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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 18 Nov 2017 18:31

The IAF can't have its cake and eat it too.It wants "perfection " like the Germans who lost WW2 , sticklers for perfecting their tanks, while forgetting about numbers and mass production,when almost every weapon system ever introduced in modern history has had its teething troubles. I remember the famous quote by the head of the UK's arms procurement, a general I think, who said that it "never failed to amaze him how every weapon system arrived late, over budget and underperformed".Even Israeli much touted Derby AAMs were woefully below promised performance (CAG) when supplied to us and used by IN Sea Harriers. In fact the JV for the B-8 is alleged to be almost totally Israeli with a miniscule input from our side.

Every aircraft bought by the IAF and later built in India was progressively improved from the little Gnat / Ajeet to the MIG-21 F/FL/M/Bis to the ultimate Bison.Similarly the case with SU-30s developing into the MKI and now planned to be upgraded into the even more lethal Super-Sukhoi.

The IAF is behaving in such a contradictory manner and abandoning the goal of self-reliance,unless it is in agreement with one Rahul G who claims it is "self-Reliance!

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9772
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 22 Nov 2017 15:30


Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1012
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

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

Postby Vips » 22 Nov 2017 18:45

The IAF has until now inducted 240 of the 272 twin-seat Sukhois contracted from Russia for over $12 billion, with the bulk of them being licensed and produced by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.


At a run rate of 12 aircrafts per year HAL has assured 3 years of time to show how productive (Sic) they are for the country.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15509
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 22 Nov 2017 19:54

Philip wrote:Even Israeli much touted Derby AAMs were woefully below promised performance (CAG) when supplied to us and used by IN Sea Harriers. In fact the JV for the B-8 is alleged to be almost totally Israeli with a miniscule input from our side.


Your wider point not withstanding, these two specific points need to be addressed.

1. CAG never said Derby underperformed/ was below promised performance. It said its performance was below the specific NSRs set by the Navy and the Navy should have chosen a different missile to begin with. Derby was designed for IDFAF as an inbetween WVR-BVR missile and it fulfills that role.

2.Claims that B-8 is almost totally Israeli with miniscule input from our side - which B-8 are you speaking of? The Navy variant or the AF one? In both, the pulse motor plus actuation are from India.
The AF variant, fire unit launchers, the C3I vehicle plus its electronics & software, the radar cooling system is from India. Enough has been posted on BR already about this.

To claim, that almost nothing in B-8 is Indian, is to repeat stupid media allegations and vested interests.

And kindly dont post a 4000 word media report stating the above, we have seen those and they are rubbish. The actual details on both the above points are available at CAG and on BR, posted multiple times.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15509
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 22 Nov 2017 20:03

Singha wrote:by yardstick of rear aspect VLO, only the f22 and UCAV designs fit the bill. not the J31, not the J20 and not the JSF.

so why would that be a deal killer wrt the PAKFA.


I am saying aft and rear. The entire rearwards side of the PAK-FA has been ignored for VLO optimization, let alone VLO. We have to penetrate the huge IADS net with multiple radars positioned everywhich where, set up by PRC thoughtfully with caring Russian sales of the S-3XX, we need as much VLO coverage as possible.

If your aircraft is visible like a lighthouse from 100 degrees off boresight, what's the point.

the only sticking points could be obtaining a license to customize the avionics with non-russian gear also, for that let us use the Su30 as a testcase and try to fit a EL2054-XL and a desi L band wing array ..... and a complete suite of desi EW from wingtip to wingtip with OEM help from sukhoi


Good luck with that. Sukhoi didn't help you with fixing the Bars with EL/L-8222, why would they help you with the rest?

if they reject this for Su30 , its time to let the PAKFA go and look for other options like israeli and swedish help on AMCA in exchange for the ample bones that are on the table. and murican engine ofcourse.


My point exactly. Use a French engine or have ADA be less lazy and use an EJ option rather than GE if need be.

And buy some JSFs for door kicking and to hold the fort while non sanctionable AMCAs arrive in plenty.

