Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

[srai]

...
4) A better solution and one that would make the IAF happier to use indigenous equipment is a special funding pool reserved for local purchases. Basically a subsidy. For example, if the IAF buys Pilatus they pay the full price from their share of the budget. But if they buy the HTT-40, the IAF/MOD can draw from the special fund so that even if the HTT-40 was more expensive, the subsidy means the IAF will pay far less or maybe nothing at all.
...

Subsidies for indigenous products would level the playing field so to speak. After all large percent of the MIC in India at this point in time are government owned public companies. GoI budget transfers internally from one department to another in a buy/sell transaction

[Cain Marko]

. Fighting a foe like China is not possible without producing your own weapons. Pakistan is a different matter.

I think this an accepted argument on BR, and I'm all for indigenization, but for the sake of playing DA, how come the evil jooz manage to skewer their much larger enemy every single time eh?

I'm not sure going it alone is the bestest strategy. No harm in trying to leverage Indias unique position to manage security affairs.

Somer very advanced economies are import dependent for security at varying levels. Soko and Japan are an example. And lets not pretend that they don't live under threat from neighbors.

I'm not sure that certain weapon systems bought off the shelf without any pretense to tot, and therefore at cheaper prices, will hurt the economy. Possibly serve the opposite.

[ashthor]

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1150270070951559174

HTT-40 trials are in their last phase. We're doing 2-turn spins regularly.
A smooth & safe 6-turn spin, capable of execution by young pilots, is being demonstrated.
The aircraft will enter full service soon. There's no hunt. HTT-40 is getting inducted.

[ashishvikas]

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1150270070951559174

HTT-40 trials are in their last phase. We're doing 2-turn spins regularly.
A smooth & safe 6-turn spin, capable of execution by young pilots, is being demonstrated.
The aircraft will enter full service soon. There's no hunt. HTT-40 is getting inducted.

Sir, is HTT-40 more capable than Pilatus? Is it cheaper than Pilatus? Has it received all required certification? How many of them can HAL build per year?

It's got similar capabilities

It's same initial cost as Pilatus. Some imported items are there, but fully Indian IPR. Life cycle expenditure is very low.
Undergoing certification.
20

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/11503 ... 18401?s=19

[Vivek K]

. Fighting a foe like China is not possible without producing your own weapons. Pakistan is a different matter.

I think this an accepted argument on BR, and I'm all for indigenization, but for the sake of playing DA, how come the evil jooz manage to skewer their much larger enemy every single time eh?

I think that you're hiding some glaring facts perhaps deliberately to support your DA of Russian weapons
a) ME has religious and emotional ties with the western world
b) Israel makes its own weapons - Merkava, Kfir, ELTA 2052 (list is endless) - so they are not tech orphans like India.
c) Israel has deep US support and has used that to build up assymetric, overwhelming superiority over Arabs unlike India where there is no such support.
d) US will never sanction Israel - so they operate under sanction proof circumstances.

I'm not sure going it alone is the bestest strategy. No harm in trying to leverage Indias unique position to manage security affairs.

What unique position? India counts for zilch in global geopolitics because Indians are too hesitant and lack a strategic vision to take action in matters of national interest - Balakot is a small step in a more aggressive posture.

Somer very advanced economies are import dependent for security at varying levels. Soko and Japan are an example. And lets not pretend that they don't live under threat from neighbors.

Again both these nations
a) Are technologically more advanced than India
b)have well developed industrial base serving their national interest
c) make a lot of their own systems buying some advance tech off the shelf for a genuine technical edge - F-16s, F-15s and F-35s. no baggage of Russian systems - low serviceability, inefficient after sales that dogged most Indian military purchases including the MKIs until recently.

I'm not sure that certain weapon systems bought off the shelf without any pretense to tot, and therefore at cheaper prices, will hurt the economy. Possibly serve the opposite.

Sigh! Economic growth endows the capability to sustain and build a strong military. The US exploited the Soviet Union's poor economy to drive it to collapse. I'm sorry but cannot delve into economic lesson here.

[Cain Marko]

What unique position? India counts for zilch in global geopolitics because Indians are too hesitant and lack a strategic vision to take action in matters of national interest - Balakot is a small step in a more aggressive posture.

Really? Wonder why the US and Japan are so desperately courting India in the oceans. Geographic location counts....among other things.

Again both these nations
a) Are technologically more advanced than India
b)have well developed industrial base serving their national interest
c) make a lot of their own systems buying some advance tech off the shelf for a genuine technical edge - F-16s, F-15s and F-35s. no baggage of Russian systems - low serviceability, inefficient after sales that dogged most Indian military purchases including the MKIs until recently.

a. they are technologically advanced - NOT by pursuing a route for a indigenous MIC
b. Developing an overall industrial base has little to do with developing local weapons. Show me some correlation, let alone causation
c. So, why can't India do the same eh? Buy western weapons with subsystems developed in house? In fact, that's exactly whats happening with the MKI and even the Scorpene. In fact western weapons, will be much cheaper if bought off the shelf instead of TOT and screwdrivergiri, which is what I alluded previously, and you conveniently attributed to my "Russophilia".

