Su-30: News and Discussion

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 10 Aug 2011 12:04

Actually, it was me who asked the RAF Chief that question at RIAT at Fairford a few weeks back ... not sure why someone else took the credit !!!

And he said the Sukhois were beaten ... to which I said "Really Sir?" but didn't push it any further because I do not know the results of the engagements of the last exercises in Kalaikunda other than one very credible source telling me "we did just fine."

Cheers
Vishnu

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2011 03:35

Could the MKI borrow the engine inlet of the PAK-FA? Is it thinkable or not at all possible? If thinkable, what could be the estimated cost?

Just a serious pass-time question.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Aug 2011 03:51

why do you need pak-fa inlets for mki? what is needed is the radar blocker assembly that has been designed for pak-fa, and that is definitely IAF will seek after. I am sure it can be fixed and the rear turning wheel can be engaged when we are on stealth mode [say on receive mode than scan mode]. Some modifications may be required to house it., and still maintain the same inlet flow that it had earlier.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2011 05:59

Well................. let us see.

The inlet is already designed and implemented - I assume for a reason. I am just wondering if this reason will benefit the MKI too.

Whatever this blocker you mention is on the design board I assume.

So, why not see if what is already implemented will work for the MKI? When the blocker comes, then whatever happens, happens.

??? So, any idea if the inlet will benefit the MKI?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Aug 2011 08:48

from radar reflection PoV, it is 100% yes. It will help reduce RCS. Regarding other RCS reduction, permeable composites and internal deflection skins all around can greatly reduce mki RCS, is my thought.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Aug 2011 09:51

Su-35 aero display at MAKS , 3D TVC coming into good effect

Video link Su-35 MAKS

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Aug 2011 10:07

the F18 style radar blocker on Su30 inlets would reduce frontal rcs somewhat. but IAF would have done careful study and maybe they found the rest of RCS is big enough for this not to matter, and might affect engine envelope.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 18 Aug 2011 10:26

Sorry if already posted and discussed

Indian Sukhoi 30MKI to be upgraded into “Super Sukhoi”

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 18 Aug 2011 11:10

narayana wrote:Sorry if already posted and discussed

Indian Sukhoi 30MKI to be upgraded into “Super Sukhoi”

If the MMRCA contract grinds to a halt for whatever reason, the Super Sukhoi could be the replcement?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 18 Aug 2011 11:17

I dont think so, to meet Chene and Pak threats, we need to induct about 500 aircraft between, LCA, SU-30 and MMRCA in addition to Mig-29 and M-2K upgrade in the period 2010-20.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 18 Aug 2011 11:40

Aditya_V wrote:I dont think so, to meet Chene and Pak threats, we need to induct about 500 aircraft between, LCA, SU-30 and MMRCA in addition to Mig-29 and M-2K upgrade in the period 2010-20.

@ Aditya

What other choice would we have?

I believe the Gripen, from a chaiwallah, performed better at high altitude, than the US or the MiG

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 18 Aug 2011 11:49

I was rather refering to MMRCA grinding to a halt. I dont think the IAF has a choice and none of the suppliers would want it to grind to a halt. too much is as at stake for us.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Aug 2011 12:24

$1B for upgrading 100 Super-Flankers.That too for a two-seater aircraft with two cockpits to be upgraded.Compare that with upgrading the M-2000 for an absurd $2.5B.I am sure that somewhere in the future,we may see this costly upgrade being questioned a la Bofors....!

Nevertheless,this upgrade to Super-Flanker avatar,so that the aircraft can carry Brahmos will give it a quantum leap for the IAF especially when we consider that we will have at least 250+ aircraft in this configuration,leading to the FGFA later on.As for the "cost-effective" MIG-35s,there was an excellent idea by a member in the naval thread about acquiring some more MIG-29Ks,which are also being offered with AESA/TVC upgrades for later orders,which could perform maritime strike ops based at naval air stations guarding our southern peninsula (just as the PLAN and Russian navy use land based figheters too) apart from the carriers,and allow the IAF to concentrate its depleted assets to combat China and Pak on our borders with those entities.By "outsourcing" some of the less demanding responsibilities to the IN's Fleet Air Arm,the two services would be able to "pool" their aviation resources to effect a force-multiplying factor,plus it would also allow a larger inventory of carrier fighters available for the IN's carriers ,a larger number of them always operational and greater numbers available in any crisis,for war reserves,etc.Maintaining them will not be aproblem as the manufacturers have set up at Nasik a dedicated MIG-29 support facility for both IAF MIG-29UGs and IN MIG-29Ks,whose numbers will at current orders/projections together number around 120+

Until the IAF is able to restore the required numerical number of 45+ sqds.,it is going to be under great strain to meet all its challenges especially with an assertive China,now openly on the ground in POK,adding to Pak's strike capability and a rapidly growing PAF acquiring new F-16s and a hundreds of cost-effective PRC JF-17s and J-10s,with 50+ being given away for free! The ideal solution is for it to operate fewer new types as far as possible.There is a direct progress/commonality factor from the SU-30MKIs to the FGFA,with upgraded Flankers using tech/systems and weapons meant for the FGFA.The capabilities of the Super-Fankers on paper at least appear to be superior to the MMRCAs and both aircraft (if a decision is made this year on the MMRCA) appear to be arriving at the same time.It will gvie the IAF a good opportunity to evaluate both in the Indian context and asssess how many of each type are required.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 Aug 2011 17:25

Whatever stops IN from ordering ~4 Squadron worth of SU-30MKI for shore based strike and to provide air-cover to ships? Something like the Marinefliegergeschwader with Tornado IDS of German Navy?

Just imagine the kind of cover it will give us - with AAR a/c, AWACS and LRMP, and given its own long legs and payload capacity, it would form a formidable force. There are no areas on either the western or eastern coast which cannot be covered with these aircraft(s). There could not be a clear message on the intent to dominate the IOR with such a development.

John · Post by **John** » 18 Aug 2011 17:40

rohitvats wrote:Whatever stops IN from ordering ~4 Squadron worth of SU-30MKI for shore based strike and to provide air-cover to ships? Something like the Marinefliegergeschwader with Tornado IDS of German Navy?

IAF can provide air support for any vessels, navy would be better of procuring more 29Ks or Naval-LCA to operate even from shore rather than introducing a another platform to the mix. And also they can operate from carriers if need be.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 Aug 2011 18:28

Question is - how many resources can the IAF spare? In the entire matrix, IAF has grand total of one dedicated squadron for Maritime Strike.

And while the same may make sense at present (considering the TSPN assets and PLAN footprint in IOR), the requirement is only going to grow. We will need assets to deter entry into IOR at both ends of geographical spread. Also, land based attack a/c offer flexibility with-out bringing in the Carriers into picture. The Air Arm of IN needs to reach where its MPR can go now (not the Bear). IAF is know to maintain dets in A&N - in due course of time the responsibility is only groing to grow - either the IAF will need to ramp up or IN Air Arm. I'd like to see IN responsible for the triads of Maritime Security.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 19 Aug 2011 01:34

How is "Super Sukhoi" program different from "Super-30" upgrade?

Secondly, does it make sense to upgrade future HAL aircraft vs simply building them to the new specification?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 19 Aug 2011 08:06

AWST is reporting negotiations for 40 new (?) MKI.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Aug 2011 09:39

Su-35 Display at MAKS

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 19 Aug 2011 10:18

i am little confused with Super Sukhoi or Super 30, so put it together both and we will find Su 34 fullback capability in Both.

AESA radar
heavy cruise missile carrier with upgraded airframe
Extended Maritime strike capability with Better engine

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 19 Aug 2011 10:30

rohitvats wrote:Whatever stops IN from ordering ~4 Squadron worth of SU-30MKI for shore based strike and to provide air-cover to ships? Something like the Marinefliegergeschwader with Tornado IDS of German Navy?

Just imagine the kind of cover it will give us - with AAR a/c, AWACS and LRMP, and given its own long legs and payload capacity, it would form a formidable force. There are no areas on either the western or eastern coast which cannot be covered with these aircraft(s). There could not be a clear message on the intent to dominate the IOR with such a development.

Not in the IN mandate.

Will tread very painfully on some already sensitive toes

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 Aug 2011 12:11

chetak wrote: <SNIP>

Not in the IN mandate.

Will tread very painfully on some already sensitive toes

In terms of IAF versus IN mandate? Or does the GOI does not want to send out too strong a message with such a development?

Thanks.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Aug 2011 21:01

It is a wonderful platform to try out all next generation stealth composite air frames..

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 19 Aug 2011 23:23

would these upgrades be also available to chinese mkk's too ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Aug 2011 23:34

parshuram wrote:would these upgrades be also available to chinese mkk's too ?

Yes.

Via hacking.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Aug 2011 19:37

rohitvats wrote:In terms of IAF versus IN mandate? Or does the GOI does not want to send out too strong a message with such a development?

The IAF mandate. Providing the IN is given the required funding, they would be glad to add it in their fleet. However that would seriously piss off the air force. The Rambha is their baby and they would not want a sister service pissing in their turf. However the since the GOI has no balls, they will tell the IN (that is if the IN wanted it) what I have stated above, only in much nicer language

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Aug 2011 19:59

Rakesh wrote: The IAF mandate. Providing the IN is given the required funding, they would be glad to add it in their fleet. However that would seriously piss off the air force. The Rambha is their baby and they would not want a sister service pissing in their turf. However the since the GOI has no balls, they will tell the IN (that is if the IN wanted it) what I have stated above, only in much nicer language

Thanks for the exaplanation.

Time and again we've discussed about difficulty of operating anywhere in South China Sea due to the air-leg of PLAN/PLAAF (mainly fighters). A development on similar lines would give tremendous boost to the reach and power of India and add to the perception of muscle power of India in the region.

While it is certain that IAF has definite plans in place for maritime operations and dominance - given the A&N centered exercies and news about SU-30MKI det periodically based in A&N - but it represents a very miniscule level of force. While this might be sufficient in present terms, as the requirement grows in numbers and complexity, far more resources will be required.

For example, when we finally manage to raise a dedicated Brigade level Battle Group (with both IN and IA assets in place), the same will require dedicated air-support element as well. For real out-of-area contigencies, IN CBG may do the needfull, but in case of operations in IOR, land based SU-30MKI can provide the required support. Or, consider amphib assault on paki coastline - the amount of air-support required will be pretty large, what with CAP and CAS/IDS required both on sustained basis. How many assets might the IAF be willing to lease out in such case?

Then, there is the case of infra to sustain operations out of Peninsular India. In IAF's scheme of things, the action is towards northern periphery of Peninsular India. I'm not sure how much resources would IAF be willing to spare to develop dedicated bases in Southern India. IN already has bases and would be interested to develop additional ones - handing them Maritime Air Ops would allow for far higher synergy woth maritime ops.

But then, if wishes were horses....

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 20 Aug 2011 21:05

>>While it is certain that IAF has definite plans in place for maritime operations and dominance - given the A&N centered exercies and news about SU-30MKI det periodically based in A&N - but it represents a very miniscule level of force. While this might be sufficient in present terms, as the requirement grows in numbers and complexity, far more resources will be required.

Through educated guesses,IMO, LCA sqds to be deployed in South are also meant for Maritime role.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 22 Aug 2011 08:48

Is there anymore information on the "Stealth Su-30MKI" than what is given below:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/t ... LU+Roadmap

After the F-15 Silent eagle its time for Su-30MKI to disapear out of the
radar. There have been reports that Russias UAC (United Aircraft
Corporation) and Indias HAL (Hindustan Aeronotics Limited) are developing
the Smart Skin concept for Su-30MKI.

By 2014, UAC together with HAL will begin upgrading the first 100 IAF
Su-30MKIs by modifying their airframes to make them stealthy, converting
the existing Bars into an active phased-array radar, enhancing the
situational awareness by incorporating active electronically scanned
transmit/receive arrays on the aircrafts wings and pumping up the
defensive-aids suite by installing a combined radar/laser warning system
and a missile approach warning system.

Glad if someone has any info confirming this and any additional info?

Thanks

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Aug 2011 11:10

How many billions will the stealth upgrade cost for the SU 30.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 22 Aug 2011 12:34

rajanb wrote: http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/t ... LU+Roadmap

Glad if someone has any info confirming this and any additional info?

bit old but contains good masala
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/201 ... ce-to.html

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 22 Aug 2011 13:38

Thanks Boreas.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 22 Aug 2011 16:54

Boreas wrote:
rajanb wrote: http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/t ... LU+Roadmap

Glad if someone has any info confirming this and any additional info?
bit old but contains good masala
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/201 ... ce-to.html

The planes have to go back to Irkutsk for the upgrade. So what exactly does HAL do with its 'Deep ToT License'? The article would imply that all HAL does is bolt on the wings after the planes are unloaded from the An-124. Is that what HAL is actually doing?

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 22 Aug 2011 17:12

Cosmo_R wrote:
The planes have to go back to Irkutsk for the upgrade. So what exactly does HAL do with its 'Deep ToT License'? The article would imply that all HAL does is bolt on the wings after the planes are unloaded from the An-124. Is that what HAL is actually doing?

I have been to HAL Nashik, plenty of times. And for extended periods. Those were the days when the MiG21/23/27 were being made there.

I would not call it ToT. ToT=ToP Transfer of Production.

They had presses and CNC machines. Got raw metals from Ru and shaped them and cut them to machine parts for those birds. There were areas where I, understandably, wasn't allowed to go to. So I can only surmise, that those were areas where all the western avionics were being retrofitted into the a/c. And possibly ground tests conducted. And other things done.

I know for sure that HAL had retrofitted the RWR onto the MiG21, which entailed minor modifications to the airframe to accomodate the recievers.

The engines came from Koraput. And my company colleagues from Bangalore/Hyderabad used to go there, but they weren't let into the production facilities.

FWIW,

Cheers

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 12 Sep 2011 16:06

From this link.

"
How is Irkut handling state defence orders?

We are working with the Sukhoi Design Bureau on an upgraded version of the Su-30MKI that will meet the requirements of Russia’s Air Force. Two units should be ready for testing later this year.

"

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 16 Sep 2011 05:00

My Photo of Wg Cdr Srivastav holding Rambha Inverted > http://Jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?ids=7195399 albeit for a fraction of a second

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Sep 2011 05:27

Cosmo_R wrote: The article would imply that all HAL does is bolt on the wings after the planes are unloaded from the An-124. Is that what HAL is actually doing?

Well guess where the bolts are made?

saip · Post by **saip** » 16 Sep 2011 05:40

shiv wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote: The article would imply that all HAL does is bolt on the wings after the planes are unloaded from the An-124. Is that what HAL is actually doing?
Well guess where the bolts are made?

China?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 Sep 2011 00:05

Belarus may buy the 18 Su-30K and MK fighters that were to have been exchanged with Russia in return for brand-new Su-30MKIs. the article explains how come there were some 8 of these older Su-30s still seen at Lohegaon AFS..10 are in Belarus and the remaining 8 will join soon. Wonder how much life is left on those airframes..Belarus AF could probably use these for another 10 years after the overhaul, so a temporary solution to tide them over a few years.

link to article

07:46 16/09/2011
MOSCOW, September 16 (RIA Novosti)

Eighteen Su-30K fighter jets which were delivered by Russia to India in the 1990s could end up in service with the Belarusian air force, respected Russian business daily Kommersant said on Friday.

Russia and India agreed on the sale of advanced Su-30MKI fighters to the Indian air force in mid-1990s, but Moscow had not been able to deliver the aircraft until early 2000. The sides found a compromise - the first 18 fighter jets were delivered in downgraded version, Su-30K, on condition that they would be returned to Russia after being replaced with Su-30MKI.

According to Kommersant, the aircraft were formally returned to Russia's Irkut aircraft corporation, but never touched the Russian soil and ended up in Belarus.

The first 10 jets have been recently delivered to an aircraft plant in Baranovichi for a deep overhaul to the Su-30KN version, Kommersant cited a source close to Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport. The remaining eight are expected to arrive in November.

The source said Belarus was interested in buying the Su-30K because the country cannot afford new aircraft and the deal could be very cheap.

According to Russian experts, the current price for an outdated Su-30K after depreciation is about $10 million. An overhaul would require an additional $5 mln per plane.

"To buy a heavy fighter for $15 mln is a real bargain," Kommersant quoted Ruslan Pukhov, the head of the Russian Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, as saying.

Despite the certain loss from such a deal, Irkut may be forced to sell the Su-30Ks to Belarus because the Russian Defense Ministry will not spend the money on old aircraft, and other potential buyers - Syria and Sudan - are out of the picture for political reasons.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Sep 2011 11:42

JaiS wrote:From this link.

"
How is Irkut handling state defence orders?

We are working with the Sukhoi Design Bureau on an upgraded version of the Su-30MKI that will meet the requirements of Russia’s Air Force. Two units should be ready for testing later this year.

"

Nice interview .... So all the upgrades of MKI will be capable of carrying brahmos under its belly , that would be awesome capability to have.