Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

[Austin]

Seems Jimmy Jimmy , Looks like Mithun and Rajkapoor is etched in their memory

Indian Naval Band performed during the Naval Day parade of the Russian Federation on July 29, 2018

[chetak]

@Austin saar,

Here, I must take issue with you.

Like a simple case of not having the FBW in the right place and lead to accidental switch off by pilot lead to fall of MKI , now they changed the location of FBW on MKI but such things happend only after decades of MKI service ,

First and foremost, a hugely sophisticated fighter like the MKI presupposes ONLY trained personnel in the cockpit, be it in the front or rear.

If, for some reason, the person in the cockpit is unqualified on type, he/she is EXPECTED to keep his/her hands tightly folded. No ifs or buts, period

No reason for ANYONE to request the manipulation of some switch and/or someone (unqualified) to accept such a request.

This was not an mere error, it was a black swan event.

Many scenarios, mostly unimagined, aided by a series of errors, all of which aligned very precisely on that fateful flight culminated in the result. This precise set of events simply cannot even be gamed.

There is no protection against a black swan event.

The FBW switch was in the right place and that place had worked for countless years and thousands upon thousands of hours of flight.

Also, that one switch caused an unimaginable single point failure on an aircraft that is otherwise extremely sophisticated and one that is otherwise also protected by multiple redundancies, back up systems and error proofed to the best of the designer's ability.

Single point failure is something that every designer especially guards against. It is his greatest enemy and also his greatest failing.

I would consider the relocation of the said switch as merely a cosmetic action, a knee jerk reaction.

[prasannasimha]

^ not necessarily. Redesign can be done to avoid such a repeat can loterally save millions of dollars qnd lives

[chetak]

^ not necessarily. Redesign can be done to avoid such a repeat can loterally save millions of dollars qnd lives

the switch is supposed to be guarded and wire locked.

On that day, what do you think was the status of the said switch??

The original design was fine as long as all laid down procedures and processes were faithfully and meticulously followed as they had been for many years preceding the crash.

BTW, that switch wasn't just placed there by someone's whim or fancy or even by accident or as an afterthought. The cockpit design is a very serious business and it has evolved continuously since the dawn of powered flight.

That switch was very carefully placed there after a lot of thought and informed discussions between designers, test and other engineers and test pilots.

The russkis are as good at this cockpit design business as any other, if not actually better than most.

Apart from many other things, there were also multiple events of human error/questionable judgment involving diverse and unconnected participants in the error chain that led to the crash.

Most would not have had the faintest idea of their own contribution or how they added to the compounding of the errors of others in the chain, or even the many contributing factors leading up to this undesired outcome.

As a very general statement, not to be taken out of context and unconnected to this discussion, many of us often mistake motion for action. This "motion mistaken for action" syndrome very often forms the basis of another "accident", just looking for a place to happen. This syndrome happens a lot, especially in govt organisations where closure reports are often coerced from anxious subordinates and they, in turn, find "solutions" without properly identifying the problem, often such solutions align neatly with the direction of the prevailing winds.

Paperwork done, the dark clouds pass on, and the sun begins to shine brightly once again.

Until the next time, no??

The powerful honcho who directed the prevailing winds in a very specific direction is mucho satisfied, his turf well protected and his undoubtedly bright future also burnished and untarnished, and the fairly benign report contributing to his general well being.

The saddest and the final words that I ever had the misfortune to read in many, many reports is, "Loss to be borne by the state"

[chola]

Having said this, I don't see this naval flanker fantasy going anywhere despite how much burnol poor Cholaji has to use while viewing tfta looking PLAN fighters doing their thing. these are the heartbreaks that all jingos have to suffer thanks to an utterly callous political class and civil service. I can only imagine the pain the folks in uniform suffer.

Saar, I used up a lifetime of burnol participating in the LCA/J-10 internet wars a decade and a half ago and then watching not only the J-10 go operational in the hundreds but the Blunder too while the LCA sat on the mat. I was immune by the time the J-16, J-20, FC-31 and J-15 came around because the repeated layers of burnol applied to my nether region had become a hard caked chunk of armor.

I would like the naval MKI strictly as a way to preserve the eco-system and experience gained from making the Flanker. But any new Indian Flanker would do, actually.

That said, I think we need an indigenous twin-engine option for the carrier program. An Indian SU-33 would be quicker in developing than a N-AMCA when the AMCA itself is still on the drawing board.

And yes, I’m fully aware the carrier MKI probably won’t happen and we’ll end up simply buying firangi gear even a decade or more from now when we get our CATOBAR.

[Viv S]

The first 16 were ordered in 2004 and deliveries began in 2009. The second batch of 29 birds were ordered in January 2010.

Guess when the Vikramaditya entered service with the Indian Navy? Commissioned in 2013 and entered service in 2014. The Navy was never the wiser and had no clue, until it was too late. Once regular carrier duties commenced, buyers remorse set in. But by then, too late. We got suckered into it.

The IN has built a Land Based Facility for carrier ops much before Vikramaditya entered service and IN was extensive involved in flight testing operation and a huge crew/officers was station out there on the ship to test it and the aircraft , its only when the navy certified all OK then we took the commision.

Nope.

2004: 16 MiG-29Ks ordered
2010: 29 MiG-29Ks ordered
Apr 2012: VikAd completed
May 2013: INAS 303 commissioned
Nov 2013: VikAd commissioned
Jan 2014: VikAd arrives
Feb 2014: SBTF commissioned

There was no facility at INS Hansa to test arrested recovery prior to the SBTF. IN pilots tested a MiG-29K prototype in Russia in 2002 but presumably they were ordinary test flights since the officers involved received their 'trap' qualification only from 2007 in the US.

The problem with 29K is two fold one is the Childhood disease that new aircraft goes through inspite of all the test and best effort from every body its only some problem can come during squadron service of aircraft when things fly day in and day out and maintenance is carried by regular crew , This is common to all the aircraft even Tejas will reach that stage when it enter squadron service be that be IAF or IN , This things can take years to get fixed its not a critical issue that would make it stop flying day in and day out but nagging issue that can turn out of blue , Some times it may not turn out immediately but after years of squadron service.

My understanding was that the undercarriage was underdesigned resulting in the aircraft unable to cope with the shock of hard carrier landings. Less a teething issue, more a fundamental design defect.

[John]

Good points and to add it for Fleet Air defense, powerful radar is not important due to presence of naval search radars in friendly vessels including Vikramaditya which has the monster Podberezovik radar.

No matter how big or powerful the radar, it will suffer from LOS issues. Low flying fighters at long distances are going to be picked up much better by the Bars, not to mention any other types of targets. A flanker like the one Chola is talking about would enjoy some advantages over the fulcrum. Endurance for eg., is crucial even in a WVR fight allowing a pilot to disengage and engage on his own terms. Then there is the added advantage of tvc on the flanker. Overall, I would rate it as having better potential than the fulcrum just as the SN did originally.

Having said this, I don't see this naval flanker fantasy going anywhere despite how much burnol poor Cholaji has to use while viewing tfta looking PLAN fighters doing their thing. these are the heartbreaks that all jingos have to suffer thanks to an utterly callous political class and civil service. I can only imagine the pain the folks in uniform suffer.

For low flying aircrafts you will have AEW and AWACS providing tracking information. Operating close to fleet endurance is not major issue.

Considering Su-33 was plagued with issues ( including structural problems) and J-15 seems to have similar issues not sure why current obsession with naval Flanker. Even worse even during trials Su-33/Mig-29k in 80s it was well noted Su-33 was far harder to manuveur and land in carrier. Issues with Mig-29k and Su-33/J-15 is end result of trying to shoe horn land based aircraft as naval fighter aircraft, even though in its development cycle it was never intended for that role.

[chetak]

Having said this, I don't see this naval flanker fantasy going anywhere despite how much burnol poor Cholaji has to use while viewing tfta looking PLAN fighters doing their thing. these are the heartbreaks that all jingos have to suffer thanks to an utterly callous political class and civil service. I can only imagine the pain the folks in uniform suffer.

Saar, I used up a lifetime of burnol participating in the LCA/J-10 internet wars a decade and a half ago and then watching not only the J-10 go operational in the hundreds but the Blunder too while the LCA sat on the mat. I was immune by the time the J-16, J-20, FC-31 and J-15 came around because the repeated layers of burnol applied to my nether region had become a hard caked chunk of armor.

I would like the naval MKI strictly as a way to preserve the eco-system and experience gained from making the Flanker. But any new Indian Flanker would do, actually.

That said, I think we need an indigenous twin-engine option for the carrier program. An Indian SU-33 would be quicker in developing than a N-AMCA when the AMCA itself is still on the drawing board.

And yes, I’m fully aware the carrier MKI probably won’t happen and we’ll end up simply buying firangi gear even a decade or more from now when we get our CATOBAR.

I think that we should give Chola ji his due.

He keeps plugging on tirelessly and has many very good points to make. Anyone else would have given up by now but his dogged perseverance and sheer endurance in sustaining his points of view is commendable.

Good for you Chola ji.

Keep right on.

You are the best window that we have into the cheeni aviation, especially the naval side.

[Cain Marko]

^ all too true Saar, I just couldn't resist a little jab at Shri Cholas situation. Doing Chinese naval analysis and seeing them build hardware at a frenetic pace all the while when folks here are playing the gentleman's game. I dunno how he does it. I'd have bust an artery or two ages ago.

[Cain Marko]

Having said this, I don't see this naval flanker fantasy going anywhere despite how much burnol poor Cholaji has to use while viewing tfta looking PLAN fighters doing their thing. these are the heartbreaks that all jingos have to suffer thanks to an utterly callous political class and civil service. I can only imagine the pain the folks in uniform suffer.

Saar, I used up a lifetime of burnol participating in the LCA/J-10 internet wars a decade and a half ago and then watching not only the J-10 go operational in the hundreds but the Blunder too while the LCA sat on the mat. I was immune by the time the J-16, J-20, FC-31 and J-15 came around because the repeated layers of burnol applied to my nether region had become a hard caked chunk of armor.

I would like the naval MKI strictly as a way to preserve the eco-system and experience gained from making the Flanker. But any new Indian Flanker would do, actually.

That said, I think we need an indigenous twin-engine option for the carrier program. An Indian SU-33 would be quicker in developing than a N-AMCA when the AMCA itself is still on the drawing board.

And yes, I’m fully aware the carrier MKI probably won’t happen and we’ll end up simply buying firangi gear even a decade or more from now when we get our CATOBAR.

Keep up the good work Chola, many of us appreciate what must be an extremely frustrating effort in the China watch thread.

BTW, please don't bring up the j10 vs LCA thing, it is unspeakable and a painful memory.

[Cain Marko]

[
My understanding was that the undercarriage was underdesigned resulting in the aircraft unable to cope with the shock of hard carrier landings. Less a teething issue, more a fundamental design defect.

Where did you hear this? There is sufficient information that speaks of a lot of work done to strengthen the airframe and landing gear on the naval fulcrum. Like I said, they have been at it since 1982. One reason why it is 2 tons heavier than the airforce version.

[chola]

^ all too true Saar, I just couldn't resist a little jab at Shri Cholas situation. Doing Chinese naval analysis and seeing them build hardware at a frenetic pace all the while when folks here are playing the gentleman's game. I dunno how he does it. I'd have bust an artery or two ages ago.

I was told by many here during the Doklam standoff that I was unhinged with the war talk. So a cranial artery or two might have burst during those early years. But it is hard for me to mentally examine myself.

[chetak]

^ all too true Saar, I just couldn't resist a little jab at Shri Cholas situation. Doing Chinese naval analysis and seeing them build hardware at a frenetic pace all the while when folks here are playing the gentleman's game. I dunno how he does it. I'd have bust an artery or two ages ago.

I was told by many here during the Doklam standoff that I was unhinged with the war talk. So a cranial artery or two might have burst during those early years. But it is hard for me to mentally examine myself.

Not to worry, saar.

You are just as sane or just as crazy as anyone on the forum.

[Viv S]

[My understanding was that the undercarriage was underdesigned resulting in the aircraft unable to cope with the shock of hard carrier landings. Less a teething issue, more a fundamental design defect.

Where did you hear this? There is sufficient information that speaks of a lot of work done to strengthen the airframe and landing gear on the naval fulcrum. Like I said, they have been at it since 1982. One reason why it is 2 tons heavier than the airforce version.

From the CAG report on the MiG-29K and assorted media reports. Indranil also confirmed it in a post afterwards.

Indian Navy wants Russian MiG-29K jets to be ‘ruggedized’

“We (Indian Navy) want the MiG-29K aircraft to be ruggedized to carry out operations because landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier is almost like a hard landing and the fighter aircraft needs frequent maintenance,” the Navy official said.

“There are frequent structural defects due to deck landing,” the official added.

[chola]

^^^ The airframe, engines and FBW are ALL in dangerous territory.

https://oidagroup.com/mig-29ks-deficien ... dian-navy/

According to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year March 2015 (Report No.17 of 2016), the MiG-29K continues to face operational limitations due to defects in engines, airframe, and the fly-by-wire system.

According to the report, serviceability of the MiG-29K was low ranging from 15.93 per cent (2011-2012) to 37.63 per cent (2014-2015).

...

As of September 2014, the Indian Navy had accepted a total of 65 engines (42 with the 21 aircraft delivered and 23 spare). However, since induction in February 2010 40 engines (representing 62 per cent of 65 engines) had been withdrawn from service or rejected due to design-related defects or deficiencies. According to the Audit report, the defects had serious safety implications with in-flight engine defects leading to ten cases of single engine landings. Up to August 2015, 46 engines were withdrawn from service, placing the reliability of the RD-33 MK into question, since it is an improvement of the RD-33.

Airframe defects reared their head during the first deck trials on the INS Vikramaditya in July 2012 as reported by Headquarters Western Naval Command, Mumbai to the Directorate of Naval Air Staff. In May 2014, the RAC stated that aircraft performance under test conditions on the INS Vikramaditya conformed to specifications, however added that weaknesses were revealed during flight tests, which would be eliminated. In June 2014, the Directorate of Air Support Equipment informed the RAC that several defects occurred during deck operations due to failure of airframe parts despite design improvements and modifications.

Regarding the fly-by-wire system, RAC assures that the system has quadruple redundancy however reliability has been very poor ranging from 3.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent between July 2012 and June 2014. The RAC is looking to improve the reliability of the system.

There is no beating around the bush on this. The 29K is an exceeding dangerous plane to fly and land on a carrier especially the cramped deck of the ill-designed Gorshkov. There is no margin for error to recover from a failed engine, unreliable fly-by-wire system or a part or instrument damaged from previous landings.

[Singha]

these same rd33 engines are on the JF17 ....

[Rakesh]

And thus the reasons for a number of JF-17 crashes. The PAF will never tell you that, but their experience with the JF-17 is not all hunky dory.

[Austin]

Audit report of CAG is a snap shot of events from 2012-2014 during initial phase of Mig-29K operation, they find out the faults and IN will fix those that is the whole idea to audit it. The IN would have fixed many if not all post 2015-2018

I can show any number of CAG report on foreign weapons system including on indiginous program like Tejas and on Indian Armed forces that CAG has pointed many flaws at but that is what CAG does its their job .

If one has to take CAG report for its word then they say many things which makes one believe that Armed forces eg INt have safety culture ,JAguar still have serious issue with autopilot and most aircraft dont after 40 years of service leading to many crashes and loss of pilot life etc the list is too long.

[chetak]

these same rd33 engines are on the JF17 ....

The engines on the airforce MiGs are of conventional construction but the ones used by the IN are of modular construction allowing for (easier??) replacement of just the affected module.

Hardly makes much difference if the engines perform poorly.

[sudeepj]

sell the 29Ks to the iaf and buy rafales. Pay dassault to do some folding wings, or a removable part in the outer wing. :-(

[Cain Marko]

Where did you hear this? There is sufficient information that speaks of a lot of work done to strengthen the airframe and landing gear on the naval fulcrum. Like I said, they have been at it since 1982. One reason why it is 2 tons heavier than the airforce version.

From the CAG report on the MiG-29K and assorted media reports. Indranil also confirmed it in a post afterwards.

Indian Navy wants Russian MiG-29K jets to be ‘ruggedized’

“We (Indian Navy) want the MiG-29K aircraft to be ruggedized to carry out operations because landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier is almost like a hard landing and the fighter aircraft needs frequent maintenance,” the Navy official said.

“There are frequent structural defects due to deck landing,” the official added.

From the same report, footnote 55, which is in reference to the issues

. Defects - Defect of shearing of side bolt of engine mounting, failures of INCOM
mounting tray, failure of Radar scanner mountings had been observed

Things like shearing bolts and mountings do not sound like major structural issues or design defects to me. These seem like rotables, and as such will see wear and tear and replacement. Something that maintenance and perhaps better parts should be able to take care of. I don't remember it being grounded even once..and only one crash, touch wood

Quite importantly, the same report also points out that serviceability was on the rise by 2014, 37-45%. For a comparison Shar serviceability was in shambles in the 2000s.

Austin makes some very important points regarding such reports so early on in the induction of the aircraft. I would expect that things will only get better with time. Again, no named Navy source is complaining of any design flaws in the bird. IOWs, there is absolutely no support whatever that the bird has design defects and was improperly tested.

[chola]

We paid the rooskies $5B? I thought the final price was $2.5B after they tried to blackmail us for $3B. The original price quote for the refit of the Gorshkov was $800M onlee.

Ivan bragging how their smoking disaster, the Kuznetsov, had paid for itself by getting gullible desis — with far more experience in carrier ops than Russians — to pay said Russians for carrier stuff.

https://sputniknews.com/amp/military/20 ... -analysis/

the Kuznetsov even paid itself off economically, the expert said, given that it provided Russia with the necessary operational experience to begin exporting equipment for aircraft carriers to other countries.
"In the 2000s and early 2010s, on the basis of the old Soviet carrier Admiral Gorshkov, Russia built the Vikramaditya for the Indian Navy," Kashin recalled. "Russia received over $5 billion for the ship alone. The Indians also bought Russian MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB fighter jets, as well as the services and equipment for the construction of another carrier in India itself."

[John]

sell the 29Ks to the iaf and buy rafales. Pay dassault to do some folding wings, or a removable part in the outer wing. :-(

Boeing is the only one that offered to certify their AC for STOBAR where as Dassault has never come out and said that and any modifications and certification for STOBAR will result in added $$$. I know IAF is pushing IN hard to get Rafale (for its own reasons) but it would be ridiculous to spend 5 billion+ just for squadron of fighters.

[nachiket]

From the same report, footnote 55, which is in reference to the issues

. Defects - Defect of shearing of side bolt of engine mounting, failures of INCOM
mounting tray, failure of Radar scanner mountings had been observed

Things like shearing bolts and mountings do not sound like major structural issues or design defects to me. These seem like rotables, and as such will see wear and tear and replacement. Something that maintenance and perhaps better parts should be able to take care of. I don't remember it being grounded even once..and only one crash, touch wood

Quite importantly, the same report also points out that serviceability was on the rise by 2014, 37-45%. For a comparison Shar serviceability was in shambles in the 2000s.

Austin makes some very important points regarding such reports so early on in the induction of the aircraft. I would expect that things will only get better with time. Again, no named Navy source is complaining of any design flaws in the bird. IOWs, there is absolutely no support whatever that the bird has design defects and was improperly tested.

This is what I meant about "making excuses". The report clearly mentions that the problems continued to occur despite several design improvements. Why were design improvements needed if there were no design defects in the first place? It also mentions that they occur frequently and have an adverse impact on pilot training etc.

This is not "wear and tear". This is a clear indication that the airframe and landing gear strengthening hasn't been carried out properly. Otherwsie there would be no need to contact RAC MiG and tell them it is critical to fix the problems. If what you are saying was true, just buying more spare parts would fix it. That is clearly not the case. Stop trying to downplay this problem. Not going to work.

If the Navy had inducted the Naval Tejas and that had been plagued by such problems we would have wasted no time in blaming the ADA and HAL designers and complained about poor quality. But we can't seem to fathom that foreign manufacturers can make such mistakes.

If this issue had been one of simply improving serviceability the Navy would have just tried to fix that. Like the IAF did for the MKI. There would have been no RFI for the 57 new fighters. There would have been a follow on order for the Mig-29K. A smaller one of course since the Navy does not need 102 fighters for just 2 aircraft carriers which can barely carry half that number combined. No the Navy needs 57 new fighters because they will eventually have to relegate the Mig-29k for shore based duties only or risk having to decommission them far earlier than they would want to.

[Karan M]

+1 Nachiket. I can't believe the kind of blinders on.

The support mounting for kits such as engines (~several hundred kg) are shearing and this is dismissed as wear and tear. What happens when the aircraft is maneuvering and the engine moves sideways?

The list of other issues with the aircraft:
FBW failures
Engine failures
Actuators

And it goes on and on and on.. and yet it is somehow OK. Meanwhile, the LCA which is being tested rigorously is complained against for missing this target, that target.. it should have been rushed into service in a similarly flawed manner.

[Indranil]

We paid the rooskies $5B? I thought the final price was $2.5B after they tried to blackmail us for $3B. The original price quote for the refit of the Gorshkov was $800M onlee.

Ivan bragging how their smoking disaster, the Kuznetsov, had paid for itself by getting gullible desis — with far more experience in carrier ops than Russians — to pay said Russians for carrier stuff.

https://sputniknews.com/amp/military/20 ... -analysis/

the Kuznetsov even paid itself off economically, the expert said, given that it provided Russia with the necessary operational experience to begin exporting equipment for aircraft carriers to other countries.
"In the 2000s and early 2010s, on the basis of the old Soviet carrier Admiral Gorshkov, Russia built the Vikramaditya for the Indian Navy," Kashin recalled. "Russia received over $5 billion for the ship alone. The Indians also bought Russian MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB fighter jets, as well as the services and equipment for the construction of another carrier in India itself."

Too much vodka.

[Rakesh]

Why Is The Indian Navy Racing A MiG-29 & A Lamborghini?
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/08 ... ghini.html

An officer at the Navy’s Goa base told Livefist, “The film being made is pointed directly at the young. When it’s ready, it will be an exhilarating showcase of speed from something that many can’t really relate to — a fighter jet that costs hundreds of crores — to the things they can relate to — a sports car, for instance. The line of the film will be direct too: If you have the passion, if you crave adventure and speed, then look no further than the Indian Navy.”

[Rakesh]

From another photo-op, although I am not aware of this one. Another Lamborghini Huracán with an IAF Su-30MKI.

Days of Thunder
https://www.autocarindia.com/auto-featu ... der-392483

[Cain Marko]

Again, I have no need to make excuses for anybody, but I do feel the issue is being made out to be greater than it is. Especially because these claims belie official statements from the CNS. having said this, the bird obviously has issues but from all indications, and as bad as they are, it seems that they are fixable and do get fixed. So far we have this statement from the ex cns...

. After every carrier landing (which is virtually like a crash), components of the aircraft crack, break or stop functioning. The aircraft, then goes to the workshop for repair/replacement of the part, which often has to come from Russia,” Prakash said.

Even if the problems have been persistent in the early years of the operational service, we have to keep in mind that the report only considers the first 5 years of service and only 2 years on the vik from 2012. This seems very early in it's career to make a summary judgment. 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.

As far as the nlca goes, I realize it can be frustrating but the chief is the one who said what he did, folks need to accept this if they can.

[Austin]

Indian Navy likely to appoint inspector general to ensure safety of warships

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 9Sp4H.html

The Indian Navy has had a reasonably smooth run over the past two years in terms of operating an incident-free fleet, thanks to the introduction of multi-layered safety audits.

The Indian Navy is on course to create a new full-time post of Inspector general (safety) that will help ensure safe operations at sea and reduce the risk of accidents, two persons familiar with the matter said on condition of anonymity. “As of now, the chief staff officer (training) oversees safety issues as he holds a dual charge. The new post is being created as safety is an absolute top priority for the navy,” said one of the officials.

The proposal to appoint a two-star admiral as IG (safety) is in an advanced stage and will be put up for government clearance soon. The navy has had a reasonably smooth run over the past two years in terms of operating an incident-free fleet, thanks to the introduction of multi-layered safety audits.

“The appointment of IG (safety) is yet another concrete step to ensure warship safety,” said the second official.

The 2013-14 period was particularly troublesome for the navy as several of its warships, including two Russian-origin Kilo-class submarines, were involved in mishaps. Navy chief admiral DK Joshi resigned in February 2014 after two officers were killed and seven sailors seriously injured in a fire on the INS Sindhuratna. A 2017 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) pointed out that 38 warships were involved in mishaps during 2007-16 and the navy had no framework to deal with safety issues. However, the navy has pulled off a remarkable turnaround on the safety front, the officials said, bringing up the multi-layered safety checks introduced by the navy.

“When a warship goes in for refit, safety checks are now conducted at five stages. There was a certain degree of adhocism in the processes earlier, which has been replaced by comprehensive planning.

All refits are now planned two years in advance,” he said. “It is a great move to appoint an IG (safety). The series of steps taken by the navy to cut accident risks will contribute to the culture of safety consciousness in the service,” said military affairs expert Sudarshan Shrikhande, a retired rear admiral.

The navy’s worst peacetime accident took place in August 2013 when Russian-built submarine INS Sindhurakshak sank after an explosion. killing 18 sailors on board.

“Submarine authorities concerned didn’t properly assess the crew fatigue, besides, the submarine was holding ammunition nearing life expiry,” the CAG report quoted the naval Board of Inquiry as saying.

[Viv S]

From the same report, footnote 55, which is in reference to the issues

. Defects - Defect of shearing of side bolt of engine mounting, failures of INCOM
mounting tray, failure of Radar scanner mountings had been observed

Things like shearing bolts and mountings do not sound like major structural issues or design defects to me. These seem like rotables, and as such will see wear and tear and replacement. Something that maintenance and perhaps better parts should be able to take care of. I don't remember it being grounded even once..and only one crash, touch wood

Actually if you see in the context of the other reports and chaiwallah posts here, the root cause of the problems is that the undercarriage of the aircraft is transmitting excess shock to to the airframe during arrested landings (the shearing of an engine mounting bolt, for example, isn't a wear-and-tear issue).

Quite importantly, the same report also points out that serviceability was on the rise by 2014, 37-45%. For a comparison Shar serviceability was in shambles in the 2000s.

To be fair, the MiG-29Ks are fairly new aircraft that have been in service long enough for teething issues to be resolved. In contrast, the Shar which were all first generation Harriers at the fag end of their service life, if not past it. The RN traded them in for FA.2s in the early 90s. I don't think the Shar's operational availability at the same point in its service life (about 1989) was particularly bad.

Austin makes some very important points regarding such reports so early on in the induction of the aircraft. I would expect that things will only get better with time. Again, no named Navy source is complaining of any design flaws in the bird. IOWs, there is absolutely no support whatever that the bird has design defects and was improperly tested.

No serving officer would have the authorization to make a statement without clearance. But the naval aviators community is a small one and the words of someone like Admiral Prakash still carry weight.

After every carrier landing (which is virtually like a crash), components of the aircraft crack, break or stop functioning. The aircraft, then goes to the workshop for repair/replacement of the part, which often has to come from Russia. - Adm Arun Prakash

[chola]

From the same report, footnote 55, which is in reference to the issues



Things like shearing bolts and mountings do not sound like major structural issues or design defects to me. These seem like rotables, and as such will see wear and tear and replacement. Something that maintenance and perhaps better parts should be able to take care of. I don't remember it being grounded even once..and only one crash, touch wood

Actually if you see in the context of the other reports and chaiwallah posts here, the root cause of the problems is that the undercarriage of the aircraft is transmitting excess shock to to the airframe during arrested landings (the shearing of an engine mounting bolt, for example, isn't a wear-and-tear issue).

Quite importantly, the same report also points out that serviceability was on the rise by 2014, 37-45%. For a comparison Shar serviceability was in shambles in the 2000s.

To be fair, the MiG-29Ks are fairly new aircraft that have been in service long enough for teething issues to be resolved. In contrast, the Shar which were all first generation Harriers at the fag end of their service life, if not past it. The RN traded them in for FA.2s in the early 90s. I don't think the Shar's operational availability at the same point in its service life (about 1989) was particularly bad.

Austin makes some very important points regarding such reports so early on in the induction of the aircraft. I would expect that things will only get better with time. Again, no named Navy source is complaining of any design flaws in the bird. IOWs, there is absolutely no support whatever that the bird has design defects and was improperly tested.

No serving officer would have the authorization to make a statement without clearance. But the naval aviators community is a small one and the words of someone like Admiral Prakash still carry weight.

After every carrier landing (which is virtually like a crash), components of the aircraft crack, break or stop functioning. The aircraft, then goes to the workshop for repair/replacement of the part, which often has to come from Russia. - Adm Arun Prakash

Important points, Viv ji.

We cannot conveniently forget that the MiG-29K is actually not new. It had been around since 1989.

The ones we were sold are new airframes with advancements in avionics and FBW. But the fact that Russians never gave it a new variant identifier indicates that the structural design is the same.

They had nearly 30 goddam years since the first test landing on the Kuznetsov to develop a better undercarriage and navalize the aircraft. There is a high possibility that what we are seeing now is intrinsic to the design. It won’t be getting any better. That is the reason for the RFI.

[Viv S]

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.

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.

The first lot of the MiG-29Ks was received in 2008 and the new batch of aircraft ordered in 2010, and we faced only the usual issues we face with Russian aircraft (engine problems and the like).

Its only when the carrier was ready and the arrested landings began in the 2012-13, that the 'oh shit' realization happened.

To quote the CAG report - "Major defects arose during the first (July 2012) and subsequent deck trials of the MiG-29K/KUB on Admiral Gorshkov as reported (July 2013) by HQ WNC, Mumbai to DNAS."

[John]

They had nearly 30 goddam years since the first test landing on the Kuznetsov to develop a better undercarriage and navalize the aircraft. There is a high possibility that what we are seeing now is intrinsic to the design. It won’t be getting any better. That is the reason for the RFI.

As much I love to pile on Mig and point to any information as signs of platform that has issues. Many sources have confirmed that navy is looking for advanced Fighter aircraft that gives it better bang for the buck especially something that can face off potential 5th gen ACs from across the border. This was under discussion and we discussed it in BR, well before even Vikramaditya was operational.

[Austin]

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

Carrier aircraft landing is quite demanding as seen from Tejas test , it puts 5x times more stress on the aircraft compared to Land Based landing and over the period of time it gets exposed to corrosion from sea which further reduces its life.

As far as SHAR goes ask any Naval pilots that thing was not only difficult to fly but also had high mechanical failure rates and many accidents and for most part less than a dozen was operational during its life time , During Kargil War and 2008 it was not available in Numbers and Virat was in dry docks , Its weapons and radars was sub optimal and got only better when Israel upgrades of radars and missile was done. Not to mention a short leg aircraft. Out of 30 bought only 11 remained operational most lost due to accidents

[anupmisra]

Seems Jimmy Jimmy , Looks like Mithun and Rajkapoor is etched in their memory
Indian Naval Band performed during the Naval Day parade of the Russian Federation on July 29, 2018

My post is OT but want to close the loop on your comment above. Enjoy. (Don't miss the painted faces).

[Viv S]

Indian pilots were trained in carrier operations on Goshawks in the US, not in Russia or Ukraine. Its possible they visited Russia for familiarization & tests but the post-flight maintenance in such cases would obviously have been done by RAC-MiG. The SBTF in INS Hansa was only completed in 2013-14.

Designing the Vikrant around the MiG-29K was another blunder that has come back to haunt the IN which is now scouting around for alternatives, most of which appear to not be compatible with the vessel.

The first generation Harrier was a challenging if not dangerous aircraft to fly, unacceptability so by modern standards but acceptable in the Cold War-era in which it was designed to operate. And to nobody surprise it was eventually retired with a warm send off.

[Austin]

Hahaha , You need to do many hundred hours of conversion training to get type certified , Those training on Goshawks were basic one.

Most of IN 29K pilot were trained in Russia and then once SBTF happened they were trained here.

[Austin]

Navy's Massive Deal For Boeing Anti-Submarine Aircraft Slammed By Auditor

From a technical standpoint, the CAG report says the equipment onboard the advanced anti-submarine jets does not work as advertised.

NEW DELHI: In a stinging indictment of one of India's most crucial defence deals, the government's auditor - Comptroller and Auditor General or CAG - has said that American aircraft manufacturing company Boeing was unfairly awarded a 2.13 billion dollar deal for eight P8-I anti-submarine warfare aircraft from the United States in January 2009.

According to the report, the Defence Ministry "enhanced" or inflated the financial bid of EADS/CASA of Spain to include a 20 year product support cost package for the rival aircraft that they offered. The same product support package was ignored in the case of Boeing initially.

The CAG says that though a separate product support package was negotiated with Boeing, the overall package for anti-submarine aircraft offered by Boeing was more expensive than that offered by EADS/CASA which was offering a variant of the A-319 aircraft configured for a maritime reconnaissance role.

The government concluded an offset package worth 641.2 million dollars, or 30 per cent of the value of the main contract which has still not been fulfilled even seven years after the contract was signed.

From a technical standpoint, the CAG report says the equipment onboard the advanced anti-submarine jets does not work as advertised. The radars which have been provided have "capability limitations."

Neither did the government acquire advanced versions of sonobuoys (buoy equipped to detect underwater sounds and transmit them by radio) or submarine listening devices on offer, thereby adversely affecting the capability of the jets in service.

COMMENT
The Indian Navy has received all eight P8-I aircraft and extensively operates these jets for its operations against Chinese and Pakistani submarines. A contract for four additional jets has been signed for one billion dollars and these will be delivered by 2020.

[Austin]

Can any one post full audit report link ?