HAL Prachand - Light Combat Helicopter (LCH)

[Scrutator]

Rudra/LCH are designed as standoff tank busters and not for anti-personel/counter terror operations.

Rudra can carry 3000 cartridges of 20 mm ammunition (even though LCH or any other attack helo carry much less). The 'inside' compartment is primarily to house 6 large containers of 20 mm ammo. Which shows that Rudra is mostly an anti-personnel weapon. Given the lack of armor it is unlikely to be in the frontline of the invading strike force.

 

[AnantS]

@Scrutator understand that LCH has been designed to attack target from distance and not hover over targets and destroy. Hovering over targets esp where you could have rpg,shoulder fired sam, or mmg would be suicidal. IAF have more brains than you and me and they know their requirements for LCH. LCH being light armored would not be anyway suited to hover over targets.

Yes I am reffering to technology. And no this idea has not been given up as it increases siuational awareness of pilots and prepares them advance about situation.

 

[Scrutator]

@Scrutator understand that LCH has been designed to attack target from distance and not hover over targets and destroy. Hovering over targets esp where you could have rpg,shoulder fired sam, or mmg would be suicidal. IAF have more brains than you and me and they know their requirements for LCH. LCH being light armored would not be anyway suited to hover over targets.

Yes I am reffering to technology. And no this idea has not been given up as it increases siuational awareness of pilots and prepares them advance about situation.

The issue is not hovering. The issue is having visibility leeward, windward and downward directions. The helos can scan for threats/targets while on the move too (that's what UAVs do) - no need to hover. RPGs and shoulder-fired-sams can be fired at the helos even while they are on the move. I don't want to take away it's stand-offish tank-busting capability - just feel that a simple change could make it way more versatile.

Attack helos don't just blindly fly to a designated spot, fire and come back. They need to scan for threats and targets as they're flying to any location. As I've already mentioned several times on this thread already: as Rudra/LCH is flying it will be vulnerable to threats or miss targets that are on the leeward side!!!!

In all your arguments, you haven't mentioned what capability would be lost if the EO pod were to be flipped. What is that awesome thing that IA/IAF gain from this ingenious design that US, Russia, China (and other countries that use their attack helos) will be missing out on??

 

[charlie]

There are other display screens on the helos dashboard. The pilot doesn't have to sweep his head in all directions to see things. He can direct the EO pod in any direction and have it displayed on the screen. EO pods also lock onto to targets/target-areas (below/behind/ahead); if such a capability weren't available then proper firing of any missile will require the pilot holding his head still or meticulously tracking a ground or aerial target with his head
If seeing below the helo with an EO pod is not possible, then I wonder how the Mi-35 hovering over Pathankot airbase track the Jihadis......................

I have a question bro

http://elbitsystems.com/media/DCoMPASS_AIR_2016-1.pdf

Elevation - +35o to -85o according to the Manufacturer. How can it look behind or below it's can't even look -90o well micro compass is bit different but here we are talking about heavy dcompass.

Can you give me example of an attack heli which can look behind or below -90o ?

Don't give me examples of first responder heli or light reconnaissance or something like AH6 or any naval utility.

and your cone of visibility theory is interesting.

How much do you think FOV in relation to depression is on LCH ?

 

[Scrutator]

I have a question bro

http://elbitsystems.com/media/DCoMPASS_AIR_2016-1.pdf

Elevation - +35o to -85o according to the Manufacturer. How can it look behind or below it's can't even look -90o well micro compass is bit different but here we are talking about heavy dcompass.

Can you give me example of an attack heli which can look behind or below -90o ?

Don't give me examples of first responder heli or light reconnaissance or something like AH6 or any naval utility.

and your cone of visibility theory is interesting.

I like people who ask questions (instead of declaring dogmas)

If you see the specs, it has 360 deg coverage in the azimuth and 120 deg coverage in the elevation. If the dome were to be pointing downwards, 120 degrees should be more than enough to view down and turn up to view ahead and then slightly up. Not sure where the disconnect is? (I don't have time to do the sketches right now).

Further, when the pod is say 30 deg up from the downward facing line, and the pod is rotated 180 deg in the azimuth, the pod is now facing 30 deg backwards. Now it all depends on how much obstruction the overall helicopter creates that limits the visibility (otherwise the pod provides complete flexibility). See this Mi-35 pic below:

Apache and Viper also have their pods slightly protruding at the bottom beyond the heli's body to give some peek behind (but the Mi-35 is more profound).

Not sure what would be gained by having the limited elevation of 120 deg pan over the sky above(as it is done in the current design) and completely block out the bottom view??

 

[AnantS]

The issue is not hovering. The issue is having visibility leeward, windward and downward directions. The helos can scan for threats/targets while on the move too (that's what UAVs do) - no need to hover. RPGs and shoulder-fired-sams can be fired at the helos even while they are on the move. I don't want to take away it's stand-offish tank-busting capability - just feel that a simple change could make it way more versatile.

Attack helos don't just blindly fly to a designated spot, fire and come back. They need to scan for threats and targets as they're flying to any location. As I've already mentioned several times on this thread, As Rudra/LCH is flying it will be vulnerable to threats or miss targets that are on the leeward side!!!!

In all your arguments, you haven't mentioned what capability would be lost if the EO pod were to be flipped. What is that awesome thing that IA/IAF gain from this ingenious design that US, Russia, China (and other countries that use their attack helos) will be missing out on??

LCH has been designed to fire its weapons from safe range, out of reach from shoulder fired SAM, RPG and the likes. I am not the designer and I do not know what specific requirements had priority which lead to EO above nose. Thats the answer user or designer can answer. As I said earlier, try asking Pilot Hari Nair in another fora. He is test pilot for LCH.

And yes everybody knows, area is recced before any form of airstrikes happen. Using your logic its quite abvious that flight plan will be decided in such a manner that provides optimal targeting opportunity to helos.

 

[Scrutator]

LCH has been designed to fire its weapons from safe range, out of reach from shoulder fired SAM, RPG and the likes. I am not the designer and I do not know what specific requirements had priority which lead to EO above nose. Thats the answer user or designer can answer. As I said earlier, try asking Pilot Hari Nair in another fora. He is test pilot for LCH.

And yes everybody knows, area is recced before any form of airstrikes happen. Using your logic its quite abvious that flight plan will be decided in such a manner that provides optimal targeting opportunity to helos.

Which forum is Pilot Hari Nair available? Thanks much!

 

[charlie]

I like people who ask questions, instead of declaring dogmas

If you see the specs, it has 360 deg coverage in the azimuth and 120 deg coverage in the elevation. If the dome were to be pointing downwards, 120 degrees should be more than enough to view down and turn up to view ahead and then slightly up. Not sure where the disconnect is? (I don't have time to do the sketches right now).
Not sure what would be gained by having the limited elevation of 120 deg pan over the sky above(as it is done in the current design)??

hmm according to the specs the dome can't point downwards more then - 85o and upwards towards +30o of course if you mounting it properly.

Don't forget FOV plays a really imp role here the more high you flying the more narrow you have to zoom your sensor so you won't be even getting -85o view it reduces considerable I assume for e.g. ccd
narrow view 0.59° x 0.44°

By the way check out the video
http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/Arrowhead.html

Priya thakkar is the system engineer for the project it seems, not really my type of girl.

 

[charlie]

I like people who ask questions (instead of declaring dogmas)

If you see the specs, it has 360 deg coverage in the azimuth and 120 deg coverage in the elevation. If the dome were to be pointing downwards, 120 degrees should be more than enough to view down and turn up to view ahead and then slightly up. Not sure where the disconnect is? (I don't have time to do the sketches right now).

Further, when the pod is say 30 deg up from the downward facing line, and the pod is rotated 180 deg in the azimuth, the pod is now facing 30 deg backwards. Now it all depends on how much obstruction the overall helicopter creates that limits the visibility (otherwise the pod provides complete flexibility). See this Mi-35 pic below:

Apache and Viper also have their pods slightly protruding at the bottom beyond the heli's body to give some peek behind (but the Mi-35 is more profound).

Not sure what would be gained by having the limited elevation of 120 deg pan over the sky above(as it is done in the current design) and completely block out the bottom view??

I see, well that's look like kps-53a electro-optical, I can't find a brochure on the internet but I have a friend who works in MIL she might be able to get us a brochure I guess. I don't think that EO system can have depression beyond -90o.

mostly attack heli cannot look bottom beyond the heli's body to give some peek behind because of the gun or because of the design.

Again when you take 120 you can't have all the 120 at depression right.

Apache and Viper cannot look at bottom beyond the heli's body to give some peek behind as far as I know, I can be wrong too.

 

[Scrutator]

hmm according to the specs the dome can't point downwards more then - 85o and upwards towards +30o of course if you mounting it properly.

Don't forget FOV plays a really imp role here the more high you flying the more narrow you have to zoom your sensor so you won't be even getting -85o view it reduces considerable I assume for e.g. ccd
narrow view 0.59° x 0.44°

By the way check out the video
http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/Arrowhead.html

Priya thakkar is the system engineer for the project it seems, not really my type of girl.

Thanks for sharing the video and your gal preferences. Any gal who's good at 'optics' will have my attention for a while

Regarding the dome, you need combine the elevation movement with the movement in the azimuth. Yes, there will be a cone of no-view (partly because the EO pod doesn't fully rotate in the elevation and partly because the body of the helo obstructs the view). Most (may I say normal) attack helo designers choose the placement such that the cone of no-view matches with the zone of no-interest.

Rudra/LCH designers made the determination that they don't care to look down. Rudra/LCH zone of interest is for unlimited sky gazing and occasional selfie taking of the pilots. What gives???

FOV is for the lenses, the pod movement range is indepedent of the FOV.

 

[charlie]

Thanks for sharing the video and your gal preferences. Any gal who's good at 'optics' will have my attention for a while

Regarding the dome, you need combine the elevation movement with the movement in the azimuth. Yes, there will be a cone of no-view (partly because the EO pod doesn't fully rotate in the elevation and partly because the body of the helo obstructs the view). Most (may I say normal) attack helo designers choose the placement such that the cone of no-view matches with the zone of no-interest.

Rudra/LCH designers made the determination that they don't care to look down. Rudra/LCH zone of interest is for unlimited sky gazing and occasional selfie taking of the pilots. What gives???

FOV is for the lenses, the pod movement range is indepedent of the FOV.

may be they were trying for look up shoot up thing, but I don't know may the Manufacturer helped them to put it up side down from being -30o +80o to +30o -80o ??? what do you think ?

 

[Scrutator]

may be they were trying for look up shoot up thing, but I don't know may the Manufacturer helped them to put it up side down from being -30o +80o to +30o -80o ??? what do you think ?

I am trying to figure too what would grab the pilot's fancy up in the sky!!
I don't think it's the manufacturer who influenced them to install that way. There's a variant of Dhruv that's unarmed and has an under slung EO pod (not at the nose, but at the chin).

 

[pmaitra]

Interesting discussion regarding the situation of the EO pod. I have a few questions:

1. Is there any attack helicopter in service that is able to shoot a target directly below it or behind it?
2. Is there any attack helicopter in service that is able to target the leeward side of a hill (I assume this term is synonymous with arty-shadow) without having to turn around?

 

[Scrutator]

Interesting discussion regarding the situation of the EO pod. I have a few questions:

1. Is there any attack helicopter in service that is able to shoot a target directly below it or behind it?
2. Is there any attack helicopter in service that is able to target the leeward side of a hill (I assume this term is synonymous with arty-shadow) without having to turn around?

1. Nope. (unless when a helo does a vertical dive and shoots what it saw below it before the dive - but technically it's still shooting in-front of it)
2. This, I am assuming, is the same as the second half of the first question (shooting behind). Nope.
Both of the above are because of the restrictions on the gun turrets! They have much more constricted field of movement.

All attack helos can only target/shoot a distance ahead of it. But the question is about 'detection'. Once a target is detected (ahead, below, behind) then the helo can attempt to orient itself in a way that it can shoot or merely observe. Current Rudra/LCH EO orientation fails detecting stuff on the leeward side of a mountain/rock/ditch even after it flies over it; and cannot detect targets while flying/hovering across a valley!!!

 

[pmaitra]

1. Nope. (unless when a helo does a vertical dive and shoots what it saw below it before the dive - but technically it's still shooting in-front of it)
2. This, I am assuming, is the same as the second half of the first question (shooting behind). Nope.
Both of the above are because of the restrictions on the gun turrets! They have much more constricted field of movement.

All attack helos can only target/shoot a distance ahead of it. But the question is about 'detection'. Once a target is detected (ahead, below, behind) then the helo can attempt to orient itself in a way that it can shoot or merely observe. Current Rudra/LCH EO orientation fails detecting stuff on the leeward side of a mountain/rock/ditch even after it flies over it; and cannot detect targets while flying/hovering across a valley!!!

Thanks for the response and I agree.

You mentioned the Mil-24/35 during the Pathankot attacks. I presume they were not shooting at anything, just performing observation. I was not able to follow how that fits into this discussion.

 

[Scrutator]

Thanks for the response and I agree.

You mentioned the Mil-24/35 during the Pathankot attacks. I presume they were not shooting at anything, just performing observation. I was not able to follow how that fits into this discussion.

I quoted the Pathankot episode in response to several folks suggesting that an attack helicopter always looks ahead and never needs to look down at all!!
My lament is that Rudra/LCH won't be able to do what Mi-35 did for us at Pathankot.

 

[pmaitra]

I quoted the Pathankot episode in response to several folks suggesting that an attack helicopter always looks ahead and never needs to look down at all!!
My lament is that Rudra/LCH won't be able to do what Mi-35 did for us at Pathankot.

The Mil-24/35 is one of the most heavily armoured helicopters ever built. It was reasonable to use it for observation due to this very fact. It can go close to enemy targets on the ground with little risk. The downside is that it does not perform very well in high altitude. HAL LCH is built to perform in high altitude, and therefore, it cannot afford to be as heavily armoured as the Mil-24/35, and therefore, it would be unwise to use the HAL LCH for close observation.

When it comes to looking down, it is not the same thing as shooting down. The Mil-24/35 has the VSPU-24 turret which has an elevation of 20 degrees and depression of 60 degrees. It cannot shoot anything directly under it. It also has azimuthal angles of 60 degrees on either side, so it cannot shoot anything behind it.

On a related note, the Mil-24/35 rarely hovers when in combat.

I think HAL LCH is not going to be at any disadvantage when compared to other attack helicopters in service today.

However, a 360 degree azimuthal and 90 degree depression would not be a bad capability to have.

 

[SilentKiller]

1. Nope. (unless when a helo does a vertical dive and shoots what it saw below it before the dive - but technically it's still shooting in-front of it)
2. This, I am assuming, is the same as the second half of the first question (shooting behind). Nope.
Both of the above are because of the restrictions on the gun turrets! They have much more constricted field of movement.

All attack helos can only target/shoot a distance ahead of it. But the question is about 'detection'. Once a target is detected (ahead, below, behind) then the helo can attempt to orient itself in a way that it can shoot or merely observe. Current Rudra/LCH EO orientation fails detecting stuff on the leeward side of a mountain/rock/ditch even after it flies over it; and cannot detect targets while flying/hovering across a valley!!!

Question -
If a attack helicopter is flying hugging terrain, its better it looks what's in front of it or what's below its?
i.e. when something is flying and its mission is to find and destroy quickly, isn't that the helicopeter with EO facing front and not below is better in.detection what is in front as those target its is still to reach. whereas target below it, it will detect when its above it and it might be too late to take action. helicopter still needs to be moved to attack targets below it?
simply put
say as EO pod on front (Rudra style) detect a target directly infront of it, say heli facing rock side and not other side, now helicopter can only detect what's on other side of rock when its coming back.
In case of EO Pod below (Apache), it will detect target below it i.e. both sides of the rock but will it be not too late as to taeget what's below it, helicopter still needs to be moved?

if EO Pod below is so better tham EO pod above like in case of Rudra/LCH/Tiger/Turkish, what's the need fro adding long pod over the rotor, that means helicopter lacks ability to detect targets infront of it, so 1 apache with long bow detects those targets and get other apache know of cordinate.

 

[Scrutator]

However, a 360 degree azimuthal and 90 degree depression would not be a bad capability to have.

Amen to that!

HAL LCH is built to perform in high altitude, and therefore, it cannot afford to be as heavily armoured as the Mil-24/35, and therefore, it would be unwise to use the HAL LCH for close observation.

Couldn't help notice the mild contradiction in there. Up in those icy heights LCH will be the only option to go inspect/clear Kargil like situation (armed UAVs not withstanding).

I think HAL LCH is not going to be at any disadvantage when compared to other attack helicopters in service today.

LCH is kinda of custom made for the heights, but I am skeptical as to how well it will be able to navigate across the valleys, ridges etc. without complete and instant 'situational awareness' about itself.
But my burning questions are: what was gained by orienting the pod upwards? And what would be lost if the pod were flipped?
UAV hunting seems like a red herring. Low flying UAVs can again only be targeted ahead but not above (Apaches, Mi-35s, Vipers etc are able to do the same with EO pointing downwards!). Detecting low/high flying UAVs is easily accomplished by simple ground radars!

I am beginning to get convinced that probably they wanted to protect the EO pod from small arms fire ((being too conscious of costs)!!!

 

[pmaitra]

Couldn't help notice the mild contradiction in there. Up in those icy heights LCH will be the only option to go inspect/clear Kargil like situation (armed UAVs not withstanding).

The context was Pathankot. In extreme high altitude regions we can completely rule out the Mil-24/35. HAL LCH is the only option we have in high altitude. So, yes, it will be vulnerable but we have no other option. In Pathankot, we have the option of using the Mil-24/35.