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

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Apr 2016 16:36

Kersi D wrote:How about 12 CBU 105s on a SU 30 ? A big bang

That would be an overkill. Each CBU-105 has 40 bomblets, each of which can target a vehicle. That's 40 targets per bomb. Two-to-four per aircraft would be enough for an area and can be done in a single pass. "Battle of Longewala 2" would be over before it even starts.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 27 Apr 2016 18:31

Mihir wrote:Inadequate precision was a real issue in Kargil, where "a miss by a foot is a miss by a mile" or something like that. So if these bombs are fitted with proximity fuses and set to explode a couple of hundred feet above the ground, they could shred the infiltrators in uncovered sangars over a pretty wide area without needing much precision.

Yes indeed, Mihir.

We had the problem of cemented stone sangars at Kargil. How does one tackle stone sangars with firing ports.

A basic HE bomb uses overpressure effect. However, the kill radius is very small and the effect quickly dissipates.

To improve the radius, fragmentation bombs were introduced, where the casing fragmented. However, the fragments were uneven and not aerodynamic.

Then came Cluster Bomb Units like BL755 manufactured by OFB and US CBU-105 manufactured by POF. However, they have unexploded ordnance issues rendering the area unusable by own troops.

So most ordnance was ineffective against Pakistani sangars in Kargil that required direct hits or costly hand to had fighting to clear. These cemented stone bunkers were cheaper than even unguided bombs, and the stones afforded protection from fragments & bullets & anything other than a direct hit.

So we worked with IAI to create IFB500

that on exploding shoots out ball bearings

http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=66597

Lethal area..........10,000m2

These airburst ball bearings can penetrate sangar firing ports and other entry/exit points and wreck havoc not possible with general HE FRAG bombs.

Extremely effective in jungles too.

Looks like DRDO has developed 250 & 100 kg class bombs of the same type. Check the fuses on all three bombs - they're the same.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 27 Apr 2016 18:39

srai wrote:That will impact any nearby friendlies as well.

Airstrikes are called to clear or at the least soften up before own troops assault. Not when troops are in close combat.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 27 Apr 2016 18:47

On my personal wishlist was a cheap 100 km range trajectory corrected rocket with a warhead like this to take out terrorist training camps. Much better than hot pursuit.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Apr 2016 18:48

tsarkar wrote:
that on exploding shoots out ball bearings

Nice! Check the hundreds of puffs of dust on the ground covering the whole foreground caused by ball bearings bearing down on everyone's balls in the area

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Apr 2016 18:49

tsarkar wrote:On my personal wishlist was a cheap 100 km range trajectory corrected rocket with a warhead like this to take out terrorist training camps. Much better than hot pursuit.

What about these Prithvi warheads?

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/dat ... arhead.jpg

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Apr 2016 20:18

Pinaka warhead. 20,000 tungsten ball

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OARe91BtuHQ/U ... MBRL-4.JPG

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 28 Apr 2016 02:54

tsarkar wrote:On my personal wishlist was a cheap 100 km range trajectory corrected rocket with a warhead like this to take out terrorist training camps. Much better than hot pursuit.

AWMTA

A few months ago, I wrote a piece in IDR arguing that artillery strikes against Pakistan would be the most effective way of taking out terrorist training camps without crossing any nuclear redlines or sparking off a larger conflict.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Apr 2016 02:58

Mihir,

Take a look.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_Ys9uBpg084/ ... e-1%2B.jpg

Alpha proposal for Pinaka using a MBDA solution customized by them for Pinaka.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 28 Apr 2016 03:06

Perfect, isn't it? Couple this with the Pinaka II and let mayhem unfold whenever they get uppity.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Apr 2016 05:55

tsarkar wrote:.........
Then came Cluster Bomb Units like BL755 manufactured by OFB and US CBU-105 manufactured by POF. However, they have unexploded ordnance issues rendering the area unusable by own troops.
......

POF (pak ord. factory) produces the CBU 105 ?? that's news to me.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Apr 2016 06:00

Mihir wrote:
tsarkar wrote:On my personal wishlist was a cheap 100 km range trajectory corrected rocket with a warhead like this to take out terrorist training camps. Much better than hot pursuit.
AWMTA

A few months ago, I wrote a piece in IDR arguing that artillery strikes against Pakistan would be the most effective way of taking out terrorist training camps without crossing any nuclear redlines or sparking off a larger conflict.

hehe, AWMTA indeed.

from last year.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1886598

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Apr 2016 08:55

on that note, the jordanian military under US guidance launched a Himars MLRS attack on AL-tanf border crossing to syria to tempoarily drive away a bunch of ISIS squatting on it, its another matter the syrian dawn biplobis sent to hold over the ruins could not and ran away.

this week there is news the US plans to install more such Himars MLRS batteries on the turkish border to help its dithering munnas take on the ISIS in the border tracts, has been a yo yo for a while now.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 28 Apr 2016 09:16

Off topic but always wondered why Pinaka went with the two 3X2 tubes instead of three 2X3 lay out. Basically flipping the 6 tube containers 90 degree. That way it would be a little taller but in the same foot print we would have 18 rockets. Surely can't be weight issue.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 28 Apr 2016 10:59

Rahul M wrote:
tsarkar wrote:.........
Then came Cluster Bomb Units like BL755 manufactured by OFB and US CBU-105 manufactured by POF. However, they have unexploded ordnance issues rendering the area unusable by own troops.
......
POF (pak ord. factory) produces the CBU 105 ?? that's news to me.

I think POF stands for something else, Highly unlikely IAF will be using POF produced bombs imported under an agreement with the US Govt.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 Apr 2016 12:52

Rahul M wrote:POF (pak ord. factory) produces the CBU 105 ?? that's news to me.

POF manufactures US Cluster & other Mk8x bombs http://pof.gov.pk/products/Aircraft_AND ... 500_LBS/6/

It should be from the CBU family and not CBU-105 that specifically uses sensor fused munitions with wind correction tailkit.

Aditya_V wrote:Highly unlikely IAF will be using POF produced bombs imported under an agreement with the US Govt.

Most munitions have multiple production plants.

Turkey has an F-16 assembly line, and Belgium has SABCA that assembled Dutch & Belgium F-16s and now does MRO. The older Pakistani F-16s were upgraded at Turkey. Some at SABCA.

http://www.sabca.be/pages/0141/News.93.en.php

SABCA started its common history with the F-16 more than 30 years ago, by the assembly and in-flight delivery of 222 new F-16 aircraft, on behalf of three different end-users.

Since then, the SABCA Charleroi plant became a global key-player for the Depot-level maintenance and upgrade of F-16 aircraft, serving nine different F-16 customers around the world.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Apr 2016 23:20

tsarkar, What type of fuze for those ball/pellet bombs? has to be air burst for maximum effectiveness. So could be proximity or some sort of height of burst?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 29 Apr 2016 03:44

Yes, airburst fuse similar to this http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... n/fz/2.htm

Good part is our R&D, manufacturing & forces have developed, produced and deployed the right type of weaponry. Now if only the political will was there.

There are launching camps, which are Forming Up Places (FUP) before Infiltration/Start Line that need this kind of treatment. http://www.peacekashmir.org/pok/secret- ... kistan.htm

Camps have civilian camp followers like cooks, porters, mule handlers, but because of the military nature of their work, are legitimate targets.

Historically, I am aware our artillery occasionally targeting these camps during cross LoC firing.

Anyways, I digress from Su-30, my last post here on this topic.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Apr 2016 04:04

ramana wrote:tsarkar, What type of fuze for those ball/pellet bombs? has to be air burst for maximum effectiveness. So could be proximity or some sort of height of burst?

http://www.ecil.co.in/division8bf9.html?dv=8
http://www.ecil.co.in/products1156.html?cd=SPD

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Apr 2016 10:18

All those are artillery or Pinaka shell fuzes. Was looking for air dropped ordnance. Maybe imported.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Apr 2016 20:31

Thakur_B wrote:
Karan M wrote: Probably retain the original Siva pod for KH-31 and DRDO NGARM.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/413 ... va-pod.jpg
Why retain when an upgrade is already in works ?

The more I think about this, the more it appears like a testbed to test the MAWS sensors.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 29 Apr 2016 21:50

Anyways, I digress from Su-30, my last post here on this topic.

Not so, par for the course for this thread. Su-30MKI is prolly used as test bed in India in most diverse ways, thereby making such discussions look exceptional here perhaps.

viewtopic.php?p=2007400#p2007400
Something to ponder if long range Sukhois can cue in missiles, then it will reduce complexity, reduce weight and increase range therefore.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Apr 2016 09:10

Tsarkar, Thanks for the insight. Its all germane. All those fragmentation payloads show the serious plans to fight large waves of enemy.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Apr 2016 09:56

KaranM
A company called VxL Technologies makes fuzes for IAF bombs.m

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Apr 2016 18:32

Thanks, great find!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Apr 2016 20:30

Not one of ours but wasnt aware Vietnam operated flanker and continued to buy the classic flanker

High Res Image of Vietnam Flanker ---> https://www.ainonline.com/sites/default ... u-30m2.jpg

Vietnam To Receive the Last ‘Classic’ Flankers

The imminent delivery of from Russia of two Sukhoi Su-30MK2 twin-seat versions to Vietnam will make the end of production for the “classic” version of the Flanker multirole fighter. But production of advanced “generation 4++” versions—the Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35—featuring markedly different airframes and more powerful engines will continue through at least 2020.

Vietnam previously took delivery of 30 out of the 32 Su-30MK2s that it ordered in three batches during 2009, 2012 and 2013. Delivery of the final pair will bring its total fleet to 48, including Su-27SKs, Su-27UBKs as well as Su-30MK2s. Indonesia and Uganda were also recent customers for the Su-30MK2, receiving six each in 2012-13.

Meanwhile, the Russian Air and Space Force (VKS) received earlier this year the last five of 20 Su-30M2 twin-seat air superiority versions that it ordered in 2010 (four) and 2012 (16).

All these Flankers have been produced by Sukhoi’s main factory in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. Meanwhile, the IAZ factory of the Irkut Corporation has been manufacturing the Su-30MKI/MKA/SM series featuring canards (foreplanes) and other improvements, which set them apart from the classic Flanker.

Orders still to be fulfilled for these aircraft are 14 for Algeria and 140 assembly kits for India, both due for completion next year. Deliveries of four Su-30SMs to Kazakhstan took place in 2015. This country and Belarus are in the process of formalizing additional orders for this model. Iran has indicated its interested in a license production deal modeled after that between Russia and India, which created an Su-30MKI assembly line set up at HAL’s Bangalore complex. The Indian air force is due to receive a total of 272 Su-30MKIs, imported plus locally assembled.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Apr 2016 21:14

Karan M wrote:Pinaka warhead. 20,000 tungsten ball

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OARe91BtuHQ/U ... MBRL-4.JPG

If you note the tungsten is half the dia meter of the steel balls (6mm vs 12 mm). Density of tungsten is ~2.5 times steel. So makes up the diameter diff.

Also Newton had proved depth of penetration is proportional to density of penetrator to target material other things being constant. IOW denser the penetrator the better the depth of penetration.

Also there was an expert at MBB, Dr. Maximilian Held who showed spheres have best depth of penetration vs cubes or jagged fragments. Because uniform surface area of sphere assure reliability of penetration. Jagged edges cant be sure of contact aspect ratio.

Henry Shrapnel also used spherical shape for his famous shell.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 01 May 2016 02:21

ramana, it makes sense. A non-spherical projectile will lose energy lot more rapidly while tumbling thru air.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 May 2016 10:19

Any news on the further upgrade of the mki, esp. Related to the bars? I guess the iaf will be loathe to give up on the bars for a basic aesa...considering that the corner had a lot of potential....isnt the irbis basically a follow on bars with a more powerful twt and an extra receive channel. Also iirc, the bottleneck with the bars in the early days was the twt, peak power was restricted to 4.5kw. They found a way past this issue and the irbis manages 20kw with two twts at 10 kw each.

Would it be too hard to change the power rating for the bars so as to accommodate the newer twt...Would make for an easier and very powerful upgrade until a fully competent uttam derivative becomes available.

I can see why the mki upgrade has been stalled for so long, the iaf can easily wait and manage with limit ed continuous improvements until the pakfa and indigenous tech beats fruit. Then we will probably see a rather vigorous mlu. Boy, the flanker design is simply amazing in his it continues to remain competitive against virtually anything below a vlo platform...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 May 2016 10:25

The bars definitive version which met IAF ASR was finally developed and handed over to IAF in 2012. By July of the next year, the upgrades started rolling out for the IAF fleet.

In short, the current Bars on the IAF Su-30 MKI has the latest version of the "hardware and software" and IAF is in all likelihood interested in operationally deploying a working system, not inducting another one with teething issues, especially when the one they have is powerful.

There are issues with the Su-30, but they relate to the self defense suite & weaponry. The IAF can fix the former by choosing the standard Russian suite (SAP-518/RWR combo tested to work with Bars) and latter with Astra and NGARM.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 May 2016 10:32

Going by past experience , IAF will only upgrade BARS once MKI goes through major upgrade something they did with M2K and Mig-29 upgrade , it will keep using BARS and utilise its full potential and I think the next major upgrade of MKI is still 8-10 years away.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 May 2016 10:52

Yes, but remember funding issues were much worse before. I suspect we will see MKI MLU in 4-5 years once Rafales start arriving and more importantly, as MKI serviceability increases. Right now at 60%, with 40% as AOG, IAF wants the latter in air, not more getting upgraded and with 2 lines of spares, teething issues etc.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 May 2016 11:06

AFAIK there was no teething issue with BARS only incremental capability was added later , As IAF was the first user for BARS it faced isssue that any new user of the system would face post that many AF are using BARS , with IRBIS that is not the case as RuAF is the first user of it and they have fixed dev issue associated with the radar , like China and Indonesia would be the 2nd/3rd airforce using Su-35/IRBIS

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 May 2016 11:23

I thought that the mki was ever a bird on cip cycles, so one would think that when the newer twt is available, it could be added to existing setup? It could potentially be the single most effective upgrade even if we stick to a single twt unlike the irbis...avg power output will equal current peak power figures theoretically..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 May 2016 11:33

Austin wrote:AFAIK there was no teething issue with BARS only incremental capability was added later , As IAF was the first user for BARS it faced isssue that any new user of the system would face post that many AF are using BARS , with IRBIS that is not the case as RuAF is the first user of it and they have fixed dev issue associated with the radar , like China and Indonesia would be the 2nd/3rd airforce using Su-35/IRBIS

You are mistaken - Su-30 final version of Bars radar which finally met contract requirements was fixed by 2012.

Su-30 evaluation report by Standing Committee wrote:Systems and modes of the aircraft were deficient in operation and did not meet the specifications.

Air HQ said that the radar and weapon modes would be addressed in an update, trials of which would occur in 2012 by IAF for evaluating efficacy and completeness of software for envisaged role.

Consolidated report of evaluation submitted by IAF in 2012, with successfully tests and implementation on 45 aircraft. Entire fleet would be upgraded by 2014
and after its implementation, there would be no performance shortfall.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 May 2016 11:37

Any idea when these specifications were created and if they were updated from time to time?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 May 2016 11:39

Confirmation from Russian side ...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-un-v-RvjP1E/U ... nics-4.jpg

Note, radars evaluation has been completed, final version signed.. in 2012.
Su-30 induction began at Kargil with first MKIs around 2001 (by memory).

Food for thought for all the media morons bashing the LCA development. NIIP, Russia's best radar house took a decade to meet IAF requirements.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 May 2016 11:43

The specifications would be IAF ASR, plus other improvements suggested over usage.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 May 2016 17:11

Karan M wrote:Confirmation from Russian side ...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-un-v-RvjP1E/U ... nics-4.jpg

Note, radars evaluation has been completed, final version signed.. in 2012.
Su-30 induction began at Kargil with first MKIs around 2001 (by memory).

Food for thought for all the media morons bashing the LCA development. NIIP, Russia's best radar house took a decade to meet IAF requirements.

From what I know BARS was developed via Mk1 , Mk2 ,Mk3 variant with Mk3 being the final variant that met IAF ASR needs , most of the capability was SW driven with additional modes and tracking/Lock and A2G capability added , I am not sure of during the time the changed the backend HW like Russian DSP was replaced by Indian one and other things.

The main draw back about BARS is their weight its about ~ 500 kg in weight , The IRBIS is half the size and more than double the Peak and Avg power.

I found some info on BARS here on unmentioned forum

http://defence.pk/threads/mini-awacs-th ... ki.256937/

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 May 2016 17:34

Bars has gone through several changes. There were 4 software versions which went into the Sukhoi. Also multiple hardware upgrades for overall aircraft eg engines, FBW systems etc,

The final radar version - HW/SW is the one cleared for production in 2012. This is the final system in production on IAF Su-30s now, with kits being supplied from Ryazan.

Bars is 650kg in weight.

Among the hardware changes made was to a new PSP for Bars, the Ts200 replacing the earlier one. 2012 final variant though - we don't know the firm changes to the Tx/Rx system (if any).

Standing Committee on Defense wrote:The evaluation of the aircraft with different software was carried out by ASTE in 2003 and 2007. ASTE stated that certain systems and modes of operation had not met the contractual specifications, which substantially reduced the effective utilization of the aircraft in its intended role.

IAF concern was about all modes which they wanted improved, but which were apparently done by 2012.

Irbis is derived from Bars but uses a much lighter antenna, from the Osa. Less gain but better scan angles.
However, the signal processing and Tx system are new.