Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 30 Dec 2013 08:35

14 years on, IAF jet trainer still not ready

...
While HAL has now promised the initial operational clearance (IOC) for its Sitara IJT by June 2014, IAF remains skeptical given the trainer has missed deadlines at least five times since 2007.

...
For one, Sitara cannot as yet "stall and spin", which is a critical manoeuvre to train young cadets on how to handle emergencies, hold their nerve and retrieve their planes from a spin. HAL is now closer to resolving this with help of experts from BAE Systems, said sources.

But another major issue is the IJT's Russian AL-55I engine, which initially had a "time between overhauls (TBO)" of only 100 hours. After demanding more money, over the initial $350 million contract, Russia is now extending the TBO to 300 hours.

But IAF wants the TBO be about 1,200 hours. "A trainer aircraft flies six to eight sorties daily, clocking around 10 hours. If the TBO is just 100 hours, the engine will have to be replaced every 10 days. This will require more engines and overhauls, apart from the planes sitting on ground for longer periods," said a source.

...
...
In all, with 240 new trainee pilots every year, IAF requires 181 BTA, 85 IJTs and 106 AJTs. India has already inducted a bulk of the 123 Hawk AJTs ordered for its air force and naval pilots in an overall project worth around Rs 16,000 crore.
...
...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Dec 2013 08:56

A 300 hour MTBO is nuts.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Dec 2013 09:42

More money is even more nuttier.

I just do not know how to read the Russians any more other than a matka joint.

Do not know but the earlier India weans herself of the better.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 30 Dec 2013 10:30

AL-55I = one of the dumbest (or most criminal) decisions of the decade.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Dec 2013 10:42

Lets be fair. At the point they had the option of the Larzac which produced less thrust. 14.1Kn vs 16.2Kn of the AL55I. The IAF assessed the Larzac powered aircraft as underpowered.

And the AL55I was claimed to be based off the AL-31FP (being manufactured at HAL) and would simplify logistics, and come with TOT.

Clearly their own inexperience in understanding how risky the engine program also played a role. Basically HAL took the Russian claims at face value & paid the price. But with a lack of other engines, they seem to have gone with what was available. Also shows the risks in taking an unproven engine even by a so called engine specialist.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 30 Dec 2013 10:46

Isn't AL-55 derived from SU-30MKI AL31 engine? Would have expected better MTBO for a derived engine.

Why didn't HAL/IAF float tenders for existing engines instead of trying to get a new engine? Even after the LCA/Kaveri experience, I am surprised they still went looking for a new engine when the airframe was already ready! Could one of the Jaguar/Hawk engines have worked? Or a lower thrust Mirage engine?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Dec 2013 10:52

Basically no other options from the usual suppliers. US might have some in the class, but at the time HAL had a hard time with sanctions of US engines for ALH.

The point you raise - AL31 derivative - is exactly why HAL thought it would be low risk. Clearly, it wasn't and only goes to show how complex these engine development programs are.

AL31 has MTBO of 1000 hours. Latest versions (in tests) seek to extend that to 1500 hrs.

Jaguar/Hawk engine is 32 Kn thrust class, basically too powerful.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Dec 2013 10:55

Plans were great, until ...................

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ia-213591/

India, meanwhile, has selected Saturn's AL-55I unreheated turbofan for the HAL HJT-36 intermediate jet trainer. The initial 4,000lb-thrust version will power the single-engined HJT-36, and a 5,000lb-thrust derivative of the twin-engined HJT-39 advanced jet trainer. Bench tests of the first prototype started in March last year and the engine is said to have completed qualification tests for the HJT-36 in December. Flight tests on an Ilyushin Il-76LL testbed are expected to start later this year.

In 2005 India signed two contacts totalling $250 million for development and licence production of 200 AL-55Is at HAL. Saturn will complete development of the engine and produce the hot section in Rybinsk while the final assembly will take place at UMPO. India will join the manufacturing process from the 100th engine. Saturn hopes to extend the agreement to cover production of 1,000 units.

In February Saturn and RSK MiG announced plans to install the AL-55I in the MiG-AT trainer being offered to India. An AL-55 with afterburner is also being proposed to power China's L-15 supersonic trainer.

The Chinese went with another engine and nothing has come out of the HJT-39 AJT.

However, I find it very hard to believe that the original 55I would have been accepted by India with 100 hours. Especially when the IAF wants 1200 hours. Something is not right here.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Dec 2013 11:06

They would have projected much better MTBO and a rapid development timeline.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 30 Dec 2013 11:22

I wonder what Al is asking the additional $350 million for? To increase MTBO? If so, then the original MTBO was lower when HAL inked the agreement - why did it do so? Did it not anticipate that the original MTBO would be unacceptable for the IAF?

One way of still going with the Larzac engine would have been to lower the weight of the IJT thereby increasing the thrust to weight ratio. I don't think HAL has the confidence to do so.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Dec 2013 18:30

Well lets face it, rarely has any aircraft program come in lower than projected weight. They usually all gain weight over design to production. So IAF would actually hope for some extra margin to compensate for that as well.

I can't understand why they didnt rope in BAe or anyone else earlier to help them with spin tests. Its one thing if only the engine was an issue, another when even that is being resolved now.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Dec 2013 18:58

well the guys who must have done and documented such tests on the Gnat and Kiran/Ajeet must have long retired. not sure why the Tejas team could not have helped with this but perhaps BAE being hawk designers could have a direct soln or perceived as "bideshi experts"

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Dec 2013 19:12

If not for the morale issues on HAL & consequent loss of expertise, I wonder whether we should have this IJT at all.

Just roll up that entire design team into ADA or the FGFA program and stick to the Hawk & Pilatus for training. One more type with the IAF, one more stage of training etc - the logistics costs of adding one more type probably outweigh the money saved on less training on the Hawk.

Anyways, from HAL perspective its a no go, but food for thought I guess.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Dec 2013 19:19

Wow - the Kh-29 has been on IAF non upg MiG-27s as well.
http://osmaniac.blogspot.in/2009/10/kh- ... -27ml.html

Given we have seen Su-30 MKIs firing this, its in the inventory and can be used by current MiG-27s as well.

Useful PGM.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-ASM.html

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 30 Dec 2013 19:23

Forget about Tejas team what is the team at HAL doing ??? They need help of foreign eggspurts for designing IJT !!!! Now I am 100% sure that FGFA will be another copy paste job.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Dec 2013 19:58

HAL has had to build up a design team - they really didnt do any D&D of a program after the HPT-32. Some inexperience is a given and better to take assistance then lose a pilot in spin trials. Plus, media reports that an IJT was damaged or lost in spin trials.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Dec 2013 21:08

IAF has made significant gains in capability: Air chief

New Delhi, Dec 30 (IANS) The Indian Air Force (IAF) has made significant gains in its capability enhancement plans, its chief N.A.K. Browne said Monday.

Air Chief Marshal Browne said streamlined induction and speedy operation of new assets had afforded the force "unprecedented response capabilities".

Browne, who is retiring from service Tuesday, said IAF's prompt and cohesive response after the Uttarakhand floods helped save many lives and the achievement must serve as a matter of pride and inspiration for all its personnel.

The IAF chief said he was relinquishing command of IAF with an "immense sense of pride and satisfaction".

"More than 41 years of memorable association with the finest set of professional air warriors in the world has indeed been a matter of singular honour for me and a unique experience which I shall forever cherish," Browne said.

He said the IAF had collectively overcome many multi-dimensional transformational challenges over the past 29 months.

"Our organisational resilience, strong team work and pride in the service were the prime determinants of our remarkable progress. Operationally, we have made significant gains in our capability enhancement plans.

"The streamlined induction and speedy operationalisation of our new assets like Mi-17 v5, C-130J, Pilatus PC-7 and C-17 aircraft have afforded us unprecedented response capabilities," he said.

Browne said the IAF had demonstrated its newly acquired capabilities during two major exercises - Iron Fist and Live Wire.

He said competent handling of major maintenance and training challenges and progress made in areas like infrastructure have already started yielding positive dividends.

"Our progress so far has been hard earned, hence it mandates us to relentlessly maintain the tempo and continue raising the bar even further," he said.

"The enormous trust and respect which our countrymen have for the men and women in blue places additional responsibilities on us. I am proud of your collective achievements and am confident that as important stakeholders in IAF's growth story, you will continue to resolutely steer the course," he said.

Browne said professional and personal growth of IAF personnel had always remained at the very heart of all his plans.

"The sense of ownership and pride which was so evident during all my interactions with you gives me a keen sense of reassurance in our future ahead. Continue the good work with pride, integrity and a sense of belonging and stay grounded in our core values," Browne said.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 30 Dec 2013 23:15

Karan M wrote:If not for the morale issues on HAL

Arre bhai, what about the morale issues of our young pilot trainees? I would put that several notches above the morale of HAL.

I wonder whether we should have this IJT at all.

Just roll up that entire design team into ADA or the FGFA program and stick to the Hawk & Pilatus for training. One more type with the IAF, one more stage of training etc - the logistics costs of adding one more type probably outweigh the money saved on less training on the Hawk.

This makes the most sense but no accountability + no liability + free money = gravy train so it won't happen.

Fundamental goof up was putting the cart before the horse, completely ignoring the universal practice of first choosing a powerplant and then designing an airplane around it. It appears that our johnnies were confident enough of our superior expertise to flout this basic step.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 Dec 2013 03:54

The IAF will (and should) never accept a trainer with an engine having an MTBO of 300 hours. If the Russians really can't do any better, I'm afraid the HJT-36 is doomed.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Dec 2013 04:08

The Russians seem to be finding loop holes in a contract to extract more monies. ?????

Did they themselves expect an engine of this type to have a 100/300 hour MTBO?

This from wiki:

For engines the time between overhauls is generally a function of the complexity of the engine and how it is employed.[1] Piston-based engines are much more complex than their turbine-powered cousins, and generally have TBOs on the order of 1,200 to 2,000 hours of running time. They tend toward the lower number if they are new designs, or include boosting options like a turbocharger. In comparison, jet engines and turboprops often have TBOs on the order of 3,000 to 5,000 hours.

Or has a 0 been dropped somewhere?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Dec 2013 04:35

Vic has hit the "sweet spot".Unfortunately for the nation,and for HAL and the ADA,they've always shanked and sliced.Time and time again our aircraft projects have hit the dust because of the fundamental flaw in not choosing the engine/engines first before design. We have yet to learn from history after the HF-24 experience and are replaying the same record.I've quoted before the AM,VCoAS who said the same thing about the LCA,that the engine was the weakest link and would determine the pace of the programme,who told APJAJK that (at that time) the LCA project was a "fraud upon the nation" with all the tall claims being made by the GTRE and co.,"engine ready in 3 months" etc.Poor APJ believing them then made his "200 LCAs by 2010" statement.Even with the LCA,we could easily have/afford two MK-2 prototype designs flying with both the EJ and 414 given the weight factors present in the MK-1.Now even with the LCA series production,we are told that each protoype flying is "handcrafted" and will not be the definitive series production original.Much is being made of the advanced tech for production being acquired.This beggars the Q,what have we been doing/using for years of licence production of various Russian origin aircraft,Jags,etc.,MK-1 "eyeball" tech?

Now with the IJT,why didn't the IAF initially ask HAL for an engine with a TBO of 1200 hrs right from the start? Conversely,HAL should've told them about TBO limitations with all the available engine options .Surely there should be some basic parameters agreed upon by end-user and manufacturer at the initial stage? From data available there was an ASR in 2005,did it say anything about the TBOs and the Saturn's? From the reports,it doesn't look like the IJT is going to make the grade and cut-off date,as there was an earlier warning by the air chief about Kirans on their last legs. If it fails to arrive on time,the Pilatus PC-21 which supposedly obviates the need for an IJT and has been chosen by many air forces worldwide, could be an alternative.It may be better off as some are saying to ditch the IJT altogether and have just two stages/types of training on the BT,PC-7/21 and the Hawk AJT.

A couple of years ago it was reported that because of the shortage of human resources,the IJT team (of all teams) was asked to look after the FGFA project also (surely the AMCA team instead?)! This has been the bone of contention with the FGFA project all along.What part of the (FGFA) programme is HAL capable of developing and in delivery on schedule and within cost? A couple of years ago the Russian ambassador (?) asked the same Q in an Indian def. journal,saying that it was upto us to decide upon what share of the work we wanted.Even the air chief said that HAL should not waste its time with the BT but get on with FGFA work where we reportedly abdicated 30% of our share of the project. Critics of the JV are fundamentally right in saying that there may be scant input from our side in the FGFA as the programme develops, being heavily pushed along by Putin. This is the most important futuristic Indian aircraft programme of all,meant to give us the qualitative edge over the PLAAF and PAF with deliveries from around 2020 onwards,esp. as China develops two stealth designs.Are we going to be left behind as usual if we do not take the plunge?

A major review of our mil. aviation programmes and requirements should be undertaken,so that our resources and energy is not wasted upon reinventing the wheel esp. in less tech. advanced programmes,concentrating upon those that will give us the tech. edge over our rivals.We have to behave like the developed nations and cut our losses when neccessary.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 Dec 2013 04:49

Philip wrote: ...
Now with the IJT,why didn't the IAF initially ask HAL for an engine with a TBO of 1200 hrs right from the start? Conversely,HAL should've told them about TBO limitations with all the available engine options .Surely there should be some basic parameters agreed upon by end-user and manufacturer at the initial stage? From data available there was an ASR in 2005,did it say anything about the TBOs and the Saturn's? From the reports,it doesn't look like the IJT is going to make the grade and cut-off date,as there was an earlier warning by the air chief about Kirans on their last legs.

...

Your post is along expected lines. Blaming the IAF for not specifying an MTBO of 1200 and blaming HAL for not telling the IAF about the AL-55's limitations. Not a single word against the Russians who delivered an absolute joke in the form of the AL-55. Which modern aircraft engine has an MTBO of 100 hours? Did the Russians seriously expect us to accept that? Even the much maligned Kaveri would do better. I'm pretty sure if the pakis attempted to build an aircraft engine tomorrow even that would have a better MTBO. It would be a different matter if the shortfall was small and could be possibly overcome. But after delivering a lemon, the Russians are trying to milk more money out of us to increase the MTBO to 300 hours. This is absolutely shameful. Definitely not something you expect from an engine manufacturer with decades of experience.

But of course it is all IAF and HAL's fault onlee. Just like it was IN's fault that the Russians couldn't deliver the Gorshkov on time and budget.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Dec 2013 05:07

Nachi,Who then authorised in retrospect the asinine Russian Saturn buy? Who made up the ASR? Are we so idiotic to have bought it in the first place well knowing its limitations? It isn't as if the engine manufacturers promised more and delivered less TBO time and is at fault.The specs were known right form the start.Is the bird also within its designed weight which required the more powerful Saturn instead of the supposedly underpowered French engine? We know that the LCA MK-1 is "obese" and a more powerful MK-2 is needed (the fault of too much being packed in into too small an aircraft expecting too much from it).Is anyone blaming the US or GE for this? Some posters have said that at that time,there were few alternatives for the IJT's engine.From my understanding,the original (French) engine was underpowered,therefore the Saturn was chosen instead (delay 1),this came 2 years late (delay 2),the crash at Aero-India (delay 3) and we now have the TBO factor and "spin and stall" headscratching inability (delay 4,probably fatal). You can't blame the Russians for the project's failure thus far,there appear to be basic faults in drawing up the ASR,design flaws,manufacturer delay (engine) and finally mismanagement.

PS:Also remember the report about the huge time needed for an engine change in the LCA,2 days when compared with the Gripen's 33min! Don't the two aircraft use the same engine,the 404, How come?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Dec 2013 07:38

Well, there are a whole bunch of fools on both sides.

IF Indian sources accepted a 100 hour MTBO AND the Russians were glad to provide for it - then clearly BOTH have to be held responsible. Just because the India side did not mind a 100 hour MTBO does not get the Russians off the hook. Industry standards clearly are around 1000+ hours. THAT could not have escaped Russian engineers.

I think - as I said earlier - the Russians are out to make money. Which by itself is not bad, but when they do not provide proper advise (based on their own experience) then it becomes bad.

__________________

ON LCA vs. grippen: yes, the LCA is not as complete a platform as one would like it to be. Cannot seem to find the vid, but it is the 2nd one I posted (somewhere) - the LCA does have a bunch of what we would term - based on hind sight - "flaws" (and as indicated in that vid, there are plenty more, including supply chain issues). They should be corrected in the AMCA effort.

__________________

LCA Mk I is NOT "obese". It was found to be inadequate for the IN. The IAF could have done with the MKI just fine.

However, yes, if GE was expected to deliver a product and it did not, including not advising of problems in the future - like 1/10th MTBO - yes, they should have been blamed for it.

___________________

This idea of there-were-few-alternatives is getting stale. I think there were alternatives, but they cost too much. But, now the ones selected will cost a huge amount.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Dec 2013 07:48

Victor wrote:Arre bhai, what about the morale issues of our young pilot trainees? I would put that several notches above the morale of HAL.

The young trainees would probably manage without an IJT as the IAF would probably redo the training with PC7 and Hawk doing the job. Morale issues at HAL are a vital point if D&D capabilities have to be built up.

I wonder whether we should have this IJT at all.

Just roll up that entire design team into ADA or the FGFA program and stick to the Hawk & Pilatus for training. One more type with the IAF, one more stage of training etc - the logistics costs of adding one more type probably outweigh the money saved on less training on the Hawk.

This makes the most sense but no accountability + no liability + free money = gravy train so it won't happen.

Fundamental goof up was putting the cart before the horse, completely ignoring the universal practice of first choosing a powerplant and then designing an airplane around it. It appears that our johnnies were confident enough of our superior expertise to flout this basic step.[/quote][/quote]

The universal practice bit cant be applied here because there were no engines which met the IAF ASRs hence the need to go for the AL55I.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Dec 2013 07:50

Philip wrote:Nachi,Who then authorised in retrospect the asinine Russian Saturn buy? Who made up the ASR? Are we so idiotic to have bought it in the first place well knowing its limitations? It isn't as if the engine manufacturers promised more and delivered less TBO time and is at fault.The specs were known right form the start.Is the bird also within its designed weight which required the more powerful Saturn instead of the supposedly underpowered French engine? We know that the LCA MK-1 is "obese" and a more powerful MK-2 is needed (the fault of too much being packed in into too small an aircraft expecting too much from it).Is anyone blaming the US or GE for this? Some posters have said that at that time,there were few alternatives for the IJT's engine.From my understanding,the original (French) engine was underpowered,therefore the Saturn was chosen instead (delay 1),this came 2 years late (delay 2),the crash at Aero-India (delay 3) and we now have the TBO factor and "spin and stall" headscratching inability (delay 4,probably fatal). You can't blame the Russians for the project's failure thus far,there appear to be basic faults in drawing up the ASR,design flaws,manufacturer delay (engine) and finally mismanagement.

PS:Also remember the report about the huge time needed for an engine change in the LCA,2 days when compared with the Gripen's 33min! Don't the two aircraft use the same engine,the 404, How come?

Goodness, so to defend Russian malfeasance and incompetence regarding the AL55I and their inability to deliver a proper engine, you have to throw mud on the LCA and GE.

Basically no matter what, everything Indian is fair game in order to defend the Rodina.

Incredible.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Dec 2013 08:22

Please I am NOT defending the Russians! The Q I'm asking is who signed on and approved the deal? Who chose the "incompetent engine"? Was it not the IAF who prepared the ASR in 2006 or HAL? It is incredulous to believe that either of the two or both were ignorant about the Saturn's TBO. What were the TBO specs in the ASR? From the facts,it appears that after the French engine was found underpowered for the design of the IJT the alternative Russian was chosen.Does this not indicate a flaw in the design/designers itself which we've seen on the LCA and Saras too-the problem of these aircraft being overweight? How can you blame any engine manufacturer for this?

Secondly,did the Russians give out a false TBO capability or not? If they did hang them,penalise them whatever! If they didn't,then how is it diff. from the GE-404 being found underpowered for the LCA MK-1 for an overweight aircraft,now neccessitating a MK-2 with the 414? I am not blaming GE either and have never done so.For argument's sake,if we condemned GE for an "incompetent engine",the 404,just because it cannot deliver more thrust for the overweight LCA MK-1 well knowing at the beginning what its guaranteed performance was,would it not be ridiculous?

Please,I'm not condemning desi projects for the sake of it.Here is another sorry tale ,the IJT,where we are experiencing serious problems,and in any case,responsibility for "stall and spin" problems cannot be laid at the door of the engine manufacturer,French,Russian,whoever! This sorry episode of the IJT,underscores Prof. Das's contention that we have yet to master aircraft engineering,why we are experiencing difficulties with some of our desi projects.Please,will someone also tell me why -I'm asking a straightforward Q again,why the Gripen which has the same 404 engine can undergo replacement in 33min while the LCA's takes 2 days as alleged?

Here are recent reports on the issue:

IAF miffed with HAL for failing to keep pace with changing times
Gaurav C Sawant November 6, 2013

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/iaf- ... 21910.html

Xcpt:

The Air Warrior did not pull his punches taking on HAL. "India is the largest importer of arms. A major portion of this is in the aerospace sector. 10-12 billion dollars which is 30-40 per cent of the defence budget is spent on purchases because the Indian aerospace industry has not been able to deliver," he said. The IAF is cut up with HAL for not being able to meet its requirements. While HAL was on the ball in terms of R&D in the 1970s and 80s when it came up with Marut, Kiran and Ajit trainers, it could not keep pace with IAF requirements in the 80s. The HAL has still not been able to deliver an Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT) to the IAF. "Does the problem lie with the bureaucracy or lack of competition?" Air Marshal Reddy said.

http://idrw.org/?p=28757
Round 2.IAF to go after HAL for IJT delays?

According to this report,the IAF says that the IJT suffers from design issues (repeated spin and stall issues) and "minor fixes will not help in the long term as they may resurface.The IAF doesn't want the sad experience of the HPT-32 repeated 10 years down the line".The IJT has suffered 2 minor and one major crash (engine failure,new Saturn engine).HAL has reportedly out a "media gag" on its employees on the project,banning them from even speaking to other HAL employees on the status of the programme.

Feb 2013 report.
BAE to help iron out chinks in intermediate jet trainer
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 289_1.html

Xcpt:
BAE Systems, the multinational aerospace major, has said it would offer consultancy to sort out some of the issues the Intermediate jet trainer (IJT), that is being manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), is facing.

