Su-30: News and Discussion

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 01 Oct 2010 19:39

If Indonesia is serious about buying 180 Flankers, then Canberra will almost certainly fund the Royal Australian Air Force’s plan for 100 Lockheed Martin F-35s, says Andrew Davies, an analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Until now, there was a significant chance that Australia would buy fewer F-35s.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 01 Oct 2010 19:42

may be this will be the background of my new scenario - IAF tangled in a Indonesian -Australia combat fighting for thr Indonesians in a defensive mode to save Jakarta and in return they stop supporting Pakistan - how like guys -new place new scenario

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Oct 2010 20:06

Australia is an allay of US , so a direct Indonesian Australian fight will put the entire Uncle Sam armada in full motion.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 01 Oct 2010 23:24

Indonesian support for Pakistan in the past was related to the personal egos amongst Nehru, Mao and Sukarno. No reason to believe it carries over to present day geopolitics.

Indonesia buying these flankers is good news for India. We do not have the ability presently to project power into Pacific rim wheras we know PRC is actively working on the same lines to extend it’s power into the IOR. This is another challenge to the so called string of pearls strategy. PLAAF Flankers will now have to contend with 600+ SU30s MK++ on it’s borders (ASEAN – India).

So for now, more power to Indonesian Flankers I say…..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Oct 2010 00:40

Gaur wrote:^^
I do not understand. Why buy Su-30M2? That too only 4?
RuAF had recently ordered Su-35S during MAKS-2009. So, why did they order '4' Su-30M2 before that when they knew that Su-35S would be soon available? I know that Su-30M2 is a capable fighter (comparable to MKI) but still...

Su-30M2 is a 4+ gen twin seater fighter optimised for land and naval strike role , Su-35S is a single seater 4++ gen air superiority fighter ,MOD signed a general contract for 48 Su-35S , 4 Su-30M2 and 12 upgraded Su-27SM fighter jets during MAKS09.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Oct 2010 01:26

Marten wrote:Indonesia has consistently supported Pakistan during every conflict, including sending them their submarine, fighters, and even replenishing their supplies of dumb bombs. There is no question of India training with the Indonesian forces - aren't we thinking of Malaysia instead. I do not believe there will be any interaction or dependency on India for training or maintenance. In fact there will be a fair amount of cross-training offered to the PAF.

Boss, that was during the age of Suharto. Those days are long since gone. Besides, Indonesia doesn't have the cash to pay for 180 Su-30s..they aren't quite that cheap any more. Buying 6-10 Su-30s in small batches is what they can afford, anything larger will break their bank.

Besides, they have also agreed to invest money and order around 50 of the KFX-1 South Korean 4.5 generation fighter. Turkey is also said to be interested in the project.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2010 03:52

Who's going to fund these 180 Flankers???

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Oct 2010 08:22

indonesian mineral reserves hopefully. with east timor taken away, if they take their eyes off the ball , the australians will dart in and take away gilli islands and irian jaya too (western part of new guinea).

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 02 Oct 2010 08:49

^^ 180 Flankers by 2030.. by that time we would have already inducted large nos. of FGFA, follow on order of MRCA, LCA-Mk-II... besides completed and deployed AD (& ABM) projects ..

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 02 Oct 2010 11:48

Indonesia is not a threat to India and its armed forces, as a matter of fact Indian Air Force personnels recently concluded training of Indonesian pilots on Su-30's. Expect them to depend on us for spares.
Indian Air Force concludes Sukhoi Su30 training programme for Malaysian pilots

sum · Post by **sum** » 02 Oct 2010 12:05

Doesn't the report talk of Malaysian pilots?

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 02 Oct 2010 12:38

ohk! my bad !!!

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 02 Oct 2010 12:39

Well, we have good relations with Indonesia but that doesn't spare us to overlook the massive deployment of Flankers on our Eastern Shore. Indonesia will certainly exert such a massive possession to get its deplomatic way out and play as a regional role in Indian Ocean. Given Flankers endurance and operational efficiency, it is sufficiently to say that Indonesia will no longer going to maintain its friendship gesture with countries around the region. My concern particulerly steam from the fact that during hostlities with either TSP or China, how we will going to defend our Andaman island in case Indonesia try to put pressure through diplomatic terms.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 02 Oct 2010 14:47

This will certainly trigger an arms race between Malaysia,Indonesia,Australia and Singapore. The problem for the Chinese will be to allocate significant air-power to this region.

The impact on India will be that our plans for deploying one squadron of SU-30MKI in A&N and control the whole malica straights wont work anymore. Hopefully IAF will have more attention in south.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 02 Oct 2010 15:17

Austin wrote:
Gaur wrote:^^
I do not understand. Why buy Su-30M2? That too only 4?
RuAF had recently ordered Su-35S during MAKS-2009. So, why did they order '4' Su-30M2 before that when they knew that Su-35S would be soon available? I know that Su-30M2 is a capable fighter (comparable to MKI) but still...
Su-30M2 is a 4+ gen twin seater fighter optimised for land and naval strike role , Su-35S is a single seater 4++ gen air superiority fighter ,MOD signed a general contract for 48 Su-35S , 4 Su-30M2 and 12 upgraded Su-27SM fighter jets during MAKS09.

Sorry, but I am confused. Su-35S has greater range than Su-30. It can be armed with an array of a2g and anti ship ammunition. How is it any less of a multirole fighter than Su-30M2?

I did a bit of googling. I currently do not have the time to read in detail, but a cursory reading gives the impression that Su-30M2 was actually a program to upgrade the old Su-27s and Su-30s to true multi role status.
Interestingly, '4' aircrafts from RuAF (2 Su-27UB & 2 Su-30) were used as testbed to upgrade them to M2 standard. So, these may be the same aircrafts being delivered to RuAF.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 02 Oct 2010 22:27

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_jpRroRLCaYc/TKdpn ... -Story.jpg
A story from flight safety - about an engine fire in an IAF Su-30MKI - might have been from 31 Sqn.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Oct 2010 05:30

Jagan wrote:http://lh5.ggpht.com/_jpRroRLCaYc/TKdpn ... -Story.jpg
A story from flight safety - about an engine fire in an IAF Su-30MKI - might have been from 31 Sqn.

Thanks Jagan. Illustrates how the use of a twin-engined aircraft may well be a factor in reducing aircraft accidents related to the engine.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 03 Oct 2010 07:47

Bihanga wrote:Well, we have good relations with Indonesia but that doesn't spare us to overlook the massive deployment of Flankers on our Eastern Shore. Indonesia will certainly exert such a massive possession to get its deplomatic way out and play as a regional role in Indian Ocean. Given Flankers endurance and operational efficiency, it is sufficiently to say that Indonesia will no longer going to maintain its friendship gesture with countries around the region. My concern particulerly steam from the fact that during hostlities with either TSP or China, how we will going to defend our Andaman island in case Indonesia try to put pressure through diplomatic terms.

They want Andaman too. even if we have signed a treaty, treaties are meant to be broken when opportunity comes.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 03 Oct 2010 09:54

"They want Andaman too. even if we have signed a treaty, treaties are meant to be broken when opportunity comes."
not seriously -they dont have the capability to take over a very well defended territory.Thier main concern is and will remain Australia/Timor and the air power addition is just to neutralize the threat
Even their relation with China is not that good and finally they dont have the money to buy - so the discussion is for analysis purpose onlee:-)

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Oct 2010 10:00

Kartik wrote:
Jagan wrote:http://lh5.ggpht.com/_jpRroRLCaYc/TKdpn ... -Story.jpg A story from flight safety - about an engine fire in an IAF Su-30MKI - might have been from 31 Sqn.
Thanks Jagan. Illustrates how the use of a twin-engined aircraft may well be a factor in reducing aircraft accidents related to the engine.

Small rejoinder. The article mentions Phase 2 that indeed were under Russian warranty. There were 12 Phase 2 birds that went to No. 20 or No. 30. The Wingco is now posted to No 31, but its clear the incident happened earlier.

In India, we have a habit of censuring for taking necessary safety action. From the article its clear he did face some censure for barrier landing. Such organizational attitude can be fatal, like the pilot of Mangalore AI flight avoiding making a go around probably to avoid censure - extra flight time costs fuel and pilots have to justify that to management, plus competency might be questioned.

Another note - Many went hyper in the C-17 thread on US personnel supporting that aircraft tantamounted to them "controlling" usage of the aircraft. Fact is no organization can handle end to end maintenance from induction day onwards, and for a few initial years, OEM personnel (US or Russian) are required to support the equipment under warranty. For example, Israeli personnel supported Barak/2238 for the initial years under warranty until Indian engineers took over.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2010 10:06

Gaur wrote:Sorry, but I am confused. Su-35S has greater range than Su-30. It can be armed with an array of a2g and anti ship ammunition. How is it any less of a multirole fighter than Su-30M2?

Su-35 is a Long Range Air Superiority/Defence Fighter , Qualitatively and Design wise it is optimsed for that role , M2 is a multirole fighter that can perform all the task equally well but does not excel in one specific task and by Sukhoi own classification its one gen below the Su-35 in flanker series. Production wise the M2 and SM can be delivered soon and is a mature program while 35 is still going through flight test.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Oct 2010 11:23

su35 also has a more powerful engine I think. its engine + no WSO cockpit weight penalty gives it a powerful mojo in a2a role.

mashallah it is a worthy successor to the Foxhound without the foxhounds limitations like lack of manouverability in wvr.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2010 11:37

Singha, Foxhound is a long range supersonic interceptor , Flanker is a air superiority fighter both have different capabilities optimised for their role , they cant replace the other.

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 03 Oct 2010 12:01

Shankar wrote:"They want Andaman too. even if we have signed a treaty, treaties are meant to be broken when opportunity comes."
not seriously -they dont have the capability to take over a very well defended territory.Thier main concern is and will remain Australia/Timor and the air power addition is just to neutralize the threat
Even their relation with China is not that good and finally they dont have the money to buy - so the discussion is for analysis purpose onlee:-)

Well having not money is one thing, and intention of buying a huge fleet of flanker is other. Since well defeneded territory that you are talking about like Andaman can easily be create a battleground. Every other country has some sort of a claim on the legtimate part of India including China, TSP, SriLanka, Bangladesh etc, even Indonesian President during 1971 war was talking about taking over Andaman Island to help Pakistan as according to him Andaman was extension of Sumatra Island. Even possible challange that our Navy has to face is one more point that I forgotten to made, since we are quite active in terms of our Navy in ASEAN region.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Oct 2010 13:21

well why is the Su35 not a long range supersonic interceptor? sure its climb rate and sprint speed are somewhat less than foxhounds peak numbers but other than that - it can carry more AAMs , will have a better radar with Irbis-E, probably has more range on internal fuel, IRST and more reliable and modern platform incl new engine vs foxhound. in subsonic WVR regime it will destroy the clumsy foxhound like a cat catching a rat.

the foxhounds days are numbered imho.

if the idea is to catch long range bombers, cruise missiles with bvr missiles, it does not need the foxhounds superior ceiling or climb speed that much,
the BM is no slouch either.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2010 19:03

^^ Singha the Mig-31 is designed and optimised as a long range interceptor which means it has to reach the target at the highest possible speed , fire at the target from maximum possible effective range with its BVR missile and sprint out.

It was designed to intercept high flying supersonic bomber like B-1 , Valkyrie and SR-71 types effectively.

The Mig-31 can sustain a very high supersonic speed on internal fuel with its full main armament (R-34,37 ) , it can do a sustain Mach 2.3 with its main BVR missile with 720 km radius if required it can do a max M 2.8 , if any flanker variant tries to do that it will start falling from the skies as in AB mode it will quick deplete its fuel in-spite of its heavy internal fuel capacity , Flanker are designed for short burst Mach number and is subsonic in nature.

It has a radar diameter of 1.4 mm compared to 900/960 mm of say irbis/bars , it can look much further then bars and has the long reach weapon to match the range and KE imparted at such speed its weapons/radar is capable of intercepting targets flying at Mach 6.

As per Yefim Gordon latest book Russian Air Power ( and according even RuAF chief ) the Foxhound is being upgraded with radar and missile giving it anti-stealth and anti-low flying cruise missile capability besides other avionics fit and this will keep it operational for the next 15 years.

Mig-31 capability is quite unique something forget the Flanker but not even the PAK-FA will be able to match , but if it tries to do what a air superiority fighter like Su-35 or PAK-FA does which is engage in a dog fight , sustained turn rates fight or low level knife fights it will quickly loose its advantage, this is an area where Flanker/PAK-FA excel and has decisive advantage.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 04 Oct 2010 22:19

Mig 31 upgraded version remains a formidable weapons platform even if it does not have the super agility of the indian flanker

bases operating Mig-31 finally began to receive the very latest modification; the multi-role Mig-31BM.
This aircraft has an upgraded radar, offering substancially improved performance and technical parameters. The main differences focus on the installed avionics, with the Zalson radar being replaced by the improved Zalson-M radar, originally intended for use on the abortive Mig-31M interceptor.
Thanks to this modification, maximum target detection range is extended to 320km(173nm) anf kill range is increased to 280km(151nm).
This is acheived using the advanced R-37 long-range radar guided AAM, which was developed quite some time ago, but is only now beginning to enter service with the Russian Mig-31 units.
It is claimed that using this missile today will allow a Mig-31 to simultaneously track 10 targets and engage six of them.
The Mig-31BM's avionics suite facilitates a variety of aircombat scenarios, including some that are quite unusual namly:

The aircraft can effectively co-operate with PVO surface-to-air missile or operate as an airborne command post.
When working in a group of other fighters like Su-27SM, Su-30/35 and Strikers like Su-24M2/Su-34's, equipped with less or equal powerful radar, the Mig-31BM can Co-ordinate their activities, providing guidance for their missiles while closing with the targets under radio silence to permissible launch range.
In a number of combat situations such a tactic could substantially increase the effictiveness of a group of fighters.
The Mig-31BM's cockpit has been upgraded to facilitate a range of intercept and support scenarios using satelite navigation, the latest multi-funcional liquid-crystal dispalys and other devices.
Apart from these changes, spatial awareness in formation flying is improved with the installation of a rear-view mirror and fixed periscope/camera for the pilot.

It can also perform AWACS mission if a section of four(otryad) Mig-31s
flying in a line-abreast formation, and seperated from each other by a dist of up to 200km(108nm), to monitor the airspace over linear 'front' of up to 800-900km(430-485nm).
At the same time permitted target distribution and exchange of information with ground and airborne command posts.

Today's the Mig-31 is arguably the only fighter in the world capable of dealing with low RCS low-flying Cruise missiles at very long range, as well as combating in high-altitude, high-speed enviroments.

Despite appearances, the impressive Mig-31 is more than just a throwback to the cold war.
Designed at the end of 1970s against a backdrop of superpower paranoia, the Mig-31 is today an interceptor without direct equal, combating impressive range with a formidable array of weapons, mulit-target capability and a crew of two.
There are just under 200 operative Mig-31 today, with lots of reserve aircraft held in Air Bases like Lipetsk and other places.

Despite of punishing cutbacks, the 'Foxhound' is one asset that the RuAF would like to preserve for as long as possible.
Only time will tell how long Russia can maintain this unique advantage.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-f ... a-10693-2/

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 04 Oct 2010 22:38

^^^^^
OT but Mig31 is very heavy -~ 45 tonnes (heavier than a Boeing 737-800 when empty) and operating costs are hideous.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Oct 2010 10:02

If admins allow for Flanker Fans
Sukhoi Su-27 (Famous Russian Aircraft) - Yefim Gordon

Famous Russian Aircraft Su 27.pdf

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 06 Oct 2010 16:05

have the book -any one wants some specific information in detail please let me know -shall post - was actually gifted to me by the sales lady at Russian air and space museum when Igor said me a great fan of Russian combat aircraft - a gesture to remember says shankarosky

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 09 Oct 2010 06:52

India Eyes Su-30 AESA Upgrade

Aviation Week

India Eyes Su-30 AESA Upgrade
Oct 8, 2010
By Neelam Mathews
NEW DELHI

India is Looking at Fitting its Sukhoi Su-30MKI Fighters with Russian Phazotron Zhuk-AE active, Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radars.

The X-band Radar can Track 30 Aerial Targets in the Track-while-Scan Mode and Engage Six Targets Simultaneously in Attack Mode.

By 2018, the Indian air force inventory is expected to comprise around 300 Su-30MKIs.

India’s Sukhois currently use N011M passive array technology, which Delivers Less Peak Power than an AESA. The N011M also has Limitations in its Back-End Processing and Requires more Maintenance.

Defense Minister A.K. Antony recently told the Indian parliament about a proposal to upgrade the Indian air force’s Su-30 fleet. The upgrade is be carried out by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Russia’s Irkutsk, the original equipment manufacturer, starting in 2012.

It is Likely that the order for the AESA also will be made Simultaneously, as the Radar will have to be Integrated into most Parts of the Aircraft, Including the Navigation Systems and Engines.

The Su-30 entered service in India in 2000 — the purchase was approved in 1997 — and the aircraft have not been upgraded since.

IAF should also Ensure/Secure its Rights to Integrate Meteor BVR Missile/or anyother Non-Russian BVR Missile, with Su-30MKI AESA Radar in the Future.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Oct 2010 08:42

One thing that consistently gets forgotten is that at very high altitudes most maneuverable fighters are as maneuvarable as bricks. The B-36 "Peacemaker" - the largest bomber ever built, which had 6 props and 4 jet engines was supposed to have been more maneuverable than any other US fighter of the day at high altitude. the Vulcan too was once claimed to be more maneuverable than many fighters at high altitude. In both cases the reason is low wing loading.

I am sure the MiG 31 was designed for "closing in and catching up" on a fast high flying bomber after which its missiles would to the job of killing. I suspect that in high altitude "combat" heavy bombers with low wing loading would successfully out maneuver the MiG 31. I guess thrust vectoring changes all that.

But with the advent of ways to intercept high altitude bombers - the thrust of design changed from high altitude and fast to stealth.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Oct 2010 11:01

^^^ Shiv bombers have essentially not changed much from 80's "high altitude , high mach number" ( they could very well do a low level , supersonic run due to swing wing nature of B-1,22M3 types ) they have changed to 90'/21 century "high altitude ,Low Visibility but subsonic in nature" , even the new US NGB will just improve on the B-2 in low visibility , Cost but will be subsonic and the Russian PAK-DA is likely to remain supersonic but it still needs to be seen if they go the US way as they are validating both concept.

What ever be the case any interceptor will still have to reach the interception point quickly as it can and engage the bomber at longest possible distance from its target and let the long leg of the missile do the talking which is what Mig-31 does , all that sustained above M 2 supersonic speed has its own effect on the materials , engine and fuel which in case of 31 is of high density type.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Oct 2010 19:29

Zhuk-AE? I thought flanker gets the ASE version {unless mr. kopp is wrong!}.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Oct 2010 21:53

Sukhoi’s Su-35S - not your father’s Flanker

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Oct 2010 03:43

shiv wrote:One thing that consistently gets forgotten is that at very high altitudes most maneuverable fighters are as maneuvarable as bricks. The B-36 "Peacemaker" - the largest bomber ever built, which had 6 props and 4 jet engines was supposed to have been more maneuverable than any other US fighter of the day at high altitude. the Vulcan too was once claimed to be more maneuverable than many fighters at high altitude. In both cases the reason is low wing loading.
......................................................

But with the advent of ways to intercept high altitude bombers - the thrust of design changed from high altitude and fast to stealth.

I will try and post a nice research article on the topic of (US) Bombers.

Evidently there are far too many variables that enter the decision making process, including the CM technologies, multi platform "bombers" (that do intel work, etc - much like tankers and cargo concepts), the length of a conflict (beyond a certain length one becomes more cost effective than the other, etc), the distance of a conflict, etc, etc, etc.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Oct 2010 08:02

my bet is on Irbis-aesa due to NIIP already in Indian flankers. perhaps chinese flankers could run with Zhuk.
http://knol.google.com/k/vijainder-k-th ... mdhy2mq/34#

in 3-4 yrs time the pakfa niip radar will be fully ready and since pakfa seems to have a smaller nosecone than flanker it should fit
in easily where bars does.

the zhuk-ae is potentially ready earlier but NIIP product being for pakfa should be the better one.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 10 Oct 2010 08:45

Thanks Austin for the SU- 35S article. Wonder how much this baby is going to cost if ever we decide to buy some of these

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 10 Oct 2010 09:12

Anybody hear any news about an engine upgrade to go along with the radar upgrade ? IMO, it would be much more cheaper to upgrade all the systems at once than to have piecemeal upgrades that would keep the fleet out of commission for a longer period of time.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Oct 2010 21:12

Brando wrote:Anybody hear any news about an engine upgrade to go along with the radar upgrade ? IMO, it would be much more cheaper to upgrade all the systems at once than to have piecemeal upgrades that would keep the fleet out of commission for a longer period of time.

Like extra fries and a coke to go with the order so you don't have to come back?