Transport Helicopters of IAF - CH-47F Chinook, Mi-17v-5, Dhruv ALH etc.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tarun
  • Start date Start date
Standard protocol. Nose down crash from a 200ft hovering position sort of indicates power failure ? I have read that the low level hovering is quite the risky part of its entire sortie routine.
One thing in the aftermath of any accident like this, its the people who hold some grievance against would be the ones who get quoted by the media while remaining anonymous, not the team that would be investigating, or someone in service technical person or the survivor pilot/technicians like HAL refusing to comment, correctly. This is very prevalent in that report above. Almost certainly those several military officers etc are all retired and on the call list of the reporter.
 
 
  • Like
Reactions: marich01
More photos of the up gunned Mi-17V5:

The presence of a pintle-mounted machine gun suggests that this config is meant for CSAR/SF insertion and extraction behind enemy lines rather than just a gunship. Ideally, it should have been fitted with a refuelling probe/bigger fuel tanks for extended range. But this is an ageing helo so there may be limitations to the type of mods that can be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nationalist Papaa

Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) has signed a contract with Ministry of Defence valued at Rs.2,210 Crores for supply of EW Suite for Mi 17 V5 Helicopters of Indian Air Force. These systems are indigenously designed and developed by CASDIC, DRDO and manufactured by BEL. The EW Suite comprises Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS) and Counter Measure Dispensing System (CMDS) which significantly enhance the combat survivability of the helicopters along with effective counter measures.


DAC approval was on 23 Aug 2023. Thats impressive timeline to contract.
 
Go3YFDoWwAAGdCj

Military operations crippled as Dhruv advanced light helicopters (ALHs) continue to remain grounded since early-Jan
 
HAL basically proving why they need a direct competitor and the forces need alternative suppliers.

Yeah...and the US should have bought both Lockheed X-35 and Boeing X-32 under JSF cuz they'd have one even when the other turns out to be faulty. :ROFLMAO: Come on, now.


You cannot increase the cost of acquisition or cost of sustaining logistics beyond reasonable levels just for sake of 'redundancy'. That's why we hold extensive trials before ordering, and operate a few under LSP before placing bulk orders. If faults are still found, that's a failure of the evaluation process. There's no OEM that's immune from making such mistakes. You just have to fix them as they emerge, learn from it and move on.

We need multiple local OEMs capable of making aircraft, but not for this reason. It's for competition which brings overall prices down & increases efficiency. Not to mention, we're unlikely to select more than one aircraft to fill a certain role, regardless of how many options there are. And if that aircraft runs into problems, it's not gonna be possible to bring its competitor online in a jiffy to serve as alternative. That's a years-long process.

We've already determined that ALHs that don't operate in saline environments (which means the vast majority of them) are not affected by this issue.
 
Yeah...and the US should have bought both Lockheed X-35 and Boeing X-32 under JSF cuz they'd have one even when the other turns out to be faulty. :ROFLMAO: Come on, now.


You cannot increase the cost of acquisition or cost of sustaining logistics beyond reasonable levels just for sake of 'redundancy'. That's why we hold extensive trials before ordering, and operate a few under LSP before placing bulk orders. If faults are still found, that's a failure of the evaluation process. There's no OEM that's immune from making such mistakes. You just have to fix them as they emerge, learn from it and move on.

We need multiple local OEMs capable of making aircraft, but not for this reason. It's for competition which brings overall prices down & increases efficiency. Not to mention, we're unlikely to select more than one aircraft to fill a certain role, regardless of how many options there are. And if that aircraft runs into problems, it's not gonna be possible to bring its competitor online in a jiffy to serve as alternative. That's a years-long process.

We've already determined that ALHs that don't operate in saline environments (which means the vast majority of them) are not affected by this issue.

It's 'cause HAL doesn't control all the technologies it owns, unlike LM for the F-35. And HAL's poor aftersales service isn't anything great to write home about.

That's why we need competition, but more importantly in the private sector.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darshan978
It's 'cause HAL doesn't control all the technologies it owns, unlike LM for the F-35. And HAL's poor aftersales service isn't anything great to write home about.

That's why we need competition, but more importantly in the private sector.

Nobody does - that's just how supply chains work these days.

HAL didn't know they may have a faulty swashplate till an ALH crashed. Boeing didn't know they had faulty steel till a bunch of Ospreys crashed.

Thankfully, there are methods & procedures in place (post-crash investigation) that allow all such irregularities to be eventually found & fixed.

There's nothing that competition can do to fix this problem. That same upstream supplier would have in all likelihood been contracted to supply for a competitor aircraft as well, if that had won the order.