Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 10 Jan 2012 05:24

Link to the last page of the previous thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5693&start=4000

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation-2

Postby Indranil » 10 Jan 2012 05:24

NRao wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Yes and the wing join houses fuel tanks.


The original question was regarding the opening at the wing root. What is it for?


I know ... and I don't know the answer to that ... May be Google might help me with it

I was just supporting you on the position of the APU in the IL-76 ... The APU is placed in the left landing gear sponson and the wing roots are used for fuel tanks.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6834
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation-2

Postby nachiket » 10 Jan 2012 05:44

There is already another thread created by Klaus.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation-2

Postby Indranil » 10 Jan 2012 05:49

Yes ... the 2 threads were created concurrently ... I don't know how to delete this thread or lock it ... I reported this to the moderators ... I will move/continue my comments on whichever thread the moderators choose to retain.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16238
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation-2

Postby NRao » 10 Jan 2012 05:51

You cannot delete this thread.

Klaus can, since no one (so far) has posted anything there.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16238
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation-2

Postby NRao » 10 Jan 2012 05:53

On the topic of the hole at the wingroot, found an OLD article (seems like WWII era), where they mention that it has something to do with the "boundary layer by-pass". Does not seem to apply to the IL-76, but ..................?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation-2

Postby Indranil » 10 Jan 2012 05:56

certainly not that.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Viv S » 10 Jan 2012 11:55

CCS nips IAF’s training plan

The Indian Air Force’s plan to revive the training for its rookie pilots on a basic trainer aircraft seems to be heading nowhere.

The cabinet committee on Security (CCS), headed by the prime minister, which met recently, refused to give consent for the purchase of 75 Swiss Pilatus PC-7 trainer aircraft worth `1,850 crore. The IAF has been seeking CCS approval to purchase the aircraft for the last few months. Its failure to get the nod once again would delay Pilatus PC-7’s induction into IAF’s flying academies.

The IAF is hoping that it could sign the contract with the Swiss aircraft manufacturer once it is approved by the CCS and that it can chart out a roadmap for the training of instructors and the induction of the aircraft by 2013.

In November, Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne had said that if the contract was signed by mid-December, the IAF should be able to start the first basic trainer course in two years.

However, with this delay, it is unlikely that the trainers would be inducted any time before 2015, says Air Marshal BK Pandey, former Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Training Command, which is responsible for the IAF’s flight and ground training.

“If CCS clears the deal and the contract is signed in the next few months then it would take two-and-half to three years for the first batch of the 75 trainer aircraft to be inducted. Besides, prior to the induction, instructors would have to be trained for about six months. Hence one can say that the trainers would be inducted only by 2015,” he said.



I doubt the CCS would have objected on frivolous grounds, but I am puzzled all the same. It was the cheapest prop trainer on offer, one wouldn't think they'd be many hurdles to getting it approved.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Austin » 10 Jan 2012 12:50

Viv S wrote:I doubt the CCS would have objected on frivolous grounds, but I am puzzled all the same. It was the cheapest prop trainer on offer, one wouldn't think they'd be many hurdles to getting it approved.


Most likely has to do with the current economic situation with budget deficit come at around 5.6 % for this financial year there is a gag order to curb spending.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby shiv » 10 Jan 2012 14:06

Austin wrote:
Viv S wrote:I doubt the CCS would have objected on frivolous grounds, but I am puzzled all the same. It was the cheapest prop trainer on offer, one wouldn't think they'd be many hurdles to getting it approved.


Most likely has to do with the current economic situation with budget deficit come at around 5.6 % for this financial year there is a gag order to curb spending.



Guess what? HALs basic trainer is going to be revived. My guess.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Austin » 10 Jan 2012 14:13

shiv wrote:Guess what? HALs basic trainer is going to be revived. My guess.


That would be the best thing that can happen , I recollect looking at HTT-35 mockup and its superb cockpit view with those bubble canopy .... why they should import a trainer is something beyond me when way back in 1995 HAL has been displaying HTT-35 mockup.

I mean we are talking of building our own 5th and 6th gen fighter and built our 4th Gen LCA , yet we choose to import as basic as a Turboprop trainer.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1947
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby rajanb » 10 Jan 2012 15:16

I hope none of the powers that be put a spoke in the wheel for a desi product. Shameful that we have ti import a plane like the Pilatus for the IAF. Such an a/c isn't complicated.

saps
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 18:16
Location: Poor mans Ooty...

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby saps » 10 Jan 2012 16:32

Austin wrote:hat would be the best thing that can happen , I recollect looking at HTT-35 mockup and its superb cockpit view with those bubble canopy .... why they should import a trainer is something beyond me when way back in 1995 HAL has been displaying HTT-35 mockup.


Even though i fully agree that we should buy desi, however in its entire life span of at least two decade HPT 32 produced by HAL could not be sorted out for its engine cuts.

Come on lets be realistic, wishing to do something and delivering a reliable product are miles apart.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Viv S » 10 Jan 2012 17:12

Austin wrote:That would be the best thing that can happen , I recollect looking at HTT-35 mockup and its superb cockpit view with those bubble canopy .... why they should import a trainer is something beyond me when way back in 1995 HAL has been displaying HTT-35 mockup.

I mean we are talking of building our own 5th and 6th gen fighter and built our 4th Gen LCA , yet we choose to import as basic as a Turboprop trainer.


Well it would be good to operate a domestic model, but I wouldn't necessarily castigate ourselves for not having one in production right now. The USAF operates the indigenous F-22, but along with the USN trains on a modified Pilatus PC-9. The Brazilian Tucano has served in the British and French air forces, with the evolved Super Tucano on order to the USAF.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16238
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 10 Jan 2012 18:09

Unless an equivalent type can be built in the same time frame it may not be worth it at this point in time.

akimalik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby akimalik » 10 Jan 2012 18:53

...the Mahindras have the NM5
Mahindra Press Release: NM5

per Wiki, its to cost somewhere in the region of 1.2-1.5 crores.
for 75 a/c the overall figure might be much lesser than the 1850 crores for the PT7.
is this a feasibility?

of course, the NM5 would need to be modfied for a 2-seater instead of its current size.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 10 Jan 2012 19:16

shiv wrote:Guess what? HALs basic trainer is going to be revived. My guess.


It is a shame that we have to import even a basic trainer.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2154
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby merlin » 10 Jan 2012 19:31

Austin wrote:
shiv wrote:Guess what? HALs basic trainer is going to be revived. My guess.


That would be the best thing that can happen , I recollect looking at HTT-35 mockup and its superb cockpit view with those bubble canopy .... why they should import a trainer is something beyond me when way back in 1995 HAL has been displaying HTT-35 mockup.

I mean we are talking of building our own 5th and 6th gen fighter and built our 4th Gen LCA , yet we choose to import as basic as a Turboprop trainer.


Completely disagree on the best thing to happen. Right now the IAF is without a basic trainer. Will the HAL new basic trainer be ready in the same amount of time that we get the Pilatus in? I doubt that very much.

Timelines. Timelines.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1980
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Bala Vignesh » 10 Jan 2012 19:41

merlin wrote:Completely disagree on the best thing to happen. Right now the IAF is without a basic trainer. Will the HAL new basic trainer be ready in the same amount of time that we get the Pilatus in? I doubt that very much.

Timelines. Timelines.

I agree with you on this.. So can't the numbers be slashed to 40-45 for current requirements and let the HTT 35/40 fill up the rest as it comes online.. Plus given that the induction won't happen till 2015 gives HAL a solid 2 years to design and develop the HTT40. The production part can be handed over to either Mahindra or L&T or any such private players..

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2154
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby merlin » 10 Jan 2012 20:10

Judging by how they have muffed up timelines for the IJT, I don't have much confidence in HAL right now...

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 10 Jan 2012 20:43

akimalik wrote:...the Mahindras have the NM5
Mahindra Press Release: NM5

per Wiki, its to cost somewhere in the region of 1.2-1.5 crores.
for 75 a/c the overall figure might be much lesser than the 1850 crores for the PT7.
is this a feasibility?

of course, the NM5 would need to be modfied for a 2-seater instead of its current size.


there is a world of difference between the NM5 and the PT7 or any fighter-trainer.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby shiv » 10 Jan 2012 21:14

CAS Browne said that if Pilatus comes it can start being used in two years time. That means that from 2012 to 2014 the IAF has no basic trainer. Same as 2011.

The IAF has been borrowing aircraft from civil clubs and then putting pilots on Kiran, which is a big jump. I suspect the IJT may slot into this role.


I wonder why the CCS took this decision. It's not money. It's something else.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66602
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Singha » 10 Jan 2012 21:16

they do need money . 65% of indians are going to be certified under food security bill soon.

I am ready with my jute sack to get my Rs2/kilo dehra dun basmati rice

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby shiv » 10 Jan 2012 22:06

Singha wrote:they do need money . 65% of indians are going to be certified under food security bill soon.

I am ready with my jute sack to get my Rs2/kilo dehra dun basmati rice



This is a presumption. Everyone needs money. We have no evidence that the CCS objected to the money. It was just raised by someone on this thread and may be a false flag.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 10 Jan 2012 22:26

Must be the KAI trainer offer.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 10 Jan 2012 22:54

I was thinking ... when you can't make it fake it ... so how about a simulator?

P.S. simulating decision making under physical stress might be a challenge though.

Badar
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Badar » 10 Jan 2012 23:14

Moved from MMRCA thread... assuming this is an appropriate thread.

Badar wrote:
Viv S wrote:The IAF needs to enforce local air superiority (if not air dominance) and that can't be done from rear areas.

Are we still thinking of "Air Dominance" or even "local air superiority" vis-a-vis the Chinese? Is that a realistic or likely objective? Is anything more than "contested airspace" a realistic outcome from the IAF?

IOW, is IAF : PLAAF :: PAF : IAF?

(i.e. IAF isto PLAAF, as the PAF is unto IAF). Anybody has anything to argue for or against this formula? Is this true in 2012? Will it be true in 2020? What about 2030?


Viv S wrote:Instead of outcomes over the battlefield as a whole, its better to look at it in terms of sectors or zones of influence. While maintaining air dominance or air supremacy, of the sort exercised by the USAF, is obviously out of the question, the IAF can enforce air superiority over friendly troop positions extending to the FEBA, and total checking of enemy air activity in a region... say 75 km from its forward air bases.

Coming to the PAF-IAF, IAF-PLAAF analogy, I admit I've mused over the similarity often, but I'm not convinced by it.

Firstly, the disparity in forces isn't as lopsided - in terms of fourth generation fighters the IAF's inventory is roughly speaking 4:1 against the PAF and 1:2 against the PLAAF.

Secondly, there's the technological superiority that the IAF maintains vis-a-vis both forces - the PLAAF because it can't access western tech and the PAF because it can't afford it.

Thirdly, the IAF is clearly the better trained force and by a considerable margin. While there's been an improvement in Chinese standards over last two decades (before that they were truly abysmal), its still constrained by being a very insular force. That PAF too while placing a strong emphasis on pilot training, is hampered by budgetary concerns - flight hours logged are still a function of the amount of imported jet fuel the service can afford (making foreign exercises too an expensive proposition).

The IAF on the other hand, not only trains hard but also extensively exercises with numerous friendly air forces. Also, Indian military as a whole remains more open and thereby more amenable to change. That often results in allegations like the CAG jeopardizing national security, but on the whole is preferable to the state prevailing in our neighborhood where uncomfortable facts are swept under rug.

Finally and possibly most importantly, the geography has not been a good friend to the PAF. Most of its assets are concentrated in a thin belt running along the length of the country 50-250km from the border. The IAF-PLAAF front on the other hand, spans a massive area with challenging terrain, making it harder for the superior force to concentrate its resources for a decisive result (as opposed to a slugging war of attrition).

All in all, at least in a single front war I'd expect the IAF to be able to fight the PLAAF to a stalemate - prevent it from significantly influencing the ground war while clocking a superior attrition rate. I don't believe the PAF has the capacity to do the same vis-a-vis the IAF.

(BTW this line of discussion is mostly off-topic, so its best pursued on a different thread.)


I agree that your reading of the current situation corresponds pretty closely with my own view. But what of the mid-term future? Say 10-20 years hence. The IAF/PLAAF matchup today is what the IAF/PAF matchup was 20 years ago. Will the next two decades end with IAF/PLAAF matchup reminiscent of the PAF/IAF today?

I will also note that all the first three reasons you state were the exact same ones proffered by PAF in the years gone by as to why they could hold their own against the IAF. PAF had roughly half the number of the latest greatest 4th generation aircraft as the IAF (F-16s, M2000 and MiG-29s). PAF had access to the qualitatively better American gear as compared to the Indian Russian/Anglo-French kit. Third, the PAF with its extensive secondment to the middle-eastern air forces etc had a better trained air/ground crew. Now it can be argued to what extent all this was true or not, but that was the argument. The parallels in the arguments are striking.

That was the situation in say 1990. In the next two decades the IAF really took off and the IAF/PAF today is more of a mismatch. PAF has gone from looking for air superiority to trying to maintain a tight air defense to now largely trying to make any punitive strike by India expensive. "Defeat" the IAF is not a realistic objective for the PAF anymore.

The primary reason for this sea change is that the Indian economy took off, while Pakistan's ... well not really. Today the shoe seems to be on the other foot. PLAAF is gearing up to face down the USAF in the coming decades. Let's just say that as time passes the IAF would not unduly vex the PLAAF planners or give them sleepless nights.

More than economies, the critical difference that will keep mounting is that the PRC is now an innovator itself and has a fairly mature (compared to India) aviation industry. India is still at high seas industrially and wholly dependent on high technology imports. Nor does this seems likely to change much in the next 20 years.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Surya » 10 Jan 2012 23:40

The problem with asking HAL to do anything is that they are overloaded. I suspect they have critical shortages of manpower to get so many projects moving.

and with the IJT\LCA both getting more delayed, we need HAL to first get the those two and the LCH on time o(revised time)

So unless we can look to some public\pvt partnership - I am not sure going the HAL route is advisable.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13271
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Lalmohan » 10 Jan 2012 23:52

indranilroy wrote:I was thinking ... when you can't make it fake it ... so how about a simulator?

P.S. simulating decision making under physical stress might be a challenge though.


do you mean whilst training in a flight simulator? i can assure you that it is almost like the real thing and the stress is extremely real

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4275
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Kartik » 11 Jan 2012 00:04

Austin wrote:
shiv wrote:Guess what? HALs basic trainer is going to be revived. My guess.


That would be the best thing that can happen , I recollect looking at HTT-35 mockup and its superb cockpit view with those bubble canopy .... why they should import a trainer is something beyond me when way back in 1995 HAL has been displaying HTT-35 mockup.

I mean we are talking of building our own 5th and 6th gen fighter and built our 4th Gen LCA , yet we choose to import as basic as a Turboprop trainer.


In this particular case, the blame lies almost solely with the IAF and MoD and no one else.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4275
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Kartik » 11 Jan 2012 00:16

Bala Vignesh wrote:I agree with you on this.. So can't the numbers be slashed to 40-45 for current requirements and let the HTT 35/40 fill up the rest as it comes online.. Plus given that the induction won't happen till 2015 gives HAL a solid 2 years to design and develop the HTT40. The production part can be handed over to either Mahindra or L&T or any such private players..


I too was thinking along the same lines. If the HTT-40 is to be built and inducted, then the IAF can go with a reduced order of 35-40 PC-7 MkIIs. That would tide over the immediate crisis and allow HAL to develop the HTT-40, and this time the smart thing would be to involve M&M in the design and manufacturing. That would free up some of HAL's capacity while giving M&M valuable experience in building a basic trainer.

Unfortunately, this is too much to expect from the IAF and MoD combine, which has shown zero foresight and a clear bias for imports in this matter. Its not like the HPT-32 became dangerous all of a sudden. They knew it had issues and yet never gave firm commitment to the HTT-35 back in the mid 1990s or even the late 1990s, when they should have. The same pathetic foresight led to HAL's AJT venture going bust as well and then led to more Hawks being imported. And I don't have any sympathy for the IAF's "plight" in this matter. They themselves are to blame, no one else.

Mark my words- the IAF will keep up the pressure to import the entire order of PC-7s and will offer excuses on how the HPT-32 doesn't give them confidence in HAL's abilities, Eventually they'll dilly dally long enough that the entire effort will be dumped and more PC-7s will have to be imported for an all imported basic trainer and AJT fleet. An absolute shame when India was capable of having designed and built its own basic and advanced trainers.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2706
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby tsarkar » 11 Jan 2012 01:15

Kartik wrote:gives HAL a solid 2 years to design and develop the HTT40
With the IJT saga going on & on, HAL doesnt inspire confidence to be able to do the job in two years.

The solution is not imports, but true indigenization.

The first government lie is indigenization. The Government of India defines indigenization as something coming out from PSUs, even if the PSU's themselves import and paste a label.

The second government lie is that only PSU's have the capability and scale to undertake defence R&D and manufacturing. The truth is modern defence manufacturing in India was started by the Private Sector.

The facts are the Wadia shipbuilders built ships for the British since 17xx, (Go Air carries the Wadia crest on its planes, one can see the ship in that crest denoting the origins of that group as shipbuilders).

Walchand Hirachand started Hindustan Shipyards. What GoI will never reveal is that fact that HSL built better quality ships in shorter timeframes as a pvt shipyard than after nationalization.

Walchand Hirachand and Ismail Mirza started HAL, that built Curtis Wright fighters that flew with the Flying Tigers in China. How many know that the legends of the Flying Tigers were created on private sector HAL birds? Again, quality and timeliness were far superior than after nationalization. But to hide PSU inefficiency, official HAL history will only begin after nationalization.

The same bureaucracy until some years back didnt allow citizens to fly the flag stating only the bureaucracy was entitled to fly the flag, ignoring the fact that it was the private citizen who undertook satyagraha and took British bullets when the bureaucracy was licking British boots.

Yet today, for a private shipyard to build a frigate, it needs to be a subcontractor to a PSU.

India has a billion minds, instead of igniting them, our Govt is shackling them at the whims of people who've risen up the ranks based on timescale promotion, and who hope to secure their ivory towers by shackling others.
Last edited by tsarkar on 11 Jan 2012 01:47, edited 1 time in total.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1387
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Kersi D » 11 Jan 2012 01:28

tsarkar wrote:
Kartik wrote:gives HAL a solid 2 years to design and develop the HTT40
With the IJT saga going on & on, HAL doesnt inspire confidence to be able to do the job in two years.

The solution is not imports, but true indegenization.......................

India has a billion minds, instead of igniting them, our Govt is shackling them at the whims of people who've risen up the ranks based on timescale promotion, and who hope to secure their ivory towers by shackling others.


SAD BUT TRUE

Not just in defence but in many other aspects of our life

K

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1387
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Kersi D » 11 Jan 2012 01:44

tsarkar wrote:
Kartik wrote:gives HAL a solid 2 years to design and develop the HTT40
With the IJT saga going on & on, HAL doesnt inspire confidence to be able to do the job in two years.

The solution is not imports, but true indegenization.......................

India has a billion minds, instead of igniting them, our Govt is shackling them at the whims of people who've risen up the ranks based on timescale promotion, and who hope to secure their ivory towers by shackling others.


SAD BUT TRUE

Not just in defence but in many other aspects of our life

K

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 11 Jan 2012 02:32

Lalmohan wrote:
indranilroy wrote:I was thinking ... when you can't make it fake it ... so how about a simulator?

P.S. simulating decision making under physical stress might be a challenge though.


do you mean whilst training in a flight simulator? i can assure you that it is almost like the real thing and the stress is extremely real


By physical stress I mean:
How does one simulate g-forces?
How does one simulate flying upside down with blood running to the head?
And sudden change in g forces like the scissors and Cuban 8?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4275
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Kartik » 11 Jan 2012 02:37

tsarkar wrote:
Kartik wrote:gives HAL a solid 2 years to design and develop the HTT40
With the IJT saga going on & on, HAL doesnt inspire confidence to be able to do the job in two years.

The solution is not imports, but true indigenization.

The first government lie is indigenization. The Government of India defines indigenization as something coming out from PSUs, even if the PSU's themselves import and paste a label.

The second government lie is that only PSU's have the capability and scale to undertake defence R&D and manufacturing. The truth is modern defence manufacturing in India was started by the Private Sector.

The facts are the Wadia shipbuilders built ships for the British since 17xx, (Go Air carries the Wadia crest on its planes, one can see the ship in that crest denoting the origins of that group as shipbuilders).

Walchand Hirachand started Hindustan Shipyards. What GoI will never reveal is that fact that HSL built better quality ships in shorter timeframes as a pvt shipyard than after nationalization.

Walchand Hirachand and Ismail Mirza started HAL, that built Curtis Wright fighters that flew with the Flying Tigers in China. How many know that the legends of the Flying Tigers were created on private sector HAL birds? Again, quality and timeliness were far superior than after nationalization. But to hide PSU inefficiency, official HAL history will only begin after nationalization.

The same bureaucracy until some years back didnt allow citizens to fly the flag stating only the bureaucracy was entitled to fly the flag, ignoring the fact that it was the private citizen who undertook satyagraha and took British bullets when the bureaucracy was licking British boots.

Yet today, for a private shipyard to build a frigate, it needs to be a subcontractor to a PSU.

India has a billion minds, instead of igniting them, our Govt is shackling them at the whims of people who've risen up the ranks based on timescale promotion, and who hope to secure their ivory towers by shackling others.


Tsarkar, you quoted the wrong person.

akimalik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby akimalik » 11 Jan 2012 08:46

indranilroy wrote:there is a world of difference between the NM5 and the PT7 or any fighter-trainer.


could you point me to some place where I could glean this "world" of difference?

I am not proposing that we use NM5 as-is. It could be modified, strengthened perhaps for more rigrous flying but most importantly we have a ready test-bed available. the airworthiness of the airframe for a given load is proven. the wing-characteristics would be well-known, understood and since its a aero-taxi, hence its flying characteristics should not have nasty surprises. this was my basis of suggesting it.

of course, if you could point me to what is missing, then maybe we'd have a better appreciation of whether it is possible or not.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 11 Jan 2012 09:31

A fighter trainer is basically a aerobatic plane which as completely different design principles than a civilian plane. A civilian plane is designed for ease of handling such level flight and landing, whereas an aerobatic plane is designed for faster spins and rolls. The design objectives are very different and hence everything from the wing to the control surfaces to the placement of CG is very different. Besides this the TWR and fuel system and strength of the structure are very different.

You might like to read about the principles of designing an aerobatic plane ... there are many for building aerobatic RC planes.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Viv S » 11 Jan 2012 09:48

akimalik wrote:could you point me to some place where I could glean this "world" of difference?

I am not proposing that we use NM5 as-is. It could be modified, strengthened perhaps for more rigrous flying but most importantly we have a ready test-bed available. the airworthiness of the airframe for a given load is proven. the wing-characteristics would be well-known, understood and since its a aero-taxi, hence its flying characteristics should not have nasty surprises. this was my basis of suggesting it.

of course, if you could point me to what is missing, then maybe we'd have a better appreciation of whether it is possible or not.


The aircraft would ideally need a glass cockpit (a standard feature on newer military trainers), duplicated controls on the forward and rear seat, mil spec flight data recorder and possible even ejection seats. The airframe would need to be stressed for hard maneuvering and the IAF would probably like to have a bubble canopy and at least four hardpoints. The performance requirements too will be tougher than civil aircraft - stall speed lower than 130km/h, top speed in excess of 400km/h, flight ceiling of 30,000ft+ and an operational range of 1000km+.

Point is it would easier to develop a new aircraft than modify the NM5 to meet the IAF's requirements.

akimalik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby akimalik » 11 Jan 2012 10:42

indranilroy wrote:A fighter trainer is basically a aerobatic plane

i don't think so. neither Deepak, nor the PC7 fall into the aerobatic category.
I agree that the performance requirements and TWR would be higher, but nowhere close to an aerobatic a/c. neither would the design and capabilities of the wing (senior may please correct me here if I am mistaken).
are you trying to compare a PC7 to the likes of a Su26/Yak54?

Viv S: Thanks for your explanation, and I do agree that the need for hard-points and ejection seats could result in a completely new a/c, but I was coming from the perspective that trainers would require some level of docility in handling which a NM5-type a/c might naturally have been designed for. at least we have some valid and proven data-points w.r.t the behaviour and capabilities of the a/c. If these could be helpful in shortening the time-frame to come up with an India-designed trainer, that is what I was looking for. Things such as a bubble canopy, glass cockpit, dual controls could be added as long as the design itself is sound. the crucial thing was the shortening of the desing cycle. if NM5 helps there, its an advantage.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 45 guests