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.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby jamwal » 02 Aug 2013 01:59

The way things are going, bank accounts, phones and email of all the staff chiefs and senior officers including their 'trustworthy' relatives involved in procurement should be kept under surveillance, even after they retire. Some of the things these guys do can be attributed to ignorance, petty ego issues, technical shortcomings etc, but lately it is either plain corruption or active sabotage. They don't even try to hide it anymore.

PS: To think of it, technical ignorance shouldn't be an excuse. These guys are paid and trained to defend lives of their subordinates and civilians.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby agupta » 02 Aug 2013 02:13

NRao wrote:tsarkar,

Thanks.

Just proves that the entire system was goofed up. IF they ALL could live with what seems to be a flawed design - for decades, then the entire system has to do with the problem.



C'mon NRao...That's like saying the poor kids who ate the poisoned meals were also responsible since "they ALL lived with a flawed system for months" and the entire system has to take responsibility for the problem !!!

Why is it anyone BUT HAL's responsibility to fix the HPT_32 that they've been promising to do for n+1 years while pilots keep dying ? What's the whole point of Roles and Responsibilities ? If its IAF"s responsibility, maybe we need to adopt the Pakistani model and make HAL directly or indirectly under their control, right ?

You want an example of where DPSU stuff was "nurtured", and pilot-killers were put up WITHIN the nominal operating boundaries of the aircraft, look no further than the HPT-32. That's how this is different from the Mig-21; everyone and his uncle knows the IAF does more with the Mig-21 than was ever expected of it - and "lives" with the consequences of stretching. You and I could argue that is also cavalier, but.... then thats why the LCA was born.
---------------

Folks - Everyone pick's their battles and political capital to spend... when the level of incompetence and lack of accountability is so high that an org. cannot produce nor fix the mistakes on a basic trainer yet wants to try a very ambitious V2.0 while telling the users to "sorry, we can't seem to or will not fix V1.0 - just wait for V2.0", what do you expect ?

The DPSUs have successfully stymied any serious Private industry attempt to get into such lower-end markets... do you guys really think there is no corruption here ? When Class 4 jobs are routinely auctioned for 5-10 lakhs (this was more than a decade ago!), you don't think there's a lot of money flowing to keep the status quo going... remember "Mandatory Overtime" because of course the regular shift is for chai pani and for the engg staff for magazine reading clubs ??? Even Marx would roll over in shame !

Suddenly Ajai Shukla - who until yesterday was the devil incarnate - is a hero because he plugs into the thoughtless group-think rather than looking at the facts.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby agupta » 02 Aug 2013 02:21

tsarkar wrote:Lets take a factual view of the entire trainer saga. Lets start with the HPT-32 Deepak. Here is a neutral CAG report (neither IAF nor HAL)


What HAL needs to do is build credibility with its users, by getting IJT on track, instead of emulating Vehicle Factory Jabalpur.

VFJ manufactures Stallion trucks from kits supplied by Ashok Leyland. It’s a bigger scam than BEML Tatra. There was a plan for VFJ to manufacture BMP-2, instead of Stallions that could be better built by Ashok Leyland, but I don’t think that ever took off.



Ahh... VFJ - that bastion of excellence :) you bring back memories, Sarkarji!

VFJ, OFB-Kanpur, HAL-Aircraft Complex (or am I dating myself?); BEML; BDL....
Chalta-hai-ka-naam-gaadi....

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby agupta » 02 Aug 2013 02:32

NRao wrote:The lives (of anyone for that matter) has to be a concern for everyone. So, that should not be an issue, but is one because all three entities did not play their roles over the last 60 years.


As far as the HTT-40 - I suggest HAl make a very basic trainer, not one that can be a light this and light that. The bells and whistles can come in the next version.


Exactly - they had that chance with the HPT-32 and they blew it. Then they killed a large number of pilots by not fixing it quicky and pissed off the IAF. Thank god a few Chiefs came by who had the political balls to meet this insidious threat head on... y'all get outraged at one Pilot Officer tortured by the Pakis... ever heard of ONE Chief Engineer or GM or MD held responsible at HAL for putting out a turd like this - and most importantly, NOT FIXING it? In the Soviet Union, the Chief Designer would either be shot or sent off to a "re-education camp" for doing something like this. Where's the outrage ?

HAL had every opportunity to do a HPT-32 Mk.2 if the fixes demanded it but that would be too unsexy and not enough people could make money off of it. 1000s of crores sanctioned, all new systems, all new workforce deployment...so the only thing they would do would be a super-duper HTT-40; we are too hi-funda for doing simple evolutionary planes onlee...

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby maitya » 02 Aug 2013 08:58

Sagar G wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:what we are witnessing is the gap that HAL has for production engineering - once again. the IAF knows this, and also knows that this gap means that production quality is also suspect. a lower risk option for them is to go for the established product.


Lets consider that your logic is correct, if so then why did IAF created a QR which asked for a domestic agency to create the best available BT in the international market ??? Did the IAF purposefully wanted HAL to fail ??? To get to the established product IAF diluted the PSQR, even diluting essential parameter why was that done ??? If IAF is happy with the present BTT it brought from the market then why did it ask for the moon from HAL ???


agupta wrote:Geez, what's so hard about this... because they were for different points in time.

Sorry not so fast pls ... it's hard for few of us actaully!!

PSQR = Future, on the assumption that the NOW= HPT 32 fixed (finally - after n+1 years of chalta hai)

That assumption is yours ... not ours. PSQR is list a specification for a BT to produced in certain time-frame actaully. It has nothing to do HPT-32 issue fixing.
Counter argumet could be, if IAF was serious about fixing HPT-32 issues, why generate a PSQR with all bells and whistles slapped on a BT and not generate a ASQR equiavlent of specification list?
Scared was it, the brown-sahibs of IAF, that if ASQR-equivalent specification list be given to HAL, they would actually be successful in meeting those and thus prevent these uber-brown-sahibs to tom-tom about the foreign-made stickers of these airplanes.

