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

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
3,699
5,888
Bangalore
That means every two years we need to change the engine. I hope you realise what this means Eshwin. @randomradio enjoys the last laugh.
Currently, the claimed certifiable MTBO of Al-55i is around 150hr. Russians are claiming they can increase it up to 300hr-500 hr in time. IAF wants it to be 900hr.

The new engine too hasn't received certification. “The Russian engine needs to be overhauled more frequently than suits the Air Force,” an IAF official told Defense News. The engine would need to be overhauled about every 150 hours of flying, while the air force wants the engine to operate at least 900 hours before an overhaul is needed.

A Russian diplomat, however, says the engine meets the basic requirements of the IJT, adding that the service life of the engine is being increased to 500 hours.

While 500 is a big improvement over 150, itis still not enough. Jet trainers conduct several sorties a day. If the IJT does, say, 10 sorties lasting an hour each daily, it would result in engines being overhauled every 50 days. That is going to severely limit aircraft availability, and the IAF finds that unacceptable.
Flameout: Why the IAF won't accept HAL’s jet trainer
Russia insists that the 2005 contact was fulfilled in 2013, when AL-55I pre-production specimens demonstrated a 300-hour lifetime. Further plans called for the extension to 600, and then to over 1,200 hours, the latter being an Indian Air Force requirement. According to developers, the engine’s cold section is designed to withstand 6,400 hours and the hot section 4,000 hours. So far, however, Russia has delivered only about 20 engines, due to the HJT-36 production program being halted by the spin issue.
HJT-36 Flight Test Resumption Renews Hope for AL-55 Engine

Its amusing that after all these years of lurking how you are still surprised by utterly incomprehensible norms of Indian defense procurement.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
12,134
7,668
Mumbai
Currently, the claimed certifiable MTBO of Al-55i is around 150hr. Russians are claiming they can increase it up to 300hr-500 hr in time. IAF wants it to be 900hr.


Flameout: Why the IAF won't accept HAL’s jet trainer

HJT-36 Flight Test Resumption Renews Hope for AL-55 Engine

Its amusing that after all these years of lurking how you are still surprised by utterly incomprehensible norms of Indian defense procurement.
I guess @Milspec pointed out how a former ACM went out of his way to favour the Russian jet engines for this particular project over HAL's choice Guess it's still not late in the day given that the IJT project is both stalled & delayed. They can opt for another engine & redesign the IJT around it. Sub optimal as the solution is, that's the way out ecosystem operates.
 

Ankit Kumar

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
1,933
1,670
Bangalore
IAF shelves 3 major acquisition projects for Make in India, other reasons
Read more At:


38 more PC7MK2 officially shelved along with 20 additional BAE HAWK program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashwin and Sathya

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
12,134
7,668
Mumbai
These types are useful only in uncontested airspace and in absence of ground based air defence. Like against drug cartels in South America, militia in African nations, etc.

A single MANPAD even from 80s and that's 7 million USD wasted.
Well, in the event you ought to have a word with @Falcon . He was keen on IA possessing a squadron or 2 of Hawks as part of CAS to be undertaken as per the CSD. Wonder what are your thoughts on this.
 

Ankit Kumar

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
1,933
1,670
Bangalore
Well, in the event you ought to have a word with @Falcon . He was keen on IA possessing a squadron or 2 of Hawks as part of CAS to be undertaken as per the CSD. Wonder what are your thoughts on this.
Well we need to recognize our size and our needs. I certainly do not know all and will like to learn more.

But the thing is that in Army aviation the close air support in a contested battlefield can only be provided after DEAD/SEAD missions by the airforce using precision longer range weapons. Only after that the Army aviation can come in support of a battlegroup moving forward.

In our case, for such needs attack helicopters are enough. ATGMs and guided rockets with machine gun fire is good enough for CAS.

When we try to add a combat capable fixed wing assest in Army Aviation, we are again duplicating. That's allocation of a lot of resources. That's why I said we need to recognize our size and needs.

Having 5+ Aircraft Carriers does sound good and will certainly be an advantage. But the moment we do that, we create bigger holes in our defense that will still be more difficult to fill in.
Even the USA uses properly armed A10 for CAS in contested air space.

Armed UAVs are a different story overall.
 

Sathya

Well-Known member
Dec 2, 2017
1,936
970
India
Well, in the event you ought to have a word with @Falcon . He was keen on IA possessing a squadron or 2 of Hawks as part of CAS to be undertaken as per the CSD. Wonder what are your thoughts on this.
Think both are different category aircraft s .

Pilatus is BTA, Hawk is AJT
7 million $ vs 20 million $ ?