Bangladesh Air Force buying HAL Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) - BDMilitary

[Michael Corleone]

First thought: really!? Serious!?
Second thought: that bird is sexy

 

[ni8mare]

And why this is shit??

Burmese bought this $hit too...

 

[Aung Zaya]

And why this is shit??

coz they think we bought it. LOL

 

[Bilal9]

And why this is shit??

Because of this - four ALH Dhruv helicopters crashing in succession in Ecuador (LCH uses common components of Dhruv, also made by HAL), there is little history of LCH anyway. This would be a deathtrap just like the Dhruv IMHO.

Look at this Indian Army rappelling video where the rappel frame on the side of Helo broke. Unbelievable!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5259101/Indian-soldiers-fall-helicopter-rope-snaps.html

https://www.funker530.com/catastrophic-fast-rope-failure-sc1/

This has to do with HAL build quality and made in India component quality. Keep them in India for now until quality improves. All Helos made in India are basically deathtraps.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dhruv Crashes in Ecuador Point to HAL Failings
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com)

By Giovanni de Briganti

PARIS --- The crash of a fourth Ecuadorian air force Dhruv helicopter on Jan 27 is likely to have serious consequences for their Indian manufacturer, state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), and raise further questions about its ability to play a major role in India’s defense modernization.

The Jan 27 crash is the fourth since the type was introduced into the Ecuadorian air force in 2009, as part of a 7-aircraft purchase worth $45 million. The four crashes have killed three military personnel and injured several more, and have prompted Ecuador to restrict operations of the remaining three, Security Minister Cesar Navas said in an interview published Jan 28.

In an attempt to stave off these consequences, Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said Jan 31 that “Dhruv is a good platform. If there is any issue about maintenance…I have already discussed. I have asked HAL to create a depot wherever it is required so that spares are available,” the Press Trust of India reported Jan 31 from New Delhi

The subject is a sensitive one in India, where successive governments have tried to involve their industry in the production of military equipment they buy overseas, and where HAL -- the largest state-owned industrial firm – is intended to be a major beneficiary of the “Make in India” procurement policy.

HAL’s performance is also under close scrutiny because the company’s credibility as an aerospace manufacturer is a major factor in the continuing contractual stand-off in India’s $20 billion purchase of 128 Dassault Rafale fighters.

While most of the contract details have been ironed out in the three years since India selected the Rafale in January 2012, contract signature is being held up by India’s insistence that Dassault assume legal responsibility -- and provide a legal warranty -- for the aircraft assembled in India by HAL, a state-owned company over which it would have no operational control.

However, HAL has not demonstrated the qualities needed to assume such a key role. Even in India, it is considered as virtually unmanageable because of its size and overly bureaucratic culture; its quality is considered unsatisfactory and is often questioned, and its two forays outside its traditional role of license assembly have been spectacularly unsuccessful.

HAL took 32 years to deliver an operational Tejas Light Combat Aircraft to the Indian Air Force, and has still not fully completed its development, while Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter, whose program is almost as old, has found few export buyers to date, despite attractive prices. Furthermore, Dhruv’s performance has so far proven very underwhelming.

The Dhruv accidents in Ecuador are being investigated by a joint investigation board with technical assistance from France and Brazil, while a team from HAL has inspected the aircraft damaged in a previous accident on Jan 14 and said it had found no mechanical anomaly.

Ecuadorian Defense Minister Fernando Cordero attempted to reassure public opinion by declaring that Ecuador has ordered “nine French helicopters for the air force, eight of which are already in service.” These are lighter than the Dhruv, and will be used for rescue missions and to transport medical equipment.

