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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Apr 2017 15:16

JayS wrote: Some idiot wrote some crap and we are overblowing it.

Absolutely. We all know that the media are paid and yet time after time after time - we believe a story as soon as it appears, argue that is must be true and will never forget.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Apr 2017 15:37

Here is a nice explanation from "someone else" on "some other forum"
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=752847
Engines get pulled for all kinds of reasons. For example, a new aeroplane might have two almost zero hour engines on it. The airline might want to stagger the life of the engines so they don't come up for replacement at the same time, so they will pull a reasonably young engine off and replace it with an older one or vice versa well before the engine is due for overhaul. In my experience, an engine will not stay with the aeroplane for it's life. You may have bird strikes which damages more that just the fan or you may notice that the E.G.T. margin is getting a little low which suggests the hot section is starting to wear out. An engine change is quite a routine job.

gugul
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 30 Sep 2016 11:17

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

Postby gugul » 13 Apr 2017 16:00

As far as I have read various older reports/news - An estimated 920 AL-31FP turbofans are to be manufactured at HAL's Koraput Division. So for 272 that we have ordered SU 30MKI will use at-least 3 engines over its life.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Apr 2017 16:26

gugul wrote:As far as I have read various older reports/news - An estimated 920 AL-31FP turbofans are to be manufactured at HAL's Koraput Division. So for 272 that we have ordered SU 30MKI will use at-least 3 engines over its life.

Only in Indian Road Transport Offices (RTOs) is it required that one engine is connected with one chassis/frame from birth till death do them part. Aircraft Engines are high stress entities that may need to be swapped and changed regularly and in some modern aircraft this can be done in hours.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4110
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 13 Apr 2017 16:55

gugul wrote:As far as I have read various older reports/news - An estimated 920 AL-31FP turbofans are to be manufactured at HAL's Koraput Division. So for 272 that we have ordered SU 30MKI will use at-least 3 engines over its life.

You mean 6 engines..??
As such there is a possibility that HAL might be able to increase the engine life beyond 2000hrs. They are working on it. In that case, less than 6 engines.

Anyways, given that Super 30 upgrade, they may not need all those Al31FPs after all.

gugul
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 30 Sep 2016 11:17

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

Postby gugul » 13 Apr 2017 17:07

JayS wrote:
gugul wrote:As far as I have read various older reports/news - An estimated 920 AL-31FP turbofans are to be manufactured at HAL's Koraput Division. So for 272 that we have ordered SU 30MKI will use at-least 3 engines over its life.

You mean 6 engines..??
As such there is a possibility that HAL might be able to increase the engine life beyond 2000hrs. They are working on it. In that case, less than 6 engines.

Anyways, given that Super 30 upgrade, they may not need all those Al31FPs after all.


Yes you are right, 6 engines per aircraft.
I am not sure that IAF want to change/upgrade the Al31FPs engine. Its in the news but nothing concrete as of now for the SU 30MKI upgrade, will only be clear once the upgrade contract is signed.
Also they might upgrade the engine contract accordingly by adding extra to the original contract as has been done for follow on after the first 140 jets were contracted.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 13 Apr 2017 22:50

I think its not too much to expect new engines when you buy new aircraft.

Also its an accounting nightmare too.

I can understand when aircraft are sent for overhaul.

Since HAL is a govt. owned entity it might be all right as transaction is between govt. to govt., but if done by private supplier its a case of fraud.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4300
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 13 Apr 2017 23:22

India pushes for stronger ties with Russia to support Su-30MKI fighters

India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) has said stronger ties between Indian and Russian aerospace companies are required to boost support for the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) expanding fleets of Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighter aircraft, which are produced locally under licence by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

Citing parliamentary comments by Minister of State for Defence Subhash Bhamre, the MoD said on 11 April that it has identified a total of 485 components and parts on the Su-30MKI aircraft that could be produced by Indian private-sector companies following technology transfers from Russia.

"Towards this, 20 Indian vendors have been introduced to the Russian original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to find out the feasibility of transfers of technology in the fields desired by Indian vendors," said the MoD.


It added that it has requested Russia to consider permitting the OEMs to "establish joint ventures or other means of localisation with Indian private industry partners [to] manufacture [the Su-30MKI] spare parts through transfers of technology".

The MoD's moves to promote stronger industrial links to support the Su-30MKI were revealed one year after India's state-owned HAL signed an agreement with Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and United Engine Corporation (UEC) to enhance after-sale support for the Su-30MKI aircraft.

The MoD said this agreement had emphasised HAL's procurement of spare parts for the aircraft. It added, "The agreement signed by HAL with Russian OEMs is for the long-term supply of spares and rendering technical assistance for five years [but] does not cover any technology transfers."

The MoD said that despite this, the HAL-Russian agreement would enable the Indian company to procure the required spares "based on the price catalogues directly from the OEMs … and boost after-sales service by reducing lead time in procurement of spares significantly".

In addition, Jane's reported in January that HAL is in talks with Russian industry representatives about a potential programme to produce more than 300 Su-30MKI line replaceable units (LRUs)
.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7453
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 13 Apr 2017 23:26

Jay has explained this quite well. The ideal situation is when you have a zero hours engine with a zero hours airframe. There must have been a mismatch of delivery of engines vis-a-vis airframes, and IAF and HAL took the most prudent decision to use a spare CAT-B engine to move on.

Is this a big deal? If some one thinks it is, they don't understand basics of aviation. The life of every major part on an airplane is catalogued carefully, and nothing flies until it is deemed fit.

Can we let this topic go now? The reporter has to sensationalize to earn his bread. Let's move on.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19448
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 14 Apr 2017 00:47

ramana wrote:I think its not too much to expect new engines when you buy new aircraft.

Also its an accounting nightmare too.

I can understand when aircraft are sent for overhaul.

Since HAL is a govt. owned entity it might be all right as transaction is between govt. to govt., but if done by private supplier its a case of fraud.


What happens if the supply chain did not supply the engines on time??

The IAF needs the fighters so it's better to get the new airframe with overhauled engines and use the fighters and the new engines promised to be supplied as soon as they materialise.

HAL does not own overhauled engines so the overhauled engines have been taken from IAF stock and that can only be done under Air HQ authority and also these aircraft with the overhauled engines fitted would have been released into service under concession again requiring IAF authorisation.

Engines have detailed log books which are scrutinised very carefully before installation as well as release to the customer. It details all work, modifications etc done on the engine in the greatest of detail and is frequently inspected and audited.

There is simply no way any information can be hidden or fudged.

Finally, this workaround may be a legal way to simply pay HAL it's financial dues in the current financial year as these large sums being carried over into the next financial year will cause huge losses to HAL as well as some very tough questions in parliament.

Whatever happened, there is no scam or subterfuge. This has all been done with the full knowledge and permission of everybody concerned including the IAF, the CAG and the MOD.

Some very interested party has paid presstitutes to rake up this so-called muck and put the russians in the dock.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 14 Apr 2017 01:04

Chetak, You might very well be right.
All this is because both IAF and HAL are govt. entities.

When MoD orders a Su-30 it should trigger making of engines for it.

And the expectation would be that the Su-30 when it gets accepted has new parts.

Its another matter that the new engines and overhauled engines are co-mingled.
Due to exigencies IAF might accept a new Su-30 with overhauled engines.
And its perfectly acceptable for them as all books are up-to-date.

Generally an overhauled engine should cost a little bless than a new engine.
I am not alleging malfeasance but poor planning and production controls at HAL which make the customer accept some thing less than the contract calls for.

They wont be bale to pull this off for export customers is this is their SOP.

Anyway will go silent now on this issue.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7453
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 14 Apr 2017 02:49

Regarding exports, its more common than you think. For example, the HTT-40 is powered by a CAT-B engine. It all depends on priorities. As long as these things are done transparently, it is fine. The problem arises when it is not. For example, in the case of Algerian Mig-29s.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

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

Postby manjgu » 14 Apr 2017 06:19

Shiv..this is precisely the question i was posing. As long as we dont know the terms of the contract, its wrong to speculate about old and new engines on new airframes. and thats why my repeated use of IF...

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18055
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 14 Apr 2017 06:27

all these posts and not one mentioning the russians. we know from multiple reports on their go slow on TOT and what not. some 30-40% of the engine is still imported, HAL basically has only so many engines to manage with. i wouldn't be surprised if IAF took a look at the situation and agreed for overhauled engines being used to keep production schedules kept. what's the big deal as long as HAL agrees to give them a new engine later or the valuation per MKI takes into account the IAF owned engine.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 14 Apr 2017 07:58

manjgu wrote:Shiv..this is precisely the question i was posing. As long as we dont know the terms of the contract, its wrong to speculate about old and new engines on new airframes. and thats why my repeated use of IF...

We are in agreement here - but the topic came up only because, in the absence of such information, the worst case was assumed and posted as a news item and was followed by a series of self flagellatory posts based on that news. I will always, and repeatedly post "the other side" of the story if I feel that it is one sided.

I repeat that we as a group on this forum are not particularly discriminating when it comes to "news". Not blaming anyone in particular - but we are all accustomed to reading and sharing what is published as "news" assuming that it is true. And we (as the public) have been taken for a ride by vested interests in the media for far too long.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 14 Apr 2017 08:16

If HAL has received a series of engines for modification because a particular part was found to have an MTBF lower than expected - it means that HAL has received a stock of used engines for replacement of a single possibly small part.

When that engine is taken off a frontline fighter the engine must be replaced either with a new build engine containing that new part or another old engine with the replaced part. I am waiting to see complaints that some Su-30s in service have received a new engine to be run alongside a used one as if it is some deadly homicidal act.

But the used engines that went back to HAL will be sitting there after modification/part replacement - perhaps with just 50 to 100 hours of use. They are "used" but could be practically new. They need to get back into service from being large lumps of metal on the ground. No one on this forum or in the media have read the letter of various contracts or understandings reached about engines between HAL and IAF. So there is no point speculating on the aviation industry equivalent of the philosophical point that if I buy a new shirt I need new buttons too.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

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

Postby manjgu » 14 Apr 2017 08:51

can someone post maintenance schedule of a SU 30.. based on hours flown? no of landings? when we buy new commercial jets..do they also come with used engines or new engines?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 14 Apr 2017 09:17

manjgu wrote:can someone post maintenance schedule of a SU 30.. based on hours flown? no of landings? when we buy new commercial jets..do they also come with used engines or new engines?

The information about Su-30 engines is not available in the public domain. It is normally number of hours flown unless there is some issue like excess fuel consumption, overheating, foreign object damage, power or RPM related issues, unusual pressure and/or temperature readings or a changed inspection schedule based on previously discovered issues in some other similar engines like unusual wear of a turbine blade or some component issue. I guess you do know that aircraft engines are not run like car engines - for months and months with no thought given about servicing the engine. Anything unusual is recorded and goes in the engine's life record. After every flight. And the duration of the flight is also recorded. There is at least one case of a pilot who was not informed of an engine issue reported by an earlier pilot - and the second guy died in a crash because of that issue. Other than the word "engine" there is no connection between Su-30 and car engines - but that did not stop anyone from bringing up the comparison.

About commercial jets - you can see the post I made earlier if you are interested.
viewtopic.php?p=2142386#p2142386

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 14 Apr 2017 09:55

When we gush about beautiful cockpit videos we are too busy yenjoying the spectacle to notice that ALL flights in any plane before take off is preceded by a walk around. The pilot walks around, sticks his nose in the plane's butt. kicks the tyres (not really) fiddles with the control surfaces. Every single flight. That much publicized flight of ACM Raha in Tejas was preceded by him being asked "Do you want to do a walk around sir?" by the primary pilot who would have done the walk around himself. Raha declined. How many of us open our car bonnets before and after every drive and check oil and coolant levels, battery charging etc? But we seem to imagine that car and plane are samesame. The pilot doing the walk around is inspecting for anything amiss - from sensor covers that have not been removed to any visible issues that could affect the flight. Technicians do exactly the same thing after each and every flight. Flt Lt Alfred Cooke who shot down 3 Sabres over Kalaikunda/IIT Kharagpur was flying so low that he picked up some leaves on a wingtip from a treetop. He recalls that the first thing that happened after he landed was that he was told off by a ground technician for being careless and hitting treetops.

A plane may require 2 or more engine changes in its lifetime. When the airframe is retired - if the engine, which may have hundreds of hours of useful life left in it, is not thrown away. It will be overhauled and go on to the next available airframe. When was the last time you sold a car but kept the engine?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4110
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 14 Apr 2017 10:20

ramana wrote:Generally an overhauled engine should cost a little bless than a new engine.
.


What makes you think that HAL actually sold an overhauled engine to IAF..?? Once you buy an Russian engine you own it until its TTL is over and then junk it. Where that overhauled engine originally came from..?? Do you think HAL owns a bunch of engines from which it sold one to IAF..?? If not then, Did the original owner sold the engine to HAL before its TTL was over and then HAL overhauled it and resold it..??

BTW as IR pointed out, it not unusual or unheard of giving used engines in export orders. SAAB does it for Gripen. Swedish airforce maintains extra engines for fleets for export customers and shares their spare engines with export customers when they need replacement. No need to flay HAL, that too based on some nonsense report. Anyways when you have a PBL contract or Power-by-hour contract with OEM, do you think you would actually care whether the engine is brand new or used until its giving you promised performance and reliability..?? Buying Jet engine is not the same as buying an iPhone.

Luckily this is a Russian engine we are talking about. If it was western OEM's engine, in which even engine parts are constantly moved from one engine to another all the time, and the only thing that remains with the engine is its Serial number plate, I don't know how DDM would have reported such thing.

That reminds me of a Paradox given by some Greek guy, Theseus's paradox - If you take a brand new wooden ship and replace all of its wooden parts one by one as they decay or become useless over time (while keeping the replaced parts somewhere), after a while the ship would have no single original part left in it. While you build another ship with all those old parts, (since you have replaced all the parts in the original ship you can make a full identical ship with these parts). Now you have two ships - one which started as original but every single part of it was replaced. And another which was build with those replaced original parts. Which one of the two should be called as Original ship now..??

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19448
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 14 Apr 2017 14:42

manjgu wrote:can someone post maintenance schedule of a SU 30.. based on hours flown? no of landings? when we buy new commercial jets..do they also come with used engines or new engines?


Maintenance Schedule details of frontline military aircraft are not required to be posted on any forum such as this.

Please don't ask, as somebody in a fit of enthusiasm, may actually post such details and land in a pile of $hyte.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 14 Apr 2017 14:54

Maintenance schedules are usable intelligence - both for information and misinformation, and hence classified except for the most general information.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19448
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 14 Apr 2017 15:23

JayS wrote:
ramana wrote:Generally an overhauled engine should cost a little bless than a new engine.
.


BTW as IR pointed out, it not unusual or unheard of giving used engines in export orders. SAAB does it for Gripen. Swedish airforce maintains extra engines for fleets for export customers and shares their spare engines with export customers when they need replacement. No need to flay HAL, that too based on some nonsense report. Anyways when you have a PBL contract or Power-by-hour contract with OEM, do you think you would actually care whether the engine is brand new or used until its giving you promised performance and reliability..?? Buying Jet engine is not the same as buying an iPhone.

Luckily this is a Russian engine we are talking about. If it was western OEM's engine, in which even engine parts are constantly moved from one engine to another all the time, and the only thing that remains with the engine is its Serial number plate, I don't know how DDM would have reported such thing.


MIL engines do not have a Power by the hour clause in India.

All engines are owned by some entity. New engines are owned by HAL until fitted on new build aircraft (or even overhauled aircraft which sometimes get fitted with brand new engines) whereupon it mandatorily becomes customer property. Paid for and fully owned by the customer. Until it's installed on some aircraft, it is on the books of HAL. OTOH, all engines returned to HAL for overhaul are still on the books of the IAF which is the owner.

IAF may also have it's own "float" of brand new unused engines in stock

OTOH, used engines, called "Cat B" engines are all owned by the customer. A brand new engine, may be withdrawn after a mere 45 minutes of flight due to a bird hit or whatever. It is sent back to the shop, stripped, inspected, new parts replaced as required, many parts like seals and O rings etc have to be mandatorily replaced everytime an engine is stripped, it's then tested and returned to stock as a "Cat B" engine.

It has expended just 45 minutes of it's life. Is this engine new or old?? It's old because it's a Cat B.

Removing lifed components from one engine (say, awaiting overhaul/defect investigation), testing it and replacing it on another engine awaiting just that part is called cannibalization and it's a practice followed both on western as well as russian engines. For eg, a fuel pump may be replaced in this way.

There is no standard costing for used engines as the work done on any engine is unique to it's condition and life as determined at the time of the strip examination. The costing will, however, fall within a fairly broad band.

The budget and the financial heads for new and overhauled engines is different as is the "task" or commitment of HAL to overhaul and return a specific number engines back to the customer in a given financial year.


HAL does not/can not fit Cat B engines on it's own volition but it's the customer who agrees to accept new build aircraft with Cat B engine(s) and accordingly authorises HAL to deliver the new build aircraft in that condition and this is a very big deal and as such it just cannot be hidden or even covered up in any way.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4110
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 14 Apr 2017 16:00

chetak wrote:
MIL engines do not have a Power by the hour clause in India.


Yes Sir, That was not related to Al-31, but to highlight usual practices in International/Export Market. HAL could offer PBL or Power by Hour to its Export customers. Could even use IAF's engine pool to ensure small export customers get favorable deals to start with. like how SAAB does for Gripen.
chetak wrote:All engines are owned by some entity. New engines are owned by HAL until fitted on new build aircraft (or even overhauled aircraft which sometimes get fitted with brand new engines) whereupon it mandatorily becomes customer property. Paid for and fully owned by the customer. Until it's installed on some aircraft, it is on the books of HAL. OTOH, all engines returned to HAL for overhaul are still on the books of the IAF which is the owner.

IAF may also have it's own "float" of brand new unused engines in stock

OTOH, used engines, called "Cat B" engines are all owned by the customer. A brand new engine, may be withdrawn after a mere 45 minutes of flight due to a bird hit or whatever. It is sent back to the shop, stripped, inspected, new parts replaced as required, many parts like seals and O rings etc have to be mandatorily replaced everytime an engine is stripped, it's then tested and returned to stock as a "Cat B" engine.

It has expended just 45 minutes of it's life. Is this engine new or old?? It's old because it's a Cat B.


Bingo. That what I wanted to highlight. Overhauled engine must be already owned by IAF itself. There is no question of HAL conning IAF by giving old engine for the price of new. IAF would be getting their contracted number anyway. IAF is not a stupid customer after all.

chetak wrote:Removing lifed components from one engine (say, awaiting overhaul/defect investigation), testing it and replacing it on another engine awaiting just that part is called cannibalization and it's a practice followed both on western as well as russian engines. For eg, a fuel pump may be replaced in this way.

I was to refer to the western philosophy of Modular engines where there are no more 3-engines per airframe. There is only one engine per airframe (or two for twin jet). For example there are only a 350 engines (that too including all prototypes so actual AF owned engines are even less) built for fleet of 250 Gripen worldwide. Some customers (IIRC SA and Thailand) have bought exactly the same number of engines as the airframes with no spare engines. And there will not be any more engines made. Things like fuel pumps are small parts and are not life limited or life critical. But entire modules like HPC, HPT, Combustor etc are not rotated in Russian engines like it happens in Western engines like F404 family.
chetak wrote:There is no standard costing for used engines as the work done on any engine is unique to it's condition and life as determined at the time of the strip examination. The costing will, however, fall within a fairly broad band.

Yes.

chetak wrote:The budget and the financial heads for new and overhauled engines is different as is the "task" or commitment of HAL to overhaul and return a specific number engines back to the customer in a given financial year.

HAL does not/can not fit Cat B engines on it's own volition but it's the customer who agrees to accept new build aircraft with Cat B engine(s) and accordingly authorises HAL to deliver the new build aircraft in that condition and this is a very big deal and as such it just cannot be hidden or even covered up in any way.

Precisely. But Its being made to look like HAL is conning IAF and even IAF is ignoring the it, practically helping make the jets as new "Flying Coffins".

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4144
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 14 Apr 2017 17:21

^^^

The IAF has accepted those planes with known usage logs. It would only be an issue if the IAF came out saying HAL misled them (or lied to them) with Cat-B engines etc.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1638
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

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

Postby Sid » 14 Apr 2017 17:49

How do we know if it's an used engine. Do jet engines have Hobbs meter?

I mean if HAL really wanted to con there are others ways they could have done it, not some half assed effort.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

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

Postby manjgu » 14 Apr 2017 19:26

i meant maintenance schedule of a modern fighter jet !! not of engine or SU 30 in particular.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 14 Apr 2017 20:26

manjgu wrote:i meant maintenance schedule of a modern fighter jet !! not of engine or SU 30 in particular.


Nobody actually publishes this stuff - and I would urge you to try and Google for maintenance manuals for aircraft that are becoming obsolete which will give you some idea.

Here is a partially declassified MiG 21 pilots manual in Angrezi as opposed to Roosi - some maintenance stuff in it
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 0001-8.pdf

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4144
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 14 Apr 2017 20:43

manjgu wrote:i meant maintenance schedule of a modern fighter jet !! not of engine or SU 30 in particular.


This provides some clues.

Government takes note of Su-30MKI’s poor serviceability
Thursday, 23 October 2014
...
Last month, the MoD held two high-level meetings to find solutions to this problem. According to figures presented in those meeting (a) 20 per cent of the fleet, i.e. some 39 Su-30MKIs, are undergoing “first line” and “second line” maintenance or inspections at any time, which is the IAF’s responsibility; (b) Another 11-12 per cent of the fleet is undergoing major repair and overhaul by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL); and (c) 13-14 per cent of the fleet is grounded, awaiting major systems or repairs --- the technical terms is: “aircraft on ground”.
...


Maintenance would fall into these broad categories:
  • Regular -> after every flight; before every flight
  • Minor -> after every xx number of flight hours
  • Major -> after larger xx number (1000+) of flight hours
  • Ad hoc (or built-in health check) -> unplanned (damage, faulty parts, extreme usage etc)

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

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

Postby manjgu » 14 Apr 2017 21:54

From google..

Military aircraft are designed to maximize performance, while commercial airliners are designed to maximize reliability.

That's not to say that reliability is unimportant for the military aircraft or that performance is unimportant for the airliners, but when almost everything is done and the last tradeoff is considered, the military jet can accept a little more maintenance in return for a little better performance, while the airliner will probably sell better with better reliability & the ability to go longer between maintenance down-time, even at the cost of the last 0.2% better performance/weight/economy/etc.

The assumption for military aircraft, fighters & bombers in particular, is that they'll finish the day back at their base, and they CAN be worked on for several hours before they're launched again. (Generality here -- yes higher tempo ops are possible, but it's the exception not the rule.) Airliners, on the other hand, typically will fly for days between maintenance checks (beyond adding oil, checking tire pressure, and maybe swapping a particular broke part) -- and that's what's desirable because that's how the airplane makes the most money. So that ability to go for so long between maintenance checks is built in because that's what the customer (the airlines) demands.

Could you get more performance out of an airliner if you were willing to accept more maintenance costs? Sure, but it wouldn't be worth it to the airlines. At the extreme, the Concorde, for all its cool factor, was an economic disaster, even though its performance was superlative.

The military aircraft have redundant systems in order to survive -- limp back to base. Commercial aircraft have redundant systems in order to be able to be dispatched again -- stay in service until repairs can be performed. (Obviously, not everything can be deferred; some things ground the airplane & have to be fixed before it flies again... but a LOT of stuff in the airliner can be deferred & you still have redundant capability to land safety even if another system goes down.) As an example, the F-16 was (may still be) single-INS + single-FMS. The system works or you don't launch. Modern airliners have two or three INS's and FMC's -- dispatch with one INS inop is possible (probably day VMC only), and dispatch with one FMC inop has minimal limitations (no long overwater legs, essentially).

Different missions drive different design priorities, and that in turn shows up as differing levels of maintenance that's required.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 16 Apr 2017 18:08

Malaysian Su-30MKM uses MAW-300 as MAWS sensor
http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial ... -sheet.pdf
Missile approach warning function MAW-300

A unique optical design, incorporating filter
technology, with purpose-built image intensi-
fier tubes and photon-counting focal-plane
array processors ensures high sensitivity
equating to long detection range. Each sen-
sor uses a dedicated digital signal processor
making use of a distributed, hierarchical
data-processing architecture to ensure opti-
mal utilization of information in real-time.
Digitization and pre-processing functions are
performed at the detector using an advanced
focal-plane processor. Each sensor’s data
is transferred to a dedicated digital signal
processor (MAW Controller) resident in the
Electronic Warfare Controller, EWC, which
performs equalization, segmentation and
feature extraction. Each sensor processor can
detect and process multiple potential targets,
passing the spatial and temporal feature data
to the processor card in the EWC where
spatial data is integrated with real-time INS
information to compensate for platform
movement, attitude and altitude. The MAW
Controller then executes neural net pattern
recognition algorithms to ensure accurate
operation with very low false alarm rates.

mAW-300 feAtureS

• Passive ultra violet (uv) based sensors,
which operates in the solar blind uv spec-
trum.
• neural net classifiers using both temporal
and accurate spatial information as well as
compensation of own platform movement,
ensures low false alarm rates.
• reaction time optimized by keeping missile
time to impact constant, irrespective of range
to ensure enhanced flare countermeasures
effectiveness.
• Inhibits warning against diverging missiles.
• Direction accuracy suitable for cueing DIrCm
and dispensing of countermeasures decoys
in correct direction.
• Spatial coverage of 110° conical per sensor
limits unprotected “hole” below platform and
allows good sensor overlap.
• Spatial coverage of 360° AZ with 4 sensors.
full spherical coverage can be achieved with
six sensors.
• Provision to add up to eight sensors to en-
sure hemispherical or full spherical coverage.
• multi-threat capability allows tracking of
multiple targets simultaneously.
• near 100% probability of warning.
• In production for numerous platforms.
• field tested and qualified against various
missiles including live missile firings under
in-flight dynamic conditions.
• Compact, lightweight, low power, no cooling,
skin mounted sensors.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 18 Apr 2017 10:56

HAL makes 12 MKIs/yr. Despite the recent agreements on new entities for direct acquisition from Ru OEMs by Indian entities for spares,etc.,we are still unable to absorb certain aerospace tech due to our low tech base in comparison with aero majors. Ru and Indian aerospace tech levels are not on the same level. This factor is what is hampering the made in India mantra.goal.It also reflects in other milware from other nations. Consequently,the "full TOT" that we're seeking for the FGFA is not practical according to some (IAF) experts.Instead we should focus on key items of tech that we can easily absorb.Full TOT could be given a timeframe to achieve-say 8-10 years ,as desi prod of the aircraft won't exceed MKI prod. rates,the FGFA being a far more sophisticated bird. If we are dissatisfied with this,the FGFA deal may end up like the Rafale,with a limited number purchased and the local prod. decision shelved for later.

According to various def media, All MKIs are to be upgraded to Super-S std.,with BMos and some 5th-gen features incorporated. Another titbit that $10B has been earmarked for poduction of 83 LCA MK-1As, seems exceptionally high,with the cost/unit thus being around $125M a pop! Something isn't right with that fig. as even if you remove a zero,$12.%M/unit also looks very low. Some recent reports had it that the LCA would cost around $25M a pop.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 18 Apr 2017 14:48

Philip wrote:HAL makes 12 MKIs/yr. Despite the recent agreements on new entities for direct acquisition from Ru OEMs by Indian entities for spares,etc.,we are still unable to absorb certain aerospace tech due to our low tech base in comparison with aero majors. Ru and Indian aerospace tech levels are not on the same level. This factor is what is hampering the made in India mantra.goal.It also reflects in other milware from other nations. Consequently,the "full TOT" that we're seeking for the FGFA is not practical according to some (IAF) experts.Instead we should focus on key items of tech that we can easily absorb.Full TOT could be given a timeframe to achieve-say 8-10 years ,as desi prod of the aircraft won't exceed MKI prod. rates,the FGFA being a far more sophisticated bird. If we are dissatisfied with this,the FGFA deal may end up like the Rafale,with a limited number purchased and the local prod. decision shelved for later.

According to various def media, All MKIs are to be upgraded to Super-S std.,with BMos and some 5th-gen features incorporated. Another titbit that $10B has been earmarked for poduction of 83 LCA MK-1As, seems exceptionally high,with the cost/unit thus being around $125M a pop! Something isn't right with that fig. as even if you remove a zero,$12.%M/unit also looks very low. Some recent reports had it that the LCA would cost around $25M a pop.

The point being?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 18 Apr 2017 15:23

Philip wrote: Another titbit that $10B has been earmarked for poduction of 83 LCA MK-1As, seems exceptionally high,with the cost/unit thus being around $125M a pop! Something isn't right with that fig. as even if you remove a zero,$12.%M/unit also looks very low. Some recent reports had it that the LCA would cost around $25M a pop.

Most likely they are doing for Tejas what they have done for Dhruv i.e contract includes maintenance and servicing to keep them flying

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 403
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 25 Apr 2017 17:32

NEWS: The Indian Air force's 221 Squadron, the 'Valiants', began inducting Su-30 MKIs yesterday. The 221 had been flying Mig-23s till 2009.

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 6335891457

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 26 Apr 2017 06:07

ashishvikas wrote:NEWS: The Indian Air force's 221 Squadron, the 'Valiants', began inducting Su-30 MKIs yesterday. The 221 had been flying Mig-23s till 2009.

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 6335891457

noob pooch, what were they doing after 2009? Considering it is a premier frontline strike squadron it wont be left idle for 8 years? Do they continue training in other locations? Also, I do see pics of this sqn on BRF with Mig 23s around 2013, presumably taken before retirement.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

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

Postby Surya » 26 Apr 2017 06:34

ArjunPandit wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:NEWS: The Indian Air force's 221 Squadron, the 'Valiants', began inducting Su-30 MKIs yesterday. The 221 had been flying Mig-23s till 2009.

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 6335891457

noob pooch, what were they doing after 2009? Considering it is a premier frontline strike squadron it wont be left idle for 8 years? Do they continue training in other locations? Also, I do see pics of this sqn on BRF with Mig 23s around 2013, presumably taken before retirement.


It gotnumberplated

the pilots all move on to the other things.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2017 06:40

ArjunPandit wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:NEWS: The Indian Air force's 221 Squadron, the 'Valiants', began inducting Su-30 MKIs yesterday. The 221 had been flying Mig-23s till 2009.

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 6335891457

noob pooch, what were they doing after 2009? Considering it is a premier frontline strike squadron it wont be left idle for 8 years? Do they continue training in other locations? Also, I do see pics of this sqn on BRF with Mig 23s around 2013, presumably taken before retirement.

Squadrons with no aircraft are "numberplated" i.e they exist on paper along with their history and archives but personnel are sent off to other squadrons. The squadron can be raised again later. For example after WW2 a large number of RAF squadrons were "numberplated"

Prithwiraj
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 21 Dec 2016 18:48

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

Postby Prithwiraj » 26 Apr 2017 17:15

I had the same question. Good to know the process. Thanks !! Now when they are raised back again-- how do they get the human resources back i.e pilots, technicians etc.?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2017 18:23

As far as I know the task of building up a new squadron is given to a Wing Commander (or Sq Ldr? don't know) who is flying the type in question and he is given an office, secretarial help etc at an airbase after which he readies the base in terms getting the technicians, ground crew and service personnel ready for the arrival of the aircraft with pilots. Lots of administrative work as far as I know. Coordinating with any other squadron that may already be there, accommodation, married, single etc. That is the limit of my knowledge


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bart S, Dumal, Indrajit, mody and 38 guests