Trainer Aircraft of IAF - PC-7, HTT-40, HJT-36, BAE Hawk

[randomradio]

Shareholders will act only after annual reports are out. and in the next financial year. Not as per media reports.

Exactly. So why bother me with it? If you have a problem with how HAL has been run, then all you have to do is complain about it to SEBI. The Annual Report for the FY in question will be out in a few months.

Milspec has the habit of converting any technical discussion into a financial one like it's an excuse for everything wrong with HAL. "HTT-40's flight testing is late because MoD hasn't cleared dues". That's what the discussion has spiralled down to.

 

[_Anonymous_]

What's more important? Getting the IAF the assets they sorely need or take decades to build a trainer and delay what is probably the most important arm of the IAF?

I'd say a balance, as a lay observer, a balance.

Indigenisation is important, but it should make sense and applied in the right places.

Look at the Chinese.

Do you know even the Americans don't really give two sh!ts about indigenisation in comparison to operational availability?

That's why their new T-X tender went to the Boeing/Saab combo, where Saab is the one designing and building the prototype jet in Sweden, with Boeing only contributing the "Boeing" sticker to affix on the plane during delivery, talk about outsourcing. And unlike us, the Americans are not desperate for a trainer. So why is the greatest aviation industry license building a foreign trainer?

We're referring to the pioneers of aviation here. You think after they've achieved what they've, they'd be worried? By a trainer? What's the line of argument, you're using man?



Who's going to supply the engines, fcs, etc? If it's going to be done cheaper by SAAB, why bother?

What's the US argument with China all about
, if not, design in the US, with key parts being fabricated there, and exported to China, with the fully assembled product then exported. Besides are we comparing the US - the pioneer of aviation , with the know how to design any kind of air craft with a huge ecosystem & who've probably undertaken this as part of a strategic partnership or perhaps they've bigger projects to focus on or to cut down costs to India which is taking fledgling steps in designing such an air craft or develop an enabling ecosystem? If that's the way you think, I don't even want to comment.

Sure. But that doesn't mean they get to dictate just because they are a monopoly.

For the time being - yes. However much you or I dislike it. Besides this isn't exactly about being a monopoly. It's more to do with being an assembly organization with little experience in R&D and depth in aerospace engineering abilities. Patience is the key.

Then we won't have pilots. Every year pilots retire and every year we have to train new pilots to replace the retirees. That's not gonna happen if HAL doesn't deliver. 75 PC-7s are too less for an air force the size of India. We should have been taking deliveries of the remaining 38 by now.

Assuming we have 30 Fighter Squadron which translates to 600 FA. Assuming 75 pilots retire every year, isn't the current no of basic trainers adequate for training such a no?

Frankly, I don't see any pressing urgency to increase the no of basic trainers on an ASAP basis. This doesn't mean HAL gets a free pass. The RM & MoD should impose a time bound program on HAL with strict monitoring via the end user and penalties including taking responsible people to task and fire them if need be. But I'd still give them those 3-4 years to certify their Basic Trainers.

This is a transition time not only for HAL but in the entire eco system of the aerospace industry in India. These teething problems aren't unexpected. They need a right mix of patience, perseverance, finance and some amount of compromise. This is how the Chinese aerospace industry has evolved.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[suryakiran]

Exactly. So why bother me with it? If you have a problem with how HAL has been run, then all you have to do is complain about it to SEBI. The Annual Report for the FY in question will be out in a few months.

Milspec has the habit of converting any technical discussion into a financial one like it's an excuse for everything wrong with HAL. "HTT-40's flight testing is late because MoD hasn't cleared dues". That's what the discussion has spiralled down to.

I was merely correcting your assumption, that since 97% of the ownership lies with the government, what it says goes. That's not the way it is in listed companies, where compliance kicks in.

If a shareholder with 10 shares raises a query on compliance and conflict of interest, it is a serious issue. Which is what @Milspec was driving at.

 

[vstol Jockey]

If a shareholder with 10 shares raises a query on compliance and conflict of interest, it is a serious issue. Which is what @Milspec was driving at.

No it has to be 10% shares.

 

[_Anonymous_]

No it has to be 10% shares.

It's not more than 10%. There is no minimum criteria.

Ministry Of Corporate Affairs - Minority Interests

 

[randomradio]

I'd say a balance, as a lay observer, a balance.

There is no such thing.

Look at the Chinese.

Pretty much all their stuff wouldn't even get through the IAF's paper evaluations.

We're referring to the pioneers of aviation here. You think after they've achieved what they've, they'd be worried? By a trainer? What's the line of argument, you're using man?

Who's going to supply the engines, fcs, etc? If it's going to be done cheaper by SAAB, why bother?

What's the US argument with China all about
, if not, design in the US, with key parts being fabricated there, and exported to China, with the fully assembled product then exported. Besides are we comparing the US - the pioneer of aviation , with the know how to design any kind of air craft with a huge ecosystem & who've probably undertaken this as part of a strategic partnership or perhaps they've bigger projects to focus on or to cut down costs to India which is taking fledgling steps in designing such an air craft or develop an enabling ecosystem? If that's the way you think, I don't even want to comment.

"Pioneer" can mean many things. Boeing chose SAAB because of SAAB's reputation at building stuff cheap and quick and still ensure quality. So national security was being enhanced, not compromised for the sake of indigenisation.

For the time being - yes. However much you or I dislike it. Besides this isn't exactly about being a monopoly. It's more to do with being an assembly organization with little experience in R&D and depth in aerospace engineering abilities. Patience is the key.

The IAF wanted these aircraft 10 years ago. Patience is long gone. The fact that IAF has only 75 out of a total requirement of 181 should give you pause already.

Assuming we have 30 Fighter Squadron which translates to 600 FA. Assuming 75 pilots retire every year, isn't the current no of basic trainers adequate for training such a no?

Fighter, transports, helicopters etc. We have more than 1500 aircraft in total. All pilots need basic training.

Frankly, I don't see any pressing urgency to increase the no of basic trainers on an ASAP basis.

It's actually more urgent than getting fighter jets. Especially when we are going to buy 100+ new transports and 1000+ helicopters over the next decade.

In fact the IAF is planning to outsource basic training as a last resort, which will be a disaster. Thankfully they haven't done it, but who knows. These places will become breeding grounds for spies.

Right now pilots only go through 25 hours of training, compared to the required 80 hours. IAF's high crash rate due to lack of pilot training is already evident. Sorry, but you are far too ignorant about the apathy in training over all three stages that the IAF has been facing. More than 40% of the Migs that crashed was due to lack of training.

Earlier we didn't have an advanced trainer. Then we didn't have intermediate trainers. Now we have advanced, but we don't have basic or intermediate trainers. It's become a joke.

This doesn't mean HAL gets a free pass. The RM & MoD should impose a time bound program on HAL with strict monitoring via the end user and penalties including taking responsible people to task and fire them if need be.

HAL is getting a free pass even now, like they always do. Punishments do not happen. And penalties are so small that HAL is only very happy to pay it.

Do you know what excuse HAL made when people (the French and IAF) said they will delay Rafale production? HAL said they will pay the penalty for delays.

Have you never heard of cost overruns? And then everybody knows that the main money is in the after sales and servicing.

Why do you think @Falcon is so happy about Modi putting up tough "existential" stipulations on DRDO and DPSUs? All their dhotis are in shivering mode now. And this is also why all those who have been studying and analysing the defence industry for decades are so excited about MII and bringing the private sector into defence.

But I'd still give them those 3-4 years to certify their Basic Trainers.

Don't worry, they can take 10 more years if they want to.

This is a transition time not only for HAL but in the entire eco system of the aerospace industry in India. These teething problems aren't unexpected. They need a right mix of patience, perseverance, finance and some amount of compromise. This is how the Chinese aerospace industry has evolved.

Just my 2 cents.

Sorry, bro, that sounds like a sermon. And the Chinese industry evolved through internal competition, like Russia's and America's did. We do not have that internal competition.[/quote]

 

[vstol Jockey]

It's not more than 10%. There is no minimum criteria.

Ministry Of Corporate Affairs - Minority Interests

Read again what you posted. I am CMD of two companies which are limited by shares.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Right now pilots only go through 25 hours of training, compared to the required 80 hours. IAF's high crash rate due to lack of pilot training is already evident. Sorry, but you are far too ignorant about the apathy in training over all three stages that the IAF has been facing. More than 40% of the Migs that crashed was due to lack of training.

Any sources or references for this piece of declaration?

 

[randomradio]

I was merely correcting your assumption, that since 97% of the ownership lies with the government, what it says goes. That's not the way it is in listed companies, where compliance kicks in.

If a shareholder with 10 shares raises a query on compliance and conflict of interest, it is a serious issue. Which is what @Milspec was driving at.

Then please, please, please complain to SEBI after the FY report comes in. Let's see what HAL does to its only customer. Or what HAL's only customer does to HAL.

The problem is a lot of people think the defence industry is just like the civilian industry.

 

[randomradio]

Any sources or references for this piece of declaration?

Thanks to 'flying coffin' MiGs, India lose more pilots during peacetime than war
Earlier in 2011, the IAF analysed 1,000 fighter crashes over the past several decades. It was found that 39% of all crashes could be attributed to pilot error, 39.5% to technical faults, 9% to bird hits, 1.5% to human errors on the ground and 0.6% to faults in production by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

 

[_Anonymous_]

Read again what you posted. I am CMD of two companies which are limited by shares.

Your statement & my clarifications were on the definition of a minority share holder. Compliance is a different issue.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Your statement & my clarifications were on the definition of a minority share holder. Compliance is a different issue.

At 10%, either individually or as a combined group, you can ask for board meetings anytime and also ask for financial and other reports of the company. at 26%, you get automatic veto power in Board and in case of a listed company, where you need to appoint or remove a Chairman with minimum 75% of shareholders agreeing, you can block anything.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Thanks to 'flying coffin' MiGs, India lose more pilots during peacetime than war
Earlier in 2011, the IAF analysed 1,000 fighter crashes over the past several decades. It was found that 39% of all crashes could be attributed to pilot error, 39.5% to technical faults, 9% to bird hits, 1.5% to human errors on the ground and 0.6% to faults in production by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

Pilot error is solely attributed to inadequate training? Interesting. There's not one word from you on the fact that the MiG -21's are an obsolete FA and were so 2 decades ago too.

That when the SU collapsed, the issue of spares hit the IAF so hard that they were running from pillar to post to fulfill this need.

That the Israelis were approached to upgrade MiG 21 post kargil after encouraging performances by the few upgraded prototypes during the war.

That the MiG 27 had some serious problems with the engines and structural issues.

I think @Milspec would be in a better position to respond on these issues.

 

[_Anonymous_]

At 10%, either individually or as a combined group, you can ask for board meetings anytime and also ask for financial and other reports of the company. at 26%, you get automatic veto power in Board and in case of a listed company, where you need to appoint or remove a Chairman with minimum 75% of shareholders agreeing, you can block anything.

I'm referring to financial irregularities as illustrated by the MoD / IAF not paying HAL for products and services rendered forcing HAL to seek bridge loans at high cost of interest.

Are you of the view that a share holder holding 10 shares ( not percent) can't question such a decision in a board meeting or approach SEBI seeking redressal?

I think we both know any share holder can always move court.

 

[vstol Jockey]

I'm referring to financial irregularities as illustrated by the MoD / IAF not paying HAL for products and services rendered forcing HAL to seek bridge loans at high cost of interest.

Are you of the view that a share holder holding 10 shares ( not percent) can't question such a decision in a board meeting or approach SEBI seeking redressal?

I think we both know any share holder can always move court.

The way out is to write to other shareholders. But as you stated that GOI holds 97%, you have no other option to knock at the doors of a Court of Law. SEBI does not have the power to do anything on this.
But how is it that HAL is a listed company when the owners hold over 90% stake? They should have been delisted and all shareholders allowed to sell the shares back to the promoters. It seems that PSUs have different rules.

 

[randomradio]

Pilot error is solely attributed to inadequate training? Interesting.

The IAF says pretty much all the crashes involved pilot error happened due to lack of training.

There's not one word from you on the fact that the MiG -21's are an obsolete FA and were so 2 decades ago too.

Being an obsolete fighter jet versus being a flying machine are two different aspects. A flying machine doesn't stop flying the minute it becomes obsolete.

That when the SU collapsed, the issue of spares hit the IAF so hard that they were running from pillar to post to fulfill this need.

There was a lot of corruption involved at the time. But that's a different story.

That the Israelis were approached to upgrade MiG 21 post kargil after encouraging performances by the few upgraded prototypes during the war.

Nope. The Israelis approached us, but we chose the Russians because we always choose OEM first.

That the MiG 27 had some serious problems with the engines and structural issues.

The Mig-27 was good enough for us to order more in the mid 90s. We got rid of the Mig-23s.

But all jets face some issue or the other.

But nothing here involved basic training. Can't fly if you're not trained to fly.

 

[_Anonymous_]

You've yet to put across any firm evidence in the form of a report or an interview with say the top brass of serving / retired personnel of the IAF stating that all if not most of human error is attributable to inadequate training only. All you're indulging in is innuendo not even hearsay.

Just fyi why's the MiG 21 known as the flying coffin? Was it on account of improper handling due to inadequate training or the fact that this aircraft is notoriously difficult to handle - a problem compounded by obsolescence.

The engine problems of the MiG 27 and it's structural problems were noticed fairly early on which got worse with age . Hence they weren't considered for upgrades. Ditto for the MiG 23 w.r.t structural issues. After all the MiG 27 is a derivative of the MiG 23.

As I see it, the problem was worse in the past , say 2 decades ago where we lacked an AJT & where our basic trainers were obsolete. At least you aren't facing the same issue today. You've something to go by. It may be inadequate but it's much better than nothing. To add to my points, most advanced air forces have gone in for LIFT nearly 2 decades ago. We've no such road map though with the Tejas, that alternative is open to us too. So, what's exactly your grouse?

The IAF says pretty much all the crashes involved pilot error happened due to lack of training.



Being an obsolete fighter jet versus being a flying machine are two different aspects. A flying machine doesn't stop flying the minute it becomes obsolete.



There was a lot of corruption involved at the time. But that's a different story.



Nope. The Israelis approached us, but we chose the Russians because we always choose OEM first.



The Mig-27 was good enough for us to order more in the mid 90s. We got rid of the Mig-23s.

But all jets face some issue or the other.

But nothing here involved basic training. Can't fly if you're not trained to fly.

 

[randomradio]

You've yet to put across any firm evidence in the form of a report or an interview with say the top brass of serving / retired personnel of the IAF stating that all if not most of human error is attributable to inadequate training only. All you're indulging in is innuendo not even hearsay.

You're gonna have to speak to IAF personnel for it.

Just fyi why's the MiG 21 known as the flying coffin? Was it on account of improper handling due to inadequate training or the fact that this aircraft is notoriously difficult to handle - a problem compounded by obsolescence.

The media calls it Flying Coffin, not the IAF.

The engine problems of the MiG 27 and it's structural problems were noticed fairly early on which got worse with age . Hence they weren't considered for upgrades. Ditto for the MiG 23 w.r.t structural issues. After all the MiG 27 is a derivative of the MiG 23.

Sure. It wasn't as good as the Mig-21 in that aspect. The jet is actually considered a failure. The Mig-27 turned out to be adequate for strike.

So, what's exactly your grouse?

The IAF should do what they want, without having to face MoD or HAL interference.

 

[Milspec]

The IAF should do what they want, without having to face MoD or HAL interference.

Just like Army's WZT's, Tatra, bofors etc. I guess IAF want's it's Augusta, PC7, etc too.

 

[suryakiran]

No it has to be 10% shares.

With due respect, I beg to differ. You are talking about calling for special general body meeting or the likes. A person with 1 share, can ask questions regarding compliance and file a case against the company board.

Party A owns Company B. Company B has minority share holders and during the process, provides for financial leeways, which are not as per contract to Party A. This results in Party A getting benefits which are detrimental to the minority shareholders Company B, who would have got those benefits. This is a clear cut case of compliance.

In case, there were penalties but were waived under duress from Party A, this is also grounds for compliance. This can also be made into a case of financial fraud.

There can also be a case made of unfair trade practices, why is the Company B providing preferential treatment at the cost of minority shareholders to Party A.

Under the above scenarios, a court of law is not required. A shareholder can complain to SEBI. SEBI can initiate proceedings.

Unless, written into the contract that there are no penalties, the case will stand in front of SEBI. Of course, that opens a very different set of questions.