Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

[Kakkaji]

No one in the right mind would fund HAL's HTT-40 after IJT, no matter what HAL is promising it has history repeating itself written all over it. How much do you want to bet that once again HAL will end going for brand new unproven design for its engine with no fall back plan whatsoever.

+1

IJT is a 100% HAL project, and the product is critically needed by IAF. HAL has not delivered it yet.

Let HAL focus on delivering the IJT and the LCA first. I don't mind the basic trainers being imported from Switzerland (or Timbuctoo for all I care) at this time. IAF pilots' training has been severely impacted as it is. No more delays please.

[NRao]

1. Is/was the IJT a HAL issue? The engine was made in Russia
2. Is than to stop the import while the -40 goes into production in few years?

I understand the hesitation. But I also recall what they had to go through to just start the sitara. And HAL also wanted to start a twin engine effort and they never even got to ask for it. Low risk, no funds, ............ And yet they did it (the Sitara). Until they opted for a brand new Russian engine, with a reputed vendor, who for whatever reason did not deliver (I suspect that is the nature of engines).

Anyways. Whatever the matter, this time it is not anyone else funding this gizmo - which is what is DIFF.

[Sanku]

Mahindra Aerospace, Tata (venture with UT) and even Reliance is now entering that segment, Mahindra even has a few piston engine aircraft in development thanks to its acquisitions.

Mahindra and Tata both have Zero experience in designing .

No they do, this has been acquired through acquisitions and also partnership and in house development

http://www.mahindraaerospace.com/

http://www.tatatechnologies.com/global/ ... nuCode=157

[Kartik]

And they will continue having zero experience for eternity until they actually work on a project. HTT-40 can be a good starting point. It is nowhere near as complex as the LCA for example, and if they fail, the IAF has a ready option available in an aircraft they would already be using in limited numbers at that point. Some initial monetary and technical help from the government will be necessary. But it can be a good opportunity to invest in the future, unless we want the future to be no different than the present.

IMO, it makes ample sense to allow HAL and a private partner such as TAML or TAAL or even Mahindra Aerospace take up the HTT-40 project. Not Reliance since they are basically a non-existent aerospace company with neither resources nor any experience. Pilatus must be kept on their toes and not allowed to simply assume that they can fulfill all of the IAF’s basic trainer requirements.

The design must remain with HAL since no private player in India has any experience doing high level design work, and have never worked with NAL on wind tunnel testing, but they do have resources to do CAD work as part of detail design, i.e. as partners for HAL, and that is where HAL must use them (something similar to what is happening on the PAK-FA project where HAL is the junior partner doing some detail design packages).

Ideally they should form a JV, and the partnership should have HAL take up the lead role, a private player does the bulk of the leg work, so that it does not lock up HAL resources that could be required for FGFA, LCA Mk2 and MRCA projects. The private player should remain intimately involved during ground and flight testing to get a taste of what it takes to certificate a military airplane, even if it’s just a basic trainer. And then, the production must be taken up by the JV and not just HAL. With a private firm involved, adherence to timelines will probably be better and there will be an added impetus to try and export the aircraft, as opposed to HAL being happy just supplying to the IAF and then shutting down the production line.

And to be fair to HAL, the IJT project was badly screwed up primarily thanks to the shift from the Larzac to the AL-55I. While they did make a mistake in going for a completely new engine, after the first few flights had already occurred with the Larzac, they clearly were taken for a ride by the Russians who must’ve given over optimistic timelines. We don’t see such massive delays on the LCH and even the LUH seems to be shaping up quite well so far. So when they get it right, it is quite good. If they don’t get it right, there is always the PC-7 Mk2 to fall back upon.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>You have no idea how the costing was done by HAL and yet you come up with such stats. I don't think you are doing it the right way the cost/unit might rise but it won't be the way you are doing it. Plus even if it does to that level as you are calculating then instead of 29 cr. 46.6 cr. will go into Indian economy which is definitely much better than putting 38 cr. into foreign hands.

You can stop frothing at the mouth and writing such 'holier than thou' idiotic nonsense...this is typical of you jumping the gun with uncalled for gratuitous posts without even understanding the basic subject. Don't look for hidden motives behind everything and pass judgement...you don't know jack-sh1t about anything to even begin doing that.

And in case you'd bothered to spend some time on the topic of aircraft costing, you'd see that world over, the price is calculated on per unit procurement and per unit program cost. There is a very nice comparison sheet on the net for all the modern fighters if you bothered to search rather than morph into keyboard ninja...Secondly, my post was in reply to post by Victor. People actually try to understand a subject than simply indulge in flame war.

[pragnya]

IAF should have agreed to an HAL's proposal in 2007 for the HTT-40 programme for replacement to HPT-32 Deepak trainers. they knew the problems associated with it long before even though it became a huge issue in 2009 when the whole fleet was grounded. HAL had promised the trainer in 6 yrs which would have been ready by now. if IAF wanted to import some for its immediate needs it could have gone for minimal numbers sufficient for its day to day training needs while parallely HAL could have gone implementing the HTT-40 programme. unfortunately that was not to be!! MOD/SERVICES/DPSUs due to lack foresight/planning have been shooting themselves in the foot for far too long.

while it is possible HAL may have taken more than 6 years going by their track record wrt IJT (IAF partly responsible here too), still it is not a valid reason to reject it outright - if, one wants to be not dependant on imports as a solution for every of our problems. it is to be borne in mind Kirans, Deepaks were products of HAL and they are the only ones who have the expertise to design/implement such programmes in the country.

IAF now may not want to be part of it and buy it when it matures but i still think it is worthwhile for the HAL to initiate and build HTT 40 as a global product which only builds/hones our own expertise in design/build/material, talent pools, FX earnings for capital, building a chain of private vendors, skilled labor besides creating jobs and helping the economy.

HAL's new found confidence stems from the Dhruv/LCH programmes i guess - which needs to be harnessed not frittered away.

[rohitvats]

Rohit, those are likely life cycle unit costs that MoD is insisting on nowadays I think and HAL will obviously have an edge there. HAL will of course be forced to recoup as much of its costs as it can via the initial 124 from IAF only as it doesn't sell to anyone else and follow-ons are uncertain. If HTT-40 doesn't prove itself by 2015, it will be dead and everything is moot. Pilatus may reduce their price for options beyond the 75 in response to the HAL offer but we should still go with the HTT-40. Even if it turns out a little more expensive, the money stays in the family and we can make the plane do anything we want, unlike the Pilatus. HAL seems very condident here. They have an option for an additional 300 for a total of 400+! They obviously see attack versions, perhaps with the Army.

BTW, a majority of the ongoing costs will be incurred on the engine via repair/overhaul/maintenance and if the HTT-40 and the PC-7 have a lot of commonality there, it makes things much easier for the IAF. On top of that, HAL can ensure that there is minimal difference in the cockpit too so training could be seamless. All of this makes it less painful for the IAF to maintain the logistics for 2 primary trainers.

Victor - I understand all that.

I am simply trying to understand the costing business. I still have issue with engine+ejection seat costing only 16% of the total price and balance plane coming at close to INR 29 Crore. Correct me if I am wrong but a BTT isn't going to have avionics and associated paraphernalia (Radar/ECM/Optical sensors etc) to account for high cost. Same goes for the air-frame.

Hence, I'm of the opinion that the price quoted is PER UNIT PROGRAM COST. And BTW, if this is the case, it is fantastic news. Because, the per unit procurement cost is going to be less. A slick marketing guy would quote the PER UNIT PROCUREMENT COST and compare the same with that of Pilatus.

If I were MOD - I'd fund HAL for ~200 odd HTT-40 and bring down the both - PER UNIT PROCUREMENT COST and PER UNIT PROGRAM COST. IAF is a winner in terms of price paid and we produce more and target countries in our rim - from Sri Lanka to Bangladesh to Myanmar and then SE Countries.

Another way to keep the commonality issue is to take the same engine as Pilatus along with broad cockpit design. Even at the expense of it being more expensive, I would go to the extent of having same cockpit paraphernalia as Pilatus. Will reduce the long term maintenance cost.

[pragnya]

rohit, a small nitpick.

it is not 6% of the cost but 17.14% of 35 crore that HAL is quoting as per BW article -

Prashantsingh Bhadoria, one of the HTT-40’s designers, told Business Standard that the HTT-40 would eventually cost Rs 35 crore per aircraft, including the cost of developing a weaponised variant. The 75 Pilatus that the IAF has already signed up for cost Rs 38.5 crore per aircraft. The HAL team at Aero India 2013 said that the HTT-40’s only two imported systems would be the engine and the ejection seat, which together cost Rs 6 crore.

[rohitvats]

rohit, a small nitpick.

it is not 6% of the cost but 16.66% of 35 crore that HAL is quoting as per BW article -

Prashantsingh Bhadoria, one of the HTT-40’s designers, told Business Standard that the HTT-40 would eventually cost Rs 35 crore per aircraft, including the cost of developing a weaponised variant. The 75 Pilatus that the IAF has already signed up for cost Rs 38.5 crore per aircraft. The HAL team at Aero India 2013 said that the HTT-40’s only two imported systems would be the engine and the ejection seat, which together cost Rs 6 crore.

Yup...thanks for pointing that out. Will correct the post.

[pragnya]

Yup...thanks for pointing that out. Will correct the post.

sorry, it is actually 17.14% but before i could edit you replied.

[Austin]

Can some one confirm if IJT issue is right now a Design Issue or an Engine Issue , my understanding is its the former that needs to be rectified , the last crash was not due to engine failure and engine is not stopping IJT from flying , the problem with engine is that it is not certified for x number of working hours yet and is lower than that , the target is 500 hours for AL-55I

Russian Engine AL-551 Proves Satisfactory For Homegrown HJT-16 Trainer Aircraft

According to Managing Director of NPO Saturn, the Russian-made AL-551 engine has not caused any mishap and has given a solid performance with HJT-16. The Russian firm has executed two contracts and carried out extensive research and development on the engine. As of now, four engines have been delivered to India which will be installed on the HJT-16 aircraft.

The Russian firm NPO Saturn developed and built the AL-551 engine in a record time of three years. Currently, a fresh batch of ten AL-551 engines is being produced which have been contracted for delivery in 2011–2012. Russia signed a pact with state-run HAL wherein the service life of the AL-551 engine will be increased by 500 hours. NPO Saturn will be pursuing the contract further and continue its research to optimize the potential of the engine.

[Sagar G]

And in case you'd bothered to spend some time on the topic of aircraft costing, you'd see that world over, the price is calculated on per unit procurement and per unit program cost. There is a very nice comparison sheet on the net for all the modern fighters if you bothered to search rather than morph into keyboard ninja...Secondly, my post was in reply to post by Victor. People actually try to understand a subject than simply indulge in flame war.

Oh please use such scare tactics of yours for other posters, not going to work on me. If his highness claims to know so much about aircraft costing then why don't you explain the 52.6 cr. figure that you have calculated given your immense experience about the same.

[Sagar G]

No they do, this has been acquired through acquisitions and also partnership and in house development

http://www.mahindraaerospace.com/

http://www.tatatechnologies.com/global/ ... nuCode=157

No they don't, take a look at the background pic in their products section where do you think that pic came from ??? Go to products>aerostructures scroll down and take a look at the same pic. It's just not about the pic but by Indian pvt. firms gaining experience in designing aircraft I mean Indian aeronautical engineers working on projects. I don't think that any Indian aero engineer has worked on the Airvan series but hopefully they are working on NM5. Regarding TATA it's the same thing as well.

[Sagar G]

No one in the right mind would fund HAL's HTT-40 after IJT, no matter what HAL is promising it has history repeating itself written all over it. How much do you want to bet that once again HAL will end going for brand new unproven design for its engine with no fall back plan whatsoever.

IJT is the only project currently which seems to be in a really bad shape but other projects of HAL are doing fine so castigating HAL for eternity for a single bad project makes no sense as well. The major problem with IJT seems to be the engine which is supplied by mother Russia. Why doesn't IAF take it up with mother Russia ???

[Sagar G]

Do you think that only IAF has stories about HAL and HAL doesn't have stories about IAF ???

I would put far more weight on the views of a buyer rather than the seller any day, specially when buyers' lives depend on the product. The seller has zero locus standi and can safely be dismissed as the real whiner.

That's what you believe in not me I like to take a look at both sides of the coin before I make a judgement, I don't do selective reading/listening.

[rohitvats]

Oh please use such scare tactics of yours for other posters, not going to work on me. If his highness claims to know so much about aircraft costing then why don't you explain the 52.6 cr. figure that you have calculated given your immense experience about the same.

Yes I know there is no point wasting any breath on you...it is evident from the history of your posts that you're pretty much a thick-skull who has problem understanding anything. Which is why you had difficulty understanding the simple costing given in the post.

Now, read the below slowly so that your brain can assimilate the information -

1. If the INR 35 Crore/Unit of HTT-40 is PER UNIT PROGRAM COST, then the total program cost for 108 a/c is INR 3,740 Crores.
2. However, if HTT-40 does not fly by 2015 and IA orders 37 a/c from Pilatus, then the same INR 3,740 Crore program cost will need to spread across 71 HTT-40 a/c. This makes the PER UNIT PROGRAM COST for 71 a/c as INR 52.6 Crore.

3. For still better understanding, we need to remove the production cost for 37 a/c from the project cost. This is because as these a/c will not be produced by HAL, there will not be any production cost associated with them. But this is difficult to understand at this stage.

[Sagar G]

Yes I know there is no point wasting any breath on you...it is evident from the history of your posts that you're pretty much a thick-skull who has problem understanding anything. Which is why you had difficulty understanding the simple costing given in the post.

Now, read the below slowly so that your brain can assimilate the information -

1. If the INR 35 Crore/Unit of HTT-40 is PER UNIT PROGRAM COST, then the total program cost for 108 a/c is INR 3,740 Crores.
2. However, if HTT-40 does not fly by 2015 and IA orders 37 a/c from Pilatus, then the same INR 3,740 Crore program cost will need to spread across 71 HTT-40 a/c. This makes the PER UNIT PROGRAM COST for 71 a/c as INR 52.6 Crore.

How come you are so sure that the programme cost is getting amortized by INR 3740 cr. ??? You have done 35 x 108 = 3780 cr. (not 3740) and thus now claiming that it is the programme cost !!!! How come without knowing the cost breakup given by HAL to MoD you are claiming that this is the programme cost ??? I would agree that this is the total amount of money IAF would spend buying the 108 aircrafts but that doesn't necessarily == programme cost. If you think it does then I am sure that know it all highness won't have problem explaining this small thing to this dirty poor SDRE.

[rohitvats]

How come you are so sure that the programme cost is getting amortized by INR 3740 cr. ??? You have done 35 x 108 = 3780 cr. (not 3740) and thus now claiming that it is the programme cost !!!! How come without knowing the cost breakup given by HAL to MoD you are claiming that this is the programme cost ??? I would agree that this is the total amount of money IAF would spend buying the 108 aircrafts but that doesn't necessarily == programme cost. If you think it does then I am sure that know it all highness won't have problem explaining this small thing to this dirty poor SDRE.

Arre yaar...as they say in hindi-heartland, "paglet ho kya?".

HAL has quoted a price of INR 35 Crore for HTT-40. If this is not the total Per Unit Program Cost for HTT-40, then it means that HAL is hiding something by way of cost. Then it means there is more cost involved in the project which will become evident some years down the line.

Is it difficult to understand that PER UNIT PROGRAM COST of INR 35 Crore for HTT-40 is a GOOD INDICATOR? That if we look beyond 108 a/c, we can further bring down the cost?

For example, in 2006, Per unit program cost of Rafale-C was USD 135.8 Million while the Per Unit Procurement Cost (as per latest contract in 2005) was USD 62.1 million.

Sigh! That is why I have been telling you to read and think before attacking the keyboard.

[Sagar G]

Arre yaar...as they say in hindi-heartland, "paglet ho kya?".

HAL has quoted a price of INR 35 Crore for HTT-40. If this is not the total Per Unit Program Cost for HTT-40, then it means that HAL is hiding something by way of cost. Then it means there is more cost involved in the project which will become evident some years down the line.

HAL has quoted 35 cr. based on the 108 units that it wants to be ordered, now based on this we know that the total cost incurred by IAF would be 3780 cr. now if the no of units ordered comes down to 71 then you are saying that the programme cost will be still 3780 cr. and hence 52.6 cr. will be the new price tag of each trainer and that's where I don't agree with cause programme cost is R&D cost + per unit procurement cost. If the no's ordered go down then the R&D cost will be amortized by those 71 units which will be added to the per unit cost now how much that would be we don't know and hence I don't think that your 52.6 cr. figure is correct. Got my point.

Is it difficult to understand that PER UNIT PROGRAM COST of INR 35 Crore for HTT-40 is a GOOD INDICATOR? That if we look beyond 108 a/c, we can further bring down the cost?

This is a no brainer that if the no. of units ordered go up then the cost will come down but even that has a limit.

[Singha]

in any case before they get any go ahead for HTT40 they need to come clean with a revised and timely schedule for IJT IOC, IJT FOC and production to clear doubts in mind of IAF. it has been dragging on for ages since atleast the kargil war time period.
it was supposed to be a simple and austere plane!

[Sanku]

No they do, this has been acquired through acquisitions and also partnership and in house development

http://www.mahindraaerospace.com/

http://www.tatatechnologies.com/global/ ... nuCode=157

No they don't, take a look at the background pic in their products section where do you think that pic came from ??? Go to products>aerostructures scroll down and take a look at the same pic. It's just not about the pic but by Indian pvt. firms gaining experience in designing aircraft I mean Indian aeronautical engineers working on projects. I don't think that any Indian aero engineer has worked on the Airvan series but hopefully they are working on NM5. Regarding TATA it's the same thing as well.

I am sorry I dont understand your point. Do Mahindra as a company have people working on A/c design? Answer yes. Whether it is through acquisiton or not does not matter.

Ditto for Tata, yes Mahindra is ahead, but Tata also has non zero experience.

I am not sure what the complaint is? Is complaint that HAL has more experience? Yes sure, but I am in favor of giving such lower end products to companies which have basic competencies for the same, so that they can push themselves up.

[Sagar G]

I am sorry I dont understand your point. Do Mahindra as a company have people working on A/c design? Answer yes. Whether it is through acquisiton or not does not matter.

But does Mahindra Aerospace has capability to design a BTT. The answer is No.

Ditto for Tata, yes Mahindra is ahead, but Tata also has non zero experience.

But both of them can't design a BTT.

Yes sure, but I am in favor of giving such lower end products to companies which have basic competencies for the same, so that they can push themselves up.

"Lower end product" !!! Just because it has a Basic infront of it's name doesn't mean that some pvt. firm will magically come up with the design on the drop of a hat. If pvt. firms are to be involved then they can be given the production responsibility given HAL thinks they are capable of doing that. Regarding designing the best they can do is observer status.

[rohitvats]

in any case before they get any go ahead for HTT40 they need to come clean with a revised and timely schedule for IJT IOC, IJT FOC and production to clear doubts in mind of IAF. it has been dragging on for ages since atleast the kargil war time period. It was supposed to be a simple and austere plane!

+1008.

I was of the opinion that the successful development and induction of IJT in IAF colors would have been the biggest contribution of LCA program. A direct spin-off from the technology base developed for the LCA. But somehow, towards the cross-line, HAL has simply lost the way and direction. We've no idea when this is going to happen.

It is all-right to talk about lack of technological base leading to delay in development of indigenous products; but bad project management cannot be the excuse. It is things like this which cause bad-blood between Services and DPSU.

[Sanku]

But does Mahindra Aerospace has capability to design a BTT. The answer is No.
.

Yes, it has. It already has the basic pieces, has aircraft in similar range, and other pieces can be acquired and integrated

Look at current offering
http://www.mahindraaerospace.com/produc ... craft.aspx

Look at offerings from Pilatus
http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/

Not very different. Same class of a/c and air vehicles.

Its not a big deal.

HAL makes heavy weather of things because of various other issues that comes as being a part of a public behemoth. Pvt players are swifter. There is no LCA level technology we are talking of, its only product management and system integration.

At a pinch nearly everything can be acquired if needed, and still turn around a a/c faster and cheaper than HAL.

Heck I think even reliance would make it faster and cheaper from ground zero.

[krishnan]

They wont...they will probably tie up with some chinese co and rebrand it and sell it

[Sagar G]

Yes, it has. It already has the basic pieces, has aircraft in similar range, and other pieces can be acquired and integrated

Look at current offering
http://www.mahindraaerospace.com/produc ... craft.aspx

Not very different. Same class of a/c and air vehicles.

Here is a dose of reality for you GippsAero

Its not a big deal.

HAL makes heavy weather of things because of various other issues that comes as being a part of a public behemoth. Pvt players are swifter. There is no LCA level technology we are talking of, its only product management and system integration.

At a pinch nearly everything can be acquired if needed, and still turn around a a/c faster and cheaper than HAL.

Heck I think even reliance would make it faster and cheaper from ground zero.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>Heck I think even reliance would make it faster and cheaper from ground zero.

If one thing I'm an absolute fan of when it comes to Reliance, it is their project management.

[Sanku]

They wont...they will probably tie up with some chinese co and rebrand it and sell it

In any case that is a step ahead of Pilatus, and a step towards developing a Indian MIC.

[Sanku]

Here is a dose of reality for you GippsAero

I already know in fact said exactly that, "through acquisition". So?

[Sagar G]

I already know in fact said exactly that, "through acquisition". So?

Even what Mahindra got from acquisition still it isn't capable for the BTT project, maybe in manufacturing it might be but surely not in designing. Mahindra Aerospace's first designing experience will be NM5 with NAL being the design agency for that.

[Sanku]

I already know in fact said exactly that, "through acquisition". So?

Even what Mahindra got from acquisition still it isn't capable for the BTT project, maybe in manufacturing it might be but surely not in designing. Mahindra Aerospace's first designing experience will be NM5 with NAL being the design agency for that.

Where do you get the part of Mahindra through acquisition is not capable of design? They have their designed products and do such work for others.

GippsAero (Mahindra) produces a range of General Aviation aircraft designed specifically to meet niche markets in tourism, skydiving, air surveillance, freight and air charter operations. We are the only company in Australia, and one of a handful in the world, with the capability to both design and manufacture commercial aircraft from first principles.

In any case if they want to partner with NAL, what is the problem? Net net, Mahindra Aero can be given a contract which they can deliver on. With both already existing competencies as well as through partnerships.

Not like HAL is going to do everything in house either.

[Sagar G]

GippsAero (Mahindra) produces a range of General Aviation aircraft designed specifically to meet niche markets in tourism, skydiving, air surveillance, freight and air charter operations. We are the only company in Australia, and one of a handful in the world, with the capability to both design and manufacture commercial aircraft from first principles.[/quote

See the reality is that HTT-40 is an HAL design which HAL wants to manufacture and hence made a case for it infront of MoD. So at the end of the day HAL is running the show regarding the basic trainer with none of the pvt. firms that you and other posters have posted off being anywhere in the picture. If you want to live in your make belief world of Indian pvt. firms having capability to design a military aircraft which will be used for training rookie military pilots even when none of the pvt. firms have any whatsoever experience in designing military planes then you can continue to do so but then why force others to believe the same when the reality sings a different tune altogether ???

[Indranil]

All those for having a private company take up HTT-40 development, please answer these questions:
1. For production to start in 2017/2018(hard requirement), the prototype needs to be flying by 2015, which means the build should start in 2013. How will a private house start now and get a prototype in the air in 2015?
2. IAF with MoD wants the HS-748 replacement to be built (forget design) by the private sector. Where is the response? Mind you there is a lot of requirement for that kind of a plane in India and abroad. Also that kind of a plane can be easily developed into a civilian plane carrying 50-60 people. For Mahindra, it should be the next step up after GA-18!!!
3. @Kartik, why would HAL be just the design house when the dough is in manufacturing/MRO?

P.S. And for God's sake please read what the private sector can design now. If you equate NM-5/GA-8/GA-10/GA-18 to a military trainer, it speaks volumes of your knowledge. The HTT-40 is almost as heavy as the 18-seater GA-18. Can you imgaine the components inside it? And please equate Tata's capability of manufacturing aero-structures to print as design capability. If you really want to name a private company with design experience, it will only be TAAL.

[Victor]

I simply fail to understand the belief of some here that if a company has never designed or made an aircraft in the past, it cannot do so in future. Is aircraft design some kind of voodoo reserved only for a certain sect that must be initiated first? I pray that the people in power don't suffer from this mentality also.

In order to bury this line of argument, are we aware that during WW2, car companies converted to bomber and tank companies literally overnight? A production line is merely a system of putting myriad parts together in a certain way. It does not require all workers or engineers to have AIRCRAFT stamped on their foreheads in order to build aircraft.

To cut to the chase, becoming instantly experienced in an extremely hi-tech industry is eminently possible today by simply buying an entire office of engineers off the shelf from anywhere. This is being done all over the world and a prime example (besides Chinese railways, shipbuilders and aircraft companies) is Reliance Petroleum who built the largest refinery in the world with zero prior experience using the most experienced engineers and consultants available worldwide. It is a 100% Indian company staffed by a multinational engineering workforce, most of them Indian. They faced a shortage of trained line oil workers so they set up a training camp for thousands and today are arguably the most efficient oil refinery in the world. I will admit that this does require 3 critical things: balls, confidence and project management, all of which many Indians have been trained to lack.

[Indranil]

I never said that a private company cannot build a BTT. It cannot do it by 2015 starting today. If you think that is not the case. Please suggest a timeline.

[Victor]

I never said that a private company cannot build a BTT. It cannot do it by 2015 starting today. If you think that is not the case. Please suggest a timeline.

Not aimed at you Indranil, its a general observation.

[Sagar G]

I simply fail to understand the belief of some here that if a company has never designed or made an aircraft in the past, it cannot do so in future.

If by that you mean in the distant future then I have no problem with that but if you mean a pvt. firm can do so in the near future i.e. by 2015 then please suggest the names and the capabilities they possess for designing a BTT.

[NRao]

I simply fail to understand the belief of some here that if a company has never designed or made an aircraft in the past, it cannot do so in future. Is aircraft design some kind of voodoo reserved only for a certain sect that must be initiated first? I pray that the people in power don't suffer from this mentality also.

In order to bury this line of argument, are we aware that during WW2, car companies converted to bomber and tank companies literally overnight? A production line is merely a system of putting myriad parts together in a certain way. It does not require all workers or engineers to have AIRCRAFT stamped on their foreheads in order to build aircraft.

To cut to the chase, becoming instantly experienced in an extremely hi-tech industry is eminently possible today by simply buying an entire office of engineers off the shelf from anywhere. This is being done all over the world and a prime example (besides Chinese railways, shipbuilders and aircraft companies) is Reliance Petroleum who built the largest refinery in the world with zero prior experience using the most experienced engineers and consultants available worldwide. It is a 100% Indian company staffed by a multinational engineering workforce, most of them Indian. They faced a shortage of trained line oil workers so they set up a training camp for thousands and today are arguably the most efficient oil refinery in the world. I will admit that this does require 3 critical things: balls, confidence and project management, all of which many Indians have been trained to lack.

What you say is true, and, much of the logic does ring true too.

However, WW II era was rather different - the techs were more in their infancies (as compared to today). But you do have a point.

Coming to today, the more strategic a product gets the less people or companies are out there to help you out. Yes, the chances of buying entire companies to produce a crop duster is rather high, but to produce a true fighter/bomber the chances are far reduced to near impossible.

Finally, the cycle that is followed needs a very mature R&D AND testing experience. Not too many have those two and the ones who have it will not part with it even for funds.

So, in short, yes and no - yes, for certain products one needs something stamped on the forehead and no, for others there is no such need.

Which is why I think HAL can carry the risk for the HTT-40. Reliance or some other pvt company too should be able to do it but with greater risk. However that is only for the trainer. For a mature fighter like the FGFA/AMCA, no dice. Alliance can try and assemble as many engineers as they want it will be a huge task to overcome the fundamental issues.

And PM does differ from project to project. Even the best PMs fail under some circumstances.

[John]

No one is suggest Pvt this and having it delivered by 2015 just try something different for a change, even join HAL-Private venture would be step in right direction. We already have Pilatus trainers to fall back on if private venture is a failure. And we can use this a building block for a future AJT programme.


Austin/NRao

I am taking HALs word for granted that AI-55 is cause of all IJT problems, Russian side portrays a completely different picture (HAL was poor planned, lot of design & communication issues etc).

[Victor]

why would HAL be just the design house when the dough is in manufacturing/MRO?

Err...because Indians want them to? They are a public company and we are the public. They have a long and well-documented history that would justify this idea.

I believe very firmly that if we took HAL/GTRE/OFB as-is today and placed them under the management of our top private companies, 90% of our problems would be solved. They would still remain 100% Indian companies, fully run by Indians and with 100% Indian interests as a goal. A majority of the engineers, managers and workers would remain with probably better pay. Most of the crap will be removed, including the sycophants, yes-men and hangers-on, and everyone from top to bottom will be on a "perform or perish" understanding like most Indians in real-world jobs, not wasteful, make-believe govt jobs. At the least, it would be an improvement over the intolerable situation that exists today. We simply cannot afford it.