Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 24 Dec 2014 21:44

I suspect that, but then we have 25 Sq, will someone just report a lie like that.
Count -
14 SQ of Mig 21 and Mig 27
3 of Mig 29 (-1 in upgrade)
3 of Mirage (-.5 in upgrade)
10 of SU30MKI
6-7 of Jags (-.5 in upgrade)
Well adding them number is way more than 25. Sorry did not check, it is from Hindustan Times, by a Indian Jurno - Liars!!!

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 24 Dec 2014 21:59

fanne wrote:It should and it must. Even if with degraded performance. A bad plane (if the argument is that LCA without these feature is bad) is better than no plane.

Agreed, specially if the above news is anywhere near being correct. From what I have read however, HAL/ADA can't make more than a few per year (4, 6?) even if they were given an order tomorrow. They are still making only one-offs and have sent people to "study" modern aircraft production lines in Europe because they didn't realize that it would be so complicated. Help us.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Dec 2014 22:12

Shreeman wrote:'tis but preparing the ground for rafail signing. lets not get overexcited. more of this will keep shoiwing up

True that. That whole committee is more like the last gasp of Import Lobby.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 24 Dec 2014 22:39

From http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... decade.htm

This image is there on the first page of the thread and it shows that IAF is basically on track as compared to the wishlist of one of its own Air Marshal (Retd) AK Trikha (Published: September 2013).

Anyhow observe the astrix. The Rafale astrix is well known but the one against Su30MKI is interesting. Was that meant to be there? (Kahin makkhi to nahi baith gayi thi photu lete hue)

Never heard you people speaking about it.

VKumar · Post by **VKumar** » 25 Dec 2014 00:18

Ravi G isn't the total of squadrons, wrong? Does the author automatically deduct the mig21/27?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 25 Dec 2014 07:23

Victor wrote:
fanne wrote:It should and it must. Even if with degraded performance. A bad plane (if the argument is that LCA without these feature is bad) is better than no plane.
Agreed, specially if the above news is anywhere near being correct. From what I have read however, HAL/ADA can't make more than a few per year (4, 6?) even if they were given an order tomorrow. They are still making only one-offs and have sent people to "study" modern aircraft production lines in Europe because they didn't realize that it would be so complicated. Help us.

Either you are lying or you are ignorant. Either way you are WRONG. HAL can increase production rates if they had a bigger order. It is uneconomical for them to increase production rates otherwise. The only concrete order they have for now is for 40 fighters, which is certainly not gonna warrant a production rate higher than stated. An idle assembly line is a very costly NPA. The orders would have to be given years in advance to increase production also, because orders for components should be given years ahead and this is true for all manufacturers, even for super duper amrikhan.

So, why are you spreading misinformation? Are you truly ignorant or are you just a fanboy spreading lies?

VijayN · Post by **VijayN** » 25 Dec 2014 07:40

Not replying to any specific post, however a few pointers to the production facilities and the plans alike:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... 217-l-Help

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/k ... 324365.ece

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2014/10/ ... tejas.html

Just to add, the onus of LCA success lies with every party involved - MoD, HAL/ADA, IAF, etc. To be truly independent, demonstrating confidence in our made in India products bodes well for national security. Everyone should pull up their socks, agree on a common vision on what best works for us and march towards that singular minded.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 25 Dec 2014 18:19

ravi_g wrote:

From http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... decade.htm

Why can't LCA Mk.1 replace 4 MiG 21 Bison sqds. ??? Their is no way that the bison is a safer/better fighter than Tejas, so why is IAF HQ not replacing them with a 4th gen indigenous solution in hand ???

Also noteworthy is that Rafale isn't going to be used for air dominance role.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 25 Dec 2014 19:19

@VKumar ji - The table is a suggestion (out of many possibilities out there) for 2022.

@Arun Menon ji - The 40 Mk-1 is by IAF. There will then be Navy order and after that the Mk-2 order. So the line is not going to remain idle for long by reasons of orders. Yet the delays have already started. HAL had a slow start in Su30MKI also. But they did make it work eventually and the quality is not as bad as some would like to harp about. The point is HAL has the deep capability to make Mk-1 but most likely the MoD itself is not pushing the matter with them right now. Remember we had the offer to the private industry just some time back. That is going to remain secret (whether accepted of not). My hunch, off course out of my musharraf is the private sector will chicken out. However even the privatization should not stop HAL from making good on the Mk-1 order of 40. If anything HAL should be working on overdrive with so much work coming their way. Instead we see HAL going after newer projects without creating an accountability structure to explain current delays - Delays that are still running.

There is another matter for which HAL gets the brickbats. Mostly hawa-banana. Where HAL will get cussed for even the kabaz-pechis of the posters. Mostly it is because HAL will most likely do a lifafa bombing of its own if the pet imports cannot come through even after the Ex-Brass of the armed forces has been wined and dined in international seminars and their wards put in international seminaries.

From the jingo perspective we should we getting worried about the order of 40. Now. Rest all is cinematics of seminaries.

@Sagar G - I think it can be given to the IAF that they decide exactly how they want to support an indigenous effort. At the end of the day its their job and its a real professional job. Limit Order of 40 does not hobble the HAL so after that point IAF cannot morally be held responsible for the state of affairs with LCA production. IAF share of the blame is mostly historical & only institutional (individuals from IAF trudged on even when it was a career dead end). However even here they have changed gears and have their hands on the steering wheel. They are working with Indian Navy type intent now and the institutional bias has changed very clearly.

My hunch - There may be some work going on with people trying to understand how to handle this complex art in a better manner instead of merely landing up at HAL doors with a ToT jobwork with every aircraft induction. IAF/Importers/Lobbies/ADA/HAL/Private Companies/MoD and the whole future of Indian military aviation is too complex and too much money+power are involved. The war footing standards should be implemented and people all across, have to be made to understood these standards as such and not as Indian Standard Time. The old saying of 'sweat in peace saves blood in war' has to be made to percolate outside of the armed forces too. Don't take this as more duty hours, rather as more time and money investments and faster decisions. 6 months into the job, is enough to extract a categorical yes/no from the private parties. And whatever they say the next step cannot take another 6 months. Modi ji ki jaan kha jani chahiye hum logon ko.

Added later -

Sagar G ji,
Also the role of point defence and short range attack, itself may be getting addressed in different ways may times over so IAF cannot be expected to bother too much over a gap at this level. After all a hole in the door for the big cat works well for the kitten too. You do not need a separate smaller hole in the door for the kitten.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 25 Dec 2014 20:33

Looking at above chart and Mig 21/27 nos + CHINA as an adversary-

1. TODAY - Order 8 squadrons (160 nos.) of LCA for delivery within next 4 years (beyond current pittance of 40) - Split the order with Reliance as they seem to fancy their aeronautical wings with 40% penalty for any delays on both HAL and Reliance. Conversely, early deliveries means 25% reward for performance

2. TODAY - PRE-Order another 8 squadrons of LCA MK II, DESIGN FINALIZATION in 2 years time frame, 3 year delivery time frame after that i.e. 5 years total - Better performer of above order get 5 squadrons to make while the laggard gets to make only 3 squadrons. IAF will bulge only if they see a carrot in front - 8 additional squadrons BONUS OF LCA MK II

3. This will release the RAFALE pressure and would SUGGEST TO WAKE UP AND START AMCA AS NATIONAL PRIORITY. We can JUNK RAFALE, Build up 5 squadrons of PAKFA from year 4 to 8 out, wait for another 8 years for AMCA to come along to switch over. Worst case Buy F-35 instead of PAKFA as no one wants to be taking on a 5th gen+ plane sitting in a 4.5 gen RAFALE.

4. Junk Jaguar at end of life as it makes no sense to risk a pilot for medium range strike missions anymore. Convert in to UAV+missiles squadrons! THAT WILL BE THE REAL DEAL HERE!

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 25 Dec 2014 21:04

Arun Menon wrote:HAL can increase production rates if they had a bigger order. It is uneconomical for them to increase production rates otherwise.

This was in 2012, less than 2 years ago:

Director of the Aeronautical Development Agency ( ADA), P Subramanyam, who runs the LCA programme, explains that nobody realised that setting up a production line was a technology by itself...that realization has come

.
We are talking about a production line not a custom mould. Besides, the " economic" argument is a laugh, coming from a commie-style PSU that is funded by the Indian taxpayer. As mentioned before, this "need 300 orders or only 4 LCAs per year" is only a ruse to hide total cluelessness and rank incompetence. I can make the case that exonerating or worse, supporting, such a state of affairs is aid and comfort to the enemy.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 25 Dec 2014 21:53

@ ravi_g

Let me be very clear when I say that none of the forces are doing any favour to India by indigenizing military gears. It is a part of national duty and quicker IAF realises it the better it will be for them. So pardon me if I don't appreciate statements like "I think it can be given to the IAF that they decide exactly how they want to support an indigenous effort". The India that you and I now live in has 73% literacy level plus it is a democratic country so questions are going to be asked for each and every penny spent on buying foreign gears whether the armed forces like it or not. I would also like to point out that IAF is not the only professional body remaining in India, there are many professional bodies out there and they are also constitutionally bound to be answerable to India. So please stop giving the same stale arguments to support indefensible actions done in the past or present. Mig 21 Bison is going to be in service till 2025 or who knows till 2030 as well, so obviously one would ask why not order more LCA Mk.1 to replace these ??? Even if the IAF decides to junk the LCA mk.1 post 2030 it is all fine by me atleast our pilots will be flying in a much safer and better aircraft and the fighter safety has been a major stick which has been used time and again both by DDM and IAF to beat the LCA programme so obviously when I see IAF's rhetoric not matching their action it will make me ask questions. How come IAF HQ is comfortable with flying obsolete MiG's but won't touch LCA Mk.1 with a pole ??? And no 40 isn't a good or nice start by IAF but a pathetic one especially when they choose to fly junk instead of a 4th gen fighter.

With such a small order I'am not surprised with HAL's slow production rate, a production line needs to keep running continuously otherwise what will HAL do if it delivers at 16 jets/yr. and then the line runs idle ??? CAG won't take a nice view of it and the same people who are goading HAL for slow production rate will then also be the first to abuse it for idle lines. The idle line of MBT Arjun being case in point. LCA Mk.2 is still far from being produced and the date's being given are of 2022. If Mk.1 production run is ended by 2017-18 then how will HAL utilise the production facilities then ??? Mk.2 protos aren't going to be produced in hundreds that the line can be kept busy with that. The Rafale deal if it goes through will require a completely different line and it's not like the people who are working on Mk.1 like will then work on Rafale line and then will again go back to Mk.2 line when the production order comes for that. A large order will remove this risk, OK you don't want to order 4 sqds. to replace the MiG fine order two more but keep the line busy till Mk.2 production picks up which is only going to happen post 2020. Hence it isn't surprising that HAL management finds itself in a tough spot to quicken the production run of Mk.1. I don't think that mk.1 will ever get to 16 aircraft/yr., the mk.2 might provided a big order is given by IAF.

HAL hasn't done anything that it can be successfully accused of failing to deliver on production of Mk.1, till the design house i.e. ADA doesn't deliver them with final production drawings HAL can't do much (this doesn't exonerate HAL of it's past ******** child treatment to LCA). Even the SP 1 has gone back again to be upgraded which means that the final designs were released very late. Personally I am still not sure whether ADA has released all the final production drawings.

I take any news of IAF changing it's view towards indigenization with a truckload of salt given that they still behave like a whiny bunch of kids when it comes to supporting desi R&D. Comparing IAF's "vision" to that of Navy is frankly an insult to IN's toil over the years towards achieving indigenization. It will be over a decade before IAF as an organization changes it's view towards supporting desi aeronautical industry and by then IN would have achieved all the critical tech indigenization. IAF whines about not being given the driver's seat regarding Tejas but IN works with the same system without being in the driver's seat and still gives better results than IAF. The difference here is intent and willing to work as a team with the civvies whereas it looks like IAF just wants to be in the driver's seat giving orders and claim strategic upper hand every now and then. Their contempt for civvies is being returned in kind I guess when I see news like that of Nirbhay CM. The IAF version will be given to them only when IA and IN versions are done !!! Aur kar lo dushmani

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 25 Dec 2014 21:56

Victor, do you even know what long time leads are before you typed out that mound of garbage?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 25 Dec 2014 22:00

^^^ Learn to laugh and overlook the habitual trolls plz. Don't feed them.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Dec 2014 23:08

Couple of questions to hawa-bahadurs of aviation dhaga:

1. How many IAF squadrons operate the upgraded Mig-21 Bison? The numbers I have are as follows - 3,4,21,23,32,51.
2. We had total of 6 Squadrons operating Mig-23 type? Mig-23MF: 223,224 and Mig-23BN: 10, 220,221. Which was the sixth? Or, is my understanding incorrect?
3. Mig-21 Bis squadrons left in service: 15,26, 35. Correct?
4. Mig-21 M/MF Squadrons: 17,37,101,108. Correct?
5. Mig-27ML: Three squadrons left in service - 18,22,222. Correct?

Thank you in advance.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 26 Dec 2014 04:53

Thakur_B wrote:Victor, do you even know what long time leads are before you typed out that mound of garbage?

Do you? Before you posted your garbage?

I was responding to the statement that HAL can increase the production rate if the order were to be increased. This is complete nonsense in a critical government-sponsored program which has (and has had for decades) virtually unlimited access to Indian taxpayer money, no questions asked. There is no issue of "economics" for HAL/ADA to worry their little heads about. The order is 40, so do your project management (such as it is), send the word out to to your suppliers, get off your duff and get cracking.

It is a virtual guarantee that the LCA2 will follow, that it will be based on the LCA1 and eventually have hundreds of orders. If in the very unlikely case this doesn't happen, the GoI loses the money, not HAL or its subcontractors. So what's stopping HAL/ADA from setting up a production line and getting those damn planes out fast? Well, in the words of ADA boss Subramaniam, THEY DON'T KNOW HOW! In spite of making hundreds of fighters for over 50 years, the gentle art of making a fighter production line escaped them. More to the point, why hasn't the MoD ORDERED them to do so? Very likely because they, like everyone in the know, specially the IAF, know that the LCA1 is not productionizable. That's why the IAF is hollering for the LCA2.

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 26 Dec 2014 06:51

Victor wrote:
This is complete nonsense in a critical government-sponsored program which has (and has had for decades) virtually unlimited access to Indian taxpayer money, no questions asked. There is no issue of "economics" for HAL/ADA to worry their little heads about. .

HAL is not funded by the tax payer ( its not a govt. department, but a PSU). It works as a for profit company and the management is responsible to ensure that the company makes decent profits ( same is true for all PSU's).

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 26 Dec 2014 06:58

Rupesh wrote:
Victor wrote:
This is complete nonsense in a critical government-sponsored program which has (and has had for decades) virtually unlimited access to Indian taxpayer money, no questions asked. There is no issue of "economics" for HAL/ADA to worry their little heads about. .
HAL is not funded by the tax payer ( its not a govt. department, but a PSU). It works as a for profit company and the management is responsible to ensure that the company makes decent profits ( same is true for all PSU's).

Wow! that is worthy of an accounting challenged award. Where do PSUs get their funds from? Where did the capitalization come from?

Sounds like HAL is full bore into social media influencing (badly)

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 26 Dec 2014 11:00

It was precisely to enable the PSU-educated to make such noises and deflect suspicion of nefarious goings on that the UPA actually privatized HAL! I kid you not--HAL was privatized to the tune of--ah, er, oh---10%. Yep, TEN percent is now owned by aam janta so HAL can talk with a straight face about "profits", "dividends", "responsibility to shareholders" etc. All legit onlee.

Except, everything to do with LCA comes directly from govt pockets, not IAF, not HAL.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Dec 2014 19:25

Thakur, RV and the other serious types, exactly what I had posted about funding and the AF, grim reading about the IAF et al and funding availability. UPA ki jai ho. Saala tijori main choohe laga diye.

http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Defe ... ence_4.pdf

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 26 Dec 2014 22:20

After the last 5 year disaster planning by Chidu and gang things can only look up. Cannot fall out of the ditch, hein ji.

More seriously. There has to be a clear break in thought process from the past esp. w.r.t. those projects that cater to the needs of both the deprived users (IAF) and the comprehensive national capacity (Indigenous mil aviation-LCA). Actually one of the reasons I believe new dispensation had not caused a face off with the honchos chosen under the earlier regimen is because they want to change the direction while making things look like there is no break from established past practices and actors. Having said that there is a dire need to isolate and deal with the trouble makers otherwise they will come back again and try to influence our people again. But again these are things for the GoI to decide and act upon.

As a jingo I am hopeful that the uptick in the general sentiment is going to bring about substantial changes in next few years and while the lost time cannot be regained but we can at least hope to regain lost track. I am actually betting on it.

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

@Sagar G
when you have to differ you at least have to see where the other guys is standing. There is hardly anything that you want and I don't. I am also for Mk-1 increased order, expediting the Mk-2 and limiting the Rafale to its original intent of saving squad counts. You would be seriously mistaken if you believe I am for stopping the Mk-1 at 40. In fact I have never spoken about my own wishlist for Mk-1 here.

The problem is you are allowing history to dictate (instead of guiding) your future. Even when the things around are already changing. For example you presume the dates given for Mk-2 are likely to be extended and then additionally put yourself in an even tighter spot by presuming something that is even earlier than the earliest possible dates for full delivery of 40 Mk-1. Both these possibilities together constitute one of the many possible scenarios. There are more. Then you see Rafale as the main opponent of LCA when the reality probably is that the tussle may not last beyond the first cash down. You have to decide if staring at a pessimistic scenario is the only option for planning.

This still does not detract from the fact that HAL can but is not filling up the orders for which all three parties (HAL+IAF+IN) have already sunk in costs into the production line. You have to remain open to the suggestion that HAL itself may be playing difficult to get. Last time we heard HAL had two requests pending with MoD - To increase from current 8 per year to 16 per year and to have the cost per unit revised from 130 Cr to 160 Cr.

As I see it:
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2014/12/on ... s-iaf.html

“The first of the IOC standard Tejas (SP-1) has been built and successfully completed its maiden flight on September 30, 2014. This aircraft [SP-1] will be handed over to IAF by March 2015 after some upgrades,” Parrikar informed Lok Sabha in a written reply.

The SP-1 was rolled out from the brand new Tejas facility of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) in Bengaluru. The minister said that the second aircraft (SP-2) will also be ready by March 2015 for its maiden flight and the first 20 aircraft will be built by 2017-18.

So there is zero likelihood of production going upto 16 if the cost per unit are to remain at 130 Cr and the the full 40 order is going to be filled in only by 2020.

Abhi thoda ruk jayiye - Is hamam mein sab nange hain. I am not absolving IAF either but then we have to realize that both IAF and HAL are national assets meant for our requirements. Our requirement is to listen to both for their respective needs. My only case is that without an able MoD leadership, taking both these errant children to task we are not going to see things turning for the better. And there is some thought going on, on this particular need.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 27 Dec 2014 22:52

ravi_g wrote:when you have to differ you at least have to see where the other guys is standing. There is hardly anything that you want and I don't. I am also for Mk-1 increased order, expediting the Mk-2 and limiting the Rafale to its original intent of saving squad counts. You would be seriously mistaken if you believe I am for stopping the Mk-1 at 40. In fact I have never spoken about my own wishlist for Mk-1 here.

Fair enough.

ravi_g wrote:The problem is you are allowing history to dictate (instead of guiding) your future. Even when the things around are already changing. For example you presume the dates given for Mk-2 are likely to be extended and then additionally put yourself in an even tighter spot by presuming something that is even earlier than the earliest possible dates for full delivery of 40 Mk-1. Both these possibilities together constitute one of the many possible scenarios. There are more. Then you see Rafale as the main opponent of LCA when the reality probably is that the tussle may not last beyond the first cash down. You have to decide if staring at a pessimistic scenario is the only option for planning.

The date's for production of mk.2 as estimated by IAF themselves is off 2022, there is a pic of the same displayed in haram blog trishul where they have put up their realistic dates for various milestones both for mk.1 and mk.2. I would be more than happy if the mk.2 enters production by 2020 but I am not taking this something as cast in stone, in R&D delay is common than being rarity.
You need to re read my assumption for the production run of mk.1 ending much before 2020 and clear you head regarding why did I say that.
Rafale is of totally different category than LCA hence not an opponent but IAF HQ is fixated on it since now they have a good chance to import maal and show off after overlooking LCA for more than a decade. The requirement of Rafale came because LCA got delayed otherwise the issue of falling sqd. no. wouldn't have been an issue at all but thanks to their late participation and request for design changes which delayed the program further, sqd. strength is an issue now.

ravi_g wrote:This still does not detract from the fact that HAL can but is not filling up the orders for which all three parties (HAL+IAF+IN) have already sunk in costs into the production line. You have to remain open to the suggestion that HAL itself may be playing difficult to get. Last time we heard HAL had two requests pending with MoD - To increase from current 8 per year to 16 per year and to have the cost per unit revised from 130 Cr to 160 Cr.

