea of embedding naval staff in HAL to guide the design process to conform to their requirements. They need to take it to the next level and shut down the corruption of the political class. Every rupee needs to be spent for weapons or welfare of forces. India cannot afford its corrupt ways anymore.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 15 Oct 2020 00:09

raghuk wrote:
tsarkar wrote:....
The engine cowling opens downwards to become a platform for maintenance personnel to stand and work in the field. It is the same for the LUH too, because access to the UCS and TX system is a critical aspect of DI and we cannot expect elaborate facilities in the field, so cowlings are designed to carry the weight of one or sometimes 2 people.

In the picture attached with post it is possible that the guy was just too lazy to open the cowling or that the work involved was minor, which didn't need the opening of the cowling.

Further, all these cowlings come with quick release fastners to enable easy access.

Given all these, I'm very sure the NUH will have no problems in meeting the Navy's requirements with respect to folding time and access to the bolts. Cheers!

Raghu, thanks for the input. If HAL does a HTT-40 with NUH, I promise you a bottle of Johnnie Walker Black Label to celebrate

Its not a joke, it’s a gentleman’s word