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

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 20 Mar 2019 07:32

ramana wrote:So Indian military was subsidizing the FSU military industry and being taken for a ride.
Effectively 3 Chinooks for the Mi26. 28074/8845= 27K/9K ~3 Chinook equivalents.

The disadvantage is the US may sanction spare parts and support depending on who's in the US Congress and POTUS. Knowing this, the Russians are fleecing India. Which is why India MUST make all of its major offensive, surveillance and support weapon systems. Imports must stop.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Mar 2019 09:29

Katare wrote:Here are the cost details of Russian and US heavy lift helicopter competition. Russian stuff is not cheaper than western offerings. The results was same for the attack helicopter competition too. Both the bids have turned into contracts so numbers are real!!

Su30 MKI would cost IAF way more than what Rafale would over its entire life. We should go for MLU route on Su30 MKIs and focuse on buying Rafale and LCA from hear onwards...

1. Direct Acquisition Cost
Chinook- Rs 6474 Cr
Mi26 - Rs 7422 Cr

2. Cost of TTL based reserve
Chinook - Rs 293 Cr
Mi26 - Rs 9364 Cr

3. Cost of schedule I level servicing
Chinook - Rs 2 Cr
Mi26 - Rs 19 Cr

4. Cost of D level overhaul
Chinook - Rs 333 Cr
Mi 26 - Rs 8117 Cr

5. Operating cost
Chinook - Rs 1743 Cr
Mi 26- 3152

Total cost of acquisition
Chinook - Rs 8845 Cr
Mi26 - Rs 28,074 Cr

Interestingly fuel/operational cost/ton of load for both the helicopters are the same (Rs 157/ton for Mi26 and Rs 158/ton for Chinook). Mi26 are not fuel guzzlers, they measure up to the best in the world aka Chinooks.

Both are different class of bird , Chinook can carry 10.8 T , Mi-26T can carry 20T of Payload almost twice the payload of Chinook

Mi-26 can also carry extra wide cargo

Even CAG in its report has mentioned that IAF comparing Mi-26 and Chinook was not a right one

On the Chinooks, the CAG said that the qualitative requirements matched those of these helicopters. The report said that while the defence ministry said no operational parameters were compromised, it didn’t contest that the ASQRs were aligned to the Chinook. However, the CAG pointed out that the Chinook didn’t meet eight critical requirements. “Despite these non-compliances, both Mi-26 (offered by Rosoboronexport) and Chinook were cleared based on the assurance of the vendor to rectify the ASQR ..non-compliance before delivery,” it said.

Even the benchmark pricing procedure was not followed. Boeing had emerged as the L1 vendor (lowest bidder). “CNC (read as Contract Negotiating Committee) found that as against the benchmark Direct Acquisition Cost of $737.64 million, the price quoted by Boeing was $1206.918 million and that of ROE (Rosoboronexport) was 1064.351 million euros. Since the price quoted byBoeing was much higher than the benchmarked price, the benchmark price for direct acquisition was revised from $737.64 million to $1196.21, which almost matched the price of Boeing. Revision of benchmark price after opening of the price bids was incorrect,” said the CAG

Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/67975564.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Mar 2019 09:33

It is quite clear from CAG report that IAF manipulated all the procurement process to favour Rafale , Chinook and in case of Apache the ASQR was alligned to buy Apache.

If the IAF wanted to buy Rafale or Chinook or Apache it should have just done a G2G deal with them rather than start a multi vendor procurement process with the aim to favour one vendor and wasting time in due process and giving a unfair deal to others in the race.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 20 Mar 2019 09:47

Huh

IAF originally wanted the Mirage 2000. The GOI starved them by dragging the procurement for decades and forced them to go for the multi nation multi aircraft evaluation process.

The IAF trying to make the best of the bad situation then went ahead and got a rigorous and very detailed look at at least 4 top of the line aircraft, as part of their technical evaluation process.

In then end they got the GOI to get one of the best aircraft available, with one of the least risk of sanctions.

And you are calling this as a wastage of time and being unfair (to Vendors) ??

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2019 09:48

Austin wrote:It is quite clear from CAG report that IAF manipulated all the procurement process to favour Rafale

Read the report before making such "out-there" assertions. Quoting 1-2 paras from a media link which selectively parses the claim is also not enough.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Mar 2019 10:07

Karan M wrote:
Austin wrote:It is quite clear from CAG report that IAF manipulated all the procurement process to favour Rafale
Read the report before making such "out-there" assertions. Quoting 1-2 paras from a media link which selectively parses the claim is also not enough.

Usual propaganda deleted

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2019 10:19

Austin, I didn't ask you to read and repeat what Saurabh Joshi wrote. I asked you to read the report yourself as versus taking his creative interpretation at face value. If you do so, there are enough indications that Joshi is just cooking up a story. I have already detailed the entire farce he has made of the bid process in my replies in the Rafale thread. So have several others. What you are doing is reading reports with an agenda, repeating them ad nauseam and then stating they must be true. My (and those of several other folks who read the actual reports) replies are here: viewtopic.php?p=2334561#p2334561

Please read the report, and the replies above, just don't regurgitate what some Joshi or Shukla or somebody says. The DPP needs to be made more flexible and we need a dedicated acquisitions center/team above and beyond what MOD can provide, otherwise mistakes will continue to be made. But spinning a conspiracy out of it by selectively taking a few paras out of a multi-page report is dodgy and that's what Joshi has done.

He has an agenda, and to peddle the Rafale being a scam. His social media timeline is full of jibes at the current Govt., from mocking Modi's non-engagement with the media, to AYUSH, to this, that. His website is running adverts for SAAB. Paragon of objectivity, for sure.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Mar 2019 11:19

Karan M wrote:He has an agenda, and to peddle the Rafale being a scam. His social media timeline is full of jibes at the current Govt., from mocking Modi's non-engagement with the media, to AYUSH, to this, that. His website is running adverts for SAAB. Paragon of objectivity, for sure.

Every jurno has some agenda wheather it be pro or anti-govt of the day.

I did read the CAG report on Apache and Chinook and it is quite clear that IAF wanted to buy these types and RFI were formulated accordingly .....If you read the report your self that is the thing that stands out some concession where given to Apache on Maintenance etc

The comparsion between Chinook and Mi-26 is not a direct one and the RFI were made as per chinook which is what the IAF wanted .....The operating and procurement cost would differ significantly for both types but the capability offered too would be the same even CAG did some calculation in the report and mentioned on on certain parameter eg per ton basis the Mi worked out cheaper etc etc

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Mar 2019 11:28

the Mi26 per/kg type costs would be better than Sinook if it could use its full capacity(which is better @ all altitudes vs the sinook).
but realistically this would not happen for 90% of transport sorties. a heavier more fuel burning chassis for the same load as sinook is not good use of opex. even russia mostly uses the Mi17v not anything larger though they have all the capability in world to build a Mi17v-XL

same issue as right sizing on C130J vs a C17 or IL76-90 vs MTA - one has to plan for the usual workloads.

one capability we have lost with the Mi26 retirement is ability to airlift downed helos from remote areas with rotors removed. Mi26 and CH53 can do that.

if at all needed we can keep a few units of CH53K which USMC is in process of receiving around 120ish. these are new builds.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 20 Mar 2019 11:31

Have we retired the 3Mi 26's?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Mar 2019 11:35

officially no I think. but their use may be erratic.

all 15 sinooks will be delivered by march 2020 and word is the 2nd unit will be in Dinjan Assam...between dibrugarh and tinsukia @ this specialized helicopter base
https://www.google.com/maps/place/MH/@2 ... 95.2454352

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 20 Mar 2019 11:35

Have we retired the 3Mi 26's? I hope they give a life extension to these 3 birds which can complement the Chinooks
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/natio ... 41663.html

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Mar 2019 11:59

Why are choppers being discussed in this thread.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2019 12:15

Austin wrote:Every jurno has some agenda wheather it be pro or anti-govt of the day.

And so, you wish to act as the outlet for spreading these agendas? Or do you wish to look through their rubbish and make up your own mind.

I did read the CAG report on Apache and Chinook and it is quite clear that IAF wanted to buy these types and RFI were formulated accordingly .....If you read the report your self that is the thing that stands out some concession where given to Apache on Maintenance etc

I mentioned the Rafale in specific, why are you bringing in the Apache & Chinook?

The comparsion between Chinook and Mi-26 is not a direct one and the RFI were made as per chinook which is what the IAF wanted .....The operating and procurement cost would differ significantly for both types but the capability offered too would be the same even CAG did some calculation in the report and mentioned on on certain parameter eg per ton basis the Mi worked out cheaper etc etc

There is no direct comparison between the Gripen NG and F/A-18 E/F as well by the same standards. Claiming this as an element of bias etc is absurd. IAF tenders for what is available and has to manage with what it has. If a product which is cheaper by 3X meets all of its requirements so be it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2019 12:16

Guys, this is the Su-30 thread.

Move/continue the Rafale discussions to/in the Rafale thread.

Chopper discussions to the other helicopters thread.

Thread focus please.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Mar 2019 16:41

Karan M wrote:And so, you wish to act as the outlet for spreading these agendas? Or do you wish to look through their rubbish and make up your own mind.

I mean every Jurno can be perceived for working for this or that party , Thats the risk of the job , but some do and some dont. ( I read Saurabh twitter today where some one from French on Email is accusing him for working for Eurofighter and the US )

As far as Rafale goes Saurabh write up has more details but I havent see any opinion from other news outlet based on CAG report that says broadly other wise .

Though I willl read the whole CAG report in detail in days head

But what Saurabh states not an indictment against GOI because the selection was already done during the UPA government and most of the work too. The present one just came to reduced the numbers but the type was the same.

CAG report is more of an indictment on IAF and its procurement process and how it goes about doing its job to get what it wants in a rather flawed way that is unfair to the others in the game , And we wouldnt even know this if not for the CAG !

There is no direct comparison between the Gripen NG and F/A-18 E/F as well by the same standards. Claiming this as an element of bias etc is absurd. IAF tenders for what is available and has to manage with what it has. If a product which is cheaper by 3X meets all of its requirements so be it.

Yes there is no comparision but unlike MMRCA the CAG report on Chinook vs Mi-26 states the SPecs were made to suite one specific vendor and same goes for Apache .......so where is the fair chance for others in the race , another tailor made race.

The point is if the IAF is dead sure what it wants Rafale , Chinook , Apache or any others ........Why not go for a G2G deal and save time money and effort like it did with S-400 or C-17 deal .......Why waste years on competition that does not bring any thing to the table other than years of delays and cost rise and give bad name to IAF.

In the future every vendor would have suspicion on any kind of multi vendor approach and will refuse to participate

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 20 Mar 2019 16:49

Aditya_V wrote:Have we retired the 3Mi 26's? I hope they give a life extension to these 3 birds which can complement the Chinooks
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/natio ... 41663.html

White elephants!!!!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2019 19:56

Austin wrote:I mean every Jurno can be perceived for working for this or that party , Thats the risk of the job , but some do and some dont. ( I read Saurabh twitter today where some one from French on Email is accusing him for working for Eurofighter and the US )

And what's to say that French guy isn't right?

As far as Rafale goes Saurabh write up has more details but I havent see any opinion from other news outlet based on CAG report that says broadly other wise . Though I willl read the whole CAG report in detail in days head

First, please do that rather than saying "Saurabh thinks this, that" because these guys all post their agenda pretending to be objective while their social media posts clearly show they have an agenda.

But what Saurabh states not an indictment against GOI because the selection was already done during the UPA government and most of the work too. The present one just came to reduced the numbers but the type was the same.

He has spun a conspiracy theory and tried to put this Govt at equal footing with the prior one, even though the current one canceled the flawed MMRCA deal, just procured 2x squadrons Rafale based on IAF urgent operational necessity and did not allow Dassault to walk away with the entire deal and opening up the MMRCA process again. He is engaging in the worst form of yellow journalism, and as such has blown away any claim of being objective.

CAG report is more of an indictment on IAF and its procurement process and how it goes about doing its job to get what it wants in a rather flawed way that is unfair to the others in the game , And we wouldnt even know this if not for the CAG !

If you haven;t even read the CAG report, let alone seen the flaws in CAGs reasoning based on the assumption that rigid adherence to a flawed DPP is the only way forward, then you have no basis to claim its an indictment of the IAF.

Yes there is no comparision but unlike MMRCA the CAG report on Chinook vs Mi-26 states the SPecs were made to suite one specific vendor and same goes for Apache .......so where is the fair chance for others in the race , another tailor made race.

The MMRCA specs were tailor made for the Mirage 2000. So? The IAF has to base its specs off of some requirements. It can't always come up with generic specs.

The point is if the IAF is dead sure what it wants Rafale , Chinook , Apache or any others ........Why not go for a G2G deal and save time money and effort like it did with S-400 or C-17 deal .......Why waste years on competition that does not bring any thing to the table other than years of delays and cost rise and give bad name to IAF.

That is not the IAFs decision to make but the Govt's. The Govt should have gone for a G2G deal. If they didn't why blame the IAF.

In the future every vendor would have suspicion on any kind of multi vendor approach and will refuse to participate

Let them. But they will continue to participate because the deal sizes speak for themselves.

And for the last time, pls. take the Rafale stuff to the Rafale thread.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 20 Mar 2019 21:27

I think Super 30 upgrade specs are still being finalized, but any idea how IAF plans on bringing in additional power needed for AESA radars? Roos has started integrating AL-41F-1S engines on their Su-30SM fighters. In addition to further thrust, the engines also provide additional electric power needed for Irbis and/or future AESA radars. I think IAF will follow same path wrt engines.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 20 Mar 2019 21:34

Austin wrote:It is quite clear from CAG report that IAF manipulated all the procurement process to favour Rafale , Chinook and in case of Apache the ASQR was alligned to buy Apache.

If the IAF wanted to buy Rafale or Chinook or Apache it should have just done a G2G deal with them rather than start a multi vendor procurement process with the aim to favour one vendor and wasting time in due process and giving a unfair deal to others in the race.

If you had gone to dassault or Boeing in a single vendor situation, out of the goodness of their hearts, they would have given you fair deals.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 20 Mar 2019 21:39

sudeepj wrote:
Austin wrote:It is quite clear from CAG report that IAF manipulated all the procurement process to favour Rafale , Chinook and in case of Apache the ASQR was alligned to buy Apache.

If the IAF wanted to buy Rafale or Chinook or Apache it should have just done a G2G deal with them rather than start a multi vendor procurement process with the aim to favour one vendor and wasting time in due process and giving a unfair deal to others in the race.

If you had gone to dassault or Boeing in a single vendor situation, out of the goodness of their hearts, they would have given you fair deals.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Mar 2019 00:11

Zynda wrote:I think Super 30 upgrade specs are still being finalized, but any idea how IAF plans on bringing in additional power needed for AESA radars? Roos has started integrating AL-41F-1S engines on their Su-30SM fighters. In addition to further thrust, the engines also provide additional electric power needed for Irbis and/or future AESA radars. I think IAF will follow same path wrt engines.

They won’t get Aesa for now but will have the ability to upgrade the antenna to Aesa if required without changing the back end later , they are aiming for Irbis standard for now and hopefully with a engine upgrade to meet a peak power of 20kw and a maws and dircm

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Mar 2019 00:12

Guys - all further non Su-30 posts are going to be deleted. No more OT.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Mar 2019 09:46

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLFIqoGbs2k

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Apr 2019 05:43

http://cast.ru/eng/comments/russia-s-su ... grade.html
Russia's Sukhoi Super 30: The Outlook for India’s Ultra-Advanced Flanker Upgrade

Konstantin Makienko

Indications in recent months suggest that the upgrade program for India’s fleet ofSu-30MKI fighters is finally gathering pace. The Indian Air Force (IAF) has so far placed orders for 272 aircraft, of which 50 were delivered by Russia in 2002-2004 and 2007. Another 222 are to be supplied by the HAL Corporation; production under Russian license began at HAL’s Indian facilities in 2004. So far, more than 200 planes have already been delivered, and the Su-30MKI is the most numerous of the multirole fighters currently in service with the IAF.

Even though the Su-30MKI is one of the most advanced of the Generation 4+ fighters in service with the IAF, the need for its upgrade is becoming ever more obvious. The first of the planes built to the current specification were delivered to India back in 2004. Since then, a lot of new technology has become available in Russia, India, and other markets, including advanced new radars, air-launched missiles and bombs. Retrofitting the plane with this new hardware can make it much more capable. In fact, the Su-30 platform itself is extremely well suited for all kinds of upgrades, from fairly conservative to the most radical because the plane has a two-seater cockpit and can accommodate a lot of bulky and heavy additional equipment.

For a long time, the only thing we knew about the proposed Su-30MKI upgrades was the name of the program: Sukhoi Super 30. There was no information about the technical specifications, timeline or costs. Commentators often confuseSukhoi Super 30 with another upgrade program that aims to integrate the Su-30MKI with the air-launched version of the BrahMos anti-ship cruise missile. These are in fact two independent and unrelated projects. BrahMos will be installed on only 40-42 planes. The program has already reached a fairly advanced phase of flight-testing to ascertain mechanical compatibility of theBrahMos-A air-launched missile with a reinforced Su-30MKI airframe. Live missile launches are due to commence very shortly. The Sukhoi Super 30 program, on the other hand, will be rolled out to the entire Indian fleet of Su-30MKI fighters; it has yet to begin in earnest, and up until recently, there was very little information about it in the public domain.

Recently, however, the influential Indian newspaper The Hindu reported that in July 2016 Russia and India held consultations on Sukhoi Super 30, and that they hoped to sign a deal very soon. Another well informed newspaper, The Economic Times, reported that the technical requirements would be finalized by the year’s end, and that the contract would be signed in early 2017. The estimated cost of the program is $7-8 billion. It is therefore clear that the program is still at the very early stages, and that the Sukhoi Super 30 technical specifications have yet to be agreed. One of the central issues in the upcoming discussions will certainly be the use of local suppliers as part of the Indian government’s Make in Indiaindustrial policy.

The Specifics of Indian Procurement Policy

The original Su-30MKI program was implemented at lighting speed, by Indian standards. The upgrade program, however, has been making glacial progress, which is fairly normal for the Indian defense procurement system. After Russia introduced the original Su-30MKI proposal, it took only three years to sign the first contract. The proposal was submitted in December 1993 during a visit to India by representatives of the Irkutsk Aircraft Plant and the Sukhoi Design Bureau; the contract was signed in November 1996. Incidentally, the final technical specifications of the Su-30MKI were very different from the Su-30KRussia had originally tried to sell to India. The differences concerned not just avionics but even the platform itself.

The Su-30MKI program still remains unprecedented in terms of the time it took to implement. Most of the Indian aerospace programs are very slow. They include, for example, the Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 upgrades. Such upgrades, however, appear to be the best way for the IAF to bolster its fighting ability, especially in view of the budget constraints and the ongoing paralysis of the tender procedures that prevent the IAF from increasing the number of its squadrons to 45. Upgrading the existing planes obviates the need for increasing the already excessive number of various plane models in service with the IAF. Upgrade programs are also cheaper than buying new planes, and they are fully in line with the government’s Make in India policy.

The languid pace of decision-making on the IAF upgrade programs may be a reflection of India’s fundamental cultural patterns and of the additional red tape introduced by the DPP mechanism. Back in the 2000s, the IAF had a clear superiority over the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) by every possible measure, and it compensated for the Chinese Air Force’s greater numbers by superior technology (thanks primarily to the rapid implementation of the Su-30MKI program). Slow and deliberate decision-making therefore did not pose any major military-political risks, and it did help to keep costs under control. With the existing balance of military power and technology at the time, there was no pressing need for the Indian MoD to rush the procurement of new planes or the upgrades of the existing ones, so its relaxed approach was entirely rational.

Now, however, the situation is completely different. Pakistan has received up-to-date versions of America’s F-16 fighters and dozens of the Chinese-Pakistani FC-1 planes. What was once India’s complete dominance over the Pakistani Air Force has become a mere superiority. In fact, Pakistan may well achieve near-parity over time if it receives J-10 fighters from China (as well as the J-31, the quasi-5thgeneration fighter now being developed by the Chinese). Such near-parity between the IAF and the PAF would be completely unprecedented.

The power balance with the Chinese Air Force is an even greater worry for India. In the 1990s and early 2000s China bought 76 Su-27SK/UBK fighters and 100Su-30MKK/MK2 fighters from Russia. It quickly built another 105 Su-27SKplanes under Russian license, and then launched production of its own clones of these planes without bothering with the license. All of these planes represented early 1980s technology — but now China is about to start receiving the latest Russian Su-35 fighters. It is also working on its own quasi-5th generation fighter programs. As a result, the Chinese Air Force will catch up with the Indian Air Force in terms of technology, while also maintaining its impressive numerical superiority. India’s old defense procurement model, in which seven to 10 years is required merely to prepare a contract, has therefore become obsolete and unsustainable.

There is a pressing need for speeding up the Su-30MKI program in order to restore the Indian Air Force’s technological superiority over the Chinese. Essentially, India needs to pull off the same trick it did in the mid-1990s, when it responded to China’s mass procurement of Su-27/30 fighters with the originalSu-30MKI program. Two decades on, India needs to respond to China’s Su-35 and J-31 jets with the Sukhoi Super 30.

Upgrade options

The choice of the specific upgrade option will represent some kind of compromise between the price tag, the time frame, and the capability of the upgraded plane. In theory, this leaves a broad variety of technological solutions on the table. The most conservative solution — which is also the cheapest and quickest — would be to roll out to the entire Su-30MKI fleet the improvements already incorporated in the latest versions of the plane. The Su-30MKI is the oldest member of the family that also includes the Malaysian Su-30MKM (the 2007 model), and the Russian Su-30SM (the 2011 model). A conservative upgrade option would include a limited number of additional self-defense systems (similar to the ones used in the Malaysian model), as well as the numerous new missiles and smart bombs that are now being developed as part of the Russian 2020 State Armament Program for the Su-30SM. The conservative approach would essentially bring the Su-30MKI up to the Su-30SM level.

Meanwhile, the most radical upgrade option would be to develop an equivalent of America’s Silent Eagle fighter. This option would include replacing most of the plane’s systems. Most importantly, its passive phased array radar would be replaced with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. Changes would also be made to the plane’s airframe to reduce its radar cross-section. The obvious drawback of this option is the high cost and the long time it would take to implement.

Finally, the most realistic option that would deliver great returns in terms of the plane’s capability without costing too much or taking too much time sits somewhere in the middle. It includes a deep upgrade of the plane’s N-011M Bars radar and integration of the latest Russian and Indian-made electronics, optics and infrared systems without modifications to the airframe.

It would also make sense to implement the Su-30MKI upgrade program in several batches of 50-55 planes, with each successive batch incorporating more complex technology. Such an approach was mentioned as a possibility by Yuri Beliy, chief of the NIIP Tikhomirov company, the developer of the Bars radar. Speaking in an interview, Beliy said that the first phase of the program could include upgrading the Bars radar to give it a greater range, higher resolution, better jamming resistance, and support for new weapons systems. At a later phase, the Bars radar could be equipped with an active phased array. The planes upgraded in the first batch could later be brought to the technical standard of the latest batches without any major difficulties.

The approach would make it possible to start the program quickly (thereby securing orders for India’s HAL and other local suppliers). It would improve the IAF’s capability in an evolutionary way, and it would be easier on the IAF pilots, who will not have to deal with a quantum leap in the complexity of the upgraded plane’s systems. Such a phased strategy worked well in 2002-2004, when Russia delivered the first 32 Su-30MKI planes. The fighters were supplied in three batches of 10, 12 and 10. Each successive batch included some improvements that were later incorporated in the previous batches, so all 32 planes were eventually brought to the same standard.

When the Su-30MKI specifications were being drawn up, the Indian military came up with an extremely well-balanced set of requirements for the new plane. Those requirements were at the cutting edge of — but not beyond — the Russian defense industry’s capability at the time, and could be implemented at a reasonable cost and within reasonable deadlines. It is to be hoped that a similarly well-balanced solution will be found for the Sukhoi Super 30 program.

© 1997—2019
Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Apr 2019 10:04

>> I think Super 30 upgrade specs are still being finalized

the fact that we are in 2019 with no news or movement on super30 indicates that whatever russia put on the table was pretty underwhelming vs what we desired. probably the irbis-E is not upto the mark and so also their EW gear and other improvements. perhaps they have no AL31-EDE engine.

we may have to wait a few more years for their Pakfa gear to come online or else develop our own and go the J-15 route.

- radar needs to be aesa
- a comprehensive spectra type EW suite integrated with the planes control system
- astra mk1 and mk2 (this will happen)

with a very large RCS, "hiding" is not an option for the su30, it has to use brute power and EW to fight its way around.

on the A2G side things are ok with various desi weapons coming online soon.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Apr 2019 12:49

Electronics today make up for most of the cost of the aircraft ( roughly 60 % ) followed by the engine ( 25 % ) and other things.

IF Ajai Shukla is to be believed ( I tend to take his write with a pinch of salt ) IAF has set the cost of upgrade per aircraft at 100 cr , Each Sukhoi cost around 430-450 cr . That's roughly around 20 % cost for each upgrade and if you see IAF has a fleet of 300 Sukhoi or will have eventually that itself will cost whopping 30000 cr for a total fleet upgrade roughly 5-6 billion USD http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2018/05/ ... t-one.html

IF you add AESA , New Engine and all the bear and whistle then you might just buy a new aircraft at roughly the cost of Rafale

MKI is already a very capable aircraft today able to compete with any aircraft in IAF fleet barring the Rafale. IT has received Soft upgrade of BARS and EW warfare, Indigenous systems like Brahmos and Astra has been integrated and even Glide Bomb thanks to the availability of Radar Source Code of BARS and Structural and other data.

I would see upgrade focus on these areas and Ajai say it will be carried in 2 phases

1 ) Upgrade BARS to Irbis Standard giving peak power from 5 kw to 20 kw and increasing average power of Radar , The backed end is made compatible to add AESA in the future ie no need to replace the back end in the future should IAF demand for AESA
2 ) Upgrade AL-31FP engine to AL-41F1 as in Su-35S ....Russia is already doing that for SU-30SM so we can tail along ( http://tass.com/defense/1046519 ) will give more thrust and power requirement of modernised Radar
3 ) Add DRDO developed MAWS and AESA based EW
4 ) Sensor Fuse all the Avionics/Radar etc , Top Owl HMD to replace Sura-K
5 ) Add Improve IRST as on Su-35 or indiginous options available
6 ) Add all the indigenous weapons to MKI and newer AAM R-77-1, RVV-MD and RVV-BD

I think as of today IAF has already integrated even Israel LDP Lightening and would also integrate ASRAAM when it is available

Other than the BARS Upgrade and AL-31 upgrade that would be the most costly component the rest will be indiginous

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Apr 2019 13:14

with a very large RCS, "hiding" is not an option for the su30, it has to use brute power and EW to fight its way around.

Singha there is considerable work done to reduce the RCS of Flanker aircraft for 2 decades now, There was a famous Bill Sweetman write up on AW&ST on that quoting ITAE paper on this AW&ST the original link is not to be found but I have an old keypub posted the thread

But better read the orginal write up here of ITAE , many instresting stastics

Fundamental and Applied Problems STEALTH TECHNOLOGY
https://www.scribd.com/document/1523768 ... TECHNOLOGY

new work by Rostec to reduce cockpit RCS
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/24049/ ... LLdBegzZPY

MKI RCS has been reduced to 3-4 m2 from 12-15 m2 by using extensive LO materials and coating and Su-35 to 1-3m2 .......There is a possibility to perhaps reduce the RCS if better RAM/Materials gets developed

But all aircraft that has not been developed from scratch using fundamental of RCS reduction in terms of geometry where most RCS reduction occurs and dont carry internal weapon will have to use JAmmers and EW and Flying Tactics/Strategy to defeat the target atleast temporarily. Even LO aircraft too as most of their reduction for LO aircraft are on X band for S and L band the progress/reduction will be less and much worse for VHF or meter band.

Radars too have made extensive progress in this area so catching a small RCS target even flying low is possible today , Hence EW will be used by every fighter in some form or the other. IF not by the aircraft that is doing the bombing then atleast by supporting aircraft.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Apr 2019 16:32

Austin, I doubt all the MKI's would be upgraded, given the high cost it would make economic sense for those aircraft with lots of airframe life still left, perhaps only those built in this decade. It might even make sense to create separate UPG packages depending on how much airframe life is left, most in-depth for those with the most life, a basic MLU for those with less hours left.

1) One thing I would really want to see is MAWS on all IAF aircraft, not just the MKI but fleet wide.

2) The Uttam, if it lives up to expectations can be enlarged to create a AESA radar for the MKI, this would make weapon integration and even sensor integration that much more easier. Experience of this kind of sensor fusion/integration would come in very handy when creating the AMCA.

3) I sincerely hope some of the MKI's are converted to a EW version. I know the forum consensus seems to be that an executive jet is best suited to that purpose but I respectfully disagree. One, it gives unmatched capability to quickly get into position once a requirement arises. Two, being fighters these aircraft are more survivable by design, able to get out of harm's way and defend itself if needed. For such an expensive piece of kit, that's a very important consideration. Three, their radar signature being identical to their pure fighter counterparts, fighter based EW systems can have a potential for surprise that's nothing to scoff at during a shooting war. The MKI, with its massive payload capability and range is ideally suited to this role.

Yes, there's a place for a executive jet/airliner based EW aircraft but there's a reason virtually every air force worth its name also depends on fighter based EW aircraft. The russians use Tarantul on the Su-34 even though they have the IL22, the PLAAF has the J16D. Even the USAF is supposed to depend on USN growlers if needed.

4) On engine replacement, we should go for the AL-41 only if it gives tangible benefits in terms of better MTBO/MTBF. The MKI is not an underpowered aircraft and while more power is usually good, it might not justify the costs.

