Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 07 Jan 2015 15:05

Pratyush wrote:I will say that the IAF is to blame for the mess for the basic trainer that it finds it self in.

I disagree. There are a lot of issues where IAF takes the blame. Particularly on the LCA management. But not on HTT-40. Major blame lies on HAL.

Pratyush wrote:The HPT 32 was delivered decades ago. The IAF was aware of the remaining life for the aircraft. They had sufficient time to start a replacement program for the aircraft. Before it became obsolete. The other issue is that it had some deficiencies that made it crash prone. Still the IAF flew it for nearly 30 years.

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

HPT-32 was crashing and pilots and senior instructor pilots were getting killed. There 17 crashes and 19 pilots lost.
HAL needed to fix the problems. They failed.

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

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 60214.aspx
IAF grounded HPT32 basic trainer after July 2009 crash.

How will you train new pilots without the basic trainer aircraft?
HTT-40 replacement is not even flying even today!
HAL failure lies in failure to fix HPT-32 issues and unable to get HTT-40 ready on time.

HAL and vested interests are using press with piecemeal information to blame IAF on this. Pl. ignore the press.

I would like all IAF products to be Made in India. But unfortunately the boat for Basic Trainer is missed by HAL.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jan 2015 15:28

What crap! The earlier basic trainer,HAL's great HT-32 killed enough rookie pilots and their instructors which was the last straw for the IAF which forced the MOD to allow an import a replacement. Now we are being sold another yarn by a "snake-oil" salesman that the latest HAL trainer,which by the way has NEVER flown,will be a better aircraft than the PC-7 which iis acknowledged worldwide as being the best basic trainer.Its sales record speaks for itself.The IAF having had no other alternative but to import them after a careful acquisition process,and from all available info has performed superbly,now wants more of the same which it is in dire need of,so that it can train our pilots on with the IAF facing serious pilot shortages.

HAL has been talking about this paper plane for aeons. The IAF cannot sabotage the selection of its engine as it does not "own" HAL,which is a DPSU. The truth of the matter is that HAL is desperate to see that the Pilatus is NOT built in India,especially by the IAF's depots which will in a short period of time show up HAL's incompetence for what it is.Just take a look at its track record of the LCA,IJT and BTT over the last 30 years. It is astonishing that only in India incompetemce is considered a virtue and accountability for govt. babaus and boffins non-existant.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jan 2015 15:45

A superb achievement! Only the MI-26 can do it. A pity as we have so few still in service and have chosen the much smaller and less capable Chinook to please the US.The IAF would do well to upgrade/acquire a few more of the same for such Himalyan tasks.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 761751.ece
IAF’s biggest load carrier lands at Kedarnath
Kavita Upadhyay

Signalling an acceleration of restoration works at Kedarnath, the biggest load carrier of the Indian Air Force, the Mi-26 helicopter, landed in the hill town on Tuesday.

“This is the first time that the Mi-26 has landed in a narrow valley like Kedarnath at an altitude of 11,600 feet. This is potentially the highest landing in a civil environment made by such a large helicopter,” said Colonel Ajay Kothiyal, Principal of the Nehru Institute of Mountaineering (NIM), who is heading a team of 240 men from the Uttarkashi-based institute in the restoration.

The helicopter, which is operated by a 26-member IAF team, will deliver 125 tonnes of load to Kedarnath. “The equipment that will be delivered includes five hydraulic load carrier dumpers, two JCB-3DX, three Poclain machines, two snow-blowers and one Hydra Lift crane,” Col. Kothiyal said.

Construction of a 150X50-metre helipad for the Mi-26, which will deliver load from Gauchar to Kedarnath, began on August 18 last year and the work was completed on December 26.

With the possibility of delivering heavy machinery to Kedarnath by Mi-26, the pace of work, including demolition of dilapidated buildings, removal of large boulders and flood-protection works, will gain momentum.

Kedarnath became synonymous with the June 2013 Uttarakhand deluge. The tourism industry in the State suffered after the deluge and to revive tourism in the State, the reconstruction of Kedarnath has become essential for the State government.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Jan 2015 16:06

A Deshmukh,

It is clear that you missed the point that was sought to be made. I will try one last time.

1) The IAF was aware of the flaws of HPT 32 for decades.
2) For decades, it also knew, that it could not be fixed.
3) In 2009 it wakes up and grounds the HTP 32, creating a situation for the induction of PC7 MK 2.
4) What the IAF did not do was to come up with the ASR for the replacement of the product (HPT 32), when it became clear it could not be repaired.

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 07 Jan 2015 17:36

Pratyush wrote:A Deshmukh, It is clear that you missed the point that was sought to be made. I will try one last time.

Pratyush, I think you are not fully aware.

1) The ~~IAF~~ HAL was aware of the flaws of HPT 32 for decades.
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... rainer.htm 108 engine cuts!
2) For decades, ~~it also knew, that it could not be fixed.~~ HAL kept promising fixes. the straw that broke the camel's back was a demonstration of a "fixed" HAL aircraft to IAF which actually crashed during the demo.
3) In 2009 ~~it wakes up~~ IAF says enough is enough. It cannot afford to loose any more of rookie pilots and senior pilot's lives and grounds the HTP 32, creating a situation for the induction of PC7 MK 2.
4) ~~What the IAF did not do was to come up with the ASR for the replacement of the product (HPT 32), when it became clear it could not be repaired.~~IAF showed the replacement ASR to HAL and gave a timeline to come up with a solution. HAL Failed. IAF selected PC7 only after HAL failed miserably and repeatedly.

Maybe Phillip has said this better.

Lets move on.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jan 2015 17:51

A Deshmukh,

I think that narrative needs a time-frame. Can you add any dates to it?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 07 Jan 2015 19:14

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

What kind of lame argument is this, now if tomorrow a "sajjan" walks into his office and says to him "You are not your fathers child", is he going to do a DNA test based on that claim ??? It will be a historical moment if this moron is able to differentiate between a stone and a BT. BJP needs to get rid of such Renuka Chowdharys and Kalmadis from it's rank.

Bravo IAF HQ what you couldn't do to LCA you have done to BT.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 07 Jan 2015 19:24

A Deshmukh wrote: In reality, 0-0 ejection seat is not required for a basic trainer (because it is not carrying weapons) and can be harmful for pilots and IAF did not want 0-0 ejection seats.

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

Dude, who says 0-0 ejections seats are only for planes carrying weapons? Do you even know what it means? it basically means that even at 0 altitude and speed, the seat can be ejected saving the pilot. In fact, a Mig-29 pilot doing aerobics saved his life due to 0-0 ejection seat.

If a basic trainer suffers an issue during take off or landing, 0-0 ejection seat will save the pilot instead of getting fried by crashing !

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 07 Jan 2015 19:34

Is there really a need for 200 basic trainers?? What is the entering cadre size ?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jan 2015 20:40

A Deshmukh wrote:
Pratyush wrote:A Deshmukh, It is clear that you missed the point that was sought to be made. I will try one last time.
Pratyush, I think you are not fully aware.

1) The ~~IAF~~ HAL was aware of the flaws of HPT 32 for decades.
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... rainer.htm 108 engine cuts!
2) For decades, ~~it also knew, that it could not be fixed.~~ HAL kept promising fixes. the straw that broke the camel's back was a demonstration of a "fixed" HAL aircraft to IAF which actually crashed during the demo.
3) In 2009 ~~it wakes up~~ IAF says enough is enough. It cannot afford to loose any more of rookie pilots and senior pilot's lives and grounds the HTP 32, creating a situation for the induction of PC7 MK 2.
4) ~~What the IAF did not do was to come up with the ASR for the replacement of the product (HPT 32), when it became clear it could not be repaired.~~IAF showed the replacement ASR to HAL and gave a timeline to come up with a solution. HAL Failed. IAF selected PC7 only after HAL failed miserably and repeatedly.

Maybe Phillip has said this better.

Lets move on.

Let me add a few more straws.
...
2) For decades, ~~it also knew, that it could not be fixed.~~ HAL kept promising fixes. the straw that broke the camel's back was a demonstration of a "fixed" HAL aircraft to IAF which actually crashed during the demo.
2.33) Apart from promises HAL flew a certain HTT-34 flew in 1984 with an upgraded engine and systems, even showcased it in Farnborough. IAF said but we don't need it.
2.66) HTT-35 full scale mock-up shown in the early 1990s. Again IAF said, we don't need it.
3) IAF said enough is enough! The camel's back is broken. HAL failed. HAL always fails. HAL can't design "safe" trainers. We have waited long enough. Let us import and live happily ever after ...

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 07 Jan 2015 20:59

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

MPs taking money to ask questions in parliament or shoot off letters on official letter pad for enquiries, investigations, etc. is an old practice.

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 07 Jan 2015 22:02

putnanja wrote: Dude, who says 0-0 ejections seats are only for planes carrying weapons? Do you even know what it means? it basically means that even at 0 altitude and speed, the seat can be ejected saving the pilot. In fact, a Mig-29 pilot doing aerobics saved his life due to 0-0 ejection seat.
If a basic trainer suffers an issue during take off or landing, 0-0 ejection seat will save the pilot instead of getting fried by crashing !

0-0: Altitude-Speed.
As per IAF requirements - 0-0 ejection seats are not required for basic trainer.
IAF does not think pilot will be fried at 0-0 in a basic trainer at 0 speed and 0 altitude.
In your example - Mig-29 doing aerobics does not have 0 speed.

Seat Ejections have a potential to injure a pilot's Spinal cord. Sure it will save his life, but a spinal injury will ground him.

At 0 altitude, these planes are equivalent to cars. Do cars have Ejection Seats?

Pilatus has 0-60(60knots) ejection seat and not 0-0. This is acceptable to IAF and other Air Forces.

HAL had proposed a 0-0 ejection seat on its own, and press and Ajai Shukla ran a campaign last year on how pilot's safety was compromised by IAF by selecting Pilatus. http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 068_1.html

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 07 Jan 2015 22:30

indranilroy wrote:Let me add a few more straws.
2.33) Apart from promises HAL flew a certain HTT-34 flew in 1984 with an upgraded engine and systems, even showcased it in Farnborough. IAF said but we don't need it.
2.66) HTT-35 full scale mock-up shown in the early 1990s. Again IAF said, we don't need it.
3) IAF said enough is enough! The camel's back is broken. HAL failed. HAL always fails. HAL can't design "safe" trainers. We have waited long enough. Let us import and live happily ever after ...

I dont think we know enough to discuss why htt-34 was rejected 30 years ago.
hpt-32 - was a safety hazard.
On HTT35, 40 - these are paper planes that did not and do not fly.
HAL needs to talk less and get these planes in the air first. We can discuss then.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 07 Jan 2015 22:34

A Deshmukh wrote:
putnanja wrote: Dude, who says 0-0 ejections seats are only for planes carrying weapons? Do you even know what it means? it basically means that even at 0 altitude and speed, the seat can be ejected saving the pilot. In fact, a Mig-29 pilot doing aerobics saved his life due to 0-0 ejection seat.
If a basic trainer suffers an issue during take off or landing, 0-0 ejection seat will save the pilot instead of getting fried by crashing !
0-0: Altitude-Speed.
As per IAF requirements - 0-0 ejection seats are not required for basic trainer.
IAF does not think pilot will be fried at 0-0 in a basic trainer at 0 speed and 0 altitude.
In your example - Mig-29 doing aerobics does not have 0 speed.

Seat Ejections have a potential to injure a pilot's Spinal cord. Sure it will save his life, but a spinal injury will ground him.

At 0 altitude, these planes are equivalent to cars. Do cars have Ejection Seats?

Pilatus has 0-60(60knots) ejection seat and not 0-0. This is acceptable to IAF and other Air Forces.

HAL had proposed a 0-0 ejection seat on its own, and press and Ajai Shukla ran a campaign last year on how pilot's safety was compromised by IAF by selecting Pilatus. http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 068_1.html

Dude, first you say 0-0 ejection seats are not required if the plane doesn't carry weapons. Then you say that 0-0 ejection seats are not required as it will hurt his spinal cord even if he lives, basically saying it is better the pilot dies than living with a injured spinal cord??

Please do some research before posting. Also read what you type before hitting submit.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 07 Jan 2015 22:41

The world would be so much better, if people came up to the podium (like in proper debates) with announced intents. And then tried to convince the audience their stand was rational. Too few, now a days. Yes, yes, off topic, I know.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jan 2015 23:26

At 0 altitude, these planes are equivalent to cars. Do cars have Ejection Seats?

Not to drag this discussion for too long, but, the simple answer to your question is that they do have an alternative to ejection seats in cars.

It is not that designers have not thought about it (they still want to consider them for race cars), but opted for a much simpler solution: the progression of which is:
No seat belt ->
seat belts ->
laws to force manufacturers to provide seat belts ->
laws to enforce drivers to use seat belt ->
airbags in front of the driver + passenger ->
laws to force manufacturers to provide them ->
airbags to the sides and ->
of course to service them free of cost, if they are defective

When the loss of life is very large (US: 65,000 per year, India: 150,000 per year - total road, not just driver/passenger) governments are forced to address the situation and society bears the cost.

Coming to 0-0 ejection seats, I have no clue why the IAF prefers not to have them in a trainer, but wants them in a fighter. I suspect it is the cost, but who knows.

However, a 0-0 ejection seat - I would think - is needed even while taxing. It may not be used, but that is a different matter. Case in point the PAK-FA that caught fire while landing during a demo for a visiting Indian team. The pilot opted to jump out of the burning plane. But he certainly had the option of ejecting too - just in case.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 07 Jan 2015 23:35

^ It would make sense to have 0-0 ejection seats 'mandatory' on fighters since their is a big risk of munitions exploding. Another angle could be amount of fuel carried on the aircraft.

Worst case - 'Cost' could be a driver of these decisions as we import 0-0 ejection seats from UK ....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jan 2015 00:20

Anything is possible on a trainer, 0/0 onwards. Seems like it up to the user.

I recall some chatter about the IAF skimping on a few features in order to select the Pilatus. Perhaps the ejection seat got tossed out in that house cleaning.

Some simple, basic research on "basic" trainers and ejection seats:

EMB-312 Tucano Trainer Aircraft, Brazil:
Two Martin-Baker MB 8LC ejection seats are used and the canopy was modified to meet the RAF's bird strike requirements. During its production run, Shorts commonly promoted the airframe as being "100% British-built".[8] In order to meet RAF requirements, the EMB-312 has some 900 modifications reducing commonality with the original aircraft to only 50%

MB 8LC: The Mk8 seat provides runway level escape at speeds down to 70 knots, and has a maximum escape speed capability of 425 knots.

The Mk8 seat is currently in service in the Embraer Tucano, which is operated by the following countries: Angola, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Honduras, Iraq, Kenya, Kuwait, Mauritania, Paraguay, Peru, United Kingdom and Venezuela. To date, there have been 40 ejections from a Mk8 ejection seat.

Beachcraft T-34 Mentor:
No ejection seat at all.

But found this interesting comment: The T-34C isn't equipped with ejection seats. The aircrew open the canopy and bailout, pulling a D-ring on their chute when they're clear of the plane. Glad they were able to do so.

Grob:
The cockpit is equipped with movable seats, or optional the new Martin-Baker Mk.17 (0/60) lightweight ejection seats can be chosen.

MFI-395 Super Mushshak:
It is integrated with two ejection seats adjacent to each other, with an option for third seat at the rear side.

Pilatus PC-7:

In November 2009, a civilian passenger in the back seat of a South African Air Force Pilatus PC-7 MK II ejected from the aircraft while in flight.

SAAF aircraft equipped with ejector seats

T-6C Texan: (Is this a Pilatus too?)
two Martin-Baker MkUS16LA (0/0) ejection seats

added l8r:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/may ... ers-07391/

By June 2011, Switzerland’s Pilatus had emerged as the IAF’s preferred basic choice with their PC-7 Mark II external link, which is in wide international use with over 20 air forces. The PC-7 Mark II, introduced in 1994, adds all of the avionics advances and some airframe changes from the P-9M, but uses a very cost-efficient Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-25C engine. The engine provides less power, in return for a lower price and lower operating costs. Ejection seats, an anti-g system, and On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS) help round out its capabilities; and the plane is still touted as being suitable for aerobatics, tactical flying, and night flying. All of these things mark a sharp step up from the HPT-32.

