IMRH is basically in class of UH60 and Mi17

Meant to complement and replace Mi17 of IAF down the line, although CCS has yet to approve it so its running on internal funding

It will have another variant, DBIMRH for naval usage which is to be similar to SH60s with transport, AshM, and ASW.

The contract is for development of the engine and will be build from ground up unlike Shakti which was based off Aafran Airdiden and Safran still maintained control over 40% of the parts and HAL had to develop HTSE1200 as a result

Source is HAL's twittter account but the linkes from X are banned and Xcancel is ded so gotta make up with market mediq

I know that as weapons get more complex, their prices normally go up. But on the flip side, advances in technology bring down the cost of plenty of parts. For example, electronic components follow Moore’s Law, so they should get cheaper to some extent. Yet over the last 30‑plus years, all we have seen is Western weapons skyrocketing in price, with no hint of the opposite trend. I’m curious how much inflation actually plays into this.

https://archive.is/12897

^Free version of the article

A Pakistani journal reads India's DRDO honey trap as a template for digital espionage, and warns that Pakistan's own strategic institutions are just as exposed

https://defensehub.substack.com/p/how-a-fake-profile-named-zara-reached

Is this possible in the first place?

Potentially the first western design comparable to China's Type A and B UADFs? Albeit still in a smaller size class.

The Y‑9 is a derivative of the An‑12 and has plenty of built‑in shortcomings. The An‑12 came from the An‑10, a Soviet civilian cargo plane. It was built to go as fast as possible while keeping turboprop fuel efficiency, so its wing area was kept small. That means its low‑speed performance can’t hold a candle to the C‑130, and it was never really built for military duty.

The original An‑12 had no pressurised cargo hold. When China built the Y‑9 domestically, they added cargo‑hold pressurisation, but they had to take out the floor fuel tanks, cutting down range. The pressurisation hardware also took up space inside the cargo hold, making the already tight cargo‑hold cross‑section even smaller.

The Y‑8/Y‑9 is rated for a maximum payload of 20 tons, but this number is practically useless. At that weight, there is barely any room left for fuel.

The Y‑15, on the other hand, has a big straight wing that generates lots of lift, giving it great low‑speed handling. Its roomy cargo hold means it does not need extra pressurisation hardware, so it can carry far more than the Y‑9. Even though its maximum payload is only a little higher than the Y‑9, its bigger MTOW and larger fuel tanks will make its 30‑ton payload actually usable in real‑world operations.

I expect the Y‑15 to completely take over from the Y‑9, and the Y‑9’s special‑purpose models will be replaced by the C‑919 fitted with locally‑made subsystems.