Bharat Rakshak

Yes only then Tejas becomes a fighter

My dear Adhitya
I only quote you because you are comment #1 on page 37

Tejas is not going to become a fighter but a storm.

A storm in which all future cyclones and typhoons will be born.

We are going to mature all the principles of flight under this program.
Mark my words , as long as we don't ditch Tejas we are going to lay the carpet/ foundation of all future aircraft related developments.

The world shall bow to you sir ... the world shall bow to you.
Stick with it .... stick with it.

Tejas is a wonderful flying machine. It deserved to be in squadron service years ago. Remedial action on many of the shortcomings commented upon, if
implemented even now, will favorably impact timelines for IOC and FOC of the Tejas Mk 1 aircraft. Favorable impact on Tejas Mk 2 and other future programs will be enormous.

It is necessary that a single political entity take charge of such projects to attribute responsibility and demand accountability. Even if private players become significant, interdepartmental co-ordination would be possible only by an informed and responsible political entity.

Comprehensive documentation of the path to certification in this program will hugely benefit future programs.

The responsibility for, post deployment maintenance of documentation, software and their periodic up gradation remains open ended. Unless resolved, this story of an inconvenient marriage would be continuing saga and have adverse effects on the product during its entire lifetime.

extent. Originally a reluctant customer, the Indian Air Force involved itself sufficiently only after contracting for supply of the aircraft in 2006. It was late in the program and hundreds of ‘Requests for Action’ had to be raised in order to retrieve the situation to some extent, but this lead to time and cost overruns.

undertake a formal comprehensive evaluation of the prototype vehicles : SOP : limited series production aircraft are worthy of remaining test aircraft only and SOP of series production aircraft continues to evolve!

Avionics: Lack of operational requirements expertise in design teams led to replicating Mirage cockpit logic on the aircraft without exploiting the significantly advanced hardware architecture of this aircraft.

inability to meet manufacturing tolerances; non availability of correct jigs, fixtures and tooling to meet DAL requirements; non availability of suitable calibrating equipment; and, lack of trained manpower. These challenges directly affect the quality of manufacture. {didn't we talk about this here?}

ground support equipment has to be suited well, be light and durable for easy employability and transportability. Such support is vital to deploy the aircraft quickly and repeatedly and thus exploit the inherent advantages of airpower. Development of mission support systems like planning & debrief systems, simulators etc have been lagging and will affect ease of deployment.

Generation of documentation deliverable to the customer has been hampered by the absence of a cohesive and sustainable structure.

BOT: new concept and years were lost in deciding whether funding would be on the capital route or on the revenue route. As a result there would be no representative flight simulator available for use by the customer aircrew. The situation will be aggravated by the non availability of a trainer variant
of the aircraft in the required time frame.

PM: CPM: {as discussed in BR.. Critical Chain suites HAL actually} path has to be continually identified and attended to. Cost and time overruns have to be tracked by professional program managers using powerful software. Only then can the customer be given a viable timeframe for deployment to enable his planning process. If he has to repeatedly throttle back, he will lose interest and look for alternatives. And that would be a tragedy for aeronautics in this country!

Favorable impact on Tejas Mk 2 and other future programs will be enormous.

If he has to repeatedly throttle back, he will lose interest and look for alternatives. And that would be a tragedy for aeronautics in this country!

I understand your angst and I share it. But please do not insinuate without proof. The report clearly said it was a financial thought.

First of all, imagine a force having two kinds of BTT and then the second type is twice as expensive as the first. Even if an IAF afsar would have started it, there are strong reasons.

I do not know who dropped the ball on HTT-35, do you? If yes, please speak up and I will listen. Otherwise don't bring it in to discuss the HTT-40.

Your logic is driven by passion rather than reason. Why should an Indian built BTT be twice as expensive?!!! The PC-7 also uses a imported PT-6A engine (And no India would not be able to make a much cheaper engine than the PT-6A, and of its caliber. If you don't believe me, please do some research). In fact think about it, every part of the PC-7 is imported, then by your logic, why should it be half the price of the HTT-40? These are not cutting edge planes. These are all-metal basic trainers where one of the most expensive parts is integration of several small parts which is labour intensive and hence should be cheaper in India!!!

So why is the HTT-40 TWICE as expensive?
1. May be the R&D is that expensive. However, there is no research involved. It is more of a design and integration challenge. Hence you see HAL starting to make HTT-40 in just 2-3 years on conception. It is not possible to do the same for a fighter aircraft or a modern airlifter. And one would imagine that over 106 aircrafts, this cost could be amortized substantially. This is not likely that this drives the costs up by 2 times.
2. May be HAL overestimated the costs for everything, and will revise the costs. (Most likely) in my opinion.
3. HAL is obfuscating the costs of HTT-40 to cover for some other expenditure.
4. HAL is utterly inefficient. I put this to exhaust all the options. I don't believe this.

Pick your choice.

You still did not provide any reason.

Let me answer your theory about "aircraft being built around the engine" theory. That is only the case when your engine development precedes the aircraft development. It is not the case in India. Hence you see HTT-35/40 being developed without the selection of the engine. The same goes for LCA, LUH, AMCA, NCA. You name it.

