Su-30: News and Discussion

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 07 Mar 2011 07:59

Catering of fish dishes will continue to be at these prices, until we don't learn to fish and set up our own unit from sea to table.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Mar 2011 08:07

CY,

I am getting the feeling that this is in retribution for knocking out the MiG-35 from the MMRCA competition.

As far as what you are stating: 2020-25, when the AMCA flies.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 07 Mar 2011 08:33

^^^^
CORRECTION: The MiG-35 has not been 'knocked out' from the MMRCA competition.

The Russians didn't bring the Mig-35 to Aero India, because; 1) they were assured that their participation in the event had no bearing on the MMRCA competition, 2) they didn't want to seem to be exerting undue influence over the MMRCA decision makers, and 3) why go to the expense, when the money is better applied to developing a new RADAR for the Mig-35?

With respect: All these talking heads who say the Mig-35 isn't in contention -- they're plain wrong.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 07 Mar 2011 08:34

I don't know why you people don't put two plus say five reither then four.When we have news that india will invest in 5th genration $25b/-.we shuold relise that mig 35 is linked with 5th genration fighter.We don't have to sign any paper because by 1963 aggreement we are going to get Mig 35 with 5th genration tetch.
Somebody might feel that I am joking.I do follow the defence since 1962.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Mar 2011 09:43

RKumar wrote:Russia spat delays BrahMos air version

I find this article a bit intriguing , why would DRDO expect NPO-Mash to alone foot the bill , when Brahmos is a JV company with a separate JV , so the bill should go to Brahmos Corp and not NPO alone.

For redesigning the MKI , the IAF should foot that bill since its an IAF aircraft and they are end user why should DRDO or NPO Mash foot the bill ?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Mar 2011 10:09

Austin wrote:
RKumar wrote:Russia spat delays BrahMos air version
I find this article a bit intriguing , why would DRDO expect NPO-Mash to alone foot the bill , when Brahmos is a JV company with a separate JV , so the bill should go to Brahmos Corp and not NPO alone.

For redesigning the MKI , the IAF should foot that bill since its an IAF aircraft and they are end user why should DRDO or NPO Mash foot the bill ?

Because we're paying approximately $102 million per aircraft and this cost was rationalised by speculating that the Strategic Forces Command would be the intended recipient of the aircraft. It was also speculated that the SFC would want air-launched Brahmos support and that would explain the high unit cost.

So if "many hundreds of crores" are being asked for in addition to that very high unit cost, we have a problem.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Mar 2011 10:38

What we are paying for depends on what bells and whistles are being added to it ,which we do not know and perhaps would never know.

As far as testing and integration of Brahmos on MKI goes , the bill should be foot jointly by Brahmos corp and IAF.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 07 Mar 2011 10:48

PratikDas wrote:
Austin wrote: I find this article a bit intriguing , why would DRDO expect NPO-Mash to alone foot the bill , when Brahmos is a JV company with a separate JV , so the bill should go to Brahmos Corp and not NPO alone.

For redesigning the MKI , the IAF should foot that bill since its an IAF aircraft and they are end user why should DRDO or NPO Mash foot the bill ?
Because we're paying approximately $102 million per aircraft and this cost was rationalised by speculating that the Strategic Forces Command would be the intended recipient of the aircraft. It was also speculated that the SFC would want air-launched Brahmos support and that would explain the high unit cost.

So if "many hundreds of crores" are being asked for in addition to that very high unit cost, we have a problem.

^^^ Based on speculations, you are speculating that there is a problem... hmm...

common sense says that no one will pay and no authority(MoD, MoF, CCS, PM and CAG) will approve such a payment if its such a foolish thing to do.. $4.3 billion will be the cost of a 'project' which includes buying 42 SU-30 MKI 'also'.. simply its not $4.3 billion/42..

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Mar 2011 11:06

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong in what either of you are saying, Austin and rajeshks.

It is true that we aam junta don't know if we're paying for Brahmos integration once or twice, and even if only once whether this figure is a reasonable amount or not.

They say ignorance is bliss.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 07 Mar 2011 13:50

kuldipchager wrote:I don't know why you people don't put two plus say five reither then four.When we have news that india will invest in 5th genration $25b/-.we shuold relise that mig 35 is linked with 5th genration fighter.We don't have to sign any paper because by 1963 aggreement we are going to get Mig 35 with 5th genration tetch.
Somebody might feel that I am joking.I do follow the defence since 1962.

Please elaborate on the bold part.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 07 Mar 2011 14:34

I tried searching for agreement in 1963 and only got "Vienna Convention"

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 07 Mar 2011 16:14

If we have been under the illusion that anyone is our ally, then we have been fooling ourselves.

