Su-30: News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Sajith_J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Feb 2009 18:16

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Sajith_J »

saumitra_j wrote:
But just ask your self, what will be more difficult? To induct, train and build up logistics for F18 SH that would take a big part of the ground attack role, or a Su32 with the similarities to Mki?
Sajith - two things to say: Firstly, the F18SH and the SU30/32/35 belong to different categories of aircraft - the F18/F16 etc come under "Medium" category, the latter in the "heavy" category. The IAF wants to have a combination of Light, Medium and Heavy for a simple reason: One doesn't use a sledge hammer to crack a nut!
Just the understand it the right way, you mean the Su 32 is a heavy class fighter and that’s why it would be like a sledge hammer in their performance compared to medium class F18 SH right?
And is this the answer to my question?
saumitra_j wrote:Secondly, our initial discussion was around replacing Jags/MiG27s with the Su32 - so let us not confuse the issue here; Upgraded Jags/Mig27s will be there despite the MMRCA!
I didn’t bring the F18 SH without a reason, I compared Su 32 and F18 SH because both can replace Mig 27 and Jags in their roles. But it wouldn’t make sense to get them both, if we get the Su, MRCA will be a fighter with better a2a capabilities.
JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by JaiS »

Translation credits - Roy FC.

Sukhoy and MiG to Remain Largest Suppliers of Combat Airplanes to Indian Air Force

((Up to 80 - 90 Su-30MKI and an unspecified number of MiG-29K to be delivered under present contracts will maintain that status. In addition, existing MiG-29 and MiG-27ML will be upgraded. As of the end of 2008, India had 90 Su-30MKI and nearly 470 MiG fighters of various modifications.

Source: 20.04.09, Sukhoy Aviation Holding Company
Sajith_J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Feb 2009 18:16

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Sajith_J »

Sajith_J wrote:
saumitra_j wrote: Sajith - two things to say: Firstly, the F18SH and the SU30/32/35 belong to different categories of aircraft - the F18/F16 etc come under "Medium" category, the latter in the "heavy" category. The IAF wants to have a combination of Light, Medium and Heavy for a simple reason: One doesn't use a sledge hammer to crack a nut!
Just the understand it the right way, you mean the Su 32 is a heavy class fighter and that’s why it would be like a sledge hammer in their performance compared to medium class F18 SH right?
To come back on that matter (had just a few min last time), you are right that both are in different classes, but that's because of their differences in size and weight. Their performance in fact is quiet the same!
Both are mainly strike fighters with some a2a capabilities, both can carry a large variety of weapons on nearly the same number of weapon stations (F18SH 11, Su32 12) and the same weapon load (both 8000kg). Also the maximum range (F18SH 3000km, Su 32 4000km) and the speed (Both mach 1,8) is the nearly same. F18SH comes with electronic warfare capabilities, Su 32 seems to have it too.
So if you consider the Su 32 to be a sledge hammer, because of it's massive performance, you have to admit it for F18 SH too. And if these are possible options for IAF to be our main ground attack fighter, which one will be easier to (like you said) induct, train and better in case of logistics? The one who shares parts of engine, airframe and most weapons, or the one who shares nothing with any other aircraft in IAF?
saumitra_j
BRFite
Posts: 381
Joined: 24 Dec 2005 17:13
Location: Pune, India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by saumitra_j »

Their performance in fact is quiet the same!
You are kidding, right? You are trying to say that a heavy class aircraft and a medium aircraft basically have the same performance :shock: If that were the case, why do you think IAF is going for MMRCA at all? They could have just added a few more Su30MKIs...
Please don't go just by numbers - please try to understand what their significance is! Eg you said that the F18 and Su32 carry the same weight - which is not the completely picture! The useful load on the Su32 is 8 tons apart from the fuel while the F18 can carry about 8 tons as well - the question is will you get the same range on full load on both the aircrafts? A Su32 will carry *much* more fuel and have longer legs on full load as compared to the F18 simply because of bigger volume available and much higher thrust to carry that additional fuel. Now the question is why do you think the IAF will still need a F18 e/f class fighter?? Answer is simple: operational economics. One does not fight wars with full load all the time and typical combat load is unlikely to be the same as full load the aircraft can take. Thus for certain missions, a F/A 18 will be *much* more appropriate than the Su32, all other factors being equal because operational costs are lower for the medium fighter. Please don';t just go by numbers - try to understand the real meaning behind them.
Sajith_J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Feb 2009 18:16

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Sajith_J »

saumitra_j wrote: If that were the case, why do you think IAF is going for MMRCA at all? They could have just added a few more Su30MKIs...
Because LCA is too delayed and we have to get more numbers and techs into IAF, but we can discuss that on the MRCA thread.
saumitra_j wrote:The useful load on the Su32 is 8 tons apart from the fuel while the F18 can carry about 8 tons as well - the question is will you get the same range on full load on both the aircrafts? A Su32 will carry *much* more fuel and have longer legs on full load as compared to the F18 simply because of bigger volume available and much higher thrust to carry that additional fuel.
That is true F18 can only fly the maximum range with external tanks, because it's smaller than a heavy class fighter and has less internal fuel. That exactly is the difference that I tried to explain you why they are in different classes. So in cases where the F18 has to take all 3 external fuel tanks it is inferior to Su 32 (what infact is again a point for the Su :wink:), but only in this maximum cases! Like you said
saumitra_j wrote:One does not fight wars with full load all the time and typical combat load is unlikely to be the same as full load the aircraft can take.
So in most cases F18 don't need external tanks (because compared to other MMRCA it has one of, or maybe the biggest internal fueltank and then can take the same payload that the Su carries.
saumitra_j wrote:Now the question is why do you think the IAF will still need a F18 e/f class fighter?? Answer is simple: operational economics.
Sorry mate, if that is the key to MMRCA, we definitely get Rafale, or a single engine aircraft, because they are much cheaper to operate than F18 and we still have Mki if we need a sledge hammer. The only reason for F18 is, if IAF decides to keep Mki as our main air superiority fighter till FGFA comes, we would need another main strike aircraft alongside it. If they decide to put it in strike role (which might be it's main role later anyway), they will go for an MMRCA with better a2a capabilities than F18.
saumitra_j wrote:all other factors being equal because operational costs are lower for the medium fighter. Please don';t just go by numbers - try to understand the real meaning behind them.
Then please explain it to me how the operational costs, which must include engine maintenance, complete new weapons and spares can be equal, to a share of this things between different aircrafts?
saumitra_j
BRFite
Posts: 381
Joined: 24 Dec 2005 17:13
Location: Pune, India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by saumitra_j »

Sajit,
I think our discussion is slowly becoming meaningless so I will make one final attempt to explain things - take it for FWIW.
The IAF wants medium weight multi-role combat aircrafts (Remember Mirage 2000 was the original requirement) so that it has an optimized force structure of heavy - medium - light aircrafts. Keeping this in mind, the basic assumption is that the operational costs of all the aircrafts shortlisted for the MMRCA will be lower than the heavy class aircrafts - the trials will prove that! Su30MKI/Su32 are in heavy class and IAF already has procured/plan to procure the same - there is no room for Su32 there.
we definitely get Rafale, or a single engine aircraft, because they are much cheaper to operate than F18
- let's wait for the user trials on the final word on this. I am not saying F18 would be cheaper to operate - I just used it as an example to say it is in a different class than the Su32.
The only reason for F18 is, if IAF decides to keep Mki as our main air superiority fighter till FGFA comes, we would need another main strike aircraft alongside it.
Umm not sure about that - the IAF will use full spectrum of capabilities of the MKI and not just keep it as an air superiority fighter. In fact almost the entire force structure will be able to do multi role missions after the M2K and Mig29 upgrades!
Then please explain it to me how the operational costs, which must include engine maintenance, complete new weapons and spares can be equal, to a share of this things between different aircrafts?
It is true that you will have to maintain separate inventories and that will add to the fixed costs but think about the operational costs (cost of operating the aircraft/hour) - the Su32/Su30 will have much higher costs to operate compared to what ever is selected for the MMRCA - plus they need two pilots per aircraft, training costs are obviously higher and so forth.
Sajith_J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Feb 2009 18:16

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Sajith_J »

saumitra_j wrote: It is true that you will have to maintain separate inventories and that will add to the fixed costs but think about the operational costs (cost of operating the aircraft/hour) - the Su32/Su30 will have much higher costs to operate compared to what ever is selected for the MMRCA - plus they need two pilots per aircraft, training costs are obviously higher and so forth.
Finaly you answerd a part of my question, on the one side we would have more costs for logistics and build up complete new maintenance, plus at least 10 mil $ higher unit cost. On the other side only lower operational cost per hour like you said. Sorry, but I doubt that the per hour costs difference is so big, that it would compensate all the other costs.
Btw, never heard of that the MRCA can only be a single seat aircraft, so you can't say training cost will be less.
However, to me that means it will be far costlier to induct F18 SH than to induct Su 32, also more difficult, because we have no experience with US fighters, engines and weapons at all.
prasadha
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 05 May 2004 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by prasadha »

Sajith

Is it necessary to discuss a hypothetical situation of acquiring a SU-32, which is not one of the MRCA contenders. Neither is IAF looking at the aircraft seriously. Maybe, you have your own reasons to believe SU-32 is better suited for us. Unfortunately, the MOD and IAF does not concur. Instead of wasting more and more bandwidth on this, can we please move on and discuss things that are more relevant to this thread.

Thanks in advance.

Regards

Prasad
Sajith_J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Feb 2009 18:16

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Sajith_J »

prasadha wrote:Sajith

Is it necessary to discuss a hypothetical situation of acquiring a SU-32, which is not one of the MRCA contenders. Neither is IAF looking at the aircraft seriously. Maybe, you have your own reasons to believe SU-32 is better suited for us. Unfortunately, the MOD and IAF does not concur. Instead of wasting more and more bandwidth on this, can we please move on and discuss things that are more relevant to this thread.

Thanks in advance.

Regards

Prasad
My initial question was, wouldn’t it be better to get some Su 32 instead of all 230 Mki? So it was related on the topic, we just compared it with the F18 another possible strike fighter, but I agree it’s gone a bit too far away now.
Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Dmurphy »

prasadha wrote:My initial question was, wouldn’t it be better to get some Su 32 instead of all 230 Mki?
That way it would skittle our MCA dreams :(
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by krishnan »

What is SU 32? A new version of Su 30?
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32665
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by chetak »

krishnan wrote:What is SU 32? A new version of Su 30?
Deleted.

Apologies.

I stand corrected as pointed out by Rahul M ji below.

More info in

Yefim Gordon, "Sukhoi Su-27: Famous Russian Aircraft (Famous Russian Aircraft Series)"
Publisher:Midland Counties | ISBN: 1857802470 | Illustrated edition (December 1, 2007)

Here is another link

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Su-30.htm

Quote

Fighter Aicraft

Su-32FNSukhoi Su-30/32/34
By Easy Tartar

Date: 18 August 1997

Subj: Su-30/32/34 Update Report

The Su-32"FN", originally designated the Su-34, has been on the world scene for several years but only at this year's Paris Air Show did the West get a chance to look at the details of its cockpit, crew-station and its remarkable flight-handling characteristics in a competitive air show environment. It could be said that initially both Sukhoi and Roosvoorzhenie (the Russian Export Commission) wanted to keep the thrust-vector-control Su-37 from stealing the debut of the Su-32"FN" at Paris and hence delayed its arrival until the end of the show-week, but in all fairness, it appeared that political and technical problems hampered the release schedule of the Su-37.

Su-32"FN" has been characterized by Sukhoi as a "specialized strike fighter" and "a reliable guardian of sea borders". It would be, according to Western terminology, a "missionized reconnaissance-maritime-strike platform" intended for around the clock operations to search for, detect, classify, and then destroy, if necessary, waterborne or submarine targets. It is boldly advertised as the potential successor to the Su-24, F-111, S-3A, RF-4E, EF-111A, A-6E, EA-6A, Tornado GR4, and the F-15E. And guess what, on the brute force merits as a platform, it definitely might be.

Program Manager and Chief Designer for the Su-32"FN" is Rollan Martirosov who states that the key difference in the "FN" is its highly automated airborne radio-electronic equipment which will provide broad reconnaissance and combat capabilities. It is also capable of automated terrain following. A production order for 12 x Su-32"FN"s is expected to keep Sukhoi's line open until 1999. Many cockpit improvements were made that included K-36 ejection seats.

The Su-32"FN" has 12 armament/store stations and can carry the entire inventory of standoff weapons as well as up to four air-to-air missiles. The total weight for armament comes out to around 8,000 kg (17,600 lbs) with a flight range of around 4,000 km (2,160 nm), increased up to 7,000 km (3,777 nm) with in-flight refueling. It is noteworthy to mention that the Su-32"FN" can carry and employ the UPAZ air refueling store, so one Su-32 could refuel from another. External wing-tip mounted Sorbtsya ECM pods can also be carried.

One of the most fascinating features about the Su-32"FN" is its large side-by-side crew station that contains the left command-pilot and right navigator-armament operator's stations. It is a fully pressurized cabin that allows flight up to 10,000 meters (33,000 feet) without oxygen, hence it could effectively be a shirt-sleeve environment for the crew, but they still lack a cabin-module as in some F-111's. Standard K-36DM ejection seats are utilized with ejection being made upwards after the explosive destruction of the large main canopy.

Sukhoi designers believe that the cabin environment provides the pilot and navigator with conditions for good combat teamwork. It has been optimized for long-range patrol missions with multiple air refuelings extending to ten to fourteen hours. Once you enter the cabin from the built in stairs, you close up the entry area to access a small crew kitchen with a refrigerator and food-heating unit, a sewage disposal "john", and a first aid station that could serve as a place to laydown and sleep. For one of course.

This extended crew compartment also houses primary radio and navigation equipment as well as the ammunition box for the Gsh-301 cannon. Ammunition can then be interestingly exchanged for additional provisions. Beyond the crew station is the main integral fuel tanks and the main engine boost-pumps.

The Su-32"FN" is fitted with the "Sea Snake" avionics suite optimized for surface search, anti-surface warfare, mine-detection, reconnaissance, and anti-submarine warfare. The active radar is designed to ensure detection of waterborne targets and submarine wake trails within a dispersion area of more than 3,000 sq.-meters from 150 km range at high altitude. The "Sea Snake" is also capable of detecting airborne targets, including small ones, low over the sea out to 200 to 250 kilometers. The "FN" is equipped with an integrated GLOSNOSS/GPS navigation and with its secure datalink can serve as a search-and-rescue coordinator or a maritime environment monitor.

The avionics suite has an extended architecture of computers, memory boards, color multi-function displays, and processors designed as self-contained information processing modules. They consist of large "Argon" digital computer units with specially programmed processors that use multiplex data-exchange channels. All information modules are controlled by a dual central computing system that fully coordinates workload and provides all relevant information to the flight deck. Two-way data link enables the mission planning and weapon aim-point computations to be loaded or updated while in flight or aircraft to aircraft.

According to Martirosov, Sukhoi utilized a high reliability modular approach that could complete most combat missions with a partial failure of any module. The avionics suite is also tailored to specific customer requirement with capabilities added or deleted. Western avionics could also be added at anytime.

When the aircraft is engaged in a maritime mission, the main weapon systems functions are performed by the onboard coherent radar, transmitting sonobouys, information provided by offboard data link, an onboard infrared/TV imaging system and a laser rangefinder. Target detection is carried out primarily with the help of the radar, in some cases visual contact is made, and the acoustic signatures are relayed by the sonobouys.

To detect submarines, 72 passive sonobouys are allocated in a wide range of frequencies with active directional hydroacoustical buoys and explosive wave generators. Performance characteristics of the Sukhoi sonobouys exceeds American products, according to a Sukhoi representative.

There is also a magnetic anomaly detector employed with the sonobouys while the radar can detect small periscopes just breaking the wave tops. Onboard passive radio-electronic reconnaissance systems operate through the entire usable spectrum.

In November 1995, static testing of the new Su-32"FN" prototype was completed and a simple flight test program was started. Because of the basic commonalty with the Su-27 family, the canard characteristics of the Su-30/33 and 35, and the almost identical handling qualities with its sister Su-34, the "FN" did not require expensive flight qualities testing. Instead, the flight testing focused on the highly automated avionics equipment that would provide it with broad reconnaissance and combat duties.

The all-moving differential canard surfaces have a span of 6.4 meters (21 feet) and an area of some 3 square meters (32 square feet) each. The sweep angle of the leading edge of the canard is 53.5 degrees. Sukhoi literature says that the combination of the front horizontal canards and conventional rear horizontal empennage are intended to ensure good maneuverability and excellent takeoff and landing characteristics with large loads.

In the tunnel under the fuselage between the two engine "pods", there are two tandem hardpoints designed to accept the extra-large anti-ship and air-to-surface munitions. The blended nose has been extended to accept a multi-purpose radar antenna.

The wing consists of a large titanium center-wing section and deployed panels with a leading edge sweep angle of 42°. Leading edge extensions contain defensive avionics bays and on the right side the Gsh-301 single-barrel 30mm cannon is mounted.

The main telescopic undercarriage legs are fitted with a tandem arrangement of large KT-206 tires. The front dual-nose tire semi-levered undercarriage is equipped with KN-27 tires. The main landing gear are retracted on a forward sweep, with a twist of the bogies, into the center section box well. The front gear are retracted rearward into the equipment compartment behind the cabin. This also seals the crew access door which is why the production aircraft adapted ejection seats and a self-destructive canopy for emergency egress. Undercarriage dimensions are 6.6 meters (21.6 feet) for the wheelbase and 4.4 meters (14.4 feet) for the wheeltrack.

An operational mission for the Su-32"FN" begins with a mission planning period that loads into the aircraft's two main computers the coordinates and elevations of every navigation and mission-dependent point from takeoff to landing. At each coordinate-point or time-hack, automatic switching of modes can be accomplished so that the pilots can be hands-off or involved with other parts of the mission. Data link with command aircraft, ground stations, and command ships will be maintained and where line-of-sight limits are reached these communications resort to satellites for expanded coverage. Mission updates can be passed by higher authority anytime during the flight. All types or tactical and strategic ordnance can be utilized with emphasis being placed on long range standoff weapons such as the AS-13/18 Kingbolt cruise missiles, AS-14 Kedge anti-radiation weapon, AS-17 Krypton, Kh-35 Harpoon like anti-ship weapon, and the Kh-41 Moskit long range anti-ship missile.

Su-32FNThe Su-32"FN" remains perhaps the most flexible Sukhoi Flanker platform. It has the power and size to be converted to almost any role imaginable. As a platform it can go slow, fast, high, and low. It maneuvers like a small fighter plane, yet can carry cruise missiles made for bombers. It has range and load capacity superior to a Strike Eagle. The crew station is large and roomy with enough avionics volume to fit any Western or Russian weapon system. A crew member can fly, get up to cook dinner, visit the bathroom, and then stretch out for a nap, all while his buddy is pulling 7.0 G's.
Last edited by chetak on 26 Apr 2009 01:58, edited 2 times in total.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17169
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Rahul M »

AFAIK, the wiki page is wrong. su-32(FN) is/was a dedicated naval strike variant of the su-34.
see austin's post earlier in the page for details.

there hasn't been any export versions of the platypus. I don't think it has been offered for export, ever.
abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by abhiti »

Sajith_J wrote:However, to me that means it will be far costlier to induct F18 SH than to induct Su 32, also more difficult, because we have no experience with US fighters, engines and weapons at all.
I don't think anybody here knows the exact cost comparision. We do know that USAF sanctioned development of a complete new light weight fighter F-16 because USAF couldn't deploy F-15 the heavy fighter in similar numbers. Scenario for IAF is somewhat different as the numbers planned for induction are small.
abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by abhiti »

Austin wrote:George there is no tail sting radar on the MKI period , these sting carry the chutes. The only operational aircraft which carries the tail sting radar with a fatter boom is the Su-34.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

The N012 tail warning radar has been reported to be part of the Su-30MKI suite and is offered as a retrofit to other models.

The Su-30 series is not directly evolved from the Su-27M line, but has incorporated many design features demonstrated in the Su-27M/35/37 line.

The Indian Su-30MKI is to date the most advanced Su-27 derivative to enter production and with the exception of mission avionics and software is a credible equivalent to the F-15E/I/K/S family.
p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by p_saggu »

I think that the Platypus was offered to India. There was a discussion here I think last year sometime. And the general concessus was that if the payload was similar to an MKI, why bother with a platform which would be constrained to only a single role instead of the multi-roled MKI.

Now if the platypus beak confers special camouflage and stealth (Which the flanker derivative platforms sorely lack) and will help in penetrating any radar screen even an AEGIS, then its a wonderful investment.
It probably does not.
rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1171
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by rkhanna »

he N012 tail warning radar has been reported to be part of the Su-30MKI suite and is offered as a retrofit to other models.
the Su-30MKI doesnt have any tail radar.
The Su-30 series is not directly evolved from the Su-27M line, but has incorporated many design features demonstrated in the Su-27M/35/37 line.

The Indian Su-30MKI is to date the most advanced Su-27 derivative to enter production and with the exception of mission avionics and software is a credible equivalent to the F-15E/I/K/S family.
The Su-35BM is the most advanced Flanker Varient currently out there. Infact it will be the bases of the eventual MKI MLU.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by SaiK »

http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=10789
sad.. :cry:

This is the first time that a Sukhoi-30 MKI, a frontline fighter plane, has crashed :oops:
sarang
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 16 Jun 2007 11:23
Location: India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by sarang »

God damn. I can not believe. Feeling very sad.
:cry: :cry: :cry:

May the brave rest in peace.
ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by ashish raval »

A very sad incident to loose the top of the line pilot.
rsharma
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 02 Aug 2006 22:14
Location: Hidden Markov Model

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by rsharma »

More on the RAMBHA crash:
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/iaf-sukhoi-f ... 461-3.html
The thing we all dreaded! :cry:
May the soul of the departed RIP!
Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 912
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Shameek »

Very sad news. May the brave aviator rest in peace. Our prayers are with his family.

But lets make sure we view it the same way we would view a MiG 21 crash. The loss of any pilot, whether flying a Chetak or a Su-30MKI is equally tragic and an equally big blow. I hope the public understands this and gives equal respect to any of our brave warriors.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

I second that Shameekg. The IAF must never take flight safety lightly. They never have. May the dead pilot's family find the strength to bear this tragic loss.

The record of the Sukhois in IAF service has been exemplary. However, as the birds age, maintenance will be critical to keep them flying.
SivaVijay
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 19:23

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by SivaVijay »

Truly tragic :(

May his soul RIP.

What about the RIO? he ejected successfully....? cudn't follow the news...coz of company site blocker...
Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 912
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Shameek »

^^ As per the news, both ejected. The pilot, Wing Commander S.V. Munje, survived but the navigator, Wing Commander P.S. Narah, succumbed to his injuries.
dorai
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 07:24

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by dorai »

Tragic news. RIP.
Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Nikhil T »

I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this. I'm sure the IAF will conduct a strong inquiry and get to the bottom of this.
RIP Wing Commander Narah.

BTW,
The IAF operates three squadrons (approximately 55 aircraft) of the jet,
This is DDM right? Its more than a hundred as per our discussions.
Ardeshir
BRFite
Posts: 1114
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 03:10
Location: Londonistan/Nukkad

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Ardeshir »

This is sad news. And the loss of a pilot is tragic!
And now I am dreading DDM's analysis of the incident without knowing the even very basics of aviation - military or civil.
HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by HariC »

via email

Image
abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by abhijitm »

:( really tragic. This is a priceless national loss. my deepest condolences...
Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 912
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Shameek »

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/00 ... 301612.htm
Within a few minutes of taking off, the pilots reported trouble in the aircraft and both ejected out of the cockpit, after directing the aircraft on to a vacant agricultural land.
But both pilots suffered serious injuries and were rushed by an IAF rescue team to a nearby military hospital, sources said.
Really tragic that both pilots suffered such serious injuries. And that image in the post above is just too sad to look at. :(
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by SaiK »

boy, that via email pic looks total! :(
Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Nikhil T »

RIP Brave Soul.

The other pilot's news:
"I swear on my dog, Ma, I'm safe"
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17169
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Rahul M »

what a family !
dipak
BRFite
Posts: 223
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by dipak »

Most tragic and unfortunate that SU-30MKI joined the league.
Encouraging to read about Wing Commander Siddharth's family.
May God rest Wing Commander PS Narah's soul in peace!!
Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Nihat »

A report in today's HT says that Wing Commander Narah was a competent Mig-21 pilot but not trained to fly on the MKI.

Image
Ardeshir
BRFite
Posts: 1114
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 03:10
Location: Londonistan/Nukkad

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Ardeshir »

This is what I meant by DDM's bullshit analyses.

This is their line of though: The WSO was a Mig-21 pilot, hence this is related to the crash, therefore the IAF is showing incompetence. Pathetic!
AmitR
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 25 Jan 2009 17:13

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by AmitR »

shameekg wrote:http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/00 ... 301612.htm
Within a few minutes of taking off, the pilots reported trouble in the aircraft and both ejected out of the cockpit, after directing the aircraft on to a vacant agricultural land.
But both pilots suffered serious injuries and were rushed by an IAF rescue team to a nearby military hospital, sources said.
Really tragic that both pilots suffered such serious injuries. And that image in the post above is just too sad to look at. :(
I am a little confused about this incident. If both the pilots had bailed out successfully how did they get serious injuries.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by SaiK »

there are many aspects in bailing out of the craft.. direction, position, height, speed, and time.
Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Post by Sid »

they must have ejected at very low level, which explains their spinal injuries.

also wreckage is not spread across a wide area, i mean in the pic we can see the whole fighter. same wreckage can be seen when Su 30 MK demonstrator lost engine power (after a little stunt) at Paris air-show.

RIP Wing Commander Narah.
Post Reply