Su-30: News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

Surya wrote:MPA value is not coming from staight slow run

it will not be flying once in a blue moon like the Backfire.


The Russians use bring out a couple of their backfires once in awhile and it becomes a news story.
But therein sir lies the difference. A strategic bomber unlike an MPA is not meant to come out everyday, once in a while is good enough.
as for costsafter the AG and Chakra - and the past history of the last decade - I have no intention of finding out.
Heh heh, bad as the escalations are with Roosi products, they don't hold a candle to 126 Rafales or 10 C17s. Tradeoffs everywhere.
I will be happy if half the planned stuff with the Russians comes through
Rather pessimistic view (and perhaps a bit one sided). It is not as though 50% of the stuff with russia turns out to be a loss. By far India's greatest deals with them have worked out just fine.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Surya »

well for it to come out once in a while - it needs to come out frequently for training...

else like our Mi 26s it will be an even more expensive white elephant

we are talking of future - lets see how many of the plans work out.


BTW a super duper plane should have had electronics that would have prevented the need for flying close to the Georgian air defence

if it had to make a run like our Jags used to do in air power demos then why do I need a the super duper backfire for it??

somthing does not add up about that story
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

Surya wrote:well for it to come out once in a while - it needs to come out frequently for training...

else like our Mi 26s it will be an even more expensive white elephant
For all that, the Mi 26 has certainly provided a strong capability to the IAF or could we have done better without it? Anyways, serviceability is much better today.
BTW a super duper plane should have had electronics that would have prevented the need for flying close to the Georgian air defence. if it had to make a run like our Jags used to do in air power demos then why do I need a the super duper backfire for it??
somthing does not add up about that story
The Tu-22 has some variants - the bird that was shot was a MR - recon variant, I don't believe India will need these. Also, it had not seen the upgrade, which began v.recently. if we procure these birds, they should be of the latest standards, with the intent to use them not for recon but mainly as missile carriers, and possibly a jammer variant.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Singha »

I guess the Blackjack idea is unworkable.

maybe we should hook with the Russians to see if the blackjacks rotary bomb bay / racks can be ported to a more civilian Ilyushin aircraft fitted with say the PS90A engine. and use that to deliver long range ASM / ALCM . top speed will be 2.5X slower than Backfire but range could actually be same or better. plus no issues with crew comfort or AAR which can be arranged.

I would have said modify P8I to that role, but we know Unkil will never allow such a customization to put in nirbhay or micro-brahmos.

another option is make a long term deal with Airbus to buy A321 , fifty units for missile carrier, standoff jammer, airborne command post role, JSTARS GMTI post etc and get them to fit some kind of rotary launcher onto the plane, using material from the now cancelled A321 MPA project.

we are gonna need the big airframes anyway, one way or another.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Surya »

well at least the Mi 26 can be used to move some civilian stuff (railway stuff etc) around besides military so it could find some other work to justify the high cost of operating it

The backfire is limited to a couple of tasks.

regarding the shooting down - even if it was the MR version - it does not say much for the electronics provided on it that it needed to do a high speed run over the area.

anyway lets leave it for the others to decide
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

Its time to join Brazil for the MTA project.

Work a platform that can deliver 15 tons out to 6000-8000 Kms. (MTA-LR)

It should have the following.

1. Naval Radar for Surface warfare.
2. 4 Brahmos missiles in a rotary canister.
3. Self protection suite.
4. Long Range tanks to ensure flexible missions.
5. Good crew comfort.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Singha »

but the design of low floor cargo haulers is unsuited to the bomber task. their voluminous bodies are too big to neatly house the bomb bay and they generally are not fast enough.
the outboard canoe housing for the wheels and strong fuselage supports around the wing root area might create other issues in carving a bomb bay out with open doors below.

all the dedicated bombers seem to have pencil slim fuselages just big enough to hold the bomb racks or rotary launchers.

that way the slimmer fuselage of a passenger aircraft might hold more promise. some of the passenger area on upper deck could house aux fuel tanks.

it will cost us multiple billions to get airbus to do the redesign though, not a easy task by any means. the boeing P8 conversion is much less ambitious but surely cost a good deal of initial money.

its better we work with Brazil on a dedicated MRMPv2 + bomber with the right specs from day1. I dont see NAL RTA of any hue as a product or deliverable....just another science project.

or get Khan to enlarge the weapons bays of the P8I for this role and integrate micro-brahmos / any new missile for the long range attack role. get rid of the crew stations, stuff in a couple tons of EW, lose the ASW sensors to save on weight, push up the speed hence, just carry EW, fuel and munitions like a proper bomber an a proper 360' surface search radar in a dome housing and a attack radar in the nose.- call it P8-IB


not a backfire. but will have far better uptime, similar or better range and should be able to deliver atleast 12 ASMs of the harpoon size and maybe 8 of the micro-brahmos size.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

P-8I ,IL-38 and Tu-142M multirole platform with Brahmos and Nirbhai should do just fine when dealing with Chinese CBG or PN fleet .... we are not even remotely facing a threat similar to USN CBG to merit a Tu-22M3 types specialised variant
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Singha »

P-8I is fine, the other two will no doubt be gone by 2020.

so perhaps P-8I ASM/LACM conversion with Boeing OEM help is the way forward.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

IL-38 will be there for atleast next 15 years as they are recently upgraded with SD suite and airframe/engine refurbished ,Tu-142 will be gone for sure.
member_20163
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by member_20163 »

Guys - just thinking loud !! is it possible to re-use Tu142 as a exprimental aircraft with similer engine config such as B52 bomber (4 aside) using our kaveri K9/K10 locally manufactured with all new FBW controls and electronics. This would perhaps bridge gap between P8 and Tu22m3.
Just a thought. Cheers
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

Khan will never ever give you a p8ib bomber, no matter how much you pay/plead or gubo. It is a no no toy for anyone else.

We will need to design MTA-B. The under carriage area can be redesigned to simplify things. A large part of the plane could be common, but for AEW/Refuelers/Sigint/Bomber role, we don't need the under carriage the way it is for transport. It needs to be long range with enough fuel and payload to make a difference.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Singha »

perhaps the same fuselage albeit somewhat slimmed down in ruggedness, but a low wing design, with longer wings , more powerful engines, more conventional undercarriage, a bigger front section behind cockpit for food/restroom/extra crew seating/mission module, with the rest devoted to aux fuel tanks and a single bomb bay. plus wing pylons for 6 harpoon size ASMs.

imo we already have such a readymade template to work from. its called the Embraer 195
http://www.embraercommercialjets.com/#/ ... s_detail/4
http://www.embraercommercialjets.com/im ... ad/135.pdf

while purists and war mongers may sniff at this vs the massive strike power of a B1/Blackjack, I point to certain advantages

- high COTS content - less modification cost/risk
- Embraer is non-Khan and a global major now, brazil economy is surging - so they will be around
- we are already working with embraer
- high uptime and ease of upkeep as a commercial jet, few if any special parts needed
- relatively small and cheap so we can afford a lot of them for various missions vs a few specialized backfire types. those pylons can be mounted but kept empty. the bomb bay could use modular racks of SIGINT eqpt in that role.
- we can skip the rotary bomb bay occupying the entire fuselage to a simpler arrangement of upto 4 large missiles inside and 6 small ones outside with cabin above left empty or some part having aux fuel tanks.

hence a single one could deliver the missile strike of 4 MKIs + 3 rafales together.

with missile ranges increasing, for land strike it would hardly need to leave the safety of our airspace...just a mobile TEL to reposition and fire quickly vs land TELs.
Last edited by Singha on 03 Apr 2012 21:18, edited 1 time in total.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

Those things don't have any range with payload. You want a generic solution more like the 757/767-LR. That will serve almost all your needs for a long time.

If you wanted an AEW version out of this and wanted it on station for 8-10 hours, you couldn't do it. The AEW platform IAF/DRDO chose is all right as supplemental, but cannot be your primary workhorse.

Fuelers ? This won't cut it either.

ASW -?

4 MKI + 3 Rafales = 62,000 KGs. This puppy is close to 12000 kgs at 2500 kms.
Last edited by Cybaru on 03 Apr 2012 21:22, edited 1 time in total.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Singha »

a huge payload is not needed as where would you use the massive payload of blackjack or B1 in terms of missiles unless its to fight Khan.
a plane that can deliver 2 full bore brahmos + 6 harpoons together is plenty powerful for the rest.

for khan we will need better stuff like pakda down the line if push came to shove.

we can have aux fuel tanks in old passenger compartment or even a couple of fixed wing tanks like the C130J has.

not perfect, but we are not trying for a high endurance airborne command post/AWACS type platform here which presumably the IL476 will take on once production resumes.

electronics is getting lighter and powerful in generations.

the only other party who might agree to play ball is Airbus with a mix of A321 and A330 conversions...but will surely cost 10X more than this embraer project. we'd have to own some stake in airbus to get what we wanted from that deal.

using a LDP under the chin, it could drop say 32 x 500lb munitions in bomb truck role in protected airspace like in border war scenarios. scare the living crap out of faithfuls hiding stone shelters.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

Singha,

That is true, but we are looking to build a platform that will perhaps serve other needs as well. We do not have huge budgets like Khan, so we will have to do something like this.

If all you want to do is deliver -2-4 brahmos, then why not hang em where the external Aux tanks will go on the MTA. Pretty much like a fighter 2 on each wing. Stick the inside with as much fuel as it could take off with. Why do we need a new platform ?
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4635
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by hnair »

However standoffish weaponry it has, any craft doing offensive bombing of an enemy with fighters/SAM need crazy dash speeds and violent maneuvering capabilities. Even paki type enemies will earn to reposition their defense after a few slaps, so "standoffish" might not always remain that way for revisits of targets etc.

This is distinct from time-pass loiter over ToraBora for history channel footage or Gatling up a faithfool's madarassa for Youtube purposes. Because we see khan using slow moving crafts like AC-130, B52 etc, we feel we too can adopt these easily. Khan does this the way a cheetah plays with a mouse. Like a cheetah, he uses his speed (B1B) or camo-spots (B2) for any bigger prey than mice.

If we are moving up the ladder into industrial scale bombing, the craft has to be designed from scratch for speed, agility and next level of ECM. Right now such a craft has one purpose - chaddi-uthar roles in Beijing. Like bombing their CMC meeting room etc. Because we sort of have decided on minimum-detergent and fat-ladies for the phyjjiks package delivery role.

Now, I would love to have a rotary air-launcher for AAM or PDV, quickly deployed and air-borne around the country in times of tension 8)
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Singha »

^ touche :rotfl:

well the low level supersonic deep penetration role is out of league for any MTA/commercial conversion. so lets not even discuss that. MKI/Rafale will do it for us. rafale trains for it already with ASMP.

we were talking of 'long range missile delivery vans'.

the terrain say in NE is tough. instead of having to field 10 GLCM units on land whether they are subject to vagaries of monsoon, bad roads, enemy attacks on chokepoints, a squadron of these Fedex type vans could fly from someplace safe like Kalaikunda and launch weapons from the same places or slightly further out than these GLCM TELARs. quicker, cheaper, faster on-time project delivery using centralized cloud computing concept. with a payload of 3 fighters, opex will be lower also.

they can also do khan style industrial scale bombing in sanitized areas like a kargilish intrusion zone, from high level out of manpads reach. cheaper and more made-for-TV than sending in the odd Mig27 or MKI to drop 6 bombs at a time. drop 32 and see what happens. even if half explode on target, will be instant youtube sensation. part of short kargilish wars where the end goal is not ripping the enemy a new one, media psyops is important and B52/AC130/AH64 scores well there, even if the real hard work is done silently at night by F-15E or B1s flying in and out from long range :lol:

over the sea, they would need some air cover to survive, so not sure how well it fits.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Not sure if its been posted before. I dont normally read Russian reports but this one was interesting:

Sukhoi Su-30SM: An Indian Gift to Russia’s Air Force

Talks about the MKI's open architecture designed by us & how nifty it is.

Also read the lone comment at the end of the article. Everyone has their share of lovely neighbors :D
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

Hiten wrote:-

the newer illustration
Oh, so, the J-15 is a derivative of the Su? WOW. News to me.

(BTW, that graphic is from a Polish guy.)
Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1130
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Hiten »

^^
yes, the original source had been attributed in the blog post
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

A nice Flanker video by KNAAPO

Su-27 FAMILY SUKHOI-KNAAPO FIGHTERS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmYHZ7UtU5E
Raghunath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 07 Apr 2011 19:37
Location: Pune

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Raghunath »

Unfortunate, but all over the Pune news today:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 740069.cms

The picture in the Express today seemed to show the Nose Radome dismantled.. but the pic resolution was pretty bad so couldnt really tell.
member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by member_22906 »

BTW, not sure if its already discussed here. Visited Pune over the weekend and saw that the Sukhois now have covered parking. Some fancy looking hangars, though not enough for all aircarfts since some were still parked outside
nikhil_p
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 378
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by nikhil_p »

IIRC Pune (Lohegaon) used to have two runways (and still does I believe). These two runways form a cross shape. Unless the Rambha collapsed near the centre of the runway (where it crosses), I don't see any reason why commercial flights couldn't have been shifted to the secondary runway. If the reason was they couldnt taxi to the passenger terminal, they could have easily used buses to drive the passengers to the terminal.

Or Am i missing something here. Jingos Gurus...HELP!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by shiv »

nikhil_p wrote:IIRC Pune (Lohegaon) used to have two runways (and still does I believe). These two runways form a cross shape. Unless the Rambha collapsed near the centre of the runway (where it crosses), I don't see any reason why commercial flights couldn't have been shifted to the secondary runway. If the reason was they couldnt taxi to the passenger terminal, they could have easily used buses to drive the passengers to the terminal.

Or Am i missing something here. Jingos Gurus...HELP!
I am guessing here. Weather and wind direction matters, so if the optimum runway was blocked the other runway would have been useless. Secondly if any of the civilian airliners itself had an emergency it would need a free runway to turn around and land. The idea may be to have one free runway always for emergencies in peacetime.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by tsarkar »

shiv wrote:wind direction matters
Yes, aircraft take off and land "into the wind", ie the direction of the wind. Wind directions change over the day because of the heating of the landmass at day and cooling at night, as well as local geo and met conditions. That is the reason why the cross runway would have been unusable. And that is why Met Office is an important arm of IAF & AAI.

Curious as to why the radome and antenna have been removed. Were these damaged? The forward fuselage shows no damage.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by koti »

I think IAF needs some Fighter based offensive EW platforms in the lines of Growler.
IAF Su-30s are going to be ideal for this role, even better then the GF18s as far as the flying machine goes in terms of range, payload and endurance.
Related
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Singha »

a better bet is some of the Rafale up to a Rafale-G standard for this role. its already has highly integrated EW, we could add the offensive and snooping components .... and it has the range for long missions.

france will be more amenable to giving us some good kit vs Khan who does not share the growler with close allies even.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by koti »

Rafale will still have to adjust with the smaller Radome and less Electric output issues. I was more into developing/integrating some good Electronic assault systems with Elbit and Tikhomirov NIIP.

French, however good their platforms are cannot be solely relied upon(So are the rest of nations lest Russ). The way they helped UK gain advantage on Argentine Mirages in Falklands etc.
Aussies got Growler. If we went for SH we would have surely had the chance to get our hands on some Growlers. I still think we can provided we bend enough for them.
aharam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 27 Apr 2011 05:38

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by aharam »

hnair wrote:However standoffish weaponry it has, any craft doing offensive bombing of an enemy with fighters/SAM need crazy dash speeds and violent maneuvering capabilities. Even paki type enemies will earn to reposition their defense after a few slaps, so "standoffish" might not always remain that way for revisits of targets etc.

This is distinct from time-pass loiter over ToraBora for history channel footage or Gatling up a faithfool's madarassa for Youtube purposes. Because we see khan using slow moving crafts like AC-130, B52 etc, we feel we too can adopt these easily. Khan does this the way a cheetah plays with a mouse. Like a cheetah, he uses his speed (B1B) or camo-spots (B2) for any bigger prey than mice.

If we are moving up the ladder into industrial scale bombing, the craft has to be designed from scratch for speed, agility and next level of ECM. Right now such a craft has one purpose - chaddi-uthar roles in Beijing. Like bombing their CMC meeting room etc. Because we sort of have decided on minimum-detergent and fat-ladies for the phyjjiks package delivery role.

Now, I would love to have a rotary air-launcher for AAM or PDV, quickly deployed and air-borne around the country in times of tension 8)
Hi Nair
There are two distinct requirements here. First is air superiority in the target area. Without that, basic air survivability is an issue. Second is the issue of maneuvarability. With true air superiority, you can relax the maneuvaribility requirement. For a bomber to go into a hot zone with SAMs, the only options are ECM, the ubiquitous chaff and flares, both of which have limited value and certain suicide. Even American bomb trucks such as the B 52 are only used after the air space has been sanitized. Designing bombers for agility in today's world of fast reaction SAM and MANPADS threats is relatively useless, since to put it mildly, bomber agility is of limited value, and it comes at the cost of payload. A more useful doctrine is to achieve air superiority and then use high payload dedicated bombers. There is a reason why the venerable Bear is still a threat. Range and payload are still the gold metrics of bomber design.

Cheers
Aharam
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

nikhil_p wrote:IIRC Pune (Lohegaon) used to have two runways (and still does I believe). These two runways form a cross shape. Unless the Rambha collapsed near the centre of the runway (where it crosses), I don't see any reason why commercial flights couldn't have been shifted to the secondary runway. If the reason was they couldnt taxi to the passenger terminal, they could have easily used buses to drive the passengers to the terminal.

Or Am i missing something here. Jingos Gurus...HELP!
Like other have stated, wind direction and if no one has stated, the length of the runway and to a lesser extent approach (do not know if India has restrictions on noise levels, etc over civilian areas).

On Growler capabilities, MKI or Rafale will need an AESA .............. first. Mature one ............ if possible. And, that famous stuff called "network capability".

How mature is India with sensors? Any idea? IF there are enough desi sensors, then one can/should expect a mature platform. Else ...................

We used to have a technical thread for the MMRCA. What ever happened to it? That thread had some great refs. (A major part of the reason it was great was that no one was allowed to discuss in that thread. Total and complete bliss.)
Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Jagan »

Lohegaon has only one usable runway. The second cross runway has been in disuse for years - remember the parked Su-30Ks that were there for half a dozen years. they were all at one end of the disused runway


http://g.co/maps/f2teq
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Singha »

Aus got the growler-Lite. in small nos it doesnt make sense to get growler ... would have made sense if we got F-18 for IN or MMRCA deals. growler-lite would have benefit of being a soln that works from day1 and even khan's trailing edge is very competitive vs best of rest in the EW arena.

Rafale/MKI is it as the basic platform.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by srai »

Singha wrote:Aus got the growler-Lite. in small nos it doesnt make sense to get growler ... would have made sense if we got F-18 for IN or MMRCA deals. growler-lite would have benefit of being a soln that works from day1 and even khan's trailing edge is very competitive vs best of rest in the EW arena.

Rafale/MKI is it as the basic platform.
IMO, if the IAF were to get a "Growler" type of EW aircraft, it would need around 16 units (+ 4 reserves). Flights of 4 would be assigned to the SWC, WC, CC and EC each. This way each of the commands will have an ability to assemble 4 x "Growler" EW a/c lead air strike packages into heavily defended targets that are deep inside enemy territory. Alternatively, these EW a/c can provide small corridors along the border for strike aircrafts to break through to enemy airspace.
Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Gilles »

koti wrote:Aussies got Growler.
Not true, yet.

http://australianaviation.com.au/2012/0 ... -growlers/

Here is one author who thinks that Canada could be better off with a combination F/A-18E and EA-18G Growler working as a team than just having the F-35.

http://www.casr.ca/mp-northern-growler-daly.htm
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by srai »

^^^

AN/ALQ-99 are out of production and seem to have multiple issues. The Next Generation Jammer is years away from induction and most likely will be export-restricted. So if the IAF were to go for EA-18G, it would only hope to get "Growler-lite"--for electronic awareness rather than electronic attack (without the jamming pods).
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by koti »

^Are there any Russian or Israeli alternatives to the Growler Jammers?
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Kartik »

Gilles wrote:
koti wrote:Aussies got Growler.
Not true, yet.

http://australianaviation.com.au/2012/0 ... -growlers/

Here is one author who thinks that Canada could be better off with a combination F/A-18E and EA-18G Growler working as a team than just having the F-35.

http://www.casr.ca/mp-northern-growler-daly.htm
I agree with the idea expressed by this author. Canada faces no real threat worth speaking of, just as Australia has no real enemies and no dangerous threats. I understand their desire to maintain a decent sized fighter force to tackle possible contingencies that today may not have been factored in, but they should evaluate the costs for such options thoroughly and only then commit to it. To me it seems that one of the driving factors behind these F-35 programs are that both nations wish to project a certain capability that backs their economic might, rather than having any major use for such capability.

For Canada, Russia presents a possible threat, but mostly through long range bombers penetrating their airspace. Most of Canada’s population and industrial centers are really far from Russia’s easternmost bases and would present a big challenge for Russia to support a large fighter force attacking them with tanker support being absolutely necessary.

Russian long range bombers can be easily tackled by Super Hornets as well as F-35s, though ideally they’d want a fighter with longer range, endurance and good dash capability. The RuAF is very unlikely to launch a large scale invasion of Canada which requires stealth aircraft to fight off other stealth optimized aircraft (a threat that won’t emerge till 2020 at the very earliest, since PAK-FA won’t enter service before that). As far as expeditionary capability is concerned, the F-35 is definitely a more attractive option than the Super Hornet, but are Super Hornets useless in an expeditionary role? I don’t really think so, otherwise most of NATO will need to re-equip.

I agree with the author- they should look to hold off their F-35 purchase till such a time as when they can evaluate other options that may be available by say 2025. A thorough cost versus gain analysis is needed for Canada to be absolutely sure that it should continue with its F-35 procurement, especially considering how much more costlier and riskier it is compared to the Super Hornet program. the Super Hornet’s twin engines presents an added safety feature for the RCAF especially considering how vast their land mass is and how remote most of it is. A pilot’s chance of recovering safely are definitely improved on a twin engined aircraft with reliable F-414s.
Post Reply