Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by member_28756 »

NRao wrote:
desist from bringing geo-politic related discussions on military threads. Unless absolutely necessary. There are enough threads
I do not think those threads cover (adequately?) topics such as this thread. But I digress.

Moving along:

Why India shouldn't be concerned about Chinese J-31 Fighter Aircraft

Interesting take.
I think the use of RD 93 engine is only a temporary one and the aircraft that will eventually enter service will be different from the first prototype. So we will see.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by NRao »

MANNY K wrote: I think the use of RD 93 engine is only a temporary one and the aircraft that will eventually enter service will be different from the first prototype. So we will see.
IF we are to believe such articles, then the Chinese really do not care about the J-31 - it is for export. To that extent it is not a "threat" to India (from china).
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Indranil »

Thank you Defence Minister. Please let HAL juniors build the HTT-40 in numbers. That is how one creates design capability. That is how the Antonovs and Messerschmitts of the world are created.
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by member_23694 »

Please let HAL juniors build the HTT-40 in numbers. That is how one creates design capability.
Sorry but I fail to understand as to why does HAL need a captive buyer for a BTA to help build design expertise for its Juniors.
HAL should make a business case for BTA (and many other products) development, fund it from its own R&D budget (which I believe it is doing for HTT 40) and then sell within or outside India where ever it find's a buyer and then grow from there in creating design capability .
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Karan M »

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Philip »

Right on Dhiraj.Look at other nations including Pak,which has sold its trainers abroad. There are a host of smaller nations than India which have developed their own light strike aircraft-cum-trainers,including pvt. entities in the US. If HAL is so confident about its products,let it fund it,build it and export it first. It has for decades enjoyed the captive market of the IAF,etc.,which has subsidised its existence.
keelhauler
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 30 Aug 2010 18:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by keelhauler »

I had the pleasure of meeting him socially once and we had a nice long chat about the LCA program. I was shocked to read this. Thorough gentleman. RIP Sir.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by tsarkar »

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by deejay »

R.I.P. Sir!
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by wig »

heartbreaking news. rest in peace. sir.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by shiv »

I met him and spoke to him 3 months ago after he gave a fantastic talk on how to handle Pakistan. Very clear. Very realistic. The man knew exactly what was needed. So sad to see him go in this horrifying manner.

Souls of great men are not reborn. We on earth have to find peace.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Karan M »

Can you share the details of what he said (if it's ok)
James B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2249
Joined: 08 Nov 2008 21:23
Location: Samjhautha Express with an IED

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by James B »

World Air Forces 2014 by Flight Global

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/worl ... y-2014.pdf (5.4MB)

You can also see the number of aircraft in IAF, Army & Navy as well as Paki & China forces.
shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by shaun »

it only gives an approximation, model types could have been more exhaustive
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by NRao »

Mission Aerofi set to propel ‘Make Indian’ concepts in aerospace

Image
Chennai, Nov 25: Mission Aerospace Foundation of India (Mission Aerofi), an organisation that promises to develop products from home-grown platforms for the world market is all set to take off in Bengaluru on November 29. The official launch of Aerofi will be held at the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) situated inside the Indian Institute of Science campus. Former Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Fali H Major (Retd) will be the chief guest during the occasion.

In search of the best in aerospace


In an exclusive interview to OneIndia, Anurakar Mishra, CEO of Genser Aerospace and Information Technologies Private Ltd and the brain behind the new organisation, said that Mission Aerofi has been conceived to be a complementing force to the existing Indian aerospace structure, to make rightful contributions, as the future of global aerospace takes shape.

"Airpower of any country can be mapped to an active and energetic aerospace industry with vibrant eco-system. Mission Aerofi will have a role for everyone, who has a passion for the development of aerospace products from an Indian platform. We are gathering luminaries from the Indian aerospace industry, scientists, academia, students and friends of India for the event," Mishra said.

Ambitious plans in the pipeline

The 12-member governing body of Mission Aerofi has identified projects starting from Rs 10 crore to Rs 1,000 crore. "We are looking for some kind of commitment from the companies to contribute a small portion of their profit towards our mission. We shall attempt this to be linked to their CSR initiatives. We are focusing only on aerospace companies who are committed towards our cause to contribute," Mishra said. Aerofi cells are likely to be formed in different companies with focus on research. "We shall rope in some of the best academic institutions in the country. We will manage the projects and act as a force multiplier. Aerofi will not be limited to India alone, but will engage with global aerospace community as required," he added.

According to Wg Cdr C D Upadhyay (Retd), former Chief Test Pilot of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and currently one of the pillars of Aerofi, key work areas have been already indentified. "We are looking at the development of business jet, defence trainer aircraft, propulsion system, UAV, gyrocopter, mini and microsatellites, aerospace systems, aerospace design tools and aerospace process," Upadhyay said.

Make in India should become Make Indian

Upadhyay said that the ‘Make in India' slogan should be tweaked to ‘Make Indian' so as to get the right impact. "We must make from Indian platforms. If we need to attain aerospace might, then we need to ensure that all major parts have to be developed within the country. Mission Aerofi will strive to bring in a new development philosophy of aerospace products. We are happy that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is batting for the Make in India cause vigorously," Upadhyay said.

He said the ‘Make Indian' movement should catch the imagination of aerospace industries in India.

"We will act as a channel for the Indian industries to take challenging steps. Our mission is not to give any competition to the existing set-up in the country. We are looking at inspiring partnerships that will get Indian aerospace products out in the market," he added.

Quad-copter project takes shape

The first project of Mission Aerofi could be the development of a quad-copter (a flying machine with four rotors). With over 50,000 quad-copters flying all over the world currently, the team is keen to join hands with Belgium for this project.

"This Indo-Belgium product will target to incorporate new technologies such as structural batteries, which is part of the airframe structure itself, as also advances in cognitive technologies for multiple quad-copters to cooperate to execute missions. Quad-copters are popular for their short take-off capabilities and are effective for surveillance missions," Mishra said.

The quad-copter can also be used effectively by fishermen to monitor fish schools in deep waters. "Our product will weigh around 20 kg and the entire project should cost around $5 to 6 million," Mishra added.

(The writer is a seasoned aerospace and defence journalist in India. He is the Consulting Editor (Defence) with OneIndia. He tweets @writetake.)
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Austin »

Indian Army wives campaign to get Chetak, Cheetahs taken out of service
A group of Indian Army officers' wives have demanded that the Army Aviation Corps (AAC) stop using its fleet of obsolete Chetak (Aerospatiale Alouette III) and Cheetah (Aerospatiale SA315B Lama) helicopters due to their high accident rate.

The 28-strong Indian Army Wives Agitation Group - all of whom are married to AAC pilots or technicians assigned to these two platforms - claim that 191 of the helicopters have crashed over the past two decades, killing 294 officers.

"Every time officers go on a sortie on either of these helicopters, their families are on tenterhooks," group head Meenal Bhosale told IHS Jane's on 25 November by phone from Nashik, western India. "And each time they land safely it's like they have been given a new lease of life," added Bhosale, whose husband is an AAC engineering officer.

The group was formed on 2 October, the day after a Cheetah crashed in north India, killing two pilots and an engineer on board. It has created an online petition demanding the two helicopters' withdrawal from service that has received 20,000 signatures in support.

The group has petitioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Ministry of Defence to retire the about 120 Chetaks and Cheetahs still in service. Most are deployed to sustain Indian Army formations in the Himalayas.

However, senior AAC officers said they had no alternative but to continue operating the platforms, which entered service in the mid-1960s, for another 4-5 years until replacements were acquired.

Meanwhile, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar told parliament on 25 November that the Indian Air Force (IAF) had lost 21 fighters, two transport aircraft and four helicopters in accidents since 2011.

These included three Sukhoi Su-30MKIs, two Dassault Mirage 2000Hs, four Sepecat Jaguars, three Mikoyan MiG-29s, eight MiG-21s and one Mig-27.

The transporters included one Lockheed Martin C-130J-30 and one Antonov An-32 while the crashed helicopters involved two Russian Mi-17s and two locally designed Dhruv Advanced Light helicopters.

