Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 01 Dec 2014 19:05

tsarkar wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:The second offering was to do away with the issues while making the first one. What is your issue with that?
When they couldn't do away with the issues while making the first one, how does it inspire confidence or guarantee that the second offering will do away with the issues?

That is how it works, each subsequent version has learning from all previous versions. Do you think the first version of any ship/plane/car had absolutely no issues ?

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 01 Dec 2014 19:44

sivab wrote:Thakur_Bji is ex-IAF fighter pilot. No point in lecturing him about basic training in IAF.

No I am not. I think you are confusing me with the pilot turned journo

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Dec 2014 19:55

tsarkar wrote:Manufacturer cannot always take ownership of components.

Then Dassault should not have bid for the Rafale deal to begin with, and guaranteed any TOT since as you say "manufacturer cannot always take ownership of components". Your example BTW is off base. Basically, Dassault you imply, is fibbing and is merely making claims that it can't support. Its either that, or your example was not germane.

Here you go. Dassault ad itself.

Since its comparing a product with a completely different ecosystem to one that is being procured with a specific set of TOT conditions built into the deal. As matter of fact, its the inefficiencies of this deal with individual suppliers business that makes the IAF or for that matter many other procurers worldwide have guarantees of the overall terms of the deal from the system integrator.

On a second note.
Dont see BTW where your claim that HAL is being dishonest when it says fuel supply + engine could be an issue when you quote an aircraft having the same engine doing ok, with different use criteria to a pilot training aircraft which will require more aerobatics.

Simply put you are using gross overgeneralizations to make your case.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Dec 2014 20:05

Thakur_B wrote:
sivab wrote:Thakur_Bji is ex-IAF fighter pilot. No point in lecturing him about basic training in IAF.
No I am not. I think you are confusing me with the pilot turned journo

Sab Thakur ek hain.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 01 Dec 2014 20:22

tsarkar wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:The second offering was to do away with the issues while making the first one. What is your issue with that?
When they couldn't do away with the issues while making the first one, how does it inspire confidence or guarantee that the second offering will do away with the issues?

Because they have undertaken several reasonably successful projects of a much higher complexity ? (Dhruv, Rudra, LCH, Jaguar upgrades). I'd understand that sentiment with the IJT, where they have run out of rope and some more. Also by that logic, we should have given up on Arjun Mk2, Tejas Mk2, which resolve force's issues with the first variant. Lets also can all DRDO missile projects because they couldn't get Trishul in service

tsarkar wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:By not sanctioning funds for HTT-40, the IAF has created an artificial emergency requirement for Pilatus. It is so painfully obvious, even to a person like me who abhors the HAL.
No, what is NOT obvious to you is that basic training is something very essential, like teaching children alphabets & numbers. If one screws up here, then it puts entire defence strategy, operational mission & individual pilot at risk throughout his career.

Rather than funds, the luxury of a long waiting period like Sitara is not available.

Read here on what happens when training is compromised http://tkstales.wordpress.com/2011/11/0 ... rthigeyan/

Exactly my point. The trainer shortage and absence of an indigenous alternative is to a large extent IAFs fault. They dithered with the trainer requirement projections, didn't pay heed to a couple of clean sheet designs that may have not inherited issues of HPT-32 and choked the money flow to HAL (barely equal to flyaway cost of four Pilatus trainers). Deepaks had design flaws from day 1, with ASRs lowered during development itself. They could have initiated a replacement design in early 2000s when Deepaks were already 20 years old. It's not just HAL, IAF could have issued requirements to any of the private firms, Mahindra and Tata for example, who already have a reasonable infrastructure in place. Simply because we venerate the armed forces, doesn't mean that the borderline asinine decisions taken by the Admirals/Marshals/Generals need to be swallowed and celebrated.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 01 Dec 2014 20:25

Thakur_B wrote:... Simply because we venerate the armed forces, doesn't mean that the borderline asinine decisions taken by the Admirals/Marshals/Generals need to be swallowed and celebrated.

