USI Library
News Information Service
Statesman, 9-3-2015
HAL’s trainer-test
Editorial
(Aztonyx)
Had it not been for the Prime Minister’s “make in India” mantra with particular thrust on defence
production, it is unlikely that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd would have got the government’s nod to
produce 68 of its HTT-40s (Hindustan Turbo-Trainer) to complement the IAF’s fleet of basic
trainers. That the user clearly prefers the Swiss-made Pilatus PC-7 Mk II is evident from the defence
ministry also clearing 38 more of them (75 are in use/in the pipeline); in fact a couple of years ago
the force had virtually rejected the indigenous project - which is still “under development”. Maybe
this is not an opportune moment to re-fuel the protracted HAL-IAF stand-off, but it must be
stressed that in the contemporary competitive environment it is for the manufacturer to convince
the user of his product - and not survive on largesse or a skewed sense of “patriotism”. The short
point is that while the armed forces must support indigenous production (as they have done, the
navy in particular), it is terribly unfair to risk the lives of young men and women at the altar of desi.
Manohar Parrikar has struck a balancing act, but young pilots are not circus artistes. Hence, HAL
should grab with both hands the opportunity to redeem its reputation and keep its Kanpur plant in
business.
It would also do well to assess why that plant has not earned the confidence of both military and
civilian “users” and why the Ojhar plant also has detractors. So too should HAL take a hard look at
why “gaps” were allowed to develop after the production of the HPT-32 and Kiran jet trainers
wound down. Funny, we hear so little of the IJT (inter-mediate jet trainer) these days. Again, a grim
reality that HAL must face, and erase, is the reluctance of Dassault (the French specialist) to accept
full responsibility for its Rafale jets which would be made by HAL should the deal finally fructify.
Excuses, alibis, or even allegations hardly suffice.
It is in this context that it is not easy to understand the continuing hesitation over approving a tie-up
between a foreign “major” and a private domestic firm to produce a replacement for the HS-748
transports. That would break HAL’s monopoly, offer the private sector commercial justification to
warrant the requisite investment and infrastructure development: a viable beginning has to be made
sooner rather than later. If the government is convinced that the Airbus Industrie proposal is
“clean” it should not let a single-vendor situation prove a stumbling block. Or are there suspicions
that the ASR (air staff requirement) was “tailor-made” - since only one aircraft of that specified type
is currently under production?