Total Su30MKI held by IAF is about 272 minus crashes + 18 new ordered (confimred ?).
The productions were to be distributed as follows :
a) 50 Direct import from Russia,
b) 140 made by HAL,
c) another 40 imported from Russia,
d) additional 42 made by HAL.
e) Add the 18 from new order from HAL to that.

As per ajai shukla, HAL production rate as of 2017 was ~12/year
(Ref : "... including 35 Su-30MKIs and 73 Dhruv ALHs. That is just three years work"
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2017/08/ ... s-end.html )

Assuming that was the average rate of production through the production run (*), from 2004, when HAL handed over the first aircraft to 2013, when it started production from scratch, it would have produced about 120 aircraft i.e 6 squadrons. If anyone has better idea of the break up, please post.
(*) Not an unreasonable assumption since initial phases of production were from SKD's, which would have meant faster production rates while they slowly set up and expanded production from scratch in phases.
At 20 per sqn (including reserves) that's about 14.5 squadons. I am guessing TACDE holds the half squadron.

Now, a phased upgrade makes a lot of sense, given that the MKI's are a huge fleet inducted over a 20 year period with wide variance in life left. One big advantage with such a program is that we can start upgrading some of the aircraft immediately without waiting for tech to mature and become available. Moreover, it will coincide with the mid-life overhaul period of some of these aircraft, so both can continue concurrently, reducing non-availibility for the IAF. Wheels at HAL will also keep rolling, which itself is a desirable outcome.

Picking up from the phased upgrade idea, we should ideally see something like this :

Phase 1 : for the oldest direct from russia airframes(about 2 squadrons). These would also be some of the most used and tired airframes in IAF and were heavily used, if I remember reports from those periods : MAWS, current EW SPS.

Phase 2 : for the oldest HAL built aircraft from SKD/CKD, built period 2003-2009 (about 4 sqn's): the above, PLUS modern IRST with Topsight HMDS and compatibility with newer AAM's.

Phase3 : take another 2 sqns of HAL built from CKD airframes : convert these to desi Growler standards with flights dedicated to WAC, EAC, SWAC & CAC, depending on threat scenario.

Phase 4 : 2.5 sqns imported from Russia 2010 onwards (includes some of the replacements for the original Su30K's that must have arrived around 2010) : same as in Phase 2 PLUS radar upgrades, upgraded modern mission computer and sensor fusion.

Phase 5 : 4 sqns of HAL built, from scratch airframes : upgraded to gold standard as in Phase 4 PLUS airframe strengthening to carry brahmos, improved EW SPS , desi towed decoy, re-engining to AL41 if required and feasible.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Apr 2019 16:58

Rahul , As far has airframe life goes , We have upgraded all the Mirages-2000 airframe and Mig-29 except those that got crashed.

And both these airframes are atleast a decade or decade and half older than MKI.

So they can always upgrade the airframe and make its life to zero , The current Mirage and 29 upgrade has a guranteed life span of 25 years so I expect MKI upgrade would end up with similar life span and considering we still fly the Bison whose airframe was last made by HAL till Mid or was it early 80's.....these upgrade guaranteed TTL can always be enhanced

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Apr 2019 17:24

due to the unique nature of its nose air intake , the Mig21 may have a very low frontal RCS if you think about it

radar coating treatments, better edge alignments and gold coating of its camopy could have made it a mini stealth fighter back when stealth was not mainstream

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Apr 2019 17:46

Austin, those were 2-3 squadrons, which is quite in line with what I have proposed above. Also, all of those aircraft came almost simultaneously, meaning very little variation in age.
The largest aircraft fleet IAF operated were the Mig-21, Jaguar & Mig-27. In all 3 cases parts of the fleet were upgraded to different standards. The mki was/would be acquired over a 20+ year period !

Secondly, gold plating everything would a) delay the start of the upgrade process and b) take away funds from other pressing IAF needs. We have to remember that the MKI's are very costly to operate and require double the aircrew of other fighters. given its size and RCS, it will show its age in coming years. No amount of RCS treatment would reduce the RCS of a loaded MKI. IAF will have to slowly move away to cheaper to operate aircraft.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Apr 2019 18:19

Rahul , I was just referring to the fact that IAF has upgraded even 80's and 90's procured Mirage and Mig-29 so upgrading a late 90's procured Airframe should not be a concern , IAF has already exchanged the oldest of MK bought from Russia after using most of its life but after overhaul in Irkut this is still being used by AF of another country.

So I dont see age of the airframe would be an impedement but yes upgrading 300 aircraft to the same standard may not be feseable due to cost reason even if 100 cr is cost of upgrade and i think that will bump up to 150 cr as time progress thats a huge money.

Mig-27 and Mig-21 in same ways had limited potential to be upgraded and the Jags were some where better off in that respect but the M2K and 29 could be upgraded to full extent possible and were top notch in their own category.

Even the current MKI is quite good , BARS are very capable , All they need is MAWS , AESA based Jammer internal and external and perhaps Towed Decoys even adding these 3 things would make it very competitive and better than Mirage and 29 upgrade. Adding new weapons or ASRAAM should be a continous process on MKI.

Singha , Check the first link I gave you with RAM quoting the Mig-21 RCS was reduced to around 0.5 m2 ....... but like I said adding external weapons/pylons or drop tank can change those figures.

Who is to say a 0.5 m2 plain jane Bison with 4 AAM and 1 central 800L drop tank does not look like a 4 m3 target to a X band radar or higher for lower freqency ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Apr 2019 18:27

we should aim to make a towed decoy ourselves since every strike a/c and CAPs will need it.

https://techtime.news/2018/03/04/elta/

Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) unveiled earlier this month a new self-protection towed decoy electronic warfare system to add another layer of self-defense for aircrafts. The system, ELL-8270, was developed by IAI’s intelligence subsidiary ELTA Group. It is towed by the aircraft, and providing protection it by luring radar-guided missiles.

The ELL-8270 is differentiated from other solutions in being completely autonomous, which means it needs no power or signals from the towing aircraft. During flights in areas threatened by enemy missiles, the decoy is deployed at a safe distance from the leading aircraft and emits signals to attract the missile, away from the aircraft. The system is capable of handling several threats simultaneously, can be used by all aircraft types and can be rolled back into the aircraft or jettisoned, if necessary.

IAI said that ELL-8270 is effective self-defense solution against all radar-guided missiles, including the most modern ones, and is aimed to be the last layer of protection after all previous defenses had failed and a missile had been launched towards the aircraft. According to the company, the new decoy is also less expensive than other solutions that achieve the same results. The ELL-8270 joins to the ELL-8212 and ELL-8222 self-defense pods, the ELL-8265 advanced warning and positioning systems and the ELL-8260 integrative self-protection suits

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 14 Apr 2019 21:13

admire the isreali mil ind complex on how it responds to new threats/situations... amazing. a product for every situation !! and making money in the process...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Apr 2019 22:10

Indeed you have to give credit to Israel for coming with Innovative and Cost Competitive product with low budget for a country whose GDP does not exceed $350 billion .....they make defence equipment that even a $5000 USD GDP Japan will find difficult to compete with

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 14 Apr 2019 23:47

Austin wrote:Rahul , As far has airframe life goes , We have upgraded all the Mirages-2000 airframe and Mig-29 except those that got crashed.

And both these airframes are atleast a decade or decade and half older than MKI.

So they can always upgrade the airframe and make its life to zero , The current Mirage and 29 upgrade has a guranteed life span of 25 years so I expect MKI upgrade would end up with similar life span and considering we still fly the Bison whose airframe was last made by HAL till Mid or was it early 80's.....these upgrade guaranteed TTL can always be enhanced

I think the upgraded mirage numbers are really small as the pace was really slow. After the latest crash, i t will be lower still...

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 15 Apr 2019 03:13

SU30MKI is our air superiority fighter, meaning that it can go against TSPAF and desensitize any air space (as we did in Kargil - Mig 29 mostly then). It was unable to in the recent skirmish. Whatever upgrade that allows it to do that should be considered. In my mind
1) Give it a very reliable Meteor type missile - R77-1, R77 SD, KS-172, r-37M, K-77, K-77ME - Whatever it is, one or combination so that it can take any PAF/Chinese AF reliably at long distance (It has the radar, range, endurance etc. to pull it off, or upgrade the radar).
2) Give it enough ECM/ECCM and other protective aides so that it can go into contested airspace and kick ass. It should be able to share info, guide missiles from other platform. (A Bison, or LCA with one of these missiles, near the target, fires, then SU30MKI at long distance guides it to target).
3) I don't think enough can be done at the stealth level, it is not build for one, reduce where required, but then make it full of radar elements (let the opposition know it is there and coming , but they cant do much about it) - have various L/K Band radar in wing, body so that it is mini-AWACS in itself.
4)A growler version
5) Update Radar, engine for the above if required.
As people have pointed out - We have a huge number, we cannot update all, update different things with different purpose in mind.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 15 Apr 2019 03:42

fanne wrote:SU30MKI is our air superiority fighter, meaning that it can go against TSPAF and desensitize any air space (as we did in Kargil - Mig 29 mostly then). It was unable to in the recent skirmish.

Very questionable statement, that completely ignores the context and situation. It did quite well in the face of an ambush and 5-6 AMRAAMs being fired while the MKIs were held back by the ROE. By the time the IAF planes had finished successfully evading 100% of the BVR missiles that were fired (an excellent accomplishment in itself) and turned to counter-attack, the Pakis had fled the area at top speed, unwilling to deal with the menace of the MKIs.

Anybody can ambush anyone and land a sucker punch. The Pakis did the former, but could not even pull off the latter. They then turned and fled back to hiding under the cover of diplomatic pressure and GOI self-restraint.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 15 Apr 2019 05:01

I agree, and perhaps mine is badly worded sentence. But what if it could have achieved the following - somehow prevented f-16 from getting a clean and continuous lock on itself (Rafael with spectra canperhaps, sukhois with some super duper ecm - maybe from the su35 program or wherever). After being fired upon and taking evasive action, acquired lock on pad f16 and shot a meteor like missile, you may have multiple f-16s down. Or perhaps like Kargil paf would have just sucked it up.
We need the sukhois at this level. It needs some very quick upgradation. Maybe just the aa missile for now