A few years ago, BAE Systems had informally “exchanged notes” with the IJT’s pilots on its (IJT’s) aerodynamics. This has now led to the BAE now offering to sort some of the issues dogging the IJT. The issues pertaining to aerodynamics and the poor manoeuvrability of the aircraft is said to have been chief worries on the IJT front. “It’s especially with regards to the issues faced by the aircraft during a high angle of attack that’s been a cause for concern,” said Michael Christie, senior vice-president, Hawk India programme and director, Hawk programme, BAE Systems. “The specialist aerodynamic and engineering services consultancy we are providing will assist in the characteristics of the aircraft at high angle of attack.”

This was a year ago.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ining-woes
IJT Problems Add to Indian Air Force Training Woes
AIN Defense Perspective » October 5, 2012

by Neelam Mathews
The first prototype of HAL’s HJT-36 intermediate jet trainer (IJT) crashed on a routine flight, the third loss for the program in four years. (Photo: HAL)
October 5, 2012, 11:55 AM

The delay in development of India’s intermediate jet trainer (IJT) by government-owned defense manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) has the Indian Air Force (IAF) worried, Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne told AIN in an exclusive interview. The HAL HJT-36 is intended to replace the aging fleet of Kiran Mk II jet trainers in the IAF by 2015.

Since the start of design work in 1997, the IJT program has suffered three accidents, delaying its initial operational capability (IOC). When HAL displayed the first two IJT prototypes at the Paris Air Show in June 2005, it said that certification would follow in 2007. “We are concerned as we are not seeing significant progress on the IJT. HAL put in a dedicated design team, yet there are no results. This is a training aircraft and we cannot compromise on safety,” said Browne.

Issues remain on controls, engines and the aircraft’s weight, stall and spin characteristics, Browne said. This was confirmed to AIN by HAL design director T. Suvaranaraju, who said, “We have had a setback…four aircraft are in flight mode. We will recover the lost time.”

The IJT is supposed to be a stage-II trainer to be used before pilots graduate to the BAE Hawk Mk 132 advanced jet trainer. The IAF ordered 123 of these under two contracts, and another 20 are likely to be acquired to replace the Kirans that are flown by the IAF’s aerobatic team.

The IAF recently ordered 75 Pilatus PC-7 Mk II basic trainers and took options on another 106 to be license-built by HAL, after its obsolescent, HAL-built piston-engine HPT-32 basic trainers were grounded. “The loss of 17 aircraft and 19 pilots had resulted in pilots losing confidence in the safety and performance of the aircraft,” a defense official said on condition of anonymity.

The IAF has stationed its own personnel at HAL to monitor the development of the IJT. A consultancy with BAE Systems is also in the process of being signed, says Browne.

The IAF has a requirement for 181 basic trainers, along with 85 IJTs and 106 AJTs.
Let's leave the final words to the air chief on his final day in office.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... et-trainer

IAF chief NAK Browne pulls up HAL for jet trainer delay
Biswarup Gooptu, ET Bureau Feb 8, 2013,

BANGALORE: State-owned aerospace company Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) came under severe criticism from Indian Air Force chief NAK Browne for its inability to deliver a muchneeded intermediate jet trainer (IJT) for over a decade, even as the country's air force continues to face major hurdles in training its pilots.

Speaking at the Aero India 2013, Air Chief Marshal Browne said the IAF has been "disappointed" over the lack of progress in the IJT project undertaken by the Bangalore-based company. "The project actually started in 2004 or 2005, and it has been almost eight or nine years since then. The defence minister and the ministry are looking with great seriousness at the reasons for the stalling of the project," he said. The chief of air staff said that the HAL trainer is continuing to face engine troubles, with the Russia's NPO Saturn-made AL-55I engine currently cleared up to 100 hours only, as against the acceptable engine life expectancy of 1,200-1,500 hours. "Unless all these things happen, we cannot accept it as the intermediate jet trainer," Browne said.

HAL's IJT has been in development for over a decade now, with the IAF signing up to receive 12 prototypes and 73 operational trainers. However, it is now believed that the IJT is at least three years away from delivery. Browne categorically ruled out inducting HAL's basic trainer aircraft and stated that it is satisfied with the 112 Swiss-made Pilatus basic trainers that it purchased for about Rs 3,500 crore last year. HAL has been desperately trying to sell HTT-40 basic trainer to the IAF but the response has been extremely lukewarm.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Dec 2013 08:53

Here you go, from the horse that opened his mouth:

Air Cmde. (retd.) Parvez Khokhar wrote: Maintenance practices in the Tejas are probably among the most primitive in this class of aircraft and certainly not conducive to operational efficiency. The Gripen requires all of 33 minutes to replace the engine. The Tejas takes a couple of days because of poor estate management of ancillary connections on the engine.

Granted it is a HUGE issue, but it is correctable.

_____________________

But, the fact also is that the Labs have admitted that they have made this mistake - in fact, they have admitted that they have NOT taken into account a variety of other aspects while "designing" the LCA.

So, what exactly is your problem? And, how is all this related to the AL-55I?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Dec 2013 09:06

the Mk2 offers a chance to fix some of that because of redesign air intake and larger engine the CG will also shift and fuselage diameter will likely go up as well.
some things are only learnt from decades of experience and we are short of saab in that for sure.

how often are fighter engines pulled out for 2nd level inspection and testing btw? is it once in two weeks or longer timeframe?

can damaged or scratched compressor blades in cold section be detected and replaced without removing the engine ?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 31 Dec 2013 09:18

Singha-> the LCA has not even entered service, I am sure when the next test is a few days away HAL guys are going to rushing to change engines. Gripen 33 minutes was moreover a marketing strategy, I would bet it is a case Brochistis, it not going to be 33 minutes every time and in the field its not going to IAF maintenance guys arent going to take 2 days for every LCA engine change.

And given the sensitivity around LCA and criticality of the engine, plus probably one of few times this has been done before, HAL/ADA guys were probably double checking whether everything was changed correctly.

Once established procedures are done it will be lot less than 2 work days.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Dec 2013 09:24

Oh, just BTW, the same horse has this to say:

The rationale of making the Tejas MK II is centred around the Indian Navys requirement of having a greater initial acceleration for deck operations. Hence, the choice of a more powerful and bigger engine, the F414. The IAF has piggybacked on this solution since it promises a greater all round performance.

The IAF - as stated many a times - does not REALLY need the MKII. Also, per some, even the IN wants it as a stop gap.

_____________________

I do not think they will be able to rearrange the real estate inside it to make too much of a diff. At 200 planes it will be a serious issue for the IAF. For the IN, I am not too sure if either of teh two newer carriers are capable of changing engines on the ship. IF they cannot, then they need to be close to a land based MRO unit.

I just say: next stop: AMCA.

____________________

BTW, the tools available to the labs today are far more superior and such issues should not raise their heads again.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 31 Dec 2013 09:26

Interesting discussion. A new engine and a new air frame always brings in shortcomings. The safer and faster way was to complete flight testing and atleast 40 units with Larzac's.

The 40 units would have been a good CAS/Recon in A&N or NE with less cost, once AL-55I integrated ones begin flying in. It would have also made a credible air force for many IOR / African countries. If not, it could have been given to DGCA run schools or even given for flying clubs. Anyway, no use - its spilt milk.

When we take a call, we have to live with it. Hopefully, in future we will wrap new aerofoil around a proven engine while development.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 31 Dec 2013 09:38

IAF's New Boss

Interesting part of the profile

Besides various technical courses, Raha has done Strategic Nuclear Orientation Course and Junior Commanders' course. He has commanded Central Air Command and Western Air Command.

Raha has served as Directing Staff at Flying Instructors School, Tambaram (Tamil Nadu) as well as at the Gwalior-based Tactics and Combat Development Establishment of the IAF

Seems to be the pilot's pilot kind of a guy...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Dec 2013 09:41

The point about engine change is in the context of of our aircraft engineering design competence ,when the same engine is being used on aircraft of similar size and capability.Surely it has an effect on sortie rates in a combat scenario.Agreed,with better redesigning and organising of the LCA's "intestines",improvement may hopefully happen.

The IJT also suffers from design competence,or incompetence as the case may be.The serious design flaws have yet to be sorted out regardless of the engine TBO issue.If the Russians have fudged the TBO rate or the engine fails to deliver on performance ,then as said before hang them,penalise them,whatever! But who OK'd the engine if the performance facts were known all along? Surely the engine would've been evaluated and tested at length,not picked out from a brochure and ordered on-line?!

Now this project has taken 8-9 years thus far (air chief in the earlier post).The IOC date of 2007 was announced by HAL at Paris in 2005,8 years ago! How much longer will any air force wait for a crucial IJT when according to the IAF,"40% of the air crashes suffered were due to pilot error/human failure" ? As one report says,"the Russians are coming",waiting in the wings with the Yak-130 offer,saying that it is better than the Hawk for advanced aircraft training being supersonic and can train basic rookie and advanced pilots onto 4th-gen birds !

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Dec 2013 09:48

he looks young at 59.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Dec 2013 09:48

Philip wrote:Please I am NOT defending the Russians! The Q I'm asking is who signed on and approved the deal? Who chose the "incompetent engine"? Was it not the IAF who prepared the ASR in 2006 or HAL? It is incredulous to believe that either of the two or both were ignorant about the Saturn's TBO. What were the TBO specs in the ASR? From the facts,it appears that after the French engine was found underpowered for the design of the IJT the alternative Russian was chosen.Does this not indicate a flaw in the design/designers itself which we've seen on the LCA and Saras too-the problem of these aircraft being overweight? How can you blame any engine manufacturer for this?

Secondly,did the Russians give out a false TBO capability or not? If they did hang them,penalise them whatever! If they didn't,then how is it diff. from the GE-404 being found underpowered for the LCA MK-1 for an overweight aircraft,now neccessitating a MK-2 with the 414? I am not blaming GE either and have never done so.For argument's sake,if we condemned GE for an "incompetent engine",the 404,just because it cannot deliver more thrust for the overweight LCA MK-1 well knowing at the beginning what its guaranteed performance was,would it not be ridiculous?

Please,I'm not condemning desi projects for the sake of it.Here is another sorry tale ,the IJT,where we are experiencing serious problems,and in any case,responsibility for "stall and spin" problems cannot be laid at the door of the engine manufacturer,French,Russian,whoever! This sorry episode of the IJT,underscores Prof. Das's contention that we have yet to master aircraft engineering,why we are experiencing difficulties with some of our desi projects.Please,will someone also tell me why -I'm asking a straightforward Q again,why the Gripen which has the same 404 engine can undergo replacement in 33min while the LCA's takes 2 days as alleged?

What business does the LCA or the GE engines have to do with Russian incompetence in making the AL55I ready on time??

You are basically cooking up stuff to justify the Russian misbehaviour.

Amazing.

No matter what the Russians do, you will come up with some excuse, some way to throw mud on India and Indians to justify Russian actions.

Your "arguments" all follow a predictable path -"I am not saying Russians are not bad....BUT....ten paras of stuff on how LCA is bad, GE is bad, Indians are pathetic etc"..

And you think nobody can look through this?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Dec 2013 09:53

What does it matter who in India OKed the AL-55I? Russians STILL have the responsibility to inform India that 100 is too low. Even 1000 is rather low. Such engines seem to have around 3000 hours.

____________________

I still do not see a connection between the AL-55I issue/s and the LCA "design competence". Other than muddying the waters.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Dec 2013 09:54

NRao wrote:Here you go, from the horse that opened his mouth:

Air Cmde. (retd.) Parvez Khokhar wrote: Maintenance practices in the Tejas are probably among the most primitive in this class of aircraft and certainly not conducive to operational efficiency. The Gripen requires all of 33 minutes to replace the engine. The Tejas takes a couple of days because of poor estate management of ancillary connections on the engine.
Granted it is a HUGE issue, but it is correctable.

And likely already corrected on the LCA because in its IOC2 iteration it already had several maintenance related improvements called out specifically by all parties.

And with a MTBO in the 2000 hour class, the GE404 is much better placed in that respect than even the AL31F (1000 hr).

So, what exactly is your problem? And, how is all this related to the AL-55I?

His problem is that somebody criticized Russia. So standard operating procedure kicks in:

1. FUD on the LCA
2. FUD on Indian agencies
3. Reams of copy paste rubbish on older issues with the LCA
4. Lots of FUD on how the Indians must have messed up something and the pore Russians only delivered what was asked
5. Claims of injured innocence

The Russians con us on the T-90? Philip will curse the LCA, Arjun, etc. The Russians con us on the AL55I? Philip will curse the LCA, GE etc.

But dont ever, ever, ever criticize the Rodina. Oh no, oh no.. know your place.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Dec 2013 09:58

The IAF will be making a big mistake by not exploiting the Mk1 aircraft which for its price is the best money can buy, Philip and Prof. Das notwithstanding. IAF needs to order a minimum of 150 Mk1s or give up on local aircraft. Let us then hang on the coattails of others or beg for their leftovers to defend India.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Dec 2013 09:59

NRao wrote:What does it matter who in India OKed the AL-55I? Russians STILL have the responsibility to inform India that 100 is too low. Even 1000 is rather low. Such engines seem to have around 3000 hours.

____________________

I still do not see a connection between the AL-55I issue/s and the LCA "design competence". Other than muddying the waters.

Of course there is no connection. In order to defend the Rodina, he is making all sorts of ridiculous connections.
Nobody accused GE of reneging on providing the right engines to India after sanctions were lifted, or low thrust engines. The Indian side sought out Ge414 once weight of MK1 increased which is common across most ww programs. Teething challenges eg maintenance ones are common with new aircraft.

NONE of which is related to Russia screwing up with the AL55I.

But Philip would rather curse Indians and Indian programs than even have any Russian malfeasance acknowledged.

Cue another 40 page copy paste of older reports to "justify" his defence of the Rodina. The Great Patriotic War missed the likes of Philip, so he is making up for it now.