Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8100
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby nachiket » 22 Jul 2013 23:34

tsarkar wrote:Good to learn that situation is different now, however, given the Gorshkov saga, second hand purchases better be avoided. If one is paying for new engines, new avionics and refurbishing airframe, and it'll be as much as producing a whole new plane and as expensive to buy.

Well if we start comparing everything to Gorshkov, we won't be able to do any more deals with the Russians, considering how they screwed us. Best to judge every deal on its own merits.

Not that my opinion matters anyways, but a better idea would be more MKI's or more Tejas Mk1 with flight restrictions. After all, one doesn't need to fly edge of the envelope all the time, and MiG-21/Mirage-3/F-7s are anyways flying with restrictions.

MKI's are expensive to buy and operate. Just check the price of the last deal of 42. They can't really replace all the Mig-21s that we have. The Tejas can, but is unavailable as yet and HAL will take time to start and ramp up production to even half a squadron a year. The biggest advantage of second hand aircraft is that they are cheap and available immediately, although the refurbishment will require time. On the upside the Mig-29 upgrade is inexpensive and M2K-5s on the market if any, do not require an upgrade.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Singha » 23 Jul 2013 07:31

are the french themselves looking to retire any Mirage2000C/5/D to save on opex? that would be the best option for getting more. no need for upg, just a general cleanup will do.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Kartik » 23 Jul 2013 08:51

tsarkar wrote:Good to learn that situation is different now, however, given the Gorshkov saga, second hand purchases better be avoided. If one is paying for new engines, new avionics and refurbishing airframe, and it'll be as much as producing a whole new plane and as expensive to buy.

Not that my opinion matters anyways, but a better idea would be more MKI's or more Tejas Mk1 with flight restrictions. After all, one doesn't need to fly edge of the envelope all the time, and MiG-21/Mirage-3/F-7s are anyways flying with restrictions.


Those Hungarian MiG-29s were being sold dirt cheap. Something in the range of $5-7 million apiece IIRC. Add the cost of the UPG upgrade at $15 million apiece, and you have MiG-29UPGs with close to their entire service lives available for ~$20-22 million apiece (since most airframes have very few hours on them). Compared to that, a new MiG-29M2 will be in the $45-50 million range. Quite cost effective IMO and good as a stopgap solution.

Many nations that don't have the funding for new fighters take this kind of approach especially if they have already invested in the basic type's ground maintenance infrastructure, crew training and the like. Chile is a classic example, having sourced ex-RNLAF MLU F-16s at very cheap prices and put them through an overhaul before inducting them. Beefs up their strength immediately at a fraction of the price of new build F-16 Blk 52s they have. as Karan M put it, the IAF instead appears to be willing to wait it out for the one big-ticket MRCA.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby SaiK » 23 Jul 2013 09:45

Austin wrote:Good to have fleet wide deployment of such standoff weapons in IAF

Spice 250 http://youtu.be/rH22mrqXhr0

very interesting and powerful configuration on the solah.. however, what is the destruction capability (explosive power) of its war heads?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Kartik » 25 Jul 2013 15:41

Apparently, the IA is looking for its own Apaches and the MoD may order more Apaches for the soon-to-be-raised Mountain Strike Corps.

India considers buying more Boeing Apaches- source

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby srai » 26 Jul 2013 05:59

SaiK wrote:
Austin wrote:Good to have fleet wide deployment of such standoff weapons in IAF

Spice 250 http://youtu.be/rH22mrqXhr0

very interesting and powerful configuration on the solah.. however, what is the destruction capability (explosive power) of its war heads?


It's a lightweight pgm weighing only 250lbs(113kgs; warhead weight is 200lbs) but with a range of 100km. Apparently, a F-15 can carry a maximum of 28 of these in quad-racks, while an F-16 can carry 16. Precision is 3m (10ft) or less. Great for swarm attacks on long-ranged air-defenses - radars and vehicles carrying missiles, command, etc.


http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... spice-rack
...
While the Spice 1000 and 2000 employed standard Mk 80-series warheads, the Spice 250 has an all-new 200-pound warhead, which has been designed and tuned to give high lethality in a localized area. There are two warhead options available: a multi-purpose warhead and another with penetration capabilities.
...


vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2330
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby vivek_ahuja » 27 Jul 2013 23:14

Kartik wrote:Those Hungarian MiG-29s were being sold dirt cheap. Something in the range of $5-7 million apiece IIRC. Add the cost of the UPG upgrade at $15 million apiece, and you have MiG-29UPGs with close to their entire service lives available for ~$20-22 million apiece (since most airframes have very few hours on them). Compared to that, a new MiG-29M2 will be in the $45-50 million range. Quite cost effective IMO and good as a stopgap solution.

Many nations that don't have the funding for new fighters take this kind of approach especially if they have already invested in the basic type's ground maintenance infrastructure, crew training and the like. Chile is a classic example, having sourced ex-RNLAF MLU F-16s at very cheap prices and put them through an overhaul before inducting them. Beefs up their strength immediately at a fraction of the price of new build F-16 Blk 52s they have. as Karan M put it, the IAF instead appears to be willing to wait it out for the one big-ticket MRCA.


+1

But IMO these deals, while effective as far as National Security is concerned, never get the kind of baksheeh for the people padding their wallets with defense deals. Hence they are never on the cards.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby tushar_m » 28 Jul 2013 10:55

Hungarian mig 29 looks different from Indian mig's (Maybe the nose section)

Image

Image

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby abhik » 28 Jul 2013 12:26

^^^
No point in buying them if they end up being hanger queens. What availability rates we get from the 2nd hand MIGs has to be considered in the equation.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Singha » 28 Jul 2013 13:09

atleast with new mig29k spares situation would be better....all bets are off wrt to other mark of mig29 not in common with our mig29k and our upg-Mig29 models.

rajatmisra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 05 Feb 2010 10:16

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby rajatmisra » 28 Jul 2013 15:37

As per publicly available news, The UK was selling its fleet of Jaguars and oman bought a few. Wondering if IAF could have also bought some.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby vic » 28 Jul 2013 17:05

The cost of old Mirage + upgrade would be around USD 55-60 million dollars and expected date of entry in service would be 3 years hence. So how is it better than 2 brand new LCA mark-1 in same cost.

similarly Mig-29 would cost USD 40 million and LCA Mark-1 is a better bet.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Kartik » 28 Jul 2013 19:38

abhik wrote:^^^
No point in buying them if they end up being hanger queens. What availability rates we get from the 2nd hand MIGs has to be considered in the equation.


At least read what is written on this topic before giving your opinion. No one is suggesting that the Hungarian MiGs just be bought and put into service.

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Gurneesh » 28 Jul 2013 19:58

tushar_m wrote:Hungarian mig 29 looks different from Indian mig's (Maybe the nose section)

Image

Image


Single seat IAF Mig vs 2 seat Hungarian Mig.....


vic wrote:The cost of old Mirage + upgrade would be around USD 55-60 million dollars and expected date of entry in service would be 3 years hence. So how is it better than 2 brand new LCA mark-1 in same cost.

similarly Mig-29 would cost USD 40 million and LCA Mark-1 is a better bet.


If LCA was operational in IAF, then yes inducting more LCA would be a better option. A new LCA squadron inducted today will take ~2 years to become operational. And we have to make up for 100 odd Mig21s.

The advantage of getting second hand Mig29s and M2000s is that we can subject these second hand planes to the required IAF upgrade before the IAF planes get upgraded. This way the force levels can be maintained while even retiring some Mig21s.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby abhik » 28 Jul 2013 19:59

Kartik wrote:
abhik wrote:^^^
No point in buying them if they end up being hanger queens. What availability rates we get from the 2nd hand MIGs has to be considered in the equation.


At least read what is written on this topic before giving your opinion. No one is suggesting that the Hungarian MiGs just be bought and put into service.

Just because they are may be upgraded doesn't mean it will be completely immune to spare-part problems etc.

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Gurneesh » 28 Jul 2013 20:25

^^^ So by that logic we should just retire all the M2000s and Mig29s as the spare situation will be same for any Mig29 and M2000. But then where will we get 110 frontline fighters ?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Kartik » 29 Jul 2013 09:28

abhik wrote:Just because they are may be upgraded doesn't mean it will be completely immune to spare-part problems etc.


then what on earth is the IAF spending $960 million for, to upgrade 62 MiG-29s to MiG-29UPG standards? In case you aren't aware, MiG set up a maintenance depot for the upgraded MiG-29s to have spares available in a short period. And thats the reason HAL is licence assembling RD-33 Ser.3 engines, so they can be supported over their lifetime.

The MiG-29UPGs also move from scheduled maintenace to 'on-condition' maintenance, which in general saves money since a deep overhaul is already a part of the UPG upgrade program.

arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 137
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby arijitkm » 30 Jul 2013 10:03

Air Force diluted at least twelve benchmarks for trainer aircraft, allowing Pilatus into the contract Ajai Shukla

.......
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. But they allowed the PC-7 Mark II, fielded by Swiss company Pilatus, to qualify and win an IAF order worth US $640 million (Rs 3,780 crore) for 75 BTA.

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

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

But these began getting diluted in Sept 2009, when the MoD permitted the IAF to import 75 BTA through a global tender. Within days, the IAF issued relaxed criteria, termed “Air Staff Qualitative Requirements”, or ASQR, in a document numbered ASQR 18/09. While the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II would not have met the earlier PSQR that were formulated for HAL, the new ASQR seems almost to be tailored for Pilatus.

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

The PSQR of Mar 2009 required the BTA to have a pressurized cockpit, letting the trainee fly at altitudes above 15-20,000 feet. But the ASQR of Oct 2009 dispensed with this requirement. The PC-7 Mark II has an unpressurized 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 Mar 2009 mandated a field of view of “minus 8 degree vision” for the rear cockpit. But the ASQR of Oct 2009 dispensed with that, specifying only that, “the rear cockpit should be sufficiently raised to allow safe flight instruction.” The PC-7 Mark II, which does not meet the 8-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 Mar 2008 PSQR, meant that the trainer could glide, in the event of an engine failure or shutdown, a distance of 12 kilometres for every one kilometre of altitude that it lost. That would enable a BTA that was flying at an altitude of 5 kilometres to glide for 60 kilometres, landing safely at any airport within that distance. But the Oct 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 Oct 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 Mar 2009 required “in-flight simulation” facilities; and the HTT-40 currently being developed by HAL also has these. But 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 1000 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 NAK Browne, the IAF chief, to Defence Minister AK 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).
.........
.........

Contacted for comments, NV Tyagi told Business Standard that the PSQR of Mar 2009 set unrealistically high standards for HAL to meet, but those were lowered in the Oct 2009 ASQR because the IAF was going in 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."

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Kartik » 30 Jul 2013 11:01

Very very saddening to read. Confirms all the talk about the IAF literally "fixing" contracts. Just replace the HTT-40 with the LCA and you'll see perhaps why the LCA is taking so long for certification. The IAF must be very very stringent with domestic products and wrt imports, a waive of the hand and the requirements are diluted or made to disappear itself.

if this is true, the IAF has sunk to new lows IMO, to keep domestic products out and keep the import lobby happy.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Surya » 30 Jul 2013 21:46

wow

the battle is out in the open -

now lets see the press corp do their work by grilling Browne on this in a public press conf

not a cosy one on one , chai samosa meet

hope it does not go the agusta route :(

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby vic » 30 Jul 2013 23:15

Such an aggressive letter in favor of imports against indigenous products could only have been written by the IAF Chief after a getting a nod & wink from somebody higher up than the Defense Minister.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Indranil » 30 Jul 2013 23:28

It is a very simple case in my eyes. And I agree with agupta sahab here.

IAF has no faith in HAL to deliver. They hiked the requirements so that HAL cannot say, I can give you the plane from tomorrow. Once HAL was maneuvered, they got the international competition. Personally, I wouldn't have been very sad with this. I can understand their frustration. The requirement of BTT was really great which could not have be jeopardized based on nationalistic pride and a guarantee by HAL which has a 60 year record of not delivering on time. I am sad how the requirements were fit to PC-7 MKII capabilities. Definitely, money traded hands.

HAL knew all this, but was quiet till now. But when the ACM wrote to MoD against HTT-40 (second part of the plan to bypass HAL completely), HAL has provided all these details to reporters to stop PC-7s further import beyond what has already been done.

Also I don't mind the linen being washed in the public (since AI'13). I hope it leads to HTT-40 being produced in large numbers.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby rohitvats » 30 Jul 2013 23:54

Kartik wrote:Very very saddening to read. Confirms all the talk about the IAF literally "fixing" contracts. Just replace the HTT-40 with the LCA and you'll see perhaps why the LCA is taking so long for certification. The IAF must be very very stringent with domestic products and wrt imports, a waive of the hand and the requirements are diluted or made to disappear itself.

if this is true, the IAF has sunk to new lows IMO, to keep domestic products out and keep the import lobby happy.


That is stretching the imagination a bit too far.

Is there any aspect of LCA IOC/FOC parameters which IAF has set which are out of line with any such benchmark?

As for PSQR - If the HAL has been developing the HTT-40 on its own, how did the PSQR apply to it? And as of 2009, what was the development time frame for HTT-40?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby rohitvats » 30 Jul 2013 23:57

Surya wrote:wow

the battle is out in the open -

now lets see the press corp do their work by grilling Browne on this in a public press conf

not a cosy one on one , chai samosa meet

hope it does not go the agusta route :(


Why only grill Browne?

Why not HAL? What were they doing till 2009 when no global tenders were allowed? Somehow, the HAL seems to have got the wind under its wings only after the selection of PC-7.

As for the dilution of ASQR - it would have been a single vendor situation with only Super Tucano in fray meeting all the requirements. And we would have been stuck without no trainer.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Surya » 31 Jul 2013 00:03

fair enough

the criteria for grilling HAL will be different - but beyond a certain point - grilling HAL will not get much- its MOD which rules the roost

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby rohitvats » 31 Jul 2013 00:17

Surya wrote:fair enough

the criteria for grilling HAL will be different - but beyond a certain point - grilling HAL will not get much- its MOD which rules the roost


As far as I'm concerned, saying that the ASQR favored Pilatus is a using an argument in retrospect.

Using the same criterion, X number of vendors qualified for the tender and it finally came down to the L1 scenario. As I see it, not diluting the ASOR would have meant only the Super Tucano would have met the requirement. And BRF people would have cried 'Brochuritis'.

If half the world flies with aircraft as same specs as PC-7, I don't know why that should be problem for IAF. At to say that HAL HTT-40 was held up because of PSQR is BS - I don't think the order or ASQR ever went to HAL for new aircraft. ASQR was for new aircraft to be imported.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 31 Jul 2013 00:20

Focus on dilution of the requirements.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby vishvak » 31 Jul 2013 00:26

If HAL is on the way of development of trainer which is better than current trainer what's the point of discouraging it. About crash, why can't there be giant parachutes tied on windows and operate it manually when needed as a test case.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Surya » 31 Jul 2013 01:27

rohit

but then what made it come up with the requirements in the first place?? brochures?? or somethng else

case in point -z zero ejection

the HPT 32 also had issues with ejection (my chaiwallah) - so it makes sense to me that IAF actually asked for it??

so then the rollback ??

I will check with some other folks


PS: I am not so concerned with HTT at this point
At this point LCA is my major concern - but the case of Brown is getting a tad interesting

member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_27444 » 31 Jul 2013 01:57

If the requirements were diluted it would be that much easier for HAL to make the aircraft.
If the requirements were to beefed up then its a diferent issue.

Even assuming that HAL went ahead and incorporated higher requirements and if the selection was fair and specification based then HAL a/c should have won hands down. ofcourse would have cost more.

If IAF is price sentive and conserving funds (IAF) budget then its different case

Worst comes to worst HAL could have left the plumbing (like Refueling spigots on some a/c) plugged and compete

just my ignorance

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby ramana » 31 Jul 2013 02:39

What is more sad is the HAL wants to build the BTA that the IAF doesn't want as it already made the purchases, but doesn't want to participate in the FGFA fighter aircraft that the IAF wants very badly.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 31 Jul 2013 02:47

Politics for you.

These are not technical issues. They all are pure politics.

(But, I had not heard of the HAL not wanting to participate in the FGFA effort.)

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby srai » 31 Jul 2013 02:47

FGFA has become more and more just a "licensed" production deal similar to the Su-30MKI deal.
Last edited by srai on 31 Jul 2013 03:03, edited 1 time in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby srai » 31 Jul 2013 02:49

Now it becomes clear: the reason why HAL HTT-40 may cost more than PC-7II is because it has higher performance specs. It's more like PC-21.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Philip » 31 Jul 2013 06:45

Bitter Battle:

TOI (31/7/13) reports on the spat between the IAF and HAL<where the IAF questions HAL's priorities,wanting to build a basic trainer while it is planning to "surrender 30% of its workshare" on the FGFA JV with Russia,remaining "hellbent on a project that the IAF doesn't need".

"HAL is shirking away from a strategic project like the FGFA but wants to manufacture a BTA when when the IAF is already inducting Swiss Pilatus PC-7 trainers.The IAF simply cannot have two BTA to train rookie pilots,with duplication in spares,maintenance,infrastructure,etc."

HAL has a dismal record of huge time and cost overruns in projects ranging from the 14 yr. delay in the Sitara IJT,to the LCH and LUH. "Yes,indigenisation is critical,but operational requirements cannot also be compromised".The IAF wants HAL to scrap the HTT which is on the drawing board,will take several years to materialise and prove to be much costlier than the Pilatus trainers being inducted.

The IA has sought induction of 37 more trainers immediately,plus an additional 68 at a later date to add to the 75 already ordered.Citing all these points,ACM Browne has written to AKA for "foreclosure" on the HAL project say sources.The IAF on Tuesday said that the HTT trainer would be 62% more expensive from 2017 onwards when it will be ready."Conversely,the first 75 Pilatus will
be delivered by 2015 and if the option exercised,the remaining 37 by 2017."

Sadly the MOD is showing no signs of resolving the dispute taking place right under its nose.AKA dithering again at huge cost to the nation!

This is ridiculous.Some time ago,when the FGFA project was signed on,HAL due to a shortage in its tech staff,actually tasked its IJT team to also handle the FGFA project! It indicates the bankruptcy of vision in the corridors of HAL.The tall claims of wanting to develop an AMCA-thankfully shelved for now,while it wants to "surrender" 30% of its 50% workshare on the FGFA,the most ambitious of aviation projects on right now,and build instead a trainer which exists only on paper,whose performance given its disaster of the earlier "crash-duster" is questionable (when compared with the Pilatus acknowledged the world over be the best basic trainer) and will take a few years to arrive is criminal.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby NRao » 31 Jul 2013 07:26

Do we know why HAL prefers not to participate in the FGFA project (to the extent one would like them to)? I have always thought that the FGFA project brought (only?) testing experience to the table. And, the fact that the AMCA is mature enough could be a good enough reason to not invest as much in the FGFA. In fact in any foreign based efforts. And, who knows, India may just get a push from the US when it comes to engines - never know.

I think it very premature to consider HAL's non-participation in the FGFA as a negative.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby member_22539 » 31 Jul 2013 09:31

Then I suppose we must get rid of all PPT presentations and TDs. We should just buy whatever some foreigner says we can buy at the price he decides. After all most world powers do the same right? Also, we must dilute our requirements to fit the foreign products, after all we are good hosts and we should treat our guests well. Then when they please, they can cut off spares and weapons, bringing us to our knees. Hey, we have been slaves for so long, why change it now?

If the IAF had shown half as much interest in reforming HAL as it did with regard to getting foreign stuff, things would have been much more better off now. Ya, I know HAL is controlled by MOD, but so is all defense acquisition, all the same IAF has no trouble convincing MOD to buy foreign goodies.

chiragAS
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 10:09
Location: INDIA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby chiragAS » 31 Jul 2013 17:10

I don't understand this partiallity by HAL. HAL is worried about its yet to be born baby (Basic trainer), while ignoring its current baby IJT.
If Engines were the ONLY issue, then they could have dumped AL series and could have collabrated with a westen engine maker.
What is HAL doing about it? IAF will require more than 150 IJT.
If HAL keeps delaying it; what choice will IAF have? Either IAF allows for Pilot deaths or buy Imported aircrafts.

If HAL folks were smart enough they would have thought about basic trainer more than 15 years ago. they knew the shortcomings of IAF's existing basic trainer and could have put forward a proposal to MOD then itself.
by now atleast they would had a few prototypes flying to convince IAF.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Postby Surya » 31 Jul 2013 18:06

philip any reason you did not post this from the TOI article

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 492297.cms


The crucial FGFA project, which will see India spending $35 billion over the next two decades to acquire over 200 of the stealth "swing-role'' fighters, has run into turbulence with Russia jacking up costs, as was first reported by TOI earlier this month
.

I know that Putin holds daily project meetings to keep an eye on this so its not possible but still would be interesting to know if this is correct


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests