Indian Navy Invites Bids for Light Utility Helicopters

[sasi]

But that's not what they want! The Indian forces shouldn't be forced to adjust their requirements to what Indian industries have produced to date- they set the requirements, Indian industery meets it- that is how it should be and is around the world.

The IN isn't after a medium-lift helo like the ALH but a N-LUH to replace the Chetak

That is ok. But I don't know,why they sent rfp to hal? I think hal already said no if my memory serves me right!

 

[Abingdonboy]

Does any country use Bell 429 or similar helicopter with 12.7 guns and in a limited ASW role?

PAA tried to fit a machine gun on a Bell 206 Jet Ranger (similar to Bell 429), but that didn't go quite well. There were alot of vibrations and stability issues. I don't think the 429 is alot different from the Jet Ranger.

The only international military customer for the BELL 429 to date has been the Aussie Navy. I'm not 100% sure what they're using the bird for. I can't see there being too many issues in mounting a pintle-mounted MG on one of the sides. This is in the RFP so to get the contract the OEMs have to prove they can fulfil such criteria with no issues. As such Bell will do what they need to to get this fitted and proven. I can't speak for the PAA's experiences but all I will say is that in this case the OEM will be working on their own helo to ensure this capability is present, in the PAA's case maybe they ran into difficulties as they were attempting to apply after-market modifications?

But I don't think Chetak has hydraulic operated folding wings.

Of course it doesn't! It is, what, a 40+ year old design? The IN is after contemporary tech so naturally the specs will be vastly improved over the current Chetaks.

 

[Abingdonboy]

That is ok. But I don't know,why they sent rfp to hal? I think hal already said no if my memory serves me right!

My understanding is that the RFP wasn't sent to HAL as bids were meant to be submitted by March 2013. HAL has somehow got the the IN to extend this deadline by 3 months so they can enter their own bid for the navalised version of their,yet untested, LUH.


@sancho my understanding is that this N-LUH is going to be the primary aviation asset for many smaller IN ships such as the NOPVs and thus the ALH is just not appropriate with a MTOW greater than the IN desires as well as being larger. Space on the smaller IN ships is at a premium so this is an important factor that rules out the ALH. Yes the N-LUH will also serve on larger ships such as ACCs and LHD/LPD but that is not going to be their primary role. It's not all a scam or a failing by the IN.


I do agree though that the IN should have entered into the HAL LUH project with the IA and IAF and I'm a little confused as to why they didn't but I'm sure there are valid reasons.

 

[Manindra]

Of course it doesn't! It is, what, a 40+ year old design? The IN is after contemporary tech so naturally the specs will be vastly improved over the current Chetaks.

But they demand hydraulic assisted folding wings necessary in NALH and without this they can't consider it in utility role & use a 40 year old rotorcraft .

 

[Abingdonboy]

But they demand hydraulic assisted folding wings necessary in NALH and without this they can't consider it in utility role & use a 40 year old rotorcraft .

Dude its the norm for you to ask for MORE from NEW purchases. Whilst you accept the current situation it doesn't mean you won't ask for better when it comes to purchasing replacements. The N-LUH will also come with a full-glass cockpit but right now the IN is making do with a mostly analogue one on the Chetak so does that mean the IN should ask for a analogue cockpit on the N-LUH?

Same goes for FLIR, autopilot, FBW etc etc which are all not present on the Chetak but are asked for on the N-LUH.

 

[Foo_Fighter]

A delay is a delay mate!

that had nothing to do with the navy ensuring the proposing and getting the deal signed. the navy is not responsible for the delays by a third party , the shipyards.

 

[sancho]

@sancho my understanding is that this N-LUH is going to be the primary aviation asset for many smaller IN ships such as the NOPVs and thus the ALH is just not appropriate with a MTOW greater than the IN desires as well as being larger. Space on the smaller IN ships is at a premium so this is an important factor that rules out the ALH.

Only because Dhruv could carry a 1T more than actually required, doesn't rule it out, because that's not an emptyweight limitation and the Dhruv don't have to be used with it's MTOW anyway:

Emptyweight comparison:

Bell 429 - 2,035 kg (standard comercial version)
Eurocopter Panter - 2,380 kg
Dhruv - 2,502 kg
Sikorsky S-76 - 3,177 kg
AW 159 - 3,291 kg
AW139 - 3,622 kg

As you can see, the naval Dhruv definitely is not to heavy and the only limitation is possibly the automatic folding issue.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Only because Dhruv could carry a 1T more than actually required, doesn't rule it out, because that's not an emptyweight limitation and the Dhruv don't have to be used with it's MTOW anyway:

Emptyweight comparison:

Bell 429 - 2,035 kg (standard comercial version)
Eurocopter Panter - 2,380 kg
Dhruv - 2,502 kg
Sikorsky S-76 - 3,177 kg
AW 159 - 3,291 kg
AW139 - 3,622 kg

As you can see, the naval Dhruv definitely is not to heavy and the only limitation is possibly the automatic folding issue.

Isnt that because of the hingeless rotor design of the main rotor that cannot accommodate the automatic hydraulic folding system?

 

[sancho]

Isnt that because of the hingeless rotor design of the main rotor that cannot accommodate the automatic hydraulic folding system?

Not sure about that, but then again it's not that difficult to get another rotor for the naval version (IN, ICG), even if it has to be from a foreign manufacturer, but that's still better then selecting a complete foreign helicopter, in the same class of Dhruvs.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Isnt that because of the hingeless rotor design of the main rotor that cannot accommodate the automatic hydraulic folding system?

Not sure about that, but then again it's not that difficult to get another rotor for the naval version (IN, ICG), even if it has to be from a foreign manufacturer, but that's still better then selecting a complete foreign helicopter, in the same class of Dhruvs.

I wonder then, will the N-LUH be able to fold its rotors hydraulically given its rotor/gearbox design is heavily influenced by the ALH?

 

[sancho]

I wonder then, will the N-LUH be able to fold its rotors hydraulically given its rotor/gearbox design is heavily influenced by the ALH?

Do you mean the one HAL develops? That is meant for IA and IAF only, just like the Fennec/Ka 226. IN didn't gave orders for it yet, let alone for this class, which is why they take Dhruv class helicopters as their basic LUH, while IA and IAF also use single engine once like the Cheetah helicopters.

 

[Jango]

The only international military customer for the BELL 429 to date has been the Aussie Navy. I'm not 100% sure what they're using the bird for. I can't see there being too many issues in mounting a pintle-mounted MG on one of the sides. This is in the RFP so to get the contract the OEMs have to prove they can fulfil such criteria with no issues. As such Bell will do what they need to to get this fitted and proven. I can't speak for the PAA's experiences but all I will say is that in this case the OEM will be working on their own helo to ensure this capability is present, in the PAA's case maybe they ran into difficulties as they were attempting to apply after-market modifications?

The Aussies use it for training purposes.