Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

FORBIN said:

Tu-142 retired soon they have 8 P-8i in more 4 in order and 5 Il-28 all modernized later.
Il-38 to Diabolim West Coast and P-8 with Tu-142 to Rajalim/Arkonam East Coast.

Protected copy impossible

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

FORBIN said:

View attachment 35834

Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Parliamentary report reveals high import content in 'indigenous' arms

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

| New Delhi March 14, 2017 Last Updated at 09:22 IST

Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence reveals in a new report released on Thursday that the United States has been India’s biggest supplier of weapons platforms over the past three years. It is followed by Russia, Israel and France in that order. Non-official think tanks and non-proliferation groups like the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) publish annual assessments of global arms transfers. This, however, is an authoritative declaration from the government of India.

The Committee’s Report No. 31 divulges that India concluded contracts worth Rs 28,895 crore ($4.35 billion) with the US during 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. Russia was a distant second in this period with contracts worth Rs 8,374 crore ($1.26 billion), Israel third with contracts worth Rs 7,605 crore ($1.14 billion), and France fourth with contracts worth Rs 1,836 crore.

India also signed contracts worth Rs 6,974 crore ($1.05 billion) with “others”, which include Germany, UK, Ukraine and Poland. These rankings move up and down sharply as big contracts are inked. Last year’s Rs 55,400 crore ($8.33 billion) contract for 36 Rafale fighters will see France vaulting to the top of the rankings for 2016-17.

Separately, the Committee also demolishes the myth of substantial indigenous production, that the MoD perpetuates by citing orders placed on defence public sector undertakings (DPSUs) and Ordnance Factories (OFs). The report details the extent to which orders for “indigenous” weapon systems and equipment actually pay for imported equipment. This is because the equipment supplied by DPSUs and OFs contains many components, sub-systems and systems acquired from foreign vendors.

Yet, the MoD, when providing Parliament with figures, treats all orders placed on DPSUs and OFs as indigenous orders. On Friday, the defence minister told parliament that, of the Rs 66,821 crore in capital procurement in 2013-14, Rs 31,576 crore was paid to Indian vendors; and of the Rs 65,584 crore capital procurement in 2014-15, Rs 39,599 crore was paid to Indian vendors. However, the Committee details how much foreign component each DPSU or OF puts into the “indigenous” kit it supplies.

For example, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) retains the import content of the Sukhoi-30MKI fighter at 44 per cent, even after building it in India under licence for over a decade. The import component of the Hawk trainer, which is built in Bengaluru, remains 58 per cent, the Dhruv helicopter is 50 per cent imported, the Tejas fighter 40 per cent imported and the Dornier-228 aircraft 60 per cent imported.

Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) also imports a substantial part of the equipment it supplies. The Committee report divulges that the import content of input material it uses was 36 per cent in 2013-14 and 2014-15, which rose to 44 per cent in 2015-16.

Imported content accounted for 18.62 per cent of the value of production of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (BEML) in 2011-12; 25.29 per cent in 2012-13; 19.67 per cent in 2013-14, 15.87 per cent in 2015-16 and 21.68 per cent by end-December 2016.

Bharat Dynamics has been reducing its import content over the last six years. It had 41.01 per cent import content in its production in 2011-12, 35.20 in 2012-13, 20.06 per cent in 2013-14, 13.70 per cent in 2015-16 and 9.36 per cent by end-December 2016.

The same is true of warship builder, Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers (GRSE) which imported 27.64 per cent of its value of production in 2012-13, 24.9 per cent in 2013-14, 15.6 per cent in 2014-15, 10.38 per cent in 2015-16 and 6.97 per cent up to December last year.

Mazagon Dock Ltd (MDL), started building its new, complex destroyers and frigate classes with a high import content but reduced it progressively as it went along. MDL imported 58 per cent of the Delhi-class destroyers (Project 15), brought this down to 43 per cent in the follow-on Kolkata-class destroyers (Project 15-A), and is bringing this down to 32 per cent in the new Project 15-B destroyers.

MDL imported 48 per cent of the three Shivalik-class frigates (Project 17), and plans to reduce the import content of the follow-on Project 17-A frigates to 28 per cent.

Goa Shipyard Ltd (GSL), which builds relatively simpler vessels imported 14.51 per cent of the value of four Naval Offshore Patrol Vessels (NOPVs) and 35.5 per cent of the Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Vessels (CGOPVs) it built in the last three years.

Hindustan Shipyard Ltd (HSL), the MoD’s newest shipyard, imported 27 per cent of its production in 2015-16, and 21 per cent of its production in 2016-17 till December.

The percentage of import of the OFs, according to the Committee, was 15.15 per cent of its total production of Rs 11,123 crore in 2013-14; 8.9 per cent of its production of Rs 11,364 crore in 2014-15; and 12.66 per cent of the Rs 13,081 it sold in 2015-16.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Well, they plan six of these...but I beleive only the last two will have AIP.

I tink they should have gotten AIP for all of them personally.

And they need to develop the technology so they can either build more, or to build something in numbers.

India really, really has to stop the proliferation fo so many different types of equipment from so many differing nations to arm itself.

It makes logistics, training, spare parts, repair, etc. a hell of a mess.

The Indians have a long enough coast line and a large enough set of SLOCs to demand probably a total of 24 or more conventional subs...and they should have 8-12 SSns for operations from SLOC protection in far off places to defending their carrier and other large battle groups, to potential offensive operations at se if they ever had a major war with any sea faring nation.

anyhow, they are slowly building up capabilities...but they are some areas where they desperately need to work on being able to build their own (aircraft and subs for example)

We shall see if they are up to it. They have a good strong military tradition, and they have some good stuff. They just need to at some point start lessening the number of differing systems they use while they modernize..

Click to expand...

FORBIN said:

According last news finaly no AIP for all Scorpene AIP not ready... but they have one option for 3 can be interesting before next programm for 6 others coz with Indian Administration can be long

Yes they have plans to have 24 SSKs and now they have 13 plus 1 SSN.

Click to expand...

Full tech transfer could derail Indo-Russian fifth-gen fighter program
By: Vivek Raghuvanshi, March 16, 2017
NEW DELHI — The Indo-Russian fifth-generation fighter aircraft under joint development and production by the two countries has taken a hit, with Russia showing reluctance to fully transfer the aircraft technology, particularly stealth capabilities, despite repeated reminders, according to a top Indian Air Force official.

After the preliminary agreement on the particulars of the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) program in 2010, and with both sides having paid $295 million each, the final agreement that enables India to release more than $4 billion, is pending.

The Air Force has worked out its requirements for the FGFA, but the crucial "work sharing and technology sharing draft has yet to be finalized," the IAF official said.

"The project is likely to get delayed further unless the issue of transfer of technology is finalized," offered Daljit Singh, a defense analyst and retired Indian Air Force air marshal. India should insist on technology transfer in specified fields, he added, as "full technology transfer may not be feasible."

Another retiree from the Air Force agreed. "Full technology transfer is not possible since the aviation industrial base in India is not at par with that in Russia," said Vijainder K Thakur, a defense analyst and former squadron leader.

An Indian Ministry of Defence official said the FGFA would be a joint project and that all technologies should be worked on together. The official would not provide further information.

Konstantin Makienko, the deputy director at the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, said: "The joint project means that the both sides develop the technologies together and become equal owners of them. Therefore it is not about the technology transfer but a joint use of them."

The Air Force is insisting that an agreement for joint development of the FGFA be reached at the earliest, lest the production of the aircraft be delayed. Any delay "would have serious cascading effect on production of the aircraft for India," Singh said.

India has a requirement for 120-130 of such swing-role planes with stealth features for increased survivability, advanced avionics, smart weapons, top-end mission computers and 360-degree situational awareness, the Air Force official noted, adding that "the ability to supercruise or sustain supersonic speeds in combat configuration without kicking in fuel-guzzling afterburners is a key Indian requirement."

For the most part, officials and analysts share a common view that a delay the final FGFA agreement is unlikely to shelve the entire program.

"It's unlikely that an in-principle agreement between Russian and Indian heads of government would be shelved. If India is unhappy with the extent of technology transfer, it would likely resort to a straightforward, albeit limited, buy, as happened in the case of the Rafale deal [with France]. Doors would be kept open for enhancing the scope of the deal at a later date," Thakur said.

The Air Force official pointed out that India has worked out operational needs for the FGFA, which the service says could differ from those of the Russians in some aspects. Russia has already moved ahead with its own research and development of the FGFA.

Russia is doing very well with its version of the FGFA, which is called the T-50. The first flight of the T-50 took place in 2010.

In addition, Russia said it will fly the T-50 with the Product 30 engine, giving it Mach 1.5 supercruise, by 2020.

The Indian Air Force wants technology transfer for the FGFA from Russia because it is facing difficulties in the Russian Sukhoi Su-30MKI aircraft due to no availability of spares and technology transfer. India has contracted 272 Su-30MKI aircraft and is license producing the same at state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited facilities.

Click to expand...

Hendrik_2000 said:

I didn't know that Mig 29K suck No wonder they are looking for alternative. China make the wise decision not to depend on Russia or anyone else. I guess they learn the bitter lesson of 1967 breakup with Soviet Union where they tear up the contract and pull out of joint program. India is taken for a ride by the bear. that is the price Indian pay for relying on other for their critical engine . Even if WS 10 take that long to develop at the end China control their own destiny

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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."

India ordered 45 MiG-29K aircraft and equipment worth $2.2 billion in two separate orders — in 2004 and 2010 — from Russia. It is the primary combat platform on Vikramaditya, which was acquired from Russia when it was known as the Admiral Gorshkov.

The MiG-29K aircraft are also expected to serve on the homemade aircraft carrier INS Vikrant, which is still under construction.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Arun Prakash, who served as chief of the Indian Naval Staff, evaluated the aircraft in 1999 before the purchase from Russia. The retired admiral said: "There are the only two fighters — MiG-29K and Sukhoi-33 — in the world capable of operations from a Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery, a system used for the launch and recovery of aircraft from the deck of an aircraft carrier like INS Vikramaditya. There is no better fighter available to replace the MiG-29K."

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."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"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."

However, retired Indian Navy commodore and independent defense analyst, Sujeet Samaddar, gave no credence to the CAG report.

"I firmly believe auditors have no experience or professional ability to comment on technical matters of a modern state — just putting numbers and percentages."

A Ministry of Defence official would not comment in detail on the CAG report, but said: "MiG-29K will remain the primary combat fighter for the Indian Navy."

Email: [email protected]

Click to expand...