Su-30: News and Discussion

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Mar 2010 22:18

that comes out even costlier than the su-35BM I think ! the highest price quoted for su-35BM is 65 mn !

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 02 Mar 2010 23:14

EDIT: Took out image as it does not show up.

Su-30 firing R73.

Source:Livefist

edit : here you go

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 03 Mar 2010 01:17

hmmm $3 billion for 42 air crafts...
To me this seems POLITICS! Sure way to say, that Mig - 35 is OUT of the competetion. Sign this order, get the Mig 29K order for the Navy, the Gorky and Akula Lease, give them SU-30 MKI Upgrade deal, PAK-FA and yeah the Nuke deal...

Mirage II upgrade deal, another feather stating that Rafale is OUT of the competetion. Top it off, give them the Nuclear deal, the Scorpene Deal, and Possibly the SR/MR (forget which one was it) quick reaction missile system deal.

Evil Yindoos playing their chanakiyaan cards correctly. Competetion will come down to Solah, Atharah (1st contestant), Grippen, and Typhoon(2nd contestant)

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Mar 2010 01:37

HarishV wrote: You may want to tone it down - Rakshak's don't like this to be called "slow" - just that the pace keeps up with the size of the order in question

there is nothing to show your tongue about. thats the way it works, whether anyone on some aviation forum likes it or not.

I've seen a senior BRF member compare the production rate for Boeing 737s and Lockheed Martin F-35s with that of the Tejas, saying that these were being produced at the rate of 1 per day or something, which puts to shame the 8 per year of the Tejas- of course, without one thought as to the economics of the two production lines as compared to the Tejas..its this kind of dim-witted comparisons that makes one wonder whether realism will ever take root on jingo forums.

But on a more serious note, why are we just ordering 2 more squadrons worth of MKI's only at this point? Especially knowing the obvious delays in delivery of the LCA and the delay in conclusion of MMRCA contract. Considering even at US$75 million they are still cheaper than some of the MMRCA aircraft. We still won't make bare-bones squadron strength with just 40+ more MKIs.

what delay ? the IAF has known for a few years now that the IOC will be in 2010 and FOC in 2012 or so. And they've ordered 20+20 in pipeline to cater for that timeline. believe me, there will be sound logic somewhere related to the procurement numbers. 280 MKIs is a formidable size for the IAF. maintaining and operating these will be a sizeable portion of the IAF's budget. One cannot just keep ordering these beasts without thinking about other logistics and costs.

by 2014 the IAF will have 4 additional squadrons of MKIs + LCAs and then the MRCA will start to come in. 1 squadron per year will allow the MRCA to be inducted fully by 2020-22.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Mar 2010 01:43

Craig Alpert wrote:hmmm $3 billion for 42 air crafts...
To me this seems POLITICS! Sure way to say, that Mig - 35 is OUT of the competetion. Sign this order, get the Mig 29K order for the Navy, the Gorky and Akula Lease, give them SU-30 MKI Upgrade deal, PAK-FA and yeah the Nuke deal...

this particular deal may well be one way of assuaging Russians in case the MiG-35 is not chosen. OTOH, you may be looking too deep into this and finding meanings where none exist.

Mirage II upgrade deal, another feather stating that Rafale is OUT of the competetion. Top it off, give them the Nuclear deal, the Scorpene Deal, and Possibly the SR/MR (forget which one was it) quick reaction missile system deal.

please- its the Mirage-2000-5 upgrade, not Mirage-II and the Scorpene was signed well before the MRCA even started, so why on earth are you raising that now as if it was done years before the MRCA to assuage the French if they lost the MRCA ?

Again, its too early to say who is out of the MRCA on the basis of some un-related weapons deals. and the Maitri SR-SAM deal is hanging fire with the GoI yet to give the go-ahead. Wait for the IAF to declare the short-listed candidates and we'll then see how things pan out. They're rarely as simple as you seem to make it out to be.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 03 Mar 2010 02:10

Kartik wrote:
please- its the Mirage-2000-5 upgrade, not Mirage-II and the Scorpene was signed well before the MRCA even started, so why on earth are you raising that now as if it was done years before the MRCA to assuage the French if they lost the MRCA ?

Again, its too early to say who is out of the MRCA on the basis of some un-related weapons deals. and the Maitri SR-SAM deal is hanging fire with the GoI yet to give the go-ahead. Wait for the IAF to declare the short-listed candidates and we'll then see how things pan out. They're rarely as simple as you seem to make it out to be.

Aah, my mistake. I stand corrected. 00-5 upgrade! Correct the scorpene was signed well before the MRCA, however there are 2 things with that 1) Price escalation and 2) the ability for Indian docks to absorb the capability to build these subs. Last I checked both sides are playing hardball over the price issue wrt to Scorpenes.

Again correct. Maitri SR-SAM deal is still hanging. I never stated that it ISN'T! However, it is something that Sarkozy has expressed interst to sign when he arrives to visit PM Singh. Three things are on the table for them to sign/discuss in their MoU 1)Mirage 00-5 Upgrade deal 2)Maitri Deal and 3)Scorpene negotiations and Nuke deal (even though both are signed) more details need to be worked out.
Weapons deals aren't un-related. They are always part of a political (or in cases like Kargil ~ Nationalistic although it could be debatable, but we'll let that one to rest) package. This seems to be the case with these deals. Agreed, it's too early for me to claim that "mig 35 and Rafale are OUT of the Competition" but looking from the political angle, this sure fits the bill. There is speculation in the post(top it off), but I guess you misread/misunderstood those so I'll lay future speculations to rest, and let the GoI decide on what's best for them in their approach!

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 04 Mar 2010 00:27

to me it seems further delay in MRCA, at least another 5 yrs for the first mrca to come, if they ever come, .
May be they are planning in favour of pakfa these days.

HarishV · Post by **HarishV** » 04 Mar 2010 18:41

to me it seems further delay in MRCA, at least another 5 yrs for the first mrca to come, if they ever come, .
May be they are planning in favour of pakfa these days.

With the Mig-21's being upgraded to Bis, how much further in flying hours is the airframe of the Mig-21 going to take?
The IAF is going to reach a phase where 100's of its Mig21's have already reached end of airframe life all at the same time. I'm not saying that the IAF isn't aware of this, but then again what is being done to boost squadron numbers?
The LCA order of 40 isn't inspiring any confidence in getting the squadron numbers up. Why isn't the IAF ordering the LCA in numbers - is it the GE404 tangle? Or are they waiting for the MK2 to order more in numbers.
Realistically the PAK-FA isn't going to see numbers for atleast another 5 years - for any firm order to be placed in order to mitigate the 'numbers problem'.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 04 Mar 2010 18:47

HarishV wrote: The LCA order of 40 isn't inspiring any confidence in getting the squadron numbers up. Why isn't the IAF ordering the LCA in numbers - is it the GE404 tangle? Or are they waiting for the MK2 to order more in numbers.
Realistically the PAK-FA isn't going to see numbers for atleast another 5 years - for any firm order to be placed in order to mitigate the 'numbers problem'.

IAF will not have even 40 PAK-FA before 2020 .... one solution could be to order 100 LCA mk1 so that we have already infrastructure setup when LCA mk2 comes online. Otherwise, it will be same story like arjun, we dont have production capacity for producing enough MBT's

.

Going to dig a well when house is already on fire

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 04 Mar 2010 19:19

No point in ordering more LCAs without kaveri engine, or any other indian engine

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 04 Mar 2010 19:40

Replacement for mig21 is LCA not sukhoi,neither mrca.
How serious they are with this, will be seen how promptly they order LCA.
LCA is an easy bird, easy to maintain,operate,customize,.
Now it doesnt seems too valuable, but mark my word ,if they order it 200+,after a decade it will payoff.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 04 Mar 2010 22:05

Think like the Chicoms - order 200 LCA Mk1s with GE 404 Engine. Buy 100 extra 404s extra. Reverse engineer 5 to produce spares. Even a A2A LCA will deter enemies. The production of 200 LCAs will prepare the industry for larger production runs. Produce 500 Mk2s. Fly the reverse engineered 404 in some of the LCAs and perfect it.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Mar 2010 22:08

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 04 Mar 2010 22:54

What about cost of avionics bought from France, Israel and some Indian ? Is this deal inclusive of all that ?
Did previous deal include the cost of Russian airframe, engine and radars onlee or rest of stuff too ?

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 04 Mar 2010 23:30

3 Bil for 42 MKI's is onlee a news report. There has been no official word about it. so lets not add this to the MKI Nos. Pure speculation onleee. Could also be a rumor spread by vested interests to justify higher price for MRCA
JMT

rad · Post by **rad** » 05 Mar 2010 12:33

We should have opted for the later IRBIS Radar and the ks-172 missiles , I think the russians are playing hardball
if they dont agree , and might say we will only give it if you buy the later -su-35. I Have a feeling the chinese will pick up
squadron or two to get the latest technology if we go for it . Is there any confirmed news that the long range KS_172
is being co developed by india.? The combination of irbis with ks-172 would be more than a handfull and add a different
dimension to the scenario , if they dont , i think we should co develop a long range missile with the Israeli with
t he technology that will be from the Barak 8 missile , ie active seeker, data link ,motor, fuze etc electronics etc
If the russians can develop the ks-172 as s spin off from the SA-300 missile we can do the same with the barak-8
I would celebrate the day when we have 2 missiles, and possibly an IR imaging missile as well .The head of the astra can be
fitted out with an IIR seeker , then we can have a long range silent attack missile .Please dont forget the Pakis are getting
The A darter 5th gen missile from S.Africa.

Rad

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 05 Mar 2010 14:26

I think that the questions to be asked are
1) When are they to be produced? -AFAIK as many as 130 are yet to be produced and will take 4-5 years at least and only then the additional 40 can be manufactured.
2) What specs will they have?-assuming they will be produced only 4-5 years or so down the line I think it will come with MLU equipment as standard (AESA radar,perhaps an uprated engine etc.),which might justify the cost.
3)who and/or in what proportion will be making them(HAL/ Irkut)?

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 05 Mar 2010 15:04

all such deals are a package - this one includes quite a few and must be including so called assistance for the next 2 arihant class in advanced stage of fabrication ,assistance in sea trail etc etc -so the price looks inflated - and the number actually purchased is never known - so dont worry have curry

Amit J · Post by **Amit J** » 05 Mar 2010 16:59

Not that theres enough gunpowder to flare the - new high cost of the MKI - dicussion. I have a different question having been oft mystified by the order nos of the IAF - why 42 ?. I mean the sqdn size of the MKI is 16 in the IAF (being a 2seater it doesnt need addnl trainers). Is 42 to make the total to 272 (230+42) which converts to 17 sqdn (if tht's th case thn the MoD has accomadated the 2 fighters lost in this order - but what happens when/if further a/c is lost in the future, will single digit orders be placed !)

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 05 Mar 2010 17:27

I read on the keypub that this new order could be for Su-30 Mk. IV.

As we heard last time upgrades planned for existing ones.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Mar 2010 17:46

Is "Mk-4" going to have some 5th-gen tech as planned for the SU-35s? Any leads on such new eqpt.?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Mar 2010 20:25

What is the dry weight of AL-31FP engine with the TVC nozzle ?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 Mar 2010 06:26

Shankar wrote:all such deals are a package - this one includes quite a few and must be including so called assistance for the next 2 arihant class in advanced stage of fabrication ,assistance in sea trail etc etc -so the price looks inflated - and the number actually purchased is never known - so dont worry have curry

that part about the "package" or "assistance with next 2 Arihant class" is simply speculation on your part. Why on earth would a IN specific package be mixed up with the IAF specific Su-30MKI follow-on order ?

Had this been a US or Euro arms deal everyone and their mother would be jumping up and down going hysterical at the price. Its too early to either complain or defend the prices. We'll finally know when Putin shows up and the actual figures are released.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 Mar 2010 06:39

AmitJ wrote:Not that theres enough gunpowder to flare the - new high cost of the MKI - dicussion. I have a different question having been oft mystified by the order nos of the IAF - why 42 ?. I mean the sqdn size of the MKI is 16 in the IAF (being a 2seater it doesnt need addnl trainers). Is 42 to make the total to 272 (230+42) which converts to 17 sqdn (if tht's th case thn the MoD has accomadated the 2 fighters lost in this order - but what happens when/if further a/c is lost in the future, will single digit orders be placed !)

Simply rounds off the Su-30MKI numbers. Obviously no one can predict what the future attrition numbers will be, so the current procurement seems to be aimed at bringing the total numbers to a round figure.

42 will equip 2 more squadrons since squadron numbers don't necessarily have to be only 16. They can vary depending on the number of airframes available.

For instance with the Mirage-2000 squadrons, the No.9 Wolfpack squadron handed in their MiG-27s and was raised on the Mirage-2000 when the 10 attrition replacement Mirages came through- did they get an additional 6-8 airframes from the other 2 units or did 2 of their twin seaters (4 of the 10 attrition replacements were twin-seaters and Mirage twin seaters are in great demand in the IAF for training activities) go to No.1 and No.7 and get replaced with single seaters ? We don't know.

So, it cannot be said for sure because the IAF will only know how its going to distribute its MKI numbers between squadrons. Eventually, the IAF will have anywhere between 13-17 squadrons of Su-30MKI when all 270 are inducted. A huge number by any stretch of the imagination and certainly packs a massive punch.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Mar 2010 07:25

amit, in addition to kartik's post, there will be some MKI's beyond regular sqdn service, expect a flight in TACDE, a score kept in storage as reserve and another couple to be involved in integration tests of astra/brahmos/nirbhay etc.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Mar 2010 07:33

RKumar wrote:I read on the keypub that this new order could be for Su-30 Mk. IV.

As we heard last time upgrades planned for existing ones.

wtf is Su 30 Mk IV?

Boudhayan · Post by **Boudhayan** » 09 Mar 2010 09:03

shiv wrote:
RKumar wrote:I read on the keypub that this new order could be for Su-30 Mk. IV.

As we heard last time upgrades planned for existing ones.
wtf is Su 30 Mk IV?

Might be the stealthy MKIs that UAC and HAL had planned. Check the below links:

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2009/07/ ... althy.html

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/t ... LU+Roadmap

The time frame (2014) for these stealthy ones also match the time frame when we would be getting these additional Rambhas. It would surely be a thing to behold !!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Mar 2010 09:17

^^^

They are not Mark IVs. Those are Mark Vs.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 09 Mar 2010 14:15

shiv wrote:
RKumar wrote:I read on the keypub that this new order could be for Su-30 Mk. IV.

As we heard last time upgrades planned for existing ones.
wtf is Su 30 Mk IV?

India set to discuss overhaul of Su-30 fighter jets with Russia

01:43 10/10/2009
The Indian Air Force currently has 105 Su-30MKIs mainly deployed at airbases close to the Chinese border.
"The aircraft, contracted in 1996, are due for overhaul shortly and Russia has offered an upgrade of the aircraft with incorporation of the latest technologies during the major overhaul," the ministry said in a statement.

India previously said it was satisfied with the performance of Russian Su-30MKI fighters and has recently expressed interest in buying another 50 Su-30MKIs.

The list of possible upgrade I saw it on BR site only ... sorry I could not locate it ... it was posted by some russian BR member.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Mar 2010 14:27

The time frame (2014) for these stealthy ones also match the time frame when we would be getting these additional Rambhas. It would surely be a thing to behold !!!

Stealth MKI is just a marketing BS , The Flanker family was never designed from ground up to have even basic LO qualities and what ever changes they will do via application of RAM to get band specific stealth ( X band ) will be practically useless.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 09 Mar 2010 14:55

^^
Bill Sweetman's Blog-Stealthy Sukhois

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Mar 2010 15:00

looking at pyotr bukowski's old article on the MKI, the ones already contracted to india were supposed to be mk1, mk2 and mk3 std. so any new 50-100 we order could obviously borrow some techs from Su35BM / NIIP wing radar.

the ones HAL started making have always been the Mk3 std.

Mk4 will be the next lot from russia (the addl 50) probably

-------------
Due to the delayed work on the radar, Su-30MKI
aircraft in the various batches delivered to India are
equipped with different radars. Su-30MKIs of the first
batch (2002) have the N011M Bars Mk 1 radar, an almost
exact copy of the N011M of the 1990s with a limited
scope of tasks. The radar uses the Russian Ts101
computer, the same as in series-produced MiG-29s and
Su-27s; it can be used only against air targets.

The aircraft of the second batch (2003) are equipped
with the Bars Mk 2 radar using the previous computer
but with a wider scope of tasks. This radar enables
simultaneous attack against four targets with RVV-AE
(R-77) air-to-air missiles, and can perform ground
mapping. The aircraft can also launch Kh-31A anti-ship
missiles and Kh-59ME long-range TV-guided missiles.

The fighters of the final delivery (December 2004)
have been equipped with the Mk 3 radar with an Indian
computer manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
(HAL) Hyderabad Division, securing performance of the
full scope of the navigation and combat functions,
including the use of the weapons in manoeuvring
flight. This version of the radar enables simultaneous
attack against one surface and one air target while
continuing full scanning functions. The radar can also
indicate targets for all types of armament. Using
target indication by means of the Rafael Litening
targeting pod, the fighter can launch laser-guided
bombs of the Russian-developed KAB-500L and KAB-1500L
types.

.....
Under a project named 'Vetrivale', India's
Bangalore-based Defence Avionics Research
Establishment (DARE) developed the Su-30MKI mission
computer, display processor and radar computer, which
are now manufactured by HAL Hyderabad Division. The
other DARE product fitted to Su-30MKI is the Tarang Mk
2 radar-warning receiver (RWR) - a high-accuracy
direction finder (HADF) that is manufactured by BEL
(Bharat Electronics Ltd) at its Bangalore facility.
Tarang was originally designed for the MiG-21bis
modernisation programme and is now a standard fitment
in most IAF aircraft. HAL's designs can also be found
in the integrated communication equipment and radar
altimeters.

Thales Avionics of France supplies for the Su-30MKI
its Totem 3000 ring laser gyro inertial navigation
system combined with Sigma-95 GPS receiver as well as
MFD 55 and MFD 66 colour multifunction displays.
Originating from Israel is the holographic head-up
display, digital map generator, the Rafael Litening
targeting pod and the electronic warfare system built
around the Elta EL/M-8222 jammer. The Flight
Refuelling Mk 32 pod carried under the Su-30MKI
fuselage - enabling 'buddy-buddy' refuelling
operations - is of UK origin.

.......
One of the most interesting weapons that can be
employed by the Su-30MKI is its 'long arm', the
Kh-59ME stand-off missile used against point targets
with known co-ordinates at distances of up to 115 km.
After being launched, the missile is guided to the
target by means of inertial navigation (with radio
correction). Afterwards, the TV-seeker switches on and
transmits via an APK-9 datalink pod the target image
to the launching aircraft; course-correction
information is then transmitted back to the missile. A
dedicated sidestick for missile control is installed
in the rear cockpit of the Su-30MKI on the right-hand
console. Russian sources have claimed that the missile
can hit targets with an accuracy of 2 to 3 m using
manual control or 5 to 7 m using automatic control.
The Su-30MKI can carry two Kh-59ME missiles.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Mar 2010 17:10

Gaur wrote:^^
Bill Sweetman's Blog-Stealthy Sukhois

Yes I have read those before , the problem is those can reduce Frontal RCS to some extent by use of RAM , radar blockers for fan engine etc but these are band specific and are effective only in the common X band.

Most of the stealth/LO , broadband stealth are dictated by shape , the Su-27 flanker and its derivative was never intended to be developed as LO fighter by design ( for Eurofighter,Rafale some thought was applied and basics like hiding engine fan blades from direct exposure were done ) but by shape and design the flanker has a very high RCS with many hot spots , more ever if you hang weapons and drop tanks the entire frontal RCS goes for a toss as RF will produce spikes for these external weapons/pylons and that cannot be controlled, reduced or eliminated in practical combat.

Not to mention the aft ,lower fuselage ,engine area will give a good RF spike for different RF bands , so practically speaking the Stealth MKI is a myth but its a good marketing sales talk.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 09 Mar 2010 17:36

Gaur wrote:^^
Bill Sweetman's Blog-Stealthy Sukhois

This is not the page, I have in my mind. It had something like this.
- Point 1
- Point 2
- Point 3 ....etc

sorry guys ... for not able to provide exact link/info

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Mar 2010 21:40

well how come the Silent Eagle is being hawked around then? does the F-15 have engine hiding and more rcs reduction from design stage than flanker?

the engine seem to be in line with intake
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fi ... f15_15.jpg

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Mar 2010 23:00

Singha wrote:well how come the Silent Eagle is being hawked around then? does the F-15 have engine hiding and more rcs reduction from design stage than flanker?

the engine seem to be in line with intake
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fi ... f15_15.jpg

Silent Eagle is sweet marketing BS talk by Boeing , trying to make the most from Eagle between now and when F-35 is available in numbers and ready to be exported.

They did some quick fix with existing High RCS design , took the best possible RCS reduction figures possible and advertised it as Silent Eagle.

It will suffer the same flaw as any quick fix solution to achieve low RCS and in practical combat the gains achieved will be minimum.

Well but who cares if Boeing manages to convince Saudi or some oil rich country about the virtues of perfect stealth and make few billions in return

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 10 Mar 2010 03:30

The Silent Eagle was advertised with canted tails .... but that has since been dropped (unless USAF goes for it).

So the only new thing it brings to the table is conformal weapon bays.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Mar 2010 07:49

Sukhoi too tested a reduced RCS version of Su-35 with conformal weapon bay.

Wind tunnel Model ( credit: secretprojects/overscan )

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 10 Mar 2010 23:39

Austin wrote:Sukhoi too tested a reduced RCS version of Su-35 with conformal weapon bay.

Wind tunnel Model ( credit: secretprojects/overscan )

]

What abt this one at 3:01?
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-HcUXA4z9tI&co ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-HcUXA4z9tI&co ... edded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 11 Mar 2010 02:37

Singha wrote:well how come the Silent Eagle is being hawked around then? does the F-15 have engine hiding and more rcs reduction from design stage than flanker?

the engine seem to be in line with intake
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fi ... f15_15.jpg

Singha sir
comparing these two images of f15-c and f15-silent eagle,it seems diversion in air intake as well as addition of an internal weapons bay,and canted tails
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... xi.arp.jpg
http://www.combataircraft.net/photo/ima ... -eagle.gif
while this one suggests a thin RAM coating inside.http://pds15.egloos.com/pds/200903/18/6 ... 717635.jpg
I think the Su27 here has two bulges besides engines, suggesting an internal space created for r77?