Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 29 Jan 2017 14:17

deejay wrote:
shiv wrote:Incidentally, let me ask a question that is as difficult to answer as "What percentage of this product is Indian made"?

The question is "What does 100% serviceability mean?"

...

JMT. If anyone has better information or can pull up something from Google, experience or musharraf I would be grateful
Each aircraft has a Log Book on Technical / Maintenance records. It's called the Form 700 in the IAF. If a snag is entered on the Form 700 then the aircraft is not serviceable or if the aircraft is due for a scheduled inspection, even then it is not serviceable. The sum total of such aircraft determine the % of serviceable or not serviceable aircraft.

Do all snags/issues go in this Form 700?? Even small issues related to some non-critical component (relatively speaking) which might not hamper the operation form and fit of the aircraft would go to this log..??

FAA has Category 1-5 damages for composite structures ranging from damages which can be neglected to damages which has to be dealt with immediately before any flight can be undertaken. Its not too much stretch of imagination that similar guidelines exist for metal components and for avionics by FAA and even by Mil standards. I can understand why an aircraft which looks fit but is due for inspection is flagged as unserviceable (it should not be flown under ideal conditions before the due inspection is carried satisfactorily, war-time is different matter). But there must be some categorisation which dictates what type of issue in what type of component renders the aircraft unserviceable. They can't possibly be putting each issue/snag in this form 700.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 29 Jan 2017 14:36

JayS wrote:...

Do all snags/issues go in this Form 700?? Even small issues related to some non-critical component (relatively speaking) which might not hamper the operation form and fit of the aircraft would go to this log..??

FAA has Category 1-5 damages for composite structures ranging from damages which can be neglected to damages which has to be dealt with immediately before any flight can be undertaken. Its not too much stretch of imagination that similar guidelines exist for metal components and for avionics by FAA and even by Mil standards. I can understand why an aircraft which looks fit but is due for inspection is flagged as unserviceable (it should not be flown under ideal conditions before the due inspection is carried satisfactorily, war-time is different matter). But there must be some categorisation which dictates what type of issue in what type of component renders the aircraft unserviceable. They can't possibly be putting each issue/snag in this form 700.

All or any unseviceability goes into F700. The pilot who last flew the aircraft enters the snag. In helicopter units CO/Flt Cdr and Senior Technical Officer (STO) are consulted prior to entry of snag. It is upto the STO to certify the aircraft fit to fly or not. Aircraft routinely fly with non critical unserviceability, for eg: in the helicopters I flew, an unserviceable GPS or Doppler Nav would normally not keep the aircraft down unless the mission demanded their use.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jan 2017 19:55

I would add to the Cat CV req. with one rider,nuclear power.This is essential for the huge power needs should EMALS,laser weaponry,etc. be aboard the carrier in the future.There are sev. more aircraft types top pick from,one omission,the naval variant of the FGFA which is on the cards for Ru carriers.If the IAF seal the FGFA deal,the IN too could hop aboard for a naval variant for a 75K t CV.

The two med sized carriers will 10 years hence ,complement the future large CV.What needs to be sorted out is support for the MIG-29Ks as is being done with the MKIs,whose availability factor has gone up significantly.Once the planned JV units for support for Ru milware being set up are operational,and the fact that the Russians have modified their govt. rules whereby one can now place direct orders with OEMs for spares,etc.,the post-Soviet era difficulties in support of Ru weapon systems will be significantly alleviated. Nuclear power will enable whatever mods are made during the 3-40 yr long lifespan of the CV. The beauty of carriers is that whenever new aircraft arrive,and UCAVs will definitely be operational a decade hence,the size of the vessel allows it to "modernise" itself. The USN will in the near future start fitting high-energy laser weaponry on its warships for anti-missile/air defence. The power demands are v.high though. N-reactors with a lifetime supply of fuel will be able to provide such power reqs.

LIke the CDG,both our med. CVs will be able to soldier on for a few decades,at least 3 more,esp. in the IOR where barring 3 western nations,Russia and China,no-one else operates them.One CV on each seaboard along with 3-4 35K t flat-top amphib warships will be ample to deal with any external threat (China). If our amphibs are so designed to at some time in the future operate STOVL aircraft like the USMC's F-35Bs,sko-jump capable,then their potency increases dramatically.At that size they could even operate NLCA MK-2s/Sea when they arrive ,giving support to the 2+ CVs that we will have until the 3rd 75K t one arrives a decade hence.

John · Post by **John** » 29 Jan 2017 20:39

Gentlemen please move naval aviation discussion to other thread.

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:If we want to build more than just 2 at home,say another 4-6 upgraded ones,it would be then worthwhile bargaining for TOT.The design packs a lot of firepower in a relatively small hull,B-8s.BMos,etc.,why its attractive.But if the costs escalate dramatically........
It doesn't matter what the ToT costs are. If the Russians offer a reasonable price for the two existing ones, well and good. If not, too bad. But proposing the type be 'built' locally is total BS.

We have a local design and its more than good enough. If the P-17A is still in the design stage, the P-17 already exists.

I was proponent for more Shivalik class but from what I can piece together it fell out of favor due to its high build time and cost. Navy looks to gone back drawing board to come up with newer design with more stealth features and can carry more VL cells (hopefully) that the yards can crank out much faster.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 29 Jan 2017 20:58

The last ship of the class was commissioned 5 years back. The construction of next series should have started then itself.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 29 Jan 2017 23:56

John wrote:Any newly introduced career AC will have low serviceability till spare, proper operation procedures and crew/pilot are fully trained to handle it. IMO this is just a tactic to get Russians to budge on the pricing, exact same thing happened before where IN looked at procuring Rafsle or F18s which brought $$ costs down on 29k.

Well there is some merit in the argument, that I concede but IN ordered these birds in 2004, delivery started in 2009 and we are in 2017. Vikramaditya was also ordered in 2004 and received in mid 2014. Can we really call it so new that most of it is still on ground. I wish the armed forces would show similar tolerance for domestic stuff too.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 30 Jan 2017 07:23

Young sailor dies onboard INS Satpura following illness
http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... -1.1691127

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 30 Jan 2017 23:29

Indian Navy decommissions two ships
http://www.janes.com/article/67337/indi ... -two-ships

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 30 Jan 2017 23:31

Indian Coast Guard to help Sri Lanka tackle pollution
http://www.sify.com/news/indian-coast-g ... ffjge.html

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 30 Jan 2017 23:51

Reliance Defence bags Rs 916 crore contract from Indian Coast Guard
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 867985.cms

RDEL get contract for Fast Patrol Vessels for Indian Coast Guard
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... ast-guard/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 30 Jan 2017 23:53

What 'Service Before Self' truly means. Two Indian Navy men.
Two acts of stunning courage. Gave their lives to save others in daily duty.
https://twitter.com/ShivAroor/status/826040029180997632

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 30 Jan 2017 23:54

Commander of Sri Lankan Navy visits India
https://twitter.com/indiannavy/status/8 ... 8558318592

John · Post by **John** » 31 Jan 2017 19:40

Katare wrote:
John wrote:Any newly introduced career AC will have low serviceability till spare, proper operation procedures and crew/pilot are fully trained to handle it. IMO this is just a tactic to get Russians to budge on the pricing, exact same thing happened before where IN looked at procuring Rafsle or F18s which brought $$ costs down on 29k.
Well there is some merit in the argument, that I concede but IN ordered these birds in 2004, delivery started in 2009 and we are in 2017. Vikramaditya was also ordered in 2004 and received in mid 2014. Can we really call it so new that most of it is still on ground. I wish the armed forces would show similar tolerance for domestic stuff too.

Till it started flying from Vikram you cannot consider it operational AC, so that gives it barely 2 years of being operational. Give it some time things should improve for the better. I think serviceability % is being pushed by usual suspects trying to get navy to buy into the Rafale. Same thing happened back 5 years ago when Rafale was chosen by IAF, there was lot of push to get Rafale into the navy so the overall acquisition cost for AF can be lowered.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 01 Feb 2017 00:43

Reminder: we are still waiting for the NOPVs

Rakesh wrote:Reliance Defence bags Rs 916 crore contract from Indian Coast Guard
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 867985.cms

RDEL get contract for Fast Patrol Vessels for Indian Coast Guard
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... ast-guard/

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Feb 2017 06:15

Airbus to set up MRO facility in Goa if it wins EC725 order

NEW DELHI --- European aviation major Airbus has chosen Goa to set up a maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) facility for the EC 725 helicopter, provided it wins the over Rs 2,000 crore Coast Guard contract for which it has pitched.

The facility, close to the Indian Coast Guard’s main center of operations, is planned as part of Airbus’ offer to equip the Indian Coast Guard with 14 EC725 for its Twin Engine Heavy Helicopter (TEHH) requirement and the foreseeable future needs for a helicopter of this category by the Indian armed forces, industry sources said.

Asked about their plans, Airbus in a statement said, “We cannot comment on the location of the MRO for the EC725 but it is true that such a facility is envisaged as part of our offer to supply 14 EC725 to the Indian Coast Guard. All 14 EC725 will be integrated and flight-tested at this site.”
...

The competition is between the EC725 and the now part of Lockheed Martin, Sikorsky’s S 92 chopper.

Sources said the MRO will enable a comprehensive Performance-Based Logistic (PBL) support service that Airbus is offering to the Indian Coast Guard to ensure maximum fleet availability of its EC 725.

The PBL service covers the complete aircraft – ‘nose to tail’ – including the Safran engines.

While Goa will serve as the main location, infrastructure will be created and maintained at four other Coast Guard bases across India to deliver the service, the sources said.

The MRO activities would include the scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities which come within the ambit of intermediate and depot-level maintenance also known as 2nd and 3rd/4th level of maintenance.

Sources said the green field facility would pave the way for an inflow of new military helicopter maintenance technologies and skill sets in addition to the creation of expert jobs in India.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 01 Feb 2017 07:23

Looks like INS Kolkata has been fitted with the black sensors on the mast that we saw on Chennai.
The officer says it displaces 8100T, which is 600T more than when it was commissioned, wonder what additional sensors or weapons have been added since then.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Feb 2017 12:26

Xtra tonnage will be incurred for the larger BMos and B-8 missiles,with poss. larger magazines for weaponry. There is a quote in the FGFA td. about the Russians aiming to use BMos-M (light BMos) on future platforms like std. tubes aboard subs,FGFA fighters
and even MIG-35s. Once developed,this would perhaps allow future IN surface combatants to accommodate even more missiles than the 16 aboard our latest DDGs.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 Feb 2017 06:13

Minor fire on board INS Kamorta while out at sea
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/826776011773771777

John · Post by **John** » 02 Feb 2017 07:28

Philip wrote:Xtra tonnage will be incurred for the larger BMos and B-8 missiles,with poss. larger magazines for weaponry. There is a quote in the FGFA td. about the Russians aiming to use BMos-M (light BMos) on future platforms like std. tubes aboard subs,FGFA fighters
and even MIG-35s. Once developed,this would perhaps allow future IN surface combatants to accommodate even more missiles than the 16 aboard our latest DDGs.

Russians have no plans for Brahmos they already have oniks. As for Kolkata not surprised by tonnage which is mainly due to changes in superstructure and initial displacement figures are always on low side (remember Shivalik).

Also there is photo of Kolkata and HMS Defender (8000 tons +) side by side they seem quite identical in terms of size.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Feb 2017 07:58

the kolkata above was docked in port louis mauritius. interesting it went there. MAU does not have a real navy but a CG. a few ships including a couple of 1500t cutters and many inshore patrol boats and speedboats are docked there on left side.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Feb 2017 09:52

The Indian submarine INS Sindhudhvaj (S56) allegedly “killed” USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN 705) during an exercise called Malabar that is held annually between India, Japan and the United States.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ican-19262

mody · Post by **mody** » 02 Feb 2017 17:57

A wild idea would be to explore if we can replace the RD-33 engines on the Mig-29K with GE F414 engines. Maybe even the F404-IN6 engines, currently being used on the LCA.
The size of the engines is comparable. Russians obviously would not want to allow this, but if the US is game, we can atleast attempt to try this.
It would be really difficult to convince the US to put an American engine on a Russian plane, but if they agree, this would be a worthwhile exercise. Don't know how feasible it would be, but if it works, a MiG-29 with F414 engines would be an awesome aircraft.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 02 Feb 2017 17:58

^^ it was discussed earlier. In a boxed area like a sniper kill zone, DE submarine will always come on top.

In an unboxed area, nuclear submarine can ingress at high speeds, attack & egress at high speeds avoiding a counterattack. DE submarine will make noise when it moves at speed.

Sailors are artists too...Here's the perfect pouncer.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Feb 2017 18:41

mody wrote:A wild idea would be to explore if we can replace the RD-33 engines on the Mig-29K with GE F414 engines. Maybe even the F404-IN6 engines, currently being used on the LCA.
The size of the engines is comparable. Russians obviously would not want to allow this, but if the US is game, we can atleast attempt to try this.
It would be really difficult to convince the US to put an American engine on a Russian plane, but if they agree, this would be a worthwhile exercise. Don't know how feasible it would be, but if it works, a MiG-29 with F414 engines would be an awesome aircraft.

For the Russians, Kaveri-M88 would more acceptable rather than GE404

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 02 Feb 2017 18:46

Russians will not accept any tampering with the plane.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Feb 2017 20:44

Cybaru wrote:
mody wrote:A wild idea would be to explore if we can replace the RD-33 engines on the Mig-29K with GE F414 engines. Maybe even the F404-IN6 engines, currently being used on the LCA.
The size of the engines is comparable. Russians obviously would not want to allow this, but if the US is game, we can atleast attempt to try this.
It would be really difficult to convince the US to put an American engine on a Russian plane, but if they agree, this would be a worthwhile exercise. Don't know how feasible it would be, but if it works, a MiG-29 with F414 engines would be an awesome aircraft.

For the Russians, Kaveri-M88 would more acceptable rather than GE404

Regardless, changing an engine and trying to juggle between two different OEM's is no small task. It's a major undertaking. I don't think either side will agree to anything like this.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Feb 2017 21:01

Agreed. Its a moon shot at best with lots of pitfalls in the middle.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 02 Feb 2017 21:17

Any updates on Betwa - the ship that had fallen on its sides in drydock?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 03 Feb 2017 03:05

Karthik S wrote:Looks like INS Kolkata has been fitted with the black sensors on the mast that we saw on Chennai...

Wild guess- are they some type of RCS reduction devices?

mody · Post by **mody** » 03 Feb 2017 14:09

Possibility of fitting American engines on the MiG-29 is a moon shot. That is why I said its a wild idea to begin with.
But if we are ready to live with 45 Mig-29Ks being moved to shore deployment or using the Vik-Ad as simply a training ship of for deployment only in Indian littoral waters, then even a moon shot is worth it.
I'm sure the Russians will not be happy about it. USA would have to come first. If they agree, then trial for 1 plane can be carried out, possibly without informing/involving the Russians. Don't know if that would be feasible or not. But then again as I said its a wild idea, but probably worth exploring given our current predicament and the possible outcome of having F404/F414 engine equipped Mig-29!!!

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 03 Feb 2017 15:34

I think re-engining Mig-29K is a moon shot. I mean, what's the urgent need? Why would IN add to the logistics burden?

What might be more likely first step is to use an older Mig-29 with IAF (or picked up from elsewhere) as a testbed for Kaveri. If things look positive then a Kaveri solution during MLU could be a possibility.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Feb 2017 16:59

Cybaru wrote:Agreed. Its a moon shot...

mody wrote:Possibility of fitting American engines on the MiG-29 is a moon shot...

JTull wrote:I think re-engining Mig-29K is a moon shot...

I guess it's a moon shot.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 03 Feb 2017 17:20

Cybaru wrote:Agreed. Its a moon shot...

mody wrote: Possibility of fitting American engines on the MiG-29 is a moon shot...

JTull wrote:I think re-engining Mig-29K is a moon shot...

brar_w wrote:I guess it's a moon shot.

Hear, hear. It's TOTALLY a moon-shot now.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Feb 2017 17:37

Vivek K wrote:Any updates on Betwa - the ship that had fallen on its sides in drydock?

It will be upright by end of this month if things go as per plan

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 03 Feb 2017 17:52

brar_w wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Agreed. Its a moon shot...

mody wrote:Possibility of fitting American engines on the MiG-29 is a moon shot...

JTull wrote:I think re-engining Mig-29K is a moon shot...
I guess it's a moon shot.

Leaving aside the technical and logistical nightmares, this can be performed as a paper exercise at least, I believe. Select 3 engines that we will have in our inventory for the foreseeable future and try integrating them with the 29K's air frame and work out possible kinks that might turn up. If things do deteriorate beyond a certain point in terms of operational availability, we would at least have options on our hands.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Feb 2017 17:54

Regards re-engining, its not impossible - we're doing it for Jaguar and it was proposed to replace MiG-27 engines with AL-31. Cheetals are flying in service.

No permission is required from anyone - as a old Bengali proverb goes, we can slice our fish starting from the head or starting from the tail as per our sweet wish.

Only OEM performance and maintenance guarantees would've been nullified. In case of Jaguar, OEM BAe doesnt care anymore. With regards to MiG, we're pushing the envelope for them

The Tejas GE F404 engines are very well received & regarded in IAF for their reliability.

In all the Tejas test flights, never has the engine failed once unlike the Sukhoi Su-30

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... a-2787956/

India’s frontline fighter aircraft Su30 MKI was forced to land on single engine 34 times since April 1, 2014 due to engine trouble mid-air, government said on Friday.

The fleet of twin-engine aircraft has encountered mid-air engine problems due to which single-engine landings were effected, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said in reply to a written question in Lok Sabha.

There have been 34 occasions between April 1, 2014 and March 31 this year, when Sukhoi 30 MK-I fighter jets were forced to land on single engine due to mid-air engine problems.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Feb 2017 18:10

I thought all was hunky-dory with MIG-29UPG engines.No complaints thus far from the IAF.All appear to have been successfully upgraded at very low cost compared with the M2Ks. The engines are supposed to be smokeless,etc.,etc.,aircraft 4++ class. A v.tall order to fit a western engine into a Sov. era fighter,even with much sensor,weaponry upgraded.We could change the LCA's US GE engine to an EJ-200 TVC,The LCA with TVC would be even deadlier.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 03 Feb 2017 18:30

Why the MIG 29k engine is facing difficulties. Could it just be an issue related to lack of spare parts resulting in poor serviceability.

Or is it serious quality related issue that no amount of maintenance can fix.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Feb 2017 18:39

Philip wrote:We could change the LCA's US GE engine to an EJ-200 TVC,The LCA with TVC would be even deadlier.

The only western OEM that has actually designed, produced and test flown a working, integrated 3D TVC nozzle is GE. GE designed it in the 80's, built and flew it in the 90's and even offered to SAAB/Volvo for the Gripen at the time as well.

mody · Post by **mody** » 03 Feb 2017 18:58

Bala Vignesh wrote:
brar_w wrote:

I guess it's a moon shot.
Leaving aside the technical and logistical nightmares, this can be performed as a paper exercise at least, I believe. Select 3 engines that we will have in our inventory for the foreseeable future and try integrating them with the 29K's air frame and work out possible kinks that might turn up. If things do deteriorate beyond a certain point in terms of operational availability, we would at least have options on our hands.

+1.