Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Dec 2014 01:12

Victor wrote:Indranil & Shreeman, there is absolutely no question that iterative development is a must. For whatever reason, we chose to jump ahead and think big in an attempt to catch up and that is what we have to deal with. Why HAL did not have trainers ready to replace Deepak and Kiran is not as important as the fact that it didn't. It may be communication, planning, corruption, stupidity, ego, all of these but the last thing we need is a he said she said type sh!t slinging match.

There is an extremely urgent need for fighters which the Rafales won't address by themselves. We need the LCA2 in service immediately and that is priority one. We are not Brazil or South Korea but more like Israel with our survival under imminent threat from all sides. It would be nice if we had the luxury but we don't. In the meantime, LCA1 and IJT are still not ready. Under these circumstances, would you rather have HAL focus un safety pins or knives?

This has been asked many time too. But, I don't think dropping the HTT-40, IJT or LUH will speed up Mk2 development in any way. Here are my reasons:

1. The challenges of developing the HTT-40 is very different from that of speeding up LCA-Mk2 (even if we forget the different agencies that are handling them). HTT-40 is about designing a contemporary plane using COTs (preferably Indian) components. The primary developmental challenge of Mk2 is the development of the components themselves. For example ADA will not develop the radar, conformal antennas, avionics, etc. ADAs mandate is to specify the requirements of the components and to integrate the same in the best possible way.

2. IJT and Mk2 development have some overlap but only in the aerodynamics part. But even there, LCA's primary aerodynamic challenge is the reduction in drag. On the other hand, IJT's primary problems lie in the wing design and horizontal stabilizer.

3. LUH development obviously has no overlap with the fixed wing projects at all.

An argument can be made that the HTT-40 can be dropped in speeding up the IJT project. The strength of this argument is that although HTT-40 will surely fly before the mid-2015, there are no guarantees that it will face no problems to certification by 2016-2017. Instead, why not use these guys for the IJT project and try to certify the plane with new wings, empennage and an elongated or sloped intake by 2016. The weekness of the argument is that HTT- guys are going full steam ahead, If one wraps up their project and moves them to IJT, they will can come up to speed only in about a year's times. The IJT redesign is expected to be finished by then!

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 13 Dec 2014 02:24

^ Makes sense on HTT-40 no doubt but we are in a nutcracker and it would be hugely expensive to burden the IAF with two basic trainers. So if the price of giving up on HTT-40 is great enough, let them make it a ground attack/trainer aircraft for CRPF/BSF/RR and for export. I dare say that IA will also take an interest. However I get the horrible feeling that after this fiasco, maintenance of the Pilatus should be done by IAF itself as it has suggested, not HAL. It is a disaster waiting to happen and IAF has already sensed it.

IJT will likely take major redesign as you say which means what, 5-7 years (whole new certification regime)? Can IAF keep its Stage 2 Kirans flying for so long without serious risk? Unfortunately, both projects are done for and we need to bite the bullet.

It's fine (and necessary) for HAL to get the experience it needs but we need to find a way to insulate the IAF from this learning process. Forcing HAL designs on the IAF pilots is filled with danger, specially after the demonstrated record which nobody knows better than the IAF.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 13 Dec 2014 02:30

^^^ Let me get my mental diarrhea out. Havent read many of the posts above carefully, so:

Open mouth, insert foot wrote: May be I once knew something. May be I was once in a situation of Mk I, II, III. Forced to make some of these decisions. More and more though, it feels like I must just be making things up.

Anyway, some things are hard to deny.

If there is a perception that development in aviation is "orderly" anywhere, it is wrong. Failed designs and experiments and waste dominate by a vast vast vast majority. And way too many developments have happened ONLY because of this chaos and purely by accident. Many others ONLY due to synergy.

Then in a few generations the corruption subsides (only a small bit) and some sort of structure -- types, roles, generations, iterative development -- csn be assigned. Sort of as history written by the victors.

People who *actually* do any real work are hardly ever paid, noticed, or promoted. The success in this "rich" game is based purely on envy and jhealousy and shaming. Criticise all you want, replace as many individuals as you want by sending them to deputation at GTRE, but closing shop is not the way to go. Opening several dozen more is needed.

In a day and time, when truth is such a scarce commodity the private enterprise will never produce any real innovation. They are risk averse and wastage intolerant. And if monwey is to be wasted, let it be on a government research center in ullurpet, kerala than on an ambani skyscraper or private jet.

Remove all regulatory hurdles from private players, they will steal your best employees. But that is how you grow an industry. Gnash you teeth, complain, spit on them, and then fund them to hire new recruits from colleges/universities who the private industry will not take.

India is never fighting a war with sufficient material, men, or machines. It will always be a 1962. Men will be cannon fodder because that is the political culture. Import will not solve those problems.

Disclosing the laughable state of affairs is a great way to improve them, as long as the shame doesnt overtake the sad reality that there is no alternative to improving them.

Imports solve nothing.

MODERATOR NOTE: Whats with smart Alec comment on top? You can ignore what you don't like or report if it's worth reporting. But no personal attack. - rohitvats.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 13 Dec 2014 02:54

And the public is fed lies about availability of aircraft, ammunition, indigenous content of SU-30s etc. Every time during a conflict, the forces run helter skelter to build up stocks and pay exorbitant prices for desperately needed weapons. Yes the Jawan is cannon fodder, sadly! These brave men give their lives so that these corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, and the procurement mafia can make an extra buck.

Shamelessly, some here continue to press for Russian or western imports over local products in the name of national security which itself is compromised in
a) conflict situations because the sellers use supplies as a means to influence national policy;
b) control procurement options by leveraging supply of spares to prevent adoption of an independent procurement policy.

Can this ever change? For a first, can we see BRF mods ban these shameless individuals that dance to a foreign tune?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Dec 2014 04:53

Vivek K wrote:And the public is fed lies about availability of aircraft, ammunition, indigenous content of SU-30s etc. Every time during a conflict, the forces run helter skelter to build up stocks and pay exorbitant prices for desperately needed weapons. Yes the Jawan is cannon fodder, sadly! These brave men give their lives so that these corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, and the procurement mafia can make an extra buck.

Shamelessly, some here continue to press for Russian or western imports over local products in the name of national security which itself is compromised in
a) conflict situations because the sellers use supplies as a means to influence national policy;
b) control procurement options by leveraging supply of spares to prevent adoption of an independent procurement policy.

Can this ever change? For a first, can we see BRF mods ban these shameless individuals that dance to a foreign tune?

You mean cull the debate in favour of a nationalistic diatribe?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 13 Dec 2014 05:05

^^^^^^ Vivek,

This is along the lines of banning books, even if they are propaganda. Everything has its place under the sun. What is needed is tolerance of all views, and calling out of biases where they are visible.

But corruption is everywhere. And mistakes are everywhere. Neither blacklisting nor banning solve anything. Transparancy is hard to achieve if there exist a token voice of the opposing side, always under a threat of silence.

There will always be opposing views, some motivated by inner compulsions and some from outside. Dont shut down Indian production, dont ban imports either.

Secrecy and obscurity ( what I say is all you need to know, that too in question hour in the parliament) dont protect anything. Promote the release of more information, knowing that hanooz dilli door ast and that the ONLY defence india has today is its 1+B people. It was the only defence when they were 200M, and it will be the only defence when there will be 2B.

Machines didnt make new afghan or iraqi armies. Nor Bakistani. India is not one of these cultures. We will integrate things we import, or are forced on india, like english. To suit our own needs, eventually.

It can never be all of one (al-kitaab has all the knawlidge we need) or the other (import everything under the sun as instructed by al-bible, the other kitaab).

Unless IJT/HTT types reach end users we will never know how good they were, and what problem or lobbying kept them from being successful. On the other hand, without trying your hand on a PC9 you have brochuritis.

The 75 PC9s are plenty. That is how I feel. Another 100+? Not the end of the world, as long as the HTT is a poroduct that has a production run, a mark II, and appropriate acceptance, and a development path.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Dec 2014 05:52

Victor sahab,

I don't agree with this double logistic funda. That too coming from IAF! We are getting 75 PC-7s and 106 HTT-40s! Contrast this with 60 Mig-29s, 60 Avros, 50 Mirages, 40 LCA Mk1s (in future), 40 dorniers, 24+8 IL-76/8, 12 C-130Js and 10 C-17s. Where there is a will there is a way! The will is missing when it comes to desi products. There is a basis in history, but this attitude will not serve us in the future (my opinion).

No IJTs down't require a major change. In the public domain, these are the speculations amongst the knowledgeables:
1. The wing doen't have sufficient washout, leading to sudden wing-drop. This is not a big deal. There are various ways of solving this. HAL has tried some standard bandages: fences, vortex generators. Everybody goes that route first. If it doesn't solve the problem (like in IJT's case), a redesign is undertaken to provide greater washout. It is not a big deal to increase the washout of a wing :decreasing the sweep or AoA of the wingtips. Also it doesn't change the aerodynamics of a subsonic plane much (because of the elliptical lift distribution along the wingspan), except near the critical angles.

2. The wing and the horizontal stabilizer is strongly coupled, i.e. at high AoA the stabilizer is in the wake of the wing, making it ineffictive. Again standard solutions exist: Giving the stabilizer an anhedral (as in the Hawk), lowering the horizontal, pushing it behind or all of the above.

3. The lip of the air intake is above the wing and not sufficiently ahead on the leading edge of the wing. Therefore in a flat spin, the intake lip is in the wake of the wing which is leading to the starvation of the engine or difficulty in relight. A simple hack is to just extend the intake by about a foot or two in the front. It will solve the problem but will decrease the instructors visibilty slightly. If this is not acceptable, go for this solution as an interim and just develop a proper solution, intake closer to the wing leading edge and the lip sufficiently ahead of it. The hack will take almost no time to implement. The full solution can take a year or two. Retro fit into the airframes with the hack.

IJT can be redesigned in a year (the entire IJT went from the drawing to first flight in 3 years), and the certification completed in 2-3 years beyond that. I am very confident of this because IJT is a known beast now. On the contrary, deciding to buy an alternate plane such that deliveries start 3 years from now can only be done through a knee-jerk selection and acquisition process. The choice is simple for me.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 13 Dec 2014 08:35

Indranil, the speculations you mention--is HAL doing anything about them? Of course we would all like to see it operational but when? The RFI issued by IAF for an intermediate trainer lists 5 hardpoints as a requirement and we haven't seen that on IJT as yet. Lord knows what kind of monkey wrench that will throw into the performance. But the biggest bogey is still the engine. With so many issues, you are indeed being very optimistic.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 13 Dec 2014 10:38

You mean cull the debate in favour of a nationalistic diatribe?

And there is something wrong with that? The same Posters that advocate foreign products harp on and on against LCA, Arjun and so on. Debate is one thing, treason quite another.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 13 Dec 2014 11:12

Vivek,

The t-word and its insinuations should be left out of any discussion outside a court room. Using big words frequently reduces their stature.

We are all blind people feeling an elephant under the blindfold of official secrecy. No one can judge another, and inordinate amounts of whining may have fair basis.

The best, most well intentioned rules can deal lemons to good people. Not for an internet forum to lightly pass judgment. Not within my limited abilities any way.

There is a lot wrong on the domestic front. It also needs to be set right. Expediency is no evil by itself if it does not take over self sufficiency.

my 2 not so well thought out nai paise.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 13 Dec 2014 12:18

People repeatedly forget that China was able to face of USA, Soviets, India and Vietnam with no technological advantage but with bulk indigenous manufacture of simple weapons. We lost 1962 inspite of huge huge advantage in Airforce and Navy as China was able to fight on its own terms.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Dec 2014 12:26

Victor wrote:Indranil, the speculations you mention--is HAL doing anything about them? Of course we would all like to see it operational but when? The RFI issued by IAF for an intermediate trainer lists 5 hardpoints as a requirement and we haven't seen that on IJT as yet. Lord knows what kind of monkey wrench that will throw into the performance. But the biggest bogey is still the engine. With so many issues, you are indeed being very optimistic.

Here is the link to the RFI. Please identify the 5 points that IJT can't cater to with a few tweaks?

The engine is a cause of worry, but I am optimistic

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Dec 2014 12:31

Vivek K wrote:
You mean cull the debate in favour of a nationalistic diatribe?
And there is something wrong with that? The same Posters that advocate foreign products harp on and on against LCA, Arjun and so on. Debate is one thing, treason quite another.

Thank you for wearing your patriotism on your sleeve. But, please be careful about using an insinuation as big as "treason". That's way over the line, and will earn you a warning next time.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 13 Dec 2014 15:08

I really should not be talking out of my hat. With that out of the way, this:

is the inside your large whirlybird. Currently in mass use. Not the "light one" but the ones you are not even dreaming of making. Already museum class. People dont have a real perspective of how tiny these things are. This is the whole of it. The front is out of view, about the size of a maruti's two front seats. The thing that will replace it for the next 20 years is also structurally already museum class. Do you really want a country of 1+B to be defeated by something this simple?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Dec 2014 15:53

Vivek K wrote:<SNIP>Can this ever change? For a first, can we see BRF mods ban these shameless individuals that dance to a foreign tune?

What is allowed to stand in the forum is not guided by likes and dislikes of individuals or even larger group.

Secondly, you need to cease making personal comments. And this goes out for all others. Next one to do so gets a warning.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 13 Dec 2014 19:13

Rohit, my comments cannot be classified as personal. I find it amusing that cheering for Indian products can gt me a warning while blatant, biased attacks on Indian products don't get the same treatment.

member_25400 · Post by **member_25400** » 13 Dec 2014 19:47

SBajwa wrote:For any defense aircraft Industry to develop/flourish it needs

2. Competition

case in point
Boeing (Mcdoneld douglas) competes with Lockheed Martin which competes with Fairchild (Elbit systems now), General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, Piper Aircraft and hunderds others!! Just in USA

How many fighter aircraft companies are manufacturing in India apart from Government? They need competition!!

Bajwa saab, even in the US (ignoring drones), there are just the two fighter aircraft companies : Boeing & LockMart.
This despite spending more on their air force and navy than next x countries put together.

Explain Saab, Rafale, etc ? The costs keep going up, and despite high degree of "keep domestic industry alive", Saab, rafale etc remain the local champs and still have difficulty with outside orders.

Competition is good, but it too must bow down to cold arithmetics of defense markets chasing rupees/Dollars. When the market expands, the competition can expand some too.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 13 Dec 2014 20:42

^ Better to look at evolution rather than today's snapshot. US defense forces flourished post 1950's due to competition driven choice and are languishing for last decade because of consolidation in the sector. Lockheed has taken them for a jolly good ride with F-35 development - been the only capable supplier as Boeing has very limited experience in stealth planes (plenty of designs but nothing in production from Boeing).

Consolidation happened because of high labor costs and so on, while India has very favorable cost structure (if we stop importing). We can easily replicate and flourish our defense sector for next 50 years if we decide to do so.

Leadership is key - both from elected and defense chieftains. That might be too much of an ask sadly, but hope it happens.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Dec 2014 21:04

Bajwa saab, even in the US (ignoring drones), there are just the two fighter aircraft companies : Boeing & LockMart.
This despite spending more on their air force and navy than next x countries put together

US defense forces flourished post 1950's due to competition driven choice and are languishing for last decade because of consolidation in the sector.

been the only capable supplier as Boeing has very limited experience in stealth planes (plenty of designs but nothing in production from Boeing).

Bajwa saab, even in the US (ignoring drones), there are just the two fighter aircraft companies : Boeing & LockMart.

Replied:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&p=1764469#p1764469

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 13 Dec 2014 21:21

Gyan wrote:People repeatedly forget that China was able to face of USA, Soviets, India and Vietnam with no technological advantage but with bulk indigenous manufacture of simple weapons. We lost 1962 inspite of huge huge advantage in Airforce and Navy as China was able to fight on its own terms.

The days Chinese human wave tactics with cheap copied guns is over. Their public would overthrow the govt if such tactics were used today, given that most if not all soldiers are single children. Besides, the reality of economics has caught up and even destroyed the Soviet Union. We chose, rightly IMO, to not copy or throw our jawans' lives away but the means of arming ourselves has been flawed. We have suppressed our natural talents and adopted a foreign system with disastrous results.

The simple fact is that if an organization does not have accountability and a system of incentives/disincentives (comptietion in open market, huge profit, merit promotions, bonus pay, termination, extra ration of meat, vodka, medals, dachas, firing squad, gulag etc), it will not produce much if anything. Add in culture of seniority, political patronage, sycophancy, corruption, chalta-hai attitude and we have a morass of inefficiency swimming in taxpayer money. It is an accident of statistics that there will be the odd success here and there that the 'system' will seize on to show it is working. This is human nature, not an Indian thing, as is evident by the demonstrated record of hundreds of thousands of Indians working overseas where this nonsense is not only unacceptable but looked at with incredulity. We have simply not been able to recognise and correct it but it looks like that may change.

We must see that this system of PSUs is being aided and abetted by sections that stand to gain personally at the expense of national interest and is encouraged by our enemies. Many in the forces call it the secret weapon of our enemies because that is literally the final effect. Pakistan and China would love to see us fight with our "indigenous" weapons only.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Dec 2014 21:29

Responding to ..............

Bajwa saab, even in the US (ignoring drones), there are just the two fighter aircraft companies : Boeing & LockMart.
This despite spending more on their air force and navy than next x countries put together

How can we "ignore drones" (AKA UAVs, etc)?

From real oldies:

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: ~~Plastics.~~ Networks
Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?

Air, *sea, land*.

All integrated in RT.

One cannot leave companies like General Dynamics out of a loop. Not even possible. All these companies are highly integrated and to a great extent dependent on each other.

Way have changed and are changing as we post.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 13 Dec 2014 21:32

Gyan wrote:People repeatedly forget that China was able to face of USA, Soviets, India and Vietnam with no technological advantage but with bulk indigenous manufacture of simple weapons. We lost 1962 inspite of huge huge advantage in Airforce and Navy as China was able to fight on its own terms.

+1.
Today only about 10% of the Chinese fighters are foreign while the same for the IAF 100%. If we stick to the current path we will have only about 15% indigenous fighters in 2030. Even when our GDP becomes 3rd or even 2nd largest we will remain maunnas of more powerful countries.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Dec 2014 21:58

Deleted

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Dec 2014 02:34

Ignorance is always very blissfull. For example,

-- There are only two US aerospace companies.
Ahem. Northrup Grummen? There are dozens more. Also this is like saying there are only four directions - north, south, east, west. And nothing is keeping you from starting one in your garage, more or less.

-- China did x,y,z.
F-35 spying. Engine tech no less. For each caught, 100s pass through. None of this blacklisting business. Hook or crook. Foreign or indigenous. None of the credible this or that bullshit. Goal is 1:1 numerical parity with US. Not a 1:100 ratio.

-- We cant do X, they wont give us Y, it took too long to do Z.
Watches?
HMT? Every indian could wear one. Films division showed the marvel of high technology, kashmir got jobs from it. Then came Timex and the rest.
Bicycles? Atlas. Then came the rest.
Gas stoves? Indane, was it? Still not quite a normal market.
Scooters? Bajaj. Then came the rest.
TV? Get a license.
Land line phones? check.
Mobiles? Oh my god, too costly.
Cars? Hindustan motors, premier, standard. Get permission.

This is the time tested route. Build it for show, or for the few. The poor will riot if they get it.

It was always we cant possibly build enough for too many indians. Only the rich should have it. Heck the flag was even the property of the politician. Why do you think the defence materials are any different? These same arguments -- costs too much, dont have the technology, where did he get the money, not ibdian enough, too indian, .... have always been the excuses.

These are not the reasons. Now lets talk aviation again, please.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Dec 2014 03:12

^^ The problem is not whether the US has 2 or three, the problem is how many are required, and how many can be sustained through routine contract activity. The current mix of contract work that can be classified as " fighter related" can comfortable sustain the number prime contractors, principle contractors and lower end supply base. Up the work and you will make the market more lucrative for those that have the capital but no incentive to invest time and money to enter.

My detailed response on the matter of M&A and the industry competition in general is linked to my response above.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Dec 2014 03:35

Totally chicken, and egg problem brar bhai. I agree.

Let me propose the following,
- Mig component supply and eggsport ltd ( see poland ukraine,....)
- Mirajje Excellene integrated ( see ijrael, zouth affrika,...)
- sukhoi advased mijjiles incorportated ( see china, ...)
- indegenous light craft corporation (see every country, hsl, ada, gtre,...)
- heavy bumbers supply incorporated ( see germany/doarnear, ukraine/antonov, russia/ilushin, china/h6 institute,...)
- airkraft engines rechurse institute (see kanadda,ukrIne,...)
- heavy mijjiles and satellite lunch and dinner ltd ( see even bakistasn, north korea,...)

endless fixed wing onlee. transport, whirly birds_ uavs, supply and objervation, purely rechearse and "weather balloon" class.

All are possible and in the jugaad class right now.

Buy one for show (Bombardier/israel), three for flypasts(russia/israel/tajikistan),etc doesnt work. Yes this has a place, but not at the expense of "the hack crashed, see you in 10 years".

The complaints are against ONE or the OTHER. Via anonymlus complaints, RFAs, GSQRs or whatever.

If the thunder cant shoot a gun, doesnt matter. Get 50 of thrm any way, and let the mujahids at least get in the air. You need 1142 squadrons if you want to be taken seriousdly. Not 42 gling to 39 quality with 14 combat ready at a given time.

I think the lawn dart has had 5-6 crashes this year. What goes up, will also cokme down in a bad way some times. Brochuritis is in tin cans and in HAL stands. Quantity and quality go hand in hand.

If it doesnt stall, screw stalling. Get the IJT any way, the odd ejection is a hazard of this type of flying. If you can add CIWS to a carrier at midlife refit, you can swap out a part or two of an IJT too.

The whole how long will the engine last is another red herring. All you have to do is swap one out, get back in the flight line. Labor is not in shortage. Parts casn be bought.

CAG be damned. If you want a combat ready force, they are going to drop many billions of ordinance on pokharan. Not your estimated 5kg. If you dont splurge on domestic crap in relatively good times, when will you?

Half arsed it is. Build 1000 anyway. Then you will need the cirporations I just created.

ps - a bird will bring down your perfect class on an ideal day. you are not going to move all those slums and open trash areas, are you? thats so inhumane. cant stall the way you like kjt? lets wait another decade.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2014 05:35

Shreeman wrote: If it doesnt stall, screw stalling. Get the IJT any way, the odd ejection is a hazard of this type of flying. If you can add CIWS to a carrier at midlife refit, you can swap out a part or two of an IJT too.

The whole how long will the engine last is another red herring. All you have to do is swap one out, get back in the flight line. Labor is not in shortage. Parts casn be bought.

Don't mind my language. But, what nonsense!

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Dec 2014 06:43

indranilroy wrote:
Shreeman wrote: If it doesnt stall, screw stalling. Get the IJT any way, the odd ejection is a hazard of this type of flying. If you can add CIWS to a carrier at midlife refit, you can swap out a part or two of an IJT too.

The whole how long will the engine last is another red herring. All you have to do is swap one out, get back in the flight line. Labor is not in shortage. Parts casn be bought.
Don't mind my language. But, what nonsense!

Indranil,

Based on what is public, not at all nonsense. It may well be that the wings are tweaked, or the tail design modified. Thus the extra cost of X number of extra wings (production rate of 12 aircraft per year is it?) and X tail components. Instead of holding back. Unless you are claiming that all IAF trainees are experts in Bhai Baldev Singh's Aero India display quality by the time they touch the IJT. This is may be 20-30 aircraft set of parts (2 years for you to fix it, as you note).

In the mean time, the IAF and HAL both have full sets of infrastructure!tooling/training manuals/people busy and working. A fulling functional product line. Worth it in my opinion.

Same goes for the engine 2x engines for two years is another 20-30 engines being serviced off lineat 200 hours instead of 2000 hours. You may not even need 20-30 as there are still only a few engine swaps required. Extra practice for field personnel and workers.

Waste of some money, yes. Suboptimal, yes. Not top quality project management, yes. Still better thasn indefinite waiting. Nonsense, hardly by a mile with the caveat that the problems made public are what they are.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 14 Dec 2014 06:51

Incompetence is a disease Shreeman, you have to contain it at it's first symptom. We already have a bad experience with HPT-32 turning trainee pilots into human kebab and chutney with problems that seemed trivial at the beginning. Induct HJT-36 only when it is safe to fly. The safety record of HJT-36 in development is nothing spectacular.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Dec 2014 07:26

Thakur_B wrote:Incompetence is a disease Shreeman, you have to contain it at it's first symptom. We already have a bad experience with HPT-32 turning trainee pilots into human kebab and chutney with problems that seemed trivial at the beginning. Induct HJT-36 only when it is safe to fly. The safety record of HJT-36 in development is nothing spectacular.

Thakur ji,

You are a pilot. You will understand. The perils of any flying, commercial, freight, or combat casn not be understated. A bird can give you a bad day, asnd so can a cloud.

Now consider the engine relight incident on Saras. Could have happened to anyone. Might happen again. The same goes for the C130j unfortunate incident. Same with the lawn darts (nearly a dozen in last two years) or indian Su30s. These pilots were not trainees.

In this light, HPT or IJT record is not any better nor worse. The HPT problem, in my humble opinion, was part age of the engines, part design of the aircraft. But I have no literature available to provide definitive proof. The HPT issue is an import lobby problem in my pathetic opinion.

Now the IJT accidents, clearly the Baldev Singh events were human errors. The aircraft show remarkable structural integrity in a way that was never expected to be tested. The crashes, in public media, have been attributed to in part on stall/specific maneuver testing.

Tranche/Mk-X based development is the norm. Even delivered aircraft have unknown flaws or even known flaws (Mig 21, cough, cough). The crash record of an aircraft is important if you are trying to export the plane.

I am not trying to say trainee lives should be put in danger, but there is nothing ijn the media, public displays, chaiwala leaks, that the aircraft is not capable of safe flight in a large part of the envisioned curriculum. It is not inherently unsafe any more than the Mig trainers.

I believe in karat-karat-abhyas philosophy for HAL wemployees and the ground crew and the trainees. Scaling up takes time. And lobbies gain strength with delays. Empty houses are squatted upon.

So incompetence is probably being helped by the small scale manufacture and test-pilot only flying. Again, I go only by what has been seen and read. Media is grossly incompetent, but in that case more disclosure is warranted.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 14 Dec 2014 08:12

IIRC, when asked to develop the IJT, HAL laughingly said it was a piece of cake and churned out the first flight in 2003, about 18 months flat after metal cutting and everyone went WOW! Then the problems began and 10 years later, they have not been solved but look more serious than ever. Underestimating weight of a structure--did they not design the plane around the Larzac? And they went out to DEVELOP A NEW ENGINE specially for the IJT and only the IJT??? Finding out a decade later that the wings don't have enough washout and the tail section gets messed up by wing turbulence at high AoA--did they not use wind tunnel tests? Is there any possible excuse for this nonsense? At what point does someone (or the whole lot) get fired? Nobody's angry? We should just continue to pamper them and be patient? After 60 freaking years of building airplanes?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Dec 2014 08:16

Victor wrote:IIRC, when asked to develop the IJT, HAL laughingly said it was a piece of cake and churned out the first flight in 2003, about 18 months flat after metal cutting and everyone went WOW! Then the problems began and 10 years later, they have not been solved but look more serious than ever. Underestimating weight of a structure--did they not design the plane around the Larzac? And they went out to DEVELOP A NEW ENGINE specially for the IJT and only the IJT??? Finding out a decade later that the wings don't have enough washout and the tail section gets messed up by wing turbulence at high AoA--did they not use wind tunnel tests? Is there any possible excuse for this nonsense? At what point does someone (or the whole lot) get fired? Nobody's angry?

True. Firing anyone takes an act of parliament, but indefinite deputations to GTRE were no doubt warranted for some. This is why I always dreamt oif a HAL division in Lakshadweep. Good weather, not much to do, no one to worry or bother. Restful.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 14 Dec 2014 08:47

^^^ Shreeman ji, though I disagree with you on many things - like the aeros on the IJT, but I am coming around to see it your way bit by bit.

Yes, IJT Now!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2014 09:05

Shreeman ji,

What do you mean by eject if stall happens? There is no if there! On each level of training, each rookie will be taught how to stall/spin the plane and recover it. And it is part of learning how to eventually fly a combat-jet one day. So IJT will have to handle it, day in and day out. If this step-wise procedure is not required, then IJT is not required.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Dec 2014 09:21

indranilroy wrote:Shreeman ji,

What do you mean by eject if stall happens? There is no if there! On each level of training, each rookie will be taught how to stall/spin the plane and recover it. And it is part of learning how to eventually fly a combat-jet one day. So IJT will have to handle it, day in and day out. If this step-wise procedure is not required, then IJT is not required.

indranil mahodaya,

A training curriculum does not start or end with a stall.

A stall warning device will work on current IJT even if it does not stall. The PC9 will stall just fine. You dont practice stalls regularly in combat aircraft in service, to my extremely limited understanding. You will typically stall the PC9 a few times regardless of the IJT enroute to the IJT.

Why do you want to include the stall in the IJT syllabus, mk-1? Flying a plane is not a Tom Cruize movie. Nor is training. It is reading a book on theoretical physics in the air. Not every book will teach you thermodynamics.

The IJT will stall when it will. This mercedes benz approach of buying "mature domestic product" is pure fantasy.

I dont eat fish, otherwise I could eat red herrings for dinner ever day just from this affair.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2014 09:49

Victor wrote:IIRC, when asked to develop the IJT, HAL laughingly said it was a piece of cake and churned out the first flight in 2003, about 18 months flat after metal cutting and everyone went WOW! Then the problems began and 10 years later, they have not been solved but look more serious than ever. Underestimating weight of a structure--did they not design the plane around the Larzac? And they went out to DEVELOP A NEW ENGINE specially for the IJT and only the IJT??? Finding out a decade later that the wings don't have enough washout and the tail section gets messed up by wing turbulence at high AoA--did they not use wind tunnel tests? Is there any possible excuse for this nonsense? At what point does someone (or the whole lot) get fired? Nobody's angry? We should just continue to pamper them and be patient? After 60 freaking years of building airplanes?

Yes, they screwed up. But not as badly as you make it sound. Name your favourite plane and let me point out the weight reduction from first prototype to first deployed plane. And, wind tunnels don't tell everything. Google the changes that Boeing and Airbus introduced in the plane you like flying most in as a result of flight testing. Yes, they don't make mistakes as big as those done on the IJT. But, mind you they are building on existing qualified designs, and by people with decades of "building" experience.

On the other hand, our engineers, scientists and managers are ridiculed for dreaming to build something. And every damn generation has to go through it! How will they build up a knowledgeable base, unless they continuously keep building, testing and refining planes?!!!

They have fought hard and ironed out all the internal stuff of the IJT. A few outward shapes need to be adjusted. It is really not that big a deal. Don't go by the hyperbole of news articles. Sensationalization is the name of the game.

P.S. They did not say ask for a new engine to be developed for IJT. They went to the market for an engine with specifications. The Russians said, boss we can build one for you based on the ones that you are currently building from scratch at Koraput. Take the ToT and build this new engine as well in India. HAL bought it. A blunder, in hindsight. Anyways, the worst of that episode is behind us. The engine provides the necessary thrust and weighs what it should. The only thing is its longevity. That too is on the upswing. It is still not acceptable based on some reports, but one can certainly be hopeful.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 14 Dec 2014 10:02

Personally, I'd much rather HAL waste money on experiments, than do run of the mill work.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2014 10:23

Shreeman wrote: indranil mahodaya,

A training curriculum does not start or end with a stall.

A stall warning device will work on current IJT even if it does not stall. The PC9 will stall just fine. You dont practice stalls regularly in combat aircraft in service, to my extremely limited understanding. You will typically stall the PC9 a few times regardless of the IJT enroute to the IJT.

Thank you for saying it because I did not want to say it aloud.

Shreeman wrote: Why do you want to include the stall in the IJT syllabus, mk-1? Flying a plane is not a Tom Cruize movie. Nor is training. It is reading a book on theoretical physics in the air. Not every book will teach you thermodynamics.

The IJT will stall when it will. This mercedes benz approach of buying "mature domestic product" is pure fantasy.

I dont eat fish, otherwise I could eat red herrings for dinner ever day just from this affair.

How many times does one have to repeat the same thing? Why learn stall and spin recovery at all then? Learn the theory and apply it once and for all in the combat plane you are deployed to fly!

It is not about buying Benzes. I graduated from a cycle to a Kinetic to a motorbike to a car. And all of them had accelerators, horns and brakes. The theory would not have helped anywhere in between.

And that is a simplification. This is what you are asking IAF to tell the kids. "Hey, here's IJT. If it stalls and spins, don't panic as your eyeballs literally start to pop out. Just get into a good posture to punch out. Don't worry if your posture is not that correct. The chances of you dying are low, but you might lose a limb or two, and few inches of height. And, oh! you won't fly again either. It is not that bad as if you pass out, because then you might die. Come let's fly!"

Nationalism, my foot! It is a case of "kiske baap ka kya jata hai". Or in this case, "kiske bete ka kya jata hai".

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Dec 2014 10:36

MOD Press

Spares and maintenance of Mirage Aircraft to maintain their required serviceability

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Dec 2014 10:43

indranilroy wrote:
Shreeman wrote: indranil mahodaya,

A training curriculum does not start or end with a stall.

A stall warning device will work on current IJT even if it does not stall. The PC9 will stall just fine. You dont practice stalls regularly in combat aircraft in service, to my extremely limited understanding. You will typically stall the PC9 a few times regardless of the IJT enroute to the IJT.
Thank you for saying it because I did not want to say it aloud.

Shreeman wrote: Why do you want to include the stall in the IJT syllabus, mk-1? Flying a plane is not a Tom Cruize movie. Nor is training. It is reading a book on theoretical physics in the air. Not every book will teach you thermodynamics.

The IJT will stall when it will. This mercedes benz approach of buying "mature domestic product" is pure fantasy.

I dont eat fish, otherwise I could eat red herrings for dinner ever day just from this affair.
How many times does one have to repeat the same thing? Why learn stall and spin recovery at all then? Learn the theory and apply it once and for all in the combat plane you are deployed to fly!

It is not about buying Benzes. I graduated from a cycle to a Kinetic to a motorbike to a car. And all of them had accelerators, horns and brakes. The theory would not have helped anywhere in between.

And that is a simplification. This is what you are asking IAF to tell the kids. "Hey, here's IJT. If it stalls and spins, don't panic as your eyeballs literally start to pop out. Just get into a good posture to punch out. Don't worry if your posture is not that correct. The chances of you dying are low, but you might lose a limb or two, and few inches of height. And, oh! you won't fly again either. It is not that bad as if you pass out, because then you might die. Come let's fly!"

Nationalism, my foot! It is a case of "kiske baap ka kya jata hai". Or in this case, "kiske bete ka kya jata hai".

Indranil,

The syllabus is not online. So this is all speculation on your part and mine.

Let me give you a concrete example where the syllabus and exams for certification are publicly available. The most basic aviation license in the US is the VFR single engine. Students are supposed to know of full power/idle stalls. They are not supposed to demonstrate them. Many schools never actually stall/spine their training aircraft even when the instructor is in tandem. Stall warning sounds? Make the plane fly again. And that is all you demostrate in your checkride.

These may be 100,000s of individuals who fly around in their own propeller planes and have never spun.

It is a red herring.