Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 13 Jun 2012 06:39

Multiple SDB bombs can be carried upto 8 nos. Cant say about AAM, highly unlikely.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jun 2012 07:24

we are some distance off from UCAVs taking on air combat roles. everyone has first focus on deep strike.

there is also small matter of us not having SDB and Khan is unlikely to support any project or technology that gives us element of surprise to hurt his munna, so its has to be done from ground up by the sudarshan developers.

wrt to the engine we cannot depend on american engines for this, has to be either the kaveri-snecma JV or the M88-3 for quicker induction and test cycles.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Jun 2012 09:33

Major Issues of Immediate Concern for the Indian Air Force

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2012 10:44

UCAVs absolutely MUST fly on an indigenous engine.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jun 2012 10:53

being subsonic even a reliable kaveri with decent fuel economy will suffice. IAF might be more willing to take a risk with unmanned bird.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Jun 2012 11:01

Not sure if the UCAV is designed around Kaveri , it looks smaller to me around 2-3 T , what is the Take Off Weight of this UCAV ?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jun 2012 11:38

^^^ It is. DRDO gave a young scientist award regarding this.

link

Shri Vikram Singh, Scientist ‘B’, Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Bengaluru, has made valuable contribution in design of a controllable flying wing UCAV configuration for KAVERI Engine. In recognition of his significant contribution, the Young Scientist Award 2011 is conferred on Shri Vikram Singh.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 13 Jun 2012 11:56

MTOW of 10T with 2T internal weapon load and 3T internal fuel for long range and non afterburning version of Kaveri with 5T thrust can be expected.

5T can be the empty weight with kaveri engine weighing 1T.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jun 2012 12:16

MTOW is about 15 Tons.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Jun 2012 12:16

^^^ Thanks , that should confirm that Kaveri would be put to use in not in LCA then in UCAV.

Any dates on when this UCAV would fly or any prospective program schedule for it ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Jun 2012 13:09

India Explores Low-Observable Aircraft Technologies

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 13 Jun 2012 20:31

Could someone kindly answer my question posed 3 days ago on the importance of formation flight in a military context in the Newbie thread?

For example, does the ability to fly close improve the likelihood of being perceived as one target instead of multiple targets with modern radars?

Are there other benefits like saving fuel?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Jun 2012 20:34

the main reason for formation flying was from the early days - navigation, ensuring that everyone reached the target together. and then in a formation, you are better able to watch each other's backs or 6's. an inverted v formation allows trailing planes to benefit from the vortices of the leading plane and reduce its drag (and fuel). the leader drives the formation whilst the others keep watch. the finger four formation has evolved as the optimum for fighter sweeps, whilst bombers (in the old days) had other more protective formations). nowadays, strike packages go in in quite different configurations, so pairs are more normal than fours and mores. however the flying discipline and piloting skills of formation flying are good to have anyway

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Jun 2012 20:44

indranilroy wrote:MTOW is about 15 Tons.

Cool. Where did we this piece of data from ?

Abhibhushan · Post by **Abhibhushan** » 13 Jun 2012 22:25

PratikDas wrote:Could someone kindly answer my question posed 3 days ago on the importance of formation flight in a military context in the Newbie thread?

For example, does the ability to fly close improve the likelihood of being perceived as one target instead of multiple targets with modern radars?

Are there other benefits like saving fuel?

Please see the newbie thread

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jun 2012 22:55

Cybaru wrote:
indranilroy wrote:MTOW is about 15 Tons.
Cool. Where did we this piece of data from ?

Dr. Prahlada said so. There are a few news articles. Here's one.

Capable of flying at altitudes of 30,000 feet and weighing less than 15 tonnes, the UCAVs will have rail-launching for the missiles, bombs and PGMs (precision-guided munitions) they will carry.

Also first flight is scheduled for 2015. link.

While the first flight is expected to take place in 2015, the targeted year of induction 2017.

Very ambitious, I must say.

P.S. SometI am guessing that the armament ... At that weight range, we are speaking of one of the biggest UCAVs. It will be as big as a Boeing Phantom and bigger than the Mig SKAT, Taranis, Neuron. At that size, it should be able to carry atleast 2 Tons of ammunition. Also, that number sits right with a Kaveri class engine. I wish that the weapons bays are designed in a way, so that IUSAV can carry standoff range air to ground missiles for SEAD, antiship roles. At 1000 kgs each, such missiles can have serious standoff range, making IUSAV to become a SERIOUS threat.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 13 Jun 2012 23:01

LCH ZP4602

Hot off the internets...

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 14 Jun 2012 01:00

Dennis wrote:LCH ZP4602

Hot off the internets...

Wow!

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 14 Jun 2012 02:15

Still cant get over the optical pod placement and shape of nose. looks hideous. but hey, if it gets the job done...

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Jun 2012 02:25

interesting camo, used anywhere else?

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 14 Jun 2012 05:30

We can finally see the new / re-designed wing.

I wonder if it will enhance LCH's range.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Jun 2012 06:55

AURA looks very similar to Neuron. the EADS Barracuda under test now is more conventional with a V tail and a round exhaust. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UUq3bU0Etc

about the LCH....wow that camo sure looks like a chameleon under right conditions. I am sure they will develop a desert fox and snow falcon camo as well

vic · Post by **vic** » 14 Jun 2012 19:57

indranilroy wrote:I was reading comments section on a Livefist (Shiv Aroor's blog) post and one of the comments there provided a link to HAL's tender for the engine for HTT-40 and the ECU of the APU for AMCA (which is now called Prospective Multirole Fighter Aircraft; PMF)

link.

One could find the actual tender here.

P.S. As I read the cover letter, I find the following schedule for providing the development engines (T1 is date of signing contract):
ITEM Quantity Required Delivery Date
Mockup Engine 2 T1+12 Months (2 nos)
Flight qualified fully 3 T1+24 Months (2 nos),
Instrumented Engines T1+27 Months (1 no)
Flight qualified Engines 1 T1+30 Months (1 no)

The tender closing date is Sept'12. If the contract is signed in the first half of 2013, don't expect maiden flight before second or third quarter of 2015.

Design studies commenced in Jan 2012 (T0).

The order is for 124 (16 direct + 16 SKD + 32 CKD + 60 lic. produced.) + 300 (additional estimated order over 10 years).

They are going to deliver these planes over 8 years starting from Jan 2017.

about the plane:
Weight: 2800 - 3000 kgs.
Power >750 KW at sea level
Max. Mach no. : 0.5 Mach
Max altitude: 6 km
Load envelop: -3 G to 6 G

Why don't they go in for Garret which they are already making?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Jun 2012 22:25

Underpowered... they want >750 KW, the Garretts produce around 533 KW.

P.S. But, I can't help ask this. They have been producing these engines for decades now. Where is the learning part? Can't they build a bigger engine by themselves now? Let people run wild for one day a week. Let the creative juices flow. My personal opinion is that people would be much motivated for the rest of the 4 days of mundane job.

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Jun 2012 09:03

There are many versions of basic Garrett. The market is controlled by Garett and PT6. The technology is around 40-50 years old. We have been manufacturing garret for almost 30 years now. As per the tender, the indigenous manufacture of imported engine will start after 10 years. Why? Do we word our requirements in this manner? Hal will come out with loud announcement to say, as to how, they are great and there is no need to manufacture every component in India. I think Tatra philosophy is ingrained deep into India. We need huge no. Of turboprop engines for Saras, HTT-40, adv Rustom i.e. around 400-500 engines or so.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 19 Jun 2012 21:06

as per VAYU's latest issue, as of 12th march, the following AN 32RE's have been delevered to IAF -

1st batch of four - K2676, K2670, K2681, K2696 (JUNE 2011)

2nd batch of five - K2689, K2704, K2707, K2708, K2719 (19th SEPT 2011)

3rd batch of five - K2677, K2680, K2715, K2720, K2735 (12th MARCH).

...................

a fourth batch comprising - K2668, K2682, K2692, K2734 plus one have arrived in Zhulyany on 11th dec 2011 for the upgrade.

...................

40 to be upgraded in Ukraine. 65 at No. 1 base repair depot AFS Chakeri/Kanpur.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Jun 2012 21:14

thanks a lot pragnya.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Jun 2012 21:45

indranilroy wrote:Underpowered... they want >750 KW, the Garretts produce around 533 KW.

P.S. But, I can't help ask this. They have been producing these engines for decades now. Where is the learning part? Can't they build a bigger engine by themselves now? Let people run wild for one day a week. Let the creative juices flow. My personal opinion is that people would be much motivated for the rest of the 4 days of mundane job.

Yeah, its way below what they want for the HTT-40. HAL's page states that it produces 715 shp whereas HAL wants nearly 945 shp for the HTT-40.

The engine specs are such that a Canadian P&W PT-6A variant will be a very likely candidate. On the PC-7 MkII, they use a PT-6A-25C turboprop engine that gives a max output of 700 shp, but on the PC-9 and KT-1, they use a PT-6A-62 variant that produces 950 shp (which is very close to the 945 shp that the HAL tender requires) but far short of the 1600 shp that the PT-6A-68B of the PC-21 produces.

The one issue that plagued the HPT-32 was its Lycoming engine cutting out in mid-air. If HAL couldn't sort out that issue in all its years of service, then hoping that they'd be able to build a PT-6A equivalent on their own with the license assembly knowledge that they have of the Garrett is expecting too much from them.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 19 Jun 2012 22:05

Rahul M, never mind.

kartik,

can you clarify for me - as there is a lot of confusion wrt to HTT - 40. if HTT - 40 is a separate HAL effort as this seems to indicate where as i have read somewhere that HAL will just brand the selected basic trainer (Piltaus, in this case) and go the skd/ckd route.

what about this and this??

total confusion IMO.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Jun 2012 22:27

Pragnya sahab,

Nothing much has moved on the BEML and the Embraer side. You can safely forget the BEML project now with the fiasco that they find themselves in. Truth be told, I don't trust them to be able to produce anything. They would have assembled in any case, like they did for the Tatra. And if they cannot modify the steering wheel of a truck, forget a top of the line trainer aircraft. And if Gen Singh is correct about the service support, I would pray that BEML never produces a trainer.

IAF will induct the 75 trainer planes from Pilatus. Some of these planes will be imported straight from Switzerland, the rest will be produced at HAL in batches from CKDs, and SKDs.

Apart from the above, HAL is going to build an indigeneous trainer on its own called HTT-40. The effort is already underway since January 2012. They floated a tender for engines for the same. They are going to place a firm order of 124 engines, with a possibility of 300 more engines in the next 10 years. I provided some details on the same in the last page of this same thread.

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Jun 2012 22:28

pragnya wrote:...

kartik,

can you clarify for me - as there is a lot of confusion wrt to HTT - 40. if HTT - 40 is a separate HAL effort as this seems to indicate where as i have read somewhere that HAL will just brand the selected basic trainer (Piltaus, in this case) and go the skd/ckd route.

what about this and this??

total confusion IMO.

From the experiences IAF had with indigenous efforts, like the LCA, which were delayed too long for its replacement needs of old types in service, the new acquisition policy seems to be "1/3 - 2/3" approach. 1/3 of fleet requirements to be purchased outright with license production and then 2/3 of fleet requirements to be fulfilled by indigenous R&D effort. This way if there are significant delays in the domestic efforts IAF will increase the quantities of the license production. IMO, pretty good risk-mitigation strategy while at the same time promoting local R&D.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Jun 2012 22:52

Kartik wrote: The one issue that plagued the HPT-32 was its Lycoming engine cutting out in mid-air. If HAL couldn't sort out that issue in all its years of service, then hoping that they'd be able to build a PT-6A equivalent on their own with the license assembly knowledge that they have of the Garrett is expecting too much from them.

OT but I am cross posting:

With public offices, I don't think that we will get any better than the snail's pace ... I am sorry to say this, but there needs to be much more personal gains/losses at stake than national interest for things to roll.

If I were to tell you what I feel, i would say, just take the engineering group from HAL and place it under Mahindra and see how fast and how good results we get. I was just watching the "Wings of Russia" documentary. They used to have timelines of 1-2 years from drawing board to prototype and 1-2 years for factory and "state" tests. I agree that a modern fighter takes much more time, but decades to fix critical errors like fuel supply!

If HAL would have had a HTT-40 now, they would have got the orders for the 75 trainers that Pilatus won! Yes, IAF did not show interest to the HTT-35. But how could HAL not foresee that such a trainer would be needed en-mass. There was a sureshot order and big one at that. They should have found funds to keep it afloat and make incremental changes till the order couuld be placed in or around 2008. The ROI is just phenomenal. Any company would do it! Alas, HAL management did not see or simply did not care! I am sorry to be harsh, but this thing burns me from inside.

There has to be more at stake. I may be naive, but I feel there is a lot of "Kiske baap ka kya jata hai" attitude in the management of the public entities which trickle down to lower levels as well.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 19 Jun 2012 22:53

indranilroy wrote:Pragnya sahab,

Nothing much has moved on the BEML and the Embraer side. You can safely forget the BEML project now with the fiasco that they find themselves in. Truth be told, I don't trust them to be able to produce anything. They would have assembled in any case, like they did for the Tatra. And if they cannot modify the steering wheel of a truck, forget a top of the line trainer aircraft. And if Gen Singh is correct about the service support, I would pray that BEML never produces a trainer.

totally agree. no issue there. however -

IAF will induct the 75 trainer planes from Pilatus. Some of these planes will be imported straight from Switzerland, the rest will be produced at HAL in batches from CKDs, and SKDs.

Apart from the above, HAL is going to build an indigeneous trainer on its own called HTT-40. The effort is already underway since January 2012. They floated a tender for engines for the same. They are going to place a firm order of 124 engines, with a possibility of 300 more engines in the next 10 years. I provided some details on the same in the last page of this same thread.

look at this to which i alluded to last -

In addition to buying 75 Pilatus trainers in fly-away condition from Switzerland, the IAF has asked Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to develop an indigenous trainer aircraft (dubbed the Hindustan Turbo Trainer – 40, or HTT-40), and to build 106 of those trainers for the IAF.

But the MoD and HAL have dragged their feet on this indigenous project, says Pushpindar Singh, editor of Vayu aerospace magazine. “Since HAL has made little headway so far, they could end up building 106 PC-7 Mark II trainers under licence from Pilatus, instead of developing an indigenous trainer. That would be an opportunity lost,” says Singh.

from here

things seem pretty clear. IAF wants HTT-40 to be skd/ckd build by HAL!! remember 106 is the number of Pilatus HAL will build.

in the absence of a basic trainer 'selected' the HAL effort was worth - provided IAF had agreed to - which was not the case. now that Pilatus is selected, what will HAL achieve with the indigenous effort?? who are they going to sell?? IAF will get Pilatus. why would HAL waste funds into a venture which the user is not interested like Arjun!! in any case HAL would be busy with Pilatus prod with SKD/CKD which they have always been comfortable with.

IMO HTT-40 may have been a plan but is super ceded with Pilatus.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Jun 2012 23:53

If HAL can't get ready to serial produce HTT-40 from 2016-2017 time frame, the 106 HTT-40 orders will be changed to PC-7 further orders.

The incentive for HAL to seril produce HTT-40 instead of continuing the assembly of further PC-7 is the much higher profit margin. But if you are hinting at HAL dragging it's feet, simply because if worse comes to worst, they will assemble extra PC-7s, I feel it is a legitimate concern. I am hoping against it because HAL would have started serial production of Tejas and IJT by then and because HAL says that it has already started designing the trainer. If HAL cannot build an ab initio trainer with an imported engine, after already having the technology and knowhow needed for building hydraulics, avionics, cockpit display, it should shut shop.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jun 2012 06:04

pragnya wrote:Rahul M, never mind.

what ??

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jun 2012 06:39

Rahul M wrote:
pragnya wrote:Rahul M, never mind.
what ??

Rahul M wrote

Rahul M wrote:thanks a lot pragnya.

to which pragnya replied

pragnya wrote:Rahul M, never mind.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 20 Jun 2012 11:44

indranilroy wrote:If HAL can't get ready to serial produce HTT-40 from 2016-2017 time frame, the 106 HTT-40 orders will be changed to PC-7 further orders.

The incentive for HAL to seril produce HTT-40 instead of continuing the assembly of further PC-7 is the much higher profit margin. But if you are hinting at HAL dragging it's feet, simply because if worse comes to worst, they will assemble extra PC-7s, I feel it is a legitimate concern. I am hoping against it because HAL would have started serial production of Tejas and IJT by then and because HAL says that it has already started designing the trainer. If HAL cannot build an ab initio trainer with an imported engine, after already having the technology and knowhow needed for building hydraulics, avionics, cockpit display, it should shut shop.

the fear i expressed stems from the fact that HAL called for a global partnership and issued an RFI to 6 manufactureres in 2009. take a look to whom they sent the RFI - the same 6 who participated in the ab-initio trainer for the IAF!!!

The public sector aerospace company has sent out a request for information (RFI) to a number of companies that have designed and manufactured basic turbo trainers, including Embraer (for their Tucano), Pilatus (PC-21), Raytheon (T-6 Texan), Finmeccanica (M-311), Grob Aircraft Company (G-120TP) and Korea Aerospace Industries (KT-1).

The RFI is for 200 aircraft, with HAL being the sole worldwide manufacturer. The trainer, which will be named Hindustan Turbo Trainer-40 (HTT-40), will replace the HAL-designed Hindustan Piston Trainer-32 (HPT-32) Deepak, an aircraft which has been used by the IAF and, in smaller numbers, the Navy for their primary pilot training since 1984. But the reliability of the HPT-32 has always been in question.

look at the highlighted part. it is very clear they wanted one from the six to partner it, which is what has happened. now operationally, logistically IAF will naturally demand the skd/ckd route so that no time is lost in yet another effort which will only consume more time and money besides operationally affecting the AF.

also take the numbers - 200, similar to 181 (75+106) that IAF required. it is very likely HAL will buy license from Pilatus and build 106, an easy route.

The IAF is hopeful that HAL will come out with a replacement for the HPT-32 by 2013-14 and has indicated its qualitative requirements: a trainer with good spin characteristics, a reliable turboprop engine, an ejection seat, a glass cockpit, a retractable undercarriage, modern navigational equipment and global positioning system. The IAF would also like an interchanging of the trainer’s cockpit layout with the instructor seated on the left and the trainee pilot on the right.

Justifying the decision to rope in a partner, a senior HAL official explained that it could take four to five years if they were to develop a trainer on their own. “Roping in an established partner who has already designed a trainer of this sort will not only mean compressing timelines, but also offering the IAF a top-of-the-line product incorporating most of what the IAF wants. The RFI is the first cut in the process of finding a partner. We hope to finalise the trainer’s specs and our partner by March 2010.”

He said a collaborative effort would also allow HAL to use the global marketing reach and technical reputation of their partner to sell a HAL-designed product in the world market.

again look at the highlighted part. HAL was hoping to piggyback on the selected manufacturer to complete HTT - 40. ofc here i would sympathise with them. given that IAF was never keen and did not assure of their support for HTT-35/40 - what could they have done??

why IAF was not keen when they knew about Deepak's problems/HAL's inability to rectify it and the fact that they were hoping to induct a large number of SU 30MKI's/MMRCA - is a mystery in itself.

quotes from here.

besides HAL has knotted itself in IJT which also is a key project. IMO it would be better for the HAL to focus their energy and manpower to sort this out than get into another project and in the end affecting both.

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Jun 2012 11:45

Yeah, its way below what they want for the HTT-40. HAL's page states that it produces 715 shp whereas HAL wants nearly 945 shp for the HTT-40.

On the PC-7 MkII, they use a PT-6A-25C turboprop engine that gives a max output of 700 shp. So for imported trainers 700shp engine is ok in PC-7s but when it comes to using own products HAL does not want 715shp but desires a new import which will be indigenised over a peroid of 15 years.

I wonder which airforce in the world wants best turboprop, best IJT, best AJT etc??

If HAL would have had a HTT-40 now, they would have got the orders for the 75 trainers that Pilatus won! Yes, IAF did not show interest to the HTT-35. But how could HAL not foresee that such a trainer would be needed en-mass. There was a sureshot order and big one at that. They should have found funds to keep it afloat and make incremental changes till the order couuld be placed in or around 2008. The ROI is just phenomenal. Any company would do it! Alas, HAL management did not see or simply did not care! I am sorry to be harsh, but this thing burns me from inside.

It is illegal for Govt Company to spent money without sanction. Anyway why would HAL management risk censure for the nation. Better to be TATRA or ARV. Babu happy, political class happy and no work or risk involved except counting the 32 pieces of silver.

indranilroy wrote:If HAL can't get ready to serial produce HTT-40 from 2016-2017 time frame, the 106 HTT-40 orders will be changed to PC-7 further orders.

The incentive for HAL to seril produce HTT-40 instead of continuing the assembly of further PC-7 is the much higher profit margin. But if you are hinting at HAL dragging it's feet, simply because if worse comes to worst, they will assemble extra PC-7s, I feel it is a legitimate concern. I am hoping against it because HAL would have started serial production of Tejas and IJT by then and because HAL says that it has already started designing the trainer. If HAL cannot build an ab initio trainer with an imported engine, after already having the technology and knowhow needed for building hydraulics, avionics, cockpit display, it should shut shop.

Looking at tender specifications of HTT-40 engine, imported components in ALH, TATRA, ARV, T-90s, NV, Themal imagers to name a few items; even HTT-40 will be basically screw driver technology.

HAL had shown interest in indigenous 20kn turbofan engine and turboprop engine both of which has been dropped in favor of imports and screw drive assembly

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jun 2012 12:22

it seems to me at various points of time, those in HAL who wanted to do something new retired, moved to other agencies like drdo / ada / pvt players or simply gave up ....there was a long period when user agencies were only interested in imports, funds for domestic projects were lacking and political cover for such projects was a big zero, plus ofcourse lack of ecosystem suppliers ....

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jun 2012 14:41

Pragnya sirjee.

I understand your fears. and you are not alone even Pushpinder Singh shares your concerns. Initially, all 200 planes were supposed to be HTT-40. But in 2009, HPT-32s were grounded, and only different pictures of HTT-40 were doing the rounds in HAL stalls. So 75 of these 200 were converted to orders for the Pilatus.

Though I don't know what the future holds, but HAL has commenced the design of the HTT-40 from this January. It will build the plane around an engine for which it has issued the following tender.

Based on the timelines in the tender (Page 7), expect the first flight at the end of 2015 - beginning of 2016. They want to deliver 2 planes by January of 2017.