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

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 25 Jun 2016 13:57

BrahMos Aerospace successfully demonstrates integration of supersonic cruise missile BrahMos on Su-30MKI

BrahMos Aerospace on Saturday successfully demonstrated the integration of supersonic cruise missile system BrahMos on Su-30MKI frontline strike fighter of the Indian Air Force (IAF).

The demonstration flight, carried out at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Nasik, involved carriage of BrahMos weapon on the long-range Sukhoi-30 fighter, giving a major fillip to the BRAHMOS air-launched flight test programme, said Praveen Pathak, General Manager, Marketing Promotion & Export, BrahMos Aerospace, in a statement issued here.

The flight took place in presence of HAL CMD T. Suvarna Raju, BrahMos Aerospace CEO & MD Sudhir Kumar Mishra and HAL Nasik CEO Daljeet Singh.

The integration brings a paradigm shift in the capability of the IAF vis-a-vis its adversaries.

Once operational, the powerful missile will enable the IAF penetrate deep inside the enemy territory to deliver a deadly blow to their vital installations from stand-off ranges. Integration of BrahMos with the Su-30MKI will render the weapon a multi-platform capability while making the IAF the only Air Force in the world in procession of a supersonic cruise missile system, Pathak said.

With the successful flight today, the Brahmos air version programme moved closer towards actual test firing, when a 2.5-ton BrahMos air-to-ground missile will be fired from Sukhoi-30 in the coming months.

The Su-30-BrahMos combination will carry out air combat operations within and beyond visibility range and will provide the IAF with the capability of attacking targets protected by powerful air defence assets.

Today's flight trial has been keenly observed by several other nations in the world in possession of the Su-30 strike fighter, who are looking towards acquiring a lethal weapon system for the Russian-made warplanes.

Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Secretary Dr. S. Christopher congratulated the team. He has continuously motivated and guided the BrahMos team to achieve the design capability of the Brahmos airborne missile system and personally reviewed engineering activities.

Mishra congratulated the Joint team of HAL, DRDO, IAF & BrahMos for achieving this technological feat, which will go down in the history as first in the world combination of supersonic cruise missile with a long range fighter aircraft.

He further noted that the immense contribution of V S N Murthy, PD (BrahMos), and the three Deputy PDs - Gp. Capt. M K Srivastava, Gp. Capt. S Mondal, and Gp. Capt. K N Santosh for the BrahMos air version programme.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2016 15:54

This alone would have more impact on the Chinese planning than 36 rafales imho.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 25 Jun 2016 17:08

If this was China then the photo would have been grainy, taken from between trees and the missile in production livery instead of test scheme. It would have popped up surreptitiously on mofussil forums adding an aura of mystique and beating war drums....

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 27 Jun 2016 00:20

^
LOL
yes it would have been Aditya.
But thats what we do.... keep it tidy ... well done to all the folks involved.

kit · Post by **kit** » 27 Jun 2016 02:08

And I do suspect this is brahmos ER

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Jun 2016 02:34

kit wrote:And I do suspect this is brahmos ER

Vietnam, Malaysia ,Indonesia will very happy to get this air launched capability with help from India.
Philipine should just allow IAF to operate from its air bases to have routine MKI run from A&N to Palawan & Manila.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 Jun 2016 12:56

Wow, just wow. After such a long wait and endless announcements of this capability "coming soon", it has finally happened....had pretty much given up in the spiral of tareekh pe tareekh

Singbhai · Post by **Singbhai** » 27 Jun 2016 18:49

Is it just me noticing it or that Sukhoi ^^ seems to have developed it's mojo overnight? A super mighty big one that is?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Jun 2016 23:14

IAF flies Brahmos on Su-30MKI

The Indian Air Force (IAF) and India's state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) conducted the first test flight of a customised Su-30MKI fitted with a modified BrahMos-A (Air) short-range supersonic cruise missile on 25 June at Nashik, western India.

The Su-30MKI's 45-minute flight with the BrahMos-A was the first in a series of 15 to 20 anticipated carriage trials to determine the aircraft's performance parameters with the BrahMos-A payload.

A live firing of the missile to a strike range of 292 km is anticipated around October 2016 HAL chairman T Suvarna Raju said.

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 17 Aug 2016 00:38

http://idrw.org/india-russia-make-progr ... 0-upgrade/

India and Russia made significant progress in the discussions for modernisation of all Su-30 fighters of the Indian Air Force (IAF) during the visit of a Russian team last month. An agreement is possible by the year-end, senior officials say. “Discussions were held last month, and significant ground was covered. We hope to conclude the deal soon,” a top official told The Hindu. The upgrade will give the fight jets new avionics and radar, improved stealth characteristics to reduce the radar cross-section, better electronic warfare capability and new weapons. Though the quantum of the deal is not finalised, some officials said it could be in the range of $7-8 billion. Su-30 are the most modern fighters and the main stay of the IAF. Given the delay in procurement of new fighters, they are crucial for maintaining the combat edge of the IAF. Discussions had been under way for some time for upgrading the aircraft to what was called ‘Super Sukhoi’, but the talks gained momentum recently. “There is nothing called Super Sukhoi, but we have been discussing the upgrade of Su-30 to comprehensively improve their capabilities. Some progress has been made, and we are trying to finalise the technical specifications of the upgrade,” a senior IAF officer said. India had signed the initial agreement with Russia in the late 1990s for procuring 50 Su-30 multi-role fighter jets in a fly-away condition. Then, it ordered 272 Su-30MKI fighter jets to be made by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) at Nasik. Most of the aircraft to be made by HAL have been delivered, and the entire lot of 222 aircraft is expected to be completed in the next couple of years. The HAL has a production rate of 10-12 aircraft a year. No progress on FGFA This comes in the backdrop of the delay in concluding the final agreement for the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) to be developed by India and Russia, besides the delay in concluding an agreement for the purchase of the Rafale fighter jets and in the induction of the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft. A preliminary design agreement was signed in 2010 between HAL and Russia’s Sukhoi Design Bureau to make the FGFA for use by both countries. So far, both sides have invested $295 million in the preliminary design. However, the final agreement got stuck because of the disagreements over the work share and investment. Several rounds of talks have been held, but there has been no progress. “The FGFA is a long project. It will take some time,” one officer said.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Aug 2016 22:49

ranjan.rao wrote:http://idrw.org/india-russia-make-progr ... 0-upgrade/

India and Russia made significant progress in the discussions for modernisation of all Su-30 fighters of the Indian Air Force (IAF) during the visit of a Russian team last month. An agreement is possible by the year-end, senior officials say. .....

Question. If the Su-30MKI deals was about 'deep ToT' as was heralded, why do we need the Russians? The 'deep ToT' presumably included source code which would have made avionics upgrades with domestic stuff feasible.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 22 Aug 2016 00:45

Any ideas folks, how would the reduction in FCS be achieved?? RAM coating, Electronic way, external shape change..?

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 23 Aug 2016 00:32

JayS wrote:Any ideas folks, how would the reduction in FCS be achieved?? RAM coating, Electronic way, external shape change..?

I was reading somewhere that "internal weapons bay" is being planned for the upgrade program. No idea how it would be achieved. If they are successful, that would significantly reduce rcs. Although it still wouldn't classify as stealthy aircraft.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 23 Aug 2016 02:26

darshhan wrote:
JayS wrote:Any ideas folks, how would the reduction in FCS be achieved?? RAM coating, Electronic way, external shape change..?
I was reading somewhere that "internal weapons bay" is being planned for the upgrade program. No idea how it would be achieved. If they are successful, that would significantly reduce rcs. Although it still wouldn't classify as stealthy aircraft.

Probably just some stealthy (supposedly) pod containing weapons, just like Boeing proposed for the Advanced Super Hornet.

\https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inN8zSrr8OA

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 23 Aug 2016 02:29

^^ Yes I was thinking of the same, truly internal bay is not possible for Su-30MKI. RAM coating is easier option. May be some mods to Air intakes to reduce signatures from engine face. Other than that I can't think of much..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Aug 2016 07:12

darshhan wrote:
JayS wrote:Any ideas folks, how would the reduction in FCS be achieved?? RAM coating, Electronic way, external shape change..?
I was reading somewhere that "internal weapons bay" is being planned for the upgrade program. No idea how it would be achieved. If they are successful, that would significantly reduce rcs. Although it still wouldn't classify as stealthy aircraft.

There is a gap between the engines underbelly that could be covered to serve as an internal bay of sorts I read somewhere that RAM coating is planned for the intakes.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 23 Aug 2016 12:32

Then where will they keep the Brahmos?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Aug 2016 17:04

Paul wrote:Then where will they keep the Brahmos?

The Brahmos equipped a/c will have to be a separate fleet.

The phamous image below shows a gutter between the engines that is at least 6 meters long and about 80-90 cm wide. Two R-27s would weigh 600 kg

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Aug 2016 18:39

After MTCR aren't all Brahmos', now Brahmos ER ?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Aug 2016 18:41

That gutter is where all "stealth" aircraft want to make their internal weapons bay...
Maybe they separate the air intakes a bit more to give more space and a curved air inlet so that the fan blades are not exposed to radar waves

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 23 Aug 2016 19:24

^^Surely its possible to put an internal bay between the two engine pods. But IMO that will hamper the lift generated by the body of the aircraft. That portion generates good amount of lift because of the presence of that channel I think. But let me get back with some info on this.

There is another solution - dropping canards. I know its debatable whether having canards have significant effect on RCS. But FWIW. This guy Vijender Thakur on Twitter mentioned this as one possibility in his opinion. Another was using the platypus beak shaped nose like in Su-34 with AESA. This should improve frontal RCS somewhat.

srin · Post by **srin** » 23 Aug 2016 20:38

An option could be internal weapon bay on the outside of the air intakes (like F-15 SE). I don't think they will go for structural or aerodyanamic changes (serpentine intakes or canted tails etc) - the airchair engineer in me tells me that is much too great a change to expect ...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Aug 2016 21:15

JayS wrote:^^Surely its possible to put an internal bay between the two engine pods. But IMO that will hamper the lift generated by the body of the aircraft. That portion generates good amount of lift because of the presence of that channel I think. But let me get back with some info on this.

You are right, all 4th gen, 5th gen Russian jets use that channel to create a significant part of the lift. I don't find any use of putting a box in there hanging outside the current fuselage. Forget lift, what about the drag? And how much space will we have inside that. After placing the ejectors: not much. Developing weapon pods are a much better idea.

They can reshape the inlets, use a radar blocker in front of the compressor fan, use RAM coatings, canopy coatings, etc.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 Aug 2016 00:22

Bramhos Drop test tomorrow reports Livefist..

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/768126973642145797

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 24 Aug 2016 03:33

^^Slightly OT, but I have been wondering for a long time that how did Pakistan manage to integrate Raa(n)d missile so quickly? Do they really have capability to make seekers or money to import these to create such "pinpoint" accuracy? Or is it the way we as students used to perform experiments (fit the observations to the graph).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Aug 2016 08:07

Going by news reports Pakistan achieves everything lightning fast. Same as China which does in 5 years what the US takes 20 years to do.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 Aug 2016 08:59

I think if missile doesn't fall back on to themselves and goes in a general intended direction they call it a success.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Aug 2016 15:57

ranjan.rao wrote:^^Slightly OT, but I have been wondering for a long time that how did Pakistan manage to integrate Raa(n)d missile so quickly? Do they really have capability to make seekers or money to import these to create such "pinpoint" accuracy? Or is it the way we as students used to perform experiments (fit the observations to the graph).

RAAD is likely just another rebadged South African import, based off the DENEL PGM or MUPSOW programs.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 27 Aug 2016 23:42

indranilroy wrote:
JayS wrote:^^Surely its possible to put an internal bay between the two engine pods. But IMO that will hamper the lift generated by the body of the aircraft. That portion generates good amount of lift because of the presence of that channel I think. But let me get back with some info on this.
You are right, all 4th gen, 5th gen Russian jets use that channel to create a significant part of the lift. I don't find any use of putting a box in there hanging outside the current fuselage. Forget lift, what about the drag? And how much space will we have inside that. After placing the ejectors: not much. Developing weapon pods are a much better idea.

They can reshape the inlets, use a radar blocker in front of the compressor fan, use RAM coatings, canopy coatings, etc.

There were some studies regarding this, guess gurus here have some more information on this.
This was one of my many childhood forecasts that went the other way

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 27 Aug 2016 23:56

ranjan.rao wrote:^^Slightly OT, but I have been wondering for a long time that how did Pakistan manage to integrate Raa(n)d missile so quickly? Do they really have capability to make seekers or money to import these to create such "pinpoint" accuracy? Or is it the way we as students used to perform experiments (fit the observations to the graph).

Well, there design, fabrication and development is of questionable quality with respect to ALCM and more so an accuracy. Only unique point about them is of their blarring of being Nuclear weapon state which makes their delivery system as qualifying success despite next to no technological knowhow.

Forget the same, we can trace DNA of Air launched Brahmos to russian version of KH - 32. Since if we had to carry simple test of ALCM, we might have achieve that ages back. Brahmos has to achieve properties of KH-32 but at short range, reportedly russians were preparing to launch KH-32 in Aug-16 itself from Tu-22M bacfire bombers with twin round configuration. Once launched KH-32 will gain the height of 40km into stratosphere, trasition into level flight and then steep dive towards target at the speed of 5.1 Mach. It can cover the range of 1000 km and carry the payload of 1 ton. Plus its speed and flight profile makes it invulnerable to Known Air defence systems primarely Ageis defence system.

However as advertised Brahmos ALCM being an Air force version, I highly doubt that. IMHO, we must be projecting it as our first true Carrier killer and task force carrier group as key target specifically against repeated aggressive move by Chinese Navy in Indian Ocean. We may face the prospect of facing atleast One Chinese Task Force in next ten years timeline and hence modest level of 40 Flankers we are building capable of firing Brahmos-A.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 28 Aug 2016 00:14

For these 40 Brahmos flankers can't we go Su-35 route? More fuel, lighter, stealthier and single pilot. The pilot just launches the Brahmos and rest carry jamming pod, air to air missiles for self protection and done.

While two pilot MKIs do more complicated tasks.

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 28 Aug 2016 01:02

Manish_Sharma wrote:For these 40 Brahmos flankers can't we go Su-35 route? More fuel, lighter, stealthier and single pilot. The pilot just launches the Brahmos and rest carry jamming pod, air to air missiles for self protection and done.

While two pilot MKIs do more complicated tasks.

For the same, upgrades on the card. We can't replace two Pilot configration as of now.

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 28 Aug 2016 03:52

@Manish, yes we can but wouldnt it take years for the deal to materialize? Not to forget the hassles of negotiation, people are still awaiting closure on MMRCA and so many other deals in pipeline, since i started lurking here...

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Aug 2016 18:23

Avinandan wrote:

Thats J16 Shenyang from China. A modified Su-30MKK airframe I suppose. But this is quite an extensive mod, notice the air inlets are redesigned as well. Too much for a upgrade package for in-service aircrafts I would say.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Aug 2016 18:24

Duplicate post

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Aug 2016 18:26

Looking at that photo - the intakes look like a bad photoshop to me - and on second look that stuff between the engines is also photoshopped. Easily confirmed by playing with the image in a photo editor

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Aug 2016 18:43

^^

I feel like such an idiot now. After reading your post only I realized. Well what else can be expected, that's Chinese upgrade afterall.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Aug 2016 19:37

That's a photoshop made by the great Prasun Sengupta posted on his blog for folks everywhere under the name of Super-30 upgrade. Needless to say it was all bunkum.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Aug 2016 20:29

If that is chorgupta's work it is pathetic because even half assed knowledge will tell you that the unstealthy box intake simply turned by 90 degrees will do bugger-all. And that nappy the plane is wearing - the less said the better

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Aug 2016 01:29

I will share whatever I am learning. Actually that PS comes from Paralay. But it is not completely based on imagination. Sukhoi had studied this in detail from the 70s to the 90s, not as weapon bays but as conformal tanks called "fastpacks" (or KTBs), which by the way makes way more sense.

The following is a translation from a Russian discussion forum. I have tried to clean up Google's translation and removed unrelated parts.

In the second part of the monograph http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4845003/ (best how far left), the authors describe the development of the suspended T10 tanks and bunkers conformal (KTB) for fuel or equipment-already in 1977 . The task was difficult, T10 is a machine with a sublime aerodynamics and prepared tray / trays would make it possible to achieve coverage of around 5000 km. and improve or at least not worsen the characteristics of the machine. Blowing tunnel started in 1979. A year later established shapes .In an extreme case tray was 12 m long, 1.24m2 face and was located between the engine nacelles. It was attached to the pylons 1 and 2 and have side supports to force the frames motor gondolas. The front part is not filled with fuel slightly protruding in front of the air intakes. Estimated capacity: 7000l. Total area (ie. Flows around) 35m2, empty weight of 500kg, and filling units, foam and installations, 730-750kg. Tray have inspection openings / access to the units of the airframe, for example actuators chassis front. No possibility to use pylons 1 and 2. It was tried to compensate by fitting K27 / K27E in the tray, so that three missiles were half drowned in its surface.

It was planned to use the trays in the proposed Su 27 W, and perhaps others, unrealized projects (Sukhoi Su-27 PP?) But further, the theme in this form has not been continued. These studies again continued between the years 1981-1984, on T10S. There were at least 6 variants of configuration. Characteristic of these trays were smaller dimensions (length 5,9m-9,9m) Cubic tray 2,17m2-4,32m2. In March 1985, a final study report was submitted that takes into account all aspects of the research. The shape of the tray on the parameters of the flight, maneuverability , strength of the structure etc. The range flight using these cartridges increased from 660km to 695km. Using the 2 underwing tanks 2000l discharged after using the fuel in the tanks gave a range increment of 1213km. Totally 5000km-range target was exceeded.

However, the range was still less than the range of F15 with three tanks hanging and a conformal Fast Pack. This was mainly due to the lower fuel consumption of the engines on the Eagle in certain flight conditions. Next placing trays KTB on the upper surface of the hull was considered. This variant had a lot of other aerodynamic problems and not only those associated with the assembly of weapons, such as problems related to the construction of the trays, additional nodes of power and other technology-related performance, installation, design manufacturability. The proposed structural changes to the airframe had to be local rather than global. Additionally, the tray had to be dumped after the fuel was used up. Unfortunately, it was the weakest solution. Node turnover kept breaking during the trials.

They did appear again in MAKS2012 on the MKKs, but without any explanation on the use.

But they have given up on that idea. Su-35s don't have those. It is basically very very difficult to beat the Su-27/30/35 aerodynamically. It is a thing of beauty.