India-Report que justifica a decisao da compra do SU-30K
Moderadores: Glauber Prestes, Conselho de Moderação
- soultrain
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 12154
- Registrado em: Dom Jun 19, 2005 7:39 pm
- Localização: Almada- Portugal
India-Report que justifica a decisao da compra do SU-30K
http://164.100.24.208/ls/committeeR/PAC ... eport.html
"The Committee were informed that Mirage-2000 and Mirage – 2000-5 were the other two multi-role aircraft compared for technical and cost parameters with SU-30 MKI aircraft in the effort to decide upon the procurement of multi-role combat aircraft for IAF. On being asked about the distinct advantage that weighed in favour of SU-30K aircraft as compared to Mirage-2000/Mirage-2000-5, the Ministry in a note submitted that a Committee headed by Dr Abdul Kalam (then SA to RM) had conclusively brought out that SU-30MKI aircraft was superior in aerodynamic performance and had a better mission capability, to the other contestants. It was added that the costs, including life cycle costs, as per the evaluation carried out in December 1995 were also considerably lesser for SU-30MKI compared to Mirage-2000 and Mirage 2000-5 aircraft. It is seen from the summary report on `comparison of multi-role aircraft’ that the cost of Mirage 2000 and Mirage 2005 was non-negotiated costs. The cost parameters like unit fly away cost, acquisition cost and operation and support cost were estimated on the basis of available information with IAF. Air HQrs then indicated that correct and detailed estimation of Life cycle cost was not be possible at that stage for a new acquisition as all the details were not available."
"The Committee were informed that Mirage-2000 and Mirage – 2000-5 were the other two multi-role aircraft compared for technical and cost parameters with SU-30 MKI aircraft in the effort to decide upon the procurement of multi-role combat aircraft for IAF. On being asked about the distinct advantage that weighed in favour of SU-30K aircraft as compared to Mirage-2000/Mirage-2000-5, the Ministry in a note submitted that a Committee headed by Dr Abdul Kalam (then SA to RM) had conclusively brought out that SU-30MKI aircraft was superior in aerodynamic performance and had a better mission capability, to the other contestants. It was added that the costs, including life cycle costs, as per the evaluation carried out in December 1995 were also considerably lesser for SU-30MKI compared to Mirage-2000 and Mirage 2000-5 aircraft. It is seen from the summary report on `comparison of multi-role aircraft’ that the cost of Mirage 2000 and Mirage 2005 was non-negotiated costs. The cost parameters like unit fly away cost, acquisition cost and operation and support cost were estimated on the basis of available information with IAF. Air HQrs then indicated that correct and detailed estimation of Life cycle cost was not be possible at that stage for a new acquisition as all the details were not available."
- soultrain
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 12154
- Registrado em: Dom Jun 19, 2005 7:39 pm
- Localização: Almada- Portugal
Copiem tudo, pois nao sei quanto tempo mais estará on-line.
Mais uma parte:
"Certain features of the aircraft were found undesirable primarily from systems performance point of view. The Electronic warfare systems were found unsuitable to meet the Indian threat environment. Besides, the technology offered was most outdated. The pilot displays were found inadequate to meet the multi-role demands on the aircrew. The Radar performance was below expectation, and its maintainability was found to be poor. The navigation system severely lacked in accuracy, very limited capability existed for accurate weapon delivery and weapon systems controls were poorly integrated.
Although the aircraft is capable of a large weapon load, the air to ground armament did not include any precision guided munitions. This was considered a serious drawback.
Considering the large size and range of the aircraft, it was difficult for the aircraft to survive against the threat of modern air defence weapon systems unless its avionics, radar and electronic warfare systems were upgraded and well integrated.
3.2. While submitting their recommendations for acquisition of SU-30K aircraft, the evaluation team inter-alia pointed out that the existing configuration of the aircraft was unsuitable to meet the operational requirements of the IAF. According to them, certain minimum and mandatory changes in terms of incorporation of state-of-the-art avionics were needed to improve operational capability of the aircraft.
3.3. The manufacturer in a working protocol signed in June 1994 offered to fully upgrade and operationalise the multi-role variant, designated as SU-30 MKI jointly with India."
Mais uma parte:
"Certain features of the aircraft were found undesirable primarily from systems performance point of view. The Electronic warfare systems were found unsuitable to meet the Indian threat environment. Besides, the technology offered was most outdated. The pilot displays were found inadequate to meet the multi-role demands on the aircrew. The Radar performance was below expectation, and its maintainability was found to be poor. The navigation system severely lacked in accuracy, very limited capability existed for accurate weapon delivery and weapon systems controls were poorly integrated.
Although the aircraft is capable of a large weapon load, the air to ground armament did not include any precision guided munitions. This was considered a serious drawback.
Considering the large size and range of the aircraft, it was difficult for the aircraft to survive against the threat of modern air defence weapon systems unless its avionics, radar and electronic warfare systems were upgraded and well integrated.
3.2. While submitting their recommendations for acquisition of SU-30K aircraft, the evaluation team inter-alia pointed out that the existing configuration of the aircraft was unsuitable to meet the operational requirements of the IAF. According to them, certain minimum and mandatory changes in terms of incorporation of state-of-the-art avionics were needed to improve operational capability of the aircraft.
3.3. The manufacturer in a working protocol signed in June 1994 offered to fully upgrade and operationalise the multi-role variant, designated as SU-30 MKI jointly with India."
- Plinio Jr
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 5278
- Registrado em: Qui Fev 20, 2003 10:08 pm
- Localização: São Paulo - SP
- Agradeceram: 1 vez
Vamos por partes:
- Os Mirages 2000H em operação com os hindus foram adquiridos há quase 20 anos e claro, em outras condições comerciais e logisticas, sendo os Su-30K e Su-30MKI e seus acordos comerciais e logisticos igualmente recentes, nem precisa dizer do porque estes últimos são mais baratos de operar.
- Se os Mirages 2000-5 fossem tão caros como dizem, nao estariam nesta eterna novela para aquisição de exemplares da FA do Qatar, ou muito menos te-lo colocado na licitação de 126 aeronaves que ocorre no momento, se o Su-30 é tão barato como dizem, seria mais pratico fazer novas aquisições do mesmo e padronizava a sua frota de combate.
- Os hindus não são bestas, investiram altas somas no programa Su-30, jamais virão á público, alegar qualquer tipo de problema que possa trazer críticas da opinão pública que possa comprometer estas aquisições...
- Os Mirages 2000H em operação com os hindus foram adquiridos há quase 20 anos e claro, em outras condições comerciais e logisticas, sendo os Su-30K e Su-30MKI e seus acordos comerciais e logisticos igualmente recentes, nem precisa dizer do porque estes últimos são mais baratos de operar.
- Se os Mirages 2000-5 fossem tão caros como dizem, nao estariam nesta eterna novela para aquisição de exemplares da FA do Qatar, ou muito menos te-lo colocado na licitação de 126 aeronaves que ocorre no momento, se o Su-30 é tão barato como dizem, seria mais pratico fazer novas aquisições do mesmo e padronizava a sua frota de combate.
- Os hindus não são bestas, investiram altas somas no programa Su-30, jamais virão á público, alegar qualquer tipo de problema que possa trazer críticas da opinão pública que possa comprometer estas aquisições...
¨Os políticos e as fraldas devem ser mudados frequentemente e pela mesma razão ¨- Eça de Queiroz
-
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 7163
- Registrado em: Sex Out 07, 2005 8:20 pm
- Localização: Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Me parece que o relatório apresenta uma penca de problemas encontrados na compra no Su-30 e que a alegada vantagem de custo operacional favorável ao SU-30 estava baseada em informações não conclusivas:
Em casa leio com mais calma.
[]'s
The cost parameters like unit fly away cost, acquisition cost and operation and support cost were estimated on the basis of available information with IAF. Air HQrs then indicated that correct and detailed estimation of Life cycle cost was not be possible at that stage for a new acquisition as all the details were not available.
Em casa leio com mais calma.
[]'s
Editado pela última vez por AlbertoRJ em Qui Dez 07, 2006 1:16 pm, em um total de 1 vez.
Alberto -
Projeto, este "problemas" ocorreram porque os indianos queriam um SU-MK "tunado" ao gosto deles, feitas estas modificações por eles e com equipamento deles. Daí, quando chegou a hora de integrar as partes pelas quais eram responsáveis a coisa começou a emperrar. Isso já é sabido há muito. Por estas e por outras, os russos agora oferecem seus aviões com as opções de material ocidental ou deles integradas por eles mesmos, prá não acontecer dos caras se meterem a colocar gambiarra e a coisa babar, daí depois sai na imprensa "isenta" que deu problema porque é russo e tal. Já se sabe que os russos começaram a vetar certos programas de modernização piratas existentes no mercado para seus aviões, já que tais programas representam mais problemas que soluções. É o caso das cópias dos AK-47, mal comparando. Um país qualquer começa a fazer uma cópia destas sem qualidade alguma, mas na hora que entre no mercado, é um AK-47, ou seja, russo. Daí queima o filme deles, entendeu? Então? Com os aviões eles agora oferecem pacotes e integrações com todas as garantias de fábricas, original, nada de pacote do Paraguai com "La garantia soy jo!".
- Penguin
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 18983
- Registrado em: Seg Mai 19, 2003 10:07 pm
- Agradeceu: 5 vezes
- Agradeceram: 374 vezes
10. Poor Product Support
10.1 It is seen from the Audit paragraph that the main SU-30 contract of November 1996 explicitly stipulated the supplier’s responsibilities to deliver to the Government of India upon its request, spare parts and aggregates within the whole calendar service life of SU-30K and SU-30MKI aircraft. However, Audit scrutiny of various procurement cases initiated by Air HQ between January and December 1998 for procurement of spares of SU-30K aircraft disclosed that majority of these cases did not fructify till July 1999. As a result, Air Force had been operating the fleet for the last two years by consuming spares procured at the time of initial induction and no additional procurement of spares had taken place subsequently, which had affected the stock of spares. It has further been pointed out by Audit that Air Force felt an urgent need to finalise the general spares contract with the manufacturer as early as August 1997 to ensure smooth operation and maintenance of eight SU-30K aircraft beyond their warranty period of 12 months i.e. after May 1998 onwards. The general spares contract was, however, signed by the Ministry with the manufacturer only in January 1999. Audit observed that due to poor product support as a result of failure of the manufacturer to supply the spares already contracted for in the main contract, the average serviceability of the fleet, which was 69 per cent during 1997-98 deteriorated to 62 per cent during 1998-99.
Isso deve deixar muito brigadeiro da FAB preocupado
10.2 The Committee enquired the reasons for poor product support by the manufacturer despite the fact that relevant provisions existed in the main contract earmarking the responsibility of the manufacturer. According to the Ministry, the procurement of spares contract could not fructify in 1998 and 1999 due to the fact that the prices quoted by the manufacturer was inconsistent and abnormally high, (500 per cent in certain items) which resulted in delay in finalising the general spares contract. It was also stated that the general contract (commercial terms) for supply of spares was heavily in favour of the manufacturer and the same had expired in February 1998.
Os russos devem ter aprendido com os franceses...
Outra:
3. Evaluation and selection of the aircraft
(...) The evaluation report inter-alia brought out the following shortcomings in the aircraft:
- Certain features of the aircraft were found undesirable primarily from systems performance point of view. The Electronic warfare systems were found unsuitable to meet the Indian threat environment. Besides, the technology offered was most outdated. The pilot displays were found inadequate to meet the multi-role demands on the aircrew. The Radar performance was below expectation, and its maintainability was found to be poor. The navigation system severely lacked in accuracy, very limited capability existed for accurate weapon delivery and weapon systems controls were poorly integrated.
- Although the aircraft is capable of a large weapon load, the air to ground armament did not include any precision guided munitions. This was considered a serious drawback.
- Considering the large size and range of the aircraft, it was difficult for the aircraft to survive against the threat of modern air defence weapon systems unless its avionics, radar and electronic warfare systems were upgraded and well integrated.
Ou seja, os Indianos tiveram que recorrer a fontes ocidentais (francesas e isralelenses) e locais para sanar essas deficiencias.
10.1 It is seen from the Audit paragraph that the main SU-30 contract of November 1996 explicitly stipulated the supplier’s responsibilities to deliver to the Government of India upon its request, spare parts and aggregates within the whole calendar service life of SU-30K and SU-30MKI aircraft. However, Audit scrutiny of various procurement cases initiated by Air HQ between January and December 1998 for procurement of spares of SU-30K aircraft disclosed that majority of these cases did not fructify till July 1999. As a result, Air Force had been operating the fleet for the last two years by consuming spares procured at the time of initial induction and no additional procurement of spares had taken place subsequently, which had affected the stock of spares. It has further been pointed out by Audit that Air Force felt an urgent need to finalise the general spares contract with the manufacturer as early as August 1997 to ensure smooth operation and maintenance of eight SU-30K aircraft beyond their warranty period of 12 months i.e. after May 1998 onwards. The general spares contract was, however, signed by the Ministry with the manufacturer only in January 1999. Audit observed that due to poor product support as a result of failure of the manufacturer to supply the spares already contracted for in the main contract, the average serviceability of the fleet, which was 69 per cent during 1997-98 deteriorated to 62 per cent during 1998-99.
Isso deve deixar muito brigadeiro da FAB preocupado
10.2 The Committee enquired the reasons for poor product support by the manufacturer despite the fact that relevant provisions existed in the main contract earmarking the responsibility of the manufacturer. According to the Ministry, the procurement of spares contract could not fructify in 1998 and 1999 due to the fact that the prices quoted by the manufacturer was inconsistent and abnormally high, (500 per cent in certain items) which resulted in delay in finalising the general spares contract. It was also stated that the general contract (commercial terms) for supply of spares was heavily in favour of the manufacturer and the same had expired in February 1998.
Os russos devem ter aprendido com os franceses...
Outra:
3. Evaluation and selection of the aircraft
(...) The evaluation report inter-alia brought out the following shortcomings in the aircraft:
- Certain features of the aircraft were found undesirable primarily from systems performance point of view. The Electronic warfare systems were found unsuitable to meet the Indian threat environment. Besides, the technology offered was most outdated. The pilot displays were found inadequate to meet the multi-role demands on the aircrew. The Radar performance was below expectation, and its maintainability was found to be poor. The navigation system severely lacked in accuracy, very limited capability existed for accurate weapon delivery and weapon systems controls were poorly integrated.
- Although the aircraft is capable of a large weapon load, the air to ground armament did not include any precision guided munitions. This was considered a serious drawback.
- Considering the large size and range of the aircraft, it was difficult for the aircraft to survive against the threat of modern air defence weapon systems unless its avionics, radar and electronic warfare systems were upgraded and well integrated.
Ou seja, os Indianos tiveram que recorrer a fontes ocidentais (francesas e isralelenses) e locais para sanar essas deficiencias.
Bem, lá se vão dez anos e este artigo aí fala dos SU-30K e como já falei, obviamente esta versão é obsoleta em termos de equipamentos. Seria como falar de modernidade dos M-2000C, ou do Gripen-A em menor escala. Não vou procurar, mas já foi discutido aqui este artigo e foram colocados aqui desmentidos sobre todas estas questões. Portanto, é mera questão de pesquisar prá quem quiser um esclarecimento.
Sobre recorrer as fontes ocidentais para sanar deficiências, poderia haver aí uma certa interpretação diferente. Há quem diga(e é só pesquisar que acha) que os indianos queriam usar seus equipamentos por questão de independência e incentivo à indústria local, assim como equipamento ocidental por questões de logística.
Hoje, a MIG por exemplo garante em contrato 75% de disponibilidade mínima para o MIG-35, ou seja, é mais do que alguns caças ocidentais oferecem. Mas somos espertos e vamos continuar com os de sempre, e os brigadeiros da FAB realmente devem estar muito preocupados, mas deve ser é com outras coisas.
Sobre recorrer as fontes ocidentais para sanar deficiências, poderia haver aí uma certa interpretação diferente. Há quem diga(e é só pesquisar que acha) que os indianos queriam usar seus equipamentos por questão de independência e incentivo à indústria local, assim como equipamento ocidental por questões de logística.
Hoje, a MIG por exemplo garante em contrato 75% de disponibilidade mínima para o MIG-35, ou seja, é mais do que alguns caças ocidentais oferecem. Mas somos espertos e vamos continuar com os de sempre, e os brigadeiros da FAB realmente devem estar muito preocupados, mas deve ser é com outras coisas.
Editado pela última vez por Carlos Mathias em Qui Dez 07, 2006 12:39 pm, em um total de 2 vezes.
- Penguin
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 18983
- Registrado em: Seg Mai 19, 2003 10:07 pm
- Agradeceu: 5 vezes
- Agradeceram: 374 vezes
Carlos Mathias escreveu:Bem, lá se vão dez anos e este artigo aí fala dos SU-30K e como já falei, obviamente esta versão é obsoleta em termos de equipamentos. Seria como falar de modernidade dos M-200C, ou do Gripen-A em menor escala. Não vou procurar, mas já foi discutido aqui este artigo e foi colocado aqui desmentidos sobre todas estas questões. Portanto, é mera questão de pesquisar prá quem quiser um esclarecimento.
Hoje, a MIG por exemplo garante em contrato 75% de disponibilidade mínima para o MIG-35, ou seja, é mais do que alguns caças ocidentais oferecem. Mas somos espertos e vamos continuar com os de sempre, e os brigadeiros da FAB realmente devem estar muito preocupados, mas deve ser é com outras coisas.
Isso é uma grande verdade
-
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 7163
- Registrado em: Sex Out 07, 2005 8:20 pm
- Localização: Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Carlos Mathias escreveu:Projeto, este "problemas" ocorreram porque os indianos queriam um SU-MK "tunado" ao gosto deles, feitas estas modificações por eles e com equipamento deles. Daí, quando chegou a hora de integrar as partes pelas quais eram responsáveis a coisa começou a emperrar. Isso já é sabido há muito. Por estas e por outras, os russos agora oferecem seus aviões com as opções de material ocidental ou deles integradas por eles mesmos, prá não acontecer dos caras se meterem a colocar gambiarra e a coisa babar, daí depois sai na imprensa "isenta" que deu problema porque é russo e tal. Já se sabe que os russos começaram a vetar certos programas de modernização piratas existentes no mercado para seus aviões, já que tais programas representam mais problemas que soluções. É o caso das cópias dos AK-47, mal comparando. Um país qualquer começa a fazer uma cópia destas sem qualidade alguma, mas na hora que entre no mercado, é um AK-47, ou seja, russo. Daí queima o filme deles, entendeu? Então? Com os aviões eles agora oferecem pacotes e integrações com todas as garantias de fábricas, original, nada de pacote do Paraguai com "La garantia soy jo!".
Carlos, eu entendi que eles tiveram que "tunar" o avião com materiais ocidentais e indianos porque o mesmo não correspondia às espectativas e não atendia aos requisitos operacionais.
Abraços
Alberto -
- Penguin
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 18983
- Registrado em: Seg Mai 19, 2003 10:07 pm
- Agradeceu: 5 vezes
- Agradeceram: 374 vezes
projeto escreveu:Carlos Mathias escreveu:Projeto, este "problemas" ocorreram porque os indianos queriam um SU-MK "tunado" ao gosto deles, feitas estas modificações por eles e com equipamento deles. Daí, quando chegou a hora de integrar as partes pelas quais eram responsáveis a coisa começou a emperrar. Isso já é sabido há muito. Por estas e por outras, os russos agora oferecem seus aviões com as opções de material ocidental ou deles integradas por eles mesmos, prá não acontecer dos caras se meterem a colocar gambiarra e a coisa babar, daí depois sai na imprensa "isenta" que deu problema porque é russo e tal. Já se sabe que os russos começaram a vetar certos programas de modernização piratas existentes no mercado para seus aviões, já que tais programas representam mais problemas que soluções. É o caso das cópias dos AK-47, mal comparando. Um país qualquer começa a fazer uma cópia destas sem qualidade alguma, mas na hora que entre no mercado, é um AK-47, ou seja, russo. Daí queima o filme deles, entendeu? Então? Com os aviões eles agora oferecem pacotes e integrações com todas as garantias de fábricas, original, nada de pacote do Paraguai com "La garantia soy jo!".
Carlos, eu entendi que eles tiveram que "tunar" o avião com materiais ocidentais e indianos porque o mesmo não correspondia às espectativas e não atendia aos requisitos operacionais.
Abraços
Se os russos tivessem naquela época aviônicos que atendessem aos requisitos da IAF, esta não precisaria gastar recursos extra (e tempo, para não falar do risco) com aviônicos franceses e israelenses.
According to Audit Paragraph the main contract concluded with the manufacturer in November 1996 inter-alia provided supply of indigenous/western sub-systems to the manufacturer for integration in order to give true multi-role capability to the aircraft.