I am not keen on any US engine with chances that Democrats will take WH/Senate/house.
Unlikely for HAL to choose any other engine than a European solution.
There are two options I can think of. One is the Rolls Royce-Safran RTM322 and another is Safran's Makila series. But both are quite old.
Apart from that, there might be a JV to develop the IMRH's engine with Safran or it's also possible HAL may ride on the potential success of the HTSE-1200 to develop a 1800KW version, although I think this is on a much longer term.
Another option is to go for the lower end version of Safran's Aneto. At 1900KW, or even 2000KW, it may provide additional lift. So, of all the engines available, my money's on the Aneto, either a modification of it or a JV based on its design. This engine will also allow us to scale up to larger transport and attack helicopters quite quickly.
Anyway, when it comes to the American leadership, we have bipartisan support, so Dem or Rep is not going to matter at all for dual use systems like helicopter engines. Also, with our current level of relations, I don't think it's a serious problem even for fighter jet engines, like the F404 and F414 for LCA and MWF. Only complete systems for orders will face problems, like the Predator C and Triton drones.
HAL chairman provides updates on key helicopter programs
HAL chairman and managing director R. Madhavan has provided key updates into ongoing Indian helicopter programs, including HAL’s participation in India’s Naval Utility Helicopter (NUH) program.
www.verticalmag.com
Is this going in the ALH way again?
Ten years down the line, Navy would be operating 1/4 of the required medium helicopters numbers. After multiple canceled tenders they have again selected the same MH-60 for a bigger order. IMRH has just cleared for production for the airforce.
Now, the HAL representative will come up and say. 'IMRH was never designed to operate from ships, but give us an indefinite time to repurpose it to naval use'
It's is similar to 2017 mock up I am happy that they shelved the mi17 type intakes . It's IR signature is going to be less.Why does it look so different from mockup?
Agree. This one looks better. I don't like the rounded design, that increases RCS. They should've made it a little more angular. Also the exhaust is pointed up, that will reduce IR too. The main rotor seems a little too high, but there is a cover on the rotor hub. The cover will reduce both sound and vibrations, LUH has it too.
Over all pretty good. HAL is going places with helos, if only they had the same success everywhere else.
Now it looks more like LWB version of ALH, which essentially is not a bad thing IMO
There is no date on the picture. Why is everyone assuming this is the final model? It could very well be of the 2017 model which then changed into the one we saw in Aero India 19. Just wait for Aero India 21.
Why does it look so different from mockup?
Looks quite similar to the AI 2019 renders.
HAL is in need of orders for the existing products it has built. LCH - 160 odd, LUH - 200 odd and the 83 Tejas Mk1A. HAL has proved (Indian Navy may not agree) its worth in the Helicopter segment and Tejas. Hence MOD / Government should place orders for these products sooner than later. This will help the morale of the work force to design / build better products in the future. To encourage our defense manufacturers, especially in the Public Sector, the Indian Government should constitute national awards and an objective process / set of parameters for the selection criteria. These awards will also deter talent from leaving Indian shores for better pastures overseas.
HAL chairman provides updates on key helicopter programs
HAL chairman and managing director R. Madhavan has provided key updates into ongoing Indian helicopter programs, including HAL’s participation in India’s Naval Utility Helicopter (NUH) program.
Is this going in the ALH way again?
Ten years down the line, Navy would be operating 1/4 of the required medium helicopters numbers. After multiple canceled tenders they have again selected the same MH-60 for a bigger order. IMRH has just cleared for production for the airforce.
Now, the HAL representative will come up and say. 'IMRH was never designed to operate from ships, but give us an indefinite time to repurpose it to naval use'
That is the game plan. If HAL doesn't make a clean sheet design right from the beginning for naval requirements, then all they have to offer is dreams. HAL is still a long ways away from making a naval helicopter.
ADA is far more realistic. They simply said the AMCA is not suitable for the navy and a new design has to be made from scratch. So take the simpler TEDBF in the meantime and a naval NGF will follow after that.
HAL is more interested in protecting their monopoly. Their entire business model is based on holding the forces hostage until they can deliver. Even after they deliver they take years to actually meet the delivery standards required.
Anything to do with naval aviation requires the developer to be at the peak of the game and HAL is nowhere near that.
The time frame is quite ambitious. But if HAL delays it beyond 2030, then they will end up competing with next gen helicopters.
Incorrect, plans changed last year after estimate of program cost (which was projected to be Rs 8,000 cr). They dropped 11.5 ton navy version now going ahead with 13 ton AF/Army version. In the Q&A he says that extra money will be needed as it's basically new helicopter and they are waiting for IN's response.
It will be not possible to make navy version from this 13 ton version. As he says this design have the biggest rotor diameter, engine spec and other features which goes against navy wishlist. If you try to combine, It would be another ALH in making.
Thus IN is out of this project for now.
No, ADA have the luxury of making different airframes to fit IN and IAF.
It's not about being realistic. It's about money.
That's a good thing. Anyway, it looks like the IN will simply push forward with the NMRH tender. So HAL can straightaway work on a next gen helicopter for the navy instead.
Whatchu talking about? There was a push to combine both requirements, especially from the navy. It was ADA that pointed out it's not possible. This was actually how the TEDBF was born. The situation was the exact opposite to the INMRH.