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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 02 Sep 2013 18:13

John wrote:I would call it capability if HAL can put together one in 2 year which for certain it cannot.


Please point me out aviation companies which have designed,built,tested,certified and mass produced a basic trainer in the time frame that you want HAL to do it.

Your reply didn't answer the questions that I asked before hence posting them again,

Sagar G wrote:
John wrote:IMO Trainer is simple endeavor IMO that can be handled by foreign JV with over private companies.


But why throw money at foreign vendors to build a basic trainer for us when the capability to build one indigenously already exists ??? What is the guarantee that the product from the said JV won't end up being pricey ???

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby John » 02 Sep 2013 18:42

Sagar G wrote:Please point me out aviation companies which have designed,built,tested,certified and mass produced a basic trainer in the time frame that you want HAL to do it.

It was timeline HAL said it can deliver HTT-40 back in 2012, in 2 year the aircraft will be ready for trials. 2016-17 the aircraft will be ready for induction. Take it for what its worth, i doubt anyone believes' HAL can deliver before 2020 no matter how $$$ we throw at it.

Sagar G wrote:But why throw money at foreign vendors to build a basic trainer for us when the capability to build one indigenously already exists ??? What is the guarantee that the product from the said JV won't end up being pricey ???
.
Let me ask you this where is the proof that HAL has the capability to deliver HTT-40 on time and on budget?

Surely any decent aeronautical firm out there can better job managing a project than what HAL has done with IJT so far. I don't mind delays what scares me about Sitara is that we are not getting correct story of what's going on and
how poorly it is been mismanaged.

With basic trainer risk is minimal, even if venture fails we still have PC-7 to fall back on nothing wrong with trying something new.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby rohitvats » 02 Sep 2013 19:01

Well, here is a detailed rejoinder on the PC-7 and HTT-40 saga.

http://www.spsmai.com/aerospace/?id=2375&q=Basic-trainer-aircraft:-The-facts

As I said earlier, AS was taken for a ride by people who wanted to present a particular narrative; and even after he was b1tch-slapped and shown to have been taken for a ride, he has continued to peddle the old nonsense.

Posting the article in full:

Basic trainer aircraft: The facts
By Air Marshal (Retd) Anil Chopra

The debate on whether the basic trainer aircraft (BTA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF) should be indigenously developed or procured from abroad, hit a new high after a report in the media alleging that the IAF was trying to scuttle the development of the BTA by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The article also pitted the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the IAF and HAL against each other. There is therefore a need to put the issues in correct perspective.

Urgent Requirement of Basic Trainer

The IAF had initially taken up a case for procurement of 181 BTA as ‘Make, by HAL’. draft preliminary staff qualitative requirements (PSQRs) were provided to HAL in February 2008. After discussions between the IAF and HAL, the PSQRs were mutually agreed upon and issued in March 2009. A fatal accident of HPT-32 in May 2009 resulted in grounding of the HPT-32 fleet in July that year. This somewhat sudden development created an unacceptable void in basic flying training that compelled the IAF to propose procurement of 75 BTA urgently from the global market. The balance of 106 BTA were to be indigenously designed, developed and produced by HAL as the Indian aerospace major was not inclined to license-manufacture the aircraft 75 of which were to be procured from a selected foreign vendor.

The Procurement Process

As per the defence procurement procedure (DPP) in vogue, the Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQRs) were prepared and ratified by the Service Equipment Policy Committee (SEPC) in October 2009. Simultaneously the PSQRs issued to HAL earlier in March 2009 were also revised to align with the ASQR for BTA (Buy) and were reissued to HAL by December 2009. HAL submitted its first draft project report (DPR) in September 2010 based on the amended PSQRs. Thus, as on date, PSQRs and ASQRs are similar, the major difference being that PSQRs include both ‘essential’ and ‘desirable’ parameters whereas ASQRs include only ‘essential’ parameters. PSQRs being preliminary are provisional and subject to review/change during the development process. The desirable parameters are based on futuristic/emerging technologies whereas the essential parameters are to be of proven state-of-the-art technology available in India as also in the world market. The ASQRs cannot be reviewed once the request for proposal (RFP) is issued. The ASQRs are based on inputs obtained through request for information (RFI) so as to ensure a multi-vendor situation. The Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) then accorded acceptance of necessity (AON) for HAL in February 2010 to go ahead with the indigenous design and development of 106 BTA.

The RFP for BTA (Buy) was issued to 12 vendors of which nine responded, two vendors were disqualified due to non-submission of Integrity Pact and incomplete proposals. Of the seven vendors remaining in the race, five cleared the technical evaluation committee (TEC) and three cleared the field evaluation trials (FET) after meeting with all ASQRs. This indicates that the ASQRs were broadbased and were not formulated to favour any specific vendor or product. The RFP for BTA received maximum response generating the largest competition in aircraft procurement in recent history. Pilatus of Switzerland emerged as the lowest bidder (L1) out of the three at contract negotiation stage.

Staff Qualitative Requirements

Air HQ had not visualised the requirement of a zero-zero ejection seat while drafting PSQRs. However, HAL proposed to provide such an ejection seat and hence this was included in the PSQRs issued for the first time. When the ASQRs for the BTA (Buy) were being formulated, it was evident from the response to RFI that only two aircraft were available in the world market with a zero-zero ejection seat. This would have narrowed the competition to only two vendors. Further, a zero-zero ejection seat is not an essential requirement for a basic trainer class of aircraft, which has very low take-off/landing speeds and distances. Accordingly, the ASQR merely stated, “The aircraft should be fitted with an ejection seat.” This ensured that more than seven vendors remained in the competition. The current PSQRs also stipulate that the aircraft should be fitted with an ejection seat.

Pressurisation of the cockpit for BTA, which has a service ceiling of six km, was never an IAF requirement. In their preliminary project report (PPR) on HTT-40 in January 2008, HAL had stated that “The option of cabin pressurisation will also be looked into during the detailed design stage”. Accordingly, ‘cockpit pressurisation’ was included as a desirable parameter in the earlier PSQRs. Even the HTT-40 under the BTA (Make) does not have ‘Cockpit Pressurisation’. The detailed project report (DPR) on HTT-40 submitted by HAL in September 2010 and approved by DG (Acquisition), did not include ‘cockpit pressurisation’.

With regard to the external vision, both the ASQR and current PSQR have identical criteria. In the earlier PSQRs, the seating configuration was defined as tandem arrangement and therefore, it included the requirement for external vision from rear cockpit of minus eight degrees. From the response to request for information (RFI) it emerged that the world market had BTA with both ‘tandem’ and ‘side-by-side’ seating. Accordingly, the ASQRs stipulated that “the external vision requirement should be in accordance with the relevant specification. Additionally, for a tandem seating design, the instructor’s cockpit in the rear should be sufficiently raised to allow safe flight instruction both by day and night.” The rear cockpit of the PC-7 Mk II, is sufficiently raised to provide a minus 10 degrees vision over the aircraft nose. Both ASQRs and the current PSQRs specify that “The aircraft should have a glide ratio better than 10:1”. The glide ratio of the PC-7 Mk II is in excess of 12:1. This means that while gliding with engine failed, the aircraft will traverse two nm on the ground for every 1000 feet of descent.

Both ASQRs and the current PSQRs do not specify any requirement for in-flight simulation. This requirement could be met with using the fixed base full mission simulator which was also being acquired and hence this requirement of a simulation panel on the aircraft was omitted as a considered decision while finalising ASQRs and the current PSQRs. Both the ASQRs and current PSQRs stipulate “the takeoff distance required should be less than 1000 m”. The takeoff distance of the PC-7 Mk II is 259 metres at sea level. Similarly, the requirement of maximum speed specified is 450 kmph and that of the PC-7 Mk II is 555 kmph.

Financial Paradigms

As per the Project Report submitted by HAL in May 2013, the projected unit cost of the HTT-40 was at 2011 price level and did not include a number of expenses such as costs of design and development, which IAF will need to pay upfront. After amortising these costs over 106 aircraft and applying the government approved escalation rates, the ‘real’ unit cost of the HTT-40 for the actual delivery period would be Rs. 59.31 crore in 2018 and Rs. 64.77 crore in 2020. As against this, the contracted unit cost of the PC-7 Mk II is 6.09 million Swiss Francs ( Rs. 40.27 crore). This price of the PC-7 Mk Il is frozen under the ‘Option Clause’ for deliveries up to 2017. Hence, even at 2011price level, the HTT-40 is substantially more expensive than PC-7 Mk II. Unlike the HAL HTT-40, deliveries of all 75 PC-7 Mk II would be completed by 2015 and if the Option Clause is exercised, 38 more PC-7 Mk II could be delivered by 2017 at the same price. Time frame for delivery by HAL of the indigenous BTA remains uncertain.

The draft PSQRs were prepared by thy IAF based on various options and inputs provided by HAL as the OEM for BTA (Make). The ASQRs for BTA (Buy) case were ratified by SEPC on October 9, 2009, in accordance with the DPP. The SEPC included representatives of MoD, DRDO, DGAQA, HQ IDS and Air HQ. The PSQRs for BTA (Make) were amended to align with the ASQRs for BTA (Buy). With regard to life-cycle costs (LCC), Pilatus emerged as the lowest bidder on the basis of the total cost of acquisition over 10,000 flying hours or 30 years of life. The LCC has actually been estimated based on the commercial proposal submitted by the vendor and not on speculative and arbitrary assessments. The Pilatus contract also includes transfer of maintenance technology (MToT). Once achieved, all subsequent requirements for spares and servicing/overhaul would be sourced from HAL. Even a BTA (Make) would continue to source a large number of spares from abroad as major components such as engine, propeller, ejection seat, avionics etc in the HTT-40 would be of foreign origin.

Final Word

The entire procurement process is handled by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) with support of Air HQ. The IAF and the MoD have followed the defence procurement procedures meticulously for both BTA (Buy) and BTA (Make) with full transparency and probity. Any insinuation of dilutions of specifications to favour a particular vendor or aircraft, is baseless and incorrect.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 02 Sep 2013 19:34

John wrote:It was timeline HAL said it can deliver HTT-40 back in 2012, in 2 year the aircraft will be ready for trials. 2016-17 the aircraft will be ready for induction. Take it for what its worth, i doubt anyone believes' HAL can deliver before 2020 no matter how $$$ we throw at it.


Has the timelines already been breached that you are getting upset about it ???

John wrote:Let me ask you this where is the proof that HAL has the capability to deliver HTT-40 on time and on budget?


Well HAL seemed pretty confident twice before when it had itself proposed to IAF two BTT projects which mysteriously (well not such but let's just say that) the IAF chose to ignore, so given that it seems like they have enough confidence and resources to deliver the project on time.

John wrote:Surely any decent aeronautical firm out there can better job managing a project than what HAL has done with IJT so far. I don't mind delays what scares me about Sitara is that we are not getting correct story of what's going on and
how poorly it is been mismanaged.


John I wasn't talking about Sitara our talk is about the Basic trainer project so why are you bringing in Sitara in it ??? Please stick to BTT only.

John wrote:With basic trainer risk is minimal, even if venture fails we still have PC-7 to fall back on nothing wrong with trying something new.


Ok so you are fine with the possibility of rupees going down the drain with a foreign JV having a no experience Indian pvt. partner but aren't ready to give HAL a shot at it. All this just for the sake of "trying something new" !!!! How about talking to the Chinese then huh ??? That would be something totally new and extremely exciting, wouldn't it ???

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby vishvak » 02 Sep 2013 19:50

This issue will come up again next time or when more smaller planes are required.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby John » 02 Sep 2013 19:56

Sagar this pointless discussion i get it there are people who will defend HAL to end's of the earth and will claim past failures have no impact on HTT-40 whatsoever or cause any delays for other products. Because HAL promised us it won't be and let's take their word for granted.

Surely if we do same thing over and over again, maybe for change something different might happen and who knows basic trainer will magically be on time and under budget.

As i said a year ago if HAL had come out here is what went wrong with prior products and here is what we learned and here is how HTT-40 will be different, for sure i will support it.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 02 Sep 2013 20:41

John it's extremely amusing to see your behaviour and of people like you who in reply to straight forward questions come up with half baked answers and then take the high moral route to end the discussion. It's no state secret that DPSU's are corrupt,inefficient and mismanaged and have been designed (which has been perfected over the years) to do exactly that so as to keep the gravy train running. The general belief is that the armed forces in this case the IAF is spotless, upright, never did any wrong kind of organization. So whenever any question is asked which is critical of there behaviour the poster is met with replies ranging from abusive, question his/her patriotism, getting labelled as DPSU agent/having personal interest in them, is asked whether he/she has any one from his/her family or relatives in armed forces, point out the faults of DPSU's in reply etc. etc. Sadly none of these answer the legitimate questions like why didn't IAF take up HAL's offer to design new BTT's twice ??? Why did IAF wait till 2006 to get involved in the LCA project ??? Why doesn't IAF put more men and money behind indigenous projects ??? Why instead of supporting indigenization all it does is try and kill indigenous projects ??? etc etc. In reply most of the things as I stated above is witnessed but what is missing is the indisputable answer which will put to rest any further questions regarding an issue. If IAF is such a holy cow then factually answering must be extremely easy no but why isn't that the case ???

John wrote:As i said a year ago if HAL had come out here is what went wrong with prior products and here is what we learned and here is how HTT-40 will be different, for sure i will support it.


Oh so you want HAL to make ppt's regarding what it has learned or not, present it to the general public, get there seal of approval and then embark on a project instead of focusing there energy on the project itself. Sound like a genius plan, you should petition the HAL chief about this plan of your's, let's see what he has to say about it.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 02 Sep 2013 20:43

John wrote:As i said a year ago if HAL had come out here is what went wrong with prior products and here is what we learned and here is how HTT-40 will be different, for sure i will support it.

One of the best points I have come against in recent times at BR. I completely agree.

I will give the reason for my optimism. Given the modified PSQR, the HTT-40 is a relatively simple plane to build. They just have to finalize design configuration. Every other thing has been done before. The avionics can be IJT--. If they put it on war footing, they can get there.

Very passionate people have built acrobatic planes in their garages. Professors at aero depts. of universities often build a plane with their students in 4-5 years, albeit without tandem seating, avionics and ejection seats.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 02 Sep 2013 20:55

Business Standard of Feb 13, 2013 with the title "BAE to help iron out ch!nks in intermediate jet trainer. (Somehow can't post the link??)
The issues pertaining to aerodynamics and the poor manoeuvrability of the aircraft is said to have been chief worries on the IJT

This is what I was afraid of. If true, it speaks loud and clear about the design capability at HAL, forget the project planning. It's back to the drawing board

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 02 Sep 2013 21:16

A few years ago, BAE Systems had informally “exchanged notes” with the IJT’s pilots on its (IJT’s) aerodynamics. This has now led to the BAE now offering to sort some of the issues dogging the IJT. The issues pertaining to aerodynamics and the poor manoeuvrability of the aircraft is said to have been chief worries on the IJT front. “It’s especially with regards to the issues faced by the aircraft during a high angle of attack that’s been a cause for concern,” said Michael Christie, senior vice-president, Hawk India programme and director, Hawk programme, BAE Systems. “The specialist aerodynamic and engineering services consultancy we are providing will assist in the characteristics of the aircraft at high angle of attack.”


Hmmm dollllaaassss yum yum

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby John » 02 Sep 2013 21:43

Sagar G wrote:why didn't IAF take up HAL's offer to design new BTT's twice ??? Why did IAF wait till 2006 to get involved in the LCA project ??? Why doesn't IAF put more men and money behind indigenous projects ??? Why instead of supporting indigenization all it does is try and kill indigenous projects ??? etc etc. In reply most of the things as I stated above is witnessed but what is missing is the indisputable answer which will put to rest any further questions regarding an issue. If IAF is such a holy cow then factually answering must be extremely easy no but why isn't that the case ???

I am not defending IAF IMO it lack of involvement, poor planning/requirements and defense corruption are equally at fault. There is some things that can never change but right now the ball is on HAL court to deliver the project that are on hand.
No organization would throw more money at vendor/dpsu etc to start a new project when they already struggling to deliver the previous projects at hand, it makes no sense. Supporting HAL blindly on HTT-40 again is not supporting indigenous endeavor, it is return to common sense.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 02 Sep 2013 21:55

Sagar G wrote:Hmmm dollllaaassss yum yum

Ya "consulting" doesn't come cheap and they won't accept INR anytime soon. But the bigger question is why do we need consultants for a freaking trainer design when we are throwing hundreds of crores at HAL?

It boggles the mind that HAL, IAF or GOI never saw fit to ask India's engineering majors first. Mahindra is designing, building and selling real aircraft all over the world but that's not good enough for us. At least IAF has shown intent to rope in private companies to compete but HAL/GOI have effectively stymied that effort. The former because they'll become irrelevant overnight and the latter because HAL is their cash cow and guaranteed employment scheme.

More importantly, we will most likely be stuck with old trainers for another decade at least and eventually end up buying a foreign plane when trainees begin to get killed on ageing Kirans. Then and only then, HAL will pull out a trainer mockup from its musharraff and say "but, but, BUTT, we too have a trainer see? So you (IAF) are anti national corrupt people and should WAIT until we give you an acceptable plane" What else is new. Taken along with HAL's other stellar projects, this is called "getting FOC'D".

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 02 Sep 2013 22:10

John wrote:I am not defending IAF IMO it lack of involvement, poor planning/requirements and defense corruption are equally at fault. There is some things that can never change but right now the ball is on HAL court to deliver the project that are on hand. No organization would throw more money at vendor/dpsu etc to start a new project when they already struggling to deliver the previous projects at hand, it makes no sense. Supporting HAL blindly on HTT-40 again is not supporting indigenous endeavor, it is return to common sense.


Common sense also tells us that you must first actually support then expect result in return. IN also struggles with naval yards but still it supports indigenous programs. IAF has to do a hell lot more before it get's the right to criticise indigenous programs. IAF was and still a "reluctant customer" and being such it should not try and take the high moral ground when it comes to critical review of our aviation programs.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 02 Sep 2013 22:15

Victor wrote:Ya "consulting" doesn't come cheap and they won't accept INR anytime soon. But the bigger question is why do we need consultants for a freaking trainer design when we are throwing hundreds of crores at HAL?


Who told you we need consultants ??? Maybe you should read properly before coming up with baseless assumptions.

Victor wrote:It boggles the mind that HAL, IAF or GOI never saw fit to ask India's engineering majors first. Mahindra is designing, building and selling real aircraft all over the world but that's not good enough for us. :rotfl:


Yeah that makes sense !!!!

Victor wrote:At least IAF has shown intent to rope in private companies to compete but HAL/GOI have effectively stymied that effort.


GoI might be doing that but HAL !!!! When did that happen ??? Carrying out a misinformation campaign won't help.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sanku » 02 Sep 2013 22:19

To be very frank, HAL (not ADA/DRDO) should first build a blooming glider and make it fly, before any one will take their "aircraft design" claims seriously.

What was the last time HAL designed any flying aircraft? Are there any designers even left from that period?

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 02 Sep 2013 22:19

Sagar G wrote: Why did IAF wait till 2006 to get involved in the LCA project ??? Why doesn't IAF put more men and money behind indigenous projects ??? Why instead of supporting indigenization all it does is try and kill indigenous projects ??? etc etc.

These sound just like AS's whines and if the IAF didn't have more important things to do, they would put out just as resounding a thappad as they did with the AS hack job. There are bound to be very good reasons for these things and given a choice between IAF and HAL viewpoints, I would choose IAF 100 times out of 100.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 02 Sep 2013 22:27

Sanku wrote:Are there any designers even left from that period?

Dr Ghatge's ilk have long since gone home. However, I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a couple of really good designers at HAL right now. The problem is they are not allowed to show their stuff because, HAL being a seniority based org, that would rock the boat and expose the useless cr@p floating on the top. Merit is discouraged at HAL and all DPSU's.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 02 Sep 2013 22:32

Victor wrote:These sound just like AS's whines and if the IAF didn't have more important things to do, they would put out just as resounding a thappad as they did with the AS hack job. There are bound to be very good reasons for these things and given a choice between IAF and HAL viewpoints, I would choose IAF 100 times out of 100.


Your choice, doesn't mean everybody chooses to be an ostrich like you.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 02 Sep 2013 22:51

Sagar G wrote:Your choice, doesn't mean everybody chooses to be an ostrich like you.

So the corollary is that everyone (including you) who buys HAL's stellar record against the decades-long evidence are not ostriches? Wah bhai, what's left to say?

My choice is the same as IAF, Reliance, Tata, Mahindra, Dassault, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and basically the entire aeronautical universe. Your choice is the same as HAL...and who else?

Face up to it. HAL is an internationally known (including in India) dud with an embarrassingly long track record of non performance and failure that has hurt India grievously for many decades. The reasons for this are quite plain. You may believe that this is the best India can do but most of the sane universe does not. My beef is not with HAL per se because it is ultimately made up of ordinary everyday Indians. I am angry at the GoI and MoD for allowing this faulty enterprise to exist for so long and not make any effort to correct it. All calls for greater involvement in key management and decision making by the IAF have been rebuffed and this alone absolves the IAF of all fault in my eyes. Like I said, the sh!t is floating on the top plainly in sight.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 02 Sep 2013 22:59

Victor wrote:So the corollary is that everyone (including you) who buys HAL's stellar record against the decades-long evidence are not ostriches? Wah bhai, what's left to say?


Do you even know what a corollary means ??? Try to read and understand someone's post before having an orgasm over your keyboard.

Victor wrote:My choice is the same as IAF, Reliance, Tata, Mahindra, Dassault, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and basically the entire aeronautical universe. Your choice is the same as HAL...and who else?


Quoting myself again "Try to read and understand someone's post before having an orgasm over your keyboard."

Victor wrote:All calls for greater involvement in key management and decision making by the IAF have been rebuffed and this alone absolves the IAF of all fault in my eyes.


You see the world only in black or white and I have no problems with that but why force others to do the same hain ???

Moderator note: No need for phrases like "orgasm over your keyboard". Keep it civil, please.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_23694 » 02 Sep 2013 23:02

Sanku wrote:To be very frank, HAL (not ADA/DRDO) should first build a blooming glider and make it fly, before any one will take their "aircraft design" claims seriously.

What was the last time HAL designed any flying aircraft? Are there any designers even left from that period?


Perfect

If IAF can use HAL built ALH and ready for LCH and everyone is fine with that then it basically means that IAF will also use any HTT, IJT etc provided they are available or at least holds some promise.
The problem is the procurement policy for defence equipment is already very slow (as in case of AJT) , so if we have a scenario where IAF bets on HAL, waits for 10 years for an IJT (4 proto built with 3 serious incidents till now) and then we don't have a fully certified aircraft then what should IAF do . It will then start RFP and all sorts of thing with the first aircraft coming (if at all ) after another 20 years.

By blaming IAF for all the serious mess at HAL , I am confused who the ostrich is :roll:

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 02 Sep 2013 23:05

Sagar G, your filthy language reminds of the trashy paki forums and exposes you better than anything anyone could ever say.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 02 Sep 2013 23:06

dhiraj wrote:By blaming IAF for all the serious mess at HAL , I am confused who the ostrich is :roll:


Oh bhai genius when did I do that ??? Please point my post saying that as well.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 02 Sep 2013 23:07

Victor wrote:Sagar G, your filthy language reminds of the trashy paki forums and exposes you better than anything anyone could ever say.


See Victor if you want a proper answer then give me a proper logical well sensed reply when you are yourself being a paki then what can I do ???

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 02 Sep 2013 23:43

Sagar G wrote:
Victor wrote:Sagar G, your filthy language reminds of the trashy paki forums and exposes you better than anything anyone could ever say.


See Victor if you want a proper answer then give me a proper logical well sensed reply when you are yourself being a paki then what can I do ???

Ah, so if you don't agree with someone on this board you feel its OK to abuse them with vile language? Fine. Just wanted you to put that out in the open.

BTW, I don't want any answers from you or anyone else. I'm just stating my views regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 02 Sep 2013 23:45

Victor wrote:Ah, so if you don't agree with someone on this board you feel its OK to abuse them with vile language? Fine. Just wanted you to put that out in the open.


I talk back in the language in which I am talked into and by the way when did I abuse you ???

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Sagar G » 02 Sep 2013 23:59

Victor wrote:BTW, I don't want any answers from you or anyone else. I'm just stating my views regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.


The right others equally have as well.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby John » 03 Sep 2013 00:03

It is waste of time arguing against someone who is firmly in HAL camp and believe it can't do no wrong. Can the mods go thru and clean up some of the earlier posts??

It would interesting to see what comes out of BAE-Sitara venture.

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 Sep 2013 00:13

It's also a waste of time arguing against people who instead of coming up with answers to straightforward questions assign "camps" and try to take high moral ground so that they can continue to thump there chests.

God !!!! People are now pipe dreaming about a non existent venture now :lol:

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Victor » 03 Sep 2013 08:53

John wrote:It would interesting to see what comes out of BAE-Sitara venture.

Yes, it would. Reports say HAL hired BAE last year so work is under way as we speak. Hope HAL manages to learn and absorb something.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5382
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Kartik » 03 Sep 2013 14:27

Philip wrote:I've posted in the Ind.Av. td. the details about the PC-21,which replaces the need for 3-4 types of trainers,leading pilots straight onto sophisticated combat trainers,as it can simulate the performance of fighter jets.Here is one report how it is faring very well globally.

PC-21taking the GCC trainer market by storm
Posted 12 November 2012 ·

The aircraft can be fitted with under-wing hardpoints for the carriage of stores, including fuel tanks and a range of weapons, but can also emulate the use of advanced air-to-air missiles and radar. All of this means that not only can the PC-21 simulate a modern frontline fighter in some limited aspects, rather it can give the student pilot a really convincing replication of flying and operating a modern fast jet, and can be a genuinely useful preparation for frontline types, though most customers so far have procured it to operate alongside the very types of elementary and advanced trainers that it could easily also replace.

In the Gulf, the UAE announced an order of 25 PC-21s for the United Arab Emirates Air Force at the 2009 Dubai Airshow. The aircraft will replace the UAE’s aging fleet of Pilatus PC-7s. But an advanced trainer is also being sought, with the Alenia M-346 provisionally selected. The first UAE PC-21 made its maiden flight on November 22 2010 and deliveries began in the first quarter of 2011.

Saudi Arabia signed a contract with BAE systems to provide 55 Pilatus PC-21 aircraft (along with 22 BAE Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer aircraft) in May 2012. First deliveries will begin in 2014.

Saudi student pilots will transition from the Cirrus SR-21 to the glass cockpit PC-21 and will then go on to fly the Hawk 65/65A (with an analogue cockpit) before finally progressing to the new Hawk AJT (which has a modern glass cockpit). This leaves an obvious requirement for a glass cockpit upgrade for the Hawk 65/65A, or for a follow on Hawk AJT buy to replace these aircraft.




read the article carefully. Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia ordered separate Advanced Jet Trainers despite having ordered the PC-21. And so has Singapore which has gone for the M-346 Master.

So its abundantly clear that while Pilatus and journos like Jon Lake (the guy doesn't have the greatest credibility anyway) try to whip up the capabilities of the PC-21 by suggesting that it will help do away with a jet trainer, the real customers who need to believe that tripe will continue to invest in AJTs.

Dennis
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 28 May 2009 19:43

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Dennis » 03 Sep 2013 18:45

Just noticed this strangeness and not sure what to make of it - Why does this (and only this photograph shows this) new C-17 airframe of the IAF appear to have a poorly applied two-tone paint job?
Or is it an optical illusion of some sort?

Link

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Singha » 03 Sep 2013 18:49

somehow I feel the people have been placed in front after some sloppy PS type work.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_23455 » 03 Sep 2013 19:37

Dennis wrote:Just noticed this strangeness and not sure what to make of it - Why does this (and only this photograph shows this) new C-17 airframe of the IAF appear to have a poorly applied two-tone paint job?
Or is it an optical illusion of some sort?

Link


That appears to be a C-17 in IAF uniform in the background, with persons dressed in IAF uniform and one two dressed in politician uniform in the foreground.

Dennis
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 28 May 2009 19:43

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Dennis » 03 Sep 2013 20:05

RajitO wrote:That appears to be a C-17 in IAF uniform in the background, with persons dressed in IAF uniform and one two dressed in politician uniform in the foreground.


Yes, and the C-17 appears to have a strange paint job. Why? PS (as Singha thinks)?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16888
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 03 Sep 2013 20:17

^^^^^

Perahsp PS. Look right above the cockpit. Seems to me that it has the USAF markings for a refueling receptacle. ????? I am not sure what the Indian C-17s should have - I expect them to retain the probe that all other aircrafts have.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4751
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby srai » 03 Sep 2013 20:30

Kartik wrote:[quote="Philip" I've posted in the Ind.Av. td. the details about the PC-21,which replaces the need for 3-4 types of trainers,leading pilots straight onto sophisticated combat trainers,as it can simulate the performance of fighter jets.Here is one report how it is faring very well globally.

PC-21taking the GCC trainer market by storm
Posted 12 November 2012 ·

The aircraft can be fitted with under-wing hardpoints for the carriage of stores, including fuel tanks and a range of weapons, but can also emulate the use of advanced air-to-air missiles and radar. All of this means that not only can the PC-21 simulate a modern frontline fighter in some limited aspects, rather it can give the student pilot a really convincing replication of flying and operating a modern fast jet, and can be a genuinely useful preparation for frontline types, though most customers so far have procured it to operate alongside the very types of elementary and advanced trainers that it could easily also replace.

In the Gulf, the UAE announced an order of 25 PC-21s for the United Arab Emirates Air Force at the 2009 Dubai Airshow. The aircraft will replace the UAE’s aging fleet of Pilatus PC-7s. But an advanced trainer is also being sought, with the Alenia M-346 provisionally selected. The first UAE PC-21 made its maiden flight on November 22 2010 and deliveries began in the first quarter of 2011.

Saudi Arabia signed a contract with BAE systems to provide 55 Pilatus PC-21 aircraft (along with 22 BAE Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer aircraft) in May 2012. First deliveries will begin in 2014.

Saudi student pilots will transition from the Cirrus SR-21 to the glass cockpit PC-21 and will then go on to fly the Hawk 65/65A (with an analogue cockpit) before finally progressing to the new Hawk AJT (which has a modern glass cockpit). This leaves an obvious requirement for a glass cockpit upgrade for the Hawk 65/65A, or for a follow on Hawk AJT buy to replace these aircraft.


[/quote

read the article carefully. Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia ordered separate Advanced Jet Trainers despite having ordered the PC-21. And so has Singapore which has gone for the M-346 Master.

So its abundantly clear that while Pilatus and journos like Jon Lake (the guy doesn't have the greatest credibility anyway) try to whip up the capabilities of the PC-21 by suggesting that it will help do away with a jet trainer, the real customers who need to believe that tripe will continue to invest in AJTs.


I think it's more that you don't need an IJT with PC-21. You'll still need AJT though.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16888
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 04 Sep 2013 00:51

Sept 3, 2013 :: Co-development, co-production in defence top PM's agenda on US visit

Co-development and co-production in defence, including the joint production of BAE Systems’ M-777 howitzer guns, announcement of the acquisition of 20-plus Apache and Chinook attack helicopters from Boeing and second tranche delivery of the world’s largest military transport plane C-130J Hercules {should that be C-17?}, top the ‘informal’ agenda of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s forthcoming visit to the US in September.

These defence deals are expected to cost India in excess of $2.5 billion. They would also touch on the progress made so far in the Defence Trade Initiative — aimed at relaxing US laws to allow greater joint R&D efforts on defence products.

A high-level delegation led by US deputy defence secretary Ashton Carter is landing in the capital to finalise the agenda in the next few days, government sources told FE.

FE has learnt that an announcement of a second tranche of the world’s largest military transport plane C-130J Hercules {that should be C-17} from Lockheed Martin is also expected during the PM’s 3-day visit to the US. Even though both sides are working to have a fixed agenda for the PM and his meeting with the US President Barack Obama, an announcement regarding the acquisition of 22 Boeing Apache Longbow strike Helicopters and 15 Heavy Lift Boeing CH Chinook helicopters is also on the cards.

Sources have revealed that under the Defence Trade Initiative, the US side has offered four projects including the stalled third generation anti-tank guided Javelin missile for the Indian Army, which would also feature in the talks.

The missile is delayed due to reluctance by the Americans to offer the critical technology of the missile to India and the unwillingness to take part in field trials. India is planning to acquire these missiles for modernising its more than 350 Infantry units and provide them the capability to destroy enemy armoured regiments.

Sources said the US side is keen on the joint production for some aspects of the BAE Systems’ M-777 howitzer guns — for which Bharat Heavy Electrical (BHEL) is one of the PSUs identified for this project as part of offsets. According to the proposed co-production agreement, crucial parts of the M-777 howitzer guns may be developed in India.

With a growing track record of major system sales, including C-17 Globemaster III and C-130J transport aircraft, P-8I maritime surveillance aircraft, the two sides are on the cusp of signing many more deals.

India is expecting to seal deals worth billions of dollars for helicopters, howitzer guns, weapons systems and platforms with the US in 2013-14. Six C-130J special operations aircraft from Lockheed Martin, valued at $1.2 billion, have already arrived in the country and an order for six more is in the offing.

India is in the process of placing an order for M777 ultra-light howitzers (ULH) with Laser Inertial Artillery Pointing Systems (LINAPS) for $885 million from BAE Systems, US through foreign military sales (FMS) route.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has also shortlisted 22 Boeing Apache Longbow strike helicopters ($1.2 billion), and 15 heavy-lift Boeing CH Chinook helicopters ($1.4 billion).

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8167
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby nachiket » 04 Sep 2013 01:22

srai wrote:I think it's more that you don't need an IJT with PC-21. You'll still need AJT though.

One could argue that you don't need an IJT with any modern Turboprop trainer including the PC-7. Hell, IAF rookies were jumping from the HJT-16 to the Mig-21U all these years. A jump from the PC-7 to the Hawk should be a cakewalk in comparison.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16888
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 04 Sep 2013 01:27

AH-64 Apache Foreign Military Sales

In a first-of-its-kind deal worth about $500 million, the United States has agreed to sell eight new Apache Block III AH-64E attack helicopters and Longbow radars to Indonesia, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said 26 August 2013. The Apache agreed for Indonesian to purchase from the United States is the AH-64E, not the earlier AH-64D Longbow such as the Singapore Army owned. Apache AH-64E was sold [as the AH-64D III before being renamed in late 2012] to Taiwan (30 units), 22 units for India, and 24 units to Qatar. India had Boeing produce the Apache AH-64E along with aerospace industry of India.


?????


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests