Pratyush wrote:I recall a trainer prototype called Swati in the late 80s or early 90s. Any one knows what happened to it.
The BRF has a page on the HTT 34. It is a good looking design.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 5.jpg.html
I knew I was missing some thing.
What has this got to do with the current discussion ???rrao wrote:pratyush,read the DGCA report on accidents page 8. swati made by BHEL crashed killing the pilot!!!!!
http://dgca.nic.in/accident/acc93.pdf
Kartik wrote:good luck with that. They won't see a PC-7 MkII emerging with any indigenous content for a longgg time.Victor wrote:I hope the IAF makes the Pilatus themselves as they had earlier stated. It would be a monumental blunder to hand it over to HAL after this. Anyone but HAL.
India plans to kick-off its own fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) development project this year to build on the expertise gained in the long developmental saga of the indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft.
Top defence sources on Wednesday said the preliminary design stage of the futuristic fighter called the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA), with collaboration among IAF, DRDO and Aeronautical Development Agency, is now "virtually" over.
"Once the project definition and feasibility is completed in the next few months, the defence ministry will go to the cabinet committee on security for approval. It will require Rs 4,000-5,000 crore for the initial design and development phase," said a source.
The aim is to fly the first twin-engine AMCA prototype by 2023-2024, which will be around the time deliveries of Tejas Mark-II fighters will be underway. IAF is slated to get its first Tejas Mark-I in March this year, over 30 years after the LCA project was first approved in August 1983. But the Tejas Mark-II jets, with more powerful engines, will start to come only by 2021-2022, as was first reported by TOI.
"After Tejas-II, we have to move ahead to a fifth-generation-plus AMCA. Basic design work of AMCA as well as presentations by five to six global aero-engine manufacturers is over. Simulation modelling is also in the works," said the source.
India, of course, is also trying to sort out its differences with Russia over their proposed joint development of the Indian "perspective multi-role fighter" based on the latter's under-development FGFA called Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA.
India, in fact, had told Russia it cannot wait till 2024-2025 to begin inducting 127 of these single-seat fighters, which will entail an overall expenditure of around $25 billion. But India also wants its own home-grown AMCA project in the long-run for strategic and economic reasons.
A swing-role FGFA basically combines advanced stealth, supercruise (capability to achieve supersonic cruise speeds without use of afterburners), super-maneuverability, data fusion and multi-sensor integration on a single fighter.
But the 20-year long development of the American F/A-22 "Raptor", the only fully-operational FGFA in the world today, has shown that such a project is an extremely complex and costly affair.
The US shut down the production of Raptors in 2012 after inducting 188 of them at an overall cost of $67 billion due to huge costs, technical glitches and time overruns. The US is now finally moving towards operationalizing a more advanced FGFA, the F-35 "Lightning-II" joint strike fighter. With the project yet to overcome all technical and software glitches, the overall cost for the planned induction of almost 2,500 such fighters stands at around $400 billion.
BENGALURU: In first overhauled Su-30 MKI (SB 027) aircraft reached the Indian Air Force (IAF) on Friday. Su-30MKI is currently the backbone of fighter fleet with IAF, has long needed an overhaul.
In an official press release issued here, HAL said: "After the overhaul, the Su-30MKI aircraft (SB 027) is ready for IAF's use. The serviceability levels of Su-30 MKI fleet will enhance greatly resulting in strengthening of air defence capabilities."
The twin-seater, long range, multi-role, air superiority aircraft are being overhauled at HAL's Nashik facility. More than 10,000 lines of unique part numbers, amounting to nearly 75,000 quantities are processed, reconditioned, repaired, overhauled and assembled back on the aircraft during overhauls.
"After successful testing of various systems on ground and in air, as per stipulated flight profiles, the aircraft is certified to fly. At present, the TTL (Total Technical Life) of the aircraft is 6000hrs/25 years," the press note said.
The press note, quoted the defence minister as having said: "...India would continue to need fighter planes such as Su-30s due to a not-so-friendly neighbourhood."
HAL Chairman R K Tyagi said that the Su-30 overhaul facility at HAL Nashik is one of its kind in the world and has great export prospect as nearly 10 countries have Su-30 fleets.
What you call "hogwash" is what the IAF has said, not me. It was a point that was taken apart while Shuka got his pants taken off. Of course, according to some the IAF view is hogwash when compared to the gospel mouthed by the likes of Shukla who wanted IAF to buy F-35 instead of Rafale.Kartik wrote: hogwash. Tell that to the manufacturers who have 0-0 ejection seats on their trainers-
and those include Pilatus, Embraer, KAI, Beechcraft, Airbus and now soon to be on the TAI Hurkus as well. 0-0 implies that the pilots have the option, if ever required, to eject from a stationary aircraft, something the IAF pilots on a PC-7 MkII won't be able to do if God forbid, such a situation ever arose.
Apparently all of those manufacturers don't know that simply remaining strapped in the cockpit of an airplane that maybe burning or may veer out of control under 60 knots is a better option than ejection.
Just because the IAF diluated requirements to ensure the PC-7 MkII qualified doesn't mean that 0-0 ejection seats are only required for fast jets.
Get real--he goes where the lifafas point him. India did request that parts be made in India.ToI wrote: The matter is now being taken up with utmost priority at government level. This will be on the agenda during Russian President Vladmir Putin's visit to India. Probably, the Russian government may not be aware of stance taken by the OEM. Taking up the matter directly at highest level may help, the source said.
As far as indigenization of the component was concerned, the source said it was a question of feasibility. With the limited number required, it was considered better to go for direct procurement from the OEM.
Some? He was proved wrong on ALL his allegations. Here is a colonel who resigned from the army trying to teach senior air force people about aircraft. It would have been laughable if it were not so serious. And where was his love for desi products when he said IAF should buy the JSF? You are welcome to your views but mine are drawn from facts. And the fact remains he is a lifafa wala and is shameless for being unapologetic about mucking up such a serious issue to bring disrepute to the IAF. In my eyes, it is only the MoD under a BJP RM that has the qualifications to decide what is best for India. The rest is chaff.indranilroy wrote:Some of his allegations are wrong, which is fine. But shameless snake, very far from it. I commend him for standing up for a desi product.
+1Victor wrote:And where was his love for desi products when he said IAF should buy the JSF?
so many points:Victor wrote:Some? He was proved wrong on ALL his allegations. Here is a colonel who resigned from the army trying to teach senior air force people about aircraft. It would have been laughable if it were not so serious. And where was his love for desi products when he said IAF should buy the JSF? You are welcome to your views but mine are drawn from facts. And the fact remains he is a lifafa wala and is shameless for being unapologetic about mucking up such a serious issue to bring disrepute to the IAF. In my eyes, it is only the MoD under a BJP RM that has the qualifications to decide what is best for India. The rest is chaff.indranilroy wrote:Some of his allegations are wrong, which is fine. But shameless snake, very far from it. I commend him for standing up for a desi product.
No sir, we both have views. I don't call mine "facts".You are welcome to your views but mine are drawn from facts.
Err..who else should senior IAF officers speak for if not the IAF?indranilroy wrote: 1. You think IAF pundits know more on aviation than Ajai Shukla. This is true. But don't forget it is IAF pundits speaking for IAF.
Forgetting the per-piece cost (which is higher than Pilatus as HAL agrees), may I ask exactly how HTT-40 can be cheaper to operate and maintain over its lifetime? Unless HAL can drum up a good turboprop engine, ejection seat and avionics 100% designed and made in India, it is almost certainly going to be costlier to maintain. Why? Because the parts, for eg. a simple aircraft-grade hydraulic actuator or electronic chip, that needs to be replaced cannot be cheaper in India, specially not when we are talking 300 pieces for HAL vs 3,000 for Pilatus. I'm not a school kid but I am able to grasp this much. Plus, there is another significant cost related to timely delivery of custom spares and let's just generously say that HAL simply cannot raise anyone's confidence on this score.2.b) I don't think IAF will ever be able to prove that the operational cost of Pilatus is going to be less than HTT-40. A high school kid can prove otherwise.
Do we really think Pilatus will forbid IAF from training its pilots on the PC-7? If not, "autonomy" is a strawman. I also don't remember IAF asking for an armed trainer or light attack aircraft. Is HAL now in the business of dictating what type of aircraft IAF should use?2.c) Going with Pilatus will always compromise on autonomy. Albeit we can't arm them or export them.
Well as you say, IAF training is taken care of now. What does HTT-40 add to the basic training of pilots? If nothing, what's the need for it? Why double the IAF's maintenance, training and logistics load? Please convince me, I'm listening.2.d) Why stop it now? IAF training is well served now. HTT-40 design is ready. Protoypes are in build awaiting engine. What is the big deal? Give it 2 more years!
Exactly. The IAF wants HAL to focus all its meagre assets on the 1000x more important LCA and IJT. BTA is childs play but LCA and IJT are major international markets in smaller, poorer countries waiting to be tapped with a truly cheap light fighter and advanced trainer.It is a basic trainer for God's sake.
Well, he's batting for desi mal no? Why did he not suggest we drop $20 billion on an Indian MMRCA? Even I have supported putting 2 engines in the LCA to make it an MMRCA. We could have 300 MMRCA class aircraft for the same money. Obviously Shukla doesn't give a rat's @ss about "time" because heaven knows when the HTT-40 would arrive. Should IAF trainees go to Myanmar, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka for basic training in the meantime?3. Where is Shukla's liking for desi stuff when proposing F-35 as MMRCA. This is outright stupid. I thought all MMRCA are to be imported, aren't they?
Victor wrote:Err..who else should senior IAF officers speak for if not the IAF?indranilroy wrote: 1. You think IAF pundits know more on aviation than Ajai Shukla. This is true. But don't forget it is IAF pundits speaking for IAF.
Victor wrote:Forgetting the per-piece cost (which is higher than Pilatus as HAL agrees), may I ask exactly how HTT-40 can be cheaper to operate and maintain over its lifetime? Unless HAL can drum up a good turboprop engine, ejection seat and avionics 100% designed and made in India, it is almost certainly going to costlier to maintain. Why? Because the parts, for eg. a simple aircraft-grade hydraulic actuator or electronic chip, that needs to be replaced cannot be cheaper in India, specially not when we are talking 300 pieces for HAL vs 3,000 for Pilatus. I'm not a school school kid but I am able to grasp this much. Plus, there is another significant cost related to timely delivery of custom spares and let's just generously say that HAL simply cannot raise anyone's confidence on this score.2.b) I don't think IAF will ever be able to prove that the operational cost of Pilatus is going to be less than HTT-40. A high school kid can prove otherwise.
It will be a breach of contract if:Victor wrote:Do we really think Pilatus will forbid IAF from training its pilots on the PC-7? If not, "autonomy" is a strawman. I also don't remember IAF asking for an armed trainer or light attack aircraft. Is HAL now in the business of dictating what type of aircraft IAF should use?2.c) Going with Pilatus will always compromise on autonomy. Albeit we can't arm them or export them.
All the numbers are given by IAF. IAF said it needs 180 basic trainers. IAF said the initial purchase of 75 will tide over current requirements while indigenous development can be pursued if taken up hastily. If the Indian trainers are not ready by the time the first 75 come in, an option of further 31 would be exercised. The rest of the 75 trainers will be indigeneous. Again it is just a few Google searches away. I did not add anything.Victor wrote:Well as you say, IAF training is taken care of now. What does HTT-40 add to the basic training of pilots? If nothing, what's the need for it? Why double the IAF's maintenance, training and logistics load? Please convince me, I'm listening.2.d) Why stop it now? IAF training is well served now. HTT-40 design is ready. Protoypes are in build awaiting engine. What is the big deal? Give it 2 more years!
Beleive it or not this is the only sensible part of your post (I really considered not replying before I read this). There is no commonality of resources between LCA and HTT-40. Between the HTT-40 and the IJT, there is. But when the HTT-40 was conceived the IJT design was over (or so it was thought). So HAL employed its young turks to take up a project that they could handle, the HTT-40. Now IJT is back on the design board for the next 6 months or so. I don't know if shelving the HTT-40, would speed up the IJT. It may be, but I doubt it. I have never seen a bunch of engineers come up to speed before 6 months. In view I would rather have them continue their work at full speed on the HTT-40 and get the first prototype in the air in the next 6 months. But, as I said before, there is no gurantee on this one. I don't know enough. Can go both ways.Victor wrote:Exactly. The IAF wants HAL to focus all its meagre assets on the 1000x more important LCA and IJT. BTA is childs play but LCA and IJT are major international markets in smaller, poorer countries waiting to be tapped with a truly cheap light fighter and advanced trainer.It is a basic trainer for God's sake.
India does not have a MMRCA. I hope you realize that putting 2 engines into LCA is not so easy. It will require a complete redesign of the airframe and indeed many of the LRUs as well. If it was possible then the F-16/F-15, Mirage2k/Rafale, Mig21/Mig29 would not be so different platforms. There were 6 foreign MMRCAs considered. He was proposing another.Victor wrote:Well, he's batting for desi mal no? Why did he not suggest we drop $20 billion on an Indian MMRCA? Even I have supported putting 2 engines in the LCA to make it an MMRCA. We could have 300 MMRCA class aircraft for the same money. Obviously Shukla doesn't give a rat's @ss about "time" because heaven knows when the HTT-40 would arrive. Should IAF trainees go to Myanmar, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka for basic training in the meantime?3. Where is Shukla's liking for desi stuff when proposing F-35 as MMRCA. This is outright stupid. I thought all MMRCA are to be imported, aren't they?
You are entitled to your opinion.Victor wrote: I'm sorry but IMO Shukla's bakwas borders on traitorous behavior, knowingly or unknowingly, in the guise of national interest and patriotism. The pakis would like nothing better than for IAF to be armed entirely with HAL's vapor-craft.
Actually, we can. Provided we have reasonable amount of data-points and not the whines and rants. BRF called out IA's action on Arjun a long time back which has been proven to be true all along as evidenced by the CAG Report.Pratyush wrote:IR the points that you are making are quite logical. However, the issue of Judgement of the services is something that can't really be questioned. By people like us. Regardless of how much we wish to see a domestic product reach full scale production.
The above still does not mean we should not make an effort to try and understand the issues involved and reason behind the actions of parties involved.PC7Mk2 will be the standard basic trainer, regardless of the merits or demerits of the case.
it is hogwash and nothing else.Victor wrote:What you call "hogwash" is what the IAF has said, not me. It was a point that was taken apart while Shuka got his pants taken off. Of course, according to some the IAF view is hogwash when compared to the gospel mouthed by the likes of Shukla who wanted IAF to buy F-35 instead of Rafale.Kartik wrote: hogwash. Tell that to the manufacturers who have 0-0 ejection seats on their trainers-
and those include Pilatus, Embraer, KAI, Beechcraft, Airbus and now soon to be on the TAI Hurkus as well. 0-0 implies that the pilots have the option, if ever required, to eject from a stationary aircraft, something the IAF pilots on a PC-7 MkII won't be able to do if God forbid, such a situation ever arose.
Apparently all of those manufacturers don't know that simply remaining strapped in the cockpit of an airplane that maybe burning or may veer out of control under 60 knots is a better option than ejection.
Just because the IAF diluated requirements to ensure the PC-7 MkII qualified doesn't mean that 0-0 ejection seats are only required for fast jets.
But let's take this apart so we are clear about it and hopefully lay it to rest.
First, 0-0 as you say is ejection from a stationary aircraft but the first zero is ALTITUDE. The IAF's original 0-60 requirement asked for "on the ground traveling at 60 kmph (37 mph) or above". A basic trainer with no bombs, rockets or ammunition is extremely unlikely to suffer the paki fate of spontaneous combustion while standing still. There is greater chance of this happening in an armed trainer however. Also, what are the chances of serious injury if a trainer "crashes" while it is moving on the ground at 37 mph or less?
Next, ejection is a very violent event where a pilot can be subjected upto 15G force. Broken or compressed backbones are common, not to mention injury to legs, hands, shoulders & heads during ejection and upon landing. These can be career-ending injuries and worse. 0-0 ejection is even more violent since it ejects the pilot much higher with greater force. A number of things need to happen in quick sequence for a successful ejection--canopy is blown off by explosive bolts followed in a split second by an explosion on the ejection rails and a rocket firing the seat out. Then the delayed explosive detachment of the seat from the pilot so that it falls away followed by the drogue chute (not in 0-0) and the main chute. If any of these things don't happen perfectly, we have a high probability of serious injury or death. Much more so in a 0-0 situation where there is barely time for the pilot to recover and position his feet before he hits the ground in 5-6 seconds. Only a high degree of experience and training can prepare one adequately for this.
Now consider the pilots who fly the PC-7 II--they are all total rookies out of NDA and the ones who will be training as fighter pilots are not even selected yet. Many will be women.
Finally, the cost of 0-0 is far more than 0-6 ejection seats. Given the risk-reward, it is absolutely in line with international norms to choose 0-6 for an ab-initio trainer. The Galeb and Tucano, which have many variants like the Pilatus, use MB8SL 0-6 ejection seats. Only the advanced and armed models like Super Tucano have 0-0 and since the HTT-40 was being planned as an armed aircraft also (bombs, guns, rockets), HAL suggested standardizing on the 0-0.
Bottom line, IAF had 0-0 faith in HAL capabilities based on several decades of experience, particularly with the Deepak which by all accounts was a sub-optimal design and unsuitable as an ab-initio trainer. Of course, many of our trainee pilots never knew the difference and we have paid a high price. They cannot be faulted for being highly skeptical of either the capabilities or dependability of HAL.
Agree with every word you've posted.Pratyush wrote:RV,
The understanding is the most important issue with the decision. We know that the HPT 32 was an accident prone product. Due to some issue with its fuel flow. We also know that the same engine on a different product was a safe engine to fly. We also know that the efforts to fix the HPT32 issues did not deliver the correct results.
Up to this point I don't think any one will dispute the details.
Now in 2009 the IAF following a crash decides to ground the HPT 32 and open a project for a replacement trainer. We cannot question the IAFs decision on the grounds of flight safety.
The winner is Pc7 mk2. The domestic solution is HTT 40. That has not yet flown. Reasons for its non flight are irrelevant at this time. The IAF is having a need for additional numbers of basic trainers. It feels that it can do with additional Pc7Mk2 with lease amount of controversy and 100% common logistics trail.
So it will go for it.
At least that's what I think.
<SNIP>
Since then, HAL has shown the DM pictures of the prototype (albeit without the engine) in hopes to keep the project alive. The DM will decide on the fate of the project now. It will be really interesting what he decides given the countries current lack of capital for new defence procurements in the current year.With the HTT-40 on track, and racing towards its first flight next year, two corruption allegations mysteriously popped up, stalling the project. Both alleged wrongdoing in HAL’s selection of the Honeywell TPE 331-12B engine after an open tender, when the alternative supplier, Pratt & Whitney, refused to allow licensed manufacture in India. With the first flight looming, Honeywell agreed to provide a “Category B” engine --- a used engine with more than 80 per cent of its service life remaining.
The first complaint came in early November from the BJP MP from Jaunpur, Krishna Pratap Singh, who complained to the CVC about the engine selection and blamed HAL’s design chief, T Suvarna Raju, who oversees the HTT-40 project. Investigation began and the MoD halted engine procurement.
Contacted by Business Standard, Krishna Pratap Singh claimed that he knew nothing about the HTT-40 or the issues involved. “About 3-4 months ago a “sajjan” (person of good character), who I don’t remember now, came to me and said there was corruption. I only wrote that the matter be investigated, and any wrongdoing corrected,” said Singh.
The second allegation came almost simultaneously from an NGO called Rashtriya Mukti Morcha. The RMM has neither expertise nor previous interest in aerospace. It has earlier filed petitions against Sonia Gandhi’s right to hold constitutional office, and in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha bribery case.
Contacted by Business Standard, RMM chief Ravindra Kumar acknowledges filing a complaint. He said that details are in his files, but he repeatedly denied requests to visit his office to ascertain the basis for his complaint.
CVC investigations into the complaints unearthed no wrongdoing; It is not unusual for “Category B” engines to be chosen for prototypes, while buying new engines for the production aircraft. HAL had powered the Intermediate Jet Trainer prototype with a “Category B” Larzac engine, until new engines became available.
Even so, engine procurement was halted. Meanwhile the IAF repeatedly petitioned the MoD that Swiss trainers should be quickly bought since the HTT-40 would be late.
I'll leave out theKartik wrote: Your attempts at justifying why a 0-60 ejection seat would suffice in today's world are very similar to those of salesmen in car showrooms
AmenKaran M wrote:Plus, now we should focus on indigenizing the darn PC-7 Mk2s (darn, as in - fine aircraft, unreliable spares). One aircraft type for training is enough. We will have a menagerie otherwise.
Also, trainers seem ripe to outsource to TATA or Mahindra if indigenization is the end goal. Dont see why it should and must be HAL. The larger programs are more complex and need their focus.
.
Any private corporation looking at this from a business venture stand point, can always develop product expertise if there is a service line requiring such a thing. Therefore, it isn't un natural for a Boeing for example to develop the ability to maintain the propulsion system for their transport offerings if it is a service line they want to develop (integrated solutions). In fact this is a direct requirement from the sustainment requirement the USAF wanted. The global GISP enrollees get most of this as well according to their individual contracts and requirements.Doesn't an airline flying Boeing jets go to the engine manufacturer (GE, Rolls) for engine spares/repairs, not to Boeing? Same thing for avionics, tires etc. Boeing only makes the airframe and control systems and has no deep expertise on these major sub-systems beyond assembly and installation though it may pass on special pricing to it's clients. How's this different from Pilatus' responsibilities on the IAF PC-7? There may be a supplemental contract for parts and service by Pilatus but that has obviously not been chosen by IAF who thinks the BRDs have enough capability.
Not the same thing. You want route your support through the primary OEM for two reasons -Victor wrote:Doesn't an airline flying Boeing jets go to the engine manufacturer (GE, Rolls) for engine spares/repairs, not to Boeing? Same thing for avionics, tires etc. Boeing only makes the airframe and control systems and has no deep expertise on these major sub-systems beyond assembly and installation though it may pass on special pricing to it's clients. How's this different from Pilatus' responsibilities on the IAF PC-7? There may be a supplemental contract for parts and service by Pilatus but that has obviously not been chosen by IAF who thinks the BRDs have enough capability.
To my knowledge each nation has a separate contract based on their unique technical needs. The list of services offered are largely similar and customers can pick and choose based on how comprehensive a coverage they want. There are international customers under GISPVictor wrote:^ It seems GISP is run by USAF, not Boeing which is still a significant part of it, and India is the only Globemaster customer (the biggest outside US) that didn't take it. We only have GSP from Boeing as a seperate contract. C-17 maintenance is a massive undertaking as it is for the C-130 and I believe we have a Maintenance & Training contract for C-130 too (MATS) as a separate contract Link. I'm guessing the majority of the maintenance has to do with the engines which we don't have the expertise or infra to service for the limited number of engines.
What I'm saying is isn't it possible that the IAF feels it has adequate resources to either fix the simple PT6A turboprop engines in-house if it is going to have over a hundred planes? If IAF signed a maintenance contract with Pilatus, it makes no sense for IAF to approach all the vendors separately. OTOH, if they did not sign such a contract, IAF would have accepted the need to approach P&W Canada for the engine and is OK with it. Approaching the tire manufacturer to get replacement for a blowout (if we don't have spares) is par for the course. Do we go to Maruti for tires even if we have a "Maruti Maintenance Contract"? IAF is just trying to save money and put its resources to good work.
If any customer wishes to completely disassociate itself from either Boeing or the US policy by creating a buffer in case they want to insulate themselves during times of potential conflict than that customer can by all means not enter into a sustainment contract with the OEM and perform all logistical operations themselves by maintaining a depot level hub, and procuring and maintaining a robust supply of spares in case of heavy utilization.pandyan wrote:what happens during war time and US of A agrees to stay left-neutral and decides to stop spare parts supply. would this integrated contract mean almost all parts of value would be outside of india?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/did ... hip-02756/The rising cost of maintenance has made it a greater concern to the world’s militaries, and new contract vehicles are reflecting that. Under the C-17 GSP/GISP, Boeing has total system support responsibility for the big transport aircraft, including materiel management and depot maintenance, to support customer fleets around the world. The goal is total aircraft sustainment support under a single contract, in order to achieve improvements in mission readiness, while reducing operating and support costs.
The initial C-17 GSP contract has grown and broadened, even as Boeing’s customer base grew in the USAF (now 223), Australia (6), Britain (8), Canada (4), India (10-16), Qatar (4), NATO (3), the UAE (6) – and possibly Kuwait (1).
If GISP is handled by USAF, I don't think IAF is ready to have them hanging around in our bases.Like the GSP, the GISP is also in effect for almost all of the C-17’s international operators. India, a GSP customer, is the lone exception.
