Su-30: News and Discussion

joygoswami · Post by **joygoswami** » 17 Dec 2011 08:49

Rambha Fans, Please Do Not Miss This. Its not our MKI, but MKM. Nevertheless, awesome Video. Watch it at 720p .

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 17 Dec 2011 10:12

VikramS wrote:
karan_mc wrote:Pune crash: IAF says Su-30MKI aircraft crashed due to unknown fault
Interesting food for thought regarding FBW. It seems the pilots tried for almost 20 minutes to control the aircraft but were unable to do it to a point where they felt comfortable landing the plane.

Very strange though; these systems typically have a lot of redundant components. Depending on the age of the plane, degradation in the electronics can also cause such problems. Wonder if they have a bypass mode where the FBW system is completely bypassed and the aircraft operates with stick and pedals.

That is not possible with Su-30 and other such modern fighter planes. These planes have - what is commonly referred to as - relaxed stability. Now that is a euphemism for saying it is an unstable plane by design. This is done to improve in flight maneuverability. Hence the FBW is needed to continuously evaluate the state of the aircraft and apply the corrections as needed to fly the aircraft in the manner desired by the pilot. FBW failure will be catastrophic as evidenced by the first Sukhoi crash. There is no way to control the plane with stick & pedal input.

The question is why the FBW failed if it indeed happened in this case. The first time around the pilot accidentally switched it off in lieu of something else and the IAF had taped/wired the switch to prevent such repeats.

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Dec 2011 10:33

krish.pf wrote:...

So it's 40(1996 russia) + 10(1998 russia) + 140(2000 HAL) + 40(2007 russia*) + 42(2011 HAL)
...

18 x Su-30MK-1 (Irkut) - later replaced by MKI (Irkut)
32 x Su-30MKI (Irkut)
10 x Su-30MKI (Irkut)

140 x Su-30MKI (HAL)
40 x Su-30MKI (HAL)
42 x Su-30MKI+ (HAL)
----------------------------
Total: 272 x Su-30MKI
Attrition: 3

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 17 Dec 2011 16:54

srai wrote:
krish.pf wrote:...

So it's 40(1996 russia) + 10(1998 russia) + 140(2000 HAL) + 40(2007 russia*) + 42(2011 HAL)
...
18 x Su-30MK-1 (Irkut) - later replaced by MKI (Irkut)
32 x Su-30MKI (Irkut)
10 x Su-30MKI (Irkut)

140 x Su-30MKI (HAL)
40 x Su-30MKI (HAL)
42 x Su-30MKI+ (HAL)
----------------------------
Total: 272 x Su-30MKI
Attrition: 3

18 x Su-30MK-1 (Irkut) - later replaced by MKI (Irkut)
32 x Su-30MKI (Irkut)
10 x Su-30MKI (Irkut)

140 x Su-30MKI (HAL)
40 x Su-30MKI (HAL)
42 x Su-30MKI+ (HAL)
----------------------------
Total: 272 x Su-30MKI
Attrition: 3
---------------------------
Total: 269 x Su-30MKI
= 14 squadrons

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 17 Dec 2011 20:23

Question: whether forward HAL production will be of Super-30 standard or vanilla MKI onlee?

Rumours of 2 SFC sqns unfortunately remain unconfirmed.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Dec 2011 21:16

We have no known fresh agreement about super-30 or whatever upgrade name they call it with HAL. link?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Dec 2011 21:49

shukla wrote:No need for alarm over crash-Air-marshal bhushan gokhale

Former vice-chief of air staff, Air Marshal (retd) Bhushan Gokhale, said there was no need for alarm bells to start ringing following the crash of the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) Sukhoi-30 MkI fighter jet near Pune on Tuesday.

Expressing concern over the crash, Gokhale said, “Prima facie, the cause for the crash points to problems encountered with the control systems of the aircraft.”

The former IAF vice-chief felt the “technical snag” that the ill-fated aircraft is said to have encountered could point to problems in the control system of the aircraft. The control system comprises the auto pilot mechanism, the fly-by-wire system and other mechanical and electrical systems......

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Dec 2011 22:37

WoW! It is just like our elders saying, it is just an heart pain.. nothing to worry about. go about doing your job.

srai · Post by **srai** » 18 Dec 2011 01:24

saptarishi wrote:
srai wrote:quote="krish.pf"...

So it's 40(1996 russia) + 10(1998 russia) + 140(2000 HAL) + 40(2007 russia*) + 42(2011 HAL)
.../quote

18 x Su-30MK-1 (Irkut) - later replaced by MKI (Irkut)
32 x Su-30MKI (Irkut)
10 x Su-30MKI (Irkut)

140 x Su-30MKI (HAL)
40 x Su-30MKI (HAL)
42 x Su-30MKI+ (HAL)
----------------------------
Total: 272 x Su-30MKI
Attrition: 3
...
----------------------------
Total: 272 x Su-30MKI
Attrition: 3
---------------------------
Total: 269 x Su-30MKI
= 14 squadrons

It remains to be seen what the final number of MKI squadrons IAF will raise. It all depends on what quantity IAF wants for reserves on top of the 16 active MKIs it assigns to a squadron.

Given IAF's desire for 270 MKIs, here is a breakdown of potential number of squadrons and reserves:

At 16 MKIs/squadron + 0 a/c sqdn reserve -> 16 squadrons + 14 a/c reserves fleet-wide
At 16 MKIs/squadron + 1 a/c sqdn reserve-> 15 squadrons + 15 a/c reserves fleet-wide
At 16 MKIs/squadron + 2 a/c sqdn reserves -> 15 squadrons (even)
At 16 MKIs/squadron + 3 a/c sqdn reserves -> 14 squadrons + 4 a/c reserves fleet-wide
At 16 MKIs/squadron + 4 a/c sqdn reserves -> 13 squadrons + 10 a/c reserves fleet-wide

At 18 MKIs/squadron, including squadron reserves, it comes out to a nice even 15 squadrons. IMO, 15 MKI squadrons is what the IAF wants.

munda · Post by **munda** » 18 Dec 2011 03:39

Sukhoi crashes near Pune just before PM's visit and a order for 42 more Shkhois. This might be my stretch of imagination, but the incident deserves through investigation if it was done as part of a planned sabotage. The West is known to penetrate deep into the defense and strategic assets of it "friends" (India), I hope they have not done so already looking at the growing friendship between US and India. And the Shkhoi plane crash is a by-product of that.

I believe if a government doesn't follow what West wants, it'll make its people do what it wants (and its easier to do in a democracy like India). This is how they have used Pakistan.<DELETED>

There were also some news about foreign countries and companies being behind the protests against Kudankulam nuclear power plant. I would like to read other member thoughts on this.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Dec 2011 03:50

SaiK and munda, Yes the IAF will dig deep and for long to figure out what went. The immediate need is to ensure no systemic problems. And that appears done. So lets give them their time. The quick reponse was to have immediate maintenance checks.

One question are the actuators hydraulic? Then add them to the mix.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 18 Dec 2011 04:09

munda wrote:DELETED

Moderators, this statement is disgusting and highly offensive. To cast suspicion on people who risk everything for their country and their service without a shred of evidence is completely unacceptable. Please take appropriate actions.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 18 Dec 2011 04:18

Thank You Jagan. Much appreciated.

munda · Post by **munda** » 18 Dec 2011 04:39

eklavya wrote:
munda wrote:DELETED

Moderators, this statement is disgusting and highly offensive. To cast suspicion on people who risk everything for their country and their service without a shred of evidence is completely unacceptable. Please take appropriate actions.

Look, I appreciate what IAF and Indian armed forces have done for our country. I salute them and will always support till my own last breath.

But its a legitimate point and concern that I raised and which you cannot suppress. Just a few months back there was a case of Gen. Avdhesh in land grabbing scandal in Kolkata, how about that?

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 18 Dec 2011 07:44

munda wrote:
But its a legitimate point and concern that I raised and which you cannot suppress. Just a few months back there was a case of Gen. Avdhesh in land grabbing scandal in Kolkata, how about that?

You can speculate all you want. Irresponsible speculation will end up earning you warnings. Just be aware of that

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Dec 2011 08:04

munda, I think you have been paid by ISI to post garbage about India's armed forces.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 18 Dec 2011 10:53

shiv:

The failure analysis of this is going to be interesting. Depending on the age of the aircraft and its service record, they should be able to pin-point what failed. On one hand if the cause is very trivial (lose connector), it would be reassuring, but a bit disappointing to see very expensive machines fail for very preventable reasons. If it is due to some complex or unexpected failure, the diagnosis and prevention will be harder; but at least we can not blame it to ineptitude. Chose your devil.

marut:

I am not an expert in FBW and unstable systems but I will not be surprised if the pilot can apply the corrective inputs for a mild flight envelope. By a mild flight envelope I mean the envelope of a passenger jetliner: cruising, wide turns, gentle descent. I think the FBW applying correction is perhaps more relevant for more aggressive flying. OTOH, I have heard that in extreme flying where the plane is literally taken out of the realistic flying envelope (Cobra etc.), the pilots do not rely on the FBW.

It would be very odd to have a system which a pilot simply can not control manually by applying some corrective inputs for mild envelopes. Even designing control algorithms would be hard since there is no baseline "quasi-stable" mode to start your design and analysis from.

I find this particular accident intriguing because of the time spent in trying to bring the aircraft under control. Why couldn't the pilots dump fuel, get to bingo level and then attempt a landing knowing that even if it is not perfect the fire risk is negligible? How come they were able to keep the bird afloat for 15 -20 minutes (a very long period for a fighter jet), and guide it to an un-populated area but not attempt a landing. So clearly there it was not that the plane was uncontrollable, but that there was some critical failure which precluded a safe recovery. Was the plane carrying some payload where an abnormal landing was deemed too risky?

I am taking a free online class on Machine Learning (ml-class.org) and discovering outlier conditions which could indicate failures is one of the topics; possibly relevant in the particular situation.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Dec 2011 10:53

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/12/s ... gn-or.html
interesting read..

SUKHOI CRASH: Flaws in Russian design or holes in HAL's quality standards? | Crashed fighter was on a maiden 'air test' after servicing |

“There were problems with the pipeline and looms (electrical harnes). Thirty (30) Sukhois were grounded a few months back due to defects in the assembly done by the Russians. They admitted the mistakes and identified 12 aircraft out of the 30 for rectification,” sources said. The recent crash cost the nation Rs 250-crore.

for the new super sukhois:

Currently India is also holding talks with Russia for the upgradation of the existing fleet. “The plan is to upgrade 100 aircraft. A team is already in Russia and we are sorting out software and radar-related issues,”

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 18 Dec 2011 10:55

munda wrote: But its a legitimate point and concern that I raised and which you cannot suppress. Just a few months back there was a case of Gen. Avdhesh in land grabbing scandal in Kolkata, how about that?

No, it is not a legitimate point of concern. There is not a single piece of evidence to suggest that IAF pilots cause accidents for monetary benefits.

To mention Avdesh in an attempt to legitimise your unfounded speculation is frankly ever more appalling. Every time Sehwag gets a duck, we cannot and do not say "what about Azhar, etc; maybe this is match fixing".

Moderators: this poster is throwing mud at the IAF without any supporting evidence. I don't see why the BR community should tolerate such unprincipled behaviour.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 18 Dec 2011 11:01

SaiK wrote:http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/12/s ... gn-or.html
interesting read..

SUKHOI CRASH: Flaws in Russian design or holes in HAL's quality standards? | Crashed fighter was on a maiden 'air test' after servicing |

Hmm. That points to a human error "lose connector" kind of scenario. While likely to be reassuring that there is nothing fundamentally wrong, it would also point to some broken processes.

I have very little idea of how the processes are structured inside the forces, but I do hope that there is some serious investment being made in having a more structured, trackable flow. IT costs have plummeted and are peanuts compared to the cost of the plane being serviced and getting better control over all the processes would potentially reduce the chance of avoidable errors.

There was an Alaska Airline plane crash involving the loss of the tail control a few years ago. It was pin-pointed to a decision made by some mechanics not to replace a particular part because it was on the border-line. I think it was a large screw which in the control surface. The plane spent quite some time in air after declaring emergency before inverting and plummeting into the ocean. While the cost-consciousness which led to the decision not to replace the part will be an irritant, the fact that the cause could be isolated to a particular part and maintenance guideline was reassuring.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Dec 2011 11:43

^I doubt it would be a lose connector kind of scenario since the task check list should have been ticked off verifying such basic silly negligence if so per your assumption.

well, one can't rule out such negligence by selective attention of focus not the job, rather ticking the check list, then that can cause operational errors. but, the logic never takes up shape, when one considers lose connectors should fail flight health power on self test checks. If that is not present with mki, then why pay millions?

okay, at that the time of take off, I agree it was a tight connection, everything was okay, and then after take off, it becomes lose, and fails. this is plausible. then, it must be the design error of the connectors to allow lose connections. it should be fail safe locks for these connectors then.

bottom: I can't buy this theory.

saps · Post by **saps** » 18 Dec 2011 11:50

[quote="eklavya"][quote="munda"]
But its a legitimate point and concern that I raised and which you cannot suppress. Just a few months back there was a case of Gen. Avdhesh in land grabbing scandal in Kolkata, how about that?[/quote]

No, it is not a legitimate point of concern. There is not a single piece of evidence to suggest that IAF pilots cause accidents for monetary benefits.

To mention Avdesh in an attempt to legitimise your unfounded speculation is frankly ever more appalling. Every time Sehwag gets a duck, we cannot and do not say "what about Azhar, etc; maybe this is match fixing".

Moderators: this poster is throwing mud at the IAF without any supporting evidence. I don't see why the BR community should tolerate such unprincipled behaviour.[/quote]

I absolutely second eklavya, Mr munda how much of idea do you have about fighter flying. I guess in the business when you are likely to dead three times in a day and may be many more considering the high speed close range combat engagements; do you think people are not confident about their wing man / next guy in cockpit.
Highly unlikely, they would be the first to shoot him down in case of any second thoughts or else ensure that the chap never gets any where close to stick or throttle forget about any thing else.
Dont start casting doubt on the integrity of people who are definitely above a whole lot of cut when there are no impeccable precedents about your own sir.

Not to offend anyone but to just say my mind.

Will · Post by **Will** » 18 Dec 2011 15:14

Isnt this the second instance where the pilot lost total control of the aircraft? A previous su30 crash also had something to do with the FBW isnt it. In that instance it was reported that the aircraft just fell out of the sky like a stone.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2011 16:07

Will wrote:Isnt this the second instance where the pilot lost total control of the aircraft? A previous su30 crash also had something to do with the FBW isnt it. In that instance it was reported that the aircraft just fell out of the sky like a stone.

Last time round the pilot inadvertently switched off the FBW controls.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Dec 2011 21:47

And in flight cant switch it on back.

Vikrams, Good thinking. Combine it with the tarmak inputs on servicing. Usually they have a complete systems check after recertification to catch such bugs. This one must be deeper to have manifested in flight.

veerav · Post by **veerav** » 19 Dec 2011 05:25

Last time round the pilot inadvertently switched off the FBW controls.

What is the purpose of this switching in the first instance and under what circumstances the aircraft is expected to be piloted with switch in off position?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Dec 2011 06:23

veerav wrote:
Last time round the pilot inadvertently switched off the FBW controls.
What is the purpose of this switching in the first instance and under what circumstances the aircraft is expected to be piloted with switch in off position?

It is not supposed to be off, but the "off" switch was in a position that could be operated in error.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 103923.cms

..it emerged that one of the pilots had accidentally switched off the FBW system, located behind him in the cockpit, while trying to change the radar mode from one frequency to another.

"It was a combination of pilot error and a design flaw in the FBW system master-switch. Since then, all Sukhois have been modified to add a safety guard to prevent the accidental switching off of the FBW system," he said.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Dec 2011 06:29

I think the question veerav is asking why there is a need for a "NON FBW" flight control?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Dec 2011 06:39

SaiK wrote:I think the question veerav is asking why there is a need for a "NON FBW" flight control?

There is no need for that on the Su 30 AFAIK, but there is a switch to shut down the systems presumably to be done after the flight like shutting down your computer.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Dec 2011 08:39

sounds like a dangerous design issue.. real time systems can't be brought down by any accidental flip of buttons.
?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Dec 2011 08:43

SaiK wrote:sounds like a dangerous design issue.. real time systems can't be brought down by any accidental flip of buttons?

Let's blame Indians for selecting that

Having said that all aircraft can be brought down by a little flip of something or the other.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Dec 2011 08:44

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 19 Dec 2011 12:25

tsarkar wrote:
alexis wrote:I think the total number is 232 and not 272. HAL 2007 order has not been verified.
http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease. ... 5262[quote] contact for procurement of additional 40 SU-30 MKI was signed with M/s HAL in 2007

Page 45 (Page 36 in the document) http://cdasecbad.ap.nic.in/sankalan/COM ... f[quote]In order to arrest the declining force levels of the Indian Air Force (IAF), Ministry concluded a contract with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in March 2007 for the supply of 40 aircraft `M' with associated equipment at an aggregate cost of Rs 9,036.84 crore. The aircraft were to be delivered in a phased manner between 2008-11.[/quote]
How Govt fools people - offset policy applies only when Govt directly purchases. If PSU purchases and re-sells to govt, then offset policy doesnt apply, since anything with PSU label is indigenous.[/quote]

Thanks

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 26 Dec 2011 01:47

The Jrox copi

Aditya_M · Post by **Aditya_M** » 26 Dec 2011 20:34

Jrox or otherwise, it's worrisome when they can make them in large numbers. They will be a potent air superiority force for anyone going up against them - us or Taiwan or Japan or Korea or a single CVBG.

Wish we could afford a Modi Jrox version!

Don · Post by **Don** » 26 Dec 2011 21:32

More Jrox copies with WS-10 engines

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 27 Dec 2011 02:42

Don wrote:More Jrox copies with WS-10 engines

AND Canards.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 27 Dec 2011 05:16

How can anyone tell that these Jrox have WS10?

Is WS10 also a Wrox of Al series?

In another thought, I think India should buy a couple of Xerox machines from China......

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Dec 2011 05:59

^almost short of saying I dhoti shiver on jrox engines.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Dec 2011 08:15

shiv wrote:
SaiK wrote:I think the question veerav is asking why there is a need for a "NON FBW" flight control?
There is no need for that on the Su 30 AFAIK, but there is a switch to shut down the systems presumably to be done after the flight like shutting down your computer.

This switch is there for maintenance purposes only. It was supposed to be wire locked and guarded so that it is not operated inadvertently in flight like it was.

The more you idiot proof a system, the bigger the idiots they invent.

BTW, the pilot who inadvertently operated this switch was not even Su qualified.