Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Oct 2014 02:54

Your post was all fine till you compared the Scorpion and the F-35.

srai · Post by **srai** » 15 Oct 2014 03:20

nik wrote:We need a 'Domestic' competitor for HAL for sure. It's necessary to keep the contractor in check, lean and nimble.

Just see how prices have started ballooning for US once consolidation in defense aviation led to Lockheed and Boeing vs. numerous suppliers previously. The high expense is basically a barrier for new entrants.

Future US planes (F-22,35...) are coming from Lockheed only - a single supplier scenario, and check how they are been royally scr*wed by price and development cost escalations.

...

Basically, you are referring to Oligopoly. From HAL monopoly, it will become an oligopoly with one or two additional player(s).

An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists). Oligopolies can result from various forms of collusion which reduce competition and lead to higher prices for consumers.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Oct 2014 07:20

So indegnious designs will have to compete with foreign owned designs, #ScrewdriverMakeInIndia ?

member_28797 · Post by **member_28797** » 15 Oct 2014 07:29

abhik wrote:So indegnious designs will have to compete with foreign owned designs, #ScrewdriverMakeInIndia ?

Where did you reach that conclusion?

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 15 Oct 2014 08:51

Design needs to be Indian. In fact we should have two design bureaus like MIG and Sukhoi - otherwise bottleneck will shift to ADA/NAL...Wishlist!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Oct 2014 13:31

Srin,in a report on China and Russia developing new strat. bombers,the SU-34 was rated better than the Tu-22M3 even though it was much smaller.I've in the intl. td. thrown a few thoughts based upon the report.Why the SU-34 may be a better bet for the IAF is that it would be easiest to absorb since the MKI is being manufactured here.Commonality of systems,components,etc. Russia has the single-seat SU-35,equiv to the MKI and is yet manufacturing the SU-34,which is a dedicated bomber variant.Perhaps the Super-Sukhoi being developed for the IAF could peform similarly,but in terms of endurance and crew facilities,would lack the loo,etc. on the bomber.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 15 Oct 2014 16:52

abhik wrote:So indegnious designs will have to compete with foreign owned designs, #ScrewdriverMakeInIndia ?

Not such a bad thing, especially if you want to build up manufacturing skillset in India. Someone argued against giving that $12bln Tejas-Mk2 contract to private companies precisely for lack of that skillset outside HAL.

I'd like to to stretch this a bit. For all the imported nuclear reactors that we're negotiating at this moment, one major stumbling block is that foreign companies want entire reactors to be imported, upto the last screw. India would like most of the major components to manufactured locally to their specification. We only lack the latest instrumentation which can be imported (until we learn to produce those).

So, we're going about it in the right way.

srin · Post by **srin** » 15 Oct 2014 17:46

Philip wrote:Srin,in a report on China and Russia developing new strat. bombers,the SU-34 was rated better than the Tu-22M3 even though it was much smaller.I've in the intl. td. thrown a few thoughts based upon the report.Why the SU-34 may be a better bet for the IAF is that it would be easiest to absorb since the MKI is being manufactured here.Commonality of systems,components,etc. Russia has the single-seat SU-35,equiv to the MKI and is yet manufacturing the SU-34,which is a dedicated bomber variant.Perhaps the Super-Sukhoi being developed for the IAF could peform similarly,but in terms of endurance and crew facilities,would lack the loo,etc. on the bomber.

Heavens knows why Russia is going for Su-34. Maybe the Su-35 doesn't have the necessary avionics for strike ? There isn't any logic to Russian procurement ... if they are getting Su-35, why are they getting Su-30SM (russianized MKI) and Su-30MK2 (russianized MKK) ? Seems like their version of MNREGA.

IAF seems happy to use MKI for strike missions. So - why complicate the logistics with one more when you have something that is equivalent if not good enough ? And given that MKI uses Israeli and French components (including the targetting pod), I wonder how much %age of LRUs are really compatible ?

I'd have understood the dedicated bomber logic (though not really agreed) if you had asked for IL-476 based bomb truck - capable of carrying a dozen Nirbhays or Brahmoses for stand-off strike.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Oct 2014 17:52

With oil around $85 a barr, wonder where is Russia going to get any funds to buy anything. They need it to be around $115 to make ends meet (balance their famous budget).

India should not make the same mistake again.

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Oct 2014 20:28

IAF Operational Failures in Retrospect

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 21 Oct 2014 22:19

NRao wrote:With oil around $85 a barr, wonder where is Russia going to get any funds to buy anything. They need it to be around $115 to make ends meet (balance their famous budget).

India should not make the same mistake again.

Much lower by some estimates.

Lauren Goodrich, senior Eurasia analyst at Stratfor, said the official 2014 state budget accounted for oil at $114 per barrel. But because the state budget had a surplus by the fourth quarter, the budget required only about $93 a barrel in order to break even by the end of the year, Goodrich said.

The Russian Cabinet revised its break-even number for next year from $100 a barrel to about $90 a barrel.

Agree that India shouldn't make the mistake again, but we also shouldn't over estimate our defence relationship's worth to Russia. For Russia, India is a strategic play - they want us to use their weapons and sway in their direction vis-a-vis America. Having India increasingly choose Western weapon systems decreases Russia's sphere of influence and that's why these outbursts from their Ambassador.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 22 Oct 2014 01:14

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20141021/cth1.htm#11

Chandigarh, October 20
The 2052 Utility Helicopter Flight of 205 Army Aviation Squadron has bagged the Command Flight Safety Trophy for 2013-14. The trophy was received by the Flight Commander Lt Col Vikram Khatri from the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, Lt Gen KJ Singh, during the Western Command Flight Safety Conference held at Chandimandir today.

The conference was chaired by Lt Gen V Menon, Chief of Staff, Western Command. He reviewed various aviation operational missions and their flight safety aspects. Western Command Aviation units provide extensive aviation support to the entire command theatre both during war and peace. It involves flying in diverse terrain and weather conditions encompassing.

Complimenting aviation units for providing succor to the flood-affected areas in Jammu and Kashmir during the recently concluded Operation Megh Rahat, he emphasised that Army Aviation was a potent arm in the third dimension and was destined to play a pivotal role in all future wars.

Maj Gen PK Bharali, Officiating Director General Army Aviation at the Army Headquarters, also reviewed the operational preparedness and the flight safety aspects of the flying tasks achieved. He underscored the need for Army aviation to be prepared to demonstrate its potential in the entire spectrum of conflict coupled with internal security challenges, disaster management and aid to civil authorities. He also deliberated upon the issue of operational employment, maintenance and logistic support and complimented the aviation units on maintaining an excellent accident free-flight safety record.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Oct 2014 02:20

Nikhil T wrote:
NRao wrote:With oil around $85 a barr, wonder where is Russia going to get any funds to buy anything. They need it to be around $115 to make ends meet (balance their famous budget).

India should not make the same mistake again.
Much lower by some estimates.

Lauren Goodrich, senior Eurasia analyst at Stratfor, said the official 2014 state budget accounted for oil at $114 per barrel. But because the state budget had a surplus by the fourth quarter, the budget required only about $93 a barrel in order to break even by the end of the year, Goodrich said.

The Russian Cabinet revised its break-even number for next year from $100 a barrel to about $90 a barrel.
Agree that India shouldn't make the mistake again, but we also shouldn't over estimate our defence relationship's worth to Russia. For Russia, India is a strategic play - they want us to use their weapons and sway in their direction vis-a-vis America. Having India increasingly choose Western weapon systems decreases Russia's sphere of influence and that's why these outbursts from their Ambassador.

Thanks!!

I missed that.

Let us see what happens. I think that is fudging of accounts, but TBD.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Oct 2014 10:40

JANES:Internal IAF report criticises serviceability rate for fighter fleet

The operational availability of the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) combat, transport, and helicopter fleets has averaged about 60% over the past three years, a recent internal assessment has revealed.

Of these platforms, the report disclosed that the IAF's 780-strong fighter fleet had an overall operational availability rate of 55% between 2011 and early 2014: the lowest of all platform types.

The availability rate for the same time period of trainer and transport assets, including recent acquisitions such as the Pilatus PC-7 Mk II trainer, Lockheed Martin C-130J-30, and Boeing C-17 Globemaster III transporters, hovered at about 65%.

Availability of the IAF's helicopter fleet stood at about 62%.

To read the full article, Client Login
(107 of 862 words)

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Oct 2014 06:05

Much needed:

Airbus may partner Tatas for manufacturing defence transport aircraft

arun · Post by **arun** » 28 Oct 2014 17:18

X Posted from the "Transport Aircraft for the IAF" thread.

Airbus press release. C295 offered for the Avro Replacement programme:

Airbus Defence and Space and Tata Advanced Systems bid for the Indian Air Force’s Avro replacement programme

28/10/2014

Companies will offer Airbus C295 under new teaming arrangement.

Airbus Defence and Space and Tata Advanced Systems (TASL) have submitted a joint bid to replace the Indian Air Force´s fleet of Avro aircraft with the market-leading Airbus C295 medium transport.

The teaming follows a detailed industrial assessment and stringent evaluation of the Indian private aerospace sector by Airbus Defence and Space, which concluded with the selection of Tata Advanced Systems as the Indian Production Agency (IPA) exclusive partner for this prestigious programme.

A total of 56 Avro aircraft are to be replaced. In the event of contract award, Airbus Defence and Space will supply the first 16 aircraft in ‘fly-away’ condition from its own final assembly line. The subsequent 40 aircraft will be manufactured and assembled by Tata Advanced Systems in India. This will include undertaking structural assembly, final aircraft assembly, systems integration and testing, and management of the indigenous supply chain.

Airbus Defence and Space Executive Vice President Military Aircraft, Domingo Ureña Raso, said: “We firmly believe that, in the C295, we have clearly the best aircraft to replace the IAF Avro fleet and, in Tata Advanced Systems, we have secured the cream of the Indian private aerospace sector as our partner for this project.

“The C295 is a superbly reliable and tough aircraft with outstanding economics which is proven in the most difficult operating conditions all over the world. It has already been ordered by 19 countries, many of which have placed repeat orders. And just this year it has dominated the market with orders for no fewer than 20 aircraft from five countries.”

Mr. S. Ramadorai, Chairman,Tata Advanced Systems, said, “We are extremely pleased to announce our partnership with Airbus Defence and Space for the Avro replacement programme for the Indian Air Force. It is a landmark for the development of aircraft manufacturing capability in India, now that Tata Advanced Systems is poised to take this step toward building entire aircraft in India. The selection of Tata Advanced Systems by Airbus demonstrates the confidence that has been built in our ability to undertake this complex programme."

Clicky

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Oct 2014 09:28

After submarine training, India likely to train Vietnamese pilots to fly Sukhois

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2014 03:34

Did we miss this article?

IAF jittery as faulty design grounds HAL jet trainer

Over a decade after the first flight of the indigenously developed intermediate jet trainer (IJT) Sitara, experts have concluded that the aircraft's tail will have to be redesigned to address serious stall and spin issues that are threatening to derail the programme.

The development has come as a major headache for the Indian Air Force (IAF), which urgently requires the trainer jets for the second stage training of pilots because its existing fleet of ageing Kiran jets is on a final life extension.

Sources said aviation major BAE Systems, which was hired as a design consultant, has recommended that the IJT's tail design should be reworked. BAE was roped in after state-run Bangalore-headquartered Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, the maker of the Sitara, was unable to find a solution to the stall and spin problems.

Redesign

The redesign will involve extensive work that will considerably delay the induction of the indigenous jets. The revised deadline for the much-delayed project was December 2015 but with the additional work, sources said it was unclear when the aircraft would be ready for induction in the Indian Air Force.

"The aircraft's stall speed is too high and this is unacceptable as the trainer jet will be flown by rookies," said a source. Sources said the IJT stalls at 208 km an hour, while the speed should ideally be around 170 km an hour or below.

The aircraft has been in development since 1999 and the project has been marred by delays and crashes. The government will soon have to take a call on the programme, sources said. The Indian Air Force has already committed its full support to the development of the IJT but further delays have forced a rethink. The government had sought information from international companies on intermediate trainer jets as an alternate measure, sources said.

The Intermediate Jet Trainer will remain unfit for flying till the clearing of the stall and spin issues, which are important aspects of flying training. Sources said, at the moment, the Intermediate Trainer Jet aircraft's nose does not come down when it stalls as should have been the case. "Such an aircraft is beyond rookies to handle," said a source.

The Indian Air Force is using the Kirans for intermediate training but the jet is outdated.

For basic training, the cadets fly the Swiss-made Pilatus PC7, which is an advanced trainer. "In the second stage, instead of going ahead, the trainee pilots are being exposed to an obsolete aircraft," said a source.

In the third stage, the cadets are trained in the Hawk advanced jet trainer. The first prototype of the Intermediate Jet Trainer flew in 2003. Earlier to this, former defence minister A.K. Antony informed Parliament that the jet trainer was likely to be operational by the end of 2014 but it is now clear that this timeframe will not be met.

The Sitara is a conventional jet trainer with low swept wings, tandem cockpit and small air intakes on either side of its fuselage. On 28 April 2011, a prototype Sitara crashed while testing in Tamil Nadu. Both crew ejected safely.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 03 Nov 2014 03:49

Can we get HAL's take on the above?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2014 03:56

Dr. Prodyut Das kind of came up with this analysis with some back of the envelop calculations:

Some Notes on the Forthcoming Spin Trials of the HJT 36

Some Notes on the Forthcoming Spin Trials of the HJT 36 - Part 2

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Nov 2014 05:10

indranilroy wrote:CROSS POST:

And now the 56 Naval Utility helicopters will be made in India. Tender for 56 naval choppers scrapped

HAL will soon have serious competition on its hands with respect to helicopters (excellent news). There will be a competitor for LUH, Dhruv (these NUH replacements) and medium-weight IMRH (though NMRH replacements). HAL does hold an upper hand in the ultra-light (LUH) and light-weight (Dhruv) categories for the military. But it has a weaker hand in the light civilian versions and medium-weight helicopters. Interesting times ahead.

One of the problems I see with this type of "privatisation" is that the Indian counterparts are involved in work much lower down the value chain. While this is a positive first step in opening up the aerospace industry in India and we can call it "indigenisation", the quality of the R&D performed by the Indian companies will be far lower if they continue to just be an "made in India" but "designed elsewhere". The incentive for developing a brand new platform like the ALH/LUH or LCA/AMCA may cease to exist as the IAF can easily pick a "proven" and "already developed" system, in almost all cases that will be a foreign designed product.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2014 05:12

A Gupta sahab,

I think you are judging far too much. Have you seen the BAE Hawk, arguably the most selling IJT/AJT in the whole world? Notice something strange in its inlets from the early prototypes, or why its horizontal tail has such a huge anhedral?

This is part and parcel of aircraft testing. For far too long have we chastised experimentation. Why should they experiment, if experiments can lead to failure and you and many others will ridicule them and ask for their heads to roll? Why shouldn't they just go for "incremental" changes when that saves their asses? Why?

I, for one, am very glad that they have bit the bullet. There is nothing to panic here. All the problems they are facing have short term hacks and long term solutions. Time for IAF to stand by their side, and give them an year to fix the prototypes and a couple of years to test the same.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2014 05:16

srai wrote: One of the problems I see with this type of "privatisation" is that the Indian counterparts are involved in work much lower down the value chain. While this is a positive first step in opening up the aerospace industry in India and we can call it "indigenisation", the quality of the R&D performed by the Indian companies will be far lower if they continue to just be an "made in India" but "designed elsewhere". The incentive for developing a brand new platform like the ALH/LUH or LCA/AMCA may cease to exist as the IAF can easily pick a "proven" and "already developed" system, in almost all cases that will be a foreign designed product.

I completely agree. We run that risk. In fact, I have no doubt in that this will be the case in the short-term. The hope is that in the long-term, it will be more profitable for these guys to design, reverse-engineer their own stuff. We will only know when the time comes. But, as you rightly said, if we don't start, that time will definitely not come.

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Nov 2014 05:43

agupta,

I think you are talking about things a bit different than what I was pointing out. Everything in the value chain has its own merit. No one is arguing about that.

When it comes to capability to design (R&D) something, you have the understanding of "know-why" and "know-how". If you are just the end-producer, your understanding will be limited to "know-how" based on the ingredients and formula/blueprints provided. For that reason, "know-why" is considered higher in the value chain as that is what allows for much more innovation to occur.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2014 06:07

Ah! Fair enough! I must say I have much disdain about the PSU set-up. But is that what we are discussing here?

The question is why do they keep leaning on to the ToT-tamasha. The answer is simple. Take whatever angle you want to: economic, effort, risk, anything ... ToT makes the most sense! On the other hand, what is the incentive to innovate? Show me one reason other than "they should"! They want to give their new designers a chance to learn with designing the HTT-40. What is your response?

And this thing about "people did it earlier, why can't we still do it" is answered quite easily. It doesn't take a Prof Das to point it out. It will never come till we keep asking every new generation of designers and builders to convert their lessons in books to a real plane. It will never work, no matter how many heads we roll.

Also, we are judging that the suggestions by Dr. Das et al. are unknown to HAL-designers. Again, there is no reason for them to bite the bullet. On the contrary, there is every incentive to try every "incremental change" to see if it works. One can see that. Why nose strakes and not a platypus nose like a poster suggested. Why a wing fence instead of a adding a bigger washout or a lesser sweep at the wing tips? And then, why doing away with everything and trying vortex generators?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2014 07:02

Apologies for butting in into this very interesting discussion, but ............

indranilroy wrote:
srai wrote: One of the problems I see with this type of "privatisation" is that the Indian counterparts are involved in work much lower down the value chain. While this is a positive first step in opening up the aerospace industry in India and we can call it "indigenisation", the quality of the R&D performed by the Indian companies will be far lower if they continue to just be an "made in India" but "designed elsewhere". The incentive for developing a brand new platform like the ALH/LUH or LCA/AMCA may cease to exist as the IAF can easily pick a "proven" and "already developed" system, in almost all cases that will be a foreign designed product.
I completely agree. We run that risk. In fact, I have no doubt in that this will be the case in the short-term. The hope is that in the long-term, it will be more profitable for these guys to design, reverse-engineer their own stuff. We will only know when the time comes. But, as you rightly said, if we don't start, that time will definitely not come.

IF one allows the IAF to "pick".

Everyone has to be one the same page. How can the IAF be allowed to be on a different page and allowed to pick whatever they want? That cannot be termed "indigenisation".

That is a foul.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2014 08:20

Gupta sahab,

Because research funding is an oxymoron when it comes to aeronautics and India.

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Nov 2014 11:06

NRao wrote:...

IF one allows the IAF to "pick".

Everyone has to be one the same page. How can the IAF be allowed to be on a different page and allowed to pick whatever they want? That cannot be termed "indigenisation".

That is a foul.

Indigenisation is a broad term. If the likes of Boeing, LM, BAE, EADS, etc set up shop in India under the 49% FDI, they will be able to field their own products in most of the competition that the IAF will put out be it for a new fighter jet or a helicopter. The IAF will be able to "pick" from this. You can still term this indigenisation as some of the parts will be manufactured locally by the FDI partnership and SMEs with/without TOT. There is a long-term value in these FDI investments because they are useful for creating next generation of engineers and industry, and part of that money is being ploughed back into the country. However, there is a price for this; the likes of Indian designed LCA/AMCA/ALH/LUH will not be possible for a long while, especially if the end-user is not firmly behind it.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 04 Nov 2014 05:51

IJT Sitara requires redesign of tail to overcome stall and spin issues.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/iaf- ... 98599.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Nov 2014 06:12

they will be able to field their own products in most of the competition that the IAF

Then that is not whatever the IAF wants. It is within the framework of an agreement that these are the options you can pick from.

That is not what was posted earlier:

The incentive for developing a brand new platform like the ALH/LUH or LCA/AMCA may cease to exist as the IAF can easily pick a "proven" and "already developed" system, in almost all cases that will be a foreign designed product.

The bolded part seemed to indicate that there were products made in India and some made abroad.

Even then IF the rules allow the IAF to pick from abroad - so be it.

But, if the idea is to grow the Indian MIC, then, there needs to be some restrictions, they could be constricting, but that is fine.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 04 Nov 2014 09:29

program management has always been one of the weakest spots when it came to HAL and other PSUs engaged in defence activities..Private players with their experience dealing with foreign OEMs are held to higher standards and cannot sustain their business with excuses and with failure to deliver. that lack of accountability in the PSUs will mean that sustainment activities will always lag when compared to world-class OEMs like Dassault/Boeing/Airbus. And the IAF views itself primarily as a customer- with none to piddly presence in the program management offices for the indigenous programs.

DRDO must be the R&D agency and production/sustaining/program management activities must go to a firm that is held accountable with water tight contracts. To be fair to the DRDO, they do want to hive the production part away from their responsibilities and concentrate on the R&D, something which the private sector in India is absolutely rubbish at.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Nov 2014 18:25

HAL I think has a lot of political clout and is loathe to let anything leak through into pvt hands.
they are upto their eyeballs in current and future work but want to lock in production work until 2050!

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 04 Nov 2014 21:14

^^^

7.21 HAL intends to gradually shift from being the main manufacturer to being a system integrator by outsourcing about 50% of its workload in terms of Standard Manhours by 2030. HAL has participated in 15 vendor development programmes in the country in the year 2013-14. E-Procurement system has been implemented by HAL for all tenders above 5 lakh.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Nov 2014 08:52

Pilatus waits on Indian trainer decision

Swiss airframer Pilatus has quickly established itself as a trusted supplier to the Indian air force because of the smooth entry into service and performance of its PC-7 MkII basic trainer aircraft (BTA). As of last month, its in-service examples had exceeded 22,000 flying hours and accumulated well over 42,000 landings.
The last 15 PC-7 MkIIs currently under contract – aircraft numbers 61 to 75 – will be based at air force station Tambaram near the southern Indian city of Chennai. Tambaram will receive its first trainers in June 2015, where they will be used to train flight instructors – a task currently carried out on vintage Hindustan Aeronautics Kiran MkII jet trainers.

An accelerated delivery schedule has already seen Pilatus deliver 51 trainers under a contract signed with New Delhi in 2012. The remainder are due to be handed over by August next year. Meanwhile, an option clause in the original contract for as many as 38 additional aircraft on top of the original 75 will expire in May, and is likely to be allowed to lapse.
“We want to execute our existing contract on time and to the full satisfaction of the Indian air force,” says Jim Roche, vice-president of government aviation and deputy chief executive at Pilatus, speaking at the company's Stans site in Switzerland. “We hope that over the next few months there would be a final clear guidance as to what particular road the Indian air force is following to finalise its BTA requirements.”
In March, India’s defence ministry issued a request for information (RFI) for the procurement of an additional 106 PC-7 MkII trainers under its "Buy & Make (Indian)" procurement category.

“We have been contacted by quite a large range of Indian companies who have approached us with regard to being able to be the prime contractor should the decision be Buy and Make India, as in this situation Pilatus cannot be the prime, ” says Roche. “Pilatus will provide detailed training to the successful Indian prime contractor on site here at Stans for the manufacturing and airframe assembly element of the programme.”

One area that remains to be resolved is the conclusion of the maintenance transfer of technology contract with HAL. This will allow the Indian company to keep the PC-7 MkII's systems and components in line with the original equipment manufacturer's agreed maintenance policy, ranging from detailed repair and overhaul capability to the replacement of components.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Nov 2014 08:56

IJT problems force IAF to modify fast jet training programme

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is being forced to alter its pilot training following technical problems with the Sitara intermediate jet trainer (IJT), which has been under development by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) since 2000.

Official sources said the IJT's tail needs re-designing to address critical stall and spin characteristics. Until this is rectified, the trainer will remain unfit for flying, they added.

Senior IAF officers said HAL now plans to send its engineers to meet with consultant BAE Systems at its Warton, UK, facility to try to resolve the issue. HAL signed a INR235.9 million (USD3.93 million) contract with BAE Systems in 2012 for assistance in finalising the IJT's stall and spin parameters.

Officials associated with the IJT programme told IHS Jane's that redesigning the trainer's tail would prevent HAL from meeting its revised deadline of end-2014 to confirm the aircraft's parameters before clearing it for series production.

HAL declined to comment on the IJT's design complications, while a BAE Systems official only confirmed that it was "engaged in providing consultancy to HAL in support of their spin and stall testing programme for the IJT".

To offset the IJT shortfall, the IAF in February 2011 diverted ageing, locally designed Hindustan Jet Trainer 16 (HJT-16) Kiran Mk I and Mk II aircraft from its aerobatics team to perform the intermediate training role.

Accordingly, IAF trainee pilots graduated from the recently acquired Swiss Pilatus PC-7 Mk II basic turbo trainers to Kirans before moving on to BAE Systems Hawk Mk 132 advanced jet trainers (AJTs).

The Kirans, however, are scheduled for retirement by the end of 2014, although continuing problems with the IJT compelled the IAF to extend their operational lifespan by four years to 2018 despite a lack of technical support for their Bristol Diddeley Orpheus engines.

Consequently, senior officers said the IAF planned to extend pilot training time on the PC-7s and the AJTs and considerably reduce intermediate Stage 2 instruction on the Kirans.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 14 Nov 2014 09:23

^ Typo in article. Kiran uses Viper, not Orpheus which at 22kN is twice as powerful. It is a testament to the robust Kiran design that it is still flying after 50 years.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 14 Nov 2014 11:12

IAF 2030

FGFA --- 80 (4sq)
Su 30MKI---- 295 (16sq)
Rafale --- 185 (9sq)
LCA --- 280 (14sq)
Mirage 2000--- 45 (2sq)
Jaguar --- 100 (5sq)

Total 985 (50sq)

Optimistic projection of IAF by 2030.

FGFA on by 2025 production @16/yr.

Su 30 272+40=312 by 2021

Lca 14sq of 294nos with second production line of 168nos @ 16/yr (8sq) in 2020-30 time frame. 40(2sq) mk1+83(4sq)mk2=123 from first production line.

Rafale 126+64=190nos by 2030 @ 16/yr.

Jaguar 3sq will be due for retirement as they will be 40+ year old. Only 2sq will be below 30 year old from 15+20+17=52 nos order in 2000-2008 period.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 14 Nov 2014 16:35

IAF 2050

FGFA --- 200 (10sq) of 214 nos produced in 2025-2040
AMCA--- 240 (12sq) of 250 nos produced in 2030-2050
Su 30MKI---- 140 (7sq) of 312 nos produced by 2021, (40year+ old aircraft retired)
Rafale --- 170 (8sq) of 190nos produced by 2030
LCA --- 250 (13sq) of 294nos produced by 2030

Total 1000 (50sq)

For only 5th gen aircraft by 2050 @214nos FGFA(10sq) and @250nos AMCA(12sq).

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 14 Nov 2014 18:41

forgetting the mig-29 UPG?

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 14 Nov 2014 21:36

Mig 29upg will complete their calendar life of 40 years by 2027-29 and retired.