Su-30: News and Discussion

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Feb 2014 05:26

Shrinivasan wrote:And we would continue to be dependant on Russia for ever... A better approach would be to get a desi lab to create an equivalent OLS-30 and get it lnboard coupld of platforms forevaluation....whatwe end updoing is subject ourlocal products to endless 4 seasons tests and importing faulty foreign products based on Brochure Specs...

It depends if we need an upgrade for OLS and if we do there is an option for it ... if there is any local program for IRST its likely that IAF will opt for it over others ....though I have never come across OLS upgrade as a requirement for Super 30 program.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2014 06:24

Super 30 OLS upgrade was mentioned in AWST.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/4469 ... khoi30.jpg

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 09 Feb 2014 06:59

Austin wrote:^^ They should just go for OLS-35 for Super 30 or subsequent MKI upgrade

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.in/2009/10/o ... amily.html

Wouldn't PAK FA's OLS-50 be ready by that time? In case of a major upgrade like Super-Sukhoi, I think we should go for what will be latest in couple of years.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Feb 2014 07:22

Super 30 is still a work in progress thing firming up specs and other negotiations nity gritty .. hopefully we dont limit Super-30 upgrade to selective numbers but do it fleet wide for all MKI

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Feb 2014 08:43

we are being RAPED on the prices of munitions and avionics while we ARGUE over the prices of the base airframe. while it might be ok to import components for the below until local industry catches up to par or buys out small specialized foreign cos, we absolutely MUST have control and ownership of the following END PRODUCTS locally.

- laser designator pod
- photo recce pod
- fighter radar both pulse-doppler and AESA
- navigation system
- desi made GPS/GLONASS receivers
- tyres and other consumables (!)
- actuators and other high duty cycle hydraulic kit
- bubble canopy one piece
- MFDs and other glass items
- IRST
- complete range of offensive and defensive EW kit
- ARM seeker for brahmos-A and askra mk1 ARM
- guided and dumb rockets
- 500/1000/2000LB HSLD bombs
- laser guidance nose kit and fins
- GLONASS receiver and control fins for india JDAM
- short range land attack missile (ie brahmos-A)
- wing kit for range extention for high altitute glonass guided weapon release
- SFW using MMW/IIR
- Astra1 MRAAM - this must NOT be deprecated "while we wait for the mk2" as in Tejas/Arjun but produced in 1000s to replace all the AA-10 and AA-12 and Derby
- Astra2 LRAAM - this must NOT be seen as a replacement for mk1 but a additional spear the way meteor is complementary to amraam/mica
- AWACS radar and mission avionics - being done
- all sorts of essential niche plastic and metal items
- paints and coatings (!)

the only thing I wanted to see imported is the martin baker 0-0 ejection seat.

I dont want my children to be still paying their tax money enriching the arms dealers around the world. the above alone is $30 billion of money that will remain in circulation domestically over decades having multiplier effects both on ecosystem and skilled people.

stop selling this country down the drain!

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 09 Feb 2014 09:08

Well are defence aircraft manufacturers are going the Printer route, X Box, route, orginal hardware is cheap but weapons loadouts cost more 20 million like we saw for the Rafale, MICA, Meteor, AASM.

Shoundn't weapons loadouts been part of IAF life cycle costs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Feb 2014 10:22

The only we can have complete control and yet be cost effective for Weapons , EW and EO pods etc is to build it our self and get source code of the Aircraft/Radar we buy to integrate it ourself ..we have the latter so far and small strides have been made on some Weapon , ESM and EW front but we still need to go a long way for the former.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Feb 2014 03:26

After Army and Navy, IAF gears up for supersonic BrahMos missile punch on Sukhois

...
IAF is progressively basing its Sukhoi-30MKI "air dominance" fighters both on the western and eastern fronts to add to the dissuasive posture against Pakistan and China. Pune and Bareilly already have two Sukhoi squadrons each, while one each is based in Tezpur, Chabua, Halwara and Jodhpur.

Another squadron is coming up at Sirsa, with Tezpur, Chabua, Jodhpur and Halwara slated to get their second squadrons thereafter. The last Sukhoi squadron will be based at Thanjavur in south India by around 2018 to keep "a strategic eye" on the Indian Ocean region.
...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Feb 2014 14:43

Su-35 production aircraft , the cockpit is similar to what is proposed for Super 30MKI link

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/fyodor_p ... 93_900.jpg

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 21 Feb 2014 16:36

srai wrote:After Army and Navy, IAF gears up for supersonic BrahMos missile punch on Sukhois
...
IAF is progressively basing its Sukhoi-30MKI "air dominance" fighters both on the western and eastern fronts to add to the dissuasive posture against Pakistan and China. Pune and Bareilly already have two Sukhoi squadrons each, while one each is based in Tezpur, Chabua, Halwara and Jodhpur.

Another squadron is coming up at Sirsa, with Tezpur, Chabua, Jodhpur and Halwara slated to get their second squadrons thereafter. The last Sukhoi squadron will be based at Thanjavur in south India by around 2018 to keep "a strategic eye" on the Indian Ocean region.
...

272 aircraft should make 15 squadrons. There are 14 squadrons per this report. Are we missing another squadron somewhere, hopefully the A&N?

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Feb 2014 16:59

Paul wrote:[quote="srai" After Army and Navy, IAF gears up for supersonic BrahMos missile punch on Sukhois
...
IAF is progressively basing its Sukhoi-30MKI "air dominance" fighters both on the western and eastern fronts to add to the dissuasive posture against Pakistan and China. Pune and Bareilly already have two Sukhoi squadrons each, while one each is based in Tezpur, Chabua, Halwara and Jodhpur.

Another squadron is coming up at Sirsa, with Tezpur, Chabua, Jodhpur and Halwara slated to get their second squadrons thereafter. The last Sukhoi squadron will be based at Thanjavur in south India by around 2018 to keep "a strategic eye" on the Indian Ocean region.
...
/quote]

272 aircraft should make 15 squadrons. There are 14 squadrons per this report. Are we missing another squadron somewhere, hopefully the A&N?

There are 21 aircrafts per IAF squadron. Since MKI is a twin-seater, 2 extra trainers may not be necessary.

IAF will buy 14 Tejas squadrons, lowering costs

...
Each IAF combat squadron has 21 fighter aircraft; 14 squadrons add up to 294 Tejas fighters. The 21 fighters include 16 frontline, single-seat fighters, 2 twin-seat trainers and 3 reserve aircraft to make up losses in war.
...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Feb 2014 22:00

India hopes to put 272 Russia’s Su-30MKI fighters into service by 2018

NEW DELHI, February 24. /ITAR-TASS/. The Indian Air Force’s backlog of orders for Russia’s Su-30MKI fighters, makes up 272.

The fighters are assembled by India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) that has received a license from Russia’s Sukhoi aircraft maker.

“Since India received 50 assembled planes from Russia, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited had assembled another 134 fighters in India,” a source close to the Indian company told Itar-Tass on Monday. “We hope to form 14 squadrons of Su-30MKI fighters by 2018. By this time we will have 272 such planes in service.”

After this India might enlarge its backlog of orders, if the Sukhoi/HAL fifth generation fighter project or introduction into service of India’s own light fighter Tejas were delayed, the source said.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Feb 2014 22:23

ROTFL...HAL itself recently mentioned that 134 Su-30 MKIs had been made by it and ITAR TASS had to editorialize that more will be ordered if Tejas is delayed (their fond wish) and that an imaginary source close the company told them about the 134... RDM...Russian dork media.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Feb 2014 06:21

so, what is the phuck up regarding sukhois having close shave at dilli? forget about dilli ATC.. what is wrong with sukhoi sensors? what kind of sorites are these?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2014 06:23

ATC screwups happen.

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 25 Feb 2014 11:16

SaiK wrote:so, what is the phuck up regarding sukhois having close shave at dilli? forget about dilli ATC.. what is wrong with sukhoi sensors? what kind of sorites are these?

Saik ji if you are referring to TOIlet F/Article (posted here http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1599857)

That's bogus, some hatchet job to show IAF in poor light.

1. The Sukhoi incident happened in Amirtsar airspace. This fighter is scrambled to intercept a bogey coming from Paki airspace. And our civilian ATCs claim this:

"The civilian air traffic control had assigned this aircraft flying level of 22,000 feet. The aircraft instead went way higher and went to 35,600 feet. This level and the adjoining level was assigned to two international airliners, one of Thai, other KAR Airways," said a highly-placed aviation official.

Fighter on intercept vector will have to fly level at 22K ft as per civit ATC

however the pilots and ground controllers didn't bother with that and they went as far as they need to go to intercept the incoming bogey - which turned out to be a drifting weather balloon (that explains 35K ft). So DGCA/Civil ATC cry near miss and then conclude that Sukhoi's alitmeter is not working

2. Dilli incident quoted in the same F/Article refers to AN-32 pilots lining up on the wrong runway at IGI, when they were told they initiated go around and landed on the correct runway in the next pass. That is blown out of proportion.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Feb 2014 15:38

if it is bogus against our forces, then the news channel itself should be shut down.

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 25 Feb 2014 16:40

SaiK wrote:if it is bogus against our forces, then the news channel itself should be shut down.

+100

But *sigh* that didn't happen so far in our country

Another interesting thing to note in that news item is that it conveniently omits a very important parameter, how close the Sukhoi went to the actual airliners? It only states that Sukhoi breached the vertical limit set by ATC and went up into the path of the jetliners that were assigned those altitudes, but how far away are the jetliners i.e. Horizontal separation. Is it few hundred meters, few kilometers? If IAF is saying there is no near miss, in all probability the airlines might have been quite far away. So there was no collision level event as that article tries to make it look like.

Its the result of the turf war between DGCA and IAF on airspace management.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Feb 2014 17:35

There are some points in the Su-30MKI report which makes no sense:

1. Since when did civilian ATC start 'assigning' altitude levels to combat aircraft responding to 'scramble' alert? The entire thing - from tracking the UFO to vectoring IAF aircraft for visual ID - would be undertaken under the guidance of Ground Controller. And the altitude would be governed by operational requirement.

2. Further, if I'm not mistaken, the civilian ATC knows about position of planes because of transponders on these planes and not because RADAR(s) are used to track them - unless they're within certain distance of the airfield. So, how did the ATC know at what level was the IAF fighter flying and where exactly it was in space and time?

3. The civilian airspace is restricted with majority of airspace controlled by IAF. The civilian ATC and agencies control and manage traffic within these predefined corridors. IAF would know the track of civilian airlines through their radars and routes filed by civilian airlines - the IAF combat aircraft will enter the civilian airspace only if it is required to approach the UFO in question and for visual ID. So, all this 'zooming' to 36K feet and vertical separation between civilian airlines seems very dramatic and does not make sense.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Feb 2014 18:13

the claim is it went close 700ft .

srin · Post by **srin** » 25 Feb 2014 19:33

Is the Sukhoi (or any other combat aircraft) fitted with civilian-ATC detectable transponders and also TCAS ? And would they be switched on for scramble alert (not routine sortie) ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Feb 2014 19:37

Do not see anything wrong with that article (as reported)

* 700 ft separation is too low.
* MKI should have had a transponder, was it turned on?
* Vertical separation is vertical separation and rules are rules. And, with TWO civilian air crafts in the 'hood, that is BAD - no arguments will be entertained
* Unless hostilities are declared civilian ATC is boss (in his space) (there are military spaces, where the military ATC is boss). So, if the MKI wanted to climb he has to ask and be granted permission (all this should be recorded) (and then there is the corresponding act of letting the civilian planes know where the MKI is relative to them)
* even during hostilities there are rules that each nation follows. Way long back, recall flying to India, over Israel, while visiting the cockpit, the pilot mentions something to the effect "they are fighting a war down below".
* Heck, civilian planes are advised by ATC, even when the V-separation is 2000+ft and H-separation is miles.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 25 Feb 2014 20:19

ATC wouldn't know the separation or anything about MKI's location unless the transponder was on.

srin · Post by **srin** » 25 Feb 2014 20:20

@NRao, you see the problem with the article is that it looks like a selective leak by one of the parties. In case of an "incident", there are two sides to the story. If there is a leak (distinguished by un-named "sources" speaking) representing one set of facts, it usually gains public sympathy to that side and places the other party at PR disadvantage.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Feb 2014 20:49

Ah.

I cannot talk to the "leak", local politics, etc. I could be missing something there, will accept what you say.

But based on that article, what the ATC did, is international norms. Remember, some 10 years ago, India had to invest a ton to be accepted by the international bodies for air travel. So, if this report is true, under the circumstances this 700 ft separation is a very big deal - that too with two international civilian air crafts.

Also, I do not see this in any way or shape as a -ve on the IAF. These things happen even in pure civilian environments. It is a learning lesson. Someone will get slapped on the wrist at worst. (Those of you that travel on United, check into channel 9/11. The newer planes with their silly entertainment package do not have this, but the older ones you can listen to the ATC chatter. Feel free to ping the pilot, with questions, if need be - they do respond.)

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 25 Feb 2014 21:19

NRao wrote:Do not see anything wrong with that article (as reported)

* 700 ft separation is too low.
* MKI should have had a transponder, was it turned on?
* Vertical separation is vertical separation and rules are rules. And, with TWO civilian air crafts in the 'hood, that is BAD - no arguments will be entertained
* Unless hostilities are declared civilian ATC is boss (in his space) (there are military spaces, where the military ATC is boss). So, if the MKI wanted to climb he has to ask and be granted permission (all this should be recorded) (and then there is the corresponding act of letting the civilian planes know where the MKI is relative to them)
* even during hostilities there are rules that each nation follows. Way long back, recall flying to India, over Israel, while visiting the cockpit, the pilot mentions something to the effect "they are fighting a war down below".
* Heck, civilian planes are advised by ATC, even when the V-separation is 2000+ft and H-separation is miles.

Hmm.. hope you are talking about the rules prevalent in India not in US of A. Please read up about the Indian airspace management especially near the international border areas before making such generalized comments (bolded part).

Rules during hostilities

are you serious!. Tell that to the Paki pilot who shot down the civilian aircraft carrying then Gujarat CM in 1965.

Do you know how frequently IAF have to scramble fighters in Amritsar region?

Now for bit of other side of the story:
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... al-flight/

Conflicting versions of the event have come to light with a source in the Airports Authority of India (AAI) saying that on February 20, an SU-30MKI aircraft entered the flight path of two international airliners near the border, and the matter was reported to Delhi ATC.

The Air Force version of events, however, is that it had scrambled the fighters to track an unidentified contact on the radar that was approaching the Indian side from Pakistan and that it informed the ATC to keep the air space free.

AAI officials said there is thin air space left for civil aircraft in the Northern part of the country, as a large part of the airspace is used by the fighter jets from various airbases. While IAF pilots are aware of the civilian aircraft flight path, the civilian ATC is not informed about the path and sorties of the fighter jets.

However, officials in the Defence Ministry have said that the ATC was informed about this particular mission and that the Air Force till now has not received any complaint. “A few days ago, an unidentified flying object was detected heading towards towards the international border from the West. After our radar spotted it, we communicated with the Delhi ATC which said it had no information on the flying object,” a ministry official said.

“As per procedure, we scrambled SU-30MKI fighters and asked the ATC to keep the air space of 25,000-35,000 feet clear of any civilian traffic. Once our fighter reached the spot, it visually identified the object as a stray weather balloon. It was tracked and found not to be a threat.”

srin · Post by **srin** » 25 Feb 2014 22:36

NRao wrote:Ah.

I cannot talk to the "leak", local politics, etc. I could be missing something there, will accept what you say.

But based on that article, what the ATC did, is international norms. Remember, some 10 years ago, India had to invest a ton to be accepted by the international bodies for air travel. So, if this report is true, under the circumstances this 700 ft separation is a very big deal - that too with two international civilian air crafts.

Also, I do not see this in any way or shape as a -ve on the IAF. These things happen even in pure civilian environments. It is a learning lesson. Someone will get slapped on the wrist at worst. (Those of you that travel on United, check into channel 9/11. The newer planes with their silly entertainment package do not have this, but the older ones you can listen to the ATC chatter. Feel free to ping the pilot, with questions, if need be - they do respond.)

It isn't about any politics, just the tone of the article. It pays to be skeptical of the reports, especially when unnamed sources say "We were told that the defence authorities asked the pilot as to what happened". So, this source was told by someone who was told by the defence authorities who talked to the pilot. It just makes the article non-credible. And there is zero quantitative facts from IAF side - which means that this is related to someone doing CYA on the ATC side.

In the IE article linked by sattili, you can see the defence ministry perspective. Way more balanced and with factual data.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Feb 2014 23:22

srin,

OK, thanks.

However, the operative phrase should be "As per procedure" and what occurred between the two should be recorded.

That article would have been even more complete if someone stated that the ATC had granted the MKI permission to go into that space. No big deal.

There is a very well established process (Joint Regional Air Traffic Coordination Centre (JRATCC)) between the two that went into operation in 2008ish. And not just along the border, but all over India (I should say was - I have not followed it since 2008 or so). In fact it started IIRC in Chennai.

sattili,

If you have any info on the "Indian airspace management especially near the international border" please let me know - mine could be dated (since 2008).

However, just checked Amritsar (just for kicks) and found it has some 14-15 flights per day (x2 for two way I guess). And I found exactly two international over flights. Those are not numbers that I would be concerned about if we are going to talk about military-civilian conflicts is airspace management.

Given that IF (Big if) this separation problem did occur, then it is huge deal. But, I guess it did not occur. So let us move on.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 12 Mar 2014 18:36

Now NewsX reporting that Russia stopped repair persons ans 50% of a/c are now under flying condition. As per the report the a/cs were "flying blind" and are "new flying coffins".

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 12 Mar 2014 19:35

NewsX owned by Mukesh Ambani who stands to profit from Rafale deal if entered. I am aabit sceptical but if true, it is alarming

arijitkm · Post by **arijitkm** » 13 Mar 2014 09:08

Narayana Rao wrote:Now NewsX reporting that Russia stopped repair persons ans 50% of a/c are now under flying condition. As per the report the a/cs were "flying blind" and are "new flying coffins".

The news is from PTI .

Su-30MKI aircraft displays facing 'blanking off' problems

Cockpit displays of some of the Su-30MKI "blanking off" affected the use of the aircraft, India has told Russia, which is the manufacturer and supplier of these fighter planes to IAF.

"Displays blanking off is a serious and critical issue affecting the exploitation of the aircraft and needs immediate resolution of the matter on priority," state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited wrote to the Russian Irkut Corporation, which builds the aircraft.

In the letter dated February 28, a top HAL functionary has stated that the head-up displays and other displays were "blanking off" during flight of the aircraft belonging to some particular batches of the Su-30MKI and the Russian side has already been informed about it.

HAL stated in the letter that the Russian side has not yet responded even after the first complaint in this regard was registered in March 2013 and the Russian adviser deployed in India was also informed about it.

The documents related to communication between Indian and Russian officials have come to light after hackers breached Russian defence firms' networks and posted the material online.

Another leaked document suggested that the delay in setting up an MRO for the Su-30MKI aircraft was "adversely affecting" the already delayed process of overhauling the fighter jets.

The delay in setting up the facility and deployment of Russian specialists was "adversely affecting the progress of the already delayed Su-30MKI overhaul programme and our commitment to IAF and the Defence Ministry on plan for setting up overhaul facilities," the official said in the letter.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 13 Mar 2014 13:49

Could it be that the Russian are back to arm twisting India, fund the PAK-FA or we don't provide support for Su-30 MKI. It could be that they provide intentionally faulty kits. Once we sign the dotted lines, they will exchange these faulty kits with new shinning kits and make mango people happy

vic · Post by **vic** » 13 Mar 2014 13:54

Let me understand, that after 15 years of manufacturing and ToT, we still cannot fix problems even in display systems? What next? Hal will ask for special budget and Russian assistance to paint the logo of HAL on Su-30MKI?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2014 13:59

maybe there are warranty clauses staying their hand in calling indian pvt sector to help like samtel.

eventually after spending time and money, we will have to go that route anyway.

one MKI should be dedicated to being taken apart and studied and local suppliers explored for replacements.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 13 Mar 2014 16:35

It is not about "15 years of manufacturing and ToT" but about reliability, which side bears the cost of fixing and if the said systems still fall under warranty.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Mar 2014 18:52

vic wrote:Let me understand, that after 15 years of manufacturing and ToT, we still cannot fix problems even in display systems? What next? Hal will ask for special budget and Russian assistance to paint the logo of HAL on Su-30MKI?

If we fix it and something else goes wrong, the Russians will claim our tinkering caused those problems and they arent responsible.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 13 Mar 2014 19:13

^^^^

Also the older batches may have these issues and newer MKIs have home made Samtel Displays.

AFAIK they are working ok.

http://www.samtelavionics.com/?page=mfd

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Mar 2014 19:21

Problems can be because of many issues. Hardware issues - thanks to high G maneuvering, vibrations. Software issues, code becomes buggy after x iterations. Cabling getting deteriorated ... Point is the overall avionics integration was Russians responsibility with Russkaya Avionika being the integrator. They should take responsibility and fix it.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 14 Mar 2014 05:16

Are they not doing their part of contract? That is the question. We almost heard nothing of these alleged problems and now suddenly the news item says these issues are for a year or so.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Mar 2014 09:03

Sir..under the current admin, nothing gets signed on time. The Russians price gouge, we delay, prices go up even more claiming inflation, IAF frets.