Trainer Aircraft of IAF - PC-7, HTT-40, HJT-36, BAE Hawk
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
The HTT-40 has been fitted and flown with a parachute gantry. Actual stall/spin testing to commence soon..
The truss installation has been a significantly complicated process for the designers and engineers as it had to be installed at the rear part of the aircraft extending it away from the rudder.
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
Credits to the respective owners.
The truss installation has been a significantly complicated process for the designers and engineers as it had to be installed at the rear part of the aircraft extending it away from the rudder.
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
Credits to the respective owners.
Last edited by a moderator:
So looking at this thread post #2 Dt Dec 12, 2017 with today this post - 11 months ?? - is that right ?
As per the original post, spin tests were to begin by mid 2018 & certifications completed by end 2018 with the handing over process to the IAF to occur in 2019.
The program is off target by around 6 months. Great going, I'd say, given the track record of Indian DPSU.
HAL fights for indigenous HTT-40 trainer, over Swiss Pilatus
By Ajai Shukla
Bengaluru, 16th Jan 19
In a coup for indigenisation, the Hindustan Turbo Trainer - 40 (HTT-40) basic trainer aircraft, designed and built by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), has outperformed all the Indian Air Force’s (IAF’s) demanding specifications. The final qualifications – stall and spin tests – are proceeding well and HAL expects full certification by June.
However, even as HAL seeks a green light for manufacturing the HTT-40, the IAF is pressing for buying 38 more Pilatus PC-7 Mark II basic trainers from Switzerland, to supplement the 75 it already operates. This would mean building fewer Indian trainers.
There has always been a contest between the Indian and Swiss trainers. In 2009, the ministry of defence (MoD) divided the IAF’s requirement of 181 basic trainers between the two. The IAF was allowed to buy 75 trainers in “flyaway condition” from Pilatus, while HAL began developing the HTT-40 with the aim of building the rest.
The MoD stipulated that, if HAL’s trainer had not flown by the time the first imported trainer is delivered, the IAF could active an “options clause”, buying 38 more imported trainers and a building those many less in India.
Citing that condition, the IAF is insisting on buying 38 more Pilatus. Asked why by Business Standard, the IAF stated: “In 2013, the first PC-7 Mk II Pilatus was delivered but the HTT-40 was still not ready to fly.”
Today, the HTT-40 is not just flying, but outperforming the Pilatus, as well as the IAF’s performance criteria, called the Preliminary Air Staff Requirements (PSQRs).
Against the IAF’s demand for a top speed of 400 kilometres/hour, the HTT-40 has been tested to 420 kilometres/hour; it has flown to 20,200 feet, exceeding the IAF’s ceiling requirement of 20,000 feet. The HTT-40 takes off and lands in just 800 metres of runway, against the PSQR demand of 1,000 metres. It had demonstrated that it can climb faster, turn tighter and glide longer than the IAF requires.
HTT-40 exceeds the specs
Making the IAF’s insistence on the Pilatus trainer even more puzzling is the fact that the original purchase of 75 PC-7 Mark 2 trainers – as the media had widely reported – came under the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI’s) scanner for alleged links between Pilatus and alleged arms dealer, Sanjay Bhandari, who has since fled to London. A former air force chief’s role is also being investigated.
In December, in a meeting in the ministry of defence (MoD), HAL officials strongly argued for fast-tracking HTT-40 clearance, even playing out a video of the HTT-40 smoothly handling the on-going spin testing. Impressed by its performance, the MoD has backed the Indian trainer.
Besides performance, the Make in India policy favours choosing the HTT-40. The Defence Procurement Procedure of 2016 gives top priority to procuring equipment in the category of “Make – Indian Designed, Developed and Manufactured” (Make IDDM) – which the indigenously developed HTT-40 squarely falls into.
HAL has funded the HTT-40 development programme with Rs 500 crore of company funds. It now needs to pay Honeywell -- the US firm that builds the HTT-40’s engine – Rs 180 crore to develop a digital controller for the engine. HAL’s chairman, R Madhavan, says he would be happy to pay from HAL’s resources to save time.
“But HAL’s board, by way of abundant caution, has stipulated that the money should be paid once the IAF issues an RFP so that recovery is assured. That is why we want an RFP from the air force urgently,” says Madhavan.
An air force RFP is also required for HAL to start setting up a production line for the HTT-40. Given the large number of trainers the IAF needs, Madhavan says HAL intends to deliver two HTT-40s the first year, then ramp up to eight next year and, in the third year, stabilise the line at 10 aircraft per year.
In 2015, the MoD green-lighted the procurement of 70 HTT-40 trainers. But HAL says an order for 38 additional trainers would let development costs be recovered over a larger number of aircraft, lowering the price of the Indian trainer.
HAL also points out that an Indian trainer aircraft could be weaponised, or fitted out for a reconnaissance role. Such modifications would be impossible with a Swiss trainer, given the tight end-user conditions imposed by Pilatus on the IAF.
Further, the HTT-40 can be maintained, overhauled and upgraded through its 30-40 year service life by HAL, far more cheaply than the Swiss trainer for which the IAF would have to keep going back to Pilatus.
The IAF has already paid Pilatus Rs 300 crore for maintaining the PC-7 Mark II fleet for the first five years. Now, Pilatus is demanding another Rs 550 crore for maintenance know how.
The IAF, however, says it needs 38 more trainers so urgently that it cannot wait for HAL’s HTT-40 production line to kick in. It says it will issue an RFP once the HTT-40 is certified.
Who wins the impending order for 38 PC-7 Mark 2 trainers – Pilatus or HAL – is now in the hands of the MoD. Industry experts believe the Make in India trainer will prevail.
The Pilatus and HTT-40 are basic trainers, used for training rookie pilots before they graduated onto the more advanced Kiran, and then the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT). Only after these three stages of training are pilots posted to combat squadrons to fly frontline fighters.
Broadsword: HAL fights for indigenous HTT-40 trainer, over Swiss Pilatus
@randomradio @_Anonymous_ @suryakiran @Falcon @Paro @Ashwin @Avi @nair @Parthu @Sancho
Ajai Shukla on a roll
By Ajai Shukla
Bengaluru, 16th Jan 19
In a coup for indigenisation, the Hindustan Turbo Trainer - 40 (HTT-40) basic trainer aircraft, designed and built by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), has outperformed all the Indian Air Force’s (IAF’s) demanding specifications. The final qualifications – stall and spin tests – are proceeding well and HAL expects full certification by June.
However, even as HAL seeks a green light for manufacturing the HTT-40, the IAF is pressing for buying 38 more Pilatus PC-7 Mark II basic trainers from Switzerland, to supplement the 75 it already operates. This would mean building fewer Indian trainers.
There has always been a contest between the Indian and Swiss trainers. In 2009, the ministry of defence (MoD) divided the IAF’s requirement of 181 basic trainers between the two. The IAF was allowed to buy 75 trainers in “flyaway condition” from Pilatus, while HAL began developing the HTT-40 with the aim of building the rest.
The MoD stipulated that, if HAL’s trainer had not flown by the time the first imported trainer is delivered, the IAF could active an “options clause”, buying 38 more imported trainers and a building those many less in India.
Citing that condition, the IAF is insisting on buying 38 more Pilatus. Asked why by Business Standard, the IAF stated: “In 2013, the first PC-7 Mk II Pilatus was delivered but the HTT-40 was still not ready to fly.”
Today, the HTT-40 is not just flying, but outperforming the Pilatus, as well as the IAF’s performance criteria, called the Preliminary Air Staff Requirements (PSQRs).
Against the IAF’s demand for a top speed of 400 kilometres/hour, the HTT-40 has been tested to 420 kilometres/hour; it has flown to 20,200 feet, exceeding the IAF’s ceiling requirement of 20,000 feet. The HTT-40 takes off and lands in just 800 metres of runway, against the PSQR demand of 1,000 metres. It had demonstrated that it can climb faster, turn tighter and glide longer than the IAF requires.
HTT-40 exceeds the specs
Making the IAF’s insistence on the Pilatus trainer even more puzzling is the fact that the original purchase of 75 PC-7 Mark 2 trainers – as the media had widely reported – came under the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI’s) scanner for alleged links between Pilatus and alleged arms dealer, Sanjay Bhandari, who has since fled to London. A former air force chief’s role is also being investigated.
In December, in a meeting in the ministry of defence (MoD), HAL officials strongly argued for fast-tracking HTT-40 clearance, even playing out a video of the HTT-40 smoothly handling the on-going spin testing. Impressed by its performance, the MoD has backed the Indian trainer.
Besides performance, the Make in India policy favours choosing the HTT-40. The Defence Procurement Procedure of 2016 gives top priority to procuring equipment in the category of “Make – Indian Designed, Developed and Manufactured” (Make IDDM) – which the indigenously developed HTT-40 squarely falls into.
HAL has funded the HTT-40 development programme with Rs 500 crore of company funds. It now needs to pay Honeywell -- the US firm that builds the HTT-40’s engine – Rs 180 crore to develop a digital controller for the engine. HAL’s chairman, R Madhavan, says he would be happy to pay from HAL’s resources to save time.
“But HAL’s board, by way of abundant caution, has stipulated that the money should be paid once the IAF issues an RFP so that recovery is assured. That is why we want an RFP from the air force urgently,” says Madhavan.
An air force RFP is also required for HAL to start setting up a production line for the HTT-40. Given the large number of trainers the IAF needs, Madhavan says HAL intends to deliver two HTT-40s the first year, then ramp up to eight next year and, in the third year, stabilise the line at 10 aircraft per year.
In 2015, the MoD green-lighted the procurement of 70 HTT-40 trainers. But HAL says an order for 38 additional trainers would let development costs be recovered over a larger number of aircraft, lowering the price of the Indian trainer.
HAL also points out that an Indian trainer aircraft could be weaponised, or fitted out for a reconnaissance role. Such modifications would be impossible with a Swiss trainer, given the tight end-user conditions imposed by Pilatus on the IAF.
Further, the HTT-40 can be maintained, overhauled and upgraded through its 30-40 year service life by HAL, far more cheaply than the Swiss trainer for which the IAF would have to keep going back to Pilatus.
The IAF has already paid Pilatus Rs 300 crore for maintaining the PC-7 Mark II fleet for the first five years. Now, Pilatus is demanding another Rs 550 crore for maintenance know how.
The IAF, however, says it needs 38 more trainers so urgently that it cannot wait for HAL’s HTT-40 production line to kick in. It says it will issue an RFP once the HTT-40 is certified.
Who wins the impending order for 38 PC-7 Mark 2 trainers – Pilatus or HAL – is now in the hands of the MoD. Industry experts believe the Make in India trainer will prevail.
The Pilatus and HTT-40 are basic trainers, used for training rookie pilots before they graduated onto the more advanced Kiran, and then the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT). Only after these three stages of training are pilots posted to combat squadrons to fly frontline fighters.
Broadsword: HAL fights for indigenous HTT-40 trainer, over Swiss Pilatus
@randomradio @_Anonymous_ @suryakiran @Falcon @Paro @Ashwin @Avi @nair @Parthu @Sancho
Ajai Shukla on a roll
I have a different take on this one. He is again doing an Arjun ver 2.0 in this case. The logic of inducting one aircraft type with another makes no sense as each aircraft, individually, is a different rating for a pilot. Since the HTT-40 was nowhere on the horizon, obviously Pilatus was purchased. Now HAL is crying foul!
Let us rewind
Now Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd has stepped into the breach, renewing an offer to develop a modern replacement for the Deepak. Ashok Nayak, chairman of HAL, told Business Standard: "Two years ago, we offered the IAF a replacement for the Deepak. This single-engine aircraft, which we call the Hindustan Turbo Trainer -- 40 (HTT-40), can be delivered within six years."
and
HAL executives are confident that the HTT-40 can be delivered in six years. They point to the success of HAL's ongoing project to develop and build an Intermediate Jet Trainer, which will replace the Kiran as a Stage-2 trainer. Powered by a custom-designed AL-55I engine from Russia, the first Sitara trainer from the production line is scheduled to fly next week.
HAL has a solution to IAF's pilot training crisis
One can read his similar approach in earlier write up :
Broadsword: Pilatus or HAL’s trainer: Parrikar’s first “Make” decision
Broadsword: Scuttling a “Made in India” project: the case of the HTT-40 trainer
This, the latter highlighted statement, was a claim made in 2009, so, by 2015 it should have been ready! One can not claim working from scratch as they had an earlier project HTT-35, for which, substantial work was already done back on 90s.
And weaponisation? LOL
And Intermediate was Sitara if I recall?
Another incorrect statement
I don't care if it exceeds or not exceeds Pilatus. it is Indian so it needs preference. Simple as that.
The following remains the logic.
Example:
On weaponization:
HTT40 is quite close to T6 texan.
Here is a proposed config
Two under wing hardpoints with UB-16-57UMP Gross loaded weight of total 276kg and 32 rounds of HE rock n roll.
UB-16-57UMP
And the cool thing is , lots of UB-16-57UMP lying around from decommissioned Mig21's, mig23's, Mi17's etc
Last edited:
Because IAF was not onboard at that time. They went ahead with PC-7 procurement.
HAL got to go ahead for prototype development only under manohar parrikar. They funded it themselves.
Weaponization is feasible because HTT-40 has better engine.
As already mentioned by @Falcon, it's dumb to go for a second type.
Since the HTT-40 is being forced on the IAF anyway, a better option is to buy a lot of HTT-40s and sell all the PC-7s to whoever is interested in buying the lot, even in bits and pieces if necessary. Civil aviation in India needs trainers anyway.
Lets see,
India inducted mirage 2000's when it operated Mig29 , both in air superiority configurations; ? why?
India also inducted and continues to develop Pinaka MBRL at 40km low end where it operated BM21 grad, and upper end 120km where it already operated Smerch. ? why?
India also is developiing Astra, while it operates R27ET/ER and Derby in the same range equation? why?
India apparently is going to license produce AK series of rifles, although it operates VZ58 in the same caliber, same barrel length sane role? why?
India also is working on DRDO ARM , all the while it's been operating KH31P arm for decades now? Why?
So all of the second types must be dumb, right?
True, but can one blame IAF?
There is a massive discrepancy between what the Government of India says and what actually transpires. Why, in your opinion, did HTT-35 project fizzle out and IAF had to continue flying the HPT-32 Deepak , an aircraft recognized as being deficient in 80s itself, well into the latter half of the first decade of the 21st Century?
I find it pretty amusing that IAF has been at the receiving end of the flak always, ,while, neither does DRDO or HAL-ADA, report to either the Chief of Air Staff, or are under either administrative or operational control of the Chief of Air Staff.
When you have a situation where in the decision makers are the operational controllers of the organization, I find it rather absurd to find fault with IAF in the case. DRDO has always been behind the development curve - period. The allocation for research is not meant to spend tonnes of monies on technology that already exists, but to anticipate and potentiate the technologies that exist and are likely to be inducted over the near future. What we see, is a complete mismatch between what the Government says and what it actually implements.
Since defence as a sector is a highly fluidic and volatile sector, to assume technological requirements must remain frozen over a decade is not only a joke but a personal insult when the forces are blamed for delaying.
In a situation wherein we talk of a potential two front war, with the Northern neighbour not only outpacing us technologically and economically but also in terms of pace of modernization of armed forces, I doubt that any of the services can have the luxury of failing to anticipate technological and platform requirements. The ramifications are too large. On the other hand, the bureaucrats, the politicians and the DPSUs are well conversant on what is the likelihood of war and can actually make profit from poor preparedness of the armed forces when push comes to a shove (read the 'exigent' orders in aftermath of Sept 2016 as the latest, or now - the replacement for Sniper rifles on emergent basis due to 'criticality' whereas the same was required in 2008 itself! But the proposal was shot down). Unfortunately, the soldier will pay with his/her life for the same, hence remains worried.
What remains is a discrepancy between public statements by the GoI and actual actions being undertaken.
The decades of dissonance and the easy opportunity to make a 'fast buck' while failing to deliver any product in name of indigenisation has gone on far too long.
We import 125mm APFSD rounds from Russia whereas OFB claims to be making them in India itself.!
Last edited:
There comes what I was trying to make members say - the decision makers have always used these purchases as a leverage!
The most amazing thing is, people continue to blame IAF, when IAF was for either Mirage 2000s or Mig 29s with assembly lines. But political considerations disallowed either of the two and we had 'good client relations' with both. Makes sense insofar the diplomatic support - but not going in for production lines was rather stupid.