Hindustan Trainer HTT-40

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
@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.
Sir, let's be realisitc. Most of the core technologies required by IA and IAF are much more complex than what IN requires.

Even though a nuke sub is complex, the design itself utilizes foreign help based on old technology. We can say Arihant is like the Mirage-2000 of the Navy while the IAF has the need to induct something that it is impossible for the Indian industry to deliver on their own, like a F-22.

Due to the scale of the deal and the complexity of the project, IAF and IA are always in the line of fire. Let's face it IAF needs complex weapons that DRDO cannot deliver. IA wants reliable weapons that we cannot yet manufacture. IN merely requires adequate products that DRDO can develop only to a certain extent.

IN came into the line of fire from the media mainly because of Gorky and Scorpene. Now these are big ticket projects. And you cannot doubt that the delays did create a furor in the civilian circle, no doubt in the military circle as well.

More importantly, IAF and IA have a higher responsibility to deliver. A sunk ship may not mean as much as an annihilated division or a lost squadron, which are bigger blows. They have a very very high threshold of deliverance as compared to IN, hence the compulsion to induct higher technology is greater.

I am not saying what the Navy is doing wrong. Its just that if the Navy suddenly decides they need a 100000 ton carrier, a 15000 ton Nuke sub, a 12000 ton cruiser, a 30000 ton assault ship and a 25000 ton tanker, they will end up looking at foreign shores too. The same as what the IAF and IA are doing for most of the stuff they need.

Whatever that can be made at home to specifications are indeed bought from home. Deepak, Dhruv, Kiran are pretty good examples for IAF. The AFNET program is indigenous too along with IACCS. IA was dependent on INSAS rifles for a pretty long time. They are buying BSRs from Indian sources as well. IAF jumped on Akash SAM, along with IA. It seems like our first reverse engineered Bofors will find its place in the IA soon. There are plenty of indigenous systems that IAF and IA had no issues in sourcing from within the country.

As for missile development, it followed an entirely different management structure along with an entirely different funding structure. Money was injected everywhere and still the industry took 40 years to develop, something that most other industries did not have a chance to develop at the same rate or scale. The problem is most of our industries have not fully matured yet and the forces are being thrust with the unfair obligation of supporting such an industry along with the compulsion to deliver at the front, which is practically impossible. Give it 10 or 15 years and even these lesser developed industries will eventually flourish like the missile development program did. As a matter of fact, the timeline actually matches.

There is no great achievement in developing a 4.5th gen aircraft in 2020 (that's when LCA will really be operational at that level) or getting a 3rd gen tank ready in 2010. Really no point. Other countries will merely pat our backs for participating like we do in sports while going about their business of winning the Gold (aka, making 5th and 6th gen aircraft and 4th gen tanks).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
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.
At the same level, a fighter and a tank are much more complex to design than a ship.

The threshold of operation is much higher. A tank must survive a 120mm gun hit from point blank range, a ship doesn't have such a high requirement. And a fighter needs to be made with materials with the highest tolerances that are humanly possible.

Sir, a simple read through of requirements would tell you why the IAF has requirements that would one-up the Navy's requirements any day. Even the basic requirements of the obsolete LCA Mk1 or barely acceptable LCA Mk2 are higher than most of IN's requirements let alone bringing FGFA and AMCA into the picture.
 

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
@p2prada, I agree to some of your points but not to all. You are not aware that the guns in ships are far more complex than what you find on tanks and the turrets are made from same material from which tanks are made. Even ships have very strong and thick armour plates on its sides just like a tank, So I find no merit in your comparision of a tank with a ship. FYI, ships have had stabilised guns for many decades. A ships gun is supposed to engage targets at ranges which far out range guns of Army. A warship is a complete field battery+AD unit+Missile sqn+EW unit all rolled into one. If a ship was an easy thing to make and operate, IN is no fools to ask for highest qualifications from Indians to be a Naval Officer. Even in my times, the selection criteria for being a naval cadet in NDA was most stringent and only 39 seats were reserved for Navy which most of the courses went unfilled.
Regarding an ac I do agree somewhat but you have coolly forgotton is that while ac structure may need very high core specialisation but the electronic on board a ship are far far superior to what exists in an ac. I do concede the point that miniaturisation of electronics is where ac tech has advantage.
Men has been making boats for god knows how many years so making a ship shud not be a problem but than man has been using bows and arrows also for similar period of time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sob

Mod
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
6,425
Likes
3,805
Country flag
@ersakthivel, @p2prada

Now when the HLL is developing HTT_40 with it's internal accrual funds of 150 cr.
This figure of Rs. 150 Crores immediately makes me question, whether HAL is really serious about delivering this aircraft. This is not a one time injection of fund but would have been spent over a number of years. When an automobile manufacturer is coming out with a new model of a car they spent hundreds of millions of Dollars and for a new Automobile HAL is spending just Rs. 150 Crores.

HAL needs to get more agressive. They cannot act just like a PSU anymore. TATAs have tied up with Sikorosky and there is joint venture. With the new FDI norms Sikorsky could ramp up their share to 49% and start to aggressively bid for IAF contracts. This would leave HAL on a very sticky wicket. In the future they cannot rely on a captive customer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Twinblade

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
1,578
Likes
3,231
Country flag
@ersakthivel, @p2prada



This figure of Rs. 150 Crores immediately makes me question, whether HAL is really serious about delivering this aircraft. This is not a one time injection of fund but would have been spent over a number of years. When an automobile manufacturer is coming out with a new model of a car they spent hundreds of millions of Dollars and for a new Automobile HAL is spending just Rs. 150 Crores.
..and where are they going to get the money from? Not the MoD which releases funds on IAF recommendations. HAL is not exactly overflowing with funds, and the board cannot redirect large amount of funds without the approval of majority shareholder (MoD). They are doing whatever is inside their capability to work things out. Besides, Rs 150 Cr is just for the first flying prototype and not the project value.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sob

Mod
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
6,425
Likes
3,805
Country flag
..and where are they going to get the money from? Not the MoD which releases funds on IAF recommendations. HAL is not exactly overflowing with funds, and the board cannot redirect large amount of funds without the approval of majority shareholder (MoD). They are doing whatever is inside their capability to work things out. Besides, Rs 150 Cr is just for the first flying prototype and not the project value.
In FY 11-12 on a turnover of over Rs. 14,204 Crores, HAL had a PBT of Rs. 3329 Crores. and PAT was Rs. 2539 Crores.
Do you still think getting money for them is difficult.
 

Twinblade

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
1,578
Likes
3,231
Country flag
In FY 11-12 on a turnover of over Rs. 14,204 Crores, HAL had a PBT of Rs. 3329 Crores. and PAT was Rs. 2539 Crores.
Do you still think getting money for them is difficult.
HAL board of directors cannot reinvest all those profits into projects of their choice without getting the majority shareholder on board. The degree of freedom to which the company can act without the consent of MoD is tiny.
 

sob

Mod
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
6,425
Likes
3,805
Country flag
HAL board of directors cannot reinvest all those profits into projects of their choice without getting the majority shareholder on board. The degree of freedom to which the company can act without the consent of MoD is tiny.
This then is a reflection of the Board of Directors of HAL.

HAL is a Navratna PSU which means the company boards can do investments up to a limit (depending on the status) without seeking government permission, up to Rs. 1,000 crore or 15% of their net worth on a single project or 30% of their net worth in the whole year (not exceeding Rs. 1,000 crores).
 

Dinesh_Kumar

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
518
Likes
231
Sir, agree with u , but as far as HAL support goes, quite bad as per Air Marshal Goel's Blog.....

Air Marshal Ashok K Goel (Retd.) PVSM, AVSM, VM: Flying Accidents in the IAF

He says most casualties (90%) occur on HAL built Aircraft.........
I think what he means is If 2 versions of Jaguar IS are flying, one BAE and other HAL built, 90% of problems occur / casulities occur on HAL built one. As head of Maintenance of IAF, maybe he knows sumthing......

 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
You are not aware that the guns in ships are far more complex than what you find on tanks and the turrets are made from same material from which tanks are made. Even ships have very strong and thick armour plates on its sides just like a tank, So I find no merit in your comparision of a tank with a ship.
I know about both the gun and the material. The complexity difference between a ship and a tank is that the designers have much higher levels of sophistication due to the small size of the tank. The smaller the design, the higher the complexity in designing such a system, the very reason why Arjun got bigger and heavier over time.

FYI, ships have had stabilised guns for many decades. A ships gun is supposed to engage targets at ranges which far out range guns of Army.
The reason why this gun is imported. Same with the radars and other weapons systems like the AD units, Missile squadrons. Luckily we managed to make indigenous EW components, maybe not the best, but adequate for what the IN requires and that word is important, adequate.

A warship is a complete field battery+AD unit+Missile sqn+EW unit all rolled into one. If a ship was an easy thing to make and operate, IN is no fools to ask for highest qualifications from Indians to be a Naval Officer. Even in my times, the selection criteria for being a naval cadet in NDA was most stringent and only 39 seats were reserved for Navy which most of the courses went unfilled.
I am not saying designing a ship is a piece of cake. What I am trying to say is that designing a ship and comparing it to a tank or aircraft isn't fair. The latter are much more difficult to achieve. There are only a handful of modern tank and aircraft designs around the world. Even a layman can commit to memory the number of modern designs available for either. In comparison every major country has its own individual modern ship design that is unique to itself and even experts need to look back at their notes to differentiate between the numbers available.

Regarding an ac I do agree somewhat but you have coolly forgotton is that while ac structure may need very high core specialisation but the electronic on board a ship are far far superior to what exists in an ac.
Ships have complex electronics, propulsion and weapons systems, I definitely agree. Due to the sophistication required and the inability of the Indian industry to deliver, the IN has no choice but to import most of these systems. Hence why IN isn't really a champion of indigenization, they merely make do with what can be done while importing for what cannot.

Men has been making boats for god knows how many years so making a ship shud not be a problem but than man has been using bows and arrows also for similar period of time.
Again my point was not in the finer technical aspects of a ship or aircraft design. There is not a single ship in the IN which can really go toe to toe with any USN ship. The Delhi class is completely outclassed by the Ticonderoga. The Shivalik class is outclassed by AB. We have nothing in comparison to the subs and carriers, even USN assault ships and support ships.

However IAF has some platforms which are more sophisticated and more expensive than what USAF operates, namely Phalcon and MKI. And higher requirements than even VVS for FGFA.

In conclusion, my points are quite simple and are listed below.

- The IAF and IA cannot be expected to have their own design bureaus like the Navy does. It is practically impossible. As a matter of fact the future of such an establishment is weak in certain ways since there will be no scope for competition. In around 20 or 30 years we may end up seeing HAL and ADA designs competing with each other for IAF requirements. What's disappointing is the IAF request for placing their own men in ADA and HAL at an administration level was turned down. Like the position in the LCA program that has been vacant since 20 years, according to the TKS blog.

- IAF requirements are far beyond the horizon of what the Indian industry can deliver, even if IAF sits on top of their heads and empties their entire budget only on R&D. There is a limit to what services support and unlimited funding can do. Look at the Chinese, still stuck with technologies from the 80s, and still reduced to importing. They even have more money and high tech skills than we do. So comparing IAF's needs and requirements to IN's needs and requirements are like comparing apples and oranges, therefore even the expectations from the defence industry would be different for both while taking into account some of the Navy's requirements are easier to develop.
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
..and where are they going to get the money from? Not the MoD which releases funds on IAF recommendations. HAL is not exactly overflowing with funds, and the board cannot redirect large amount of funds without the approval of majority shareholder (MoD). They are doing whatever is inside their capability to work things out. Besides, Rs 150 Cr is just for the first flying prototype and not the project value.
Twinblade, Sob worked in HAL for quite a number of years. He is right. HAL could have been more serious with their project.

We are seeing only one side of the story written by a very biased author and you know the latter is true.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Sir, agree with u , but as far as HAL support goes, quite bad as per Air Marshal Goel's Blog.....

Air Marshal Ashok K Goel (Retd.) PVSM, AVSM, VM: Flying Accidents in the IAF

He says most casualties (90%) occur on HAL built Aircraft.........
I think what he means is If 2 versions of Jaguar IS are flying, one BAE and other HAL built, 90% of problems occur / casulities occur on HAL built one. As head of Maintenance of IAF, maybe he knows sumthing......
Most of our aircraft are HAL built aircraft. Only Mig-29 and Mirage-2000 were fully imported.
 

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
@p2prada, I can't sunstantiate it but the LCS of USN are completely based on old Indian Tamil ship making art. They have combination of flat bottom + draught and are designed for high speeds in very shallow waters. I had read about that long back that USN has been able to break the sanskrit codes about ship making.
FYI, any Sanskrit scholer gets a green card in USA provided they are atleast BA in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is the only language in the world which if read from any direction maintains the meaning of the sentence same. This language is now being developed by people in US to be the language for artificial intelligence of robots.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
@p2prada, I make a humble request to you to visit any IN ship and see for yourself that we have not imported cutting edge electronics from abroad. FYI, Russians have learnt from us about sophistication and computerisation. I do not wish to argue with you any more as you seem to be an agent of those who bribe indians to sell their equipment. You have zero klnowledge of what IN ships have on board which are made in India completely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
@p2prada, I make a humble request to you to visit any IN ship and see for yourself that we have not imported cutting edge electronics from abroad. FYI, Russians have learnt from us about sophistication and computerisation. I do not wish to argue with you any more as you seem to be an agent of those who bribe indians to sell their equipment. You have zero klnowledge of what IN ships have on board which are made in India completely.
Delhi Class destroyer

Diesel Engine - Ukranian
Gas Turbine - Ukranian
Air Search radar - Ukranian
Surface search radar - Dutch
Navigation/SATCOM - Ukranian
LF Sonar - French

Only 2 other Sonars are Indian.

Weapons
Switchblade - Russian
Torpedo launchers - Russian
Barak - Israeli
AK-100 - Russian
AK-630 Russian
RBU-6000 - Russian
Shtil - Russian

Helicopters - British


Shivalik class frigate
Diesel engine - French
Gas Turbine - American
Multiple radars of Ukraninan and Israeli origin.
LF sonar - French
HUMSA - Indian

Weapons
Brahmos - Russian/Indian
Torpedo launchers - Russian
Gun - Russian
Barak - Israeli
Shtil - Russian
AK-630 - Russian
RBU-6000 - Russian

Helicopters - Sea King and Kamov - British and Russian

Sorry sir you are not being realistic at all. Emotions go nowhere and I had to fight this here on DFI for such a long time.

Yes, a lot of electronics for ships are made in India. That's nothing. What makes a ship indigenous is not the glitzy screens, instrumentation and computers, it is the engine, sensors and weapons and nearly all of that are imported. As a matter of fact, the Navy has not made a single attempt to get DRDO to produce these items at home. There is not a single major project where the Navy has that can truly be called indigenous with Indian made items. Calling the Navy a champion of indigenous equipment is a sham perpetrated by people who have no idea what really happens on the ground. As a matter of fact, both LCA and Arjun are more indigenous based on cost of components than the Navy has. Kolkata class is considered 60% indigenous, both LCA and Arjun are over 70% indigenous as of today.

Show me one ship in the Indian Navy, even one ship, where nothing critical is imported. There is no such project. Even Kamorta class corvettes have French engines.

Arjun uses an indigenous gun. But the Navy has not asked for an indigenous gun at all. There is no proper engine project for running Navy ships at all. Not even a proper high tech radar project, only small radars for corvettes and such. On the other hand the Army and the Air Force have all these projects at the highest levels. Their reasoning is very simple and should be identified here. They believe that something running on a foreign engine and foreign systems is not an indigenous product. In their definition of indigenous, the Delhi class destroyer is as indigenous as the Jaguar aircraft or T-90 tank. The idea behind an indigenous product is not just support from domestic industry and free for all modifications, but also being sanction proof. LCA with American engines and Arjun with German engines is not sanction proof.

A single ship or a group of ships being abandoned on the harbour because of lack of support from the Americans may be acceptable for the Navy, but grounding of an entire fleet of aircraft is unacceptable for the air force. More importantly it is unacceptable for the nation.

You don't understand that I am indeed a supporter for indigenous projects. The only difference is I am sensible enough to understand what is required and what we can do based on our limits. I don't have the kind of nonsense notions that we should use 15 or 20 Kaveri engines to run the Delhi class ships or that we should use Arjun gun or Rajendra radar on ships just for the heck of supporting indigenization.

Most of the people here support indigenous products without any sense of knowing what the services really need. If such thoughts make you happy so be it. You don't have to insult me just because I know why a Delhi class ship cannot use Indian engines, weapons and sensors or why the IAF and IA and even IN have the need to import most of their needs, while most others don't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bennedose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
1,365
Likes
2,169
At the same level, a fighter and a tank are much more complex to design than a ship.
The threshold of operation is much higher. A tank must survive a 120mm gun hit from point blank range, a ship doesn't have such a high requirement.
Sorry. You are wrong. A ship has to continuously stand te stresses of being thrown about in the ocean AND survive a hit below the waterline from a torpedo or missile where the warhead itself is heavier than an entire 120 mm shell and casing. I think you are simply basing your statement on guesswork.

The major difference is that for aircraft a system failure could mean certain death for the crew. This is not true for a ship. So safety demands for the act of flying itself are more stringent, let alone battle damage.
 
Last edited:

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
@p2pradaSanskrit is the only language in the world which if read from any direction maintains the meaning of the sentence same.
Sir, I did not get this completely. I am reasonably ok with Sanskrit. So, could you please elaborate on this ?

This language is now being developed by people in US to be the language for artificial intelligence of robots.
This sounds quite interesting. Any details available anywhere ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
Sir, agree with u , but as far as HAL support goes, quite bad as per Air Marshal Goel's Blog.....

Air Marshal Ashok K Goel (Retd.) PVSM, AVSM, VM: Flying Accidents in the IAF

He says most casualties (90%) occur on HAL built Aircraft.........
I think what he means is If 2 versions of Jaguar IS are flying, one BAE and other HAL built, 90% of problems occur / casulities occur on HAL built one. As head of Maintenance of IAF, maybe he knows sumthing......
Most of our aircraft are HAL built aircraft. Only Mig-29 and Mirage-2000 were fully imported.
So, Air Marshal Goel is quite true in the sense that the Mirage-2000H fleet have experienced somewhat lower accident rate when compared to the rest, so HAL should take some part of the blame for doing less than what is needed.
 

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
Kolkata class is considered 60% indigenous, both LCA and Arjun are over 70% indigenous as of today.
In their definition of indigenous, the Delhi class destroyer is as indigenous as the Jaguar aircraft or T-90 tank.
Sir, if you remember, in an IAF thread you posted that T-90 is lot more indigenous components that Arjun & similarly MKI is lot more indigenous than LCA.

Here, you are saying that LCA & Arjun as over 70% indigenous. By that logic, T-90 & MKI should be 80% - 100% indigenous (& we know for a fact that this is absolute fallacy).

IIRC, you claimed that LCA & Arjun have quite a small percentage of indigenous components (something to the tune of 30% - 40%).

So, which of the above is closer to truth regarding LCA + Arjun (over 70% indigenous or over 40% indigenous ?) & T-90 + MKI (over 80% or lesser ?)

The info shared seems quite self-contradictory.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Sir, agree with u , but as far as HAL support goes, quite bad as per Air Marshal Goel's Blog.....

Air Marshal Ashok K Goel (Retd.) PVSM, AVSM, VM: Flying Accidents in the IAF


I don't think that the article quoted in the above blog is some well researched piece.

For example what can be such a monumentally unresolvable snags in HTT-32? I am surprised!!!!!!!!!. In LCA the entire fuel line was reliad within a year once a simple fuel leak was pointed out within a year.


World over trainers with same engiene and fuel pump as HTT-32 were flying normally, because I am sure the HLL sourced the engine and fuel pump from abroad.

So even if such unresolvable was found out, why did IAF fail to back the HTT-35 BTT initiative by HLL?


They happily sat on this proposal for a decade why?
He says most casualties (90%) occur on HAL built Aircraft.........
I think what he means is If 2 versions of Jaguar IS are flying, one BAE and other HAL built, 90% of problems occur / casulities occur on HAL built one. As head of Maintenance of IAF, maybe he knows sumthing......


Twinblade, Sob worked in HAL for quite a number of years. He is right. HAL could have been more serious with their project.
/QUOTE]




We are seeing only one side of the story written by a very biased author and you know the latter is true.

http://indianmilitarynews.wordpress.com/tag/crash-history/

In the last three years, the Indian Air Force has lost 29 fighter planes including 12 MiG 21s in crashes in which six pilots lost their lives, the Lok Sabha was informed on Monday.

The aircraft lost in the crashes were 12 MiG 21s, eight MiG 27s, four Su-30MKis, two each Jaguars and Mirage 200 and one MiG 29, Defence Minister A K Antony said in reply to a written question.

"In these accidents, a total of six pilots and six civilians have lost their lives. Apart from loss of lives, 39 civilian properties were damaged. Compensation paid for the loss of lives of pilots and for civilians who were are killed or injured was Rs 60 lakh and Rs 40.4 lakh respectively," he said.[

SSo in the last three years of the 29 fighters lost 24 were from Russian platforms. of these 12 Mig-21s were built here I think. 8 Mig-23s and 4 Su-30 MKIS are russsian built platforms.

Only two jags and two Mirages were lost.



Safety - IAF Records Lowest Ever Accident Rate - SP's Aviation

Safety - IAF Records Lowest Ever Accident Rate - SP's Aviation

If HAL is not serious with the task at hand , how can such a safety record be achieved?

HAL is safety record is good for with ALH and Rudra as well.

Their safety record for LCA is also above par beating such experienced design houses like SAB of sweeden for Grippen prototype crashes.

If HAL has to take all the blame for the failure of Russina fighters in IAF because of it's incompetency then how can you explain the safety record of other platform done by HLL namely LCA, Mirage-2000, LCH, ALH Dhurv?


They are also doing well with no safety issues and high order book proving other than the soviet origin Vintage Migs ,which have unreliable design of parts and unreliable supply of poor quality spares from the start HAL has done well with other platforms.

While only the MIG-23s and other Mig platforms face insurmountable problems and other platforms are doing well under HLL care means the root of the problem lay elsewhere.


Also the Dassualt chief has on record praised the upkeep of Mirage-2000 fleet by HAL.

It was the untimely retirement of HT-32 and the not pursuing the HTT-35 BTT or HTT-40 level trainer when the HAL came forward on it's own with mock up and design JV with french design house that has led to such sorry state of accidents due to poor pilot training .

So It is the lack of foresight of IAF in not allowing HLL into developing HTT-35 BTT like trainer which would have significantly cut down the accident rate for which blame lies squarely lies with IAF which is to be equally blamed for this. Not HLL alone.
 
Last edited:

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top