“The contract was concluded with M/s Boeing, USA in January 2009 at MUSD 2,137.54. At a later date, M/s Boeing, USA offered the product support under a separate negotiable contract and consequently the deduced ranking of M/s Boeing, USA as L-1 turned out to be incorrect,” the report says.
Coming down heavily on the deal, which was inked to meet urgent requirements of the navy for a long range recon platform, the CAG has also said that the Boeing has not met its offset obligations of $ 641 million till date, despite the contract specifying that all obligations have to be fulfilled by August 2016.
More worryingly, the CAG has alleged that the American platform does not fully meet the requirements of the Indian Navy. “Owing to capability limitations of radars installed onboard, the aircraft is not able to achieve the envisaged coverage area requirements,” it says.
Specifying details, the report says that while torpedoes were procured as part of the deal, a critical ammunition for anti submarine warfare has not been procured even now. “In the absence of ‘X’ Bombs, the ASW capability of the aircraft could only be partially fulfilled,” it says. It also has observations on the limitations of sonabuoys ordered by the Navy.
Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 306934.cms
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Corporate Feud Delays Crucial Indian Navy Warship Project
https://defenceaviationpost.com/corpora ... p-project/
https://defenceaviationpost.com/corpora ... p-project/
One of India’s most crucial naval asset projects meant for the domestic industry is stuck in a corporate feud. Despite being flagged as an urgent requirement for influencing maritime operations in the Indian Ocean, India’s Ministry of Defense has not been able to finalize the $3 billion contract for four landing ships.
“No contract for construction of four Landing Platform Docks (LPD) has been awarded by Ministry of Defence,” Nirmala Sitharaman, India’s defense minister, responded to a question put up by a parliamentarian on Monday.
The question was whether the construction of four landing platform docks for the Indian Navy had been held up due to some dispute. Read More
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
IF P-8I was not the winner of L1 then this would be another Scam only done by UPA and the present Government will highlight it
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Rakesh wrote:Why Is The Indian Navy Racing A MiG-29 & A Lamborghini?
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/08 ... ghini.html
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Not to worry Austin Saar, Ajai Shukla has come to Boeing's rescueAustin wrote:IF P-8I was not the winner of L1 then this would be another Scam only done by UPA and the present Government will highlight it
CAG criticises UPA’s purchase of Boeing P-8I aircraft
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2018/08/ ... oeing.html
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
.....
Last edited by Rakesh on 07 Aug 2018 21:48, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: I hope you do not mind, but I will have to remove this post. I already posted it right above you :)
Reason: I hope you do not mind, but I will have to remove this post. I already posted it right above you :)
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
That's what you need to get trap qualified. Type certification is a different thing. When the MiG-29Ks was evaluated, there were no trap qualified pilots available. And until the SBTF was operational, INAS 303 trained as a land-based unit.Austin wrote:Hahaha , You need to do many hundred hours of conversion training to get type certified , Those training on Goshawks were basic one.
SBTF happened in 2013-14. The follow-on order for MiG-29Ks was placed in 2010. And as the CAG report reveals - the MiG-29K's issues were revealed when the deck trials began in 2012.Most of IN 29K pilot were trained in Russia and then once SBTF happened they were trained here.
Last edited by Viv S on 07 Aug 2018 21:56, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
No issues. But do add the excerpts to your post, if you don't mind. Would help most readers get a quick overview of those points.Rakesh wrote:I hope you do not mind, but I will have to remove this post. I already posted it right above you
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Rajesh Ajai can’t white wash quoting unnamed mod and Boeing sources
In plain English if fair selection of tender was done Boeing would have lost the deal to Airbus as they lost the L-1 tender , this is gross impropeitary by UPA government amounting to scam by manipulating figures.
On technical side Radars and Sonobuoys are subpar don’t perform as advertised.
On financial side Offset are not yet discharged
These are claims of CAG , can any one post full CAG report ?
The devil is in the details which full report can revel
In plain English if fair selection of tender was done Boeing would have lost the deal to Airbus as they lost the L-1 tender , this is gross impropeitary by UPA government amounting to scam by manipulating figures.
On technical side Radars and Sonobuoys are subpar don’t perform as advertised.
On financial side Offset are not yet discharged
These are claims of CAG , can any one post full CAG report ?
The devil is in the details which full report can revel
Last edited by Austin on 07 Aug 2018 22:11, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
I am speaking of type qualification , all pilots go through type qualification of 100 of hours before they are type qualified. That includes many dozen Landing using arrester recovery method.Viv S wrote:That's what you need to get trap qualified. Type certification is a different thing. When the MiG-29Ks was evaluated, there were no trap qualified pilots available. And until the SBTF was operational, INAS 303 trained as a land-based unit.Austin wrote:Hahaha , You need to do many hundred hours of conversion training to get type certified , Those training on Goshawks were basic one.
SBTF happened in 2013-14. The follow-on order for MiG-29Ks was placed in 2010. And as the CAG report reveals - the MiG-29K's issues were revealed when the deck trials began in 2012.Most of IN 29K pilot were trained in Russia and then once SBTF happened they were trained here.
Both land and then carrier is used for type qualification that each pilot has to go through the Mig-29 has extensively gone through this and so did the pilot
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Not when there is no aircraft carrier or SBTF to retain currency on. For a shore-based aircraft (which it was for 5 years) it is quite possible to be type qualified without carrier rating. Only a few RAAF Super Hornet pilots are carrier qualified and only those on exchange are current.Austin wrote:I am speaking of type qualification , all pilots go through type qualification of 100 of hours before they are type qualified. That includes many dozen Landing using arrester recovery method.
Both land and then carrier is used for type qualification that each pilot has to go through the Mig-29 has extensively gone through this and so did the pilot
Indian pilots began training for carrier operations only in 2012-2013.
India receives modernisation kits for MiG-29 fighters - April 2014
According to Korotkov, the training of Indian pilots for the MiG-29K/KUB deck-based fighters continues. The second batch of five Indian pilots started their training at the Goa naval aviation test range. “After getting the capacity certificate they will have the right to fly planes, taking off and landing on the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier,” Korotkov said.
Korotokov added that the training of the previous group of five pilots was carried out in two stages. The first was held on a Russian training set and the second - at a recently built in India training range. The first landing of the MiG-29KUB fighter, steered by an Indian pilot, on the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier’s deck took place on February 7, 2014.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
That’s what I said the Russian training took earlier when Indian took the 29K , without the training by by Indian pilots and earlier by Russians they would not have been type qualified.
Unless the IN pilot did nothing and sat ideal for 2 years between 2008 and 2010
Unless the IN pilot did nothing and sat ideal for 2 years between 2008 and 2010
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Airbus could sue the MOD in court if CAG report on L1 tendering fudging turns out to be true , even Rafale won on L1 bidding
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
I cannot understand this overwhelming desire to give the Russians a pass on the shoddy job they seem to have performed navalising the Mig-29k. Both Adm Arun Prakas's comments as well as the CAG report provide enough evidence to conclude that these are not the usual teething issues that any newly acquired fighter faces. Indian taxpayers have paid in full for this and the Russians have gypped us on the deal. Not for the first time either.
How are we any better than journalists who seem to jump in to defend any US manufacturer like clockwork just as they have done now? At least they probably get paid to do it. We seem to do it out of a conviction that the Russians can do no wrong, no matter the facts staring us in the face.
How are we any better than journalists who seem to jump in to defend any US manufacturer like clockwork just as they have done now? At least they probably get paid to do it. We seem to do it out of a conviction that the Russians can do no wrong, no matter the facts staring us in the face.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
What was the P8 up against?Rakesh wrote:Not to worry Austin Saar, Ajai Shukla has come to Boeing's rescueAustin wrote:IF P-8I was not the winner of L1 then this would be another Scam only done by UPA and the present Government will highlight it
CAG criticises UPA’s purchase of Boeing P-8I aircraft
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2018/08/ ... oeing.html
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
refurbished IL38 from boneyards...
CASA C295 is at best a MRMP.
CASA C295 is at best a MRMP.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5350
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Not only that it was also tested on the Kuznetsov before bring officially handed over to the Indian Navy.Austin wrote:The 29K extensively operated from its land based facilities during 2008 to 2010 period SBTF at Russia/Ukr and latest at INS hansa and most of the pilots got their training from SBTF , So yes the IN knew quite well in 2 years of Ops on Mig-29K before operating their 2nd batch. Not just that the INS Vikrant was also designed around Mig-29K
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5350
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
It was tested on the Kuznetsov, there's was a video of this in the net.Viv S wrote:It was NOT tested. That's the point. Not in operational conditions anyway, that is to say in carrier operations. Not least because we had no pilots certified in STOBAR ops."Cain Marko wrote:Again, the Indian Navy was fully part of the trials and testing program right from the mid 2000s, why would they accept the fighter if they thought it was inadequately tested it made? In fact they were happy enough that they ordered a new batch as soon as they could, even before the vik trials could commence.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5350
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Airbus 319 from bae I thinkabhik wrote:What was the P8 up against?Rakesh wrote: Not to worry Austin Saar, Ajai Shukla has come to Boeing's rescue
CAG criticises UPA’s purchase of Boeing P-8I aircraft
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2018/08/ ... oeing.html
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5350
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Not saying that the bird doesnt have issues, it obviously has. But what I'm saying, based on both chief and ex chiefs statements is that the issues seem fixable and nothing to the extent that is being made up such as buying new fighters as Replacements for the mig 29. There is absolutely no evidence for such exaggeration based on official statement from the CNS.nachiket wrote:I cannot understand this overwhelming desire to give the Russians a pass on the shoddy job they seem to have performed navalising the Mig-29k. Both Adm Arun Prakas's comments as well as the CAG report provide enough evidence to conclude that these are not the usual teething issues that any newly acquired fighter faces. Indian taxpayers have paid in full for this and the Russians have gypped us on the deal. Not for the first time either.
How are we any better than journalists who seem to jump in to defend any US manufacturer like clockwork just as they have done now? At least they probably get paid to do it. We seem to do it out of a conviction that the Russians can do no wrong, no matter the facts staring us in the face.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
By RAC-MiG pilots. There were only observers from the Indian side. The ability to launch and recover from a carrier was demonstrated, but the effect of arrested recovery on the airframe was only realised after the order for the follow-on batch had been placed.Cain Marko wrote:It was tested on the Kuznetsov, there's was a video of this in the net.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
All the points were also noted and observed by IN and verified by IN personal on both for the aircraft and ship , Unless the IN certifies the ships /aircraft that it met all test criteria they dont sign the final document , THis is true for all purchaseViv S wrote:By RAC-MiG pilots. There were only observers from the Indian side. The ability to launch and recover from a carrier was demonstrated, but the effect of arrested recovery on the airframe was only realised after the order for the follow-on batch had been placed.Cain Marko wrote:It was tested on the Kuznetsov, there's was a video of this in the net.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Defence ministry jacked up prices of Spanish plane to make US aircraft look cheaper: CAG
India Today Sandeep Unnithan
India Today Sandeep Unnithan
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) today said that the defence ministry inflated a bid from a Spanish company to make a rival US-made anti-submarine aircraft look cheaper.
Raising serious questions over the $2.1 billion purchase of eight P-8I Poseidon Long Range Maritime Patrol from the US in 2009 in its report tabled before Parliament today, the CAG said a $641.26 million offset agreement concluded in 2009 had not yet been fufilled.
The P8-I, a militarised version of the Boeing 737 commercial jet, is the mainstay of the Indian Navys long-range maritime patrol fleet. It can carry sonabuoys to detect, track and destroy submarines and air-to-surface missiles to target warships. Twelve P8-Is are in service and four more are on order with the navy eventually hoping to field a fleet of 24 such aircraft over the next decade.
The CAG said that the MoD enhanced the financial bid of EADS CASA of Spain to cater for 20 years product support cost while ignoring this element in respect of M/s Boeing, USA.
At a later date, M/s Boeing, USA offered the product support under a separate negotiable contract and consequently the deduced ranking of M/s Boeing, USA as L-1 turned out to be incorrect.
The deal for the aircraft was signed in January 2009 and all eight aircrafts were delivered by 2015. The Congress has attacked the BJP in the ongoing monsoon session of parliament over the 7.8 billion Euro 2016 Rafale deal alleging it paid a higher price than the one negotiated by it between 2012 and 2014. The CAG report is likely to provide fresh ammunition for the BJP to attack the Congress with, except that it gets a little complicated.
ALSO READ | Swaraj calls Italian PM; discusses steps to revitalise bilateral ties
The NDA too signed a deal for four additional P-8 Is in July 2016 under the option clause in the original contract. The deal worth around $1 billion was made under the price negotiated for the first batch of eight aircraft. The additional P-8Is are to be delivered beginning 2020.
The CAG says that the MoD concluded a $641.26 million (Rs 3,127.43 crore) offset contract with Boeing, USA. Under the MoDs offset policy on capital procurements, an OEM has to buy defence-related products worth 30 per cent of the value of the contract, from the customers market. In this case, the offset obligations which were to be fulfilled by August 2016 or seven years from the date of contract signing, had not been done.
M/s Boeing, USA had claimed Offset credits on mere placement of purchase orders defeating the very purpose of Offset obligations the CAG report said.The report went on to add that critical role equipment offered by Boeing did not meet the Indian Navys needs.
Owing to capability limitations of radars installed onboard, the aircraft is not able to achieve the envisaged coverage area requirements, the report said. Contracts for torpedoes and depth charges, the P-8Is primary offensive weapons against submarines had yet to be concluded and therefore, the ASW capability of the aircraft could not be fully met.
The MoD had procured sonobuoys in limited numbers sufficient only for one year instead of three, and not the advanced longer-range version as recommended by the Indian Naval Tactical Evolution Group (INTEG). Sonobuoys, air-dropped devices that float on the water and transmit the location of submarines to the ASW aircraft.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Back from the boondocks.
Vindicated! As I've always maintained,the P-8I was a "sweetheart " deal,part of the covert agreement by Snake-Oil Singh to buy US defence eqpt. like the C-17 (again keeping Boeing's C-17 line running)as a thank you for the N-deal upon which Snake-Oil staked his political legacy.Let's wait for more CAG exposes of the UPA regime.
The aircraft in current form are rather toothless with out adequate radar coverage and no ASW torpedoes,etc.! based upon this fact alone,how was the clearance for the additional 4 aircraft given,and on this below-par performance how can the IN request another 12 aircraft?!
The sordid attempts to downgrade non-US milware is however still continuing as the US attempts in every manner to replace Russia and other traditional suppliers,make us totally beholden to it and destroy the nascent indigenous defence industry. BK on the subject.
https://bharatkarnad.com/
The subterranean objectives of STA-1
Posted on August 2, 2018
Vindicated! As I've always maintained,the P-8I was a "sweetheart " deal,part of the covert agreement by Snake-Oil Singh to buy US defence eqpt. like the C-17 (again keeping Boeing's C-17 line running)as a thank you for the N-deal upon which Snake-Oil staked his political legacy.Let's wait for more CAG exposes of the UPA regime.
The aircraft in current form are rather toothless with out adequate radar coverage and no ASW torpedoes,etc.! based upon this fact alone,how was the clearance for the additional 4 aircraft given,and on this below-par performance how can the IN request another 12 aircraft?!
The sordid attempts to downgrade non-US milware is however still continuing as the US attempts in every manner to replace Russia and other traditional suppliers,make us totally beholden to it and destroy the nascent indigenous defence industry. BK on the subject.
https://bharatkarnad.com/
The subterranean objectives of STA-1
Posted on August 2, 2018
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
A photo I took of Kolkata class destroyer with Seaking. Probably the first published photo with Seaking Mk42B onboard https://flic.kr/p/Lae2Ye
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
And a forwarded photo of a White Tiger with a Lamborghini this weekend https://flic.kr/p/28x8G3R
Video of Lamborghini racing a White Tiger https://flic.kr/p/29QQrkE
Video of Lamborghini racing a White Tiger https://flic.kr/p/29QQrkE
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Philip wrote:Back from the boondocks.
[/b]Posted on August 2, 2018
We missed you...
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
NoPhilip wrote:Vindicated!
The CAG report is unfactual. It castigates IN for not buying Mk82 bombs which in reality is not required for ASW mission.
India has ordered Mk54 torpedoes
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/in ... -torpedoes
but the long term goal is to qualify similar indigenous TAL torpedoes.
Airbus A-319 ASW is paper plane. India would have to fund development costs. The other option Airbus Spain CASA 235 / 295 have low range and low payload and the number of aircraft required to cover an ocean area would have been more compared to P-8I.
So there was no fudging, in reality more CASA 235 / 295 are required to cover the coverage area of a P-8I.
CAG can validate this by taking Jet Airways or Indigo ATR flights and comparing it with a Boeing 737. Two ATR flights are required to cover the range of a Boeing 737
Last edited by tsarkar on 08 Aug 2018 12:34, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
We all love Philip as a friend but Hindi Roosi Bhai Bhai passed away with Raj Kapoorks_sachin wrote:We missed you...Philip wrote:Back from the boondocks.[/b]Posted on August 2, 2018
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Philip wrote:Back from the boondocks.
Vindicated! As I've always maintained,the P-8I was a "sweetheart " deal,part of the covert agreement by Snake-Oil Singh to buy US defence eqpt. like the C-17 (again keeping Boeing's C-17 line running)as a thank you for the N-deal upon which Snake-Oil staked his political legacy.Let's wait for more CAG exposes of the UPA regime.
The aircraft in current form are rather toothless with out adequate radar coverage and no ASW torpedoes,etc.! based upon this fact alone,how was the clearance for the additional 4 aircraft given,and on this below-par performance how can the IN request another 12 aircraft?!
The sordid attempts to downgrade non-US milware is however still continuing as the US attempts in every manner to replace Russia and other traditional suppliers,make us totally beholden to it and destroy the nascent indigenous defence industry. BK on the subject.
https://bharatkarnad.com/
The subterranean objectives of STA-1
Posted on August 2, 2018
ACHTUNG ACHTUNG ACHTUNG
Here comes the Russian T 14 Armata
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
That part was vendors risk , if IN felt A-319 and P-8I met their cost and technical criteria then it boiled for MOD for L1 bidding. It was Onus of Airbus to deliver on what they promised.tsarkar wrote:Airbus A-319 ASW is paper plane. India would have to fund development costs.
If Airbus did not meet their criteria they should have outright rejected it and should have opted for just P-8I like they rejected Russian LRMP offer , The fact that IN accepted both and went forward to MOD means they accepted both offer
Now it boiled down to L1 , The charges of CAG is MOD manipulated the cost figures of L1 to favour Boeing offer over Airbus that was grave impropriety by MOD of UPA. Which can either indicate corruption or willfully bending L1 process to favour Boeing
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
in reality there was no option.... we don't want to be the lead and only customer of a billion dollar crucial product. vs P8I which will be purchased in 100s by users. kaun hai bhai A319 ko fund karne ke liye ? even france, italy & germany has not funded it, let alone export clients. till date. every capability addition and future work would have to be funded by us also.
P8I was available and ready to roll, with the worlds most advanced navy.
P8I was available and ready to roll, with the worlds most advanced navy.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
If there was no option then why did the navy approve that in first place ? Why was it not rejected along with Russian offer and went for single vendor like C-17 or S-400 ?
The risk to develop was that of airbus the navy accepted the risk and went ahead but mod manipulated L1
Even the so called ready P-8I has serious sensor issue and lacks suitable asw weapon not to mention no offset values met till date
The risk to develop was that of airbus the navy accepted the risk and went ahead but mod manipulated L1
Even the so called ready P-8I has serious sensor issue and lacks suitable asw weapon not to mention no offset values met till date
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
To explore the powerpoint slides from vendor and to subdue price gouging by boeing to an extent. as a courtesy to airbus?
There is not 1 a319 asw TD flying today just to prove my point
In past 15 years none have reposed faith in it
what could compete with C17 - there is nothing even as a PPT anywhere else from any OEM. same for S400.
There is not 1 a319 asw TD flying today just to prove my point
In past 15 years none have reposed faith in it
what could compete with C17 - there is nothing even as a PPT anywhere else from any OEM. same for S400.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
We dont know what presentation and assurance Airbus gave to Navy and what lead Navy to believe it and same goes for Boeing. What lead Navy to reject the Russian offer is also not known.Singha wrote:To explore the powerpoint slides from vendor and to subdue price gouging by boeing to an extent. as a courtesy to airbus?
There is not 1 a319 asw TD flying today just to prove my point
In past 15 years none have reposed faith in it
what could compete with C17 - there is nothing even as a PPT anywhere else from any OEM. same for S400.
So we go by keeping faith in Navy technical evaluation that both Airbus and Boeing met its criteria but Russias offer did not meet the cut.
That criteria went to MOD and MOD deliberately manipulated L1 to favour Boeing. CAG does not any where say Boeing technical offer was better than Airbus or vice verse , It points to deliberate fudging of figures to favour Boeing , So GOI is subverting its own selection criteria.
What is to say Airbus would not have met IN criteria and delivered on the promise at lower cost than Boeing , There is no way to find it out.
Its like MOD/IN felt into its own trap thinking it wont be found out not the current GOI but UPA.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
We have neither gone for inferior equipment, not killed off any Indian project by acquiring phoren maal. As far as the choice of equipment goes, can't say I am too concerned.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
I am only seeing one Ak-630? Do a need a better resolution to confirm it, your thoughts?tsarkar wrote:A photo I took of Kolkata class destroyer with Seaking. Probably the first published photo with Seaking Mk42B onboard https://flic.kr/p/Lae2Ye
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
Definitely not the inferior equipment considering the Airbus entry is untested in comparison to the P-8. That saud it could impact upgrades and new weapons packages if this drags out and we cannot do business with Boeing in the meantime.Karthik S wrote:We have neither gone for inferior equipment, not killed off any Indian project by acquiring phoren maal. As far as the choice of equipment goes, can't say I am too concerned.
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
BTW. Welcome back, Filipov
Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018
All four there, the pollution haze combined with paint scheme blurring the outlines.John wrote:I am only seeing one Ak-630? Do a need a better resolution to confirm it, your thoughts?