HAL Hindustan Lead in Fighter Trainer (HLFT-42) Trainer Aircraft Program

Sathya said:
Why do we need 177s for trainer ?

Are we making single engine Su 30 mki ?

Or is it Su 75 ?
Click to expand...
I feel like we are making a Plan B for the Tejas Mk1/Mk1A/Mk2. In case deliveries of GE F404s/F414s are cut off. HLFT-42 with an 117S engine would be an F-16 class of fighter. It can borrow all the electronics, flight controls, weapons, sensors etc. from the Mk1/MK1A/Mk2.

How quickly can we build it, fly & certify it remains to be seen. But a scenario where US embargoes engines is quite likely.

We need a single engine fighter to enter service in bulk to build up the squadron numbers. If it's not going to be the Mk1/Mk1A/ Mk2, then HLFT-42 it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya and spice
This is some terrible DPSU planning without looking at the market or consulting users. Suddenly, they have the ability to do so without outside pressure.

They should be planning for replacement for Hawk. It need efficient cost effective engine. Not some big russian engine used on 30 ton fighter.

Gautam said:
I feel like we are making a Plan B for the Tejas Mk1/Mk1A/Mk2. In case deliveries of GE F404s/F414s are cut off. HLFT-42 with an 117S engine would be an F-16 class of fighter. It can borrow all the electronics, flight controls, weapons, sensors etc. from the Mk1/MK1A/Mk2.
Click to expand...
Sure, solid plan for the 2040's. :sneaky:
 
  • Agree
Reactions: YoungWolf
Gautam said:
I feel like we are making a Plan B for the Tejas Mk1/Mk1A/Mk2. In case deliveries of GE F404s/F414s are cut off. HLFT-42 with an 117S engine would be an F-16 class of fighter. It can borrow all the electronics, flight controls, weapons, sensors etc. from the Mk1/MK1A/Mk2.

How quickly can we build it, fly & certify it remains to be seen. But a scenario where US embargoes engines is quite likely.

We need a single engine fighter to enter service in bulk to build up the squadron numbers. If it's not going to be the Mk1/Mk1A/ Mk2, then HLFT-42 it is.
Click to expand...
How come the IAF isn't involved in this project then ? See it as another of those nothing ventures by HAL . Indranil documented various such experimentations by HAL not si long ago which got nowhere . It should be there on his T/L on X.

OR

I see it more in terms of HAL developing design skills. This is on the MoD & the PMO for emaciating HAL of design capabilities & capacities by creating the ADA , carving it out of HAL & neglecting to get HAL to rebuild its design prowess later.

We've seen how it affected projects like the BJT , IJT etc. This is HAL now attempting to reclaim that space by trying to recreate those design capabilities . Just for the record HAL is probably the only mfg house in the world which lacks design capabilities as far as FA goes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spice
Ashwin said:
Sure, solid plan for the 2040's. :sneaky:
Click to expand...
We care about urgency now?

The way the MMRCA/MRFA & the Tejas Mk1/Mk1A/Mk2 contracts were/are done, one would have to believe that the IAF/MoD is in no hurry to get anything done.

_Anonymous_ said:
How come the IAF isn't involved in this project then ? See it as another of those nothing ventures by HAL . Indranil documented various such experimentations by HAL not si long ago which got nowhere . It should be there on his T/L on X.

OR

I see it more in terms of HAL developing design skills. This is on the MoD & the PMO for emaciating HAL of design capabilities & capacities by creating the ADA , carving it out of HAL & neglecting to get HAL to rebuild its design prowess later.

We've seen how it affected projects like the BJT , IJT etc. This is HAL now attempting to reclaim that space by trying to recreate those design capabilities . Just for the record HAL is probably the only mfg house in the world which lacks design capabilities as far as FA goes.
Click to expand...

We need more experience in FA design. It doesn't matter who does it, HAL or ADA.

There was a time when we were designing/making the SLV-3, ASLV, PSLV, Agni 1 & Agni 2 at around the same time. None of those rockets/missiles had the most optimized designs or were problem free in their lifetime. But all of those produced valuable lessons for us.

We are at a similar stage with FA designs. HTT-40, Yashas, Tejas Mk1/Mk1A, Mk2, TEDBF, HLFT-42, AMCA etc. must all be pursued. Maybe a few of them will fail or they won't have a large production run. But the lessons learnt will be invaluable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shekhar Singh, Sathya and spice
Gautam said:
I feel like we are making a Plan B for the Tejas Mk1/Mk1A/Mk2. In case deliveries of GE F404s/F414s are cut off. HLFT-42 with an 117S engine would be an F-16 class of fighter. It can borrow all the electronics, flight controls, weapons, sensors etc. from the Mk1/MK1A/Mk2.

How quickly can we build it, fly & certify it remains to be seen. But a scenario where US embargoes engines is quite likely.

We need a single engine fighter to enter service in bulk to build up the squadron numbers. If it's not going to be the Mk1/Mk1A/ Mk2, then HLFT-42 it is.
Click to expand...
The Tejas' niggles have all been ironed out. HLFT-42 may be based on a proven design, but, as the HJT-36 experience shows, there's no telling if and when it will fructify.

The IAF would be much better off adapting the Tejas to the Snecma M88, imo. Granted, the French engine is slimmer than the F404. But there are ways to get around that.

Some years back, Honeywell had proposed refitting its F-125 engine into the IAFs Jaguar airframes by adding brackets on the inside. Perhaps a similar approach could work here too?
 
ARDE + Russian engine -> IJT Yasha followed by HLFT 42.
He said Non western non Chinese engines ie Russian, even though he still said Intake is similar to Mk2 ie F414 engine
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShiroBarks
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom