Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 11 Jan 2016 13:21

even if not mass produced it is a good learning exp for HAL design and test team.

HAL is not much involved with Tejas FOC and not at all with FGFA for now, so they need fixed wing projects to build some expertise.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 11 Jan 2016 13:42

deejay wrote:Yes. I have a photo sent from someone who doesn't want it shared. It is a long shot from the other side of the same static display and it looks like hard points under the wings.

The photo I linked certainly seems to have a pylon for stores attached. There is also the end of a mysterious probe but I don't know what that is.

That IJT in grey looks really nice and looks like a machine that is flying regularly

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Shreeman » 11 Jan 2016 21:23

Philip wrote:Frankly,the HTT programme is a financial waste,at this point in history.It should've come out at least 5 years ago.I The global leader in trainers has been bought by the IAF,the Pilatus.Even the PC-21,again global leader for advanced trainers ,has been bought /selected by Oz just now. That aircraft obviates the need for an IJT as it can simulate the characteristics of more advanced strike fighters. The resources being spent on the HTT could be diverted to the LCA and FGFA programmes,far more important.


Phillip,

Here, you are about as wrong as it is possible to be. Lets see,

-- financial waste: care to vheck how many rafales+support the entire progrsm and production will buy?
-- this point in history:whos history, and what is so special about it? History is a bunch of brochures and propaganda. Not hands on knowledge.
--global leader in trainers: does russia or china buy from them? can syria buy from them? will they integrate a sudershan or astra or uttam (yes, i know these particular devices are not meant for thus trainer, today) or even a simple gun pod?
--oz can hand them to the bakis like their mirages. who the hell cares about the collins class einsteins. why should they figure in the htt debate?
--iaf has bought pc: like the army keeps buying t90. we would like a mac or linux option to the pc.
--can simulate x,y,z: unfortunately, does not replace it as additional platform. you need as many trainers as possible and for now its not even a 1:1 replacement scenario. how do you expect hours per year to rise let alone greater number of operators?

there is no replacement for inhouse industrial base. one that needs orders to keep humming even if they arent being sent into sorties today. the alternative is imported crates being sunk in the bay of bengal at end if life.

A prop. trainer doesnt cost an arm and length. it doesnt take away any resources that could work on a jet project, it has nothing to do with a jet trainer and all the other propeller aircraft makes, cessna includer havent left town because pilatus has sold a couple dozen here or there.

The HTT should be built in the 1000s. Not just 100s as traffic radar, observation posts, ncc and coastguard and bsf, flying clubs, and private sales. On top of a 100 or two for basic training. There is no alternative if you dont want an air show air force, fleet review navy, or exercise army.

People arent measured in tonnage, nothing will go over to LCA or even IJT if the HTT were shut diwn. Not the people, not the jigs, nor the metal. And the cost outlay is not worth a newspaper column if the whole thing were a scam. why make a point to complain repeatedly?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 11 Jan 2016 23:37

shiv wrote:
deejay wrote:Yes. I have a photo sent from someone who doesn't want it shared. It is a long shot from the other side of the same static display and it looks like hard points under the wings.

The photo I linked certainly seems to have a pylon for stores attached. There is also the end of a mysterious probe but I don't know what that is.

It does seem to have a pylon. However, I don't think that it is carrying anything on them. What you see in that photograph is the pitot tube jutting out of the portside wingtip of the Kiran parked right next to it. IJT will probably carry Kiran's fuel tank, SNEB rocket pods, 227kg bombs, and the FN Herstal RMP-LC Rocket Machine Gun Pod gunpod (from the Lancer). Though not scheduled, I don't know why IJT/HTT-40s should not be able to carry Mistrals and Helina, just like the LCH/Rudra.

shiv wrote:That IJT in grey looks really nice and looks like a machine that is flying regularly

Exactly my thought.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 12 Jan 2016 00:02

Okay, I am going to hazard a guess here. Need to get it out of my system.

At some point of time IJT went from this configuration
Image
Image

to the current one.
Image

I often wonder why HAL changed to the latter configuration, because the former looks more soothing to my eye. My theory is that given very little time, they wanted to reuse as much as they could from the Kiran. The inlets look very similar. I wonder, if they share the wing. The tail and wing layout looks very similar. The airbrakes, except for their size, look very similar. This allowed them to go from drawing board to a flying prototype in record time. But then, they had not completed the spin model tests at Tsagi were not completed even after the first flight! And how it has come back to bite them!

Image

I would really love to know what the problem was finally nailed down to, and how they fixed it!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 12 Jan 2016 01:08

Also, HAL should be given the go ahead to develop CAT as soon as IJT license production begins.

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Kartik » 12 Jan 2016 02:30

Perhaps had something to do with blanking of airflow over the elevators at higher angles of attack in the original IJT configuration? Placing them higher above would possibly place the elevators in an better area of airflow, hence retaining control at higher AoA?

But your point on the intakes location and geometry having changed to something far more similar to that on the Kiran is bang on. Personally I too prefer the original design, its more conventional..but perhaps the idea was that this worked on the Kiran without any major issues, so why opt for a new layout that may cause intake related issues?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 12 Jan 2016 03:27

Don't know Kartik. At higher AoA, I believe that the current installation is more likely to be in a deep stall (kind of like in the T-tail config). In the conventional layout, the elevator is likely to be below the wake of the wing.

My theory is that they wanted to have easy access to the engine. Hence, they chose the podded configuration and took Kiran's intake with minor changes. Once these were finalized, the elevator had to be placed high on the tail boom to keep it outside the wake of the wing and the intakes.

I think if they just re-did the intakes to be right at the wing root (like on the CAT/HJT-39 rendering), they could position the elevators better. Or may be go for a all moving tail with anhedral + SMURFs (like in the Hawk). I am just eager to see a result. :)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 12 Jan 2016 06:16

nileshjr wrote:Any chaiwalla/panwalla info on IJT off late?? IJTs flying a lot these days..

Look in the mirror boss. You are the chaiwala/panwala 8) Even hearing that it's flying brings a smile on my face

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3932
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby deejay » 12 Jan 2016 10:22

BTW, there is also a Lime Green colour IJT which is fairly active nowadins. Saw it today.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7719
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby rohitvats » 12 Jan 2016 11:39

A report in the FORCE magazine says that MOD has taken a decision to persist with IJT. No foreign alternative. IAF has already started implementing the two-stage training cycle with Pilatus filling in Stage-2. But says that IAF prefers the 3-Stage training cycle.

member_29258
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby member_29258 » 12 Jan 2016 16:06

Hi Indranil, Has the IJT cleared the Stall/ Spin tests ?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 12 Jan 2016 20:05

The PC-21 is a prop! However ,could someone explain the merits of a 3-stage trg. prog when many major air forces have only two.

US:https://www.baseops.net/militarypilot
The Path to Pilot Wings

All Air Force pilot candidates begin their flying training with introductory flight screening (IFS). Civilian flight instructors in Pueblo, Colorado administer the new flight screening program. Students fly the Mitsubishi Diamond DA-20 in their training. The program is a 40 day program that includes ground school and a 25 flight-hour flight screening course for up to 1700 students annually.

The next step in the process is joint specialized undergraduate pilot training, which prepares student pilots for the full spectrum of aircraft and flying missions. The term “Joint” denotes training with sister services such as the Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard.

t38_sPilot candidates then attend either Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT) or joint specialized undergraduate pilot training (JSUPT). ENJJPT is located at Sheppard AFB, Texas. The entire course lasts about 54 weeks. Students learn with, and are taught by, U.S. Air Force officers and officers from various air forces of our European allies. Student pilots first fly the T-37 mastering contact, instrument, low-level and formation flying. Next, they strap on the supersonic T-38 and continue building the skills necessary to become a fighter pilot.

Joint specialized undergraduate pilot training began at Reese Air Force Base, Texas, in July 1992 following the arrival of the T-1A Jayhawk. Undergraduate pilot training continued training all students in the T-37B Tweet and T-38A Talon until the T-1A arrived at each pilot training base. JSUPT was completely in place after the last UPT class graduated at Columbus AFB, Miss., in 1997.

t34_sMilitary Pilot TrainingThe JSUPT program is accomplished through the cooperative efforts of the Air Force and the Navy. Joint training for Air Force and Navy students is conducted at Vance AFB, Okla., and Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Fla. Students complete primary flight training at these locations in the Air Force’s T-6 Texan II and Navy’s T-34 Turbomentor.

Other students complete the primary training at Columbus AFB, Miss., or Laughlin AFB, Texas, flying the T-6 Texan II. The USAF was first to phase in the T-6 as a replacement to the (now retired) T-37 Tweet. The first base to transition was Moody AFB, GA (no longer a UPT base) and the last base to transition was the ENJJPT program at Sheppard AFB, TX.

T6_sFollowing the primary phase of JSUPT, students move on to advanced training in one of several tracks. Students selected for fighter-bomber assignments fly the T-38A, concentrating on low-level tactics, instrument procedures, 2- and 4-ship formation flying and navigation training.

Prospective airlift and tanker pilots complete their advanced training in the T-1A at Columbus AFB, Miss., Laughlin AFB, Texas, and Vance AFB, Okla., where they are introduced to crew resource management techniques, air-to-air refueling, airdrop missions and radar positioning and navigation.

t1_sStudents selected for the multi-engine turboprop track will eventually fly the C-130 Hercules and train at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, in the T-44 or C-12 turboprop trainer. The training profiles closely resemble typical missions flown by the C-130.

Other students are selected to fly helicopters and complete their advanced training at Fort Rucker, Ala., in the UH-1 Huey. The helicopter syllabus includes operational skills such as low-level flying and combat tactics training.


RAF:
Basic Fast Jet Training (BFJT) involves 120 flight hours at RAF Linton-on-Ouse, North Yorkshire, on Short Tucano T.1s of 72(R) and 207(R) squadrons of 1 Flying Training School (FTS). Successful students pass to 4 FTS at RAF Valley, Anglesey, where they undertake advanced and weapons training on HS Hawk T.1 and T.1A variants with 19(R) and 208(R) squadrons. Those who pass the course are awarded their ‘wings’ (the RAF Flying Badge), and most progress to operational conversion units on front-line types.

Around half the student pilots destined for multi-engine training are directly streamed for it. They complete 30 hours on Slingsby T-67M Fireflies detached to RAFC Cranwell under the Multi-Engine Lead-In (MELIN) preparatory course. The other multi-engine students are diverted from other streams, with both groups meeting when posted to train on the Beech B200 King Airs of 45(R) Squadron, part of 3 FTS.

Since 1 April 1997, when the Defence Helicopter Flying school (DHFs) opened at RAF Shawbury, Shropshire, RAF basic and advanced stages of rotary-wing pilot training has been undertaken on the Eurocopter Squirrel HT.1. After mastering the type in around 70 hours, trainee helicopter pilots learn multi-engine techniques during 65 hours flying the Griffin HT.1. Pilots destined for the Sea King then undertake a further 15 hours on the Griffin at the Search And Rescue Training Unit at RAF Valley.

Student WSOs fly in Tutors before completing low-level sorties in 76(R) Squadron (part of 1 FTS) Tucano T.1s from RAF Topcliffe, North Yorkshire, before progressing to 55(R) squadron at RAFC Cranwell. After completing a common basic module, WSOs are streamed for specialisation with fast-jet, maritime, air transport or rotary-wing aircraft. students destined for the last-mentioned leave Cranwell for the DHFs at RAF Shawbury. Fast jet WSOs depart Cranwell for RAF Leeming to gain experience in the rear seats of 100 Squadron’s Hawks before joining one of the Tornado forces.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 12 Jan 2016 21:59

Gauravnegi wrote:Hi Indranil, Has the IJT cleared the Stall/ Spin tests ?

I don't know. The last I heard was that the BAE had suggested the roll inertia of the plane was not enough making the wing drop more likely. As a solution HAL was adding weights at the wingtips. There was some speculations that this had not solved the problem. But then our Sanjay's at the HAL airport are reporting lots of IJT flights. This could either mean that they have cleared the tests, or that they are quite certain of the solution, and instead of waiting for the solution, they are completing other tests in the meantime.

My theories are only based on what I can see in pictures. What has been reported is that the IJT was stalling too early, and that instead of dropping its nose first, wing drop was observed. All the remedies tried showed tell-tale indications of the same. That describes the onset of the stall, what about the recovery? We know that one IJT crashed because recovery was not possible from flat spin. Later test articles showed the spin chute. So, I surmised that recovery was difficult too. High performance planes can be very complex, and recovery may not be possible for a variety of reasons. I am just going by a simplistic logic. I think the elevator is in the wake of the wing making it ineffective. Therefore, pilots are not being able to point the nose down to start the recovery.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 12 Jan 2016 22:08

Philip wrote:However ,could someone explain the merits of a 3-stage trg. prog when many major air forces have only two.

1. More fine grained steps in training makes for smoother transitions.
2. It is cheaper to fly an IJT than an Hawk. Whatever I fly in the IJT reduces my cost of training. Currently, they train about 60 hrs on the Pilatus, 80 hrs on the IJT, and 100 hrs on the Hawk. Of these 80 hours, approximately 30 can be pulled into the Pilatus, the rest has to be completed using the Hawk.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Shreeman » 12 Jan 2016 23:15

Phillip,

I can try a second time. Conflicts (read kargil) can be won by begging and borrowing. Wars, at least in the future will only be won by making more of what you consume. If you cant make most of what you consume, then you wont be even threatening anyone regardless of what they do to you. Now there were two possibilities:

1. HTT, kiran/IJT, AJT from HAL, LCA, ...
2. PC, Hawk, Gripen, Mig21, Mig29, Rafale, Su30,...

Guess where we are headed and why?

And why the utility of multiple steps has been outlined above with other arguments, I suspect it is much more due to status quo. Training is sort of religious in the services, it takes too much in terms of people cost, methodology and paradigm changes to throw away the decades of ingrained IJT step from kiran. And it surely does not hurt, a longer pipeline with more trainees in it can accomodate increase in fleet or attrition to airlines more easily besides prpviding greater number of air hours.

Why not? The only answer provided is that its reinvention of the wheel. PC exists, Hawk exists. So what? All of education is a reinvention of the wheel. Get X from country Y is meaningless. Even for US and Russia. The technology is so complex that ToT is wholly and completely useless except in basic fields such as matellurgy. Only HAL tinkers with aviation. No, the LCA as a one off Arjun project will not create an ecosystem.

You have to build it. Even if its inferior. Numbers and ability to sustain make up for it. And that applies to all stages of training and actual operation. Engines, disposables, stores, even lubricants and oil need to be sustainably available.

It is a myth that even unlimited money can create an invincible imported army. Look at saudis. Taking hell of a beating in Yemen. Apaches and all. Why? Because they were busy a)partying and b)polishing their hardware for decades believing it is brochure certified invincible.

If you do not make it, you are not responsible for it. Point fingers at OEMs like the blame russia gets all the time. Does that change anything on the ground? No. Bisons are still the interceptors of choice.

The last argument remaining is-- what about australia? Well they are a sort of pakistan. Just a few thousand miles south. Who are they worried about? Who can they fight? And what sort of sau-forget--it-hazzar-virginity have they got left?

My wife is not pretty is not a serviceable argument for anything. The same needs to apply to defense production. She is the one likely to cook and eat meals with you and that is the bed that has been made. No point in acting like its paris or leningrad. The humid mosquito filled summers of chennai are what you have to deal with.

The horses/courses argument is almost useless here. You will forver keep puting down payment on a horse and never get enough of it to race.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 13 Jan 2016 01:02

Philip wrote:Frankly,the HTT programme is a financial waste,at this point in history.It should've come out at least 5 years ago.I The global leader in trainers has been bought by the IAF,the Pilatus.Even the PC-21,again global leader for advanced trainers ,has been bought /selected by Oz just now. That aircraft obviates the need for an IJT as it can simulate the characteristics of more advanced strike fighters. The resources being spent on the HTT could be diverted to the LCA and FGFA programmes,far more important.


Frankly, you will also be the first in line with a big banner saying "But Indians cannot even design and build basic trainers!"

Frankly, they have started and learnt a lot on the way. Please let them finish. Please don't start "But, bagal wale Sharma ji ka beta toh .... " at every possible instance. It is frankly very tiring.

Frankly, name the first plane the Sukhois, the Tupolevs, the Mikoyans, the Tanks of the world designed and built? Through these projects we developing those men who can design, build and manage such planes and their parts. Frankly, that alone is the definition of having the "technological base". You can ask anybody who actually has the "required technology".

Frankly, the HTT-40 and IJT are not wastes as products either. Let me give you facts.
1. We can't arm the PC-7s, if we wanted to.
2. IAF is reluctant. But IN/ICG is looking at using them for armed maritime patrolling. And the Army is looking to compliment their helis with the HTT-40s.
3. And why not? Currently, we use the Do-228s, a 19 passenger plane for recce! And a fighter jet to augment the helis on CAS/COIN. An HTT-40 fits both these roles much better. It already has great visibility (by virtue of being a trainer). It currently has a 1000 kg payload carrying capability, which can be increased to 1500 kgs with a bigger engine and wings. It has a 550 kmph cruise speed, 6 hours of endurance (with drop tanks), rough airfield handling capability, a 500$ per flying hour cost. It requires 2 man hours of maintenance per hour of flight. In contrast, a fighter jet requires $20,000 per hour of flight time and about 20 man hours of maintenance. The helicopters require about 12-15 hours of maintenance per hour of flying.
4. The HTT-40 can carry all the armament that the attack helis can carry and fly faster and longer. It can carry 12.7mm cannon, 20 mm canon, rockets, dumb bombs, guided bombs, A2A missiles, anti tank missiles. It cannot replaces the helis, but it can surely augment them. If we can shrug off the glamour of the fighter jets, HTT-40s + LCH/Rudras for CAS/COIN and maritime patrol is a great proposition.
5. Regarding the IJT, if we don't build them today, we can't build the AJT of tomorrow. We will start looking for the replacement of Hawks in 10-15 years time. If so, when should we start designing such a plane?!
6. Both the HTT-40 and IJT are amenable to be modified to UAVs/UCAVs.

Frankly, forget the much more expensive PC-21s, we did not even buy the PC-9s! So where is this talk coming from?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2596
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cybaru » 13 Jan 2016 01:09

^+1 agree completely.

And thanks Indranil for responding to one of my queries long ago in another thread. I haven't had a chance to catch up..

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4434
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 13 Jan 2016 03:02

People are expecting Indians to start running but not learn to crawl and walk ;)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby NRao » 13 Jan 2016 04:17

^^^^^

Nope. Suggesting that they should not crawl and instead use a gold plated crutch.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 13 Jan 2016 05:19

Some nice videos uploaded by the CSIR National Aerospace Laboratory here.

Funding crunch leads to people volunteering to work on weekends!


My personal favourite.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2224
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Vivek K » 13 Jan 2016 07:16

With citizens like the esteemed poster, who needs enemies? Attitudes like this are the only reason we are slaves to Russia and others and the main reason we cannot bring overwhelming force to bear on Pakistan.
Last edited by Vivek K on 13 Jan 2016 08:20, edited 1 time in total.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Shreeman » 13 Jan 2016 07:44

vivek,

counter arguments are the way to dispel misunderstandings. Assailing individuals has always been beneath the forum and one hopes itnstays that way.

Neither flinging feaces nor singing paens contributes anything worth the readers' time.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4434
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 13 Jan 2016 08:06

indranilroy wrote:Some nice videos uploaded by the CSIR National Aerospace Laboratory here.

...

My personal favourite.


That video of LCA in wind tunnel is superb.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2734
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JTull » 13 Jan 2016 13:54

Those videos are not working..."This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been closed"

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby member_22539 » 13 Jan 2016 16:06

NRao wrote:^^^^^

Nope. Suggesting that they should not crawl and instead use a gold plated crutch.


Simply superb summation. I hope you use it on twitter.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19128
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Karan M » 13 Jan 2016 16:17

WT.."This account has been terminated due to repeated or severe violations of our Community Guidelines and/or claims of copyright infringement."

Morons at youtube probably pulled it coz some video had some music etc

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 13 Jan 2016 21:39

Gents as of now the HTT carries nothing.It hasn't flown even once.Once it does,how many years more will it take to be perfected before series prod.begins?In that time what does thecIAF do with regard to its numbers reqd. for training of pilots? The HTT-40 is a v.late arrival. If it had been flying one would've given it preference over the Pilatus.Pl remember the 25+pilots who died tx to the HTT-32. The IAF was in v.dire straits reg basic trainers.Memories are very short.

Now back to the IJT.What did an IAF chief say not too long ago?That if the IJT didn't arrive,already 5 years late,it wanted the GOI to acquire a foreign one.Desi products MUST come on time,not years late and that too in the case of the new HTT still waiting for the first prototype! The IJT has to prove itself fast after the initial setbacks.The Q still being asked is why some advanced air forces have only a 2-stage regime?They operate only 2 types not 3. Surely cost saving is evident there?

My point is still the same. Establish priorities.The LCA,FGFA,AMCA are far more important than reinventing a basic trainer when we've already acquired the global best the Pilatus.We are v.shortstaffed in aerospace HR,our assets must be used for the most important programmes esp trainers the foundation of the IAF's pilot trg. capabilities.

Just imagine if we tried to develop BMos on our own?Where would we be today? Read Dr. Pillai's excellent book.When JV options are available for some systems it drastically shortens time and is better than a full import as well as developing it on our own.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Shreeman » 13 Jan 2016 22:25

Phillip,

One does not argue that complex craft are not important. What is a mistaken line of thought is that there is a connection between HTT, IJT and the rest of the pie in the sky. There is not a financial connection, material connection, or man power connection. Folks that bemoan this loss of focus, and promotion of pet projects etc are spouting propaganda.

Nothing is keeping joint ventures from happening. The existence of HTT or IJT does not threaten the Mahindra airvan or the Taneja whateve it is or the NAL Hansa. And all of this is a pathetic short list of efforts. You need several orders of magnitude more before there is progress that can not be easily sabotaged.

The angst against lack of progress on higher order of complexity is misdirected at the daal-roti projects. They are essentials.

Therr is no evidence of either short staffing (these are skill and ability based positions), and the dividend checks back to the central governmand grow larger every year.

This mythical "lack of assets" argument is like an apple sales campaign. There is no basis for it. BMos is not a replacement for P, A, PAD, AAD, and countless other projectiles. Perhaps naval projectiles would have made good progress as well had BMos not been there to protect the generational market protection from the styx et al to BMos. As you dont see the russians jumping in publicly to buy subsystems (like they did from ukraine), it is not clear if BMos is just another naval projectile or if it is the only-one-in-its-class system claimed in its brochures. There is nothing to say the alternative approach could have done worse. As B1 and B8 examples show JVs are also prone to delays and more often than not are masking screwdrivergiri.

The connection between HTT, IJT and the rest is a mistaken one.

The criticism for delays is the sames as the LCA 25 years late line. Things take time. Claimed deadlines should be met. Users shouldnt expect gold plating on generation 1. But then it would be an integrated ecosystem defending some national interests. And that is something that can not be allowed to exist today.

By adding to the unfair critical voices you are unwittingly undercutting your own interest in seeing a stronger aviation sector. A market is not one shop building and selling one product model. That produces the glorious ambassador car, made also by a very similar named company.

Your point should be establish capacity, an expanding one. Growing to meet growing economic needs. Not contracting to meet some critical minimal needs. The top priority ought to be a large enough ecosystem to produce what is need in this generation and the next.

It is an extremely misguided thought that "our assets" working on project A, can somehow make "project B" work better. You can divert salaries (not possible in public sector in practice) and you can hir appropriate minds for each project (eXtra cost). The practice of trying to fit square pegs (existing employee with skills for A ) into round hole (skills needed for B) is what needs to this "doing it first time" and "it will take time as learning curve onlee". You can argue for increasing the resources for B so that it is not runat a cottage indhstry scale but there is nothing to be gained by railing against what has finally reached reality against the red tape inertia. The HTT, IJT have nothing at all to do with progress on FGFA and every other technology yet to be invented.

If you need resources, ask for them. Staff MTA, fund FGFA, build Saras, whatever. Some people do need four wives, they convert to the religion that facilitates it. But asking for a neighbors daughters because you feel like the harem is understaffed doesnt work without ruffling a lot of feathers, perhaps eVen some fighting if the father is not a total loss. Its not a constructive approach towards maintaining a large harem. Industries are no different. By the time you win such a fight, you are well past your youth and the neighbors daughters are middled aged, unmarried and have three kids each from different fathers. Not helpful for anyones interests.

Arguing for progress is a good thing. Arguing for stopping something is called agitating. There are agitations in AAP style against everything and this pet-peeve style starts sounding just like that.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 13 Jan 2016 22:55

Philip wrote:Gents as of now the HTT carries nothing.It hasn't flown even once.Once it does,how many years more will it take to be perfected before series prod.begins?In that time what does thecIAF do with regard to its numbers reqd. for training of pilots? The HTT-40 is a v.late arrival. If it had been flying one would've given it preference over the Pilatus.Pl remember the 25+pilots who died tx to the HTT-32. The IAF was in v.dire straits reg basic trainers.Memories are very short.

That is not HAL's mistake alone. IAF repeatedly shot down every proposal to replace the HPT-32. HPT-34 flew in Farnborough in '84 and then vanished. The HTT-35 full scale mock up was displayed in 1995 and then disappeared. Suddenly IAF woke up in 2009, that there was no domestic basic trainer available, and imported trainer needs to be procured immediately. Why shouldn't one blame to have manufactured this situation.

HAL can be criticized for not being able to solve the fuel flow problem on the HPT-32. But, saying that the HPT-32 was an unsafe plane to fly is far from the truth. Your 25+ number is wrong. There were a total of 17 crashes for half a million hours of flying, most near the end of their lives. Besides you might not be aware that an HPT-32 with a modified fuel system and a ballistic recovery system was certified. It was not given a chance either.

Philip wrote:Now back to the IJT.What did an IAF chief say not too long ago?That if the IJT didn't arrive,already 5 years late,it wanted the GOI to acquire a foreign one.Desi products MUST come on time,not years late and that too in the case of the new HTT still waiting for the first prototype! The IJT has to prove itself fast after the initial setbacks.The Q still being asked is why some advanced air forces have only a 2-stage regime?They operate only 2 types not 3. Surely cost saving is evident there?

Yes, Desi products must come on time. But that can only happen if they are supported on time. In the case of HTT-40, you listen to the manager of the project. No stone has been left unturned to jeopardize that project. They did not let him get an engine!!! There are many advanced airforces in the world which have a 3-stage training. There are advanatges and disadvantages of both. IAF likes the latter. Where's the problem?

Philip wrote:My point is still the same. Establish priorities.The LCA,FGFA,AMCA are far more important than reinventing a basic trainer when we've already acquired the global best the Pilatus.We are v.shortstaffed in aerospace HR,our assets must be used for the most important programmes esp trainers the foundation of the IAF's pilot trg. capabilities.

Just imagine if we tried to develop BMos on our own?Where would we be today? Read Dr. Pillai's excellent book.When JV options are available for some systems it drastically shortens time and is better than a full import as well as developing it on our own.

We love the Brahmos, but we are still importing critical parts, aren't we. And even with the collaborations, there are many projects to the contrary. How did the collaborations help us in: Snecma (for Kaveri), MBB (for ALH), Snecma (for Shakti), UAC (for MTA), Myasishchev (for Saras), heli-based UAV with IAI. FGFA is not going the way IAF would have liked and how many years delayed are projects like Matiri and Barak 8. And there are speculations that in some projects like the submarine refit at HSL, collaborations were probably used to slow us down. You ignore all of the above because they don't confirm your bias!

Collaborations or no collaborations are not the question. We have to have persistence to solve complex problems, no matter which route we take. In some cases like basic and intermediate trainers, we can do it alone. In some other cases, we can accelerate by collaborating. In some other cases collaboration is out of the question!

Your opinion and mine don't matter. So it is futile of me to change your opinion. I am extremely happy that there is a raksha mantri today who can crack a whip and ask everybody to fall in line. That was missing all these years. And that is all that matters. By the way, he has been outspoken in his praise for the HTT-40. So ....

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 13 Jan 2016 23:11

I had missed this. RFI for design and development of an HAL built DO-228 A/c to a seaplane version.

Similarly, they have floated RFPs for retrofitting glass cockpits to the older Do-228s. They expect to fit the same on all future Do-228s which they expect to build for another 5-10 years. So are they planning to compete with the Do-228 NG which will be manufactured by Dornier/TASL?

Seems like HAL is coming out of the license build mold. They are spending their own money to come up with solutions for which they feel there is a market. This proactive approach is very private-sector like in my opinion. Good.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby NRao » 13 Jan 2016 23:43

Gents as of now ....


India absolutely needs a MIC.

India needs to fund such efforts, rather than placing emphasis on foreign products.

We are repeating ourselves, have been for 20 years. Just provide the funds.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2332
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby John » 14 Jan 2016 04:33

indranilroy wrote:We love the Brahmos, but we are still importing critical parts, aren't we. And even with the collaborations, there are many projects to the contrary. How did the collaborations help us in: Snecma (for Kaveri), MBB (for ALH), Snecma (for Shakti), UAC (for MTA), Myasishchev (for Saras), heli-based UAV with IAI. FGFA is not going the way IAF would have liked and how many years delayed are projects like Matiri and Barak 8. And there are speculations that in some projects like the submarine refit at HSL, collaborations were probably used to slow us down. You ignore all of the above because they don't confirm your bias

Barak-8 delay is far more complex than portrayed and in the end product was delivered in quick time span than other similar missile systems like Aster. The delay itself can be traced back to emergence of new threat from Katuysha lobbed by Palestinians which dictated a political shift to focus on completion of Iron dome.

Maitri is a mess in other hand because there is no clearly defined scope and capabilities overlap with multiple platforms we already operate hence it seems like no one is pushing for it either.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Shreeman » 14 Jan 2016 06:34

indranil,


The frustration in many posters grievances is not without justification. Its channeling it to cause positive change that does not seem to have a patth. And lack of transparency only makes it worse. B8, maitri, whatever etc arent platforms and ADA, NAL, HAL, and GTRE arent one organisation.

As for HAL it suffers the criticism by trying to be a monopoly. If it would only separate itself into sufficient different entities (there is a spin off cycle in industry, and there is a consolidation cycle too) then those parts that have merit would escape unmerited criticism. As of now everyone is HAL. The criticism of IJT applies to HTT. The LUH state of affairs gets combined with ALH. Never mind IMRH.

Now phillip points to consolidation. When there isnt anything to consolidate. Others, humble poster included, would like to see growth and spin offs. Neither is a perfect solution. But the state of affairs wants investment and growth not consolidation if the hold of imports on evrything is to be broken. Otherwise, its saffron paint instead of green. Calling it bahadur doesnt make it so.

Not everything is hunky dory in the india-genie-ation project. If good and bad news were available as regularly as the space projects share then posters like phillip would dissect it. And draw rational conclusions. Instead its useless forum pages about our biases about indian quality and ability or phoren technology and its djinns. Neither helps the reader.

We can dissect the tenders as much as we like, it doesnt replace media outreach. It can not serve dissemination purposes to the lay folk.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Hobbes » 14 Jan 2016 06:39

John wrote:<snip>
Barak-8 delay is far more complex than portrayed and in the end product was delivered in quick time span than other similar missile systems like Aster. The delay itself can be traced back to emergence of new threat from Katuysha lobbed by Palestinians which dictated a political shift to focus on completion of Iron dome.
</snip>

From what I've read the Barak-8 delay was due to the DRDO's delay in developing the dual pulse motor.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby SaiK » 14 Jan 2016 08:56

so, the mig-27s were not crashing since 2010, but one did by Jan 2015. that is pretty good record considering almost 1.2 per year till 2010 for 10 years. the SL do fly mig-27s, and transferring spares and the migs is a very fine gesture and strategy by IAF. we should support SL for engine rehaul, etc as well.

we should also consider strengthening nepal and bhutan with similar strategies, and further engage china to back off from tibet [goal liberate them]. it is just not enough ISRO establish monitoring systems at myanmar, we have to do go deep strike and make tibet happen.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2734
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JTull » 14 Jan 2016 13:29

Philip wrote:Gents as of now the HTT carries nothing.It hasn't flown even once.Once it does,how many years more will it take to be perfected before series prod.begins?


It's worth recording this line, to echo when you hawk some Russian equipment in future with similar issues.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 14 Jan 2016 17:02

It's worth recording this line, to echo when you hawk some Russian equipment in future with similar issues.
Will do indeed! :rotfl:

Sorry,I saw another report about 25+ pilots killed along with the HTT-32,it may have included another type as well.Anyway, 19 is a huge number!
In 17 Deepak crashes so far, 19 pilots have died.[3] The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India has been reported as saying the aircraft is "technologically outdated and beset by flight safety hazards" when discussing the grounding of the fleet in 2009]

The ballistic "recovery system" was a joke that didn't go down well at all.

The seaplane version of the DO-228 was mentioned by me a couple of years ago. It has an underfuselage cushion.The design was developed I think by an Oz co. It would dramatically improve our CG's capabilities and since the aircraft is manufactured here,a great development.Let's hope this materialises fast.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/sep/ ... crisis.htm
Now,look at this report and the tall claims about the IJT.What do you expect the IAF to do?

Not since the dark decade of the 1990s, when the Indian Air Force crashed 177 aircraft -- losing 54 young pilots and some Rs 1,000 crore worth of equipment -- has the air force faced such a pilot training crisis.

The long-delayed Hawk trainers, which began arriving in India in 2007, have improved advanced training for IAF flyers. But the crucial introduction to flying, conducted in antiquated HPT-32 Deepak and HJT-16 Kiran aircraft, is taking a growing toll on pilots' lives.

On July 31, after two senior flying instructors from the Air Force Academy near Hyderabad, died in a crash, the IAF halted all "Stage-1" training, which is done on Deepaks.

Chronically prone to engine failure (100 engine emergencies reported in recent years), 10 Deepak trainers have crashed this last decade. A recent CAG report has slammed the aircraft as "technologically outdated and beset by flight safety hazards".

But "Stage-2" training, which is done on the HJT-16 Kiran trainer, is an even grimmer story: 13 crashes over the last decade have taken a deadly toll on pilots' lives.

Now Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd has stepped into the breach, renewing an offer to develop a modern replacement for the Deepak. Ashok Nayak, chairman of HAL, told Business Standard: "Two years ago, we offered the IAF a replacement for the Deepak. This single-engine aircraft, which we call the Hindustan Turbo Trainer -- 40 (HTT-40), can be delivered within six years."

But a flustered IAF, short of pilots and keen to recommence training, is demanding immediate purchase of Stage-1 trainers from the global market. The Ministry of Defence is evaluating whether the IAF's immediate requirement can be bought off-the-shelf, while HAL goes ahead with a programme to design and build the HTT-40. A total of 200 basic trainers is the estimated requirement.

The last purchase of trainer aircraft, the BAE Systems Hawk, took 18 years to materialise.

HAL executives are confident that the HTT-40 can be delivered in six years.
*(Facts.It still hasn't flown 7 years since! Delivered my foot!)They point to the success of HAL's ongoing project to develop and build an Intermediate Jet Trainer, which will replace the Kiran as a Stage-2 trainer. Powered by a custom-designed AL-55I engine from Russia, the first Sitara trainer from the production line is scheduled to fly next week.

Says the HAL chairman: "The IJT project has demonstrated HAL's capability to design, build and deliver trainer aircraft on time. :rotfl: We will deliver the IAF's current order of 12 IJTs by the end of next year."
*(that was in 2009.Where are we today? 2016 and not one has yet been delivered. The HAL Chairman should've been hung,drawn and quartered.If he performed so well in any other country,there would've been an investigation.
If the HTT-40 enters service as a Stage-1 trainer, the entire spectrum of fighter training for IAF pilots will be conducted on HAL-built aircraft. After Stage-1 training on the HTT-40, Stage-2 will be conducted on the Sitara IJT; Stage-3 training will be done on the Hawk advanced jet trainer, now being produced in HAL Bangalore, under Transfer of Technology from BAE Systems, UK.

Meanwhile, HAL is pushing the concept of Phase-4 training on a supersonic fighter: its newly developed twin-seater Light Combat Aircraft. So far, the IAF hasn't bought the idea.
Ajai Shukla in Hal, Bangalore


And this was the 2014 CAG report on the IJT.A 14 yr. delay! Add the number of pilots killed flying obsolete Kirans as well to the HTT-32 number.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 589926.cms
CAG slams HAL for jet trainer delay
TNN | Dec 21, 2014,
HAL was criticized for 'adversely affecting' the Stage-II training of IAF pilots, who are forced to train on obsolete and ageing Kiran aircraft.

NEW DELHI: The CAG has slammed Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL)[b] for the 14-year delay in developing the intermediate jet trainer (IJT), the absence of which endangers rookie pilots[/b], as well as Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (BEML) for failing to indigenise the Tatra trucks, which are used to carry missiles and radars.

In reports tabled in Parliament, the audit watchdog came down heavily on HAL for "adversely affecting" the Stage-II training of IAF pilots -- who are forced to train on obsolete and ageing Kiran aircraft -- by failing to deliver the Sitara IJT till now.

As reported earlier by TOI, ``human error (aircrew)'' has been the reason for over 40% of the around 1,100 crashes recorded by IAF since 1970. Noting that IAF had lost 33 aircraft and 27 personnel during 2010-2013, the CAG said 51% of these accidents took place due to human error, while technical defects accounted for 49%. "Training of pilots was compromised as basic training was conducted on ageing trainer aircraft," said CAG.
.


Please guys,don't try and defend the indeffensible.The CAG does not blame the IAF or anyone else only HAL.HAL screwed up royally and the IAF paid for it in lives.
We''re now in 2016.That makes the IJT delayed by 16 yrs.Development trials hasn't ended let alone series production started.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby member_22539 » 14 Jan 2016 18:01

^Is that like how you try to defend the tin cans?

Or is that like how you defend the spontaneously combusting PAKFA/FGFA? The very same IAF thinks its useless for them. Maybe you should side with them on that. Or do you want to side with HAL who actually is favorable to it this time?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Austin » 14 Jan 2016 18:08

Israeli Reconnaissance Pod Finds Asia-Pacific Customer
by Chris Pocock
- January 13, 2016, 2:41 PM
IAI-Elta Systems said it had been awarded a large export contract for the ELM 2060P podded radar reconnaissance system that is designed to fit on a variety of combat aircraft. The pod features synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and ground moving target indicator modes (GMTI), and the system also includes a datalink and ground station. Elbit Systems is the main contractor for the deal.

As usual, the company did not identify the customer, other than to describe it as a prestigious one in the Asia-Pacific region. Singapore was a previous customer for IAI-Elta EO/IR reconnaissance systems on fighter aircraft. India is a known customer for the ELM 2060P, having equipped its Dassault Mirage 2000s and Sukhoi Su-30s with it.

IAI-Elta describes the ELM 2060P as a “true all-weather day-night sensor.” The pod weighs 1,310 pounds and requires 3 Kw of power. In SAR mode, large areas can be imaged as a strip map, and there is a high-resolution spot mode. GMTI data can be overlaid on the SAR strip map. The datalink operates in C-, Ku- or X-band and has a line-of-sight range of up to 250 nm. It is bi-directional, which allows in-flight re-targeting. The ground station can be fixed, or the company offers a transportable shelter configuration.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 guests