Bharat Rakshak

(in Russia) Su-30 Caught Fire Before Crash – Investigators



There is an image of the MKI on the site. Can someone clarify on what Su-30MK2 is?

Per the link the accident happened to aircraft built at Komsomolsk-na-Amure factory - Isnt it KNAAPO where Chinese SU 30MKK's were built. [Deleted unnecessary line]

That one was for the Vietnam AF , they ordered 12 Su-30MK2

http://suavia.info/page/64/



Su-30MKI: IAF's "long arm"

su30 ferry range is known to be 3000km. so they had a 400km reroute margin at the end of that 4 hr mission.

Singha _> I dont think 3000 KM is ferry range, as per this

Aircraft Performance



SO I think ferry range will atleast a 1000km more and even at sea level flight with 4 aam's the range in 1270KM.

The difference will be smaller IMO. The Su-30 carries no drop tanks. So the ferry range is pretty much the max range on internal fuel. During the Super-30 upgrade I hope one of the things they look at is adding plumbing for at least 2 wet stations.

X post from Indian Mil. Aviation i think it belongs here
Does anybody else also feel like the SU-30MKI is like the MIG-21.I mean it is a wonderful plane in it's time,we produce it under license like the MIG-21.I really hope it's hope it's fate is better than the MIG-21 in the future,it's not labelled a flying coffin and not given the respect that it deserves.One of many similarities also include that it is an integral part of our fleet.

<del>

Ukrainian hardware on India's Sukhoi Su-30 MKI aircrafts

http://www.aame.in/2012/03/ukrainian-ha ... oi-su.html

Does the MKI not have any wet stations currently? I find that a little hard to believe.

Centre-line is a wet station - it supports the IFR probe from there.

^^There are two centerline stations. And come to think of it, the MKI carries the buddy refueling pod. I guess that wouldn't be possible without wet stations. I never thought of it before.
Still can't find a single pic of any flanker version carrying a drop tank though.

I thought the buddy refueling pod provides fuel from special tanks carried for this purpose and not from internal tanks? if it is so, then Wet Points are less likely, If it provides from Internal fuel, then Wet Points are a certainty.
I would presume, there would be couple of wet points which are seldom used considering the humungous fuel capacity of our Rambhas. But for some special missions, they might need to lug some drop tanks for extra fuel capacity (say during an escort mission for a special package delivery)

http://www.sukhoi.org/files/su_news_29-08-07_eng.pdf



Su-34:
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... hoi_lg.jpg

What we need, at the very least as part of the SFC is 2-3 sqd of MKI with a similar internal/external fuel capacity to the Su-34, and not the Su-35, which carries less fuel (internal and external).

The Su-34 iirc is capable of carrying 12500kg internally and 3 X 2000ltr EFT, whereas the Su-35 carries 11500kg + 2 X 1800ltr EFTs. All can carry about 8000kg payload as well. What we need is the capacity to carry 3 ASM + 4 AAMs (4000kg max) for 2000km combat radius without IFR.

This is necessary so as to give the MKIs more reach in the IOR and around SE Asia. Stationed at A&N Is. such MKIs should be able to bring fringes of the SCS under purview. From Arunachal they may even be able to get deep into mainland dragonland. This would also give necessary reach/control over persian gulf. Basically, the entire stretch from Hormuz Straits and the oil rich Najdi areas of the Gulf in the West to Central Asia in the North, Diego Garcia in the South and SCS in the east can be kept an eye on.

It is time India staked its claim in the ocean that bears its name.

actually why not purchase 3 sqdns of Su34 (with avionics to our taste) for a joint holding of SFC+IN maritime strike?
the engine is apparently the same AL31 FM1 variant. it can carry same payload as Su30 but with better range and much better crew comfort.

Rus is committed to the project (replacing Su24 with Su34) and will eventually have a fleet of 120, so this plane has a sound future in home country - spares wont be an issue.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... rs-370055/



So the Su-30SM is likely to be close to Super-30. Why doesnt Russia procure Brahmos?

First pics of "Super 30" upgraded MKI cockpit,courtesy Irkut at WAFF.

http://www.mycity-military.com/imgs2/14 ... cabina.jpg

All touch screen, large displays,Giant touch panel on the right side.

^^^ File name reads "su35spitcabina.jpg"

Maybe so but this comes from a very reliable poster who is in the VVS.

+1

The cockpit photos are that of Su-35 twin large lcd.

Singha ji, just curious. What is it that the Su-34 can do that the MKI cant (with the modification to carry Brahmos and with a dedicated naval strike arm equipped with 2-3 squadrons of these). I know it is a tall expectation to see Chinese carriers in Indian ocean taking the attack to India but these su-34s will be naked against the carrier based Su-33s of the Chinese carriers. A MKI on the other hand can get into the engagement with both Brahmos and a few Air to air missiles.

None of the Soviet bombers which dint do more than 8-10 hour trips were equipped with the toilets. Only the ones with the 13,000+ KM bombers had toilets to them. So do we need the crew comfort aspect given that most naval craft intercepts by our land based craft wont be more than 3-4 hours in duration? For the long haul patrol we will have the P-8s anyway.

our MKI have done 6 hr missions in tests, but I doubt in what shape the pilots would be if asked to do it day after day in MKI.
advantages of Su34
- pressurized cockpit - no need for oxy masks except at very high alt
- side by side layout , the pilot can be aware of the WSO situation easily
- space / food /toilet
- can likely add drop tanks also

in the absense of P8I being armed with Brahmos, if we need a long loiter asset to supplement the P8, the su34 looks more suitable than MKI.

but in a on-call emergency the MKI will do fine.

its like comparing a modernized FB-111 to F-15E.

Have been a huge fan of the Platypus!!!

However, need to find out if the plane can be flown by both the pilots(if you want to compare it to the MKI).

Also, these long flights are not the norm (as you seem to indicate too). MKI pilots are in good enough shape to conduct them per the 'ASR'. Outside of the ability to stretch I do not see much of an advantage (considering where the Sukhoi effort is currently WRT the IAF).

From an agility stand point, is it close to the MKI? Point being my recollection of this version is that it was more of a bomb truck. It may complement the MKI in certain areas. IIRC it performed well in the naval arena too. ??????

It doesn't have to be. Its TWR is considerably less and it also has a higher wing loading. It is a supersonic tactical bomber with a very good range to size characteristics.


Me too. But not for IN. IAF has/will have enough platforms to do efficient tactical strike missions(Rafa/MKI/MirageUPG).
OTOH, an AC like Tu22M3 will be of uncomparable advaantage to IN over the Su34/MKI types.

It is likely that these AC will be Brahmos capable. I don't see a great advantage in IN having these instead of MKI. It doesn't add much in comparision with the MKI and adding a new AC like thin may completely shut the doors for the Backfires.
If IN has any realistic plan to counter PLAN and project its capabilities, it should only look at Tu22M3 and above.

can be good baseline model for desi heavy combat aircraft (HCA), that is a multi-role-mini-awac-bomber/fighter. it can have everything, but a speed of mach > 2.5 would be awesome. this one aircraft could be a NG stealth, internal weapons, and can drop guided nukes as well.

Plus some other features:

- armoured titanium tub around cockpit
- additional fuel capacity
- window 'blinds' - presumably for additional crew comfort and blocking flash from nuclear attack
- different electronic self defence suite
- different radar sensor specialized for strike missions. I doubt Bars will have the same features.
- heavy duty landing gear designed for higher loads
- airframe optimized for lo-lo strike

Singha got the right analogy ... I think in event of choosing between 3 sqns of Su-34 vs 4 units of locally manufactured Su-30s, I think the latter is a more rational choice.

Most importantly I would like to see a dedicated Mirage/Su-30 force operationalized under SFC with advertized nuclear mission similar to France.

Viz-a-viz long range bomber role - lets not forget we already possess it in form of IL-38 and TU-142. Both of these aircraft are equipped with cruise missiles and can take out sea and shore targets from long distances. So there is some capability before IL-78s came in - though defeatable by strong air forces.

What would be affordable might set the context even better. A bunch of Su-34s in high loiter sorties or a single P-8 or IL-38 class aircraft effectively covering the same area with very little crew fatigue. Something tells me that the latter would be more cost effective given that the P-8 comes off a base which is designed for civilian applications for long flight legs with optimal fuel consumption. The platypuses can do fast dashes burning their fuel away to glory. Would the volumes of enemy ships in the vicinity justify backfires equipped with rotary launchers seating Brahmos missiles as against a Su-34? I dont think the volumes are there to justify backfires especially given Panda's somewhat limited expeditionary capabilities. Unkil is altogether a different ball game.

yes I had forgotten to mention the A2G and A2sea optimized radar of the Su34.

dont forget we are discussing not just ASM strikes with brahmos here, but long range nuclear and conventional missions with PGMs ranging from KH59 & sudarshan types to Nirbhay-A.

would be interesting to compare apples to apples how much and how far the Rafale can carry vs the Su34 and if the Rafale can carry atleast 1 Nirbhay size weapon.

Pardon my ignorance, been a few years since I googled for the Platypus.

However, IMHO, two items of interest/concern:

1) They need to be ship based (based on my recollection) (I have no clue as to their current status), and
2) IF that is the case IN needs to make mega changes to her OP thinking. Perhaps even to the extent to get the KH out of retirement

On a slightly diff note, IF the Russians are collecting that many of these (wondrous) pups, in what time frame can IN dream of getting them? Man, you certainly caught my attention and woke me up from deep meditation.

I have to say that as good as the Su-34 is, and it IS awesome, it cannot compare with the TU-22M3. Ideally, I'd like to see 2 sqds of the latter, which should be quickly available if India so chooses. And what a capability leap. Even if SC is not as robust, if they can even get a dozen flying at any given time, it should do the trick. It'll be expensive, and cumbersome, but it will offer a capability and options that no Su-34, 35, MKI could - take the battle to the enemy, right in his backyard. As far as as uptimes are concerned, I don't think strategic assets require to be flying sorties the rate at which fighters do. They are earmarked for a specific role, and are optimized to operate only during such peculiar needs. Nor is its mission comparable to an MPA or AWACS - which again, would require much better uptimes, and streamlined maintenance.

I see this as a midterm, strategic investment (until perhaps a Pakda can be had), and no expense should be spared to shore up such power.

Can someone explain how exactly is the Su-34 so "awesome" versus the Su-30 MKI.

Lets go by the numbers - in particular, range and payload.

The rest of the stuff is "ok" but not necessarily a decisive factor. While the side by side cockpit is great - one set of crew in a still cramped cockpit with limited visibility is hardly optimal. There's no toilet etc either - thats an urban legend. Both crew get a hand held can for taking a leak. That's about it.

Basically, you want persistence and long reach but with a small footprint - go for business jet type platforms. If you want proper persistence and reach- then there are MPAs. If you want speed, survivability and strike power as applicable , then instead of introducing another new type - you already have the Su-30 MKI and Rafale. The latter being available in its marine version as well.

The Su-30MKI BTW has fairly decent A2G & A2S modes. The Rafale ditto. Why introduce yet another type into the services, again dependent on barely there logistics from Russia (the Su-34 is a new type, made at NAPO and yet to be in service in number and will have significant differences from the MKI).

At the top of my head, looking at numbers, in the context of deep (strategic?) strike, the Su-34 is certainly very impressive:

Su-34/Su-30MKI

Payload: 8000kg / 8000kg
Hardpoints: 12 / 12
internal fuel: 12500kg/10000kg
external fuel: 3 X 2000ltr EFT/ not available
Range: 4000km/3000km
crew comfort: side-by-side seating/na
crew comfort: toilet/na
MAWS:present/na
RCS reduction X-band: more/less - just based on the effort in shaping
Terprom: yes/??
Armor:more/less?

The biggest difference is of course, the ability to carry payloads at greater distances. And crew comfort - they can even stand, sleep, eat, and poop during long range misssions, allowing better endurance and pilot alertness. And since we were talking in the context of the backfire, this advantage(s) stands out all the more vs. the MKI. However, I do feel, that the MKI might be brought to similar standards (as I have posted before).

Cain - the Su-34 does not have a toilet!
All it does have is a couple of hand held cans for the pilots.

Both have TFR. Neither has TERPROM. Terprom is a passive database based terrain following capability offered by a US based firm (Which purchased a brit firm which developed it).

Coming to range/payload - your data shows the only clear advantage is in additional fuel. Based on that, the MKI can be modified to get wet plumbing for its wings or add external fuel tanks, which should go a long way in solving the range issue. The Su-34 is far heavier than the MKI as well - so that should actually allow the MKI to get similar range at lesser amounts of fuel.

Coming to crew comfort - again, when and where is the mission where a pilot is going to be standing around, stretching, especially in wartime - when both will be on alert!
While the side by side seating is an advantage, its not such a huge advantage as is made out to be.

Bottomline - the MKI should be able to do 80% of what the Su-34 can today across most missions and with some tweaking, ie extra fuel, can do 90-100% even. The only disadvantage being the lack of truly comfortable cockpits - is that by itself a decider to induct a new type? I'd think not.

May be the Russians are going cheap ...... what next no spares? THE Platypus used to even have a galley!!!! (Gordon, Yefim. Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker: Air Superiority Fighter. London: Airlife Publishing, 1999.) Only missing element was the charpai - no place to hang it after use.

But, I do not see the 34 as a substitute for the MKI. Too late for that. I would think that what needs to have been factored in should have been factored in by now - into the MKI.

But, those 42 MKIs for the SFC? These 34s may be a great fit for them - in the IAF.

And, a companion 55 odd for the IN - ship based I would suggest. I think India needs 5 ACs - three out at sea, of which two unknown should carry flowers. 10 34s per AC.

And as far as those Tu-22M3s ............. where are the political guts that are needed to project such power. IF per chace India dreams about the PAK-DAs I would suggest that India should have a rascal at the head of a secret MoD branch, which is unknown to the "Raksha Mantri".

If we put a newly married couple in a Su-34, they can hold hands while flying it.