Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Indranil » 06 Oct 2015 22:38

+1.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby srin » 06 Oct 2015 22:59

I'm afraid I don't get it. Isn't bleeding energy a bad thing in a dog fight ? And after a Cobra, the Sukhoi would have even less energy than before.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby brar_w » 06 Oct 2015 23:25

Bleeding too much energy may work against you in a large force furball where slowing down to fend off one opponent could very well mean being killed by someone else that you didn't have in your focus. However, in smaller engagements if you can get a shot off in the shortest possible time you have a distinct advantage. A part of this comes off from having HOBS missiles, but a lot of it also comes from being able to nose-point better especially since a HOBS and a rapid change of direction for an close in missile is range-depleting. Air to Air engagements have progressed far from the classic dogfight where the only way to get a kill was to somehow manage to get behind your opponent. These days against modern aircraft if you wait to get in that position you may have already been killed multiple times over :). Here the trick is to get a decent shot no matter what your position vis-à-vis your opponent and for that you need both a bad a$$ missile and the ability to rapidly change direction and get something off at a moments notice. In some cases you don't want to loose energy or speed but in others you may be better off trading off energy for a quick kill. If you know the limits of your system (missile mainly) and the relative performance of your opponent's aircraft you can make good use of this capability but of course you don't want to bleed off all the time. A lot of this depends upon the fuel state, payload of both you and your opponent. If you are heavy and at 30+ K feet then your recovery will be a lot different than if you are light and below 20,000 feet.
Last edited by brar_w on 06 Oct 2015 23:34, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54823
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2015 23:33

If ACM Raha is so concerned he would depute an Air Cdre level Engineering officer to ensure proper supply chain instead of giving whining interviews.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2015 23:38

Aditya G wrote:He is referring to hal.


But in turn most of HALs problems directly relate to Sukhoi. From the CAG report, Sukhoi delivered documentation, jigs/tooling several years late. Add tardy spares supplies - including tires, engine issues.. the list goes on and on...in most of these cases HAL was almost completely dependent on Sukhoi..indigenization would take time .. so I wonder whom is the AF referring to when he says "OEM"...imho he could be targeting Sukhoi..he knows HAL is not really the OEM.

The media of course is going overboard..."complained bitterly".. about "quality".. the most measured of responses from the CAS gets hyped.

Arming India has Vishal Thapar as its correspondent...he's the original DDM.. and its all import import import..

The CAS goes so far as to clarify to the same dorks:

Q. There have been references to Su-30 MKI’s capability shortfall in an one-on-one dogfight during a close air combat vis-à-vis Pakistan Air Force’s F-16 C/D, primarily due to the latter’s EW strength? :lol: :roll: (EW capability an issue in close in combat, when its more critical for BVR.. dude doesn't even know what he is asking) Is that assessment correct and if so, doesn’t this situation pose a limitation on Indian Su-30 MKI fleet countering the PAF’s F-16 fleet? What’s IAF’s counter within its fleet to that capability in the rival’s fleet?

A. Su-30 MKI is a potent platform and is capable of meeting all our operational requirements including those in a one-to-one combat scenario. Our forces have been participating in international exercises with friendly Air Forces against front line state-of the art fighter aircraft, which has provided insight into their capability and operational philosophy. The Su-30 has always performed well during such bi-lateral and multi-lateral Air Force level exercises.

Q. What’s going to be the final number of Su-30 MKI squadrons in the Air Force? How are inductions keeping pace with your plans? Have you overcome the issues of new Sukhoi bases not having shelters for the aircraft that are being deployed in the North East, such as in Tezpur or Chabua?

A. We intend to have a total of 13 squadrons equipped with the Su-30 MKI aircraft. There are certain slippages in delivery but they are not alarming and are being addressed through measures at the appropriate levels.


Then there is this...CAS says LCA cant do the job of the MMRCA.. to which this fool adds adjectives like ominous, MOD confessed etc etc. Dumb$$ of the highest order..

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2015 23:42

ramana wrote:If ACM Raha is so concerned he would depute an Air Cdre level Engineering officer to ensure proper supply chain instead of giving whining interviews.


IMHO his interview was very factual and professional. He seems to be a man of very few words. These media idiots are twisting his every statement and making a huge hue and cry out of it.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Surya » 07 Oct 2015 00:18

He says OEM?? If so how can it be HAL?

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 07 Oct 2015 01:59

Karan M wrote:
ramana wrote:If ACM Raha is so concerned he would depute an Air Cdre level Engineering officer to ensure proper supply chain instead of giving whining interviews.


IMHO his interview was very factual and professional. He seems to be a man of very few words. These media idiots are twisting his every statement and making a huge hue and cry out of it.


True. The questions seem to be way longer than the responses they generated from ACM :)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2015 02:59

MA rates are a direct result of your support and spare requirements (plus maintain, so human factor as well). As the exercises have shown, with enough access to spares you can fly all the time. This is true for all aircraft and systems. However, MA rates reflect the status quo in terms of how much availability you have given your capital allotment towards the same i.e how much do you have to invest to get a higher MA rate. This is dictated by both the conceptual design of the hardware and the component and system reliability which in turn are a function of the quality of the products etc etc Technically you can get from 55% to 70% or even 80% through a brute force approach (just stock up to very high levels) but that is undesirable for obvious reasons, therefore most air-forces work with the OEM's and the entire supply chain to institute measures to improve each and every component that directly or indirectly contributes to higher availability. Because of this getting higher MA rates is a gradual process because most organizations prefer to go through the entire chain to obtain efficiencies rather than just begin throwing a larger percentage of their budget at the problem as this if sustained tends to disrupt the long-term budget allocation to other programs. The art is to invest in improvement so that you get a higher MA rate through a relatively unchanged annual O&S budget as opposed to the other way around.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 07 Oct 2015 04:01

pandyan wrote:
Illustrating the benefits of ample supply of spares, Raha said the IAF's Su-30MKI complement for the recently-conducted 'Exercise Indradhanush' in Britain did not miss a single mission because of sufficient spares back-up. "There was 100 per cent availability of our aircraft during this exercise," he recalled. Efforts are being made to increase the supply of spares.


he is highlighting spares issue and not talking about HAL per se. I think HAL provided some data around spare inventory maintained by IAF at 500cr worth versus the norms of 5000Cr or 15000 cr (i am not sure about the exact number...was it 5% of the aircraft cost?). May be ACM is highlighting the fact that maintenance depos need to stock more spares and invest in them.


You are referring to this article:
Government takes note of Su-30MKI’s poor serviceability
...
Last month, the MoD held two high-level meetings to find solutions to this problem. According to figures presented in those meeting (a) 20 per cent of the fleet, i.e. some 39 Su-30MKIs, are undergoing “first line” and “second line” maintenance or inspections at any time, which is the IAF’s responsibility; (b) Another 11-12 per cent of the fleet is undergoing major repair and overhaul by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL); and (c) 13-14 per cent of the fleet is grounded, awaiting major systems or repairs --- the technical terms is: “aircraft on ground”.

For decades, the IAF has accused HAL of poor workmanship and maintenance. At the MoD meeting on Su-30MKI serviceability, HAL turned the tables on the IAF.

The MoD was informed about serious problems with the IAF’s management of spares. By standard norms, a fighter fleet consumes 5 per cent of its worth in consumables and spares each year. By that benchmark the Su-30MKI fleet, currently worth about Rs 69,000 crore --- 193 Su-30MKIs at Rs 358 crore per fighter --- should consume spares worth Rs 3,450 crore annually. Yet, IAF orders from HAL add up to less than Rs 50 crore, including ground handling equipment.

Without competent inventory management by the IAF, and with spares ordered piecemeal when defects arise, Su-30MKI fighters spend weeks on the ground awaiting spares.

To ensure that 13-14 per cent of the Su-30MKI fleet is not grounded for want of spares, HAL has stockpiled spares worth Rs 400 crore in Nashik. According to S Subrahmanyan, the chief of HAL’s Nashik facility, the inventory is based on a study of consumption patterns of Su-30MKI spares over the preceding five years.

HAL says this buffer stock includes spares that are still purchased from Russia, because low consumption volumes make indigenisation non-cost-effective. Even so, non-availability of these spares could ground aircraft.

Simultaneously, HAL has proposed to the MoD that the IAF must order spares required over a 5-year period, stocking them at 25 Equipment Depot, the IAF’s holding depot for spares at Nashik.


Separately, HAL has offered the IAF “Performance Based Logistics” (PBL) for the Su-30MKI fleet --- a solution common in advanced western air forces. PBL would bind HAL to maintain the Su-30MKI, providing the IAF a specified serviceability rate --- calculated in flight hours, or as a percentage of the total aircraft fleet --- in exchange for an annual service charge.

Besides saving maintenance costs for the IAF, PBL has been found to encourage quality manufacture, since manufacturers know they will be responsible for keeping the aircraft serviceable through its operational life.

MoD officials say the IAF dislikes the PBL model, because outsourcing maintenance to HAL threatens a large maintenance empire built around “base repair depots”, manned by IAF personnel. In 2008-09, the IAF rejected HAL’s proposal for a PBL contract for maintaining the Hawk advanced jet trainer.

...


Current efforts to increase serviceability rates seem to be focused on "(c) 13-14 per cent of the fleet is grounded, awaiting major systems or repairs --- the technical terms is: “aircraft on ground”". So more spares need to be stocked for this to happen.

Other thing is “Performance Based Logistics” (PBL) being offered by HAL. The IAF, I think, has PBL for C-130J and C-17 (and OEM LCC is included in the Rafale package) but doesn't seem to want PBL for Su-30MKI or Hawk AJT. Maybe should look at that to at least guarantee specified serviceability rate (~70% -> 55% current + 13-14% improvement with adequate spares) from the manufacturer. This would be on top of IAF's own BRD maintenance and servicing--"(a) 20 per cent of the fleet are undergoing “first line” and “second line” maintenance or inspections at any time".

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby deejay » 07 Oct 2015 06:20

ramana wrote:If ACM Raha is so concerned he would depute an Air Cdre level Engineering officer to ensure proper supply chain instead of giving whining interviews.


Ramana Sir, the level of Engineering & Flying branch officers involved are higher.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 07 Oct 2015 07:25

It seems like the IAF must accept the PBL system, if they cannot stock up on loads of spares on their own (owing to budget issues). It seems highly union-like to worry about jobs at BRDs and obsessive to worry about control of spares, when in fact they have no spares at all.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 07 Oct 2015 08:09

isnt PBL the model we pay amrika for P8/C17/C130 and it works but is not cheap in dollar mode?

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby shiv » 07 Oct 2015 08:52

srai wrote:
MoD officials say the IAF dislikes the PBL model, because outsourcing maintenance to HAL threatens a large maintenance empire built around “base repair depots”, manned by IAF personnel. In 2008-09, the IAF rejected HAL’s proposal for a PBL contract for maintaining the Hawk advanced jet trainer.

...
Interesting if true..

So the IAF is protecting its BRDs.

I must make this comment. I have taken photos of IAFs BRD "import substitution" stuff in some aero India. I will locate and post. While I am sure they perform yeoman service I was not at all impressed by the finish. Much of the stuff looked crude.

What this means is that the Air Force has its own small parallel manufacturing line that it is protecting. Some years ago there was a proposal that BRD should take up production of HS 748 or something. Don;t know what happened there.

But this report if true adds and extra layer of complication. Those figures of how little the IAF ordered from HAL if true tell a story of their own. HAL is right in saying that import substitution is pointless if very small amounts are ordered. :eek:

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 07 Oct 2015 09:07

shiv wrote:What this means is that the Air Force has its own small parallel manufacturing line that it is protecting. Some years ago there was a proposal that BRD should take up production of HS 748 or something. Don;t know what happened there.


That was for the 45 Italian C-27J Transport Aircraft that IAF was planning to buy , they proposed to be built at BRD instead of HAL

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 07 Oct 2015 09:11

Well a recent report said that IAF BRDs are upgrading remaining AN-32 as well.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby shiv » 07 Oct 2015 09:36

Thakur_B wrote:Well a recent report said that IAF BRDs are upgrading remaining AN-32 as well.

Let me be mean and say that the Air Force is willing to go part of the way but is incapable of going the whole hog while it disputes the quality it gets from HAL. I am not trying to say HAL is blameless - but I had started an entire new thread because two government organizations IAF and HAL cannot cooperate. By nature pilots need to be bold and aggressive and need to have big egos - which they do - and here they are dealing with a PSU which is only slightly lower than an IAS Babu in working with convoluted rules that encourage inefficiency

What a mess.

Let me say something extremely unpalatable and may sound hurtful or unfair, but I need to say it out because keeping it inside my mind will not be right - that's just not me.

In late British India the armed forces had an ego and self image that meant pride in the "martial qualities" of the Nothern Indians and generally looked down on South Indians as non martial. In post independence India it was the South that fought against the imposition of Hindi which was a disastrous idea from the point of view of the South. I suspect that the Air Force and HAL have been divided by this stupid pre-independence cliche of the martial fighters with the air force numerically dominated by North Indians and the irritating non martial South Indians of Bangalore based HAL. It is mean and unfair to say it but I must say it in case it exists.

Of course in India no one allows these things up to the surface - but if it has existed in the past with HAL and IAF and maybe even army and Avadi and OFB, it needs to change pronto.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby deejay » 07 Oct 2015 13:04

shiv wrote:
srai wrote:
MoD officials say the IAF dislikes the PBL model, because outsourcing maintenance to HAL threatens a large maintenance empire built around “base repair depots”, manned by IAF personnel. In 2008-09, the IAF rejected HAL’s proposal for a PBL contract for maintaining the Hawk advanced jet trainer.

...
Interesting if true..

So the IAF is protecting its BRDs.

I must make this comment. I have taken photos of IAFs BRD "import substitution" stuff in some aero India. I will locate and post. While I am sure they perform yeoman service I was not at all impressed by the finish. Much of the stuff looked crude.

What this means is that the Air Force has its own small parallel manufacturing line that it is protecting. Some years ago there was a proposal that BRD should take up production of HS 748 or something. Don;t know what happened there.

But this report if true adds and extra layer of complication. Those figures of how little the IAF ordered from HAL if true tell a story of their own. HAL is right in saying that import substitution is pointless if very small amounts are ordered. :eek:


This as per an MOD official. I hope someone does a good Psy analysis of MOD babus. Nothing suits MOD better than floating canards like there is an IAF interest group and an HAL interest group and play the resultant vector to stay in control. They do it inter-services too.

From my understanding which may be flawed and what I was taught within IAF - BRD's are 3rd line of servicing - major overhauls/ upgrades etc for IAF equipment. The first line is the unit / sqn technical team known as DSS, the second line is usually co-located with the operating unit/ sqn as CR&SS and BRD being the 3rd line. BRD's have adequate employment. If IAF utilises its Engineering talent for R&D too should it be discouraged?

