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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8755
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 28 Mar 2020 22:39

Karan M wrote:Brar, at this point you are just doing the same stuff all over again.


And why should I not continue to state that the lack of specific technical sourcing in the APA analysis? And when they do provide sources (such as Aviation Week) they cherry pick data to suite their conclusions. Again, if they managed to source actual performance technical data, I am all ears. Show that here. They certainly never put out an analysis claiming to utilize it.

Karan M wrote:Again, if you think you know better than Kopp, please put up a parametric analysis of AWG-9/71 vs APG-63 to back up your claimed superiority of the latter vs the former, to back up or rebut what some USN guy or USAF guy said and then we can go from there.


My problem with Kopp never pertained to his analysis of the F-14 vs F-15. It was with his capability claims on the AESA radars and the lack of technical sourcing of the data he attributed to them. The F-15/F-14 point was in rebuttal to an interview of ONE F-14 pilot who claimed something to which I merely stated that I have heard different things from other pilots.

Karan M wrote:Forget what AvWeek said or he said, she said. Lets just go with the methodology. Use his methodology, create a parametric analysis of the AESA or MSAs and lets see what's wrong with Kopps approach.


Why do I need to do that? I am not saying going to now start a think tank and spend resources in rebutting the garbage that the APA has put out over the years. He claims certain performance baesline and he uses that baseline to attribute capability to US AESA radars. Some of what he cites as evidence is attributed to media publications and print stories some of which are selectively cherry picked and the lower end of what those very sources have claimed over time. That is his bias. The APA stuff is a think tank analysis which feeds a particular conclusion that the organization has always held. It is not an academic assessment of performance that would stand a peer review.

It was news to me to learn that he used ACTUAL TECHNICAL data on the said radars to form his analysis. If that were true then that would have been a major revelation. And most certainly something that I would love to see. But in reality, none of what he produced at the APA ever used classified technical materials. It often cited publicly available data which was scant, unreliable and not something that could be used in a serious technical analysis much like product brochures.

In short, the APA does not use (nor claims to use) any classified or even specific vendor or operator provided technical details, instead relying on inaccurate or dated media reports as a basis of performance attribution and shows a bias towards understating the performance of US airborne AESA radars and combat aircraft performance in general. That constitutes a think tank paper and does not constitute a verifiable review or a credible assessment of these sensors. Next we'll claim that the F-35 can only carry 2 missiles in its Air Superiority configuration because the much published Kopp and his APA claimed this to be the case. And because they say, it must be true.

Forget what AvWeek said or he said, she said. Lets just go with the methodology.


He uses old sources to attribute a certain radar performance to US radars. The data that he used is cherry picked to suite his conclusions and even if it weren't does not constitute technical details that would constitute a reasonable and peer reviewable data. Now if we ignore what he attributes to the performance of US AESA radars the entire argument or comparison fades away. If he under-estimates US AESA performance based on his bias or cherry picked data, or because he refused to update that data when newer data was available (often from the same sources), how are we to believe that he is attributing reasonable capability to the said radars?

Karan M wrote:What's even more amusing is what he thought was a "bad light" is also reluctantly admitted by him to be still solid performance.


Accurately sizing up the capability of sensors is pretty important. If you systematically underestimate the capability of sensors because that feeds into your conclusion than it really has no value in the broader scheme of things. Starting with the F-22, and F-35 and even down to the other US radars, he has on nearly all occasions understated the performance of these AESA radars. This systemic mis-characterization of these data points to a systemic bias whick he and Goon clearly had/have.

Nor did it have anything to do with Bill Sweetman leaving Av Week.


Bill Sweetman leaving AvWeek because of Lockheed? What a joke. I'm sure the opportunity of a lifetime to document (by being on the inside) probably the most important aerospace program (which would be right up his ally given he has attempted to do this for other programs), in the US, this side of the last 2.5 decades, had nothing to do with it (for both him and one of his colleagues).

do you seriously think researchers in any field wait for "requirements" to determine competitor capabilities and lack the domain expertise to put 2+2 together in their respective fields and make informed estimates which they constantly iterate vs released data?


What does this even mean? How do you attribute capabilities to a future platform before those requirements have even been framed? It is hard to do that with all the information, let alone do it with just a bunch of media sources and sanitized information to go by. He failed to do it on the F-35 for example because he completely mis-represented (or deliberately) the fact that the program upped the sensor requirements very early on. That would have been an easier lift actually..he wasn't trying to predict the future before the requirements were set in stone. All he needed to do was correctly interpret stated data. That he failed to even do that properly should be sufficient to draw caution to his ability to predict performance when not even that is available. He kept on baselining it to the Super Hornet level performance. When data came out to the contrary, he and his group never updated their assessment. Similarly, he never modeled the F-22's capabiliy increase with the transition from the 3rd Gen. APG-77 to the fourth gen. APG-77-V-1 which changed a number of important things on that sensor. Similarly, in one of his presentations that I witnessed he presented open source data on how the F-15 performance would be upgraded if they switched from a MSA to an active antenna. But that is not the extent of the F-15 RMP. The final state involved a completely new radar, major changes to the aircraft and its other systems to extract a much higher level of performance. He never modeled that or attributed this higher capability...

Karan M wrote:40000 words to basically admit that the F/A-18 E/F does OCA/DCA unlike what you originally claimed with such certitude.


Come on man. Should it be this hard to understand this nuance? The F-18E/F is not an OCA/DCA optimized platform. The COCOM's do not prefer it for it. The US Navy did not emphasize this capability when establishing requirements for the program or executing the project. The platform does not excel at it. Please compare and contrast what the ATF/N-ATF performance requirements were to what was eventually required of the F-18 E/F. The former represented the peak requirements for an optimal OCA/DCA platfrom the US could develop given their capability. The latter waters down most of that in the interest of affordability and recognizing the fact that there were missions the USN did not need to provide to the COCOMs. OCA is one of them. The DCA threat was and still is not as severe for the USN to pay to build those hard requirements into the F-18E/F. Case in point, the USN accepted a much smaller radar (to the F-14 and ATF/N-ATF) and did not pay to have the F-14's IRST ported over to the F-18E/F. When China fields hundreds of J-20 this will change. Hence why the USN is now advocating that it stop buying more Super Hornets beyond 2021, and go all in on the FA-XX.

It is not very difficult to understand that the various US AESA radars reflect various levels of technical capability and performance based on the emphasis and overall goals. The F-16 and F-18 AESA aren't as capable as the F-22, F-15 or F-35 AESA. A good way to look at this would be to characterize the F-16 radars as the low end, the F-18E radars as mid end and the F-22/35/15 radars as the high end in terms of performance and capability. This doesn't mean that the F-16 and 18 radars are crap..just that they are not designed to be at the bleeding edge of performance based on trades made by the operator and the way they framed their requirements. Requirements represent what the operator chooses as far as trade space and what he is willing to bake in and pay for. The F-18 and F-16 radars are not that level of capability. In fact the UAE F-16 radar will be slightly better than USAF F-16 AESA radar. And the USAF is fine with that because it meets what they need for that platform for the ANG mission. Which is fine because these platforms are not expected to support the COCOM in the said missions. They'll do it but when the COCOM needs OCA platforms they don't go to the USN and demand additional Rhino presence in a theater. They ask the USAF to send F-22's or F-15's and now F-35's. This is why the F-35 is on its second Middile East / CENTCOM deployment and why the first deployment happened just as F-22's were rotated back to stateside for upgrades. F-18's and F-16's will perform those missions when required but that is far from saying they are optimized for it...in terms of platform and sensor performance.

The entire F-18E/F OCA/DCA argument stems from the fact that I claimed that the radar isn't optimized for it because the USN did not emphasize that in its requirement. To claim that they must have because it is the only platform they have doesn't mean much. Fact is that the the SH requirements provided just a slight increase (15-20%) in the radar size over baseline Hornet which puts it significantly below the level of sensor performance demanded from the likes of the F-35 and F-22. And of course the F-15 which benefits from having a lot more space for a large radar. This translates to other provisions. As such while the USN will do to extract performance out of the platfrom it will have to live with some limitations that trace back to the original requirements and decisions. Hence why the FA-XX is likely to look a lot different.

Fact is that the F-15/22/35 sport AESA radars that are of similar or more advanced technology to the APG-79, and have anywhere from 30-50% more T/R modules and associated provisions. This is very valuable because their requirements were more extensive for both traditional radar roles and non-traditional radar missions. The customer demanded this and was willing to pay for it. The F-16 and F-18E/F radars reflect a different trade and smaller sensors. These are compromises based on a whole host of factors that traded away one extreme end of the performance for affordability reasons (The F-18E/F is akin to a USN's F-16 block 60).

mody
BRFite
Posts: 680
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

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

Postby mody » 29 Mar 2020 18:25

@brar_w and @KaranM, guys I know everyone is in lockdown and has plenty of time on hand, but this is the Su-30MKI thread.
Your discussion though good, is OT.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17002
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 29 Mar 2020 18:53

I will move it to the international aero thread.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20706
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 02 Apr 2020 22:27

Is the report in another site true about SU-30MKI upgrades with Irbis-E " stealth radars",new engines,and LR AAMs from 200 to 400 km, BMos, etc.,etc. ,on offer another huge numbe,for real? That is that there is some genuine measure of truth in it,a plan at least on paper?

HAL is now completing the MKI orders on hand.Last year we were told that another batch of 12+ to replacd attritions was on,but this report indicates that another 10 sqds. at least are planned.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7648
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 02 Apr 2020 23:02

Philip wrote:Is the report in another site true about SU-30MKI upgrades with Irbis-E " stealth radars",new engines,and LR AAMs from 200 to 400 km, BMos, etc.,etc. ,on offer another huge numbe,for real? That is that there is some genuine measure of truth in it,a plan at least on paper?

HAL is now completing the MKI orders on hand.Last year we were told that another batch of 12+ to replacd attritions was on,but this report indicates that another 10 sqds. at least are planned.

HVT clarified on Twitter that there is no plan envisaged to upgrade the MKI's engines. Radar and other upgrades are planned.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20706
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 02 Apr 2020 23:19

Tx.Nachi.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 03 Apr 2020 10:42

I would love for the Su30s to get some wet hardpoints. Not to create more range, but to serve as refueling tankers which can be much more survivable near our hotly contested borders.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5835
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

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

Postby vishvak » 03 Apr 2020 11:00

Indranil wrote:I would love for the Su30s to get some wet hardpoints. Not to create more range, but to serve as refueling tankers which can be much more survivable near our hotly contested borders.

If PESA are good enough or equal in range to Irbis-E stealth radars then perhaps better to buy T-50 stealth fighter jets, considering radars are on costlier side of over all purchase. Then use older Su-30s for refuelling as quoted.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7648
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 03 Apr 2020 23:53

Irbis-E is also a PESA. Not sure how well it will run in the MKI without new engines. Its peak power is supposedly 20kW and average of 5kW compared to 8kW peak and 2kW average of the Bars. That will draw more power and require more cooling. Perhaps more than the AL-31's can handle.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1503
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Sumeet » 04 Apr 2020 01:30

Man this sucks in 2020+ time frame we will be installing a PESA radar on our frontline fighter.

We should have worked with Israel or someone to accelerate our own Uttam AESA program or we can still accelerate our AESA and install it in MKI as well in few years from now.

We should aim for max commonality between MWF, Super-30 and AMCA

Only things we need from Russia for Super-30:
Saturn AL-41F1S engine of Su-35
OLS-35 IRST sensor
RCS reduction measures
Select AA/AG weapons

India's indigenous:
Glass Cockpit Redesign
Multi Sensor Data fusion
New Processors
Scaled up Uttam AESA Radar
EW (Some upgrade/variant of D-29)
Software Defined Datalink
SATCOM
IFF
Missiles(AA/AG) - Astra Mk1, Astra Mk2, Astra SFDR, Sudarshan, NGARM, SAAW, Nirbhay ALCM, Brahmos-A, ASRAAM/Astra CCM

From Israel:
Spice PGM
I-Derby ER
Latest HMD from Elbit Systems
Litening 5 TP

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

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

Postby JTull » 04 Apr 2020 13:58

SB 435 pic has appeared with new RWR (as pointed by Angad). When did the roll out start?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 04 Apr 2020 19:30

Same R118 RWR as in 2017
https://twitter.com/rajatpTOI/status/93 ... 41/photo/1

New vs Tarang ok. Not new per se.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9056
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 05 Apr 2020 21:09

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 93824?s=20 ---> Just In: Hindustan Aeronautics Limited announces that it has completed production of all 222 Su-30MKI contracted to it by the IAF and is now expecting a few more additional orders.

https://twitter.com/FuturisingIN/status ... 96000?s=20 ---> 272?

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 69153?s=20 ---> Another 50 were delivered directly by Russia (no HAL involvement).

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9056
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 05 Apr 2020 21:22

https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 33993?s=20 ---> With hypersonic missiles, advanced radars, Su-30MKIs to remain the backbone of the IAF. HAL had requested the approval of MoD for assembling 72 Su-30MKI jets at its Nashik facility. The total order was for the project was around $5 billion or $70 million/unit.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9056
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 07 Apr 2020 05:29


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9056
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 07 Apr 2020 05:36


Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2607
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Apr 2020 08:05

If there are going to be new orders, order them without the radar and install our own uttam radar or 2052. Plus order with new things that are planned for super-30 version. So the expense to replace is not there.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12008
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 07 Apr 2020 12:15

So IAF now has 272-9 =263 SU 30 MKI. 12 to be produced of over the next year. Makes sense to order more upgraded Su 30, 36 Rafales, ramp up Lca Tejas production and scrap the MRCA.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4539
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 09 Apr 2020 06:54

TWITTER

@Aerodynamic111 wrote:

Local tech to upgrade the Super Sukhoi?

AESA RADAR: NIIP N011M Bars radar, which is a PESA system will be replaced by a derivative of the N036 X-Band AESA, Uttam AESA can be scaled up or down depending on antenna size requirements. Uttam AESA radar for Su-30 will require a +larger bigger antenna which packs more T/R modules to take advantage of bigger space of the frontal nose cone of the Su-30MKI.

New Mission Computer: The Su-30MKI fleet is equipped with Mission Computer cum Display Processor-MC-486 and DP-30MK dvlpd by India’s very own DARE in 1998. The 32-bit mission computer performs mission-oriented computations, flight mngmnt, reconfiguration-cum-redundancy management +and in-flight systems self-tests. In compliance with MIL-STD-1521 and 2167A standards, ADA language was adopted for the mission computer’s software. Acc. to DARE it already has developed Advanced computers for nxt-gen aircraft and one developed for Tejas Mk1 and Mk2

+which are PowerPC based computing architecture which is a 64-bit which is a big improvement in processing power.
Upgraded Su-30MKI Cockpit: India’s HAL already showcased newly upgraded cockpit which now features, 2 high-resolution LCDs with a multifunction control panel with +a wide 20°x30° field of view head-up display which brings it at par with the Cockpit of the Sukhoi Su-35. Samtel/DARE will develop new high-resolution LCDs.

Radar warning receiver (RWR): Su-30MKI fleet are equipped with DARE developed Tarang-Mk2 RWR + HADF.

+DARE now has developed all digital RWR christened ‘Dhruti’ for the Su-30MKI fleet, based on its experience on D-29 RWR developed for the Mig-29UPG fleet.

Self-Protection Jammer Pods: Su-30MKI fleet are equipped with Russian SAP-518 pods which due to poor performance was +supplemented with Israeli Elta EL/L-8222 Airborne Self Protection Jammer pods, which now have been offered with wideband EL/L-8222WB pods. DARE also has developed DARE’s HBJ which has begun dummy trials in 2019.
IRST: IAF’s Su-30MKI fleet is equipped with Russian OLS-30 IRST
+which soon will be replaced by India’s BEL developed IRST which will be far more advanced and will be tuned to detect stealth aircraft at long range.

INCOM: Su-30MKI fleet are equipped with HAL developed Integrated Communication suite INCOM 1210A which will be replaced by +indigenous SDRs which are being developed by WESEE jointly with BEL for all fighter jets in the IAF fleet. These SDRs will be jam-resistant with secure features.

Radio Altimeter: HAL developed RAM-1701 is equipped on the Su-30MKI fleet which likely will be replaced likely by

+ more advanced RAM-2700A which was developed for Jaguar and LCA-Tejas fleet. They are more countless system which can be replaced by Indian made one

https://twitter.com/Aerodynamic111/stat ... 46597?s=19

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 09 Apr 2020 06:59

Several mistakes in the above.
Dhruti is an independent program, not a D-29 derivative.
Su-30s have the Polyot comms and datalink set.
SAP-518 was not "replaced" by EL/L-8222 because of "poor performance". Former remains in service. Latter was interim fit and retained for a while to experiment with a lighter pod. Not found ideal either.
AESA is not confirmed for the Su-30 yet. It could be a derivative of the N035E Irbis-E instead.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8755
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 09 Apr 2020 07:34

When are these upgrades expected to begin?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7648
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 09 Apr 2020 10:01

That entire post is someone's wishlist of their ideal Su-30 upgrade. Some of the techs mentioned there are still under development and not likely to be available for a possible Super-30 upgrade in the short term. The biggest part is the radar. Even the LCA sized Uttam is still in development phase. Upscaling and integrating it with the MKI will be a long process. We are unlikely to see it when the Irbis exists.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4374
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 09 Apr 2020 11:09

nachiket wrote:Irbis-E is also a PESA. Not sure how well it will run in the MKI without new engines. Its peak power is supposedly 20kW and average of 5kW compared to 8kW peak and 2kW average of the Bars. That will draw more power and require more cooling. Perhaps more than the AL-31's can handle.

I believe that extra kw was the result of a new twt that they couldn't get going for the bars when the MKI was being birthed. However they succeeded by the time the irbis/su35 came along. As such the mki was to be first candidate and it always had the 31s. so I guess an irbis type might well work without engine change. Although honestly I was hoping for a more comprehensive upgrade along with efts.

Also I don't believe it'll be the vanilla irbis. Iirc Igorr, remember him?, had translated a Russian source saying that they estimate a newer bars to match the irbis. So I think it'll be a bars derivative with better yet and perhaps the steering mechanism from the irbis, which is supposed to be lighter.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 698
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

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

Postby karan_mc » 16 Apr 2020 12:46

Working on Su-30MKI Tail numbers details since now Production order is completed .

Doing visual sampling of images then matching with Tail numbers

I try to spot first Tail number in the series with the highest in the series ex SB101 to SB195

if any one has seen higher Tail numbers in the series SB3XX and SB4XX please let me know ,even in older ones. This list is of only 226 Su-30s, 46 more to go

TAIL NUMBERS

SB001 TO SB018 Irkut 18
SB019 TO SB028 Irkut 10
SB029 TO SB040 Irkut 12
SB041 TO SB050 Irkut 10
SB101 TO SB195 HAL 96
SB200 TO SB218 HAL 19
SB301 TO SB324 HAL 25
SB401 TO SB435 HAL 36

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12008
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Apr 2020 13:02

Production order is not complete another 12 are being made in FY20-21

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

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

Postby JTull » 16 Apr 2020 14:39

karan_mc wrote:Working on Su-30MKI Tail numbers details since now Production order is completed .

Doing visual sampling of images then matching with Tail numbers

I try to spot first Tail number in the series with the highest in the series ex SB101 to SB195

if any one has seen higher Tail numbers in the series SB3XX and SB4XX please let me know ,even in older ones. This list is of only 226 Su-30s, 46 more to go

TAIL NUMBERS

SB001 TO SB018 Irkut 18
SB019 TO SB028 Irkut 10
SB029 TO SB040 Irkut 12
SB041 TO SB050 Irkut 10
SB101 TO SB195 HAL 96 x95
SB200 TO SB218 HAL 19
SB301 TO SB324 HAL 25 x24
SB401 TO SB435 HAL 36 x35

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 16 Apr 2020 17:05

Are we thinking of SATCOMs, Towed Decoys & DIRCMs on Sukhois?

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1149
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby shaun » 16 Apr 2020 18:47

More about Israeli Elta EL/L-8222 Airborne Self Protection Jammer pods

ACaP is an off-the-shelf electronic countermeasure (ECM) system, originally developed by ELTA (EL / L-8212 and EL / L-8222) in collaboration with ITT Exelis, for manufacturing, technical support and logistics in the US.

Image

Two versions of ACaP

There are two versions of ACaP . Both versions have electronics and technology of one generation. The main difference lies in the features of the mechanical design.

The oval ACaP is an oval version of the EL / L 8212 system designed for aircraft with a relatively low effective reflective surface (RCS).

Square ACaP is a square version of the EL / L 8222 system designed for aircraft with relatively higher RCS. Square ACaP has the ability to increase the effective radiation power (ERP) by combining transmitters.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Power supply : 115 V of alternating current, 400 Hz, 3 phases; 28 V of a direct current source on MIL-STD-704
Dimensions : approx. 8ft L x 9in H x 7in W / (2438.4 L x 228.6 H x 177.8 W) mm
Weight : about 210 kg
Cooling : ambient air
Interfaces : communication planning data for a radar receiver (RWR) and for jamming radar according to MIL-STD-1553B
Certification : system certified for various tactical American aircraft
Maintainability : built-in testing system that provides power-on control, continuous and operator-initiated monitoring, fault and fault detection

Key Features of the ACaP Suspension System
> Based on digital radio frequency storage (DRFM) > Light weight > Reliability > Tested in combat
> Electronic self-defense system > Improved features
> Handling multiple outgoing threats > Certified for various US tactical aircraft

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

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

Postby tsarkar » 16 Apr 2020 18:57

karan_mc wrote:Working on Su-30MKI Tail numbers details since now Production order is completed .

Doing visual sampling of images then matching with Tail numbers

I try to spot first Tail number in the series with the highest in the series ex SB101 to SB195

if any one has seen higher Tail numbers in the series SB3XX and SB4XX please let me know ,even in older ones. This list is of only 226 Su-30s, 46 more to go

TAIL NUMBERS

SB001 TO SB018 Irkut 18
SB019 TO SB028 Irkut 10
SB029 TO SB040 Irkut 12
SB041 TO SB050 Irkut 10
SB101 TO SB195 HAL 96
SB200 TO SB218 HAL 19
SB301 TO SB324 HAL 25
SB401 TO SB435 HAL 36


Not a meaningful exercise. Numbers are randomly changed often. See my earlier post on this topic.

SB058
Image
SB060
Image
SB065
Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9056
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 19 Apr 2020 00:40


Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4374
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 19 Apr 2020 07:16

In my eyes - this is the best looking flanker and definitely amongst the most beautiful fighters ever. Have to give credit to the russkies - all around, any angle, the flanker and the 57 look great. French fillies are nice too and the Americans are TFTA personified. But the flanker is gorgeous even more than the fulcrum...

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2300
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 19 Apr 2020 11:43

What a photo!

Always love these type of 'hatke' photos..

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/sajaniaf/status/1251132284314378242?s=20 ---> Maritime missions are fun!!

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3419
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 19 Apr 2020 18:43

is it fair to say that this maritime plane had only 1 pilot?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12008
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 19 Apr 2020 19:16

I dont think that is allowed, the 2nd Pilot will not be visible from that angle.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2300
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 19 Apr 2020 20:21

Zoom the image. The outline of the 2nd pilot is visible

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1948
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 19 Apr 2020 21:46

Is the MKI single pilot capable or is the second pilot mandatory?

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4473
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

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

Postby sanjaykumar » 19 Apr 2020 23:12

It's a fake, the Sukhoi casts no shadow/reflection on the water.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9056
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 20 Apr 2020 03:19

sanjaykumar wrote:It's a fake, the Sukhoi casts no shadow/reflection on the water.

The shadow is that of the oil rig.

It is a real picture from a retired Rambha pilot who flew then President Pratibha Patel on her first Su-30 mission.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9056
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 20 Apr 2020 03:20

srin wrote:Is the MKI single pilot capable or is the second pilot mandatory?

The Rmabha can certainly be piloted by a single pilot.

However in the IAF doctrine, the Rambha is manned by a crew of two - pilot and WSO.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2300
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 20 Apr 2020 11:53

Rakesh wrote: The shadow is that of the oil rig. It is a real picture from a retired Rambha pilot who flew then President Pratibha Patel on her first Su-30 mission.


Her first? has she had multiple flights?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jimmyray, L Ram, nam, sgrover, SidSoma, srin and 59 guests