Wednesday, 17 September 2008

The Indian Navy’s Dhruv: falling between two stools


by Ajai Shukla

Prodded by questions from visitors to this blog, I have spoken in some depth to the Indian Navy as well as to the designers of the Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) about why the Indian Navy remains reluctant to accept the Dhruv into service; and also about what HAL has done to address the issues that the Navy has raised.

So here are the findings of this quick enquiry.

Currently there are 8 Dhruvs on the Indian Navy’s inventory. They operate mainly on communications, training and administrative duties from shore-based airfields. The navy does not plan to order any more Dhruvs.

The Navy believes that its helicopters (hereafter helos) must all have the capability to land on the deck of ships. That is in contrast with some brown-water navies that find it perfectly acceptable to operate the bulk of their aircraft primarily from the shore. For a helo to operate from a ship, the navy is demanding three additional “specific-to-navy” criteria

1.   Strengthened Undercarraige.  The undercarriage must be specially adapted for deck landings. Unlike landing on terra firma, where the impact is primarily in one dimension (that of the weight of the helicopter impacting on hard ground) a ship is moving in three dimensions (roll, pitch and yaw) and the undercarriage must be capable of absorbing the impact of landing in all three dimensions. The navy says that the Dhruv’s undercarriage does not meet that requirement.

2.   Folding Main Rotor.  An on-board helo has to be accommodated into a very small hangar space, which means that the main rotors must have a system of hinges, which allow them to be quickly folded before putting the helo into the hangar (and then, equally quickly, unfolded when it is brought out for another flight). The navy’s initially stated requirement was for the rotors to be folded within a width of 3.5 metres.

Furthermore, the navy wants an automatic blade folding facility, of the kind that is installed in its Sea King helos. In this, onboard electrical or hydraulic actuators fold up the blades quickly, rather than having to go through the longer and more painstaking process of manually folding the blades. Remember, that in the smaller warships, the tips of the main rotor blades extend beyond the deck, overhanging the sea. So manually folding them --- by removing bolts and supporting the blades during folding/unfolding --- is an exercise that the navy would rather avoid.

HAL had a problem with foldable blades, as well as with installing an automatic system. A senior Dhruv designer told me, “the requirement of Blade Folding with a width of 3.5 metres was not feasible due to the inherent design characteristics of the ALH hingeless Main Rotor Blade with an Integrated Dynamic System”.

However, HAL worked on the problem and came up with the concept of “segmented blades”, which would be 5.1 metres wide instead of the navy’s requirement of 3.5 metres. HAL says the navy has agreed to the 5.1 metre width, and that the process of manually folding the “segmented blades” has been demonstrated to the navy.

However, HAL has not installed an automatic folding facility. HAL tells me, “Automatic blade folding was not pursued due to weight penalty of about 100 kgs”.

It may be useful here, for the readers’ understanding, to describe what HAL means by “segmented blades”.

“Segmented blades” comprise of two blade parts. The outer part is folded inwards to obtain the desired folded width. The other option is that of “Hingeless blades”, which have no physical hinges. These are made of composite materials, which ensures “virtual hinges”.

3.   More “Time on Task”.  The navy is demanding that the Dhruv must be able to spend 2 hours and 20 minutes on task (i.e. airborne with its task payload), and have an additional reserve of 20 minutes.

The Dhruv is simply not capable of meeting this requirement. HAL points out that, “this (requirement) is beyond the inherent payload capacity of any 5.5 tonne class helicopter in the world and can be met with difficulty by a 10-tonne class helicopter, given the Naval specification and weight requirement.”

If the Dhruv were flying empty, additional fuel tanks could have given it the ability to meet the Time on Task requirements. But the navy demands that the Dhruv must carry a heavy weapons and sensor payload, which rules out the fitment of extra fuel tanks. The need to carry such weapons and sensor payload put most naval helos, e.g. the Sea King, in a much higher weight class (10-14 tonnes).

IN SIMPLE TERMS, THE 5.5 TONNE DHRUV FALL BETWEEN TWO STOOLS. IT IS TOO LARGE AND HEAVY TO PERFORM THE ROLE (SEARCH & RESCUE, COMMUNICATIONS, ETC) THAT 3-TONNE HELOS LIKE THE CHEETAH AND THE CHETAK CURRENTLY DO… AND TOO SMALL AND LIGHT TO REPLACE 10-14 TONNE HELOS LIKE THE SEA KING AND THE KAMOV.

Despite that, top HAL sources aver that torpedo/depth charge trials were carried out during 2001-02; and sonar, Electronic Support Measures (ESM) and High Frequency Communications Systems (HFCS) trials were carried out during 2004-05. Platform integration for an Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) role has been successfully completed, which includes ESM, sonar/sonics, torpedo and HFCS.

There were some problems faced during the 2004-05 trials with the reliability of the sensors, but HAL points out that the reliability issue needs to be dealt with by the vendors of the sensors, all of whom were selected by the navy.

And finally, there is no truth to the belief that a vibration problem is the navy’s main issue with the Dhruv. HAL designers say that, “With fine tuning of the Anti-Resonance Vibration Isolation System (ARIS), structural reinforcements and the introduction of Frahm dampers, the vibration problem has been resolved satisfactorily”.

207 comments:

1 – 200 of 207   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

ajay sir,

what is the chance that the LOH platform can be used for search and resuce missions which is being developed by HAL for Army.

Kannan said...

There were hitherto an impression that Indian Navy ppl were reasonable guys unlike Army and Airforce looking for futuristic Star Ship battle tanks and fighter jets better than F-22.

From the article, it seems that Navy is as much as a pain in the ass of DRDO-HAL.
I wonder if these hostility of our armed forces towards indigenous R&D ppl affects their morale ..leave alone their abysmal pay package. No wonder our armed forces were fighting with spears and stones in Kargil.

Anonymous said...

great article Shiv, thanks

Overcoming a technological problem exists in any R&D effort - doesnt matter who the customer is.

At the end of the day, they are the reason we are able to enjoy our freedom

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 17 September 2008 10:28

Which Shiv? If you mean that rascal Aroor, then you must be hallucinating. The bugger can never write such a piece. The only informed guys in this reporting business are Sandeep Uninathan, P Chacko Joseph and Ajai Shukla.

Anon @ 17 September 2008 10:24

Navy on contrary is not a blind purchaser. It has valid reasons unlike our Army Bhaiyas.

Dhruv cannot fit all roles. Don't expect it to fit small helio and large helio roles.

smith said...

ajay sir,

i am little bit confused is that mean that while designing the ALH HAL never consulted the end user for the specification or they just designed this LOH around the armys requirements and then thought of modifying it for various roles to be played by it.

Anonymous said...

Nice explanation of the technical reasons. Now if only we could get a similar analysis from the army for the Arjun.

Anonymous said...

@Smith the LOH is a different helicopter under development that will fit the Navy's surveillance role and will replace the smaller helos in service. For the Anti-submarine role the Dhruv (Advanced Light Helicopter) is inadequate. The Navy has issued an RFP for 16 anti-Submarine helicopter. The Navy has a requirement of about 60. The Medium lift helicopter will have a naval role and the following of 44 will be based on this Medium Lift Helicopter in development by HAL. I appreciate the Navy. They have good vision.

Anonymous said...

@ Smith:
What it means is as our first development effort of an indigenous chopper we took the safe route of developing a medium weight multi utility chopper and then trying to modify its specs according to specific applications. So while general payload and endurance input specs may have been taken from the services it was designed and developed around specific requirements. Thats why I said before this one size fits all will not fit all but most

Anonymous said...

"So while general payload and endurance input specs may have been taken from the services it was designed and developed around specific requirements."

I meant:
So while general payload and endurance input specs may have been taken from the services it was NOT designed and developed around specific requirements.

Anonymous said...

anon @ 17 September 2008 10:43:

Lets not indulge in name calling here. I'm sure we can do better than that and have a healthy discussion.

FWIW, I go to Shiv's blog only and only for images, come here for an unbiased reporting and have been lurking in BR for last 8 years for some really good analysis. There are some really very professional posters there who could any day give the defence journos a run for their money though sometimes, like any public forum the big picture gets lost in emotional opinions and personal attacks and that makes me stay away from being signing up at BR.

I don't expect analysis by Shiv Aroor, he mixes facts with his opinions, which makes his articles lose their objectivity, but I still admire his resourcefulness to get all those Akash, Agni-III and now Astra pics and I respect him for that.

Anonymous said...

In continuation to my post above:
There are some absolutely fantastic writers in the Possible indian military scenarios thread of BR. They are as realistic as they can get.
I rate them better and more realistic than any Tom Clancey I have ever read.
And all this comes from thorough research and analysis. Something some of our defence journos can take a leaf out of, so that they can really take a hard look at their half baked half truth being reported in name of articles. This blog is a welcome change from the crap I read everyday in the name of defence reporting, and this is an endemic problem everywhere not just confined to Indian defence journalism

smith said...

thanks for that info

is it true that first Rolls-Royce CTS800 engines which were navalised and corrosion-resistant and were therefore preferred by the Indian Navy. However, now HAL has decided to junk this option and instead settle for the Ardiden/Shakti engine which is not a navalised one.

fighterclass said...

ajai, if the HAL/IN had thought of replacing the sea kings or kamovs with the dhruv, they deserve to take charge of the afghan navy's aerial requirements !
I somehow don't think that was the case as it is obvious even to a lay person like me.

but replacing the MATCH Chetaks (MAnned Torpedo Carrying Helicopter)
which are armed with a couple of whitehead torpedoes should have been feasible.
chetaks are used in this role on the smaller ships of IN (in the larger ones they are used for SAR while ASW is carried out by the kamovs and the sea kings).
the Dhruv should have been able to replace the chetak in "both" these roles.
in terms of both time over target and payload capacity, (meaning the ability to carry more sophisticated sonar equipment) the dhruv will be miles ahead of the chetak.

my questions are,

a)can it really unable to carry out SAR jobs or that is simply a weight requirement ?

b)As far as I know, even the chetaks don't have folding rotors. I can understand the difficulties of using such machines in a 2 helicopter ship but in a single helicopter ship that shouldn't be a problem.

c)is the HAL doing anything to strengthen the undercarriage ?

d)any plans afoot to mate the shakti on the NALH, to mitigate some of the increased weight from the above measures ?

Lastly, congratulations for being so responsive and competent.
we need more men like you !
cheers !

smith said...

ajay sir,

I would like to know wether HAL is planing to develope homegrown heavy lift HELO as there will be a time when we will be planing to phase out the old mighty MI 26 heavy lift with better machine one day.

If yes what will be the concept and wether we will be joining hands to develope one if yes with whom and how.

Also i would like to know that is there going to be a seperate aero engine development agency or department for further futuristic development in it.

Sid said...

Very professional article.

Should be published somewhere where it can reach the masses.

max said...

Great job Ajai! keep it up!

Mr.White said...

A professional one and answers lot of questions those kept unanswered. Yes it is a real true that the indigenous developments in India always starts as a testing phase to know about their ability and if it gets succeeded in the end, the product will get modified for various versions. It can be an army version or naval version. No indigenous projects were started for any pre-planned requirements with a specification. If it is not, these type of falling between stools will never happen.

Vishal Nalkur said...

Superbly articulated sir! Will be watching out for more of such articles from your side...

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 17 September 2008 12:25

I respect your personal reasons why you visit Shiv Errors blog. I mean people go to Bar, People go to temple, its not my business.

I hope you will respect mine.

I can see that the original blunder of "great article Shiv" was your doing. Its nice to say sorry.

On your "half Truth" is very misleading. Truth is different to different people.

Anonymous said...

vishal
check your blog comments

Atty said...

It will be specious to say that the Navy should order the ALH(Dhruv) only for its SAR utility.For that purpose there are enough Chetaks available.The Navy presently uses the Seakings as a standard for future multi-role rotory acquisitions.The ALH does not measure to the Seaking in combat roles.And as Col Ajai has pointed out,blade folding is a major issue.In choppy seas you cannot expect the crew to climb and hang around the helicopter (which remains lashed down on the exposed deck) to fold its blades.It is a hazardous proposition.Moreover,if Dhruv cannot perform ASW missions it defeats the basic purpose of having an integral helicopter on a warship.Today air based anti-submarine warfare is the norm in advanced navies - a tactic that offers relative stealth to own platforms while prosecuting the submarine with greater efficiency and speed.So these factors are important and cannot be criticised as 'unreasonableness' on the part of the Navy.Lets be a little more objective.For those who get inspired(and agitated) by the hyperbole and sentimental criticism against the Services acquision,it deserves a mention that there is many a slip between the cup and the lip and our military aspires to operate shoulder to shoulder with the world's best.What do you expect after Red Flag,Malabar,Konkan,Varuna etc? The bar for DRDO,therefore,keeps rising.

Anonymous said...

I would have said sorry if I was a shiv fan and I'm not and I think I made myself pretty clear in my post why I am not.O btw, I certainly do respect yours and everyone else around here for whatever their reasons for going to whomsoever blog. But I do resent name calling any day and that's what I said. take it for fwiw.
Peace.

fighterclass said...

@ atty
IN also uses chetaks in ASW roles.

in this role as also in SAR role, dhruv is a far far better choice than the venerable chetaks, with longer legs and better payload.

unless of course it is the rotor that is creating the problems.
BTW, even the chetaks have non-foldable rotors IIRC.

fighterclass said...

and the sv-2000 can also serve as a poor man's AEW system for the smaller ships.

Anonymous said...

Excellent article, clears up the issue. This is the kind of access that Shukla-ji has which other defence journo's just dream of.

The Navy's requirements sound quite legitimate. The ALH must not just replace the Chetaks but have the ability to carry dipping sonars, LWT's have better endurance.

The Navy's acquizition of a 10-ton Helo like the NH-90 should be acclererated. The problem is that such helo's are extremely expensive and I doubt the Navy will be able to acquire them in numbers. Hopefully a solution can be found that enables the ALH to be deployed on some ships.

fighterclass said...

The Navy's requirements sound quite legitimate. The ALH must not just replace the Chetaks but have the ability to carry dipping sonars, LWT's have better endurance.
____________________________________
dear anon, NALH already has all that, either already incorporated or planned.

ever heard of mihir dunking sonar?

Incidentally, ajai, did you find out if the 2 supposed HAL fellows were real or not about the 5 dhruvs being made ?

bongdongs said...

fighterclass,

1) Seems like Navy is not satisfied with endurance. On Shiv's blog there was a comment that the next Naval prototype will have an additional auxillary fuel tank.

2) Yeah, I am aware of the Mihir, but it seems to be still far from a finished product. There was talk about acquiring a dunking sonar from L3.

3) I have seen no public pictures of the ALH carrying LWT's or any news releases of LWT testing from an ALH so I assume that too is a work in progress.

Anonymous said...

My mistake, that was supposed to be Ajai not Shiv

fighterclass said...

@ bongdongs,

what you say about "in progress" is probably true.

unfortunately, the LOH that IN will opt for, according to shiv, to replace the chetaks would fall short of the dhruv on all counts, be it
endurance, project completion, payload capacity or sensor fit.

fighterclass said...

1) Seems like Navy is not satisfied with endurance. On Shiv's blog there was a comment that the next Naval prototype will have an additional auxillary fuel tank.
_______________________________
trying to force a horse to do an elephants job may not be prudent.
this is a "light" helicopter after all.

p.s. what is L3 ?

bongdongs said...

fighterclass,

L-3 is a US company

http://www.l-3com.com/products-services/productservice.aspx?type=p&id=139

bongdongs said...

What would be interesting is to compare the naval ALH with the "naval version of the "Future Lynx" and "Super Lynx" programs. They are of similar size and designed for similar roles.

Ajai said...

Guys!

What's with the Shiv-bashing? Just go to his blog and take a look... it's great. It breaks stories regularly, has exclusives (e.g. the Admiral Arun Prakash article on the Pay Commission agitation) that I slaver over, and runs great pictures and articles.

Anyway, this is just to place on record my admiration for LiveFist. And, btw, if my blog looks halfway acceptable, it's because Shiv worked on the getup. And, best of all, he did my Broadsword logo... something that I JUST LOVE.

Let's stick to defence matters here, please, please.

Anonymous said...

navy blame sensors on IL38

navy blame sensors on dhruv(and dhruv has better sensors than sea king has)

dhruv better than chetak,cheetah

navy bought decommissioned helos from US despite knowing when there was no SEA KING available due to arms embargo

since navy going to acquire P8I FORM
USA which has not yet flown and how
can they buy this knowing that

END USER AGREEMENT,WE HAVE TO PROVIDE OUR OWN RWR,IFF AND SOME OTHER ELECTRONICS SINCE US DOESN,T SELL THEIR ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS

APY 10 RADAR SAME AS ELTA 2022A RADAR ,SAME RANGE ,SAME NO OF
TARGET TRACKING

ISRAEL PROVIDED ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS FOR TU142 UPGRADE AT MUCH
CHEAPER PRICES


P8I DEAL TOO COSTLY DEAL WITH US
2.2 BILLION FOR JUST 8 AIRCRAFT

AND OUR IDIOT NAVY CHIEF BLAMES RUSSIA

Anonymous said...

anon, just shut up !

Anonymous said...

This thread is hilarious. When guys who don't have a clue about helicopters and naval helicopters choose to discuss the Naval ALH .. what does one get .. confusion .. Ajai and Shiv Aroor could do well to speak to a whole lot of ex-Test Pilots who are now flying in civvy street .. they can clear a few cobwebs for sure .. as far as people on this blog or others are concerned .. it is a lot of waffle .. but I would think the discussion shud be abt capability through a Life Cycle of an Aircraft .. support, spares, and such other things .. remember someone has to keep it flying safely .. or else the media will chew a lot more cud as it did in the MiG 21 case .. Blade Fold .. how does the Navy take on a helicopter that doesn't fit into her ships?? Manual folding or otherwise .. If the Navy says 3.5m or whatever .. it means.. that is the size that can be accommodated .. the 10-12 ton Class fit in but not the ALH... I have also read a lot abt unit costs of aircraft .. and comparisons between MRCA aircraft based on Project Costs/No of Aircraft. That is something like the Airlines offering Air Tickets at Zero Fare (and in small print they tell you about taxes) .. and a lot more remains unsaid .. folks read first b4 posting on these Blogs .. (in any case don't do it after drink!!)

fighterclass said...

thanks bongdongs, I didn't know aout l-3. do you have a link to go with that news ?

ajai, too bad of all the comments here you chose only the ones on shiv to respond to.
take your time but have a look about the military ones too !
cheerio !

Anonymous said...

The arguments here is well summarized by what I publish below:

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost.
She reduced altitude and spotted a man below. She descended a bit more and shouted:

'Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago but I don't know where I am.'

The man below replied, 'You're in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You're between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude.'

'You must be an engineer,' said the balloonist.

'I am', replied the man. 'How did you know?'

'Well, answered the balloonist, 'everything you told me is technically correct, but I've no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help at all. If anything you've delayed my trip even more.'

The man below responded, 'You must be in Journalism.'

'I am,' replied the balloonist, 'but how did you know?'

'Well,' said the man, 'You don't know where you are or where you're going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise which you've no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problems.'

Anonymous said...

nice one !

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Hats off to my friend Col (Ret’d) Ajai Shukla for explaining in layman’s terms what exactly is lacking in the Dhruv ALH’s shipborne naval variant. His systematic and clinical revelation of the helicopter’s deficiencies in design and operational performance just proves the simple fact that the Dhruv ALH while being a multi-purpose rotary-winged platform is nevertheless unable to comply with the specific qualitative and operational requirements of a particular end-user, this being the Navy. Of course this does not mean that the ALH is a downright dead-duck and it will undoubtedly excel in performance at the hands of the Indian Army’s Combat Aviation Brigades and with the Indian Air Force and other foreign air forces/ground forces as a SAR/air-mobility/MEDEVAC platform when operating at high-altitudes. In addition, the built-in future growth potential of the Dhruv ALH should also ensure that in future it and its LCH derivative are both equipped with a fly-by-light flight control system using fibre-optic cables and doing away with the bulkier electro-hydraulic flight controls. Incorporation of a low-cost HUMS will further reduce the helicopter’s direct operating costs (DOC) and maintenance man-hours per flying hour. I sincerely hope that HAL works along with DRDO entities like the ADE and DARE to develop in the near future low-cost flight simulators and fixed-based cockpit procedures trainers, all of which will be required for provision of cost-effective operational conversion of flight crew and maintenance of their type-specific flight proficiency.
Another point I wish to make concerns the existing SA.316B Alouette III (Chetak) and SA.315 Lama (Cheetah) inventories of the Indian armed services, and debunk the erroneous assumption that these machines are ‘ageing’. In aviation parlance, there is no such aircraft (fixed-wing or rotary-winged) known as new or old or ageing or obsolete. Simply put, either an aircraft is airworthy or not-airworthy. It becomes not-airworthy only when it becomes unserviceable due to unavailability of assured spares support (both long-lead items as well as rotables/consumables) or the cost-prohibitive nature of obtaining spares support, or the absence of authorised maintenance/repair/overhaul (MRO)facilities, or the lack of skilled technical manpower and aircrew required for supporting the aircraft’s continued flight operations. Consequently, since HAL is totally self-sufficient in terms of offering the full-scope of MRO capabilities and product support for the Chetaks and Cheetahs, these two helicopter types will definitely be in service for another 15-20 years, rest assured. In fact, every time any such helicopter enters a HAL hangar for depot-level maintenance its entire fuselage is ‘zero-lifed’ and after it emerges ready for flying, the helicopter is given a totally new technical service life. That is exactly what will happen to those naval Chetaks that the Navy will be reconfiguring as shipborne vertical takeoff & landing UAVs. For these very reasons as well, don’t be surprised if the DOC of the Sikorsky SH-3Ds on board the INS Jalashva LPD is much lower than that of the Ka-28PL & Ka-31 fleets. In fact, companies from France, the US and Canada have developed innovative life-extension packages that will not only equip the SH-3Ds and Mk42B Sea Kings with IFR-enabled glass cockpits, but also increase the thrust rating of their powerplants by up to 30%.

Anonymous said...

The undercarriage for NAVAL ALH is different than the one for Army. Even then its a problem ? I thought the under-carriage was optimized for naval operations.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

TO: Anon@01:33. While the Dhruv’s ALH’s variants for the Army and Air Force have skids, the naval variant has what is known as tricycle undercarriage, which is considered mandatory when landing on and taking off from the stern-mounted helo-decks. Now, as Ajai has clearly mentioned, the recoiling tricycle undercarriage is required to compensate for any ‘hard’ landing/touch-down a times when the warship is being subjected to roll, pitch and yaw motions during bad weather (up to Sea State 5). In addition, such helicopters are also equipped with a belly-mounted harpoon-type deck arresting system along with a related rail-based electrohydraulic towing system (both of which are of French origin in the Indian Navy’s case, and the combined system is called the SAMAHe) that is licence-manufactured by Larsen & Toubro. These two systems are used to secure the helicopter to the deck and tow it inside or outside the hangar. Deck landings and takeoffs were demonstrated by the Dhruv on board INS Ganga in the 1990s, but I reckon the Navy has specified the helicopter’s ability to takeoff and recover in Sea State 5, something which is not easily achieved by any 5-tonne helicopter. Therein lies the dilemma.

smith said...

hi

as i dont have the indepth knowledge of the helicopters i would like to know that what will be the weight class of LOH by international standards also the medium lift helos and the heavy lift helos. also i would like to know that weather the term LOH and light lift helos means the same.

i will also do some google search on choppers

please help me out in my quest

Atty said...

