HAL rejects IAF proposal to produce Pilatus trainer aircaft

[Dillinger]

I think IAF is a pretty matured organization to panic under exigency...

The common men dont care if HTT40 will be history , All I am trying to say is that not even one soul is being wise here.

You have no idea my friend, panic was very much evident and so was the relief when the first Pilatus came in. The point is that they handled it, that's all that matters- they have handled training deficiencies for years now- they handled that too but paani sar ke upar nikal gaya tha. Maturity will not arm you to combat structural deficiencies which have been imposed upon you and the solution to which is not under your final "yay" or "nay". After all it is meant in relative terms, we are not talking of going all Antony and clamping up in panic at the very thought of having to be decisive.

 

[MilSpec]

That would be pretty silly, because MoD could tell it to IAF directly, without creating such a big mess in the media. I doubt MoD is involved in this, but that HAL officials are simply sore losers here.
It's easy to make a bribery claim, but it's difficult to prove that HAL is capable, unless HAL starts focusing on what is important and that is IJT, not HTT40.

More to it than meets the eye, HTT 40 is an easy build, the engine (if is a garret derivative) is already available, the control system is available, It wont take more than 15 months for production model to fly, it is an easy build and IAF wants to buy a system for twice the cost that PC7 actually sells in the commercial market.

IJT is a system that relies on a foreign engine and then there is IAF's legendary Air staff requirements changing every other month....

Few interesting facts about IJT, - It saw a 4 years delay as changed it's mind about the snecma engine and then HAL had to re engine it to a Npo - saturn engine, for 2KN, how much of a difference does 2KN make on a trainer a/c?? And if IAF consistently wants to shortchange HAL, I believe it is ok for HAL to push back....

 

[MilSpec]

I think IAF is a pretty matured organization to panic under exigency...

The common men dont care if HTT40 will be history , All I am trying to say is that not even one soul is being wise here.

This has always been m,y problem with IAF, they wake up one day and start yelling that our sqdn strength has depleted, the next it would be our trainers have died, and the next our AAA is obsolete, were they sleeping for last 10 years, when they can see such problems why not work with HAL to develop the needed products, they did it with bisons and MKI... the real problem is they know with close co-operation they can accomodate game changing projects like MKI, Bisons, LCH etc, which in turn devoid s certain circle millions of dollars of business, imagine what if there was no MKI, and there was an heavy combat system tender floated back in the day with f15, F18, and SU30MKI (paper plane) floated, hands down mki would have been ousted for being a paper plane if the same mentality had prevailed back in the day. Thus close co-operation between IAF brass and HAL leads to immense cost savings and would the hawks really want that....

The rot is set somewhere else and the pendulum of blame game swings from IAF to HAL every day.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

worse are keyboard warriors who haven't contributed a cent towards their country and have the arrogance to malign the organisation which has taken the brunt of MoD's mismanagement time after time. It's you sir who are the aforementioned adjective... thanks

who are you maggot?

 

[Manvantaratruti]

That's the problem, HAL should not think about making business. They are a government owned company and their priority should be to provide the forces with whatever is needed to defend the country!
In this case the priority is to have a basic trainer as soon as possible, which HAL can't provide on it's own now, so they have to do it by licence producing a foreign one to support IAF.

That is not HAL's problem, but a problem with your perception of HAL.

HAL has its own mandate defined by its responsibility to its Shareholders. Since IAF is not a direct shareholder in HAL, it has zero responsibility to IAF. GoI is the majority shareholder in HAL and HL is responsible for reporting profitability to the GoI.

IAF priority is NOT HAL priority.

IAF needs to get this into their thick skull that the rest of India is not there their to fulfill their demands. ...... even if they resort to Blackmailing rest of India by shouting National Security (something pakistani army does too)

Also it's HAL's own fault too! The minute the PC7 was selected as the foreign trainer, they should had changed their plans for HTT40, to get maximum commonality to the PC7. That would have made it easier for IAF with regard to maintenance, logistics and training itself. But they didn't and just looked at their own aircraft and not to what is the best for IAF.

"changed their plans for HTT40, to get maximum commonality to the PC7" ..... now that I know the quality of post, there is not much point in wasting time and saying much.

 

[帅的一匹]

More to it than meets the eye, HTT 40 is an easy build, the engine (if is a garret derivative) is already available, the control system is available, It wont take more than 15 months for production model to fly, it is an easy build and IAF wants to buy a system for twice the cost that PC7 actually sells in the commercial market.

IJT is a system that relies on a foreign engine and then there is IAF's legendary Air staff requirements changing every other month....

Few interesting facts about IJT, - It saw a 4 years delay as changed it's mind about the snecma engine and then HAL had to re engine it to a Npo - saturn engine, for 2KN, how much of a difference does 2KN make on a trainer a/c?? And if IAF consistently wants to shortchange HAL, I believe it is ok for HAL to push back....

China K8 is a good choice, you shall buy some. China&Russia&India shall cooperate develop weapons.

 

[kurup]

who are you maggot?

Did you actually see the Junior Think Tank tag below his name before name-calling him ??

 

[sancho]

Its high time!!...IMO the Pilatus deal will be eventually cleared because of the mounting pressure on MoD by the IAF to get more trainers. Hope judgment prevails on Antony.

It has to, MoD must start to lead the forces and more over the industry, not only sit and watch what they might come up with. Additional PC7s are the logical choice and more pressure on HAL and co is needed to finally get some results from indigenous developments.

More to it than meets the eye, HTT 40 is an easy build, the engine (if is a garret derivative) is already available, the control system is available, It wont take more than 15 months for production model to fly, it is an easy build and IAF wants to buy a system for twice the cost that PC7 actually sells in the commercial market.

Sandy, I can understand that you are a bit biased towards HAL, but not even you can deny that the HTT 40 is the wrong choice for IAF!
At the current stage, all that HAL achieved since the grounding of HTT 32 in 2009, is to build a mock of of the new trainer. The first prototype is expected to be ready for it's "first flight" in mid 2015, while testing and certifications will take time and an induction into service will take even longer. Add the risk of delays, the increased operational costs and problems IAF has to take with 2 different basic trainers and you have a full picture of what the HTT40 means.
On the other side we have the Pilatus, that is getting produced and inducted into service in high pace today! The production is "ahead" of the contract and is currently expected to be done by the end of the next year!
For IAF then it's a logical decision to reject HAL's proposal, to make it simpel and fast for them, to get their training back on track again. So the higher costs, will easily be countered by faster induction and ease of operations.

Honestly, what did HAL waited for? Even before 2009 it was clear that the HTT 32 must be replaced soon, so why didn't HAL started developments on their own, instead of waiting for IAF or MoD? A mock up could had been done before or?


Wrt the IJT, IAF might wanted more thrust in the serial production versions, but it was "HAL's decision" to go for an undeveloped Russian engine. You hardly can deny, that the delays of the engine development and certification are key reasons for IJT's delays (besides the possible design flaws) and that only to save costs, because the Snecma upgrade offer was costlier.
It's too easy to blame IAF or GoI always, while ignoring the failures that our industry and scientist made. Of course they are just humans too, but we have to admit that we are far behind of what we often want wrt indigenous developments and we must learn to do such developments in a simpler, more realistic way.


In the meantime, Pilatus is doing their homework:

BEL, Pilatus Aircraft launch offset project in India...

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-10-21/news/43250928_1_bel-launch-project

BEL, Pilatus launch offset project

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...h-offset-project-in-india-113102100301_1.html

 

[MilSpec]

(from your linguistics demeanor), I guess the father figure you were always looking for... !

who are you maggot?

(Guessing by your linguistic demeanor) the father figure you have been looking for!

who are you maggot?

(Guessing by your linguistic demeanor) the father figure you have been looking for!

 

[Guynextdoor2]

(from your linguistics demeanor), I guess the father figure you were always looking for... !



(Guessing by your linguistic demeanor) the father figure you have been looking for!



(Guessing by your linguistic demeanor) the father figure you have been looking for!

Yeah...well I'm the father figure you weren't looking for maggot. The one you were hoping to avoid.

(from your linguistics demeanor), I guess the father figure you were always looking for... !



(Guessing by your linguistic demeanor) the father figure you have been looking for!



(Guessing by your linguistic demeanor) the father figure you have been looking for!

Yeah...well I'm the father figure you weren't looking for maggot. The one you were hoping to avoid.

 

[MilSpec]

fail!!!

Yeah...well I'm the father figure you weren't looking for maggot. The one you were hoping to avoid.



Yeah...well I'm the father figure you weren't looking for maggot. The one you were hoping to avoid.

 

[MilSpec]

It has to, MoD must start to lead the forces and more over the industry, not only sit and watch what they might come up with. Additional PC7s are the logical choice and more pressure on HAL and co is needed to finally get some results from indigenous developments.

Sandy, I can understand that you are a bit biased towards HAL, but not even you can deny that the HTT 40 is the wrong choice for IAF!

On contrary, I will bash HAL if the contention is right. The only time I defend HAL is when the context of the discussion is blown out of proportion, so they are not deemed guilty without understanding HAL’s PoV. I am not sure if HTT40 is the right or wrong choice for IAF, I don’t have the specification for IAF’s requirements to compare.

At the current stage, all that HAL achieved since the grounding of HTT 32 in 2009, is to build a mock of of the new trainer. The first prototype is expected to be ready for it's "first flight" in mid 2015, while testing and certifications will take time and an induction into service will take even longer. Add the risk of delays, the increased operational costs and problems IAF has to take with 2 different basic trainers and you have a full picture of what the HTT40 means.

HTT 40 will be available for 34 CR, compared to almost 40CR for the PC7, even if the price difference is not great, at the end of the day it’s about giving tax payers money to a swiss company compared to refloating that money back into the MoD via HAL. I would prefer to invest in HAL compared to anyone else.

On the other side we have the Pilatus, that is getting produced and inducted into service in high pace today! The production is "ahead" of the contract and is currently expected to be done by the end of the next year!



For IAF then it's a logical decision to reject HAL's proposal, to make it simple and fast for them, to get their training back on track again. So the higher costs, will easily be countered by faster induction and ease of operations.

Interestingly, was IAF sleeping for last 10 years ?? The end option remains with IAF, they can be tactical in planning and buy off the shelf items and get training back in the seat or be strategic in planning and have the foresight to plan it’s fleet lineup with resources like HAL, BEL, BHEL and BDL. Their actions will showcase their fortitude. Why stop a PC7 then , even the sqdn strength is dropping, why not buy all of the MMRCA and MKI from DB and Irkut respectively… the production rate would be faster than than HAL, no need for re-tooling additional time, costs etc. Planning with MoD and some of the IAF brass lacks vision. Establishing a plan and sticking to it needs foresight and focus most of these parties are to blame here, HAL included!

Honestly, what did HAL waited for? Even before 2009 it was clear that the HTT 32 must be replaced soon, so why didn't HAL started developments on their own, instead of waiting for IAF or MoD? A mock up could had been done before or?

What did HAL wait for? Money, HAL is not branch of IAF or DRDO with government backed cheque books. @sancho, a very small exercise for you, draw a graph with benefit vs Impact on a blank page, take some sticky notes and write down all the product lines that HAL has, it will be instantly clear to you why HAL would not attach priority to such projects like IJT HTT 40 CAT## etc. Tommorow If HAL goes bankrupt I doubt MoD is going to bail it out, the hawks would be celebrating to buy from foreign vendors, thus HAL has to look out for itself and when HAL does make an effort towards the process of cost saving measures for MoD/IAF, it is asked to sacrifice more than it is capable to. In other words IAF is looking for constant freebies from HAL but doesn’t repay the goodwill at all. This situation persists with BDL, BEL, BHEL etc. Indian Navy has been a better partner and IAF needs to take a few notes out of their book.

Wrt the IJT, IAF might wanted more thrust in the serial production versions, but it was "HAL's decision" to go for an undeveloped Russian engine. You hardly can deny, that the delays of the engine development and certification are key reasons for IJT's delays (besides the possible design flaws) and that only to save costs, because the Snecma upgrade offer was costlier.

2KN really? I can smell a skunk there, btw Saturn engine was selected by an IAF delegation that went to Russia.

It's too easy to blame IAF or GoI always, while ignoring the failures that our industry and scientist made. Of course they are just humans too, but we have to admit that we are far behind of what we often want wrt indigenous developments and we must learn to do such developments in a simpler, more realistic way.

It is actually the converse, blaming the government is like peeing in the sea, doesn’t matter how many times specific examples and specific disasters are pointed out to the MoD, there is no freakin change. Deals after deals with foreign vendors are splattered with commissions and bribes, time after time CVC indicts defense officials and there is no solution offered to these problems in procurement and development deals. Compare them to the indigenous development cycles, atleast there is a drive improve the apparent flaws or shortcomings, What corrective actions has MoD or the defense establishment taken to slew of mis management, mis planning and rampant corruption?