After the end of the cold war, the rather firm boundaries that existed then, are now liquid. "It is every country for themselves and we will ally with you but we want our kilo (not pound) of flesh"

The only silver lining is that the navy is leading the way in indigenising, DRDO working hard on a local missile defense programme and the airforce and army trailing!

So time we started plagiarising anyone's product and the SU30MKI so we can reap the benefits. And stand on our own two feet!

The best and quickest way out is to start proving to ourselves that ToT was not ToP (transfer of production). The SU30 is a fabulous bird with our parameters making it better than the MK. So why don't we just do what we want to do with it?

I only hope the MRCA deal will be thought out diligently and shrewdly after all the back-stabbing we have had to bear, over the last few decades.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 07 Mar 2011 19:43

1963 Agreement

He is referring to the agreement thru which we got Mig 21 / 23 / 25 / 27 / 29. But it was signed with USSR. USSR is no more. It also had barter exchange scheme by which India used to export perishables to USSR. All that is history.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 07 Mar 2011 20:33

krishnan wrote:I tried searching for agreement in 1963 and only got "Vienna Convention"

India lost its land to China in 1962 war, furious Nehru wrote letter for help to everyone (specially three letters to Kennedy in which he asked huge no. of jet fighters, and American help in training manpower and building infrastructure) in return Kennedy provided arms and ammunition and promised in case of any further Chinese aggression USAF will provide cover to Indian cities as well as bombard chinkos. Now this decleration proved to be good enough to stop panda from moving an inch further.. but still India needed to build its own AF with modern jet fighters.

On the other hand USSR (which at that point had a sore relation with panda) saw India drifting towards uncle, so to balance or say tilt India on its side.. offered generous military aid including modern jet fighters (mig-21s) along with manpower training. Uncle saw it as a win win situation as the stuff provided by USSR will be utilized in countering panda which at that time was proving to be a big pain in uncle's musharraf.

All this started in end of 1962 and deals were concluded in 1963.. hence the name agreement of 1963.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 08 Mar 2011 01:20

PratikDas wrote:Because we're paying approximately $102 million per aircraft and this cost was rationalised by speculating that the Strategic Forces Command would be the intended recipient of the aircraft. It was also speculated that the SFC would want air-launched Brahmos support and that would explain the high unit cost.

So if "many hundreds of crores" are being asked for in addition to that very high unit cost, we have a problem.

do you know the specifications of new su30 ???? its coming with aesa or not???

f16 blk60 were sold at price of 80 million and f15k to korea which had slotted array radar sold at 90-100million.
45 million is the cost of each m2000 upgrade.even the blk52 costs no less than 60 million except someone getting it for free.

in such deals vendor opens big mouth then they themselves come down to lower prices.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 08 Mar 2011 01:43

Baldev wrote:
PratikDas wrote:Because we're paying approximately $102 million per aircraft and this cost was rationalised by speculating that the Strategic Forces Command would be the intended recipient of the aircraft. It was also speculated that the SFC would want air-launched Brahmos support and that would explain the high unit cost.

So if "many hundreds of crores" are being asked for in addition to that very high unit cost, we have a problem.
do you know the specifications of new su30 ???? its coming with aesa or not???

f16 blk60 were sold at price of 80 million and f15k to korea which had slotted array radar sold at 90-100million.
45 million is the cost of each m2000 upgrade.even the blk52 costs no less than 60 million except someone getting it for free.

in such deals vendor opens big mouth then they themselves come down to lower prices.

Adding more question marks will not make the question more obvious, my friend. Don't tell me the radar costs as much as the aircraft. Just because every country that has an AESA is getting delirious while rorting customers doesn't make the practice ethical. Forget ethics - you wouldn't even do this to a loyal customer. I do have common sense, thanks.

It has been said many times on BR that negotiating the cost of arms deals is like negotiating the ransom for a loved one - you don't really have a choice. This blind love for everything Russian is passe. Its just business, and we're the kid losing candy.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 08 Mar 2011 03:19

Rakshaks,

To be perfectly honest; I don’t know what from wherefore, when it comes to the facts concerning the cost/value of such things as AESA/TVC/YADA/YADA...

What I do know is that military budgets and weapons R&D programs are never, ever, nowhere near transparently costed or priced.

‘They’ call it a ‘black budget’.

A case in point: Do you really think the USAF was paying $10,000 for an in-flight toilet, or $2,000 for a wrench? Well, they weren’t, but that’s the kind of thing they had to do to conceal the fact that they were building a deep-sea diving rig they intended to use to salvage a sunken Soviet nuclear submarine.

Had there been a US DoD appropriations bill put through Congress that had a line item named “Soviet Submarine Salvage Project”, the whole game would have been given over. What did the Americans do instead? They put innocuous line items in there, and detailed gross-overpayments in classified breakout budgets, while the true dollars-and-cents went to an entirely different project that was never discussed in the press. I have every expectation that this is happening in India as well. It's SOP. It’s the only way to conduct such business, and IMHO, BRF members should be savvy enough to cut the GoI MoD babus some slack.

Remember, we're the ones handled on a 'need to know' basis -- the babus actually do know.

To be perfectly honest; I don’t know what makes some people here on BRF debate the costs of things when they cannot possibly have the hidden facts, and choose instead to yada, yada………. yada……..

(Sorry, no offense intended for anyone – just had to put that out there.)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Mar 2011 03:31

black budget does not mean, it can't be accounted for. it has a national security reason behind it. if there ain't any, then everything should be openly available for you.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 08 Mar 2011 11:29

The only way we will get to know how true the Brahmos/SU30 spat is if an MP brings this up with AK in parliament? Would be nice to have an MP on our side and BR can pump questions through him/her? (Note the gender equality)

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 08 Mar 2011 11:36

rajanb wrote:The only way we will get to know how true the Brahmos/SU30 spat is if an MP brings this up with AK in parliament? Would be nice to have an MP on our side and BR can pump questions through him/her? (Note the gender equality)

Rajan bhai, if you peruse through the Question Hour proceedings it will become very apparent that the Government of the day can give as vague a reply as needed to difficult questions. Rarely have things that embarrass the Govt been revealed in the manner we would expect. A typical answer to even a bulleted question is :

a) No sir. Discussions are currently underway with the concerned OEM.
b) c) & d) Question doesn't arise.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 08 Mar 2011 11:53

@Nikhil

Rather naive, aren't I?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Mar 2011 21:07

rajanb wrote:The only way we will get to know how true the Brahmos/SU30 spat is if an MP brings this up with AK in parliament? Would be nice to have an MP on our side and BR can pump questions through him/her? (Note the gender equality)

If a question related to sensitive issues like that is asked , it might not be allowed by Parliament sectt and if allowed will get a reply that MP can't decipher.The standard policy is to give as little info as possible. "Does not arise" is the most frequent reply for other sub questions once first one is ducked under. Many a times MPs are advised to be prudent in these issues.

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 13 Mar 2011 04:33

BrahMos Aerospace chief - A. Sivathanu Pillai has refuted the claim of row with Russia over the integration of Brahmos with SU 30 MKI.

No row with Russia

Mr. Pillai refuted reports of disputes with Russia over modifications to the Su-30MKIs being upgraded to fire-from-the-air version. “The trials of launching BrahMos cruise missile from air will begin in 2012 and there will be no delay in the programme due to this.”

Source:http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=14523

So who knows, all this 'report' of dispute between Russia and India could well be a case of planted 'reporting'

.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 13 Mar 2011 17:44

Do you honestly believe the CEO of Brahmos Aerospace, an organisation as dependent on Russia as it is on India, to say anything to the contrary?

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 14 Mar 2011 09:56

PratikDas wrote:Do you honestly believe the CEO of Brahmos Aerospace, an organisation as dependent on Russia as it is on India, to say anything to the contrary?

In my humble opinion his credibility is definitely higher than some obnoxious articles appearing here and there in the media. You may choose to disagree with me. After all, the theories in which people believe, they call them facts. And the facts in which people disbelieve, they call them theories. Cheers.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 14 Mar 2011 11:05

I'm certainly not questioning his credibility. I'm saying that he's doing a job and he has to work within the constraints of that job, such as not disclosing sensitive information regarding ongoing discussions. We probably won't learn anything for a decade, which is fine.

Brahmos is an excellent product.

I just can't imagine the CEO of any organisation saying publicly, "Yes, one of my stakeholders is in financial wranglings with the other."

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 14 Mar 2011 11:45

^^ I agree with Pratik on this. FWIW, Mr. Pillai, did not say there was no dispute, just that project will not be delayed. Maybe am I'm reading too much into this.

haryanvi · Post by **haryanvi** » 14 Mar 2011 13:22

Read in today's Tribune:

Sources told The Tribune that the Russians wanted hundred of crores to modify the lethal Sukhoi-30-MKI fighter. Today, Pillai admitted that drawings of the fighter’s design were with the Russians. “We are seeing if we can make adjustments to the fighter. However, the first preference would be to have the Russians do it since they know the design parameters,” he said.

So according to Mr Pillai, HAL doesn't have Su-30's drawings?

The Tribune report can be accessed here:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110314/nation.htm#5

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 16 Mar 2011 10:36

Russia ready to sell Su-35 fighter jets to China

Russia's state-run arms exporter Rosoboronexport said on Tuesday it was ready to hold talks with China on the delivery of advanced Su-35 fighter aircraft to the Chinese air force.

"We are ready to work with our Chinese partners to this end [Su-35 deliveries]," Deputy General Director of Rosoboronexport Alexander Mikheyev said at the Airshow China 2010

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Mar 2011 10:45

haryanvi wrote:So according to Mr Pillai, HAL doesn't have Su-30's drawings?

The Tribune report can be accessed here:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110314/nation.htm#5

I am not sure just having the drawings would solve the issue , Brahmos is a big missile and weight more then 2 T , they would likely need to do some wind tunnel test of MKI with Brahmos to generate data and refine it accordingly , then they need to see how Brahmos and different weapons will co-exist.

Only the OEM could do such things or atleast OEM will have to work with HAL on this.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 16 Mar 2011 16:33

The only drawings we would have are the assembly and production drawings. The actual design drawings with the associated databases of other factors , such as load bearing, wind tunnel, mechanical stress etc would not be available to us.

Everytime we have maufactured an aircraft, it has been ToP (Transfer of Production) not ToT.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 05 Apr 2011 12:26

India Upset At Russian Military Parts Supply
Aviation Week

The Service Needs Everything from Terminals and Transformers for its MiG-29 Fighters to Main Wheels for its Su-30 Fleet.

A Senior IAF Officer Familiar with the Acquisition Process Says ;

“When you have Spares Supply Problems with an Ongoing Flagship Program like the Su-30MKI, Then You Know Something is Very, Very Wrong.”

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Apr 2011 08:14

Su-30MKI. 270 of those are in the pipeline, with the first 50 already earmarked for an upgrade with AESA-radar, mission-computers and avionics by DRDO with Russia.

http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/index.p ... &Itemid=47

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 06 Apr 2011 08:36

we cannot make the main wheels of MKI?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Apr 2011 08:49

its not cost effective to manufacture all parts in India...the condition of our vast inventory of older weapons like R60, R73 and R27 can be imagined ....

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Apr 2011 09:01

GD, What is the heaviest store/drop tank that can be carried by the SU-30MKI? Best option is to make a missile of that size and use it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Apr 2011 09:13

I dont think the MKI carries external drop tanks at all.

the heaviest possible seems to be KAB1500 series of bomb (1500 kg)
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-GBU. ... ocId118525

the heaviest missile it fires is the KH59 @ 930kg.

the swedish/german KEPD350 missile (seen on tornadoes and gripens) is 1400kg.
the storm shadow(called scalp in france) is 1230kg.

we need a similar size , range and stealthy shape of missile - however they use classified tech like williams turbofan on KEPD that is not on the table.

air launched Nirbhay when it comes will need to use the desi-russian engine we are working on...but it will be a large weapon suitable for MKI only. we need a smaller weapon too.

a KEPD350 sized weapon means EVERYONE in IAF incl Tejas could carry atleast 2, and MRCA/MKI might manage 3
http://defense-update.com/images/grippen-kepd350.jpg

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 06 Apr 2011 14:07

^^but KEPD350's 500kms. range and 500 kg. warhead won't be a MTCR violation?

Just a 1400 kg. missile in which warhead itself makes up for almost 1/3rd of the weight amazing..........

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Apr 2011 19:55

So instead of taking the Brahmos and trying to shoe horn it may be the right idea is to develop some thing similar for a/c specific use? BTW KEPD350 at 1300kg carrying a payload heavier than Brahmos farther is very impressive. But then it might not be as fast as the Brahmos.

----------

GD, Is the Tejas cleared for 1500kg stores?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Apr 2011 01:19

Singha wrote:...the heaviest possible seems to be KAB1500 series of bomb (1500 kg)
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-GBU. ... ocId118525

the heaviest missile it fires is the KH59 @ 930kg.

Meet the KH-41 Moskit or ASM-MMS:

Description: The Kh-41, also known as Moskit, is a supersonic, long range, air-launched, anti-ship missile designed to penetrate sophisticated ship air defenses. It relies on an inertial navigation system with target updates from launching aircraft to reach the target area. Once there, the Kh-41 employs its active radar seeker to search, detect and lock on the target. It is so fast that the ship's air defenses have only a few seconds to act against the incoming missile. A fewer reaction time maximizes Moskit missile kill probability.

The Moskit missile was intended to provide an impressive anti-ship capability to carrier-based Su-33 Sea Flanker multi-role fighters. It can be released from other Soviet/Russian-made attack aircraft. Its range is extended compared to the ship-launched version (3M80 or SS-N-22 Sunburn).

Specifications

Dimensions: Length 9.7 m, Wingspan 2.1 m

Weights: Warhead 300 kg (661 lb), Weight 4,000 kg (8,818 lb)

Performance: Cruise Speed 731 mps (Mach 2.20), Max Range 250 km (135 nm), Min Range 10,000 m (32,808 ft), Top Speed 996 mps (Mach 3)

Though I doubt if the missile was ever put in service