abingdonboy
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 8,084
- Likes
- 33,803
Indian Army Aviation Wing
- Thread starter Yusuf
- Start date
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
Dhruv MK3 Of Army ..
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2015
- Messages
- 7,494
- Likes
- 17,197
Siachen Pioneers
........................................................................
salute
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2015
- Messages
- 2,173
- Likes
- 1,094
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
Slight difference in color due to latest uniform clothes are bit darker than older once which were used 5-10 years back ..
tejas warrior
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2015
- Messages
- 1,268
- Likes
- 3,723
Kunal Sir, Do u know if Rudra has been inducted and started serving nation in CT Operations ?
Dhruv MK3 Of Army ..
Any operational pictures will be highly appreciated.
abingdonboy
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 8,084
- Likes
- 33,803
15 in service as of now, they won't be serving in operational CT roles.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,654
- Likes
- 8,370
IA-2101
IA-2102
IA-2105
IA-2107
IA-2109
IA-2113
IA-2101 Seen
IA-2102 Seen
IA-2103 Unseen
IA-2104 Unseen
IA-2105 Seen
IA-2106 Unseen
IA-2107 Seen
IA-2108 Unseen
IA-2109 seen
IA-2110 Unseen
IA-2111 Unseen
IA-2112 Unseen
IA-2113 seen
.
.
.
Indian Army Aviation Rudras.
smestarz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,929
- Likes
- 1,056
The full credit for CAS goes to Germans, After Hitler came to power and they started to work on new Strategies and tactics the Germans were inspired by the work and ideas of J.F.C.Fuller whose ideas were ridiculed by those at the helm in British army. Heinz Guderian was one of the person who had similar ideas to Fuller for Modern Armoured warfare. The concept of Blitzkreig was to bypass enemy strong points and to destroy the enemy lines of communication and supplys and then to take these encircles points at their own time. For Blitzkreig to be success, there are were important point which were very different from what other countries employed.
a) Tanks were put in indepenent armoured divisions and corps
b) the Infantry were put in armoured carriers and half tracks so that they can be as mobile as the tanks
c) Infantry division had both field guns aas well as self propelled guns and assault guns whose main role was supporting the infantry.by providing direct fire support. Stukas the german standard dive bombers had role to support the infantry. Actually it was a combination of Stuka-Artillery-Flak that provided direct and indirect fireppower for the infantry units. The mere screaming of the sirens of the stuka used to put fear among even seasoned soldiers like it was the scream of the harpies.
The advantage of using Stukas was that these dive bombers could be used against Tanks and other positions where as the Tank formations were mainly used to punch a hole through enemy lines. If you see from 1939 to 1941 there were not many tanks vs tanks war simply because the Germans had one role for tanks, to create a break through, and the job of the STUKAS and artillery was to destroy enemy tanks,. The British and french used tanks for Infantry support only and hence there were never massed ranks of tanks, Tanks, usually supporting the infantry, were usually in few numbers and the same could be picked off by the reputed 88 mm guns.
If you see the history of CAS, it comes with the need of providing aerial support to infantry units a battalion and company levels during critical points to take down enemy strong point or to achieve breakthroughs. During WW2 the only weapons that aircraft had was Guns and Bombs, and so the idea was to deliver the bomb as accurately as possible. Since the bomb aiming technique was almost non-existent, there was no chance to use bombers then, mainly because if you try to drop on point A, then there is high probablity that it might miss even by a mile !! There have been instances where in during carpet bombing that planes have stuck targets miles from the actual target. There was a technique developed called dive bombing, where a plane carrying few bombs all of a sudden does a near verticle dive, and drops the bomb, since during its entire dive the plane is aimed at the target the bombs would hit the target, though this technique was not the most accurate, it turned out to be very effective specially when bridges were destroyed using 4 planes, where even a squadron of bombers could not even hit the bridge using carpet bombing techniques. The Germans were the best exponents of dive bombes and they had a purpose built plane Junkers Ju-87 also called as STUKA. Germans perfected the art of bombing with this. Germans have made a lot of experiments with it and even fitted with 37 mm tank busting gun, which proved excellent tank killer. The russians developed their own techniques using Il-2 Shturmovik. Shturmovik can be safely called as predecessor of Su-25, The russians did not have powerful engines then, and so they had a heavily armoured plane which could sustain hits from poweful German aircraft guns and even survive close blast from 20 mm flak guns. The Stuka and Shturmovik were very useful when taking down enemy concentrations and also tanks, with stuka having 37 mm anti tank gun with 20 round magazine. one of the best exponent of Stuka, Hans Ulrich Rudel, more than 500 tanks destroyed, He was perhaps the most highly decorated German officer with Knights cross, with golden swords, and golden oak leaves with diamonds. Thats the highest level of Knights cross, and no other person has won that honour.
After WW2, during the cold war the Soviets had developed their Mass attack strategy, which they had developed during WW2 and it worked during battle of Kursk, where the germans having superior tanks were defeated because the Russian tanks just moved on inspite of their losses and got within the german lines and then at close range, German tanks were vulnerable, Due to Mass production method employed by then communist countries they could produce thousands of tanks in a year and that was not possible for Europe, and not really possible for America. At any given time there were 7-8 Russian Tank armies on the East of NATO controlled europe and if these went West, and if the Soviets decided to go West with these tanks, there would be nothing to stop them till they reached Dunkirk, maybe shortage of fuel and supplies. So the Americans realised that Tank vs Tank, the NATO could not take down the Russians and so they had to have another weapon that was asymetrical, and they took the idea from the German Stuka, They started to develop A-10 that was specially developed as a tank killer with 11 pylons for Maverick missiles and 30 mm powerful anti tank gun, thus in a way, a squadron of these tank killers can blunt any spearhead of tanks, Once the spearhead is broken, it would be consolidated by friendly tanks which could then lauunch counter offensive using the A-10 as their spearhead. Since during this time the missile technology was at its infancy there was more importance had to fly wiethin 20 kms of the target area. There was a lot of reliance on 40 mm flak guns, If these planes flew medium height they were easy targets for Air superiority planes like MiGs as well as 40mm and 25 mm flak guns, thus to give low reaction time and opportunity to these flak guns, the best strategy was to fly low and then attack the targets. This brought the plane into target of light AA guns such as 0.5 inch and 12.7 mm guns etc, So it was decided to give these planes armour enough that they can take multiple hits from 12.7 mm guns. If you see the armour of A-10 and Su-25 they are deisgned to take hits from 12.7 mm guns and not heavier guns because the tactics were developed to fly low to avoid the heavy Ack Ack. This is the history of CAS in short. Thus the CAS then was limited because of
a) Missile technology not developed (not good seeker or range)
b) To avoid 40 mm guns the plane had to fly low but could not avoide 12.7 mm guns and hence had to have armour to take 12.7 mm hits. But now there are more MANPADS like SA-7, Stinger, Blowpipe which are cheaper and very much available and these can defeat and deter CAS planes flying slow and low. As a matter of rule, Advance units do not carry LR SAMS but MANPADS and QR SAMS and these can be eliminated by the new concept of CAS from stand off range. Thus way out of the range of MANPADs and even SRSAMS and yet as effective as traditional CAS plane.
Now to accesss the position, what exactly is the AIM OF CAS ?
To provide aerial cover and firepower to your ground forces by putting missiles and bombs on the enemy positions without casualties to your forces.
The guns employed by planes are good but they are not really accurate and hence if the enemy are mere 5 metres away from your friendly positions then maybe the gun is also not that useful, as the pilot may not be able to take down all the targets and would have to come for another low run, which is risk, thus you can manage many positions but not all.
My solution. If a plane like Tejas has 6 usable pylons (one if for POD, better to use the wing tip pylon only for A2A missile, and the 4 other pylons, use MERS (multiple ejecting rack system) where you can put 3 A2G misiles per pylon. The missile/glide bomb should have range of 50 kms +. Thus you have a plane that can drop 12 precision guided A2G missiles exactly where you want them. Now what exactly does A-10 achieve by flyling slow and low? If use PGM you can take down 12 targets accurately same as A-10 and with newer missiles from a stand off range. Further when doing so, the plane can also conduct CAP over the area and maintain air superiority. Thus 4 such planes can put down 48 PGMs and still be able to maintain air superiority in that area using 8 A2A missile at their disposal thus ensuring the the enemy CAS or helicopters or even air superiority planes do not hinder our operations, Rather I would see this truly as step up from the traditional role where the MRCA conducts both CAS amd Air superiority missions simultaneously. better than swing role.
I would like to question yoru wisdom here,
True CAS requires aircrafts with:
-slow speed with excellent handling at sea-level altitudes
WHY DOES PLANE HAVE TO BE SLOW? OR FLY VERY LOW, WHAT IF THE PLANE CAN COMPLETE ITS MISSION EVEN FROM HIGHER LEVEL
-rugged
RUGGED FOR WHAT? WHAT IF IT CAN COMPLETE THE MISSION FROM WELL OUT OF THE RANGE OF MANPADS AND SRSAMS?
-inexpensive
THATS A GOOD QUALITY, WOULD 35 MILLION BE EXPENSIVE? SPECIALLY IF IT CAN MANAGE MULTI ROLES AND NOT REQUIRE ANY SORT OF FIGHTER COVER?
-heavily armored
NOT NEEDED IF ITS NOT GOING TO FLY WITHIN RANGE OF 12.7 MM GUNS OR MANPADS
-highly survivable design
NOT NEEDED EITHER, AS IT WILL STAY OUT OF RANGE OF ENEMY DEFENCES
-massive firepower & payload
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT QUALITY AND EXPLAINED.
-easy to maintain and easily replaceable spares and parts
EXELLENT QUALITY.
-with 5-6 hours battlefield loiter time (extended with external tanks, air-to-air refueling)
I WOULD GO FOR 2-3 HOURS LOITER TIME, THE PILOT HAS TO GO FOR A LOO TOO, 2-3 HOURS LOITER TIME, IFR CAPABILITY, NO NEED OF EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS, USE ALL POSSIBLE PYLONS FOR WEAPONS.
CAS should be possibly Army Aviation corps responsibility, and they can take a nice plane with twin engines (better survival) possibly having 8-10 pylons, a good targetting pod, easy and cheap to buy, fly and maintain.
there are planes like Su-34 which are really capable as CAS plane, but I think they are overkill, I mean Su-34 is excellent if Pakistani armoured division is in action, so few of these might just get it over with. But I think i would prefer a plane as described above. Su-34 might conduct the CAS operation but it might still have enough fuel and war load that the pilot might simply have a go on army headquarters in Rawalpindi. Like I said, OVER KILL.
a) Tanks were put in indepenent armoured divisions and corps
b) the Infantry were put in armoured carriers and half tracks so that they can be as mobile as the tanks
c) Infantry division had both field guns aas well as self propelled guns and assault guns whose main role was supporting the infantry.by providing direct fire support. Stukas the german standard dive bombers had role to support the infantry. Actually it was a combination of Stuka-Artillery-Flak that provided direct and indirect fireppower for the infantry units. The mere screaming of the sirens of the stuka used to put fear among even seasoned soldiers like it was the scream of the harpies.
The advantage of using Stukas was that these dive bombers could be used against Tanks and other positions where as the Tank formations were mainly used to punch a hole through enemy lines. If you see from 1939 to 1941 there were not many tanks vs tanks war simply because the Germans had one role for tanks, to create a break through, and the job of the STUKAS and artillery was to destroy enemy tanks,. The British and french used tanks for Infantry support only and hence there were never massed ranks of tanks, Tanks, usually supporting the infantry, were usually in few numbers and the same could be picked off by the reputed 88 mm guns.
If you see the history of CAS, it comes with the need of providing aerial support to infantry units a battalion and company levels during critical points to take down enemy strong point or to achieve breakthroughs. During WW2 the only weapons that aircraft had was Guns and Bombs, and so the idea was to deliver the bomb as accurately as possible. Since the bomb aiming technique was almost non-existent, there was no chance to use bombers then, mainly because if you try to drop on point A, then there is high probablity that it might miss even by a mile !! There have been instances where in during carpet bombing that planes have stuck targets miles from the actual target. There was a technique developed called dive bombing, where a plane carrying few bombs all of a sudden does a near verticle dive, and drops the bomb, since during its entire dive the plane is aimed at the target the bombs would hit the target, though this technique was not the most accurate, it turned out to be very effective specially when bridges were destroyed using 4 planes, where even a squadron of bombers could not even hit the bridge using carpet bombing techniques. The Germans were the best exponents of dive bombes and they had a purpose built plane Junkers Ju-87 also called as STUKA. Germans perfected the art of bombing with this. Germans have made a lot of experiments with it and even fitted with 37 mm tank busting gun, which proved excellent tank killer. The russians developed their own techniques using Il-2 Shturmovik. Shturmovik can be safely called as predecessor of Su-25, The russians did not have powerful engines then, and so they had a heavily armoured plane which could sustain hits from poweful German aircraft guns and even survive close blast from 20 mm flak guns. The Stuka and Shturmovik were very useful when taking down enemy concentrations and also tanks, with stuka having 37 mm anti tank gun with 20 round magazine. one of the best exponent of Stuka, Hans Ulrich Rudel, more than 500 tanks destroyed, He was perhaps the most highly decorated German officer with Knights cross, with golden swords, and golden oak leaves with diamonds. Thats the highest level of Knights cross, and no other person has won that honour.
After WW2, during the cold war the Soviets had developed their Mass attack strategy, which they had developed during WW2 and it worked during battle of Kursk, where the germans having superior tanks were defeated because the Russian tanks just moved on inspite of their losses and got within the german lines and then at close range, German tanks were vulnerable, Due to Mass production method employed by then communist countries they could produce thousands of tanks in a year and that was not possible for Europe, and not really possible for America. At any given time there were 7-8 Russian Tank armies on the East of NATO controlled europe and if these went West, and if the Soviets decided to go West with these tanks, there would be nothing to stop them till they reached Dunkirk, maybe shortage of fuel and supplies. So the Americans realised that Tank vs Tank, the NATO could not take down the Russians and so they had to have another weapon that was asymetrical, and they took the idea from the German Stuka, They started to develop A-10 that was specially developed as a tank killer with 11 pylons for Maverick missiles and 30 mm powerful anti tank gun, thus in a way, a squadron of these tank killers can blunt any spearhead of tanks, Once the spearhead is broken, it would be consolidated by friendly tanks which could then lauunch counter offensive using the A-10 as their spearhead. Since during this time the missile technology was at its infancy there was more importance had to fly wiethin 20 kms of the target area. There was a lot of reliance on 40 mm flak guns, If these planes flew medium height they were easy targets for Air superiority planes like MiGs as well as 40mm and 25 mm flak guns, thus to give low reaction time and opportunity to these flak guns, the best strategy was to fly low and then attack the targets. This brought the plane into target of light AA guns such as 0.5 inch and 12.7 mm guns etc, So it was decided to give these planes armour enough that they can take multiple hits from 12.7 mm guns. If you see the armour of A-10 and Su-25 they are deisgned to take hits from 12.7 mm guns and not heavier guns because the tactics were developed to fly low to avoid the heavy Ack Ack. This is the history of CAS in short. Thus the CAS then was limited because of
a) Missile technology not developed (not good seeker or range)
b) To avoid 40 mm guns the plane had to fly low but could not avoide 12.7 mm guns and hence had to have armour to take 12.7 mm hits. But now there are more MANPADS like SA-7, Stinger, Blowpipe which are cheaper and very much available and these can defeat and deter CAS planes flying slow and low. As a matter of rule, Advance units do not carry LR SAMS but MANPADS and QR SAMS and these can be eliminated by the new concept of CAS from stand off range. Thus way out of the range of MANPADs and even SRSAMS and yet as effective as traditional CAS plane.
Now to accesss the position, what exactly is the AIM OF CAS ?
To provide aerial cover and firepower to your ground forces by putting missiles and bombs on the enemy positions without casualties to your forces.
The guns employed by planes are good but they are not really accurate and hence if the enemy are mere 5 metres away from your friendly positions then maybe the gun is also not that useful, as the pilot may not be able to take down all the targets and would have to come for another low run, which is risk, thus you can manage many positions but not all.
My solution. If a plane like Tejas has 6 usable pylons (one if for POD, better to use the wing tip pylon only for A2A missile, and the 4 other pylons, use MERS (multiple ejecting rack system) where you can put 3 A2G misiles per pylon. The missile/glide bomb should have range of 50 kms +. Thus you have a plane that can drop 12 precision guided A2G missiles exactly where you want them. Now what exactly does A-10 achieve by flyling slow and low? If use PGM you can take down 12 targets accurately same as A-10 and with newer missiles from a stand off range. Further when doing so, the plane can also conduct CAP over the area and maintain air superiority. Thus 4 such planes can put down 48 PGMs and still be able to maintain air superiority in that area using 8 A2A missile at their disposal thus ensuring the the enemy CAS or helicopters or even air superiority planes do not hinder our operations, Rather I would see this truly as step up from the traditional role where the MRCA conducts both CAS amd Air superiority missions simultaneously. better than swing role.
I would like to question yoru wisdom here,
True CAS requires aircrafts with:
-slow speed with excellent handling at sea-level altitudes
WHY DOES PLANE HAVE TO BE SLOW? OR FLY VERY LOW, WHAT IF THE PLANE CAN COMPLETE ITS MISSION EVEN FROM HIGHER LEVEL
-rugged
RUGGED FOR WHAT? WHAT IF IT CAN COMPLETE THE MISSION FROM WELL OUT OF THE RANGE OF MANPADS AND SRSAMS?
-inexpensive
THATS A GOOD QUALITY, WOULD 35 MILLION BE EXPENSIVE? SPECIALLY IF IT CAN MANAGE MULTI ROLES AND NOT REQUIRE ANY SORT OF FIGHTER COVER?
-heavily armored
NOT NEEDED IF ITS NOT GOING TO FLY WITHIN RANGE OF 12.7 MM GUNS OR MANPADS
-highly survivable design
NOT NEEDED EITHER, AS IT WILL STAY OUT OF RANGE OF ENEMY DEFENCES
-massive firepower & payload
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT QUALITY AND EXPLAINED.
-easy to maintain and easily replaceable spares and parts
EXELLENT QUALITY.
-with 5-6 hours battlefield loiter time (extended with external tanks, air-to-air refueling)
I WOULD GO FOR 2-3 HOURS LOITER TIME, THE PILOT HAS TO GO FOR A LOO TOO, 2-3 HOURS LOITER TIME, IFR CAPABILITY, NO NEED OF EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS, USE ALL POSSIBLE PYLONS FOR WEAPONS.
CAS should be possibly Army Aviation corps responsibility, and they can take a nice plane with twin engines (better survival) possibly having 8-10 pylons, a good targetting pod, easy and cheap to buy, fly and maintain.
there are planes like Su-34 which are really capable as CAS plane, but I think they are overkill, I mean Su-34 is excellent if Pakistani armoured division is in action, so few of these might just get it over with. But I think i would prefer a plane as described above. Su-34 might conduct the CAS operation but it might still have enough fuel and war load that the pilot might simply have a go on army headquarters in Rawalpindi. Like I said, OVER KILL.
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
Army Aviation Dhruv bringing supplies to far out bases at Siachen ..
tejas warrior
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2015
- Messages
- 1,268
- Likes
- 3,723
Rudra and LCH are different categories choppers.What will happen to Rudras after the induction of LCH..just curious..
LCH is heavily armed chopper like Apache.
Rudra is armed Dhruv which carry troops as well.
So, they fly in combination.. LCH providing cover with heavy Firing and Rudra dropping troops with small firepower.
porky_kicker
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2016
- Messages
- 6,030
- Likes
- 44,621
@Kunal Biswas
i am just curious and want to know if the rudras can carry the same complement of troops same as that of the dhruvs?
wont there be weight penalty due to the weapons ammo and other related sub systems fitted to the rudras thus reducing its passenger count?
i am just curious and want to know if the rudras can carry the same complement of troops same as that of the dhruvs?
wont there be weight penalty due to the weapons ammo and other related sub systems fitted to the rudras thus reducing its passenger count?
Now that we have mastered the light category of helicopter platforms, is there any R&D to have indigenous medium and heavy lift helicopters for use by Army, IAF and Navy. Currently there is huge demand for navel multi role helicopter
..
..
Maj Gen TK Kaul
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2016
- Messages
- 10
- Likes
- 1
Maj Gen TK Kaul: Evangelizing peace through the IPSI
The India Pakistan Soldiers Initiative for Peace (IPSI) was founded by the late Padma Vibhushan awardee, Gandhian and social activist Miss Nirmala Deshpande, with the aim of promulgating peace between India and Pakistan.
The IPSI constitutes retired defense personnel of India and Pakistan, championing the cause of peace, disengagement and rapprochement through events, seminars and dialogues with senior country leaders at key discussions and talks in both countries. Taking laudable steps in urging both sides to get over the trust deficit and normalize relations. The purpose of the organization is to keep the dialogue process between the two countries alive through people-to-people contacts and meaningful discussions.
These military bigwigs who once bellowed war cries are now vociferously admonishing war and doing the peace chant. Holding the belief that there will be dividends in peaceful coexistence, which will usher in prosperity and empower people of both countries to kick-start a new era of progress.
Post Retirement Maj Gen TK Kaulhas lead innumerable initiatives for the IPSI by being the lead functionary. Mani Shankar Aiyar, former Minister and MP, is the current Chairperson of the IPSI. Lt Gen Moti Dar, the former Vice Chief of Army, is the ongoing President of the IPSI India Chapter and Lt General Mohd Nasir Akhtar is the ongoing President of the IPSI Pakistan Chapter. Maj Gen TK Kaul is the Executive President of the IPSI India Chapter.
The IPSI was briefly hamstrung with the demise of Nirmala Deshpande, but trudged forward in its mission in spite of facing overwhelming odds. It is dedicated members like Gen TK Kaul, who underpin the success of the IPSI.
When India saw a violation of the LOC, and suffered terror attacks, Maj Gen TK Kaul, along with the IPSI chapters in India and Pakistan strongly condemned them while placating both sides. Even though the peace talks in both countries were vitiated by these provocations, the IPSI stayed firm and resolute in its mission, holding its lofty ideals of brotherhood and bonding.
A peace march was organized under the aegis of IPSI India chapter by Maj Gen TK Kaul in Mumbai, which saw representation from the IPSI Pakistan chapter. This march started at Nariman Point and ended at Mani Bhavan, the symbolic residence of the Mahatma.
With the IPSI growing from strength to strength each year, the families of their members from both countries have become close friends. They go across the border when the children of their counterparts get married. What can be a better example demonstrating maturity and brotherhood without boundaries?
The India Pakistan Soldiers Initiative for Peace (IPSI) was founded by the late Padma Vibhushan awardee, Gandhian and social activist Miss Nirmala Deshpande, with the aim of promulgating peace between India and Pakistan.
The IPSI constitutes retired defense personnel of India and Pakistan, championing the cause of peace, disengagement and rapprochement through events, seminars and dialogues with senior country leaders at key discussions and talks in both countries. Taking laudable steps in urging both sides to get over the trust deficit and normalize relations. The purpose of the organization is to keep the dialogue process between the two countries alive through people-to-people contacts and meaningful discussions.
These military bigwigs who once bellowed war cries are now vociferously admonishing war and doing the peace chant. Holding the belief that there will be dividends in peaceful coexistence, which will usher in prosperity and empower people of both countries to kick-start a new era of progress.
Post Retirement Maj Gen TK Kaulhas lead innumerable initiatives for the IPSI by being the lead functionary. Mani Shankar Aiyar, former Minister and MP, is the current Chairperson of the IPSI. Lt Gen Moti Dar, the former Vice Chief of Army, is the ongoing President of the IPSI India Chapter and Lt General Mohd Nasir Akhtar is the ongoing President of the IPSI Pakistan Chapter. Maj Gen TK Kaul is the Executive President of the IPSI India Chapter.
The IPSI was briefly hamstrung with the demise of Nirmala Deshpande, but trudged forward in its mission in spite of facing overwhelming odds. It is dedicated members like Gen TK Kaul, who underpin the success of the IPSI.
When India saw a violation of the LOC, and suffered terror attacks, Maj Gen TK Kaul, along with the IPSI chapters in India and Pakistan strongly condemned them while placating both sides. Even though the peace talks in both countries were vitiated by these provocations, the IPSI stayed firm and resolute in its mission, holding its lofty ideals of brotherhood and bonding.
A peace march was organized under the aegis of IPSI India chapter by Maj Gen TK Kaul in Mumbai, which saw representation from the IPSI Pakistan chapter. This march started at Nariman Point and ended at Mani Bhavan, the symbolic residence of the Mahatma.
With the IPSI growing from strength to strength each year, the families of their members from both countries have become close friends. They go across the border when the children of their counterparts get married. What can be a better example demonstrating maturity and brotherhood without boundaries?
http://defence-blog.com/news/us-army-develops-new-engine-for-black-hawk-and-apache-helicopters.html
The US Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center’s Aviation Development Directorate (ADD) is developing a new military helicopter engine that would provide 50% more power at the same weight as the currently fielded engine.
According to Army Tech, the advanced affordable turbine engine (AATE) demonstrator program aims to develop a turboshaft engine with reduced fuel consumption and improved shaft horsepower.
This engine configuration can be fitted into the Black Hawk and Apache installation envelopes, which are also in service in the IAF, as well as current and Future Vertical Lift rotorcraft.
It is said to improve range and payload capability and increase hot and high operational capability for Apache and Black Hawk platforms.
Two cost share arrangements for the engines have been awarded to General Electric and Advanced Turbine Engine Company, a joint venture of Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney.
The AATE program culminated in 2014 with the completion of full engine system demonstrations, which included performance, durability, and sand tests.
The demonstrations significantly mitigated the risks involved with transitioning advanced turboshaft engine technology to a planned program of record, known as the Improved Turbine Engine Program, the US Army said in a statement.
The US Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center’s Aviation Development Directorate (ADD) is developing a new military helicopter engine that would provide 50% more power at the same weight as the currently fielded engine.
According to Army Tech, the advanced affordable turbine engine (AATE) demonstrator program aims to develop a turboshaft engine with reduced fuel consumption and improved shaft horsepower.
This engine configuration can be fitted into the Black Hawk and Apache installation envelopes, which are also in service in the IAF, as well as current and Future Vertical Lift rotorcraft.
It is said to improve range and payload capability and increase hot and high operational capability for Apache and Black Hawk platforms.
Two cost share arrangements for the engines have been awarded to General Electric and Advanced Turbine Engine Company, a joint venture of Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney.
The AATE program culminated in 2014 with the completion of full engine system demonstrations, which included performance, durability, and sand tests.
The demonstrations significantly mitigated the risks involved with transitioning advanced turboshaft engine technology to a planned program of record, known as the Improved Turbine Engine Program, the US Army said in a statement.
indiandefencefan
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2015
- Messages
- 437
- Likes
- 345
They colour them according to the terrain in which the Dhruvs are deployed I think.
Someone please correct me if i'm wrong.
