Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Apr 2013 17:42

HJT-36 story of cockpit compatibility is interesting , even small little things matter much and it takes a lot of effort to get it working. Good Work HAL/HJT Team.

aharam · Post by **aharam** » 12 Apr 2013 05:48

Pratyush wrote:Don't know, they look like Greek Mirage 2Ks to me.

They are Indian, unless the Irish suddenly took a fancy to acquiring mirage 2Ks - they are the closest roundels and colors to ours

.

The afterburner glow brought back old memories of night flying when multiple aircraft were rolling down the runway at the same time in emergency drills. All you could see we're the burners and that mostly killed your night vision.

Cheers
Aharam.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Apr 2013 06:13

aharam wrote:
The afterburner glow brought back old memories of night flying when multiple aircraft were rolling down the runway at the same time in emergency drills. All you could see we're the burners and that mostly killed your night vision.

Cheers
Aharam.

LOL! Interesting insight from someone who's been there done that

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Apr 2013 09:07

I have always wanted to ask this.

when poised for takeoff run how does a pilot ensure that he is exactly down the centerline - is there some kind of "gunsight" for him to align with the white stripes down the center? I figure even with a 5' deviation, over course of a long takeoff run, he would end up on the side.....can wheel course corrections be done while takeoff run is already underway?

I was told commercial a/c have separate wheel of sorts to steer the nosewheel on the ground for taxi...is the same true for fighters and mil transports?
how do helicopter pilots turn their nosewheel on ground?

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 12 Apr 2013 10:20

In aircrafts there are many options for taxi. Single engine ones may use castoring/powered nose/tail wheel alongwith engine power/rudder/asymmetric braking to taxi precisely. Multiple engine ones use asymmetric thrust from the engines inaddition to the methods mentioned earlier. Commercial aircrafts use asymmetric braking/thrust with powered nose wheel to steer. There is a tiller wheel in the cockpit for large deflections of nose wheel, generally used to park aircraft or for tighter turns. While the aircraft is rolling for takeoff the nose wheel steering is adjusted by rudder pedals, but the deflection authority is less +-7 degrees.

Some helicopters have powered nose wheels. For taxi, they use the tail rotor and cyclic pitch to maneuver.

Cheers....

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Apr 2013 12:29

singha, you have the runway centreline as a guide. you pick a reference point on the windscreen, stick the power on and then easy pressure on the rudder pedals to maintain the white lines on that reference point, whilst keeping an eye on the air speed indicator. in most aircraft the nose wheel is allowed to roll into position as the forward thrust moves the aircraft, as speed picks up the rudder immediately starts to push the nose into the desired line and there is no need for specific steering of the wheel

only very slight rudder pedal inputs are required to maintain a straight line, then you reach Vr, ease the stick back and hold the nose up and shortly afterwards the aircraft unsticks and you're off... now you have to maintain climbing attitude and direction - typically using an external reference point against your windscreen - now using rudders and ailerons and checking the directional indicator and artificial horizon for back up - whilst managing the throttle to ease through V1 and V2 (dont forget flaps and gear up)

oh and ofcourse, you are following the rules of that airfield re circuit patterns and maintaining radio contact with the tower, whilst watching for other traffic...

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 14 Apr 2013 05:13

Philip wrote:This issue has raised its head yet again.When theb upgrade cosst were first revealed-before the MMRCA deal was announced,many on BR opined that the ultra-high cost of the deal was a method by which the Rafale costs in the tender could be kept down!

Let's take a dekko at two upgrades,the first for the M-2000s at a cost of almost $70M per unit,a toal cost of approx. $3.5 billion for 50+ aircraft,whereas the total cost of 63 MIG-29 upgrades is just under $1 billion ($964million).This 3.5 times as much and common sense,commerce sense,pure logic ,must ask the hard question,why? We've even had a debate earlier where the IAF's own evaluation of the two saw the MIG-29 come out on top every time in A-2-A combat (AM Masand in VAYU) .

In retrospect,it would've been far better to have a limited series upgrade of the M-2000 ,in principle just as was done with the Sea Harriers,saving about $3 Billion in the bargain and use the money saved for acquiring more new aircraft,either MIG-35s (60 at an approx. price of $45-50M per unit),the extra 40+ SU-30MKIs ordered at about $70M per unit,or save this money for the Rafale deal.If the LCA is also needing some hard cash to accelerate its dev. and production too,then the money saved would be better spent.

High cost of Mirage-2000 upgrade raises eyebrows
Rajat Pandit, TNN Mar 5, 2013,

(The overall upgrade programme…)

NEW DELHI: Should India have simply gone in for new fighters rather than upgrading its 51 Mirage-2000s at an exorbitant cost? This question came to the fore once again on Monday with defence minister AK Antony telling Parliament that the upgrade cost for each jet was Rs 167 crore.

This when the last lot of the French-origin Mirage-2000s - their induction began in the mid-1980s - contracted by India in 2000 cost just Rs 133 crore apiece. However, Antony, in a written reply to Lok Sabha, said, "Applying an escalation of 3.5% per annum as per the pricing policy review committee, to the contracted cost of the year 2000, it works out to be Rs 195 crore at 2011 levels. Thus, the upgrade has been undertaken at 85% of the aircraft's escalated cost."

However, the Rs 167-crore figure does not give the full picture. The overall upgrade programme of the Mirage-2000s is pegged at Rs 17,547 crore, with the first two fighters being upgraded in France and the rest (49) by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) under transfer of technology (ToT). If this figure is taken into account, then each Mirage upgrade will cost Rs 344 crore.

India has inked two separate contracts in the upgrade programme, which kicked off last year with the help of French companies Dassault Aviation (aircraft manufacturer) and Thales (weapons systems integrator).

In July 2011, the upgrade programme was finalized at Rs 10,947 crore, which included both the French and HAL work-shares. Then, early last year, the second contract worth around Rs 6,600 crore for 490 advanced fire-and-forget MICA (interception and aerial combat missiles) systems to arm the fighters was finalized with French armament major MBDA. The overall upgrade package may even cross the Rs 20,000 crore-mark over the decade it will take to complete it, as earlier reported by TOI.

However, both MoD and IAF - down to just 34 fighter squadrons when over 44 are required to deter both Pakistan and China - maintain the upgrade will ensure the multi-role Mirages become "virtually new fighters" that will "remain current and potent" for over two decades more.

"Mirages have performed superbly since induction. IAF is going in for new acquisitions, which take a long time in our circumstances, as well as upgrades to retain its combat readiness," said an official.

Holding major upgrade decisions are "suitably negotiated" in a competitive environment, Antony admitted, "However, this (Mirage) upgrade programme also includes fitment of advanced multi-mode target radar, reconfigured glass cockpit and advance avionics, state-of-the-art electronic warfare system and capability to launch advanced missiles."

Even as it progressively inducts 272 Sukhoi-30MKIs contracted for Rs 55,717 crore, IAF is also undertaking upgrade of its 63 MiG-29s at a cost of $964 million deal inked with Russia in March, 2008.

The force is also heavily banking upon the almost $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project to acquire 126 French Rafale fighters from Dassault, the final commercial negotiations for which are now in progress.
Ads by Google

Phillip, I recall similar questions being raised during the MIG 21 Bison upgrade in the 90s. The Israelis and the Ukrainians made similar cost beating offers but MOD decided to go with the OEMs. MOD may be using this experience as the benchmark to go for the French offer based on past experience.

aharam · Post by **aharam** » 14 Apr 2013 06:31

Singha wrote:I have always wanted to ask this.

when poised for takeoff run how does a pilot ensure that he is exactly down the centerline - is there some kind of "gunsight" for him to align with the white stripes down the center? I figure even with a 5' deviation, over course of a long takeoff run, he would end up on the side.....can wheel course corrections be done while takeoff run is already underway?

I was told commercial a/c have separate wheel of sorts to steer the nosewheel on the ground for taxi...is the same true for fighters and mil transports?
how do helicopter pilots turn their nosewheel on ground?

Hi Singha,
I don't know about multi-engine commercial aircraft having never flown any. Both Vikrant and Lalmohan's responses above are correct. For single engine aircraft, you typically only use differential braking for taxiing, where slight brake pressure on one wheel is used to pivot around that wheel. During take off it is a combination of differential braking and rudder - you need a bit of speed for the rudder to be effective, first few yards you can correct with differential braking. Basically you sight a far point down the center line of the runway and start rolling. If you are off even by a few degrees, this will cause a fairly large deflection if you picked a point on the centerline far enough. Typically, you just use the rudder to correct after you start rolling.

