Thanks.Bala Vignesh wrote:As I understand it, Serviceability relates to an aircraft being available to fly at any time, which could also means readiness. Availability would also include serviceability of all the munitions and sensors required for the mission. But I could be wrong.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2433519#p2433519Manish_P wrote:Is 'serviceability' the same as the 'availability/readiness'?
King Khan is dropping it's earlier policy target of having a uniform 80% availability rate across multiple fighter types, underscoring the challenges involved even for a MIC as powerful as theirs..
The Air Force Is Dropping Mattis' 80% Aircraft Readiness Goal
“The US Navy has allowed us to leverage three helicopters from their inventory of brand new aircraft that have never been introduced into the fleet – in order to provide them to the Indian Navy so they can begin training on a more accelerated basis than might normally be possible,” Tom Kane, Director, Sikorsky Naval Helicopter Programs.
But the Pentagon’s decision to scale back the size of the LCS fleet also led to the Navy buying more helicopters than it needs, costing taxpayers $1.4 billion — plus ongoing charges to store the choppers ― according to a report last month by the Defense Department’s Inspector General.
As a result, the Navy spent $1.4 billion to procure 57 helicopters that were in storage and will spend more than $2 million annually to store these helicopters until at least 2020 when additional LCSs are delivered,” the report states.
Boeing to launch a Super Hornet fighter aircraft from a ski jump
The F/A-18 Super Hornet has been safely catapulting off the decks of U.S. Navy aircraft carriers around the world for more than two decades. Now, the jet will demonstrate its ability to launch from a ski jump ramp.
Boeing is partnering with the Navy in a series of joint tests this summer to demonstrate the Super Hornet’s ability to conduct Short Takeoff but Arrested Recovery (STOBAR) operations at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland.
The F/A-18 Hornet demonstrated its ability to launch from a ski jump in the mid-1980s, but this will be the first STOBAR launch and recovery of the larger and heavier F/A-18 Super Hornet. The team’s goal is to validate F/A-18 Super Hornet’s capability to safely launch from the ski jump.
“Safety is critical,” said Jason Nachtrab, Boeing F/A-18 Propulsion Engineering lead for the ski jump demonstration. “The entire test program has been developed with safety as a foremost concern. We’ll use a buildup test approach, starting with very conservative conditions and gradually working up to heavier takeoff weights and shorter takeoff distances. Each jump will be carefully scrutinized by the joint Boeing and Navy test team before attempting the next takeoff.”
While the Indian Navy uses STOBAR because it is less complex, it plans to transition its carriers to Catapult Assisted but Arrested Recovery, used by U.S. Navy carriers, in the next decade.
Preliminary analysis predicts higher landing gear loads, so a Navy Super Hornet has been specifically instrumented to measure the increased strain of STOBAR operations. Additional sensors have been installed to provide additional safety checks and obtain even more data for analysis. The test team has completed instrumentation modification for the jump, and the Navy test aircraft has completed its functional check flight.
“The test team will capture as much data as possible throughout the entire takeoff, so we can identify any possible load problems before we press ahead with additional testing,” said Tim Williams, F/A-18 India program manager. “This data will help us better refine our modeling and simulation, as well as further understand the ski jump performance of the Super Hornet. All of this is being done to keep safety the number one priority.”
The Super Hornet will compete with Dassault’s Rafale M fighter for a requirement of 57 jets for the Indian Navy as it looks to replace its Russian-made MiG-29K fleet for its STOBAR fighter needs under the multi-role, carrier-borne fighter program. India plans to add one more indigenously built ski jump-equipped carrier around 2021 to its single aircraft carrier force.
Boeing has all the time in the world with the Block III and III+ Super Hornet as far as export is concerned. They pretty much have assured full current annual production rate through 2025-2026. The deal they've struck with the US Navy essentially keeps the St Louis line in a ready state till well into the 2030s (perhaps even mid to late 2030's). So they'll continue to pursue all efforts where they are currently involved irrespective of how likely or unlikely they are to bear fruit. There is all the upside in the world and no real downside for them.Kartik wrote:Meanwhile, Boeing continues to hope for the 57 MRCBF RFI to lead to a RFP and then a contract. They're going to conduct Super Hornet launches of a ski jump ramp. Someone must inform them that with the TEDBF getting the official go-ahead, there is no need to waste money on this anymore.
Assuming that this program progresses, it will be incumbent on the OEM's (Dassault and Boeing) to showcase that their proposals can integrate with IN's Aircraft Carriers. So if they say they can integrate, then they would have to show it. And show it to the IN along with the pros and cons of that integrated solution. So blanket statements that the lifts are too small or inadequate doesn't really matter here. If the IN progresses with the program it can evaluate these products on both their individual capability, vis-a-vis the MiG-29K, and on their capability to integrate with the 2 existing AC's.Philip wrote:The lifts are still too smal for the SH on our two ski-jump flat - tops.
Right. And this is because the IN does not operate another type capable of operating on the ship.Philip wrote:Thus far we've yet to see any naval fighter other than a 29K or NLCA operate from the VikA.
What was the last naval fighter SAAB developed?SAAB came out with a plan for the Sea Gripen to operate from the
Viraat/Hermes!
Nothing that you've mentioned is something that cannot be verified in actual testing and demonstrations. Naval aviation and the ability to test and validate has come a long time since aircraft first took off from ships. All the impact which you claim will occur can be modeled and demonstrated and compared with other pros and cons of such a move. Nothing need be left to chance if the IN pursues this further. Both Dassault and Boeing would be happy to fly their aircraft, read-in multiple IN pilots into the program and work with IN's support and maintenance teams to validate their concepts and demonstrate them in a desirable operationally relevant environment. They do this all the time. In fact, the first two Boeing Block III Super Hornet's will spend a greater part of the next 12 months doing this with the US Navy.PS: clarified the Boeing statement with a former adm. some time ago. It can't in regular fashion.It supposedly has to be kept in an inclined attitude while on the lift requiring a cradle,whatever.Great fun to handle in choppy seas! One can also imagine the increased turn around time to transport these birds from hangar to deck. In any case,its pointless to look for 50+ new birds that cannot operate from the two current CVs..
A high performance stealth fighter is hard. A high performance naval stealth fighter is even harder. Expect there to be a considerable lag between AMCA operationalization and a potential Naval AMCA being brought into the fleet. Your entire Low Observable strategy and technology base has to be able to confidently deliver on a naval platform, within a pretty strict support footprint and in an operationally harsh environment. The F-35B/C is the only 5th gen/LO naval fighter. FCAS won't come online till 2040. Besides these two, China is the only other nation that may field a naval stealth fighter. No one else has either a need, or the technological base and/or resources to do so. Naval forces are there for fleet protection and to rapidly bring re-deployable offensive capability to bear during a conflict. Naval aviators will continue to do that with 4th, 4.5th or 5th generation aircraft. Basically all that they can get their hands on because ships, submarines, and other naval weapons and technologies often get precedence over naval fighters (compared to AF's which are usually run by fighter pilots). Even the USN won't be a all stealth fleet till well into the 2050's.IN's willingness to pursue a stealth fighter program will likely be influenced by what it sees as the overall AC footprint in the future IN fleet. The USN can afford to field this because they have a need for about 700 F-35's (B/C). Prior attempts at smaller fleet sizes (like A-X and N-ATF) didn't go anywhere because the cost to develop and field a small fleet would have been cost prohibitive to buy and then support.when CV no.3 is dead in the water. 15 years hence,even if it arrives,a 5th- gen bird would be required..
Speaking about HAL’s move to push the Dhruv helicopter to meet the Indian Navy’s shipborne naval utility helicopter (NUH) requirement after 30 years of non-compliance, Admiral Prakash, a decorated fixed-wing aviator, called HAL ‘lethargic, deadbeat’, a company that had ‘failed to show initiative’ and one that deserved a ‘rap on the knuckles’. The full 30 minute interview, which includes his comments on the naval Dhruv (at 22:40 mark) is here:
Referred video belowResponding to Admiral Prakash’s comments to Livefist, HAL reached out with an angry statement.
“The weapons trials on ALH Navy were completed successfully, certified and cleared for for use by the navy. However automatic blade folding was never promised or attempted on ALH. HAL cannot be blamed for things it did not promise. It is wrong to use words like lethargic etc. because technological initiatives call for in-house funding etc. Without firm visibility of how the money spent would result, it is difficult for any company to take initiative. Easy for retired persons to talk and give endless commentary,” HAL spokesperson Gopal Sutar said.
This is the RFIfor NLUH. See page 2 Pt 5. "The helicopter should be twin-engine, piloted by two pilots, having wheeled landing gear and blade fold capability."
What HAL did with HTT-40 was due to change in the attitude of HAL leadership, IIRC of Suvarna Raju. What it did earlier was the 'natural' thing to do. The folded blade displayed was on a full-scale model and not on any prototype.srin wrote:I think it will very slowly sink in that there is no money for costly imports, and anyone who knows our procurement system will understand that the SP system will never work. They should simply do a 100% FDI for manufacturing here. In any case, parts localization is what is necessary. Who does the final assembly (even if it is DPSU) is not as important, IMO.
That said, I don't agree with HAL's response. HAL did the HTT-40 without the assurance from IAF. Was unnecessarily defensive and offensive at the same time.
I also feel a bit of cognitive dissonance here. I have seen the pics of blade folding ALH - yet everybody (including HAL) seems to be implying they don't have blade folding.
The discord is not on what IN wants but what IN has asked (in its NSQR)! From what we can see from NUH, the claim does not hold. N-ALH -- I have no idea.mody wrote:ALH has manual blade folding. Navy wants automatic blade folding.
Automatic blade folding system is a complicated electro-hydraulic mechanism with concomitant weight penalty. It is arguably difficult to build this into the small, hingeless rotor system of the ALH. Auto-folding becomes “essential” in larger naval helicopters such as the Seaking Mk-42B, Merlin HM Mk-2, or CH-148 Cyclone. Their large, heavy blades cannot be ‘manhandled’ without serious risk of damage to man or machine (rotor diameter often extends beyond ship’s deck edge). Short, squat helicopter designs such as the Kamov-28 have fully articulated, small diameter, 3-bladed, coaxial rotors with a simple, manual blade folding system. Conventional helicopters in the 5-5.5T category do not accomodate fully-automatic blade folding; neither was it ever called-for in the naval ALH. Such a requirement does not exist for the 5-ton Naval Utility Helicopter (NUH) either.
...
NSQRs are “essential”, “must have” requirements, that go through several iterations (draft, preliminary, joint SQR etc) before finalisation and formal approval. ALH NSQRs never included a self-contained, automatic blade folding system. Naval specifications were broad-based and only called for a simple and quick blade-folding solution. Extended parleys did take place between navy and HAL on the need to simplify the blade fold procedure.
...
Vice Admiral Sinha insists that it was HAL that signed off on MoD’s decision, therefore, to approve steps to identify an import option for the Indian Navy.
He says, “It was in the 2011 Services Capital Acquisition Procurement (SCAP) meeting I was part of that a decision was given on behalf of MoD that the Indian Navy can use the ‘Buy’ option for NUH. I was chief of the IDS during that period and part of deliberation. There was no choice but to ask the navy to go ahead with the ‘Buy’ option. The requirement at that time was lesser than what it is now because of delays and helicopters finishing with technical life. Many ships have been commissioned without helicopters since then. It is integral part of a warship. HAL may like to go through their files before making lose statements against a former Chairman of Chiefs of Staff Committee and CNS who has supported indigenisation to the hilt.“
...
Capt. Sharma, who retired from the Indian Navy last year, says, “120 helicopters were sought from HAL in 1994, signed by Admiral Arun Prakash who was then the ACNS (Air). This was again echoed to HAL in 1996 by Vice Admiral Sushil Kumar, the then VCNS. Despite not meeting QRs, the navy accepted 8 ALHs commencing 2003 with the hope of HAL undertaking modifications to meet original naval requirements. It has been 17 years since and 900 modifications later, as indicated by the navy to HAL, that ALH still does not meet the requirements. The design and development cost to make ALH compliant to naval requirements was sought from the navy. Funding by navy to meet its QRs is akin to a car manufacturer asking the buyer for R&D cost to install a brake system on the car.“
...
Anyone wanna lookup what happened to the new aerial refueling aircraft fight in the US?Indranil wrote:There is nothing new in this. Every company will do this! Who will possibly pass on orders of hundreds of helicopters? Boeing, AW, Sikorsky, Russian Helicopters, Eurocopter?
This is painful to read. The article lays out the context of Navy's opposition to Dhruv and the working relationship it has with the supplier(HAL). The bureaucracy and the bone-headed logic that's seems to be ingrained in HAL is a site to behold, and absolutely pitiful. There is no reason to not privatize HAL as it seems to be the only answer to instill accountability at this point.Rakesh wrote:Fairly detailed article....
The Truth Hurts, Says Indian Navy’s 1st Dhruv Flight Commander
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/06 ... ander.html
10 June 2020, By Commander YASHODHAN MARATHE (Retd.)
While I wouldn't comment on the author's experience, The bottom line is when you do things for the first time, there will be issues but almost all of the issues highlighted by the respected pilot have been addressed. Also, HAL is horrible in PR and we cannot put down our side as eloquently as our customers for obvious reasons.Jay wrote:This is painful to read. The article lays out the context of Navy's opposition to Dhruv and the working relationship it has with the supplier(HAL). The bureaucracy and the bone-headed logic that's seems to be ingrained in HAL is a site to behold, and absolutely pitiful. There is no reason to not privatize HAL as it seems to be the only answer to instill accountability at this point.Rakesh wrote:Fairly detailed article....
The Truth Hurts, Says Indian Navy’s 1st Dhruv Flight Commander
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/06 ... ander.html
10 June 2020, By Commander YASHODHAN MARATHE (Retd.)
It's a RFI, it asks folks to specify the technology usedkvraghav wrote:The RFI does not mention automatic rotor folding.