Su-30: News and Discussion

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Jan 2014 22:09

Guys, if India was putting nukes on Brahmos, there would be no need of this missile then, would there?
I know BK has mentioned nuke armed Brahmos - but given how legalistic and ring fenced we usually are, I wouldnt be surprised if we are keeping Brahmos purely conventional to assuage Russian sensitivities.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/the- ... 20488.html
Air-Launched Missile
Range 200 km
Weight of missile 2 tonne
Warhead 500 kg
length 4 m
Status Hypersonic missile project called the Air Launched Article
Designed to fit under the belly of a Su-30MKI. First prototype by 2012.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 05 Jan 2014 22:14

Karan M wrote:I wouldnt be surprised if we are keeping Brahmos purely conventional to assuage Russian sensitivities.

Why only to assuage Russian sensitivities? Don't we have enough ballistic missiles and upcoming hypersonic-cruise delivery vehicles for almost every range and payload bracket conceivable? Heck, we have a different class of ballistic missiles for every 500-1000 km increment! Its insane! And we want to add more delivery vehicles to that list?? What for?

Just because we can, doesn't always mean that we should!

Let's leave some weapons with a very clear and lethal conventional role. The message isn't blurred that way which might otherwise make the weapon unusable because now the enemy might think its a nuclear warhead inbound.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 05 Jan 2014 23:38

This is a theory, but it is possible that brahmos integration also enables the air frame to support another missile with same interface and weight category. This missile could be nuclear ("air launched article" anyone). Though I agree with vivek's point to let nuke business be handled by ballistic missiles.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Jan 2014 23:55

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Karan M wrote:I wouldnt be surprised if we are keeping Brahmos purely conventional to assuage Russian sensitivities.
Why only to assuage Russian sensitivities? Don't we have enough ballistic missiles and upcoming hypersonic-cruise delivery vehicles for almost every range and payload bracket conceivable? Heck, we have a different class of ballistic missiles for every 500-1000 km increment! Its insane! And we want to add more delivery vehicles to that list?? What for?

Just because we can, doesn't always mean that we should!

Let's leave some weapons with a very clear and lethal conventional role. The message isn't blurred that way which might otherwise make the weapon unusable because now the enemy might think its a nuclear warhead inbound.

Well, I am not saying its ideal or arguing that its wrong either, I am merely pointing out the practical aspects of how such decisions could be made, given the political sensitivities involved. As regards the same class of missile being used for two different roles blurring the message, well that bridge was crossed with Prithvi, which IIRC is in SFC service (strategic) and IAF service (conventional).

At the end of the day, our opponents are unlikely to launch on detect and will likely launch on impact (provided they have some basic backup system available, PRC surely would, Pak a bit unclear). Launch on impact would mean retaliation with strategic weapons would only occur if the same was conducted by India.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Jan 2014 23:58

Aditya G wrote:This is a theory, but it is possible that brahmos integration also enables the air frame to support another missile with same interface and weight category. This missile could be nuclear ("air launched article" anyone). Though I agree with vivek's point to let nuke business be handled by ballistic missiles.

A survivable air component of the triad means you need missiles. You wont get anywhere near to drop a gravity bomb when your opponent has advanced IADS.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 06 Jan 2014 08:58

This dicotomy about SFC Prithvi and IAF Prithvi is interesting, am moving that discussion to the amissile Dhagga.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 07 Jan 2014 01:01

Karan M wrote:
Aditya G wrote:This is a theory, but it is possible that brahmos integration also enables the air frame to support another missile with same interface and weight category. This missile could be nuclear ("air launched article" anyone). Though I agree with vivek's point to let nuke business be handled by ballistic missiles.
A survivable air component of the triad means you need missiles. You wont get anywhere near to drop a gravity bomb when your opponent has advanced IADS.

We also need warheads that are small, light and proven. Which we don't have.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Jan 2014 19:10

The ALM report notes that warhead is to be 500 Kg.. so, if the report is true, thats what we can currently do.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jan 2014 20:16

How the Su-30 MKI is changing the IAF’s combat strategy

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 08 Jan 2014 21:12

Austin wrote:How the Su-30 MKI is changing the IAF’s combat strategy

Sir, for double confirmation I am asking... Is it true that Su 30 MKI going to get Russian Zhuk active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.?

"Removed b'cos the same topic has been discussed a lot of times previously"

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jan 2014 21:19

govardhanks wrote:
Austin wrote:How the Su-30 MKI is changing the IAF’s combat strategy
Sir, for double confirmation I am asking... Is it true that Su 30 MKI going to get Russian Zhuk active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.?

The last info we have from Take off Magazine in an interview with the radar designer was IAF has to make up its mind the options are available.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 08 Jan 2014 21:48

Austin wrote:How the Su-30 MKI is changing the IAF’s combat strategy

Another quantum leap the IAF is making is in beyond visual range (BVR) missiles for the Su-30 MKI. Complementing the Zhuk radar will be the Novator KS-172 air-air missile, with an estimated 300-400 km range and a speed of Mach 4. If Russia and India can bring this missile to production, the IAF will finally be capable of anti-AWACS and anti-satellites missions.

Is it true Austin ji about the Anti Sat capabilities of KS-172.

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 08 Jan 2014 22:03

Austin wrote: The last info we have from Take off Magazine in an interview with the radar designer was IAF has to make up its mind the options are available.

Saar, Options are always available but time n money are not. Regarding this AESA radar, is it easy to replace the old one, or a complete rewiring, testing need to be done, most importantly has it been integrated on any Russian planes on a large scale?

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 08 Jan 2014 22:17

Reading the tea-leaves should give some clues on the status of the Indian airborne nuclear deterrance.

It has been known for some time that Indian nuclear warheads are heavy and bulky by warhead standards. At least the ones that have been tested for real. It is for some of these reasons that only certain aircraft type have been earmarked for the carriage of such weapons. The Su-30 being one such type. We also know the India has been actively refining and optimizing its warheads, reducing their size and mass for ease of carriage on aircraft whilst also allowing use of multiple warheads per ballistic missile in the SFC.

This said, why are the 40 Su-30s earmarked for SFC deployment are also the ones that are Brahmos-enabled?

Assumption-1: The warheads have indeed been miniaturized enough to be used with the Brahmos in a strike role. But these warheads are untested and we won't know whether they work or not until we test them or use them for real. God help us if they don't work.

Assumption-2: The heavy Brahmos need a modified pylon (center-line but possibly inboard wing pylons too?) and hence the same aircraft can be used to carry the heavy and big warheads that we do have which are tested and known to work. To me this seems like the most probable answer.

Assumption-3: The SFC has adapted its concept of operations to include the Brahmos in the conventional role as well. This seems highly unlikely.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Jan 2014 22:45

Vivek, it could also be much simpler. Namely that the 40 aircraft for SFC (if any) are not necessarily the Brahmos ones.
The current Brahmos can only be carried on the centerline and even those Su-30s need to be structurally reinforced. That means extra weight, which means a performance penalty when loaded. The IAF, per media, has ordered 214 Brahmos-As for which these Su-30s are earmarked, a few could be distributed per squadron, for high value target attacks.
The mini Brahmos, planned, will be carried 3x per Su-30MKI.

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 08 Jan 2014 22:48

vivek_ahuja wrote:Reading the tea-leaves should give some clues on the status of the Indian airborne nuclear deterrance.

Sir,
Educate me if I am wrong, the best form of nuclear deterrence that India can have is nuclear tipped SLBMs, maintenance easy, need not be stocked for long (I say 20-30 years) so that officers won't sleep and suddenly wake up to detect something is jammed. Land or Air based systems do not enjoy such flexibility mainly because of very long peace time.

Saying that how far this Integration of Brahmos to Su-30MKI is valid? ( sorry I found many good points in previous discussions regarding same topic so I edited the post) If not can we make it carry similar missiles? Has it been attempted anywhere?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jan 2014 22:53

ravi_g wrote:
Austin wrote:How the Su-30 MKI is changing the IAF’s combat strategy

Another quantum leap the IAF is making is in beyond visual range (BVR) missiles for the Su-30 MKI. Complementing the Zhuk radar will be the Novator KS-172 air-air missile, with an estimated 300-400 km range and a speed of Mach 4. If Russia and India can bring this missile to production, the IAF will finally be capable of anti-AWACS and anti-satellites missions.
Is it true Austin ji about the Anti Sat capabilities of KS-172.

I dont think KS-172 has the energy needed to kill a sat atleast in the configuration it was shown , it looks more like Anti-AWACS/JSTAR , Anti-Fighter Aircraft LRAAM ........I believe the program was already shut down by Russian in favour of RVV-BD from rival design bureau and offset of R-37M since a significant work was done on R-37 program in 90's

There were brochure of RVV-BD shown with Flanker PAK-FA and even Mig-29 variant !

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Jan 2014 22:55

it seems more rationale to go for missile based nuclear strike and aircraft/brahmos based strategic conventional strike against high value targets

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jan 2014 22:58

govardhanks wrote:
Austin wrote: The last info we have from Take off Magazine in an interview with the radar designer was IAF has to make up its mind the options are available.
Saar, Options are always available but time n money are not. Regarding this AESA radar, is it easy to replace the old one, or a complete rewiring, testing need to be done, most importantly has it been integrated on any Russian planes on a large scale?

changing radar is not like buying stuff from sabzi mandi that one makes a decision specially when BARS are so much capable and there exist potential to further improve......how many radars has IAF changed for a fighter in its life time and in what duration ?

Two options are on table , Upgrade BARS by changing the back end and make it as capable as Irbis-M of Su-35 and at later date add the AESA antenna without changing the backend.

Replace the BARS completely and jump over to AESA may be Zhuk-AE or may be the one based on PAK-FA of rival design bureau ...not sure the latter is even available so it would be Zhuk-AE.

Once IAF takes the decision then we might get a better idea.

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 08 Jan 2014 23:02

Lalmohan wrote:it seems more rationale to go for missile based nuclear strike and aircraft/brahmos based strategic conventional strike against high value targets

I am sorry for being persistently posting ,
Sir What are those high value targets? how do we define them?
On cost basis of Brahmos missile, there might be radar stations, army camps, missile launch sites.
Most of them might be mobile and can be easily made as decoys?
If someone asks me the next change you want to see in Brahmos I would tell please reduce the cost and radar signature.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 08 Jan 2014 23:11

Karan M wrote:Vivek, it could also be much simpler. Namely that the 40 aircraft for SFC (if any) are not necessarily the Brahmos ones.

Agreed. If that happens then what I posted can be discarded.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 08 Jan 2014 23:16

govardhanks wrote:Educate me if I am wrong, the best form of nuclear deterrence that India can have is nuclear tipped SLBMs, maintenance easy, need not be stocked for long (I say 20-30 years) so that officers won't sleep and suddenly wake up to detect something is jammed. Land or Air based systems do not enjoy such flexibility mainly because of very long peace time.

Correct. However, the SFC is committed to a triad of delivery systems. Which means that we have to have the capability even if we don't have the intent of using them. This is why the Su-30s are earmarked for SFC use, but still part of the overall IAF conventional force.

how far this Integration of Brahmos to Su-30MKI is valid? ( sorry I found many good points in previous discussions regarding same topic so I edited the post) If not can we make it carry similar missiles? Has it been attempted anywhere?

There are two aspects here:

a) Integrating the Brahmos to the Su-30: Hasn't been done before but can be accomplished (at least for the center-line pylon, which means that each Su-30 carries one Brahmos).
b) Integrating nuclear warheads to the Brahmos: Hasn't been done and IMVHO would be extremely impressive if it were.

As Karan has pointed out, if you have to have an airborne nuclear force, better off to have it be a stand-off system rather than a gravity bomb. That said, I am skeptical of the miniaturization of the warheads and whether it has been achieved. Even if achieved, it has not been tested and proofed, which makes it unreliable in my book.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 08 Jan 2014 23:17

govardhanks wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:it seems more rationale to go for missile based nuclear strike and aircraft/brahmos based strategic conventional strike against high value targets
I am sorry for being persistently posting , Sir What are those high value targets? how do we define them? Do we know already where they are stationed? Can we discriminate between decoys and real ones?

I think it is a legitimate question. But you assume that they are all moving. Brahmos-A targets should be:

- Ships. The SU will fly out from land bases and can engage ships from a safe distance
- High value constructions, presumably defended heavily. Eg: POL dump, even dams perhaps?)
- Hard Targets eg: bunkers, tunnels

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 08 Jan 2014 23:19

govardhanks wrote:What are those high value targets? how do we define them? Do we know already where they are stationed? Can we discriminate between decoys and real ones?

High value targets include long-range anti-aircraft systems of the S-300 type, Long-range surveillance radars (fixed or mobile), runways, parked high value assets like AWACS and Tankers, fuel parks, MLRS and other long-range artillery batteries, infrastructure like dams and bridges which can choke off enemy logistics and of course, HQ locations for brigade and higher level units.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 08 Jan 2014 23:27

Karan M wrote:Vivek, it could also be much simpler. Namely that the 40 aircraft for SFC (if any) are not necessarily the Brahmos ones.
The current Brahmos can only be carried on the centerline and even those Su-30s need to be structurally reinforced. That means extra weight, which means a performance penalty when loaded. The IAF, per media, has ordered 214 Brahmos-As for which these Su-30s are earmarked, a few could be distributed per squadron, for high value target attacks.

I believe the Brahmos SUs will be concentrated in 2-4 squadrons only. Beyond the structural modifications, there will be software and avionic differences to support the missile. Units generally have identical aircraft, though A & B flights in a squadron may have different ones. Moreover, training syllabus will be different for such attack profiles.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 08 Jan 2014 23:27

Lalmohan wrote:it seems more rationale to go for missile based nuclear strike and aircraft/brahmos based strategic conventional strike against high value targets

I agree. This has been my contention all along.

However, recently, we are seeing and hearing increased references to the Brahmos being used in the nuclear role with the Su-30s. This IMO is a serious departure from our established concepts and a move that is destined to further complicate the usability of the missile even for conventional roles since it can trigger the nuclear button based on its dual use role.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 08 Jan 2014 23:28

Aditya G wrote:
Karan M wrote:Vivek, it could also be much simpler. Namely that the 40 aircraft for SFC (if any) are not necessarily the Brahmos ones.
The current Brahmos can only be carried on the centerline and even those Su-30s need to be structurally reinforced. That means extra weight, which means a performance penalty when loaded. The IAF, per media, has ordered 214 Brahmos-As for which these Su-30s are earmarked, a few could be distributed per squadron, for high value target attacks.
I believe the Brahmos SUs will be concentrated in 2-4 squadrons only. Beyond the structural modifications, there will be software and avionic differences to support the missile. Units generally have identical aircraft, though A & B flights in a squadron may have different ones. Moreover, training syllabus will be different for such attack profiles.

Not to mention logistics of maintaining these weapons and platforms.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 09 Jan 2014 02:34

Austin: the Novator finds a mandatory mention in all these Rusian articles. We dont know if this joint development program even exists anymore.

Otoh, if we are indeed developing a 400 Km A2A missile, I hope we keep it a secret and spring a nasty surprise during a future Indo-Pak-China conflict

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jan 2014 22:18

Aditya G wrote:I believe the Brahmos SUs will be concentrated in 2-4 squadrons only. Beyond the structural modifications, there will be software and avionic differences to support the missile. Units generally have identical aircraft, though A & B flights in a squadron may have different ones. Moreover, training syllabus will be different for such attack profiles.

They can be at the same airbase Aditya, or even within the same squadron. Currently, the IAF has colocated Bisons and Su-30 MKIs (refer the LOD series) and the maintenance guys manage both disparate fleets. The avionics differences will not be substantial enough to merit them being treated as entirely new aircraft. As you say, the A, B flights approach.
OTOH, they could be all in separate units but deployed as individual taskings (3-4/ squadron) as IAF has done in past without deploying the entire squadron to one place alone. That means replication of maintenance eqpt and more spares inventory.
Coming to training, well apart from the strike profile, rest of the training will be similar, albeit knowing different aircraft handling (depends on how many kg the structural strengthening added).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jan 2014 22:22

Prem Kumar wrote:Austin: the Novator finds a mandatory mention in all these Rusian articles. We dont know if this joint development program even exists anymore.

Otoh, if we are indeed developing a 400 Km A2A missile, I hope we keep it a secret and spring a nasty surprise during a future Indo-Pak-China conflict

I believe the Novator program (a proposal at best) was superceded by the RVV-BD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXhsaau4Bs4
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/125 ... 548728.jpg

Its on offer for the Super 30 program as well (AWST).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jan 2014 22:28

govardhanks wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:it seems more rationale to go for missile based nuclear strike and aircraft/brahmos based strategic conventional strike against high value targets
I am sorry for being persistently posting ,
Sir What are those high value targets? how do we define them?
On cost basis of Brahmos missile, there might be radar stations, army camps, missile launch sites.
Most of them might be mobile and can be easily made as decoys?
If someone asks me the next change you want to see in Brahmos I would tell please reduce the cost and radar signature.

Strategic is defined by the assessor based on a well defined assessment of targets which justify the use of an expensive, highly destructive missile and which will significantly hamper the opponent's war effort or basically, hurt it. Usually anything from industrial infra, to leadership targets can be assessed as strategic.
Radar signature of the Brahmos will be low from the front. Plus it employs heavy use of RAM.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 11 Jan 2014 22:49

Karan M wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:Austin: the Novator finds a mandatory mention in all these Rusian articles. We dont know if this joint development program even exists anymore.

Otoh, if we are indeed developing a 400 Km A2A missile, I hope we keep it a secret and spring a nasty surprise during a future Indo-Pak-China conflict
I believe the Novator program (a proposal at best) was superceded by the RVV-BD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXhsaau4Bs4
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/125 ... 548728.jpg

Its on offer for the Super 30 program as well (AWST).

I used to believe that a these long range AWACS killer AAMs can be deployed to chase fighters like F-16 too at very very long ranges. But with a 8G limit and a massive acquisition requirement of 10 km (larger batteries) seems like no way are these going to get used against fighters. Probably also lighter missile body mass also to keep within the G limits.

The video however does show the escort fighters being destroyed. Which still remains puzzling.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jan 2014 23:45

Ravi G, an analysis of previous missile & even dogfight kills by the US showed that the most successful determiner of aerial combat was situational awareness. Tom Cooper in his work on Iran-Iraq air war, showed that Phoenix (at extreme range) were successful against fighters because some lacked a proper RWR, didn't know they could they be targeted at that range, Phoenix employing a lofted trajectory came from top (which pilots weren't looking out for). Later, moment some Iraqi pilots detected an AWG-9 (Phoenix cueing radar) they chose to disengage.
Now in our context the RVV-BD can hence really work even against fighters. For instance, a formation can be attacked by RVV-BD and they may be expecting to be safe at that range, not all may make the 9G turns or some cant - eg JF-17 is stressed till 8G. Others may choose not to engage a Su-30 Flanker formation expecting long range RVV-BD shots. Eitherways, it gives us a very potent weapon in our tool box.

Note, that while Max range is 200Km, its optimal range (against a maneuvering target) is likely half that, i.e. 100 km. Thats still double of current contemporary BVR AAMs which have a max range of around 80km at altitude against non maneuvering targets, but around 40 odd km against targets at mid levels.

100KM still means roughly double the reach of the opponent missiles. A Su-30 can salvo RVV-BD against AWACs, force it to disengage and then exploit the information asymmetry (Indian side has AWACS and the other doesnt) to either complete the mission or hunt down the escorts and AWACS.

member_28334 · Post by **member_28334** » 17 Jan 2014 23:14

It is surprising to see Sukhoi 30 Ks in google maps. The first pic belongs to Bareilly air base and the second one is from Lohegaon air base.

My question is why were they still in India till 2011, I thought they were returned back to russia way back in 2003 when india recieved its sukhoi 30mki. Are they still in India??
Also Why where they left unused for such a long period(2008-2011)??

Check out the pics in google earth using timeline.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jan 2014 00:12

IIRC we sold them back/exchanged them with Russia which then refurbed them and was looking out for other buyers.

srai · Post by **srai** » 18 Jan 2014 00:34

^^^

Angola buying 18 ex-Indian Su-30s - report

Written by Guy Martin, Thursday, 17 October 2013

The Angolan Air Force has bought 18 ex-Indian Air Force Su-30K Flanker fighter aircraft from Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport, according to a Russian newspaper.

A report in Vedomosti yesterday said that the deal follows last week’s visit to Angola by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who facilitated arms deals worth $1 billion. Rogozin is responsible for Russia’s armaments industry and was visiting Angola as part of a tour including Brazil and Peru where he promoted weapons from tanks to air defence systems.

The $1 billion package with Angola is said to include the 18 Su-30s and spares for Mi-17 helicopters and other hardware already in service with Angola’s armed forces.

The Su-30s Angola will reportedly receive were offered to a number of other countries, including Belarus, Ethiopia, Vietnam and Sudan. Earlier this year, Russia was in discussions with Ethiopia to procure the aircraft, as Ethiopia already operates the Su-27, but this seems to have fallen through.

The Indian Air Force has ordered more than 200 Su-30MKIs in a number of batches. The early models delivered were basic aircraft without features like canards and thrust vector controls, and it is these 18 early model aircraft (ten Su-30MK and eight Su-30K fighters delivered between May 1997 and December 1999) that were returned to Russia and replaced with more advanced Su-30MKIs.

India had intended to upgrade these early aircraft but instead used them as part-exchange for new aircraft. According to Air Forces Daily, they were retired in 2006 and sent to the 558th Aircraft Repair Plant at Baranovichi in Belarus between August and November 2011. They remain at Baranovichi as the property of Irkut Corporation.

In June, Rosoboronexport deputy general director Alexander Mikheyev said that if a customer is willing to buy the Su-30s, Rosoboronexport is ready to repair, upgrade and deliver the aircraft within four to six months. At that time, four ex-Indian Su-30s were being refurbished.

Last year, at the time of the September Africa Aerospace and Defence show held outside Pretoria, Mikheyev said that Russia was ready to export Su-30s to Africa, especially to countries like Uganda, Angola and Ethiopia. Angola received six Su-30MK2 multirole fighters last year.

Rosoboronexport and Russia’s defence ministry have not yet made any comment on the Angolan deal.

vic · Post by **vic** » 19 Jan 2014 10:53

Cross post:-

The last deal between India and Russia for Su-30MKI was for USD 40 million per unit. let us assume annual costs of USD 10 million per aircraft. The cost of Rafale is estimated at around USD 100 million per aircraft. If per annum costs are estimated at 5 million even then cost of ownership of Rafale is much higher is we take cost of capital to India at 10% per annum. Rafale would have longer life but Mirage upgrade shows that after around 30 years, the value of airframe is only 13%.

So assuming cost of capital at 10% for India on USD 40 million, linear depreciation of full airframe in 20 years at 40/20 million, annual costs at 10 million we get:-

So per annum Sukhoi cost is USD 4 + USD 2 + USD 10 million= 16 million

Similarly for Rafale cost of capital at 10% for India on USD 100 million, linear depreciation of almost full airframe in 30 years at 80/30, annual costs at 5 million, we get:-

Per annum costs of Rafale to be USD 10 million + 2.7 + 5= 17.7 million per annum as cost of ownership.

Now let's try LCA

USD 2.5+1+1= 4.5 millon per annum. So what is better 200 Rafale or 800 LCA ? which can energize indigenous aero sector and we can go for deeeeep indigenisation Or even 100 sukhoi + 400 LCA for cost of 200 Rafale.

Remember Darin III upgrade is around 4 million USD per Jaguar while Mirage upgrade is USD 40 million per aircraft.

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 19 Jan 2014 22:48

Vivekji,

First of all, I am great fan of yours. Loved "Chimera", read it several times ever since I got my copy from Amazon. Look forward to your other books.

vivek_ahuja wrote: Assumption-1: The warheads have indeed been miniaturized enough to be used with the Brahmos in a strike role. But these warheads are untested and we won't know whether they work or not until we test them or use them for real. God help us if they don't work.

Coming to the bolded part above, I have some noob questions hope I can ask them here.. apologies if these were answered earlier.

I was trying to dig information about the POKII yields for the chotu devices that were tested. I found the following in the BR Archives form "India Nuclear Weapons FAQ" thread by Shivji http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... ?f=8&t=188

We all know that the 1974 test was supposed to be of a 12-15kT device. However, it appears that the device tested then weighed in at a staggering 1000kg. If converted into a weapon - with arming mechanisms and safety locks - then anything directly based on the 1974 device would have weighed in at probably 1200-1400kg.

In 1982-83, when there were allegedly plans for a series of Indian nuclear tests, BARC scientists prepared a fission design with a weight of 170-200kg and a yield of 12-15kT.This was achieved by sustained efforts by BARC and DRDO to produce more reliable neutron initiators, improving the yield-to-weight ratio and enhancing the simultaneity of the high explosive charges. It is also not impossible that the original beryllium/ polonium neutron initiators were replaced with deuterium-tritium neutron initiators to provide a longer shelf-life and smaller size.

These improvements would have reduced the weight of the Indian fission gravity bombs. Furthermore the subsystems for this device could be tested separately, obviating the need for a full-scale nuclear test of the design. It appears that weapons developed from this design were probably flight trialled in 1994. It can also be assumed that the Prithvi warhead designs tested between 1996-97 were based on this fission weapon.

1998 provided an opportunity to verify the reliability of the design - hence the testing of a 15kT fission weapon.It should also be stated that this design can be 'stretched' to produce larger fission weapons - up to 50kT or slightly higher.

Dr. Chidambaram indicates that the others were 'weaponizable designs'. This does not mean that more tests are needed to turn the devices tested into weapons.

The three sub-kiloton devices were designed to explore a number of possibilities:
(i) The creation of sub-kiloton tactical nuclear weapons(ii) Testing of the weapons' design potential of reactor-grade plutonium with gas-boosted primaries(iii) Creating a database for future weapons computer simulations

Thus, the devices are 'weaponisable' with some modifications, but they were intended to satisfy a number of requirements

Would this mean that we might have boosted fission bums upto 50KT which are miniaturized and tested?

Assumption-2: The heavy Brahmos need a modified pylon (center-line but possibly inboard wing pylons too?) and hence the same aircraft can be used to carry the heavy and big warheads that we do have which are tested and known to work. To me this seems like the most probable answer.

From the bolded part in your assumption could it be possible that we are actually designing something else for our air delivered detergent under the guise of integrating B'mos (like all those Pruthvi tests)?

Thank you

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jan 2014 04:39

OEPrNK-30MKI Electro-optic integrated fier-control and navigation system

http://youtu.be/nvtGtnoLz-s

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 22 Jan 2014 23:09

Any update on the Number of SU 30-MKIs inducted into IAF? numbers quoted range from 170 to 210. Also the # of SQs have also been static at Seven with no new raisings being reported? any chaiwaala info on this please.