Indian Military Helicopters

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 May 2016 07:56

deejay wrote:I agree that IN is most committed to indigenisation efforts but in this case LUH was not in contention right from the beginning of the deal. IA had stated its requirement, commenced its procurement plans for light helciopters long before HAL started out.

That was then, this is now. LUH was a paper project when the original plan picking the Eurocopter was drawn up. Its come a long way since (though it still has a ways to go yet).

Can you help me here Viv- What price is good enough over the Short Term. Some ideas on what this will be and how it will be agreeable to all.

I'm happy to let the IA & IAF decide how many Dhruvs it would take to tide them over till the LUH is available. The directive to scrap imports on the other hand has to be a political one. (Its probably too much to expect the IA & IAF, to have an IN-like long term vision.)

Secondly, LUH is underdevelopment. Based on the wiki article, I can say from 2010 at least. It is yet to fly. How many more years will it take? Can we give an assured date for production run to start?

No we can't. (Likely 2022 IMO.) On the other hand, the Dhruv production line can be expanded at a fraction of the cost it would take to set up a new Ka-226 line.

Firstly:
Still Necessary? How does one explain the necessity to people who will not accept multiple years of IA justification, explanations to MOD babus a thousand times, life saving, life altering experiences using light helicopters like Cheetah even when the Dhruv was available.

Secondly:
Why only Siachen ops? The entire fleet needs to be replaced. IA unlike IAF and IN is actively deployed in Operational Areas. Do people get the significance of this? IA is not waiting for a situation where these assets will be useful. They are needed now on a daily basis.

1. I imagine if the MoD can be convinced to sanction 200 imported aircraft, it can be convinced to sanction 20 of them.

2. Only Siachen ops because Siachen is the only operational area where some helipads (I'm going by what you said) are inaccessible to the Dhruv.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 04 May 2016 08:10

Only for Glacier and only to explain size of helipads plus their importance:

Helipad has been constructed over Kerosene barrels.

Short reading on glacier https://www.quora.com/Indian-Army-What- ... sted-there

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 04 May 2016 08:16

@Viv: "That was then..." Are you seriously saying that IA which has nursed aircraft till 2016 when they were to be replaced by 2008/09 should be further made to wait for operational work? Check photos above. Land Dhruv on these and the helipad may give up.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 May 2016 08:22

ShauryaT wrote:Look at the numbers we need mate. If and when, the LUH matures and if the nincompoops babus have any wits in them, they will figure a way out de-prioritize the Kamov for the local version. Tell then, you need to quit this topic in all honesty. Our fleet needs replacements NOW and in numbers.

Again.. are you satisfied with the LUH gaining a 'respectable share' of the domestic market? Perhaps I'm the naive fool who was hoping that we could use Indian state orders as a springboard to lift HAL into becoming a true competitors to the biggies - Bell, AW & Airbus. Trying that in the (fixed wing) civilian passenger segment is a fool's errand but rotorcraft is the one segment where we've developed true in-house design & production competencies. Maybe we're simply destined to be bit-players (the word 'aukat' comes to mind), nevermind our civilizational fancies, and we should leave the world-beater ambition for the Chinese to pursue.

Hilarious thing is we're well on our way to providing Kamov with a stepping stone towards breaking into the civilian market. Fortunately, HAL probably will probably refrain from putting the LUH through the embarrassment of competing for an export order against the Kamov.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 May 2016 08:30

deejay wrote:@Viv: "That was then..." Are you seriously saying that IA which has nursed aircraft till 2016 when they were to be replaced by 2008/09 should be further made to wait for operational work? Check photos above. Land Dhruv on these and the helipad may give up.

Boss how many aircraft could you need for Siachen? 12? Lets say.. 24. That's small enough to acquire off-the-shelf while still leaving plenty for the ALH & LUH to capitalize on, to scale up production to.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 08:35

Viv S wrote: Dhruv production line can be expanded at a fraction of the cost it would take to set up a new Ka-226 line.

An assumption. LCA line needs to be expanded. Dhruv will be moved out to Tumkur for a helicopter unit. Land acquisition and development costs. power, water, housing and cost in terms of time lost for both LCA and Dhruv are not being counted. Once the Tumkur plant is set up it will serve as an assembly line for Dhruv, Ka 226 and LUH. The only cost savings for Dhruv may be that no new equipment may have to be bought - but the old ones will need shifting, and the machinery fixed and recalibrated. Skilled workers will have to relocate to Tumkur with attendant reluctance as children do important school college exams

Or else Dhruv can stay in Bangalore and expand production at the cost of LCA and we can continue the rhetorical point(les)s argument on the LCA thread.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 08:38

Viv S wrote: Boss how many aircraft could you need for Siachen? 12? Lets say.. 24. That's small enough to acquire off-the-shelf while still leaving plenty for the ALH & LUH to capitalize on, to scale up production to.

Lets say 60 because there is also the North East with small jungle clearings in the mountains. You have read the story "Kempy's nose" and how a tail rotor broke hitting trees in one such clearing. It is another matter that the imported Russian helicopter in that story continued to fly with broken tail rotor

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 04 May 2016 08:40

Cybaru wrote:...

well thats your viewpoint and your are totally welcome to it. I think IA/IAF use emotions to push through purchase in a hurry partly because things have dragged on for too long, but also because they refuse to understand that it is how things move in India and they need to factor it in. Its not a new phenomenon that it takes a decade to get orders through in our system. Order what can be at home and ensure safety and meet operational needs. That is IA/IAFs primary responsibility.

...

IA/ IAF use emotions. Operational need is emotions. Great. Please tell the govt to let IA solve the glacier problem. IA will take Saltoro and everything west of it till Afghanistan and solve this problem without emotion. On one side, civilians won't let IA solve its problems operationally and on the other side civilians will deny IA even light helicopters for essential operations and call the IA emotional. If the soldier on the post dies, same civilians will cry out that IA does not do enough for the soldiers. Sonam post came tumbling down in an Avalanche this year. An entire post like Sonam just fell down

. And still IA stays on the Glacier. Sure IA is emotional.

And which desi replacement. If HAL is so keen on LUH making it to the IA inventory where is the urgency. I have not seen any reports of HAL allocating additional resources to make sure LUH is ready by say 2018 even.

And it is not HALs fault. They know they have a tough task and they want to be sure of their work. LUH is the third Indian helicopter. Let us not hurry up the LUH and cause the same problems of IJT all over again.

IA had catered for a long procurement process and secured it in 2007. How much more foresight is needed?

"Order what can be at home and ensure safety and meet operational needs"

This IMO is a keeper. Since, operational needs have so far defined what we acquire, let us reverse it and now define our operational needs as per what is available.

Since some glacier posts cannot be addressed by Dhruvs, let us withdraw. Same for Kargil, DBO, Gurez and a lot of places in Uttarakhand and NE.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 May 2016 08:46

shiv wrote:An assumption. LCA line needs to be expanded. Dhruv will be moved out to Tumkur for a helicopter unit.

Where exactly did you read that?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 08:46

"Kempy's Nose" a true story for all young (or old) BRFites who have joined since I last posted the link. Enjoy
http://www.claws.in/images/journals_doc ... lic%5C.pdf

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 08:47

Viv S wrote:
shiv wrote:An assumption. LCA line needs to be expanded. Dhruv will be moved out to Tumkur for a helicopter unit.
Where exactly did you read that?

On a fancy screen what Cybaru told me about

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 04 May 2016 08:52

Viv S wrote:
deejay wrote:@Viv: "That was then..." Are you seriously saying that IA which has nursed aircraft till 2016 when they were to be replaced by 2008/09 should be further made to wait for operational work? Check photos above. Land Dhruv on these and the helipad may give up.
Boss how many aircraft could you need for Siachen? 12? Lets say.. 24. That's small enough to acquire off-the-shelf while still leaving plenty for the ALH & LUH to capitalize on, to scale up production to.

Boss. why don't you read my first post to Cybaru in this exchange. I said entire fleet is in obsolescence. IA had planned to change entire fleet.

As far as Siachen is concerned (not including Khalsi, Kargil etc where we have helipads over 04kms and macthbox sizes in plenty), IAF alone through 114 has more than 40 Cheetahs. IA with AAC at Partapur would have equal / greater number. Apart from this we have Dhruvs and Mi 17 V5s. Occasional Mi 26 visits, specially in summer month for DBO also happens. This is over and above the An 32s, C130s, IL 76s, C 17s which are over the Glacier on daily basis.

You really will not understand the quantum of flying, its importance and urgency. There is no way to that unless the GOI someday lets out the information in public domain. As a Mi 17 1V pilot my daily fatigue limit was 08 hrs and monthly at 75 hrs. I would exhaust my entire monthly quota on the 10th day and dutifully run to the doctor for time extensions. IAF purchased Mi 171Vs in 2001. Within 10 years entire fleet of 1Vs were on life extension and replacement V5s were purchased. Most of the flying was over Glacier. Also, Cheetahs fly much more than Mi 17s do.

Boss, don't use selective parts of the quotes. You have read other posts in complete details posted before. Why don't you see if your answers have been already given.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 May 2016 08:54

shiv wrote:Lets say 60 because there is also the North East with small jungle clearings in the mountains. You have read the story "Kempy's nose" and how a tail rotor broke hitting trees in one such clearing. It is another matter that the imported Russian helicopter in that story continued to fly with broken tail rotor

Assuming the LUH is roughly the same size as the Fennec & 407, the Dhruv will be only 3m longer overall. Measuring from the same centre that's about five feet. The engineers building the helipad in the jungle can most likely accommodate that extra requirement.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 08:56

Viv S wrote:The engineers building the helipad in the jungle can most likely accommodate that extra requirement.

What engineers? You have not read the story "Kempy's Nose"

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 May 2016 09:05

deejay wrote:Boss. why don't you read my first post to Cybaru in this exchange. I said entire fleet is in obsolescence. IA had planned to change entire fleet.

Yes the entire fleet is in various stages of obsolescence. What does that have to do with what we're discussing. There are new ALHs & Mi-17s incoming that will play an essential role. But unless the Dhruv too is teetering on the brink of obsolescence (design-wise) using new-build Dhruvs, supplemented by a limited number of off-the-shelf LUHs, as a stopgap to the LUH hardly undoes the IAF/IA's modernization drive.

Boss, don't use selective parts of the quotes. You have read other posts in complete details posted before. Why don't you see if your answers have been already given.

I quoted your entire post to me.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 May 2016 09:05

deejay wrote:Since, operational needs have so far defined what we acquire, let us reverse it and now define our operational needs as per what is available.

If you were USAF, you would have to order from home. You could convince pentagon to give waivers but the manufacturer has to set base on home turf.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 May 2016 09:09

shiv wrote:
Viv S wrote: Where exactly did you read that?
On a fancy screen what Cybaru told me about

Samtel made? You poor thing, the bee surely did buzz your bonnet!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 09:15

Cybaru wrote:Samtel made? You poor thing.

More pointless rhetoric as a diversionary tactic from medium helo strategic hole ideas? We can fill pages with this and as you can see I am game

This is what my fancy Samtel screen tells me:

HAL's Helicopter Unit at Gubbi Taluk to Take Off Soon

HAL's Helicopter Unit at Gubbi Taluk to Take Off Soon

BENGALURU: Bidarehalla Kaval, a small village in Gubbi taluk of Tumakuru district, will soon transform into a township buzzing with activity as work on the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Helicopter Complex there is likely to start soon.

The PSU will make an initial investment of `500 crore on the unit that will manufacture components for Light Combat Helicopter (LCH), Light Utility Helicopter (LCH) and Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) Dhruv.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 May 2016 09:16

shiv wrote:What engineers? You have not read the story "Kempy's Nose"

I've read Kempy's Nose. And as I understand it, it was an isolated incident. The aircraft is designed to be operated off helipads, anything else is at the pilot's discretion. That we need order another three dozen aircraft because we may need to land the aircraft in a jungle where a few extra ft play a crucial difference doesn't compute. Understandable if it were between say... the Mi-26 & Chinook, where the difference is huge, but the LUH/ALH are hardly in the same bind.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 May 2016 09:17

shiv wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Samtel made? You poor thing.
More pointless rhetoric as a substitute for medium helo strategic hole ideas? We can fill pages with this and as you can see I am game

Oh Yeah and And your condescending posts are on point!!

Yeah two time failure Ka-226T will deliver! Sure, until uncle putin didn't intervene we didn't want it and now its the bedrock of our continued operation for future.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 09:20

Viv S wrote:
shiv wrote:What engineers? You have not read the story "Kempy's Nose"
I've read Kempy's Nose. And as I understand it, it was an isolated incident.

Operational flying, as I understand it, is a series of isolated incidents. You and I reading one story is definitely an isolated incident

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 09:23

Cybaru wrote: Oh Yeah and And your condescending posts are on point!!

No need to get irritated with me sir. You are the one who is dismissive of everything that you disagree with. Why express unhappiness at being shown that there are other viewpoints and opinions?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 May 2016 09:24

shiv wrote:LCA line needs to be expanded. Dhruv will be moved out to Tumkur for a helicopter unit.

shiv wrote:HAL's Helicopter Unit at Gubbi Taluk to Take Off Soon

HAL's Helicopter Unit at Gubbi Taluk to Take Off Soon

BENGALURU: Bidarehalla Kaval, a small village in Gubbi taluk of Tumakuru district, will soon transform into a township buzzing with activity as work on the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Helicopter Complex there is likely to start soon.

The PSU will make an initial investment of `500 crore on the unit that will manufacture components for Light Combat Helicopter (LCH), Light Utility Helicopter (LCH) and Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) Dhruv.

Long way from moving the Dhruv production line out-of-station (to free up real estate; source?) to manufacturing 'components' for the aircraft.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 04 May 2016 09:26

Cybaru wrote:
deejay wrote:Since, operational needs have so far defined what we acquire, let us reverse it and now define our operational needs as per what is available.
If you were USAF, you would have to order from home. You could convince pentagon to give waivers but the manufacturer has to set base on home turf.

If I was USAF, I would have scientists building me 6th Gen helicopters.

If I was USAF, I would have entire Kashmir with me making fighting in those difficult places redundant.

If I was USAF, I would have the latest and greatest yesterday with today being spent on designs that would be relevant 30yrs hence.

If I was USAF, would I need to be justifying 200 helicopter purchase in 2016 when they should have been here in 2008?

If I was USAF, Sikorsky, Bell, etc, etc would be dying to compete in advance of my actual need.

If only I was USAF, all would be hunky dory? No?

But I am IA / IAF / IN. Unless, I am sure there is a need, I do not ask. Unless I can justify everyone over multiple Governments, I cannot evaluate. If and when I do finish evaluation over all terrains and limitations because one size must fill all (+50 to -50, sea level to 6500 mtrs, etc) I must wait for financial authorities to agree. If and when they agree I must pray that no one anywhere screwed up (read cheated) for me to get what I want.

As for home grown product since I am not USAF, I have HAL. Its what we have and HAL has a helicopter in works. It will take time but in the interim I must continue to look for how we cannot let those pests on the west and east not nibble away at what I call India. I looked away and in ' 99 they were sitting on Kargil. I never manned those posts in winters but today I do sit there round the year. I looked away and Chinese decided India was China and merrily walked miles inside and all I was allowed to so was push them back physically.

I know, I am not USAF, hence I will have to fight with my arms tied behind. However, I am not Namibia either and I have greater liberty than the Namibians. I need something as of 2007 and in 2016 I will insist on it. I am the one on the line here and if I don't put my foot down, I will still be begging in 2026.

If I was USAF indeed.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 May 2016 09:29

shiv wrote:
Cybaru wrote: Oh Yeah and And your condescending posts are on point!!
No need to get irritated with me sir. You are the one who is dismissive of everything that you disagree with. Why express unhappiness at being shown that there are other viewpoints and opinions?

Hardly, but please carry on without getting personal and I am happy to keep it civil.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 May 2016 09:30

shiv wrote:
Viv S wrote:I've read Kempy's Nose. And as I understand it, it was an isolated incident.
Operational flying, as I understand it, is a series of isolated incidents. You and I reading one story is definitely an isolated incident

They wouldn't have bothered to create a flight manual if operational flying consisted of a 'series of isolated incidents'. And SAR can be (and is routinely) carried out without plonking the aircraft down on terrain that cannot accommodate the aircraft. That's also why the ALH has a provision for a winch.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 May 2016 09:32

deejay wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
If you were USAF, you would have to order from home. You could convince pentagon to give waivers but the manufacturer has to set base on home turf.
If I was USAF, I would have scientists building me 6th Gen helicopters.

Deejay, they didn't get here overnight. They took the hard road, they built their MIC all along, favoring it, protecting and growing it.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 04 May 2016 10:10

Cybaru wrote:...

Deejay, they didn't get here overnight. They took the hard road, they built their MIC all along, favoring it, protecting and growing it.

Which is exactly the point. We did not start doing the right things in 1947 but that we cannot change. We have not gone into conflict with our neighbours but they are the ones sitting on large parts of our country - both Pakistan and China. Operations are being dictated by these circumstances and not as per the wishes of IA.

The need for Light Helicopters is not an overnight requirement. It is very old. Present birds are of '60s vintage. Even HAL which was manufacturing these under license knew this. They knew the helicopter was aging. It took them time to decide and start designing a light helicopter.I do not have inside story. From paper to first machine which has undergone ground runs has been a journey of 06 years. For full operational certification, 03 yrs is minimum and optimistic timeline. Production starts in another 03 years- 2022.

Till then what does the IA tell the Indian govt. - Sorry, we can't continue to hold forward positions!

In 1999, while I was a trainee on Chetak's at Hyderabad, the first flying limitations were enforced on these machines. Certain maneuvers were stopped and barred under all / any situations. Certain maneuvers were placed under limitations for number of times one could do. So sharp were the limits that almost half the syllabus was suddenly not required.

The Cheetah was modified and Cheetal was born but this experiment did not succeed and now after many years of attempting indigenous solutions and limitations which were stringent, IA went in for acquisitions. I actually saw the Ecureuil trial over Glacier around 2002. (There was a mishap too but I think it was pilot error ). It was also tried at other places like desert etc.

Today, it is 2016. IA is undertaking Operational flying in huge quantum in multiple places. Yes, Glacier is special and needs extra care but my honest assessment is Cheetahs and Chetaks have been long in the tooth even for plains. The replacement was needed urgently in 2007. Today, we are actually doing what you have said - use what we have to meet operational needs. That does not mean we can wait another 06 years (minimum and if (and it is a big "if") all goes well) for replacements.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 May 2016 10:23

The LUH decision/contest was itself 5 years late.contest repeated, and the desi LUH hasn't arrived at all. During this time crashes of legacy All-3 variants have increased. It will take at least 2 years of intensive testing,half a doz prototypes, built,etc.,before it is given the green light.Then comes production ,which plant,production figures,etc,etc. A long way to go. I estimate 400+ LUHs will be required for both mil and civil markets not to mention export possibilities as both will be cheap LUHs. There's enough room for both types.perhaps one service will prefer one of the two and standardise upon it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 14:24

Cybaru wrote: but please carry on without getting personal and I am happy to keep it civil.

You made a post and I will state what I understood from that post. If what I understood of your post appears like I am getting personal please let me know and I will understand that you do not want to answer my question and defend what you said. Please judge for yourself.
You said:

Cybaru wrote:Just because it has no fancy screen does not make it obsolete.

You made this statement with reference to the question of obsolescence of the Cheetah helicopter. What I understood from your statement is that either
1. Your are completely ignorant of what obsolescence means and genuinely believe that the Cheetahs are not obsolete and that they can keep on being flogged
or
2. You know very well that the Cheetahs are obsolete but you choose to say this simply to make a specious point in support of your argument which basically was "Cheetahs don't need replacement with the Ka 226, and that India's real requirement ("strategic hole") is a medium lift helicopter which should be made in collaboration with the Russians instead of the Ka 226."

Please clarify whether your statement was out of ignorance or a deliberate obfuscation and denial of the obsolescence of the Cheetah to make a rhetorical point in support of what you personally believe the Air Force needs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 14:35

Viv S wrote: They wouldn't have bothered to create a flight manual if operational flying consisted of a 'series of isolated incidents'. And SAR can be (and is routinely) carried out without plonking the aircraft down on terrain that cannot accommodate the aircraft. That's also why the ALH has a provision for a winch.

Flight manuals are created to train pilots to cope with unusual situations and isolated incidents which occur more often than you would be willing to admit. You saw the sorts of places where helicopters are plonked down in Siachen in the photos on the previous page and those landings are routine and risky. That you do not want to accept that makes no difference to facts. As usual we end up exchanging page upon page worthless posts answering smart rhetoric with counter rhetoric.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 14:46

Viv S wrote: Long way from moving the Dhruv production line out-of-station (to free up real estate; source?) to manufacturing 'components' for the aircraft.

At least part of the line is being moved out - because those components are needed for the Dhruv and real estate will be saved when you remove even one shoebox from Bangalore HAL and move it to Tumkur. If the components amount to more than one shoebox size, the real estate gained in Bangalore will be proportionately higher. No getting away from that. That space can then be used for chai biskoot or LCA production, but there will be extra space when the helicopter division is shifted in part or full to Tumkur.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 04 May 2016 19:18

Come on, Deejay, what are you trying to defend?

Indian Forces don't even support indigenous unbranded coffee, how do you expect them to support indigenous helicopters?

Cross posting from the humour thread

http://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default/fil ... 4_2014.pdf

4.4 Avoidable extra expenditure due to procurement of coffee at a higher rate

In January 2010 HQ ENC (V) floated an Open Tender Enquiry (OTE) for the supply of 10,000 Kgs of Coffee (100 %) at the Base Victualling Yard, Visakhapatnam [BVY (V)] for the period from 01 April 2010 to 31 March 2011. Eight firms collected the tenders, of which four firms did not quote. Of the remaining four firms, who participated in the tender procedure, the quote of M/s Kendriya Bhandar was rejected as the samples contained coffee-chicory mix which was not as per specifications laid down in the tender document. M/s Nestle, Chennai emerged L1 at `880 per Kg coffee (Brand-Nescafe Classic) and accordingly Rate Contract (RC) was concluded (March 2010) by HQ ENC (V) with M/s Nestle India Ltd., Chennai for `88 lakh for 10,000 Kgs of Coffee (100%).

We noticed in Audit (August 2012) that for the same period i.e. 01 April 2010 to 31 March 2011, Headquarters Western Naval Command, Mumbai [HQ WNC (MB)] had concluded (April 2010) a contract with M/s CCL Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad for the Continental brand of Coffee (100%) at 435 per Kg i.e. at half the rate as compared to HQ ENC (V). Our scrutiny showed that HQ ENC (V) did not call for rates and the brand name from HQ WNC (MB) though this was required to have been done as per the IHQ Guidelines of November 2006.

Further scrutiny revealed that in November 2010, in view of the impending expiry of the said RC, a fresh OTE was floated by HQ ENC (V) for the next year i.e. from 01 April 2011 to 30 March 2012, inviting bids for supply of Coffee in two types of packs viz 500 gms and 50 gms, for an estimated quantity of 12,000 Kgs and 2,000 Kgs respectively. The Technical Board approved ‘Nestle Classic’ brand quoted by both: M/s Nestle who was the L1 for 500 gm pack at `880 per Kg and M/s Indian
Naval Canteen Services for 50 gm pack at `1150 per Kg. However these rates were considered to be very high and this time, HQ ENC (V) made enquiries with HQ WNC (MB) and Headquarters Southern Naval Command, Kochi [HQ SNC (K)] to compare the rates. It was only then did HQ ENC (V) become aware of M/s CCL Products Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad who was registered
with HQ WNC (MB).

Accordingly when in July 2011, ENC (V) re-tendered on OTE basis for supply of Coffee for 2011-2012, M/s CCL Products Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad also participated in the TE and emerged as L1 at `516 per Kg for 500 gm pack and `525 per Kg for 50 gm pack. Had there been a similar exchange of information between Commands during the previous year (2010-2011), the
conclusion of contract by HQ ENC (V) at double the rate as compared to HQ WNC (MB) could have been avoided.
Meanwhile, in anticipation of delay in conclusion of this RC, BVY (V) resorted to local purchase and procured 2,000 Kgs of Coffee at `880 per Kg from M/s Nestle India Ltd., Chennai at a total cost of `17.60 lakh between the period April 2011 and September 2011.

The matter was referred (April 2013) to the Ministry of Defence. In its reply Ministry stated (November 2013) that HQ ENC (V) had concluded the contract with M/s CCL Products Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, for the period 2010-11 on 08 March 2010, while HQ WNC concluded contract for the same period on 27 April 2010, and thus HQ ENC concluded the contract well before HQ WNC and therefore price information could not be exchanged. Ministry also stated that though HQ ENC resorted to open tender for procurement of coffee; M/s CCL Products Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad did not respond. Ministry contended that procurement of coffee from M/s Nestle in 2010-11 was as per existing regulations and DPM provisions, at competitive prices.

The reply of the Ministry is however not acceptable. The Ministry’s contention that HQ WNC had concluded a contract after HQ ENC is incorrect as M/s CCL Products Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad was registered with HQ WNC since the year 2009 and a contract for 2009-10 was also concluded by HQ WNC with them in May 2009. However, exchange of information between the Command Headquarters on brands/prices did not take place, though it was a requirement. Further, Ministry’s reply that M/s CCL Products Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad did not participate in tender for procurement of coffee in 2010-11, has to be seen in the light of the fact that OTE for this procurement restricted the response only to specified brands of Nescafe, Sunrise, Nestle and Tata Cafe. In such scenario, M/s CCL Products Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad could not have bid. Ministry’s contention that procurement of coffee from M/s Nestle in 2010-11 was as per the existing regulations and DPM provisions, at competitive prices, is also incorrect, as DPM precludes references to brand names in the RFP. This resulted in an extra expenditure of `53.40 lakh.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 May 2016 20:01

The KA-226 won a contest with the French bird in a fair contest.It has met all IA requirements.It also has the unique capability of changing the cabin depending upon the task required. No point in beating a dead horse about its capability and the integrity of the services.It is also very cheap and comes with French engines.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 21:01

Here are some refs about what co-axial rotors (as in Ka-226)do - actual research as opposed to mathematical simulations

http://www.avxaircraft.com/hover-performance

A counter rotating coaxial main rotor does not require an anti-torque device as the upper and lower rotor’s collective pitch are rigged such that the driving torques are equal and opposite. Because the coaxial rotor does not require an anti-torque device such as a tail rotor, Fenestron, or Notar, a coaxial rotor helicopter requires about 10% less power than a single rotor/tail rotor helicopter.

In addition to the power saved by eliminating the anti-torque device, a coaxial rotor requires less power due to favorable interaction of the upper and lower rotor wakes. The coaxial rotor’s reduced power required relative to other rotor configurations can be used in several ways:

For the same rotor diameter and power the coax will lift approximately 11% more weight (9% net of weight empty increase). This equates to 30% greater useful load, which means more payload or fuel. The coax helicopter can hover at a 6000 ft higher altitude, or at a higher temperature.

The diameter of the coax rotor can be reduced by up to 15% to reduce rotor and drive system weight resulting in a lower total aircraft weight.
The diameter can be reduced by something less than 15% to both reduce weight and increase hover capability.

http://www.humanpoweredhelicopters.org/ ... p-3675.pdf

The great advantage of a coaxial helicopter in hover is
its lack of a tail rotor and the power which that would
require. As a result, coaxial helicopters are good choices
for hovering platforms.

In forward flight experiments, the coaxial rotor required
less power than an equivalent solidity single rotor (up to
moderate advance ratios) (ref. 38)

http://www.marvgolden.com/downloads/dl/ ... xcerpt.pdf

The good news Having no tail rotor, the coaxial design has superior hovering performance when compared to the single-rotor helicopter. And it is insensitive to wind direction during low-speed flight. Its compactness makes it possible to operate from smaller areas on ships and platforms.

The bad news
However, the primary Achilles Heel that has hampered the acceptance of the configuration is the difficulty of obtaining good directional stability and control. Another drawback is that the configuration while compact in the top view is tall in the front view. This is bad from a drag standpoint and also may require a hangar with high ceilings

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 04 May 2016 21:09

tsarkar wrote:Come on, Deejay, what are you trying to defend?

Indian Forces don't even support indigenous unbranded coffee, how do you expect them to support indigenous helicopters?

Cross posting from the humour thread

http://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default/fil ... 4_2014.pdf

4.4 Avoidable extra expenditure due to procurement of coffee at a higher rate

...

So did the ENC get their Hyderabadi Coffee or not?

Thank You for sharing that wonderful exercise on coffee purchase.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 21:12

http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2015/05/why- ... odlum.html

Here are some other reasons that may have prompted the MoD decision in favor of Ka-226T

Being twin engine (Tubromeca Arrius 2G1), the Ka-226T is safer than the single engine (Turbomeca Arriel-2) AS550 C3.
Ka-226T's Turbomecca Arrius 2G1 engines are manufactured by France's Safran. HAL and Safran have an existing technical tie-up; they jointly developed the Shakti engine for HAL's Dhruv Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) and Light Combat Helicopter (LCH). The Shakti is a derivative of Safran's Turbomecca TM333-2B engine.
The Arrius 2G1, which is customized for the Ka-226, can reportedly use multiple grades of fuel without performance penalty.
The Ka-226T engines can reportedly be restarted in 35 seconds; the AS550 C3 engine needs 45 seconds.
Ka-226T rotor blades can be folded back towards the tail boom, facilitating compact storage and easy transportation.
Ka-226T autopilot features four axis stabilization facilitating hovering, which is not case with AS550 C3.
The Ka-226T is bigger and heavier featuring more cargo space and 40 percent heavier payload (1160 kg vs 760 kg)
A helicopter with contra-rotating rotors is more stable in gusty winds such as those encountered in mountainous regions.
The use of contra-rotating rotors reduces rotor diameter, which facilitates higher max speeds

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 May 2016 22:35

shiv wrote:Flight manuals are created to train pilots to cope with unusual situations and isolated incidents which occur more often than you would be willing to admit. You saw the sorts of places where helicopters are plonked down in Siachen in the photos on the previous page and those landings are routine and risky. That you do not want to accept that makes no difference to facts. As usual we end up exchanging page upon page worthless posts answering smart rhetoric with counter rhetoric.

How would you carry out a SAR op if a pilot went down over a lake or into the sea? You wouldn't drive your aircraft down into the soup now would you? How do they carry out SAR in flood-ravaged areas? Again they don't land it in the water and have the people swim in through the rear ramp. And what if your pilot went down on a hillside or into a ravine? Would you bring your aircraft down even in the absence of level ground?

The situation doesn't change when its a similarly inaccessible forest or jungle. Wg Cdr Unni Kartha's Mi-4 wasn't equipped with a winch; same doesn't apply to IAF Dhruvs tasked with a SAR mission. Which is why the lack of 5 extra feet of maneuver room doesn't really make the case for disqualifying the ALH in that role.

shiv wrote:At least part of the line is being moved out - because those components are needed for the Dhruv and real estate will be saved when you remove even one shoebox from Bangalore HAL and move it to Tumkur. If the components amount to more than one shoebox size, the real estate gained in Bangalore will be proportionately higher. No getting away from that. That space can then be used for chai biskoot or LCA production, but there will be extra space when the helicopter division is shifted in part or full to Tumkur.

Except that your argument was that the ALH line at Bangalore could not be expanded at marginal cost because it was being dissembled and shipped off to Tumkur. The same doesn't hold true if just a shoebox is being shipped off. Even if a substantial bit of real estate is freed up (which the article doesn't suggest is the case), it again doesn't prevent the area from being used to expand the ALH line (in lieu of chai biskoot zones, for example).

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 04 May 2016 23:00

MOD Report 2016.

Second line of ALH being set up at TAD Kanpur.

7.26 Important Events/ Achievements in
2015-16:

(i) HAL is celebrating Platinum Jubilee on
completion of 75 years of existence in
2015. Coinciding with the Platinum
Jubilee Celebration, the major
achievements in 2015-16 include core
engine run of 25 KN turbofan engine
(HTFE-25), Design and Development
initiation of 1200 KW Turbo shaft engine,
Inauguration of structural repair shop for
Su-30 MKI ROH, Renovated heritage
centres across HAL, New campus of
HAL Management Academy and 2nd line
of ALH production at TAD, Kanpur.

(ii) Prime Minister laid the foundation stone
for Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
(HAL)’s new Helicopter Manufacturing
Facility at Biderehalla Kaval, Gubbi
Taluk, Tumakuru, about 100 km from
Bengaluru, on January 3, 2016.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 May 2016 23:01

Deejay why did re-engineing the Cheetah with ALH engine not work out? Did it not work?