Hehehe
..............that cake ! Oh that cake ! who came up with this ?
..............that cake ! Oh that cake ! who came up with this ?
A couple of things can be assessed looking at these images...
For starters, the CH-47F(I) variant is a customized version tailored for the IAF requirement. To that effect, the nose section of the 47F(I) is the version designed to accommodate a FLIR sensor underneath (and I would imagine some additional changes/additions inside the nose as well):
As can be seen in the above photo, space has been created for mounting of a FLIR gimbal - although installation of the same is pending. Perhaps the particular sensor hasn't been ordered/delivered yet. More than likely it's going to be an Elbit DCoMPASS (or the locally-made version of the same), as already used on various Indian-operated platforms:
This Chinook nose is the same one as used on the US SOCOM's MH-47G/E as well as the Canadian/British Chinooks (at least the particular versions intended for special operations, therefore requiring the FLIR mount):
The regular CH-47F (with no expressed requirement for a stabilized EO mount) has a different nose, as can be seen on the US Army's latest examples:
Although the British managed to tack on a FLIR pod to a few regular-nosed Chinooks (HC7 I believe they're called in UK) as well, but that appears to be an aftermarket modification rather than a purpose-built Special Operations-focused nose section:
It is unclear as of yet if there will be a split in the IAF fleet of Chinooks between the two nose variations or not (all 4 delivered so far have the SOF-type nose). As we have observed, not all IAF Apache AH-64Es will have the Longbow radar, not all IAF C-130J-30s had refueling probes and actively carry FLIR pods, only the ones earmarked for Special Operations do (although in the case of the SuperHerc the 'plumbing' to accommodate a FLIR mount is present on all birds in the fleet).
With refueling probe & FLIR:
Without:
Coming back to the Chinook, there are also significant changes with regard to the Sensor suite. A visual inspection of the front rotor hub (or "crown") on the top picture of this post compared to the Chinooks operated by US and/or other NATO countries is quite telling. It's not strange or unheard of for the sensor fit to be different for different customers (especially among the Chinook stable), but the most interesting is perhaps the mount carried on the fuel tanks toward the rear, in front of the rear landing gear:
In the absence of any apparent Missile-Approach Warning Systems (MAWS or MWS) on the crown or tailcone (the usual spots for these sensors on American-operated Chinooks, those spaces on the Indian Chinooks seem to be occupied by either some form of active jammer or perhaps an RWR sensor -- the light-colored spots on the lower portions, apparent in the first pic, make it hard to ascertain either way, could be a combined sensor?--, not sure at the moment, perhaps @Arpit can help), I'm led to believe these red-covered electronics on the marked fitment ^^ are in fact the Indian Chinook's MAWS. The selection of a different manufacturer/model may have necessitated the arrangement of a different location for these sensors.
In the event that the optical sensors on the crown are infact the MAWS all right...then it begs the question what the sensors on the fuel tank are - could it be the Grumman AAQ-24 DIRCM?
@randomradio @Ashwin @Abingdonboy @vstol Jockey @Falcon @Milspec @Gautam @BMD
EDIT: Interestingly enough, the crown & tailcone of the Chinook are among the Indian-manufactured components of the helo (although that doesn't include sensors, only the airframe)...
For starters, the CH-47F(I) variant is a customized version tailored for the IAF requirement. To that effect, the nose section of the 47F(I) is the version designed to accommodate a FLIR sensor underneath (and I would imagine some additional changes/additions inside the nose as well):
As can be seen in the above photo, space has been created for mounting of a FLIR gimbal - although installation of the same is pending. Perhaps the particular sensor hasn't been ordered/delivered yet. More than likely it's going to be an Elbit DCoMPASS (or the locally-made version of the same), as already used on various Indian-operated platforms:
This Chinook nose is the same one as used on the US SOCOM's MH-47G/E as well as the Canadian/British Chinooks (at least the particular versions intended for special operations, therefore requiring the FLIR mount):
The regular CH-47F (with no expressed requirement for a stabilized EO mount) has a different nose, as can be seen on the US Army's latest examples:
Although the British managed to tack on a FLIR pod to a few regular-nosed Chinooks (HC7 I believe they're called in UK) as well, but that appears to be an aftermarket modification rather than a purpose-built Special Operations-focused nose section:
It is unclear as of yet if there will be a split in the IAF fleet of Chinooks between the two nose variations or not (all 4 delivered so far have the SOF-type nose). As we have observed, not all IAF Apache AH-64Es will have the Longbow radar, not all IAF C-130J-30s had refueling probes and actively carry FLIR pods, only the ones earmarked for Special Operations do (although in the case of the SuperHerc the 'plumbing' to accommodate a FLIR mount is present on all birds in the fleet).
With refueling probe & FLIR:
Without:
Coming back to the Chinook, there are also significant changes with regard to the Sensor suite. A visual inspection of the front rotor hub (or "crown") on the top picture of this post compared to the Chinooks operated by US and/or other NATO countries is quite telling. It's not strange or unheard of for the sensor fit to be different for different customers (especially among the Chinook stable), but the most interesting is perhaps the mount carried on the fuel tanks toward the rear, in front of the rear landing gear:
In the absence of any apparent Missile-Approach Warning Systems (MAWS or MWS) on the crown or tailcone (the usual spots for these sensors on American-operated Chinooks, those spaces on the Indian Chinooks seem to be occupied by either some form of active jammer or perhaps an RWR sensor -- the light-colored spots on the lower portions, apparent in the first pic, make it hard to ascertain either way, could be a combined sensor?--, not sure at the moment, perhaps @Arpit can help), I'm led to believe these red-covered electronics on the marked fitment ^^ are in fact the Indian Chinook's MAWS. The selection of a different manufacturer/model may have necessitated the arrangement of a different location for these sensors.
In the event that the optical sensors on the crown are infact the MAWS all right...then it begs the question what the sensors on the fuel tank are - could it be the Grumman AAQ-24 DIRCM?
@randomradio @Ashwin @Abingdonboy @vstol Jockey @Falcon @Milspec @Gautam @BMD
EDIT: Interestingly enough, the crown & tailcone of the Chinook are among the Indian-manufactured components of the helo (although that doesn't include sensors, only the airframe)...
Last edited:
Excellent catchA couple of things can be assessed looking at these images...
For starters, the CH-47F(I) variant is a customized version tailored for the IAF requirement. To that effect, the nose section of the 47F(I) is the version designed to accommodate a FLIR sensor underneath (and I would imagine some additional changes/additions inside the nose as well):
View attachment 5469
As can be seen in the above photo, space has been created for mounting of a FLIR gimbal - although installation of the same is pending. Perhaps the particular sensor hasn't been ordered/delivered yet. More than likely it's going to be an Elbit DCoMPASS (or the locally-made version of the same), as already used on various Indian-operated platforms:
This Chinook nose is the same one as used on the US SOCOM's MH-47G/E as well as the Canadian/British Chinooks (at least the particular versions intended for special operations, therefore requiring the FLIR mount):
The regular CH-47F (with no expressed requirement for a stabilized EO mount) has a different nose, as can be seen on the US Army's latest examples:
Although the British managed to tack on a FLIR pod to a few regular-nosed Chinooks (HC7 I believe they're called in UK) as well, but that appears to be an aftermarket modification rather than a purpose-built Special Operations-focused nose section:
It is unclear as of yet if there will be a split in the IAF fleet of Chinooks between the two nose variations or not (all 4 delivered so far have the SOF-type nose). As we have observed, not all IAF Apache AH-64Es will have the Longbow radar, not all IAF C-130J-30s had refueling probes and actively carry FLIR pods, only the ones earmarked for Special Operations do (although in the case of the SuperHerc the 'plumbing' to accommodate a FLIR mount is present on all birds in the fleet).
With refueling probe & FLIR:
Without:
Coming back to the Chinook, there are also significant changes with regard to the Sensor suite. A visual inspection of the front rotor hub (or "crown") on the top picture of this post compared to the Chinooks operated by US and/or other NATO countries is quite telling. It's not strange or unheard of for the sensor fit to be different for different customers (especially among the Chinook stable), but the most interesting is perhaps the mount carried on the fuel tanks toward the rear, in front of the rear landing gear:
View attachment 5470
In the absence of any apparent Missile-Approach Warning Systems (MAWS or MWS) on the crown or tailcone (the usual spots for these sensors on American-operated Chinooks, those spaces on the Indian Chinooks seem to be occupied by either some form of active jammer or perhaps an RWR sensor -- the light-colored spots on the lower portions, apparent in the first pic, make it hard to ascertain either way, could be a combined sensor?--, not sure at the moment, perhaps @Arpit can help), I'm led to believe these red-covered electronics on the marked fitment ^^ are in fact the Indian Chinook's MAWS. The selection of a different manufacturer/model may have necessitated the arrangement of a different location for these sensors.
View attachment 5473
View attachment 5471
In the event that the optical sensors on the crown are infact the MAWS all right...then it begs the question what the sensors on the fuel tank are - could it be the Grumman AAQ-24 DIRCM?
@randomradio @Ashwin @Abingdonboy @vstol Jockey @Falcon @Milspec @Gautam @BMD
EDIT: Interestingly enough, the crown & tailcone of the Chinook are among the Indian-manufactured components of the helo (although that doesn't include sensors, only the airframe)...
View attachment 5474
Other points
- Do we know what armaments will be going on these Frames ie Mounted Guns for Side and rear Ramp Gunners?
- Any reason to why the US markings still on the Frame? - 'N282RN'?
- We do know that the Chinook is capable of mounting a Air to Air Refuel Probe - Would we see the same for IAF's Frames?
Excellent catch
Other points
- Do we know what armaments will be going on these Frames ie Mounted Guns for Side and rear Ramp Gunners?
From what I can recall, over an year ago IAF had expressed an interest in acquiring Heavy Machine Guns (HMG) intended for the Mi-17v-5, and the RFI had required a rate of fire of 3,000rpm or above. Which means the requirement is for a Minigun (or other similar gatling-type guns with very high RPMs).
Have no reason to believe the door gunners on the CH-47F(I)s will be using anything but Miniguns in that case. The tail ramp gunner however, generally uses a normal GPMG/MMG like the M240D/H (FN MAG clone, much like the one OFB makes), with what is known as a 'spade grip":
Will be removed in due course and only the IAF designated alphanumerics (on the tailcone) will remain.
Only the Special Operations-focused MH-47 variant is equipped with an AAR probe. I don't suppose it's impossible to modify a CH-47 with the same, but doing so would require internal re-working of the starboard side fuel tank, among other changes like center of gravity, etc. It's a pretty extensive modification and unless specifically warranted in the future for whatever reason, the IAF CH-47F(I)s will NOT have a mid-air refueling capability. As of now there's no requirement calling for it.
Even then, in order to safely refuel helicopters, a turboprop tanker platform will be necessary, like a KC-130. This is because the slowest safe speeds for a jet (like Il-78MKI or A330) and the highest forward speeds of a helo are pretty incompatible for successful refueling. So unless we buy a few KC-130Js (or convert some existing SuperHercs for a tanker role), it would be pointless to equip the Chinooks with a refueling probe.
There are conversion kits available i think. With those even a C295 can be used for Refueling.
I am fairly certain those are MAWS & RWS combined units. There are rear ward looking MAWS/RWS units on the Tail cone as well.
As you mentioned there are red "Remove before flight" covers on the thing. The only parts of a aircraft/helo that gets a red tag/cover are things that maybe damaged due to excessive exposure. Remember how infrared guided missiles also have a nose cover to protect the sensor. So, keeping all that in mind its quite reasonable to assume that its a DIRCM. As to who makes them, I don't know.
Interestingly not all of them seem to have it. If you look at some of the pictures I have posted some of them don't have it. It seems as if the order was like longbow radar on our Apaches.
Good eyes my friend. I frankly didn't notice.
Looking through the pic more carefully I have more questions of my own. I have marked them out with arrows, circles and squares. I you could explain to me what these things are and what they do, I would be grateful.
Obviously they are optical sensors - there's no doubt about that.
I've been going over various images and I realized what I had thought about back when the first pictures of IAF Chinooks/Apaches emerged last year. The sensor fitments we see on the Chinook fuel tanks....
...are the same ones we see on the Apache AH-64E of IAF:
(Note: the black rectangle below the MAWS ^^ is similar to the ones on Chinook crown/tailcone, but without the confusing light spots on them)
Further inspection & correlation lead to me concluding that these sensors (the one near the Apache nose, and on Chinook tanks) are the same ones on the IAF's Netra AEW platform, this is from the pic you posted few days back:
Ofcourse, on the Apache/Chinook, some other equipment seems to be clustered alongside the MAWS optical aperture (the white spots around the blue-hued glass). My best guess, the system is the Elbit PAWS/PAWS-2 missile warning suite:
The space near the nose on the Apache occupied by this aperture is also the same spot where non-Indian AH-64Es usually also have their MAWS:
However, now we're back to square one. If the sensors on the Chinook's fuel tanks are MAWS, then what are the ones on the front & back? They all can't be MAWS...non-Indian Chinooks usually have MAWS in the front & back (where we have those black rectangular strips with a small optical sensor on our examples), then why does our Chinook require additional MAWS fitments on the sides, which are also looking toward the front & back? As you can see from even a cursory glance, the field of views of these sensors appear to have considerable overlapping.
I noticed that, however, just like the space for a FLIR mount, the 'plumbing' to accommodate these sensors seems to be present even on them.
Green - Chaff/Flare dispensers, closer look:
Yellow - That hole appears to be present on all CH-47Fs. Not sure of the purpose but the obvious guess is that its meant to direct airflow somewhere that needs it.
Blue - An exhaust of some kind. Prolonged usage seems to throw up soot marks around it, as is evident here:
Black - Don't know.
Red arrows - Again, not sure. But looking at their alignment, I have to hazard a guess and say they may perhaps be some form of terrain-avoidance/altitude-warning sensors. They are however only present on Chinooks with this type of nose.
Additionally, why would we cover up the MAWS on the tanks if we don't cover the MAWS on the crown ? Surely "too high up, can't reach them" is not the reason.
Cooling ?
APU ?
The same Elbit-sourced self-protection suite seems to be installed on the Republic of Singapore Air Force's upgraded Chinooks, thanks to @Ashwin for the find!
^^ Obviously, the arrangements are different.
My current theory is that they are some form of Laser-warning systems. Still would make sense to cover them up though.
Possibly.
More than likely.
^^ Obviously, the arrangements are different.
My current theory is that they are some form of Laser-warning systems. Still would make sense to cover them up though.
Possibly.
More than likely.
Last edited:
Budgam: Indian missile fired before Mi17 V5 chopper crash
NEW DELHI: Investigators have found that an Indian air defence missile was fired shortly before the crash of a Mi17 V5 helicopter at Budgam, near Srinagar on February 27, which resulted in the deaths of six air force personnel and a citizen on ground. The investigators are examining the sequence of events which preceded the crash.
The final moments preceding the crash, including if the IFF (Identity, Friend or Foe) systems were switched on or not, are being carefully looked at to determine what went wrong. The air force brass, highly placed sources told ET, has made it clear that it would not shy away from initiating court martial proceedings against personnel if they are found blameworthy in the inquiry.
ET has learnt that the focus of the investigation now is to determine if multiple layers of safeguards meant to protect assets from friendly fire failed and how systems need to be improved to prevent any such incident in the future. Sources said that the missile – believed to be of Israeli origin – was activated after an air defence alert was sounded over Jammu and Kashmir, besides other parts of the border, after a over 25 Pakistani air force jets were detected along the border on the morning of February 27.
The alert, sources said, indicated that Pakistani jets may be trying to breach the border for a strike on Indian military targets and there were concerns that armed UAVs available with that country may also have been deployed. A slow moving target like the Mi 17 V 5 helicopter could potentially be mistaken for a low flying armed UAV homing into an air base, according to these sources.
“When an air defence alert is sounded, several things take place. There are a set of rules that transport aircraft and helicopters need to follow and there are set entry and egress routes demarcated for aircraft flying. Also, aircraft are to switch on their IFF (Identify, Friend or Foe) systems,” sources told ET.
They added that all angles are being probed to determine if lapses took place and where. A senior officer is conducting the court of inquiry into the crash and has been given access to all inputs available with ground controllers as well as the actions of the helicopter in the ten minutes that it was in the air. As reported by ET, the chopper crashed in the 10-minute span when IAF jets were engaged in an aerial battle with the Pakistan Air Force fighters, along the Line of Control in the Nowshera sector, and air defence systems were on operational alert. Command and control systems were under immense pressure as reports of attempted intrusions were sounded along the border.
The Indian side officially acknowledged the crash but has not mentioned it in official statements on the aerial battle and the current conflict with Pakistan. In its official statement, the Pakistani military acknowledged the aerial battle over Nowshera but said its fighters were not involved in the chopper incident.
Mi17V5 is one of the sturdiest choppers in service across the world and is not usually prone to technical faults of catastrophic nature. Eyewitness reported that a loud explosion was heard in the air before the chopper crashed in a trail of smoke, indicating a possible catastrophic external event contributed to the incident.
NEW DELHI: Investigators have found that an Indian air defence missile was fired shortly before the crash of a Mi17 V5 helicopter at Budgam, near Srinagar on February 27, which resulted in the deaths of six air force personnel and a citizen on ground. The investigators are examining the sequence of events which preceded the crash.
The final moments preceding the crash, including if the IFF (Identity, Friend or Foe) systems were switched on or not, are being carefully looked at to determine what went wrong. The air force brass, highly placed sources told ET, has made it clear that it would not shy away from initiating court martial proceedings against personnel if they are found blameworthy in the inquiry.
ET has learnt that the focus of the investigation now is to determine if multiple layers of safeguards meant to protect assets from friendly fire failed and how systems need to be improved to prevent any such incident in the future. Sources said that the missile – believed to be of Israeli origin – was activated after an air defence alert was sounded over Jammu and Kashmir, besides other parts of the border, after a over 25 Pakistani air force jets were detected along the border on the morning of February 27.
The alert, sources said, indicated that Pakistani jets may be trying to breach the border for a strike on Indian military targets and there were concerns that armed UAVs available with that country may also have been deployed. A slow moving target like the Mi 17 V 5 helicopter could potentially be mistaken for a low flying armed UAV homing into an air base, according to these sources.
“When an air defence alert is sounded, several things take place. There are a set of rules that transport aircraft and helicopters need to follow and there are set entry and egress routes demarcated for aircraft flying. Also, aircraft are to switch on their IFF (Identify, Friend or Foe) systems,” sources told ET.
They added that all angles are being probed to determine if lapses took place and where. A senior officer is conducting the court of inquiry into the crash and has been given access to all inputs available with ground controllers as well as the actions of the helicopter in the ten minutes that it was in the air. As reported by ET, the chopper crashed in the 10-minute span when IAF jets were engaged in an aerial battle with the Pakistan Air Force fighters, along the Line of Control in the Nowshera sector, and air defence systems were on operational alert. Command and control systems were under immense pressure as reports of attempted intrusions were sounded along the border.
The Indian side officially acknowledged the crash but has not mentioned it in official statements on the aerial battle and the current conflict with Pakistan. In its official statement, the Pakistani military acknowledged the aerial battle over Nowshera but said its fighters were not involved in the chopper incident.
Mi17V5 is one of the sturdiest choppers in service across the world and is not usually prone to technical faults of catastrophic nature. Eyewitness reported that a loud explosion was heard in the air before the chopper crashed in a trail of smoke, indicating a possible catastrophic external event contributed to the incident.