Our Maintenance Command has extremely capable Engineers and in a fairly large number. Its like the IAF's "Engineer's Corpse". These Engineers can and do take on local modifications, etc. The quality not being TFTA etc could be because of in-house workshop effect which once operationalised could be TFTAed.

Now, when the MOD wants these separate organisations to come together, both IAF and HAL do get together to speak the same language. To explain this I am going to use some conjecture of my own. IIRC, HAL had recently (02 months maybe) said that its hands are full and taking on the Tejas Mk 2 would be difficult. Then comes the press conference from ACM Raha who clearly states a requirement of 120 Tejas, (a wish all jingoes had of orders in 100's to get the production line going) but also says that only thing the IAF needs is Tejas - not Mk 1, not Mk 1A, not Mk 2. Upgrades will happen as and when they come.

Suddenly, IAF and HAL are in sync and I guess this needed a boss in MOD who wanted it to happen.

Now some are unhappy with IAF not wanting Tejas Mk 2. Some time back some folks complained that IAF jumped on Mk 2 based on the Naval requirement and it is not supporting Mk 1. Conflicting, but in a jingoes heart all decisions in favour of our own should have been made at least yesterday.

Mk 2 of Tejas as a programme will be followed up because the IN has a requirement. While it may not be explicitly stated today, I do not see how the IAF will sit out from a better and more capable aircraft being produced. The support that IAF needs to provide would be more of a function of available budgets with respective services and how the MOD wants them to split. It is not that MOD is only a facilitator, ultimately MOD is the decision maker. Some direction on this already available.

On the Su 30 thread, this speculation may seem OT but I bring it up to explain how HAL- IAF equation is always mentioned as IAF vs HAL irrespective of the context. Therefore, IMO, even here the entire context of making this comparison arises from a statement from an MOD official. Hypothetically, if the same official had said something like " We are planning to utilise IAF BRD for xyz purpose" the whole IAF vs HAL debate would never occur.

Long post - small point :)

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 07 Oct 2015 13:25

^^^

Dirty laundry hung out in the public for all to see :wink:

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby deejay » 07 Oct 2015 13:38

shiv wrote:...
Let me say something extremely unpalatable and may sound hurtful or unfair, but I need to say it out because keeping it inside my mind will not be right - that's just not me.

In late British India the armed forces had an ego and self image that meant pride in the "martial qualities" of the Nothern Indians and generally looked down on South Indians as non martial. In post independence India it was the South that fought against the imposition of Hindi which was a disastrous idea from the point of view of the South. I suspect that the Air Force and HAL have been divided by this stupid pre-independence cliche of the martial fighters with the air force numerically dominated by North Indians and the irritating non martial South Indians of Bangalore based HAL. It is mean and unfair to say it but I must say it in case it exists.

Of course in India no one allows these things up to the surface - but if it has existed in the past with HAL and IAF and maybe even army and Avadi and OFB, it needs to change pronto.


I seriously doubt this. There was a time - not so long ago, within IAF we would lightly call IAF as Indian (N)Air Force based on the number of Nairs in IAF :) . It may be more North Indian now in terms of pure numbers but this North Indian - South Indian divide is real on the civvi street but did not experience at all in IAF.

In IAF at least combatants are mostly pilots and there is no screening on Martial / Non Martial basis in the IAF. IAF even in British times was never on these line. Even if you look at the last few top decision makers in IAF - Tipnis (Not North), Krishnaswamy (Not North) , Tyagi (North but Martial clan?), Fali Major (Not North), Naik (Not North), Browne (not sure but a graduate of St Joseph's college Allahabad hence categorizing North), present chief (Not North). [Apologies for regional seggregation and only use of last names - no disrespect meant] the spread is region free and shows no bias of region or otherwise. Okay, it is pro fighters, I know :) .

While flying at BFTS Bamrauli, our HPT 32's were serviced and maintained directly by HAL staff (even 1st line). All our technicians were HAL staff and while I was not paying attention to any North - South divide but I do remember a Big Sardarji who would take classes for us on the Aircraft Electrical System. For the IAF as an institution, the association with HAL is more pan India and I do not agree that there is any bit of North - South - East - West.

So the IAF vs. HAL is not North vs. South.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby deejay » 07 Oct 2015 13:44

srai wrote:^^^

Dirty laundry hung out in the public for all to see :wink:


Again no. Large organisations will have different voices within them. Across organisations differences of opinions will exist and that is not dirty laundry. Fortunately, when the IAF chief speaks he does not say Western Command vs. Eastern Command etc. Similarly HAL chief does not say Rotary Division vs. Tejas Division etc or HAL Nasik Vs. HAL Kanpur. They speak for IAF and HAL - institutions they lead. Unfortunately, MOD babus never see themselves as providing leadership though they are in control and want to be in control. But, they always drop names, hints and I often wonder even imagined differences to keep the other bodies at logger heads.

When they are in a situation to make everyone sing in one voice, they are able to do that and quite quickly too.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby shiv » 07 Oct 2015 14:32

deejay wrote:So the IAF vs. HAL is not North vs. South.

Thanks for the clarification. I need to know if HAL has a bunch of people biased against Hindi speaking faujis, north or not because it takes two hands to clap.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4067
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby kit » 07 Oct 2015 20:46

shiv wrote:
srai wrote:
MoD officials say the IAF dislikes the PBL model, because outsourcing maintenance to HAL threatens a large maintenance empire built around “base repair depots”, manned by IAF personnel. In 2008-09, the IAF rejected HAL’s proposal for a PBL contract for maintaining the Hawk advanced jet trainer.

...
Interesting if true..

So the IAF is protecting its BRDs.

I must make this comment. I have taken photos of IAFs BRD "import substitution" stuff in some aero India. I will locate and post. While I am sure they perform yeoman service I was not at all impressed by the finish. Much of the stuff looked crude.

What this means is that the Air Force has its own small parallel manufacturing line that it is protecting. Some years ago there was a proposal that BRD should take up production of HS 748 or something. Don;t know what happened there.

But this report if true adds and extra layer of complication. Those figures of how little the IAF ordered from HAL if true tell a story of their own. HAL is right in saying that import substitution is pointless if very small amounts are ordered. :eek:


This as per an MOD official. I hope someone does a good Psy analysis of MOD babus. Nothing suits MOD better than floating canards like there is an IAF interest group and an HAL interest group and play the resultant vector to stay in control. They do it inter-services too.

From my understanding which may be flawed and what I was taught within IAF - BRD's are 3rd line of servicing - major overhauls/ upgrades etc for IAF equipment. The first line is the unit / sqn technical team known as DSS, the second line is usually co-located with the operating unit/ sqn as CR&SS and BRD being the 3rd line. BRD's have adequate employment. If IAF utilises its Engineering talent for R&D too should it be discouraged?

Our Maintenance Command has extremely capable Engineers and in a fairly large number. Its like the IAF's "Engineer's Corpse". These Engineers can and do take on local modifications, etc. The quality not being TFTA etc could be because of in-house workshop effect which once operationalised could be TFTAed.

Now, when the MOD wants these separate organisations to come together, both IAF and HAL do get together to speak the same language. To explain this I am going to use some conjecture of my own. IIRC, HAL had recently (02 months maybe) said that its hands are full and taking on the Tejas Mk 2 would be difficult. Then comes the press conference from ACM Raha who clearly states a requirement of 120 Tejas, (a wish all jingoes had of orders in 100's to get the production line going) but also says that only thing the IAF needs is Tejas - not Mk 1, not Mk 1A, not Mk 2. Upgrades will happen as and when they come.

Suddenly, IAF and HAL are in sync and I guess this needed a boss in MOD who wanted it to happen.

Now some are unhappy with IAF not wanting Tejas Mk 2. Some time back some folks complained that IAF jumped on Mk 2 based on the Naval requirement and it is not supporting Mk 1. Conflicting, but in a jingoes heart all decisions in favour of our own should have been made at least yesterday.

Mk 2 of Tejas as a programme will be followed up because the IN has a requirement. While it may not be explicitly stated today, I do not see how the IAF will sit out from a better and more capable aircraft being produced. The support that IAF needs to provide would be more of a function of available budgets with respective services and how the MOD wants them to split. It is not that MOD is only a facilitator, ultimately MOD is the decision maker. Some direction on this already available.

On the Su 30 thread, this speculation may seem OT but I bring it up to explain how HAL- IAF equation is always mentioned as IAF vs HAL irrespective of the context. Therefore, IMO, even here the entire context of making this comparison arises from a statement from an MOD official. Hypothetically, if the same official had said something like " We are planning to utilise IAF BRD for xyz purpose" the whole IAF vs HAL debate would never occur.

Long post - small point :)[/quote]




can such outfits maintain quality control over processes .. its way expensive to ensure !..

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 07 Oct 2015 20:54

Deejay is politely pointing us in right direction. Almost 100% jingoes under estimate the power, role and influence of MoD & politicians.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby deejay » 07 Oct 2015 21:52

pandyan wrote:srai - yes, that was the article. thank you!

deejay saar - who is responsible for maintaining the supply chain? does BRD ask HAL for parts or do they directly work with OEM to get the parts? I am assuming there is a central procurement office that projects, negotiates, stocks parts in central warehouse and distributes to regional hubs for distribution and consumption. also, is supply chain management substantially different between M2K and Su30? Why are we not hearing about spares issue with M2K? if there is disconnect between BRD/HAL and other parties, shouldnt we have the same spares issue with M2K?


pandyan saar, I have little personal knowledge but I found this hand book from IAF for RTI purposes:

http://indianairforce.nic.in/RTI/HandbookOnRTIAct2005.pdf

Pg 31 to Pg 38 of the pdf should address your question. Under duties for AOM Branch come ACAS Eng 'A' and ACAS Engineering 'B'. The duties for ACAS Engineering "A" is introduced as

1. ACAS Eng ‘A’ functions directly under the AOM and is responsible to him for
administrative and functional control of the Directorates concerned with maintenance
of weapon system of erstwhile USSR origin, both combat and transport aircraft and
support equipment


Something similar is for ACAS Eng 'B'.

For insights of IAF AQ organisation, this handbook seems a good reference. I could not determine the vintage but certainly post 2005.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby vishvak » 08 Oct 2015 00:00

Illustrating the benefits of ample supply of spares, Raha said the IAF's Su-30MKI complement for the recently-conducted 'Exercise Indradhanush' in Britain did not miss a single mission because of sufficient spares back-up. "There was 100 per cent availability of our aircraft during this exercise," he recalled. Efforts are being made to increase the supply of spares.

Ample supply idea is v interesting. Will obviously increase availability. Also, as an idea, it will help/enable in Tejas Mk1/1A/2 in any way it would progress. Not to mention, any debate on availability of Western/Russian fighters will be reduced to trivial.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8943
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mort Walker » 08 Oct 2015 09:45

shiv wrote:Let me say something extremely unpalatable and may sound hurtful or unfair, but I need to say it out because keeping it inside my mind will not be right - that's just not me.

In late British India the armed forces had an ego and self image that meant pride in the "martial qualities" of the Nothern Indians and generally looked down on South Indians as non martial. In post independence India it was the South that fought against the imposition of Hindi which was a disastrous idea from the point of view of the South. I suspect that the Air Force and HAL have been divided by this stupid pre-independence cliche of the martial fighters with the air force numerically dominated by North Indians and the irritating non martial South Indians of Bangalore based HAL. It is mean and unfair to say it but I must say it in case it exists.

Of course in India no one allows these things up to the surface - but if it has existed in the past with HAL and IAF and maybe even army and Avadi and OFB, it needs to change pronto.


Your speculation is preposterous and irresponsible, if not stupid. I am shocked that it is coming from you. Drawing a correlation between the use of Hindi and "looking down" on south Indians is ridiculous in the context of a professional force.

Can you back this thinking up with actual statements a senior officer in the IAF has said or factual evidence? India's first army chief was General Cariappa from Karnataka like yourself. If any Indian armed forces officers thought this, then the partition of the British Indian Armed forces would have been a real mess on the Indian side in 1947. No uncooth panjabi would have listened to Cariappa. There would have been a 2nd partition at that time between north and south if anybody thought this way. In 1947 it was Lt General Nathu Singh Rathore a north Indian Rajput, a so called member of the "martial race", who pushed Nehru to make Cariappa the first army chief.

The reality is HAL has limited funding and limited industrial production capacity. They are a public sector company like BEL and BHEL. There is frustration with HAL that must be resolved by properly funding it beyond primarily license production.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9876
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 08 Oct 2015 12:48

Is Cariyappa not a "Martial race" person? I thought he is a Kurgi a community which considered as such. Am I wrong?

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby shiv » 08 Oct 2015 13:37

Mort Walker wrote:
shiv wrote:Let me say something extremely unpalatable and may sound hurtful or unfair, but I need to say it out because keeping it inside my mind will not be right - that's just not me.

In late British India the armed forces had an ego and self image that meant pride in the "martial qualities" of the Nothern Indians and generally looked down on South Indians as non martial. In post independence India it was the South that fought against the imposition of Hindi which was a disastrous idea from the point of view of the South. I suspect that the Air Force and HAL have been divided by this stupid pre-independence cliche of the martial fighters with the air force numerically dominated by North Indians and the irritating non martial South Indians of Bangalore based HAL. It is mean and unfair to say it but I must say it in case it exists.

Of course in India no one allows these things up to the surface - but if it has existed in the past with HAL and IAF and maybe even army and Avadi and OFB, it needs to change pronto.


Your speculation is preposterous and irresponsible, if not stupid. I am shocked that it is coming from you. Drawing a correlation between the use of Hindi and "looking down" on south Indians is ridiculous in the context of a professional force.

Can you back this thinking up with actual statements a senior officer in the IAF has said or factual evidence? India's first army chief was General Cariappa from Karnataka like yourself. If any Indian armed forces officers thought this, then the partition of the British Indian Armed forces would have been a real mess on the Indian side in 1947. No uncooth panjabi would have listened to Cariappa. There would have been a 2nd partition at that time between north and south if anybody thought this way. In 1947 it was Lt General Nathu Singh Rathore a north Indian Rajput, a so called member of the "martial race", who pushed Nehru to make Cariappa the first army chief.

The reality is HAL has limited funding and limited industrial production capacity. They are a public sector company like BEL and BHEL. There is frustration with HAL that must be resolved by properly funding it beyond primarily license production.

No. I think you have misunderstood my badly worded post.

My post was more in the nature of a question, seeking opinions rather than a statement. The question was based on some "documented evidence" but mostly anecdotes and personal observation.

The only documented evidence relates to the army in the pre-independence era where due to reasons I will not expand on the "madrasi" was looked down upon as someone who would not fight. This is army mind you, not air force. There are some post independence anecdotes of similar attitudes (army only) and I think deejay has answered adequately for the air force.

The other side of the coin is hostility in South India to the hindi speaker who refuses to learn the local language and does not speak English either - but much of this dates back to the era when Hindi was sought to be - the word is "imposed" as far as south India is concerned. But there still is some hostility - mostly disappearing now. I suspect Bolywood has done more to address this than any other entity, but I digress.

I was really seeking to find out if anyone has noticed this sort of attitude coming to the fore between HAL and Air Force in certain circumstances. Let me describe the circumstances I had in mind. Typically it is an air crash. A pilot has died and an investigation is on. No one knows exactly whether it was pilot error or component failure. In the process of investigation there is a lot of to and fro travelling people from HAL going to the accident site or Delhi and IAF officers coming to HAL. This kind of situation often involves a difference of opinion on what went wrong because one party or the other - often a dead pilot is going to get blamed. Emotions, unless controlled, could run high and hidden biases could sour relations.

I wanted to mention this issue more as a question to see if anyone has come across anything like this. I have not - at least in relation to the armed forces, although it happens in civvy street. I think no issue is beyond discussion or consideration and this is not an easy issue to talk about for anyone and is bound to cause people to get upset. That is perfectly understandable because I am walking on a fine line here with anecdotes and allegations and no "evidence". But I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply probing.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8943
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mort Walker » 08 Oct 2015 22:43

Shiv,

I'm sorry for the harsh words. In a large military, there will be persons who are "jerks" that say things, but generally they won't be decision makers or in leadership positions. Should someone in higher ranks say something like this or a senior person in the MoD, they would be removed or face subordination charges.

The imposition of Hindi goes back to the INC prior to independence as a means to gather more people on the INC platform. Ironically, it was C.R. Rajagopalachari who was on board this idea to help bring the Madras Presidency in to the INC movement in the years prior to independence. By the 1960s it was abandoned by Rajaji, but still pursued by Nehru/Gandhi dynasty. There should not be animosity between north and south, but rather with the INC that made a mess of the whole issue. The INC continued the British policy of divide and conquer based on language, region, caste, and religion. How else could a few hundred thousand Europeans control over 300 million Indians? It is time we put this colonial period behind us.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1654
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Sid » 08 Oct 2015 22:58

Its not about being south or north Indian. Its about being in force and made to listen to a civilian.

People in forces, Air Force specially, tend to be a bit heavy handed in dealing with civilians/engineers working for them as contractors or working on project related to them. This happened with one of my frnds (and his team), who worked on an airbase development of a new air-traffic monitoring project.

And hence I can understand how well they will listen to engineers from HAL.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby pragnya » 12 Oct 2015 18:14

Karan M wrote:LOL

SAP-14 covers 1-4 GHz
SAP 518 (wingtips) covers 5-18 GHz

:-o

SAP 14 for jamming all G2A surveillance systems and AWACS etc
L 1 to 2 GHz Long wave
S 2 to 4 GHz Short wave


SAP518 for the fire control part for SAMs and A2A
C 4 to 8 GHz Compromise between S and X
X 8 to 12 GHz Fire control band
Ku 12 to 18 GHz Missile seeker band


Karan, are the SIVA pod and the TUSKER pod the indian versions of SAP 14 and SAP 518? at least the TUSKER pod band is also mentioned as 6-18GHz and is a SPJ also. don't know the SIVA pod band. it is mentioned as D-J.

if yes, why are we not using them instead of the russian ones? IIRC these were validated on MIG 27s and SU 30MKIs. ofc i have next to zero knowledge on these but just happened to peruse through the brochures.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 12 Oct 2015 18:47

Pragnga ji Siva pod is HADF pod. Finds radars through high accuracy direction finding receivers for targeting using anti radiation missiles.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby pragnya » 13 Oct 2015 07:56

Thakur_B wrote:Pragnga ji Siva pod is HADF pod. Finds radars through high accuracy direction finding receivers for targeting using anti radiation missiles.


Thakur sir,

right. my question was is it similar to SAP 14? and SAP 518 similar to Tusker pod?

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby vasu raya » 26 Oct 2015 04:04

From the link that Karan M posted in the Rafale thread,

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 636_1.html

f the 43,000 components that go into a Su-30MKI, 31,500 components - or 73 per cent - are now being built in India.

Further indigenisation is blocked since the Indo-Russian contract mandates that all raw material that goes into the Su-30MKI - including 5,800 titanium blocks and forgings, aluminium and steel plates, etc - must be sourced from Russia. The contract also stipulates that another 7,146 items like nuts, bolts, screws and rivets must be sourced from Russia.


we know there is heavy use of metal with the MKI, would HAL be able to use composites replacing many of these pieces using AUTOLAY with the following goals

1) The aerodynamic shape of the aircraft stays the same
2) The CG due to weight optimization is also not shifted by balancing the weight distribution with the choice of parts replaced
3) The frontal RCS is reduced by the use of composites on the leading edges of the wings, intakes while backed by the original metal parts which are now shaped with saw tooth edges to reduce their radar return

The Russians have their place and so are our requirements. if the MKI got adopted by the Russians, any RCS optimization would be absorbed too.

Here is the Tejas composites story (in part),
The Tejas employs CFC materials for up to 45% of its airframe, including in the fuselage (doors and skins), wings (skin, spars and ribs), elevons, tailfin, rudder, air brakes and landing gear doors. Composites are used to make an aircraft both lighter and stronger at the same time compared to an all-metal design, and the LCA's percentage employment of CFCs is one of the highest among contemporary aircraft of its class. Apart from making the plane much lighter, there are also fewer joints or rivets, which increases the aircraft's reliability and lowers its susceptibility to structural fatigue cracks.

The use of composites in the LCA resulted in a 40% reduction in the total number of parts compared to using a metallic frame. Furthermore, the number of fasteners has been reduced by half in the composite structure from the 10,000 that would have been required in a metallic frame design. The composite design also helped to avoid about 2,000 holes being drilled into the airframe. Overall, the aircraft's weight is lowered by 21%. While each of these factors can reduce production costs, an additional benefit — and significant cost savings - is realised in the shorter time required to assemble the aircraft — seven months for the LCA as opposed to 11 months using an all-metal airframe.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 26 Oct 2015 07:20

pragnya wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:Pragnga ji Siva pod is HADF pod. Finds radars through high accuracy direction finding receivers for targeting using anti radiation missiles.


Thakur sir,

right. my question was is it similar to SAP 14? and SAP 518 similar to Tusker pod?


Tusker was a noise jammer operating in the 518 bands IIRC. SAP518 is a deception jammer. The experience does exist to make a LCA jamming pod.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_20292 » 26 Oct 2015 11:41

Suppose we try an experiment.

Lets try to convert the outer skin of the MKI to composite and not so much metal.

Can we play around with the FCS source code to test what results ?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54823
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby ramana » 30 Oct 2015 04:12

You are right.
Looking at HAL Composite Structures Division brochure on capabilities, IAF should find some funds( Say Rs. 50 crores to do a paper feasibility/design study) to have HAL do a black aluminum outer skin for Su-30 as first step.
Then have it made gradually.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 09 Nov 2015 00:56

Finally, found a breakdown on the engine issue.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/malf ... ls-rs.html

Malfunction of SU-30MKI rectified, Parrikar tells RS
Wednesday, 18 March 2015 | PNS | New Delhi
The frontline fighter jet SU-30MKI has seen 35 engine failures in the last two years forcing the IAF and Russian manufacturer to revise the maintenance drill and improve serviceability to prevent malfunction. The IAF has also procured 25 new engines with modified technology from Russia which has suggested some modifications in production of new engines.

Giving this information in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday in response to a question by BJP MP Chandan Mitra, who raised concern over mid-air failure of SU-30 jets, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said the malfunction took place due to at least three reasons which the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and original manufacturer in Russia have managed to rectify. Elaborating upon the causes, he said in 33 out of 69 such incidents over the last few years, the reason was due to chips in the oil, vibration in engine bearings in 11 cases and low pressure of lubricating oil in eight other cases.

These faults were addressed to by going in for better quality of engine oil and minor adjustments and repairs in ball bearings fitted into the engines by perforating four to five small holes, the Minister said. The rectification saw serviceability of the SU-30 going up by seven per cent from 49 per cent in the last eight to nine months, Parrikar said, adding the objective was to touch the 70 per cent mark by the year end to ensure fully operational aircraft in shortest possible time.


Replying to a supplementary by Mitra about joint production of SU-30MKI in India, the Minister said as per the contract, the first 50 planes were bought from the original manufacturer and the remaining 150 were manufactured by HAL in India. The IAF at present has 200 aircraft and plans to have another 72 SU-30s in the next few years, he informed the House.

He also said engine malfunction or failure mid flight of SU-30s takes place after 500 hours of flying and the recent measures saw the IAF improving the operational performance to more than 900 hours. Parrikar said the overhauling of the engines takes place after 1,000 hours of flying. He also made it clear that since SU-30 is a twin engine aircraft, one engine failure does lead to a crash but the aircraft has to land immediately.

Answering a query by Praful Patel (NCP) about paucity of spare parts from Russia after disintegration of erstwhile Soviet Union, Parrikar said the Government is now procuring these spare parts from western countries like France and Israel.

Fielding questions about two new ordnance factories at Nalanda in Bihar and Korwa in Uttar Pradesh not starting production, the Minister said a total investment of Rs1,216 crore was already made on the two projects. He said efforts were now on to start production in Nalanda factory adding it could not be done in the last few years as the main technology supplier Denel of South Africa was blacklisted due to alleged corruption charges. Similarly, the plant in Korwa could not start as the factory was set up without forging a partnership with a vendor who was to supply technology for manufacturing rifles and carbines.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54823
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby ramana » 09 Nov 2015 02:50

Elaborating upon the causes, he said in 33 out of 69 such incidents over the last few years, the reason was due to chips in the oil, vibration in engine bearings in 11 cases and low pressure of lubricating oil in eight other cases.


Low pressure oil (8/69) could be root cause for all three causes.

- leads to engine vibration 11/69
- which leads to metal chips in oil 33/69

I don't get how poking small holes in ball bearings will lead to reduction of problem.

Maybe improves oil flow in the bearings.

I see better oil guess better viscosity and better break down would improve lubricity.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kakarat, sajaym and 49 guests