It simply comes down to HAL - now they say "lack/release" of funds, some engine needs to be upgraded - tomorrow? it will be something else .... there is no guarantee by HAL that it will stick to its timeline!!!
Trainer Aircraft of IAF - PC-7, HTT-40, HJT-36, BAE Hawk
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
They know that IAF is interested in a least 68.
And the IN may also go in for 20-40 trainers of their own.
And they know that there are plenty of aviation schools that need a cheap basic trainer and will be happy to buy some from HAL.
And they still put up roadblocks on their own.
Of course, this is considering the article is correct. But it's an Ajai Shukla article. So the credibility is pretty much RaGa level.
Sure, if I can get a bit more on what the transfer to IAF's control means? If it has the operational capability to manage, lead, design, manufacture, etc, i am all for it. Lets not forget this the same IAF which bends over backwards to accommodate Augusta Westland deal.
As far as US is concerned, Pentagon is not USAF, Pentagon is neither an entity like MoD; I have forever argued on elimination of the post of RM, and the entire secretariat operation of MoD and replaced with Joint chief led office comprised of composite Military dept like pentagon. Such a system would be much more capable of leading the strategic projects.
Now coming to SEBI, there are ample fund managers invested in HAL, given this dispensation has wiped off the cash reserves of a tax payer owned company, the board definitely is answerable, if there are audit discrepancies, SEBI will take actions.
Coming back to IAF and it's competency of taking control of a project, the closest they came to it was creating ADA to bypass HAL for the LCA, because they weren't looking for another coup like the HF24 which almost killed the prospects for shady russian imports of the 70's. The results are there for everyone to see, a severely delayed project whose low cost now is more than the most premium a/c SU30MKI built by HAL. Thats IAF's competency for you.
Last edited:
600 really? We are the biggest operator of mk2 which significantly differ from the original (using PC-9 airframe and avionics). Another big operator is SAAF which was ordered 20 years ago !. its new level of misinterpretation by the optimist.
That is the whole damn point.
Including hiring and firing, more like assigning and kicking out of the project.
Situations like Augusta Westland won't happen if the armed forces are given full control. Pretty much all the corruption is DPSU and MoD led.
We still need an RM. Civilians have to retain control obviously. But definitely we need a joint chiefs to manage all the projects.
Yep. Shareholders should make HAL accountable, followed by taking MoD to task.
Although the LCA was delayed, I would consider ADA a success since they have now started delivering, albeit late. At least there's hope.
Btw, that thing about "whose low cost now is more than the most premium a/c SU30MKI", that has nothing to do with ADA. It's all HAL. ADA has no input in LCA Mk1A. Unlike Mk1 and Mk2, the Mk1A is being entirely funded by HAL.
Also you are wrong about IAF and ADA's relation, even this department has nothing to do with the IAF.
Your post is quite hilarious. In one paragraph you say we should consider them all to be of a different family, but you consider the T-72 and T-90 to be the same.
Armed Forces in control of RFP: Issued it to Augusta Westland, diluted specification et all.
Armed forces in control: Created a single vendor situation for WZT
Armed forces in control: Created a single vendor situation for Tatra, and in both of the army deals, Men in Uniform after retirement were turned middlemen for the vendors. I don't think Armed forces control is in any way is going to avoid a scam given they wholeheartedly participate in such events.
I very well know the reasons behind the creation of ADA, and brain trust behind snubbing HAL. And surprisingly it also cuts into the entire timeline of How IAF killed the HF24 re-engine efforts and continuous development as it posed a significant threat to IAF and MoD's spending plans.
An Irkut Product produced By HAL in Nasik costs 54 mil, and ADA product produced in Bangalore costs 68Mil, sure ADA has no part to play in it. ADA takes what 4 decades to produce an aircraft that IAF will accept, and there is still hope in this great enterprise. HAL takes 6 years to field a trainer while producing MKI, AJT's, LCA, LCH, ALH, and Overhauling Mig21's, Jaguars, Cheetaks, dorniers, MI17's, Mig27's (all while not being paid for the last two years) thus it should be shut down.
I do see the sound logic in your assessment of ADA.
Keep deflecting the original point. I didn't say its same, it was the argument against importing T-90 at that time and army used skewed benchmark pricing to justify the purchase like here. And it makes people like you to give absolute statements like this:
Here, it only means a sizable number like ~100. We are not gonna get huge export orders. For its LCC and forex savings, it would be far cheaper. (Remember we did not include spares or m-tot with the original order. so we do not know the actual LCC numbers)
Rationalizing import of basic trainer aircraft when a better alternative is available domestically using wrong numbers is not acceptable.
If HAL director board is asking for assurance from services before releasing funds then it means they are maturing as a well-governed company that's all. If IAF is delaying RFP (which they do left right and center for foreign OEMs) then who losses? them only, it will get delay more. Importing more PC-7 will not fly with this govt for sure.
You are bringing in totally unrelated aspects into this discussion. Air force diluted RFP specs on MoD's request, in order to "avoid single vendor". Tyagi's role was something else entirely.
Nothing wrong with WZT from the armed forces' side. DPSU preferred importing and sticking their name on it.
And Tatra corruption was led by DPSU and MoD as well.
Armed forces were small players in all three that you named. This wouldn't work if the entire system was under one officer's head instead.
ADA is an R&D agency. HAL is a production agency. And HAL is a terrible production agency and needs to be superseded by the more efficient private sector.
I'm not diminishing HAL's achievements, their achievements are great, but could have been even greater under the private sector. For example, DRAL will be rolling out the first Falcon in 2022. Zero experience under Reliance, but a business jet is coming up in their factories over the next 3 years.
As for that 54 and 68mil comparison, the costs are different, it's not unit costs. And it's HAL's, not ADA's. In fact, ADA does not want HAL to work on Mk1A. They even asked HAL not to duplicate work for the mission computer since they are already working on one for Mk2.
There is nothing to skew in a GTG deal. T-90 wasn't a tender, it was a direct purchase agreement. So I do not know what price you're comparing it with.
There is no alternative available. I don't think you have understood, but HTT-40's development is expected to complete long after the promised date, and even then IAF has still promised to buy 68.
And this govt has already agreed to importing more PC-7s anyway.
Not really. HAL announced with all pomp and glory that they are undertaking the project on their own. So why make IAF responsible for it?
If you announce in your own capacity that you will start a plane project for the IAF and then in the middle of the project you say IAF should now pay for it, what kinda sense does that make?
HAL is asking for special treatment. If you are comparing the RFPs for foreign OEMs with HAL, then foreign OEMs are given importance only for finished products, not for products that are still under testing. If you want to bring HAL on par with foreign OEMs, then what HAL wants cannot be done.
It's a HAL project not bound by any timelines now, Project fully started only in 2014. No money from MOD.
Cute you still think that. Even after CBI investigation.
They can't even maintain the fleet.With CBI probing Pilatus, IAF's trainer fleet still has no maintenance deal
No one is making IAF responsible. If they want it FADEC equipped they will have to wait for more.
If you go by the Rafale deal example. IAF will start the induction of first batch HTT-40 with the current configuration. From the second batch with FADEC and go back and upgrade. Is that even an option for Indian companies? Why special treatments for foreign OEMs only?
Remember it will take 5 more years to Indian rafales to be in desired Indian configuration aka ISE(India Specific Enhancement) after starting deliveries.
Still with the lame argument. @Milspec already gave enough example of why it's not here.
I agree with you that domestically option is far better than import BUT that isn't available yet correct?
We shall wait this time on 2021 and see what the situation - I truly hope im proved wrong and that HAL has completed atleast IOC and Initial Batches are been built. If not - then what?
They are meeting the deadlines. They even started the stall and spin test early. Every aero project is complex and it takes time to get certified. There is no way around.
Good. So it's up to the IAF whether they buy it or not.
Cute you still think that. Even after CBI investigation.
With CBI probing Pilatus, IAF's trainer fleet still has no maintenance deal
It's obvious you haven't read my earlier posts, but I have commented on this already.
Until then they will simply buy more Pilatus.
It's funny how you compare HTT-40's core systems with Rafale's supplementary subsystems.
It's obvious you do not know how the process works.
Bother me when IAF simply gives a foreign OEM L1 status in the middle of a tender. Check what's the difference between tender RFP and HAL's RFP.
That is your opinion, with less that 0.6% crashes relating to HAL's manufaturing, it stands to the testament what HAL quality really is. Next about private sector show me one, just one single global market leader that India produced. Even Indias domestic markets automotive leaders are hyundai and maruti suzuki. Where is that apple, Microsoft, tesla, toyota, samsung, that Indian private sectro produced.
Lol, I am not sure you are aware of what has happened to Reliance Infra, Parent company of DRAL. If DRAL survives till 2022, that would be an achievement.
ADAG stocks plunge up to 20% after RPower posts loss of Rs 3,559 cr for Q4
And even if they did, wht exactly is the achievement in replicating an existing production line, financed by guaranteed Indian offsets leveraged through tax payer money. Atleast with HAL, 90% of the profits go back to the tax payers kitty, while here this is practically bailing out a shithole of a corporate house.
ADA is more than welcome to go to DRAL to build LCA, who is stopping them.
Yes correct - we do know that stall and Spin test started beginning of last year.
Still - hope that we are not in 2021 and spin test are still doing on and they need more time
Cheers!
I wouldn't worry about Indian companies yet. It's all about market size after all.
Funny how you don't mention all the other private companies that are doing exceedingly well.
LCA is stuck with HAL. So is the MWF. But different story with the AMCA.
Everyone calm down, according to the resident optimist here no matter what more PC-7s are coming.
