India-Russia: News & Analysis

[Philip]

Russia was betrayed when the Cold War ending deal was agreed upon.NO expansion of NATO.
What happened? Secondly,the betrayal of the UN resolution on Libya,only protecting civilians,NO regime change.What happened? Therefore,Putin and Russia drew a line in the sand. The UKR,which in historical terms is steeped in Russian history,religion,literature,culture,etc.was being hijacked by a bunch of neo-Nazis with support rom right-wing western entities of the EU and US.Putin called their bluff and as they say,the rest is history! Crimea is now back where it truly belongs,and Putin ha staken the lead in the global war against ISIS proving that Russian mil force in Syria has been far more effective than that of the US/West combined together.

Stratfor has revealed that the US is expanding an air base in Iraq for further enhanced US mil ops. Very welcome.The more the merrier on the bandwagon to defeating ISIS.,However,I feel that this is a measure to reassure the Saudis that the US will not let the Iranians sweep across Iraq and link up with the Syrians in the future,and remain as a powerful player in Iraq in some form or the other to balance the Russian involvement.India has to engage diplomatically right now and carve out a role for itself when the time comes to talk through the UN.What's the point in us being UN peacekeepers in the region if we are ignored at the high table?

[member_29294]

^ Yes, NATO is corrupt and broken puppet organization of US. We know that. Geopolitics is not a fair thing and favors the strong and cunning.

And India has nothing to gain in Syria. Only countries militarily involved will get a say anyway.

[Austin]

Not likely. There was and is a high level of public support for accession to the EU. In contrast, public opinion on NATO accession was hugely negative.

Replied in Ukraine thread
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1970033

[Austin]

Not just number of spares Austin, but also timely availability of spares. There is enough evidence that Russia/Sukhoi messed up with timely TOT (did not transfer documentation, jigs etc per schedule), their production system was too slow, they didn't devote serious effort (till forced) to addressing IAF concerns about engines, FBW etc.

IAF is clearly fed up of Russian gear and logistics issues associated with them and hence willing to pay the kitchen sink for French gear, which while expensive, works. Or so they think. Who knows what teething issues Rafale will have in its first overseas deployment to a foreign AF which flies as extensively as the IAF.

I am pretty sure the Russians must have messed up and the Indians would have messed up without strong legal agreement to cover our arse.

The point is at 272 Sukhoi its still the biggest TOT/CKD/Outright purchase India has done and also the largest TOT/CKD Russia would have done , Its not an easy thing to build thousands of spares in India even with outsourcing done and locally sourced material.

Also documenting these things wont been an easy one and a legal agreement for the same , I think the reason why IAF wants advanced Sparess for Rafales is based on Sukhoi experience when it comes to spares , maintenance and uptimes and hopefully for any future deal this becomes the norm even if it means higher initial cost.


There is a reason why we are going for Rafale with 5-10 years of advanced guranteed spares support which is to have uptimes ( 90%) and guranteed supply of spares and build up of Depot for these , And paying an exorbitant cost for this just for 36 airplanes !

If we do a similar deal for 272 Sukhoi we will end up pay like 3-4 times the cost of $11 billion which is not feseable any ways.

We can just hope from Parrikar statement in Parliament in April 2015 that by end of the year they would achieve around 70-75 % uptimes we will see how they have fared so far , if they manage to come close to that figure that itself would be good achievement although delayed one.

Lets see how the Rafale deal also plays up lots of noise but I just hope they go for 72 of these birds eventually all hardwired for nuclear role so we have Super MKI and Rafale for Nuclear Delivery and we can give the Mirages a long awaited rest

[Viv S]

I am quite skeptical of all these OSCE observers given that they are hardly neutral when it comes to Russia given that they have an axe to grind in the power politics in the region, or the fact that the "revolution" that was engineered provided a fait accompli to early ukrainian revolutions. It was pretty clear back then that this was a reprise of the "orange revolution" in 2005 that saw heavy involvement of Ukrainian americans in the revolution.

The OSCE comprises of 57 members including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Serbia and Russia. Its silly to paint it as some malevolent gathering of Russophobes. It isn't out to get Russia any more than the United Nations is.

Yes, but poroshenko's action also played a point in this whole episode. If we step back here, Russia was presented a couple of tough choices by the chess-playing pigeon:

(1) Not be provoked while NATO expanded its membership with Ukraine in the grouping, and get the NATO/US right next to its border and in possession of Crimea down the line, with the possiblity of having to take on NATO if it wanted to retain crimea -- this would no longer just be fiction if the Ukrainian govt. terminated the lease unilaterally provoked a fight down the line..stranger things have happened.

(2) Preemptively strike ukraine and take over the parts it was interested, thus lowering the risk of losing strategic territory in the short term (as opposed to a few decades from now when the lease ended) should ukraine become hostile...of course, by doing so, Russia would make sure that ukraine was hostile, but it does not matter anymore.

1) There's nothing to prove that the association agreement with the EU would have led to NATO membership. However, having formally annexed Crimea and backing the Eastern separatists has certainly put Ukraine on the path to NATO membership, probably even before it closes onto a membership in the EU.

(BTW, NATO has been on Russia's borders for a long time; US/Alaska, Canada, Norway, Estonia-Latvia. May even be joined by Finland, if Russo-Finnish relations further degenerate.)

2) Russia didn't need to 'preemptively strike' to secure Crimea. It was already well and secure in Russian hands for all practical purposes without any real threat from Kyiv.

Russia faced the same situation in the aftermath of the 'Orange Revolution' that brought Yushchenko to power. Four years later Crimea was still in Russian hands, and Kyiv had a new pro-Russian govt.

[member_29325]

The OSCE comprises of 57 members including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Serbia and Russia. Its silly to paint it as some malevolent gathering of Russophobes. It isn't out to get Russia any more than the United Nations is.

The pro-Russia parts of Ukraine did not vote in the election (estimated to be around 5 million votes), so there was nothing fair about the election's results -- it would have been surprising if the anti-russia cabal had not won the election. Sleight of hand can be carried out on people who are distracted by the wrong details such as the membership of the OSCE. What was the need to advance the elections and leave out the pro-russian part of Ukraine in the first place? so that the election results would be predictably not in favor of Russia, maybe?

[member_29325]

1) There's nothing to prove that the association agreement with the EU would have led to NATO membership. However, having formally annexed Crimea and backing the Eastern separatists has certainly put Ukraine on the path to NATO membership, probably even before it closes onto a membership in the EU.

That is just your opinion without any precedent or evidence to back you up. I seriously doubt Russian planners could have such a sanguine view of the situation as you seem to, especially given that NATO broke its earlier promises to not assimilate ex-USSR states into NATO -- this is a fact, not conjecture. Anyway, you can have the last word, because this is all mostly useless hairsplitting when in retrospect, it is clear the Russia/Putin made the right call in Ukraine, especially given all the "brotherly behavior" exhibited by Poroshenko in reneging on treaties signed with Russia in the past couple of years.

[NRao]

I am pretty sure the Russians must have messed up and the Indians would have messed up without strong legal agreement to cover our arse.

Per Parrikar, the problem is with Russia. Posted quote above.

The point is at 272 Sukhoi its still the biggest TOT/CKD/Outright purchase India has done and also the largest TOT/CKD Russia would have done , Its not an easy thing to build thousands of spares in India even with outsourcing done and locally sourced material.

Also documenting these things wont been an easy one and a legal agreement for the same , I think the reason why IAF wants advanced Sparess for Rafales is based on Sukhoi experience when it comes to spares , maintenance and uptimes and hopefully for any future deal this becomes the norm even if it means higher initial cost.

After 15+ years this should not be an reoccurring problem. It has been a problem for some time now.

On Rafale-MKI connection, nope. IAF has wanted a lot more up time, which is why IAF has been complaning about it for a few years now. Clearly Russia has a supply chain problem, nothing wrong with that - it takes 2/3 decades to set up proper lines at such scale except that the Russians have not been rectify it over a couple of decades now. Gievn that the IAF had already bought so many planes Russia should have had a bell ring in their heads - just did not happen.

There is a reason why we are going for Rafale with 5-10 years of advanced guranteed spares support which is to have uptimes ( 90%) and guranteed supply of spares and build up of Depot for these , And paying an exorbitant cost for this just for 36 airplanes !

The need for up time has been there fore eons and not just with the MKIs (again check Parrikar's statement above).

Prices are not an issue for the IAF. Spares, for such items, are expected to cost a lot.

If we do a similar deal for 272 Sukhoi we will end up pay like 3-4 times the cost of $11 billion which is not feseable any ways.

We can just hope from Parrikar statement in Parliament in April 2015 that by end of the year they would achieve around 70-75 % uptimes we will see how they have fared so far , if they manage to come close to that figure that itself would be good achievement although delayed one.

With a good, dependable supply chain, there would be no need for anyone to "hope".

Lets see how the Rafale deal also plays up lots of noise but I just hope they go for 72 of these birds eventually all hardwired for nuclear role so we have Super MKI and Rafale for Nuclear Delivery and we can give the Mirages a long awaited rest

What noise?

However, here is the best I have come across, from Dec 2015:

December 10/15: India’s capabilities to maintain its Su-30 fleet quickly and effectively has received a boost after a new deal external link external link signed with Russia. The agreement allows for the Indian Air Force (IAF) to receive spare parts of Su-30 aircraft within 30 days instead of the previous 12 months. The five year agreement will cut away red tape such as license, customs clearance and bank guarantees which in the past had to be completed for each part ordered. This will allow for the IAF to keep its Su-30 fleet at optimum levels of operational capacity. For two countries who love bureaucracy, 12 months to 30 days is quite an achievement.

That is still not good enough.

[Karan M]

The point is at 272 Sukhoi its still the biggest TOT/CKD/Outright purchase India has done and also the largest TOT/CKD Russia would have done , Its not an easy thing to build thousands of spares in India even with outsourcing done and locally sourced material.

Also documenting these things wont been an easy one and a legal agreement for the same , I think the reason why IAF wants advanced Sparess for Rafales is based on Sukhoi experience when it comes to spares , maintenance and uptimes and hopefully for any future deal this becomes the norm even if it means higher initial cost.

HAL folks note there was simply no interest at Sukhoi to resolve this quick. After all, with more delays in TOT, HAL had to go rushing back to Sukhoi for spares and items. Win win for the Russians. Plus, the Russians were running parallel programs for Su-35 and PAK-FA, with the design teams involved there and not with IAF needs for fixes. Hopefully, with Russians themselves inducting Su-30 SMs, the fear of Putin will make things better for the MKM/MKI/MKA/etc series.

[Viv S]

The pro-Russia parts of Ukraine did not vote in the election (estimated to be around 5 million votes), so there was nothing fair about the election's results -- it would have been surprising if the anti-russia cabal had not won the election. Sleight of hand can be carried out on people who are distracted by the wrong details such as the membership of the OSCE. What was the need to advance the elections and leave out the pro-russian part of Ukraine in the first place? so that the election results would be predictably not in favor of Russia, maybe?

Semantics. This isn't about Poroshenko's legitimacy in the world/Russia's eyes, but whether he was democratically elected as opposed to rigging his way to the top. And that line of inquiry too is only in regard to the probability of his ignoring of public opinion vis a vis NATO accession.

First you questioned the OSCE's motives. Having been corrected, with zero prima facie evidence, you're now questioning its competence. You first claim you're 'not ideologically bound to either side', and then follow that up with obstinately ideological/partisan line.

Even if we assume that he would have ignored public opinion and proceeded with the process towards eventual NATO membership, fact is it would still take 6-7 years to fructify. Its unlikely that Poroshenko would remain in power for that long (evidenced by his currently sagging approval rating), so h'd need to ensure his successor followed through on the policy. Which in turn would require a national consensus on the matter.

Not to mention, at the end, it would be no different than the situation that exists today - save for one crucial fact; as a result of the events in Crimea, Luhanstk & Donetsk, public opinion in Ukraine now favours NATO accession. Allowing Poroshenko to announce a public referendum on membership.

That is just your opinion without any precedent or evidence to back you up. I seriously doubt Russian planners could have such a sanguine view of the situation as you seem to, especially given that NATO broke its earlier promises to not assimilate ex-USSR states into NATO -- this is a fact, not conjecture. Anyway, you can have the last word, because this is all mostly useless hairsplitting when in retrospect, it is clear the Russia/Putin made the right call in Ukraine, especially given all the "brotherly behavior" exhibited by Poroshenko in reneging on treaties signed with Russia in the past couple of years.

- There is a precedent - 5 years+ of a Yushchenko presidency without any deal on NATO accession.

- NATO's 'promises' aren't relevant. If NATO had its way, Ukraine would have been a member long ago, as would Sweden & Finland. Reality however isn't dictated by its wishes.

- By talking about 'brotherly behaviour' in a debate about cause-and-effect, you're again bringing sentimentality into the equation. And an cold & rational assessment would show that Putin's actions turned a situation that was moderately unfavourable to Russian interests, into one that was hugely unfavourable to Russian interests. With the 'prize' being something that Russia possessed all along i.e. Crimea.

[NRao]

There is a reason why we are going for Rafale with 5-10 years of advanced guranteed spares support which is to have uptimes ( 90%) and guranteed supply of spares and build up of Depot for these , And paying an exorbitant cost for this just for 36 airplanes !

Because of both maturity and a need, due to the circumstance.

People seem to forget that the IAF is not longer the force of the 1990 or even the mid 2010s. It is being force fed, by politics, into becoming a brand new entity. And, up time is a major component in this maturation process.

[Viv S]

Servicibility is the function of spares , If India wants 90 % servicibility of Rafale then it has to build spares for say 5-10 years then it has to pay $8-10 billion for just maintaining 36 aircraft for high uptimes

We managed 85% serviceability on the Mirage without buying a decade's worth of spares.

[member_29325]

There is a precedent -- 5 years+ of a Yushchenko presidency without any deal on NATO accession.

Are you being deliberately daft? The fact that it happened at all, even if more than five years before, makes it a precedent by definition. One could take the view that the Russians were being paranoid, but just because they are paranoid, it does not mean that NATO/US are not out to get them. Quite the contrary.

And an cold & rational assessment would show that Putin's actions turned a situation that was moderately unfavourable to Russian interests, into one that was hugely unfavourable to Russian interests

That is your view based on your "feeling" that NATO would not have coopted Ukraine because it had not done so for five years before that, not substantiated by NATO's actions since 2000 -- Russian media reports from Putin and others explicitly point to NATO reneging on their promise to not coopt ex-USSR states. Bottomline, Reality contradicts your line of thinking, but you are free to believe whatever you want. It is a free world.

Russia's economy will be what takes Russia down, if oil prices continue bottoming out and non-carbon technologies making a headway, if at all. It will not be their decision on Ukraine, which was as sensible when it was taken as is it now. Rest is all just noise.

[Viv S]

That is your view based on your "feeling" that NATO would not have coopted Ukraine because it had not done so for five years before that, not substantiated by NATO's actions since 2000 -- Russian media reports from Putin and others explicitly point to NATO reneging on their promise to not coopt ex-USSR states. Bottomline, Reality contradicts your line of thinking, but you are free to believe whatever you want. It is a free world.

NATO's rejection of Ukrainian bid for membership happened in 2008, which is after 2000 by my reckoning. Not because of any 'promises' to the Yeltsin, but because its not feasible to integrate a country without public support for such a step. In another two years, the govt could change (as it did), with the new bosses scrapping the deal and making a mockery of process.

But now, with the most pro-Russian segments of the population in Crimea and Luhansk-Donetsk out of the picture, the balance has permanently shifted in favour of the pro-West elements. With the general Ukrainian populace feeling far more threatened by Russia than ever before, and backed by a public referendum, the pursuit of NATO membership can proceed in earnest.

Russia's economy will be what takes Russia down, if oil prices continue bottoming out and non-carbon technologies making a headway, if at all. It will not be their decision on Ukraine, which was as sensible when it was taken as is it now. Rest is all just noise.

Nothing's taking Russia 'down', least of all Ukraine. They've survived oil crashes before, they'll survive them again. As a great power they will be diminished (the nominal GDP has already fallen below Mexico's) and will have to conduct major structural reforms, but the dependency on oil isn't anywhere as great as say the Gulf states.

[member_29325]

NATO's rejection of Ukrainian bid for membership happened in 2008, which is after 2000 by my reckoning.

Putin's actions turned a situation that was moderately unfavourable to Russian interests, into one that was hugely unfavourable to Russian interests. With the 'prize' being something that Russia possessed all along i.e. Crimea.

Again acting deliberately dense I see. The precedent set by NATO in absorbing ex-soviet states which would mean such an option would be available to Ukraine too, and it was. NATO not giving Ukraine membership in 2008 does not preclude such an occurrence down the line -- Ukraine becoming part of NATO down the line being a possiblity is the only point of relevance here -- being denied before is not a "precedent" to preclude that possibility.

Such a possibility being open down the line (medium term) would is sufficient for the Russian govt. to make a judgement call on Crimea, and you can proclaim that Crimea was never under threat, as if reneging on treaties is something poroshenko or some future govt. is impossible, when reality says otherwise. So you have swallowed the blue pill and think US/NATO is no threat to Russia, when reality says otherwise. That is just great. Collect a prize at the door.

[Viv S]

Again acting deliberately dense I see.

Hmmm.. fortunately I still know which side of Ukraine shares a border with Russia.

The precedent set by NATO in absorbing ex-soviet states which would mean such an option would be available to Ukraine too, and it was. NATO not giving Ukraine membership in 2008 does not preclude such an occurrence down the line -- Ukraine becoming part of NATO down the line being a possiblity is the only point of relevance here -- being denied before is not a "precedent" to preclude that possibility.

Pre-Crimea it was a 'possibility'. Post-Crimea its a 'certainty'.

Such a possibility being open down the line (medium term) would is sufficient for the Russian govt. to make a judgement call on Crimea, and you can proclaim that Crimea was never under threat, as if reneging on treaties is something poroshenko or some future govt. is impossible, when reality says otherwise. So you have swallowed the blue pill and think US/NATO is no threat to Russia, when reality says otherwise. That is just great. Collect a prize at the door.

The treat with Ukraine only provided legal basis for Russia's presence in Crimea. Its control of peninsula, in contrast, was a product of hard military power. A fact which would have remained unaffected by Poroshenko reneging on the treaty. To quote a Hindi proverb - jiski lathi uski bhains. Simply put - Ukraine doesn't have the means to dislodge the Russians from Crimea, even with NATO providing arms and training. Not even close.

[Austin]

Servicibility is the function of spares , If India wants 90 % servicibility of Rafale then it has to build spares for say 5-10 years then it has to pay $8-10 billion for just maintaining 36 aircraft for high uptimes

We managed 85% serviceability on the Mirage without buying a decade's worth of spares.

Can you show me a CAG report on 85 % serviceability of m2K

I recently saw a news report which mentioned servicibility of Mig-29 and M2K has reached 85 % servicibility but I have not yet seen any CAG report which explicitly mentions servicibility of M2K or 29.

[Austin]

“Disha” Awaited In Crimea

About 700 students from India are presently studying in the Crimean Federal University named after V. I. Vernadsky.

The vast majority of them — at the Medical Academy named after S. I. Georgievsky. Indian students are inclined to actively participate in joint Indo-Russian activities, promoting information about Indian culture in Crimea. This was told by the medical academy administration's representatives, at a meeting with Rameshwar Singh, President of the Indo-Russian Friendship Society — DISHA, held recently in Moscow. They also proposed to establish contacts with Crimean social organizations.

Founded in 2010, the friendship society "Disha" unites those Indians, and Rameshwar Singh is amongst them, who have graduated from Soviet and Russian universities. And, Russians, who are interested in establishing business, scientific and cultural contacts with India. "Disha" has gained recognition in Moscow and the regions thanks to the colorful celebrations, competitions, contests and exhibitions organized by the society. These are devoted to the national festivals of India and Russia.

Artists, professionals as well as amateurs are invited to perform Indian dances and songs in these festivals. Russian and Indian students, studying in the universities of Russia, gladly participate in such festivals.

We are pleased to include in our activities — Crimeans and Indian students from Crimea — notes Rameshwar Singh. After all, the number of Indians getting admitted into the universities of Crimea is increasing.

The Indian business community is also showing interest in Crimea, Presently — continued the head of "Disha" — we are in the process of establishing ties with the social organizations of Crimea. Our society is ready to assist in the organization of performances of Indian artists in Crimea.

The next project of "Disha" — is organization of the spring festival. It will unite three festivals: International Women's Day on March 8, Russian folk festival — the Maslenitsa festival (winter seeing off) — "the Crepe Week" and the Indian festival of colors Holi. The program includes folk festivals, concerts of singers and dancers, fair souvenirs from India and Russia, tasting of Indian cuisine and traditional Russian pancakes at the Maslenitsa festival. The planned venue: Moscow and nearby cities. In addition, after the festival — Russian-Indian meetings, student concerts, poetry contests, photo exhibitions organized by the "Disha" society are planned to be conducted in Crimea. To begin with — at the Medical Academy named after S. I. Georgievsky and at the Crimean Federal University named after V.I. Vernadsky.

[vishvak]

that NATO would not have coopted Ukraine because it had not done so for five years before that, not substantiated by NATO's actions since 2000 -- Russian media reports from Putin and others explicitly point to NATO reneging on their promise to not coopt ex-USSR states.

Some things just come out in Russia thread to state the obvious, which usually avoided in other threads to avoid going out of scope. Clearly, 'jiski laathi .. uski bhains" is what is an important point that can be explored further, on lines such as:
* Status quo is not new to India, though lack of it by global/worldwide/international/pseudo-local groups have been covered up for decades now, leaving Indian population vulnerable and unprepared.
* Funding for defenses need to be scaled up, for similar reasons. Reminds of Nehru's talk of modern industries as temples of modern India, such idea also must include M.I.C. for defense of people.
* Explore some questions, such as need for Italian mafia after formation of NATO/UN which is going on as usual.
* Role of MIC in other countries, to remain top of the line as per requirements.

Such things come out only in Russia thread for some reasons, so request mods to overlook viewpoints even if it makes the thread "appear" going in arbitrary discussion - even though such viewpoints are clearly relevant to overall security understanding that is usually left to common sense at individual level.

[Viv S]

Can you show me a CAG report on 85 % serviceability of m2K

I recently saw a news report which mentioned servicibility of Mig-29 and M2K has reached 85 % servicibility but I have not yet seen any CAG report which explicitly mentions servicibility of M2K or 29.

CAG reports before 2008 haven't been digitized. One would have to pore through each one. Aside from which there's unlikely to be any CAG report on the Mirage's serviceability - its never been a concern, unlike say.. the MiG-29 & Su-30MKI which have been fingered in multiple reports.

[Austin]

Can you show me a CAG report on 85 % serviceability of m2K

I recently saw a news report which mentioned servicibility of Mig-29 and M2K has reached 85 % servicibility but I have not yet seen any CAG report which explicitly mentions servicibility of M2K or 29.

CAG reports before 2008 haven't been digitized. One would have to pore through each one. Aside from which there's unlikely to be any CAG report on the Mirage's serviceability - its never been a concern, unlike say.. the MiG-29 & Su-30MKI which have been fingered in multiple reports.

CAG always reports on serviceability no matter what it is and before 2008 serviceability and 2015 there is difference.

Any ways if we dont have it then no point claiming its got 80 % unless there is something to back it up , its just hearsay I feel.

Someone on BRF posted news report of Mig-29 and M2K has 80 % servcibility wich again is hearsay unless there is either MOD statement or CAG report to back such claims

[Austin]

"Russia presents the only capability on Earth – of any organization or country – that is literally an existential threat to the United States," Milley told attendees of the



http://sputniknews.com/world/20160124/1 ... orism.html

[Viv S]

CAG always reports on serviceability no matter what it is and before 2008 serviceability and 2015 there is difference.

- Good to know. Can you please post these reports?
- No difference between 2008 & 2015. Its just that I've just been through the ones in between and found no mention of the Mirage's serviceability. Perhaps you can do better.

Any ways if we dont have it then no point claiming its got 80 % unless there is something to back it up , its just hearsay I feel.

Someone on BRF posted news report of Mig-29 and M2K has 80 % servcibility wich again is hearsay unless there is either MOD statement or CAG report to back such claims

Surely its no more unproven than claiming that a bulk buy of 5-10 years worth of spares was required to ensure 90% serviceability?

[Karan M]

MiG-29 never had 80% serviceability. It went upto reasonable levels, ONCE India started making spares way after the original induction.
Scathing report on MiG-29 by CAG which was up on the Fighter Tactics Academy website (sadly defunct). Gist as I remember, engines failed before allotted time, so had to be constantly replaced. Manufacture quality was bad and lackadaisical, even tools left inside airframe. So called automated test equipment didn't really work yada yada..
Finally IAF did this.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today ... 11BRD.html
Including stuff like
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... D.jpg.html

[Viv S]

The Indian Air Force (IAF) MiG-29 Experience:

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India published on 31 March 1993 the results of an in depth study on the operational performance and reliability of the MiG-29 aircraft. This study was first reported in Aviation Week & Space Technology during 25 July 1994 (pg.49), and has been obtained by author from Mr. Pushpindar Singh, of the Society of Aerospace Studies, New Delhi.

65 x MiG-29 single-seat and 5 x dual-seat trainers with 48 x spare engines (sparing factor of 0.7/aircraft) were delivered between 1986 and 1990 at a total program cost of approximately $600 million that included initial spares and support. These aircraft were the first MiG-29's to ever leave the Soviet Union and were not up to the weapons system standard of those that went later to the Warsaw Pact allies. The aircraft were sent disassembled by sea, and re-assembled, and test flown in India. By 1990 three squadrons were operational. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units were included to help pilots debrief their utilization of flight controls and systems. Expectations were that single-seat aircraft would fly 15 hours per month (180 hrs/yr) and dual-seat aircraft 20 hours per month (240 hrs/yr).

There were extensive problems encountered in operational and maintenance due to the large number of pre-mature failures of engines, components, and systems. Of the total of 189 engines in service, 139 engines (74%) failed pre-maturely and had been withdraw from service by July 1992, thus effectively shutting down operations. 62 of these engines had not even accomplished 50% of their 300 hours first overhaul point. Thus the desired serviceability showed a steadily decreasing trend.

Engineering reports mainly attribute RD-33 failures to design/material deficiencies causing discolored engine oil (8), cracks in the nozzle guide vanes (31), and surprisingly, foreign object damage (FOD). The eight material deficient engines (discolored oil) were repaired by the contractor under warrantee provisions, but the engines had to be recycled to the manufacturer. The thirty-one engines with cracks in their nozzle guide vanes were fixed in the field by contractor teams and adjustments were made to the entire engine fleet. But even though the incidents reduced the occurrences of the cracks, they continued. But the FOD situation is the most interesting, especially after the inlet FOD doors received world press coverage, but there were other concerns about production quality control that led to problems.

Since the Indian Air Force received early model Fulcrum A's, some just after the 200th production article, there were quality control deficiencies that resulted in numerous pieces of FOD (foreign object damage) and tools being left behind after final construction inside of the aircraft. Remember that the Fulcrum skeleton is made first and then the skin is riveted over top, in the way aircraft were made in the fifties and sixties in the West. Nuts, bolts, tools, etc. all made their way to the engine bays and inlet ducts and when they were loosened up after accelerations they damaged engines and equipment.

On top of all this, it was discovered that the unique FOD doors on the MiG-29's inlets were not stopping material from getting into the engine ducts. Since the doors retracted "up" into the inlet, debris that was kicked up by the nose wheel lodged on or at the bottom of the door seal and then was ingested into the engine when the door opened during the nose gear lifted off the ground during takeoff.

This problem was known from the earliest days. After the first four MiG-29 prototypes were evaluated, the nose gear was moved further back, but nose wheel "mud-flaps" or guards were still required to protect the engine from flying debris. It took until 1988 before all delivered aircraft were so equipped, therefore the initial batch of IAF aircraft had to be locally retro-fitted with mud guards and that activity was not completed until June 1992. All costs were supposed to be re-imbursed by the contractor but Mikoyan reneged and left the IAF with $300,000 in liabilities. In subsequent MiG-29K/M models the FOD doors were replaced by screens that closed "down", forcing any debris out of the louvers repositioned to the lower side of the inlet duct..

The Indian Air Force procurement contract was concluded in September 1986, and the first engine was expected to go into overhaul in 1989. However, four engines prematurely came up for overhaul and no repair facility had been prepared. As time went on, 115 of the 122 engines (94%) prematurely failed and had to be re-cycled through engine depots in Russia at great cost. Backlogs were created and only 79 (65%) engines returned on schedule. Even when a regional Indian repair facility was completed in August 1994, the high failure rates continued and the majority of broken engines had to be sent back to Russian depots. Self-sufficiency was achieved in 1994, only after the operations tempo was significantly reduced on a permanent basis. In the process of refurbishing failed engines, the total technical life of most of the engine fleet was effectively reduced from 800 hours / 8 years to 400 hours / 4 years, at a minimum.

Non-availability of radar and weapon system components also resulted in the grounding of seven aircraft for a period of six to twenty months. Two may have been damaged for life due to cannibalization. Besides this, a large number of subsystems and computers experienced unpredicted failures in the last four years which adversely effected the operational readiness of the squadrons. Some of the computers were field-repaired by specialists from the manufacturers, others were replaced. These repair costs were all in excess to the initial contract costs. It was noted that the 10 additional computers, which were imported, cost the IAF around $806,000. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units quickly became unserviceable during their warranty period and have been lying un-utilized and un-repaired for over two years.

The IAF Headquarters also noted in March 1991 report that a severe shortage of product support equipment had resulted in the decline of fleet availability by 15-20%, which in turn, took negative effect on operational readiness and mission requirements.

So in general, lessons learned from this first out-of-country operation of a Russian front line fighter were:

1. The MiG-29 had intensive problems in operation and maintenance since its induction due to premature failure of engines, components, and systems. 74% of the engines failed within five years, were out of supply pipeline for three years, and reduced aircraft availability by 15, to 20%. This led to a decision to restrict flying efforts and therefore compromised operational and training commitments.

2. There were significant shortfalls in the performance of the MiG-29 fleet resulting in operational and training inadequacies. The shortfall ranged from 20 to 65% in respect to combat aircraft availability and 58 to 84% in trainers between 1987 - 1991.

3. There was a mismatch between induction of the aircraft (1987) and the establishment of its repair facilities (end of 1994). Until that time engines had to be continually sent to manufacturers abroad at great monetary cost, reduction of one-half total life, and a significant stretch of schedule.

4. Non-availability of critical radar components and spares resulted in the grounding of significant numbers of aircraft. Five aircraft were out of action for over six months while two were in the hanger for over two years. Unserviceability of computers and the inability to fix them cost excessive amounts of money to rectify.

5. The pilot debrief Ground Data Processing Unit, imported at high cost, was left lying around unserviceable and unused since its reception in August 1990.

6. The lack of nose wheel mud guards had to be solved by importing upgrade kits and expensive local re-design after material deficiencies could not be overcome.

[NRao]

If not in CAG is hearsay, itself is a hearsay.

Seems like previous governments told IAF to work within the parameters. Not this government. That is the difference. Rightfully so.

Russia is trying to catch up with the West, but, is using the likes of Sputnik to make the case.

[Austin]

No one is saying Mig-29 never had problem what I am disputing is M2K having 85 % uptimes with no recent cag or mod report to backup.

If getting 85% uptimes was that easy MOD won't have invested in 5-10 yrs spare for Rafale deal at eye candy price jst to get 5 % more uptimes.

M2K may have had high uptimes compared to other fighter in IAF as they served core of Fighter based nuclear deterrent hence taken well care of but 85% claim needs official source. m2k upgrade too cost around 2,2 times of 29 upgrade for lesser number fleet ,

What is Jags uptimes , Jags were made in India since 80s

[Viv S]

If getting 85% uptimes was that easy MOD won't have invested in 5-10 yrs spare for Rafale deal at eye candy price jst to get 5 % more uptimes.

It would if the idea was to prevent the exchequer from getting gouged on subsequent negotiations for spares. For a decade at least.


The IAF, traditionally a staunch supporter of Dassault and the Mirage-2000 fighter, is apparently changing its views. Dassault, say pilots, has badly damaged its credibility during the recent negotiations by arm-twisting the IAF over the supply of spares for the Mirage-2000 fleet.

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 046_1.html

[NRao]

"Russia presents the only capability on Earth – of any organization or country – that is literally an existential threat to the United States," Milley told attendees of the



http://sputniknews.com/world/20160124/1 ... orism.html

He also went on to qualify it. One of them was Russia has become aggressive. Rest is known.

[Austin]

That's another point Viv , I am looking at general availability rates for M2K.

Saw a Jane's report could not post here as posting from mobile talks of Jags serviceability rate at 61% for fleet of 128 fighter so even with Jags manufactured by hal 2 decades before mki they have serviceability of 61 % shows getting uptimes is not easy

[Austin]

"Russia presents the only capability on Earth – of any organization or country – that is literally an existential threat to the United States," Milley told attendees of the



http://sputniknews.com/world/20160124/1 ... orism.html

He also went on to qualify it. One of them was Russia has become aggressive. Rest is known.

Yes good to know its deeply ingrained in them

[Philip]

Yes,Bush,Blair and O'Bomber all dropped flowers and olive branches on the Afghans,Iraqis,Kurds,Libyans,Syrians et al,not to mention a few Pakis also!

Quoted before. MIG-28 upgrades for 60+ is costing us just under $1B. For 50 M2Ks we are paying $2.5B. That's an astonishing $50M/aircraft,when you consider new MIG-29Ks bought for just $30M each.A simpl mathematical calculation will show that you can get at least 3 Ru MKI aircraft for the price of one Raffy if the deal is even as low as $7B. At the increasing rate of availability of MKis by the DM himself,we will have in the air double the amt. of MKIs for every Raffy. The price of SU-35s is even more astonishing,just $25M for the RuAF in earlier figs. The stated fig below is even more incredible,$16M?

http://www.janes.com/article/57187/russ ... e-fighters

Russia orders 50 Su-35S multirole fighters

Nikolai Novichkov, Moscow - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
13 January 2016

Russia is understood to have ordered 50 more Su-35S fighter aircraft from UAC. Source: IHS/Patrick Allen

The Russian Aerospace Force (VKS) ordered 50 Sukhoi Su-35S 'Flanker E' multirole fighters from Sukhoi in late December 2015, a United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) source told TASS-DEFENSE.

According to the source, the new order is valued at more than RUB60 billion (USD788 million) and the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Plant (KnAAZ, a Sukhoi affiliate) will build the aircraft. Thus, it will have had its hands full until 2020. In addition to this order, the period is to see the execution of China's order for 24 Su-35S's, while the company hopes to sign a contract with Indonesia for 12 aircraft soon. According to the source, initially, the Su-35S program was expected to pay its way after 72 aircraft had been built. If the contract with Indonesia is signed, a total of 134 fighters of the type will have been delivered to the customers before 2020.

According to the UAC source, talks with Algeria on 12 Sukhoi Su-32 tactical bombers - an export variant of the Su-34 'Fullback' - have made good progress, and the country may acquire up to 40 aircraft of the type.

Russia's order in 2009 for 48 Su-35S's has now been fulfilled, with most of the aircraft now delivered. A VKS Su-35S unit in Russia's Eastern Military District started flying the Su-35S in late December 2015, while another unit in the Primorsky Territory is slated to receive Su-35S's in 2016.

The Su-35S is billed by Sukhoi as a heavily upgraded fourth-generation super-manoeuvrable multirole fighter developed with the use of fifth-generation aircraft technologies. It features a sophisticated avionics suite based on a digital information management system, a cutting-edge radar with a long-range aerial target acquisition and increased multiple-target tracking/engagement capabilities, and enhanced thrust-vectoring engines.

[member_29294]

^

Then comes the ripoff with spares and servicing, and then it doesn't seem so cheap anymore. Especially if you are a country that intends on inducting a very large number of the types.

[Austin]

Putin congratulated the President and the Prime Minister of India on Republic Day

http://ria.ru/world/20160126/1365448733.html

MOSCOW, January 26 - RIA Novosti. Russian President Vladimir Putin has congratulated Indian counterpart Pranab Mukherjee and Prime Minister Enid Narendra Modi on the national holiday - the Republic Day.

"India enjoys a well-deserved reputation on the world stage, playing an important role in dealing with pressing international and regional problems, has a powerful economic potential and rich cultural heritage," - said in a congratulatory message of the Russian President, that causes the Kremlin's website on Tuesday.

Putin praised relations especially privileged strategic partnership, built by Russia and India, and expressed confidence that the buildup of fruitful cooperation in various fields and constructive cooperation in multilateral formats in the common interest and goes in line with the stability and security in Asia and around the world.

[Karan M]

VivS, that's the report!! Damning indictment of how badly the MiG-29s were in their initial days till India put the TLC to get them up and running! In 2009, I was told the amount of effort IAF put in to get them to "reasonable levels" and to think some (one) chap keeps shilling the MiG-35 for MMRCA, when several credible reports exist (apart from the PR fluff in Vayu etc) about how tortured the MiG-29k experience has been. MiG's arrogance did not go unremarked in IAF as well. Their idiots even held a press conference blaming IAF for attrition, and making stupid claims about sourcing spares from East Europe even while they had no ability to meet IAF's spares demands.

[Karan M]

^

Then comes the ripoff with spares and servicing, and then it doesn't seem so cheap anymore. Especially if you are a country that intends on inducting a very large number of the types.

Nice, only that we end up being ripped off with Russian spares and servicing too...
At the end of the day the only folks you can rely on, are Indian.

[Gyan]

I think that India should stick to

LCA -> LCA MK-2 -> LCA MK-3 -> AMCA & UCAV

Additional Su-30MKIs with deeper indigenisation to fill the gap that is being created by retirement of various types. Su-30MKI production line should be kept gong till 2030 ie around 100-120 additional Su-30MKIs. When Su-30MKIs start loosing its edge as front line fighter, it can be used for CAS, DPSA etc.

[kuldipchager]

Nice, only that we end up being ripped off with Russian spares and servicing too...
At the end of the day the only folks you can rely on, are Indian.


We are building Various Mig planes since 1963 as I do remember. It is our responsibility to master our skill to manufacturer the spare parts.
Why we blame others. Ministers do not make commission in making parts at home so they likes to buy the parts from out side.

[member_29172]

Nice, only that we end up being ripped off with Russian spares and servicing too...
At the end of the day the only folks you can rely on, are Indian.


We are building Various Mig planes since 1963 as I do remember. It is our responsibility to master our skill to manufacturer the spare parts.
Why we blame others. Ministers do not make commission in making parts at home so they likes to buy the parts from out side.

Spare parts are Russia's responsibility, if you don't know, please don't comment. These things are written in contracts and can't be pulled out of someone's a$$ no matter how many decades you have manufactured the planes for.

[habal]

the russians lost interest in the MiG-29 after the fall of east germany, an entire squadron of MiG-29 passed over into western hands. Moldova even sold a few to USA. That ended the MiG-29 for them from a strategic perspective. From thereon they focussed solely on Su-series. that is how the spares got sparse. The problem for India started when these developments came about, who will make spares for aircraft no longer in production. We should have ramped up production of spares in-house.