Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 22 Dec 2014 02:22

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4275 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 ... 107  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 22:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24
Posts: 157
Location: Bangalore
@rohitvats, answering your questions one by one...

Quote:
While AWACS and long range AAMs are a buzz-word these days - how will the fighters fare at this altitude? IAF fighters taking off from virtual sea-level and PLAAF taking from 10K+ feet airbases.


Leh and other high-alt bases apart, the IAF has a definite advantage across the board at all its bases. Taking off from almost sea level both in the Gangetic and Brahmaputra basin, IAF fighters can do full-load take offs with very efficient runway length utilization. Even hot days are manageable because of the high density of the air.

The PLAAF on the other hand has a fight on its hands at bases above 8,000 ft. Aircraft will require a lot of runway to pull off loaded take offs, often will have to sacrifice weapon or fuel loads to make best use of available runways. Things will be especially bad between April to August with high day temperatures affecting the density of the air.

Quote:
- in terms of air-combat performance in the 20k-30k feet (ASL) sub-set, how do Indian and PLAAF aircraft fare?


Answering this from a pure air-to-air engagement perspective, 25,000 ft to 45,000 ft is kind of the sweet spot for long range air engagements for gen 4++ aircraft. Turbofan engines in today's A2A fighters are optimised for this altitude regime, this applies to both the IAF and the PLAAF. Launching missiles in this region offers good kinematic performance. (Gen 5 -- Raptor, PAK-FA etc are optimised for 55,000 ft plus offering its own advantages but that's beyond the scope of this question)

The biggest catch I see is the high floor of the plateau pushing engagements to the higher end of that band to allow for more space to pull up from evasive maneuvers. Pulling up at 15,000 ft is not the same as 5,000 ft. Also pilots would need to watch out for low-level flak and radar directed guns that are placed on the high floor. These guns are typically good till 6,000 ft, so if they are at 10,000 ft, you'd better not venture below 16,000 ft. (If you recall in one of Vivek Ahuja's scenarios a Su-30MKI gets hit by flak while pulling up over Manasarovar lake.) Also from what we saw in Kargil MANPADS work really well in the cold rarefied air, and they can engage upto 9,000 ft. These things will have to be factored into while planning air to air ops.

Quote:
Now, the valley floor is at 14K-15K feet - I am assuming that any ground attack on targets in areas like this will have to commence from 25K-30K feet bracket.


Definitely if you want to use LGBs you would look at dropping the bombs from 25,000 ft+. Here again bomb kits need to be calibrated for the higher altitude release and corresponding adjustments might also be need to made on aircraft avionics. But we have knowledge of this from Kargil. Operating at a higher altitude with a full bomb and fuel load will not matter for the aircraft if its engines are optimised for this regime. This is the reason why the Jags are getting new engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 22:50 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6119
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
@Anand - thanks for the effort. You've answered some of the question I had.

I guess, another advantage that India will have is that PLAAF will have to come over 12K-15K feet to cross the mountain line between India and Tibet - this should allow India to pick up targets from afar.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 00:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24
Posts: 157
Location: Bangalore
@Rohitvats, in terms of radar coverage its nothing short of a disaster for us.

Terrestrial radars are practically useless especially in the north-east as they wont be able to see beyond the foothills.

As for airborne radars the McMahon line is a huge radar obstacle. The ridges are 15-18,000 ft plus on average. The ridges cast a huge shadow on the Tibetan side for airborne radars from India. The further away you are from the ridges, longer the shadow and you can't see aircraft hiding in that shadow. To see into the plateau we need to push up as close to ridges as possible and that is unwise. As a consequence we will suffer from very short reaction times for any attack. Especially advantageous for terrain hugging cruise missiles, who can pop up over the ridge where they will be identified and we will lose them again in the folds of the foothills.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 00:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Posts: 1636
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
^^ To negate that issue the need of the hour is a good, mobile and cheap quick reaction anti air system.. May be something like the avenger, integrated into the early warning and detection network can be employed here to provide the solid bubble against low flying long range subsonic cruise missiles..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 00:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 5046
Bala Vignesh wrote:
^^ To negate that issue the need of the hour is a good, mobile and cheap quick reaction anti air system.. May be something like the avenger, integrated into the early warning and detection network can be employed here to provide the solid bubble against low flying long range subsonic cruise missiles..

