HTT-40 Basic Trainer Aircraft: News & Discussions - 08 September 2019

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Sep 2019 22:40

HAL HTT-40 Basic Trainer Aircraft

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) webpage on the HTT-40 ---> https://hal-india.co.in/Product_Details ... y=&CKey=69

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Milestones Achieved

• On 07 March 2023, a contract was signed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) with HAL for 70 HTT-40 Basic Trainer Aircraft. Link

• On 01 March 2023, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) cleared the acquisition of 70 HTT-40 Basic Trainer Aircraft. Link

• An order for 70 airframes was announced on 20 October 2022 at Def Expo 2022 at a cost of Rs 6,826 crores. Link

• HAL has successfully integrated and flown a lithium main battery on the HTT-40. Link, Page 35 of HAL Annual Report 2021-22.

• The HTT-40 successfully conducted a 6-turn spin test on 07 September 2019. The aircraft was piloted by Group Captain S Chaki (Retd) & Group Captain KK Venugopal (Retd). The HTT-40 had successfully conducted the 5-turn spin test on 04 September 2019.

• PT-2 (TSR002) conducted her first flight on 31 May 2016. The trainer was piloted by Group Captain C Subramaniam (retd) Group Captain KK Venugopal (retd).

• PT-1 (TSR001) conducted her first flight on 31 May 2016. The trainer was piloted by Group Captain C Subramaniam (retd).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Construction Number ... Serial Number ... Aircraft First Flight ... Pilot(s)
• PT-1 ... TSR001 ... 31-May-2016 ... Group Captain C Subramaniam (Retd)*
• PT-1 ... TSR001 ... 17-June-2016 ... Group Captain C Subramaniam (Retd) Group Captain KK Venugopal (Retd)*
• PT-2 ... TSR002 ... 19-May-2017 ... Group Captain C Subramaniam (Retd) and Group Captain KK Venugopal (Retd)
*Public Introduction Flight

Projected Sales Potential - 326
• Indian Air Force: 70 + 36
• Other Customers: 220

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Design Specifications
• Length: 10.5 meters (34 feet, 5.5 inches)
• Height: 3.4 meters (11 feet, 1.75 inches)
• Wingspan: 11 meters (36 feet, 1 inch)
• Internal Fuel: 450 kg
• Crew: Two in Tandem Seating Configuration
• Maximum Take Off Weight: 2,800 kg
• Engine: 1 Honeywell Garrett TPE331-12B turboprop de-rated to 708 kW (950 shp)

Performance Specifications
• Service Ceiling: 6,000 meters (20,000 feet)
• G Limits: +6/-3
• Speed: 450 km/h
• Range: 1,000 km

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HTT-40 BTA @ Aero India 2017

Photograph below is courtesy of ---> https://twitter.com/akananth?lang=en

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HTT-40 specifications vs IAF requirement
Source: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/01/ ... 0.html?m=1

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Sep 2019 22:42

Indranil (and JayS), we are all waiting for your article on the HTT-40.

When you start writing articles on Tejas Mk1/Mk1A, Tejas Mk2 and HJT-36...you start a BRF tradition

I will add it in the first post of this thread. Thanks.

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 08 Sep 2019 23:16

The current status of HTT-40 wrt certification as per tweet by Harsh vardhan thakur.

1) Is the DOCUMENTATION going on in parallel? . - Yes
2) Are jigs and tools being made? - Yes
3) Is CEMILAC expediting its certification? - Yes
4) Have orders been placed for imported items like the engine? Lead time for that? CNC timeline? - Further work & expenses need some backing frm user. That's at stage 0 presently. No AoN yet. Orders awaited.

For the 1st time in HAL history, there are 6 ex-IAF pilots employed for projects.

https://twitter.com/BahadurManmohan/sta ... 23744?s=19

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Sep 2019 03:20

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1169404316781830146 ---> Spin phase is truly historic. Between 4 of us testers & all our prototypes, we've seen +80 deg alpha, -70 alpha, +/- 90 beta and aerial rock & roll beyond comprehension. Prototypes are tested in controlled conditions so the fleet is safe. Eventually, it'll be a smooth, gentle spin.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Sep 2019 03:25

On this momentous occasion, please do not forget the late Manohar Parrikar-ji.

Without him, the HTT-40 would have never seen the light of day.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 09 Sep 2019 04:47

Hats off to the vision and dogged persistence of the team and the support of Parrikar ji. Another win for a dedicated desi product.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Sep 2019 05:39

HTT-40's saga is more political (HAL-IAF tu tu mein mein) than technical. I dont want to write about it. I know I would be critical of HAL's lacuna of support gor the previous BTT. But if I am honest about IAF's step motherly treatment to this project, I will not like to read it myself. There's a lot if truth to what Ajai Shukla has reported (HAL was leaking out details through him to keep the project alive). IAF tried to kill this project in every way possible.

And I am so happy that it failed.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Sep 2019 06:19

IR, while I cannot force you to write an article...I would certainly encourage you to write one. Just on the technical development if possible. That may be hard to do without highlighting IAF’s involvement in sabotaging the program.

But perhaps if you could keep that to a minimum and focus on the technical aspects of the plane, growth potential and future variants, it would be great. We have many mango abduls (like myself) who would be interested in reading about it. You mentioned in the Military Aviation thread that you are looking forward to an armed variant. I want to know more

A lot of lurkers and newbies visit the forum. The more we can highlight the positives (i.e. the intrinsic value of investing in local products), the greater the aam junta will be that much more informed. They more they are informed (about the truth), the better. Information is power.

You and JayS have a gift (converting technical jargon to simple English). Take your time though, no rush. I do not know nor can I quantify the impact of your (and JayS) earlier articles, but I can say this much - there is not a soul on this forum that can say it is not informative.

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 09 Sep 2019 07:44

Perhaps this one article by ajai shukla should throw light on step mother treatment on htt-40 and possible corruption in IAF buying Pilatus PC- 7.

https://wap.business-standard.com/artic ... 068_1.html

That violation, now under investigation, is dwarfed in the IAF’s purchase of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II basic trainer aircraft (BTA), where at least 12 benchmarks were changed between March and October 2009, including some relating to pilot safety. These allowed the PC-7 Mark II, fielded by Swiss company Pilatus, to qualify and win an IAF order worth $640 million (Rs 3,780 crore) for 75 BTA.

Business Standard is in possession of the documents relating to this case. Asked for comments, the IAF has chosen not to respond.

The documents reveal that up to September 29, 2009, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) was indigenously developing 181 BTA for the IAF, dubbed the Hindustan Turbo Trainer–40 (HTT–40). On March 5, 2009, IAF laid down stringent performance benchmarks, dubbed Preliminary Air Staff Qualitative Requirements or PSQR.

These began getting diluted in September 2009, when the ministry of defence (MoD) permitted IAF to import 75 BTA through a global tender. Within days, the IAF issued a relaxed ASQR, in a document numbered ASQR 18/09. While the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II would not have met the earlier PSQR formulated for HAL, the new ASQR seem almost tailored for Pilatus.

Among the 12 dilutions Business Standard has identified, the most worrisome is doing away with the requirement for a ‘zero-zero seat’. This allows pilots to eject even from a stationary aircraft on the ground (zero altitude, zero speed). The October 2009 ASQR does not require a zero-zero ejection seat. Since the PC-7 Mk II has ‘zero-60’ ejection seats, i.e. the aircraft must be moving at 60 knots (110 kmph), dropping the earlier requirement made it eligible for the IAF contract.

The PSQR of March 2009 required the BTA to have a pressurised cockpit, letting the trainee fly at altitudes above 15-20,000 feet. But the ASQR of October 2009 dispensed with this. The PC-7 Mark II has an unpressurised cockpit.

Also diluted was the requirement for good external vision from the instructor’s rear cockpit, a crucial attribute in a BTA. The PSQR of March 2009 mandated a field of view of ‘minus eight degree vision’ for the rear cockpit. The ASQR of October 2009 dispensed with it, specifying only, “the rear cockpit should be sufficiently raised to allow safe flight instruction”. The PC-7 Mark II, which does not meet the eight-degree specification, became eligible.

‘Glide ratio’ is another important attribute for a light, single-engine aircraft. The glide ratio of 12:1 specified in the March 2009 PSQR meant the trainer could glide, in the event of an engine failure or shutdown, a distance of 12 km for every one km of altitude that it lost. Which would enable a BTA flying at an altitude of five km to glide for 60 km, landing safely at any airport within that distance. But the October 2009 ASQR relaxed the glide-ratio requirement to 10:1. That is precisely the glide-ratio of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II.

The ASQR of October 2009 also relaxed the requirement for ‘in-flight simulation’. This permits the instructor in the rear cockpit to electronically simulate instrument failures, training the rookie pilot to handle an emergency. The PSQR of March 2009 required this facility; the HTT-40 being developed by HAL also has these. The PC-7 Mark II does not and the relaxation of this condition made it eligible for the IAF tender.

Other relaxations that made the Pilatus trainer eligible include increasing the take-off distance from 700 to 1,000 metres and reducing maximum speed from 475 kmph to 400 kmph.

On Monday, this newspaper had reported (Indian Air Force at war with Hindustan Aeronautics; wants to import, not build, a trainer) about a personal letter earlier this month from Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne, the present IAF chief, to Defence Minister A K Antony, asking for HAL’s trainer project to be scrapped and another 106 PC-7 Mark II trainers be imported from Pilatus, a purchase that will benefit the Swiss company by an estimated $800 million (Rs 4,750 crore).

Browne’s involvement with the basic trainer dates back several years. From March 2007 to May 2009, he was Deputy Chief of Air Staff (DCAS) at IAF headquarters, handling all acquisitions. Four months after he handed over to Air Marshal N V Tyagi (not to be confused with the former IAF chief, S P Tyagi), the IAF issued the ASQR, with the relaxations that benefited Pilatus.

Asked for comments, N V Tyagi told Business Standard the PSQR of March 2009 set unrealistically high standards for HAL to meet. These were lowered in the October 2009 ASQR because the IAF was going for global procurement. Lower standards would bring in more vendors and generate competition.

Says Tyagi, "The earlier PSQRs matched the performance of the Embraer Super Tucano, which many IAF officers considered a good trainer. But the IAF didn't believe that HAL could build such a trainer quickly. After a series of HPT-32 crashes (then the IAF’s basic trainer), it was decided in September 2009 to buy 75 basic trainers from the global market. Fresh QRs were framed in order to bring as many vendors as possible into the tender."

The question remains — why were exacting standards set for a HAL-built trainer lowered when it came to an international purchase?

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 09 Sep 2019 09:45

Plus a deal to kill HTT 40

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Sep 2019 10:27

The HPT-32 crashes with several pilots killed soured the IAF's appetite for another HAL BT.That's understandable.
Demanding higher performance specs than intl. BTs available was obviously a device to prevent HAL from offering a new option and further delaying the acquisition of BTs which was critical. The shortage of BTs and IJTs was well known, severely affecting the IAF's training programme. The PC-7 is a global success chosen by umpteen air forces, a proven bird.In choosing it on technical grounds there was nothibg wrong..

However, in typical desi fashion, so many imports have been plagued with controversy over kickbacks, etc. Pilatus appear to have sweetened the deal and future buys are now a virtual impossibility leaving the HTT-40 in pole position for the next lot of BTs.HAL now needs to swiftly tie up trials and get series production off the blocks.Methinks that there is a v.good export potential of the trainer if the price is right.An armed version for COIN duties would also be very welcome.

PS: Rolls Royce is now the next OEM caught with the kickback disease.This is mighty serious as RR engines are used on various mil. and civil llatforms.

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 09 Sep 2019 13:34

HTT - 40 specs vs IAF requirement.

Source : http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/01/ ... 0.html?m=1
Mods : Can this be moved to first post of the thread ?

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 09 Sep 2019 13:45

HTT -40 vs Pilatus PC7

Source : http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/01/ ... 0.html?m=1

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 09 Sep 2019 13:48

chola · Post by **chola** » 09 Sep 2019 14:40

So goddam hard to get even a home made basic trainer to be accepted. Everything is like pulling teeth. In most nations, the local products have the easier path. We are like this onlee.

mody · Post by **mody** » 09 Sep 2019 14:57

More then any other variants, armed, recce, civilian etc., would love to see an order for 106 of these birds!!

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 09 Sep 2019 21:00

As of today even AON is not in place...!!

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 09 Sep 2019 21:27

Sir as IAF was not interested and it was purely HAL imitative. Now that we will have a IOC, MoD and IAF will have a look and will discuss its (de)merits over chai & biscuit. If we are lucky, next year we will have RFQ released and by the time we have FOC ... we will talk regarding the price and quantity. Why dont you join chai, biscuit and samosas party??

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 09 Sep 2019 22:33

RKumar wrote:Sir as IAF was not interested and it was purely HAL imitative. Now that we will have a IOC, MoD and IAF will have a look and will discuss its (de)merits over chai & biscuit. If we are lucky, next year we will have RFQ released and by the time we have FOC ... we will talk regarding the price and quantity. Why dont you join chai, biscuit and samosas party??

There is no IOC + FOC. There will be only single certification. HAL is all ready with even production launch. Had there been orders in place, we could have seen induction in IAF within few months from now. God knows how many months/years it will take to run through all the stages of DPP.

ashbhee · Post by **ashbhee** » 09 Sep 2019 23:16

Next HAL should make a fully armed version of HTT 40 like Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano. CRPF can use it for anti-Naxal operations. Coastguards can use it to patrol against pirates. Basically, can be used anywhere where they do not strong air defense. I bet it will have a huge export potential too.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 10 Sep 2019 01:37

ashbhee wrote:Next HAL should make a fully armed version of HTT 40 like Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano. CRPF can use it for anti-Naxal operations. Coastguards can use it to patrol against pirates. Basically, can be used anywhere where they do not strong air defense. I bet it will have a huge export potential too.

No, waste of resources when we have no need. No government in India will use airpower in resolving internal conflicts, nor should we deploy it, and like some other posters mentioned above, it will be far better to develop a surveillance package over this. This is all pipe dreams.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 10 Sep 2019 03:31

I am sure there is an export market out there for a light attack aircraft which can be tapped if we develop a weaponized version of HTT40.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 10 Sep 2019 05:37

Jay wrote:
ashbhee wrote:Next HAL should make a fully armed version of HTT 40 like Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano. CRPF can use it for anti-Naxal operations. Coastguards can use it to patrol against pirates. Basically, can be used anywhere where they do not strong air defense. I bet it will have a huge export potential too.
No, waste of resources when we have no need. No government in India will use airpower in resolving internal conflicts, nor should we deploy it, and like some other posters mentioned above, it will be far better to develop a surveillance package over this. This is all pipe dreams.

Nobody is asking for bombs to be dropped on civilians like Pakis do in Balochistan. This is an excellent low cost (both acquisition and running cost) platform for all kinds of surveillance over land and sea.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2019 05:47

Vips wrote:I am sure there is an export market out there for a light attack aircraft which can be tapped if we develop a weaponized version of HTT40.

Very few air forces will buy some thing the home country has not bought.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2019 05:49

Raghunathgb, Added to first post.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Sep 2019 05:49

ashbhee wrote:Next HAL should make a fully armed version of HTT 40 like Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano. CRPF can use it for anti-Naxal operations. Coastguards can use it to patrol against pirates. Basically, can be used anywhere where they do not strong air defense. I bet it will have a huge export potential too.

Light attack aircraft are overkill for anti-naxal operations. Armed helicopters would be cheaper and easier to operate in the remote areas but despite the Rudra already being in production, no paramilitary force in India is looking to buy it. So expecting them to buy an armed HTT 40 is a far cry unfortunately. Export market would be the best bet.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Sep 2019 06:43

We don't use aerial bombing or guns in anti-naxal operations. They won't acquire shoulder-fired SAMs. This is the unstated ground rule. We use Do-228s for recce, and Mi-17s/Dhruvs for CasEvac.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Sep 2019 11:20

Nube question.

How many more test program milestones remain for the aircraft to cross?

Before it satisfies all developmental goal's and orders can be placed.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 10 Sep 2019 16:33

Indranil
You made a passing reference to a desi turboprop from HAL. All of 1 sentence some time back. It stuck to me and I have not forgotten. Does it fall in 800kW category which HTT 40 ca use?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Sep 2019 00:53

Actually, news on that has all but dried up. Theoretically, once they have HTSE, a turboprop based on the same core should not be that difficult. And yes it would be around 800kW

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 11 Sep 2019 08:04

Indranil, has the htfe and htse core reached desired thrust ?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Sep 2019 10:15

Let it come from the official channels. Things are going well.

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 11 Sep 2019 10:41

Indranil wrote:Let it come from the official channels. Things are going well.

I asked this because of this report from another defence site.find it tough to believe. Is it possible for test flight by end of year ?

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2019/09 ... e.html?m=1

The 1200 kW turboshaft engine is designed to be used as power plant for 3 to 8 ton category helicopters. The HTSE-1200 engine technology demonstrator was assembled and inaugural test run successfully carried out on 12 February 2018 with 76% rpm achieved. The engine was actually tested at sea level at the DefExpo 2018 site for light up, acceleration and stable running at idle speed. The engine is currently under testing with over 240 successful engine runs completed so far. It is also reported that the maiden test flight with the new engine is also planned by HAL by the end of this year.

rrao · Post by **rrao** » 11 Sep 2019 11:00

Raghunathgb wrote:
Indranil wrote:Let it come from the official channels. Things are going well.
I asked this because of this report from another defence site.find it tough to believe. Is it possible for test flight by end of year ?
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2019/09 ... e.html?m=1

Raghunath-ji,are you not from HAL? earlier e-connect used to be in HAL website.... unlike DRDO HAL is very poor with media communication... may be it is better to keep under wraps because of predators....

ashbhee · Post by **ashbhee** » 13 Sep 2019 07:01

Vips wrote:I am sure there is an export market out there for a light attack aircraft which can be tapped if we develop a weaponized version of HTT40.

Look how many countries use Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano (including USA)

Afghanistan
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Honduras
Indonesia
Lebanon
Nigeria
Philippines
United States

And Potential operators

Guatemala
Libya
Mozambique
Paraguay
Peru
Suriname
Sweden
Thailand
UAE
Ukraine

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E ... al_history

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 13 Sep 2019 07:26

ashbhee wrote:
Vips wrote:I am sure there is an export market out there for a light attack aircraft which can be tapped if we develop a weaponized version of HTT40.
Look how many countries use Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano (including USA)

Afghanistan
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Honduras
Indonesia
Lebanon
Nigeria
Philippines
United States
And Potential operators

Guatemala
Libya
Mozambique
Paraguay
Peru
Suriname
Sweden
Thailand
UAE
Ukraine

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E ... al_history

Why would a state-supported entity provide resources for an export-only model when we have our own needs to be catered to? HAL should not waste its time and efforts on weaponizing HTT-40, at this moment.

ashbhee · Post by **ashbhee** » 13 Sep 2019 07:29

Bart S wrote:
Jay wrote: No, waste of resources when we have no need. No government in India will use airpower in resolving internal conflicts, nor should we deploy it, and like some other posters mentioned above, it will be far better to develop a surveillance package over this. This is all pipe dreams.
Nobody is asking for bombs to be dropped on civilians like Pakis do in Balochistan. This is an excellent low cost (both acquisition and running cost) platform for all kinds of surveillance over land and sea.

Not bombs but machine guns, if there an ambush like this one in 2010, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_201 ... _Dantewada can't they call for reinforcement by air. Operating cost is very less. How about coastguards, next time Paks try to sneak in.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Sep 2019 08:49

Terrible idea, the bad press alone will cost us years of good will. PR nightmare.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Sep 2019 10:26

ashbhee wrote:
Bart S wrote:
Nobody is asking for bombs to be dropped on civilians like Pakis do in Balochistan. This is an excellent low cost (both acquisition and running cost) platform for all kinds of surveillance over land and sea.
Not bombs but machine guns, if there an ambush like this one in 2010, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_201 ... _Dantewada can't they call for reinforcement by air. Operating cost is very less. How about coastguards, next time Paks try to sneak in.

Combat aircraft are not used against our own people. They have the option of calling in army Rudras or buying some right now if they want to. But they can't. So there is no point dreaming about CRPF flying armed HTT-40's.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Sep 2019 11:23

Data-point. HAL ha projected sales potential of 106 (IAF) + 220 (other customers) nos for HTT-40.

I will add this to first post.