Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Su-30: 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: 17631
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 14 Nov 2017 12:10

SU-34s could be acquired instead of Rafales for the strike role,they
're no more or even less costly than MKIs.One report hinted that the Rafales were to be used by the Srat. Command.Can't see why SU-34s can't either at far lower cost.One could be able to get at least 3-4 SU-34s or MKIs for the price of just one Rafale.AS said before,now the engines are being manufactured here (50 delivered out of 350+)100% using desi raw material.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3708
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

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

Postby Karthik S » 14 Nov 2017 12:11

:roll: sigh

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 14 Nov 2017 13:02

Are we going to have additional new SU30 MKIs for Brahomos delivery ? OR existing one will be modified for this role ?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17631
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 14 Nov 2017 13:16

No,not for the moment as the numbers in service appear adequate. If 40-50 MKis are first upgraded to carry BMos and then 200+ upgraded to SS std.,which will then each carry upto 3 BMos-L/NG whatever,we will have a truly devastating strike capability,with the aircraft being able to fend off any enemy fighters as well,equipped with new AESA radars,engines,weaponry ,etc.There will be heaps of work for HAL in doing this,probably at least $2.5B+ for the lot.The upgradation of 60+ MIG-29s was just under $1B,Some sources say that the upgradation may include some of the tech being used in the 5th-gen SU-57 fighter.

X-posted in the missiles td.
BrahMos Aerospace to start cruise missile deliveries for India’s Air Force next year
Military & Defense November 13, 17:00 UTC+3
The Indian Air Force has signed a contract on the delivery of air-launched BrahMos cruise missiles from January 2018
http://tass.com/defense/975380

'Deadly combination': BrahMos missile to be tested from Sukhoi fighter jet for first time this week
http://www.defencenews.in/article/Deadl ... eek-444491

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19754
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 14 Nov 2017 14:28

shiv wrote:Of course - the plane is flying "clean" and obviously has a T/W ratio of >1 in this demo.


T/W ratio of > 1 shown to good effect in both these design


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33696
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 14 Nov 2017 17:46

Austin wrote:
shiv wrote:Of course - the plane is flying "clean" and obviously has a T/W ratio of >1 in this demo.


T/W ratio of > 1 shown to good effect in both these design


Austin - watch that video you posted from the point below for 30 seconds! That is a fantastic exposition of t/w more than 1
https://youtu.be/vaT4XsWrqSE?t=322

A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

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

Postby A Deshmukh » 14 Nov 2017 18:24

Karthik S wrote:Cost. No major air force can afford to be top-heavy. You can compare the number of F-16s and F-15s in the USAF as well.

Correct, but other air forces have both light and heavy fighters locally built. (US, Rus, Chin).
In our case the light fighter proposed is imported costly SE, and heavy one screwdrivered locally (but at least some money stays in India).

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

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

Postby Kashi » 14 Nov 2017 18:41

A Deshmukh wrote:Correct, but other air forces have both light and heavy fighters locally built. (US, Rus, Chin).


Do Russians operate light aircraft anymore? It appears that they have only twin engine platforms in their inventory.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19754
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 16 Nov 2017 11:09

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote:
T/W ratio of > 1 shown to good effect in both these design


Austin - watch that video you posted from the point below for 30 seconds! That is a fantastic exposition of t/w more than 1
https://youtu.be/vaT4XsWrqSE?t=322


You mean the Nose Pitch Up Manouver? I would say more than thrust its the TVC would come to play here plus its aerodynamic profile [ generating more lift ] , I was always under the impression perhaps wrongly the best example of T:W ratio would be aircraft zooming vertical immediately after take off like a rocket

Here is the interview from Sergei Bogdan that flew the Su-35 at Dubai Air Show

https://vpk.name/news/198392_letchikisp ... i_vse.html
The test pilot of the Sukhoi Company of Hero of Russia Sergei Bogdan is deservedly called the show stopper. When he pilots a Su-35 or Su-57 fighter on the world's most famous air shows, all of their participants and visitors die with their heads raised in the sky. During the exhibition Dubai Airshow 2017 Bogdan told TASS about the secrets of aerobatics on the Su-35 and the possibilities of this car.

- In one of the interviews you said that you first raised the Su-35 in the air in February 2008, that is, next year you have a kind of anniversary with the "thirty-fifth". How well did you study this plane?


- Regarding the stability and controllability, maneuverability, aerodynamics of the Su-35, here, of course, I have passed everything and been comprehended "from and to." But as for the combat modes, there are a lot of specifics.

We have many pilots and there are certain directions. While one is engaged in, say, aerodynamics, the other is mastering some combat regimes. I also did a lot of them, but not all tested. It's just physically impossible - everything is in time, as the plane flies on different bases. There are separate regimes with which I am not familiar with flights, but only with video materials.

"What is your common raid?"


- More than 6000 flights, about 5800 hours. Of these, the Su-35 is about 700 hours long.

- Hot weather here, in Dubai, does not prevent to fly?


- Yes, here, let's say, it's quite warm, but at our MAKS airshow such conditions were observed more than once when the air temperature was above 30 degrees. This is quite normal weather, and, by the way, it is very indicative that the thrust of the Su-35 engines allows you to save all the characteristics of the aircraft and perform a complex of aerobatics figures.

Yes, here (in the UAE) there are several other conditions - the horizon is blurred, the terrain is camouflaged, but there are no significant features. In Russia, of course, there is a more contrasting relief, there is an even dusty sand surface, but the main landmarks are, so that nothing hinders piloting.

- Is this your first time performing in Dubai?


- Yes, first.

- How did you get to the UAE?


- I made a flight from Zhukovsky, landed in Astrakhan, and then came here. But in principle, the fuel reserve of the Su-35 is large, it was possible to fly far away. If you want, you can go back to Moscow directly. I think that such a flight is possible. At large distances, we fly at a fairly economical mode.

The speed on the route is of the order of 950-1000 km / h, civil aircraft are about the same, in the 850 km / h area. We are on the air routes in the same way as civil aviation. The only thing, the echelons choose the largest, above 13 km. As a rule, passengers do not carry there.

- What is the point of aerobatics on combat aircraft within the salon, except for the show itself?


- For specialists it is clear that such exotic figures have certain restrictions on the height and the area of ​​implementation. Since all this is done at small and extremely low altitudes, it immediately becomes visible the high stability and controllability of the aircraft. Thanks to the reliability of control systems, safety is ensured, and this is a very important factor for combat pilots.

It is very important in combat, since the aircraft can lose speed and take almost any position in space, in any ranges and at any angles of attack, to reach the target and remain stable.

- Deflectable (controlled) thrust vector Su-35 requires some special control systems?


- No, no separate controls are required, the controlled thrust vector works on the airplane at all times. The only thing is, there is a special mode of super maneuverability, where restrictions on the angle of attack are removed, and the Su-35 can reach any values, up to +/- 180 degrees.

- Can you tell us more about the Su-35 aerobatics program - what figures do you show in Dubai these days, what are the features of their performance?


- A short takeoff is taking place - the aircraft flies and literally in three or four seconds at a speed of 170 km / h comes off the ground. For a heavy fighter, these are very good characteristics - the Su-35 demonstrates the possibility of take-off from a damaged or shortened strip, that is, it can take off literally 300 meters after the start of the take-off.

Then the loop is performed from takeoff - this indicates a high thrust-to-weight ratio. After it, the plane, without losing speed, performs another, full loop. In addition to the Sukhoi aircraft, this, in general, was not carried out.

Then a turn is made on the hill - the plane is gaining altitude, then it turns back in the opposite direction, literally in four seconds. This figure has an applied meaning in terms of re-attacking the target.

Then an oblique loop is made, and on it the aircraft goes to large angles of attack and rotates in a corkscrew. This is also of practical importance. If, for example, in the course of air combat, the enemy is linked to the airplane, then at the top point, a quick turn around its axis, a search for the target and an instant attack are possible. It is difficult to leave the plane behind, which shows how the Su-35 can leave the situation without losing stability and controllability. He performs a 360 degree turn to find a potential opponent and then continues his maneuver.

Then there is a loop of the type of sway, when the plane performs Nesterov's loop in a very short time. But this loop is specific - very large angles of attack, and the aircraft is practically "tumbling" on the spot. The point is that the pilot does not lose control over the machine, even at the overcritical angles of attack. For a fraction of a second, the plane goes to negative flow - that is, it flies with its tail forward, and the congestion is near zero and even negative.

The Su-35 is very stable, and for specialists this is very indicative, and for the ordinary public - an incredibly beautiful and dynamic aerobatics figure.

After that, an almost vertical slide and a "over the head" flip are performed - the plane quickly makes a roll at the top point and switches to parachuting vertically downwards with an angle of attack of 90 degrees. A turn or one and a half turns of corkscrew is performed. Here, too, we show that the figure is safe, and the aircraft does not lose its stability and controllability. It is important that it can be stopped in a timely manner and put into a horizontal flight at a safe height. The parameters of this figure are such that the aircraft descends from large angles of attack at an altitude of about 300 meters.

The "spinning barrel" is being executed - the aircraft goes to large angles of attack, rotates, and then performs a pass at a minimum speed, which sometimes reaches 70 km / h with an attack angle of about 70 degrees.

Turning on the reverse course at a minimum speed of about 200 km / h, and again for experts this says a lot about the plane. A large angle of attack, low altitude, the aircraft is stable. After this, an energetic acceleration is performed - a speed of the order of 750 km / h at an overload of 9g - the aircraft performs a loop with rotation in space and a withdrawal from it.

After that - the exit to the "bell", but at the top point the aircraft does not "fall" tail down, as usual, but demonstrates the high thrust of the engines. It is inhibited during the "fading" at the top, and then the thrust is added, the full afterburner turns on, and the car "hangs" in place.

Then, at large angles of attack of about 70 degrees, the aircraft gradually accelerates to 350-400 km / h and performs an energetic turn at the supercritical angles of attack - that is, the aircraft is picking up its nose and literally in two seconds is reversed. After that, the spatial rotation is performed - input to one side with an overload of about seven units and then rearrangement in the opposite direction with an exit to a speed of about 100 km / h and with an attack angle of about 60 degrees. At an altitude of about 600 m, the aircraft at this speed aircraft is perfectly controlled. Next - the release of the chassis and landing.

- Do not want to perform at some foreign air show on the Su-57?


- PAK FA flies on domestic airshows, and if necessary, we will show it and abroad, this is not a problem. But, frankly speaking, participating in an air show for a test pilot is a minor work.

This is not the main type of our activity, we are busy doing other things. However, it is certainly useful to participate in such events. See what others can do, how they do it, how best to show the properties of the aircraft. We learn from each other, this is a useful school. Participation in an air show is always a great, positive experience, and every flyer seeks to this, is realized in one way or another.

- You, like the "Swifts" with "Russian Knights", have their own fan clubs: people come from different cities to look at your performances. The famous pilots are protected from "star fever", do you think?

- To be honest, I do not know anything about my fan clubs. I have great respect for aviation lovers, who come day and night, on any day, take planes from somewhere because of the fence. I bow before their love for aviation, before their knowledge of it. This is expensive, of course, they are very professional in their knowledge.

I have friends who are so fond of aviation that even I learn a lot from them. Tell, say, about the T-50, that it had some new hatch put on or something new screwed. Interesting! A star fever ... This, it seems to me, depends on the nature. I do not know if I have it or not. From the outside, probably, it is more visible.


Interviewed by Anna Yudina and Alexei Panshin

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1673
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 16 Nov 2017 11:40

Karthik S wrote:Cost. No major air force can afford to be top-heavy. You can compare the number of F-16s and F-15s in the USAF as well.


The Ruskie air force is very heavy. They don’t have ANY SEF. The bulk of their fighters are in 15 Flanker squadrons supported by 8 MiG-29 rear echelon squadrons. (Also another dozen interceptor squads composed of MuG-31s.)

All of Cheen’s modern aircraft save the medium-sized J-10 are heavies. Again with Flankers forming the bulk of their frontline aircraft. Their future makeup looks to be super heavy too with the J-20. This trend is in their carrier aircraft as well with J-15 and a navalized J-20 or J-31. They have no plans to induct any light fighter not even the FC-1 given to their bestest and tallest friends.

Sorry, there is nothing inherently wrong with a heavy air force. In fact, continental sized countries like ours should be top heavy to account for an expansive theater of operation. If the IAF is looking for something else it is for other reasons — maybe maintenance (IAF is already blasting the PAK FA on this front) or simply a hankering for western gear.
Last edited by chola on 16 Nov 2017 11:45, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17631
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 16 Nov 2017 11:45

Just ck. the post on the Canadian AVRO Arrow in the LCA td.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9218
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Nov 2017 11:50

THE USAF also does not have any light SEF anymore, the later versions of F-16's and the F-35's are all heavy SEF. The Block 70 will also be heavy SEF.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19754
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 16 Nov 2017 12:02

Point to consider is Operational cost would matter for the airforce as bulk of its fleet/weapon is imported or of foreign design and Fuel Price is not in control of GOI. For most part of major decade SE Mig-21 formed more than 50 % of IAF fleet strength .........The only twin engine fighter IAF flew till mid 90's was the Mig-29/Jags and that did not make up for more than 150 in number out of 600 Strong fleet strength , eventually OPEX cost matters the lowe the better else it will eat into CAPEX

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1673
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 16 Nov 2017 12:23

Austin wrote:Point to consider is Operational cost would matter for the airforce as bulk of its fleet/weapon is imported or of foreign design and Fuel Price is not in control of GOI. For most part of major decade SE Mig-21 formed more than 50 % of IAF fleet strength .........The only twin engine fighter IAF flew till mid 90's was the Mig-29/Jags and that did not make up for more than 150 in number out of 600 Strong fleet strength , eventually OPEX cost matters the lowe the better else it will eat into CAPEX



Fully agree with OPEX eating into CAPEX. This is a balance all companies, all functioning entities must make. That said, OPEX can be capped by increase in productivity. For example, if a single Su-30 MKI can perform the tasks of five MiG-21s then the OPEX can be kept in check by a numerically smaller force. Obviously this goes against the IAF’s 42 squadron mantra (which to me makes little sense considering the absolutely shitty opposition we face — crappy PAF and a PLAAF with barely two dozen fighters in ac-hostile Tibet.)

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9218
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Nov 2017 12:48

It is all good in theory but numbers are required in war 5 aircraft cannot be replaced by 1, and we need a mix of aircraft. Yes in payload terms etc.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1673
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 16 Nov 2017 12:54

Aditya_V wrote:It is all good in theory but numbers are required in war 5 aircraft cannot be replaced by 1, and we need a mix of aircraft. Yes in payload terms etc.



Then do a study of exactly what number. PAF with 70 F-Solas and limited ammunition and spares? PLAAF with no more than a few dozen fighters with limited payload and range from Tibet?

Sorry, I think the 240 MKIs we have today can handle both with incredible ease. And that is if we were so lucky to have the porkis or chinis fight a conventional air war. After Doklam, I’m pretty sure we’ll never see war with Cheen unless we are willing to start one.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19754
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 16 Nov 2017 13:38

chola wrote:Fully agree with OPEX eating into CAPEX. This is a balance all companies, all functioning entities must make. That said, OPEX can be capped by increase in productivity. For example, if a single Su-30 MKI can perform the tasks of five MiG-21s then the OPEX can be kept in check by a numerically smaller force. Obviously this goes against the IAF’s 42 squadron mantra (which to me makes little sense considering the absolutely shitty opposition we face — crappy PAF and a PLAAF with barely two dozen fighters in ac-hostile Tibet.)


The counter argument is 5 Mig-21 cannot be at 5 different locations and if a single MKI is down for maintenace you might still have 3 of 5 Mig-21 flying for the same task. You still need numbers with state-of-art capability

My argument is IAF can still streamline the force having two types one so called Light Gripen/Tejas class for Numbers with State of Art Capability and 1 heavy/medium Rafale class or Su-30 types , they can chuck the Medium like Rafle/M2K/Mig-29 types or chuck the heavy Su-30 types ......they can streamline the logistics and reduce OPEX likely by significant margin and save more money in CAPEX .

There is lot of overlapping capability in Medium/Heavy class fighter which can be streamlined into single type between the two.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1673
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 16 Nov 2017 13:57

Austin wrote:
chola wrote:Fully agree with OPEX eating into CAPEX. This is a balance all companies, all functioning entities must make. That said, OPEX can be capped by increase in productivity. For example, if a single Su-30 MKI can perform the tasks of five MiG-21s then the OPEX can be kept in check by a numerically smaller force. Obviously this goes against the IAF’s 42 squadron mantra (which to me makes little sense considering the absolutely shitty opposition we face — crappy PAF and a PLAAF with barely two dozen fighters in ac-hostile Tibet.)


The counter argument is 5 Mig-21 cannot be at 5 different locations and if a single MKI is down for maintenace you might still have 3 of 5 Mig-21 flying for the same task. You still need numbers with state-of-art capability

My argument is IAF can still streamline the force having two types one so called Light Gripen/Tejas class for Numbers with State of Art Capability and 1 heavy/medium Rafale class or Su-30 types , they can chuck the Medium like Rafle/M2K/Mig-29 types or chuck the heavy Su-30 types ......they can streamline the logistics and reduce OPEX likely by significant margin and save more money in CAPEX .

There is lot of overlapping capability in Medium/Heavy class fighter which can be streamlined into single type between the two.


I’m arguing that given our potential opponents, we already have more than enough aircraft right now.

Also since we can make the Su-30 in country, we should make more MKIs — regardless of contract — over any new medium or heavy fighters. Or any SEF save the LCA. I want to see us use those lines to built as many as we want and in as many variants as we want.

I’ve said before, we need to stop being patsies. HAL can make the MKI — and it must be somewhere near to making the AL31 too. If HAL’s 70 percent indigenous claims are real.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 16 Nov 2017 21:43

Austin, Opponents, capability, affordability all should dictate the force mix.


Chola wrote
Also since we can make the Su-30 in country, we should make more MKIs — regardless of contract — over any new medium or heavy fighters. Or any SEF save the LCA. I want to see us use those lines to built as many as we want and in as many variants as we want.

I’ve said before, we need to stop being patsies. HAL can make the MKI — and it must be somewhere near to making the AL31 too. If HAL’s 70 percent indigenous claims are real.


Exactly. What you can make, make more of them.
Don't hanker for something in the window and ignore what you already have.

Improve what you have.

What prevents from making a Su-30 MKI follow on with better engines and avionics?
And composite for secondary structures to give it more agility?

And you cant innovate what you don't make.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60362
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

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

Postby Singha » 16 Nov 2017 22:28

other than being russian, what exactly is so wrong with the PAKFA that <sections in india> criticizes it?

it is obviously faster and more energetic than the flanker
will go supersonic on dry thrust probably on current engines too
concealed storage and a new family of weapons
large aperture radar and distributed side radars and ew

no other western fighter barring JSF can match its range on internal fuel and the JSF has half the payload at probably twice the loaded cost...with inferior sprint speed and no possibility of supersonic on dry. the pakfa will easily cross the JSF in max ceiling and climb to height times.

russia can obviously not offer ivy league schols or post-retirement kitty mitty benefits pkg , so JSF zindabad ? :D

AMCA will meet the same fate as others mark my words.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6576
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 16 Nov 2017 22:39

An MKI EW/Growler version should be within our capability given how much modification we've done to it already. It'll keep the line running and give us capability in areas where we don't have awacs cover.

This should ideally carry over or be concurrent to the EW work for the AMCA.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60362
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

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

Postby Singha » 16 Nov 2017 22:44

we could some 36 of these growlahs spread across 4 specialized EW squadrons. could create a fair amount of havoc with the right gear.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3708
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

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

Postby Karthik S » 16 Nov 2017 22:50

It was Su-24 that allegedly shut down US destroyer over black sea using jamming and electronic equipment. But do we need to use such highly capable fighter for EW ?

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6576
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 16 Nov 2017 23:04

Singha wrote:we could some 36 of these growlahs spread across 4 specialized EW squadrons. could create a fair amount of havoc with the right gear.

Especially given the SAM/AAD threat over Tibet that we dhoti shiver about.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6576
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 16 Nov 2017 23:05

Karthik S wrote:It was Su-24 that allegedly shut down US destroyer over black sea using jamming and electronic equipment. But do we need to use such highly capable fighter for EW ?

What else do we have that we can modify? We already have the production stabilised and nearing its end soon. We will be doing an MLU of course but that might not be at the same rate of 12/year new builds we are doing right now.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14462
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 16 Nov 2017 23:06

Prasad wrote:An MKI EW/Growler version should be within our capability given how much modification we've done to it already. It'll keep the line running and give us capability in areas where we don't have awacs cover.

This should ideally carry over or be concurrent to the EW work for the AMCA.


Come 2019, we will know whether the DARE pod for SPJ was up to the mark. If it is, plus the DR-118, then we can explore low band pods for a proper all-around kit (not just high band for FCRs and missile seekers).

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14462
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 16 Nov 2017 23:07

Karthik S wrote:It was Su-24 that allegedly shut down US destroyer over black sea using jamming and electronic equipment. But do we need to use such highly capable fighter for EW ?


That story was fake IMHO. Too much hyperbole and didn't make sense. A fighter EW suite, shutting down a destroyer with a radar suite that can literally fry a fighters electronics.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14462
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 16 Nov 2017 23:09

Singha wrote:other than being russian, what exactly is so wrong with the PAKFA that <sections in india> criticizes it?

it is obviously faster and more energetic than the flanker
will go supersonic on dry thrust probably on current engines too
concealed storage and a new family of weapons
large aperture radar and distributed side radars and ew

no other western fighter barring JSF can match its range on internal fuel and the JSF has half the payload at probably twice the loaded cost...with inferior sprint speed and no possibility of supersonic on dry. the pakfa will easily cross the JSF in max ceiling and climb to height times.

russia can obviously not offer ivy league schols or post-retirement kitty mitty benefits pkg , so JSF zindabad ? :D

AMCA will meet the same fate as others mark my words.


Two issues with PAK-FA:

-Half baked design. Not really VLO, more like this is what we can afford and so there. Rear aspect stealth in particular and the aft as well.
-Way more development to go. From engines to avionics, nothings ready & dont expect it to be ready before another decade of work in it. The JSF test issues are at least known. The PAK-FA? IAF pilots werent even allowed access to it.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5905
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 17 Nov 2017 05:06

Singha wrote:other than being russian, what exactly is so wrong with the PAKFA that <sections in india> criticizes it?

it is obviously faster and more energetic than the flanker
will go supersonic on dry thrust probably on current engines too
concealed storage and a new family of weapons
large aperture radar and distributed side radars and ew


Clearly the IAF wanted a heavy fighter to eventually complement and replace the MKIs hence the interest in the PAKFA and the FGFA which could either be a substantially upgraded variant or an MKIzed version of the Su-57. The JSF is not a heavy class fighter and is an F-16 and 18 replacement for US and NATO so fits a totally different role with it's operator community. They are not comparable from a potential customer's perspective much the same way the PAKFA and the Rafale aren't.

Having said that, what you see are about a dozen or less prototypes with many of the critical systems still in various stages of development including a true 5th generation engine. This is Russia's first attempt at a Low Observable aircraft and their first true clean sheet fast jet post Cold war. Give the baseline 5-8 years to get fully hammered out and production rates to be at a decent quantity. A true hybrid (Russian-western/Israeli/Desi) FGFA is probably 10-12 years away if one takes a pragmatic view given that the program for the Russian baseline is still in prototypes stages more than a dozen years after contract award to the team ( very similar timelines to the JSF). This explains why there has been no urgency to commit $ billions to it yet given the maturity and no real clarity in terms of what industrial benefits India derives from it ( like say Britain does by putting down development $$ on the JSF).

I agree, the JSF is not a practical option given India's commitment to the PAKFA, strategic relationship with Russia ( which most definitely benefits India) and the need for something more advanced to eventually replace the MKIs down the road. Had the MRCA not happened then there may have been a place for the F-35A but now that the MOD is committed to the Rafale (36 + XX) those can buy time until India adds a 5th gen medium class fighter of her own (AMCA). The entire SEF tamasha is a farce and may move other more sensible plans to the right ( such as initial funding for AMCA) by chewing up too much CAPEX.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19754
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 17 Nov 2017 09:55

ramana wrote:Austin, Opponents, capability, affordability all should dictate the force mix.


Chola wrote
Also since we can make the Su-30 in country, we should make more MKIs — regardless of contract — over any new medium or heavy fighters. Or any SEF save the LCA. I want to see us use those lines to built as many as we want and in as many variants as we want.

I’ve said before, we need to stop being patsies. HAL can make the MKI — and it must be somewhere near to making the AL31 too. If HAL’s 70 percent indigenous claims are real.


Exactly. What you can make, make more of them.
Don't hanker for something in the window and ignore what you already have.

Improve what you have.

What prevents from making a Su-30 MKI follow on with better engines and avionics?
And composite for secondary structures to give it more agility?

And you cant innovate what you don't make.


Agreed but if the IAF keep hankering upon Light Medium and Heavy then it will end in an endless cycle of Import , Remember this is the same IAF which in early 90's said a Flanker like heavy fighter has no place in IAF inventory.

MOD is not able to restrain the airforce and initiate a discussion on streamlining the Airforce Fleet Types or Numbers ...........If 42 a magical figure that wont go up or down what is the rational behind it and IAF has not given any reason except it needs that magic squadron number of 42 and today its 32 squadron , 10 less then what it needs. Can the number be reduced to say 35 squadron with more purchases of SAM and larger improved IADS ?

Can the squadron number reduce to say 12 aircaft per squadron instead of 18 that it is today because of better quality/capability that fighter affords and can reduces number of say 12 aircraft can be one way to achieve the magical 42 squadron ?

Does it need to operate 3 types of Light Medium and Heavy fighter from 3 different country and screw up its own logistics and OPEX for the next 40 years or can it just operate Light/Medium , Light/Heavy types ? Why there is no open debate in Parliament /MOD/IAF on this ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60362
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

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

Postby Singha » 17 Nov 2017 11:48

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.

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

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.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1377
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 17 Nov 2017 12:47

+1
I look at PAKFA as an improved Sukhoi. There is only so much we can get from the platform. We need to have full capability to improve the avionics and weapons systems.

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3507
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 17 Nov 2017 13:25

Karan M wrote:[q

Two issues with PAK-FA:

-Half baked design. Not really VLO, more like this is what we can afford and so there. Rear aspect stealth in particular and the aft as well.
-Way more development to go. From engines to avionics, nothings ready & dont expect it to be ready before another decade of work in it. The JSF test issues are at least known. The PAK-FA? IAF pilots werent even allowed access to it.


Its not a half baked design. Its how their war doctrine dictates, especially in the aft quarter.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17631
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 17 Nov 2017 13:45

Right now the IAF should concentrate upon upgrading around 200 MKIs to Super-Sukhoi std.,able to carry BMos-A for now and later on 3 BMos-NG/L when it appears.The SS will also have as we're told,better engines,AESA radars and improved avionics and also other AAMs.There is no need to rush hastily into the FGFA wanting the bird asap,but we should sign on and take around 2 sqds. of the base SU-57 (returnable),just as e did with the SU-30 when we first acquired it,improving the basic aircraft to MKI std. later on.Once we've developed the SU-57 into its IAF derivative and commenced production either here or in Russia too,the first two sqds. can be returned as new aircraft arrive.By 2025 we should be able to have operational at least 2 sqds. of FGFAs ,whether the SU-57 version or the IAF version.

If Rafale costs are going to still bge not less that $150M a pop,then it would be absolutely profligate to buy any more. Instead,as said many a time,far cheaper MIG-29/35s are available at just around $40M+.Another 60-80 of them will give us 3-4 sqds. of multi-role med. aircraft for just between $2.5-$3B,which would get us just 10-12 Rafales! The extra $5B saved could then be used for extra LCAs and MKIs-if need be.Or even still,be enough to seal the FGFA deal,where the $5B is to be spent in stages,not at once. The IAF also require tankers,extra AWACS-vital as force multipliers but the extra cost the israelis /Russians are demanding,around $400M per bird,has got the IAF's knickers in a twist.Ultimately,everything is going to come down to money,money,money. Why in retrospect,the Rafale deal was the worst decision that could've been made.We now have this expensive millstone around our necks for decades.The beauty is that touts say costs will come down,but as everyone knows-who own cars,that old crocks cost a bomb to maintain and spares start getting difficult to find,as the IA is finding with Arjun MK-1 which has a lot of firang eqpt.

The Rafales some say are meant for the Strat. Command.replacing our Jags,or M2Ks tasked for the same.But what we truly need are real LR bombers like the Bears and backfires/Blackjacks which the Russians are using in Syria,operating from their home bases! No Rafale is going to be able to deliver a nuke strike on Beijing without a couple of pit sip at least.far better to use a Backfire.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 17 Nov 2017 14:35

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.
.


Its not much productive to get hung up on generation or amount of LO features or any specific things like that. Everyone makes weapons as per their war doctrines. As such fighters are much more than a stand-alone entities now a days. They act as a module in the overall system. What matters is whether the module fits in your own system if you want to buy that module or not.

I don't think these features are the real deal killers. I think, the real apprehension from IAF's POV is that they don't really believe that Russia can deliver as promised (I said that before as well on PAKFA thread). They don't want to go through the painful process that Su-30 saw. They want matured and debugged system. We see IAF trying to downplay LCA vis-à-vis SEF in a very crude manner. What's there to indicate its not the same case with PAKFA..?? Using technical arguments to drive their point home, that is.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17631
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 17 Nov 2017 15:06

Yes,what any force would ideally want is reliability of weapon system,easy availability of spares/support,quick maintenance and at affordable cost.
What has plagued many of our acquisitions is not the system itself but the flawed agreements signed with the OEM,courtesy the MOD which does not include the services in the final negotiations stage.We saw this with the Scorpene fiasco,ending up now paying a ridiculous sum for a non-AIP boat arriving almost 5-6 yrs. late,when the whole class is commissioned.

The MKI/Flanker prorgamme has made some steady improvements.The 50th fully desi raw material engine delivered ,over 350 already built,ith indigenous content over 70%,a v.laudable figure.Certainly caution on the FGFA.I think that the IAF has had a close watch on the development of other stealth programmes and the suffering that some are enduring and do not ant to end up making the same mistake. But this doesn't explain their enthu for the future AMCA when the LCA itself hasn't turned the corner! Even with the SEF,instead of envisioning an SE "stealthy" bird, at reasonable cost,with an eye on the future,it is looking back sev. decades at the F-16! At least the Gripen is relatively younger.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5905
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 17 Nov 2017 15:54

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.


What's the analysis on the overall rear-quarter RCS for the three aircraft? Are you going jut by nozzle or considering the entire design and how RCS is optimized?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2758
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 18 Nov 2017 10:45

JayS wrote:
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.
.


Its not much productive to get hung up on generation or amount of LO features or any specific things like that. Everyone makes weapons as per their war doctrines. As such fighters are much more than a stand-alone entities now a days. They act as a module in the overall system. What matters is whether the module fits in your own system if you want to buy that module or not.

I don't think these features are the real deal killers. I think, the real apprehension from IAF's POV is that they don't really believe that Russia can deliver as promised (I said that before as well on PAKFA thread). They don't want to go through the painful process that Su-30 saw. They want matured and debugged system. We see IAF trying to downplay LCA vis-à-vis SEF in a very crude manner. What's there to indicate its not the same case with PAKFA..?? Using technical arguments to drive their point home, that is.


Agreed. I think IAF wants ready for war birds - not those that require their inputs for further development, fine tuning - at least not beyond the minimum necessary, whatever that limit be. Hence the Rafale or SEF. Perhaps a sqd or two of Pakfa might come this way once the VVS has them inducted and production is humming along. I think theyve had enough of teething issues....as far as possible.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19754
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 18 Nov 2017 13:54

If IAF wants a Highly Customised Aircraft like MKI or FGFA or Tejas it will have to be involved in debugging and fine tuning it after all the customer has to be involved in what it wants , If it wants a proven product like Rafale or SEF with little or no change then it can afford to have a hands off approach pay the OEM and let them do the work.

How ever if SEF is lic built in India it will still have to work with HAL and OEM to see what it gets is what it wants and delivered on time , After all IAF has been involved and working with HAL/OEM to build a customised Jaguar or Mig-21 Bison and lice build them here.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 18 Nov 2017 16:44

Austin wrote:If IAF wants a Highly Customised Aircraft like MKI or FGFA or Tejas it will have to be involved in debugging and fine tuning it after all the customer has to be involved in what it wants , If it wants a proven product like Rafale or SEF with little or no change then it can afford to have a hands off approach pay the OEM and let them do the work.

How ever if SEF is lic built in India it will still have to work with HAL and OEM to see what it gets is what it wants and delivered on time , After all IAF has been involved and working with HAL/OEM to build a customised Jaguar or Mig-21 Bison and lice build them here.


IAF is still a long way from being a "Builders'" Airforce.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kapio, Shakthi, srin, Supratik, Yahoo [Bot] and 46 guests