Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Jul 2014 09:07

saps wrote:
indranilroy wrote:How do you know this? Even when spin tests where aborted, we don't know if it could have recovered or not. The test was simply aborted when entry into spin tests were not deemed to be safe.
Sorry not understood...spin test aborted. My memory recollects that two fine gentlemen had to eject out of due to aircraft NOT ABLE to recover.."IJT".... when undergoing spin tests.

I was informed about this by someone who's got access to one's involved with this never ending SAGA of testing...consulting & then testing..delay n foreign advisors n consulting again.

Ready to hear better things and proven wrong on this part.

I am not sure - but did I hear someone say that the engine flamed out during some maneuver?

rrao · Post by **rrao** » 11 Jul 2014 14:27

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVTKhp3 ... detailpage

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Jul 2014 15:33

rrao wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVTKhp3 ... detailpage

Unfortunately the reports are very garbled. However the reporter mentioned "fire" in the aircraft. The reports are exceedingly vague. For some reason the reporter mentions fire, helicopter and bail out in the same breath twice - it sounds as though he thinks the pilots came down by helo. He mentions the rescue helicopters separately later

It is interesting how little our people know. Almost no one in the west will fail to know about ejection. But everyone in this report talks about "Pilots jumping out". Nothing odd - after all the level of technical literacy in India is fairly low and the aircraft density too is low.

rrao · Post by **rrao** » 11 Jul 2014 17:42

shiv saar, i too heard the reason for crash due to engine flame out ...but i also heard other one too that the pilots attempted an unauthorized spin recovery test which lead to the crash!!! But what is alarming is tender from an experienced design house for redesign of the entire a/c airframe/structure,weight reduction etc...That means they have tried all tricks , but spin recovery is eluding them... IJT apparently seems to be derived from IA-63 pampa of Argentina and polish IRYDA...with all the LCA composite experience if they convert IJT wings,some parts of fuselage,tail to composites... to reduce weight...but will that solve the aerodynamics issues? so they may have to redesign the wings and locate them on top of the fuselage and make the air inlets large similar to IA-63 PAMPA. wiki says pampa went to USA and got modified extensively with the help of Americans!!! This is as good as love-all!!!

SAPS!! beg,borrow,steal anything is fair in defence R&D!!! No need to make fun of the designers.!!!!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jul 2014 19:02

rrao wrote: But what is alarming is tender from an experienced design house for redesign of the entire a/c airframe/structure,weight reduction etc...That means they have tried all tricks , but spin recovery is eluding them...

Does not mean that at all.

rrao wrote:
IJT apparently seems to be derived from IA-63 pampa of Argentina and polish IRYDA...with all the LCA composite experience if they convert IJT wings,some parts of fuselage,tail to composites... to reduce weight...but will that solve the aerodynamics issues? so they may have to redesign the wings and locate them on top of the fuselage and make the air inlets large similar to IA-63 PAMPA. wiki says pampa went to USA and got modified extensively with the help of Americans!!! This is as good as love-all!!!

SAPS!! beg,borrow,steal anything is fair in defence R&D!!! No need to make fun of the designers.!!!!

I have never heard this before either.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 11 Jul 2014 20:35

I am tugging at my leash again, so only a short post:

1. Crashes will happen. Going back a few pages produces some introspection on this prior to the crash.
2. Has LCA tried Spins?
3. This IS rocket science. The IJT and LCA are PSLV and GSLV respectiiively.
4. Weight reduction is NOT a start from scratch redesign.
5. Overweight first few flight units are not the end of the world. IJT does not have to teach spins right now. The pilatus prop trainer will do just as wll.
6, Take your pick -- 3 crashes of the IJT or similar number of the LCA.
7. You need the HTT, the IJT, the LCA, annd the AMCA. Or forget about growing more competent air force thasn piddly little countries like taiwan.
8. Stop using these projects as leverage for import contracts.
9. A "khadi gramudyog" mentality will have to go, and private industry is not the answer. If you really want it, properly fund and staff these. Go with more conservative approaches, and more sympathetic acceptance of first generation indigenous products.
10. Modi sarakar ....?

Transparancy is essential. Shroud in secrecy, watch these mishaps and endless delays. Please to ignore if irritating.

rrao · Post by **rrao** » 11 Jul 2014 20:45

http://www.hal-india.com/tender/ardc/NI ... 6-8-14.pdf

indranil....hope you have read the tender contents from the above link...

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 11 Jul 2014 20:58

Shreeman ji, do not confuse spin on IJT with 'import'. The spin is not taught as a maneuver for combat or take off and landing. Spin teaching is a necessity of the syllabus in Stage II. LCA will not need to teach spin. IJT will.

By the time pilots fly LCA, expect them to have 200 -250 hrs plus flying experience including fast trainers like HAWK AJT.

When the trainee pilots will take the IJT for spin they will have ~100 hrs including basic stage on the Pilatus. Basic stage is 'slow moving 'piston' engine. Stage II is the first Jet aircraft trainees will fly. The HJT-16 Kiran Mk I is a beautiful aircraft and multiple generations of IAF pilots will swear by it. Even in Kiran we lost trainees to non recovery from Spin. Others did not become pilots because they froze on controls prior to spin. Not every body is made for combat flying and one does not need to bring down aircraft and humans to forcefully buy a jet which is not ready.

The aircraft under testing are being flown by practically top of the line test pilots. They are definitely amongst the best in the business. The IJT will have to be amazingly sturdy and forgiving because it is meant for training. Please check, even the manufacturer is not taking up IOC. This cannot be an import lobby activity.

We all need this plane to work. But our guys in HAL know best and I am sure that they will rectify the problem.

BTW: Trainees do learn and practice spin on the piston engine stage. So while spin is known, the jet experience for a trainee is new.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jul 2014 21:42

rrao wrote:http://www.hal-india.com/tender/ardc/NI ... 6-8-14.pdf

indranil....hope you have read the tender contents from the above link...

Yes, I reported it here. 4 days before Shiv Aroor went "exclusive", "breaking news" over it

.

It says that the plane is going to be inducted into the force next year. This is the main part of the tender

The design of the above need to be revisited, analyzed and the scope for weight reduction / optimization studied while ensuring minimum the required strength, stiffness & fatigue criteria. The new innovative ideas w.r.t. material, LRU’s and other related equipments maintainability shall be included.

Towards this HAL is looking forward for partnership / technical assistance / consultancy from a well experienced airframe design house. The interested companies may respond with detailed justification of their capabilities and tentative plan with time lines for HAL to consider issuing formal tenders.

Other Details
1. This weight reduction / optimization study must be comprehensive, encompassing all the Structure, Mechanical Systems & Electrical Avionics Systems. It should meet the adequate strength, stiffness and fatigue criteria, methodology for testing, Analysis and functioning details are to be provided.
2. Response is requested only from Reputed Airframe design and development house.
3. The response should include the necessary timelines and plans for providing the weight reduction / optimization schemes and its implementation on the aircraft. Governmental clearances where applicable, if required, need to be obtained by the vendor for supply of services to HAL at appropriate time.
4. The Budgetary ROM price should be included in the response.
5. The methodology used for analysis and all data generated for this task should be transferred to HAL and the vendor should assist HAL in obtaining the necessary airworthiness certification by providing all required documentation, explanations / clarifications.
6. The response should cover all the aspects that will be employed for the weight reduction / optimization exercise.

To me it looks like a weight reduction program. I can't say anything more or less from this information!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 11 Jul 2014 23:13

4 days before Shiv Aroor went "exclusive", "breaking news" over it .

you forgot "am the first to post it"

He is getting worse - and seems nothing can shame him

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Jul 2014 01:15

Is the IJT an urgent requirement?

1. No major airforce in the world operates a three-tier training system (BT/IJT/AJT). They all go from a fast turboprop to AJT to fighter.

USAF T-6 > T-38 > F-15/F-16

USN T-6 > T-45 > F-18

RAF Tucano > Hawk > Tornado/EF

AdlA TB-30 > Alpha Jet > M2K/Rafale

ROKAF KT-1 > T-50 > F-15/16

JASDF T-7 > T-4 > F-2/F-15

RuAF Yak-52 > L-39/Yak-130 > MiG/Su-XX

The only exception here is the PLAAF which has traditionally had a basic trainer-IJT-fast jet system but will start inducting the Hongdu L-15 AJT/LIFT.

2. Of course a valid argument could be made that the IAF doesn't have enough jet trainers. In which case, the simple solution is to order another batch of Hawks from HAL and perhaps place an order for a squadron of Tejas trainers. Given the absurd number of aircraft types the IAF already operates, one would have hoped for some sort of rationalization plan, but clearly that's a bridge too far.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jul 2014 01:40

My recollection is that in late 90s both a single engined "IJT" and a two-engined "AJT" were proposed. Only the IJT got sanctioned.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 12 Jul 2014 01:53

deejay wrote:Shreeman ji, do not confuse spin on IJT with 'import'. The spin is not taught as a maneuver for combat or take off and landing. Spin teaching is a necessity of the syllabus in Stage II. LCA will not need to teach spin. IJT will.

By the time pilots fly LCA, expect them to have 200 -250 hrs plus flying experience including fast trainers like HAWK AJT.

When the trainee pilots will take the IJT for spin they will have ~100 hrs including basic stage on the Pilatus. Basic stage is 'slow moving 'piston' engine. Stage II is the first Jet aircraft trainees will fly. The HJT-16 Kiran Mk I is a beautiful aircraft and multiple generations of IAF pilots will swear by it. Even in Kiran we lost trainees to non recovery from Spin. Others did not become pilots because they froze on controls prior to spin. Not every body is made for combat flying and one does not need to bring down aircraft and humans to forcefully buy a jet which is not ready.

The aircraft under testing are being flown by practically top of the line test pilots. They are definitely amongst the best in the business. The IJT will have to be amazingly sturdy and forgiving because it is meant for training. Please check, even the manufacturer is not taking up IOC. This cannot be an import lobby activity.

We all need this plane to work. But our guys in HAL know best and I am sure that they will rectify the problem.

BTW: Trainees do learn and practice spin on the piston engine stage. So while spin is known, the jet experience for a trainee is new.

Let me put it this way, I have been in a spin.

Next, the statement that teaching spin in the first flight of IJTs delivered to IAF is necessary before the aircraft is characterized properly is patently false. It makes no sense.

Aircraft handling, and every other aspect can be taught until the second flight of spin capable ijts are delivered.

What escapes everyone here is that punching out is an individual decision, and unless the aircraft is totally docile, the couple of seconds available to recover are not sufficient for a second try. Kavery /= LCA. Spin /= IJT.

Get out of the khadi gramudyog stage to low rate production and solve the spin issue in parallel.

This holds, of course, if spin characteristics are the only problem left to conquer. But we lnow nothing of what test points have been covered, what remain, not even how many test aircraft exist. So the plane may have problems in routine handling too, who knows.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Jul 2014 02:20

I can't agree with you. IJT being able to recover from spin is necessary before the plane is fielded. I had explained this before, it is not just for the purpose of just teaching the student to recover from flat spin. A rookie can inadvertently stall the plane due to over enthusiasm or inexperience during a whole lot of maneuvers. There has to be a way for him and his trainer to return.

We can argue that if it is not possible to do it using the control surfaces of the plane alone, go into production with a spin chute for the moment. It is not ideal, but IAF was fine with this remedy for Kiran as a stop gap. No reason why it cannot accept IJT in this fashion. But obviously, this problem has to be solved, using the control surfaces alone.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 12 Jul 2014 04:19

indranilroy wrote:I can't agree with you. IJT being able to recover from spin is necessary before the plane is fielded. I had explained this before, it is not just for the purpose of just teaching the student to recover from flat spin. A rookie can inadvertently stall the plane due to over enthusiasm or inexperience during a whole lot of maneuvers. There has to be a way for him and his trainer to return.

We can argue that if it is not possible to do it using the control surfaces of the plane alone, go into production with a spin chute for the moment. It is not ideal, but IAF was fine with this remedy for Kiran as a stop gap. No reason why it cannot accept IJT in this fashion. But obviously, this problem has to be solved, using the control surfaces alone.

Indranil, this exact line of questioning is so old that I have typed what you write above the last time in this threads lifespan. I argued then, reading the tea leaves, what you argue now. I am blind --to the reality -- so can only posit a gut feeling.

The aircraft warns re. stall just fine. Stall warnings will work as usual. Thus my previous thughts stand. No integral spin chute needed.

I am actually with deejay here, re teaching spin in a docile jet craft. But sometimes you cant have your cake and eat it too (penury and spine compatibility in blk-1). There is no shame in this, get the plane into broader hands and the hidden gremlins will show and ge resolved.

I have extended myself quite a bit here, so kindly excuse as I get back to rice eating in my dark strategic caves.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Jul 2014 04:59

I understand what you are saying. But let me produce a scenario here.

The student is being taught how to recover from a dive. At the end of the dive, the student tentatively starts pulling on the lever. But the plane seems to be turning too slowly. The earth is drawing closer at 400-500 kmph (remember that the service ceiling of IJT is 9 km). If he starts pulling up at around 6 km. He has about 40 seconds to go before this descent will definitely be arrested (by terra firma) He does not expect to stall at this speed (2-3 times his stall speed and flying wings level) and in this anxiety the kid yanks the lever back. But wait, laws of aerodynamics say that he can stall (accelerated stall), and he has been warned about it. But in this moment of anxiety will he remember it? And then the stall warnings come on. There are lights and sounds, and may be even shaking.

99 out of 100 student pilots will understand the situation and go easy on the lever (it is very counter intuitive and unnerving, because you have to turn the nose to the ground, when you are actually trying to avoid it). But that one student will panic (nothing new seasoned civilian pilots do so every now and then). And he will stall. If the instructor cannot wrestle back control before the student has lost control, he has to now be able to recover the stalled plane. If you don't give him that capability, you are looking at 2-3 crashes every year at the current rate of pilot training in the IAF.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jul 2014 05:12

I think that one of the problems with aircraft design is that you cannot reliably design spin and recovery characteristics into it. Aircraft are designed to fly, not spin. There have been aircraft that have refused to spin easily and the Hawk was one such aircraft - and it had to undergo some modification to coax it to get into a spin.

There are other aircraft that are known to be unrecoverable if they get into a spin - and I think the HF 24 was one example of that.

Neither of these situations is desirable for a trainer aircraft. Getting into a spin, keeping a cool head, and doing what it takes to recover are an integral part of training, Still spin and recovery characteristics are often "discovered" after an aircraft goes into service. Air Marshal Rajkumar had once mentioned to me that the spin trials on the Gripen had gone on for years after entry into service - but then again I think the IAF wants a trainer that behaves like a trainer - that is , it can be coaxed into a spin and will recover when certain things are done, by the instructor if the trainee fails to do them.

In an offline conversation I heard that IJT spin issues were taken back to the wind tunnel and some changes made. Whether any aircraft with such changes are flying, I don't know

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 12 Jul 2014 06:55

shiv wrote:I think that one of the problems with aircraft design is that you cannot reliably design spin and recovery characteristics into it. Aircraft are designed to fly, not spin. There have been aircraft that have refused to spin easily and the Hawk was one such aircraft - and it had to undergo some modification to coax it to get into a spin.

There are other aircraft that are known to be unrecoverable if they get into a spin - and I think the HF 24 was one example of that.

Neither of these situations is desirable for a trainer aircraft. Getting into a spin, keeping a cool head, and doing what it takes to recover are an integral part of training, Still spin and recovery characteristics are often "discovered" after an aircraft goes into service. Air Marshal Rajkumar had once mentioned to me that the spin trials on the Gripen had gone on for years after entry into service - but then again I think the IAF wants a trainer that behaves like a trainer - that is , it can be coaxed into a spin and will recover when certain things are done, by the instructor if the trainee fails to do them.

In an offline conversation I heard that IJT spin issues were taken back to the wind tunnel and some changes made. Whether any aircraft with such changes are flying, I don't know

shiv,

What you say is right - but lets not overestimate the importance of spin recovery. As you note aircraft are made to fly not stall. In a two seater, with an experienced pilot in one seàt, a spin is not somethng that just happens. Flying is not something this erratic that for this trainer, a spin would just happen everyday. Hgh T/W aircraft dont just stall for lack of lift and you dont go distracted watching VFR wonders.

Having one more type and additional hours of routine flying under your belt does wonders for your competency. Especially if you can flog a home grown aircraft like the kiran.

The nub lies in using the plane as a leverage against high cost of import while prefering imports down to the screw driver.

Whether they make a Saras or HTT32 of IJT, there is a purposeful stupidity OR cunning at work here. Could well be an arjun style procurement.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 12 Jul 2014 19:16

In a two seater, with an experienced pilot in one seàt, a spin is not something that just happens

True. But the nervous moments for the instructors is when the pupil goes solo.

Not as a counter but just as a fact, I remember one accident of non recovery from Spin with both Instructor and Pupil on board (safe ejections) in Kiran.

While on this discussion, would extended hours, say another 100 - 150 hrs on the Pilatus prepare those streaming in to fighters for a straight transition to HAWK AJT?

Added later: I think they have sorted out the spin issues with the IJT.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 12 Jul 2014 22:46

Viv S wrote:Is the IJT an urgent requirement?

Of course not. The Hawk was purchased because the IJT refused to arrive. No airplane can be made that will exactly meet only the defined performance of a so-called intermediate trainer without also meeting some of the performance requirements of basic and advanced trainers. In the case of the IJT, the roles are very closely intertwined with the Hawk "advanced" trainer which in any other air force worth the name also qualifies as an "intermediate" trainer. Our rookie pilots are not wussies who need to be tenderly weened from basic to advanced training. This pigeon-holing of roles (intermediate, advanced, light, medium) is a ridiculous exercise inherited from socialist "planning" times.

I wonder if the Al-55 was purposely ordered to be slightly less powerful than existing "advanced" trainer engines to justify the existence of an "intermediate" trainer. Would explain what otherwise ranks as an almost criminal decision and all the weight problems the IJT is suffering from now.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 13 Jul 2014 05:37

deejay wrote:
In a two seater, with an experienced pilot in one seàt, a spin is not something that just happens
True. But the nervous moments for the instructors is when the pupil goes solo.

Not as a counter but just as a fact, I remember one accident of non recovery from Spin with both Instructor and Pupil on board (safe ejections) in Kiran.

While on this discussion, would extended hours, say another 100 - 150 hrs on the Pilatus prepare those streaming in to fighters for a straight transition to HAWK AJT?

Added later: I think they have sorted out the spin issues with the IJT.

Absolutely true. And a nervous pilot sitting on mechanical coupled twin controls has killed many an instructor as well. It is a risky business. If you want to be a pilot, even a small bird is a risk to your life. Neither crashes nor envelop limits should be the kind of limitation they are being made out to us.

Another red herring is the MTBO of the engine. No one really knows what it means, but all choose to complain about the x000 hour or y000 hours. Aircraft need maintenance. And man power is not something india is short of.

The problem here is attempting to build a mercedes *brand* for the sake of ego or politics. Why? So what if it is overweight? So what if it cant land at daulat beg oldie? You need users to develop anything, and this khadi gramodyog approach of making three at a time and crashung them will not work.

If they have solved the spin issues, fine. There will be other limitations tgat the swiss paid media or the poodlistan pound beholden will write about. screw them, i say (pardon the language) and build a few hundred. It takes time to operationalize anything, and that is not all spinning.

remember even the dhruv didnt escape this. and it doesnt today. Every mechanical fault is made out to be the end of the world, schedule delays, limitations of non-rotor folding, ecuador crashes all show up every time. The entire F35 fleet is grounded. Cant make it to Farnborough. There was only a canopy at QE2 naming. Is that different?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jul 2014 06:57

Rony wrote:Is the IAF Equipped for a Two-Front War ?

The article is a non-sequitor.

After Modi election, PRC is no longer interested in a 2 front war.
Reason it has bigger implications.

While MMS was there the possibility was there for 2 front war as he could be arm twisted by US to not go beyond.

Not any more.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Jul 2014 07:09

Love the fact how all these IAF folks routinely play up the JF-17 whilst refusing to talk much about the LCA (which is easily equivalent/superior to the JF-17 even in its MK1 variant) apart from its delayed, this that.
Only the great shri Rafale or next import can save us. From the JF-17. From the J-10.

Truly, we are import addicted & there needs to be some tough policy laid down by the new admin to knock some long term strategy into the IAF/IA policies.

vic · Post by **vic** » 13 Jul 2014 12:44

I strongly feel that second line of LCA should be given to Mukesh Bhai. In no time, all the media, politicians and brass will start loving LCA and orders will go upto 1000. Reliance will also do a better job than HAL even though HAL has 50 years head start.

vic · Post by **vic** » 13 Jul 2014 12:47

A question, how many times "combat aircraft" enter into spin per year?

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 13 Jul 2014 12:58

Reliance will also do a better job than HAL even though HAL has 50 years head start.

Couple of things will definitely happen
1. Scale : scale of manufacture will be unmatched.
2. MK.2 development will be speeded up in a mission mode with strict timeline for sure. Reliance may even buy up Saab to speed up MK.2 development and kill competition

. OK a bit of exaggeration but who knows

3. We will get more writings and brochures about Tejas MK.1 and MK.2 just like F 35 has with the backing of LM, which can be used to post in this forum

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jul 2014 13:16

vic wrote:A question, how many times "combat aircraft" enter into spin per year?

How many times combat aircraft enter into combat per year?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 13 Jul 2014 13:49

shiv wrote:
vic wrote:A question, how many times "combat aircraft" enter into spin per year?
How many times combat aircraft enter into combat per year?

I loved the repartee sir.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 13 Jul 2014 14:31

shiv wrote:How many times combat aircraft enter into combat per year?

Just too GOOD

vic · Post by **vic** » 13 Jul 2014 14:50

An aircraft does almost 100-150 combat training sorties per year. Ok lets see, how many times did the aircrafts entered into spin in 1971 war from which they were recovered?

vic · Post by **vic** » 13 Jul 2014 15:01

deejay wrote:

Added later: I think they have sorted out the spin issues with the IJT.

Very good news if true but what is the source??

Ashokk · Post by **Ashokk** » 13 Jul 2014 18:02

India scrambles fighter jets as aircraft entering via Pak spark alert

The Indian Air Force on Sunday scrambled fighter planes from its air base in Jodhpur after two commercial passenger aircraft sought to enter the Indian territory from Pakistan side using similar identification codes, sparking a security alert.

Two MiG-21 fighter aircraft were sent from the Jodhpur air base to investigate a Turkish Airlines plane over Jaisalmer on Sunday morning when it repeated an identification code, which is unique to any aircraft, given by a commercial passenger plane that had entered Indian airspace before it.

However, the Delhi-bound passenger plane was later allowed to proceed after its credentials were verified, IAF officials said.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Jul 2014 18:29

To those talking about 'need' for IJT when other air forces don't use intermediate trainers - do you understand the implication of this statement? It means there is no requirement for IJT and all the money spent on the project is down the drain. As is the order for 83 aircraft by IAF. And per chance, if IJT stands cancelled - who benefits from it all? The Pilatus and the Hawk manufacturers. Of course, HAL gets to rid itself of a troubling project and it gets quietly buried in the hubris. Back to assembling foreign products w/o learning anything worthwhile.

However, if the argument is that there is no 'urgent' requirement for the aircraft and it can take it's own sweet time to mature and be delivered - well, good morning and smell the coffee. The a/c was to enter Service many moons ago (as per original timeline of HAL) but that ship has sailed. The requirement is there and Kiran Mk2 will be stretched another couple of years. The IAF sees the need for IJT - and unless one can prove this requirement is redundant (apart from simply stating X, Y or Z AF don't have IJT) - and that is how it will be. One simple reason for having IJT could be that it helps to REDUCE the number of more expensive AJT required.

As for 'critical' requirement of spin aspect - well, what can one say!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Jul 2014 19:21

vic wrote:I strongly feel that second line of LCA should be given to Mukesh Bhai. In no time, all the media, politicians and brass will start loving LCA and orders will go upto 1000. Reliance will also do a better job than HAL even though HAL has 50 years head start.

You know, if it takes a Mukesh Bhai to change the import, import, import policies that are now accepted as a given, then so be it.

BTW, informal estimates by "old hands" suggest is that whatever is being reported for the Rafale deal etc - are just hawa main., FWIW.
The amounts required for proper weaponization, MLU etc will make the entire deal truly astronomical.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Jul 2014 19:27

rohitvats wrote:To those talking about 'need' for IJT when other air forces don't use intermediate trainers - do you understand the implication of this statement? It means there is no requirement for IJT and all the money spent on the project is down the drain. As is the order for 83 aircraft by IAF. And per chance, if IJT stands cancelled - who benefits from it all? The Pilatus and the Hawk manufacturers. Of course, HAL gets to rid itself of a troubling project and it gets quietly buried in the hubris. Back to assembling foreign products w/o learning anything worthwhile.

However, if the argument is that there is no 'urgent' requirement for the aircraft and it can take it's own sweet time to mature and be delivered - well, good morning and smell the coffee. The a/c was to enter Service many moons ago (as per original timeline of HAL) but that ship has sailed. The requirement is there and Kiran Mk2 will be stretched another couple of years. The IAF sees the need for IJT - and unless one can prove this requirement is redundant (apart from simply stating X, Y or Z AF don't have IJT) - and that is how it will be. One simple reason for having IJT could be that it helps to REDUCE the number of more expensive AJT required.

As for 'critical' requirement of spin aspect - well, what can one say!

The simplest thing to do would have been to scrub the IJT program altogether, way back & have the IAF move to a two aircraft training system, a more advanced turboprop variant from Pilatus then the Hawk. The IJT was given as a "here you go" project to build up HAL capabilities after it felt left out of the AC development arena, and its become a frankenstein's monster in terms of gobbling up HAL focus away from the more critical program, the LCA. Nevermind, the IJT itself has been a saga of mismanagement for a much more simpler program.
Its only after Tyagi came that we see some modicum of "yeah we'll do it" on the LCA from HAL. His predecessor was not too popular apparently (given the number of leaks) and that gentleman's predecessor was busy blowing HALs horn versus ADA ("We are efficient, we have SAP, we know our production volumes" - never mind working together on the one make or break program for Indian aerospace).

MOD of course, is least bothered about the direction & IAF came onboard only in 2007. With this state of affairs, its seriously worth pondering as to what great capabilities will the IJT give HAL and even the IAF (logistics for 3 types versus 2 or even one).

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Jul 2014 20:22

^^^IMO, the fundamental requirement for having IJT in addition to AJT stems from how the pilots are trained and when they branch out into various streams. IIRC, IAF prepares a merit list after Stage II training to decide the Fighter/Transport/Helicopter stream for the pilots. This would have direct impact on number of a/c required at Stage II and Stage III training.

Stage III training on Hawk is only for fighter jocks - so, you can keep the number required to meet throughput of this stream. But the bulk of flying training would be on Pilatus and IJT - which will be used to train the entire batch which makes it to flying branch.

So, there are only two ways in which IJT requirement can be shelved - (a) IAF changes the training syllabus and Transport/Helicopter pilots branch out from Stage 1 itself while fighter jocks go to Hawk trainers (b) IAF buys more Hawk and divided training on them into Stage II and Stage III with branching out happening after Stage II. But this will mean we will need more Hawk in inventory.

Frankly, I'd go for 80-100 IJT than more Hawks!

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 13 Jul 2014 21:31

rohitvats wrote:^^^IMO, the fundamental requirement for having IJT in addition to AJT stems from how the pilots are trained and when they branch out into various streams. IIRC, IAF prepares a merit list after Stage II training to decide the Fighter/Transport/Helicopter stream for the pilots. This would have direct impact on number of a/c required at Stage II and Stage III training.

Stage III training on Hawk is only for fighter jocks - so, you can keep the number required to meet throughput of this stream. But the bulk of flying training would be on Pilatus and IJT - which will be used to train the entire batch which makes it to flying branch.

So, there are only two ways in which IJT requirement can be shelved - (a) IAF changes the training syllabus and Transport/Helicopter pilots branch out from Stage 1 itself while fighter jocks go to Hawk trainers (b) IAF buys more Hawk and divided training on them into Stage II and Stage III with branching out happening after Stage II. But this will mean we will need more Hawk in inventory.

Frankly, I'd go for 80-100 IJT than more Hawks!

You know, you read the IAF's mind here. They have tried this in the past. The helicopter optees were sent straight for helicopter training with no basic stage or intermediate stage on fixed wing. However, this experiment was discontinued. The reason for this was different. It had nothing to do with IJT.

Now for those advocating removal of intermediate stage by changing training. Hmmm... If you mean reduce the training, I think you are wrong. In fact, train them more.

As such a fighter jock goes through the following training: Basic Stage ; Intermediate Stage (Trifurcation - Tpt/ Fighters/ Heptrs happens after this); Advanced Stage; MOFTU for 01 yr (it was HOFTU & MOFTU when the Hunters were here). After this the Sqn level training. So you see the IAF was on a 04 lvl training and not 03 Lvl training. I say train them more. The more you train the better you are.

Does this justify HAL's IJT?

Well either make the IJT or restart the Kiran prodn line. There is a huge speed difference from a pilots POV between a piston engine aircraft and a jet like Hawk - I think we will have as much as 50% groundings + wastage in trainee pilots. This will happen every 06 months. That will be a huge operational cost, no?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 13 Jul 2014 23:41

rohitvats wrote: Frankly, I'd go for 80-100 IJT than more Hawks!

So would all of us, including moi. But that's if IJT is actually available for IAF to use which it is most definitely not at this point. The question then becomes: how long should the IAF wait? This new request for help in trimming weight is bad news no matter which way we choose to look at it.

If HAL or ADA need to prove their capabilities on trainers then we should be very worried about LCA, MCA, FGFA etc. Let them focus on the latter entirely, which is exactly what the IAF has also said.

Finally, the speed difference between Pilatus and Hawk is not a problem with the modern interfaces that can mimic each other. IOW, it is possible to make the Pilatus feel like a jet for "intermediate" training. It was definitely a problem back when trainees had to jump from Kiran to MiG with no such help. The IAF managed as long as they could before Hawk was ordered.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jul 2014 06:29

vic wrote:An aircraft does almost 100-150 combat training sorties per year. Ok lets see, how many times did the aircrafts entered into spin in 1971 war from which they were recovered?

There are hundreds of Su-30 videos of the plane doing flat spin from which it recovers. But not even half a combat sortie in 10 years. Why not let them do spin recovery training sorties. After all they waste their time doing combat training sorties with no combat. Let them do timepass spin training sorties. A pilot who flies 5000 hours may not see even one combat sortie But he could have a stall and spin in at least one.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jul 2014 07:40

On this completely idiotic and laughably brainless banter that passes for discussion on whether stall and spin recovery training is necessary or not - here is one dead man (my cousin) who is now useless to the world who wrote some stuff or the other before he decided to log out. He did more spin recoveries than combat. He saw some combat too - shot down a Sabre and was one of the Longewala pilots

If anyone gets gyan from it, fine. Or else no problem. Nothing gained. Nothing lost.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... uresh.html

MiG-21, although a high demand aircraft, is docile and has no aerodynamic vices. It has excellent handling characteristics and has served to provide very valuable flying experience to a large number of IAF pilots. Some like the previous and the present CAS swear by the aircraft. It is the docility of the aircraft that not only generates a good bit of confidence but also encourages forays into exceeding the limits of the stipulated flight envelope. In air combat maneuvers, many inexperienced pilots have got into trouble without realizing it. At high angles of attack, the induced drag increases sharply and unless the angle of attack is quickly reduced, the aircraft develops a high rate of descent, which cannot be arrested with the power available (even with reheat). Added to this, there is no protest from the aircraft like severe shudder, wing rocking. etc, prevalent in other types of aircraft. This gives a feeling of well-being and a number of pilots did not recognize the danger in time to take recovery action or eject.

The training of pilots is under constant review with procedures being updated regularly and creating the required level of awareness. IAF has very strict norms during each stage of training and only those who have the capability are posted to fly fighters. Even with the finest of filters there is always someone who would get through various stages without showing any weakness. Some of these individuals get in to trouble, fail to recover from difficult situations and sometimes they compound a simple emergency. This is a human failing and is no different in any other part of the world and Indians alone cannot be singled out for it. One particular CAS (in mid 80s) is on record to have stated that “I would rather lose a pilot in an error type of accident than in actual combat, for those who survive the rigors of peace time would be really combat ready”. While this is one way of viewing an accident, the proper way would be to consider even “One accident as One too many”. It is very difficult particularly for the families of those who lost someone close to accept error or error of judgment on the part the individual. It must be appreciated that the best of professionals make mistakes, be it Tendulkar, Tiger Woods or Pete Sampras. A fighter pilot has no chance like these top sportsman who are firmly on ground (not having challenged gravity) and are able to play the next innings or the next match.