Indian Military Aviation

[Cybaru]

Shakti engine weights 205kgs according to wiki, they could have reduced the weight without much problem since they have to get rid of only 5kgs. I don't know if the Shakti meets other requirements like FADEC but considering that its base version(Turbomeca TM 333) has this system the shakti must have it too. I don't see any reason why they are looking for new engines.

It seems like it does. Please take a look at this document.

"The engine is controlled by a Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) dual channel type.."

http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/doc ... e%2001.pdf

[Jagan]

[quo



Not any more, they are back to the IAF grey scheme - with IAF Roundels. No more Red/sand/psychedelic camo.

my mistake - IAF grey scheme, but BSF markings - NOT IAF roundels.

Here is a picture of them with the serials, paintscheme, marking at Safdarjang

[Pratik_S]

Lockheed Martin In Talks To Sell 6 More Hercules Planes To India
http://idrw.org/?p=497

[Aditya G]

Thanks for the info on BSF Mi-17s

Lockheed Martin In Talks To Sell 6 More Hercules Planes To India
http://idrw.org/?p=497

A good option given coming delays in aerial tanker. The C-130J ordered by India has a hose and drogue system.

[nrshah]

Thanks for the info on BSF Mi-17s

Lockheed Martin In Talks To Sell 6 More Hercules Planes To India
http://idrw.org/?p=497

A good option given coming delays in aerial tanker. The C-130J ordered by India has a hose and drogue system.

Is it supported by separate link as i am not able to find the same in the link given?

[arun]

Livefist update - HAL calling foriegn Turboshaft engine manufacturers for its LOH programme

They could have worked on a mini shakthi version for this.

The desired technical specifications of the turbo shaft engine for HAL’s LUH, all of 14 pages long, is available here:

Technical Specification – Engine for LUH (Preliminary)

HAL’s RFI regarding the engine itself is available here:

Request for Information” for supply of a Turbo Shaft Engine suitable for Light Utility Helicopter (LUH)

[Brando]

What is the difference between a Light Utility Helicopter and a Advanced Light Helicopter ?? I still don't understand why a new engine or a new helicopter is needed in the first place, forget about engine specifications! Wasn't the Dhruv intended to replace the Alouette's in Indian service due to the insistence of hot and high ability ??

Shiv Aroor's blog states it as LUH and in other places they call it the Light Observation Helicopter ? Is it one and the same ?

[Pratik_S]

A good option given coming delays in aerial tanker. The C-130J ordered by India has a hose and drogue system.

I think you are referring to the KC-130, IAF has ordered the C-130J and AFAIK it has not capability which allows it to act as a refueller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-130_Her ... 30G_models

[Aditya G]

A good option given coming delays in aerial tanker. The C-130J ordered by India has a hose and drogue system.

I think you are referring to the KC-130, IAF has ordered the C-130J and AFAIK it has not capability which allows it to act as a refueller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-130_Her ... 30G_models

FWIW here is a picture from Lockheed website. The C-130J for India being a Spec Ops versions has the capability.

[Brando]

^ I think that is just transferring its own fuel to refuel other aircraft. Its hardly enough to refuel fighter aircraft like the Su-30mki. Moreover, Su-30s can refuel each other as well so having a empty C130J flying around burning gas and Su30 pilots struggling to refuel from the C130J, one might as well send up another Su-30.

[Dhanush]

What is the difference between a Light Utility Helicopter and a Advanced Light Helicopter ?? I still don't understand why a new engine or a new helicopter is needed in the first place, forget about engine specifications! Wasn't the Dhruv intended to replace the Alouette's in Indian service due to the insistence of hot and high ability ??

Shiv Aroor's blog states it as LUH and in other places they call it the Light Observation Helicopter ? Is it one and the same ?

ALH is in 5-tonne category where LUH (same as LOH) is in 3-tonne category. Take for example, reconnaisance role; when the same job can be accomplished by LUH, why would you send a 5-tonne monster for the same job? You should also keep an eye on operational costs.

[Brando]

ALH is in 5-tonne category where LUH (same as LOH) is in 3-tonne category. Take for example, reconnaisance role; when the same job can be accomplished by LUH, why would you send a 5-tonne monster for the same job? You should also keep an eye on operational costs.

Cost wise I just can't understand how another helicopter LUH would be beneficial. The ALH already has an active production line, there is already a proper supply chain and the field technicians already know how to service and carry out repairs! Also, it is made in India. So instead of ordering another 187 (or 197 according to some reports) for "recon" roles wouldn't it be cheaper to simply increase the number of ALH by a smaller number so that the existing ALH's can fulfill their existing role while also taking over the recon role. That way I reckon that not only will the CASEVAC and transport ability increase but also the the recon ability without the need to induct a large number of a different model of helicopter. There maybe higher fuel costs compared to a 3 ton helicopter involved but I think the much lower capital costs, production costs and logistical costs and ease of maintenance will help offset the higher fuel costs. Another possibility is a bare bones ALH; this would both reduce weight and also keep the logistics and production lines the same. Also a lower weight would mean greater fuel savings, while serviceability would remain the same!

[rkhanna]

The LUH can also fullfill niche URBAN Policing/CT roles that the ALH might be too big for. Having a 3 Tonne Helo in a spotter/C&C Role over mumbai during the Siege would have been extremely helpful.

Sending Assaulters from a quieter, smaller 3 tonne helo would also been more optimum rather than the back of a Mi-17.

In Combat a Smaller more agile Helo can play liason, Forward Spotter roles for Artillery and Tank Crews would be more suited than a ALH which would be easier to spot and Hit for the OPFOR.

The LUH/LOH is replacing the Cheetah/Cheetak line of helos..its roles could be similar to the KIOWA Warrior. A role that is hard to fullfill by say the Bell Huey.

[Rahul M]

What is the difference between a Light Utility Helicopter and a Advanced Light Helicopter ?? I still don't understand why a new engine or a new helicopter is needed in the first place, forget about engine specifications! Wasn't the Dhruv intended to replace the Alouette's in Indian service due to the insistence of hot and high ability ?? {no, dhruv provides a capability IA/IAF never had. think of it as an added category rather than a replacement. sure it can replace the chetaks and cheetahs in some roles they are not suited for but it was never intended to be in the same category as the LUH/LOH. LOH was always on the cards. the first tentative model was shown in aero-India 2001 I believe}

Shiv Aroor's blog states it as LUH and in other places they call it the Light Observation Helicopter ? Is it one and the same ? {yep}

[GeorgeWelch]

^ I think that is just transferring its own fuel to refuel other aircraft. Its hardly enough to refuel fighter aircraft like the Su-30mki.

It can OFFLOAD over 45,000 lbs at 1,000 nm

one might as well send up another Su-30.

That seems like a waste of a strike asset . . .

Not to mention there is no way a single Su-30 can offload that much fuel so you would need 3-4 (more likely 5-6) to carry that much that far.

[GeorgeWelch]

This is from the MRCA thread, but I'm replying over here because it's drifted away from the MRCA

Paying is not a problem. But just buying them would not suffice, you have to create infra for the new ones as well along with the current ones. Just imagine how much extra expenses a new type will incur on the country.

Considering that there are plans for excercising the option for additional Awacs on IL and our already existing inventory, its always better to go for IL, which is cheap to buy and operationalize.

Just my thought only.

I would second this though, considering the limited numbers of MRTT being procured I think it is logical to buy the IL-78, I will agree in terms of technology and fuel carrying capacity the IL-78 is inferior but it not that much and at the end of the day it just has to refuel the strike force.
Fuel Capacity:
A330: 111,000 kg
IL-78: 105,720 kg

So the difference is not that much.

There is more to tanking than just fuel offload and there is more to cost than initial price and infrastructure

The A330 has a few advantages over the Il-78 beyond simple capacity
1. It has a boom and the Il-78 doesn't. Without a boom, you can't refuel C-17s or P-8Is.
2. It has a significant cargo capability. The Il-78 mounts an auxiliary fuel tank on the main deck and thus does away with the cargo deck and cargo doors to save weight.
3. The A330 has a large range advantage over the Il-78 (8000nm vs 4000nm)
4. It can refuel another A330, the Il-78 can't

As far as costs, the Il-78 may be cheaper to buy up front, but I strongly suspect the lifecycle costs of the A330 are significantly cheaper.
1. It's more fuel efficient
2. It requires fewer crew to run (3 vs 6 for the Il-78)
3. Maintenance costs will be significantly lower as it is a widely-available commercial plane with huge global support infrastructure. Having 2 engines is cheaper than 4, plus cost of maintenance was probably a more significant factor in the design of the A330 than the Il-76/78

[Brando]

^ I think that is just transferring its own fuel to refuel other aircraft. Its hardly enough to refuel fighter aircraft like the Su-30mki.

It can OFFLOAD over 45,000 lbs at 1,000 nm

This means it can only carry slightly more fuel than 2 Su30s. So at best it can tank-off 3 Su-30s. It's nowhere close to a Il-78 but it would work in a contingency situation.

[Brando]

The LUH can also fullfill niche URBAN Policing/CT roles that the ALH might be too big for. Having a 3 Tonne Helo in a spotter/C&C Role over mumbai during the Siege would have been extremely helpful.

Sending Assaulters from a quieter, smaller 3 tonne helo would also been more optimum rather than the back of a Mi-17.

In Combat a Smaller more agile Helo can play liason, Forward Spotter roles for Artillery and Tank Crews would be more suited than a ALH which would be easier to spot and Hit for the OPFOR.

The LUH/LOH is replacing the Cheetah/Cheetak line of helos..its roles could be similar to the KIOWA Warrior. A role that is hard to fullfill by say the Bell Huey.

The ALH itself is not even considered "Medium" in helicopter terms, how would it be too big for CT or Urban policing when usually they use a Bell 206 (a 5.5 ton bird on which the KIOWA Warrior is based on BTW) ? If you were to go smaller then you have the Robinson R22 or R44 or Bell 47 or Sikorsky S300 or the OH-6 which the US SF use as LOHs today. But these are 1.5 ton and 3 ton helicopter would also be considered "too big"!

Aren't spotter, Arty target acquisition and forward recon generally done cheaper and safer these days on UAVs ?

[GeorgeWelch]

This means it can only carry slightly more fuel than 2 Su30s. So at best it can tank-off 3 Su-30s. It's nowhere close to a Il-78 but it would work in a contingency situation.

Ah, but we were comparing it to an Su-30, not an Il-78

And an Su-30 can't refuel even one other Su-30 at 1000 nm

And it may not be clear, but when they say 'offload at 1000 nm', what they mean is fly 1000 nm, THEN loiter to perform said offload, THEN fly 1000 nm back and land with 2 hours fuel reserve (standard USAF operational definition).

[Brando]

This means it can only carry slightly more fuel than 2 Su30s. So at best it can tank-off 3 Su-30s. It's nowhere close to a Il-78 but it would work in a contingency situation.

Ah, but we were comparing it to an Su-30, not an Il-78

And an Su-30 can't refuel even one other Su-30 at 1000 nm

And it may not be clear, but when they say 'offload at 1000 nm', what they mean is fly 1000 nm, THEN loiter to perform said offload, THEN fly 1000 nm back and land with 2 hours fuel reserve (standard USAF operational definition).

Actually after checking, what you are referring to is the KC-130J which is a C130J reconfigured for tanker role and being used by the USMC. AFAIK, India didn't order the KC130J but just the ordinary C130J stretched J-30 version. I don't think this can act as a tanker for air to air refueling. So, that plan is bust.

Su-30mki has a range of 2700nm so it should be able to partially tank up another Su-30mki and still be able to RTB.

[GeorgeWelch]

Actually after checking, what you are referring to is the KC-130J which is a C130J reconfigured for tanker role and being used by the USMC. AFAIK, India didn't order the KC130J but just the ordinary C130J stretched J-30 version. I don't think this can act as a tanker for air to air refueling. So, that plan is bust.

India ordered the SpecOps version of the C-130J that does come with aerial refueling capability

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ind ... ces-02224/

India’s interest in the Hercules is quite specific to the Special Forces at the moment; but the plane’s capacity for additional specialty operations like aerial refueling both enhances those operations, and gives the IAF a number of additional employment options.

[Brando]

India ordered the SpecOps version of the C-130J that does come with aerial refueling capability

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ind ... ces-02224/

India’s interest in the Hercules is quite specific to the Special Forces at the moment; but the plane’s capacity for additional specialty operations like aerial refueling both enhances those operations, and gives the IAF a number of additional employment options.

That just says that the C130J for India is specific to the Special Forces now but the C130J also has a capacity to act as an aerial refueler in the future should India hope to avail itself of such an ability from the US. However the version ordered by India is simply a stretch version of the C130J, which has no aerial refueling pods.

If India had ordered the HC130J or the KC130J, then they could have come with aerial refuling capability but the C130J-30 which India and a lot of other countries have ordered is merely a stretched version.

[shiv]

What is the difference between a Light Utility Helicopter and a Advanced Light Helicopter ?? I still don't understand why a new engine or a new helicopter is needed in the first place, forget about engine specifications! Wasn't the Dhruv intended to replace the Alouette's in Indian service due to the insistence of hot and high ability ??

Shiv Aroor's blog states it as LUH and in other places they call it the Light Observation Helicopter ? Is it one and the same ?

Some definitely confusing info. I always thought LUH was a Cheetah replacement with the capability to evacuate say one man from Siachen - i.e a payload o just 100 kg or so at great heights

In my now dead Geocities page I had a description of the LOH. Here is a link to a screengrab

[rakall]

Some definitely confusing info. I always thought LUH was a Cheetah replacement with the capability to evacuate say one man from Siachen - i.e a payload o just 100 kg or so at great heights

In my now dead Geocities page I had a description of the LOH. Here is a link to a screengrab

I saw this in the geocities page 6years ago.. Sadly the project has not yet started.. if IAF/MOD were proactive - we could have "atleast" had one or two prototypes flying by now..

Instead we are off to buy 197helos from foreign vendors.. and for the 187 that HAL will develop - god knows if the project sanction has been obtained or not..

LUH/LOH is required to replace Cheetah's.. with additional roles (probably) as a light gunship, urban policing etc.

[Rahul M]

Some definitely confusing info. I always thought LUH was a Cheetah replacement with the capability to evacuate say one man from Siachen - i.e a payload o just 100 kg or so at great heights

it still is a cheetah replacement. what's confusing ? I admit I'm confused by this post.

[vipins]

Any info about cheetah -> cheetal & chetak -> chetan upgrades ,how did they perform???
Were they only for interim purposes till some LUH is selected??

[Rahul M]

it's a retrofit program and only meant for the sqns operating in HAA I think. chetan I haven't heard of in sometime. cheetal was first operated by army in 2007 IIRC. they asked for some modifications. all that was completed and the improved first batch was handed over in the middle of last year. and yes all will be eventually replaced by LOH, the non-upg versions will be retired first and the re-engined versions last of all.

btw, both versions have set altitude records IIRC.

[shukla]

Boeing to respond to Indian mid-air refueler orders soon..

Boeing Co. (BA) may respond within two weeks to initial requests for information from India for six refueling tankers, a company executive said Monday.
"Our teams are studying the proposal for six refuelers," Vivek Lall, vice president and India country head for Boeing Defense Space & Security, told Dow Jones Newswires on the sidelines of Defense Expo.
Refueling tankers are used to refuel airplanes during flight.

http://www.easybourse.com/bourse/actual ... ing-798829

Boeing joins the fun... Airbus loss, Boeing's gain...

[shiv]

Some definitely confusing info. I always thought LUH was a Cheetah replacement with the capability to evacuate say one man from Siachen - i.e a payload o just 100 kg or so at great heights

it still is a cheetah replacement. what's confusing ? I admit I'm confused by this post.

If LUH is Cheetah replacement what is LOH?
Is LUH=LOH?

[shiv]

Instead we are off to buy 197helos from foreign vendors.. and for the 187 that HAL will develop - god knows if the project sanction has been obtained or not..

I think HAL is overloaded with work.

[Rahul M]

If LUH is Cheetah replacement what is LOH?
Is LUH=LOH?

that's my understanding. previously small helos handled the observation part (e.g for artillery) as one of the main job requirements, hence the name. that role has been largely taken over by UAVs. I expect this role will be completely taken over by UAVs in the future. may be that's why the change from O to U in LUH.
or simply aroor has coined this term.

whichever it is, LOH=LUH AFAIK.

incidentally,
http://www.livemint.com/2007/10/3110225 ... opper.html

HAL to develop two new choppers
Oct 31 2007
The two models are lighter/ smaller craft than the company’s Dhruv advanced light helicopter and a heavier 10-tonne multi-role helicopter that can lift cargo and troops to high-altitude regions.
................
However, an industry expert said that HAL has been looking seriously at the ligher helicopter too. {and the expert was correct in his assesment}

“HAL is taking people of the Chetak and Cheetah (assembly) line and will utilize their expertise on developing the new light helicopter,” said Air Marshal (retd) K Sridharan, president of the Rotary Wing Society of India, a body of helicopter pilots and engineers in the country.
...............
In 1998, HAL had announced that it would indigenously build a three-tonne class light observation helicopter designed for operation at high altitudes of up to 6 km though it later scrapped the project.

[Rahul M]

okay, I think I got it now. my guesswork in the above post fits in.

LOH --> Project floated in late 90's as a single engined dhruv derivative and model displayed in an aero India at that time (either AI98 or AI2001) along with a very bloated looking LCH. (it was called LAH back then) the pic of both in one frame was in BR's AI galleries. wonder if people remember it.
project never took off due to no interest/funding.

LUH --> new name, similar configurations as the LOH. more or less a resurrected LOH.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 539169.cms

Another chopper project HAL is working on is for manufacture of Light Utility Helicopters (LUH).
HAL has been asked to develop a 3-tonne light helicopter for the army and the IAF for replacing their fleet of 'Cheetah' and 'Chetak'.

"We are in the preliminary stages in the project and are working on the design of the LUH. This would be a 3-tonne helicopter with a single engine," Baweja said.

[shiv]

Well this was supposed to be the LCH




and this the "bloated LAH"

[Pratik_S]

There is more to tanking than just fuel offload and there is more to cost than initial price and infrastructure

The A330 has a few advantages over the Il-78 beyond simple capacity
1. It has a boom and the Il-78 doesn't. Without a boom, you can't refuel C-17s or P-8Is.
2. It has a significant cargo capability. The Il-78 mounts an auxiliary fuel tank on the main deck and thus does away with the cargo deck and cargo doors to save weight.
3. The A330 has a large range advantage over the Il-78 (8000nm vs 4000nm)
4. It can refuel another A330, the Il-78 can't

As far as costs, the Il-78 may be cheaper to buy up front, but I strongly suspect the lifecycle costs of the A330 are significantly cheaper.
1. It's more fuel efficient
2. It requires fewer crew to run (3 vs 6 for the Il-78)
3. Maintenance costs will be significantly lower as it is a widely-available commercial plane with huge global support infrastructure. Having 2 engines is cheaper than 4, plus cost of maintenance was probably a more significant factor in the design of the A330 than the Il-76/78

I "Absolutely" agree with you, the A330 being a newer aircraft is more advance plus the Russians haven't put much new into the 78 lately. But the IL-78 will be much cheaper to purchase and operate as IAF already has loads of IL-76s and 78s. No wasting time and money to train them. IL-78 will be cheaper to maintain as the AF has a proper infrastructure. Plus the number of refuellers being purchased are too small to dedicate resources of the AF. They are already suffering from maintaining too many types of birds. AFA P-8s and a C-17s go the later hasn't been ordered yet. We could ask them to modify those birds to be compatible with the Il-78s(they are do that with the F-16IN to win MRCA). For the P-8 the navy can put up its own competition as it is their asset not IAF's and anyways if they wish to maintain a fleet of 200 aircrafts of which half will be fighters they will need refuellers.

[Rahul M]

Well this was supposed to be the LCH




and this the "bloated LAH"

I think you have reversed the images while posting. first one is the lancer ALH and the second is the LCH (not quite the bloated one I was talking of, this one's more similar to the current config).
the pic I described had scale models, not mock-ups.

no saarjee, LCH was originally called LAH, they changed around 2004-2005. the lancer was also called LAH, which added to the confusion, which is why they changed to LCH I think. it also sounds similar to LCA ! so lancer LAH different from just LAH.

edit : this is beyond cool. I found the pic !

old LAH + old LOH. you can read the acronyms on the tail.

[KrishG]

Btw, the LAH model behind LOH looks like a flying tin can.

IIRC, LUH is the name of the utility helicopter procurement program much like the name MMRCA. HAL's own program to develop an utility helicopter has always been known as LOH.

This was the model displayed at AI-09:

[Rahul M]

whoa, it's one and the same ! note the paint scheme and the number ! only the skids have been changed.

IIRC, LUH is the name of the utility helicopter procurement program much like the name MMRCA. HAL's own program to develop an utility helicopter has always been known as LOH.

krish, baweja refers to it as developing the LUH, not LOH. the requirement is just called light helicopter tender I believe.

[GeorgeWelch]

But the IL-78 will be much cheaper to purchase and operate as IAF already has loads of IL-76s and 78s.

Purchase, yes

Operate, not so much

Continuing fuel, crew and maintenance costs are going to be higher for the Il-78

As far as the number of Il-76s and 78s the IAF has, I'm not sure 'loads' applies as most of the Il-76 fleet seems to be decommissioned

No wasting time and money to train them.

The crews for the existing planes will stay with the existing planes, new planes will need new crew that will have to be trained regardless

You call it 'waste', I call it 'invest'

A little more expensive on the frontend to save large amounts through the lifecycle

IL-78 will be cheaper to maintain as the AF has a proper infrastructure.

It doesn't actually work like that. The Il-78 is more expensive to maintain because it requires more man-hours of maintenance. It doesn't matter what 'infrastructure' you have in places, it's always going to be more expensive to fly

Plus the number of refuellers being purchased are too small to dedicate resources of the AF. They are already suffering from maintaining too many types of birds.

There is a cost to keeping multiple fleets. But there is also a cost to having a less efficient plane. In this case it is my belief the savings from efficiency will more than outweigh the costs of redundancy.

AFA P-8s and a C-17s go the later hasn't been ordered yet.

These tankers are expected to have a 40+ year lifespan. If you're going to invest that much in them, it makes sense to have them be as 'future-proof' and flexible as possible.

A boom is a great feature if you can use it

We could ask them to modify those birds to be compatible with the Il-78s(they are do that with the F-16IN to win MRCA).

A probe on the C-17 is never going to happen.

1. Trying to maneuver a big plane to get it to hook onto the drogue is very difficult and error-prone
2. A hose can barely transfer fuel fast enough to make any progress
3. The C-17 maintenance and sustainment program relies on everyone having the exact same version of the plane. Everyone receives the same upgrades and fixes, there is no customization.

For the P-8 the navy can put up its own competition as it is their asset not IAF's and anyways if they wish to maintain a fleet of 200 aircrafts of which half will be fighters they will need refuellers.

The AF and Navy are all on the same team. For the navy to buy refuellers just for the P-8s would be fiscally irresponsible. The USN will rely on USAF to refuel it's P-8s and the USAF relies on the USN to provide jammer support. There's no need to buy duplicate platforms for each service.

[KrishG]

krish, baweja refers to it as developing the LUH, not LOH. the requirement is just called light helicopter tender I believe.

There are conflicting reports on not only the name but the design itself.
The above model has one design and this picture below taken by me at AI-09 shows another design

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 0.JPG.html

[Rahul M]

I don't see much of a confusion any more. that CG image is a rough one. LUH may or may not end up looking like the old LOH model they have displayed but one thing is certain, it is essentially the same program resurrected.