HAL has retained its 38th ranking among the top 100 global aerospace companies.

[LaBong]

A small correction: it was a terrific success, considering its design and its generational context, but they couldn't get an engine for it. Read more about it in considering how Kurt Tank built the FW190 around an engine. Without that ferociously powerful engine, the FW190 would have been another paper tiger.

Yes it's a design success for Kurt Tank, but as a whole the project wasn't successful. Making Jet engine is too tough it seems.

 

[IndianArmy]

Yes it's a design success for Kurt Tank, but as a whole the project wasn't successful. Making Jet engine is too tough it seems.

We were successful in making only a 10KN Thrust engine way back then, which was not enough

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes it's a design success for Kurt Tank, but as a whole the project wasn't successful. Making Jet engine is too tough it seems.

Just check the number of successful jet engine manufacturers in the world. US, Russia, UK, Germany, France, Sweden, Italy, Japan, China - and I don't know anybody else.

Anybody say GTRE and I will come and punch him on the nose.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Originally Posted by Joe Shearer View Post
"A small correction: it was a terrific success, considering its design and its generational context, but they couldn't get an engine for it. Read more about it in considering how Kurt Tank built the FW190 around an engine. Without that ferociously powerful engine, the FW190 would have been another paper tiger."

Absolutely true; BTW the HF-24 had some unusual design concepts, in some ways it was a fore-runner of the Jaguar. The final and abiding tragedy remained the engine/s (it was twin-enginned). The Orpheus was totally inadequate, then there was a still-born project to use the E-300 Helouan from Egypt (that is another story). There were negotiations with Rolls-Royce for the Adour (which later was used on Jaguars). But the on again/off again dealings finally put the last nails in to the HF-24 coffin. It had become out dated by then.

 

[Markus]

Vastly interesting and vastly promotional.

Having worked in a joint-sector subsidiary of HAL, I happen to have seen some of these goings-on first hand.

I wonder who the target audience is for this promotional material ?

Does IAF really have any other domestic option to go somewhere else.....

 

[Markus]

Perfectly correct. And perfectly off target.

There are specific organisations tasked to do R&D. Do you want everyone to do R&D and nobody to concentrate on metal-bashing?

Is it possible to know the specific reasons to it? Why cant aerospace researching entity be a part of HAL?

All that some have said in mild rebuttal of the knee-jerk reaction that HAL should have done more R&D is that it was never supposed to, whatever its website says. Why blame a zebra for not behaving like a horse?

Well if the website is free-for-all, then there is nothing else left to say.

Why don't some of the R&D musclemen take a look at ADA, ADE, NAL, and HAL, just to cut a long list short, and read up who did what?
Or consider the role of AVRDE Avadi? Or what the other two Ministry of Defence Production units, I hope correspondents can at least name them, do for R&D?

One of our Indian compatriots likened HAL to Textron/LM. The point of discussion earlier was how to expand/diversify HAL product lines in an effort to boost sales. I write this knowing fully well that HAL is a public enterprise with a mission that may not match the private ones.

Given the fact that NAL (as of now) and possibly ADA, may not be working only in conjunction HAL in the future, whats wrong for HAL to have full fledged research division of their own ?

Is HAL's prime role is to just a system integrator/assembler and nothing beyond that?

What experience gained during Marut, pray? Does anyone know what that was? Any detailed guesses, instead of motherhood and apple pie? This is the most irritating remark repeated throughout this series.

Referring to experience of manufacturing a fighter, using that coupled with possibly refining the design and come up with a more capable machine.

Aapke muh me ghee sakkar.

But how do you propose this should be done?

If HAL is just suppose to be an integrator, manufacturer of licensed production units and what other research entities come up with, there is nothing that can be attributed to HAL. Its languishing at the government's mercy.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I wonder who the target audience is for this promotional material ?

Does IAF really have any other domestic option to go somewhere else.....

Public sector promotional material?

You are joking, right? It's meant for the CMD to show the Jt. Sec. to show how aggressive their marketing is, under his leadership, and why he should be extended. It has nothing to do with the outside world.

No, the IAF had no other domestic option earlier, and still does not have very large alternatives.

But the strongest simulator company in India is a purely private sector one, as aggressive as an Israeli special operations task force; UAVs are being made by another private sector organisation, which had nothing to do with defence but slowly and painstakingly built up its resources. Two of the top 5 software/IT firms are big are very strong in aeronautical CAD/CAM - I am not aware of what is currently going on, but they must have gone a long way in the five years or so since I am out of touch - and another picked up every damn' project leader developed by BAeHAL and set up their avionics shop and are apparently doing very, very well. Yet another very big CAD/CAM player has made a push into HAL and joint ventured with them, and apparently are sucking away masses of work.

This will build up as the offsets for these massive deals being negotiated currently hit the market. There is a huge opportunity ahead for the Indian private sector, because the Indian public sector simply doesn't have the capacity to deliver (the offsets, I mean, forget about the original equipment).

If you set up a private sector firm, I could tell you how to make millions.

The above is a joke, and not an advertisement.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Is it possible to know the specific reasons to it? Why cant aerospace researching entity be a part of HAL?

Short answer: Befehl ist Befehl.

Long answer:

Why would any Chairman, whose only scope for showing profit is by reducing cost, against the backdrop of cost-plus pricing, spend even a penny on R&D? Especially when his only customer says very clearly that they only want imported planes, and all that the company is asked to do is take up local manufacture, so that parts are quickly available?

What R&D would he do in the long list of possibilities, which might bear fruit in a typical aviation development cycle?

What R&D would he take up if he knows that GoI keeps getting embroiled in difficulties with the leaders in these fields, and getting doors slammed in its face, leading to automatic guillotines on his own work, and chances of marketing his work ?

Well if the website is free-for-all, then there is nothing else left to say.

I was being extremely mild, hugely self-restrained. We were asked to do the web-site on one rare occasion. Once the process unfolded its unlovely self, I developed hypertension. After the first explosion, the personnel on the HAL side very thankfully went back to sub-contracting it to duly flexible parties, who would say whatever was to be said.

One of our Indian compatriots likened HAL to Textron/LM. The point of discussion earlier was how to expand/diversify HAL product lines in an effort to boost sales. I write this knowing fully well that HAL is a public enterprise with a mission that may not match the private ones.

Given the fact that NAL (as of now) and possibly ADA, may not be working only in conjunction HAL in the future, whats wrong for HAL to have full fledged research division of their own ?

Is HAL's prime role is to just a system integrator/assembler and nothing beyond that?

Answering your points backwards, at the moment, HAL's prime role, in practical terms, irrespective of what is stated outwardly, is to be a system assembler (I would not even define it as system integrator, for reasons that I could go into but would tend to tedious length).

There is nothing wrong with HAL having its own full-fledged R&D wings. There are already formidable organisations within for fixed-wing, rotary-wing and electronics research. I know of senior personnel presently who had the capability of doing excellent work, and frittered away their time playing bureaucratic games.

All that is needed is greater autonomy and freedom from Ministry of Defence Production.

Incidentally, it has been clearly stated that this ministry is not interested in privatising, even partly, any of its three incorporations, including the star in its line-up, BEL.

Referring to experience of manufacturing a fighter, using that coupled with possibly refining the design and come up with a more capable machine.

Yes, the Chinese way.

The difference is that the Chinese are not afraid of taking risks, they are not afraid of failing, and they are not afraid of trying out their experiments in the field of actual combat.

Very harshly put, they, the PLA AF, have the balls that their Indian counter-parts lack.

If HAL is just suppose to be an integrator, manufacturer of licensed production units and what other research entities come up with, there is nothing that can be attributed to HAL. Its languishing at the government's mercy.

Chief, welcome to the club. Took you a long time to get here, but it's nice to have you here.

 

[Musalman]

The list is of "listed" aerospace companies, since Chinese and Pakistani corporation in this field are not listed therefore they are not included

 

[LaBong]

Just check the number of successful jet engine manufacturers in the world. US, Russia, UK, Germany, France, Sweden, Italy, Japan, China - and I don't know anybody else.

Anybody say GTRE and I will come and punch him on the nose.

Did China succeed till date? I don't think there's is operational. But they should make it operational before Kaveri.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Did China succeed till date? I don't think there's is operational. But they should make it operational before Kaveri.

I am rapidly getting the reputation of being a China lover - like getting the reputation of being a Pakistan lover on PTH - so I have a dilemma.

Should I do the research for you, or should I suggest with a smarmy smile that you look it up for yourself?

Or should one of the China/Taiwan experts step in at this stage?

My next Internet slot is about seven hours away, so we have a lot of time.

 

[LaBong]

I am rapidly getting the reputation of being a China lover - like getting the reputation of being a Pakistan lover on PTH - so I have a dilemma.

Should I do the research for you, or should I suggest with a smarmy smile that you look it up for yourself?

Or should one of the China/Taiwan experts step in at this stage?

My next Internet slot is about seven hours away, so we have a lot of time.

I know of no other Chinese operational Jets except J10 and FC1, both using Russian Engine. Recently I think FC1 did a flight test with WS13. I'm not sure if the engine is still combat ready.

I compared it with Kaveri because of Kaveri's recent developments.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[kewell333]

Does China release Public info on the performance these firms ?

They are all listed companies in stock market and some of them are
subsidiaries of Aviation Industry Corporation of China.
Aviation Industry Corporation of China has a total asset of 300 billion Yuan($45 billion) and 400000 employees. ranked 330 in Fortune 500,aim 1trillion Yun ($150 billion) revenues in 2017


http://www.avic.com.cn/EN/default.asp

 

[kewell333]

I know of no other Chinese operational Jets except J10 and FC1, both using Russian Engine. Recently I think FC1 did a flight test with WS13. I'm not sure if the engine is still combat ready.

I compared it with Kaveri because of Kaveri's recent developments.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

no others?

Though engine of us is still not advance.but many type engines have been in operation or in research.

【WS11】 K8\JL8\UAV

【WS16】 L15/JL15

【WZ8G】 Z9\Z11

【WZ6】 Z8

【WZ9】 Z10\Z15\Z8F

【WJ6C】Y9

【WJ9】Y12

【WJ5E】Y7

【WS500】UAV

【WS15】J14\J15(reserch)。

【WS9QL】JH7A

【WS12TS】J7\JL9\J8\J10C。

【WS12B】JH7B

【WS12C】 regional jet(reserch for ARJ Series)

【WS13TS】FC1

【WS10】J11

【WS10A】J11

【WS10B】J10\J11

【WS10C】Upgrade H6

【WS10D】 large jet airliner for freight(research)

【WS10G】J10\J11\J13

【WP14C】Upgrade J7\JL9\J8

【SF-A】large commercial jet airline(research). for C919 (150-190seat commercial jet)

 

[Joe Shearer]

no others?

Though engine of us is still not advance.but many type engines have been in operation or in research.

【WS11】 K8\JL8\UAV

【WS16】 L15/JL15

【WZ8G】 Z9\Z11

【WZ6】 Z8

【WZ9】 Z10\Z15\Z8F

【WJ6C】Y9

【WJ9】Y12

【WJ5E】Y7

【WS500】UAV

【WS15】J14\J15(reserch)。

【WS9QL】JH7A

【WS12TS】J7\JL9\J8\J10C。

【WS12B】JH7B

【WS12C】 regional jet(reserch for ARJ Series)

【WS13TS】FC1

【WS10】J11

【WS10A】J11

【WS10B】J10\J11

【WS10C】Upgrade H6

【WS10D】 large jet airliner for freight(research)

【WS10G】J10\J11\J13

【WP14C】Upgrade J7\JL9\J8

【SF-A】large commercial jet airline(research). for C919 (150-190seat commercial jet)

Dear Sir,

Thank you: just the kind of answer I love, packed with fact, with no superfluous comment, no faux-patriotic fanfarronade. I am sure Abir will also appreciate the fact-filled nature of your post. Great job.

I could not have done more than a quarter of this list, if even that.

If you have the patience, please remind us what is the status on the Karakorum trainer? Why do I have an impression it is an original engine?

I am feeling too lazy to check its type number and compare it with your list!! Please be forgiving ;-)

With warm regards,

@Abir

My earlier post to you came out a little more sarcastic than was intended. Sorry about that. I wrote that with a broad smile on my face, not a sneer.

Warm regards,