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

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Aug 2015 14:51

They are comparable in the a2g role. The most impressive thing about the EOTS (which is based on an XR but is different from it in many ways) is how it coexists with the DAS and is integrated through the ICP. If it ID's a threat in the a2g scenario it can pass it along to the DAS to put a continues track and it can do this autonomously...Other than that both the Litening and the EOTS are largely comparable in the a2g environment and both will have new versions in the next 5-6 years.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Aug 2015 10:36

Rafale has developed Gen 5 of Lightning Pod

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... ccelite-xr

Litening 5 employs a new sensor pack, utilizing an optical assembly and larger aperture tailored specifically for the new sensors, enabling the increased identification and recognition distance. The pod uses two FLIRS – a Mid-Wave Infra-Red (IR) and Short Wave IR (SWIR). The later extends observation range using active laser illumination. Complementing the sensor pack is a color CCD HD-TV, improving target recognition and separation of man-made objects that are often harder to spot in the thermal, monochromatic image. Color improves the ability to share a common understanding with ground forces and recognize specific vehicles based on their color. Images can be fused or displayed separately, based on the level of avionics used in the aircraft.

Rafael’s “image-based common targeting language,” also known as Matchguide, is integrated in the new pod. This allows rapid target handoff between the targeting pod or ground-based forward air controller and guided weapons carried on board. Matchguide is fully integrated in the Litening 5, enabling the pilot or ground controller to designate a target simply by touching its image on a display to deliver the targeting as coordinates or a scene to the attacking weapon. This method dramatically shortens the “sensor to shooter cycle.”

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 20 Aug 2015 12:35

Austin wrote:Rafael has developed Gen 5 of Lightning Pod

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... ccelite-xr

FTFY.

Litening Gr 4 hasn't even been adopted in sizeable numbers and they come out with another update. So far ahead are they in the game that the french DDM-NG can match Gr 4 will come out in 2018-19.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Aug 2015 14:15

They are different sensors with different functions. Listening 5, EOTS Advanced and Talios will be comparable while EODAS and DDM-NG are for different purposes. Rafael and Northrop Grumman between them have sold well over a 1000 Litening G4's, the largely un-contested CAS mission sorties over Afghanistan and Iraq over the last many years has really brought a wealth of knowledge and that has driven technology development industry wide. That in addition to the general advancement of technology is resulting in quite a significant leap in IR sensors pretty much through the west..The Talios, EOTS Adv. and the Litening 5 are going to introduce many of the technologies developed through IRAD and CRAD over the last decade or so..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Aug 2015 18:57

Some pre-MAKS picture

http://michaeldec.livejournal.com/52243.html

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Aug 2015 08:00

TL;DR India has apparently worked on the terms of reference for a Bars upgrade, upto 400km range if an Irbis level 5Kw transmitter is chosen. IAF delay on PAKFA has meant the joint R&D program on PAKFA AESA has mostly become NIIP driven so far.

Link

the general director of JSC "NIIP Tikhomirov" Yuriy White.

- Something special for the MAKS show?

- This time, we demonstrate for the first time fully antenna system for the fifth-generation fighter. First we set the single antenna, then another, now in the pavilion will demonstrate the KLA full configuration - front antenna and side wing. Another highlight - the active phased array of cylindrical type, we show for the first time in Hall Concern PVO "Almaz-Antey". Usually all of the lattice plane, and to give all-round visibility, it is necessary to put three or four house. Here the cylinder, and due to a special distribution system beam rotates 360 degrees. And already the layout began to give specified characteristics. We just "brushed", and get a prototype. And, of course, will be presented at the MAKS SAM "Buk-M2E" of our development. But with the addition. We are together with the Ulyanovsk Mechanical Plant exhibit is also a trainer for this SAM that will prepare professionals who are not chasing equipment and producing resource.

- And what about the "Leopard"? Or the potential of radar exhausted?

- Do not exhausted. "Bars" is the Su-30MKI and Su-30cm, have ordered our air force, we did, say, Russified version of "Leopard" with the new range of weapons, taking into account the increase in the detection range, the new mode of operation and so on. d.

- Up to 400 kilometers of the detection range on the "Bars" will make it?

- If you put as a "Irbis", 5-kilowatt transmitter. In the future, such a possibility is considered. However, an upgraded version of the "Leopard/Bars" we do not show, because the terms of reference were issued just yesterday, but the contract may be signed just on MAKS.

- How likely is the emergence of an export version of the radar AFAR?

- Subject to date. With India, we had a joint R & D, but they held out the time and we have all of the output. Now, most likely, they will have to buy. In general, the export version of the AESA will naturally be.

- If you are going to sell locators AFAR, therefore, for its air force stashed something more perfect.

- Now we are developing a new version of AFAR - more promising. It will be smarter, more reliable and less time-consuming to manufacture, which is more adapted to mass production.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Aug 2015 10:15

Karan M wrote:TL;DR India has apparently worked on the terms of reference for a Bars upgrade, upto 400km range if an Irbis level 5Kw transmitter is chosen. IAF delay on PAKFA has meant the joint R&D program on PAKFA AESA has mostly become NIIP driven so far.

The BARS upgrade is similar to IRBIS if they pursue a PESA program , NIIP website has details , talks of 350-400 km detection range for 3 m2 target , The gimballed scan angle too is much wider compared to BARS , bandwidth available is twice that of BARS

http://www.niip.ru/eng/index.php?option ... 6&Itemid=8

No similar specs if forthcoming on their website for AESA and L Band radar just generic statement

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Aug 2015 13:16

Irbis details are well known. Interestingly, the Bars has better gain than Irbis so a less powerful transmitter might do. The Irbis IIRC used the lighter weight antenna developed for the OSA radar, but with less performance. What it basically does is combine that antenna with a new double channel transmitter (5Kw average, 20Kw peak) and a new set of signal/data processors. Of course, new software etc. That 400km range is achieved in a slow, limited area scan. While NIIP has not publicly commented on AESA performance, stated figures in Russian press put a range of around 300km and 60 target TWS for the system. Most important question is what will be the amount of LPI capability baked into the radar.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Aug 2015 13:36

Why the Typhoon Lost ?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 Aug 2015 16:21

^^^ Yup, that explains it

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Aug 2015 17:08

Karan M wrote: Most important question is what will be the amount of LPI capability baked into the radar.

Isnt LPI capability a function of ESM , If you have an RWR/ESM that can detect LPI signal then having LPI capability in trade off for Range is pretty much useless but if you dont have those RWR/ESM then its a boon

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Aug 2015 19:40

Thats a separate issue. A highly sensitive ESM can be fitted to many current non LPI radar aircraft, but moment they turn their radar on, they in turn get detected. The question then is whether one has a discreet mode/modes on their radar to prevent this from happening.
On a more concerning note, the IAF chief has written with 27 objections to the MOD over PAKFA. This is basically a telling statement which notes the Russians haven't confirmed they can or will address these objections and are ok with VVS concerns alone, hence the IAF is putting its foot down. Of course, depends on the veracity of the report.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Aug 2015 22:01

RuAF MKI on Display at MAKS

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Sep 2015 05:34

^^^

Pretty impressive display. What AoA would that be when it is flying horizontally but it itself is almost vertically aligned?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2015 09:08

srai wrote:^^^

Pretty impressive display. What AoA would that be when it is flying horizontally but it itself is almost vertically aligned?

Looks like about 75 deg. But strictly speaking it is not AoA in the true sense because that mode of flight is possible only because of thrust vectoring. TV allows all sorts of "post stall manoeuvres" i.e. the pilot still retains control over the aircraft that is well beyond the point of stalling - after which it should really be falling out of the sky, but it is not falling because of thrust vectoring and very powerful engines that seem perfectly capable of continuing to run without flaming out despite not having a whole lot air being rammed into the intakes by forward flight. Definitely a marvel of Russki engineering in more ways than one.

Note that in every case after such a manoeuvre the plane eventually goes nose down to gain speed before it reverts to more normal flight. It requires a Pugachev to do all this close to the ground.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Sep 2015 10:00

shiv wrote:Note that in every case after such a manoeuvre the plane eventually goes nose down to gain speed before it reverts to more normal flight. It requires a Pugachev to do all this close to the ground.

I think that happens because the aircraft is in stall and like any aircraft to get out of stall even at high altitude you turn the nose down to gain speed effectively i think what happens is engine gets enough oxygen to get it going and gaining speed and then use that to later gain height , I dont know any aircraft that in or close to a stall would continue flying higher with nose up there wont be enough oxygen to get the engine going .....atleast thats what my thought process it

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2015 18:29

Austin wrote:
shiv wrote:Note that in every case after such a manoeuvre the plane eventually goes nose down to gain speed before it reverts to more normal flight. It requires a Pugachev to do all this close to the ground.
I think that happens because the aircraft is in stall and like any aircraft to get out of stall even at high altitude you turn the nose down to gain speed effectively i think what happens is engine gets enough oxygen to get it going and gaining speed and then use that to later gain height , I dont know any aircraft that in or close to a stall would continue flying higher with nose up there wont be enough oxygen to get the engine going .....atleast thats what my thought process it

Austingaru - got your message - impressive stuff

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Sep 2015 18:41

Austin wrote:
shiv wrote:Note that in every case after such a manoeuvre the plane eventually goes nose down to gain speed before it reverts to more normal flight. It requires a Pugachev to do all this close to the ground.
I think that happens because the aircraft is in stall and like any aircraft to get out of stall even at high altitude you turn the nose down to gain speed effectively i think what happens is engine gets enough oxygen to get it going and gaining speed and then use that to later gain height , I dont know any aircraft that in or close to a stall would continue flying higher with nose up there wont be enough oxygen to get the engine going .....atleast thats what my thought process it

You're right..Once you stall there is only one way you can (DOWN) until you recover and gain lift. Its also a function of lift (hence the stall) and a function of loosing a lot of speed (due to the high Angle of Attack leading to stall) that needs to be regained. Its an energy management thing and you gain energy when you go down and as your engines bring you back up to speed...Think of high AOA as a giant air-break that keeps on slowing you down until you stall and then once you recover you must regain the lost speed.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Sep 2015 18:16

shiv wrote:Austingaru - got your message - impressive stuff

Shiv , Just shared what I got so credit goes to the person who shared it with me.

Interesting pod cast from Bill Sweetman who returned from MAKS and describes some stuff on jamming system and asymmetric warfare

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast ... advantages

Transcript is out here http://aviationweek.com/defense/russian ... -munitions

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Sep 2015 19:30

Austin wrote: Interesting pod cast from Bill Sweetman who returned from MAKS and describes some stuff on jamming system and asymmetric warfare

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast ... advantages

Transcript is out here http://aviationweek.com/defense/russian ... -munitions

Thanks for that great link. Bill Sweetman pretty much points out the very mistake that I see on BRF - that is when a new weapon is displayed in the west or sold to an adversary - the reaction is "We must have that too, or else". Sweetman says that the Russians simply don't do that. They go their own route to neutralize the advantage that the new system displayed by the west has created. Sweetman uses a term that I am going to start using - he says that there is a western tendency to assume that the other party will "mirror image" the west albeit with a less effective system, or that everyone will only mirror image what the west leads in doing. That is totally wrong. There are advances coming in areas that people will not even imagine as long as their minds cannot step out of "mirror imaging"

Sweetman also has some comments about T-50 and F-22 which should be heard by anyone who is interested

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Sep 2015 19:47

...
Soviet-era electronic warfare (EW) doctrine, summed up as “kill one-third, jam one-third and the rest will collapse,” is making a comeback in Russia...
...

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 04 Sep 2015 20:10

the capability to passively detect and localize an emitter using multiple antennas, we have the science of it, not sure about the mil purposed packaging, the Russians have the ground based system with 5 antenna receivers, the Chinese have the orbiting trio sat configuration essentially 3 antennas, maybe Samyuktha was the closest we had until GSAT-6, the latter is probably limited to specific radio bands not to mention one antenna which has limitations on the angular resolution

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Sep 2015 21:09

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote: Interesting pod cast from Bill Sweetman who returned from MAKS and describes some stuff on jamming system and asymmetric warfare

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast ... advantages

Transcript is out here http://aviationweek.com/defense/russian ... -munitions
Thanks for that great link. Bill Sweetman pretty much points out the very mistake that I see on BRF - that is when a new weapon is displayed in the west or sold to an adversary - the reaction is "We must have that too, or else". Sweetman says that the Russians simply don't do that. They go their own route to neutralize the advantage that the new system displayed by the west has created. Sweetman uses a term that I am going to start using - he says that there is a western tendency to assume that the other party will "mirror image" the west albeit with a less effective system, or that everyone will only mirror image what the west leads in doing. That is totally wrong. There are advances coming in areas that people will not even imagine as long as their minds cannot step out of "mirror imaging"

Sweetman also has some comments about T-50 and F-22 which should be heard by anyone who is interested

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&p=1896398#p1896398

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Sep 2015 10:28

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Sep 2015 14:58

Eurofighter/Su-30 MKI side by side

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IR__ZxdvJw

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Sep 2015 11:21

Thanks Shiv, Just a Naked Eye view impression is both are evenly matched , MKI has much smaller turn/full loop radius and Typhoon seems to have slightly better acceleration and smooth/clean maneuver probably delta wings put to good effect , I think the speed/altitude must be evenly matched as both are airshow display

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Sep 2015 19:10

my naked eye comparisons at aeroindia 2014 or 13 (cant remember now) also indicated the typhoon has uber-smooth acceleration and workflow transitions from routine to routine like a skilled gymnast. it had the most aggressive performance vs the mki, rafale, gripen and f16 in that edition. in contrast to the dry crackle of the GE/saturn engines the hawk/EF RR engines seem to have a more pleasing 'liquid warbling' noise subjectively to my ears.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Sep 2015 20:48

From what I have been able to read on the net it seems the Typhoon has slightly better subsonic and transonic acceleration compared to the F-16C and in fact some of that envelope is very similar to the F-22 particularly when you go higher up in altitude. Since it is better than the F-16C the Typhoon may in fact be able to out accelerate the F-22A in some areas of the subsonic and transonic envelope particularly without bags and with only recessed weapons..

At low speeds the typhoon has a significant disadvantage compared to any aircraft in the flanker family (even ones without thrust vectoring) and something the program is well aware off and has invested to learn so as to narrow the performance difference sometime in the future (through LERX. Both LERX and Multi Axis TVC have been studied, prototyped and were planned as enhancements from pretty early on into the program before there were cost increases and a massive downswing in european defense budgets) but given the optimization of the design for high altitude and supersonic performance it will always continue to be at a disadvantage in this regime even to something like the F-18E/F or Rafale let alone something as capable as the MKI. I'd be interested to know the climb rates. The original F-15A and Su-27 were very close to each other with the Su-27 having a slight edge..but apparently the typhoon is also good in that department.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 19 Sep 2015 22:50

With Rafale deal suffering hiccups, I thought Russians will push for more Su-30MKIs, what gives?

We keep hearing about Russia offering Su-35 or Super MKI but what about 70-100 additional Vanilla Su-30 MKIs in collaboration with HAL?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Sep 2015 13:41

If MOD/IAF needs more MKI then they can procure directly from HAL, as of now HAL is suppose to deliver all 272 MKI by 2017 based on revised compressed schedule lets see if they can meet that then we can think of more or its upgrade

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Sep 2015 16:36

India Plans Joint Su-30 Aircraft Modernization With Russia - Rostec

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – India has expressed interest in carrying out a joint project to extensively modernize its SU-30MKI aircraft in collaboration with Russian companies, the Russian state technology corporation Rostec said in a statement Friday.

"In the long term, as recommended by the Russian Ministry of Defense, we plan a major upgrade of the SU-30SM [model] to increase its combat effectiveness. The Indian government has expressed interest in collaborating to modernize the SU-30MKI, which is an evolution of the SU-30SM," the statement reads.

According to the statement, both aircraft models will be given upgraded avionics and radars, as well as an improved engine. The SU-30SM and the SU-30MKI will also be equipped with additional weapons.

The SU-30 MKI, NATO reporting name Flanker-H, is the Indian Air Force’s elite fighter-bomber. It was developed by Russia's Sukhoi Aviation Corporation and built under license by India's Hindustan Aeronautics.

Russia and India have been close partners in military and technical cooperation for decades. In 2014, the total value of weapons and military hardware delivered by Russia to India reached $4.7 billion, according to Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation estimates.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/business/2015091 ... z3mHOxWnTN

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Sep 2015 16:41

The improved engine part is something new , the direct replacement for AL-31F series with improved thrust is the FM1 and FM2 series from Salut adding 1 and 2 T thrust without need to make changes to air intake , the Saturn Series 117S engine using on Su-35 needs to have larger intake for higher air intake flow mass , The Su-34 and Su-27SM series have AL-31FM1 series engine so likely they would opt for FM1 series that should add 2T more thrust in AB mode.

AL-31FM1 http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=652

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Sep 2015 17:14

Improved engine is really a deep upgrade. It would make a big difference to the MKI as the aircraft was made heavier to deal with the Bars radar and TVC but didn't receive correspondingly more powerful engines, thereby using up the excess thrust buffer available with the Su-27/AL-31 combo.
FM1 would be a net plus in combat maneuvering.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 20 Sep 2015 19:41

Austin wrote:India Plans Joint Su-30 Aircraft Modernization With Russia - Rostec
....The Indian government has expressed interest in collaborating to modernize the SU-30MKI, which is an evolution of the SU-30SM," the statement reads......
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/business/2015091 ... z3mHOxWnTN

The Su-30SM is an evolution of the MKI, and not vice versa.

Su-30MKI has spawned Su-30MKM, Su-30MKA and Su-30SM at the very least.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Sep 2015 23:09

That's correct but the MKI itself has its genesis on the original Triplane Su-35 on which quad-digital fbw was tested and the Su-37 on which TVC integrated with fbw was tested most of the advanced flanker owes a lot to these two programs, the BARS otoh was tested on mki

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Sep 2015 23:17

At this point, all that is academic. Question is what is the serviceability figure for the Su-30 - has it reached 70% as planned, and when will this upgrade be signed.

member_28882 · Post by **member_28882** » 20 Sep 2015 23:54

Russia is just too anxious about selling their fighter jets because of the economy and oil price. There is no reason to believe they want to sell Su-35 to China or Pakistan. Even if they sell a few to Pakistan, at least one will end up in China. China will immediately clone and create a J-35. I think in order to make our old friend Russia happy, PM Modi should buy a couple of squadrons of Su-35 and few squadrons of T-50 during his December trip. All these talks of selling Su-35 to China and Pakistan will disappear and at the same time IAF will have some decent fighter jets that will last a few decades.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 21 Sep 2015 00:09

^^ that's exactly what the ruskis want.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 21 Sep 2015 01:42

^^ Wouldn't that be a win-win for both countries?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2015 08:38

Karan M wrote:At this point, all that is academic. Question is what is the serviceability figure for the Su-30 - has it reached 70% as planned, and when will this upgrade be signed.

That kind of answer can only come from MOD , He said by dec he was aiming for 70 % may be by mid next year we will have an idea