HAL Advanced Light Helicopter Dhruv

[Rohan Naik]

Rudra is and lch are light helicopters which can carry payload in high altitudes.....
Doesn't mean they can't deployed in plain s ....

My question remains unanswered..

 

[patriots]

My question remains unanswered..

Ya Rudras. Can be deployed..but mi35 and Apache will be more effective in planes

 

[WolfPack86]

#India has deployed it’s dabbang attack helicopter HAL #RUDRA along #LAC in #Ladakh Carrying 48 rockets and 4 anti tank missiles it’s also equipped with a gun turret which is directly connected to helmet of the pilot and moves according to pilots head direction.

 

[WolfPack86]

IAF deploys its indigenous helicopter Rudra at LAC
The Indian Air Force has deployed its most powerful indigenous combat helicopter, Rudra, on the Ladakh front. Rudra is better than Apache brought from America because of its many merits. Especially in High Altitude Warfare, Rudra’s palace is heavier than Apache and the Z-19 combat helicopter deployed by China lives nowhere.

Rudra is deployed by the Air Force at Thoi Airbase in Ladakh. From here it is very easy for this helicopter to go to all the areas of LAC where China has built its tanks, armored vehicles and military bases. Rudra can fly at a speed of 250 kmph and can reach a height of twenty thousand feet. But it is more effective than Apache in fighting at the height of the Himalayas which is its weight.

Rudra weighs 5.8 tonnes which is half of Apache’s weight of 10.4 tonnes. Such a small weight in the height of Ladakh helps it to function more quickly and the smaller size helps in the enemy’s grip. Rudra’s main gun is 20 mm, which is attached to the pilot’s helmet, that is, the pilot will be targeted wherever he is seen. In addition it can carry 48 rockets or 4 anti-tank missiles.

IAF deploys its indigenous helicopter Rudra at LAC - Indian Open Minds

The Indian Air Force has deployed its most powerful indigenous combat helicopter, Rudra, on the Ladakh front.

indianopenminds.com

 

[Bhadra]

Bdw ...in terrains. ....atgms are not useful
Ya agnaist tanks it's useful...
But salvo of rockets aganaist infantary is very useful . .also rockets are less costly

Wrong sir,
Atgm is very useful against dug in enemy, sangers, bunkers, vehicles and structures...emplacements. guns and A vehicles etc...
ATGM has longer ranges...can be fired from stand off distances..
Carries higher explosive..
Is much accurate ... is a point weapons..
Helina can engage targets which are behind the crest with MM Wave seekers...

Rockets in comparison are more effective against open or exposed enemy and has advantages of multiplicity of warheads.. ammunition such as fragmentation, bursts, smoke. incendiary etc...

 

[WolfPack86]

Rudra, the most powerful IAF helicopter deployed in Ladakh, able to beat China's Z-19
New Delhi: The Indian Air Force has deployed its strongest indigenous fighter helicopter, Rudra, on the Ladakh front. Rudra is better than Apache brought from America because of its many merits. Especially in High Altitude Warfare, Rudra's palace is heavier than Apache and the Z-19 fighter helicopter deployed by China does not stay anywhere.



Rudra deployed at Ladakh's Thoise Airbase has been deployed by the Air Force at Thois Airbase of Ladakh. From here it is very easy for this helicopter to go to all the areas of LAC where China has built its tanks, armored vehicles and military bases. Rudra can fly at speeds up to 250 km per hour and can go up to a height of twenty thousand feet. But what makes it more effective than Apache in fighting at the height of the Himalayas is its weight.

Gun
Rudra attached to the pilot's helmet weighs 5.8 tonnes which is half of Apache's weight of 10.4 tonnes. Such a small weight in the height of Ladakh helps it to act more quickly and the smaller size helps in the enemy's grip. Rudra's main gun is of 20 mm, which is attached to the pilot's helmet, that is, the pilot will be targeted wherever he sees. Apart from this it can carry 48 rockets or 4 anti-tank missiles.


Precise system of detecting the missile before
its sensors are very effective from which the enemy's radar is detected at a distance. It has a precise system of pre-spotting a missile fired on a helicopter, which gives the pilot ample opportunity to escape from a missile fired at himself. Rudra is an armored version of the indigenous Advanced Light Helicopter Dhruv and Indian pilots have long since mastered working on it.

https://translate.google.com/transl...deployed-in-ladakh/709659&prev=search&pto=aue

[/URL]

 

[Bhadra]

ALH Rudra - WSI is not an attack helicopter ...

The IAF version carries Mistral missiles. The IAF primarily uses that against the UAV and enemy hepters..

Army version carries ATGM... which are not available....

 

[garg_bharat]

ALH Rudra - WSI is not an attack helicopter ...

The IAF version carries Mistral missiles. The IAF primarily uses that against the UAV and enemy hepters..

Army version carries ATGM... which are not available....

Availability can change in days when threat presents itself.

 

[patriots]

Wrong sir,
Atgm is very useful against dug in enemy, sangers, bunkers, vehicles and structures...emplacements. guns and A vehicles etc...
ATGM has longer ranges...can be fired from stand off distances..
Carries higher explosive..
Is much accurate ... is a point weapons..
Helina can engage targets which are behind the crest with MM Wave seekers...

Rockets in comparison are more effective against open or exposed enemy and has advantages of multiplicity of warheads.. ammunition such as fragmentation, bursts, smoke. incendiary etc...

Ya sir ... rockets are good agnaist open or exposed enemy....
Bdw atgms are costly and can be carried in limited number...for rudra it's 4
But rudra can carry 48; rockets......
Rockets are unguided so accuracy issue....

 

[patriots]

ALH Rudra - WSI is not an attack helicopter ...

The IAF version carries Mistral missiles. The IAF primarily uses that against the UAV and enemy hepters..

Army version carries ATGM... which are not available....

Rudra is a armed helicopter.....
But sir both army and iaf version can carry atgm and ata missile....
According to mission requirements.....

 

[Flying Dagger]

Do you think attack helis like Rudras will only be used in mountains? What about plains and desserts? Remember, we also have an enemy there!!

Yes it will be operated everywhere where the Indian army goes.

Both rockets and ATGM are important but the decision rest with army what missiles they want to be integrated.
Helina will come sooner or later anyway.

Also Rudra is also a transport heli too so in plains unless we are out of dedicated attack heli its main job will be too provide transport and light attack capabilities.

For IAF it will be used primarily to take down drones etc.

 

[Bleh]

 

[IndianHawk]

Now my turn for tweet.

 

[WolfPack86]

Picture just in appears to confirm the presence of Indian Army Rudra armed helos in Ladakh:

 

[likitadisa]

South America

This is good news and always felt that South America is an untapped market I wonder if India could expand operations in this region.

Peru uses Fulcrums and Hip's maybe some service contracts could be won?

The state-of-the-art helicopter is being supplied under an inter-governmental MoU concluded last week. The chopper, which costs around seven million USD, is being supplied under a 100 million USD line of credit extended by India to Mauritius over three years ago,

 

[WolfPack86]

Indian Army’s Rudra Armed Helos Break Cover In Ladakh

The Indian Army Rudra, the in-service advanced armed version of the HAL Dhruv, briefly broke cover today in Ladakh, confirming the indigenous aircraft’s operational deployment amidst border tensions to the high altitude theatre it was always designed for. An Army Aviation Corps Rudra was briefly seen in footage from a combat demonstration today in Stakna for visiting Indian defence minister Rajnath Singh.

The Indian Army currently operates over 50 HAL-built Rudras, with more in the pipeline for a total fleet of 78 airframes. The Indian Air Force is also an operator of the aircraft. This isn’t the first time Rudras have been deployed to Ladakh, but today was the first time they were visible amidst tensions between India and China that have simmered since early May.


An Indian Army officer in Ladakh confirmed to Livefist, “Rudra, ALH and Cheetah helicopters from the Indian Army participated in today’s combat drills. The Rudra will have an important role in any engagement at these heights in the future.”

Weaponisation of the Rudra, ironically, remains mired in red tape. While the Rudras still don’t have operational anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and air-to-air missiles (the MBDA Mistral), more airframes were contracted in February last year to receive Thales 2.75-inch (70-mm) 12-tube rocket launchers. Like with earlier airframes, the Thales kit includes rocket launchers as well as fire control capability and the T100 sighting system.

The Rudra’s tryst with the Mistral air-to-air missile is a particularly arresting tale, given the platform has been flying for years with the missile’s launchers but no actual missile. Livefist detailed the Rudra-Mistral saga in this long read last year. It is likely that the current border unrest in Ladakh could push things forward on a weaponisation effort that remains inexplicably stuck and reflects an inexplicably self-defeating thread in Indian defence planning.

An anti-armour weapon also remains elusive, with the Indian MoD so far unable to take a call on arming the Rudra with either the Israeli Spike or French PARS L3. In January 2019, then Indian Army chief (and current Chief of Defence Staff) General Bipin Rawat said the DRDO had been asked to produce rockets and missiles for the Rudra fleet, but that interim weaponisation would be met through imported products. The DRDO Helina continues to be tested on the Rudra, but is yet to be operationalised alongisde a special launcher system called Dhruvastra.


In effect, the only current weapons on the Rudras are its 70mm rockets and a 20mm M621 cannon on a Nexter THL-20 chin-mounted gun turret.

Rudras and U.S.-built AH-64E Apache helicopters have been conducting patrol flights in Ladakh for the last few weeks, the latter much more visibly. Livefist reported last month that the Rudra’s more purpose-built cousin, the HAL Light Combat Helicopter (LCH), is all set to receive its first orders this year. Both types are seen to be highly suited for high altitude operations, given that both have seen extensive trials in that theatre already.

Indian Army's Rudra Armed Helos Break Cover In Ladakh

The Indian Army Rudra, the in-service advanced armed version of the HAL Dhruv, briefly broke cover today in Ladakh, confirming the indigenous aircraft's operational deployment amidst border tensions to the high altitude theatre it was always designed for. An Army Aviation Corps Rudra was...

www.livefistdefence.com

 

[Bhadra]

LCH Versus ZW-19​

It is not the Ministry of Defence-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) that has screwed up, but it is the Indian Air Force (IAF) that has deliberately sabotaged the development of what was originally envisaged as India’s homegrown light attack helicopter (LAH) by, on one hand, vehemently opposing the induction of such a weapons platform by the Indian Army’s Aviation Corps (AAC), and on the other by drafting a ridiculous ASQR that has now permanently changed the helicopter’s design/performance parameters from those of a LAH to those for a Light Combat Helicopter (LCH). The MoD-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), which has been associated with the tedious and long-drawn process of designing, developing and series-producing the ‘Dhruv’ advanced light helicopter, had all along believed that the ‘Dhruv’ 5-tonne multi-role light medium twin-engined design does not represent a zero-sum game, that it is possible to wrap a slim, tandem-seat fuselage around the existing twin-engined powerplant, transmission and rotor systems of this proven helicopter and derive two distinct derivatives: a multi-task LAH; and a single-engined armed aeroscout-cum light utility machine (LOH/LUH) capable of operating in the plains (for operating in tandem with fast-moving mechanised and armoured formations) and over jungle terrain in support of special operations forces, and also taking part in combat search-and-rescue operations. Yet, since early 2003, the IAF kept insisting that the AAC’s requirement for LAHs was unjustifiable (since the IAF already operated a fleet of attack helicopters like the Mi-35P and Mi-25) and its views ultimately prevailed over the MoD, which ruled that not only would the LAH option be axed in favour of the LCH, but the AAC’s existing and projected fleets of LOHs would have to synchronise their flight operations with the IAF’s existing and projected attack helicopter fleets. When Army HQ protested to the MoD, a face-saving compromise was arrived at, this being that the AAC was authorised to acquire 76 ‘Dhruv Mk4’/’Rudra’ helicopter gunships that would, in essence, entail the needless modification of the ‘Dhruv’ utility helicopter into an armed machine capable of housing no more than four anti-armour guided-missiles (this being the DRDO HELINA, which remains elusive till this day and may eventually be replaced by either the Spike-ER from RAFAEL of Israel, or the PARS-3LR from MBDA), or an alternate armaments package comprising a chin-mounted 20mm THL-20 cannon supplied by Nexter Systems, twin rocket pods housing 2.75-inch rockets supplied by Belgium’s FZ, and four Mistral ATAM air-to-air missiles from MBDA. Needless to say, the decision to develop the ‘Rudra’ was not only financially unwise, but it is also unlikely to translate into any operational gains for the Army. All this could have been easily avoided had the MoD mandated that both the Army and IAF HQs formulate a joint services staff requirement (JSQR) for HAL to develop two tandem-seat attack helicopter variants: the LAH for the AAC and LCH for the IAF.

The LCH programme took off on October 3, 2006 when the MoD sanctioned a sum of Rs.376.67 crores for HAL to design and develop the LCH over a 24-month period. Powered by twin Ardiden 1H (1,200shp TM333-2C2 Shakti) engines, the LCH was then envisaged as a 2.5-tonne machine with a service service of 6km (19,685 feet), and which would take off from altitudes of 3km (9,800 feet), loiter and operate at altitudes of up to 5km (16,400 feet), and engage targets like unmanned aerial systems (UAS) that are cruising at altitudes of up to 6.5km (21,300 feet). The ASQR originally prepared by the IAF for the LCH states that the helicopter’s HOGE ought to be 3,500 metres, or 11,482.939 feet when it has an all-up weight of 5 tonnes. The LCH’s first prototype made its maiden flight on March 29, 2010 and two more prototypes have since been fabricated for flight certification purposes

To make the LCH a survivable platform, HAL has designed its own impact absorbing landing gear and will improve on the Dhruv ALH’s ballistic tolerance with up to 100kg of composite-/ceramics-based modular armour, whose positioning is based on an IAF study of the areas most likely to suffer bullet damage. The tandem-seat cockpits will each have twin side-by-side AMLCDs, will be NVG-compatible, will provide NBC protection to the crew, and will have a ‘JedEyes’ helmet-mounted targetting system co-developed by HAL and Israel’s Elbit Systems. The LCH’s armaments suite will comprise a THL-20 chin-mounted turret containing a 20mm Nexter Systems-built M-621 gun firing at a rate of 800 rounds per minute, four stub-wing-mounted Forges de Zeebrugge-built LAU-FZ-231 launchers carrying 2.75-inch rockets, or a combination of four MBDA-built Mistral ATAM air-to-air missiles and twin 2.75-inch rocket launchers, or a combination of twin 2.75-inch rocket launchers and four 6km-range anti-armour guided-missiles (HELINA, or PARS-3LR or Spike-ER). A nose-mounted FLIR pod produced by the MoD-owned Bharat Electronics Ltd will be used for for target acquisition. The LCH’s four-axis auto-hover and digital automatic flight control system have been developed in-house, while the DRDO’s Bangalore-based Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE) is developing the defensive aids suite, which includes a combined radar/laser warning system (this being SaabTech’s MILDS AR-60V2) and Bharat Dynamics Ltd-developed countermeasures dispensers. DARE has also developed in-house the digital mission computer and pylon interface boxes. The flight control actuator system has been co-developed by HAL and the UK-based APPH. The SAGEM subsidiary of France’s SAFRAN Group, which has had a presence in India since the 1960s, has supplied the piloting inertial reference system (APIRS), more than 100 of which are already on board the Dhruv ALH. The APIRS uses new-generation inertial technologies like fibre-optic gyroscope (FOG) and silicon accelerometer. Other SAGEM-supplied items on board are the digital autopilot (which is also on the ‘Dhruv’), and the Sigma-95L RLG-INS. SAGEM is also offering its family of integrated cockpit display systems (ICDS) for the LCH.

 

[Bhadra]

LCH Versus ZW-19
​

Elbit Systems, which in May 2007 joined forces with HAL and MerlinHawk Associates Pvt Ltd to create HALBIT Avionics Pvt Ltd (HALBIT) as an India-based joint venture company, is presently proposing four items for the LCH: integrated AMLCD-based glass cockpit, the 25kg C-Music directional infra-red countermeasures (DIRCM) suite, Tadiran SDR-7200AR multi-bandwidth software-defined radio, and the QuadEye panoramic night vision goggle. The IAF has also demanded that the LCH be equipped with anti-missile defence system like BAE Systems’ ‘Boldstroke’, which uses modular open-system architecture and non-proprietary standard interfaces that support interchangeability, technology insertion, and diminishing manufacturing sources resolution. It allows for direct and fibre-coupling between the laser and pointer/tracker, providing installation flexibility to meet the size, weight, and power requirements of both light and heavy rotary-winged platforms. It is much lighter, has fewer moving optical parts and uses mirrors instead of a physical ‘light pipe’ to shoot its laser. The entire unit is housed in one box. A helicopter with ‘Boldstroke’ mounted on either side would have 360 degrees of assured protection from IR-guided anti-aircraft missiles.
Despite all these, as of now, the IAF has made only a verbal commitment to procure 65 LCHs, and no firm contract exists to translate this assurance into reality. This then brings us to the inherent design/performance flaws of the LCH, especially when comparing it with the Harbin ZW-19 attack helicopter. Firstly, there is the issue of optimising the LCH for its primary function, which is to ensure air defence against UAVs and slow-moving aircraft, be it at any altitude. If that’s what the IAF desires, then why employ a twin-engined tandem-seat LCH? Why can’t a single-engined LOH/LUH like Eurocopter’s AS.550C3 Fennec, armed with a THALES-built FLIR turret and a solitary 20mm gun-pod from Nexter Systems, which has already flown to altitudes of 22,000 feet, be tasked with such a mission? Secondly, if the LCH is tasked with a hunter-killer mission, i.e. seeking out and destroying UAVs, then can this be done with only a solitary nose-mounted FLIR sensor? Wouldn’t it be much better if instead of the FLIR sensor, a nose-mounted search radar capable of broad area surveillance was mounted on the LCH’s nose, and the FLIR turret be mast-mounted atop the main rotor hub purely for optronic fire-direction purposes? A nose-mounted search radar is also a prerequisite for the LCH to engage in anti-tank warfare from standoff distances that would keep the LCH away from hostile VSHORADS/MANPADS. In fact, this is exactly what AVIC has achieved with the ZW-19. Then there’s the peculiarly engineered rear landing gear attached midway to the LCH’s tail section, which is outright dangerous when the LCH is flying nap-of-the-earth flight profiles over urban or jungle terrain. Another design compromise concerns the LCH’s twin stub-wing armament booms, each of which can carry only two ATGMs, instead of an appreciable four (totalling eight ATGMs, as is the case with the ZW-19). And last but not the least, the ZW-19 comes equipped with a weight-saving fly-by-wire flight control system, while the LCH does not.

In conclusion, it does appear that the IAF’s ASQRs were drafted in such a manner that the LCH would be acceptable more as a platform for engaging in aerial combat—and by consequence being IAF-commanded and -operated--than for engaging hostile ground-based armoured/mechanised formations, something the AAC would have loved to get its hands on. Instead, a needless inter-services turf war has ensured that the LCH remains the sole property of the IAF and never morphes into the more-urgently needed LAH, with the AAC being forced to accept an inferior platform—the ‘Rudra’ armed with a mere four ATGMs and devoid of a nose-mounted search radar capable of detecting and engaging hostile armoured/mechanised formations from distances that are beyond the reach of hostile VSHORADS/MANPADS.—Prasun K. Sengupta

TRISHUL

<a href="http://www.skepter.com/">craigslist</a>, <a href="http://www.youtubetomp3.name/">youtube to mp3</a>

trishul-trident.blogspot.com

 

[Ultramarine]

LCH Versus ZW-19
​

Elbit Systems, which in May 2007 joined forces with HAL and MerlinHawk Associates Pvt Ltd to create HALBIT Avionics Pvt Ltd (HALBIT) as an India-based joint venture company, is presently proposing four items for the LCH: integrated AMLCD-based glass cockpit, the 25kg C-Music directional infra-red countermeasures (DIRCM) suite, Tadiran SDR-7200AR multi-bandwidth software-defined radio, and the QuadEye panoramic night vision goggle. The IAF has also demanded that the LCH be equipped with anti-missile defence system like BAE Systems’ ‘Boldstroke’, which uses modular open-system architecture and non-proprietary standard interfaces that support interchangeability, technology insertion, and diminishing manufacturing sources resolution. It allows for direct and fibre-coupling between the laser and pointer/tracker, providing installation flexibility to meet the size, weight, and power requirements of both light and heavy rotary-winged platforms. It is much lighter, has fewer moving optical parts and uses mirrors instead of a physical ‘light pipe’ to shoot its laser. The entire unit is housed in one box. A helicopter with ‘Boldstroke’ mounted on either side would have 360 degrees of assured protection from IR-guided anti-aircraft missiles.
Despite all these, as of now, the IAF has made only a verbal commitment to procure 65 LCHs, and no firm contract exists to translate this assurance into reality. This then brings us to the inherent design/performance flaws of the LCH, especially when comparing it with the Harbin ZW-19 attack helicopter. Firstly, there is the issue of optimising the LCH for its primary function, which is to ensure air defence against UAVs and slow-moving aircraft, be it at any altitude. If that’s what the IAF desires, then why employ a twin-engined tandem-seat LCH? Why can’t a single-engined LOH/LUH like Eurocopter’s AS.550C3 Fennec, armed with a THALES-built FLIR turret and a solitary 20mm gun-pod from Nexter Systems, which has already flown to altitudes of 22,000 feet, be tasked with such a mission? Secondly, if the LCH is tasked with a hunter-killer mission, i.e. seeking out and destroying UAVs, then can this be done with only a solitary nose-mounted FLIR sensor? Wouldn’t it be much better if instead of the FLIR sensor, a nose-mounted search radar capable of broad area surveillance was mounted on the LCH’s nose, and the FLIR turret be mast-mounted atop the main rotor hub purely for optronic fire-direction purposes? A nose-mounted search radar is also a prerequisite for the LCH to engage in anti-tank warfare from standoff distances that would keep the LCH away from hostile VSHORADS/MANPADS. In fact, this is exactly what AVIC has achieved with the ZW-19. Then there’s the peculiarly engineered rear landing gear attached midway to the LCH’s tail section, which is outright dangerous when the LCH is flying nap-of-the-earth flight profiles over urban or jungle terrain. Another design compromise concerns the LCH’s twin stub-wing armament booms, each of which can carry only two ATGMs, instead of an appreciable four (totalling eight ATGMs, as is the case with the ZW-19). And last but not the least, the ZW-19 comes equipped with a weight-saving fly-by-wire flight control system, while the LCH does not.

In conclusion, it does appear that the IAF’s ASQRs were drafted in such a manner that the LCH would be acceptable more as a platform for engaging in aerial combat—and by consequence being IAF-commanded and -operated--than for engaging hostile ground-based armoured/mechanised formations, something the AAC would have loved to get its hands on. Instead, a needless inter-services turf war has ensured that the LCH remains the sole property of the IAF and never morphes into the more-urgently needed LAH, with the AAC being forced to accept an inferior platform—the ‘Rudra’ armed with a mere four ATGMs and devoid of a nose-mounted search radar capable of detecting and engaging hostile armoured/mechanised formations from distances that are beyond the reach of hostile VSHORADS/MANPADS.—Prasun K. Sengupta

TRISHUL

<a href="http://www.skepter.com/">craigslist</a>, <a href="http://www.youtubetomp3.name/">youtube to mp3</a>

trishul-trident.blogspot.com

Sir, while there is no disagreement that the air force has had issues with the army where they felt that the army was impinging into domains which was hitherto a domain considered exclusive to the IAF and led to some bad blood between the forces, the author has mixed up facts and assumed a lot of things.

The LCH came into existence from the lessons learnt from the kargil war where our existing attack heptr assets i.e. Mi-35 was deemed unsuitable for that altitude. The Mi-17 was not a solution as it was essentially a medium lift heptr which was configured for attack roles. The Mi-17 did not either have the protection, the agility and the means to be as effective as an attack platform in that altitude.

Amongst the soul searching that happened in the aftermath of Kargil war was the desire to have a platform which could carry payloads effectively at that altitude with a significant loitering time. The loitering time is the difference since unlike combat planes at those altitudes and speeds that have a hard time identifying targets and lasing them for impending attacks, a heptr can loiter from a distance, identify and attack quite leisurely, if I may say so.

The ALH was coming online in some numbers and hence to ensure commonality it was felt to develop a platform which was very close to the ALH. From a risk mgmt perspective, this made ample sense as versus developing a new platform from scratch. The roles envisaged for this platform was anti infantry, anti armor, SEAD, CSAR and against enemy assets namely opposing heptrs and UAV's. The anti heptr and anti UAV role is one amongst the many roles that the LCH can perform and is not the primary role. All platforms are essentially configured for the roles they are to play before a role and hence even a LCH for an anti armor role will be very different from a LCH tasked for anti air ops or CSAR.

To further imply, that the air force did its best to sabotage the project is plain dishonesty. The army too had a significant roles in drafting the SQR's. That was amongst the first projects of this magnitude and all parties learnt their lessons. Look at the LUH now. It has an army dept atttached to the project with active involvement of both air force and army pilots.

Coming back to the platform, since when did the presence of a search radar become a criteria for an attack heptr ? The Z 19 uses a ukrainian MMW radar with questionable performance. We have used attack heptrs without radar all this while no? The Apaches that we bought, dont have the MMW radar on all platforms. Does it hamper their performance where it does not perform the role it was meant to do? How mant attack heptrs worldwide have a radar? And if it was the only clinching factor, why does not the Mi-35's does not have them yet after so long? Clearly the air force does not see a merit in equipping its platforms with this system which would hinder their tasks. Speaking of the radar too, how many really know that there is a project that aims to develop a similar radar for our indigenous heptrs? Its our first attempt and we will learn along the way.

Another thing about the platform. The LCH at high altitudes can really dance. Its manoeuverability at those heights is eye watering and that too with its attack systems. What do we know about the Z 19? Unlike ours, have they flown to these super high altitudes? If yes, can it manoeuvre safely at those heights with all its paraphernalia?

He then talks of the rear landing gear that would be dangerous. Really? By that logic, even heptrs with skids will be dangerous for such missions. Lets remove the skids as they are so poorly designed and thought of.

Yes, the lack of weapons is a concern. But what is the fault of the platform if weapons are not qualified yet? There have been trials going on since ages. We manage our procurements terribly and it has been since ages. And yes, some of it is plain depressing.

The platform will mature. User feedback will refine it further. The current Dhruv reached its current place via improvements. It too will. There is no other way.
The govt will start feeling the pinch in the aftermath of Covid and rising geo-political tussles that having a home grown product whose IP we own is always the best option. And I am sure, we will see noises being made in the right direction.

Lastly, the Tejas too has a certain gentleman who went by the name of Shri Manohar Parrikar who made it reach where it has. May be the LCH too needs someone similar to soar. That it will is sure.

 

[likitadisa]

The state-of-the-art helicopter is being supplied under an inter-governmental MoU concluded last week. The chopper, which costs around seven million USD, is being supplied under a 100 million USD line of credit extended by India to Mauritius over three years ago,

The state-of-the-art helicopter is being supplied under an inter-governmental MoU concluded last week. The chopper, which costs around seven million USD, is being supplied under a 100 million USD line of credit extended by India to Mauritius over three years ag Kodi nox o,