Sagar G wrote:The "Patriot or Not" labelling force is out I see.
Why the takleef...two can play the game of name-calling and inane postings, No?
rohitvats wrote:Sagar G wrote:The "Patriot or Not" labelling force is out I see.
Why the takleef...two can play the game of name-calling and inane postings, No?
Sagar G wrote:NRao wrote:Someone within India is against this machine.
Yeah and it's named IAF under the tremendous guidance of MoD.
Nikhil T wrote:It is HAL's money. The profits and the cash reserves of HAL don't go into the Consolidated Fund of India. HAL exists as a separate firm for exactly the same reason! Also, why only think of IAF. Can't HAL think of exporting HTT40 to African and Latin American countries?
UAVs are a DRDO & NAL responsibility with HAL only providing production. When Rustom I is undergoing flight tests and Rustom II in design stage, what can HAL do? As has been confirmed multiple times, Rustom II is a 'Predator like UAV'. And NAL is the agency for civilian aircraft and test flights are already happening. Do you want another project for the same?
So HAL should be expected to churn out latest generation of helicopters and aircraft without an experience of building basic trainers?
indranilroy wrote:That is the cheapest shot that you have taken till now. You do realize that you bracketed IAF as an anti-national organization working against the interest the of the country!
"There is no need for it (the HTT-40 turbo trainer project)," IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Norman Browne said in response to a question by me on a series of HAL projects that the IAF is deeply unhappy with.
Confirming to me that the IAF has forwarded a recommendation to the government to shelf HAL's HTT-40 programme, the IAF chief said, "We have the Pilatus PC-7. It's a proven aircraft. The project HAL plans is from scratch. Our indications are that the costs will be too high. There is no need for all this."
abhik wrote:sivab wrote:Its HAL's money and they see HTT-40 as necessary for their survival.
Its not HAL chief's uncles money that they free to spend on their whim. It is 100% owned by the government and it gets a vast majority of its turnover from the government. Its the governments and thus the peoples money. "Its HAL's money" is a silly and specious argument.
And all those who think that this is actually helping the Indigenisation cause are being naive. Fact of the matter is that the local industry is just not large and mature enough to completely obviate arms import. In such a scenario one would try to maximize indigenous arms by concentrating on the some items (the most important and high-value) and leave the rest to the imports. But what HAL is trying to do is to take spend its sparse resources in developing duplicates of the weapon types who's importation is already a done deal. Why didn't it go after the medium lift helicopter after the ALH, instead of the LUH. Why doesn't try and develop a Preadator like UAV or invest in civilian transport aircraft etc instead of the HTT-40. India will have to import billions worth of these helicopters/aircraft, much more than what is to be saved by making these piecemeal duplicates. Net-net HAL current course of actions will increase importation rather than reduce it. And the worst part is that HAL will eventually get to screw-driver assemble the import which is less risky, far easier and more lucrative than designing and building your own aircraft. This is the real scam.
abhik wrote:Is HAL an export oriented unit? What are its priorities? Should it leave the domestic market to the likes of Boeing, LM, Sikorsky, Dassault etc?
The Rustom program hasn't really been doing so good. Some competition from HAL would be welcome change. Any way I was only using the UAV to make a point. Why hasn't HAL invested in civil aviation? The options for things it could be doing instead of the light trainer(or LOH) is quite large.
Can you please educate me as to who developed an produced HT-2, HPT-32 Deepak, HJT-16 Kiran and HJT-36 Sitara. Also It has been more than 10 years since the ALH was inducted by the military. Your are giving HAL so much slack that 20 years later they may turn around and say they need to develop a kite for Basant Panchami so that they get an opportunity to start from first principles.
And by the what exactly is it about " an experience of building basic trainers"? Is that what makes boys into men? Do aerospace companies which do not produce a basic trainer not succeed in any thing else?
HAL is being run like a conservative private company. It prioritizes low risk product developments which leaves the larger more riskier ones to foreign vendors. Not only does HAL avoid the risk, it is also lucrative as gets to screw driver assemble the imports anyway.
Its not, it is 100% owned by the Government, albeit there have been some moves recently to divest 10%.indranilroy wrote:Sorry boss, but this is an uneducated post.
1. HAL is a publicly listed company.
The govt. does not cover HAL's expenditures. The hand holding that govt. does is provide orders for HAL. But HAL has to cover it's own expenditure and generate its own profits. So please stop making ludicrous comments like HAL is running on govt. money and hence your and my money.
Every company looks for ROI. LUH made perfect sense. It is easier to design and build than NMRH.
NMRH has more demanding requirements. It is very difficult to have 1 heli be the backbone of all the 3 services. Please refer to Unni Pillai's talk at AI'13.
Rustom is not the mandate of HAL, but that of ADE. You are probably not aware, but HAL has initiated co-design and manufacture of UAVs, multiple of them.
Sagar G wrote:Why do you always keep up extrapolating something from my post which I haven't said at all ????
