Hindustan Trainer HTT-40

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
My view is that the HAL has failed India in many areas starting from the most modern aircraft of those time HF 24.

They alone are not to blame.

It is the foolish Govt which has failed India!
So, this implies that everyone is equally culpable for state of affairs but our successive govt. are primarily at fault.

By this logic, it is us, people of India, who have inexorably failed themselves with a remarkable consistency (by electing incompetent parliamentarians), since independence since the rot, that has set, is not new.
 

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
Correct.

I have said apart from them, it was the incompetent and impotent govt too!

If Kurt Tank was allowed to perform, Indian aviation would have been a different story!
The Indian story is one of if's & but's.

A nation of infinite possibilities but :)
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Marut was superior to Jaguar and so the british held back the engines for this ac as they did not want this ac to out do jaguar.
The British asked for money to design the engine for Marut. It was GoI which refused. It was much later that GoI decided to join the Egyptian engine program.

Anyway, with respect to the trainer, it is everybody's fault.
 

halloweene

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
546
Likes
230
I wont enter in any controversy, but what seems evident to me is that there's been a conceptual switch, from a full syllabus advanced turboprop trainer, PC21 or Super Tucano like to a two types syllabus including a basic trainer (PC7) and advanced jet trainer (Hawk T2). IF any bribe is to be looked at, which was the first signed market?
 

Twinblade

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
1,578
Likes
3,231
Country flag
I wont enter in any controversy, but what seems evident to me is that there's been a conceptual switch, from a full syllabus advanced turboprop trainer, PC21 or Super Tucano like to a two types syllabus including a basic trainer (PC7) and advanced jet trainer (Hawk T2). IF any bribe is to be looked at, which was the first signed market?
The hawk deal is ancient history.

Originally:-

RoleOriginal EquipmentProposed Replacement/UpgradesOrderedRemarks
Basic TrainerHPT-32 DeepakHTT-34 in 80s and HTT-35 in 90s. IAF takes no interest, projects abandoned. IAF gives QSR for HTT- 40 only at the end of service life of HPT-32, recommends MoD against project, goes for immediate procurement.Pilatus PC-7 at diluted requirementsIAF wants to order more PC-7 at standards deemed unworthy of a domestic project
Intermediate TrainerHAL KiranHJT-3673 nos pre production orderIAF wants to put PC-7 for intermediate training as well, especially when HJT-36 is within months of IOC. At standards deemed unworthy of a basic trainer let alone an intermediate trainer
Advanced TrainerBAE HawkCAT HJT-39---Project in design phase
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
If only IAF had not made unrealistic PSQRs for LCA way back in 1983, we wud not have had the need to import MMRCA. We cud have the LCA and than modified/evolved it to suit whichever role we needed it to perform.
This isn't true. The LCA specifications were unilaterally upped by ADA on their own. For eg, IAF never asked for digital FBW, ADA decided to put it. I don't know the specifics but even the radar specs are not the same as what IAF asked for. It was much more simpler. From what I know IAF never asked for internal EW suite either, it was ADA which decided LCA should have one.

Dassault offered an IAF compliant analog FBW for LCA in 1989, but ADA rejected it saying they will make a digital one on their own.

Overall, LCA specs was less than what's on the Mirage-2000 when the 2000-5 Mk2 came out.

Even today LCA's specs are a little better than a Mirage-IIIE, apart from climbing rate and T/W.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
This isn't true. The LCA specifications were unilaterally upped by ADA on their own. For eg, IAF never asked for digital FBW, ADA decided to put it. I don't know the specifics but even the radar specs are not the same as what IAF asked for. It was much more simpler. From what I know IAF never asked for internal EW suite either, it was ADA which decided LCA should have one.

Dassault offered an IAF compliant analog FBW for LCA in 1989, but ADA rejected it saying they will make a digital one on their own.

Overall, LCA specs was less than what's on the Mirage-2000 when the 2000-5 Mk2 came out.

Even today LCA's specs are a little better than a Mirage-IIIE, apart from climbing rate and T/W.
Is it that IAF leadership (& IA, as well, in most cases) does not know about the basics of project-management (like, having something called "freezing of requirements"), which sounds quite improbable.

The other possibility is that they consider themselves to be somehow entitled to loot the nation (on the lines of politicians, bureaucrats & everyone else when presented with an opportunity). This would imply that our armed forces are no different from civilians especially when they make it to the top hallowed echelons of leadership, which is disastrous since in that case, the last institution that stood for probity has already been breached & crumbled by creeping of ordinary human vices in Armed Forces' professional conduct.

And, if the latter is the case, we are indeed a nation of rogues & thieves (not much better than the wretched Pakis).

Morality, in our case, is just a lack of opportunity.

So who tailored LCA's length to Mig-21 inorder to use the ground facilities for Mig-21?

Who gave the radar spec?

Who gave the 4 ton payload which is closed to the twin engined Mig-29?

ADA was formed to carry out the LCA project only after higher ups in the scientific establishment saw the wasted efforts of HAL due to continuous wrangling between them in Marut , and many other projects which made Kurt tank pack up his team.

So designers from HAL were separated and formed as ADA to make sure the LCA project does not meet the same fate as that of Marut.

What the scientific establishment wanted was to develop the digital FCS and composite tech along with radar and Engine tech.

But IAF was dead set against this approach and just wanted another monkey version of Mig-21 which had none of these tech, which would be obsolete by the time it gets developed.

That was the start of all problems for LCA.

But the job of ASR was done by IAF and not ADA. IAF simply gave 4 ton payload and insisted on a bigger radar and incrementally increased demands as time passed by.There are many official open source quotes already in ADA Tejas -IV thread.

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


http://tkstales.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/the-tejas-arrives/
The Tejas Debate Continues | TKS' Tales

you can read all the details about the missed chances in the links above. They are one of the most detailed discussions about the history of missed chances of the indian fighter design capability and how intense the wrangling among ADA-IAF-HAL is,

This is what Philip rajkumar a foremost authority on Tejas wrote about Tejas program and what it is all about. It is not just about building a fighter , but building indian military aviation industry from the ashes of the many failed programs like marut and missed decades of chances.

philip rajkumar
I worked in the LCA project for nine years from 17 Sep 1994 to 31 Aug 2003 (actually 17 days short of nine years!). I was deputed to ADA by the IAF to oversee the flight test programme of the Technology Demonstration phase of the project. Having been on both sides of the fence i have a few points to make.
1. Development of a capable aeronautical industry is a small step by small step evolutionary process.Infrastructure and skill sets of the work force have to be built up over decades with considerable effort. All this requires investment of money and managerial resources. Mainly due to financial constraints and lack of vision in the IAF, HAL and the GOI we allowed capabilities built up during the Marut and Kiran programmes to atrophy. While the world leapt ahead with several technological innovations like fly by wire,digital avionics and use of composites for structures HAL did not run a single research programme because it was not the practice to do research unless it was linked to a specicific project.
2.The LCA project is where it is today thanks to one man-Dr VS Arunachalam who as the SA to RM in 1985 had the gumption and clout to go to the GOI and convince them that India could build a fourth generation fighter. It was a leap of faith no doubt.
3. HAL feels wronged about being asked to play second fiddle to ADA. This pique continues to hurt the project even today.
4. Without help from Dassault of France,BAE Systems UK, Lockheed Martin of the USA and Alenia of Italy we would not have succeeded in developing the fly by wire flight control system,glass cockpit,and composite structures for the two TD aircraft.
5. So far the flight safety record of the programme has been good. I pray every day that it remains that way. The loss of an aircraft early in the programme would have surely lead to its closure.
6.All pilots who have flown the aircraft say its handling qualities are very good. It means it is easy to fly and perform the mission.
7.It needs to be put into IAF sevice as soon as possible to gain more experience to iron out bugs which are sure to show up during operational use.
8.Programme management could have been better. IAF is to blame for washing its hands off the project for 20 years from 1986-2006. A management team was put in place at ADA in 2007.
9.Dr Kota Harinarayana and all those who have worked and continue to work have done so with great sincerity and dedication.
10.Indian aeronautics has benefitted immensely from the programme. It is a topic for separate research.
11. It was a rare privilege for me to have been given an opportunity to contribute to the programme by setting up the National Flight Test Centre and putting place a methodology of work which has ensured safety so far.
12. According to me the project can be called a complete success only when the aircraft sees squadron service for a couple of decades. We will have to wait but it is progressing on the right lines and we as a nation have nothing to be ashamed of.
I have already posted it on the link below,

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-65.html#post730973

This is the detail of wing redesign according to IAF new demands as late as 2004, now saying it is ADA who upped the ante with specifications is not correct.

http://164.100.24.208/ls/CommitteeR/Defence/17threport.pdf

The above PDF link holds the following report,

STANDING COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE
(2006-2007)

(FOURTEENTH LOK SABHA)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
IN-DEPTH STUDY AND CRITICAL REVIEW OF
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED (HAL)

SEVENTEENTH REPORT
Pages-41 to 45 of this report details all the important milestones in time periods for the tejas project.It also details what is the reason for the missing deadline in detail


"¢ Redesign of Composite Wings to cater for Weapon definition changes
specified by Indian Air Force (IAF) during Jan 04.

the page number -43 of the above report states many true facts opposed to loads of BS heaped on LCA Tejas by many people all over the net calling it as 40 years old, and 30 years old obsolete project.

Exposing the BS being heaped on LCA tejas as a project failed to meet the original ASR of 1986. Infact it's weapon definition was revised by IAF as late as 2004 resulting in the redesign of it's wings leading to more weight and further delay.

ANd it explicitly states that wings were redesigned to cater to the weapon definition changes specified by the IAF during Jan 2004.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
It is impossible for me to accept what @p2prada has posted. IAF is a clear cut culprit here and no amount of data can prove them clean. We blame HAL & MOD but you must realise that the initial PSQRs are always written by IAF, HAL works to meet them and than MOD steps in after taking tons of bribe to dilute those PSQRs to favour some vendor leaving HAL with the blame for failure. It is very shocking that when the PSQRs are lowered, a tender is immidiately called for without giving HAL any time to respond. This clearly shows that it is IAF & MOD who shud be blamed and not HAL.
HAL does have its failings but they are neither god nor that big a failure as has been made out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
@ kushalappa @Armand2REP @Decklander @Kunal Biswas @pmaitra, @sayareakd @Ray Sir




The original 1983 ASR of Tejas was;
1. for a top speed of mach 1.5 and
2.STR of 17 deg.
3. with only lesser range lesser weight missiles.
4. And an MTOW of 12.5 tons

All exceeded within the 70 percent operational capability of Tejas mk-1 with in IOC itself.

if the design itself is not robust, then how can mk-2 ,
carry 5 tons weapon load ,
with mach 2 topspeeds , higher service altitude,
and 120 km range Meter missile along with a radar same tracking and detection range as RAFALE?



Some more in the link below,

The Tejas Debate – A Repartee | TKS' Tales

http://www.tejas.gov.in/featured_articles/air_marshal_msd_wollen/page01.html

And Retired Air marshal MSD woolen's following article on Tejas has the above original ASR specs mentioned in a monograph at 1998 aeroindia .Still we don't have the original ASR given for tejas in 1983 when the program started .It would be much less than this something one can expect normally. And even in MK-1 version tejas has crossed the original top speed requirement of mach 1.5 with 12.5 ton MTOW to demonstarte mach 1.6 with 13.5 ton MTOW.

And as per the recent article it has already satisfied IAF with it's turn rate (now it will be much higher than the 17 deg mentioned in the original ASR.)

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.
And it was discussed here in

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-3.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
@ kushalappa @Armand2REP @Decklander @Kunal Biswas @pmaitra, @sayareakd @Ray Sir




The original 1983 ASR of Tejas was;
1. for a top speed of mach 1.5 and
2.STR of 17 deg.
3. with only lesser range lesser weight missiles.
4. And an MTOW of 12.5 tons

All exceeded within the 70 percent operational capability of Tejas mk-1 with in IOC itself.

if the design itself is not robust, then how can mk-2 ,
carry 5 tons weapon load ,
with mach 2 topspeeds , higher service altitude,
and 120 km range Meter missile along with a radar same tracking and detection range as RAFALE?



Some more in the link below,

The Tejas Debate – A Repartee | TKS' Tales

LCA Tejas - Featured Articles: The Light Combat Aircraft Story by Air Marshal MSD Wollen (Retd)

And Retired Air marshal MSD woolen's following article on Tejas has the above original ASR specs.



And it was discussed here in

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-3.html
I am well aware of these facts. You might recall our runin with eachother wherein I stated that the true potential of LCA can be better utilised if we put a bigger 110Kn engine and increase its length to about 14.5m as that will help us get maximum out of its 38sqm wing and FBW controls. This ac will than beat upgraded M2K also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
I am well aware of these facts. You might recall our runin with eachother wherein I stated that the true potential of LCA can be better utilised if we put a bigger 110Kn engine and increase its length to about 14.5m as that will help us get maximum out of its 38sqm wing and FBW controls. This ac will than beat upgraded M2K also.
Right now we don't have a 120 kn engine that can fit in Tejas fuselage .

But will the GOI go for any future version of 120 kn powered EPE (if developed and available ) at least for the first engine refit?
 

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
Right now we don't have a 120 kn engine that can fit in Tejas fuselage .

But will the GOI go for any future version of 120 kn powered EPE (if developed and available ) at least for the first engine refit?
To avoid a repeat of HF-24 engine fiasco, IMHO, GOI shud fund GE for developing the 126KN version of F414EPE with a condition that they will do complete TOT including metallurgical processes with complete commercial rights. The present SU-30MKI has engines that are this powerfull but look at the weight, length and fuel consumption and other issues. we can use that engine to fit even in M2K.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
We can do a JV in Kaveri project, At its current state it can give power to Tejas for flight if not hi-preform ace..

This is a 60% done project, GE can provide rest 40% in next 5 years if we able to get them into the picture..

, IMHO, GOI shud fund GE for developing the 126KN version of F414EPE with a condition that they will do complete TOT including metallurgical processes with complete commercial rights. The present SU-30MKI has engines that are this powerfull but look at the weight, length and fuel consumption and other issues. we can use that engine to fit even in M2K.
 

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
We can do a JV in Kaveri project, At its current state it can give power to Tejas for flight if not hi-preform ace..

This is a 60% done project, GE can provide rest 40% in next 5 years if we able to get them into the picture..
Bro, why JV?, why not have F414EPE as indian funded, foreign made, Indian product. And let GE train our people in the intricasies of making such engines. That will give us a quantum jump in terms of tech and metallurgy which we can use to make evn better engines using our brains.
Kaveri is a great engine, we have faltered only bcoz of lack of better metallurgy and nothing else. Have you seen its bypass ratio and flat ratings? I may not be able to say it all here but once again GTRE had put their sights higher like a true blood fighter pilot.
We will do it. But who will cut the hands which accept bribes and have no patriotism left in them. The people who take these decisions are the people who sell thr wives, daughters and may be even thr sons daily.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
It is impossible for me to accept what @p2prada has posted. IAF is a clear cut culprit here and no amount of data can prove them clean. We blame HAL & MOD but you must realise that the initial PSQRs are always written by IAF, HAL works to meet them and than MOD steps in after taking tons of bribe to dilute those PSQRs to favour some vendor leaving HAL with the blame for failure. It is very shocking that when the PSQRs are lowered, a tender is immidiately called for without giving HAL any time to respond. This clearly shows that it is IAF & MOD who shud be blamed and not HAL.
HAL does have its failings but they are neither god nor that big a failure as has been made out.
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.

As for trainer program, I don't know the basics of it, not even the requirements, so I am not at a position to debate on that. I doubt anybody here is qualified to do that here due to the lack of open source information regarding HAL's projects. Something that I actually like about HAL. They keep their mouth shut until they are ready to show it off, unlike DRDO which makes tall proclamations ten years before they get anything done.

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.

I don't see anything exceptionally different about the air force's trainer tender with regards to the dilution of the tender. 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
Asked for comments, N V Tyagi told Business Standard the PSQR of March 2009 set unrealistically high standards for HAL to meet. These were lowered in the October 2009 ASQR because the IAF was going for global procurement. Lower standards would bring in more vendors and generate competition.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Sir, this sounds very convincing & makes sense.

However, not being an insider & relying on filtered reports/viewpoints has kept me completely confused regarding our indigenization efforts.

Indicting Armed forces leadership as bribe-hungry folks in all discussions & omnipresent sweeping allegations of corruption against them sounds really big deal (over-stepping) to me. Maybe, we don't really know enough to be able to form a right judgement. Maybe, DPSU's &/or some private players are influential enough to be able to be able to colour our views about the Armed forces leadership :frusty:

It is impossible to me to be able to understand whether the armed forces leadership & Def. Min. are at fault in this aspect, or it is our DPSU's.

Especially, getting regularly bombarded by persuasive arguments on DFI from both sides of the divide since 4 years has served only to confuse me even more.

As far as I can see, @p2prada & @Armand2REP :) are decisively pro-armed forces leadership & anti-DPSU, while @Decklander @Kunal Biswas @ersakthivel @pmaitra, @sayareakd are pro-DPSU & indigenization through private industry participation. I am not sure about @Ray Sir's stand on this.
Small correction. @Armand2REP is all about France and French made weapon systems. He loves to bat for HAL ALH, when convenient, because it has French turbines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
The reason i said JV on kaveri coz its a on going program, GE can help us there..

New engine would need new project and delays, though it can be very successful..

Bro, why JV?, why not have F414EPE as indian funded, foreign made, Indian product. And let GE train our people in the intricasies of making such engines. That will give us a quantum jump in terms of tech and metallurgy which we can use to make evn better engines using our brains.
Kaveri is a great engine, we have faltered only bcoz of lack of better metallurgy and nothing else
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
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.


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

As for trainer program, I don't know the basics of it, not even the requirements, so I am not at a position to debate on that. I doubt anybody here is qualified to do that here due to the lack of open source information regarding HAL's projects. Something that I actually like about HAL. They keep their mouth shut until they are ready to show it off, unlike DRDO which makes tall proclamations ten years before they get anything done.

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.

I don't see anything exceptionally different about the air force's trainer tender with regards to the dilution of the tender. 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.

[/QUOTE]

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


Repeating a lie many times won't make it true. The ADA was not formed when discussions about LCA project started from 1979 . It was the scientists at ISRO who wondered aloud why when we can produce a rocket engine we could not produce a fighter even with foreign engine?

And LCA was discussed between IAF, HAL and the scientific establishment of the country. At that time IAF could see no further than an improved monkey version of Mig-21. With close defence supply arrangement between US and Pakistan the scientific establishment thought that such a fighter will be obsolete when it enters the service in say the middle 1990s.

Because the french have by then started producing fly by wire delta mirage.SO they wanted tech like Digital Fly by wire, composite tech, and engine tech.

HAL with it's hands full already with overhaul and maintanence duties for all IAF fighters and production of Migs and Jags simply declined to take up the demanding developmental effort. they have another reason that they won't state. that is their experience with marut was so terrible for them.

Still mystery surrounds who pulled the strings in GOI's decision to cancel the funding of the higher powered brit engine for the marut as originally envisaged.All of a sudden the government of the day(the dynasty to be precise) decided to go for a new DPSA with Viggens and Jaguar competing for it.Considering the scheme of things happening in HTT-40 controversy it is no rocket science to see what is the motive behind this decision of not funding new engine development by the Brits and going in for a new DPSA.

So Kurt tank shut shop and left the country. A fine plane Marut was locked uo in Museum spoiling the name of HAL.. So HAL simply refused to develop even more tech intensive LCA. Seeing the state of affairs the scientific establishment of the day asked the govt to form an independent body called ADA for implementing these high techs in LCA and make up for the lost decades in the scam called marut project.

So it is stupid to say that ADA upped the ante.ADA was constituted to operationalize composite tech, fly by wire,engine(handed over to GTRE) all in the country in 1984.

Dorks who call ADA as independent body that gave the ASR should know it is the other way around, ADA was formed to accomplish the techs for LCA.And it was to report directly to the Defence minister and scientific Advisor of the day V.S. Arunachalam who was instrumental in these decisions.

That raised so much heart burn in IAF and HAL. They have been relegated to bit players in indian aeronautical development field . IAF refused to set aside a single rupee from it's budget for LCA . So it was GOI who gave the funding and the mandate for LCA to ADA. IAF was restricted to providing test pilots and ground crews for testing because it did not provide any money to the program.

So ADA was formed because of the inability of the IAF-MOD-HAL combine to properly operationalize Marut leading to the exit of Kurt Tank team from HAl. Kota Harinarayana Who was the chief of ADA and most of the members of ADA were from HAl and NAL or other existing divisions.And it upset so many entrenched elements who were unable to produce a run of the mill 70s tech Marut for IAF.

But the ASR of LCA like it's length and width were set to use the existing on the ground infra of Mig-21. SO it was not ADA who set the LCA length at 13.2 meter in stone. With IAF demand for as big a radar as possible oblivious to the impact on the L/D ratio sealed the design specs of LCA with no further room for maneuver.Even the french who gave consultancy first were astonished to see the Radar demand form IAF on such a small length fighter and 4 ton weapon load.

From that day on intense wrangling between IAF which tried to control the project without even contributing one rupee and with no successful operationalization experience of any local produced fighter along with no design competency and the ADA which was purely a scientific division tasked with LCA is continuing this day.

IAF chief wrote a letter to defence minister saying that LCA was not feasible and this delayed the funding for LCA whose design was finalized in 1989 itself. Because of this doubts by IAF Abdul Kalam was intervened and made LCA not as a full fledged R& D and production project and instead made it into tech demo till TD-1 and Td-2 prove everything and then only production of PVs should begin. After 4 year delay the funding was released for two TDs only in 1994. This delay was to spoil the entire project delaying the develpment of Fly by wire tech which got stuck for four more years after sanctions.

Miraculously FCS Fly by wire was developed without American help and composite also developed and Lca is close to finish.

IAF was never interested in providing useful feed backs for ADA till 2006. None other than Philip Rajkumar has explicitly stated this in his book. Only in the mid-2000 realizing ADA has achieved almost 80 percent of what it set out to IAF started raising new demands in myraid request for Action leading to new FSED phase-2 in 2004.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Austin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
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.
Yes I believe those are mentioned in P Rajkumar Book on Tejas that IAF didnt ask for Quad Digital FBW , it was a capability creep by ADA.

Check these Debate , P Rajkumar is there in Comment section and answers few issues

The Tejas Arrives…… | TKS' Tales
The Tejas Debate – A Repartee | TKS' Tales
The Tejas Debate Continues | TKS' Tales

Philip Rajkumar on May 1, 2012 at 6:01 am said:

Without help from Dassault of France,BAE Systems UK, Lockheed Martin of the USA and Alenia of Italy we would not have succeeded in developing the fly by wire flight control system,glass cockpit,and composite structures for the two TD aircraft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top