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
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by mody »

Wiki lists Su 30 MKI's radar cross section as being 20 sq meters, while that of Su 35 as being 1 sq. meter. How is Su35's RCS 20 time lower then that of Su 30 MKI?

The below data is given in the F-22 Raptor page on Wiki:


Aircraft Radar cross section (estimate)
Sukhoi Su-30MKI 20 square metres[173]
Dassault Rafale 2 square metres[174]
Eurofighter Typhoon 1 square metre[175]
Sukhoi Su-35BM 1 square metre[176]
Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk 0.025 square metres[174]
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor 0.0001 square metres[177]
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

The Engine Intakes with the Engine blades completely open as opposed to S shaped designs can make a huge difference.
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by mody »

A twenty times reduction in RCS, with only a change is the air intake ducts seems a bit too much. The Su 35 is listed at having half the RCS of even the rafael. Even if it is equal, dimensionally the Su-35 is bigger plane that both the EF-2K and the rafael.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

Mody-> I agree , the main reduction will come from the intake redesign, don't know what the other changes are which reduces RCS by such a huge degree.
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 dont believe the su35BM number posted.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

Singha, any chance SU 35BM has LCA % composites?
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Victor »

Singha wrote:I dont believe the su35BM number posted.
The RCS given for the Su30 MKI is also nonsense. Wiki cites an old Ajai Shukla article for its "20 sq mt" claim. For comparision, the 1950s era Tu-16 Badger bomber which is almost twice as big is reported to have an RCS of 16 sq mts on the Su27 page.

If Rafale is 2 sq mt, I would expect the MKI would be about 3 or max 5.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Aditya_V wrote:The Engine Intakes with the Engine blades completely open as opposed to S shaped designs can make a huge difference.
The BM has S-ducts? Where is that mentioned? I couldn't find a clear enough pic of the intakes to determine that. In any case, given the flanker's engine placement, any S-duct if present would still provide only partial hiding of the fan blades. The lack of canards would make a difference in the RCS. But frankly both the 20m^2 and 1m^2 numbers appear to be pulled from someone's musharraf to me. Realitymust be somewhere in between.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

As Victor sahab has pointed out, Wiki page is to be considered with a pinch of salt. Original Su-27 airframe sans any RCS measures was around 15-16msq at most. The MKI has had RCS measures for sure (RAM) and then its composite %age has also increased over time - this was planned well in advance. Also, since the mechanical gimbals on the BARS in the MKI allows it to be placed at an angle other than perpendicular, RCS is further reduced (the big dish otherwise can be a nice reflector it seems)

Furthermore, the Russians have shown some rather stellar results in reducing radar sigs on legacy frames. IIRC, the IAF was shown an RCS reduction of 25X for the MiG-21. Is it any wonder that most AFs find the MiG-21 Bison a rather elusive targets? And that would also explain the reduction achieved on a Su-35BM. Supposedly, the Roosies are also using plasma to reduce the 35's RCS.

The Rafale, might actually have an RCS much smaller than 1msq as there has been some indications to this effect including a Dassault statement that its RCS was 1/3rd of a Mirage 2000 (3msq?). Phoon numbers have been all over the place including 2nd wonlee to F22 as well as 1/10th of F-15C (i.e. 1 msq).

CM
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

From what I had read in many books Yefim Gordon etc and if my memory is not playing tricks

RCS figures for

Su-27 , Su-30 , F-15 ---> 10 - 12 m2
Su-30MKI after RAM treatement etc ---> 5 m2
Bison after RAM treatement ----> 1 m2
Su-35S -----> 3 - 5 m2
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by shiv »

Radar signatures
http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/ ... -4168.html
F-22 _____ (-40 dBsm.) the size of a marble
B-2 ______ (-40 dBsm.) the size of a marble
F-117 ____ (-35 dBsm.)
JSF ______ (-30 dBsm.) the size of a golf ball (equivalent of an insect).
F-18E/F __ (0 dBsm.) the equivalent size of a 3 ft. dia. aluminum ball
B-1 ______ (0 dBsm.) the equivalent size of a 3 ft. dia. aluminum ball
conventional
F-15 type fighter aircraft = (+20 dBsm.)
B-52 _____ (+40 dBsm.) the equivalent size of a 170 ft. dia. aluminum ball

B-52: 99.5 sqm
B-1A: 10.0 sqm
B-1B: 1.02 sqm
SR-71: 0.014 sqm
F-22: 0.0065 sqm
F-117: 0.003 sqm
B-2: 0.0015 sqm
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1083
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Kailash »

(in Russia) Su-30 Caught Fire Before Crash – Investigators
The crew of a Su-30 fighter that crashed earlier on Tuesday in Russia’s Far East reported an engine fire before the crash, a spokesman for the Main Military Investigative Directorate said.

The Su-30MK2 fighter jet crashed 130 km northeast of Komsomolsk-na-Amure during a post-construction test flight. Both pilots ejected safely, although one of them was hurt on landing.

“While executing acceleration to a maximum speed, the first pilot reported a fire in the right engine,” the spokesman said. “The flight controller immediately ordered the crew to eject.”

“The investigators are taking all necessary steps to establish the cause of the crash,” the official said.

The aircraft belonged to the Komsomolsk-na-Amure factory where Su-30s are manufactured.

The Russian military earlier said that the plane had been built for export.

Su-family fighters constitute the bulk of Russia's arms exports.

Variants of Su-30 Flanker fighters are in service with air forces in several foreign countries, including India, Indonesia, China, Algeria, Vietnam and Venezuela.
There is an image of the MKI on the site. Can someone clarify on what Su-30MK2 is?
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

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]
Last edited by Aditya_V on 29 Feb 2012 14:02, edited 1 time in total.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

That one was for the Vietnam AF , they ordered 12 Su-30MK2
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

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

Accompanied by two tnymi transport aircraft IL-76, Indian fighter jets stationed in France in two stages. The six Su-30 (№ № SB010, -13, -14, -16, -16 and -18) from the 24th Squadron "Hunting Hawk" (Hunting Hawk), stationed in Bareilly, not far from Delhi, flew nine June at Jamnagar, which is located in western India. Hence, they have committed non-stop flight with one or two ingredients in the air from two air tankers Il-78M (4625 km, 6 hours of flight), one of which was from the 78th Squadron "Land Battle," stationed at Agra, the Egyptian airbase in Dzhianklise near Alexandria. This database is the main operating base for Egyptian F-16 fighters. Hence the aircraft made a flight without refueling in 2590 km (4 hour flight) on the basis of "Charles Monier".

...
Su-30MKI: IAF's "long arm"
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 »

su30 ferry range is known to be 3000km. so they had a 400km reroute margin at the end of that 4 hr mission.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

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

Aircraft Performance
Maximum flight range (with rockets 2xR-27R1, 2xR-73E launched at half distance):
- at sea level, km 1,270
- at height, km 3,000
- with one refuelling (at 1.500 kg fuel remaining), km 5,200
- with two refuellings in flight, km 8,000
SO I think ferry range will atleast a 1000km more and even at sea level flight with 4 aam's the range in 1270KM.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Aditya_V wrote: 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.
aniket
BRFite
Posts: 290
Joined: 14 Dec 2010 17:34
Location: On the top of the world

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by aniket »

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.
kuldipchager
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:35
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by kuldipchager »

<del>
Last edited by Rahul M on 11 Mar 2012 23:22, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: learn to quote posts. you have been here long enough.
Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1130
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Hiten »

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

http://www.aame.in/2012/03/ukrainian-ha ... oi-su.html
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

As a basic platform for the multirole heavy fighter aircraft, the Su-30MKI is remarkable primarily for its universality. It boasts a so-called “open architecture”, making it relatively easy to add new systems in the basic electronic equipment and to use advanced guided weapons (supplied by different manufacturers).

The Su-30MKI sports a Russian radar and optic locator, French navigation and heads-up display systems, Israeli EW and weapon-guidance systems, and Indian computers.

The “Chinese” line is based on a different logic that prescribes parallel installation of new systems that fall short of full integration.

Most likely, the military is attracted by how easy it is to add different weapons and equipment to the Su-30MKI, transforming it into an attack fighter-bomber, a heavy interceptor aircraft, or something else.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by abhik »

nachiket wrote:...
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.
Does the MKI not have any wet stations currently? I find that a little hard to believe.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

abhik wrote:
nachiket wrote:...
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.
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.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by nachiket »

^^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.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Shrinivasan »

nachiket wrote:^^There are two center-line 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)
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

http://www.sukhoi.org/files/su_news_29-08-07_eng.pdf
The redesigned airframe internal volumes
allowed an increase in the Su-35’s fuel capacity
by more than 20 per cent to 11,500 kg over
9,400 kg of the production Su-27. In addition,
the aircraft can carry two drop tanks 1,800
litres each on under-wing stores. With the
drop tanks, the total fuel capacity measures
14,300 kg.
Su-34:
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... hoi_lg.jpg
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

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.
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 »

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.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... rs-370055/
... Intended to replace some of Russia's ageing Su-24 bombers, the type is to provide support for the navy's Black Sea fleet, using its 800nm (1,500km) combat range.

The Su-30SM can carry a maximum weapons load totalling 8t, with the Russian navy planning to arm it with the NPO Mashinostroyenia Yakhont anti-ship missile, which has a maximum range of 162nm.

...
So the Su-30SM is likely to be close to Super-30. Why doesnt Russia procure Brahmos?
Indrajit
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 19 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Indrajit »

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.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

^^^ File name reads "su35spitcabina.jpg" :((
Indrajit
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 19 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Indrajit »

Maybe so but this comes from a very reliable poster who is in the VVS.
kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by kmc_chacko »

Singha wrote: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.
+1
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

The cockpit photos are that of Su-35 twin large lcd.
Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Yogi_G »

Singha wrote: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.
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.
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 »

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

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. ??????
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by koti »

NRao wrote: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.
NRao wrote:Have been a huge fan of the Platypus!!!
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.
Post Reply