Su-30: News and Discussion

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 25 Jan 2009 09:29

Jagan wrote:email from Sayan Majumdar

Do note that already the Su-30MKI air dominance fighters are being distributed between predominantly air defence (No. 8 & 24) and strike (No. 20, 30, 31) squadrons, a pattern likely to continue for all other inducted types

Koooool.....It means 5 sqads so far and can assume 20 each and make upto 100 including the desi made and foreign made.

why the heck didnt HAL speed of the average production levels?
If the HAL is feeling that it was being burdened so much than that it can chew.......then why not the private sector????

L&T is sighing for a piece of cake and ready to go with its new plant in tamil nadu.

On one side we are witnessing the depleting sqad levels while on the otherside we are not having enough punch for a porki misadventure and a psuedo chinky maneuver.

May be its time to split the manufacturing of MMRCA between TATA and L&T or a solo company to hasten the prodcution as soon as we finalise the aircraft instead of getting the cake baked from the same old HAL bakery

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 25 Jan 2009 11:01

Is L&T having capability to produce/assemble fighters??, I guess both L&T and Tata would get orders for sub assemblies or components for MMRCA, not sure if they can directly compete with HAL to get contract for license production.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Jan 2009 12:00

why the heck didnt HAL speed of the average production levels?
If the HAL is feeling that it was being burdened so much than that it can chew.......then why not the private sector????

who says they didn't ??

the 100 number is almost dot on the mark on where they should be for the accelerated production plan that IAF requested.

you have to understand that NO manufacturer can't start a 30/annum assembly line for a production run of 140, that would not be economically viable and would defeat the very purpose of production in desh.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 25 Jan 2009 12:13

jaladipc wrote: why the heck didnt HAL speed of the average production levels?
If the HAL is feeling that it was being burdened so much than that it can chew.......then why not the private sector????

L&T is sighing for a piece of cake and ready to go with its new plant in tamil nadu.

And overnight L&T/ Tata cannot setup the manufacturing plants for Su-30. It will take several years assuming they have the expertise and the human resources (from machinists to engineers) with the relevant skills and experience. If not throw few more years for them to build that expertise starting with small jobs.

Please dont throw statements just for the heck of it. If you are gonna say Govt should invest and provide the required machinery and human resources to the Pvt Cos, might as well do that do HAL who are already into it.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 25 Jan 2009 23:13

Hi Jagan, the designation of a strike vs air defence squadron is interesting. IIRC even the Mirage-2000s habe such a distinction. Why is this the case? Cant we have a true multirole squadron?

Btw 20 sqn has a maritime strike mission.

Jagan wrote:email from Sayan Majumdar

Do note that already the Su-30MKI air dominance fighters are being distributed between predominantly air defence (No. 8 & 24) and strike (No. 20, 30, 31) squadrons, a pattern likely to continue for all other inducted types

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 26 Jan 2009 02:56

Hi Jagan, the designation of a strike vs air defence squadron is interesting. IIRC even the Mirage-2000s habe such a distinction. Why is this the case? Cant we have a true multirole squadron?

Btw 20 sqn has a maritime strike mission.

Could be because of Logistics. Some Bases are geared towards Strike Missions and hence stock only that kind of Ordanance. In times of war ofcourse Fighters move to wherever they are required.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 26 Jan 2009 12:43

^^^ Not really, for base defence atleast there will be platforms for air to air missions and ordnance for the same. I think it is more to do with the training profile of the squadron.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 Feb 2009 17:26

No ground breaking details on Su30.. just posting for the record.

Short conversation with a Su30 pilot I bumped into at AI09

Q: Sir, How good is your plane? (what a stupidly dumb question!)
A: very very good

Q: Did you go to red-flag?
A: No

Q: What did you hear from your friends about it. How did our guys do there?
A: Extremely well..

Q: What was the longest sortie you flew?
A: 9hours

Q: What kind of missions do you fly during such sorties?
A: A bit of everything - Air to air combat, armamament training, refuelling

Q: Since Su30 is such a big plane and it is easier to detect.. is it a disadvantage in operations?
A: The detection depends on the strength of the radar..

Q: So when you train against small Mig21's or Mirages - who detects whom first?
A: we always get the others

Q: despite the fact that Su30 is big and they are small?
A: yeah.. thats why we always dare them to come and get us.. becoz we know what this radar is about..

Q: At what ranges do you detect them?
A: I cant tell you that..

Q:

Within your shooting range?
A:

Much Much before that.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 16 Feb 2009 18:55

HAL Newspaper

Two Squadrons of Su-30 MkIs at IAF are flying HAL-produced aircraft.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 Feb 2009 19:18

A Sharma wrote:HAL Newspaper

Two Squadrons of Su-30 MkIs at IAF are flying HAL-produced aircraft.

Baweja's address also mentions Advanced real time data link (A to A & A to G) and also Advanced EW suite.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 16 Feb 2009 19:34

There was talk of SU30MKI sq having only 10 aircrafts. So we have two SQ of HAL made sukhoi at regular @ 20 (or maybe only 18 as we do not need 2 - trainers, or 16 without 2 reserves) or is it @10. I do not expect anyone to give us this kind of operational info. No wonder, the total number of SU30MKI built or in service is hard to come by. It is mostly guesses or logical derivation!!!

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 Feb 2009 20:26

fanne wrote:There was talk of SU30MKI sq having only 10 aircrafts. So we have two SQ of HAL made sukhoi at regular @ 20 (or maybe only 18 as we do not need 2 - trainers, or 16 without 2 reserves) or is it @10. I do not expect anyone to give us this kind of operational info. No wonder, the total number of SU30MKI built or in service is hard to come by. It is mostly guesses or logical derivation!!!

When we had the first 50 and 18were already parked away -- we had 32useful sukhois in 2sqds.. 16per sqd.

Once HAL started delivering MKI's the 2sqds at Lohegaon were beefedup to 20each, I think.. When Kalam flew from Lohegaon - there were a mix of HAL delivered & Russian delivered.. At Redflag - 24sqd Hawks flew a mix of HAL delivered & Russian delivered.. There is very tiny chance that the sqds have 10/sqd.. Definitely 16/sqd or 20/sqd.

HAL delivered SB114 from Hawks was on static display with a mix of A-A missiles and triplets of 250kg bombs..

HAs anyone got the TailNumber of the MKI that did the display?

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 16 Feb 2009 20:34

fanne wrote:There was talk of SU30MKI sq having only 10 aircrafts. So we have two SQ of HAL made sukhoi at regular @ 20 (or maybe only 18 as we do not need 2 - trainers, or 16 without 2 reserves) or is it @10. I do not expect anyone to give us this kind of operational info. No wonder, the total number of SU30MKI built or in service is hard to come by. It is mostly guesses or logical derivation!!!

Could it be that they have operationalised a squadron with an initial batch of 10 units, only to be strengthened to 18 later on?

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 Feb 2009 20:40

Dmurphy wrote:
fanne wrote:There was talk of SU30MKI sq having only 10 aircrafts. So we have two SQ of HAL made sukhoi at regular @ 20 (or maybe only 18 as we do not need 2 - trainers, or 16 without 2 reserves) or is it @10. I do not expect anyone to give us this kind of operational info. No wonder, the total number of SU30MKI built or in service is hard to come by. It is mostly guesses or logical derivation!!!
Could it be that they have operationalised a squadron with an initial batch of 10 units, only to be strengthened to 18 later on?

That definitely should have been the case before SB041 to SB050 were delivered..
But after HAL started delivering - I see no reason for 10a/c per sqd.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 16 Feb 2009 20:50

rakall wrote:
fanne wrote:There was talk of SU30MKI sq having only 10 aircrafts. So we have two SQ of HAL made sukhoi at regular @ 20 (or maybe only 18 as we do not need 2 - trainers, or 16 without 2 reserves) or is it @10. I do not expect anyone to give us this kind of operational info. No wonder, the total number of SU30MKI built or in service is hard to come by. It is mostly guesses or logical derivation!!!
When we had the first 50 and 18were already parked away -- we had 32useful sukhois in 2sqds.. 16per sqd.

Once HAL started delivering MKI's the 2sqds at Lohegaon were beefedup to 20each, I think.. When Kalam flew from Lohegaon - there were a mix of HAL delivered & Russian delivered.. At Redflag - 24sqd Hawks flew a mix of HAL delivered & Russian delivered.. There is very tiny chance that the sqds have 10/sqd.. Definitely 16/sqd or 20/sqd.

HAL delivered SB114 from Hawks was on static display with a mix of A-A missiles and triplets of 250kg bombs..

HAs anyone got the TailNumber of the MKI that did the display?

I have a clear snap of the MKI on the runway that did the display but the number seems to have been painted over by the Indian tri-color scheme. You can still try to figure it out.
Zoom the image to high res using the magnify icon on the top right of the image.

http://picasaweb.google.com/amitrai2000 ... 1603186018

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 16 Feb 2009 21:06

are those 18 Su-30ks completely repalced with newer MKIs?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 16 Feb 2009 22:58

Reg 10 a/c per sqn - Could be because of IAF decision .... even 104 HS has only 11 aircraft and it also needs two flyers.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Feb 2009 23:07

chopper sqdns are usually of that strength.
fighter sqdns usually have bigger strength of 16 or more.

nash · Post by **nash** » 18 Feb 2009 13:52

hi

anybody in these forum know, how many sq. of MKI we have,currently, and what is the induction rate by HAL.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 18 Feb 2009 14:27

A question to gurus here.

Given the fact that the Sukhois enjoy overwhelming superiority over any aircraft that the Pukis might throw at us, is it really imperative to maintain a squadron of more than 10 aircrafts at any location during these initial years, if not for ever? I mean, couldn't we spread them out better and farther if we break them up into smaller squadrons. That perhaps will also ensure more number of air bases with Sukhois sooner than earlier planned. I know it might pose logistical problems, but it does sound worth the trouble at times

Please excuse me incase i'm being too impractical.

Secondly, why will the Sukhois armed with Brahmoses be ready only in 2012, when 2 of the Sukhois have already been sent to Russia?

Thridly, if the hypersonic Brahmos becomes operational before 2012, will the Sukhois be sporting the hypersonics too?

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 18 Feb 2009 14:37

Dmurphy wrote:A question to gurus here.

Thridly, if the hypersonic Brahmos becomes operational before 2012, will the Sukhois be sporting the hypersonics too?

Hypersonic Brahmos will take a "minimu of 5years" from now for the first test..

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 18 Feb 2009 15:57

nash wrote:hi

anybody in these forum know, how many sq. of MKI we have,currently, and what is the induction rate by HAL.

Sq Strength is a tricky issue but by numbers we have more than 100 MKI's and production rate at HAL was 13 AC per year but MOD has requested to Speed it up to 17 AC per year

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 18 Feb 2009 19:34

Dmurphy wrote:Given the fact that the Sukhois enjoy overwhelming superiority over any aircraft that the Pukis might throw at us, is it really imperative to maintain a squadron of more than 10 aircrafts at any location during these initial years, if not for ever? I mean, couldn't we spread them out better and farther if we break them up into smaller squadrons. That perhaps will also ensure more number of air bases with Sukhois sooner than earlier planned.

The ToE of a military formation is designed with number of considerations in mind. Regardless of the capability of the aircraft (or tank for example), a certain number of inventory is required for the squadron to be considered to full strength. MKI may be very advanced, but it is not a replacement for numbers. For example; can a figher sqn sustain 'X' number of sorties or carry 'Y' amount of ammunition if it is half the sanctioned strength of a sqn.

What you mention is implemented on ground using detachments of the squadron like we saw in Kargil war. A sqn is composed of two flights - and each may be assigned a different mission or location - but miltary organisation requires that two flight be commanded by a CO of Wg Cdr or Gp Capt rank .....hope you get the idea

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Feb 2009 20:21

to add to what aditya says, since squadrons are anyway composed of two flights, the tactical flexibility of deploying sub-squadron strength formations is inherently there.
but since today's a/c need some very specialised maintenance and training, duplicating that infrastructure all over the place is not a very economically viable idea.
you will find that usually an air base has more than one squadron of a single type. this is the reason for it.

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 19 Feb 2009 01:58

Irkut Corporation Awarded for SU-30MKI Program

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4222#

Says..."According to a study conducted by FORCE, the Su-30MKI program is the most successful in the history of India’s military-technical cooperation with foreign countries, having jointly developed an aircraft now considered one of the top multi-role fighters in the world"

I do not know..who in India (From IAF or HAL ) envisioned this SU-30MKI program way back in 90’s..Su-30 Gurus can please let us know.
Surely our IAF has something, with which the best Air-Forces of the world always wants do a mock fight (unofficially) to asses it's real capability..results of course scares them I guess

.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 19 Feb 2009 03:49

ACM Krishnaswamy

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Feb 2009 04:06

errr, Kicha came much much later, following ACM Tipnis. the person responsible was Tipnis' predecessor, SK Sareen.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 19 Feb 2009 06:57

On Su30MKI, the story is more complex (and fascinating) than any ACM being responsible. The credit for the whole deal should substantially go to PV Narasimha Rao, in the dying periods of his PM-ship. the story goes like this - the Soviet MIC was in doldrums, the Irkut plant was in Boris Yeltsin's native place, and he was running again for President. the AF obvously was interested in the plane enough for PVN to stick his neck out, plus the economics were compelling - near bargain prices for a possible fourth gen platform. So a bilateral deal was quickly struck between India and Russia (without the usual PNC and open ended testing phases), the contract was open ended enough for us to have a whole lot of rights of "modernisation" and access to source codes. In lieu of which India made a substantial downpayment immediately, even though the MKI version was known to be many years away then. but Rao was soon out of power, an incipient controversy broke out over the deal, with dark hints over "kickbacks. To the credti of the political establishment, the next defence minister, Mulayam Singh Yadav, did not use it as an easy political weapon to beat the Congress with. He went to the gist of the matter, took the opposition BJP too into confidence (Jaswant Singh was one of those in the "loop"), and effectively killed the controversy before it snowballed into something that could threaten the programme itself. thereafter, even when the first Su30Ks came to India and was quickly derided as "souped up conversion trainers" as they were without a lot of the promised jing bang, the political establishment did not lose the plot. The programme continued and reached its desired MKI end state....

A fascinnating story of how many times at the crunch, the political establishment draws together for the interest of India.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Feb 2009 08:08

somnath wrote: A fascinnating story of how many times at the crunch, the political establishment draws together for the interest of India.

Off topic - but all we need now is for them to start coming together long before a crunch occurs in areas where it can be reasonably anticipated that a crunch will occur based on past experience.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 19 Feb 2009 08:10

somnath wrote:On Su30MKI, the story is more complex (and fascinating) than any ACM being responsible. The credit for the whole deal should substantially go to PV Narasimha Rao, in the dying periods of his PM-ship. the story goes like this - the Soviet MIC was in doldrums, the Irkut plant was in Boris Yeltsin's native place, and he was running again for President. the AF obvously was interested in the plane enough for PVN to stick his neck out, plus the economics were compelling - near bargain prices for a possible fourth gen platform. So a bilateral deal was quickly struck between India and Russia (without the usual PNC and open ended testing phases), the contract was open ended enough for us to have a whole lot of rights of "modernisation" and access to source codes. In lieu of which India made a substantial downpayment immediately, even though the MKI version was known to be many years away then. but Rao was soon out of power, an incipient controversy broke out over the deal, with dark hints over "kickbacks. To the credti of the political establishment, the next defence minister, Mulayam Singh Yadav, did not use it as an easy political weapon to beat the Congress with. He went to the gist of the matter, took the opposition BJP too into confidence (Jaswant Singh was one of those in the "loop"), and effectively killed the controversy before it snowballed into something that could threaten the programme itself. thereafter, even when the first Su30Ks came to India and was quickly derided as "souped up conversion trainers" as they were without a lot of the promised jing bang, the political establishment did not lose the plot. The programme continued and reached its desired MKI end state....

A fascinnating story of how many times at the crunch, the political establishment draws together for the interest of India.

but who could have decided that Su-30MKI Config, it was such an advanced version and thought all this deep cuztomization would work. i haven't seen a fighter with more cuztomization, TVC, Canards, PESA, display, targeting, navigation, EW and processing systems. entire fighter was simply changed. so much that there was simply no match between the ours and same flankers purchased by China at the same time. definitely this is the most successful program implemented in the last 1 or 2 decades.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Feb 2009 08:21

but who could have decided that Su-30MKI Config, it was such an advanced version and thought all this deep cuztomization would work. i haven't seen a fighter with more cuztomization, TVC, Canards, PESA, display, targeting, navigation, EW and processing systems. entire fighter was simply changed. so much that there was simply no match between the ours and same flankers purchased by China at the same time. definitely this is the most successful program implemented in the last 1 or 2 decades.

What Somnath provided was the political angle.

The IAF provided the Indian tech angle (Indian/French?Israeli components) and Sukhoi itself provided the Su-30 conversion to the "MKI" standard (canards/TVC/redesign - MKI being much larger than a standard Su-30), India funded the integration, with crossed fingers perhaps. Recall that both the IAF and SU had dreams. The integration of these dreams and techs made it all possible. BR recalls the days when the MKI was a laughing stalk! MKI had to convert some very stout opponents.

kobe · Post by **kobe** » 19 Feb 2009 08:22

shiv wrote:
somnath wrote: A fascinnating story of how many times at the crunch, the political establishment draws together for the interest of India.

Off topic - but all we need now is for them to start coming together long before a crunch occurs in areas where it can be reasonably anticipated that a crunch will occur based on past experience.

as long as pakstan's 3rd partition is not accomplished, its crunch time every day. it should not take a genious to know that. political leaders must act with a sense of urgency till then.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 19 Feb 2009 08:50

the tech specs were defined by the Indians by a large extent for the MKI, and there the inputs obvioulsy came from DRDO/IAF. But the point is that the original deal went through in such a short time that I doubt that even the IAF had a full idea of what all could be put in that plaform when it was inked first. the key point here was to lock Russia in a sufficiently open ended contract for us to able to pretty much define the specs all the way up - the reason was the quick deal making with cash upfront. At least on occastion when we beat the Chinese to it - defines the different developmetn trajectories of the MKI and the MKK...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Feb 2009 08:56

^^^
from my foggy memory there is more than a hint of truth in that.

IAF knew there and thereabouts what it wanted from the aircraft but the spec was kept fluid for some time so that the detail equipment selection could be done over a long time.

I mentioned Sareen because he was in charge, but there must have been many mid to senior level officers who did the painstaking planning.

I would be very interested in knowing what kind of experiences they brought to the table.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 19 Feb 2009 09:22

wrt ACM Sareen, most AF personnel have a dim view of his tenure. the only time in independent history where there was a "near mutiny" in an armed force was in his time (not incl the few Sikhs deserting after BLuestar). the whole pilot v/s ground officer imbroglio was very badly handled, and a lot of good careers were spoilt (besides real physical harm to a few officers)..But OT here..

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 19 Feb 2009 11:07

ajay_ijn wrote: but who could have decided that Su-30MKI Config, it was such an advanced version and thought all this deep cuztomization would work. i haven't seen a fighter with more cuztomization, TVC, Canards, PESA, display, targeting, navigation, EW and processing systems. entire fighter was simply changed. so much that there was simply no match between the ours and same flankers purchased by China at the same time. definitely this is the most successful program implemented in the last 1 or 2 decades.

I spoke to Bill Sweetman, Editor of Defence Tech Intl mag after his plenary talk on Why Fighters are needed....

He cited the SU-30 as the example of russian dominance in teh Aviation market, not in terms of sales, but in terms of flexibility. In fact, he used this program as a contrast to show all that was wrong with the US aviation development.

What he said was that no aircraft had had the amount of flexibility and customization in so short a time that the Su-30 had had... he pointed out that this customization was not a fault-correcting thing, but for customers. He said that this sort of deep, flexible upgrades was what the US needed now rather than going in for new aircraft types with huge budgets - something like the Superbug, but far beyond. He said that the superbug was a good starting block, but that sort of doctrine needed to be incorporated into all aircraft types as well, something which the F-22 and 35 seriously lack.

Anyone wants a report on Sweetmans lecture?? (I attended about half of it)

Also, Yair Ramati also gave a beautiful perspective of aviation market trends till 2020.. anyone interested???

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 19 Feb 2009 12:02

k prasad wrote:
I spoke to Bill Sweetman, Editor of Defence Tech Intl mag after his plenary talk on Why Fighters are needed....

Anyone wants a report on Sweetmans lecture?? (I attended about half of it)

Also, Yair Ramati also gave a beautiful perspective of aviation market trends till 2020.. anyone interested???

I'm definitely interested. Can you send both reports to jsmith30301 AT yahoo dot com?

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 19 Feb 2009 12:03

Better still, I'll put it up on the AI thread where everyone can see it.

kit · Post by **kit** » 19 Feb 2009 12:38

Wrong thread perhaps, but since everyone here has a good idea as to what happened would India be able to pull off a similar if not a better deal with the PAKFA ? Two things have changed, Russia is not what it used to be and second PAKFA design and specs are more likely to be frozen by now with little Indian input except perhaps money.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 19 Feb 2009 12:52

kit wrote:Wrong thread perhaps, but since everyone here has a good idea as to what happened would India be able to pull off a similar if not a better deal with the PAKFA ? Two things have changed, Russia is not what it used to be and second PAKFA design and specs are more likely to be frozen by now with little Indian input except perhaps money.

I've taken ur post onto the AI thread!