Instead of relying yet again on some PAKFA which is a hanger queen because israeli EW wont work with desi RWR which wont work with russian radar which does not meet IAF ASR bla bla.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 23 Nov 2017 04:47

For super-MKI upgrade the russians will need to make money, and to do that they will end up selling all the stuff planned for PAKFA for it ( Ilz-30 engine + radar + new OLS sensor ) etc. If that is going to be the case, then the PAKFA electronically will be no more advanced than the Super-MKI. For IAF the value then is the RCS reduction from current MKI profile to PAKFA profile. How does it change the risk profile for the platform in a light/mid/heavy protected battle space. That will define if it is worth the extra fixed cost of 6.7 billion dollar payment + 2X the cost of production .

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1012
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

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

Postby Vips » 23 Nov 2017 18:59

Why would the Russians kill the market for its PAKFA by offering all the goodies on the SU platform? They may be high on Vodka but are not going to commit harakiri. Its not just India. They have to consider all the countries they have sold SU variants to. The need to differentiate from the ultimate PAK FA package will be dictated by commercial and strategic interests. If at all you will have watered down versions of all the PAKFA avionics offered to India.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 23 Nov 2017 20:05

India can obtain/develop its alternative avionics as we did with the MKI.However,as the US has started using the F-22 in combat ,the demand for greater numbers of steatlh birds will only increase,specially as the JSF-even in its incomplete format,comes off the assembly lines in large number.Stealth birds will be as much objects of desire o air farces as are "smart phones" to civilians.With BMos-L due to arrive within the next few years,small enough to be accommodated in the SU-57s internal bay,the lethality of the missile-stealth fighter combo will increase dramatically from the non-stealthy bird.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5264
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

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

Postby Viv S » 24 Nov 2017 12:46

How 4 great Indians from 3 rival parties saved Sukhoi-30 - The Print

SHEKHAR GUPTA 23 November, 2017

A Sukhoi-30 fired a Brahmos missile to national applause and defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman hailed it as a world record. An inside story of how the IAF’s Su-30 dream would have crashed before take-off but for the sagacity of Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Jaswant Singh and the most unlikely, Mulayam.


This is a story from the summer of 1996. Some of you might remember (and the rest can Google) how a little controversy had started to build in the last days of the Narasimha Rao government when, with the election campaign in full swing, the Sukhoi-30 deal was signed with the Russians and, The Indian Express broke the story. There were immediate protests from the BJP. Rao’s was after all a caretaker government with the Election Commission’s model code in force.

There were dark insinuations, as it is usual with all defence deals: was Rao in a hurry to collect hundreds of crores for his campaign?

Then, surprisingly, the BJP stepped back. Because the facts were absolutely to the contrary. Somebody did indeed want money from the Sukhoi deal, but it wasn’t Rao.

Two weeks before the first round of the 1996 elections, I got a call one morning from Jaswant Singh to talk about the Sukhoi story.

What did I think about the deal, he asked. Did I suspect there was a scam, like Bofors? I told him I had heard no such thing and that my friends in the IAF thought this was a great aircraft. He then asked me if I would see Mr Vajpayee (then leader of the opposition) to talk more about this.

The same afternoon, I got a call from Vajpayee’s home to see him at breakfast the next morning. Vajpayee was lovingly and generously buttering a crisp toast and feeding it in small pieces to his favourite Pomeranian, while exploring the possibility of a campaign-time bonanza of a scandal bigger than Bofors.

His question, briefly, was as follows. The lame-duck Congress government had sealed the deal in its last days in an unseemly hurry. It was also his ‘information’ that the government had paid an advance of around $350 million to the Russians without any final price settlement. Why such an unusual rush? Did the Congress want to collect a kickback in the last, cash-and-carry phase of its government?

He said he had heard that the Express knew more about this, or if not, could I have it looked at more closely? He said his apprehension was that “if it is a good plane, unsubstantiated talk of a scam should not scuttle the deal”. At the same time, knowing the ways of the Rao government, and circumstantial evidence in the case, you naturally suspected a kickback.

We checked out our usual sources and suspects and it did not seem that the decision, though hasty, was mala fide. The BJP too kept quiet, Rao’s Congress was defeated anyway, and Vajpayee’s coalition government was sworn in, although the first time it lasted only 13 days.

It was towards the last couple of days of that government that Jaswant Singh called me to chat on the sidelines of a public function. “That Sukhoi story,” he said, “is actually nothing.” Having been in government now, they had been able to look at the files and it was a clean deal and the haste, if any, was in a larger national interest, so it would be better to forget all about it. He wouldn’t tell me what that ‘larger’ national interest was.

The scene now shifts to the IAF mess on New Delhi’s Zakir Hussain Marg, a few months later, and we pick up the thread of that Sukhoi story again. Now H.D. Deve Gowda’s coalition was in power and Mulayam Singh Yadav was the defence minister. His ministry had organised a dinner for him to meet senior editors at the IAF’s showpiece mess in Delhi. Mulayam’s defence ministry had just finalised the full Sukhoi order. I stole a discreet moment to ask him if he had looked at the Sukhoi deal closely, because it was signed by Rao in such haste, there was a large, arbitrary advance involved, and because the top leaders of the BJP were at one stage suspicious about it.

“I know, I know, Jaswantji and Atalji had brought this up with me,” he said. Then he went on to describe in detail how, before the final, full deal was signed, he had actually invited Vajpayee and Jaswant to South Block to have a detailed presentation on the deal given to them. He said they had suggested changes in the deal documentation, including the provision of a sovereign guarantee from the Russian government that no kickbacks were paid and, should any be discovered any time in future, they would reimburse the amount to the Government of India.

Then, Mulayam said with a lot of delight: “They came to my office, we settled everything, but you people never found anything out.”

That conversation ended with Mulayam telling me triumphantly, and repeatedly, “Dekha, media phail ho gaya (see, the media failed to find out).”

We had failed, alright, to break a marvellous story, of how arch-rivals Mulayam and the BJP had actually exchanged notes on such a sensitive issue behind closed doors. Though late, it was still a great story, I thought, and so asked the redoubtable Ritu Sarin, the head of the Express investigative bureau, to find out more.

Sure enough, she landed up at Jaswant Singh’s office to check. At which point I once again got an invitation to Vajpayee’s house. This time, the point was simple. Could the Express avoid this story please? Because if it was published, it might hamper “our ability to communicate across party lines even on issues of such sensitivity and national interest”. These are days of bitter, ideological politics, but governing India is serious business, he said, or something to that effect.

Now, the mystery of what exactly that ‘larger’ national interest was that had led to such haste and a large advance payment in the last days of the Rao government. It seems that Boris Yeltsin had told Rao that he too was heading for elections, that the Sukhoi factory happened to be in his constituency, was too broke to pay salaries to its staff and if India could pay it that advance, salaries would be paid. It would work like magic in his election campaign.

That advance was, therefore, a political deal between the big boys, to be adjusted in the final pricing later. It was a conscious, diplomatic decision, cleared by Rao, and executed by none else than the then finance minister, Manmohan Singh.

Rao took an incredibly bold decision (given the Bofors background) which the BJP, locked in a bitter electoral battle with him, was suspicious of, but did not make an issue of, in the national interest.

When the BJP found the real reason (the Yeltsin request) they kept quiet — they in fact said Rao’s government had handled it masterfully. Then Mulayam Singh, whose entire politics is based on anti-BJPism, was large-hearted enough to open the files to its leaders and take their advice, again in the national interest.

In one story, therefore, you had the top leadership of all three major political groups — bitter enemies — involved. Yet they talked, shared confidences, and did the right thing by their nation. Now compare that with the lack of communication, even social graces, the general antagonism in our politics through this past month, and you know why that Sukhoi story is so relevant, and worthy of recall.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5690
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 24 Nov 2017 20:35

Viv_S: That is too much for Rahul Gandhi to comprehend. He is accusing the GOI without any facts. Gone are the days when politicians put aside their policy differences in the interest of national security.

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

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

Postby arvin » 24 Nov 2017 22:39

I dont believe a word of that article.
Seems to be a tactic to know the logistics and fine print involved in Rafale buy. More importantly offset clauses and future options.
Coming on the heels of selective leaks regarding SE deals.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50366
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 24 Nov 2017 22:55

News media dalalgiri in full display straight form the ass's mouth.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 25 Nov 2017 02:16

Vips wrote:Why would the Russians kill the market for its PAKFA by offering all the goodies on the SU platform? They may be high on Vodka but are not going to commit harakiri. Its not just India. They have to consider all the countries they have sold SU variants to. The need to differentiate from the ultimate PAK FA package will be dictated by commercial and strategic interests. If at all you will have watered down versions of all the PAKFA avionics offered to India.


Ah, the above upgrade isn't going to come for free, plus why will the IAF operate different levels of hardware when they can standardize on the above. This also means that the likelyhood of IAF transitioning to 12 PAKFA a year on the same Nasik line goes through the roof. The only question is who much IP does 6.7 billion buy us? That is pretty much funding the development phase of the product and having no work share or say in the production. One clause could be: we will give 6.7 billion, but then forever large portions of the PAKFA will be built in India, no matter who the user is (RuAF or third party customers). I think this is a reasonable ask if we are to fund the development and there are no other takers for this platform at the moment.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50366
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 08 Dec 2017 05:49

Awesome 1 hour discussion on LSTV on how the SU-30 was modified to carry the recent Brahmos test and its accuracy and how it got there.
Three retd generals speak with passion on what was achieved.
Further they talk about A-6 on its way.

Prem wrote:

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3899
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 08 Dec 2017 06:04

Philip wrote:Even Israeli much touted Derby AAMs were woefully below promised performance (CAG) when supplied to us and used by IN Sea Harriers. In fact the JV for the B-8 is alleged to be almost totally Israeli with a miniscule input from our side.


So was the R-77. Many turned out to be duds, which is partly the reason why the IAF wholeheartedly embraced the Astra. Funny how you don't seem to remember Russian duds.

Every aircraft bought by the IAF and later built in India was progressively improved from the little Gnat / Ajeet to the MIG-21 F/FL/M/Bis to the ultimate Bison.Similarly the case with SU-30s developing into the MKI and now planned to be upgraded into the even more lethal Super-Sukhoi.



Now if you could only apply this reasoning and logic to the Tejas program, which you've been deriding for several years now consistently, with cheap potshots and sneaky remarks. It too needs time, effort and money, but the inherent potential in the design is tremendous. This is a light fighter that can go on to serve the IAF and serve it well, for many decades to come.

I hope we won't see you making derogatory or snide remarks about it when you have this viewpoint on the Gnat/MiG-21 and Su-30MKI.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 08 Dec 2017 21:45

K, where have I been deriding the LCA? I've been advocating building as much as poss., extra line and greater focus on management of the progr.Pl read my posts in the LCA td. The programme management thus far has been a disaster.There's a 2015 Dec.report containing IAF AMs expressing many doubts about various aspects of the progr.Shall post sometime just to give the pic from that side.However, one is sure that after the NDA arrived, the whip was cracked , significant progress made and why we're now even seeing reports that the SEF req. may be dumped.

This is the SU-30 td.What would be v.i interesting is to see official estimates of the cost of an MKI upgrade into an SS and the accompanying specs.,their performance c co(mparison with 29 and M2K upgrades could be made later.The entire work is supposed to be done at home at Nasik..

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5690
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 09 Dec 2017 22:17

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/939489940697636864 —> India’s Dynamatics Technologies hands over its 100th set of control surfaces to HAL for the Su-30 MKI license build.

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

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

Postby Eric Leiderman » 10 Dec 2017 09:05

Once an AESA radar is installed there should be a reduction of at least 100 kg also a lot of space will be freed because it is not so bulky. HALs plan of reducing the overall dry weight with this and removal of fixed ballast etc is very achievable. There will be extra weight added with other avoinics especially EW suite Hopefully they can trim down structures that are overdesigned, Now that the have stress/strain data from the never ending test flights. For the MK1A the EW will be in a pod so the clean weight should reduce by up to 300-400 Kgs That will improve range, TW ratio just to name 2 parameters.
The main drawback of the LCA will be if it is used in a multirole mode it will have to be stationed close to the border, for point defence that will not be an issue. However with our air defence systems now (Hopefully)on steriods that can be largely negated. Plus we have operated Migs 21 and 29(prior MLU) with ranges comparable to the LCA so the operating doctrines for this should be in place.
We are going to get a plane that is way ahead of anything that our neighbours possess. GO LCA may your numbers multiply

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63090
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 10 Dec 2017 09:48

>>Once an AESA radar is installed there should be a reduction of at least 100 kg

afaik aesa radars of the same aperture tend to be heavier than pulse dopplers, as the dish is not a real dish but a tiled surface of meaty front end modules. the back end modules are meatier processing modules to handle much more data and hence the cooling units (air or liquid) tend to be bigger too. the only potential saving due to e-beam-steering is the motor that moves the pulse doppler dish but many pesa/aesa also move via same mechanism to increase the FOV.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1566
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 10 Dec 2017 12:15

Eric Leiderman wrote:Once an AESA radar is installed there should be a reduction of at least 100 kg also a lot of space will be freed because it is not so bulky. HALs plan of reducing the overall dry weight with this and removal of fixed ballast etc is very achievable. There will be extra weight added with other avoinics especially EW suite Hopefully they can trim down structures that are overdesigned, Now that the have stress/strain data from the never ending test flights. For the MK1A the EW will be in a pod so the clean weight should reduce by up to 300-400 Kgs That will improve range, TW ratio just to name 2 parameters.


Isn't it a bit contradictory ? If the AESA is lighter, then you need more ballast to maintain the CG (or proportionately reduce the weight also at the tail end). OTOH, if it is heavier than the current radar, then you can remove the ballast.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50366
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 18 Dec 2017 22:54

X-Post:
la.khan wrote:Work to integrate Brahmos on 40 Sukhoi aircraft begins
The work to integrate the Brahmos missile on 40 Sukhoi combat aircraft has begun. A timeline for the project is being set, official sources said without elaborating. it is learnt that the project is expected to be completed by 2020.

The fleet of 40 Sukhoi jet will undergo structural modifications at the state-run aerospace major Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) for integration of the missile on them.



vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby vasu raya » 20 Dec 2017 23:00

Regarding the recent Su-30 crash in the NE, if weather say is the cause, implying the control surfaces or the attitude of the aircraft is too slow to react to wind changes, would these improvements help,

a) higher frequency update of the control surfaces, this could force new actuators development? like seekers this is somewhat an uncharted area for local defence developers

b) if the trim control surfaces are insufficient to compensate, the aircraft's FCS itself commanding a change in the roll parameter (I know its not a independent variable) or turning into the crosswind to help the pilots maintain the desired trajectory he is flying?

c) And a wind tunnel to simulate those specific conditions even if those are extremes encountered only 5% of the time? most tunnels only seem to simulate one directional air flow wrt aircraft at anytime

raj-senthil
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby raj-senthil » 08 Jan 2018 10:45

Image

John
BRFite
Posts: 1792
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Postby John » 12 Jan 2018 17:51


IMO while ability to carry is what is promoted as reason for structural change it will also allow it to carry few other type of missiles.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3485
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 12 Jan 2018 20:15

raj-senthil wrote:Image


That's an impressive portfolio. I really have high hopes from companies like Dynamitic, VEM, Alpha Tech to be the key pillars of Indian MIC.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3485
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 12 Jan 2018 20:15

John wrote:
ramana wrote:X-Post:

IMO while ability to carry is what is promoted as reason for structural change it will also allow it to carry few other type of missiles.

Such as..?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15509
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 12 Jan 2018 22:26


John
BRFite
Posts: 1792
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Postby John » 13 Jan 2018 02:28

Karan M wrote:Jay - if ALA still exists

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/the- ... 2010-11-20

Bingo but it is speculation.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15509
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 13 Jan 2018 03:08

Nirbhay as well for Su-30.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 13 Jan 2018 07:14

Karan M wrote:Nirbhay as well for Su-30.

With 1000+km launch range (plus Su-30MKI reach) it will be a good strategic deterrent against China. Can be launched well outside any Chinese AD and jig-zag its way to destroy strategic targets.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21906
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 13 Jan 2018 08:42

Received this on email, sharing as received

These are how the R-77s are to be handled

http://trishulgroup.blogspot.in/2009/07/r-77-bvraam-handlingstorage-procedures.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/S ... R-77-1.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/S ... R-77-2.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/S ... R-77-3.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/S ... R-77-4.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/S ... R-77-5.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/S ... R-77-6.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/S ... R-77-7.jpg

R-77 Purchase by IAF/IN

RVV-AE/AA-12 BVRAAM
1) 1,000 nos - 1999 (order) - 1999-2002 (delivery) - Su-30MKI, MiG-21UPG and probably for modernized MiG-29 and possibly for modernized MiG-27ML combat aircraft
2) 40 nos - 2006 (order) - 2012 (delivery) - MiG-29K, $22mn
3) 500 nos - 2011 (order) - 2012-2013 (delivery) - $463 m deal

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9772
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 13 Jan 2018 10:02

Have we done any work to refurbish the old 1000 or have we disposed of them, cause given PAF has 500 Amraam's for 75 odd F-16's, I certainly hope we have a lot of spare BVR missiles so that any PAF fighter that takes to the air must be only dodging AAM's launched from far and near.

R-77 and Astra for SU 30 Fleet, MIG 29K Navy, Mig 29 AF, Mig 21 Bison, Upgraded Mig 27 Fleet.

Derby and Astra for LCA Tejas

Mica, Meteor, Astra for M-2000 and Rafale aircraft

Wonder what BVR EL 2052 equipped Jaguar's fire.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21906
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 13 Jan 2018 10:08

Aditya_V wrote:Mica, Meteor, Astra for M-2000 and Rafale aircraft

Wonder what BVR EL 2052 equipped Jaguar's fire.


Why cant they integrate Asta on M2K , Rafale and Jaguar and make it fleet wide , too many types of missile is a PITA

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9772
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 13 Jan 2018 10:48

I hope it happens, there are reports of us exporting Astra for USA M-2000's, so highely likely it will be intergrated with M-2000, Rafale and Jaguar family.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 13 Jan 2018 13:25

Didn't the Jags have as their overwing SAM new MICA SAMs ?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21906
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 13 Jan 2018 17:07

You mean ASRAAM and not Mica , yes they do replacing Matra short range variant. ASRAAM/Derby would give Jaguar good defence facing the teens

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1569
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

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

Postby manjgu » 13 Jan 2018 19:32

MICA SAM's !! its ASRAAM AAM's ...

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2681
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 13 Jan 2018 21:03

Austin wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:Mica, Meteor, Astra for M-2000 and Rafale aircraft

Wonder what BVR EL 2052 equipped Jaguar's fire.


Why cant they integrate Asta on M2K , Rafale and Jaguar and make it fleet wide , too many types of missile is a PITA



Because making Astra work on the French planes is also a PITA?

Sigh. This comes with having many planes from many different places.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1569
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

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

Postby manjgu » 13 Jan 2018 21:26

i read PAF got its AMRAAM 120C in bulk in 2006/7. and a smaller delivery in 2010.... so are they reaching expiry? !!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 13 Jan 2018 23:04

Sorry, the wretched spell ck. on my new "smart " phone is playing merry he'll with my posts/ messaging! Sam's ( just shown you for example what it also does!)...he'll... there again, Bl**dy hell !


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: andy B, sum and 49 guests