@fighterclass,
Would appreciate if you could kindly furnish the cost of one Dhruv versus one Chetak,which you suggest can be employed interchangeably as a SAR helo by the Navy.Is Dhruv cost effective?Secondly,the Chetak which is sometimes used as a ASW paltform (termed MATCH)is actually a 'poor man's' ASW helo because it can only act as an extended weapon carrier and cannot do its own sensor/information collation and processing like the Seaking or the Kamov.So to suggest that Dhruv can easily fit in the roles performed by the Chetaks as well as Seakings will be analogous to saying "Hey I actually want a Japanese Honda Scooter but nevertheless I have decided to dump my present bicycle for a Scooty Pep because it takes me faster,so what if dosent measure up to the Honda"?

fighterclass said...

atty please quote the portion where I said dhruv can replace the sea kings.

your own post shows that chetak is not ideal for MATCH.

if you think India's forces can't afford an incrase of a few crores for a jump in capabilities what are we doing buying sukhois and MRCA.

we should stick with mig-21s.

Broadsword said...

This is just to clarify some of the points that have been raised.

1. SAR. The simple problem with Dhruv in SAR role... as I mentioned in my post... is that the navy is not satisfied with its endurance. The navy wants a minimum of 2 hours and 20 minutes on task, plus a reserve of 20 minutes. The Dhruv doesn't have it. Other than that, it is better suited for SAR and casevac because it can seat a full-fledged medic team and carry a couple of stretchers without modifying the basic aircraft.

2. Folding rotors are important. The Dhruv's main rotor is 2.2 metres larger in diameter than that of a Cheetah.

3. Strengthened undercarriage. HAL has already produced a strengthened tricycle-type undercarriage for the LCH. As you can read on my LCH article, it can absorb an impact of 10.5 m/sec. But it needs further refinement for yaw and pitch.

4. The Shakti on the NALH. You don't need any major modifications for that. Any Dhruvs that the navy orders would automatically come with the Shakti engine. But the problem is that the Shakti's performance at sea level is just about 8% better than that of the earlier 2B2 engine. It is at high altitudes that the Shakti becomes a far superior engine. At 6000 metres, the Shakti is 25% more powerful than the 2B2.

5. Fighterclass, what 5 Dhruvs are you talking about? Plz explain...

thanks!

Atty said...

@fighterclass your 17 September 2008 20:11 response appears to be making a case for Dhruv as a viable ASW helo.Since Seaking is the only rotor predominantly used in this role,I assumed you meant that the acqusition of Dhruv would kill two birds with one stone.Sorry if you felt slighted.Anyway,from what I know the Dhruv has a long way to go before it can become a viable alternative as a multi-role combat helo for the Navy.Wish the designers at HAL the very best of luck.I am sure they can come up with some great innovations.

fighterclass said...

my point was that dhruv was a possible replacement for chetak that outdoes chetak in a lot of capabilities.

that response was specifically about the chetak replacement, dunno why you think it referred to the sea king !

from my comments at 17th sep 13:22

"if the HAL/IN had thought of replacing the sea kings or kamovs with the dhruv, they deserve to take charge of the afghan navy's aerial requirements ! "

fighterclass said...

if the smaller IN ships can take in the dhruv, it would mean a quantum jump in capabilities. that's all.

fighterclass said...

5. Fighterclass, what 5 Dhruvs are you talking about? Plz explain...
_________________________________

ajai, someone posted in aroor's blog :

PS: make sure u come by nxt week, then its possible to see the 5th naval ALH (ASW), fitted with so called "dreaded search radar",sonars,mines.....


I'm sorry, it should have been the 5th ALH ASW not 5 ASW ALH.
my mistake.

fighterclass said...

ajai, I appreciate your effort to take time out to answer our never ending stream of questions.
thanks !

so, here goes another one !

a)dhruv's endurance is listed as 4 hours 20 minutes. e.g

http://www.army-technology.com/
projects/dhruv/specs.html

and that's quite reasonable with a range of 700 km (800 km according to BR) and cruise speed of
225 km/h.
this I assume is with max fuel load and no other payload.
For a typical SAR role, the payload would be a couple of men, a rubber dingy perhaps and a winch. <500 kg at any rate.
if the rest of load capacity is used as fuel, its TOT in SAR role should be around 3.5 hrs and certainly not less than 3 hrs.

As I understand, endurance might be a factor in ASW role but not in SAR role.
and have a look at the chetak's figures for comparison !

b)chetak has max endurance of 2 hour 30 min.(60 % of dhruv) and payload of less than 1000 kg.
dhruv's payload is more than 2.5 times that amount at 2600 kg.

simply put, this means the dhruv, with all its deficiencies supplies IN with a much improved capabilities compared to the chetak in all roles like SAR(much improved time over target), ASW (this will be real ASW capability, rather than chetak's rudimentary capability) and AEW (chetak's corresponding capabilities are laughable) provided, of course the problems with landing gear and deck space are sorted out.

fighterclass said...

http://www.globalsecurity.org
/military/world/india/chetak.htm

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Fighterclass: According to official HAL figures as per its website the Dhruv ALH's endurance is given as 3.5 hours. However, as they say, the devil is always in the detail. For instance, what's the endurance figure when the helicopter is cruising a low level (between 50 feet and 250 feet above sea level) and when the helicopter is cruising at 5,000 feet ASL. And at what true airspeeds (in both the continuous cruise and maximum cruise speed levels)? Navies generally calculate endurance based on flying low=level profiles, with the only exceptions being AEW helicopters where flying close to the service ceiling is the preferred option to obtain longer over-the-horizon airspace surveillance envelopes.

fighterclass said...

certainly, low level flight endurance will be lower. but that is also applicable for the chetak.
whichever way you see it, with much better payload capacity, dhruv will always have a better TOT than chetak, unless the laws of physics are changed for it.
chetaks' endurance is given as 2.5 hrs. this will be all payload for fuel endurance.
for SAR role, if we assume 500 kg, as we did for dhruv, the chetak would have to fly with less than 50% fuel capacity !
what would then be its range and time over target ?

by the by, don't depend on HAL website figures too much.
it's not very reliable. typos always creep in and they are almost never updated.
for example :
chetak :

Rate of Firing 11.020 meters (???)
Max. Range (Gun) 12.897 meters
Max. Range (Rockets) 2.602 meters

rate of firing is 11 meters ?
gun and rocket ranges are 13 meters and 2.6 meters rspectively ?
are you kidding me ?

then, dhruv's cervice ceiling is mentioned as 4500 m while chetak's is given as 5400 m.

again, I know for a fact that dhruv's ceiling is more than 6000m and can be pushed to 6500m.
I won't be surprised if these are the figures when ALH used the TM333TB (not TB2) and HAL hasn't bothered to update the data.

therefore, use HAL site's statistics, but compare with other reliable sources to arrive at the correct figure.

Anonymous said...

Any update on LCA Tejas

void walker said...

ah! feels so nice to post sum info to DDMs !
btw, the last time I posted sumthing on aroor's blog many jaws dropped, arror panicked and i presume prasun pissed in his pants.

well, for starters the Navy has 2 types of ALH (built to US mil standards)...
the first one looks like the civilian version in Navy colurs,with the addition of a mihir dunking sonar on the fuselage underside, the repositioning of ADF to the tail-boom and addition of lots of antenna arrays on the fuselage.
..the second one is the ASW version,which is easily identified by its oversized nose(housing the search radar)
now the problems;
in fact both these choppers face the same challenge offered by navy,ie folding rotors...if u ppl don't knw the ALH has incorporated hingeless composite main rotor with elastomeric bearings, a bearingless composite tail rotor coupled with AFCS ,SO u can't literally expect to fold the rotors at their roots like the old rotors with hinges!
thus,the naval ALH uses a different technique to fold the rotors...this in turn limiting the width after folding to around 5mts (naval reqd is 3.5)
the remedy for the second prob is being sorted out by fitting a cylindrical fueltank inside the fuselage in the 1st version...
and last but not the least regarding the no. of ASW/ordinary naval choppers being built:- I'll provide u the serial nos of the 1st version , as soon as possible....if u don't believe in the ASW thing, i can only hav pity on u...can't reveal in public;y don't u fly down to my office.

so,till my next post ,tc
cheers!

Anonymous said...

cool void. guys like you need to contribute more often to counter misinformation campaign of prasun and his ilk.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

TO Void Walker: It is you that's being presumptous and spreading misdinformation, and if you want to dispute that, then please enlighten us about the two US MILSPEC standards thst the Dhruv ALH adheres to. Deal in specifics, and don't generalise. Walk the talk. And for starters, reveal yourself and stand up to be accounted for. At least folks like Ajai, Shiv and myself have the guts to do that.

ism said...

@PRASUN SENGUPTA

Sir, you should start a blog.

Anonymous said...

oh no !

Broadsword said...

"ah! feels so nice to post sum info to DDMs !
btw, the last time I posted sumthing on aroor's blog many jaws dropped, arror panicked and i presume prasun pissed in his pants."

----------------------------

You seem pretty good at presuming!

Do you really believe you made all those jaws drop? Sounds very much like schoolboy fantasizing... those dreams that class weaklings routinely have about beating up the big bully.

Why don't you just post information? And spare everyone the details of your wet dreams.

kunal said...

whatever that guy with the name void has posted is true to the fullest extent...there's no fantasizing or exageration here,sirs.

vikaas pandey said...

@ kunal
yeah its more or less the fact.I can confirm that as a person associated with helicopter div.. I think he has spoken his heart out after hearing all the BS and the misinformation campaign spread by ill-informed press-wallahs. I hav regards for Aroor and prasun but they need to confirm the facts before they publish any defence matters and then indulge in dirty mud-slinging....the least thing that aroorbhai and prasunji can do is to contact ppl deeply associated with the industry like 'void' or even me,bfore the matter gets printed..I hope this will go a long way in improving relations b/w media and the industry.

Anonymous said...

Alright Ajai, that was a nice post and quite informative also. DDM agents will always provide a third or maybe even a fourth pespective. Nevermind.


So whats coming up next?

vikaas pandey said...

@ prasun
yes sir, its true that dhruv has been built to US mil standards ...i confirmed it today evening by looking into the Dhruv airframe & airframe manual(issued by OEM to customers)....i searched the net a lot for it,but cudn't find any info abt it.....neways the that's what the manual says ...you can confirm it with any guy in HAL helicopter division.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Kunal & Vikas Pandey: If indeed the both of you are from HAL's Helicopter Division as you claim, then you should very well know that that there is no such thing as an airframe manual issued to operators/customers. Every operator/customer of the Dhruv ALH is given only the following: technical manual that includes sub-sections on airframe, engines, avionics, instrumentation and accessories; flight operations manual; and the maintenance manual, along with two log books pertaining to flight operations and maintenance. And if indeed you have access to these manuals I've highlighted (and which by the way I do have in my possession in CD-Rs), then surely you two can tell us all exactly to what US/NATO MILSPEC standard the Dhruv ALH conforms to, just as the civilian variant conforms to the FAA's FAR part 29 standard. Therefore, can you please be specific and spell out the MILSPEC standards? Walk the talk, as I've said earlier, instead of maligning others'. Please do not insult our intelligence. Stick to specifics.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

TO Those Claiming To Be Hailing From HAL Helicopter Division: The military variants of the Dhruv ALH should adhere to the following FAR/MILSPEC standards:
US Army Aeronautical Design Standard-33E (ADS-33E)
Flaw-Tolerant Rotor System: FAR/JAR 29.571, AM 29-28
Crashworthy Fuel System: FAR/JAR 29.952, AM 29-35
Flaw-Tolerant Drive Train with Over Torque Certification: FAR/JAR 29.952, AM 29-28
Turbine Burst Protection: FAR/JAR 29.901, AM 29-36
Composite Spar Main & Tail Rotor Blades with Lightning Strike Protection: FAR/JAR 1309(h), AM 29-40
Engine Compartment Fire Protection: FAR/JAR 29.1193
Redundant Hydraulics & Flaw Tolerant Flight Controls: FAR/JAR 29.571, AM 29-28
Aircraft-Wide Bird Strike Protection: FAR/JAR 29.631, AM 29-40
Crashworthiness Standard: FAR/JAR 29.561, AM 29-38
Crashworthy Seats Conforming to MIL-STD-1472B
Cockpit Instrumentation Lighting Conforming to MIL-STD-85762A
Avionics Databus: MIL-STD-1553B or ARINC-429
Autopilot Accuracy: MIL-F-9490D
Embedded MIL-STD-188-141B ALE Link Protection
Embedded MIL-STYD-188-110B data modem

As I said earlier, don't deal in generalisations. Produce specific inputs. There's nothing secretive about such data.

vikaas pandey said...

sir, i think you have no idea about HAL ....firstly u try to dissuade us by ur trash talk, as if making fun of our status as HAL employees..it'll be better for you if u change your attitude.....
let me come to the point;there are 3 manuals for every dhruv..
1)airframe
2)electrical & instrumentation
3)avionics

each of them are seperate books having 1500 pages each, with elaborate diagrams and specifications....
now if at all you have these books in your possession,read them...you 'll find all the details regarding USmil standards to which dhruv has been manufactured....else ,
1)keep posting dumb items from net
2)go on making fun of HAL guys
3)keep bragging about issues about which you don't even have the faintest idea.

