MirageBlue
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2020
- Messages
- 1,118
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
I am aware of all the infos you have mentioned, still I don't find the need for the newer jet. Instead they should have doubled down on developing the existing projects like Tejas MK2 or AMCA both which has been delayed by few yrs or if we wanted to challenge ourselves we should have gone for TEDBF which would be different class and a completely new twin engine design. This is good chance to replace the Su30MKIs in the future along with AMCA as well as complementing MRFA/Naval jet(F18or Rafale). This new single engine jet no purpose to IAF. If we wanted a stage 4 trainer jet we could have easily gone for Tejas LIFT, no sense in making a clean sheet/maruti type design again.Complete Wastage of time and resource in my view.
What do you mean by "challenge ourselves"?
Tejas Mk2, AMCA and TEDBF are all sanctioned programs in a way. the Services are all behind them and work is on-going.
HAL has the resources to start this program otherwise they wouldn't. They're not fools. They're going to be spending internal resources to get this to some stage of concept design at least in the next couple of years and perhaps even to PDR stage assuming the IAF shows some interest.
Hawks are already getting older in the IAF, having entered service in February 2008. The oldest Hawks in the IAF are 15 years old and not getting any younger. What HAL is targeting is those Hawks' replacement which will be needed in the next 10 years. They can't start working on that 5 years from now and then have a situation where there is no Indian LIFT to replace those Hawks.
Remember, HAL didn't need to do HTT-40. In fact the IAF ACM NAK Browne (a thoroughly useless tenure he had) even publicly rebuked HAL for working on HTT-40 saying that they had the PC-7 Mk2 and didn't need HTT-40. Well, as things stand, we all know what went on with the Pilatus PC-7 Mk2 and how it got selected and how there was a major push to get it a follow-on order as well. Versus today, after HAL used internal designers and it's own internal funding to develop the HTT-40, it has sailed through trials and several billion $ of orders will stay within India, rather than going to a Swiss company.
Even before the HTT-40, there was a HAL program to develop a tandem seater turboprop trainer. The IAF didn't show any interest whatsoever and the program died. Only almost 12 years later the IAF woke up and said the HPT-32 was a terribly unreliable basic trainer and they urgently needed imports, after which they set it up such that the PC-7 Mk2 was selected. Had HAL gone ahead and developed that turboprop on it's own, there needn't have ever been any PC-7 Mk2 imports.
Anyway, my rants aside, trust me, if HAL doesn't have designers, CFD specialists and structural engineers available to work on this program, it wouldn't be pushed through.
Even now, this is just a concept, just as Jaguar MAX was a concept to convert 2 seat Jaguars into a drone controlling mothership. Let's see if HAL is willing to fund it on it's own money or not. And also let's see how interested the IAF is in this LIFT.
and shows, India wants again all in one !
Why not indeed a simple affordable supersonic trainer like the Hürjet and not again a type that is de facto too close to the Tejas?
Even more it is an IMO not very clever decision since the market for supersonic jet trainers is already more than crowded with competitors, proven capable competitors and with India‘s aim to develop the Tejas Mk.2, the AMCA, the TEDBF … now a new transport!
Why so much and all at once?
What's the difference between Hurjet and what is being proposed here?
Not sure about exports, but one thing is for sure, India shouldn't have to IMPORT any LIFT. Neither T-7A, not T-50 nor Hurjet. THAT would be a complete travesty, given how capable the Indian industry is to be able to deliver an indigenous solution for that requirement.
If the Tejas is considered too sophisticated to be a simpler LIFT and too costly as a result, then I'm beginning to think that a simpler, HLFT-42 makes much more sense.