Pilatus waits on Indian trainer decision

[anant_s]

Yes i was talking about HTT-40 indeed. The aircraft if operational would have met the BTA needs of IAF nicely.

At the risk f offending some members on the forum, i can say that HAL has made a habit of promising the moon and then dragging its legs for a very long time. this irks IAF badly and the same story goes for HTT 40.They are basically selling a product that is still some years from realization and not sure if IAF can wait that long.

What is current status of HJT-36 Sitara? that is to become intermediate jet trainer of IAF when operation. There were reports that that project have had a few hick ups. What is the current status now?

Same story once again (surprise surprise!). It too has a troubled history and not much improvement is heard. Besides, the fact that (as @sudhir007 remarked above) with Pilatus and Hawk in established training roles, what additional benefits IJT is going to bring is debatable.

 

[anant_s]

Currently there is a lot of mudslinging and bad blood between IAF and HAL over whether or not the follow on 106 trainers should be the HAL designed ones.

From purely the point of view that an additional machine would mean creation of additional facilities for maintenance, operational changes etc, it is at this point not wise to go for HAL's offer, besides the fact that it still isn't mature enough.
I think Defence Ministry realizes that and hence this tender for additional Pilatus Under Buy and Make in India category.

In March, India’s defence ministry issued a request for information (RFI) for the procurement of an additional 106 PC-7 MkII trainers under its "Buy & Make (Indian)" procurement category.

 

[halupridol]

At the risk f offending some members on the forum, i can say that HAL has made a habit of promising the moon and then dragging its legs for a very long time. this irks IAF badly and the same story goes for HTT 40.They are basically selling a product that is still some years from realization and not sure if IAF can wait that long.

its actually embarrassing that HAL cant even come up with a decent trainer

 

[sancho]

i dnt understand why we need of IJT. PC7-mk2 has top speed of around 500kmh and for secondary role we already have Hawk.

IAF policy to want a jet trainer in between, if IJT doesn't gets developed soon, I guess they will change the policy and split the requirement between basic and advanced trainers only, leaving HAL highly embarrassed.

One reason is very good and proven performance of PC 7 ad the fact that IAF doesn't want to have two basic trainers.

More than the performance the simple fact that it was available today should have made the biggest difference. IAF was in a bad situation with the HTT32 as you pointed out, while HAL was nowhere near to provide the promised HTT40, which made selecting an available alternative the only solution. The follow order issue then is simple logic, operating 2 different basic trainers increases operational costs and logistics for IAF. Why should they wait and hope for 2 HAL trainers? So they killed 1 and put more pressure on HAL to deliver IJT now.

 

[Abingdonboy]

i dnt understand why we need of IJT. PC7-mk2 has top speed of around 500kmh and for secondary role we already have Hawk.

@sancho @Abingdonboy @anant_s

I've been saying this since the original deal for 75 PC-7 Mk.2s was signed. There is NO need whatsoever for the IJT (HJT-36 Sitara). One has to understand the context in which the IJT project was sanctioned- the original Hawk deal looked to be dead in the water and the BTA deal was in a similar state of stasis and then the Deepak fleet was grounded. If you can think back a few years, the training fleet of the IAF (and IN) was in real crisis and here the IJT was thought up and started- it would look to be a compromise between a BTA and a AJT and could hopefully save the IAF's backsides. Fast forward a few years and the Hawk and PC-7 are in service in large numbers and the IJT is nowhere. The IJT is simply not needed now, thankfully the IAF's trainer a/c woes have been addressed almost entirely and between the PC-7s and Hawk AJT there training syllabus is complete (many airforces actually have this exact training regime, there is no IJT step). The IAF doesn't need a 4 stage training regime that looks like:

BTA (PC-7)
IJT (HJT-36)
AJT (Hawk Mk.132)
OCU (Trainer version of the respective a/c the pilots will graduate to).

Now, arguably all the IAF needs is a supersonic lead in fighter, LIFT, (the LCA Mk.1 would be ideal) in between the AJT and OCU stages- but even this is more of a luxury than necessity. The IAF could quite easily make do with the 3 stage training syllabus like most AFs in the world.

What is current status of HJT-36 Sitara? that is to become intermediate jet trainer of IAF when operation. There were reports that that project have had a few hick ups. What is the current status now?

The IAF has little interest in the HJT-36 now that it has the PC-7 and Hawk AJT so they aren't pushing for it much anymore and HAL have diverted most of their attention on the LCA and other projects so the IJT is really going nowhere.

Until these Pilatus were purchased, they were using HAL built basic trainers. HAL built a replacement for it, but as usual, they did it too late. By then, IAF had to buy PC-7. Currently there is a lot of mudslinging and bad blood between IAF and HAL over whether or not the follow on 106 trainers should be the HAL designed ones.

HAL is entirely at fault- they have STILL not actually produced anything but a wooden mockup of the HTT-44 and when the IAF asked for a quote of the HTT-40, HAL quoted a price almost DOUBLE that of the PC-7! The IAF can't afford to sit around for years for a BTA that will cost more than the PC-7s that they are more than happy with, and that will add a duplicate set of logistics complicating their lives no end. There is simply no need for the HTT-40 now and I am sure sense will prevail and 106 more PC-7s will be built in India soon.

The indian armed forces, should have more freedom in selection of their equipment, in fact in this area - we are vastly superior - all of our procurement's are on time and on budget, with maximum bang for our buck.

Well the fact is you can't compare the two systems. In India the military is 100% subservient to the civilian establishment and whilst they outline their requirements, it is the civilians in the MoD who make the final call. In Pakistan the Military is the boss- no one is going to challenge their decisions. I don't know about more "bang for your buck", there is little oversight in the Pak Military's procurements, most procurements don't seem to come from multi-vendor tenders (government to government deals will ALWAYS be easier and quicker) and the system is inherently opaque meaning there is the possibility for some generals to be filing their pockets (if it can happen on occasion in India and other militaries who have oversight then it's got to be more prevalent in the Pak context- that's just human nature). There are certainly some deals that seem to counter this "bang for your buck" argument and the fact you do not have anything like a CAG to highlight them means the myth of "bang for your buck" can be perpetuated forever.

 

[Abingdonboy]

HTT-44, the HAL replacement, was not accepted by the IAF.

Because even to this day HAL haven't bothered to present a viable aircraft to them.

If ever there was a reason to make HAL a private company it is this unholy mess, does anyone really think a private company who effectively have a monopoly in the Indian aerospace market would sit by and offer a wooden mockup to an AF who was looking for fast inductions to their training fleet? HAL could easily have gone ahead and got the HTT-40 up to speed and then offered the IAF a credible alternative to a foreign purchase. As it was, HAL's lack of foresight/inaction forces the IAF's hand and they went for the PC-7 which was delivered exceptionally fast (credit to Pilatus), on time, on budget and with little fuss. They showed up HAL in every way possible.

 

[Abingdonboy]

its actually embarrassing that HAL cant even come up with a decent trainer

Not really, I don't think anyone doubts HAL has the capability to do so- of course they have the capacity to do so but it is their mismanagement and ineptitude that has lead to the current state of affairs.

 

[Rafi]

I've been saying this since the original deal for 75 PC-7 Mk.2s was signed. There is NO need whatsoever for the IJT (HJT-36 Sitara). One has to understand the context in which the IJT project was sanctioned- the original Hawk deal looked to be dead in the water and the BTA deal was in a similar state of stasis and then the Deepak fleet was grounded. If you can think back a few years, the training fleet of the IAF (and IN) was in real crisis and here the IJT was thought up and started- it would look to be a compromise between a BTA and a AJT and could hopefully save the IAF's backsides. Fast forward a few years and the Hawk and PC-7 are in service in large numbers and the IJT is nowhere. The IJT is simply not needed now, thankfully the IAF's trainer a/c woes have been addressed almost entirely and between the PC-7s and Hawk AJT there training syllabus is complete (many airforces actually have this exact training regime, there is no IJT step). The IAF doesn't need a 4 stage training regime that looks like:

BTA (PC-7)
IJT (HJT-36)
AJT (Hawk Mk.132)
OCU (Trainer version of the respective a/c the pilots will graduate to).

Now, arguably all the IAF needs is a supersonic lead in fighter, LIFT, (the LCA Mk.1 would be ideal) in between the AJT and OCU stages- but even this is more of a luxury than necessity. The IAF could quite easily make do with the 3 stage training syllabus like most AFs in the world.


The IAF has little interest in the HJT-36 now that it has the PC-7 and Hawk AJT so they aren't pushing for it much anymore and HAL have diverted most of their attention on the LCA and other projects so the IJT is really going nowhere.


HAL is entirely at fault- they have STILL not actually produced anything but a wooden mockup of the HTT-44 and when the IAF asked for a quote of the HTT-40, HAL quoted a price almost DOUBLE that of the PC-7! The IAF can't afford to sit around for years for a BTA that will cost more than the PC-7s that they are more than happy with, and that will add a duplicate set of logistics complicating their lives no end. There is simply no need for the HTT-40 now and I am sure sense will prevail and 106 more PC-7s will be built in India soon.



Well the fact is you can't compare the two systems. In India the military is 100% subservient to the civilian establishment and whilst they outline their requirements, it is the civilians in the MoD who make the final call. In Pakistan the Military is the boss- no one is going to challenge their decisions. I don't know about more "bang for your buck", there is little oversight in the Pak Military's procurements, most procurements don't seem to come from multi-vendor tenders (government to government deals will ALWAYS be easier and quicker) and the system is inherently opaque meaning there is the possibility for some generals to be filing their pockets (if it can happen on occasion in India and other militaries who have oversight then it's got to be more prevalent in the Pak context- that's just human nature). There are certainly some deals that seem to counter this "bang for your buck" argument and the fact you do not have anything like a CAG to highlight them means the myth of "bang for your buck" can be perpetuated forever.

Never said we were angels - there will have been occasions were kickbacks have occurred, but on balance we get the best equipment possible, in quick time. ~In service.

 

[Abingdonboy]

but on balance we get the best equipment possible, in quick time. ~In service.

Indeed, your system works much faster but for the reasons I have outlined (govt-govt deals, lack of oversight, military calling the shots, relatively small scale of the deals etc). Comparing your system to the Indian system is comparing apples and oranges and there a pros and cons to both systems.