HAL's trainer Rs 4,500 crore cheaper than Swiss Pilatus trainer

[Rahul Singh]

All that's great for HAL. But what about IAF?

HTT-40 will fly in 2015, will undergo flight tests until 2018, maybe even 2020 if we add delays. Then they will take two-three years to deliver. We are sitting in 2013 and will be expecting a HTT-40 in 2021. Should IAF wait a decade for 37 measly BTAs?

So how about simply ordering the 37 PC-7 today, instead of waiting for an entire decade. Even the remaining 60-70 PC-7s can be delivered very quickly at very low prices. IAF has a 182 BTA requirement today, not in 2022.

That 34.5 Crore will become 100 Crores in 2022. Instead pay 38.5 Crores today and fly the already flying Pilatus far into the future. Heck inflation in India is 7-10%, WPI. Inflation in Switzerland is -0.6%, CPI. It is so obvious which of the two is cheaper.

Economic value for the industry does not equate to military value for the air force. Military budget is always a statistical loss to the economy.

You need to stop looking at PSUs profit margins and instead focus on what's important.

HAL is making claims. Don't buy it.

HAL says 2015 and i count on that. As for delays, well you don't add upon mistakes but learn from them. Given such basic technology i am absolutely not skeptical of HAL timeline.

As for unit cost and LCC, well let a competent authority decide that. We talk then.

HAL can afford this project without IAF's helping hands. They are going to do the same, anyhow.

If HAL really wanted to "learn" they can channel some of the huge profits they are making in the MKI and pretty soon the Rafale contracts. They are planning a $6 Billion into their own manufacturing setup. They don't need to look at IAF's order books for running small trainer programs.

Even car companies spend more than the investment required for HTT-40. That Renault Logan taxi R&D costs Rs 700 Crores from design to production. HTT-40 could be done in less than half that cost.

Its not about HAL or IAF its about country as whole. If HAL earns then country gets stronger, if swiss earns then country looses money and i will have to fill that again by paying more tax. So i will ask question why not buy Indian? Oh i forgot that no more the luxury with the services anymore, remember DPP 2013 is coming to effect soon which will be mandating a through explanation as it can't be done in here before giving go ahead for any import.

From mid-2013,when DPP-2013 is expected to take effect, the international arms bazaar will no longer be the first choice for buying weaponry and equipment. Instead, it will first have to be established that the required equipment cannot be built in India.

 

[p2prada]

HAL says 2015 and i count on that.

Are you kidding me? HAL is pushing for a first flight before 2015, not delivery. Their current claim is that IAF should place order for the next 37 PC-7s only if HTT-40 flies after 2015. If it flies before 2015, IAF should place an order for HTT-40. However they are not counting the delays that come in from the time negotiations take place and contract is signed. If IAF begins the process for the 37 fighters today, the contract will be signed before 2014 and Pilatus will be able to manufacture the aircraft for delivery as soon as the 75 are delivered. HTT-40 will take much more than 2015 if first flight happens even in 2014.

As for delays, well you don't add upon mistakes but learn from them. Given such basic technology i am absolutely not skeptical of HAL timeline.

Interesting, then where is Sitara? Flew in 2003 first.

As for unit cost and LCC, well let a competent authority decide that. We talk then.

Lol. Simple math. Calculate Pilatus price at 2% contract based inflation versus HTT-40 costs at 10% inflation well after it flies in 2014 or even 2015.

Its not about HAL or IAF its about country as whole.

That's nationalistic nonsense. IAF buys products for the country. HAL sells for profit. It is not about HAl or the country. It is about IAF.

Don't tell me you buy phones and computers "for the country."

If HAL earns then country gets stronger, if swiss earns then country looses money and i will have to fill that again by paying more tax.

We can survive a loss of one or two billions.

So i will ask question why not buy Indian?

There are very very few things worth Indian that are worth buying and these are bought. Most of what we produce is worthless.

Oh i forgot that no more the luxury with the services anymore, remember DPP 2013 is coming to effect soon which will be mandating a through explanation as it can't be done in here before giving go ahead for any import.

This is nothing different from what has been happening before.

The services have always needed approval from DRDO/HAL/DARE etc before importing. They have always provided thorough explanation for why they cannot place their hopes on a non-existent HTT-40 against a being delivered PC-7.

Now that we have already decided on PC-7, there is simply no need to buy another trainer that does the same thing.

 

[Decklander]

I was trained on all jet flying course. IAF had only ten such courses from 134PC to 143 PC where there was no basic stage aircraft. We went from bicycles to jets in one go. I did my solo in least possible hrs of just 19.15. C-152/172 is as good an ac for basic training. Pilatus does not carry weapons and has ejection seats. You dont need them in C-152/172 as you can land them in a football field. Plus C-172 has a diesel powered engine option. That wud bring down the training cost drastically.
also I must tell you that other than Sea Harrier which has four diff kind of landings and four diff kind of take offs, C-152/172 are equilly diff to land for a rookie pilot due to them being very slow speed ac and they get tossed in air a lot. Lot of you can argue endlessly about a non existant ac v/s an ac available off the shelf. But HTT-40 was suggested long long back and cud not take off due to IAF not backing it.
IAF will never allow any Indian made weaponised trainer ac to be built in India as they are shit scared of IA & IN setting up their own training academies which will dilute the importance of IAF.
IN has out smarted IAF wherein we not only took over maritime recce sqn from them but have now surrendered the Jag maritime strike sqn to IAF for another one of our own after Darin-3 upgrade. By 2020, IN will have over 500 ac of its own comprising nearly 250 attack/recce/utility helos and this figure does not include LCH which IN will need for its LPDs, 50 fixed wing maritime attack & recce ac and over six sqns of fighters to take over defence of coastal/ off shore assets from IAF plus two training sqns to train pilots from zero time to being true blood aviators.

 

[pmaitra]

Then you don't really know how air forces function.

You see, they have these bigger jets which carry the bombs. And then they have these smaller aircraft, should I say tiny aircraft, that is used to train the pilots before they progress to bigger jets.

You see, it is the bigger jets that need to be combat capable. The tiny jets, they don't. As a matter of fact, even for advanced trainers nobody really gives two flying hoots for combat capability.

Even in the American T-X program, combat capability is not even being looked at. And this is for an advanced trainer requirement, like our Hawks.



Lol. It doesn't work as simply as that.

France sanctioned Mirage support during Kargil war for both Pak and India. We worked around it through the Israelis. In the future our own industries will be able to work around such sanctions.



Why are you so hell bent on combat capability for a BTA? It is not a requirement.

I am tired of repeating the same thing again and again. We are talking about training Air Force Pilots. Once you are at the level of flying jets, you are no longer a novice. Any trainer jet must be able to use armaments. You must have combat capability in such aircraft. By combat, I don't mean performing the cobra maneouver. At the bare minimum, you should be able to install a machine gun or a cannon, and get the trainee pilots up flying and shoot at targets in the ground. On top of that, we should be able to convert them for real life combat if the need arises. Why are you hell bent on a plane that prohibits armaments? Your arguments almost always favour anything that is foreign, and ignores all the other realities.

 

[arnabmit]

Dada, the Pilatus comes before flying jets... before the IJT and AJT level!

Pilatus is not a jet, but a turboprop where the pilots learn to fly and take off from the ground for the first time! Weapons training starts much later when pilots have graduated to jets.

I am tired of repeating the same thing again and again. We are talking about training Air Force Pilots. Once you are at the level of flying jets, you are no longer a novice. Any trainer jet must be able to use armaments. You must have combat capability in such aircraft. By combat, I don't mean performing the cobra maneouver. At the bare minimum, you should be able to install a machine gun or a cannon, and get the trainee pilots up flying and shoot at targets in the ground. On top of that, we should be able to convert them for real life combat if the need arises. Why are you hell bent on a plane that prohibits armaments? Your arguments almost always favour anything that is foreign, and ignores all the other realities.

 

[pmaitra]

Dada, the Pilatus comes before flying jets... before the IJT and AJT level!

Pilatus is not a jet, but a turboprop where the pilots learn to fly and take off from the ground for the first time! Weapons training starts much later when pilots have graduated to jets.

You are right, it is a turboprop. My mistake. It is between propeller driven and jet propelled aircraft, because it uses both. I still think we should not get this with the prohibition on armaments.

 

[arnabmit]

Weapons training comes only at Stage-3. Logically it is none of the Swiss's business to tell us what to do, but practically it simply doesn't matter.

@Decklander is this info correct?

But the course that begins training in June will fly a full training syllabus of 65-70 hours on the PC-7 Mark II in Stage-1 training before they commence 65-70 hours of Stage-2 training on the Kiran trainer. After that, they graduate to Stage-3 training — 65-70 hours on the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) -— before joining a frontline combat fighter squadron.

IAF to order 37 more Pilatus trainers worth Rs 1,250 cr | Business Standard

You are right, it is a turboprop. My mistake. It is between propeller driven and jet propelled aircraft, because it uses both. I still think we should not get this with the prohibition on armaments.

 

[pmaitra]

Weapons training comes only at Stage-3. Logically it is none of the Swiss's business to tell us what to do, but practically it simply doesn't matter.



IAF to order 37 more Pilatus trainers worth Rs 1,250 cr | Business Standard

@Decklander is this info correct?

Training syllabus can change. Weapons training coming at Stage-III does not mean you purchase aircraft with prohibition on armament. You should know that even Kiran (Stage-II) has hard-points for armaments, and even the Pilatus comes with hard-points for armaments. Why this prohibition then?

 

[p2prada]

I am tired of repeating the same thing again and again. We are talking about training Air Force Pilots. Once you are at the level of flying jets, you are no longer a novice. Any trainer jet must be able to use armaments. You must have combat capability in such aircraft. By combat, I don't mean performing the cobra maneouver. At the bare minimum, you should be able to install a machine gun or a cannon, and get the trainee pilots up flying and shoot at targets in the ground. On top of that, we should be able to convert them for real life combat if the need arises. Why are you hell bent on a plane that prohibits armaments?

Have you even seen pics of the Pilatus?

Also can you tell me why the Polish air force removed combat capability from Advanced Jet trainers. They sent RFPs, withdrew RFPs and sent new RFPs without combat capability requirement.

The same with the Americans. They are not looking for combat capability even on advanced trainers.

Your arguments almost always favour anything that is foreign, and ignores all the other realities.

Lol. Realities. You mean weapons capability on a BTA.

So many air forces have inducted trainers without requirements for weapons on trainers. IAF won't be the first.

 

[pmaitra]

Have you even seen pics of the Pilatus?

Also can you tell me why the Polish air force removed combat capability from Advanced Jet trainers. They sent RFPs, withdrew RFPs and sent new RFPs without combat capability requirement.

The same with the Americans. They are not looking for combat capability even on advanced trainers.



Lol. Realities. You mean weapons capability on a BTA.

So many air forces have inducted trainers without requirements for weapons on trainers. IAF won't be the first.

Yes, I have seen the pics of Pilatus.

Have you even seen the specifications of Pilatus? It comes with weapons hard-points. Did you even know that?

When did Polish Air Force RFP become the standard RFP for all Air Forces?

Can you tell me why the Afghan Pilots, while being trained by US forces, were flying their Hinds and actually shooting at ground targets?

Do you understand, we are paying for these planes? Do you understand we should be able to double them up as CAS if required? Why should we kowtow to the Swiss conditions? Are they giving us those planes for free? When majority, yes, read that again, majority of trainers come condition free, why should IAF be an exception?

 

[p2prada]

Lot of you can argue endlessly about a non existant ac v/s an ac available off the shelf. But HTT-40 was suggested long long back and cud not take off due to IAF not backing it.

HAL proposed the HTT-40 in 2008, or was that 2007. I believe 2007. Delivery was promised in 6 years. Supposedly in 2013. They made a case pointing that they will stick to the delivery schedule promised for the HJT-36. Its been 10 years since Sitara had its first flight. IAF is considering buying foreign analogues even for IJT requirement if nothing happens by 2015.

In 2009, HAL made a new case, pointed out that they can achieve first flight in 2014. Pilatus deliveries came in 2013. A full year earlier compared to HAL's "promised" first flight. By the time HAL will actually achieve all test points, IAF would actually have all the 182 PC-7s required without having spent a rupee on development. It is so obvious that IAF has made the right decision on this aspect. If you want further proof of it, HAL is going to continue with the HTT-40 program, 2014 is just a year away, let's see if first flight happens then.

Why give them a second development program when they haven't delivered on the first and more crucial program?

 

[p2prada]

Yes, I have seen the pics of Pilatus.

Good.

Have you even seen the specifications of Pilatus? It comes with weapons hard-points. Did you even know that?

So what?

When did Polish Air Force RFP become the standard RFP for all AIr Forces?

To make you understand that even a small air force like the Polish air force does not care for combat capability even on advanced trainers, let along BTA.

Can you tell me why the Afghan Pilots, while being trained by US forces, were flying their Hinds and actually shooting at ground targets?

Tell me the difference between an armored flying tank and a BTA?

Do you understand, we are paying for these planes?

Oh, of course not. We are getting them for free.

Do you understand we should be able to double them up as CAS if required?

Are we Chad, Afghanistan or Guatemala? PA is a very advanced army. PC-7s won't scare them.

PC-7s are and will be used for training purposes. Nothing else.

PC-7s are used for CAS when the enemy does not have fighter aircraft of their own. For eg: Taliban, Africans rebels etc. We can worry about it after we have completely annihilated PAF and PLAAF. So we can continue our discussion after both PAF and PLAAF are either disbanded or destroyed.

Why should we kowtow to the Swiss conditions?

We are not doing anything of the sort. IAF never had combat capability as a requirement on the BTA.

 

[pmaitra]

So what?

So, a lot of things.

To make you understand that even a small air force like the Polish air force does not care for combat capability even on advanced trainers, let along BTA.

Poland's realities are different (it's a NATO member). Moreover, they don't have restriction imposed on their training aircraft when it comes to armament. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Tell me the difference between an armored flying tank and a BTA?

My comment was more to challenge your flawed assertion that training aircraft does not need armaments and trainees do not need to use armaments. You are trying to divert the debate in a different direction, like the other day. Nice try, but I won't bite the bait.

Oh, of course not. We are getting them for free.

Thankfully, I am not so deluded.

Are we Chad, Afghanistan or Guatemala? PA is a very advanced army. PC-7s won't scare them.

PC-7s are and will be used for training purposes. Nothing else.

PC-7s are used for CAS when the enemy does not have fighter aircraft of their own. For eg: Taliban, Africans rebels etc. We can worry about it after we have completely annihilated PAF and PLAAF. So we can continue our discussion after both PAF and PLAAF are either disbanded or destroyed.



We are not doing anything of the sort. IAF never had combat capability as a requirement on the BTA.

Inane hocus-pocus.

 

[p2prada]

Poland's realities are different (it's a NATO member).

My comment was more to challenge your flawed assertion that training aircraft does not need armaments and trainees do not need to use armaments.

There is a huge difference between combat capability and simply carrying armaments for training. Training armaments can be carried by the PC-7 for training purposes. Anyway, weapons training isn't part of BTA phase.

So, no, trainees don't really need to learn using weapons in this stage.

Your assertion is flawed. I gave an example of why weapons capability isn't even part of advanced trainer requirements of many air forces and you are hung up on weapons for a BTA as though IAF will freely fly BTAs into PAF air space when they cannot even guarantee Jaguars will come back safe and sound.

You are trying to divert the debate in a different direction, like the other day. Nice try, but I won't bite the bait.

Excuse me, genius. You brought Hinds into the debate. Not me.

Inane hocus-pocus.

Of course, because it is stuff you don't understand at all.

Combat capability isn't a requirement. Period. Any more posts after this from your side on this topic is equivalent to trolling.

You are already trolling.

@Singh

Can I please have the option to put mods into the ignore list? Saves me a lot of headache.

 

[pmaitra]

There is a huge difference between combat capability and simply carrying armaments for training. Training armaments can be carried by the PC-7 for training purposes. Anyway, weapons training isn't part of BTA phase.

Nope. There is a prohibition on that. This, coming from you, after 4 pages of discussion.

So, no, trainees don't really need to learn using weapons in this stage.

Who decides that - you? Already gave you an example of using armaments. On top of that, I gave you the possibility of doubling up as CAS.

Your assertion is flawed. I gave an example of why weapons capability isn't even part of advanced trainer requirements of many air forces and you are hung up on weapons for a BTA as though IAF will freely fly BTAs into PAF air space when they cannot even guarantee Jaguars will come back safe and sound.

No, my assertion is quite fine. Moreover, all the other stuff you wrote is your own imaginative dramatization. I never said what you wrote. Don't twist my points. Quote me.

Excuse me, genius. You brought Hinds into the debate. Not me.

Nope. I brought the reality of using armament during training of pilots into the debate. Hind was just an accessory in the debate. Are you really incapable of focussing on the point, or do you deliberately obfuscate?

Of course, because it is stuff you don't understand at all.

Unnecessary information that obfuscates the main point of debate.

Combat capability isn't a requirement. Period. Any more posts after this from your side on this topic is equivalent to trolling.

Prohibition on armament, despite the Pilatus having armament hardpoints, is malafide. You are not addressing the issue I raised, that there is an exceptional prohibition on armament. So, trying to save face by accusing the other person of trolling.

You are already trolling.

In other words, you are not able to counter my arguments.

@Singh

Can I please have the option to put mods into the ignore list? Saves me a lot of headache.

How about you quit responding to my posts instead of creating a drama? I have this habit of pointing out flaws, and keeping people on track, when they try to obfuscate. You keep diverting from the issues I raised, and I have to repeat myself again and again to bring the discussion back to the point, and you start a drama? If you cannot argue against my points, don't respond to my posts.

 

[p2prada]

Nope. There is a prohibition on that. This, coming from you, after 4 pages of discussion.

Pilatus did not place permanent hardpoints which carry heavy loads.

Heck buy one PC-7 for yourself and weld a make shift pylon if you want. You can do it by yourself and fling practice bombs off of it. You don't need some complex electronics for it, just a grill welded well enough to hold a practice carrier and a remote control for firing it.

It is not required by IAF because it is not a requirement.

Who decides that - you?

Are you an idiot or you only pretend to be one? IAF decides and they decided they don't need to teach it during Basic Training.

Also what part of Basic Training do you not understand?

No, my assertion is quite fine.

It is not fine. You are the only one here trying to give weapons to a BTA. Meaning, you are making sh!t up.

Nope. I brought the reality of using armament during training of pilots into the debate. Hind was just an accessory in the debate. Are you really incapable of focussing on the point, or do you deliberately obfuscate?

Oh my f***ing God. You bring Hind as an accessory in the debate. So does that mean only you can obfuscate?

Hinds and weapons are part of the package.

Basic training and weapons are not.

You are the one who is incapable of a discussion.

Unnecessary information that obfuscates the main point of debate.

Like your comment with Hinds. Why do you think I asked you to list out the difference between flying tanks and BTA? You troll and you don't even know it.

Prohibition on armament, despite the Pilatus having armament hardpoints, is malafide. You are not addressing the issue I raised, that there is an exceptional prohibition on armament.

It is not needed. We don't need weapons on a BTA.

Why are you needlessly debating a point which does not need debating?

Decklander pointed out that for BTA even Cessnas are enough. Do you know that they don't have hardpoints at all? Why do you think he supports an aircraft that doesn't even have hardpoints? That's because carrying weapons is not a requirement.

So, trying to save face by accusing the other person of trolling.

Look, you ARE trolling and you are EXTREMELY ANNOYING while you are at it.

In other words, you are not able to counter my arguments.

How is "IAF does not consider weapons training as part of BTA and hence they don't need weapons on PC-7" not a counter?

You can't understand what others write and all the while you are in your own world the entire time. If weapons were important, IAF would have picked some other trainer instead.

I also gave you examples of two air forces where they don't consider combat capability as part of training even for Advanced Training requirements. You are the one who comes up with gems like "Poland is part of NATO and hence they don't need weapons training."

In all these posts you haven't even provided an ounce of information that adds to the topic.

How about you quit responding to my posts?

I want to completely ignore your posts instead.

I have this habit of pointing out flaws, and keeping people on track, when they try to obfuscate.

Utter BS. You are incapable of any kind of discussion. You don't even add to the discussion.

Other than your great "accessory" about Hinds and Afghanistan what have you really contributed to the discussion? Nothing but droning on and on about something nobody even gives a f***k about. You are merely hijacking this thread while peddling your inane pet theories about how important it is for IAF to have CAS capability on their Basic-effing-trainer.

I was trying to ignore you, but it was you who insisted I reply back.

 

[pmaitra]

I was trying to ignore you, but it was you who insisted I reply back.

I am deliberately not replying to whatever you wrote, simply because I am not sure they are remotely connected to the points I made. I get your points, and I don't agree with most of them. The only valid concern you have expressed in this entire thread, i.e. in my eyes, is that we are not sure whether HAL will deliver on time.

Finally, I did not insist that you reply back. Your eyes and fingers are controlled by your brain, and I do not control either your fingers, eyes, or your brain. You responded to my post, you and you alone are responsible. Let that be crystal clear.

 

[pmaitra]

Ok, with this post, I will lay to rest this unnecessary confusion about whether Pilatus has armament hard-points, or not. This is from the company website:

[PDF]http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/00-def/main/scripts/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Downloads/Brochures/Pilatus%20Aircraft%20Ltd%20-%20PC-7%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf[/PDF]

 

[arnabmit]

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd forces cost cut in Swiss Pilatus trainer jet deal | idrw.org

Hard bargaining by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) over billing costs of maintenance transfer of technology (MToT) has helped India strike a better deal with Swiss plane manufacturer Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. for the 75 basic trainer aircraft that will be purchased for the Indian Air Force (IAF). The total value of the deal works out to around $ 1 billion.

According to official documents in the possession of Mail Today, the deal stipulates that spares required for maintenance of the PC-7 Mk-II basic trainer aircraft should be sourced from Pilatus. However, HAL after an in-depth comparison study, found that prices for these spares being quoted by the Swiss company were too high. Pilatus has agreed to adjust the higher cost of spares against the price of the aircraft following objections raised by HAL.

HAL had benchmarked the Pilatus proposal with earlier deals that India struck for the British Hawk advance trainer aircraft, and Jaguar and Mirage fighter jets. It found that the MToT proposal submitted by Pilatus for engine and airframe maintenance was much more limited in scope than the earlier deals and would lead to a sharp increase in costs in the long run.

The outright purchase of aircraft by IAF includes spares and training. IAF will be getting three simulators of the aircraft under the main deal.

Pilatus also left the maintenance of the simulators, which were supposed to have been provided along with the planes for budding pilots, outside the scope of the MToT proposal. It had stated that the maintenance requirement of the simulators will be addressed through a separate arrangement between the IAF and Pilatus. HAL had red flagged this issue.

Besides, one flight-worthy engine was required to be provided by IAF for training and test cell correlation but this had been left out of the scope of the MToT proposal submitted by Pilatus.

Sources revealed that the deal had to be delayed in order to address the flaws in the proposal pinpointed by HAL. There was serious concern that these issues could later come under the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and lead to an embarrassing situation for the defence ministry.

A senior IAF officer told Mail Today that the contract negotiation committee for the purchase of 75 aircraft has now completed deliberations with the Swiss vendor with active participation of HAL and two general managers from the public sector company have signed the final document. He said cognisance was taken of some points raised by HAL during interim discussions – particularly the issue of engine spares cost proposed by the Swiss company being higher compared to similar projects handled by it – and it has been adjusted in the final price offered.

The officer added that HAL has to sign a separate maintenance contract with the company which could be finalised after the main deal for the purchase of aircraft is cleared. HAL has not given the list of what it wants in terms of design requirements, he added further. There are issues beyond MToT which HAL is looking to get into like designs for advanced structural activities. It has been agreed to incorporate the design dispensation in the cost, IAF disclosed.

 

[pmaitra]

Now that brings a smile on my face. Looks like the Swiss seller was overcharging for spare parts. Good job HAL. No blind faith in these foreign arms vendors.