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
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by SaiK »

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

Singha wrote: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.
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.
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 »

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.
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 »

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

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.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

koti wrote:
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.
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.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Karan M »

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).
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

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).
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Karan M »

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

the Su-34 does not have a toilet!
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".
Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Dmurphy »

Cain Marko wrote:Su-34/Su-30MKI
If we put a newly married couple in a Su-34, they can hold hands while flying it. :mrgreen:
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

NRao wrote:...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.....
Su-34 cannot operate from aircraft carrier (never did). Only cousins Su-33 and Su-27KUB can do that.

Su-27KUB/Su-33UB has a similar configuration ...

Image

Image
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

Karan M wrote:Cain - the Su-34 does not have a toilet!
A number of folks, well respected ones say it does Karan, I believe Pibu did as well.
All it does have is a couple of hand held cans for the pilots.
Gross! I've heard of s**t cans before, but that is ridiculous.
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).
Thanks.
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.
Yes, I feel so too, and made the point earlier.
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.
Disagree here, on long flights those comforts could mean a lot. IIRC, there were MKI sorties starting from PUne, going all the way to A&N and back. A 10 hour flight would be rather fatiguing, and the ability to stretch and catch a wink of sleep can make a world of a difference. The Russkis who seem eminently practical when designing their hardware would be quite remiss to make such a drastic change to the flanker layout if it simply offers a marginal advantage.
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.
Well, if it makes a critical difference to a crucial mission, it might be worth consideration. But yes, it is not thaat different from an MKI. And they might be able to fix the seats in an MKI in a way that allows the pilots to stretch and catch a quick shuteye.

Personally, I'd rather see something with truly long reach. A Tu-22MKI can dramatically alter IN/IAF capabilities, and with appropriate mods (it was already RCS reduced to some degree) geared towards the modern battlespace:

1) Newer sensors, L-band wing mounted AESAs and even modest X band radar.
2) Self escort capability with some AAMs.
3) A fresh glass cockpit
4) Comprehensive EW suite: Massive internal jammers plus 360 deg MAWS (iirc it already has a hardkill cannon in the rear, perhaps they can add a couple more, or heh an HMS for some of the crew? Millenium Falcon style!)
5) Ability to carry 4-6 Brahmos/Nirbhay or boatload of smaller mijjiles.
6) Further RCS reduction

And we can have an excellent super long ranged missile carrier bringing everything from CBGs to well defended C&C areas under the umbrella for DEAD type missions.

The advantages provided by this capability are huge:
1) Strategic and nuclear - obvious, but not necessary
2) Conventional long ranged strikes
3) Excellent anti shipping capability
4) Unlike nuke subs or CBGs they provide more flexibility - quicker reactions.

I am going to start an online petition for the GOI to buy these - Bharat Karnad has already signed it! :) :twisted:
And Murphyjee, this will allow for the newly weds to do a lot more than just hold hands!

CM
Last edited by Cain Marko on 01 Apr 2012 09:30, 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 »

ideal would have been a Backfire2 + uran + brahmos had the development of the product continued like it did for the american planes. a set of 48 of these birds would have enough coverage in the IOR.

but theres going to be a 15 yr gap now until the PAKDA comes online as our next potential entry point into the dedicated bomber trade. it might be smaller than backfire though and not as speedy.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

why Uran on backfires? too little range - it'd require the backfire to get in too close for comfort. All weapons should be released before air cap can engage - 300-400km from target. The newer Kh-32 now, that is a nifty mijjile. This is what Kopp has to say about the Backfire M3:
In terms of performance the Backfire C is best described as a 124 tonne 'oversized F-111', carrying around 120,000 lb of internal fuel, with Mach 2 class dash speed and a combat radius between 2,000 and 2,500 nautical miles :shock: , subject to weapon payload and profile. Eastern European sources claim that low level penetration profiles can be flown, in addition to the 'classical' high altitude supersonic profile. Tupolev data indicates that the aircraft is compatible with any runway capable of supporting a later 767 variant.

The Tu-22M3 remained in production until 1993, and various sources claim that up to 268 units were built. As IOC was achieved in 1989 and operational flying rapidly curtailed after 1991, the average number of fatigue hours accumulated by the Backfire C fleet is very low, especially for the last aircraft built, which have a calendar age of only 14 years. US sources currently put Russian Air Force inventory numbers at 105, Russian Naval Aviation numbers at 105, and Ukrainian Air Force numbers at 14 (with 16 Backfire B).
These birds are going nowhere fast, and there should be an assured supply of parts for some time to come. A great interim purchase until something truly next gen comes along.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 01 Apr 2012 09:38, 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 »

Urans are still cheap and useful vs "austere" targets like Amazon/F22/Gearing/Kidd class ships of the Pak variety.

a backfire squadron of 16 armed with say 8 missiles each could take off in the morning and return in the afternoon after wiping the PNs surface assets clean off the map :mrgreen:

the problem is the next 15 yr threat levels from the sino-pak combine does not need a Backfire. MKI and Rafale can manage. upg and new Jags may also be compatible with Exocet and Harpoon should we need to generalize the anti shipping role.

so we can save a few billion$$ and await the PAKDA.

if PLAN stages a sudden breakout by inducting 3 carriers asap and we need a response, leasing 3 Tu160 from Engels can be considered, each 12 x brahmos
Last edited by Singha on 01 Apr 2012 09:57, edited 2 times in total.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

Singha wrote:Urans are still cheap and useful vs "austere" targets like Amazon/F22/Gearing/Kidd class ships of the Pak variety.

a backfire squadron of 16 armed with say 8 missiles each could take off in the morning and return in the afternoon after wiping the PNs surface assets clean off the map :mrgreen:
:twisted: Hack thoo - puny navy wonlee needs some Jaguars to sink it. One sqd wonlee. But to take your fantasy further, a single backfire could theoretically carry about 14-16 Urans - at least six internally and about 8+ externally. We need no more than 3 backfire to clean the Arabian Sea of flotsam and assorted debris.
member_23061
BRFite
Posts: 222
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by member_23061 »

I had a question with regards to FCS of the Su 30. The engine blades are supposedly the reason for the poor evaluation with regards to the Rafale and Eurofighter. What happens if the 2 planes are at a different altitude? Will the RCS due to the engine blades disappear then?

