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.