Interestingly, this is more complex in writing than it is to actually execute in practice. It is really not that different from keeping a car straight in a lane when you have a lane maker for the lane. Instead of a steering wheel, you use your feet on the rudder. It is pretty intuitive on a plane as well and veering off the center line during take off is not a common problem even during flight training. Now landing in cross wind, particularly cross wind with heavy gusts, is a completely different beast

Cheers
Aharam

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Apr 2013 13:38

India to modernise its Russian MiG-29 fleet

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Apr 2013 10:33

Posting in full - interesting times ahead: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/04/h ... crore.html

Let the fireworks begin...

HAL’s trainer pitted as Rs 4,500 crore cheaper than Swiss Pilatus trainer

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 15th Apr 13

A looming test case will soon make clear how serious the defence ministry (MoD) is about its recently expressed intentions to end corruption in arms procurement by indigenizing defence production. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), the Bangalore-based public sector aircraft builder has challenged the IAF’s plan to purchase more Pilatus trainer aircraft by building a basic trainer aircraft, using its own funding.

Of the IAF’s total requirement of 183 basic trainer aircraft, 75 PC-7 Mark II trainers have already been bought for Rs 2,900 crore from Swiss company, Pilatus. The first few Pilatus trainers have already been delivered and the IAF will begin training rookie pilots on the PC-7 Mark II this July. With the IAF’s immediate requirement met, HAL demands that the IAF buy 108 HTT-40 trainers to complete its fleet.

This has led to a dramatic three-way face-off between the MoD, HAL and the IAF. The IAF insists that it needs more Pilatus trainers immediately and is pressing the MoD to exercise the options clause in the Pilatus contract for 37 more PC-7 Mark II trainers. HAL points out that Pilatus will complete delivery of the initial order for 75 trainers only in 2015. If the HTT-40 does not fly by then the options clause can be exercised then, bringing HAL’s order down to 71 aircraft.

The MoD, which is the final arbiter, is caught in a cleft stick. Last year, as reported by Business Standard (Dec 19, 2012, “MoD rejects HAL’s proposal to build basic trainer”) the MoD chose the readily available Pilatus, saying that the HTT-40 was more expensive. But now, HAL has submitted a cheaper price bid. And with the MoD battered by allegations of corruption in overseas arms purchases, defence minister AK Antony is himself inclined to buy Indian.

Meanwhile a pro-active HAL has committed Rs 40 crore of company money to develop the HTT-40, and is allocating another Rs 160 crore that will also pay for three flying prototypes. At the Aero India 2013 show in Bengaluru in February, HAL exhibited a full-scale model of the HTT-40 and an impressive team of young aeronautical designers, who were calmly confident that the HTT-40, rather than the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II was the future of basic flying training in India’s military.

Prashantsingh Bhadoria, one of the HTT-40’s designers, told Business Standard that the HTT-40 would eventually cost Rs 35 crore per aircraft, including the cost of developing a weaponised variant. The 75 Pilatus that the IAF has already signed up for cost Rs 38.5 crore per aircraft. The HAL team at Aero India 2013 said that the HTT-40’s only two imported systems would be the engine and the ejection seat, which together cost Rs 6 crore.

“It is easy to see what benefits India’s aerospace industry. The Rs 38.5 crore that we pay for each Pilatus PC-7 Mark II goes entirely to Swiss manufacturers. Of the Rs 34.5 crore that each HTT-40 will cost, India’s aerospace industry will get Rs 29 crore; only Rs 6 crore will go abroad,” says Bhadoria.

A MoD rethink is underway. The ministry’s high-level Defence Procurement Group (DPG) has asked HAL to prepare a life cycle costing of the HTT-40, which is an estimation of what the trainer will cost to buy, operate, maintain, upgrade and overhaul during its estimated service lifespan of 30-40 years. Given that the HTT-40 will be built, maintained, overhauled and upgraded in HAL, the Pilatus will inevitably appear more expensive in a life cycle comparison.

Top HAL sources tell Business Standard that the life cycle estimates make a fleet of 108 HTT-40’s trainers cheaper than a PC-7 Mark II fleet by Rs 4,500 crore.

MoD officials say that the life cycle comparisons will be evaluated by the DPG and then taken before the ministry’s apex Defence Acquisition Council (DAC). If the DAC approves the project, HAL will get funding and IAF orders for up to 108 trainer aircraft.

HAL has also proposed supplying the HTT-40 to the Indian Navy, which will eventually have more than 500 aircraft, including aircraft carrier based fighters. HAL is confident that the navy will eventually set up its own training establishment, instead of training naval pilots in IAF training facilities. This would provide an additional market for the HTT-40.

HAL’s projections suggest that the HTT-40 will fly at 600 km per hour, reach an altitude of 10,000 metres, fly 3,000 km non-stop, and carry a 500-pound bomb or a mix of weaponry like guns, rockets and bombs. This would allow the HTT-40 to operate as a light strike aircraft, like the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6, which the US is considering for supply to the Afghan National Air Force.

The HTT-40 and the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II are “Stage-1” trainers for rookie pilots, which will replace the obsolescent HPT-36. After basic training, fighter pilots will move on to “Stage-2” training on the Intermediate Jet Trainer, which HAL is developing. After that, pilots will graduate to “Stage-3” training on the Hawk advanced jet trainer. Only after that will they fly IAF frontline combat aircraft.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Apr 2013 10:41

So IAF is suppose to keep two types of trainer in its fleet one from HAL and another Pilatus ....to stream line its fleet.

It makes sense for IAF to pursue buying Pilatus trainer as HAL HTT-40 does not exist beyond paper and wooden mockup .....HAL is better of spending time to streamline its production of exisit aircraft it is building so that it can churn out more aircraft per year then it is doing including Tejas and MKI , Rafale.

Seems like HAL want to put its hand on every thing and its already stretched much beyond its potential.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 15 Apr 2013 11:27

If HAL is putting 160Cr then it might be very confident of the outcome, why not take this as an opportunity to rebuild the aero industry. With these three programs tejas, sitara and htt40 we will get back the bearings on development and execution w.r.t military aircraft

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Apr 2013 11:35

> Top HAL sources tell Business Standard that the life cycle estimates make a fleet of 108 HTT-40’s trainers cheaper than a PC-7 Mark II fleet by Rs 4,500 crore.

a small window into how a sale(import) now locks in billions of dollars of profits later...for higher end products like rafale one can imagine the costs of parts and upgrades.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Apr 2013 11:51

Someone please help me understand the following:

- the HTT-40 exists on drawing board as we speak. So, how long will it take for this aircraft to actually take to air and receive all the certifications?

- Once that is done, how long will it take for the first craft to roll out of the production line? But for this to happen - is the HAL going to construct a new production line or use some existing one?

- HAL says that the delivery of 75 Pilatus will be complete by 2015. And hence, repeat order for 37 Pilatus will be start arriving in after 2015. If HTT-40 does not fly by then, then IAF can reduce order for HTT-40 to 71 aircraft. This is an absurd logic to me - I mean, how is HTT-40 flying by 2015 same as HTT-40 rolling down the production line? Using the logic that Pilatus is going to deliver 75 a/c in 2-years, then they can deliver 37 a/c in max 1.5 years. So, is HAL saying that between 2013 and 2017, HTT-40 will not only be FOC but delivered in numbers as well? Seems very unlikely to me.

- Apart from above - if the engine and ejection seat cost only 6 Crore, what else is there in that aircraft to account for balance 83% cost?

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Apr 2013 11:59

HAL should simultaneously launch a programme to upgrade Garrett engine and make an indigenous ejection seat for future use.

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Apr 2013 12:03

HAL is being prevented from Basic Trainer by delay tactics to help the imported products. MoD is dragging its feet in mandating HAL to develop the basic trainer. If HAL develops basic trainer then India will benefit and if Pilatus sells more basic trainers to India then Swiss Accounts will benefit. Guess? whom does "saint" and "the family" will prefer?!

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 15 Apr 2013 12:11

RVji we all have seen the mockup of the HTT40, am pretty sure HAL would have a wind tunnel test model before building the mockup. FRom a layman's point of view Having a mockup translates to almost finalised airframe and airfoil design. They would have also put together a list of subsystems that would go in(to the final spec) before they build a a mockup. We all know that mockup doesnt come for free and involves time, money and effort and if hAL is doing this out of their own money then they might be double cautious than they are with other programs. Since it is their program they migt have also thought about design of production lines and the htt40 being a simpler aircraft wouldnt need complex production lines. WE have to just pray that they dont screw up on the choice of the engine(as with Sitara)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Apr 2013 12:19

they did get the IJT flying on a larzac engine pretty quickly. the engine delays and certification issues , and the airshow accident, plus the crash came later.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Apr 2013 13:06

suryag wrote:RVji we all have seen the mockup of the HTT40, am pretty sure HAL would have a wind tunnel test model before building the mockup. FRom a layman's point of view Having a mockup translates to almost finalised airframe and airfoil design. They would have also put together a list of subsystems that would go in(to the final spec) before they build a a mockup. We all know that mockup doesnt come for free and involves time, money and effort and if hAL is doing this out of their own money then they might be double cautious than they are with other programs. Since it is their program they migt have also thought about design of production lines and the htt40 being a simpler aircraft wouldnt need complex production lines. WE have to just pray that they dont screw up on the choice of the engine(as with Sitara)

Sirji, pardon me but such an important program does not run on ifs and buts.

I'm looking for some concrete answers here. IJT has left enough bad blood for me to be wary about any promises coming from HAL. The program is at a stage where IAF might simply not wait any longer and end the requirement for IJT all together. And use Pilatus for the training. No one will be punished in HAL for delays in IJT while young pilots may loose life or limb training on an old platform like Kiran - which themselves are to be phased out.

So, pardon me if I seem a bit cynic but I'm not ready to take HAL's word at face value.

srin · Post by **srin** » 15 Apr 2013 14:36

A PSU that has worked on an unsanctioned project and is challenging the incumbent ? Never thought I'd see that happen.

Right or wrong (and indeed IJT is a cautionary tale), but a DPSU challenging MoD is a very good thing. I think HAL is back after a long slumber.

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Apr 2013 15:30

Actually HAL management would normally get a piece of cake in license production but with Pilatus completely imported they are unhappy. I hope this leads to HAL producing its own Basic Trainer but I fear that the import pushing pimps will buy out key people in Services, Mod and HAL to kill HTT-40

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Apr 2013 15:56

Delay in Scorpene 5 years, Gorky 5 years, LRSAM 5 years, new imported 155 Howitzers 25-30 years, - All this is ok as they are foreign imports or intended foreign imports but we cannot give couple of years to HTT-40 even though HAL is trying to get permission since 1980s.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Apr 2013 16:05

HAL had displayed similar model and wooden mockup for basic trainer in 1995 Aero India and it was called HTT-35 .... for some reason HAL didnt pursue it , it should have anticipated orders from IAF and should have developed a basic trainer since then HAL didnt have much in hand except ALH production and lic building older types. It is not expensive to develop a basic trainer and HAL could have pursued with its own finance

HAL is just trying to be opportunistic here seeing a huge order and trying to promote aggressive time lines to win a share of basic trainer , not to mention the logistic of operating two types of trainer.

Rohit the question is a hypothetical one PC-7 initially took 7-8 years from first prototype to production , Lets say HAL says they can do the same in 5 years should IAF have faith in HAL words considering HAL has delayed projects even when they are spoon fed by phoren companies and on IJT there is no progress after crash.

The headache of operating two types of basic trainer should itself be a big deterrent , it would turn out to be expensive affair if you take life cycle cost of operating two types .....If HAL is really serious it should streamline its existing production line of MKI ,ALH , Tejas and speed things up while working for Rafale and making sure IJT issues are resolved it has too much on its plate.

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Apr 2013 16:42

Have you checked if HAL had financial autonomy in 1995 to sanction development of HTT-35?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Apr 2013 17:04

vic wrote:Have you checked if HAL had financial autonomy in 1995 to sanction development of HTT-35?

Even now they will develop it if MOD approves it and IAF plans to buy it , else it wont go beyond wooden mockup

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 15 Apr 2013 17:25

vic wrote:Delay in Scorpene 5 years, Gorky 5 years, LRSAM 5 years, new imported 155 Howitzers 25-30 years, - All this is ok as they are foreign imports or intended foreign imports but we cannot give couple of years to HTT-40 even though HAL is trying to get permission since 1980s.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Apr 2013 21:23

Some good news on HTT-40 front. From Ajai Shukla.

HAL’s trainer pitted as Rs 4,500 crore cheaper than Swiss Pilatus trainer

1. This is what I had expected. I could not understand how HTT-40 could be twice as expensive as the PC-7 (even considering development cost). Especially, if you could build 100-odd such planes.
2. HAL should not mess this one up. If HTT-40 sees service in numbers, then it will be in direct evaluation with PC-7 (an established world-class system). If it matches up/surpasses the PC-7 (which it should since it can be armed), it has the capability to remove a lot of stigma.
3. On a related front HAL is finding it difficult to find the engines for the HTT-40. It has extended the deadline for replies to its RFP for the engine 3 times (from 25th March to 30th April).

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 16 Apr 2013 04:55

Interesting snippet from news

IAF did "extremely well'' during the 'Live-Wire' exercise, conducted from March 18 to April 4 with over 8,000 hours of flying sorties, to maintain the "high-tempo surge operations'' to "validate its two-front deployment capability''. Frontline Sukhoi-30MKIs even flew long-range missions from Chabua (Assam) to the western front, with mid-air refuelling, for bombing missions, sources said.

In Kargil, IAF carried out roughly 7000-odd(1730 fighter) sorties in about 47 days. We are seeing serious surge in numbers.

@Vivek Ahuja:
Food for thought, Sirjee ...

--Ashish

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 16 Apr 2013 09:17

^^^

There is a mention of 2000 tons being shifted from one theater to another as part of the exercise and this is before the advent of C-17s

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 16 Apr 2013 09:21

Choosing a Swiss plane was a major mistake IMO, with all their human rights bullsh!t and their reluctance to provide an armed version. If HAL can produce a flying prototype quickly and manages to get the right engine, the IAF should be forced to test and buy it if all goes well. In that case, it is a win for India and in one swoop, we wipe out an embarrassing gap in our domestic capabilities and gain full control of an important potential weapon system, not just a trainer. However it would be a disaster if HAL faqs this up with bad design and shoddy work.

While HAL should stick to the same engine (Canadian PT6A25) that the PC-7 II uses for costing purposes and apples-->apples comparision vs the Pilatus, it should simultaneously introduce a more powerful armed version of HTT-40 using the PT6A68 used by the Embraer Tucano light-attack/trainer. GoI should apply full pressure on Canada to give HAL a license-build agreement for the engine and go ballistic if they hesitate. While this would be just a little more expensive, it would offer a much higher bang for the buck. It could encourage the IAF or IA to induct a few light attack squadrons which we lack right now. Time is coming when we will need to stop pussyfooting with the Maoists and discourage future subversives. Such an aircraft will also be an asset in the mountain valleys and make a nice gift for friendly countries like Afghanistan (they have chosen the Tucano for light attack), Myanmar, Cambodia, Vietnam etc.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Apr 2013 09:59

Victor wrote:
While HAL should stick to the same engine (Canadian PT6A25) that the PC-7 II uses for costing purposes and apples-->apples comparision vs the Pilatus, it should simultaneously introduce a more powerful armed version of HTT-40 using the PT6A68 used by the Embraer Tucano light-attack/trainer.

According to HAL's tender for engines. It is looking for an engine with over 705 kW, i.e. the PT6A-62. Its MTOW is going to be near 3 Tons. In other words it is going to be very very similar to the PC-9.

There is only 1 thing I don't understand about the HTT-40. Why does it have such a low service ceiling of 7 km?

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 16 Apr 2013 10:14

Red Flag happened again recently.

What were the results ?

Another 21:1 whitewash in favour of the MKI s?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2013 13:42

Celebrated 50 years of successful cooperation RAC "MiG" with India

The Embassy of India in Moscow, a meeting dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the start of deliveries of MiG-21, the Ministry of Defence of India. This historic event marked the beginning of cooperation between the two countries in the military-technical sphere.

In connection with the anniversary, the General Director of JSC "Russian Aircraft Corporation" MiG "Sergei Korotkov presented to the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of India to the Russian Federation, Mr. Ajay Malhotra (Ajai Malhotra) model of the MiG-29K and MiG-29UPG

The event was air attaché at the Embassy of India in the Russian Air Commodore Vikram Singh (Vikram Singh), the Naval Attaché at the Embassy of India in Russia Commodore Ajay Bhave Vinaya (Bhave Ajay Vinay), Deputy Director of Marketing of the "RSK "MiG" Mikhail Globenko.

Speaking at the meeting, Ajai Malhotra said that half a century of experience working together on the aircraft "MiG" - is a good example of the effectiveness of the Russian-Indian military-technical cooperation, which is based on friendly relations of the two states.

Sergei Korotkov said that the Indian Air Force was among the first foreign customers receive the most advanced aircraft grade "MiG".

A characteristic feature of the key projects for the fighters "MiG" was the consistent development of the scientific and industrial cooperation and technology transfer. In particular, combat aircraft MiG-21 and MiG-27 produced corporation Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) under license.

The head of the RAC "MiG", in modern designs, such as MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29UPG, Indian national structures act as full participants in all phases of the programs.

"Corporation" MiG "is interested in expanding the cooperation with government, military, scientific and industrial structures of India", - Sergey Korotkov.

Chronicle of cooperation with India through the RAC "MiG"

1962 - An agreement on the supply of MiG-21
1963 - the first deliveries of the Indian Air Force MiG-21F-13
1964 - The Company HAL mastered production of the MiG-21FL
1965 - Delivery of the Indian Air Force MiG-21FL, MiG-21U
1967 - The Company has transferred the Indian Air Force HAL first MiG-21, built under license
1971 - HAL mastered production of the MiG-21M
1973 - The Company has transferred the Indian Air Force HAL first MiG-21M
1977 - Delivery of the Indian Air Force MiG-21bis
1980 - Delivery of the Indian Air Force MiG-23
1982 - Delivery of the Indian Air Force MiG-25RB and MiG-23MF.
1983-1987 years. - Serial production of the MiG-21bis factory HAL under license
1986-1995 years. - Delivery of the Indian Air Force MiG-29
1988-1997 years. - Serial production of the MiG-27ML factory HAL under license
1996-2005. - Modernization of MiG-21UPG with HAL and the plant "Sokol"
2004-2006. - Integration of components on board MiG-29K/KUB Indian development
2009-2011. - The supply of aircraft of the Indian Navy contract MiG-29K/KUB 2004
July-August 2012 - flights MiG-29K/KUB from aboard the aircraft carrier "Vikramaditya"
December 2012 - Indian Air Force delivery of modernized MiG-29UPG
December 2012 - the beginning of deliveries of aircraft of the Indian Navy contract MiG-29K/KUB 2010

vic · Post by **vic** » 16 Apr 2013 13:48

There are only two engines in the market Garrett and PT6. HAL manufactures Garrett and uses another in Saras. How difficult can it be to choose an engine, unless the difficulty is in pie sharing.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 16 Apr 2013 15:52

indranilroy wrote:There is only 1 thing I don't understand about the HTT-40. Why does it have such a low service ceiling of 7 km?

The second last para of the article says 10 km.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 16 Apr 2013 17:41

HTT-40 ceiling of 10 km should be correct. If it plans on using appx the same engine as the PC-7 it should have appx the same altitude capability. It has a pressurized cockpit AFAIK which would not be the case if they were expecting only 5 km ceiling.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Apr 2013 18:19

At the expense of repeating myself - Can anyone explain that if (as the HAL claims) only the engine and ejection seat are imported and valued at INR 6 Crore, what else constitutes INR 29 Crore in the projected per unit cost of INR 35 Crore?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 16 Apr 2013 18:27

^^^R&D, Raw materials, avionics, production cost (labour, machine etc.) and most importantly PRAAFIT.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Apr 2013 18:29

Sagar G wrote:^^^R&D, Raw materials, avionics, production cost (labour, machine etc.) and most importantly PRAAFIT.

Arre bhai....the phoren plan cost INR 38 Crore and Indian one INR 35 Crore? What gives?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Apr 2013 18:32

I would like to see tie-ups, between Indian and good foreign, entities that deal with basic research. Not aiming for any end product (like the FGFA, etc - those efforts need another thread). Until India has a basic, mature, truthful, etc research effort we should be seeing the Indian armed forces either running abroad for foreign products or playing the waiting game for in-house products. Do not see any way around this.