And oh! for coming up a PT-6A engine in 20 years, India should start developing it today. Do you see any such effort? So who is to blame, IAF?

Your khujli is in the right place. But you will have another khujli if IAF tells you that it is not operationally ready to defend India. So which khujli should it tend to?

Indigenization isn't a strong enough reason for you. OK how about creation of tech base for further military research. You haven't either answered what will IAF do when Pilatus becomes obsolete and again it has a trainer requirement ???

You mean to say LCA, LUH, AMCA all of them are being made without an engine being selected !!!! Would love to hear more on this from you, this the first time I am hearing such theory that an aircraft if being built without selecting an engine. Do give your reasoning on this.

Didn't the IAF knew what is required to be done so as to create an aviation industry here ??? You mean to say the IAF is all oblivious of the situation in our country and has got no interest in indigenization ??? I am ready to accept such view but it must come directly from the mouth of IAF that it doesn't support indigenization or has any interest in it.

Wallah here come the Brahmastra "Operational Readiness". Hmmmm even after years and years of purchasing from TFTA lands why hasn't the IAF reached the operational readiness it desires ??? How many years of purchasing from TFTA's will make IAF operational ready ??? Without an indigenous aerospace industry wouldn't we always remain dependant upon TFTAs for our military requirements ??? Do these questions give you or IAF some specific kind of aaram or khujli ???

IAF will require trainers to train its pilots. If HAL does not foresse those orders and get a plane ready in time, IAF will have to import again. I see no fault of IAF in this!

LCA was being developed from 1980s. F404s only selected in 2003 and 2008, we selected the F414. what is the engine selected for AMCA. Clearly design studies are in advanced stages. For LUH, HAL and Turbomecca had broken down due to inexorbitant consultancy fees from Turbomecca. So HAL was planning to fit the twin-engine shakti itself on LUH in a different configuration. It was also in talks with other engine manufacturers for an engine. For AMCA, I have no clue of which engine they are going for. Clearly the engine has not been selected. Kaveri has to go quite some way before it gets fitted into the AMCA. NCA will float tenders for engines.

That is neither IAF's responsibility or job. IAF's only job is to defend the country. IAF can support Indian products, if they are ready in time. IAF can handhold the industry too, but you can't demand it of them.

Please read the comments properly before penning down long rants. I did not say that IAF is not operationally ready. I said, you given all this bhashan on your khujli, but you will give another bhashan on another khujli of yours IF IAF said that it is not operationally ready.

Sagar G

HAL today is pursuing development of HTT-40 against the clock for a quickly vaporizing order of 106 BTTs. Why did not it do so with the HTT-35, when it had the time on its hands. By 2000-2005 it would have had a first rate BTT. It would have had the order of all 181 trainers from IAF and may be many export orders. Why wouldn't you blame HAL for it?

No I t don't get it. If MoD's nod is compulsory for action. Then HTT-40 should have been shelved by now.

It is understood & agreed that the Govt. of India is not a party to this agreement and has no liabilities, obligations or rights hereunder. It is expressly understood & agreed that H.A.L. is an independent legal entity with power and authority to enter into contracts solely on its own behalf under the applicable laws of India and General Principles Contract Law.

And that is your speculation. While, you are entitled to your speculations, HAL's tenders for raw materials for HTT-40 says this.


We can discuss more if you can substantiate any of your speculations.

HAL, a Navaratna Public Sector Undertaking under Government of India

I bet behind the recent HTT-40 saga IAF "afsars" are involved.

And by the way, I have always been in favour of building the HTT-40. There is no other way than to bring up the aero industry without taking up smaller projects. Clearly, if our industry can't produce parts for a BTT, then it cannot produce parts for a AMCA, FGFA, MTA, NCA.

My quote was pun intended for the previous post regarding validation of the A to A role Tejas.

Why should an Indian built BTT be twice as expensive?!!! Think about it, every part of the PC-7 is imported, then by your logic, why should it be half the price of the HTT-40?

You spoke about engines and hence I would discuss it. The PC-7 also uses a imported PT-6A engine. And no, India would not be able to make a much cheaper engine than the PT-6A, and of its caliber. If you don't believe me, please do some research. There is proper reason why it is the most successful engine in its class by a big margin.

By the way, these are not cutting edge planes. These are all-metal basic trainers where one of the most expensive parts is integration of several small parts. This is labour intensive and hence should be cheaper in India!!!

So why is the HTT-40 TWICE as expensive?
1. May be the R&D is that expensive. However, there is no research involved. It is more of a design and integration challenge. Hence you see HAL starting to make HTT-40 in just 2-3 years on conception. It is not possible to do the same for a fighter aircraft or a modern airlifter. And one would imagine that over 106 aircrafts, this cost could be amortized substantially. This is not likely that this drives the costs up by 2 times.
2. May be HAL overestimated the costs for everything, and will revise the costs. (Most likely) in my opinion.
3. HAL is obfuscating the costs of HTT-40 to cover for some other expenditure.
4. HAL is utterly inefficient. I put this to exhaust all the options. I don't believe this.

Pick your choice.

Stopping HTT-40 production is a blunder. I have already said that. My objection has been at your baseless allegations.