Su-30: News and Discussion

Sajith_J · Post by **Sajith_J** » 16 Apr 2009 00:56

Even the picture shows the Su 30 Mk and not our Mki version, the rear part must be the same.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Su-32FN+Su-30MK-1.png

What gets me to an other question, we already are producing Su 30 under licence and the only difference to the Su 32/34 airframe are the front part and the tail sting, it shouldn't be so difficult for HAL to change the production line right?
I know our Mki can do most of the same duties, but Su 32/34 seems to be more specialized for such missions. Better amor, I read about an electronic warfare version comparable to F18 SH Growler, or a Maritime version with special avionics for ASW with sonarbuoys and even torpedos and the better pilot comfort is also a plus for longtime patrol, or strike missions. The costs are also the same and we could use the same engines (from Su 35BM, or even al 41, if its ready) on it too.
Wouldn't they be perfect replacement for our Jaguars (deep penetration strike and maritime attack aircraft)?

Btw does anybody knows about the RCS of Su 32/34?

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 16 Apr 2009 10:00

I have been saying same thing from long time that SU 34,We shuold have about 10 SQ.
If we can hurry up on SU 30 mki or let TATA or Relience can start making SU 32/34.They will work with DARDO/HAL and make the best fighters.

rachel · Post by **rachel** » 16 Apr 2009 10:25

IMHO, one of the reasons IAF stays away from dedicated bombers is cost and the hassle of introducing another type into an already bloated inventory.

I believe the SU34 is a great choice because it eliminates part of this objection. It IS a dedicated strike bomber, yet it MUST share many parts etc with MKI. It should thus be relatively easy and cost effctive to make in India.

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 16 Apr 2009 18:33

What gets me to an other question, we already are producing Su 30 under licence and the only difference to the Su 32/34 airframe are the front part and the tail sting, it shouldn't be so difficult for HAL to change the production line right?

That is not quite correct - the Su30 has an Indian MC, a whole lot of of avionics customized to Indian requirements from various vendors, different engines etc apart from being different structurally (Su 34 has tandem seats)! Besides, from aerodynamics, flight characteristics as well as production perspective, the "only difference in front part and tail sting" means a completely different aircraft! Request you to please read up a little bit on aircraft testing - a fighter is not a lego toy where you just change parts here and there!

I have been saying same thing from long time that SU 34,We shuold have about 10 SQ.
If we can hurry up on SU 30 mki or let TATA or Relience can start making SU 32/34.They will work with DARDO/HAL and make the best fighters.

If TATA and Reliance could do it they would already have been doing this years ago - aircraft manufacturing is bloody expensive and extremely risky from a financial perspective apart from being bloody difficult - so please understand that aerospace industry does not have any equivalents of Instant Coffee or Lego toys - it takes decades of pain staking efforts to produce that capability. The good thing is that once the LCA/Kaveri mature, India will have that capability to a large extent and even now we are well on the way ... but it will not happen as quickly as you probably think!

one of the reasons IAF stays away from dedicated bombers is cost and the hassle of introducing another type into an already bloated inventory

Sorry but operational doctrine and costs have a much bigger role than a type! - Also, the IAF has a depleting inventory not a bloated one, it has a large number of types of aircrafts instead!

rachel · Post by **rachel** » 16 Apr 2009 19:47

When I said 'bloated inventory'... i basically said it wrong.. i wanted to get across 'too many types of aircraft'.

The too many types of combat aircracft have been repeatedly mentionned as a problem.. by many people.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2009 20:14

George J wrote:Austin:
Actually I am not sure what the Su-34 has in its tail.

Yefim Gordon Su-27 is one source and then there are other sources Michael Fiszer write on Su-34 mentions it ( NIIR N012 radar ) , quite a few others as well.

FlightGlobal wrote:.................The larger boom appears to contain an active stand-off jammer with a directional antenna mounted on the rear of the protuberance. The smaller boom used on previous versions normally houses the aircraft's electronic warfare self-protection suite.

And I lost all respect for FlightGlobal after their handling of the YouTube Terry and Two Faced Trimble Fiasco.

Let me reiterate, I am inclined to agree with you on the MKI but its just that the IAF has given me very crazy but consistent answers when you ask them about this. So officially they are not at liberty to discuss it. Unofficially you can fill up pages on this issue.

I dont think officially IAF has to say any thing on this subject ( i mean official statement , personal interaction and Q&A is another matter ) , they are just happy with the MKI and its just custom built for them.

But any one who has seen the MKI can tell you there is no radar in there just those drag chutes , now what the gent had to say to you is another matter , may be he just wanted to see you happy with that neither yes or no statement

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Apr 2009 20:51

rachel wrote:IMHO, one of the reasons IAF stays away from dedicated bombers is cost and the hassle of introducing another type into an already bloated inventory.

I believe the SU34 is a great choice because it eliminates part of this objection. It IS a dedicated strike bomber, yet it MUST share many parts etc with MKI. It should thus be relatively easy and cost effctive to make in India.

I do not think this extrapolation is going to work.

I assume you do realize that the MKI is much larger plane than an ordinary Su-30. If at all, they will have to redesign the 34 - like they did the 30 - to make most parts common between the two planes.

The Malasian(??) MKMs come close the MKI IIRC. That is pretty much it. There could be a few 3X within Russia, but I do not think any of them are in production. Probably sitting in a storage at SU HQ.

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 16 Apr 2009 21:27

Hi Austin/George,
According to this link, the Su34 has the rear facing radar well integrated.

The V004 is the nose antenna, the V005 is mounted in the tail stinger. The Sh-141 computer integrates data from both antennas, and the plane’s ESM and IR receivers as well

To me this looks like an aircraft designed for autonomous missions without AWACS support - the two radars will give a close to 360 degree coverage! I still cannot think why the MKI would need such a thing!
Saumitra

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 16 Apr 2009 21:30

When I said 'bloated inventory'... i basically said it wrong.. i wanted to get across 'too many types of aircraft'.The too many types of combat aircracft have been repeatedly mentionned as a problem.. by many people.

Ok, got you - sorry for being a little pedantic with words

- anyway what I wanted to say was that despite too many types of aircrafts being a problem with the IAF, operational doctrine, aircraft performance and costs would be far bigger factors in a/c selection!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2009 22:57

The RCS of Su-34 was reduced compared to other flanker variant , this is was Yefim Gordon has to say in his book Su-27 Flanker on the Su-34 RCS

“ The airframe made use of stealth technology. As already mentioned the radome had sharp chines blending into the LERXes; together with BWB layout , this reduced the aircraft RCS while ensuring good aerodynamics. Stealth was further helped by radar absorbent coatings and the absense of ventral fins. The Su-34 has a much lower RCS than another aircraft in the came class ( the Su-24, GD F-111 and MD F-15E ); Sukhoi claimed that in low level flight the RCS is comparable to that of a modern cruise missile"

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Apr 2009 23:38

austin, has the russkies inducted any of the naval strike optimised flankers ?
the ones that were named su-32fn ? or are they same ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Apr 2009 08:21

Rahul M wrote:austin, has the russkies inducted any of the naval strike optimised flankers ?
the ones that were named su-32fn ? or are they same ?

AFAIK no , they had propose the Su-32FN with all the ding dong( sonobuoys , maritime optimised radar , MAD ) but no service induction yet to my knowledge , even the Su-34 has a slow induction rate and they propose to have 58 Su-34 by 2015 to equip two regiment , so it looks like an expensive affair to the Ruskies as well.

Again from Yefim Gordon on the Su-34 , this is interesting and do our MKI have AFSS ? I think the other panic button was there from day one in the basic flanker

The Su-34 has digital FBW controls , It also featured an active flight safety system ( AFSS ). The latter had pitch stabilisation and terraine following functions , enabling the aircraft to manoeuvre sharply at its maximum sea level speed of 1,380 km/h and assisting in penetrating enemy airdefence. There was also a 'panic button' function the pilot could bring the aircraft into straight and level flight from any altitude by pushing a button on the stick.

The AFSS incorporates atrificial intelligence , automatically monitoring the pilots physical conditions , system status and fuel quantity; it enabled automatic return to base and runway approach , should the pilot be incapaciated.

The canards together with the pitch stabalisation feature and flight control systems state of the art computers, enhanced manoeuvrability at low altitude considerably giving the Su-34 a smooth ride in turbulence , this allowed the crew to operate more effeciently when it came to delivering weapon and avoiding hostile fire

Sajith_J · Post by **Sajith_J** » 17 Apr 2009 18:06

saumitra_j wrote: That is not quite correct - the Su30 has an Indian MC, a whole lot of of avionics customized to Indian requirements from various vendors, different engines etc apart from being different structurally (Su 34 has tandem seats)! Besides, from aerodynamics, flight characteristics as well as production perspective, the "only difference in front part and tail sting" means a completely different aircraft! Request you to please read up a little bit on aircraft testing - a fighter is not a lego toy where you just change parts here and there!

I think you get something wrong, I only talked about the airframe and because both aircrafts are based on the Su 27, it’s true that their airframe shows many similarities! As you can see on the picture in my last post, the whole part behind the canards seem’s to be exactly the same (wings, tail plane)!

Aeroplane dimensions Su 27 UBK: - length, m 21.9 - wingspan, m 14.7 - height, m 6.4
Aeroplane dimensions Su 30 MK: - length, m 21.9 - wingspan, m 14.7 - height, m 6.4
Aeroplane dimensions Su 32: - length, m 23.34 - wingspan, m 14.7 - height, m 6.09

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su32/lth/

The difference in length and height are only because of another cockpit / nose area and a bigger tail sting. Also it’s not true that both use different engines, the Su 32 uses only an improved version of the same AL-31 engine that Mki uses and both could get the AL 41 later, so more commonality!
There is no doubt that the Mki is the better multi role aircraft, but the Su 32 seems to be better and more specialized for ground & maritime attacks. So if both aircraft would give IAF much commonality in most weapons, parts of airframe, engine (radar?) and costs, why should we build only Mkis? We could replace Mig 27 and Jaguars with Mki / Su 32 and would get a much more capable ground attack fighters and maintenance must be easier and cheaper too!

Sajith_J · Post by **Sajith_J** » 17 Apr 2009 18:16

Austin wrote: Again from Yefim Gordon on the Su-34 ,

Austin can you give some more infos about the electronic warfare capabilities of the Su32?

Can you confirm this?

Of more interest in the longer term is the proposed support jamming variant, discussed in the Indian and Russian trade press. This aircraft is a Russian analogue to the EF-111A or EF-18G Growler, designed as a fast support jammer for escort and standoff jamming. The podded L175V / KS418 high power jammer is being developed for this purpose, it being an analogue to the US ALQ-99 jamming pods on the EA-6B and EF-18G. The KS418 is believed to be related closely to the TsNIRTI MSP-418K support jamming pod, claimed to be designed around a DRFM (Digital RF Memory) jamming techniques generator.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Fullback.html

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 17 Apr 2009 18:40

Also it’s not true that both use different engines, the Su 32 uses only an improved version of the same AL-31 engine that Mki uses and both could get the AL 41 later, so more commonality!

Please think about the investment made by the IAF and HAL on maintenance and support on the AL 31 FP and on existing engines before you start suggesting a change to AL 41 for the supposed "commonality". Also please note that the AL31FP (on the MKI) and the AL35F (on the Su34) belong to the same family of engines, but that does not mean they are the same. The airframes may look similar from an external dimensions perspective, but they are not the same. In short, Su30MKI and Su32/34 are different aircrafts but have same lineage (Su27) so will have more commonality between say a Mig29 and F16 but will present an equally challenging headache for the IAF. Also we cannot just "replace" aircrafts which have enough life left in them - Mig27 and Jaguar are expected to be used until 2020 - we may be doing well but we are NOT the US in terms of throwing money on defence. I will strongly urge you to read a little bit on what it takes to induct an aircraft and make it operational - what you are saying will not work in real world. My last post on this topic

Sajith_J · Post by **Sajith_J** » 17 Apr 2009 19:04

saumitra_j wrote: Please think about the investment made by the IAF and HAL on maintenance and support on the AL 31 FP and on existing engines before you start suggesting a change to AL 41 for the supposed "commonality". Also please note that the AL31FP (on the MKI) and the AL35F (on the Su34) belong to the same family of engines, but that does not mean they are the same. The airframes may look similar from an external dimensions perspective, but they are not the same. In short, Su30MKI and Su32/34 are different aircrafts but have same lineage (Su27) so will have more commonality between say a Mig29 and F16 but will present an equally challenging headache for the IAF. Also we cannot just "replace" aircrafts which have enough life left in them - Mig27 and Jaguar are expected to be used until 2020 - we may be doing well but we are NOT the US in terms of throwing money on defence. I will strongly urge you to read a little bit on what it takes to induct an aircraft and make it operational - what you are saying will not work in real world. My last post on this topic

So only because we invested some money in the AL 31 engine we won't take better engines with the next upg? Pretty unlikly! Like I said, the one is only an improved version of the other, so even they won't get AL 41, we could use the AL35 for both right?
I never said that they are not different aircrafts, but that they have a lot of commonality and that we should use this advantage to reduce logistics and maintenance costs, plus get more quality.
You are wrong mate, only about 40 Mig 27 was upg, the rest will be phased out before 2020, same for most of the Jaguar if they don't get a new upg! Not sure about the costs for their upg, but we still must use different weapons, engines and so on!

sarang · Post by **sarang** » 17 Apr 2009 19:20

Like I said, the one is only an improved version of the other, so even they won't get AL 41, we could use the AL35 for both right?

I don't think the statement is correct. may be the both are from same manufacturer /family of engine but one is configured for multi-role while other one is for ground strike.

JMT

Sajith_J · Post by **Sajith_J** » 18 Apr 2009 16:18

sarang wrote:
Like I said, the one is only an improved version of the other, so even they won't get AL 41, we could use the AL35 for both right?
I don't think the statement is correct. may be the both are from same manufacturer /family of engine but one is configured for multi-role while other one is for ground strike.

JMT

AL-31 is a family of turbofan engines developed to power the Su-27/32multi-role fighter aircraft family. They were developed by the former Soviet Union and currently are manufactured by NPO Saturn. They deliver between 27,000- and 32,000 pounds of thrust and are one of the keys for Su-27 outstanding performance. Besides growing in thrust, AL-31 have incorporated other advancements such as Thrust Vectoring Control (TVC) providing Super Maneuverability to Su-27/32 aircraft.
The NPO Saturn AL-35F is an improved variant with increased thrust and other modifications to better withstand operation at low altitude. AL-35F engine was chosen to power Su-32/34 strike aircraft/light bomber which is a derivative of Su-27IB carrier-based training aircraft. This engine delivers up to 28,200-lb of thrust. The Su-35/37 multi-role fighter aircraft may be powered by either AL-35F and 117S/AL-37FU engines.

http://www.deagel.com/Fighter-Aircraft- ... 03002.aspx

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Apr 2009 16:30

sajith, in spite of same parentage, the su-32/34 is basically a new a/c, it has much more differences with a baseline su-27 than a mki has with a baseline su-27.

as far as the IAF is concerned, India's current military scenario doesn't envisage a LR bomber requirement in the foreseeable future that already can't be accomplished by the su-30mki.

IOW, there is no justification of setting up production line of a new a/c that anyway won't be required for anything more than (say) 20 items.

at most, IAF can seek to convert some of its existing mki's for specialised ground attack role using sub-systems from the su-34 and other sources. but I doubt the cost-benefit analysis would warrant such a move.

rachel · Post by **rachel** » 18 Apr 2009 16:53

BUT is it not true that SU 32/34 has more in common with SU30MKI than does Mig 27 and Jaguar?

And is it not true that at some point we will be replacing the Mig 27 and Jaguar with something better? I certainly wouldnt be comfortabe fighting a war in say 2015 with planes designed and built form the 80s.

Even if SU 32/24 can yield some savings thru some common parts.... it may be worth it.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Apr 2009 19:26

err, we will be inducting the LCA/MRCA/MCA to fill in the shoes of jag/m27 etc.
mig-27 is a tactical CAS a/c, replacing it with a fighter bomber doesn't make much sense.

why do we need a heavy bomber for that ? the mki itself is a much better strike a/c than either of these a/c. (jag/m27)

rachel · Post by **rachel** » 19 Apr 2009 00:48

MCA is a pipe dream as of now. While it is true that SU34 would replace Jaguar more so than Mig 27 ... realistically none of out incoming craft, whether LCA, MRCA, or otherwise.. would take over the precise role of Mig27.

That being said, many wonder whether the Mig27 role is relevant at all in a very modern battlefield.

Short range, low level bombing for tactical targets .... might not have any relevance is an area infested with manpads AND ACK-ACK.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Apr 2009 06:47

MCA is a pipe dream as of now.

Yup. Wind "pipe" tests have been in progress ................. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... craft1.JPG

FlightGlobal :: India reveals plan to develop indigenous medium fighter

Understandably the time frame may be questionable:

To help phase out the air force's Dassault Mirage 2000 and Hindustan Aeronautics-built Sepecat Jaguar strike aircraft by around 2015, the proposed twin-engined MCA would also augment the service's Sukhoi Su-30MKIs and its planned future fleet of at least 126 medium multirole combat aircraft.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 19 Apr 2009 07:59

^^^ A lot of initiatives in their initial stages of inception are always considered pipe dreams....if we dont dream we wouldn't be inspired to achieve....and thus pipe dreams come true!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Apr 2009 08:23

Considering the MCA has changed shape substantially from the real pipe dream to , I think it is more serious than not. The time frame of 2015 scares me, but then we really do not too much to say if it is doable or not.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Apr 2009 09:40

MCA is a pipe dream as of now. While it is true that SU34 would replace Jaguar more so than Mig 27 ... realistically none of out incoming craft, whether LCA, MRCA, or otherwise.. would take over the precise role of Mig27.

realistically, any of the three types mentioned, esp. LCA would be a good candidate to take over the role of mig-27 in whatever role that evolves into.

it will most certainly not be filled by a dedicated fighter bomber.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 19 Apr 2009 12:04

hat being said, many wonder whether the Mig27 role is relevant at all in a very modern battlefield.

Short range, low level bombing for tactical targets .... might not have any relevance is an area infested with manpads AND ACK-ACK.

There is no such thing as modern battlefield - may be some have more so called state of the art equipment like in Iraq but at the end of the day no amount of electronic gadgets can stop the destructive potential of Gsh 30 6 of Mig 27 ON tanks and bunkers or direct line of sight dropping of 1000 kg dumb bombs precisely on enemy

Tracking a Mig 27 BY sam is a difficult proposition particularly at low altitude when the rate of angular variation is very very high and the monster 6 barrel gun is blazing directly at you spewing out close to 6000 rounds per minute in short burst of few seconds each

Have you ever seen a Mig 27 firing its gun then imagine what it is like to be on the recieving end

In Afganistan the stinger s were sucessful because the terrain was not suitable for low level high speed flight

And the talibans did not have that many tanks

In our case the terrain of Rajastan and Punjab is ideal for full utilisation of Mig 27 s potential

In a battle of Longelwal -the Mig 27s would have simply anhilated the tank regiment instead of 1/3 rd as the hunters did and that too much much faster .

In Kargil the Mig 27 was not shot down by stinger but engine flame out because of excessive use of the gun at high altitude ,the more than high level of recoil accompanied by hot gas ingestion at steep angle of attack .

Now modernized the Mig 27 will show what it can do -hope pakistan gives us a chance .

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 19 Apr 2009 14:13

It's extremely annoying that despite explanations by many, a lot of folks here seem to think that

1. Aircrafts are like Lego Toys - one can simply change parts (e.g. engines ) just like that.

2. IAF can simply induct aircrafts in no time at all, so it must induct the greatest one from brochures asap

3. India has unlimited resources so it can simply throw away what works and keep buying new stuff

Sorry to disappoint you folks, ain't going to happen. It takes years for any air force to induct an aircraft considering the development of logistics chain, tactics and training as well as sufficient inventory of consumables. For example, after years of painstaking work, HAL can support the following engines, and even these will require significant support from the OEM - so any talk of "MLU" to the Su30 with an upgraded engine or replacement of the Mig27/Jag must take into account the ROI achieved on existing capabilities, inventory levels etc - ain't going to happen any time soon!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Apr 2009 14:56

rachel wrote: That being said, many wonder whether the Mig27 role is relevant at all in a very modern battlefield.

Short range, low level bombing for tactical targets .... might not have any relevance is an area infested with manpads AND ACK-ACK.

Rachel - I am not sure if you have made it a habit to run out of your office/house to catch a glimpse of a fighter passing overhead every time you hear one.

If you are lucky enough to be in wide open ground you will have the pleasure of seeing it flash past. It you are an expert at aircraft recognition as many are on this forum, you will identify it. If the area has trees, or your view is restricted because of other terrain features you will only catch a glimpse of it passing overhead - if you are lucky again.

Not enough time for you to shoot a picture if you had a camera ready.

Flying at you at 900 kmph at 50 meters it will cover the last kilometer from where you are in 4 seconds and you will hear it late because it is flying at about 3/4 the speed of sound. You start hearing it when it is about 1.3 seconds away. By the time you hear it - if there is a tree or column of smoke in that direction you may not even catch a glimpse for you to get a bead and shoot.

On a battlefield the munitions would have been released before it flies over you. Heading towards you - it makes a very small target that rapidly appears and recedes if it is flying very low - as low as 50 meters or less. And when it recedes its exhaust gases are exposed for a brief while - and you have to get a manpad locked on that and fire in less than the 3 seconds you have to do that.

Not easy.

Sajith_J · Post by **Sajith_J** » 19 Apr 2009 16:37

Rahul M wrote:sajith, in spite of same parentage, the su-32/34 is basically a new a/c, it has much more differences with a baseline su-27 than a mki has with a baseline su-27.

as far as the IAF is concerned, India's current military scenario doesn't envisage a LR bomber requirement in the foreseeable future that already can't be accomplished by the su-30mki.

at most, IAF can seek to convert some of its existing mki's for specialised ground attack role using sub-systems from the su-34 and other sources. but I doubt the cost-benefit analysis would warrant such a move.

why do we need a heavy bomber for that ? the mki itself is a much better strike a/c than either of these a/c. (jag/m27)

I think it would be false to see the Su 32 only as a Bomber, because as you said the Mki is nearly as capable in that role and no one of us would call it a bomber right?

The difference of both to me is the specialising!
Mki has not a heavy armour and lower RCS that gives advantages in deep penetration strikes. As far as I know it offers no electronic warfare capabilities and also no special avionics and weapons to detect and destroy subs and ships.
And if we call Su 32 just a bomber we deny that it also has a2a capabilities (they may not as good as Mkis, but could be better then Jaguars, or Mig 27s), it can carry the same a2a weapons that Mki can carry and both have PESA radar with long range.

I never said that it will be just plug and play to change to Su 32, all I am saying is that it offers us more similarities with Mki than our existing, or coming (MMRCA) ground attack fighters give.
Saumitra_j says that it takes years for any air force to induct an aircraft considering the development of logistics chain, tactics and training and of course he is right! But just ask your self, what will be more difficult? To induct, train and build up logistics for F18 SH that would take a big part of the ground attack role, or a Su32 with the similarities to Mki?

Rahul M wrote:IOW, there is no justification of setting up production line of a new a/c that anyway won't be required for anything more than (say) 20 items.

Why only 20? Wouldn't they be the perfect replacement for jaguars(100+) in deep penetration and maritime strike attack roles? So instead of 230 Mki (I would) try to get only 150, plus 100 - 150 Su 32.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Apr 2009 19:19

rachel is partly correct in terms of the relevance of the 27 in the modern battlefield.

shankar is not fully correct in explaining why it would still work out. (the whole thing that the manpad guy will sh$t bricks works out only if the 27 knows where he is and is heading for him- not realistic)

The IAF has adjusted the Mig 27 tactics in lieu of what is expected in the modern battlefield.

They will not be always and I repeat ALWAYS be doing the low level runs they do at an Air power demonstration (thats done so that public can see something) . Things have changed and in conjunction with other weapons systems (think a bit as to what they could be) they have evolved tactics to stay out of manpad range.

Bottom line it is a sturdy , stable, fast rugged machine with a decent payload that can still do a lot of tasks. Wish all were upgraded but the IAF always seems to be penny wise pound foolish.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Apr 2009 19:49

I think it would be false to see the Su 32 only as a Bomber, because as you said the Mki is nearly as capable in that role and no one of us would call it a bomber right?

you lost the plot dear !

that's because the mki is a full-fledged multi-role a/c, the su-34 is a purpose built fighter-bomber with very limited A2A capability.

it's a2a capability may be better than mig-27/jag on paper but considering the times they were designed for, both have (understandably) very rudimentary defensive a2a capabilities.
to understand why, start with the cockpit arrangement which is optimised for strike and won't be conducive at all to ACMs.
the su-34 is made as a fighter-bomber and remains so unashamedly. the su-32fn (naval version) hasn't yet seen the light of day as austin mentioned.
if it does, then may be a case can be made to pick up a dozen or so of this variant.

to put it simply, IAF is not in the market for a full-fledged bomber and ALL its planned inductions are multi-role a/c with varying degrees of air combat and strike capability.
the su-34 doesn't fit the bill.

sum · Post by **sum** » 19 Apr 2009 20:42

As far as I know it offers no electronic warfare capabilities and also no special avionics and weapons to detect and destroy subs and ships.

The statement is being a bit unfair to the MKI....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Apr 2009 20:46

^^^
and that's an understatement if ever there was one !

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Apr 2009 20:52

sources claim IAF is almost sure to sign on for 6 x A330-tankers impressed by its greater fuel compared to Midas + cargo capability dual role.

sum · Post by **sum** » 19 Apr 2009 21:14

Singha wrote:sources claim IAF is almost sure to sign on for 6 x A330-tankers impressed by its greater fuel compared to Midas + cargo capability dual role.

IIRC, the elections have stopped the deal from being inked...all the formalities are done (from what i saw in some media reports).

Edit: Saw Rahul-saar's post now.
Damn, another OT post in another thread today.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Apr 2009 21:15

wrong thread alert !!

rsharma · Post by **rsharma** » 19 Apr 2009 22:02

Guys this whole talk about Su-32/34 is purely theoretic. IAF or Indian Defense strategists in general, just donot believe in dedicated bomber role a/c. Subsequent IAF chiefs over the last few years have repeated again & again on the preference of multi-role a/c. Even the upgrades of older a/c types (21s & 29ers) focus on enabling them to have a decent air-to-ground capability. Even the Navy didn't go ahead with the oft-reported lease of Tu-22M. IMHO the a/c with relatively better air-to-ground capability among the competing types will have the best chance in MRCA competition.
JMT

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 19 Apr 2009 22:31

But just ask your self, what will be more difficult? To induct, train and build up logistics for F18 SH that would take a big part of the ground attack role, or a Su32 with the similarities to Mki?

Sajith - two things to say: Firstly, the F18SH and the SU30/32/35 belong to different categories of aircraft - the F18/F16 etc come under "Medium" category, the latter in the "heavy" category. The IAF wants to have a combination of Light, Medium and Heavy for a simple reason: One doesn't use a sledge hammer to crack a nut! Besides there is economics involved - operational costs and so forth. So Su30/32 and so forth are ruled out as MMRCA.
Secondly, our initial discussion was around replacing Jags/MiG27s with the Su32 - so let us not confuse the issue here; Upgraded Jags/Mig27s will be there despite the MMRCA!

rachel · Post by **rachel** » 20 Apr 2009 04:38

Rsharma,

Yes, we know they dont like the idea of dedicated bombers.. but why dpont they like the idea? Part of the reason is costs and logistics involved in having an entire line which can only do one thing (not multirole).

The whole argument / thesis we are making is that Su 32/34 MAY not have the same cost/ logistical penalties of an F111 or Tornado because of commonality with others in Su 30 family.