LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 01 Apr 2010 14:07

Is the namakarnam of LCH in the offing??? Anyhow, why not leave it as it is??? It does not sound all that bad... or the appropriate name would be Garuda, embodying both ferocity and agility... The characteristics of an Attack Helicopter...

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 01 Apr 2010 15:49

^^ nice name. Jatayu/Pushpak or perhaps ... Qatl-e-ghori/Babur buster

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 01 Apr 2010 17:05

As far as the name for the LCH goes, i don't think that HAL painted a tiger(it is a tiger right?) on it for no reason (though there is an attack helo already named after it!) .So what's tiger in Sanskrit?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 01 Apr 2010 17:11

abhik wrote:As far as the name for the LCH goes, i don't think that HAL painted a tiger(it is a tiger right?) on it for no reason (though there is an attack helo already named after it!) .So what's tiger in Sanskrit?

Vyaghra

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 01 Apr 2010 17:11

abhik wrote:As far as the name for the LCH goes, i don't think that HAL painted a tiger(it is a tiger right?) on it for no reason (though there is an attack helo already named after it!) .So what's tiger in Sanskrit?

Vyaghra but I would definitely not like some firangi to confuse it with ****.

Added Later : Just got to know that v*i*a*g*r*a is "He Who Must Not Be Named" in BRF.

Cheers....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Apr 2010 17:36

please continue the naming discussion here.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 90#p848690

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 02 Apr 2010 01:22

When is the IOC expected for this baby???

I mean it took nearly 10 years for the Tejas to get to IOC after its first flight... And If i am right, flight testing of an Attack helo is much more rigorous than that of a fighter bird...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 01:29

nope sir, fighter flight testing is much more involved due to the FBW, fighters also push the boundaries much further. I don't think there would be as big a difference in IOC/FOC as in the case of the LCA. it helps that many of the subsystems can be tested on other testbeds (WSI).

2015 is a good reasonable assumption.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 02 Apr 2010 02:27

Sriman wrote:A spreadsheet comparing LCH specs with other attack Helos:

http://www.google.com/squared/table/agN ... hFuwwk7wfw

I'm not sure how accurate the numbers are..

According to HAL info-board for LCH in DefExpo 2010, Max Take Off weight is 5.8 tons.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Dc2Wx4jR9F8/S ... MG2774.JPG

Another board at a Trade Fair in 2009 says its 5.5 Tons
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Dc2Wx4jR9F8/S ... age069.jpg

HAL needs to get some PR guys ASAP. They created similar confusion with LCA

When I asked a HAL guy about the date of first test flight of LCH he answered, "In 4-5 days max". That was on 18th Feb

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2010 03:47

Drdo Tech focusApril 2010 issue has a good description of helicopter(ALH) testing.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 02 Apr 2010 06:27

nukavarapu wrote:The FLIR system on LCH, is it indigenous developed by DRDO or imported? Are there any implications of Bad weather on the LCH's FLIR/IRST? LCH is supposed to carry A2A missiles, for anti-helicopter or anti-uav/ucav role. How would the targeting system work for A2A mode without FCR? If its gonna use the FLIR for that, then I assume the range would be very limited for A2A mode, probably less than 10 km. Can anyone enlighten me?

FLIR/IRST combo with a range of 10kms will be very effective in the A2A regime. Most helo's do not have or are not expected to have BVR capability when it comes to A2A combat. Most helo's will fly low during combat, this generally is the death knell for any targetting system due t ground clutter. Most helo's are therefore expected to have limited targetting capability in the A2A mode. Against UAV's a helo can be vectored by another a/c with radar...and then take out the offending UAV

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Apr 2010 09:58

the only thing that works reliably in bad weather is radar. so far, no attack helicopter has mounted a radar with A2A modes for AAM engagement.

as UAV/helis proliferate that could change and one could see low flying fixed wing or rotary wing loitering UCAVs armed with radars and 6-8 asraam type AAMs to swat out targets of opportunity and keep areas safe from enemy attack helis.

jimit · Post by **jimit** » 02 Apr 2010 11:32

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48945335@N08/4479506434/

Does any one know what that thing is? I think it has something to do with tail rotor.

alok_c · Post by **alok_c** » 02 Apr 2010 11:52

nukavarapu wrote: I am not even sure what was the reason to install the mmW radar to begin with.

From what i gathered doing quick reading on the subject, here are the reasons why MMW is installed:

1) From Army Technology

An advantage of millimetre wave is that it performs under poor-visibility conditions and is less sensitive to ground clutter. The short wavelength allows a very narrow beamwidth, which is resistant to countermeasures

2) And of course to pair it with AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missile which gives the missile a fire and forget capability (unlike the laser guided Hellfires which need to be illuminated all the way to the target)

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Apr 2010 12:33

jimit wrote:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48945335@N08/4479506434/

Does any one know what that thing is? I think it has something to do with tail rotor.

jimit ji,

What thing?

Can you be more specific?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Apr 2010 13:32

nukavarapu wrote:
I think he is referring to the Red Colored line on the bottom edge. Even I was intrigued by its presence. Looks like a wire but I am very sure its not.

nukavarapu ji,

As you said, can't make out clearly.

It maybe the HF antenna.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 02 Apr 2010 14:47

PHOTOS: More Photos Of The Light Combat Helicopter! - Livefist

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 02 Apr 2010 15:22

@Red colour line on bottom:

My friend who is part of the LCH project has asked to to convey this message to you guys that those red lines are cable connecting strain gages and other flight test instruments and those will not be a part of standard LCH.

SagarP · Post by **SagarP** » 02 Apr 2010 15:28

Rahul M wrote:^^ ...

> $ 2 mn for WZ-10 sounds extremely dubious. even slave labour has its limits.

Sirji IMHO this is due to much much undervalued Yuan,and they will not sell it to anyone for that price...except may be to the pukis birader-in-arms.

On a more serious note, could someone please enlighten us uneducated mangoes as to what all noise-reduction features are envisaged on LCH.

Especially when people are talking about "whisper modes" and Blue Edge rotor blades.

Eurocopter Moves One Step Closer to ‘Whisper Mode’

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 02 Apr 2010 17:07

Rahul M wrote: some comments :

> z is army registration IIRC.

@ Rahul M. Did a quick search on the registration conventions of Indian Military helos. Couldn't get much. Any directions are very welcome.

Secondly, http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 5.jpg.html

Check the image, Ironically from BR itself.

This shows an IAF helo engaged in Relief Operations during Gujrat Floods.

So, I'm confused now

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 17:43

so am I.

hence the 'IIRC' part.

arun · Post by **arun** » 02 Apr 2010 19:07

Kakarat wrote:PHOTOS: More Photos Of The Light Combat Helicopter! - Livefist

Blog of journalist Anantha Krishnan M who is the cited source for the pictures of the Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) maiden flight:

Slim LCH hits the skies, finally; Team LCH dedicate first flight to chopper chief Srinivasan

Inside Story : Team LCH Upbeat Over Maiden Flight

jimit · Post by **jimit** » 02 Apr 2010 20:04

jimit ji,

What thing?

Can you be more specific?

Please don't call me ji, I am just a fellow BRFite

Please have a look at the new image I have zoomed it, I was referring to a copper color pipe like thing in the image.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48945335@N08/4483741623/

My friend who is part of the LCH project has asked to to convey this message to you guys that those red lines are cable connecting strain gages and other flight test instruments and those will not be a part of standard LCH.

Thanks.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 21:03

anirban_aim wrote:..........So, I'm confused now

I think I found the source of my confusion, the initial helos of AAC were all transferred from the IAF and carried the z-series registration. while the IAF has had other series since, last time I checked (this was before the dhruvs entered IA in numbers) all IA helos I had seen carried the Z-registration and I assumed that z is IA specific.
hence the goof-up.

p.s. the AAC dhruvs carry registration starting with IA.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Apr 2010 22:47

ramana wrote:Drdo Tech focusApril 2010 issue has a good description of helicopter(ALH) testing.

Thanks Ramana. Very informative article on the Dhruv certification. A must read for every jingo.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 03 Apr 2010 11:11

arun wrote:
Kakarat wrote:PHOTOS: More Photos Of The Light Combat Helicopter! - Livefist
Blog of journalist Anantha Krishnan M who is the cited source for the pictures of the Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) maiden flight:

Slim LCH hits the skies, finally; Team LCH dedicate first flight to chopper chief Srinivasan

Inside Story : Team LCH Upbeat Over Maiden Flight

We should keep an eye on this blog..

I think this guy was the HAL PRO - a position that was deemed unnecessary by the new HAL boss Ashok Nayak... I think this person was the guy responsible for MSM & "The Plane" magazine that HAL put out a few times.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Apr 2010 11:23

hey, good catch rakman. http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/11/ha ... rsons.html

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 03 Apr 2010 11:38

Rahul M wrote:hey, good catch rakman. http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/11/ha ... rsons.html

Very sad & stupid decision to say the least... Was it not?

In times when marketing, PR & media communications savvy is the key to making an impression on the public, customers & users -- HAL had taken a very shortsighted decision...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Apr 2010 11:52

absolutely ridiculous, exemplifies the penny wise pound foolish attitude. especially given that he was doing a fine job.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Apr 2010 18:43

From Tribune India

The maiden test flight of the 5.5-tonne attack chopper...

The first flight was to take place in October 2008, but there were delays.

The HAL will now conduct more test flights to evaluate the LCH’s at various parameters. While the company is pushing for a 2012-13 deadline, realistically speaking it might take at least four to five years before the LCH is available in the market

“The LCH needs several hours of in-flight testing before it receives the final operation certificate and may join fleet of Indian Defence Service only around 2014-15,” sources said.

Both Army and IAF have heavily invested in the project and the company has a firm order of 189.

At present the only attack helicopters available with the IAF are Russian-made Mi-25 and Mi-35, which are not optimised for operations at high altitude.

Aviation experts say if during Kargil war which was fought at very high altitude, the LCH was operational, the scenario would have been very different.

The Shakti engine being used in the LCH has been jointly developed by the HAL and Turbomeca of France with primary focus on high-altitude operations.

It is expected to meet operational requirements like air support, anti-infantry and anti-armour roles. The rotor system has also been developed indigenously.

The twin-engine LCH is a pure attack helicopter made by the design experience gained from the Dhruv.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 04 Apr 2010 19:23

blithering idiots - Aroor had posted about it

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 06 Apr 2010 20:01

I dont know how for this statement the LCH would have give some serious advantage to Indians in Kargil. From what I remember the Pakis were given large no of SAM's to counter such situation and one Cheeta which tried to attack got shot down. I know Cheeta is not at all suited for such a mission but I do not know how for LCH would have helped. Any views gurus

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Apr 2010 20:10

Narayana Rao wrote:I dont know how for this statement the LCH would have give some serious advantage to Indians in Kargil. From what I remember the Pakis were given large no of SAM's to counter such situation and one Cheeta which tried to attack got shot down. I know Cheeta is not at all suited for such a mission but I do not know how for LCH would have helped. Any views gurus

It was not a Cheetah but a Mi-17 which was lost...it was part of a 4-ship formation...

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 06 Apr 2010 21:54

The LCH has some notable features at first glance...
- The exhaust is routed towards the blades where it will disperse and have a smaller IR signature.
- The engine inlets seem to be covered.
- The body/landing gear is crash survivable till 10 m/s (36kmph)
- The fuel cells will have foam and puncture resistance which will make it more fire resistant.
- The body will be made of composite armour able to withstand 12.7mm shells.
- It will have a SPS (self protection suite) consisting of RWR, chaff/flare dispensers etc.

the Mi-17 lacks most of these features as it is a transport chopper with the secondary attack capability.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 06 Apr 2010 23:31

Narayana Rao wrote:I dont know how for this statement the LCH would have give some serious advantage to Indians in Kargil. From what I remember the Pakis were given large no of SAM's to counter such situation and one Cheeta which tried to attack got shot down. I know Cheeta is not at all suited for such a mission but I do not know how for LCH would have helped. Any views gurus

The very reason the Mi 25/35 could not be used there was the inability to operate effectively at that high altitude. To be able to effectively attack and defend itself a helo needs to have reserve power at those altitudes rather than operate at the edge of its envelope. The LCH was designed with those factors in mind.
IIRC the Mi 17 loss also had something to do with it being the one aircraft in the 4 ship formation not equipped with flares. The LCH by default has a self protection suite built in.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Apr 2010 00:11

Rahul M wrote:hey, good catch rakman. http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/11/ha ... rsons.html

I can scarcely believe that Ashok Nayak is such a big fool to let go of the couple of guys who did the little PR or spokesman's role in an organisation as huge as HAL..companies that aren't even close to HAL's size either have in-house dept.s devoted to such jobs, or out-source it to firms to manage their PR and associated roles. Its a folly that quite clearly illustrates some of the drawbacks of the PSU mentality that Ashok Nayak is surely totally steeped in.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Apr 2010 00:23

Narayana Rao wrote:I dont know how for this statement the LCH would have give some serious advantage to Indians in Kargil. From what I remember the Pakis were given large no of SAM's to counter such situation and one Cheeta which tried to attack got shot down. I know Cheeta is not at all suited for such a mission but I do not know how for LCH would have helped. Any views gurus

the biggest problem was that the IA's gunships, the Mi-25 and Mi-35s could not operate at such altitudes. Which is why the Mi-17 was pressed into action with rocket pods slung on its sides. And the worst part is that they didn't get CMDS (Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems) or in layman's terms chaff and flare dispensers to protect these Mi-17s. So obviously they became easy targets for Stingers..and even then they evaded a few Stingers before they were hit.

A LCH with its CMDS, MAWS, smaller IR signature would be far more survivable as it would not only be given early warning on MANPADs launched at it but it could also evade them considering that the Dhruv had very high control margins at such high altitudes as Siachen (as per Gp. Cpt Hari Nair, an HAL helo test pilot). And the Mi-17 lacked the type of sophisticated FLIR sensors and laser designation capability that the LCH has which would have allowed them to employ smart munitions.

It is the Kargil experience which shaped the IA's requirement for helos that could operate at high altitudes and carry a worthwhile payload while doing so.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Apr 2010 00:26

kartik, DIRCM too.

p.s. Gp Capt Hari Nair was one of the crew on the LCH flight.

Jayram · Post by **Jayram** » 07 Apr 2010 00:47

Noticed something from the earlier mockups from AI's of the past .
The length of the stubby wing has been definately reduced. It may even support just one hard point now compared to the two in the mockps .
Also on the glass versus armoured plating again a preference for glass for higher visbility but also lower weight.
Anyway early days yet and time will tell just how powerfull this beast is going to be. One thing is for sure -if AF and Army wants it to be operable in the heights of the kargil as well as at sea level this thing is going to have a lot of reserve power at sea level - should lead to higher takeoff weight capacity based on the mission specific requirements.
Good stuff

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Apr 2010 00:49

nikhil_p wrote:The LCH has some notable features at first glance...
- The exhaust is routed towards the blades where it will disperse and have a smaller IR signature.
- The engine inlets seem to be covered.

Glad you mentioned it Nikhil because I didn't know if I should mention it first or not.

Its called a Black Hole (BH) Infra Red Suppression System (IRSS). basically what it does is to optically block the hot engine parts which directly reduces IR signature and secondly it cools the very hot exhaust duct and even hotter plume.

I initially had expected to see a finned nozzle (to increase surface area to transfer heat), but that seems to be not the case with the LCH. But it has internal bends (as can be seen on the LCH, where the exhaust nozzle bends upwards and is also shielded from the direct view on sides by the engine compartment casing) and thus prevents the direct view of hot internal exhaust surface.

Also, the hot exhaust creates a pressure difference that draws in colder air from the engine compartment and that is then used to reduce the plume temp. In addition, as you mentioned the downwash from the rotor helps to cool the nozzle too.

I initially thought that they might go with an Ocarina system as well in addition to the BH system, but they haven't. The Ocarina system has multiple exhausts, which are used to disspate the plume and to reduce the level of heat radiation from the plume.

You can see that Ocarina system very clearly in an Apache as seen on this earlier discussion page from BRF. As you'll see topics get discussed, drown out and then re-emerge in a few months or a year's time.

The disadvantages of this type of BHO IRSS system is that it increases drag a bit due to the finned exhaust, and there is a pressure loss due to suction through the heat exchanger, and around a 3% power loss. Since they didn't go with finned exhaust, there is no drag penalty, and also since they didn't go with the Ocarina system, there is a lower power loss. I think that the criteria for higher max. ceiling drove them to drop that type of an IRSS system.

this is what I'd written about the LCH on that page whose link I provided above.

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.

- The body/landing gear is crash survivable till 10 m/s (36kmph)

source ? I thought its crashworthiness for the airframe was designed per forward g force, lateral g force and upward g forces that it had to be able to withstand.

- The fuel cells will have foam and puncture resistance which will make it more fire resistant.

self sealing fuel tanks are there on the ALH Dhruv itself and it was dramatically shown during the Ecuadorian crash where it didn't catch fire. Read the recent post by Ramana on the ALH Dhruv certification.

- The body will be made of composite armour able to withstand 12.7mm shells.

Here I feel that it will be done for key components and the cockpit armour. The main aim is to protect the occupants and the critical items on board the helo, not give it all round protection from 12.7 mm bullets.

- It will have a SPS (self protection suite) consisting of RWR, chaff/flare dispensers etc.

and in addition to the above, most importantly for a gunship, it will have MAWS. the biggest threat is from MANPADs like Stinger, Anza, etc.