Didn't the IAF acquire the Spyder system to provide protection for air bases?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 03:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
To negate the issue of terrain we need to use aerostats and AWACS or probably satellite based monitoring.Something along the lines below


Iridium Satellites to Monitor Airliners


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 09:06 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45
Posts: 133
Work on Indo-Russian transport aircraft begins


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 09:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58
Posts: 914
IAF to shell out Rs 88 cr more for IL-76 overhaul
Quote:
For about two years, half of the IAF’s fleet of IL-76 strategic freighters remained grounded for want of overhaul and extension of the aircraft’s total technical life (TTL) because of delay on the part of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in finalising a multi-million dollar contract with a foreign firm.

Out of the 17 IL-76 aircraft procured by the IAF, nine remained grounded between December 2007 and September 2009. Besides, the IAF had to shell out an additional Rs 88 crore as the contract had to be renegotiated, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has pointed out in its latest report.

The IAF had inducted these aircraft between 1985 and 1989, with a TTL of 20 years. In November 2005, the MoD concluded a $28 million (Rs 128 crore) contract with a Russian firm for the overhaul and life extension of six IL-76.

In April 2007, MoD negotiated a $33 million (Rs 139 crore) contract for the overhaul and life extension of another nine aircraft. The price was valid till December 2007. In the meantime, the MoD received two representations from other firms alleging irregularities in the contract process. The MoD disposed off the matter in March 2008, by which time the validity of the contract had expired.

A fresh limited tendering process had to be initiated and though it was again the same Russian firm that bagged the contract, the new price as quoted as $41.77 million. The CAG observed that the price difference worked out to about Rs 57 crore. In addition, the IAF had to spend another Rs 30 crore to procure minimum essential spares to make the grounded aircraft fly worthy so that these could be positioned at the overhaul facilities overseas.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121204/nation.htm#12


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 20:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1991
vasu raya wrote:
during the incident where an IAF pilot refused to Yuvraj on a Mi-17 in bad weather conditions in the NE area, the question came up on the how the supposedly state-of the-art for all weather flying Merlins would fare, you said that the Merlin didn't need high-altitude performance since its for VVIPs only, in the recent Italian investigation on the Augusta-Westland sales the same issue came up, an initial requirement was for 6500m and after the single vendor situation was scaled down to 4500m(?), something the Merlin could manage, so whats really the motive? bad Specs or vested interests?


The main problem for the AW101 was the heaviness of the platform, not the engine ratings. Just to give you an idea where that 4500 figure probably came from, here's a first order power analysis of the AW-101 (at work so cannot spend more time on the analysis other than a first order simulation. Perhaps later I can add more details later once I get off from work).

The plot shows the decay of available power with altitude (red line) versus the power required for two different rate-of-climb (ROC) ratings (service and combat ceilings). Where the black line stays under the red, there is spare power available for the flight. Where the red dips below the black, you cannot fly. These numbers are rated for the empty weight of the machine plus some fuel and passengers (close to the MTOF).

Image

So it is indeed a specs issue. Why it was lowered could probably have to do with the fact that the specs could not be met by any vendor (speculating here; need to dig up my analysis on this from about a year back).

-Vivek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 21:35 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
Does anybody here know what is "Abhyas". It is being produced by ADE. What I could gather is that it is a Towed body target. A tender is out to build the fuselage. It is 2.385 meters long (exactly the same as Lakshya PTA).
Quote:
Abhyas fuselage consists of five sections namely Nose cone, Equipment bay, Fuel tank bay, Air intake bay and Tail cone. The material for nose cone and tail cone are made up of composite material (GFRP). The material of equipment bay, air intake bay and fuel tank are made up of aluminum alloy and alloy steel. Provisions are provided on fuselage for mounting of wing, vertical tail, horizontal tail, air intake and boosters. It also has the provision for providing ballast for weight and C.G. management.


I understand why it needs a booster. What I could not gather is why does a towed target need to have fuel (1 mtr out of the 2.385 mtrs is the fuel tank) and air intake?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 22:15 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
^^^ I got to know more about Abhyas through another tender.
click


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 22:25 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 15 Jun 2005 19:10
Posts: 21
this looks more like a cruise missile from the drawings in the tender document than a towed target body. If it is a towed target body, why should it have scooped air intakes and fuel tank?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 23:24 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
I had the same feeling when I first saw it.

