HLFT-42 Lead-In Fighter Trainer: News & Discussions: 02 August 2022

[ks_sachin]

Does the IAF need an attack aircraft?
Does today’s battle space and weapons avaiable warrant an attack aircraft?

[Atmavik]

I Think it’s a LIFT + Low cost attack aircraft for the export market . While I am all for desi design and development this is a solution looking for a problem developing a whole new aircraft will be expensive and will need to solve many challenges. Just look at the time python took and now Astra integration is taking . Btw the Astra launcher needs optimization. We should go all in on LCA and use the trainer as lift for our needs . Use the time and money to keep refining LCA

[ramana]

It's for export. IAF need not buy this.
It's below their dignity.

[ks_sachin]

I love your optimism Ramana sir.

[NRao]

[ramana]

https://twitter.com/VivekSi85847001/sta ... S5ukcSoURw --->

Folks the dimension have changed from the early release.
The HLFT has grown longer, and wider but weights are same

See the first post

Design Specifications
• Length: 13.2 meters
• Height: 4.4 meters
• Wingspan: 8.2 meters
• Wing Area: 38.4 square meters
• Engine: General Electric F414-IN20 turbofan (Info Sheet --> https://www.geaviation.com/propulsion/military/f404)

Performance Specifications
• Maximum All Up Weight: 16,500 kg
• Internal Fuel Capacity: 3,500 kg
• Payload: > 4,500 kg
• Hardpoints: 11
• Service Ceiling: Not Known
• G Limits: Not Known
• Speed: Not Known
• Range: Not Known

[ramana]

Whats the new wing area vs the old wing area of 38.4 sq m?
9.0/8.2= 1.097 say 10% more just from span increase?
And another 5% more for the root length.
So about 15% more in 38.4*1.15 ~44 sq m?

[Pratyush]

https://idrw.org/hlft-42-work-on-indias ... t-details/

Published on 8th of May 2024.

The work of fine-tuning the design is quietly going on.

Personally I am happy with the progress HAL has made from being a licensed producer into a fully functional aircraft design and production house.

I hope that they will keep up the good work.

[Rakesh]

Below is part of a twitter thread from a twitter user who went to the IDAX (Indian Defence Aviation Exposition) at Jodhpur.

https://x.com/Tanishq_bafila/status/1835005836751696056 ---> UPDATE ON LIFT-42 PROJECT (Lead in Fighter Trainer).

IAF is interested in the program and the program is going through the design phase. Earlier it didn't pass the design phase.

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/Varun55484761/status/1903017067277844811 ---> HAL issued an RFI for jet engine for HLFT-42. Max thrust 95-100 KN and total technical life of 6,000 hours.

[fanne]

To me at least it is mindbogelling why this program even exist. We can barely make LCA mk1a (that IAF has signed off, Budget approved), yet we face difficulty in productanizing it. It still has a distance to go even if we account for engine delay). Many things are delayed because HAL is delaying it.

Little bit of history - HAL was the only design house for fighter aircraft. It wanted to lead the LCA design (and development),but ADA was formed to lead it (mostly because HAL was not considered the most competent player to do it). HAL never forgave whoever for this and had the grudge. In fact old timer may recall the step motherly treatment it gave to LCA lsp/ioc/foc. It sat on its development, it prioritized other programs over it. In fact to prove a point,HAL conceived MK1a, trying to prove their worthiness over ADA. Even LCAMK1a is a ******** child from HAL perspective (its DNA is still ADA). So how does HAL polishes its ego - it resurrects Marut design, borrows heavily from it (no ADA lineage here) and tries to develop a whole metal fighter (when the world is moving or has moved to composites, lighter, more stealthy) with an engine that it does not produce or it cannot get that easily (we are still struggling with both F404/F414). Now, i may not be the smartest, what is the use case for HLFT-42 in the milieu of Tejas IOC/FOC/Mk1a, Tejas MK2, AMCA, TEDBF? Will they try to somehow sabotage Tejas MK2 so that a JF-17 of a fighter in HLFT-42 gets promoted? That puts paid any hope of any other manufacturing house making lca mk2? If HLFT-42 succeeds (as HAL design) and lca mk2 (as ADA design) fails, it will be easy for HAL to promote only itself as a design/prod entity. WHAT IS ITS GAME? I am surprised why IAF is indulging in this? Maybe they want LCA MK2 to fail as well so that they have green card scope?

[pravula]

Does a lift trainer need 100kn engine? Who the heck will buy that for training purposes? The opex is going to be much higher…

[ernest]

So how does HAL polishes its ego - it resurrects Marut design, borrows heavily from it (no ADA lineage here) and tries to develop a whole metal fighter (when the world is moving or has moved to composites, lighter, more stealthy) with an engine that it does not produce or it cannot get that easily (we are still struggling with both F404/F414). Now, i may not be the smartest, what is the use case for HLFT-42 in the milieu of Tejas IOC/FOC/Mk1a, Tejas MK2, AMCA, TEDBF?

HAL is going with AL-31 that it license produces for HLFT-42. It is good to have parallel initiatives for multiple combat aircraft within India, and there is export potential as well, as we can learn from the Chinese. HLFT-42 will be a cheaper fighter trainer that can be built entirely in India (with Al-31 support from Russia) and can be something that we can produce in numbers in case of a long conflict. It also has good export potential.

While the airframe is not cutting edge, it is being built with the best electronics systems in mind along with MUMT from the get go. It will network with the CATS ecosystem and can act as an affordable mothership, which will not need the best airframe out there. It will be a great LIFT/MUMT platform at affordable cost. We definitely should give it a try.

Parallelly, it also creates experienced workforce that can design and produce fighter aircraft. The gaps in our projects since Marut days has meant that we lose our best talented and experienced people by the time next project comes up. Parallel projects in multiple orgs is the way to go for a country/economy the size of India.

HLFT will also provide a platform to test and develop a lot of MUMT capabilities. We have seen delays in development from different teams waiting for the limited number of platforms to be available to test their equipment.

We should go for both Tejas MK2 (which is almost ready), and HLFT-42. Having one does not harm the other. In fact a lot of systems developed for Mk2 will find its way on HLFT-42 (speeding up the development), which in turn can validate a lot of MUMT related features that may find its way to Tejas Mk1A / Mk2. A few days ago, someone posted the opposite (why we should scrap Tejas Mk2 and go with HLFT only. I do not agree with that viewpoint, and I do not agree with shelving HLFT-42 either.

[fanne]

I could have replaced all mentions of hlft -42 with Tejas mk2 and it still be valid. hlft-42 looks like solution looking for a problem,

[ernest]

I could have replaced all mentions of hlft -42 with Tejas mk2 and it still be valid. hlft-42 looks like solution looking for a problem,

Yeah. Try these

Parallel projects in multiple orgs is the way to go for a country/economy the size of India.

HLFT-42 will be a cheaper fighter trainer that can be built entirely in India (with Al-31 support from Russia) and can be something that we can produce in numbers in case of a long conflict. It also has good export potential.

HLFT will also provide a platform to test and develop a lot of MUMT capabilities. We have seen delays in development from different teams waiting for the limited number of platforms to be available to test their equipment.

While the airframe is not cutting edge, it is being built with the best electronics systems in mind along with MUMT from the get go. It will network with the CATS ecosystem and can act as an affordable mothership, which will not need the best airframe out there. It will be a great LIFT/MUMT platform at affordable cost. We definitely should give it a try.

Tejas Mk2 does not have a 2-seater design ab initio, which can pickup MUMT roles. By the time requirements come for such a design, we'd have more tech matured from HLFT-42 that can be put back into Mk2. In absence of such a program from HAL (which is developing CATS), MUMT capabilities will be delayed.

India needs to expand its aerospace programs, despite the reasons thrown about like " if we have Do-228, why do we need to develop Saras". One bad turn in relationship with USA, and all our multirole fighters will be restricted. We need an ecosystem, and running a single program for decades is not going to create it.

I will not respond to childish comments any more.

[Rakesh]

Ernest is correct.

So yes, it is yet another project. And this is India after all. Nothing ever comes on time. We understand all that.

But folks need to look at this from a different angle and ernest actually alluded to that. I am quoting below....

HAL is going with AL-31 that it license produces for HLFT-42.

The AL-31 is the *KEY* here. Do not fall into the trap of "collective amnesia" and please remind yourself that GE F404 engines for the Tejas Mk1A program were delayed for 2+ years and is only now expected to arrive by early next month. Also remember that the GE F414 contract has not been signed, despite much hoopla between the two Govts. The last we heard is that the deal is stuck and in limbo.

None of this has been lost on Air HQ. This is also the same reason why the MRFA continues to live on. They need an alternative to US origin turbofans (which powers the *ENTIRE* Tejas program i.e. Mk1, Mk1A and Mk2). Please keep this in mind, when advocating for more Tejas platforms.

Thus enter HLFT-42. However, this program is not without risks either...but it is better to spread that risk between two engine manufacturers, than solely rely on one.

This is what happens when you do not have your own engine. That is a whole other issue and has been beaten to death multiple times on the forum.

[pravula]

Is there a target price for HLFT-42? With avionics taking up a lion's share of any modern fighter cost, how much will an all metal airframe really save?

[vera_k]

Thus enter HLFT-42. However, this program is not without risks either...but it is better to spread that risk between two engine manufacturers, than solely rely on one.

I wonder if this project is driven by HAL directly and not driven top down. And in which case, they may be empowered enough to resurrect and use that locally made engine GTX37-14UB that is claimed to produce 89KN.

[fanne]

It is a nice angle - That HLFT-42 is actually a risk mitigation for LCAMK1A/MK2 dependency on USA/GE and any possible perfidy on their part. If it is I would say may God help you in this!!

But let me explore further - I still believe it is HAL ego trip with its own design. In fact there is a better candidate for that. I will get to that in a while.
HAL has consistently pointed out that it needs 90-95-98 KN engine, many times mentioning f414 by name. If it intends to use AL31F, that engine is 123 KN thrust. The specs of HLFT-42 (height, weight, wing area) is similar, nope same as LCAMK1. I doubt you can fit an AL31F to it. Neither we produce non thrust vectoring AL31F, we may not be willing to put a TV engine with 1 ton extra weight penalty (for just TVC), not for LCA like plane, so I doubt it is AL31F.

It could be that we are using GTX37-14UB, I would say, please go for it!! But why HLFT-42?, which may need another 10 years (or 25 if you go with sitara timeline) to just prove the airframe, forget the engine. I would make a LCAMK1b/c/d whatever to make an aircraft that will take in the GTX engine. I believe the central fuselage, air intakes will get heavily modified. The wings however will remain the same. We are carrying the same wing from LCAMK1 to LCAMK2 (exactly the same). We must have mastered every aspect of it, why not use that? Why HLFT-42? only because it will be designed by HAL bureau and not by ADA?

If it is not a risk mitigation plan, then it has no role. As for LIFT, IAF orders 20% of the planes as trainers. If it orders 200 mk2, 40 of these will be trainers, perhaps to be designed at a later time, once single seater has matured(same approach vis a vis mk1). Perhaps, HAL can have another team to tinker with the single seater and develop double seater in almost parallel timeline? Or use lcamk1 trainer as LIFT. Afterall, it looks like many modern air forces are moving from simulator directly to planes.

As far as parallel teams, we do not have enough TRAINED manpower to form one single team (that's why TEDBF and AMCA are delayed, same team is rotating). While it sounds good on paper, it is alleged even ISRO with such a long pedigree only barely has 1 team for each of its end to end application. Chinese space agency that launches maximum sats is also alleged it is one team, with barely any bench strength, hence lack of innovation, they succeed in manufacturing the same thing over and over again in large numbers. But if HLFT-42 magically builds a new team, that is a worthwhile investment. They can perhaps use the Sitara team, just finish that project and use that team.

For testing MUMT and other electronics upgrade what better platform than LCAMK1, MK1A, 2, NAVAL prototypes? In fact the news was thAt MUMT was supposed to be tested from naval platform. Why HAL loves naval LCA, look at HAL contribution in it vs ADA. Talk about being parochial.

For the dimensions of HLFT-42 is so similar to LCA, what could be wild conspiracy theory is, it is in fact LCA, but few problem areas removed without adding much risk (like better area ruling -elongated fuselage) etc. Or it could be a totally different program.

The only good reason I can see i they are using a homegrown engine, less advanced (between say m2k engine and f404/f414, something that Kaveri materials can be leveraged, design will be different, afterall issues with kaveri is less with material and more with its design (or fine tuning of it))

[bharathp]

I am not a regular poster, but a daily reader.

The Chinese have used their jf17 to great effect to pull smaller Air forces into their fold. And having an entire ecosystem of fighter aircraft development in house or in control has a value proposition in itself.

Arming a Sri lanka or Myanmar with us engines is impossible, and they don't need it either.

Developing a homegrown fighter in numbers - which tejas was meant to be - went from a mig21 replacement to a m2k mini.

Having a mig type aircraft (built in numbers, cheap to operate, an easier export model and provides test bed for avionics and lru testing, even strengthens the supply chain by having similar lrus and brings the cost down in general) seems like a good investment of design teams.

[ernest]

But folks need to look at this from a different angle and ernest actually alluded to that. I am quoting below....
....

Thank you Rakesh ji. The point I am trying to make is from an ecosystem POV, where we need additional momentum through programs, which can enable continuous development and production of crucial technologies, and also derisk our production plans. This becomes crucial, when our fighter programs run over decades, and our lack of infra and airframes for testing keeps delaying development of key systems further.

HAL has consistently pointed out that it needs 90-95-98 KN engine, many times mentioning f414 by name. If it intends to use AL31F, that engine is 123 KN thrust. The specs of HLFT-42 (height, weight, wing area) is similar, nope same as LCAMK1. I doubt you can fit an AL31F to it. Neither we produce non thrust vectoring AL31F, we may not be willing to put a TV engine with 1 ton extra weight penalty (for just TVC), not for LCA like plane, so I doubt it is AL31F.

There is no clear engine selection at this stage, and the design will evolve a bit more before being frozen for first prototype. But I am not sure where you are getting these specs for HLFT-42 from. HAL displays shows (length, span, height) of (16, 9, 4.6) for HLFT-42 vs (13.2, 8.2, 4.4) for Tejas Mk1A. Even Tejas Mk2 is at (14.8, 8.5,4.87). maybe that is the source of confusion for you. https://x.com/Varun55484761/status/1903 ... 11/photo/1

For testing MUMT and other electronics upgrade what better platform than LCAMK1, MK1A, 2, NAVAL prototypes? In fact the news was thAt MUMT was supposed to be tested from naval platform. Why HAL loves naval LCA, look at HAL contribution in it vs ADA. Talk about being parochial.

There are numerous discussions of precious Tejas airframes not being available for testing systems, which has been a bottleneck. HAL did propose SPORT variant, which did not find traction for some reason. Now with F404 delays, Tejas airframes are more precious real estate. I would have preferred to see a Tejas SPORT versions pursued, which would have been flying (if engines were not the bottleneck).

As far as parallel teams, we do not have enough TRAINED manpower to form one single team (that's why TEDBF and AMCA are delayed, same team is rotating). While it sounds good on paper, it is alleged even ISRO with such a long pedigree only barely has 1 team for each of its end to end application. Chinese space agency that launches maximum sats is also alleged it is one team, with barely any bench strength, hence lack of innovation, they succeed in manufacturing the same thing over and over again in large numbers. But if HLFT-42 magically builds a new team, that is a worthwhile investment. They can perhaps use the Sitara team, just finish that project and use that team.

Exactly. And how do you expand the team or build new team? Indranil has alluded to it in his long threads and podcasts. It is by having programs to design and build aircraft, improving them, and ensuring that the knowledge is not lost, by having follow on / new programs, when one is completed. Mentors pass on the knowhow to their mentees. We are in this pickle because we did not have multiple programs, instead one program that also had periods of uncertainty, where we lost knowhow and talent, also weakening the supplier ecosystem. The Chinese made sure that their aircraft design orgs had multiple projects one after other. They even have 2 sixth gen designs flying from different orgs. No one there is complaining how we are wasting resources, how we are using the same engine in both the designs, why not build the same design if they use the same engine and so on. If we do not TRAIN more people TODAY, we will not have TRAINED manpower in the NEXT DECADE as well.

HJT-36 has built some capability, and lot of lessons for HAL fixed wing org. HLFT-42 will take it further and with CATS Warrior and MUMT ecosystem being developed by HAL, it would be crucial for them to develop a mothership as well. If they do not have sanction for Tejas SPORT, then HLFT-42 is good enough to develop capability and a team with design experience. Such a program is a worthwhile investment just from this perspective alone.

A lot of our issues are reportedly due to our orgs not coordinating well. If CATS program is by HAL, we would save a lot of time and effort through a mothership that HAL has full access to, and can modify to work well within the CATS concept.

As far as the criticism of HAL, we would have had an HLFT like design flying before LCA had HAL been given the sanction and budget to keep developing over Marut. The separation of design and production organizations has been a bad decision for our fixed wing programs. HAL building up capability again as a design org is good for the ecosystem.

As far as delays are concerned, HAL has done well with systems where it has experience. LCH has been ready for ages, waiting for orders (with news coming in of imminent orders as I type this out ). IMRH and AMCA were delayed to explore orgs other than HAL that would be willing to take up the program.

All of this does not mean that I prefer an HLFT like metal design. We do not even know if this will be the final config/design. It might change before being finalized. What is important is the development of capabilities, and derisking (like Rakesh ji explained above) through a similar program.

[ernest]

The Chinese have used their jf17 to great effect to pull smaller Air forces into their fold. And having an entire ecosystem of fighter aircraft development in house or in control has a value proposition in itself.

Arming a Sri lanka or Myanmar with us engines is impossible, and they don't need it either

Developing a homegrown fighter in numbers - which tejas was meant to be - went from a mig21 replacement to a m2k mini.

Having a mig type aircraft (built in numbers, cheap to operate, an easier export model and provides test bed for avionics and lru testing, even strengthens the supply chain by having similar lrus and brings the cost down in general) seems like a good investment of design teams.

Strongly agree. They are flying Mig copies to 6-th gen prototypes. There is value to be captured in each segment, and they are doing well by providing options with Russian engines to Chinese engines and sensors. Also, selling a fighter is more than a money making business. It is a multiplier of national power for the Chinese, and we cannot leave out any future market because it did not fit our SQRs at any point. We have gained some MRO market with our MKI experience, and we can expand it further through cheaper designs like HTT-40/HJT-36 armed versions, or even OMCA conversions for legacy aircraft of other air forces like we are planning to do with our Kirans/Mig-21s, and loyal wingman like Warrior (which HAL is expecting to produce 100% artmanirbhar at an attractive price point)

[Khalsa]

I am not a regular poster, but a daily reader.

The Chinese have used their jf17 to great effect to pull smaller Air forces into their fold. And having an entire ecosystem of fighter aircraft development in house or in control has a value proposition in itself.

Arming a Sri lanka or Myanmar with us engines is impossible, and they don't need it either

Developing a homegrown fighter in numbers - which tejas was meant to be - went from a mig21 replacement to a m2k mini.

Having a mig type aircraft (built in numbers, cheap to operate, an easier export model and provides test bed for avionics and lru testing, even strengthens the supply chain by having similar lrus and brings the cost down in general) seems like a good investment of design teams.

Welcome Bharath. Great to have your contributions.
Please post regularly and don't hold back. you already speak like a seasoned BRFite. We could do with more of folks like yourselves, lot of us have become more readers than posters.

@Rakesh. (cc:)

[Nikhil_Naya]

I am not a regular poster, but a daily reader.

The Chinese have used their jf17 to great effect to pull smaller Air forces into their fold. And having an entire ecosystem of fighter aircraft development in house or in control has a value proposition in itself.

Arming a Sri lanka or Myanmar with us engines is impossible, and they don't need it either

Developing a homegrown fighter in numbers - which tejas was meant to be - went from a mig21 replacement to a m2k mini.

Having a mig type aircraft (built in numbers, cheap to operate, an easier export model and provides test bed for avionics and lru testing, even strengthens the supply chain by having similar lrus and brings the cost down in general) seems like a good investment of design teams.

This is true. There is a huge market for aircraft which are not 5th Gen across the world. The Tejas, while does have good export potential, may be hindered by the American engine limiting its potential sales (example Argentina).

Also, a full metal aircraft, is a lower maintenance machine for a not too professional/ not deep pocket airforce.

A 10 squadron sale (total) will mean 180-240 aircraft sale. Nigeria, Myanmar, Phillipines, Multiple African countries, South America, the market is big.

We already have most of the building blocks in house a LIFT+Fighter will be a good fit for these airforces that are currently flying 1970's era aircraft.

It also helps geopolitically. The only thing I don't understand is the requirement of a 100-110 kN engine. Maybe more of a LIFT + Medium attack aircraft conceptually. None of the Big buys (Russia,US, EU) have cheap fighters available anymore in production.

[Kartik]

HLFT-42 is being targeted with MUM-T in mind as well as a secondary role as a fighter to back up the other fighter squadrons.

One of the key things that the HAL CMD mentioned in an interview with Tarmak's Ananth was that HLFT-42 was being developed using HAL's own money. So that's really their prerogative as to how they use the money if their board and shareholders approve of it.

And that they were doing it with a mind towards giving a real project to a lot of young designers to cut their teeth on. Remember, Tejas Mk1A didn't require the level of design activities that a new almost clean sheet design like HLFT-42 will. The Tejas Mk2 is an ADA program with HAL as a partner, but HAL has no other fast jet design in the works currently.

With HLFT-42 they feel they can control the integration of CATS Warrior, CATS Hunter and other elements.

BTW, as Indranil Roy mentioned on Delhi Defence Review's podcast (on the HJT-36) that the current HLFT-42 isn't based on the HF-24 Marut but more on the follow on HF-25 that was abandoned thanks to IAF disinterest. The HF-25 was a single engine follow on to the HF-24. Borne out by HVT's tweet

link

HAL's HF-25 was the Indian variant of the next gen HF-24 equipped with R-25 engine while HSS-73 (Hindustan Supersonic Strike) equipped with RB199 was the proposal from Germany. Both / either could have progressed but like Raj Malhotra said, "the lost decade" was truly lost on us.

[Rakesh]

It could be that we are using GTX37-14UB, I would say, please go for it!!

Many others have replied to this post of yours. But I will just ask this question ---> Is HAL going ahead with the GTX37-14UB engine? If not, then everything else you have highlighted in your post is khayali pulao.

Until we get a proven and working turbofan of our own (not some licensed assembly one), then we will continue to have this problem.

[Kakkaji]

As for using the AL-31 for HLFT-42, I thought we don't use a Russian engine in a single engine fighter.

[fanne]

i am saying this HLFT-42 as a whole is a khyali pulao. It has no use case. What are chances of exporting a plane that IAF may not buy. We don't know the engine, the native AF already has a plane that is superior to it (LCA MK1A) in its class, is atleast 1/2 decades ahead in development. On top of that HAL is struggling to deliver mk1a. It is very rich of HAL to plan (and built a line - purported third line before Nashik line) for exports of LCAMK1a to Egypt,Argentina, Philipines, Malaysia when the IAF is at its lowest number and planned/committed planes are not coming. It will make LCA for export customer, HLFT-42 for again export but will struggle to deliver committed numbers to IAF.

[konaseema]

Based on what I know, there are NO trainer versions planned for Mk2 or AMCA. That said, there is a need for a LIFT and HAL's attempt to address this need is through HLFT-42. Whether HAL is successful in exporting this aircraft is to be seen. I am glad that HAL is going ahead with the design and development of this aircraft with its own funds. Many in this very forum think that we are not spending enough on R&D and when HAL does something in those lines, we question this very decision. We can't have it both ways...

[Kartik]

As for using the AL-31 for HLFT-42, I thought we don't use a Russian engine in a single engine fighter.

As the recent tender for engines clearly points out- the AL-31 is not being considered for the HLFT-42. Simply too big for what is the specifications that have been put out for the HLFT-42's engine.

[bharathp]

"what are the chances of exporting a place that IAF may not buy"

the chinese do not use the jf-17 -

but have exported it to so many countries as of now. IAF is no barometer to decide what is a good product for other countries.

we dont know the engine

- true -i am hoping its an engine not attached with strings.

HAL is struggling to deliver mk1A

- the design team and manufacture teams I presume will be different? also - delays in mk1a are so much on the engine as well.

the native AF already has a plane that is superior to it (LCA MK1A) in its class, is atleast 1/2 decades ahead in development. -

It will make LCA for export customer, HLFT-42 for again export but will struggle to deliver committed numbers to IAF.

the LCA was to be a mig-21 replacement.
it went on to become a mini m2k

a cheap, easy to build and operate in numbers aircraft is still not the LCA with the dependence on the engine.

Forget the exports, even if 40-60 aircraft of HLFT get made, and if it shares avionics and electronics with the LCA ecosystem (lets say, 20-25% commonality), it will still be a cheaper plane to produce as well as decrease the cost per component of those subsytems.

[Manish_P]

...
Forget the exports, even if 40-60 aircraft of HLFT get made, and if it shares avionics and electronics with the LCA ecosystem (lets say, 20-25% commonality), it will still be a cheaper plane to produce as well as decrease the cost per component of those subsytems.

Good point.

Will help the component manufactures as well - more order, more funds for further R&D

[ernest]

Great points in above posts.

I'd like to bring another aspect to this discussion, which is the proliferation of cruise missiles and loitering munitions. We will need more airframes to intercept them in addition to our SAM/AD network. The recent Iranian attack on Israel saw a large number of US and allied air forces intercept cruise missiles/LMs in large number, and by mobilizing a large number of airframes.

In a conflict, India will have its limited airframes committed to offensive and defensive operations near borders. Also the cost of operation of fighters like Rafale/Su-30 will be very high, with Tejas being lower. apart from the flying costs, the missiles (Astra/R-73/NGCCM) used to intercept CM/LM will be also pretty costly. There will be requirement to defend our airspace against such threats, which is cost effective, and something that we can scale during long conflicts. Obviously, ground based air defence will be needed in numbers, but we will also need aerial platforms that can execute such missions.

Armed HJT-36 Yashas is an obvious candidate for such roles, with its low operating costs. Once integrated with BVRAAMs/CCMs, it can take on that role. HTT-40 can also take up similar role if needed. However, both of them will find it tough to intercept high subsonic cruise missiles (wiki gives top speed of Yashas at 0.75 mach). HLFT-42 can extend this capability, with better onboard radar and sensors, higher speed, and larger payload. Even if its operational cost (on account of larger engine) is higher, the large number of AAMs that it can carry will result in lower cost per CM intercepted compared to say Tejas mk1/mk2. We will need a mix of assets for this and need to be producing aircraft across the spectrum from HTT-40 to proper fighter jets.

Another asset that can prosecute such CM/LM targets on the cheap will be CATS Warrior, including the larger variants planned in the future with higher top speeds. It can carry ASRAAM/NGCCM, and can be equipped with cheaper AAMs developed for this purpose.

We will have to take up a cheap AAM for such purposes, maybe a variant of VSHORADS or a missile of R-60 class. It shouldn't be a challenge for our scientists, given the maturity of our missile development, and availability of required subsystems. We can also develop something based on Bhargavastra from SolarIndustries, which has both seeker-equipped and seekerless versions. This can be adapted to rocket pods already carried by our rotary and fixed wing aircraft. I saw a post from Indranil on X that hinted at such an option as well. Given that APKWS has also been tested for such purposes, we will be looking for such capability already. I won't be surprised if there is a similar program underway.

I checked and seems like APKWS has already scored a kill on a Houthi drone in such a role ( https://www.twz.com/air/air-launched-la ... first-time )

Anyway, my point is that HLFT-42 class aircraft will find more relevance in the coming days with the exponential number of LMs/CMs.