India Arms Market Competition

The reason we bought Apache etc, was just that the current prime-minister is pro-US, and hates communists.

GarryB wrote:

The reason we bought Apache etc, was just that the current prime-minister is pro-US, and hates communists.

So why would he no buy Russian stuff?

Russia hasn't been communist for almost 2 and a half decades...

GarryB wrote:For India it is a good thing... how would Indians feel about their own government towing the western line direct from Washington just to please those in power...

I find it hard to believe everyone in the UK likes the way the UK government jumps on cue when Washington says jump... that must get on their nerves and hurt their pride... there was a time when London called the shots and the US was a colony.

The west might not like Indias stance, but the rest of the free world and even free thinkers inside the Western Empire respect them for having independence of thought and being able to vocalise it publicly.

Russians go slow, Sukhoi fleet in trouble

shocking 50% of the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter fleet is on the ground due to unresolved servicing issues with the aircraft's Russian manufacturers. This has also eroded the combat capability of India's frontline long-range strike aircraft and compromised even that part of the fleet which is capable of being flown.

The IAF and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) have rung the alarm bells about the repeated mid-flight failure of the Su-30 mission computer and the blanking out of all cockpit displays. The Russians have not responded to the repeated SOS' from the Indians for over a year.

These disclosures have been made in leaked communications between HAL and Russian agencies. These are in exclusive possession of The Sunday Guardian.

The managing director of HAL's Nasik complex, which is tasked with assembly and repair of the IAF Sukhois, has, in vain, desperately flagged "multiple cases of repeated failure of Mission Computer-1 and blanking out of Head Up Displays (HUD) and all Multi-Function Displays (MFD) in flight" with earmarked representatives of both Rosboronexport — the Russian government's arms export agency — and Irkut, the original manufacturer of the Sukhoi-30.

"As the displays blanking off is a serious and critical issue affecting the exploitation of aircraft (it) needs corrective action/remedial measures on priority," he pleads in a letter dated 28 February this year, reminding the Russians that he's been raising the issue since 7 March 2013 but to no avail.

Failures of the mission computer and cockpit displays are critical. The entire sortie is programmed on the mission computer, which is vital for managing requirements of aerial combat. The "blanking off" of cockpit displays distracts pilots and diverts attention away from the mission. The IAF is worried at the spearhead of its fighter fleet being hit by these nagging snags. The IAF has planned a Sukhoi-30 fleet of 272 aircraft, of which an estimated 200 have been delivered.

Air Marshal Denzil Keelor, one of IAF's most decorated fighter pilots, is dismayed. "In-flight failures such as the ones being reported render a fighter aircraft vulnerable. When a fighter is being flown below optimum capability, it becomes more vulnerable to an adversary. No aircraft should be flown unless it performing to 100% capability," he warns.

Figures reveal how serious the problem of availability of the IAF's Su-30MKI fleet is. Against the Sukhoi figure of just 50% aircraft fit for operational flying, statistics reveal just how much ground is to be covered. The availability rates of the IAF's French-origin Mirage-2000 and even the Russian-origin MiG-29 is about 75%. As India quibbles with Russia over maintenance arrangements, the larger question is: What good is a weapon if it cannot be used?

TR1 wrote:Waiting for more details on this one.

The 50% figure just seems like media BS to me.

Yellow Journalism Yet Again

In this news-report (http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/russians-go-slow-sukhoi-fleet-in-trouble), it has been alleged that 50% of the IAF’s Su-30MKI fleet remains grounded because of A) multiple cases of repeated failure of Mission Computer-1 and blanking out of Head Up Displays (HUD) and all Multi-Function Displays (MFD) in flight since 2012. B) Due to non-availability of facilities for overhaul of aggregates (aircraft parts), following which the serviceability (availability for flying) of Su-30MKI is slowly decreasing and demand for Aircraft on Ground (AOG) items on the rise as of December 24, 2013. C) Due to Russia’s inability to set up the MRO workshops at HAL’s Nashik-based facility by December 2013, and that this facility was originally scheduled to overhaul the first Su-30MKI by June 2014. Consequently, five Su-30MKIs are already parked at HAL for extensive overhaul, and another 15 will be due for overhaul in the current year.

Now, let’s separate fact from fiction. Firstly, both the Su-30MKI and MiG-29B-12 were originally designed and certified to log in no more than 120 flight-hours per annum. Despite this, the IAF has been following Western standards of flight operations by requiring its air warriors to log in at least 25 flight-hours per month, or about 275 flight-hours every year, or 2,750 hours in a decade. Furthermore, the IAF has been way behind schedule when it came to service-induction of cockpit procedures trainers and full-flight simulators for the Su-30MKI. Ideally, such flying training aids should have been commissioned into service in a progressive manner since the last quarter of 2002, but this process didn’t commence until the final quarter of 2009. Now, if 275 flight-hours are logged in by a Su-30MKI, then within five-and-a-half-years itself it would have reached its scheduled time-between-overhauls (TBO) of 1,500 hours for both the airframe and turbofans, while the prescribed Russian timetables call for the Su-30MKI to approach its TBO after only a decade, i.e. after the Su-30MKI has been flown for 120 hours every year for at least a decade. What this translates into is that the HAL-owned-and-operated MRO facility for the IAF’s Su-30MKIs should have become operational by early 2008 at the latest. Consequently, HAL is behind schedule by six full years when it comes to commissioning such a MRO facility.

Now, coming to the issue of the premature in-flight malfunctions of the Su-30MKI’s ELBIT Systems-built Type 967 HUD, THALES-developed MFD-55 and MFD-66 AMLCDs, and the DARE-developed and HAL-built mission computer. Firstly, it must be noted that the malfunctions are not across-the-board or affecting the entire fleet of Su-30MKIs, but only those airframes produced for the last tranche of 10i-standard Su-30MKIs and the first tranche of 11i-standard Su-30MKIs. At most, therefore, no more than 40 Su-30MKIs will be affected by such avionics-related malfunctions. This then brings us to the probable causes of such malfunctions. Prima facie, there is only one probable cause: faulty hardware—most likely wiring harnesses or cable connectors. What has to be established is whether these items came directly from Russian OEMs (in which case product liabilities will those of Rosboronexport State Corp and IRKUT Corp) or were they sourced from India-based OEM-licenced vendors. This can easily be done PROVIDED HAL has its in-house required set of item-specific test-benches and ATE equipment. As another option, HAL can also make use of ADA’s test-benches and ATE equipment, while DARE can be approached for replicating a fully-functional mock-up of the Su-30MKI’s cockpit avionics architecture—since DARE is presently involved with a similar task concerning the cockpits of the projected Super Su-30MKI.

But what is most exasperating is that despite decades of experience in licenced-manufacturing of various types of combat aircraft of foreign origin, neither the MoD’s Department of Defence Production & Supplies nor HAL till this day have grasped the need for achieving 100% indigenisation for the tens of thousands of rotables, consumables and accessories that go into each aircraft-type. Instead, the focus continues to be on the licenced-production of airframes through raw materials sourced locally and from abroad. Such a distortion can only result in an undesirable reliance on foreign OEMs for the smallest but most critical components, which in turn severely compromises the IAF’s operational sovereignty over its aircraft/weapons assets.

Lastly, a word on the so-called combat aircraft fleet availability rates in peacetime. No air force in peacetime boasts of combat aircraft fleet availability rates of 75%. Such high rates are mandatory for only flying training aircraft like BTTs, AJTs and LIFTs. In reality, the availability rate of combat aircraft fleets hovers between 50% and 60%. If the national security scenario worsens over a period of time, then the availability rates are increased progressively (as was the case with the IAF in both 1999 and 2002), depending on the type of conflict envisaged, i.e. limited high-intensity conflict confined to a single theatre, or a full-blown all-out war. In case of the latter, fleet availability rates are jacked up to 90% for Day-1 of the war. By Day-2, the rate drops to 75% and by Day-4, the availability rate stabilises at 50% while ensuring a high tempo of daily sortie generation. It is based on such estimates that any self-respecting air force does its force-structure planning.

Indian Flanker wrote:

TR1 wrote:Waiting for more details on this one.

The 50% figure just seems like media BS to me.

Once again you seem to be correct. Here is an article that debunks this stupid claim:

Yellow Journalism Yet Again

In this news-report (http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/russians-go-slow-sukhoi-fleet-in-trouble), it has been alleged that 50% of the IAF’s Su-30MKI fleet remains grounded because of A) multiple cases of repeated failure of Mission Computer-1 and blanking out of Head Up Displays (HUD) and all Multi-Function Displays (MFD) in flight since 2012. B) Due to non-availability of facilities for overhaul of aggregates (aircraft parts), following which the serviceability (availability for flying) of Su-30MKI is slowly decreasing and demand for Aircraft on Ground (AOG) items on the rise as of December 24,  2013. C) Due to Russia’s inability to set up the MRO workshops at HAL’s Nashik-based facility by December 2013, and that this facility was originally scheduled to overhaul the first Su-30MKI by June 2014. Consequently, five Su-30MKIs are already parked at HAL for extensive overhaul, and another 15 will be due for overhaul in the current year.

Now, let’s separate fact from fiction. Firstly, both the Su-30MKI and MiG-29B-12 were originally designed and certified to log in no more than 120 flight-hours per annum. Despite this, the IAF has been following Western standards of flight operations by requiring its air warriors to log in at least 25 flight-hours per month, or about 275 flight-hours every year, or 2,750 hours in a decade. Furthermore, the IAF has been way behind schedule when it came to service-induction of cockpit procedures trainers and full-flight simulators for the Su-30MKI. Ideally, such flying training aids should have been commissioned into service in a progressive manner since the last quarter of 2002, but this process didn’t commence until the final quarter of 2009. Now, if 275 flight-hours are logged in by a Su-30MKI, then within five-and-a-half-years itself it would have reached its scheduled time-between-overhauls (TBO) of 1,500 hours for both the airframe and turbofans, while the prescribed Russian timetables call for the Su-30MKI to approach its TBO after only a decade, i.e. after the Su-30MKI has been flown for 120 hours every year for at least a decade. What this translates into is that the HAL-owned-and-operated MRO facility for the IAF’s Su-30MKIs should have become operational by early 2008 at the latest. Consequently, HAL is behind schedule by six full years when it comes to commissioning such a MRO facility.  

Now, coming to the issue of the premature in-flight malfunctions of the Su-30MKI’s ELBIT Systems-built Type 967 HUD, THALES-developed MFD-55 and MFD-66 AMLCDs, and the DARE-developed and HAL-built mission computer. Firstly, it must be noted that the malfunctions are not across-the-board or affecting the entire fleet of Su-30MKIs, but only those airframes produced for the last tranche of 10i-standard Su-30MKIs and the first tranche of 11i-standard Su-30MKIs. At most, therefore, no more than 40 Su-30MKIs will be affected by such avionics-related malfunctions. This then brings us to the probable causes of such malfunctions. Prima facie, there is only one probable cause: faulty hardware—most likely wiring harnesses or cable connectors. What has to be established is whether these items came directly from Russian OEMs (in which case product liabilities will those of Rosboronexport State Corp and IRKUT Corp) or were they sourced from India-based OEM-licenced vendors. This can easily be done PROVIDED HAL has its in-house required set of item-specific test-benches and ATE equipment. As another option, HAL can also make use of ADA’s test-benches and ATE equipment, while DARE can be approached for replicating a fully-functional mock-up of the Su-30MKI’s cockpit avionics architecture—since DARE is presently involved with a similar task concerning the cockpits of the projected Super Su-30MKI.

But what is most exasperating is that despite decades of experience in licenced-manufacturing of various types of combat aircraft of foreign origin, neither the MoD’s Department of Defence Production & Supplies nor HAL till this day have grasped the need for achieving 100% indigenisation for the tens of thousands of rotables, consumables and accessories that go into each aircraft-type. Instead, the focus continues to be on the licenced-production of airframes through raw materials sourced locally and from abroad. Such a distortion can only result in an undesirable reliance on foreign OEMs for the smallest but most critical components, which in turn severely compromises the IAF’s operational sovereignty over its aircraft/weapons assets.

Lastly, a word on the so-called combat aircraft fleet availability rates in peacetime. No air force in peacetime boasts of combat aircraft fleet availability rates of 75%. Such high rates are mandatory for only flying training aircraft like BTTs, AJTs and LIFTs. In reality, the availability rate of combat aircraft fleets hovers between 50% and 60%. If the national security scenario worsens over a period of time, then the availability rates are increased progressively (as was the case with the IAF in both 1999 and 2002), depending on the type of conflict envisaged, i.e. limited high-intensity conflict confined to a single theatre, or a full-blown all-out war. In case of the latter, fleet availability rates are jacked up to 90% for Day-1 of the war. By Day-2, the rate drops to 75% and by Day-4, the availability rate stabilises at 50% while ensuring a high tempo of daily sortie generation. It is based on such estimates that any self-respecting air force does its force-structure planning.

Link:here

magnumcromagnon wrote:Why does it seem like that there has been countless articles bad-mouthing Sukhoi programs in India over the past few years? Seems like there's been a concerted effort to try to kick the Russians out of India, like efforts to kick Russians out of Syria, and Crimea. Seems like NATO has been busy with media operations in South Asia.

GarryB wrote:Because you can't take their place if they are still there....

...I wouldn't blame NATO... more likely Boeing or Airbus.

Remember when the US military is paying 250million per F-35 Boeing gets lots of money it can use for bribes and lies in newspapers and using it for that just means more sales of over inflated products.

PS: Garry, isn't F-35 a LM project? Boeing is supplying Transport Planes, Apache, and P-8i Poseidon( which will replace Indian Navy's leased Russian Tu-142 Bear(s).

Rafale is as good as any existing 5th-generation aircraft: French defence minister
Rafale is as good as any existing 5th-generation aircraft: French defence minister - Hindustan Times

French defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, visiting India at present, spoke to foreign editor Pramit Pal Chaudhuri about the $15 billion (Rs 87990 crore) Rafale fighter deal that is stilling awaiting formal completion and the Indo-French defence relationship.

How would you describe the state of Indo-French defence relations today?Over the past 15 years, despite changes in the democratic lives of our respective nations, there has been a steadfast continuity in our strategic partnership.

For me, this is the cornerstone of our relationship. I'd like to pay tribute to the deep commitment and long-term visions of your former prime ministers Inder Kumar Gujral, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and, the present incumbent, Manmohan Singh. India and France share the same goal and support each other in strengthening their strategic autonomy.

Our defence relation is a longstanding one, initiated more than 60 years ago with successful joint achievements, such as the Toofan/Ouragan helicopter as early as 1953 or later the Milan missile. I am convinced it will continue to grow in scope, in maturity and in strength.

It is now two years since the Rafale fighter was selected by the Indian defence ministry but the deal is yet to be finalised. What is the reason for this delay and how long is Dassault prepared to wait?

The Rafale was selected in February 2012. Negotiations take time – that's natural, they are progressing well and I am confident.

This is the biggest armament tender of the world, so we have to establish a collaboration with industrial partners that will last for decades and negotiate the clauses of the contract itself.

Dassault is fully committed to this historic and strategic project. I would recommend patience and optimism. As your external affairs minister once said in this regard, "A good French wine takes time to mature and so do good contracts."

The Rafale is principally designed to counter the Chinese Air Force. Yet it is a fourth-generation fighter at a time when China is testing a fifth-generation airplane. Will Rafale be outdated by the time it is fully inducted?

The Rafale is an omni-role aircraft designed to address the entire range of challenges that countries like France, India or others may face. I would take all the excitement about third or fourth or fifth-generation aircraft with a pinch of salt.

As of today, the only operational so-called 'fifth-generation' fighter has never been used in combat. Frankly, in real terms, the Rafale is as good as any existing fifth-generation aircraft.

As the British say, "the proof is in the pudding". The Rafale has been used extensively in Afghanistan, Libya in 2011 and in Mali since January 2013.

Its performance has surpassed expectations. As minister of defence I can testify to its outstanding performance. The Rafale can be upgraded to integrate the latest technologies and it has a clear roadmap for future development. We will partner with India in this endeavour.

The Scorpene submarine's induction is now four years behind schedule. Do you see this as an indication of the technical limitations of Indian defence partners, especially state-owned firms?

During the state visit of president François Hollande in February, I had visited the Mazagon Docks Limited (MDL) shipyard to review the progress of the programme.

I was able to gauge its mastery of the manufacture of key equipment. Four years may seem long to you, but this project is a real technological, industrial and human challenge for a company that had stopped building submarines 10 years before.

They had to train the personnel. This is also the first time that the first submarine is being built directly in the client's shipyard. It's a performance whose initial results should be acknowledged.

Here, too, our partnership has been forged for the long term and with trust. This programme proves that, together, we can execute major projects.

France faces greater competition for the Indian defence market than before. Israel and the US are among the new entrants. Is there anything that differentiates France from these other countries when it comes to arms exports?

We competed against the United States and others for the MMRCA tender, and we are currently contending against Israel in artillery and Russia for light utility helicopters. Transparent competition is healthy.

It helps India to secure the most favourable terms and makes the companies outdo themselves to win. French manufacturers are offering their best equipment at the best price. May the best win!

As for the rest, France's position is quite well-known: an unambiguous political commitment vis-à-vis India, unbroken supply continuity – cast your mind back to Kargil, openness to transfer of technology and joint development of new weapons systems with Indian manufacturers, and the certainty of transparency as French law prohibits and punishes corruption. Not a single French company has been blacklisted by India.

The Indian government has announced a new push to indigenise defence production and reduce its arms imports. Would this be an obstacle to France's commercial defence engagement with India?

On the contrary, France is well placed to understand India's resolve. We have ourselves expended much energy and public funds over the past few decades in building an industrial base capable of supporting our own national defence.

This policy continues even today, generating employment and bolstering our economy. International cooperation is an integral part of this strategy. That's what we are quite successfully doing with India, and it's a win-win situation. Scorpene is a good example. Other French companies are ready to embark on such projects, too.

France is the European nation with the largest Indian Ocean military presence. Has India been forthcoming in cooperating with France in this sphere?

For France and India, the security of the Indian Ocean and the adjacent zones, such as the Gulf of Aden and the Persian Gulf, are a shared interest. How can we ensure the security of the Indian Ocean without cooperating with India?

So that's what we are doing – by fighting piracy, through regular naval exercises, the construction of six Scorpene submarines in Mumbai that will be able to patrol in that area and others.

We also have regular exchanges between our military authorities and the French admiral commanding the Indian Ocean maritime zone was recently in Delhi and Goa.

We have a significant military presence with our bases in Reunion, Djibouti and Abu Dhabi. The nuclear aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and its Rafales will be patrolling the region by the end of this year.

Defence expenditure is shrinking rapidly in the West. Will this endanger France's ability to maintain an independent defence manufacturing base in such circumstances?

The scenario is not that drastic though Western countries are facing the biggest economic crisis in 40 years. President Hollande and his government are implementing several courageous reforms to preserve our social system and improve our competitiveness.

France attaches the utmost importance to her sovereignty and her strategic autonomy. The president has decided to maintain our defence spending for the future, ie $480 billion till 2025.

The French industrial sector is one of the best performing and is capable of adapting to market developments. The state will support it and our defence partners can rely on France.

and P-8i Poseidon( which will replace Indian Navy's leased Russian Tu-142 Bear(s).

GarryB wrote:BTW it is a bit of a cheek calling a 737 by a different name and pretending it is a new aircraft... MPAs actually spend quite a bit of time flying low and slow... which is not that safe for jet powered aircraft... it isn't an accident that most existing MPAs are prop driven...

Sujoy wrote:However, as was proved during the search for the missing Malaysian Airline flight MH 370 the P 8 has serious limitations .

Indian Flanker wrote:

Sujoy wrote:However, as was proved during the search for the missing Malaysian Airline flight MH 370 the P 8 has serious limitations .

Can you elaborate this statement please? Thanks in advance.

The long-delayed delivery of aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (Admiral Gorshkov) as well as the huge jump in its refit cost to $2.33 billion was just the most prominent example of it

GarryB wrote:

The long-delayed delivery of aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (Admiral Gorshkov) as well as the huge jump in its refit cost to $2.33 billion was just the most prominent example of it

Yeah... that was Russias fault... Russia offers to upgrade an old carrier for India for a gap filler and India then takes 10 odd years to decide and negotiate the agreement. The original price was 1.8 billion including 700 million for the aircraft... Ka-31 and MiG-29K. After opening up the carrier it was found further work was needed than expected to make her sea worthy... basically all the piping and wiring needed to be redone, for the additional cost of what would be 630 million.

Then there was much whining and complaining for an increase in cost of just over half a billion... half a billion is what they paid for EACH C-17 transport aircraft from the US!

The MMRCA competition for 10 billion dollars for 126 aircraft won by France was going to be 10 billion dollars over budget... that is 20 times the increase of the Gorshkov... where are the complaints about that?