This aircraft I would seriously love to see in Army Aviation as a dedicated CAS aircraft
Trainer Aircraft of IAF - PC-7, HTT-40, HJT-36, BAE Hawk
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
This aircraft I would seriously love to see in Army Aviation as a dedicated CAS aircraft
the way I see it, If we can replace equipment with locally developed systems, we gain expertise, cater to segment that can have export potential in some segments.
Assault rifles, Trainer aircraft's, Autonomous drones, Precision rifles, light howtzers, mbrls, SPH's, mobility systems are segments where India can have tremendous export potential.
Now if we discourage indegenious developments in these areas, it would be a great dis-service. If right direction was provided to the Insas systems and we had started developing MCIWS by late 90's today it would be positioned with MPT, SCAR, 416 and other short stroke AR pattern systems, but we did not. Similarly if we ket continues development on the Insas, there was nothing to stop it from being developed into a Galil competition. Right now we could have had two rifle system competing with both high end AK and AR market around the world.
Same goes for HTT40, it can compete today with air tractor and texan t6 being in the same bracket, but if we kill it right here, we will not have a trainer product in the segment for the next three decades. To pinch pennies we will kill an entire family of product.
Remember killing the HF24 and what it did for Indian Aerospace environment?
Weapons are bought from different sources in order to diversify supplies, since it's not good to put all your eggs in a single basket. It provides a massive negotiations advantage.
But diversifying supplies when there is no strategic compulsion to is plain dumb. Especially when it comes to training resources, which is even dumber.
Point Taken
But here in the HAL case - its more to do with what was promised and hype than what was delivered !
In the HJT36 - it was hype so much - that the IAF Chief said that they would order it for the Surya Kirans
Im all for the HTT40 - just not convince on their delivery to make the IAF wait
HJT36 failed, thus no orders were placed. HTT40 succeeded, now if IAF want's to punish HTT40 because HAL did not deliver on HJT36. then maybe we HAL needs to give offer a bar of chocolate with the trainer, because IAF sure as hell is behaving like a toddler.
So there is no risks to a civilian supply chain? when on the subject, how do you identify risks in your supply chain? it emanates from civil/ military origins?
Given HAL has zero funds left to start a new line, IAF and MoD can easily ensure the deliveries do not happen, ever and PC7's are bought, and put the HTT40 in it's grave.
MoD will bend over backwards to facilitate C295, for private players or reliance's OPV's, but won't have the time of the day for the trainer which exceeds PSQR and it's current selection and has a flying prototype.
What you are talking about is normal risks associated with, say, if the company fails, or something similar.
But with weapons, you get sanctioned. Not to mention weapons are so expensive that having a competing supplier can save costs.
Pilatus is selling us civilian tech, and the company is in good standing. Even if we get sanctioned, Pilatus can still continue dealing with us. So there are no direct risks.
With the present BS scenario that we are seeing on the TV of HAL vs MoD wrt funds - what you have posted is what will most likely be the way it will play out
Even though it's a good article but Ajai Shukla is doing propaganda like always. IAF is supporting HTT-40 since Pilatus price increased, new training regime will start implementing this year. Basic- HTT-40; AJT-Hawk and then LIFT skipping IJT like other air forces.
No one is waiting for IJT, the project is dead for past 2 years.
Pros for Htt40
1. Cheaper
2. Better spec
3. weapons can be added
4. motivating the young team which took up proven design reducing the risk s
5. Chance for IJT / AJT to be designed in house in another decade .
6. Increased numbers can be inducted .
7. Pilatus price increase
8. Lack of tot/ guarantee on price for 3 rd party made components in Pilatus .. something like that.
9. Even Pilatus was chosen with some leeway in ASQR .
that being said when BTA was requirements went red , HTT 40 was not there . So proven Pilatus was bought .
trainings were done .. i feel ..
to change the training with newer BTA , that too newly made at that , its difficult to make people redo efforts especially in govt sector.
so Pilatus was a successful plan B executed.
so the additional 38 which were meant for Pilatus was never orihinally envisaged for HTT40 .
IAF would be the best one to judge how HTT 40 has matured .
Can we trust HAL to deliver the requirements on time without any issues ?
Has the product been officially acknowledged as a better product than Pilatus by the User ?
Whatever being said ,
We have to support the effort that's made.
One senior remember i think Bonobashi answered there are random sparks of excellence happen in Drdo ..
If HTT 40 is such one , we have to make it grand success.
May be in a decade , even at current speed we can have many squads of indigenous AJT doing CAS under Army .
If not, may be only a single sqaud of i Hawk for a billion $.
1. Cheaper
2. Better spec
3. weapons can be added
4. motivating the young team which took up proven design reducing the risk s
5. Chance for IJT / AJT to be designed in house in another decade .
6. Increased numbers can be inducted .
7. Pilatus price increase
8. Lack of tot/ guarantee on price for 3 rd party made components in Pilatus .. something like that.
9. Even Pilatus was chosen with some leeway in ASQR .
that being said when BTA was requirements went red , HTT 40 was not there . So proven Pilatus was bought .
trainings were done .. i feel ..
to change the training with newer BTA , that too newly made at that , its difficult to make people redo efforts especially in govt sector.
so Pilatus was a successful plan B executed.
so the additional 38 which were meant for Pilatus was never orihinally envisaged for HTT40 .
IAF would be the best one to judge how HTT 40 has matured .
Can we trust HAL to deliver the requirements on time without any issues ?
Has the product been officially acknowledged as a better product than Pilatus by the User ?
Whatever being said ,
We have to support the effort that's made.
One senior remember i think Bonobashi answered there are random sparks of excellence happen in Drdo ..
If HTT 40 is such one , we have to make it grand success.
May be in a decade , even at current speed we can have many squads of indigenous AJT doing CAS under Army .
If not, may be only a single sqaud of i Hawk for a billion $.
The problem is that the impetus and structure of the executive components and production facilities needed to ensure a product reaches its true and full potential is not present in the country.
Like you said, we made INSAS as an indigenous endeavour...but it didn't get halfway where it could have gone. 20+ years on, it still is far from perfect and most of the QA/QC concerns are still not met. So even if we do go ahead with HTT40, what's the guarantee it won't end up with a similar fate? In the end we would just be sinking money into an organizational structure that refuses to learn and refuses to improve.
Why? Because they are simply insured against any and all failures by virtue of being a state-run enterprise which monopolizes the sector due to fierce protectionism on the part of the MoD to safeguard the interests of DPSUs and assure them work, because of the significant vote-banks that they represent. We have a system that has no incentive to improve itself.
Until that system is not reformed from the ground-up, any and all indigenous ventures in terms of defence production will remain mediocre at best, and untenable white elephants that never actually materialize at worst. Exports? Forget it. The only exports we ever actually made are either flukes or basically donations. Nothing beats free so yeah.
As a bottomline, what I'm saying is that even if HTT40 gets orders, its unlikely to become anything worthwhile or develop into a truly competitive product on the international market. The ALH Dhruv was the closest we got to have a marketable product, and we made a mess of it, if not a pariah, even though it is actually nowhere as bad as the Ecuador experience would have any potential buyer believe.
We simply don't have the system. It is disheartening for many (including me), but there is no way this will ever work. We've been trying since 80s but each time its just nothing but reinvention of the wheel again and again. Somehow, I think the defence sector never actually came out of the License Raj while the rest of the country mostly did.
When you look at it, its not hard to see an Air India present in each and every single DPSU in the country. The only reason they still chug along (and actually show profits on paper) is because unlike Air India, the DPSUs have their respective sectors mostly monopolized. The moment the monopolies are broken, every DPSU engaged in production activities (eventually followed by R&D) will sink.
Was making a case to how HAL run projects - ie Slow R&D, testing and in this case of HJT36 no delivery
WRT to the HTT40 - we might see the same - expect a much better product - BUT delivery is at a snails pace - Should the IAF wait for it or not - THats the Question here
True @GuardianRED the issue is of poor project management and a systematic lethargy. Non-performance is being tolerated and encouraged; innovation, "out-of-the-box" suggestions/ideas considered as being a sign of 'subversion of order' and 'rocking-the-boat' and absolutely discouraged.
Excellent Post;
You raise an excellent question, why wouldn't HTT40 meet the same fate as Insas from product development stand point. The key take away for this is the difference in the developmental agency.
Insas was developed by ARDE DRDO, while HTT40 is being designed by ARDC HAL. lets look at development cycle for another product , Advanced light helicopter. With zero participation from DRDO, HAL worked on platform with Messerschmitt, owned the design cycle and exploited the full potential of the Dhruv with an entire portfolio of products including 4 distinct mk's for military applications with incremental improvement, mk1 was the basic military variant, mk2 was with glass cockpit, mk3 with glass cockpit and higher o/p engines, and mk4 the Rudra WSO weaponised; Similarly it made 4 distinct civilian variants, the platform also spun off the Light Combat helicopter and single engine scaled variant Light Utility Helicopter.
4 military variants, 4 Civilian variants, 1 NPD common chassis Attack variant, 1 Scaled NPD single engine variant, and given the expertise gained in the process, (HAL if not shut down by this government); has positioned itself to build a knockout medium lift platform to compete in the lucrative Mi17/ UH 60/ AW101 bracket.
So HAL followed a full optimization cycle for and indigenous platform; all of the platforms with the necessary performance characteristics, and that is the exact model that HTT40 will follow if that product or the parent company is not killed at this point of time. HTT40 will spin off a light armed variant, a civilian export variant, a civilian aerobatic single seat performance unit, a specialized recon low heat signature variant. Unlike DRDO projects like insas which did not follow any VAVE for the product development.
It's not though ,right? If you are looking at failings in indigenous works for HJT 36, you should also be looking at the family of helicopters that have been developed for the IAF/IA/IN (ALH mk1,2,3, ALH WSO, LCH, LUH) and all have exceeded the performance requirements of the IAF. Why would HAL base HTT project of a failed project, than the entire family of successful projects that constitute best practices for ideal product development.
Last edited: