LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 22 Aug 2010 20:07

Rahul M wrote: > what is the status of the DIRCM project for LCH ? has it been decided which version shall be used ?

> are there any plans for a radar equipped version in the future ?

> will the HeliNa be ready by the time LCH enters service ? if not, is the LCH team looking at any alternate ATGM's ?

> LCH info-boards mention SEAD as part of mission profile. are there any particular ARM envisaged for use on LCH ?

and one oo WSI dhruv,
> could you tell us how far has its testing progressed and when it is expected in service ?

this question is not exactly about the LCH project and I'll understand if you don't want to answer it.
> what is the role envisaged for the currently ongoing attack helicopter competition (the one in which apache etc are participating) in light of the fact that LCH can do most if not all of the functions that can be carried out by those platforms ? is it a stop-gap measure to cater for the gap between the hinds getting long in the tooth and LCH induction or for a separate role altogether ?

thanks in advance.

Rahul,
Well, regarding the DIRCM & EW fit - all of that is in much hallowed & perhaps 'Black Art' territory - for understandable reasons! So I guess we will need to wait and see when those get fielded - as to which type or version or performance- I doubt whether all those details will be voluntarily released into public domain.

Re- the radar version - would you mean an Air Intercept (AI) radar or something else? Could you specify your line-of-thought further?

Helina is in DRDO's domain. We perhaps, need to have an amenable DRDO scientist logging in to our forum to answer questions on specific timelines! You mentioned 'alternate ATGMs' - we would then be assuming Helina to be the default ATGM missile for the LCH, which may not be the case.

Yes indeed, SEAD is a specified role - ARMs alone need not be used for the role - there are other obvious weapon options. And in most cases, the ARM may not do the job at all! Notwithstanding all that, ARMs will be integrated on the LCH to be used when deemed appropriate for the target.

Testing of the weapons & systems of the WSI version is on-going. We have had slippages in the ALH-WSI project - but then, that's not unusual in the aviation industry worldwide, especially when it comes to weapons integration. Check out the latest on the German version of the Tiger Attack helicopter - both the Tiger and the ALH projects effectively started together and today the German version of the Tiger, despite induction into a squadron in Germany has been declared non-operational due to problems traced to electrical wiring in all its helicopters. And that's a heck of a notorious and time-consuming problem to fix, especially for glass-cockpit aircraft. And there's quite a big hoo-haa over it, including by their financial chaps...

Regarding LCH and the IAF's evaluation of attack helicopters - check out my earlier post on the same! I believe its also the urgent timeline for replacing the Mi-35s that is a factor for driving the process.

Regarding Bihanga’s point on target engagement (& identification in the Tactical Battle Area) - its not as if its dependent only on recent techno-wizardry and only on the attack aircraft. It’s also procedural and institutionalised. I agree it’s a vexed problem and even the USAF & US Army with all their technical resources are still grappling with it during their recent ops. I don't mean to get preachy here but check out the archives on the 1971 War – when our Army-IAF cooperation for Close Air Support in the battlefield was so good and was one of the reasons for the lightning pace through erstwhile East Pakistan (about 14 days to Dacca) – they obviously got the procedures and the process right. I even recall an article by a correspondent reporting for Time being impressed by it. Also, in that context, I wonder whether any Air Force or Army will leave it to the pilot to reach within sniffing distance of the target for IFF! That would mean certain hara-kiri.

Any sensor with a longer reach is good news in my opinion - and I believe the MMW Fire Control Radar is a step in the right direction. IFF is another issue altogether and needs to be tackled appropriately.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 22 Aug 2010 20:10

Hari Nair Sir,

Please also consider discussing Design Parameters and Considerations for its aerodynamic performance. I hope I am not being over demanding.

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 22 Aug 2010 20:42

@ rakall, @ Kartik, @ naird, @ Marten, @ suryag, @ indranilroy, @Raja Bose @ babbupandey & @Bala Vignesh,
Gentlemen, thank you very much, my privilege to be a member of this forum. Its indeed very heartening to participate in a dedicated military aviation forum of our countrymen! And on a lighter note, not Ghee Shakkar – just hot black tea (without sugar!!)

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Aug 2010 20:53

Hari

Thanks for a dozen of the finest posts on BR

aha a tea lover. maybe converted like me (original kappee drinker only)

How about a flavoured black tea then??

mango or mandarin - may have a few more somewhere in the cupboard

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 22 Aug 2010 21:57

@Surya,
- Thanks!
@Gaur “When the first model of lch was shown, some people questioned as to why was the sensor pod placed above the nose and not under it like other attack helicopters. They said that this would greatly decrease the fov. Others, on the other hand, counter argued that if the target was so near that it could not be viewed by the sensor pod then it was already too late. What are your views on this?"

Well, aircraft design is a difficult thing to do and is about acceptable compromises. Given that premise, the factors that drove the sensor pod location were:
Putting a sensor atop the rotor-head (aka the Tiger-HAP version & Longbow Apache) is adding on quite a bit of a headache from the vibration design specialist’s point-of-view and also adding to drag, which invariably reduces forward speed. For the Longbow MMW FCR, I guess it made sense since the real estate on the nose was already taken by the FLIR-CCD sensors and the mast-mounted option increased the FCR’s field-of-view.
Given the fact that combat helicopters attack ranges have gone beyond the 2-3 km distance, to about 8 kms, they need to be at an appropriate height above terrain to get line-of-sight to check out the target. Every terrain has irregularities (no perfect flatlands anywhere, barring maybe the Rann-of-Kutch?) . Consequently, at those heights above terrain, it gets a bit immaterial whether the sensor is a metre higher or lower. It may perhaps, be more practical to mount the sensors at a location preferred from the vibration, structural and aerodynamic points-of-view.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 22 Aug 2010 22:20

Hari Nair Sir,

Thank you for the insight. Great to have you on board!

When time permits could you post some details about Test pilots, flight testing and the challenges you face? While most of us here do know bits and pieces about flight testing, if you could elaborate a bit, it would be great.

Mods, kindly archive these posts.

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 22 Aug 2010 22:26

sumshyam wrote:Please also consider discussing Design Parameters and Considerations for its aerodynamic performance. I hope I am not being over demanding.

That's a very general Q - any specific line-of-thought?

babbupandey wrote: 1. Is the LCH equipped for network-warfare roles just like Apache?
2. What do you think are the major hurdles on our way? Can we meet the deadline?
3. When you say that we should expect an evolution of design, do you mean that LCH design will be further refined in this testing phase or we should expect something like LDC Mk-II.
And at the risk of going OT, how did you hear about BR and what made you join it?
Thanks!

1.Yes the LCH will be network enabled.
2.We need to get the basic platform perfectly optimised for the contradictory low and high altitude requirements- that, in my opinion is the primary challenge. The next perhaps, is integration of weapons.
3.What I meant is do not expect any revolutionary (radical) changes. As of now, we seem to have got the fundamentals right. We need to of course, polish up and improve on it. What's the "LDC Mk-II"? Regarding timelines - check out the HAL website.
4. Well - I came across this thread on the LCH with all its very heated discussion and the thought did cross my mind to contribute to translate all that heat into some light.

anand_sankar · Post by **anand_sankar** » 22 Aug 2010 23:41

Great to see Mr. Nair here. Just thought I should post links to the two afternoons before Aero India 07, I spent with HAL's rotary test team and the Tejas test team at the NFTC. There was so much I learnt at my time there and pity I could accommodate only little in my stories.

The Dhruv team - http://bit.ly/ddtrjP

The Tejas team - http://bit.ly/bBB2ki

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 22 Aug 2010 23:52

Hari Nair wrote:
4. Well - I came across this thread on the LCH with all its very heated discussion and the thought did cross my mind to contribute to translate all that heat into some light.

We are all very glad & lucky that you did.. There was a time when we wasted pages & pages of heated arguments on the positioning of the sensor pod.. great to have some real insights into the designer's thought process.. we will continue to learn from your posts..

It is also a credit to BR -- just after your first 3posts, we could realise who was posting.. it shows once again that @BR, we do know our heros -- Unni, Uppi, Baldy and ........

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 23 Aug 2010 00:43

Hair Nair Sir,

If the profusive gratitude is a bit much then I'm afraid I will only add to the problem. It is so very rare for someone with accurate knowledge about the things we take so much pride in on this forum to also be willing to spare some time and generously share their insight. Thank you.

Is there a name for the LCH like Tejas is to LCA? If not, is there a name you'd like to see?

Sir, it might seem very trivial but we did fill many pages and burn KWH of electricity on trying to name this bird of prey. It is only fitting that your choice take pride of place.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 23 Aug 2010 01:05

Hari Nair wrote: ...........
2.We need to get the basic platform perfectly optimised for the contradictory low and high altitude requirements- that, in my opinion is the primary challenge.
.............

Can you please educate us more regarding the contradictory requirements for high and low altitude? My little understanding of this subject is limited only to the following. At high altitude, the air density is much lower which would result in much lower maneuverability and also the engine would have difficulty in breathing air. But what are the contradictory requirements for low altitude? I would have thought that a helicopter able to fly at high altitude would have little to worry about at low altitude. But obviously I am wrong. The only contradiction I can think of is that the avionics would have to work in both extreme cold and extreme hot temperatures? What are the other contradictions.
Thanks for you patience Sir.

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 23 Aug 2010 02:38

Gaur wrote: Can you please educate us more regarding the contradictory requirements for high and low altitude? My little understanding of this subject is limited only to the following. At high altitude, the air density is much lower which would result in much lower maneuverability and also the engine would have difficulty in breathing air. But what are the contradictory requirements for low altitude? I would have thought that a helicopter able to fly at high altitude would have little to worry about at low altitude. But obviously I am wrong. The only contradiction I can think of is that the avionics would have to work in both extreme cold and extreme hot temperatures? What are the other contradictions.
Thanks for you patience Sir.

I think what he means is that at low altitude, you can afford to have better armour and payload and even low powered engine will suffice. At high altitude you cannot have a larger payload and you need higher powered engine. I think there is a payload/power trade-off. Just my "educated" shot in the dark

naird · Post by **naird** » 23 Aug 2010 04:09

Hari Nair wrote: 4. Well - I came across this thread on the LCH with all its very heated discussion and the thought did cross my mind to contribute to translate all that heat into some light.

Thanks Sir for the posts...Now if you could only point your fixed wing colleagues to the heated discussions that we are having on the LCA thread with regards to its status and more importantly if you can cox/trick them in taking time out of their busy schedule to lob in a few notes then it would be 'Coup of the decade of BR'....quite frankly we are tired of defence journos who quite often misquote or dont have a clue on what they are talking about..be it LCH or be it LCA or be it Arjun , etc.

If you can, then kindly let the likes of Rohit Varma sir, Raveendran sir , Thomas sir , Balaji sir , Malvankar sir , etc...know that there are lot of enthusiasts over here who eagerly await every tiny eni miny bit of information that flows out ...

Thank you once again for taking time out for posting gems.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 23 Aug 2010 04:39

@ Hari Nair, thanks for the insightful posts...

Question have crept up relating to the HAL's latest blunders suggesting that Turbomeca has been arm-twisting Hal because of latter's inability to develop the Transmission in-house using a single Shakti engine. Can you please elaborate and clear the hot air around this?? Is a modified version of Shakti being kept as an option for LUH and has Hal taken any steps towards developing the transmission systems independently?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Aug 2010 06:41

Hari Nair wrote:
Well, aircraft design is a difficult thing to do and is about acceptable compromises. Given that premise, the factors that drove the sensor pod location were:
Putting a sensor atop the rotor-head (aka the Tiger-HAP version & Longbow Apache) is adding on quite a bit of a headache from the vibration design specialist’s point-of-view and also adding to drag, which invariably reduces forward speed. For the Longbow MMW FCR, I guess it made sense since the real estate on the nose was already taken by the FLIR-CCD sensors and the mast-mounted option increased the FCR’s field-of-view.
Given the fact that combat helicopters attack ranges have gone beyond the 2-3 km distance, to about 8 kms, they need to be at an appropriate height above terrain to get line-of-sight to check out the target. Every terrain has irregularities (no perfect flatlands anywhere, barring maybe the Rann-of-Kutch?) . Consequently, at those heights above terrain, it gets a bit immaterial whether the sensor is a metre higher or lower. It may perhaps, be more practical to mount the sensors at a location preferred from the vibration, structural and aerodynamic points-of-view.

Whoooeeeeeeee!

So much gyan in one post! We need to carve this post in stone and put it as mandatory reading as the first post of this forum.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Aug 2010 07:44

ha ha...but it looks cooler and more next-gen to have it mounted on the mast!

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Aug 2010 08:06

contradictory low and high altitude requirements ? Is this related to disc loading and blade loading (higher for low altitude and lower for high altitude ops ) ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Aug 2010 11:15

the mast mount thing probably came about from the need to hide behind forested ridges in korea and europe and just peek up with the radar...and
creep around below the tree canopy level.

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 23 Aug 2010 12:55

Hari Nair Sir, Welcome to BRF.

Thank you very very much for your insightful posts. For this long, our discussions were mostly based on speculations. Now, It feels so good to finally hear from the masters.

Regarding the level of indigenization, I believe there is one area where we can achieve significant amount of in indigenization. That is Avionics, glass cockpit etc.

We have already demonstrated our capabilities with LCA. Samtel is ready to provide MFD's. So, it is not something new to us.

Sir, My query is :
Is there any such program currently running under the HAL or DRDO to develop avionics in house ??

We cannot always be dependent on Israelis or any other country. Just because today it is available to us, it doesn't mean that it will always be. We have to be self sufficient in that.

What are your thoughts on this ??

Once again Thanks a lot Sir for posting here. You are one of the best things to have happened on BRF. And if you can persuade your colleagues from Fixed wing division then it will surely be an icing on the cake.

May God Bless You.

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 23 Aug 2010 19:37

Gaur wrote:
Hari Nair wrote: ...........
2.We need to get the basic platform perfectly optimised for the contradictory low and high altitude requirements- that, in my opinion is the primary challenge.
.............
Can you please educate us more regarding the contradictory requirements for high and low altitude? My little understanding of this subject is limited only to the following. At high altitude, the air density is much lower which would result in much lower maneuverability and also the engine would have difficulty in breathing air. But what are the contradictory requirements for low altitude? I would have thought that a helicopter able to fly at high altitude would have little to worry about at low altitude. But obviously I am wrong. The only contradiction I can think of is that the avionics would have to work in both extreme cold and extreme hot temperatures? What are the other contradictions.
Thanks for you patience Sir.

I definitely will, after we achieve our planned targets - so we will need to be a bit more patient on that one!

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 23 Aug 2010 19:39

Singha wrote:the mast mount thing probably came about from the need to hide behind forested ridges in korea and europe and just peek up with the radar...and creep around below the tree canopy level.

You are right on that one - and yes I agree the mast mounted sight looks more mean & predatory! But try and creep around our high altitude forested hills in J&K or the NorthEast and the chopper will perhaps become a part of the forest itself!

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 23 Aug 2010 19:40

Hari ji,

Please describe a typical day for you, that will be enlightening!

Thanks!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Aug 2010 20:11

thanks for the replies sir, my replies are in colour.

I do hope you are not getting overwhelmed by the number of questions !

Hari Nair wrote:
Rahul M wrote:
> what is the status of the DIRCM project for LCH ? has it been decided which version shall be used ?

> are there any plans for a radar equipped version in the future ?

> will the HeliNa be ready by the time LCH enters service ? if not, is the LCH team looking at any alternate ATGM's ?

> LCH info-boards mention SEAD as part of mission profile. are there any particular ARM envisaged for use on LCH ?

and one oo WSI dhruv,
> could you tell us how far has its testing progressed and when it is expected in service ?

this question is not exactly about the LCH project and I'll understand if you don't want to answer it.
> what is the role envisaged for the currently ongoing attack helicopter competition (the one in which apache etc are participating) in light of the fact that LCH can do most if not all of the functions that can be carried out by those platforms ? is it a stop-gap measure to cater for the gap between the hinds getting long in the tooth and LCH induction or for a separate role altogether ?

thanks in advance.
Rahul,
Well, regarding the DIRCM & EW fit - all of that is in much hallowed & perhaps 'Black Art' territory - for understandable reasons! So I guess we will need to wait and see when those get fielded - as to which type or version or performance- I doubt whether all those details will be voluntarily released into public domain.
of course, I understand.
Re- the radar version - would you mean an Air Intercept (AI) radar or something else? Could you specify your line-of-thought further?
I meant to say FCR, something like the longbow what is carried by the Ah-64D. I believe it provides better situational awareness in poor weather than optical sensors ?
now that you mention it, I remember the phrase 'AD against slow moving aerial targets' which I guess refers to an anti-UAV role. how is this intended to be realised ? will targets be handed over by ground based sensor networks or is there a plan for an air intercept radar as well ?
I admit the later seems unlikely for a niche role but perhaps a podded radar might be carried ?

Helina is in DRDO's domain. We perhaps, need to have an amenable DRDO scientist logging in to our forum to answer questions on specific timelines! You mentioned 'alternate ATGMs' - we would then be assuming Helina to be the default ATGM missile for the LCH, which may not be the case.
Interesting, so is there a 'default' ATGM for the LCH ?

Yes indeed, SEAD is a specified role - ARMs alone need not be used for the role - there are other obvious weapon options. And in most cases, the ARM may not do the job at all! Notwithstanding all that, ARMs will be integrated on the LCH to be used when deemed appropriate for the target.
I admit that went over my chair marshal head !
do you mean targeting of non-emitting targets (identified by other means) and hence ARM's won't do ? please forgive me if this question intrudes into forbidden areas.
is there any specific ARM the LCH team is looking at for integration ?

Hari Nair · Post by **Hari Nair** » 23 Aug 2010 20:14

Craig Alpert wrote:@ Question have crept up relating to the HAL's latest blunders suggesting that Turbomeca has been arm-twisting Hal because of latter's inability to develop the Transmission in-house using a single Shakti engine. Can you please elaborate and clear the hot air around this?? Is a modified version of Shakti being kept as an option for LUH and has Hal taken any steps towards developing the transmission systems independently?

Hey Craig, we need to keep the discussion technical, right? So, then what's the blunder bit about? The Shakti-ALH combination has proved good, really good for high altitude ops. As for the LUH, check out Shiv's LiveFist Blog - the pics on the LUH mock-up along with the aircraft information placard are all there. The Shakti has an international-norm drive output for engines of its class and does not include the Main Gear Box. Turbomeca are engine manufacturers, not MGB manufacturers. So then, why (or how) would they "arm-twist" HAL ? And if I may opine, we are severly underestimating HAL designers, if we say that HAL cannot develop the transmission in-house. Compatibility of engines and MGBs is the norm worldwide, which means the engine has a standard output and the MGB has a standard input. In that context, do recall that a prototype ALH also flew for quite a while with the US T-800 engine.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 23 Aug 2010 22:36

Nice & Thanks!

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Aug 2010 22:59

Sir, Welcome to BRF. Thanks for sharing all your answers. I have a few more, some questions. Some maybe badly formed and not clear as I don't understand them fully.

Q1. There was some talk early from reports and chatter on BRF, that the gearbox mated to the engine didn't transmit all the power that Shakti engine produced and there was a shortfall or perhaps an inability to fully utilize the current power output of shakti. Is this true, if so what's the next step for this ?

Q2. What logical evolutionary steps do you see for dhruv ? Where do you see it going in future versions ? How are the designers hoping to improve the machine ? What areas would we like to target next ?

Q3. Where do we stand on our Medium Heli requirements. How are going to proceed on that front. Any opinion or insight would be helpful.

AnuragK · Post by **AnuragK** » 23 Aug 2010 23:30

Craig Alpert -

Could you please let me know the caliber of the 20mm projectile/shell of the LCH main gun, i.e. 20x??mm

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 24 Aug 2010 00:21

Hari Nair wrote: Hey Craig, we need to keep the discussion technical, right? So, then what's the blunder bit about? The Shakti-ALH combination has proved good, really good for high altitude ops. As for the LUH, check out Shiv's LiveFist Blog - the pics on the LUH mock-up along with the aircraft information placard are all there. The Shakti has an international-norm drive output for engines of its class and does not include the Main Gear Box. Turbomeca are engine manufacturers, not MGB manufacturers. So then, why (or how) would they "arm-twist" HAL ? And if I may opine, we are severly underestimating HAL designers, if we say that HAL cannot develop the transmission in-house. Compatibility of engines and MGBs is the norm worldwide, which means the engine has a standard output and the MGB has a standard input. In that context, do recall that a prototype ALH also flew for quite a while with the US T-800 engine.

Thanks for the prompt response. The power ratio for Shakti is very impressive, as it is specially designed to be operated at higher atlitudes with a sizeable amount of payload. I'm not questioning the engine performance, what I was intrigued about was 3 things 1)Is HAL keeping the option open to use Shakti after the enormous price hike? 2) If not, has HAL taken any steps on developing a tranny on its own for LUH specifically? and last but not the least 3) We know that HAL would go to other engine manufacturers if turbomeca wouldn't adhere to HAL's assumption.. Not sure I get your question regarding keeping a discussion "Technical," unless you were taking a pot shot at me... Now regarding the blunder bit since you seem to follow Shiv's LiveFist Blog, it was brought to my attention through his posts regarding Turbomeca arm-twisiting hal with respect to offest liability and further testing of a single engine Shakti and the transmission. Here's a quote from Arror's blog that was in question.

It is understood that the HAL was forced to look to other engine makers after Turbomeca acted difficult on a single Shakti engine configuration plan for the LUH, charging an inordinate sum of money for testing and evaluation.

Now I gather from your posts that Turbomeca is NOT a MGB's manufacturer, but according to the brou·ha·ha made by the media this is what was mentioned

In formulating the LuH development budget, HAL had assumed that Turbomeca would design the new transmission system cheaply, to benefit from additional orders of hundreds of Shakti engines over the service life of the LuH.

Chief, no one is doubting Hal's ability to design a tranny in house. As a matter of fact if it weren't for HAL's efforts our jawans wouldn't have survived at the heights of Siachen where hal has made a significant contribution, along with its dedicatoin to ALH, Dhruv, LCH, LUH, and upgrading numeros crafts of the IAF, at times even surprsing the OEM after the refits. If you feel this discussion does not deserve a mention if its not technical, by all mean you may ignore my post, but I'm only trying to clear the hot air that has been shadowing hal in the negative light, right from the source to put an end to this sort of negativity once and for all. Thanks again for all your inputs and your service to the nation!

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 24 Aug 2010 00:46

AnuragK wrote:Craig Alpert -

Could you please let me know the caliber of the 20mm projectile/shell of the LCH main gun, i.e. 20x??mm

AnuragK,
The gun you are reffering to is the M621, it is 20 mm X 102 mm automatic cannon cartridge of French origin developed by Nexter.

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 24 Aug 2010 00:57

Craig,
I am not trying to derail or butt into your conversation with Shri HN. In your earlier post you had used the phrase "HAL's latest blunders". If you are being sarcastic (targetting the doubters), then it didn't come through clearly. An emoticon "wink" following the word blunders would have helped, I think.

Let me take this opportunity to thank Shri Hari Nair for gracefully clearing the cobwebs and showing us the "light". Sir, trully humbled by your presence here. Jai Hind.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 24 Aug 2010 01:06

Bala Vignesh wrote:
Raja Bose wrote:
Welcome to BRF, sir. And if you can manage the above feat, aapke muh mein ghee shakkar.
Sir,
Why stop with Ghee and Shakar...

OK then how about a hand-made model of LCH (since obviously no plastic kits exist yet)?

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 24 Aug 2010 01:09

^^ Sir, now worries, no offence taken on my part. Infact what you stated was exactly what I was trying to convey, I guess I'm not exactly known for putting my words into paper, so thank you for pointing out what I wanted to convey. Do accept my apologies if it looked I was being cynical on my end wrt to HAL, that was certainly not the case.

AnuragK · Post by **AnuragK** » 24 Aug 2010 01:14

Craig Alpert wrote: AnuragK,
The gun you are reffering to is the M621, it is 20 mm X 102 mm automatic cannon cartridge of French origin developed by Nexter.

Many thanks for the info. Actually, there are several calibers of 20mm, so i just wanted to be sure because only the 102 mm has an acceptable ballistic profile arrived at after huge trials n errors of all the other calibers across continental Europe n US over the decades. But still, i personally think 25mm should have been the cal of choice per current military trends across the world. The 20mm has almost faded away. Perhaps there could be a reason for it gained from operational experience. Your opinion please.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 24 Aug 2010 04:06

Mods please delete this post if you dont think it is needed,
Guys while i understand that everyone has lots of questions for Shri Hari Nair, please dont throw too many questions, let us not overuse this credible source that BRF has seen in recent times

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Aug 2010 05:30

agree with suryag.

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 24 Aug 2010 06:07

suryag wrote:Mods please delete this post if you dont think it is needed,
Guys while i understand that everyone has lots of questions for Shri Hari Nair, please dont throw too many questions, let us not overuse this credible source that BRF has seen in recent times

I beg to disagree. Mr. Hari Nair must have known that he will be inundated with questions, at least initially, when he joins BR - he himself said that he is here to "turn the heat into light".
He can think for himself and always choose not to answer questions which he does not like/cannot answer.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 24 Aug 2010 09:29

Raja Bose wrote: OK then how about a hand-made model of LCH (since obviously no plastic kits exist yet)?

Well Bose sir, i was thinking alomg a completely different line but that should do it too...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Aug 2010 13:53

Hari Nair - I have a question

What would be the meaning of "expanding the flight envelope" of the LCH? Would it be something like "Let us try to do a 45 degree bank today and if all is well increase that to 50 degrees next week etc?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Aug 2010 15:40

Could we have some enlightenment on the new concepts of "fast helos",with tail "props" that both the US and Russian manufacturers are developing.Thyese are going to bring in a new revolution in helo capabilities.Why can't HAL/NAL think outside the box with new concepts for a change.Years ago,the LCRA (light canard research aircraft) was developed,rsults of which apparently are now being dusted off the shelf for some of our UAV projects.After so many decades of manufacturing helicopters under licence,developing the Dhruv and LAH,surely we can now think for the future.There are several types of helos that we require.Medium sized helos for hot and high alts.The CAG has underscored the shortage of such helos as impeding the development of infrastructure in the Himalayas,as heavy eqpt. for the BRO is not available at locations.In fact with more experience of using helos at high alts.,we should be exporting a light helo worldwide instead of calling for suppliers!

...part self deleted.

AnuragK · Post by **AnuragK** » 24 Aug 2010 16:55

DELETED.