Contrary to some reports, these helicopters were ordered in 2010, and are part of a contract for Airbus (then Eurocopter) seven AS550 C3 Fennec and two AS350 B2 Ecureuil. The first two were delivered in October 2012, and the final delivery is due this year. Similar helicopters are also operated by Ecuador’s national police in Quito, the capital, and elsewhere.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...ador-dhruv-crashes-point-to-hal-failings.html

From wiki-page:

Incidents and accidents[edit]

• In November 2005, a Dhruv crash-landed in Andhra Pradesh, causing the entire fleet to be grounded; the subsequent probe found a fault with the helicopter's tail rotor blades, which has since been corrected.[23][24]
• On 2 February 2007, during rehearsals prior to Aero India, a HAL Dhruv of the Sarang helicopter display team of the Indian Air Force crashed, killing co-pilot Squadron Leader Priye Sharma and injuring the pilot Wing Commander Vikas Jetley.[125] After being in a coma for almost four years, Vikas Jetley died in January 2011.[126] The helicopter team continued to perform in the air show.[127]
• In October 2009, an Ecuadorian Air Force Dhruv flew into the ground near Quito while attempting formation flight with two other helicopters. The remaining six aircraft were grounded during the investigation, which later concluded pilot error to be the cause.[128]
• In February 2010, an Indian Air Force Dhruv was forced to make a crash landing after suffering a loss of power while rehearsing for the "Vayu Shakti" air show; both pilots survived.[23]
• On 14 December 2010, a Dhruv crashed in Jammu injuring all 9 personnel on board.[129]
• On 22 December 2010, a Dhruv crashed in Leh injuring both pilots.[129]
• On 21 April 2011, four army personnel were killed when a Dhruv crashed in north Sikkim. Initial reports pointed to weather as the cause, but a court of inquiry was established to ascertain the exact cause.[130]
• On 19 October 2011, an Indian Border Security Force (BSF) Dhruv (VT-BSH) crashed in north-east India, resulting in the deaths of the three crew on board.[131] The cause of the crash was found to be pilot error due to spatial disorientation.[132]
• On 15 January 2012, a BSF Dhruv (VT-BSN) crashed on the runway at Raipur airport during a test flight; there were no deaths but all five of the crew on board were injured.[133] Investigation by DGCA has concluded that the crash was caused by pilot error.[134] Inadequacies in training of flight crew had been identified.
• On 5 April 2012, a Dhruv was heavily damaged by Maoists who fired upon the helicopter [135]
• On 13 May 2013, a Dhruv crashed in Siachen injuring the pilot and co-pilot [136]
• On 19 December 2013, a Dhruv armed with weapons made an emergency landing in Karnataka.[137]
• On 22 February 2014, an Ecuadorian Air Force Dhruv often used as a presidential transport crashed in the Chimborazo region. The pilot Captain Fabian Pazos Narvaez survived, but three military officials were killed. The incident is under investigation.[138][139]
• On 25 July 2014, an Indian Air Force Dhruv crashed near Sitapur in Uttar Pradesh, India. All seven on board were killed. It had been tracked from the ATC of a Delhi air force station until contact with the aircraft was suddenly lost. A mayday call from the pilots appeared to highlight a mechanical failure as the cause. The IAF ordered a court of inquiry to establish the cause of the crash.[140]
• On 13 January 2015, an Ecuadorian Air Force Dhruv crashed injuring 2 crew members [141]
• On 28 January 2015, an Ecuadorian Air Force Dhruv crashed injuring 4 crew members [141]
• On 11 February 2015, an Indian Army Dhruv crashed in Jammu&Kashmir, killing 2 crew members.[142]
• On 4 July 2017 and Indian Air Force Dhruv crashed in Arunachal Prasesh killing all 4 crew members onboard [143]
• On 5 September 2017 several Indian Army (IA) personnel, including two generals, survived with only minor injuries from the crash in India’s Himalayan region of Ladakh.[144]

 

[The Ronin]

I hope it's a total BS, the admin himself deleted the post from the group. if it's true then why don't govt go for HAL Rudra as BAF will replace their Bell 212 and Saryu/ Project 21 OPV. What happened to the T 129 helicopter, why not go for that instead?? Bangladesh military is totally doomed!!

 

[Bilal9]

I hope it's a total BS, the admin himself deleted the post from the group. if it's true then why don't govt go for HAL Rudra as BAF will replace their Bell 212 and Saryu/ Project 21 OPV. What happened to the T 129 helicopter, why not go for that instead?? Bangladesh military is totally doomed!!

Ha ha ha I hope it is BS news too. If it is not - BAF planners and bigwigs better look at the HAL accident record before taking up any HAL made equipment for BAF. Waste of money and effort.

Pakistan is getting T129 Helos. Why can't we? Chinese option is way better than Indian unproven attack helo too. Rooivalk, Mangusta, anything is better.

Z-10

 

[KapitaanAli]

Because of this - four ALH Dhruv helicopters crashing in succession in Ecuador (LCH uses common components of Dhruv, also made by HAL), there is little history of LCH anyway. This would be a deathtrap just like the Dhruv IMHO.

Look at this Indian Army rappelling video where the rappel frame on the side of Helo broke. Unbelievable!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5259101/Indian-soldiers-fall-helicopter-rope-snaps.html

https://www.funker530.com/catastrophic-fast-rope-failure-sc1/

This has to do with HAL build quality and made in India component quality. Keep them in India for now until quality improves. All Helos made in India are basically deathtraps.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dhruv Crashes in Ecuador Point to HAL Failings
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com)

By Giovanni de Briganti

PARIS --- The crash of a fourth Ecuadorian air force Dhruv helicopter on Jan 27 is likely to have serious consequences for their Indian manufacturer, state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), and raise further questions about its ability to play a major role in India’s defense modernization.

The Jan 27 crash is the fourth since the type was introduced into the Ecuadorian air force in 2009, as part of a 7-aircraft purchase worth $45 million. The four crashes have killed three military personnel and injured several more, and have prompted Ecuador to restrict operations of the remaining three, Security Minister Cesar Navas said in an interview published Jan 28.

In an attempt to stave off these consequences, Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said Jan 31 that “Dhruv is a good platform. If there is any issue about maintenance…I have already discussed. I have asked HAL to create a depot wherever it is required so that spares are available,” the Press Trust of India reported Jan 31 from New Delhi

The subject is a sensitive one in India, where successive governments have tried to involve their industry in the production of military equipment they buy overseas, and where HAL -- the largest state-owned industrial firm – is intended to be a major beneficiary of the “Make in India” procurement policy.

HAL’s performance is also under close scrutiny because the company’s credibility as an aerospace manufacturer is a major factor in the continuing contractual stand-off in India’s $20 billion purchase of 128 Dassault Rafale fighters.

While most of the contract details have been ironed out in the three years since India selected the Rafale in January 2012, contract signature is being held up by India’s insistence that Dassault assume legal responsibility -- and provide a legal warranty -- for the aircraft assembled in India by HAL, a state-owned company over which it would have no operational control.

However, HAL has not demonstrated the qualities needed to assume such a key role. Even in India, it is considered as virtually unmanageable because of its size and overly bureaucratic culture; its quality is considered unsatisfactory and is often questioned, and its two forays outside its traditional role of license assembly have been spectacularly unsuccessful.

HAL took 32 years to deliver an operational Tejas Light Combat Aircraft to the Indian Air Force, and has still not fully completed its development, while Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter, whose program is almost as old, has found few export buyers to date, despite attractive prices. Furthermore, Dhruv’s performance has so far proven very underwhelming.

The Dhruv accidents in Ecuador are being investigated by a joint investigation board with technical assistance from France and Brazil, while a team from HAL has inspected the aircraft damaged in a previous accident on Jan 14 and said it had found no mechanical anomaly.

Ecuadorian Defense Minister Fernando Cordero attempted to reassure public opinion by declaring that Ecuador has ordered “nine French helicopters for the air force, eight of which are already in service.” These are lighter than the Dhruv, and will be used for rescue missions and to transport medical equipment.

Contrary to some reports, these helicopters were ordered in 2010, and are part of a contract for Airbus (then Eurocopter) seven AS550 C3 Fennec and two AS350 B2 Ecureuil. The first two were delivered in October 2012, and the final delivery is due this year. Similar helicopters are also operated by Ecuador’s national police in Quito, the capital, and elsewhere.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...ador-dhruv-crashes-point-to-hal-failings.html

From wiki-page:

Incidents and accidents[edit]

• In November 2005, a Dhruv crash-landed in Andhra Pradesh, causing the entire fleet to be grounded; the subsequent probe found a fault with the helicopter's tail rotor blades, which has since been corrected.[23][24]
• On 2 February 2007, during rehearsals prior to Aero India, a HAL Dhruv of the Sarang helicopter display team of the Indian Air Force crashed, killing co-pilot Squadron Leader Priye Sharma and injuring the pilot Wing Commander Vikas Jetley.[125] After being in a coma for almost four years, Vikas Jetley died in January 2011.[126] The helicopter team continued to perform in the air show.[127]
• In October 2009, an Ecuadorian Air Force Dhruv flew into the ground near Quito while attempting formation flight with two other helicopters. The remaining six aircraft were grounded during the investigation, which later concluded pilot error to be the cause.[128]
• In February 2010, an Indian Air Force Dhruv was forced to make a crash landing after suffering a loss of power while rehearsing for the "Vayu Shakti" air show; both pilots survived.[23]
• On 14 December 2010, a Dhruv crashed in Jammu injuring all 9 personnel on board.[129]
• On 22 December 2010, a Dhruv crashed in Leh injuring both pilots.[129]
• On 21 April 2011, four army personnel were killed when a Dhruv crashed in north Sikkim. Initial reports pointed to weather as the cause, but a court of inquiry was established to ascertain the exact cause.[130]
• On 19 October 2011, an Indian Border Security Force (BSF) Dhruv (VT-BSH) crashed in north-east India, resulting in the deaths of the three crew on board.[131] The cause of the crash was found to be pilot error due to spatial disorientation.[132]
• On 15 January 2012, a BSF Dhruv (VT-BSN) crashed on the runway at Raipur airport during a test flight; there were no deaths but all five of the crew on board were injured.[133] Investigation by DGCA has concluded that the crash was caused by pilot error.[134] Inadequacies in training of flight crew had been identified.
• On 5 April 2012, a Dhruv was heavily damaged by Maoists who fired upon the helicopter [135]
• On 13 May 2013, a Dhruv crashed in Siachen injuring the pilot and co-pilot [136]
• On 19 December 2013, a Dhruv armed with weapons made an emergency landing in Karnataka.[137]
• On 22 February 2014, an Ecuadorian Air Force Dhruv often used as a presidential transport crashed in the Chimborazo region. The pilot Captain Fabian Pazos Narvaez survived, but three military officials were killed. The incident is under investigation.[138][139]
• On 25 July 2014, an Indian Air Force Dhruv crashed near Sitapur in Uttar Pradesh, India. All seven on board were killed. It had been tracked from the ATC of a Delhi air force station until contact with the aircraft was suddenly lost. A mayday call from the pilots appeared to highlight a mechanical failure as the cause. The IAF ordered a court of inquiry to establish the cause of the crash.[140]
• On 13 January 2015, an Ecuadorian Air Force Dhruv crashed injuring 2 crew members [141]
• On 28 January 2015, an Ecuadorian Air Force Dhruv crashed injuring 4 crew members [141]
• On 11 February 2015, an Indian Army Dhruv crashed in Jammu&Kashmir, killing 2 crew members.[142]
• On 4 July 2017 and Indian Air Force Dhruv crashed in Arunachal Prasesh killing all 4 crew members onboard [143]
• On 5 September 2017 several Indian Army (IA) personnel, including two generals, survived with only minor injuries from the crash in India’s Himalayan region of Ladakh.[144]

You already know this, but I'll say it anyway.
Ecuador didn't sign a maintenance contract and as a result, two Dhruvs crashed, with the other two being pilot error. If BD doesn't sign one, same will be the case. That's the thing with machines.


Indian crashes are within acceptable limits for a helicopter that operates everyday in environments like these:

Bangladesh has no such challenges and the operations should be much safer, provided there's training.

As for the boom breaking accident, Indian Army is known to put extra load on the boom, i.e. extra soldiers. One day it naturally broke under the same circumstance. I suggest BD don't do the same.

 

[Bilal9]

You already know this, but I'll say it anyway.
Ecuador didn't sign a maintenance contract and as a result, two Dhruvs crashed, with the other two being pilot error. If BD doesn't sign one, same will be the case. That's the thing with machines.

Rather than taking your word for it, do you have a credible third party link that proves beyond a doubt that 'Ecuador didn't sign a maintenance contract'? It is unthinkable in this day and age that a responsible air force would do this. I don't buy it unless I see proof.

Indian crashes are within acceptable limits for a helicopter that operates everyday in environments like these:
View attachment 478205 View attachment 478206 View attachment 478207

NO crash is ACCEPTABLE. NOT A SINGLE ONE. What is the human cost to their families and the cost to lose precious trained air force personnel, who take decades to backfill and replace? Especially when such crashes may be avoidable and helos are made by people who give a damn?

I am amazed at your cavalier attitude about 'acceptable limits' for crashes. What if the person who lost his life was your Dad, your brother, or someone else's loved one?

This is the difference between Japanese/US/German responsibility and testing for their products and Indian carelessness and 'damn care' attitude. For that matter even Chinese have better attitudes. Why will we pay through the nose, accept a third rate product and 'accept' crashes?

I tell you what - it is better to buy maybe railway engines on Indian credit. But certainly not critical items like aviation products. Very bad idea.

Bangladesh has no such challenges and the operations should be much safer, provided there's training.

We are used to a much higher level of reliability than a country which made their first time attack helo.

As for the boom breaking accident, Indian Army is known to put extra load on the boom, i.e. extra soldiers. One day it naturally broke under the same circumstance. I suggest BD don't do the same.

I remember discussing this in a thread with Pakistani bhais within a couple of days of this happening and the reasons that emerged for the way the boom came apart, were low quality alloy fatiguing easily and giving way, along with bad structural design attaching the boom itself to the GFRP side panel of the helo. There were pictures of the failed boom and you could tell this was the issue. If the customer (Indian Army) is used to putting three/four rapellers on the boom, then the boom should be designed and rated for twice that weight (about 500+ KG). The fact that HAL did not do its homework, only goes to show how immature their design and fabrication process is.

Long story short, Indian HAL aviation product manufacturing tolerances aren't ready for global prime-time yet, and Bangladeshis should naturally reject these products and not act like guinea pigs to have these things tested while paying Indians full price. You can't 'develop' these things on the backs of our innocent pilots.

 

[KapitaanAli]

Rather than taking your word for it, do you have a credible third party link that proves beyond a doubt that 'Ecuador didn't sign a maintenance contract'? It is unthinkable in this day and age that a responsible air force would do this. I don't buy it unless I see proof.

HAL sold it to Ecuador at below manufacturing price, in order to charge them on maintenance and spares. HAL maintained them for two years, in which one Dhruv crashed due to pilot error.

After the two year period, Ecuador started bargaining for more which was difficult for HAL since they hadn't made a profit. But enough spares were stocked in Ecuador (according to HAL) and the maintenance was carried out by Ecuador. It was in this period that the other three crashes took place, one of them again due to pilot error.

HAL was supposed to build a maintenance base in Ecuador. None of this came true due to the irrational bargaining after the two year period of HAL maintenance. Hence the rest of the fleet being grounded. Ecuador is incompetent to maintain them, yet wants HAL to provide maintenance/spares for free.

In essence, this is a matter of politics and corruption and irrationality. HAL made near zero profit on it.

The very old version of Dhruv (which I admit was far from perfect) and newer ones are operated without a complaint by multiple clients:

Mauritius:

Turkey:

Nepal:

Maldives (wanting to return due to recent politics):

Dhruv also was almost chosen by Peru against Bell, which won out due to American pressure.

Israel operated Dhruv on lease.

The current Dhruv with India is the result of patching out years of feedback. Not many realise that there are about four Mks.

Note that the Naval Dhruv has never been in an accident. Army and Air Force operate them in extreme altitude/weather conditions.

NO crash is ACCEPTABLE.

Correct. Sadly statistics disagree with that noble thought, especially when the conditions are extreme and the machine isn't highly specialised.

If your conditions are within comfortable limits, this drops to near zero.

In other news, USAF lost about two dozen service members and a suitable number of aircrafts in accidents in 2018.

 

[Nilgiri]

HAL sold it to Ecuador at below manufacturing price, in order to charge them on maintenance and spares. HAL maintained them for two years, in which one Dhruv crashed due to pilot error.

After the two year period, Ecuador started bargaining for more which was difficult for HAL since they hadn't made a profit. But enough spares were stocked in Ecuador (according to HAL) and the maintenance was carried out by Ecuador. It was in this period that the other three crashes took place, one of them again due to pilot error.

HAL was supposed to build a maintenance base in Ecuador. None of this came true due to the irrational bargaining after the two year period of HAL maintenance. Hence the rest of the fleet being grounded. Ecuador is incompetent to maintain them, yet wants HAL to provide maintenance/spares for free.

In essence, this is a matter of politics and corruption and irrationality. HAL made near zero profit on it.

The very old version of Dhruv (which I admit was far from perfect) and newer ones are operated without a complaint by multiple clients:

Mauritius:
View attachment 478238

Turkey:
View attachment 478239

Nepal:
View attachment 478240

Maldives (wanting to return due to recent politics):
View attachment 478241

Dhruv also was almost chosen by Peru against Bell, which won out due to American pressure.

Israel operated Dhruv on lease.

The current Dhruv with India is the result of patching out years of feedback. Not many realise that there are about four Mks.

Note that the Naval Dhruv has never been in an accident. Army and Air Force operate them in extreme altitude/weather conditions.

View attachment 478242


Correct. Sadly statistics disagree with that noble thought, especially when the conditions are extreme and the machine isn't highly specialised.

If your conditions are within comfortable limits, this drops to near zero.

In other news, USAF lost about two dozen service members and a suitable number of aircrafts in accidents in 2018.

It's futile to explain to this moron. He would be jumping up and down in excitement if it were any helicopter from any other country....with same safety record or worse (normalised to flying hours). He will single out this one this way because its India, pure and simple.

You have little idea how much rage and butthurt such news like this fills him with (for obvious reasons):

https://www.livefistdefence.com/201...pache-fuselage-delivered-before-schedule.html

especially this part:

According to Boeing, the Hyderabad facility “[W]ill be the sole global producer of fuselages for AH-64 Apache helicopter delivered by Boeing to its global customers including the U.S. Army. The facility will also produce secondary structures and vertical spar boxes for the multi-role combat helicopter.”

@Michael Corleone @bluesky

 

[Bilal9]

The very old version of Dhruv (which I admit was far from perfect) and newer ones are operated without a complaint by multiple clients

Well again we have to take your word for it. We don't know who made these judgments on behalf of HAL's clients.

So it's neither here nor there...

 

[Beast]

Ha ha ha I hope it is BS news too. If it is not - BAF planners and bigwigs better look at the HAL accident record before taking up any HAL made equipment for BAF. Waste of money and effort.

Pakistan is getting T129 Helos. Why can't we? Chinese option is way better than Indian unproven attack helo too. Rooivalk, Mangusta, anything is better.

Z-10

Z-10 currently is not a sported yet. The 3 send to Pakistan is for evaluation only. Currently the only combat attack gunship is the Z-19E which just passed evaluation and can be ready for customer in short time if they put the order.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/806254/china-z19e-attack-helicopter-military-reform/amp

 

[bdslph]

HAL LCH and then we will go for the LCA TEJAS
hehehe nice well 500 million dollar is there
so we will buy things from our mother india

 

[Bilal9]

Z-10 currently is not a sported yet. The 3 send to Pakistan is for evaluation only. Currently the only combat attack gunship is the Z-19E which just passed evaluation and can be ready for customer in short time if they put the order.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/806254/china-z19e-attack-helicopter-military-reform/amp

Thanks brother.

 

[Nike]

It's futile to explain to this moron. He would be jumping up and down in excitement if it were any helicopter from any other country....with same safety record or worse (normalised to flying hours). He will single out this one this way because its India, pure and simple.

You have little idea how much rage and butthurt such news like this fills him with (for obvious reasons):

https://www.livefistdefence.com/201...pache-fuselage-delivered-before-schedule.html

especially this part:

According to Boeing, the Hyderabad facility “[W]ill be the sole global producer of fuselages for AH-64 Apache helicopter delivered by Boeing to its global customers including the U.S. Army. The facility will also produce secondary structures and vertical spar boxes for the multi-role combat helicopter.”

@Michael Corleone @bluesky

Apache is a beauty, and beast at the same sentence. Obviously our armed forces wants more