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.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 26 Jun 2014 00:10

[quote="Karan M"]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.
/quote]

damn, that's a huge difference. So about 80/90 minutes on afterburner or about 2.5 to 3 hour sortie without refuelling.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2110
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Picklu » 26 Jun 2014 00:20

Cybaru wrote:damn, that's a huge difference. So about 80/90 minutes on afterburner or about 2.5 to 3 hour sortie without refuelling.


80 minutes on afterburner ???? !!! :eek:

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 26 Jun 2014 01:54

The Russians are politically reliable. Their equipment however, is unreliable. US equipment is reliable but the US is politically unreliable.

We have 4 engines from the US in the pipeline (404/414/ LM 2500/F125). Everything seems to be working at the moment.

60% of Sukhois are (if the above report is to be believed), are hangar queens.

I guess the solution is to spend $20bn on Rafales to cover for the SU30s and the US engines.

Sounds like a plan.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 26 Jun 2014 09:31

One may well point out that some of those 4 engines in the pipeline are because a Grade A chamcha was sitting in the PM hotseat at the time. Its surprising to say the least when equivalent items from elsewhere were dropped and only these items selected. But then again reports note how badly our then PM was determined to impress his hosts whenever he visited. And "at the moment" is clearly the issue.

As regards what happened previously - the Navys experience about their choppers post Pokhran, and why the IAF went to such extreme lengths to have a fully British Hawk not subject to tender mercies of the Khan. And , the LCA was targeted via sanctions.

Coming to the report above by Shukla, it is full of errors.

First, HAL makes ~70% of items on its own. So long term serviceability is clearly not an issue as it would be for anything American like the C-130, P-8 etc.

Second, the issue is with ROH of airframes, aggregates and 50% of the 40 initial batch 1 MKIs. We know the latter are now fixed. Regarding ROH of airframes and aggregates, the facilities were delayed because of a contractual spat between India and Russia. While the Russians no doubt played hardball, we are also now aware of a broke UPA doing all sorts of rubbish to avoid spending on defence like not ordering missiles for the Naval CIWS inventory. The problem in particular affected Su30 MKI squadrons set up in "new bases" -which clearly points out that we did not have our logistics on the maint side set up in the new bases as well. And why, because we are using the Su-30MKI as our own hammer beats all nails solution to make up for the shortage in other fighter streams.
So the documentation/facilities which were to be setup by Dec 2013, were up instead by April 2014. The new CAS visited the facilities. The Russians have committed to addressing reduced serviceability in new bases etc.

Third - to minimize the hassle of the IAF running after each vendor for spares, HAL is now maintaining a centralized warehouse for spares. Again, created and inspected by the new CAS recently. A similar arrangement but maintained by MiG has been done for the MiG-29 upgrades.

Net - the problems if any were known and have been addressed.

To invest $20Bn on Rafales and that would address issues with Sukhois would be fallacy. The plan is to have them both and both should work hence the significant investments in local manufacture of Sukhois and overhaul.
Last edited by Karan M on 26 Jun 2014 10:58, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 26 Jun 2014 09:41

Viv S wrote:
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.


Their expertise in determining what their own interests are, is not exactly grounds for unnecessary sangfroid on our side. Their Pakistan policy makes it clear they have far too many dunderheads in their establishment.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 27 Jun 2014 00:22

Karan M wrote:One may well point out that some of those 4 engines in the pipeline are because a Grade A chamcha was sitting in the PM hotseat at the time. Its surprising to say the least when equivalent items from elsewhere were dropped and only these items selected.


The LM2500 is the most widely exported engine of its class (FREMM/Shivalik, Vikrant/Cavour). And Honeywell and GE both offered better technical solutions than RR. Even our Do-228NGs are powered by Honeywells IIRC.

As regards what happened previously - the Navys experience about their choppers post Pokhran, and why the IAF went to such extreme lengths to have a fully British Hawk not subject to tender mercies of the Khan. And , the LCA was targeted via sanctions.


That was back when neither India nor the US was too concerned with China. Today, we're already outnumbered and will likely soon be outgunned, while the local (i.e ECS/SCS) naval and air superiority that the US took for granted is evaporating as is its economic predominance.

To invest $20Bn on Rafales and that would address issues with Sukhois would be fallacy. The plan is to have them both and both should work hence the significant investments in local manufacture of Sukhois and overhaul.


While I agree the hurdle for the Su-30 overhauls is not funding, $20 billion on the Rafale will reduce the Tejas program to an obligation instead of an opportunity. It'll be tolerated by the IAF but not driven by it, not the way the foreign products are pushed to evolve by their respective militaries.

Karan M wrote:Their expertise in determining what their own interests are, is not exactly grounds for unnecessary sangfroid on our side. Their Pakistan policy makes it clear they have far too many dunderheads in their establishment.


They've paid the price ('Haqqani group veritable arm of ISI') for their reliance on Pakistan (though its debatable if they could have operated in Afghanistan without colluding with it) and learnt their lesson; three-quarters of the Pakistani public today considers the US an outright enemy and the sentiment is reciprocated.

On the issue of China, which is now our main worry, their position is unambiguous (exemplified by the Pacific 'Pivot'). The Russian position... much less so, and even for France (read: ROCAF Mirage fiasco).

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Jul 2014 20:22



2.5 hours long, but worth every minute.

See how close the Su-27 nearly came to a close in 1978. BTW, it says the Su-27 started out in 1969.

Early 80s ................. accidents in flight: loss of nose cone, wing tip breaks!!!!!!!!!!!

How much work has gone in to make a plane what we all love today!!!!

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 04 Jul 2014 22:33

Raptor vs. Flanker from the Malaysian side.

MAN: Turning and burning with the best

The Royal Malaysian Air Force and the United States Air Force engage in an air combat exercise called Cope Taufan. Haris Hussain joins the ‘furball’

“FIGHT’s on! Fight’s on!”

‘Mogwai’ immediately picks up his target off the port side. He’s chugging along at a fairly fast clip. Together, the closure speed of both aircraft is nudging north of 900 knots.

As the two fighters merge and pass within an eyelash of each other in a blur of black and grey, Mogwai doesn’t even have time to flinch as he rolls the jet, yanks the control stick back into his gut and reefs his big fighter into an eye-wateringly tight left turn.

G-forces rip into his body and Mogwai sucks in a lungful of oxygen as he cranes his neck to keep his adversary, a United States Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor, square in his sights.

He works the throttles and makes constant changes to the engine settings. His eyes are fixed on the target but one eyeball is cocked to the airspeed reading on his heads-up display (HUD). At this turn rate, he’s bleeding off airspeed and energy like they’re going out of style. Dogfighting is all about energy management.

The two jets are in a classic turning fight at 15,000 feet (4.57km) over the air combat range in Grik, Perak. Mogwai and ‘Smegs’, his weapons systems officer (whizzo in RMAF parlance), are flying the Royal Malaysian Air Force’s latest and most capable aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-30MKM Super Flanker multirole fighter.

Outside, the twin nozzles of their thrust-vectoring Lyulka AL-31FP engines crank up at a crazy angle and Mogwai begins to “walk up” the nose of his huge fighter onto the Raptor’s centre fuselage.

Up front, Mogwai eyeballs the Raptor, which is also blessed with thrust-vector control, but only in the pitch plane. The target designator box (TDB) on his HUD is locked onto the stealth fighter. The trick now is for Mogwai to bring the “pipper” or gunsight square inside the TDB before he can squeeze off a shot. In the back seat, Smegs provides a running commentary of the unfolding fight.

“Makan dia! Makan dia, beb! Lagi! Lagi! Lagi!” Smegs yells into the hot mike in his Ulmer oxygen mask. His job is that of part tactician, analysing the threat picture, part cheerleader, pushing his pilot on, and as an extra pair of eyes for Mogwai.

This particular evolution is a 1v1 (one-versus-one) engagement, which calls for the employment of short-range air-to-air missiles or guns. The Raptor is armed with the AIM-9M Sidewinder heat-homer and an internal, six-barrel, Gatling-type 20mm M-61A Vulcan cannon. The Super Flanker is carrying the super-agile Vympel R-73 Archer air-to-air missile and has the 30mm, single-barrel Gsh-301 cannon embedded in the starboard leading edge root extension (LERX).

Launching off from Fightertown RMAF Butterworth, this is the second engagement for the two fighters as part of the biggest air combat exercise in the country. Called Cope Taufan, the joint biennial exercise between the RMAF and the USAF is primarily to enhance bilateral training in a realistic environment, ramp up combined readiness, and improve interoperatability between the two fighting forces. In the first “hop” earlier, the advantage went to the Sukhoi boys. Because both aircraft were still hauling bags of gas, the exercise director gave the go-ahead for another fight.

‘GUNS,GUNS,GUNS!’

The outcome of a dogfight hinges on a number of things — the aircraft’s aerodynamic and engine performance, fuel load, the position of the sun, the individual aircrews’ learning curve and the ability to adapt and react to a fluid and rapidly changing set of circumstances. The advantage enjoyed by one aircrew could be lost and shift over to the adversary in the blink of an eye. A gun track can last only one or two seconds. Miss that shot and you’re toast.

Just as Mogwai is close to getting a gun solution on the Raptor, the USAF pilot rolls his jet level and pitches the nose up in a high-G manoeuvre. Vortices stream from his wing root as moisture is literally squeezed from the air. The American plugs the afterburners on his twin Pratt and Whitney F-119 turbofan engines and his nozzles belch out tongues of blue flame. He goes vertical and grabs sky like a homesick angel.

“Pacak! Pacak! Dia pacak, bai!” screams Smegs, as he instinctively grabs the speed handles on his instrument panel in anticipation of the onslaught of Gs. Pacak, in RMAF fighter lingo, is to go vertical. Mogwai sees the move but he’s nanoseconds too late. The Raptor has so much excess thrust that by the time Mogwai bangs on the throttles and selects Zone 5 on the afterburner, he and Smegs might just as well have been talking to themselves because the Raptor is looong gone...

STEEP LEARNING CURVE

Back on the ground, the RMAF pilots whom Life&Times spoke to said the training and experience they received in the two weeks of Cope Taufan was invaluable.

“The objective of these types of exercises is not to see who wins or loses. It’s more of an opportunity for us to learn new things and expand our mission scenarios and capabilities. It also gives us a chance to validate our procedures,” said a Super Flanker pilot.

Sometimes, they have to make things up as they go along. For instance, fighter pilots use what is called EM or energy manoeuvring charts to figure out how best to tackle an adversary.

“We had EM charts on the F-15s but had nothing on the Raptors, since it is still highly classified. So we had to rely on other sources, go online and even make educated guesses based on the aircraft design to come up with a plan to capitalise on its weaknesses,” added the Sukhoi driver.

“There were a lot of things that we learnt from the Americans. The use of large force employment, planning of strike packages and, overall, how to use our forces effectively were some of the lessons we learnt from Cope Taufan,” added an F/A-18D Hornet pilot with No 18 Squadron, based in Butterworth.

A MiG-29N fighter pilot with the famed Smokey Bandits squadron, home ported in RMAF Kuantan, summed it up best.

“Bro, both sides’ learning curve went right through the roof. On the first day! We both went home with a mutual and healthy respect for each other’s capabilities. And to have these (USAF) guys say that we were s*** hot is the biggest compliment you could give a fighter jock.”

Note: For security reasons, the call signs of the aircrew are fictitious and the engagement is a composite of several dogfights as recounted by RMAF pilots.

Star attractions

THE star attractions for this edition of Cope Taufan were undoubtedly the United States Air Force’s Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor and the Royal Malaysian Air Force’s Sukhoi Su-30MKM Super Flanker multirole fighter.

For the Americans, the Su-30 is an exotic beast, blessed with immense power and agility.

The Russian type’s nose-pointing ability, thanks to its thrust-vector and fly-by-wire flight control system, is second-to-none.

If there’s one aircraft that can pose a serious threat to the USAF in the air-to-air arena, it would be this baby.

On the flip side, the prospect of going head-to-head with the world’s only fully operational, fifth-generation stealth fighter sent RMAF pilots into a tizzy. Many were itching to go up against this much-vaunted fighter. Although the results of the engagements were classified, it was learnt that several RMAF jet jocks acquitted themselves well against the Raptor.

The F-22As are from the 154th Wing, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii and are the only Air National Guard unit equipped with the type. They were joined by a number of Boeing F-15C Eagles from the 131st Fighter Squadron, 104th Fighter Wing, Barnes Air National Guard Base, Massachusetts, and other support units.

While RMAF pilots had tangled with the Eagles in previous exercises, Cope Taufan 2014 was the Raptors’ first outing in Southeast Asia.

Cope Taufan is a biennial large force employment exercise designed to improve the US’s and Malaysia’s combined readiness.This year’s edition from June 9-20, collectively involved close to 1,000 personnel.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 06 Jul 2014 21:50

Very well written. I haven't seen anything so well written from 99% of our so called journos. Vishnu Soms comparisons being an exception.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 07 Jul 2014 17:14

EO-DAS like capability for Su-35

http://www.npk-spp.ru/deyatelnost/avion ... edka-.html

Optoelectronic intelligence


Image

Purpose:
• Continuous review of the formation of spherical mnemonic and video environment;
• automatic detection in the infrared aerial targets (CC) and missiles;
• Recognition and support of EC and missiles;
• Formation signs threats;
• VC mapping and threats to IFIs and audible warning of danger;
• field of view - a sphere (6 posts)
• spectral range of 3 .. 5 microns;
• Position accuracy EC less than 1 °.

Image

Detection subsystem laser irradiation (OLO)

• Continuous review of spherical;
• Formation signs threats;
• field of view - the scope (for 2 positions);
• spectral range 1 .. 1.7 microns;
• pulse repetition frequency of 0.1 Hz to 100 Hz;
• error in determining the coordinates of the source of radiation - not more than 5 °.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Jul 2014 17:50

Many fighters have such spherical system the PAWS-2 on the Gripen is also IR based as is on most modern fighters (Some may be UV). EODAS comes ahead through the ability of both the sensor itself but most importantly of the computing power given to both it by itself and by integrating it 100% with the ICP. The sensor has the quality to function as a long range macro IRST having shown missile launches at ranges in excess of 800 nautical miles, yet it also has the computing power behind it (and the software) to track multiple aircraft, classify them and present the info onto the helmet visor in real time in a dynamic fur ball.

http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-the-f-35 ... nterprise/

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby member_20317 » 07 Jul 2014 18:10

That it was at long range was told by DAS?

..................

Austin ji, 3-5 microns, is confirmed kya?

..................

VV The bit about 800 mile.
Last edited by member_20317 on 07 Jul 2014 18:15, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Jul 2014 18:14

That it was at long range was told by DAS?


??

There is no sensor onboard the F-35 that by itself operates 360 degrees in the IR spectrum apart from the EODAS. So yes its confirmed by multiple sources that the extremely long ranged IR detection was done by the DAS.

The DAS is a remarkably sensitive and discriminating set of six sensors that gives the pilot data not just from in front of his aircraft, but directly below, above and to the sides — in military parlance he’s got 360 degree situational awareness. How sensitive is the system? I’ve been told by two sources that the DAS spotted a missile launch from 1,200 miles away during a Red Flag exercise in Alaska.


http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/a-go ... he-f-35/4/

Also more in the article Posted above.

EODAS is not just a MAWS, although that is one important function. Its a much more tactically integral system then simply a defensive aid as are traditional MAWS. It can with the help of the computing Geolocate threats by itself to a level where GPS coordinates can be fed into the weapons without having to use the larger IRST sensor (EOTS) that has a frontal FOV and requires the aircraft be pointed towards a target. Potentially, with the software (Block 4+) the EODAS can pick ground fire and feed coordinates as this has been demonstrated on the test bed using the system as a whole.
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Jul 2014 18:30, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4623
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 07 Jul 2014 18:24

BrarW,

Was the oth detection actually tested or is it a theoretical premise, I am afraid did not go through the link. It is curious because assuming the JSF is flying at 50000feet, its optical sensor
vision will be restricted below 300miles (distance to horizon). Also, under what conditions was this test performed? In an 800km radius, there could be tons of cloud cover, and possibly topographical obstacles. Will the sensor see through these? Just some thoughts that crossed my non expert mind. Another thought, at what altitudes did the missile.launches take.place and what kind of missiles.we're these (a2a, SAMs, ballistic)?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Jul 2014 18:44

The test for these extreme long ranges was something that was added to the baseline for future blocks and as such the test was on a launch vehicle (either a space bound vehicle or a TBM) therefore the sensor probably kept on tracking the target as it moved higher into space. These tests confirmed the ability of the sensor to actually do MDA missions in an effective manner and opened the door for such capability to be added into the future software blocks. Obviously the range of the mission is horizon dependent at the tactical level, but the quality of the sensor to detect and place a track upon launches at very long ranges is an enabler of these missions. This is obviously much greater capability then would have been possible if they desired a simple IR based MAWS.

Here’s an illustration of sensor flexibility. Northrop Grumman conducted a DAS test flight in June against a commercial space launch vehicle, a two-stage rocket. The DAS tracked the missile’s second stage for more than 800 miles. At the same time DAS also tracked aircraft all around our test jet, and even saw the re-entry of the rocket’s first stage. While DAS was never intended for ballistic missile defense missions, this flight test demonstrated that the capability already exists within the sensor.

Also, under what conditions was this test performed?


Don't think they have published specifics of a future capability that has been added to the long list of upgrades but from what is known some tests were performed on TBM launches while others on space launches, ground artillery etc.

The video shows Northrop Grumman's AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and AN/APG-81 F-35 radar as they detect, track and target multiple rocket launches during NASA's ATREX event at Wallops Island. The yellow box shows the radar as it tracks the missile and the magenta circle shows the tracking of the missile




The interest in this capability from an MDA exploit point of view comes in because of the long standing demand for a TBM killer capability (boost phase) from the tac fighter fleet. Their has been strong advocacy for such a capability ever since the Original Gulf war where many fighter pilots could see Scuds launching but were unable to do anything about it. Studies, prototypes etc have been built and funding was provided to at least two competing missiles. One was the Air launched PAC-3 missile and the other was the NCADE. While these projects were studies, drawn up and limited-testing conducted the real advantage of this would most likely come after the 4th-5th gen data linking fleet integration is complete and the F-35 is able to transfer an EODAS track onto say an F-15E with the IRST-21. The F-35 will up the overall fleet SA picture considerably and as the sensors open up many newer missions based on its ISR abilities, so newer capability would have to be developed and Boost phase TBD defense is one logical one. That these modes are being added to future blocks suggest that the eventual goal is to have the desired capability in the early 2020's when the block 4a and 4F capabilities are realized


Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4623
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 07 Jul 2014 18:57

It is interesting for sure, thing is at what ranges is das actually detecting launch? Don't see why others can't do/copy this, basically ir imaging at decent resolution. Space tracks should be easier considering cold temps in the background.

One advantage the jsf would have is that stealth will theoretically allow it to stay undetected in close enough ranges to track such launches. Jmt, fwiw

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Jul 2014 19:06

It is interesting for sure, thing is at what ranges is das actually detecting launch?


Launch detection is dependent on a host of factors but there is no reason to doubt that missile launches (especially TBM) cannot be detected form the farthest reaches of the horizon given how much heat the rockets generate. In fact the information released points to this very thing.

DAS detects and tracks the rocket at horizon-break without the aid of external cues. DAS algorithms continuously track the rocket through first-stage burnout, second-stage ignition, across DAS sensor boundaries, and through the rocket's second-stage burnout at a distance of more than 800 miles. The video also shows DAS' detecting and tracking the rocket's first-stage re-entry


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-A6PWRFno

From a point the track is passed onto the Radar and the entire picture is built up using the sensors and their fusion.

Don't see why others can't do/copy this,


It is not as much as the "others" ability to replicate the performance as it is about the core capabilities remaining ahead of the curve. That EODAS like systems will proliferate eventually is a given. The goal here with EODAS and integration is to stay much ahead of the curve and the fact that newer capabilities are being added to the baseline quite soon after Block 3F is an effort to do just that. Remember these capabilities do not require hardware upgrades or replacements. They are all within the scope of the hardware currently in production and reliant on ICP upgrades (more computing power) and software. The logical step would be to exhaust the capabilities currently possible with current hardware and then move onto hardware upgrades for more capabilities for the future. Lockheed has an IR based MAWS operational since a decade on the F-22, yet they are also on record of stating that if an EODAS like capability is desired this IR MAWS needs to be replaced with the EODAS sensors which degrade stealth (on the f-22). One thing one must remember with IR MAWS and/or EODAS like systems is that the performance is 50% determined by the quality of the sensor and 50% by the computing power, software algos and high speed integration to support it (Back end). The major challenge with IR MAWS is to have the software and the computing to deal with false alerts and this is just with the MAWS feature. Upgrade these sensors in size, power, scope and you will have to double down on the false alerts which are now going to be have to discriminate non-rocket or afterburner using targets from all aspect (not just rear) and also deal with things like artillery fire which may be intermittent. This requires an avionics architecture to support and this is where the F-35's avionics development plan intends to stay ahead of the curve.

The EODAS is not simply a MAWS as many thought it to be years ago. Many thought that the EODAS would be an extension of the AAR-56 found on the F-22 Raptor and developed in the 90's, yet the EODAS concept involved from a 360 degree IRST coverage with weapons grade ability rather then simply taking a MAWS and putting it on steroids. MAWS is one function that the EODAS performs but it is very much an offensive system especially in the WVR scheme of things as it is a defensive system in the MAWS and TBM scheme of things. The program, the aircraft design and the electronic architecture has positioned it as a Major System in the F-35's WVR combat capability from the very start to a point where the development of the block 3 Aim-9x is a direct result of the capability that the HMD-EODAS integration brings to the tactical picture.

More on the AAR-56 -

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... mld-pc.pdf

Here is a Video of the AN/AAR-56 that is found on the F-22 Raptor. The F-22 has 6 sensors spread around the aircraft for spherical coverage.




One advantage the jsf would have is that stealth will theoretically allow it to stay undetected in close enough ranges to track such launches. Jmt, fwiw


The biggest advantage would come from numbers. While the ALHTK concepts cited above call for a massive fleet of F15E's to basically stay at station and hope to have a TBM in their FOV for a weapons solution things like the fast EODAS algorithms (Fast enough refresh rates and Fiber optics data buss for tracking enemy even in dogfights with multiple aircraft) and fleet wide 360 degree capability ensures that a huge amount of airspace is covered. The reason the ALHTK and NCADE were less desirable was because they essentially required "luck" with the fighters that would have to be in the right place at the right time. With every fighter potentially covering a huge IR space and having the power in the CNI to pass that along these concepts become a lot more viable. The 4th - 5th generation data sharing plays a big role. Have F-15's with Apg-82 and IRST-21 in the back receiving IR SA from the F-35's on TBM launches, to a point where the F-15E's can take over once they are within range.
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Jul 2014 01:56, edited 6 times in total.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 07 Jul 2014 19:07

ravi_g wrote:Austin ji, 3-5 microns, is confirmed kya?


Thats what the manfacturer says it.

The interesting thing mentioned in that link if translator is not playing tricks in third point , Recognisation and Support for Aircraft and Missile , This would give it capability to passively track the targets and launch missile in its spherical coverage zone

The capability in PAK-FA though would be more advanced with added feature and spectral band

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby member_20317 » 07 Jul 2014 22:02

Austin ji, do you understand Russian. A lot of Russian sites simply do not translate. Videos on the net are even more of a let down without any subtitling. Damn these Russians they let some data out and then do not even allow it to get translated.

Anyhow request you to keep tabs on how these items get ordered by the Russians.

Meantime I had half doubted the site url. I have this image of the Russians as a bunch of UFO CT believing people :P.

But the following was a surprise for me.

Image Image


Done using this (Telescope trajectory measurements of the Altai-optical laser center (Lower level), with an adaptive optical system!?):

Image

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 07 Jul 2014 23:01

I just use the translator and for technical issues translator can play tricks.

Its very difficult to get any information from OEM on such system , even for PAK-FA there is no official information except for the one that comes form writers like Piotr Butowski.

What is the significance of Optoelectronic system working in "spectral range of 3 .. 5 microns" ?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Jul 2014 23:33

What is the significance of Optoelectronic system working in "spectral range of 3 .. 5 microns" ?


3-5 µm puts it in the mid band IR category which is fairly consistent with pretty much every IR based MAWS solution marketed by companies from USA (F-16, F-22, F-15SG/SE?), Europe (Rafale, Gripen) or Israel (PAWS II for F-16I and Saab Gripen - E/NG). The Flanker family much like the F-16 family had a UV Based MAWS solution which the Su-35 takes to the IR spectrum (Su-30 family had the MAW300 as an option) just as others have transitioned from a UV based system to an IR based one.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 08 Jul 2014 08:36

^^ I think it has IR and Optical system both it mentions spherical video environment which in Russian Lingo is EO. Though with translator I cant be 100 % sure.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby member_20317 » 08 Jul 2014 09:52

I don't think the Russian idea (product!?) works in both the Visible and the IR spectrums. Within the limited information they are giving out they are trying to be very truthful down to actually trying to replicate the hardware images in the picture. DAS can do all the mahima-mandan. 3-5 micron is probably chosen because the Russians are confident of working with it. That could mean that within the near future they are not chasing the exotic materials route like daily bread. A route chosen by the Umrikhans.

Between MWIR & LWIR I can think of only the cooling system relaxation and the Cat-2 fog as the plus points for LWIR. But that would come at significant investments in manufacturing.

That be said Austin ji, you did think of using the Optical system for targeting, hein ji. But honestly I did not mean to mix up the two bits of information. The only way a full spherical imaging makes sense is that the information gets fed into its own limited data fusion capability. Can't say for sure but still. The Umrikhans have taken to a aircraft version of Deep Blue. Will the Russians in response turn every aviator into a Kasparov. That would be inexpensive and probably a number two spot on the podium for the tactical brilliance, but a massive strategic advantage.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 08 Jul 2014 10:01

Well the optical channel is what I got from first point

Continuous review of the formation of spherical mnemonic and video environment

It says and video environment , which is essentially an Optical Channel , It says it continuously reviews information in the spherical and video environment.

But since I dont know Russian and translator cant be 100 % reliable when it comes to technical issue , I have asked for feedback from some one who knows Russian

Added later: Ok I got a reply on this from some one who understands it and it goes.

- Automatic detection of aerial targets and missiles in both video (optical) and IR
- Detection and guidance of aerial targets and missiles
- Threats presentation on MFD (also aerial targets) and via audio warning
- Field of view: Sphere via 6 sensors

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby member_20317 » 08 Jul 2014 10:35

Nope can't be. In that case they would have said sub 1 micron. There is no decimal for sure. It is Thermal image and Thermal video.

As brar_w ji says full capability is actually a combination of 50% is sensor and 50% is brain power. So what if instead of scoring 100% on both subjects you score say 95% on both.

But it is still not claimed as a product. That is why I requested you to keep track of the orders if any.

......................

Ok did not see your edit earlier. Guess I need to read up where exactly the visible spectrum scores over the IR spectrum. Light enhancement perhaps - outlier but in that case this could be different exploration altogether.

The product info itself says nothing about visible light detection.

......................

Austin wrote:I think the micron is mentioned for IR Channel not for Optical Channel


No, we do not get to hear it in our daily dose of browsing but it is there.
Last edited by member_20317 on 08 Jul 2014 10:45, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 08 Jul 2014 10:36

I think the micron is mentioned for IR Channel not for Optical Channel
The product info itself says nothing about visible light detection.


It says Video channel which is just an Optical Channel in point 1 and on point 3 it mentions IR channel with the micron etc. Also confirmed from some one who understand Russian.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Jul 2014 16:11

Austin wrote:^^ I think it has IR and Optical system both it mentions spherical video environment which in Russian Lingo is EO. Though with translator I cant be 100 % sure.


Most of the IR MAWS i know of have a video element to them for realtime threat tracking. I have posted the F-22's IR MAWS video in a couple of posts above. From what I have read the Su-35 has an IR MAWS instead of the UV MAWS found on the Su-30's exported. MAWS function is only one aspect of the EODAS and as such it is not the same system. The F-22, F-16I, GripenE have IR MAWS yet they are not the same thing as an EODAS sensor. The EODAS sensor has the performance requirement of a macro IRST, with geolocating capabilities. A much larger sensor assembly. The real deal comes form the ICP's , fast data transfer between sensors and ICP, computing power and software code.



Image

F-16I
http://www.elisra.com/UserFiles/Image/elisra/IR.jpg

@ Ravi ji, More on the 800nm range -

The DAS is designed to detect low intensity threats in a much cluttered background, and has the capability to detect threats such as ballistic missiles. In June 2010, Northrop Grumman collected data from a two-stage Falcon 9 ballistic missile launch from Cape Canaveral in Florida, to determine the applicability of the system to detect,track and potentially target missiles in the ballistic missile defence role. Northrop Grumman’s BAC 1-11 test bed tracked the multi-stage rocket with the DAS for over 808 miles (1,300km) while airborne over the coast of North Carolina. According to Dave Bouchard, the processing power available enables the DAS to simultaneously track thousands of targets, far more than is possible with any current infrared system.
“DAS is an omni-directional infrared system that can simultaneously detect and track aircraft and missiles in every direction, with no practical limit on the number of targets it can track. DAS truly revolutionizes the way we think about situational awareness,” said the Program Director.


The AN/AAQ-37 DAS provides passive spherical awareness for the F-35, detecting and tracking aircraft and missiles in every direction simultaneously, providing visual imagery for day or night navigation and targeting purposes.

Northrop Grumman's AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS), developed for the F-35 Lightning II, has added hostile ground fire detection to its capabilities by successfully detecting and locating tanks that were firing live rounds during preparations for a military exercise.

While being flown on Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 test aircraft, the DAS detected and located tank fire from an operationally significant distance. In addition to artillery, the system is able to simultaneously detect and pinpoint the location of rockets and anti-aircraft artillery fired in a wide area.

The AN/AAQ-37 DAS provides passive spherical awareness for the F-35, detecting and tracking aircraft and missiles in every direction simultaneously, providing visual imagery for day or night navigation and targeting purposes.

"The DAS continues to show its ability to gather and analyze data for a wide range of missions not initially contemplated for this sensor system. These flight test results are just the latest example of the situational awareness capability of this revolutionary technology in action," said Mark Rossi, Northrop Grumman's DAS business area director.

Although hostile fire detection is not an F-35 requirement for the DAS, the system design makes it ideal for this mission.

This inherent capability enables DAS to harvest, process and deliver key battlespace information to ground forces and other aircraft autonomously, without the need for cueing or increasing pilot workload. The ability to gather this live fire data expands the mission possibilities of the sensor to include close air support and ground fire targeting.


http://rpdefense.over-blog.com/article- ... 29311.html

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 08 Jul 2014 19:46

brar_w wrote:Most of the IR MAWS i know of have a video element to them for realtime threat tracking. I have posted the F-22's IR MAWS video in a couple of posts above. From what I have read the Su-35 has an IR MAWS instead of the UV MAWS found on the Su-30's exported. MAWS function is only one aspect of the EODAS and as such it is not the same system. The F-22, F-16I, GripenE have IR MAWS yet they are not the same thing as an EODAS sensor. The EODAS sensor has the performance requirement of a macro IRST, with geolocating capabilities. A much larger sensor assembly. The real deal comes form the ICP's , fast data transfer between sensors and ICP, computing power and software code.


Agreed , DAS like capability integrating sensor with SW and Signal Processing is possible for European and Russian manufacturer if they want to have such capability.

The interesting thing about the Optoelectronic System is recognition of Aircraft and its ability to support missile making entire passive detection and launch of A2A missile possible.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Jul 2014 19:54

Agreed , DAS like capability integrating sensor with SW and Signal Processing is possible for European and Russian manufacturer if they want to have such capability


What does that mean exactly? Do they not want to have such capability? The problem is having a 5th gen platform in the first place. Stealth is possible for European fighters, if they want to have that capability. But they chose to go easy and develop 4.5 generation jets and are paying the price in the export market for those customers that have a significant threat (India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Israel etc). If you look at the European upgrade paths except the Gripen E most of it is rather slow compared to Russian, or the US stuff. AESA radars are coming at a trickle ( only a squadron or two for the rafale) while others have them in the hundreds. The much touted GaN apertures in the EW suits are tiny compared to GaN applications on the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) or what I have seen on Russian brochures for future applications. Same thing will happen for ICP, software and sensor upgrades. For efficient upgrades you need a market, money and the industrial base that can compete. The F-35 gets you that. Northrop grumman need not wait for formal RFP's for future capability, a 3000 aircraft market is enough incentive for them to develop things like active IR countermeasures (ThnDR) with their own money. Same applies to things like Next Gen EODAS or EOTS sensors or future iterations of weapons such as the JSM/NSM where the entire effort is being led by Norway and the OEM. MBDA may pay for Meteor integration if that means a faster availability for it knows it has a healthy market to sell these weapons too. Then you have OEM's around europe and US committing to UAI (expect Turkey and Japan to hop on as well) meaning weapons would be plug and play. The point about the distinction between an IR MAWS and EODAS is extremely important. EODAS sensor is larger, more capable and is tied to a back end that is able to exploit a heck of a lot of capability. I fully expect Russia to do something similar on the PAKFA and even China. When this will occur remains to be seen. Systems integration is costly, and extremely time consuming even for the US which has the largest collection of software experts on the planet to choose from with tons of SI experience in the aerospace market. EODAS and especially EODAS-HMD integration is the next big thing in WVR combat and is as important as was HOBS/HMS and LOAL AAM's with extreme maneuverability were in the past. Expect aircraft designs of the future to change especially in the bubble canopy, outside visibility and maneuverability requirements. It would be interesting to see how the 6th gen designs evolve in the coming decade and what the Europeans propose if they actually do look to invest in 6th (or 5.5) generation fighters.

The interesting thing about the Optoelectronic System is recognition of Aircraft and its ability to support missile making entire passive detection and launch of A2A missile possible


That is something that most IR MAWS would be able to perform i.e. support sensor performance at the tracking level. The question is in the ability to characterize threats, without a characterization of the threat no engagement is possible, and this again comes down to individual sensor performance (50%) and the Back end (50%). The AAR-56 was able to track threats 360 degrees in the IR spectrum some 14 years ago when it first flew, yet its nothing close to what the EODAS does or performs. Its as much about the sensor as is about the processor both at the sensor level and at the ICP level. Whether that capability is exploited depends upon many factors, the processing power, computing, avionics architecture (very important) etc. The F-16I and the Gripen E have sophisticated IR MAWS, yet nothing of that is going to be exploited for EODAS like capability. Same goes for the F-22's AN/AAR-56. Lockheed has said that some of those capabilities can be brought into the F-22 provided it receives a very costly Mission system replacement that adds the Core processors of the F-35. Full EODAS capability cannot come without having EODAS hardware installed which does not fit in the AN/AAR-56 apertures therefore making any such application degrade stealth.

Another AM/AAR-56 video


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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 08 Jul 2014 20:17

brar_w wrote:What does that mean exactly? Do they not want to have such capability? The problem is having a 5th gen platform in the first place. Stealth is possible for European fighters, if they want to have that capability.


I mean the capability to have EO-DAS like capability is something European can have on their Rafale, EF or Gripen if they want.

The maturity of Signal Processing and Hardware capability offered today would make it possible , the only thing is requirement and money ......they have chosen their own path for upgrade on their fighters.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Jul 2014 20:24

I mean the capability to have EO-DAS like capability is something European can have on their Rafale, EF or Gripen if they want


They can have anything. Internal weapon bays, EODAS, EOTS integrated into the airframe, Variable Cycle Engines and the works. Ground realities however are that the Typhoon program is moving towards an AESA at a snails pace with years before it is operational in substantial numbers. The Rafale is ahead with perhaps a couple of squadrons of AESA and that too around F-16 AESA size. The Gripen has a customer for the E (2) so from a viability perspective its the best. Russia may be much better then europe in the long run given its 5th generation investments and export success despite of not producing Su-35's in 2014 with AESA.

The Problem with the rationale is that they can get all that with extensive upgrades, in fact the rafale will be upgrading its IR sensors by 2020, but major overhauls of the avionics requires major investments, and may occur at MLU. The biggest problem with these designs is that growth is minimal especially when the counter threat is fielding stealth fighters. There are currently 5 Stealth fighters in operation or testing with Turkey, Japan also developing 2 along with our AMCA. How viable these 4.5 gen jets are even if we are to assume that somehow bags full of cash is infused into these programs (contrary to what is happening atm) to boost there performance to a point where they can actually compete.

The maturity of Signal Processing and Hardware capability offered today would make it possible , the only thing is requirement and money ......they have chosen their own path for upgrade on their fighters


The problem is that they start from a much lower level. The F-35's upgrade path is also well understood and is fairly well funded. It also starts off with most of the capabilities these fighters are "planning to get", and more importantly the aircraft is a 5th gen design with all aspect VLO airframe while the other 4.5 generation designs become less and less relevant as time goes by and as those with the money and need develop 5th generation fighters (US, Russia, China, Turkey, Japan, India and perhaps South Korea). There is no upgrade planned for the Typhoon or the Rafale and Gripen that the F-16/F-18 cannot incorporate with a major overhaul. Swap out PAWS-2 with EODAS sensors, develop a better engine, re-wing the fighter, it already has its second generation AESA (Apg-80 --> SABR, plus a third fully funded option in the RACR), IRST either blended into the airframe like on the Desert Falcon or podded like the larger IRST-21, active Electronic warfare with a Falcon-Edge NG. The point is survivability and most air forces around the world that work on Next Generation jets are choosing 5th generation VLO designs with internal bays and sensors as a basic canvas to develop fighters on.

The biggest mistake the europeans made was not to consolidate and compromise at the inception stage and work on just 1 5th generation design that could be mass produced in the 4 digits (1000+). Instead we have 3 designs with limited availability of funds to upgrade and with modest export success especially for the rafale. The delays in the Middle eastern decisions would only be more favorable for the F-35 or the Pakfa. If things look bad right now for Euro Canards vs JSF in the export market wait for another 5-10 years when the case for non stealthy jets becomes less and the PAKFA becomes mature. There won't be many customers like us that are looking to procure 4.5th generation fighters @ 5th gen prices in 5th gen timelines (unfortunate given our broken procurement process). The problem would only be compounded if they decide to concentrate investments on UCAV's in stead of 6th generation fighters. They seem to be struggling to keep secrets in house and it seems that the Much talked about agreement between Britain and France on UCAV cooperation won't come this year. If they can't agree to share technology at the development level, what are they going to part with when they look to sell this in the open market? Bottom line is that these aerospace companies cannot sustain on local demand unlike the Russian (in the future) and the US defense Industry, and the products they have are going to struggle to compete in the open market when 5 stealth aircraft are operational or in testing and at least 3 of those will be available for sale.

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby VKumar » 08 Jul 2014 21:03

The critical thing is to up the availability of the SU 30 MKI fleet to 90%. How? This itself is as good as adding several squadrons.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1894
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby wig » 21 Jul 2014 08:06

article on Su-30MKI engine failures being a cause of worry to the IAF
The Sukhoi-30MKI fleet of the Indian Air Force has been encountering mid-air engine failures for the past two years. India has officially flagged the matter to Russia seeking a correction.

Repeated engine failures and the newly introduced precautionary measures have affected the availability of planes for various operations. The IAF has a fleet of 200 Sukhois.

After a failure, the engine is replaced after testing before allowing the plane to fly again. The process of removing and replacing an engine usually takes four-five days, but can be extended depending upon the damage.

As a stopgap arrangement, the Russian side had suggested some measures.

The IAF has so far not arrived at a conclusion of its findings, but as a precautionary step, it has started servicing the engine after 700 hours instead of the mandated 1,000 hours of flying, adding to the non-availability of the aircraft.

Sources said the matter was taken up at the India-Russia meeting in June this year and also in February when a Russian delegation visited the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited's (HAL's) Sukhoi-30MKI plant at Nashik.

The IAF had told Russians after studying each failure in detail that Sukhoi's engines - AL-31FP produced by NPO Saturn of Russia - had been functioning inconsistently for the past two years (2012 and 2013). The number of single-engine landings by planes in two years is high and not healthy. It lowers the operational ability of the fleet, besides raising questions about war readiness, said sources.

A single-engine landing is necessitated after one of the power plants fails mid-air. The Sukhoi-30MKI is a twin-engine plane and a mid-air failure of one of its engines means the second engine allows it to land. Such a situation would be unacceptable during a conflict when the pilot would need an optimum speed to attack or to withdraw after an attack. The power of both engines is required to lift eight tonne of payload - missiles and rockets.

The exact number of such engine burnouts and percentage of fleet that is not available for flying at any point of time are being held back from publication in the newspaper as it would adversely impact national security. Had the Sukhoi-30MKI been a single-engine plane, like the MiG 21, all engine burnouts would have led to crashes, in some case death of pilots and the resultant furore.

The IAF and the Ministry and Defence have always considered the Sukhoi as a "safe and reliable" warplane. So far, only four have crashed since phased- induction in 1997. A pilot had died in the first crash in 2009 and at least one of the crashes is attributed to engine trouble.

Sukhoi enjoys air superiority because of its powerful engine. In horizontal flight, it can fly 2,400 km/hr or achieve a rate of climb of 230 m/s. The engines, specialised with thrust vectoring control, improves the aircraft manoeuvrability.

In northern and western India, the Sukhoi-30MKI is based at Bathinda, Halwara near Ludhiana, Sirsa, Bareilly, Jodhpur and Bhuj.

Single-engine landings high
•The IAF has a fleet of 200 Sukhois
•Repeated engine failures have affected the availability of Su-30MKIs
•It takes four-five days to remove and replace the engine
•Single-engine landings by Su-30MKIs in two years is high
•As a precautionary step, the IAF has started servicing the engine after 700 flying hrs instead 1,000 hrs

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20140721/main2.htm

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Jul 2014 10:28

Thankfully they have a 100 F-414s on option.

member_27164
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby member_27164 » 21 Jul 2014 11:15

Few days back I was travelling to goa. In the waiting room at railway station I saw a guy wearing t-shirt that had su-30mki logo. So i just started conversation with him. He was from electrical maintenance department. I asked him about whether the news of low serviceability rate of the plane mentioned in recent article is true or not. He said if there are no spares how would we service the plane? the russian company which makes the spares isnt supplying us the spares. what can we do?
then he added, the plane is highly advanced and no other plane that we have currently is as advanced as su-30. all the systems are computerized. in our country we have the habit of 'jugaad'. "apne yahan pe hathoda mar ke kiya jata hai". so it just doesnt work for this plane and hence problem arises.
I did not ask much to him since i thought he was a bit reserved on continuing the conversation. but one thing is clear that there is problem of maintenance (<--this is my opinion)

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby krishnan » 21 Jul 2014 11:21

NO

its not maintenance problem, its spare parts problem.

no spare parts , no maintenance

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby RKumar » 21 Jul 2014 12:19

Regarding Su-30 issue coming out ... there are three main reasons
- Russians wants to milk money by not providing spares, so that during Super 30 upgrade we go for expensive upgrade.
- Someone internally leaking this information, reducing the creditability of Su-30 MKI. We need a alternative fighter.
- Don't forget regional reason of MMRCA, was for the Mig-21 replacement. Now LCA coming online, may be FOC delayed to 2015 (which is not that a ig thing, as it is being made) and ready for war duties from 2016.

It is all mind games with deliberate and well coordinated media reports coming out. On the other side, Russian's smell blood with Su-30 upgrade as we refused to part from our hard earned money they demanded for PAK-FA development. It is tricky situation, lets see who get the chance to taste our blood France or Russia as both countries are backing away from their commitments on ToT while keep increasing the price.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby RKumar » 21 Jul 2014 12:34

I personally hope that we buy or invest in long range bomber then fighters.

We have Su-30, Mig-29 and LCA for next 15-30 years for air patrolling. We should try to consolidate these 3 types into two types e.g. AMCA and newer generation light fighter in next 10-25 years.

member_27164
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby member_27164 » 21 Jul 2014 14:37

krishnan wrote:NO

its not maintenance problem, its spare parts problem.

no spare parts , no maintenance

Yes spare problem is there. but please mind what the gentleman added later. his tone while speaking about the way work is done was bit skeptical. i really am not aware about how maintenance crew is trained but my understanding is that the machinery used for servicing/repairing is also computerized and old and/or less trained workers who are used to 'hathoda' methods find it difficult to use them. as an example i just remember a typist of long time is suddenly given computer to work.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby krishnan » 21 Jul 2014 14:59

werent they certified for it ???


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests