Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
John
BRFite
Posts: 1763
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby John » 08 Aug 2018 17:13

tsarkar wrote:
John wrote:I am only seeing one Ak-630? Do a need a better resolution to confirm it, your thoughts?

All four there, the pollution haze combined with paint scheme blurring the outlines.

Oh alright thanks for confirming.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1260
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Khalsa » 09 Aug 2018 02:32

Philip wrote:Back from the boondocks.
Vindicated!


Welcome back Dost !!
:wink:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19361
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Philip » 09 Aug 2018 09:33

Filipov was far away plotting and planning mischief of a risque kind! No Natashas involved unfortunately.
I personally think that our entire procurement process is one big sham.Every govt. gets pressurised by firang vendors to the detriment of desi independence.The task is to incrementally increase desi % of indigenisation and where we do not possrss the tech, go in for JVs like BMos where we now have our own seeker.

But such programmes must be for high- tech cutting edge weapon systems NOT old hags like F-16/F-18s which the Yanquis want to dump upon us.We must also be bold and resist threats of sanctions.ABV did it after P-2 with aplomb, the nation should not succumb to an " orange- utan" in the Trash Tower!

Back to P-8Is.If the performance is below par we should penalise Boeing instead of wanting to buy more inferior birds! The IN too should get a knucle- rap for asking for 12 more. They should've highlighted the deficiencies to the MOD/ GOI .One sub- standard P-8 cost 4-5 times than that of an IL-38 .Admittedly the IL-38 is a turboprop, but these birds are perfect for the " low and slow" prosecution of subs and do not need expensive wing kits for dropping ASW torpedoes from high alt. like the Poseidons.

The IN should standardise upon 2 types.P-8 Is ( rectified)
since we've already bought them and extra IL-38s which are v.cost- effective and potent platforms, since they have a greater range and endurance against twin-engined turboprops like maritime versions of ATR types which are smaller and can carry inferior weaponry. IL- 38s can be equipped with BMos/ NG unlike smaller birds.These smaller types could be operated by the CG who now use Dorniers.The CG must steadily be trained in ASW warfare and mine- cojntermeasures as they have a number of useful platforms and aircraft that can complement the IN in a crisis.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6731
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Indranil » 09 Aug 2018 10:07

I don’t think there has been a better buy than the C-17s and P-8is in recent times. Just ask Boeing to fulfill its offset commitments.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6731
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Indranil » 09 Aug 2018 10:10

Seriously, there has been no better buys than the P-8is and the C-17s in recent times.

Boeing to should be asked to fulfill its commitments, that’s all.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7800
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Pratyush » 09 Aug 2018 11:45

With the p 8 at least the program was mature and the only thing that was not delivered by the vendor was lack of offset. Which can still be delivered by them. How, spend the money buying airframes doors from Indian companies and offset obligations are met.

If we had gone for any other options excepting the Japanese asw plane. We would have been asked to pay for development costs. The product would have under performed. No offset. Poor reliability. No access to home country upgrades as we would have been only operators.

So I am happy with it.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62673
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Singha » 09 Aug 2018 11:55

the japanese P1 looks formidably armed with both internal and external weapons. built for a fight.

exports to EU are in talks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_ ... nd_Germany

and its powered by locally developed high bypass turbofan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHI_Corporation_F7

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62673
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Singha » 09 Aug 2018 11:58

if we wish to plan for the AN32 phaseout, need to get onboard with the EC390 or the C2 now .... get a license to locally manufacture in phases...
our large transport design ability is a big zero

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-2

Kersi
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 31 May 2017 12:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Kersi » 09 Aug 2018 12:00

Philip wrote:Filipov was far away plotting and planning mischief.....

But such programmes must be for high- tech cutting edge weapon systems NOT old hags like F-16/F-18s which the Yanquis want to dump upon us.
.

Mr "Filitov" you should also add MiG29 / MiG35 / MiG 123 (or whatever you wish to call) to the list of old hags which somebody-or-the-other wants to dump on us.

Philip. Almost everyone on this forum agrees that we should have our own designed war machine. But do not keep adding Rodina designed / built products as the ony next-best options.

OTT. Way back in school and college days I too was in great awe of Soviet Union and its products and we did not have much money or choice. But today things are different. We have both. Let us make the most of it. Maybe a IL 38 is "mucher" cheaper than a P 8. But all of us have learnt the hard way that the availabilty / performance of most Western products is much more than the Russian equivalents. So it means that to keep one P 8 in air is as good as having 2-3 IL 38s. Soviet Union - political ideology has stood by us with political costs but the modern Russia believes in hard US$ or equivalent

Let us get the best product of our money.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19361
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Philip » 09 Aug 2018 13:34

Is the P-8I an "Indian" machine? Your statement is ridiculous,We haven't been able to design and build a decent transport of any size ,how on earth are we going to acquire an LRMP bird even in a decade's time? As for fighters,take a good look at how long the LCA torture has endured.The pitiful numbers produced each year (of the first edition which the IAF has had shoved down its throat being underperforing),not even in double figures. We were offered the FGFA/SU-57,surely a marked improvement on any F-16 or F-18! As for the AMCA dream on gents,I may be long gone 6 ft. under before it arrives in service.

Costs do matter which is why I always advocate cost-effective solutions when large numbers of any weapon system are needed,such as MIG-21 replacements.Some systems just happen to be Russian that's all.If the P-8Is performed as expected whyy not buy more? But they haven't ,they aren't the "best product" if they don't perform as expected and Boeing have to rectify the same at their cost or face severe penalties and no more bought.and are 4-5 times the cost of an IL-38,a platform within which we can fit in whatever avionics,radars and combat system that the In requires.Mothballed new ones are available at low cost.Worth taking a look when the pockets are depleted. But the bid was rigged according to the CAG,deliberately, by spotless St.Anthony,whose dhoti now is stained and muddy.

Another alternative is for Boeing to take back the lot,lock stock and barrel,return our money and we buy whatever other bird came in second.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9779
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby sum » 09 Aug 2018 13:59

^^ Philip-ji,
What under-performance are you talking about from the past few posts reg the P-8I?

We were offered the FGFA/SU-57,surely a marked improvement on any F-16 or F-18!

:-?
The same bird which is still in prototype phase , which IAF has trashed as not meeting specs for the prices being quoted and has been abondoned by India/IAF to not pursue further?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19361
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Philip » 09 Aug 2018 14:19

CAG report posted by several members.
I am not criticisng the rejection of the SU-57,which was on its cost and the factor of western pressure to buy more western/US eqpt. than from Russia (meaning Rafales and old hags).We don;t have enough money to buy all of them,but believe you me,we will in the future once the Chin stealth birds start appearing in large numbers in the Himalayas and probably entering Paki service post 2020,another look at urgent SU-57s will be on the anvil.

"But when all that is said and done, the MiG-29 is a superb fighter for close-in combat, even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. This is due to the aircraft’s superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Period. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’. We didn’t operate kill removal (forcing ‘killed’ aircraft to leave the fight) since they’d have got no training value, we killed them too quickly. (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!
https://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm

For MIG-29 critics,that's what the Germans found out after operating them post Cold War.The IAF found out too in combat exercises with our M2Ks.
So even if they're "old hags",they're better "old hags" than any western ones! :rotfl:

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 09 Aug 2018 14:46

Philipov its an old hag today.. dog fighting in todays realm is not by choice and please read a bit more about those encounters!!!

Talk about an agenda!!!

Be objective man...

mody
BRFite
Posts: 370
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby mody » 09 Aug 2018 15:45

The P8I's are a good buy and there is no alternative available for the LRMP role.
The shortfall in radar performance could also be a software issue. Please note that Boeing and Raytheon are going to progressively role out upgrades and updates for the P8s for many years to come. This is for the American P8's. The only unknown is whether our deal also automatically gets us all the updates and upgrades ass and when they become available. I guess it should, as P8's are still an evolving platform, which will become even better in the future. So I guess the contention that CAG is referring to dated info with regards to the radar performance, could well be correct.

With regards to the armament, the planes were always going to come with Mk-54 torpedoes and Harpoon Block-II missiles. With regards to the depth charges, no idea why they were not procured. In the future, we can hope to get our TAL torpedoes and Brahmos-M/NG on the planes.
Air launched Klub missiles would never get integrated with P-8I and I don't known if an air launched version even exists. Short of Klub and Brahmos, Harpoon Block II is the best bet.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 370
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby mody » 09 Aug 2018 16:08

For the Mig-29K's the main problem is maintenance required due to carrier landings.
As has been written in various reports, the planes suffer from a lot of mechanical and physical part failure due to carrier landings.
This requires extensive maintenance after every sortie. This means that each plane on the carrier is good enough for only 1 at most 2 sorties.
The inspection for maintenance required is also quite extensive, as which screw might gotten loose or sheared off or which part might have damaged or which LRU might have become loose is not predictable.

In addition to this, all the spare parts might not be available on board the ship.
This is severely restricting the carrier operations of the Mig-29K and also the carrier cannot venture too far away from the coast.

The requirement for 57 new planes by the Navy is complaint against the Mig-29K only and is not purely due to the non-availability of the NLCA.

There is no easy fix for the problem. RAC-Mig can make some design changes and add a few more shock absorbers all around, but that will only mitigate the problem somewhat and not completely eliminate it. Plus there is also the question of confidence. The reliability of the Mig-29 has always been poor, as per the experience from IAF. The engine was always a problem. They have improved it for the Mig-29K, becoming much less smoky, as compared to the original RD-33. Even after all the changes are made by RAC-Mig, it will take some time to figure out if the problems have truly been solved or atleast limited to maybe just a few parts.

In the current scenario, the best option is the F-18SH. We can order a few, say 36, fund the development of the GE F-414 EPE/EDE upgrade to power the same and also get a license manufacture facility for the same in India. Either GE can put up a fully owned plant or a joint venture, with a mandate to manufacture the complete engine from raw materials in India (except for COTS parts), within 5 years. The higher thrust of the upgraded engines will help the F-18 make more suitable for STOBAR operations and also help with NCLA-MK2, Tejas-MK2 and AMCA.

Go full steam ahead with the development of NLCA as TD and then NLCA-MK2 for the future.

For the Mig29K, we can transfer 21 to IAF, with suitable modifications for IAF operations and once the Shornets come along, relegate the remaining 24 Migs to shore based roles.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1260
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Khalsa » 09 Aug 2018 16:50

The Royal NZ Air Force operates the Orions instead of the Navy in New Zealand.
They have one squadron of 6 P3s and will be going for 4 P8 when the P3s retire.

They report they will able to generate same or better cadence with 4 P8 a/c than the 6 P3s

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21764
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Austin » 09 Aug 2018 18:25

Indian Auditor Reveals Naval Spy Jets Procured From US Can be Tracked Online

https://sputniknews.com/asia/2018080910 ... -question/
"Even though the requirement of the Indian Navy of being secretive in their missions is mandatory, it was observed by the A squadron (December 2016) that the tracks were being generated on a particular website… As of February 2018, the aircraft continued to be tracked on the website, which compromises the secrecy of mission flights of the Indian Navy," the CAG report reads.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1079
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby nam » 09 Aug 2018 18:48

An rq4 was recently "tracked" on "the site", during the recent US attack on Syria, flying west coast of Syria.

Obviously they had their transponder switched on.

The site tracks publicly available data.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62673
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Singha » 09 Aug 2018 19:32

:rotfl:

keeping transponder is done for safety unless on some real exercise. ATC tracks via transponder as radar coverage is nonexistent out over the sea.

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 328
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby maz » 09 Aug 2018 23:31

Does anyone have the actual link to the CAG report? Would appreciate a link to it.

I think CAg reports should be read with a grain of salt. In any event, they are a snapshot of a certain timeframe from the past. As expected, things almost always tend to evolve. In other words, what was true some years ago may no longer be correct today. In other words, whatever shortcomings the P-*'s may have had have probably been largely if not wholly mitigated by now. Remember, operators are always modifying kit based on op. necessities.

Anyhow, I think the P-8's are doing stellar service. That said, what is needed is a mix of 'high' end platforms like the P-8 and and ' low' end platforms like the C-295 MRASW which have lower operating coasts per hour. This was the plan but nothing seems to have materialized from the planned joint buy of C-295s. Maybe this could still happen.

so, notionally, between the P-8s, the missing C-295 type twin engined MRASW platform and the Do-228s, INn MPA assets would be respectable.

On the other hand, the lack of a modern shipborne MRH to replace the capable but venerable SKG is a serious issue that really needs to be addressed....

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6203
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby nachiket » 10 Aug 2018 05:37

Singha wrote:the japanese P1 looks formidably armed with both internal and external weapons. built for a fight.

exports to EU are in talks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_ ... nd_Germany

and its powered by locally developed high bypass turbofan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHI_Corporation_F7

This could have been the only worthwhile competitor to the P-8. I don't know if it was seriously considered. The A319 MPA is vapourware. Not a single prototype is flying even today.

Interestingly, the P-1 is about the same size as the P-8 but has 4 engines instead of two. Easy to understand why - each of the Japanese F7 engines produces half the thrust of the CFM56 on the P-8. This might lead to higher fuel consumption and higher maintenance costs (twice the number of engines to be serviced).

There is a lesson in here. The Japanese could have easily designed the P-1 with CFM56 engines for a more optimal twin-engine configuration for an aircraft that size. But they stuck with their local effort because they realize the importance of supporting local efforts to reduce dependence on western engine manufacturers who have a stranglehold on the market these days. Also, if the P-1 is competing with the P-8 in a deal the US cannot torpedo the proposal by refusing to sell the engines. (Like they did for the Viggen back when the IAF was interested in it).

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5224
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Viv S » 10 Aug 2018 14:41

Austin wrote:
Viv S wrote:By RAC-MiG pilots. There were only observers from the Indian side. The ability to launch and recover from a carrier was demonstrated, but the effect of arrested recovery on the airframe was only realised after the order for the follow-on batch had been placed.

All the points were also noted and observed by IN and verified by IN personal on both for the aircraft and ship , Unless the IN certifies the ships /aircraft that it met all test criteria they dont sign the final document , THis is true for all purchase

That's your assumption. If the IN had indeed been aware of the effect of arrested landings on the MiG-29K's airframe in 2009, it wouldn't have come as a big 'reveal' in 2012 when the trials on the Gorshkov commenced. And the Russian side would have been told to rectify the problems before the follow on order was placed.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5224
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Viv S » 10 Aug 2018 15:15

nachiket wrote:This could have been the only worthwhile competitor to the P-8. I don't know if it was seriously considered. The A319 MPA is vapourware. Not a single prototype is flying even today.

Exactly. The odd thing about the CAG report isn't that the P-8 was pricier, its that the Airbus MPA was considered technically compliant.

There's no parity between the technical risk associated with the two projects. The P-8 had an indicative order of 108 airframes and was running off a committed R&D budget of around $8 billion. The A319 MPA was a paper project with no domestic orders. Today a decade later, there are about 100 P-8s in service across three operators, with firm orders from another five customers. The Airbus MPA? Still on paper. (France and Germany signed an MoU last month to develop an Airbus MPA.... to enter service in the mid-to-late 2030s.)

I suspect the IN & MoD knew from Day 1 that only the P-8 was going to make the cut but didn't want to get bogged down in a single vendor purchase at a politically sensitive time.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21764
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Austin » 10 Aug 2018 15:22

Viv S wrote:
Austin wrote:All the points were also noted and observed by IN and verified by IN personal on both for the aircraft and ship , Unless the IN certifies the ships /aircraft that it met all test criteria they dont sign the final document , THis is true for all purchase

That's your assumption. If the IN had indeed been aware of the effect of arrested landings on the MiG-29K's airframe in 2009, it wouldn't have come as a big 'reveal' in 2012 when the trials on the Gorshkov commenced. And the Russian side would have been told to rectify the problems before the follow on order was placed.


Even you are assuming things here its possible that during those period the problem may not have been cropped up and it is also possible that between 2014 and 2018 most if not all the problem with 29K could have been resolved by IN

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21764
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Austin » 10 Aug 2018 15:26

This could have been the only worthwhile competitor to the P-8. I don't know if it was seriously considered. The A319 MPA is vapourware. Not a single prototype is flying even today.


Vapourware or acceptable risk the IN and MOD should have done the necessary risk assesment and compliance before recommending it to CCS that is their job. IF they accepted both then they did a very poor shoddy job of it or they accepted the risk associated with P-8I and 319MPA

IF MOD went to extra ordinary process to manipulate the L1 process than it is more of the case of corruption involved , Who ever did that now has to be answerable.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5224
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Viv S » 10 Aug 2018 15:51

Austin wrote:Even you are assuming things here its possible that during those period the problem may not have been cropped up and it is also possible that between 2014 and 2018 most if not all the problem with 29K could have been resolved by IN

Most of the media reports, 'chaiwallah' reports here on BRF (including some very reliable people) as well as Adm Prakash's comments, indicate that its a chronic problem ('regular occurrence of defects on a sortie to sortie basis').

If the issues were with poor reliability or premature wear of components, then yes it could have come as a surprise. But as the DASE's communication with the OEM prove, the problems were discovered ('major defects arose') with the airframe at the start of testing on the carrier - the aircraft itself had been in service for several years at that point.

Has it been resolved? Well.. again according to the IRIGC-MTC, the issues problems continued even after design improvements were made again suggesting that is indeed a fundamental issue related to excessive shock transmitted by the undercarriage. Can it be resolved? Its not impossible but would likely require a trip back to the OEM's overhaul yard to be stripped down, so lets see.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2519
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby chola » 10 Aug 2018 17:05

^^^ Issues can be “solved” procedurally. In this case by a low rate of deployment and sortie, flights within proximity of land bases and a heavier work load on the maintenance crew after each landing.

In fact, the 29Ks are “helped” by the fact that deployment of the Vikramaditya is low since the ex-Gorshkov goes into port for maintenance 8 months at a time. For our most high profile capital ship, news are very hard to come by and we have not seen much of the 29K flying off and landing on the Vikky except for the one major exception of the Malabar exercise last July.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1763
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby John » 10 Aug 2018 17:24

nachiket wrote:This could have been the only worthwhile competitor to the P-8. I don't know if it was seriously considered. The A319 MPA is vapourware. Not a single prototype is flying even today.

Hindsight is 20/20 back when P-8 was being considered A319 showed a lot of promise and P-8 was also highly risky (no orders, low altitude performance, lower endurance compared P-3, lower visibility compared to P-3, cost)

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 328
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby maz » 10 Aug 2018 21:22

I need a link to the CAG report. Can anyone help?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6203
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby nachiket » 10 Aug 2018 23:09

John wrote:
nachiket wrote:This could have been the only worthwhile competitor to the P-8. I don't know if it was seriously considered. The A319 MPA is vapourware. Not a single prototype is flying even today.

Hindsight is 20/20 back when P-8 was being considered A319 showed a lot of promise and P-8 was also highly risky (no orders, low altitude performance, lower endurance compared P-3, lower visibility compared to P-3, cost)

Not just hindsight. Boeing had a development contract awarded from the USN back in 2004. Development of the P-8 wasn't dependent on our money. Airbus had no such contract. And the first prototype did fly within three months of the agreement being signed. Absolutely no comparison between the two. "Promise" cannot compete with adequate funding and 4-5 years of development. We would have to bankroll the A319 MPA development and it would have taken longer too.

The Kawasaki P-1 on the other hand was flying in 2008 itself and also had a commitment from Japan. That is why I called it a worthwhile competitor. I do not know enough about its capabilities to compare them on other parameters.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1763
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby John » 11 Aug 2018 00:14

nachiket wrote:
John wrote:Hindsight is 20/20 back when P-8 was being considered A319 showed a lot of promise and P-8 was also highly risky (no orders, low altitude performance, lower endurance compared P-3, lower visibility compared to P-3, cost)

Not just hindsight. Boeing had a development contract awarded from the USN back in 2004. Development of the P-8 wasn't dependent on our money. Airbus had no such contract. And the first prototype did fly within three months of the agreement being signed. Absolutely no comparison between the two. "Promise" cannot compete with adequate funding and 4-5 years of development. We would have to bankroll the A319 MPA development and it would have taken longer too.

The Kawasaki P-1 on the other hand was flying in 2008 itself and also had a commitment from Japan. That is why I called it a worthwhile competitor. I do not know enough about its capabilities to compare them on other parameters.

Back in 2008 P-8s procurement was under heavy scrutiny in US only well after India's order did P-8 get sufficient orders in the US so i would say it was risky if US had backtracked and decided to not go with P-8.

Only recently (2015ish) did Japan open itself up to exporting P-1 so it could not have been contender for P-8 & A-319. As for your question P-1s have better low altitude performance, more advanced controls and more wing area to carry more weapons. However P-8 is cheaper to maintain due to # of engines and availability of spares. I cannot comment on cost per plane since P-1s have not been exported so its hard to compare $$ against P-8.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21764
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Austin » 11 Aug 2018 10:29

Indian Submariners E4P3 - Routine Life on a Submarine |



Indian Submariners E4P4 - Sindhukirti Submarine Fires Torpedoes


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62673
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Singha » 11 Aug 2018 10:45

P8i was a done deal due to tina factor and low uptime and safety issues with p3 units
The numbers and timelines are sometimes adjusted due to competing for funds by other projects but no question of just soldiering on with a p3-bison , khan does not operate in that mode.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19361
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Philip » 11 Aug 2018 13:22

Now that we have them we just have to innovate and make improvements ourselves if the OEM cannot deliver.
I do agree that the ASW helos are more pressing along with a second sub line acquired apart from the P-75I which is taking years to select.At the current rate these subs will arrive only by 2030 and be half obsolete by then.
G to G acquisition of German U-boats or an Ru boat should be expedited at the earliest.Pak will have 8 new Yuan AIP boats built by China within 4 to 5 years.Thsy're being built at half the time we're taking for non-AIP Scorpenes.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5224
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Viv S » 12 Aug 2018 01:43

Philip wrote:
"But when all that is said and done, the MiG-29 is a superb fighter for close-in combat, even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. This is due to the aircraft’s superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Period. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’. We didn’t operate kill removal (forcing ‘killed’ aircraft to leave the fight) since they’d have got no training value, we killed them too quickly. (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!
https://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm

For MIG-29 critics,that's what the Germans found out after operating them post Cold War.The IAF found out too in combat exercises with our M2Ks.
So even if they're "old hags",they're better "old hags" than any western ones! :rotfl:

There were two columns in that link you posted Philip. I see you decided to quote from only one of them. Why not post from the other half? You know.. this bit :-

"Our navigation system is unreliable without TACAN updates and is not very accurate (I’d prefer to call it an estimation system). It relies on triangulation from three TACAN stations, and if you lose one, you effectively lose the system. We can only enter three fixed waypoints, which is inadequate. We also can’t display our ‘Bullseye’ (known navigation datum, selected randomly for security). For communications we have only one VHF/UHF radio.

"The radar is at least a generation behind the AN/APG-65, and is not line-repairable. If we have a radar problem, the aircraft goes back into the hangar. The radar has a poor display, giving poor situational awareness, and this is compounded by the cockpit ergonomics. The radar has reliability problems and lookdown/shootdown problems. There is poor discrimination between targets flying in formation, and we can’t lock onto the target in trail, only onto the lead. We have only the most limited autonomous operating capability.

"We don’t have the range to conduct HVAA attack missions - and we’re effectively limited from crossing the FLOT (Front Line of Own Troops). Our limited station time and lack of air-to-air refuelling capability effectively rules us out of meaningful air defence missions. Nor are we suited to the sweep escort role. We have a very limited range, especially at high speed and low altitudes, and are limited to 540-kt with external fuel. We have navigation problems, Bullseye control is very difficult and we have only one radio. So if I talk, I ‘trash’ the package’s radios!

"The only possible missions for NATO’s MiG-29s are as adversary threat aircraft for air combat training, for point defence, and as wing (not lead!) in Mixed Fighter Force Operations. But even then I would still consider the onboard systems too limited, especially the radar, the radar warning receiver, and the navigation system as well as the lack of fuel. These drive the problems we face in tactical scenarios. We suffer from poor presentation of the radar information (which leads to poor situational awareness and identification problems), short BVR weapons range, a bad navigation system and short on- station times."


And of course the ground crew would have had their own series of complaints with respect to the aircraft's maintainability & reliability. Its not surprise that despite the MiG-29 having a better ITR, STR & roll rate, the 'western hag' i.e. the Mirage 2000 remained the IAF's most prized possession.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19361
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby Philip » 12 Aug 2018 03:45

M2K has never been called an old hag by moi! Only Yanqui F-16/F-18 birds.I would describe the M2K as an middle aged beauty.

The post was the final verdict on its performance vis-a-vis contemporary western fighters where the Fulcrum pasted all contemporary western rivals and Block-50 F-16s.The link was given for the full picture for anyone to read.That too for the very first legacy variant, not upto Sov. std. and much inferior to our upgraded 29UGs and 29Ks.

The IAF appears to have tasked the M2K primarily for the strategic / strike role.If you recollect at Kargil, it was the sight of MIG-29s which saw Paki F-16s turn tail and scoot, not M2Ks. As for maintenance of our Fulcrums, the engines are being built at home and we've no major complaints about IAF aircraft, only the 29Ks.

Moreover, as I've said often, the 29 upgrades for 67+ aircraft cost only $900M ( approx. $13+M each) while the cost of M2K upgrades is a massive $2,5B for around 50M each ! For the price of an M2K upgrade one could buy a superior brand new bird.
Egypt has bought brand new MIG-29s for around only $30M each and new MIG-35s at under $40M.A new MKI costs around $70M only, a far better deal.

jpremnath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 21:06

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Postby jpremnath » 12 Aug 2018 15:41

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote: https://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm

For MIG-29 critics,that's what the Germans found out after operating them post Cold War.The IAF found out too in combat exercises with our M2Ks.
So even if they're "old hags",they're better "old hags" than any western ones! :rotfl:

There were two columns in that link you posted Philip. I see you decided to quote from only one of them. Why not post from the other half? You know.. this bit :-



Philip sar is known for cherry picking titbits to suit his narrative. He is as useful in these forums as Liu who had atleast made his agenda very clear.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests