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

[Indranil]

1. When they are carrying out the same mission it will be +-10%.
2. Fuel cost only makes a marginal difference in the overall maintenance costs of different fighter aircraft. The MKI is great value for money in the Indian system.

Not doubting your calculations, but how did you arrive at the +-10% number?

No serious calculations behind it, just intuition. In terms of refinement in aerodynamics they are both pushing the ceiling which is not going to move much unless we find out better ways of generating lift and thrust. Therefore the L/D and SFC must be within +-10% when carrying the same load and travelling the same distance. Whenever the Rafale is carrying an EFT (which will be in most cases), the L/D of Su-30 is significantly better, but the the Su-30 has the higher empty weight. They end up cancelling each other.

[Indranil]

The Su-30 is a brute. It's avionics are not as refined as Rafale. The design policy is this. It's okay that my RCS is very high, because my radar is very powerful, By the time you can launch a BVR to have a meaningful chance of hitting me, I can see you too. I am big. Adding defensive suites to me doesn't degrade my performance significantly.

This "lack of sophistication" has an advantage in the Indian scenario. This is unfortunately the level of maturity of our industry. Therefore, we can maintain this aircraft with our industry. We can indigenize, innovate and upgrade. Look at the the aircraft of choice when HAL and DRDO want to test an A2G and A2A weapon.

Rafale on the other hand is "too sophisticated" for our industry. We will pay through our nose to maintain this "blackbox" aircraft. It will be our silver bullet. You can mark this post and rub it into my nose if I am proven wrong. Come MLU time, you will find that a new AMCA would cost the same as upgrading each Rafale. Just like the cost of MLU-ing each Mirage 2000 is 30% higher than the flyaway cost of each LCA Mk1A!

[chetak]

The Su-30 is a brute. It's avionics are not as refined as Rafale. The design policy is this. It's okay that my RCS is very high, because my radar is very powerful, By the time you can launch a BVR to have a meaningful chance of hitting me, I can see you too. I am big. Adding defensive suites to me doesn't degrade my performance significantly.

This "lack of sophistication" has an advantage in the Indian scenario. This is unfortunately the level of maturity of our industry. Therefore, we can maintain this aircraft with our industry. We can indigenize, innovate and upgrade. Look at the the aircraft of choice when HAL and DRDO want to test an A2G and A2A weapon.

Rafale on the other hand is "too sophisticated" for our industry. We will pay through our nose to maintain this "blackbox" aircraft. It will be our silver bullet. You can mark this post and rub it into my nose if I am proven wrong. Come MLU time, you will find that a new AMCA would cost the same as upgrading each Rafale. Just like the cost of MLU-ing each Mirage 2000 is 30% higher than the flyaway cost of each LCA Mk1A!

Indranil Sirji,

you have started to dance around the very extreme edges of the difference between the design philosophies of western and soviet, (now russian) weapon systems as indeed with many other things made by western and russian companies.

I commend you. No one else has broached this topic here so far in the way that you have.

you now have the bit firmly between your teeth and let's see how far you run with this and what other insights you uncover.

Bravo.

[Indranil]

That's all okay chetak sir, but why are you giving me a bloody nose with the "Sirji" title. You have more years and lot more real experience than I have (which is none). I am just somebody who talks a lot. I don't deserve that title.

[chetak]

That's all okay chetak sir, but why are you giving me a bloody nose with the "Sirji" title. You have more years and lot more real experience than I have (which is none). I am just somebody who talks a lot. I don't deserve that title.

It's respect.

everyone deserves it, saar.

I have few posts without this or another prefix.

I like where you are going with your last post.

[Manish_Sharma]

Assuming the numbers below are correct, 36 Rafales cost US $3.8+ billion. Weapons were another US $1.2 billion. ISE was another US $2 billion. So total cost from the first deal - minus the base infrastructure - was US $7 billion. Ambala and Hasimara can support one additional squadron each. That US $2 billion - in base infrastructure - is for that.

Order another 50 Rafales and be done with this MMRCA tamasha. Focus on Mk1A and Mk2.

But Dileep ji has made a point of ToT which raises the level of small suppliers giving his own company's example, maybe on the lines of EXIDE Battery coming to us as part of U 209 Shishumar ToT.

They are saying by the 150th a/c is made they will be manufacturing 75% with Desi obtained Raw materials.

________

Although I disbelieve that Rafale 114 + 57 = 271 manufactured here with ToT will come in 30 billion EUROS

Even for 36 flyaway Gripens Brazil paid 4.7 billion in 2011

Also by time last Rafale is manufactured 2037, Dassault would have F7 upgrade available.

MKI by mid 30s will be like our Kilo Class Submarines Tired airframes high maintenance lower availability.

Thakur ji on Twitter made point of educating us not to call Tejas Mk 2 as MWF.

Seems part of media is hyping up Mk. 2 as MWF and deliberately raising expectations as M2k/Mig 29 capabilities, so later they can present it as, "... its payload is 200 kilo lesser than M2000 OR range 150 km less than Baaz..."

[Indranil]

Mk2 and MWF are one and the same. The Mk2 proposal was made to the government before the MWF marketing name was chosen. That project with the government (namely Mk2) is funded.

[chetak]

The Su-30 is a brute. It's avionics are not as refined as Rafale. The design policy is this. It's okay that my RCS is very high, because my radar is very powerful, By the time you can launch a BVR to have a meaningful chance of hitting me, I can see you too. I am big. Adding defensive suites to me doesn't degrade my performance significantly.

This "lack of sophistication" has an advantage in the Indian scenario. This is unfortunately the level of maturity of our industry. Therefore, we can maintain this aircraft with our industry. We can indigenize, innovate and upgrade. Look at the the aircraft of choice when HAL and DRDO want to test an A2G and A2A weapon.

Rafale on the other hand is "too sophisticated" for our industry. We will pay through our nose to maintain this "blackbox" aircraft. It will be our silver bullet. You can mark this post and rub it into my nose if I am proven wrong. Come MLU time, you will find that a new AMCA would cost the same as upgrading each Rafale. Just like the cost of MLU-ing each Mirage 2000 is 30% higher than the flyaway cost of each LCA Mk1A!

Indranil Sirji,

Request that you please develop this further as your thoughts have merit.

[nachiket]

No serious calculations behind it, just intuition. In terms of refinement in aerodynamics they are both pushing the ceiling which is not going to move much unless we find out better ways of generating lift and thrust. Therefore the L/D and SFC must be within +-10% when carrying the same load and travelling the same distance. Whenever the Rafale is carrying an EFT (which will be in most cases), the L/D of Su-30 is significantly better, but the the Su-30 has the higher empty weight. They end up cancelling each other.

Thanks.

[Cain Marko]

The Su-30 is a brute. It's avionics are not as refined as Rafale. The design policy is this. It's okay that my RCS is very high, because my radar is very powerful, By the time you can launch a BVR to have a meaningful chance of hitting me, I can see you too. I am big. Adding defensive suites to me doesn't degrade my performance significantly.

This "lack of sophistication" has an advantage in the Indian scenario. This is unfortunately the level of maturity of our industry. Therefore, we can maintain this aircraft with our industry. We can indigenize, innovate and upgrade. Look at the the aircraft of choice when HAL and DRDO want to test an A2G and A2A weapon.

Rafale on the other hand is "too sophisticated" for our industry. We will pay through our nose to maintain this "blackbox" aircraft. It will be our silver bullet. You can mark this post and rub it into my nose if I am proven wrong. Come MLU time, you will find that a new AMCA would cost the same as upgrading each Rafale. Just like the cost of MLU-ing each Mirage 2000 is 30% higher than the flyaway cost of each LCA Mk1A!

Well put Indranil. Couldn't agree more. The flanker will provide a tremendous platform to refine, and customize as time passes. In time I imagine much of that is developed in-house will find it's way on this bird.

[Kartik]

I take that back, it’s $250 million a plane, which is eye-watering. There may be a way to justify it, but I don’t see how it can be justified. Even the US balked at paying $150 million for F-22.

The base price seems reasonable & there might be a way to haggle & use juggad to get he final price closer to the base price - but at $250 million a pop, I find it hard to justify buying any more.

US $105 million is the base, bare bones cost of the Rafale.

Once you add in the ISE + weapons, the unit cost in the first batch of 36 Rafales comes to US $194+ million per plane. I am not including the base infrastructure. Now the French are reportedly offering another 36 Rafales for under US $6 billion. Based on the figures above, I am confident that it includes the base cost + ISE + weapons. Using $6 billion as a benchmark, that works out to $166+ million per plane.

Assuming that report is true, US $166 million x 50 aircraft = $US 8.3 billion. I am hoping on the 50 number - as a second tranche - primarily because of attrition reserves + TACDE. 80 aircraft in four squadrons of 20 aircraft each (18 aircraft + 2 attrition reserves) + 6 aircraft for TACDE. Order the second batch in flyaway condition and get offsets via components.

Invest in more Mk1A squadrons (another 2 - 4 more units). Get another 1 - 2 more units of Su-30MKIs + the 1 unit of MiG-29s (21 aircraft).

And cancel MMRCA contract. Waste of time and money.

You don't have to add the cost of ISE. ISE was the developmental cost for the Indian Specific Enhancements. It makes a lot of sense to now amortise that cost over a larger number of airframes.

If another order of 36 Rafales is placed, it should cost ~ $3.6 billion for the airframes and engines, ~1.2 billion for the weapons for these 36 and possibly some money for a PBL. But no ISE nor any base development costs.

[Kartik]

Not doubting your calculations, but how did you arrive at the +-10% number?

No serious calculations behind it, just intuition. In terms of refinement in aerodynamics they are both pushing the ceiling which is not going to move much unless we find out better ways of generating lift and thrust. Therefore the L/D and SFC must be within +-10% when carrying the same load and travelling the same distance. Whenever the Rafale is carrying an EFT (which will be in most cases), the L/D of Su-30 is significantly better, but the the Su-30 has the higher empty weight. They end up cancelling each other.

How does that work? Are you suggesting that a AL-31FN consumes just 10% more fuel per pound of thrust it generates than a M-88? Even then, the MKI is significantly heavier than a Rafale and would consume more fuel just to maintain the same speed, assuming similar drag indices and similar fuel fraction.

[LakshmanPST]

I think India specific enhancements are only developmental costs... It is also a one time payment apart from base development costs...
If that's the case, 36 Rafales in new order will come out to be $3.8B + $1.2B, which is $5 Billion + Inflation...
That's around $140 Million per aircraft...
If we buy 50 Rafales, it will be $7 Billion + Inflation...

[Nikhil T]

Can someone educate why we're not adding the base infrastructure and ISE in the costs?

Per the table below,
1. Base costs will cover extra shelters to store the planes - do we not need those? How do we expect Ambala and Hashimara to accomodate an extra squadron? Did they construct extra shelters for free (unlikely) or will they kick out an existing squadron?

2. ISE - It covers a Performance Based Logistics agreement, which is dependent upon the number of planes we purchase. A similar agreement for C-17 just cost us $670 million (link) Are we expecting free logistics for any new planes?

[Nikhil T]

US $105 million is the base, bare bones cost of the Rafale.

Once you add in the ISE + weapons, the unit cost in the first batch of 36 Rafales comes to US $194+ million per plane. I am not including the base infrastructure. Now the French are reportedly offering another 36 Rafales for under US $6 billion. Based on the figures above, I am confident that it includes the base cost + ISE + weapons. Using $6 billion as a benchmark, that works out to $166+ million per plane.

Assuming that report is true, US $166 million x 50 aircraft = $US 8.3 billion. I am hoping on the 50 number - as a second tranche - primarily because of attrition reserves + TACDE. 80 aircraft in four squadrons of 20 aircraft each (18 aircraft + 2 attrition reserves) + 6 aircraft for TACDE. Order the second batch in flyaway condition and get offsets via components.

Invest in more Mk1A squadrons (another 2 - 4 more units). Get another 1 - 2 more units of Su-30MKIs + the 1 unit of MiG-29s (21 aircraft).

And cancel MMRCA contract. Waste of time and money.

No, sir. Not under USD 6 billion, but rather EUR 6 billion (~USD 6.7B) per link.

[Cybaru]

ISE has all the India specific development costs in it. It is a one time cost. It is not the performance-based maintenance cost.

[LakshmanPST]

Can someone educate why we're not adding the base infrastructure and ISE in the costs?

Per the table below,
1. Base costs will cover extra shelters to store the planes - do we not need those? How do we expect Ambala and Hashimara to accomodate an extra squadron? Did they construct extra shelters for free (unlikely) or will they kick out an existing squadron?

At both Ambala & Hashimara, shelters were constructed for 36 planes each...
Total 72 planes can be accomodated... So, it need not be added in a new deal...

[JayS]

The Su-30 is a brute. It's avionics are not as refined as Rafale. The design policy is this. It's okay that my RCS is very high, because my radar is very powerful, By the time you can launch a BVR to have a meaningful chance of hitting me, I can see you too. I am big. Adding defensive suites to me doesn't degrade my performance significantly.

This "lack of sophistication" has an advantage in the Indian scenario. This is unfortunately the level of maturity of our industry. Therefore, we can maintain this aircraft with our industry. We can indigenize, innovate and upgrade. Look at the the aircraft of choice when HAL and DRDO want to test an A2G and A2A weapon.

Rafale on the other hand is "too sophisticated" for our industry. We will pay through our nose to maintain this "blackbox" aircraft. It will be our silver bullet. You can mark this post and rub it into my nose if I am proven wrong. Come MLU time, you will find that a new AMCA would cost the same as upgrading each Rafale. Just like the cost of MLU-ing each Mirage 2000 is 30% higher than the flyaway cost of each LCA Mk1A!

That's an excellent point.

[Karan M]

The Flanker has a basic issue in that it is so full of large Russian LRUs that adding stuff is very hard.
But improvements and upgrades are possible if we work that path. Huge volume gains if we do.
We use it to test our stuff because it has payload, range advantage over Jaguar + our parallel MC replicating the main Russian one. We add stuff that way. The Mirage upgrade replicates this approach, and likely, so will Rafale ISE.

[JayS]

No serious calculations behind it, just intuition. In terms of refinement in aerodynamics they are both pushing the ceiling which is not going to move much unless we find out better ways of generating lift and thrust. Therefore the L/D and SFC must be within +-10% when carrying the same load and travelling the same distance. Whenever the Rafale is carrying an EFT (which will be in most cases), the L/D of Su-30 is significantly better, but the the Su-30 has the higher empty weight. They end up cancelling each other.

How does that work? Are you suggesting that a AL-31FN consumes just 10% more fuel per pound of thrust it generates than a M-88? Even then, the MKI is significantly heavier than a Rafale and would consume more fuel just to maintain the same speed, assuming similar drag indices and similar fuel fraction.

Even for the same TSFC and L/D for Rafale and Su30MKI, the later will consume significantly more fuel. L and D are scaled from CL and CD with the size and for same flight profile, the scaling will roughly apply in same manner. So the D forces are scaled by size roughly, thus the Thrust required would be scaled roughly with size. Hence for same TSFC, SFC per hour will scale with size roughly speaking.

Since the scaling happens as per the wing area, flight profile being the same, and that wing area of Rafale is 45m2 vs Su30MKI's 62m2, the scaling we are talking about is roughly 1.3x from Rafale to Su30MKI.

Wiki numbers tell that TSFC numbers for M88 are ~10% lesser than those for AL31. This 10% difference will be applicable on above scaled difference.

Lets say a overall scaling factor of 1.5 for fuel consumption is not a bad approximation.

In India Jet fuel costs almost same as Diesel per liter. For a mission requiring 6000kg fuel for Rafale, say Su30MKI uses 10000kg fuel, then the cost impact is apprx 70rs x 4000kg / 0.8 kg/liter = Rs 3.5L per mission ~ $5000USD

Assuming effective say 60 missions/per yr (Su30MKI flying with 10T fuel will easily spend 2-3hrs in air >> ~150 hr/yr utilization, which is reasonable approximation, I feel) >> total additional fuel impact per year per Su30MKI >> $0.3M/yr

Scale it up to 40yrs >> $12M

actual life cycle cost impact would be 2-3x of this amount considering inflation >> lets say a conservative number of $30-40M

very rough calculations done with very less thinking so take it FWIW.

[chetak]

The Su-30 is a brute. It's avionics are not as refined as Rafale. The design policy is this. It's okay that my RCS is very high, because my radar is very powerful, By the time you can launch a BVR to have a meaningful chance of hitting me, I can see you too. I am big. Adding defensive suites to me doesn't degrade my performance significantly.

This "lack of sophistication" has an advantage in the Indian scenario. This is unfortunately the level of maturity of our industry. Therefore, we can maintain this aircraft with our industry. We can indigenize, innovate and upgrade. Look at the the aircraft of choice when HAL and DRDO want to test an A2G and A2A weapon.

Rafale on the other hand is "too sophisticated" for our industry. We will pay through our nose to maintain this "blackbox" aircraft. It will be our silver bullet. You can mark this post and rub it into my nose if I am proven wrong. Come MLU time, you will find that a new AMCA would cost the same as upgrading each Rafale. Just like the cost of MLU-ing each Mirage 2000 is 30% higher than the flyaway cost of each LCA Mk1A!

That's an excellent point.

that is why I requested that this point be developed further

[manjgu]

SU 30 requiring 2 man crew also adds to lifecycle costs? i was wondering while 2 man crew places additional strain, with IAF down to 30+ squadorns, has the no of pilots being recruited increased or decreased??

[Manish_Sharma]

...Therefore the L/D and SFC must be within +-10% when carrying the same load and travelling the same distance. Whenever the Rafale is carrying an EFT (which will be in most cases), the L/D of Su-30 is significantly better, but the the Su-30 has the higher empty weight. They end up cancelling each other....

RAFALE:

Empty weight:
10,300 kilograms
9,850 kilograms
10,600 kilograms

Loaded weight: 15,000 kilograms

Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 kilograms (B/C/D)

Fuel capacity: 4,700 kg internal for single-seater

4,400 kg for two-seater (B)

Powerplant: 2 × Snecma M88-2 turbofans
Dry thrust: 50.04 kN each

Thrust with afterburner: 75 kN each[/b]

Su 30MKI :

Empty weight: 18,400 kg

Loaded weight: 26,090 kg (typical mission weight)

Max. takeoff weight: 38,800 kg

Powerplant: 2 × Lyulka AL-31FP turbofans,
Dry thrust 123 kN each

How can a max take off Su 30 MKI 38.8 Ton with two 123kN engines burn almost same fuel as

Rafale with Max take off 24.5 Ton with two 50 kN engines?

[Aditya_V]

You are comparing dry thrust of Rafale with Wet Thrust of Su-30 MKI, For Rafale max wet thrust is 150KN while for Su-30MKI its 246KN. The AL 31FP Dry thrust is much lower than 123KN at around 75Kn

[Manish_Sharma]

^Nope you are wrong Rafale engine WET THRUST IS 75kN

I am correct, Rafale DRY THRUST: 50 kN

MKI DRY THRUST IS 123kN

ALL of the 3 engines:
EJ200
SNECMA M88
GE 414

WET Thrust lesser than 90 kN for sure

[Aditya_V]

Rafale Snecma M88- 2 Dry Thrust ~50KN each =100KN , wet thrust -75KnEach *2 =150KN
Su 30 MKI AL 31FP - 2 Dry Thrust ~ 75KN Each = 150KN, wet thrust - 123KN each = 246KN.

Obviously the SU-30MKI will consume atleast 50% more fuel since the engine and fighter are larger and heavier and develop more thrust. The question is considering acquisition, PBL/ Spare parts cost will Rafale still be cheaper - the answer is probaly NO.

The Rafale will have some clear advantages over the Su 30 MKI- much smaller radar cross section, AESA radar, Scalp, MICA missile and Metoer Combo.

But SU 30 MKI with the amount of customized weapons load, Brahmos, future R-33 will also be deadly. Together they will be very good for the IAF.

[Rakesh]

ISE has all the India specific development costs in it. It is a one time cost. It is not the performance-based maintenance cost.

You don't have to add the cost of ISE. ISE was the developmental cost for the Indian Specific Enhancements. It makes a lot of sense to now amortise that cost over a larger number of airframes.

If another order of 36 Rafales is placed, it should cost ~ $3.6 billion for the airframes and engines, ~1.2 billion for the weapons for these 36 and possibly some money for a PBL. But no ISE nor any base development costs.

My fault, I did not think of that.

Just a question....on those ISE equipment, there will be a cost associated with them. So while the development costs will be excluded, the cost of the equipment itself will have to be included. Or am I mistaken here?

[Rakesh]

No, sir. Not under USD 6 billion, but rather EUR 6 billion (~USD 6.7B) per link.

My bad! And please no Sir.

I got caught up in the almighty US dollar!

[Cain Marko]

Folks need to take into account mission profiles for such calculations...
For longer ranged missions, the mki will have a better drag profile than rafale, which will have to hang massive EFTs to match the MKI range.

Say, the mki is topped up with 10 tons fuel and 4 AAMs ...30 tons, range is about 3000km. High altitude.

Now for a rafale to achieve that kind of range with that kind of load at altitude how much external fuel would it have to carry? IIRC on internal fuel alone without any weapons, it's range is about 2000km. A full 1000km more is needed to match the flanker. plus 4 AAMs.

What we can vaguely surmise is that if the rafale carried about 7000kg fuell internally, it could achieve about 3000km. But it can't. It will have to carry a minimum of 1.5 times it's internal fuel to match that 3000km figure. And that's without weapons. It's also without considering increased drag from weight, let alone via EFTs.

Fwiw, I remember a USAF guy pointing out on keypubs that pound for pound the flanker has the best range thanks to it's internal fuel carrying capacity.

I feel Indranil is right in his calculations unnees bees ka farak hai. At longer ranges, the mki is possibly more efficient that the rafale.

[chetak]

Folks need to take into account mission profiles for such calculations...
For longer ranged missions, the mki will have a better drag profile than rafale, which will have to hang massive EFTs to match the MKI range.

Say, the mki is topped up with 10 tons fuel and 4 AAMs ...30 tons, range is about 3000km. High altitude.

Now for a rafale to achieve that kind of range with that kind of load at altitude how much external fuel would it have to carry? IIRC on internal fuel alone without any weapons, it's range is about 2000km. A full 1000km more is needed to match the flanker. plus 4 AAMs.

What we can vaguely surmise is that if the rafale carried about 7000kg fuell internally, it could achieve about 3000km. But it can't. It will have to carry a minimum of 1.5 times it's internal fuel to match that 3000km figure. And that's without weapons. It's also without considering increased drag from weight, let alone via EFTs.

Fwiw, I remember a USAF guy pointing out on keypubs that pound for pound the flanker has the best range thanks to it's internal fuel carrying capacity.

I feel Indranil is right in his calculations unnees bees ka farak hai. At longer ranges, the mki is possibly more efficient that the rafale.

There was a fairly serious proposal in the US about buying bare bones flanker airframes and outfitting them completely with US weapons, avionics and power plants.

wonder what happened to that thought process?

[Indranil]

Kartik,

As you know carrying fuel externally is extremely inefficient. I forgot the name of the ratio, but it describes the fraction of the external fuel, if carried internally that would give equivalent performance*. Typically this ratio lies around 0.3 to 0.5 for well-designed fuel tanks. To give you an example, LCA Mk1's fuel tanks are not optimally designed(they are doing so now). Adding the third centerline fuel tank hardly increases any range over the two wing EFTs. You would be surprised that this is not very uncommon. Rafale to its credit had one of the best designed EFT (thanks to work done on the Mirage 2000).

If the sortie is short, say less than two hours with A2A or light ground attack role, the Rafale would require considerably less fuel. I have to do the math there but in the range of 30%.

But the moment the Rafale has to put on the EFTs, the Sukhois advantage starts to climb. For example, with full internal fuel of 9.65 tons, the su-30 can stay aloft for over 4.5 hours. For the same kind of loiter time, the Rafale would need three 2000 ltr tanks. The above is not a guesstimate. You followed the Brazillian competition closely. You will also know this. That is the Rafale would need 4.8 tons of internal fuel + 3 * 0.8 * 2000 of external fuel which is also roughly 9.6 tons. You can give or take 10% here and there.

*Sometimes, it is expressed in reverse: Fraction of the fuel carried in external fuel tanks which is used to overcome the drag penalty of the EFTs.

[Kartik]

My fault, I did not think of that.

Just a question....on those ISE equipment, there will be a cost associated with them. So while the development costs will be excluded, the cost of the equipment itself will have to be included. Or am I mistaken here?

AFAIK, the ISE includes both hardware addition and software enhancements. There is talk of a new jammer pod and HMDS (although Qatari Rafales have been spotted with what appeared to be the Targo HMDS, a shocker considering its Israeli) which would have to be procured separately (just as additional LDPs may be needed) but the rest of ISE appears to be mostly software changes to improve on existing capabilities for radar, engine and FLIR and who knows what else. We don't know how much more the additional hardware will cost, but it most certainly won't be anywhere near the price paid for the ISE enhancements.

Someone else was asking about base development costs. The big cost there is not for shelters. It is for the training equipment, the simulators, the maintenance tools and software, the mission planning tools and software, the debrief tools and software plus the spares storage and inventory management on these 2 bases..all the stuff required to keep the Rafale fleet flying fit. And as far as we know, the money spent in the first 36 Rafale deal already catered to the support of ~72 Rafales or more. It is similar to the Mirage-2000 story- Maharajpur AFS could support more Mirages if required. The original idea was for a fleet of ~150 Mirage-2000s with HAL license assembly and the infrastructure to support that fleet size was planned for and partially set up. That number never materialized.

[Kartik]

Kartik,

As you know carrying fuel externally is extremely inefficient. I forget the name of the ratio, but it is the ratio of amount of fuel carried internally for equivalent performance gain as the fuel carried externally. This number is between typically around 0.3 for very well designed fuel tanks if I remember correctly. To give you an example, LCA Mk1's fuel tanks are not optimally designed(they are doing so now). Adding the third centerline fuel tank hardly increases any range over the two wing EFTs. You would be surprised that this is not very uncommon. Rafale to its credit had one of the best designed EFT (thanks to work done on the Mirage 2000).

If the sortie is short, say less than two hours with A2A or light ground attack role, the Rafale would require considerably less fuel. I have to do the math there but in the range of 30%.

But the moment the Rafale has to put on the EFTs, the Sukhois advantage starts to climb. For example, with full internal fuel of 9.65 tons, the su-30 can stay aloft for over 4.5 hours. For the same kind of loiter time, the Rafale would need three 2000 ltr tanks. The above is not a guesstimate. You followed the Brazillian competition closely. You will also know this. That is the Rafale would need 4.8 tons of internal fuel + 3 * 0.8 * 2000 of external fuel which is also roughly 9.6 tons. You can give or take 10% here and there.

As I see it, the SFC of the M-88 is lower than the AL-31FN. Given that the SFC of 2 X M-88s will be much lower than that of 2 X AL-31FNs, the rate at which internal fuel will be consumed will be greater on a Su-30 than on a Rafale. So even if the Rafale and Su-30 weighed the same, the Su-30 is using up its internal fuel faster than Rafale. The Rafale carries less internal fuel but also weighs a lot less than a Su-30 (empty, normal, max, whichever weight).

For 80% of the sorties that a typical fighter squadron performs on a daily basis, this will be the case. The bulk of the sorties performed are training sorties that won't last longer than 60-70 minutes and EFTs are not needed for that duration mission. Having heard numerous fighter pilots' interviews, the amount of time it takes to plan for a mission, conduct briefing, carry out the mission and then undergo debrief, it is rarely possible to do more than 2 sorties, that too if sortie duration is 30-45 minutes only.

Over 40 years of service, that is a lot of sorties. And for 80% of those missions, the Rafale will consume far less fuel than a Su-30. JayS has come up with some ballpark figure which should be good enough for argument's sake. And you know that fuel is one the biggest contributors to the life cycle cost of any platform.

I agree that whenever there will be missions where duration is longer and EFTs will be required, the Su-30's huge internal fuel volume will mean it has an advantage in not needing EFTs. But, over a fleet of 250+ fighters, the Su-30 fleet's operational expenditure will be very high.

[Philip]

The IAF's reluctance to buy more large numbers of MKIs
probably stems more from the fact and costs of operating a two-seat aircraft and not its capability. It has a pilot shortage from prev.. reports.The cost of two pilots from training, housing, family support, etc. is also double.
This is also perhaps why the IA prefers more cheaper 3- man T- series MBTs of which it has around 2500+, instead of low numbers of 4-man A- series, which has a large import content whose costs of spares are going up steadily and has a smaller local support chain.

More numbers of cheaper medium sized aircraft equipped with the same BVR, WVR and PGM weaponry
would be more cost-effective given that around 300 MKIs will ultimately serve with the IAF.This could be 1/3rd. of a planned 45 sqd. IAF which has another approx. 300 each of medium aircraft and LCAs ( including the now heavier " medium" Mk-2 ).The only fly in the ointment is the v.higb cost of the Rafale which brings back the MKI into the ring as an option and the other contenders in MMRCA 2.

[Karan M]

The MKI program was a troubled child in many ways due to the complexity of the aircraft, missing systems which had to be retrofitted (and not all worked out), DRDO/HAL/IAF all had a role to play in missing key capabilities, maintenance issues and the usual Russian bullcrap regarding TOT. Even so, by 2014, we had 59% serviceability and most of the biggest issues had been worked out.

By 2018, we were at 65%+ and establishing more ROH capabilities w/in India. Getting more companies involved.

However, now we are well on our way to have our own advanced Eagle equivalent. We just need to stay the course and invest in the fleet as Indian industry/DRDO ramp up. A plethora of EW, sensors, weapons suites are in the works. Constant improvement should be our byword and we need to keep adding capabilities.

For understanding what we can (and should do) with the Flanker, read this:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/1 ... d-treasure

[Singha]

israel even made MLRS out of old sherman tanks. we need to learn from them how to use what is a very good bare airframe and internal fuel.

[Cain Marko]

Interestingly some upgrades that might be considered have already been demoed on the flanker...
Increased internal fuel
Increased external fuel
More powerful engines
Leading edge radar
Tail boom radar
Maws, internal jammer, wingtip and podded ecm
Newer irst
Newer cockpit and displays

Frankly though I don't expect the IAF to upgrade this beast just yet. In its current form it is more than a match for anything TSP can throw at it as was seen from it's evasion of the mighty Amraam c5. The big Bird simply shrugged off the slammer. If they wanted to, the flanker pilots could've easily taken the fight to the f16s by using the bars and r27s. Note the extra stockpiling of this missile post balakot. The MKIs are saving their entree for the main course.

The upgrade will probably happen when the izd30 is fully ready and debugged, say 2025. This along with a newer aesa and other sensors will be the highlight of the upgrades.

Till then bars + r27/astra/r77, r73+sura+tvc are enough for any viper as seen from the many dact exercises these birds have been in.

[srai]

Not doubting your calculations, but how did you arrive at the +-10% number?

No serious calculations behind it, just intuition. In terms of refinement in aerodynamics they are both pushing the ceiling which is not going to move much unless we find out better ways of generating lift and thrust. Therefore the L/D and SFC must be within +-10% when carrying the same load and travelling the same distance. Whenever the Rafale is carrying an EFT (which will be in most cases), the L/D of Su-30 is significantly better, but the the Su-30 has the higher empty weight. They end up cancelling each other.

This study may be of interest to you.

Measuring Effects of Payload and Radius Differences of Fighter Aircraft (F-16 C Block50 vs F-15E)

[Austin]

At MAKS 2019 , RVV-BD LRAAM and R-77-1 BVRAAM on Su-35 Wings

[Austin]

Su-35S , Check the maneuver starts at 3:27