Su-30: News and Discussion

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Mar 2014 09:35

Why should something else go wrong if we fix the display? The point I am making is the difference between ISRO and HAL, one organisation knows that its mandate is to get things done and another is cry baby and has never ever absorbed any technology.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Mar 2014 10:17

We dont own the overall code, avionics design or integration vic. ISRO owns the overall design/hw/sw.

When push comes to shove, HAL does deliver.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... uresh.html

Wing Cdr. K. S. Suresh VrC (Retd)

There have been a number of specialist committees that have looked into some of the MiG-21 technical problems, the latest being Dr Kalam Committee. These teams make a number of recommendations of general nature like, “if you have a balanced diet, exercise, avoid stress, alcohol and tobacco you are likely to lead a healthy life”. The media and a number of self- styled experts start to believe that implementation of recommendations of a Committee is the panacea for all ills. The most important point to note is that no committee is able to address a specific problem. The specifics have to be tackled by catching the bull by the horn by the Operator, Maintainer, Designers and Engineers from the industry, IAF and HAL in our case. Only effective operator and industry interface can produce desired results. In the case of MiG-21, a number or technical problems have been successfully solved jointly by IAF and HAL. In some cases, the Russians did not have the answers or did not co-operate with us. They also tended to insinuate that the problem was only in India not elsewhere. It is also to the credit of Indians that the Russians admitted to some of the problems when they were confronted with solid scientific data.

--

ditto with 23 and 27.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Mar 2014 10:19

27 upgrade was completely inhouse bypassing mig.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 15 Mar 2014 13:53

I find it one more reason ... not to fund PAK-FA. All this JV is bullsh*t as only one component can stop machines flying and fighting. Since two decades, Russian seem to continuously getting used to Indian blood. They feel they are right to get 10 times the contract money while not fulfilling their part of the contracts.

They are dealing too much with Chinese and learning their way of duplicity. Chinese are really good teachers and masters, look at the Baki and Russian behaviour: saying one thing and doing exactly opposite.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 15 Mar 2014 18:22

^^ That is not fair to our guys. Our bureaucrats are not chumps, they are very good at negotiating and getting good deals - they've been doing this for decades now. The problem is not signing the deals, it's the follow through. The contracts are negotiated with very little margin for faults and issues and the Russians invariably find themselves struggling to meet their obligations. This isn't willful duplicity but growing pains in the Russian mil-industrial complex which like our own over-promises and under-delivers and when its time to deliver they fall short.

Also, let us recognize that since our "options expanded" with the end of the sanctions regime and our burgeoning defense budget, India has become a more difficult customer as well. We want what we want, when we want it and aren't ready to compromise or wait.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 15 Mar 2014 21:25

We are getting hold of the situation very slowly but others have failed to understand that. On the other hand, then why do we buy and commit to a product which are only half build. Then we fund these programs with money and human resources, provide them feedbacks, improve the system and test it, when it reaches a stage. Someone can walk away with rolling their eyes at us at their will.

It is better to put that much effort in local system with less capable system. Which we can improve slowly but surely.

Coming back to SU-30, if Russians are arm twisting us then we are really in bad situation. It is a fool´s hope that AMCA arrives before its time.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 17 Mar 2014 20:42

could anyone please share the latest update on Super Su 30. Its already 2014 and not heard about Super 30 development or induction in the IAF. I believe the brahmos variant Su 30 and the Super 30 are different.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 Mar 2014 22:43

Russians go slow, Sukhoi fleet in trouble

VISHAL THAPAR New Delhi | 15th Mar 2014

A shocking 50% of the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter fleet is on the ground due to unresolved servicing issues with the aircraft's Russian manufacturers. This has also eroded the combat capability of India's frontline long-range strike aircraft and compromised even that part of the fleet which is capable of being flown.

The IAF and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) have rung the alarm bells about the repeated mid-flight failure of the Su-30 mission computer and the blanking out of all cockpit displays. The Russians have not responded to the repeated SOS' from the Indians for over a year.

These disclosures have been made in leaked communications between HAL and Russian agencies. These are in exclusive possession of The Sunday Guardian.

The managing director of HAL's Nasik complex, which is tasked with assembly and repair of the IAF Sukhois, has, in vain, desperately flagged "multiple cases of repeated failure of Mission Computer-1 and blanking out of Head Up Displays (HUD) and all Multi-Function Displays (MFD) in flight" with earmarked representatives of both Rosboronexport — the Russian government's arms export agency — and Irkut, the original manufacturer of the Sukhoi-30.

"As the displays blanking off is a serious and critical issue affecting the exploitation of aircraft (it) needs corrective action/remedial measures on priority," he pleads in a letter dated 28 February this year, reminding the Russians that he's been raising the issue since 7 March 2013 but to no avail.

Failures of the mission computer and cockpit displays are critical. The entire sortie is programmed on the mission computer, which is vital for managing requirements of aerial combat. The "blanking off" of cockpit displays distracts pilots and diverts attention away from the mission. The IAF is worried at the spearhead of its fighter fleet being hit by these nagging snags. The IAF has planned a Sukhoi-30 fleet of 272 aircraft, of which an estimated 200 have been delivered.

Air Marshal Denzil Keelor, one of IAF's most decorated fighter pilots, is dismayed. "In-flight failures such as the ones being reported render a fighter aircraft vulnerable. When a fighter is being flown below optimum capability, it becomes more vulnerable to an adversary. No aircraft should be flown unless it performing to 100% capability," he warns.

What seems even more worrying is the Russian go-slow, which has severely hit the maintenance and availability of the fleet. Even five years after the signing of contract for the setting up of Su-30 repair and overhaul facilities in India at HAL, there's no progress despite "agreements" and assurances even at the level of the Defence Ministers of the two countries.

"Due to non-availability of facilities for overhaul of aggregates (aircraft parts), the serviceability (availability for flying) of Su-30MKI is slowly decreasing and demand for Aircraft on Ground (AOG) items on the rise," HAL's Nasik division again pleads with Russia's Rosboronexport in a telling letter dated 24 December 2013. Even the revised deadlines committed the Russians to set up the repair-overhaul facility at HAL by December 2013, and overhaul the first aircraft by June 2014. This seems nowhere on the horizon.

Worse, Russia has put on hold the posting of its Sukhoi specialists to India for helping set up repair and maintenance capability. Documents available with The Sunday Guardian suggest that the two sides are haggling over price. This goes against an agreement that posting of Russian specialists would not be disrupted even if price negotiations were not concluded. In the absence of these specialists, HAL has been forced to fend on its own, as Aircraft on Ground (AOG) are piling up.

"Huge quantities of unserviceable aggregates (parts) are lying due for overhaul at various bases of IAF," HAL states, disclosing that the number of Su-30s being grounded for want of quick repair is increasing. The Russians have been informed that five Su-30MKI fighters are already parked at HAL for extensive overhaul, and another 15 will be due for overhaul in the current year. This number is equivalent to an entire squadron.

Lamenting the Russian delays, HAL expresses even more helplessness: "It appears that Rosboronexport and Irkut Corporation (the main parties to the contract) have limited control over other Russian companies (which provide vital parts like engines)." Supplies and deputation of specialists by other companies are even more erratic.

While warning that operating the fighters without conclusively sorting out the recurring snags could affect pilot confidence, Air Marshal P.S. Ahluwalia, who recently headed the IAF's Western Command, also questions the Ministry of Defence and HAL for the sorry state of affairs. "It's an issue of mismanagement of maintenance arrangements. The Ministry of Defence's Department of Defence Production is responsible. They have failed to resolve the problems," he says.

As the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Western Air Command, Air Marshal Ahluwalia did not hesitate to ground the MiG-29 fleet for three months after suspicions of its airworthiness arose following a crash. He flew the fleet again only after the maintenance issue was nailed.

Figures reveal how serious the problem of availability of the IAF's Su-30MKI fleet is. Against the Sukhoi figure of just 50% aircraft fit for operational flying, statistics reveal just how much ground is to be covered. The availability rates of the IAF's French-origin Mirage-2000 and even the Russian-origin MiG-29 is about 75%. As India quibbles with Russia over maintenance arrangements, the larger question is: What good is a weapon if it cannot be used?

Sunday Guardian

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 18 Mar 2014 02:29

Viv S wrote:Russians go slow, Sukhoi fleet in trouble

VISHAL THAPAR New Delhi | 15th Mar 2014

A shocking 50% of the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter fleet is on the ground due to unresolved servicing issues with the aircraft's Russian manufacturers. This has also eroded the combat capability of India's frontline long-range strike aircraft and compromised even that part of the fleet which is capable of being flown.

The IAF and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) have rung the alarm bells about the repeated mid-flight failure of the Su-30 mission computer and the blanking out of all cockpit displays. The Russians have not responded to the repeated SOS' from the Indians for over a year.

These disclosures have been made in leaked communications between HAL and Russian agencies. These are in exclusive possession of The Sunday Guardian.

The managing director of HAL's Nasik complex, which is tasked with assembly and repair of the IAF Sukhois, has, in vain, desperately flagged "multiple cases of repeated failure of Mission Computer-1 and blanking out of Head Up Displays (HUD) and all Multi-Function Displays (MFD) in flight" with earmarked representatives of both Rosboronexport — the Russian government's arms export agency — and Irkut, the original manufacturer of the Sukhoi-30.

"As the displays blanking off is a serious and critical issue affecting the exploitation of aircraft (it) needs corrective action/remedial measures on priority," he pleads in a letter dated 28 February this year, reminding the Russians that he's been raising the issue since 7 March 2013 but to no avail.

Failures of the mission computer and cockpit displays are critical. The entire sortie is programmed on the mission computer, which is vital for managing requirements of aerial combat. The "blanking off" of cockpit displays distracts pilots and diverts attention away from the mission. The IAF is worried at the spearhead of its fighter fleet being hit by these nagging snags. The IAF has planned a Sukhoi-30 fleet of 272 aircraft, of which an estimated 200 have been delivered.

Air Marshal Denzil Keelor, one of IAF's most decorated fighter pilots, is dismayed. "In-flight failures such as the ones being reported render a fighter aircraft vulnerable. When a fighter is being flown below optimum capability, it becomes more vulnerable to an adversary. No aircraft should be flown unless it performing to 100% capability," he warns.

What seems even more worrying is the Russian go-slow, which has severely hit the maintenance and availability of the fleet. Even five years after the signing of contract for the setting up of Su-30 repair and overhaul facilities in India at HAL, there's no progress despite "agreements" and assurances even at the level of the Defence Ministers of the two countries.

"Due to non-availability of facilities for overhaul of aggregates (aircraft parts), the serviceability (availability for flying) of Su-30MKI is slowly decreasing and demand for Aircraft on Ground (AOG) items on the rise," HAL's Nasik division again pleads with Russia's Rosboronexport in a telling letter dated 24 December 2013. Even the revised deadlines committed the Russians to set up the repair-overhaul facility at HAL by December 2013, and overhaul the first aircraft by June 2014. This seems nowhere on the horizon.

Worse, Russia has put on hold the posting of its Sukhoi specialists to India for helping set up repair and maintenance capability. Documents available with The Sunday Guardian suggest that the two sides are haggling over price. This goes against an agreement that posting of Russian specialists would not be disrupted even if price negotiations were not concluded. In the absence of these specialists, HAL has been forced to fend on its own, as Aircraft on Ground (AOG) are piling up.

"Huge quantities of unserviceable aggregates (parts) are lying due for overhaul at various bases of IAF," HAL states, disclosing that the number of Su-30s being grounded for want of quick repair is increasing. The Russians have been informed that five Su-30MKI fighters are already parked at HAL for extensive overhaul, and another 15 will be due for overhaul in the current year. This number is equivalent to an entire squadron.

Lamenting the Russian delays, HAL expresses even more helplessness: "It appears that Rosboronexport and Irkut Corporation (the main parties to the contract) have limited control over other Russian companies (which provide vital parts like engines)." Supplies and deputation of specialists by other companies are even more erratic.

While warning that operating the fighters without conclusively sorting out the recurring snags could affect pilot confidence, Air Marshal P.S. Ahluwalia, who recently headed the IAF's Western Command, also questions the Ministry of Defence and HAL for the sorry state of affairs. "It's an issue of mismanagement of maintenance arrangements. The Ministry of Defence's Department of Defence Production is responsible. They have failed to resolve the problems," he says.

As the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Western Air Command, Air Marshal Ahluwalia did not hesitate to ground the MiG-29 fleet for three months after suspicions of its airworthiness arose following a crash. He flew the fleet again only after the maintenance issue was nailed.

Figures reveal how serious the problem of availability of the IAF's Su-30MKI fleet is. Against the Sukhoi figure of just 50% aircraft fit for operational flying, statistics reveal just how much ground is to be covered. The availability rates of the IAF's French-origin Mirage-2000 and even the Russian-origin MiG-29 is about 75%. As India quibbles with Russia over maintenance arrangements, the larger question is: What good is a weapon if it cannot be used?

Sunday Guardian

Yes its understandable why IAF wanted a western a/c.

Before the trouble was Mig 29 though more capable than Mirage 2000s, were hardly ready enough in good numbers ever.

While we never saw any problem of such kind with french M2ks.

Now sukhoi was supposed to be better then mig somehow, and all supply problems sorted out; and now this

East or west home is best, time to order 300 LCA Tejas Mk. I, later we can go for another 300 Mk. IIs. Ghar ka paisa ghar mein hi rahega, and parts etc. will also be mostly home made. Plus the advantage of smooth supplies of engines from GE, unlike russians who love to break the contracts and go back on their word whether ToT of gun barrel for tincans and now this sukhoi $hit!

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 18 Mar 2014 17:06

Where's Philip, when you need him?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 18 Mar 2014 17:19

Is Vihal thapar related to Karan Thapar?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Mar 2014 20:15

lord knows, but he is a ddm for sure.

anyways, ID the missile on the belly! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bg-2D8LCAAAc4rT.jpg:large

Model shown to Russians when they visited HAL, looks like IAF may have other stuff in its kitty.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2014 02:44

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbcWtmB2dJs/U ... -30MKI.jpg

All the gory details. And the Mission Computer which is failing is the Russian one. BTVsM 486. And the first tranches of Russia supplied MKIs are having issues.
http://rpkb.ru/eng/index.php_page_id=16.html

And check how the Indian side has agreed to all demands and yet Russian side is yet to reciprocate by sending specialists on time.

Not 50% of entire fleet, but probably around 40 aircraft - Russia supplied, plus those due for overhaul. Which is around 20, projected. So 50 aircraft..

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Mar 2014 07:26

So after 20 years of contract and ToT, HAL cannot fix the displays and has still not set up overhaul facilities.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2014 07:54

vic those mission computers are russian. HAL can do diddly squat about them. IIRC the russians insisted that su-30 architecture remain hybrid with a russian MC and an Indian MC both. this was probably implemented in block3 of the MKI which became the definitive standard. i believe that even core code of the MCs is effectively russian though we may have got specific input to allow weapons integration, eg thats how we are putting astra on the plane.

also overhaul facilities require russian assistance since aggregates repair methods require russian tot. one may well argue, cynically, that we have seen this before with the t-90. after all, if these go back to russia more money for russian firms, no?

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Mar 2014 11:50

Karan M wrote:
also overhaul facilities require russian assistance since aggregates repair methods require russian tot. one may well argue, cynically, that we have seen this before with the t-90. after all, if these go back to russia more money for russian firms, no?

+ 1, that's why we have to go whole hog on indigenisation!

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Mar 2014 11:51

Karan M wrote:lord knows, but he is a ddm for sure.

anyways, ID the missile on the belly! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bg-2D8LCAAAc4rT.jpg:large

Model shown to Russians when they visited HAL, looks like IAF may have other stuff in its kitty.

What missile do you think it is?

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 20 Mar 2014 17:27

Are you talking about the missile on the intake pylons? If you ask me per the control surface layout, it looks like an AAD/Pragati/Prahaar variant - is that a possibility? Are we looking at a R-37 type LRAAM or a LR-ARM? Or will it be used as an AShM/ASM?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 20 Mar 2014 23:29

^^ Couple of very shabby Kh31 missile mockup in the inlet hardpoints, that can only take AAMs & lighter munitions & EO pods. The R27 & R77 are equally shabby

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... a.jpg.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Mar 2014 08:02

I've read the report,a bad situ indeed.This requires the GOI,PM in particular to personally take up the issue with his Russian counterpart.If I remember right,the same was done when the Gorky/Vik deal was in trouble.It worked.Putin read out the riot act to the Russian entities. Secondly,the report also puts some of the blame on the MOD/HAL.The Su-30s were inducted aeons ago,in the last century.What provisions were made for indigenising the aircraft since then,or streamlining the supply chain? We appear to have known about the difficulties of obtaining components from Russia for some time.There should've been a cut-off date and plan B for us to manufacture/obtain the same ourselves or from other sources. We've had decades of lamenting about shortage of spares,etc. for various defence items ,from aircraft to warships and subs,etc.What role is the Min. of Def. Production playing in this? We scarcely hear his voice o see him kicking ass to raise productivity of the DPSUs and lessen the dependence on foreign suppliers.

In a normal situ,we could even put the plan to acquire more Flankers on hold,but we are in sh*t street with massively depleting numbers, the IAF operating Cold War legacy fighters and trainers like Kirans,and even helicopters,thanks to the indifference and dereliction of duty by the MOD and Scamthony.The SU-30 MKIs are the cutting edge of the IAF. If there is no relief,a delegation should visit Russia asap and politely demand support for the same,even request a couple of sqds. of Russian aircraft to be sent to us in the interim until the matter is resolved to our satisfaction.
The only silver lining is that the MIG-29 fleet has the same reliability factor as the M-2000s and the IN haven't had any major problems either.
Why I've maintained that acquiring more of that species is a cost-effective interim solution until we are able to produce LCAs and their successors in quick time and large quantities.

This will take between 15-20 years,therefore we have to draw up alternatives.Some have recommended buying more old M-2000s in service with other air forces.The billion $ Q is how much of life is left in them and what the costs of upgrades will be as the upgrade package of our M-2000s ($2.5B for just 40+ aircraft) is the cost of 2 new LCAs!

PS:There are also payment schedules for the extra Flankers on order.One can "adjust" the payment schedule in keeping with the supply of spares,etc. However,with the death convulsions of this dying animal,the UPA-2/Cong., and vermin deserting the sinking ship,who in the ruins of this govt. , before the final fall of this "turd reich", resembling Berlin before "downfall",is interested at all in resolving the issue?

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 21 Mar 2014 12:05

tsarkar wrote:^^ Couple of very shabby Kh31 missile mockup in the inlet hardpoints, that can only take AAMs & lighter munitions & EO pods. The R27 & R77 are equally shabby

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... a.jpg.html

Well they could well be crappy Kh-31 mock-ups, but the inlet hardpoints can actually carry them: http://goo.gl/tkaZRg

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Mar 2014 12:19

vic those mission computers are russian.

They look like generic i486 based stuff, which BTW, our IT/Vity boys will do an infinitely better job with and of course, we already have the stuff on the LCA and the stuff derived from that on other platforms and also on the M2K upgrades and Mig 29 upgrades (the last 2 I fervently hope and that we did not take in the French and Russian MC).

Time to rip out that Russian s*it and put in our own stuff there.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Mar 2014 12:26

Karan M wrote:lord knows, but he is a ddm for sure.

anyways, ID the missile on the belly! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bg-2D8LCAAAc4rT.jpg:large

Looks like a bad mock-up of Kh-31 , indeed most missile there are bad mockup.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 21 Mar 2014 17:28

I think it is just a model of some missile. They were not trying to indicate any particular missile.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 21 Mar 2014 21:54

vina wrote:
vic those mission computers are russian.
They look like generic i486 based stuff, which BTW, our IT/Vity boys will do an infinitely better job with and of course, we already have the stuff on the LCA and the stuff derived from that on other platforms and also on the M2K upgrades and Mig 29 upgrades (the last 2 I fervently hope and that we did not take in the French and Russian MC).

Time to rip out that Russian s*it and put in our own stuff there.

7 years ago the MC for LCA was using dualcore 1Ghz alitivec enabled powerpc processors with options for upto 8GB RAM on board.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Mar 2014 09:50

Philip wrote:This requires the GOI,PM in particular to personally take up the issue with his Russian counterpart.

And what do you do if the Russian counterpart tells him/them to take a hike. Or perhaps just delivers lip service without any action on ground? In the west you can take the company to court for breach-of-contract. With the Russians, the company is the state. Technically you can go to court.. that'll amuse them.

If I remember right,the same was done when the Gorky/Vik deal was in trouble.It worked.Putin read out the riot act to the Russian entities.

We still had to shell out three times the contract value for a ship delivered six years behind schedule. It 'worked' only in that it had the potential to be an even bigger disaster.

Secondly,the report also puts some of the blame on the MOD/HAL.The Su-30s were inducted aeons ago,in the last century.What provisions were made for indigenising the aircraft since then,or streamlining the supply chain? We appear to have known about the difficulties of obtaining components from Russia for some time.

We?

If there is no relief,a delegation should visit Russia asap and politely demand support for the same,even request a couple of sqds. of Russian aircraft to be sent to us in the interim until the matter is resolved to our satisfaction.

What are our options if the delegation is politely told ~~to buzz off~~ that it will be looked into.

Why I've maintained that acquiring more of that species is a cost-effective interim solution until we are able to produce LCAs and their successors in quick time and large quantities.

A more sensible option would be to scale up the Tejas production, rather than pay the Russian to refurbish their MiG-29 production line.

This will take between 15-20 years,therefore we have to draw up alternatives.Some have recommended buying more old M-2000s in service with other air forces.The billion $ Q is how much of life is left in them and what the costs of upgrades will be as the upgrade package of our M-2000s ($2.5B for just 40+ aircraft) is the cost of 2 new LCAs!

Plenty of air frame life and no upgrades required.

PS:There are also payment schedules for the extra Flankers on order.One can "adjust" the payment schedule in keeping with the supply of spares,etc.

And they can 'adjust' the delivery schedule of the aircraft to be delivered by them. Or production parts. Or spares.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Mar 2014 06:14

I've mentioned before that "scaling up" Tejas is becoming a herculean task.The max. rate /yr. for the first few years is 8.A DRDO official said on the record last yr. that HAL had only now discovered that a production line was a tech in itself.Moreover,we need 300 LCAs to simply replace the MIG-21s/Bisons.The LCA is not a substitute for an MMRCA.Nothing less than a second production line will make do,and don't forget,the definitive MK-2 is yet to fly,will take about 4-5 yrs. to obtain FOC and enter series production around 2020 or so.What do we do in the interim as 200 MIG-21s are retired with a depleted bank balance that can't afford the Raffy in the numbers desired? Where are the missing 8 sqds. going to come from?

As regard overall squadron strength, Browne admitted, “the present level is much below” than the authorised strength of 42 squadrons. The Mig-21s and Mig-27s will be phased out during the 12 and 13th plan periods and the IAF will have to increase the lifespan of some ageing aircraft if the proposed medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contract is not signed soon and Tejas light combat aircraft is not made operational.

The IAF now has 34 operational squadrons of fighter jets and it will have to upgrade some squadrons to maintain deterrence in the eventuality of the MMRCA not coming through.

"We"? GOI/MOD for at least two decades after the USSR collapsed. Common knowledge,umpteen reports.What has the Min. of Def.Production been doing all these decades? The Flankers too were inducted over a decade ago,the deal to manufacture them as far back as 2000.

http://indrus.in/blogs/2014/01/05/how_t ... 32099.html

How the Su-30 MKI is changing the IAF’s combat strategy
January 5, 2014 Rakesh Krishnan Simha
The versatile and constantly evolving nature of the Sukhoi enables the Indian Air Force to think big and strike far.

How the Su-30 MKI is changing the IAF’s combat strategy
Su-30 MKI. Source: AP

With the induction of large numbers of class leading Sukhoi-30 MKI fighters, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has not only made a huge technological transition from a MiG-21 dominated fleet, its war fighting doctrine has also changed, focusing on long-range and strategic missions.

Aggressiveness is a fundamental requirement of air combat, and the IAF has traditionally been an attack orientated force. For instance, on December 3, 1971 in response to Pakistan Air Force (PAF) raids on 11 Indian airbases, the IAF responded with initial air strikes the same night, which were expanded to massive retaliatory air strikes the next morning.

In previous wars, it didn’t matter if their opponents had better aircraft and radars, IAF pilots compensated for it with their superior training and ingenuity. IAF pilots truly internalised what Sergei Dolgushin, a Russian Air Force ace with 24 victories in WWII, said is a prerequisite to be a successful fighter pilot: “a love of hunting, a great desire to be the top dog”.

Long range and two fronts

It was with the MiG-29 Fulcrum that the IAF for the very first time acquired a superior aircraft compared with those operated by the PAF. However, the qualitative edge was marginal. On the other hand the Sukhoi-30 MKI is an “air dominance fighter” that is allowing the IAF to perform a multiplicity of missions required to keep in step with India’s rising global stature. The Sukhoi’s versatility – owing to its extended range, speed, firepower and super-manoeuvrability – has given the IAF considerable leeway in deploying the aircraft in offensive missions.

In April 2013 the IAF held its largest-ever combat exercise involving as many as 400 combat aircraft plus 200 transport planes and helicopters. The exercise was aimed at testing the IAF’s capability for a two-front war against China and Pakistan, by deploying “swing forces” from the western theatre right across to the east.

As part of the war games, Sukhoi-30MKIs flew 1800 km bombing missions from Chabua in Assam to the western front, with mid-air refuelling. This is possible because the Sukhoi has a range of 4.5 hours on internal fuel, and IAF pilots are known to lead missions over 10 hours.

BrahMos and the mini air force

The Su-30 MKI has 12 hard points for missiles and bombs. The IAF is carrying out structural modifications on the Sukhois to enable them to carry the air launched variant of the BrahMos cruise missile. If the contracting firms are able to reduce the mass and weight of the missile, the aircraft would be able to carry up to three of these missiles.

In previous wars the IAF avoided attacks on non-military infrastructure, preferring to target tanker farms and military bases. The decision to equip the Sukhois with the BrahMos creates new synergies and signals a new intent. The Sukhoi’s radar can detect tall buildings at a distance of 400 km and small building at 120 km. The BrahMos is a highly destructive missile and belongs to a class of Russian missiles that are designed to cut small warships in half. So in the next war expect a lot of damage to enemy infrastructure – dams, power stations and industrial clusters are all likely to be targeted.
Related:

First test-launch of BrahMos missile from Indian Su-30MKI in 2014
Indian Air Force to get first BrahMos-armed Su-30MKI fighter in 2015

There is another ominous angle. India’s Strategic Forces Command (SFC) has asked for 40 nuclear capable strike aircraft to be used conjointly with land-based and submarine launched ballistic missiles. Although it’s not clear whether the IAF or the SFC will operate this mini air force, what is clear is that exactly 40 Su-30 MKIs have been converted to carry the BrahMos. That’s some coincidence.

A nuclear warhead on an air-launched BrahMos fired from a super-manoeuvrable Su-30 MKI won’t just further enhance the IAF’s strike capability and aircraft survivability, it would also complicate the enemy’s defence planning.

Mission capable

Such complex missions require powerful navigation systems. India has chosen to buy barebones Sukhois from Russia and then cram them with Israeli and French equipment. Plus, the already excellent Bars radar, which can track an aircraft at 125 km and a battle tank 40 km away, is being replaced with the Russian Zhuk active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars.

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.

The Su-30 MKI has also given a fillip to the DRDO, which has designed and developed the aircraft’s electronic counter measures suite, including the radar warning receiver and frequency hopping radios and identify friend or foe system. Irkut President Alexy Fedorov says the Su-30 MKIs are being upgrade to the ‘Super Sukhoi’, which has features similar to a fifth generation aircraft.

Numbers game

It is a fact that quantity has a quality all its own. Including aircraft under order, India’s Sukhoi-30 MKI fleet is currently pegged at 272. It is an impressive number for such a high-end and expensive weapons platform. This shows a keen sense of judgement by the IAF, which realises that 100 per cent fleet utilisation is impossible and having a large number of air superiority aircraft around is the key to getting the job done.

Sukhois shift the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific

With such numbers at its disposal, the IAF is now able to build a network of bases around the country. Earlier, because of the low range of its fighter aircraft and coupled with the fact that the IAF had to quickly deploy them in war, most Indian air bases – such as Adampur, Jammu, Amritsar and Jodhpur – were close to the Pakistan border.

But now Sukhois are also being stationed at places such as Thanjavur in the deep south, Chabua in the northeast and Pune in western India. Because of its long legs and speed the Sukhois can join battle at a few hours notice.

A worrying factor, however, is the planned force of 272 Sukhois falls well short of the 400 Sukhoi-30 equivalents and knockoffs in the Chinese air force. If the 126 French Rafales are inducted over the coming years, India should achieve at least quantitative parity with China. That is, until the Chinese stealth fighters arrive.

Some other reports that may have been posted earlier.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/iaf- ... by-17.html
IAF plans 13-and-half SU-30 squadrons by ’17
Monday, 07 October 2013

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 955534.cms
‘Astra’ carriage trials with Su-30 begins
Jatinder Kaur Tur,TNN | Dec 6, 2013
The 3.8 metre long, single stage, solid fuelled missile is finally expected to have two different versions for different altitudes and ranges including Astra Mark-I which shall have a range of 44km and Astra Mark-II with a range of over 100km. Astra can cruise at various altitudes while evading radar and intercepting and engaging the 'supersonic targets' by manoeuvring its speed accordingly. Armed with superior Electronic Warfare capabilities, its Electronic Counter-Counter Measures lends it immunity from being followed and targeted.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Mar 2014 14:27

Philip wrote:I've mentioned before that "scaling up" Tejas is becoming a herculean task.The max. rate /yr. for the first few years is 8.A DRDO official said on the record last yr. that HAL had only now discovered that a production line was a tech in itself.Moreover,we need 300 LCAs to simply replace the MIG-21s/Bisons.The LCA is not a substitute for an MMRCA.

Either HAL is capable of manufacturing the Tejas or it isn't. If they can deliver 8 aircraft per year, logically they can reproduce that to deliver 24 aircraft per year as well. Its a simple matter of investing the requisite capital.

As for the numbers, you've got them wrong. Between the Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 we will have 24 squadrons. 300 Tejas equals about 15 squadrons. So that's a total of 39 squadrons, approximately equal to the IAF's authorized strength. Add in another 6 squadrons of a fifth generation aircraft and the IAF will have the (24+15+6=) 45 squadrons that it needs, by around 2025.

Nothing less than a second production line will make do,and don't forget,the definitive MK-2 is yet to fly,will take about 4-5 yrs. to obtain FOC and enter series production around 2020 or so.

And just what's wrong with setting up a second production line if the order size is adequate? Also Mk2 series production will begin at or before IOC not at FOC.

What do we do in the interim as 200 MIG-21s are retired with a depleted bank balance that can't afford the Raffy in the numbers desired? Where are the missing 8 sqds. going to come from?

How about investing the capital saved by cancelling the MMRCA to build that second Tejas production line instead of gifting it away to the Russians? And perhaps also making an offer for the Emirati & Qatari Mirages.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Mar 2014 16:11

Upgrading the Mirages is prohibitive.The cost of just one equal to 2 LCAs! No issue with the second prod. line for the LCA,what I've been saying for a very long time.If the IAF-what they want,start using their space at their bases to build trainers and transports,it will open up capability at HAL's units.However,initially production will not be as fast replacing retiring aircraft one-to-one.It will take some time before production can be ramped up,vendors found locally for components,etc.as much of the aircraft is firang.But will it be able to match the Raffy/MIG-29/35 in the MMRCA role.I doubt it.Even if we obtain the FGFAs,we are still short of 4 sqds.,around 80 aircraft.I estimate that we will be for about a decade or so 100+ aircraft short,and nursing along obsolete birds until new replacements are found.Remember the IAF diktat not to "stress" the Bisons as they had to serve another 4-5 years.

The media report that the I can only fight for 20 days is appalling.We know the perilous situ with the IN's subs and helos,plus the IAF's rapidly depleting numbers.Thank goodness that we have just about a month+ more to endure Scamthony as Deaf Min.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Mar 2014 05:29

Philip, There was USAF airman who studied the USAF campaign in Vietnam and showed they were figthign WWII in a pre-industrial, agraraian country and that it led to the fall of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The lesson is the IAF had to develop its own doctrine to suit its challengers.

Will sen you the link once I get an e-mail from you.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Mar 2014 10:46

Philip wrote:Upgrading the Mirages is prohibitive.The cost of just one equal to 2 LCAs!

This again? The QAF & UAEAF Mirages are all Dash 5 standard. So why would you want to 'upgrade' them?

No issue with the second prod. line for the LCA,what I've been saying for a very long time.

Our funds are not limitless. Every dollar spent on a MiG-35 is a dollar less for the Tejas.

If the IAF-what they want,start using their space at their bases to build trainers and transports,it will open up capability at HAL's units.

After years of the private industry getting short ended by the DPSUs that you rail against, you're comfortable with idea of work that ought to be done by the civil industry being performed by the IAF.

However,initially production will not be as fast replacing retiring aircraft one-to-one.It will take some time before production can be ramped up,vendors found locally for components,etc.as much of the aircraft is firang.

There are no MiG-29s in production for any air force currently. Unless the IAF is willing to fly the MiG-29K, they'll be a delay in MiG-29 deliveries as well. And an aircraft with 'much of [it] firang' is still far better than a firang aircraft.

But will it be able to match the Raffy/MIG-29/35 in the MMRCA role.I doubt it.

Saying 'Raffy/MiG-29/MiG-35' implies that the Rafale and MiG-35 are equivalent which is far from true. And the Tejas Mk2 will certainly outperform the MiG-35.

Even if we obtain the FGFAs,we are still short of 4 sqds.,around 80 aircraft.I estimate that we will be for about a decade or so 100+ aircraft short,and nursing along obsolete birds until new replacements are found.Remember the IAF diktat not to "stress" the Bisons as they had to serve another 4-5 years.

How are we short 4 squadrons? 24 squadrons of existing aircraft plus 15 squadrons of the Tejas plus 6 squadrons of a 5G fighter equals 45 squadrons which is what the IAF is striving for.

The media report that the I can only fight for 20 days is appalling.We know the perilous situ with the IN's subs and helos,plus the IAF's rapidly depleting numbers.Thank goodness that we have just about a month+ more to endure Scamthony as Deaf Min.

?? How is this related to the Su-30, MiG-35, Rafale or Tejas acquisition?

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 25 Mar 2014 12:31

Viv S wrote:
Our funds are not limitless. Every dollar spent on a MiG-35 is ~~a dollar~~ 61 rupees less for the Tejas.

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Mar 2014 19:02

Viv S wrote:...

As for the numbers, you've got them wrong. Between the Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 we will have 24 squadrons. 300 Tejas equals about 15 squadrons. So that's a total of 39 squadrons, approximately equal to the IAF's authorized strength. Add in another 6 squadrons of a fifth generation aircraft and the IAF will have the (24+15+6=) 45 squadrons that it needs, by around 2025.

...

Your numbers by aircraft type by 2025 is bit off IMO.

If we are to go by current R&D timelines, purchase/potential orders and production schedules, here is what the IAF's fleet would look like in 2025:

14 x Su-30 MKI squadrons (~270 aircrafts)
2/3 x Mirage-2000 UPG squadrons (~50 aircrafts)
3 x MiG-29 UPG squadrons (~60 aircrafts)
4/5 x Jaguar UPG squadrons (~100 aircrafts)
6 x Rafale squadrons (~120 aircrafts)
6 x LCA Mk.1&2 squadrons (~120 aircrafts)
2/3 x PAK-FA/FGFA squadrons (~40 aircrafts)

Totals: 37 to 40 squadrons

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 25 Mar 2014 19:07

Rafle , I doubt, 2018 , first 18 aircraft from France, rest will be ready by 2025? LCA and PAF FA- Big IFs.

But still far less than the required 55 squadrons

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Mar 2014 21:31

Though I am in favour of total commitment to the FGFA ,because of the impending threat of 5th-gen fighters from China,etc.,I am not sure how quickly we will be able to induct the sqds. and at what cost.Even the Russians are quite realistic and sang-froid when discussing the programme,saying that a balance has to be found so that about 500-600 "deep upgrades" of existing Flanker variants along with 5th-gen FGFAs will be the order of the day.

However,in the Indian context,our Flankers are all 2-seaters,putting pressure upon pilot resources and adding to the overall cost of acquisition,operational life costs plus added human resources/family costs. As the CNO of the USN pragmatically said,when bomb trucks (in the age of PGMs) can do the business,who needs luxury cars? In the US context,the approx. $100m delicate JSF is being tasked to do the job of the $20M A-10 flying tank, for close support!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Mar 2014 22:51

srai wrote:Your numbers by aircraft type by 2025 is bit off IMO.

If we are to go by current R&D timelines, purchase/potential orders and production schedules, here is what the IAF's fleet would look like in 2025:

We were discussing a hypothetical situation where a second Tejas production line was set up and the order expanded to 300 units, with the Rafale being cancelled. Philip's contention was/is that this will merely be a 'MiG-21 replacement' and will not provide the IAF with the squadron strength that it strives for (thus necessitating an order for supplementary MiG-35s).

A second Tejas line would boost total production to 30-35 aircraft per year. Assuming that rate is achieved only by 2019, the IAF would still have about 275 aircraft by 2025 i.e. about 15 squadrons worth. Assuming of course that the govt commits to the program in a big way.

So the squadrons would be -

FGFA - 6
Su-30MKI - 14
Tejas - 15
Mirage 2000 - 3
MiG-29 - 3
Jaguar - 4

Thus totalling 45 squadrons. Post-2030 the latter three can start being replaced with the AMCA.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Mar 2014 03:28

srai, Also when the 45 squadron strength was envisoned it was with much lesser capability aircraft and longer turnaround times. How do the modern a/c compare to those envisoned?

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 26 Mar 2014 06:58

45 squadorns were envisoned with pak/china in mind not capability in mind. the capability of both PAF/and PL AF has also increased in varying degrees over time. it was to handle two fronts if required !

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 26 Mar 2014 20:10

No, 45 sq was envisioned with Pap in mind while China AF would not be a mjor player. In 2000, IAF did a study of 2 front (IAF) war, offensive in west and hold in North (meaning fighters mainly no bombers), the conclusion was it needed 55 SQ. Anything else is harmonizing the fact, since we have 37 SQ now, perhaps it is adequate as we have more modern plane, or now the fight will be economic or since we are all nuclearrized, we do not need those many planes...etc etc.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Mar 2014 07:27

Fanne, correct.