ASQR = NOW ! fully mature ; lower, different requirements

What exactly is this dilution of requirement? Not specifying for a zero-zero ejection seat? Did you even care to look up how many pilot lives of the accidental post-spin-stall accidents in HPT-32 etc could have been saved with inclusion of this particular requirement?

HAL came with this dilution is it?

If these uber-brown-sahibs are ready to live with these dilution, why shouldn't it be cosher to question their culpability in the lives of pilots that were lost becuase of HPT-32 accidents over the years?
Or is it, patriotism is reserved for a select few, who wear them as arm and shoulder lapels?

One can only call the latter "diluted" in the academic world where the time element is irrelevant. In the real world, time matters.

Yes, in so-called-real-world-of-yours along-with "Time" a bit of "Forward-Thinking" also matters - in that real-world what also matters something called prevention-of-narrow-mindedness. Is it too much to ask from these brown-sahibs?

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Lalmohan » 02 Aug 2013 12:23

what is the lightest 0-0 ejection seat? can it fit an ab-initio trainer?

chiragAS
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 10:09
Location: INDIA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby chiragAS » 02 Aug 2013 12:31

agupta wrote:Exactly - they had that chance with the HPT-32 and they blew it. Then they killed a large number of pilots by not fixing it quicky and pissed off the IAF. Thank god a few Chiefs came by who had the political balls to meet this insidious threat head on... y'all get outraged at one Pilot Officer tortured by the Pakis... ever heard of ONE Chief Engineer or GM or MD held responsible at HAL for putting out a turd like this - and most importantly, NOT FIXING it? In the Soviet Union, the Chief Designer would either be shot or sent off to a "re-education camp" for doing something like this. Where's the outrage ?

HAL had every opportunity to do a HPT-32 Mk.2 if the fixes demanded it but that would be too unsexy and not enough people could make money off of it. 1000s of crores sanctioned, all new systems, all new workforce deployment...so the only thing they would do would be a super-duper HTT-40; we are too hi-funda for doing simple evolutionary planes onlee...


^+1

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Austin » 02 Aug 2013 13:07

Lalmohan wrote:what is the lightest 0-0 ejection seat? can it fit an ab-initio trainer?


Martin Baker seats are the lightest in the category.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sanku » 02 Aug 2013 14:12

tsarkar wrote:Lets take a factual view of the entire trainer saga. Lets start with the HPT-32 Deepak. Here is a neutral CAG report (neither IAF nor HAL)


Pooh If only IAF had ordered 1500 Deepak's in 1945, they would have been delivered by 1960 and changed the face of 62 war.

Its all IAFs fault.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Philip » 02 Aug 2013 18:39

From the above posts,two facts stand out.Lack of advance planning for a future crisis and indecision at the political/babu level.It is not as if the IAF hadn't wanted a desi product.The performance of the HTT-32 would give anyone a nightmare when with that inglorious achievement, HAL tries to shove down an unwilling IAF's throat the HTT-40 paper-plane. Just as inordinate delays with the LCA led it to develop the Bison which is still expected to do duty until 2020!

Our ingenuity ,and here I'm not being sarcastic,at keeping aging beauties still looking good is unmatched worldwide. Apart from the MIG-21,50 yrs. on,both the Vikrant earlier and the Viraat have outlived their intended life expectancy by at least two decades+.The Kirans too have been kept going for aeons and in the civil arena,the indefatigable Amby-just voted the world's best taxi on Top Gear and the equally venerable and celebrated Royal Enfield Bullet have done the country proud. The manner in which we tweaked the Gnat into an even better Ajeet and the basic Leander design into the Godavari class also deserves praise.

Nevertheless,all good life extensions have to come to an end and hopefully not ending in another pilot's life. The services,especially the IAF and IN have been crying out for ages especially for new aircraft,trainers and fighters to halt dwindling numbers and the IN subs.Even here orders for frigates (Talwars) had to be made because MDL has delayed on delivery ,and cannot even take on new orders .Burma has asked us for patrol craft,etc.,where are we going to build them? If we can't,they will turn to China! There seems to be rusted minds in the MOD which has slowed down decision-making into an art,whereby a babu simply sits,or rather sleeps in his seat for his entire career,"passing the parcel",avoiding decision-making,yet collecting fat salaries and even fatter "perks"!
Defence and security being given such a low level of priority by our leadership has perpetuated this chronic disease,which like a diabetic sore never heals.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2327
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Vivek K » 02 Aug 2013 18:51

Posts like Sankus are a good pointer to the current state of affairs of India. Look at the massive devaluation of the rupee and the effect that is having on the economy. It must be accepted that not everything produced locally is good. The Swiss aircraft probably looked good after the miserable performance of the Deepak. Therefore for all my misgivings about the treatment of local products, the Chief is not going to be heckled by me. What rankles folks here is the lack of orders for IAs mainstay tank beater - the Arjun and the small order for the LCA Mk-1.

It behooves us to be better citizens than Sankus post. We must not be apologetics for the armed forces or DRDO/HAL. Both entities must work hard in the national interest. The Navy has shown what can be done with locally produced weapons.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Lalmohan » 02 Aug 2013 19:01

the forces need to adopt a particular type of product with teh sole objective of achieving self reliance - and then nurture it and its producer for 30 years till it reaches maturity (by which time, the mk1 will have evolved to mk42) and then there will be home grown capability. during this time, imports for that class of product will reduce from 100% to 0%

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2327
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Vivek K » 02 Aug 2013 20:06

well .... this has already been answered by several of IAFs own test pilots and by Capt Moolgaonkar of the IN. IIRC they said it was better than the M2K. Remember the spec requirement by IAF was a point defence fighter - the product here is a multi role aircraft capable of different missions. The requirement was to replace the Mig-21 only. In 10 years of flying not one LCA has been lost while maybe a 100 odd Mig-21s may have crashed some killing their pilots.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2013 20:19

IF all three: MoD, the IAF and the Labs, work together, then it is possible, Even now.

It is more possible today than a few years ago, certainly more than a few decades ago.

If only they can replace "possible".

Having said all that India, IMHO, will do better here on out. I just do not think India has an alternative.

I feel that the -40 is coming - a gut feel. And, that is a good thing for everyone. Just hope HAL does not celebrate - they have a ton of work to do.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Lalmohan » 02 Aug 2013 21:32

why do you think foreign vendors don't mind 'giving us TOT'? - answer, they don't worry about us being able to use it properly
why do you think the rafale deal is stalled? answer - because we are forcing the vendor to be accountable for OUR lack of production engineering capability

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7726
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby nachiket » 02 Aug 2013 23:38

Vivek K wrote:. Therefore for all my misgivings about the treatment of local products, the Chief is not going to be heckled by me. What rankles folks here is the lack of orders for IAs mainstay tank beater - the Arjun and the small order for the LCA Mk-1.

I hate it when people keep comparing the Arjun and LCA sagas. They are not comparable. The Arjun's development (to the original GSQR) is complete and has been for some time. And the tank as it stands has proved itself superior to the ones the IA is still buying from outside. Hence the IA deserved all the brickbats it got for treating the Arjun the way they did.

The LCA is a different kettle of fish. Its development is not complete. Even after IOC-2 it won't be able to perform all the tasks that a Mig-21 Bison can. No BVR missile has been integrated yet. We'll have to wait for FOC to get that. Of course, it is still a much superior fighter on the whole, but not even HAL claims that it is ready for squadron service. Important steps like wake penetration tests, and high AoA tests with the still invisible LSP-6 are yet to be completed. We can't blame the IAF for these delays. And yet they have already committed to 40 Mk1s, which is not a small amount in aircraft terms. That's two whole squadrons with reserves.

It behooves us to be better citizens than Sankus post. We must not be apologetics for the armed forces or DRDO/HAL. Both entities must work hard in the national interest. The Navy has shown what can be done with locally produced weapons.

People here have pointed out time and again that the IN is a good systems integrator. Most of the radars, powerplants and weapon systems on IN ships are foreign made. As for the ships themselves, you have to understand that India had a civilian ship-building industry (albeit much smaller than other countries like S. Korea or China) before we set off to build frigates and destroyers. We weren't starting from scratch, like in the case of the LCA (the HF-24 notwithstanding).

Of course integrating all the diverse systems into domestically produced hulls to make a good warship is difficult work and the IN must be commended for managing that. But their case is not exactly similar to the IAF.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 03 Aug 2013 01:36

agupta wrote:Geez, what's so hard about this... because they were for different points in time. :rotfl:


As if the "different points in time" had decades within them. Please spend some time thinking before you post.

agupta wrote:PSQR = Future, on the assumption that the NOW= HPT 32 fixed (finally - after n+1 years of chalta hai)

ASQR = NOW ! fully mature ; lower, different requirements

One can only call the latter "diluted" in the academic world where the time element is irrelevant. In the real world, time matters.


Bringing unnecessary philosophy in your posts doesn't necessarily make them good one.Ignoring your dumb definitions of PSQR and ASQR I would like to point out that the IAF wasn't forced to sit on there ass and watch trainee pilots take unnecessary risks, there were two attempts by HAL for a new trainer HTT-34 (HAL connect issue 72 pg.11, there is a pic of it in flight) and HTT-35 (there is a pic available showing a full scale mockup and secretary defence production and supplies of that time sitting in the cockpit of the mockup). HAL has always shown the chalta hain attitude since it has never been put to task but what about IAF ?? Does the same disease infect it as well that all these years it kept silent and didn't goad HAL to come up with a better and safer design. The IAF had all the powers to ask HAL to come up with a better design but it didn't till the very end and even there gave a stringent QR but as soon as the government gave the go ahead for foreign purchase the QR became fluid about which now we are being told that it was done to get "more vendors". In all this mess please point out to me where is the eagerness of the IAF for indigenization ???

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 03 Aug 2013 02:14

About HPT-32 IIRC the engine OEM had refused to help us out to sort out the issue and if HPT-32 was to be made glide worthy then I guess the structural changes required would have meant a new aircraft altogether, from the links posted previously we also come to know that

The Indian Air Force, which lacks a basic aircraft trainer to train its flying cadets, has given clearance for a parachute recovery system (PRS) to be fitted on the Hindustan Piston Trainer-32 (HPT-32). The PRS, it is hoped, will improve the confidence of HPT-32 pilots, enhance survivability during an emergency in the air and prevent the trainer from dropping out of the sky like a stone.

The IAF's decision, which is based on the recommendations made by a committee headed by Air Vice Marshal Pradeep Singh, will hopefully revive the HPT-32, a Hindustan Aeronautics Limited-designed and manufactured primary trainer that became operational with the defence forces in 1984, but was grounded last July after a fatality near Hyderabad that killed two senior flight instructors.


And why was the PRS to be used ??? Because,

The IAF, which has already sent out a request for proposal looking to acquire a new trainer aircraft, will like to utilise the PRS-fitted HPT-32 as a stopgap until the new trainer arrives.


The article is dated May 16, 2010 and the article is titled IAF gives nod for HPT-32 revival. So the IAF was ready for this "fix" while it sent out the RFP for foreign built trainers. I guess only God and IAF knows what happened to this fix which was accepted by IAF itself.

It also remains a mystery that why did IAF wait until 2009 to produce a PSQR when it fully knew about the design flaws of HPT-32 for a long time and where did HTT-34 and HTT-35 vanish into ??? What was IAF busy doing all these years and why didn't it show any interest in the follow up trainer projects ??? Had IAF invested it's time in building a working relationship with HAL instead of castigating it at every nook and corner possible maybe the present air chief wouldn't have to resort to fudging figures so as to kill a domestic project which will ultimately benefit the country which the IAF serves.

If for a single bad project some members are ready to cast aside HAL for eternity then by the same logic we are wasting billions of rupees in our eastern sector since one has to take a "long hard look" at the 1962 debacle onlee.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8172
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 03 Aug 2013 03:19

Boss,

1. THERE IS NO FAULT WITH HAL for not being able stand by its commitment to fix the fuel supply problem on a docile trainer for over a decade.
2. BUT IT IS DEFINITELY A FAULT OF IAF that it went back on its word of allowing a stop gap solution of fixing parachutes to the trainer so that trainees can level of the plane and then jump out of it before the plane hit the ground.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Katare » 03 Aug 2013 03:31

Victor the attitude that you and armed forces have, although justified in itself, about domestic development is the single most important reason that we cant even make the basic arms leave aside MBTs and Fighters.

IAF wants top of the line, best in the market Super Tucano to be made by HAL rather than working with them to develop may be a pilatus and later go to Tucano in phases. You set bar too high for the learners and you are sure to make loosers out of them.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 03 Aug 2013 05:46

Katare, the IAF set up those specs for a future trainer as they were in a comfortable position with the trainer they already had (HPT-32) which was going to be with them for another decade at least. They were rightly planning ahead and had no idea that those trainers were suddenly going to be grounded a decade ahead of schedule. Their previous experience with HAL trainers was good (HT-2, HJT-16) and it is very likely that they were aiming at a Super Deepak type trainer, with a more powerful engine, better safety, better aerodynamics, modern avionics, pressurized cockpit and maybe the capability of having a light combat/CAS version.

Given this background, the original ("top-of-the-line" as you call it) specs reflected the high standards of the IAF and IMO the high expectations they had from HAL. It also demonstrates the IAF's active involvement in the development of their next trainer and their faith in HAL. After all, if HAL was to make something as sophisticated as the LCA, what is a simple trainer? This is a very positive and professional attitude adn in no way a negative one. To suggest that they were cunningly aiming to cripple the next trainer effort at HAL for some crooked, selfish reasons is a huge and very unfair stretch.

IAF surely must have thought if Brazil can make something as good as the Tucano, so can we. Isn't this the better, more positive and self-confident attitude that we should expect from our air force and aerospace people? BTW, if you think Pilatus is less complicated to make than the Tucano, you are wrong. It may in fact be more sophisticated but simply is a lower-powered, unarmed and unpressurized version of the current USAF trainer. The problem lies squarely with the pampered DPSUs. They have become sluggish, force-fed sloths and are a major drain on our resources, not to mention our Achilles Heel.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2968
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby tsarkar » 03 Aug 2013 10:35

HTT-34 was just a re-engined Deepak that flew in 1984. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 5.jpg.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Model_250
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_AEO-540

Both engines are quite popular in civil & military aviation.

Fuel flow is a structural issue rather than an engine issue.

Gliding too is a design issue rather than too-high-specification issue.

The recovery parachute was a suggestion, it could not be implemented in practice.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby maitya » 03 Aug 2013 12:33

Philip wrote:From the above posts,two facts stand out.Lack of advance planning for a future crisis and indecision at the political/babu level.It is not as if the IAF hadn't wanted a desi product.The performance of the HTT-32 would give anyone a nightmare when with that inglorious achievement, HAL tries to shove down an unwilling IAF's throat the HTT-40 paper-plane. Just as inordinate delays with the LCA led it to develop the Bison which is still expected to do duty until 2020!


No, absolutely wrong!!

HAL was not trying to "shove down an unwilling IAF's throat" anything - maybe for other products but not for this one (and I see a lot of straw-man being created with MiG-21s, LCA etc being bought into the picture to defend IAF's abominable attitude for this purchase - good strategy to muddle the discussion and drown it in that noise).

If any shoving was happening, it was self-inflicted, as it was happening down it's own throat (of IAF) - and one of the reasons for saying so, is as follows:

Which aspect of performance of HTT-32 was giving IAF nightmares (can you detail out)?
Let me point one (seems to be the most popular one, atleast here in BRF) - and that is of the glide-ratio.

The argument being put forward is as follows and I quote:
(disclaimer: I'm merely using tsarkarji's quote, which are not his views, and is only a pointer to various published news on HPT-32 problems).
Since the Deepak cannot glide without engine power for even a short distance, a serious crash in inevitable.

Independent confirmation that the plan cannot glide
Reliability of the HPT-32 has long been in question with technical issues caused by the integration between the American Lycoming piston engine and the indigenously designed airframe being the most hurting. For the IAF engine cuts (a situation where the aircraft's engine suddenly switches off in mid-air) on the HPT-32 have been disastrous: there have been over 90 engine cuts during the HPT-32 operational life and given the trainer's poor power of glide, fatalities have been frequent.


So what exactly is glide-ratio and what is it for HPT-32?
From a lay-man pov, in the event of an engine failure or shutdown, the glide-ratio determines that for a given altitude, the distance a particular airframe can glide and, by within that distance a air-strip becomes available, it can land safely.
So for a glide-ratio of 12:1, for an engine shutdown at 5K feet, an airframe should be able to glide for a distance of 15km and land safely (if an air-field would be available by then).

But what is the glide-ratio of the much-maligned HPT-32?
Is it 0 - so it drops like a brick, vertically, the moment the engine shutdown happens. Well it's 1:8.5 actually.
And that's the reason why despite of 90 engine-cuts the number of crashes has been 17, and that too all not related to engine-shut-off.
(pls any aircraft crash with the airmen fatality, is already way too many - so it's not and never a number or a statistical game).


Anyway, so what does IAF specify to HAL for HTT-40 in PSQR - the new BT aircraft needs to have 1:12 glide-ratio, an approx 42% increase.

Then suddenly they decide to dilute it to 1:10.5 in the revised ASQR for global vendors (and that too, this value of 10.5 exactly matches that of PC-7 MKII), an approx 24% increase.


Question is Why? Is this performance dilution (from 42% to 24% increase) not playing around with the very same performance parameter for which HAL and HPT-32 is being questioned and being labeled as pilot-killer?

And, more important question is, if 1:10.5 (aka 24% improvement) is sufficient, why ask for 1:12 (aka 42% improvement, so almost 75% additional ask) - to make it fail, is it? So that PC-7 MK-II can be imported?

And I'm not bringing in the context of flying in a country plagued with low-altitude bird-hit problems - just brilliant procurement maneuvering by IAF, must say!!

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 03 Aug 2013 20:20

maitya, your post like other similar ones ignores the timeline and the sequence of events.

Leaving that aside, it seems that all such posts are dancing around a vieled accusation against the IAF. Why don't you spell it out? Why, in your mind, is the IAF acting in the manner you accuse it of?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2968
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby tsarkar » 03 Aug 2013 20:25

Maitya-ji,

The 8.5:1 glide ratio was the design specification, like the Tejas design specification of empty weight 5500 kg. The actual achieved performance specifications were much poorer.

With more & more advanced aircraft like Apache, Rafale, C-130 & C-17 across all flying streams being inducted, a proper-performance trainer was needed immediately. HAL had never taken up a replacement trainer project seriously then (2007-9).

The best solution to this inbroglio would be like the LUH. A ratio of purchased to home-built. If home-built is delayed, then purchased ratio would go up. If home-built is faster, then purchased ratio would come down.

Problem is basic trainers over & above initial 75 are required immediately (< 3 years). The development timeframe is too short, irrespective of the specifications.

HAL has its hands full on projects - IJT Sitara, Tejas Mk1, Trainer, Mk2, Navy productionization, FGFA, Su-30 & Rafale production (8 aircraft). Transport - Do228, MTA Helicopter - Dhruv, Cheetal production, LUH & MRH development. Total 14 projects!

The basic trainer was produced at Kanpur, that already hands full on MTA development & Do228 production.

Let HAL build credibility on these projects, rather than put its foot in every door.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby vic » 03 Aug 2013 20:31

Specifications were tailor made so that PC-7 would emerge as the lowest bidder

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Austin » 03 Aug 2013 20:38

tsarkar wrote:HAL has its hands full on projects - IJT Sitara, Tejas Mk1, Trainer, Mk2, Navy productionization, FGFA, Su-30 & Rafale production (8 aircraft). Transport - Do228, MTA Helicopter - Dhruv, Cheetal production, LUH & MRH development. Total 14 projects!


You are forgetting the upgrade program like M2K , Mig-29UPG , Jag upgrades ,Hawk AJT :wink:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 03 Aug 2013 20:39

Seems to me that the specifications were modified to fit the PC-7. Something that the IAF did and if there is anyone who needs to explain it should be the IAF.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 03 Aug 2013 20:43

Austin wrote:
tsarkar wrote:HAL has its hands full on projects - IJT Sitara, Tejas Mk1, Trainer, Mk2, Navy productionization, FGFA, Su-30 & Rafale production (8 aircraft). Transport - Do228, MTA Helicopter - Dhruv, Cheetal production, LUH & MRH development. Total 14 projects!


You are forgetting the upgrade program like M2K , Mig-29UPG , Jag upgrades ,Hawk AJT :wink:


Sagar G wrote:Need to bridge trust gap with forces

Avinash Chander, Director General, DRDO, says the organisation needs to start delivering on promises to the Services Raj chengappa, Editor-in-Chief, talks to Avinash Chander, Director General, DRDO.

What are the priorities that you have set yourself?

The DRDO’s image as a technology generator has been well accepted across various forums. However, it is the organisation’s ability to deliver in time that is repeatedly getting questioned and unfortunately we have many past legacies. My first aim is to create an environment where things can move faster and build a better structure to remove that legacy. We must start LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) production within this year; Agni IV and V have to go into induction by the end of next year; and Arjun 2 has to go into the next tests and also go into production so that these backlogs are cleared apart from other ongoing ventures. Bringing the production system together into the culture is one of the challenges, and the fact that we have to produce so many systems within the next two years is the major focus area for us.

What about gaps in terms of technology and armament?

We are also focusing on how to overcome the critical gaps in our armed forces’ armoury. For example, today we are dependent on import for ammunitions for the Bofors guns. We do not have a gun of our own for the past 40 years. The two areas of indigenous ammunition and indigenous gun are what we have to deliver on in the next two-three years. My hope is that once I do these things, and they are inducted in the armed forces, the DRDO’s image will be transformed. Users should come to us as the first-choice system. With a new policy to involve the industry, the combination is going to be the most effective solution. The DRDO as technology provider and the industry developing its own capability to produce systems will result in us going into a spiral acceleration mode.

What are the reasons for the lack of delivery by the DRDO?

Our decision making has been sequential. First we do a prototype, then we see whether we get an order for making or developing a system, then after we develop a system we see how many are needed. For each of these cycles it takes five years. No industry is willing to commit to such a process. Regarding strategic systems there has never been doubt in anybody’s mind that India has no other option but to develop them indigenously. So we need to develop the raw material and production processes in parallel to cut down on time cycles.

Second, equally critical is that the industrial base in the country, except for the past five years, has been pretty weak. Each item of the LCA had to be designed by our team as there is practically nothing available in the country. There is no design base in the industry which could have done it. Everything has to be done in-house. Now the industry has to come up to a maturity level where they can take on systems like this. If that happens, half of our load will be gone, and the spared manpower could concentrate on making much better products, and our time cycle will be cut.

Third, programme management at the DRDO needs to be more focused and strengthened. Today we have no professional management training process. We are good scientists but when it comes to programme management we have intuitive managers. We need to train them.

The Rama Rao Committee report five years back had made several recommendations to revamp the DRDO. Have those been implemented?

First, the committee wanted to bring synergy between the policy makers, the armed forces and the research and production agencies so that the decision making process was integrated. It recommended a Defence Technology Commission to be chaired by the Raksha Mantri. We have already put up a note for approval of the Cabinet. We have also put up to the government the setting up of a commercial arm for utilising the capability as recommended.

Second, the committee wanted the formation and empowerment of clusters and to make the heads of clusters and their teams accountable for delivery. We are aiming to constitute the clusters within the next three months. A corporate office will monitor and enhance the synergy between them, taking policy decisions about future activities and, of course, evaluating the performance gaps and taking suitable actions so that the control is not lost but freedom is increased. Third, we are looking at strengthening the HR skills. Fourth, we are also working on a new initiative to create four or five technology centres in academic institutions. The world over basic research happens on university campuses.

Which are the areas of pure research that you are looking at?

We are identifying futuristic areas. The robotic soldier, for example, is one area where a lot of new technologies have to come — materials, mechanisms, kinematics, mathematical modelling, fuzzy logic controls, communication, recognition, differentiating between enemy and friend. There are a whole lot of new capabilities — cyber space, materials, devices, products — that have to be merged, which are going to be at least two levels above what is there today. We want to work in all these fields so that research can be directed towards creating a robotic soldier.

Why should India focus on developing robotic soldiers?

Today there is a focus on unmanned warfare — drones are already there. Future wars are going to be fought with unmanned systems, so you have to plan now. You cannot have Indian soldiers fighting others’ robots; you have to prepare for that. There is a huge amount of work going on in this direction in advanced countries. Given that scenario, we have to catch up, and that is going to be a thrust area.

Where have we reached in our target of indigenisation in defence production?

In strategic systems we are 80-85 per cent indigenous because there was no choice. Everything was built indigenously except for things like IC chips and sensors. In other systems too we are indigenising gradually. The LCA is about 60-65 per cent indigenous. Its engine is imported.

Why can’t India make aircraft engines?

We are going to make it one of our thrusts areas. Today, the country does not make any engine, whether for automobiles, aircraft or tanks. So we have taken up a National Engine Mission to do precisely this.

Despite years of development, the Army does not seem to be enamoured of Arjun Tank.

Arjun’s fire performance is one of the best. The main problem with the tank is its weight. We have made 73 modifications from Arjun Mark 1 to Mark 2, and most of them have passed the tests. We are going in for user trials in the next couple of months.

Given the spread of cyber warfare, is the DRDO pursuing that too?

The DRDO is a technology organisation and we have a strong programme to develop cyber tools and technologies to enable our intelligences agencies do whatever they want to do besides cyber defence.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 03 Aug 2013 20:49

HAL has its hands full on projects - IJT Sitara, Tejas Mk1, Trainer, Mk2, Navy productionization, FGFA, Su-30 & Rafale production (8 aircraft). Transport - Do228, MTA Helicopter - Dhruv, Cheetal production, LUH & MRH development. Total 14 projects!


What is wrong with 14 projects (or is it 18 now?)?

India - even in general - has project management issues. Not technical. Organizations that have done well (pvt or gov) have had good management teams.

The point being even if they took on just one project they would tend to mismanage it.

WRT the -32 I am fairly confident that the issues could have been resolved. But the decision to allocate resources never occurred - management.

I just do not think your assertion that there are too many projects is an issue. Allocate the right people to all of them and they will achieve their goals.

saps
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 18:16
Location: Poor mans Ooty...

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby saps » 04 Aug 2013 07:49

NRao wrote:Seems to me that the specifications were modified to fit the PC-7. Something that the IAF did and if there is anyone who needs to explain it should be the IAF.


Tell me does any one has access to the effects of event of grounding of HPT-32 on the training of ab initio aircrew.

Effect on IAF training pattern vs implication on HAL's revenue generation.

From all the emphasis on change in QR's from zero-zero ejection ...hope that everyone understands that all our Mig 21's flying around are still not 0-0 even the upgraded bison.

If the question is wait till eternity for the delivery of a prodigious baby then its totally different issue of country pride....but when the training pattern suffers .....for years...translating into one or may be two generations of likely weak foundations.....

How long is IAF expected to wait would be a nagging question in their mind.

I dont think any of us here have access to the issues that have happened organizationally which prompted ASAP delivery requirement of basic trainer.

You have to give it to the swiss......THEY delivered....but our home production factory is out with new picture again.....

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 04 Aug 2013 09:13

Broadly speaking I see this entire topic in three different streams:

1) The -32 episode. I do not know enough, but suspect it is a management issue, not a technical one. However, I would not lump it with the RFP for the current trainers (that went out a few years ago)

2) The HTT-40 topic. I think it has to be given a go-ahead to be built. Yes, it is disheartening that it is so delayed. The issue - again - is going to be testing/certifications (and not design/development) and there is not other way to get around that. India has to bite that bullet and make it happen

3) The issue about dilution of the RFP and the current letter from the CAS. ALL foreign parties would have delivered - the question is which plane. The IAF for whatever reason/s decided to water down the RFP to fit the current purchase. The earlier RFO would have forced the next model from this company and brought into play others - BUT all would have met that RFP and would have been more expensive than the current version they bought from the Swiss. (BTW, the RFP should not have been related to MiG-21s, etc - at least I hope not.)

#1 is old and really does not make any sense to bring it to the fore (circumstances are way different now - form a technology point of view). #3 will only drag topics through more dirt without resolving anything. #1 is critical - even the HTT-40 will take time. India has no experience what so ever when it comes to testing and certification, which is why any first time products will have to go through a lot in terms of time - there is no escaping this. But to establish a product base it has to be done. I cannot talk to public vs. private, but no matter who does it, it will take time.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2375
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2013 10:21

in a panel discussion on NDTV.. 2 retd . officers of IAF effectively rebutted all of Ajai Shuklas accusations. I dont know why there is this debate... between HTT 40 ( something which is yet to fly..) and Pilatus ( a reasonably well rounded a/c). its amazing we cant even get a propeller a/c off the ground into operational training role?? is the IAF to wait till HTT 40 is ready to fly??

ajai shukla says if HPT 32 can be grounded after crashes why not MIg 21 !! i think the two ex IAF officers effectively countered all his claims...

arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 137
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby arijitkm » 04 Aug 2013 10:23

BTA leads to a dog fight

A dog fight has broken out between Indian Air Force (IAF) chief Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Chairman and MD R K Tyagi over who should supply the Basic Trainer Aircraft (BTA).

The spat started after HAL said it was presented with unrealistic requirements over HTT-40s, while the IAF later diluted the same for the Pilatus it bought.

IAF sources said that the requirements given to HAL for trainer aircraft were drafts based on what the HAL said it could design and develop. The tender issued later on approval from the Defence Ministry had Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQRs) that cannot be “amended, altered, dropped or dispensed” with. It also claimed that the same were given to HAL as the IAF’s final requirement for indigenous aircraft. The Air Force argued that the “real” cost of the domestic planes at 2011 prices was Rs 43.59 crore a unit—40 per cent more expensive than the Swiss planes.

“By the current foreign exchange rate, the PC-7 will work out to Rs 38.3 crore each. At 2013 prices, the HTT-40 will be Rs 47.6 crore each, or perhaps 25 per cent more. The price of the former is frozen under the option clause for deliveries up to 2017,” said IAF sources. The HAL claimed that the cost of the Swiss plane, considering the Exchange Rate Variation (ERV), has already escalated to Rs 38.36 crore, which was 27 per cent higher than when it was purchased. It also argued that the Life Cycle Cost of the 181 planes would work out to Rs 18,169 crore—about 40 per cent or Rs 5,000 crore higher than the HAL’s trainer aircraft, which over a period of 30 years would cost only Rs 13,263 crore. HAL says IAF selectively factored in foreign exchange variations in the procurement of HAL planes. The entire fleet of IAF’s original trainer aircraft—the HAL-made Hindustan Piston Trainer-32s—was grounded in a hurry in September 2009 after many trained pilots were killed in a series of crashes. The planes have been used to train over 2,000 IAF pilots, logging more than four lakh flying hours during their service life spanning three decades. IAF pointed out that the planes were four decades old and have outlived its utility; the stalling of their obsolete engines was too dangerous for the pilots. “Their grounding was a well-thought decision to save the lives of pilots. It’s the same in the case of buying the Pilatus plane,” a senior IAF office said.

The HAL, however, complained that the IAF did not agree to continue flying its planes despite all safety features it suggested were incorporated. It also noted that the IAF had twice rejected its proposal to design and develop a trainer plane to replace the HPT-32 beginning 1990, but agreed to the idea only in the middle of the last decade. HAL contended that building an indigenous trainer aircraft would help boost indigenous manufacturing capability so that India does not depend on foreign players. It also noted that the Pilatus deal had not established a Maintenance Transfer of Technology, because of which India will continue to rely on the Swiss firm for future maintenance.

Rookie pilots get their first, primary training on the basic trainer aircraft for six months. They progress to speedier but sub-sonic aircraft such as HAL’s Kirans and BAE Systems’ Hawk advanced trainer planes in the next two stages of training, before graduating to supersonic MiG-21 combat aircraft.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 04 Aug 2013 15:35

indranilroy wrote:Boss,

1. THERE IS NO FAULT WITH HAL for not being able stand by its commitment to fix the fuel supply problem on a docile trainer for over a decade.


This is your view not mine.

indranilroy wrote:2. BUT IT IS DEFINITELY A FAULT OF IAF that it went back on its word of allowing a stop gap solution of fixing parachutes to the trainer so that trainees can level of the plane and then jump out of it before the plane hit the ground.


Again your view not mine. I only want to know why did IAF went back on it's own agreed to solution regarding HPT-32. Also why did IAF chose to remain silent and do nothing regarding asking HAL to come up with a better design work towards it and mass produce the desired trainer. Even when HAL itself proposed two different design after the HPT-32 the IAF chose to do nothing regarding it and was happy with what it had. Only at the end when the problem could not be ignored anymore first it asked for the moon and then when allowed to purchase from foreign lands it was happy with whatever shit that they had to offer and now defends it by saying they did it for the sake of having more competitors. Are these foreign purchases carried out to fulfill requirements or they are meant to be a soap opera for the world to watch ???

It would have been wise of you to read the posted links instead of imagining james bond inspired theatrical situations.

HAL officials said the trainer's airframe would have to undergo modifications. These would include strengthening, to prevent the structure from shearing off when the parachute is deployed, and also to take the extra weight. Trials need to be undertaken to optimise the flight characteristics of the aircraft once the PRS has been fitted, and the Lycoming engine overhauled — since the entire fleet has not flown for nearly nine months. The PRS will also have to ensure that the aircraft comes down horizontally and not nose or tail first.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 04 Aug 2013 16:03

It's funny how the links posted by posters to defend IAF is ending up doing the exactly opposite thing. About HTT-34

The turboprop powered HTT-34 which was developed as a private venture by HAL. The 313kW (420shp) Allison 250-B17D powered HTT-34 flew for the first time, in a converted HTP-32 prototype form, on 17 June 1984. The new engine significantly boasted performance on the the basic aircraft, but was cancelled as official interest was not forthcoming.


Now if somebody else thinks otherwise then it would be safe to assume that this new trainer wouldn't have the problems that were in HPT-32 and with the new engine it's performance was better than the HPT-32 but the "official interest" i.e. of the IAF was the only thing that was nowhere to be seen on the horizon even when the HTT-34 was up there.

Lets' assume that even this design was no upto mark but then another trainer design i.e. HTT-35 was proposed. Even then the "official interest" was missing in this case and this design could only make it up to the full scale mock-up stage. It is to be noted now that when two new trainer designs were proposed the IAF chose to remain with the "unsafe" HPT-32 design even when it was given the option to have better trainers. But still people here are claiming that "HAL had never taken the replacement trainer project seriously".

The parachute recovery system (PRS) was based on the recommendations made by a committee headed by Air Vice Marshal Pradeep Singh but still people are saying that it was "just a suggestion and impractical ".

The outright lies being dished out to carry out a disinformation campaign is simple amazing.

Then another smokescreen is being created now "HAL's hand are full and it must concentrate on the projects in hand" so as to imply that trying to build a desi trainer HAL is wasting time and money even when the organization has no problem spending it's own money and manpower on the project and has even given dates and said that if the trainer doesn't fly before that then the IAF can use the options clause. Further there is no evidence to show that HAL is hurting the other projects going on by utilising it's money and manpower in building HTT-40.

Lies, misinformation and smokescreens the only tricks left when one tries to defend the indefensible.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby agupta » 04 Aug 2013 18:16

Sagar G wrote:It's funny how the links posted by posters to defend IAF is ending up doing the exactly opposite thing. About HTT-34
Now if somebody else thinks otherwise then it would be safe to assume that this new trainer wouldn't have the problems that were in HPT-32 and with the new engine it's performance was better than the HPT-32 but the "official interest" i.e. of the IAF was the only thing that was nowhere to be seen on the horizon even when the HTT-34 was up there.


The fact that you build your arguements on this assumption defines its quality. Enough said.

yet another design with another sourced engine (hence money making opportunity) + another round of unproven ability to integrate it into a simple basic trainer. Just "trust usssssssss"... like going to a doc who screwed up your kidney transplant and now says "this new liver transplant will do the trick". Yup, lets go right ahead since the last mistake was so nicely dealt with.....

Lets' assume that even this design was no upto mark but then another trainer design i.e. HTT-35 was proposed. Even then the "official interest" was missing in this case and this design could only make it up to the full scale mock-up stage. It is to be noted now that when two new trainer designs were proposed the IAF chose to remain with the "unsafe" HPT-32 design even when it was given the option to have better trainers. But still people here are claiming that "HAL had never taken the replacement trainer project seriously"
.

What a radical concept ! Accountability .... that you might expect you get what you paid for - when you paid for it ? Your 800 was a lemon and killed your son in an accident, no problem - just buy an Alto in advance - or now the Zen (with apologies to Maruti Suzuki).

What !!! You are such an idiot for choosing the "unsafe" option when we are providing you with options (no guarantess - we need nurturing, remember) for better ones ? Of course we won't discuss why your original buy was a killer lemon, will we.


The outright lies being dished out to carry out a disinformation campaign is simple amazing.
....

Lies, misinformation and smokescreens the only tricks left when one tries to defend the indefensible.


So true. Its breathtaking to behold.

10s of 1000s of crores going down the drain every year just as surely as a bribe to a foreign agent but no, lets not discuss that.... that would expose the rotten corrupt underbelly of the DPSU-neta-babu nexus ! Everyone - forget BEML - think Finmeccanica... one is 1000 times the sin of the other - atleast in one the paisa is staying within the "family" !!!

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby agupta » 04 Aug 2013 18:27

Sagar G wrote:Then another smokescreen is being created now "HAL's hand are full and it must concentrate on the projects in hand" so as to imply that trying to build a desi trainer HAL is wasting time and money even when the organization has no problem spending it's own money and manpower on the project and has even given dates and said that if the trainer doesn't fly before that then the IAF can use the options clause.


Perhaps you can help here.... are you claiming that HAL wants to run this fully as a private venture - using its own profits AND no IAF guarantees ( on Quality AND timing) or MoD funding/investment? THen I agree with you that it should be allowed to - will force accountability for its own performance. After all, if HAL is so confident it will be a killer plane that can take on the AT-6 or Tucano or similar planes and they do not require fresh MoD investments or IAF guarantees, who are we to stand in the middle of this enormously profitable opportunity ?


Further there is no evidence to show that HAL is hurting the other projects going on by utilising it's money and manpower in building HTT-40.


Right.... every HAL Aircraft project we know of is running ahead of schedule and is delivering on its performance and cost numbers. So of course they have capacity to spare !


Better (project) management - BRF's first prescription for all ills :) - and the first time the rhetorical rubber hits the road in its most fundamental tenet of focusing and completing committed projects before taking on others, we recommend heading for the opposite direction

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby agupta » 04 Aug 2013 18:42

Sagar G wrote: Even when HAL itself proposed two different design after the HPT-32 the IAF chose to do nothing regarding it and was happy with what it had.



Interesting perspective: I wonder in what world you get judged on what you might PROPOSE to do in the future rather than what you JUST DELIVERED. And its the customer fault if they insist on getting value for their purchases... you are going to label it "they are happy with it and its their stinking fault" ?

Wait - I get it - its .....Politics !

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 04 Aug 2013 18:51

agupta wrote:The fact that you build your arguements on this assumption defines its quality. Enough said.


Pretty rich coming from a person who gives dumb definitions and tries to pass it off as fact, enough said.

agupta wrote:yet another design with another sourced engine (hence money making opportunity) + another round of unproven ability to integrate it into a simple basic trainer. Just "trust usssssssss"... like going to a doc who screwed up your kidney transplant and now says "this new liver transplant will do the trick". Yup, lets go right ahead since the last mistake was so nicely dealt with.....


Yup downgrading requirements to purchase whatever crap foreign vendors have to offer sound like a much better plan than instead of trying to do it yourself when the capability exists while taking failures in your stride. But no bitching/whining/ranting about past failures is a much easier task to do than to look for facts and base one's view on them. Playing keyboard karate and coming up with lahori analogy just provides the topping on the cake.

agupta wrote:What a radical concept ! Accountability .... that you might expect you get what you paid for - when you paid for it ? Your 800 was a lemon and killed your son in an accident, no problem - just buy an Alto in advance - or now the Zen (with apologies to Maruti Suzuki).

What !!! You are such an idiot for choosing the "unsafe" option when we are providing you with options (no guarantess - we need nurturing, remember) for better ones ? Of course we won't discuss why your original buy was a killer lemon, will we.


Ohhhh multiple toppings on the cake. Trying to make sense isn't the target but doing keyboard karate and adding "ghanta" to the thread is really important for some people.

agupta wrote:So true. Its breathtaking to behold.


Add crappy analogy to the scene and it becomes truly divine.

agupta wrote:10s of 1000s of crores going down the drain every year just as surely as a bribe to a foreign agent but no, lets not discuss that.... that would expose the rotten corrupt underbelly of the DPSU-neta-babu nexus ! Everyone - forget BEML - think Finmeccanica... one is 1000 times the sin of the other - atleast in one the paisa is staying within the "family" !!!


Yup Ex Air Force Chief S P Tyagi, Lt. General Tejinder Singh reminds us of the corruption is "DPSU-neta-babu nexus" while the armed forces are squeaky clean holy cows onlee.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests