Flanker Export Thread

[the road runner]

I would have thought with SU-27/30 being built in reasonable numbers they would have had a big spare parts inventory.When you look at the USA they have gone down the heavy weight(F-22) and light weight(JSF) fighter route for their future force.(F-15/16 mix in the past)

Russia i assume would go down the PAK-FA route and reports of MIG designing a light weight fighter that uses the same engine /avionics as the PAK-FA seems like the right way to go into the future.I assume money to develop a future light weight fighter may be an issue.

Seems India/Russia do fly a huge number of different fast jets.I would think,with defence budgets shrinking,reality will have to kick in,causing them to consolidate on a lower number of air craft.

 

[StobieWan]

Here's a really chest beating INDIA RULES article on Indian air to air prowess. With one really telling quote

Analysis

"The major problem for the Russians was not the aircraft per se. It was an excellent aircraft with a practically next to nothing learning curve for integration with the existing IAF systems. After all India was the first non-Warsaw Pact country to have been offered the MiG-29. The aircraft had everything going for it, except spare parts, engine overhaul cycles and lifecycle costs."

I keep hearing it over and over, and the SU-30 really suffers in terms of spares inventory and the attitude of the manufacturer towards both deep maintenance and exchange terms. Your engine is bust? Ship it back to base, *then* we'll send the replacement out.

 

[swerve]

they've always tried to keep their oar in the water (a bit like the Malay philosophy on disparate procurement) but the trend to move away from tradtional russian supply started changing 5 years ago, Its slowly been gathering momentum to shift the traditonal IAF force dev model from russian FWCA to more euro/western

Unfort for the IDF thats also making the exchequer still cranky as part of Indias problem has been about a jumbled orbat - and the support costs to maintain that orbat with diff supply trains and in real terms a lot of orphaned platform support will just makes things harder.

if you're going to run multiple platforms in the FWCA role you really either need to demonstrate a compelling overall need or you need to revisit how you want to do business. Their logistics tail and availability would be killing them in peacetime - let alone having to go to war under the same support contract handcuffs

Indeed, indeed.

As I see it (but I'm no expert: this is an amateur with a mild interest summing up what he thinks he's picked up from open sources), the problems are political, in the broadest sense. There are long-standing industrial & personal relationships influencing the Indian forces (not just the IAF) towards Russia.

At the same time, there's a lobby in favour of local development, which has considerable influence over politicians because it goes down well with supporters, & the Indian state bodies which get the contracts have a lot of pull.

But procurement of locally-developed systems is hindered by the favour shown foreign suppliers by those responsible for making selections. This is perhaps not entirely unconnected to the all expenses paid foreign trips which are part of any selection of anything foreign, but may also be linked to the lack of incentive for indigenous state design bodies to turn ideas into useful weapons, since they get paid - & keep their jobs - whether or not the thing is bought.

And then there's the lack of incentive for the forces to worry about operating costs. They struggle to spend their budgeted money anyway, because procurement is such a mess.

 

[Bonza]

That quote of Yours is totaly taken out of context and you know it..
I was responding to another member here.

I was talking about the manner in which you were speaking - not the sentiment or the context of the opinion, but the manner in which you expressed it. You've been here long enough to know the difference.

 

[Ananda]

For new or non traditional Rusian market like Indonesia and Malaysia, it is not a secret that they have found maintanance and support for Rusian hardware is more costly and the problem for after sales service is still hanging around.

Both Indonesia and Malaysia has been talking with China for potential sources for maintenance and support for their Flankers (some talk with India also being done on the matter), but they also fully aware that not all maintenance and parts can be source alternatively from either China or India.

The headache of maintaining Russian hardware already surfaced from time to time. The latest is the cost for maintenance Mi-17 and Mi-35 that has to be done in Russia altogether, compared the western hardware that many of the maintenance jobs already can be done locally. For fairness, the local Indonesian aircraft maintenance facilities were geared up for Western hardwares. Russian it self from what I see, already awared of this, but (for the case of Indonesia for example) already stated that establishing Rusian aircraft maintenance depo can be done 'if' Indonesia agreed for more Rusian hardware procurement.

However despite of that, new procurement with Russia still being talked, and the Indonesian AF planners still see potential at least 2nd or even 3rd Flankers sq in thefuture. The reasons simply politics. The politicians and some of the Generals arefully aware the political risk on solely relly on western hardwares. The balanced sourcing is the name of the game. Whether this will end up with Russian hardware portion will be higher than western ones, well highly doubt that. For Flankers for example, the portion of Flankers relative to F-16 in the end will be 2 F-16 vs 1 Flankers at the best (many local analyst believe 3:1).

The point is, Russian see that their placed on the market will continue safed due to Political consideration. I do believe they fully awared the problem of their after salesalready made them lossing ground in the traditional market and hindered growth on new market. For that they have secured places on the new and traditional market, despite the problem for their after sales, simply because those market will want to maintained balanced sourcing of western vs non western sources.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I would have thought with SU-27/30 being built in reasonable numbers they would have had a big spare parts inventory.When you look at the USA they have gone down the heavy weight(F-22) and light weight(JSF) fighter route for their future force.(F-15/16 mix in the past)

Russia i assume would go down the PAK-FA route and reports of MIG designing a light weight fighter that uses the same engine /avionics as the PAK-FA seems like the right way to go into the future.I assume money to develop a future light weight fighter may be an issue.

Seems India/Russia do fly a huge number of different fast jets.I would think,with defence budgets shrinking,reality will have to kick in,causing them to consolidate on a lower number of air craft.

Its a damn shame as its not as if the platforms are incapable etc... but the support and maint contracts are just awful

there are other people on here who have worked with them on maritime projects and it wasn't a pleasant experience.

for a very small change in business culture they could reap a lot of benefit, but sadly they seem to be fixed in their ways. For the life of me I just don't understand the attitude, it vacillates from arrogance to indifference. Its a bit of a throwback to Henry Ford type philosophy. and completely opposite to (eg) the french philosophy/

More than once I've had engineering discussions with israeli, US engineers who would like to inject different work practices and known more useful western gear in place.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I keep hearing it over and over, and the SU-30 really suffers in terms of spares inventory and the attitude of the manufacturer towards both deep maintenance and exchange terms. Your engine is bust? Ship it back to base, *then* we'll send the replacement out.

When I was contracting services (prior to coming back to Aust) we had clients who wanted russian gear (usually ex warpac) but couldn't get decent support contracts.

with some platforms we used to buy 20% more than the initial contracted hardware requirement just so that we had spare frames we could cannibalise. in fact for some platforms we would source from chinese suppliers as we "knew" that they had copied them for their own fleets - and often they were of better quality than the original gear.

The chinese aren't silly, they've been going to countries using russian kit and have offered to support and sustain their fleets under western standards (max 48 hr parts turn around), no return to base issues, and no tech transfer restrictions

 

[Feanor]

Its a damn shame as its not as if the platforms are incapable etc... but the support and maint contracts are just awful

there are other people on here who have worked with them on maritime projects and it wasn't a pleasant experience.

for a very small change in business culture they could reap a lot of benefit, but sadly they seem to be fixed in their ways. For the life of me I just don't understand the attitude, it vacillates from arrogance to indifference. Its a bit of a throwback to Henry Ford type philosophy. and completely opposite to (eg) the french philosophy/

More than once I've had engineering discussions with israeli, US engineers who would like to inject different work practices and known more useful western gear in place.

To be honest as far as work practice/work culture Sukhoi is far better then the rest of Russian aerospace. They have made their success by adapting (to some extent) to more western-like business approach. So if you think Sukhoi is bad, the rest are downright atrocious.

 

[gf0012-aust]

To be honest as far as work practice/work culture Sukhoi is far better then the rest of Russian aerospace. They have made their success by adapting (to some extent) to more western-like business approach. So if you think Sukhoi is bad, the rest are downright atrocious.

I just don't get the back to base philosophy on a platform that the indians could more than easily support on their own. They are far from, being an incompetent outfit despite some of the legacy military and societal class embuggerances.

eg in 2000 the company I was contracted to was guaranteeing complete engine replacement parts at the clients location within 48hrs - anywhere in the world where that platform was inop. After 48hrs we would guarantee drivetrain sitting at the nearest port or airport and the labour costs to extract the old and install the new were to be treated as a company expense so as to not burden the customer

the reality was that we strategically placed product at various points around the world to insure our chances against non delivery within the timeframe - and the cost to do so had been factored into the original contract

customers will pay more and above the nominal line if you can give strong and robust commitments and you get them their gear ahead of time. Its not a new concept and the russians have been embracing capitalist concepts of maximising profit since 1990

the chinese could teach them a thing or two and they've made the journey from a far less competent baseline

look at the poles and czechs, they've made a close to spectacular transition from warpac economies to being competitive in their own right. eg we could get polish aviation companies to mod and upgrade Mil 8's and Mil 17's for almost half od what russian companies were charging and in 2/3rds delivery time with tight guarantees

the russians could get into some markets a whole lot further and faster by just getting on with the basics

 

[Feanor]

I just don't get the back to base philosophy on a platform that the indians could more than easily support on their own. They are far from, being an incompetent outfit despite some of the legacy military and societal class embuggerances.

eg in 2000 the company I was contracted to was guaranteeing complete engine replacement parts at the clients location within 48hrs - anywhere in the world where that platform was inop. After 48hrs we would guarantee drivetrain sitting at the nearest port or airport and the labour costs to extract the old and install the new were to be treated as a company expense so as to not burden the customer

the reality was that we strategically placed product at various points around the world to insure our chances against non delivery within the timeframe - and the cost to do so had been factored into the original contract

customers will pay more and above the nominal line if you can give strong and robust commitments and you get them their gear ahead of time. Its not a new concept and the russians have been embracing capitalist concepts of maximising profit since 1990

the chinese could teach them a thing or two and they've made the journey from a far less competent baseline

look at the poles and czechs, they've made a close to spectacular transition from warpac economies to being competitive in their own right. eg we could get polish aviation companies to mod and upgrade Mil 8's and Mil 17's for almost half od what russian companies were charging and in 2/3rds delivery time with tight guarantees

the russians could get into some markets a whole lot further and faster by just getting on with the basics

Those aren't quite basics for companies that aren't really companies. As far as time frames, Sukhoi has set up a number of support centers around the world. Supposedly there was one in Venezuela, but it didn't prevent the problems with the Venezuelan Flankers. Which is why I'm not sure that it is indeed just an availability of spares. There are many cases in Russia where the production capacity is there, the financing is there, and the personnel are there, none the less a project doesn't get completed on time. Sometimes the reasons border on idiocy. But the problems run quite deep, and the entities in question aren't really private enterprises operating in a free market which makes directly adopting Western experience quite difficult. Not that Sukhoi hasn't tried.

As for the Poles specifically, they haven't exactly done well with their Mi-8 work. It's no accident the US turned to Russia for Iraq and Afghan helo contracts after iirc (correct me if I'm wrong) the Polish didn't deliver on time. And look at the mess with Polish W-3 helos in the Philippines. And look at the problems the Poles are having with domestic MiG-29 work. It's not smooth sailing there either. Poland is integrated with NATO, has greater access to Western tech, and doesn't have tens of billions in domestic spending to prop up their enterprises so they've taken a bigger hit, but what's left has moved forward quicker. Remember there was a time when Poland mass-produced helos, airplanes, tanks, and blue water warships. So compared to that, what's left isn't exactly impressive.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Those aren't quite basics for companies that aren't really companies.

no, they are standard support contracts for mil hardware. if you can't do 48hr turnaround you won't even get considered. we aimed for 24hrs so as to make a visible contract difference

As for the Poles specifically, they haven't exactly done well with their Mi-8 work. It's no accident the US turned to Russia for Iraq and Afghan helo contracts after iirc (correct me if I'm wrong) the Polish didn't deliver on time. And look at the mess with Polish W-3 helos in the Philippines. And look at the problems the Poles are having with domestic MiG-29 work. It's not smooth sailing there either. Poland is integrated with NATO, has greater access to Western tech, and doesn't have tens of billions in domestic spending to prop up their enterprises so they've taken a bigger hit, but what's left has moved forward quicker. Remember there was a time when Poland mass-produced helos, airplanes, tanks, and blue water warships. So compared to that, what's left isn't exactly impressive.

couple of things, everything the poles did for us helo, refurb and armoured vehicles was on time and on spec - and we bought about 80 rotary platforms on behalf of various customers (acting as brokers). They were doing LO UAS about 5 years ahead of the Russians (tested them in Aust and in the US)

btw, we were contracted to the polish govt to assist in the sell off of state assets. There were some clear bargains to be had, companies that would have sold for $80-100m in the west went for $5m - and they had some exceptional engineers. At a ballistics level they and the czechs can hold their own against long established weapons and ballistics "specialists"

When I needed compound armour and polycarb solutions I would go straight to polish contacts. On time, on budget and "properly" certified for insurance purposes. They can do complex polycarb solutions that quite frankly put some of the more established players to shame.

All of our German suppliers had polish sub contractors -and the Germans are incredibly anal when it comes to engineering compliance

 

[Feanor]

no, they are standard support contracts for mil hardware. if you can't do 48hr turnaround you won't even get considered. we aimed for 24hrs so as to make a visible contract difference

Sure, but these 'companies' do not follow and are not held to the same standard domestically. Remember a lot of them are state run enterprises that produce military hardware for state ministries, based on prices negotiated by yet another state agency. The result is that a lot of their inefficiency simply gets absorbed by the customer (having no choice or say). There have been plenty of attempts to fight it out on both sides, but ultimately the government came down on the side of the industry in price and timeline disputes.

couple of things, everything the poles did for us helo, refurb and armoured vehicles was on time and on spec - and we bought about 80 rotary platforms on behalf of various customers (acting as brokers). They were doing LO UAS about 5 years ahead of the Russians (tested them in Aust and in the US)

btw, we were contracted to the polish govt to assist in the sell off of state assets. There were some clear bargains to be had, companies that would have sold for $80-100m in the west went for $5m - and they had some exceptional engineers. At a ballistics level they and the czechs can hold their own against long established weapons and ballistics "specialists"

When I needed compound armour and polycarb solutions I would go straight to polish contacts. On time, on budget and "properly" certified for insurance purposes. They can do complex polycarb solutions that quite frankly put some of the more established players to shame.

All of our German suppliers had polish sub contractors -and the Germans are incredibly anal when it comes to engineering compliance

Well that's good to hear. It means there is hope for Russia too in this department. There are companies in Russia that too have performed better then others (Zaschita Corp. comes to mind). But overall the situation with Russian defense sector entities isn't great. Even the solid performers like UVZ and Sukhoi have had their share of problems. The rest are even worse.

Sell off of state enterprises at silly prices is a long established tradition, in Eastern European privatization.

 

[StobieWan]

I did (half jokingly) say BAE should have bought Sukhoi ages back, stuck a western management team in place, told the designers "Just keep doing what you're doing" and worked from there. Cor..just imagine (insert some other company name if you hate BAE of course)

Sukhoi could probably have been picked up for a song a while back.

 

[Feanor]

I did (half jokingly) say BAE should have bought Sukhoi ages back, stuck a western management team in place, told the designers "Just keep doing what you're doing" and worked from there. Cor..just imagine (insert some other company name if you hate BAE of course)

Sukhoi could probably have been picked up for a song a while back.

Actually, I doubt it. There were some fairly strict limits on the ability of anyone to invest into what were deemed strategic enterprises, until very recently. It's part of the reason why most of the defense sector never really privatized. And the parts that were privatized haven't done that well. Sukhoi specifically picked up the Chinese Flanker deal fairly early on, so I'm not sure how cheap it would have been (purely hypothetically). Given the nature of operating inside of Russia (from smoothing your way with bribes, to dealing with government oversight agencies through a network of personal connections) I'm not sure how well a company run by western management would do in Russia.

 

[StobieWan]

I'm sure you're right - I just wish the Russians would make the cultural leap towards a more realistic approach to sales/aftersales.

 

[Feanor]

I'm sure you're right - I just wish the Russians would make the cultural leap towards a more realistic approach to sales/aftersales.

I think that, given some time, Russia will improve the post-sale support considerably. I don't think Russian post-sale support will even be comparable, never mind on par with, Western post-sale support. Nor is post-sale support one of the ways Russia gets customers.

Look at the experience with the OAO Oboronservis for domestic post-sale support. It's been fairly problematic, and it was backed by considerable political power and administrative resource. I.e. the defense establishment was forced to work with the new way of maintaining and repairing military equipment. However it still hasn't become a permanent addition, it's future is in question. And corruption is rife.

EDIT: Case in point. South Korea has been using Ka-32 helos for nearly 20 years. Only now is Kamov setting up a maintenance and service center in South Korea. They might be doing so in hopes of selling more helos there, since the Ka-32 has reportedly performed well, there were some rumors of additional sales being negotiated, but nothing concrete.

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/46072/

 

[alexkvaskov]

I assume Russian defence contractors are equally bad at maintaining gear for their own MoD as they are foreign customers..

 

[gf0012-aust]

I assume Russian defence contractors are equally bad at maintaining gear for their own MoD as they are foreign customers..

There were lots of interviews and debriefs done post cold war with both sov/russian and warpac maintainers.

some of those maintainers said that in some exercises they were lucky to get 40% availability. it was apparently worse a decade later

I interviewed ground crew who said that it was not unsual to fudge the records to state aircraft available which weren't and often there were fuel delivery issues - esp alcohol based products

The last ex russian maintainer I interviewed was 2004

 

[StobieWan]

Fudging records isn't new - I was watching an interview with some Vietnam era Ace (think it was Olds) and apparently the Thud's were all on scheduled maintenance on a tail number basis and hell was unleashed if the aircraft wasn't available and sent Stateside for deep maint. The problem was trying to work around this with aircraft that were downed elsewhere for maintenance or tasked for strike, being repaired from battle damage..solution..repaint the required tail number onto a bird that *was* available.

 

[Feanor]

I assume Russian defence contractors are equally bad at maintaining gear for their own MoD as they are foreign customers..

It's improved lately. But it's still bad. So bad that they essentially maintain a small percentage of equipment, and only use that small percentage for training, while the rest of the vehicles/aircraft sit in hangars/garages until some or other large scale exercise crops up. The whole practice of having UBGs is testament to problems in that department. As of right now most of that equipment is operational, and a lot of it is new/upgraded.

Though in some cases the new system has helped a lot. There were issues with tank engine maintenance. The T-90 tank engines apparently have lower time between maintenance then originally intended. However as per the new system of support, there is a life-time support contract, which means that if engines go down more often, UVZ repairs them more often. At the first glance you'd think this means that the manufacturer eats the cost of their bad engines. However they built the cost of excessive maintenance into the contract. In other words the MoD overpaid to cover this.