Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

[Austin]

IN is better of building one or two Vikrant class to build up on what it knows and to do it more quickly , if they have 3 AC then atleast they can keep 2 operational most of time , Amortize the cost and build common logistics foot print to operate vikrant class plus its airfleet ,helicopter etc Post that they can plan to build lager N powerd carrier.

[amit]

IN is better of building one or two Vikrant class to build up on what it knows and to do it more quickly , if they have 3 AC then atleast they can keep 2 operational most of time , Amortize the cost and build common logistics foot print to operate vikrant class plus its airfleet ,helicopter etc Post that they can plan to build lager N powerd carrier.

But question is, which planes are going to fly off "one or two Vikrant class" carriers? Apart from Philip, I think everyone else have lost faith in the MiG29 as a carrier fighter option. And still no Hawkeye type of plane that the Navy appears to desperately desire.

Folks should realise that a carrier complex is not just about the ship, it's also about the aviation wing. When you build a military airport you do so keeping in mind the planes that you want for use from the airport. It's clear that the Navy (and rightly so IMO) wants more capable planes with heavier payloads/fuel load flying from the decks of its future carriers. The two present carriers are stopgap measure in some respects.

[Philip]

There are only 3 options.More 29Ks (if supposed problems are sorted out,with the RuN also acquiring them any glitch will have to be rectified otherwise Putin will send a sharp object up MIG's backside!),at around $35M a pop,Rafale_M at $200M+ a pop,F-18-SHs,not less than $70M+ (which have serious cockpit oxygen problems -defect unable to detect, says latest report),which should be able to use a ski-jump/STOBAR ops. The JSF is not mentioned becos it hasn't been offered and most likely will not be,too many intrusive/tech secrets hassles.Even best poodle,the UK isn't getting the definitive US version.

NLCA if it ever arrives the desi hopeful,Sea Gripen more likely to arrive earlier if we're serious about it and the Gripen wins the SE contest. They now have to counter the Tat-F-16 JV announced today. Come 2025,we should see prototypes flying of the T-50 naval variant meant for Russia's future carriers.This could be considered for our future "super carriers",is we ever decide to build them.

DRDO plays true to form.NO AIP modules for the last 2 Scorpenes says DCNS,becos the DRDO hasn't perfected its AIP system as yet. DRDO "tall talk" prevented us from getting at least the MESMA system (which Pak is using in its French Agosta 90-Bs!) when the deal was sealed.It was expected that in the intervening 5 years,7+ now,the DRDO would "walk the talk".It simply hasn't like many of its other tall claims.more's the pity.The IN is now at a distinct disadvantage with regard to both Pak and China-who have the Swedish Stirling AIP engine aboard their latest subs,also being given to Pak.Several other Asian nations such as SoKo,Malaysia,etc. also possess AIP subs. The sub danger to India is going to become even more acute with this latest report about the China-Pak combine.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 106353.ece

NATIONAL
Scorpene submarines to join Navy without AIP modules
Dinakar Peri NEW DELHI, JUNE 20, 2017
A file photo of the submarine Khanderi at Mazagon Dock in Mumbai.PTIPTI
It enables them to stay underwater for longer span

Contrary to expectations, the last two Scorpene submarines will roll out of the manufacturing line without the Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system meant to extend the reach of the conventional diesel-electric submarines.

“We have studied their solution (AIP system of DRDO)… They need more measures to make it a safe plug… For the fifth and sixth submarines it is too late,” Bernard G. Buisson, managing director of DCNS said in a conversation with The Hindu .

The AIP module is not part of the original Scorpene contract but the Navy has been keen on having them fitted on the last two of the six Scorpene submarines being manufactured by Mazgaon Docks Limited (MDL) in Mumbai.

The AIP module is being developed by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and was supposed to be installed before the submarines roll out. However, a delay in development seems to scuttle the plan. The module enables conventional submarines to stay remain underwater for a longer duration greatly increasing the submarines stealth characteristics.

Install during refit
Mr. Buisson said that now the only option of installing the AIP system is during the refit of the submarine, which is six years after induction. The normal refit of the submarines is scheduled six years after induction, and major refit is after 12 years after induction. However, it is still not clear if the Navy wants to go ahead with the plan as it would mean opening up of the hulls of the submarines.

Meanwhile, DRDO officials said that the prototype of the AIP system is ready and the programme could be pushed forward once a production agency is identified to manufacture it.

As reported by The Hindu recently, with the Strategic Partnership model for procurement of key platforms finalised recently, the Navy is not keen on ordering any additional Scorpenes and instead fasttrack the tender for procurement of new line of submarines under Project-75I.

On the Project-75I, Mr. Buisson said the DCNS was ideally positioned as they have a diverse set of submarines on offer which can be quickly customised for Indian requirements. The second line of submarines, which will be built in India, will be more advanced than the Scorpenes with AIP and missiles with land attack capability.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/china ... st-n772711

China May Soon Establish Naval Base in U.S. Ally Pakistan
by WAJAHAT S. KHAN

LONDON — Nuclear-armed Pakistan is a key ally of the United States — but the relationship is far from untroubled. And one of Washington's main geopolitical rivals appears ready to step in.

The Pentagon is warning that the Islamic republic may soon house a Chinese military base.

Image: PLA navy war Ships arrive in Karachi, Pakistan
Pakistan's Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Muhammad Zakaullah salutes China's People's Liberation Army marines upon their arrival in Karachi, Pakistan, on June 10. Pakistan Navy via Twitter
While the U.S. gives Islamabad hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, the two countries are not on the same page when it comes to fighting terrorism or ending the war in Afghanistan.

A report released earlier this month suggested that Beijing would likely turn to countries such as Pakistan as it seeks to project its economic and military power abroad.

The Pentagon didn't provide a time frame for such a move. However, a senior Pakistani diplomat confirmed to NBC News that his country invited China to build a naval facility on its territory back in 2011.

“What better way for China to demonstrate clout than to build a military base right in your rival's backyard?”
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the diplomat said this request came just days after U.S. Navy SEALs conducted a secret raid to kill Osama bin Laden in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, when relations between Washington and Islamabad took a nosedive.

Despite the reports, China's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying dismissed the idea of a Chinese base in Pakistan as "conjecture" and "irresponsible remarks."

But Western experts and Pakistani officials see it as a distinct possibility.

Shifting Ties
Soon after 9/11, Washington and Islamabad drew closer. The U.S. lavished Pakistan with military and civilian aid, and in return Pakistan granted the U.S. forward bases for military operations in Afghanistan and drone strikes in its own tribal areas.

But more recently Pakistan has become more estranged from the U.S. and the West because of continued allegations that it harbors militant groups. It's also accused of not doing everything it can to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table over the war in Afghanistan.

In addition, Western countries are more interested in doing business with India, which is Pakistan's arch-rival and a regional strategic competitor to China.

Where the West has withdrawn, China has stepped in.

Image: Graphic showing the proposed new "Silk Road"
China's "Belt and Road" plan would be the world's largest infrastructure program. Paul Cheung / NBC News
Pakistan is set to play an important role in China's "Belt and Road," a $1.4-trillion global trade plan that analysts say could shift the center of global economy and challenge the current U.S.-led order.

Islamabad is banking on receiving more than $50 billion in Chinese loans and grants in relation to this initiative. Its part of the trade route — known as the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC — would connect the landlocked Chinese province of Xinjiang to the Indian Ocean and some of the world's most important maritime corridors.

Common Enemy
The Chinese-Pakistan alliance also makes sense in terms of their shared rivalry with India.

"What better way for China to demonstrate clout than to build a military base right in your rival's backyard?" said Michael Kugelman, a senior associate at the Wilson Center.

All three countries have nuclear weapons, and some experts have long since worried that ongoing skirmishes between India and Pakistan could one day boil over into a nuclear war — although this remains a worst-case-scenario.

