Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 31 Jan 2014 20:16

incidentally, has anyone been in the sea lately? wave height of 1.2m is enough to make anyone brown their burqinis, never mind 3m!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2014 20:41

Sagar G wrote:From whatever little has been posted their is no indication for that.

Are you saying that IOR is under permanent sea state 5 that only makes Us-2 capable of operating their ???

And what do you propose the Navy do, if its required to carry out a SAR mission in sea state 4 and 5?

I don't see any runway problem at sea which disqualifies the other two.

Do you believe the Navy's STOL requirement was superfluous?

The aircraft must also be capable of short take-offs and landings from both the ocean surface and runways.

Sagar G wrote:People here think that US-2 is cheap so let me post the figures for the big three in Indian Rs.

US 2 - Rs. 6,88,93,00,000 per unit ($ 110 million US)
Be 200 - Rs. 2,56,78,30,000 per unit ($ 41 million US)
CL 415 - Rs. 1,79,13,60,000 per unit ($ 32 million Canadian)

Be-200 comes close to US-2 specs and costs less than half of US-2.

The Be-200 can operate when the sea is relatively calm. Unfortunately, the navy doesn't have the luxury of carrying out rescues only in good weather.

As for the 415; the US-2 costs about three times more, but carried a payload over 10 times larger. And delivers the STOL performance that the IN requires in the toughest of operating conditions.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2014 20:55

Viv S wrote:And what do you propose the Navy do, if its required to carry out a SAR mission in sea state 4 or 5?

The same way it does that now and how many times SAR has been carried out at sea state 5 ??? Or how many times does the IN require to carry out SAR at sea state 5 in a year ??? Isn't SAR the primary duty of Coast Guard and IN being interested in a military version ???

Viv S wrote:Do you believe the Navy's STOL requirement was superfluous?

But was it mentioned as absolutely critical in IN RFI or not ??? Indranilroy's list doesn't even put that in the preference list. Who is right here ???

Viv S wrote:The Be-200 can operate only in sea state 3 or lower. Unfortunately, the navy doesn't have the luxury of carrying out rescues only in good weather.

If in sea state 5 SAR has to be done and is an absolutely necessary requirement then let CG buy a few US-2 why should navy buy a civilian version for military requirements ??? SAR isn't the defining feature of IN's requirement.

Viv S wrote:As for the 415; the US-2 costs about three times more, but carried a payload over 10 times larger. And delivers the STOL performance that the IN requires in the toughest of operating conditions.

Give me data for the 10 times larger figure that you are coming up with, I have some very different data with me than you claim and stop playing with words here I ask again was STOL an absolute critical requirement in IN's RFI ???

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2014 21:01

Lalmohan wrote:incidentally, has anyone been in the sea lately? wave height of 1.2m is enough to make anyone brown their burqinis, never mind 3m!

That's less than 4ft. That's not too bad. As for today -

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2014 21:35

Sagar G wrote:The same way it does that now and how many times SAR has been carried out at sea state 5 ??? Or how many times does the IN require to carry out SAR at sea state 5 in a year ??? Isn't SAR the primary duty of Coast Guard and IN being interested in a military version ???

The CG's ambit extends only out to 350km. However the SAR requirement isn't restricted to the EEZ. If an airliner goes down iin the middle of the Bay of Bengal, SAR will be the Navy's responsibility. If a frigate operating at range, is struck by an enemy submarine, casualty evacuation will be the IN's job.

But was it mentioned as absolutely critical in IN RFI or not ??? Indranilroy's list doesn't even put that in the preference list. Who is right here ???

The 415 MP and Be-200 don't even have marginal STOL to compensate. Also Indranil's post certainly mentioned STOL performance. See here.

Give me data for the 10 times larger figure that you are coming up with, I have some very different data with me than you claim and stop playing with words here I ask again was STOL an absolute critical requirement in IN's RFI ???

The US-2 weighs twice as much as the 415 empty. The US-2's fuel load isn't known. I've assumed a figure of 9 tons - twice that of the 415.

Rest is easily calculated from the figures on Wikipedia (or the manufacturer's websites if you want only original sources).

[MTOW - Empty Wt - Max fuel load]. That's about 1 ton for the CL-415 and 13 tons for the US-2.

And yes, the RFI said that STOL performance is a must (refer Flight Global article).

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Jan 2014 21:38

Sagar G wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Scroll up and know what I am smoking.
indranilroy: I don't think you read my posts. Be-200 and CL-415 failed CG's trials.
Sagar G: If that is so then why did IN send them an RFI ??? Were the parameters of IN and CG the same ???
indranilroy: Because there are no other amphibian planes. Japan was not selling the US-2 at that time.

So, should I repeat that "Be-200 and CL-415 failed CG's trials"?
Interesting you quote me but still don't answer the questions asked, I'am highlighting them for his majesty's convenience.

Also tell me on which parameters did both of them fail and does the IN RFI mention the same parameters ???

indranilroy wrote:The problem is that for you reasoning given by others sound like "pleading", whereas a completely unrelated faith in the next govt. seems to be a perfectly well reasoned answer to a technical discussion!
His majesty seems to be having trouble even comprehending simple sentences I will highlight parts of my post for his majesty's convenience again

Sagar G wrote:Well no matter what the deal isn't going through before the election and I doubt that the next government will be willing to sign such one sided deal.
Regarding technical discussion aspect I would also like to highlight his majesty's immense contribution for the greater good such as

indranilroy wrote:Can't agree with you. Japan has invested heavily in our infrastructure. And it will be great if it continues to do so.

Also the amphib requirement is not made specifically for US-2. IN floated an RfP for amphibs to ShinMaywa, Canada's Bombardier (CL-415), Russia's (Be-200), and US/German's (Seastar CD2) in 2010.

indranilroy wrote:4. The US-2s are not expensive. They were always expecting 12 planes to cost about 1 billion (in 2010 itself).

P.S. Before issuing your condescending diagnosis of brochureitis, read around a little. It will save others the effort and time to spoon feed your "patriotic and all-knowing" ego.

Wow wow such quality wow much technical wow wow.

indranilroy wrote:1. $1.65B for 15 planes of this caliber is not high (How much does each C-130J costs?). Unfortunately, you seem to know much more knowledgeable and patriotic than everybody in the IAF/IN/CG/MoD!

Highlighting "technical" contribution from his majesty for the greater good and now regarding the non technical part where does C-130 J come into picture ??? Is it an amphibious aircraft ??? AFAIK both of these requirements have different roles to fulfill with different set of capabilities. You still haven't shown any data from the IN RFI which goes on to show that only US-2 is the sole aircraft capable of fulfilling the needs of IN. The IN RFI asks for military equipments to be installed but what Japan is offering is a civilian variant only. Plus you logic about the price being not high is a non starter since spec wise the US-2 falls in a different league altogether and only the BE-200 comes close to it so when it doesn't have any competitor matching it's specs how can you say with authority that the price is not too high ???

indranilroy wrote:2. And what about the billions doled out by China to Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar. Don't they have research to do?

Funny that you talk about China when it is pretty well known the resolve of Chinese in investing in R&D while their being a larger economy is probably a non issue for you I guess.

indranilroy wrote:Sagarji, Please educate us on the requirements of IAF/IN/CG and how Be-200, CL-415 can fulfill those requirements.

Indranilroy ji when whatever public info regarding the RFI is available has been posted then what else remains to be said ??? You were scoffing about "spoon feeding" and now do a 180 to ask for the same to be done !!!!

Look at the data posted by yourself and Viv S and tell what makes them ineligible. Ironically if these parts of the RFI are considered

Notably, the RFI outlines an extensive electronic warfare suite, including forward-looking infrared sensor, sideways looking airborne radar, radar warning receiver and missile approach warning system.

d. state-of-the-art avionics and EW kit, including RWR/MAWS.
e. air-to-air and maritime surveillance radars (providing 360 degree coverage using AESA radar) to counter airborne and seaborne threats and also help in locating, identifying and tracking the target.

then I don't think a civilian variant of US-2 will have these military equipments.

You are right.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 31 Jan 2014 21:41

viv - have you been in the water in 1.2m waves?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2014 21:51

Lalmohan wrote:viv - have you been in the water in 1.2m waves?

Not in the water, no. [But if I was, I'd be hoping a US-2 was on its way to rescue me.

]

I'd imagine the sea doesn't get that rough close to the coast, expect in monsoon season. ??

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jan 2014 21:55

I was up s*** creek once in a small twin-pontoon boat in a big lake in upper noo yawk state, when the weather took a turn for the worse, and all sorts of speedboats started passing us for shore leaving huge wakes...the peak to trough was around 0.5m but brothers I kid you not, though the pontoon was designed for stability it was a scary ride back to the base (the dock owner had taken one look at 4 of us scrawny munnas and suggested it as a safety mule, rather than a horse)

3m must be truly brown pants inducing...dont want to be anywhere near it.

it seems capable of peculiarly slow speed landing next to a JMSDF formation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA9osHU4nQM

takeoff run is amazingly short even if its empty and light fuel in this demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z38aceTiF1Y

seems massively over-engined for its size (vs much bigger C130)

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2014 21:58

Viv S wrote:The CG's ambit extends only out to 350km. However the SAR requirement isn't restricted to the EEZ. If an airliner goes down iin the middle of the Bay of Bengal, SAR will be the Navy's responsibility. If a frigate operating at range, is struck by an enemy submarine, casualty evacuation will be the IN's job.

OK so I assume IN is prepared now at this point of time to take a SAR mission at sea state 5 so operating at sea state 5 isn't a critical requirement.

Viv S wrote:The 415 MP and Be-200 don't even have marginal STOL to compensate. Also Indranil's post certainly mentioned STOL performance. See here.

Mentioned but not "critical" otherwise IN wouldn't have sent them an RFI.

Viv S wrote:The US-2 weighs twice as much as the 415 empty. The US-2's fuel load isn't known. I've assumed a figure of 9 tons - twice that of the 415.

Rest is easily calculated from the figures on Wikipedia (or the manufacturer's websites if you want only original sources).

[MTOW - Empty Wt - Max fuel load]. That's about 1 ton for the CL-415 and 13 tons for the US-2.

And yes, the RFI said that STOL performance is a must (refer Flight Global article).

Ahhh 415 I got lost on BE-200 and hence got confused, yeah I have posted the specs of the three of them. 415 is SDRE compared to the other two.

I still doubt the STOL being critical since not many article mentions that being a critical characteristic and making it such goes against the DPP as well since it creates a single vendor. This deal is only going through when India and Japan sign the inter gobarmental agreement when it is negotiated (don't hold your breath).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2014 21:58

Singha wrote:I was up s*** creek once in a small twin-pontoon boat in a big lake in upper noo yawk state, when the weather took a turn for the worse, and all sorts of speedboats started passing us for shore leaving huge wakes...the peak to trough was around 1m but brothers I kid you not, though the pontoon was designed for stability it was a scary ride back to the base (the dock owner had taken one look at 4 of us scrawny munnas and suggested it as a safety mule, rather than a horse)

3m must be truly brown pants inducing...dont want to be anywhere near it.

Well you can take solace in the fact that even the big 'uns get tossed around on occasion.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jan 2014 22:10

here the US2 lands in a very confined area between a ship and a pier, and then crawls on own steam to a load/unload area.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfKRekwubpE

so it should be able to get into every lagoon or bay in the A&N and Laccadive

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 31 Jan 2014 22:26

I have seen several debates on BRF where capability vs cost is compared:

- C-17 vs IL-(4)76
- FGFA/Rafale vs LCA/AMCA/FGFA/Su-30
- Merlin vs Mi-17
- A-330 vs IL-78

And now US-2 vs Be-200

Has any of these debates ever lead to a conclusion?

One q - Can the amphibs crawl onto the shore by a ramp?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2014 22:31

Sagar G wrote:OK so I assume IN is prepared now at this point of time to take a SAR mission at sea state 5 so operating at sea state 5 isn't a critical requirement.

They've put out a requirement because there's a capability shortfall. Unless the IN has a ship with a helicopter in range, its not in fact in a position to carry out SAR on the high seas, regardless of the sea state.

Mentioned but not "critical" otherwise IN wouldn't have sent them an RFI.

RFIs are not issued to spec. It is quite simple a request for a detailed brochure and nothing more. As far as the service is concerned, STOL capability for the other aircraft cannot be accepted or dismissed until the company has communicated the advertised performance to the IN directly.

I still doubt the STOL being critical since not many article mentions that being a critical characteristic and making it such goes against the DPP as well since it creates a single vendor. This deal is only going through when India and Japan sign the inter gobarmental agreement when it is negotiated (don't hold your breath).

Multiple vendors are preferable but the DPP allows for single vendor purchases where alternatives are not feasible. In this casethe 415 is payload limited, and even if we disregard its STOL performance for the moment, the Be-200 is limited to sea state 3, which imposes limitations on operations across the most of the IN's AoR (see map above).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jan 2014 22:33

>> One q - Can the amphibs crawl onto the shore by a ramp?

see my video. all of them can.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2014 22:52

Viv S wrote:Multiple vendors are preferable but the DPP allows for single vendor purchases where alternatives are not feasible. In this casethe 415 is payload limited, and even if we disregard its STOL performance for the moment, the Be-200 is limited to sea state 3, which imposes limitations on operations across the most of the IN's AoR (see map above).

We are repeating things here and that single map proves nothing, to reach a conclusion we need data round the year about how many times the IOR faces a sea state 5 and how many times IN or CG have been called for a SAR operation in that situation. Even in the map you posted very near to our southern tip I see a spot where even US-2 will fail to do SAR and as I said before SAR isn't the defining criteria of IN's requirement. If you say that for CG I would agree.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 31 Jan 2014 23:13

viv - 1.2 m is 2.4m peak to trough - and that is pretty hair raising for someone in the water (been there done that). in mid sea swell on a big boat its not terrible, but pretty bouncy (been there done that almost heaved my breakfast). 3m is 6m peak to trough... that is totally brown shalwar material. i would be amazed to see any flying boat taking off in those conditions

srin · Post by **srin** » 31 Jan 2014 23:14

Looking at the videos, it seems to be superbly engineered.

The first thought that came to mind looking at the STOL performance is that the perfect place to deploy would be ... Pangong Tso

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 31 Jan 2014 23:16

Aditya G wrote:I have seen several debates on BRF where capability vs cost is compared:

- C-17 vs IL-(4)76
- FGFA/Rafale vs LCA/AMCA/FGFA/Su-30
- Merlin vs Mi-17
- A-330 vs IL-78

And now US-2 vs Be-200

Has any of these debates ever lead to a conclusion?

Saar, conclusions require one person to accept the other's argument after presentation of facts. But this is the internet. And on it, nobody ever backs down...on anything. Ever! And under the presence of opposing facts, the appropriate response seems to be "go full-tilt personal", muddying up the waters enough to ensure that the opposing view backed by data is lost in the myriad of insults, apologies and admin warnings.

Surely I don't need to remind you of this? So, do what I do: tighten up your seatbelt and watch this thread go towards the inevitable...

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 31 Jan 2014 23:17

srin wrote:the perfect place to deploy would be ... Pangong Tso

um...why?

srin · Post by **srin** » 31 Jan 2014 23:20

vivek_ahuja wrote:
srin wrote:the perfect place to deploy would be ... Pangong Tso
um...why?

Wave it right in the faces of the Chinese. Parking it far away in A&N isn't as much fun

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2014 23:40

Sagar G wrote:We are repeating things here and that single map proves nothing, to reach a conclusion we need data round the year about how many times the IOR faces a sea state 5 and how many times IN or CG have been called for a SAR operation in that situation. Even in the map you posted very near to our southern tip I see a spot where even US-2 will fail to do SAR and as I said before SAR isn't the defining criteria of IN's requirement. If you say that for CG I would agree.

I didn't cherry pick that map to suit my case. That was the condition of the water as of today.

The Be-200's rated wave height is 1.2 metres.

Here's the wave height in the Indian Ocean for the next 180 hours. That's about one week.

Here's yet another 180 hour period, but for April this time -

The Indian Navy was looking for an SAR aircraft; SAR capability will obviously be the defining criteria.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2014 23:49

Viv S wrote:The Indian Navy was looking for an SAR aircraft; SAR capability will obviously be the defining criteria.

Nice map, shows multiple areas where US-2 will fail.

Notably, the RFI outlines an extensive electronic warfare suite, including forward-looking infrared sensor, sideways looking airborne radar, radar warning receiver and missile approach warning system.

You are absolutely right about the SAR criteria. EW suite, FLIR, RWR's and MAWS are all very important gadgets for conducting SAR operation. Bilkool sahi jaa raha hain bhai lage reh........

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 Feb 2014 00:02

Aditya G wrote:I have seen several debates on BRF where capability vs cost is compared:

- C-17 vs IL-(4)76

And now US-2 vs Be-200

Has any of these debates ever lead to a conclusion?

One q - Can the amphibs crawl onto the shore by a ramp?

I love C 17 debate. Capt. Gilles arguing against C 17 was just serving hot info after info.

Although personally for me, for the first time I felt agreeing to buy something from hated americans.

But truely a manthan.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Feb 2014 00:05

Sagar G wrote:Nice map, shows multiple areas where US-2 will fail.

It shows an entire ocean where the Be-200 will fail. And a sea & bay as well. With a few areas where it may indeed work.

You are absolutely right about the SAR criteria. EW suite, FLIR, RWR's and MAWS are all very important gadgets for conducting SAR operation.

FLIR is required for low level night flying. And since its tasked with carrying out military SAR in wartime, RWR and MAWS have been included as well.

Bilkool sahi jaa raha hain bhai lage reh........

I didn't create the RFI the Indian Navy did.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Feb 2014 00:12

Lalmohan wrote:viv - 1.2 m is 2.4m peak to trough - and that is pretty hair raising for someone in the water (been there done that). in mid sea swell on a big boat its not terrible, but pretty bouncy (been there done that almost heaved my breakfast). 3m is 6m peak to trough... that is totally brown shalwar material. i would be amazed to see any flying boat taking off in those conditions

I believe the reference is to 'Significant Wave Height' measured trough to crest. See here and here.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 01 Feb 2014 00:21

Viv S wrote:It shows an entire ocean where the Be-200 will fail. And a sea & bay as well. With a few areas where it may indeed work.

Entire ocean !!!! Bhy no entire world I pooch ???

Viv S wrote:FLIR is required for low level night flying. And since its tasked with carrying out military SAR in wartime, RWR and MAWS have been included as well.

Yes yes it's only for SAR mission onlee. IN is responsible for SAR operation onlee.

Viv S wrote:I didn't create the RFI the Indian Navy did.

Yes yes for SAR onlee.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Feb 2014 00:41

US-2 STOL vid was amazing. About electronics etc, those can be integrated into it later on, albeit it will require OEM support & won't be easy.
DRDO has MSWS, Selex has a SeaSpray AESA radar & an anti sub mission system was developed for the ALH-N. Plus there will be OTS solutions from EADS/IAI as well.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 01 Feb 2014 00:44

^^^ OEM support can't come till their constitutional amendment.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Feb 2014 00:54

The constitution IIRC does not prohibit military exports, it just states that as a matter of practise, it should not be encouraged. Basically, if Abe decides, it can be pushed through. The RDay visit should have helped, plus Japans ties with India are on an upswing both economically & due to the PRC threat.

OEM support is considered a must have to ensure warranties aren't void & to prevent improper fixes. But if the modifications are approved and the OEM does not intervene directly, then it can still be done.

In our case, even without OEM support, HAL/DRDO upgraded much more challenging aircraft e.g. Sea Harriers (Navy/IAI/HAL), Jaguars (HAL/DRDO/IAF & now IAI as well). But of course, we have had significant experience with both types.

So it shouldn't be a deal killer by itself as long as the Japan Govt allows it to happen with a wink, nod, nudge.

Be-200 or any other aircraft will require similar modifications too because IIRC, the specifications asked for (e.g. AESA radar) are not available as part of any of the alternatives and will have to be integrated separately.

The best example of how such things turn out is the French manufactured Israeli Kfirs, sold off in public media for many decades as being the result of Israeli espionage in Switzerland. Only now, we know that these were basically assembled with French made parts kept off the record for political reasons.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 01 Feb 2014 01:06

Their constitution does prohibit export of military item

Some 20 countries want to buy the US-2, but Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution holds it back from warlike activities, including the export of military equipment.

What we will get if the deal goes through is a civilian variant, so without extensive support we won't be able to add anything to it and that support won't come till they don't amend their constitution.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Feb 2014 02:04

Their constitution does not bar exports or even mention them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_ ... nstitution

Its all about semantics, ergo the Japanese "Self Defence Force" as versus Japanese military etc (which is a meaningless distinction TBH).

If Article 9 was followed blindly, the Japan Govt would not even had a volunteer force with even sticks. Take a look at the weaponry fielded by the Japanese "Self Defense Forces" and it becomes clear the only things they don't have are (as the below link states - are long range offensive weapons eg ICBMs, bombers etc). Rest, everything goes.

The Japanese Constitution says nothing about exports.

Japanese government official statement on Japan's Policies on the Control of Arms Exports are here:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/disarma ... index.html

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) controls Japan's "arms" exports, based on the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law. The exports of "arms" and equipment for arms production listed in the Export Trade Control Order (see Annex) require export licenses to all destinations, since those transactions could be obstructive to the maintenance of international peace and security. In addition, "arms" trades mediated between foreign countries by Japanese agent need METT's permission.

So basically, exports are permitted as long as the Japanese Govt agrees.

and what the Japanese constitution says on self-defence, etc.
http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_act/d_policy/dp01.html

So, there is nothing about arms exports in the constitution, & the Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement is explicit about export licences for arms being required under the law, which could not be the case if there was a constitutional ban.

So basically, the lack of exports is purely a policy matter, put into place by Japanese govt executive decisions based on their desire to be somewhat in line with the "spirit" of Article 9, & can therefore be changed at any time by further govt decisions.

Japan has long been exporting dual use military items/manufacturing gear to NATO as well. So its all about Japanese govt decision making.

And why would the Japanese send across a civilian variant of the US-2 for India, knowing its useless for India, without any support/or withdrawal of support if we add stuff to it & why would India accept it? IAF/IN would be unlikely to such an arrangement.

This is what Business Standard also notes with its nuance, that following the theme of Article 9 has restricted US-2 sales ("holds it back", not that its banned by the Constitution) and that it can be resolved with serious contacts between India & Japan:

Business Standard understands New Delhi and Tokyo are discussing signing an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) to cooperate on the US-2, similar to the IGA between New Delhi and Moscow to co-develop a fifth generation fighter. An IGA recognises the strategic importance of a procurement programme, and takes it out of the purview of the restrictive Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP).

When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Tokyo last May, the joint declaration issued after his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe noted: “They decided to establish a Joint Working Group (JWG) to explore modality (sic) for the cooperation on the US-2 amphibian aircraft.”

and the waiver:

There are a mere seven US-2 in service worldwide, all in a “search and rescue” role with the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDS), as the Japanese navy is termed. Some 20 countries want to buy the US-2, but Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution holds it back from warlike activities, including the export of military equipment. In 2011, Japan’s cabinet issued a waiver, citing the strategic partnership, to allow the US-2 to be supplied to India. The utility of the US-2 in “benign constabulary missions”, such as anti-smuggling and anti-poaching, allows it to be passed off as a non-military aircraft.

Going by requirements for the two missions itself, India can put all sorts of gear on it (except perhaps offensive kit like long range AShM). But then again, is that really an issue given the aircraft was never designed for that stuff, and nor is the IN looking out for that per se.

So what is the aircraft likely to be used for:

a one-of-a-kind amphibious aircraft that has Indian naval planners goggle-eyed. The mammoth 47-tonne aircraft, carrying 18 tonnes of load, can take off from, or land on, a 300-metre stretch of water or land, its four giant engines needing just seven seconds to get airborne. With a range of over 4,500 km, it can patrol areas 1,800 km away, and react to an emergency by landing 30 armed troops, even in 10-foot waves. Like the C-17 Globemaster III, which lands vast payloads on high altitude dirt runways, the US-2 attracts the Indian military for the unprecedented options it provides.

After all, anti smuggling measures could mean deploying armed troops on remote territories.

This is backed up by this report, namely:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ts-353431/

MRMR had to have offensive capability (AShM) whereas the amphibious aircraft:

The amphibian RFI calls for an aircraft with twin or multiple engines, preferably turboprops, equipped with full authority digital engine control and a range of at least 800nm. The aircraft must also be capable of short take-offs and landings from both the ocean surface and runways.

Other roles the aircraft will perform are supplying spare parts to naval units at sea, visual and radar surveillance of coastal areas and islands, and rapid response missions for humanitarian assistance. A cargo door capable of handling an inflatable rescue dingy is also required.

Notably, the RFI outlines an extensive electronic warfare suite, including forward-looking infrared sensor, sideways looking airborne radar, radar warning receiver and missile approach warning system.

Nothing that the US-2 can't handle.

Heck, given the US-2 is being kept out of DPP (mandatory 30% offsets which perhaps the Japanese will find hard to fulfill) we should push them hard for cooperation/JVs in areas where they are world leading eg electronics manufacturing, radar work (significant work there by Japan) or even cooperation on platforms like the AMCA (the Japanese have their own TD program going on).

They have budget pressures, local programs are very expensive & PRC is more and more an adversary. Time is ripe for more hitech industry setups in India especially in the manufacturing space.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Feb 2014 02:29

They are being pushed for JV/cooperation. Nobody lesser than the PM has said that the two countries are discussing assembling the plane in India. Click

"Our Joint Working Group on US-2 amphibian aircraft has met to explore the modalities of cooperation on its use and co-production in India. More broadly, we are working towards increasing our cooperation in the area of advanced technologies," Singh said.

The plan is to deliver two aircraft and then assemble the rest of the planes with an Indian partner.

It is noteworthy that the JWG is headed by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion secretary, not somebody from MoD.

Navy did evaluated US-2 and found it suitable. click

The amphibious aircraft will be placed at the Andaman and Nicobar islands in the Indian Ocean, which is the base of India’s Tri-Command and meant to keep vigil on China. The aircraft would spearhead any littoral warfare operations in the Indian Ocean.

The aircraft will be used for maritime patrol, anti-surface warfare, electronic intelligence and search-and-rescue missions.

The Indian Navy requires the amphibious aircraft to be capable of 360-degree coverage so it can detect and track surface vessels, ships, submarine periscopes, and low flying aircraft and missiles.

A Navy official said the US-2 has already been evaluated by them and the aircraft suits its requirements, as it can take off on a 250-meter strip and operate in rough seas.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 01 Feb 2014 02:37

Article 9 doesn't explicitly mention ban on arms export but the problem is the way Japs are interpreting it they see it as against arms export or any kind of gear export which might fall in the military category, other wise why would there be talk in Japan by Abe to amend the constitution.

Aside from Abe's Liberal Democratic Party, as of 2012, the Japan Restoration Party, Democratic Party of Japan, People's New Party, and Your Party support a constitutional amendment to reduce or abolish restrictions imposed by Article 9.[28] A constitutional amendment would require a 2/3rds majority to effect it (as per Article 96 of the Japanese Constitution). Despite numerous attempts by the LDP to change Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, they have never been able to achieve the large majority required, as revision is opposed by a number of Japanese parties including the Japanese Socialist Party and the Japanese Communist Party.

It's a unnecessary risk to buy US-2 unless Japan doesn't sort itself out about this issue and we don't know what is going to come out of IGA but I doubt even that would allow Japan to provide support IN in upgrading US-2 with military wares without that causing a furore back in Japan unless they modify their constitution to please their spirit and all the crap.

However, Japan is currently offering a stripped-down civilian version of the US-2i search and rescue plane, to get around Japan's self-imposed ban on arms exports. The version will not have the 'friend or foe' identification system, sources said.

Read any article you want this is what each and everyone indicate that we will get a civilian variant and that's exactly what the "waiver" is for do note this.

US-2 isn't being kept out of the mandatory 30% offset

Dealing with the 30 per cent mandatory offset would be another major issue to be worked out.

So it's a mix and mash of DPP and IGA to make some kind of mutant sort of an agreement. God only knows what is going to come out of it.

If the offset carries aero engine tech. transfer then I would sing a different tune.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 01 Feb 2014 02:44

Regarding "co-production" dreams, right from the horses mouth

Managing director ShinMaywa Industries India Pvt Ltd and director ShinMaywa Industries Ltd, Japan, Kanji Ishimaru

If Indian Navy and Coast Guard also takes interest, do you see a possibility of large numbers and also the possibility of manufacturing here?

In future, if we do have increased orders within a short delivery timeline, then, we may have to think about manufacturing this aircraft in India. The process is really complicated and requires years of experience. Therefore, a step by step approach will be successful. We will begin with MRO and final assembly, integration and testing in India and then later go to parts manufacturing.

Enter HAL.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Feb 2014 02:56

>>Article 9 doesn't explicitly mention ban on arms export but the problem is the way Japs are interpreting it they see it as against arms export or any kind of gear export which might fall in the military category

Exactly. Its all about interpretation. And the negotiations based on strategic requirement are all about which interpretation takes place.

>>, other wise why would there be talk in Japan by Abe to amend the constitution.

Abe wants to amend the constitution because it puts restrictions on the kind of military the Japanese want to develop & also ensures that the above "strategic negotiations" and convincing the cabinet are required for larger military cooperation deals, contributions to UN etc. Its simpler to amend the constitution, but the constitution by itself does not prohibit exports. It just says, to paraphrase, be good, peaceful, non aggressive etc. Which if it was taken to extremes would mean that Japan would not field F-15J Kais (with missiles developed by Japan) or Aegis equipped destroyers.

Right now the Japanese military cant field Nirbhay equivalents or Agnis or anything to take the fight to the PRC mainland, even if the PRC hits them with all sorts of long range missiles and are almost completely dependent on the US for retaliation. Its not a good situation for Japan to be in.

>>It's a unnecessary risk to buy US-2 unless Japan doesn't sort itself out about this issue and we don't know what is going to come out of IGA but I doubt even that would allow Japan to provide support IN in upgrading US-2 with military wares without that causing a furore back in Japan unless they modify their constitution to please their spirit and all the crap.

There is a fundamental assumption in your post, perhaps based on media reports, that Japan will cease support if the IN chooses to upgrade its US-2 as it sees fit. I don't see any evidence that this will happen TBH. What I see is Japan quietly following through its policy to make sure that the deal goes through and making the right tick marks for local certification.

>>However, Japan is currently offering a stripped-down civilian version of the US-2i search and rescue plane, to get around Japan's self-imposed ban on arms exports. The version will not have the 'friend or foe' identification system, sources said.

Meaningless distinction made by the media - because the IN would insist on a custom variant of the US-2 anyhow. Japanese systems would complicate logistics and may perhaps not even be upto IN requirements (eg do they even have a naval AESA radar for the US-2?)

A Japanese IFF system would not work with our systems anyhow. India has a habit of putting in custom designed local IFF (e.g. Su-30 MKI) or specific imported kits (e.g. Thales IFF on MiG-29 Upg & likely the Mirage 2000s as well).

The airframe, cockpit avionics, engines remain navalized. They are what matter. We are not talking of a 737 vs a Boeing P-8I here. What we are talking of is an equivalent to the P-8 without the mission systems and an agreement that the sale is formal. Its upto India what it chooses to do with the aircraft.

>>US-2 isn't being kept out of the mandatory 30% offset

Business Std says being kept out of the restrictive DPP, which would mean relaxation of the offset. If we can buy ammo, Flankers from Russia without DPP (using the fig leaf of follow on deals), we can do so here too.

>>So it's a mix and mash of DPP and IGA to make some kind of mutant sort of an agreement. God only knows what is going to come out of it.

Aircraft!

>>If the offset carries aero engine tech. transfer then I would sing a different tune.

Tech transfer wont come about overnight, what I hope this deal does is open the doors to increased cooperation, whereupon one day we have JVs where we work with Japanese R&D and get access to their manufacturing tech in electronics.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Feb 2014 03:03

Sagar G wrote:Regarding "co-production" dreams, right from the horses mouth

Managing director ShinMaywa Industries India Pvt Ltd and director ShinMaywa Industries Ltd, Japan, Kanji Ishimaru

If Indian Navy and Coast Guard also takes interest, do you see a possibility of large numbers and also the possibility of manufacturing here?

In future, if we do have increased orders within a short delivery timeline, then, we may have to think about manufacturing this aircraft in India. The process is really complicated and requires years of experience. Therefore, a step by step approach will be successful. We will begin with MRO and final assembly, integration and testing in India and then later go to parts manufacturing.
Enter HAL.

And:

The version you are offering to India is US-2i. What is the difference between US-2 and US-2i?
While the basic capability of the aircraft remains the same, there would be certain equipment changes to cater for the Indian Navy’s role requirement as per the RFI.

No talk of stopping support or not assisting a RFI compliant US-2 either.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 01 Feb 2014 03:17

Karan M wrote:Right now the Japanese military cant field Nirbhay equivalents or Agnis or anything to take the fight to the PRC mainland, even if the PRC hits them with all sorts of long range missiles and are almost completely dependent on the US for retaliation. Its not a good situation for Japan to be in.

And that's why we must ask for more instead of giving more in exchange for screwdriver manufacturing.

Karan M wrote:There is a fundamental assumption in your post, perhaps based on media reports, that Japan will cease support if the IN chooses to upgrade its US-2 as it sees fit. I don't see any evidence that this will happen TBH. What I see is Japan quietly following through its policy to make sure that the deal goes through and making the right tick marks for local certification.

Article 9 saar and it's interpretation by Japs there is no guarantee from their side that they will support IN in militarising US-2. Unless their is no specific confirmation regarding this from them this remains a huge risk.

Karan M wrote:Business Std says being kept out of the restrictive DPP, which would mean relaxation of the offset. If we can buy ammo, Flankers from Russia without DPP (using the fig leaf of follow on deals), we can do so here too.

DPP is definitely in (Avast shouts trojan so be careful with the link, you click and next you know RaGa is at your doorstep to ask some fundamental questions)

SP’s: In the event of selection of US-2i, how confident ShinMaywa would be to deal with ‘single vendor’ situation to take the project forward till its culmination?

ShinMaywa: As far as we know, the case would be steered following the defence procurement procedure (DPP) process. In that, we are bound to honour the offset requirements. We will respect and follow the laid down procedure and the agreements between our governments. ShinMaywa is absolutely confident of delivering the best product that would meet the requirements of India in general and the Indian Navy in particular. The US-2’s features for sustained operations in Sea State 5, shortest take-off and landing distances, very longrange operations, good payload and high transit speeds are unmatched in the world. Combine this with Japanese technology, customer support and quality standards, we know that the US-2 is second to none.

Karan M wrote:No talk of stopping support or not assisting a RFI compliant US-2 either.

They won't be military equipments.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Feb 2014 03:37

Article 9 only says they cannot support aggressive military ventures. It says nothing about not providing military equipment. That is a policy decision which has clearly (in this case) been worked upon to release the US-2 to India in a derivative called the US-2i.

That is the entire purpose of having those negotiations.

The head of Shin Meywa sales process to India clearly states:
While the basic capability of the aircraft remains the same, there would be certain equipment changes to cater for the Indian Navy’s role requirement as per the RFI.

That is as direct as it gets. Note, no equivocation about who the aircraft is meant for either.

What the IN is impressed by is the platform. A 4500km amphibian. In terms of comparisons, the SM is ahead of its peers per the data here:
http://www.shinmaywa.co.jp/english/prod ... ility.html

The engines are from RR, and we have a long history of working with them, so thats not an issue either.

SAR, coastal patrol, anti poaching measures, anti smuggling can all require FLIR, SLAR & state of the art MSWS. Not "military equipment", peaceful onlee for peaceful purposes. Available from traditional IN suppliers like Elbit which supplied something quite similar for ARC recently. (http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 371832.jpg)

We fully support Article 9 etc, India is the land of Gandhi onlee too and we fully believe in non violence - it just so happens that some careless folks get in the way when we occasionally do shoot & purely for R&D purposes we test rockets and throw them into the sea 5K Km away (non violent onlee) and do peaceful nuclear tests as in 1971. So we and Japan shoud get along fine.

Mere coincidence if a peaceful, civilian US-2i, detects PLAN ships on its radar, transmits the data to P-8Is and Talwars using Link-2 & vectors them in.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Feb 2014 03:54

Sagar G wrote:Entire ocean !!!! Bhy no entire world I pooch ???

Most water covered part of the world. That's what comes of wave height clearance of 1.2 metres. Read the maps again.\