Indian Naval Aviation

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.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2344
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Manish_P » 21 May 2020 16:42

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.


Thanks.

Usually Brar_W saab is very quick to provide clarity on matters US. But haven't seen him around for some days now. Hope all is well.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8870
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 21 May 2020 20:57

Manish_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


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2433519#p2433519

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9328
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 27 May 2020 18:42

To Speed Up, 3 New US Navy MH-60 Romeos Head To India This Year
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/05 ... -year.html

“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.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby V_Raman » 29 May 2020 01:29

Looks like US Navy is giving up its capacity to supply IN

US Navy Rushes Its Sub-Hunting Helicopters To India, Eye On China
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/us- ... -on-china/

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2610
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Cybaru » 29 May 2020 04:35

They already had more spare capacity and were looking to offload anyways - this has been in play for a while. I dont think this is last minute. We are buying the excess capacity from US Navy if I am not wrong. Part of their quota. I would highly recommend taking any such reports above with pinches of salt...

Feb 5th 2019 report!

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/02/05/watchdog-navy-bought-too-many-helicopters/

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.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8870
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 29 May 2020 06:22

The MH-60R/S was born in part due to surplus capacity (line and model) that the US Army had (it reduced its total buy of the UH-60) that made it economical for the US Navy to pick up the slack. Now the same is true for the MH-60R exports as the USN decision to buy 20 Frigates as the last 20 vessels in its SSC fleet means that there will be a 4-5 year shift to the small surface combatant induction plan which means they have excess capacity both in terms of units delivered (though that is likely to be minimal) and in the production line. That probably accounts for the three helicopters the USN could free up and probably also means that the IN gets additional slots, early on compared to what would have been available had the USN not gone in for a new surface combatant.

narmad
BRFite
Posts: 221
Joined: 10 May 2005 09:47
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby narmad » 04 Jun 2020 17:05

New Made-In-India Fighter Cleared For Development, First Flight In 6 Years

The new fighter-jet will be designed to operate from the deck of India's two aircraft carriers INS Vikramaditya and the soon to be inducted INS Vikrant.

Buoyed by the success of trial landings of the Tejas-N fighter on board the Navy aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has given the go ahead for the development of a twin engine made-in-India fighter jet.

NDTV has learnt that the governing body of ADA, the principal designer of the Tejas fighter, now in squadron service with the Indian Air Force, has discussed the indigenous development of the new fighter in a meeting chaired by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and attended by the Navy and Air Force Chiefs on 22 May. Following this meeting, the Operational Requirements (ORs) for the new fighter were issued by the Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence.

The prototype of the new fighter-jet, designed to operate from the deck of India's two aircraft carriers, INS Vikramaditya and the soon to be inducted INS Vikrant, is meant to fly within six years with induction of the fighter within a decade.

At least three variations of the design of the new fighter are being studied presently and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) tests and wind tunnel modelling will ensure the optimum shape of the fighter to match its projected operational capabilities.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5290
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Kartik » 05 Jun 2020 05:03

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.

From Boeing's internal website, hence no link


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.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8870
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 05 Jun 2020 05:44

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.


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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5290
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Kartik » 05 Jun 2020 05:52

There isn't any other export nation out there for a carrier borne fighter that takes off a ski ramp. This entire exercise is just to convince the IN that ski ramp ops are feasible and to study what payload it can carry and how much additional strain the jets will have to take due to this.

Boeing may have all the time in the world, but it certainly could do with conserving wasteful expenditure.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8870
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 05 Jun 2020 05:55

Yeah but it isn't like they are building an aircraft carrier or renting one to test out this capability. All they are doing is performing a live demo of a capability they claim to have validated in simulation a while ago. They have their own company owned test aircraft and access to the USN block II jets that rotate through PAX and are full time test jets. The incremental cost to actually do a demo is likely to be minimal for them. And the upside is obviously that they can claim to have a leg up in case the IN decides to pursue the competition again whatever the odds of that happening may be. The ski jump facility and the supporting infrastructure is all owned by the US Navy and aircraft and facility reimbursement rates are nothing more than a rounding error for their SH program. They may or may not ultimately do it. But the cost argument doesn't really work against them because it isn't a lot given what they spend on testing other internal programs that we do or don't here about. The only reason I suspect they decide not to do it is, if they have something else that takes priority and test/dev bandwidth.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Philip » 06 Jun 2020 19:56

The lifts are still too small for the SH on our two ski-jump flat - tops. Trying to make it stand on one wing doing circus gymnastics is the opossum's eyebrows. The 57 whatever extra were for carrier 3.I mentioned last yr. my conversations with two former 4* gents. The addl. birds are for CV no. 3,but according to one of the gents,nothing's going to happen. CV 3 will not take to sea and poof goes the rationale for the teddyboy fighter. Therefore,this entire exercise is pointless unless the future carrier fighter is a stealth bird that can also serve aboard the VikA and Vikrant--2.
Last edited by Philip on 07 Jun 2020 00:16, edited 1 time in total.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby basant » 06 Jun 2020 21:15

There is some irony in that Arjun Mk1 was branded overweight despite being within GSQR limits. And when it performed better than T-90 in AUCRT, it was dismissed as comparison of MBTs from different classes. Now NLCA Mk1 is overweight and IN wants twin-engined version with higher weight instead of even Mk2! Not suggesting any conspiracies..., just some weird coincidences.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8870
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 06 Jun 2020 21:18

Philip wrote:The lifts are still too smal for the SH on our two ski-jump flat - tops.


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.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9328
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 07 Jun 2020 00:18

Both OEMs have stated that their birds can take off with a payload from Indian carrier. However only Boeing has stated the F-18 can fit in the lifts. Dassault has yet to prove that capability. The lift on the Vikrant are similar in size to the lift on the Vikramaditya if I am not mistaken.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8870
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 07 Jun 2020 00:21

Well, none have demonstrated that they can. First would be to demonstrate (or at least offer a reasonable evidence/risk of) the ability to TO and land with a desired payload. Then would be integration with the ship. Neither would be able to integrate with the ship as is. Both would require changes to the aircraft and the ship. If IN goes further they'd obviously like to know what those changes will be so that it can evaluate the risk, schedule and costs associated with them.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Philip » 07 Jun 2020 00:33

Thus far we've yet to see any naval fighter other than a 29K or NLCA operate from the VikA. Some years ago,SAAB came out with a plan for the Sea Gripen to operate from the
Viraat/Hermes! No idea whether on paper that option still holds good,there's no Sea Gripen at all on the horizon and the sensible lust for only a TE fighter rules it out completely even if it were available.

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, when CV no.3 is dead in the water. 15 years hence,even if it arrives,a 5th- gen bird would be required,not an also-ran nag of '80s vintage! The task for the IN is therefore considering the operational life left of the VikA and Vikrant- yet to be commissioned as approx. 30 and 40 years respectively, a future fighter must be designed with dimensions that can operate from the two CVs. There are great possibilities if a UCAV option is also looked at as the USN plans to do. Carriers with a combo of manned and unmanned aircraft could be smaller
in size too.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8870
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 07 Jun 2020 00:47

Philip wrote:Thus far we've yet to see any naval fighter other than a 29K or NLCA operate from the VikA.


Right. And this is because the IN does not operate another type capable of operating on the ship.

SAAB came out with a plan for the Sea Gripen to operate from the
Viraat/Hermes!


What was the last naval fighter SAAB developed?

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..


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.

when CV no.3 is dead in the water. 15 years hence,even if it arrives,a 5th- gen bird would be required..


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.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1988
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby srin » 09 Jun 2020 09:47

Angry HAL Replies To ex-Navy Chief’s ‘Dhruv’ Attack

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:

Responding 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.

Referred video below

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby basant » 09 Jun 2020 11:06



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."

Also see page 26.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby sankum » 09 Jun 2020 11:29

No one going to spend $3b on fancy SP model for 111 NUH when 40 to 60 naval Dhruv will fill immediate requirement for less than $1b.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1988
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby srin » 09 Jun 2020 12:52

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.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby basant » 09 Jun 2020 13:26

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.

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.

Edit: As is currently obvious in case of LCH, it may not always result in success and someone may be held accountable from the PSU for it by CAG!

mody
BRFite
Posts: 712
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby mody » 09 Jun 2020 14:30

ALH has manual blade folding. Navy wants automatic blade folding.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Karan M » 09 Jun 2020 17:59

There is no money for costly imports, or cheap indigenous gear, but yet we have a huge forex kitty which somehow prior GOIs managed to find a way to access for emergencies, and war is staring us in the face. Even a mere fraction of the financing either via the above or any other method, would allow us to acquit ourselves far better in a conflict, but hey the great finance guys were talking of a defence budget cut.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby basant » 09 Jun 2020 18:37

mody wrote:ALH has manual blade folding. Navy wants automatic 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.

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 910
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby kvraghav » 09 Jun 2020 18:37

The RFI does not mention automatic rotor folding.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby basant » 09 Jun 2020 19:14

Article by Kaypius: BLADE FOLDING SYSTEM OF NAVAL ALH – CLARIFYING THE ‘AUTOMATIC’ VS ‘MANUAL’ DEBATE

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.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby basant » 09 Jun 2020 20:08

Update from Livefist: Navy-Dhruv Spat Escalates, Key Officers Throw It Back To HAL
...
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.“
...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Philip » 09 Jun 2020 20:22

HAL require orders and wherever possible use their babu clout to derail most urgent and critical requirements that the services need.A naval helo is a lot different from the vanilla land based variant. The ALH std. version has proven to be a success. I saw the full scale naval prototype at Aero-India,frankly a cumbersome process,especially in adverse weather conditions. For pure communication purposes,not ship based,it suffices,but the sad commentary of warships being sanctioned without their key ASW system,the ASW helo,is a dismal reflection of the situ.

The forces would love to have desi systems,but are forced to wait,and wait,and wait, and when the system finally arrives finds it plagued with problems and a low production rate as with the LCA. Several DMs have told the DRDO/ DPSUs to perform or perish,why corporatisation of the OFB has been approved and is being resisted by the workforce who want the status quo to continue.

This results in obsolete systems being kept together by string and duct tape.Crashes occur with regularity. In the end result,the country- the poor taxpayer gets shafted by incompetent DPSUs,and the service chiefs retire without their service getting its due. While we suffer the same,our mortal enemies like China build at ferocious pace,80 warships and subs in the last 6 years,plus 2 SSBNs in this year alone! The DM should fix a deadline for DPSU delivery, after which the best firang option should be acquired. DPSU bosses who can't deliver should be pensioned off.Perform or perish.
Last edited by Philip on 09 Jun 2020 21:37, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8176
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Indranil » 09 Jun 2020 21:35

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?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2610
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Cybaru » 09 Jun 2020 23:54

IMO, IN is wrong on this one.. They need to pony up or the cost needs to be added to the final deliverable or Indian Govt needs to pay for this. If they want mods, they also need to pay for them.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7493
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Prasad » 10 Jun 2020 01:12

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?

Anyone wanna lookup what happened to the new aerial refueling aircraft fight in the US? :)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9328
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 10 Jun 2020 20:38

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.)

And *initial* counter to the above article is here ---> https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/ ... 8773884929

Image

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby sankum » 10 Jun 2020 20:52

Only one solution. Quickly privatize HAL.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby sankum » 10 Jun 2020 20:57

How come Naval Dhruv beat Panther in CG Tender and 32 nos are on order for IN and CG.

Jay
BRFite
Posts: 251
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Jay » 10 Jun 2020 21:01

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.)

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.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2344
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Manish_P » 10 Jun 2020 21:21

Sobering read.... this and the piece on Artillery by Rtd. Lt Gen Palepu Ravi Shankar

Still hopeful that a change for the better will be forced (via policy), as internal change looks unlikely.

raghuk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 00:38

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby raghuk » 10 Jun 2020 21:47

Jay wrote:
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.)

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.

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.

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Barath » 10 Jun 2020 21:48

kvraghav wrote:The RFI does not mention automatic rotor folding.


It's a RFI, it asks folks to specify the technology used

But there's a section ~pg 14 that I suspect was pointed at this:

Rotor System
(a) Will the main rotor blades of helicopter be foldable for storage and transportation and have a folding mechanism? Will the blade folding
mechanism conform to the following:-
(i) Operate from IN ships capable of carrying helicopter by day and night.

Sr Technical Parameters
(ii) Able to be operated with a maximum of 04 ground personnel in maximum 10 minutes in Primary mode


Compare this to the livefist account :

This took over half an hour, though a timing of 22 minutes or so was demonstrated using five HAL personnel and safely on ground with no wind and no rolling and pitching of the deck. I can’t imagine five personnel being employed for folding the blade in a procedure that takes over 20 minutes.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: k prasad, manju, sooraj and 54 guests