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

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Dec 2015 19:46

Picklu wrote:Tata might be jingo wet dream but per chaiwala not for Armed forces. In fact they are under unofficial blacklist and that is one of the reason why the mounted gun jv with denel is not going anywhere, neither is FICV etc.

TIFWIW
[chaiwala info alert]
The regular playbook of drip feeding order as well as moving goal post was being applied in the one of the communication projects in which TATA was involved and they went to MOD asking them permission to export on commercial reasons since volume order with firmed up requirement was not coming. Obviously did not go well with services; they raised hell and since then Tatas are in the doghouse for any new major systems. Only repeat orders, subsystems and in some rare TINA cases they are allowed.
[chaiwala info alert]

So ridiculous that it is perfectly possible and likely to be true.
Could explain why despite all their capability they have not landed major orders. Looks like Parrikar has a lot of work on his hands to let some chaps realize how to work with any dedicated R&D house and stop this business of unrealistic SQRs and then endless trials.

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 09 Dec 2015 19:48

i was watching youtube yesterday and searching for vertical takeoff videos. but couldnt find the same for su30-mki. there is one for su-35. does anybody has/aware of vertical takeoff video of mki? please share link. thanks.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Dec 2015 19:51

Picklu wrote:Tata might be jingo wet dream but per chaiwala not for Armed forces. In fact they are under unofficial blacklist and that is one of the reason why the mounted gun jv with denel is not going anywhere, neither is FICV etc.

Tata has a 900 crore order for trucks for army. Kookal search throws it up.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Dec 2015 20:07

adityadange wrote:i was watching youtube yesterday and searching for vertical takeoff videos. but couldnt find the same for su30-mki. there is one for su-35. does anybody has/aware of vertical takeoff video of mki? please share link. thanks.

Its not a vertical take-off but a vertical or near vertical climb upon take off. An actual vertical take off on an MKI would however be freaking amazing

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 09 Dec 2015 20:32

Thanks brar_w. how exactly would one differentiate between vertical takeoff and vertical climb?
OT but f-22 vertical takeoff video is mind blowing. There is even jf-17 video. sadly no tejas video. would love to see.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Dec 2015 20:34

adityadange wrote:i was watching youtube yesterday and searching for vertical takeoff videos. but couldnt find the same for su30-mki. there is one for su-35. does anybody has/aware of vertical takeoff video of mki? please share link. thanks.

No vertical takeoff - but some fancy agile manoeuvres
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fV6aYZvLGo

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 09 Dec 2015 21:05

adityadange wrote:Thanks brar_w. how exactly would one differentiate between vertical takeoff and vertical climb?
OT but f-22 vertical takeoff video is mind blowing. There is even jf-17 video. sadly no tejas video. would love to see.

There is this joke about the Su 30 vertical climb.

One fine morning a Su 30 takes off from Lohegaon, Pune. Beyond 10,000 ft all aircraft from Lohegaon have to contact Bombay Area Control as it is the controlling authority. Our Su 30 being a professional is prompt -

> Bombay, this is Badass crosiing 10,000 ft.
> Badass, this is Bombay Control, call crossing 12,000 ft.

Almost immediately Badass calls:
> Bombay, Badass crossing 12,000 ft.
> Badass, copied. Call crossing 15,000 ft and please be prompt.

Almost immediately Badass calls but slightly hurried:
> Bombay, Badass crossing 15,000 ft.
> Badass copied. Call crossing 20,000 ft. Please call exactly when crossing and do not delay. This is important...

Almost immediately Badass calls but this time cutting into the call of Bombay:
> Bombay, Badass crossing 20,000 ft.
> Badass what? What? WHAT? What is your heading?

> Bombay Badass heading err, uh, well .... vertical

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Dec 2015 21:15

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Dec 2015 21:20

shiv wrote: No vertical takeoff - but some fancy agile manoeuvres
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fV6aYZvLGo

Incidentally there is a Vertical Charlie in the above video starting from here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... vLGo#t=380

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Dec 2015 21:25

vertical take-off usually refers to what a helo does, or the harriers, F-35 etc.

what you mean is basically zoom climb post a high AoA take off. mig-29's have been doing this for ages as have mki's that I got to witness at lohegaon (thanks to a BRFite).

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 09 Dec 2015 23:06

Not exactly but watch this old video till the end.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Dec 2015 23:30

shiv wrote:
Picklu wrote:Tata might be jingo wet dream but per chaiwala not for Armed forces. In fact they are under unofficial blacklist and that is one of the reason why the mounted gun jv with denel is not going anywhere, neither is FICV etc.
Tata has a 900 crore order for trucks for army. Kookal search throws it up.

Tata Motors.. but the big ticket wins for TATA SED (apart from DRDO programs) and TASL, TATA Power etc are all yet to happen..
Lets see.. with the current Govt IMO, merit and capability counts a lot so all this unofficial blacklisting stuff wont/shouldnt work.

sum · Post by **sum** » 10 Dec 2015 04:09

Picklu wrote:Tata might be jingo wet dream but per chaiwala not for Armed forces. In fact they are under unofficial blacklist and that is one of the reason why the mounted gun jv with denel is not going anywhere, neither is FICV etc.

TIFWIW
[chaiwala info alert]
The regular playbook of drip feeding order as well as moving goal post was being applied in the one of the communication projects in which TATA was involved and they went to MOD asking them permission to export on commercial reasons since volume order with firmed up requirement was not coming. Obviously did not go well with services; they raised hell and since then Tatas are in the doghouse for any new major systems. Only repeat orders, subsystems and in some rare TINA cases they are allowed.
[chaiwala info alert]

^^ Tragic if true...
Reads like some dark comedy!

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Dec 2015 05:28

^^^

Known pattern: "drip feeding order" and "moving goal post". One can't sit around with empty floor shops and employees waiting for orders that may or may not come, or even it it comes may come in quantities that are not viable. Besides, you have a whole supply chain that you need to rely on. Who pays for that loss? More the big private players are involved more of these will be called out as they know how to use the media and market themselves unlike the public sector or SMEs.

The recent shift by DM is good news in this regard: 3-year lead times and at least 5-year production run. Lead time allows vendors to negotiate (guarantee supplies and price) with suppliers and sub-vendors while longer production run gives better ROI for everyone involved. Even the much criticized OFB, their efficiency and quality have been improving as a result.

On a side note, there needs to be more personnel from the armed forces that need to be trained in production/operations management and R&D management courses. Embed them in public/private production planning and processes to give them real world experiences. They need to learn about ROI and profitability. It should be mandatory for officers in the inventory, logistics and acquisition departments as well as innovation department.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 14 Dec 2015 04:35

Is this an interim arrangement till the joint venture kicks in?

SputnikNews: India to Purchase Spare Parts for Su-30 Fleet From Russia
13.12.2015

India intends to sign an agreement with Russia for the purchase of spare parts for Su-30MKI fighter jets for the next five years.

“The visit of representatives of the Indian Ministry of Defense is expected in the second half of December and we hope to be able to come to a positive solution and conclude an agreement as soon as possible,” representative of the Sukhoi holding told the Economic Times.

The agreement, according to the publication, will ensure that the aircraft will be able to perform more combat missions and will be aimed at reducing maintenance times, which is one of the key objectives of the Indian Defense Minister Manohar Parrikara. [sic]

According to The Economic Times, previously a major problem with supplying the spare parts was the length of time it took from the moment the Indian military made a request for purchase, till the time they actually began to produce the parts in Russia.

This period was approximately 12 months but now the military hopes to reduce it to 30 days.
The multifunctional Su-30MKI fighter is produced at the Irkutsk Aviation Plant Corporation ‘Irkut’.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 14 Dec 2015 04:46

Is the joint venture for a Su MRO ever going to become a reality?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 14 Dec 2015 05:00

Vivek K wrote:Is the joint venture for a Su MRO ever going to become a reality?

Slightly off topic, but Russia needs money, especially after the expensive engagement in Syria and with the price of oil being perilously low. So, I don't think they will let go of the opportunity to keep a SU-30 MKI spares line humming at Indian expense. In other words, the price for establishing a spares JV in India could be prohibitive.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 14 Dec 2015 06:48

Exactly what I think! Milk India by selling spares at exorbitant prices. And Indians will keep buying more Sukhois!!

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 14 Dec 2015 07:24

PratikDas wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Is the joint venture for a Su MRO ever going to become a reality?
Slightly off topic, but Russia needs money, especially after the expensive engagement in Syria and with the price of oil being perilously low. So, I don't think they will let go of the opportunity to keep a SU-30 MKI spares line humming at Indian expense. In other words, the price for establishing a spares JV in India could be prohibitive.

Russians may not mind but Indian Negotiating team will do it's utmost to have Pro-Russia deal in which India gets no real ToT, suffers high cost, yearly price escalation etc.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Dec 2015 19:35

Latest on Su-30 from CAG is that masking problem due to Su-30's drooping nose & canards is so severe that R-118 program has been foreclosed. Very disappointing news.
Of course, it needs to be confirmed since CAG reports are (in)famous for giving half the news and we discover the other half later.

Chaiwallah info is that since India lacks the infrastructure to fully test out airframes for such considerations on the ground, only option is to fly and check, which always has a high risk. Tarang Mk1 was deemed unreliable, so R118 was developed but with Su-30 its run into masking considerations even with digital receiver. Looks like nobody thought of this when designing the airframe. Might well be an issue with othe RWRs as well.

On a more positive note, the focus has firmly shifted to Radar Warner Jammer program for MiG-29 and LCA.

The CAG report also notes the final version of Su-30 SOP was achieved only later.

Damning indictment of the MiG-21 Bison upgrade as well. The Kopyo radar does not work well in A2G mode. And we all know the issues with Russian AA-12 missile.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 21 Dec 2015 20:03

Karan M wrote:Latest on Su-30 from CAG is that masking problem due to Su-30's drooping nose & canards is so severe that R-118 program has been foreclosed. Very disappointing news.

Does Su-30SM has R-118 similar systems? May be Su-35 doesn't have the same amount of droop compared to twin Su-30, but does it has a similar system as well?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Dec 2015 20:22

What is the R-118 program?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Dec 2015 20:35

shiv wrote:What is the R-118 program?

DARE-developed RWR-118 radar warning receiver

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-voPvgXcH6Ic/U ... MSWS-3.jpg

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 21 Dec 2015 22:06

How is aircraft availability calculated?

What does 45% availability of su-30mki mean?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Dec 2015 22:27

In simplistic terms they look at the total operational environment that a fleet could have flown, and calculate the number of hours the system was down for repair, overhaul or otherwise not operational. So if you can fly 1000 sorties with a fleet of X but you have only 500 sorties worth of aircraft available to you, your MA rates are 50%. Many things contribute to availability but generally reliability, and capacity at the maintaince level are top of the pile. For example if you have an aircraft that breaks down a lot more (is less reliable than what you had planned) you can somewhat compensate for that by having a larger workforce to help you keep MA high, or you could just buy more spares etc. The latter (more spares, and more workers) is a strain on a capital expenditure and annual budgets hence no air-force in the world looks to maintain 100% MA rates for their entire force structure because that would involve incredible amount of resources that could be better spent elsewhere. High component reliability (hardware, software etc) generally allows an air-force to maintain higher MA rates at a lower spending levels.

Mission availability is different from reliability in that you can have a extremely reliable aircraft but that may not reflect in your MA rates because you have not made investments in your depot capacity or are artificially trying to limit that investment for other reasons (to invest in other stuff). Generally however, higher reliability such as having high MTBF rates, coupled with components that simply last longer (engines that have high overhaul time-intervals) get reflected in availability.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Dec 2015 22:39

probably thats why the russian flankers sport huge wingtip pods...things have been moved out there.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 22 Dec 2015 00:03

brar; thanks for the explanation.

Say we have 200 Su-30s. 80% target servicability means that not more than 40 should be in maintenance. Russian aircraft in general have more frequent overhauls, and I am guessing that any given moment a full years production (~15) may be at HAL in any case. That means the air force has to target close to 90% availability for the airframes in its custody.

In routine ops you have aircraft with damage, and some that are undergoing some level of checks and maintenance after each sortie or N sorties. Easily 2 aircraft per unit could be in that stage at any given moment I think.

There goes 80% target.

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Dec 2015 03:25

Aditya G wrote:brar; thanks for the explanation.

Say we have 200 Su-30s. 80% target servicability means that not more than 40 should be in maintenance. Russian aircraft in general have more frequent overhauls, and I am guessing that any given moment a full years production (~15) may be at HAL in any case. That means the air force has to target close to 90% availability for the airframes in its custody.

In routine ops you have aircraft with damage, and some that are undergoing some level of checks and maintenance after each sortie or N sorties. Easily 2 aircraft per unit could be in that stage at any given moment I think.

There goes 80% target.

Here's the breakdown for Su-30MKI:

Government takes note of Su-30MKI’s poor serviceability

...
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.
...
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”.
...

The last one "(c) 13-14 per cent ... awaiting major systems/repairs" is due to lack of spares and/or maintenance capacity. That should be the immediate area of focus. Not sure how much you can reduce (a) and (b) during peace times. During wartime for sustained high ops for a short period of time, (a) first/second line inspections could be forgone or shortened to have more available.

If (c) is fixed, you will have around 20% of fleet undergoing major repair/overhauls at HAL and 20% of the fleet undergoing first-line/second-line inspections/maintenance at the IAF's BRD. That leaves 60% or so of the overall fleet as available at any given time.

But at squadron level, you can achieve 80% availability rates by assigning more MKIs per squadron like say 20 units with 4 undergoing first/second line inspections/maintenance and 16 available at all times. For those air-frames undergoing major repair/overhaul they would be taken out of squadron assignment and reallocated to whichever squadron requires extra air-frame when completed.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Dec 2015 03:55

There are plenty of things you can do to keep MA rates high. One you could just spend more money (brute force) and buy a very large amount of spares, and build a large logistical depot level capacity. Secondly you can for a short period of time relax some routine activities that are put in place for the long term health of the fleet. Finally you can essentially keep a smaller sub section of your fleet at damn near 100% availability by raiding the rest of the fleet for spares and personal. The last bit is usually done for aircraft tasked with strategic missions such as nuclear delivery (SAC bombers used to have a set amount of fleets at 100% MA all the time). You can in a short term increase MA rates by doing the first two things but that eats into your budgets since now you are buying your way to higher availability. A more long term way is to make the system more reliable so that it is available longer at the same level of resources. This involves studying components for failures and trying to improve reliability either through upgrades or looking at how you operate the fleet and whether that can be tweaked to put less strain on the aircraft. Aircraft designed around operational cost have this as a primary design goal. Both the F-16 A and C as well as the Gripen C had O&M cost dictate design choices that were some what relaxed in favor of higher capability with the blk 50 F-16, and Gripen NG. The overall objective is to gradually improve availability and reliability (they are interconnected but are not the same thing) without a sustained increase in O&S cost. That balance determines your target MA rates because anyone can get to 90% by throwing brute force at the problem but you want to get to a high enough number without draining too much money from other investment priorities (your O&S annual budgets). In the USAF for example there is a separate number that the service aimed for F-16 availability vs F-15 availability precisely because of this reason. It would have been very tough to get F-15 availability to F-16 levels without significantly outspending its O&S outlay.

The examples above were for young fleets of comparable level of technology and design. With age however the cost to maintain MA rates also rises because older components simply break more frequently but the MKI fleet is still quite young. In the commercial side of things market forces have essentially forced OEM's to drive high reliability into their system. In the commercial world Aircraft availability and dispatch reliability are metrics that the industry has virtually taken for granted. On the Military sid ePBL contracts are also increasingly becoming common since big data analytics is now driving earlier and earlier opportunities to switch over to a PBL with high confidence. As long as a PBL is negotiated right the only way OEM makes money consistently is by producing an extremely reliable equipment and that gets reflected in the design process.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Dec 2015 04:13

Zynda wrote:
Karan M wrote:Latest on Su-30 from CAG is that masking problem due to Su-30's drooping nose & canards is so severe that R-118 program has been foreclosed. Very disappointing news.
Does Su-30SM has R-118 similar systems? May be Su-35 doesn't have the same amount of droop compared to twin Su-30, but does it has a similar system as well?

India didn't want to share EW tech so Su-30MKM and Russian SM, Algerian MKA all have Pastel RWR which is a development of the Russian Pastel RWRs fielded on all Russian fighters. Wonder what their actual experience with the RWR is. I suspect even they have issues otherwise IAF would have quickly pushed for closing R118 and moving to Russian items. Plus there is the open slam that original MKIs (which had mostly Russian kit) did not meet IAF SOP in many ways.
Su-35 does not have canards. DARE presentation in 2011 AI (IIRC) mentioned the issue of droop and canards was a tough one to beat.

Also MAWS, its finally slated for trials. The Israelis were to provide the actual sensors, we would do the processor hardware and software at DARE. The Israelis gave us a sensor which was too big and heavy. We went to Sukhoi to figure out how to put them on the aircraft. Sukhoi said performance would suffer big time with these large units. Metal cutting was an issue as well. Finally, a new revised layout has been planned & the units are slated to go for trials. If that happens, we will have dual color MAWS on our planes.

MiG-29, D-29 EW system. Six upgraded MiG-29s, Russians upgraded only 3 with the structural mods to carry the D-29EW. Its now in tests. What happens to the remaining 3, your guess as good as mine. Rest of fleet will be made D-29 capable as well.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 22 Dec 2015 09:37

KaranM, my question was intended to find out if Russians have solved the drooping nose & canard masking issue with their RWRs and if so, any cues we could take from their designs. Obviously, they have the flexibility to carry out the necessary airframe structural changes unlike us (mainly due to lack of design data). Like you mentioned, the Russians may not be so keen to collaborate...

Edit: U have already hinted that Russian RWRs performance may not match what IAF wants...sorry I missed it out on my first read.

Wiki still mentions Tarang RWR installed on MKIs. Given their unreliability as you have mentioned and with closure of R-118, what the roadmap wrt RWR on MKI?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Dec 2015 11:49

Dual Colour MAWS trials were expected to begin this month. May be delayed since DARE is running the integration program separately (having closed down the MAWS development as a successful TD project) and would therefore have required separate sanction for that.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Dec 2015 11:55

Media reports say that Tatas may manufacture Sukhoi spares.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Dec 2015 11:55

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 22 Dec 2015 12:11

Whats interesting is that Malaysian Su-30s carry South African (Saab Avitronics) based MAWS. There are two possible scenarios. S African based MAWS are superior (in terms of miniaturisation) compared to Israeli ones and thus were acceptable or Malaysian Su-30s have MAWS with performance penalties.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 22 Dec 2015 12:58

Malaysia does not buy Israeli products

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Dec 2015 13:02

Zynda wrote:Whats interesting is that Malaysian Su-30s carry South African (Saab Avitronics) based MAWS. There are two possible scenarios. S African based MAWS are superior (in terms of miniaturisation) compared to Israeli ones and thus were acceptable or Malaysian Su-30s have MAWS with performance penalties.

The Su-30MKM's MAWS-200 is similar to the PAK FA's - consists of two UV-band sensors each providing hemispherical coverage - one on the spine facing upwards, one under the cockpit facing downwards.

The DARE-Elisra solution for the Su-30MKI's is similar to the F-35's DAS - six IR sensors covering all axes of approach. It'll occupy more volume but offer detection (and tracking) at substantially higher ranges.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 22 Dec 2015 13:36

Viv S wrote: The Su-30MKM's MAWS-200 is similar to the PAK FA's - consists of two UV-band sensors each providing hemispherical coverage - one on the spine facing upwards, one under the cockpit facing downwards.

The DARE-Elisra solution for the Su-30MKI's is similar to the F-35's DAS - six IR sensors covering all axes of approach. It'll occupy more volume but offer detection (and tracking) at substantially higher ranges.

Ah...thanks for clearing that up Sir.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Dec 2015 15:16

Zynda wrote:Ah...thanks for clearing that up Sir. Shame the solution could not implemented on the MKI.

(No sir please. Just Viv is good enough.)

Are you talking about the Aviotronics solution? Because the DARE system (DC MAWS) is being implemented on the MKI, albeit under a different program. See CAG report on last page.

To quote it -

"Subsequently, DARE relocated installation of IR sensors on the aircraft to the satisfaction of Air HQ and expert committee, who concurred (February 2015) the installation of all the six IR sensors only after the completion of factory acceptance test (FAT)."

Air HQ stated (April 2015) that flight trials of DC MAWS on Su-30MKI aircraft were expected to commence in December 2015.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 22 Dec 2015 17:01

Sorry, I got confused b/w MAWS & R-118. I have corrected my previous post.