SAA does not have SVP-24.
So the Su-24M2 upgrade does not come with the SVP-24 as a standard fiy??
The Russian Mi-8 that was shot down was featured many times earlier in pictures and in videos. This one was dedicated for humanitarian missions and no surprise the crew involved Russian servicemen from the reconciliation centre.
RF-95585
This same helo was the one which transported the little Syrian girl, who lost both her legs when moderate terrorist moderately bombed hospitals including a maternity hospital in Aleppo and killed scores of people. The moderate attack on hospitals was probably never reported in the western media.
But what resulted in the helo being shot down? Altitude, navigation error, engine problem?
The terrorists have launched their biggest offensive in South Aleppo after the motivational speech of Saudi commander of the Jaish al Fateh alliance in Syria and the reward of 72 virgins in heaven. Video below. Expects 10s if not 100s of suicide bombers in this assault.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDQNE3Z-MO0
https://twitter.com/walid970721/status/759571403209224193 (video with English subtitle. Enjoy)
Terrorists have also been burning tyres to mask their movements from the Russian and Syrian airforces, probably after 3 convoys of Jihadi’s were reportedly destroyed by VKS/SyAAF on their way to South Aleppo.
But how much does this kind of smoke screen obstruct the aircraft from indentifying its targets??
Also, what is the best option for VKS in such an area to stop these maniacs, cluster bombing or shower OFABs from Tu-22M3 and Tu-160?
^^ Its really hard to look at Mi-28 now, the nose has completely taken out that brute looks. 🙁
And some photos from Aviastar, also courtesy of UAC website:
For a moment I mistook it to be an IL-112V. An-124 fuselage looks smaller in this view.
^^ Full Report linked starts pg 54
Thanks for the link, there are stuffs that needs to be dug deeper, unfortunately as usual the data/info in the report are incomplete to get a complete picture and these guys never put the complete details in their reports.
Quoting and noting few things I found interesting…
Regarding the engine “failures”…
Audit observed (December 2014) that as of September 2014, a total of 65 engines (42 with 21 aircraft and 23 spare) had been accepted. However, since induction in February 2010, 40 engines (representing 62 per cent of 65 engines) had been withdrawn from service/rejected due to design related defects/deficiencies. The issue had serious flight safety implications, since in-flight engine defects had led to ten cases of single engine landings.
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.
In response to audit query about status of repairs on engines withdrawn, the 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.
So what were those 17 modifications recommend by the OEM? No details provided and no one seems interested.
But considering that they have postponed 13 of the 17 modifications to be implemented to the first overhaul tells us
– engines were back on duty after the implementation of those 4 modification/solutions.
– the “problems” are not hindering the flight/engine operation
– those engines are being operated as we speak, logging flight hours for their first overhaul
We had earlier seen some engine issues with the Su-30MKI which was related to engine oil and stuffs like that in the Indian climate. Since the CAG report is incomplete on data we don’t know for sure what its for the RD-33MK.
“Failure of airframe parts during deck operations” – Still, the report, not once, specify which part was it or anything regarding what was the failure and where it was.
This report, which are basically meant for civilian babus, is good enough only for those civilian mofos eagerly awaiting to bark on aircrafts that doesn’t come from their preferred suppliers and who is not eager to know any further. For those really interested in understanding what the problem really is, there is nothing much other than an outline.
“Delay in build-up of aircraft” – This is the part that we saw the Janes pulled out to give that earlier report of how the a/c was suffering/suffered due to components supplied from outside of Russia; breakdown of relations with Ukraine and sanctions on Russia. But we still do not for certain know what (all) parts/components are still coming from outside of Russia which have played a part in this aircraft build-up.
The guys are not short of sense of humour… They think aircrafts are McDonalds burger with an expiry date/time.
As per Clause 16 of the Option Clause contract (March 2010), post delivery of aircraft, the Russian Warranty Team (RWT) has to assemble/build up the aircraft and offer to the Navy for technical acceptance.
Audit scrutiny revealed:
The service life of the aircraft is 6000 hrs or 25 calendar years whichever is earlier, as seen from the Option clause contract (March 2010).Out of 19 aircraft delivered up to November 2015, 12 had been built up, with time taken for build up ranging from two months to fifteen months.
The contract did not stipulate any timeframe for completion of build up/assembly. Therefore, the delays in build up would reduce the service life, thereby impacting the operational life of the aircraft.
The MiG-29K/KUB availability. KUBs utilisation is hardly surprising coz these were not aircrafts which were augmenting an operational squadron but rather a new squadron was being formed with new pilots and conversion.
I have translated the earlier data into availability per month and year. If any smartarse finds the chart to be incomplete, it’s coz the CAG report/data is incomplete!
The CAG report even though criticized the MiG-29K simulator for sub optimal utilization it doesn’t mention how many hours its been used or no details. Btw, the full-mission flight simulator was from Rheinmetall Defence Electronics, Germany, and was delivered in 2008.
Sub-optimal utilisation of Full Mission Simulator
The Full Mission Simulator (FMS) costing 183.16 crore, is a major training aid of the MiG29K and is designed for the ground training of a pilot. The MiG29K Simulator facility had been commissioned at INS Hansa, Goa in May 2013. The MiG29K training squadron has been earmarked at Goa, the squadron however had not been fully operationalised as of
September 2015.Audit scrutiny (August 2014) of records showed that:
The simulator remained unserviceable (July 2014) due to defects in three out of nine visual channels and was being used for training for basic flying profile akin to a procedure trainer.As per the protocol of the 16th Indo-Russian Inter Governmental Commission – Military Technical Cooperation (IRIGSC-MTC) (September 2014), un-serviceability of the simulator had prevented its optimum utilization for training of IN pilots.
In reply to an audit query, Directorate of Aviation Projects Management (DAPM) admitted (December 2014) that the simulator was assessed to be unsuitable for Carrier Qualification (CQ) simulator training for pilots, as the visuals did not support the profile which required high accuracy and fidelity. As of 31st July 2015, the OEM was still in the process of
software
Sign In
