IAF-HAL dog fight over trainers

[shree835]

A war is on in the Indian skies. Indian Air Force (IAF) chief Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Chairman and Managing Director R K Tyagi are on the warpath over who should supply the Basic Trainer Aircraft (BTA).India is woefully short of training aircraft to turn freshly minted pilots into air warriors. At stake is the critical basic training of around 400 IAF rookie pilots on how to fly fighter planes, at a time air safety reports suggest that 45 per cent of IAF air crashes are due to human error—around 200 pilots have died in over 500 crashes since 1970.

The IAF chief has also highlighted that several of HAL projects, including the crucially important Light Combat Aircraft for the IAF and the Navy, the Intermediate Jet Trainer, the Light Combat Helicopter, and the Light Utility Helicopter, have been facing severe cost escalation and time overruns running into over three decades in some cases. The public spat of the two chiefs has reached Defence Minister A K Antony’s doorstep. No decision has been taken yet on the matter.

In early July, Brown wrote to Antony asking for the foreclosure of HAL’s turbo BTA project, called the Hindustan Turbo Trainer-40 or HTT-40, in favour of the Swiss Pilatus PC-7 Mark II plane. India bought 75 Pilatuses in May 2012 for Rs 31 crore each. Browne reasoned that the HAL plane has been on the drawing board stage since 2005. He argued that the Defence Ministry should hence give the IAF clearance to place a follow-on order for 38 more Pilatus planes at the May 2012 cost. It also sought clearance to place a repeat order for the remaining 68 planes if the need arose. The IAF needs 181 training aircraft. Browne pointed out that several of HAL projects face severe cost escalation and time overruns running into decades.

The HAL has hit back, with sources saying that the IAF has a special affinity for foreign-made goods, despite the public sector undertaking being the prime producer and supplier of nearly 80 per cent of IAF’s aircraft fleet, though these planes are licensed to be produced by other aircraft companies such as MiG, Dassault and BAE Systems.

The spat started after HAL stated that it was presented with unrealistic requirements over HTT-40s, while the IAF later diluted the same for the Pilatus. HAL sources have noted that 12 provisions were diluted in the Preliminary Staff Qualitative Requirements (PSQRs) provided to HAL on February 6, 2008 to design and develop trainer aircraft.

IAF issued a global tender to buy 75 of these on December 16, 2009.

http://newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/IAF-HAL-dog-fight-over-trainers/2013/08/04/article1716645.ece

 

[karan21]

HAL should go ahead and build the plane. Does it even matter if IAF wants it or not? There are 200 other air forces in this world. HAL can prove its mettle by selling it to them. Why is HAL scared of foreign competition?? When will Indian firms learn to compete in international market and not only depend on domestic demand?

 

[Manindra]

HAL should go ahead and build the plane. Does it even matter if IAF wants it or not? There are 200 other air forces in this world. HAL can prove its mettle by selling it to them. Why is HAL scared of foreign competition?? When will Indian firms learn to compete in international market and not only depend on domestic demand?

This war is good for Indian defence Industry & HAL should realize that they have to work to survive. If local forces denied to accept their project then they simply export it to World market & currently HAL financial position is strong enough to self finance such kind of project.

 

[Tshering22]

IAF needs to review who it appoints as heads of the acquisition committee.

With foreign-obsessed idiots in power who provide fat commissions to the ministers, have to go.

We need indigenous products. We can evolve them and improve them in a phase-based manner.

But this foreign obsession has stop if we have to become self-reliant.

 

[errant]

IAF needs to review who it appoints as heads of the acquisition committee.

With foreign-obsessed idiots in power who provide fat commissions to the ministers, have to go.

We need indigenous products. We can evolve them and improve them in a phase-based manner.

But this foreign obsession has stop if we have to become self-reliant.

The IAF has its first loyalties to their flight crews, not to buying indigenous aircraft come what may.
How many aircrew have died flying HAL's planes, HTT 32 et al.
The laughable attempt to fit parachutes to aircraft instead of constructing an aircraft that stays in the air. HAL's crowning achievement was to find serious quality control issues with some products from BAE, re Hawk trainers. Never mind that the Australians, Canadians, Americans (mostly engines), the RAF and dozens of other countries didn't find any problems with the Hawk. Perhaps HAL should offer consultancy services to manufacturers to ensure aircraft coming of the production line meet their standards.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

IAF needs to review who it appoints as heads of the acquisition committee.

With foreign-obsessed idiots in power who provide fat commissions to the ministers, have to go.

We need indigenous products. We can evolve them and improve them in a phase-based manner.

But this foreign obsession has stop if we have to become self-reliant.

Do you know how many DECADES HAL has taken to even propose a proper concept? They were happy sitting on their @$$es till the trainer fleet was completely grounded. It was only when IAF decided to go elsewhere that HAL came up with it's own proposals. While you talk nonsense, our pilots aren't getting the training they need.

 

[Tshering22]

The IAF has its first loyalties to their flight crews, not to buying indigenous aircraft come what may.
How many aircrew have died flying HAL's planes, HTT 32 et al.

Again it is IAF's fault for not de-commissioning old aircraft that have experienced severe structure fatigue due to usage and lifespan.

Calling MiG-21s as flying coffins is stupid because it is the IAF's fault for not pressuring the lethargic MOD into buying newer jets.

Those pilots died not because of HAL's fault or Russian quality but because MiG-21s are being used 30 years after they were supposed to be de-commissioned.

Who's fault?

IAF's.

The laughable attempt to fit parachutes to aircraft instead of constructing an aircraft that stays in the air. HAL's crowning achievement was to find serious quality control issues with some products from BAE, re Hawk trainers. Never mind that the Australians, Canadians, Americans (mostly engines), the RAF and dozens of other countries didn't find any problems with the Hawk.

What do you say about Tejas then?

Who was changing the requirements every two years like a little schoolgirl? IAF.

Who did not evince any interest in participating seriously in the project until 2005? IAF.

Who is responsible for the delay given the above two case? IAF and MOD.

What can HAL do with a shoestring initial budget that was assigned? Look at the amount other countries spend in R&D and the autonomy these corporations have compared to the red tape ridden ones that we have.

How can HAL/ADA or anything perform to those standards?

It is MOD's responsibility to see defence proceedings smoothly and IAF's responsibility to act of its age and not like a spoilt child and keep dancing around with requirements.

Perhaps HAL should offer consultancy services to manufacturers to ensure aircraft coming of the production line meet their standards.

Agree here that HAL is at fault but in the case of trainers, IAF is surely to blame.

The air chiefs despite so much knowledge, skill and experience produce demands (or at least coming from MOD, I don't know) at the drop of a hat, and that too to an agency riddled with bureaucracy.

How is HAL supposed to do that? Copy paste?

Even for that, they don't have autonomy and all clearances.

Why blame the make all the time?

There are times when maker is at fault and there are times when the user is also equally at fault.

Let's not make IAF top brass look like know-it-alls.

They have committed some of the biggest blunders by not taking a strategic thinking into perspective by not participating in the LCA project seriously until the half of last decade had almost passed.

Do you know how many DECADES HAL has taken to even propose a proper concept? They were happy sitting on their @$$es till the trainer fleet was completely grounded. It was only when IAF decided to go elsewhere that HAL came up with it's own proposals. While you talk nonsense, our pilots aren't getting the training they need.

Which is a problem of the management and the ones who run it; not the ones who design and develop jets.

The amount of clearances, paperwork, permissions, approvals, committees yada yada needed... how can they perform when they function like a typical PSU?

ISRO is also a strategic government sector.

Why is it the only agency to be directly placed under the PM (apart from RAW which is different)?

How does it receive all its clearances so fast and how come it is able to meet with more success while defence staggers and stutters?

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Again it is IAF's fault for not de-commissioning old aircraft that have experienced severe structure fatigue due to usage and lifespan.

Calling MiG-21s as flying coffins is stupid because it is the IAF's fault for not pressuring the lethargic MOD into buying newer jets.

Those pilots died not because of HAL's fault or Russian quality but because MiG-21s are being used 30 years after they were supposed to be de-commissioned.

Who's fault?

IAF's.



What do you say about Tejas then?

Who was changing the requirements every two years like a little schoolgirl? IAF.

Who did not evince any interest in participating seriously in the project until 2005? IAF.

Who is responsible for the delay given the above two case? IAF and MOD.

What can HAL do with a shoestring initial budget that was assigned? Look at the amount other countries spend in R&D and the autonomy these corporations have compared to the red tape ridden ones that we have.

How can HAL/ADA or anything perform to those standards?

It is MOD's responsibility to see defence proceedings smoothly and IAF's responsibility to act of its age and not like a spoilt child and keep dancing around with requirements.




Agree here that HAL is at fault but in the case of trainers, IAF is surely to blame.

The air chiefs despite so much knowledge, skill and experience produce demands (or at least coming from MOD, I don't know) at the drop of a hat, and that too to an agency riddled with bureaucracy.

How is HAL supposed to do that? Copy paste?

Even for that, they don't have autonomy and all clearances.

Why blame the make all the time?

There are times when maker is at fault and there are times when the user is also equally at fault.

Let's not make IAF top brass look like know-it-alls.

They have committed some of the biggest blunders by not taking a strategic thinking into perspective by not participating in the LCA project seriously until the half of last decade had almost passed.



Which is a problem of the management and the ones who run it; not the ones who design and develop jets.

The amount of clearances, paperwork, permissions, approvals, committees yada yada needed... how can they perform when they function like a typical PSU?

ISRO is also a strategic government sector.

Why is it the only agency to be directly placed under the PM (apart from RAW which is different)?

How does it receive all its clearances so fast and how come it is able to meet with more success while defence staggers and stutters?

HAL is a PRIVATE company while those @$$holes blare 'blue chip', 'blue chip'- they've grown to depend upon using these tactics to monopolize Indian aerospace. Not giving them the contract is the best way to wean them off. Let them risk their capital and come proactively like any other company.

 

[errant]

Again it is IAF's fault for not de-commissioning old aircraft that have experienced severe structure fatigue due to usage and lifespan.

Calling MiG-21s as flying coffins is stupid because it is the IAF's fault for not pressuring the lethargic MOD into buying newer jets.

Those pilots died not because of HAL's fault or Russian quality but because MiG-21s are being used 30 years after they were supposed to be de-commissioned.

Who's fault?

IAF's.



What do you say about Tejas then?

Who was changing the requirements every two years like a little schoolgirl? IAF.

Who did not evince any interest in participating seriously in the project until 2005? IAF.

Who is responsible for the delay given the above two case? IAF and MOD.

What can HAL do with a shoestring initial budget that was assigned? Look at the amount other countries spend in R&D and the autonomy these corporations have compared to the red tape ridden ones that we have.

How can HAL/ADA or anything perform to those standards?

It is MOD's responsibility to see defence proceedings smoothly and IAF's responsibility to act of its age and not like a spoilt child and keep dancing around with requirements.




Agree here that HAL is at fault but in the case of trainers, IAF is surely to blame.

The air chiefs despite so much knowledge, skill and experience produce demands (or at least coming from MOD, I don't know) at the drop of a hat, and that too to an agency riddled with bureaucracy.

How is HAL supposed to do that? Copy paste?

Even for that, they don't have autonomy and all clearances.

Why blame the make all the time?

There are times when maker is at fault and there are times when the user is also equally at fault.

Let's not make IAF top brass look like know-it-alls.

They have committed some of the biggest blunders by not taking a strategic thinking into perspective by not participating in the LCA project seriously until the half of last decade had almost passed.



Which is a problem of the management and the ones who run it; not the ones who design and develop jets.

The amount of clearances, paperwork, permissions, approvals, committees yada yada needed... how can they perform when they function like a typical PSU?

ISRO is also a strategic government sector.

Why is it the only agency to be directly placed under the PM (apart from RAW which is different)?

How does it receive all its clearances so fast and how come it is able to meet with more success while defence staggers and stutters?

Your detailed information is very elucidating and I take my hat off to you for that.

HAL should not be promising the stars and delivering squat. Tejas is 20 years in the gestation phase and it is about time it became operational and entered service.
I find your arguments very informative indeed and there some areas where you elaborated which throws a different spin on the situation. The main one, and the only one in my view, is the shoestring budget that HAL works with. Don't you feel that it is incumbent upon its management to make this known and quite vociferously at that. One can still speak one's mind in India without being sent to a gulag.
But what does HAL do, they promise a basic trainer that will be on budget and on time, this after the Air Force got their Swiss miss. Why wait until the horse has bolted out of the stable and then promise a super, duper basic trainer. The IAF might have changed the specs for the Pilatus but one must not forget that trainee pilots were at a tremendous disadvantage not having adequate basic training aircraft, so altered specs make sense. Instead of making grandiose claims of what HAL will produce, deliver and then we will see.
It is easier making rockets than building combat aircraft, less complex beasts. Perhaps that is why ISRO is so successful.

 

[Tshering22]

HAL is a PRIVATE company while those @$$holes blare 'blue chip', 'blue chip'- they've grown to depend upon using these tactics to monopolize Indian aerospace. Not giving them the contract is the best way to wean them off. Let them risk their capital and come proactively like any other company.

But you do admit that there is a certain level of fault from IAF too isn't it?

I am the last person to defend HAL or the design bureaus that are run by government.

However, the user should make up their mind.

 

[SirHatesALot]

But you do admit that there is a certain level of fault from IAF too isn't it?

I am the last person to defend HAL or the design bureaus that are run by government.

However, the user should make up their mind.

IAF has habit of creating problems and then shamelessly defending the consequences of their actions.

 

[ziaulislam]

HAL should go ahead and build the plane. Does it even matter if IAF wants it or not? There are 200 other air forces in this world. HAL can prove its mettle by selling it to them. Why is HAL scared of foreign competition?? When will Indian firms learn to compete in international market and not only depend on domestic demand?

if IAF wont buy it nobody would..there are already too many mature platforms there.

 

[errant]

if IAF wont buy it nobody would..there are already too many mature platforms there.

Build the right mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. Unfortunately, HAL has a predilection for talking up its yet to be born products and delivering garbage. Canopies that fly off trainer jets, trainee pilots killed in HAL's machines and experienced air crew also crashing, and I am not refering to Mig 21s, and undercarriages collapsing. If vocalization was the primary requirement, then HAL would win hands down. All the talk of "advanced" this and that but nothing in operation. When will we see a commissioned LCA, that will be a measure of success.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

But you do admit that there is a certain level of fault from IAF too isn't it?

I am the last person to defend HAL or the design bureaus that are run by government.

However, the user should make up their mind.

You wanna cook up scenarios where you want to blame users on everything, that's your agenda. This is the first time that a complacent fat@$$ 'corporate' being so protected under the name of 'indigenization'. HAL has known that deepaks are decades old, yet they didn't have the foresight to start any project to suppport it. The IAF has been talking about replacing them for decades too. HAL moves it's @$$ only when it's turf has been threatened and this time it's been ruffled good. The IAF should not give HAL the contract- it's better that they lick their wounds and not take it's users for granted.

 

[Tshering22]

You wanna cook up scenarios where you want to blame users on everything, that's your agenda.

You really need to stop going personal, you know.

I am probably the worst critic of defence manufacturers in India. So stop framing me for things that I am not doing or based on and calm down.

This is the first time that a complacent fat@$$ 'corporate' being so protected under the name of 'indigenization'.

Dude, seriously.. I am not protecting HAL in any way.

HAL has known that deepaks are decades old, yet they didn't have the foresight to start any project to suppport it. The IAF has been talking about replacing them for decades too. HAL moves it's @$$ only when it's turf has been threatened and this time it's been ruffled good. The IAF should not give HAL the contract- it's better that they lick their wounds and not take it's users for granted.

Everything comes from the top in these organizations. Tell me, has HAL been given the freedom and the corporatized structure that a Lockheed Martin or a Boeing has? Forget these two, how about BAE and Eurocanards? They're government too but have a free hand in deciding and have a corporate structure compared to the PSU structure that HAL has.

Are the revenues in HAL ploughed back into the company as a reinvestment and therefore lead to the company's growth? Does HAL have even have a say in doing anything other than what it is told to do by MOD and CCS? The answer is NO.

How can it perform then? Defence sector cannot have the non-accountability of what other PSUs have.

How can it have a foresight into a project? In Europe and US, these giants go ahead with their models and plan out like any other big corporate firm on new products without government hindrance.

Does HAL get that liberty?

Instead of being run by hard-nosed businessmen and to-the-point scientists, it is managed by a bunch of bureaucrats and headed by a person who is not even of the defence industry.

What out-of-this-world performance can you expect from them?

Trust me, I am as much disgusted by the state-owned defence establishment's lethargy and inefficiency as you are, being a tax paying citizen.

But how do we indigenize then?

It is a clear chicken and egg case: some officials ask HAL to perform and then they may think of 'overhauling' its ecosystem; while others argue that first create the ecosystem and then HAL will perform.

But the reality is the latter point here.

Why are defence forces so disciplined and accountable for everything? Because of the seriousness with which they are taken and the nature of their job.

That is missing in state-owned enterprises of defence.

If there is zero involvement from bureaucrats and politicians, all our projects would have already been delivered.

However, unless the government allows private owned conglomerates to absorb experienced talent and develop strategic weapons platforms, HAL or any other defense PSU cannot survive or perform.

There has to be an end to this cycle of importing and delays from our defence
state-owned manufacturers.


But IAF really needs to make up its minds.

They really are too slow in decision making for an air force.

They keep changing specifications without allowing the developments to be incorporated in a phased manner: China, USA, Russia... all the major manufacturers do that.

Why IAF can't?

Why did it take THREE YEARS to even provide DASRs for the AMCA project initiation?

In case of Tejas, why wasn't IAF serious and aggressive in the 90s and last decade?

Can you tell me what a new Tejas can't do that a 50 year old MiG-21 can do today?

Unless you let a product evolve in a phased manner, how can it be further matured?