Hindustan Trainer HTT-40

[ersakthivel]

^ Thanks for the post, as I missed the date in article. It gives an idea of why IAF asks for anything only when the planes start going down and their is an immediate need. Don't they have any future Roadmap. if they had asked for a trainer in 2004-05 then HAL would have had good enough time.

TRISHUL: Updated: RIP HTT-35, HTT-40, HJT-36 & LUH, Thanks To The Grifters' Long-Cons

Anticipating the need HLL developed a mock up of it's own, but no interest was shown by IAf in this, Can you believe this?
Instead what the IAF did was this,

What happened next is that sometime in 1995, HAL was instructed by the MoD at the IAF's behest that this project was not a priority and was told to cease all further R & D activity, probably due to India's reduced defence spending-levels in the period 1989-1999 (the so-called 'lost decade') as a result of the 1990 financial crisis.

Not only that the following passage illustrates how the HLL is chained by IAF-MOD combine and made out as scape goats,

The IAF knows it needs very well. I don't think it is ignorance on the part of IAf alone that is responsible for the state of affairs at HLL. It is a design by the import lobby to make up a cock and bull stroy about delayed and stalled domestic eforts and then go in for import of much less qualified items and there by forever enslaving India to foreign defence majors.

making India the world's largest arms importer is the result of this shadowy quest .

What needs to be noted is that HAL, by being a wholly-owned MoD military-industrial entity, cannot undertake any R & D project aimed at producing an indigenous weapon system or sub-system without receiving authorisation from the MoD. What this means is that HAL's management has neither the financial nor managerial autonomy to develop even a single product that is not required by any Indian end-user.


Therefore, when HAL took up the task of developing the HTT-35 BTT, it was only after being instructed by the MoD to do so at the IAF's behest. For it was a fairly well-known fact since the early 1980s that the HAL-developed piston-engined ab-initio primary HPT-32 'Deepak' was not what the IAF wanted and HAL consequently had been mandated to develop the HTT-34 turboprop trainer with side-by-side seating, and a flying prototype was indeed built. The IAF then changed its mind and asked HAL via the MoD to develop a tandem-seat BTT (probably after watching the advent of Pilatus PC-7As and PC-9As, and Embraer/ShortsTucanos since the mid-1980s), to which HAL responded with the HTT-35. What happened next is that sometime in 1995, HAL was instructed by the MoD at the IAF's behest that this project was not a priority and was told to cease all further R & D activity, probably due to India's reduced defence spending-levels in the period 1989-1999 (the so-called 'lost decade') as a result of the 1990 financial crisis.

 

[ersakthivel]

I just get a feeling that there is no mechanism for the joint working of the Forces and the Defence Sector PSUs.

These issues should be thrashed out in meetings and there should be a joint task force.

IN does not seem to have these issues, any takers for it?

because the budget of IN is very small and it won't allow it to build any significant fleet size if it imports too much. So from the outset they worked with indian research houses to extract the best bargain. A case in point is IN chipping in with 900 crores to develop LCA navy from it's own funds and the stark refusal of IAF to set aside a single rupee from it's budget for LCA from the start.

SO navy has full fledged Naval architect division who hold doctorstes in ship design giving full drawings of the warship to the ship building yards. Navy has recentlt set a goal of making each one of it's cadet a cadet engineer in it's own training program.

But how many doctorate holders in aeronautic , combat vehicle design are there in IAF , IA PSQR setting team.
They are a bunch of laughing jokes doing a cut and paste job from janes , with no idea about system design.if they are there they would have made the difference in giving practical specs with enough time to design , taking in to consideration the level of tech here. inducted the platforms and as time goes by demanded improvements.

A case in point is the recent joke pulled on the nation in the name of FMBT by the IA. They could not give a PSQR for CVRDE after three years and finally accepted the fact that there can be no 4 man , ammo safe 50 ton FMBT in the world and accepted Arjun future versions MK-3 onwards to be the FMBT. The reason no russian FMBT was pulled out of the hat by it's designer. Otherwise they would have asked the CVRDE to design FMBTs according to those specs and added many features that would stretch it to the limit.making sure it sees no service.

You should note that the IAC is not yet ready. So it was not an immediate requirement for them , since they have MIG-29 Ks for Ghorshkov. But they saw ahead and saw the value proposition in LCA and invested money to develop it.

But if you see the IA and IAF , since they are allocated with a big share of defence budget and they offer huge numbers for foreign vendors , it is a standard practice to look at abroad at the first available choice. But the problem is with the massive local defence industry is churning out a huge number of products and it will be an ugly surprise for the IA and IAF to be faced with costly low in number foreign platforms against the chinese.

But mostly it is political. It is unfair to blame the top sections of the IA and IAF alone. Since the days of infamous Quotrrochi , the shadow of bribes and scandals are the hallmark of any defence purchase.

Since it has the political blessings of the highest civilian authorities of the nation , there is no way they are going to set up any joint task force to rectify it. Who will kill the egg that lays the golden egg.

The survival of Arjun and Lca to this day owes it to the name and fame of the DRDO's missile men who have become the Scientific adviser to PM and become a Rubicon that cannot be crossed, who got the full backing from the government during the Vajpayee's days as Prime Minister. Other wise they too would have joined the long line of RIP products like HTT-35, HTT-40 , with no serious questions asked.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@ersakthivel, Excellent post ..

 

[p2prada]

IN does not seem to have these issues, any takers for it?

IN's requirements are nowhere as complex as IAF's.

Apart from that, most of the core IN systems are imported.
Engine, weapons, sensors, helicopter. What else is left apart from that?

Hull is the easiest to make.

Take the nuke sub, it is probably a decade or two behind the Russians, Americans and Europeans. The ships being made have weapons systems that are a generation behind American ships, size matters. Aircraft carrier is something from the 60s. The "in progress" work will remain WIP for another half a decade.

Take their indigenization attempts with a pinch of salt. The day when the engine, weapons and sensors are sourced within India is the day the Navy is the champion of indigenous equipment.

The fact is the Army and Air Force at least get their stuff made here. Navy equipment is mostly direct imports in fully finished form.

 

[sob]

@p2prada, I agree with most of the points raised by you.
@ersakthivel has highlighted a significant point for the IN. IN has a team in Delhi which has been involved in designing and force planning and interestingly their offices were in south Delhi away from the Head Quarters. I had an opportunity to interact with some members of the team and was very impressed with the planning that had been done. The regular induction of warships to the IN is being done quite smoothly and credit must be given to the IN for it.

 

[bennedose]

I think that in principle it should be clear to both HAL and IAF that if IAF is not obliged to buy HAL, then HAL need not be obliged to develop aircraft for the IAF and could start looking for export customers and develop things for them. In that sense the IAF has no business telling HAL what they should or should not do. For example the IAF seems to have no objection to HAL building spare parts for Boeing (or is it Airbus).

The services cannot dictate the customer or the research project.

 

[ersakthivel]

@p2prada, I agree with most of the points raised by you.
@ersakthivel has highlighted a significant point for the IN. IN has a team in Delhi which has been involved in designing and force planning and interestingly their offices were in south Delhi away from the Head Quarters. I had an opportunity to interact with some members of the team and was very impressed with the planning that had been done. The regular induction of warships to the IN is being done quite smoothly and credit must be given to the IN for it.

The Navy plans the fleet according to the expertise available here. Of course they import core systems and fit it on them.

But what prevented IAF from designing a fighter here along working closely with HAL and fit foreign engine subsystems on it as it is presently followed in Tejas LCA and Arjun Mbt. Both have foreign Engines and many subsystems on them just like the navy's ship.

So it is a lie to say that Navy has better indigenous record because of it needs are not complex . Now DRDO is designing torpedos, sonars and even GTRE has chipped in with Kaveri marine version producing 12 Kw power for ships.

So what the navy is going to to is to replace these foreign items with local ones in new ships and replace old foreign armaments in existing ships when they come for refit.

But IA and IAF will lie to the GOI forever that such step by step indigenisation cannot be done for their platform and continue to import night blind T-90s and Pliatus -7s playing all kind of requirement creep games with DRDO.

 

[Decklander]

@p2prada, IN designs the ships on its own based on its requirents and gives the blueprints to shipyards to build them. IN also has its own officers posted in various DRDO organisations to support and supervise the development of advanced systems. IN also regularly interacts with IITs and other such reputed institutions for developing high tech sensors and sensor fusion. IN has the largest amount of domestically sourced weapons on its ships. Please remember that I have used the word,"Domestically sourced".
IN makes ships itself so we can never blame PSUs for failure but take the case of IA & IAF, they kill projects and than blame PSUs for the failure. They have never taken the blame themselves for the fiascos. We all know how complex it is to master rocket science & Digital FBW, if DRDO cud master that, it is impossible to believe that they can't make things as per the reqts of IA & IAF. Did it ever occur to you as to why do we have such a successful Missile program?
It is bcoz noone issued multiple PSQRs for them and DRDO worked alone in developing them without any interference from IA & IAF and also as no one wud share this tech with us so the buy option was not there.

 

[Decklander]

IA & IAF found Kaveri engine unfit for anything that they have, IN has found it fit to be used on its ships. We in IN, love our nation and we show it also.

 

[ersakthivel]

@ kushalappa @Armand2REP @Decklander @Kunal Biswas @pmaitra, @sayareakd @Ray Sir

Sir, I can guarantee that the LCA's specs were unilaterally upped by ADA. This was repeated by P Rajkumar also. He pointed out that the specs for LCA were very basic in the 1985 RFP equivalent to the early models of JF-17.

The RFP did not even have digital FBW, meaning IAF never asked for it.

@Austin - Do you have the quote for it? I don't.

Anyway, I was talking about LCA program, not the trainer program.


Anyway, if we come back to the point of PSQRs, PSQRs are always set higher than what's required. IN is no exception when they placed a tender for BVR missiles for Sea Harrier. The Naval tender saw no replies to the tender and hence had to dilute requirements by 50% for range. A requirement of 100+Km was reduced to Derby's 50Km and that's what we see on the Sea Harrier today.



Requirements are subject to change based on availability and this is especially true of the international market.

Anyway, you also need to consider the backdrop of events that transpired before the decision to import was taken. IAF is not adverse to accepting indigenous trainers. IAF was no fool when the decision to accept Deepak was taken. IAF was no fool when they gave the IJT contract to HAL either. We currently have no way of knowing what flaws are there on HAL's basic trainer designs or even inadequacies. The fact is IAF did create a PSQR and gave it to HAL. We don't know what was HAL's answer at the time of handing over the PSQR.

From the article,
IAF diluted al least 12 benchmarks for trainer aircraft | Business Standard


Whatever PSQR was handed over to HAL, the article itself claims it was unrealistic. If we consider the 12 relaxed benchmarks, then I can list three other trainers that match the requirements stated above, that's the Chinese JL-8, Turkish, (something) and Brazilian Super Tucano. These unrealistic requirements were achievable by these countries up to a certain extent. Why is it that these countries are able to achieve unrealistic benchmarks? Please note that there is not a single trainer in the world which has an 8 degree FoV for the rear seat. I think the highest is the Chinese JL-8 with 6 degree FoV.

Whatever happened between March 2009 and October 2009, only IAF and HAL know it.

The aircraft shortlisted in 2009 were the PC-7 Mk2, Korean KT-1 and American T-6C. The best among these is obviously the PC-7 Mk2. Wish the Chinese or the Turkish had participated, but alas we are stuck with PC-7. As for what happened between March and October, 2009, maybe IAF or HAL will reveal some info related to IAF's decision for importing.

Sir, I can guarantee that the LCA's specs were unilaterally upped by ADA. This was repeated by P Rajkumar also. He pointed out that the specs for LCA were very basic in the 1985 RFP equivalent to the early models of JF-17.

Anyway, if we come back to the point of PSQRs, PSQRs are always set higher than what's required. IN is no exception when they placed a tender for BVR missiles for Sea Harrier. The Naval tender saw no replies to the tender and hence had to dilute requirements by 50% for range. A requirement of 100+Km was reduced to Derby's 50Km and that's what we see on the Sea Harrier today.

Requirements are subject to change based on availability and this is especially true of the international market.

http://tejas.gov.in/featured_articles/air_marshal_msd_wollen/page02.html

Space constraints prevent any meaningful description of materials, technology, facilities, processes developed for execution of the project. Military aviation enthusiasts may read a monograph on Aeronautical Technology that has attained maturity through DRDO efforts; much of this technology finds application in the LCA project. The monograph was brought out at Aero India 1998. The LCA is tailless with a double-sweep delta wing. Its wing span is 8.2 m, length 13.2 m, height 4.4 m. TOW clean 8.500 kg, MTOW 12500kg. It will be super-sonic at all altitudes, max speed of M 1.5 at the tropopause. Specific excess power and g-over load data has not been published. Maximum sustained rate of turn will be 17 deg per sec and maximum attainable 30 deg per sec. Funds have been sanctioned for a Naval LCA. PD and studies in critical technology areas have commenced. The aircraft will be powered by a Kaveri engine (more information follows) and is to operate from the Indian Navy's Air Defence Ship, under construction. Launch speed over a 12 deg ramp is 100 kts; recovery speed during a no flare deck landing, using arrester gear, is 120 kts. Take off mass 13 tonne, recovery mass 10 tonne. Most stringent requirements are that the airframe will be modified: nose droop to provide improved view during landing approach; wing leading edge vortexes (LEVCON) to increase lift during approach and strengthened undercarriage. Nose wheel steering will be powered for deck maneuverability.

The above passage lists out the ambitious PSQR for tejas mk-1 by none other than the MSD WOOLLEN retired chief of HAL and an Airmarshal of IAF. Now compare the Instantaneous turn rate requirement and the Sustained turn rate requirement of LCA mk-1 in the initial PSQR above to the specs of F-16 C/ D below.

Note now with one ton extra empty weight with almost the same old engine thrust of 84 Kn LCA mk-1 has crossed Mach 1.6 opposed to Mach 1.5 in the initial ASR and the aim if Mach 1.6 for the FOC and MAch 2 for Tejas mk-2.


The following is the comparison of the F-16 C/D . You can see the initial ASR given to LCA closely matches this . SO do you call the F-16 C/D equivalent of an early model of JF-17?

You are posting dubious statements with no relation to truth forever in LCA thread. and repeating it religiously in every other thread in this forum.You are 100 percent wrong. It means like the stupid IAF chief who said that LCA was a simple MIg-21 ++ , who did not what is the specs of Mig-21 and what is the specs of LCA mk-1,

You don't know what is the specs of F-16 C/ D and JF-17 or LCA mk-1 either.

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

Type: F-16A
Function: fighter
Year: 1976
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 * 105.7kN P&W F100-PW-220
Wing Span: 10.00 m
Length: 15.03 m
Height: 5.09 m
Wing Area: 27.90 m2
Empty Weight: 7387 kg
Max.Weight: 17010 kg
Max. Speed: Mach 2.05
Ceiling: 16750 m
Max. Range: 3900 km
Armament: 1*g 20 mm 9276 kg payload
Unit cost: 20 million USD
Type: F-16C/D Fighting Falcon
Country: USA
Export: Bahrain/Greece/Israel/Egypt/NZ/UAE/Singapore/South Korea/Oman/Chile
Function: Multirole Fighter
In Service date: 1979
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 x 131,6 kN (29590 lbs) General Electric F110
Wing Span: 10.00 m
Wing area: 27.88 m2
Wing Aspect Ratio: 3.09
Length: 15.03 m
Height: 5.03 m

Empty Weight: 8581 kg
Internal Fuel Weight: 3105 kg
Max.Weight: 19187 kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.0
Ferry Range: 4215 km

Combat Radius: 900 km
Internal Armament: 1*g 20 mm
G-limits: 9/-3.5
Maximum instantenous turn rate: 26 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: 18 degrees/second
TWR(50% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~1.26:1
TWR(100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~1.1:1

---------------------------------------------------------------

17 deg sustained turn rate is the initial ASR set for LCA mk-1 just 1 degree less than F-16 block C/D.

1.Even with 6G and 20 deg AOA limitation the LCA has already completed a horizontal loop in Aeroindia demo within 23 seconds. That comes to a STR of close to 16 deg with the limitations of partially opened flight envelope.We don't know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.

Also with the same 6G 20 deg AOA restriction it completed a vertical loop within 20 seconds in AeroIndia 2013 ,meaning it had a STR of close to 18 deg in vertical loop. In a recent fly past the Su-35 too completed the powered vertical loop within 18 seconds. Once again We don't know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.

Recent reports in a blog indicate that LCA mk-1 has achieved a Sustained Turn Rate to the IAf's satisfaction even with 1 ton extra empty weight than the original target of 5470 kg. SO it must have improved over the aeroindia2013 demo in a substantial manner.

So in no way can the initial airframe design can be called draggy.

Also the TWR ratio of LCA with 50 percent fuel is 1.07. Same for F-16 is 1.25. So with even lower thrust to weight ratio than F-16 C/D , LCA has managed to pull closer to the F-16 C/D .

In mk-2 it will only further improve, with weight reduction due to more composite percentage and a 20 percent higher thrust engine in GE F414 IN S 6. Since the length of fuselage is going to be expanded by 0.5 meter only it won't add to much empty weight either.

Also with an empty weight of 8.5 ton F-16 C/D carries 3.1 ton fuel.

LCA mk-1 with it's empty weight of 6.4 tons carries 2.5 ton fuel.SO LCA mk-1 has a close to 10 percent better fuel fraction ratio than the F-16 C/ D. Indicating it won't suffer much in range in an air to air configuration of 2 ton air to air missile load which is it's primary role.

But by having a significantly lower wing loading than the F-16 C/D Tejas mk-1 will have a much better Instantaneous turn Rate than the 26 degree given for F-16 C/ D.

Even the initial ASR given for LCA by MSD Woollen indicates a requirement of 30 deg maximum attainable in the ADA website.

So in the all important high off bore sight WVR missile launching capacity based on Instantaneous Turn Rate , it will be better than the F-16 C/D, just going by the low wing loading factor alone.. But needs citation ofcourse

Anyway, if we come back to the point of PSQRs, PSQRs are always set higher than what's required. IN is no exception when they placed a tender for BVR missiles for Sea Harrier. The Naval tender saw no replies to the tender and hence had to dilute requirements by 50% for range. A requirement of 100+Km was reduced to Derby's 50Km and that's what we see on the Sea Harrier today.

Requirements are subject to change based on availability and this is especially true of the international market.

So the above rules always apply to imported products only perhaps.

If a few local developed Arjun or LCA falls short of very ambitious and often contradictory PSQR set up by the forces they must be finished off as simple Tech demo projects, and we should float a 12 times watered down ASR for the international market to import stuff well below the local tech level like in the case of Pliatus or T-90.

Ofcourse it would be a sin to induct them at 90 percent of PSQR capacity and ask the developed to improve it in tranches.

I know how vehemently you argued through out the LCA tejas _IV and III threads that IAF should never compromise on it's standards and should not buy even the 40 tejas Mk1s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bennedose]

So it is a lie to say that Navy has better indigenous record because of it needs are not complex . Now DRDO is designing torpedos, sonars and even GTRE has chipped in with Kaveri marine version producing 12 Kw power for ships.

A very long time ago (at least 40 years) the Indian navy realised that it's budget would be the smallest of the three forces and that they only way they could make do would be to encourage local engineering. And yes Naval officers have always been posted at shipyards getting their hands dirty, and naval people have been studying Naval architecture at IIT Kharagpur.

I would not be surprised if some desk bound moron in the IAF decided that HAL would be given specs to achieve that were unavailable anywhere else in the world with the footnote that if it was already available it could be imported, so HAL had better develop it. The army too has done exactly that as far as I can tell for both Arjun and Nag.

The forces and industry simply must cooperate. The forces need to know what out technological and engineering weaknesses and strengths are. If one reads stories of the decrepit rickety stuff British and American pilots flew in WW1 and WW2 because there was no other go - it gives us an idea of how forces had to make do with indigenous stuff while factories did their best to solve problems. That cooperation must develop in India rather than contempt or disregard for the other.

In the long term being a great power means developing a military industrial complex. Not an import based military

 

[Decklander]

IA & IAF have imported equipment worth 100s of billions since we became independent but they did spend even few 100 crores for R&D within their own forces or even a create a team which cud forecast the weapon requirements for next 20 yrs. IN bought Leander class alongwith designs from UK than evolved it to make Godavari class and since than there is no stopping IN. The result is IAC-1. This is the way to leaarn, evolve and master the tech.

 

[bennedose]

IA & IAF have imported equipment worth 100s of billions since we became independent but they did spend even few 100 crores for R&D within their own forces or even a create a team which cud forecast the weapon requirements for next 20 yrs. IN bought Leander class alongwith designs from UK than evolved it to make Godavari class and since than there is no stopping IN. The result is IAC-1. This is the way to leaarn, evolve and master the tech.

Deckalnder, to be fair I think Indian engineering was pretty backward and limited in 1947. Having said that the Navy placed people in the right places and helped develop that engineering. The Air Force must do that. In the long term that is the only way forward - cooperation of Indians with Indians.

 

[TrueSpirit]

@p2prada, IN designs the ships on its own based on its requirents and gives the blueprints to shipyards to build them. IN also has its own officers posted in various DRDO organisations to support and supervise the development of advanced systems. IN also regularly interacts with IITs and other such reputed institutions for developing high tech sensors and sensor fusion. IN has the largest amount of domestically sourced weapons on its ships. Please remember that I have used the word,"Domestically sourced".
IN makes ships itself so we can never blame PSUs for failure but take the case of IA & IAF, they kill projects and than blame PSUs for the failure. They have never taken the blame themselves for the fiascos. We all know how complex it is to master rocket science & Digital FBW, if DRDO cud master that, it is impossible to believe that they can't make things as per the reqts of IA & IAF. Did it ever occur to you as to why do we have such a successful Missile program?
It is bcoz noone issued multiple PSQRs for them and DRDO worked alone in developing them without any interference from IA & IAF and also as no one wud share this tech with us so the buy option was not there.

You have simply nailed it, Sir. For good.

Even if IN sources foreign subsystems for its platforms, at least it makes an effort to indigenous & on top of that, it has been pretty successful in that endeavor. In that respect, IN is the best among the three arms.

 

[ersakthivel]

You have simply nailed it, Sir. For good.

Even if IN sources foreign subsystems for its platforms, at least it makes an effort to indigenous & on top of that, it has been pretty successful in that endeavor. In that respect, IN is the best among the three arms.

The true hall mark of any comprehensive national defence policy is to harness the avilable tech within the country into viable weapon platforms , and if that platform lacks some tech bridge it with foreign components like the navy does with warships,

What IAf and IA does is exactly the opposite,

they buy T-90s which were not fit to operate indian hot summer conditions even today and ask the DRDO to fix the problems.

Same is the case with the Su-30. When they bought it Russian avionics in it were not up to the mark and IAF asked HAL, DARE and DRDO to integrate mission computer avionics and stores software with it.

But when HLL developed a mock up of HTT-35 BTT in the 90s and offered it to IAF in the early ninetees IAF kept quiet. And all of a sudden they woke up in March 2009 to give a very tough PSQR to HLL and within six months they determined that HLL would not be upto th mark and went to the global market with obsolete ASR.

Now when the HLL is developing HTT_40 with it's internal accrual funds of 150 cr.They are writing to the defence minister to stop it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SO what IAF and IA do is bleeding the Indian forex reserves and stalling the indigenization effort.




In the end they are making HLL which is building SU-30 MKI from "Raw material stage" and had it's own product ALH used by Equadarian president as his official helo look like a bunch of clowns in the international market at the behest of import lobbies!!!!!!

When the IAF which kept a deadly silence for decades and refused to show any interest in a trainer why is the IAF chief writting a letter to MOD to stop HLL from making and marketing it's own trainer superior than Pliatus and earn foreign exchange for GOI?

Shameful for the IAF chief to write such a cheap letter . What is the design R&D share of HLL in FGFA? A big ZERO.

But now efforts are afoot to paint as if the HLL is neglecting it's share of 50 percent R& D in FGFA endangering national security and instead wasting time on trainer that has already been bought by IAF!!!!!!!!!


Now IAF has already delayed giving any worthwhile PSQR for AMCA from 2002 to 2012. It took ten years and three different ASRs to arrive at the present final or not so final ASR!!!!!!!!!!

By this time Chinese have flight tested TWO different 5th gen stealth fighters.

 

[Decklander]

If we sit and evaluate the programs which have got delayed, we will find a very shocking tale that its only IAF & IA whose projects have got delayed and none for IN.
torpedos, ASW Rockets, Highly sophisticated EW sytems, Chaffs, ESM like Ajanta & Ellora, APSOH, LOFAR, EMMCA (electronic modular command and control applications) computerised action information system developed with IIT Chennai & Mumbai. Besides many missile projects. Kolkata class is delayed for want of Barak-8 which is Indo-Israel project. IAC-1 got delayed due to the damage to gear box during transportation to Kochi. Otherwise everything has been on schedule.
The Missile program has progressed smoothly. Today we have one of the finest tanks in Arjun MK2. LCA being first ever so hightech ac from India is comparable to nearly every other 4.5 gen ac in the world and that too after all the efforts of IAF to kill this program. Every Indian shud be proud of the fact that while USA/UK/France/Russia/Sweden have evolved their 3rd gen ac into 4.5 gen ac, HAL in its first attempt has reached same place.Imagine, HAL made this ac for IAF and IN goes for its navalised version, commits funds from its own budget and proudly claims it to be its own.
All planners of IAF shud go and drown themselves for the kind of behaviour they showed towards Indian products.

 

[p2prada]

IN has a team in Delhi which has been involved in designing and force planning and interestingly their offices were in south Delhi away from the Head Quarters. I had an opportunity to interact with some members of the team and was very impressed with the planning that had been done. The regular induction of warships to the IN is being done quite smoothly and credit must be given to the IN for it.

That's the thing. Ship design is far far easier compared to aircraft or tank designs. Just look at how many ship designs and projects exist as compared to aircraft or tank projects. As of today there are dozens of ships designs available. Even the smallest countries have a ship design bureau. IN having one is not out of the ordinary. Heck even shipyards have their own design bureaus.

As a matter of fact, even USAF or VVS don't have their own design bureaus for aircraft. If they did, then there would be no need for ADA or HAL design bureaus or even LM or Sukhoi. IAF can submit their own designs and have them tested while HAL directly manufactures after IOC. That doesn't make sense.

As of today the only country where the air force has its own design bureau is PAF with PAC Kamra. It is owned by PAF. That's only because there isn't a civilian controlled entity in Pakistan that is capable of performing the tasks needed. What a waste of time and talent where the PAF will have to use its own manpower for something they shouldn't be involved in.

Btw, the Navy isn't inducting ships regularly. The only capital ships with a regular induction schedule (with around 1 year delay) is the Talwar class that they are directly importing from Russia. All their other projects are stuck. P-17A, P-15B are yet to start construction. P-15A is stuck without weapons due to the Barak-8 delay which may go on until 2015-16. Scorpene subs are delayed too. Obviously IAC-1 is delayed. Gorky is delayed. N-LCA is delayed big time. There is no mention of N-MRCA RFP even though RFI was sent in 2009. Only Brahmos was more or less on schedule and that has nothing to do with Navy's design bureau.

 

[Decklander]

Designing a warship is very diff from making a merchant ship. The warship must be stable and shud have watertight zones and also ability to float even if it is flooded upto 50% area below water line. It shud also be able to take battle damage and yet fight.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Its futile effort to argue when one compare the complexity involve making a Warship with Aircraft and Ground fighting vehicle, and putting his weight more on the other for argument sake..

 

[Decklander]

Many people here will not know that all our ships are NBCD compliant and we maintain 1.1 atm P inside the ship during "hands to action stations, assume NBCD state-1 condition zulu". All under water compartments get sealed and they can't be opened from inside as we have NP deployed to ensure that in case of battle damage, based on damage assesment, those will remain closed and people inside those compartments are simply supposed to die of drowning to maintain watertight integrity of the ship.