Sagar G wrote:To refresh your memory read this again
Don't Want Or Need HAL's HTT-40 Trainer: IAF Chief
Now tell me did I say any lie or something ??? It's the IAF chief himself making IAF's intentions clear about HTT-40.
abhik wrote:Its not, it is 100% owned by the Government, albeit there have been some moves recently to divest 10%.indranilroy wrote:Sorry boss, but this is an uneducated post.
1. HAL is a publicly listed company.
abhik wrote:It might seem ok to you that a company 100% owned by the Government and who's revenue is almost completely from the Government is focusing on profits(which is really an irrelevant number). But I'd rather like it to be pro-active about indigenization and make strategies that will maximize it.
abhik wrote:indranilroy wrote: NMRH has more demanding requirements. It is very difficult to have 1 heli be the backbone of all the 3 services. Please refer to Unni Pillai's talk at AI'13.
This is a red herring, If one design cannot fulfil the needs of all three services today how will it magically do so in the future. If HAL was serious about it, they would have picked a design fulfils the requirements of the largest user(s). Alternatively they could have lobbied the Government to force the services to compromise. It did neither.
abhik wrote:indranilroy wrote: Rustom is not the mandate of HAL, but that of ADE. You are probably not aware, but HAL has initiated co-design and manufacture of UAVs, multiple of them.
Well, HAL was not mandated to create a light trainer either. But that isn't stopping them is it. Any way would be glad to see the HAL make its own equivalents of Heron, Predator etc.
Nikhil T wrote:HAL is working on civilian aircraft - MTA with Russians and Saras & IRJ with NAL. You are constantly shifting your arguments on what HAL should do from
1. "indigenous arms by concentrating on the some items (the most important and high-value)", TO
2. Predator-like armed UAVs (where did the highest value argument go now?, TO
3. Civilian transport aircraft.
Here is a DPSU that is building an aircraft in house WITHOUT expecting MoD to delay IAF's procurement plans and without asking IAF for budgetary support, but apparently its not good enough.
Your insinuation that HTT-40 and LOH are "screw driver" imports or "low risk" is painfully funny.
IMHO this is a case of being penny wise, pound foolish. Let me explain with the example of the LOH. The ALH was developed and inducted in service in 2002(according to wiki). You would expect that HAL would take the next step and develop a medium lift helicopter. But for what ever reason this didn't happen. It instead chose to spend its bandwidth on the LCH and the LOH. The LCH decision was quite logical given its commonalities with the ALH. The case of the LOH is curious as there was already a contract out for an import of at least half the total eventual requirement. Today the situation is that we do not have an indigenous medium helicopter, we aren't even in a position to build and induct for probably a decade. But there is a huge demand from the forces. And they are fulfilling these by means of imports. For example the navy is in the process of putting out a tender for 120 helicopters valued at a massive 35,000 Cr. If this goes through it will completely obviate the need for a naval version of the HAL medium helicopter. The IAF, IA and the paramilitary forces are also ordering their own medium helicopters. Note that while the 187 LOH seem like a large number but the entire cost is only about 2 billion USD compared to the 7 billion for the Navy tender. While I'm not suggesting that if HAL would have ditched the LOH in favour of the medium helicopter, it would have been ready today. But we would have been in a much better position to start delivering these at least by the later half of this decade if not earlier. Now as each medium helicopter costs 4-6 times that of a light helicopter, just 30-40 of them would have completely offset the loss caused due to not developing the LOH. I'm confident the actual savings would have been much higher. Also it saves the forces the head ache of maintaining multiple types.And you consider HTT-40 that has a requirement of 70 aircraft and LOH which has a requirement of 187 aircraft (out of 384 total) as not large enough for HAL to do?
abhik wrote:Austin wrote:Doesnt make sense to develop two trainers just to do the same job and increase opex for IAF , why doesnt HAL just lic manuf PC-7 and keep the logistics streamlined. Same of LOH why do we need two types of LOH either take the one which wins the competition or cancel that take what HAL build as LOH and keep logistics simple and streanlines for the IAF.
For HAL reducing Operational Expenditure may not be a criteria but for IAF it would go a long way in streamlining its different types.
^^^True that. HAL is trying to muscle into contracts by developing duplicates of technically less risky product types like the light trainer and LOH. This while ignoring far more important systems like the Medium Lift Helicopter(of which we have been hearing of from aeons but is not even on the drawing board) or a UAV (existing programmes seem to be running in ultra slow motion).
indranilroy wrote:May be you did not mean it, but that is how it sounds.
indranilroy wrote:Yes, the IAF chief doesn't want the HTT-40. Not because he doesn't like Indian products. It is because he believes that HAL will not be able to deliver on time. He can't be blamed for it.
indranilroy wrote:And he doesn't have the have the luxury of time. He has pilot trainees on the ground.
Lalmohan wrote:nik - swatch is capable of producing watches that cost a few cents. a similar watch made in india may cost significantly more.
because they have very extensive production engineering capability - machine tools, supply chain, robotic manufacturing, mass customisation, ityadi... that allows the marginal cost of production to be miniscule - and so can continue to manufacture in a high wage economy. (the flip side is that it requires very large production runs)
these capabilities are just as important as being able to design and build a stunning prototype watch - and take decade after decade to develop. in India we have focused on the 'science project' and are good at producing the first amazing prototype. we have yet to build the rest of the industrial capability
indranilroy wrote:I don't know what happened to HTT-35. Do you? You just have a theory that IAF/MoD killed it. Do you actually know what happened? If not how do you go about with such name calling. And then give a running commentary on how other's should not call you out on anything based on their understanding.
indranilroy wrote:The state today is that we don't have HTT-35. Forget it we don't have any basic trainer. How is the IAF to train it's pilots?
indranilroy wrote:And oh! You point out HAL's position on HTT-40 now. HAL had made very lofty claims of flying the first prototype by the time the first PC-7 flies in. It had armtwisted DAC to mandate that IAF can't exercise the extra options unless this happens. Time has run out on that claim too.
indranilroy wrote:So please stop giving this lecture on how to see things objectively. Your stand on every malice lies within IAF/MoD speaks volumes about your objectivity.
Sagar G wrote:indranilroy wrote:I don't know what happened to HTT-35. Do you? You just have a theory that IAF/MoD killed it. Do you actually know what happened? If not how do you go about with such name calling. And then give a running commentary on how other's should not call you out on anything based on their understanding.
Given the behaviour of IAF regarding HTT-40 one can get a clue enough as to who might have come in the way of HTT-35. You have also not given any kind of evidence to show whether my theory is way off the mark and what "name calling" are you talking about I haven't done anything like that but only kept my view forward given the publicly available information.
Sagar G wrote:What was IAF doing all these years ??? Isn't it the IAF's job to plan about future acquisitions instead of going for knee jerk ones' time after time ??? What after Pilatus then ???
Sagar G wrote:Now show it to me that how did HAL "armtwist" DAC.
Sagar G wrote:
You keep unnecessarily extrapolating from posts which you don't completely understand.
arijitkm wrote:HTT-40 headed for disaster as development costs soar
Lalmohan wrote:for that to happen HAL has to massively improve its production engineering capability
production line, supply chain mgmt, supplier management, production machinery, factory management... etc., etc., etc. - improving quality and productivity remain the main stumbling blocks
nik wrote:HAL can make DHRUV which is by far more complex than a basic trainer. And the numbers in service tell the full story about their supply chain, machinery and all other capability been questioned.
Seeing is believing and better than talk for sure!
indranilroy wrote:Public domain information: HAL had a mockup of HTT-35 at Aero India. The ball was dropped in both cases. Anything else is only your speculation.
indranilroy wrote:When it comes to the trainers, I feel DRDO/HAL/ADA slept over a sure-shot and critical requirement. I hate to say this, and may be it is my young blood, but I feel there is huge lethargy in these PSUs. I know building a military trainer is not that easy, but then ... A basic trainer ... I was told there was a problem of fuel cutoff ... a professional entity like HAL building what not is telling this for one decade!!!
indranilroy wrote:By the way I bow to the your higher level of understanding.
indranilroy wrote:By the way, if you can please counter this argument. HAL also had a mockup of CAT. CAT was supposed to be a development of IJT. Today IJT is not ready. If IAF went with CAT, today it would not have a basic, intermediate or advanced trainer.
indranilroy wrote:HAL had promised that they would fix the problem of the fuel line on the HPT-32. They then said that they would fit a parachute to the plane. But it did neither. With the frequent crashes CAG had reported that the plane should be retired. This led to the IAF grounding the plane in 2009. At that point the yellow stuff hit the fan.
The IAF's decision, which is based on the recommendations made by a committee headed by Air Vice Marshal Pradeep Singh,
indranilroy wrote:There are 3 players: HAL, IAF and DAC. DAC is the authorizing body for acquisition.
Case 1: IAF wanted the plane. They were extra lenient on their timelines to accomodate HTT-40.
Case 2: IAF did not want the plane. Then why would DAC want an expensive plane of no strategic value?
indranilroy wrote:Your idea that IAF/MoD is the only bodies standing between indigenization of aviation hardware is certainly outside my understanding.
ranji wrote:IJT delay includes foreign vendor - Al-55I. With Snecma, HAL flew IJT in record time. IJT was touted as the result of infrastructure built up for LCA.
The point is whether HAL has state of the art production engineering or not. They can build a Tejas or Dhruv, but can they do it in large numbers and at high quality levels. Looking at the numbers rolling off the assembly line, one doesn't get this feeling.
Most likely regarding production capabilities and production engineering, HAL is not as state of the art as the industry leaders. And that would be very understandable given the huge head start the competition has. Our point is that greater emphasis can be put in this area to help bridge the gap.
indranilroy wrote:So, prima-facie I support this project. Besides, it will be easier for the industry to start producing stuff for the BTT, before they graduate to LCA/AMCA etc.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests