Trainer Aircraft of IAF - PC-7, HTT-40, HJT-36, BAE Hawk

[Ashwin]

Not Expecting ANY Timeline based on DAC!!!

The Timeline so far mentioned is ALL BASED on HAL statements!!! - we have 24 pages on this thread - please go through them and you have see that the latest been that FOC in 2021!!! - all one want is that HAL to keep to that schedule - is that too much to ask?

No DRDO labs or any DPSU adhere to their timelines. And why would they? Does MoD adhere to theirs? Is there any assurance even if they keep the timeline they will get the order on time? Have they even paid Rs 20,000 cr to HAL for products that they already delivered?

From DAC clearance to price negotiations it takes a minimum of 3-4 years!. So why the hurry?

As if services are any better!. They ask unicorns for indigenous systems and formulate donkey ASQR requirements when it comes to imports. (Under the rug there will be a vice-chief with kickbacks in his pocket). When the DRDO delivers unicorns (case in point, Arjun Mk2) where is the order?






All the stakeholders have the responsibility for having everything late. The process needs to be reformed from top to bottom. Blaming HAL for everything won't solve anything. They pulled off a successful project against many odds here. It should be appreciated.

DPSUs need to be incentivized for faster and economical deliveries. Like offering a bonus for every month of faster delivery from the stipulated timeline. US state department offered percentage cut to Lockheed for every million saved on the F-35 base fly-away cost of $102 mil. Now its $78 million.

Today, HAL workers are incentivized for late deliveries. They barely work for the first 9 months of the FY, so that they can get overtime pay at the later quarter to meet targets.

 

[randomradio]

Not enough advanced trainers too. After the last deal for 20 more fell I doubt any more HAWKs are gonna be purchased. YAK130 incoming i would say.

The numbers are nowhere as bad as basic trainers. Also, a LIFT program will take care of the need for more Hawks. Pilots should be able to transition to the LIFT sooner by skipping some stages for the Hawk. Another alternative is to just fly more Hawk sorties.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

The numbers are nowhere as bad as basic trainers. Also, a LIFT program will take care of the need for more Hawks. Pilots should be able to transition to the LIFT sooner by skipping some stages for the Hawk. Another alternative is to just fly more Hawk sorties.

I will not bank on LIFT development untill IAF and MoD officially grants it AoN , because as of now even the Twin Seater MK1 is not certified.

Flying more HAWK sorties is seems what will happen, but this situation is ridiculous. All parties from IAF to MoD to the development agencies are all equally to blame here.

For Basic trainers, we might see leasing some aircrafts from European countries maybe for a 5 year period.

 

[randomradio]

I will not bank on LIFT development untill IAF and MoD officially grants it AoN , because as of now even the Twin Seater MK1 is not certified.

Flying more HAWK sorties is seems what will happen, but this situation is ridiculous. All parties from IAF to MoD to the development agencies are all equally to blame here.

I don't think it's such a serious problem though. The 20 Hawks were meant to replace the Kirans for aerobatics. So we have enough for training.

The LIFT requirement is necessary for when the Su-30UPG, MMRCA and MWF start deliveries, since the training demand for new generation jets will be very high, something the Hawk may not be equipped enough to handle. So there's some time for it. The SPORT can take care of that requirement.

For Basic trainers, we might see leasing some aircrafts from European countries maybe for a 5 year period.

Not gonna happen. If it's not the PC-7, then any new trainer will take almost the same time as the HTT-40. And we will have too much headache with a third type in terms of negotiations, especially if it is to last only a few years.

A better option is to just send pilots out to the private industry for basic training, if not to a foreign air force, that are operating the PC-7. Such a shameful situation though. But what will really happen is not enough pilots will get trained.

 

[Vicky]

Not Expecting ANY Timeline based on DAC!!!

The Timeline so far mentioned is ALL BASED on HAL statements!!! - we have 24 pages on this thread - please go through them and you have see that the latest been that FOC in 2021!!! - all one want is that HAL to keep to that schedule - is that too much to ask?

Deadline can be reached if the orders are placed with HAL within an respectable Timeline. IAF places 40 numbers for Tejas back in 2009 even before IOC. That's how orders work in defence. You have to place an order to start working around. Hal had it's issues but it's the job of ADA to develop and give final drawings to HAL and they didn't give to HAL on time.

Now HTT40 is an project surprisingly quicker by hal standard. Even IAF would have surprised by hal management. 2021 time could.be met if orders for htt40 had been placed by 2018....... And that's what hal would have said too. The deadlines are based on orders given that year. There is no IOC, FoC on trainers. It doesn't need to fire stuffs. Htt40 has completed all requirements of the Air Force last year itself. Now what it is undergoing is kinda Gage R&R. Testing by different pilots and checking if getting same results and safe certifiable hours flown. Now that will take time.

 

[Ashwin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1308793234458460166

 

[Ashwin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1316607061707247616

 

[Ashwin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1329741335595663361

 

[Amal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1329741335595663361

Any orders forthcoming ?

 

[Ashwin]

Any orders forthcoming ?

Where else the order would go?

 

[hellbent]

No DRDO labs or any DPSU adhere to their timelines. And why would they? Does MoD adhere to theirs? Is there any assurance even if they keep the timeline they will get the order on time? Have they even paid Rs 20,000 cr to HAL for products that they already delivered?

From DAC clearance to price negotiations it takes a minimum of 3-4 years!. So why the hurry?

As if services are any better!. They ask unicorns for indigenous systems and formulate donkey ASQR requirements when it comes to imports. (Under the rug there will be a vice-chief with kickbacks in his pocket). When the DRDO delivers unicorns (case in point, Arjun Mk2) where is the order?


View attachment 17219

View attachment 17218

All the stakeholders have the responsibility for having everything late. The process needs to be reformed from top to bottom. Blaming HAL for everything won't solve anything. They pulled off a successful project against many odds here. It should be appreciated.

DPSUs need to be incentivized for faster and economical deliveries. Like offering a bonus for every month of faster delivery from the stipulated timeline. US state department offered percentage cut to Lockheed for every million saved on the F-35 base fly-away cost of $102 mil. Now its $78 million.

Today, HAL workers are incentivized for late deliveries. They barely work for the first 9 months of the FY, so that they can get overtime pay at the later quarter to meet targets.

View attachment 17220

This validates what I have been saying for so long

Both IAF and IA literally googles and copy pastes qualitative requirements from foreign sources.

They have literally zero knowledge and competence with advanced technologies and hence they are at sea when it comes to framing up requirements for weapon systems they desire.

IN on the contrary is a R&D driven mentality , and hence their qualitative requirements are more down to earth and fit their requirements and in line with domestic capabilities. Eg sonar development is a shining example . It is worth a serious study by both IAF and IA.

Since long IAF and IA escaped blame , by blaming DRDO even where it was not warranted , but now their incompetence is being slowly being exposed in public.

They should learn from their western counterparts on how to get own personnel's competent in terms of technology so they are in turn be able to understand own requirements in terms of technology. Western militaries regularly conduct inhouse studies in support of advanced weapons and technologies so that they are clear on what is feasible and doable and importantly exploit the available advanced technologies to the fullest .

 

[Milspec]

This validates what I have been saying for so long

Both IAF and IA literally googles and copy pastes qualitative requirements from foreign sources.

Yupp!

They have literally zero knowledge and competence with advanced technologies and hence they are at sea when it comes to framing up requirements for weapon systems they desire.

Yupp. IN's Directorate of Naval Design and Directorate of R&D is a Slap on the face for IAF and IA and essentially MoD.

IN on the contrary is a R&D driven mentality , and hence their qualitative requirements are more down to earth and fit their requirements and in line with domestic capabilities. Eg sonar development is a shining example . It is worth a serious study by both IAF and IA.

Yupp

Since long IAF and IA escaped blame , by blaming DRDO even where it was not warranted , but now their incompetence is being slowly being exposed in public.

Yupp

They should learn from their western counterparts on how to get own personnel's competent in terms of technology so they are in turn be able to understand own requirements in terms of technology. Western militaries regularly conduct inhouse studies in support of advanced weapons and technologies so that they are clear on what is feasible and doable and importantly exploit the available advanced technologies to the fullest .

Learn - I doubt that word exists in the vocabulary of MoD and the Services (except IN) To me it comes down to MoD, the people who are at the helm of things. That structure is rotten from top to bottom.

 

[Ashwin]

IN on the contrary is a R&D driven mentality , and hence their qualitative requirements are more down to earth and fit their requirements and in line with domestic capabilities. Eg sonar development is a shining example . It is worth a serious study by both IAF and IA.

Navy cultivated the R&D mindset by investing institutionally for decades. Today, they have their own warship/submarine design bureau and small but in-house R&D establishments like Weapons and Electronic Systems Engineering Establishment (WESEE). They have their own Directorate of Indigenisation. Thus their qualitative requirements come from a well-informed place. Since they always had the lowest share of total budget they knew in long run they need the Indian industry to sustain. They are willing the take short term loss for long term advancements. Case in point, the development of Indian sonar and torpedo developments.

While Indian Airforce, the most technologically driven force that takes pride in having the largest CAPX share did not do this. They demand the best in the world on everything. All their technical establishment are geared towards making the best out of imported high-quality systems. Their BRD's always outperform PSUs like HAL. Indian army is historically not a technologically driven organization. They care more about paying pensions and salaries above all. Both IA and IAF acted like a buyer from DRDO. They were actively involved in testing but were missing in contribution during the design and development phase. Their qualitative requirements demanded everything in a leapfrogging fashion from DRDO. Be it fourth-generation Mirage looks alike or the desert Ferrari Merkava.

But, serious change is upon us. Army recently established Army Design Bureau. Airforce has come up with a long-term indigenous plan and maintenance command is actively investing in indigenizing every nuts and bolt. I would wish to see each service having its own R&D labs and staff like that of US. But that's asking too much.

 

[hellbent]

Navy cultivated the R&D mindset by investing institutionally for decades. Today, they have their own warship/submarine design bureau and small but in-house R&D establishments like Weapons and Electronic Systems Engineering Establishment (WESEE). They have their own Directorate of Indigenisation. Thus their qualitative requirements come from a well-informed place. Since they always had the lowest share of total budget they knew in long run they need the Indian industry to sustain. They are willing the take short term loss for long term advancements. Case in point, the development of Indian sonar and torpedo developments.

While Indian Airforce, the most technologically driven force that takes pride in having the largest CAPX share did not do this. They demand the best in the world on everything. All their technical establishment are geared towards making the best out of imported high-quality systems. Their BRD's always outperform PSUs like HAL. Indian army is historically not a technologically driven organization. They care more about paying pensions and salaries above all. Both IA and IAF acted like a buyer from DRDO. They were actively involved in testing but were missing in contribution during the design and development phase. Their qualitative requirements demanded everything in a leapfrogging fashion from DRDO. Be it fourth-generation Mirage looks alike or the desert Ferrari Merkava.

But, serious change is upon us. Army recently established Army Design Bureau. Airforce has come up with a long-term indigenous plan and maintenance command is actively investing in indigenizing every nuts and bolt. I would wish to see each service having its own R&D labs and staff like that of US. But that's asking too much.

Google for CAG reports on brds and workshops of both iaf and ia over the years. Both are equally incompetent as the PSUs, if not more in certain cases. Their performance should have been way better considering they are under the direct control of iaf and ia.

 

[raghu1974]

All our PSU's are from the Socialist era. It is the mindset of the entire workforce. I don't necessarily agree that the BRD's are equally bad or incompetent. If that was the case, we will have a lot of accidents. There will always be avenues of improvement and that is what the CAG audits are supposed to bring out. How can a L&T or a Bharat Forge delivery on time or before schedule? They too employ Indians like us. The difference is what they work for, which is profits and market share. If ever Indian Defense industry were to grow and we become net exporters of Defense Equipment, we should privatize Defense PSUs. There will be no Chalta hai attitude. Indians and especially the employees of the defense PSUs and OFBs have to understand that they are at the service of the nation and that the nation is not at their service. That said, there has to be a 5 year freeze in layoffs and a 5% cap on layoffs every year after the 5 year period of freeze and may be a VRS. This will give these privatized PSUs to change their ethics / work culture and start producing Quality products. DRDO should get out of non-core areas and let the private sector to invest in defense R&D. This will enable DRDO to maximize the use of funds and focus on cutting edge technologies with the help of IITs and IISCs.

 

[Ashwin]

Google for CAG reports on brds and workshops of both iaf and ia over the years. Both are equally incompetent as the PSUs, if not more in certain cases. Their performance should have been way better considering they are under the direct control of iaf and ia.

I was specific about BRD. They brought down the Su-30 time to overhaul to 15 months from HALs 2+ years. Now HAL had to follow suit. They were fast and prompt in delivering Mig-29UPG (after the Russian flight test) while HAL failed in the case of the Mirage 2000 upgrade when Dassault delivered everything in time. Airforce BRDs did a commendable job in maintaining criminally outdated hardware. No other airforce of such size had to manage this many verities of equipment at the same time. They have to be efficient.

CAG will make everyone accountable even for a few lakhs of rupees or any kind of procedural delay (even if its not in services hand). The navy was attacked for its processes many times. Be it requirements formulation for sonars or the delay in setting up a gas turbine repair facility or managing spares. You have to measure the charges if they are willfully incompetent or incapable institutionally. The army was incapable to formulate better RFI's because the institutional structure was lacking. Even today Army ABWs are inefficient and EME is corrupt. Charges against them are serious. I do not remember any such charges against IAF BRDs. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Why Indian Army must not resist Modi govt’s contractor model for base workshops

Indian Army follows the traditional ‘womb to tomb’ life cycle support management for its costly equipment. But it’s time for GOCO model.

theprint.in

@Milspec @Falcon @DivineHeretic

 

[hellbent]

I was specific about BRD. They brought down the Su-30 time to overhaul to 15 months from HALs 2+ years. Now HAL had to follow suit. They were fast and prompt in delivering Mig-29UPG (after the Russian flight test) while HAL failed in the case of the Mirage 2000 upgrade when Dassault delivered everything in time. Airforce BRDs did a commendable job in maintaining criminally outdated hardware. No other airforce of such size had to manage this many verities of equipment at the same time. They have to be efficient.

CAG will make everyone accountable even for a few lakhs of rupees or any kind of procedural delay (even if its not in services hand). The navy was attacked for its processes many times. Be it requirements formulation for sonars or the delay in setting up a gas turbine repair facility or managing spares. You have to measure the charges if they are willfully incompetent or incapable institutionally. The army was incapable to formulate better RFI's because the institutional structure was lacking. Even today Army ABWs are inefficient and EME is corrupt. Charges against them are serious. I do not remember any such charges against IAF BRDs. Correct me if I'm wrong.

View attachment 18703

Why Indian Army must not resist Modi govt’s contractor model for base workshops

Indian Army follows the traditional ‘womb to tomb’ life cycle support management for its costly equipment. But it’s time for GOCO model.

theprint.in

@Milspec @Falcon @DivineHeretic

11 BRD is doing good given the circumstances, I appreciate their efforts , but there are many other BRDs and over the last decades they had shortfalls.

In the hindsight , it is wrong to corner BRDs ( including army workshop ) because they are part of a larger entity and they handle only the physical aspect , much is at the hands of the parent organization who deal with the acquisitions, deals etc on behalf of the brds. So the blame should be fixed at the doors of parent organization rather than a unit under it.

I remember reading cag reports regarding brds , pre 2015 , but I ain't gonna google for them and read through hundreds of pages to find them . If I ever come across them again I will post it.

And CAG goes through with a fine tooth lol , can't blame them it's their job . Certain things which can be overlooked will obviously be overlooked by the public ( us / others ) given atleast the job is done properly . I am sure even cag will overlook their own reports if Indian govt organization's complete their jobs properly lol.

Let's hope things only improve going forward

 

[randomradio]

Both IAF and IA literally googles and copy pastes qualitative requirements from foreign sources.

All countries that import weapons copy paste QRs. The only time there's no copy paste involved is when you do GTG deals for some specific capability and includes quite a bit of R&D.

They have literally zero knowledge and competence with advanced technologies and hence they are at sea when it comes to framing up requirements for weapon systems they desire.

Not true. Look at some of the FRCV expected specs that are public, they are quite unique and meant for the Indian geography. AMCA is also quite unique with its fuel load and TWR being designed specific to Indian conditions.

All imports specs depend on OEMs whereas all domestic projects have their own specific QRs that are quite unique in some cases. Also import specs largely are deliberately kept common in order to create a level playing field for all OEMs involved.

This copy-paste mantra has been used to discredit the armed forces for too long. And when doctrine-related design is expected from domestic companies, the companies crib about specs being too advanced. It's like the military can never win.

 

[Milspec]

Their BRD's always outperform PSUs like HAL. Indian army is historically not a technologically driven organization. They care more about paying pensions and salaries above all.

Crap on a cracker, wtf did I just read.

 

[raghu1974]

It is my opinion that many times the QRs can be considered Unicorn and the person or team that compiled must have been smoking something. That said, if i were to play the devil's advocate, they want the very best whether it is available in its entirety as a weapon or they compile the best of both / all worlds as their requirement doesn't mean that they get it off the brochure's of different products. Ours is a country with different terrains and climatic conditions. My only recommendation / suggestion is that when the QR are written, I want our armed forces to have 2 sets of acceptance criteria. The MVP (minimum viable product) characteristics they will accept a product (Akash or a Pinaka) and what is the end product characteristics that they ultimately want (Akash NG or a Pinaka ER). This will help them in 2 ways, wherein they get something instead of having nothing and then in the 2nd tranche they will get everything they aspired for. DRDO and the manufactures of the weapons will have time to deliver something and also accommodate any new characteristics that the world has seen since the QR's were written. It is a win-win situation for the R&D Organization and the end users. Our Armed forces have realized it to an extent and still there are many projects to the likes of MBT & FICV's. At the end of the day our Armed forces have to come to terms that All or nothing will leave them with a larger hole and will not serve this great nation well. Indian Armed forces have also realized that "You get what you pay for", when it comes to Russian weapon systems, except for a few critical technologies that money can't buy you else where. They will continue to depend on Russian weapons for 1 - 2 more decade before Self reliance will fulfill 90% of our needs.