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

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
shaun
BRFite
Posts: 986
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby shaun » 14 Sep 2019 14:17

JayS wrote:What is this ugly looking (unpainted??) patch on Su30MKI for, below the cockpit..?? Many Su30MKI have them but not all.

May be due to the gun / canon

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1603
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

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

Postby Khalsa » 14 Sep 2019 16:01

shaun wrote:
JayS wrote:What is this ugly looking (unpainted??) patch on Su30MKI for, below the cockpit..?? Many Su30MKI have them but not all.
May be due to the gun / canon

Not maybe
But exactly due to gun. The flash needs cleaning which becomes difficult when scrubbing off the paint.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7863
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 14 Sep 2019 18:36

JayS wrote:What is this ugly looking (unpainted??) patch on Su30MKI for, below the cockpit..?? Many Su30MKI have them but not all.

I believe that picture was taken on 27 September 2002...almost exactly 17 years ago, at Lohegaon AFS. This is during the raising of the first Su-30MKI squadron in the IAF - No 20 Lightnings. Then Air Commodore (later Air Chief Marshal) NAK Browne was the base commander. And Air Chief Marshal Srinivasapuram 'Kitcha' Krishnaswamy was the chief guest.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4335
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 14 Sep 2019 22:03

Rakesh, Bingo.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 22 Sep 2019 18:40

Russia to send 15 fighters to India for Indra-2019, may include Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29, Sukhoi Su-27, Su-30, Su-35

https://zeenews.india.com/world/russia- ... 35215.html

Russia has announced that more 40 military aircraft including its latest fighter jets will take part in Indra-2019, the joint tri-service military exercise with India in December 2019. Russia's Eastern Military District press service said on Tuesday that 15 fighters will be part of the contingent although it did not elaborate on the types of combat aircraft.

The Russian Air Force operates several lethal fighter jets including Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29, Sukhoi Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35. Two of the latest fighters 4++ Generation MiG-35 and 5th Generation stealth fighter Su-57 have recently joined the Russian Air Force. The Indian Air Force, too, flies the Russian MiG-29UPG and Su-30MKI jets along with MiG-21 Bison which is on the verge of being retired.

"In order to participate in joint Russian-Indian multi-service exercise, Indra, the Russian side plans to send over 40 aircraft of various types, including 15 fighter jets, about 20 military-transport aircraft and more than five army aviation helicopters to the Republic of India," Russia's Eastern Military District press service said according to TASS news agency.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 22 Sep 2019 18:41

Should be the first time either airforce would be sending types , generally they use each others aircraft for Indra Ex

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18535
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 Sep 2019 06:25

They are finally learning how to play the game. Probably send their A-team and their best kit to impress the IAF to seriously consider the Su-30 SM/ Su-35 for their upgrades, future purchases.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3246
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

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

Postby Kakkaji » 07 Oct 2019 04:11

Great news, if true. However, since it is from Rajat Pandit, needs to be taken with a ton of salt:

IAF's Sukhois to get more advanced avionics, radars

NEW DELHI: India plans to upgrade its fleet of Sukhoi-30MKI fighter jets with more advanced avionics, radars and weapons to further bolster their combat capabilities, with detailed talks currently under way with Russia for the project.

The Sukhoi upgrade project will include the latest avionics, a much more powerful radar "almost as good as an AESA (active electronically scanned array) one", state-of-the-art electronic warfare systems and the like. "There will be new computer systems for greater weapon control and integration of new missiles and PGMs (precision-guided munitions)," said a source. Forty-two of the twin-seat Sukhois, which have a cruising range of 3,200 km or a combat radius of about 1,500 km without mid-air refuelling, are also to be armed with the supersonic BrahMos cruise missiles to constitute a deadly package of precision-strike capability from long or "stand-off distances".

