Indian Military Aviation

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 04 Jul 2011 21:50

Lalmohan wrote:maybe someone can compile a table of given name and reporting names?
also the same for PAF? e.g. bandar, badmash, etc.?

What about b@#$#@d ?

No. It would be too common with many persons !!!!!

K

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 04 Jul 2011 22:34

Nah Kersi sir. It would be like calling aircrafts bandits(confirmed threats) and bogeys(possible threats)..
Every Paki aircraft would be a b@$T@&D...

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Jul 2011 00:21

$1-bn IAF deal for Swiss basic trainers grounded
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... ed/812680/

Here we go again

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2011 03:02

Rakesh wrote:$1-bn IAF deal for Swiss basic trainers grounded
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... ed/812680/

Here we go again

Amazing that a vendor has to inform the MoD/IAF that the MoD or the IAF did not do a complete job!!! I would have expected, by now, given the history, that they would have in-built checks and balances.

Let us see what is the outcome. It could be all for naught.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jul 2011 03:42

when is this process going to get rectified? perhaps we need CAG review at micro management level at each stage, and once stamped, no questions further on. /sick

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 05 Jul 2011 04:14

From what I know of the case, the fault here is MoD/IAF. They should either have asked the Swiss for complete documentation, or have rejected their bid based on incomplete documentation (esp regarding offests). In any event the difference in the value of the bid between the Pilatus and KT-1 is under 10%.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 05 Jul 2011 04:39

why is the foresight of co-opting Sri Lanka with an order of Coast Guard boats being applied to South Korea with an order of trainer aircraft? building a trading relationship (not just buyer's) and then taking the pearls back to the Chinese? The euro-fighter program is also showing up on the radar of both the countries in their offsets clauses

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 05 Jul 2011 08:17

Don't know if this old but still relevant article was posted before, but it states the obvious:.

self-reliance in reverse gear

..with the Air Force requirements for the next several decades rapidly being filled through the foreign acquisition route, it appears that virtually the last door to self-reliant growth of the Indian aircraft industry has now been shut for several decades to come if not permanently, since the gap between indigenous capability and the demands of advanced aviation will only widen further.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jul 2011 08:40

Victor wrote:Don't know if this old but still relevant article was posted before, but it states the obvious:.

self-reliance in reverse gear
..with the Air Force requirements for the next several decades rapidly being filled through the foreign acquisition route, it appears that virtually the last door to self-reliant growth of the Indian aircraft industry has now been shut for several decades to come if not permanently, since the gap between indigenous capability and the demands of advanced aviation will only widen further.

A few contradictions in the article that ends up sounding more like a rant than an analysis.

While the author commends the HPT-32's use of the Lycoming engine "which also powered many popular aircraft internationally for decades." the author is cursing HAL for not developing a trainer airframe. The engine will anyway remain imported.

While he criticizes import of aircraft he roots for the Grob. In this business - it could well be lifafa

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Jul 2011 09:15

and continued use of foreign powerplant apart, the allison-250 would have solved many of the problems of the HPT-32, most of which are engine related. had it been accepted, even as an upgrade we won't have needed a foreign import at this juncture. given that the author makes no mention of the HTT-35 concept which had a more modern airframe and a mock-up of which was presented at avia '93 (forerunner of aero India) it does seem this is more of a rant than an informed analysis.

in any case, I don't understand the exaggerated

and H&D loss regarding this basic trainer buy. this deal is for 70 airframes, less than half of IAF requirements and another 100 will be filled by the HAL HTT-40.
a basic trainer is anyway a relatively low tech product and while it would be good to buy Indian, the sky won't fall on our heads if we use foreign. the commercial value of this buy is a small fraction of ongoing aerospace projects that will be/are a part of Indian forces viz. dhruv, LCH, LCA, NLCA, FGFA, AMCA and so on. if we have to choose I would rather we concentrate on the more technologically challenging and hard to get projects rather than mundane projects which are available commercially. it's not as if buying the pilatus aircraft is a commentary on the state of India's MIC, as some are pretending it is. if we can develop the HPT-32 in the 70's we can develop a turbo trainer in the 00's. heck ! we have developed the much more challenging LCA and working on 2 5th gen fighters !

let's not forget that at the height of its power the soviet air force trained its pilots on the czech L-29 and L-39 ! the RAF trains its pilots on the brazillian tucano.

and hold on, the most technologically advanced air force in the world, the USAF trains its pilots on the T-6 texan II, which is a modified version of the pilatus PC-9, the same aircraft that the IAF is buying !

oh, where would the US hide its shame !

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 05 Jul 2011 09:37

^^^ Well said Rahul... sign the deal and move on... IAF and HAL have got larger more important projects on hand. so do we on BR

varunalh · Post by **varunalh** » 05 Jul 2011 09:49

Singha wrote:what kind of ring - just a loop of wire or a more substantial concrete culvert type thing?

Looked more like a loop of wire, more than twice the dia of its rotor.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 05 Jul 2011 16:51

Shiv & RahulM,

While I agree that importing a basic trainer is not as big issue technically as it is made out to be by author, I feel it is the greatest issue regarding the planning and focus on indigenous development and lack of trust on each other on part of user(IAF), developer(HAL/ADA), manufacturer(HAL/ADA/Private entities) and regulator(MOD)

Shiv, we always talk of MIC of Khan, Europe etc... and you will agree this is not because of LM or boeing. It is because of numerous other SME units which are either component provider or small assemblies etc. They are the base of the monstorours MIC that we see.

I think basic trainer was an oppurtunity to create such system here as well, a start with a small step... No doubt with Tejas no one will question our capabiliites to design trainer. We always vouch the HAL saying private entities dont have experience required for assembly of tejas.. Why not ask them to start with such low tec trainers under the guidance of ADA/HAL and give them time to mature and get experience to be able to take more complex projects.

The lack of co-ordination between IAF and HAL has put us in this situation of import. IAF should be accountable as they dismissed the plan of HTT 35. Had we taken that opportunity and involved private entities like Taneja or TATA at that time, we would have established another line of assembly in India (which one day would have graduated to take AMCA and follow ones, HAL being full with FGFA and MMRCA)... A missed opportunity...

Example of US or any other does not suit us. If they outsource it is because of want of manufacturing capabilites, not because of lack of MIC which is our case

Ideally, i would like to have HAL as a regulator role like RBI or SEBI overlooking a strong IMIC(Indian MIC)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jul 2011 17:43

> Ideally, i would like to have HAL as a regulator role like RBI or SEBI overlooking a strong IMIC(Indian MIC)

HAL is a production house primarily with some design departments - the pvt agencies are nowhere near its size and history. it can never be a NSF or DARPA. it can aspire to be dassault / eurocopter / LM ofcourse.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Jul 2011 18:44

nrshah, there's no disagreement that it's a missed opportunity but the breast beating is disproportional to the importance of the deal and a little cliched. however, let's not forget that this is essentially a legacy of decisions taken back in 80's & 90's, the relation is different now. it started changing with ACM Tyagi and jumped forward in ACM Major's time, something Naik sir has carried forward.
HAL can't be a regulatory body, that would have to be the MOD and DRDO/NAL.

p.s. if you look back in this thread you will see a certain 'Rahul M' making essentially the same arguments, that smaller pvt co's should have been brought upto speed using this.

who knows they probably will, HAL already uses a lot of smaller co's upstream.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jul 2011 18:53

A basic trainer is not beyond HALs design capability - but they are overloaded with so much other work that they cannot do it double quick time even if they were given the task. Their hands are full. Unfortunately India has no other design house or industry that can design planes for anyone. Aircraft design and manufacture in India is a one horse race. The choices arre HAL, or HAL. Failing that it has to be HAL.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 05 Jul 2011 19:17

Singha wrote:> Ideally, i would like to have HAL as a regulator role like RBI or SEBI overlooking a strong IMIC(Indian MIC)

HAL is a production house primarily with some design departments - the pvt agencies are nowhere near its size and history. it can never be a NSF or DARPA. it can aspire to be dassault / eurocopter / LM ofcourse.

No Singha No.
I think we have enough government regulators telling us what we should earn, spend, drink, eat dance etc. Why do we need a regulator ? The best regulator is perhaps the free market mechanism

K

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 05 Jul 2011 19:19

Can't the NAL be tasked to design the trainer??? They already have the Hansa basic trainer.. so it would be the natural step up for them and they are not too loaded.. as they have only the Saras project going for them currently..

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jul 2011 19:25

Kersi sir, I was just saying that HAL wil never be a regulator...it was response to another post.

+1 to your POV, down with regulators and file pushers, we need do-ers not talkers.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 05 Jul 2011 20:44

How can Pilatus expect ot have the lowest bid??

it makes no sense considering the costs.

Its a proven record no doubt but cheapest raises doubts

Parakram · Post by **Parakram** » 05 Jul 2011 22:32

Why not IAF starts a design bureau ? Like "Airforce Institute of Aircraft design" and it should be of same standard as IITs

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jul 2011 02:50

A huge part of the problem is MoD/IAF/GoI/whoever is burying their heads in the sand.

Every product has End of Life (EoL). No two ways about it. How is it that this simple fact does not either register or does register and no one acts? IF they had acted at the right time then things would have fallen into place - perhaps for the most part, some small things would have been left to be done at the 11th hour.

Now everything is coming in at the same time - perfect storm. And the simple things have no place to think about. The list is long, funds are there, no time nor labor force to deal with the predictable stuff.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 06 Jul 2011 05:30

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2011 05:36

Craig Alpert wrote:

The deal has been slowed down because the South Koreans have smelt a rat or alternatively they have put a spanner in the works. In deals with many foreign vendors the usual course for turd world nations is to take the biggest bribe. When you have checks and balances to try and stop that the seller bribe money goes into trying to screw deal for someone else.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 06 Jul 2011 07:57

IAF Officers likely to head HAL, DGCA

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 06 Jul 2011 08:58

VinodTK wrote:IAF Officers likely to head HAL, DGCA

At least this introduces accountability and answerability to the black hole that is HAL. IAF should take over GTRE too.

Over the next 20-30 years we will be buying tens of billions of dollars worth of short-medium range jetliners, transports, UAVs and helicopters. We are totally unprepared to make a healthy number of these ourselves, let alone export any. Something drastic needs to happen or nothing will change.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 07 Jul 2011 08:43

IAF plans consortium of domestic companies for Rs.10,000 cr contract

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is trying to bring together a consortium of domestic firms to compete for a Rs.10,000 crore contract to manufacture 45 medium transport aircraft (MTAs).If the consortium is formed, it will be the first example of Indian companies partnering to bid for a defence aviation contract, a domain in which they do not have proven capability.

MTAs are used to carry personnel and equipment.

On 1 July, IAF officials met the industry bodies Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India to discuss the proposal, said a person who attended the meeting, asking not to be named.

A follow-up meeting is scheduled for 7 July, said an IAF official, requesting anonymity.

“This is a preliminary step,” said a CII executive, who also did not want to be identified. “We are just exploring the possibility of coming together, but it is still some way off.”

Tata Advanced Systems Ltd and Larsen and Toubro Ltd are among the companies that can participate in such a consortium. Their executives confirmed the meeting between industry bodies and IAF, but declined to comment further.

IAF publicized its requirement for MTAs in January 2010. It needs the aircraft to replace an ageing fleet of Hawker Siddeley HS 748s. The force is already upgrading Russian-origin Antonov An-32 transport aircraft.

IAF’s effort to form the consortium follows the publication of India’s defence production policy in January this year, which obliges the defence ministry to exhaust all possibility of indigenous manufacturing before turning to overseas vendors.

The contract is still likely to go through open bidding in which foreign defence firms may participate, said another person aware of the development, who also did not want to be named.

Industry executives and analysts are not upbeat about the prospects of an Indian consortium meeting IAF’s requirement.

“Indian industry does not have the expertise to build such a complex machine,” said an industry executive, requesting anonymity. “This might as well turn out to be a futile exercise. So, in all likelihood, the contract would still go to a foreign bidder.”

Retired colonel Rajiv Chib, who works as defence analyst with the audit and consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers India, said the invitation to Indian industry to participate in the project is a positive step.

“But the government should first explore possibilities in the civil aerospace sector, as there are no foreign direct investment caps there,” he said. “Once sufficient capacities are developed in civil aerospace, Indian companies can seriously consider making aircraft for defence use.”

Separately, India is planning to develop a multi-role transport aircraft with Russia.

In September, the two nations announced plans to design and develop the aircraft through a joint venture between Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and Russia’s United Aircraft Corp. and Rosoboronexport. Both countries have earmarked a combined $600 million (Rs.2,664 crore) for the project.

Link

Why only for one project ? ,let trainer and AMCA fabrication also go to private players

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2011 09:03

btw, if the NAL RTA-70 progresses as intended, it will be perfectly poised to replace the IAF An-32 with the turboprop version of RTA.

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 07 Jul 2011 09:17

karan_mc wrote:...........

Gosh .. if we spend even half of that money on internal security .. proper training to police .. more gears .. more automatic weapons..

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 07 Jul 2011 10:03

^^^
aren't the MTA and the MRTA the same thing? that article says MRTA is different from MTA. AFAIK, there is only ONE military transport plane that is under development, and that is the MRTA with Russia.

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 07 Jul 2011 10:06

Deleted

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2011 10:14

I have a feeling the NAL led RTA is where pvt industry is being roped in - a turboprop in the ATR72 class but in mil version to have a powerful engine and addl avionics/self-defence suite , cargo hold, ramp etc.

the MTA (with Russia) is imo a dead duck - if this is about salvaging that corpse and breathing life into it, I would be the happiest person around. a consultant in the form of ATR or Embraer would likely need to be part of the matrix.

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 07 Jul 2011 10:33

This is a very good move by the IAF to rope in the Industry and take their views. It was long needed. I guess this is an attempt to pool in resources for the local production of the Indo Russian MTA project. We have stated an interest for 45 a/c in MTA. IAF might be scounting for component manufacturers with HAL being the main assembly point.

One serious issue the Industry will be asking is the market. After 45 aircraft what is the path they need to take. Are any clear directives provided by the GoI on export of such a/c? They dont want to keep an idle line after investing. It will be a similar case of MRF being given a cold shoulder after producing the rubber pads for Arjun tracks.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 07 Jul 2011 11:07

BRAdmins, Can we have a separate thread for Offset suggestions? you never know - MOD or IAF brass might see that and take inspiration... "I have a dream...."

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 07 Jul 2011 11:54

The MTA will be produced both in Russia and India. AFAIK the HAL has started initial works for setting up Factory for producing MTA, and it is their product as they are the developers. Now whats the role of consortium? component manufacturing?

Any way it is good move as it will add to the experience of the private players in the field. Any one involved in this project will get more manufacturing projects like RTA and for for Rustom. The HAL will have a reduced responsibility of component assembling and support, while it can also concentrate on product R & D/

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 07 Jul 2011 13:49

Rahul M wrote:btw, if the NAL RTA-70 progresses as intended, it will be perfectly poised to replace the IAF An-32 with the turboprop version of RTA.

And with rear loading ramp which regular RTA-70s won't of course have.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 07 Jul 2011 16:03

Navigation technology to be provided to Indian air force bases by Northrop Grumman

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 Jul 2011 22:26

x-post. Can go in many threads, but certainly should be here too. Read the whole article, the poster's comments are his own reads from the article, which is quite elaborate and makes many other points.

sohels wrote:http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/07/co ... wrong.html
By Admiral Arun Prakash

The IAF is now guaranteed a versatile, highly-agile and potent - albeit expensive - fourth generation combat aircraft in its inventory which can dominate the regional skies for the foreseeable future. Having flown both the F/A-18 and the Rafale, I can say that while the former would certainly have met all the IAF requirements competently and economically, the breathtaking performance of the latter leaves one in no doubt that it is a “generation-next” machine. The Eurofighter Typhoon, by all accounts, is equally impressive.
...
For far too long, have Indian defence PSUs claimed “transfer of technology” when they were only assembling components received from abroad using “screwdriver technology”. For the MMRCA offsets to be beneficial to India, they must be selectively chosen to fill known gaps in key technologies or provide high-end production-engineering skills lacking in our aerospace industry today. The USA had conveyed a distinct message that selection of either American candidate would open a cornucopia of technology to India – including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Europeans must be reminded of this and prevailed upon to follow a similar paradigm.
...
It is a moot question that if numbers are indeed so critical for the IAF, then why have the cheaper MMRCA options been discarded? Given that all six aircraft seem to have qualified in the flight-trials and technical evaluation processes, the line-up, in ascending order of price, shown in parenthesis, is as follows: MiG-35 ($ 45 m), F-16 ($60 m), F/A-18 ($60.5 m), Gripen ($82.2 m), Rafale ($ 85.5 m) and Typhoon ($124 m). The IAF could have, for example, added 400 Super Hornets to its inventory for the price of 200 Typhoons, and resolved many of its problems.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 12 Jul 2011 06:23

Ajai Shukla: How about a Department of Aerospace?

A number of strands are coming together in structuring India’s air power capability for the second quarter of the 21st century. The indigenous Tejas light fighter, developed by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), is entering production and an improved Tejas Mark II is being developed. Riding this success, ADA is developing a fifth generation medium fighter, called the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). Simultaneously, the overseas acquisition of 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) is nearing a close with Dassault’s Rafale and Eurofighter’s Typhoon in a race to the finish line. In the heavy fighter category, the redoubtable Sukhoi-30MKI is being upgraded even as more trickle into the fleet. Meanwhile, Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) are working together on the Indo-Russian fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA).

These five fighters will form the sword edge of the Indian Air Force (IAF) from 2025 onwards. At that stage, the IAF will operate seven squadrons (an IAF squadron has 21 fighters) of Tejas, more if ADA can enhance capabilities and reduce price. Six squadrons of MMRCA are currently planned, but that could rise to 10 squadrons, if performance is great and technology transfer smooth. The indigenous AMCA will equip another 10 squadrons. Thirteen IAF squadrons will fly the upgraded Sukhoi-30 MKI, while the FGFA will equip another ten squadrons.
:
:

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 12 Jul 2011 07:53

Col.Shukla paints a very rosy picture when it comes to the number of squadrons. So a lot hinges on AMCA and hopefully ADA can delivery faster. There should be a pay commission or enhancement of salaries for scientists working on flagship projects like the AMCA. IMO, HAL should be re-organised into five divisions catering to production of helicopter , indigenous aircraft, TOT aircraft, Joint development programs and upgrade programs. Each of the division heads should have substantial financial muscle at their disposal and inter division interaction should be limited to knowledge sharing and should not include equipment/personnel sharing. The divisions can have representatives from the forces and hence would be answerable to users too. Shri Super White Anthony should do this.