RFP For Naval Utility Helicopters Issued Today After Chief's Presser

[alok mishra]

Today soon after the farewell press conference of the Naval Chief the RFP for 56 naval light utility helicopters to replace the existing Chetaks in service, a deal worth Rs 7000 crore, was issued. These light utility helicopters will be twin-engined of modern airframe design and fully integrated advanced avionics to replace the aging fleet of Chetak helicopters, which were inducted about 30-35 years ago. Being able to operate both during day and night, the helicopters will also have the capability to operate in adverse weather conditions, both from shore and off-shore and from small decks and larger decks, like that of an aircraft carrier.

Chindits: *BREAKING* : RFP For Naval Utility Helicopters Issued Today After Chief's Presser !!!

 

[sancho]

A shame that they don't just order the winner of IA/IAF LUH competition to reduce costs and commonality.

 

[Abingdonboy]

A shame that they don't just order the winner of IA/IAF LUH competition to reduce costs and commonality.

To be fair I think that it is appropriate in this instance to have had the IN LUH procurment seperated from the IAF/IA now if the IA and IAF procurment for LUHs had been seperated that would have been stupid. The IN has very different requirements and demands on a naval LUH that differ dramtically to the IAF/IA and hence any platform they eventually get will be different enough to merit a seperate tender. In the same sense that it could actually have added to costs or delays if the IN requirement was merged with the IAF/IAs as the IN would have demanded certain equipment or features not needed by IAF/IA and would have required their LUH to be able to be able to do certain things not required by IAF/IA such as landing and operating on naval ships, it would be utterly ridiculous to have a LUH configured and designed to operate as a naval helo to be operated by the IAF/IA in deserts or in mountiains. Similarly it would be silly to have a helo optimised to operate in said conditions operateing in a maritime enviroment where the requirements are very different. I have heard some say the IN should simiply buy the naval varient of the Fennec given this is almost certain to win the IAF/IA comptetion. However any platfomr entering service with the Indian forces should be slecected on merit alone and not because a land varient,say, may have won a compition for the IAF/IA. The IN FAR has seperated itself enough from the IAF and IA wrt training, maintenance and logistcs that it can and should be allowed to get their own helos based on merit and not because of what other services have. For instance the IN operates the Sea King and in the future S-70B which aren't in servce anywhere else in the military so are quite able to look after itself.


I feel the way these deals have progressed are the only logical way they could have if you really think about it.

 

[sancho]

The IN has very different requirements and demands on a naval LUH that differ dramtically to the IAF/IA and hence any platform they eventually get will be different enough to merit a seperate tender.

Buddy, you do know that IN is replacing the same Chetak that IA and IAF are replacing as well right? The only difference is that INs versions are suited for naval operations, so slightly modified if at all.
It's simply stupid that MoD didn't forced IN to add some dedicated trials of the LUH contendors when they were in India anyway, to see if the shortlisted contenders would be suitable. If yes, which is pretty likely especially for the Fennec, simple additional orders would be the best thing to do.

- no sending out of RFI and RFP
- no time wasting on evalutaing these and asking mainly the same manufaturers to come to India again to do trials
- no waste of money because lower numbers means higher unit costs
- no cost reduction and industrial benefit through producing them on the same licence prouction line in India as IA and IAF
- no time wasting on additional cost negotiations and final decisions

We always complain about the slow procurements for Indian forces and this is a typle reason why, because we don't combine deals with common requirements. Same goes for the light transport aircraft requirements of IAF and BSF, with similar versions required for MP of ICG and IN, or with the amphibious aircraft requirement of ICG, IN and IAF.

I could have understand it if, IN and ICG says we wait for HAL LUH, especially because these forces has lower numbers of helicopters to replace. But starting 2 different competitions (IN and ICG) although we could go for the same platform again for all 4 forces like we did with Chetak is completely irrational!

IA

IAF

IN

ICG

 

[Joe Shearer]

Buddy, you do know that IN is replacing the same Chetak that IA and IAF are replacing as well right? The only difference is that INs versions are suited for naval operations, so slightly modified if at all.
It's simply stupid that MoD didn't forced IN to add some dedicated trials of the LUH contendors when they were in India anyway, to see if the shortlisted contenders would be suitable. If yes, which is pretty likely especially for the Fennec, simple additional orders would be the best thing to do.

- no sending out of RFI and RFP
- no time wasting on evalutaing these and asking mainly the same manufaturers to come to India again to do trials
- no waste of money because lower numbers means higher unit costs
- no cost reduction and industrial benefit through producing them on the same licence prouction line in India as IA and IAF
- no time wasting on additional cost negotiations and final decisions

We always complain about the slow procurements for Indian forces and this is a typle reason why, because we don't combine deals with common requirements. Same goes for the light transport aircraft requirements of IAF and BSF, with similar versions required for MP of ICG and IN, or with the amphibious aircraft requirement of ICG, IN and IAF.

I could have understand it if, IN and ICG says we wait for HAL LUH, especially because these forces has lower numbers of helicopters to replace. But starting 2 different competitions (IN and ICG) although we could go for the same platform again for all 4 forces like we did with Chetak is completely irrational!

Your objection to the IN asking for separation of their requirements because the helicopter to be replaced was after all a common one was a little harsh. The requirements when these aircraft were taken into service, in terms of volumes carried, frequency of trips, availability of number of naval platforms for helicopter operations, to name just a few, were radically different twenty years ago. it is a different matter that the requirements of the navy might be met by the naval version of the Fennec. That a naval version is available, on a helicopter that is close to the requirement of the IA/IAF, is happy coincidence. It has nothing to do with the fact that the replaced machine was a common one.

 

[Killswitch]

Hopefully light utility copters will be inducted with the option of weaponization.


That way the navy can use the choppers against terrorists and pirates, and even use them for harassing targets on shore.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Hopefully light utility copters will be inducted with the option of weaponization.


That way the navy can use the choppers against terrorists and pirates, and even use them for harassing targets on shore.

Do you mean, as a separate matter?

These roles are two different ones. The issue relating to anti-terrorist/anti-piracy operations is the platform. Is it justified to put destroyers and frigates or even corvettes to anti-piracy duties? Is that not overkill? The role needs a high-endurance, high-speed, semi-displacement hull form, capable of switching from loiter mode to high-speed mode at short notice, only light weapon complement but excellent surface shipping sensors, meaning radar, effectively. If it has to carry rotary wing aircraft, add another 10' minimum, 20' being more likely, to hull length. We are left looking at some kind of long range patrol vessel, or the kind of fishery support vessels called offshore patrol vessels.

The requirement of strafing land-based forces sounds a little futuristic. Where do we have a COIN role in coastal areas, unless you expect Chicacole to fall to the Maoists? If the thinking is geared towards supporting amphibious landings, that requirement awaits the creation of a serious amphibious assault capability. It may also need the firepower and the protection of an attack helicopter, considering the nature of armed opposition to an amphibious landing.

 

[cloud_9]

Hopefully light utility copters will be inducted with the option of weaponization.

From the NLUH RFI

 

[Abingdonboy]

Hopefully light utility copters will be inducted with the option of weaponization.


That way the navy can use the choppers against terrorists and pirates, and even use them for harassing targets on shore.

As is IN Chetaks (what N-LUH is intended to replace) are armed with mounted MMGs and operated by the crewman in out of the side of the helo. IIRC IN Chetaks also have a limited ASW cabilities with the ability to drop light torpedos. And as cloud_9 pointed out IN does ask for the capability to arm the LUH.

 

[sancho]

Your objection to the IN asking for separation of their requirements because the helicopter to be replaced was after all a common one was a little harsh. The requirements when these aircraft were taken into service, in terms of volumes carried, frequency of trips, availability of number of naval platforms for helicopter operations, to name just a few, were radically different twenty years ago. it is a different matter that the requirements of the navy might be met by the naval version of the Fennec. That a naval version is available, on a helicopter that is close to the requirement of the IA/IAF, is happy coincidence. It has nothing to do with the fact that the replaced machine was a common one.

It's not when the requirement is the same, because the Fennec in IN will not be used for ASW or or other specialised roles, that's what they want to do with NH90s or S70. We are talking purely on utility roles, mainly at their naval bases, with the extention to transport certan cargo to vessels at sea in close distance. Remember, IN didn't went for naval Dhruv in this regard, because they want a smaller more cost-effective to operate helicopter. And the simple fact that a lot time and money could have been saved, by holding additional trials with these LUHs at naval bases while they are in India for IA/IAF trials, is my main criticism! It's not like there would be completely new LUHs that now will be offered to IN right? Fennec will be one, with the long history in IN Kamov will be there for sure too and Agusta Westland was part of the initial bid with the AW109/119 which Tata is producing no in India.
And as I said, it's not IN alone, it's the behaviour of all forces to field dedicated procurements for the same requirements. Why did IA went with the Maitri SAM co-development and IAF for Spyder SAM procurement, why does IA evaluates PARS 3 ATGMs for Rudra, when IAF thinks about Spike or Hellfire? The list goes on and on and that's simply not effective!

 

[Abingdonboy]

It's not when the requirement is the same, because the Fennec in IN will not be used for ASW or or other specialised roles, that's what they want to do with NH90s or S70. We are talking purely on utility roles, mainly at their naval bases, with the extention to transport certan cargo to vessels at sea in close distance. Remember, IN didn't went for naval Dhruv in this regard, because they want a smaller more cost-effective to operate helicopter. And the simple fact that a lot time and money could have been saved, by holding additional trials with these LUHs at naval bases while they are in India for IA/IAF trials, is my main criticism! It's not like there would be completely new LUHs that now will be offered to IN right? Fennec will be one, with the long history in IN Kamov will be there for sure too and Agusta Westland was part of the initial bid with the AW109/119 which Tata is producing no in India.
And as I said, it's not IN alone, it's the behaviour of all forces to field dedicated procurements for the same requirements. Why did IA went with the Maitri SAM co-development and IAF for Spyder SAM procurement, why does IA evaluates PARS 3 ATGMs for Rudra, when IAF thinks about Spike or Hellfire? The list goes on and on and that's simply not effective!

If you look at the RFP posted by cloud_9 you will see that the IN's requirment is for a limited ASW/anti-surface capability. And these will be posted on ships in some cases like LHD/LPD and ACCs and maybe some of the larger ships with more than 1 hanger.




+sancho since when are you a "professional" brother?

 

[sancho]

As is IN Chetaks (what N-LUH is intended to replace) are armed with mounted MMGs and operated by the crewman in out of the side of the helo. IIRC IN Chetaks also have a limited ASW cabilities with the ability to drop light torpedos. And as cloud_9 pointed out IN does ask for the capability to arm the LUH.

Arming them with smaller weapons is not a big issue, even the Fennec for IA/IAF was presented with them, but it's just a good to have capability, not a necessity because neither will IA/IAF use LUHs for any combat role, nor will IN use them for ASW, or anti piracy roles, since they all have bigger and more suitable helicopters for that. For IN the lower range of naval Dhruv compared to NH90 or S70 were even one reason to reject it, why should they use LUHs then?

And these will be posted on ships in some cases like LHD/LPD and ACCs and maybe some of the larger ships with more than 1 hanger.

No, again because they have too limited lift and range capabilities as they are too light. LHD/LDPs normally uses Sea King, Sea Hawk class helis, while Dhruv class helis will be used for lighter utility roles if at all.

+sancho since when are you a "professional" brother?

I am surprised as well, wasn't online yesterday and don't know where that came from.

 

[Abingdonboy]

No, again because they have too limited lift and range capabilities as they are too light. LHD/LDPs normally uses Sea King, Sea Hawk class helis, while Dhruv class helis will be used for lighter utility roles if at all.



I am surprised as well, wasn't online yesterday and don't know where that came from.

Well considering that the N-LUHs are to replace IN Chetaks then I'd assume some N-LUHs would be used on ships but like I saiad most likely the larger ones. As right now the IN operates Chetaks on ACCs and the larger ships such as destroyers alongside SeaKings. I belive on ACC Chetak is used purely in the SAR role and on Destroyers anf Frigates it is to be used as a fire support platform for IN VBSS teams operating in Gulf of Aden.

+ lol!!!!!!!

 

[sancho]

Btw:

AW109
AW109 LUH | AgustaWestland

EC Fennec
Military helicopter, fennec helicopter - Eurocopter helicopters - Eurocopter, an EADS company

Bell Oh 58 (based on the 206 which was offered in LUH)
The OH-58D

None of them mentions torpedos as part of their Armament!

Well considering that the N-LUHs are to replace IN Chetaks then I'd assume some N-LUHs would be used on ships but like I saiad most likely the larger ones. As right now the IN operates Chetaks on ACCs and the larger ships such as destroyers alongside SeaKings. I belive on ACC Chetak is used purely in the SAR role and on Destroyers anf Frigates it is to be used as a fire support platform for IN VBSS teams operating in Gulf of Aden.

+ lol!!!!!!!

Exactly, but in the utility role only. Be it SAR or ASW, you need helicopters with credible range and firepower, both clearly speaks agains an LUH, if at all you take helis like Dhruv, the Lynx or something comparable, if not something far bigger (NH90, S70, Ka 28, AW 101, S92).