HAL Advanced Light Helicopter Dhruv

vishnugupt

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
718
Likes
1,964
Country flag
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.
10 likes for your post.
Some members of this forum want to live in wonderland and they give very lame excuse of why we need foreign shiny toys. but the fact is, Our armed forces have failed miserably to become a formidable force instead they became a beggar force or cry baby. I will give LCH 9/10 than Apaches 4/10 marks for reliability in wartime but many here wouldn't understand because they want to fight on paper only
 

Bhurki

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
1,279
Likes
1,656
Question - Why does IAF operate helicopters?
Isn't that supossed to be the job of Army Av corp?
How many countries are there that follow this kind of division of force?
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,697
Country flag
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.
I appreciate and like your writeup..

If a helicopter takes a flight for an anti tanks task or targeting a terrorist camp inside a jungle or near a village or a group of vehicle or a gun position or a cluster of bunkers on a reverse slop it must ideally be equipped with at least be equipped with eight missiles.

Otherwise having fired his four missiles returning back to FARP. reloading and flying again makes the mission expensive and that much risky.

I really do not know if AUW etc will be any concern as four extra missiles would mean 200 kg more. Some compromise can be reached somewhere.

For SEAD or anti hepter or anti UAV missions four missiles are adequate but ground support operations four missiles are inadequate.

The most important aspect is why are they holding back for ATGM. Why not fit SPIK ER and make those operational. We wanted them yesterday and not tomorrow.
 

Suhaan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
299
Likes
1,210
Country flag
10 likes for your post.
Some members of this forum want to live in wonderland and they give very lame excuse of why we need foreign shiny toys. but the fact is, Our armed forces have failed miserably to become a formidable force instead they became a beggar force or cry baby. I will give LCH 9/10 than Apaches 4/10 marks for reliability in wartime but many here wouldn't understand because they want to fight on paper only
They say enemy is on the gates,our untested puny weapons are of no use against mighty cheene and porkies,enemy is always on the gates ,will you beg always?
 

Bhurki

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
1,279
Likes
1,656
Are we really so bad that we can not even make rockets ???
Considering that even tank ploughs are being manufactured with the help of foreign tech expertise, it seems the ministry may think so.
 

scatterStorm

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
1,955
Likes
4,306
Country flag
This stuff is of no use.. Chinks have no threat. Rather they would have been enjoying some free aerobatic display, sitting somewhere on top of the hills.
What could you expect from a civilian heli. But abh banya hai to kuch to kaam nikalna padega.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top