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18535
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 07 Oct 2019 04:49

Darn it. So this means an Irbis variant. I had hoped for the FGFA AESA. This will return range parity vis a vis the advanced designs available worldwide, but the interesting thing is the gimbal, which will allow for some heavy duty BVR maneuvering. The EW part is the most critical.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 07 Oct 2019 05:05

I am telling you, in about 10 years time MWF and Rafale will be the most cutting edge fighters in IAF inventory. The Sukhois will be the brawn, which is a pity. Because those airframes are as beautiful and as effective as hell.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3084
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 07 Oct 2019 06:25

and they are so big that anything can be put into it in any combination. If Russia does not give us - here is my wish list

1.A gimballed AESA radar (perhaps an Uttam derivative, can be FGFA) - The biggest range of all fighters, best resolution (only because it can, given the space and being non stealthy, it does not have to play the sneaky game of LO platforms to somehow hide its presence. Physics dictate that once you let out EM waves (radar waves), LPI or not others can see it)
2.Side cheek and rear facing aesas, fused with multiple IRST/Laser rangers
3.Basically giving it unparalleled ability to track both LO and non LO targets, best in the world. Lo targets to the extent it can be tracked. If Rafale or Eurofaighter or f-35 can see a F-22 at x distance, SU30MKI upg can perhaps see at 2x to 4x distance. Will come handy against the northern enemy
4.State of art EW to block any BVR or targeting. A Spectra kind of on a SU30MKI.
5.Full digital Cockpit (like LCA sport), all fused data (with AI) presented to both pilots
6.AAM to go with the above capability, both active and passive, extra long ranged (with dual launchers, so one of them effectively carries enough to fire all and make life hell for even LO platforms
7.Wet wings to carry more fuels, better engine al-51, more power to make the above happen
8. A compliment of A-G weapons, all perhaps long distance one...

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2019 06:38

4x the detection range compared to a 1500+ T/R module 2nd generation AESA radar? What quantum leap in radar capability are you in possession of under your wish list scenario :) how will you add side cheek arrays to a fighter not designed for one? Same with multiple IRST etc

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3084
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 07 Oct 2019 06:46

Combination of AESA (multiple different bands) + Multiple IRST + Multi Channel RWR (fused with other aircrafts - as soon as an enemy craft fires up its radar, triangulation tells where it is, even if it is LO), some fangled quantum coupling (and radar waves being sent out as thus - I can dream right), the non weight bearing skin of the aircraft have different sensors to detect enemy plane (when a plane is flying, it is hitting the air around it, energizing it, some ways to catch that, IR of some ways air molecule then come to lower state of energy...)
MKI has the space (it is as big as IL-38), things can be put there.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1806
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 07 Oct 2019 07:20

The article doesn't mention engine upgrade ? IMO, it's the most fundamental part of the upgrade. Once that is finalized, the power budget of the radar can be finalized.

I'd be personally disappointed if we don't use an Uttam-derived radar for our Sukhois. Not just as a matter of decision-making but also my expectations for the maturity of our own AESA radar.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 07 Oct 2019 08:03

fanne wrote:and they are so big that anything can be put into it in any combination. If Russia does not give us - here is my wish list
........

4.State of art EW to block any BVR or targeting. A Spectra kind of on a SU30MKI.



Our MKIs are probably best to be 'Growler ka Baap' parellel project should be to have 63 Su 30s transformed as Super Growlers :



Then we see the great Tibetan air defense and where it stands

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2437
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Oct 2019 08:42

Possible to do with 8251 escort jammers and Siva pods. Should have ordered 40 more mki or just get new builds with upgraded stuff!

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2437
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Oct 2019 11:08

Dunno how accurate this info is but http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2013/10/clearing-mist-on-airborne-ew-suites.html suggests "Shown below is the DARE-designed EW suite architecture for the Super Su-30MKI, inclusive of the MAWS, RWR, LWR and CMDS installations. Interestingly, the scale-model is shown equipped with twin wingtip-mounted escort jamming pods and a belly-mounted and DARE-developed SIVA HADF pod. The IAF is expected to select the EL/L-8251 jammers for the SEAD version of the Super Su-30MKI.

The DEAD-optimised Super Su-30MKI, on the other hand, will be equipped with the SIVA pod along with four Kh-31P Krypton supersonic anti-radiation missiles."


Image

Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18535
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 07 Oct 2019 12:17

Indranil wrote:I am telling you, in about 10 years time MWF and Rafale will be the most cutting edge fighters in IAF inventory. The Sukhois will be the brawn, which is a pity. Because those airframes are as beautiful and as effective as hell.


That's if we dont use the MWF tech to put the Su-30 through another MLU. That Irbis derivative will be very powerful in BVR for sure. I just wish we had the FGFA style AESA... but check this out.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3806
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 07 Oct 2019 12:53

Hmm, I'm not so convinced with that Rajat Pandit article. There have been many speculations so far but nothing has come through. I wouldn't be surprised if the IAF just went for a more advanced Bars derivative with irbis TWT. That should produce equally good range specs, iirc 400km for 3msq, which is ridiculous. Or get the FGFA radar.

Would like to see other mods in the following departments:
More powerful engines - preferably izd 30
Better OLS
L band radar embedded in wing leading edges
More internal and external fuel options. With 3 x 2000 lts EFTs + dorsal CFT, I don't see why the MKI couldn't be an amazing buddy refueller. Would hopefully mitigate the scarcity of dedicated tankers.
More composite usage by weight. IIRC, the MiG 29K and 35 use of composites went up quite a bit over the original frames.
Internal jammer plus podded jammers
MAWs + LWS

AFAIK the Su-35 already has all of the above. Image shows the optical sensors:

Image

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2437
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Oct 2019 22:39

I think there is a lot of scope with the MKI platform. IAF should consider adding another 2-3 squadrons of the improved directly once the super-30 platform is settled on.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2019 22:58

Manish_Sharma wrote:
fanne wrote:and they are so big that anything can be put into it in any combination. If Russia does not give us - here is my wish list
........

4.State of art EW to block any BVR or targeting. A Spectra kind of on a SU30MKI.



Our MKIs are probably best to be 'Growler ka Baap' parellel project should be to have 63 Su 30s transformed as Super Growlers :


Despite external appearances, the EA-18 is a radical modification on the F-18E that it happens to be based on. Short of completely re-building the Su-30's, it is going to be difficult to convert them into a stand-off, stand-in and escort jammer capable of deploying non kinetic effects across the entire electromagnetic spectrum. It may just be easier to perform such levels of transformation/surgery on something based on the MWF given that a variant can be designed in from the very start. Missions like Escort jamming and using DEAD weapons is something the SU-30 already does or can do.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2437
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Oct 2019 23:05

Well wasn't the reason EA-18 had to go through surgery was due to lack of space? Pull out the gun - use that space for electronics etc? It may not be necessary for SU-30 to go through that.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2019 23:09

Cybaru wrote:Well wasn't the reason EA-18 had to go through surgery was due to lack of space? Pull out the gun - use that space for electronics etc? It may not be necessary for SU-30 to go through that.


No it was not just because of "lack of space". The entire internal wiring is different, as are most of the mission systems that are involved in its role. The Low Band transmitters in the jammer connect internally and essentially use the entire body of the aircraft as an antenna for transmitting. Ever notice why the LBT is only carried in the centrally mounted hardpoint/pod and CANNOT be carried elsewhere unlike the Mid or High band transmitters? The communication jammer likewise has to be insulated from other jammers and the aircraft's communication systems need to be shielded so that comms can be preserved when jamming i.e. not only do receivers receive when jamming is ongoing so that you can deploy your ARM without shutting off your jammers, your voice and data comms need to function as well since most EA missions require some degree of cooperation. The frequency bands covered by the 3-4 different type of transmitter systems on the -99's operate from UHF right through Ka band and above. The system internally has to support this particularly when operating the low-band transmitters. On top of this the systems internally need to be robust enough to absorb a 3-4 times increase in power output that is coming with the Next Gen. Jammer...and not break every other link in the chain that allows it to do what it does..
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Oct 2019 23:26, edited 2 times in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2437
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Oct 2019 23:13

It is still worth using the MKI over the MWF for this.

1. The MKI is here and being manufactured.
2. It has the space, range and powerful engines
3. The upgrade is being worked out to add more powerful engines and a rework is in place.
4. Adding 2 more squadrons that are dedicated would be the easiest bet moving forward.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2019 23:16

I was simply speaking of somehow turning the MKI into a Super-Growler via a Super-30 upgrade package. Modifications are unlikely to result in anything like that. Could you design, and build a Growler like MKI from the ground up with a set budget and new builds for acquisition? Sure! Do I think something like this will be done? I doubt it.. I think the Su-30 platform will continue to serve as an escort jammer and DEAD platform. But i don't think anyone is committing any resources to turn it into a wide-band multi-mission (SO, SI and Escort) EA platform because the IAF and other operators have to balance out budgets with upgrades and needs across a wide set of missions and not just one or two. At the end of the day they will balance all of that with cost and a reasonable upgrade schedule.

[I'm also not sure what the deal is with engine power. Stand Off Jamming cannot be supported by organic power. You need external power to get the output for the transmitter and to cycle the cooling]..

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2437
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Oct 2019 23:26

Yeah - aren't the growler pods using built in RAT pods on the jammers? Even the 8251 needs external power through RATs. I agree organic power may not be enough. But if there is a newer more powerful engine, the amount needed from external RATs can be reduced.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2019 23:29

Cybaru wrote:Yeah - aren't the growler pods using built in RAT pods on the jammers? Even the 8251 needs external power through RATs. I agree organic power may not be enough. But if there is a newer more powerful engine, the amount needed from external RATs can be reduced.


I am not aware of transmitters and jammer pods that have the ability to mix and match between organic power and that derived from RAT. Besides, it would be great if organic power increase is enough to offset any higher internal mission system demand. AESA radars, and other Electronic Warfare systems consume a lot of power especially if you are going for giant leaps in capability. I'm not sure which Stand Off Jammer pods are on offer but when you go into Mid and High band pods you absolutely need tons of external power and any surplus organic power will be trivial at best.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2437
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Oct 2019 23:31

How much power do you need for mid and high bands?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2019 23:38

Cybaru wrote:How much power do you need for mid and high bands?


Depends upon design choice and bands covered, number of transmitter antennas, performance requirements (no of targets, stand off range,types of threats etc. etc. etc.). The US Navy mandated a threshold of 65 kW (20-25K ft. altitude though objective requirement was >65kW @ >30K ft altitude) per enclosed AN/ALQ-249 pod (for the Mid-Band mission), and the High-Band mission (though is still being defined) will likely require > 80kW. The USN funded test demonstrations and power up testing of enclosed RAT solutions right up to 90 kW of power generation in anticipation of future requirements for high-band mission needs. When you get into covering MMW the efficiency falls drastically and you need a ton of power to manage both the transmitters but also the thermal system keeping them cool. The Stand-Off mission consumes the most power (and basically is the design limiter and the reason why you need three seperate pods to cover the spectrum instead of single pod escort options that exist, that cover wider frequency range) and therefore defines the overall needs of the system (which is obviously more than capable of performing the stand in or escort mission even though it's a bit of an overkill for them).

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 08 Oct 2019 03:03

^^^ These solutions can be engineered. The decision has to be made. Has IAF signalled a need for a Growler MKI?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 08 Oct 2019 03:18

Indranil wrote:^^^ These solutions can be engineered. The decision has to be made. Has IAF signalled a need for a Growler MKI?


Besides user posts here and a general wish list, I have not read any indication of the IAF wanting to turn the MKI into a multi mission/role stand off electronic attack platform nor initiating any long term investments to arrive to that end state, as far as engineering the said solutions are concerned. Ideally, if this were to be a part of the MLU they would have been in some sort of advanced development either in India or Russia given the time required to develop the number of systems required to execute on that. Instead, focus seems to be squarely on enhancing the survivability and lethality of the MKI via mission system and engine enhancements. Those will probably be fairly extensive, SU-35 derived along with indigenous systems, and will likely consume most of next decade to validate and retrofit.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 08 Oct 2019 04:34

I have not heard of any IAF interest either. As you have mentioned before, these cannot be an MLU solution. It has to be custom made solution from the ground up, very much like the Growler. They are not swingrole fighters. The only thing in common in the basic airframe. This development will not be cheap and hence difficult to justify to the funding agencies. It would have been easier if PLAAF/PAF has those capabilities. But, since they don't, IAF will invest in whatever is possible using pod based solutions. That's where all the chatter is in India (Siva etc.), China (J-15D/16D) and Russia.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7171
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 08 Oct 2019 04:43

Indranil wrote:This development will not be cheap and hence difficult to justify to the funding agencies. It would have been easier if PLAAF/PAF has those capabilities. But, since they don't, IAF will invest in whatever is possible using pod based solutions. That's where all the chatter is in India, China and Russia.

How does it matter if PAF/PLAAF has similar capabilities or not? The role of such an aircraft would be to counter SAM threats first and foremost along with AWACS, of which the PAF and especially the PLAAF have plenty and already impinge on mission success probability (for IAF strike missions into enemy territory).

I get what you're saying though. This is difficult to explain to MoD officials.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2019

Postby brar_w » 08 Oct 2019 05:06

Look at the size of the MKI fleet and the roles it performs within the IAF force structure. When you are dealing with finite resources, cost and political capital to wiggle out a cooperation between foreign OEMs and domestic suppliers you are much better off optimizing a set of requirements and prioritizing based on what adds the biggest bang for the buck. It is difficult to take resources away from the overall MKI modernization and divert them to create a bespoke variant at the expense of everything else. Specially when something like this is likely to be a mini program in its own right with a 10-15 year design and operationalizing cycle. The Super-30 upgrades won’t be complete probably till well into the late 2020s or 2030s given engineering contracts have not yet been awarded and the size of the growing MKI fleet. As I said, it is probably better to build stand-off EA requirements in the MWF and design something from the ground up by giving ample time to develop the technology and overcoming the technical challenges.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3412
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2019

Postby kit » 08 Oct 2019 07:55

brar_w wrote:Look at the size of the MKI fleet and the roles it performs within the IAF force structure. When you are dealing with finite resources, cost and political capital to wiggle out a cooperation between foreign OEMs and domestic suppliers you are much better off optimizing a set of requirements and prioritizing based on what adds the biggest bang for the buck. It is difficult to take resources away from the overall MKI modernization and divert them to create a bespoke variant at the expense of everything else. Specially when something like this is likely to be a mini program in its own right with a 10-15 year design and operationalizing cycle. The Super-30 upgrades won’t be complete probably till well into the late 2020s or 2030s given engineering contracts have not yet been awarded and the size of the growing MKI fleet. As I said, it is probably better to build stand-off EA requirements in the MWF and design something from the ground up by giving ample time to develop the technology and overcoming the technical challenges.


So Brar ji .. simply put a Su 30 Growler does not make sense because of the super upgrades ? And you say put the capability in a MWF ?

Is the F18 growler a radically different beast from the other advanced variants ?

Why should India wait ? .. I dare say an experimental Su30 Growler might be on the horizon

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2019

Postby brar_w » 08 Oct 2019 08:02

kit wrote:So Brar ji .. simply put a Su 30 Growler does not make sense because of the super upgrades ?


Again, if you read what I've said - The IAF is prioritizing a Super-30 upgrade package which is systematically addressing survivability and lethality enhancements to the MKI fleet for the second half of its life in the IAF. With close to 300 aircraft, it will be, at a minimum, a 10-12 year lift to finalize, put on contract, and finish modifying the entire fleet. Given that there are not unlimited resources to go around, the IAF is logical and right (IMHO) in this priority. I have not heard anything from any officials within the IAF pointing to a Growler like mission role being envisioned for the MKI (as that role exists, as my posts highlighted). Based on that, I concluded that it is not on the cards. From a resource allocation perspective it makes perfect sense to prioritize the Super-30 upgrades for the fleet. Escort jamming and DEAD is already there. I don't see any evidence that anything has been envisioned (backed by investments) beyond that.

And you say put the capability in a MWF ?


Yes and for the reasons I have highlighted more than clearly - these changes cannot be retrofitted and applied on existing aircraft (I guess anything can happen at the right price and schedule but realistically this is not an option) and the engineering and technical challenges to develop the systems that convert a Super Hornet into a Growler require a stream of funding, and time which gives plenty of opportunity to build that into the MWF which incidentally is at a point where you can envision future variants for it to absorb the technology that delivers based on a roadmap and schedule.

Is the F18 growler a radically different beast from the other advanced variants ?


It is not a run of the mill Super Hornet and is internally different enough that no one will ever pursue converting super hornet's to Growlers after the fact (so much so that the RAAF just chose to do the opposite conversion i.e. essentially built to Growler spec and use them as SH). The Mission systems and wideband jamming options that are being provided to it are a 10-15 year developmental lift even at the very cutting edge of the technology capability. All in, yes from a resource allocation, commitment, training and operations stand-point, the Growler is pretty much a different beast from its parent aircraft.

I dare say an experimental Su30 Growler might be on the horizon


Sure it could be. But As Indranil and I were discussing earlier, there seems to be no evidence to that end.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 08 Oct 2019 08:58

Brar Warrior my post was about MKI potential to be SUPER GROWLER.

Last year I tweeted to PM and Defense Minister to talk with Russia turning PAK FA with its internal carriage space for a Growler version.

But now I am thinking it's better to develop and manufacture 3 squadrons of SuperGrowler on fresh MKI frames...

Budget is problem I agree but if mmrca 114 gets canceled then there's plenty of money to go around.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18535
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 08 Oct 2019 11:35

Actually, the Russians already have a comprehensive ESM+EW suite for the Flanker series. The SAP-518, SAP-14 are merely 2 of the pods inbvolved. The actual suite is more of an ESM/RWR suite integrated into the Flanker, which is then combined with high power jammers, of 4-6 types, of which the SAP-518 and SAP-14 are but two of the known variants. These pods are heavy duty, but the other ones are even more powerful still.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3412
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 08 Oct 2019 14:50

Karan M wrote:Actually, the Russians already have a comprehensive ESM+EW suite for the Flanker series. The SAP-518, SAP-14 are merely 2 of the pods inbvolved. The actual suite is more of an ESM/RWR suite integrated into the Flanker, which is then combined with high power jammers, of 4-6 types, of which the SAP-518 and SAP-14 are but two of the known variants. These pods are heavy duty, but the other ones are even more powerful still.


The IAF is currently pursuing a more offensive defence doctrine against both the neighbours and as it is the chance of a Su 30 Growler is more of a necessity rather than an option, future aircraft I think will take up with the tech development. The money is there.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2583
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 08 Oct 2019 15:03

Given the need to "respect" the LoC and standoff fights like we had on Feb 27, the way to create a "no fly zone", without firing off a BVR is to use long range jamming.

Also given the dense PLAAF air defence SAM, might require lot of SEAD jamming.

IAF could invest some effort and ask DARE to come up with a suite and prototype it on a Su30 test platform from HAL.

HAL needs to built couple of Su30 test platform to try out AESA, jammers and other kit. I don't understand why they haven't done it already.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya_V, ArjunPandit, Rsatchi, tsarkar and 64 guests