Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Oct 2013 12:39

The question that comes to my my mind today. Why was the engine development for the HF 24 not sanctioned by the Babus.

Why was the HF 24 not followed up with newer designs.

The IAF had a clear idea when the HPT 32, would be reaching the end of service life. To the best of my limited knowledge, no ASQR, was released to the HAL, for the trainer.

Now we are importing from Switzerland.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Oct 2013 13:14

I think we need to read Anil Chopra's article (linked by Philip) and IAF press statement together - I think IAF is proposing use of BRD for license manufacture of PC-7 MKII after the initial numbers slated for purchase are acquired.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Oct 2013 13:47

That may eliminate the need to set up a greenfield plant to manufacture planes. A great idea. This could work for the Hs 748 replacement program as well.

As the PVT players are reluctant to fund a greenfield plant. That too within an Airport complex.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 08 Oct 2013 14:45

rohitvats wrote:I think we need to read Anil Chopra's article (linked by Philip) and IAF press statement together - I think IAF is proposing use of BRD for license manufacture of PC-7 MKII after the initial numbers slated for purchase are acquired.

Why should BRD handle assembling basic trainers? HAL can do the same just as well. Its a basic trainer after all.

Is BRD's mandate to manufacture/assemble aircraft?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Oct 2013 15:01

^^^

The point is that the BRD's infrastructure is available and have a trained manpower pool.

The real test will come, when building the supplier chain in order to start the production of the aircraft, at the BRD.

Moreover, the BRD being the IAF installations , the IAF is free to use them the way the see fit.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Oct 2013 15:05

BRD is responsible for doing upgrades on Mig-29UPG once the initial few batches of UPG are flight qualified in Russia the remaining Mig-29 upgrade will be done by BRD , not just upgrade but even MRO and Maintaining of 29UPG fleet.

So they might well take lic manuf of PC-7 if they have the bandwidth to do so.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 08 Oct 2013 15:27

an Indian startup has developed a PC-based game

Threye Interactive, the developers, are releasing what, AFAIK, would be the 1st combat flight simulator game based on the Indian Air Force [IAF]. It recently released a demo version of the game, titled 'Operation Morning Glory' [Dropbox URL],......The playable mission involves flying the Mirage-2000 into pakistan & neutralising the threat posed by Islamists wanting to launch a Nuclear strike against India.

Threye, whom the IAF had commissioned to develop products for its public outreach efforts, had earlier released yet another flight simulator that could be played from within a web browser itself.

via http://www.aame.in/2013/10/morning-glor ... e-iaf.html

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 08 Oct 2013 16:04

rohitvats wrote:I think we need to read Anil Chopra's article (linked by Philip) and IAF press statement together - I think IAF is proposing use of BRD for license manufacture of PC-7 MKII after the initial numbers slated for purchase are acquired.

I thought same too. however there seems to be a 'catch'. MOD had allowed the import of P7s with a rider that HAL will build 106 HTT - 40 (which will fly by 2015 - as per HAL). now the P7 import does not have an option for licence building. so how is IAF going to convince MOD/GOI to pen a 'new' agreement with the swiss 'especially' after all acrimony between IAF and Media, post which - MOD 'overruled' IAF and asked them to collaborate with HAL!!!

this is going to be interesting!! if somehow IAF gets its way, HTT 40 becomes redundant atleast to IAF.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 08 Oct 2013 17:37

1 BRD has received tremendous upgrades in past few years. This BRD has enough space and infrastructure for manufacture. 4 BRD is expected to be the second most important unit if IAF commences manufacturing.

Since 1990's, after the fall of Soviet Union, the BRD's have been relentlessly pushing for indigenisation, a commendable task.

Having stated above, the BRD's are not ready to 'develop' aircraft of 'MMRCA' class. IMHO.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Oct 2013 19:00

Merlin,it's not as if the IAF want to replace HAL.If you read the CoAS's statements carefully,he wants HAL to concentrate on "higher' things,more important and high priority projects like the FGFA,LCA,IJT,UCAVs and MMRCA when the deal is signed. The IAF's BRDs can take up the "slack",in any case they ultimately have to keep the aircraft combat worthy.As said earlier,they could start at the bottom of the pile by manufacturing the basic trainers for starters.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 08 Oct 2013 19:11

Philip wrote:Merlin,it's not as if the IAF want to replace HAL.If you read the CoAS's statements carefully,he wants HAL to concentrate on "higher' things,more important and high priority projects like the FGFA,LCA,IJT,UCAVs and MMRCA when the deal is signed. The IAF's BRDs can take up the "slack",in any case they ultimately have to keep the aircraft combat worthy.As said earlier,they could start at the bottom of the pile by manufacturing the basic trainers for starters.

Philip, but do they have the capability to even manufacture a basic trainer? They may have some overhauling and upgrade capabilities but that is a far cry from a full fledged manufacturing setup even for a basic trainer.

Far better to try and get a private company to do this manufacturing, perhaps with some initial government funding than getting IAF to do it, unless they have the infrastructure and the capability *now* and that infrastructure is lying unused.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 08 Oct 2013 19:49

IAF has proved itself a very good producer of aircraft as the HS748s started 50 years ago are still going strong. The advantage is clarity in chain of command, decision making, ownership and merit based culture. We can expect strong opposition to this idea because it will expose the inefficiencies of HAL which is a babu-politician milch cow. If a truly patriotic govt ever comes to power, they will place HAL under IAF management immediately.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 08 Oct 2013 19:50

It's shameful how IAF is indulging in propaganda now to kill HTT-40. First they are only talking of "indigenous manufacturing" which means they neither have design nor any capability to make one so take a guess where the knowledge for the same is going to come from. Also don't forget what Mr. Brown recently

w.r.t. "wastage of public money" over duplication of efforts. When a trainer programme is already ongoing where does this talk of IAF manufacturing a trainer all by itself comes from ??? Isn't this "wastage of public money" by duplicating efforts ??? If so then how come an IAF officer is contradicting his own boss ??? Isn't Mr. Brown in control of IAF ???

The propaganda against HTT-40 can easily be seen from the Hindu article, sample these few quotes from the article

The Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd built basic trainer HPT-32 was being used for initial training for years.

However, it had repeated engine failures. When two experienced instructors were killed in July 2009, it triggered the permanent grounding of the aircraft. India very correctly decided on a fast-track acquisition of the Basic Training Aircraft (BTA), selecting the Pilatus PC-7 Mk II from among five contenders.

I am amazed by how many of these retired IAF afasars get a perfectly synchronized bout of amnesia when talking about HPT-32. It always starts with the unfortunate 2009 incident (so as to garner sympathy for the current situation), there is absolutely no mention of the events that happened in between all those years when HAL submitted two design proposals and even flew one but there was no response from IAF. If this isn't a indication of dishonesty then I don't know what else is.

In 2009, it was decided that HAL would design and build 106 basic trainers. The ground position today is that after just displaying a mock-up at an Aero India exhibition, there is no viable design proposal by HAL.

I don't think I have to explain what a complete lie this is.

The bulk of IAF’s inventory comprises HAL-produced aircraft. The Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), and the Medium Transport Aircraft (MTA) programmes are fully backed by the IAF.

I don't know about the rest of the two but LCA fully backed by the IAF !!!!!! Yeah right

The IAF has no choice but to seek more tried and tested Pilatus PC-7 Mk II.

And we come to the main agenda very subtly put in between so that readers don't raise there eyebrows. Which is followed by,

A large part of the yet to develop HAL basic trainers will have to be procured from abroad. We do not have expertise on turboprop engine, ejection seat, and a large number of other systems. Even the aircraft design itself is likely to be through foreign consultancy.

When many parts of the so-called indigenous aircraft are imported, as in this case, the cost will naturally be much higher than the imported variant.

The UK-built Hawk aircraft cost us Rs 87 crore vis-à-vis the HAL-built one at Rs 98 crore. The cost increase for indigenous Su-30s was much starker.

