Su-30: News and Discussion

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Dec 2011 03:37

I wonder if the Super-30 upgrade includes any work on shielding the compressor face from radar waves..it was looked at for the F-15 Silent Eagle but rejected due to high cost of changing structures. Which means from the front-on aspect, its stealth characteristics will be nowhere near that of the F-35 let alone the F-22.

“We now have conformal weapons bays,” Jones notes. “The engine face has been considered in the changes. We did not change the engine intakes because that would require changing big structure. An option is grill work over the turbine face that is similar to what like was done with the F/A-18 Super Hornets. For a relatively low amount of dollars you can get a certain reduction in signature.”

link

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Dec 2011 04:16

can't they slam the radar blocker (I read they had some special blocker design) on the pak-fa on the super sukhois?

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 01 Dec 2011 05:49

Just approved a large bunch of Rambha shots on my FLickr Group > http://www.flickr.com/groups/sukhoi30/pool/

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Dec 2011 06:04

Well, Knaapo has managed to reduce Su-35 RCS to around 1-3msq levels - a solid achievement imho. I think a blocker might be nice, but if they can get it to around the 5msq mark with a nice A2A load, the HUGE irbis type radar should give it enough advantage vs. say even an EF (1msq?) with an AESA. The EF would detect a 5msq target at around 350km, otoh, the Irbis does this at around 425km. IIRC, the Bars 2.0 should be slightly better - approximations from designer indicated that it would more than double its range for the upgrade.

Perhaps it may even catch the JSF early enough what to say of J10 or J20.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Dec 2011 07:58

any plans on retractable refuel pods?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43697832@N ... -sukhoi30/

George J · Post by **George J** » 04 Dec 2011 23:30

SaiK wrote:any plans on retractable refuel pods?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43697832@N ... -sukhoi30/

The fuel pod is retractable...and is retracted in the picture. Its on your right (the other side of the OLS...which is not visible).

What you are looking at is the pitot tube.

Could somebody please confirm that the No.24s are fully MKIized? No more Ks? All gone to Belarus as reported?

Source wrote:According to Kommersant, the aircraft were formally returned to Russia's Irkut aircraft corporation, but never touched the Russian soil and ended up in Belarus.

The first 10 jets have been recently delivered to an aircraft plant in Baranovichi for a deep overhaul to the Su-30KN version, Kommersant cited a source close to Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport. The remaining eight are expected to arrive in November.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 05 Dec 2011 01:23

Welcome back George! It's good to see you here again.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Dec 2011 10:28

good to know the old K's have found loving new owners. should clear up that taxiway in pune where the K's were parked for years....any visitor flying through pune could pls confirm this.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 05 Dec 2011 11:37

Kartik wrote:I wonder if the Super-30 upgrade includes any work on shielding the compressor face from radar waves..it was looked at for the F-15 Silent Eagle but rejected due to high cost of changing structures. Which means from the front-on aspect, its stealth characteristics will be nowhere near that of the F-35 let alone the F-22.

“We now have conformal weapons bays,” Jones notes. “The engine face has been considered in the changes. We did not change the engine intakes because that would require changing big structure. An option is grill work over the turbine face that is similar to what like was done with the F/A-18 Super Hornets. For a relatively low amount of dollars you can get a certain reduction in signature.”
link

Can't do a direct comparision between F-15 , SU-30 and Mig 29. If you see the F-15 its Intakes are in the side of the body and lead straight to engines. With SU-30 and Mig-29, intakes are below the body and do a vertical S before going to the engine.

Offcourse No Western source will talk about this disadvantage of the F-15.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Dec 2011 12:34

you are right...the f15 inlets lead straight to engine with no horizontal or vertical S

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 05 Dec 2011 12:51

Thing is, the F-15 was developed to combat the imagined potential of the Mig-25. This was in the early 1970's. The Su-30/Mig-29/F-16 generation was the next. Its supposed to have canted vert stabs too.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Dec 2011 02:45

Prasad wrote:Thing is, the F-15 was developed to combat the imagined potential of the Mig-25. This was in the early 1970's. The Su-30/Mig-29/F-16 generation was the next. Its supposed to have canted vert stabs too.

The Mig-29 has slightly canted vertical tail fins. The Flankers don't.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 06 Dec 2011 04:27

Aditya_V wrote: Can't do a direct comparision between F-15 , SU-30 and Mig 29. If you see the F-15 its Intakes are in the side of the body and lead straight to engines. With SU-30 and Mig-29, intakes are below the body and do a vertical S before going to the engine.

Offcourse No Western source will talk about this disadvantage of the F-15.

What vertical S are you talking about ?

The picture shown above is a Su-30MKI's intake as seen from the front.

Its literally slam bang in the line of sight of a person peering into the intake. If any fighter needed a radar blocker, it is the Su-27 and its derivatives.

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 06 Dec 2011 04:51

Kartik wrote:
Aditya_V wrote: Can't do a direct comparision between F-15 , SU-30 and Mig 29. If you see the F-15 its Intakes are in the side of the body and lead straight to engines. With SU-30 and Mig-29, intakes are below the body and do a vertical S before going to the engine.

Offcourse No Western source will talk about this disadvantage of the F-15.
What vertical S are you talking about ?

[img*]http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory. ... D_mesh.jpg[/img]

The picture shown above is a Su-30MKI's intake as seen from the front.

Its literally slam bang in the line of sight of a person peering into the intake. If any fighter needed a radar blocker, it is the Su-27 and its derivatives.

ha ha ha ... this is epic slam dunk

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Dec 2011 04:53

^^nothing to laugh about. We are going to have to address that somehow in the Super-30 upgrade.

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 06 Dec 2011 04:55

nachiket wrote:^^nothing to laugh about. We are going to have to address that somehow in the Super-30 upgrade.

I am laughing at amazing confidence people talking about things which are far from reality.. I mean the fact is so direct opposite to the quoted fact .. that it sounds funny to me...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Dec 2011 20:31

above is on a ANG F-15A/B

both the F15 and su27 family seem to have a moveable rectangular panel on the roof of the intake and hinges down to constrict the airflow as the plane goes more supersonic. for both of them the initial part of tunnel is slightly sloped downward...you can see the start of the downslope in above pic...I think thats about where the F-18 E/F has the radar blocker vane system.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Dec 2011 22:40

You either has a Low RCS or you dont , there is no middle ground so even if Su-30MKI has all the radar blockers and RAM in the world , it wont lead you much far becuase it misses the crucial shape and most importantly it carries external payload which can even spoil the RCS of carefully crafted LO aircraft.

So all the fantasy of Low RCS for Super-30 , F-18 , Euro Bird etc are just good marketing stuff , in real combat they would be betrayed by too many things.

Its similar to a dark lady trying to look fair with a good make up , a good make up can just take you that far becuase the real thing is still dark.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Dec 2011 02:25

Austin wrote:You either has a Low RCS or you dont , there is no middle ground so even if Su-30MKI has all the radar blockers and RAM in the world , it wont lead you much far becuase it misses the crucial shape and most importantly it carries external payload which can even spoil the RCS of carefully crafted LO aircraft.

So all the fantasy of Low RCS for Super-30 , F-18 , Euro Bird etc are just good marketing stuff , in real combat they would be betrayed by too many things.

Its similar to a dark lady trying to look fair with a good make up , a good make up can just take you that far becuase the real thing is still dark.

I don't agree with you here Austin. The Su-30MKI's RCS is one of its weaknesses and while it isn't possible to entirely redesign it to make it LO, the is some benefit to be gained from reducing its RCS further. If the radar blocker helps the Su-30MKI be detected say 10-15 NM later than it would be earlier, its an advantage. After all, compressor face is one of the biggest radar reflectors and possibly one of the big contributors to the MKI's RCS.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Dec 2011 02:58

blunt edges needs serrations and zig zag slants too.
The blade design could also reduce RCS.
S-inlet is the way to go like in pak-fa/Ef2k.
There are many areas for serrations

but RAM coating is still required. I am for all Kevlar/composite
skins where the deflection is internally handled.
http://www.gizmag.com/new-nano-fiber-to ... lar/17203/

--
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRec ... =ADA343828
This paper gives some ideas how one could internally reduce RCS..

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Dec 2011 08:51

to my knowledge nobody has been able to change the compressor blade design itself to reduce RCS - the shape is either straight or slightly curved.

looking at the kind of towed rcs targets used for AA crews to practise on (and perhaps as towed wingtip decoys as well),
http://www.peostri.army.mil/PRODUCTS/TOWTARS/

seems to me that biggest 360' spherical contributors to RCS could be the tailfins of plane and the fins of the external ordnance. hence the emphasis on carefully slanted/small/nonexistent tailfins in raptor/pakfa/flying wing (b2/x-planes) and on moving the external ordnance into internal bays.
the exposed compressor face will generate a return within a certain angle from the front of the plane. RAM material coated inside the tunnel has to be very resilient if they are not to ablate or peel off and get sucked into the engine causing some long term damage, but I guess everyone uses it now.

so I guess if a radar blocker could be installed infront of compressor and reduce the tracking range by X% its always a bonus even on a vanilla non-stealth design like f15/su30 as it probably generates a lot of return vs that from external munitions?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 Dec 2011 10:33

Kartik wrote:
Aditya_V wrote: Can't do a direct comparision between F-15 , SU-30 and Mig 29. If you see the F-15 its Intakes are in the side of the body and lead straight to engines. With SU-30 and Mig-29, intakes are below the body and do a vertical S before going to the engine.

Offcourse No Western source will talk about this disadvantage of the F-15.
What vertical S are you talking about ?

[img*]http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory. ... D_mesh.jpg[/img]

The picture shown above is a Su-30MKI's intake as seen from the front.

Its literally slam bang in the line of sight of a person peering into the intake. If any fighter needed a radar blocker, it is the Su-27 and its derivatives.

Thanks for correcting my wrong impression, I was wrong in this case , not having access to aircraft first hand.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Dec 2011 10:56

Kartik wrote:I don't agree with you here Austin. The Su-30MKI's RCS is one of its weaknesses and while it isn't possible to entirely redesign it to make it LO, the is some benefit to be gained from reducing its RCS further. If the radar blocker helps the Su-30MKI be detected say 10-15 NM later than it would be earlier, its an advantage. After all, compressor face is one of the biggest radar reflectors and possibly one of the big contributors to the MKI's RCS.

From what I have read they have applied RAM to the blade of RCS to reduce its visibility also there was this experiment done by ITAE to reduce RCS of Flanker , you must have read this before link

ITAE researchers had found materials that solved the dominant problem in the Sukhoi design: straight-through inlets to the compressor face, with no line-of-sight blockage. Rather than placing an absorber-treated blocker in front of the engine, as on the Super Hornet, ITAE developed a radar absorbent material (RAM) that could be applied to the first-stage compressor blades. The rest of the RAM suite included a metallic treated canopy and sprayed-on RAM coatings on the missiles.

Having said that most effort for RCS reduction on existing type has been measured for clean aircraft rather then a loaded one , so a Flanker with RCS reduction Clean will have difference RCS value then a loaded one.

Hence the actual value of such rcs reduction with combat payload against modern radars like BARS ,RBE2 and modern AESA types is truly debatable , its a good marketing strategy though to sell 4th Gen Aircraft with RCS reduction features .... considering most countries cannot develop or may not get or may not afford a true LO designed aircraft.

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 07 Dec 2011 11:08

why the tyre is flat? is it worn out? how safe is it to use such a grip-less tyre? or do they use such tyres purposefully

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Dec 2011 13:27

Kartik Austin has a point ; even if you go by the elementary radar range equation the detection range only varies as 4th root of RCS (rest of the variables being same ). So change from 15m^2 frontal RCS to say 5m^2 frontal RCS will not reduce the detection range by much.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Dec 2011 13:37

Slick tire provides maximum traction on a dry and even surface like a concrete/asphalt . Even formula 1 cars and other racing sport use slick tires unless conditions are wet .

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Dec 2011 15:07

adityadange wrote:why the tyre is flat? is it worn out? how safe is it to use such a grip-less tyre? or do they use such tyres purposefully

What tyre? I don't see any tyre on this page. Must have worn out fully maybe? Oh! Just saw it

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 07 Dec 2011 15:46

^^i was referring to the sukhoi tyre in the pic above showing its air intake.

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 13 Dec 2011 14:13

Third Su-30mki crash today, reported just minutes ago near pune in Kashnand village, both pilots safe !

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 13 Dec 2011 14:21

News confirmed

IAF’s Sukhoi 30 MKI crashes near Pune , Both Pilot eject safely

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 Dec 2011 14:22

Indian Air force SU-30 MKI crashes in Pune

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 13 Dec 2011 18:25

Thanks god. The pilots are safe.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 13 Dec 2011 18:49

self deleted.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Dec 2011 18:50

why are you posting irrelevant news items in threads ?

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 13 Dec 2011 21:54

IAF personnel inspect the debris of the Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 13 Dec 2011 23:21

Thank God the pilots are safe.

But really whats up with IAF recently.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Dec 2011 23:25

relax.. until investigations are out, don't flare up on the services.

The first link said, the first failure was FBW, and the second one with Engine. So hang on to get to know what is up with this crash.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 14 Dec 2011 00:40

IN PHOTOS: Sukhoi-30 fighter plane crashes near Pune - Rediff

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Dec 2011 01:08

Can anyone post the flight safety article of the incident when the Su30 engine caught fire but pilots were able to land safely.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Dec 2011 01:12

Do we know if it was a home-built aircraft or acquired from Russia? If it was FBW or engine failure,it could be quality control.Anyway,the wreckage has been recovered so the fault should be easy to identify,since the pilots too are safe.

In the Ind.aviation thd., I've given a few details of a DTI report on IRST becoming the new "AESA" of the next decade,as current advances in radar jamming/EW are tending to cancel out advantages between stealth and non-stealth aircraft and such "low observable" situs,resulting in RF "draws" herald a return to close-combat advantages,which may prove decisive in future battle scenarios.Here IRST dev. with Russian systems having a "100 km range" give an advantage.

There was a pic of a Super-Flanker with a flush internal weapons bay between the engine intake trunking and slightly altered intake shapes too,posted some time ago in a thread.It might be worthwhile to revisit the pic. and examine the details in the light of above RCS debate.