Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

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.
Post Reply
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1380
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by V_Raman »

This whole super sukhoi upgrade will come up during Nuland visit - weaning us off russian weapons - :roll:
hgupta
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 14:17

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by hgupta »

Why are we entertaining her in the first place? She should be told to eff off.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by nachiket »

V_Raman wrote:This whole super sukhoi upgrade will come up during Nuland visit - weaning us off russian weapons - :roll:
There are 250+ of them in service. Nuland cannot promise anything that changes that fact. The Su-30 is a weapons platform not a "weapon" anyway. So weaning it off Russian weapons is highly desirable, provided we replace them with indigenous weapons. It has already started with Astra, SAAW, Rudram-1, etc. being integrated. Even weaning it off Russian avionics and systems is desirable. Which will also happen hopefully with Uttam, desi ASPJ, MAWS, cockpit displays, MC etc. as part of the upgrade. So Nuland can be happy as well, not that we care.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Rakesh »

Weaning India from Russia must be substituted with India buying from America, otherwise weaning India from Russia is not worth a bucket of warm piss. This is the end goal. If Nuland goes back empty handed (not even a promissory note), the Biden Administration will not consider it an act of good faith. Not that we should care.

The possible loss of the MRCBF can be softened by throwing the Americans a bone. Give them some billions for P-8Is (in the pipeline already), another round of MH-60Rs, etc. Give the puppy a bone to chew on, pat him on the back, make the puppy feel loved & valued and all will be well. They are bringing every F-teen in production (F-15EX, F-18SH and F-21) and the mythical F-35 to Aero India 2023. Time to show the puppy some much needed love and reassuring :)

Desi fan boys on Twitter are making tall predictions with the F-35’s arrival in India. All sorts of crazy predictions are alive and well with them. FACO line coming to India :lol: Then you have the other desi set on Twitter that rue the day the SE contest was cancelled in favour of the current MRFA. That crowd wants the F-21 in triple digits and if that does not work, then at least the F-15EX in double digits! Both groups are already a bit let down over the media noise with the MRCBF loss. The US’ grand arrival at Aero India 2023 has given them much hope.

The MUTU (More Unkil Than Unkil) is a strange creature! Sometimes I wonder if their financial portfolios are deeply invested in the Amreeki MIC or whether some new green card rules require you to prove your love for the US.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Cyrano »

Well said ! Dr SJ has been clear about India's defense procurement policy in public Q&A with Blinken. I posted link to it in Ukr thread. If American's have unrealistic expectations after that, its due to their cognitive dissonance onlee.
A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by A Deshmukh »

Rakesh wrote:The possible loss of the MRCBF can be softened by throwing the Americans a bone. Give them some billions for P-8Is (in the pipeline already), another round of MH-60Rs, etc. Give the puppy a bone to chew on, pat him on the back, make the puppy feel loved & valued and all will be well.
well said.
add a few more bones (err, $billions) every few years - stealth UAVs, some specialized missiles, satellite intelligence, etc.
make it painful for them, if they completely lose India to the Russian orbit.
and link it to their not funding BIF forces & TSP.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Rakesh »

Agree with both of the above.

If additional Rafales come via G2G, RaGa will raise a hue & cry about it.

But when additional P-8Is, MH-60Rs, etc come via G2G...there will be pin drop silence over it.

Who controls the Puppet called Pappu?
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by fanne »

We have a choice though if French play tough, not buy from them (and rely only on indigenous planes, even if delayed) -
1) TSP is in nos hape to fight. It can change within a year, but that year is maybe 5 years to 15 years in the future. We have adequate planes to fight them
2)Chicom will have a better air force, but limited by what they can deploy. Moreover, Tibet Geography dictates that it will be ground forces that will mainly decide who wins. Airforce impact will be limited. We have enough planes to deny air superiority and enough missiles to render airports unusable.

If we don't get Rafale on our terms, let's wait for MK2 and AMCA.
MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by MeshaVishwas »

Disagree with points @fanne Ji,
The Terrorists have a temp adv as far as AEWCS are concerned.
Need to neutralize this...NOW.
Either we fast track the SFDR(Astra Mark-III) or as some gurus have suggested, make an A2A version of the NGARM to take out the slow movers.
The quick soln is the R-37M which is a 600+Kg answer to any of these wannabe stand off killers.
+ Rambha with a few IR MiCA will mean nothing will want to come close for fear of auto stand off urine discharge.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... S5ukcSoURw ---> Electronic warfare suite under development for IAF's Su-30MKI fleet to replace current Russian SAP-51 pods. Building on the success of the EW programs for Jaguar & MiG-29UPG aircraft.

Image
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by nachiket »

I am still amazed by the fact that there is no space inside the gigantic Flanker for an internal EW system when the much smaller M2k, Jag and even the Mig-29 UPG now have that capability. And this is not a case of HAL/DRDO being unable to do it since the Russians themselves opted for the wingtip mounted solution.

Also, in the pic above, both the indigenous wingtip pods are marked "jammer" pods presumably linked to the on-board RWR instead of one pod being "receive only" and the other being "transmit only" in the case of the SAP-518. That leads me to question if only one pod would be sufficient leaving the other wingtip free for an R-73.
VishnuS
BRFite
Posts: 129
Joined: 19 May 2022 09:42

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by VishnuS »

nachiket wrote:I am still amazed by the fact that there is no space inside the gigantic Flanker for an internal EW system when the much smaller M2k, Jag and even the Mig-29 UPG now have that capability. And this is not a case of HAL/DRDO being unable to do it since the Russians themselves opted for the wingtip mounted solution.

Also, in the pic above, both the indigenous wingtip pods are marked "jammer" pods presumably linked to the on-board RWR instead of one pod being "receive only" and the other being "transmit only" in the case of the SAP-518. That leads me to question if only one pod would be sufficient leaving the other wingtip free for an R-73.
Bhai all that space is filled with fuel.

In the early days, flanker had poor range because of its thirsty engines. This was so bad that at one point poor range was main concern of the designers. When redesign of the flanker happened around 85, they filled every nook and corner including the tail fins.

If we really want some space, then we can redesign the internal fuel tanks and put whatever we want. But that is too cost prohibitive. Moreover Flankers have dozen hard points.... So there is no big deal.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 622
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by maitya »

nachiket wrote:I am still amazed by the fact that there is no space inside the gigantic Flanker for an internal EW system when the much smaller M2k, Jag and even the Mig-29 UPG now have that capability. And this is not a case of HAL/DRDO being unable to do it since the Russians themselves opted for the wingtip mounted solution.

Also, in the pic above, both the indigenous wingtip pods are marked "jammer" pods presumably linked to the on-board RWR instead of one pod being "receive only" and the other being "transmit only" in the case of the SAP-518. That leads me to question if only one pod would be sufficient leaving the other wingtip free for an R-73.
Nachiktji, I think you are mixing up two different aspects.
The so-called internal HBJs in various platforms, that you mentioned above, are not AESA based systems - so they will not have the fidelity of implementing DRFM etc advanced jamming techniques. However there are other std jamming modes that they will be able to implement - and counter-counter measures for these have been developed and implemented in various platforms, as well.
The dead giveaway of an non-AESA system is separate Transmit and receive modules - so to transmit->receive->synthesize->spurious beam forming->transmit again cycles are too time consuming to implement worthwhile DRFM techniques.

And with AESA TR based systems, most of this is instantaneous - and thus with fast processing backend, DRFM techniques can be implemented in them.
(hint: Tracking rage of a AESA based radar system is almost same as that of it's detection range, but that's not so in other PD radar systems)

But with AESA based wideband design the azimuth coverage (if we assume elevation coverage is acceptable) will have to be compromised.
(hint: Again pls look-up azimuth coverage of AESA radars - they seldom cross above +/-40-45deg (while for other PD sets it will be somewhere in +/- 60deg or more))

So there's a need two antennas for a "good" azimuth coverage - and of course, nobody would provide this "good" value etc, as that is, and should be, classified.

