Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

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.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby SaiK » 23 Oct 2014 21:30

negi wrote:These accidental firing of seats did not happen in first couple of years of commissioning of the MKI , it would be interesting to see the batch number of both the air-frame as well as the NPP Zvezda K-36DM seats involved in the accidents . Btw do we know of similar accidents being reported for ACs which use the same seat ?

question to ask would also include the sensors - does the zero altitude and zero airspeed had errors-
for example:
http://aviation.about.com/od/Aircraft/a ... imeter.htm
check altimeter errors

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 23 Oct 2014 21:40

Why would who is responsible for what matter? As long as everyone does their jobs properly things should work.

Either the process is goofed up, the people are goofed up (not doing their jobs) or both. More than likely it is both.

The process should not be difficult to fix. People I would think is more challenging - bu that is fixable too.

The question: Does anyone want to fix it.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19516
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 23 Oct 2014 21:41

Looks to me the folks are back to making this a HAL vs IAF issue without even looking at the basic issue - the dsyfunctional MOD under St Antony and MMS.

An earlier post which claims that HAL hiring exIAF to maintain Sukhoi, is bad for the Su maintenance doesnt make any sense either. If folks were doing a good job maintaining the Su's, they wont be magically bad once they join HAL. In fact, its a good thing if HAL takes ex IAF and experienced folks.

This is no unique thing (PBL) proposed by HAL either. PBL is a std service now offered by many firms WW.

Besides, its the IAF looking to outsouce MRO requirements.
So not really a HAL conspiracy.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ts-370754/
"Our core MRO capability [Base Repair Depots [BRD]] will have to function as an interface with the industry. We're starting this with a select transport fleet," says Air Marshal J Chandra, Air Officer-in-chief for Maintenance Command of the Indian air force. BRDs carry out fourth line repair and maintenance of aircraft and equipment for the air force.


So why is it more a MOD level/GOI scre*up?

They limited funds available to the IAF. IAF wants combat power. So the IAF which is basically attempting to maximize unit acquisitions and purchases by staggering Opex and spares requirements.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/indian- ... t-iaf-buys

Several major military acquisition programs are feared to be affected by the cuts. The government has allocated 2.03 trillion rupees for defense in the current fiscal year, a modest hike of just more than 5% over the last year.

As the government scrambles to cut costs given the dismal growth rate, defense spending is one of the hardest hit areas, with the budget touching up to barely 1.79% of the country’s gross domestic product. This is a record low for India in at least three decades, with the figure dropping considerably from 3.16% of the GDP in 1987.

But a defiant defense minister says,”Though availability of funds shall never be an issue, we need to strictly observe austerity measures circulated by the Ministry of Finance. Efforts must be made to cut down expenditure on non-core activities and avoidable ceremonial formalities.”


Its not rocket science to figure out whats been happening. IAF wants to fund more purchases. Overall budget is limited, so juggling going on between maint and capex purchase heads to "manage" things & huge expansion of Su fleet.

Add the Russian delay in MRO facilities in India & you have the above situation.

Good news is at least the MRO facility build up & HAL spares build up should put a full 20 odd% back into service, but the IAF has to stock up on spares as well for further improvement.

Speaks of our dysfunctional system while all this was going on, the AW-101s were a priority item. No wonder SPTyagi didn't dwell much on serviceability issues in his talk on the conference.

Looks like under St Antony and "I luv Pakistan" MMS, all these issues just kept rising. While Joshi ji took the blame and resigned (unfairly), the others either faced ignominy (VK Singh) and were forced out, kept without power or were coopted (into Track 2 peacetalks) while the service requirements kept getting messed up.

But at least now, the issue can be addressed head on. A 70% serviceability level is well within striking range. Above and beyond requires IAF investment.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 23 Oct 2014 22:46

wig wrote:it appears that the seats have automatically ejected twice earlier. This has been fatal.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20141023/main1.htm


An interesting coincidence re premature ejection 8)

"At the heart of the defect is a faulty propellant that is intended to burn quickly and produce gas to inflate the airbag but instead is too strong and can rupture its container, shooting metal parts into the cabin. Takata recently conducted tests on airbags that had been returned, leading to Monday’s warning.

Mr. Friedman stressed that the warning was targeted especially to owners of vehicles in areas with high humidity, like Florida.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/busin ... .html?_r=0

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 23 Oct 2014 23:06

One other note on the MKI situation. The grounding of 200 jets or 1/3 of the fleet is a better argument for diversity rather the light/medium/heavy split.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 23 Oct 2014 23:44

IMHO, there was no major reasons for the MKI to land in this situation/predicament. Most, IMHO, is man made and was avoidable.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 24 Oct 2014 00:08

^^ On the contrary, this is exactly the reason one should not go for diversity - issues in multiple aircrafts are difficult to focus and resolve. Leaves a fleet whose reliability cannot be improved in a cost effective manner.

Just check reliability of cars which have had long production runs for example. Even the worst offender GM has a few long running models whose reliability beats Japanese cars - only reason been than issues have been ironed out through focus and time.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_20292 » 24 Oct 2014 00:13

NRao wrote:This plane was from 2002? So, the frame has taken the traditional beating that the IAF imparts (saw that is the previous planes -K). So, I very much doubt that any of the "skin" is of much value. The internals too are relatively old - heck this plane should have been ready for a MLU in the near future, I would think. They may use some as spares to tide them and perhaps save some funds.

Order a new one and be done. Or better yet save the funds for a FGFA.


I wish I could buy this in raddi for a farm house decoration piece :) :D

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 24 Oct 2014 13:55

Karan M wrote:<SNIP> Good news is at least the MRO facility build up & HAL spares build up should put a full 20 odd% back into service, but the IAF has to stock up on spares as well for further improvement.<SNIP>


Karan - as you've highlighted, this looks like a case of who bites the bullet with respect to expenditure on stocking spares.

HAL wants IAF to stock spares for 5-years worth of flying on their Su-30 fleet - taking the figures about spare parts consumed by way of fleet value quoted in the AS report (INR 3,450 crore per annum), IAF will need to have inventory worth INR 17,250 Crores at any given point in time. And repeat orders per annum of INR 3,450 crores to ensure this 5-year stocking threshold is maintained.

In Dollar terms (INR 60 exchange rate), that translates into inventory of USD 2.875 billion with annual purchase of USD 575 million... :shock:

Compared to this requirement, HAL does not even stock 12% of per annum requirement.

Frankly, I don't see how and why will IAF maintain an inventory of this humongous size in monetary value.

While trying to ascertain how spare parts are forecasted and stocked, this is what I could gather. The content is from a CDA document dated 2008 which deals with procurement and stockpiling of spares for IAF.

As per the document, there is a terms called - Maximum Potential Establishment (MPE).

It is described as under:

It is the level up to which various types of stores/equipment are authorized to be provisioned at any given time. This is expressed in terms of so many months of anticipated requirements and denotes the period ahead for which requirements of equipment must be provisioned in bulk. This is also known as the forward ordering period. The MPE or the provisioning levels are fixed with the
approval of the Government and form the basis for calculating future requirements except where ‘life of type’ provisioning has to be resorted to.

The MPE consists of the stocks required to be maintained at the depots and the quantity that will remain in the pipeline to keep the depot stocks replenished upto the authorized level. The MPE for any range of equipment is thus fixed both in relation to authorized level of holding in the depots and the procurement lead time. MPE is laid down for various ranges of equipment separately with due regard to their sources of supply and susceptibility to deterioration. The MPE for various ranges of Air Force equipment is given in Appendix to leaflet-1 of IAP-1541 is as under.

Non-perishable imported = 60 months (57 months in computerized environment) - For Class A stores
Non-perishable indigenous = 36 months - For Class A, B and C Stores
DGOEF items = 54 months
Perishable items (Except dry batteries) = 24 months
Dry batteries = 9 months
HAL items = 45 months


If we take the last line item of the above quoted article and HAL's statement as per AS's article, it means that HAL takes 45-60 months to manufacture various types of spare parts.

So, two things come to mind:
-----> Isn't that too big a lead time for HAL manufactured items if the work is being done indigenously?
-----> Unless, the entire spare set to be procured from HAL falls in last category, why should IAF have to store spares from HAL for 5-years?

Frankly, if you ask me, Ajai Shukla is presenting only one side of the story here w/o bothering to do any analysis on his own. Or, trying to ascertain facts. This seems to be in continuation of his earlier broadside at IAF on the HTT-40 case.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coming to this Performance Based logistics (PBL) offer by HAL - the question still remains: Who stores the inventory?

If I've understood the concept of PBL correctly, the vendor will have to work closely with user to ensure up time of the fleet and availability. Plus, there are some other metrics as well. And it is much more than simply ensuring delivery of the spare-part.

One of the benefits cited under PBL is that armed forces do not have to stock excess inventory - or even wrong inventory. Which brings us back to the same question.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One good data-point from that article is the spare part requirement for an a/c on a per-annum basis. Should help to compute some bit of life cycle cost. So, for a INR 385 crore procurement price for a Su-30MKI (at current value), the life cycle cost over 20-year period for only spare part component would be ~INR 480 crore (with 3% inflation on cost of spare parts in today's term).

The above, of course, does not take into account the deep Mid-Life Upgrades.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 24 Oct 2014 14:40

One more important observation on that article.

The HAL makes a pointed reference to 25 ED (Equipment Depot) of the IAF at Nasik. It is important to understand that ED store spare parts of 1st and 2nd line of maintenance. The equipment for 3rd line is stored at Base Repair Depot (BRD) level. Since, IAF BRD don't work on Su-30, the same is done at HAL.

The article says says that at any given point in time 32% of the fleet is undergoing maintenance with balance 12% awaiting spare parts to complete their maintenance cycle. Of this 32%, 20% is undergoing 1st and 2nd line maintenance at IAF.

What we don't know is whether this 12% on ground stat is for 1st/2nd line or 3rd line maintenance. But by the drift of the article, it seems like it is for 1st/2nd line level maintenance.

So, if IAF is placing piecemeal orders of only INR 50 crore for spare parts, how is it able to undertake even 1st and 2nd line service?

I see the situation as such:

1. Of the total amount required by way of maintenance, the most cost intensive would be third line maintenance. Presently being carried out by HAL for IAF. And something which BRD will take over in due course of time.

2. The 1st and 2nd line maintenance would amount to a low percentage of overall cost. They may very well account for high %age by way of items but cost will have to be low.

3. So, this INR 3 450 Crore figure has been used to sensationalize the whole issue.

4. There might well be a problem with spare part management by IAF - but the amount involved is unlikely to so high for 1st and 2nd line maintenance. But still, as per the article, the problem is with IAF's spare management system for 1st and 2nd line with IAF ordering piecemeal spare parts. And something which HAL wants IAF to store for 5-years.

5. The real analysis would be the %age share by value of INR 3,450 crore per annum requirement.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vipul » 25 Oct 2014 02:44

First Sukhoi-30 overhauled at Nashik, highlights HAL's growing capability.

Next week, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), Nashik will complete the first ever overhaul of a Sukhoi-30MKI fighter. HAL's test pilots will now test-fly the aircraft to ensure it has emerged from the overhaul as good as new. Indian Air Force (IAF) chief, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, has been invited to Nashik next month to accept the overhauled fighter back into his combat fleet.

HAL's new overhauling facility will save the IAF hundreds of crores of rupees, while giving leases of life to its Su-30MKIs. Not even Russia overhauls this fighter, a process that involves stripping it to its bare bones, checking every system and sub-system, replacing numerous components, and then reassembling the fighter anew.

A Su-30MKI is overhauled after flying 1,500 hours or 14 years, whichever is earlier. Over its total service life of 6,000 flying hours or 30-40 years, each fighter undergoes three overhauls. Eventually, the IAF's fleet of 272 Su-30MKIs will undergo 816 overhauls - three per fighter.

HAL officials say overhauling in India costs far less than what "original equipment manufacturers" or OEMs, charge - typically 35-40 per cent of the cost of a brand new fighter.

"OEMs usually price new fighters reasonably, but make their money by charging heavily for repair and overhaul. Establishing overhaul capability in India defeats this pricing strategy," says Wing Commander Neelu Khatri, a former IAF logistics specialist.

HAL Nashik also stands to benefit from business from other air forces that operate the Su-30. Says a MoD official; "Nashik is the world's only overhaul facility for the Su-30MKI. Potentially, it could get overhaul orders from countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, Algeria, etc, which fly variants of the Su-30".

Through years of building the Su-30MKI, HAL Nashik has gradually mastered the expertise that makes it one of the world's most feared fighters. Says the chief of HAL's Nashik facility, S Subrahmanyan: "More 51 per cent of the Su-30MKI by value is currently made in India, a little more than the 49 per cent agreed with Russia in the contract signed in 2000 to build 140 fighters in India. Of the 43,000 components that go into a Su-30MKI, 31,500 components - or 73 per cent - are now being built in India.

Further indigenisation is blocked since the Indo-Russian contract mandates that all raw material that goes into the Su-30MKI - including 5,800 titanium blocks and forgings, aluminium and steel plates, etc - must be sourced from Russia. The contract also stipulates that another 7,146 items like nuts, bolts, screws and rivets :shock: must be sourced from Russia.

HAL has also partially indigenised the Su-30MKI's giant AL-31FP engines, which are built in Koraput, Odisha. Fifty-three per cent of the engine by cost has been indigenised, with the remaining 47 per cent consisting of high-tech composites and special alloys - proprietary secrets that Russia will not part with. Even so, HAL builds 87.7 per cent of the engine's components in India.

Given HAL, Nashik's growing expertise, it is surprising that the overhaul facility at Nashik has taken 14 years to overhaul its first fighter. This is because the initial contract, signed in 2000 for building 140 fighters in India, did not include provisions for overhaul - a mistake, say contract lawyers.The delay was compounded because Russia itself has no Su-30 overhaul facility (the Russian Air Force did not buy the fighter until well after India). Only in 2008 did New Delhi and Moscow sign an overhaul contract. Until last year, aircraft parts and systems were going to Russia for overhaul.

In 2010, the first IAF Su-30MKI fighters, which had joined the fleet in 2000, were due for overhaul, in accordance with the original schedule, which was 1,500 flying hours or 10 years. Since the fighters had flown far less than 1,500 hours, Sukhoi was approached to extend the time period between overhaul. After numerous inspections and "accelerated aging tests", Sukhoi revised the overhaul schedule to 1,500 flying hours or 14 years, whichever comes first.

"The MoD has sanctioned an overhaul capacity of 15 fighters per year; next year, we will overhaul 10-12 fighters and then stabilise at 15 fighters annually. We have already approached the MoD to step up capacity to 30 fighters per year, which will cater for our requirements into the 2030s" says Subrahmanyan.

Of the 30 Su-30MKIs that will be overhauled each year, HAL will do 20, while an IAF base repair depot will overhaul the other 10.

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28722 » 25 Oct 2014 02:54

HAL has also partially indigenised the Su-30MKI's giant AL-31FP engines, which are built in Koraput, Odisha. Fifty-three per cent of the engine by cost has been indigenised, with the remaining 47 per cent consisting of high-tech composites and special alloys - proprietary secrets that Russia will not part with. Even so, HAL builds 87.7 per cent of the engine's components in India.

Can someone explain the difference between the percentages?

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4461
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby putnanja » 25 Oct 2014 02:59

The key is "HAL builds 87.7%" , the raw material for which is imported from Russia. So at the component level, HAL builds 87.7%, but at the raw material level, HAL has to import many from Russia. The article itself mentions that much of the raw material including Titanium alloys have to be imported from Russia as per contract.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 25 Oct 2014 04:29

87%of the material represents 52% of the cost.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 25 Oct 2014 05:11

nik wrote:^^ On the contrary, this is exactly the reason one should not go for diversity - issues in multiple aircrafts are difficult to focus and resolve. Leaves a fleet whose reliability cannot be improved in a cost effective manner.

Just check reliability of cars which have had long production runs for example. Even the worst offender GM has a few long running models whose reliability beats Japanese cars - only reason been than issues have been ironed out through focus and time.


Look at it this way: 100% of IAF fighters were MKIs, This accident happens and they ground 200 fighters or ~1/3 of the fleet.


I worry about monoculture
If MKIs were 100% of the fleet, the IAF would be grounded.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20712
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 25 Oct 2014 07:06

For years tales of cannibalisation of weapon systems to keep a portion combat capable have been rife.The sub batteries problem was aloso highlighted,where batteries from one sub were allegedly used on another.Juggling with keeping the inventory number as high as possible while making do with a mimimum of maintenance and support appears to be a recurring problem.As some analysts have said,just investing into improving MRO and maintaining a higher portion of the fleet combat ready will increase capability manifold and reduce the number of hangar queens.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Viv S » 25 Oct 2014 13:23

Apparently the Russians don't believe the automatic ejection theory, and think the pilots are to blame.

A top government official, however, told HT that Russian specialists assisting the probe and carrying out inspections were unwilling to believe that the ejection seats had fired without pilot command. “They insist it is impossible,” he said.

- HT

Never mind the fact that its happened three times now.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4384
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Oct 2014 19:46

What has been the history of such ejection so far with flanker fleets worldwide? Any ideas? It seems that another quick purchase of mki is on the cards already based on saurav jhas comment

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19516
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 26 Oct 2014 04:17

Sooper posts rohit, will read carefully and add later

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22490
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby chetak » 26 Oct 2014 12:19

Viv S wrote:Apparently the Russians don't believe the automatic ejection theory, and think the pilots are to blame.

A top government official, however, told HT that Russian specialists assisting the probe and carrying out inspections were unwilling to believe that the ejection seats had fired without pilot command. “They insist it is impossible,” he said.

- HT

Never mind the fact that its happened three times now.


The ruskis are right in a way. Automatic ejection is not a feature that is required. However, there is obviously a problem with a malfunctioning / broken / ill designed ejection system. Both seats firing together is way beyond coincidence. There is a serious systemic issue.

Maybe the blackbox will have some clue, if these parameters are monitored.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 26 Oct 2014 12:49

Cain Marko wrote:What has been the history of such ejection so far with flanker fleets worldwide? Any ideas? It seems that another quick purchase of mki is on the cards already based on saurav jhas comment


Havent heard of any premature ejection from Flanker specifically the MK type , even the 29's operate same seat if I am not wrong ...having said it possible there could be one due to multiple reasons, I read these seats are controlled by microprocessors built in to them with intelligence on how they should eject under various conditions altitude speed angle etc a lot of things can go wrong.

Hope they can find the root cause of this one and fix it for ever.

Funny though the aircraft just managed to skid long and still manage to remain intact mostly without the pilot in them for most part.. probably they might just salvage it

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22490
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby chetak » 26 Oct 2014 12:59

Austin wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:What has been the history of such ejection so far with flanker fleets worldwide? Any ideas? It seems that another quick purchase of mki is on the cards already based on saurav jhas comment


Havent heard of any premature ejection from Flanker specifically the MK type , even the 29's operate same seat if I am not wrong ...having said it possible there could be one due to multiple reasons, I read these seats are controlled by microprocessors built in to them with intelligence on how they should eject under various conditions altitude speed angle etc a lot of things can go wrong.

Hope they can find the root cause of this one and fix it for ever.

Funny though the aircraft just managed to skid long and still manage to remain intact mostly without the pilot in them for most part.. probably they might just salvage it


How did it do that??

Did the engines shut off on their own or did it run out of fuel or what??

The aircraft would still have a considerable amount of fuel left, for diversions or whatever, the engines would have still been powered up and running if the aircraft was coming in for landing and the pilots were ejected out leaving them no time for anything.

very strange that the aircraft should have behaved as it did and come down gently enough to keep the fuselage intact??

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_20317 » 26 Oct 2014 13:24

chetak wrote:Maybe the blackbox will have some clue, if these parameters are monitored.


Datarecorder was recovered and the claim is that it excludes the possibility of Pilot Error or even Engine Trouble. That was the reason they began suspecting the FBW. As Austin ji says above the ejection mechanism has a brain of its own. Perhaps there is some data originating from the FBW too that forms part of the input for the ejection mechanism. The FBW being a quad redundancy system the problem if originating in the FBW would require some serious brain raking very fast. Hence probably the resistance from the Russians who don't want to do it as first line of action and are flying the Sukhois still. There perception of risk being different from ours.

Most likely an unintended consequence of too much sophistication built into the aircraft. Real life throws up much more that what Tests can give confidence on.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1954
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby srin » 26 Oct 2014 14:18

chetak wrote:Both seats firing together is way beyond coincidence.


On the contrary, I always thought it was better for both seats to eject when any of the pilots pull the handle - one of them would be unconscious or incapacitated and the other may have better situational awareness to make the call.

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 26 Oct 2014 19:21

chetak wrote:How did it do that??

Did the engines shut off on their own or did it run out of fuel or what??

The aircraft would still have a considerable amount of fuel left, for diversions or whatever, the engines would have still been powered up and running if the aircraft was coming in for landing and the pilots were ejected out leaving them no time for anything.

very strange that the aircraft should have behaved as it did and come down gently enough to keep the fuselage intact??


All we can do now is just speculate without knowing the intricacies of how MKI functions under xyz condition , but at the risk of speculating i think the ejection happend few seconds after landing as seen from chutes door open.

May be its just plain luck as it skid it didnt catch fire or just luck that the pilot perhaps switched off the engine and then they ejected or the aircraft was low on fuel when it landed so chances of fire was low.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby vasu raya » 26 Oct 2014 19:37

In some ways its good that the ejection seats have brains of their own and in this case probably it was bad, if the brains are supported by its own sensors such as built in accelerometers

All the known previous instances of automatic seat ejections happened while on the ground, how much of the FBW is really active in those stages?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby tsarkar » 26 Oct 2014 23:32

Marten wrote:Tsrakar, it is the other way around. The new airport was planned to decongest the city and relieve the pressure on the roads. HAL was not allowed to bid for the new one.

Pressure on the roads ??????

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/ai ... 152464.ece
Managing Director of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) A.K. Saxena said here on Monday that airlines had been informed that the airport could not handle any more flights. "We have reached a saturation stage and our own test flights are getting hampered. We are already operating at more than twice our capacity and are over stretched," Mr. Saxena said.

Only the Mumbai airport with 550 to 600 take-offs and landings and New Delhi with 450 to 500 are busier than Bangalore.

About six million passengers use the HAL airport in a year. The airport was originally designed to handle only about 3.6 million passengers a year.


Marten wrote:HAL was not allowed to bid for the new one.
HAL does not have the mandate nor expertise to build airports. The two airports managed by HAL were never built by it. Bangalore was built when the original Curtiss Hawk assembly plant was built. Nasik Ojhar airport was an old British WW2 built airport.

Also, new airport was PPP, with State Government investing via land and private parties building & operating the airport.

From Ajai's article, the actual policy would be
Of the 30 Su-30MKIs that will be overhauled each year, HAL will do 20, while an IAF base repair depot will overhaul the other 10.
This is wise & pragmatic. For an aircraft comprising one third of IAF Fleet Strength, two overhaul facilities will be optimum.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19516
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 27 Oct 2014 00:02

>> Pressure on the roads

See old airport road sometime.. horrible traffic (not rest is better) and ITVITY city was groaning under the strain

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby negi » 27 Oct 2014 00:06

Afaik all fighter jets which I have seen including the MKI have a red coloured handle/harness which kind of sits right between the legs of a pilot in front of his seat which need to be pulled with force to initiate the ejection sequence , I don't think there is any option/provision for automatic ejection in the MKI. Whatever is triggering these automatic ejections is not just a SW issue.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby tsarkar » 27 Oct 2014 10:56

[quote="Karan M"]See old airport road sometime.. horrible traffic (not rest is better) and ITVITY city was groaning under the strain[/quote][quote="Marten"]Tsarkar, build and operate via consortiums. You do understand there are design partners and financiers as part of a consortium![/quote]One builds flyovers & underpasses to reduce congestion on the roads, the reason for the new airport is because HAL airport congestion and it was affecting flight testing.

Anyways, the point being present CMD wants to make revenue by running Bangalore & Nasik airports, that is an extremely peripheral activity compared to core activity of building aircraft and he could use his energies on getting Sitara project on track.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 27 Oct 2014 12:20

I do not think HAL airport given its traffic issues on approach road is viable as a LCC terminal.
they can use the additional land to expand DRDO and HAL facilities for production and test.
the old terminal is I believe abandoned...it can be demolished and some new office / production space added.

bharats
BRFite
Posts: 342
Joined: 06 Mar 2007 13:37
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby bharats » 28 Oct 2014 19:32

India grounds Su-30 fleet due to possible ejector-seat fault
By Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
Link: http://www.janes.com/article/45026/indi ... seat-fault

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has grounded its fleet of Sukhoi S030MKI 'Flanker' combat aircraft while it investigates the cause of an apparent ejection-seat misfire that resulted in the loss of an aircraft earlier in the month, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced on 22 October. Flight operations of all 180 twin-seat Su-30MKI aircraft have been temporarily suspended after both crewmembers were ejected from their aircraft on 14 October, as it was on approach to land. Both pilots were recovered, with no reports of injuries.

"One Su-30 fighter of the IAF was involved in an accident … in which both ejection seats had fired whilst the aircraft was coming in to land. A Court of Inquiry (CoI) had immediately been constituted to investigate the cause of accident. Meanwhile, as is the procedure in such cases, the flying of the Su-30 fleet has been temporarily suspended [while] certain specific checks are being conducted on the aircraft," the MoD said in a statement.

COMMENT
The IAF has suffered an appalling loss rate of aircraft and personnel over recent years, with pilot training, maintenance, and original equipment manufacturer support all being cited as reasons. When the Su-30 crash was first reported, it had been expected that one or a combination of those factors would have played a part in its loss. The MoD's announcement of the uncommanded ejection would appear to rule out pilot error, leaving poor maintenance and/or original equipment manufacturer support (OEM) as being the most likely culprits.

The Su-30MKI is fitted with tandem K-36DM zero/zero ejection seats, and Russian ejector-seat technology is widely regarded as being among the best in the world. This, coupled with the fact that there have been no other instances of a simultaneous uncommanded ejection having taken place, would appear to rule out a lack of OEM support as being behind at the root of the incident in favour of maintenance issues.

However, although simultaneous uncommanded are unheard of there have been a number of instances of single uncommanded or inadvertent ejections over the years. One of the most recent of these involved a Martin-Baker seat that accidentally fired while the Hawk T.1 Red Arrows display aircraft it was fitted in was parked on the ground, killing the pilot. This was found to be the result of a design flaw, which was subsequently rectified by the manufacturer.

While the track record of the K-36DM seat would appear to rule out a design flaw at this stage, that the Martin-Baker seat and Hawk T.1 had already been in service for nearly 40 years before the tragic accident in the UK in November 2011 shows that it is possible for such a fault to lie undetected and dormant for decades before finally revealing itself in the most dramatic of circumstances.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1841
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby wig » 04 Nov 2014 14:47

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 82176.aspx

it appears the cockpit voice recorder stopped recording shortly before the Su 30 crash at pune
Glitch in Sukhoi-30 voice recorder tape
The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) of the Sukhoi-30 MKI that crashed on October 14 near Pune, leading to the grounding of 200 Russian-origin fighter jets, stopped recording pilot communications minutes before the crash, said a top government official familiar with the investigation.

The glitch has further deepened the mystery surrounding the crash, the fifth accident involving a Su-30 during the last five years. The official said there was no record of conversations in the cockpit at least five minutes before the crash as the tape had run out.

The development is significant as the pilots of the fighter plane had reported an unprecedented “automatic seat ejection” without their command, but the Russian specialists assisting the probe have ruled out the freak ejection theory.

IAF spokesperson Wing Commander Simranpal Singh Birdi said the air force had received some inputs from Russian experts but refused to comment on the CVR data or the ejection controversy, saying a probe was still on.

HT was the first to report on October 22 that the IAF had grounded its entire Su-30 fleet after the pilots reported a freak ejection where seats fired on their own. The planes, which represent a third of India’s fighter fleet, are still grounded for safety checks on ejection seats.

CVR data plays a vital role in reconstructing the events leading to a crash. The Su-30 that crashed on October 14 was one of the 50 fighter jets imported directly from Russia in flyaway condition. Recent crashes have raised serious questions about the flight safety of one of the most advanced and relatively new fighters in the Indian fleet. The first variants of the plane were inducted in late 1990s.

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited assembles and repairs the fighters in India.

The IAF’s Su-30 planes are grappling with problems concerning repair and overhaul, mid-air engine failures and malfunctioning of mission computers and cockpit displays. Each fighter costs over Rs. 200 crore. The IAF has lost over 35 planes and choppers to crashes during the last three years.


JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2737
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby JTull » 04 Nov 2014 16:20

Why are these details being leaked to media while investigation is in progress?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20712
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 04 Nov 2014 17:38

Valid point.With the MMRCA deal waiting in the wings to be signed,any negative news that can be spread against potential competition might appear.There are also others waiting for the French to goof up,the EF for instance,whose manufacturers/leaders have made no bones about their interest and are looking for an opening. As the saying goes on the golf course,"there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip".

Indaruta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 21:42

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby Indaruta » 04 Nov 2014 22:34

We must investigate for any Stuxnet like malware to rule out sabotage

HKumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby HKumar » 05 Nov 2014 00:48

the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) of the Sukhoi-30 MKI that crashed on October 14 near Pune, leading to the grounding of 200 Russian-origin fighter jets, stopped recording pilot communications minutes before the crash, said a top government official familiar with the investigation.

The glitch has further deepened the mystery surrounding the crash, the fifth accident involving a Su-30 during the last five years. The official said there was no record of conversations in the cockpit at least five minutes before the crash as the tape had run out.


Do CVRs still use magnetic tape? don't these devices, regardless of the media being digital or magnetic, simply start over and start recording again?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22490
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby chetak » 05 Nov 2014 09:04

HKumar wrote:
the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) of the Sukhoi-30 MKI that crashed on October 14 near Pune, leading to the grounding of 200 Russian-origin fighter jets, stopped recording pilot communications minutes before the crash, said a top government official familiar with the investigation.

The glitch has further deepened the mystery surrounding the crash, the fifth accident involving a Su-30 during the last five years. The official said there was no record of conversations in the cockpit at least five minutes before the crash as the tape had run out.


Do CVRs still use magnetic tape? don't these devices, regardless of the media being digital or magnetic, simply start over and start recording again?


They are usually on endless loop recording the last thirty minutes of conversation, irrespective of how long the aircraft has been flying. This is the usual norm for CVRs.

Stopped recording meaning(?) a glitch in input power to the recorder or a problem with the recorder itself.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1841
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby wig » 15 Nov 2014 08:59

Safety checks over, Sukhois hit skies today
Sukhoi-30MKI fighter jets are back in action again. The frontline fighter jets on Friday evening carried out sorties from IAF bases at Pune and Jodhpur ending a month-long 'no-flying' embargo (also called grounding) which was ordered on October 14 following a crash near Pune.

The IAF headquarters have told Sukhoi air bases to start flying the jets, sources confirmed tonight. The Russian fighter jets will also participate in the 10-day India-Russia joint exercise at Halwara, Punjab, commencing November 17. Russian pilots will be flying IAF planes. The Sukhois are based at Sirsa, Bathinda, Bareilly, Halwara, Jodhpur and Pune — all close to the western front. The planes are also based at Chabua and Tezpur in the East.

The 200-strong fleet of Sukhoi-30MKI was grounded a month ago after a pilot seat of one of a jets ejected automatically mid-air resulting in a crash. The grounding meant almost one-third of the IAF's entire fleet of 640-odd fighter jets was not available for flying. A team of experts from India and Russia carried out checks on the plane's seat ejection system.

In New Delhi, IAF Chief Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha said the findings of a Court of Inquiry (CoI) into the crash are being finalised. "The (Pune crash on October 14) was an accident which appeared to be automatic firing of the seats. The inquiry is about to be completed and the findings are being finalised. We will have the results very soon and we are going to start flying the aircraft".

He added that "preliminary findings" indicate that the experts have been able to find the reason for the malfunction and "we will be able to tackle the problem". Specific checks pertain to pilot seats - the NPP Zvezda K-36DM. The original equipment makers in Russia and the IAF are part of the probe, sources said.

A team of 10 experts from Russia is currently in Pune, Sukhoi-30 base. Sources said the Russian experts have claimed that the ejection of seats cannot take place automatically, a contention not acceptable to the IAF.

The October 14 incident in which both pilots ejected was the third such incident. In the first incident in 2008, an airman carrying out a pre-flight test at the Bareilly Sukhoi base had died. The seat ejected on its own when he was sitting in the cockpit carrying out checks. The airman, who was thrown 50 feet up in the air, hit the roof of the hangar, killing him immediately.

The second incident occurred in Jodhpur this year when one of the fighter jets was taxing to take-off. The seats ejected and the pilots were thrown about 100 feet up in the air. They made a safe landing with the help of parachutes. Since the plane was taxing and was at a slow speed, there was no damage, sources said.

In all, there have been five accidents involving a Sukhoi-30MKI since 2009.


http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20141115/main7.htm

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

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_20317 » 15 Nov 2014 10:14

Philip wrote:Valid point.With the MMRCA deal waiting in the wings to be signed,any negative news that can be spread against potential competition might appear.There are also others waiting for the French to goof up,the EF for instance,whose manufacturers/leaders have made no bones about their interest and are looking for an opening. As the saying goes on the golf course,"there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip".


Had the Russians listened through regular channels and treated it as a genuine complaint the situation would probably have been different.

But I fail to understand how is Su30MKI a competition to MMRCA. Different class and on top of that we are already overstocked on MKIs.

We Indians run an IAF not an MKIAF. MKI is a great plane but there is life beyond.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ardeshir, chaitanya, chetonzz, ravikr, rkirankr, saip, sgopal, shettyp, Vivasvat and 71 guests