Thank you!
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

^^ More than likely would be my guess, however, engine blades are not the only reason. The MKI is much bigger and offers greater surface area, plus its canopy is further raised adding to reflected area. Both, the EF and Rafale, esp. the latter were designed with greater attention to RCS reduction. However, much of this advantage is reduced because a) THe ecanards will carry EFTs to match MKI endurance, b) The Russians have had decent success in reducing RCS of legacy frames via RAM. Overall BVR, the edge could easily go to the MKI thanks to one massive and clear advantage it has over the E'canards - the BARS.

Btw, for those of us who were wondering about newer Russian AAMs, here is a foretaste of things to come:

http://russianplanes.net/ID71920
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

Right now 30 odd Tu-22M3 are being upgraded to Tu-22M3M standards , which will allow them to carry all new range of weapons , have digital glass cockpit and new navigation system.

If we can procure a dozen even Tu-22M3M bomber then it would significantly boost fire power and reach.

Strategic bomber ( Tu-160/PAK-DA) wont be sold for Geo Politics and Geo Strategic reason , not to mention Strategic Bombers are counted under START agreement between US-Russia due to dedicated but not restricted to nuclear bombing role which adds to its own bit of complications.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

On Su-34 , it has greater ~ 30 % internal volume compared to other Flankers and its airframe are strengthened and armoured are critical places besides the cockpit , which adds to its over all NTOW and MTOW

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su32/history/
- high load capabilities engineered through reinforced design of the airframe and landing gear, and increased fuel tankage.
- improved damage control (cockpit and essential systems armoured, explosion safety improved by engineering protection and filling the fuel tanks with PU-foam),
Strengthening of airframe may appear trivial but previous and recent air warfare has shown that during low level flying the most threat any aircraft faces are not from big sams but from Ack Ack and Manpads , the extra strengthening are done to deal with such cheap but common effective threats against low flying aircraft.

Not many know that during Gulf War 1 most of the Dirty and Daring low level bombing mission during the start of war was done by British Tornado pilots and they took many hits from Ack Ack and Manpads and if memory serves me right 16 tornado were lost in such daring high risky low level flights , something not often acknowledged and overwhelmed by American PR on Air war which is a source of hearburnt for RAF.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

Cain Marko wrote:Btw, for those of us who were wondering about newer Russian AAMs, here is a foretaste of things to come:
http://russianplanes.net/ID71920
What are those RVV-SD and RVV-MD ?
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

^the SD I think - can anyone spot the lattice controls? If not, could be the 180 even (doubt it thought).
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 »

one 6 tornado were lost. it appears they had no precision attack capability and how much they achieved at low level is debatable. since vast majority of our Jaguar fleet continues to deliver unguided munitions from low level it is a point to ponder given the much better SAM and radar directed AA guns available to all adversaries now. Losing 4 Jags attacking an airbase would wipe off 25% of a squadron. repeat it a day later and half the squadron is gone.

LGB itself is not a soln against heavily defended bases, as SAMs can reach up. either we should go the range extention kit route to release from upto 50-100km away in a shower of guided bombs or the low-cost Mjoelnir way of flying low and fast off the target axis and releasing this gliding submunitions dispenses that flies diagonally into harms way and does the job...probably both are needed?

wiki:
In 1991, the Tornado made its combat debut in the Gulf War, the British military activities in which were designated Operation Granby. Nearly 60 GR1s were deployed by the United Kingdom to air bases at Muharraq (Bahrain), Tabuk and Dhahran in Saudi Arabia.[76] Several Tornado ADVs were deployed to provide air cover, the threat of their long range missiles being a significant deterrent to Iraqi pilots, who would deliberately avoid combat when approached.

In the early stages of the coalition's military action action, the GR1s targeted military airfields across Iraq, deploying a mixture of 1,000 lb (450 kg) unguided bombs in loft-bombing attacks and specialised JP233 runway denial weapons. Six RAF Tornados were lost in the conflict, as was one Italian Tornado. Of the RAF aircraft, four were lost while delivering unguided bombs, one was lost after delivering JP233, and one trying to deliver laser-guided bombs.

On 17 January 1991, the first Tornado to be lost was shot down by an Iraqi SA-16 missile following a failed low-level bombing run.[148] On 19 January, another RAF Tornado was shot down during an intensive raid on Tallil Air Base.[149] The impact of the Tornado strikes upon Iraqi air fields is difficult to determine.

In an emergency deployment, the UK sent out a detachment of Blackburn Buccaneer aircraft equipped with the Pave Spike laser designator, allowing Tornado GR1s to drop precision guided weapons. A further crash programme in support of the sudden military action saw multiple GR1s outfitted with the TIALD laser designation system; author Claus-Christian Szejnmann declared that the TIALD pod enabled the GR1 to "achieve probably the most accurate bombing in the RAF's history".[74][152] Although laser designation proved effective in the Gulf War, only 23 TIALD pods were purchased by 2000; shortages negatively impacted combat operations over Kosovo.

Following the initial phase of the war, the GR1s switched to medium level strike missions, typical targets for these strikes included munition depots and oil refining facilities.

Only the reconnaissance Tornado GR1As continued to operate at the low-altitude high-speed profile throughout the war, the GR1A emerged unscathed despite the inherent danger posed by missions such as conducting pre-attack reconnaissance
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

^^ I'd hope that toss-bombing would not be on order on day 1 - that would be soosai. Exhaust all the bloody pgm/cm stock before trying such runs. Such runs might be OK after sufficient degradation of ADs
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

The Brits Tornado pilot are the most well trained and efficient in their task and certainly flying into Iraq was not easy during early days of war , reportedly the American were shit scared of this and wanted Brits to do this task.

The PGM there were not as wide spread as it is now , these days an upgraded Jags with pgms would be able to hit their targets with far better probability and accuracy then the best equipped tornado's could do 22 years back.

The low level threat has by an large remained the same , there is still the Ack Ack threat , Manpads and Low Level Sam like Crotale like the Iraqi had then , ofcourse things have moved on but low level flying as as risky today for any pilots as it was 2 decades back , one of the most toughest ,unglamorous and balls of steel task.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Karan M »

Cain Marko wrote:A number of folks, well respected ones say it does Karan, I believe Pibu did as well.
An urban legend...and sort of the net being an echo chamber thing. One man makes a mistake either due to an error or mistranslation and it is repeated by many others and soon becomes the established dogma..
Gross! I've heard of s**t cans before, but that is ridiculous.
More like a p*ss can. If its the other thing, they'll still have to hold it in.
Disagree here, on long flights those comforts could mean a lot. IIRC, there were MKI sorties starting from PUne, going all the way to A&N and back. A 10 hour flight would be rather fatiguing, and the ability to stretch and catch a wink of sleep can make a world of a difference. The Russkis who seem eminently practical when designing their hardware would be quite remiss to make such a drastic change to the flanker layout if it simply offers a marginal advantage.
Thing is if you want to have long flights with pilot comfort & don't want to compromise on pilot alertness, get two crews and put them in a MPA and have them rotate. If you are going into a combat situation and even if the target is located far away, the crew is likely going to be on tenterhooks throughout. The Rafale & Typhoon both flew 6 hour plus missions during the recent Libya campaign. The point is modern cockpits with decent cooling can allow for missions @ that range for fighters. Beyond that level though, its best to go for a larger platform.
Well, if it makes a critical difference to a crucial mission, it might be worth consideration. But yes, it is not thaat different from an MKI. And they might be able to fix the seats in an MKI in a way that allows the pilots to stretch and catch a quick shuteye.
How crucial is that single focus mission anyhow? If the P-8s or Il-38's see something dangerous, they can attack it with their AShMs. And in wartime, they might well get escorted for high risk missions in zones the enemy may be operating in. For that again, a MKI + P8 combo may be sufficient as versus an all Su-34 force which may actually fare worse, thanks to limited sensor coverage or not as good in A2A as a MKI.
Personally, I'd rather see something with truly long reach. A Tu-22MKI can dramatically alter IN/IAF capabilities, and with appropriate mods (it was already RCS reduced to some degree) geared towards the modern battlespace:
We'll have to make one. Buy such a customized piece, that too based on 70's airframe tech from the Russians and what you have is a white elephant and a hanger queen.
1) Newer sensors, L-band wing mounted AESAs and even modest X band radar.
2) Self escort capability with some AAMs.
3) A fresh glass cockpit
4) Comprehensive EW suite: Massive internal jammers plus 360 deg MAWS (iirc it already has a hardkill cannon in the rear, perhaps they can add a couple more, or heh an HMS for some of the crew? Millenium Falcon style!)
5) Ability to carry 4-6 Brahmos/Nirbhay or boatload of smaller mijjiles.
6) Further RCS reduction
All this is either already available on the MKI class platform or can be retrofitted as part of the upgrades. Instead of Brahmos/Nirbhay, go for lighter, smaller, stealthier missiles - like the NSM.
And we can have an excellent super long ranged missile carrier bringing everything from CBGs to well defended C&C areas under the umbrella for DEAD type missions.
Again, the MKI has this capability. If you want a missile carrier that can just chuck missiles - modify the MTA to something like this. Still better than buying Tu-22s and modifying them piecemeal.
I am going to start an online petition for the GOI to buy these - Bharat Karnad has already signed it! :) :twisted:
And Murphyjee, this will allow for the newly weds to do a lot more than just hold hands!

CM
Problem with Karnad - even though he is one of India's few hawks (along with Chellaney) is that his opinion pieces are often whimsical and he is really not upto date with weapons systems. His whimsy for instance extends to replacing the strike corps with one unit (ignoring the multiple problems with that approach) and his articles pitching for the Tu-160 etc totally ignore the logistics aspect. The Russians are barely able to maintain their own fleets (let alone support a customer) and continue to have problems with meeting the IAF's high intensity training cycle (so we end up ordering more and more, and much in advance to compensate). With the teething problems even the relatively simpler MiG-29K had, the Tu-22MKX would be a boondoggle.

Simply put, upgrade the MKIs with wet tanks, get them more AShMs & buy more P-8s or develop our own MRTA class based platform and your problems are solved, in a more effective fashion than a handful of hanger queens which may or may not take off depending on the day or whether spares are available.
VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 1034
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by VishalJ »

I'm the owner/creator & Admin of Sukhoi Su30 Photo Pool on Flickr < Link also a part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30

For those who dont know Flickr:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr
In August 2011 the site reported that it was hosting more than 6 billion images and this number continues to grow steadily according to reporting sources.
Photos and videos can be accessed from Flickr without the need to register an account but an account must be made in order to upload content onto the website.
Registering an account also allows users to create a profile page containing photos and videos that the user has uploaded and also grants the ability to add another Flickr user as a contact
In short, its THE place to upload an image.
Its also where (among others) The White House, USAF, UK MoD and millions more upload & share their images.

Looking for:
People who Love looking-up airplane images regularly, especially Su30 images on Flickr
Ones who who would like to be responsible Administrators/Moderators for the group.

Your Profile:
Searching for & Inviting Quality Su30 Images (exception for high Visual-Impact photos) on FLickr to be added to the Group (involves 2 clicks and/or copy-pasting 1 line of code)
You would need to be patient with its photos as its a difficult plane to shoot, needs specialised equipment to shoot it in action & not easy to go shooting Su30s everyday :D

For Starters, anybody can Join & follow the group.
Questions etc - Email | Twitter

Cheers - VJ
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

The story of Su-34 having toilet is more of urban legend and mix of fact.

But here is what Yefim Gordon in his book Russian Air Power ( New Edition ) pg 278 has to say , should lay the matter to rest. To quote
"The flight deck of the Su-34 prototypes featured a toilet and a galley with an electric food heater similar to the ones found on airlines. Production example however have neither ; to be precise they still have a sanitary device resembling a urinal and allowing the crewmembers to take a leak , while the food heater has been replaced by 1-litre thermos flasks holding tea or soup or what ever which are kept warm by means of outsize 'cup holders' with integral electric heating spirals."

I think they would have experimented with long range mission on prototype stage with toilet etc and would have found little usefulness as most likely a Tactical Bomber like Su-34 wont have a mission lasting over 10 hours at best ,if the pilot has to crap then it might be one rare occasion not worth using the space premium.

There is a video floating around somewhere which should one of the pilot behind the seat standing and loosing up doing dand baitak something similar and the space between seats is wide enough to lay down and take a short nap , these things are probably more useful then having a toilet or a galley, Probanly a MRE meal and hot soup should just do fine for the tummy.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

Karan M wrote:
Personally, I'd rather see something with truly long reach. A Tu-22MKI can dramatically alter IN/IAF capabilities, and with appropriate mods (it was already RCS reduced to some degree) geared towards the modern battlespace:
We'll have to make one. Buy such a customized piece, that too based on 70's airframe tech from the Russians and what you have is a white elephant and a hanger queen.
1) Newer sensors, L-band wing mounted AESAs and even modest X band radar.
2) Self escort capability with some AAMs.
3) A fresh glass cockpit
4) Comprehensive EW suite: Massive internal jammers plus 360 deg MAWS (iirc it already has a hardkill cannon in the rear, perhaps they can add a couple more, or heh an HMS for some of the crew? Millenium Falcon style!)
5) Ability to carry 4-6 Brahmos/Nirbhay or boatload of smaller mijjiles.
6) Further RCS reduction
All this is either already available on the MKI class platform or can be retrofitted as part of the upgrades. Instead of Brahmos/Nirbhay, go for lighter, smaller, stealthier missiles - like the NSM.
And we can have an excellent super long ranged missile carrier bringing everything from CBGs to well defended C&C areas under the umbrella for DEAD type missions.
Again, the MKI has this capability. If you want a missile carrier that can just chuck missiles - modify the MTA to something like this. Still better than buying Tu-22s and modifying them piecemeal.
I am going to start an online petition for the GOI to buy these - Bharat Karnad has already signed it! :) :twisted:
And Murphyjee, this will allow for the newly weds to do a lot more than just hold hands!

CM
Problem with Karnad - even though he is one of India's few hawks (along with Chellaney) is that his opinion pieces are often whimsical and he is really not upto date with weapons systems. His whimsy for instance extends to replacing the strike corps with one unit (ignoring the multiple problems with that approach) and his articles pitching for the Tu-160 etc totally ignore the logistics aspect. The Russians are barely able to maintain their own fleets (let alone support a customer) and continue to have problems with meeting the IAF's high intensity training cycle (so we end up ordering more and more, and much in advance to compensate). With the teething problems even the relatively simpler MiG-29K had, the Tu-22MKX would be a boondoggle.

Simply put, upgrade the MKIs with wet tanks, get them more AShMs & buy more P-8s or develop our own MRTA class based platform and your problems are solved, in a more effective fashion than a handful of hanger queens which may or may not take off depending on the day or whether spares are available.
Not really, a Su-30MKI + P8i do not give strategic options as would a dedicated fast, long ranged bomber. The MKI is completely outclassed in terms of range/payload. And the P8i, in terms of speed, initiative and survivability. Such a platform stands alone in a niche role. As said before, the Tu-M3 is being upgraded as of 2012 and there are large numbers of airframes with very little hours available. A similar upgrade should not be an issue.

What great teething problems did the MiG-29k have that could not be worked out? And how reasonable is comparing a small carrier borne fighter with a strategic bomber? These are not fighters, not even MPAs. Under a mostly strategic role, they are primed for rather unique missions. With enough $$$s + Planning, SCM issues can be worked around - and this is one case, where it is worth the investment imho.

Point is, if we can buy/lease a one off Chakra, and effectively use a token number of Bears; can't see why a similar setup can't be availed with a Tu-22M3M. As said before, a few of them up and running at any given time provides options that nothing else will, neither MKIs, P8s, Su-34s or any combo thereof. There is not much I agree on with Karnad, but the need for a long ranged, fast bomber is one that I do. India needs these to be able to punch its weight in the IOR and extended zones at least until it can start stationing larger #s of CBGs or SSNs in critical areas.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Karan M »

Cain Marko wrote:Not really, a Su-30MKI + P8i do not give strategic options as would a dedicated fast, long ranged bomber. The MKI is completely outclassed in terms of range/payload. And the P8i, in terms of speed, initiative and survivability. Such a platform stands alone in a niche role. As said before, the Tu-M3 is being upgraded as of 2012 and there are large numbers of airframes with very little hours available. A similar upgrade should not be an issue.
What "strategic options" are enabled by having a handful of Tu-22M3's which are still vulnerable to fleet air defence, as versus a P-8 fleet & Su-30 MKI fleet which is likely to be far more serviceable and available round the clock as well. What "niche role" are we talking of here and for what exactly? India needs a large surveillance footprint - which means persistence and a large sensor FOV (both available via the P-8 and similar platforms & not that much from a Tu-22), a versatile fleet (again available from the P-8 which can target both surface and subsurface contacts plus act as an A2A lookout if need be), and strike options (again available from the P-8 & if need be a Su-30 MKI loaded up with several Kh-31 class missiles plus AAMs for escort).

Just because the Tu-22 M3 is being upgraded as of 2012 does not mean it is a) ideal for Indian requirements and b) it will be easy to maintain. Russia has been very lackadaisical in providing spares and systems for regular airframes such as our MiGs, as a result of which India has spent tons of money and effort in indigenizing the spares supply and is even so, unimpressed with the spares support for the remaining SKU/LRUs. Now, consider importing a customized Tu-22 from Russia, a type gone out of production, already at the last stages of its existence and going through some sort of final upgrade to keep them viable. Have you considered the problems in terms of spares and serviceability?
What great teething problems did the MiG-29k have that could not be worked out?
It had hydraulics issues and as usual India had to deal with MiGs stonewalling and other negotiation tactics to resolve the challenge. The IN was not exactly a happy camper with the way MiG handled its share of these problems initially. And lets not think, but we ordered more so that means we were happy - its just that we don't have too many options after committing to a type. Even the IAF has been long unimpressed with MiG's attitude but has to remain engaged with them. The problem is not the manufacturer attitude alone, but the fact that post the fall of the FSU, the fragmentation of the supply network has lead to many challenges in acquiring quality spares for legacy platforms in sufficient numbers per our requirements, plus Russia's notorious refusal to share design data for legacy platforms, even when we asked for it to reduce attrition/identify and rectify possible design flaws (see MOD's answer to the Std Committee on Defence, in its last report).

And now we are considering a Tu-22 platform based on refurbishing old airframes, and that too - we would be the launch customer internationally when we are not even going to be making them locally & hence indigenizing the spares. This is what differentiates a Su-30 MKI over the lifecycle as versus a MiG-29K. For the latter we are overly dependent on Russia to fix design issues & but at least it is still a modern type whose designers are around and can still fix things. For a Tu22 whom do we turn to for faults that turn up when the plane is operated in Indian conditions?

I fear you are underestimating the importance logistics plays. An airframe as you'd know, has everything from the actual body of the aircraft, the structure (parts of which need to be replaced after x fatigue cycles or when damaged due to normal wear and tear - and there will be many in India which are "abnormal" in an environment not designed for the Tu22), the hydraulics and wiring, plus the assorted avionics, plus the umpteen systems that are all over the place. We'll need all these from Russia. The Tu22 is a 70's era bomber. It was not designed for the sort of modular maintenance the Rafale boasts. It will require high MMH for every FH. Add the fact that basically the Russians will probably be undertaking a limited avionics modernization plus a few more weapons etc, and it frankly remains what it is, an earlier gen system with severe maintenance concerns. There is a good reason the IN/IAF are floating tenders for "todays" aircraft as versus picking up depot'ed East European warbirds of Russian origin and then upgrading them on the fly. The challenges lie in both spares and fault rectification. These sort of things become white elephants and hanger queens. Especially when they are not even designed for Indian requirements to begin with. In the late-mid 90's, there was talk of India being offered the MiG-31, a similar "niche platform" with many of the same capabilities you point out for the Tu-22. Great speed etc, claimed strategic capabilities. India took one look at the maintenance footprint and denied it.

You know what would worry an aggressor about India? If we had multiple squadrons of P-8/MRTA class platforms for naval surveillance, plus fighters backing them up. A handful of Tu-22's would be chump change. You are welcome to disagree of course, but given the mess that is Russia's logistics in program after program, asking for such a complex platform, that too one which is no longer in production, is asking for trouble.
Point is, if we can buy/lease a one off Chakra, and effectively use a token number of Bears; can't see why a similar setup can't be availed with a Tu-22M3M.
So we made do with token performance when we couldn't do better and now we should do the same again? :)
We took a token number of Bears because we couldnt afford or obtain anything better. Today, India is not in the same position. I would rather India took a MRTA and made it into a datalinked missile carrier with a customized local radar taken from the XV-2004 project- fairly doable and acquire that in number, as versus having a handful of silver bullet Tu-22M3s which may or may not fly depending on whether we have enough spares.
As said before, a few of them up and running at any given time provides options that nothing else will, neither MKIs, P8s, Su-34s or any combo thereof.
What options are these? So a Tu-22 firing a few AShMs is better than a few P-8s firing the same number of AShMs? The latter may not be as fancy and downright pedestrian, but it'll get the job done. A Tu-22 strike, is liable to be vulnerable to Flankers from the Varyag or whatever the PRC is calling it now, especially if it is in limited numbers.

The rule of the game is detect, acquire, strike. Now with money being spent on more and more on the last, and the first two lagging is it really worthwhile? If one spends money on the typical high end MPA - I get so much more including detection of submarines, which IMO are the real challenge for the IN, not some sort of PLAN carrier fleet.
There is not much I agree on with Karnad, but the need for a long ranged, fast bomber is one that I do. India needs these to be able to punch its weight in the IOR and extended zones at least until it can start stationing larger #s of CBGs or SSNs in critical areas.
With due respect to Karnad, there is a good reason why he is good for some stuff (eg the need to be focused on a strong n-deterrence f.e.) but not really persuasive when it comes to other details, because he totally avoids talking of the operational details. Strategy is not about a "plan" but one which can be implemented to actually achieve something tangible. I'd anyday go for a fleet of aircraft which offer 80% of what the Tu-22 can in terms of range/payload etc as long as they are available whenever I need them, and where I need them. As versus being dependent on a bunch of temperamental silver bullets.

Please don't fall into the classic trap of thinking platforms. Think capabilities. Say you want to deter people @ x km - then think of what you'd require for the same, and look at whats affordable and what can be fielded regularly, and I am sure then you'll have better answers over the timeframe then a handful of Tu-22's.
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Kersi D »

Austin wrote:On Su-34 , it has greater ~ 30 % internal volume compared to other Flankers and its airframe are strengthened and armoured are critical places besides the cockpit , which adds to its over all NTOW and MTOW

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su32/history/
- high load capabilities engineered through reinforced design of the airframe and landing gear, and increased fuel tankage.
- improved damage control (cockpit and essential systems armoured, explosion safety improved by engineering protection and filling the fuel tanks with PU-foam),
Strengthening of airframe may appear trivial but previous and recent air warfare has shown that during low level flying the most threat any aircraft faces are not from big sams but from Ack Ack and Manpads , the extra strengthening are done to deal with such cheap but common effective threats against low flying aircraft.

Not many know that during Gulf War 1 most of the Dirty and Daring low level bombing mission during the start of war was done by British Tornado pilots and they took many hits from Ack Ack and Manpads and if memory serves me right 16 tornado were lost in such daring high risky low level flights , something not often acknowledged and overwhelmed by American PR on Air war which is a source of hearburnt for RAF.
I think most of these were attacks on air bases, with JP 233 bombs. These can be launched only at low altitudes so the poor RAF guys did not have much of a choice

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by koti »

Adding, for those of you who think that Backfire in IN is going to dramatically give us an advantage over PLAN, PLAN or PLAAF have more then 100 H-6 aircraft. These have similar ranges of Backfire and similar payload capability. Our surface and coastal forces in A&N/Eastern cost have a serious threat of Long range LACM, ASM clad H-6 that can attack in substantial numbers.

If at all we manage to get the Tu22M3, it will only balance the dangerous imbalance vis-a-vis PLAN/AF. It is not going to be a Golden bullet.

I just want to put out the advantage of having 100 birds capable of flying 6000 KM and deliver a big payload of CM's.
No navy, even the mighty USN can deal with such a massive capability.

It is a pity we are discussing whether or not a dozen or so similar birds can somehow manage to turn the tide for IN.

Anyway, a Dozen or so will be a lot better then having none.
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 »

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/groundattack/h6.asp

its very unlikely they have 100 H6 in service. more likely based on above link around 30 of the latest models. and the ASMs quoted therein seem to be 150-200km range class. OK for beating up maldives, but given the lack of speed of this plane and operating way outside of friendly fighter cover, these would be easy prey to any form of fighter.

its combat radius is stated as 1800km, 300km more than su30 and 600km less than Tu22m. the backfire is also twice as fast with 2.5X the payload.

it does not look hefty enough to cart along big ALCM of the KH55 mould, except maybe one carried semi-conformally in the bomb bay.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

Karan,

Seriously, how can a Mach 2, 24ton payload, 4000km combat radius capable bomber be possibly matched by even a swarm of MKIs that can carry 1/3rd of its payload to 1/3rd the distance? Or an MMA that might be equally good rangewise, but can only carry a payload of about 6 harpoons? The advantages of a backfire are obvious - v.long range, high speeds at all altitudes, low altitude ingress, and v.fast eggress. It is unfathomable that we can't see uses for such a platform in the Indian arsenal. Let me point a few scenarios:

Scene 1) Piggybacking on Ahuja sir's scenario of dealing with S-300 types in the Tibet region. Such sites could be saturated by fast moving CMs such as the BRahmos only by a platform such as the Backfire that can carry 6 Brahmos if needed. You'll need 18 MKIs dedicated to such a mission, which will probly mean being detected earlier as well. The Tu-22 assures a much better chance of mission success simply because it can carry more powerful missiles in greater quantity.

Scene 2) IF an MPA detects a flotilla of ships (non-CBG) far away from home, what can it do? Release a few subsonic harpoons that will be detected and probably intercepted by ship defence systems. Good vs. an FFG or two but with bigger destroyers carrying HQ9 types, the MMA itself could get in harm's way considering that some of these SAMs are said to have ranges of about 200km. Best thing it could do is to just keep tracking it and let some heavy hitters come and do the needful. Any way, it can just carry about 6 500kg class, ASMs

Scene 3) Same as scene 2 but CBG airgroup involved. Only thing an MMA can hope to do is to stay as far away as possible and track the group, hopefully stay out of fighter range. Here again, a flight of MKIs will be hardpressed because they can only carry one CM (Brahmos) that can be fired from the edge of the fighter bubble, rest of the time they'll have to chance fighters and SAMs. Could be done but with great difficulty. Not to mention the inherent difficulty faced in terms of range, if the the CBG is > 1000km away from the MKI base. This problem absolutely does not exist with the Backfire for reasons of range, payload difference.

Scene 4) In a more offensive posture, if the powers decide to take the fight to enemy homeland - say SCS or Chengdu. This is not feasible for MKI or MMA types (almost impossible due to the former's range/payload deficiency and the latter's speed, and low alt flight deficiency). It is doable with a few backfire, especially if one of them acts as an escorting jammer.

Scene 5) If and when the Nirbhay comes along, again, MKIs or MPAs cannot truly do any saturation type attacks reducing the probability of success thanks to ADS. Otoh, a flight of 6 Backfires could carry about 60-100 of these without issue thereby increasing probability of success considerably.

An on-alert Backfire group allows for quick reaction and some versatility in strategic and tactical options. The deterrence value alone is well worth it imho. People tend to see this as a cold war relic and a soviet answer to US CBGs, but the fact remains that the US continues to use the B1-B with good effect. This gives us a good idea what far reaching consequences the Backfire can have, eminently useful at all levels - tactical strike, securing sea-lanes, nuclear deterrence, and psyops of course.

Image

Coming to serviceability, since none of the other options (MPAs or MKIs) can truly do the above, spending extra $$$s to ensure decent supply of parts is worthwhile to gain a capability that is arguably (obviously) not available from any other quarter.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Karan M »

Cain Marko wrote:Karan,

Seriously, how can a Mach 2, 24ton payload, 4000km combat radius capable bomber be possibly matched by even a swarm of MKIs that can carry 1/3rd of its payload to 1/3rd the distance?
I would prefer a swarm of MKIs that can be modified to have their range increased (even if we don't factor IFR in) rather than taking the Tu-22 at its most optimistic range figures - even with which it will still need to be escorted. I can make multiple passes at any target with a swarm of MKIs rather than rolling the dice with just a few Tu-22's.

The combat radius is around 2400 km with a combat load (not 4000km)..usually that includes a cruise segment at altitude..if we go by how the Russians typically calculate these figures for other types..
Or an MMA that might be equally good rangewise, but can only carry a payload of about 6 harpoons?
6 Harpoons that can be programmed for a multi-axis attack and are launched by an aircraft that can do multiple roles..including safeguarding India from submarines, the most persistent & sneaky threat which we currently face! Not a PLAN flotilla steaming into the Bay of Bengal. My point is these give far more bang for the buck.
The advantages of a backfire are obvious - v.long range, high speeds at all altitudes, low altitude ingress, and v.fast eggress. It is unfathomable that we can't see uses for such a platform in the Indian arsenal. Let me point a few scenarios:
Long range but at what speed. If you want high speed, you need altitude, with that comes early detection. You load them up, fly medium-low and I sincerely doubt that chart which you linked below, will remain accurate.

Just look at the overall generation this aircraft is from...it may be a lot of things, fuel efficient is not what it probably is...but lets get to your scenarios..
Scene 1) Piggybacking on Ahuja sir's scenario of dealing with S-300 types in the Tibet region. Such sites could be saturated by fast moving CMs such as the BRahmos only by a platform such as the Backfire that can carry 6 Brahmos if needed. You'll need 18 MKIs dedicated to such a mission, which will probly mean being detected earlier as well. The Tu-22 assures a much better chance of mission success simply because it can carry more powerful missiles in greater quantity.
Try saturation with Brahmos & you'll go broke before the enemy does. Seriously, thats not the way to go IMO. Try for the sneaky approach with multi-axis strikes, with Brahmos at low level. In which case, sending a handful of MKIs low level is probably a better bet. Second, why this fixation with Brahmos thats oft seen on this forum, it seems to be the only tool for every job...there are other tools for the job as well, dedicated for the SEAD hunt. Especially against SAMs, which can be handled with cheaper less expensive missiles.
Scene 2) IF an MPA detects a flotilla of ships (non-CBG) far away from home, what can it do? Release a few subsonic harpoons that will be detected and probably intercepted by ship defence systems. Good vs. an FFG or two but with bigger destroyers carrying HQ9 types, the MMA itself could get in harm's way considering that some of these SAMs are said to have ranges of about 200km. Best thing it could do is to just keep tracking it and let some heavy hitters come and do the needful. Any way, it can just carry about 6 500kg class, ASMs
The range of every interceptor missile is limited to the radar horizon of its guidance radar, as determined by the height of the ships mast and the height of the target. Usually of the order of 20-30 km not 200 odd km for a missile flying at 30 feet above sea level. For a high flying target, yes 200 km. So what would one do keeping these things in mind. In other words, the MPA only needs to detect a flotilla by their radar pings on its ESM, get a likely bearing, range with the radar, get very low (again protected by the curvature of the earth) and launch its missiles out of the coverage of the radar & egress. This is why MPAs remain a very potent threat against all classes of ships. Second, in the very scenario that you portray a MPA is any day better than a Tu-22, the MPA is designed for loiter - the Tu22 is not. The former has far better sensor coverage as well, with a wide FOV radar & ESM system as well..basically a prowling MPA can detect a threat, a Tu22 can get there fast but its not exactly designed for detection.
Scene 3) Same as scene 2 but CBG airgroup involved. Only thing an MMA can hope to do is to stay as far away as possible and track the group, hopefully stay out of fighter range. Here again, a flight of MKIs will be hardpressed because they can only carry one CM (Brahmos) that can be fired from the edge of the fighter bubble, rest of the time they'll have to chance fighters and SAMs. Could be done but with great difficulty. Not to mention the inherent difficulty faced in terms of range, if the the CBG is > 1000km away from the MKI base. This problem absolutely does not exist with the Backfire for reasons of range, payload difference.
Not so - your scenario gives the edge to the CBG fightergroup by setting up a chain of events that are predisposed to support the CBG. In fact, unless one is facing a Nimitz class type carrier, the CBG carrier group is equally hard pressed in maintaining constant CAPs! Once the MPA or any asset has located where they are, then its really the advantage in the aggressors corner when it comes to mounting an attack, especially if the latter has a very potent AF with significant A2S capability. I'd send a mixed package of MPAs and fighters against such a target, and have them all attack from different axis. How many fighters can the CBG put up?

This is where having the Su-30 MKI class platform & even the MPAs in number helps. A loss of a couple of fighters or MPAs won't mission kill the swarm. A few Tu-22s however, and even if 1-2 drop out (usually the case in any complex assignment involving unpredictable complex equipment), and one is seriously approaching the limits of mission success or failure.

My point is you are choosing the most expensive way - and that too with no guaranteed success to try and succeed. Instead, go for cheaper sea skimming missiles and then see what happens in the case of a multi-axis attack. Mixing up types, eg Harpoon & Brahmos plus Uran together - even better. The soft and hard kill capability in even a flotilla will be challenged. Instead of sending a handful of Tu-22s all loaded up with Brahmos...
Scene 4) In a more offensive posture, if the powers decide to take the fight to enemy homeland - say SCS or Chengdu. This is not feasible for MKI or MMA types (almost impossible due to the former's range/payload deficiency and the latter's speed, and low alt flight deficiency). It is doable with a few backfire, especially if one of them acts as an escorting jammer.
Don't mind me saying so and no personal offence intended, but this is a pure flight of fancy. The Tu-22 is a naval strike aircraft, not one intended as some sort of super one size fits all strike aircraft to be used across the board as and when we need it...thats not how it will work and nor will the IN train for any such role.. I'd anyday take a Rafale for deep strikes than a Tu-22..
Scene 5) If and when the Nirbhay comes along, again, MKIs or MPAs cannot truly do any saturation type attacks reducing the probability of success thanks to ADS. Otoh, a flight of 6 Backfires could carry about 60-100 of these without issue thereby increasing probability of success considerably.
60-100 missiles? Against what sort of target? Anything that requires that sort of firepower doesn't exist...we are not going to be launching any more than a few missiles against any target, and that too high value ones..!
Coming to serviceability, since none of the other options (MPAs or MKIs) can truly do the above, spending extra $$$s to ensure decent supply of parts is worthwhile to gain a capability that is arguably (obviously) not available from any other quarter.
Then why did we retire the MiG-25s? They too provided some sort of niche capability that no other platform in IAF service provided. But we couldn't maintain them, despite locally manufacturing spares and what not. Same will be the case with the Backfire or any other such system that is not in production and is but available with a host nation whose supply chain struggles to manage simpler types.

Greg Goebels Vector site is usually reliable, so just see some of the issues the Tu22M has had in dealing with non specific roles

http://www.vectorsite.net/avtu22.html#m6
There were some small complaints, such as the lack of a toilet, which was more than merely a nicety for long missions. However, after the initial infatuation wore off, reality set in and the complaints started to increase. The Tu-22M2 was a vastly better design than the Tu-22, but as time went on the Soviet Union found it ever harder to keep up with the leading edge of miltech as set by the West, and the reliability of the aircraft's systems was not the best. The electronic systems were buggy and quick to fail, the NK-22 engines had to be completely overhauled every 50 hours, and at low level -- supposedly the Tu-22M2's normal combat environment -- rivets would pop out of the engine inlets, potentially resulting in catastrophic engine damage. Crews altered the Tu-22M2's descriptive designation of "all-weather missile carrier" to "all-weather defect carrier". Update programs were implemented to deal with the worst bugs, and the Tu-22M3 program also addressed at least some of the problems.
The Tu-22M3 replaces the engines with the NK25 etc but the point remains this is a very complex, hard to maintain aircraft & keeping it running, well I really doubt we can manage given the Russian supply chain issues with their larger systems (and even other ones like the MiGs).

Russia itself intends to modernize only 30 of these by 2020 and I sincerely doubt whether cool factor aside, these will actually add to our capabilities, as versus being hanger queens.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

Karan, if we do take a nominal figure of about 2500km combat radius - that too is about 3 times what we'll get with an MKI. You were right about the 4000km being rather optimistic - I thought I was writing range.

Again, I am not saying that India should buy Tu-22s instead of MPAs. But I'd rather see a sqd of these bombers at hand along with MPAs and AEWs. I know its expensive, but considering the booming economy, I think this could be managed.

Good points Karan, a few things to note though Tu-22s don't have to be loaded with Brahmos alone, they can carry other types.

Emphasis on Subsonics however, will give greater time for ADs, hence the Brahmos emphasis. While stealthy harpoon/nsm types might be a good idea, the platforms bearing these are anything but stealthy effectively reducing the chances of getting in undetected.

If an MPA detects a ship, there is a v.good chance that the ship can see it too, esp. with AEW choppers. The horizon is a limiting factor for both. If it tries a multi-axis attack coming in low and slow, it will have to come way too close to let off a harpoon type. If it fires away from longer ranges - (OTH), the missile will again need mid course guidance and the MPA has to hang around. If not, it has to depend upon the missile seeker to detect and do the needful once it gets past the curvature - not particularly easy. And then being slow, sea-skimmers there is a good chance that the ship's ADS might get these.

The backfire otoh, is primed to do low level flight at v.high speed leaving little reaction time to ship defences. And they could drop a few subsonics for good measure too.

Vs. a CBG, the MPA has an even lesser chance - question of getting fighters up in numbers is not critical - how many fighters will be needed to down a cumbersome MPA? In fact, the moment the ship's AD gets a whiff of the MPA, it'll get some fighters up. Then the MPAs chances to do anything worthwhile are limited. A backfire or two otoh could be guided from different angles, at low level and v.highspeed, launch Brahmos types at the very edge of the fighter bubble, and scoot. I'd argue that detection chances for this type of attack is far less than say, an MPA. And if needed, these could return with another load (possibly with shorter ranged subsonics) to finish off - they carry enough fuel as well as payload to do this, which neither the MPA nor the MKI can. As far as sensors go, the Backfire can be loaded with a variety of these not to mention include a jammer variant (which does exist iirc).

As far as my flight of fancy is concerned, no offence taken. But the Tu-22M is not a purely naval strike fighter, the vvs surely operates some for land attack purposes. Btw most wars, it seems to me are a result of some such flighty imagination often under the guise of externally logical planning. Having an option to touch Hainan or Chengdu will give people some food for thought. It is interesting that even in scenarios - India can imagine non existent Chinese bombers blowing away Delhi (as in '62) or perhaps a swarm of chinese CMs destroying some SDRE stronghold. Why can't SDREs imagine that similar assets can be targeted on phoren lands?
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Surya »

CM

you are being a bit optimistic of Backfires surviving an attack.
high speed but straight line is not going to buy it much. (wtness Georgia)

Same reason you see the B1B barely being used other thanon some2 bit defenseless nation.

Its only reason for existing is the politics of where the bases are..

and we are overrating our booming economy to afford this. there is enough crooks and populaist scehmes to siphon of money

we have so many other priorities than getting another bunch of white elephants

Its a nice dream (I used to want these toys as a kid :) )but just not practical
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

Highspeed but straight line:
No better than an MPA.
Same reason you see the B1B barely being used other thanon some2 bit defenseless nation.
Its only reason for existing is the politics of where the bases are..
Well it could be argued that the US has fought nothing but 2 bit tinpot nations so far. Based on that, we can't dismiss the F-15, 16, PGMs etc.
and we are overrating our booming economy to afford this. there is enough crooks and populaist scehmes to siphon of money
we have so many other priorities than getting another bunch of white elephants
No doubt they will be expensive, but I am willing to bet it'll be a LOT less expensive than most think. Also, we assume that they necessarily have to be "white elephants", why? The Foxbat example was given but the fact remains that the VVS stopped using these en masse ages ago. As far as the backfire is concerned, an upgrade is ongoing, and the Russians will continue to use it for at least until the time the Pakda comes along - another 15 years minimum. When the host nation is using the hardware, supplies should be a lesser issue. Thing is, ever since the fall of the SU, Russia has completely neglected its non strategic arsenal. Its strategic equipment took a beating too, but to a lesser degree. Not too many upgrades of fighters or new inductions even. Otoh, the Blackjack and Backfire do get some attention it seems as the upgrade indicates. The Russians as of now operate about 150 of these and will continue to operate about the Tu-22M3Ms for some time since the upgrade itself is schedule to finish around 2020. The possibility of acquiring some of these is definitely enticing.

As far as the Georgia loss goes, under what circumstances did it happen? It was a Tu-22MR (for recon) and most say it was downed by a Buk/Tor type, which means the bird was getting rather close to targets (within range of a Buk/Tor ~ 25-50km).

As a standoff missile carrier, can't see such losses happening.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Surya »

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.

as for costs

after the AG and Chakra - and the past history of the last decade - I have no intention of finding out.

I will be happy if half the planned stuff with the Russians comes through
Post Reply