Indian MIG-29K Issues
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Indian MIG-29K Issues
Nothing changed with Russian quality control then. However, as far the last paragraph below is concerned, is that any different to LM?
Report: India's Russian-made MiG-29K Fighters Face Proble | DefenseNews
NEW DELHI — The Indian Navy's primary fighter operating from the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya faces operational deficiencies due to defects in engines, airframes and fly-by-wire systems, according to a report by India's autonomous auditor, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). However, Indian Navy officials say the Russian-made MiG-29K remains the best choice available. The report said the "aircraft MiG-29K is being technically accepted despite having discrepancies and anomalies.".........
Arun Prakash, who served as chief of the Indian Naval Staff, evaluated the aircraft in 1999 before the purchase from Russia.........However, Prakash is highly critical of what he called the "lethargy" by the Russians in the manufacturing and maintenance of the aircraft.
On problems with the engine, the CAG report said: "Since induction in February 2010, 40 engines (62 percent) of twin-engined MiG-29K have been withdrawn from service/rejected due to design-related defects." Additionally, the serviceability of the warplanes was low, ranging from 21.30 percent to 47.14 percent, according to the report.
"The roots of these problems (serviceability and defects) lie in the extremely poor quality control in the Russian military-industrial complex and dismal product support being rendered by the Russian industry to the Indian Navy for the past 25 years," Prakash said. "This is in spite of the fact that the development of the MiG-29K has been totally funded by the Indian Navy."
On how the aircraft could affect combat worthiness of the Navy, the CAG report said: "The service life of MiG -29K is 6,000 hours or 25 years (whichever is earlier) but the deficiencies and snags in the aircraft is likely to reduce the operational life of the aircraft, thereby affecting combat worthiness of [the Indian] Navy." Detailing the defects of the engine on MiG-29K, the report noted that "even as the RD-33 MK engine (mounted on MiG-29K) was considered an advancement over the engine of the MiG-29K, its reliability remains questionable."
"The engine-design defects should be rectified with the utmost urgency at the Russians' cost," Prakash said. "Any respectable company, conscious of its reputation, would attend to this. But the oligarchs who control the Russian military-industrial complex are too brazen, for two reasons: (a) they know that India has not choice and (b) they are confident that Indian politicians will never turn the screw on them."...........
Report: India's Russian-made MiG-29K Fighters Face Proble | DefenseNews
NEW DELHI — The Indian Navy's primary fighter operating from the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya faces operational deficiencies due to defects in engines, airframes and fly-by-wire systems, according to a report by India's autonomous auditor, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). However, Indian Navy officials say the Russian-made MiG-29K remains the best choice available. The report said the "aircraft MiG-29K is being technically accepted despite having discrepancies and anomalies.".........
Arun Prakash, who served as chief of the Indian Naval Staff, evaluated the aircraft in 1999 before the purchase from Russia.........However, Prakash is highly critical of what he called the "lethargy" by the Russians in the manufacturing and maintenance of the aircraft.
On problems with the engine, the CAG report said: "Since induction in February 2010, 40 engines (62 percent) of twin-engined MiG-29K have been withdrawn from service/rejected due to design-related defects." Additionally, the serviceability of the warplanes was low, ranging from 21.30 percent to 47.14 percent, according to the report.
"The roots of these problems (serviceability and defects) lie in the extremely poor quality control in the Russian military-industrial complex and dismal product support being rendered by the Russian industry to the Indian Navy for the past 25 years," Prakash said. "This is in spite of the fact that the development of the MiG-29K has been totally funded by the Indian Navy."
On how the aircraft could affect combat worthiness of the Navy, the CAG report said: "The service life of MiG -29K is 6,000 hours or 25 years (whichever is earlier) but the deficiencies and snags in the aircraft is likely to reduce the operational life of the aircraft, thereby affecting combat worthiness of [the Indian] Navy." Detailing the defects of the engine on MiG-29K, the report noted that "even as the RD-33 MK engine (mounted on MiG-29K) was considered an advancement over the engine of the MiG-29K, its reliability remains questionable."
"The engine-design defects should be rectified with the utmost urgency at the Russians' cost," Prakash said. "Any respectable company, conscious of its reputation, would attend to this. But the oligarchs who control the Russian military-industrial complex are too brazen, for two reasons: (a) they know that India has not choice and (b) they are confident that Indian politicians will never turn the screw on them."...........
The same all over the third world. They get Russian equipment on the cheap and in a few years they are all rotting away in the corner.
The same in the civil sector. Chinese aviation moved wholesale moved from Russian to Western equipment in the 1990s because of the appalling backup for their TUs and YAKS. In Tianjin in that time the resident Chinese airline had a couple of surplus Aeroflot 154s purely to be used as Xmas trees.
The same in the civil sector. Chinese aviation moved wholesale moved from Russian to Western equipment in the 1990s because of the appalling backup for their TUs and YAKS. In Tianjin in that time the resident Chinese airline had a couple of surplus Aeroflot 154s purely to be used as Xmas trees.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Further to post #1 and the aircraft being accepted despite "having discrepancies and anomalies".......
Indian Navy wants Russian MiG-29K jets to be ?ruggedized?
NEW DELHI — The Indian Navy is facing acute maintenance problems with the 45 Russian-made MiG-29K aircraft, which are the sole fighters on the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, according a senior Indian Navy official.
“We (Indian Navy) want the MiG-29K aircraft to be ruggedized to carry out operations because landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier is almost like a hard landing and the fighter aircraft needs frequent maintenance,” the Navy official said. “There are frequent structural defects due to deck landing,” the official added........
The call for improved ruggedness originates from an issue after deck landings. The MiG-29K fighter’s settings reportedly require a reset after landing on the deck of the carrier. “After every carrier landing (which is virtually like a crash), components of the aircraft crack, break or stop functioning. The aircraft, then goes to the workshop for repair/replacement of the part, which often has to come from Russia,” Prakash said......
Arun Prakash, a retired Indian Navy admiral and former service chief, was more critical of the situation: “The truth is that the Indian Navy has virtually funded the development of this aircraft (which the Russian Navy is now adopting), and if the Russians had any ethics they would ensure that every shortcoming is fixed free of cost.”
Indian Navy wants Russian MiG-29K jets to be ?ruggedized?
NEW DELHI — The Indian Navy is facing acute maintenance problems with the 45 Russian-made MiG-29K aircraft, which are the sole fighters on the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, according a senior Indian Navy official.
“We (Indian Navy) want the MiG-29K aircraft to be ruggedized to carry out operations because landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier is almost like a hard landing and the fighter aircraft needs frequent maintenance,” the Navy official said. “There are frequent structural defects due to deck landing,” the official added........
The call for improved ruggedness originates from an issue after deck landings. The MiG-29K fighter’s settings reportedly require a reset after landing on the deck of the carrier. “After every carrier landing (which is virtually like a crash), components of the aircraft crack, break or stop functioning. The aircraft, then goes to the workshop for repair/replacement of the part, which often has to come from Russia,” Prakash said......
Arun Prakash, a retired Indian Navy admiral and former service chief, was more critical of the situation: “The truth is that the Indian Navy has virtually funded the development of this aircraft (which the Russian Navy is now adopting), and if the Russians had any ethics they would ensure that every shortcoming is fixed free of cost.”
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Are there any spare F/A-18s available? 
Further to post #1 and the aircraft being accepted despite "having discrepancies and anomalies".......
Indian Navy wants Russian MiG-29K jets to be ?ruggedized?
NEW DELHI — The Indian Navy is facing acute maintenance problems with the 45 Russian-made MiG-29K aircraft, which are the sole fighters on the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, according a senior Indian Navy official.
“We (Indian Navy) want the MiG-29K aircraft to be ruggedized to carry out operations because landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier is almost like a hard landing and the fighter aircraft needs frequent maintenance,” the Navy official said. “There are frequent structural defects due to deck landing,” the official added........
The call for improved ruggedness originates from an issue after deck landings. The MiG-29K fighter’s settings reportedly require a reset after landing on the deck of the carrier. “After every carrier landing (which is virtually like a crash), components of the aircraft crack, break or stop functioning. The aircraft, then goes to the workshop for repair/replacement of the part, which often has to come from Russia,” Prakash said......
Arun Prakash, a retired Indian Navy admiral and former service chief, was more critical of the situation: “The truth is that the Indian Navy has virtually funded the development of this aircraft (which the Russian Navy is now adopting), and if the Russians had any ethics they would ensure that every shortcoming is fixed free of cost.”
Indian Navy wants Russian MiG-29K jets to be ?ruggedized?
NEW DELHI — The Indian Navy is facing acute maintenance problems with the 45 Russian-made MiG-29K aircraft, which are the sole fighters on the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, according a senior Indian Navy official.
“We (Indian Navy) want the MiG-29K aircraft to be ruggedized to carry out operations because landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier is almost like a hard landing and the fighter aircraft needs frequent maintenance,” the Navy official said. “There are frequent structural defects due to deck landing,” the official added........
The call for improved ruggedness originates from an issue after deck landings. The MiG-29K fighter’s settings reportedly require a reset after landing on the deck of the carrier. “After every carrier landing (which is virtually like a crash), components of the aircraft crack, break or stop functioning. The aircraft, then goes to the workshop for repair/replacement of the part, which often has to come from Russia,” Prakash said......
Arun Prakash, a retired Indian Navy admiral and former service chief, was more critical of the situation: “The truth is that the Indian Navy has virtually funded the development of this aircraft (which the Russian Navy is now adopting), and if the Russians had any ethics they would ensure that every shortcoming is fixed free of cost.”
Perhaps another example of how difficult it is to adapt a land based design and make it work well on a carrier. Combine this with lousy customer support....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent - so in addition to the 40 or so Rafale in order for the Indian Air Force, chance is that they will also have to acquire about 30 Rafale M 
Memo : neither the Typhoon or the Gripen are carrier-capable.
Memo : neither the Typhoon or the Gripen are carrier-capable.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Fake &) news from CNN in Feb. 2017 assumed that F/A-18 availability was pretty much the same :-)
Navy strike fighter jets: Two-thirds currently can't fly - CNNPolitics
An excerpt from above:
"Nearly two-thirds of the US Navy's F/A 18 strike fighter jets are currently unable to fly, grounded due to repair delays or because they are awaiting spare parts...."
Navy strike fighter jets: Two-thirds currently can't fly - CNNPolitics
An excerpt from above:
"Nearly two-thirds of the US Navy's F/A 18 strike fighter jets are currently unable to fly, grounded due to repair delays or because they are awaiting spare parts...."
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
But that's because of long term fatigue and delayed routine maintenance - because the USN has been throwing all its Aviation cash into F-35 costs. An F-18 is a tough beast and designed for the deck and does not break every time it lands.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
I'm asking 'ORAC' about this statement:
WUT? Any proof for this 'fake news' claim?
"...the USN has been throwing all its Aviation cash into F-35 costs...."
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
ORAC there is nothing in that article about the F-35 as you have attested:
Perhaps there are other reasons such as the article suggests:
Nothing about 'F-35 costs' or 'all the 'Aviation cash'.
"...the USN has been throwing all its Aviation cash into F-35 costs...."
"...due to delays on the Joint Strike Fighter program, the staffer added..."
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Read it and read between the lines. The long term maintenance budget was cut because the cash was going into the F-35 procurement budget which was to replace them. Then the F-35 slipped into the distance and the operational,usage went through the roof - and there has been no cash to fix the problem.
That's not a knock at the F-35 (except for it not arriving when planned), it's just a fact.
When you plan for a new type to enter service you don't plan cash to keep the one due to replaced working past it's out of service date, you use it to buy the new ones and their infrastructure. When it doesn't arrive on time and you have to keep,the old ones working, there's a massive hole.
In terms of the thread discussion, it's not that the F-18s are suddenly breaking every time they land, they're just getting old and fatigued - and there is no unallocated cash to fix them any more. Exacerbated by the budget cap which means they can't just add cash - it has to found by taking from somewhere else.
It's the same issue the USAF is having withe their F-15s and hence proposals to retire them early and update F-16s in their place.
That's not a knock at the F-35 (except for it not arriving when planned), it's just a fact.
When you plan for a new type to enter service you don't plan cash to keep the one due to replaced working past it's out of service date, you use it to buy the new ones and their infrastructure. When it doesn't arrive on time and you have to keep,the old ones working, there's a massive hole.
In terms of the thread discussion, it's not that the F-18s are suddenly breaking every time they land, they're just getting old and fatigued - and there is no unallocated cash to fix them any more. Exacerbated by the budget cap which means they can't just add cash - it has to found by taking from somewhere else.
It's the same issue the USAF is having withe their F-15s and hence proposals to retire them early and update F-16s in their place.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every time the Pentagon has to make out another cheque for the F35 programme they have to raid the USN and USAF budgets. Simples.
"The cost of an F-35B grew from $232 million in 2014 to a bulging $251 million by 2015," Wheeler wrote. "The cost of the Navy's F35C grew from $273 million in 2014 to a wallet-busting $337 million by 2015."
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
RAAF are buying F-35As so that is what interests me. How many peeps are buying the F-35C? Numbers are numbers - probably the latest SAR has the best number crunching:
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program (F-35) As of FY 2018 President's Budget; Defense Acquisition Management
Information Retrieval (DAMIR): http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=25039 (PDF 0.7Mb)
___________________________
Total Acquisition Estimate for F-35 Rises to $406.5 Billion 12 Jul 2017 Bill Carey
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program (F-35) As of FY 2018 President's Budget; Defense Acquisition Management
Information Retrieval (DAMIR): http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=25039 (PDF 0.7Mb)
___________________________
Total Acquisition Estimate for F-35 Rises to $406.5 Billion 12 Jul 2017 Bill Carey
"...In current-year dollars, the estimated URF cost of the F-35A increased from $100.6 million in SAR15 to $111.3 million in SAR16. The estimate for the U.S. Navy’s F-35C increased from $110.7 million to $112.4 million, and the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B from $122.9 million to $123.4 million...." [NO MENTION OF INCREASED USMC F-35B BUY BY 13]..." http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...s-4065-billion
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
That price is because of financial skulduggery- including changing to quite the price excluding the cost of the engine - which was always previously included.
Unit Cost of F-35s Delivered This Year Still Exceeds $206M
Unit Cost of F-35s Delivered This Year Still Exceeds $206M
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Yeah I would not trust the Dec 2016 SAR as far as you could throw it but trust a blogger yessiree - no problemo. Just for the sake of confusion here are the SAR numbers in BY = Base Year US deneiro amounts (quoted from the aforementioned SAR recently published to the astonishment of some).
F-35A (Conventional Take Off and Landing) URF - $67.7M + $10.9M (BY 2012) = $78.6M TOTAL
F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $77.1M + $26.7M (BY 2012) = $103.8M TOTAL
F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $78.1M + $11.0M (BY 2012) = $89.1M TOTAL
[page 72] "The DoD average F-35 Aircraft Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost consists of the Hardware (Airframe, Vehicle Systems, Mission Systems, and Engineering Change Order) costs over the life of the program. The URF assumes the quantity benefits of 132 FMS aircraft and 609 International Partner aircraft. The current estimate for F-35 total procurement quantity increased from 2443 to 2456. This is the result of an increase of 13 F-35B aircraft to be procured by the United States Marine Corps (USMC). The increase is reflected in both the aircraft and engine subprogram and results in a change from 680 to 693 in the Department of Navy Aircraft Procurement accounts. The USMC validated this requirement through the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council (MROC). The additional aircraft are fully funded and the funding is reflected in the FY 2018 President's Budget submission. The additional aircraft were added after the completion of the congressionally directed Department-wide fighter mix study. The strategic review will assess future tactical fighter force inventory requirements across the Department.
F-35A (Conventional Take Off and Landing) URF - $67.7M (BY 2012)
F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $77.1M (BY 2012)
F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $78.1M (BY 2012)
BY = Base Year
[page 76] The DoD average F-35 Engine Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost consists of the Hardware (Propulsion and Engineering Change Order) costs over the life of the program. The URF assumes the quantity benefits of 132 FMS engines and 609 International Partner engines.
F-35A (Conventional Take Off and Landing) URF - $10.9M (BY 2012)
F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $26.7M (BY 2012)
F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $11.0M (BY 2012)"
F-35A (Conventional Take Off and Landing) URF - $67.7M (BY 2012)
F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $77.1M (BY 2012)
F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $78.1M (BY 2012)
BY = Base Year
[page 76] The DoD average F-35 Engine Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost consists of the Hardware (Propulsion and Engineering Change Order) costs over the life of the program. The URF assumes the quantity benefits of 132 FMS engines and 609 International Partner engines.
F-35A (Conventional Take Off and Landing) URF - $10.9M (BY 2012)
F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $26.7M (BY 2012)
F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $11.0M (BY 2012)"
F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $77.1M + $26.7M (BY 2012) = $103.8M TOTAL
F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $78.1M + $11.0M (BY 2012) = $89.1M TOTAL
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it by now all the Legacy Hornets should have been retired and replaced by F35Cs, at whatever low cost they were promised at with the low maintenance costs promised.
Unfortunately as the F35C has yet to gain IOC, plans have had to be made to increase the lifetime hours of the Legacy Fleet from 6,000 to 10,000. At a wild guess I would have thought that this was rather an expensive structural regeneration exercise.
What is being done to the avionics of the Legacy Fleet to bring them up to date is of course another matter, that no doubt could cost a fair sum. Without an upgrade to the avionics are the Legacy Hornets effective weapons systems in contested airspace?
By now the USMC was I would have thought planning to have a fleet of F35Bs and Cs as the backbone of its fixed wing attack fleet unfortunately it now has rather old and expensive to maintain fleets of Legacy Hornets and Harriers.
Unfortunately as the F35C has yet to gain IOC, plans have had to be made to increase the lifetime hours of the Legacy Fleet from 6,000 to 10,000. At a wild guess I would have thought that this was rather an expensive structural regeneration exercise.
What is being done to the avionics of the Legacy Fleet to bring them up to date is of course another matter, that no doubt could cost a fair sum. Without an upgrade to the avionics are the Legacy Hornets effective weapons systems in contested airspace?
By now the USMC was I would have thought planning to have a fleet of F35Bs and Cs as the backbone of its fixed wing attack fleet unfortunately it now has rather old and expensive to maintain fleets of Legacy Hornets and Harriers.