CAG report tabled before Parliament:
http://cag.gov.in/sites/default/fil...Navy_and_Coast_Guard_Report_No_17_of_2016.pdf
cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Union_Defence_Services_Navy_and_Coast_Guard_Report_No_17_of_2016.pdf
CAG Objects -
"MiG29K, the chosen aircraft for the carrier, continues to face operational deficiencies due to defects in engines, airframe and fly-by-wire system."
If the FBW is not working then how did the 10 single engine landings took place?
Does the CAG think its pertinent to note that 18 of the 30 single engined Harriers bought by India had crashed, some with loss of life. And that Harrier has 3 times the crash rate of standardized F-18 in US Navy.
Does the CAG think its pertinent to note that 6 of the approximate 45 Rafale-M build by France have crashed, despite being double engined.
Does the CAG think its pertinent to note that the safety systems of even the US Navy were similarly difficult to manage in the 70s and 80s when the air wing of US Navy was growing? Today the US Navy has significantly reduced its crash rates but that has take them several years of training and standardization. How long has the Indian Navy experience been allowed to grow in this field?
CAG Objects -
"(iii) MiG29K/KUB Aircraft - The MiG29K, which is a carrier borne multi role aircraft and the mainstay of integral fleet air defence, is riddled with problems relating to airframe, RD MK-33 engine and fly-by-wire 4 system. Aircraft were being technically accepted despite having discrepancies/anomalies. Serviceability of MiG29K was low, ranging from 15.93 per cent to 37.63 per cent and that of MiG29KUB ranging from 21.30 per cent to 47.14 per cent. The augmentation of infrastructure at Visakhapatnam is still at the Detailed Project Report stage even six years after approval (December 2009). The Full Mission Simulator was assessed to be unsuitable for Carrier Qualification (CQ) simulator training for pilots, as the visuals did not support the profile. The service life of the aircraft is 6000 hours or 25 years (whichever is earlier) and with issues facing the MiG29K/KUB, the operational life of the aircraft already delivered would be reduced. Further, the deliveries of the aircraft under the Option Clause scheduled between 2012 and 2016 are much ahead of the delivery schedule of the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier in 2023, as projected by Cochin Shipyard Limited."
Recommendations by CAG are made -
"The Ministry should augment efforts to build infrastructure for MiG29K/KUB at Visakhapatnam, which is the home port for the IAC ;"
Does CAG knows or did it even bother to find out, if the problem is with the aircarft and simulator or with non-funding. So who was the Defence Secretary when this non-funding started.
Servicability was reasonable only in the earlier years when the aircarfts were brand new and then took a dip and is clearly improving again under DM Manohar Parrikar. So what is the reason for the dip of 2011-12.
There are reports that the Mig-29K is being modified currently on the flightline with western and ukrainian equipment that was sanctioned by these countries. Who was the Defence Secretary during the time these acquisition decisions were being made without regard to possibilities of Sanctions. Was it Mr. Shashi Kant Sharma?
REFER:
janes.com/article/62063/indian-navy-reports-problems-with-russian-carrier-aircraft
http://www.janes.com/article/62063/indian-navy-reports-problems-with-russian-carrier-aircraft
The chief culprit in this dilemma, say both Indian and Russian specialists, are the combined embargoes enacted by the Ukrainian government that bar the export of any military-use items to Russia, along with the EU and US sanctions that prohibit the export of Western military components to Moscow. The 'workaround' has been for India to import these items directly, then have them integrated onto the aircraft on-site at the Goa base.
The MiG-29K for India differs from the MiG-29KR aircraft being built for the Russian Navy (VMF) in that the Indian-produced and foreign-made components are deleted in the configuration of the latter aircraft and replaced by Russian-made systems.
Also if the servicability is again improving despite these modifications at the flightline then should not the management under DM Manohar Parrikar be understood to be much much better then the legacy decision making structure?
Further are the modifications being made to Mig-29KUB also? If not then can we take the difference between Mig-29KUB availability and Mig-29K availability (47.14% - 37.63% = 9.51%) as being representative of the reduction caused due to these modifications at the flightline?
CAG Objects -
"Thereafter, the Ministry had concluded (March 2010) an Option Clause contract for acquisition of 29 MiG 29K/KUB aircraft (which included 12 MiG29K and one MiG 29KUB for the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) at a cost of USD 1466.44 million (`6,840.94 crore), estimating that the IAC would be delivered by 2014. The deliveries of the Option clause aircraft scheduled between 2012 and 2016 are much ahead of the delivery schedule of the IAC in 2023, as projected by Cochin Shipyard Limited."
CAG itself notes "MiG29K is the mainstay of the Indian Navy’s fleet air defence, being the choice of aircraft for both the aircraft carriers, viz. INS Vikramaditya and Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (christened as INS Vikrant) as well as two naval air stations on the East and West coast."
The options clause was exercised before the current government. And these would still be necessary even if the INS Vikrant is delayed because land based Mig-29K will have significant range capabilities and then the squad training issues also to be taken into account.
Even if we buy all 45 Mig-29K still the number of aircarfts required for INS Vikramaditya+2 Naval Air Stations (INS Hansa & INS Dega). The naval air arm has 33 aircraft in inventory, as of 29 June 2015. Does the CAG believe that these 33 enough for the required deployment requirements, given that Harriers have been phased out and neither LCA nor ALH have joined the Indian Navy..
Does the aircraft complement of IAC Vikrant & INS Vikramaditya look anything like complete? In such a case would it be wiser to order and use whatever we can lay our hands on or should we wait further.
CAG Objects -
"The fact remains that up to August 2015, the number of engines withdrawn from service/rejected was 46, indicating that even as the RD-33 MK engine was considered an advancement over the engine of the MiG29, its reliability remains questionable."
CAG also educates us that -
Indian Navy replied (November 2015) that repairs of defective engines were being taken up with RAC MiG based on warranty/non-warranty basis, adding that repair of non-warranty engines were being progressed under IHQ MoD (N) indents.
Can the CAG reply as to the break up of the number of engines withdrawn form service and number of engines rejected separately? If no such data was collected then why was it so?
Further how did these non-warranty engines get into the inventory in the first place. Isn't the MOD negotiations over Rafale stuck over warranty issues, today. Were the need for warranties overlooked earlier?
CAG Objects -
"Audit further observed from the protocol (September 2014) of the 16th IRIGC-MTC54 that RAC MiG had forwarded a list of 17 modifications which they had scheduled to complete on all engines held in India by November 2014. However, as of September 2015, it was seen that four modifications (out of 17) had been implemented by RAC MiG on all engines and balance 13 modifications would be implemented as and when engines were sent to OEM at Russia for overhaul/repair."
During what period was the protocol of September 2014 negotiated?
Has the CAG concluded that the engine defects were due to the 13 modifications not done?
If the engine problems are due to absense of these 13 modifications then did the CAG seek answers as to why the MOD till September 2014, never negotiated for the full 17 modifications be done without having to wait till the rehauling/overhauling?
CAG Objects -
"Audit, however observed from the protocol of the 18th Indo Russian Inter Governmental Commission – Military Technical Cooperation (IRIGC-MTC) (August 2015) that defects had occurred despite numerous design improvements and modifications"
CAG also educates us that
"55 Defects - Defect of shearing of side bolt of engine mounting, failures of INCOM mounting tray, failure of Radar scanner mountings had been observed"
Now the Mig-29K has several systems that are not there on the stock Mig-29 - wing folding, CFC usage, different radar, IRST.
But somehow only defects being noted are in the easily maintainable depot level repairs like mountings and trays. Sometime back metal chippings were being noted in the Su-30MKI fuel. DM Parrikar has mentioned on the floor of the house that there are no such new cases noted. How is it that the defects are noted only in these items and not in the more difficult to manufacture items?
CAG Objects -
"Audit observed (December 2014) from the Agenda points of 6th Reliability and Maintainability Programme Plan (RMPP) for MIG29K/KUB aircraft that the reliability56 of the fly by wire was very poor, ranging from 3.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent between 01 July 2012 and 30 June 2014 and measures were to be taken by RAC MiG to improve reliability of the system."
CAG also educates us that
"The issue had serious flight safety implications, since in-flight engine defects had led to ten cases of single engine landings."
Now how can it be that the FBW worked in all the 10 single engine landings even though FBW reliability was only ranging from 3.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent between 01 July 2012 and 30 June 2014. How is it that a system that can only be reliable for 3.5% of the time, work exactly as needed in the random 10 instances of single engine landings. And this happened every time (since there were no crashes)?
What was the reliability rate after 30 June 2014 the approximate cut off date for the new govt. taking oath?
About the only real objection raised by CAG and where the MOD really needs to work is that - "As of 31st July 2015, the OEM was still in the process of software corrections as required to make the simulator as realistic as aircraft." when in fact this should have started working by 2013.
