Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2015 21:05

Those are F-15s in the back if I am not mistaken so thats Nellis AFB or Mountain Home
Or i can't see well
Is that the official IAF twitter

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jun 2015 21:43

You need check up. Its official acct. See the crest.
Anybody else will go to jail.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2015 21:48

No, I was right.

http://www.nellis.af.mil/shared/media/p ... W-0048.jpg

I recognized it because of that characteristic sky.

http://www.nellis.af.mil/shared/media/p ... W-0028.jpg

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jun 2015 21:50

So IAF handle is tweeting wrong pictures. there goes credibility!

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 21 Jun 2015 21:51

^^^
Its probably a fan account. A google search of the Image returns a webpage from 2008, Red Flag (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread385356/pg1)

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2015 21:52

Even their prior pic of an IAF Mirage seems to show a French AF Mirage

"IAF's future AMCA(NGFA) -Prototype #Airforce replacing 'SEPECAT JAGUAR" shows the Japanese TRD demonstrator

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jun 2015 21:55

KaranM, I sent correction on twitter.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2015 22:03

This is all ze BRF effect. Din raat staring at pictures of Aircraft. I mean you look at that pic and it looks like F-15s in the back. That ground handling eqpt too I remember from pics of Nellis, bright yellow boxy wagons with APUs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2015 22:05

BTW on more interesting note, Piotr Butowski of Air International writes that the L Band antenna in wings of PAKFA (possibly Su-35 too) are actually radars. Not just IFF. Meant for work against low RCS targets.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 21 Jun 2015 22:52

So, Russians did take some counter measures for stealth, wonder if the Su-35 sale happened to China? there was a lot of focus on engine technology but not on this aspect

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jun 2015 20:26

KaranM, Is the Su-30MKI gun and ammo made by OFB?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-301

I think the 23mm gun is made by OFB.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wmc/3.htm

How about the old Gnat 30mm cannon?
----

Looks like only ammo is made. Not the gun.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/index.php?wh=A-E-P-C&lang=en

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Jul 2015 15:35

I was fortunate to have seen and videoed this superlative Su-30 MKI performance by Viktor Pugachev in Aero India 1998. That was the most breathtaking display I have seen, and the man kept the whole display below a low cloud cover. There was no YouTube in 1998 and by the time I got a YouTube account a decade later this video was "lost" in my archives. I found it today ..enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMwHjipOSV8

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jul 2015 16:19

Nice Display at low level , seems cloudy that day. The pilot is also author/creator of Pugachev Cobra maneuver

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jul 2015 19:12

Most whine about Su-30 claim 55% of fleet has spares issues.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1865393

...
HAL, now faced with losing its monopoly in the domestic aviation sector, and its primary customer, the IAF, have not had the best of relations over the years. But neutral observers say the two urgently need to come together to resolve all outstanding issues dogging the country's air combat power.

The two, for instance, need to work closely with their Russian counterparts to resolve the quality, spares and maintenance issues enmeshing the Sukhoi-30MKI fighter jets. Only half of the 195 Sukhois inducted - HAL is manufacturing most of the 272 Sukhois contracted from Russia for over $12 billion - are operational at any given time since the fleet serviceability rate is down to just 55%.
.....

Elsewhere HAL is said to be making 100% of the Su-30 MKIs now.

So what is being done to order more spares to raise the operational availability of the Su-30 MKIs?

Its glamorous to order more planes but spares are what keeps the sortie rates high.

Do they have a list of parts that get consumed regularly and get on the case to get more of them from HAL now that they can make all of the parts in-house?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 09 Jul 2015 19:15

^Some important parts and raw materials are contract bound to be obtained from russia. So, all this huffing and puffing will be for naught, if they don't step up, which they will not. Its time we treat contracts with russia the same way they treat contracts with us.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 09 Jul 2015 19:19

Holy

@ 1:23 mins

A real special performance by the master pilot.

Nice video Shiv ji. Thanks for sharing

PS: What bird is it at the very end of the video ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jul 2015 20:18

Arun Menon, All the downtime cant be due to Russian origin spares.

The culprit could be MoD in not allocating funds for spares procurement just like IA didn't get funds to procure ammo.
And blame OFB for quality. Yes OFB quality is bad but same time funds were not allocated for procurement!!!

Sameway, HAL quality may be bad but were adequate funds allocated for spares?

An anyone look at Defence budget for IAF account and could be rolled up in the line items.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2015 20:31

ramana wrote:Arun Menon, All the downtime cant be due to Russian origin spares.

The culprit could be MoD in not allocating funds for spares procurement just like IA didn't get funds to procure ammo.
And blame OFB for quality. Yes OFB quality is bad but same time funds were not allocated for procurement!!!

Sameway, HAL quality may be bad but were adequate funds allocated for spares?

An anyone look at Defence budget for IAF account and could be rolled up in the line items.

Ramana you are right issue was due to a mix of things. Rajat Pandit cant think for sh!t so his report will as usual be simplistic. Anyways low serviceability was/is due to:

1. Russian origin spares being delayed (source: Week Article on Su-30 serviceability)
2. Lack of Russian support for spares and overhaul (source: HAL letter to Sukhoi asking for prompt support and that things had been delayed overlong)
3. Lack of Russian support for TOT (delay of upto 36 months, source: CAG Audit of Su-30 purchase) + issues with existing eqpt
4. Lack of MOD support to IAF to push the issue (see Capex vs Manpower vs recurring costs)
5. IAF's expansion to new AFB (without adequate support infrastructure, which means A/C returned to HAL Nasik)

How is this being addressed

1. HAL facility for deep repair & OH now set up
2. HAL with Su assistance has set up a spares bank for the fleet
3. TOT is now back on track per reports (though delayed)
4. DRDO/Russian vendors fixing issues with earlier kit; eg replacement for EL/L-8222 integration was Russian SAP-518; issues with Tarang RWR blanking fixed by putting Eagle Eye conversion kit for 6 channel RWR
5. MOD support for raising serviceability - Parrikar has pledged support for 75%
6. BRD expansion & also investment in AFBs where Su-30 is deployed

Aim is 70-75% serviceability by this year end.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jul 2015 21:33

KaranM, TO add to your insight above here is a article that gives quite a comprehensive picture of the Su-30MKI program in IAF.

I started looking at Su-030MKI as its the primary fighter plane for PRC deployment: range, payload and capability.
So unlike in USAF heavy fighter which is a luxury, is a necessity for IAF against PRC.

27 May 2015 article has a lot of useful details of the whys of the Su-30 MKI spares issue among other things:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ind ... kis-05852/

-----

A good article by Ajai Shukla on the Su-30 MKI program....

One of his saner articles. I guess he is good when it comes to non tank related issues!!!

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 006_1.html

Govt. takes note of Su-30 MKI's poor serviceability

Ajai Shukla

Even before an Indian Air Force (IAF) Sukhoi-30MKI crashed on October 14, near Lohegaon Air Base outside Pune, concern has been mounting over growing numbers of crashes, incidents involving engine failure, and the worrying fact that, at any given time, barely half the Su-30MKI fleet is available for combat missions.

According to ministry of defence (MoD) figures accessed by Business Standard, the serviceability rate of the Su-30MKI was just 48 per cent till last year. The remaining fighters were undergoing repair or maintenance.

Today, availability has risen slightly to 55 per cent, far lower than advanced western air forces, which generate 80-85 per cent availability rates. In terms of aircraft numbers, only 106 of the 193 Su-30MKIs that the IAF flies today would be available in war. The remaining 87 fighters, each worth Rs 358 crore at current prices, would remain on the ground.

{More importantly about half the heavy fighters wont be able to defend or fly in case of war with PRC.}

"That's more than Rs 30,000 crore just sitting there in hangars," notes a senior MoD official.

Last month, The defence ministry held two high-level meetings to find solutions to this problem. According to figures presented in those meeting (a) 20 per cent of the fleet, i.e. some 39 Su-30MKIs, are undergoing "first line" and "second line" maintenance or inspections at any time, which is the IAF's responsibility; (b) Another 11-12 per cent of the fleet is undergoing major repair and overhaul by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL); and (c) 13-14 per cent of the fleet is grounded, awaiting major systems or repairs - the technical terms is: "aircraft on ground". For decades, IAF has accused HAL of poor workmanship and maintenance. At the MoD meeting on Su-30MKI serviceability, HAL turned the tables on the IAF.

MoD was informed about serious problems with IAF's management of spares. By standard norms, a fighter fleet consumes five per cent of its worth in consumables and spares each year. By that benchmark the Su-30MKI fleet, currently worth about Rs 69,000 crore - 193 Su-30MKIs at Rs 358 crore a fighter - should consume spares worth Rs 3,450 crore annually. Yet, IAF orders from HAL add up to less than Rs 50 crore, including ground handling equipment.

Without competent inventory management by IAF, and with spares ordered piecemeal when defects arise, Su-30MKI fighters spend weeks on the ground awaiting spares.

To ensure that 13-14 per cent of the Su-30MKI fleet is not grounded for want of spares, HAL has stockpiled spares worth Rs 400 crore in Nashik. According to S Subrahmanyan, the chief of HAL's Nashik facility, the inventory is based on a study of consumption patterns of Su-30MKI spares over the preceding five years.

HAL says this buffer stock includes spares that are still purchased from Russia, because low consumption volumes make indigenisation non-cost-effective. Even so, non-availability of these spares could ground aircraft. Simultaneously, HAL has proposed to MoD that IAF must order spares required over a five-year period, stocking them at 25 Equipment Depot, IAF's holding depot for spares at Nashik.

{Most likely Rs 400 cores at 2015 prices at Nashik depot. This works out slightly more than the cost of one Su-30MKI @ Rs 358 crores.}

Separately, HAL has offered the IAF "Performance Based Logistics" (PBL) for the Su-30MKI fleet - a solution common in advanced western air forces. PBL would bind HAL to maintain the Su-30MKI, providing the IAF a specified serviceability rate - calculated in flight hours, or as a percentage of the total aircraft fleet - in exchange for an annual service charge. Besides saving maintenance costs for the IAF, PBL has been found to encourage quality manufacture, since manufacturers know they will be responsible for keeping the aircraft serviceable through its operational life. MoD officials say IAF dislikes PBL model, because outsourcing maintenance to HAL threatens a large maintenance empire built around "base repair depots", manned by IAF personnel. In 2008-09, IAF rejected HAL's proposal for a PBL contract for maintaining the Hawk advanced jet trainer.

HAL is confident that it can deliver higher serviceability rates for the Su-30MKI than the current 58 per cent. The company has argued that raising aircraft availability by 20 per cent would make 40 Su-30MKI additionally available to IAF, effectively adding two fighter squadrons to its strike power.

The Su-30MKI fleet, which currently numbers 193 fighters - 50 built in Russia and 143 built by HAL, Nashik - will rise to 272 fighters by 2018-19, when HAL delivers the last of the 222 fighters it will build.

-----

And deeper insight into what were the most frequent problems

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/india- ... fd7edbe94c

Su-30 MKIs have serious engine problems

by THOMAS NEWDICK

In the past decade, the Indian Air Force has bought hundreds of Su-30MKI fighter jets from Russia. Some of Moscow’s most advanced export fighters, the warplanes should have helped New Delhi strengthen its military.

But it turns out, the twin-engine jets have failure-prone motors. Their AL-31FP engines break down with alarming frequency.

In March 2015, Indian defense minister Manohar Parrikar revealed the propulsion problems.

There have been no fewer than 69 investigations involving engine failures since 2012, according to Parrikar. Between January 2013 and December 2014 alone, the Indian Air Force recorded 35 technical problems with the turbofans.

A shortfall in India’s Sukhoi fleet is a big deal. Especially at a time when India’s fighter squadrons are shrinking, and plans to induct the French Rafale fighter have stalled.

The Su-30MKI remains the pride of the Indian Air Force. Russia’s Irkut Corporation initially supplied the jets, and today Hindustan Aeronautics Limited produces them under license.

It was on New Delhi’s behest that Russia revamped the Cold War-era Su-27 into this modern “superfighter,” with thrust-vectoring engines, canard foreplanes, a digital fly-by-wire flight control system, electronically scanned radar and air-to-ground weapons.

India had to wait until 2002 before it started to receive the Su-30MKI in the form it had originally requested. The Air Force is set to receive 272 Su-30MKIs.

India also bought 18 austere Su-30K fighters without the multi-role capabilities or thrust-vectoring engines.

Of the Su-30MKIs, Russia has delivered 50. HAL is producing the rest at its Nasik facility, where aircraft continue to roll off the line. With around 15 to 20 aircraft handed over every year, the current orders are set to finish around 2019 or 2020.

So what exactly is wrong with the engines? We have a pretty good idea.

Parrikar attributed the failures to faulty bearings that contaminated the plane’s oil supply. It seems that metal fatigue led to tiny pieces of metal shearing off the friction-reducing bearings, which then entered the oil system.

This accounted for 33 of 69 engine failures.

Another 11 failures were the result of engine vibrations, while eight more arose from a lack of pressure in that same lubricating oil. New Delhi has not revealed the cause for the remaining 17 incidents.

The Air Force responded by taking the issue up with NPO Saturn, the Russian manufacturer. According to Parrikar, the company has come up with nine different modifications to help solve the problems.

India has already incorporated these “fixes” into 25 engines built at its plant in Koraput. In the future, the engines should benefit from an improved lubrication system, superior-quality oil and bearings that are a better fit.

However, a more general worry for the Air Force is the poor serviceability of the Su-30MKI fleet — meaning the number of aircraft actually available for operations on a daily basis.

Based on figures given by Parrikar, only 110 Su-30MKIs are “operationally available.” From a total of more than 200 aircraft that Irkut and HAL had delivered by February 2015, that means 56 percent are ready at any given time.

India’s Su-30MKI fleet has suffered five (six?) crashes since 2009.

To be sure, it’s not a great record, but it’s also not notably bad — especially when compared with the attrition rates of the Indian Air Force’s older fighters. It’s unclear what role, if any, the engine problems played in these accidents.

What’s perhaps more significant is the fact that engine deficiencies have bugged the Flanker from the start.

“The initial batch of 18 Su-30Ks and 10 Su-30MKIs were grounded as a result of engine issues, that were subsequently put down to design problems,” Indian defense blogger Shiv Aroor wrote.

At the end of last year, the Air Force’s fighter strength dipped to just 25 squadrons — its lowest in recent history. India has an officially sanctioned requirement for 42 fighter squadrons, and maintained 32 until recently.

As New Delhi withdraws its older MiG-21s and MiG-27s from service, the total number could fall to just 11 squadrons by 2024.

Casting an eye toward Pakistan and China, a parliamentary committee in New Delhi has argued that 45 fighter squadrons are the minimum India needs to cope with the demands of a “two-front collusive threat.”

Either way, that means India needs a lot of Su-30MKIs — and the jets have to work

So why cant DRDO give Tatas the job of import substituting the bearings and IOL the job of finding a replacement lubricant oil.
The problems of lubricating oil system could be pump pressure is barely adequate for Indian conditions.
And leaks in the piping due to inadequate seals? SAE has two types of seals for high pressure lubricant piping.

Parrikar quoted on how serviceability was raised to 56 percent...

India Sources Su-30MKI Spares Directly From Israel And France

Source : Our Bureau ~ Dated : Wednesday, March 18, 2015 @ 10:30 AM

India is sourcing spares for Su-30MKI fighter aircraft directly from France and Israel as Russia is facing a shortage in spare parts supply, Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar said in Parliament on Tuesday.

The original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for Su-30MKI in Russia is facing shortage as well as problems in sourcing spare parts from Belarus and Ukraine.

“Some of the sources of Russians themselves are Western. A lot of them are from Israel, France, etc. So, these are being brought in directly with their approval, or in certain cases we are coordinating the efforts and getting the spares. The issue was relevant for all platforms from Russia,” Parrikar said.

Parrikar further explained, "With concentrated efforts, we have been able to increase the serviceability of the Sukhois by about seven per cent over the last eight-nine months. We have improved the serviceability by seven per cent, almost from 49-50 to 56-57 per cent, we intend to get it 70 per cent by year end".

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jul 2015 21:41

If they reach 70% serviceability for Su-30MKIS by Dec 2015 this needs to go into NaMo achievements thread....

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Jul 2015 23:07

You said it! 70% serviceability - 20% improvement of 200 airframes, would be 40 airframes, would be 2 squadrons added back to the fighting strength.

Next, LCA FOC & two more squadrons on order for Mk1. Good replacement for MiG-27s and MiG-21s.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Jul 2015 00:10

ramana wrote:...
And deeper insight into what were the most frequent problems

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/india- ... fd7edbe94c

Su-30 MKIs have serious engine problems

by THOMAS NEWDICK

...
At the end of last year, the Air Force’s fighter strength dipped to just 25 squadrons — its lowest in recent history. India has an officially sanctioned requirement for 42 fighter squadrons, and maintained 32 until recently.

As New Delhi withdraws its older MiG-21s and MiG-27s from service, the total number could fall to just 11 squadrons by 2024.

...

...

That total IAF fleet strength of 11-squadrons by 2024 is obviously wrong. The Su-30MKI fleet of 270 units itself would account for 14-squadrons by 2020

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Jul 2015 03:18

srai wrote: That total IAF fleet strength of 11-squadrons by 2024 is obviously wrong. The Su-30MKI fleet of 270 units itself would account for 14-squadrons by 2020

Yeah, that's probably a misprint. perhaps they meant 21. I've tried to count the actual number of aircraft (and squadrons) a couple of times, but always hit a wall while figuring out the numbers of Mig-27's and non-Bison Mig-21's still in active service.

I don't understand how the sq nos. fell to 25 at the end of last year though. Here's a rough calc:

Su-30: 7-8
Mig-21 Bison: 5-6
Mirage-2000: 3
Mig-29: 4
Jaguar: 6

Total: That's 25-27 right there. I haven't counted any Mig-27s or non-upgraded Mig-21s. Unless they have all been secretly retired that 25 number appears bizarre as well.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jul 2015 05:28

Manish_P wrote:Holy @ 1:23 mins

A real special performance by the master pilot.

Nice video Shiv ji. Thanks for sharing

PS: What bird is it at the very end of the video ?

Either the Hawk or the L 159. Probably Hawk as tailplanes appear to have anhedral

I remember the day I saw this display. Aero India usually has a dining room where they serve 5 star lunches at exorbitant prices. I went in but ran out on hearing a very loud jet and looking at the sky my jaw dropped. Pugachev had just done a loop and tumble and I caught the yaw with the Su-30 MKI rotating and falling like a leaf! I wrestled with my camera bag and got whatever I could of the rest of the show. That is why trees appear when Pugachev goes really low - if I had managed to go the 300 meters up to the runway I would have been able to film the lowest points above the ground. But there was no time as I tried to soak it all in. Added to this is the fact that the Su-30 engine vibrates in your chest. You see it, hear it and feel it. Un frickin believable

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jul 2015 09:30

shiv wrote:Added to this is the fact that the Su-30 engine vibrates in your chest.

Exactly.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jul 2015 09:51

the rafale engine has a quiet smooth warble..like smooth wine...silent
the eurofighter has a aggressive but refined growl to it.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 10 Jul 2015 10:07

srai wrote:
Kersi D wrote:...

Some of the pics of hardened aircraft shelters, on BR gallery are :

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 1.jpg.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 3.jpg.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 2.jpg.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 7.jpg.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 8.jpg.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 7.jpg.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 2.jpg.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 7.jpg.html

Several new HAS have come up at some airfields in eastern area. I am sure they must be big enough for SU 30.

Kersi
HAS on the above photos look to be of old design. I doubt it could withstand 2,000lb bomb strike which is what the NGHAS supposed to provide. Waiting to see what the NGHAS design looks like.

Arent the aircrafts kept under the 7m-10m thichk runway? May be I am wrong?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Jul 2015 12:08

Nachiket, those are the number of available aircraft if grouped by squadron, ie 25 squadrons worth of aircraft available today considering available aircraft to be around 60-70% of overall serviceable fleet strength.

See: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... n#p1827003

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jul 2015 14:00

srai wrote: HAS on the above photos look to be of old design. I doubt it could withstand 2,000lb bomb strike which is what the NGHAS supposed to provide. Waiting to see what the NGHAS design looks like.

F-35 can take out max two such shelters from the two bombs it carries. Or maybe not even one considering that puniness is the order of the day - with 125 kg slim bombs. Maybe a day will come when tin roof shed is fine.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jul 2015 14:11

f35 can carry 2x2000lb + 2 x amraam in internal bay i think and then various combos of smaller ones down to 125kg sub...accurate but lacking in throw weight.

http://www.hightech-edge.com/wp-content ... ns-bay.jpg

I think by piling up earth and sand bags in a thicker layer over concrete one can dissipate even huge blast frag warheads just as our defences in the kabul embassy did with car bombs. but long slim heavy casing bunker buster weapons are what one has to be careful of...perhaps another spaced concrete false roof with large granite boulders in between with a very thick mesh of iron rods in the concrete. we could even use sheets of kanchan armour on top covered with camo in wedge shapes to divert the direction of bombs that hit.

active defences like trophy and ciws guns can help. we are essentially protecting a tank the size of a couple houses from kinetic and HEAT threats.

when the ac inside are worth in 100s of millions each, it pays to invest a few million in protection.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Jul 2015 14:23

We are probably better of defending the air base with a layered AD involving Hard and Soft kill and CAP, then defending individual shelter. We just need to make sure any enemy aircraft or cruise missile do not get 50 km close to these bases , in future these bases would have their own ABM system like PAD/AAD

Any bomb need not penetrate this shelter and destroy the aircraft , if the shelter is partially damage and a huge boulder or something similar falls on the aircraft it would dent the aircraft severly or just break few parts , which would be a mission kill for these aircraft till they are repaired and put back into service.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jul 2015 14:34

shiv wrote:
srai wrote: HAS on the above photos look to be of old design. I doubt it could withstand 2,000lb bomb strike which is what the NGHAS supposed to provide. Waiting to see what the NGHAS design looks like.
F-35 can take out max two such shelters from the two bombs it carries. Or maybe not even one considering that puniness is the order of the day - with 125 kg slim bombs. Maybe a day will come when tin roof shed is fine.

The Small Smart Bomb is a 250 pound weapon that has the same penetration capabilities as a 2000lb BLU-109, but with only 50 pounds of explosive. The 250 pound-class warhead that has demonstrated penetration of more than 6 feet of reinforced concrete. With the INS/GPS guidance in conjunction with differential GPS (using all 12 channel receivers, instead of only 5) corrections provided by GPS SPO Accuracy Improvement Initiative (AII) and improved Target Location Error (TLE), it can achieve a 5-8m CEP. The munition, with a smart fuze, has been extensively tested against multi-layered targets by Wright Laboratory under the Hard Target Ordnance Program and Miniature Munitions Technology Program. The length to diameter ratio and nose shape are designed to optimize penetration for a 50lb charge. This weapon is also a potential payload for standoff carrier vehicles such as Tomahawk, JSOW, JASSM, Conventional ICBM, etc.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_apr/justice.pdf

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jul 2015 14:42

Our principal air bases should have UG hangars,with blast-proof partitions,the roofs consisting of a series of layered concrete,with air spaces for multiple warhead penetrators to explode.In addition the ususal above ground hardened shelters along with decoys/balloons WW2 style,plus layered air defences as mentioned in an above post. Aircraft dispersal is essential for survival .What the nation needs though are a system of networked strat. air defences,with area defence missiles like S-300/400/500/Prithvi AAD, apart from point defences of bases/command centres.In addition,EW aircraft/aerostats.etc. In a future spat,the first salvoes are likely to come more from missiles rather than aircraft,hoping to take out air defences and dstroy runways,putting the base inoperative until repair work is carried out. The Sino-Pak enemy has no equiv. to BMos,so stand-off missiles will be smaller.

I still maintain that we should get at least 2 sqds. of SU-34s for tactical strike,incl. N-strike,as the aircraft is better designed/tailored for LR bombing missions than MKIs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jul 2015 14:48

brar_w wrote:

That's a fake animation there.

In the urban conflict in Iraq, the warfighter struggles at times to find a weapon that gives them a desired effect on a target without an excessive effect, so the small diameter bomb will be a nice addition.

Hmmm Nice? How sweet of them.

I can picture the warfighter strugglin - "oh there's a baby suckling and a soosai man next to her. Where's American Sniper when you need him? never mind I'll use an SDB! Hurrah for SDB

The text link simply boggles my mind. The F-35, believe it or not can carry four of these punies!! What a load. And it's smart to boot. Love the sales pitch - "Nice" and "smart"

Complementing the weapon is a smart miniature munitions carriage system. This system can carry four small diameter bombs, enabling an aircraft to quadruple its load out.

Anyhow it's all OT here

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jul 2015 14:55

That's a fake animation there

Its an actual test video released by the USAF -

And another similar test, again during the validation stage

The pictures posted above the video are from the actual testing..that happened before the weapon went into mass production/FRP

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jul 2015 15:04

Sorry Brarji they all look like animations to me. The US is generally very convincing because they generally don't release fakes for propaganda. But in this case - this is simply a fake that is being used to sell punies to the world. Maybe the US is learning from the Chinese?

But the third video is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... kC-p5AsZ_A

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jul 2015 15:05

letting the weapon impact nicely perpendicular to the target is mistake...instead growth a bunch of trees and iron rods like a forest atop the hangars sticking out randomly in all directions and let the light weapon fight its way through that and get deflected from its desired angle. wedges of steel scrap steel can also do it, as seen in MBT designs....key is volume not toughness...given enough volume you can deflect anything and make it harmless waste its energy in the wrong place and direction. forget about look or shape, only thing that matters is the entrance and exit rest can look like the backside of a buffalo if it works.

the japanese also used the trunks of coconut trees and sand the only materials available in pacific island to build bunkers in places like tarawa and guadalcanal that withstood huge barrages from cruisers and battleships.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jul 2015 15:08

Wonder why the US is extending the life of its B-52s? Surely they don't mean to carry these punies in them?

But Pakis will use their LGB experience to take out such shelters with the bombs they have

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jul 2015 15:13

a B52 can surely take some 40 x 2000lb hanging on to every hook and nail.....matches a squadron of 20 JSF with all its refuelling, logistics, basing and manpower needs, vs the B52 staging from some 2000km away on its own and returning.

so long as IADS and interceptors are suppressed a B52 or B1 is the most cost effective.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jul 2015 15:18

Sorry Brarji they all look like animations to me.

Well I can only post things that have been released and that are widely regarded as "Real". Its up to you to believe or not. Post it elsewhere or ask around those that are generally informed on these matters and you'll get an answer about whether it is real or fake. You could also ask someone who is an actual expert at running these things and telling whether it is real or an animation to verify it. The test happened at the White Sands Missile Range and they used an A7...

Read here -

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602875/posts

The US is generally very convincing because they generally don't release fakes for propaganda. But in this case - this is simply a fake that is being used to sell punies to the world.

Sure if you want to believe that..And the world is dumb enough to lap it up, of course its not like they have access to actually test reports or have ranges of their own to test the things they are buying or have bought. Its not like they have any sort of expertise to actually verify where technology is going, what technology they are buying into etc.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_apr/justice.pdf

The F-35, believe it or not can carry four of these punies!!

4 per bay, for a total of 8. It can also carry 8 x SDBII's that are designed with a tri-mode seeker and for both fixed and moving targets.

The F-22A can also carry 8 SDBI's -