July 29/13: Changed standards. India’s Business Standard reports that the IAF changed a number of key specifications for its trainer competition, after laying down a more stringent Preliminary Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (PSQR) for the HTT-40. Items changed include zero-zero ejection seats (lowered to 0/60), instructor visibility levels from the rear cockpit, the ability to the instructor to simulate front-seat instrument failures in flight, glide ratio reduced from 12:1 to 10:1, and the need for a pressurized cabin.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Jan 2015 00:53

I hope HAL has a little depth in its pockets and some chutzpah. If the Def. Min. says "okay lets talk of license manufacturing the PC-7s", HAL should agree with a caveat: The negotiations should continue in parallel with the HTT-40 development. If the negotiations with Pilatus continue for too long like in the case of Hawk/Rafale or even the maintenance of PC-7s itself, then India will have a fall-back option!

Moving on, does anybody know when was the IJT mock-up set up at the HAL museum on Wind Tunnel Road? I know it is a from a few years back, but exactly how many?

The reason I ask is because the inlet and the tail plane are different from the actual IJT. I wonder when and why this difference cropped up? Because, the inlet and the horizontal tail in the mock-up will be outside the wake of the wing in a falt spin.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 08 Jan 2015 00:55

So it's all the IAF's fault now to our esteemed "patriots" on Bharat Rakshak! No doubt, the MoD is also faultless since it only did what the IAF wants, no? Only HAL, that paragon of tiranga pride and SDRE genius, is the gold standard of Indian patriotism. Poor, overworked SDRE dhotiwalas toiling against all anti-India yyeevil forces, including Indian Air Force, Ministry of Defence & PMO, to deliver a domestic basic trainer so that the expertise gained from such a project can be gainfully employed in......well, in another basic trainer. Corrupt, traitors Parrikar, Modi and IAF. HAL should take over the government.

And all this time I thought the IAF was merely telling HAL to focus 100% on the REAL & MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM--the 30-years-and-counting LCA--and to leave the basic trainer for off-the-shelf; the convoluted rationale being if we don't have LCA, there will not be a need for any trainers, basic or advanced.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 08 Jan 2015 00:58

I hope the IAF makes the Pilatus themselves as they had earlier stated. It would be a monumental blunder to hand it over to HAL after this. Anyone but HAL.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 08 Jan 2015 01:14

^^Grudging respect for HAL/ADA prowess in manufacturing mockups (and fnckups). MTA, IJT, AJT, MJT, AMCA, PAKFA, HALE, MALE, KLPD etc.

BTW has Rustom II flown yet or is it still being "tested" on engine start (very important this) and taxi runs to make sure nothing falls off? It was supposed to fly a year ago according to this.

Designing of Rustom-2 has been completed, purchase orders have been placed and we are on schedule to fly for the first time in February 2014.

(Feb, 2012)

Are we waiting on any critical parts from UK etc?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Jan 2015 01:16

Americai Narayanan has spoken! With his extensive knawlij of aerospace.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Jan 2015 01:19

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

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

Agree. More important programs out there with much more critical requirements. LCA and IJT f.e.

Only issue is the way this entire thing was conducted, IAF doing papergiri and then denying, MPs coming out with allegations due to sajjan's (

) and NGOs popping up with concerns about engine procurement attacking the rep of procurement folks just to stall a program.

Just shows the amount of dirt in our system. The NGOs and MPs in particular need to be taken to task for not being thorough in their vetting.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 08 Jan 2015 06:37

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

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

Now, however, battered to a halt by groundless complaints and unable to buy an engine, HAL has buckled under the pressure. Last month HAL chairman, RK Tyagi, agreed to build the PC-7 Mark II, while developing the HTT-40 as an HAL project. (My comment:- Why this sudden love for Swiss Cheese just a few days before retirement? Why not leave decision to successor or atleast why not continue to push HAL line/HAL interest?)

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

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

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

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 08 Jan 2015 08:34

NRao wrote: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/may ... ers-07391/

July 29/13: Changed standards. India’s Business Standard reports that the IAF changed a number of key specifications for its trainer competition, after laying down a more stringent Preliminary Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (PSQR) for the HTT-40. Items changed include zero-zero ejection seats (lowered to 0/60), instructor visibility levels from the rear cockpit, the ability to the instructor to simulate front-seat instrument failures in flight, glide ratio reduced from 12:1 to 10:1, and the need for a pressurized cabin.

Why this is happening? I am fine with foreign procurement but why this dual standard? And this is an including list not the complete list. God knows how much more diluted requirements for imported stuff. Also the requirements seem tailored to pc7. I was wondering why we chose this and not tucano.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jan 2015 08:56

A Deshmukh wrote:
putnanja wrote: Dude, who says 0-0 ejections seats are only for planes carrying weapons? Do you even know what it means? it basically means that even at 0 altitude and speed, the seat can be ejected saving the pilot. In fact, a Mig-29 pilot doing aerobics saved his life due to 0-0 ejection seat.
If a basic trainer suffers an issue during take off or landing, 0-0 ejection seat will save the pilot instead of getting fried by crashing !
0-0: Altitude-Speed.
As per IAF requirements - 0-0 ejection seats are not required for basic trainer.
IAF does not think pilot will be fried at 0-0 in a basic trainer at 0 speed and 0 altitude.
In your example - Mig-29 doing aerobics does not have 0 speed.

Seat Ejections have a potential to injure a pilot's Spinal cord. Sure it will save his life, but a spinal injury will ground him.

At 0 altitude, these planes are equivalent to cars. Do cars have Ejection Seats?

Pilatus has 0-60(60knots) ejection seat and not 0-0. This is acceptable to IAF and other Air Forces.

HAL had proposed a 0-0 ejection seat on its own, and press and Ajai Shukla ran a campaign last year on how pilot's safety was compromised by IAF by selecting Pilatus. http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 068_1.html

so if 0-0 ejection seats are not required for basic trainers, then why does the PC-21 trainer have 0-0 ejection seats? Just for fun? Why is it standard on the KT-1 and the Super Tucano or the AT-6?? Just to increase costs?

PC-21 brochure

Let's face it - the IAF had its mind made up to get the cheapest possible import for a basic trainer. that meant that Pilatus offered the PC-7 MkII and not the PC-9 or the PC-21 which would've been significantly more expensive and the KT-1 Woong Bee would've waltzed away with the deal. And the KT-1 features 0-0 ejection seats as standard.

So the PC-7 MkII was offered, which featured the 0-60 ejection seat developed by MB and used on the PC-9 (developed in mid 1980s). Initial PC-7 trainers didn't even feature an ejection seat (after all the basic PC-7 was developed in the late 1960s to early 1970s), which was however offered as standard equipment for the PC-7 MkII thanks to its PC-9 /PC-7 hybrid heritage.

Stop offering disingenous reasons as to why the 0-60 ejection seat will suffice for a basic trainer. The IAF simply watered down requirements so the PC-7 MkII would qualify. There could be situations where a basic trainer may catch fire on the ground and the pilots may be stuck inside the cockpit and need to eject. I just pray that such a situation never occurs for us.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Jan 2015 09:07

NRao wrote:<SNIP>I recall some chatter about the IAF skimping on a few features in order to select the Pilatus. Perhaps the ejection seat got tossed out in that house cleaning.

That was as per the fertile imagination of Ajai Shukla. IAF had given a point by point rebuttal of the yarns he had spun. There was even a debate on NDTV where ex-IAF officers had thrashed Shukla for his story.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jan 2015 09:09

Victor wrote:I hope the IAF makes the Pilatus themselves as they had earlier stated. It would be a monumental blunder to hand it over to HAL after this. Anyone but HAL.

good luck with that. They won't see a PC-7 MkII emerging with any indigenous content for a longgg time.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jan 2015 09:10

rohitvats wrote:
NRao wrote:<SNIP>I recall some chatter about the IAF skimping on a few features in order to select the Pilatus. Perhaps the ejection seat got tossed out in that house cleaning.
That was as per the fertile imagination of Ajai Shukla. IAF had given a point by point rebuttal of the yarns he had spun. There was even a debate on NDTV where ex-IAF officers had thrashed Shukla for his story.

so Rohit, why no 0-0 ejection seat in this day and age? It is but standard equipment on ALL basic trainers that have been developed in the mid 1990s to any time in the 2000s.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Jan 2015 09:11

I recall a trainer prototype called Swati in the late 80s or early 90s. Any one knows what happened to it.

The BRF has a page on the HTT 34. It is a good looking design.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 5.jpg.html

I knew I was missing some thing.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 08 Jan 2015 10:47

About all this cooked-up rona-dhona about 0-0 ejection seats, as has already been said before, it was HAL that insisted that they should put it in the specs, not IAF. Otherwise, it is not a requirement for a basic trainer like PC-7 due to slow takeoff and landing speeds and is in fact considered more risky than not at ground level. The reason given was there is better chance of a rookie escaping crash injury while strapped in a plane traveling at slow speeds at ground level or very low altitudes than in an ejection which is a very violent event with pilots regularly breaking their spines and worse. As mentioned above, Shukla's dhoti was utraoed in public over this very issue but the shameless bngger is at it again.

The KT-1, PC-9 and up use more powerful variants of the same PT6A engine which provide capability for intermediate and light attack performance.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 08 Jan 2015 10:48

HTT 34 is HPT 32 with the Alison engine. Looks an interesting option even today. From the HTT 34 link of BR page:

The Turbo-prop powered HTT-34
The turboprop powered HTT-34 which was developed as a private venture by HAL. The 313kW (420shp) Allison 250-B17D powered HTT-34 flew for the first time, in a converted HTP-32 prototype form, on 17 June 1984. The new engine significantly boasted performance on the the basic aircraft, but was cancelled as official interest was not forthcoming.

Writing from memory here, the problem with HPT 32 was engine cut. The Avco Lycomin engines had a problem of lead(Pb) deposits on the starter(?) (was it 100LL or 80 LL fuel?). This would invariably lead to engine cuts at low rpms or even MAP settings like idling etc. There were SOPs on engine handling of increasing rpm (to 2400 from 1200 I think) while on idling for more than 02 mins on ground. In air a PFL was never practiced with idle throttle beyond low key. Otherwise, the aircraft did whatever we wanted it to do. I am not sure on its night flying capabilities and yes, pilot leaving the aircraft while in air was a nightmare which thankfully I was not given an opportunity. Those who got never succeeded. HPT 32 also had a not so good glide ratio when the engines failed. The engines were in the nose, so it would go nose down and glided better than a brick but that is just about it.

So why do I say it was only the engine mostly: Just put a reliable engine on it and we will not need (so often as in HPT 32) the 0-0 ejection seat, the good glide ratio and it probably would be safe to try night flying too. Within the power capability of the engine it did all the aeros we tried and I just loved the stall turns where one could even experience the Hammer Stall (Stall when inverted) if one made a mistake.

These problems were evident by mid 90's. So I am not sure why the Alison engine was not pursued.

As far as 0-0 ejection is concerned- it will be great for the pilot. But 0 ground and 40 on IAS will also be great. Anything will be better than the bailing out routine on HPT - 32.

P.S.:Just sharing my experience and two paise.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jan 2015 11:09

Victor wrote:About all this cooked-up rona-dhona about 0-0 ejection seats, as has already been said before, it was HAL that insisted that they should put it in the specs, not IAF. Otherwise, it is not a requirement for a basic trainer like PC-7 due to slow takeoff and landing speeds and is in fact considered more risky than not at ground level. The reason given was there is better chance of a rookie escaping crash injury while strapped in a plane traveling at slow speeds at ground level or very low altitudes than in an ejection which is a very violent event with pilots regularly breaking their spines and worse. As mentioned above, Shukla's dhoti was utraoed in public over this very issue but the shameless bngger is at it again.

The KT-1, PC-9 and up use more powerful variants of the same PT6A engine which provide capability for intermediate and light attack performance.

hogwash. Tell that to the manufacturers who have 0-0 ejection seats on their trainers-
and those include Pilatus, Embraer, KAI, Beechcraft, Airbus and now soon to be on the TAI Hurkus as well. 0-0 implies that the pilots have the option, if ever required, to eject from a stationary aircraft, something the IAF pilots on a PC-7 MkII won't be able to do if God forbid, such a situation ever arose.

Apparently all of those manufacturers don't know that simply remaining strapped in the cockpit of an airplane that maybe burning or may veer out of control under 60 knots is a better option than ejection.

Just because the IAF diluated requirements to ensure the PC-7 MkII qualified doesn't mean that 0-0 ejection seats are only required for fast jets.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Jan 2015 11:23

exactly. the time taken to gain speed to 60 knots may be crucial in the pilot losing crucial time for escaping. it was clearly cost which drove the decision. the IAF guys just got together on TV and said possibility of speed <60 kts is less. that's not exactly the whole answer.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Jan 2015 11:29

How “Make in India” plays out is evident from the Sukhoi-30MKI assembly line in Nashik, where Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) builds the air force’s frontline fighter. While negotiating the contract for 180 Su-30MKIs in the year 2000 (which later went up to 272 fighters) India --- the world’s largest operator of this aircraft --- employed all the leverage it had to extract technology from Russia. Even so, just 51 per cent of the fighter (by cost) is made in India. Russia insisted that all raw material --- including 5,800 titanium blocks and forgings, aluminium and steel plates, etc. --- be sourced from that country. Similarly, HAL builds the fighter’s giant AL-31FP engines in Koraput, Odisha, but is bound by the contract to import 47 per cent of the engine (by cost), including high-tech composites and special alloys --- crucial secrets that Russia will not part with.

In defence, “Make in India” never provided Indian manufacturers the capability to upgrade platforms that require fresh technology as time goes by; in fact manufacturing licensing conditions usually stipulate that the buyer can make no alterations. That is why India, which carried out “Make in India” of the MiG-21 for decades, had to go back to Russia when it upgraded the fighter. It is on maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade that foreign vendors make their real money, even on equipment that has been license-built in India. It is variously estimated that the MiG-21, over its lifetime, cost India 20-40 times its purchase cost. The Mirage 2000 is another example of costs expanding ten-or-twenty-fold. In contrast, a “Made in India” aircraft like the Tejas could be continually upgraded without licensing issues, altered, and supplied anywhere in the world.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/01/m ... india.html

Significant difference (as expected) in terms of % indigenization by cost and % by LRU.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jan 2015 12:22

Then the DPSUs have to take Indian pvt. industry in a big way as partners,co-developers,so that there is a steady cost-effective availability of spares,etc. There is little love of allowing Indian industry to enter the defence field in large manner as the DPSUs will be shown up for their incompetence and lose their massive budgets ,which as a rule are mostly highly over budget and late.If you talk to veteran pvt. industry to suppliers to the DRDO,they are derisive about the DRDO,"all talk" was one highly reputed manufacturer's own words.How is it that we were able to build and send the Mars orbiter at such low cost,lauded by the entire global scientific community and yet have other critical projects that are at the opposite end of achievement?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 08 Jan 2015 12:49

Make in India will provide jobs to Indians. It may not be ideal situation like Made in India. But Make in India will also saves us lot of money if even the easily made items are not made in India. Any one who wish to make high tech items in India on commercial basis will wish to have cheaper suppiers. With regard to Mig21 making in India or the SU30mki case, it is we who are at fault for not doing the deals properly. Frankly at that time there are not many other options.

Ideal situation is to have systems designed and made in India. Make in India is naturally the next best thing.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 08 Jan 2015 15:16

Just spotted the Avro with the nose job flying around.. Is it back on routine duties or still acting as a test bed??

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 08 Jan 2015 17:39

Yagnasri wrote:...Ideal situation is to have systems designed and made in India. Make in India is naturally the next best thing.

Saar, most of the defence imports are already assembled (screwdriver assembled rather, depending on the complexity) in India.