I'm sorry but no more posts from me . Prasun, i never met such a stinking fellow like you.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Vikaas Pandey: Please, please do not reveal the details of your wet-dreams. Despite me openly challenging you to reveal the US MILSPEC standards you have failed to highlight them. And when I do that for you, you seem to be turning hostile, as if I've exposed your inadequacies. For your information, I've had professional business (not media-related) dealings with HAL since mid-1987 and I've personally known Dr Ashok Baweja since 1996. So don't lecture me about the methodology of interacting with HAL. By the way, I have strong reasons to believe you are not who you claim to be. Because if you are, then you would have been jobless by now. HAL being a MoD-owned entity, has also to follow strict chains of command and prescribed procedures when it comes to dessimination of proprietary information. And since you have been unable to reveal here in BROADSWORD any credible information and have instead indulged in only insinuations, you obviously are not who you claim to be. The only person authorised to release any releasable info on HAL, its activities and products in the mass media is the Chief PRO official. Therefore, I give no credence whatsoever to you or others claiming to hail from HAL. If you indeed are an employee of HAL, then can you kindly ask HAL's Chief PRO Officer or Director of Corporate Marketing to send BROADSWORD a signed letter on a HAL letterhead confirming your identity and authorising you to 'reveal' where the likes of Ajaiji, Shivji and myself have been spreading lies, or mis-information, or indulging in HAL-bashing? Can you do that? No need to paste ther letter in BROADSWORD. Just send it in confidence to Ajai Shuklaji. Can you at least do that?

Anonymous said...

@ prasun

PODA PATTY

Kunal said...

Prasunji, Mr. Vikaas is presently attached LRU lab in Seaking transmission centre ,Helicopter div. I have know him personally since past one yr...Sir, if u want to know my details, kindly check with the chief draftsman at the Foundry & forge div ,which is beside helicopter div...

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Kunal: For your kind info, I don't need to ask anyone in HAL except the Director of Corporate Mktg or Director of Corporate Planning or the GM Exports in case I do have any specific queries on any specific product for which HAL is the OEM. As you rightly highlighted, neither you or Vikaas are involved in a hands-on manner with regard to the Dhruv ALH programme. In BROADSWORD when we discuss serious issues there is a need for objectivity. On one hand your colleague insists the Dhruv ALH complies with US MILSPEC but refuses to detail those MILSPEC standards. Even one standard would have sufficed. But he did not do so. And when I post a detailed listing of the MILSPEC standards for everyone's benefit, how can then I become the bad guy? I never used any abusive language or called anyone by any derogatory name. All that I was insisting upon was factual proof. How does that make me the bad 'stinking' guy? Why is your colleague suddently becoming so emotionally charged instead of addressing the issues raised by me in an objective, cool-headed manner?

kunal said...

sir, actually Vikaas is involved with the avionics part of dhruv....the LRU lab is for that purpose ...he has good knowledge of things concerning dhruv (those original manuals r available in the lab also)....if u want a person directly involved on dhruv, then the guy,who posts as Void, is the best one (he works at RWRDC final assembly- the core section)...though I don't knw him personally , I hav heard abt him....so wait till he responds..I hope he has answers for your queries.
my deptt deals with all the airframe design(drawing) part....so even I hav a good understanding of the USmil standards

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Kunal: My dear friend, whenever we want to access any information that needs to be published, we too have to go through the right channels and adhere to procedures. Even if I get any data from you or Vikaas or this 'Void' and publish it, HAL's senior management can and will (and rightly) object to this type of information-gathering. What can make matters worse for ALL OF YOU is the prospect of being detained under the Official Secrets Act simply because HAL is wholly Ministry of Defence-owned and is therefore subject to MoD regulations concerning the classification of ANY and ALL data coming out from HAL. You guys are therefore taking an enormous risk by coming out in the open domain and openly declaring that you all are employed by HAL! Of course you are free to do so at your own risk and peril, but kindly do advise your friends/colleagues to be ojective, instead of just blogging about wet-dreams and making wild assumptions about others. I myself have been in the aviation MRO business for the past two decades and have my own JAR-145 certified MRO facility in southern Thailand and therefore have intricate insight into FAR/JAR/MILSPEC standards. If you or Vikaas or Void can just mention one, just one, MILSPEC standard, pertaining to the Dhruv ALH (like the ones I detailed earlier), then I will be believe you guys. All I'm asking for is proof of knowledge trove that Vikaas or 'Void' claim to possess. Is that too much to ask for in the interests of objectivity?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Void Walker at 13.10PM: Let's test your technical proficiency on ASW helicopters. In your last post you mentioned the existence of two naval Dhruv ALHs, with one having an under-belly Mihir dunking sonar, and the other having the nose-mounted radar (which I've identified as the Supervision SV-2000 for your benefit). But of these two models, you mention only the second one with the SV-2000 radar as being the ASW helicopter. Surely you must be aware that the dunking sonar is used for ASW operations, i.e. localising the submerged target prior to launching lightweight torpedoes. Then why don't you identify the Mihir-equipped Dhruv ALH as an ASW platform as well? Is it because you think the Mihir sonar is used only for detecting underwater concentrations of perishable marine life? And what's the operating frequency bandwidth of the Mihir? HF, mid-frequency, or low-frequency?
You see, when you blindly point one finger at others, there are four others pointing back at you. Now who is pissing in whose pants, eh? I have already detailed above for you 50% of the MILSPECS that I've come across from the Dhruv ALH's technical manuals in my possession in CD-R format. Can you please detail the rest?

WishToBeAnonymous said...

@Prasun
On one hand, you insist that guys should reveal their names. You also want them to confirm discreet information about the Dhruv

Other hand, you yourself talk/understand about the importance of maintaining secrecy and the repercussions of revealing information. I dont care about the technical aspects of your discussion, but seems to me that this is not the place or means for it. You should not break a law to prove a point.

Guys claiming to be from HAL, take care against anyone wanting protected information. Finally you would be the ones in soup. As prasun said, it is AT YOUR OWN RISK

Ajai said...

OKAY, TIME TO CALL THIS THREAD TO ORDER!!

Prasun, we've gone back and forth about whether or not the Dhruv conforms to US MILSPEC standards and thanks for posting the standards that the manuals actually cite.

Since many of the visitors to Broadsword are not entirely familiar with the implications of conforming to one or the other set of standards, may I request you to post an explanation --- in simple, layperson terms --- of what MILSPECS are, the different standards prevailing, and the implications of conforming to one or the other standard.

Looking forward to that.

Thanks!

TO PRASUN SENGUPTA said...

Hey Prasun, start a blog!!

Anonymous said...

haha ! risk??? prasun,you fool! don't you understand that those guys from from HAL are using fake identities? hahaha! you hav dug your own grave by contacting those ppl!

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@06.45AM: Firstly, the FAA/MILSPEC standards of the Dhruv ALH are not discreet or protected. They are proprietary but once the Dhruv ALH is certified and receives its CoA from the FAA or JAA, the CoA's contents are publicly available with the FAA/JAA regulatory authorities and alsdo from HAL.
Secondly, I was cautioning those bloggers claiming to be from HAL against a) making false claims and b) if they are indeed from HAL, then obtain the proper clearances from the relevant authorities before they indulge in blogging in a self-righteous manner. In fact, I was doing them a favour and ensuring that their over-enthusiasm does not get them into unnecessary trouble. Don;t forget that I did not draw first blood, but was only responding to the wet-dreams of Void Walker etc.

To Anon@20.37: I never contacted anybody at HAL via BROADSWORD to obtain any form of discreet or classified information. I fact, I myself took the trouble of going through the Dhruv ALH's technical manual in my possession and highlighted 50% of the respective FAR/MILSPEC compliance standards. So how does that make me the bad guy or 'a fool'? If you can't comprehend this, then it is you revealing your own foolishness.

void walker said...

voila! I'm back. It seems I misssed out on lot of action. anyway, lets get down to the basics.
prasun said something like,

"being presumptous and spreading misdinformation "

well, prasun ,pls spell the word correctly. what r u trying to accuse ,is it misinformation or is it disinformation or a combination of both? SO ,what is 'THE INFORMATION' according to you??


" please enlighten us about the two US MILSPEC standards thst the Dhruv ALH adheres to"

oh! so you really mean that there are only 2 USmilspecs in ur standards? pity u! like that guy called 'vikaas' said, if u have those original airframe manual with you, y don't ya refer it,huh? it has 43 pages(section A)devoted to USmilspecs.
Admit that either you don't have access to that manual or you don't knw how to interpret(=read) it.


"Deal in specifics, and don't generalise.....reveal yourself and stand up to be accounted for"

who the f*** r u? a man without an identity, maybe aroor in disguise or even a paki! R u even M.S/PhD? only an engineer can understand specifics..laymen need not burn midnight oil for that...the only result that they would get is a pain in the ass. If u r brave enough ,start posting with your blogger id.


" have the guts to do that"

ha, there goes ur guts..go puke it..have guts?come and stay here in bengaluru & then write ur usual stuff,occasionally visiting HAL/NAL/ADA for gyaan.
r girls cheaper and available in plenty in thailand????????

void walker said...

ajai said,
You seem pretty good at presuming!

Do you really believe you made all those jaws drop? Sounds very much like schoolboy fantasizing... those dreams that class weaklings routinely have about beating up the big bully.

Why don't you just post information? And spare everyone the details of your wet dreams.
-----------------------------------

aren't u the guy,who used to criticize LCA and ARJUN every now and then,eh? don't deny that u nvr did it. I hav all ur reports as evidence against you coz ,a relative of mine, who spent 25 yrs of his professional career in perfecting Arjun ,was pained to read ur public views.
So,what made u wet thinking abt LCA & Arjun? is it the sight of LCA's intakes or its exhaust cone? or is it the Arjun's majestic turret?
do u still have a hard-on when LCA roars over u or when Arjun raises its turret???

I have a solution for you.

http://www.asia.ru/en/Catalog/?category_id=14738&page=0&country=18

cheers!

PLS CLICK HERE PRASUN SENGUPTA said...

Pls click ^^

Anonymous said...

Respected sir,

Are you looked for girls prostitute at Thailand? We can offer from low as US$25 an entyre night. Location: Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Phuket, Hatyai-Songkhla. Others can be arrange. Other tour package can also got arrange.

Please contact me at (662) 100-8010 (Bangkok office). Or you can visits www.hotelthailand.com/tours.html.

Anonymous said...

Respected sir (Void Walker),

Are you looked for girls prostitute at Thailand? We can offer from low as US$25 an entyre night. Location: Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Phuket, Hatyai-Songkhla. Others can be arrange. Other tour package can also got arrange.

Please contact me at (662) 100-8010 (Bangkok office). Or you can visits www.hotelthailand.com/tours.html.

We look forward to prosperos deal with you.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Void Walker@21.38PM: Through your latest post and the miniscule nature of command of the English language, you have conclusively proven that you are most definitely from HAL. Maybe a 'chapraasi' with a broom in your hand outside or around the HAL facilities. Because if you are, then reveal your true identity here and now and I will be more than happy to pay you a visit in person (you won't need by blogger ID, I will even share by DNA data with you!) within 48 hours ALONG with Dr Ashok Baweja, following which your last reprehensible post in BROADSWORD, should you admit it is your's, will be produced as irrefutable evidence persuant to which departmental disciplinary action will be initiated against you with extreme prejudice, especially for severely damaging HAL's corporate reputation in cyberspace through the utterly shameful content of your posts.

And don't you ever, ever dare issue vague and inarticulated challenges aginst either Ajai, or Shiv or myself. Because if you do, then the Gods of Yore will descend upon you and unleash all their wrath on you. My ID, postal address and contact details are available with the CMD of HAL, with Ajai and with Shiv. And now, while remaining unknown and anonymous you have the audacity to make linkages via your 'relative' with the DRDO!!! Do not underestimate the power of the State to bring you to justice you numbskull! The world is not as big as you imagine it to be. You can run, but will be unable to stay hidden.

void walker said...

http://www.asia.ru/en/ProductInfo/1299570.html

Wear that first

Prasun K Sengupta said...

TO Void Walker: Based on the earlier inputs from Kunal about your probable work activity and location, I'm contacting the internal Vigilance Dept of HAL's Helicopter Division to sort out the issue about your actual identity. I have to do this because your last post is highly objectionable and only serves to damage and vilify the corporate image of HAL as a Navratna, and by consequence, also serves to malign India's Ministry of Defence and the Board of Directors of HAL. You now stand forewarned. Now brace yourself for the consequences that will surely follow.

Oh..by the way, if you had a technical background, you would surely realise that no MBT ever 'raises' its turret! The turret only traverses in azimuth, whereas the main gun can be raised (elevated) or depressed.

void walker said...

^^^^^
well sum other brain is also working at this odd hour. atleast use ur own name.

void walker said...

prasun, the post at 23:14 wasn't by me.
well, u guessed it right, I'm Dr.Baweja's chapraasi. Amazing ,how did u do it? u must be havinh a really good pair of binoculars!

ah! u earlier claimed that u were Dr.Baweja's playmate? so y don't you call,mail or fax him for details on USmilspecs? SO, U FINALLY ADMITTED THAT U DON'T HAVE THAT BIG& THICK 'AIRFRAME' MANUAL,rite? ...hopeless.

Shiv Aroor said...

Prasun, its me Shiv. please stop arguing with those ppl who claim to be from HAL...they are just trying to waste your time...we have other important matters to sort out first.

Anonymous said...

exactly, you got it right. way to go shiv.

kunal said...

prasun sir,
if it all u r mad abt knowing abt USMILSPECS which we adhere to , i can reveal just one of them (remember we r forbidden to disclose some of these items)
here you go:
the fuel tank in dhruv ( ie the one located below the cabin floor ) is subject to FAR 29 SECTION 29.952 , for ensuring proprotionate fuel-flow in manoeuvres and to prevent rupture in flight.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Dear Kunal,
You have been extremely decent and respectful in all your previous posts and I highly appreciate that. Have no fear or apprehension as I have nothing against you & I will do nothing to endanger you in any way. But I do take serious exception to the comments by this Void Walker. Instead of have a constructive debate like you have done, this character makes it a point of looking down upon others. I find that unacceptable. For example, despite me clarifying earlier that I personally know Dr Baweja, this character labels me as Dr Baweja's playmate! Now, either he is a downright moron who does not understand the consequences of his utterances, or he his hell-bent on tarnishing HAL.
Actually, as I have all three manuals of the Dhruv ALH, I know ALL the FAR/JAR/MILSPEC standards that the Dhruv ALH complies with. And by highlighting one of them, you have beyond reasonable doubt proven your credentials. Like you, this Void Walker too could have come forward and had a decent exchange of views, but he chose not to. Well, he must be made to account for his action. For him the issue may be trivial, but it has terrible consequences. And unless he is made to realise that, there will be many others who will in future try to ape Void Walker's utterly shameful behaviour.
I remain forever your wellwisher, and for your reference, am enclosing below all the FAR Part 29standards that the Dhruv ALH complies with.
FAR Part 29: Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Rotorcraft
Federal Aviation Regulations
Subpart A - General

o Sec. 29.1 - Applicability.
o Sec. 29.2 - Special retroactive requirements.
Subpart B - Flight

o Sec. 29.21 - Proof of compliance.
o Sec. 29.25 - Weight limits.
o Sec. 29.27 - Center of gravity limits.
o Sec. 29.29 - Empty weight and corresponding center of gravity.
o Sec. 29.31 - Removable ballast.
o Sec. 29.33 - Main rotor speed and pitch limits.
o Sec. 29.45 - General.
o Sec. 29.49 - Performance at minimum operating speed.
o Sec. 29.51 - Takeoff data: general.
o Sec. 29.53 - Takeoff: Category A.
o Sec. 29.55 - Takeoff decision point (TDP): Category A.
o Sec. 29.59 - Takeoff path: Category A.
o Sec. 29.60 - Elevated heliport takeoff path: Category A.
o Sec. 29.61 - Takeoff distance: Category A.
o Sec. 29.62 - Rejected takeoff: Category A.
o Sec. 29.63 - Takeoff: Category B.
o Sec. 29.64 - Climb: General.
o Sec. 29.65 - Climb: All engines operating.
o Sec. 29.67 - Climb: One engine inoperative (OEI).
o Sec. 29.71 - Helicopter angle of glide: Category B.
o Sec. 29.75 - Landing: General.
o Sec. 29.77 - Landing Decision Point (LDP): Category A.
o Sec. 29.79 - Landing: Category A.
o Sec. 29.81 - Landing distance: Category A.
o Sec. 29.83 - Landing: Category B.
o Sec. 29.85 - Balked landing: Category A.
o Sec. 29.87 - Height-velocity envelope.
o Sec. 29.141 - General.
o Sec. 29.143 - Controllability and maneuverability.
o Sec. 29.151 - Flight controls.
o Sec. 29.161 - Trim control.
o Sec. 29.171 - Stability: general.
o Sec. 29.173 - Static longitudinal stability.
o Sec. 29.175 - Demonstration of static longitudinal stability.
o Sec. 29.177 - Static directional stability.
o Sec. 29.181 - Dynamic stability: Category A rotorcraft.
o Sec. 29.231 - General.
o Sec. 29.235 - Taxiing condition.
o Sec. 29.239 - Spray characteristics.
o Sec. 29.241 - Ground resonance.
o Sec. 29.251 - Vibration.
Subpart C - Strength Requirements

o Sec. 29.301 - Loads.
o Sec. 29.303 - Factor of safety.
o Sec. 29.305 - Strength and deformation.
o Sec. 29.307 - Proof of structure.
o Sec. 29.309 - Design limitations.
o Sec. 29.321 - General.
o Sec. 29.337 - Limit maneuvering load factor.
o Sec. 29.339 - Resultant limit maneuvering loads.
o Sec. 29.341 - Gust loads.
o Sec. 29.351 - Yawing conditions.
o Sec. 29.361 - Engine torque.
o Sec. 29.391 - General.
o Sec. 29.395 - Control system.
o Sec. 29.397 - Limit pilot forces and torques.
o Sec. 29.399 - Dual control system.
o Sec. 29.411 - Ground clearance: tail rotor guard.
o Sec. 29.427 - Unsymmetrical loads.
o Sec. 29.471 - General.
o Sec. 29.473 - Ground loading conditions and assumptions.
o Sec. 29.475 - Tires and shock absorbers.
o Sec. 29.477 - Landing gear arrangement.
o Sec. 29.479 - Level landing conditions.
o Sec. 29.481 - Tail-down landing conditions.
o Sec. 29.483 - One-wheel landing conditions.
o Sec. 29.485 - Lateral drift landing conditions.
o Sec. 29.493 - Braked roll conditions.
o Sec. 29.497 - Ground loading conditions: landing gear with tail wheels.
o Sec. 29.501 - Ground loading conditions: landing gear with skids.
o Sec. 29.505 - Ski landing conditions.
o Sec. 29.511 - Ground load: unsymmetrical loads on multiple-wheel units.
o Sec. 29.519 - Hull type rotorcraft: Water-based and amphibian.
o Sec. 29.521 - Float landing conditions.
o Sec. 29.547 - Main and tail rotor structure.
o Sec. 29.549 - Fuselage and rotor pylon structures.
o Sec. 29.551 - Auxiliary lifting surfaces.
o Sec. 29.561 - General.
o Sec. 29.562 - Emergency landing dynamic conditions.
o Sec. 29.563 - Structural ditching provisions.
o Sec. 29.571 - Fatigue evaluation of structure.
Subpart D - Design and Construction

o Sec. 29.601 - Design.
o Sec. 29.602 - Critical parts.
o Sec. 29.603 - Materials.
o Sec. 29.605 - Fabrication methods.
o Sec. 29.607 - Fasteners.
o Sec. 29.609 - Protection of structure.
o Sec. 29.610 - Lightning and static electricity protection.
o Sec. 29.611 - Inspection provisions.
o Sec. 29.613 - Material strength properties and design values.
o Sec. 29.619 - Special factors.
o Sec. 29.621 - Casting factors.
o Sec. 29.623 - Bearing factors.
o Sec. 29.625 - Fitting factors.
o Sec. 29.629 - Flutter and divergence.
o Sec. 29.631 - Bird strike.
o Sec. 29.653 - Pressure venting and drainage of rotor blades.
o Sec. 29.659 - Mass balance.
o Sec. 29.661 - Rotor blade clearance.
o Sec. 29.663 - Ground resonance prevention means.
o Sec. 29.671 - General.
o Sec. 29.672 - Stability augmentation, automatic, and power-operated systems.
o Sec. 29.673 - Primary flight controls.
o Sec. 29.674 - Interconnected controls.
o Sec. 29.675 - Stops.
o Sec. 29.679 - Control system locks.
o Sec. 29.681 - Limit load static tests.
o Sec. 29.683 - Operation tests.
o Sec. 29.685 - Control system details.
o Sec. 29.687 - Spring devices.
o Sec. 29.691 - Autorotation control mechanism.
o Sec. 29.695 - Power boost and power-operated control system.
o Sec. 29.723 - Shock absorption tests.
o Sec. 29.725 - Limit drop test.
o Sec. 29.727 - Reserve energy absorption drop test.
o Sec. 29.729 - Retracting mechanism.
o Sec. 29.731 - Wheels.
o Sec. 29.733 - Tires.
o Sec. 29.735 - Brakes.
o Sec. 29.737 - Skis.
o Sec. 29.751 - Main float buoyancy.
o Sec. 29.753 - Main float design.
o Sec. 29.755 - Hull buoyancy.
o Sec. 29.757 - Hull and auxiliary float strength.
o Sec. 29.771 - Pilot compartment.
o Sec. 29.773 - Pilot compartment view.
o Sec. 29.775 - Windshields and windows.
o Sec. 29.777 - Cockpit controls.
o Sec. 29.779 - Motion and effect of cockpit controls.
o Sec. 29.783 - Doors.
o Sec. 29.785 - Seats, berths, litters, safety belts, and harnesses.
o Sec. 29.787 - Cargo and baggage compartments.
o Sec. 29.801 - Ditching.
o Sec. 29.803 - Emergency evacuation.
o Sec. 29.805 - Flight crew emergency exits.
o Sec. 29.807 - Passenger emergency exits.
o Sec. 29.809 - Emergency exit arrangement.
o Sec. 29.811 - Emergency exit marking.
o Sec. 29.812 - Emergency lighting.
o Sec. 29.813 - Emergency exit access.
o Sec. 29.815 - Main aisle width.
o Sec. 29.831 - Ventilation.
o Sec. 29.833 - Heaters.
o Sec. 29.851 - Fire extinguishers.
o Sec. 29.853 - Compartment interiors.
o Sec. 29.855 - Cargo and baggage compartments.
o Sec. 29.859 - Combustion heater fire protection.
o Sec. 29.861 - Fire protection of structure, controls, and other parts.
o Sec. 29.863 - Flammable fluid fire protection.
o Sec. 29.865 - External loads.
o Sec. 29.871 - Leveling marks.
o Sec. 29.873 - Ballast provisions.
Subpart E - Powerplant

o Sec. 29.901 - Installation.
o Sec. 29.903 - Engines.
o Sec. 29.907 - Engine vibration.
o Sec. 29.908 - Cooling fans.
o Sec. 29.917 - Design.
o Sec. 29.921 - Rotor brake.
o Sec. 29.923 - Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests.
o Sec. 29.927 - Additional tests.
o Sec. 29.931 - Shafting critical speed.
o Sec. 29.935 - Shafting joints.
o Sec. 29.939 - Turbine engine operating characteristics.
o Sec. 29.951 - General.
o Sec. 29.952 - Fuel system crash resistance.
o Sec. 29.953 - Fuel system independence.
o Sec. 29.954 - Fuel system lightning protection.
o Sec. 29.955 - Fuel flow.
o Sec. 29.957 - Flow between interconnected tanks.
o Sec. 29.959 - Unusable fuel supply.
o Sec. 29.961 - Fuel system hot weather operation.
o Sec. 29.963 - Fuel tanks: general.
o Sec. 29.965 - Fuel tank tests.
o Sec. 29.967 - Fuel tank installation.
o Sec. 29.969 - Fuel tank expansion space.
o Sec. 29.971 - Fuel tank sump.
o Sec. 29.973 - Fuel tank filler connection.
o Sec. 29.975 - Fuel tank vents and carburetor vapor vents.
o Sec. 29.977 - Fuel tank outlet.
o Sec. 29.979 - Pressure refueling and fueling provisions below fuel level.
o Sec. 29.991 - Fuel pumps.
o Sec. 29.993 - Fuel system lines and fittings.
o Sec. 29.995 - Fuel valves.
o Sec. 29.997 - Fuel strainer or filter.
o Sec. 29.999 - Fuel system drains.
o Sec. 29.1001 - Fuel jettisoning.
o Sec. 29.1011 - Engines: general.
o Sec. 29.1013 - Oil tanks.
o Sec. 29.1015 - Oil tank tests.
o Sec. 29.1017 - Oil lines and fittings.
o Sec. 29.1019 - Oil strainer or filter.
o Sec. 29.1021 - Oil system drains.
o Sec. 29.1023 - Oil radiators.
o Sec. 29.1025 - Oil valves.
o Sec. 29.1027 - Transmission and gearboxes: general.
o Sec. 29.1041 - General.
o Sec. 29.1043 - Cooling tests.
o Sec. 29.1045 - Climb cooling test procedures.
o Sec. 29.1047 - Takeoff cooling test procedures.
o Sec. 29.1049 - Hovering cooling test procedures.
o Sec. 29.1091 - Air induction.
o Sec. 29.1093 - Induction system icing protection.
o Sec. 29.1101 - Carburetor air preheater design.
o Sec. 29.1103 - Induction systems ducts and air duct systems.
o Sec. 29.1105 - Induction system screens.
o Sec. 29.1107 - Inter-coolers and after-coolers.
o Sec. 29.1109 - Carburetor air cooling.
o Sec. 29.1121 - General.
o Sec. 29.1123 - Exhaust piping.
o Sec. 29.1125 - Exhaust heat exchangers.
o Sec. 29.1141 - Powerplant controls: general.
o Sec. 29.1142 - Auxiliary power unit controls.
o Sec. 29.1143 - Engine controls.
o Sec. 29.1145 - Ignition switches.
o Sec. 29.1147 - Mixture controls.
o Sec. 29.1151 - Rotor brake controls.
o Sec. 29.1157 - Carburetor air temperature controls.
o Sec. 29.1159 - Supercharger controls.
o Sec. 29.1163 - Powerplant accessories.
o Sec. 29.1165 - Engine ignition systems.
o Sec. 29.1181 - Designated fire zones: regions included.
o Sec. 29.1183 - Lines, fittings, and components.
o Sec. 29.1185 - Flammable fluids.
o Sec. 29.1187 - Drainage and ventilation of fire zones.
o Sec. 29.1189 - Shutoff means.
o Sec. 29.1191 - Firewalls.
o Sec. 29.1193 - Cowling and engine compartment covering.
o Sec. 29.1194 - Other surfaces.
o Sec. 29.1195 - Fire extinguishing systems.
o Sec. 29.1197 - Fire extinguishing agents.
o Sec. 29.1199 - Extinguishing agent containers.
o Sec. 29.1201 - Fire extinguishing system materials.
o Sec. 29.1203 - Fire detector systems.
Subpart F - Equipment

o Sec. 29.1301 - Function and installation.
o Sec. 29.1303 - Flight and navigation instruments.
o Sec. 29.1305 - Powerplant instruments.
o Sec. 29.1307 - Miscellaneous equipment.
o Sec. 29.1309 - Equipment, systems, and installations.
o Sec. 29.1321 - Arrangement and visibility.
o Sec. 29.1322 - Warning, caution, and advisory lights.
o Sec. 29.1323 - Airspeed indicating system.
o Sec. 29.1325 - Static pressure and pressure altimeter systems.
o Sec. 29.1327 - Magnetic direction indicator.
o Sec. 29.1329 - Automatic pilot system.
o Sec. 29.1331 - Instruments using a power supply.
o Sec. 29.1333 - Instrument systems.
o Sec. 29.1335 - Flight director systems.
o Sec. 29.1337 - Powerplant instruments.
o Sec. 29.1351 - General.
o Sec. 29.1353 - Electrical equipment and installations.
o Sec. 29.1355 - Distribution system.
o Sec. 29.1357 - Circuit protective devices.
o Sec. 29.1359 - Electrical system fire and smoke protection.
o Sec. 29.1363 - Electrical system tests.
o Sec. 29.1381 - Instrument lights.
o Sec. 29.1383 - Landing lights.
o Sec. 29.1385 - Position light system installation.
o Sec. 29.1387 - Position light system dihedral angles.
o Sec. 29.1389 - Position light distribution and intensities.
o Sec. 29.1391 - Minimum intensities in the horizontal plane of forward and rear position lights.
o Sec. 29.1393 - Minimum intensities in any vertical plane of forward and rear position lights.
o Sec. 29.1395 - Maximum intensities in overlapping beams of forward and rear position lights.
o Sec. 29.1397 - Color specifications.
o Sec. 29.1399 - Riding light.
o Sec. 29.1401 - Anticollision light system.
o Sec. 29.1411 - General.
o Sec. 29.1413 - Safety belts: passenger warning device.
o Sec. 29.1415 - Ditching equipment.
o Sec. 29.1419 - Ice protection.
o Sec. 29.1431 - Electronic equipment.
o Sec. 29.1433 - Vacuum systems.
o Sec. 29.1435 - Hydraulic systems.
o Sec. 29.1439 - Protective breathing equipment.
o Sec. 29.1457 - Cockpit voice recorders.
o Sec. 29.1459 - Flight recorders.
o Sec. 29.1461 - Equipment containing high energy rotors.
Subpart G - Operating Limitations and Information

o Sec. 29.1501 - General.
o Sec. 29.1503 - Airspeed limitations: general.
o Sec. 29.1505 - Never-exceed speed.
o Sec. 29.1509 - Rotor speed.
o Sec. 29.1517 - Limiting height-speed envelope.
o Sec. 29.1519 - Weight and center of gravity.
o Sec. 29.1521 - Powerplant limitations.
o Sec. 29.1522 - Auxiliary power unit limitations.
o Sec. 29.1523 - Minimum flight crew.
o Sec. 29.1525 - Kinds of operations.
o Sec. 29.1527 - Maximum operating altitude.
o Sec. 29.1529 - Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
o Sec. 29.1541 - General.
o Sec. 29.1543 - Instrument markings: general.
o Sec. 29.1545 - Airspeed indicator.
o Sec. 29.1547 - Magnetic direction indicator.
o Sec. 29.1549 - Powerplant instruments.
o Sec. 29.1551 - Oil quantity indicator.
o Sec. 29.1553 - Fuel quantity indicator.
o Sec. 29.1555 - Control markings.
o Sec. 29.1557 - Miscellaneous markings and placards.
o Sec. 29.1559 - Limitations placard.
o Sec. 29.1561 - Safety equipment.
o Sec. 29.1565 - Tail rotor.
o Sec. 29.1581 - General.
o Sec. 29.1583 - Operating limitations.
o Sec. 29.1585 - Operating procedures.
o Sec. 29.1587 - Performance information.
o Sec. 29.1589 - Loading information.
Appendices
• Appendix A to Part 29 - Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
• Appendix B to Part 29 - Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument Flight
• Appendix C to Part 29 - Icing Certification
• Appendix D to Part 29 - Criteria for Demonstration of Emergency Evacuation Procedures Under §29.803

kunal said...

prasunji, I didn't find all of those specs in the manuals...but according to me the list provided by you is around 73% correct ie matching with those in the manual...pls don't ask me which all are they.
regards.

Shiv Aroor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shiv Aroor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shiv Aroor said...

Ajai, someone has posted a fake comment under my name "shiv aroor" above. i always post comments under this blogger id, so the one above is an anon. the idiot even says "It's me Shiv" in his comment! What a lark!

kunal said...

and more thing prasunji,...leave that guy called 'void' alone....he may actually be kidding with you...I hav heard that he is a great character at HAL.

kunal said...

and more thing prasunji,...leave that guy called 'void' alone....he may actually be kidding with you...I hav heard that he is a great character at HAL...
and feel free to clear ur doubts with me..
regards.

Anonymous said...

Shiv Aroor said...

Ajai, someone has posted a fake comment under my name "shiv aroor" above. i always post comments under this blogger id, so the one above is an anon. the idiot even says "It's me Shiv" in his comment! What a lark!

what's the bet he is prasun himself ?
:-D

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Dear Kunal. Relax, for I'm not going to ask you for any type of data pertaining to HAL. I'm in constant direct contact with the appropriate officials in the Bangalore, Nasik and Kanpur Divisions of HAL for my aviation MRO business activities and I have access to ALL the information that I require. So relax. I don't want anything from you.
As for Void Walker, you may be compassionate and may think he's fooling around with me, but I'm not convinced about that, especially if you look at the kind of language he's used. It is unpardonable and seriously tarnishes HAL's corporate image. Just show me any other blogger from any other Indian defence PSU that resorts to such behaviour.
He may be a great guy inside the HAL facilities, but he hasn't shown his greatness here in BROADSWORD. He could have decent interactions, but clearly he chose not to. And as they say, you reap what you sow.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

TO Anon@01.40AM: Are bhai/miya, yeh aap kya kehe rahe ho? Kyon mere jaan lene pe tule ho? Pichle janam se mujhse koi purani dushmani hai kya? Ramzan ka mahina hai, Hame baksh do miya.
A simple check by Ajaiji with his ISP will reveal beyond doubt who misused Shiv Aroor's naam. Yeh digital era hai bhai. NTRO ke logo se bhi puch leejiye, wo apiki sahayata karenge.
Meanwhile, into which of my fan categories do you fall? Friendly or hostile? Please respond via the Mode 4/Mk12 IFF code standard.

Anonymous said...

Only one way to settle this....

Ajai: change your blog setting to let only logged in persons comment.

Prasun: u first create a blog id and logon when u put your comments too.

For all the prankster, till this happens,loooto mazae!!

max said...

Anon@Above:

Buzz off. Even Prasun, me and you don't have blogger account but are eager to comment. Please compare the number of logged-in posts vs anonymous!

@Prasun
Nice debating Prasun. BTW I dug up one website before and liked an article you wrote about the ATV. How was that info available to you? And yeah, you should start blogging.

max said...

@prasun

Why are you naive enough to think void walker is from HAL?

Anonymous said...

@max


Nice debating Prasun. BTW I dug up one website before and liked an article you wrote about the ATV. How was that info available to you? And yeah, you should start blogging.

that was lifted from the then global security/FAS page.

Anonymous said...

Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?
Whats up next?

Vishal Nalkur said...

@ Ajai

Yeah i agree with anon. Ironically he calls for a change in the blog settings which will allow only signed up users. :)

But please conisder it seriously. There's too much muck around in terms of words as well as people.

Max said...

@Vishal

~8/109 comments are by signed in people. Excluding Ajai's own posts.

And ofcourse there's muck everywhere! Don't you think a registered blogger can also write crap? Mind you there's more constructive discussion here than muck. You seem to be pin-pointing the single black dot on the entire white sheet.

A quick check on your blog shows that you yourself don't limit your comments to logged-in people. lolz.

Vishal Nalkur said...

@ Max

Sorry if it hurt you Max. But there have been many 'black dots' in the past. Ajai would agree. They tend to spoil the fun, thats it.

Atleast i dont worked up when see such posts.

As regards my blog, touch wood, so far there has been no need to change the settings.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Vishal. I would agree with max too - the ratio 8/109 is too low

Alternative is Ajai start policing all comments b4 they are published here. Some one has to bear the pain - either Ajai or the Anonymous

-Anon@ 22 September 2008 05:15

Max said...

@Vishal

No worries, I'm not hurt. I don't see who *spoilt the fun* here!! I know some people made notorious posts (including ads for prostitution)! but I can't see in what way does it *spoil the fun*! I guess I understand exactly who got worked up by "offending" posts but can we push to adjust this comment form plainly for his preferences? If he gets worked up, then too bad for him! Why must you moot a solution for his comfort?

Wow! you removed my comment from your blog. No wonder there are hardly any comments!

@anon
Lolz, you mean comment moderation? I rather not comment in that case!!!

It was the same in Livefist (comment moderation) as people were insulting personal contacts of Shiv but even he knew comment moderation sux big time. So he removed it.

Why i don't like moderation: We don't see actually what comments get weeded out. Blog owners may eventually start censoring constructive critisism directed to their content.

However I agree with removing insulting comments AFTER they are posted, i.e. manually deleted by blog owner.. So there's check and balance.

Max said...

@Ajai / Shukla / Broadsword

JUST KEEP THIS BLOG THE WAY IT IS!

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Max@08:52AM: Many thanks for the vote of confidence. Deeply appreciate it. With regard to info on the ATV Project, it is usually culled from officials of companies that are participating as vendors and sub-vendors for the project. As long as you give them a firm undertaking that whatever info you get from them is strictly off-the-record, they will be more than happy to talk to you and share data. And since I myself am quite often travelling to attend at least six or eight aerospace/defence expos every year in East Asia and Europe, it is never difficult for me to touch base with the informed industry players. Just make sure that you never betray their trust, which one has to build up over a period of time.
Here's another one for you: If, for instance, you want to enquire into the possibility of alleged kickbacks/commissions paid for any contract, you can rest assured you will NEVER get any information leads from the company that won the contract. Instead, what you do is widen the investigative net by contacting the companies (and their resident or NRI agents) which lost the contract. Being the losers, they are more than willing to go on the record and spill the beans regarding any irregularity, as they now have nothing to lose. It's that simple. Wonder if the CVC and CBI are aware of this. Cheers!

Max said...

@Prasun

Thanks for the tips above :-)

That's why I say: Start a blog mainly for the Indian defence scene. Don't care about your Tempur Malaysian defence stuff. We'd love to read your point of view!!!!!

No worries, all those people who have really heated you up here will show up there, trust me.

My advise to you: Don't feed trolls. You shouldn't get too worked up over anonymous comments. It seemed you were really affected and offended. Your "food" keeps them active.

Sid said...

Ajai boss,

been long time since we saw anything on LCA front.

being our exclusive insider, please shed some light on that poor thing.

Sid

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Dear Max, both Ajaiji & Shivji had graciously invited me to post my stories in their respective blogs and therefore I'm afraid I don't see the need to have my own blog. What matters I guess is a decent exchange of views, facts and opinions ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous in any fora without turning ugly. And both BROADSWORD and LIVEFIST offer me that kind of fora. What got me worked up was the arrogant post by Void Walker, which poured ubbearable scorn over all well-meaning bloggers. At such times, through patience and perseverance, and by confronting them with facts and figures, such characters and the state of their mental inequilibrium can be and have already been exposed. Just look at the way he and Vikaas Pandey are both silent on the issue of the Dhruv's ASW variant. On the other hand, a well-meaning & decent guy like Kunal openly came out with his honest views and genuine acknowledgements regarding the Dhriv ALH's FAR Part 29/MILSPEC data.
I always welcome your advice in good faith.

Anonymous said...

@prasun,

the way you explained about collecting information to max.

Isnt this kind of news part fact and part speculation? you think you are using them, when they may be using you. Obviously you will have much more details to report than other journalists, but not eveything they say may be factual! No offense.

The good think for you is no one can actually refute your claims. But end of the day, your articles are interesting to say the least!

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@01.27AM: Obviously when you are investigating a story, say on competitive bidding process for a project, you are not merely talking to one super-source. You are talking with different parties, at least nine at a time, to get a three-dimensional picture and based on the areas of convergence, your story takes shape and the probability of speculation depreciates considerably. There are other times when you go the extra mile and acquire a copy of, say the actual contract documents from either the OEM or the end-user/customer.
As far as refuting any story or claim goes, one is always free to do so not with baseless allegations (like the ones levelled against me by some trolls) and counter-arguments, but with facts that can be obtained from either the OEM or the customer. This can be done by getting from either of them official statements/releases, or by just visiting the aerospace/defence exhibitions where most of the data is available via posters, brochures, scale-models, illustrations. etc. It is not that difficult if one has the capability and intent to make a point of attending all such expos and keenly observing what's on display.

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who feels India is more open than necessary in disclosing info in public domains? Just pick up a fight with someone and they spill the beans to refute opposing arguments or how to get info out of vendor companies etc.
- a concerned citizen not employed in defence

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who feels India is more open than necessary in disclosing info in public domains? Just pick up a fight with someone and they spill the beans to refute opposing arguments or how to get info out of vendor companies etc.
- a concerned citizen not employed in defence

Anonymous said...

we are in fact much more secretive than most nations and that hurts us to no end.

Max said...

@Prasun

Lolz those guys just wanna use your efforts to draw attention to their blog!!! Or else you should go on a partnership with them, say Ajai-Sengupta blog or Tempur-Broadsword! hehe.. You'll get decent (and also indecent) exchange of views in any blog so long you have quality content and don't censor / moderate comments. Stay cool!

Anonymous said...

max don't be ridiculous, it is prasun who gains from association with ajai shukla, not the other way round.

shamsu said...

abey prasun, salaaa betic***! itna maar maaroongana ki tujhe teri nani yaad aayegi....catch me if u can...hahahahahaha.....this is what happens to guys like you whose **** is lesser in size than the national average!

Anonymous said...

ajai shukla = shiv aroor = prasun k sengupta = kunnahamsu

shiv aroor said...

@ prasun
u ruined me, get lost u sucker!

Shiv Aroor said...

@Prasun

The above comment is NOT written by me. But it's true: That's the end of our alliance and nights together. You've ruined me.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

is that you shiv. why do you say so ?

Sid said...

Shiv + Ajai + "nights together".

please explain, else this is really The End ;D

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@13.28: Rest assured what's already appeared at this blog in BROADSWORD is not TOP SECRET or CLASSIFIED. It may be restricted or commercial in confidence, but it is definitely worthy of being dessiminated in the public domain. If only you could compare the product CD-R produced by HAL on the Dhruv, with those produced by Eurocopter or Bell or Sikorsky or even Kazan Helicopter Plant, you will have a fairly good idea on what I'm implying.

To Max: By 'indecent' you're of course referring to Shamsu, I presume. The poor lad, however, is too ashamed to admit that his mum gave him two tight slaps the moment she discovered that it was indeed him who she had delivered!
My relationship with both Ajai and Shiv is based on friendship, not any kind of business partnership and as such I'm sure we don't maintain accounts on who has given/taken from whom. We're all gathered to discuss, debate and exchange data and enlighten one another. That's what bloggers do, unless the trolls. The intent is not to gain any kind of upper hand over anyone else, but have a mutually beneficial and respectful association.

prasun k sengupta said...

shiv, I'm really sorry .please forgive me. I promise I won't repeat it again. I know how much important is our friendship.
prasun

anon said...

shiv, cut your losses and get away from this moron, before it is too late.

anon said...

***************************
BREAKING NEWS
***************************
IT HAS JUST BEEN CONFIRMED BY SOURCES THAT PRASUN SENGUPTA aka PRASUN THE PLAGARIST'S PARENTS KNEW THAT THEIR SON WAS GOING TO BE A PLAGARIST, WHICH IS WHY THEY CHOSE THE NAME 'PRASUN', FOR ALLITERATION EFFECT !

PRASUN K SENGUPTA said...

12345

Anonymous said...

its very easy to impersonate here.AJAI sahab do some thing to stop impersonation!

Anonymous said...

why ? prasun can just create a blog ID and post with that.

Shiv aroor said...

Prasun, what I require is a public apology from you. I have not got A SINGLE comment praising me or my blog. It this what you meant to Max as friendship? I am truly dissapointed with you. Of course I do not anticipate your public apology but I will spill the beans on your *relationship* with Ajai if forced to. Lets just care for our own business and not tarnish others' name. Right now, I can no longer comment on this blog without being looked down upon. Thanks a bunch!

broadsword said...

Come on Shiv, stop acting childish. I can also *spill beans* on your relationships. You know what I mean....

To avoid, please leave my blog. Thank you.

shiv aroor said...

Ajai, not blaming you. It is our "friend" from god knows where who is inciting between us. We are brothers and no need to fight. Kick out the infidels. We don't need their articles or comments.

Anonymous said...

looooooolz

Jagan said...

hahahah ! u guys r really great! I nearly fell off my chair after reading the last few posts....keep it up ,dudes! lol

fighterclass said...

shall I say I told you so ?

Anonymous said...

everyone, ssssshhhhhh (quiet)

Anonymous said...

WTF ?

Anonymous said...

please be quiet... sssshhhhh.... lets see the real action.

Anonymous said...

let us not spoil the fun

broadsword said...

Please anons, I am really upset about this series. I would not mind some silence. Anyway I am not waiting for Prasun's explanation. If he has in case anything to explain.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Shic, my parting words. I dare you to reveal my 'relationships' with ajai. you won't dare.
see you people @ my blog.

shiv aroor said...

I am not doing so in respect of Ajai. But I know everything about what happened at Cititel, near Megamall KL and Brickfields.

Sorry Ajai, just to shut him up.

Sid said...

looks like our Tridev have broken up.......lolllll

who is this Bhujang ( Amrish Puri) trying to break up this Tridev.

shiv aroor said...

And opening a blog clearly shows your motif to snub me as you know I am dependant on your publications. But I have to thank you for jolting me on the meaning of 'real' friendship. I will strive to compete with you, even if partnership with Ajai is the answer. Mark my words.

Anonymous said...

please stay quiet sid and relax and see the outcome.

Anonymous said...

looks like our Tridev have broken up.......lolllll

who is this Bhujang ( Amrish Puri) trying to break up this Tridev.

max apparently !
way to go max ! thanks for getting rid of BS Sengupta !

fighterclass said...

shiv, both you and ajai can manage pretty well on your own.

was just reading the foxbat article you wrote long back. it was pretty good !
just be up and about and you will do well, far better in fact than prasun with his plagarisms and concoctions.

best of luck !


btw, you may remember that I had warned you against using sengupta's articles, they are a lot more trouble than they are worth.

I'm reminding you this coz I had done that as a well wisher and you had taken it badly.

regarding this problem, just get over it ! the prasuns are not worth the time.

Sid said...

jesus man,

i read this blog with much more respect.

Prasun and shiv should have taken their personal discussion in another communication channel instead of doing things here.

Both showed lack of maturity and acted like kids. really shameful.

this aint no publicity gimmick. You are ruining each other.

Anonymous said...

lolz

Anonymous said...

aroor ka gaaand mein danda!

Anonymous said...

go home and wash your mouth prasun. you should be ashamed of yourself.

void walker said...

lol.....nice views.....sure,shiv and prasun make a good gay couple! cudn't understand how aroor got ruined by prasun ? .... ;D

fighterclass said...

couldn't even think that prasun would do such a thing to that poor boy shiv.

fighterclass said...

^
hey, that's not me !
stop this circus prasun, get your own blog.

Shiv Aroor said...

Hi Ajai,

Just to be sure that the comments above are not mine. I only comment with my blogger ID, not with an ID that says livefist.blogspot.com as the case is in the above comments. Some jobless nutcase as usual! We really should celebrate the attention!

Shiv

Anonymous said...

shiv aroor = kunnashamshu

Broadsword said...

FOR ALL THOSE WHO WONDER WHAT REAL, HOPELESS LOSERS DO... HERE'S THE ANSWER.

LOOK AT THE THREAD ABOVE!! REAL LOSERS GO OUT ON THE INTERNET --- HIDING THEIR SAD, UNINSPIRING IDENTITIES UNDER ALIASES --- AND POST ON BLOGS LIKE THIS ONE, PRETENDING TO BE REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL IDENTITIES.

TAKE A LOOK FOLKS, TAKE A LOOK ABOVE, AT THOSE LOSERS. IT'S NOT DIFFICULT TO TELL THE REAL SHIV, THE REAL PRASUN, THE REAL BROADSWORD... FROM THE FAKES.

THE FAKES ARE SUCH LOSERS THAT THEY MUST PRETEND TO BE SOMEONE ELSE. BECAUSE IF THEY ARE NOT SHIV... OR PRASUN, OR SOMEONE ELSE... THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY NOBODY.

SO LOSERS. WASTE ALL THE TIME YOU LIKE, TRYING TO DISRUPT THE FLOW OF GENUINE KNOWLEDGE ON THIS BLOG. WE KNOW YOU WON'T STOP, BECAUSE YOU'RE SUCH SAD-ASSED THIRD-RATERS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO DO. NO JOBS, NO BLOGS OF YOUR OWN, NOBODY TO READ YOUR WRITING, NO GIRLFRIENDS/BOYFRIENDS.... SO YOU GET YOUR KICKS SITTING AT A KEYBOARD AND PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE ELSE.

THAT'S NOT SUPRISING. MOST LOSERS FANTASIZE ABOUT BEING SOMEONE ELSE. GO AHEAD AND WASTE YOUR TIME. THE REAL DEFENCE ENTHUSIASTS HERE KNOW WHAT'S REAL AND WHAT'S NOT.

FOLKS, EVER SO OFTEN DURING MILITARY OPERATIONS, THE ENEMY TRIES TO JAM COMMUNICATIONS. THE BEST ANSWER TO JAMMING IS TO WORK THROUGH IT... ALL OF YOU CAN EASILY FIGURE OUT THE GENUINE MESSAGES FROM THE FAKES.

CHEERS!

Anonymous said...

No use crying over split milk. PLEASE turn on the comment moderation.

And that last post of yours is too generalizing.

Anonymous said...

So finally ajai shukla admitted that he doesn't have a boyfriend ! Poor loser! sum1 pls help him. Prasun ,where r u? ajai needs ur warmth more than ever. Go ahead.

Anonymous said...

^^ Fu*k off!

Ajai, I'm a bit late but thanks for this brilliant article. It answers all my questions.

Ajai said...

The guy named "broadsword" who rants in caps above is not me! Please stop this bullshit or I will lock this thread.

Anonymous said...

PAKISTAN ZINDABAD!!

Anonymous said...

Ajai, that 'broadsword' writing in caps shows the same profile as yours.

You gotto a decision about limiting the commentators to blogger users. Fast.

Anonymous said...

^who asked your opinion, fellow anon?

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that is Shiv Aroor

Anonymous said...

I believe this is the maximum number of comments on any article on broadsword. That shows the amount of junk these anons can create!

Anonymous said...

including yourself.

Anonymous said...

anon@24 September 2008 19:12

Dumb ass look at youself before talking. faggot

Anonymous said...

Wow! Even a Paki has added to the trash!

Anonymous said...

we should apply for a Limca world record....ajai,what's ur opinion?

Max said...

@Prasun

No sir, I didn't mean in a business sense, but your material is distinctly different from Ajai's, which is primarily based on what the guys at HAL/DRDO say; and Shiv's is largely picture driven + news published in sources that may not be accessible to all. I don't see Ajai's or Shiv's blog taking a beating if you start one because as I said, what you offer is different; i.e. your personal analysis. Partnership need not cease just because you start a blog should it?

Forget the impersonation above. Just don't feed them. But now I don't know if the "prasun k sengupta" replying this message is gonig to be the real one or not! Just start a blogger account here: https://www.blogger.com/start

Btw is Tempur your publication?

Max said...

Anonymous said...

PAKISTAN ZINDABAD!!

24 September 2008 13:00


Lolz, even they made it here!

Max said...

@24 September 2008 14:22

That is the real Ajai, bro!! He's pissed I guess.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Max@21.46: Many thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. My personal stance remains: strength through cohesion. Consequently, if I can in any way add any variety to the flavour or contents of either Ajai's or Shivc;s blog, then I would consider it as 'mission accomplished'. Thereforte, creating my own blog would be futile. What I've tried to do in both blogs is share my experiences and any informed or enlightened information-cum-analysis of consequence to the gamut of national national and regional geo-security imperatives of South and East Asia. 99.9% of my time I refrain from giving my own views or opinions, leaving the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.

TEMPUR is my publication devoted to Southeast Asian military-industrial and regional geo-security developments and as such is distributed in Brunei, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. It is a bilingual Malay-English monthly publication. Hope that answers your queries. Cheers!

Max said...

@Prasun,

Good you've got a blogger account.

I can't force you, I just shared my thoughts, do what you feel suites you better.

Hey were you really the "prasun k. sengupta" @23 September 2008 18:41?

Cheers!

Max said...

I don't get those anons above who are asking for logged in comments!

Just F**k off!

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Max@23:46: No it wasn't me. My only post yesterday was @23 September 2008 21:47

Max said...

@Prasun

Oh ok then, I thought you fell for some jokers trap!

Anonymous said...

For all you, all those anons might be Max himself. No wonder he's against those 'signed in' posts.

Max said...

@anon above

Thanks for your brilliant analysis. You should join ISI.

Anonymous said...

Thank you max, you're recruiting i see. I'll send you my CV soon.

Anonymous said...

When r we applying for a record?

Max said...

@anon

Thanks, I look forward to receiving it. You can come over to Pakistan for training then after.

Anonymous said...

wow max! is there walk in or something?

Strangely, those imposters have also stopped blabbering. Max mein kuch kaala hai.

Max said...

@anon

Yes, I get a fishy smell from above^^

Truth Seeker said...

PRASUN THE PLAGIARIST:

From ACIG.ORG
People may know TomCooper of Acig and his work on Arab Israeli conflicts. He has written several books om it.
\

ACIG Forum Forum Index ACIG Forum
ACIG.org Forum (Copyright 2000-2007)

FAQFAQ SearchSearch UsergroupsUsergroups ProfileProfile You have no new messagesYou have no new messages Log out [ archerblack ]Log out [ archerblack ]

Copyright Viollation by "Force"


Post new topic Reply to topic ACIG Forum Forum Index -> ACIG.org Website News & Feedback
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Tom
*Editor* ACIG Journal


Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 8097
Location: Vienna, Austria

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:42 am Post subject: Notice to all ACIG.org forum Users Reply with quote
For specific reasons,
the team of ACIG.org website finds itself in situation to issue the following notice to all users of ACIG.org forum:

- DO NOT post or use articles, reports or whichever other kind of materials from the Indian magazine "Force" on this forum and/or website!

This magazine has recently committed a very unfair viollation of ACIG.org copyrights, using non-profit materials for "for profit" purposes. As the matters currently look, it's editorial is refusing to pay for damage (we requested they to pay a specific sum to one of local charity organisations), and it seems they are also not the least ready to do anything of other measures we requested them to do (like publishing an apology).

Because of this, any postings of materials from this magazine, or postings based on their materials - regardless if from its online or printed issue - are strictly forbidden.

Note that ignoring this note will be considered a viollation of basic ACIG.org rules and is likely to result with a ban from this forum, without any further notice.
_________________
Tom Cooper
Editor, ACIG.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Brianne-30232
Guest






PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 1:28 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh, My God!
Back to top

Tom
*Editor* ACIG Journal


Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 8097
Location: Vienna, Austria

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:10 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Given there is no satisfactory response to the issue of copyright violations by "Force", ACIG and Bharat-Rakhshak (as the other damaged party) will have to litigate the matter and issue a law suit against them.

For the start, the file is going to be issued in one of EU countries of our choice (preferably a country which judgement will be enforcable in India), followed by additional files issued in countries where our organizations are based.

As per §4c of our rules and regulations (see above), we are going to use all legal means to stop the spread of plagiarised materials by "Force", to make their action of plagiarisation public and to clearly identify them and whoever else supported them in this action.
_________________
Tom Cooper
Editor, ACIG.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
vijay
Airman Basic


Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 5


PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 3:00 am Post subject: Reply with quote
It seems that even BR is not terribly excited about these guys


FORCE are bunch of cheats
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
*Editor* ACIG Journal


Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 8097
Location: Vienna, Austria

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:44 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, what should you do with somebody:

- who first says that the photos he plagiarised are from an official source and taken over the land - while it is obvious that not only was the photo taken over the water but also the photo is exactly the same as on our website and on BR (it is impossible for two different people at two different locations to take a shot of a helicopter taking off with its rotors in EXACTLY the same position)

- then admits the plagiarisation

- then changes his mind and states he never plagiarised anybody?

There is really no reason to take them very seriously, as they are meanwhile themselves delivering plenty of evidence for their own deeds. So, the case will be an easy one for any court: the longer they continue, the worst will the outcome be for them, as with every new denial they send they only add another nail in their own coffin.
_________________
Tom Cooper
Editor, ACIG.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
musangpulut
Contributor


Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Posts: 151
Location: Kuala Lumpur

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:20 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh my God!

for info,for the past 3 years,Prasun K. Sengupta was the main author/contributor for the english section of 'Tempur' magazine..'Tempur' was the major local defence magazine in my country,Malaysia and usually packed with the accurate facts and news about Malaysian Armed Force.

I'm so surprised about these news!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Tom
*Editor* ACIG Journal


Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 8097
Location: Vienna, Austria

PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 4:46 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Sengupta proved to be a major copyright violator in the case of Force: who knows how many things published by him in Tempur were plagiarised too....
_________________
Tom Cooper
Editor, ACIG.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
vijay
Airman Basic


Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 5


PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:36 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
musangpulut wrote:
Oh my God!

for info,for the past 3 years,Prasun K. Sengupta was the main author/contributor for the english section of 'Tempur' magazine..'Tempur' was the major local defence magazine in my country,Malaysia and usually packed with the accurate facts and news about Malaysian Armed Force.

I'm so surprised about these news!!
===================================

Not only he is lifting facts but he is making them up also. There is some reason to suspect that he is just creating facts out of thin air to fill space.

record of plagirising is

ATV article cut and paste from fas

IAF article from rupak BR

Karan tank article from Nitin BR

Some lifts from bellona

apart from what is given above
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic ACIG Forum Forum Index -> ACIG.org Website News & Feedback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1
Watch this topic for replies


Jump to:
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Anonymous said...

yahooo! great news! so prasun is going to get his testicles spanked sooner or later...wow!

****** said...

But it's from 2003! truth seeker can we pls have the weblink?

Anonymous said...

truthseeker, link please

Anonymous said...

gentlmen

http://acig.org

register in forums
search for prasun

he is infamous]

a leper for any honest author

fuI said...

Ajai, are you gonna wait until ppl stop commenting before doing a new article?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 207   Newer› Newest»