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.
anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby anjan » 07 May 2014 10:22

Karan M wrote:Right now, the IAF is short of aircraft and needs operational squadrons asap. So should Trisonics have been numberplated and another squadron name dusted off and used? I suspect Trisonics folks would be happy to be flying Su-30s rather than be numberplated and wait for the next magic Trisonic bird, if it ever does arrive etc.
I think the Trisonics were in fact numberplated and their birds went to the No. 35 Sqn. So it's probably re-raised with the Su-30s.

Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Bishwa » 11 May 2014 07:36

Do we know if there is any significant components of the SU-30MKI which are made in Ukraine? Would the current turmoil in Ukraine have any potential impact on spares ?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 11 May 2014 08:15

^^^^^

The AN-32 are slightly impacted - in that they had to take a round about route to get to India or something of that sort. But nothing too much from an Indian PoV.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby pragnya » 11 May 2014 08:32

Bishwa wrote:Do we know if there is any significant components of the SU-30MKI which are made in Ukraine? Would the current turmoil in Ukraine have any potential impact on spares ?


list of components here

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 11 May 2014 08:41

^^ These components are could be repaired/upgrade and overhauled in Ukraine but not necessarily cant be done by Irkut or the component is made there.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby pragnya » 11 May 2014 09:00

Austin wrote:^^ These components are could be repaired/upgrade and overhauled in Ukraine but not necessarily cant be done by Irkut or the component is made there.


agree. assume many of these components may already have been indigenised/overhauled by the HAL.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 12 May 2014 04:45


Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 12 May 2014 05:04

Austin wrote:^^ These components are could be repaired/upgrade and overhauled in Ukraine but not necessarily cant be done by Irkut or the component is made there.


I thought we were into 70% + indigenization

'Teflon hoses" ? That's like PEX right? we need that from Ukraine?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 12 May 2014 06:06

I think that is a list of things that Ukraine can do and not what it does.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby P Chitkara » 23 May 2014 14:51

What is this now?

“The new government would have to be pragmatic in its approach as delay in solving the Rolls Royce issue would impact serviceability of our six frontline fleets. As far as the Sukhoi cost escalation is concerned, the supplies are on hold from the Russian side. The issue is awaiting the Cabinet Committee on Security clearance since September,” said Tyagi, who recently completed two years in office.


This is becoming the established pattern now. Wonder what do rodina fans have to say on this.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 04 Jun 2014 22:05

India, Russia to take up upgrading Su-30 jet with radar

The Indian Air Force’s advanced Su-30 MKI aircraft may undergo yet another round of upgradation involving its radar in the near future.

Top officials from India and Russia are meeting here for two days beginning on Thursday to chalk out the maintenance plan of several Russian military hardware being used by the Indian armed forces. A Russian proposal on the upgradation of Su-30 MKI is on the table.

The two sides had few rounds of initial discussions on India’s front-line fighter jet that needs to be upgraded. “We will demand further improvement in the radar system,” a source familiar with the discussions told Deccan Herald.

From warships, submarines, tanks to fighter or transport aircraft, maintenance of a large number of Russian military platforms being used by the armed forces is one of the perpetual problems for New Delhi, which inducted these platforms in the last few decades.

The Indian delegation will be headed by Defence Secretary R K Mathur and will have representatives from three services. The Russian side will have representatives of the military industry and the government.

The discussion between New Delhi and Moscow comes in the wake of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited's admission of critical problems in some of the Su-30 mission computers and head-up display systems, supplied by the Russians.

In February, a HAL official informed Irkut Corporation on multiple cases of “repeated failure of mission computer”. The head up display multi-function display too were blanked off in flight. The problems were visible in two configurations of the aircraft.

“As the displays blanking off is a serious and critical issue affecting the exploitation of aircraft, it needs corrective action or remedial measures on priority,” wrote the official from HAL’s Aircraft Upgrade R&D Centre at Nasik in a confidential letter to Irkut’s deputy director of supplies and after sales service division. The Air headquarters was kept in the loop.

When asked, HAL chairman and managing director R K Tyagi said, “Very few aircraft reported problem of mission computer failure and blanking-off HUD which was of initial batch.”

“The issue was intermittent in nature and related to old software version. The issue has been addressed by upgrading the software version by Russian side and by replacement of the mission computer and head up display wherever they have been found un-serviceable during ground checks. Till date no such incidence has been reported from any IAF base with upgraded software version,” Tyagi said.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 05 Jun 2014 01:04

Good find Austin! Good to hear the problem was limited and is fixed.

Also, Bars upgrade will make the Su-30 even more potent!

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 05 Jun 2014 11:59

WRT to BARS upgrade I think we know the dilemma of the IAF is to directly go to AESA or an intermediate route i.e make BARS as capable as IRBIS . The latest negotiation seems to indicate IAF must have made up its mind.

I just hope what ever option they choose its fleet wide and not limited to some numbers of MKI

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 05 Jun 2014 13:08

But what about the Super-30 upgrade?? This new BARS upgrade news doesn't seem to be related to it, so is it that the jets that wouldn't go through the Super-30 upgrade would get the new upgrades to the radar alone?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 05 Jun 2014 13:56

I think the Super-30 upgrade is limited to 60-80 odd aircraft that will get compherensive upgrade including Radars , Strengthening of Airframes to carry Brahmos and other Avionics/EW upgrade MAWS etc. I can imagine adding Brahmos and associated interface/ Avionics System/Targetting Interface/FCS etc to support it it self would need some space and perhaps additional cooling.

While the general upgrade for fleet wide is limited to Radars ,Avionics/EW upgrade only. Also there is a possibility that BARS itself might not go through a comprehensive upgrade along IRBIS line but selective system upgrade with DSP and Software Upgrade to improve its performance in A2G mode and adding new radar function.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1535
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Sumeet » 05 Jun 2014 14:56

I sincerely hope Super-30 upgrade offers:

An all internal EW suite featuring RWR, LWR, MAWS, DIRCM, ECM/SPJ. Technically they should be involving:
    Passive long-range detection, identification and localization of threats both on ground and air with high DoA using Interferometry techniques
    AESA emitters for radio frequency jamming across microwave spectrum
    Use of latest generation of hardware example - DRFM for signal coherency
    Passive IIR based missile approach warning sensor
    Data fusion across these sensors
    If possible SIGINT/ELINT capability

AESA Radar (seems unlikely since neither India nor Russia has one ready as of now). In absence IRBIS would do.

New IRST (Perhaps one based on PAK-FA)

Litening 4 Pod for navigation & targeting (Didn't we already get this from Rafael ?)

Integration with new missiles:
    Brahmos, Nirbhaya CM
    Latest generation of PGMs
    Astra BVRAAM, Meteor
    Python-5/MICA IR (We already got this for M2K upgrade package)

Latest HMDCS from Elbit

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 09 Jun 2014 08:49

French Pilots Fly IAF Flankers & Floggers, Indian Pilots Take Rafales Up At #Garuda5

We don't know yet if French Air Force chief General Denis Mercier (met him last year) will get behind the stick on an IAF Flanker at Garuda-V, but Livefist can confirm that over the last two days, Armée de l'Air pilots definitely have. At least 2 French pilots have done sorties Su-30 MKI and MiG-27s as well. IAF pilots have been taking spins in the 4 Rafales at Jodhpur as well, sources at the base confirmed.

Fascination about the Su-30 MKI is pervasive. Over the years, I've met scores of pilots in Europe and the US who said they'd do anything to get a chance to take one up. In 2008, Captain Hal Murdock, then commodore at Lemoore Naval Air Station, California told me that he and most of his pilots would give anything to fly a Flanker. A year before that, the USN pilot who flew me in an F/A-18F Super Hornet said he'd fly me again if I hooked him up with a Su-30 sortie.

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1155
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby A Sharma » 09 Jun 2014 18:32

IAF Warehouse at HAL, Nasik Inaugurated

The visit covered indigenisation cell, state of the art manufacturing facilities for 4.5 generation aircraft, newly established repair and overhaul facilities, final assembly of Su-30MKI aircraft and flight testing hangar. The extent of technology absorption, indigenisation and the confidence level to take up ROH of Su-30MKI aircraft by HAL was appreciated by Chief of the Air Staff.
Presently HAL is manufacturing the aircraft from raw material phase and till date has produced 150 aircraft. HAL has manufactured approximately 43,000 components in airframe and 6,300 components for engines. Twenty six special technologies have been absorbed and mastered. With this, 70% components are now made in India by HAL with 100% technology absorption as per the contract in airframe and engine.


tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 15 Jun 2014 10:52

Given that the engine is the hardest part in any development project, around 1996 when the Sukhoi contract was signed, I had hoped India do aircraft development around Al-31F series.

Sadly, China did that...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Jun 2014 14:36

tsarkar wrote:Given that the engine is the hardest part in any development project, around 1996 when the Sukhoi contract was signed, I had hoped India do aircraft development around Al-31F series.

Sadly, China did that...


India chose GE engines!!

As someone suggested, perhaps next step is the F-136?

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 15 Jun 2014 15:06

NRao wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Given that the engine is the hardest part in any development project, around 1996 when the Sukhoi contract was signed, I had hoped India do aircraft development around Al-31F series.

Sadly, China did that...


India chose GE engines!!

As someone suggested, perhaps next step is the F-136?


That was moi. That suggestion brought scoffs from people wanting a 'proposal'. An alternative is the 414 EPE which GE believes will deliver 26K + thrust. That could be an easy fold into the Defense Trade and Technology initiative and a lot less costly and more predictable.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 15 Jun 2014 15:10

NRao wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Given that the engine is the hardest part in any development project, around 1996 when the Sukhoi contract was signed, I had hoped India do aircraft development around Al-31F series.

Sadly, China did that...


India chose GE engines!!

As someone suggested, perhaps next step is the F-136?


The F-136 is dead.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Jun 2014 22:50

^^^^^

The idea, per a member here, was for India to finance it for the AMCA.

However, there is noise for "competition" for the F-135 9due to potential cost escalations). Fun times.

Finally, I thought GE was involved in the "6th Gen" engine program. And that the F-136 was contributing to that effort. No?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 16 Jun 2014 01:46

Guys please take the JSF engine/LCA-AMCA/ stuff to the respective threads and keep this one focused on the Sukhoi.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 16 Jun 2014 17:56

NRao wrote:^^^^^

The idea, per a member here, was for India to finance it for the AMCA.

However, there is noise for "competition" for the F-135 9due to potential cost escalations). Fun times.

Finally, I thought GE was involved in the "6th Gen" engine program. And that the F-136 was contributing to that effort. No?


One of the main arguments that GE advanced for the dual sourcing F-135 (PW) / F-136 (GE/RR) was that otherwise, it would have to exit the military jet engine field altogether. Agree the program is now dead but a wild idea was advanced that perhaps as a condition of say Indian funding, the tech and the production could be moved to India.

That was in the heady days of anything is possible. Today, it's more realistic to get the MK2 and the AMCA dual sourced GE => Kaveri 2.0 etc.

Karan_M, your OT point is well taken. Last post on this

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Jun 2014 21:36

owever, there is noise for "competition" for the F-135 9due to potential cost escalations



Finally, I thought GE was involved in the "6th Gen" engine program. And that the F-136 was contributing to that effort. No?


One of the main arguments that GE advanced for the dual sourcing F-135 (PW) / F-136 (GE/RR) was that otherwise, it would have to exit the military jet engine field altogether. Agree the program is now dead but a wild idea was advanced that perhaps as a condition of say Indian funding, the tech and the production could be moved to India.

That was in the heady days of anything is possible. Today, it's more realistic to get the MK2 and the AMCA dual sourced GE => Kaveri 2.0 etc.

Karan_M, your OT point is well taken. Last post on this


I have replied to both of these points in the International aviation discussion thread.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 17 Jun 2014 02:08

Okay boys, time to stop posting about non Su-30 news here.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 23 Jun 2014 01:53

A very interesting bit on the Su-27, albeit a clean, demilitarized, lighter one, but even a heavier Su-30 should be able to boast a pretty credible performance wrt range and speed. Even if 35 mins on supersonic for a Su-30, with IFR, we are talking of a serious challenge for a light fighter force with shorter legs. No wonder the IAF is so happy with the Su-30, with its radar/weapons combo and such performance, its a far cry from the 30 min sortie MiG-21 at subsonic speeds.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... e-flanker/

Flying the Flanker
By Dave Majumdar on 20 April, 2013 in Uncategorised

A few years ago, Tactical Air Support was, for a brief period, an operator of a pair of privately-owed Soviet-built Sukhoi Su-27 Flankers. The company’s senior vice president and chief operating officer Gerry Gallop, who previously served as a US Navy instructor pilot at TOPGUN and who has flown the F-4 Phantom II, F-14A and B, F-15, F-16, the F/A-18 series and the A-4, a recalls some of his initial transition flights in the Flanker.

One sortie that stands out in Gallops’ mind was a combination functional check flight and navigational training sortie over the Ukraine. “I had no idea I was going to be supersonic for 25 minutes,” he says.

“We climbed up to 20,000ft at 0.9 Mach and did some checks on the engines and then the next thing we were going to do was climb to 35,000ft and be at 1.35 Mach for the Mach lever checks, very similar the [Pratt & Whitney] TF30 [on the F-14A Tomcat]–you’re going to bring the throttle back to idle when you’re supersonic and it’s going to make sure the RPM stays high up enough to prevent an engine stall,” Gallop says. “We finish up at 20,000ft and I’m expecting to climb at 0.9 to 35,000 and accelerate to 1.35 Mach… Oh no… We just plug in the blowers, pull the nose up, accelerate to 1.35 in the climb, level at 35,000ft, check the engines, blowers back in, accelerate to 1.55, climbed it up to 47,000ft, and then we just brought it back to min burner.”

“We brought it back to min burner, but I’m cruising at 1.3 Mach,” Gallop says. The two-seat Flanker was clean, Gallop says, and it was demilitarized–which means it weighed about 3000lbs less than the typical stock Su-27, but nonetheless, the jet was impressively fast especially at high altitude.

Slowing the Flanker down after almost 25 minutes of supersonic flight also showed interesting results. “I take it out of burner and I’m just at mil power and the speed dropped down to–I was still supersonic,” he says. “By the time we got done, 25 minutes supersonic, I looked at the gas and go ‘you know I could turn around fly back the way I came supersonic and still have a normal amount of gas left to land’,” Gallop says. “I had more fuel when I was done that profile than a single centerline Hornet had on the ramp.”


The Flanker holds 9,400Kg (20,700lbs) of fuel, which is similar to an F-14 with two external tanks, Gallop says. “I’m up there clipping off 13 nautical miles a minute and I’m burning 110kg per minute,” he continues. “I took off with 9,400 and I’m burning 110kg per minute at Mach 1.3, so you look at that and go ‘I can be supersonic a long time and you look at how many miles you can fly at that speed.’”

Part of the reason the Flanker performs so well at those speeds is because the jet was optimized to perform in the transonic and low supersonic regime–between Mach 1.05 and Mach 1.2–but it will easily run to Mach 2+, Gallop says. “The thing can hold like 10 missiles, so you start hanging all those pylons and all those missiles on there and you’re not going to be a Mach 2 machine,” he says. “You not going to be doing Mach 1.3 in min burner, I guarantee it, but it just gives you an idea of how much power [the jet has].”

This was an old original model Su-27–one can only imagine what a brand new Su-35S coming off the production line can do with its twin Saturn 117S engines, which produce 31,900 lbs thrust each. The original Saturn AF-31F produce 27,560 lbs thrust each.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4622
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 23 Jun 2014 05:56

^ Amazing stuff. I think the AL 31s play a big role here - IIRC, they have excellent SFC @ mil power and even with AB on. While the militarized version will be heavier, it also carries more fuel more - probably not enough to compensate, but still. A lightly loaded MKI will be amazing, and the Su-35 even more so.

I always thought a great opportunity was missed with the LCA around 1998 post POKII and sanctions. About 3 years were lost before first flight; perhaps a slightly enlarged LCA with an AL 31FP could have materialized. That could have been an interesting situation sort of like a Mirage 2000 with 13tons of power! Supercruise anybody? Probly more range too since the Mirage engines are not exactly economical on gas. AFAIK, the AL 31s are very similar in dimensions to the M53s on the Mirage.

Also, engines would have been pretty sanction proof and logistics would be better. Also, the huge thrust increase would have meant that even if the bird topped out at 8500kg, it would still have a very powerful TWR > 1.00 loaded.

But then hindsight is 20/20 I guess.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 24 Jun 2014 01:47

The size difference of the AL-31F was too much Cain. In hindsight, we should have gone with the AL-31F ever since we got experience with it on the Sukhois, but again, you could have added at least 2-3 years of delay and recertification - after 2003 by when we would have known the AL-31s work, they would have had to redesign the LCA heavily to manage the excess power, different weights, dimensions and being FBW - thats another aspect. We never knew the Russians would make such a good engine after the disaster that were the early build RD-33s we got for our MiG-29s (which improved later, but still). Basically, till the Su-30MKI, we never really got a chance to see what Russia was making within and nor were we invited to work with them on it. Otherwise, some parts of the LCA may have come from Russia - stuff like actuators, radars and the like, I still believe we can work with them.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 24 Jun 2014 01:50

Overall, the Russians gypp us like anything but they are reliable (politically).. a big plus over buying from Khan in that sense.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby vishvak » 24 Jun 2014 22:45

"had to redesign the LCA heavily to manage the excess power, different weights, dimensions and being FBW"

Excess power is something we should not have to manage because excess power has more advantages probably than exact match of power and weight. Same for FBW and of course same logistics too.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 24 Jun 2014 23:28

Cain Marko wrote:I always thought a great opportunity was missed with the LCA around 1998 post POKII and sanctions. About 3 years were lost before first flight; perhaps a slightly enlarged LCA with an AL 31FP could have materialized.


The AL-31 was an improvement over existing Russian engines but was (and is) still comfortably outperformed by the (FADEC equipped) F100/110. Comparable TWR, comparable SFC but more reliable with a much higher MTBO and engine life.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 24 Jun 2014 23:39

vishvak wrote:"had to redesign the LCA heavily to manage the excess power, different weights, dimensions and being FBW"

Excess power is something we should not have to manage because excess power has more advantages probably than exact match of power and weight. Same for FBW and of course same logistics too.


Excess power in a FBW aircraft is not minor, controls have to be addressed. Weight balancing is also pain - ask the current LCA crew about it. And that power comes with an impact on SFC, corresponding impact on electrical equipment - the design is impacted everywhere. The AL-31 equipped LCA would not be a LCA, it would be a MRCA.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 24 Jun 2014 23:40

Viv S wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I always thought a great opportunity was missed with the LCA around 1998 post POKII and sanctions. About 3 years were lost before first flight; perhaps a slightly enlarged LCA with an AL 31FP could have materialized.


The AL-31 was an improvement over existing Russian engines but was (and is) still comfortably outperformed by the (FADEC equipped) F100/110. Comparable TWR, comparable SFC but more reliable with a much higher MTBO and engine life.


And politically completely unreliable.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 25 Jun 2014 01:11

Karan M wrote:
Viv S wrote:The AL-31 was an improvement over existing Russian engines but was (and is) still comfortably outperformed by the (FADEC equipped) F100/110. Comparable TWR, comparable SFC but more reliable with a much higher MTBO and engine life.


And politically completely unreliable.


You can rely on the US to do what suits its own interests. As long as the China threat remains (will be overtaking the US in economic terms shortly), our interests are broadly in sync. If and when that changes, we'll need to reexamine our position. The fact that we've been splurging on US equipment including three (possibly four) types of engines (F404, F414, LM2500 & F125), suggests that worries about sanctions have abated.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4622
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Jun 2014 08:49

Viv S wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I always thought a great opportunity was missed with the LCA around 1998 post POKII and sanctions. About 3 years were lost before first flight; perhaps a slightly enlarged LCA with an AL 31FP could have materialized.


The AL-31 was an improvement over existing Russian engines but was (and is) still comfortably outperformed by the (FADEC equipped) F100/110. Comparable TWR, comparable SFC but more reliable with a much higher MTBO and engine life.

Afaik, the al 31fp on the MKI does have fadec, don't see why same couldn't be used for m2k sized LCA. PROBLEM is it would.mean massive redesign as karan points out. Still, we might have killed 2 birds with one stone, mrca and fishbed replacement

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 25 Jun 2014 10:58

Cain Marko wrote:Afaik, the al 31fp on the MKI does have fadec, don't see why same couldn't be used for m2k sized LCA. PROBLEM is it would.mean massive redesign as karan points out. Still, we might have killed 2 birds with one stone, mrca and fishbed replacement


The 117S was the first Saturn to feature FADEC, just a few years ago. It certainly wasn't available with the AL-31 family back when the Tejas was still in the design stage.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1165
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby rkhanna » 25 Jun 2014 15:45

Yet a searching examination by Mr Jaitley would have discovered that a fraction of that expenditure - spent on improving the serviceability rate of the Sukhoi-30 MKI - could generate equivalent combat power. By 2019, the IAF will have 272 Sukhoi-30 MKIs; yet poor maintenance and inefficient spares management ensure that just 40 per cent of these fighters are combat-ready at any given time. Effectively, the IAF has just 109 combat-ready Sukhoi-30 MKIs; 272 is an illusory number. Raising serviceability to 75 per cent, which is up to par for any self-respecting air force, would add 95 fighters to the numbers operationally available. That is precisely the number of Rafales that would be operationally available from a 126-fighter fleet, given a 75 per cent serviceability rate.


http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=21080


Sorry if this has already been discussed (tried looking) but is the 40% availability rate on the MKI true? And does the rest of the argument for the Rafale Hold water?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests