TAI/AgustaWestland T-129 Vs HAL Light Combat Helicopter

[SRBM2]

LCH ceramic armour can withstand 12.7 mm bullet but it was designed to be light, so that it can operate at height at which very few choppers operate.
In fact ALH from which LCH is derived has load performance better than Mi 17 at certain altitudes.
I agree with your point though each weapon system is designed to operate in different condition and environment & it will be unfair to compare them in such a way.

I've a little problem with your first link, or to be more precise what the guy is speaking about on broadsword about the Mi-35 and its armored glass that was penetrated by a single 12.7mm round. The Mi-24/35 has only one bulletproof glass and that is the front glass of WSO and Pilot not the bend round side glass which has zero ballistic protection. From reports of Afghanistan war several Mi-24 have been damaged by DShK and M2 brownings and smaller calibre weapons and was never penetrated with a single round. In one occasion it counted 11 hits of 12.7mm on the windshield, it was literally useless after that but it didn't penetrate from that. The front glass is completley inpenetratable by a single 12.7mm, it really needs higher calibre or more bullets to break the glass. I think it was side window like it happened in Afghanistan.
However new composite materials or not that is still a factor since no armored helicopter uses to much armor on specific spots and has to maintain a center of gravity very close the the rotor, meaning the after section is mostly the weakest armored part which already today is armored by composite armor (mostly GFK).

The big problem in the LCH's armor, i see, is how the pilots are exposed through useage of big windshields that are not bulletproof, much smaller windshields would be beneficial to the crews protection, but that again is more a question of requirements and philosophy where to make priorities and where to make compromises.

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

The big problem in the LCH's armor, i see, is how the pilots are exposed through useage of big windshields that are not bulletproof, much smaller windshields would be beneficial to the crews protection, but that again is more a question of requirements and philosophy where to make priorities and where to make compromises.

What makes you so certain those glass are not bullet proof ? I would have thought that is one of the basic design requirements for a Attack Helicopter.

Sounds like pure speculation.

 

[SRBM2]

What makes me so certain is the current technology and the actual weight that comes from real bulletproof glass. The only glass on LCH that possible could be bulletproof would be the front flat glass. The side and top windshields are bend and definetley made of acryl glass.
To make something resistent to any combat relevant weapons which would mean at least 7.62mm resistant would already weight around 80-120kg/m²+ and the cockpit area that is covered in windshields is gigantic compared to any attack helicopter. It is simply impossible to make it bulletproof even to 7.62mm rounds and maintain a very low empty weight which it was designed for. There is roughly 15m² glass on the LCH (just my estimation) 80-120kg x 15m² =1.2- 1.86t only for transparent armor? No, that is impossible.
And using some acryl and calling it bulletproof or resistant is just not the case, nobody gonna shoot at an Attack Helicopter with Pistol rounds, just not combat relevant.

Here is one manufactor of laminated glass and pay attention to the weight per m² and the calibre it will stop.

Class Conventional Glass/ Type of Calibre Ammunition Number
Threat Laminated Polycarbonates Weapon of Shots
Level Glass (No Spall)
BR5 42mm 35mm Rifle 5.56 x 45 FJ/PB/ 3
101 Kg/m2 66 Kg/m2 See note 1 SCF1
BR6 62mm 38mm Rifle 7.62 x 51 FJ/PB/SC 3
152 Kg/m2 83 Kg/m2

Something so high prioritized like the empty weight for the LCH will never allow to have so much weight added just to windshields. If it has somewhere bulletresistent or bulletproof glass than it is only one sheet the front glass.
Bend glass can not be mate by military standards bulletproof and the resistence against 9mm is not even worth to mention.
Why do you think even heavy armored Attack Helicopters have rather small cockpit windshields? Ka-50 fully armored rather small windshields, Mi-24 only front glass is armored, Mi-28 has small windshields.

 

[dexter]

LCH 50 votes
T129 25 votes

LOL indians

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

What makes me so certain is the current technology and the actual weight that comes from real bulletproof glass. The only glass on LCH that possible could be bulletproof would be the front flat glass. The side and top windshields are bend and definetley made of acryl glass.
To make something resistent to any combat relevant weapons which would mean at least 7.62mm resistant would already weight around 80-120kg/m²+ and the cockpit area that is covered in windshields is gigantic compared to any attack helicopter. It is simply impossible to make it bulletproof even to 7.62mm rounds and maintain a very low empty weight which it was designed for. There is roughly 15m² glass on the LCH (just my estimation) 80-120kg x 15m² =1.2- 1.86t only for transparent armor? No, that is impossible.
And using some acryl and calling it bulletproof or resistant is just not the case, nobody gonna shoot at an Attack Helicopter with Pistol rounds, just not combat relevant.

Here is one manufactor of laminated glass and pay attention to the weight per m² and the calibre it will stop.



Something so high prioritized like the empty weight for the LCH will never allow to have so much weight added just to windshields. If it has somewhere bulletresistent or bulletproof glass than it is only one sheet the front glass.
Bend glass can not be mate by military standards bulletproof and the resistence against 9mm is not even worth to mention.
Why do you think even heavy armored Attack Helicopters have rather small cockpit windshields? Ka-50 fully armored rather small windshields, Mi-24 only front glass is armored, Mi-28 has small windshields.

That is irrational.

What is true for LCH is also true for the other Helicopters.

That would mean NON of the Attack Helicopters have bullet proof side windows.

That being the case, the issues itself becomes a Non Issue.

 

[SRBM2]

That is irrational.

What is true for LCH is also true for the other Helicopters.

That would mean NON of the Attack Helicopters have bullet proof side windows.

That being the case, the issues itself becomes a Non Issue.

I will list you the Attack Helicopters which have bullet proof glass and which don't.

KA-50 all flat glass is bulletproof glass 45-55mm thick glass-clad polycarbonate (most common bulletproof glass)
The only glass that is not bulletproof is the little window above the pilots head which is also the hatch for ejection seat.
Ka-52 Only front flat glass is bulletproof identical to Ka-50 45-55mm thick, the side glass is just acryl glass since it has ejection seats and needs to use explosive liner inside the acryl glass to blow it off like on jet canopies.
Mi-28 all glass on the cockpit is flat and also between 45-55mm thick, which you can watch on YT the armor test of Mi-28A.
Mi-24 only front flat glass is bulletproof also 45-55mm thick.

The WZ-10 is unknown but could have bulletproof glass for the front window, the side windows are without doubt just acryl glass which can be pushed in with one thumb or pierced with a screwdriver.
AH-64,A-129 and Rooivalk use all acryl glass from the company which you should google PPG aerospace industries.
This acryl glass is just a blastshield to keep shockwaves from MANPADS outside so the pilots don't pass out or get injured, it has zero ballistical protection. The side windows of AH-64,AH-1,A-129,Rooivalk and Tiger can all be pushed in or pierced by a screwdriver. The front flat glass is still only reinforced acryl glass which can at most holda 9mm pistol round but useless against any rifle calibre is therefore not advertized as "transparency armor".

What is true for LCH is mostly not true for other helicopters, since most other helicopters don't have such strict requirements to operate in high altitudes which automatically becomes a balance factor between empty weight and the armor it can use.

I would post all the necessary links myself if had the necessary posts as a new member, but i posted you enough information so everyone here can google the company and loock for themselfs how many of those attack helicopters actually have bulletproof glass and LCH is the weakest armored in that regard, which is mainly to blame on the strict requirements.

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

I will list you the Attack Helicopters which have bullet proof glass and which don't.

KA-50 all flat glass is bulletproof glass 45-55mm thick glass-clad polycarbonate (most common bulletproof glass)
The only glass that is not bulletproof is the little window above the pilots head which is also the hatch for ejection seat.
Ka-52 Only front flat glass is bulletproof identical to Ka-50 45-55mm thick, the side glass is just acryl glass since it has ejection seats and needs to use explosive liner inside the acryl glass to blow it off like on jet canopies.
Mi-28 all glass on the cockpit is flat and also between 45-55mm thick, which you can watch on YT the armor test of Mi-28A.
Mi-24 only front flat glass is bulletproof also 45-55mm thick.

The WZ-10 is unknown but could have bulletproof glass for the front window, the side windows are without doubt just acryl glass which can be pushed in with one thumb or pierced with a screwdriver.
AH-64,A-129 and Rooivalk use all acryl glass from the company which you should google PPG aerospace industries.
This acryl glass is just a blastshield to keep shockwaves from MANPADS outside so the pilots don't pass out or get injured, it has zero ballistical protection. The side windows of AH-64,AH-1,A-129,Rooivalk and Tiger can all be pushed in or pierced by a screwdriver. The front flat glass is still only reinforced acryl glass which can at most holda 9mm pistol round but useless against any rifle calibre is therefore not advertized as "transparency armor".

What is true for LCH is mostly not true for other helicopters, since most other helicopters don't have such strict requirements to operate in high altitudes which automatically becomes a balance factor between empty weight and the armor it can use.

I would post all the necessary links myself if had the necessary posts as a new member, but i posted you enough information so everyone here can google the company and loock for themselfs how many of those attack helicopters actually have bulletproof glass and LCH is the weakest armored in that regard, which is mainly to blame on the strict requirements.

Based on what you have said, NON of the Attack helicopters except KA-50 have bullet proof side windows.

The LCH is no different in that regard.

From the above based tender notice seeking 63 SETS of bullet proof glass for the LCH, we can then safely assume that it too does have BP glass in the front like most other Attack helicopters.

As for the rest of the body armour, the weight of the LCH is pretty much same as the rest of the Helicopter except it may be 100 to 300 Kg lighter. Its Engine however is MUCH more powerful than the chinese and Turkish heli.

All in All LCH fares much better than those two.


PS: It was a most educative post.

 

[SRBM2]

Based on what you have said, NON of the Attack helicopters except KA-50 have bullet proof side windows.

The LCH is no different in that regard.

From the above based tender notice seeking 63 SETS of bullet proof glass for the LCH, we can then safely assume that it too does have BP glass in the front like most other Attack helicopters.

As for the rest of the body armour, the weight of the LCH is pretty much same as the rest of the Helicopter except it may be 100 to 300 Kg lighter. Its Engine however is MUCH more powerful than the chinese and Turkish heli.

All in All LCH fares much better than those two.


PS: It was a most educative post.

Not just the Ka-50 have side BP glass but also Mi-28.

And most Attack Helicopters don't have front bulletproof glass at all, only russians do have that requirement.
AH1,AH-64,A-129 and most problably identical like T-129, CSH-2 and EC-665 don't have bulletproof glass at all.
The only of this helicopters that have some kind of BP glass is the Apache and it is just the Seperation glass sheet inside the cockpit that seperates the WSO from Pilot cockpit right behind the WSO's head.

I've i am uptodate with the engines and the NTOW and MTOW which is advertised i can say that LCH is behind the T-129.

2x LHTEC CTS800- 4A nom. 1361 shp (1014kW) max. 1563 shp (1166 kW) for T-129 with MTOW (5000 kg) it would mean it have 312.6 hp/t in max engine output and nominal would be 272.2 hp/t.
Again if they didn't change engines already.

The LCH has
2x Ardiden 1H1 nom. 1220 shp max. 1430 shp with MTOW (5500 kg) max engine output 260 hp/t and nominal output 221.8 hp/t under MTOW.

Currently the highest rating of hp/t has the T-129 which translates not entirely into maneuverability and lifting capability but to a high degree. What turkey will use in future as engines i'm not uptodate but considering the entire goal of turkey to become independent they will have to change or get ToT license for some fine helicopter engines, since the West (US) is unreliable as **** when it comes to pressuring allies not to trade of military hardware and that is good that Turkey is going this path, where india is currently trying to do so but made grave mistakes with some Rafaels deals which they now try to exchange for Eurofighters, because France is blackmailed by US and is unreliable, but so is the entire EU.
When China finishes their development of WZ-16 engines it will be 2nd ranking in HP/t power.

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

Not just the Ka-50 have side BP glass but also Mi-28.

And most Attack Helicopters don't have front bulletproof glass at all, only russians do have that requirement.
AH1,AH-64,A-129 and most problably identical like T-129, CSH-2 and EC-665 don't have bulletproof glass at all.
The only of this helicopters that have some kind of BP glass is the Apache and it is just the Seperation glass sheet inside the cockpit that seperates the WSO from Pilot cockpit right behind the WSO's head.

I've i am uptodate with the engines and the NTOW and MTOW which is advertised i can say that LCH is behind the T-129.

2x LHTEC CTS800- 4A nom. 1361 shp (1014kW) max. 1563 shp (1166 kW) for T-129 with MTOW (5000 kg) it would mean it have 312.6 hp/t in max engine output and nominal would be 272.2 hp/t.
Again if they didn't change engines already.

The LCH has
2x Ardiden 1H1 nom. 1220 shp max. 1430 shp with MTOW (5500 kg) max engine output 260 hp/t and nominal output 221.8 hp/t under MTOW.

Currently the highest rating of hp/t has the T-129 which translates not entirely into maneuverability and lifting capability but to a high degree. What turkey will use in future as engines i'm not uptodate but considering the entire goal of turkey to become independent they will have to change or get ToT license for some fine helicopter engines, since the West (US) is unreliable as **** when it comes to pressuring allies not to trade of military hardware and that is good that Turkey is going this path, where india is currently trying to do so but made grave mistakes with some Rafaels deals which they now try to exchange for Eurofighters, because France is blackmailed by US and is unreliable, but so is the entire EU.
When China finishes their development of WZ-16 engines it will be 2nd ranking in HP/t power.

This is the LCH Engine,
2 × HAL/Turbomeca Shakti turboshaft, 1,067 kW (1,430 shp) each

This is the T 129 engine,

2 × LHTEC CTS800-4A turboshaft, 1,014 kW (1,361 shp) each


LCH is lighter than the T129 with Bullet proof glass, so how is the T129 better ?

 

[SRBM2]

This is the LCH Engine,
2 × HAL/Turbomeca Shakti turboshaft, 1,067 kW (1,430 shp) each

This is the T 129 engine,

2 × LHTEC CTS800-4A turboshaft, 1,014 kW (1,361 shp) each


LCH is lighter than the T129 with Bullet proof glass, so how is the T129 better ?

One aspect does not make the entire system automatically better than another system. Both are to be precize rather low on the list of Attack Helicopters, but Turkey needed a ToT license since it is working for long term development of its own MIC and A-129 was the only Helicopter that was able to make a deal with ToT license. If turkey could get ToT license for Super Cobra they would definetley go for the better plattform or any other plattform. But the overall performance of A/T-129 is still unmachable for the LCH, it just has far to different requirements and philosophical designs and arrangements that are just not practical even for comperision without applying the traditional requirements and expections of Attack Helicopters to the LCH, it would be completley destroyed by almost every existing Attack Helicopter (in comperision). Surely not in all points but overall it is just a niche helicopter. I understand that some here have pride now that their countries are producing and working on systems, but don't let false pride blind you from advantages and disadvantages and of those plattforms.

What all Parameters,capabilities,firepower,survivability,ballistical protection etcetera breaks down to is a simple factor and that is a simple rating how Combat effective are they for what specific situations and the LCH will be not able to perform so many situations as the T-129 and even the T-129 is rather low intensive warfare focus and will not be able to perform anywhere near where heavy Attack Helicopters could performe. It always breaks down to combat effectiveness factor, the only way to compare them equally without flag waving to bias decision and you can hate me but the vote here is far away from reality, of what people would like to see in advantage and what in a disadvantage.

 

[kaykay]

One aspect does not make the entire system automatically better than another system. Both are to be precize rather low on the list of Attack Helicopters, but Turkey needed a ToT license since it is working for long term development of its own MIC and A-129 was the only Helicopter that was able to make a deal with ToT license. If turkey could get ToT license for Super Cobra they would definetley go for the better plattform or any other plattform. But the overall performance of A/T-129 is still unmachable for the LCH, it just has far to different requirements and philosophical designs and arrangements that are just not practical even for comperision without applying the traditional requirements and expections of Attack Helicopters to the LCH, it would be completley destroyed by almost every existing Attack Helicopter (in comperision). Surely not in all points but overall it is just a niche helicopter. I understand that some here have pride now that their countries are producing and working on systems, but don't let false pride blind you from advantages and disadvantages and of those plattforms.

What all Parameters,capabilities,firepower,survivability,ballistical protection etcetera breaks down to is a simple factor and that is a simple rating how Combat effective are they for what specific situations and the LCH will be not able to perform so many situations as the T-129 and even the T-129 is rather low intensive warfare focus and will not be able to perform anywhere near where heavy Attack Helicopters could performe. It always breaks down to combat effectiveness factor, the only way to compare them equally without flag waving to bias decision and you can hate me but the vote here is far away from reality, of what people would like to see in advantage and what in a disadvantage.

All of your points are speculative and thus holds absolutely zero credibility. @gslv mk3 @sancho @janon @sandy_3126 @Harisudan

 

[SRBM2]

Speculative?
So you want me to tell that the light weight LCH which basically has almost nowhere near the necessary protection level to operate at any high intense battlefields will performe better than the T-129 which already is rather a low intense designed helicopter?
That is the entire point of how well a system performs under all kind of situations, if it wasn't designed for it isn't even necessary to compare it because the outcome isn't fair to compare in first place. The LCH is a niche helicopter that shouldn't even compared to Attack Helicopters.

It will always break down to the same factor for all plattforms which plattform is more combat effecient and the LCH will take far lower rank than any other Attack helicopter, even then the german UHT Tiger version which is literally nothing else but an overexpensive Bo-105 version of Anti Armor role, which could be just use some FCS,FLIR and selfsuite upgrade for Bo-105.

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

One aspect does not make the entire system automatically better than another system. Both are to be precize rather low on the list of Attack Helicopters, but Turkey needed a ToT license since it is working for long term development of its own MIC and A-129 was the only Helicopter that was able to make a deal with ToT license. If turkey could get ToT license for Super Cobra they would definetley go for the better plattform or any other plattform. But the overall performance of A/T-129 is still unmachable for the LCH, it just has far to different requirements and philosophical designs and arrangements that are just not practical even for comperision without applying the traditional requirements and expections of Attack Helicopters to the LCH, it would be completley destroyed by almost every existing Attack Helicopter (in comperision). Surely not in all points but overall it is just a niche helicopter. I understand that some here have pride now that their countries are producing and working on systems, but don't let false pride blind you from advantages and disadvantages and of those plattforms.

What all Parameters,capabilities,firepower,survivability,ballistical protection etcetera breaks down to is a simple factor and that is a simple rating how Combat effective are they for what specific situations and the LCH will be not able to perform so many situations as the T-129 and even the T-129 is rather low intensive warfare focus and will not be able to perform anywhere near where heavy Attack Helicopters could performe. It always breaks down to combat effectiveness factor, the only way to compare them equally without flag waving to bias decision and you can hate me but the vote here is far away from reality, of what people would like to see in advantage and what in a disadvantage.

Let me be blunt here. Its a load of BS.

How is the T-129 better than the LCH ?

All I am hearing is your prejudiced "opinion" which is not braced by a SINGLE scientific evidence. Only some random rambling about design philosophy and operational roles which is pure speculation.

The weight of both helicopters are comparable. So the Armour is similar with LCH known to have bullet proof glass.

Speculative?
So you want me to tell that the light weight LCH which basically has almost nowhere near the necessary protection level to operate at any high intense battlefields will performe better than the T-129 which already is rather a low intense designed helicopter?
That is the entire point of how well a system performs under all kind of situations, if it wasn't designed for it isn't even necessary to compare it because the outcome isn't fair to compare in first place. The LCH is a niche helicopter that shouldn't even compared to Attack Helicopters.

It will always break down to the same factor for all plattforms which plattform is more combat effecient and the LCH will take far lower rank than any other Attack helicopter, even then the german UHT Tiger version which is literally nothing else but an overexpensive Bo-105 version of Anti Armor role, which could be just use some FCS,FLIR and selfsuite upgrade for Bo-105.

Again cut the BS.

What is the weight of the LCH and what is the weight of the T 129 ?

 

[sudhir007]

HAL’s LCH Sandwiched between Two user requirements | idrw.org

 

[Harisudan]

Speculative?
So you want me to tell that the light weight LCH which basically has almost nowhere near the necessary protection level to operate at any high intense battlefields will performe better than the T-129 which already is rather a low intense designed helicopter?
That is the entire point of how well a system performs under all kind of situations, if it wasn't designed for it isn't even necessary to compare it because the outcome isn't fair to compare in first place. The LCH is a niche helicopter that shouldn't even compared to Attack Helicopters.

It will always break down to the same factor for all plattforms which plattform is more combat effecient and the LCH will take far lower rank than any other Attack helicopter, even then the german UHT Tiger version which is literally nothing else but an overexpensive Bo-105 version of Anti Armor role, which could be just use some FCS,FLIR and selfsuite upgrade for Bo-105.

I'm not an expert in Rotary wing platforms, but with the little basic knowledge I have let me validate your points..
1. The T-129 according to you will fare in terms of Power generated by the turbo shaft engines and I think the Turbomeca/Shakthi combo generates more KWs on a basic 1 to 1 comparison..1361 hps and 1334 hps..hence theoretically it power developed per KG of fuel burnt is more or less equal or the t-129 is slightly better.
2. The Maximum take off weight for T-129 could be few hundred KGs more than that of LCH since the empty weight for both the platforms are same..The calculations provided in the PIC are absurd, hence I had to do a thumb rule calculation for this..
3. The service ceiling or altitude for LCH is clearly ahead of the T-129 since the LCH is specifically designed for filling the High Altitude attack role and light weight ground support role it is superior in this aspect..
4. Hence to conclude, on ground support role in MSL, both the platforms perform more or less similar because few hundred Kgs more weight won't make much difference, may be it might help T-129 in carrying another POD or an Extra anti tank guided munition at the max..
Safety features and other aspects will be there in LCH as well as much as it is in T-129 since it is only three Prototypes and running and a lot more to come...
As a first endeavour for Indian aviation sector is a commendable job and the best platform they could get for this price tag in the world..
1 vs 1 comparison of this chopper is not required because both of these have more or less similar features and t this moment few hundred (KG-m) of more torque might put the T-129 ahead of LCH..But since it is evolving can't say any final verdict..
This is my little validation..