BlackArcherThe IAF actually diluted requirements that it had itself laid down for the HTT-40’s design, when it wanted to import the basic trainer from abroad..a scam wherein an indigenous product was held to far higher standards than the imported equivalent. So one set of requirements for its indigenous program, and a far lower, relaxed set of requirements for the imported airplane. And then they fought tooth and nail to scrap this HTT-40 program and just go ahead and purchase more PC-7 Mk2s.
Clear case of favoring the imported basic trainer with remarkably diluted requirements..the IAF would’ve summarily rejected the HTT-40 with such features as 0-60 ejection seat, or non-pressurized cockpit or not meeting glide ratio or take-off distance parameters it set.
The documents reveal that up to September 29, 2009, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) was indigenously developing 181 BTA for the IAF, dubbed the Hindustan Turbo Trainer–40 (HTT–40). On March 5, 2009, IAF laid down stringent performance benchmarks, dubbed Preliminary Air Staff Qualitative Requirements or PSQR.
These began getting diluted in September 2009, when the ministry of defence (MoD) permitted IAF to import 75 BTA through a global tender. Within days, the IAF issued a relaxed ASQR, in a document numbered ASQR 18/09. While the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II would not have met the earlier PSQR formulated for HAL, the new ASQR seem almost tailored for Pilatus.Among the 12 dilutions Business Standard has identified, the most worrisome is doing away with the requirement for a ‘zero-zero ejection seat’. This allows pilots to eject even from a stationary aircraft on the ground (zero altitude, zero speed). The October 2009 ASQR does not require a zero-zero ejection seat. Since the PC-7 Mk II has ‘zero-60’ ejection seats, i.e. the aircraft must be moving at 60 knots (110 kmph), dropping the earlier requirement made it eligible for the IAF contract.
The PSQR of March 2009 required the BTA to have a pressurised cockpit, letting the trainee fly at altitudes above 15-20,000 feet. But the ASQR of October 2009 dispensed with this. The PC-7 Mark II has an unpressurised cockpit.
Also diluted was the requirement for good external vision from the instructor’s rear cockpit, a crucial attribute in a BTA. The PSQR of March 2009 mandated a field of view of ‘minus eight degree vision’ for the rear cockpit. The ASQR of October 2009 dispensed with it, specifying only, “the rear cockpit should be sufficiently raised to allow safe flight instruction”. The PC-7 Mark II, which does not meet the eight-degree specification, became eligible.
‘Glide ratio’ is another important attribute for a light, single-engine aircraft. The glide ratio of 12:1 specified in the March 2009 PSQR meant the trainer could glide, in the event of an engine failure or shutdown, a distance of 12 km for every one km of altitude that it lost. Which would enable a BTA flying at an altitude of five km to glide for 60 km, landing safely at any airport within that distance. But the October 2009 ASQR relaxed the glide-ratio requirement to 10:1. That is precisely the glide-ratio of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II.
The ASQR of October 2009 also relaxed the requirement for ‘in-flight simulation’. This permits the instructor in the rear cockpit to electronically simulate instrument failures, training the rookie pilot to handle an emergency. The PSQR of March 2009 required this facility; the HTT-40 being developed by HAL also has these. The PC-7 Mark II does not and the relaxation of this condition made it eligible for the IAF tender.
Other relaxations that made the Pilatus trainer eligible include increasing the take-off distance from 700 to 1,000 metres and reducing maximum speed from 475 kmph to 400 kmph.
..
Anyway, what has resulted is that the HTT-40 will have better specs than the PC-7 Mk2 in some key areas as highlighted by Ajai Shukla’s article here
[quote]
…
Since 2015, indigenization-friendly Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has goaded the IAF into accepting the HTT-40 and setting up an “integrated project management team” to oversee the project. To meet the IAF’s training needs while the HTT-40 is flight tested and brought into production — which could take two years — 38 more PC-7 Mark II trainers are being bought. The remaining gap of 68 trainers would be filled by the HTT-40.
HAL projects it will build the first two HTT-40 trainers in 2018, eight in 2019, and reach its capacity of 20 per year from 2020 onwards.
HAL hopes to build 200 HTT-40s, exporting a “weaponised” version to countries like Afghanistan, Myanmar, and some African customers. HAL chief, T Suvarna Raju told Business Standard the HTT-40 would be developed into a capable ground attack aircraft, ideal for countries that cannot afford expensive fighters or air bases with long runways. HAL hopes to price the HTT-40 at about Rs 40 crore per aircraft, one-fifth the cost of a basic light fighter.
Stringent Swiss end-user restrictions prohibit weaponising the PC-7 Mark II.
The HTT-40, like the PC-7 Mark II, is a propeller-driven, turbo-prop aircraft for “Stage-1” training of rookie pilots. After 80 hours of basic training, pilots shift to “Stage-2” training on the HAL-built Kiran Mark II jet trainer. Next comes “Stage-3” training on the Hawk advanced jet trainer (AJT), which HAL builds under licence from BAE Systems.
The HTT-40 features a pressurised cockpit, “zero-zero” ejection seats, and a state-of-the-art cockpit display with “in-flight simulation” that permits an instructor in the rear cockpit to electronically simulate various system failures, training the rookie pilot in the front seat in handling emergencies.
HAL says that 55 of the trainer’s 95 systems have been designed and built in India. Another 35 systems will be built in India with transferred technology, including the aircraft’s Honeywell TPE-331-12B engine. This high degree of indigenisation would make it easy to support the HTT-40 through its service life.
BlackArcherHAL’s Hindustan Turbo Trainer-40 (HTT-40) took off from HAL’s airport in Bengaluru for its maiden flight on May-31.
BlackArcherBasically you’re asking why India isn’t willing to pay what Qatar or Egypt did? Well.. maybe if it were an oil rich sheikhdom or run by a military junta things would be different. However, it is what it is and India appears to have a certain perception of what the aircraft is worth that is at odds with that.
Equally one could ask why the Rafale hasn’t seen any success outside the Middle East. Why aren’t EU states buying it? Why did UAE issue this statement:
Thanks to President (Nicolas) Sarkozy, France could not have done more diplomatically or politically to secure the Rafale deal. His personal intervention in this process has sustained Dassault at the forefront of our considerations. Regrettably, Dassault seems unaware that all the diplomatic and political will in the world cannot overcome uncompetitive and unworkable commercial terms.
– Crown Prince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed
Again, the deal isn’t stuck in bureaucracy, its stuck on terms. I imagine if other vendors offer better prices, negotiations will go more easily. In the US’ case there is also the advantage of the streamlined FMS system. (Under which they managed to sign the P-8I & C-130J contracts within 12 months.)
Only if they follow the same format. And all indications from the MoD suggest that they’re not looking to restart the whole RFI-RFP-L1/L2 process.
+1
BlackArcherRafales have been sold to other countries. They managed to agree on prices. Why is India unable to settle on prices & terms? Note that I blame politicians as well as bureaucrats – but politicians sometimes rely on advice from officials. And you cannot deny that India does have a serious problem with military procurement. The C-17 fiasco is a particularly egregious example, but it’s far from the only one.
India can buy other types, but why should negotiations for them go more easily? The vendors all find it possible to reach terms with other countries in a reasonable time, but India struggles to reach terms with anyone. It’s obvious where the problem is.
Dropping Rafale after a 15 year process means starting again. How long will that take?
They agreed on it for reasons they know best..I’m sure that you’re not suggesting that paying what the Qataris or the Egyptians did for their Rafales was not exhorbitant. if the GoI cannot agree on the price that Dassault and the French Govt. are asking it to pay, the deal should rather just die and possible US options (F-16 Block 70 or the SH) or the Gripen E should be examined. Absolutely no need to forcibly agree on commercial terms that won’t work for either the vendor or the customer. A FMS deal for Super Hornets or F-16s would 100% be a lot more affordable.
BlackArcherThe photo in question is a land based ramp for training, not an actual carrier, isn’t it? So the photo angle and the thought that in case of mishap it would crash rather than splash, is presumably, scary 🙂
Doing the same thing, taking off from a Shore Based Ramp but at night, in pitch darkness..that must be a heck of a lot scarier..
BlackArcheris there any good article that gives the history of the Super Etendard in the various navies it served? The one I’d read a long time ago was this one, which is fairly detailed
It seems like a good, simple aircraft, and being uncomplicated meant it served the role it was designed for, well enough. Not being handicapped like the Sea Harrier, to take off unassisted, and being able to land using arresting cables meant that the payload range deficiencies may not have been as great on this airplane.
BlackArcherWatch a good movie from the ECPAD of the Super Etendard when it was the new shiny toy of the French Navy:
beautiful video!
BlackArcherThis is rhetorical?
I fast forwarded to the reveal, and I really loved the showmanship, I liked the projected features and flags. It was very cool. Looks very much like the original which was the goal. unlike the F-18E/F I really have to squint to see the difference beyond the undercarriage. Very tricky!
You’re kidding right?? The differences in the LERXes and the intakes, between the Super Hornet and the vanilla Hornet, are so damn obvious that it’ll be easier to spot the difference between those two than the Gripen C/D and the E..
BlackArcherWhy are people acting so disappointed? You’ve all seen the Gripen Demo haven’t you? And the mock up that was displayed recently? Weren’t you guys aware that the bulk of the changes are on the inside and since so little of that was revealed during the roll-out, we cannot see that big a difference.
Congratulations to Saab for having rolled it out. But the fact that they want to keep the C/D line open while the E is just about to enter production does tell us that a lot of the additional capabilities being added to the E are going to make it mostly unaffordable for the bulk of the operators that they were targeting as possible Gripen operators.
BlackArcherActually the naval variant is not called the Tejas. The Navy still calls it the Naval LCA..the Tejas was the name given to the Air Force variant of the LCA.
BlackArcherThey could’ve just showed the helicopter downing. But the point of the video seems to be showing off in no uncertain terms the missile is Igla – and implies Russian support, which is implicitly accepted by everyone.
So captured weapons from terrorists, if they belong to a certain country of origin, clearly and unambiguously indicate support by that country?
Sign In
