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.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4906
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 15 Nov 2014 11:56

so from the earlier article, there were 3 un-commanded ejections on the Su-30MKI? Something was obviously wrong with the K-36D seat, and it was rather disingenuous of the Russians to claim it cannot fire on its own, rather than going into the depth of the possible issue.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 15 Nov 2014 12:11

Thats typical of many of these OEMs.. Russians included. BAe did the same with Jaguar, MiG with the MiG-21s, 23's, 27s, French with Turbomeca engines... list goes on and on and on

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 » 15 Nov 2014 14:40

only domestic OEMs will really care about indic lives and money.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53971
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 16 Nov 2014 09:20

Looks like ESD at work. Maybe grounding strap not connected.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 16 Nov 2014 09:41


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 28 Nov 2014 15:32

VIDEO: Back In The Air After Grounding, IAF-Russian Joint Crews Fly Su-30MKI

This just out from the IAF. Indian and Russian crews down at the Halwara fighter base (not far from the Pakistan border) took some joint sorties in the Su-30 MKI that's been back in the air for a few days post a month-long grounding. Part of the flying leg of Exercise Avia Indra 2014.


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 28 Nov 2014 15:46

MOD PIB

28-November, 2014 14:34 IST

Crash of Sukhoi-30 MK1 Aircraft

The total number of Sukhoi-30 MK1 aircraft presently available for use in the country pertains to operational aspects of the Indian Defence Forces and is classified in nature. Number of Sukhoi-30 MKI crashed during the last three years and the current year is as under:

2011-12 - 01

2012-13 - 01

2013-14 - Nil

2014-15 (upto 25.11.2014) - 01

The main reasons for the crashes were Human Error and Technical Defect.All the pilots undergo a prescribed training process. As such, Su-30 MKI aircraft are flown by only trained pilots of Indian Air Force (IAF). Steps to improve training of pilots based on various inputs is a continuous process.All routine training flying on the Sukhoi-30 MKI aircraft was temporarily stopped as a precautionary measure to carry out the requisite checks on all the aircraft. Flying of the Sukhoi-30 MKI aircraft has since commenced after completion of checks.Review of existing fleet and induction of new aircraft is a continuous process. Such review is carried out keeping in view the operational requirements of IAF.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri Manohar Parrikar in a written reply to Shri Nana Patole and others in Lok Sabha today.

DM/HH/RAJ

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20419
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 28 Nov 2014 20:29

A list of SU Flanker accidents involving both Russian and Indian aircraft using the same seats should be made available to investigators.It is is an OEM fault,it should be found out.perhaps there may be a software giitch,

More MKIs require two pilots,plus the accompanying responsibility for taking care of the families.Adds enormously to the cost .The Russians use the MIG-29 as a lighter option along with the Flankers.SU-34s should be acquired for the strat. bombing role instead of more MKIs.However,given the large Chinese numbers of Flankers,original and copied,the IAF will need at least 300+ esp. when viewed in a two-front scenario.One cannot rule out the poss. of Pak acquiring Chinese built Flankers in the future.

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

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

Postby VishalJ » 30 Nov 2014 16:57

Flt Lt Akshay Mahale & Wg Cdr Arjun Sreedhar performing a rare Tail-Slide High Up during the afternoon Su30MKI Flight Display @ Aero India 2013

HI-RES
Image

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

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

Postby Viv S » 09 Dec 2014 06:10

Russian envoy blames 'cowboy' IAF pilots for Sukhoi crash, not technology

"There is a report coming from the special commission which was formed that talked about ejection of the seats of the two pilots. This is the conclusion of the commission. There was no glitch on the part of Russian technology," he told reporters.

The entire fleet of Russian-made aircraft was grounded by Indian Air Force in October following a crash near Pune. It was cleared for flying last month.

"We have not been approached. India is known to have very good pilots. You do have excellent pilots and Indian pilots are famous across the world but some of your pilots are like young people. They behave like cowboys. They are rash drivers. They want to get out of the machine... It was not a major thing. That's why we have not been approached," he said.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/russian- ... 40007.html


_____________________________

Su-30 crashes were caused by some Indians being rash drivers who want to get out of the machine. Issue closed.

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

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

Postby member_22539 » 09 Dec 2014 06:46

^Tomorrow, you will hear the same from the french. It is only the SDRE Indians who cannot blame the pilots and get away with it.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4906
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 09 Dec 2014 09:07

The French would never suggest something so absurd. This guy is off his rockers.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

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

Postby Hobbes » 09 Dec 2014 09:27

Not so, Kartik. Right after the first A320 crash by Indian Airlines (1989?) the French Airbus chief test pilot made a public statement about Indian camel drivers lacking the skills to fly the oh so sophisticated FBW A320.

They have their racist jerks too...

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_20317 » 09 Dec 2014 09:43

Bakwas, that one line shouting is just a Proselytizer's invitation, to sell a lemon. The envoy said many things and it was a choice to shout on that one.

If there is any real input in what the envoy said that we were not aware of it is the claim - "We have not been approached". All the newspapers had reported that India had raised the issue with the Russians. In what way were they approached then and why was that manner of approach chosen.


Added later : O wow! now we have racism in the claims pit. What next. A claim that - JSF is non-racist. :rotfl:

member_27164
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_27164 » 09 Dec 2014 12:06

@Vishal Jolapara
thats an absolute wallpaper material.

James B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2249
Joined: 08 Nov 2008 21:23
Location: Samjhautha Express with an IED

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

Postby James B » 09 Dec 2014 14:56

Very interesting statistic: @manoharparrikar shares in parliament - IAF spent Rs 834 crore maintaining the Sukhoi fleet last financial year.

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

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

Postby Gyan » 09 Dec 2014 23:58

So cost of maintaining one Su-30 I is 1/3rd of Mirage 2000

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 10 Dec 2014 04:54

^^^

That's why their availability rate is only at 55% ;)

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4906
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 10 Dec 2014 09:12

Hobbes wrote:Not so, Kartik. Right after the first A320 crash by Indian Airlines (1989?) the French Airbus chief test pilot made a public statement about Indian camel drivers lacking the skills to fly the oh so sophisticated FBW A320.

They have their racist jerks too...


Ok I wasn't aware of that. I stand corrected.

They nearly framed their own French pilot for an A320 crash that was eventually attributed to a flaw in the FBW itself.

Asit P
BRFite
Posts: 311
Joined: 14 May 2009 02:33

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

Postby Asit P » 11 Dec 2014 16:34

Lets for another 15 days and the Wheat shall get separated from the chaff:

Sukhoi-30 plane crash inquiry to be completed in a fortnight: IAF Chief Arup Raha
Refusing to comment on Russian Ambassador Alexander Kadakin's recent statement indicating human error behind the crash, the Air Force chief said he does not want to pre-empt anything.

"The CoI is still on. I think within about 10 to 15 days time, we will come to some conclusion. I do not want to pre- empt anything and tell you some thing, which may not be correct," Raha told reporters here.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1605
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Thakur_B » 11 Dec 2014 17:49

ravi_g wrote:What next. A claim that - JSF is non-racist. :rotfl:


JSF's black yo !! It's also multi cultural and multi national !!

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1605
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Thakur_B » 11 Dec 2014 17:56

Gyan wrote:So cost of maintaining one Su-30 I is 1/3rd of Mirage 2000


Not exactly, given that Su-30s are brand new and M2k has seen some years, but it is surprisingly cheap compared to M2k.

M2k R&M Cost for 2012-13
Item-----------------------Expenditure (Rs. in Crores)
Procurement of spares---228.00
Repair of aggregates-----191.00
Capital procurement------61.16
Capital Repair-------------6.69
Total:----------------------486.85
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=97687

Su-30 R&M costs
2011-12 Rs. 551.35 crore

2012-13 Rs. 877.84 crore

2013-14 Rs. 834.76 crore
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=112870

For the same year (2012-2013), 49 M2Ks cost half as much as 170 Su-30 to maintain. Brand new Su-30 make it a rather skewed comparison, but the difference is palpable.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 11 Dec 2014 18:37

^^^

What about fleet availability rates between the two? According to recent reports, Su-30MKIs are at 55% whereas Mirage-2000s have had high availability rates historically. The report had also mentioned insufficient parts inventory for the MKI fleet and some 13-14% are grounded on a continuing basis as a result.

...
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”.
...
Last edited by srai on 11 Dec 2014 18:43, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8266
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 11 Dec 2014 18:40

One would need items procured to draw a better comparison. Another thing to keep in mind is the inventory strength. Were they building inventory at the same time, and if so what is the normal MTBF of critical components (requiring replacement) on each aircraft. When everything is put together and combined with other elements of the O&S cost, the single engined M2K should be far better off then the twin heavy in the MKI. Even with the advancements made to the F-15's for example they were unable to close the gap between its O&S and that of the F-16. Even when the F-16 is loaded like a Mini-F-15E (40-50% extra fuel externally, weapons to its limit etc along with one or two pods) it still manages between a 40%-50% better/lower O&S cost compared to the Beagle..

What about fleet availability rates between the two? According to recent reports, Su-30MKIs are at 55% whereas Mirage-2000s have had high availability rates historically.


Fleet availability and fleet utilization are also important (Good point)..Not only from an overall fleet utilization point of view but also if you are flying these things with a MA rate of around 80-90% in peacetime you are going to require some solid Maintainance to keep hitting that tempo. This is one reason why most air-forces maintain a peacetime availability rate around 70-80% for expensive kit, with expectations to have this as close to 100% during wartime when investments and the long term health of the fleet is not as critically important.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1605
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Thakur_B » 11 Dec 2014 18:46

srai wrote:^^^

What about fleet availability rates between the two? According to recent reports, Su-30MKIs are at 55% whereas Mirage-2000s have had high availability rates historically.


I am yet to see a credible alternate report citing that 50% fleet grounded figure. The sunday guardian report from march 2014 that cited that figure attributed it to the delays in overhaul facility in India, which has since been sorted out. The same report cites 75% availability for Mirage 2000 and MiG-29, for whom HAL has had overhaul facilities for a while.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 11 Dec 2014 19:02

via Janes http://www.janes.com/article/44990/inte ... hter-fleet

The operational availability of the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) combat, transport, and helicopter fleets has averaged about 60% over the past three years, a recent internal assessment has revealed.

Of these platforms, the report disclosed that the IAF's 780-strong fighter fleet had an overall operational availability rate of 55% between 2011 and early 2014: the lowest of all platform types.

The availability rate for the same time period of trainer and transport assets, including recent acquisitions such as the Pilatus PC-7 Mk II trainer, Lockheed Martin C-130J-30, and Boeing C-17 Globemaster III transporters, hovered at about 65%.

Availability of the IAF's helicopter fleet stood at about 62%.

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

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

Postby Gyan » 11 Dec 2014 20:31

Thakur_B wrote:
Gyan wrote:So cost of maintaining one Su-30 I is 1/3rd of Mirage 2000


Not exactly, given that Su-30s are brand new and M2k has seen some years, but it is surprisingly cheap compared to M2k.

M2k R&M Cost for 2012-13
Item-----------------------Expenditure (Rs. in Crores)
Procurement of spares---228.00
Repair of aggregates-----191.00
Capital procurement------61.16
Capital Repair-------------6.69
Total:----------------------486.85
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=97687

Su-30 R&M costs
2011-12 Rs. 551.35 crore

2012-13 Rs. 877.84 crore

2013-14 Rs. 834.76 crore
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=112870

For the same year (2012-2013), 49 (47+10?)M2Ks cost half as much as 170 Su-30 to maintain. Brand new Su-30 make it a rather skewed comparison, but the difference is palpable.


Last few (10) Mirages and First few (50) Su-30s have almost same age. But the point I am making is that inspite of Su-30MKI being waaay bigger, heavier, more powerful, more advanced aircraft compared to non-upgraded Mirage 2000, they are cheaper (half the cost) to maintain which is major (fake) criticism of Russian equipment.

So I say order another 126 more Su-30MKIs + 252 more LCAs rather then 126 Rafales each of which is 4 times more costly than Mirage 2000 that is 8 times more costly than Su-30MKI to maintain.

Where is Philip when there is real data in favor of Russia??

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8266
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 11 Dec 2014 20:41

Last few (10) Mirages and First few (50) Su-30s have almost same age. But the point I am making is that inspite of Su-30MKI being waaay bigger, heavier, more powerful, more advanced aircraft compared to non-upgraded Mirage 2000, they are cheaper (half the cost) to maintain which is major (fake) criticism of Russian equipment.

So I say order another 126 more Su-30MKIs + 252 more LCAs rather then 126 Rafales each of which is 4 times more costly than Mirage 2000 that is 8 times more costly than Su-30MKI to maintain


Maintenance is a component of the O&S cost, while actually flying the thing is the largest contributor to this. Fuel itself probably makes around 2/3 of the overall O&S cost for the fleet.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 13 Dec 2014 17:22

Good Details

Sukhoi, MiG engines roar desi way at HAL Koraput

Sukhoi facility on full throttle


The Sukhoi (Su-30 MKI) engine facility is a marvel by itself with some of the gen-next technologies already being used, including a robotic welding system. Speaking to OneIndia, Rajaram Mohanty, Officiating General Manager (Sukhoi Engine Divison), said that a total of 23 engines have been made from the raw material phase now. "The division has so far manufactured close to 280 engines (AL-31FP) for the Sukhois, while around 158 have been overhauled. The first engine from the raw material phase was rolled out during 2011-12. We are also fully equipped for the long testing (three months) of Sukhoi engines," says Rajaram. The TBO (Time Between Overhaul) of a Sukhoi engine is 1000 hours, while the total lifespan of an engine is 2000 hours. HAL hopes that it will be able to generate more employment when the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project takes a firm shape.

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

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

Postby Gyan » 26 Dec 2014 19:17

Licence production of Su-30 MKI aircraft

CAG on Sukhoi Su-30MKI

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

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

Postby Gyan » 26 Dec 2014 19:25

The total cost was Rs. 22122.78 crore and delivery was to be during 2004-05 to
2017-18. For the ease of contracting, the supply was broken up into four
Blocks with overlapping time periods.
The licence technical documentation to be transferred by ROE to HAL within
45 months from December 2000 was to ensure full capability to HAL to
produce, test and operate aircraft, engines and airborne equipment with certain
exceptions

MoD concluded (December 2003) a contract with HAL for supply of 34
aircraft in Block I comprising 3 aircraft from Phase I, 5 aircraft from Phase II,
18 aircraft from Phase III and 8 aircraft from Phase IV. After an assessment
of the combat aircraft force levels, in March 2006, by which time eight aircraft
due under Block I contract (three pertaining to Phase I (fully imported) and
five pertaining to Phase II (final assembly of major assemblies done by HAL)
had been delivered, MoD compressed the delivery schedule to secure
completion of deliveries of all the 140 aircraft by 2014-15
instead of 2017-18

Due to compression of delivery schedule, number of fully imported
aircraft (Phases I and II) increased by 26 (from 8 to 34) while the number of
fully indigenised aircraft (Phase IV) decreased by 54 (from 114 to 60).

Accordingly, MoD released milestone payments amounting to Rs. 41,928.18 crore to HAL upto 31st
March 2013 in respect of all the block contracts (for 140 aircraft) as well as
contracts for additional 40 and 42 aircrafts.


In view of alteration in March 2006 of the phase-wise composition prescribed
in January 2001, the import content increased and HAL’s participation
reduced. The compression of deliveries also decreased the degree of
absorption of technology from time to time and the project cost stood revised
from Rs. 22,122.78 crore to Rs. 39,605.95 crore, an increase of 79 per cent in the
project cost.

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

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

Postby Gyan » 26 Dec 2014 19:33

Audit Objective: Whether contractual provisions were complied and transfer
of technology and progress of indigenization was timely


9.1.3.1 Introduction

The Inter Governmental Agreement envisaged transfer of technology to India
to ensure full capability to the Indian side to produce, test and operate aircraft,
engines and airborne equipment. In order to assess whether the transfer of
technology was timely, audit reviewed the arrangements for receipt of
technology by HAL which was to utilise it for manufacture, repair and
overhaul. The observations are detailed below:

The General Contract226 envisaged transfer of Licence Technical
Documentation (LTD), Design Documentation and Technical Equipment
Means (DDTEM), toolings and non standard equipment, test benches, ground
handling equipment, etc. within 45 months from December 2000. As required
under the General Contract, HAL concluded (May 2001, September 2002 and
November 2002) Supplementary Agreements (SAs) with ROE for
procurement of the said items. However, ROE did not supply these items as
per agreed schedule


It could be seen from the above that documents which were to be received
between I quarter of 2002 to 2004 were actually received between II quarter of
2002 to I quarter of 2007 after a delay ranging from 3 to 36 months. This
affected the progress of indigenization and HAL had to resort to outsourcing to
meet the delivery schedule.

Due to delay in transfer of technology, HAL resorted to offloading its
work share
in respect of 11 Phase II aircraft and nine Phase III aircraft to ROE
by concluding (October 2005, October 2006, September 2007 and October
2008) supplementary agreements for ` 115.17 crore. Against `115.17 crore,
HAL was to receive only Rs. 91.51 crore in respect of 20 aircraft as per the
contract.
So much for indigenisaion!

9.1.3.3 Delay in transfer of technology for manufacture of engines
The Detailed Project Report (DPR) envisaged production of engines in five
phases at the Engine Division of HAL at Koraput


The General Contract and DPR stipulated that licence technical documentation
(LTD), tools and Non Standard Equipments of all the five phases were to be
supplied between January 2002 and July 2007 by ROE to HAL.
Audit scrutiny (September-October 2013) revealed that the Koraput Division
received all LTD for Phases I to III on schedule during 2004-05 to 2006-07.
However, there was delay of 2 to 4 years in receipt of LTD and other items for
Phases IV and V

It could be seen from Table-68 that as against 306 engines to be delivered
from 2004-05 to 2012-13, 106 engines were to be in Phases IV and V.
However, as could be seen from Table 71, only 12 against 56 engines were
manufactured by HAL under Phase IV and no engine against 50 engines were
manufactured under Phase V till 2012-13
.

Audit scrutiny (September-October 2013) revealed that to meet the IAF’s
requirement of aircraft for next three years from 2013-14, HAL procured
(December 2012) 20 engine kits of Phase II (at ` 27.81 crore each) and 30
engine kits of Phase III (at ` 21.71 crore each) for use in Phase IV aircraft
(fully indigenized). Considering the expenditure incurred by HAL for
conversion of the kits into engines, the actual cost per engine was ` 31.10
crore. Since the budgetary quote for Phase IV aircraft submitted to MoD
included cost of ` 24.19 crore per engine, HAL would incur a loss of
` 345.50228 crore for the 50 engines. Six of these engines were used up in
delivery of three aircraft under Phase IV in 2012-13. (look at the loss and minimal value addition)

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

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

Postby Gyan » 26 Dec 2014 19:35

9.1.3.4 Supply of documentation by ROE for creation of Repair and
Overhaul facilities by HAL


Supply of documentation was delayed by ROE resulting in consequent delay in setting
up of facilities for the same by HAL (Details vide Annexure - XXVIII).

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

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

Postby Gyan » 26 Dec 2014 19:36

The original delivery schedule and total production cycle time for the aircraft
was 48 months comprising lead time of 12 months for obtaining supply of raw
materials from ROE and cycle time of 36 months for manufacture and
delivery.

HAL held inventory of aircraft kits for
26230 aircraft valued at ` 1,725.41 crore (after excluding eight aircraft
manufactured during 2010-11 (1 aircraft), 2011-12 (3 aircraft) and 2012-13 (4
aircraft)) in advance of requirement as these aircraft kits will be used for
manufacture only after three years.

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

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

Postby Gyan » 26 Dec 2014 19:38

The fact however remained that funds were sanctioned by MoD in August
2009
and readiness for overhaul was required to be kept by February 2012 but
HAL had not achieved this (August 2014). Due to delay in setting up of
Repair and Overhaul facilities by HAL, IAF was forced to extend the TBO life
of aircraft from 10 years to 12 years which may not be a prudent option.

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

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

Postby Gyan » 26 Dec 2014 19:38

Conclusion
HAL did not receive all the components of transfer of technology from ROE
as envisaged impacting the timely supply of deliverables to IAF.
Consequently, HAL could not achieve the required
level of absorption of technology to meet the compressed schedule of
deliveries and had to resort to outsourcing to ROE which increased the import
component and had an impact on the indigenisation programme.

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

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

Postby Gyan » 26 Dec 2014 19:45

9.1.4.11 Operationally Grounding of aircraft supplied due to Fuel leakage
HAL delivered 60 of the 64 aircraft due under Blocks I and II up to 2009-10.
A review of 42 cases of site repairs undertaken by HAL up to March 2010
relating to 29 aircraft disclosed that fuel leakage was the main snag in 36 cases
and complaints relating to leakage from fuel tank were reported by IAF
immediately after delivery of the aircraft. The leakages had caused pre-mature
withdrawal of the aircraft.
Management stated (January 2014) that ROE had attributed the leakages to
operating the aircraft at higher ‘g’ level, operation of TVC causing torsional
force and vibrations on structure, high manoeuvers and hard landings, aircraft
parked without fuel for longer time and aircraft parked outside under hot
conditions. They added that fuel leakages/seepages could not be fully
excluded due to inherent design features of the aircraft and repair had to be
undertaken immediately whenever the leakages were more than permissible
limits.

The fact remains that as evident from the reply of ROE that fuel
leakages/seepages could not be fully excluded due to inherent design features
of the aircraft and hence, called for immediate corrective action from HAL to
avoid operational grounding of aircraft.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Postby rohitvats » 29 Dec 2014 02:31

Could someone please clarify what happened to first lot of 50 Su-30K/MK which we imported from Russia? Were they upgraded and absorbed back or exchanged with Russia for new Su-30MKI? THANKS.

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

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

Postby Cosmo_R » 29 Dec 2014 02:39

rohitvats wrote:Could someone please clarify what happened to first lot of 50 Su-30K/MK which we imported from Russia? Were they upgraded and absorbed back or exchanged with Russia for new Su-30MKI? THANKS.


IIRC, the first 18 SU-30 MK1 (not MKI) were taken back by Sukhoi and sold to Belarus (?). The rest should be in current service. The MK1s were offloads from Indonesia who could not pay for them.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3261
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 29 Dec 2014 02:41

Only the first 18 were the one that cannot be upgraded to SU30MKI. They were sold to Belarus and India rcvd 18 new (but can someone confirm that)


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], ravikr and 78 guests