Su-30: News and Discussion
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 277
- Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14
KS-172 is in which stage? Is it inducted in service?rkhanna wrote:You are correct. The KS-172 project had been lying dead since the 90s due to lack of funding. India gave the funding to revive the project in the early 2000s.Correct me if I am wrong but I do recollect reading somewhere that India was funding/part funding the development of the KS-172?
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 997
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31
It adopted another name for sure since they were even silence about it at Moscow Airshow 2007. Also Su-35 imminent induction into Russian service is determined thing, it'll be the first Russian fighter with an ultra-long range AAM, being it KS-172 derivate or another. The parameters of its radar (Irbis) well say about intention for 300+ km range air to air weapon.Nitesh wrote:KS-172 is in which stage? Is it inducted in service?rkhanna wrote: You are correct. The KS-172 project had been lying dead since the 90s due to lack of funding. India gave the funding to revive the project in the early 2000s.
Is it still under development or has it been operationalised? Will the IAF procuring them?rkhanna wrote:You are correct. The KS-172 project had been lying dead since the 90s due to lack of funding. India gave the funding to revive the project in the early 2000s.Correct me if I am wrong but I do recollect reading somewhere that India was funding/part funding the development of the KS-172?
What are the returns India is getting for the funding?
Regds, Clay
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2008/05/fl ... birds.html
Candid words from a top gun instructor, who now commands roughly half the airborne striking force that the US Navy has over the Pacific. More than that, these are words of any American pilot who's heard all the Sukhoi stories. Captain Hal Murdock, commodore at Lemoore Naval Air Station, California, is a Tomcat ace who now spends his time effecting the foundations for the next generation of American naval aviation, a.k.a. the F-35 Lightning-II.
To be honest, I'm yet to find a US pilot (and most defence correspondents have met a whole bunch in the last three years) who wouldn't give something really valuable to get behind the stick of a Su-30MKI. The young US Navy lieutenant Matthew "Bloody" Stoll, who flew me in an F/A-18F Super Hornet in February last year at Yelahanka, said, "Hook me up with a Flanker ride, and I'll get you another F/A-18 flight!"
Anyway, during the briefind we got from Captain Murdock at the Lemoore base, the discussion inevitable shifted to a comparison between the Super Hornet and the Su-30MKI. You can always trust a real pilot to be honest about his gear, and stuff used by his purported adversaries. For starters, he was candidly and unambigiously clear that if a Super Hornet and Su-30MKI went head to head, one on one, it would be an incredibly good fight.
One thing he said outright -- it would be imperative for the Super Hornet to keep the engagement BVR to keep its advantages peaked. The Super Hornet, he said, would be able to paint the MKI with its AESA minutes before the reverse could happen, giving it precious minutes to act. Secondly, in a BVR engagement, the electronic warfare environment made possible by the Super Hornet's integrated EW systems are "far superior to anything known to exist on the best Russian fighters". But, he said, you allow the Su-30 to get into a close-combat engagement with the Super Hornet, and "it's gonna be a very different story, I'm afraid."
For starters, the Super Hornet will be almost hopelessly outmanouvered by the MKI, Murdock says. "We've seen these fellas at air shows. It ain't funny. That thing can swing." Even the Super Hornet's turbo nose-down feature (something pilots love) wont allow it to dodge. And probably most importanty, Murdock indicates that in any engagement, if the Super Hornet doesn't make its kill quickly, it's going to almost ruin the odds of winning. The Su-30 has immensely more endurance and survivability in the air than a Super Hornet, and by the simple virtue of being able to stay in the air longer, has a critical one-up.
Candid words from a top gun instructor, who now commands roughly half the airborne striking force that the US Navy has over the Pacific. More than that, these are words of any American pilot who's heard all the Sukhoi stories. Captain Hal Murdock, commodore at Lemoore Naval Air Station, California, is a Tomcat ace who now spends his time effecting the foundations for the next generation of American naval aviation, a.k.a. the F-35 Lightning-II.
To be honest, I'm yet to find a US pilot (and most defence correspondents have met a whole bunch in the last three years) who wouldn't give something really valuable to get behind the stick of a Su-30MKI. The young US Navy lieutenant Matthew "Bloody" Stoll, who flew me in an F/A-18F Super Hornet in February last year at Yelahanka, said, "Hook me up with a Flanker ride, and I'll get you another F/A-18 flight!"
Anyway, during the briefind we got from Captain Murdock at the Lemoore base, the discussion inevitable shifted to a comparison between the Super Hornet and the Su-30MKI. You can always trust a real pilot to be honest about his gear, and stuff used by his purported adversaries. For starters, he was candidly and unambigiously clear that if a Super Hornet and Su-30MKI went head to head, one on one, it would be an incredibly good fight.
One thing he said outright -- it would be imperative for the Super Hornet to keep the engagement BVR to keep its advantages peaked. The Super Hornet, he said, would be able to paint the MKI with its AESA minutes before the reverse could happen, giving it precious minutes to act. Secondly, in a BVR engagement, the electronic warfare environment made possible by the Super Hornet's integrated EW systems are "far superior to anything known to exist on the best Russian fighters". But, he said, you allow the Su-30 to get into a close-combat engagement with the Super Hornet, and "it's gonna be a very different story, I'm afraid."
For starters, the Super Hornet will be almost hopelessly outmanouvered by the MKI, Murdock says. "We've seen these fellas at air shows. It ain't funny. That thing can swing." Even the Super Hornet's turbo nose-down feature (something pilots love) wont allow it to dodge. And probably most importanty, Murdock indicates that in any engagement, if the Super Hornet doesn't make its kill quickly, it's going to almost ruin the odds of winning. The Su-30 has immensely more endurance and survivability in the air than a Super Hornet, and by the simple virtue of being able to stay in the air longer, has a critical one-up.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 277
- Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14
Discussions were held 4 years ago i don't believe it went further than that. Since i have not seen any money appropriated for R&D by us.clay wrote:Is it still under development or has it been operationalised? Will the IAF procuring them?rkhanna wrote: You are correct. The KS-172 project had been lying dead since the 90s due to lack of funding. India gave the funding to revive the project in the early 2000s.
What are the returns India is getting for the funding?
Regds, Clay
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 277
- Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14
I actually remember reading this in Milparade some time back. The Article was saying that Indian R&D Funding is actually going to Russia and not the Indian Military-Industrial Complex and the KS-172 , Brahmos , etc are examples of that. will try to dig it up.Discussions were held 4 years ago i don't believe it went further than that. Since i have not seen any money appropriated for R&D by us
No one knows anything for sure but conventional knowledge and RMA in radar technologies points towards general superiority of AESA radars over passive ones. He is stating obvious that the best AESA would paint his opponent’s aircraft before his opponent can see him with his best PESA.ranganathan wrote:The BARS were never switched on so how does he know Shornet will paint the MKI first? The KS-172 and Irbis or AESA upgrade during MLU should effectively wipe out Shornet.
Even after this you may be right since you can't rule out that a massive PESA may have longer range than a smaller AESA.
We should try and get one for our MKIs. Even if it doesn’t add much real value to aircraft still the perceived deterrence value alone would pay for the cost.
rkhanna wrote:I actually remember reading this in Milparade some time back. The Article was saying that Indian R&D Funding is actually going to Russia and not the Indian Military-Industrial Complex and the KS-172 , Brahmos , etc are examples of that. will try to dig it up.Discussions were held 4 years ago i don't believe it went further than that. Since i have not seen any money appropriated for R&D by us
Even I remember reading something similar. Do not remember where though. Luck with the digging.
In potention AESA has better future due to less signal loss on the waveguides (they are just shorter on AESA). AESA also can have longer time between filure, but costing more than PESA, so lifecicle cost may be comparable in the future when big serial production will push AESA cost low. In other aspects PESA can do the most things AESA can do including LPI. Regarding allocation of AESA resources between two modes simultaneously, I cannot say if it's practically enough in real air battle. It seems to me as only theoretical possibility at least now.Katare wrote: No one knows anything for sure but conventional knowledge and RMA in radar technologies points towards general superiority of AESA radars over passive ones. He is stating obvious that the best AESA would paint his opponent’s aircraft before his opponent can see him with his best PESA.
Even after this you may be right since you can't rule out that a massive PESA may have longer range than a smaller AESA..
But should have seen some money trial, i think IAF backed out once they realized the missile is limited to just one platform and its more than likely that MRCA or even PAK-FA won't be able to carry it.clay wrote:rkhanna wrote: I actually remember reading this in Milparade some time back. The Article was saying that Indian R&D Funding is actually going to Russia and not the Indian Military-Industrial Complex and the KS-172 , Brahmos , etc are examples of that. will try to dig it up.
Even I remember reading something similar. Do not remember where though. Luck with the digging.
OIC. Is it because of a limitation of the radar on different platforms or size/weight of missile.John wrote: But should have seen some money trial, i think IAF backed out once they realized the missile is limited to just one platform and its more than likely that MRCA or even PAK-FA won't be able to carry it.
Can you elaborate please? Thanks in advance.
Regds, Clay
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 277
- Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14
The Pak-FA will be Su-30 sized and should be able to carry it. Anyways with 230 Su-30 MKI I don't see IAF being stupid enough to reject this missile. It can neatly take out the Paki-chink awacs and tankers thus proving to be a real force multiplier.clay wrote:OIC. Is it because of a limitation of the radar on different platforms or size/weight of missile.John wrote: But should have seen some money trial, i think IAF backed out once they realized the missile is limited to just one platform and its more than likely that MRCA or even PAK-FA won't be able to carry it.
Can you elaborate please? Thanks in advance.
Regds, Clay
may be the silence is due to fears of upsetting the MTCR cabal. this missile could well have a 400km range though some reports have also claimed 300 km.
could be like the brahmos, India would say it got one within 300 km while the real story is a bit different.
I agree ranganathan, the IAF is certainly not foolish enough to let this opportunity pass.
haven't you read the earlier posts ??
could be like the brahmos, India would say it got one within 300 km while the real story is a bit different.
I agree ranganathan, the IAF is certainly not foolish enough to let this opportunity pass.
John, what the heck, the k-100, ks-172 whatever is being designed for the pakfa and you think it won't be able to carry it ??........or even PAK-FA won't be able to carry it.
haven't you read the earlier posts ??
something like that, or could be that the new ultra long range AAM is a derivative of the ks-172. the russians are muddying the waters as much as they can WRT pakfa and its armaments. I don't believe we have seen a definitive version of this missile yet.ks-172 is k-100.....
to add to that, we have no info/pics of the PAKFA.
that means we are talking about fitting a missile of unknown dimensions on an a/c of unknown dimensions !!
a little premature, if you ask me !
Re: Su-30: News and Discussion
F-22 can only accommodate missiles that are less than 4 meters in length in its internal hardpoints if PAK-FA can equip missiles upto 5 meters long it will be pretty advantage (R-37 etc).
Re: Su-30: News and Discussion
pakfa was supposed to be smaller than su35bm, and weigh in around 15 tons empty and 22 tons mtow - similar to the F22. su35bm mtow would be a obese 30+ tons probably.
Re: Su-30: News and Discussion
Su-35Singha wrote:pakfa was supposed to be smaller than su35bm, and weigh in around 15 tons empty and 22 tons mtow - similar to the F22. su35bm mtow would be a obese 30+ tons probably.
Weights, kg
empty 18,400
Normal 25,700
Maximum 34,000
Re: Su-30: News and Discussion
Will the engines be upgraded as to provide the thrust ratio as it was with the baseline Su-27s before the heavier avionics were added?
The problem with MKIs is that their engine thrust ratio is significantly less than the baseline Su-27s and the F-15Es had upgraded engines to retain the engine thrust ratio in light of the addition of heavier avionics.
The problem with MKIs is that their engine thrust ratio is significantly less than the baseline Su-27s and the F-15Es had upgraded engines to retain the engine thrust ratio in light of the addition of heavier avionics.
Re: Su-30: News and Discussion
Singha PAK-FA from all accounts will have a MTOW of ~ 30 Tons.Singha wrote:pakfa was supposed to be smaller than su35bm, and weigh in around 15 tons empty and 22 tons mtow - similar to the F22. su35bm mtow would be a obese 30+ tons probably.
The 22 T was a proposed Mig single engine design , which perhaps may be selected as JSF equivalent.
Re: Su-30: News and Discussion
It 's bit early to speak about MLU upgrades for MKI. The thrust of current two Al-31F is still gives better thrust to weight ratio then F15 of any variant has. Between Saturn and Salut both have their options for Al-31 upgrade with more thrust. May be then IAF will chose something different (5th gen engine?) who know.Hitesh wrote:Will the engines be upgraded as to provide the thrust ratio as it was with the baseline Su-27s before the heavier avionics were added?
The problem with MKIs is that their engine thrust ratio is significantly less than the baseline Su-27s and the F-15Es had upgraded engines to retain the engine thrust ratio in light of the addition of heavier avionics.
Re: Su-30: News and Discussion
well IMHO, IAF shouldn't even think of MKI MLU before
1) First two batches of LCA are smoothly inducted paving way for following batches.
2) MRCA & Phalcon AWACs inducted & operational.
3) Make significant progress on PAK-FA project beyond initial stages.
After these have been settled, it can decide on how many MKIs it want to upgrade and what kind of upgrade it wants to apply. Before issuing any order of MKI upgrade they need to have a "solid idea" of what the future force will look like of which MKI will be just one node.
Of course technology developed for PAK-FA and/or LCA can be re routed to MKI MLU.
That being said of course little upgrades like adding HADF, weapons like Sagem's ASSM etc.. will be applied in following years.
1) First two batches of LCA are smoothly inducted paving way for following batches.
2) MRCA & Phalcon AWACs inducted & operational.
3) Make significant progress on PAK-FA project beyond initial stages.
After these have been settled, it can decide on how many MKIs it want to upgrade and what kind of upgrade it wants to apply. Before issuing any order of MKI upgrade they need to have a "solid idea" of what the future force will look like of which MKI will be just one node.
Of course technology developed for PAK-FA and/or LCA can be re routed to MKI MLU.
That being said of course little upgrades like adding HADF, weapons like Sagem's ASSM etc.. will be applied in following years.
Re: Su-30: News and Discussion
Not MLU but seamless and continuous upgradation of newer batches is a good idea.
Re: Su-30: News and Discussion
You dont mean continious upgrading of engine, do youKatare wrote:Not MLU but seamless and continuous upgradation of newer batches is a good idea.
Software upgrade for radar and avionics one time in 5-6 years and DSP reinforcment, datalink bandwidth widening are more than enough IMHO. It's For all MKI fleet of course, to not lose multiplying factor of unification. Something more deep needs prolonged tests that can only deteriorate induction.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 565
- Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
- Location: On a roller-coaster.
Re: Su-30: News and Discussion
Re: KS-172
Bhai logs, I remember the days when nobody on this forum was convinced that MKI's had A2G capability but now we know better (Kh-25MP, Kh-29L/T, Kh-31A/P and Kh-59/59M). I most certainly do not remember the party the IAF threw when it inducted all this kufr A2G armament. I was not invited so I didnt invite the air-chief to my last b-day either. Anyway...
So, if evil yindoos funded the KS-172, I bet my grapes they got something out of it. And yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I would expect them to keep under wraps, if it ever materialized. I am not saying everything is kosher, I am only saying there is a good chance that it is and/or that it will be kosher soon.
Shalom.
Bhai logs, I remember the days when nobody on this forum was convinced that MKI's had A2G capability but now we know better (Kh-25MP, Kh-29L/T, Kh-31A/P and Kh-59/59M). I most certainly do not remember the party the IAF threw when it inducted all this kufr A2G armament. I was not invited so I didnt invite the air-chief to my last b-day either. Anyway...
So, if evil yindoos funded the KS-172, I bet my grapes they got something out of it. And yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I would expect them to keep under wraps, if it ever materialized. I am not saying everything is kosher, I am only saying there is a good chance that it is and/or that it will be kosher soon.
Shalom.
Re: Su-30: News and Discussion
Surely IAF will get KS-172 for its flankers .I will not be surprised if this is a part of sukhoi later on packages itself .There is no point in funding a project unless you are a part of the project .Brahmos was manufactured in India ,KS 172 is being developed and manufactured in Russia thats it . It is an identical associationayan Majumdar reports that after successful joint-development of the BrahMos ASCM (anti-ship cruise missile) the Indo-Russian scientists and defence manufacturers had again teamed up to resurrect the formidable Russian Novator KS-172 ultra-long-range AAM (air-to-air missile) project. Novator design bureau unveiled its mock-up KS-172 AAM, a projected 6 metre long, 750 kg, 400 km range AAM in early 1993 at an air-show in Abu Dhabi. It also made a short and sudden appearance at the Moscow Air-Show in late 1993, in anticipation of a very high-level military delegation.
The mock-up of the KS-172 underwent refinement and in the Moscow Air-Show appeared in many ways similar to the Buk (SA-11 Gadfly) SAM (surface-to-air Missile). Russian officials later hinted that air-carriage tests of SAMs had been carried out using a Sukhoi-27 “Flanker”. They were speculated to be SA-11s by foreign media used for form-and-fit tests.
Designed to fulfill the BVR (beyond visual range) role for “outer-air battles”, an aircraft usually of Sukhoi-27/30/35/37 “Flanker/Super Flanker” family, equipped with KS-172 (also referred to as Article 172) would be able to engage ultra-high-value airborne platforms like AWACS (airborne warning and control system), IFR (in-flight refuelling) and LRMP (long range maritime patrol) platforms, without necessarily having first to deal with their fighter escorts. Development of powerful radar like the formidable NIIP N-011M "Bars" (Snow Leopard) for the Sukhoi-30MKI “Super Flanker” of the IAF, would provide the necessary guidance to the ultra-long-range AAM. The Bars radar is capable of detection of airborne platforms with “generous” RCS (radar cross section) at ranges in excess of 300 km.
It is possible that an optimum combination of command, inertial and active-radar guidance would be used in the various phases of flight. Whereas IFF (identification friend or foe) remains a problem because of incorrect and absent returns and "spoofing", friendly AWACS platforms like Phalcon may be deployed for reconfirmation of enemy airborne targets at extended ranges. In the long term, development of Electro-optical seeker technology coupled with on-board threat database will let the KS-172 missiles themselves determine the legitimacy of a target.
Re: Su-30: News and Discussion
Novator KS-172 AAM-L
The Novator KS-172 AAM-L (also known as R-172) is an extremely long-range air-to-air missile developed in Russia to arm CIS Sukhoi Su-27 and Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' aircraft.
The KS-172 was first shown as a mock-up at an air show in Abu Dhabi in 1993, but the poor financial situation of the post-Soviet CIS meant that it was not funded, although flight testing was reportedly done. Revival of development has been broached at several points, in 1997 as a purely Russian project, and more recently with discussions taking place in 2004 with India to launch an Indo-Russian co-venture to produce the missile, which would then arm Indian Su-30MKI aircraft.
The KS-172 may have been based on the airframe of the 9K37M1 Buk-M ( NATO reporting name SA-11 'Gadfly') surface-to-air missile. It used a two-stage rocket engine with a flight speed of about Mach 4 and a claimed maximum range of 400 km (250 mi). The AAM-L flies to the vicinity of the target by inertial navigation, then activates its own active radarThis article is about the device. For the fictional character in M A S H see Corporal Walter (Radar) O'Reilly. antenna (approximately 40m (130ft) in diameter) rotates on a track to observe activities near the horizon. Radar is an acronym for ra dio d etec for terminal homing.
The AAM-L missile is intended for use against AWACS, tankerA tanker is usually a vehicle carrying large amounts of liquid fuel. The most common use of the word is when referring to a large ship, carrying petroleum products. Apart from pipeline transport, tankers are the only method of transporting large quantitie, and maritime patrol aircraft, giving an air force the ability to attack these vital assets without having to engage their fighterA fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for attacking other aircraft. Compare with bomber. Fighters are comparatively small, fast, and highly maneuverable, and have been fitted with increasingly sophisticated tracking and weapons syst escorts. Enhanced-range versions have also been suggested as possible anti-satellite weaponAnti-satellite weapons (ASATs) are weapons designed to be used against artificial satellites. The development and design of anti-satellite weapons has followed a number of paths. The initial efforts by the USSR and the USA were using air-launched missiless.
The weapon is planned for carriage by Su-27/Su-30, Su-35, and Mikoyan MiG-31The Mikoyan MiG-31 ( NATO reporting name Foxhound is a high-speed interceptor developed to replace the MiG-25. It was the most advanced interceptor fielded by the Soviet Union before its collapse. Development The MiG-25 Foxbat despite Western panic about aircraft.