Related: $46B Project Reveals Chinese Power Play in Pakistan

Because Pakistan has a smaller conventional army than India's, a Chinese base on its soil could help the Islamic republic compete with its old Hindu rival.

"We need an equalizer against India … Previously, it was the U.S. and Saudi [Arabia]. Now, it's China," one Pakistani intelligence official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Image: Chinese warships arrive in Karachi, Pakistan
Chinese warships arrive in Karachi, Pakistan, on June 10. Pakistan Navy via Twitter
China has already riled the U.S. and its allies after constructing several man-made islands on reefs and rock formations in the disputed South China Sea.

With overlapping territorial claims from China, Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines, this body of water is home to rich energy and fishing reserves and around $5 trillion of sea-borne trade passes through it each year.

Pakistan's role in China's global trade plans means a military base would make sense. The Chinese "may have strong incentives to protect their assets," said Sameer Lalwani, a research fellow at the Stimson Center, a think tank based in Washington.

"Chinese deployments in Pakistan could range from Chinese intelligence personnel, naval forces in ports like Gwadar, air forces to support missions in Central Asia, or even special forces or counterterrorism strike capabilities," he said.

Image: Map showing Gwadar, Pakistan
A map showing the location of Gwadar, Pakistan. Google Maps
Gwadar already has a commercial port built and operated by Chinese authorities and was touted by one high-ranking Pakistani military official as a possible site for the Chinese base. The other two potential locations are Jiwani and Ormara.

All three are close to the vital Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf.

Signs of Strain
Even though China calls Pakistan its "Iron Brother" and "All Weather Friend," Beijing's patience has also been tested. Last week, ISIS claimed that it killed two Chinese teachers who were abducted in Balochistan in May.

Such incidents have prompted Pakistan to beef up security around Chinese citizens involved in the infrastructure splurge. The army has raised two new infantry divisions, speckled with commando, paramilitary and police units, to protect Chinese workers.

Related: China's 'Money Game' Woos Allies Away from Neighbor

As a show of force and unity, three Chinese warships docked on Saturday for a training mission at the Pakistani port of Karachi, where China is already manufacturing four attack submarines as part of a larger arms deal.

But there are other sensitivities involved.

"There is a firm opinion against any bases being given to any foreign country inside Pakistan. We've seen what happened when we gave such rights to the Americans," said Lt. General Javed Ashraf, retired chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, the country's intelligence agency known as the ISI. "This is not only what the general public feels, but the Pakistani forces are also opposed to the idea."

Wajahat S. Khan and Alexander Smith reported from London. Eric Baculinao reported from Beijing.

[amit]

There are only 3 options.More 29Ks (if supposed problems are sorted out,with the RuN also acquiring them any glitch will have to be rectified otherwise Putin will send a sharp object up MIG's backside!),at around $35M a pop,Rafale_M at $200M+ a pop,F-18-SHs,not less than $70M+ (which have serious cockpit oxygen problems -defect unable to detect, says latest report),which should be able to use a ski-jump/STOBAR ops. The JSF is not mentioned becos it hasn't been offered and most likely will not be,too many intrusive/tech secrets hassles.Even best poodle,the UK isn't getting the definitive US version.

You never disappoint with entertainment value of your posts! So it's supposed problems for the MiGs and defect unable to detect for what is arguably the best and most successful (as of now) carrier based plane in the world. Lage raho!

Come 2025,we should see prototypes flying of the T-50 naval variant meant for Russia's future carriers.This could be considered for our future "super carriers",is we ever decide to build them.

More Russian stuff for you to fantasize about? Are you even sure that come 2025 Russians will have any aircraft carriers? And yes I'm sure T-50s would look good in the - what was you figure? - 8,9 Chinese carriers that would be sailing around the world. Meanwhile we desi dhoti shiverers will be looking up to our own navalised version of the AMCA.

And yes Philip a friendly challenge for you. Please come up with one of you long winded posts explaining how a heavy plane like T-50 would be able to fly off a angled deck carrier with full arms and fuel load - Ok let's make easier for you, with a load and fuel equivalent to the F-18s, you know the ones that have defect unable to detect stuff. And yes we are talking about 65K ton carriers like the sole Russian steam generator, err I mean carrier, that is sailing today, the mighty Admiral Kuznetsov

The IN is now at a distinct disadvantage with regard to both Pak and China-who have the Swedish Stirling AIP engine aboard their latest subs,also being given to Pak.Several other Asian nations such as SoKo,Malaysia,etc. also possess AIP subs. The sub danger to India is going to become even more acute with this latest report about the China-Pak combine.

Yes, yes we know the solution. Buy more Russian stuff.

[brar_w]

One thing looks more and more certain. The IN's desire to seek a competition for a naval fighter, even though they intend on buying around 50 (less than half of the original MMRCA) does not bode well for the MiG-29, whether that is the MiG-29PS, or MiG-29 Backside. This one is likely to be one between the Rafale-M and the Super Hornet. And no, the Gripen is not a serious contender for one the integration challenge is going to be SIGNIFICANT for an OEM that has never ever done something like this. They aren't even willing to begin flight testing a new radar without first securing a customer for it, how the hell are they going to risk_reduce on a naval variant prior to having billions handed to them? Not happening..Same for any other non existent naval variant on the F-16, typhoon etc etc.

And Phillip, the Super Hornet's Physiological episode problem is going to have to be solved rather soon (it's being baked into law by the Congress) and there are ways to address that since its a major USN program (more than 600 delivered aircraft) but regardless there are ways a foreign customer can work around these as in going to a different supplier (France) or different delivery mechanism.


BTW, IAF's Hawks share the same OBOGGS technology and systems with those with the USN and USAF. They chose to go towards a different anti-G valve supplier on the F-35 compared to the F-22 since it was a major issue identified there. That supplier is from France, and also supplies the same for the Rafale's system so hopefully the new issues aren't valve related or else both the premium suppliers of the same in the west would have had issues at one time or another.

[Austin]

But question is, which planes are going to fly off "one or two Vikrant class" carriers? Apart from Philip, I think everyone else have lost faith in the MiG29 as a carrier fighter option. And still no Hawkeye type of plane that the Navy appears to desperately desire.

That is something IN will figure it out based on the current RFI they have sent , They are aware of 29K pro and cons and as professional service they would weigh in Rafale ( probably IAF might give them inputs here ) and Shornet.

It will boil down to Numbers , Affordability and Capability and IN would be the best judge that.

[amit]

It will boil down to Numbers , Affordability and Capability and IN would be the best judge that.

+100

I would just like to add that we are talking about ships that will join service in the 2025-2030s timeframe and are expected to serve the IN for around 40 years that is up to 2070 or so. IN will plan its requirements based to the three above criteria as it will apply in the 2030s timeframe and not according to the requirements (and affordability) as it exists today.

That's the reason why IN is looking at what appears to be (as of today) expensive options like Emals and N-power. I've said this upteen number of times and I'll saying it again. By 2030s India will be either the No2 or No3 economy in the world in real dollar terms and not just PPP terms. This means the amount of money that will be available to each wing of the Armed forces would increase accordingly and, more importantly, India's strategic interests would be global and not just about the Indian Ocean region.

A couple of more Vikrants, may look an attractive option today but in the 2030s timeframe they would have limited utility for the Indian Navy due to their operational limitations.

[brar_w]

If they insist on and further pursue EMALS, then the MiG-29K looks even less likely since its the only platform that will run into integration issues. Arguably, it would be far easier to coordinate an LCA-MK2 EMALS qualification and integration that it would be for the USN, General Atomics, and UAC to work together on something. E-2D path will make it interesting b/w a Rafale and F-18 since no longer is Link-16 the sole communication option between an E-2D and a tactical fighter. The USN has since evolved its data sharing b/w E-2 and Shornet/Growler into a larger pipeline (more data, more survivable and less latency compared to standard L-16) in the TTNT network which the Rafale does not possess. Block III SH introduces TTNT waveform, which the Growlers already possess.

https://www.rockwellcollins.com/Product ... ology.aspx

[Austin]

A couple of more Vikrants, may look an attractive option today but in the 2030s timeframe they would have limited utility for the Indian Navy due to their operational limitations.

If there is war tommorow there will be just vikramaditya to fight , if there is war between today and 2030 there will be atleast 2 AC if we build one more vikram class.

it is nice to talk of 2030 and 2040 but our enemy wont start a war on our terms when we have all our fleet operational and ready

Remember during kargil and 2008 crisis when IN was deployed in the ocean INS Viraat was in docks in Kochi for mid life refits and was not available during both the crisis , IN had to do make shift arrangement to use SHAR from Merchant Ships and other ships of IN.

If they have 2 Vikram Class and 1 Vikramaditya , They could atleast do Fleet Air Defence and ASW task for our fleet on east and west that itself is a great asset and capablility to have at time of war

[Kakarat]

Launch of L&T Yard 55000 (Floating Dock – FDN 2)

Floating Dock is an indigenously designed and built platform with state of the art machinery & control systems capable of docking warships of up to 8000 Tons displacement. It has high capacity Ballast Pumps, along with advanced automated Ballast Control System. The dock covers provided with the FDN-2 facilitate repair & refit activities in inclement weather conditions.

[amit]

If there is war tommorow there will be just vikramaditya to fight , if there is war between today and 2030 there will be atleast 2 AC if we build one more vikram class.

it is nice to talk of 2030 and 2040 but our enemy wont start a war on our terms when we have all our fleet operational and ready

If there's war tomorrow, we will still have just the Vikramaditya to fight. If there's a war between 2020 and 2030 we will still have the Viky and Vikrant to fight even if we order two more follow-on Vikrant class ships.

The other point is instead of a hypothetical if there is a war tomorrow you need to be more specific. War with whom, which country? Pakistan, China or both together? Are you speculating a war with the US or maybe Australia? Or is it the Maldives?

If it's just Pakistan then Vicky and Vikrant (depending on when this war happens) is more than enough. If there's a war with China, it's not likely that their aircraft carrier(s) are going to come into the Indian Ocean region to carry out offensive operations. If they do the counter with be ASW assets that will be below water, surface vessels and aircraft flying from peninsular India and A&N, we are not going to have World War 2 type carrier on carrier mega battles. The Indian Navy will not sail to the South China sea to do battle. Besides, I would reckon a serious war with China would go nuclear long before there are major naval engagements in the Indian Ocean.

If it's the US well then, even 10 more Vikrants ain't going to cut the straw.

I'm sorry to say this but your argument is a bit of a strawman. The reason is Vikrant is a new class. Once it goes for sea trials and then extensive user trials there are bound to be design defects that will be identified and these will have to be fixed. It happens with all new class ships, and particularly so for the Vikrant because this is the first time India is building an aircraft carrier. We won't know if these defects will be major or minor or whether the ship will actually have to be dry docked again to fix them.

How long did the Kolkata class destroyers take to come online? Compare that with the Kochi class to get an understanding of what happens when a first of class ship is built. And this despite the fact that the Navy has prior experience of building destroyers.

Given this situation, even if a decision was taken to build two follow on ships, there's no way that the Navy is going to give a build order till such time as that the Vikrant becomes fully operational with all (future) glitches fixed. In such circumstances the dream of having two more Vikrant's by 2030 will remain just that - a dream.

With our infrastructural limitations, the next AC be it our super carrier or Vikrant follow on will have to be built at Kochi. If the shipyard is busy building follow on ships where will be the supercarrier be built? Signing up for two more Vikrants effectively kills the dream of a large carrier capable of carrying heavy jets and a Hawkeye type of aircraft.

If they have 2 Vikram Class and 1 Vikramaditya , They could atleast do Fleet Air Defence and ASW task for our fleet on east and west that itself is a great asset and capablility to have at time of war

Theoretically a sound concept but, again I stress, get your timelines right. The Navy wants a super carrier to be built because it knows the infrastructure limitation - I don't think money is an issue. Otherwise which Navy wouldn't want more ships as opposed to less ships, hain?

[Austin]

The other point is instead of a hypothetical if there is a war tomorrow you need to be more specific. War with whom, which country? Pakistan, China or both together? Are you speculating a war with the US or maybe Australia? Or is it the Maldives?

Not hypothetical but real one say with Pakistan , Much like no one anticipated Kargil war no one can anticipate the next war and probably even our enemies would be monitoring the AC deployments.

If we have 2 AC carrier likely 1 will be operational if we have 1 then it just depends when that one will be in repairs and duration.

We need to be practical , need to build class of vikrant before we jump to something big and better , Else we will be left with one class and its childhood disease and without fixing that would move to some other class.

At the least we need 2 Vikrant class in next 10 years if that is possible , Considering we havent commiisioned the first one.

Theoretically a sound concept but, again I stress, get your timelines right. The Navy wants a super carrier to be built because it knows the infrastructure limitation - I don't think money is an issue. Otherwise which Navy wouldn't want more ships as opposed to less ships, hain?

Lets us see when the money comes , Money is the issue else IN would have got more critical ships and S-70 would not have got cancelled. Even if they can fund the new 57 aircraft no matter the type gets selected at the end it would be a miracle beyond what the program that is under construction and getting funded from capex every year.

[amit]

Austin,

You haven't explained how we are going to to get two Vikrant class ACs in the next 10 yeats. I think it's a pie in the sky concept.

[Philip]

This is why I mooted the idea that the 4 amphibs being planned for ,with the Mistral class and Juan Carlos class contenders,30K t+ vessels,Viraat ++ size, be so designed that their decks with a ski-jump could be able to operate an NLCA/Sea Gripen type or STOVL JSF (if that bird were available.) .These would be potent "pocket carriers" which could carry a full complement of ASW helos when required to deal with PLAN/PN subs.These vessels could be multi-role flat tops. We could reduce the number of amphibs to 3 JC class,even 2 would do for now,and use the money saved for a third carrier of Vikrant-2 type.

Had we had sufficient number of Sea Harriers,we could've used them aboard these vessels just as the USMC is still operating the type aboard its amphibs.
Extra LRMP aircraft could include a small number of Backfires even for LR maritime strike,carrying a number of supersonic/hypersonic (future) anti-ship missiles like BMos,plus Nirbhay LRCMs. Acquiring extra LRMP aircraft would be faster than building either amphibs or new carrier/s. This would be the fastest way in augmenting our maritime strike capability before 2020. If Backfires are wanted,there are sev. dozen available with Russia which need to be upgraded which should take not more than 12-18 months for the first batch.Blackjack prod. is supposedly restarting,but would be too expensive and take more time too.A small number of amphib aircraft,much cheaper Beriev-200s could also augment maritime ops,esp. operating/linking the A&N islands which need to be our first line of offence/defence from the PLAN.

The window of opportunity for both China and Pak is before 2025,in fact within the next 3-5 years,since our modernisation plans have yet to fructify.Several critical decisions haven't been taken as yet for ASW/multi-role helos,extra subs,MCM vessels,in particular. What can be put into place without too much of effort,is to augment the A&N islands/theatre with increased infrastructure so that more frontline aircraft and LRMP aircraft could be stationed there in a forward basing springing point,just as the US has done with its Pacific island bases from Okinawa,Guam,etc.From the A&N islands,not only aircraft but also subs and frontline warships should be based,at least available for logistic and some level of repair and maintenance. If we're able to base subs here,it could have a quantum effect in dealing with the PLAN,as it would shorten the time available to transit to the Indo-China Sea.With logistic facilities also available in Vietnamese ports,we could have permanent sub patrols in the ICS using our diesel subs apart from N-subs in the future.

PS:Amit,pl read latest news about F-18 oxygen problems.Oxygen problem still undetectable that too after sev. years! Secondly,officially,65% of the F-18 fleet is non-operable for various reasons,tx to budgetary woes making maintenance of the fleet very difficult.Pl update yourself with F-18 news. Even F-35 JSFs have been grounded for the same problem!

https://fightersweep.com/4070/oxygen-sy ... -18-fleet/
Oxygen System Problems Plaguing Navy, Marine Hornets

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3273895-o ... eport-says
"UNABLE","UNACCEPTABLE"

Oxygen problems in F-18 jets is top safety issue, new Navy report says

Jun. 15, 2017 5:43 PM ET|By: Carl Surran, SA News Editor
The U.S. Navy remains unable to find a way to fix oxygen deprivation and cabin pressure loss in its Boeing (NYSE:BA) F-18 aircraft, a problem the service calls “elusive” in a new report released today.

All F-18 models have shown steady annual increases in “physiological episodes,” with incidents of oxygen deprivation and cabin decompression rising in the past year, according to Navy data.

Calling the number and severity of F-18 physiological events “unacceptable,” the report says the Navy views the problem as its no. 1 safety priority.

The Navy is not the only service dealing with the issue of oxygen deprivation, or hypoxia, and the F-18 is not the only fighter jet affected, as Luke Air Force Base in Arizona last week grounded all of its Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) F-35 jets because pilots there experienced hypoxia.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/10/polit ... index.html
Two-thirds of Navy strike fighter jets can't fly
Zachary Cohen-Profile-Image
By Zachary Cohen, CNN February 10, 2017

This takes the cake for entertainment though:
Boeing hopes to find middle path for F-18 fighter jet sales to India
Boeing says it is willing to work with both Indian Navy and the US government to find a solution for for F-18 fighter jet sales

Souldn't it be "muddle path what?"

[brar_w]

Amit,pl read latest news about F-18 oxygen problems.Oxygen problem still undetectable that too after sev. years! Secondly,officially,65% of the F-18 fleet is non-operable for various reasons,tx to budgetary woes making maintenance of the fleet very difficult.Pl update yourself with F-18 news. Even F-35 JSFs have been grounded for the same problem!

Learn to separate the F/A-18 A-C, from F/A-18E/F. These are not the same aircraft much the same way the MiG-35 is different from a MiG-29A. The classic Hornet is not in production or on offer to anyone, and it's readiness woes are a result of depot capacity, spare part ordering and manpower shortage that is plaguing the USN at this time. Also, they maintain tiered readiness. It is largely a budget driven issue having to do with sequestration and if unaddressed will translate over to the SH fleet as well since the first batch of SH's that the USN took delivery of is nearing its end of design life and would need to go to a depot to get a service life extension. The Hornet's themselves are into their first life extension.

Basics on readiness and logistics would tell us that its the pipeline that keeps active aircrft ready. If your depot capacity is choked, and you aren't addressing that due to various reasons (or are unable to given other constraints) then you are using up more hours than you are giving back to the fleet. This if sustained, creates a readiness problem and coupled with the sustained combat operations and prolonged global deployments has created the current set of readiness woes for the USN and USMC. Also contributing to this is the F-35C delay. None of these things magically transfer over to a potential customer that has its own depot and overhaul capacity, and/or a Performance based logistics agreement signed with its suppliers.

But you probably know this but continue to ignore the fact that USN's depot capacity requiring strike fighters to wait XX days before they can dealt with has absolutely no bearing on how the IN maintains its readiness unless you are trying to project that the IN will be flying its potential next fighter to the primary services depots to get them repaired, overhauled etc.

https://news.usni.org/2016/05/26/navy-l ... [quote]The Hornet and Super Hornet community are overextended for three prime reasons, officials outlined:

Demand for strike fighters to support missions in U.S. Central Command that has driven hours up for the deployed fleets.
” We’re chewing up about 40 aircraft worth of hours a month and if we’re not buying that much or putting that much through the depot – we’re falling behind,” Stearns said.
A delay in deploying expected F-35C squadrons that prompted the Navy to extend the life of five squadrons of legacy Hornets the service anticipated it would retire. The Hornet extension, creating a maintenance backlog at the service’s aviation depots. That in turn, will push back the availabilities of Super Hornets in line to start their 6,000 hours maintenance periods.
“The depots were never set up to do high flight hour, which means essentially we’re extending them past the [6,000 to 10,000] hour life they were ever expected to fly just to meet the operational demand,’ Stearn said.
“Now they’re forced to have a three-year lead time to get the parts they need to get them in there – and it’s all a capacity problem.”
Funding challenges from the 2011 BCA to fully fund and man the depots.[/quote]

These are USN and USMC specific capacity and throughput issues. They are not relevant to any potential customer for the SH or any other component in the USN CAW.



As explained, the problem of physiological episodes and the spike is under investigation and if it is indeed found that it is OBOGGS system related than plenty of other platforms are at risk since they all share technology. These include the Eurofighter, the Gripen and the Hawk which is also used by the IAF. Regardless, there is one alternate OBOGGS supplier in the west that can be roped in by a foreign customer and a replacement system demanded. There is even a domestic OBOGGS unit for the LCA and future IAF and IN aircraft.

[Philip]

W haven't had any reports of oxygen deprivation,cockpit depressurisation from other western aircraft such as Gripens,Typhoons,etc.in such manner have we? Anyway,we go by the official reports posted above.Simple solution if the problem persists,ask the Russians for help! After al,western manufacturers are selling them aircraft engines,etc.I'm sure the Donald would like it.

Reg. Sea Gripen and In interest,here's a not-too-long-ago report.It will further intensify if the IAF chooses it .

http://defenceupdate.in/lca-navy-not-ma ... ea-gripen/

If LCA Navy is ‘not up to the mark yet,’ is the Indian Navy looking at Sea Gripen?
BY DEFENCEUPDATE · DECEMBER 3, 2016

The indigenously built LCA Navy has received a thumbs down from India’s navy chief Admiral Sunil Lanba, who bluntly said, “the LCA is not up to the mark yet,” on Friday.

Lanba went on to say that they are now in the hunt for an “alternate” aircraft. Though he did not criticise the LCA Navy programme, he noted the under-testing aircraft is still not able to “take off with its full weapon load.”

The new aircraft that India is looking at will be coming from elsewhere, which means it will definitely not come from Hindustan Aeronautical Limited (HAL) that is responsible for the development of LCA programmes along with the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA). The navy wants to acquire the alternate aircraft for navy within the next five years.

“The MiG-29K will operate from the Vikrant (first Indian built aircraft carrier). But we also need an alternate aircraft now. We are looking for it, as the LCA is not up to the mark yet. In the present form, the LCA cannot take off with its full weapon load,” Admiral Lanba said. However, the navy is still encouraging ADA and HAL to develop the LCA Navy.

In April 2016, two prototypes of LCA Navy had successfully conducted 33 test flights from a so-called Shore Based Test Facility in Goa. The tests saw the prototypes taking off with two R-73 air-to-air missiles and with the aid of ground-based ski-jump.

Previously, CD Balaji, head of ADA, was confident that LCA Navy would pull off tests and have a positive outcome. “By mid-2017, we will have established on the SBTF that the Naval Tejas can be flown off an actual carrier, and we will then graduate to ship-based testing. We currently have two prototypes in testing, and will build a third by then,” Business Standard had quoted him as saying.

The LCA Navy is a light, single-engine multi role aircraft and another aircraft with similarities to the LCA Navy is the Sea Gripen from Sweden’s Saab.

Gripen had earlier participated in the deal for 126 MMRCA aircrafts, but lost to Eurofighter and Rafale. However, Saab officials have been reported to have made several presentations to theIndian defence ministry, air force and navy over Gripen-E and Sea Gripen aircraft offer.

READ Raha to visit Sweden and checkout SAAB Facilities , Is India looking to select Gripen E ?
Saab was also reported to have received Request For Information (RFI) from the Indian Navy for the supply of carrier-borne fighter aircraft, as early as 2009.

Saab has already revealed its readiness to comply with the current government’s initiative of “Make in India,” and to open a production line in the country.

The Sea Gripen is the naval variant of its Gripen NG fighter. Gripen would cater to both CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) as well as STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery) operations.

It will be interesting to see what aircraft Indian Navy will finally choose as India will also be looking at the pricing, the technology transfer and the life cycle costs, while picking its next aircraft for carrier operations.

Sea Gripen offers a full multi-role capability in all roles, day and night. It is the perfect work-horse for the carrier environment, with low supportability and high availability offering the marine command maximum levels of fire power over protracted operational periods afloat and ashore, and the ability to surge to very high tempo operations when required.

India has embarked on an ambitious warship building programme that this decade will see the Indian Navy operate a significant blue water navy, with aircraft carriers and full carrier based fighter forces. Saab sees Sea Gripen as the ideal IN fleet fighter, and a perfect fit in terms of timing. Saab proposes to work in partnership with the Indian Navy, Integrated Command, DRDO and ship building authorities to demonstrate fully the major advantages that Sea Gripen can bring to the new carrier fleet, and to the security of the nation, for the next 40 years.

Why?

•Current marine fighters are very large, very heavy, very costly – F/A-18E/F, F-35C, Rafale M, Mig 29M, Su 33

•Only Sea Gripen fits on all existing aircraft carriers worldwide, and by definition all future carriers

•Sea Gripen will offer maximum capability from STOBAR and CATOBAR carrriers

•Only Sea Gripen will offer proven maximum cost to capability value

Sea Gripen Capabilities

Sea Gripen will offer an ideal replacement for existing fleets, countries who will return to carrier based operations, and potential emerging aircraft carrier nations. Its footprint will allow it to operate from all existing carriers in service, and fit on every lift in operation worldwide.

READ India is ramping up its multi-vector defense strategy
SaabAB will establish the Sea Gripen as a new-generation carrier-based fighter option for the future. The Sea Gripen will have all the capabilities of the Gripen E/F, and will be the most technologically advanced fighter aircraft in the world in its category. The aircraft will be highly agile, have supercruise capability, extended reach, netcentric capability, carefree manoeuvering, advanced data link and an extensive electronic warfare suite that can be adapted to meet specific national user requirements. The Sea Gripen will also have superior sensor fusion abilities, the Selex Raven AESA radar, Infra-Red Search and Track, plus a revolutionary avionics architecture including ultra-fast databuses and Ethernet. The platform offers for easy integration of advanced weapon systems and growth potential.

Aircraft carrier capabilities such as low landing speed, high pitch & roll authority, high-precision glide slope control, high-precision landing capability, high sink rate clearance, strengthened airframe etc., are built-in from the beginning in the Gripen E/F platform.

The Sea Gripen is intended for both CATOBAR as well as STOBAR operations. All the sensors, avionics and weapons and the GE 414G of the Gripen NG will be offered in the Sea Gripen. The small logistic footprint, high availability and a smaller, lighter airframe results in significant gains from a maintainability point of view. The Gripen spares inventory is therefore lighter, smaller and adds less to the load of the carrier and it takes fewer personnel to maintain the aircraft.

Sea Gripen is equipped with 10 weapon stations, including arming the aircraft with the RBS air to surface missile system, and the Meteor BVR missile. All standard weapon systems can be integrated and the Mausercanon will be retained. The Sea Gripen on offer will have the same weapons configuration as the Gripen E/F, but will be customized to meet the exact requirements of the customer.

Key support cost parameters such as aircraft reliability, maintainability and testability received equal priority to the operational and technical design goals during the design of Gripen. As a result each Gripen operator will experience few failures, low maintenance downtimes, a very short turnaround time and an exceptionally low life support cost.

[brar_w]

Phillip, what are the Russian OBOGS systems currently used by the IAF on its fighters? Could you do a write up on the design features and specs. etc.

Reg. Sea Gripen and In interest,here's a not-too-long-ago report.It will further intensify if the IAF chooses it

Sea Gripen isn't going anywhere. The E itself is a mid 2020s FOC platform and a large naval conversion program hasn't even started. It is a dead end in an era when there are plenty of other conventional take off, and STOVL options out there. SAAB is behind on the standard Gripen-E and will be pushing internal investments to secure a piece of the european NG project pie. They don't have the resources to pursue this unless someone bankrolls them and if someone does, it takes away their low cost argument.

[Philip]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/89 ... -jet-crews
Good explanation of the problem.
"With a problem that has been going on for greater than seven years and shows no signs of slowing down, one would think there was at least some concerted effort to indicate what is causing the problem with OBOGS."

Russkies have been using old fashioned oxygen bottles,but supposedly have developed their own system.Our DRDO has reportedly developed its own for use on Tejas,MKIs,etc.
" India will join the elite club of five countries who have established and mastered the technology in the field of ILSS for military flying once the trials are successfully completed. The ILSS-OBOGS has the versatility to be customized to the needs of other Indian fighter aircrafts like MIG-29, Sukhoi-30 Mk1 and Mirage-2000."
http://www.dsalert.org/news-bank/press- ... t-aircraft

Gentex MiG & Sukhoi - HA/LP Oxygen Mask

The Gentex MiG & Sukhoi Oxygen Mask is an advanced variation of the Gentex High Altitude/Low Profile (HA/LP) Oxygen Mask, adapted to interface with Russian Aircraft Platforms for MiG 15, 17, 21, 23 and 29, and Sukhoi 17, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 27 aircrafts. And designed for use with the Russian KKO-5 Type Oxygen System and KP-52M Type Oxygen Regulator.

Key Features/Benefits
Advanced variation of Gentex HA/LP Oxygen Mask.
Interfaces with Russian Aircraft Platforms MiG and Sukhoi.
Designed for use with Russian KKO-5 Type Oxygen System and KP-52M Type Oxygen Regulator.

[brar_w]

Russkies have been using old fashioned oxygen bottles,but supposedly have developed their own system.Our DRDO has reportedly developed its own for use on Tejas,MKIs,etc.

So there are no OBOGS systems of Russian origin currently being used by the IAF and IN?

I am aware of the indigenous system but what I was interested in seeing was a description of the OBOGS systems on the Flankers and Fulcrums currently with the IN and IAF such as the MiG-29K, and Su-30 MKI etc.

LOX bottles are available for all aircraft and backup bottles are carried by new aircraft as well (it was what was kicked in on the F-35As at Luke). LOX Tanks can also be carried if one wants not pursue an on board generation system but you had hinted at russian OBOGS solutions so I asked if you could enlighten us with a description of such a system used by the IAF or IN.

[Singha]

russia is bringing its first obogs system online via the pakfa (installed on the protos). took 5 yrs to develop. rest all use o2 bottles.

https://www.rt.com/news/pak-fa-unlimite ... upply-198/

amirkans have obogs on multiple types as listed in above link. ef and gripen have it. rafale not mentioned.

[Philip]

This was an old 2013 quote from a report.
"Russia has developed an OBOG (OnBoard Oxygen Generating) system for its latest combat aircraft, the T-50. Russia still uses oxygen bottle systems (weighing about 90 kg/198 pounds) for its aircraft. This means that pilots operating at altitudes higher than 4,000 meters (12,000 feet) have to monitor their air as well as their fuel supplies. The new Russian OBOG design weighs only 30 kg (66 pounds), is more compact, and supplies far more oxygen that the equivalent weight of bottled oxygen. Russia plans to begin replacing oxygen bottles with the new OBOGs in all its aircraft. "
However, I frankly do not have any further info other than mentioned above.

If current OBOGS are an acute problem,that is defying detection,one has to go back to tried and tested simpler systems.Perhaps our DRDO has indeed come up with a global winner!

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/russian- ... ms.265302/

Russian 5G fighters boast cutting-edge life support systems

The Russian Sukhoi T-50 5G fighter jet is equipped with cutting-edge computerized life support systems, including an oxygen station securing unlimited breathing gas supply and advanced pilot’s compensation system that anticipates gravity overload.

The research and development enterprise Zvezda has announced the final tests for its onboard oxygen generation system that will be installed on all Russian operating fighter jets, including those to be supplied abroad, Izvestia daily reports.

Unlike the 90 kilogram oxygen bottles system the new generator weights a mere 30 kilograms, a crucial weight and space economy in modern combat aircraft construction.

“Oxygen is produced from the atmosphere as the system takes it from the engine’s compressors and redirects it to pilot’s mask. Flight time no longer depends on oxygen supply," Zvezda’s Chief Specialist Mikhail Dudnik told Izvestia.

It took five years to shape up the system, Dudnik said, but all four Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA 5G fighter jets currently undergoing flight tests near Moscow were already manufactured with this system at a Sukhoi plant in Komsomolsk-na-Amure – a city located in Russia’s Far East. The 5G fighters made their way across the country without oxygen tanks onboard.

Soviet and Russian military aviation previously employed oxygen bottles - an old, but time-tested technology. But it also imposed certain restrictions on mission duration, because while refueling was an option for many long-range military jets, oxygen re-supply was not. So a pilot had to always keep a close eye not only on fuel, but also the oxygen capacity of his aircraft, as elevations 4 kilometers or higher require a breathable gas supply to avoid oxygen deficiency. An unexpected leakage of excess oxygen spending could lead the failure or termination of a vital mission.

Consequently, every Russian Air Force airfield is now equipped with oxygen producing stations, which must be manned by experienced personnel. Soon such stations will become a thing of the past.

[brar_w]

This was an old 2013 quote from a report.
"Russia has developed an OBOG (OnBoard Oxygen Generating) system for its latest combat aircraft, the T-50. Russia still uses oxygen bottle systems (weighing about 90 kg/198 pounds) for its aircraft. This means that pilots operating at altitudes higher than 4,000 meters (12,000 feet) have to monitor their air as well as their fuel supplies. The new Russian OBOG design weighs only 30 kg (66 pounds), is more compact, and supplies far more oxygen that the equivalent weight of bottled oxygen. Russia plans to begin replacing oxygen bottles with the new OBOGs in all its aircraft. "
However, I frankly do not have any further info other than mentioned above.

Thanks but that is for an aircraft that only has prototypes up in the air. I was more interested in Russian origin OBOGS systems for operational aircraft with the IAF and IN and what the experience has been based on tens of thousands of hours the IAF has put on the Su-30, and MiG-29. Singha has clarified that these aircraft currently lack an OBOGS and I was aware that an indigenous one would soon be adopted for all IAF figther types including these aircraft.

If current OBOGS are an acute problem,that is defying detection,one has to go back to tried and tested simpler systems.Perhaps our DRDO has indeed come up with a global winner!

If there was a silver bullet issue with the OBOGS itself it would have been found. It is likely that the issues are with other systems that together ensure adequate supply of oxygen than a catstrophic failure in the OBOGS unit itself. On the F-22 they identified CO filteration, and vest valve issues and since those were remedied they have not had issues with physiological episodes there. Similarly, the classic hornet is in its post SLEP i.e. its second air frame life and the issues have only surfaced recently.

On the F-35, they chose to go to a foreign vendor for the BRAG, a french company that also supplies the same for the Rafale but the contributing physiological episodes related to O2 have a lot of contributing factors and a lot of stuff that can go wrong. It is not just the OBOGS itself. You would learn of these systems if you read the actual detailed report instead of TR's spin on a topic unrelated to burgers, shakes and fries, a topic more befitting of his professional skills.

[brar_w]

russia is bringing its first obogs system online via the pakfa (installed on the protos). took 5 yrs to develop. rest all use o2 bottles.

https://www.rt.com/news/pak-fa-unlimite ... upply-198/

amirkans have obogs on multiple types as listed in above link. ef and gripen have it. rafale not mentioned.

Thanks, I just thought the confidence with which the comrade spoke of going to russia for OBOGS related help, he would have heard about operational experience of Russian OBOGS with the IAF and IN crews. Regarding the technology itself it is quite old and has been available since the 1990s. The USMC harriers had it and most aircraft since then have incorporated it. Normalair Garret, a British company was the industry leader for military applications and these interests were later acquired by Honeywell UK and through their other branches they basically supply OBOGS and related systems to most of the western fighters and other aircraft out there. All new western fighters and indeed most other aircraft have an onboard oxygen generation system including i believe the C-130 that the IAF operates. Indian Hawks use a Honeywell developed system as well.

https://aerocontent.honeywell.com/aero/ ... ystems.pdf

[Philip]

We are notorious for providing/volunteering any info,esp. anything negative. Any such info would be classified. CAG reports might hint at problems. If we've had any problems with Ru aircraft it has been reportedly mainly engines,as their (Sov.) philosophy is quick replacement of engines during wartime,no wasting time on time-consuming repairs during a crisis. With the new Ru-Indo service entities for Ru/Sov systems being set up in India and change in Ru laws allowing direct negotiations with OEMs,things should improve.

I think you're right about F-18s and their age. Some stats should be able to find such a commonality,but one report said that even a few new Growlers were affected.

[brar_w]

If we've had any problems with Ru aircraft it has been reportedly mainly engines,as their (Sov.) philosophy is quick replacement of engines during wartime,no wasting time on time-consuming repairs during a crisis. With the new Ru-Indo service entities for Ru/Sov systems being set up in India and change in Ru laws allowing direct negotiations with OEMs,things should improve.

It would be tough to report OBOGS related issues with IAF or IN Russian aircraft even by CAG's standards since these aircraft lack an OBOGS system.

I think you're right about F-18s and their age. Some stats should be able to find such a commonality,but one report said that even a few new Growlers were affected.

There are classic hornet issues, and super hornet / growler fleet issues. Some are shared while others are not. OBOGS has been operational for decades and there are literally millions of flight hours with the system on fighters. The F-35 fleet alone is approaching 6 figures (if its not there already) in terms of fleet cumulative flight hours.

From the official report :

Although the majority of ECS design is common among FA-18 models, a few notable differences exist depending on Lot number. For example, Legacy Hornets up to Lot 12 use a liquid oxygen (LOX) system to provide oxygen to the aircrew and do not have OBOGS. The LOX system is a closed loop system that operates independent of cabin pressurization. For Legacy Hornets Lots 9 through 21, the ECS has a Cabin Exit Air System (CXAS) valve installed to provide additional cooling to the avionics bay. The CXAS valve is a significant configuration difference, as the rate of Physiological Episode (PE) pressurization-related events in aircraft with this component is higher than other FA-18s. The CXAS valve is not installed in the Super Hornet, Growler and Legacy Hornets Lots 8 and below.

The complexity and logistics required for LOX drove a desire for a replacement system, leading to the development and fielding of OBOGS in the Marine Corps AV-8 Harrier. A similar OBOGS was subsequently installed in Lot 13 and newer FA-18 aircraft. OBOGS is designed to convert clean, dry air into breathing air by removing nitrogen and concentrating oxygen. OBOGS was not designed as a mechanical filter. OBOGS employs a nitrogen
scrubber mechanism commonly referred to as a sieve bed to molecularly remove nitrogen from ECS sourced air and provide concentrated oxygen to the aircrew. ECS-sourced air passes a heater, particulate filter and pressure reducer before entering the OBOGS. The ECS-sourced air is then directed to the sieve bed material which is loaded into two identical canisters. Each canister’s sieve bed material absorbs nitrogen, passing the concentrated oxygen to a mixing plenum and then to the aircrew’s regulator and mask. The nitrogen absorbed in the sieve bed is purged from the system by a rotating mechanism that periodically releases pressure (and nitrogen) from one canister while simultaneously sending ECS-sourced air to the other canister.

The ability for OBOGS to produce oxygen and pass, retain or release contaminants is a function of input air temperature, pressure and humidity. Sieve bed material has a high affinity for water, such that any entrapped contaminants could be exchanged for moisture in the sieve bed and the contaminants then released from OBOGS into aircrew breathing air. FA-18 ECS-sourced air provided to OBOGS can be provided through a path with a water separator or directly from a heat exchanger with no water separation. A regulating valve just prior to OBOGS input determines which path is selected based on pressure loading and ECS demands.

By approximately 2009, OBOGS original sieve bed material was obsolete and could no longer be procured by the manufacturer. Thus, for a period of time the manufacturer “re-baked” and re-used sieve bed material when OBOGS sieve bed canister refurbishment was required. After approximately four years of using “re-baked” sieve bed material, the manufacturer informed NAVAIR a next generation sieve bed material capable of improved oxygen production was available and in use by other customers. Additionally, the new sieve bed would include a catalyst specifically designed to convert OBOGS-sourced air carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. NAVAIR decided to install the upgraded sieve bed on all FA-18s. The decision to upgrade the sieve bed material gained further credence when contamination from FA-18 unique substances was discovered in T-45 OBOGS, indicating the “re-baking” process was inadequate for sieve bed re-use.

The extent of government testing of the new sieve bed prior to acceptance could not be determined by this Comprehensive Review (CR) team; however, any testing conducted did not include an assessment of contaminants other than carbon monoxide. This sieve bed upgrade commenced in August 2015, is approximately 85 percent complete throughout the Navy and Marine Corps and approximately 99 percent complete aboard deployed aircraft. FA-18 cabin temperature and pressurization controls are located on the ECS panel on the right side of the cockpit. The Cabin Pressure Switch controls the cockpit pressurization mode on this panel.

While ECS provides the pressure source for the FA-18 cockpit, a cabin pressure regulator controls exit airflow to maintain the pressure schedule. An additional cabin safety dump valve limits cabin pressure should the cabin pressure regulator fail to prevent cockpit over-pressurization. In accordance with FA-18 Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS),9 aircrew monitor the cockpit altimeter when climbing through 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) and periodically during flight above 10,000 feet MSL, to verify the ECS is maintaining the correct cabin pressurization schedule.

A recommendation following two Class A mishaps caused by 10 was to add to a Cabin Pressurization Warning System (CPWS). As a result, in 2006 NAVAIR installed the CPWS in the FA-18 to monitor cabin pressure and warn the aircrew of potentially hazardous cabin pressurization conditions such as decompression. This system has a caution light that illuminates if cabin pressure reaches an equivalent to 21,000 +/- 1,100 feet MSL. The light will not extinguish until cabin pressure reaches a pressure equivalent to less than 16,500 feet MSL altitude. An additional caution light will illuminate to alert the aircrew if there is an impending ECS problem such as improperly positioned cabin pressurization controls.

According to Naval Safety Center (NAVSAFECEN), four FA-18 mishaps resulting in the death
of the aircrew can be attributed to occurred in XXXXXXXXXXXX. another FA-18 was lost due to XXXXXXX ; fortunately, the pilot was able to safely eject. Subsequent to these mishaps, training to recognize the symptoms increased and procedures now stress the importance of selecting emergency oxygen as a first step. Correct application of emergency oxygen would have likely prevented these mishaps. there was an over-pressurization mishap resulting in aircrew injury. The causal factors of this event are known and mitigations to prevent future occurrence have been implemented.

Over the past six years, there has been an increase in PE reports throughout the FA-18 community: 31 in calendar year 2011; 57 in 2012; 89 in 2015; 114 in 2016; and 52 to date in 2017.13 Figure 1 below depicts reports of PEs in FA-18s by Calendar Year. The increased number of reports can likely be attributed, in part, to increased awareness throughout the Fleet regarding the PE phenomenon and the realization of the potentially dire consequences of a PE. Contributing to this increasing awareness were: joint NAVAIR – NAVSAFECEN presentations provided to FA-18 aircrew at Whidbey Island, Lemoore, Beaufort, Miramar, Atsugi and Fallon; NAVSAFECEN new reporting guidance in a naval message; 14 an increased focus on PEs from the NAVSAFECEN during Squadron Safety Assessments; and continued engagement between the Physiological Episode Team (PET) and the Fleet.

Although FA-18 aircrew have experienced PEs attributed to breathing air problems, the majority of recent serious FA-18 PEs have been attributed to ECS-related issues and cabin pressurization malfunctions (fluctuating pressure, over pressurization and rapid decompression), resulting in symptoms associated with Decompression Sickness (DCS). The PET adjudication data shows that 41 percent of the total FA-18 PEs have been attributed to breathing air delivery system (27 percent possible contamination; 11 percent aircrew oxygen system; 3 percent breathing air delivery component) and 24 percent are adjudicated to be ECS component failure.15 Despite breathing air problems being the larger percentage, these recent casualties have been effectively resolved with correct application of the NATOPS procedures.

Prior to May 2016, aircrew were trained to remain alert for unexpected cabin pressure fluctuations. In May 2016, a NATOPS interim change required execution of emergency procedures if unexplained pressure changes equivalent to more than +/- 2,000 feet of altitude was observed in a steady state flight condition. This NATOPS change recommendation came about at the August 2014 NATOPS conference after the PE reports began to show a correlation between cabin pressure fluctuations greater than 3,000 feet and DCS events. The work involved in determining the normal pressurization fluctuations, settling on the 2,000 foot number and publishing the new procedure delayed the NATOPS change until May 2016.

In January 2017, VADM Shoemaker sent a message to update the Fleet on PEs, which said: “Although the rate of overall PE events has been trending down slightly since my May 2016 P4,16 [Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE)] leadership and I are very concerned with a recent increase in ECS/pressurization related PEs for the legacy FA-18A-D fleet, as well as cockpit over-pressurization events on deck for FA-18E-G aircraft. PEs are a complex problem set that have challenged our ability to determine root cause for the failures and we aren’t there yet. As I said, this is the NAE’s number one safety priority and focus area and we are taking a ‘resource unconstrained’ approach to the problem, meaning our efforts to find a solution will not be constrained by manpower or cost.

The aircraft cabin pressurization problems (fluctuating pressure, over pressurization and rapid decompression) are predominantly occurring in the FA-18 Legacy Hornet aircraft. The Legacy Hornet is experiencing about five times the rate of cabin pressure-related PEs than Super Hornets and
Growlers.

It is worth noting that in a U.S. Navy-U.S. Marine Corps comparison of cabin pressurization related PEs per 100,000 flight hours in Lot 9-21 Legacy Hornets, U.S. Marine Corps aircrew have reported an average of 8.6 reports and U.S. Navy aircrew have reported an average of 15.24. There is no definitive explanation for these differences, but it is illustrative of the challenge in capturing consistent data when a human is part of the system. Culture, physiological make-up and experience can result in variations in how an individual is physically affected by ECS or breathing air malfunctions and what is deemed necessary to report.

There are redacted portions of the report. Once it is available from behind paywalls on Jane's and Defense Daily, I'll post it in full.



As explained OBOGS is only one system but as the F-22 deep dive revealed, the problems are not always with your most expensive or technically challenging system it could be valve issues, or mask issues. Its hard because minor issues go un-reported so the first action has been to educate pilots on detecting signs and symtoms and developing monitoring systems that directly go onto the mask (earlier ones measure OBOGS but the problem could be outside of the system). As more pilots are informed and trained to recognise minor incidents, the number of reported incidents rise and you get a pool of incidents to study, analyse and look for common problems. Given the volume of total flight hours the USAF and USN flies, and the number of incidents, it is not an easy problem to solve if you don't find major defects in major critical systems. As I said, silver bullet issues are easier to identify and correct but its the minor components or a combination of minor faults in minor components that are harder to pin point and solve.

[nachiket]

But question is, which planes are going to fly off "one or two Vikrant class" carriers? Apart from Philip, I think everyone else have lost faith in the MiG29 as a carrier fighter option. And still no Hawkeye type of plane that the Navy appears to desperately desire.

That is something IN will figure it out based on the current RFI they have sent , They are aware of 29K pro and cons and as professional service they would weigh in Rafale ( probably IAF might give them inputs here ) and Shornet.

It will boil down to Numbers , Affordability and Capability and IN would be the best judge that.

The Rafale won't fit the Vikrant's lifts. So it is out even if it is capable and affordable(unlikely looking at the numbers for the AF contract). The SH maybe both affordable and capable but will have to be cleared for ski-jump operations and will face payload restrictions (I'm talking the version with current engines not the hypothetical EPE equipped ones).

If the Mig-29's problems with reliability and serviceability cannot be solved, I hope the Navy comes out and says so. All we have had till now is "NLCA is inadequate" and "we are opening a tender for 57 new aircraft". Everyone and his cat in MSM connected the two and said the new aircraft are needed because the NLCA is inadequate. None of our clueless journos had the brains to ask the IN chief why they needed a new tender if they already had 45 Mig-29s and could easily order a few more. That might have brought the truth out.

In any case the future looks grim as far as IN's carrier capability is concerned. Either spend billions which we don't have and wait 15+ years for another carrier with EMALs or build another Vikrant class and rely on the Mig-29K which is more likely to mission-killed by its unreliable engines and systems than enemy action.

The Sea Gripen articles are hilarious. Seem to be written by people who think all it takes to build a Sea Gripen is to take a land based one and plonk it on a carrier. The Sea Gripen is complete vaporware. Considering that the Gripen E itself only flew recently for the first time, the entire Gripen offer for MMRCA was vaporware too. Imagine if we had selected it several years ago to buy 126.

[shaun]

courtesy India Defence

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/618 ... -tech.html
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/com ... 731253.ece

[sanjaykumar]

For unlawful carnal knowledge, a helicopter landing pad and everything. And made in India. Impressive.

[chola]

Very nice! Had no idea we had something like the submersible dock in the making.

[chola]

As I wrote before, CSL is the only yard with a drydock large enough to build a 40K ton and up carriers. Even with the Vikrant, it had to go through the rare step of a second launch because of issues imposed by the relatively small size of the dock.

Whether it is a second Vikrant or 65K ton CATOBAR, it will still occupy the one carrier capable yard for years.

The IN prefer to use those years on a 65K ton CATOBAR rather than another STOBAR that is dependent in the MiG-29K -- which was a certified lemon that the RuN passed over more than a decade ago for the SU-33. Back then the Russians were still serious about carrier aviation. Today they are not. They only bought the MiG-29K (as a token?) after convincing Bharat to send a welfare check to MiG. The truth is carrier operations in very low on their list of priorities:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... iers-21194

[Philip]

Great news about FDN-1.Excellent point about a sub facility too,as I've said about sub ops from the A&N islands.

If MIG_29s have flaws,send them back to Russia for replacements. Surely there must be something in the agreement clauses.We did get some compensation for Talwar issues,first batch. Since Russia is also acquiring 29Ks for their carrier/s,you can be assured that Putin will ensure that whatever issues we have wiht ours will be sorted out,otherwise it will be firing time for those at MIG.

The extra 50+ aircraft are the wet dream of those lusting after a super carrier,aircraft to serve aboard that vessel,not the 2 flat tops that we have/are building.Almost 60 aircraft and around 12+ helos will make up a total of around 60+ ,enough to fit onto a large carrier.The problem as Austin keeps repeating is that all we can afford now is a model of the same! We may not live long enough to see the day it arrives.

RU carrier ops low on priorities? Forgotten about the Kuz in Syria where both SU-33 and 29Ks were used? Russian priorities today,quite correctly given their geographic uniqueness,is to augment and upgrade their nuclear sub fleet to the max,using diesel subs for mostly littoral duties. They are planning carriers for the future,but possess so many LR bombers like Backfires,Blackjacks,even Bears,all have been in action in Syria operating from Russian bases,plus just one air base in Syria.They do not have the expeditionary neo-colonia agenda of the US/UK,which CHina is trying to emulate. 3 med sized carriers by 2025 is possible ,provided we reduce the number of amphibs by one and use the money saved for a sister ship of the Vikrant-2.

[chola]

^^^ You mean that joke of a deployment with exactly 4 (count 'em, FOUR) MiG-29Ks where one promptly fell into the drink because the arrester system was left to rot?

Where the Kuz smoked like a titantic chimney and needed a tug to accompany it every inch of the way to Syria?

The Kuz even looked like a derelict ship that people had stopped maintaining.

Sorry Filipov, the Kuz probably saw its last deployment. That trip probably convinced any that still believed in the Kuz to hang up the saddle on carrier ops once and for all.

Just the read news coming out of Russia. No new carriers, they will be concentrating on FFGs and subs.

[chola]

BTW, the IN most definitely comes from an UK tradition. Filipov, you would know that if you are desi.

And to be perfectly honest, I rather see us expeditionary than green-water bound.

Again, the IN rather use the years available at CSL for a CATOBAR than another STOBAR. The IN tender fir new carrier aircraft when the 29Ks are all but brand new pretty tells us that the IN has no confidence in it.

[JE Menon]

^^Caution: end the personal attack.

[Aditya G]

As I wrote before, CSL is the only yard with a drydock large enough to build a 40K ton and up carriers. ......

The IN prefer to use those years on a 65K ton CATOBAR rather than another STOBAR that is dependent in the MiG-29K -- which was a certified lemon that the RuN passed over more than a decade ago for the SU-33. Back then the Russians were still serious about carrier aviation. Today they are not. They only bought the MiG-29K (as a token?) after convincing Bharat to send a welfare check to MiG. The truth is carrier operations in very low on their list of priorities:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... iers-21194

Pipavav shipyard can also support aircraft carriers.

MiG-29K is a better naval fighter than the Su-33, even in iys original form. Su-33 did not necessarily win the Soviet competition because it was better 1:1.

[JTull]

At Rs 468 crore, FDN-2 is a great buy. Took them just 2 years from the order date. Hopefully they've plans for more.
http://www.lntshipbuilding.com/media/31 ... g-dock.pdf

L&T surely is lot more capable than Reliance to take on P-75 and LDP work. They've built Fast Interceptor Boats, Offshore Patrol Vessels, and nuclear sub hulls besides the FDN.

[srai]

courtesy India Defence

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/618 ... -tech.html
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/com ... 731253.ece

How many more planned?

[Khalsa]

This floating dock business and the fact that we already had one operating in A&N has blown me away.
Navy continues to impress me.

[Rishi_Tri]

Is the dock self propelled? Does it have self defence capability? For vessel this size and capability, acquisition price mentioned seems low.

[shiv]

MiG-29K is a better naval fighter than the Su-33, even in iys original form. Su-33 did not necessarily win the Soviet competition because it was better 1:1.

The Su 33 is an acknowledged failure and manufacture has stopped.