Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 07 Feb 2013 22:35

I think Boeing is mulling over in to entering a C-17 maintenance contract with IAF. The model is based on Performance Based Logistics (PBL). This has been implemented in the West, starting with US and is hugely successful, especially on the C-17 product. I think IAF will be the latest customer apart from USAF, RAF, RAAF, RCAF, Qatari Air Force etc.

The basis of PBL is that OEM gets paid for results and not the work done. Various metrics are established during the contractual phase and Govt pays OEM (Boeing) for meeting those metrics. It doesn't matter if Boeing gets it done in 20 man hours or 200 man hours. I think for the USAF, the availability rate of C-17 is set to 86%. Boeing has been able to meet a upkeep time of over 90% for USAF fleet. Also I think Boeing promises a 24 hrs delivery time of spare parts with in continental US and 48hrs for International destinations. This model has been successful due to seamless supply chain issues present in the West. Good road/rail connectivity, efficient tracking mechanisms etc.

Now, Boeing being a smart company will either charge an arm & a leg or establish realistic metrics for IAF fleet. Boeing very well knows the issues that may be an obstacle for seamless supply chain issues in India. What if a C-17 has broken down at Leh in winter & roads are closed?

This will be a very interesting case study on the challenges Boeing encountered in meeting PBL contractual metrics and if it ended up making money in Indian scenario. I also believe, Boeing has signed or is going to sign similar contract with IN for P-8I platform.

I think we would be glad if the same IAF gentlemen could come back in a couple of years and present his thoughts on the support received by foreign OEMs.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 07 Feb 2013 23:00

shiv wrote:Modern warfare that the good Air Commodore refers to is dependent on the electronics and materials revolution. To aay that the time between the forst aircraft and the fisrt bomb from an aircraft was just 7 years fails to mention that in world war 1 the airforces of Europe were not cursing their own industry for giving them unreliable aircraft. They were stuck in a war and were dying and had to accept whatever they got.

Claiming that the IAF can overhaul a Mig 29 in 7 months so HAL overhauling ALH in 7 months is too long makes me want to ask why the IAF does not go the whole hog and manufacture the MiG 29? But thatwould be impolie. This year I tried to look for the Base Repair Depot stall. Couldn't find one but I have earlier comneted on here that the fairly crude level of tech that the IAF has in its base repair depots is just about the same level that our country has. No more. No less. IAF engineers are smart. DPSU engineers are smart. But the level of tech has little to do with smartmess of engineers. Why the fuk should the IAF be overhauling Mig 29s. What about mother Russia?

It is OK to have a rant about Indians and Indian tech - but I think even the IAF as an institution has failed to grasp where our country is technologically.

The BRD stall is in the same hall as BEL - the hall nearest the Jercules and the Wolfpack M2K. Agree on the fairly crude tech shown there - after seeing that one cannot stomach IAF criticism of ANY Indian company (PSU or otherwise) with respect to quality and technology.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 07 Feb 2013 23:04

shiv wrote: It is OK to have a rant about Indians and Indian tech - but I think even the IAF as an institution has failed to grasp where our country is technologically.

+1 Shiv Garu. The sooner IAF realizes this the better for our country in terms of technological advancement. I believe IN is by far the leader in realizing this fact and moving in the direction of self-reliance.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 07 Feb 2013 23:04

I respect everybody's personal opinion on the matter, but on my own side I find myself agreeing with Browne with regard to the HTT-40 in the context of existing, undelivered projects: IJT and LCA. HAL needs to show it has the capability to deliver these projects to completion before being given the opportunity to start yet another project from scratch (and bottling up any other attempts to fill up the requirement in the meantime). In both cases above we have seen long delays caused by technological pitfalls. The IJT is nowhere to be seen and the LCA, although finally beginning to look and feel like a real fighter, is still having teething minor troubles than need ironing out (Leh trials etc). But the major issue on the LCA side is production and delivery: just a few weeks earlier, IIRC, we recalled the trouble they have created for themselves with regard to coordination with ADE on the production of the LCA. Making a handful of LCAs a year is not going to fulfill the IAF requirement no matter how great the aircraft itself is.

Also in both cases the basic aircraft are good designs brought to the edge of doom by the project management lifestyle of HAL. At least the LCA seems to have navigated itself out of the woods (mostly). The IJT is totally lost in there.

So I can completely sympathize with the ACM when he says he doesn't want to see yet another aircraft type (another training aircraft) being developed by HAL. Let the HAL finish what it already has on its table (or at least show that they are making steady progress towards it) and then talk about future work.

Don't know about the IAF, but I have seen enough heartburn reading about news saying that our new pilots are having to go through compressed training schedules directly on jet trainers without time on basic trainers because there are no such aircraft operational within the IAF. I was most happy to see the Pilatus arrive to fill that role so that at least the quality of the new pilots does not suffer. It was simply an area where delays such as those besetting the IJT would have proven extremely painful to the air-force and its pilot training program. The IJT is needed, but not as urgently as the basic trainer. So while there is still some patience left for the IJT, there was none for the basic trainer.

Also, what the hell is with this digging-well-when-thirsty business with the basic trainers between the IAF and HAL? The HAL built the HPT-32 for the IAF. Decades later, didn't they see that a replacement might soon be coming up sometime? For this I blame both the IAF and HAL.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 07 Feb 2013 23:20

shiv wrote:Modern warfare that the good Air Commodore refers to is dependent on the electronics and materials revolution. To aay that the time between the forst aircraft and the fisrt bomb from an aircraft was just 7 years fails to mention that in world war 1 the airforces of Europe were not cursing their own industry for giving them unreliable aircraft. They were stuck in a war and were dying and had to accept whatever they got.

Claiming that the IAF can overhaul a Mig 29 in 7 months so HAL overhauling ALH in 7 months is too long makes me want to ask why the IAF does not go the whole hog and manufacture the MiG 29? But thatwould be impolie. This year I tried to look for the Base Repair Depot stall. Couldn't find one but I have earlier comneted on here that the fairly crude level of tech that the IAF has in its base repair depots is just about the same level that our country has. No more. No less. IAF engineers are smart. DPSU engineers are smart. But the level of tech has little to do with smartmess of engineers. Why the fuk should the IAF be overhauling Mig 29s. What about mother Russia?

It is OK to have a rant about Indians and Indian tech - but I think even the IAF as an institution has failed to grasp where our country is technologically.

I agree Shiv. But am sad to say the malaise is common. Do the babus and the politicos understand tech? Would they appreciate a discussion on that? As long as they are covered, (ring of akash missiles around Delhi) what do they have to worry about? So the HAL and IAF are two sides of the same coin!

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 07 Feb 2013 23:46

Just watched the AI video of "Maintenance And Operability Issues Faced In Using Indigenously Developed Systems" what kind of language is being used in there ??? "Should IAF induct gliders instead of Fighters" what ridiculousness

and the person gives example of mobile phones to do == between the technological obsolescence faced by IAF

About LCA the person fails to mention that IAF joined in only in 2006 which lead to more delay and now he is complaining about technological obsolescence in LCA but doesn't say which technology is obsolescent in LCA. All in all I fully empathize with IAF's problems but that doesn't mean you come up with a presentation whose sole focus was to humiliate the DPSU's involved instead of providing any kind of possible solution to the problems that IAF faces.

The situation is so bad between the IAF and DPSU's that when the HAL guy stood up and said "Similar to HAL I also found the Air Force some lacking in terms of placing RMS" (not 100% sure about the underlined part since the audio isn't clear) other probably HAL/DPSU's guys sitting started clapping. All this is very shameful and that too happening in an International Airshow.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 07 Feb 2013 23:53

Sagar G wrote:The situation is so bad between the IAF and DPSU's that when the HAL guy stood up and said "Similar to HAL I also found the Air Force some lacking in terms of placing RMS" (not 100% sure about the underlined part since the audio isn't clear) other probably HAL/DPSU's guys sitting started clapping. All this is very shameful and that too happening in an International Airshow.

Good god: did they really start clapping and all?

I agree. Hanging out the dirty laundry in front of the world here.

BTW, what video is this? Do you have a link?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 07 Feb 2013 23:54

vivek_ahuja wrote:So I can completely sympathize with the ACM when he says he doesn't want to see yet another aircraft type (another training aircraft) being developed by HAL.

No he didn't say that what he said is very clear, he said "We have the Pilatus PC-7. It's a proven aircraft. The project HAL plans is from scratch. Our indications are that the costs will be too high. There is no need for all this.".

His main concern is cost he didn't say anything about HAL's capability.

vivek_ahuja wrote:Also, what the hell is with this digging-well-when-thirsty business with the basic trainers between the IAF and HAL? The HAL built the HPT-32 for the IAF. Decades later, didn't they see that a replacement might soon be coming up sometime? For this I blame both the IAF and HAL.

I have asked this before and again ask the question. What happened with HTT-35 ??? Why wasn't it pursued ??? Who buried it ???

Answer these and then we will decide whose fault was it HAL's or IAF's.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 07 Feb 2013 23:56

vivek_ahuja wrote:Good god: did they really start clapping and all?

I agree. Hanging out the dirty laundry in front of the world here.

BTW, what video is this? Do you have a link?

From AI thread

Hiten wrote:maintenance & upkeep problems IAF faces with indigenous system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih8uxdSqADI

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Feb 2013 00:01

@Shiv: While your post(s) above is on dot regarding the level of aviation related technology in the country, rest of the argument about IAF being out of sync with national level of capability and need for PLAAF style air force of 70s is, IMO, not correct. Please allow me to elaborate:

As you’ve rightly pointed out, the aviation technology has already moved and reached point X on evolution scale. And so has the associated war-fighting technology and doctrine. And the bar is set by the west. The growth of aviation industry (in the west) and the air-warfare theories (in the west) form a self-propagating loop and feed off each other.

In this evolution was thrown a young nation in 1947. By this time, the evolution of aviation industry had already reached X+1 on evolution scale. India at this point had two options – (a) invest in de-novo development. (b) Jump start the segment by taking external help like the Chinese did with Mig-15 and up to Mig-21. For some reasons best known to leaders then, India did not consider it important to focus on option (a) while option (b) was ruled out due to geo-political considerations of the government.

So, we took a third route and bought what we could or, what others would give to us. We tried to be as close to X+1 as possible – resources permitting. Sometime in between, we tried to develop an aviation industry around HF-24 Marut. But the same failed to take off due to short-sightedness of IAF – this is a cross they’ll always carry around their neck.

While India was trying to play catch up with growth in evolution scale of aviation industry with imports, contrasting example emerged to our north-east – the Chinese model. By the time they emerged as a coherent nation, the development in aviation segment had left them far behind. They chose option (b) above to jumps-start their segment by collaborating with the USSR. They built whatever their technical prowess would allow them to – which consisted to copies of USSR airplanes. But here again, the development of their own industry reached a dead-end once the Russian assistance was cut-off and west declined them technology. For all the progress they made in 60s-80s, they have nothing to show from their own stable. The largest and most worthwhile component of their air force is a Russian copy. And the Chinese nation launched an industrial espionage on unprecedented scale to obtain technology to bridge the gap with west. Their products today are a clear proof of the same.

The Chinese aviation sector has not evolved in a linear fashion – it has jumped many iterations courtesy the single minded focus to hog technology from all possible means. They were not high volume-low tech force by choice – when they could break out, they did. Their model is pretty clear and clever – the operational readiness of their air-force and its modernization is de-linked from the evolutionary aspect of the aviation segment. The manufacture and induction of the Russian copies and imports of latest aircraft + technology ensures that their air force readiness is de-risked from the ability of their aviation segment to come with platforms like J-10 and J-20/J-21.

So, your argument that IAF needs to be low-tech/high volume force just to prevent the ‘whine’ factor is incorrect. PLAAF was not low-tech out of choice – that is how the circumstances were. The security of the nation and operational readiness of the air force cannot be held hostage to how far the domestic aviation industry has reached on evolution scale – especially when it is still learning to walk. The two need to be de-linked and risk spread across.

For good or bad, the decision makers of this country chose to adopt a development model for aviation sector and you cannot turn the clock back. So, while the Rafale and PAKFA of the world will continue to be tech-leads of IAF, LCA and subsequent versions will form the mass.

Also, the technological levels of HAL and India in general cannot match-up to where the world is through linear fashion and by making planes which are 30 years too late. The booster – whether foreign collaboration or TOT or pure copying – will have to be employed. ALH and AWACS are a case in point. Or, we’d be forever in catch-up mode and waiting for Godot.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 08 Feb 2013 00:03

Sagar G wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote:So I can completely sympathize with the ACM when he says he doesn't want to see yet another aircraft type (another training aircraft) being developed by HAL.
No he didn't say that what he said is very clear, he said "We have the Pilatus PC-7. It's a proven aircraft. The project HAL plans is from scratch. Our indications are that the costs will be too high. There is no need for all this.".

His main concern is cost he didn't say anything about HAL's capability.

vivek_ahuja wrote:Also, what the hell is with this digging-well-when-thirsty business with the basic trainers between the IAF and HAL? The HAL built the HPT-32 for the IAF. Decades later, didn't they see that a replacement might soon be coming up sometime? For this I blame both the IAF and HAL.
I have asked this before and again ask the question. What happened with HTT-35 ??? Why wasn't it pursued ??? Who buried it ???

Answer these and then we will decide whose fault was it HAL's or IAF's.

Its always HAL's fault.

One thing which IAF fails to realize is that HAL have started development from scratch with no experience on hand. IAF just can't keep on adding new technological requirements to a platform which had started decades ago from scratch just on the fact that other nations have moved to newer technological advancements.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 08 Feb 2013 00:03

Sagar G wrote:His main concern is cost he didn't say anything about HAL's capability.

You are correct. I realize that his reasons are different. I raised the issue of HAL's capability there, not him. I don't agree with the cost issue (and frankly I think that was a bit myopic from him) but I do think that HAL's abilities are stretched. So even if its the cost issue that shoots down the HTT-40 until the IJT and LCA projects are completed, I can live with it.

I have asked this before and again ask the question. What happened with HTT-35 ??? Why wasn't it pursued ??? Who buried it ???
Answer these and then we will decide whose fault was it HAL's or IAF's.

Its always HAL's fault.

Okay look, if you guys are out to find a binary solution set of assigning the blame this way or that way, then there is no further use of discussion. Reality is more complex. And for every one supporter you will find pointing the blame IAF's way, I might find someone to push the blame the other way. My personal belief is that both sides are to blame for the current mess and impending cancellation of the HTT-40.

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 08 Feb 2013 00:04

Sagar G and SagarAG... damn .. I was wondering how come the same person is contradicting himself over and over again...!!

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 08 Feb 2013 00:06

Sagar G wrote:From AI thread
Hiten wrote:maintenance & upkeep problems IAF faces with indigenous system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih8uxdSqADI

Thanks for the link! Basing it from your thoughts on the video, this should prove painful to watch.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 08 Feb 2013 00:14

vivek_ahuja wrote:Okay look, if you guys are out to find a binary solution set of assigning the blame this way or that way, then there is no further use of discussion. Reality is more complex. And for every one supporter you will find pointing the blame IAF's way, I might find someone to push the blame the other way. My personal belief is that both sides are to blame for the current mess and impending cancellation of the HTT-40.

No, blame has to be assigned first so that fixing of the problem can take place if it's HAL's fault then reprimand HAL and take corrective actions, if it is IAF's fault reprimand them and take corrective action. Not fixing the blame and saying that both are to blame results in a passing the blame football match between the organizations involved.

vivek_ahuja wrote:Thanks for the link! Basing it from your thoughts on the video, this should prove painful to watch.

It's disgusting and horrible. The situation is worse than I thought and the bad blood can be seen clearly.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 08 Feb 2013 00:21

Sagar G wrote:No, blame has to be assigned first so that fixing of the problem can take place if it's HAL's fault then reprimand HAL and take corrective actions, if it is IAF's fault reprimand them and take corrective action. Not fixing the blame and saying that both are to blame results in a passing the blame football match between the organizations involved.

Fair enough. I didn't mean that no blame should be assigned. What I meant was that we have to very objective in assigning blame and if certain aspects on either side are responsible, they both have to be pointed out. It cannot be that we are out for a hatchet job on one side or the other.

It's disgusting and horrible. The situation is worse than I thought and the bad blood can be seen clearly.

I agree. It was painful

. Not even sure how we can go about repairing that, if you ask me. Perhaps strong integrated leadership might help, but where will you find these individuals brought up inside a culture such as this.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 08 Feb 2013 00:24

vivek_ahuja wrote:Fair enough. I didn't mean that no blame should be assigned. What I meant was that we have to very objective in assigning blame and if certain aspects on either side are responsible, they both have to be pointed out. It cannot be that we are out for a hatchet job on one side or the other.

Agree.

vivek_ahuja wrote:I agree. It was painful . Not even sure how we can go about repairing that, if you ask me. Perhaps strong integrated leadership might help, but where will you find these individuals brought up inside a culture such as this.

I have an answer to this but it starts by assuming a change in GoI and certain person coming to power, so it's OT for the thread.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 08 Feb 2013 00:26

Prithwiraj wrote:Sagar G and SagarAG... damn .. I was wondering how come the same person is contradicting himself over and over again...!!

Sagar G wrote:
No, blame has to be assigned first so that fixing of the problem can take place if it's HAL's fault then reprimand HAL and take corrective actions, if it is IAF's fault reprimand them and take corrective action. Not fixing the blame and saying that both are to blame results in a passing the blame football match between the organizations involved.

How can you blame the customer.

Its simple HAL is the developer/supplier and IAF is the customer. If a customer is not satisfied with a system why would he induct/buy it.
Unless and until IAF/HAL work together starting from the conceptualization-design-development-testing-final product the situation will not improve. There is no in between stage which one can enter and start inputting their own ideas in development.

Till then Customer is the KING!! it will and always be HAL's fault.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Feb 2013 00:26

shiv wrote:Modern warfare that the good Air Commodore refers to is dependent on the electronics and materials revolution. To aay that the time between the forst aircraft and the fisrt bomb from an aircraft was just 7 years fails to mention that in world war 1 the airforces of Europe were not cursing their own industry for giving them unreliable aircraft. They were stuck in a war and were dying and had to accept whatever they got.

Shiv, you make it seem that IAF should be simply grateful for whatever rolls out of the HAL and others DPSUs because that is all India can produce? What about accountability for what the organization has promised to deliver? And as the presentation shows, in most cases, the producer has simply not thought ahead to work out logistics to support the product it has delivered. How can lack of technological base become a single sweeping answer for all that was pointed out in the presentation by the IAF officer?

Claiming that the IAF can overhaul a Mig 29 in 7 months so HAL overhauling ALH in 7 months is too long makes me want to ask why the IAF does not go the whole hog and manufacture the MiG 29? But that would be impolite. This year I tried to look for the Base Repair Depot stall. Couldn't find one but I have earlier commented on here that the fairly crude level of tech that the IAF has in its base repair depots is just about the same level that our country has. No more. No less.

If the 'crude' level of technology available in BRDs of IAF are all their to this country, and if that is required to overhaul a machine such as Mig-29, why should HAL take same time to overhaul an ALH? I'm sure you'd agree with me that compared to ALH, a Mig-29 would represent a more complex task. And ALH is not exactly a new baby - the first entered service in 2002.

Or, is it that the organization has not bothered to cater for these requirements - after all, Services are captive customers and as per current DPP, things need to be cleared by DRDO before they can be purchased.

<SNIP>

It is OK to have a rant about Indians and Indian tech - but I think even the IAF as an institution has failed to grasp where our country is technologically.

The IAF 'rant' is not about the technological base of this country - but simple lack of application of what is available and development of more user centric mentality.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Feb 2013 00:54

If I was the IAF COAS and asked about the HAL proposal for HTT-40 and associated double cost of development, I too would turn it down for the following reason -

- The total requirement is for 181 aircraft.
- IAF has bought 75@INR 37 Crore/ac with option for 37 more at the same price.
- Let us assume the last part of 69 a/c can be bought at unit price of INR 40 Cr/aircraft.

- The total cost of procurement of only the aircrafts is INR 6,904 Crore.

Compare this will HAL's proposal.

- HAL to build 106 of the balance aircraft after induction of 75 Pilatus.
- Unit cost has been stated to be double - I'm assuming it to be INR 74 Crore. This is likely to be on account of all the CAPEX required for setting up the manufacturing base.
- So, cost of 106 aircraft is INR 7,844 Crores.
- Total aircraft only acquisition cost - (75 Pilatus + 106 HAL) - INR 10,619 Crores.

Difference - INR 3,715 Crore.

Now, people can rightly point out that the above is less than USD 1 Billion in today's price. So, what is the big deal?

Well, apart no guarantees of the timelines for delivery, it is who pays the cost for 'development' of this capability (and not the aircraft only). As an Air Chief, the GOI gives me X-amount of money for force modernization. And god knows, IAF is need of complete overhaul after the lost decade of 90s. Apart from the zing-bang stuff like fighters and missiles, there are hundreds of other stuff requiring replacement or even filling up authorized levels. COAS has an air force to run and country to defend.

So, from the X-amount of money which GOI gives him (and takes back if cannot spend it all - properly), if you ask him to fork out USD 1 billion dollar higher than what he can get from international market, he is going to have second thoughts.

People can jump here and talk about capability building - but my question is simple - why is capability building happening on the shoulders of IAF? Why cannot the GOI release funds to cover the CAPEX for R&D+manufacturing facilities for HTT-40 and hence, insure that per unit cost passed on to IAF is lower? On the one hand we talk about capacity building and on another, HAL (MOD/GOI) intends to recoup all the expenses from IAF only? They don't seem to be working towards capacity building.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 08 Feb 2013 01:18

rohitvats wrote:If the 'crude' level of technology available in BRDs of IAF are all their to this country, and if that is required to overhaul a machine such as Mig-29, why should HAL take same time to overhaul an ALH? I'm sure you'd agree with me that compared to ALH, a Mig-29 would represent a more complex task.

Because a MiG-29 is not an ALH and vice versa. Helicopters require much more maintenance and overhaul work than fixed-wing aircraft do. A few years ago, I remember reading a paper where the author had shown that the maintenance cost of a certain type of helicopter was almost four times as much as what it would cost to maintain a contemporary fixed-wing aircraft. I'll try to dig it up.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Feb 2013 01:24

Mihir wrote:
rohitvats wrote:If the 'crude' level of technology available in BRDs of IAF are all their to this country, and if that is required to overhaul a machine such as Mig-29, why should HAL take same time to overhaul an ALH? I'm sure you'd agree with me that compared to ALH, a Mig-29 would represent a more complex task.
Because a MiG-29 is not an ALH and vice versa. Helicopters require much more maintenance and overhaul work than fixed-wing aircraft do. A few years ago, I remember reading a paper where the author had shown that the maintenance cost of a certain type of helicopter was almost four times as much as what it would cost to maintain a contemporary fixed-wing aircraft. I'll try to dig it up.

I think you're mixing some points here. First - have you see the presentation by the IAF officer?

Secondly, the point IAF officer made was this - it takes BRD 7-months to completely overhaul a Mig-29 and it take HAL the same for ALH. Now, the COST of maintenance notwithstanding, does it look like complexity of ALH which is likely to lead to this time frame or capacity constraint of various kinds?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2013 03:07

Meanwhile, HTT-40 costing twice that of PC-7 does not seem to be true. But most probably, this does not include the development costs.

Indian Air Force’s first Pilatus PC-7 Mk II – Face Off!

Design engineers at HAL’s ARDC are confident that the HTT-40 will not only meet the IAF’s requirements fully, but also that the type would have considerable advantages over the Pilatus aircraft. Scoffing at “rumours” that the HTT-40 is more expensive than the PC-7 Mk II, a HAL executive said that while the Pilatus costs Rs 37 crore per unit, the HTT-40 would be for Rs 34.5 crore per unit, of which only the powerplant and ejection seats are imported at an FE of Rs 6 crore. Most importantly, while the Swiss government forbids employment of any armament on its aircraft, the indigenous equivalent will have six weapon stations underwing and a centreline station for a targeting/reconnaissance pod. The IAF could certainly employ the indigenous trainer for light attack and COIN tasks as a secondary role.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Feb 2013 03:17

indranilroy wrote:Meanwhile, HTT-40 costing twice that of PC-7 does not seem to be true. But most probably, this does not include the development costs.

Indian Air Force’s first Pilatus PC-7 Mk II – Face Off!

Design engineers at HAL’s ARDC are confident that the HTT-40 will not only meet the IAF’s requirements fully, but also that the type would have considerable advantages over the Pilatus aircraft. Scoffing at “rumours” that the HTT-40 is more expensive than the PC-7 Mk II, a HAL executive said that while the Pilatus costs Rs 37 crore per unit, the HTT-40 would be for Rs 34.5 crore per unit, of which only the powerplant and ejection seats are imported at an FE of Rs 6 crore. Most importantly, while the Swiss government forbids employment of any armament on its aircraft, the indigenous equivalent will have six weapon stations underwing and a centreline station for a targeting/reconnaissance pod. The IAF could certainly employ the indigenous trainer for light attack and COIN tasks as a secondary role.

I think HAL should concentrate on IJT first. It has been badly delayed, and IAF needs it soon. Otherwise, IAF may go in for imported IJT too! HAL should focus on IAF's priority, which is IJT.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2013 03:35

But IJT is in flight testing. We were not following it. But last year we had 185 flights. This Jan, they had 25 flights. I see no reason why developing HTT-40 is impeding in IOC of IJT.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Feb 2013 03:51

IAF torpedoes HAL plans to develop trainer aircraft

The Indian Air Force (IAF) on Thursday demolished Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s “dream” of developing a basic trainer, making it clear that the service would prefer to use the recently acquired Pilatus PC-7, a tried-and-tested aircraft.
...
...
At a press conference, Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne also pointed out that the intermediate jet trainer – under development at HAL and behind schedule by 10 years – had serious problems with its engines and was not acceptable in the current configuration.
...
...
The IAF is also cut up with the IJT programme, which began in the late 1990s and flew for the first time in 2003. Because of the huge time delay, Defence Minister A K Antony pulled up the HAL in public and asked the agency to make it fly once again by the next Aero India show in 2015.

“The life of IJT engine currently is 100 hours, which need to be enhanced to 1200-1500 hours,” Browne said.

“IJT had 647 flights so far, out of which 185 took place last year. As many as 25 flights happened in January. The limited series production is underway. We plan for an initial operational clearance by 2013-14, but our internal target for IOC is December, 2013,” said Tyagi.
...

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 08 Feb 2013 04:01

rohitvats wrote:
Mihir wrote:Because a MiG-29 is not an ALH and vice versa. Helicopters require much more maintenance and overhaul work than fixed-wing aircraft do. A few years ago, I remember reading a paper where the author had shown that the maintenance cost of a certain type of helicopter was almost four times as much as what it would cost to maintain a contemporary fixed-wing aircraft. I'll try to dig it up.
I think you're mixing some points here. First - have you see the presentation by the IAF officer?

Secondly, the point IAF officer made was this - it takes BRD 7-months to completely overhaul a Mig-29 and it take HAL the same for ALH. Now, the COST of maintenance notwithstanding, does it look like complexity of ALH which is likely to lead to this time frame or capacity constraint of various kinds?

Yes, I saw the video. The cost in this case is a very strong function of the man-hours that go into the overhaul. Note that these man-hours have got very little to do with the time it takes for the overhaul.

Secondly, I was also responding to your assumption that overhauling a MiG-29 is a more complex task. It very likely isn't. People sometimes underestimate how bl00dy expensive and difficult helicopters can be to operate and maintain.

Air Commodre Pande's comment was either not fully thought out, or just another pot-shot at HAL. The reference to this being "unacceptable", regardless of the "loooong list of reasons" HAL gives for the same, makes me think it was the latter. A stark reminder of the bad blood that exists between the two organisations. Either way, it was in poor taste.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2013 04:28

putnanja wrote:IAF torpedoes HAL plans to develop trainer aircraft
“The life of IJT engine currently is 100 hours, which need to be enhanced to 1200-1500 hours,” Browne said.

I am going to remember this and quote it every time somebody said Russia has the know how to come up with "down-sized" engine quickly.

vina · Post by **vina** » 08 Feb 2013 05:56

Shiv wrote:"technology keeps changing so tthe Air Force cannot wait forevere and should not be blamed for changing the requirements"

While I have no problems with the presentation in general (HAL did deserve the bashing it got for the metal chips in the engine and BEL for the Rohini radar's poor mobility and lack of environmental tolerance and other stuff like ground support equipment and manuals for LCA etc), but on this particular point the IAF gent was shooting in the dark.

His remark, of if cell phones bought today are obsolete tomorrow, how can we not revise our QR ? Well that is precisely the point. That is true for everyone in EVERY industry, right from cell phone makers themselves to car makers to even T-Shirt makers.

So how do those product planners in those places themselves put up the specs and get them into millions of customer's hands in a bruising timeline sometimes of just weeks, in product whose entire life cycle is less than a year at best.

In contrast, a plane has a life cycle of 40 years. So, his job is far easier than a fashion designer/ cell phone maker. His statement is just a cop out.

His statement makes sense if you look at it from the point of a buyer out in the market shopping, but not from the point of someone who is looking to have a product in the market 6 months from now. That is the mindset difference.

It is really not a technology this or that problem, but rather an institutional mindset problem. Why dont we hear the Navy whine about it ? Because they are a builder's Navy and not a buyers Navy. All the other Air Forces (first world ones anyway), have competent teams /divisions that can create conceptual studies, architectures, look ahead in tech development, seed such competencies strategically and yes, work with their country's industries to come up with a product.

Here we don't have that. All the IAF is used to is, "Give us Dollars, we go shop abroad" and then whining about this and that, with total lack of any ownership and skin in the game. Of course the Army keeps august company with them on that, with the Navy sailing the high seas majestically all alone.

For eg, whining about product support for ALH.. Come on, were they not whining about the Hawk ad nauseum when the kits started arriving in India, about lack of serviceability, "rusted kits" and this and that . What about their much vaunted Mig 29. What kind of support did they get from Mig at all ? So why did they need to establish a parallel full repair and overhaul and near new build capability for the Mig 29 alone, when they send back the rest of their fleet to HAL for that (Mig 29 wasn't built by HAL, so the IAF was forced to build a parallel infra and it looks like the Mig 29 upgrade is going to be done at IAF Base Repair depots from Russian kits). Don't we know the horror stories about Mig 29 availability and spares that used to be the case, especially critical engine related ones ?

The trouble with the HAL-IAF relationship is that the IAF probably sees HAL as an extension of their Base Repair Depots and would like to park a retired Air Vice Marshal like Barobora or some there and run it as their extension...A creeping acquisition if you want to call it.

That would be a disaster in the long term aerospace sector in India. This has the potential to grow mutli fold from here and be world beating in 25 to 50 years from now, if freed from Baboon dom and allowed to spread it's wings, especially in civilian areas. Tying it to the apron strings of the IAF and making the sector it's "koi hai" boy or orderly will be the death knell for it.

vina · Post by **vina** » 08 Feb 2013 06:00

Philip wrote:What we need however is an armed version of both the Pilatus-for COIN ops,to deal with Maoists,etc.

The Pilatus cant be armed and the Swiss wont allow you to arm them for precisely this reason.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Feb 2013 06:01

Rohit I will answer some points one at a time as far as I can based on my views

rohitvats wrote:
Shiv, you make it seem that IAF should be simply grateful for whatever rolls out of the HAL and others DPSUs because that is all India can produce? What about accountability for what the organization has promised to deliver? And as the presentation shows, in most cases, the producer has simply not thought ahead to work out logistics to support the product it has delivered. How can lack of technological base become a single sweeping answer for all that was pointed out in the presentation by the IAF officer?

The IAF has no clue about industrial development. This is not the IAF's fault. This is a problem with how our education and society work. The IAF is given the best we can buy from abroad - equipment that comes after the tech is mature in a foreign land and absent in India. Once that primary failure exists at the outset everything else - accountablity, promises etc are bad excuses. No matter how much DPSUs are cursed they cannot get better any more quickly. If the nation cannot learn this lesson after 50 years of observing our industry we are going to continue ranting and not achieving

The IAF 'rant' is not about the technological base of this country - but simple lack of application of what is available and development of more user centric mentality

The IAF officer is having a rant because the IAF does not know about tech development and the IAF and DPSUs have developed no mechanism to embed serving IAF engineers in DPSUs and they have not developed a joint mechanism to review projects and they have not developed a warfighting doctrine that can dip into what we can do rather than what e can buy

I'm sure you'd agree with me that compared to ALH, a Mig-29 would represent a more complex task. And ALH is not exactly a new baby - the first entered service in 2002.

Rohit this is a rhetorical argument based on no inside knowledge of what the problems might be. If the components for MiG 29 are supplied the Air Force, like HAL has screwdrivers. For ALH every rivet has to be made in house The blades are bought out. Why are the blades bought and not made? Is there a tech hurdle" Is there a time constraint? Answers to thse questions are state secrets in India

vina · Post by **vina** » 08 Feb 2013 06:06

AF does not know about tech development and the IAF and DPSUs have developed no mechanism to embed serving IAF engineers in DPSUs

That would be a career killing move for the IAF guy.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Feb 2013 06:10

vina wrote:
Philip wrote:What we need however is an armed version of both the Pilatus-for COIN ops,to deal with Maoists,etc.
The Pilatus cant be armed and the Swiss wont allow you to arm them for precisely this reason.

The Pilatus has been armed umpteen times.

However, India should do what is the right thing for India.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Feb 2013 06:21

vina wrote:
Here we don't have that. All the IAF is used to is, "Give us Dollars, we go shop abroad" and then whining about this and that, with total lack of any ownership and skin in the game. Of course the Army keeps august company with them on that, with the Navy sailing the high seas majestically all alone.

The attitude of some IAF officers I have met is like that of a young man in a brand new Merc parked outside a Tata Nano showroom who is asking why the Nano cannot match the Merc which his father bought him. "Arre this Merc has been in prodcution 50 years and this Nano is so crude?"

The IAF's warfighting doctrine is based around a huge component of imported products and as long as imports work the warfighting doctrine wlll work. This is a strategic error. I think the IAF's warfighting doctrine is good only for short Indo-Pak type wars. For long tern survival and dominance the warfighting doctrine will have to be brought down several notches from its current "we will fight with the highest tech we can buy" to the highest tech thet country can achieve in practice. For that the IAF and DPSUs need to depute offcers who are smart to work with each other. This mindset of IAF only for figting and DPSU only for production needs to change. At least some IAF enginners need to start working with DPSUs

Someone needs to point out to both DPSUs and IAF that we have more or less mastered 1950s to 60s level tech and any wars we fight will have to keep that in mind. By semanding 21st century tech we get only imports.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Feb 2013 06:39

Someone needs to point out to both DPSUs and IAF that we have more or less mastered 1950s to 60s level tech and any wars we fight will have to keep that in mind. By semanding 21st century tech we get only imports.

How do you expect the IAF to fight 21st century wars with 60's level tech? The IAF's doctrine depends on what the expected opposition is going to be. The IAF has to keep in mind that it might have to fight against 2 enemies at the same time, one of whom is armed with upgraded F-16s, and another who has hundreds of Su-27 clones plus other aircraft to throw at us. This means that the IAF is surely going to be outnumbered, perhaps severely. If the IAF does not have a tech advantage, it basically has no advantage at all.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Feb 2013 06:40

Shiv,

Outside of an engine I do not see anything major that is preventing achieving the goal.

The other factor IMHO is the various parties working together. That will be forced on them in a decade or so. (using my iPhone so unable to type too much more.)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Feb 2013 06:44

nachiket wrote:
Someone needs to point out to both DPSUs and IAF that we have more or less mastered 1950s to 60s level tech and any wars we fight will have to keep that in mind. By demanding 21st century tech we get only imports.
How do you expect the IAF to fight 21st century wars with 60's level tech?

It's tough isn't it?

The solution we seem to have reached is import import import because technology moves so fst. DPSUs cannot catch up so cure curse curse.

The only way you can fight 21 century wars with 60s tech is to use nukes early in a war. We have the nukes but we do try to avoid them and fight wars like high tech countries. we are pretend high tech. Pakistan and North Korea have better and more doable warfighting doctrines.

Just think how fast tech has moved. We are going to be importing forever and our wars will be controlled by end user licences. Great.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Feb 2013 06:50

if the life of IJT engine is indeed 100 hrs, its akin to the old Mig21 dating back to early 1960s level of tech.

it would take a lot of hard work starting with the AL31 and making something this bad out of the AL55.
makes me think the AL55 has nothing in common with AL31 in design or materials and saturn dusted off some mothballed design from the 60s and gave it to their D-team to implement...with our funding ofcourse.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Feb 2013 06:51

NRao wrote:Shiv,

Outside of an engine I do not see anything major that is preventing achieving the goal.

No - for the Air Force it is a lot more than that. There is no realization at a national level that using our highest tech will still not get us a Rafale or F-22 designed in house. At best we will get F-16/Jaguar level tech as an indigenous development.

The Navy realised long ago that with our tech we will never get a USS Ronald Reagan. That is why they embedded Naval Engineers with DPSUs and are struggling to manage with Indian level of tech. The Air Force has always imported for the puspose of maintaining operational preparedness and they are hooked to imports and are angry when faced with reality of Indian tech. The Air force is showing the anger of organizational cognitive dissonance. They suddenly realise how low in the tech pecking order India is (compared with US and Europe - not other turd world countries)

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 08 Feb 2013 06:57

shiv wrote:
vina wrote:
Here we don't have that. All the IAF is used to is, "Give us Dollars, we go shop abroad" and then whining about this and that, with total lack of any ownership and skin in the game. Of course the Army keeps august company with them on that, with the Navy sailing the high seas majestically all alone.
The attitude of some IAF officers I have met is like that of a young man in a brand new Merc parked outside a Tata Nano showroom who is asking why the Nano cannot match the Merc which his father bought him. "Arre this Merc has been in prodcution 50 years and this Nano is so crude?"

The IAF's warfighting doctrine is based around a huge component of imported products and as long as imports work the warfighting doctrine wlll work. This is a strategic error. I think the IAF's warfighting doctrine is good only for short Indo-Pak type wars. For long tern survival and dominance the warfighting doctrine will have to be brought down several notches from its current "we will fight with the highest tech we can buy" to the highest tech thet country can achieve in practice. For that the IAF and DPSUs need to depute offcers who are smart to work with each other. This mindset of IAF only for figting and DPSU only for production needs to change. At least some IAF enginners need to start working with DPSUs

Someone needs to point out to both DPSUs and IAF that we have more or less mastered 1950s to 60s level tech and any wars we fight will have to keep that in mind. By semanding 21st century tech we get only imports.

^+1 This is precisely what I was trying to say and explain for the past 6 hours. Thanks Shiv Garu.