Pilatus or HAL's trainer: Parrikar's first 'Make' decision

[vram]

What a **** move by Pilatus ! I guess we have another candidate for imports ban ready....

 

[Virendra]

Move to Indigenous was never going to be easy

 

[Ray]

I have only one question.

When you can't have an aircraft as per the ASQR, what is the next thing one should do?

Be adamant lest someone accuses you and twiddle the thumbs or look for the next best even if that means lowering the ASQR requirement?

What is good? No aircraft or some aircraft?

 

[Zebra]

I have only one question.

When you can't have an aircraft as per the ASQR, what is the next thing one should do?

Be adamant lest someone accuses you and twiddle the thumbs or look for the next best even if that means lowering the ASQR requirement?

What is good? No aircraft or some aircraft?

So sweet.

IAF guys must get at least a basic trainer aircraft for god sake.

Only and only for that matter congressi MoD and IAF chief, both played their part to prove that PC-7 is cheaper.

Great.

 

[Zebra]

HAL HTT-40 with one of the P&WC engine.

Most probably this one......P&WC: PT6A-62

 

[Zebra]

OR at least, sell HTT-40 project to any of Indian private sector company.

HAL will get money back for their project.

 

[vram]

I have only one question.

When you can't have an aircraft as per the ASQR, what is the next thing one should do?

Be adamant lest someone accuses you and twiddle the thumbs or look for the next best even if that means lowering the ASQR requirement?

What is good? No aircraft or some aircraft?

You have valid points here sir!
Ofcourse the IAF must not be denied as much as possible..Nobody can dispute the fact that the common soldier and officers facing multiple odds for us must be equipped as much as we can...BUT within reason and financial limits.
My only question is why was the goal posts shifted for the Pilatus alone ? Not to forget that we had the Korean contender and most pertinently why are these stringent clause applied only to indigenous products alone?? If you read the above article the Goal post was shifted within a few months after the HAT HTT40 was deemed not sufficient and expensive. Why?
Should we not judge all products in a bid with the same level playing field.
I will be the first one to give the army or navy or IAF everything possible to make them a capable and safe force. But there are reasons and limits that we need to apply here. Else we will end up with a pentagon like military industry nexus where USA pours 500 Billion $ every year. We can't literally and figuratively offord to go down that path.

 

[Hari Sud]

You 'Fanboys' have been critical of HAL and DRDO, wait until you go out to procure the spare parts for Pilatus. The latter got them at good price and fitted them into the trainer aircraft. Now when you have to buy them directly from the original supplier directly, it will be thrice the price and unusual amount of delays and in addition at times withholding of export licenses. US is very good at it. A few of the sub system in the PIlatus are of US origin.

In short the IAF in its enthusiasm has been tricked. They did not examine the service agreement with fine tooth comb. It says the PILATUS will help you procure replacement parts but not get them for you. Their involvement is limited to let you know the part number and supplier.

What an irony?

Soon IAF will be knocking at HAL and DRDO doors for the HTT -40. Otherwise the blame game begins when parts supply runs short. At that time they will blame the Defence Ministry''s procurement buraucrcy for delays.

 

[Zebra]

You 'Fanboys' have been critical of HAL and DRDO, wait until you go out to procure the spare parts for Pilatus. The latter got them at good price and fitted them into the trainer aircraft. Now when you have to buy them directly from the original supplier directly, it will be thrice the price and unusual amount of delays and in addition at times withholding of export licenses. US is very good at it. A few of the sub system in the PIlatus are of US origin.

In short the IAF in its enthusiasm has been tricked. They did not examine the service agreement with fine tooth comb. It says the PILATUS will help you procure replacement parts but not get them for you. Their involvement is limited to let you know the part number and supplier.

What an irony?

Soon IAF will be knocking at HAL and DRDO doors for the HTT -40. Otherwise the blame game begins when parts supply runs short. At that time they will blame the Defence Ministry''s procurement buraucrcy for delays.

Pilatus kept aircraft price as per instruction given by Indian babus. Just to prove these aircrafts are cheaper.

Now Pilatus will follow their second instruction -----> keep the spares costly, to compensate cheaper aircraft price.

 

[sgarg]

@Ray, the issue of Pilatus purchase strikes at the very core of decision making in IAF; and questions the fundamental lack of ability of the generals (or MOD).

I have asked you point blank (and rather rudely to drive home the point), as to HOW requirements for HTT40 were formulated. Why specs of Super-Tucano are needed for HTT-40?? Why rooky pilots must be trained in a light fighter??

HTT-40 is more expensive compared to Pilatus PC-7 as HTT-40 is supposed to have higher specs. The two planes are NOT COMPARABLE.

 

[Ray]

@Ray, the issue of Pilatus purchase strikes at the very core of decision making in IAF; and questions the fundamental lack of ability of the generals (or MOD).

I have asked you point blank (and rather rudely to drive home the point), as to HOW requirements for HTT40 were formulated. Why specs of Super-Tucano are needed for HTT-40?? Why rooky pilots must be trained in a light fighter??

HTT-40 is more expensive compared to Pilatus PC-7 as HTT-40 is supposed to have higher specs. The two planes are NOT COMPARABLE.

Why ask me?

Point blank I will say - you are the expert who knows more about all this than any of us.

 

[suny6611]

wiki data

Specifications (HTT-40)
Data from HAL
General characteristics

Crew: 2
Gross weight: 2,800 kg (6,173 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × to be determined turboprop, 710 kW (950 hp)
Performance

Maximum speed: 600 km/h (373 mph; 324 kn)
Range: 1,000 km (621 mi; 540 nmi)
Service ceiling: 6,000 m (19,685 ft)
Armament

Can be armed with a gun, rockets and bombs

Specifications (PC-7 Turbo Trainer)

General characteristics

Crew: Two, student and instructor
Length: 9.78 m (32 ft 1 in)
Wingspan: 10.40 m (34 ft 1 in)
Height: 3.21 m (10 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 16.60 m² (179.0 ft²)
Empty weight: 1,330 kg (2,932 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 2,700 kg (5,952 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-25A turboprop, 410 kW (550 shp)
Performance

Never exceed speed: 500 km/h (270 knots, 310 mph)
Maximum speed: 412 km/h (222 knots, 256 mph) (max cruise at 6,100 m (20,000 ft))
Stall speed: 119 km/h (64 knots, 74 mph) flaps and gear down, power off
Range: 2,630 km (1,420 nmi, 1,634 mi) (cruise power, at 5,000 m (16,400 ft) - 20 min reserves)
Service ceiling: 10,060 m (33,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 10.9 m/s (2,150 ft/min)
Wing loading: 114.5 kg/m² (23.44 lb/ft²)
Armament

Hardpoints: 6 × hardpoints for bombs and rockets with a capacity of 1,040 kg (2,294 lb)

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

basic trainers is always going to be long term demand

for military - IAF and even for civil purpose

so why not ask TATA MAHINDRA etc to either work independently or jointly with ADA / NAL and come up with a designs
( new designs not JV with pilatus etc ) let HAL also independently work on thier own version

and then let them bid for the contract

 

[pmaitra]

basic trainers is always going to be long term demand

for military - IAF and even for civil purpose

so why not ask TATA MAHINDRA etc to either work independently or jointly with ADA / NAL and come up with a designs
( new designs not JV with pilatus etc ) let HAL also independently work on thier own version

and then let them bid for the contract

Yes. If I may add, let ADA/NAL/HAL build a few prototypes, and let the design be handed over to any domestic manufacturer, and let them build the production models. The initial order should be given to two or three companies, and depending upon the quality of the delivered products, the subsequent orders can be skewed in favour of the better manufacturer, so that the other one is not left high and dry, and is given an opportunity to improve.

 

[sgarg]

Why ask me?

Point blank I will say - you are the expert who knows more about all this than any of us.

Then let the General who formulated HTT40 specs stand in front of TV cameras in parliament and defend his decision.

I can see the the illogic despite being a non-military person AS IT IS SO OBVIOUS.

Why the MILITARY EXPERTS CANNOT SEE IT? I guess dollars go a long way.

 

[Ray]

Then let the General who formulated HTT40 specs stand in front of TV cameras in parliament and defend his decision.

I can see the the illogic despite being a non-military person AS IT IS SO OBVIOUS.

Why the MILITARY EXPERTS CANNOT SEE IT? I guess dollars go a long way.

Indeed you are ILLOGICAL.

Generals do not formulate Air Force staff Qualitative Requirements.

Get to understand the working of the Forces before giving categorical Oracle like statements.

 

[anupamsurey]

good idea, the private firms can then give royalties to PSUs

Yes. If I may add, let ADA/NAL/HAL build a few prototypes, and let the design be handed over to any domestic manufacturer, and let them build the production models. The initial order should be given to two or three companies, and depending upon the quality of the delivered products, the subsequent orders can be skewed in favour of the better manufacturer, so that the other one is not left high and dry, and is given an opportunity to improve.

 

[Kharavela]

I have only one question.

When you can't have an aircraft as per the ASQR, what is the next thing one should do?

Be adamant lest someone accuses you and twiddle the thumbs or look for the next best even if that means lowering the ASQR requirement?

What is good? No aircraft or some aircraft?

When you can't have an aircraft as per the ASQR, the next thing one should do is to find the next best, Agreed.
Then why the same principle was not applied in case of HTT-40 ?? Why ASQR was not relaxed for HAL ??
Ohh... probably ASQR can only relaxed for Pilatus BTA, not for HTT-40. Isn't it ??

 

[Ray]

When you can't have an aircraft as per the ASQR, the next thing one should do is to find the next best, Agreed.
Then why the same principle was not applied in case of HTT-40 ?? Why ASQR was not relaxed for HAL ??
Ohh... probably ASQR can only relaxed for Pilatus BTA, not for HTT-40. Isn't it ??

I have no idea.

I think it is basically an issue of comparative failing to meet the ASQR with the one closest getting it.

You should contact your MP to ask the question or ask it of Air HQ.

 

[sgarg]

Indeed you are ILLOGICAL.

Generals do not formulate Air Force staff Qualitative Requirements.

Get to understand the working of the Forces before giving categorical Oracle like statements.

Then who does?