The IAF also lost one Hawk Mk 132 advanced jet trainer and two locally designed Kiran Hindustan Jet Trainer 16s.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by deejay »

Austin wrote:Indian Army wives campaign to get Chetak, Cheetahs taken out of service
A group of Indian Army officers' wives have demanded that the Army Aviation Corps (AAC) stop using its fleet of obsolete Chetak (Aerospatiale Alouette III) and Cheetah (Aerospatiale SA315B Lama) helicopters due to their high accident rate.

The 28-strong Indian Army Wives Agitation Group - all of whom are married to AAC pilots or technicians assigned to these two platforms - claim that 191 of the helicopters have crashed over the past two decades, killing 294 officers.

"Every time officers go on a sortie on either of these helicopters, their families are on tenterhooks," group head Meenal Bhosale told IHS Jane's on 25 November by phone from Nashik, western India. "And each time they land safely it's like they have been given a new lease of life," added Bhosale, whose husband is an AAC engineering officer.

The group was formed on 2 October, the day after a Cheetah crashed in north India, killing two pilots and an engineer on board. It has created an online petition demanding the two helicopters' withdrawal from service that has received 20,000 signatures in support.

The group has petitioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Ministry of Defence to retire the about 120 Chetaks and Cheetahs still in service. Most are deployed to sustain Indian Army formations in the Himalayas.

However, senior AAC officers said they had no alternative but to continue operating the platforms, which entered service in the mid-1960s, for another 4-5 years until replacements were acquired.

Meanwhile, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar told parliament on 25 November that the Indian Air Force (IAF) had lost 21 fighters, two transport aircraft and four helicopters in accidents since 2011.

These included three Sukhoi Su-30MKIs, two Dassault Mirage 2000Hs, four Sepecat Jaguars, three Mikoyan MiG-29s, eight MiG-21s and one Mig-27.

The transporters included one Lockheed Martin C-130J-30 and one Antonov An-32 while the crashed helicopters involved two Russian Mi-17s and two locally designed Dhruv Advanced Light helicopters.

The IAF also lost one Hawk Mk 132 advanced jet trainer and two locally designed Kiran Hindustan Jet Trainer 16s.
As a veteran I do not agree with such protests. While the cause may be right, using wives as fronts for such protests just does not agree with me. Recently a similar online petition floated by veterans also came in my mail box - But this is incorrect.
Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1643
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Akshay Kapoor »

I am too so I can understand your point of view but I agree with what they are doing. Things have been at breaking point for a long time. We will see more of this in the future. Things will get a worse before they get better (if ever).
prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 177
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by prabhug »

Is the aerofi is for the public ? Can somebody help me get a pass if possible ?
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Victor »

Since it came from CAS Raha, I'm posting here. The gist is that airpower is critical in the next few years.

Don't know if this has ever been articulated by such a senior officer before but it's sheer music coming from the Chairman of the Chief of Staff Committee:

Neighbourhood Situation Delicate, Says Air Chief Marshal
"....India has no territorial ambition, except for recovering the territories that we lost because of the history .
PoK, Aksai Chin. Anything else?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by brar_w »

Deleted
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Thakur_B »

I hope the people batting for Pilatus have the stomach for black humor. This is lol-worthy on so many levels.
Now more reasons are emerging for being cautious about buying additional Pilatus trainers. It is unclear whether IAF has informed MoD of these. With 53 PC-7 Mark II trainers already delivered and more on the way, Business Standard has learnt that Pilatus is shrugging off direct responsibility for their maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO).

This after Pilatus charged the MoD 80.25 million Swiss Francs (Rs 515 crore) for maintenance knowhow to HAL in the contract signed on May 24, 2012. This so-called "Maintenance Transfer of Technology" (MToT) was to be formalised in a separate contract within three years.

With just six months left for that deadline, there is no contract in sight, only uncertainty about how the PC-7 Mark II trainers will operate over decades.

Pilatus has told HAL - which will eventually maintain the PC-7 Mark II fleet through its service life after receiving maintenance technology - to negotiate directly with sub-vendors for licenses to use and maintain its equipment.

Pilatus only assembles and integrates the trainer, using sub-systems bought from global vendors. That means HAL will now have to seek licenses from sub-vendors that include Pratt & Whitney; Honeywell Aerospace; Rockwell Collins; Claverham and Ontic.

Pilatus has flatly refused to be even a signatory to those licensing agreements.

According to Pilatus, the PC-7 Mark II has 159 sub-assemblies, which are called "line replaceable units" or LRUs (e.g. the engine supplied by Pratt & Whitney). The MToT contract drafted by Pilatus covers just 65 LRUs. Pilatus says 72 LRUs are non-repairable, which should just be thrown away when they go bad. Seven more LRUs are the responsibility of IAF; while the remaining 15 items are on various countries' "export control lists" and would have to be stocked in advance.

Pilatus wants HAL to negotiate individually with 29 global vendors that provide the 65 replaceable items. There is no telling what price they will demand. When Pilatus charged Swiss Francs 80.25 million for MToT, it did nothing to bind the sub-vendors to conform to this price.

With foreign vendors confident that IAF has nowhere else to go, they are negotiating for fees much higher than had been budgeted.

Contacted for comments, Pilatus cited a confidentiality agreement with MoD, but stated that, "suffice it to say that we are working on this diligently to achieve an acceptable outcome for the GOI and IAF. As Pilatus does not hold authority over the individual companies regarding licensing of other vendor IP rights, it is using its best endeavours to mediate between each company and HAL to reach an acceptable position."

A key vendor, Honeywell, admits it is in "active discussion with HAL on this programme" for a "licensing arrangement". Another vendor, Rockwell Collins, declined to comment.

When the main contract was being negotiated, HAL had alerted IAF to clearly list Pilatus' maintenance responsibilities. However, with the IAF eager to seal the contract, Pilatus's obligations remained vague.

Now IAF itself is passing the buck to HAL. In emailed comments, IAF stated, "MToT of Pilatus was negotiated at contract negotiation stage by a team of HAL specialists headed by a GM level officer… It will be a prudent to ask HAL as to why they have not signed the MToT contract with Pilatus."

Within six months of the contract, Pilatus made it clear it would assume minimal responsibilities. On November 30, 2012, a draft contract from Pilatus proposed to confine MToT to facilities set up by HAL.

Pilatus repudiated responsibility for renewing original equipment manufacturer (OEM) licences, updating technical documents, software upgrades and maintenance of special tools and test equipment - which are standard MToT components.

For these India would require separate contracts at extra cost, over and above the 80.25 million Swiss Francs the main contract specified for MToT.

Under Pilatus' draft contract, India will have to pay for establishing maintenance facilities like the Engine Test Bed. Pilatus would only provide the design.

According to established norms, aircraft acquisition contracts include aspects of maintenance, including details of initial repair kits, base spares, and licensing and escalation mechanisms for 30 years.
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 736_1.html
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Karan M »

LOL. Any wonder then that we are asking Dassault to step up for the MMRCA contract and be a signatory and take responsibility for TOT?
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by member_23694 »

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 736_1.html

The same writer which was quoted above had also written in March 2014 that IJT is nearly complete

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 368_1.html
HAL designers are confident that, given their major role in developing the Tejas fighter; and the Sitara intermediate jet trainer (IJT) that is nearly complete
And as of now HAL is probably working with BAe for whatever issue IJT is facing. Now will the writer go and correct himself. NO.

http://www.spsmai.com/aerospace/?id=237 ... -The-facts
By Air Marshal (Retd) Anil Chopra
The IAF had initially taken up a case for procurement of 181 BTA as ‘Make, by HAL’. draft preliminary staff qualitative requirements
(PSQRs) were provided to HAL in February 2008. After discussions between the IAF and HAL, the PSQRs were mutually agreed upon and
issued in March 2009. A fatal accident of HPT-32 in May 2009 resulted in grounding of the HPT-32 fleet in July that year.
This somewhat sudden development created an unacceptable void in basic flying training that compelled the IAF to propose procurement
of 75 BTA urgently from the global market. The balance of 106 BTA were to be indigenously designed, developed and produced by
HAL as the Indian aerospace major was not inclined to license-manufacture the aircraft 75 of which were to be procured from
a selected foreign vendor.
So the urgency for BTA was felt in 2009 and both IAF and HAL was aware of it.
IAF went and bought off the shelf 75 BTA while HAL is still working on it 5 years later with argument and counter argument
ongoing.

I am not sure if it is a case of short term memory as to what was the situation in 2008-9, but right now in 2014, IAF is extending the life of Kiran which was to be replaced by IJT

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/may ... ers-07391/
Aug 5/14: IJT. Defence Minister Shri Arun Jaitley makes it official, in response to a Rajya Sabha question:

“HAL, which has been developing the Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT), as a replacement for the Kiran aircraft, has not so far been
able to resolve critical wing and airframe Design & Development issues related to stall and spin.

In order to meet the emergent situation created due to inordinate delay in the IJT project, IAF has already initiated the process
for extending the technical life of the Kiran aircraft. The IAF has also initiated action to look for alternate options for the IJT.”
Jan 20/14: Next BTA? Ajai Shukla pens an oped that looks at HAL’s arguments for the HTT-40, while dismissing any concerns raised by the other side. That isn’t very valuable in and of itself, and makes his “full” cost figures suspect. On the other hand,
he details the IAF’s counter-proposal: INR 24.05 billion (about $393 million) for 10 more full PC-7 imports, and 96 license-assembled
PC-7 Mk.IIs at IAF’s 5 Base Repair Depot in Sulur, Tamil Nadu: 28 semi-knocked down kits, and 68 fully knocked-down parts sets.

There is merit to his point that lifetime costs are larger than purchase costs. An India unable to produce its own spares locally does
leave itself at the risk of paying more, and subject to currency fluctuations. The core argument involves pinning down the
potential differences, and then asking whether the IAF’s training fleet is both economically small enough, and militarily
important enough, to justify the tradeoffs in exchange for a no-risk solution. The IAF says yes, and makes an argument.
Shulka won’t address the question.

The most interesting point Shulka makes is that the original Basic Trainer Aircraft RFP only covered 75 fully built aircraft.
Could a competitor snarl the proceedings by citing the failure to include a local-assembly under Transfer of Technology option,
on the basis that they would have won had it been part of the tender? Anywhere other than India, the answer would be no.
Separate contracts are separate. In India? Who knows. Sources: Business Standard, “Is indigenisation just a slogan?”

BTW just to add, nothing to be proud of supporting some foreign equipment, it is just that indiginization does not imply supporting inefficiency. Pilatus ONLY assembles and integrates the trainer, using sub-systems bought from global vendors and still managed to sell an aircraft to IAF. IAF in turn is very happy with the aircraft's performance.

HAL did not manage to do that yet !!!!
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Thakur_B »

dhiraj wrote:
HAL did not manage to do that yet !!!!
HAL has done that two times already out of their own funds.
HTT-34
HTT-35

IAF didn't take a decision to replace HPT-32 then. HAL kept waiting for funds to develop HTT-40 for the last five years, never given. Now they are doing it again out of their own funds.

I am surprised how HAL is being painted the bad guy over here. This is one of the very rare HAL - IAF tiffs where IAF is the one that has bungled up and now they are unwilling to accept it.
Last edited by Thakur_B on 30 Nov 2014 18:38, edited 1 time in total.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by abhik »

At the end of the day you will have to suck it up as long as you rely on foreign vendors over whom you have very little leverage.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by abhik »

Thakur_B wrote: IAF didn't take a decision to replace HPT-32 then. HAL kept waiting for funds to develop HTT-40 for the last five years, never given. Now they are doing it again out of their own funds.

I am surprised how HAL is being the bad guy over here. This is one of the very rare HAL - IAF tiffs where IAF is the one that has bungled up and now they are unwilling to accept it.
The unusual speed with which this whole deal was completed also makes somewhat suspicions.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by rohitvats »

Thakur_B wrote: <SNIP>I am surprised how HAL is being painted the bad guy over here. This is one of the very rare HAL - IAF tiffs where IAF is the one that has bungled up and now they are unwilling to accept it.
Do tell me how is IAF at fault here?

Did IAF negotiate the contract with Pilatus for main a/c and associated maintenance? You've highlighted the part in the article by AS on HAL 'alerting' IAF to mention maintenance responsibilities by Pilatus but that part gives no concrete answer except to imply that IAF did not do the needful. He is obviously being fed one side inside information by HAL - so how come he does not spell out the fvck up by IAF on this aspect?

Secondly, did you miss this part in the same article: " Now IAF itself is passing the buck to HAL. In emailed comments, IAF stated, "MToT of Pilatus was negotiated at contract negotiation stage by a team of HAL specialists headed by a GM level officer… It will be a prudent to ask HAL as to why they have not signed the MToT contract with Pilatus."

He provides just one line to give semblance of presenting both sides of the story - and that too, with a negative slant to discredit the information being shared.

Was HAL sleeping at the wheel when the negotiations were happening? Is it IAF's call on the what terms and conditions go into the final contract? If Pilatus was leading India up the garden path, were those drafting and negotiating the contract (which included HAL) a bunch of morons?

All very nice and easy to form an opinion basis arguments and partial information from one side.

HAL is using him to snipe at the IAF on BTT issue like any other commercial entity.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by tsarkar »

Karan M wrote:LOL. Any wonder then that we are asking Dassault to step up for the MMRCA contract and be a signatory and take responsibility for TOT?
Manufacturer cannot always take ownership of components.

For example, for Project 17 Shivalik, the builder is MDL but the boost engines are GE LM2500 gas turbines.

Going by the logic of those who say Pilatus should own maintenance or guarantee performance of components, MDL should take ownership of GE LM2500 gas turbines. Unfortunately, MDL does not have the expertise to build or maintain gas turbines. They simply install the module and interface it with the rest of the ship

http://www.geaviation.com/press/marine/ ... 00524.html

Instead, IN has contracted HAL which assembles & to an extent maintains LM2500. HAL as maintainer did not go to builder MDL for GE LM 2500. There is no obligation on MDL on GE LM2500. If there is no obligation on MDL, then why should Pilatus own components beyond its control.

Pilatus uses P&W PT6A-25C engine and HAL HTT40 too will use a non-Indian engine. The maintainer will need to sign up with the engine manufacturer, like HAL the LM2500 maintainer signed with GE the LM2500 engine manufacturer.
Thakur_B wrote:HAL has done that two times already out of their own funds. HTT-34 HTT-35
IAF didn't take a decision to replace HPT-32 then. HAL kept waiting for funds to develop HTT-40 for the last five years, never given. Now they are doing it again out of their own funds. I am surprised how HAL is being painted the bad guy over here. This is one of the very rare HAL - IAF tiffs where IAF is the one that has bungled up and now they are unwilling to accept it.
Completely contrary to facts. IAF & HAL were trying to rectify fuel starvation of HPT32, which entered service mid80s to mid90s. HAL failed to rectify its design defect. The HTT-34 was just a re-engining with a higher powered engine THAT DOES NOT SOLVE FUEL STARVATION issue. FWIW, HAL learned IN experience of re-engining BN-2 Islanders with turbine engines.

BN-2 & HPT-32 use the same engine and BN-2T and HTT-34 use the same turbine engine. BN-2 are flying since induction in late 70s while 80's manufactured HPT-32 crashes.

When HAL failed to rectify HPT-32 design issues, who would have the patience for another design cycle with unknown outcomes? That too with something as essential as basic pilot training?

HAL's biggest dishonestly is blaming the engine for HPT-32 Deepak fiasco when its HAL designed fuel supply was faulty. The same engine powers IN BN-2 Islanders that have an excellent safety record over decades, and more recently "gifted" to Myanmaar where they continue their sterling service.

Those who believe HAL HPT-32 was flawless should try to find answers why HPT-32 faced fuel starvation.
Last edited by tsarkar on 30 Nov 2014 21:09, edited 1 time in total.
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Victor »

HAL has every incentive to see that Pilatus is not a success.

MoD under UPA it seems had taken a special interest in setting the forces against their civilian counterparts with the help of some media outlets to discredit and weaken them. The signs are everywhere but to what end? Let's hope this is corrected asap.

In spite of the garbage being floated, let's note that the IAF still wants Pilatus planes. That article is so heavily spun and biased it doesn't even deserve a rebuttal.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by rohitvats »

Victor wrote:<SNIP>That article is so heavily spun and biased it doesn't even deserve a rebuttal.
AS has been sniping against IAF on BTT issue for quite some time now.

It is bloody obvious that he is being fed information from inside to discredit further Pilatus purchase - it seems someone who lost out on gravy train with Pilatus purchase wants to see it scuppered and seems to be in position to make money on HTT-40.

First, AS tried to cast aspersion on very selection of Pilatus by insinuating that selection parameters had been diluted - this was thoroughly rebutted by IAF with even ex-IAF officers coming on prime time news to present their case. As was subsequently discovered basis studying both sides of story, someone had led AS up the garden path by feeding him selecting information. Which he did not bother to cross-verify or understand their full import.

This HTT-40 versus PC-7 tug is more about commercial interests rather than foreign versus indigenous as is being made out.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5243
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by srai »

LOL. Who is "benefiting" argument is being used by both sides ;)

Bottom line is contracts are complicated business running into thousands of pages in legal jargon. It is only when the time comes for its execution the hard truth is revealed. The whole thing gets even more complicated when many sub-vendors are involved.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Thakur_B »

tsarkar wrote: Completely contrary to facts. IAF & HAL were trying to rectify fuel starvation of HPT32, which entered service mid80s to mid90s. HAL failed to rectify its design defect. The HTT-34 was just a re-engining with a higher powered engine THAT DOES NOT SOLVE FUEL STARVATION issue. FWIW, HAL learned IN experience of re-engining BN-2 Islanders with turbine engines.
Yeah ? And what about HTT-35 ? Were the IAF so preoccupied with fixing HPT-32s issues, a plane that had issues since day 1 of induction and after two decades of tinkering was still unreliable, that they failed to realise that a plane introduced in the eighties would ideally need replacement by late 2000s ? I guess they were too busy to sanction funding to HAL for HTT-40 for the last five years as the IAF and HAL were still trying to rectify the fuel starvation issue of HPT-32, a full 5 years after decision to retire them was taken. A basic trainer is a do-able task in 5 years, even by HAL standard. By not sanctioning funds for HTT-40, the IAF has created an artificial emergency requirement for Pilatus. It is so painfully obvious, even to a person like me who abhors the HAL.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by chackojoseph »

tsarkar wrote:Completely contrary to facts. IAF & HAL were trying to rectify fuel starvation of HPT32, which entered service mid80s to mid90s. HAL failed to rectify its design defect. The HTT-34 was just a re-engining with a higher powered engine THAT DOES NOT SOLVE FUEL STARVATION issue. FWIW, HAL learned IN experience of re-engining BN-2 Islanders with turbine engines.
HAL offered follow on in 1980's itself owing to troubles in HPT32. It was rejected by IAF.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by tsarkar »

Thakur_B wrote:Yeah ? And what about HTT-35 ? Were the IAF so preoccupied with fixing HPT-32s issues, a plane that had issues since day 1 of induction and after two decades of tinkering was still unreliable, that they failed to realise that a plane introduced in the eighties would ideally need replacement by late 2000s ? I guess they were too busy to sanction funding to HAL for HTT-40 for the last five years as the IAF and HAL were still trying to rectify the fuel starvation issue of HPT-32, a full 5 years after decision to retire them was taken. A basic trainer is a do-able task in 5 years, even by HAL standard.

chackojoseph wrote:HAL offered follow on in 1980's itself owing to troubles in HPT32. It was rejected by IAF.
Good logic here. Reward failure with a fresh project. Fantastic employment guarantee scheme. And with HPT-32 inspiring great confidence.
Thakur_B wrote:By not sanctioning funds for HTT-40, the IAF has created an artificial emergency requirement for Pilatus. It is so painfully obvious, even to a person like me who abhors the HAL.
No, what is NOT obvious to you is that basic training is something very essential, like teaching children alphabets & numbers. If one screws up here, then it puts entire defence strategy, operational mission & individual pilot at risk throughout his career.

Rather than funds, the luxury of a long waiting period like Sitara is not available.

Read here on what happens when training is compromised http://tkstales.wordpress.com/2011/11/0 ... rthigeyan/
Karthi had joined the Air Force when it was in the throws of a rapid expansion. The days of massive pruning at the initial flying training days at the Academy were long gone. Unlike my own cadet days (where only 33 cadets reached the stage of completion out of 93 who had commenced) any cadet who could somehow muddle through the flying syllabus was allowed to pass out of the Academy. During the Harvard stage Kathigeyan had some problems with the formation flying stage of flying and needed additional instruction. The problem was repeated in the Vampire stage.

After being commissioned and passing through the FTW, Karthi transited through a Vampire Squadron and reached a Toofani Squadron. By then, the Chinese war had thrown the Air Force into utter confusion. The Training Command was churning out ‘pilots’ at a furious rate. Serviceability State of the operational units was poor. As the units filled up with the pilots produced by the training command, it became difficult to provide enough flying for the young ones to keep them in touch with any kind of flying. Taking them through their operational syllabus quickly became a distant dream for most of the units.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5721
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Kartik »

Thakur_B wrote:
tsarkar wrote: Completely contrary to facts. IAF & HAL were trying to rectify fuel starvation of HPT32, which entered service mid80s to mid90s. HAL failed to rectify its design defect. The HTT-34 was just a re-engining with a higher powered engine THAT DOES NOT SOLVE FUEL STARVATION issue. FWIW, HAL learned IN experience of re-engining BN-2 Islanders with turbine engines.
Yeah ? And what about HTT-35 ? Were the IAF so preoccupied with fixing HPT-32s issues, a plane that had issues since day 1 of induction and after two decades of tinkering was still unreliable, that they failed to realise that a plane introduced in the eighties would ideally need replacement by late 2000s ? I guess they were too busy to sanction funding to HAL for HTT-40 for the last five years as the IAF and HAL were still trying to rectify the fuel starvation issue of HPT-32, a full 5 years after decision to retire them was taken. A basic trainer is a do-able task in 5 years, even by HAL standard. By not sanctioning funds for HTT-40, the IAF has created an artificial emergency requirement for Pilatus. It is so painfully obvious, even to a person like me who abhors the HAL.
Most of us will agree that IAF had a big share in the blame pie when it came to the bungled up BTT requirement, having been in a deep coma about the need for a replacement basic trainer all through the late 90s and early to mid 2000s. They awakened to the need only after another HPT-32 crashed and then suddenly it became a critical requirement.

I agree that a BTT was one of the lowest hanging fruits for the aerospace industry in India and the IAF should have sanctioned funds for developing one earlier.

But, as things stand now, the horse has bolted from the stable and its too late to do anything about it. the PC-7 MkII is doing a great job and needlessly complicating logisitcs, training and infrastructure by introducing a new BTT is not a sensible idea. With the IJT stuck in trials (I saw a grey IJT flying on Saturday BTW) and with no clear path forward to introduction into service, at least the basic training phase should remain uncomplicated for the IAF now. HAL ought to put all its engineering effort into fixing the IJT's problems and drop the HTT-40 project now. Concentrate on completing in-flight projects on time and win the customer's confidence rather than lobbying for another project that will draw away scarce resources.
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by sivab »

tsarkar wrote: No, what is NOT obvious to you is that basic training is something very essential, like teaching children alphabets & numbers. If one screws up here, then it puts entire defence strategy, operational mission & individual pilot at risk throughout his career.

Rather than funds, the luxury of a long waiting period like Sitara is not available.

Read here on what happens when training is compromised
tsarkarji, please go easy. IIRC, you are ex-IN and Thakur_Bji is ex-IAF fighter pilot. No point in lecturing him about basic training in IAF.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by chackojoseph »

tsarkar wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:HAL offered follow on in 1980's itself owing to troubles in HPT32. It was rejected by IAF.
Good logic here. Reward failure with a fresh project. Fantastic employment guarantee scheme. And with HPT-32 inspiring great confidence.
I don't understand your logic here. HAL has a employment guarantee scheme already. All aircraft have evolved like that. The second offering was to do away with the issues while making the first one. What is your issue with that?
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by tsarkar »

chackojoseph wrote:The second offering was to do away with the issues while making the first one. What is your issue with that?
When they couldn't do away with the issues while making the first one, how does it inspire confidence or guarantee that the second offering will do away with the issues?
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Post by Sagar G »

tsarkar wrote:When they couldn't do away with the issues while making the first one, how does it inspire confidence or guarantee that the second offering will do away with the issues?
Do you have the design data available with you of the next two offerings that you are so sure that they were failure even when they weren't even tested ???
Locked