There comes what I was trying to make members say - the decision makers have always used these purchases as a leverage!
The most amazing thing is, people continue to blame IAF, when IAF was for either Mirage 2000s or Mig 29s with assembly lines. But political considerations disallowed either of the two and we had 'good client relations' with both. Makes sense insofar the diplomatic support - but not going in for production lines was rather stupid.
India inducted mirage 2000's when it operated Mig29 , both in air superiority configurations; ? why?
India also inducted and continues to develop Pinaka MBRL at 40km low end where it operated BM21 grad, and upper end 120km where it already operated Smerch. ? why?
India also is developiing Astra, while it operates R27ET/ER and Derby in the same range equation? why?
India apparently is going to license produce AK series of rifles, although it operates VZ58 in the same caliber, same barrel length sane role? why?
India also is working on DRDO ARM , all the while it's been operating KH31P arm for decades now? Why?
So all of the second types must be dumb, right?
single source vendor, single supply chain , not a risk? in which world?Weapons are bought from different sources in order to diversify supplies, since it's not good to put all your eggs in a single basket. It provides a massive negotiations advantage.
But diversifying supplies when there is no strategic compulsion to is plain dumb. Especially when it comes to training resources, which is even dumber.
Point TakenAnd no other Aeronautical companies have had failed projects?
HJT36 failed, thus no orders were placed. HTT40 succeeded, now if IAF want's to punish HTT40 because HAL did not deliver on HJT36. then maybe we HAL needs to give offer a bar of chocolate with the trainer, because IAF sure as hell is behaving like a toddler.Point Taken
But here in the HAL case - its more to do with what was promised and hype than what was delivered !
In the HJT36 - it was hype so much - that the IAF Chief said that they would order it for the Surya Kirans?
Im all for the HTT40 - just not convince on their delivery to make the IAF waitHJT36 failed, thus no orders were placed. HTT40 succeeded, now if IAF want's to punish HTT40 because HAL did not deliver on HJT36. then maybe we HAL needs to give offer a bar of chocolate with the trainer, because IAF sure as hell is behaving like a toddler.
Given HAL has zero funds left to start a new line, IAF and MoD can easily ensure the deliveries do not happen, ever and PC7's are bought, and put the HTT40 in it's grave.Im all for the HTT40 - just not convince on their delivery to make the IAF wait
So there is no risks to a civilian supply chain? when on the subject, how do you identify risks in your supply chain? it emanates from civil/ military origins?
With the present BS scenario that we are seeing on the TV of HAL vs MoD wrt funds - what you have posted is what will most likely be the way it will play outGiven HAL has zero funds left to start a new line, IAF and MoD can easily ensure the deliveries do not happen, ever and PC7's are bought, and put the HTT40 in it's grave.
MoD will bend over backwards to facilitate C295, for private players or reliance's OPV's, but won't have the time of the day for the trainer which exceeds PSQR and it's current selection and has a flying prototype.
HAL fights for indigenous HTT-40 trainer, over Swiss Pilatus
By Ajai Shukla
Bengaluru, 16th Jan 19
In a coup for indigenisation, the Hindustan Turbo Trainer - 40 (HTT-40) basic trainer aircraft, designed and built by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), has outperformed all the Indian Air Force’s (IAF’s) demanding specifications. The final qualifications – stall and spin tests – are proceeding well and HAL expects full certification by June.
However, even as HAL seeks a green light for manufacturing the HTT-40, the IAF is pressing for buying 38 more Pilatus PC-7 Mark II basic trainers from Switzerland, to supplement the 75 it already operates. This would mean building fewer Indian trainers.
There has always been a contest between the Indian and Swiss trainers. In 2009, the ministry of defence (MoD) divided the IAF’s requirement of 181 basic trainers between the two. The IAF was allowed to buy 75 trainers in “flyaway condition” from Pilatus, while HAL began developing the HTT-40 with the aim of building the rest.
The MoD stipulated that, if HAL’s trainer had not flown by the time the first imported trainer is delivered, the IAF could active an “options clause”, buying 38 more imported trainers and a building those many less in India.
Citing that condition, the IAF is insisting on buying 38 more Pilatus. Asked why by Business Standard, the IAF stated: “In 2013, the first PC-7 Mk II Pilatus was delivered but the HTT-40 was still not ready to fly.”
Today, the HTT-40 is not just flying, but outperforming the Pilatus, as well as the IAF’s performance criteria, called the Preliminary Air Staff Requirements (PSQRs).
Against the IAF’s demand for a top speed of 400 kilometres/hour, the HTT-40 has been tested to 420 kilometres/hour; it has flown to 20,200 feet, exceeding the IAF’s ceiling requirement of 20,000 feet. The HTT-40 takes off and lands in just 800 metres of runway, against the PSQR demand of 1,000 metres. It had demonstrated that it can climb faster, turn tighter and glide longer than the IAF requires.
HTT-40 exceeds the specs
View attachment 3988
Making the IAF’s insistence on the Pilatus trainer even more puzzling is the fact that the original purchase of 75 PC-7 Mark 2 trainers – as the media had widely reported – came under the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI’s) scanner for alleged links between Pilatus and alleged arms dealer, Sanjay Bhandari, who has since fled to London. A former air force chief’s role is also being investigated.
In December, in a meeting in the ministry of defence (MoD), HAL officials strongly argued for fast-tracking HTT-40 clearance, even playing out a video of the HTT-40 smoothly handling the on-going spin testing. Impressed by its performance, the MoD has backed the Indian trainer.
Besides performance, the Make in India policy favours choosing the HTT-40. The Defence Procurement Procedure of 2016 gives top priority to procuring equipment in the category of “Make – Indian Designed, Developed and Manufactured” (Make IDDM) – which the indigenously developed HTT-40 squarely falls into.
HAL has funded the HTT-40 development programme with Rs 500 crore of company funds. It now needs to pay Honeywell -- the US firm that builds the HTT-40’s engine – Rs 180 crore to develop a digital controller for the engine. HAL’s chairman, R Madhavan, says he would be happy to pay from HAL’s resources to save time.
“But HAL’s board, by way of abundant caution, has stipulated that the money should be paid once the IAF issues an RFP so that recovery is assured. That is why we want an RFP from the air force urgently,” says Madhavan.
An air force RFP is also required for HAL to start setting up a production line for the HTT-40. Given the large number of trainers the IAF needs, Madhavan says HAL intends to deliver two HTT-40s the first year, then ramp up to eight next year and, in the third year, stabilise the line at 10 aircraft per year.
In 2015, the MoD green-lighted the procurement of 70 HTT-40 trainers. But HAL says an order for 38 additional trainers would let development costs be recovered over a larger number of aircraft, lowering the price of the Indian trainer.
HAL also points out that an Indian trainer aircraft could be weaponised, or fitted out for a reconnaissance role. Such modifications would be impossible with a Swiss trainer, given the tight end-user conditions imposed by Pilatus on the IAF.
Further, the HTT-40 can be maintained, overhauled and upgraded through its 30-40 year service life by HAL, far more cheaply than the Swiss trainer for which the IAF would have to keep going back to Pilatus.
View attachment 3989
The IAF has already paid Pilatus Rs 300 crore for maintaining the PC-7 Mark II fleet for the first five years. Now, Pilatus is demanding another Rs 550 crore for maintenance know how.
The IAF, however, says it needs 38 more trainers so urgently that it cannot wait for HAL’s HTT-40 production line to kick in. It says it will issue an RFP once the HTT-40 is certified.
Who wins the impending order for 38 PC-7 Mark 2 trainers – Pilatus or HAL – is now in the hands of the MoD. Industry experts believe the Make in India trainer will prevail.
The Pilatus and HTT-40 are basic trainers, used for training rookie pilots before they graduated onto the more advanced Kiran, and then the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT). Only after these three stages of training are pilots posted to combat squadrons to fly frontline fighters.
Broadsword: HAL fights for indigenous HTT-40 trainer, over Swiss Pilatus
@randomradio @_Anonymous_ @suryakiran @Falcon @Paro @Ashwin @Avi @nair @Parthu @Sancho
Ajai Shukla on a roll
I pretty sure everyone here will love to see the HTT-40 in IAF Colours BUT one has to justify to make the IAF wait for this
Case and point IJT 36
the way I see it, If we can replace equipment with locally developed systems, we gain expertise, cater to segment that can have export potential in some segments.
Assault rifles, Trainer aircraft's, Autonomous drones, Precision rifles, light howtzers, mbrls, SPH's, mobility systems are segments where India can have tremendous export potential.
Now if we discourage indegenious developments in these areas, it would be a great dis-service. If right direction was provided to the Insas systems and we had started developing MCIWS by late 90's today it would be positioned with MPT, SCAR, 416 and other short stroke AR pattern systems, but we did not. Similarly if we ket continues development on the Insas, there was nothing to stop it from being developed into a Galil competition. Right now we could have had two rifle system competing with both high end AK and AR market around the world.
Same goes for HTT40, it can compete today with air tractor and texan t6 being in the same bracket, but if we kill it right here, we will not have a trainer product in the segment for the next three decades. To pinch pennies we will kill an entire family of product.
Remember killing the HF24 and what it did for Indian Aerospace environment?
Was making a case to how HAL run projects - ie Slow R&D, testing and in this case of HJT36 no deliveryEven though it's a good article but Ajai Shukla is doing propaganda like always. IAF is supporting HTT-40 since Pilatus price increased, new training regime will start implementing this year. Basic- HTT-40; AJT-Hawk and then LIFT skipping IJT like other air forces.
No one is waiting for IJT, the project is dead for past 2 years.
The problem is that the impetus and structure of the executive components and production facilities needed to ensure a product reaches its true and full potential is not present in the country.
Like you said, we made INSAS as an indigenous endeavour...but it didn't get halfway where it could have gone. 20+ years on, it still is far from perfect and most of the QA/QC concerns are still not met. So even if we do go ahead with HTT40, what's the guarantee it won't end up with a similar fate? In the end we would just be sinking money into an organizational structure that refuses to learn and refuses to improve.
Why? Because they are simply insured against any and all failures by virtue of being a state-run enterprise which monopolizes the sector due to fierce protectionism on the part of the MoD to safeguard the interests of DPSUs and assure them work, because of the significant vote-banks that they represent. We have a system that has no incentive to improve itself.
Until that system is not reformed from the ground-up, any and all indigenous ventures in terms of defence production will remain mediocre at best, and untenable white elephants that never actually materialize at worst. Exports? Forget it. The only exports we ever actually made are either flukes or basically donations. Nothing beats free so yeah.
As a bottomline, what I'm saying is that even if HTT40 gets orders, its unlikely to become anything worthwhile or develop into a truly competitive product on the international market. The ALH Dhruv was the closest we got to have a marketable product, and we made a mess of it, if not a pariah, even though it is actually nowhere as bad as the Ecuador experience would have any potential buyer believe.
We simply don't have the system. It is disheartening for many (including me), but there is no way this will ever work. We've been trying since 80s but each time its just nothing but reinvention of the wheel again and again. Somehow, I think the defence sector never actually came out of the License Raj while the rest of the country mostly did.
When you look at it, its not hard to see an Air India present in each and every single DPSU in the country. The only reason they still chug along (and actually show profits on paper) is because unlike Air India, the DPSUs have their respective sectors mostly monopolized. The moment the monopolies are broken, every DPSU engaged in production activities (eventually followed by R&D) will sink.
It's not though ,right? If you are looking at failings in indigenous works for HJT 36, you should also be looking at the family of helicopters that have been developed for the IAF/IA/IN (ALH mk1,2,3, ALH WSO, LCH, LUH) and all have exceeded the performance requirements of the IAF. Why would HAL base HTT project of a failed project, than the entire family of successful projects that constitute best practices for ideal product development.Was making a case to how HAL run projects - ie Slow R&D, testing and in this case of HJT36 no delivery
WRT to the HTT40 - we might see the same - expect a much better product - BUT delivery is at a snails pace - Should the IAF wait for it or not - THats the Question here