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

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
13,516
9,577
Mumbai
Excellent Post;

You raise an excellent question, why wouldn't HTT40 meet the same fate as Insas from product development stand point. The key take away for this is the difference in the developmental agency.

Insas was developed by ARDE DRDO, while HTT40 is being designed by ARDC HAL. lets look at development cycle for another product , Advanced light helicopter. With zero participation from DRDO, HAL worked on platform with Messerschmitt, owned the design cycle and exploited the full potential of the Dhruv with an entire portfolio of products including 4 distinct mk's for military applications with incremental improvement, mk1 was the basic military variant, mk2 was with glass cockpit, mk3 with glass cockpit and higher o/p engines, and mk4 the Rudra WSO weaponised; Similarly it made 4 distinct civilian variants, the platform also spun off the Light Combat helicopter and single engine scaled variant Light Utility Helicopter.
4 military variants, 4 Civilian variants, 1 NPD common chassis Attack variant, 1 Scaled NPD single engine variant, and given the expertise gained in the process, (HAL if not shut down by this government); has positioned itself to build a knockout medium lift platform to compete in the lucrative Mi17/ UH 60/ AW101 bracket.

So HAL followed a full optimization cycle for and indigenous platform; all of the platforms with the necessary performance characteristics, and that is the exact model that HTT40 will follow if that product or the parent company is not killed at this point of time. HTT40 will spin off a light armed variant, a civilian export variant, a civilian aerobatic single seat performance unit, a specialized recon low heat signature variant. Unlike DRDO projects like insas which did not follow any VAVE for the product development.
I think there's more a case for some DRDO labs to be amalgamated with DPSU's beginning with ARDE & OFB , ADA & HAL, preceding which the said OFB & HAL ought to be restructured with the latter into 4 distinct units. DRDO ought to be associated with cutting edge stuff & into R&D of strategic systems not available for sale/ ToT or JV's.

Unfortunately, Modi had 5 years in which the DM's post was vacant for nearly 2.This is unimaginative leadership at best and criminal negligence at worst. To conclude, I've often wondered at times, what prevented him from at least reorganizing DPSU's, initiating internal reforms , modernising them, Autonomising them, etc given that reforming the MoD & integrating the civilian & military arms into a DoD kind of set up involves selection of a CDS, which in turn triggers inter services rivalry & will take some doing. All this could've been achieved under a capable DM like MP, except for Modi's overbearing style of functioning which saw him take the first opportunity he got to go back home. His replacement took nearly 6 months too materialise by which time the incumbent had less than 1.5 years time.


It also goes to demonstrate that Modi is no reformer either incremental or exponential but more of a status quoist , perhaps with minimal reforming tendencies along with doing the job more efficiently with minimal corruption.I'm extremely disappointed with the lack of reforms in the entire defence set up be it the DPSU's, the services, the R&D establishments or the MoD.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: R!cK

GuardianRED

Call Sign "RED"
Dec 2, 2017
508
397
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.
I agree with everything you have said and also with your previous posts - The HTT40 has an excellent potential/growth !!!

I haven't said that the HTT40 is or will be a failed project . I want it to succeed. BUT (and you will agree is that) - most of the projects are NOT achieve milestone/goals on-time - Its always behind schedule - THIS is the million$ question - do we ask the armed forces - in this case - the IAF to wait or not?

Plus - to add here - we are only talking abt the OP -where it is to do with the Additional 38 Nos. PC7s. Should the IAF execute this option or not

The IAF will eventually get the HTT40 , (only when?) . Therefore the question of cancelling the entire HTT40 project is foolhardy and shouldn't be entertained
 
Last edited:

Sathya

Senior member
Dec 2, 2017
2,121
1,162
India
The following remains the logic.

Example:

View attachment 3990


On weaponization:
HTT40 is quite close to T6 texan.

Here is a proposed config

Two under wing hardpoints with UB-16-57UMP Gross loaded weight of total 276kg and 32 rounds of HE rock n roll.
UB-16-57UMP
And the cool thing is , lots of UB-16-57UMP lying around from decommissioned Mig21's, mig23's, Mi17's etc


Hope HTT 40 achieve what JF17 to Pakistan.

Any idea how HAL is planning to weaponise BTA ?

Going for newer guided rockets ? / inexpensive useful idea like yours.
 

Sancho

Well-Known member
Oct 13, 2018
645
321
Na
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

Check this and the following replies =>


 

Sancho

Well-Known member
Oct 13, 2018
645
321
Na
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.

Has nothing to do with punishment, but the simple fact that, HAL was nowhere near with HTT40, when IAF needed a new basic trainer. That's why an import was unavoidable and common sense should make clear, that 2 types of trainer for the same role, would be a waste of money.

HAL let IAF / the forces down wrt trainers and can't blame others this time.
 

Sancho

Well-Known member
Oct 13, 2018
645
321
Na
This aircraft I would seriously love to see in Army Aviation as a dedicated CAS aircraft

India is not fighting Taliban or IS, but 2 capable military forces, CAS with slow trainers therefor is a no go.
 

Guynextdoor

Banned
Dec 19, 2017
3,867
1,033
India
Has nothing to do with punishment, but the simple fact that, HAL was nowhere near with HTT40, when IAF needed a new basic trainer. That's why an import was unavoidable and common sense should make clear, that 2 types of trainer for the same role, would be a waste of money.

HAL let IAF / the forces down wrt trainers and can't blame others this time.

but these are evergreen requirements. HAL should support the indigenous project due to long term strategic requiremets,
 

Guynextdoor

Banned
Dec 19, 2017
3,867
1,033
India
HAL has their chance with IJT and messed it up, now they have a 2nd chance with HTT 40.

HTT 40 MUST be completed. 20 years later also we will need a basic trainer. It's better we support a program that gets better over time. This isn't like the Rafale which can evolve and become obselete quickly. We will need Stage 1 trainers for 46 or 50 or 60 years. We can't keep sending billions to fill that requirement.
 

Sancho

Well-Known member
Oct 13, 2018
645
321
Na
HTT 40 MUST be completed. 20 years later also we will need a basic trainer. It's better we support a program that gets better over time. This isn't like the Rafale which can evolve and become obselete quickly. We will need Stage 1 trainers for 46 or 50 or 60 years. We can't keep sending billions to fill that requirement.

Exactly because a trainer is not comparable to an advanced fighter, HTT 40 has nothing to do with any future trainer development. The only reason it is indeed needed now, is the IJT failure.

PC7 / IJT / Hawk

Now gets to

HTT 40 / PC7 / Hawk
 

Falcon

The Falcon
Professional
Nov 30, 2017
1,805
5,598
India is not fighting Taliban or IS, but 2 capable military forces, CAS with slow trainers therefor is a no go.

Hawks in CAS have been used multiple times in Exercises till date, very well with the enemy with 'capable military forces' in mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya and RATHORE

Sancho

Well-Known member
Oct 13, 2018
645
321
Na
Hawks in CAS have been used multiple times in Exercises till date, very well with the enemy with 'capable military forces' in mind.

Not really, BAE and HAL have developed the advanced Hawk with weapon capabilities in mind, but we, nor anybody else have ordered it.
The Indian threat environment, doesn't allow low capable and low performance aircrafts for CAS, because or our enemies are well armed and we would have a safe air superiority situation to operate them. Even our helicopter fleet got credible EW upgrades, to reduce the losses from Kargil war and that was limited to manpads only.
 

RATHORE

Lion of Rajputana
Dec 2, 2017
1,654
1,949
USA
Hawks in CAS have been used multiple times in Exercises till date, very well with the enemy with 'capable military forces' in mind.

Is there any plan to get some for Army Aviation? Some sort of dedicated CAS plane + large numbers of attack helis under Army control would be incredibly useful for the Army, while freeing up IAF assets for other purposes.

At least until a bigger MMRCA deal is signed and LCA production is in full swing, India will need mini-solutions like this to combat the fighter shortfall.
 

Falcon

The Falcon
Professional
Nov 30, 2017
1,805
5,598
Not really, BAE and HAL have developed the advanced Hawk with weapon capabilities in mind, but we, nor anybody else have ordered it.

Not really for what? My contention that Hawks have been used in CAS role in various Exercises? Am not talking of iHawk mind you.

The Indian threat environment, doesn't allow low capable and low performance aircrafts for CAS, because or our enemies are well armed and we would have a safe air superiority situation to operate them.

On this contention, you are merely parroting the IAF's contention over denial of air capability to IA, something that is sans logic in the evolving battlefield and by extension, the battle space. Regressively one can continue with the logic, but with the advent of long range precision rocket artillery, until an unless dedicated CAS is provided on call, one is rendering one's offensive capabilities redundant.

What, in your opinion, is the primary aim of IAF in case of hostilities with, for example, Pakistan?


Even our helicopter fleet got credible EW upgrades, to reduce the losses from Kargil war and that was limited to manpads only.[/UOTE]

Really? Such as?
 

Falcon

The Falcon
Professional
Nov 30, 2017
1,805
5,598
Is there any plan to get some for Army Aviation? Some sort of dedicated CAS plane + large numbers of attack helis under Army control would be incredibly useful for the Army, while freeing up IAF assets for other purposes.

That, the wish for induction of iHawk, was purely my wishful thinking.

There is a plan to integrate Aviation Brigades at the Corps level with at least 03 x Units of Apache for each of the Strike corps i.e. I, II and XXI so far, not very sure on the XVII corps yet. In addition, Rudra and LCH units including at Pivot Corps level, alongwith dedicated ALH Unit and a Light Utility Heli unit. How the configuration pans out, remains to be seen.

IAF will not be providing any air asset in till they achieve the relative air superiority. The so called ground attack aircrafts will be dedicated for SEAD tasks initially. The most ticklish aspect is that even the transports i.e. An-32s and heavy lift IL-76s and C-17s, may not be available to Army in the initial stages as IAF will be busy moving their own assets/logistics.

In such a scenario, the so called 'cold start' is already put into a cold storage.

At least until a bigger MMRCA deal is signed and LCA production is in full swing, India will need mini-solutions like this to combat the fighter shortfall.

No, no, no. Do not mix the two up. iHawk will not obviate the requirement of your dedicated platforms as envisaged under the MMRCA. LCA is going to be a failure at the end of the day. Just the ego of the GoI will keep it alive. WIthout an engine, we are simply assembling an airframe, with majority of the sub-systems and avionics being integrated still of foreign import.

HTT 40 MUST be completed. 20 years later also we will need a basic trainer. It's better we support a program that gets better over time.

Something on the lines of LCA? Sure, why not? Let us take care of another two generations of our NPAs.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: RATHORE and Parthu

RATHORE

Lion of Rajputana
Dec 2, 2017
1,654
1,949
USA
IAF will not be providing any air asset in till they achieve the relative air superiority. The so called ground attack aircrafts will be dedicated for SEAD tasks initially. The most ticklish aspect is that even the transports i.e. An-32s and heavy lift IL-76s and C-17s, may not be available to Army in the initial stages as IAF will be busy moving their own assets/logistics.

In such a scenario, the so called 'cold start' is already put into a cold storage.

That's downright ridiculous, and exactly why I think the Government needs to step in and start getting dedicated CAS aircraft and shifting attack helicopters to Army Aviation.

LCA is going to be a failure at the end of the day. Just the ego of the GoI will keep it alive. WIthout an engine, we are simply assembling an airframe,

What's going on with that now? I didn't even know we have an engine issue.
 

Falcon

The Falcon
Professional
Nov 30, 2017
1,805
5,598
That's downright ridiculous, and exactly why I think the Government needs to step in and start getting dedicated CAS aircraft and shifting attack helicopters to Army Aviation.

It has got nothing to do with IAF alone. More to do with lack of understanding of Military Strategies & Tactics, prosecution of war and the inherent tendency of the bureaucrat to pit one service against another.

After all, if push comes to a shove, emergency procurement will always be made, no one will question the costs, and pockets will get lined.

It is a sorry state of affairs.

Example of Special Forces: We need all the dedicated heavy lift aircrafts like IL-76 and C-17s alongwith C-130 and few An-32s to effectively employ our Special Forces for disruption of enemy lines of communication/logistics in case of a war. Not happening with the problem I have indicated. So, you will have SF units doing small scale actions at micro-unit level which will be a waste of these finely trained troops.

Everyone is aware, but when the Government wants to write off farm loans for people who can actually afford to pay back their money, as an election gimmick, bankroll our DPSUs who make items at 3-10 times the cost of locally available item, what can be expected?



What's going on with that now? I didn't even know we have an engine issue.


The engine - GTRE has failed.

@Shaktimaan has posted a very nice report by PAC. Worth a read!
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: R!cK and RATHORE

RATHORE

Lion of Rajputana
Dec 2, 2017
1,654
1,949
USA
It has got nothing to do with IAF alone. More to do with lack of understanding of Military Strategies & Tactics, prosecution of war and the inherent tendency of the bureaucrat to pit one service against another.

After all, if push comes to a shove, emergency procurement will always be made, no one will question the costs, and pockets will get lined.

It is a sorry state of affairs.

Example of Special Forces: We need all the dedicated heavy lift aircrafts like IL-76 and C-17s alongwith C-130 and few An-32s to effectively employ our Special Forces for disruption of enemy lines of communication/logistics in case of a war. Not happening with the problem I have indicated. So, you will have SF units doing small scale actions at micro-unit level which will be a waste of these finely trained troops.

Everyone is aware, but when the Government wants to write off farm loans for people who can actually afford to pay back their money, as an election gimmick, bankroll our DPSUs who make items at 3-10 times the cost of locally available item, what can be expected?

What a damn shame.

The engine - GTRE has failed.

I was under the impression that the early LCA's would all have GE engines anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falcon