Indian Military Aviation

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 Jun 2011 19:29

Katare wrote:HAL is sitting on $4billion cash reserves but it didn't have guts or forsight to develop a basic trainer on its own without IAF sanctions and GoI funding. Honeywell went ahead and created a complete solution for IAF Jaguar engine deal, several years before IAF even started looking for a new engine. What a bunch of morons we have at HAL/MoD/IAF......

I hope that you are aware that in a Govt Company using money for non-approved projects can lead to civil, criminal, service penalties & prosecutions for the management

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Jun 2011 23:02

CAE-built C-130J simulator for IAF to Arrive in Feb 2012
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensen ... %20%202012

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Jun 2011 23:09

yeah pragnya thanks, ignore that engine model, but yes on on the t:w ratio. Wasn't K10 supposed to be delivered with near 100kN wala with joint venture with snecma?

I say, under the same order club all M2K upgrade as well. IAF needed MRCA a decade back, and its squadron strength is low.. and the reason we bumped up and still bumping up MKI numbers. So, the right move for M2K would be to go with local upgrade with improved K, (snecma core).

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 02:52

vic wrote:
Katare wrote:HAL is sitting on $4billion cash reserves but it didn't have guts or forsight to develop a basic trainer on its own without IAF sanctions and GoI funding. Honeywell went ahead and created a complete solution for IAF Jaguar engine deal, several years before IAF even started looking for a new engine. What a bunch of morons we have at HAL/MoD/IAF......
I hope that you are aware that in a Govt Company using money for non-approved projects can lead to civil, criminal, service penalties & prosecutions for the management

You are right ... we all know there is a huge circus which angers me even more.

My biggest peeve is that DRDO is (only allowed to be) reactive. I think we have got the information flow completely ulta. MOD babus are not supposed to tell DRDO what to build. DRDO being a research wing should (or have the leverage to) be proactive and do research, do a feasibility study and go to MOD/IAF/Navy/Army saying "the world is here, tell us where need to be, for getting there these are the means, this is what we can develop in house, get the rest from outside". On contrary, presently, IAF finds what it wants in the plane, Navy studies design of ships, Army tells what it wants in Arjun and only then DRDO reacts!

I remember CAS PV Naik had somewhere exasperated to Dr. Saraswat(?) "You should tell me what I should be getting, rather than me telling you!" ... I know a lot of you will jump on me saying that our forces won't accept it, but I am with PV Naik on this. Case in point is a successful entity in ISRO. ISRO tells the government what we as a nation should do in their field!

When it comes to the trainers, I feel DRDO/HAL/ADA slept over a sure-shot and critical requirement. I hate to say this, and may be it is my young blood, but I feel there is huge lethargy in these PSUs. I know building a military trainer is not that easy, but then ... A basic trainer ... I was told there was a problem of fuel cutoff ... a professional entity like HAL building what not is telling this for one decade!!!

An AJT ... look at what all we could have done, continue with the Ajeet trainer, downgraded the Jaguars .. .and I am not even considering the new developments like CAT, scaled down Tejas and the likes!

I think it will be choti mooh badi baat but "Whose father's, what goes" attitude has to go.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 23 Jun 2011 08:46

Not related to Indian air force , but it was M2k , it looks in perfect condition even after the crash

Greece recovers Mirage 2000BG from bottom of sea

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Jun 2011 09:05

^^^^ Looks sexier than any of the boats I have seen

Priceless.

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Jun 2011 09:20

Re Indinroy

It is not that simple. Services are simply not mandating DRDO to get into routine stuff. Let me give you an example like Basic Trainer which is turboprop An-32 replacement, what is IAF doing on that? MRTA is 65-70 ton MTOW aircraft and is not an An-32 replacement. So we are doing R&D for a Russian requirement while ignoring Indian requirements.

Now for Army what about new design for pistols, carbines, MMGs, AMRs, Self loading Sniper rifles, HMGs, arti fuzes etc. Forget high tech stuff, what is more important today is routine things. Services have now interesting mantra - buy low tech stuff from abroad and let DRDO do high tech stuff on low budget which means nothing gets done in India & everything is imported. As a fourth largest economy we are importing 9mm carbines?

PAKFA is getting around US$ 6 Billion for 1/3rd share from India while more high tech AMCA is getting only US$ 2 Billion for 100% workshare, why?

Major import contracts like for 1000 shakti engines are entered into, without full tech transfer (of hot section) and without commitment for joint future upgrades. These holes are intentionally left in the contracts by corrupt officials to benefit foreign parties.

IAF rejects local assembly of Medium lift helos by HAL for full import, why?

BEL request for Rs 1000 crore to step up manufacturing line for thermal sensors has been repeatedly rejected, why?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Jun 2011 09:51

vic wrote:Re Indinroy

It is not that simple. Services are simply not mandating DRDO to get into routine stuff. Let me give you an example like Basic Trainer which is tur....y HAL for full import, why?

BEL request for Rs 1000 crore to step up manufacturing line for thermal sensors has been repeatedly rejected, why?

Otherday, DRDO chief said the same thing. Don't ask us whats on drawing boards of other countries. When the forces buy, they buy matured technologies.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 23 Jun 2011 09:52

indranilroy wrote:
vic wrote:quote="Katare"]HAL is sitting on $4billion cash reserves but it didn't have guts or forsight to develop a basic trainer on its own without IAF sanctions and GoI funding. Honeywell went ahead and created a complete solution for IAF Jaguar engine deal, several years before IAF even started looking for a new engine. What a bunch of morons we have at HAL/MoD/IAF....../quote]

I hope that you are aware that in a Govt Company using money for non-approved projects can lead to civil, criminal, service penalties & prosecutions for the management
You are right ... we all know there is a huge circus which angers me even more.

My biggest peeve is that DRDO is (only allowed to be) reactive. I think we have got the information flow completely ulta. MOD babus are not supposed to tell DRDO what to build. DRDO being a research wing should (or have the leverage to) be proactive and do research, do a feasibility study and go to MOD/IAF/Navy/Army saying "the world is here, tell us where need to be, for getting there these are the means, this is what we can develop in house, get the rest from outside". On contrary, presently, IAF finds what it wants in the plane, Navy studies design of ships, Army tells what it wants in Arjun and only then DRDO reacts!

I remember CAS PV Naik had somewhere exasperated to Dr. Saraswat(?) "You should tell me what I should be getting, rather than me telling you!" ... I know a lot of you will jump on me saying that our forces won't accept it, but I am with PV Naik on this. Case in point is a successful entity in ISRO. ISRO tells the government what we as a nation should do in their field!

When it comes to the trainers, I feel DRDO/HAL/ADA slept over a sure-shot and critical requirement. I hate to say this, and may be it is my young blood, but I feel there is huge lethargy in these PSUs. I know building a military trainer is not that easy, but then ... A basic trainer ... I was told there was a problem of fuel cutoff ... a professional entity like HAL building what not is telling this for one decade!!!

An AJT ... look at what all we could have done, continue with the Ajeet trainer, downgraded the Jaguars .. .and I am not even considering the new developments like CAT, scaled down Tejas and the likes!

I think it will be choti mooh badi baat but "Whose father's, what goes" attitude has to go.

And not to Forget being named in future CAG reports for wastage of funds, CAG based on past track record will expect each reasearch project to be a sucess and such reports will be sensationalised in the Media.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jun 2011 09:54

the missing cockpit canopies and seat guide rods sticking out indicate both the pilots ejected before the crash. must have been a controlled descent due to engine failure , they slowed down as if to land and then both ejected. the flaps and leading edge slats are nicely extended.

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 23 Jun 2011 11:22

Saw the Avro LCA MMR hack yesteday evening. There was a thick black LCD shaped panel on the rightside behind the cockpit windows. Wonder what that could be.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 Jun 2011 11:43

SaiK wrote:yeah pragnya thanks, ignore that engine model, but yes on on the t:w ratio. Wasn't K10 supposed to be delivered with near 100kN wala with joint venture with snecma?

no idea Saik, but 'even if' it reaches 100KN - say, 5 years down the line - M2K airframes will be older by 5 years more!! and think of the time that would be needed for airframe modifications, testing and certification!! besides it does not bring substantial increase in thrust vis a vis M53P2. if it were to bring atleast 15-20% increase over M53P2 then it would make sense. an engine upgrade is a serious upgrade and unless the airframes have substantial life left (15 years or more IMO) it does not make any sense to go for it.

rather buy more LCA mark 2 with greater t/w, brand new airframe with lower RCS to boot which have greater potential from both operational pov and future upgrades.

I say, under the same order club all M2K upgrade as well. IAF needed MRCA a decade back, and its squadron strength is low.. and the reason we bumped up and still bumping up MKI numbers. So, the right move for M2K would be to go with local upgrade with improved K, (snecma core).

agree. going for a limited avionics upgrade as i noted in the past by preferbly DRDO-HAL possibly with french or israeli help (if needed) is pragmatic and cost friendly IMO.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 Jun 2011 14:18

A fascinating story...a must read

It was a typical ﬂying day. Night ﬂying was
planned for the fully ops pilots for routine
practice missions in dark phase. After a small
chat with the COO following the Met bfg, I got
airborne for a procedures sortie. Everything was
normal until the rejoin.

Three aircrafts including mine were in the air
as I joined circuit. I was no. 3 in landing sequence
behind a trainer and a ﬁghter, who were on short
ﬁnals and base leg respectively. After lowering
landing gear, I heard a call of “suspecting tyre
burst” from the trainer captain who had just
landed. Engrossed with my cockpit actions and
planning for the landing, it took me some time to
realise what had actually happened, but I promptly
raised landing gear and checked my fuel state.
Meanwhile, the ﬁghter, who was on short ﬁnals
was told to go around as the trainer had blocked
the runway. From the R/T calls between the ATC,
pilot and the crash crew (don’t know why they call
them crash crew, should be safety crew), it was
apparent that the two of us would have to divert.

After some confusion as to which base to
divert to, we were asked to proceed to XXX, the
farther diversion. I checked my fuel, It was 1000
ltrs, sufﬁcient for YYY (the closer diversion) and
may be just enough for XXX. The journey to XXX
required a mandatory climb to 6 km altitude as
it involved crossing the sea (the Gulf of ZZZ). I
reluctantly increased power to climb. The other
pilot commenced climb behind me. He had about
100-150 ltrs of fuel more than me. I leveled out
at 6.5 km and asked Paws (an experienced but
junior pilot) to level out at 6 km. We changed over
to XXX approach frequency and informed them
of the diversion. When asked, I informed my fuel
remainder, which was 600 ltrs. On this I received
a query “Conﬁrm 600?” It was by a Su-30 pilot in
the neighbouring sector! I was ahead of Paws but
higher and decided to let Paws position ﬁrst for
the landing. Visibility was good and I could see
the glow of XXX city lights from a distance but this
was no time to admire the view. Half way over the
Gulf, a red warning light glowed in my cockpit; the
450 ltrs fuel remainder signal. I started positioning
long ﬁnals for runway AA. As I announced that
I would report long ﬁnals for runway AA, the
approach controller informed me that runway in
use was ZZ and not AA.

Another decision to be taken. Should I
do a visual circuit or a surveillance approach?
I remembered what I always professed-
“unfamiliar base/ bad weather/ emergency on
board -take radar assistance”. I opted for the
latter and asked for an SRE approach. On hearing
my call, the old Su-30 pilot piped up again. “Conﬁrm
you want to do an SRE?” He was going nuts in his
cockpit hearing these ridiculous fuel ﬁgures. His
call was taken by the radar controller as a decision
that a radar vector was not the best choice. After
a while which appeared long enough to me in
which no controlling had commenced, I reached
over the city. This should be the end of my trouble
I thought.

But not yet... My ADF and GPS indicated that
I was over the airﬁeld but I could not locate the
runway. From overhead the airﬁeld at an altitude
of 2 km, the airﬁeld was the only dark area in the
milieu of a brightly illuminated city. To add to my
woes, when I picked up what I thought was the ﬂare
path, I saw another one, the cross runway, both of
which were lit up! My gyros were literally toppled.
There I was – at night over another base, with fuel
enough for just over one circuit and runway not
in sight. Meanwhile, Paws reached overhead too
trying to land at the earliest.

So did it result in two ejections or ﬂames out or
wrong runway landings or mislandings?
No.

Paws spotted the ﬂare path, did a teardrop turn
and reported right base and landed (the circuit
pattern is left hand). I did one orbit over the airﬁeld
with my fuel gauge showing 300 ltrs, oriented in
2-D space, turned downwind and landed, knowing
fully well that I had only one attempt at landing.
Both taxied to a nearby apron and switched off
with fuel 180 and 250 ltrs. As we walked towards
a nearby building, we saw a vehicle stop. It was
the ol’ man who had landed just behind us. But
instead of meeting us, he headed straight to our
ac to see our fuel gauges! Needless to say, he
relived (our) horror.

All is well that ends well. So why am I telling
you this tale, you’d wonder. After all you’ve heard
this and few of you’ve done ‘that’ or even scarier
things. The reason is – lessons can be learnt even
from day to day events which go unreported and
undebriefed.

So what was it that went wrong?

One, after hearing the call of tyre burst, I wasted
fuel in doing one full orbit overhead as I assumed
the trainer was simulating an emergency which
the COO had asked me to simulate. Two, I did
not persist with the controller and insist that he
complete my surveillance approach.

What did I do right?

One, I did not panic on seeing the low fuel
warning and Two, I showed faith in the surveillance
radar and sought assistance when required.
Few questions to which I haven’t got answers
are:-

Why did the SRE controller stop vectoring me
on hearing my fuel state and hearing ol’ man’s call
of “Conﬁrm you want to do SRE?”

Why were both (cross) runways lit up?

Why was another diversion (YYY) not available
when the landing fuel was less than that required
to divert to XXX?

Did the ol man’s anxious queries help our
case? You decide.

- Wg Cdr DS Deshpande

more on life in the IAF -

http://indianairforce.nic.in/fsmagazines/Feb11.pdf

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Jun 2011 17:38

chackojoseph wrote:
vic wrote:Re Indinroy

It is not that simple. Services are simply not mandating DRDO to get into routine stuff. Let me give you an example like Basic Trainer which is tur....y HAL for full import, why?

BEL request for Rs 1000 crore to step up manufacturing line for thermal sensors has been repeatedly rejected, why?

Otherday, DRDO chief said the same thing. Don't ask us whats on drawing boards of other countries. When the forces buy, they buy matured technologies.

Army has been rejecting DRDO request to develop follow on to INSAS since 2005 and only reportedly (perhaps) has allowed it to go ahead only in 2010. Further the quick procurement of matured 155mm tech by Army is legendary

The reality is that the concept of "building" an army is not there! They are still "manning" the army!

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 24 Jun 2011 02:20

India May Buy Honeywell Engine for Jaguars

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 24 Jun 2011 02:57

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=14950

IAF seeks direct control of HAL to stem eroding combat-edge

With an eye on the future and fed up with the "bureaucratic culture" pervading Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), the country's only aircraft manufacturer, IAF now wants the control of the navratna defence PSU.

IAF has asked the defence ministry (MoD) to appoint one of its three-star officers, instead of a bureaucrat, as the chairman and managing director of HAL once the present incumbent Ashok Nayak retires on October 31.

MoD sources confirmed IAF had even proposed the name of present assistant chief of air staff (operations & space), Air Vice Marshal M Matheswaran, a top-notch fighter pilot now approved for the air marshal rank, for the HAL post.

"The matter is being examined...no final decision has been taken," said a source. Simultaneously, a panel of names has also been drawn up to include Pawan Hans chief R K Tyagi, a defence accounts service officer S N Mishra, who earlier was joint secretary (aerospace) in MoD, and MSTC chairman S K Tripathi, among others.

IAF's revolutionary proposal, on the face of it, makes a lot of sense. As HAL's biggest customer, it has every reason to be worried that most projects being handled by the PSU, which has a sales turnover of over Rs 13,000 crore, have been plagued by time and cost overruns.

IAF contends the HAL chief should be someone who "understands aerospace concepts" and can "transform" HAL into a cutting-edge company, capable of delivering on time, to stem its fast-eroding combat edge. The force is down to just about 32 fighter squadrons from a "sanctioned strength" of 39.5 squadrons.

Most ongoing HAL projects like the ones for the Tejas light combat aircraft, Dhruv advanced light helicopters and indigenous production of Sukhoi-30MKI fighters as well as Hawk AJTs (advanced jet trainers) are all running behind schedule.

Moreover, HAL is also going to handle new programmes worth billions of dollars with foreign collaborators in the near future. They range from the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) and fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) to light utility helicopters and multi-role transport aircraft (MTA).

The $10.4 billion MMRCA project to acquire 126 fighters, for instance, is all set to be sealed by December. With just two contenders now left in contention, Eurofighter Typhoon and French Rafale, the project will see only the first 18 jets come in "fly-away condition", while the rest will be manufactured by HAL after transfer of technology.

An even bigger project will be the joint development of the stealth FGFA with Russia for which the $295 million preliminary design contract was inked last December. The cost of designing, infrastructure build-up, prototype development and flight testing of FGFA is pegged at $11 billion. India and Russia will chip in $5.5 billion each.

Moreover, each of the 250-300 FGFA India hopes to begin inducting from 2020 onwards will cost around $100 million each. Consequently, India will spend upwards of $35 billion over the next two decades on the FGFA.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Jun 2011 03:16

^^^ It is difficult to fathom the whole implication of this move.

But prima facie, this only seems logical. We should bring IAF, ADA and HAL under one umbrella. And let technical guys lead it. This is not a new call. It has been made since the 1990s, though I am hearing it for the first time from IAF.

So I am all for this move ... (as if my opinion counts

)

P.S. I have just one question. What happens when there is overlap in users of a product from HAL:
Say ALH for Army/IAF/Navy/CG/BSF, or say LCA for IAF/Navy. I mean turf-wars amongst the forces is not uncommon.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 24 Jun 2011 04:36

Joining the Air Force is his Dream

Joining the Air Force is his Dream
Sumit Bhattacharjee
Andhra Pradesh - Visakhapatnam
Date : 24/06/2011

Selected to RIMC
12-year-old Pedada Yathendra Sreevatsava says he is prepared to slog it out to reach his goal

Pedada Yathendra Sreevatsava displaying the RIMC admission letter in Visakhapatnam.

VISAKHAPATNAM: Twelve-year-old Pedada Yathendra Sreevatsava dreams big. He aspires to become Air Chief Marshall of the Indian Air Force. For that, he has already taken a small step in that direction.

Though a ‘baby step', it is no mean feat considering his age. He is the only one selected by the prestigious Rashtriya Indian Military College (RIMC), Dehradun, from the State for the July 2011 term. RIMC selects 25 students across states in two terms – January and July.

Interacting with The Hindu, the talented youngster said that he dreamt of joining the armed forces since childhood. He has already decided to join the air force and become a fighter pilot.

Inspiration

On what motivated him, he said: “My grandfather, being a Railway employee, served in the Territorial Army, and it was he who sowed the seed in me. He desired that I become a commissioned officer and serve the country.”

A student of Sri Krishna Vidya Mandir, he studied for over six hours on a daily basis for the RIMC examination, apart from his daily class work. “The RIMC examination comprises papers on mathematics for 200, English for 125, and general knowledge for 75 marks. Interview and viva-voce is for 50 marks,” he said.

Despite being younger of the two siblings, staying away from parents is no issue for him. “My goal is to study in the RIMC till my plus- two and then join the NDA. And I have prepared myself for it,” said Yathendra.

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 24 Jun 2011 04:44

Wrong move if HAL is brought under IAF control. All defence shipyards have Ex IN Ofiicers as CMD. IMVHO HAL is performing a lot better than those shipyards.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Jun 2011 05:39

^^Very wrong move...There is nothing inevitable about a top notch pilot being a better manager of an aerospace company..Its a bit like saying that Aishwatya Rai would be a default better candidate to lead Louis Vuitton

A CEO has to be a lot more than a great "user" of the product..."Environement management" is the biggest task in front of any CEO, generically...In Indian defence PSU, it is even more challenging, what with R&D sitting outside the firm, govt ownership et al...

If they really wanted to "shake the place up", why dont they go out in the market and hire a bunch of LM/Boeing guys? I am sure there are tons of Indians working there at senior levels who would love a chance of being CEO of a company...Even a foreigner should be fine (after all, bulk of HAL's products are anyway "license produced" from foreign companies)...Not just a CEO, but a bunch of guys at different levels - engg, sales, assembly line...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2011 06:23

Air Marshal Mally Wollen was a fomer HAL Chairman, and Baldev Singh has been acting MD on and off unless I am mistaken. But in both cases the HAL position was after retirement from the IAF and not as a serving officer.

One of the things that I believe my late cousin Suresh helped foster was a reduction in mutual contempt between IAF and HAL. As a Bangalore boy he got on well with people at HAL while being in touch with friends in the Air Force that he had just retired from.

With HAL getting 99% of its business from the IAF and IAF pilots actually dying because of maintenance and manufacturing defects coming out of HAL some kind of Air Force involvement in HAL is not "desirable", it is mandatory. I have heard stories about nuts and bolts remaining within engines serviced at HAL causing crashes and fuel valves not replaced etc - from a time when the importance of flight safety was completely unknown to HAL. HAL was/is a public sector chalta hai undertaking. No HAL worker ever had his job, food or family threatened by shoddy work. For the IAF its totally different.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 24 Jun 2011 06:56

^^^

Moreover, HAL is also going to handle new programmes worth billions of dollars with foreign collaborators in the near future. They range from the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) and fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) to light utility helicopters and multi-role transport aircraft (MTA).

The $10.4 billion MMRCA project to acquire 126 fighters, for instance, is all set to be sealed by December. With just two contenders now left in contention, Eurofighter Typhoon and French Rafale, the project will see only the first 18 jets come in "fly-away condition", while the rest will be manufactured by HAL after transfer of technology.

An even bigger project will be the joint development of the stealth FGFA with Russia for which the $295 million preliminary design contract was inked last December. The cost of designing, infrastructure build-up, prototype development and flight testing of FGFA is pegged at $11 billion. India and Russia will chip in $5.5 billion each.

Moreover, each of the 250-300 FGFA India hopes to begin inducting from 2020 onwards will cost around $100 million each. Consequently, India will spend upwards of $35 billion over the next two decades on the FGFA.

Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results; however if you look at the task's ahead I have a strong feeling that, past erfrmance will be repeated. Hand over the production / manufacturing to the Tata, Mahindra, or some other firm.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 24 Jun 2011 07:03

I believe IAF management of HAL is something that should've happened ages ago and would've fostered a greater sense of ownership of the LCA within the IAF. It's never too late to change.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2011 07:12

VinodTK wrote:however if you look at the task's ahead I have a strong feeling that, past erfrmance will be repeated. Hand over the production / manufacturing to the Tata, Mahindra, or some other firm.

From LiveFist
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/03/ ... tejas.html

ADA is pushing HAL to outsource more of the Tejas’ production, including to the private sector, to boost production to the levels needed by the Indian Air Force (IAF).

A high-level HAL team is touring the production facilities of the world’s three biggest fighter manufacturers — Boeing and Lockheed Martin in the US; and Eurofighter in Europe — to examine how Tejas’ production can be raised from the eight fighters per year that HAL’s Tejas production line in Bangalore will start building next year.

<snip>

Behind the Tejas’ slow production rate is the fact that HAL simply has too much on its plate. The Aircraft R&D Centre (ARDC), the HAL department that has built the first 15 Tejas prototypes, is simultaneously developing the Tejas Mark II; the Sitara Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT); the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA); the Indo-Russian Multi-Role Transport Aircraft (MRTA).

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Jun 2011 07:42

IMO, aircraft production and research can be brought under IAF Management. IAF officers have done a good inside DRD and DPSU's. However, IAF as an organisation has has been disappointing. It dosen't has a comprehensive plan, however, it has not stopped its personnel persuing research.

We have to change the mindset that HAL manufacturing has killed pilots. One of the articles, which I think is a very good Enabling Technologies: Mig-21 & F-16, shows that all manufacturing companies have similar problemas the aircraft matures. HAL too has its share of probles in the quality dept. However, HAL also has solved so many IAF problems too. IMO, solutions to most aircraft problems in IAF was rectified with the help of HAL personnel.

By, saying IAF management, I mean IAF needs to evolve specific policy towards research and production. Other day IAF was asking DRDO "you tell us whats the latest and what we can use," (IMO, its avaliable on internet). It shows they do not have long term prespectives on what they want to use.

Even on Tejas, they have recommended an existing "drawing board tech." I have not seen an innovation or what should be the plan for a MLU in 2020.

IF, HAL is not brought under IAF management, then they should have a technology forecast group and depute personnel for the same.

JMT.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 24 Jun 2011 08:58

No need for Chief of Defence staff: PV Naik

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 24 Jun 2011 09:57

Ship-borne MiG-29KUB jet for Indian Navy crashes in Russia

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 24 Jun 2011 14:52

BEML and Alenia Aeronautica sign MoU to develop Basic Trainer aircraft

Separately, defence PSU Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd has been given the order to design and manufacture a further 106 aircrafts

Is this true ???

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 24 Jun 2011 19:05

shiv wrote:No HAL worker ever had his job, food or family threatened by shoddy work. For the IAF its totally different.

But IAF pilots get killed because of this attitude.

The the HAL employee goes on to enjoy his pension.

K

PS I understand that many PSU employees are on pension on the day they join the organisation.

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 24 Jun 2011 20:12

People switch on your TV .Go to NDTV India,there is a special running on it on SU-30MKI

GeorgeM · Post by **GeorgeM** » 24 Jun 2011 20:40

somnath wrote:^^Very wrong move...There is nothing inevitable about a top notch pilot being a better manager of an aerospace company..Its a bit like saying that Aishwatya Rai would be a default better candidate to lead Louis Vuitton

Considering Ash is merely a user who buys Louis Vuitton for the brand name (she can't show up on red carpet with some no name bag) and that she has no prior experience in forcasting how brand handbags affect her future image etc, she would be a bad CEO. But IAF is not into HAL for brand name HAL. IAF's fighting ability is to a large extant determined by the products from HAL and also HAL's ability to forecast technology and threat and then meet/exceed those through innovative products. So Ash and IAF are not the same apples here. Ash would buy any Louis Vuitton handed down to her.

A CEO has to be a lot more than a great "user" of the product..."Environement management" is the biggest task in front of any CEO, generically...In Indian defence PSU, it is even more challenging, what with R&D sitting outside the firm, govt ownership et al...

In large organizations leadership ladder, you start as a tech lead, then progress to a people manager (middle level managers) , then as director or CEO you do organizational leadership. You do not manage people at that level. You set directions and make adjustments based on forecasts and threat assessments. People down the ladder help CEO make these happen. In HAL's case who better than IAF to forcast or understand assessments and set directions.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Jun 2011 21:03

In large organizations leadership ladder, you start as a tech lead, then progress to a people manager (middle level managers) , then as director or CEO you do organizational leadership. You do not manage people at that level. You set directions and make adjustments based on forecasts and threat assessments. People down the ladder help CEO make these happen. In HAL's case who better than IAF to forcast or understand assessments and set directions.

ok the reality is not that straightforward.

We had a new VP - Mr hotshot , West point grad blah blah - turnaround genius

slunk out after 8 months

So it is not automatic that an IAF guy can manage a business better.

GeorgeM · Post by **GeorgeM** » 24 Jun 2011 21:28

ok the reality is not that straightforward.
We had a new VP - Mr hotshot , West point grad blah blah - turnaround genius
slunk out after 8 months
So it is not automatic that an IAF guy can manage a business better.

Yes Surya-ji, there are quite a few organizational leaders out there who should not be there at all. Also think of that HAL guy who had been waiting for the current HAL Chairman to retire so he can step in. Me thinks, MoD might look for options like a board of directors consisting of IAF, ADA, DRDO personnel etc who provide directions based on their assessments. Something similar to leadership with partial authority. What I mean is a compromise solution that would make HAL and IAF better positioned afterward. I am waiting to see what MoD comes out with.
See link http://www.hal-india.com/bod.asp

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Jun 2011 21:36

but the fundamental problems of PSU issues are not going to change with these.

for that we need diff attitude towards PSU from the GOI\MOD before professional mngt can be brought in to runit

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Jun 2011 21:42

it all depends on the IAF officer who is chosen, there's no way to say based on just the parent organization.
however having a serving officer for the job is a VERY bad idea. we don't want to go the way of military inc as exists in pakistan or china.

the irony in all this is that a senior officer who could have been an excellent choice for a top post in HAL 10-12 years down the line, was shunted out. I am of course talking of Air Cmde Verma.

GeorgeM · Post by **GeorgeM** » 24 Jun 2011 22:35

Surya wrote:but the fundamental problems of PSU issues are not going to change with these.
for that we need diff attitude towards PSU from the GOI\MOD before professional mngt can be brought in to runit

Oh well, I dont think IAF has any intention to change that culture either. The time overruns must be fustrating IAF. It would seem that the intention of IAF is to make sure HAL produces products to IAF requirements in terms of content and 'within reasonable' timeline.

My dad worked for a machinery PSU for 32 yrs. I too did my Engg final yr Internship and later PhD in Technology at the same place (Yes I am the 51st one)

. He used to swear that the central ministry to PSU attitude and chamchagiri can never be changed. But what I have noticed is that these guys are immensly knowledgeable. I mean frighteningly good. I remember a case were this PSU after entering into a JV with a German pvt company, modified that German design behind the scene. The Germans found out and was immensly appreciative of solving some of their costly design challenges

. They were impressed. So I would extrapolte to assume that the same level of knowledge is there in HAL too, just that IAF wants to give it better direction control and timeline management.

Rahul has a good point. Chinese military pretty soon will be a large industrial security force. CISF - Chinese Ind Security Force

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 24 Jun 2011 22:41

Rahul M wrote:however having a serving officer for the job is a VERY bad idea. we don't want to go the way of military inc as exists in pakistan or china.

IMVHO this is a fairly bad idea to appoint IAF officers as MD, They are good warriors but may not be good managers. IAF officers as MD or not, problem is bureaucratic decision-making and lack of motivation in PSUs in general. In fact the current approach of making techies as MD in HAL is not a good practice too. What's needed in PSUs is performance based appraisals (incentives/punishment) and a motivated visionary leader for guiding the people.

It would be a fallacy to think the Paki way i.e. military is the solution to every problem. They are disciplined and motivated, there is no doubt about that. But it would be incorrect to deduce that these qualities automatically make them ideal for managing complex projects.

Having a liasoning/consulting officer from IAF in HAL is fine but IAF officers as MD doesn't makes sense to me.

Cheers....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Jun 2011 22:51

I would like to point out that senior military officers are expected to be good managers and much of the courses they need to clear at places like DSSC for these ranks revolve around management. there's also college of defence management that exclusively focuses on this.
however, they might not be able to make transition from military world to corporate world.
also, a 'listen to me because I am your boss' kind of management might not work in civvie street. (not saying every military officer would be like that but a fair number are)

lastly, for a serving officer there might be a question of organisational loyalty and his leadership might not be accepted by all.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 24 Jun 2011 23:02

So, what I think you guys are talking about is that HAL should be a customer driven organisation.

The objective, therefore, in the case of HAL, would be to deliver quality products, required by its customers on time. Also be guided by customer feedback on its line performance, the changes, upgrades or otherwise, etc.

A few good companies, who are customer focused do this.

Rather than have the IAF take over the management of HAL, because as we go forward, its customers are going to be all the services: IA, IN, IAF, CG

The way this has been done successfully is to have an Advisory Board which meet regularly with the Management of HAL. I use the term management and not the HAL Board, for the simple reason that you need the heads of departments of the various facilities which go into manufacturing of a product to be involved.

These meetings between the management and the advisory board results in tailoring the production/repair/assembly lines to addressing the needs of the customer.

I do find it surprising that the IAF wants to head up IAF. What sticks in my mind is that, and I have read it here, is the IAF's total lack of interest in the LCA through its formative stages, and also, the example of the Arjun with the IA.

To me IAF wanting to run HAL sounds more like trying to grab more turf. I would rather that the armed forces stick to their primary task of defending the country, rather than running corporations.

Having said that, I have dealt with MD's of various HAL divisions (in the 1980s), some of whom were retired IAF officers, and found them quite professional.

The same advisory board concept should also be put in place to deal with the various DRDO and R&D institutions so that right from concept to delivery all are marching to the same tune.

Parakram · Post by **Parakram** » 24 Jun 2011 23:14

Well, I think having a single person from a single institute will not give us anything. I think best would be to have something like "Board of directors" kind of thing. For example

HAL will have 5 board of directors ( numbers can vary )

1. Regular one
2. One from IAF
3. One from Navy
4. One from GOI
5. One from some company like tata or whatever.

May be you guys can add to my idea. Also why not to create something like Russia's UAC. And have a mix of HAL, Tata, Mahindra and any other who are interested.