will be appropriate to say that LCH lacks in armament??or is it better in armament??
Shiv, One question.The list shows LCH has two engines having power 871 kW per each. While EC665 Tiger has two engines having power 873 kW per each. So among the attack helicos, LCH engines are the second lowest powerful.What is most striking is the speed of LCH. Even though the weight is the lowest for LCH, the speed is again the second lowest. For attack helicos, speed is one factor which influence the safety of the helicopter pilot in case of a missile attack.Is there any possibility to enhance the speed of LCH?
I don't understand the fixation to 'light this' and 'light that'.
LCH is a tradoff between armaments and high altitude operations. LCH has the highest service ceiling and one of the highest range. THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE FIRMED based on India's experience during the Kargil war.
lch should be compared to the mangusta only, most of the others are medium-heavy to heavy attack choppers, u can see the huge shaft output difference.
lch has least max speed!!
lch cud hav used more powerful powerplant
how stealthy is lch compaed 2 other helos
Thks Shiv, its a good article very informative, but how come not comparison with the attack helicopter being built by Pakistan in collaboration with china??? the Porkys will be so annoyed no comment about their attack copter
Many of those LCH parameters are based on it's weight staying low. Any news on that front?Thanks.
Shiv,Can you include nuclear engineering news in your defence blog?Here is a related news -BEIJING, July 21 (Xinhua) -- Chinese scientists have succeeded in testing the country's first experimental fourth generation nuclear reactor, an expert said here on Wednesday.The successful start up of the China Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR) marked a breakthrough in China's fourth generation nuclear technology, and made China the eighth country in the world to own the technology, Zhang Donghui, general manager of the CEFR project, told Xinhua over phone.China's existing 11 nuclear power generating units all use second generation of nuclear power generation technology. The country started the construction of its first third-generation pressurized water reactors using AP1000 technologies developed by U.S.-based Westinghouse in 2009.Compared with the third generation reactors which have an utility rate of uranium of just one percent, CEFR boasts an utility rate of more than 60 percent.A new recycling technology called pyroprocessing is also used to close the fuel cycle by separating the unused fuel from most of the radioactive waste."The CEFR is safer, more environment-friendly, and more economic than its predecessors," Zhang said.
As a maiden inititiative from HAL, LCH seems to look fine from my perspective. But a lot to be explored regarding the capabilities of this attack helicopter and hope it proves its worthiness in the days to come.
Light and cheap but menacing...
shiv do you know if the Ka-52 is in the bid for supplying 22 choppers to IAF.thxss
DRDO LCH has kept first baby steps in combat , others are matured in manufacturing may be next version will be more powerful .As per other vendors comparison on prices with better tech KA-52 is much better than US/western .
AH-64 is very expensive to operate. Please look at experience of Japan with Apache before jumping in. Japan cancelled further purchases of AH-64 after finding operating costs very high. If a rich country like Japan finds it expensive then how on earth are we going to find it cheaper to operate ?
Technology bans by the u.s is the main hurdle in our way of aquiring new technology.something has to be done about this.if americans dont wanna do TOT wid us then we should look elsewhere like south korea!!somebody checked their highly advanced assault rifle wid thermal,night vision sensors?
Shiv, There is a minor error in your post in the engine part. The engine you have mentioned is a former variant of Shakti. TM333 2C2 falls under 900 Kw region with 1200 shp, while the Shakti(Ardiden 1H1) is a 1000Kw range engine with 1400 shp. I don't know why all the reports and the HAL brochures are still showing the faulty information.Here is the official link :http://www.turbomeca.fr/public/turbomeca_v2/html/en/produits/sous_famille_home.php?sfid=506&mid=615
a very wide range of weights on display....apt to compare them|?|
Agility at very low altitudes and capabilities of operations at high altitudes may be the distinct advantages of LCH.
Get used to it boys....LCH will be just like LCA and the Arjun. A pipe dream that when prodcued shows real indian quality even when almost everything of note on the machine is imported. Infact you can say that india is bad at assembling. It will also be ridiculed by the forces as with the other 'indian' products. Have you boys been following the Farnbrough airshow and seen the quality of JF? Can you imagine in 10 years how many countries will be operating it?
MPatel said...Good to be a skeptic , but balance it with useful data and be rational with good and bad.How good is it be just skeptical!So what information do you have on the Chinese JF 17 quality ( you should also know the experience of China in the filed and what they fielded and where they faultered and how did they build their industry).Get used to contributing positively and lets see what your next generation will contribute, any better.
The fact is owing to decades of socialism(why do we have MNCs in telecom, IT and pharma but not defence? Because our government doesn't allow private defence firms), bad funding and mismanagement of assets our defence industry is on a far lower level than China in terms of quality as well as quantity. The only way we can compete is to capitalise on our access to Western tech(which the Chinese don't have due to European arms embrago).
To everyone who's a little disappointed about the max speed being low, etc, there is something that needs to be understood here... Unlike the other helos whose max altitude is only rated at numbers around the 6000m mark, they will certainly be unable to perform any proper ops at altitudes over 5000m. at 6000m, they'd barely be able to hover (in a completely clear area, not mountainous) with no load at all, and not even full fuel. That wouldn't be a lethal machine, it'd be a toothless, vulnerable tin pot and a sitting duck for attacks.However, 5000 m is going to be pretty much the MINIMUM altitude which the LCH would need to operate in. Not only would it need to be maneuverable at 6000+ m but it'd need to be able to do that with useful loads. Thus, while the max altitude might be about the same, the LCH performance at altitude would degrade far more slowly than the others, and it'd have the same performance as the other helos at altitudes that are 1000 m higher.This comes at a cost though. At such high altitudes, extra lift is essential, and this need for lift comes at the cost of top speed. Basically, a good hovering platform wouldn't be fast, and a fast helo wouldnt have a great hovering capability. In the LCH, hover is far more important and hence, the trade off is ok.However, I dont think those high speeds would be required or possible in the mountainous terrain, especially when there is barely any maneuvering space in those mountains. What is critical there is stability and quick response, which will only be possible with oodles of extra power and sufficient lift, both of which the LCH will have. I daresay if we put all of these helos in a combat sortie at 5800m, very few of them will come back alive, and only one or two might actually be able to complete the mission. But the LCH will definitely be able to do it.
@Sniperz - Well said sir i was about to say the same thing about the aerodynamics. Each helicopter is made for unique parameters. India has a varied landscape and as such with the himalayas in the north the LCH will be the best suited for the environement. I do not see how any of the other choppers would come close to operating at such high altitude.
LCH is a good. Its uniqueness could be how its has optimised performances and gear for Indian needs. It remains to be seen how well engineered it is interms of maintenance and service life. To decide all else we have the 22 attack helo tender: US maal is definately tech-heavy & awesome, a bit like premium-braded pants.Gautum agreed. Non-socialism gets people to long, work and compete for better things in life. Its seems most people are happy that way. HAL also wants better things (X3 income) by spending (++R&D). It needs likeminded (result-oriented, talented, hard-working) managers and technicians to grow the company.
Folks ,Why compare at this moment ? LCH is a prototype without any possibility of its becoming available in next two or three years. The threat to us is now and I am surprised why the LCH figures anywhere in the game . We need at least 75 to 100 attack helos for our troops in the plains and mountains. Mi 35 is on its last legs even with upgrades . So it would be advisable to to go in for Managusta or Mi 28N in adequate quantities - Apache with due respect is too American and comes with strings attached . Meanwhile HAL should start setting up production facilities to produce the LCH in good numbers when the IOC is obtained .
LCH has good parameters for the high-altitude conditions in which it is to operate. However in return for that it has to sacrifice performance compared to other helos of its class.Therefore while the Armed Forces should fully support LCH it would be best for them to also choose a second, more capable attack helicopter for operations in lower altitudes like the forests in North-east, Rajasthan etc. A hi-lo mix of 50 foreign helos and 100 ALH would be best I think.
LCH is being developed according to the specific requirements of IAF at high altitudes.- Should be light in weight- Should have better load carrying capacity (LCH is lagging here a little bit). I think smaller engines could be responsible for this.- Attack capabilities with better armour protection.LCH can not fulfill all requirements in one go. It is built for a specific purpose.
As in name LCH means alight combat helicopter, but the above comparsion of lch is with most powerful attack helicopters on globe. So, we should be proud that LCH can handle down other kind of helicopters in combat mode.
The comparsion is with the most sophisticated attack helicopters on globe. So, it is great to have LCH in IAF and ARMY.
FIY no copter can outrun any missile,it can only use flares.speed is just for escaping bulletsthat is not a good suite for choppers.
why havent u included the chinese WZ-10 attack helicopters that were designed for them by Kamov . These helis looks more sexier and powerful than Apaches
I think the reason why LCH came into existence was because Mi-35's were completely useless in the High Altitude warfare of Kargil. IAF realised that in future if a war was to take place with china then operating at high altitude and taking out enemy positions would be the basis of such a war, so the LCH was kept light and may be a bit slow but was given high ceiling.
SPecs wise and performance wise ka 52 are better than apache but it lacks the avionics and the KHbr missiles are nowhere when compared with Hellfire. India's version of helina missiles are quite good and better than Khbr missiles of Russia and are supposed to be fitted in the LCH. If the trials are successful then Lch will be lethal and perform comparable to apache at 5000m at heights of 6500m.
The main advantage is agility, which is useful against missile attack. India have Mil mi-28, a great attack chopper, but its huge size is disadvantage against attack. IAF suffers lose to mi-28 in kargil war, which rise to the plan to develop LAH.
Post a Comment