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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 05 Aug 2013 02:03

Yep, you are missing something. Pls watch the video again. Around 23.00.
Last edited by Victor on 05 Aug 2013 02:05, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16874
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 05 Aug 2013 02:08

Also, the "dilution", shifted the requirements from a heavier trainer to a lighter one. IF they had retained the original RFP they would have had to select a trainer like the Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano or the like.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 05 Aug 2013 02:14

NRao wrote:Also, the "dilution", shifted the requirements from a heavier trainer to a lighter one. IF they had retained the original RFP they would have had to select a trainer like the Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano or the like.

That's the point. Our neta-babu-mandated CYA procurement policy would not have allowed for the Tucano purchase because it would be the only plane to meet the specs. Hence the "dilution" and "L1" bullschidt.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16874
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 05 Aug 2013 02:28

Victor wrote:Yep, you are missing something. Pls watch the video again. Around 23.00.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmm... Victorji. :scratch-head-emoticon:

OK, will grant you that.

However, Tyagi did state: if it was a heavier aircraft and carried armaments then one can justify a 0-0 ejection seat. The HTT-40 is a heavier aircraft and does carry armament.

Now, if the argument is that the IAF did not specify a 0-0 and therefore a light aircraft is OK, then it leads us to some other place.

Both are correct.

This was a botched effort by Vishnu. And, Shukla was terrible, the other two were better but should have been far better for the situation.

The VERY FIRST thing ALL should have looked at was the class (by weight I would imagine). And things should have fallen into place after that.

I just do not expect the PC-7 to do what the HTT-40 should be able to do. Not even close. But that does not mean that the PC-7 is a slouch either.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16874
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 05 Aug 2013 02:34

agupta wrote:
NRao wrote:

I feel that both trainers (when the HTT-40 comes) are good in their own respects. ..... But the HTT-40 is no dud, nor expensive.



One key difference - one is a fixed cost, real airplane available in quantities with a full supply chain behind it TODAY; the other one is a proposal, with an uncertified cost number, unknown final cost and uncertain attained performance.


Sure, that is true.

However, there is the uncertainty cost of jacking up prices by a foreign vendor too, as time goes along. That is a fact too.

And, the cost of importing such technologies down the line.

I am not going to agree on that cost PoV. Granted HAL does not have a record to talk about, but that will change - a point I have made for about 10 years now. Circumstances will force issues - what I call Kargil effect. I would not be surprised if the DCA supports HAL on this point in the next few weeks. India cannot keep on relying on outsiders to support her strategic decision making. This is a lot more to that topic - diff thread.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 05 Aug 2013 04:57

I think Vishnu Som did a great job and a great service by helping to unmask the hatchet job by vested interests (read: crooks who stand to gain in HAL's continued gravy train).

Here is Ajay Shukla's article from december last year: MoD rejects HAL's proposal to build basic trainer
“Why should we pay HAL Rs 60 crore per basic trainer, when we can buy proven trainers from abroad for Rs 30 crore?” an MoD official told Business Standard...
“We would be willing to pay higher rates to build indigenous capability in strategic defence equipment. But can HAL argue that the capability to build basic trainers is strategically vital,”

And now the same guy is attacking the IAF?

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7096
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Muppalla » 05 Aug 2013 07:15

RIP sir.

Strategic thinker Jasjit Singh passes away
Air Commodore Jasjit Singh (Retd), one of India's leading strategic thinkers, passed away Sunday. He was 78.

He was cremated at the Brar Square in Delhi Cantonment with many senior serving and retired air force, army and naval officers present.

Known as a passionate professional, Jasjit Singh taught flying to many a top air force officer, headed the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses for long and, later, set up the Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS), a think tank dedicated to modern and futuristic air power trends.

CAPS has done many useful studies on air power strategic issues for the Indian Air Force (IAF).

He wrote or edited an astonishing number of books and contributed in positive to the go-ahead for India's 1998 nuclear explosion, when IDSA was asked by the government about the likely international implications.

He was in a Gurgaon hospital for a week due to a chest problems before he was discharged.

Born July 8, 1934, Jasjit Singh was awarded the Vir Chakra for displaying gallantry in the India-Pakistan war of 1971.

As an IAF squadron leader then, he attacked and destroyed many Pakistani tanks and bunkers. He displayed determination and devotion to duty of a high order, according to the citation for the honour.

In 2006, then president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam conferred Padma Bhushan, the country's second highest civilian award, on him for his contributions in strategic thought.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16874
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 05 Aug 2013 07:32

RIP. Sorry to see him move on.

Vishnu
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Vishnu » 05 Aug 2013 07:55

pandyan wrote:Question 1: Would pilatus pass the exact same requirements given to HAL for the basic trainer?
Question 2: Is NDTV footage raw footage or massaged and edited footage?


Hi Pandayan ... would you care to explain to me what you mean by massaged and edited footage ?

Vishnu

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21140
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Philip » 05 Aug 2013 07:56

First some v.sad news.Air Cmde.Jasjit Singh is no more.he died yesterday and the last rites were performed in Delhi.His leadership of IDSA and CAPS is legendary.Here is a fine tribute from the Hindu.May his great soul RIP.

Ace pilot who sold Pokhran-II to foreign audience

Sandeep Dikshit

More than as one who headed institutes for 24 years and rationalised Pokhran-II nuclear explosions to a foreign audience, Air Commodore (Retd.) Jasjit Singh, who passed away on Sunday at 79, will be known for mentoring the intellectual expansion of the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) in a post-Cold War setting and setting up the Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS) much before the land and maritime counterparts began devoting exclusive scholarly attention to their respective domains.

Jasjit Singh was also a prolific writer, hitting an especially purple patch on either side of the Kargil conflict and Pokhran-II when he co-authored at least 10 books. But it was Nuclear India that raised the most dust. On the government side, analysts and diplomats hailed his counters to moderate the West’s queasiness with the concept of recessed deterrence. At think tanks all over the world, Jasjit Singh spoke of recessed deterrence under which nuclear weapons are not mated with delivery vehicles but his critics said this was another word for George Perkovich’s ‘Non-weaponised Deterrence.’

After the concept outlived its political usefulness, he asked the Americans not to waste time “telling us to get rid of nuclear weapons.” Scientist-activist Prabir Purkayastha felt all this amounted to media management and didn’t reduce opacity on the nuclear question. His IDSA colleague, Uday Bhaskar, thought out of the 25 books he compiled or penned, Jasjit Singh loved most the autobiography on the first and only Marshal of the Indian Air Force, Arjan Singh.

Former diplomat Ronen Sen recalled that Jasjit Singh’s literary contribution was matched by his unpublished ones submitted to the higher echelons of the government on several security-related tangles such as MiG-21 crashes.

The ace pilot acquitted himself well in his battles — in the sky and the corridors of Vayu Bhavan. And when he joined IDSA under India’s foremost strategic analyst K. Subrahmanyam, the consequent mentoring helped him expose the chinks in defence production as well as counter the designs of a Defence Secretary who thought military men had no place in the institute, much less head it as he would for 14 years followed by 10 years at CAPS. Another veteran diplomat Nalin Surie saw him as the pioneer of the security track II dialogue in India, one that bridged the gap between civilians and military men.

If K. Subrahmanyam possessed the un-Indian ability of grooming a successor, Jasjit Singh showed no such inclination though he trained many scholars and diplomats, one of whom (Arvind Gupta) incidentally heads IDSA. Among them are Meera Shankar, Sheel Kant Sharma, Sanjay Baru, C. Rajamohan and Dipankar Gupta. For a person said to be a builder of institutions, Jasjit Singh’s Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) had a short life. But as IDSA Fellow G. Balachandran points out, “we had our differences but he left his mark especially when India was under sanctions.”



Air Cmde.Tapas Sen (retd.) is publishing his memoirs (TKS'Tales),the blog is on the net,most informative.In one feature,on the LCA,he gives a first person account of how the IAF first evaluated the concept at a high-level meeting where the CAS was also present,and its conclusion was that the project to be completed in 10 years was too ambitious and would not succeed.It is a fascinating account,great insight into the contorted LCA development,much fuel for debate,but one point he made out which is very valid is that the LCA should've been viewed as a "national project",not tied down to the IAF's perspective plans,so that when the aircraft was perfected,it would buy it.What has happened is that waiting for the LCA meant shoestring repairs to older aircraft like the MIG-21s.In fact,after extensively evaluating the LCA concept,his recommendation was that the MIG-21 Bis fleet should be modernised/upgraded as a priority,which resulted in the Bison being developed as an interim solution to any delay on the LCA's arrival.

In the case of the HTT,a similar strategy could be adopted.Let HAL develop the trainer on its own-give it the funds,but do not stop the IAF from purchasing PC-7s or PC-9s so that the training of rookie pilots into more advanced aircraft and into mainstream operations is not affected.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby vic » 05 Aug 2013 07:58

Why did IAF chief lie about the costs of PC-7 when making comparison, by not taking foreign exchange related increase in costs only for PC-7? Why did IAF Chief did not point out honestly that HTT-40 is more sophisticated aircraft and hence would be 50% more costly if it's equivalent is imported? Why did IAF chief keep quiet about life cycle costs? Why IAF is keeping even maintenance ToT with Pilatus?

HAL may be doing screw driver assembly of foreign imported components but it is better than completely imported BTA.

It is just like:-

Arjun vs T-90
Prahaar vs Smerch
Nag vs imported ATGMs
ALH vs Agusta
Even Akash missile orders were given after lot of hue & cry in public media. So Akash vs delayed RSAM-MRSAM. Army has still not given orders for Akash missile.
Attacks on HAL light helo to encourage imports
Delay in finalising specifications of HAL medium Helo while encouraging imports
INSAS vs demand for imports
DRDO 120 mm Mortar vs Israeli 120 mm mortar
Limited orders for OFB 155 mm howitzer etc etc
Last edited by vic on 05 Aug 2013 08:08, edited 1 time in total.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8153
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby nachiket » 05 Aug 2013 07:59

Victor wrote:Here is Ajay Shukla's article from december last year: MoD rejects HAL's proposal to build basic trainer
“Why should we pay HAL Rs 60 crore per basic trainer, when we can buy proven trainers from abroad for Rs 30 crore?” an MoD official told Business Standard...
“We would be willing to pay higher rates to build indigenous capability in strategic defence equipment. But can HAL argue that the capability to build basic trainers is strategically vital,”

And now the same guy is attacking the IAF?

He is only quoting the MoD in that article. But, Shukla is no stranger to 180 degree turns. The most famous one was the in the case of the Arjun. I don't think he'd do that without some new evidence or at least what he believes is contrary evidence. The only case where I wouldn't trust him would be if an American product was involved, after his shameless JSF promotion masquerading as news. Pitching for a HAL product over a foreign one gains him nothing, which is why I'm inclined to believe there might be something in this.

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_23455 » 05 Aug 2013 08:52

Victor wrote:I think Vishnu Som did a great job and a great service by helping to unmask the hatchet job by vested interests (read: crooks who stand to gain in HAL's continued gravy train).

Here is Ajay Shukla's article from december last year: MoD rejects HAL's proposal to build basic trainer
“Why should we pay HAL Rs 60 crore per basic trainer, when we can buy proven trainers from abroad for Rs 30 crore?” an MoD official told Business Standard...
“We would be willing to pay higher rates to build indigenous capability in strategic defence equipment. But can HAL argue that the capability to build basic trainers is strategically vital,”

And now the same guy is attacking the IAF?


:-o . Welcome to the world of mainstream media. This is also why I'll disagree that Vishnu did a great job on that piece:

1. As an anchor with some interest and knowledge about Indian aviation/defence, should he not have put Col. Shukla on the spot on his volte face? The research a BR guy can do can also be done by NDTV's research depts.

2. In the program itself, Air Marshal NV Tyagi countered Col. Shukla's assertion about the 0-0 seats when he pointed out that it was HAL who jumped in with this offer which made it into the QR then. "Pudding" Ahluwalia wanted to do a point by point rebuttal but the anchor just moved on - if you are so short of time, then why get two people from the IAF on the panel (Shukla was getting massacred anyway).

3. Why was no HAL rep (retired even) on the program? Col. Shukla's knowledge is second hand, NV Tyagi was right there. HAL should have a chance to put forward their point without proxies talking on their behalf.

Incidentally, the same channel does a show called Truth vs. Hype, which is a pretty decent effort at investigative journalism.

Vishnu
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Vishnu » 05 Aug 2013 08:54

NRao wrote:Vishnu,

IF you are following this thread, guy, you need to moderate a discussion FAR better than that. This was a travesty.


Really? Of course you are entitled to your opinion ... but this was a GOOD show ... and as complete as it can be in the context of a 20 minute discussion directed at a larger audience, not BRfites who understand the lingo of aviation. Would not have posted it if it were rubbish. The reason I posted it here is because, one way or the other, a lot of the technical details that were brought out do end up adding to the debate here.

NRao wrote:The discussions never took into account a light vs. a non-light/heavier trainer.


The tv debate never went specifically into light versus non-light trainer because of the following reasons ...

1. The aim of the show ... as clearly outlined in our on-air graphics ... was to try and raise the following questions ... since these were the most damaging allegations raised by Ajai Shukla in his series:

(a) Did the Air Chief exaggerate the costs of the Indian trainer to AK Antony to ensure additional purchase of Swiss planes ?
(b) Is the Air Chief attempting to scuttle the purchase of home-grown trainers ?
(c) Did the Air Chief compromise safety of pilots by pushing for a trainer without a zero-zero ejection seat ?
(d) Were performance bench marks for imported trainers deliberately diluted to favour Pilatus ?

Shukla and the two Air Marshals debated these points. Viewers or folks here are free to draw their conclusions.

All I can say is the following ... None of the articles indicate a money trail ... and therefore insinuations of corruption by the Chief ... are not substantiated.

The articles do point to questions in the procurement process, but the IAF has categorically responded to these allegations. Again, it is up to readers here to draw their own inferences.

NRao wrote:From what little research I have done it seems to me that the PC-7 is a light trainer, therefore unable to host a 0-0 ejection seat, lighter in weight, no armaments (therefore not a light attack aircraft) and less costly.
While the HTT-40 is much heavier, with a 0-0 ejection seat, proposed to have armaments, a light attack aircraft by design and therefore a more expensive plane. Looks like the HTT-40 has some 80% more power in the engine, not too sure of weight as yet.
Seems to me that it is an apple vs. orange situation.
What amazed me is that not one brought this little fact into the picture !!!!
Am I missing anything? IF I am not missing anything, this discussion was a waste.


Yup ... you are missing a lot, I am afraid. The entire explanation on why the IAF never required a 0-0 ejection seat when it issued its RFI is categorically explained by Air Marshal Tyagi. He goes on record to state the IAF's belief that given the speeds of the trainer it was looking for, a 0-0 ejection seat is actually a disadvantage. This is debatable but is, none the less, an on-the-record statement made by the man, who as Dy Chief processed the entire BTA acquisition.

I just want to make a few points here based on what I know to be true ...

1. The draft PSQR (March 2008) was sent to HAL with a series of requirements for a BTA.
2. In its list of requirements, the IAF NEVER spelt out a requirement for a 0-0 ejection seat.
3. In its reply to the IAF, HAL OFFERED a 0-0 EJECTION SEAT.
4. The IAF was happy to accept this. If I am not mistaken, it was HAL that offered cockpit pressurisation for the aircraft, all the IAF wanted was airconditioning. Again, the IAF was happy to accept this.
5. Based on negotiations between the two and what HAL had to offer, the PSQR was framed in March 2009.
6. It was in May 2009 that the IAF decided to ground the HPT-32 aircraft after 19 CAT 1 accidents of which 13 were fatal accidents.
7. The IAF believes none of the 12 modifications done by HAL to rectify serious problems were successful.
8. The need to acquire a foreign BTA became imperative at this stage.
9. In a meeting of the Defence Acquisition Council (29/09/09) chaired by the Defence Minister, the following points were made. FYI these quotes are from the summary of that meeting ...
(a) In case M/S HAL does not fly its first aircraft by the time the first aircraft of "Buy" (Global) type arrives then the option clause would be invoked and numbers to be made by M/S HAL to be reviewed."
(b) CAS mentioned that SQRs are being modified so that the case does not become single vendor."
(c) Secy DP stated that same SQRs be given to M/S HAL for "MAKE" and the order to HAL must be placed now."

Please note the DAC meeting was attended by RM, RRM, COAS, CAS, CNS, Def Secy, Secy (DP). SA to RM, Secy (Def Fin), DG (Acqn), CISC, DG (Coastguard), DCIDS (PPFD).

Therefore, the SQRs for the foreign BTA being acquired and the Indian BTA being developed are essentially identical and the argument of dilution of standards doesn't exist. HAL no longer has to provide a 0-0 ejection seat or cabin pressurisation. All it has to do is provide an aircraft in the same class as the Pilatus PC-7.

I also want to be clear that the purpose of this post is to add information to the debate here. I have no personal opinion on whether or not the BTA process was steeped in favouritism.

Thanks
Vishnu Som
Editor (Documentaries) and Senior Anchor
NDTV

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_23455 » 05 Aug 2013 09:05

nachiket wrote:He is only quoting the MoD in that article. But, Shukla is no stranger to 180 degree turns. The most famous one was the in the case of the Arjun. I don't think he'd do that without some new evidence or at least what he believes is contrary evidence. The only case where I wouldn't trust him would be if an American product was involved, after his shameless JSF promotion masquerading as news. Pitching for a HAL product over a foreign one gains him nothing, which is why I'm inclined to believe there might be something in this.


Except that the MoD is a euphemism for the babus. So why has Shukla has moved on to not just the Air Force but the CAS himself?

Given that usually it is the IAF which screams blue murder against the MoD, DRDO, DPSUs it should have raised some warning bells for Shukla that the MoD and the IAF seem to be singing the same tune.

Vishnu
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Vishnu » 05 Aug 2013 09:11

RajitO wrote: :-o . Welcome to the world of mainstream media. This is also why I'll disagree that Vishnu did a great job on that piece:

1. As an anchor with some interest and knowledge about Indian aviation/defence, should he not have put Col. Shukla on the spot on his volte face? The research a BR guy can do can also be done by NDTV's research depts.


Ranjit ... shooting the messenger is a favourite pastime here on BR despite which I continue to post. As an anchor, my job is not to put either person on the mat - it is to raise points and encourage debate. There was enough of that on the programme as was plain to see. Also, more importantly, the purpose of providing a link to the show was less to facilitate a critique of my anchoring and more to consider the points that were being raised by others.

RajitO wrote:2. In the program itself, Air Marshal NV Tyagi countered Col. Shukla's assertion about the 0-0 seats when he pointed out that it was HAL who jumped in with this offer which made it into the QR then. "Pudding" Ahluwalia wanted to do a point by point rebuttal but the anchor just moved on - if you are so short of time, then why get two people from the IAF on the panel (Shukla was getting massacred anyway).


The purpose of the show was to look at a series of points, not linger on a point which evidently interests you. These points have been spelt out in a post to NRao earlier. A 20 minute debate with 3 guests is pretty standard. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion that that guests need more time. For a million reasons ... which I won't spell out here (because it is irrelevant to the context of the debate here) ... I can explain how tv debates are timed and news rundowns built ... but again, this is irrelevant here ... so lets avoid.

RajitO wrote:3. Why was no HAL rep (retired even) on the program? Col. Shukla's knowledge is second hand, NV Tyagi was right there. HAL should have a chance to put forward their point without proxies talking on their behalf.


Precisely because this isn't an ideal world where I have time on my hands to bring in more guests - If I had a fourth guest, there would be even less time to debate the point that you felt we needed to spend more time on !

RajitO wrote:Incidentally, the same channel does a show called Truth vs. Hype, which is a pretty decent effort at investigative journalism.


Glad you like Srinivasan's investigative reports ...

Thanks ...

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_23455 » 05 Aug 2013 09:26

Vishnu wrote:
NRao wrote:Vishnu,

IF you are following this thread, guy, you need to moderate a discussion FAR better than that. This was a travesty.


Really? Of course you are entitled to your opinion ... but this was a GOOD show ... and as complete as it can be in the context of a 20 minute discussion directed at a larger audience, not BRfites who understand the lingo of aviation. Would not have posted it if it were rubbish. The reason I posted it here is because, one way or the other, a lot of the technical details that were brought out do end up adding to the debate here.


Hmmm...Since you have posted on BR then hopefully you will have the thick skin required to "get" what some of us are saying - God knows I have given up on this forum sometimes :)

1. I think giving your show certificates is beneath someone of your experience and standing. Let the viewer decide.

2. There were structural and information flaws in your show and since you are moderating it you have people questioning it. Maybe your producer and research team need this feedback more than you.

3. So as an experienced news professional, do you think 20 minutes is enough? You have 1 hour shows where the banalities of Indian politics and "sobfests" (sorry, but that's what they are) about the Indian soldier are regularly telecast. How about squeezing in a show on the large issue of defence acquisitions and inviting a few "technical" people from BR on it?

4. Many of us recognize how hard it is for people like you, Nitin Gokhale, Rajeev Ranjan and I'll even even add the good Col., to do topics that are so low TRP when most news channels make losses, but that also means expectations are higher... :)

It's Rajit by the way not Ranjit

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7736
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby rohitvats » 05 Aug 2013 09:52

Well, well, well - how the dice rolls!!!

So, it HAL + some babus in the MOD which has been peddling lies and misinformation? Now, who would have thought about it.

And all this while, the Zero-Zero ejections seat issue had me really worrying about an IAF Chief compromising national security, life of trainee pilots and instructors and someone hooked onto honey-train.

Our good old Colonel was used as a cat's paw and taken for a ride with misinformation and planted stories. And he fell for it hook-line and sinker...and ended up with egg on his face. Now, whenever he comes out with any report with insider data point - and that too from domestic MIL-IND Complex - I would be very wary of it.

And it seems our own HAL is not shy from indulging in some skulduggery. Were they trying to get back at IAF Chief for the HTT-40 refusal? And the flak they've drawn on LCA Production Line + MRO facility for ALH?

Quite pathetic, actually. The debate has been buried with RIP Ajai Shukla written large over it.

Sri
BRFite
Posts: 1326
Joined: 18 May 2005 20:19
Location: Earth

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sri » 05 Aug 2013 10:02

Vishnu,

Thanks for posting this video. I can understand the difficulty in putting across all points of view and coming to conclusion in just 20 mins of air time.

Since you are Editor for documentaries. May be some more effort and air time on this important issue is also on cards.

Vishnu
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Vishnu » 05 Aug 2013 10:06

RajitO wrote:

1. I think giving your show certificates is beneath someone of your experience and standing. Let the viewer decide.


Rajit ... obviously the viewer decides ... but I am too old in this business now to be hyping my own shows unless there was something there. As it turns out ... there was a lot of information that adds to the debate here.

RajitO wrote:
2. There were structural and information flaws in your show and since you are moderating it you have people questioning it. Maybe your producer and research team need this feedback more than you.


I don't think there were structural and information flaws on the programme at all. What are your specific concerns ? email me - vishnu@ndtv.com

RajitO wrote:
3. So as an experienced news professional, do you think 20 minutes is enough? You have 1 hour shows where the banalities of Indian politics and "sobfests" (sorry, but that's what they are) about the Indian soldier are regularly telecast. How about squeezing in a show on the large issue of defence acquisitions and inviting a few "technical" people from BR on it?


Point taken ... I could easily debate this for an hour ... but I also need to consider whether this is interesting enough to a larger audience. This was not a show for BRfites and already far far too technical for a larger audience.

RajitO wrote:
4. Many of us recognize how hard it is for people like you, Nitin Gokhale, Rajeev Ranjan and I'll even even add the good Col., to do topics that are so low TRP when most news channels make losses, but that also means expectations are higher... :)


Rajeev Ranjan does a smashing show with very respectable TRPs !! Incidentally TRPs are my pet subject - would be going badly offtrack if I discussed that here.

Cheers

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 05 Aug 2013 10:08

I beleve the IAF can and should take legal action against Shukla for slander. In singling out the CAS he has done immense damage to the entire institution in a calculated, malicious manner. Sensational reporting to sell oneself is one thing but twisting and deliberately leaving out pertinent info is another. This should. be intolerable and dealt with immediately otherwise every two-bit blogger will be taking potshots at the armed forces and tying them up in useless debates to clear their name and maintain morale.

Vishnu has pointed out official MoD-IAF meeting notes that clearly put the lie to Shukla's nonsense. Is he so incometent as to have "missed seeing" these reports or is he merely continuing his mission of blindly hitting out at the army and air force? Makes me wonder who he is working for. Who gains if India is forced to depend only on HAL's super efficiency and competence? If the air force is forced to wait another 5-10 years for a bloody trainer?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7736
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby rohitvats » 05 Aug 2013 10:18

Victor wrote:I beleve the IAF can and should take legal action against Shukla for slander. In singling out the CAS he has done immense damage to the entire institution in a calculated, malicious manner. Sensational reporting to sell oneself is one thing but twisting and deliberately leaving out pertinent info is another. This should. be intolerable and dealt with immediately otherwise every two-bit blogger will be taking potshots at the armed forces and tying them up in useless debates to clear their name and maintain morale.

Vishnu has pointed out official MoD-IAF meeting notes that clearly put the lie to Shukla's nonsense. Is he so incometent as to have "missed seeing" these reports or is he merely continuing his mission of blindly hitting out at the army and air force? Makes me wonder who he is working for. Who gains if India is forced to depend only on HAL's super efficiency and competence? If the air force is forced to wait another 5-10 years for a bloody trainer?


I don't think Shukla was misrepresenting the facts.

I think he was taken for a royal ride by people wanting to get back at the IAF Chief. And in his over enthusiasm he ended up getting an egg on his face.

I mean, the information that he presented, and the way he presented in his articles, is at so much variance with the truth coming out now, it is evident that someone fed him a concocted tale of another scam in defense procurement with information shared in a specific manner to make the IAF Chief look as the villain in the story. Come to think of it, his opening paragraph of the article (about 12 dilutions in requirement specs) contained reference to VVIP Chopper scam with extended reasoning that PC-7 purchase could be on similar line.

Now, I'm convinced that the current COAS is trying to do good things in the IAF and this has upset the gravy train - something like our very own former Army Chief V.K. Singh and TATRA scam. God knows which feathers the Chief has ruffled and made life for some pimps miserable in MOD - even in case of HTT-40, there may be a powerful lobby of such pimps at play. After all, there is lot of component to be imported. For example, for all we know, the Zero-Zero ejection seat offer was made because someone wanted to give business to Martin Baker?

But Shukla's @rse got fried on that program.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21140
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Philip » 05 Aug 2013 10:28

"Bloody trainer" and bloody bodies of rookie pilots and instructors as well,if the IAF is force-fed HAL's beauties.Unable to deliver and afeared of losing their monopoly on the huge gravy train of Indian defence production,the desi "military-industrial-complex" wants the status-quo to remain,where they swallow the meat of production of def. systems and eqpt. eqpt.,regardless of accountability on performance and delays.Blaming the end-user,the services for wanting to "import' always is an easy slur to spread.Thanks to Vishnu/NDTV,the truth has outed.Looking at Rohit's post,a good Q asked,what imported content is there on the desi HTTT-40? HAL's claim (at Aero-India '13) is that both ejection seat and engine will cost only 6 crores.
Last edited by Philip on 05 Aug 2013 10:37, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Austin » 05 Aug 2013 10:29

Looks like Ajai Shukla in all points he has raised turns out to be on the loosing side of the debate and then he resorts to sensationalism by bring in straw man like Mig-21 Pilots death or Zero-Zero Ejection !

Ajai does not understand the intricacies of flying and probably has never flown an aircraft in his life and is debating with people who has done it for a living ....so it is easy for people like Shukla to get overwhelmed and sort of brainwashed by the information that HAL has provided and to accept it as gospel truth and then go about badmouthing the IAF or its chief believing what he has is what the truth is.

Not his fault either since as defence journalist he has to write about every thing from Tanks to Ships to Aircraft and has to stick with editorial deadlines and what not .......it reflects our over all poor quality of defense journalism in India

Good Debate and Vishnu did good job of anchoring it within the time constrains that the commercial world like NDTV or other news channels operate.

May be some other time we can have a longer discussion and get in HAL reps on board for broader representative on this subject.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8153
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby nachiket » 05 Aug 2013 10:36

rohitvats wrote:I don't think Shukla was misrepresenting the facts.

I think he was taken for a royal ride by people wanting to get back at the IAF Chief. And in his over enthusiasm he ended up getting an egg on his face.

Yes, this is entirely possible. I hadn't thought of this angle before, for the simple reason that I didn't believe there was anyone in HAL willing to stoop to this level. Looking at the evidence that Shukla had, you can't fault him for thinking that there was something amiss. Plenty of us here believed it as well earlier. He could have of course, just presented whatever evidence he had in his article instead of launching the vicious attack that he did or try to dig deeper and make sure he had the complete picture. In his defense he states that he tried to get comments on it from the IAF but received no response.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby pragnya » 05 Aug 2013 11:10

nitpick.

in the video mr. n.v. tyagi does mention (post 23:00) a heavier basic trainer 'with armaments' needs a zero-zero ejection seat. HTT-40 is heavy vis a vis Pilatus and does carry armaments according to the HAL.

The HTT-40, he said, also has an unusual quality for a training aircraft. It can strap up guns and bombs and get into combat mode when there is a need for one. “It can fly up to 600 kmph and reach an altitude of 6 km,” he added.


what is wrong with the proposal of the ejection seat even if it came from HAL considering the above which was agreed to by IAF. i fail to understand. :roll:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7736
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby rohitvats » 05 Aug 2013 11:23

pragnya wrote:<SNIP>
what is wrong with the proposal of the ejection seat even if it came from HAL considering the above which was agreed to by IAF. i fail to understand. :roll:


Nothing wrong with this, unless, you do the following:

1. Say that IAF ASKED HAL to develop a trainer with Zero-Zero ejection seat via some mythical PSQR.

2. And use the above argument to suggest that when IAF cam out with ASQR for global purchase, it 'watered down' the ASQR by not asking for Zero-Zero seat.

3. Ipso facto, the above two translate into IAF shafting a home grown product with stringent PSQR while using a diluted ASQR while selecting an international plane.

4. Further, not only did ASQR was diluted to the detriment of HAL product, it was 'tailor-made' to allow Pilatus to enter contest and win with their offer for PC-7.

5. And it was insinuated that the whole of the above was done at the behest of IAF Chief and that it smacks of 'compromised' decision on the lines of VVIP Chopper scam where another Air Chief is supposed to have favored the winning party by lowering certain standards (height ceiling in case of Choppers).

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_22906 » 05 Aug 2013 11:27

pragnya wrote:what is wrong with the proposal of the ejection seat even if it came from HAL considering the above which was agreed to by IAF. i fail to understand. :roll:


If your requirement is to use a basic car (in the Maruti Alto segment) but are offered a value added one (like lets say Maruti Swift) at the same price, surely you'll be interested. But then you realize that the offer doesn't live upto to the promise, you go ahead and buy your original want - Maruti Alto.

Now you get pressurized to up your budget and go in for a Maruti Swift (currently on design board only) stating that its a better car than your Alto. Perhaps it is, but then again did you really need a Swift when your need is sufficiently met with an Alto?

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_22906 » 05 Aug 2013 11:31

... and to top it all you accuse the Chief of all sorts of nonsense when he desires his original wish and not take your fancy (on the drawing board) offer

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_23455 » 05 Aug 2013 11:31

pragnya wrote:nitpick.

in the video mr. n.v. tyagi does mention (post 23:00) a heavier basic trainer 'with armaments' needs a zero-zero ejection seat. HTT-40 is heavy vis a vis Pilatus and does carry armaments according to the HAL.

The HTT-40, he said, also has an unusual quality for a training aircraft. It can strap up guns and bombs and get into combat mode when there is a need for one. “It can fly up to 600 kmph and reach an altitude of 6 km,” he added.


what is wrong with the proposal of the ejection seat even if it came from HAL considering the above which was agreed to by IAF. i fail to understand. :roll:


Nothing, except for the huge irony bypass that Col. Shukla suffers from when he seems to suggest that it was the IAF which put up a "demanding" QR and then watered it down for the Pilatus, and when the IAF agreed to it then they get no brownie points for listening to the desi vendor.

The debate was a huge missed opportunity to clear a lot of obfuscation had a) an HAL person in the know like NV Tyagi been there b) each item on the list was discussed point by point.

Vishnu
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Vishnu » 05 Aug 2013 11:56

Hi ... a couple of points ...

The decision to push for forecloseure of the HTT-40 project is based on a directive from the DG (Acquisitions) in the Defence Ministry on September 5, 2012. It is not based on an independent IAF drive to shut down this project - it cannot be since the final arbiter of the sales and acquisition process is the MoD, not the Air Force.

That being said, it is my personal view that the HTT-40 project should continue - and HAL says that it will develop the trainer on its own. It would be a positive day for Indian aerospace to have a genuinely world class home-grown BTA. Hopefully, this aircraft would be considered ... as HAL argues ... by the Army and the Navy at some stage ... and who knows, by the Air Force as well.

Vishnu

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby pragnya » 05 Aug 2013 12:41

rohitvats,

Nothing wrong with this, unless, you do the following:

1. Say that IAF ASKED HAL to develop a trainer with Zero-Zero ejection seat via some mythical PSQR.


irrespective of who propsed, HTT-40 does need the zero zero ejection seat agreeed to by IAF. Ajay shukla can be faulted (on the point, who proposed it) but the fact that it is needed does not go away.

2. And use the above argument to suggest that when IAF cam out with ASQR for global purchase, it 'watered down' the ASQR by not asking for Zero-Zero seat.


from the video it can be noted, even though it was proposed by HAL, it was agreed to by IAF. now all this was in 2008 when the abinitio trainer RFI for global buy was not on, which happened later in dec 2009 when the zero zero ejection option was done away with. it is moot IAF did not want it now but the fact is they agreed to it in 2008 even though it was HAL's proposal.

as i said before, ajai shukla can be faulted (HAL clarification is needed too) but the ejection seat was necessary.

and i am not defending ajai/HAL here nor accusing IAF. merely trying to decipher facts.

even if the new requirement was for a very basic trainer minus the zero zero ejection, the point is HAL was already into the heavier version and changing it into a lighter version meant a completely new aircraft which would have taken more time.

3. Ipso facto, the above two translate into IAF shafting a home grown product with stringent PSQR while using a diluted ASQR while selecting an international plane.

4. Further, not only did ASQR was diluted to the detriment of HAL product, it was 'tailor-made' to allow Pilatus to enter contest and win with their offer for PC-7.


i am not faulting IAF for the new requirements - possibly they knew HAL won't be able to produce HTT 40 'in time' - but the fact that they agreed with HAL in 2008 naturally creates doubts in people's mind regards new RFI.

5. And it was insinuated that the whole of the above was done at the behest of IAF Chief and that it smacks of 'compromised' decision on the lines of VVIP Chopper scam where another Air Chief is supposed to have favored the winning party by lowering certain standards (height ceiling in case of Choppers).


that was wrong and totally uncalled for IMO. i agree with mr. ahluwalia on the show that the decision has inputs from many branches.

................................................

i second vishnu on his above post which i have said many moons ago. HAL needs to go ahead with HTT 40 even if IAF is not keen. it can be for IA, IN and global market.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7736
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby rohitvats » 05 Aug 2013 12:56

My dear friend, you're clutching at the straws here:

irrespective of who propsed, HTT-40 does need the zero zero ejection seat agreeed to by IAF. Ajay shukla can be faulted (on the point, who proposed it) but the fact that it is needed does not go away.


from the video it can be noted, even though it was proposed by HAL, it was agreed to by IAF. now all this was in 2008 when the abinitio trainer RFI for global buy was not on, which happened later in dec 2009 when the zero zero ejection option was done away with. it is moot IAF did not want it now but the fact is they agreed to it in 2008 even though it was HAL's proposal.



The requirement for BTT from IAF's side was of the category to which PC-7 belongs and in this category, IAF is OK with Zero-60 ejection seat and air-conditioned cabin.

The Zero-Zero ejection seat is needed (and agreed to by IAF) for an aircraft of the type proposed by HAL; other aircrafts which bid for the contract - Super Tucano and TA-6II - also fall in this category and have Zero-Zero ejection seat.

And it matters from where the Zero-Zero ejection seat requirement arose and why - because this point is an important component of the debate about IAF having favored a 'lesser' product and shafted a domestic development.

even if the new requirement was for a very basic trainer minus the zero zero ejection, the point is HAL was already into the heavier version and changing it into a lighter version meant a completely new aircraft which would have taken more time.


It does not matter if HAL is into heavier or lighter version because HAL development effort is not being faulted because of this aspect. However, if the HAL development effort cost seriously over and above the existing product, then there will, and is, an issue.

I am not faulting IAF for the new requirements - possibly they knew HAL won't be able to produce HTT 40 'in time' - but the fact that they agreed with HAL in 2008 naturally creates doubts in people's mind regards new RFI.


HAL said they will develop something which was beyond the requirement of IAF; If I am out in the market to buy a Honda City and you offer me a Civic, I'll be happy to take it but then don't expect me to pay more because I never wanted a Civic in the first place.

As for doubts - they have been created because of gross misrepresentation of facts and concocted story-telling.

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_23455 » 05 Aug 2013 14:55

pragnya wrote:
and i am not defending ajai/HAL here nor accusing IAF. merely trying to decipher facts.


that was wrong and totally uncalled for IMO. i agree with mr. ahluwalia on the show that the decision has inputs from many branches.



Since you are "merely trying to decipher facts" that "mr. ahluwalia" is Air Marshal Ahluwalia. May or may not be important but just throwing it out there.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Aug 2013 14:57

Vishnu wrote:The decision to push for forecloseure of the HTT-40 project is based on a directive from the DG (Acquisitions) in the Defence Ministry on September 5, 2012. It is not based on an independent IAF drive to shut down this project - it cannot be since the final arbiter of the sales and acquisition process is the MoD, not the Air Force.


Oh man, hopefully now that Vishnu has said it, people on BRF would want to believe it.

For all the gyan on BRF, people are still unable to comprehend the difference between MoD, IAF and PSUs. Without understanding the structure and division of roles and responsibilities all manner of mud is thrown about.

Sadly, a few people who DO know also get caught in the mess sometimes.

Abhibhushan
BRFite
Posts: 208
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 20:56
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Abhibhushan » 05 Aug 2013 15:53


vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby vina » 05 Aug 2013 16:42

Abhibhushan wrote:Lessons from the Gnat


Lessons from the Gnat indeed. How about the most important one that you managed to leave out , while shedding tears over how from order to pre production shipping it took 1 year and X months only for the Gnat T1 trainer. So, let me highlight that point from the same article you posted.

* HAL also designed a two-seat trainer version of the Ajeet, with a lengthened fuselage and a tandem dual-cockpit design. Two internal fuel tanks were deleted to accommodate the second cockpit. The two 30 millimeter cannon and the four stores pylons were retained, though the cannon could be removed and replaced with additional fuel tanks. The trainer used the same Orpheus 701 engine as the Gnat and Ajeet fighters.

The Ajeet trainer never reached production. One prototype was built in 1982 and crashed in that year, a second prototype flew in 1983, and then the program went into limbo, to eventually fade out. Some sources claim that 30 Ajeet trainers were built, but this is hard to believe. The IAF's requirement for an advanced trainer became something of an infamous saga, remaining unfilled through the 1980s and 1990s, until the service settled on the BAE Hawk.


So HAL actually produced a fully combat capable trainer, which could have been used as an AJT if you wanted to actually do so,but preferred to wait for 30 years before going out and buying the Hawk!

Go on, let us all blame HAL on how incompetent they are, couldn't think proactively on what will be needed (remember the poor sods proposed and built he HTT-34 trainer as well to rectify the HPT-32 faults back then) ! And now, just as their AJT was killed and they were kicked in the teeth for actually putting up their own money and coming up with a trainer, so too were they kicked in the teeth on the basic trainer and a watered down , "good enough" trainer is imported from Sweden.

Good show eh what ? Time for HAL to give the birdie to the IAF and tell them to take a walk and actually build the HTT 40 and sell it to the Army and BSF and Navy and help the Army and BSF raise fixed wing groups and stiff the IAF.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Manish_Sharma » 05 Aug 2013 16:54

Looks glossy & beautiful, hope one day we have with indigenous engine and our own ejection seat:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9M1ROtGa8TA/TVVJ3-q7P8I/AAAAAAAAALw/lXxFdAX_nx4/s1600/IJT+Prototype.JPG

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby tsarkar » 05 Aug 2013 17:50

vina wrote:remember the poor sods proposed and built he HTT-34 trainer as well to rectify the HPT-32 faults back then!
Care to explain how did HTT-34 rectify HPT-32 faults?

It was just the same plane with a different engine, developed the same time as HPT-32, and not after.



Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests