Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20709
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 10 Mar 2014 04:19

The SU-30 /Flanker stands on its own merit.It is a larger aircraft with a larger all round capability,acknowledged worldwide to be the best apart from the F-22.I don't believe that the IAF chose it merely out of pique at MIG!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Karan M » 10 Mar 2014 04:36

Not merely because out of pique, but to deny that MiGs atrocious behavior played a role, would be to deny the sky is blue. In the mid 80's-early 90's, the production quality of some of the MiGs we received was atrocious. They literally had to be fixed airframe to airframe. Engines had pathetic MTBOs. MiG-21s, 23s and 27's required multiple design fixes, most of which were done locally at HAL by Indians, with Russians hemming and hawing at even admitting they were issues. When attrition rose and IAF started taking up the issue sternly with Russia, MiG went to the extent of calling a press conference and blaming the IAF entirely for the attrition. One of the BRD persons who was maintaining MiGs and led a yeoman effort to indigenize many MiG spares in India with better engineered items, said the MiG effort was a case of classic arrogance and BS.

Such arrogance on MiGs part obviously did not go unnoticed and the feedback obviously went all the way upto AHQ. The Bison may be a big success in public, but even there MiGs attitude was noted. First, many items did not meet agreed upon MTBO specifications. They had to be reworked. Second, the original deal had TOT built into it. Sokol protested and MiG walked out of teh TOT part. IAF, in necessity, agreed to mere assembly of kits in India at HAL.

The perception created by all these hadn't died out in recent years either.
A CAS when the MMRCA contest was launched much later, when told the MiG-35 would be competing, publicly said let them fix their smoky, old generation engines first. The MiG-35 has newer engines but the RD-33 experience was clearly still in the memory.

Net, Sukhoi benefited from all these aspects. Even that has had teething issues as is the norm with such complex programs, but the sheer arrogance shown by MiG folks in putting all the blame on India has been absent. Ask others, and MiGs abysmal product support for many other customers is also an issue. The MiG-29 Upg contract hence has many more strict conditions.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20709
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 10 Mar 2014 12:57

There was also some od reports about competition within Russia for funding,as it could no longer afford to have to separate design bureaus.Eventually all aircraft bureaus were merged into the UAC,with the Sukhoi bosses coming out on top.The I.42 was cancelled in favour of the T-50.It is only in recent times with the 29UGs/Ks that MIG has bounced back.


Arunkumar
BRFite
Posts: 643
Joined: 05 Apr 2008 17:29

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Arunkumar » 11 Mar 2014 19:11

A saras with IAF paint scheme of grey was preparing for takeoff?? today afternoon. Program seems to be back on track .

anand_sankar
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby anand_sankar » 12 Mar 2014 11:10

ACM Raha... RWR screeching, MISSILE LAUNCH... Feminist BVRAAMs are diving for the kill...

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/women-physically-not-suited-for-flying-fighter-planes-says-air-chief-marshal-arup-raha/457286-3-242.html

"As far as flying fighter planes are concerned, it is a very challenging job. Women are by nature not physically suited for flying fighter planes for long hours, especially when they are pregnant or have other health problems," he said.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1651
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Sid » 12 Mar 2014 11:17

^^^
That's a very insensitive and uneducated remark. Didn't expected this from ACM.

Doesn't women IAF pilots do long hauls in transport planes or heli operations? And why a pregnant lady be involved in flight operations in the first place? What the hell he was talking about.

Vasu
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Vasu » 13 Mar 2014 09:34

A female colleague who just retired (SSC) from the Air Force after 11 years said that the recent legal wrangles for more opportunities for women in the AF has left a bad taste in many people's mouths.

As a woman, she felt that the attitude of some had hardened even more towards female staffers.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Karan M » 13 Mar 2014 11:42

Sid wrote:^^^
That's a very insensitive and uneducated remark. Didn't expected this from ACM.

Doesn't women IAF pilots do long hauls in transport planes or heli operations? And why a pregnant lady be involved in flight operations in the first place? What the hell he was talking about.


Yeah sure, high G operations in fighter aircraft are the same as in transports and helis. And yeah, of course the ACM is too brainless to understand that war can break out anytime, and pilots on maternity leave cannot be part of those.

Tell you what, since you are such an expert, go on & ask the ACM for his job and tell him all about sensitivity and education. :roll:

PS: Before you bring in the US etc, their recruitment pool & resources are different. So please, not that tilt @ the windmill either.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1651
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Sid » 13 Mar 2014 12:20

Karan M wrote:
Sid wrote:^^^
That's a very insensitive and uneducated remark. Didn't expected this from ACM.

Doesn't women IAF pilots do long hauls in transport planes or heli operations? And why a pregnant lady be involved in flight operations in the first place? What the hell he was talking about.


Yeah sure, high G operations in fighter aircraft are the same as in transports and helis. And yeah, of course the ACM is too brainless to understand that war can break out anytime, and pilots on maternity leave cannot be part of those.

Tell you what, since you are such an expert, go on & ask the ACM for his job and tell him all about sensitivity and education. :roll:

PS: Before you bring in the US etc, their recruitment pool & resources are different. So please, not that tilt @ the windmill either.


High Gs in other countries have different effect on their women then women in India? And they don't get pregnant there? And in India if women pilots conceive, who fly transport plane or chopper in their absence? Why allow them to fly at all if that is the case?

What Madrasa logic is this?

And since you are such an expert on recruitment pool in US and India, why don't you educate us on the difference. Looks like our pool is super specialized then all the countries listed below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_pi ... ter_Pilots

Seriously what are you trying to pull here by defending a stupid statement by ACM?

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby member_20453 » 13 Mar 2014 13:51

^^^^

Really??? comparing fighter to transport and helo G forces??? Thats silly to say the least. Fighter pilots have to endure anywhere between 9-10G, piltos of the F-22 and if Rafale is being will have to learn to cope with upto 11-12G since these fighters are capable of that. Trasnport and Helo pilots will never exeperience that unless their aircraft is going to crash. EF can pull 9G for a sustained period of time and fighter pilots need extensive G training.

Indeed there is a couple of F-22 women pilots and plenty of airforces have women F-16 and other pilots, however all those airforces have problems because when a woman does get pregnant, it takes plenty of retraining to get them flight worthy again. Which means added costs and knowing that our forces have to make the best use of their limited budgets they would rather save those costs.

Also fighter pilots have an offensive role and the enemy can capture them and Puki neighbors are not really the gold standard when it comes to handling of prisnors of war, a woman would be brutally raped, tortured. The same reason why women are not allowed in SF or infantry. As it is in our own country, women are brutally raped and killed, the enemy's treatment will be nothing short of horrific. Our women deserve better than that.

There are plenty of roles a woman can play in the battlefield, they can operate air defence SAMs, radars, they are ideal for clear and crisp comms at all levels. Ideal for recon, operating of combat/recon UAVS, transport helos, AWACS aircraft.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1651
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Sid » 13 Mar 2014 14:15

^^^
Lets talk objectively here, just answer these question and if you guys have plausible theories i will back down from this discussion.

1. Can women work in High G, like 9 or 10 you just mentioned on latest fighter planes?
2. Can a transport plane or halo be shot down by enemy, if yes then what will happen to our women?
3. How many times a working women is expected to conceive a baby, in her lifetime?
4. Why other countries, even like Pakistan, allows it but IAF does not?

Personally attacking me wont go down very well, nor will yield a positive outcome for this discussion.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8214
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Pratyush » 13 Mar 2014 15:39

The ACM has to look at the big picture. when looking at the suitability of a woman as a fighter pilot. perhaps we can look at forming an experimental unit with female ssc pilots. Mixing male and female and do a long term study. may be 5 years or more. Regardi g the suitability of women in combat jets.

Once the results of the study are known and discussed. onlt then the desision regarding the suitability of woman as combat pilots be made.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Karan M » 13 Mar 2014 19:12

Sid wrote:High Gs in other countries have different effect on their women then women in India? And they don't get pregnant there? And in India if women pilots conceive, who fly transport plane or chopper in their absence? Why allow them to fly at all if that is the case?

What Madrasa logic is this?

And since you are such an expert on recruitment pool in US and India, why don't you educate us on the difference. Looks like our pool is super specialized then all the countries listed below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_pi ... ter_Pilots

Seriously what are you trying to pull here by defending a stupid statement by ACM?


Dude, first check yourself out of your madrasa and then come and pontificate on BRF. If it comes to the ACM and your asinine behaviour, it becomes easy to determine who was being stupid (i.e. you) and who was not (the ACM).

The US spends far more than India on its military. It can field far more pilots and even spare many more if a bunch call in sick than India does. It even has the ANG to call upon which in turn feeds off the massive US civilian pilot pool.

Other nations have a far smaller recruitment pool than Indias, they have operational constraints and relax the criteria as well.

In high G, bleeding is a no no. Think about what that means. How many days off that pilot will have to do, especially when a pilot in the IAF typically pulls at least 180 hours per year to remain current and most IAF aircraft dont have simulators. They have to fly every week. Senior pilots pull far more than that. 180 hours translates to 360 sorties per year at the typical half hour sortie level for most of our MiGs, as versus the longer ranged Su's.

Transport pilots dont face those issues of being in situations where vascular issues can cause significant problems, which is why the IAF is ok with those.

In combat, IAF pilots had to be pulled off from ops because minor vascular problems escalated into big ones in the high stress combat situation. Blood loss is not a small matter.

It would be ok to spoonfeed even arrogant folks like you. But you begin with a claim attacking the ACM for being stupid with arrogant presumptions.

Next, you'll be telling us that because many other countries have conscription, India should do so too. Context matters, as does common sense.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1651
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Sid » 13 Mar 2014 20:31

Karan M wrote:
Sid wrote:High Gs in other countries have different effect on their women then women in India? And they don't get pregnant there? And in India if women pilots conceive, who fly transport plane or chopper in their absence? Why allow them to fly at all if that is the case?

What Madrasa logic is this?

And since you are such an expert on recruitment pool in US and India, why don't you educate us on the difference. Looks like our pool is super specialized then all the countries listed below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_pi ... ter_Pilots

Seriously what are you trying to pull here by defending a stupid statement by ACM?


Dude, first check yourself out of your madrasa and then come and pontificate on BRF. If it comes to the ACM and your asinine behaviour, it becomes easy to determine who was being stupid (i.e. you) and who was not (the ACM).

The US spends far more than India on its military. It can field far more pilots and even spare many more if a bunch call in sick than India does. It even has the ANG to call upon which in turn feeds off the massive US civilian pilot pool.

Other nations have a far smaller recruitment pool than Indias, they have operational constraints and relax the criteria as well.

In high G, bleeding is a no no. Think about what that means. How many days off that pilot will have to do, especially when a pilot in the IAF typically pulls at least 180 hours per year to remain current and most IAF aircraft dont have simulators. They have to fly every week. Senior pilots pull far more than that. 180 hours translates to 360 sorties per year at the typical half hour sortie level for most of our MiGs, as versus the longer ranged Su's.

Transport pilots dont face those issues of being in situations where vascular issues can cause significant problems, which is why the IAF is ok with those.

In combat, IAF pilots had to be pulled off from ops because minor vascular problems escalated into big ones in the high stress combat situation. Blood loss is not a small matter.

It would be ok to spoonfeed even arrogant folks like you. But you begin with a claim attacking the ACM for being stupid with arrogant presumptions.

Next, you'll be telling us that because many other countries have conscription, India should do so too. Context matters, as does common sense.


So because I said chief is wrong on his presumptions my statements are asinine and my behavior is arrogant? What that makes you then?

His remarks are offending, plain and simple. You can't prove that wrong by jumping on me and personally attacking me.

If IAF does not have the resources or money to have women fighter pilots then say so. Don't say that because they bleed or get pregnant every fall they can't fly a fighter.

saps
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 18:16
Location: Poor mans Ooty...

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby saps » 13 Mar 2014 22:04

So because I said chief is wrong on his presumptions my statements are asinine and my behavior is arrogant? What that makes you then?

His remarks are offending, plain and simple. You can't prove that wrong by jumping on me and personally attacking me.

If IAF does not have the resources or money to have women fighter pilots then say so. Don't say that because they bleed or get pregnant every fall they can't fly a fighter.


From the little knowledge i have post few interactions:

Women are better suited inherently for G forces. Due to design benefit.

However;

Do you want them in front line squadrons If YES

Whats the employ-ability Or its just for Photo Op scenario like for some of our friendly neighbours ?

How many do they have, do they have regular current flying practice ?

How important continuity would be due to unavoidable breaks !!

How long would the fitness come back post such breaks !! Or would it be reasonable to assume that during their active flying duty, they would sacrifice certain maternal privileges voluntarily !!

Most importantly is our society ready to accept; proud, clear headed, aggressive and assertive women who are ALSO Fighter Pilots !!

Guess; by the time we have answers to these questions; adequate maturity would have been cultivated in our society !! Alongwith most important aspect of INFRASTRUCTURE !!

I am sure we would get there; SLOWLY.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54388
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby ramana » 13 Mar 2014 22:40

Its good way to limit the resource pool which is small as it is. Fits in with AKA's master plan to cut resources with out appearing to do so.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Karan M » 15 Mar 2014 09:17

Sid wrote:So because I said chief is wrong on his presumptions my statements are asinine and my behavior is arrogant? What that makes you then?

His remarks are offending, plain and simple. You can't prove that wrong by jumping on me and personally attacking me.


Are you even aware of a concept called logic? The IAF Chief based on a variety of factors that he took into account, said what he did. So you called him stupid and insensitive. My response, was by your standards, from the "madrasa".

So you resorted to abuse from the outset, without even considering the issue, and when you are shown the error of your statements, you complain. To demand civility and respect, do show it to begin with.

And because he spoke the facts, you are "offended". The IAF does not revolve around our "feelings", or what our emotions think are right or wrong. They deal with practical issues.

If IAF does not have the resources or money to have women fighter pilots then say so. Don't say that because they bleed or get pregnant every fall they can't fly a fighter.


Earth to saturn, every AF has a finite set of resources to optimally deploy to get a pool of highly trained operational pilots who have to be available at the GOI/IAF's mercy!!

Women bleeding and becoming pregnant, taking them off the flightline for extended durations, makes them unsuitable for the IAF's operational requirements.

If you can't handle context, you shouldn't be debating anything in the first place. If merely being able to fly fighters is a criteria, then even a journalist can fly a fighter, a 70+ president can fly in a fighter (two have BTW). That does not mean they can be fighter pilots!!!

A fighter pilot, has to be in optimal health, be available throughout the year (as and when the IAF wants him) and has to be trained to extremely demanding standards and serve for a long time (to recoup the huge investments the IAF makes in them).

If women pilots are not available at multiple points of the year thanks to personal health issues, have challenges with work-life balance (which have been noted time & again in the IA for instance), how is it logical for the IAF to commit scarce resources to make a special attempt to get suboptimal results?

Guess what, men don't have it any easier in the IAF either. Flt Lt Nachiketa, thanks to the injuries he suffered in Pak, and after ejection, now flies transports.

BTW, this also brings up yet another issue in our regional context, that of prisoner abuse. But lets leave that out for now.

You are ignoring the facts dear sir, just to assuage your own feelings. Calling the IAF head or me epithets won't change the facts.


kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby kit » 19 Mar 2014 18:05

Just a question to gurus here. A report on the missing Flight says that Boeing was reportedly able to ascertain the aircraft flight based on communication of its engines via satellites ..something they say was a health monitoring mechanism ..Now does all aircraft have this kind of embedded chips ? If so wont all military deployment be quite visible for a foreign power ?

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Lalmohan » 19 Mar 2014 18:44

kit - they are talking about ACARS - nothing confidential about it. it is a civiliian system used by airlines

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby kit » 19 Mar 2014 18:56

ah.. thank you :) !

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20709
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 21 Mar 2014 01:21

Media reports today say that the MOD has approved the IAF acquiring extra 100+ Pilatus trainers,while also allowing HAL to continue development of its own BT.The Extra Pilatus PC-7s may be built at the IAF's own facilities. This is a good decision,taken perhaps a bit late.nevertheless,"better late than never". It also puts HAL on the mat as it has to now deliver on its promises to develop and manufacture a cheaper better trainer than the PC-7.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2607
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Cybaru » 21 Mar 2014 08:55

Why does IAF need 200 trainers ?????

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby rohitvats » 21 Mar 2014 09:24

^^^That decision for additional PC-7 and also allowing HAL to go ahead with BTT-40 is typical of non-confrontational attitude of AK where he has repeatedly shied away from taking tough decisions. With IAF filled to brim with basic trainer once the additional PC-7 come online, who will buy the BTT-40? Is that another exercise in indulging in a science project at the expense of tax-payer's money? AK/MOD should have taken a decision either ways ans stuck with it.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20709
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 21 Mar 2014 09:28

HAL claim that they can successfully export their bird! What does Scamthony care about? he is retiring from the fray in a matter of days."Apres mois le deluge" is what he thinks,but what the Indian people think is something different....."apres mois le delight!"

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby shiv » 21 Mar 2014 09:41

I think it would be interesting if the IAF took up manufacture of the Pilatus at one of its BRDs (it could do that) or if the tooling etc were given to a private operator.

I had originally opposed this but now I think that it will only help to expand the aerospace skills signature in India

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Singha » 21 Mar 2014 10:02

that Mi17 with the big fuel tanks and rocket pods looks very tfta like a indicised HH60 socom pave hawk :)

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2607
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Cybaru » 21 Mar 2014 19:43

Thanks rohitvats, but seriously. what are we going to do we 200 trainers ? How many students per batch do we get ? Are we going some trainers out with each squadron so they can get their hours? What is the intended purpose ?

Signha, that Mi17 V is the best purchase we may have ever made. The older ones should be upgraded and another 139 added.

anand_sankar
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby anand_sankar » 21 Mar 2014 20:55

Why almost 200 trainers?

1. We need to train a lot more pilots. Intake can be increased.

2. Trainers get used heavily. More aircraft means flying hours per aircraft gets distributed, thus fleet will last a while. And more numbers cater to maintenance schedules. Batches of trainees need to be trained in a fixed time, they can't wait for aircraft.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2607
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Cybaru » 21 Mar 2014 22:00

anand_sankar wrote:Why almost 200 trainers?

1. We need to train a lot more pilots. Intake can be increased.

2. Trainers get used heavily. More aircraft means flying hours per aircraft gets distributed, thus fleet will last a while. And more numbers cater to maintenance schedules. Batches of trainees need to be trained in a fixed time, they can't wait for aircraft.


Don't trainers have higher airframe hours than regular fighers ? For some reason, the figure of 18000/21000 hours as airframe life is what I remember. You can flog these puppies quite a bit and that is why its strange that we need so many.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby member_20317 » 21 Mar 2014 22:59

Sylvania Laxman - Ek nahi Cheh. Pure ghar ke badal dalunga.

The Kirans need replacement. PC-7. Hawks just in. Mig 23UB still flying. Mogols too perhaps. And then they have two seaters for Jaguars and Mirages and Harriers and NLCA and MKIs and 29KUBs.

I feel for the poor weapons systems officer. He gets peanuts. Maverick takes the girl. Bahut nainsafi hai bhai.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby agupta » 22 Mar 2014 01:22

rohitvats wrote:^^^That decision for additional PC-7 and also allowing HAL to go ahead with BTT-40 is typical of non-confrontational attitude of AK where he has repeatedly shied away from taking tough decisions. With IAF filled to brim with basic trainer once the additional PC-7 come online, who will buy the BTT-40? Is that another exercise in indulging in a science project at the expense of tax-payer's money? AK/MOD should have taken a decision either ways ans stuck with it.



RV - this is not ideal but certainly the next best thing. If HAL would've gotten knocked out, they would've kicked up a huge fuss, plus the election year, plus the pseudo-nationalist junta would've gone nuts and tied down any progress with a dozen anonymous allegations of "import lovers", corruption etc., in essence - anything of real value to the IAF would've been ground down into stasis. Recall the fuss when ONE aircraft program was set aside for the Private industry; ONE for the entire private sector ! Complete amnesia about all of the others that were reserved for the DPSUs.

This way, HAL gets to put its money where its mouth has been. They want to invest their "own money" and truly compete without a captive customer ... they should be allowed to. Doodh ka doodh, paani ka paani... HAL's Aircraft Design Bureau will either learn the meaning of the word "c r e d i b i l i t y" when they do a Sales presentation and get asked for the historical reliability track record (OR) they will exorcise their HPT-32 and Sitara demons. Either way the country wins.

And we can be magnanimous enough to forget that they have a huge advantage in that MoD's fuzzy math means they do not have to account for all the sunk investments and a workforce that may have gotten used to mandatory overtime, 5 tea breaks a day, 3 magazine clubs in every department etc. :eek:

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby tsarkar » 22 Mar 2014 08:40

rohitvats wrote:^^^That decision for additional PC-7 and also allowing HAL to go ahead with BTT-40 is typical of non-confrontational attitude of AK where he has repeatedly shied away from taking tough decisions. With IAF filled to brim with basic trainer once the additional PC-7 come online, who will buy the BTT-40? Is that another exercise in indulging in a science project at the expense of tax-payer's money? AK/MOD should have taken a decision either ways ans stuck with it.


Actually its the best possible step for the nation. Firstly, IAF also trains IN, IA, ICG & BSF pilots at BFTS Allahabad/Bamrauli. These forces have expanded massively. For example, IN has grown from 27 Sea Harriers to 45 MiG29 and with Tejas on the way. We need a large pilot pool and any increase of training infrastructure is a wise investment.

Also, as Shiv said, anything that increases aviation, shipbuilding, manufacturing footprint needs encouragement. Nations with leading Aviation Industry allowed export of their second grade aircraft to build expertise in the industry, with the State subsidizing it. Eg RAF did not induct Gnat but allowed export.

I would be happy if HAL or any private sector firm set up a second Dhruv line only for export. There is significant Do228 export scope, that we aggressively did not pursue, and the Swiss firm Ruag has now stepped in to fill the gap.

Certainly money better spent than Right to Food et al schemes

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vic » 22 Mar 2014 09:03

While I support HAL, they have fxxxxx up the HTT. After so many years, they are unable even to select the engine. It leads me to suspect that the only interest of HAL management was to negotiate and give out lucrative engine and other components contract and no interest in HTT per se. As PT-6 is the only viable engine, their negotiations for cuts may not be gaining traction.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Indranil » 22 Mar 2014 09:30

HTT-40s engine has been selected (about 5 months back).

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vic » 22 Mar 2014 09:32

Even then it is a delay of many years. HTT was to fly before first Imported BTT arrived. Anyway, which engine?

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Vivek K » 23 Mar 2014 05:53

So we keep bickering amongst ourselves pointing fingers at each other while our biggest threat marches ahead. Is that wise or should we all sit down at one table (like the DDMB) and talk like "Indians" for a change and show the world that we can come to a conclusion and use products like the Arjun, the LCA, the HTT-40. Blame where blame is required but also have the courage to give credit where due.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vic » 23 Mar 2014 08:45

One BTT can train around 10 pilots a year. With 75 BTT, IAF can train 750 pilots a year. So we can and should wait for HTT-40. But simultaneously HAL management should be held accountable and asked why it took them four years to decide which engine to use. I support indigenisation but one cannot be blind to corruption and incompetence of HAL.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Vivek K » 23 Mar 2014 11:03

DRDO should perhaps auction of mature technologies to private players.But how long will the armed forces remain in denial about the corruption in their procurement wings? To avoid inordinate delays, the armed forces need to take an ownership of the designs. It seems that in order to justify selling the National interest (and importing weapon systems) fancy and in some cases unachievable GSQRS are developed for DRDO.

And if a weapon system somehow comes close to delivering the impossible, it is tested till Kingdom come.

This is a sure plan to fail. DRDO must improve but so must the user armed forces. This constant finger pointing only helps the enemy (and the procurement Mafia).

Stop and think, people.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests