Bharat Rakshak

>> it is not possible to get all of the aircrafts into exact same upgraded version.

F-15 and F-16 fleet around the world has many versions and engines. even within the USAF. so I think that should not be a blocker not to go for better FM2 engines to drive the Irbis-E and more powerful standoff jammers, perhaps a AESA spherical MAWS as well.

its time to take the game to next level. the world is not sitting idle. what was scary 10 yrs ago is not so today.

My Latest Photo:

VayuSena Rambha showing-off her twin AL-31FPs (& her 12 hardpoints) http://www.airliners.net/photo/2133156/L/

more http://vishal.jolapara.in/2012/03/16/sukhoi-su30mki/

rambha fits her so aptly

And to think of it, it was the Admiral who named it that!!!!!!!!!! Instead of saving it for the IAC II or III.

viewtopic.php?p=1303466#p1303466

one more link confirming Jodhpur as SU 30MKI base -

SU 30 MKI in Jodhpur and Halwara

As per earlier news 31 sqn was at Pune before moving to Jodhpur, meaning it spent its "incubation" period at Pune before moving to Jodhpur as "fully ops". If the new sqn at Halwara is fully ops, where did it spend its "incubation" period? Also, does this mean 29 and 10 sqn have moved out of jodhpur? (there was a vedio posted in the mil multimedia thread sometime back showing MS Dhoni visiting the "scorpions" at jaisalmer simetimes in 2007).

I was under the impression that it was 31sq which moved to Halwara. And Jodhpur, I think, had 4 squadrons based there. They would have had to move out at least 1 for the Su-30s to move in.

Browne to review upgradation programme of Su-30 MKI

Sounds like upgrades to first Su-30MK-1 Block aircraft's to MK-3 Standards

From rediff:

some shadowy players were saying the su27 family suffers from sluggish response in a certain speed band around the 850kmph mark...

Is Fly-By-Wire issue with all Su-30 (Chinese , Indian , Vietnam) or only with Su-30MKI /MKM ?

per my recollection it was claimed the taller (and presumably fairer) tailfins of the MKK and 35BM(?) solved that problem...I could be wildly wrong though

Perhaps for PAK-FA, it can have a joint FBO mechanism with AMCA. I see oppty in problems.

If the problem is specific to certain speed limits, then one could find areas of the issue... from controls, latency to closed loop feedback corrections.

It is perspectives.. what you call a design flaw, and what you call airworthiness., depending on requirements and performance. For example, if the flaw happens only in > Mach 1, and IAF considers that as airworthy and useful, then that shall remain.

However, if the flaw restricts the platform to be used > Mach 1, and IAF suddenly feels that is a requirement, then it is not airworthy anymore.

^^If this had happened to the LCA or any other indigenous aircraft, we would have been drowned in a torrent of curses, whines, complaints, mockery, etc. directed at DRDO, HAL etc. The DDM would have demanded immediate suspension of the program and whipped the dead horse until it came back to life again. As for the IAF, I hope they show the same broad-minded understanding and accommodation when this happens to one of OUR programmes.

^^^I would pray that would never happen in the first place... because of the risks you have mentioned that it would be bashed to hell from ddm to mutus/mptps.

It is better to get it delayed, and make sure every aspect is tested thoroughly.. as systems mature, it becomes more reliable. defects and rectifications are fine, but comes with it is the cost. the cost of rectifying after delivery to the customer is always 1000 times more than fixing it during testing and integration phase.

"We have identified a Fly-By-Wire problem with the aircraft. It is a design issue and we have taken it up with the designing agency," he told reporters.

Ideally HAL should have been able to identify and resolve the issue, or if necessary internally take it up with Sukhoi DB

^^ that's easier to say than do. MKI FBW is specific to its aerodynamic structure and triplane configuration. writing it would have been quite an involved job and would have used tailor made rigs for the purpose. HAL can't just come in and correct it. that's even assuming they have the full code from sukhoi bureau in the first place.

^^^Thanks for your sensible comments.!!!

HAL or any Indian entity has nothing to do with MKI FCS. we put in the black boxes supplied from Sukhoi.

From the last comments on the last crash which was due to switching off the FBW and it was stated that they had placed the switch in the wrong place which inadvertently might lead to switching off the FBW.

Unless this is something new issue with FBW or the old one that needs some change in the way these switches are placed.

The maintenance (?) guys had inadvertently left the FBW switch unguarded without wire locking it (it's normal condition). The rear seater who unknowingly operated the FBW switch while looking for some other switch (Radio?) was not SU 30 qualified.

Classic case of an accident looking for a place to happen.

It was not the switch but the guy what was in the wrong place onlee.

^^ Even if that were to be the case there were some news report that IAF was not too happy on where the FBW switch was and wanted to get its location changed after that incident.

^^
Design should cater to reducing the DPMO (Defects Per Million Opportunities). This is a classic case which would require a design change to avoid such mistakes in future

I don't think the location of a switch is a serious enough problem for the ACM to go on record saying there is a design flaw. There must be a problem with how the FBW reacts in certain situations.

My personal guess is that it is the switch and nothing else. A switch that can be turned off in flight leading to shut down of FBW and a crash is a design flaw by any stretch of imagination.

An used book by value of $4 can save millions on designs.
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-T ... 0465067107

it may not be OT in certain thought process.
/ot

Design flaw is responcibility of OEM, why should HAL get into it and void the warranty?

But afaik crazy Roosis have it there for a reason; isn't it a manual override of sorts which they think can be of use in certain situations, like airshows ? .

If that is the case one fit a hinge cap over it which will have to be flipped open in order to activate the switch , that should prevent anyone from activating it by accident.

Why is that a big issue. What I am trying to say is this.. we are not that gullible NOT to disable a function if it is riskier to keep it, and perhaps have couple of the airframes for russkie type airshows. Now, that only if the argument is true. There is absolutely no requirement for that button to be there, then HAL can very well get that done, by disabling it permanently. Now, if it requires OEM approval, so be it.. the user wants it that way [.]

Now, the question of design arise here because our air chief said it.. that means something., and can't be ignored. Hence, an oppty.. for us. We are not the same as any other supplier-consumer nation, and our terms with Russia is of a collaborator kind.. and hence, a learning oppty is what my thought is.. and perhaps a wonderful one at it.

Our PAK-FA deal is $30b, and make no mistake, many of the MKI components will in there too.. and we don't want then air chief to say the same thing.. and for this $30b, we are investing a blood lot more than MKI.

I agree that it is not a big issue but given the propensity of the press to sensationalize things what is the point of even talking about it?

There may be something we do not know here. Something on the lines of the switch being off initially, and requiring to be operated as part of the flight checks and then left alone until after landing or some such thing. Don't want to make a joke out of a potentially serious issue but there was that joke about the man who was told not to use the ATR switch in a high tech automated toilet. He woke up in hospital with after using it and was old that it was "Automatic Tampon Remover" that castrated him.

Why so much speculation gentlemen? and then discussions on speculations!

imo its not the switch - can be fixed easily with a plastic cover or wire lock.
has to be some flight regime problem.

The problem is out and well scoped to FBW. Now, there is no speculation at that 30K ft level of the problem.

See, Russians were slow to adopt digital controls.. for example: AL-31FP has no FADEC... which alone can improve efficiency by 0-30% if done correct.

We are talking about relaxed stability of the a/c, and nothing beyond the 3-axis controls here is my first assumption. It could be the turn rate at high mach levels or some such problem if it ain't just the switch issue. Assuming because, there is a scope out there about the design flaws, and none willing to explain or will know in detail owing security issues.

But then, we already have the problem stated in public by the chief.. what else we need to think about discussing various issues?

It is a perfect GA by the chief to discuss the problem./jmt

I don't get it, what is the need to disclose information like this to the media, why can't they just solve it ?

perhaps to put pressure on Rus to ack and solve it promptly. this could have a history...

I suppose that would help but I feel that news like this shakes the trust of the general public in the concerned equipment.

There have been plenty of news about the LCA & F-35 and their drawbacks. This piece of news just shows that even the Sukhois are not perfect. There is nothing wrong in pointing out shortcomings. Better to have news like this than to have the TOI article comparing LCA's measly mach 1 speed to mach 20 of the PGS which may not see the light of the day.