Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby rohitvats » 28 May 2013 22:27

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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 28 May 2013 22:31

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?


What takleef ??? I am here to support you only please continue.......

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby rohitvats » 28 May 2013 22:34

Sagar G wrote:What takleef ??? I am here to support you only please continue.......


Thank for the support...will be there standing right next to you.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 28 May 2013 22:36

rohitvats wrote:
Sagar G wrote:What takleef ??? I am here to support you only please continue.......


Thank for the support...will be there standing right next to you.


Me too.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 28 May 2013 22:47

Sagar G wrote:
NRao wrote:Someone within India is against this machine.


Yeah and it's named IAF under the tremendous guidance of MoD.

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!

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby abhik » 28 May 2013 22:53

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?

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?
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?

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.
So HAL should be expected to churn out latest generation of helicopters and aircraft without an experience of building basic trainers?

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.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 28 May 2013 23:03

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!


Why do you always keep up extrapolating something from my post which I haven't said at all ???? :-?

To refresh your memory read this again

Don't Want Or Need HAL's HTT-40 Trainer: IAF Chief

"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."


Now tell me did I say any lie or something ??? It's the IAF chief himself making IAF's intentions clear about HTT-40.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 28 May 2013 23:09

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.

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. The only thing that I am against is that govt. till yesterday was not providing a level playing field to the private sector. I hope it changes with the HS-748 replacement offer.
2. 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.
3. 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.

gnair
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 19 Aug 2008 03:15

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby gnair » 28 May 2013 23:13

HTT- 40 Better late than never. And the project should continue for the following reasons:

1) Potential Requirement:

The requirement is for a platform that goes beyond a basic trainer requirement, that falls in this specific size, weight and class (i.e.. PC-7) with the following additional features: STOL capability, rugged, compatible to austere operations with minimal ground support equipment, low stall speed, high ceiling height capability of 25,000 ft, pressurized and weaponization at your discretion.

2) legality Hurdles:

As much as practical, any equipment procurred from outside has to by-pass ITAR (International Trafficking in Arms Regulations) or get an exemption waiver from origin. The Swiss and a lot of Europe for that matter abide by this stringently. So a PC-7 will have a rough ride, if ever there was a decision or necessity to weaponize it for combat ops.even in an emergency.

3) Historicals:

Continue with the HPT-32 legacy. It's unfortunate the HPT-32 took lives due to fuel system issues, towards the end of its airframe life. But it was overall a good effort by HAL. The cost of not continuing with this program as an HPT follow-on program will lead to a scenario similar in pattern to the HDW U-209 submarine project, where all skills and expertise were completely lost.

4) Feasibility:

Expand the marketability/utility of the platform to beyond the IAF. Count the BSF in - get rid of the camel cavalry in the Thar, CRPF- Air Wing, Armed Coastal Security/ Coast Guard, future homeland security applications, COIN Ops - give the Maoists and the rag-tags sustained harassment support at an affordable cost, UAV chaser/shooter, armed surveillance on the China border- the Ladakh Scouts best friend without going overboard with fighters. Basically 'a land anywhere, fight/support anytime in quick time' at very minimal cost of operation per block hour, in addition to basic trainer requirements. Thinking outside of the box will expand it's market potential manifold, just within the country. Exports and foreign policy leveraging can be after thoughts.

5) Conclusion:

HAL, you folks are on track. Late, but never the less on track. Someday in the future, when all the PC-7's run out of airframe life (approx.7,000 hrs) and mind you they run out fast, in a aggressive training syllabus where the intent is to increase squadron strength, and a replacement effort is required for more PC-7's; rather than getting back to Pilatus for more or getting a production license and paying exorbitant IPR fees for local assembly, you'd be sitting on a mature, proven, tried and tested airframe at an affordable cost all paid in Rupees rather than shipping out precious Euros from our reserve. A PT-6 engine per airframe would be all that's required to be imported. Every other system could be integrated from industry within the country, further promoting DPP-2013 and supporting the SME parts and supplier segment. So congratulations and Good Luck to HAL. Call it a new beginning.

Addendum:

There's an increasing perspective on the utilization of weaponized, single engine turbo-props, where a man-in-the-loop situation is warranted in certain situations, to neutralize drones and slow moving targets, that high performance fighters cannot handle efficiently. Mobile radar sites, MLRS locations and other quick targets of opportunity are suitable for this category of aircraft within a 100 NM radius. Robotics have not reached the level of maturity yet, for certain roles such as intercepts but will begin to change in the next decade or so.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Nikhil T » 28 May 2013 23:26

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.


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.

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? Your insinuation that HTT-40 and LOH are "screw driver" imports or "low risk" is painfully funny.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby abhik » 29 May 2013 00:23

indranilroy wrote:Sorry boss, but this is an uneducated post.
1. HAL is a publicly listed company.
Its not, it is 100% owned by the Government, albeit there have been some moves recently to divest 10%.
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.

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.
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.
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.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 29 May 2013 01:08

Sagar G wrote:Why do you always keep up extrapolating something from my post which I haven't said at all ???? :-?

May be you did not mean it, but that is how it sounds.
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.

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. And he doesn't have the have the luxury of time. He has pilot trainees on the ground.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 29 May 2013 01:35

abhik wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Sorry boss, but this is an uneducated post.
1. HAL is a publicly listed company.
Its not, it is 100% owned by the Government, albeit there have been some moves recently to divest 10%.

I stand corrected. Actually I knew this. I don't know what I was thinking.
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.

According to me what you are suggesting is an unsustainable model. With a bloated subsidy bill, how long will the govt. keep balancing HAL's balance book? Philosophy aside, HAL is not failing to be pro-active in indigenization. Many of its departments seem to be plagued with inefficiencies. Also we here seem to suggest that HAL can do this and do that? Where does it get the men to do that?

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.

You are wrong on this count. NMRH was actually started based on Navy's requirements because it was realized that Dhruv will not have enough payload to fulfill many of IN's requirements. However the IAF and the IA are the prominent buyers. Also it seems like IA and IAF having similar requirements did make some compromises arrived at a specifications which would suffice their requirements. Unfortunately, the Navy's requirement are drastically different. So the question is should HAL just satisfy the largest customer and leave the Navy in a lurch, who actually initiated the program? Or should 2 helis be developed? These are not easy questions to answer.

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.

"Mandate" was not the right word to use. It was a DRDO project all the while, born in NAL and nurtured at ADE.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby abhik » 29 May 2013 01:52

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.

You have mis-understood me. I am not saying that HAL should specifically do X, Y or Z. I'm just pointing out a few of the many possible alternatives instead of spending its scarce resources on duplicating something that has already been contracted to a foreign vendor.As in the case of the Light helicoper and trainer.
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.

I quite doubt that they would have gone ahead if they were not fairly confident about recovering the full development cost from the government even if they end up selling only a handful.
Your insinuation that HTT-40 and LOH are "screw driver" imports or "low risk" is painfully funny.

Nowhere have I insiunated that they are screw driver imports.
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?
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.

raj-ji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 25 Oct 2010 19:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby raj-ji » 29 May 2013 03:13

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).


Not sure if the strategic direction of HAL is properly aligned with the realities of modern day India. The days when we couldn't get the latest tech don't exist anymore. And unlikely to return.

HAL is trying to be a global player in the industry. Problem with that is that they are far behind the learning curve compared to US, Russia, Europeans. It will take a lot, a lot to catch up to these players.
I can't understand why HAL is trying to reinvent the wheel with the products it's creating.

Instead of being pulled in 10 different directions trying to do everything, possibly focusing on one area would be a better use of their efforts.

Medium and large fighters are covered with the Rafale and SU30MKI. They can go down that path once they are successfully dealt with the Tejas.

They should go all in for the Tejas and Dhruv and hold everything else.

The export potential for these two products is tremendous and will bring about money and a name for HAL.

But exports are a dream at the moment. Rather than focusing on 10 different projects. If HAL focused on building the Tejas in high numbers and focusing their efforts on quality, that would be a better use of their time. Integrate as much foreign components as needed. If domestic components are falling short, and gradually replace the foreign parts.

Every one talks about the IAF and their reluctance. If the Tejas is built in numbers and available to them, I would love to see how the IAF can say no to them.

The Tejas should be world class and it will be. But for now all it has to be is better than the MIG-21. The IAF, GOI and HAL don't seen to realize that.

We unlike the Pandas can license build some of the best technology in the world. Why aren't we. License build it in high numbers and in high quality and that will be a very impressive feat in its self.

Just an opinion. Can you imagine the best Russian, European and Isreali technology built to very high standards and in high volumes. And then imagine all that being integrated into one aircraft like the Tejas.

IMO, selecting and putting together the best on offer will result in an aircraft that's not only unique but world class. That is no easy feat, but that would work faster than the current approach.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 29 May 2013 05:34

I feel that India needs to change the engine oil while the car is in motion. There is a risk to it, but, I feel India is mature enough to take on the task. That there are a few things that are missing - major things: R&D (that is the biggest one IMHO and very, very difficult to catch up with) and testing/certification.

On importing, there are reasons to import, but, they cannot remain for much longer, which is why India needs to design/build in India. And to that end the Services need to support Indian - I do not think the Services really have too much choice. They are one of the world's largest and will need a huge amount of whatever they want. Buying from abroad will not suffice moving forward.

Also, there is bound to be a very fine line between conception and delivery. No two ways about it.

All this is not meant for the faint of hearts. Too many moving parts. But, it can be done - that is the key IMHO.

Oh, one more thing: I think that the record of the past will not hold. Just my feel.

member_26965
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_26965 » 29 May 2013 09:43

The trainer was inducted back in 1984. Since then there was no follow on project for a next generation basic trainer. NAL Hansa should have been possibly used till HTT-40 came online. HTT-40 should be made. IAF can be still asked to use Hansa 4.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_26622 » 29 May 2013 10:12

I am having a hard time imagining a HMT watch will be twice as costly as a Swiss watch of same category. Also, is IAF an airline that buys trainers which cannot be armed even for training? This looks and feels wrong.

A weaponised HTT-40 has many benefits for countering a non-professional force, main been low operating costs and likely lower pilot skills. CRPF, Afghan forces likes and lot of third tier nation air forces would like to have their hands on this machine. Check wiki page on Pilatus PC-7 operators

IAF will have a tough time steering away from foreign purchases, mainly because of high unit cost per flying piece of equipment. How can one stop a foreign dealer promising 20% commission. It's too sweet of a deal for anyone in the establishment to say no too? The VIP helicopter scandal is an indicator of what measly tender amount it takes to make an IAF chief (Tyagi) bend the rule book. Now consider the foreign shopping spree IAF has been up to under it's New Chief Browne.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Lalmohan » 29 May 2013 12:11

nik - swatch is capable of producing watches that cost a few cents. a similar watch made in india may cost significantly more.
why?
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

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Kersi D » 29 May 2013 12:33

Is the IAF still using P 19 radars ?

YES

I say them last week at an civil / military airport. I saw two of them fairly close to each other.

And near them was a ubiquitous SA 3 battery with the ‘Low Blow’ radar.

member_26965
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_26965 » 29 May 2013 18:01

Swatch is Made in China. Swiss Watches are not and are costly.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Lalmohan » 29 May 2013 18:18

swatch was made in switzerland in a swiss factory at very low marginal cost of production
they may be made in china too

member_26965
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_26965 » 29 May 2013 18:27

It is Second Watch 'swatch'. It is claimed to be made in Switzerland. My bad. I may not be made in China.

Swatch was to gain the lower end of market lost to Japanese.

So, why HTT-40 cannot be made to gain from Swiss?

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Lalmohan » 29 May 2013 19:11

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

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 29 May 2013 19:50

indranilroy wrote:May be you did not mean it, but that is how it sounds.


No it doesn't, instead of getting overtly emotional about criticism regarding the efforts of IAF towards indigenization you should try and see things the way they stand. Even if you have doubts about anybody's intention regarding a said post then you should ask politely to clear the air instead of jumping the gun extrapolating and then accusing people of saying things which they never intended to say in the first place.

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.


Many Indians also believe that we don't stand a chance against China so shall we start disbanding our armed forces because a lot of people believe that ??? So let's not get into this "believe" business and instead start placing trust when someone is putting his head on the line. HAL has very clearly said the terms on which it wants it to be given a chance to deliver HTT-40. Now it would be only fair to give HAL the chance it asks for, it's not like that HAL is asking whether it delivers or not it must be allowed to sell it's own BTT to IAF. Further India's new defence policy states that indigenization is the priority and import only when the said system cannot be made indigenously.

indranilroy wrote:And he doesn't have the have the luxury of time. He has pilot trainees on the ground.


He is certainly not in some unique condition as if he is the first IAF chief to face this situation. IAF knew very well that it would require a new BTT sometime down the line. What did it do to create one indigenously ??? Why didn't IAF work with HAL and come up with a new one so that it wouldn't get in such a desperate situation as it is now ??? What happened to HTT-35 ???

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 29 May 2013 21:22

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.

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?

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.

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.

raj-ji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 25 Oct 2010 19:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby raj-ji » 29 May 2013 22:10

Lalmohan wrote:nik - swatch is capable of producing watches that cost a few cents. a similar watch made in india may cost significantly more.
why?
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


^^^
+1

Excellent points. Especially regarding production engineering and the science project approach.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3287
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Kakkaji » 29 May 2013 22:18

IMHO let HAL deliver the IJT first, and get it in service with the IAF. Only then will the IAF consider another trainer from them.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 29 May 2013 22:59

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.

You keep unnecessarily extrapolating from posts which you don't completely understand.

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?


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 ???

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.


Now show it to me that how did HAL "armtwist" DAC.

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.


Again extrapolating rubbish.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 30 May 2013 00:50

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.


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. By the way I bow to the your higher level of understanding.

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.

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 ???

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.

Sagar G wrote:Now show it to me that how did HAL "armtwist" DAC.

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?

Sagar G wrote:
You keep unnecessarily extrapolating from posts which you don't completely understand.

Your idea that IAF/MoD is the only bodies standing between indigenization of aviation hardware is certainly outside my understanding.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 30 May 2013 01:07


This is either a prejudiced or a planted report.

Even if HAL imported all the parts and assembled them, it would be as expensive as a PC-7. It will lose out on development costs but save in labour costs. The development costs of a Basic trainer will not be very high as long as they keep the plane simple and they are building upon an established knowledge base.

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. So I am hoping that HAL surprises everybody and delivers on schedule this time.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_26622 » 30 May 2013 02:19

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


Aircraft manufacturing is not mass manufacturing...more like batch manufacturing. All your points actually support HAL because they have been making as per drawing for years...Mig-21, Jaguar, SU 30 MKI....HAL has been building trainers for decades. They know how to do it. What HAL lacks is design and development experience.

It's a chicken or egg situation here. You do not want HAL to do it because it presumably lacks 'xyz' skillset but it needs to do it to build 'xyz' skillset in the first place!

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_26622 » 30 May 2013 02:24

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!

raj-ji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 25 Oct 2010 19:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby raj-ji » 30 May 2013 04:06

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!


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.

member_26965
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_26965 » 30 May 2013 07:36

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.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 30 May 2013 21:22

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.


The ball was dropped by somebody and in a previous iteration of a similar discussion you had blamed DRDO/HAL/ADA for the same, let me help you remember it.

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!!!


So it seems that even after his majesty's lectures about "One should not speculate" his majesty himself indulges in it quite frankly.

indranilroy wrote:By the way I bow to the your higher level of understanding.


By the way I bow down to your level of hypocrisy.

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.


The problems with IJT has been discussed before and some aero part from mother Russia has a pretty big hand to play in it, if IAF has so much problem with it then IAF must cancel it now why isn't it doing so ???

If you can prove the bolded part with official documents which says so then please go ahead other wise don't "speculate".

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.


It's amazing to see a guy who seems to get angry when others present a different view and lists them as "speculation" but himself indulges in the same neck deep.

Contract Signed For IAF HPT-32 Parachute Recovery System, First Mil Deal For US Firm

IAF gives nod for HPT-32 revival

The IAF's decision, which is based on the recommendations made by a committee headed by Air Vice Marshal Pradeep Singh,


Now why didn't then IAF go with new BTT as was being proposed by HAL ???

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?


See indranil putting "speculations" in point format doesn't make them any better. Now do you have documentary evidence to prove that HAL had "armtwisted" DAC (as you said before)??? If not then why are you "speculating" ??? You are getting very angry on me for putting my view and branding them as "speculations" but all I see is that you are also indulging in the same thing only both in the past and present as well, why so ??? Is "speculation" the forte of a select few here ???

indranilroy wrote:Your idea that IAF/MoD is the only bodies standing between indigenization of aviation hardware is certainly outside my understanding.


Another "speculation" regarding my view among the copious amounts of "speculation" from your side. Sigh !!!!!!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 30 May 2013 21:34

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.


While that is true, IIRC, the current problem with the IJT is related to the spin recovery parachute - my recollection is that they had not designed the AC for the chute 9or something like that). They have overcome the engine related problems - which put them back a year or so.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_26622 » 30 May 2013 22:21

raj-ji wrote:
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.


Dhruv has been rolling off at 25 units per year (source http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/03/ ... eater.html) and how difficult it would to replicate a line and double this? I have personally seen downright antique M&M shop floors turned in to state of art facilities within couple of years. The key is knowledge base which cannot be imported, equipment can be done easily.

Don't be in awe with nice pictures of shiny floors and slick equipment of supposedly industry leaders. The basics are the same. We just need to do a better jon at PR like the hollow Pakis do.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Lalmohan » 31 May 2013 01:46

no sir, the basics are not the same
production engineering is a very complex art and science

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby abhik » 31 May 2013 08:30

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.

So the industry will be ready to manufacture the LCA only after 10 years or so that they will take to start producing for the BTT?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests