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

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 01 Oct 2015 00:13

Su-34s for IAF:

Su-34 offers an incremental capability over the Su-30 in a bomber role.

- Longer range (4000Km vs 3000Km)
- Side by side seating
- Drop tanks
- specialist nav-attack system and radar sensor, presumably better
- Armoured cockpit
- Better ergonomics and comfort
- Hardpoints stressed for higher weight, especially centreline
- Higher MTOW
- Ruggedized MLG

But looses out in air dominance capability. Ironically, Super-30s with Brahmos have a wider weapon suite.

Now the debate is whether the incremental capability is required by us or not. Or whether it is worth the effort, given that buying more Su-30s is a simpler choice.

Jury is out.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Oct 2015 00:17

>>- specialist nav-attack system and radar sensor, presumably better

not really...since we even have RTP apart from Litening (which is ahead of whatever Russia has) + Bars itself is a better MR sensor

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Oct 2015 05:10

Tha fighters cannot carry the heavy missiles the H6 can. Plus it has more range.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Oct 2015 09:13

Singha wrote:Tha fighters cannot carry the heavy missiles the H6 can. Plus it has more range.

No Kh-22s or Moskits in our inventory . The heaviest CM we possess i.e. the BrahMos can be employed from the Su-30MKI as well as from the IA's TELs.

The range in turn can't be exploited without genuine penetrative capability. A B-2 might be able pull it off, but an IAF Tu-22M will be forced to loiter within Indian airspace.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Oct 2015 09:51

Aditya G wrote:Su-34s for IAF:

Su-34 offers an incremental capability over the Su-30 in a bomber role.

- Longer range (4000Km vs 3000Km)
- Side by side seating
- Drop tanks
- specialist nav-attack system and radar sensor, presumably better
- Armoured cockpit
- Better ergonomics and comfort
- Hardpoints stressed for higher weight, especially centreline
- Higher MTOW
- Ruggedized MLG

But looses out in air dominance capability. Ironically, Super-30s with Brahmos have a wider weapon suite.

Now the debate is whether the incremental capability is required by us or not. Or whether it is worth the effort, given that buying more Su-30s is a simpler choice.

Jury is out.

While I dont think we need Su-34 as Su-30 can do most of its job for our environment and having a dedicated tactical bomber like Su-34 would just be adding logistical burden ( I believe 34 uses Salut series AL-31FM1 and not Saturn AL-31FP for MKI engine ) to Flanker fleet best avoided.

One more point I want to added to the list you have is Su-34 max bomb load ability is 12 T over Su-30 8T also the MTOW for Su-34 is around ~ 45 T over Su-30 MTOW 38T , Plus an Eleptical Shape Radar for Wide Angle of View for Ground Mission.

In any case we should rather worry on how we can upgrade the entire MKI fleet to Super MKI standard that would be more worth effort then buy another type.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Oct 2015 10:28

Study Chinese mil doctrine closely.Apart from the first cyberwarfare attacks,the PLA forces will use massive tactical missile attacks against Indian forward air bases ,air lift airstrips,IA command centres and our key infrastructure points like bridges,roads,etc. in the forward sectors. We have to factor in this eventuality where we will have to use air bases deeper in the sub-continent to strike back at China,and try and cut off its own infrastructure links like the Tibetan rail link,etc.,apart from using our own missiles like BMos,Nirbhaty ,etc. Cutting off Tibet from the rest of China should be our prime objective and we need the deep strike capability,esp. as we may have to fight on two fronts simultaneously.However,the absence of a LR bomber makes it more difficult for us. We need such an aircraft not only for LR maritime strike,as even 8 upgraded Bears which can serve us for another decade are insufficient. China has numbers and we will be hard pressed to deal with all of them esp. when supported by dozens of PLAAF Flankers too. The Sino-Pak JV has a clear numerical advantage over the IAF.Our Flankers will be hard pressed to deal with a two-front war for air defence/dominance and also to conduct deep strike missions.
Q.Which aircraft does the IAF intend to use as part of the N-triad? What legs does it also have?

soumik · Post by **soumik** » 01 Oct 2015 18:28

Since we seem to be discussing a hypothetical PLAAF, PLA assault in Tibet on a similar vein I had written a small article about converting the Andamans into a fortress capable of fending off PLAAF and PLAN attacks in an article previously published on DFI, i'd love it if the gurus here could read it and give me some further input.

http://defenceforumindia.com/building-f ... aiwan-2074

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 01 Oct 2015 18:48

^Nice write up. I didn't know Taiwanese defenses were this robust, definitely a model to draw inspiration from. I would definitely like to see what the gurus have to say about your article.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Oct 2015 19:34

the infamous bogibeel bridge at dibrugarh, instead of being treated as a strategic defence project has been languishing at snails pace for the last 15-20 years

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/mul ... 22293f.jpg

if cheen drops the 3 other bridges over the brahmaputra (and they will devote considerable means to it), we will up s*** creek

a comparable 900km length of river in a developed country would have 20 bridges not 3.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 04 Oct 2015 05:54

Serviceability of SU-30 down to just 55%.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 04 Oct 2015 06:00

Wonderful 300 fighters = 165 in service! @ $50 mill per AC original cost - this means their true cost is $77.5 million!!!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 04 Oct 2015 07:31

^ damn that is cheap saar, now to buy another 100 and dump the rafale. Mote seriously, I thought mki serviceability has gone up

Oh just realized this article is from one rajat pundit. Do note, the letter graphic also suggests that the mk2 lca had been scrapped!! All resources being moved to amca?

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 04 Oct 2015 07:37

Vipul wrote:Serviceability of SU-30 down to just 55%.

A bit of misreporting there from Rajat Pandit: he states in the accompanying infographic that the LCA Mk.2 has been scrapped. However Ajai Shukla's far more informative article states that

Meanwhile the Tejas Mark II will continue development, say sources in the DRDO, which oversees the Tejas development programme.
....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Oct 2015 08:20

MOD stated in April servicivility at 55-58 % and EoY he plans to bring it to 70 % via availability of spares

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 04 Oct 2015 08:26

That is DDM Rajat Pandit. Read this article in details

The Indian Air Force's (IAF's) Su-30MKI multirole fighter fleet is plagued by frequent "engine failure-in-air and engine-related problems" and poor operational serviceability, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar told parliament on 17 March.

Of 69 Su-30MKI engine failures investigated since 2012, the minister said "33 were due to finding [metal] chips in the oil, 11 due to vibration in the engine, and 8 because of low pressure of lubricating oil

The IAF operates 200 Su-30MKIs, but of these only 110 or 55% were operationally available due to poor serviceability, Parrikar said, adding that this would increase to 70% by the end of 2015.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Oct 2015 08:50

"metal chips in the oil" may not mean in the aviation fuel which is surely triple filtered, but in the lubricating "gearbox" parts inside the engine. as a cars transmission gearbox grows old, metal chips do wear off the gears and get deposited into the transmision fluid.
this fluid is changed some every 60k in a car i think.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 04 Oct 2015 10:55

may I add that the deployment of the Su-34 Full Back to the Syrian Theatre is an excllent opportunity to study its capabilities.
I have always harboured a soft corner for the full back. Time to match feelings with stats

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 04 Oct 2015 11:13

Actually the article has the details:

Parrikar said between January 2013 and December 2014 the IAF had recorded technical problems with 35 Saturn AL-31FP engines that power the licence-built Su-30MKIs. The problems were related to faulty bearings and low-pressure oil. He said metal fatigue caused these bearings, which are incorporated to reduce friction between the fighter's moving parts, to chip or fragment and the resulting particles contaminated the oil flow.

IMHO it sounds like a classic problem of quality of key components - IAF really uses the aircraft to its full capabilities and Russians engines obviously do not yet have the components that will work as mentioned in the brochure when subjected to IAF's flying regimen. Wonder if the Russians face similar issues with their Su27/Su30. If they don't, do they fly differently or do they sell downgraded aka export oriented components for IAF's aircraft engines? Wonder what the IAF's experience has been with the western engines (on the Jaguar, M2K and Sea Harrier..)?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 04 Oct 2015 17:02

Su-34 pilots in Syria. Look ma no g-suits

Su-30SMs with SAP-14s in Syria

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Oct 2015 17:16

Those are SAP-518s. SAP 14s would be carried on the centerline pylon.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Other/Su-30M ... osi-1S.jpg
SAP-14
http://www.ausairpower.net/VVS/KNIRTI-S ... VVK-1S.jpg
SAP-518
http://www.ausairpower.net/VVS/KNIRTI-S ... VVK-1S.jpg

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Oct 2015 21:59

Aditya G wrote:Su-34 pilots in Syria. Look ma no g-suits

Looks a bit like Daffy Duck
http://orig12.deviantart.net/656e/f/201 ... 30skbd.png

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Oct 2015 22:12

So far Russia has used following in Syria:
UAVs for target spotting and BDA (but not designation)
Satellite: KAB-500S and KAB-250S
Laser: KH-25L and KH-29L
Regular: BETAB and other iron bombs

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 05 Oct 2015 06:57

^^^Source please.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 05 Oct 2015 07:09

shiv wrote:Looks a bit like Daffy Duck

Say what you will, I've always thought the SU-34 was a beautiful plane. The damn thing is a work of art. I also think the SU-30 has beautiful lines and design.

It doesn't hurt that these platforms are also capable as hell.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Oct 2015 09:58

Mort Walker wrote:^^^Source please.

Just google for Syria Russia PGMs or aircraft. Multiple pics.

In the latest news, Russia just used its Textron SFW equivalent. Didn't even know they had one.

RBK-500-SPBE-D

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=755_1443992329
http://artofwar.ru/img/w/waleckij_o_w/h ... /rbk-1.jpg

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Oct 2015 19:02

https://twitter.com/MuradoRT

Russian Su-30 pilots. No G-suits? Or more like full body ones.
Note R-27 and R-73E only..

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 05 Oct 2015 20:15

Is it possible to be without G-suits?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Oct 2015 20:29

If you dont fly too high/ or pull too many G

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Oct 2015 20:33

i would expect all a/c armed with AAM su30 and su34 to have a G-suit. it has the same bars radar as the su30sm probably.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Oct 2015 21:25

Su-30SM would need G Suite , Su-34 also need G suite but it has pressurised cockpit obviating the need for the crew to wear masks through the whole flight.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Oct 2015 21:43

saumitra_j wrote:Actually the article has the details:
Parrikar said between January 2013 and December 2014 the IAF had recorded technical problems with 35 Saturn AL-31FP engines that power the licence-built Su-30MKIs. The problems were related to faulty bearings and low-pressure oil. He said metal fatigue caused these bearings, which are incorporated to reduce friction between the fighter's moving parts, to chip or fragment and the resulting particles contaminated the oil flow.
IMHO it sounds like a classic problem of quality of key components - IAF really uses the aircraft to its full capabilities and Russians engines obviously do not yet have the components that will work as mentioned in the brochure when subjected to IAF's flying regimen. Wonder if the Russians face similar issues with their Su27/Su30. If they don't, do they fly differently or do they sell downgraded aka export oriented components for IAF's aircraft engines? Wonder what the IAF's experience has been with the western engines (on the Jaguar, M2K and Sea Harrier..)?

Low pressure oil could be primary root cause. Leads to bearing metal failure. Can't improve bearings is if oil pump doesn't deliver right pressure.

By now IAF should have developed local bearings from Tata or whoever produces those for other jet engines in India.

srin · Post by **srin** » 05 Oct 2015 23:54

Austin wrote:Su-30SM would need G Suite , Su-34 also need G suite but it has pressurised cockpit obviating the need for the crew to wear masks through the whole flight.

I thought all fighters had pressurized cockpits. While oxygen supply may eliminate hypoxia, the low cabin pressure would still cause bends and altitude sickness. So, there would still be partial cabin pressure - may be equivalent to 15K feet equivalent when the real altitude is like 30K feet (I pulled the numbers out of my musharraf).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Oct 2015 06:49

This is relevant here
Harsh Indian weather takes toll on airlines' new engines

NEW DELHI: India's harsh environmental conditions are costing airlines dear as they switch over to latest engines for their newest aircraft with the aim of getting improved fuel efficiency. Confused? The latest engines are designed for the benign environment of the west and the heat and dust of India makes them wear out faster, necessitating earlier-then-expected "coming off wings" for shop visits for repair and overhaul.

India is now ranked along with Gulf and parts of China for having the harshest environment in which an aircraft engine operates.

A senior Air India official said, "Earlier, an engine would come off wings for shop visits (regular maintenance) after doing 16,000 cycles (a cycle being one take off and landing), something that would get completed in four to five years. Now, engines come off the wings after 8,000 to 10,000 cycles only . The shop visit of each engine costs about $3.3 million. The new-gen engines are very sensitive." An engine coming off earlier means increased expenses for airlines.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Oct 2015 08:56

srin wrote:I thought all fighters had pressurized cockpits. While oxygen supply may eliminate hypoxia, the low cabin pressure would still cause bends and altitude sickness. So, there would still be partial cabin pressure - may be equivalent to 15K feet equivalent when the real altitude is like 30K feet (I pulled the numbers out of my musharraf).

AFAIK fighters dont have pressurised cockpits , Only Strategic Bombers do and Su-34 has one

There are some videos on net where inflight Su-34 pilots are shown to stand up and do some streching/walk while there is space between the two seat to lay down

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 06 Oct 2015 15:55

IAF Goes Public With Su-30 Problems
By Arming India Correspondent

NEW DELHI, OCT.3, 2015: The Indian Air Force (IAF) leadership has gone public with the poor operational availability of its frontline Su-30MKI fighter fleet, which is reported to be as low as 50 per cent. Also, for the first time, the IAF complained bitterly about the quality of this fighter.

"There are issues about repair, overhaul, turn-around time and supply of spares by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)," complained IAF chief Arup Raha, at a press conference ahead of Air Force Day. The IAF has contracted for 272 Su-30MKI fighters, most of which are being license-produced by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in India.

"They have missed production targets, and there are issues of quality control," the Air Chief Marshal said.

In an exclusive interview ahead of his press conference, Raha had told Arming India that the IAF intended to have a total of 13 squadrons equipped with the Su-30 MKI aircraft. "There are certain slippages in delivery, but they are not alarming and are being addressed through measures at the appropriate levels," he had said about the Su-30MKI program.

Illustrating the benefits of ample supply of spares, Raha said the IAF's Su-30MKI complement for the recently-conducted 'Exercise Indradhanush' in Britain did not miss a single mission because of sufficient spares back-up. "There was 100 per cent availability of our aircraft during this exercise," he recalled. Efforts are being made to increase the supply of spares.

The IAF chief also flagged problems in the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) with Russia. "There are issues related to work share, technology, costs and time frame. The matter has been taken up at the highest level," he said.

Despite intimate ties, such issues demonstrate the edgy relationship with Russian entities at a functional level. Last year, a public spat broke out between the IAF and the Russian OEM, after an "involuntary" crash of an IAF Su-30MKI at Pune, over the reason for the accident. The IAF maintains that there's a history of "involuntary ejections" with the Su-30. Both the pilots were ejected as they were preparing to land at the Lohegaon airbase in Pune, leading to the crash.

http://www.armingindia.com/IAF%20Goes%2 ... oblems.htm

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Oct 2015 17:00

"There are issues about repair, overhaul, turn-around time and supply of spares by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)," complained IAF chief Arup Raha, at a press conference ahead of Air Force Day. The IAF has contracted for 272 Su-30MKI fighters, most of which are being license-produced by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in India.

"They have missed production targets, and there are issues of quality control," the Air Chief Marshal said.

And that is why the MiG-35 is a total non-starter as a replacement, complement or supplement to the MMRCA.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 06 Oct 2015 20:35

Missed production targets, supply of spares and issues of quality control.
Never mind this, we should keep getting blackmailed by Russia as once these hangar fairies get off the ground they do a great cobra maneuver and are useful during an air-show.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 06 Oct 2015 21:26

He is referring to hal.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Oct 2015 21:36

Vipul, the cobra maneuver is very much useful in combat. But one has to be sure when to use it (the difference between a seasoned pilot and a rookie). If you use it correctly, you have a huge advantage. But if you miss out, then you are at a disadvantage. You will find this described by many aces of DACT exercises.

Otherwise, the F-22 designed much later than the Su-27s would not have gone for TVC

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Oct 2015 21:55

The maneuver takes much of the limelight when the capability it demonstrates is infinitely more important.