Having said all of that, I do agree with you, as to,
a) for twin tail-finned platforms (like Su-30 or Mig-29), why it's so difficult to implement two boxy-humps at the base of the two tail-fins and implement these HBJs.
However do note, with GaAs based AESA based systems, cooling will be an issue, and implementing additional cooling subsystems takes up quite an appreciable volume (so dimensions) and of course, weight. This can be circumvented with GaN based systems though, but I guess, we haven't reached operational-level-maturity for those kind of systems.

b) for single-tailed platforms (Jags, Tejas etc), again a single hump at the base of the tailfin is the way to go - yes it will not be a very wide frontal-and-aft coverage, which I guess should be fine, for a light-series of platform like it.
And this boxy-hump-at-tailfin-base implementational aspect (may not be AESA based though) has been there for eons in F-16 (later versions) - and, I'm nto sure though, the very last versions (Block 70/72 etc ???), may have AESA based DRFM types systems implemented in that very same "tail-fin base hump". See here:Image

Not an expert or anything and maybe gurus like Dilip-chetta et all can throw some more light to this.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by nachiket »

VishnuS wrote: Bhai all that space is filled with fuel.

In the early days, flanker had poor range because of its thirsty engines. This was so bad that at one point poor range was main concern of the designers. When redesign of the flanker happened around 85, they filled every nook and corner including the tail fins.

If we really want some space, then we can redesign the internal fuel tanks and put whatever we want. But that is too cost prohibitive. Moreover Flankers have dozen hard points.... So there is no big deal.
I suppose the tradeoff is that since you aren't using up hardpoints for drop tanks thanks to all the internal space being used up by fuel, it is ok to use up 2 of them for the EW system. I was hoping during the upcoming upgrade they would not only find a way to fit the new indigenous EW system internally but also be able to get the innermost wing HP's plumbed for utilizing drop tanks. But that is a bridge too far I suppose.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by nachiket »

maitya wrote: Nachiktji, I think you are mixing up two different aspects.
The so-called internal HBJs in various platforms, that you mentioned above, are not AESA based systems - so they will not have the fidelity of implementing DRFM etc advanced jamming techniques. However there are other std jamming modes that they will be able to implement - and counter-counter measures for these have been developed and implemented in various platforms, as well.
The dead giveaway of an non-AESA system is separate Transmit and receive modules - so to transmit->receive->synthesize->spurious beam forming->transmit again cycles are too time consuming to implement worthwhile DRFM techniques.

And with AESA TR based systems, most of this is instantaneous - and thus with fast processing backend, DRFM techniques can be implemented in them.
(hint: Tracking rage of a AESA based radar system is almost same as that of it's detection range, but that's not so in other PD radar systems)

But with AESA based wideband design the azimuth coverage (if we assume elevation coverage is acceptable) will have to be compromised.
(hint: Again pls look-up azimuth coverage of AESA radars - they seldom cross above +/-40-45deg (while for other PD sets it will be somewhere in +/- 60deg or more))

So there's a need two antennas for a "good" azimuth coverage - and of course, nobody would provide this "good" value etc, as that is, and should be, classified.
Saar, unless I'm very much mistaken DRFM jammers have been around for far longer than AESA based jammers. The new internal EW suites created for the Jag an the Mig-29 upgrade, along with the French one included in the Mirage-2000I upgrade are all DRFM based systems. Noise jammers like what equipped the pre-upgrade Mirage-2000H or even the old jamming pods like the Remora went out of fashion ages ago.

AESA jammers provide additional capability like directional multi-beams etc. which you have outlined above.

This has nothing to do with the internal vs podded EW question I was asking.
MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by MeshaVishwas »

I like the Eagle solution.
Image
Image
(Images from Google)
Clever packaging means bags and rails for missiles.

Russians have the Su-34 lugging around 2BHK flats for fuel tanks:
Image
Maybe something in between these two, can be done by HAL?


We use Rambha for A2A refuelling also, so more fuel will definitely be welcome.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Rakesh »

MeshaVishwas wrote:I like the Eagle solution.
Links to images?
MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by MeshaVishwas »

Rakesh wrote:
MeshaVishwas wrote:I like the Eagle solution.
Links to images?
Got it from Googling images, let me check for originals.
First one is from Israeli-Weapons(dot)com
Second from Aviationist Magazine and last one from The War Zone
Copyright respective owners I guess.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by nam »

If IAF is upgrading only 150 of them, then they are trying to make space for more Rafale. Either GoI will ask these to be replaced with LCA MK2 or air force version of tedbf. IAF can argue there is already enough Mk2!

Now IAFs problem is that tedbf is a Navy program. They know Navy will make it work...and IAF will under tremendous pressure to induct land version of tedbf.. :rotfl:
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by nachiket »

nam wrote:If IAF is upgrading only 150 of them, then they are trying to make space for more Rafale. Either GoI will ask these to be replaced with LCA MK2 or air force version of tedbf. IAF can argue there is already enough Mk2!

Now IAFs problem is that tedbf is a Navy program. They know Navy will make it work...and IAF will under tremendous pressure to induct land version of tedbf.. :rotfl:
Nothing to do with Rafale or TEDBF. If all in-service aircraft are marked for the upgade the upfront cost will be higher and that will make it more difficult to get past our bean counters. And by the time the upgrade program gets going and knowing the time it takes for these things to happen in India the earliest inducted MKI's might be too old to warrant a full scale upgrade anyway. So 150 is a good number. If the upgrade happens at a good pace there can be a follow on contract for upgrading the others.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by nachiket »

https://twitter.com/alpha_defense/statu ... 5824673794
Vapour Compression Machine for Cooling of AESA Radar of Su-30MKI Upgrade.
Image
VishnuS
BRFite
Posts: 129
Joined: 19 May 2022 09:42

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by VishnuS »

nam wrote:If IAF is upgrading only 150 of them, then they are trying to make space for more Rafale. Either GoI will ask these to be replaced with LCA MK2 or air force version of tedbf. IAF can argue there is already enough Mk2!

Now IAFs problem is that tedbf is a Navy program. They know Navy will make it work...and IAF will under tremendous pressure to induct land version of tedbf.. :rotfl:
Bhai, earlier $100M per plane was quoted. At that time new engine and airframe strengthening wasn't considered. With new engine AL41 series, we may need to tweak air intakes (Su 35s have bigger intakes if I remember correctly) the cost will go up. Don't be surprised if it shoots upto $200M per plane.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by nachiket »

VishnuS wrote: Bhai, earlier $100M per plane was quoted. At that time new engine and airframe strengthening wasn't considered. With new engine AL41 series, we may need to tweak air intakes (Su 35s have bigger intakes if I remember correctly) the cost will go up. Don't be surprised if it shoots upto $200M per plane.
Where are you getting this from? Did someone at AI 2023 say they are looking at replacing the engines?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Rakesh »

I believe the upgrade cost is $4 billion for 150 airframes.

That works out to ~ US $27 million per plane. Compared to the Mirage 2000 upgrade (~ US $43 million), this is a steal!

And even more capable that the Mirage 2000I - new engines, new AESA radar, longer range AA missiles, etc.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by ramana »

Rakesh wrote:I believe the upgrade cost is $4 billion for 150 airframes.

That works out to ~ US $27 million per plane. Compared to the Mirage 2000 upgrade (~ US $43 million), this is a steal!

And even more capable that the Mirage 2000I - new engines, new AESA radar, longer range AA missiles, etc.
Correct. Read the post I made earlier.
I wish people don't post bokwas and waste time refuting it.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2914
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Cybaru »

I have a feeling the Nashik line will get the 13 replacement orders and maybe an extra squadron of MKI when this ukraine fiasco dies down or will be unannounced of sorts. With rupee - ruble trade, this is the best time to get the upgrade going and any further orders that we need to place.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Prasad »

An update of the EW systems being developed for Mk1A & Su-30 MKI

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by nachiket »

^^Thank you so much for that. You answered many of the questions about the MKI's EW system future I had asked above.
VishnuS
BRFite
Posts: 129
Joined: 19 May 2022 09:42

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by VishnuS »

nachiket wrote:
VishnuS wrote: Bhai, earlier $100M per plane was quoted. At that time new engine and airframe strengthening wasn't considered. With new engine AL41 series, we may need to tweak air intakes (Su 35s have bigger intakes if I remember correctly) the cost will go up. Don't be surprised if it shoots upto $200M per plane.
Where are you getting this from? Did someone at AI 2023 say they are looking at replacing the engines?
No Bhai, unfortunately I couldn't make it to AI 23. Maybe in DefExpo 24, I'll get a chance to talk to HAL folks about Super Su 30 MKI upgrade.

$100M per plane was old numbers. This was quoted during 2021, I guess when Sukhoi and HAL were negotiating! I had doubled the number based on that. During that negotiation, AL 41 & Airframe Strengthening were not on cards! With Uttam and other electronic upgrades, AL 41 became necessity. Current intakes are not good for AL 41, that's the reason, it wasn't on cards when that discussion happened!

TBH, I am not even sure whether we will get AL 41, Russia is no doubt in a tight position, with a little armtwisting and we'll get what we want. But the modernization cost is going to be huge.

I am sure you and other gurus over here remember that initial plan was to upgrade every MKI to super standard! Now that number has gone down by half!! As funny as it may sound, I've been reading about Super Su 30 since 2012 or so. That's when I first read Trishul's article. Even to this day, there is nothing concrete about Super Su 30 MKI.
VishnuS
BRFite
Posts: 129
Joined: 19 May 2022 09:42

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by VishnuS »

Rakesh wrote:I believe the upgrade cost is $4 billion for 150 airframes.

That works out to ~ US $27 million per plane. Compared to the Mirage 2000 upgrade (~ US $43 million), this is a steal!

And even more capable that the Mirage 2000I - new engines, new AESA radar, longer range AA missiles, etc.
Bhai, I wish, no I pray that you are right!

If we're to get new engines (only AL 41 comes to mind that's because of electric power), then air intakes will be modified. It's the limitation of air flow, just like we can't get F414 in LCA MK1.

This will require Airframe Strengthening, new avionics, EO sight, jammers and what not is being discussed. All this in $27M per plane? I don't know what to say.... and I'll wait till it happens...

PS. Mirage upgrade is over $50 per plane, There was a huge uproar that Mirage Upgrade cost was higher than brand new Su 30 MKI of that time.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Rakesh »

VishnuS wrote:Bhai, I wish, no I pray that you are right!

If we're to get new engines (only AL 41 comes to mind that's because of electric power), then air intakes will be modified. It's the limitation of air flow, just like we can't get F414 in LCA MK1.

This will require Airframe Strengthening, new avionics, EO sight, jammers and what not is being discussed. All this in $27M per plane? I don't know what to say.... and I'll wait till it happens...

PS. Mirage upgrade is over $50 per plane, There was a huge uproar that Mirage Upgrade cost was higher than brand new Su 30 MKI of that time.
that is what the report said. please go here ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7861&start=640#p2576636
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Cain Marko »

VishnuS wrote:
Rakesh wrote:I believe the upgrade cost is $4 billion for 150 airframes.

That works out to ~ US $27 million per plane. Compared to the Mirage 2000 upgrade (~ US $43 million), this is a steal!

And even more capable that the Mirage 2000I - new engines, new AESA radar, longer range AA missiles, etc.
Bhai, I wish, no I pray that you are right!

If we're to get new engines (only AL 41 comes to mind that's because of electric power), then air intakes will be modified. It's the limitation of air flow, just like we can't get F414 in LCA MK1.

This will require Airframe Strengthening, new avionics, EO sight, jammers and what not is being discussed. All this in $27M per plane? I don't know what to say.... and I'll wait till it happens...
The Russians have already updated their mki equivalent sm versions of the su30 with the al41 engine and have been flying the same operationally for over a year now. No major changes were made to airframe or intakes.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 939
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by YashG »

I had read that we have indeigenized many al31 components in india and our engines are more reliable than russian. How much advantage we will be able to take of this work whwne we switch to al41

are we going to go through the cycle of indeginization of components again?
VishnuS
BRFite
Posts: 129
Joined: 19 May 2022 09:42

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by VishnuS »

Cain Marko wrote:
VishnuS wrote:
Bhai, I wish, no I pray that you are right!

If we're to get new engines (only AL 41 comes to mind that's because of electric power), then air intakes will be modified. It's the limitation of air flow, just like we can't get F414 in LCA MK1.

This will require Airframe Strengthening, new avionics, EO sight, jammers and what not is being discussed. All this in $27M per plane? I don't know what to say.... and I'll wait till it happens...
The Russians have already updated their mki equivalent sm versions of the su30 with the al41 engine and have been flying the same operationally for over a year now. No major changes were made to airframe or intakes.
My bad, I stand corrected! I didn't know that Su 30 SM2 is getting AL 41F.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by nachiket »

Last we heard from HVT sir on Twitter, he categorically denied that HAL or the IAF was looking at upgrading the engines as part of the upgrade. There is no official news anywhere which says that the Su-30 upgrade is going to incorporate new engines.

We (myself included) have all discussed here the possible necessity for more powerful engines due to higher power and cooling requirements for the new radar but according to HVT sir it was not needed.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Rakesh »

Isn't Prasar Bharati a Govt website ---> https://prasarbharati.gov.in/

Because they reported that the Super Sukhoi upgrade will include new engines ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7861&start=640#p2576636

From the above link (last paragraph)...
Super Sukhoi will have the same engine as FGFA, which will increase its lifetime.
Assuming the above statement is actually going to happen, then Super Sukhoi will get the AL-41. There are two versions ---> AL-41F1 (izdeliye 117) and AL-41F1S (izdeliye 117S). I am not sure which one it will be.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Cain Marko »

Rakesh wrote:Isn't Prasar Bharati a Govt website ---> https://prasarbharati.gov.in/

Because they reported that the Super Sukhoi upgrade will include new engines ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7861&start=640#p2576636

From the above link (last paragraph)...
Super Sukhoi will have the same engine as FGFA, which will increase its lifetime.
Assuming the above statement is actually going to happen, then Super Sukhoi will get the AL-41. There are two versions ---> AL-41F1 (izdeliye 117) and AL-41F1S (izdeliye 117S). I am not sure which one it will be.
Heh. Since they are referring to fgfa, which doesn't really exist, maybe they mean the izd30, the pakfas definitive engine? :D
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by ramana »

Don't fret it's getting a new engine.
Only 150 with enough airframe life.
Rest will get less components.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Prasad »

You're saying that of the 240+ airframes we have, only 150 are worth upgrading?
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - 24 July 2021

Post by Aditya_V »

The earliest SU-30 MKI's were inducted in 2002, I think they will be retired by 2035-40 period, especially the first 50 Built in Russia by which time the LCA Mk2, AMCA and possibly ORCA will take up their roles.

or may be out of the 272-10 crashes, 130 odd were built somewhat in Russia( Full aircraft or CKD) while 140 were built in India. Are the differences significant enough that the IAF will only want to upgrade the ones built from "Raw Material" stage at HAL we may not know.
Post Reply