But I don't think it is a cruise missile, there is no space for the wings, horizontal and vertical tail to retract, and they are quite big.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 01:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1991
It looks like a cruise missile perhaps because it's supposed to look like a cruise missile for training purposes. But its not a cruise missile because it doesn't have the performance for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 06:27 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
Okay,

Did some digging around and some maths. I was thrown off by Wikipedia. The length of Lakshya PTA is not 2385 mm. That is the length of the towed sub-targets it carries under its wingscarries (Thanks to B Harry). I did some back of the envelop calculations with the drawings that have been produced in the new tenders. The wing area is a fraction of Lakshya PTA's wing-area. Same goes for fuel carried.

But here are some interesting facts:
1. There are tenders out for a) design of the airframe, b) fabrication of the fuselage, and c) mounts for the boosters on the towed sub targets (this was not a feature on the present Lakshya)
2. the fuselage seems to be powered by an engine which is hosted inside the fuselage and has a maximum diameter of less than 185 mm. What can this engine be?


Last edited by indranilroy on 06 Dec 2012 08:40, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 06:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 3854
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
The name Abhyas seems to imply that this is sort of a learning aid, like a mini-lakshya maybe?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 06:33 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 15 Jun 2005 19:10
Posts: 21
I am confused onleee. Why should a towed target body have boosters and fuel tank. There is something fishy going on. As the name implies, towed bodies are towed by a mother ship(plane) like TTW Caneberras or Lakshyas. May be these towed target bodies will be released by the mother plane and having its own engine will mimic cruise missles....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 07:59 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34020
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
Yes that seems to be the idea. Or potentially a sead decoy that can be released ahead of the real strike to light radars up..but that would need folding wings for aircraft carriage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 09:29 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
Don't worry, they are going to have 20 of them fairly quickly (16 weeks from from signing of contract). So you will see them flying soon. I am really interested in the engine.

By the way (and Vivek ji you would be interested in knowing this), the engines powering Nirbhay is TRDD 50MT. Around 200 of them have been procured. All our reporters had got it wrong (most of them saying that it was the 36MT as reported by Neelam Matthews)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 09:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1991
The 50MT is in the same class as the 36MT from the thrust perspective. If google chacha is correct, we are looking at almost the same thrust engines (~450-500 kgf). I couldn't find any data on the 50MT other than the thrust to do a comparison. Do you have any per chance?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 10:00 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
No, I am having no luck either other than the thrust.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 10:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4603
Location: Duke Nukem
Quote:
Terrestrial radars are practically useless especially in the north-east as they wont be able to see beyond the foothills.

That is why you should have the radars on the ridgelines.. Mounted high up on mountain tops in a few strategic locations and well defended and covering the most likely ingress routes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 11:22 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34020
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
We do have a few . Shillong peak is one..mt.abu could be another. But the himalayas are around 400km wide from india to tibet so there is no golden location to see deep into tibet...there willbe issues...high flying awacs is the only way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 15:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 10162
Location: Kali blessing station No 5, Mleccha Defence Tower No 34, Harshavardhan Line - Western Sector
wont radars on ridgelines be visible targets for even artillery?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 15:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 7101
WHat you need then is a large no. of Radar emittors along lots of ridgelines, with lesser no of stations hidden mountains making sense of returned data.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 16:48 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 04 Oct 2011 15:17
Posts: 4
IAF's Doctrine : http://indianairforce.nic.in/pdf/Basic% ... 0Force.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 05:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2012 06:43
Posts: 797
vivek_ahuja wrote:
The main problem for the AW101 was the heaviness of the platform, not the engine ratings. Just to give you an idea where that 4500 figure probably came from, here's a first order power analysis of the AW-101 (at work so cannot spend more time on the analysis other than a first order simulation. Perhaps later I can add more details later once I get off from work).

The plot shows the decay of available power with altitude (red line) versus the power required for two different rate-of-climb (ROC) ratings (service and combat ceilings). Where the black line stays under the red, there is spare power available for the flight. Where the red dips below the black, you cannot fly. These numbers are rated for the empty weight of the machine plus some fuel and passengers (close to the MTOF).