Yeah you read it right HTT-40 == Hawk == Su 30 MKI !!!! Ultimate logic, I have tears in my eyes.

It may be in the national interest to licence-produce the PC-7 Mk II in India if numbers were to go up significantly.

Oh yeah it's all "national interest"

The rest is the usual fear mongering tactics employed with precision as and when so as to import the new toys that IAF boy's want. This method has been very effective and will remain till people don't start questioning IAF over it's failure to support indigenization.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 08 Oct 2013 20:15

merlin,

2 scenarios here -

1. BRD assembles skd/ckd kits which is doable. as RV rightly pointed and i agree, they are aiming for the PC 7s in all probability on the ground of commonality/maintainence/manpower grounds. the only 'hitch' would be getting the MOD/GOI to go in for a new agreement with the swiss - which is going to be not easy at all which i mentioned in my last post.

2. they plan a completely 'new' trainer (they have spoken of 'long' period) altogether which raises several questions than answers.

a. how many of the staff would the IAF be able to put together for the design even if they have the capability??

b. manpower/capabilities required for the testing phase even if infra required can be utilised from the existing NAL/HAL/ADA facilities.

c. how would it affect the overhaul/maintainence work wrt the existing fleet??

d. what about production line?? will they be able to put together one which will satisfy their own timelines in terms of production??

e. if they go in for pvt sector for production, will the govt allow that??

having said that if they pull it off say in 10 years, i think it would be good in the long term for India because it brings much needed competition to the PSUs plus unburdening them from the overload.

finally, since IAF itself will be the agency atleast they won't be whipping others.

Victor wrote:IAF has proved itself a very good producer of aircraft as the HS748s started 50 years ago are still going strong. The advantage is clarity in chain of command, decision making, ownership and merit based culture. We can expect strong opposition to this idea because it will expose the inefficiencies of HAL which is a babu-politician milch cow. If a truly patriotic govt ever comes to power, they will place HAL under IAF management immediately.

to the bolded, when was IAF 'producing' the HS 748s?? it was HAL Kanpur IIRC which was licence building them - a total of 89 was built.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 08 Oct 2013 21:27

IAF bars Indian PSUs from taking part in $ 3 billion aircraft deal

New Delhi: The Indian Air Force (IAF) has barred Indian PSUs like Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) from taking part in the $3 billion aircraft deal. The IAF has shortlisted five foreign aircraft firms to buy 56 new aircraft. Meanwhile, Union Minister Praful Patel has written to Defence Minster AK Antony seeking why Indian PSUs have been barred from taking part in the deal. Patel has said that the Indian PSUs have infrastructure and capacity to execute the deal.

The IAF wants to replace its Avro aircraft and induct 56 new aircraft.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Oct 2013 21:40

When did IAF produce the HS 748??

did I miss something in a parallel universe -

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Oct 2013 22:07

One must understand the frustration of the end user the IAF,HAL's sole customer.HAL does not export anything of worth anywhere in the world,components excepted,barring a handful of Dhruv's to Ecuador.Three major projects required for the IAF to keep it combat healthy are way behind time.The LCA,IJT and the absence of a basic trainer after the HT-32 was dumped.After the Pilatus was inducted as the IAF's basic trainer ,a very successful aircraft used worldwide,HAL still insists that the IAF buy a paper trainer that has never flown and will have considerable foreign content.Figures given for licence manufacture of Sukhois,etc.by HAL show that it is cheaper to import them than build them by HAL.The IAF is trying to maximise its potential since HAL is experiencing such difficulties and wants HAL to concentrate upon the major most important projects.What is wrong with that when HAL is unable to deliver?

Why has HAL abdicated a large part of its workshare on the FGFA? Has it given any credible reason for the same? We know the complexity of the LCA and the IAF is willing to wait for the definitive MK-2 to arrive ordering 40+ Mk-1s in the interim,but where are the Mk-1s either? The slippage gores on and on. Now the IJT is a far easier project to deliver,and should've arrived by now,but for how long can the IAF keep on using its obsolete Kirans waiting for the IJT to arrive? It may have to dump the IJT too if results cannot be achieved soon.The truth is that HAL has far too much on its plate and simply cannot digest the same.Yet it wants to hog the whole meal.It is thus suffering from acute indigestion.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 08 Oct 2013 22:08

Surya wrote:When did IAF produce the HS 748??

The IAF as an Aircraft Manufacturer

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Oct 2013 22:19

I think we need more information about this IAF plan before we can further analyse what IAF plan is.

I only attempted 2+2 kind of exercise with respect to Pilatus but as per Pragnya, even that assumption may be incorrect. Also, manufacturing versus assembly is a very different ball game. What about the CAPEX to put together manufacturing equipment and other attendant equipment? And the technical expertise?

I think we're reading too much into Air Marshal's statement at present.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 08 Oct 2013 22:32

Union Minister Praful Patel has written to Defence Minster AK Antony seeking why Indian PSUs have been barred from taking part in the (Avro replacement) deal

The answer to this gent's question should be publicized far and wide for the greater good of Bharat. Of course we would first need to discount the possibility of the IAF being an anti-national rogue outfit run by corrupt, self-seeking people.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Oct 2013 22:55

thanks Victor

I had read that and took that to be as assembling although I do see the article also mentions manufacturing

would be interesting to dig into that a bit more

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 08 Oct 2013 23:16

Surya wrote: would be interesting to dig into that a bit more

Long story short: The first Indian-designed aircraft was built by the IAF in its own workshops. HAL OTOH was set up by the Americans

.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Oct 2013 01:05

HAL OTOH was set up by the Americans .

But, not with that intent.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Oct 2013 01:30

Making a half dozen odd old gen aircraft in an era past, and then extrapolating that to aircraft manufacturing today, is pretty pointless.

First, lets understand that BRDs are run with IAF internal resources and are often manned by people who have multiple jobs. In other words, the air force mech. who is manning the lathe to make a component, is also running guard duty at other times, and also required to wear his regular hat of aircraft maintenance. All this is fine, when the requirement is of a hundred odd units of a mechanical component over the lifecycle of one aircraft, and components which are not too technically complex - items like these such as avionics items are being offloaded to pvt sector SMEs or going back to PSUs as stand alone projects. How can that translate into BRDs becoming aircraft manufacturers which require dedicated workers (full time spent on manufacturing/assembly) and then shifts besides?

Even with all the upgrades of the BRDs, they are simply unable to handle complex work that involves material development and sourcing, complex fabrication and own R&D. These often require PSU support (to either rope in labs to get the material or source it from the original suppliers based out of East Europe/west), or dedicated facilities in PSU/Pvt sector, and back to dedicated R&D units.

What BRDs have managed to specialize in is indigenization of flight critical LRUs to a high extent for the basic airframe, but remain limited when it comes to propulsion, avionics and other aggregates.

So while a BRD (say) may assemble an aircraft or do MRO with greater efficiency than HAL or stricter QA, it simply cannot compete with HAL head to head in indigenization or even strategic autonomy. They simply don't have the resources - financial or managerial - to do that. HAL's MiG complexes alone are sprawling mini-cities, which is what allows them to even attempt stuff like 70% indigenization of the Flanker-H over its lifecycle.

Net - creating a mini-HAL within the IAF is an exercise with limited gains and can be successful if it limits itself to a core set of activities which it specializes in. Extending that to associated areas will lead to the same issues which plague HAL (overreach, management dilution, empire building) and further detract from the IAF's focus area which is to fly and fight. It will also lead to unecessary strain on the IAF's budget. Facilities, infrastructure don't come cheap, nor does the investment in personnel. These standing costs will eat into the IAF budget.

The solution then, is to make HAL better which is what the MOD should focus on and the IAF should also work towards. Reintegrating IAF personnel into HAL for long duration stays, giving them decision making ability and making HAL more accountable is the need of the hour. It will also give the IAF a perspective on what they need to do to get HAL/Indian aerospace working, as versus merely being demanding customers involved in late stage aircraft refinement.
Right now, it just appears the bureaucrats are not addressing this basic issue. IAF's public salvos at HAL and HAL obduracy in pursuing its own trainer aircraft (while the FGFA program supposedly is not optimally resourced, and the IJT trundles along, LCA not the #1 priority) just show that there is a severe lack of coordination at the national level. With all players seeking to maximize what they perceive is their own interest, but the overall outcomes remain messed up.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 09 Oct 2013 01:45

I think the IAF gameplan is to award the contract for Avro replacement to an Indian private company, and to let that private company use IAF BRD infrastructure and facilities for this purpose.

I think it is a good idea.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 09 Oct 2013 02:23

Victor wrote:
Union Minister Praful Patel has written to Defence Minster AK Antony seeking why Indian PSUs have been barred from taking part in the (Avro replacement) deal
The answer to this gent's question should be publicized far and wide for the greater good of Bharat. Of course we would first need to discount the possibility of the IAF being an anti-national rogue outfit run by corrupt, self-seeking people.

Au contraire, some esteemed members have seen through the IAF. They (IAF) are secretly working for the 'foreign hand' when they are not working for themselves. You can make your point w/o making accusation(s) in cavalier manner-rohitvats

Witness the Pontius Pilatus affair. They want to crucify HAL.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Oct 2013 02:48

I don't know how to call it. After all Kanpur-1 and Kanpur-2 (made out of one man's initiative) were killed by HAL by political clout. And the HS-748 production line was inherited lock stock and barrel. So I don't know ...

What I know is that I am one of strongest well-wisher of HAL and hence I want the steepest of competition for HAL.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 09 Oct 2013 03:34

indranilroy wrote:..I am one of strongest well-wisher of HAL and hence I want the steepest of competition for HAL.

This is the right way to look at it, just as the IAF is doing. Unfortunately, many powerful people think otherwise and will work against it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Oct 2013 03:37

HAL like all DPSUs has a workers union. It is these folks who will oppose any change in the status quo tooth and nail.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 09 Oct 2013 05:56

agupta wrote:
No "reservations" for DPSUs anymore - let them collaborate, JV, privatize or compete fully with the Indian private sector. Where they are strong and have real moats not those built by corruption and MoD protection, they will survive (CSL, HAL Heli Div, etc.). If they have real expertise but bad management, they will get hired out quickly by the private companies hungry for talent. Its not a very good analogy, but recall what happened to the Pharma sector around Hyderabad once IDPL was blown up... a thousand flowers bloomed from that rotting bog.

Let HAL compete with the Tatas and Reliance; let the OFB and Vehicle Factories compete with L&T, Mahindras, Bharat Forge and others.

cum volare porci (and no that's not the song).

It's not just the DPSU workers union. The DPSU's are the conduit for political contributions and the quid pro quo is patronage.

We are talking about places where the sun don't shine. Even Modi will have his hands full. The system has been perfected over the last 50 years.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Oct 2013 06:52

IAF's move is too late I suppose. Under make category, private companies are given equal chance and IAF may not be able to match cost efficiency.

Production is not India's most formidable problem, it is R&D. Using BRD's to incubate and develop and sustain these technologies could be a good idea. Production can be handled by third party. Some areas which can be looked into is creating turbo props, air frame modelling, creating tools, delivery mechanisms etc.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Oct 2013 07:45

The IAF intends to use its BRDs - probably BRD 11, to upgrade its MiG-29s as well, but the engines will come the HAL Ozhar complex, most likely.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Oct 2013 08:06

There is one immediate task which the IAF should take up and has the expertise to do so,nurse the MIG-21s still in flying condition and the Bisons which are now expected to serve upto 2025. One doesn't know how many of the earlier model MIG-21s can be cannibalised ,but as mentioned earlier,the IAF could even convert some of them into UAVs,whatever,just as is being done in other air forces.One is sure HAL won't have any objection to this.In fact the BRDs could be tasked with UAV manufacture too,relieving HAL of the "small fry" work.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 09 Oct 2013 08:59

Happy 81st birthday to IAF.
Video of Air Force Day at Hindon.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 09 Oct 2013 11:06

Victor wrote:
indranilroy wrote:..I am one of strongest well-wisher of HAL and hence I want the steepest of competition for HAL.
This is the right way to look at it, just as the IAF is doing. Unfortunately, many powerful people think otherwise and will work against it.

The IAF is the most politically savvy of the three services - just ask the other two. Unfortunately, HAL went the hatchet job route with Ajai Shukla and the proverbial straw has broken the camel's back. This is going to get far uglier, especially when an "operator" like Praful Patel has entered the picture--who will ironically sell HAL down the river faster than you can say Jack Robinson.

Karma's a bitch...

vina · Post by **vina** » 09 Oct 2013 12:48

CSL, HAL Heli Div, etc.

Tell me you are joking. The highlighted one is/was a terminally sick and perpetually with one foot in the grave and kept alive by drips of patronage from Dilli kind of place.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Oct 2013 13:02

Bad Bad HAL.

The ALH Dhruv with Army Aviation Sqn (Spl ops) did the honours.

Indian made ALH Dhruv Helicopter clocks 100,000 flying hours

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Oct 2013 13:07

chackojoseph wrote:Bad Bad HAL.

The ALH Dhruv with Army Aviation Sqn (Spl ops) did the honours.

Indian made ALH Dhruv Helicopter clocks 100,000 flying hours

Really hope Rudra and LCH follow in this glorious tradition.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 10 Oct 2013 07:55

HAL's struggle with IJT continues; hopes to get IOC in six months; LSP-5 begins test flights

Bangalore: Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) is struggling with its pet Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT) project, almost 10 years after the first prototype had its maiden flight. Sources confirm to Express that, engineers and designers at HAL's Aircraft Research and Design Centre (ARDC) are having the daunting task of identifying and correcting the inherent asymmetry of the aircraft. HAL hopes to get the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) for IJT by the end of December, a deadline according to insiders, might get pushed to next year.
“The issues of the aircraft have been reported by the pilots during the ongoing tests and also endorsed by BAE Systems. This is coming in a large way for the ongoing stall and spin trials. Pilots had tried their best but the aircraft rolls around 16 degrees thereby forcing them to abort the stall tests,” a source said. HAL had hired BAE Systems to act as consultants to evaluate IJT's stall and spin tests.
While HAL officially refused to give any project update on IJT, saying “there isn't much to share,” sources say that the aircraft is scheduled to undertake crosswind trials at Jamnagar and cold weather trials at Srinagar. “The IOC declaration might happen after these trials. One aircraft is likely to perform the stall and spin permutation and combination exercises parallely, to save time. The designers are even trying wing dressing so as to provide with the best stall experience. So far, all the prototypes coming out are having inherent asymmetry problems,” the official said.
The IJT, which was tipped to reap maximum benefits from HAL's involvement in the Tejas project, lost its flightpath completely in the last seven years following a spate of crashes and management issues. The Indian Air Force (IAF) has been waiting patiently for the IJTs with the hope of filling the gaps in its training format. HAL is committed to deliver 12 limited series production (LSP) aircraft to IAF and later 73 series production (SP) planes – the deadlines all looking messier now. Sources said that IJT's LSP-5 aircraft had it's maiden flight during the last week of September this year, with a rolling off problem being reported on day one. However, the test flights of LSP-5 are currently on track, sources said.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 10 Oct 2013 18:33

Inherent asymmetry problem sounds very depressing. Could mean a basic design flaw which can be a deal killer for a trainer. Maybe IAF intends to make its own IJT while making do with Hawk and Kiran. The above sound bites seem to convey that IAF has lost faith in HAL totally and even wants to make its own fighter. I don't think they would say something like this lightly, provided of course they did say it, and they have reason to believe they can do it better. If anyone knows HAL it is IAF. There seems to be a sense of utter despair on IAF's part.

GoI has executed a perfect nosedive with HAL, just like they did with Air India.