+1

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 01 Dec 2014 20:58

Thakur_B wrote: Exactly my point. The trainer shortage and absence of an indigenous alternative is to a large extent IAFs fault. They dithered with the trainer requirement projections, didn't pay heed to a couple of clean sheet designs that may have not inherited issues of HPT-32 and choked the money flow to HAL (barely equal to flyaway cost of four Pilatus trainers). Deepaks had design flaws from day 1, with ASRs lowered during development itself.

Can you provide me links for this choking of money flow to HAL and in terms of % of defence budget then and today is the 04 Pilatus comparison reasonable?

Are you saying that IAF lowered ASRs? If not IAF who lowered it? Was that a good thing or bad?

You also say that IAF accepted a less than perfect Indic product knowing it was so from day 1? To me it appears that IAF then did exactly what it should do to support a homegrown project.

Thakur_B wrote:They could have initiated a replacement design in early 2000s when Deepaks were already 20 years old. It's not just HAL, IAF could have issued requirements to any of the private firms, Mahindra and Tata for example, who already have a reasonable infrastructure in place. Simply because we venerate the armed forces, doesn't mean that the borderline asinine decisions taken by the Admirals/Marshals/Generals need to be swallowed and celebrated.

'borderline asinine'

. Please advise today with your wisdom on all what programmes of Indic projects should IAF 'fund' so that the Air Marshals appear sane in 2028.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 01 Dec 2014 21:20

deejay wrote: Can you provide me links for this choking of money flow to HAL and in terms of % of defence budget then and today is the 04 Pilatus comparison reasonable?

HAL is developing HTT-40 with Rs 150 Crore of its own budget. That is almost the flyaway cost for 4 pilatus aircrafts. IAF saw fit to not release these funds for the last 5 years.

Are you saying that IAF lowered ASRs? If not IAF who lowered it? Was that a good thing or bad?

You also say that IAF accepted a less than perfect Indic product knowing it was so from day 1? To me it appears that IAF then did exactly what it should do to support a homegrown project.

Indeed they did lower ASR for HPT-32. In 1977. With a much less capable HAL. They don't have to lower requirement, just give Indian industry a fair chance. It doesn't even have to be HAL. Even Mahindra could have designed and manufactured trainers. For the record, HAL had been proposing HPT-32 replacement from October 2003 itself.

'borderline asinine' . Please advise today with your wisdom on all what programmes of Indic projects should IAF 'fund' so that the Air Marshals appear sane in 2028.

Basic trainer for a start.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 01 Dec 2014 22:05

Thakur_B wrote: HAL is developing HTT-40 with Rs 150 Crore of its own budget. That is almost the flyaway cost for 4 pilatus aircrafts. IAF saw fit to not release these funds for the last 5 years.

So did IAF choke this money flow?

Thakur_B wrote: Indeed they did lower ASR for HPT-32. In 1977. With a much less capable HAL. They don't have to lower requirement, just give Indian industry a fair chance. It doesn't even have to be HAL. Even Mahindra could have designed and manufactured trainers. For the record, HAL had been proposing HPT-32 replacement from October 2003 itself.

Did you track back all the communication and events relating to HPT 32 between HAL and IAF? I cannot give you links but I know if you manage to track back all communications on HPT 32, HAL may not come out as cleanly as you put it. Essentially, HPT 32 is one of those stories where IAF - HAL relations really got hit.

Thakur_B wrote: Basic trainer for a start.

and what else or will this be enough?

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 01 Dec 2014 22:35

Thakur_B wrote: No I am not. I think you are confusing me with the pilot turned journo

Apologise for the mix up.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Dec 2014 22:36

Kartik wrote: Most of us will agree that IAF had a big share in the blame pie when it came to the bungled up BTT requirement, having been in a deep coma about the need for a replacement basic trainer all through the late 90s and early to mid 2000s. They awakened to the need only after another HPT-32 crashed and then suddenly it became a critical requirement.

I agree that a BTT was one of the lowest hanging fruits for the aerospace industry in India and the IAF should have sanctioned funds for developing one earlier.

But, as things stand now, the horse has bolted from the stable and its too late to do anything about it. the PC-7 MkII is doing a great job and needlessly complicating logisitcs, training and infrastructure by introducing a new BTT is not a sensible idea. With the IJT stuck in trials (I saw a grey IJT flying on Saturday BTW) and with no clear path forward to introduction into service, at least the basic training phase should remain uncomplicated for the IAF now. HAL ought to put all its engineering effort into fixing the IJT's problems and drop the HTT-40 project now. Concentrate on completing in-flight projects on time and win the customer's confidence rather than lobbying for another project that will draw away scarce resources.

Kartik,

Very difficult to argue with that. But, that is when you look at it from a aircrafts/logistics point of view. What about the the requirement to foster designers and developers in India. Led by an young turk, they have brought the plane from nothing in 2013 to almost ready to fly in the first half of 2015. The other day I was seeing tenders for hand-tools for laying and stretching the skin, AoA vanes etc. Imagine what would happen to their morales by squashing this project.

Anyways, I feel 75 PC-7s is enough for logistical commonality. My worry is that HAL will treat it like a step child. Maintaining the PC-7s should not have been in HAL's hands.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 01 Dec 2014 22:40

deejay wrote:Did you track back all the communication and events relating to HPT 32 between HAL and IAF? I cannot give you links but I know if you manage to track back all communications on HPT 32, HAL may not come out as cleanly as you put it. Essentially, HPT 32 is one of those stories where IAF - HAL relations really got hit.

Nobody is saying that HAL is "clean", but so isn't IAF. Navy works within the same constraints but look at where it stands in terms of indigenization and that's simply due to willpower shown by them for decades to indigenize wherever and whenever they can. If you have tracked all the communications and events then there is enough data out there to show that HAL did propose from it's side new projects which IAF cold shouldered. The designs may have been not upto the mark but there is nothing to show that IAF sat down with HAL and tried to come up with a design which would have met it's requirement and I am assuming that the proposed projects had design flaws. Sticking with HPT-32 was IAF's choice, HAL did what it could to fix it but unfortunately couldn't that doesn't mean it has to be condemned forever after, even when it proposed new designs from it's side.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Dec 2014 01:21

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=21475
doh! it took them soooooo loooooong for this need that started 25 years back?

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 02 Dec 2014 06:13

Even if 150 trainee pilots fly for 80hours in 6 months and 75 trainee selected for fighter stream pilots fly for another 80hours for next 6 months before graduating to flying on IJT/Hawk.

It is 18000 hours of flying which 60 Pilatus 7 can cover @300hours/year/aircraft. The rest 15nos Pilatus 7 can do 4500 hours/year for instructor training.

Hal can be given sufficient time to produce 106 make in India trainers as IAF training need for next decade is met.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 02 Dec 2014 06:21

SaiK wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=21475
doh! it took them soooooo loooooong for this need that started 25 years back?

HAL head in a recent interview said that they have taken up "Design and Development" of a 25 KN engine and a 1200 KW (1610 HP) engine. Now HAL has been calling tenders for components for both these engines, so that should put them 5-6 years from production.

The 25 KN engine should pave way for HALE UAVs. The 1200 KW engine may be overpowered for Dhruv/LCH and underpowered for IMRH (unless they use four of them).

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Dec 2014 06:31

tsarkar wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:The second offering was to do away with the issues while making the first one. What is your issue with that?
When they couldn't do away with the issues while making the first one, how does it inspire confidence or guarantee that the second offering will do away with the issues?

It is called gaining experience. That's how things get better. I don't understand your logic "If you haven't got it right the first time, how can the second time be better."

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Dec 2014 07:16

indranilroy wrote:
Kartik wrote: Most of us will agree that IAF had a big share in the blame pie when it came to the bungled up BTT requirement, having been in a deep coma about the need for a replacement basic trainer all through the late 90s and early to mid 2000s. They awakened to the need only after another HPT-32 crashed and then suddenly it became a critical requirement.

I agree that a BTT was one of the lowest hanging fruits for the aerospace industry in India and the IAF should have sanctioned funds for developing one earlier.

But, as things stand now, the horse has bolted from the stable and its too late to do anything about it. the PC-7 MkII is doing a great job and needlessly complicating logisitcs, training and infrastructure by introducing a new BTT is not a sensible idea. With the IJT stuck in trials (I saw a grey IJT flying on Saturday BTW) and with no clear path forward to introduction into service, at least the basic training phase should remain uncomplicated for the IAF now. HAL ought to put all its engineering effort into fixing the IJT's problems and drop the HTT-40 project now. Concentrate on completing in-flight projects on time and win the customer's confidence rather than lobbying for another project that will draw away scarce resources.
Kartik,

Very difficult to argue with that. But, that is when you look at it from a aircrafts/logistics point of view. What about the the requirement to foster designers and developers in India. Led by an young turk, they have brought the plane from nothing in 2013 to almost ready to fly in the first half of 2015. The other day I was seeing tenders for hand-tools for laying and stretching the skin, AoA vanes etc. Imagine what would happen to their morales by squashing this project.

Anyways, I feel 75 PC-7s is enough for logistical commonality. My worry is that HAL will treat it like a step child. Maintaining the PC-7s should not have been in HAL's hands.

Didn't one of the ACM suggested their BRD could assemble PC-7s? Instead of HAL doing maintenance support for it, the IAF should be made to do it. Let the IAF negotiate for maintenance contract with various PC-7 sub-vendors.

As it is, the policy of 49% FDI in defence will begin to erode indigenous design capability of new aircrafts in the coming years. Why even bother with new indigenous designed aircrafts when foreign ones are already ready to be acquired with some form of "Make in India" agreement? The IAF certainly doesn't seem to care. If current indigenous projects are not allowed to continue, India will be relegating itself to license producing of foreign designs for a long time.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 02 Dec 2014 07:25

sankum wrote:Even if 150 trainee pilots fly for 80hours in 6 months and 75 trainee selected for fighter stream pilots fly for another 80hours for next 6 months before graduating to flying on IJT/Hawk.

It is 18000 hours of flying which 60 Pilatus 7 can cover @300hours/year/aircraft. The rest 15nos Pilatus 7 can do 4500 hours/year for instructor training.

Hal can be given sufficient time to produce 106 make in India trainers as IAF training need for next decade is met.

Training is not just about completing flying hours. A trainee, specially in early days would preferably fly a single sortie per day. Even later, more than 02 sorties is difficult to assimilate.

Let us plan training as training should be. Flight hours are not the only criteria. I was speaking to a QFI at Dundigal recently and he said that the sheer amount of flying we do at IAF took the wind out of the visiting Swiss team.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 02 Dec 2014 12:22

Thakur_B wrote:
SaiK wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=21475
doh! it took them soooooo loooooong for this need that started 25 years back?
HAL head in a recent interview said that they have taken up "Design and Development" of a 25 KN engine and a 1200 KW (1610 HP) engine. Now HAL has been calling tenders for components for both these engines, so that should put them 5-6 years from production.

The 25 KN engine should pave way for HALE UAVs. The 1200 KW engine may be overpowered for Dhruv/LCH and underpowered for IMRH (unless they use four of them).

HAL has already done screwdrivergiri with 2 engines in the range of 20-30kn being Adour (around 350 engines) and; AL-55 for which it spent only Rs. 3,000 crores. Now after having got no knowledge base after spending thousands of crores it wants to make a third one by spending Rs. 400 crores.

HAL has also got screwdrivergiri experience with turboprop and turboshaft engines called Garrett and Shakti but again after having got no knowledge base after spending thousands of crores and assembling hundreds of engines it wants to make third one by spending Rs. 300 crores.

Kicking IAF brass is cool but why no criticism of Babus, Politicians and HAL for sweet heart deals to foreigners. IAF is absolutely right as why waste hundreds of crorers on fake JVs when its all imported product anyway.

member_28911 · Post by **member_28911** » 02 Dec 2014 12:46

Gyan wrote: HAL has already done screwdrivergiri with 2 engines in the range of 20-30kn being Adour (around 350 engines) and; AL-55 for which it spent only Rs. 3,000 crores. Now after having got no knowledge base after spending thousands of crores it wants to make a third one by spending Rs. 400 crores.

The figure of "Rs. 3000 crore spent on Al-55 development" demands some sources of proof.
In comparison around Rs. 2100 crore were spent on GTX-35 development and new proposal for engine development for a "ambitious project" is being considered at a cost of Rs. 2600 crore.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Dec 2014 12:49

indranilroy wrote:
Kartik wrote: Most of us will agree that IAF had a big share in the blame pie when it came to the bungled up BTT requirement, having been in a deep coma about the need for a replacement basic trainer all through the late 90s and early to mid 2000s. They awakened to the need only after another HPT-32 crashed and then suddenly it became a critical requirement.

I agree that a BTT was one of the lowest hanging fruits for the aerospace industry in India and the IAF should have sanctioned funds for developing one earlier.

But, as things stand now, the horse has bolted from the stable and its too late to do anything about it. the PC-7 MkII is doing a great job and needlessly complicating logisitcs, training and infrastructure by introducing a new BTT is not a sensible idea. With the IJT stuck in trials (I saw a grey IJT flying on Saturday BTW) and with no clear path forward to introduction into service, at least the basic training phase should remain uncomplicated for the IAF now. HAL ought to put all its engineering effort into fixing the IJT's problems and drop the HTT-40 project now. Concentrate on completing in-flight projects on time and win the customer's confidence rather than lobbying for another project that will draw away scarce resources.
Kartik,

Very difficult to argue with that. But, that is when you look at it from a aircrafts/logistics point of view. What about the the requirement to foster designers and developers in India. Led by an young turk, they have brought the plane from nothing in 2013 to almost ready to fly in the first half of 2015. The other day I was seeing tenders for hand-tools for laying and stretching the skin, AoA vanes etc. Imagine what would happen to their morales by squashing this project.

Anyways, I feel 75 PC-7s is enough for logistical commonality. My worry is that HAL will treat it like a step child. Maintaining the PC-7s should not have been in HAL's hands.

I agree that as things stand, HAL will definitely treat the PC-7 MkII as a step-child. And that, for this very reason, some other entity, perhaps a private sector entity, could/should be contracted to handle all PC-7 MkII maintenance. That would be very useful MRO experience built up in the private sector. But, that is not going to happen, since HAL will take whatever work comes its way.

Logistics, maintenance and support and the training of instructors, ground crew, are a big part of the headache of inducting a new type into service. You already know that. and the IAF will oppose, tooth and nail, the HTT-40 being imposed on them, when they don't see any real service need.

Earlier I too felt that the PC-7 MkII ought to be capped at 75 and the rest be HTT-40s, but the PC-7 MkII has been nothing short of a dream as far as its performance in the IAF in this short period has been. Assuming that a HTT-40 prototype is actually on the flight line by 2015 end, there is no guarantee that even 5-6 years down the line the HTT-40 will have cleared flight trials, considering the IJT program. Should the IAF cut short its training program at a time when the requirement of flight crew for the IAF and IN is increasing? The firm backing for the HTT-40 made sense when the IAF still had a requirement. The IAF conspired to ensure that HAL never had a real chance to replace the HPT-32, but its too late to do anything about it now, IMO.

HAL could however, on its own dime, develop the HTT-40 and then offer it for export as well. But that would require a costly phase of flight trials/validations/certifications, which HAL may not do without a firm commitment from the IAF.

Projects being shelved due to various constraints is a fact of life and shouldn't impact morale. It happens with all OEMs and unless a strong business case exists to keep it going, there is no point pouring money into it when the end result will most likely end up in a museum.

And frankly, the design and engineering resources would be better used on projects that currently are of high priority- i.e. IJT and Tejas Mk2. There is the mythical MTA as well, along with the FGFA, AMCA, AURA and the IMRH which have serious chances of entering service in the future. These need dedicated resources and HAL cannot have an endless supply of talented and experienced engineers to man all these projects.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 02 Dec 2014 14:29

@Kartik: Would you know if there is an issue with PC-7 MkII warranty?

I agree that as of now IJT and Tejas should be top priority for HAL. Those concept birds like MTA, FGFA, AMCA should be next in line. Its time HAL moved on from HTT 40 as to me it appears that the opportunity has come and gone for the Basic Trainer.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 02 Dec 2014 15:20

Deejay garu and other gurus here, despite all the things about uselessness of building a stage 1 trainer wouldn't we learn more about architecting on-demand( in other words atleast known regime where) spin and stall needs for trainer/fighter aircraft when tried on a slower aircraft? We seem to be struggling with IJT on this aspect and the Tejas too(it has never advertised spin and stall recovery capabilities being tested) HAL should pursue the HTT-40 atleast for building these capabilities.

Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about flight profiles except for learning on PeeArrYefff

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 02 Dec 2014 15:36

^^^suryag saar: (pls folks like me have million miles to travel to get at the guru levels)

HPT 32 except for its engine troubles did all the spins and stalls and aerobatics beautifully. I specially loved doing the stall turns. Even HJT 16 Kiran did all these beautifully except the stall turn. So HAL has the expertise in these.

The HTT 40 design and development may take away crucial resources and focus from the other projects and I sooo wish the IJT to succeed. I think that should be the focus - to get the IJT going or we will see IAF import more. One thing is clear, the training needs will not wait for HAL. The IAF will need more pilots since so many multi crew aircraft are being added.

So yes, it may only be my wish, but a wish none the less - Lets get the IJT going. IJT spin issues are because of a new design and in this previous design accomplishments may not help - but here I will defer to the engineers.

I am not sure we will need the Tejas to ever do deliberate Stalls and Spins as part of its regular flight profiles.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 02 Dec 2014 18:23

Gyan wrote:
Thakur_B wrote: HAL head in a recent interview said that they have taken up "Design and Development" of a 25 KN engine and a 1200 KW (1610 HP) engine. Now HAL has been calling tenders for components for both these engines, so that should put them 5-6 years from production.

The 25 KN engine should pave way for HALE UAVs. The 1200 KW engine may be overpowered for Dhruv/LCH and underpowered for IMRH (unless they use four of them).
HAL has already done screwdrivergiri with 2 engines in the range of 20-30kn being Adour (around 350 engines) and; AL-55 for which it spent only Rs. 3,000 crores. Now after having got no knowledge base after spending thousands of crores it wants to make a third one by spending Rs. 400 crores.

HAL has also got screwdrivergiri experience with turboprop and turboshaft engines called Garrett and Shakti but again after having got no knowledge base after spending thousands of crores and assembling hundreds of engines it wants to make third one by spending Rs. 300 crores.

Kicking IAF brass is cool but why no criticism of Babus, Politicians and HAL for sweet heart deals to foreigners. IAF is absolutely right as why waste hundreds of crorers on fake JVs when its all imported product anyway.

So you are saying HAL should stay at screwdrivergiri and abandon their new engine designs ? Given the fact that if we intend to build armed HALE UCAVs and NRUAVs we require indigenous engines because of MCTR regulations on engines ?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 02 Dec 2014 20:04

Are we still working on the Kiran IJT too? Last I read, the IAF had issued an RFQ for foreign IJT since it can't wait for the bugs to be worked out. HAL needs to learn how to cut losses and move on instead of wasting resources and making it an ego thing. Similar story with LCA. Just move on to LCA2 full blast instead of getting hung up on something that doesn't meet the IAF' needs. Accept, learn, move forward.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Dec 2014 20:14

tsarkar wrote:...
Good logic here. Reward failure with a fresh project. Fantastic employment guarantee scheme. And with HPT-32 inspiring great confidence.

...

“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” - Thomas A. Edison

“The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing.” - Henry Ford

“Giving up is the only sure way to fail.” - Gena Showalter

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

Why Failure Is Good for Success

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 02 Dec 2014 20:21

Victor wrote:Last I read, the IAF had issued an RFQ for foreign IJT

Not yet. They have issued RFI just in case IJT tanks.

srin · Post by **srin** » 02 Dec 2014 20:23

My take on the IJT: IAF should be free to buy one from a foreign vendor, assembled and maintained here of course. HAL should convert the IJT into a cheap CAS and COIN platform. Like the Textron Scorpion.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 02 Dec 2014 20:28

srin wrote:My take on the IJT: IAF should be free to buy one from a foreign vendor, assembled and maintained here of course. HAL should convert the IJT into a cheap CAS and COIN platform. Like the Textron Scorpion.

The IJT as COIN platform ?

Have we ever used air assets in COIN?

And no, work as hard as possible but make IJT happen. Inability to induct both Basic and Intermediate platforms which earlier were Indian would be a huge failure. Not an option.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 02 Dec 2014 20:30

srai wrote:
tsarkar wrote:...
Good logic here. Reward failure with a fresh project. Fantastic employment guarantee scheme. And with HPT-32 inspiring great confidence.

...
“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” - Thomas A. Edison

“The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing.” - Henry Ford

“Giving up is the only sure way to fail.” - Gena Showalter

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

Why Failure Is Good for Success

No arguments, except we dont have the luxury or time in our neighborhood for finding 10,000 ways that don't work. Dillema for sure but one based on poor planning, not capability.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 02 Dec 2014 20:41

deejay wrote:
srin wrote:My take on the IJT: IAF should be free to buy one from a foreign vendor, assembled and maintained here of course. HAL should convert the IJT into a cheap CAS and COIN platform. Like the Textron Scorpion.
The IJT as COIN platform ?

Have we ever used air assets in COIN?

An IAF ex-fighter pilot had said on BR that an armed Kiran with more powerful engines would be a great weapon in the mountain valleys. Not having tried something is exactly why we should try it. CAS definitely but we should also revisit our Gandhian approach to the Maoists etc.

srin · Post by **srin** » 02 Dec 2014 21:29

COIN is definitely a stretch.
Intent can always change, as long as you have the capabilities. If the situation demands it, then the IAF will have to be able to use it. And there are situations where a very light aircraft would be ideal - to loiter, to recon and to attack.

And IAF need not be the only customer. Who'd have thought even 10 years ago that the Army would have its own helicopter fleet and that too with Apaches ? And given the Army vs AF thing during Kargil, I'd expect that the Army would love to have its own fixed wing CAS.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 03 Dec 2014 06:21

Navy is thinking about ordering more Dhruvs for ASW. With the induction of TAL Shyena, and LFDS integrated on Dhruv, it can be quite handy.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/r ... 652296.ece

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Dec 2014 09:56

Armed drones would be more useful for tracing and attacking naxal units independently.
Naxals only gather in large no's for ambush and disperse fast.
They don't hold territory and wait for heavy govt units to show up..

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Dec 2014 11:01

Victor wrote:Are we still working on the Kiran IJT too? Last I read, the IAF had issued an RFQ for foreign IJT since it can't wait for the bugs to be worked out. HAL needs to learn how to cut losses and move on instead of wasting resources and making it an ego thing. Similar story with LCA. Just move on to LCA2 full blast instead of getting hung up on something that doesn't meet the IAF' needs. Accept, learn, move forward.

Be fair. How are they to just move on to the Tejas Mk2 when the Tejas Mk1 has yet to achieve FOC? And there is the small matter of the remaining 39 Tejas Mk1s that still need to be produced on an assembly line that not yet come close to being stabilized.

And it is not really HAL that is keeping anything from happening on the Tejas Mk1 really. There are other agencies that are still working on their work shares including developing, integrating, flight testing and certification. Once that is completed, the focus will shift to the Tejas Mk2, but as of now the focus has to be completely on getting to the FOC stage and attaining service entry smoothly.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 03 Dec 2014 22:28

deejay wrote: Have we ever used air assets in COIN? .

for records:

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/other-coin- ... ps-ne.html

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 08 Dec 2014 04:22

IJT heading out for asymmetric load separation and sea trials.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Dec 2014 04:31

Interesting to see the wool tufts on the wings. So stall tests are on going. Most probably they are studying the wing-drop problem. The grey coloured LSP has new leading edge near wingtips (without the wingtip lights). Adding they trying to add aerodynamic washout by decreasing the sweep near the wing tips?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 11 Dec 2014 02:13

HAL vs IAF: Govt decision on trainer aircraft row today
This was supposed to have happened yesterday, Dec 9th. Anyone know what was decided?