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

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Sep 2018 09:47

Once the Su30 MKI production run is over, can HAL build a follow on plane with more composites and even better avionics?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Sep 2018 09:57

ramana wrote:Once the Su30 MKI production run is over, can HAL build a follow on plane with more composites and even better avionics?

I am hoping Air HQ takes up HAL's offer for the 40 additional Rambhas. They are supposed to make a decision by the end of the year, as production is expected to end by 2019. Once that is done, perhaps composites can be added during the Super Sukhoi upgrade. Improved avionics is already coming as part of the upgrade.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Sep 2018 09:58

Rakesh Does China make Python 5?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Sep 2018 10:05

ramana wrote:Rakesh Does China make Python 5?

They make the PL-10 - which as per their claims (found on wiki) - has a +/-90 degree off boresight angle. They xerox copied the Python 3 (which they called the PL-8). Follow on missiles (PL-9, PL-10) will have surely borrowed from Python 3 and be improved. If the PL-10 matches the Chinese claims, they will not necessarily need the Python 5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-10_(ASR)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-8_(missile)

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Sep 2018 09:05

ramana wrote:Once the Su30 MKI production run is over, can HAL build a follow on plane with more composites and even better avionics?

Well they build LCA, dont they?

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 28 Sep 2018 09:37

Does the agreement/contract with the Russians allow for changes in the airframe/structure components?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2018 10:14

JayS wrote:
ramana wrote:Once the Su30 MKI production run is over, can HAL build a follow on plane with more composites and even better avionics?
Well they build LCA, dont they?

On the Sukhoi line at Nashik

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 28 Sep 2018 10:37

Manish_P wrote:Does the agreement/contract with the Russians allow for changes in the airframe/structure components?

There are severe restrictions. For eg the landing gear break system has to be made by using vanadium billets / blocks provided by Russia only and they charge a foot and a leg for it. So DRDO had to develop a way to secire orvrepair the component by adding a composite material piece to it to extend life. I aaked in the exhibition why we cannot just fabricate the piece from alternate sourced vanadium and they said that it was prohibited to manufacture those from other billets under the terms of the agreemen. So either repair the component or fabricate from the higher priced billets !

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2018 10:40

Vanadium or titanium?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Sep 2018 10:45

ramana wrote:Once the Su30 MKI production run is over, can HAL build a follow on plane with more composites and even better avionics?

Better Avioncs yes HAL/DARE is already working on Major MKI upgrade for years now. Plus Mk1/mk2/mk3 upgrade with MKI has been an ongoing process.

They cant just add more composites without going through a comprehensive structural audit/test program and it wont be worth the effort as
MKI is a known entity now in terms of structural issue and maintenance etc after decades of service now. Minor changes are possible but thats an ongoing effort.

Most of the composite addtiition in Su-35 has been traded off for more fuel and longer legs

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 28 Sep 2018 11:09

How much of MKI do we really make or have the full understanding of how to make?

It seems that all the critical parts still come from Russia.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Sep 2018 21:45

ramana wrote:
JayS wrote:
Well they build LCA, dont they?

On the Sukhoi line at Nashik

Obviously, anything other than for composites, is possible to be reconfigured for any other plane.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 28 Sep 2018 22:02

ramana wrote:Vanadium or titanium?

Vanadium

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Sep 2018 22:22

vanadium is used in alloys of steel or alloys of Titanium and aluminium

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 28 Sep 2018 23:27

But they did modify it to carry brahmos

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 29 Sep 2018 00:07

Yes because Russia charged a stupendous amount and were themselves not sure about integration. The design for strengthening was over and above what was an existing aorframe without abrogating whatever agreement we had signed up for initially. Complex interplay !

nam · Post by **nam** » 29 Sep 2018 01:59

If SU30 requires weight reduction, then it should be for LRUs. Ofcourse there will be CG issues. HAL should do this for the upgrade plan.

It is no point doing composites, as SU30 is a massive bird. Will not add much to the RCS reduction and will be maintenance heavy.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Sep 2018 19:51

All we know in open source material is that as of now, "70%" of the bird is from desi raw material.That is quite a lot. The BMos mods are also by HAL.One hopes that the further SS std. Flanker upgrades will be fast- tracked by the MOD/ CCS as these would further enhance fhe birds capabilitu in a time of dwindling numbers in the inventoty.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 Sep 2018 03:36

the % of airframe that is desi is misleading
the real value of the aircraft is in the sensors, computers and weapons
how much of that is desi?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Sep 2018 13:29

We need to know from that stat whether it also tepresents 70% of the cost, but we do know the HAL costs per unit, about 15% more than a direct import.

A 2018 Business Standard analysis said that a Rafale cost us 11.25 B Rs.An MKI cost us just 42.5 B Rs., almost 1/3 rd. the price! Other sources put an HAL-built MKI at around $ 62.5M.

Therefore if we assume that the % is that of the total cost, desi material would be in the region of $40M.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 02 Oct 2018 16:53

In Rafale season, HAL’s 3-year delay in Sukhoi rollout raises concerns; company says (lies) delivery on schedule.

THE CONTROVERSY over the 36-jet Rafale deal has brought Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) under the spotlight with “serious concerns” being raised in official quarters over the three-year delay in the public sector giant’s production of Russian-origin Sukhoi Su-30 MKI aircraft for the IAF.

Official sources told The Indian Express that HAL was scheduled to deliver the last of a set of 140 Russian-origin fighters by March 2017, which has now been pushed to March 2020.

“We had asked the IAF to pay an additional Rs 2,000 crore to HAL for setting up additional facilities to compress the delivery schedule (of March 2017) and deliver the last of the contracted 140 aircraft by March 2015. But there were further delays in production,” sources said.

HAL missed out on the Rafale deal signed in 2016 after the manufacturer, France’s Dassault Aviation, opted for other Indian companies under the offset clause for local tie-ups, with a bulk of the work awarded to Anil Ambani’s Reliance Defence. Opposition parties have alleged that the government has acted in a manner that harmed the interests of HAL, and benefitted Ambani.

In the case of Sukhoi Su-30 MKI, 50 fighter jets were supplied in “flyaway condition” by Russia as part of the direct contract with India, and HAL was contracted to deliver 222 more — under licensed production — in six different contracts. The first four contracts were for a total of 140 aircraft, while two additional contracts were for another 40 and 42 aircraft, respectively.

Of the contracts totalling 140 aircraft, HAL is yet to produce 33, sources said. But the public sector company has directly procured some aircraft from Russia and delivered them to the IAF to bridge the gap. These deliveries were from the two additional contracts, thereby ensuring that 188 of the 222 aircraft have been given to the IAF, sources said. For the current production year, sources said, 12 aircraft are scheduled but only one has been produced so far.

“If these Russian aircraft were not procured by HAL, the delay in delivery would be five years, not just three years. The full set of 140 aircraft were to completely delivered by 2014-15 but are still awaited,” sources said.

When contacted, Gopal Sutar, Chief of Media Communications of HAL, said that “there is no delay in the production and delivery schedules”. “We have so far given 199 aircraft, which form the backbone of our precious customer, the Indian Air Force,” Sutar said. (Shameless liars)

“HAL has successfully absorbed the entire manufacturing technology in four phases and the Su 30 MkI is produced from the raw material stage by handholding our private partners. HAL is perhaps the only aerospace company in the world where the raw material enters the gates of the company and the final product flies away,” Sutar said.

According to sources, the IAF has also given “production concessions” to HAL to ensure that it can accept the aircraft made by the public-sector manufacturer, ranging from use of short-life components to delay in supply of role equipment. Asked why these concessions were given to HAL, a senior IAF official said, “If these concessions were not accorded, the delays would have been even more, which would have seriously affected the operational capability of IAF.”

Of the authorised 42 squadrons of fighter aircraft, IAF currently has only 31, a number that is expected to dip further as older aircraft, such as the MIGs, are phased out.

Sources also said that they “have seen the difference in the quality of the production standard between HAL-produced aircraft and the original Russian-supplied aircraft.” The issues pointed out by the IAF to HAL vary from time to time, indicating a lack of proper quality control and lack of awareness in handling such issues at HAL, sources said.

“The question of quality compromise does not arise in any of the HAL products. This is raised time and again just to score points. It seems that a very few understand how quality issues are taken care of in aerospace manufacturing,” Sutar said. “Generally, the quality is built into the product in the aerospace industry, and this includes our Su 30 MKI because of the nature of the production process. Besides, HAL has consistently stood guarantee for the quality of its products with the monitoring level of quality assurance by the Government-owned Quality Assurance’s authorities as a customer’s representative. So why raise the quality issue?” Sutar said. (What a comedy , a PSU Quality Assurance body is certifying another PSU product )

In 2016, a new government-to-government deal on Rafale led to the cancellation of the proposal of buying 126 fighter jets under a competitive tender process by the previous UPA government. Under that proposal, 108 Rafale fighter jets were to be made by HAL in India. But the public sector firm was unable to come to an agreement with Dassault over various issues, and the proposal was withdrawn by the government in June 2015.(HAL had the old boy network with the Russians and hence could get away by producing PSU quality, but the French would have none of the nonsense as their reputation was on the line)

THE SUKHOI DEAL

272 Sukhoi SU-30 MKI aircraft for IAF
50 in flyaway condition from Russia, 222 to be made by HAL under licence
6 contracts with HAL, first four for 140, next two for 40 and 42 respectively
3-year delay in production of 33 aircraft from the first four contracts

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Oct 2018 19:06

Vips wrote:
(What a comedy , a PSU Quality Assurance body is certifying another PSU product )

He is talking about DGAQA. Who in your opinion is fit to give certificate of quality to HAL, if any Govt body doing that is a joke..? CEMILAC is a "govt owned PSU", IAF is "govt owned PSU". You want Gora sahib's stamp..?

Question to all, is there any CAG report or something which has audited quality of Imported Su-30 and HAL manufactured Su30 and proven that HAL's workmanship is particularly bad..? If there is, please provide link. I would like to read it to understand the problem.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 02 Oct 2018 20:07

For all the bull abt "deep ToT", I'm willing to bet that HAL won't be able to do the following next year:

1. Build a heavy class Multi role fighter similar to Su-30 indigenously, incl. engine from 100 percent raw materials, as they have been claiming.

2. Support the 300 IAF Su-30 MKI after 2019-20 when they stop the line.

If you ask the average BRF ite, he will be against stopping the line. The saga has played out often.

But HAL people are against it, it brings up risk and accountability.

I had uncomfortable doubts in 2010 itself, when they were aiming for a PAF-FA license deal. The license deal for Su-30 had been signed only 3 years before this.

China has shrewedly built up local J series production. Some 700 + of all types. The important thing is they own the different lines, and have tried local engines as well.

My prediction is China will build at least 2000 of the fighters, some 60 years of production, just as they did with the Mig-21 / J-7 series.

Iran itself needs abt 150 F-15 type fighters, which are difficult domestically.

Russia might not sell them due to lopsided geopolitics

Why are we making the same mistake as done in the 1960s?

The best ToT ever was the old Mig series, but we stopped the line like Raja Harishchandra.

The Sukhoi ToT has also been decent, as per my understanding. It's at least 80℅ capability, with all drawings, machines, jigs and fixtures, etc.

The raw material is largely imported from Russia, and development of local sources, design validation and qualification takes time and efforts.

It's foolish to give up such capability, more so when we have paid for it and adhered scrupulously to all terms and conditions.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2018 20:48

Vips please lower your rhetoric, it lowers the quality of discussion in the forum otherwise.

CAG clearly notes the Russian TOT to HAL was delayed and hence HAL struggled in meeting the relevant time requirements.

JayS, you'll find this interesting.
https://cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/ ... pter_9.pdf

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2018 20:50

Note:

So ROE components needed rework as well. Rejection implies QA/QC issues.

Delayed release of drawings
and technologies, 26140
amendments to the drawings,
and 1174 amendments to
technologies by ROE,
rejection/ re-work of
components/ assemblies
already manufactured/ made
by ROE

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2018 20:54

CAG Summary

HAL did not receive all the components of transfer of technology from ROE
as envisaged impacting the timely supply of deliverables to IAF. Similar issue
was observed in respect of Transfer of Technology to Ordnance Factories as
Report No.35 of 2014 (Defence Services)
222
brought out in para 8.1.9.2. Consequently, HAL could not achieve the required
level of absorption of technology to meet the compressed schedule of
deliveries and had to resort to outsourcing to ROE which increased the import
component and had an impact on the indigenisation programme.
Recommendation
¾
Suitable clauses may be incorporated in the contracts with foreign
vendors to safeguard the interests of defence forces in respect of delay
in meeting contractual obligations including transfer of technology.
¾
PERT charts drawn up for each major activity including indigenisation
should be adhered to.

In short, lets not fall for the claim that Su-30 issues are all due to HAL's incompetence.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2018 20:58

Now lets look at design issues.

HAL delivered 60 of the 64 aircraft due under Blocks I and II up to 2009-10.
A review of 42 cases of site repairs undertaken by HAL up to March 2010
relating to 29 aircraft disclosed that fuel leakage was the main snag in 36 cases
and complaints relating to leakage from fuel tank were reported by IAF
immediately after delivery of the aircraft. The leakages had caused pre-mature
withdrawal of the aircraft.
Management stated (January 2014) that ROE had attributed the leakages to
operating the aircraft at higher ‘g’ level, operation of TVC causing torsional
force and vibrations on structure, high manoeuvers and hard landings, aircraft
parked without fuel for longer time and aircraft parked outside under hot
conditions. They added that fuel leakages/seepages could not be fully
excluded due to inherent design features of the aircraft and repair had to be
undertaken immediately whenever the leakages were more than permissible
limits.
The fact remains that as evident from the reply of ROE that fuel
leakages/seepages could not be fully excluded due to inherent design features
of the aircraft and hence, called for immediate corrective action from HAL to
avoid operational grounding of aircraft.

Either kits were defective or HALs assembly was an issue

Two engines manufactured by HAL from Phase III kits procured from ROE in
2008 at a cost of 16.41 crore each were damaged (February 2011) during
testing at Koraput Division. Considering that the vibration levels of both the
engines exceeded the acceptable norm, HAL and ROE decided (October 2012)
that reconditioning was not feasible. As a result, the engines had to be
replaced by HAL with new engines procured from ROE.
Audit scrutiny (September-October 2013) revealed that supplementary
agreements placed (December 2012) for replacement of engines was at
21.71 crore each. Thus, HAL had to absorb 43.42 crore due to withdrawal of the
engines.

HAL issues are mostly around delay in commissioning and funding facilities. Many details in the report and too lengthy to copy. Please read.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 03 Oct 2018 00:24

Karan M wrote:
JayS, you'll find this interesting.
https://cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/ ... pter_9.pdf

Thanks, Karanji for the interesting article.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Oct 2018 00:35

Are the fuel lines metallic or plastic hoses?
If the lines are metallic then it could be due to insufficient torque on the fuel hose fittings.
The vibration etc. could loosen the fittings and cause leakages.

One option is to use metallic copper conical seals in the fittings.
The copper seal gets deformed and acts like putty in the fittings and retains the torque.

If Indranil recalls one of the SP 5(?) from the small line had fuel leaks and could not be accepted till all leaks were fixed.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Oct 2018 03:18

ramana wrote: If Indranil recalls one of the SP 5(?) from the small line had fuel leaks and could not be accepted till all leaks were fixed.

Yes sir, I remember. But this one was because of the inexperience of the second line. After SP5 was handed over to Line 1, it took to the air in couple of weeks.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 03 Oct 2018 04:17

Copper lines for fuel are not a good idea. The marine industry has legislated against same due to numerous failures leading to fires.
Double walled stainless lines are used on high pressure lines, and single walled on low pressure lines. With replacement of same every 5 years.

Trikaal · Post by **Trikaal** » 03 Oct 2018 10:50

Vips wrote:In Rafale season, HAL’s 3-year delay in Sukhoi rollout raises concerns; company says (lies) delivery on schedule.

Of the contracts totalling 140 aircraft, HAL is yet to produce 33, sources said. But the public sector company has directly procured some aircraft from Russia and delivered them to the IAF to bridge the gap. These deliveries were from the two additional contracts, thereby ensuring that 188 of the 222 aircraft have been given to the IAF, sources said. For the current production year, sources said, 12 aircraft are scheduled but only one has been produced so far.

This is huge! If HAL is just going to procure a few aircrafts from Russia then why are we paying extra for the local screw-drivergiri? Is HAL earning arbitrage on these aircrafts? I remember a direct purchase costed us Rs 330 cr and a HAL made one Rs 415 cr. If HAL charged us 415 cr for these Russia procured ones too, then what did we pay them extra for?

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 03 Oct 2018 11:06

Obvious hatchet job is obvious.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Oct 2018 12:11

does anyone know the SR71 would leak fuel onto the tarmac in some conditions?

sounds like a very scary thing but they never had any publicly known accident

web::
SR-71s run on JP-7 fuel, that fills the six large tanks in the fuselage. The component parts of the Blackbird fit very loosely together to allow for expansion at high temperatures. At rest on the ground, fuel leaks out constantly, since the tanks in the fuselage and wings only seal at operating temperatures.

nam · Post by **nam** » 03 Oct 2018 15:02

Not just SR71, have seen with my own eyes, a F15 in Farnborough leaking oil. The crew had kept a tray to collect the oil.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 03 Oct 2018 15:12

There was a short chapter on Forsyth's Devil's Alternative on how the SR71 flies. It leaks fuel like a sieve and has to be refueled after takeoff. Quoting from Memory here.

vikassh · Post by **vikassh** » 03 Oct 2018 15:20

Singha wrote:does anyone know the SR71 would leak fuel onto the tarmac in some conditions?

sounds like a very scary thing but they never had any publicly known accident

web::
SR-71s run on JP-7 fuel, that fills the six large tanks in the fuselage. The component parts of the Blackbird fit very loosely together to allow for expansion at high temperatures. At rest on the ground, fuel leaks out constantly, since the tanks in the fuselage and wings only seal at operating temperatures.

Singha Sir here is a Youtube video showing the same. Kindly check from 3:07 onward.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Oct 2018 16:12

i have posted in the american thread. lets discuss there.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 03 Oct 2018 17:29

Singha wrote:does anyone know the SR71 would leak fuel onto the tarmac in some conditions?

sounds like a very scary thing but they never had any publicly known accident

web::
SR-71s run on JP-7 fuel, that fills the six large tanks in the fuselage. The component parts of the Blackbird fit very loosely together to allow for expansion at high temperatures. At rest on the ground, fuel leaks out constantly, since the tanks in the fuselage and wings only seal at operating temperatures.

I saw a documentary which showed sr 11 7 fuel leaking and scientists /engineers throwing burning cigarette in it and I it won't catch fire. The fuel was specially designed

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 03 Oct 2018 17:40

ArjunPandit wrote:
Singha wrote:does anyone know the SR71 would leak fuel onto the tarmac in some conditions?

sounds like a very scary thing but they never had any publicly known accident

web::
SR-71s run on JP-7 fuel, that fills the six large tanks in the fuselage. The component parts of the Blackbird fit very loosely together to allow for expansion at high temperatures. At rest on the ground, fuel leaks out constantly, since the tanks in the fuselage and wings only seal at operating temperatures.
I saw a documentary which showed sr 11 7 fuel leaking and scientists /engineers throwing burning cigarette in it and I it won't catch fire. The fuel was specially designed

Forget jet fuel, even petrol will not catch fire with a lit cigarette. Cigarette smoulders at a much lower temperature than flash point of most petroleum products. A spark produced by cigarette tip breaking off on contact or secondary fire originating due to smouldering cigarette may be able to reach flash point. Fuel will simply douse a cigarette.