As I see it:
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2014/12/on ... s-iaf.html
“The first of the IOC standard Tejas (SP-1) has been built and successfully completed its maiden flight on September 30, 2014. This aircraft [SP-1] will be handed over to IAF by March 2015 after some upgrades,” Parrikar informed Lok Sabha in a written reply.

The SP-1 was rolled out from the brand new Tejas facility of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) in Bengaluru. The minister said that the second aircraft (SP-2) will also be ready by March 2015 for its maiden flight and the first 20 aircraft will be built by 2017-18.
So there is zero likelihood of production going upto 16 if the cost per unit are to remain at 130 Cr and the the full 40 order is going to be filled in only by 2020.

Why would HAL play at this stage hard to get ??? They have confirmed orders for 40 Tejas, they have built a world class production line and they are delivering production standard aircraft besides all these everybody is now putting pressure on them and frankly forget IAF before them DRDO won't take it lightly if HAL messes up their project. Asking for cost revision of a puny 30 cr. additional is barely indicative of hard to get, with the production having been so delayed it isn't surprising that they are asking for the cost to be revised. Inflation !!!!

I don't think that cost is the factor that is holding up increase of mk.1 production no. but as said earlier the order size. They have to keep the line running till 2020 or 2022. With the current production capacity they are planning to touch a peak of 12 mk.1 (I am assuming here that no additional line is coming up)

HAL to build 8, then 12, Tejas fighters each year

"By end-March 2014, SP-1 will fly, and SP-2 will fly a few months later. By the end of next year four Tejas will be in production. In 2015-16, we will build six fighters, and in 2016-17, we will build nine. We are targeting an annual capacity of 12 Tejas fighters," says V Sridharan, the project manager hand-chosen to build the LCA. Earlier, he set up HAL's production line for the Hawk trainer.

The next 20 will be of FOC standard for which IAF predicts a delivery date of 31 March 2019 and then till 2022 the first 20 will be upgraded to FOC standard.

ravi_g wrote:Abhi thoda ruk jayiye - Is hamam mein sab nange hain. I am not absolving IAF either but then we have to realize that both IAF and HAL are national assets meant for our requirements. Our requirement is to listen to both for their respective needs. My only case is that without an able MoD leadership, taking both these errant children to task we are not going to see things turning for the better. And there is some thought going on, on this particular need.

Now only if Shri Manohar Parikkar sahab gets time from releasing books of presstitutes

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jan 2015 06:32

Defence Minister visits Hindan Air Base

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Jan 2015 20:41

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0104000010
Russia refuses to sell China Tu-22 bomber
Staff Reporter 2015-01-04

An important development ,good news for India.Earlier reports had it that China wanted to pick up the entire lot of TU-22s and capability to manufacture the same.

Russia has recently rejected China's request to purchase Tu-22 Supersonic strategic bombers to replace the PLA's Cold War-era H-6 strategic bombers, according to Moscow's Russian Military Analyst on Jan. 3.

Large and slow, the H-6 bomber presents a relatively easy target for US and Russian air defenses. China currently operates 100 H-6 bombers based on Soviet Tu-16 strategic bombers purchased from Moscow in 1958. By fitting the H-6 with Russian built D-30KP-2 engines and advanced avionics, the Xian Aircraft Industrial Corporation built the upgraded version of the H-6 bomber called the H-6K.

The combat range of H-6K has been extended to from 18,000 kilometers 30,000. It can carry a payload of six CJ-10A strategic cruise missiles designed based on the Russian Kh-55. However, those modifications do not make the H-6K an advanced bomber when compared to the B-2 and Tu-22 bombers of the United States and Russia. Equipped with long-range cruise missiles, the combat radius of the H-6K is still not enough to conduct strategic missions.

China has been trying to develop new types of bomber to replace the H-6 for years but it has proven to be a difficult task for the country's aviation industry. To catch up with the United States in the development of strategic bombers China pinned its hopes on Russia but has been thwarted for now

The Backfires were once offered to India,a v.lomg time ago.In the light of the Raffy deal problems and our lack of a dedicated bomber,the IAF/IN shoudl seriously think of acquiring the same or at least the SU-34 for the IAF and backfire for the IN for LR maritime ops and also to deliver stand-of N-tipped cruise missiles.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 04 Jan 2015 21:18

Phillip ji,

Su-34 or Tu22 or Tu160 is not of much use for Indians. These are Chindi.

Now that the Russians are feeling the heat of the sanctions and unwilling to go to the Chinese as a first resort. How about a co-development of a Perspective Single Role Bomber capable of flying Nirbhays, Brahmos (nah not the piddly little ones) and other hypersonic vehicles, all over the IOR and beyond. And having atleast one such Perspective Single Role Bomber in the air circling in a 30 km circle, near Kolkata, at all times.

Ultimately Russians too have to realize that the only real strength is in the self and not in strategic allies based on self-interest.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 04 Jan 2015 21:47

Philip wrote:http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0104000010
Russia refuses to sell China Tu-22 bomber

...The combat range of H-6K has been extended to from 18,000 kilometers 30,000...

... Equipped with long-range cruise missiles, the combat radius of the H-6K is still not enough to conduct strategic missions.

Yeah right, combat range of onlee 30,000 km is not enough to conduct strategic missions. Only TFTA bombers like the Tu-22 and B-2 can conduct strategic missions with their range of 72000000000000km.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Jan 2015 21:51

Philip wrote:http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0104000010
Russia refuses to sell China Tu-22 bomber
Staff Reporter 2015-01-04
The Backfires were once offered to India,a v.lomg time ago.In the light of the Raffy deal problems and our lack of a dedicated bomber,the IAF/IN shoudl seriously think of acquiring the same or at least the SU-34 for the IAF and backfire for the IN for LR maritime ops and also to deliver stand-of N-tipped cruise missiles.

The Su-34 only has 10% more range at best due to 2000kg more fuel and adds yet another type we have to maintain. It also weighs more and has the extra weight penalty. MKI with IFR probe can do all the Su34 can do.

I can print out a shiny brochure and have it handy for AI2015 touting naval ops for MKI with dunking sonar and extra candy holder for long flights.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jan 2015 16:35

India must be prepared for a two-front war, says Air Marshall Reddy

Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff Air Marshal PP Reddy on Monday said that Beijing's growing relationship with Islamabad has complicated India's security challenges, adding that the county must be prepared for a two-front war with China and Pakistan.

"We are located in a difficult neighbourhood, with two nuclear-armed adversaries. Our primary external security challenges arise from the immediate neighbourhood, that is, to the north and west, and to a certain extent, from the extended neighbourhood, especially terrorism in the name of religion," Air Marshall Reddy said at the Conference on Aerospace, Defence and Homeland Security, held in the national capital.

"China's growing assertiveness and cooperation with Pakistan complicates the external security environment and we have to be prepared for a collusion and a two-front war," he added.

Air Marshall Reddy further stated that internal security challenges had further complicated India's security.

"The internal security challenges on account of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and terrorism in the North-East states and the Naxalite threat further complicate the overall security environment. Hence, we need to be prepared for a complete spectrum of conflict, whether it is terrorist attacks, conventional conflict, intense conventional war or nuclear war," he said.

Looking at the growing difference in India's and China's economy, Air Marshall Reddy further said that it has become difficult for New Delhi to match up to its neighbour.

"China, with its growing stature and economic clout and hunger for resources to feed its manufacturing conglomerate, has stepped up diplomatic and economic activities in our area of interest. China is building ports and infrastructure, providing long-term loans and economic aid as well as exporting arms, to all our neighbouring countries," he said.

"Unfortunately, the state of our economy and defence industry does not allow us to compete with China. Many countries in our neighbourhood look up to us to provide training, equipment and infrastructure, but we are unable to do this," he added.

However, the Air Marshall signed off on a positive note, stating that India has a legitimate aspiration of emerging as a developed nation.

"Notwithstanding India's complex security canvas, the mood in the nation today is highly positive and the world is looking at India once again. We have a legitimate aspiration of emerging as a developed nation that commands respect on the world stage," he said.

"The economic landscape of the world is fast undergoing a transformation. We are in the zone that contributes over 35 percent of the world's GDP, as of now. By 2050, India is expected to be the world's second largest economy and with a fairly young and empowered population, according to a study by Price Waterhouse Cooper," he added.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 07 Jan 2015 07:22

Business Standard: Scuttling a 'Made in India' project: The case of the HTT-40 trainer
By Ajai Shukla

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 'Make in India' vision faces powerful opposition, including within the military, which sees greater benefit in importing costly foreign weaponry.

This is evident from the successful scuttling of a Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) project for designing and building a basic trainer aircraft named the Hindustan Turbo Trainer - 40 (HTT-40) for training rookie pilots of the Indian Air Force (IAF). Instead of this aircraft, which HAL could build, export, overhaul, upgrade and even modify into a light-attack aircraft, powerful lobbies have promoted a Swiss trainer - the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II.

Business Standard has learnt, and the IAF has confirmed, that the MoD has directed HAL to close the HTT-40 project. Instead, HAL will build 106 PC-7 Mark II trainers in India.

In 2009, the ministry of defence (MoD) had ruled that the IAF's requirement of 181 trainers would be met through two simultaneous channels - 75 aircrafts will be bought from abroad while HAL designed and built 106 HTT-40 trainers in India.

Accordingly, the IAF contracted on May 24, 2012 with Pilatus for seventy-five PC-7 Mark II trainers for Swiss Francs 557 million (Rs 3,600 crore). With that done, the IAF began a shrill campaign demanding 106 more Pilatus in place of the HTT-40.

Business Standard has identified a four-pronged campaign that promoted the Pilatus trainer, while blocking the HTT-40 programme. This included a letter from a serving IAF chief to the defence minister that knowingly understated the cost of the Swiss trainer, to argue that the indigenous trainer is too expensive; a letter from a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member of parliament (MP) to the chief vigilance commissioner (CVC) alleging corruption in selecting an engine for the HTT-40, delaying the engine purchase; another letter from a shadowy non-governmental organisation (NGO) to the CVC, also alleging irregularities in HAL's engine selection and levelling charges against HAL's design chief; and repeated attempts by the IAF deputy chief, who sits on HAL's board, to choke off funding for the HTT-40.

CVC investigations have found no wrongdoing but the investigation has delayed HAL's purchase of an engine for the HTT-40. Such delays strengthens the IAF's case for buying more Pilatus.

Business Standard had earlier reported on the letter written by then IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne to then defence minister, A K Antony (July 25, 2013, 'Indian Air Force at war with Hindustan Aeronautics; wants to import, not build, a trainer', and July 31, 2013, 'Admissions & obfuscations in IAF clarification on BS reports'). Browne's five-page letter argued for scuttling the HTT-40 and buying more Pilatus, falsely stating that the Pilatus costs only Rs 30 crore per aircraft, significantly cheaper than the HTT-40. In fact, due to the rupee's decline, the IAF was paying Pilatus almost Rs 40 crore for each PC-7 Mark II trainer being delivered.

Browne also stated incorrectly that the Pilatus' cost would remain Rs 30 crore per aircraft till 2017. In fact, the next 38 trainers will cost Swiss Francs 6.09 million (Rs 39.3 crore today) each under the "options clause" of the contract. The cost of the following 68 aircrafts (adding up to 106 additional PC-7 Mark II) would be negotiated afresh and would almost certainly be higher, due to inflation.

The MoD ignored Browne's letter, being disinclined then to scupper an indigenous project. However, with the IAF blocking funding for the HTT-40, HAL was forced to commit Rs 180 crore of company funds in July 2013. In early 2014, that was upped to Rs 350 crore, with three prototypes to be built for accelerated flight-testing.

With the HTT-40 on track, and racing towards its first flight next year, two corruption allegations mysteriously popped up, stalling the project. Both alleged wrongdoing in HAL's selection of the Honeywell TPE 331-12B engine after an open tender, when the alternative supplier, Pratt & Whitney, refused to allow licensed manufacture in India. With the first flight looming, Honeywell agreed to provide a 'Category B' engine - a used engine with more than 80 per cent of its service life remaining.

The first complaint came in early November from the BJP MP from Jaunpur, Krishna Pratap Singh, who complained to the CVC about the engine selection and blamed HAL's design chief, T Suvarna Raju, who oversees the HTT-40 project. Investigation began and the MoD halted engine procurement.

Contacted by Business Standard, Krishna Pratap Singh claimed that he knew nothing about the HTT-40 or the issues involved. "About three to four months ago a sajjan (person of good character), who I don't remember now, came to me and said there was corruption. I only wrote that the matter be investigated, and any wrongdoing corrected," said Singh.

The second allegation came almost simultaneously from an NGO called Rashtriya Mukti Morcha. The RMM has neither expertise nor previous interest in aerospace. It has earlier filed petitions against Sonia Gandhi's right to hold constitutional office, and in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha bribery case.

Contacted by Business Standard, RMM chief Ravindra Kumar acknowledges filing a complaint. He said details are in his files but he repeatedly denied requests to visit his office to ascertain the basis for his complaint.

CVC investigations into the complaints unearthed no wrongdoing; It is not unusual for 'Category B' engines to be chosen for prototypes, while buying new engines for the production aircraft. HAL had powered the intermediate jet trainer prototype with a 'Category B' Larzac engine, until new engines became available.

Even so, engine procurement was halted. Meanwhile the IAF repeatedly petitioned the MoD that Swiss trainers should be quickly bought since the HTT-40 would be late.

Meanwhile, the deputy chief of air staff (DCAS), who sits on HAL's board, steadfastly opposed funding for the HTT-40. When the board allocated Rs 180 crore in July 2013, the DCAS dissented in writing, something that the IAF now denies.

The IAF has sought to associate the PC-7 Mark II with the 'Make in India' drive by seeking to build it in India to blueprints provided by Pilatus. Yet that would essentially remain a foreign aircraft, with intellectual property, technology and licensing residing abroad. In contrast, a 'Make' category project like the HTT-40 would involve far more expansive indigenisation - including ground-up design and integration, test flying and certification and eventual manufacture.

In 2013, the IAF asked HAL to scrap the HTT-40 and instead build 106 PC-7 Mk II from technology transferred by Pilatus. "However, in their own interest HAL declined to participate in license manufacture of the PC-7 Mk II", the IAF told Business Standard.

Rebuffed by HAL, but insistent on providing a veneer of indigenisation, Browne bizarrely declared on October 8, 2013, that the IAF's base repair depots (BRDs), which maintain and overhaul aircraft and engines, could build the PC-7 Mark II. The IAF's maintenance chief, Air Marshal P Kanakaraj, quickly contradicted him, while the MoD simply ignored the proposal.

Now, however, battered to a halt by groundless complaints and unable to buy an engine, HAL has buckled under the pressure. Last month HAL chairman, RK Tyagi, agreed to build the PC-7 Mark II, while developing the HTT-40 as an HAL project.

Now even that is seen as a threat. At HAL's board meeting on December 20, PK Kataria, an MoD financial advisor questioned why the HTT-40 project should continue, since HAL would be building the PC-7 Mark II.

Defence Minister Manohar Parriker will pronounce final sentence on the HTT-40, in the apex Defence Acquisition Council. Asked when this would happen, he indicated that the die was not yet cast: "There are issues [relating to the Pilatus] that were raised and which have to be addressed. I think every query and every difficulty has to be properly addressed."

The MoD and HAL did not respond to a request for comments for this report.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jan 2015 09:12

This will forever stay in my eyes as the "This is not done, IAF!" category.

And thank you Ajai Shukla for bringing the misgivings on the engine to light. What a shame that we let foreign agents scuttle our indigeneous products through our own MPs and NGOs. And IAF is to blamed as well. Even if they were not complicit, they can see what is happenning. It is clear as daylight, and yet they chose to side with the scoundrels!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Jan 2015 09:23

Much as I prefer a domestic solution. I am in two minds WRT, the HTT 40, and the PC-7 Mk2.

My problem essentially stems from my desire to see IAF having standardised solution for any job that it is currently doing. Having two different designs doing the same job is slightly hard to accept.

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 07 Jan 2015 11:03

VinodTK wrote:By Ajai Shukla
With the HTT-40 on track, and racing towards its first flight next year,

HTT-40 on track?

First flight next year - 2016?
It will take years of flying and testing to make a safe aircraft.
Engine is also not chosen.
Is it really a credible plane or plane on paper?

When choosing Pilatus over HTT-40, IAF had given specific timeline to HAL to get the plane ready and waited.
That timeline is past and plane is not even flying yet.

Ajai Shukla is running a campaign against Pilatus and for HTT-40 for some reason.
Last year he made a big issue that Pilatus does not have 0-0 ejection seats, whereas HTT-40 has them.
In reality, 0-0 ejection seat is not required for a basic trainer (because it is not carrying weapons) and can be harmful for pilots and IAF did not want 0-0 ejection seats.

HAL's trainer aircrafts are not safe. And have been crashing and killing pilots. And HAL is unable to fix the problems.
HAL's claims on this lack credibility.

Most likely HAL or some of the component makers - ex: Engine makers, Ejection seat OEM is pushing their interests using Ajai Shukla.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Jan 2015 11:30

If one goes in the fault finding mode.

I will say that the IAF is to blame for the mess for the basic trainer that it finds it self in. The HPT 32 was delivered decades ago. The IAF was aware of the remaining life for the aircraft. They had sufficient time to start a replacement program for the aircraft. Before it became obsolete. The other issue is that it had some deficiencies that made it crash prone. Still the IAF flew it for nearly 30 years.

However, in all that time, I don't know if it asked for a new aircraft to replace the HPT 32. All of a sudden in 2012 or was that 2010 following a crash we see the HPt 32 grounded & the PC 7 Mk2 acquired.

While the HAL was in the system development phase for the HTT 40.

To me it looks that the crash was used by the IAF to force the acquisition of the PC7 MK2.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jan 2015 11:33

A Deshmukh wrote: HTT-40 on track?
First flight next year - 2016?
It will take years of flying and testing to make a safe aircraft.
Engine is also not chosen.
Is it really a credible plane or plane on paper?

Engine was chosen last year. Prototypes were under production. Please read more carefully. HAL made PC-7s are safe. HAL made HTT-40s are unsafe!

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 07 Jan 2015 11:43

Mr Deshmukh, Under RTI and in inhouse publications available to public frok HAL nearly all you need to know is reported in text and pictures.

Please contemplate the following the MFI-17 even got exported. And you want to kill the one basic aircraft resource.

Contemplate just not today, but where this leads tomorrow. There are zero proponents of the indian population (or the us population for that matter) in the so-called media. When you cast aspersions on your wife because a neighbor encourages you to do so, the neighbor is never a do-gooder.

SivaVijay · Post by **SivaVijay** » 07 Jan 2015 12:46

indranilroy wrote: And IAF is to blamed as well. Even if they were not complicit, they can see what is happenning. It is clear as daylight, and yet they chose to side with the scoundrels!

Indranil you are contradicting yourself. A spade is a spade, let us call it just that.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Jan 2015 12:54

>>Contacted by Business Standard, Krishna Pratap Singh claimed that he knew nothing about the HTT-40 or the issues involved. "About three to four months ago a sajjan (person of good character), who I don't remember now, came to me and said there was corruption. I only wrote that the matter be investigated, and any wrongdoing corrected," said Singh.

>>Contacted by Business Standard, RMM chief Ravindra Kumar acknowledges filing a complaint. He said details are in his files but he repeatedly denied requests to visit his office to ascertain the basis for his complaint.

>>Meanwhile, the deputy chief of air staff (DCAS), who sits on HAL's board, steadfastly opposed funding for the HTT-40. When the board allocated Rs 180 crore in July 2013, the DCAS dissented in writing, something that the IAF now denies.

(same way Bundles Tyagi torpedoed attempts by R&D to get funds circa 2009)

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Jan 2015 13:19

Pratyush wrote:Much as I prefer a domestic solution. I am in two minds WRT, the HTT 40, and the PC-7 Mk2.

My problem essentially stems from my desire to see IAF having standardised solution for any job that it is currently doing. Having two different designs doing the same job is slightly hard to accept.

Does India want to build its aerospace capability to the next level? HTT-40 would provide more on this front than yet-another-license-production of a foreign design.

It's not like the IAF has standardized on its combat fleet. Just look at how many types it has. Yet another "interim" type in Rafale is being procured.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Jan 2015 13:40

The IAF is in dire need of fleet standardization. That will simply logistics and training. It needs to start reducing the combat types and standardise on the LCA at one low & light end of the spectrum. While building on the MKI for the high and heavy end of the spectrum.

No need to spend the 20 Billions on the Rafael's.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Jan 2015 14:01

Sad to see this deliberate stalling from the IAF that led to the HTT-40's still birth, but the best thing that can come out of it is for HAL to put renewed energy and effort into the IJT program and see it inducted on some sensible schedule. Resources devoted to the HTT-40 can be pulled out and re-distributed into other programs. After all, HAL has finite human resources and cannot afford to be spread too thin on projects of vital importance.

the basic trainer was a low hanging fruit, but there are more serious and advanced requirements that are still attainable for HAL such as the LUH, IJT, Tejas Mk1/Mk2 prototype production and assembly line and the AMCA project.