Sigh! Economic growth endows the capability to sustain and build a strong military. The US exploited the Soviet Union's poor economy to drive it to collapse. I'm sorry but cannot delve into economic lesson here.

You do realize that the soviets had an insanely well developed, homegrown MIC, right? They got screwed DESPITE that. Your claim that a strong economy is dependent upon a strong local weapons industry doesn't stand even rudimentary scrutiny, the high-handed condescension notwithstanding!

[Mort Walker]

The US courts India because it has its own significant Navy that will be useful to counter the Chinese. If it was just geography, then Thailand would be a better bet as they are a closer US ally.

Both Japan and SoKo enjoy a US nuclear umbrella and are signatories to all of the alphabet soup treaties. Even Trump said the US would defend Japan with its blood and treasure if attacked, but if the US was attacked, they would only watch on a Sony TV. Both Japan and SoKo follow a strategic policy dictated by the US. India does not and there is no who will defend India, but itself. India must have an indigenous Military-Industrial-Complex if it
wishes to be a world power. You can't give money to anyone else for your defense. STOP THE IMPORTS. It creates a huge knowledge base and provides skilled technical employment for millions. Face the fact, any conflict is going to be with China and Pak and numbers matter more than anything else. Making massive purchases of limited quantities will not change the strategic balance in any way.

The former USSR overspent on defense and much less on anything else. They did not let private companies develop or individuals to move into prosperity through a free market economy. The politburo made command decisions and failed spectacularly.

[chola]

Cheen hadn't fought a goddam war in the four decades of its rise and I doubt they will fight a new one in the future because the track record of this warless strategy in the grey zone backed by a flood of machines from their industrial complex has worked to perfection.

Unless someone bites the bullet and be the bad guy by hitting them first, the PRC won't fight and will simply let the weight of their industry create fait accompli in every disputed area they are privy to as well as the global commons. But who is willing to start a fight with that MIC?

Forget about these new TFTA weapons we can buy off the market. We'll never get to use them. No war happened at Doklam when we owned 20 to 1 in manpower along with an overwhelming aircraft advantage across the entire damn border so it's not going to happen.

Without a MIC, we'll be flooded in a sea of Chini machines without a shot fired. It already happening now.

A chini Type 053 frigate was handed over to Sri Lanka last week. Bangladesh already operates several. Pakistan goes without saying. Thailand has chini frigates and will be getting chini subs. Burma flies JF-17s.

Every weapon system Cheen sells or gifts in our neighbor raises their profile and lowers ours. We have very little to counter because we make very little. Sure, we can crush the chini military in any realistic scenario with our TFTA gora weapons. But it means absolutely nothing unless we actually go to war with Cheen.

Without a war, we need a MIC to match numbers and prestige. Phoren bought imports ONLY pays off if used during war. A MIC pays off during both war and peace time.

[manjgu]

unless u can get the babus / netas a cut from export of indian arms...we will alwyas remain foreign maal importers.

[Vivek K]

unless u can get the babus / netas a cut from export of indian arms...we will alwyas remain foreign maal importers.

It’s not only the babus- but also the aam Ostrich with his head in his behind that needs to understand the difference local systems will make to the economy! It is not for nothing that the US canceled tanker purchase from Europe in order to protect its MIC.

[Cain Marko]

The US courts India because it has its own significant Navy that will be useful to counter the Chinese. If it was just geography, then Thailand would be a better bet as they are a closer US ally.

Both Japan and SoKo enjoy a US nuclear umbrella and are signatories to all of the alphabet soup treaties. Even Trump said the US would defend Japan with its blood and treasure if attacked, but if the US was attacked, they would only watch on a Sony TV. Both Japan and SoKo follow a strategic policy dictated by the US. India does not and there is no who will defend India, but itself. India must have an indigenous Military-Industrial-Complex if it
wishes to be a world power. You can't give money to anyone else for your defense. STOP THE IMPORTS. It creates a huge knowledge base and provides skilled technical employment for millions. Face the fact, any conflict is going to be with China and Pak and numbers matter more than anything else. Making massive purchases of limited quantities will not change the strategic balance in any way.

The former USSR overspent on defense and much less on anything else. They did not let private companies develop or individuals to move into prosperity through a free market economy. The politburo made command decisions and failed spectacularly.

And? This doesn't contradict anything that I wrote, if that was the intention of the post.

This is getting ridiculous.
Didn't say geography was the only factor.
Nor did I say that India shouldn't have its own MIC.

what I didn't agree with was the idea that an industrial base and economic development are dependent on an mic and weapons development. The fsu was an example used by the op to support the need for an mic, which makes no sense.

The idea that India should completely stop imports presently is not only impractical but also fraught with security perils. I think a holistic approach is to wean off imports, and this will happen in the next 10-15 years depending on what the GOI deems is with building at home...

[Cain Marko]

unless u can get the babus / netas a cut from export of indian arms...we will alwyas remain foreign maal importers.

It’s not only the babus- but also the aam Ostrich with his head in his behind that needs to understand the difference local systems will make to the economy! It is not for nothing that the US canceled tanker purchase from Europe in order to protect its MIC.

If this was directed at me, here is my response without pussyfootong around... Otherwise feel free to ignore.

Yes, this is rich coming from the resident economist who gives the example of the FSU to bolster the above argument -We need an MIC for a vibrant economy. I guess India's made no economic progress in the last 30 years, and I suppose whatever progress was made, was largely due to the contribution of the mic.

[kit]

What unique position? India counts for zilch in global geopolitics because Indians are too hesitant and lack a strategic vision to take action in matters of national interest - Balakot is a small step in a more aggressive posture.

Really? Wonder why the US and Japan are so desperately courting India in the oceans. Geographic location counts....among other things.

Again both these nations
a) Are technologically more advanced than India
b)have well developed industrial base serving their national interest
c) make a lot of their own systems buying some advance tech off the shelf for a genuine technical edge - F-16s, F-15s and F-35s. no baggage of Russian systems - low serviceability, inefficient after sales that dogged most Indian military purchases including the MKIs until recently.

a. they are technologically advanced - NOT by pursuing a route for a indigenous MIC
b. Developing an overall industrial base has little to do with developing local weapons. Show me some correlation, let alone causation
c. So, why can't India do the same eh? Buy western weapons with subsystems developed in house? In fact, that's exactly whats happening with the MKI and even the Scorpene. In fact western weapons, will be much cheaper if bought off the shelf instead of TOT and screwdrivergiri, which is what I alluded previously, and you conveniently attributed to my "Russophilia".

Sigh! Economic growth endows the capability to sustain and build a strong military. The US exploited the Soviet Union's poor economy to drive it to collapse. I'm sorry but cannot delve into economic lesson here.

You do realize that the soviets had an insanely well developed, homegrown MIC, right? They got screwed DESPITE that. Your claim that a strong economy is dependent upon a strong local weapons industry doesn't stand even rudimentary scrutiny, the high-handed condescension notwithstanding!

Cain saab.. just look at how much the american MIC and aerospace contributes to its economy .. almost a trillion USD

[Karan M]

a. they are technologically advanced - NOT by pursuing a route for a indigenous MIC
b. Developing an overall industrial base has little to do with developing local weapons. Show me some correlation, let alone causation

Completely mistaken here! The US MIC has played a huge role in tech advancement and also being retained as the one stop shop for their technologies while basic stuff got sent out to PRC etc.
Developing an overall industrial base has a lot to do with weapons development because stuff that goes into it, is interdisciplinary. Same reason why West Germany despite post WW2 disarmament push kept its heavy industrial engineering capabilities invested and supported. Same reason why Japan continues to pour money into Mitsubishi F2s and Soryus and what not.

[ashbhee]

The debate is on where to get more trainers since we cannot buy more because Pilatus/UPA corruption scandal, I am astonished that we cannot make a turboprop trainer aircraft ourselves for IAF

[nachiket]

The debate is on where to get more trainers since we cannot buy more because Pilatus/UPA corruption scandal, I am astonished that we cannot make a turboprop trainer aircraft ourselves for IAF

HAL already has one. It is up to you to read the previous posts on this very page which talk about it.

[ashbhee]

The debate is on where to get more trainers since we cannot buy more because Pilatus/UPA corruption scandal, I am astonished that we cannot make a turboprop trainer aircraft ourselves for IAF

HAL already has one. It is up to you to read the previous posts on this very page which talk about it.

It is presumptuous of you to assume I do not know about HTT-40, IAF does not want it. I am lamanting that we cannot make one that IAF would love.

[Cybaru]

IAF has a difficult time loving anything out of HAL (past history). I Know enough pilots who fly pc7 and have a lifes mission to kill everything out of HAL stables including the ALH. I know you guys hate me saying this and I might even get punished for saying this, but that's how it is...

[nam]

There are two aspect regarding the success of a product. Design & Production. We can design a product as per service requirement.Case in point Insas, ALH etc.

However it is completely different ball game to produce them in large quantity with top quality and product support. ALH on the design side, it is fine.

HAL like other PSU is production quality control and product support. So the issue is not ALH, it is production and product support of ALH, which gives ALH a bad name.

There is no point having a single perfectly working ALH from the HAL design team and 99 from production line with quality issues.

[ramana]

Guys we are going on discussing IAF and HAl without content and context and putting our own pet peeves.
Step back and resume after we get more data.

[Mort Walker]

Arms deals involve corruption. Then there is the issue of logistics support and spare parts from the OEM who is overseas and is driven not by doing what is best for India, but for its bottom line and or by their government to pursue strategic denial to India in order force their own agenda. Imports must be scaled back and the armed forces of India will be told they must use Indian weapon systems if they are available. A take it or leave it policy must be enforced.

[Aditya_V]

Arms deals involve corruption. Then there is the issue of logistics support and spare parts from the OEM who is overseas and is driven not by doing what is best for India, but for its bottom line and or by their government to pursue strategic denial to India in order force their own agenda. Imports must be scaled back and the armed forces of India will be told they must use Indian weapon systems if they are available. A take it or leave it policy must be enforced.

If only this is understood by the whole nation and especially the bureaucrats, defence forces and politicians, not to use these deals as means of securing children future in western countries, let them go there on merit. But I am sure somewhere this is also being leveraged by foreign countries apart from direct bribes.

[Karan M]

HAL already has one. It is up to you to read the previous posts on this very page which talk about it.

It is presumptuous of you to assume I do not know about HTT-40, IAF does not want it. I am lamanting that we cannot make one that IAF would love.

IAF did not want it as they thought easy Pilatus were available. Now they aren't. The HTT-40 is being designed to IAF specs and even to exceed them. So please read more, complain less until you learn more of the topic in question.

[Cain Marko]

a. they are technologically advanced - NOT by pursuing a route for a indigenous MIC
b. Developing an overall industrial base has little to do with developing local weapons. Show me some correlation, let alone causation

Completely mistaken here! The US MIC has played a huge role in tech advancement and also being retained as the one stop shop for their technologies while basic stuff got sent out to PRC etc.

I understand that a lot of people feel that the mic in the US plays a huge role. Politically, yes. Economically, no. Lets not mix the two. In the US, Defence Tech plays a very minor role in economic innovation and even less when it comes to most economic metrics. the entire manufacturing sector contributes about 10% to the job sector, and defence manufacturing had a share of only 10% of this. All in all 1-2% of the entire economy is driven by defence manufacturing. How is this the driving force of an economy as some stalwarts are insisting?

Developing an overall industrial base has a lot to do with weapons development because stuff that goes into it, is interdisciplinary. Same reason why West Germany despite post WW2 disarmament push kept its heavy industrial engineering capabilities invested and supported. Same reason why Japan continues to pour money into Mitsubishi F2s and Soryus and what not.

heavy engineering has its own applications, and defence is just one of them.

All in all, if a country has to depend on it's defence sector and mic to drive it's economy, it is screwed. There is simply not enough demand to generate the revenues and jobs required. Only a highly imperial nation as the Japanese once were, might sustain it, if that. If war is the only occupation we want, then yeah, lets think of the defence industry as a major driver of the economy.

Having said this, The goi has to invest heavily in core tech and strategic resources that nobody will share. And I think it has done this to some extent. Hence the success with the missile, space, nuke sectors. More will come....

[Cain Marko]

Cain saab.. just look at how much the american MIC and aerospace contributes to its economy .. almost a trillion USD

Kitji, actually its only about 2% of the economy... And do consider that this sector has seen massive govt subsidy including some $12 trillion worth of tax payer money that is utterly unaccounted for.

[Aditya_V]

Cain saab.. just look at how much the american MIC and aerospace contributes to its economy .. almost a trillion USD

Kitji, actually its only about 2% of the economy... And do consider that this sector has seen massive govt subsidy including some $12 trillion worth of tax payer money that is utterly unaccounted for.

But it is because of this sector USA is able to enforce trade rules and get its way to support other sectors, and scientific innovation for example: Internet et al start with the MIC.

[Karan M]

I understand that a lot of people feel that the mic in the US plays a huge role. Politically, yes. Economically, no. Lets not mix the two. In the US, Defence Tech plays a very minor role in economic innovation and even less when it comes to most economic metrics. the entire manufacturing sector contributes about 10% to the job sector, and defence manufacturing had a share of only 10% of this. All in all 1-2% of the entire economy is driven by defence manufacturing. How is this the driving force of an economy as some stalwarts are insisting?

Much of the US's famed innovation in key technologies is driven by its profligate spending into the US MIC? Its *not merely volume* but the kind of work that's being done! Even the Internet grew out of the DARPA for a jaded older example. Today, much of the stuff on quantum comms, new classes of encryption, AI is directly being funded by US MIC via the USG. Quite well known by now, that Google had ties to USG black funding as well to allow it to scale as it did.
And second, the US MIC allows the US to keep core technologies within its ambit without worrying about how x car went to China! By keeping F-35 production within the US, they get to master and retain technologies relevant to everything from metallurgy to embedded software to AI to optics to nanotech! There is not a single similar field which allows them to get so much "bang" for the buck! For instance mil semicon market is barely a few % points of the WW market, point missed though is that push comes to shove, gold plated weapons could field the capability, a consumer device driven by cost cannot. So, the MIC can still fund technological development to proceed apace, while currently taking advantage of the cost/yield being driven down by the civilian market. At best rate of development would slow down, but it would still go ahead.

heavy engineering has its own applications, and defence is just one of them.

All in all, if a country has to depend on it's defence sector and mic to drive it's economy, it is screwed. There is simply not enough demand to generate the revenues and jobs required. Only a highly imperial nation as the Japanese once were, might sustain it, if that. If war is the only occupation we want, then yeah, lets think of the defence industry as a major driver of the economy.

Having said this, The goi has to invest heavily in core tech and strategic resources that nobody will share. And I think it has done this to some extent. Hence the success with the missile, space, nuke sectors. More will come....

You have completely mixed up cause and effect! You can have a huge economy churning out all sorts of goods and industrial items, question is where are you in the value chain exactly? Nobody here is saying the MIC *alone* should run an economy (though it can, during wartime) but the fact is that the MIC is *essential* to developing capabilities and technologies you would otherwise *not have*.

Case in point Japan, despite its huge investments in semiconductors, computers, RF engineering, it struggled to field an AESA on its F-2 fighter which did not match what the US had. Despite that, or because they learned the lesson, they persevered.
Bottomline, the US can replicate a lot of what Japan has by virtue of the capabilities it had developed in its MIC, not vice versa!

An export driven MIC can actually do far more, as the US's is currently. There is a good reason why from the technology viewpoint they are still sitting pretty. From their own standards (Cold War), they have fallen mightily. But to the rest of the world, they are still on a totem pole.

$600-700Bn into defence every year, more than the rest of the world combined, many times over!

Military goods are not heavy engineering alone. They span fields. I said west Germany kept heavy engineering, because that's what they were allowed to, post WW2. Look at them today! Airbus is into everything aerospace, military & civilian. Point is lip service apart, everyone knows a domestic MIC is at the acme of industrial skill. Investments there payoff elsewhere and the skills there can't be replicated either.

A fighter spans everything from aerospace grade metals, high technology simulations, powerplants, hydraulics, power generation, RF, semiconductors, photonics and so forth. Exactly why US is still able to punch above its weight in technology despite outsourcing so much of its blue collar manufacturing to China. They continue to innovate in production via MIC investments.

[Aditya_V]

OT- whatever will the Japanese had, when the US B-29's showed all they could do was sit there and get bombed. Legal stuff is just a piece of paper, the guys with the military ability dominate. The single primary reason why India is a poor nation today is that over a 1000 year period it has been continuously Invaded and the invaders have now dictated what history, education , economic focus the country should take...

Unless you match Military production with Military capability(which provides security or you have a Godfather to protect you) there is no hope of any country becoming prosperous.

[mody]

The HTT-40 carries some baggage. The IAF was never really happy with its predecessor, the HPT-32 and didn't want HAL to take up the design and development of HTT-40, when HAL actually took it up. IAF reluctance on this part is well documented. HAL went ahead anyways, funding the development from its own resources.
The unnamed sources claiming HTT-40 in current form is not acceptable, don't really know what they are talking about, or just deliberately putting negative perception out there with regards to HTT-40.
Once the current stall and spin tests are over, the HTT-40 will be ready for IOC. It is as per IAF specs and matches or exceeds the PC-7 in almost all parameters.

The bigger problem is what happens, once the plane is ready production. The way the Indian defence purchase is structured, I suspect the RFP will be issued for only 38 aircrafts, which is the immediate requirement and not for 106 planes, which is the total requirement. If it really plays out this way, the price for HTT-40, will seem much higher the PC-7 and then all the usual suspects will write pages upon pages about how HAL is inefficient and how in reality the plane has an X% of foreign components and hence is not really indigenous etc. etc.

In India, we do not have any long term defence planning based on the capabilities that we really want to have. Long term procurement in multiple tranches, is very difficult in our setup. The problem is the way MoD and MoF are setup and the way the budget is set. In many years, the unspent capital budgets of the services are taken back to bridge the government deficits. Hence, instead of supporting domestic development and production, wherein the services would be funding the development for multiple years, before the actual production starts, the services are happier just getting a one time purchase of ready to use imported equipment. Government to government deals are even better. The services know that the government will have to poney up and make the payment for the imported equipment, as per the agreed upon payment schedule. For domestically manufactured stuff, the payment at times are deferred for want of cash and even the orders may be deliberately delayed for budgetary considerations.
Can anyone imagine a private sector company functioning the way HAL does? Recently there were news, of HAL being owed hundred of crores of rupees by IAF, which had not been cleared by the ministry so far and government actually had to help out HAL with a one time payment, to just cover the salary payments. Which private sector company would function in this fashion.

Besides this, the MoD and MoF babus are more interested in just having the paperwork in order. Orders are placed in small numbers, because that's what the budget allows for. For example, only 2 squadrons of Akash MK1, were ordered initially. This was followed by an order for 6 additional squadrons. Now for additional requirement of 7 squadrons, the MoD is negotiating with the PSU's on price for the last 3 years. Argument is that the additional requirement is to cover for our requirement of SRSAM, for which the Akash was chosen over imported systems. Now MoD is comparing the price of Akash with imported SRSAM systems and asking for price reduction. For the earlier purchases, the requirement was against area or MRSAM type of system, to replace the Pechora SAM's and hence the price was deemed to be OK.

[Karan M]

. Fighting a foe like China is not possible without producing your own weapons. Pakistan is a different matter.

I think this an accepted argument on BR, and I'm all for indigenization, but for the sake of playing DA, how come the evil jooz manage to skewer their much larger enemy every single time eh?

Are you serious here? Israel gets billions in FMS. They really don't need to worry about sanctions either, given the power of the jewish lobby etc in the US cutting across party lines. So, they neither need to worry about their own economy going bust buying expensive imports, nor do they need to worry overmuch about white elephants. Next, the Israelis customize. They add Derby, Pythons to their F-16s, sought to add domestic radars (were refused), deploy their partly US funded Arrow/Iron Dome systems without having to rely only on Patriot and THAAD.. the list goes on and on. Israel actually has 2 budgets, the shekel budget and the $ budget (FMS) and they have a huge amount of flexibility in buying what they want! And even so they are all for indigenization wherever possible. Examples of indigenization:

Their EW and drone programs - US sat up and took note of both and was taken aback by the sophistication of the latter.
Their own inhouse missile programs - AAMs, ASMs and even Popeye (which US purchased)..
The Lavi, which was cancelled by US pressure and the domestic F-16 lobby which was afraid it would be too expensive but which is the reason for their dominance today in all aircraft upgrades (the Lavis radar, ECM etc were all put up for sale and exports).
The Merkava, Namer, Achzarit and who knows what APCs.
Their BM programs, radars etc including AWACS replacing the imported Hawkeye

List goes on and on and on and on.

[Karan M]

OT- whatever will the Japanese had, when the US B-29's showed all they could do was sit there and get bombed. Legal stuff is just a piece of paper, the guys with the military ability dominate. The single primary reason why India is a poor nation today is that over a 1000 year period it has been continuously Invaded and the invaders have now dictated what history, education , economic focus the country should take...

Unless you match Military production with Military capability(which provides security or you have a Godfather to protect you) there is no hope of any country becoming prosperous.

Well said. It is dangerous to hope for "commercial success" as being some sort of guarantor of independence. If anything history teaches us, it is that we better be fully prepared for war!

[Karan M]

Excellent post!

The HTT-40 carries some baggage. The IAF was never really happy with its predecessor, the HPT-32 and didn't want HAL to take up the design and development of HTT-40, when HAL actually took it up. IAF reluctance on this part is well documented. HAL went ahead anyways, funding the development from its own resources.
The unnamed sources claiming HTT-40 in current form is not acceptable, don't really know what they are talking about, or just deliberately putting negative perception out there with regards to HTT-40.
Once the current stall and spin tests are over, the HTT-40 will be ready for IOC. It is as per IAF specs and matches or exceeds the PC-7 in almost all parameters.

The bigger problem is what happens, once the plane is ready production. The way the Indian defence purchase is structured, I suspect the RFP will be issued for only 38 aircrafts, which is the immediate requirement and not for 106 planes, which is the total requirement. If it really plays out this way, the price for HTT-40, will seem much higher the PC-7 and then all the usual suspects will write pages upon pages about how HAL is inefficient and how in reality the plane has an X% of foreign components and hence is not really indigenous etc. etc.

In India, we do not have any long term defence planning based on the capabilities that we really want to have. Long term procurement in multiple tranches, is very difficult in our setup. The problem is the way MoD and MoF are setup and the way the budget is set. In many years, the unspent capital budgets of the services are taken back to bridge the government deficits. Hence, instead of supporting domestic development and production, wherein the services would be funding the development for multiple years, before the actual production starts, the services are happier just getting a one time purchase of ready to use imported equipment. Government to government deals are even better. The services know that the government will have to poney up and make the payment for the imported equipment, as per the agreed upon payment schedule. For domestically manufactured stuff, the payment at times are deferred for want of cash and even the orders may be deliberately delayed for budgetary considerations.
Can anyone imagine a private sector company functioning the way HAL does? Recently there were news, of HAL being owed hundred of crores of rupees by IAF, which had not been cleared by the ministry so far and government actually had to help out HAL with a one time payment, to just cover the salary payments. Which private sector company would function in this fashion.

Besides this, the MoD and MoF babus are more interested in just having the paperwork in order. Orders are placed in small numbers, because that's what the budget allows for. For example, only 2 squadrons of Akash MK1, were ordered initially. This was followed by an order for 6 additional squadrons. Now for additional requirement of 7 squadrons, the MoD is negotiating with the PSU's on price for the last 3 years. Argument is that the additional requirement is to cover for our requirement of SRSAM, for which the Akash was chosen over imported systems. Now MoD is comparing the price of Akash with imported SRSAM systems and asking for price reduction. For the earlier purchases, the requirement was against area or MRSAM type of system, to replace the Pechora SAM's and hence the price was deemed to be OK.

[Rakesh]

I echo Karan. Great post. You have clarified much of the ambiguity. Just a few questions.

The HTT-40 carries some baggage. The IAF was never really happy with its predecessor, the HPT-32 and didn't want HAL to take up the design and development of HTT-40, when HAL actually took it up. IAF reluctance on this part is well documented. HAL went ahead anyways, funding the development from its own resources.

The unnamed sources claiming HTT-40 in current form is not acceptable, don't really know what they are talking about, or just deliberately putting negative perception out there with regards to HTT-40.

Once the current stall and spin tests are over, the HTT-40 will be ready for IOC. It is as per IAF specs and matches or exceeds the PC-7 in almost all parameters.

I agree that HPT-32 was a substandard aircraft. However does that justify starting a tender for a new BTA when the HTT-40 will soon achieve IOC? If the HTT-40 exceeds or matches the PC-7, what is the point in a global RFI?

The bigger problem is what happens, once the plane is ready production. The way the Indian defence purchase is structured, I suspect the RFP will be issued for only 38 aircrafts, which is the immediate requirement and not for 106 planes, which is the total requirement. If it really plays out this way, the price for HTT-40, will seem much higher the PC-7 and then all the usual suspects will write pages upon pages about how HAL is inefficient and how in reality the plane has an X% of foreign components and hence is not really indigenous etc. etc.

If the HTT-40 exceeds or matches the PC-7, why is the RFP being issued only for 38 aircraft and not 106 aircraft?

Does it make sense for the IAF to operate three different types of BTAs? PC-7, HTT-40 and un-named BTA?

The MoD will not place a large order, so the cost will obviously go up. But the MoD will gleefully waste money on a third BTA type! How is this logical? Our enemy is not Pakistan or China. We are our own enemy.

An Old Proverb ---> If there is no enemy within, the enemy outside can do us no harm.

In India, we do not have any long term defence planning based on the capabilities that we really want to have. Long term procurement in multiple tranches, is very difficult in our setup. The problem is the way MoD and MoF are setup and the way the budget is set. In many years, the unspent capital budgets of the services are taken back to bridge the government deficits. Hence, instead of supporting domestic development and production, wherein the services would be funding the development for multiple years, before the actual production starts, the services are happier just getting a one time purchase of ready to use imported equipment. Government to government deals are even better. The services know that the government will have to pony up and make the payment for the imported equipment, as per the agreed upon payment schedule. For domestically manufactured stuff, the payment at times are deferred for want of cash and even the orders may be deliberately delayed for budgetary considerations.

None of this is directed at you Sir...I am questioning the infallible logic of the MoD! I am not shooting the messenger!!!

Q1. How much money has the IAF invested in the development of the HTT-40? I honestly want to know.

Q2. How is the unspent capital budget of the IAF sent back to the Ministry of Finance (at the end of the financial year i.e. March 31st) for the MMRCA purchase and then at the commencement of the new year (i.e April 01st), that money is budgeted back to the IAF? How is that justified?

Q3. Why is that payment schedules are followed to the letter for imported equipment, but the same is not true for domestic equipment? How does the MoD justify the excuse of want of cash or budgetary considerations for domestic equipment?

Can anyone imagine a private sector company functioning the way HAL does? Recently there were news, of HAL being owed hundred of crores of rupees by IAF, which had not been cleared by the ministry so far and government actually had to help out HAL with a one time payment, to just cover the salary payments. Which private sector company would function in this fashion.

Besides this, the MoD and MoF babus are more interested in just having the paperwork in order. Orders are placed in small numbers, because that's what the budget allows for. For example, only 2 squadrons of Akash MK1, were ordered initially. This was followed by an order for 6 additional squadrons. Now for additional requirement of 7 squadrons, the MoD is negotiating with the PSU's on price for the last 3 years. Argument is that the additional requirement is to cover for our requirement of SRSAM, for which the Akash was chosen over imported systems. Now MoD is comparing the price of Akash with imported SRSAM systems and asking for price reduction. For the earlier purchases, the requirement was against area or MRSAM type of system, to replace the Pechora SAM's and hence the price was deemed to be OK.

Q1. Is HAL incapable of having their paperwork in order? Please tell me they are able to do this simple task!

Q2. How is the budget justified for 110 MMRCA aircraft (a large order), 57 carrier-borne fighters (another large order) but yet the budget goes haywire when 106 HTT-40s are to be ordered? The process for acquisition is the same no? I am not referring to the technical specs of MMRCA vs BTA. I am referring to the paperwork and procedures that exist for both purchases.

Q3. I am honestly surprised that the Babus can actually whine and complain when it comes to local products (i.e. Akash SAM) versus phoren products (MRSAM type SAM) and question the manufacturer (in this case, BDL for the Akash SAM) on price. I have been advised that the entrance exam for the Indian Administrative Service is arguably the hardest exam in the world. The competition to become an IAS officer is cut-throat. The folks who get in represent the cream of the crop of young Indian minds.

However I am now deeply alarmed by reading the above. Simple economics teaches us that investing in the local economy helps not just the manufacturer (in this case, BDL for the Akash SAM), but all the subsidiary companies that support BDL in delivering the product to the end user (i.e. the Armed Forces). Simple economics teaches us that investing within the country saves valuable FOREX. Simple economics teaches us that investing within India keeps the money in India.

What in heaven's name is going on in the MoD?

[Prithwiraj]

Can govt. impose steep financial penalties for additional business instead of outright banning trading which indirectly or directly hurts our own interest of getting spares for the existing investment (refer ban on Pilatus, similarly ban on Italian Torpedo (Black Shark) manufacturer -- the list is endless). It seems at this rate we will soon run out of companies to work with across the board. US seems to have adopted financial penalties while dealing with corruption

[wig]

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/natio ... 03020.html
Balakot showed IAF’s ability of precision bombing: Air Chief
from the above

The Balakot strike demonstrated the IAF’s ability of precision bombing, Air Force chief B S Dhanoa said on Tuesday, asserting that it is capable of taking part in full spectrum of conflict, ranging from “sub-conventional to nuclear”.
He said in case “we have correct coordinates, the Air Force is capable of doing all-weather bombing through clouds”.
Early this year, after the Pulwama terror attack that killed 40 CRPF personnel, the Air Force launched air strikes at a terror camp in Balakot, inside Pakistani territory.
Speaking at a seminar on ‘20 years of Op Safed Sagar’, Dhanoa said precision bombing capability was very much needed during the Kargil operations where targets were very small and at high altitudes.
“In 1999 (precision bombing capabilities) was operationalised only on the Mirage-2000 aircraft. Now all aircraft, Mirage, Su-30, Jaguar, MiG-29 and MiG-27 upgraded aircraft have the capability for precision bombing. Not only that, in case we have correct coordinates we can do all-weather bombing through clouds very accurately,” Dhanoa said.

[dinesh_kimar]

^ Wrt the above discussions on HTT-40.

Personally, I am all for indegenisation, but the HAL record with HPT-32 was poor.
I had searched abt the problems a few years ago, and came up with these two issues.( Its mostly writing from memory, so my dear BRF brothers will forgive small errors).

1. Lycoming engine - used to be starved of fuel in a certain manoeuvre when flying, shut down and stall the aircraft.

The engine supplier had a fix (including mounting the fuel pump upside down , so it works well in all regimes), was working well with all 70 odd models they supplied worldwide, but HAL didn't want to pay consultancy fees and tried to d-i-y.

It was a poor fix and not yet resolved.

2. The other issue: sometimes the stalled aircraft goes into an uncontrolled spin, from which rookie pilots can't recover, and face certain death.

HAL's fix was a giant parachute outside the plane, to land it gently and safely after it goes into uncontrollable spin.

They never attacked root cause, but added inane countermeasures, while few casualties continued, hence the IAFs loss of faith in them.

[Vidur]

I echo Karan. Great post. You have clarified much of the ambiguity. Just a few questions.

May I take the liberty to very briefly address some of these questions?

1. Re the technical capability of the equipment in question the above points are not entirely correct.
2. The budget process is this - services project Long Term Perspective Plan. This is approved by cabinet and then leads to 5 year defence plan which is also duly approved. However funding for purchases happens via annul budget which has no relationship to 5 year plan. Annual budget has very different priorities. This is one point where the system breaks down. I have mentioned this in my first ever post and subsequently as well.
3. Union of India oes not favour one contractual obligation over another regardless of whether they are domestic or external.

Re IAS, yes we do pass the toughest academic exam in the counry. But that is not necessarily a test of aptitude, suitability or character. The only test that comes close to that in India is the SSB.

May see the post on Indian Army thread to get an understanding of various issues. You can also go through my previous posts.

[Vidur]

Can govt. impose steep financial penalties for additional business instead of outright banning trading which indirectly or directly hurts our own interest of getting spares for the existing investment (refer ban on Pilatus, similarly ban on Italian Torpedo (Black Shark) manufacturer -- the list is endless). It seems at this rate we will soon run out of companies to work with across the board. US seems to have adopted financial penalties while dealing with corruption

Correct. Shri Parikkar tried to address this as a priority. Unfortunately he left the ministry and simultaneously the environment significantly worsened with politcialisation of Rafale and the SC getting involved. Now this is a tough cat to bell.

[Rakesh]

I echo Karan. Great post. You have clarified much of the ambiguity. Just a few questions.

May I take the liberty to very briefly address some of these questions?

Sir, thank you for engaging this mango abdul.

1. Re the technical capability of the equipment in question the above points are not entirely correct.

Sir, can you kindly advise where I was wrong? I would like to learn.

2. The budget process is this - services project Long Term Perspective Plan. This is approved by cabinet and then leads to 5 year defence plan which is also duly approved. However funding for purchases happens via annul budget which has no relationship to 5 year plan. Annual budget has very different priorities. This is one point where the system breaks down. I have mentioned this in my first ever post and subsequently as well.

Sir, I am sure you have heard of the saying - "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."

More than seven decades since independence and we are still doing the same thing.

3. Union of India does not favour one contractual obligation over another regardless of whether they are domestic or external.

Sir, not directed at you because I know you did not formulate the above theory. But honestly, how is the above statement logical?

I am not advocating for always going for local products. If a particular capability is required and a phoren product is available and can do a better job than a local product, then by all means go for it.

But in the case of the HTT-40, which either meets or exceeds the capabilities of the PC-7, what is the reasoning behind going in for a third type of a Basic Trainer Aircraft? By the time the RFI is issued and the process goes through all the required hoops, the production of the HTT-40 will be well underway. What exactly is the bottleneck?

How can the Union of India NOT favour a domestic product, when it meets or exceeds the requirements of the RFI? It is my understanding that the Union of India works towards the advancement of India. How is this even a policy?

Re IAS, yes we do pass the toughest academic exam in the counry. But that is not necessarily a test of aptitude, suitability or character. The only test that comes close to that in India is the SSB.

Perhaps then the IAS officers who work in the MoD, should also pass the SSB exam as well? Because working in the hallowed halls of the MoD requires all three traits you have stated above - Aptitude, Suitability and Character.

May see the post on Indian Army thread to get an understanding of various issues. You can also go through my previous posts.

I will look at the posts that you are referring to.

[Vidur]

Contractual obligation means signed contracts. It was implied that we fulfill contracts with foreign parties but not with domestic. That is untrue.

Not referring to impetus to indegenisation.

May read my first ever post on this forum and also the one on Army thread. Also if you have interest some posts in between.