Image

So it is indeed a specs issue. Why it was lowered could probably have to do with the fact that the specs could not be met by any vendor (speculating here; need to dig up my analysis on this from about a year back).

-Vivek


Vivek A, thanks for the response and it was polite of you to move the conversation to the right thread. While the specs ruled out all contenders, the subsequent modification to the altitude ceiling req. left only the Merlins in the fray and thats suspect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 07:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23798
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
I doubt if it is possible to place, power up and maintain radars on Himalayan peaks.

Aerostats and AWACS 24x7 is the way to go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 08:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11356
Location: India
AWST reports that the IAF is drastically reducing its FGFA acquisitions.No twin-seat aircraft because it believes that HAL cannot co-develop the same.The date of induction is 2020,with hopes that it will enter before that date.Avionics,etc. will be desi.No changes in the shape,design of the aircraft,identical to the Russian version.The AMCA design now resembles the F-22 more,but top priority is being given to the success of the FGFA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 09:16 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34020
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
indeed with weapon systems increasingly becoming smarter and standoff, the 2 seat thing is on way out - neither raptor nor jsf even have 2 seat trainer models iirc.
50km range using folding wings and stealth shaping of weapons is becoming a new minimum benchmark.

tibet and SW quadrant of cheen are vast siberian style badlands with few if any infra of note. only planes with vast range and speed can dominate such regions like the mighty Foxhound both to intercept manned platforms and to intercept low flying cruise missiles quickly before they cause damage....we cannot compromise on range or stealth for two seater.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 20:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Jan 2002 12:31
Posts: 354
anand_sankar wrote:
@rohitvats, answering your questions one by one...

Quote:
While AWACS and long range AAMs are a buzz-word these days - how will the fighters fare at this altitude? IAF fighters taking off from virtual sea-level and PLAAF taking from 10K+ feet airbases.


Leh and other high-alt bases apart, the IAF has a definite advantage across the board at all its bases. Taking off from almost sea level both in the Gangetic and Brahmaputra basin, IAF fighters can do full-load take offs with very efficient runway length utilization. Even hot days are manageable because of the high density of the air.

The PLAAF on the other hand has a fight on its hands at bases above 8,000 ft. Aircraft will require a lot of runway to pull off loaded take offs, often will have to sacrifice weapon or fuel loads to make best use of available runways. Things will be especially bad between April to August with high day temperatures affecting the density of the air.

Quote:
- in terms of air-combat performance in the 20k-30k feet (ASL) sub-set, how do Indian and PLAAF aircraft fare?


Answering this from a pure air-to-air engagement perspective, 25,000 ft to 45,000 ft is kind of the sweet spot for long range air engagements for gen 4++ aircraft. Turbofan engines in today's A2A fighters are optimised for this altitude regime, this applies to both the IAF and the PLAAF. Launching missiles in this region offers good kinematic performance. (Gen 5 -- Raptor, PAK-FA etc are optimised for 55,000 ft plus offering its own advantages but that's beyond the scope of this question)

The biggest catch I see is the high floor of the plateau pushing engagements to the higher end of that band to allow for more space to pull up from evasive maneuvers. Pulling up at 15,000 ft is not the same as 5,000 ft. Also pilots would need to watch out for low-level flak and radar directed guns that are placed on the high floor. These guns are typically good till 6,000 ft, so if they are at 10,000 ft, you'd better not venture below 16,000 ft. (If you recall in one of Vivek Ahuja's scenarios a Su-30MKI gets hit by flak while pulling up over Manasarovar lake.) Also from what we saw in Kargil MANPADS work really well in the cold rarefied air, and they can engage upto 9,000 ft. These things will have to be factored into while planning air to air ops.

Quote:
Now, the valley floor is at 14K-15K feet - I am assuming that any ground attack on targets in areas like this will have to commence from 25K-30K feet bracket.


Definitely if you want to use LGBs you would look at dropping the bombs from 25,000 ft+. Here again bomb kits need to be calibrated for the higher altitude release and corresponding adjustments might also be need to made on aircraft avionics. But we have knowledge of this from Kargil. Operating at a higher altitude with a full bomb and fuel load will not matter for the aircraft if its engines are optimised for this regime. This is the reason why the Jags are getting new engines.


After reading Vivek's scenarios this exactly what's going to happen. IAF's got the optimum performance edge and to cover their disadvantage there is every chance that Chinese might launch a cruise missile strike on these airbases even before they enter the air war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Dec 2012 07:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23798
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
shiv wrote:
chiru wrote:

single seat jags had IFR probes since the beginning



No.

When Jags were first ordered it was requested that the IFR probes be removed. Decades later when the IAF wanted them, the plumbing was still there and that was used. There is a story about that somewhere...

Correction, even the plumbing was removed
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19804
Quote:
Air Marshal Kumaria pointed out that in the late 1970s, for instance, the IAF actually sought removal of aerial refuelling plumbing from the Anglo-French Jaguar aircraft even though they were meant for a deep penetration strike role.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Dec 2012 08:52 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 27 Apr 2011 05:38
Posts: 56
Hi Shiv
Do you happen to know if this was because of weight/aerodynamics considerations? The two seater is pretty cramped, so an IFR probe would have had to be non retractable, which would then come with drag and weight limitations. That said, this is kind of a critical capability in a strike aircraft - certainly shows a bit of "lack of forward thinking" in the 70s to ask that it be taken out of an operational platform.

Thoughts appreciated.

Cheers
Aharam


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Dec 2012 09:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23798
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
aharam wrote:
Hi Shiv
Do you happen to know if this was because of weight/aerodynamics considerations? The two seater is pretty cramped, so an IFR probe would have had to be non retractable, which would then come with drag and weight limitations. That said, this is kind of a critical capability in a strike aircraft - certainly shows a bit of "lack of forward thinking" in the 70s to ask that it be taken out of an operational platform.



The only thing I know is that the IFR was considered unnecessary. But later, when one was sought to be installed, all the necessary space for the feature were found to be intact. But I recall no mention of two seaters - because the IAF was interested only in the single seater in those days. Your question is an interesting one. I need to locate videos I had of the demo Darin III mock up in Aero India 2011 to see if it was a single seat cockpit and if the IFR probe was retractable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Dec 2012 03:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10
Posts: 3140
Quote:
Will disinvestment help HAL take wings?

It needs to move from being an assembly line for Indian Air Force to make aircraft on its own

Praveen Bose / Bangalore Nov 22, 2012, 00:58 IST

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, or HAL, is at the top of the government’s disinvestment list. In 2013, the government hopes to offload 10 per cent of its equity in the aviation company in an initial public offer (IPO). The move is a part of the government's larger plan to raise Rs 30,000 crore by selling its stake this financial year. The induction of non-government shareholders in the Bangalore-headquartered maker of aircraft, engines, components and accessories, if the IPO happens, will complete a circle of sorts. HAL traces its roots to a company called Hindustan Aircraft, which was set up in December 1940 by Seth Walchand Hirachand in association with the then princely state of Mysore. The government became a shareholder in 1941 and took over the management in 1942. In 1964, it was merged with Aeronautics India and Aircraft Manufacturing Depot, Kanpur, to form HAL.

HAL has a virtual monopoly in the sector. It is only now that large business houses ( Tata, Godrej, Mahindra and Larsen & Toubro, to name a few) have shown interest in defence. But, they are all too small when compared to HAL, though at least one of these business houses, Mahindra, is known to be very keen to build its aviation business. As a result, HAL’s financial performance has been strong and steady (see table). It reported a profit before tax of Rs 3,200 crore on sales of Rs 14,001 crore in 2011-12. Its net profit margin has been upwards of 17-18 per cent. Its capital assets have risen from Rs 8,143 crore in 2008-09 to Rs 9,628 crore in 2009-10 and then to Rs 11,230 crore in 2010-11. HAL has huge land parcels in places like Bangalore, Nashik, Koraput (Odisha), Hyderabad, Lucknow and Kanpur. In Bangalore alone, it is said that the company owns around 900 hectares. The debt on its books is negligible. This makes the company an attractive buy. Also, say people in the know of things, the company sells on a cost-plus basis to its buyers, largely the Indian Air Force, and that leaves no room for negotiations on prices. On the flip side, there is no incentive for the company to become more efficient and prune costs.

The finances also indicate that the company has not pursued growth aggressively. The cash and bank balances, including short-term deposits at the end of 2010-11, the last year for which such information is available, stood at Rs 20,099 crore, against Rs 18,657 crore for the previous year. This has often led observers to criticise the company’s conservative cash management. HAL, on its part, has indicated in the past that it is conserving cash to make investments in new facilities in the future. But, the company has often complained that it gets piecemeal orders from the Indian Air Force. In the absence of large orders, the company has alleged, it cannot invest in production lines and reap economies of scale. Till then, the company has been happy to pay handsome dividends to its only shareholder, the government. For 2011-12, for instance, it has paid dividend of Rs 814 crore in two installments, which is 6.75 times its paid-up share capital of Rs 120.5 crore.

HAL’s bread-and-butter business is licensed assembly of aircraft and helicopters. Whenever the Indian Air Force places a large order with a foreign aircraft maker, that company outsources production to HAL. In fact, this is a criticism often levelled at HAL: It is content to be a licensed producer of foreign aircraft, but does not design Indian planes. Last year, in an interview with Business Standard, HAL’s outgoing chairman & managing director, Ashok Nayak, had said that at least one aircraft made by the company, the HF-24 Marut fighter, more than 120 units of which were sold to the Indian Air Force, was “prevented from being a thumping success by foreign countries, which ensured it was not supplied with a suitable engine”.

Still, the order book looks strong. In 2010-11, HAL had firm orders for helicopters and aircraft such as the Su-30MKi, Hawk, Dornier and Chetak worth Rs 68,265 crore. The major orders were for the Hawk (Rs 9,500 crore) and the light combat aircraft, or LCA, (Rs 5,989 crore). Some observers say the current order book does not leave HAL much scope to acquire new technologies, which can play a dampener because most of these are contracts for assemblies and involve no technology transfer. “The type of procurement is what dictates if it is desirable (from a technological viewpoint). Buying and making aircraft such as the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) is an issue that needs to be considered in detail. While Rafale will give some aircraft in flying condition to the defence forces, the rest will come as kits to be assembled. It’s more like completely knocked down kits,” says a person who retired from a senior position at HAL while expressing his scepticism of the shape HAL would take in the coming days. He adds that though the assembly line of MMRCA is ready, there’s no technology transfer.

This person points out another complication. “HAL has so many projects and, therefore, technologies from so many countries. It has Russian, British, Italian and French (technologies) among others. It’s a challenge of post-modernisation that we need to prioritise the technologies to focus on and retain. So, the company needs to correct the project pipeline. Some projects involve just fitting the required components,” says he. But he is hopeful that after the IPO, when independent directors are inducted on the HAL board, such questions may be raised. “It’s a good thing the govt is going in for divestment of HAL. There’s value in the IPO,” he adds.

HAL, which now outsources about 20-25 per cent of its work, is planning to enhance it to 30 per cent of the work content, while moving up the value chain. HAL claims it has brought about a paradigm shift, from a purchase-focused organisation with controls and validation-oriented systems and procedures for all its purchase, to partnership building through a well-defined architecture. This will help the shift to the role of an assembler/integrator of flying platforms and focus on manufacturing will shift to HAL’s partners/suppliers. “The company will retain the core technologies and focus on design and development,” according to the company.

Another criticism HAL often faces is that, in spite of being around for a long time, it has not hedged its risks properly. It is still too dependent on the Indian Air Force for orders. The HAL website lists a whole list of customers apart from the Indian Air Force: The Indian Army, the Indian Navy, the Coast Guard, Defence Research & Development Organisation, the Indian Space Research Organisation, the Border Security Force, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, the Geological Survey of India and governments of Jharkhand, Karnataka and Maharashtra. It also lists exports to about a dozen countries including USA, France, Vietnam Malaysia, Oman, Thailand, Israel and Russia. Numbers suggest HAL’s export growth has been very inconsistent: It fell from Rs 436 crore in 2008-09 to Rs 204.67 crore in 2009-10 and then increased to Rs 237 crore in 2010-11. It was less than two per cent of the total sales in 2010-11. But, things could improve in the future. Export orders worth Rs 352 crore were booked in 2010-11, including orders for the supply of avionics for Su-30 MKI to Rosoboronexport, and supply of spares, services and technical assistance to Malaysia towards maintenance of helicopters and aircraft.

STEADY SHOWING
HAL’s financial health
In Rs crore 2009-10 2010-11 % growth
Sales 11,457 13,116 14.48
Profit before tax 2,688 2,840 5.65
Profit after tax 1,967 2,114 7.47
Gross block 2,934 3,143 7.12
Earnings per share (in Rs) 163 175 7.47
Value added per employee 0.12 0.13 8.3

Hazy future
Analysts have no clarity on how will divestment affect the company in the days to come. “Will it enforce better corporate governance? The answer is yes. There will be pressures to deliver growth, as any publicly-held entity should. So, there would be a better focus on improving efficiency, profit margins, and revenue growth,” says KPMG Director Neelu Khatri. A former senior HAL functionary adds: “Ten or 20 years down the line, HAL will not exist in its present form because it will have to live in a competitive environment. As it will have external directors who are answerable to investors, there will be pressure to perform.”

The disinvestment in HAL could improve productivity and quality. A good example of this is Rolls-Royce which was largely government-held at some point in time. But, today, it’s got huge global orders.

“If that is anything to go by, it's a great move by HAL. It’s an opportunity which will bring about a large degree of efficiency improvement, accountability and become more competitive in the market, though I don’t think there’s any benefit to the private sector,” says a vendor of HAL.


“Bringing in public money brings in an amount of accountability and responsibility to the shareholders and stakeholders, and it brings in a degree of competitiveness,” says Subramanian, vice-president (strategic initiatives), Quest Global Engineering, which is into aerospace engineering. Such companies become far more competitive globally when they induct public shareholding, he adds. Stock market analysts are already positive about HAL. “HAL had a good Rs 400 crore rise in its profit year-on-year. They give the comfort they will be able to command a good price. The market conditions are difficult though, and the policies are jammed up, and investor sentiment is not positive,” says a stock market analyst.


http://business-standard.com/india/news ... gs/493308/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Dec 2012 08:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Posts: 8354
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar
India, Boeing haggle over aircraft deal

Quote:
India has offered one-fourth of the price reportedly quoted by US aviation major Boeing to purchase 15 heavy-lift Chinook helicopters and 22 Apache attack helicopters for the air force.
:shock: :shock:
India’s combined offer for the two deals was around Rs 5,500 crore while Boeing demanded close to Rs 20,000 crore.

“The acceptance of necessity cost for 15 heavy-lift helicopters and 22 attack helicopters is Rs 2,468.41 crore and Rs 3,094.98 crore respectively. Boeing’s Chinook-CH-47F (I) and Apache AH-64D has emerged as the L1 vendor (lowest bidder) respectively,” Defence Minister A K Antony informed the Lok Sabha on Monday.

Boeing had reportedly quoted $ 1.4 billion (Rs 7,600 crore approximately) for the Apaches and $ 2.4 billion (about Rs 13,000 core) for the Chinooks.

The final price will depend on the outcome of the contract negotiation with the L1 vendor, the minister said, stressing that all capital procurements were carried out according to norms laid out in the defence procurement procedure.

How is there a 4X difference between the quoted and expected price for the deal??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Dec 2012 09:52 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34020
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
L1 bidder is a misnomer in apache case as havoc did not meet the benchmark. so only boeing was left.
in chinook case, the mi26T also cleared the rope I think, so it may be be a true L1 < L2 case.

Antony did not specify what the term 'acceptance of necessity cost' means. his costs seem in the ballparks we expect per unit. the 20,000cr figure is astonishing and would make each heli costlier than the Raptor or JSF in contract cost. :roll: there are not enough "documentation, support and training" pkgs to tack on that can drive it so high.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Dec 2012 07:50 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 15443
Location: Chennai
Su-30MKI for Sulur AFB by 2016
Quote:
The Air Force Station at Sulur here will get Sukhoi-30 MKI combat aircraft in 2016, Air Marshal R.K. Jolly, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Air Command, said here on Tuesday.

The IAF station and the fighter base to become operational in Thanjavur will be equipped to progressively build air capabilities in the southern region, he told reporters.

A new runway had been completed, a parallel taxi track was getting ready and other infrastructure development were on at Sulur. These would cater for the Su-30 MKI Squadron and also the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) when the squadron was formed. Referring to the delay in the induction of the LCA, the Air Marshal said that the LCA Squadron would be formed either along with the Su-30 MKI Squadron or “probably after that”.

“The Southern Air Command covers a large coastline of nearly 4,000 km that is relevant in terms of maritime importance. There is a need to protect this and hence the air power in the southern region is being beefed up. The runway in Thanjavur is ready and the base will start operations soon.

On shortage of personnel in the IAF, he said though there was no severe shortage of officers and airmen, there was a long-term plan to increase the intake and improve training facilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Dec 2012 07:53 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 15443
Location: Chennai
Selfless service earns two IAF squadrons President's standard
Quote:
President Pranab Mukherjee will present the President’s Standard to 25 Squadron and 33 Squadron, two flying units of the Indian Air Force, at the Air Force Station at Sulur here on December 18.

Addressing reporters here on Tuesday, Air Marshal R.K. Jolly, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Air Command, said that the squadrons, equipped with AN-32 aircraft, would be recognised with the President’s Standard for their meritorious service in the last 50 years.

The 25 Squadron, also called the ‘Himalayan Eagles’, is based in Vadodara, Gujarat, while the 33 Squadron is based at Sulur. They will join the esteemed list of 55 squadrons of the IAF that have received the President’s Standard.

“The Standard marks hard work, valour and sacrifice of all personnel posted to these units over the years, and is in recognition of their selfless service. The transport squadrons have been involved in crucial relief and rescue operations, and operational formations,” the Air Marshal said.

According to Group Captain M. Aserkar, Commanding Officer of the 25 Squadron, the unit was inducted into the IAF on March 1, 1963, in Chandigarh. It has, since then, been the lifeline of northern and north-west frontiers and engaged in operations such as Op Parakaram, Op Vijay, and the Indo-Pak conflicts of 1965 and 1971. It relocated to Vadodara in September 2011.

According to Group Captain G.S. Matharu, Commanding Officer of the 33 Squadron, the unit was inducted into the IAF on January 9, 1963, in Guwahati, and was the lifeline of the northeast till 1991 when it moved to Sulur.

After the Tangail operations in 1971, one of the major contributions of the squadron was seen in the rescue operations during the 2004 tsunami.

The President will present the Standard at a ceremonial function to be held between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. on December 18. Governor of Tamil Nadu K. Rosaiah will be present. Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne, Chief of Air Staff, serving and retired personnel of the two squadrons, besides civilian dignitaries will attend the event.

Other dignitaries invited include Defence Minister A.K. Antony, Union Minister of State for Defence Jitendra Kumar, Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister V.K. Saraswat, and Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Dec 2012 08:56 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 15443
Location: Chennai
Met Forecast Vital for Operational Preparedness of IAF
Quote:
Coimbatore: “The Indian Air Force (IAF) needs to be operationally prepared throughout the year. To sustain the Force in a state of readiness requires all the variables to fall in place. Meteorological forecast is one such requirement,” Air Marshal P.P. Reddy, Senior Air Staff Officer, Training Command, Bangalore, said here on Monday.

The Air Marshal was inaugurating a two-week national training on “Basics of Radar and Satellite Meteorology and Applications in Nowcasting (BRASMAN 2012)” at Air Force Administrative College.

Pointing out that for exploiting the latest aircraft and weapon systems to their optimum operational capabilities, they needed to be effectively coupled with accurate prediction of meteorological conditions, he urged meteorologists to find solutions for providing accurate prediction of weather.

Outlining the role of an aviation meteorologist, the Air Marshal said: “He has to examine weather elements and critically analyse how they affect flying. Two basic tools available for this purpose are the Weather Radars and Meteorological Satellites. With induction of more radars, additional satellite information will be made available at frequent intervals. But it is important to address the issue of human resource in this area so that they are trained to take up the challenging task of enhancing accuracy of weather forecasts.”

Aviators had to live in harmony with weather elements and at the same time avoid all aviation weather hazards. But operational expediency sometimes demanded that aviators needed to fly in such inclement weather and it was in such cases that an accurate prediction of weather assumed greater significance, Air Marshal Reddy said.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4275 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 ... 107  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group