Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 25 Apr 2016 22:33

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Philip wrote:Why is there no ranting and raving against Boeing for their shoddy airliner,which is experiencing woes worldwide?


Because it's not worldwide, it is an Air India problem.

Is it? I am pretty sure you know to Google.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Karan M » 25 Apr 2016 22:53

The LCA will enter service in numbers as Mk1A with major foreign components like radar; radar which we tried to develop ourselves and which took the longest time amongst the major sub-system in LCA to develop. May be, if we had NOT tried to do everything in-house and adopted a similar route like now, LCA could've entered production much earlier.


If they do it though, LCA will be called non indigenous by gents like Matheswaran who will push to have it cancelled.
The other thing about imports - not too sure. I suspect that we tried and tried but finally got Israel to cooperate since all other options were suboptimal.

Kopyo - we now know its A2G doesnt work. So Super Kopyo off the table
RC-400 - unproven, derivative of RDY-2 not sure whether it was ever on offer or met IAF ASR
EL/M-2032. This I suspect AF finally chose after it proved itself on Jaguars.


So decision to import was made a long while back but mixing and matching our scanner on a radar backend was not easy and also, which radar firm to work with.

But you see, while ADA can reply to CAG that it cannot be held accountable for R&D and production delays by various PSU working on sub-systems of LCA Program as they don't control them, and there is no skin off anyone's back, IAF cannot afford these easy statements.


Which is the reality.

ADA could not even force the AF to cooperate. :mrgreen:
AF should ask a certain gent involved in the CWG issue about how this lack of power to ADA came to be.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby GeorgeWelch » 25 Apr 2016 23:39

indranilroy wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:
Because it's not worldwide, it is an Air India problem.

Is it? I am pretty sure you know to Google.


Dispatch reliability worldwide is now more than 99 percent.

400 have been delivered to 44 airlines around the world and only one airline has grounded a plane so it can be cannibalized for parts.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Karan M » 26 Apr 2016 00:03

rohitvats wrote:BTW, no one told the IAF that they should select a fighter whose manufacturer is the easiest one to negotiate with!


Isn't this common sense though? Why should the IAF choose somebody who is always difficult to work with.. question is who is easy then..

Thank God we've the CAG Report on LCA program! The uber-patriots on BRF otherwise had a field time blaming IAF for everything that was wrong with LCA. We now for a fact that the biggest culprit was the over ambitious targets and bad project management.


Over ambitious targets, many of which the IAF had a direct role in and which were worsened by the IAFs lack of participation in the program till very late.

Can you elaborate on the 'poor IAF vision'?


One concern about the IAF vision is clearly the lack of interest or focus being shown on dealing with LO/VLO targets. The Rafale for instance - its AESA size and consequently range will be less than that on the F/A-18 E/F and EF. Reports suggested even APG-80 on F-16 was ahead. This is clearly a case of bad ASR determination (130km range, based on RDY-2 for Mirage 2000-V original MMRCA) which should have been revised for MMRCA.

Also, EW pods. We simply don't know whether enough ability has been built for proper SEAD beyond basic self defense.

Also progress of ODL. It seems to have been stuck and very few reports on progress.

When Revenue budget issues were there, why push for an expensive acquisition like the Rafale?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 26 Apr 2016 01:44

GeorgeWelch wrote:Dispatch reliability worldwide is now more than 99 percent.

It is higher than that number for most aircrafts in service!

GeorgeWelch wrote:400 have been delivered to 44 airlines around the world and only one airline has grounded a plane so it can be cannibalized for parts.

Others havn't cannabalized their planes for parts. Really?!!! You sir, willingly, and knowingly obfuscate the facts. Sometimes it does make me wonder your relationship to Boeing. Some have. Others have kept their planes grounded. And the solution of the battery problem has been a cover up, quite literally! This is a list of operators woes from Wiki.

Operational problems
A Japan Airlines (JAL) 787 experienced a fuel leak on January 8, 2013, and its flight from Boston was canceled. On January 9, United Airlines reported a problem in one of its six 787s with the wiring near the main batteries. After these incidents, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board subsequently opened a safety probe. Later, on January 11, 2013, another aircraft was found to have a fuel leak.

Also on January 11, 2013, the FAA completed a comprehensive review of the 787's critical systems, including the design, manufacture and assembly; the Department of Transportation secretary Ray LaHood stated the administration was "looking for the root causes" behind the recent issues. The head of the FAA, Michael Huerta, said that so far nothing found "suggests [the 787] is not safe".

On January 13, 2013, a JAL 787 at Narita International Airport outside Tokyo was found to also have a fuel leak during an inspection, the third time a fuel leak had been reported within a week. The aircraft reportedly was the same one that had a fuel leak in Boston on January 8. This leak was caused by a different valve; the causes of the leaks are unknown.[329] Japan's transport ministry has also launched an investigation.

On July 12, 2013, a fire started on an empty Ethiopian Airlines 787 parked at Heathrow Airport before it was extinguished by the airport fire and rescue service. No injuries were reported. The fire caused extensive heat damage to the aircraft. The FAA and NTSB sent representatives to assist in the investigation. The initial investigation found no direct link with the aircraft's main batteries. Further investigations indicated that the fire was due to lithium-manganese dioxide batteries powering an emergency locator transmitter (ELT). The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) issued a special bulletin on July 18, 2013 requesting the US FAA ensure that the locator is removed or disconnected in Boeing 787s, and to review the safety of lithium battery-powered ELT systems in other aircraft types. On August 19, 2015, the Associated Press reported that the fire was started by a short circuit, caused by crossed wires located under the battery. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch's investigators recommended that "the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, together with similar bodies in Europe and Canada, should conduct a review of equipment powered by lithium metal batteries to ensure they have 'an acceptable level of circuit protection.'"

On July 26, 2013, ANA said it had found wiring damage on two 787 locator beacons. United Airlines also reported that it had found a pinched wire in one 787 locator beacon. On August 14, 2013, the media reported a fire extinguisher fault affecting three ANA airplanes, which was caused by a supplier assembly error.

On September 28, 2013, Norwegian Long Haul decided to take one of its two 787s in its fleet at the time out of service after the two aircraft broke down on more than six occasions in September. The company will lease an Airbus A340 for its long-haul operations while the 787 is returned to Boeing for repair. On December 20–22, 2013, Norwegian Long Haul experienced technical problems keeping two of its three 787 aircraft grounded at Fort Lauderdale airport and delayed six flights.

On November 22, 2013, Boeing issued an advisory to airlines using General Electric GEnx engines on 787 and 747-8 aircraft to avoid flying near high-level thunderstorms due to an increased risk of icing on the engines. The problem was caused by a buildup of ice crystals just behind the main fan, causing a brief loss of thrust on six occasions.

On January 21, 2014, a Norwegian Air Shuttle 787 experienced a fuel leak which caused a 19-hour delay to a flight from Bangkok to Oslo. Footage of the leak taken by passengers show fuel gushing out of the left wing of the aircraft. The leak became known to pilots only after it was pointed out by concerned passengers. It was found later that a faulty valve was responsible. This fuel leak is one of numerous problems experienced by Norwegian Air Shuttle's 787 fleet. Mike Fleming, Boeing's vice president for 787 support and services, subsequently met with executives of Norwegian Air Shuttle and expressed Boeing's commitment to improving the 787's dispatch reliability, "we’re not satisfied with where the airplane is today, flying at a fleet average of 98 percent... The 777 today flies at 99.4 percent ... and that's the benchmark that the 787 needs to attain”.

On September 24, 2015, Indian media reported that an Air India 787 Dreamliner (VT-AND) had been grounded since January 2015 and had been scavenged for parts due to their lack of availability. Air India's aircraft engineers' body advised against accepting further deliveries until Boeing resolved reliability issues. India's Minister of State for Civil Aviation Mahesh Sharma stated the reliability issues to India's Parliament.

On March 4, 2016, Ethiopian Airlines 787-8 registration ET-ASH performing Flight ET-702 from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to Rome Fiumicino, Italy, had its nose gear collapse before flight was ready to depart. A flight attendant received minor injuries and the aircraft was damaged.

Later in March 2016 the FAA accelerated the release of an airworthiness directive in response to reports indicating that in certain weather conditions "erroneous low airspeed may be displayed to the flightcrew". There was concern "abrupt pilot control inputs in this condition could exceed the structural capability of the airplane. Pilots were told not to apply “large, abrupt control column inputs” in the event of an “unrealistic” drop in displayed airspeed.

Battery problems
Main article: Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems

The Aft Electronics Bay that held the JAL 787 battery that caught fire

Japan Airlines 787 battery comparison; Left: typical original battery. Right: damaged battery.
On January 16, 2013, All Nippon Airways Flight NH-692, en route from Yamaguchi Ube Airport to Tokyo Haneda, had a battery problem warning followed by a burning smell while climbing from Ube about 35 nautical miles (65 km) west of Takamatsu, Japan. The aircraft diverted to Takamatsu and was evacuated via the slides; three passengers received minor injuries during the evacuation. Inspection revealed a battery fire. A similar incident in a parked Japan Airlines 787 at Boston's Logan International Airport within the same week led the Federal Aviation Administration to ground all Boeing 787s in service at the time.

On January 16, 2013, both major Japanese airlines ANA and JAL voluntarily grounded their fleets of 787s after multiple incidents involving different 787s, including emergency landings. At the time, these two carriers operated 24 of the 50 Dreamliners delivered. The grounding is reported to have cost ANA some 9 billion yen (US$93 million) in lost sales.

On January 16, 2013, the FAA issued an emergency airworthiness directive ordering all American-based airlines to ground their Boeing 787s until yet-to-be-determined modifications were made to the electrical system to reduce the risk of the battery overheating or catching fire. This was the first time that the FAA had grounded an airliner type since 1979. Industry experts disagreed on consequences of the grounding: Airbus was confident that Boeing would resolve the issue and that no airlines will switch plane type, while other experts saw the problem as "costly" and "could take upwards of a year".

The FAA also conducted an extensive review of the 787's critical systems. The focus of the review was on the safety of the lithium-ion batteries made of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCo). The 787 battery contract was signed in 2005, when LiCo batteries were the only type of lithium aerospace battery available, but since then newer and safer types (such as LiFePO), which provide less reaction energy during thermal runaway, have become available. FAA approved a 787 battery in 2007 with nine "special conditions". A battery approved by FAA (through Mobile Power Solutions) was made by Rose Electronics using Kokam cells; the batteries installed in the 787 are made by Yuasa.

On January 20, the NTSB declared that overvoltage was not the cause of the Boston incident, as voltage did not exceed the battery limit of 32 V, and the charging unit passed tests. The battery had signs of short circuiting and thermal runaway. Despite this, by January 24, the NTSB had not yet pinpointed the cause of the Boston fire; the FAA would not allow Dreamliners based in the U.S. to fly again until the problem was found and corrected. In a press briefing that day, NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said that the NTSB had found evidence of failure of multiple safety systems designed to prevent these battery problems, and stated that fire must never happen on an airplane.

The Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) has said on January 23 that the battery in ANA jets in Japan reached a maximum voltage of 31 V (below the 32 V limit like the Boston JAL 787), but had a sudden unexplained voltage drop to near zero. All cells had signs of thermal damage before thermal runaway. ANA and JAL had replaced several 787 batteries before the mishaps. As of January 29, 2013, JTSB approved the Yuasa factory quality control while the NTSB continues to look for defects in the Boston battery. The failure rate, with two major battery thermal runaway events in 100,000 flight hours, was much higher than the rate of one in 10 million flight hours that Boeing predicted.

The only American airline that operated the Dreamliner at the time was United Airlines, which had six. Chile's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGAC) grounded LAN Airlines' three 787s. The Indian Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) directed Air India to ground its six Dreamliners. The Japanese Transport Ministry made the ANA and JAL groundings official and indefinite following the FAA announcement. The European Aviation Safety Agency also followed the FAA's advice and grounded the only two European 787s operated by LOT Polish Airlines. Qatar Airways grounded their five Dreamliners. Ethiopian Airlines was the final operator to temporarily ground its four Dreamliners. By January 17, 2013, all 50 of the aircraft delivered to date had been grounded.

On January 18, Boeing halted 787 deliveries until the battery problem was resolved. On February 7, 2013, the FAA gave approval for Boeing to conduct 787 test flights to gather additional data. In February 2013, FAA oversight into the 2007 safety approval and certification of the 787 had come under scrutiny.

On March 7, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board released an interim factual report about the 787 battery fire at Boston's Logan Airport on January 7, 2013. The investigation stated that "heavy smoke and fire coming from the front of the APU battery case". Firefighters "tried fire extinguishing, but smoke and flame (flame size about 3 inches) did not stop".

Boeing completed its final tests on a revised battery design on April 5, 2013. Qatar Airways said it expected to have its Dreamliners back in revenue service by the end of April. The FAA approved Boeing's revised battery design with three additional, overlapping protection methods on April 19, 2013. The FAA published a directive on April 25 to provide instructions for retrofitting battery hardware before the 787s could return to flight. The repairs were expected to be completed in weeks.

Following the FAA approval in the U.S., Japan gave permission for passenger airlines to resume Boeing 787 flights in the country effective April 26, 2013. On April 27, 2013, Ethiopian Airlines took a 787 on the model's first commercial flight after battery system modifications.

On January 14, 2014, a battery in a JAL 787 emitted smoke from the battery's protection exhaust while the aircraft was undergoing pre-flight maintenance. The battery partially melted in the incident; one of its eight lithium-ion cells had its relief port vent and fluid sprayed inside the battery's container.[407] It was later reported that the battery may have reached a temperature as high as 1,220 °F (660 °C), and that Boeing did not understand the root cause of the failure.

The NTSB has criticized FAA, Boeing and the battery manufacturer for the faults; it also criticized the flight data recorder.


And recently.
FAA Says Boeing 787 Dreamliners Have 'Urgent Safety Issue'
But, hey! It is only Air India's fault.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby GeorgeWelch » 26 Apr 2016 01:53

indranilroy wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:400 have been delivered to 44 airlines around the world and only one airline has grounded a plane so it can be cannibalized for parts.

Others havn't cannabalized their planes for parts. Really?!!! You sir, willingly, and knowingly obfuscate the facts.


Please point out which other airline has converted a new 787 into a parts hulk

Yes, all airlines borrow parts from planes in emergencies, but it's a temporary situation and they are swiftly returned to the air.

Air India has kept their hulk grounded for the better part of a year. That is simply unprecedented. No one else has to do that.

indranilroy wrote: This is a list of operators woes from Wiki.


All old and solved.

indranilroy wrote:
And recently.


All aircraft have airworthiness directives issued against them.

This particular one is easy to perform and requires minimal downtime.

In other words it's a non-issue.

Again, all other airlines manage to keep their 787s in the air.
Last edited by GeorgeWelch on 26 Apr 2016 02:01, edited 1 time in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 26 Apr 2016 01:54

Karan M wrote:...

When Revenue budget issues were there, why push for an expensive acquisition like the Rafale?


One thing that has stood out over the last few years is that the armed forces, especially the IA and IAF, are not quite aligned with their own revenue-to-capital budgets. It seems how the new acquisitions/raising get paid for is left to the MoD/Finance Ministries. I mean how does raising of a Mountain Strike Crops (with 60,000+ new troops) get pushed for when revenue ratio is eating up something like 89% of its budget leaving only 11% for capital expenditure. There are funding shortages for equipment and their modernization all around. How will those get funded along with the new troops?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2016 08:25

This post is with reference to all the discussions about all the fancy stuff some people felt would be needed fro Close Air Support. Two answers from Quora about why Russia used dumb bombs in Syria
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Russia-usi ... s-in-Syria
The answer is very simple. It's not sustainable to kill $500 insurgents with $50,000 smart munitions.

Prosecuting an air war is expensive. Every flight hour an airframe undergoes puts it closer to retirement, adds a tangible amount of maintenance costs, and requires fuel, support, and manpower. It gets even worse when you're talking about combat operations, where you're carrying additional weight, burning greater amounts of fuel, dealing with untested weapons platforms like the SU-34, and deploying countermeasures while you try not to get shot down. Now, do that en masse, and sustain it over the course of weeks and months. There's a reason that even the U.S. seeks coalition support for extended air campaigns.

The U.S. equivalent guided bomb, the JDAM, costs $25,000, and isn't even purpose-built, it's a bolt-on guidance kit to an otherwise unguided bomb. It does the job extremely well, and Russian bombers doubtless are capable of high levels of precision with their equivalents.

But those levels of precision are not always necessary. When dealing with an enemy who has an unsophisticated air defense network, you can get the job done at lower altitudes, through traditional bombing runs. It's a gamble, of course -- you risk losing your aircraft. But there have been few reports of MANPADS used in the region, and Russia has allegedly already killed an ISIL-controled OSA surface-to-air missile launcher. (As an aside, since the OSA is of Russian manufacture, its capabilities and best practices to defeat it are well known to the Russian Air Force).
The FAB-500 unguided bomb can be released at as low altitudes as 500m and as high speeds as 1100 kph. It has a kill radius of 140 meters against infantry, and roughly half that for the light vehicles and trucks/technicals most commonly used. That's more than enough to to get the job done. And they exist in massive quantities across Eastern Europe as a result of decades of production.

Not only that, but you don't need an expensive SU-34 to drop them. Hell, you can drop them out of a Cessna. In the Soviet era, Mi-24 Hind helicopter crews became very adept at delivering iron bombs on fighters, with payload sizes ranging from 10x 100kg, 4x 250kg, or 2x 500kg bombs. And the cost per flight hour of an Mi-24 is WAY less than of an expensive supersonic bomber.


Smarts bombs require guidance (by definition), and guidance can be provided in several ways:

An on-the-ground source illuminating the target with a laser or infrared source.
Similar to the above, but from an aircraft/drone.
Satellite-navigation guidance.

Russia did use some smart bombs. For example, here's a single KAB-500 in Hmemim a few days ago.

But with the high pace of bombing, it would be very difficult to provide real-time on-the-ground guidance, even if sufficient intelligence resources were available (which is difficult/risky in itself when ISIS can decapitate anyone at will). As an aside, this is probably why the bombing campaigns by the US and France took some time - you need to find the targets, call out the bombers, and illuminate the targets at the right time.

Illumination from the air requires good initial guidance (usually ground-based) and much more high-tech technical means, which Russia most likely lacks. Unless the planes/drones hover in the area all day, targets can move and disappear. Syrian insurgents do not have many distinct military vehicles anymore and probably learned to camouflage them anyway.

Satellite imaging can be useful, but requires a number of satellites at the right place at the right time (which is difficult because imaging satellites cannot hover over a region), and has serious limitations in image resolution (often at least several meters) and bandwidth. This is why most militaries use drones for imaging (they fly lower and can hover over a region). Another point is that Russia does not have as many satellites as the US (not to mention that NATO nations share satellite data, while Russia doesn't have such partners).

Satellite guidance leaves you two options - the American GPS system and the Russian GLONASS system. GLONASS is currently not nearly as accurate as GPS. It may err by 10m horizontally and 15m vertically. This is not enough for a bunker-buster bomb to work. So, Russia would need to use GPS. However, a Russian general recently complained that GPS signals in Syria have been flaky - I wonder how that happened :) Even if you have a perfect sat nav signal, you need to get target's precise coordinates and hope it does not move - this leads to the same problems we discussed earlier.

Russian planes in Syria are generally older models Su-24 and Su-25 (with a few newer Su-34). They flow low, are loud and typically need daylight. What do you think people on the ground do if they see/hear a bomber in the air? They run away from whatever might be the target. This gives them about a minute of time before bombs impact, which is more than enough time to run away from a precision bomb. But not from a fragmentation/area bomb.

So, if ISIS avoids using stationary assets and moves things around with proper camouflage, an intense bombing campaign using Russian hardware will quickly run out of good targets. Hence, the use of area bombing against suspected troops formations.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cybaru » 26 Apr 2016 09:32

^ great find shiv!

Perhaps the LCH and Dhruv will be qualified with the (4-8) 50/100/120 kg free fall bombs as well. They can attain quite a high ceiling level with full load(+15000 ft, beyond manpad range) and can hoover, isolate and laze using built in sensor. Can act as target classifier, designator and dropper at the same time depending upon the battlefield conditions ofcourse.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 26 Apr 2016 13:07

Russians didn't give a damn about civilian casualties. So they used area weapons taking out everything in a vicinity. Western way has tended to limit collateral damage and have moved towards smaller warheads with more precision.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 26 Apr 2016 13:38

Westerners worried about collateral damage.That's a good joke,considering their torture camps worldwide,rendition flights,etc. and favourite pastime of blowing to smithereens wedding parties in Af-Pak! To be fair to both Russians and Americans, their conscientious commanders might worry about it,esp hitting hospitals in crowded urban areas,which the Israelis have to contend with in Gaza,etc.,but the top political brass? Nyet,Nope! Remember Vietnam? "We had to destroy the village in order to save it.."

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9259
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby brar_w » 26 Apr 2016 13:54

Aviation Week article from last November on the 787, particularly Boeing's targets for dispatch reliability, where they were at the time, and benchmark to the 777:

With Better Dispatch Reliability, Boeing 787 Deliveries Reach 350

Two years is a long time in the early life of any new airliner. For Boeing’s 787, the second half of the aircraft’s almost four years of service life contrasts sharply with the first, showing a marked climb towards the reliability levels the manufacturer, and its customers, have targeted from the start.

The upturn in fleet dispatch reliability has been accomplished after a difficult beginning. Following service entry in 2011, the 787 suffered more than its fair share of teething troubles for the first two years when its early operational life was impacted by a variety of software and systems nuisances. Far more seriously, the aircraft hit problems with lithium-ion battery overheating incidents which led to a four-month grounding in 2013 and a follow-on retrofit program.

Since those dark early days for the 787, the improvement in reliability has been constant, though still not as fast as Boeing would have hoped. The drive has been complicated over the intervening period by the introduction of the 787-9, the first major family derivative, as well as the rapid growth in the overall numbers of aircraft and operators. Since the first aircraft entered service with All Nippon Airways (ANA) in November 2011, almost 350 have been accepted into revenue service with 41 airlines and have carried over 67 million passengers. The production pipeline is also supplying aircraft faster, following an increase in the monthly build-rate from five per month in November 2012 to 10 in January 2014.“We are just below the 99% dispatch reliability level right now,” says Mike Fleming, Boeing’s 787 vice president for services and support. “When you look at the numbers for schedule reliability, you have to look deeper. If you look back a couple of years to the summer of 2013, we had nine operators at that time. Only one was above 98%, the majority were below that. Then by mid-2014 we had 20 airlines flying the 787 and four of them that year were at 99%. Of the others eight were between 98% and 99%, and eight below 98%.”

At the same time the average utilization went from 5 hr. in 2013 to 12 hr. in 2014, “representing more than double the utilization of the fleet,” adds Fleming. “By this summer [2015] we had 31 operators and the daily utilization rate was 12 hr. Of the operators most were at 99%, 18 were between 98% and close to 99%, and only four operators were below 98%. So the fleet continues to move up and to the right on reliability and utilization—airlines are flying it a bit more.” However, work continues to raise reliability across the entire fleet. “If you are one of those below 98%, then you’re therefore not happy and we are driving as hard as we can to get the fleet average over 99%,” says Fleming. Boeing’s internal dispatch reliability target for the worldwide 787 fleet is 99.2%.

The Boeing 777 remains the yardstick by which the 787 performance is measured, but the comparison is blurred by the far faster growth of the latter fleet. “We are just under where the 777 was at this period in time,” says Fleming. “We’ve closed on it significantly this year and I’d say we are about there. However, back in those days on the 777 we were at about 200 aircraft, so relative to that we have delivered about 50% more aircraft and are seeing many more operators.” Fleming adds that it took Boeing “five years to go over 99% on a sustained basis [for the 777] and in November we’re coming up to the fourth year in service for the 787. We’d like to have it happen a lot sooner.”
A key reason for the improvement includes the introduction of simplified display and control (DCA) software which in mid-2014 was cited as the third-largest cause of delays after issues with spoiler control units and brakes. “Since then we’ve rolled out a couple of block [software] changes,” says Fleming. “We continue to track every interruption on the fleet and the engineering teams review it to understand if it’s a known or a new problem. Over the last two years, the rate of new problems has come down on the aircraft. Once we know about them we are devising improvements,” adds Fleming, who says that the main focus for improvements is now on elements of the flight controls, electrical system, software and air conditioning system. The key issues are “a combination of things. Most are component problems as opposed to system problems or integration issues.”

One such example is component issues specific to one of the two electro-mechanical brake systems. The 787 is offered with a choice of brakes from either United Technology Aerospace Systems or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty. “We’ve had problems with components. One has performed better than the other and one system has had issues,” says Fleming who declines to identify the supplier. “We understand the issues and have developed fixes, mostly through component changes and architecture improvements.” To counter issues in the near-term with elevated brake temperatures and to reduce the frequency of brake temperature warning messages, Boeing has advised operators to use Flaps 30 for approach, use lower autobrake settings and apply maximum reverse thrust on touchdown. A software update will be introduced by the end of the year, with hardware improvements in early 2016, adds Boeing.

Air conditioning system pack improvements are also in the wings. “There have been times when the system didn’t perform as we had intended and we had to make changes,” says Fleming. The main problems have been failures of the ram air fan and some of the unit’s blades. The ram air fan cooling duct forms part of the ram system inlet which cools the power electric cooling system, a vital part of the 787’s extensive electrical systems architecture. “There have been problems with FOD [foreign object damage] getting into the inlet duct in the heat exchanger and we get surges, and failures of the fan blades as well as some electrical problems with the fan itself. FOD in the duct caused the failures because of restricted cooling,” he adds.

“We moved the inlet of the cooling duct to make it less likely to have FOD problems and updated the software to change the operating schedule,” says Fleming. The pack upgrades will be available in the spring of 2016.

Improvements have also been introduced to the insulation for the traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS), part of the Rockwell Collins ISS-2100 Integrated Surveillance System which also includes weather radar, transponder and terrain awareness in one system. “There have been issues with a couple of aspects, mostly the TCAS,” says Fleming. “Moisture was getting into the antenna or cables and there was subsequent loss of the system. We made changes to the antenna and have installed blankets around where the cables go to get rid of the moisture. We have gotten most of the changes released and now in service,” he adds.

Issues with water leaks have also cropped up in aircraft lavatories. Operators reported leaks occurring as a result of the hot water heater overpressurization valve failing. Replacement valves have been developed and sink cabinets redesigned to enable easier access to shutoff valves.Externally, the 787’s composite structure is meeting design requirements and withstanding the ever-present threat of inadvertent damage from collisions with ground vehicles and objects, or “ramp rash.” “It is where we thought we’d be and we are happy with that,” says Fleming. “Composites are durable and absorbing damage and we are not having to do anything about it. Two, when we do repairs they are fairly easy to do. One operator even had a truck drive into the aircraft and it physically moved the aircraft, but it was inspected and suffered no damage so it flew away.” Similarly the skin holds up as predicted to lightning strikes. “The majority we don’t have to do any repairs and in some cases we’ve put speed tape over the burn area before making full repairs. We used to talk about it a lot with airlines but now we don’t talk about it much anymore.”

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby deejay » 26 Apr 2016 17:34

The idea that (specifically in case of Syria) Russians did not care for Syrian casualties and hence used dumb bombs is not supported by facts.

In fact it is (IMHO) a major victory of western propaganda that people have bought onto this line of argument. I've (and a few others on BRF) have now followed the Syrian conflict in depth at least for the period of Russian involvement. So far we have not documented significant reports of collateral damage apart from a few claims which were not supported by facts.

It will be naive to believe that collateral damage has not been there but it is certainly not on a scale of that is often projected. Such collateral damage has also been credited to the smart bomb - precision strike (US led) Coalition forces.

This is not an attempt to be pro Russia or pro US. It is important that correct lessons be drawn from such conflicts. An overdose of US style of fighting digested since the 1st Gulf War without any contrarian example on a large scale had convinced everyone that solution lies in the uber expensive and uber technical domain of Western weapon systems.

Syrian battle field has shown that one can do a lot with lesser money. US spent US$ 500 million in training rebels who deserted or surrendered before fighting. When Putin announced partial withdrawal from Syria, Russians quoted US$450 million as their cost of air campaign and other assistance to Syrians.

US has a US $ 500 billion defence budget. Their half a trillion dollar defence budget confers a lot of luxury and choice with weapons they use. Those with smaller budgets will have to find a balance in developing, owning and use of high end precision weapons and dumb bombs to pursue military objectives within their economic means.


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2016 20:02

deejay wrote:It will be naive to believe that collateral damage has not been there but it is certainly not on a scale of that is often projected. Such collateral damage has also been credited to the smart bomb - precision strike (US led) Coalition forces.

Attended a talk by Lt Gen (retd) Surendranath a few days ago. He pointed out that if we do hit a Pak training camp civilian casualties are to be expected because the modus operandi of terrorists is to work among civilians.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Lalmohan » 26 Apr 2016 23:38

civilian deaths in airstrikes matter less if they are serbians or houthis or... whoever is on the other team...

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby member_23370 » 27 Apr 2016 00:17

These are paki civilians right? So what if there are causalities? If they are Shias and Kashmiris against pakistan then use them for intel.

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 790
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Suresh S » 27 Apr 2016 03:46

srai wrote:Russians didn't give a damn about civilian casualties. So they used area weapons taking out everything in a vicinity. Western way has tended to limit collateral damage and have moved towards smaller warheads with more precision.



more than a million dead in Iraq, between quarter to half a million dead in syria and counting, thousands dead in Libya and 1-2 million dead in Vietnam. All unnecesary wars and you sir talking about west trying to avoid civilian casualties. Most casualties in all these unnecessary wars were civilians

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 27 Apr 2016 04:01

snahata wrote:
srai wrote:Russians didn't give a damn about civilian casualties. So they used area weapons taking out everything in a vicinity. Western way has tended to limit collateral damage and have moved towards smaller warheads with more precision.



more than a million dead in Iraq, between quarter to half a million dead in syria and counting, thousands dead in Libya and 1-2 million dead in Vietnam. All unnecesary wars and you sir talking about west trying to avoid civilian casualties. Most casualties in all these unnecessary wars were civilians


War is evil and that should be plain and simple. No one is justifying it. Every world power has done it for their own gains.

All I'm stating is the evolution of weapons to smaller and precise to do less collateral damage. You can call that hypocrisy if you want. It's an costly affair that the Western airforces have embarked on at least with the right intent. The Russians are still using area weapons for those tasks--one can expect more collateral damage. At the end, both do the job and how much civilian causality was worth it to achieve it is open for debate.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Apr 2016 05:13

I should not be bringing this up but the whole premise of Western Universalism is that "We are more gentle and more civilized and we will not kill noncombatants". Hypocrisy or not many opposing combatants embed themselves among civilians and a soldier is forced to make the choice of killing non combatants.

Lt Gen Surendranath's talk last week described the story that was even discussed here (although we were supportive of the army view)

A young soldier was standing on the street in Kashmir when a whole crowd of women in Burqas started walking towards him. Here was this soldier who had no clue how to react, so he just stood his ground, weapon in hand. The crowd cane right up to him and one woman held the barrel of the gun and gave it a hard tug and that action caused the pulling of the trigger and the woman died. Simultaneously two terrorists from a house nearby started shooting at the army. The house had to be brought down to get them

The US has chosen not to put its men on the ground and at risk in such situations. They hit from far away and any civilian casualties are generally not admitted. The IA can't do that in Kashmir. The Indian Army's method is even more accurate than PGMs and does even less collateral damage but we lose more soldiers.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3633
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Kashi » 27 Apr 2016 08:29

shiv wrote:The US has chosen not to put its men on the ground and at risk in such situations. They hit from far away and any civilian casualties are generally not admitted. The IA can't do that in Kashmir. The Indian Army's method is even more accurate than PGMs and does even less collateral damage but we lose more soldiers.


There lies the rub. Unkil is very sensitive to body bags arriving in droves from abroad ala Vietnam. The areas of operation are far away and less need to put boots on the ground.

We on the other hand lose our fine soldiers to avoid collateral damage to a bunch who spit, froth and fume at them while screaming azadi inshallah on our own soil.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ramana » 27 Apr 2016 09:33

KaranM or Deejay
Is the Gsh-301 available in pod form for IAF? Can LCA use that for ground attack against tanks etc?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12411
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Aditya_V » 27 Apr 2016 09:40

Even In Vietnam, Uncle tried to avoid its casualties, they did a lot of carpet bombing. Uncle is the ultimate controller of media who are expert in white washing crimes and hiding facts.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Austin » 27 Apr 2016 10:24

If you are fighting a widely dispersed jihadi on a mountain or plain or jihadis trying to spread out after hearing an aircraft approach them , then accurately dropping few dumb bomb with wide dispersed pattern would produce better effect even with CEP of 15-20 m , OTOH if you know there are selective HVT target in some house then dropping PGM makes sense. In Syria you had to fight both the types more of the former then latter and both types of weapons were used.

You cant escape Physiological effect of few 250/150 kg bomb falling in your vicinity in dozens and hoping the shrapnel dont hurt you , that sort of physiological pressure on terrorist would take its own toll in long run and their will to fight

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Kersi D » 27 Apr 2016 13:44

shiv wrote:
deejay wrote:It will be naive to believe that collateral damage has not been there but it is certainly not on a scale of that is often projected. Such collateral damage has also been credited to the smart bomb - precision strike (US led) Coalition forces.

Attended a talk by Lt Gen (retd) Surendranath a few days ago. He pointed out that if we do hit a Pak training camp civilian casualties are to be expected because the modus operandi of terrorists is to work among civilians.


But terrorists are also civilians ? peaceful civilians quietly going about their work without much ado.

Ask any sicularists in India, he / she (especially) will fully agree with me

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Kersi D » 27 Apr 2016 13:47

snahata wrote:
srai wrote:Russians didn't give a damn about civilian casualties. So they used area weapons taking out everything in a vicinity. Western way has tended to limit collateral damage and have moved towards smaller warheads with more precision.



more than a million dead in Iraq, between quarter to half a million dead in syria and counting, thousands dead in Libya and 1-2 million dead in Vietnam. All unnecesary wars and you sir talking about west trying to avoid civilian casualties. Most casualties in all these unnecessary wars were civilians


If non combatants are killed by Russians it is definitely civilian casaulties

But if non combatants are killed by Westerners it is just co lateral damage

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Viv S » 27 Apr 2016 14:02

ramana wrote:Is the Gsh-301 available in pod form for IAF? Can LCA use that for ground attack against tanks etc?


GSh-301 gun pod:

Image


Out of production now AFAIK. Best bet would be a specialized type developed by ARDE (possibly based on GSh drawings) or a customized variant of the podded 25 mm GAU-22/A.

In either case, for tank busting, you're still better off employing a PGM (preferably from standoff ranges). The Tejas can take out upto 8 MBT/APCs in a single sortie with a twin set of Spice 250s.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Karan M » 27 Apr 2016 15:02

If those spice 250s even work as advertised and don't sit rotting in some AF munitions depot.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 27 Apr 2016 16:30

If low quantities held, then it will be used sparingly. In the Kargil war, the IAF nursed its Paveway-2s quite a bit. It was used only a handful of times. Most of the time Mirage-2000s would return with it.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srin » 27 Apr 2016 16:49

What's the probability of success of a 30mm round be against tank armour ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 27 Apr 2016 16:55

most effective would be integrate quad pack Helinas into the Tejas, m2k, mig29 and mki weapons portfolio like the british did with brimstone on the tornado.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Apr 2016 18:13

ramana wrote:KaranM or Deejay
Is the Gsh-301 available in pod form for IAF? Can LCA use that for ground attack against tanks etc?

Ramana You probably know that the GSh 23 was podded/can be podded. I suspect that even if the 30 mm is podded it will cause severe vibrations and will be inaccurate. Guns on aircraft have the problem that the entire goodam aircrfat has to be pointed at the target. However I do believe that rockets in pods carry more lethality and firepower than guns and are probably more lethal over a larger area. I think they probably disperse more and for that reason are less effective than guns in air to air combat. But they can come with armour piercing warheads so they can be pretty deadly and do not have the vibration issues that guns have.

I think even the MiG 21 can carry 4 pods with 18 (or 24?) rockets each - making the magic number 72 which is more lethal than the 150 rounds or so that are typically carried with cannon.

Some rocket pods and mijjiles in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SjkG-Ipd4Q

DexterM
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 372
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby DexterM » 27 Apr 2016 20:54

Saw a white + Red body turboprop flying into HAL. Was at a conference with clients so could not verify that that distance.
Hoping it is the HTT40 although I would expect it to be Yellow primered at this point.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Karan M » 27 Apr 2016 23:19

Other accomplishments by Shri Tyagi as i recall. Moving a certain Indian program from 8 Squadrons to 2, until and unless its Indian developers signed off on the MRSAM program. Subsequently, he was to be Tata Nova IAIs rep in India. No conflict of interest at all. Interesting that today, that program is back to 15 squadrons.
Did a lot of jaw jaw on Siachen. Was countered by fellow retirees.
And of course the AW "scam"

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/form ... 50778.html

How 8 choppers became 12 under former Indian Air Force chief of staff S.P. Tyagi
Senior defence officers say such deals are a drawn-out process and records clearly show that Tyagi was a key player when the acquisition process was under way.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Karan M » 27 Apr 2016 23:23

This was a time in coming. We've had the Adarsh imbroglio with ex chiefs implicated (and the whole matter shunted under the table under UPA), then a serving chief threatened in his own establishment and shunted out when he spoke up. Now this.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cosmo_R » 28 Apr 2016 02:35

Viv S wrote:...

In either case, for tank busting, you're still better off employing a PGM (preferably from standoff ranges). The Tejas can take out upto 8 MBT/APCs in a single sortie with a twin set of Spice 250s.


If the Tejas carried a couple of CBU-105s, it would do the job too.

Interesting to note this:

"While the bomb was designed during the Cold War for fighter-bombers flying at low altitude below radar cover to attack Soviet tanks, a single B-52 high altitude heavy bomber can destroy an entire armored division with these bombs, where in the past dozens of aircraft would have had to drop hundreds of bombs for the same effect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Se ... zed_Weapon

We have CBU-105s for the Jaguar.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Mihir » 28 Apr 2016 02:44

Viv S wrote:Out of production now AFAIK. Best bet would be a specialized type developed by ARDE (possibly based on GSh drawings) or a customized variant of the podded 25 mm GAU-22/A.

In either case, for tank busting, you're still better off employing a PGM (preferably from standoff ranges). The Tejas can take out upto 8 MBT/APCs in a single sortie with a twin set of Spice 250s.

And to add to that, 30mm cannon is no longer effective against tanks. Even the A-10's DU shells cannot penetrate modern tank armour. You need a missile or a bomb.

Even better than the Spice, load it up with a couple of CBU-105s. Under the right circumstances, it could take out an entire battalion.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ramana » 28 Apr 2016 02:55

CBU-105s look good in videos.
Read tsarkar comment in the Su-30 thread.
The UXB makes them deadly for own troops.

Need some more effective armor killing weapons.
The rockets have dispersal and very low kill probability
.

Need to have a guidance section added to them or guided small bombs.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 28 Apr 2016 05:09

Cosmo_R wrote:a single B-52 high altitude heavy bomber can destroy an entire armored division with these bombs, where in the past dozens of aircraft would have had to drop hundreds of bombs for the same effect."

Typical Amriki hype. As long as the armoured division consists of a row of tanks 3-4 abreast and several km long. I had posted a news item where an American reporter had spoken of ""awesome unguided rockets raining 2.5 inch death" . In 20 years of watching IAF videos of MiG 21s firing unguided rockets that I have never read anyone put it in that way. This is the standard way in which American weapons are introduced - that they will win wars entirely on their own. I wish Indians would learn to add at least 10% of the masala of pride that Americans add to what they produce

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 28 Apr 2016 06:27

^^^

True. Indian products lack that type of marketing hype. "Brochuritist" is really due to this perception battle. Hopefully, with the big Indian private players entering the MIC that would change in a big way. They would spend money on marketing and sales unlike DPSUs.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests