Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Sep 2015 07:40

Has he or Textron reps paid anyone in India?

THAT is what I call "cultural". Why THAT thought?

I just do not see anything coming out of this Scorpion effort. IF Indians are "paid" it will be for a MUCH larger fish. Perhaps give EMALS at substantial discount? Something substantial.

Scorpion? Crap. What is a Scorpion? Even without India they had bigger plans. 200 Scorpions is not even 10% of their plans.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2015 07:41

brar_w wrote: Or are you implying a connection between Textron and certain politicians or babus in India?

This cannot be ruled out. Carter's links with Textron and his promotion of the Scorpion may well be 100% innocent but you can be sure that there are Indian middlemen right now in India trying to make a deal come through, and Textron would be quite happy to fund them as "consultants" who would then be Indians who are "doing their job" just like Carter is "doing his job"

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Sep 2015 07:44

shiv wrote:
brar_w wrote: Or are you implying a connection between Textron and certain politicians or babus in India?
This cannot be ruled out. Carter's links with Textron and his promotion of the Scorpion may well be 100% innocent but you can be sure that there are Indian middlemen right now in India trying to make a deal come through, and Textron would be quite happy to fund them as "consultants" who would then be Indians who are "doing their job" just like Carter is "doing his job"

Gone too far. This is equivalent to your objections to other berating the IAF, etc. You just cannot equate the two "doing his job".

Besides those are your own fears.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Sep 2015 07:45

Well in that case keep digging. Having said that since this particular aircraft isn't going to show up in IAF colors if for nothing else besides it being a light strike aircraft with double the MTOW of an IJT..the program would be a rather poor program to back by middlemen seeking to make a quick buck through a sale.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Sep 2015 07:46

brar_w wrote:Well in that case keep digging. Having said that since this particular aircraft isn't going to show up in IAF colors if for nothing else besides it being a light strike aircraft with double the MTOW of an IJT..the program would be a rather poor program to back by middlemen seeking to make a quick buck through a sale.

How on earth can a middle man make money via DTTI?

That is his own fear that he carries everywhere.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2015 07:49

NRao wrote: Besides those are your own fears.

Did I give you the impression that I was working for the CBI? Of course these are my fears. Do I have to individually tell everyone that what I post is my opinion?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2015 07:51

brar_w wrote:Well in that case keep digging.

Did you really believe that I need you permission for this or are you simply frustrated at not having anything else to analyse about me and my opinions?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Sep 2015 07:53

There is HUGE diff between an opinion and a fear.

Opinion/s I will gladly accept. Fears have no place in discussions. And they are NOT the same.

So, please make up your mind as to what you want to convey: Opinion or fear.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Sep 2015 09:06

shiv wrote:That is exactly the problem. Campaign contributions in the US are public. In India there is no such thing as "campaign contribution". It is all slush funds.

So do we have any evidence, at all, of the CBU-105 purchase from Textron being facilitated through kickbacks?

In this case (Carter/Textron) it may or may not mean anything much - but I had an epiphany that was linked to several observations I made.

In fact there are some really great new trainer aircraft that are already in service including the M346 and that Russian Yak something. Scorpion was hardly the plane that came to mind when it comes to importing jet trainers.

- We already have an AJT in the HAL-built BAE Hawk and can (and should) supplement that with the Tejas Mk1 based trainer.

- The Scorpion offer in contrast is in response to the IAF's stated (and baffling) requirement for an IJT.

Suddenly on BRF we have people enthusiastically endorsing the Scorpion - not because they are paid, but because the name "Scorpion" has been brought to media attention in India by Carter. Don't know how much Carter is serving his masters if any at Textron, but the Indian media have surely been paid to attend the press conferences and pick up brochures from US press briefings.

'People' is plural. Aside from Septimus, who on BRF has endorsed the Scorpion? Yes the early start on corruption allegations has been met with scepticism but that's natural, seeing as the govt hasn't formally discussed the sale of even a single jet, let alone place an order.

Also, why shouldn't Ashton Carter come and flog an US jet in the Indian market? How does the whole 'master-servant' thing figure into this? How is it any different from the British, French, German or Russian defence minister/secretary coming to flog their domestic products to the Indian military/govt?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 10 Sep 2015 09:33

shiv wrote:
Viv S wrote: Now if Textron had been making 'campaign contributions' to our 'Defense Secretary' i.e A.K Antony, it would be a matter of concern.
That is exactly the problem. Campaign contributions in the US are public. In India there is no such thing as "campaign contribution". It is all slush funds.

In this case (Carter/Textron) it may or may not mean anything much - but I had an epiphany that was linked to several observations I made.

In fact there are some really great new trainer aircraft that are already in service including the M346 and that Russian Yak something. Scorpion was hardly the plane that came to mind when it comes to importing jet trainers.

Suddenly on BRF we have people enthusiastically endorsing the Scorpion - not because they are paid, but because the name "Scorpion" has been brought to media attention in India by Carter. Don't know how much Carter is serving his masters if any at Textron, but the Indian media have surely been paid to attend the press conferences and pick up brochures from US press briefings.

So in the "public eye" of BRF we suddenly find that the Scorpion is being discussed/dissed/promoted without any hint of the others whose governments have not jumped in and paid our media and other reps to push their wares. Some of these trainers seem to be great aircraft. Anyone looked at the M 346 or the Yak 130? If I get paid I will promote either or both.

shiv,

The campaign contributions that are public are now meaningless, just like the Indian elections. Its all political action committees and what not now.

The rest is what it is. 15 years ago, the basic trainer and jet trainer were entirely indian, and the operational training units were using indian made jets as well. Today its PC9 and the Hawk. Kiran is going out soon. There is NO indian plane in the pipeline anywhere. That is not an accident.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2015 09:46

Viv S wrote: Also, why shouldn't Ashton Carter come and flog an US jet in the Indian market? How does the whole 'master-servant' thing figure into this? How is it any different from the British, French, German or Russian defence minister/secretary coming to flog their domestic products to the Indian military/govt?

Hmm why shouldn't I fear that he is bribing someone to push his wares?

I doubt of this "discussion" is going to get very far because the rhetorical questions I am being asked are great for equally rhetorical non answers. Nothing will come of this. No sure why so many people are getting upset and questioning me about my opinions, view and fears. I seem to be having a bigger effect on people who read my posts than I imagined

Ignoring me is an attractive possibility I would have imagined.

Fact is Ashton Carter has consulted and presumably earned money from Textron, for which he required a waiver. US government waivers mean bullshit - a US president waived scrutiny of Pakistan's nuclear program. Now Ashton Carter, waiver in hand, pushes Scorpion in India while at least three people are telling me how it is fine and dandy for him to do that and I should not object 'Because it is his job" Heh heh.

I am not objecting. I am "callling to attention to facts"

Ashton Carter has consulted for Textron in the past. He is trying to sell a Textron product to India now. Both are facts. Why would anyone argue with facts?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2015 09:48

Shreeman wrote: 15 years ago, the basic trainer and jet trainer were entirely indian, and the operational training units were using indian made jets as well. Today its PC9 and the Hawk. Kiran is going out soon. There is NO indian plane in the pipeline anywhere. That is not an accident.

Shreeman would you get your knickers in a twist if I agreed with you and said "This is my fear". Would you tell me to state opinions rather than fears? I hope not. Expressing a fear can also be an opinion.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Sep 2015 10:19

This discussion is headed nowhere other than thread derailment. Boys, take a walk in the park. Cool it off.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Sep 2015 10:31

shiv wrote:Hmm why shouldn't I fear that he is bribing someone to push his wares?

I doubt of this "discussion" is going to get very far because the rhetorical questions I am being asked are great for equally rhetorical non answers. Nothing will come of this. No sure why so many people are getting upset and questioning me about my opinions, view and fears. I seem to be having a bigger effect on people who read my posts than I imagined Ignoring me is an attractive possibility I would have imagined.

You implied corruption. Its incumbent upon you to provide the forum with evidence of the same. Saying that a member of the US govt received money from a US company has no bearing whatsoever on a potential sale of weapons to India.

Now if you can point out credible evidence that an official/politician in India was paid off to get the CBU-105 purchase sanctioned, you'd have a case. The corruption allegations vis a vis the Scorpion OTOH will have to wait until we actually start negotiations with Textron for the aircraft.

Fact is Ashton Carter has consulted and presumably earned money from Textron, for which he required a waiver. US government waivers mean bullshit - a US president waived scrutiny of Pakistan's nuclear program. Now Ashton Carter, waiver in hand, pushes Scorpion in India while at least three people are telling me how it is fine and dandy for him to do that and I should not object 'Because it is his job" Heh heh. I am not objecting. I am "callling to attention to facts"

'Waiver in hand'? Did the US govt at any point prohibit exports of the Scorpion? So then how did granting him a waiver change the facts vis a vis a Scorpion offer for India?

Of course your point is a matter of concern.. to the US taxpayer/citizen. Why should it bother us in India?

Ashton Carter has consulted for Textron in the past. He is trying to sell a Textron product to India now. Both are facts. Why would anyone argue with facts?

Until you add Indian politicians/middle-men/bureaucrats/servicemen into that equation, its irrelevant to us. And thus far, you don't have any real grounds to do so. But yes, you are free to express your fears in that respect.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Sep 2015 10:32

indranilroy wrote:This discussion is headed nowhere other than thread derailment. Boys, take a walk in the park. Cool it off.

Roger.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 10 Sep 2015 19:52

shiv wrote:
Shreeman wrote: 15 years ago, the basic trainer and jet trainer were entirely indian, and the operational training units were using indian made jets as well. Today its PC9 and the Hawk. Kiran is going out soon. There is NO indian plane in the pipeline anywhere. That is not an accident.
Shreeman would you get your knickers in a twist if I agreed with you and said "This is my fear". Would you tell me to state opinions rather than fears? I hope not. Expressing a fear can also be an opinion.

I would (continue to) refuse to wear knickers! Just think about the scrotal discomfort if they were to get in a twist!

Of course, every opinion is either pessimistic/fearful, or optimistic/hopeful. No one has the insider track -- and just for a twist, I fear there isnt an insider track -- and we are all reading tea leaves when the blogger cup is empty.

The scorpion nonsense is beyond hopeless. It speaks to a very different level of "lack of seriousness" if it even gets proposed anywhere in indias procurement process. Fear mongering has bled america dry by buying military crap it never needed. In Indias case it kills the development pipeline and buys crap that will fare little better than the gracful demise of the westland helicopters. Someone should make a memorial/museum and have the developers/procurers spend their LTC for a mandatory puja of each one stood on a proper milk soaking marble.

Jokes aside, failure is a good thing. For every success there are a thousand failures. This one, nationally funded, mandated to succeed R&D approach is making a shame out of failure. So what if the IJT fails because it needs an entirely new wing? Get one. Admit failure soon, and get on with the next iteration. If it doesnt materialise by the project deadline, close it. Take the people and status at the end of the project, set new goals, call it Mk2. You arent selling anything for profit, why worry about cost? After a Mk2 or Mk3, people will learn risk management and solve their problems. And there wont be this "delayed by X years" complaint. Yes, you have to be abled to take the "shame of failure" for Mk1 through n-1. If they are canned, a navy, BSF, or CISF will find a use for them too.

The media is a paid advertisement. Shaming or praising, both equally worthless. The thin skin politicians have over these "failures" given their understanding of these (or anything technical) matters ought to be confusing to any unbiased, unpaid individuals. My last 2c.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 10 Sep 2015 20:42

^^^ IJT will fly yet. There is more than hope. There are issues, but testing goes on. One flew yesterday.

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Sep 2015 01:32

As the saying goes, there are no "failures"; there are only learning experiences. You only fail if you don't learn from it!

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up."
--Edison

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 11 Sep 2015 06:13

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 19h19 hours ago
According to a very senior DRDO aeronautics expert, HAL has probably resolved the issues related to the IJT's spin characteristics.

Seems like things are finally going in the right direction. The way the vultures are circling over the prospect of a failed IJT, shows just how threatened every indigenous effort is. If they can make an aircraft made for a completely different purpose, that too without even having a two-seat variant built, seem like an option to even some in the forces, I shudder to think how corrupt the system really is.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Sep 2015 06:52

^^^^^

Which air craft are you referring to?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 11 Sep 2015 08:24

^Sorry about that, I was referring to the scorpion. I had put that in, but edited it out later to make the post more coherent and forgot to mention it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Sep 2015 08:33

But the Scorpion is a two seater plane. Which is why I was confused.

It is just not a trainer. Yet.

As I understand it, the proposal is to work with India to build a trainer out of it. And of course build it in India.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 11 Sep 2015 09:48

^All russian like, where we foot the bill, get to buy knocked down kits and they get to sell the completely new derivative for a profit to all and sundry.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Sep 2015 10:29

Understandable. The def framework and DTTI are a work in progress and very, very raw at that. Too early to claim anything.

However, the navy seems to be building a template on such matters. Posted a couple of articles, pls check them out.

I see some parallels with the fgfa efforts - have no clue why that has stalled. If time is short, yes kits may be the going style, else options should be open. But, no matter what, design is on the table (as far as I can see). Also manufacturing techniques, a major topic to conquer.

I do not see the Scorpion coming, in any clothing.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Sep 2015 13:46

In 2014 the IAF, via MoD issued an RFI for an IJT. Here is the link
http://tenders.gov.in/viewtenddoc.asp?t ... no=1&td=TD

I have read that there is no aicraft in the world that meets these specs. Hence no response from anyone. This RFI looks like a committee has gone into "ideal features" of an IJT and given it as an RFI rather than what is technologically feasible

Some details about what was expected from the trainer aircraft

a)The aircraft should have twin seats
(b) The aircraft should be capable of being flown by a single pilot.
(c) The aircraft should be fitted with modern light weight reliable zero-zero ejection seats.
(d)The aircraft should have the capability for the occupants to perform a rapid egress on ground.
(e) The aircraft should be in the light weight category.
(f) The aircraft should have a single jet engine
(g)The aircraft should be equipped with a tricycle landing gear
(h) The aircraft should have conventional controls with provision for electrical trim.

Flying qualities

(a)Stalling An unmistakable natural stall warning should be available, irrespective of the configuration.
(b)Spinning The aircraft must be resistant to spin but it should be possible to perform intentional spin upto six turns to either side and recover safely thereafter. The aircraft behavior in the spin should be predictable and consistent.
(c)Aerobatics The IJT should be capable of performing loops, barrel rolls, rolls, combination maneuvers and negative ‘g’ flight without adverse effects on the engine and aircraft structure. The aircraft should be capable of sustained inverted flight for at least 30 seconds at sea level at maximum takeoff power

The aircraft should be safely operable within the following envelope-

(a) Accelerations of up to +7.0 g and -2.5 ‘g’ in Normal Training Configuration *(NTC). The above mentioned envelope is applicable for aircraft with empty drop tanks (if any).
(b) With external stores (other than empty Drop tank) the aircraft should be cleared for operations at accelerations upto +5g and -
1.5g
(c) Service ceiling should be at least 9000m
(d) Maximum Permissible Speed . In the NTC, the maximum speed in flight must not be less than 750 kmph CAS and the ac should not display any marked compressibility effects upto 0.75 M.
(e) Max Sustained Speed.The maximum sustained speed at sea level must be at least 700 kmph in NTC and 550 kmph at maximum AUW.
(f) Stalling Speed. In clean configuration, the 1’g’ stalling speed must not exceed 175 kmph with all services retracted.
(g Glide Performance . In the NTC, the IJTshould have a glide ratio of 1:12 or better

Climb/Turn performance

(a)Take OffThe takeoff distance to clear a 15 m obstacle from a dry, hard surfaced runway at sea level and with nil wind must not exceed 900m in NTC.
(b) Sea Level Rate of Climb (ROC) The Sea level ROC must be at least 20 m/s in NTC.
c) Turn Performance The aircraft should be able to perform sustained turns up to 3.5 ‘g’ at sea level in the NTC and 2.25 ‘g’ at max AUW

External stores carriage:

The aircraft should be capable of carrying at least 1000 kg of external load . The aircraft should be equipped with a
minimum of five hard points and each hard point on the wing should be stressed to carry at least 300 kg stores.
The aircraft should be, free from buffet dutch roll snaking and wing rock during air to ground weapon training. The aircraft should be capable of employing the following armament
(a) Gun: A lighweight gun/ gun pod with adequate ammunition for at least 5 sec firing time
(b)Rocket Pods Reusable rocket pods
(c) Bombs: should be able to carry at least 4x250 kg retarded or ballistic bombs. The stations should be capable of employing Carrier Bomb light stores (CLBS) type dispensers for carriage of practice bombs

Operating Environment

The aircraft should be capable of being operated in the following environment
(a) Tropicalization . The aircraft and its systems should be fully tropicalized and capable of
prolonged operations in the prevalent heat, dust and humidity of arid zones and saline atmospheric
conditions of India including its coastal regions.
(b)The aircraft should be capable of operating from airfields up to an elevation of at least
2000 m AMSL. It is desirable to have it capable for operation up to 3000 m

There is more but I am tired of copy pasting

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Sep 2015 14:24

NRao wrote:But the Scorpion is a two seater plane. Which is why I was confused.

It is just not a trainer. Yet.

As I understand it, the proposal is to work with India to build a trainer out of it. And of course build it in India.

The Scorpion even if redesigned won't all of a sudden become an IJT that flies around with half its weight, half its thrust, and much smaller size. Those were the design parameters for the IJT and the Scorpion is a much larger, aircraft designed for a different mission. You can't make an IJT out of it.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 11 Sep 2015 14:35

^That is not the point. The point is that people are willing to waste money on an obvious white elephant, at least that is what is being suggested by the presstitutes.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 11 Sep 2015 14:39

Shiv Sir, I do not remember the speed limits and compressibility limits but otherwise the specs look like what the HJT - 16 Mk 1 / Mk 1A can do.

I am not sure of speeds because the speeds were in Kts and not KMPH and we would climb to ~6kms for a 04 turn spin though the service ceiling was higher. I think VNE is /was 445 kts and stalling speeds (Clean) were around ~85 kts

Armament Load seems heavier.

This is the wikipedia entry on HJT 16:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Kiran

The Kiran Mk 1/ 1A Specs as per the wiki:

General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length: 10.60 m (34 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 10.70 m (35 ft 1¼ in)
Height: 3.64 m (11 ft 11 in)
Wing area: 19.00 m² (204.5 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,560 kg (5,644 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 4,235 kg (9,336 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Viper turbojet, 11.12 kN (2,500 lbf)
Performance
Maximum speed: 695 km/h (375 knots, 432 mph) at sea level
Cruise speed: 324 km/h (175 knots, 201 mph)
Stall speed: 145 km/h (92 knots, 106 mph) flaps and landing gear down
Endurance: 1 hour 45 min
Service ceiling: 30,000 ft (9,150 m)
Armament
two 500lb (227kg) bombs or two SNEB rocket pods containing seven 68 mm rockets or two pods with 7.62 mm machine guns, or two 50-Imp Gal (226 litre) drop tanks

Now also check the specs stated for IJT fro here:http://admirableindia.com/karnataka/hal ... rcraft-lca

Crew: 2, student and instructor

Length: 11 m
Wing Span: 10 m
Height: 4.40 m
Empty Weight: 3500 Kgs
Max takeoff weight: 4500 Kgs
Max drive Speed: 750 Kmph
Max Load factor: +7/-2.5g
Performance:

Max Speed: 825 Kmph
Service ceiling: 9000 m
Endurance: 3 hrs
Thrust to weight: 5.59

For IJT, I think BRF has a great article (though old) :http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/aircr ... uresh.html

On the spin troubles for IJT here is an article from 2009 http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/2009/main/2-CEMILAC.pdf

IJT and spin are at the end

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Sep 2015 15:17

Arun Menon wrote:^That is not the point. The point is that people are willing to waste money on an obvious white elephant, at least that is what is being suggested by the presstitutes.

There is nothing in the press that even remotely suggests that this is anything more than at best a proposal..I'm sure the MOD gets tons of proposals from time to time, and they go straight into the dustbin if they do not meet the requirements for a particular need. Like I said, if the plan is to offer the Scorpion as a substitute for the IJT it is not going to be taken seriously irrespective of what the media reports in the same way that a last minute offer of F-16's is also not really going to bother many people on the MOD as far as the Rafale or the broader fighter replacement needs are concerned. Unless you make a blanket ban on all proposals and offers there would be offers made by foreign companies, Nations etc but that doesn't mean that all offers are automatically escalated to a serious consideration despite of the excitement that the media may showcase in trying to be the first out of the door with a particular story.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Sep 2015 15:40

can someone explain why the Hawk with a sw knob to limit its max speed setting and manouver limits not function as a IJT ?
being a established trainer, it ought to be already a safe and stable a/c.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Sep 2015 16:31

Singha wrote:can someone explain why the Hawk with a sw knob to limit its max speed setting and manouver limits not function as a IJT ?
being a established trainer, it ought to be already a safe and stable a/c.

Do you have someone in mind to get banned?

@brar,

I agree. This is an exercise in futility, but then that is precisely what DTTI is attempting to overcome - futility. Which is why Carter is trying to throw stuff on the wall and see what may the first thing to stick. Even the carrier topic is so nebulous. Just too many obstacles to overcome. C-17 was the easiest topic to stick to for both sides and even that is gone!

Check out the next circus act between pm and prez. I think it had the Scorpion in it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Sep 2015 16:38

deejay wrote:Shiv Sir, I do not remember the speed limits and compressibility limits but otherwise the specs look like what the HJT - 16 Mk 1 / Mk 1A can do.

Fair enough

But it is the following requirements that make me wonder if anyone can design aircraft to behave this way. I thought that this sort of behaviour has to be discovered and characterized in testing. I expect some of it can be modelled `but the requirements sound pretty stringent to me. I may be wrong

An unmistakable natural stall warning should be available, irrespective of the configuration.

I thought "natural stall warning" is something that the pilot feels. What a pilot feels when his plane is about to stall can only be discovered after a prototype is made and tested.

It appears to me that what planes do before stalling seems to vary widely and each plane's behaviour is accepted as it is so long as it is known and can be repeated consistently and recovery is possible at least in a trainer. For example Late Wingco (retd) Suresh VrC wrote that the MiG 21 stalls without giving any warning - so rookie pilots can sometimes fail to realize that they are heading close to a stall (Article on BR)

The other requirement that is unlikely to come out of most countries in the world is:

The aircraft should be capable of operating from airfields up to an elevation of at least 2000 m AMSL. It is desirable to have it capable for operation up to 3000 m

I am not sure if major Aerospace manufacturing nations have any part of their country situated at 3000 m AMSL. The highest mountain in Britain is at 1400 meters. The highest airfield in France as per Google is one in the Alps (just 567 meters long) - is at 2000 meters AMSL.

Most countries in the world are not going to be testing their indigenous trainers for these altitude requirements. If we leave out the US and China , India is the only country that has airfields at such altitudes and Indian companies need to be given time and opportunity to develop aircraft for these specs.

In a way I am happy that this RFI had no takers. I am sure that the IJT will meet most of these specs

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Sep 2015 16:42

NRao wrote:Which is why Carter is trying to throw stuff on the wall .

Turns out that Carter's name was pulled in by the media. Looks like he made no pitch for the Scorpion at least in public or on the record.
Please see this post:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1898928

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Sep 2015 17:09

@brar,

I agree. This is an exercise in futility, but then that is precisely what DTTI is attempting to overcome - futility. Which is why Carter is trying to throw stuff on the wall and see what may the first thing to stick. Even the carrier topic is so nebulous. Just too many obstacles to overcome. C-17 was the easiest topic to stick to for both sides and even that is gone!

Check out the next circus act between pm and prez. I think it had the Scorpion in it.

The DTTI is a framework that lays down the process of sharing technology and defense deals that are mutually beneficial. The US side will not just offer deals that are mutually beneficial, but will throw in plenty of stuff that has more of a benefit to them than to India. This is natural and expected, just as the Indian side will demand technology and capability under the framework that provides it some very precise technology for certain aerospace areas such as propulsion. As I had mentioned earlier, one will see a ton of programs, hardware etc being thrown around as potential candidates but very few will be escalated to serious talks and then even fewer to actual joint programs of record. As has already been reported the Indian side is cautious that the DTTI framework remain strictly a platform for joint development and technology sharing as opposed to a sole source government to government procurement program that allows some of the US companies to circumvent competition. Its jut not the DTTI, the French, Russians and all others doing business with the MOD will try to leverage their positions to get the best sort of agreements and deals across but it would be the MOD that would have to filter out what is required under the various bi-lateral agreements.

The media reported on the Scorpion having been offered. Barring the actual MINUTES of the meeting, we can't really tell what was discussed behind closed doors. From the media reports we know that other areas were also discussed, such as small UAV's, EMALS and other carrier technologies. Some of this has been escalated to higher discussions such as the IN contingent visiting the US to forward talks on one potential area (carriers). There has been no report on anything substantial happening on either the UAV or the Scoprion, and if you look at what Textron is gearing up to do you will see that they are taking the Scoropion design further away from a TRAINER and almost into an attack aircraft direction. Even if we assume that the media reported correctly, nothing has really occurred since that even remotely suggests that the MOD has taken the aircraft seriously as an IJT.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Sep 2015 17:21

My read is that, today's India is not even close to an India of say 5 years ago. India today demands things that no other nation is willing to part with. Which is why we will see not too many JVs.

So, all these RFIs, etc are useless. The only meaning they have is for an Indian service to use them, MLU, replace. Not something India is looking for.

Yet, India still has needs, bad needs, has the funds (so we are told), needs things as of last life, etc, etc,etc. So India is a great client. But a client that wants to be on her own.

And there in lies the rub. IMHO. India will go through a twilight zone. And she, IMHO, needs to start stuff in her own. Cannot rely on others. They all, without exception, will try to prevent such progress, which is normal. So, no use blaming them either.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 11 Sep 2015 19:31

shiv wrote: Fair enough

But it is the following requirements that make me wonder if anyone can design aircraft to behave this way. I thought that this sort of behaviour has to be discovered and characterized in testing. I expect some of it can be modelled `but the requirements sound pretty stringent to me. I may be wrong

An unmistakable natural stall warning should be available, irrespective of the configuration.
I thought "natural stall warning" is something that the pilot feels. What a pilot feels when his plane is about to stall can only be discovered after a prototype is made and tested.

It appears to me that what planes do before stalling seems to vary widely and each plane's behaviour is accepted as it is so long as it is known and can be repeated consistently and recovery is possible at least in a trainer. For example Late Wingco (retd) Suresh VrC wrote that the MiG 21 stalls without giving any warning - so rookie pilots can sometimes fail to realize that they are heading close to a stall (Article on BR)

IJT, HJT 16, HPT 32 are basic trainers / intermediate trainers. Pilots flying these have less than 100 hrs when they start flying. In IAF by the time one flies a Mig 21, the experience is either greater than 200 hrs or around that and at least 03 types of aircraft with different characteristics flown before that.

So a rookiw for Mig 21 and a rookie pilot is different. Plus experience graph is non linear and the difference between an ab initio and a person with around 200 hrs is significant.

If I remember correctly both HPT 32 and HJT 16 gave a distinct, stall warning and a wing buffet at the onset or initial stages of stall. It is not uncommon in the basic stage mainly and occasionally in the intermediate stage for pilots to hear the stall warning because of incorrect control inputs.

This being an intermediate trainer, the requirement (IMVHO) comes off from what the HJT 16 could do.

shiv wrote: The other requirement that is unlikely to come out of most countries in the world is:
The aircraft should be capable of operating from airfields up to an elevation of at least 2000 m AMSL. It is desirable to have it capable for operation up to 3000 m
I am not sure if major Aerospace manufacturing nations have any part of their country situated at 3000 m AMSL. The highest mountain in Britain is at 1400 meters. The highest airfield in France as per Google is one in the Alps (just 567 meters long) - is at 2000 meters AMSL.

....

In a way I am happy that this RFI had no takers. I am sure that the IJT will meet most of these specs

Yes, of all training bases in India, Yellahanka would be the highest, but I think this requirement has something to do with CAS, war time utilisation in mind. The only place we have airfield for fixed wing at 2000 - 3000 mtrs AMSL is Kashmir, North India, etc. No other reason comes to mind.

And I do hope IJT succeeds

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 11 Sep 2015 20:34

Singha wrote:can someone explain why the Hawk with a sw knob to limit its max speed setting and manouver limits not function as a IJT ?
being a established trainer, it ought to be already a safe and stable a/c.

Cost of operation. You dont need to set a limit in the system, just in the curriculum if you so desire. The IJT stage is intended to gain jet experience at less than half the cost of a regular JT (now marketed as AJT). The 100-200 hours range for each trainee ought to be roughly worth 100,000 dollar savings in an IJT vs AJT.

The second is a numbers problem. Hawks are screwdrivered. There wont ever be enough to go around. And once assembled, numbers can only go down via crashes, downtime, cannibalization.

The third is cockpit experience. The IJT cockpit experience would be less frightening, provide a smaller jump from PC9 than would the Hawk.

Can the IJT be skipped? Yup. Can you train X,000 trainees with 1,00s of training hours that way? Probably not. Will you again be stuck with a downward spiral of numbers if you dont have an incoming trickle of IJTs? Assuredly.

There are a million ways of keeping an adversary down (think intel vs amd), and that includes lawsuites, delays, poaching, sabotage, espionage. You have to do an ARM to sidestep this. The IJT is the ARM.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 11 Sep 2015 23:26

IJT

The IJT has gone through weight gain at clean weight 4250Kg and MTOW of 5400Kg from HAL website.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 11 Sep 2015 23:33

If cost/experience is the concern for AJT, can't we use simulators to fill the gap?

Between PC-7 and Hawk, include simulators to hone trainee pilot skills. For Hands-on experience/qualification we will still have PC-7/Hawk.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Sep 2015 04:55

sankum wrote:IJT

The IJT has gone through weight gain at clean weight 4250Kg and MTOW of 5400Kg from HAL website.

Sankum all planes show a weight increase between "clean" configuration and fully loaded (MTOW= Max Take Off Weight) configuration. That is no more weight gain that a schoolboy gains weight when he carries his school bag.