TeerAtleast I can sleep Happily clearly knowing that we have TN Bombs of yield up to 200KT. Atleast they have weaponized it, I think you have to agree on that atleast Teer. The claim that there have been no weaponization is blown out of the water.
My point is that just because they say they have 200 KT TN’s does not mean they have working 200 KT TNs. That relying on simulation with just one controversial test as backup is not enough.
Why else do we fly aircraft, test missiles?
Recently an Agni-2 test failed – because the suppliers messed up. Thats the entire point of tests, to catch out the rare chance that if things do go wrong you fix them. Now compare and contrast, here you have DAE saying that just one test in 1998 was enough for them to master the equation of state & churn out TN’s.
To some degree that is Santhanam’s ire as well – he knows what user trials are and what they mean. In this case, its only DAE’s word.
Deterrence is a mind game which has to be backed up by a very strong foundation:
1) The decisiveness to use such a capability
2) Demonstrated technology
3) The wherewithal to cause massive disproportionate damage across the board
We definitely lack in 1 given the political leadership (eg 26/11, bomb attacks etc), but the existence of a draft doctrine gives some ambiguity/support.
In 2, we have some ability vs Pak (fission) but remain a bit dicey against PRC.
In 3, I daresay we are lacking versus the PRC. We need to lead in quality/KT if not quantity.
Unfortunately, the statements made by Kakodkar et al that 1 test was enough are feel good, but do not have the conviction a series of successful tests would have.
We’ll never get to know the real story till the present players are all dead and gone, and hopefully, nothing untoward will happen.
If the balloon does go up, and we are found wanting, the usual scapegoats – DRDO, DAE etc will be offered up to the public, whereas the real danger, the lack of an institutionalized security culture will again disappear. And you and I will probably be vaporized
If Kakodkar had the guts – he should have just made one or two statements – we have the capability and we are ready to demonstrate it anytime. Bring on the reviewers or lets do the testing again. Thats whats expected of him.
But it’d have cost him his pension, his post retirement peace of mind & the GOI witchhunt would have not spared him. Thats the sad part.
So all he is doing is playing it safe and he’s happy with “he says, she says”.
To his credit though, his response is dignified viz the skeptics. Compare and contrast with the NSA’s or even Homi Sethnas remarks.
TeerIt has three main ways of detecting aircraft:
1. Actively, via radar.
2. Passively, via detecting emissions made by the other aircraft. This is what the AN/ALR-94 does.
3. Visually, via the pilot’s eyes.
There is a fourth way, I am shocked that you didnt mention it. The pilot has to “vizualize” what he wants. Then he’ll get it crystal clear on the display. This video explains it all (recently declas):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usbNJMUZSwo
đ
TeerThats the trouble, no offence but you say to a flyer that he can design a plane and suddenly you have a wish list as long as an elephants trunk with just as much time to achieve the same!
DRDO and ADA should go it alone without IAF involvement
Matt, thats simply not possible.
If they do that, even if the plane comes with a coffee machine, a TV with 100 channels, a seat massager etc and can out turn a gnat, the IAF will still reject it.
The only way possible, in the Indian context, is to involve the user at every stage, get them involved including with funding and project management, draw up a list of reasonable targets and then go for those. That way the user feels it is as much “their product” as the developers or manufacturers.
Teer??
Surely upto the ADA and DRDO? I really can not see how the ADA or DRDO can let the IAF dictate what the aircraft structure should have.. the IAF unfortunately are end users and have no idea of what they need (MMRCA proves as much).
If i understand things correctly the IAF does not have an internal engineering capability or design house like the IN is supposed to have.
Surely its upto the DRDO to say what it can deliver in time frames.
Matt, they will have to include what the IAF says as well. The IAF’s internal engineering is limited vis a vis the IN, but they do have a fair amount of access to OEMs & test crew. Other IAF officers are deputed to PSUs, to DRDO labs, plus there is the IAF’s own SDI. So a fair bit of technology expertise does exist, even if it is not R&D level.
So ADA & DRDO will have to do a fair bit of “negotiation” to come to an acceptable compromise.
That is actually why I am happy about the FGFA as well (PAK-FA), since its taking the high end Air Dominance etc role, with the MCA as support, the IAF will be more reasonable about what can be done with the MCA and in what timeframe.
Otherwise, they’d have asked for the Death Star packaged in a X-Wing, you get the idea.
TeerThe 787 Dreamliner will either provide ammo to those who naysay composites or prove them wrong. It could mark a turning point in terms of composites for commercial aircraft..
TeerI was thinking more of the structure and airframe and not the sensors that is a different story and not something i feel knowledgable to comment on.
The MCA structure should have been completed and the testing at the bottom of the pyramid should have been conducted enough material testing to hopefully choose a decent composite system
The MCA structure will not be the same as the LCAs – depending on the IAFs requirements, they may have to incorporate a lot of embedded sensors into the airframe itself, apart from being better in terms of technology. Like I said, the thinking has started – even on the IAF end- about what they exactly require.
TeerLets get some clarifications here.
Has the MCA programme officially started or not? Have ADA/HAL/DRDO et al. done any work in this regard? Has the programme received any sort of funding so far?
It was Austin’s post about MCA being mentioned in ‘Aero India 95’ that brought these questions to my mind.
It should be clear that work has started on identifying the technologies required, the work that will go into the MCA & getting the IAF onboard with their requirements.
After this, the formal FSED proposal for the MCA will be given to the MOD with the program launched thereafter.
And we surely do no want another retired official writing another book in 2020-25 trying to explain when the ‘real’ MCA project started.
Care to explain this remark? Which retired official are you referring to, and what relevance does it have to the discussion?
TeerThat settles it, what more do you want ? Using it on some one to prove that it exists.
Question is whether they work or only reliance on simulations is enough.
All the simulations in the world dont replace the need for actual verifiable data from physical devices that exist in the real world.
Perhaps we should cease flying the LCA, testing our missiles because simulations say everythings fine?
What Kakodkar also overlooks/doesnt answer is that the so called group which took a re-look at the data from 1998 has the same people who did the original study. So wheres the incentive for them to say, oops we messed up?
The problem in India is beyond DAE etc – its systemic. There is no coherent, comprehensive plan for long term security to do whatever is required, as and when it is required. End result is that expectations pile up, miracles are expected, and when not delivered, everyone has a gun at their heads and careers on the line.
I actually feel a fair bit of pity for the DAE, DRDO etc folks who have to work with such an ad hoc, almost laughable lack of long term planning. If it was any other nation with a firm understanding of national requirements in terms of defence, it would have said “ok, so if a fails, lets do b”. In India, there is no “b”, its all or nothing, miracles expected each and every time around.
If no miracles, it means DAE are idiots, media will lead a witchhunt etc. Otherwise there will be syrupy platitudes and applause. All or nothing.
TeerI do not understand what the design team would still be doing working on the LCA, surely they would have finished 10 years ago when the production of the LCA started! its the ME’s who would be silly busy these days! the designers should be working on the MCA and finalising the concepts!
Prelim designs for the MCA should have already been finished!
Thats exactly what is being done.
From ADA & IAF itself – ie the horses mouth, a formal launch will occur for actually developing the detailed TDs etc and achieving actual airframes, and for which GOI will commit the money once the MK2 program is achieved or sometime before that. Because that will require full organizational work.
But the basic design work & scoping to understand what the work is all about – can and is being done in parallel, today. Even if a 30-40% reduction in time for the same activities is achieved vis a vis when the MCA is formally launched – thats a huge thing.
When the LCA was launched, this took several years, as all sorts of consultants came and sold their “concepts” to the fledgling ADA and the IAF. Separating the wheat from the chaff was hard as there was very little inhouse capability to immediately determine what was what.
Today the capability exists. Eg if a vendor offers joint development of conventional sensors, the ADA knows outright that it needs flush sensors & will go for that instead, instead of a painful evaluation of pros and cons.
Also, detailed planning needs be done for what the LCA didnt require, but the MCA might. LPI sensors will be a key requirement for instance. So asking the LRDE, in advance, to “work towards this” with the current XBand AESA as a midway step is essential. As compared to telling the LRDE in 2014 that they require an advanced AESA etc.
All this does not require entire ADA to work on it either.
TeerRight now there are far more pressing needs as far as ADA and IAF goes.
1 ) IOC for Tejas MK1 ,FOC for Tejas MK1 in stipulated time frame
2 ) Tejas MK2 design , FSED and IOC/FOC
3 ) Naval Tejas probably leveraging the technologies/engines from MK2Its good to be practical and the reality is we have yet to meet the first benchmark though we are progressing steadily.
As far as MCA goes , ADA has been promoting it for nearly decade and depending on what IAF wants and what IAF thinks ADA can deliver in the specific time frame ( after Tejas experience ) and budget sanctioned by GOI this project will move forward , it may well be a Rafale type twin engine 4 plus gen fighter or a true 5th Gen with all bells and whistles that perhaps only time can answer.
The IAF/GOI is fully commited towards FGFA and depending how it progress , it is quite possible that MCA developement will be affected by it.
It is better that ADA focusses on what needs to be done now and deliver to the IAF ,decision on MCA in what ever form ( manned/unmanned ) should be taken when the right time arises.
Austin, the fact remains that irrespective of what you are saying, the IAF is interested in the MCA. If its PV Naik, P Subrahamanyam et al’s line of thinking against yours – I’m afraid I’ll have to go with them.
And your “far more pressing needs” is but what what I have already noted about the LCA, so thats nothing specific.
In fact, you miss all the other 3 points that are part of ADA’s mandate as asked for by the IAF. Only one of which relates to unmanned systems which btw, is where ADA is in a support role, since it is ADE which is the prime integrator and developer for UAVs and UCAVs.
And also, your post ignores the lead time that is required to work on a project of such magnitude, and to just say “when the right time arises” would be silly, especially after the Marut fiasco, where the “the right time” never came, and the end result was a LCA which was supposed to overcome 2 decades of zero work on fighter development.
The result of this attitude and brilliant decision making, umpteen delays in setting up infrastructure, ad hoc funding grants, everything having to be done from first principles – great work!
And as regards this As far as MCA goes , ..depending on what IAF wants and what IAF thinks ADA can deliver in the specific time frame ( after Tejas experience ) and budget sanctioned by GOI this project will move forward
..has anybody said anything different? It should be obvious to all, that what Misraji posted clearly notes that the MCA will incorporate whatever the IAF wants of it.
Third, you are also wrong when you state “MCA in whatever form” – its been repeatedly made clear that the MCA is manned. There is no unmanned MCA, period.
The unmanned vehicle/UCAV will only come after the basic Rustom is proven and weaponized. The Rustom & other programs are what will prove the basic building blocks of technology required for a basic UCAV – namely autonomous operation, high speed datalinks, integrated light weight sensor packages.
If you are interested in this, beyond saying “they should do this, they should do that” and be aware of what they are already doing, then you should look at “Aerospace Technologies: The path ahead” by “P Subrahamanyam and the Tejas team” as presented in January 2009.
It clearly mentions the technologies already identified both for the LCA MK2 & the fifth generation fighter programs – which clearly identifies and delineates between the FGFA and MCA, and clearly details the amount of research that has gone into identifying the aerodynamics, airframe technologies (including stealth issues), IFCS, avionics architecture, air data sensors, actuators, electromechanical systems, mechanical systems, enabling systems et al. required.
What you simply fail to understand – is that ADA has not been “marketing MCA” for a decade. They have been working on identifying the systems and technologies that go into it & an advanced LCA and achieving those, despite challenges with subsystems from support organizations – eg engines, radar etc that are now being addressed.
The MCA architecture for instance did not come out last year for the same to be revealed this year. It was WIP as the ADA team worked their way through MC-486 et al for the LCA TD, then to the CAC, then to the OAC for the LCA MK1 and are now confident enough to develop the Core Integrated Processor Architecture.
This is the basis for a technology roadmap which was shared with the IAF and hence the news reports. The IAF on its part is looking at the roadmap and has its own suggestions. AHQ has its own people to depute on this – and it will include people familiar with the LCA program.
To say they should do this after that, is pointless. The ENTIRE point of concurrent design and development, and concurrent engineering is to avoid the delay ridden sequential step making process which is regarded as sub-optimal the world over. That is why even the IAF wants the ADA to give it options TODAY instead of 5-10 years in the future, when it will be too late.
More than half of the problems with the LCA directly relate to the previous sequential approach of decision making which allowed vested interests & the sheer lazy to avoid pending decisions, have projects like the HF-7x series all killed, and finally the LCA was launched too late in the day.
If India wants to get anywhere in aerospace systems, it has to avoid being seduced by the sauce of unmanned this, unmanned that super platforms, and first get its basics right with a family of fighters plus work on enabling technologies in UAVs. Otherwise, cancel the LCA & send out a RFI to Lock Mart, Boeing, EADS et al for 6G fighters (as marketing will also move on) instead of wasting time & effort on again doing a Marut, which is to make one system and then sit on ones butt thereafter, saying “all at the correct time”.
TeerFor me, in the long run, Greece has only 2 options:
1) Stop trying to keep any kind of balance of power in normal equipment, go only for weapons that can strike inside Turkey. This would be much better deterent than trying to compete in numbers.
2) Support EU political and defence integration. If EU arrives to the point to start seeing greek borders and resources as of EU, Greece has solved her problem.
With this, i end for this year and is probably the last time i comment on Sens’ posts about Greece.
Aspis
Anything you can share about Greece’s weapons R&D – I would think ballistic missiles and long range artillery would meet what you said?
Any other links etc about home grown stuff would also be great.
Turkey depends on a bunch of -SANs, Roketsan, Havelsan, and then TAI etc
TeerDRDO, IAF framing specifications for MCA.
But they are. Why is the above not an indication of their seriousness??
They really cannot commit funds at the drop of a hat, can they??
@Quadbike.
:rolleyes: … Ante_climax. Are we still having wet dreams about F-35s, great Indo-American alliance against China and what not??
Regards,
Ashish.
Misraji
Thanks – this backs up exactly what I was told.
Namely:
The director of ADA, Dr PS Subramaniam, confirmed to Business Standard, “The joint committee is likely to be formed within two or three weeks. This committee will finalise what will go into the MCA, as well as the budget and development schedule.” According to Dr Subramaniam, the programme will aim to develop the MCA and build five to six prototypes at a cost of Rs 5,000 crore. That is approximately the same amount that has gone into the LCA programme.
This is more or less the approach followed by the IAF and MOD for the LCA but luckily the funding is more realistic and the number of prototypes is larger (lessons learnt from the LCA).
In the LCA, Rs. 2188 crores (21880 Million) were allocated for the Technology Demonstration stage (no sensors or weaponization required) for demonstrating basic technologies – CC wings, glass cockpit, digital FBW & digital avionics for control of aircraft systems.
After TD-1 flew in 2001, by end of the year, the GOI sanctioned the Full scale development of the LCA program, namely 5 PVs and 8 LSP at 3301 Crores.
They didnt fund both together as it was deemed too risky. But the TD flight showed that the basic technologies had been mastered and the program went ahead with the PV & LSP phase.
The problems with this approach were a) funding – which was limited b) the limited number of TDs and the separate PVs launched was a time loss.
Now for the MCA the above approach is clearly being followed but with corrections, the IAF will draw up a list of the basic technologies required which the five-six prototypes will demonstrate plus include a higher degree of capability from day one (eg sensors) and the program is funded accordingly (at 5000 crores, which is almost the same level as the two stages of the LCA program : 2188 +3300). There will be more LSPs after this funded separately before series production.
The good part is that via the LCA, a lot of the groundwork in aero design, avionics, and sensors is being done. The two items where we are still lagging is the FCR (which the X Band AESA by 2014) should address to a degree, and a suitable engine.
Which is why the Snecma-GTRE deal is so important.
TeerADA has been advertising the MCA program since nearly a decade now , the first time i heard about MCA was during Aero India 95.
But the IAF/MOD has not shown much interest in it ( beyond lipservice ) and has not commited actual funds to the program.
The IAF is obviously keen that ADA delivers well on its promise to complete the FOC for Tejas mk1 and then commit itself to Tejas mk2 which is of far more urgent needs from IAF operational pov.
ADA will be better off if they can commit to building a Rafale plus type fighter within a decade to replace the Jags/Mirages , instead of spending time promising to build true 5th gen fighter with some nice model to show off , concurrently they can work on UCAV as long term project ( > 15 years ).
The only 5th gen fighter that IAF has commited to is FGFA and we could see them entering service by 2018-2020 , if ADA is indeed keen to build a Medium/Heavy twin engine fighter in shortest possible time ( ~ 10 years ) than a Rafale plus type would be next benchmark if they can deliver that by 2020 that would be a great achievement by them , if need be they can co-develop with Dassult or hire them as consultant to speed things up.
The MCA program does have support from the IAF- this was confirmed in January 2009 by senior procurement officers from the IAF’s AHQ. In October, AM PV Naik reiterated this, when he clearly stated that the IAF would support the MCA project, in response to a direct query.
The reason the IAF is interested in the program, beyond lip service is because they need a medium fighter to supplant all the other medium fighters of the Jaguar, MiG, Mirage category and dont want to rely on the MRCA alone, which will be a 4G platform in an era of LO.
What you are talking of is a formal commencement of a fully funded engineering demonstration program which will only commence once the MK2 is completed or just prior to that.
But that does not mean work has not been progressing in parallel on the basic definition of the technologies required for a MCA and what the IAF will need.
Talks have been going on between the IAF and ADA for the past few years, and work has been progressed on basic design, avionics architecture et al.
The MCA will rely on a lot of MK2 derived technologies and common units developed for the FGFA (like the FBW) which the ADA will be involved in from the Indian side.
The MK2 is intended to have sensor fusion via a new avionics architecture beyond the OAC currently on the LCA PVs (which replaces the 486 MCs) and development time is around 3 years (same time taken for the new OAC based system).
The MCA will leverage this. The concept is the same as the Lock Mart pioneered CCIP units which do the heavy processing for several individual LRUs.
Other changes will be for the stealth/LO aspects, which include flush air data sensors, probes, these are planned for the MCA but not the MK2.
How it works – and this is from ADA – is that the GOI has given clearance to ADA to work on basic technology definition and exploratory work within available funding (the LCA program has so far been under budget for ADA, bar the Kaveri which is GTRE funded and not ADA) before a formal funded program to develop a working prototype series is launched.
For the LCA, this was done via a program for a handful of TDs and PVs after which the IAF, in 2001 end, cleared the MOD to launch the formal development of a series production aircraft, which began with 8 LSP & 20 MK1 IOC series aircraft.
UCAV technology is a far way from maturing especially in the air to air arena.
So as far as the IAF is concerned, manned is still the way to go for a long way to come.
The attrition of unmanned platforms as a result of control hand off’s and other issues (check USAF stats for instance) make them suitable (at present and for the next decade/two) for specialized niche roles in ISR and precision strikes in high threat environments.
The IAF’s mandate for ADA/DRDO in air systems (this is from January 2009):
– LCA MK2
– UAV/UCAV of the MALE class, to build technologies for the HALE class.
– MCA
– Advanced systems and technologies (this is apparently where the exploratory work on larger turbofan UCAVs is being contemplated).
As part of the last, ADA also provides consultancy to HAL & the IAF on other programs such as the FGFA, for instance its avionics architecture & FBW and what the IAF should have, and what India will contribute etc.
This is the reason why HALs statement is important. That they are involved from day 1 makes it better for synergy across the program, common architectures, design features etc saving time & expense.
Also, they will have to invest in the program. The new rules set out by the MOD make it clear that the production agency and the users have to co-invest and not just leverage technology and funding from ADA.
@RahulM, SAAB is a good choice IMHO, but what ADA will look for is prior experience. EADS has also offered assistance for any 5G program.
One key thing is that ADA does not have to set up all the infrastructure etc for a MCA from scratch this time around.
TeerLoads of info – the bit about MCA is especially positive – its a much needed aircraft especially to avoid the same idiotic mistake that was done after the Marut and a two decade long gap developed.
The SARAS also offers a useful asset for light transport and variants for MPA, ELINT etc to take over the role currently performed by Do-228’s- which are somewhat lower in performance, and have an unpressurized cabin.
25,000 Crore Rupees = $ 5.4 Billion!
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories438.htm
HAL to Invest Rs 25,000-crore to Boost capability
Bangalore. Indiaâs state-owned aeronautical and defence major Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) is planning an investment of Rs.25,000 crores over the next decade to enhance its design and production capability for different types of aircraft, including rotary wing machines.
Revealing this, HAL Chairman & Managing Director Ashok Nayak pointed out that HAL already had a robust order book of around Rs.55,000 crores and that major investments and initiatives were aimed at acquiring the best in technology.
Giving details of various projects HAL is currently working on, he said that upgradation and reengineering of the Anglo-French deep penetration strike aircraft (DPSA) Jaguar in service with the Indian Air Force (IAF) was on while preparations for the production of the Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT) Sitara was also on the its radar.
Of course, the Indian defence ministry is yet to initiate the process for the evaluation and finalization of an appropriate engine for boosting the strike capability and service life of Jaguar.
IAF wants the Rolls Royce engine already powering it either to have additional boost through upgradation or a new engine. Rolls Royce is competing for this project now with US Honeywell.
HAL has already an order for 12 LSP (Limited Series Production) Intermediate Jet Trainers (IJTs) from IAF. Featuring a glass cockpit, Sitara would replace the ageing fleet of Kiran as the platform for stage two training. Powered by a custom-made Russian origin AL-551 engine, Sitara would help the Indian combat pilots to graduate to a supersonic fighter. âThe IJT project has demonstrated HALâs capability to design and build a trainer aircraft on time,â observed Nayak.
And of course, IAF and HAL are also testing the trainer version of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) which would eventually train both IAF and Navy pilots.
In the days ahead, remarked Nayak, HAL would do a lot more outsourcing.
âInfrastructure in the Indian private industry is also coming up. We would like to make use of that,â he noted.
Nayak specified that âHAL is no way trying to do a monopoly.â Apparently, he was reacting to the observation of Vice Chief of Air Staff Air Marshal Pranab Kumar Barbora who recently said that the Government support and focus to HAL was affecting the growth of private sector aerospace manufacturers.
But as the only aviation body of its type in the country, HAL has also been designated as the integrartor for the Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (M-MRCA), for which IAF, DRDO and HAL experts are now evaluating six aircraft. The IAF RfP is for 126 aircraft with 63 more in options. But as the IAF is fast losing its outdated Soviet-vintage combat jets to obsolescence, it could eventually order some 300 or so of the selected aircraft.
In the fray are Boeingâs F-18 Super Hornet and Lockheed Martinâs F 16 Super Viper IN from the US, Eurofighter from the four-nations consortium of Germany, Spain, Italy and Britain, Gripen from Sweden, Rafale from France and Mig 35 from Russia.
Another high profile project with HAL is the Light Combat Helicopter (LCH), being developed as a follow up to the 5.5-tonne class multi role Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) Dhruv. Itâs prototype is now getting ready for its maiden flight in a âfew weeksâ timeâ.
Featuring advanced technological elements including a glass cockpit, LCH has been specifically designed to fit into anti-infantry and anti-armour role.
Powered by a high performance Shakti (Ariden) engine developed in tieup with the French engine major Turbomeca, LCH will also be capable of operating from high altitude battle fields. The helicopter will have a substantial component of composite materials to withstand the rough, cold weather.
HAL hopes to sell 65 of these high altitude gunships equipped with helmet mounted targeting systems, electronic warfare systems and advanced weapons and missiles. LCH will have two pilots in tandem, missionized cockpit seats. The Dhruv though has side-by-side seating for two pilots, one of them a dedicated weapons operator.
Nayak also said that the weaponized version of Dhruv, also powered by the Shakti engine, is now getting ready for induction. The attack version of Dhruv has stub wings for anti-armour and air to air missiles as well as rocket pods for 70-mm and 68-mm rockets. Its attack version for the Indian Army would be fitted with anti-tank Nag missile.
Developed by DRDO, Nag features an infrared guidance system and has a range of up to 8-kms. The wepaonised Dhruv will also be equipped with an electronic counter measure (ECM) suite featuring radar and missile detectors, infrared jammers as well as chaff and flare dispersers.
Giving facts and figures, Nayak said that HAL had so far delivered 90 utility versions of ALH to the users, including defence forces and civilian agencies. Indian army is planning to replace its fleet of ageing Cheetah and Chetak helicopters with Dhruv.
About the recent crash of a Dhruv in Ecuador, Nayak observed that over-manoeuvring by the pilot could have caused the mishap. âThere were no cancellation of export orders on account of the crash,â he pointed out.
HAL had bagged the US $55-million order for the supply of seven helicopters against stiff global competition to the Air Force of Ecuador. Pending the outcome of the statutory inquiry into the circumstances leading to the crash, Ecuador has however grounded its fleet of Dhruvs.
Notably, the pilot survived the crash.
The sale of Dhruv to Ecuador was Indiaâs first major export outside its immediate neighbourhood. HAL had earlier supplied two Dhruv choppers to Nepal in addition to leasing out one to the Defence Ministry of Israel. The current list of its potential buyers include Peru, Turkey, Mauritius and Maldives.
On the possibility of setting up a Maintenance, Repair and Operations (MRO) centre in Bangalore, he said HAL had no plans in this regard. There had been indications earlier though, but according to Nayak, conditions are not conducive yet for such a venture.
He said there was some progress in the partnership with Russia over the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) and Military Transport Aircraft (MTA).
According to Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P V Naik, IAF was hopeful to induct the first FGFA squadron by 2016-17.
Yet another high profile project for which HAL is preparing is the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) unveiled by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) as a followup to the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas which is expecting to get Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) by 2011. MCA will have stealth features and an enhanced strike capability.
In the near future, HAL will manufacture eight Tejas LCA under Limited Series Production (LSP)programme, based on the current progress of the project. IAF has placed an order for 20 Tejas aircraft of IOC standard.
HAL will also be the production agency for the MK-II version of Tejas equipped with an engine capable of generating a thrust of around 95-kN. The basic version of LCA Tejas is powered by GE F404 engine. Competition for a more powerful engine is already on.
On the civilian front, Nayak said that HAL had started preparing the ground for the production of Indiaâs first civilian transport aircraft Saras, now being developed by the Bangalore-based National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), a unit of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).
Thirty to 35 Saras aircraft should be produced at HALâs Kanpur establishment, he said adding that Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) was expected to give IOC for this aircraft in about a yearâs time.
NAL has said that the third prototype of Saras, which would feature weight reduction to the extent of 500-kg, will fly in 2010. It will be equipped with the Engine Indicating and Crew Alert System (EICAS), and the autopilot. Right now, the aircraft prototype is a little heavier than required.
The two prototypes of Saras have between them logged more than 100 hours of flying. In March 2009, the second prototype of Saras had crashed on the outskirts of Bangalore while on a flying sortie. This mishap had caused the death of three IAF pilots.
DGCA has hinted that the accident was due to the wrong engine relight. The engine relight is carried out before the certification of an aircraft to find out if an aircraft can operate or land with one engine in the event of an emergency of if one of the engines fails.
IAF has evinced an interest in buying 15 Saras. Now NAL is planning to impress upon the Indian Postal Department the utility and economy of using Saras for speedier delivery of parcels. Equipped with two rear mounted engines and designed to operate on short, semi prepared runways, Saras can be used as an executive transport, air taxi, package carrier, air ambulance, and in roles such as remote sensing and aerial survey.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/36985/hal-plans-mega-rs-25000.html
TeerOn a related note, Quest Global’s Aero SEZ in Karnataka has been launched. It has the entire value chain, including SCM inside the SEZ itself & is primarily targeted at offsets and to in fact fill in the missing links which local ancillary suppliers dont do. Other engineering majors are expected to also join hands and set up units in the SEZ, which has its own captive power generation as well.
Other SEZ in the news is Tata’s venture in Andhra Pradesh, which is to begin with fuselages for Sikorsky.
Another key cluster is one around the Pune region, the DEMA- Defence Manufacturers Association, which includes 50-70 SME’s and which is intending to set up a 100 acre manufacturing zone, with approximately the same number of manufacturing units.
More on Quest: Its founder is an Indian.
http://www.quest-sez.com/index.html
http://machinist.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2460&Itemid=2
Sign In
