HAL Hindustan Lead in Fighter Trainer (HLFT-42) Trainer Aircraft Program

screambowl said:
They have realized that dimension of Kaveri was too small to generate the required thrust for super cruise, now they have increased the dimension of the aircraft itself so that there is ample of buffer to compromise on size and weight of the engine too.
Click to expand...
Its a trainer. No trainer is expected to supercruise.
 
Gautam said:
They are making an Indian F-16 equivalent. That's what I think.
Click to expand...
The requirement is to replace Hawk on the AJT role. Comparable contemporary designs are T-7A, KAI T-50 and M-346.

Our F-16 "equivalent" already exist, its called LCA mk2 and the same company is suppose to make it.

Gautam said:
HVT said on twitter that the HLFT-42 will be powered by an AL-31FP engine. AL-31FP produces nearly the same level of thrust as the GE F110/P&W F100.
Click to expand...

Photon Vish said:
May be targeting export market too, many wants F-16 class without American interference so i guess an Al-31fp powered will be great choice.
Click to expand...
No one makes a dedicated trainer with 120+ kn / 1.5 ton engine. Not even russians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Asterion Moloc, Photon Vish and Choice_of _inevitability
Ashwin said:
No one makes a dedicated trainer with 120+ kn / 1.5 ton engine. Not even russians.
Click to expand...
HAL already says that they will offer Tejas mk1a based LIFT to IAF for 150 requirements.

And obviously this HLFT 42 is stupid idea, HAL is desperate as they don't see any future manned fighter aircraft program beyond Tejas Mk2, so trying to save their future.

But a conventional design aircraft is more suitable for AJT/LIFT role than delta or canard-delta wing design.

If Hal had started work 5 year ago on twin HTFE-25(dry) based trainer with conventional wings, then it would have been ideal plateform.

IAF Hawk are new, their have huge airframe life, IAF would have easily waited for 2032 for them(as they are primarily for Tejas mk2/AMCA).

But HAL being HAL, we can not expect much better from a PSU.
 
Some years back, HAL did propose a twin engine supersonic AJT concept based on HJT-36 to eventually replace the Hawk.

It was supposed to have a secondary close air support role. HLFT-42 seems to be a continuation of that idea.
 
ARDC(merge it with NAL) and ADA (merge ADE with ADA) should be forced to work together for next 5 years, as a single united org. Maybe carve ARDC out of HAL.

The issue remains that few resources are divided up between multiple disjointed efforts, each one trying to reinvent the wheel.
 
Ankit Kumar said:
ARDC(merge it with NAL) and ADA (merge ADE with ADA) should be forced to work together for next 5 years, as a single united org. Maybe carve ARDC out of HAL.

The issue remains that few resources are divided up between multiple disjointed efforts, each one trying to reinvent the wheel.
Click to expand...
That is totally against how the institutions are built today.

NAL is a R&D lab focusing on civil aviation. ADE is lab part of DRDO working on military aviation but ADA is a separate autonomous programme-management agency. There is no overlap at the project level. ADA only takes by high level critical projects like LCA and AMCA. ADE do a whole lot just like any other DRDO lab.

ARDC is part of a corporate entity called HAL. It is up to them how to organize. It is impossible to merge with fully government labs.

If anything we should be encouraging private entities like TASL to make their own version of R&D lab and duplicate efforts. We should be concerned about competition not duplication of efforts. For example, IAF need a new trainer. They define what they want and industry (HAL and TASL) work on their design parallel then the IAF chooses best design for them and give them full contract. We have the scale, what we lack is private industry for competition as the entire space is new for them.

We almost have the perfect structure for this because of the organisation like DRDO. They can be the place industry work with to design and make use of testing infrastructure. You can see this happening in every vertical. Pinaka with L&T, Solar. ATAGS with BF and TATA. FICV with BF, L&T and TATA etc. It can happen for the land systems more easily because the industry is way more mature and confident in automobiles. Thats not the case of civil aviation. Do we complain when new rocket companies comes up ? Its the same script. So, let there be duplication.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Aniruddha, Shan and Tatvamasi
Ashwin said:
That is totally against how the institutions are built today.

NAL is a R&D lab focusing on civil aviation. ADE is lab part of DRDO working on military aviation but ADA is a separate autonomous programme-management agency. There is no overlap at the project level. ADA only takes by high level critical projects like LCA and AMCA. ADE do a whole lot just like any other DRDO lab.

ARDC is part of a corporate entity called HAL. It is up to them how to organize. It is impossible to merge with fully government labs.

If anything we should be encouraging private entities like TASL to make their own version of R&D lab and duplicate efforts. We should be concerned about competition not duplication of efforts. For example, IAF need a new trainer. They define what they want and industry (HAL and TASL) work on their design parallel then the IAF chooses best design for them and give them full contract. We have the scale, what we lack is private industry for competition as the entire space is new for them.

We almost have the perfect structure for this because of the organisation like DRDO. They can be the place industry work with to design and make use of testing infrastructure. You can see this happening in every vertical. Pinaka with L&T, Solar. ATAGS with BF and TATA. FICV with BF, L&T and TATA etc. It can happen for the land systems more easily because the industry is way more mature and confident in automobiles. Thats not the case of civil aviation. Do we complain when new rocket companies comes up ? Its the same script. So, let there be duplication.
Click to expand...


Indian Armed Forces imported nearly 200 Virus aircrafts when NAL was already working on Hansa. Had it had the access of HAL's manufacturing, ADAs input we would have had 200 Hansa airframes in service.

This is the same class where Pakistani pigs have exported SAAB Safari aka Mushak aircrafts to numerous countries with Made in Pakistan tag.

While NAL is working and failing with the 19 seater aircraft, HAL has had exp with Do228. That experience has been totally wasted because not a single Do228 will ever be ordered by a pvt civilian airline in India.

Had the structure i propose existed, we would have had Indian airlines ordering 19 seater Indian aircrafts over Twin Otters.

I can go on and on.

What you are saying is good for a matured nation state with lesser degree of imperfections, not for us.
 
Ankit Kumar said:
Indian Armed Forces imported nearly 200 Virus aircrafts when NAL was already working on Hansa. Had it had the access of HAL's manufacturing, ADAs input we would have had 200 Hansa airframes in service.

This is the same class where Pakistani pigs have exported SAAB Safari aka Mushak aircrafts to numerous countries with Made in Pakistan tag.

While NAL is working and failing with the 19 seater aircraft, HAL has had exp with Do228. That experience has been totally wasted because not a single Do228 will ever be ordered by a pvt civilian airline in India.

Had the structure i propose existed, we would have had Indian airlines ordering 19 seater Indian aircrafts over Twin Otters.

I can go on and on.

What you are saying is good for a matured nation state with lesser degree of imperfections, not for us.
Click to expand...
NAL has nothing to do with IAF. The failure of civil aviation is due to government policies. They made it impossible to design a civil aircraft in India. No new organisational structure can solve policy issues.

NAL is a CSIR lab, not a production agency. Without production infrastructure by the industry, they can't do much. HAL did not design Do228; they do licensed production, a huge difference.

The structure you propose do not improve anything other than superfecial shot term savings.
Ankit Kumar said:
What you are saying is good for a matured nation state with lesser degree of imperfections, not for us.
Click to expand...
We are in the right track to be a mature nation. Looking back is not the answer.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Aniruddha, ShiroBarks and Shan
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom