Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Oct 2014 16:50

So, a part of my conjecture is proven true! As I said earlier, pilots displayed extraordinary flying skills to literally plonk that a/c there. Also, remember that a/c forward and vertical velocity would've to be pretty low for thebairframet to remain intact to such a degree.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 15 Oct 2014 18:14

Maybe he deployed the chute to further slow down and not have it plough beyond

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 16 Oct 2014 09:13

Balls of steel!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Oct 2014 09:23

Check the first 3-4 comments here - not the average non-flying jingos who know everything there is to know about fighter flying. Those appear lower down with recommendations.
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2014/10/ ... s-big.html

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 17 Oct 2014 09:19

Another high res shot of Su 30 crash. I thought it kept on going straight.

clicky
http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7905991&nseq=1

unfortunate that its airframe broke near the cockpit region, maybe it is still salvageable.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 17 Oct 2014 12:01

I doubt they will salvage this bird... It is an older bird, probably would become a static exhibit after fixinf the structure. Am not sure..

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 17 Oct 2014 14:35

Multiple engine failures after a certain number of hours go on to show the russians still have some way to go in making engines that have western equivalent figures for MTBO. Raises questions about claims on engine for PAKFA as well.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Oct 2014 16:53

Sid wrote:Another high res shot of Su 30 crash. I thought it kept on going straight.

clicky
http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7905991&nseq=1

unfortunate that its airframe broke near the cockpit region, maybe it is still salvageable.

There is a huge furrow in the earth behind and to the right side (in the picture). The plane has ploghted the ground and then turned left before stopping. Looks like one tough airframe to me.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Oct 2014 16:53

P Chitkara wrote:Multiple engine failures after a certain number of hours go on to show the russians still have some way to go in making engines that have western equivalent figures for MTBO. Raises questions about claims on engine for PAKFA as well.

Software FBW issue acc to some. Both engines rarely fail together.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 17 Oct 2014 17:42

SB050 in better times

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Oct 2014 18:33

Rohit,remember the SU ejection at the Paris Air Show aeons ago? In performing a low level pass the tail struck the runway .The ejection was "zero-zero" and aviation experts praised the successful ejection system demonstrated right before their eyes.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Oct 2014 18:39

A lot of the avionics and some of the hardware should be salvageable.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Oct 2014 18:49

Philip Saheb,

That was a "Zero-some-speed" ejection.

True zero-zero: here. A very sad accident. The kid passed away.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 17 Oct 2014 18:55

Shrinivasan wrote:I doubt they will salvage this bird... It is an older bird, probably would become a static exhibit after fixinf the structure. Am not sure..

They maybe able to salvage some of the frame and electronic components. Otherwise, it's useless now.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Oct 2014 19:00

This plane was from 2002? So, the frame has taken the traditional beating that the IAF imparts (saw that is the previous planes -K). So, I very much doubt that any of the "skin" is of much value. The internals too are relatively old - heck this plane should have been ready for a MLU in the near future, I would think. They may use some as spares to tide them and perhaps save some funds.

Order a new one and be done. Or better yet save the funds for a FGFA.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 21 Oct 2014 18:16

As per Saurav Jha, more Su-30Mki will be ordered once the economy gets on track.

wig · Post by **wig** » 22 Oct 2014 09:47

the pilots mention that the seats auto eject, this has resulted in a detailed investigation

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 77968.aspx

India plays safe, grounds entire Sukhoi-30 fleet

India has grounded its entire Sukhoi-30 fleet after a recent crash because it doesn’t want to put its pilots in harm’s way.

The fighters have not flown for a week after a Su-30 MKI of the Indian Air Force crashed near Pune, raising questions about the safety record of the fighter.

With the IAF operating close to 200 twin-engine Su-30s, the grounded planes represent almost a third of the country’s fighter fleet. India is due to get 72 more of these planes, each worth over Rs. 200 crore.

The IAF is down to 34 combat squadrons, as against an authorised strength of 44. Each squadron has up to 18 fighter planes.

An IAF official said safety checks with “special focus on ejection seats” were being conducted and flight operations would resume only after each plane was cleared. A highly-placed source said the pilots of the plane that crashed on October 14 near Pune had reported “automatic seat ejection.” One of the two pilots was involved in a previous Su-30 crash too.

Five Su-30 fighters have crashed during the last five years, setting off alarm bells in the IAF. The Su-30 fleet has been grounded at least twice in the past.

Former IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Fali Major told HT, “A fleet is grounded when you have no clue as to what brought the plane down. It’s serious.”

Asked if buying Su-30s was a doubtful choice, Major said the planes were splendid but IAF needed to get to the bottom of the problem. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited assembles and repairs these planes in India.

IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha had told reporters on October 4 that the Su-30 fleet was facing certain problems, but he refused to elaborate. The IAF’s Su-30 fleet has faced a high number of mid-air engine failures during the last two years, said another official.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 22 Oct 2014 12:51

So definitely not about anything else, no more ? about what is suspect etc etc.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 22 Oct 2014 13:29

Karan M wrote:A lot of the avionics and some of the hardware should be salvageable.

Nothing can/will be reused on any flying aircraft after the crash.

Salvageable items may go to some lab as a demo piece etc

member_28827 · Post by **member_28827** » 22 Oct 2014 14:59

IAF grounds entire Sukhoi-30 fleet, safety checks on

नई दिल्ली। भारत ने अपने फाइटर प्लेन सुखोई-30 की उड़ान पर रोक लगा दी है। हाल ही में पुणे के पास हुए प्लेन क्रेश के बाद ही यह फैसला लिया गया है। सुखोई-30 विमानों की तकनीकी जांच की जाएगी। सूखोई-30 के 200 विमानों के बेड़े को तकनीकी जांच करके क्लिनचिट मिलने के बाद उड़ान के लिए हरी झंडी दिखाई जाएगी।

भारतीय वायुसेना ने बताया कि हाल ही में पुणे में हुए विमान हादसे के बाद बेड़े की उड़ान रोक दी गई है और इसकी जांच की जा रही है। यह पड़ताल के बाद ही उड़ान भर पाएगा। उन्होंने यह नहीं बताया कि किन तकनीकी पहलुओं की जांच की जा रही है। देश के पास मौजूद लड़ाकू विमानों के बेड़े का लगभग एक-तिहाई हिस्सा सुखोई-30 का है।

पिछले हफ्ते एक सुखोई-30 एमकेआई पुणे के नजदीक दुर्घटनाग्रस्त हो गया था और शुरूआती जांच में पता चला कि यह हादसा मानवीय गलती के चलते नहीं, बल्कि फ्लाई-बाई तार प्रणाली में समस्या के चलते हुआ था। भारतीय वायु सेना ने प्रेस को जारी एक बयान में पायलटों विंग कमांडर एस मुंजे और फ्लाइंग ऑफिसर अनूप सिंह की भूमिका पर उंगली उठाई थी। साथ ही बताया कि सुखोई30 एमकेआई विमान दुर्घटना की जांच की जा रही है। हादसे के असल कारण के बारे में जानने के लिए कोर्ट ऑफ इंक्वायरी चल रही है। संयोगवश दो पायलटों में से एक पहले हुए एक सुखोई-30 हादसे से भी जुड़े हैं।

पहले भी हादसों के शिकार हुए सुखोई
साल 2009 से यह पांचवां सुखोई 30 एमकेआई हादसा है और बेड़े को पहले भी कम-से-कम दो बार उड़ान भरने से रोका जा चुका है। - See more at: http://www.patrika.com/news/iaf-grounds ... on/1039521

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 22 Oct 2014 18:58

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2014/10/ ... crash.html

Livefist is suggesting that the the ejection seats fired unexpectedly (not while take-off but) while the aircraft was coming in to land. IAF statement

One Su-30 fighter of the Indian Air Force (IAF) was involved in an accident on October 14, 2014 in which both ejection seats had fired whilst the aircraft was coming in to land. The pilots were safe but the aircraft crashed about 20 Kms short of the runway. No loss of life or damage to property was reported. A Court of Inquiry (CoI) had immediately been constituted to investigate the cause of accident. Meanwhile, as is the procedure in such cases, the flying of the Su-30 fleet has been temporarily suspended. The CoI is in progress and certain specific checks are being conducted on the aircraft. As and when the checks are complete and the Court is satisfied, the Su-30s will be put back into flying.

ravip · Post by **ravip** » 22 Oct 2014 19:14

Conspiracy alert on:

Is su30mki grounding issue being deliberately played up by usual crooks, because there is an unprecedented level of coverage by almost all the national news channels and some regional news channels. But one thing is clear by statements from various power corners that there is tussle between Rafael and Su30mki.

Conspiracy alter off.

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 22 Oct 2014 20:58

typically pilots prepare themselves posture wise before the ejection.. I cant even how it feels like when you are ejected without prior knowledge..!! also how come the jet landed almost in one piece after that...? Auto Pilot still engaged..? Gurus..?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Oct 2014 21:39

auto pilot only maintain altitude and speed. it is never programmed to auto-land or even try to one such maneuver.
leaving conspiracy aside, we need to think about safety and security. careful planning to implementation can avoid such ops issues.

mki is a learning experience from the start.. hopefully we mature our capabilities with mki soon.

ravi_g wrote: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ptgoVVA0vNQ/V ... BCRASH.jpg

Differing axis of TV nozzles+chute deployed+flaps deployed.

tvc appears taking a roll and a slight yaw?

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 23 Oct 2014 08:11

First in two part article by Ajai

Govt takes note of poor Su-30 MKI's serviceability

wig · Post by **wig** » 23 Oct 2014 08:18

it appears that the seats have automatically ejected twice earlier. This has been fatal.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20141023/main1.htm

India’s frontline fighter jet, the Sukhoi 30-MKI, has a new problem — automatically ejecting pilot seats. So far, the IAF has lost a personnel and a plane costing Rs 100 crore in three such incidents.

The IAF has grounded its entire Sukhoi-30 fleet and is undertaking a thorough technical check. The fresh trouble comes for the Sukhoi close on the heels of repeated mid-air engine failures that have forced a modification in the aircraft.

“The flying of the Su-30 fleet has been temporarily suspended,” said IAF spokesperson Wing Commander SS Birdi on Wednesday. The fleet of about 200 twin-engine Su-30s would be back in air after a technical review.

The move came after a Su-30 was involved in an accident in Pune on October 14 in which both ejection seats had "fired" while the aircraft was coming in to land. It was the third such incident. Both pilots got ejected due to a malfunction in the system. The pilotless jet crashed 20 km short of the IAF base at Lohegaon. No loss of life or damage to property was reported.

In the first incident in 2008, an Airman carrying out a pre-flight test at the Bareilly Sukhoi base had died. The seat ejected on its own when he was sitting in the cockpit making checks. The airman, who was thrown 50 feet up in the air, hit the roof of the hangar, killing him immediately.

The second incident occurred in Jodhpur this year when the one of the fighter jets was taxing to take-off. The seats ejected and the pilots were thrown about 100 feet up in the air. They made a safe landing with the help of parachutes. Since the plane was taxing and was at a very slow speed, there was no damage, sources said.

“A Court of Inquiry is in progress in Pune crash and certain specific checks are being conducted on the aircraft,” said the IAF spokesperson. Sources said these specific checks pertain to pilot seats – the NPP Zvezda K-36DM. The original equipment makers in Russia and the integrators of the plane, the Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, have been informed, source said.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Oct 2014 08:38

Philip wrote:Rohit,remember the SU ejection at the Paris Air Show aeons ago? In performing a low level pass the tail struck the runway .The ejection was "zero-zero" and aviation experts praised the successful ejection system demonstrated right before their eyes.

Sirjee,

"Zero zero" indicates Zero height and Zero speed.

Meaning that the seat should work safely on the ground with the aircraft stationary.

in a majority of the cases, in the case of a true zero zero ejection, the chute usually does not have enough time to fully deploy resulting in the pilot slamming into the ground at high speed with the attendant consequences.

per wiki

Zero-zero ejection seat

A zero-zero ejection seat is designed to safely extract upward and land its occupant from a grounded stationary position (i.e., zero altitude and zero airspeed), specifically from aircraft cockpits. The zero-zero capability was developed to help aircrews escape upward from unrecoverable emergencies during low-altitude and/or low-speed flight, as well as ground mishaps. Before this capability, ejections could only be performed above minimum altitudes and airspeeds.

Zero-zero technology uses small rockets to propel the seat upward to an adequate altitude and a small explosive charge to open the parachute canopy quickly for a successful parachute descent, so that proper deployment of the parachute no longer relies on airspeed and altitude.

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Oct 2014 09:03

These accidental firing of seats did not happen in first couple of years of commissioning of the MKI , it would be interesting to see the batch number of both the air-frame as well as the NPP Zvezda K-36DM seats involved in the accidents . Btw do we know of similar accidents being reported for ACs which use the same seat ?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 23 Oct 2014 09:43

wig wrote:it appears that the seats have automatically ejected twice earlier. This has been fatal.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20141023/main1.htm
India’s frontline fighter jet, the Sukhoi 30-MKI, has a new problem — automatically ejecting pilot seats. So far, the IAF has lost a personnel and a plane costing Rs 100 crore in three such incidents.

The IAF has grounded its entire Sukhoi-30 fleet and is undertaking a thorough technical check. The fresh trouble comes for the Sukhoi close on the heels of repeated mid-air engine failures that have forced a modification in the aircraft.

“The flying of the Su-30 fleet has been temporarily suspended,” said IAF spokesperson Wing Commander SS Birdi on Wednesday. The fleet of about 200 twin-engine Su-30s would be back in air after a technical review.

The move came after a Su-30 was involved in an accident in Pune on October 14 in which both ejection seats had "fired" while the aircraft was coming in to land. It was the third such incident. Both pilots got ejected due to a malfunction in the system. The pilotless jet crashed 20 km short of the IAF base at Lohegaon. No loss of life or damage to property was reported.

In the first incident in 2008, an Airman carrying out a pre-flight test at the Bareilly Sukhoi base had died. The seat ejected on its own when he was sitting in the cockpit making checks. The airman, who was thrown 50 feet up in the air, hit the roof of the hangar, killing him immediately.

The second incident occurred in Jodhpur this year when the one of the fighter jets was taxing to take-off. The seats ejected and the pilots were thrown about 100 feet up in the air. They made a safe landing with the help of parachutes. Since the plane was taxing and was at a very slow speed, there was no damage, sources said.

“A Court of Inquiry is in progress in Pune crash and certain specific checks are being conducted on the aircraft,” said the IAF spokesperson. Sources said these specific checks pertain to pilot seats – the NPP Zvezda K-36DM. The original equipment makers in Russia and the integrators of the plane, the Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, have been informed, source said.

First time I'm hearing of this, Was this reported earlier?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Oct 2014 09:56

the ejection seats are run by a computer that is hooked into various sensors that determine the speed, direction, position of the plane and allow it to trigger in a particular way when safe ejection is possible. I do not think there is any automatic ejection mechanism and its always pilot controlled by either pulling the handle between the legs or near the neck. something must be going wrong there to generate the fire signal.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 23 Oct 2014 11:18

I vaguely remember there being Marut canopy ejection finally traced back to a faulty component that broke & shorted.

Seats don't have auto ejection, nor are they wired to flight computers, and are mechanically & pyrotechnically operated.

I speculate something on similar lines here.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Oct 2014 11:31

How could the plane be guided to this landing spot, as early reports claimed, if the ejections were spontaneous?

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 23 Oct 2014 11:41

latest statement by the IAF

One Su-30 fighter of the Indian Air Force (IAF) was involved in an accident on October 14, 2014 in which both ejection seats had fired whilst the aircraft was coming in to land. The pilots were safe but the aircraft crashed about 20 Kms short of the runway. No loss of life or damage to property was reported. A Court of Inquiry (CoI) had immediately been constituted to investigate the cause of accident. Meanwhile, as is the procedure in such cases, the flying of the Su-30 fleet has been temporarily suspended. The CoI is in progress and certain specific checks are being conducted on the aircraft. As and when the checks are complete and the Court is satisfied, the Su-30s will be put back into flying.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Oct 2014 12:10

http://www.ejectorseats.co.uk/russia.htm

Development of Russian ejection systems was initiated largely by the findings of a German report which concluded that 40 percent of emergency escapes, during the late 30s and early 40s, resulted in fatalities. This led to concern by the acceptance authority for the MiG-9, which identified lack of equipment for a forced evacuation of the aircraft in case of emergency, as a serious fault.

Following ground rig testing, the first airborne live ejection in the USSR was carried out by GA Kondraschow, from a modified Petlaykov Pe-2, on June 24, 1947. This seat, designed by the Mikoyan OKB, was subsequently fitted to MiG-9s and on January 16, 1948, a live ejection was carried out from the front seat of a M1G-9UTI at 412kts (764km/h). The seat was cleared for operation at speeds of up to 378kts (700km/h) and heights above 820ft (250m) and installed in MiG-15s, MiG-17s and the 1-320.

Developments continued, including armour protection, face blind initiation, leg restraint and aerodynamic seat stabilisation. All were incorporated into a seat designed for use in high speed and research aircraft, such as the later series MiG-17, MiG-19, Yak-25 and Yak-27. Although the maximum speed was increased to 486kts (900km/h), the minimum height remained the same.

In 1962, the Mikoyan OKB designed a novel system, which protected the pilot against wind blast by coupling a portion of the cockpit canopy to the seat. This was installed in the MiG-21 (F-13, P and PF) and had an operating envelope of 594kts (l,100km/h) at heights above 360ft (110m).

At the beginning of the 80s, efforts were made to standardise all types of technology in Russia. As a result the OKBs stopped their own ejection seat development work and Soviet combat aircraft adopted the K-36 seat, developed by the Zvezda bureau. The first Soviet zero-zero seat, it weighs 205kg (4501b) and is cleared to a maximum height of 82,000ft (25,000m) and speeds of Mach 2.5 and 700kts (l,296km/h). Unintentional demonstrations at both Le Bourget and Fairford have adequately demonstrated the efficiency of the seat.

Zvezda also produces the K-37, which is fitted to the Kamov Ka-50 Hokum attack helicopter. Upon initiation, explosive charges at the hub of the rotor shed the rotor blades, a rocket pack then ignites and the seat and pilot are pulled out of the cockpit by a cable attached to the rocket.

Another View

In total, more than 12,000 K-36 ejection seats have been produced to date and no less than 97% of the airmen who have used them in an emergency have been able to continue their flying careers-the highest percentage in the aviation world.

During the second half of the 1995, NPP Zvezda created a new generation of ejection seats based on the K-36. These were developed to meet the increasingly expanding flight envelopes; speed, height and g.

Satisfying these requirements necessitated comprehensive research in the fields of human physiology, ballistics and the aerodynamics of high-drag bodies. It sometimes also required unorthodox solutions in the field of both design and manufacturing technologies, something which called for the establishment of unique experimental facilities and development of design and testing methods.

The Russian economy has changed radically in the last decade. One of the effects of this has been to encourage NPP Zvezda and its partner companies to strengthen their position on the already crowded world market for crew escape systems. This is first and foremost in the interests of the new Russian Air Force.

According to reliable sources, the US Department of Defence intended to install Russian ejection seats in a next-generation American fighter Joint Strike Fighter) then under development. Thus, in 1993-95, NPP Zvezda held a number of joint demonstration tests with the K-36D ejection seat and associated KKO-15 oxygen equipment in the United States. The programme even included comparative tests of the Russian and US ejection seats.

Seventeen test firings of the K-36D were made at Russian and American research facilities, at speeds ranging from zero to 73okts (i,35okm/h) and Mach 2.5 and altitudes of 0 to 55,77oft (o to i7,ooom), as well as at high angles-of-attack (AoA) and sideslip. They were all successful; the performance figures for the Russian seats were fully confirmed and the experts were convinced that there would be advantages in using them. The Russian company's integrated approach to the development of crew escape systems, where system components possessing equal strength (the seat, protective helmet, oxygen mask etc) are created in the course of development and testing, also earned universal praise. The successful completion of the demonstration programme and the unequalled performance of the Russian ejection seats ensured the continuation of joint work in the area.

Nevertheless, it is primarily American companies and not the DoD which displays interest in contacts with Zvezda. In 1996, NPP Zvezda pledged to its American partners that it would demonstrate the possibility of adapting the K-36D ejection seat to US requirements. In particular, the seat had to be suitable for both men and women. Structural weight had to be reduced (the K-36D is noticeably heavier than the USAF's standard ACES II ejection seat); finally, the minimum safe ejection altitude was to be equal to, or lower than, that of the ACES II seat. By then, the company had developed the K-36D-3.5 seat for the Russian Air Force. This was part of the SKS-20OO integrated life support and crew rescue system designed for next-generation Russian combat aircraft. Building on the know-how which had gone into the K-36D-3-5, NPP Zvezda promised to adapt the seat to American requirements within two years and to conduct demonstration tests at Holloman AFB, New Mexico, in the first half of 1998. The result of this effort was the K-3&D-3-5A, an 'Americanised' version of the seat. Six prototype seats built to fill an order by the Boeing Company were shipped to the US.

Design requirements

In developing the K-36D-3.5A, NPP Zvezda paid special attention to finding solutions which would allow qualitatively new performance levels to be achieved without making the design excessively complicated. This included ensuring safe ejection at extremely low altitudes, during violent manoeuvres and extreme bank angles, or inverted. Structural weight had to be cut considerably. Finally, the seat had to be cheap to produce and maintain - no small consideration, considering Russia's prolonged economic difficulties in preceding years. Much attention was paid to the seat's ergonomics with a view to its use by both male and female aircrew. Analysis of K-36 ejections showed that 80% were performed at speeds below 350kts (650km/h) and 3% at speeds in excess of 540kts (1,000km/h). Two ejections occurred at 700 to 730kts (1,300 to 1,350km/h), two more at Mach 2.6 and 55,77oft (17,000m). Importantly, many of the ejections were made during vigorous manoeuvres, particularly at large bank angles.

The above statistics, and experience with the operation of K-36 seats in various aircraft types including vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft (the Yakovlev Yak-38 Forger and Yak-141 Freestyle shipboard fighters), enabled the engineers at NPP Zvezda to formulate the basic requirements for a new-generation escape system. These include an integrated approach to the design and construction of the escape system (compatibility and equal strength of the integrated life support system components and the ejection seat), the suitability of the seats for pilots over the entire anthropometric range; including the use of a lightweight flying suit, comfort, improved visibility, and safe ejection in horizontal flight from zero to 760 kts (0 to 1,400km/h) and 0 to 65,620ft (0 to 20,000m), as well as speeds up to Mach 2.5. Also, ejection should be possible during manoeuvres with -2/+4g at speeds not exceeding 0.8 of the aircraft's maximum speed.

The state-of-the-art technologies developed by NPP Zvezda have made it possible to create a family of ejection seats meeting the above requirements. For instance, the K-36D-3.5 and K-360-3.sA seats retain all the safety features embodied in the original K-36D. They also have an increased range of vertical travel (31/2in [85mm] for the K-36D-3-5 and 3 3/4in [95mm]for the K-36D-3.5A).

Both seats feature a two-position reclining seat back which improves the seat's ergonomic qualities (pilot comfort, upward and rearward view).

A new system of thrusters for lateral manoeuvring has been evolved for controlling the seat's lateral motion. The seat also features a multi-programme electronic command system connected to the aircraft's data exchange system. This optimizes the seat's trajectory, taking into account factors such as pitch and bank angles and rates, airspeed height and sink rate. It was the first model of K-36 to incorporate an automatic system to adjust the ejection kinematics to suit the occupant's weight, so reducing the risk of injury.

To reduce the minimum altitude required for safe ejection, NPP Zvezda has provided operation modes in which parachute deployment is accelerated and the rocket motor cuts out immediately after separation from the aircraft in the event of ejection at large bank angles.

Extreme attitudes

The multi-programme electronic system's computer is produced in Russia and has been specially developed by the Ramenskoye Avionics Design Bureau (RPKB) to meet NPP Zvezda specifications. When the seat is ejected at extreme bank angles, for example, the automatic control system adjusts the seat's trajectory in the transverse plane. This allows the seat to gain additional height, ensuring parachute deployment. In cases of ejection in inverted flight, the main rocket motor is not ignited and the parachute is deployed immediately after the seat's separation from the aircraft, considerably reducing the minimum safe ejection altitude.

In designing the new seat, the specialists at NPP Zvezda faced an extremely complex task. Along with the introduction of the electronic command system, they had to drastically revise the design and strength philosophy used in the previous-generation K-36D seat. After more than five years of painstaking design work, they succeeded in reducing both the seat's weight (by 55lb [25kg]) and the overall dimensions (by between 5/8in to 3/4in [15mm to 20mm).

It should be noted that safe ejection at low altitude is largely dependent upon pilot reaction time. The time for the seat system to operate (including canopy jettison or franging and (canopy deployment) is just one element of the equation. Hence the key to ensuring safe ejection at low altitude, both for VTOL aircraft and conventional aircraft, is to equip the aircraft with an automatic ejection system which fires the seat if bank or AoA exceed certain limits. Years earlier, the effectiveness of such a system on the experimental Yak-36 Freehand VTOL aircraft and the production variant of the Yak-38 shipboard attack aircraft had exceeded all expectations: 100% of the pilots who had ejected in take-off and landing accidents were saved!

Sideslip is generally regarded as one of the critical factors during ejection. At high angles of sideslip (around 20°) and at fairly high speeds (380kts [70okm/h]) there is a high risk of injury through the pilot's limbs flailing. The pilot's neck may be subjected to excessive loads, and seat stabilisation is difficult to achieve. All these problems have been minimised on the K-36D-3.5 and K-36-3.5A seats, which incorporate mechanical stabilising booms rather than drogue parachutes.

Thanks to the K-36D-3-5's modular design, it can serve as a basis for at least three derivatives, which can be tailored to the requirements of the Russian Air Force, the USAF or other foreign air arms. K-36L-3.5 is designed for attack aircraft and bombers. Ejection is possible from 0 to 595kts (0 to 1,100km/h) and 0 to 65,620ft (0 to 20,000m). Seat weight (less oxygen equipment, survival kit and harness) is 156lb (71kg);

*The K-36V-3.5 for VTOL aircraft. The operating envelope is identical to the K-36L-3.5, and the weight (less oxygen equipment, survival kit and harness) is 165lb (75kg);

* K-36LT-3-5 lightweight seat for jet trainers. Ejection is possible from 0 to 510kts (0 to 950km/h) and 0 to 49,210ft (0 to 15,000m). Seat weight is 110lb (50kg).

Jet trainers

The first simplified version of the K-36LT-3-5 seat, designated K-93 by the manufacturer, has passed the manufacturer's and State acceptance (certification) trials programme. It is already fitted to two prototypes of the MiG-AT advanced trainer and will be standard equipment on the Russian variant of its Yakovlev/Aermacchi competitor, the Yak/AEM-130. The MiG-AT's system enables the crew to eject safely from inverted flight at altitudes above 164ft (50m). The ejection sequence takes no more than 0.9 seconds, the front seat occupant (student) is ejected first, followed by the instructor.

The basic K-36D-3-5 seat has also been tested successfully and will be fitted to the thrust-vectoring Su-3oMK aircraft (including the Su-3oMKK for China and the Su-3oMKI for India), as well as to the Su-27KUB multi-role shipboard aircraft. This seat has no other counterpart in the world, and at roughly the same weight as all the foreign models, it is superior to its competitors in basic performance. Thanks to its modular design and compactness, the K-36D-3.5 can be fitted to most combat aircraft. It was designed to meet new international requirements for just about any pilot - from a petite female weighing 9/lb (44kg) to a large-framed male of 244lb (111kg). These differences are allowed for by the computer, which introduces the necessary corrections into the operation of the firing device and the rocket motor.

The new seat provides more comfortable conditions for the pilot to work in than its predecessors and the rearward and upward view has been improved by reducing the size of the headrest. To improve g-tolerance during air combat manoeuvres, the seat's bearing surfaces have been enlarged and the seat has been designed to achieve a substantial reduction in maintenance costs during its service life. An excellent example is the fact that the solid rocket propellant used in the K-36 design has a 'shelf life" of 20 to 25 years.

General aviation seat

In recent years, considerable attention has been paid in Russia to the problem of safe emergency escape from sports and training aircraft, and the Sukhoi Design Bureau has pioneered the use of ejection seats in competition acrobatic aircraft. In June 1991, the Bureau issued a specification to NPP Zvezda for the development of an ultra-light crew escape system for sports aircraft. It took four years of painstaking work to create, and was designated SKS-94 (sverkhlyohkaya katapool'tnaya sistyema -ultra-light ejection system).

This system can be fitted to single-seat and multi-seat training, aerobatic and sports aircraft and to other general aircraft. The SKS-94 includes a

telescopic ejection gun, harness tightening device, an ejection control system, seat, headrest (in which the parachute and its deployment system are stowed), and the parachute itself with its harness. When ejection is initiated, the parachute actuating device ejects the headrest from which the parachute emerges, and the pilot is extracted from the cockpit by the ejection gun by means of a suspension system (the seat remains in the aircraft) before separating from the ejection gun and descending by parachute.

Manufacturer and certification tests of the SKS-94 system were conducted - for the first time in Russia - on a modified sports aircraft, a purpose-built Su-29KS test-bed (02 Black/RA-oi48s). Before that, a complete ground test programme was undertaken, including ejection tests with dummies -first on rigs and then in a wind tunnel. Part of the ground test was performed on a disused stretch of the old Ryazan highway. The cockpit section of a two-seat sports aircraft was mounted on a truck for simulating take-off runs: 50 firings were made in this manner, providing invaluable information on ejection at take-off.

The final stage of the manufacturer's tests was performed on the Su-29KS. Some of the trials employed a dummy and others a live parachutist, but the aircraft was invariably flown by Sukhoi test pilot Yevgeniy Frolov, Hero of Russia. Nearly 20 ejections were carried out, some during the State acceptance trials. They were performed at altitudes of 164ft to 6,s6oft (50m to 2,000m) and at speeds of 95kts to 216kts (180km/h to 400km/h). Trials were conducted with the aircraft in a variety of flight conditions including inverted flight at 64ft (50m). The minimum altitude for safe escape in inverted flight is 98ft (30m). There are no similar rescue systems for light aircraft anywhere else in the world.

The first man to demonstrate the operation of the ejection system on a ground rig was parachute tester Sergey Pereslavtsev, Hero of Russia. On April 12, 1995, parachute tester Vladimir Severin ejected in flight from the Su-2gKS and in so doing, earned the title 'Hero of Russia'.

In 1995, a prototype Su-3iM-i competition aerobatic aircraft equipped with the SKS-94 ejection system was shown at the Le Bourget air show, both statically and in flight. The Su-31M became the world's first quantity-produced sports aircraft equipped with an escape system. The first Su-31Ms have already been delivered to customers in Switzerland, Italy and Slovakia, and to the Central Aeroclub of the Russian paramilitary sports society ROSTO. (ROSTO = Rosseeyskoye oboronnoye sportivno-tekhneecheskoye obschchestvo - Russian Defence Sports and Technical Society. This is the successor of the Soviet-era DOSAAF (Dobrovol' noye obschchestvo sodeystviya armii, aviahtsiiiflotu-the Voluntary Society for the Support of the Army).

Helicopter seat

During the past decade, Russian designers have developed a rocket/parachute enforced escape system for combat helicopters. Designated K-37-800, the fully-automatic system is intended

for the Kamov Ka-so Black Shark attack helicopter (Hokum-A) and its two-seat version, the Ka-52 Alligator (Hokum-B). The pilot is extracted from the helicopter by means of a solid-propellant rocket motor attached to a strong, but light, cable, once the rotor blades have been jettisoned to facilitate unhindered egress. The pilot is also able to bail out of the helicopter manually.

The system consists of a seat, an on-board control module and the rocket-propelled towing device. The seat includes a life support system, a detachable seat back with a headrest, a suspension harness and operational systems which ensure safe escape from the helicopter. The seat pan houses a cushion containing the NAZ-/M survival kit (noseemy avareeny zapahs) and a dinghy, as well as the PS-3/A parachute system.

The seat pan's front wall houses the ejection control unit with actuating handles. On the right side of the seat pan (facing forward) is an override handle for disengaging the pilot's harness in the event of his deciding to abandon the helicopter manually without ejecting.

On production Ka-so helicopters now in service with Russian Army Aviation, the rocket/parachute escape system is used in combination with the ZSh-7V or ZSh-7VS special protective helmet, the KKO-VK-Ln oxygen system, and the KZO-Li 'Galoid' protective flying clothing.

So far, the K-37-8oo rescue system has not been used operationally, even though two examples of the Black Shark (including the first prototype) have been lost in crashes. On the second of these occasions, in Torzhok on July 17,1998, the upper and lower rotor blades of a production Ka-so collided during a high-g manoeuvre. The pilot, Major General Boris Vorob'yov, head of the Russian Army Aviation Combat and Conversion Training Centre, was killed. However, this was no fault of the rescue system - trying right up to the last moment to land the damaged helicopter, he did not attempt to use it.

Mention should also be made of two crashworthy seats developed for helicopters-the Pamir-K and the AK-20OO; produced by NPP Zvezda. Both models feature a cushion, a contoured seat back and a four-point harness with a quick-release central lock.

In the event of a crash landing, the shock is absorbed by a special damper consisting of a steel plunger and steel balls inside an aluminium alloy tube which de-forms at a controlled rate. In the case of the Pamir-K, the seat can reduce a 50g-impact force to between 14 and i6g. The Pamir-K seat moves on vertical guide rails, in contrast to the AK-20OO which has a levered suspension system.

In the opinion of many specialists (and not only Russians), the K-36 and other ejection seats developed by NPP Zvezda exhibit the highest performance capability in the world. The K-36 has saved the lives of hundreds of aircrew - both in peacetime and, more recently, during the second Chechen War where several aircraft have been shot down by shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. Thanks to the seat's high reliability and to a fool-proof safety system eliminating the risk of injuries, the vast majority have been able to continue their professional activities. This is not only good from the standpoint of the value of human life, it is also economically beneficial because of the high cost of aircrew training.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 23 Oct 2014 14:56

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.be/2014/10/g ... -poor.html

interesting notes, seems IAF not keen on giving up old traditions, in this case PBL should be implemented, HAL should be directly accountable for maintaining a high availability rate

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2014 15:00

tsarkar wrote:I vaguely remember there being Marut canopy ejection finally traced back to a faulty component that broke & shorted.

Seats don't have auto ejection, nor are they wired to flight computers, and are mechanically & pyrotechnically operated.

I speculate something on similar lines here.

The Marut incident was fragmentation of a switch mechanism from gun firing vibration I think.

In the Sukhoi - I think there is a circuit for firing both seats together and the problem presumably lies there. I am not sure if there is any mechanism for firing only one seat at a time. This is speculation by the way, not knowledge.

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 Oct 2014 16:15

Septimus P. wrote:http://ajaishukla.blogspot.be/2014/10/g ... -poor.html

interesting notes, seems IAF not keen on giving up old traditions, in this case PBL should be implemented, HAL should be directly accountable for maintaining a high availability rate

...

Last month, the MoD held two high-level meetings to find solutions to this problem. According to figures presented in those meeting (a) 20 per cent of the fleet, i.e. some 39 Su-30MKIs, are undergoing “first line” and “second line” maintenance or inspections at any time, which is the IAF’s responsibility; (b) Another 11-12 per cent of the fleet is undergoing major repair and overhaul by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL); and (c) 13-14 per cent of the fleet is grounded, awaiting major systems or repairs --- the technical terms is: “aircraft on ground”.

For decades, the IAF has accused HAL of poor workmanship and maintenance. At the MoD meeting on Su-30MKI serviceability, HAL turned the tables on the IAF.

The MoD was informed about serious problems with the IAF’s management of spares. By standard norms, a fighter fleet consumes 5 per cent of its worth in consumables and spares each year. By that benchmark the Su-30MKI fleet, currently worth about Rs 69,000 crore --- 193 Su-30MKIs at Rs 358 crore per fighter --- should consume spares worth Rs 3,450 crore annually. Yet, IAF orders from HAL add up to less than Rs 50 crore, including ground handling equipment.

Without competent inventory management by the IAF, and with spares ordered piecemeal when defects arise, Su-30MKI fighters spend weeks on the ground awaiting spares.

To ensure that 13-14 per cent of the Su-30MKI fleet is not grounded for want of spares, HAL has stockpiled spares worth Rs 400 crore in Nashik. According to S Subrahmanyan, the chief of HAL’s Nashik facility, the inventory is based on a study of consumption patterns of Su-30MKI spares over the preceding five years.

HAL says this buffer stock includes spares that are still purchased from Russia, because low consumption volumes make indigenisation non-cost-effective. Even so, non-availability of these spares could ground aircraft.

Simultaneously, HAL has proposed to the MoD that the IAF must order spares required over a 5-year period, stocking them at 25 Equipment Depot, the IAF’s holding depot for spares at Nashik.

Separately, HAL has offered the IAF “Performance Based Logistics” (PBL) for the Su-30MKI fleet --- a solution common in advanced western air forces. PBL would bind HAL to maintain the Su-30MKI, providing the IAF a specified serviceability rate --- calculated in flight hours, or as a percentage of the total aircraft fleet --- in exchange for an annual service charge.

Besides saving maintenance costs for the IAF, PBL has been found to encourage quality manufacture, since manufacturers know they will be responsible for keeping the aircraft serviceable through its operational life.

MoD officials say the IAF dislikes the PBL model, because outsourcing maintenance to HAL threatens a large maintenance empire built around “base repair depots”, manned by IAF personnel. In 2008-09, the IAF rejected HAL’s proposal for a PBL contract for maintaining the Hawk advanced jet trainer.

HAL is confident that it can deliver higher serviceability rates for the Su-30MKI than the current 58 per cent. The company has argued that raising aircraft availability by 20 per cent would make 40 Su-30MKI additionally available to the IAF, effectively adding two fighter squadrons to its strike power.

...

They need to also have couple of "secretive" backup facilities for stockpiling of long-term spares other than Nashik for Su-30MKI. In any future war, these depots would be prime targets. If the Nashik depot were to be destroyed, 13-14% of the Su-30MKI fleet would continue to be grounded and further 20% would end up being grounded as well pretty fast given with war-time flying hours. It is possible that a few percentage could be salvaged by cannibalising other Su-30MKIs in an emergency.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Oct 2014 17:17

HAL will take mostly retired airforce guys with sukhoi experience and employ them on contract, mostly use retired airforce officers to take charge of the teams.

This reduces the efficiencies of the forces maintenance teams, results in very poorly trained maintenance staff who will not be able to manage in emergencies.

This is a bad idea, floated and sold by HAL to assure a permanent income stream for themselves. Not at all a good idea for the future of trained technical manpower in the forces.

They seem to have managed such money spinning contracts with the IN and IA too.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 23 Oct 2014 18:06

^^^

Nice points but still IAF isn't doing a stellar job either, they have to find mid-ground and as suggested by srai, time to have more locations for spares for all fleets, not just the MKI, they are deployed in all parts of the country hence spares too should spread out. Also, there is nothing wrong with HAL trying to have an income stream. If HAL would take up PBL, I am sure IAF will want to have a clean mechanism of direct day to day oversight which will ensure there is no shortcuts from HAL.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 23 Oct 2014 19:32

^^ How are you so sure that IAF isn't doing a stellar job of maintaining Su-30?

FWIW, ordering of spares is done by MoD, not IAF. Before Rafale, MiG-29K, C-130 & C-17, no one in MoD did life cycle cost planning. One of the reasons for high costs of these deals is incorporated lifecycle costs.

Also, indigenization of spares for Sukhoi is still WIP, so just paying money for spares to HAL wont solve the problem of manufacturing being WIP.

For Su-30, many parts were custom built for IAF. For example, the AL-31FP is an improved variant for IAF & Malaysia. One one else uses it. So MTBF and TBO for many parts in actual operations cannot be accurately estimated beforehand. That is why TBO for engines has been reduced based on actual operations. When TBO & MTBF is not accurately estimated, then how can one pre-order spares?

Base Repair Depots constitute an important infrastructure resource for the nation and not just IAF. When HAL gives up saying Cheetah rotor blades are out of production by OEM, it is these BRD that keep Cheetah helicopters flying.

IAF maintenance infrastructure is the best in the world in terms of doing much more with much less. Nowhere are such large numbers of MiG21 & MiG27 flying when their engine & other component manufacture has stopped.

Seems to me HAL is trying to inflate revenue by trying Mazgaon Procured Material route, wherein MDL bought Scorpene components from DCN and labeled it as indigenous.

Ajai's report contains HAL version, and incorrectly uses money spent as an indicator of maintenance effectiveness.

He similarly tried to scuttle IAF training by promoting paperware HTT40 when HAL has a poor record by fcuking up HJT36 & HPT32 and the project is effectively dead. Unfortunately, the false excuse cited by many of IAF setting high performance specifications for Tejas wont hold good for HJT 36 since the specifications set for it were low by any standards.

In Bangalore, commercial flights were stopped from HAL airport to ensure more flying & testing for Tejas, Sitara, Saras, Dhruv, Rudra & LCH. A new airport was built for Bangalore. However, HAL chairman is lamenting loss of revenue from closure of the airport, and wants to reopen it for civilian flights, instead of focusing on rectifying design issues on Sitara.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/ban ... 408137.ece

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 128358.ece

If he wants to run airports, then he should work for Airports Authority of India. HAL's job is to build planes, not run airports.