Su-30: News and Discussion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jul 2012 22:16

Acharya wrote:[quote="MN Kumar"

Procurement of additional Su-30 is under progress. Our total numbers are going to be in excess of 270 Su-30s.
Looks like China factor is kicking in

you mean quantity wins over quality?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Jul 2012 22:22

no. It is both in this case.
PRC has changed course in early this year and it is arming itself beyond its normal pace.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 12 Jul 2012 22:24

Acharya ji,

cud u give me a small understanding of china's mind? it is trying to provoke reactions from all its neighbors except noko, pakistan. is it not more sensible to take 1 at a time?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Jul 2012 22:43

China is a different beast. It has powerful capability and also employs subterfuge.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jul 2012 23:16

They will also employ the same strategy during war [should that..].
Yes. The reason not only numbers to match China matters, but each one needs to be at least 2:1 superior to chinese capability.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 12 Jul 2012 23:22

We are at a little advantage here. The defending force has a better chance at holding territory when the numbers are equal. It is often said that the aggressor must have a 2:1 ratio to ensure victory.

My only concern is the Chinese cruise missiles. I dont think we have a counter against them. Saraswat was talking about introducing cruise missile defence systems once the BMD is complete. I guess we will have to wait till 2014-15 for that to happen.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 12 Jul 2012 23:26

Does anybody elaborate what is the planning of IAF to tackle attrition

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Jul 2012 00:58

It is well known the plan is to bump up - Su30, MMRCA[Rafale] and LCA.

Rafale is in a baboo say-so, while LCA needs FoC., so the sukhoi is the only option they have now. Ideal time to ask enhanced features on sukhoi, and get that budgeted as well. Otherwise, babooze would put it back into some project elsewhere, so that Raja-Kalmadi gang can take care.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jul 2012 07:38

some of the low hanging fruit on SU30
- a newer radar - Irbis-e-Lite
- newer EW systems
- MAWS - the malaysia MKM has it
- the newer model of the R77
- python5 integration or K74
- towed decoy on one wingtip?
- Brahmos-A - need to get tests going
- replace OLS30 by OLS50
- change the koraput production to thrust enhanced engine if it helps the A2A role

overall fleetwide we need a lot of PGMs. Khan would be happy if we buy in small lots as it protects the Munna from massive and quick damage. we need multiple domestic PGM programs if you will pardon the pun on a war footing and not just sudarshan. we need 1000s of PGMs to inflict serious damage in a few days of work.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Jul 2012 10:43

Dmurphy wrote:
kmc_chacko wrote:^^ more su-30s
It would be safe to assume that the new ones will all be Super 30s. Begs the question, why aren't they planning to convert all impending Su30s into Super config with an add-on cost?

For a large fleet which has been procured in batches that will span over two decades, it is not possible to get all of the aircrafts into exact same upgraded version. There are various technical challenges in that such as use of different parts/materials/layouts/software over time. Sometimes to bring the oldest procured version to the latest standard is equivalent to rebuilding it almost in entirety. Plus, there is plenty of useful life still left on the inventory of older planes/parts.

Case in example, Eurofighter Tranche 1 to Tranche 2/3 and Rafale F.1 to F.3/4 standards was estimated to be as costly as procuring a new aircraft. So instead of full upgrades, each tranche of EF had its own incremental upgrade path. A drastic approach has been taken by the RAF, which has decided to mothball all of its 50+ Tranche 1 after it receives Tranche 2/3 variants.

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 13 Jul 2012 10:50

^^^^^^^
Actually, before we talk about Super-30, the upgrades that are being referred to right now, almost certainly refer to the First and Second Tranche being upgraded to Tranche 3 standards.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jul 2012 12:24

>> it is not possible to get all of the aircrafts into exact same upgraded version.

F-15 and F-16 fleet around the world has many versions and engines. even within the USAF. so I think that should not be a blocker not to go for better FM2 engines to drive the Irbis-E and more powerful standoff jammers, perhaps a AESA spherical MAWS as well.

its time to take the game to next level. the world is not sitting idle. what was scary 10 yrs ago is not so today.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 15 Jul 2012 21:03

My Latest Photo:

VayuSena Rambha showing-off her twin AL-31FPs (& her 12 hardpoints) http://www.airliners.net/photo/2133156/L/

more http://vishal.jolapara.in/2012/03/16/sukhoi-su30mki/

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 16 Jul 2012 23:09

rambha fits her so aptly

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2012 03:52

suryag wrote:rambha fits her so aptly

And to think of it, it was the Admiral who named it that!!!!!!!!!! Instead of saving it for the IAC II or III.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 27 Jul 2012 08:34

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1303466

one more link confirming Jodhpur as SU 30MKI base -

SU 30 MKI in Jodhpur and Halwara

As of now, squadrons of Sukhoi-30MKI fighters are permanently based in Jodhpur in Rajasthan and Halwara in Punjab. These are fully-operational and integrated with the order of battle on the western front. Earlier, the Sukhoi fighters were based only in Pune and Bareilly, followed by Tezpur and Chabua in the eastern front.

member_23675 · Post by **member_23675** » 27 Jul 2012 12:37

As per earlier news 31 sqn was at Pune before moving to Jodhpur, meaning it spent its "incubation" period at Pune before moving to Jodhpur as "fully ops". If the new sqn at Halwara is fully ops, where did it spend its "incubation" period? Also, does this mean 29 and 10 sqn have moved out of jodhpur? (there was a vedio posted in the mil multimedia thread sometime back showing MS Dhoni visiting the "scorpions" at jaisalmer simetimes in 2007).

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Jul 2012 00:19

g.chaks wrote:As per earlier news 31 sqn was at Pune before moving to Jodhpur, meaning it spent its "incubation" period at Pune before moving to Jodhpur as "fully ops". If the new sqn at Halwara is fully ops, where did it spend its "incubation" period? Also, does this mean 29 and 10 sqn have moved out of jodhpur? (there was a vedio posted in the mil multimedia thread sometime back showing MS Dhoni visiting the "scorpions" at jaisalmer simetimes in 2007).

I was under the impression that it was 31sq which moved to Halwara. And Jodhpur, I think, had 4 squadrons based there. They would have had to move out at least 1 for the Su-30s to move in.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 02 Aug 2012 23:12

Browne to review upgradation programme of Su-30 MKI

Sounds like upgrades to first Su-30MK-1 Block aircraft's to MK-3 Standards

sum · Post by **sum** » 04 Aug 2012 21:18

From rediff:

IAF Sukhoi-30 jets have a design flaw: Air Chief : Air Chief NAK Browne today said the IAF has identified a "design flaw" with the Russian-made supersonic fighter aircraft Sukhoi-30 though nothing is wrong with its "airworthiness".

"We have identified a Fly-By-Wire problem with the aircraft. It is a design issue and we have taken it up with the designing agency," he told reporters on the sidelines of a function held to mark Golden Jubilee celebrations of Armed Forces Medical College (AFMC) here.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Aug 2012 22:05

some shadowy players were saying the su27 family suffers from sluggish response in a certain speed band around the 850kmph mark...

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 04 Aug 2012 22:15

Is Fly-By-Wire issue with all Su-30 (Chinese , Indian , Vietnam) or only with Su-30MKI /MKM ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Aug 2012 22:48

per my recollection it was claimed the taller (and presumably fairer) tailfins of the MKK and 35BM(?) solved that problem...I could be wildly wrong though

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Aug 2012 01:50

Perhaps for PAK-FA, it can have a joint FBO mechanism with AMCA. I see oppty in problems.

If the problem is specific to certain speed limits, then one could find areas of the issue... from controls, latency to closed loop feedback corrections.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 05 Aug 2012 02:21

IAF Sukhoi-30 jets have a design flaw: Browne

Pune: Air Chief NAK Browne today said the IAF has identified a "design flaw" with the Russian-made supersonic fighter aircraft Sukhoi-30 though nothing is wrong with its "airworthiness".

"We have identified a Fly-By-Wire problem with the aircraft. It is a design issue and we have taken it up with the designing agency," he told reporters.

Referring to the December 13, 2011 crash of a Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter aircraft near here, the Air Chief said that more checks were being implemented to ensure that such incidents do not happen again.

The aircraft had crashed at Wade Bholai village soon after it took off from Lohegaon air base. Two pilots of the fighter plane managed to bail out safely.

"There is nothing wrong with the aircraft or its airworthiness. I have myself flown the aircraft," he said.

On proposed acquisition of the French Rafale aircraft, Browne said the negotiations in this regard were progressing well and could be finalised by the end of the financial year.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Aug 2012 02:57

It is perspectives.. what you call a design flaw, and what you call airworthiness., depending on requirements and performance. For example, if the flaw happens only in > Mach 1, and IAF considers that as airworthy and useful, then that shall remain.

However, if the flaw restricts the platform to be used > Mach 1, and IAF suddenly feels that is a requirement, then it is not airworthy anymore.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 05 Aug 2012 07:30

^^If this had happened to the LCA or any other indigenous aircraft, we would have been drowned in a torrent of curses, whines, complaints, mockery, etc. directed at DRDO, HAL etc. The DDM would have demanded immediate suspension of the program and whipped the dead horse until it came back to life again. As for the IAF, I hope they show the same broad-minded understanding and accommodation when this happens to one of OUR programmes.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Aug 2012 07:39

^^^I would pray that would never happen in the first place... because of the risks you have mentioned that it would be bashed to hell from ddm to mutus/mptps.

It is better to get it delayed, and make sure every aspect is tested thoroughly.. as systems mature, it becomes more reliable. defects and rectifications are fine, but comes with it is the cost. the cost of rectifying after delivery to the customer is always 1000 times more than fixing it during testing and integration phase.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 05 Aug 2012 09:59

"We have identified a Fly-By-Wire problem with the aircraft. It is a design issue and we have taken it up with the designing agency," he told reporters.

Ideally HAL should have been able to identify and resolve the issue, or if necessary internally take it up with Sukhoi DB

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Aug 2012 10:54

^^ that's easier to say than do. MKI FBW is specific to its aerodynamic structure and triplane configuration. writing it would have been quite an involved job and would have used tailor made rigs for the purpose. HAL can't just come in and correct it. that's even assuming they have the full code from sukhoi bureau in the first place.

rrao · Post by **rrao** » 05 Aug 2012 11:22

^^^Thanks for your sensible comments.!!!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Aug 2012 12:24

HAL or any Indian entity has nothing to do with MKI FCS. we put in the black boxes supplied from Sukhoi.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Aug 2012 13:14

From the last comments on the last crash which was due to switching off the FBW and it was stated that they had placed the switch in the wrong place which inadvertently might lead to switching off the FBW.

Unless this is something new issue with FBW or the old one that needs some change in the way these switches are placed.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 05 Aug 2012 13:46

Austin wrote:From the last comments on the last crash which was due to switching off the FBW and it was stated that they had placed the switch in the wrong place which inadvertently might lead to switching off the FBW.

Unless this is something new issue with FBW or the old one that needs some change in the way these switches are placed.

The maintenance (?) guys had inadvertently left the FBW switch unguarded without wire locking it (it's normal condition). The rear seater who unknowingly operated the FBW switch while looking for some other switch (Radio?) was not SU 30 qualified.

Classic case of an accident looking for a place to happen.

It was not the switch but the guy what was in the wrong place onlee.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Aug 2012 15:11

^^ Even if that were to be the case there were some news report that IAF was not too happy on where the FBW switch was and wanted to get its location changed after that incident.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 05 Aug 2012 18:25

^^
Design should cater to reducing the DPMO (Defects Per Million Opportunities). This is a classic case which would require a design change to avoid such mistakes in future

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 05 Aug 2012 21:22

Austin wrote:^^ Even if that were to be the case there were some news report that IAF was not too happy on where the FBW switch was and wanted to get its location changed after that incident.

I don't think the location of a switch is a serious enough problem for the ACM to go on record saying there is a design flaw. There must be a problem with how the FBW reacts in certain situations.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Aug 2012 21:25

nachiket wrote:
Austin wrote:^^ Even if that were to be the case there were some news report that IAF was not too happy on where the FBW switch was and wanted to get its location changed after that incident.
I don't think the location of a switch is a serious enough problem for the ACM to go on record saying there is a design flaw. There must be a problem with how the FBW reacts in certain situations.

My personal guess is that it is the switch and nothing else. A switch that can be turned off in flight leading to shut down of FBW and a crash is a design flaw by any stretch of imagination.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Aug 2012 22:54

An used book by value of $4 can save millions on designs.
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-T ... 0465067107

it may not be OT in certain thought process.
/ot

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 06 Aug 2012 01:37

Design flaw is responcibility of OEM, why should HAL get into it and void the warranty?