Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
India To Buy Hawks  
User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7379 posts, RR: 14
Posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4785 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!


After much deliberation about buying new training aircraft, the BBC is quoting an Indian Defence Ministry spokesman saying that, "The decision is to buy the Hawk made by British Aerospace,". The contract should be for 66 Hawks. More on this story here.

David

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4728 times:

At last... this has been in the pipeline for years!
Only 24 are being built at Brough; the rest will be built at HAL in Bangalore.

A couple of photos at Aero India 2003:






Cunning linguist
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2232 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4707 times:

The decision was approved by the CCS (cabinet committee on security). IIRC, it remains to be cleared by the finance ministry, just as in the case of the Air India deals. I personally think buying the Hawk is a poor idea. There's already an indigenous jet trainer flying, and its going through certification now. I don't see what the point of buying from abroad is. Sure, it'll take more time than procuring the Hawk, if the deal were signed immediately, but if preventing pilot loss from MiG-21 crashes is the issue, successive Indian governments already have enough blood on their hands. Besides, not buying the Hawk saves us the worry of having to go through moronic embargoes like the one related to the IN Sea King helicopter spares. OTOH, if the Brits also agreed to sell us the HMS Invincible (about which we're already in talks with) and the latest Harriers to go with it for a competitive price, and also promised to behave themselves and stop being holier-than-thou about our nuclear program, I think I'll grudgingly agree  Big grin


India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13211 posts, RR: 77
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4715 times:

The new AJT is not an advanced trainer. The Hawk is. It's customer base speaks volumes about it's capabilities.
I'll believe this deal is happening when metal is cut.
Still, what price all those IAF pilots killed compared to 'holier than thou' Indian bureaucrat's job security?


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2232 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4707 times:

The new AJT is not an advanced trainer. The Hawk is.

Indeed. I hardly attempted to compare the IJT to the Hawk, considering the former is still a prototype. But its headed towards the goal of being an AJT.

Still, what price all those IAF pilots killed compared to 'holier than thou' Indian bureaucrat's job security?

Irrelevant. Successive governments have sat on this for ages, and wringing hands over it is a waste of time, as insensitive as it may sound. Pretty much on similar lines as questions in the House of Commons about British participation in Iraq. The more important question is, why bother to spend $2 billion on the Hawk ? Spend it on pushing the IJT (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/HJT-36.html) forward, particularly since the technologies from the LCA have helped drive the IJT program so much faster. That's my contention. I'm not going to head down the 'Hawk is dated' path. Its still a capable jet, but I'd rather we pursued our own design - the thing is already been flying for two years now.

I still find it hard to believe this deal is sealed, considering how long it took. If the IAF can finalize attrition replacements and updates of their Mirage 2000s within months, then a 20-year tragicomedy over the AJT is ludicruous.Even a big-ticket item like the Su-30 MKI deal was sealed in a matter of months, and the IAF also got an excellent indigenous avionics suite put together by DRDO. Either the IAF/GoI is not exactly satisified with the price or capabilities of the Hawk, or the GoI is just giving the BAe false hopes, at the end of which they'll just say no. Lets see how this does in the finance ministry. Plus, with an election year coming up, the election commision can scuttle this deal. For once, I'd like to see them do just that.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13211 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4708 times:

So you are happy to see the IAF saddled with an inadequate training programme?
The AJT will not, even in production form, approach the capabilities of the Hawk, it is not meant to, it's job is to replace much of the work of older prop basic trainers, providing a link between propeller basic pilot screening aircraft, then the AJT, then an advanced trainer like the Hawk and then twin seat versions of front line types in operational conversion units.
India might have been better off producing a modern turboprop trainer, like the Tucano or PC series, having a basic screener, then a high performance turboprop, then the Hawk, that's how most first rate airforces do it.
Or is such an aircraft not 'macho' enough for India's self-image?
Haven't the IAF lost enough MIG-21 twin seaters?
Still, who cares what the IAF want or need, clearly BAe have not been giving any, or enough, of the kickbacks the politicians expect and demand, look what happened to Bofors.


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2232 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4693 times:

So you are happy to see the IAF saddled with an inadequate training programme?

Save me your self-righteous tirades. I just happen to disagree with you on what whether or not we should pick the Hawk. The IJT in its current shape may not be upto par with the Hawk, but considering we came this far, I prefer to see us spending our resources pursuing it rather than the Hawk.

Still, who cares what the IAF want or need, clearly BAe have not been giving any, or enough, of the kickbacks the politicians expect and demand, look what happened to Bofors.

The alleged Bofors kickbacks amounted to a piffling sum of about Rs.64 crores ($14 million in today's dollars). After a decade and a half, nothing has ever been come of that scandal, besides the fact that it besmirched the good name of a (now deceased) former Prime Minister. Its arguable that those sums were deal commissions, which are common in defence deals anyway. In any case, plenty of other defence deals (MKI, M2K, the Talwar frigates, T-90 tanks, Phalcon) have been followed without any kickbacks, thank you. If you're under the impression that the only reason this deal won't go forward is that the fair maidens of BAe won't stoop low enough to pay the kickbacks to our wicked, venal politicians, as you allege, well, that's your opinion.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4695 times:

Sure, it'll take more time than procuring the Hawk, if the deal were signed immediately, but if preventing pilot loss from MiG-21 crashes is the issue, successive Indian governments already have enough blood on their hands

This is the bit that I take issue with.
The sooner you have an appropriate trainer in service, the sooner the accidents will stop (or at least slow from a torrent to a trickle). Previous epic delays are part of the problem, not an excuse for more delays.

Besides, not buying the Hawk saves us the worry of having to go through moronic embargoes like the one related to the IN Sea King helicopter spares

Local construction should reduce (although not eliminate) that concern, surely?

OTOH, if the Russians also agreed to refit the Gorshkov (about which we're already in talks with) and the latest MiG-29K to go with it for a competitive price ...  Smile



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2232 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4686 times:

The sooner you have an appropriate trainer in service, the sooner the accidents will stop (or at least slow from a torrent to a trickle). Previous epic delays are part of the problem, not an excuse for more delays.

But of course. However if you look at the time it takes for the soporific finance ministry dorks with their numerous subcommittees to approve the AI deals, you'll realize it won't take much longer than for the Hawk to be deployed than a certified IJT-32. Also, the BAe deal states that it will be a minimum of three years (35 months, to be precise) between the signing of the deal and the receipt of the first jet.

Bureaucratic sloth isn't sadly going to go away overnight, and under such circumstances, HAL/DRDO are capable of getting an advanced IJT out by the time the first Hawk lands in India. It may not be as much on the cutting edge as the Hawk, but every aircraft has its development life, and the present avatar of the Hawk is the culmination of a long developmental effort. It is with these factors in mind that I prefer that funds continue to be allocated to the IJT, because the LCA & IJT efforts are progressing so well and not because of any apathy towards those who lose their lives in MiG-21s - which is still a very capable fighter but useless as a trainer.

Local construction should reduce (although not eliminate) that concern, surely?

If local construction were possible (either legally or technically), that would not have been an issue. The Sea Kings were crippled by the blockade of critical spares, related to the engine and gearboxes, I believe.

OTOH, if the Russians also agreed to refit the Gorshkov (about which we're already in talks with) and the latest MiG-29K to go with it for a competitive price ...

Eh ? The Gorshkov is a rustbucket. I'll bet you a beer it'll end up in the bottom of the sea on its way to India, if ever bought. We might as well raise the Titanic  Smile



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13211 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4602 times:

Seen the IJT? Hasn't the performance of the Hawk.
You'll get Hawks quicker, and cheaper than any other type, including some maybe radically uprated (redesigned?) IJT, which will be the main Indian trainer anyway, the Hawk is for the advanced part of the training.
Unless India wants to cut off it's nose to spite it's face again, as with the LCA, (service entry now 2015, Naval version seemingly scrapped).
It used to be the case that Indian procurement was logical, home development and production when best, imports when not.
Russian stuff often is cheaper to buy, but more expensive in the long term to run, until recently the engines for instance had very short time between overhauls.

If Indian beauracrats hadn't be so awkward, they'd have had Hawks and a better training programme (so less dead pilots), years ago.
If you asked, the RAF would probably have loaned some Hawks in the interim, like they did with the Jaguar order.

As for the competition, the Alpha Jet is out of production for years, the MB-339 is good, but lacks the performance for the more demanding end of the training, (so the IJT could cover most of what the Macchi could do), the new Macchi, the 346, has yet to fly, the Russian counterparts are not much more proven.
Bit of a no brainier, the current Hawk has little in common internally with the original versions, the engine is much uprated with a FADEC, the cockpit is current generation.
The modern cockpit is vital for air warfare training, not much good having shiny new SU-30s, Mirage 2000s, uprated Mig-29s and the rest if pilots are not familiar with current man/machine interface technology?

And who's being self righteous? Just pointing out some uncomfortable facts, the IAF, historically a highly rated AF, is now known as the air force with severe pilot training problems and high attrition, not really their fault, they've known what's been required for 20 years.
Pretty scandalous really, a lot of bean counters have plenty to answer for, regardless of the merits of individual trainers, a modern one was needed years ago.

What do Indian critics of the Hawk know that the RAF, US Navy, SAAF, RAAF, Swiss AF, Korean AF and many others don't?

As for embargos, well that's called obeying international law, if HAL can make a perfectly good helicopter in the ALH themselves, supporting some Sea Kings should not be too much of a problem, the Israelis (India's new best friend) managed to do that with Mirages after 1967.



User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2232 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4580 times:

You'll get Hawks quicker, and cheaper than any other type, including some maybe radically uprated (redesigned?) IJT, which will be the main Indian trainer anyway, the Hawk is for the advanced part of the training.

Let me put if this way - if the Hawk was such a panacea, it wouldn't have taken so long for the deal to receive even CCS clearance, much less the actual deal formalization. I've already mentioned why I think that at the rate at which this deal has progressed, compared to a number of others in recent years, the Hawks aren't going to be in soon enough to affect atrrition rates in a hurry. There are enough recent deals to show that when the services want something badly, and its good enough, they'll get it.

The Hawk tragicomedy bears comparison to the Gorshkov, another deal thats been hanging fire for ages because there's no specific consensus on it, while the keel of the indigenous carrier is being laid down this year. If you'd rather think the only reason for the Hawk deal taking so long is a combination of our own venality and apathy towards the lives of our airmen, be my guest. There's enough evidence on the table to prove the Hawk saga is the exception, rather than the norm.

I'll grant you that the Hawk is a very good aircraft, and its way more advanced than the IJT is now (thouh I disagree the IJT's capabilities will remain static, considering its a work in progress) and to be honest, I'm relieved that a deal has actually been made, though I remain skeptical I'll progress fast enough to make a difference. Further, 66 AJTs is far fewer than what the IAF needs, and the primary factor that decided this low number, from all information I've heard, is the price of the Hawk. Even Indonesia has about 40 Hawks, and something as big as the IAF needs 150-200 trainers.

as with the LCA, (service entry now 2015, Naval version seemingly scrapped).

Eh ? And which esteemed publication did you glean that bit from ? The LCA has already started conducting supersonic tests, and there are three active airframes - two pre-prod 'technology demonstrators' (TD-1 and TD2) and one prototype (PV-1). Either PV-3 or PV-4 is slated to be the NLCA prototype. More than a 100 test flights have taken place. Its slated for limited series production starting in 2005, with the first LSP batch of probably 6 entering IAF in 2006, in a manner similar to the MKI phased induction/upgrade. You're off the mark by about 10 years.

And who's being self righteous? Just pointing out some uncomfortable facts,

I disagreed with the choice of the Hawk, for reasons I've already stated. You may have your own differing opinion based on what you think is better. But that does NOT give you the right to suggest that I do not care about the lives of IAF airmen, or that I'd rather see the IAF stuck with an outdated basic training regimen. I found that extremely presumptuous. You're British, and IIRC, are/were affiliated with BAe systems in some manner. I don't presume your opinions are partisan, and I'd appreciate if you didn't go about throwing muck at me.

As for embargos, well that's called obeying international law, if HAL can make a perfectly good helicopter in the ALH themselves, supporting some Sea Kings should not be too much of a problem, the Israelis (India's new best friend) managed to do that with Mirages after 1967.

I disagree on two counts:
a) It wasn't 'international (i.e., multilateral) law' but US/UK non-proliferation agenda at play.
b) that the situation could not have been avoided, considering that the link between India's nuclear tests and the Sea Kings is rather tenuous. What's a maritime SAR copter got to do with thermonuclear weapons ?
If anything, it merely reinforces my opinion that British arms companies don't make for reliable suppliers. Next thing you know, there'll be another embargo because British call center jobs moved to India. OTOH, maybe the British left will score an own goal in this matter, arguing that the jets will seriously destabilize arms balance in the Indian subcontinent, and question the correctness of selling such things to a developing country like India.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13211 posts, RR: 77
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4585 times:

Nope, not affiliated with BAE in any way, personally I think they are a once great company gone wrong, the Hawk being an exception.
Yes, 66 Hawks, for the advanced part of the training, as I've said, the IJT will cover the greater part of the training, by no stretch of the imagination is the IJT an advanced trainer, trying to use it as such would be a repeat of previous practice.

Is there another reason for this farcical situation? Maybe some Indian politicians are happier ordering big ticket items while neglecting basic needs? You know how attention seeking they can be, everywhere.
Look at how weak the US Navies minesweeping capability is for example, always very low priority after fighter aircraft, carriers, nuclear subs.

Indonesia also uses (single seat) Hawks for light attack, there will be objections from some about any arms sale to India, but this is a fringe, those in the know are well aware that India has plenty of potent attack aircraft, they'd not use a trainer in the front line, however capable.

My understanding is that a LCA with the Indian engine won't likely see service before 2015, will they want F404 powered ones in front line service? If they are so worried about future embargos?
I guess the real objection to Indian nukes is a worry about the more aggressive, sectarian elements in the BJP, lets face it, India exploded it's first device in 1974, didn't stop the UK supplying Jaguars.

It's not about mud slinging, it's about bewilderment, there is one other competitor to the Hawk, the L-159, that has a lot of US supplied components, including engines, the UK (apart from reaction to the 1998 nukes) has been a consistent and reliable supplier to India over 50 years, the US record is more variable to put it mildly.
Even so, the delays in getting a new IAF trainer beggar belief. Some people, high up, clearly don't care too much about IAF attrition.


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2232 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4567 times:

by no stretch of the imagination is the IJT an advanced trainer, trying to use it as such would be a repeat of previous practice.

I've already said this - the IJT in its current stage of evolution is the equivalent of a concept car, which went from paper to flying prototype in less than 22 months, thanks to the huge amount of experience the LCA project has helped DRDO/ADA gain. It is not going into service the way it is now, but will be a precursor to an local AJT. Saying the present IJT is not an AJT is like saying the YF-16 is not an F-16 C/D Block 60. Sure it ain't.

There was a time in the 90s when ADA was asked if it could work on both an LCA and an AJT, but they stated they do no have the resources to do both. Now they do. According to senior DRDO scientist Roddam Narasimha in a speech the other day, it will now take HAL/ADA 5-7 years to have an AJT out and certified from the day they start from scratch, thanks to the huge experience base from the LCA project. Since they already have a flying platform (IJT) that's been test-flown about 40 times already, it makes life even easier for them.

My understanding is that a LCA with the Indian engine won't likely see service before 2015, will they want F404 powered ones in front line service? If they are so worried about future embargos?

IIRC, the LSP series will have the F404, of which we have about 60 from GE. This will be replaced in a phased manner with the GTX-35V (Kaveri) engine. The Kaveri is undergoing high-altitude tests in Russia now, and the IAF prefers that the F404 be used in the LSP batch so the 2005-06 delivery schedule can be maintained. They already had a good experience with phased upgrades on the MKI, and they'll pursue the same here. Besides, with the increased amounts of co-operation with the US, they're not as leery about sanctions, particularly when they already have the stuff they want. If they intend to burst a few more nukes, I reckon they'll now wait till the Kaveri is in place  Smile

I guess the real objection to Indian nukes is a worry about the more aggressive, sectarian elements in the BJP, lets face it, India exploded it's first device in 1974, didn't stop the UK supplying Jaguars.

Nice. If anything the Hawks have a greater link to the nuclear program than Sea Kings do, considering they could theoretically be modified to carry such weapons. Who do you think is in power right now, anyway ? Why the lack of alarm at the war-mongering BJP buying Hawks now ? Is it really about the BJP or about British being unscrupulous enough to hose a done deal, while unabashedly chasing to a new lucrative one ? I'm afraid your argument doesn't make much sense at all.




India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4547 times:

The first Indian in space and a long time Test pilot from the Indian Air Force, Sqn ldr Rakesh Sharma made some very nice points in his interview to NDTV.

He argued that the Hawk is the wort fit for the roles the IAF is specifically looking for. As he said the Hawk is not the "magic bullet" the IAF was looking for.

Unlike the Hawk, The Mig-AT, which was also in the race, had an avionics system which could be programmed to represent ANY of the aircraft int hte IAF fleet and so could have been a better fit.

And as another MP, and ex-IAF pilot with battle honors, and who otherwise supports the Vajpayee govt said in Parliament:The Hawk deal smells like another Gnat deal, an underpowered overpriced aircraft that does not meet ANY of the needs it is intended to fulfil.

Another aspect is that the British are particularly untrustworthy as far as defense deals are concerned. especially now when they are competing with "New Europe" to curry favors with Washington. Remember the way they harassed us with Sea King spares as well the Jaguars?

But Vajpayee govt thinks differently. Not for nothing is his govt being called the Govt of "Mr.Two Percent". A lot of pockets of the BJP leaders have undoubtedly been lined in this deal and the facts will come out once the congress returns to power.

-Roy


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2232 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

The MiG-AT is a nice, good looking jet, and all that. But I'm even less inclined to support it for the IAF than the Hawk. Quite frankly, the Russians are beginning to drop the ball as far as defence products are concerned, and I think they're starting to have serious issues, both with staying on the bleeding edge, and quality. This is a rather general statement, and there certainly are exceptions. If India is to get arms abroad, I favor getting it from the west, particularly Israel and France.

Regarding the Hawk, there certainly is no viable alternative to it right now. I would have been very inclined to support its choice had this been the 1990s, but not anymore. The delay in the whole episode is an indictment against the bureaucracy in the MoD, who hemmed and hawwed till the very last nanosecond and then suddenly woke up and banged the gavel. I'm pretty much reconciled to the fact that having the Hawks are a good idea, but as a stopgap measure. There are airmen dying, and we need something better than a Mach 2 interceptor that handles like a tank, to train them on. Considering the 66 Hawks being ordered won't even qualify as a bare minimum of IAFs needs, I'd like to see the ADA/RDRO have their hair on fire developing the IJT into a full-fledged AJT, and have the IAF pick it for the remaining 100-150-odd trainers it will require in addition to the Hawk.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4524 times:

I find it interesting that the Hawk is being accused of being underpowered.

That is probably the finest jet trainer in production in this time, (no offense to the L-39/59/159 fans out there, that aicraft can hold it's own against the Hawk too)

I can help but think that respected indian aviation figure may have had motives for calling the aircraft underpowered. But I didn't see the interview, point is the IDF can do a hell of a lot worse then Hawks.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineIndianFlyboy From India, joined Sep 2003, 294 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4499 times:

Hi Guys ,

After I saw this thread I just had to get my login back , well I am back for now. Anyway going back to the thread, IJT Vs AjT vs Hawk Vs Mig AT. At this point we really do not have any other options besides the hawk.
The IJT is a single engine replacement for the Kiran and is subsonic. This is in no way capable of handling a transition to aircrafts of the like of the Mig 21. And again if you look closely it , it seems like a replica of the Alpha jet. Even has the same engine.No doubt it would be highly successful as an entry level trainer.

AJT is miles from getting developed, HAL has all the necessary resources and the brains to get this developed fast but what it lacks is governmental approval which is a pathetic state of affairs in this part of the world.

Mig AT , it may be a wonderful trainer for the MiG series of aircrafts , but MiG itself is not putting too much interest in this project , pretty much pointless buying it . It would be somebody else's design which we will end up supporting.

Now the hawk , 20 years back if this aircaft had been purchased it would have been a boon for the pilots and with its abilities would have been ideal to get the pilots to jump from the Kiran to the Mig's. Going by the current scenario , I would still tend to prefer the hawk atleast till the time India comes up with its own AJT, which is not going to be anytime soon.
It is the sorry state of affairs in the Indian government which has led to this entire fiasco. The minimum lead time even if all resources are utilized for the AJT project would be 5-6 years. It would have been useful if instead of developing the IJT in 4 years an AJT was developed or atleast prototyped.

Barfbag , I disagree with the fact that the Mig 21 handles like a tank , my sources , 2 gallantary award winners from the IAF , my dad and my uncle.It is actually the exact opposite, the aircraft is a little too stable and gives a false sense of security. If you go through the accident history of the MiG 21's all a/c's which have been lost with the airmen because of pilot errors have mostly stalled and crashed . Heck the aircraft does not even have a stick shaker for identifying low speeds. The Bison's should recitify this problem and have a better safety record , but it will be a while till all aircrafts get upgraded. The second thing being the trainers. All the MiG 21 trainers are the block 77 aircrafts , UM's which are ancient. This is the primary cause of lack of proper training procedures.

Moral of the entire story, the hawk is a terrific aircraft and as of now the only options for the IAF , but it should have come in 16 years back.The AJT development should have been given preference over the IJT not the other way around.Governmental decisions suck big time and are pretty much pathetic.For the next 5 years 66 hawks is not going to be sufficient , we need atleast 60 - 70 more.

anyway , my personal opinion guys ,brickbats or bouquets , both are welcome

Regards


User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4484 times:

IndianFlyBoy: The Indian IJT can go supersonic 1.2M in a dive. Or thas what I was told at the Aero-India show.



User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4483 times:

Is there a partcular reason why the L-39 or L-59/159 wasn't considered or removed from consideration?

It and the hawk are argueably the two most mature trainers out there, and wouldn't have the risks associated with a new design.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2232 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4472 times:

The IJT is a single engine replacement for the Kiran and is subsonic. This is in no way capable of handling a transition to aircrafts of the like of the Mig 21. And again if you look closely it , it seems like a replica of the Alpha jet. Even has the same engine.No doubt it would be highly successful as an entry level trainer.

Granted, the IJT is not an AJT, but with the current level of competence, ADA/DRDO can easily have a real AJT up and flying in 5-6 years. The present IJT is nice as a Kiran replacement.

Barfbag , I disagree with the fact that the Mig 21 handles like a tank , my sources ,

Well, 'tank' is probably a bad way to describe it  Smile But its forward visibility during landing sucks, the instructor can't see the trainee's controls in front from his seat behind, the thing has a high takeoff and landing speed, and generally wasn't designed to be a forgiving basic trainer.

The AJT development should have been given preference over the IJT not the other way around.

Did you read about Roddam Narasimha's speech at IISc some days back ? His basic statement on this was that the ADA was asked whether it could handle both LCA and AJT work in the 90s, and they said they could handle only one, and so the LCA work was given priority. Now that they have a huge and growing base of expertise, they can easily work on the AJT as well, particularly since they managed to get a prototype of the IJT flying in <2 years from concept.

They really need a central aerospace commission like the space commission and ISRO. Right now the problem with the aerospace sector seems to be that the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. Nevertheless, considering how well the LCA development is going on now, I have no doubt an AJT project will work out very well, provided the babus babus put down the tea & biscuits and organize funding for the damn project.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4461 times:



BarfBag: While the R&D guys are pretty confident, the Air Force is not. and to no fault of theirs since they are pissed off at the repeated delays. Mebbe this was why the indegenous AJT project was put on hold and the IJT was launched as "practice". In any case the IJT that has come out, HJT-36, is quite a decent "growth replacement" for the large fleet of Kiran basic trainers.

To answer a specific quetion that was raised b4: I remember seeing a static model of the indegenous HJT-36 at an airshow, and the one of the people standing around explained that it could go supersonic upto 1.2M in a shallow dive. This could be useful for basic training in supersonics.

-Roy




User currently offlineIndianFlyboy From India, joined Sep 2003, 294 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4457 times:

L-188: the L39 was considered but at that point the alpha jet and the Hawk were given preference over it . Alpha jet obviously lost out with Dassault Dornier running into troubles. Not that it was a bad trainer .

Roy: Agreed the IJT can go supersonic in dives , just about any aircraft can , but the purpose of the IJT is not to train pilots in supersonic maneuvers. The primary purpose is to impart training on a high performance jet capable of aerobatic maneuvers. The AJT on the other hand is required for giving a push to supersonic flight and aircraft handling at supersonic flight. This is why the AJT is so critical for the IAF right now. Almost all combat aircraft with the exception of ground attack go above Mach 2 , and the new pilots have to go from a 700 mph Kiran to a Mach 2.2 MiG 21 without any stepping stone, its like driving a toyota one day and a ferrari the next and both at their top speeds.

BarfBag: I read a couple of reports from the HAL insiders (will post the links as soon as I remember them) and a couple of IAF officers on the LCA project that the primary cause of the LCA delay was the friction between the HAL and the ADA . While the HAL wanted to do the design and developement themselves it was actually ADA providing the design while HAL just implemented it. The US sanctions did not help too much either. One more thing the LCA project is managed by the ADA and HAL is only the contractor to manufacture the aircraft. On the other hand the IJT was managed and implemented by HAL , with inputs from the ADA and NAL . I guess a kind of one up business which goes on all the time.
I fully agree on the concept of having a single aerospace entity , makes life easier for a lot of people. Look at ISRO they have been moving along very very quickly as they do not need to wait for any inputs from some other governmental body . And the fact of the matter still remains that a govt body is a govt body (read SLOOOOOOWWWW).

Its about time the Indian Aerospace industry moved, it seems pretty pathetic that the first aircraft developed by India was the HF 24 Marut in the 60's , it was fairly successful , based on the Mystere,the first AJT was the ajeet based on the Gnat or actually the Gnat itself, and this was in the 70's and after that absolutely nothing.The LCA project has been going on and on and on , and probably when it hits production the design would already be outdated. Probably it would make more sense making the LCA an AJT but hell who can fight with the government who seem to be more interested filling their own pockets rather than looking at the country's need.

Anway , my 2 cents , hope I made some sense.

Regards


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2232 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (11 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

While the R&D guys are pretty confident, the Air Force is not. and to no fault of theirs since they are pissed off at the repeated delays. Mebbe this was why the indegenous AJT project was put on hold and the IJT was launched as "practice". In any case the IJT that has come out, HJT-36, is quite a decent "growth replacement" for the large fleet of Kiran basic trainers.

There are two issues here:
a) Insufficient interaction between armed forces and DRDO/HAL/ADA: Take the case of the Arjun tank, or Dhanush/Nag/Trishul missiles. By themselves they are all perfectly good products, though they had their share of teething problems (which new product doesn't ?). However, mis-communication resulted in specs frequently being misinterpreted, overruns, reviews, you name it. The armed forces should ask, and provide the exact parameters. Instead the designers start making something, then try to tailor it to specific needs. Takes more time, and money.
b) Different sets of parameters for domestic and imported products: The armed forces have been guitly of setting much more stringent expectations of indigenous stuff they purchase, compared to phoren maal, which they pick up easily once palms are greased  Big grin This could be explained either by skepticism, or influential middlemen peddling foreign wares, or both. Defence procurement needs to become transparent. Its been a mess since the days of Bofors, and pretty much every govt. since then needs a good slap in the face for it.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4424 times:


I agree with you completely BarfBag!

I think the solution here is to do what Former "Missile Man" and now our President Abdul Kalam had done when he led India's missile programme: Involve the Users, that is the armed forces right from the very beginning and from then on keep them in the loop throughout the development phase right upto implementation. This application driven approach keepign the end users in the loop throughtout could be one of the reasons why India's missile and space programmes have been relatively successful, while our aviation programmes are languishing at various stages.

-Roy



User currently offlineIndianFlyboy From India, joined Sep 2003, 294 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4444 times:

Maybe we should go and give some inputs to these babus who have absolutely no clue about how to run an aircraft industry ...  Laugh out loud . What I still cannot figure out is when all these agencies are working on a single project why the heck do they have to go on a tangent . Somebody needs to explain to them the difference between linear and tangential directions.

Regards


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic India To Buy Hawks
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
India To Buy Israeli Phalcons posted Tue Jan 8 2002 13:54:27 by Indianguy
India Seek To Buy 126 Mirage 2000s posted Wed Mar 27 2002 06:04:40 by BarfBag
Canada To Buy 4 Boeing C-17s posted Wed May 31 2006 00:31:33 by KrisYYZ
RAAF To Buy C-17s posted Fri Mar 3 2006 13:56:25 by DL021
Senate Clears Nasa To Buy Russian Spaceships posted Mon Sep 26 2005 10:47:26 by Centrair
Croatia Wants To Buy F-16... Again posted Sat Mar 12 2005 11:08:33 by TripleDelta
Malaysia About To Buy A400M posted Mon Jan 24 2005 17:12:49 by Columba
South Africa Set To Buy 8 To 14 Airbus A400Ms posted Fri Dec 10 2004 09:57:44 by KEESJE
India To Resart Indegenous AEW Project posted Fri Sep 10 2004 07:19:34 by Indianguy
RAF To Buy Outright The C17? posted Fri Apr 16 2004 19:25:04 by Splitzer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format