Indian Military Aviation

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 28 Dec 2009 20:28

^^^

Situation of Bareilly Air Force Stn. is worse then Bangalore.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 29 Dec 2009 19:52

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 389882.cms

Didnt know whether this goes in the missile/aviation thread. Either ways, unfortunate loss of lives.

RIP

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 29 Dec 2009 20:50

Why is it that Indian industries make claims that they can compete with the world with their own designs but when it comes to delivering the goods they fail miserably and end up saying "we are facing difficulties with certain parts" and then end up either looking at a TOT from the same competitors who at one time they said they were comparable to or superior. For once in a while they can say from the start things that are more modest rather than just blabbering things which they can never achieve.

Guided bombs - rather than reinventing the wheel why not just look at the GBU or JDAM series, if TOT is a problem then the Israelis will be more than happy to supply their popeye or spice kits with everything that we need.

Bunker Busters - the GBU series already has a exceptional version that is made of artillery tubes which does this job admirably as proved in Iraq and Afghanistan alongwith laser+GPS guidance

There is no harm in admitting that we are learning things from other countries rather than just collaborating in secret and then claiming that what we came up with is an authentic Indian design.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 29 Dec 2009 20:58

collaborating in secret and then claiming that what we came up with is an authentic Indian design.

Like we did in...... ?????

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Dec 2009 06:23

Sagar G wrote:
collaborating in secret and then claiming that what we came up with is an authentic Indian design.
Like we did in...... ?????

I believe everyone does this, but only dharmically minded Indians experience a mild sense of untruth to find ourselves doing that.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 30 Dec 2009 16:54

is there any update on LCH flight test? any new year gift ?

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 30 Dec 2009 17:44

Pilot son lost to MiG-21 crash, father turns to help school he saved
The Indian Express

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 30 Dec 2009 18:14

sameer_shelavale wrote:is there any update on LCH flight test? any new year gift ?

Check out Livefist, it quotes HAL Chairman as saying "first flight in a few weeks"!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 30 Dec 2009 19:17

Photo in Livefist:

My word, she's a beauty.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 30 Dec 2009 19:19

^^^^ Love'em composite blades!!! Let's hope there is enough power in them to surpass 18-20,000 feet!

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 30 Dec 2009 20:03

Gagan wrote:Photo in Livefist:
My word, she's a beauty.

True. A beauty.

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 30 Dec 2009 21:48

Gagan wrote:Photo in Livefist:

My word, she's a beauty.

This one bears an uncanny resemblance to the Mangusta LAH. Rather than placing the sensor pod on the top of the nose wouldnt it have been wiser to place is below thereby providing a much better FOV?

I pray to the almighty that the final product turns out to be just as beautiful.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Dec 2009 23:20

yes, it is strange how the LCH
bears an uncanny resemblance to the mangusta
which bears an uncanny resemblance to the rooivalk
which bears an uncanny resemblance to the WZ-10
which bears an uncanny resemblance to the eurocopter tiger

indeed it is strange how designers the world over use the same basic design for the attack helo role, that of the AH-1 cobra !

of course, to my old tired eyes they look quite a bit different, superficial similarities notwithstanding.

Shyam_K · Post by **Shyam_K** » 30 Dec 2009 23:44

Gagan wrote:Photo in Livefist:

My word, she's a beauty.

Why not have IR suppressors designed in around the engine exhaust?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Dec 2009 00:05

I believe everyone does this, but only dharmically minded Indians experience a mild sense of untruth to find ourselves doing that.

Absolutely true saar, everyone does this so we should not be ashamed of doing it. Once I also belonged to this "dharmic group" but as soon as I came to know about the doings of the big brother nations all those dharmic feelings just vanished away

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Dec 2009 00:21

Rahul M wrote:yes, it is strange how the LCH
bears an uncanny resemblance to the mangusta
which bears an uncanny resemblance to the rooivalk
which bears an uncanny resemblance to the WZ-10
which bears an uncanny resemblance to the eurocopter tiger

indeed it is strange how designers the world over use the same basic design for the attack helo role, that of the AH-1 cobra !

of course, to my old tired eyes they look quite a bit different, superficial similarities notwithstanding.

I really do not see too much of a semblance between LCH and the rest. But .....................

However, why is that ALL these yahoos could not sit at one table and come up with A design? Eh?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 31 Dec 2009 00:24

I only have two points / whines to make regarding the LCH.

1. The targetting pod aside, there should have been another pod on top of the main rotor blade, so that the chopper could hide behind hills, sand dunes and tree tops, and still see and attack the enemy.

2. There should be a hot turbine exhause dispensing system like on the commanche which distributes the hot exhaust all along the spine so that it dissipates with the downwash from the main rotor. I wonder if this system on the commanche is effective, and if it is, HAL should try and incorporate it on the LCH.

I think the best position of the targetting pod is at the nose tip, where it can look both up and down, as opposed to above or below the nose. I think the Apache's pod is on its blunt nose. But obviously I being an armchair designer, HAL design team have their reasons.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 31 Dec 2009 00:28

On the apache, is the tail boom a hollow piece, doesit direct the exhaust gas to the rear end of the chopper. Is this so?

And the Apache has two counter rotating? tail rotors?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 31 Dec 2009 00:51

Gagan wrote:I only have two points / whines to make regarding the LCH.

1. The targetting pod aside, there should have been another pod on top of the main rotor blade, so that the chopper could hide behind hills, sand dunes and tree tops, and still see and attack the enemy.

do you see it on the Tiger (even though its a heavier gunship) or the Mangusta ? the Apache Longbow's millimetric wave radar is a very useful feature, but its a heavy item to carry on what is essentially a derivative of the Advanced Light Helicopter. on the Tiger UHT (for Germany), they have a mast mounted sight, but its not a radar- its an IR/TV channel. none of the Tiger variants have that. on the Tiger ARH, the sight is mounted on top of the cockpit instead of being mast mounted. believe me, they'd have studied all possible configurations before arriving at the final config for the LCH. sometimes we internet posters think that aircraft designers have missed out on something just because we've seen something on another product- the fact is every design is a trade-off. you put in something, you need to study its effects on other systems. if its not worth the side-effects, its not worth keeping.

There's a good reason why the IA wants a heavier attack helicopter as well.

2. There should be a hot turbine exhause dispensing system like on the commanche which distributes the hot exhaust all along the spine so that it dissipates with the downwash from the main rotor. I wonder if this system on the commanche is effective, and if it is, HAL should try and incorporate it on the LCH.

IIT Mumbai was involved in the project for developing IR suppression features for the LCH. I've even read a paper on it by some IIT grad, which I came across once. they were modelling (mathematically) how to judge the effects of various configurations on cooling the exhaust and its effects on the efficiency of the engine. I'm sure that the LCH has better IR suppression features than any other heli the Indian Armed Forces have ever used.

BTW, the LCH was designed with specific emphasis on low RCS as well. I read in a Standing Committee Report that HAL had outsourced the LCH RCS model creation work to some private firm.

I think the best position of the targetting pod is at the nose tip, where it can look both up and down, as opposed to above or below the nose. I think the Apache's pod is on its blunt nose. But obviously I being an armchair designer, HAL design team have their reasons.

but if you take into account the slope of the nose, the blind-spot will be in a very small region below the helicopter and if the helicopter is in that region above its enemy, its already too close for comfort.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 31 Dec 2009 05:07

The Mid Air Refueller contract has been cancelled.

Another 2 years New RFP even more delays

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/2009/12/f ... eller.html

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Dec 2009 06:04

Well without knowing the FOV of the sensor and the slope of the nose we cannot comment if its position above/below the nose in any way affects the LCH's A2G capability , in fact we don't know if this was a conscious decision specially keeping in mind the ops in the mountainous terrain where the potential targets on peaks might very well be above the pilot's LOS.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Dec 2009 07:33

Nowadays other firangi helos are appearing with the sensor sitting above the nose rather than under chin. Until that happened some jingos thought it was Indian stupidity. Maybe this is an excuse for me to scan a couple of pix I have been wanting to display on here.

I was told at Aero India (where the LCH was on display close to where the Apache Longbow was being advertised) that vibrations are a huge problem with mounting on top of the rotor. Getting that to work and remain reliable while sitting on the rotor shaft is itself a technological leap.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 31 Dec 2009 09:04

The most potent threat that platforms like the Apache and the SuperCobra present is their ability to carry and fire missiles like the Hellfire which can pretty much neutralized any offensive armored thrust. By planning for the LCH, they would be shortsighted if they don't plan to build a similar capability for the LCH as well as having to import munitions separately defeats the indigenous development of the LCH.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 31 Dec 2009 09:46

Brando wrote:The most potent threat that platforms like the Apache and the SuperCobra present is their ability to carry and fire missiles like the Hellfire which can pretty much neutralized any offensive armored thrust. By planning for the LCH, they would be shortsighted if they don't plan to build a similar capability for the LCH as well as having to import munitions separately defeats the indigenous development of the LCH.

Did you not hear of the plans to integrate HeliNa (longer range helicopter version of Nag) into LCH?

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 31 Dec 2009 09:49

Mechuka land blips on air force radar --- IAF eyes advanced landing grounds in Arunachal Pradesh
http://telegraphindia.com/1091231/jsp/n ... 924877.jsp

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 31 Dec 2009 14:26

Stan_Savljevic wrote:Mechuka land blips on air force radar --- IAF eyes advanced landing grounds in Arunachal Pradesh
http://telegraphindia.com/1091231/jsp/n ... 924877.jsp

The West Siang district administration will issue a notification for the lease of 50,965 hectares for 99 years at an annual payment of Re 1 per square metre to the air force.

50965 hectares = 509.65 sq km. That's a massive area for advanced landing ground.

And the cost of Rs 1 / sqm works out to 50.9 crores per annum.

Reminds me of 300 cm diameter Trishul DDM.

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 31 Dec 2009 15:04

BTW, the LCH was designed with specific emphasis on low RCS as well. I read in a Standing Committee Report that HAL had outsourced the LCH RCS model creation work to some private firm.

Tata Elxsi ?

anand_sankar · Post by **anand_sankar** » 31 Dec 2009 15:21

Mechuka land blips on air force radar --- IAF eyes advanced landing grounds in Arunachal Pradesh
http://telegraphindia.com/1091231/jsp/n ... 924877.jsp

The reporter has got his number totally wrong here. All the eight advanced landing grounds combined might not be more than a 800 acres at most. Its again a case where a journalist has misheard something and made his own conclusion instead of asking for a clarification. This must goto the "errors in defense reporting" thread.

How much is 50,000 hectares??? Compare this, the submergence area for India's largest ever planned dam in Arunachal Pradesh in the Dibang Valley is 20,000 hectares. And from experience in Arunachal, I say, you are lucky if you find a few acres of flat land in one spot

Amit J · Post by **Amit J** » 31 Dec 2009 16:37

Aditya G wrote: http://www.mail-archive.com/ppiindia@ya ... 28447.html

Monday, 5, September, 2005 (01, Sha`ban, 1426)

India Developing Precision Bomb
Shahid Raza Burney, Arab News

PUNE, India, 5 September 2005 - Keeping pace with the
development of missile technology by its archrival Pakistan, India's Armament
Research and Development Establishment (ARDE) in Pune is developing a
450-kilograms long-range precision-guided (ER-PGM) bomb packed with high energy
explosives. After being released by an aircraft, the bomb can glide up to 100
km before hitting its target with pinpoint accuracy.

I wonder how a 450 Kg bomb can glide 100 kms and still have CEP 3-4 mtrs ??

What kind of length does the retractable wings have and what kind of material would it be - it boggles me mind

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Dec 2009 17:35

makes sense only if 10km. even 40km is claimed possible for high-alt release of "range extention wing kits".
but this needs hi-alt SAMs to either be absent or neutralized.

the LCH optronic ball location to me makes sense because the offensive systems (guns , rockets and missiles)
can only be fired in the fwd arc covered by this sensor. the gun cannot fold to fire directly down or behind the
LCH and neither can be the missiles be commanded to turn around and attack targets in the rear.

for the rear quadrant, the defensive aids will be there to detect and counter a missile attack. they could even
fit some kind of Merkava4 style rear cameras (low cost model) to pipe that into MFD if special needs like
formation flying at night or observing the rear quadrant arises.

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 31 Dec 2009 18:42

The tip of the nose of LCH bends down sharply, so the pod has a very good view below. I think that they are trying to avoid vibration from rotor (so no pod on top of rotor) and also from the gun, so no pod below the nose.

Now my q, the rear pilot seems to be lower than the tiger type of tandem arrangment, how come?

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 01 Jan 2010 03:05

HAL Annual Report 2008-09

Active Vibration Control System was integrated into the ALH to make it a more comfortable flying platform.

Will this solve the vibration issue the Navy had with ALH?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 01 Jan 2010 09:50

Amit J wrote:I wonder how a 450 Kg bomb can glide 100 kms and still have CEP 3-4 mtrs ??

What kind of length does the retractable wings have and what kind of material would it be - it boggles me mind

Only if boosted by rocket like in case of AGM-130 - but then its not a 'glide' bomb

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 01 Jan 2010 12:43

A Sharma wrote:HAL Annual Report 2008-09

Active Vibration Control System was integrated into the ALH to make it a more comfortable flying platform.
Will this solve the vibration issue the Navy had with ALH?

The Naval ALH (anti-sub) suffered from lack of real estate, endurance ,strengthened landing gears ( Sea State 5) and folding rotors. Also the present powerplant for ALH is optimised for maximum efficiency at high altitudes. Hence there are chances of not meeting operational parameters at sea-level . Otherwise it is as good as any other chopper in the utility role.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jan 2010 15:20

The Naval ALH (anti-sub) suffered from lack of real estate, endurance

as compared to the chetak or whatever is brought in as the next light helo ? doesn't seem right.

Also the present powerplant for ALH is optimised for maximum efficiency at high altitudes. Hence there are chances of not meeting operational parameters at sea-level

NALH does not use the shakti which is the hi-alt engine you are speaking of.

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 01 Jan 2010 16:14

Bob V wrote:
BTW, the LCH was designed with specific emphasis on low RCS as well. I read in a Standing Committee Report that HAL had outsourced the LCH RCS model creation work to some private firm.
Tata Elxsi ?

Their site doesnt talk much about the design work except the mockup they built for Aero India'09.
http://yfrog.com/3wlchtataelscij

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jan 2010 19:10

I read an article a while ago in some newspaper that Mig27 upg program was being extended beyond 40 planes to cover more airframes and the re-engining with AL31F was on.

EDIT.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jan 2010 19:15

the desired roles seem to be?

Jag-upg/Jag-nuova/Tejas - interdiction missions of 200-500km radius from base
Mig27/Tejas - close air support missions of < 200km
Tejas/Bison - CAP (over battle area and vital rear areas)
sukhoi-30/MRCA - > 500km radius strikes & long range offensive CAP

shows how vital its to have a pool of 150-200 well armed Tejas Mk1 in service ASAP. its the swiss army knife for our problems.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 01 Jan 2010 20:39

Bob V wrote: The Naval ALH (anti-sub) suffered from lack of real estate, endurance ,strengthened landing gears ( Sea State 5) and folding rotors. Also the present powerplant for ALH is optimised for maximum efficiency at high altitudes. Hence there are chances of not meeting operational parameters at sea-level . Otherwise it is as good as any other chopper in the utility role.

Could you please tell us how sea state is tied to landing gear for the Naval ALH?

The landing gear by design is capable of withstanding much higher G loading, vertical and lateral accelerations then that generated in sea state 5.

The Naval ALH was too heavy, had higher than acceptable vibration levels and could carry either fuel or mission equipment which was a bit of a Hobson's choice. Folding rotors further added to the weight.

The engine has to be marinised to withstand the saline atmosphere in which it has to operate. I am sure that this was already done.

Rumor has it that some sort of efforts are being made to revive the project again.

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 01 Jan 2010 21:41

Rahul M wrote:
The Naval ALH (anti-sub) suffered from lack of real estate, endurance
as compared to the chetak or whatever is brought in as the next light helo ? doesn't seem right.

in terms of mission requirements (ASW).......the comparison is not wrt to some other chopper , but whether it could accommodate all of the mission critical equipment.

Also the present powerplant for ALH is optimised for maximum efficiency at high altitudes. Hence there are chances of not meeting operational parameters at sea-level

Rahul M wrote: does not use the shakti which is the hi-alt engine you are speaking of.

there is an upgrade programme going on currently at HAL which proposes to replace all engines with Shakti.....I think around 55 of them have been upgraded, including the NALH used in utility roles....I would like to add that the earlier engines were found to have lower sea level performance when compared to its hi-alt performance.