Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20115
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Karan M » 09 Sep 2021 14:27

Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/syedmohdmurtaza/sta ... 79983?s=20 ---> As India wants to arm Su-30MKI with long range version of the Israeli Derby missile, the Russian missile maker Vympel is now offering it's RVV-BD or R-37M BVR to India. Derby ER range = 100 km, while RVV-BD can hunt beyond 150 km. Where will Astra Mk2 & Mk3 go?

https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/143 ... 08999?s=20 ---> The 300-km range RVV-BD weighs 500-kg & features a 60-kg warhead! It uses a DRFM active seeker that cannot be spoofed for the endgame, during which it is capable of 8g maneuvering flying at 6M!

Image

Both these gentlemen don't seem to realize that the RVV BD is a flying telephone pole designed for heavy targets. More like the Phoenix. Still very dangerous though but the Astra variants are genuine fighter class target missiles and will be much more dangerous at a variety of ranges.

Furthermore why would you use DRFM in a radar seeker, it's usually used for EW systems. Perhaps he means it has a passive mode to go after active emitters?

sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 223
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby sajaym » 09 Sep 2021 15:02



The pilot landing this Sukhoi is bringing it in so slowly that for a moment is seems to hover in the air before it touches down! Awesome! 8)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20115
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Karan M » 09 Sep 2021 15:30

This is a direct benefit of the Modi GOI's increased emphasis on improved road infra. The number of recovery strips can rise exponentially making things that much more difficult for Paki/PRC planners. Also, if we can get long strips of requisite quality, we can even use them for multiple TO/L cycles like the Swedes making things even harder for the opponents.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4868
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Sep 2021 03:34

Karan M wrote:Both these gentlemen don't seem to realize that the RVV BD is a flying telephone pole designed for heavy targets. More like the Phoenix. Still very dangerous though but the Astra variants are genuine fighter class target missiles and will be much more dangerous at a variety of ranges.

Furthermore why would you use DRFM in a radar seeker, it's usually used for EW systems. Perhaps he means it has a passive mode to go after active emitters?

This would make a rather potent weapon vs large targets like aew. There's no place for tspaf erieyes to hide. Might come in handy vs plaaf h6 numbers too. Nice little ditty to have in the mki upgrade.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2155
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby ldev » 10 Sep 2021 08:54

Karan M wrote:
Your surmise here regarding highly limited scan angles for Bars is incorrect. The FOV in which Bars achieves its max ranges is quite higher than the above. Plus basic trigonometry. Even a small FOV close up translates to much more at a distance.


Without a small FOV the Bars range is limited i.e. in a volume search it's range is far less than the 350-400 km against most fighter size targets e.g. I understand that in the design phase of this radar the target was to detect a F-16 rcs target at 140-160 km. According to Vayu:

For aircraft N011M has a 350 km search range and a maximum 200 km tracking range, and 60 km in the rear hemisphere. A MiG-21 for instance can be detected at a distance of up to 135 km. Design maximum search range for an F-16 target was 140-160km. A Bars' earlier variant, fitted with a five-kilowatt transmitter, proved to be capable of detecting Su-27 fighters at a range of over 330 km.


As such these scan and track ranges are consistent with UAC's own website about the Irbis E performance i.e. 200 km detection for a fighter size target and 170 km against background clutter. Compares well with Bars N011M at 140-160km. Of course Bars has detected an SU-27/30 size target at 330 km, with an rcs of 10 sq m ++. And that is because non VLO fighter rcs can range from 1 sq m to 10 sq m ++ So the IAF will be able to detect PLAAF J-11s and SU-27s at those ranges. But for targets with smaller rcs such as the J-10 or the PAF f-16, detection and therefore tracking range will be less.

The Bars is easily able to support the Astra Mk2 etc. The above data for Irbis is also indicative. Real World ranges of any radar system will not be put up in a video for obvious reasons.

That video was during the Irbis E testing phase. Also the Russians as far as I know try to hype up their performance metrics to help exports so I doubt that they will understate these ranges. The only area that the Russians do not disclose information about is equipment that they do not export i.e. Russian Air Force versions of their AAMs with unique seekers as well as their EW systems all of which are closely guarded.

If the Astra 2 has a range of 160 km head on then I don't know how it will be supported by the Bars radar i.e. it will not be able to fully exploit Astra's 2 range. Unless the Bars can somehow provide weapons quality track data at 160 km or whatever will be the Astra 2 range.

I say this because unlike Western air forces which are moving very quickly towards two way data links and third party mid course guidance where the launching aircraft's radar range is therefore not critical, for the IAF the radar tracking range of the launching aircraft is critical.

[

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55786
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby ramana » 10 Sep 2021 10:39

KaranM About 20 such landing straps with fuel bowers and ammo tenders are being created in appropriate stretches between air bases.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55786
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby ramana » 10 Sep 2021 10:40

Also quite credible report that Su-30MKIs got to fire in anger operating from Tajik bases.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1965
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Thakur_B » 10 Sep 2021 11:22

^^ When did this happen?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20115
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Karan M » 10 Sep 2021 11:53

ldev wrote:
KaranM wrote:Your surmise here regarding highly limited scan angles for Bars is incorrect. The FOV in which Bars achieves its max ranges is quite higher than the above. Plus basic trigonometry. Even a small FOV close up translates to much more at a distance.


Without a small FOV the Bars range is limited i.e. in a volume search it's range is far less than the 350-400 km against most fighter size targets e.g. I understand that in the design phase of this radar the target was to detect a F-16 rcs target at 140-160 km. According to Vayu:

For aircraft N011M has a 350 km search range and a maximum 200 km tracking range, and 60 km in the rear hemisphere. A MiG-21 for instance can be detected at a distance of up to 135 km. Design maximum search range for an F-16 target was 140-160km. A Bars' earlier variant, fitted with a five-kilowatt transmitter, proved to be capable of detecting Su-27 fighters at a range of over 330 km.


The Bars FOV is not "small" - its reasonable, though behind that of a full AESA which can scan +/- 60 degrees, and it extends beyond that by using a mechanical repositioner. Plus, I dont think you are referencing the above ranges in proper context. These ranges are well beyond the average range at which an Astra Mk2 or a Meteor would even be fired, so I dont even get what you are alluding to.
For instance, the APG-68 v(9) has a range of ~100km + vs a fighter class target, and which is why its being replaced by an AESA. The above ranges which you mention are a hodgepodge of different reports from early on in the Bars development cycle. They are not exactly accurate vs the current Bars circa 2012.

As such these scan and track ranges are consistent with UAC's own website about the Irbis E performance i.e. 200 km detection for a fighter size target and 170 km against background clutter. Compares well with Bars N011M at 140-160km. Of course Bars has detected an SU-27/30 size target at 330 km, with an rcs of 10 sq m ++. And that is because non VLO fighter rcs can range from 1 sq m to 10 sq m ++ So the IAF will be able to detect PLAAF J-11s and SU-27s at those ranges. But for targets with smaller rcs such as the J-10 or the PAF f-16, detection and therefore tracking range will be less.


Your ranges are all over the place because they dont take into account the differing RCS of these various platforms, and even if they were cent per cent correct, they still put the Bars as capable of guiding AAMs into the respective targets at range. Tracking ranges for the Bars arent that different from the detection range, its more a question of keeping the target in sight long enough to build up a track.

The Bars is easily able to support the Astra Mk2 etc. The above data for Irbis is also indicative. Real World ranges of any radar system will not be put up in a video for obvious reasons.

That video was during the Irbis E testing phase. Also the Russians as far as I know try to hype up their performance metrics to help exports so I doubt that they will understate these ranges. The only area that the Russians do not disclose information about is equipment that they do not export i.e. Russian Air Force versions of their AAMs with unique seekers as well as their EW systems all of which are closely guarded.


This is a highly incorrect assumption. No OEM, Russian or American or French would give away the exact ranges. Always assume a certain degree of change from test specs to whit, this would include both +/- deviations as actual operational units take into account far more.

If the Astra 2 has a range of 160 km head on then I don't know how it will be supported by the Bars radar i.e. it will not be able to fully exploit Astra's 2 range. Unless the Bars can somehow provide weapons quality track data at 160 km or whatever will be the Astra 2 range.


Who is benefited here from debating as to what level of weapons quality track can be supported by Bars at what range? Second, who would fire an Astra Mk2 at its maximum head on range?

I say this because unlike Western air forces which are moving very quickly towards two way data links and third party mid course guidance where the launching aircraft's radar range is therefore not critical, for the IAF the radar tracking range of the launching aircraft is critical.


FYI, the existing Astra itself has a two way data link and can be guided by another buddy aircraft with a compatible datalink.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20115
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Karan M » 10 Sep 2021 11:53

ramana wrote:KaranM About 20 such landing straps with fuel bowers and ammo tenders are being created in appropriate stretches between air bases.


Excellent news. Hope its extended further.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2155
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby ldev » 12 Sep 2021 19:32

Karan M wrote:Your ranges are all over the place because they dont take into account the differing RCS of these various platforms, and even if they were cent per cent correct, they still put the Bars as capable of guiding AAMs into the respective targets at range. Tracking ranges for the Bars arent that different from the detection range, its more a question of keeping the target in sight long enough to build up a track.

My last on this. If PESA was the all that great, the IAF would not insist on an AESA radar for the MMRCA competition which resulted in the Rafale acquisition.

For the APG 77, one of the criteria was a 86 percent probability of getting tracking quality data in a single pass at it's maximum range. So no need for dwell time. Those are the kind of performance metrics one should strive for. This is possible with AESA and hence my position that Bars should be replaced ASAP with Uttam rather than Irbis E. Clearly the first gen Uttam may not achieve that kind of tracking data fidelity but it will be a start which can be improved iteratively.

If the tracking range for the Bars is the same as the detection range, the end result of the day after Balakot would have been different. After all the IAF recovered AAMRAMS fired from 100 km away which landed in Indian territory. But supposedly the SU-30s never got a "firing solution" at that same range.

My ranges are all over the place because the detection range will vary with the rcs of the target. And saying "fighter size" target is also misleading. Bars may detect a J-11 or an F-15 at 270 km because both of those fighters have an rcs of 10 sq m +. But an F-16 has an rcs of less than 3 sq m, some say it is 1.2-1.8 sq m. Obviously the detection range will be reduced in such a scenario. The fundamental problem is that the SU-30 has an rcs of 10 sq m vs most other fighters today which have significantly smaller rcs. So those opposing fighters need a smaller/less powerful radar to detect the SU-30 whereas the SU-30 needs a more powerful radar to detect each other at equivalent distances. Also, given it's huge rcs the SU-30 by default needs an ECM pod when venturing into a hostile environment and hence the pictures of SU-30s with the SAP-518 flying in Ladakh last year.

The IAF has 270 of these planes which is an enormous sunk cost. RCS reduction measures can only go so far and so increasingly it will have that handicap in air to air encounters as adversary radars and sensors increase in performance over the years. IMO the SU-30 in the IAF should play to it's strengths i.e. payload and range. And more and more strike weapons should be developed and integrated into it for long range strike escorted by Rafales.

AnYway, my last on this. Let us hope that in the next encounter the results are the SU-30s going on the offensive whether vs the F-16s or J-11s or J-10s.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11745
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Rakesh » 12 Sep 2021 21:28


ShivS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 19 Apr 2019 23:25

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby ShivS » 13 Sep 2021 15:58

ldev wrote:If the tracking range for the Bars is the same as the detection range, the end result of the day after Balakot would have been different. After all the IAF recovered AAMRAMS fired from 100 km away which landed in Indian territory. But supposedly the SU-30s never got a "firing solution" at that same range.

Curious as to why you ascribe the lack of a firing solution to the radar? Very unusual.

As to the Su30 upgrade - it needs to start by 2024, Uttam won’t be a mature product at that time, so not available. - fleet upgrade will take a decade or so, so Uttam could make it to the later aircraft to be upgraded. First few will have PESA.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13041
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Aditya_V » 13 Sep 2021 16:19

ldev wrote:If the tracking range for the Bars is the same as the detection range, the end result of the day after Balakot would have been different. After all the IAF recovered AAMRAMS fired from 100 km away which landed in Indian territory. But supposedly the SU-30s never got a "firing solution" at that same range.

I think we are speculating without knowing enough details like what was the ROE that day, Remember we were waiting for them to attack and they could choose the time, in such a situation they could mount an advantage for a few minutes, Firing solution means missile NEZ in mind, not spraying BVR's, its not limited to radar range, The SU-30s were fired upon first and had to dodge incoming missiles against numerically superior enemy for few minutes while doing a mission kill, the IAF achieved that.

After those few minutes when more IAF Su-30s and Mig 29, Mig 21 Bisons were coming to join the party the PAF retreated. Please see videos of Pakistani Army T-80UD is Sialkot area mixing with civilian traffic why was that on 27-Feb-19 and 28-Feb-19?? Cause they knew just in case any of the PAF bombs hit thier target after those few minutes there was no PAF to defend them.

Without knowing the relevant details we can easily come to wrong conclusions in an online forum.

Just like Kargil where a lot of details have come out in the 2009-21 period when the technology of that day becomes obselete, I suspect we will have to wait a few years before we get relevant details.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7639
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Prasad » 13 Sep 2021 16:39

ShivS wrote:Curious as to why you ascribe the lack of a firing solution to the radar? Very unusual.

As to the Su30 upgrade - it needs to start by 2024, Uttam won’t be a mature product at that time, so not available. - fleet upgrade will take a decade or so, so Uttam could make it to the later aircraft to be upgraded. First few will have PESA.

Given that Mk1 will be qualified and the Mk2 radar will be getting tested before that, not sure why you think a BARS replacement won't be. Studies have been done.


ShivS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 19 Apr 2019 23:25

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby ShivS » 13 Sep 2021 17:29

From what I know Uttam will not be available for the first 20-40 (hear various numbers) Tejas Mk 1A aircraft. Which would imply availability in 2025 or 2026.

The version of Uttam with 1200 modules for the Su30 was cleared in the last 12 months for development, so it’s hard to see it in production for the first batch of upgraded Su30s.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2155
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby ldev » 13 Sep 2021 19:59

Aditya_V wrote:
I think we are speculating without knowing enough details like what was the ROE that day, Remember we were waiting for them to attack and they could choose the time, in such a situation they could mount an advantage for a few minutes, Firing solution means missile NEZ in mind, not spraying BVR's, its not limited to radar range,....

Agree. All that we can do is to watch the actions of the IAF post that day and over the last 2+ years to try and infer what the limitations were. With the acquisition of the RVV-SD, the integration of Astra 1 as well as the I-Derby ER we can surmise that the IAF got tracking quality data that day but the AAM's carried that day, in likelihood the RVV-AE did not have the range to engage. The RVV-AE has an advertised maximum range of 80 km, all 3 missiles subsequently bought/integrated with the SU-30 have advertised ranges of 100-110 km. So these acquisitions are likely an effort to try and fully utilize the existing tracking range of the Bars against F-16 size targets. There are certain sources on the internet that claim that there is a shortfall between the advertised and the actual maximum range of the RVV-AE. All of this likely propelled the IAF to get the other 3 missiles.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2155
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby ldev » 13 Sep 2021 20:27

Prasad wrote:Given that Mk1 will be qualified and the Mk2 radar will be getting tested before that, not sure why you think a BARS replacement won't be. Studies have been done.

Thanks for the video. The narration in the video is that the scaled up Uttam for the SU-30 will be "twice as effective" as the existing Bars radar!!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11745
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Rakesh » 13 Sep 2021 21:34


Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4868
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Sep 2021 07:21

Aditya_V wrote:
ldev wrote:If the tracking range for the Bars is the same as the detection range, the end result of the day after Balakot would have been different. After all the IAF recovered AAMRAMS fired from 100 km away which landed in Indian territory. But supposedly the SU-30s never got a "firing solution" at that same range.


Without knowing the relevant details we can easily come to wrong conclusions in an online forum.

Agreed . Where is this coming from - "Su-30s never got a firing solution from a particular distance"? Even if true (and this is a very big IF), how do we know it was a radar issue?

The TSPAF attacked at max distances - and so took first shot without any concern of kill success. It doesn't mean that the IAF couldn't have had the enemy in their sights at the same distance or even longer. It simply means that we went on the defensive because they took the first shot. That they took the first shot doesn't necessarily mean that this was because they achieved "first look". Any of the old timers who saw that early docu series (Line of Duty) on the MKI might recall a shot suggesting pretty nifty ranges for the Bars/R27.

So why didn't the IAF take first shot? It could've simply been ROE that restricted IAF from doing so. From what we understand, the TSPAF took the shot and bolted thereby presenting the IAF receding targets and reducing the IAF BVR missile kill range considerably. This is NOT a reflection on the BARS. But it is possible that we couldn't engage with the missiles available to us vs. receding targets. Note the emphasis on meteor and other longer ranged BVRAAM purchases since. And this includes purchases of fnf BVRs like R77.

But is even more likely that IAF was not cleared to pursue past LOC (the recent book on the strikes confirms that Cmd Abhinandan was repeatedly alerted to the danger of crossing the LOC, which suggests that the IAF was not cleared to chase and counter).

No action on IAF's part at all that shows eagerness to upgrade the BARs. It is very very likely that the BARS can do IRBIS levels of performance with a change in the TWT. In fact the BARS had demoed this in the 90s and the IRBIS is an evolution of that project. For all we know, such changes might've happened "below the radar" :)

It shouldn't be surprising that the Mk1 BARs equals a decent AESA set in some parameters at least. the RMAF had the choice of going the Shornet route with the Apg 79. But they preferred the BARs equipped MKK instead. In fact if there is one thing that the IAF simply is smugly quiet about and has tried to maintain a level of secrecy about, it is the performance of the BARs - samajhdar ko ishara kaafi hai.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13041
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Aditya_V » 14 Sep 2021 08:30

We have to remember that the Indian Govt had immense pressure on 27-Feb-19 that the strikes on 26-Feb-19 strikes do not lead to war, although it is ridiculous.

And unlike any other confrontation PAF had the option to retreat leaving the Skies clear, unlike say Syria in such a scenario Israeli Airforce will bomb the shit out of ground troops forcing the Syrian Airforce to fight it out, The IAF was not authorized to attack the Pakistani Army to keep the PAF to keep coming to the fight.

Thats why it fire /miss and Swift retreat and hide F16 loss.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11745
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Rakesh » 14 Sep 2021 09:25

Cain Marko wrote:Agreed. Where is this coming from - "Su-30s never got a firing solution from a particular distance"? Even if true (and this is a very big IF), how do we know it was a radar issue?

Coming from people who were never even in the air battle, but they know all about the Bars radar. They designed it after all :lol:

Cain Marko wrote:The TSPAF attacked at max distances - and so took first shot without any concern of kill success. It doesn't mean that the IAF couldn't have had the enemy in their sights at the same distance or even longer. It simply means that we went on the defensive because they took the first shot. That they took the first shot doesn't necessarily mean that this was because they achieved "first look". Any of the old timers who saw that early docu series (Line of Duty) on the MKI might recall a shot suggesting pretty nifty ranges for the Bars/R27.

Please Sirjee. Don't say stuff like this. You will hurt the sentiments and feelings :mrgreen:

Because AMRAAM is Amreeki and because ARMAAM was launched from Amreeki aircraft, all this talk of max distances do not apply.

Five AIM-120s were launched and all five hit their mark. Sometimes you just have to stroke the ego.

Cain Marko wrote:So why didn't the IAF take first shot? It could've simply been ROE that restricted IAF from doing so. From what we understand, the TSPAF took the shot and bolted thereby presenting the IAF receding targets and reducing the IAF BVR missile kill range considerably. This is NOT a reflection on the BARS. But it is possible that we couldn't engage with the missiles available to us vs. receding targets. Note the emphasis on meteor and other longer ranged BVRAAM purchases since. And this includes purchases of fnf BVRs like R77.

IAF could not take the first shot because they were flying Russian aircraft. Simple logic onlee.

Why Sirjee are you going into such long explanations? What Phor? Russian maal is pathetic, but Amreeki maal is perfection!

Cain Marko wrote:But is even more likely that IAF was not cleared to pursue past LOC (the recent book on the strikes confirms that Cmd Abhinandan was repeatedly alerted to the danger of crossing the LOC, which suggests that the IAF was not cleared to chase and counter).

Actually Russian aircraft - due to restrictions on usage - are only allowed to engage enemy aircraft in Indian airspace onlee.

The Russians have a kill switch built in, which disables all systems on board, the moment Indian pilot flies into enemy airspace.

Cain Marko wrote:No action on IAF's part at all that shows eagerness to upgrade the BARs. It is very very likely that the BARS can do IRBIS levels of performance with a change in the TWT. In fact the BARS had demoed this in the 90s and the IRBIS is an evolution of that project. For all we know, such changes might've happened "below the radar" :)

There is nothing called Bars radar inside a Su-30. It is a puppet monkey controlled via remote from Moscow by Putin himself.

Those evil Russians fooled us again. Shame on us to get repeatedly fooled like this.

By the way, below is example of said puppet monkey that sits inside the nose cone of the Su-30MKI.

Image

Cain Marko wrote:It shouldn't be surprising that the Mk1 BARs equals a decent AESA set in some parameters at least. the RMAF had the choice of going the Shornet route with the Apg 79. But they preferred the BARs equipped MKK instead. In fact if there is one thing that the IAF simply is smugly quiet about and has tried to maintain a level of secrecy about, it is the performance of the BARs.

Do the Russians even know the full form of the abbreviation that is AESA?

Cain Marko wrote:samajhdar ko ishara kaafi hai.

When frustration sets in, this is what happens.

Deeply frustrated over India not falling into Amreeka's arms and thus extrapolating theories & knitting yarns that are not founded in reality. Now I just read for entertainment onlee.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4868
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Sep 2021 11:10

Rakesh wrote:Actually Russian aircraft - due to restrictions on usage - are only allowed to engage enemy aircraft in Indian airspace onlee.

The Russians have a kill switch built in, which disables all systems on board, the moment Indian pilot flies into enemy airspace.


There is nothing called Bars radar inside a Su-30. It is a puppet monkey controlled via remote from Moscow by Putin himself.

Those evil Russians fooled us again. Shame on us to get repeatedly fooled like this.

By the way, below is example of said puppet monkey that sits inside the nose cone of the Su-30MKI..

Coffee spill moment was the bolded part Saar. Came outta the nose.. Now I'll have to use some Russki vodka to clean up and cry over my coffee. But then again, being what it is, I don't know if it'll work.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9070
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Pratyush » 14 Sep 2021 12:01

I read that section from Rakesh and for a brief moment I thought that his account was hijacked. But as I read more of his post. I was reassured that all is fine with the world. :rotfl:

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4868
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Sep 2021 12:10

Pratyush wrote:I read that section from Rakesh and for a brief moment I thought that his account was hijacked. But as I read more of his post. I was reassured that all is fine with the world. :rotfl:

Yeah. For a moment I too wondered. I thought surely the mithai had something to do with it. :wink: Some lines were pure gold...
Please Sirjee. Don't say stuff like this. You will hurt the sentiments and feelings :mrgreen:


:lol: :mrgreen:

vikassh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 14:09

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby vikassh » 14 Sep 2021 14:56

Cain Marko wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:
Without knowing the relevant details we can easily come to wrong conclusions in an online forum.

Agreed .
So why didn't the IAF take first shot? It could've simply been ROE that restricted IAF from doing so. From what we understand, the TSPAF took the shot and bolted thereby presenting the IAF receding targets and reducing the IAF BVR missile kill range considerably. This is NOT a reflection on the BARS. But it is possible that we couldn't engage with the missiles available to us vs. receding targets. Note the emphasis on meteor and other longer ranged BVRAAM purchases since. And this includes purchases of fnf BVRs like R77.

- samajhdar ko ishara kaafi hai.


+100
There is another point that I remember from the detailed discussion that we had post the event. It's related to superior training and understanding of your weapon. I think superior training first helped the Avengers to dodge the incoming AIMs and since they were already fired, they should have taken steps to fire back. But having good discipline and knowing when to fire your weapon is part of professional forces.

Taking a similar analogy, I remember I read some where (may be one of the accounts of failed IPKF Jaffna raid) that special forces units fire bullets only when they are sure of their targets. They do not fire just for the heck of it.

Our pair should have realized that firing blanks (costly resources) in air is not going to help. It just shows lack of discipline and poor understanding of your weapon in hand.

ernest
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 15:35

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby ernest » 14 Sep 2021 22:04

Rakesh wrote:Within this decade itself, the IAF will start reorienting to this one niche technology among others. There were always be manned combat units, that will not change. But exceeding 42 manned units will not happen. The political and financial realities state otherwise. And the IAF knows this. Just because they are politically silent, does not mean that they are dumb or stupid. They know 42 itself is unobtanium. But niche technologies like this is where the IAF is now going to focus on.

HAL's CATS Warrior With Group Captain Harsh Vardhan Thakur, VM (Retd)



Quoting from Chinese Armed Forces thread.

Going through this excellent interview once again, I could not stop dreaming of seeing the same on the MKI. As the CATS program is built with 2-seaters in mind like the Tejas LIFT/MAX, the MKI appears to be the obvious and beefier candidate. The Air Force would logically want to take the full advantage of the 2-man crew that they chose for our Flanker.

An upgraded MKI-MAX with 5 HUnter + 5 Alfa + self defence Astra mk1/2/3 AAms, controlling 4 Warriors would be a smart strike monster. The Uttam++ that will find its way to the upgrade will be great to provide updates for the UAVs, while our Rambha stays out of NEZs of enemy BVRAAMs. Will make the MKI a full Swadeshi atmanirbhar aircraft. Hope to see this in ~2025 time frame.

PS: If this is incorporated in the upgrade, the MKI can easily do without an engine upgrade. HAL sees that, and hence would like to keep the current engine that it can manufacture from raw materials. Going for as much indginzation as possible.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11745
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Rakesh » 14 Sep 2021 22:10

ernest, my dil is khush that you get it. Kudos to you Sirjee!

Srutayus
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 05:53

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Srutayus » 14 Sep 2021 22:42

An upgraded MKI-MAX with 5 HUnter + 5 Alfa + self defence Astra mk1/2/3 AAms, controlling 4 Warriors would be a smart strike monster. The Uttam++ that will find its way to the upgrade will be great to provide updates for the UAVs, while our Rambha stays out of NEZs of enemy BVRAAMs. Will make the MKI a full Swadeshi atmanirbhar aircraft. Hope to see this in ~2025 time frame.


The MKI will be the closest to the Turbokat that a fighter can get to. Unmatchable power, agility, payload, 2 -seater, and brutally powerful but sheer good looks!

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11745
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Rakesh » 14 Sep 2021 22:47

Cain Marko wrote:Coffee spill moment was the bolded part Saar. Came outta the nose.. Now I'll have to use some Russki vodka to clean up and cry over my coffee. But then again, being what it is, I don't know if it'll work.

Pratyush wrote:I read that section from Rakesh and for a brief moment I thought that his account was hijacked. But as I read more of his post. I was reassured that all is fine with the world. :rotfl:

When folks come into a discussion with a bias that Russian maal is all crap and worthless, it is then impossible to make one believe anything.

As the proverb goes, "'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." At that stage, all you do is nod and smile. Stroke the Ego.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9070
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Pratyush » 15 Sep 2021 11:47

I watched the video last evening and was surprised that in the program 2 air vehicles are still classified. The program is quite ambitious will be a nice force enabler.

The best part is that they are not reinventing the wheel. They are using the capacity already available to HAL and packaging that in different formats to arrive at different solutions.

A sign of maturity and confidence.

However, I have a feeling that given our threat perception, 3000 such vehicles have to be the absolute floor. Not the ceiling.

PS I hope that HAL is also working on an unmanned penetrating buddy tanker powered by 2 HTFE 25s. Capacity of 10000 pounds of transfer fuel at 500 kms from base.

Will be quite a big force multiplier. 250 of those could be acquired quite cheaply given Indian cost structure.

ShivS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 19 Apr 2019 23:25

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby ShivS » 15 Sep 2021 14:35

An AESA radar offer a lot, and the team is working towards an expanded footprint Uttam but the MKI upgrade is far too important to be delayed for just that.

For the first 3/5 squadrons IRBIS will be fine and the upgrade will still be extremely potent.

Interesting question is whether TVC should be removed from 2/3 squadrons that are the designated Brahmos or AWACS killers - save nearly 1 ton of weight and a huge gain in reducing servicing requirements.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4868
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Sep 2021 22:52

Rakesh wrote:ernest, my dil is khush that you get it. Kudos to you Sirjee!

Totally forgot that the CATS program also has an a2a component. That can change everything. What a force multiplier. Good call Ernest.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20115
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Karan M » 18 Sep 2021 19:16

ldev wrote:
Karan M wrote:Your ranges are all over the place because they dont take into account the differing RCS of these various platforms, and even if they were cent per cent correct, they still put the Bars as capable of guiding AAMs into the respective targets at range. Tracking ranges for the Bars arent that different from the detection range, its more a question of keeping the target in sight long enough to build up a track.

My last on this. If PESA was the all that great, the IAF would not insist on an AESA radar for the MMRCA competition which resulted in the Rafale acquisition.


You literally don't seem to have any idea about the topic whatsoever, but are confidently making all sorts of predictions and prognostications. It would be amusing but for the amount of time wasted in responding to your confused statements.

PESA comes in various forms and flavors. The Bars was an intermediate stage between the MSA and AESA array with additional technology used to make a PESA with individual receivers in each receive stick in the antenna, allowing it to have excellent sensitivity.

Of course the IAF wants AESA, they are more reliable and offer more modes than a conventional single RF source driven radar. That does not mean they'll take a powerful PESA as on the Su-35 with nonchalance!

The Rafale's first tranche itself came with PESA till they could make an AESA.

You also don't seem to understand the topic at all. Scan angles matter. A Su-30 with Irbis can take a shot at its opponent, and then continue to track the target while going a full +120 degrees off boresight, making the opponents BVR shot lose energy while it continues to maneuver. Its not merely about AESA, PESA etc but also how the technology is implemented.


For the APG 77, one of the criteria was a 86 percent probability of getting tracking quality data in a single pass at it's maximum range. So no need for dwell time.


This is a perfect example of half knowledge and jargon max. All radars have dwell time! Radars operate on the basis of putting enough RF energy on a target, thats the "dwell". On top of it, they have to build a track file. In what manner and form can a radar build a track file with one pass when the target can go in any direction thereafter? That's how the information is computed and shown. Don't mix that up with the tracking mode itself, in which mode, every other radar can get weapons quality data for its ARH equipped missiles. What exactly do you think tracking information is anyhow?

And for your kind information, all radars specify a probability at specific ranges. You think this is some amazing thing you discovered. Its like the most basic thing to check for in radar development.

Those are the kind of performance metrics one should strive for. This is possible with AESA and hence my position that Bars should be replaced ASAP with Uttam rather than Irbis E. Clearly the first gen Uttam may not achieve that kind of tracking data fidelity but it will be a start which can be improved iteratively.


"Clearly the first generation Uttam may not achieve yada yada yada". Did the Uttam designers personally call you and inform you about its performance at different ranges. The Uttam is actually India's 4th airborne functional radar. India already has operational AESA modes via the Netra.

You are busy speculating about everyday figures and specifications as if they are magic sauce whilst ignoring the actual details of what makes AESAs special.

What makes you think Uttam doesnt have a specific probability function for a specific range? Do you seriously think they dont have that or that they need you to tell them it varies by different criteria and is specified for a variety of conditions?

If the tracking range for the Bars is the same as the detection range, the end result of the day after Balakot would have been different. After all the IAF recovered AAMRAMS fired from 100 km away which landed in Indian territory. But supposedly the SU-30s never got a "firing solution" at that same range.


This is again yet another example of muddled logic. Do you not even realize that a firing solution is not computed by the radar but the weapons computer taking into account the armament carried by the aircraft, and its a dynamic plot, constantly changing to boot?

This, when the IAF chief is on record stating that the R-77s had a range differential and had to be replaced with Astra? This is again referenced by credible accounts of the incident in AVM Subramaniam's account.

My ranges are all over the place because the detection range will vary with the rcs of the target.


If you had the ability to actually check your own sources you'd realize there is no RCS data quoted for the ranges you quoted! A F-16 can vary from anywhere between 5 sq mtr + with DTs and weapons to a 1 sq mtr target depending on RCS treatment. You are quoting early test results and muddling them up with radar ranges of a Bars variant available circa 2012, when its final production variant was finalized. On top of it, you dont even have an idea of what different radar modes are and how they function.

And saying "fighter size" target is also misleading. Bars may detect a J-11 or an F-15 at 270 km because both of those fighters have an rcs of 10 sq m +. But an F-16 has an rcs of less than 3 sq m, some say it is 1.2-1.8 sq m. Obviously the detection range will be reduced in such a scenario. The fundamental problem is that the SU-30 has an rcs of 10 sq m vs most other fighters today which have significantly smaller rcs. So those opposing fighters need a smaller/less powerful radar to detect the SU-30 whereas the SU-30 needs a more powerful radar to detect each other at equivalent distances. Also, given it's huge rcs the SU-30 by default needs an ECM pod when venturing into a hostile environment and hence the pictures of SU-30s with the SAP-518 flying in Ladakh last year.


What you dont seem to even understand here is that the Su-30 radar is far more powerful than those on it's comparable peers. Your non AESA F-16 radar has a measly range vs the Su-30s, so even without ECM the Su-30s radar with its clean profile and only weapons, head on, can easily hold its own vs a loaded F-16 with a less powerful radar and weapons and DTs hanging off its pylons. You don't even seem to understand how RCS works!

A loaded F-16 at 5 sq mtr will be detected at ~80% of the range a 14 sq mtr Su-30 (loaded with far more to make the equation even more conservative will). Where is the great advantage of low RCS? That advantage comes in only when one goes LO/VLO.

Of course the Su-30 will fly with a SAP-518 when it must. Same reason a F-16 will do likewise! Why wouldn't they take the option of taking the opponents radar completely off the table if they could. A SAP-518 size SPJ unit is anyhow capable of far more than a smaller system given its likely power output.

The IAF has 270 of these planes which is an enormous sunk cost. RCS reduction measures can only go so far and so increasingly it will have that handicap in air to air encounters as adversary radars and sensors increase in performance over the years. IMO the SU-30 in the IAF should play to it's strengths i.e. payload and range. And more and more strike weapons should be developed and integrated into it for long range strike escorted by Rafales.


The IAF has 270 of these aircraft which offer phenomenal sensor reach and coverage, way beyond most of their peers.

They have a 1 mtr dia dish, which if you actually knew about radar performance would realize allows them to maximize performance even without having to pump out more power and get detected earlier. The same reason the F-15 continues to be a lethal adversary in air to air combat and is retained by the USAF and can pass radar data to more discreet fighters to take undetected shots.

An IAF Mirage pilot on the Flanker vs F-16 post Astra

“Su-30 has its advantage in employment in certain areas and Mirage 2000 in certain areas. Together they make a very potent force. Being part of the same side, comparison of both is meaningless. But I can say this, head to head, Su-30 or Mirage 2000 are greatly superior to the Viper, and the reason is very simple, both are later designs than the Viper. They are not underpowered like the Viper and have better weapon range and radar range.”


“I haven’t flown the Su-30, however what I can say is Su-30 in the air is a nightmare for many because of its tremendous capability… because of its radar range, weapon range and load-out.”


Its a unique advantage which no other fighter possesses in the IAF and will allow them to continue to be the eyes and ears of the IAF fleet. Post upgrades they will likely far outperform the Rafale in this key aspect. We are only getting 36 Rafales for now. The Su-30s with Astra won't be escorted by Rafale in most scenarios, but will self-escort.

AnYway, my last on this. Let us hope that in the next encounter the results are the SU-30s going on the offensive whether vs the F-16s or J-11s or J-10s.


Thankfully. I hope next time you post, you at least understand the topic before wasting my time by engaging in diatribes.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2155
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby ldev » 18 Sep 2021 19:25

As I said, my last on the subject. Will not respond to personal attacks. As to whether your faith in the SU-30 as currently configured is justified will be borne out the next time there is a confrontation between the IAF either vs China or Pakistan.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20115
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Karan M » 18 Sep 2021 19:36

ldev wrote:As I said, my last on the subject. Will not respond to personal attacks. As to whether your faith in the SU-30 as currently configured is justified will be borne out the next time there is a confrontation between the IAF either vs China or Pakistan.


I have not made any personal attacks. Dont make unfounded accusations - I wont stand for them.

But I have pointed out that you have done next to no research on the topic - and as such, you are attempting to mislead folks with confused claims and dubious mixed up statements.

The same way you confidently stated that unlike the west India doesnt have the capability to engage in third party designation etc when its been a key capability in Astra and other platforms besides. Or the fact that you didnt even know the amount of time a radar beam spends on a target is called dwell time. This may have little to do with you as a person, but has everything to do with how shoddy your argument on the topic is, because you just want to win the argument and give two figs about data accuracy. For instance taking random internet quotes about an early Bars variant and insisting that it is the same as the in-production Bars which was tested and cleared over a decade later.

Nor am I going to ask for conflict merely to point out how mistaken your thoughts on the matter are. That's beyond bizarre, and if i were you i'd seriously re-evaluate how to approach the topic under discussion.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2155
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby ldev » 18 Sep 2021 19:59

Karan M wrote:Or the fact that you didnt even know the amount of time a radar beam spends on a target is called dwell time.

You didn't even read my post properly did you? I have specifically used the phrase "dwell time". And you assume that I don't know what dwell time is?

There are lots of others e.g your assumption that I am not aware of the difference between PESA and AESA or that I am not aware that the first Rafale with an AESA radar is the F3 standard and that Rafale's upto the F2 standard were outfitted with the RBE2 or the importance of FOV for a fighter radar or that scan sensitivity reduces at the extreme range of the scan angle. Where I disagree with you is on the relative merits of the benefit of an increased FOV which the Bars has vs the relative ease compared to a AESA with which it can be detected and jammed coupled with the bigger rcs of the SU-30 vs any of the opposing fighters it is likely to come up against other than the Chinese variants of the same. You believe that notwithstanding these inherent disadvantages of a PESA, that the power output of the Bars, the advantage of the wider view FOV, the ECM ability of the SAP-518 will prevail. I have a different view and I disagree. That's it.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20115
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Karan M » 18 Sep 2021 20:30

ldev wrote:You didn't even read my post properly did you? I have specifically used the phrase "dwell time". And you assume that I don't know what dwell time is?

Your direct quote.

For the APG 77, one of the criteria was a 86 percent probability of getting tracking quality data in a single pass at it's maximum range. So no need for dwell time.


Yes, the APG77 is a magic radar whose beam doesnt even dwell on the target in any mode whatsoever. Do you understand that maximum ranges are calculated when the radar is able to paint the target at least with a significant amount of RF energy?

And the probability which you are quoting as a great achievement above. Do you know what the current standard is for most inducted systems?

Here you go. Its the exact opposite of what you stated.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ray_Radars
Alert–confirm detection is a highly efficient method to improve phased array radar search performance. It comprises sequential detection in two steps: alert detection, in which a target is detected at a low detection threshold, and confirm detection, which is triggered by alert detection with a longer dwell time to minimize false alarms. This paper provides a design method for applying the alert–confirm detection to multifunctional radars. We find optimum dwell times and false alarm probabilities for each alert detection and confirm detection under the dual constraints of total false alarm probability and maximum allowable dwell time per position. These optimum values are expressed as a function of the mean new target appearance rate. The proposed alert–confirm detection increases the maximum detection range even with a shorter frame time than that of uniform scanning.


So what next. AESAs are special radars that dont even need to behave like basic systems? So now I hope you understand that the high probability you quoted above likely came with a *high* dwell time. And that so called weapons quality "ping" is useless unless the pilot waits, watches for a proper track (he will use the radar to paint a proper picture of what's going on or receive data linked info) and then release one of his scarce AAMs. That is the creation of a tracking file. Do you now understand the difference between the two? A radar cannot function without dwelling on a target. And a so called weapons quality ping achieved in one scan is next to meaningless especially if the opponent is maneuvering hard and has not committed to a course of action.

There are lots of others e.g your assumption that I am not aware of the difference between PESA and AESA or that I am not aware that the first Rafale with an AESA radar is the F3 standard and that Rafale's upto the F2 standard were outfitted with the RBE2 or the importance of FOV for a fighter radar or that scan sensitivity reduces at the extreme range of the scan angle. Where I disagree with you is on the relative merits of the benefit of an increased FOV which the Bars has vs the relative ease compared to a AESA with which it can be detected and jammed


Can you please tell me as to what are the specific tests undertaken to see how a radar is jammed and how exactly it is jammed? If so, you'd realize why the Irbis is such a problem to deal with. Again, the fact that you don't even seem to understand how much of a threat it is, beyond its FOV (which you didnt even address in the original argument but are now stating otherwise) makes me wonder.

How exactly by the way are we going to measure jamming effectiveness vis a vis maneuvering fighters when most jammers operate in the forward and rear quadrant and the opponent fighter with a SPJ will find it hard to keep pointing its EW suite towards a Su-35 when its seeking to avoid a RVV-BD headed its way? And do you seriously think jamming a 20 kw peak power radar, with a 900mm dish, is easy? The Bars with its 4-5 Kw radar with a 1 mtr dish is no joke either. Do you realize that most of the opponent radars have lower power output and 45% less overall area? Its only the Chinese Flankers and J-20s which can go toe to toe with such a system, which is why the SAP-518 was brought out.

coupled with the bigger rcs of the SU-30 vs any of the opposing fighters it is likely to come up against other than the Chinese variants of the same.


You keep saying this and don't even look at the math. A 5sq mtr fighter is detected at 80% of the range of the loaded Su-30 - taking your numbers of a baseline Su-30 at 10 sq mtr + another 4 for weapons etc. Where is the so called advantage of the lower RCS of the F-16 or J-10 or JF-17?

You believe that notwithstanding these inherent disadvantages of a PESA, that the power output of the Bars, the advantage of the wider view FOV, the ECM ability of the SAP-518 will prevail. I have a different view and I disagree. That's it.


No, I have not quoted the power output of the current Bars in isolation, as its USP at all. In fact, i have pointed out the power-aperture product of the Bars is maximized because of a simple fact that it has a large antenna. It does not need to put out as much power because of the same and that comes with a host of advantages! The Russians focused on antenna design, at the cost of making it heavy, unwieldy, and with the requirement of additional gimbals to get an additional 30 deg of scan on both sides. They were ok with the trade-off and so was the IAF.

Again, these are basics which you don't seem to understand, and how complex radar design is. The Russians are not amateurs and neither were we when we took the system. If the Russians now offer us a higher power source to go along with the antenna, it like the Irbis, can have its performance boosted. That's what the Irbis did. It took the Bars backend, added new RF sources with a lighter (but less capable) antenna which could swivel around more and came up with a system, the Chinese were all too glad to get their hands on.

Furthermore, you don't even seem to understand that the SAP-518 is far more powerful than the Su-30s size allows for. Its clearly meant for more than just masking the RCS of the Su-30 but reducing the range of opponent FCRs to a minimum. The Israelis were happy enough with the EL/L-8222 on their F-15s. Compare and contrast to the SAP-518 and you'll understand why the IAF doesnt even feel the need to cart it around for everyday opponents.

And nor am I saying we shouldn't upgrade the Su-30, of course we should. But there is a good reason the IAF is taking its time to evaluate alternatives, and that's because the current radar is still able to hack it vs most of its near threat peers. The situation can change tomorrow, so the clock is ticking, but there is a good reason the MKI has done so well in most exercises vs even NATO level AF. There are multiple options available.

The IAF may well choose the most cost effective path, which is to just upgrade Bars and keep it viable till a new Uttam variant is ready. Or they may prefer to wait for Uttam. But with the SAP-518, the Bars and Astra combo is pretty potent against even the new PRC Flankers which is implied by how methodically the IAF is proceeding with the upgrade. They've focused on the weapons first and foremost.

You are welcome to disagree all you want, but make factual, data based arguments.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 26283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby chetak » 18 Sep 2021 20:46

Karan M wrote:
ramana wrote:KaranM About 20 such landing straps with fuel bowers and ammo tenders are being created in appropriate stretches between air bases.


Excellent news. Hope its extended further.


with the shaheenbagh species keenly watching and reporting every move, no

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20115
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Postby Karan M » 18 Sep 2021 20:53

chetak wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Excellent news. Hope its extended further.


with the shaheenbagh species keenly watching and reporting every move, no


Cant maintain constant vigil on these recovery tracks as they will be used quickly and used to re-surge the aircraft to another airfield. At the end of the day, we havent moved beyond our AFB approach, these are just backups. Those AFB are anyhow monitored so we do take that into account with diversions and deception (to whatever extent).


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anoop, brar_w and 60 guests