Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Aug 2014 05:21

Victor wrote:....... The difference is that unlike our current state, they had actual aircraft, not projects, and they churned them out faster than anyone else.

Quality versus quantity. We have not fared well on either front. We are always going for the next (future) silver bullet without going through the lead phase. And, we have not come to grips with mass manufacture of military items.

Until and unless the DRDO/OFB/HAL/BHEL/BDL etc monopolies end the results will be the same.

This is not a shot at PSUs. All it means is you do the same thing and you're going to get the same results.

For India, the revolution in military affairs has to be doing things differently. If we cant, we'll get the same outcomes.

Not hopeful even under NaMo. The rot is too deep.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 21 Aug 2014 06:39

rohitvats wrote:Whatever be the project cost of LCH, it is absolutely essential for the evolution of Air Aviation Corps and for Indian Army to have a potent strike power in third dimension.

Between LCH, ALH and WSI-Dhruv, they represent a kind of transformation in the IA's capability which was not present earlier. And this rotor element will be one of the major over-match over PA in the western sector. Irrespective of rants about IA crushing PA and all that, we don't really enjoy the qualitative and quantitative advantage across the board. There are islands of over-match. However, LCH+WSI-Dhruv and ALH provide a still higher over-match. 180 attack helicopters between LCH and Rudra is no mean joke. Add the Apaches and you suddenly have a very potent force of ~220 attack helicopters.

<snip>

Subtract the Apaches and for the same cost you can buy a lot more Rudra and LCH.

LCH US$17.5 million
Rudra US$10 million
Apache is over 64 million!!!! 1 400 000 000/22 = 64 million

India has offered a follow-on order of 39 AH-64D Apache helicopters in addition to the 22 now being negotiated, a Defence Ministry official said. The sides have been wrangling over the price of the gunships, however, with the initial deal having been estimated to be worth $1.4 billion.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/08/0 ... OW20140807

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 980118.cms

While a Dhruv costs Rs 47 crore, each Rudra comes for Rs 71 crore

Can you explain how 22 Apaches can possibly outperform 132 Rudra or 88 LCH? Your "potent" force of 220 helicopters is a lot inferior to a force of 288 or 332 helicopters that are all desi.

If as you say we don't outmatch them in quality, which is a dubious claim, at least with the Rudra/LCH we can outmatch them in quantity. The Dhruv has been tested in high altitude operations. The Apache cannot pass the test that the Dhruv did, flying to Siachen with a heavy load. As against the Chinese Harbin_Z-19, LCH/Rudra beats them on quantity and price . Win win. The Harbin Z_19, much like our LCH is built out of imported EU components. Both helis are duplicates of the Eurocopter. In our case we have built a 100% duplicate without paying Eurocopter licensing fees. Similar story to the Tejas/Gripen. So your wish to have an Eurocopter like helicopter is exactly HAL's plan.

However we have a higher service ceiling, which is a huge edge in the Himalayas. Cost and high altitude performance is the only difference between our maal and the Chinese maal, but I'm quite happy with that! High altitude performance with the 500 meter higher ceiling of LCH means victory in the heights. Cost means we can outnumber them. Quality x Quantity means we can crush them. 22 Apaches will get annihilated by the Chinese Z-19 because it is a superior heli on all measurable indicators. On top of that, they have 80 of them. Very bad matchup.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 21 Aug 2014 09:00

I don't think that the argument should be to buy n*x number of LCHs instead of x Apaches of the same value. The money saved by even a 1:1 substitution could be used to buy a lot of other thing the military desperately needs.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 21 Aug 2014 14:31

My bet is that US is trying to sabotage LCH by throwing in the Apache, it's an old sequence played too many time (same for javelin). Just like recent US suggestion of taming our aspiration to match up with China

Key concern is the loss of focus on LCH development and even a slight delay will mean additional 'emergency' Apache orders.

Got to have a hungry customer to speed up development and adoption, serving a heavy 'Apache' appetizer is unwise. We are capable of matching up with China with Rudra/LCH if acquired in significant numbers but don't seem to take the dragon seriously. China is our number one enemy - they are propping up Pakis mongrels to keep us on the back foot.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 21 Aug 2014 15:24

Rien wrote: Cost means we can outnumber them. Quality x Quantity means we can crush them. 22 Apaches will get annihilated by the Chinese Z-19 because it is a superior heli on all measurable indicators. On top of that, they have 80 of them. Very bad matchup.

Not that I like the money that can be spent on LCH derivatives be spent on Apaches, but this argument doesn't make any sense. Helicopters don't fight against other helicopters except maybe in Rambo movie. They will be used for ground support in specific theaters. To counter large number of enemy helicopters we need mobile anti-air assets, not more air-frames.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2014 16:06

leaving aside the apache fight, the fact is PLA has productionized and is deploying in numbers gunship helis that are equivalent to our LCH, while our IOC/FOC is not on the radar to use a pun. HAL needs to pull its pants up and get it done, followed by quick volume production. we cannot afford delays in this bread n butter item anymore.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 21 Aug 2014 17:10

BTW any idea on how many Rudras have been inducted till date/at what rate are they being inducted. Also what is the status of the HELINA missile?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Aug 2014 17:13

Marten wrote:
22 Apaches will get annihilated by the Chinese Z-19 because it is a superior heli on all measurable indicators. On top of that, they have 80 of them. Very bad matchup.

Is this BRF or a PLA rag to allow such crass propaganda?

Did you not see the in-depth analysis?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 21 Aug 2014 19:05

Yea, deep anal-e-sis:

Rien wrote: The Harbin Z_19, much like our LCH is built out of imported EU components. Both helis are duplicates of the Eurocopter. In our case we have built a 100% duplicate without paying Eurocopter licensing fees. Similar story to the Tejas/Gripen. So your wish to have an Eurocopter like helicopter is exactly HAL's plan.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 21 Aug 2014 21:40

Will US supply us Long-bow radar for LCH variants? Their are other available options but I want to check pulse on our new found ally's intentions. They will likely say 'NO' just like holding back AESA for LCA (our Russian alliance is likely a factor).

This will lower the number of variations we end up deploying on our helicopter fleet. Wish our AESA for LCA had been a bit mature, we could have explored a conformal AESA on LCH (AESA will likely have lower weight/size penalty over Longbow)

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 21 Aug 2014 22:02

Is there any undergoing or planned project to develop a MMW fire control radar for LCH like AN/APG-78 on Apache and MILDAR for A-129.
I know RCI is developing a MMW radar for Nag.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Aug 2014 22:12

nik wrote:Will US supply us Long-bow radar for LCH variants? Their are other available options but I want to check pulse on our new found ally's intentions. They will likely say 'NO' just like holding back AESA for LCA (our Russian alliance is likely a factor).

This will lower the number of variations we end up deploying on our helicopter fleet. Wish our AESA for LCA had been a bit mature, we could have explored a conformal AESA on LCH (AESA will likely have lower weight/size penalty over Longbow)

Long bow radar weapon system is a closed architecture sensor-targeting system that will be extremely hard to dismount from the AH-64 program and incorporate into a different architecutre. Its like asking about taking an F-16 FCR and trying to mount it into an LCA (Not the new AESA's which are scalable and modular (plus open)) or taking the Apg-77 and mounting it onto a typhoon etc. The SI would be a huge headache. A better approach would be to develop a similar product with NG that is open architecture and isn't platform specific (open software and the sensor can be scaled up or down depending upon the application). NG has hinted at a future AESA version of the longbow iirc and I have provided something to that effect some weeks ago in the helo thread (i think). The Longbow system has had capability additions with the MTADS being the most significant one but I am sure Lockheed and Northrop Grumman would try to have another upgrade funded by the time the F variant specs are finalized sometime in the future. The need to switch over to AESA would only arise if the weapons system wants greater range or whether the increased investment (to switch over to AESA) will result in a significant cost saving through the MTBF and operational cost. If the answer to these things is negative then the current radar would be modernized in areas where it actually makes sense to do so. From what i have read the entire system is not performance limited when it comes to sensor reach or performance. Switching to ESA would be a fairly straight forward shift.

Edit: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... to-380875/

They will likely say 'NO' just like holding back AESA for LCA (our Russian alliance is likely a factor).

AESA was cleared for the MRCA deal and i really do not see a problem now given that US corporations have been allowed to export AESA radars to South Korea and Taiwan for their own integration plans (F16 modernization).

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 21 Aug 2014 22:52

^ AESA development for Apache makes full sense - thanks for sharing info. We should look at selectively importing components and sub components from US instead of full platforms. It's the only way we can match up and possibly exceed China qualitatively and quantitatively.

US focus on tight integration is expected and agree that it will not be plug and play by a long shot. No good 'affordable' workarounds on this unless we use our manpower advantage to do most of the heavy lifting. No alternative to self reliance really.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Aug 2014 23:02

The problem is that the longbow comes from an era where closed systems were the norm. The modern crop of sensors are open systems. The RACR and SABR radars (AESA) for example both can be scaled up or down depending upon the solution. Both these radars can go on an F-16, F-18 or another fighter that also has an open system that would allow smooth integration. The FCR and the LB system are completely designed around the AH-64 Avionics architecture, to go out and re-do them from a SI point to match an avionics architecture that is also defined and finalized would be a big headache. It would be much simpler and less time consuming to design a brand new system from scratch that is either open architecture and therefore has multiple sizes and applications or is designed around a specific product for a specific customer.

US focus on tight integration is expected and agree that it will not be plug and play by a long shot. No good 'affordable' workarounds on this unless we use our manpower advantage to do most of the heavy lifting. No alternative to self reliance really.

SI headaches of the past have made the operators demand standardized open architecture systems. This is evident form the latest generation of upgrade AESA radars to the Apg-81 (Modular radar with an open architecture), AMDR (Module GaN radar that can be scaled up or down according to the ship) and other radars such as the GATOR and 3dELRR. This is as plug and play as one can hope for. The Longbow on the other hand is a radar-helfire closed system designed for a very specific product. Even the next generation Gallium nitride jammer can be miniaturized and have elements packed into a future fighter for defensive Electronic warfare (as opposed to suppressive stand off escort jamming).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Aug 2014 22:34

Looks like IAF is going ahead w/DARIN-3
IAF scouts Jaguar DARIN II/III full mission simulators
By SP's Special Correspondent
Photo Credit: IAF

August 19, 2014: The Indian Air Force is looking to procure 1-3 Jaguar DARIN-III ‘Fixed Base Full Mission' and 1-3 Jaguar DARIN-II ‘Fixed Base Full Mission’ simulators. The simulators would be used to impart realistic training to aircrew flying the Jaguar DARIN III/DARIN II aircraft. The IAF has stipulated that the simulators need to enable realistic pilot conversion training for phases of flight under normal and degraded modes in all flying conditions, including adverse weather. Basic flying encompassing all normal aircraft operations and procedures from checks before start up to flying a full mission profile and up to switch-off will be practised on the intended simulators, including emergency procedures and various failure modes. The simulators need to have the capability for insertion of multiple and various types of friendly and enemy aircraft in a tactical situation and intuitively project them on the tactical display, Radar, and Radar Warning Receiver as desired by the instructor. Capability for simulation of ground targets like class A & B vehicles, Surface to Air Missile (SAM) sites, ships, command posts etc, and the capability to network with other similar simulators. The IAF has also mentioned that given Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is the lead integrator of the DARIN-II and DARIN-III avionics upgrades, vendors other than HAL would need to enter into an agreement with HAL to obtaining technical details of the Standard Operating Procedures of DARIN-II and DARIN-III upgrade aircraft.
http://www.sps-aviation.com/exclusive/? ... simulators

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Aug 2014 22:37

Grounded Dhruv fleet expected to fly soon
By SP's Special Correspondent

August 19, 2014: The ALH Dhruv platform, grounded across the four armed services since July 25 when an IAF Dhruv crashed killing seven personnel on board, is likely to be cleared for flight soon. Individual inspections of each platform has taken place over the last three weeks, with concerns raised over certain safety-critical components, including the tail rotor, spider assembly, transmission system etc. The Dhruv that crashed in Sitapur, U.P., last month had returned just 72 hours prior to the crash from a maintenance routine, and was fully passed for flight. That the accident took place in clear weather has also alarmed the IAF, which operates 40 Dhruvs, including a unit at Leh that supplies troops in Thoise and Siachen. HAL sources said investigations were still underway and that it would be premature to conjecture on whether there were any design or construction issues, though IAF sources suggest there could be quality scare. On all counts, otherwise, the ALH platform has proven to be robust and reliable, even at the highest altitudes of helicopter operation in the country. A comprehensive safety report on the Dhruv will be submitted by the three services to the MoD by November this year.

http://www.sps-aviation.com/exclusive/? ... o-fly-soon

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Aug 2014 22:38

IAF contests Russian A-50 buy claim
By SP's Special Correspondent

August 19, 2014: The Indian Air Force has deflected claims emerging from senior Russian officials at the three-day Oboronexpo 2014 trade show, which ends today, that India is set to order three more A-50 PHALCON AWACS aircraft from Russia. While the IAF has confirmed that talks are currently on following an offer from the Russians, it has said that no final decision has yet been taken, given that the IAF has been keen on a different aircraft platform for the AWACS role. Reasons being ascribed to the concern chiefly weigh on the low availability rates of the Il-76 platform. The three PHALCON AWACS jets contracted in 2003 are currently operational at Agra. The Indian Air Force has also been promised the first indigenous DRDO-Embraer AEW&C aircraft, followed by two more over the next year, if there are no slippages in the flight test schedule currently on at three locations across the country. The DRDO has also tendered for new aircraft for its revived AWACS programme.

http://www.sps-aviation.com/exclusive/? ... -buy-claim

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Aug 2014 02:34

Oh! Thank you Dr. Roddam Narasimha (Padma Vibhushan) for giving it your voice. I have been saying this for a long time now.

Towards ‘acche din’ in Indian Aeronautics

The title of the talk itself was revealing: ‘A fresh agenda for Indian Aeronautics’ – the emphasis was on ‘fresh’, but equally important were ‘agenda’, ‘Indian’ and ‘aeronautics’. Prof. Roddam Narasimha in his annual “birthday” lecture offered, as he has himself been practicing consistently through his long, prolific and prodigious career, an opportunity to look afresh at ourselves – as scientists of NAL and as members of the Indian aeronautical community. In a typically Socratic mode, he raised questions: Why hasn’t Indian aeronautics been as successful as the Space programme? What are the lessons learnt from the LCA programme? Can we take a page out of the Chinese? What part could NAL play to revive the flagging fortunes of Indian aeronautics? How do we leverage the changed (and charged) political climate brought in by the new government at the Centre? In response, a broad swathe of perspectives was offered.

Prof. Narasimha prepared the ground by pointing that the LCA programme created a rich knowledge-base and significant pool of engineering talent and expertise, which India is at risk of losing due to lack of projects of a similar scale. Are we enacting a repeat of what Raj Mahindra called ‘the lost decade’ – a reference to the 70s wherein we squandered the experience gained from the HF-24 Marut programme due to lack of any serious national initiative in aircraft design and development. Prof. Narasimha proposed the Regional Transport Aircraft (RTA) to spearhead this much needed new wave. It should be a turbo-prop aircraft, he said, executed in a public-Private Partnership (PPP) mode, preferably as part of a global consortium. He also suggested that the RTA could be viewed as a common “civil-military” platform that would also address the transport aircraft needs of the Indian Air Force in terms of the Avro and AN-32 replacements, thus generating the numbers and associated economic viability needed to make it successful. While presenting strong arguments for adopting the turbo-prop technology (greener aircraft, lower operating costs, better suitability to Indian conditions), Prof. Narasimha also spoke of the potential research opportunities that it offers (propeller aerodynamics, integrated propeller-wing design, multi-disciplinary optimization), delving into each of these aspects, including some of his own research. He thus touched upon all the dimensions (with equal ease) – strategic, economic, environmental, scientific and technological – such an endeavor would impact.

In the final analysis, a prescription that the Indian space programme offers us, he said, is the need for an “overarching empowering authority” and a “strategic vision” to realize the potential and ambitions of the Indian aeronautical community. The message couldn’t have been more timely and heart-felt. And coming from one whose professional life has almost paralleled Indian aeronautics and space programmes, it merits serious consideration.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Aug 2014 05:57

Karan M wrote:Grounded Dhruv fleet expected to fly soon
By SP's Special Correspondent

August 19, 2014: The ALH Dhruv platform, grounded across the four armed services since July 25 when an IAF Dhruv crashed killing seven personnel on board, is likely to be cleared for flight soon. Individual inspections of each platform has taken place over the last three weeks, with concerns raised over certain safety-critical components, including the tail rotor, spider assembly, transmission system etc. The Dhruv that crashed in Sitapur, U.P., last month had returned just 72 hours prior to the crash from a maintenance routine, and was fully passed for flight. That the accident took place in clear weather has also alarmed the IAF, which operates 40 Dhruvs, including a unit at Leh that supplies troops in Thoise and Siachen. HAL sources said investigations were still underway and that it would be premature to conjecture on whether there were any design or construction issues, though IAF sources suggest there could be quality scare. On all counts, otherwise, the ALH platform has proven to be robust and reliable, even at the highest altitudes of helicopter operation in the country. A comprehensive safety report on the Dhruv will be submitted by the three services to the MoD by November this year.

http://www.sps-aviation.com/exclusive/? ... o-fly-soon

I was unable to find the report online, but I saw it in some paper. One leg of the last journey of the soldier whose body was found a few days ago at Siachen, 18 years after he went missing was by a Dhruv helicopter.

I expect that thorough checks have been done - of a type that would be due only after several thousand hours of flying.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2014 06:46

Oh! Thank you Dr. Roddam Narasimha (Padma Vibhushan) for giving it your voice. I have been saying this for a long time now.

India needs, badly, a mature, apex, national governing body for aeronautics. Else it will turn out to be lost 15 minutes. I just do not see India making the progress she needs to if decision making is delayed any more.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Aug 2014 07:17

Martin-Baker:

On the 1st August 2014, an Indian Air Force Jaguar was on a routine training flight from Bhuj air base in Gurjarat when it suffered a technical malfunction and crashed near Bibber village in the Kutch district. The pilot ejected successfully using a Mk INB9 ejection seat and was recovered safely.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Aug 2014 08:17

there was this quixotic concept being floated of two models of RTA, with the same fuselage and control surfaces but jet and prop engines!!
hope the jet idea was deleted and only prop will be taken up.

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 23 Aug 2014 08:58

Good to hear support from IAF chief on indigenous production of LCA, IJT.

Asked about delay in projects relating to indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft and Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT), Raha said, "...they are delayed slightly, but this happens in any indigenous production. First time we are doing it, there are many countries who have been at it for many many years..."

Declining to comment on whether any kind of replacement for IJT was being considered, he said "...We will get the IJT on time."

The IAF chief was here to inaugurate the 54th Annual Conference of Indian Society of Aerospace Medicine (ISAM). Addressing the conference, he emphasised the role of Aerospace Power in recent conflicts and brought out that it was the weapon of choice due to its reach, precision and speed of operations.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/pak-ceasefir ... 682-3.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Aug 2014 09:25

here is that laughable proposal for a desi JSF of sorts. note how its casually mentioned the specs will be 20% better than whatever is bleeding edge now as if we are airbus, boeing, garrett and GE combined. people who write such proposals ought to be canned. they can never develop any shipping product.
they are comparing to ATR72 and EMB170 by name as you can see.....from a scientific instt that has not even attained FOC for the Saras.

it illustrates the completely unrealistic and bookish people running projects here and the lack of successful industries with shipping products with support tail behind it.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 23 Aug 2014 10:16

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well it is quite simple. If the services are accused of preparing requirements using brochures from various shows , then it also holds true for the proposals from such scientific instt .
5 years down the line if USA moves to testing 6th gen fighter then the very next day in some conference we will get to hear that we have all the capability for 6th gen fighter in another 5 years. The services will set high expectations from this news and will eagerly wait for it .
And the story continues

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Aug 2014 22:14

^ PPT giri is in our blood if you you would ever notice in all the paper presentation events at Engg. degree level in India (I did not present in IITs so don't know about the scene there ) we put emphasis on latest cutting edge stuff for it is in thing and captures a 17-23 yr old group's imagination , in our days I remember Ion propulsion, rapid protoyping, AI, Neural networks used to be the talk of the town and every paper presentation competition I attended had same stuff repeated (including yours truly) very rarely did I see working models of brick and mortar nature being presented for these required time and actual work in a workshop . In one such event which I participated in 2004 1st prize was won by someone who presented a thick PPT deck about how to harness Zero point energy and make a hyper space drive there was some mention of Casimir effect to make it stick , needless to say stuff went over everyone's head (I am sure including jury too) but since it was pretty exotic they got a thumbs up from everyone.

I won't be surprised if above works in higher circles.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 24 Aug 2014 16:37

jamwal wrote:
Rien wrote: Cost means we can outnumber them. Quality x Quantity means we can crush them. 22 Apaches will get annihilated by the Chinese Z-19 because it is a superior heli on all measurable indicators. On top of that, they have 80 of them. Very bad matchup.

Not that I like the money that can be spent on LCH derivatives be spent on Apaches, but this argument doesn't make any sense. Helicopters don't fight against other helicopters except maybe in Rambo movie. They will be used for ground support in specific theaters. To counter large number of enemy helicopters we need mobile anti-air assets, not more air-frames.

Both the Chinese and the LCH can fire the Mistral AAM. You are confusing the primitive Apache's limitations with that of our agile RCS and IR reduced platform. Seriously, our tech is on another planet from the USA's.

The Apache can't do this, because it has a huge RCS figure. It is also slow, and not capable of the acrobatics both our and the Chinese helis can pull off. The LCH has huge advantages in weight and RCS due to the extensive use of composites, instead of the metallic Apache. 2014 Maal vs 1975 Maal. 40 year difference.

Speed, maneuverability and stealth. We're both using Eurocopter Tiger knockoffs. The Chinese paid the licensing fees for theirs. The LCH is better at high altitudes than the Eurocopter which is key for the wars we will probably be fighting.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 24 Aug 2014 16:46

Singha wrote:leaving aside the apache fight, the fact is PLA has productionized and is deploying in numbers gunship helis that are equivalent to our LCH, while our IOC/FOC is not on the radar to use a pun. HAL needs to pull its pants up and get it done, followed by quick volume production. we cannot afford delays in this bread n butter item anymore.

They only have 80 Harbins. HAL has done a good job on helicopters.The Chinese had to pay Eurocopter licensing fees for their Harbin, so we are 100% ahead on cost. We have a small edge in high altitude performance. Why I don't know?

I mean everything is the same. So either we have a more powerful engine, or more use of composites than the Chinese license produced Eurocopter Tiger. This is the only technical field we are ahead of the Chinese. Desi helicopters are mildly better than the Chinese maal. Cost is our real advantage, and I think that is a good one. Quality X Quantity.

105% of a Harbin X 108 LCH's means effectively 113 helicopters. We can bury them. A small quality edge magnified over a numeric edge is very good.

vic · Post by **vic** » 24 Aug 2014 17:05

Turbofan and Turboprop aircraft based on similar layout has been dropped long time back. Now the new Plan was NCA with conventional layout while turboprop civilian version is dropped completely.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 24 Aug 2014 18:13

indranilroy wrote:Oh! Thank you Dr. Roddam Narasimha (Padma Vibhushan) for giving it your voice. I have been saying this for a long time now.

Towards ‘acche din’ in Indian Aeronautics

Actually HAL is one of the world's biggest helicopter manufacturers. If we export Tejas, we could move overnight to becoming an aerospace competitor for Boeing, Airbus and Embraer. We've also signed up with the Russians to produce civil/military aircraft on the world market such as PAK-FA, Sukhoi SSJ, etc. For the very first time, we have a chance to break into the world market.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2014 19:24

If we export Tejas, we could move overnight to becoming an aerospace competitor for Boeing, Airbus and Embraer.

What low expectation.

Beat Sukhoi or even MiG and then call me.

Pakis are doing far better. They have built a fighter ground up, in record time, are on their version 3, have a robust JV with China (no less), importers are lining up at air shows ................. all this without a budget for production nor sales. They can break through Indian AD.......... breakfast in Karachi, lunch in Bombay and dinner in Bangalore.

Get real, what Boeing, Airbus and who is that turd company?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Aug 2014 19:28

By what metric is "Actually HAL is one of the world's biggest helicopter manufacturers" ?

If we export Tejas, we could move overnight to becoming an aerospace competitor for Boeing, Airbus and Embraer

Yes exporting the Tejas will give HAL mythical powers overnight even when competing against a company that has NO fighter in its portfolio. As things stand the annual revenue of Airbus is approximately 30 times that of HAL.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2014 19:48

If we export Tejas, we could move overnight to becoming an aerospace competitor for Boeing, Airbus and Embrae

Did you forget or are you conceding to LM? I hope it is the prior. I mean, HAL, etc cannot be lower than LM.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Aug 2014 19:59

this is fast becoming a farce

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 24 Aug 2014 20:25

what powers up this troll called ,rien ?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 24 Aug 2014 21:26

Don't be deterred one bit by naysayers. Remember, it was non-mythical Indian army and mukti bahini, during liberation of Bangladesh, who did all the ground work to finish off the genocide in Bangladesh; while super duper 7th fleet with super duper jet fighters on aircraft carrier sailed into the bay of Bengal only when the Bangla genocide was finished off. In effect just to threaten and lord over non-mythical mukti bahini and the Indian army. The Boeing machines and the Airbus machines will come and do what powers that be decide - so be it.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Aug 2014 21:34

What does this have to do with the size of HAL its market presence or its competitive stature? We are talking about realistic targets and goals and that was what was discussed in the few posts above. As things stand HAL is slowly growing but to say that it is one of the largest helicopter maker in the world or it will start to compete against Boeing and Airbus overnight when the first Tejas is exported is anything but !

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2014 23:37

vishvak wrote:Don't be deterred one bit by naysayers. Remember, it was non-mythical Indian army and mukti bahini, during liberation of Bangladesh, who did all the ground work to finish off the genocide in Bangladesh; while super duper 7th fleet with super duper jet fighters on aircraft carrier sailed into the bay of Bengal only when the Bangla genocide was finished off. In effect just to threaten and lord over non-mythical mukti bahini and the Indian army. The Boeing machines and the Airbus machines will come and do what powers that be decide - so be it.

On a very serious note (OT for this thread), after the WTO decision, even the BRCS nations, along with a host of other minors have distanced themselves from India.

Guess who is left? The owners of the 7th Fleet and the one the PM is about to visit in a week or two. A few others will follow - more out of compulsion than true camaraderie.

So, it is nice to revisit history - to learn from it - but one must stay in the present (sorry Mr. Tolle) - to deal with the present + future.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Aug 2014 03:13

why the heck is a report on a senile old canadian minister's delusions about UFO's being posted in this thread ??
STOP posting extraneous stuff in India related threads.
- Rahul.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 25 Aug 2014 10:39

brar_w wrote:By what metric is "Actually HAL is one of the world's biggest helicopter manufacturers" ?

If we export Tejas, we could move overnight to becoming an aerospace competitor for Boeing, Airbus and Embraer
Yes exporting the Tejas will give HAL mythical powers overnight even when competing against a company that has NO fighter in its portfolio. As things stand the annual revenue of Airbus is approximately 30 times that of HAL.

http://www.forceindia.net/ComingofAgeJune2012.aspx

HAL would be the third largest producer of light military helicopters by 2020

Airbus produces civilian aircraft like the Airbus 330. HAL currently doesn't. After we sign the Sukhoi Superjet deal, you can make that comparison. Asia is the world's largest helicopter market. It doesn't matter where things stand currently, it matters in what direction they are going. Asia which includes us is growing fast. We are the cheapest out there. There is no conceivable way the EU/US can compete head on against us in aerospace products.

As an example of the cost advantage
Tejas(33 million vs 400 million JSF),
the Light Combat Helicopter (17.5 million vs 48-60 million for the Eurocopter Tiger)
, HTT-40 vs Pilatus, (1/3rd the cost)
Sitara, Dhruv, Saras etc.

With the exception of China, we have no major worries about even potential competitors. We don't make everything yet, but given the deals we are in the process of signing with Russia, we soon will have an aircraft to compete with Boeing/Airbus/Embraer in every single category, fixed wing, helicopters etc.

The ancient EU/US combo are incapable of competing. Technology can be shared, bought or developed. Their technical lead can't compensate for the huge lead we have in other areas. Their anaemic growth rate is the end of their dominance.
Last year we grew at a rate of 4.7% vs 1% in the US. Compound that over 20 years and you'll see why that will change.

The prices of all aerospace materials and alloys, titanium, aluminium, carbon fiber, magnesium are lower in Bharat. Skilled and unskilled labour is lower priced. We are 1 000 km closer to Africa and EU than China, and are on the major shipping routes. Raw materials and markets are closer. So on every measurable indicator we are well placed. The EU/US are quite correct to be afraid we will make products that are absolutely identical to theirs while being far cheaper.