Su-30: News and Discussion

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 28 Jun 2009 19:10

http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/27/stories ... 122000.htm

Said a former SU-30MKI pilot: “It is unpardonable and a poor design to have such critical switches, which are not to be used by the pilot in such an accessible manner. The Air Force should insist on design changes.”

This is ridiculous. A single crash after years of service has made MKI poorly designed...
I dont know what mentality we have? Or have every one of us started seeing every thing with American eyes.
The best of Russian equipments which we always boasted of, are all of sudden outdated. Probably because F 16 / 18 are offered....

I am not a technical guy. I am into business of underwriting loans. I think buying weapons (High end critical) is as good as giving loan. We not only see ability but also intentions...
It is a long term decision which will effect us for not less than 4 decades.
While American ability to provide better products than Russia might not (yes it is mgiht not, not cannot) be questionable, what about intentions?

Aren't we aware how much time delivery of f 16 was blocked in case of TSP. Yes I know many of us will justify it on grounds of India being ally in war against terror ..........etc.
But remember even TSP was important ally till now and it still is. Remember all billions of dollars in aid....

And have we forgot GE sanctions?? I understand we were ally even then. Again my friends will say "BUT THEY LIFTED WITHIN IN A VERY SHORT SPAN OF TIME". My dear friends modern war dont last longer. Any sanctions even for a period of 24 hours can hit us hard.

American has always given stripped of technology even to it best ally...
And russian... we have MKI which is atleast a generation ahead of any thing with Russian airforce

Also, leave aside all geo politics related to america and russia. But criticizing MKI is like licking our own spit. Where are all those tones of paper claiming MKI the best fighter gone?? Were they sponsored?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 116563.cms
"It will be a great opportunity since the Sukhoi-30MKI is one of the most modern fighters in the world,"said Torpy, talking exclusively to TOI on Saturday.

American pilots, flying their F-15Cs and F-16 'fighting falcons', found the Sukhoi-30MKIs "simply awesome" while being more or less outgunned during recent Indo-US wargames.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 168638.cms

But the machine that had the RAF in awe was the Su-30, with Air Commodore Julian Stinton saying the jet was "absolutely masterful in dog fights"...
"It's a super fighter and a mean machine," was how one RAF pilot labelled the IAF's frontline Sukhoi-30MKI combat jet..

Were all the above sponsored???

If a single accident decides design, even raptor has crashed....

Lastly, I am not Pro Russian or anti American.. I am Indian and since i dont have any defense or technical background i am not as much informed as many of you. Thus history is the only candle which i uses to guide myself in the darkness of future. Being Indian, I am ready to fight with bows and arrows that are strings free rather than state of art platforms with rule book which disallow any offensive use of the plat form either absolutely or against specific nations / conditions.

- Nitin

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2009 19:17

This is ridiculous. A single crash after years of service has made MKI poorly designed...

That is not what he said.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 28 Jun 2009 19:20

Just wait till the mki launches three air-launched brahmos in a triple salvo

Massive deterence value. Any navy will fear this.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2009 19:23

Drevin wrote:Just wait till the mki launches three air-launched brahmos in a triple salvo

Even then

Said a former SU-30MKI pilot: “It is unpardonable and a poor design to have such critical switches, which are not to be used by the pilot in such an accessible manner. The Air Force should insist on design changes.”

this problem will remain.

Why even have a switch, that turns off the main computer of the air craft, close to a pilot, I am not sure.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 28 Jun 2009 19:24

Yes you are right. Agree with you 100% sir. Maybe they can keep the switch but it becomes a "dummy". When pressed it won't work. Is this kind of patch-work possible with the level of tot we have on the plane

Or use indian solution .... put a red tape around that switch to remind pilot that its danger

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 28 Jun 2009 19:56

anand_sankar wrote:If you use Google Earth or Wikimapia and zoom into Diego Garcia, you will see what little things we can learn from the Americans. They have these nifty collapsible tents to shelter their B2 bombers when they transit through the base.

In a bid to learn little things from the Americans I used Google Earth and zoomed into Davis Mathon AFB in Tucson, AZ. Temperatures regularly are in the 38 to 40 degree C range there. And what do I see but rows upon rows of A-10 and C-130 aircraft parked in the sun!

Oh wait, maybe there is some Indian operating the base.

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 28 Jun 2009 19:59

nrshah wrote:http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/27/stories ... 122000.htm

Said a former SU-30MKI pilot: “It is unpardonable and a poor design to have such critical switches, which are not to be used by the pilot in such an accessible manner. The Air Force should insist on design changes.”

This is ridiculous. A single crash after years of service has made MKI poorly designed...
I dont know what mentality we have? Or have every one of us started seeing every thing with American eyes.
The best of Russian equipments which we always boasted of, are all of sudden outdated. Probably because F 16 / 18 are offered....

I am not a technical guy. I am into business of underwriting loans. I think buying weapons (High end critical) is as good as giving loan. We not only see ability but also intentions...
It is a long term decision which will effect us for not less than 4 decades.
While American ability to provide better products than Russia might not (yes it is mgiht not, not cannot) be questionable, what about intentions?

Aren't we aware how much time delivery of f 16 was blocked in case of TSP. Yes I know many of us will justify it on grounds of India being ally in war against terror ..........etc.
But remember even TSP was important ally till now and it still is. Remember all billions of dollars in aid....

And have we forgot GE sanctions?? I understand we were ally even then. Again my friends will say "BUT THEY LIFTED WITHIN IN A VERY SHORT SPAN OF TIME". My dear friends modern war dont last longer. Any sanctions even for a period of 24 hours can hit us hard.

American has always given stripped of technology even to it best ally...
And russian... we have MKI which is atleast a generation ahead of any thing with Russian airforce

Also, leave aside all geo politics related to america and russia. But criticizing MKI is like licking our own spit. Where are all those tones of paper claiming MKI the best fighter gone?? Were they sponsored?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 116563.cms
"It will be a great opportunity since the Sukhoi-30MKI is one of the most modern fighters in the world,"said Torpy, talking exclusively to TOI on Saturday.

American pilots, flying their F-15Cs and F-16 'fighting falcons', found the Sukhoi-30MKIs "simply awesome" while being more or less outgunned during recent Indo-US wargames.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 168638.cms

But the machine that had the RAF in awe was the Su-30, with Air Commodore Julian Stinton saying the jet was "absolutely masterful in dog fights"...
"It's a super fighter and a mean machine," was how one RAF pilot labelled the IAF's frontline Sukhoi-30MKI combat jet..

Were all the above sponsored???

If a single accident decides design, even raptor has crashed....

Lastly, I am not Pro Russian or anti American.. I am Indian and since i dont have any defense or technical background i am not as much informed as many of you. Thus history is the only candle which i uses to guide myself in the darkness of future. Being Indian, I am ready to fight with bows and arrows that are strings free rather than state of art platforms with rule book which disallow any offensive use of the plat form either absolutely or against specific nations / conditions.

- Nitin

Hear Hear well put Nitin, I couldn't have said it better myself. But putting things in perspective there should have been some safety cover over the switches which were so critical to make it impossible for accidental misuse. But the critical comments that have emanated thereof are extremely harsh and over the top.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 28 Jun 2009 20:00

Correct,

then train pilots with respect to those switches..
Why blame design??

There will not be less than 25 switches controlling different aspects in the cockpit. Many of them will be used and many will not be used in specific condition. If by mistake, pilot uses the latter, is it a design fault!!!!!

And why after 9 years, we are cursing it now? What were we doing when mki was being developed?

It is a human error which will go with the best of the design...

- Nitin

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2009 20:01

shameekg,

I would think that each air craft will have different requirements. In fact, some may need air conditioned environments. The F-117 nighthawk cannot be exposed to rain!!!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2009 20:06

Correct,

then train pilots with respect to those switches..
Why blame design??

Because it took just one incident, one pilot, to overpower the "design". That is why.

And, there is bound to be another pilot (recall they said it is a pilot error) who will make this error in the spur of the moment.

It is a bad design for sure. There is no need for ANY pilot to use that switch while in flight and the chances of someone "using" it is rather high - even for a trained pilot - pilots do make errors, like any of us.

It is best to either cover it with a plastic cap or move it. Redesign does not mean that one spends a million dollars to find a solution.

But, the risk of leaving it as it is and claiming that a pilot has been trained is too high and unacceptable.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Jun 2009 20:09

Can we stop the chest beating? There was a problem and 2 experienced pilots were lost! The MKI has had an excellent record. It can do even better. We owe this to the 2 pilots that were lost unfortunately. Sometimes we can do the most complicated things but overlook the most obvious. That is embarrassing, but fortunately simple solutions can be found and implemented quickly.

John · Post by **John** » 28 Jun 2009 20:39

Drevin wrote:Just wait till the mki launches three air-launched brahmos in a triple salvo Massive deterence value. Any navy will fear this.

I believe that has been dropped since the wings could not strengthed to accommodate them, currently the Mki will carry only one brahmos.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 28 Jun 2009 20:59

What is the weight of the air-variant brahmos

Any info will be welcome. Was there a brahmos2 also being planned

Anyway its still a great plane.

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 28 Jun 2009 21:35

Drevin wrote:What is the weight of the air-variant brahmos Any info will be welcome. Was there a brahmos2 also being planned Anyway its still a great plane.

I am not sure about weight but , IIRC DRDO planned Brahmos with Mach 5

Ankit

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 28 Jun 2009 22:18

NRao wrote:shameekg,

I would think that each air craft will have different requirements. In fact, some may need air conditioned environments. The F-117 nighthawk cannot be exposed to rain!!!!

I agree. I was being sarcastic. It is hard for me to believe that suddenly we need to start learning things from Americans about how to maintain our aircraft which have specific need like you said. We have been operating the MKI long enough. I would hope we know what is required to keep them fighting fit!

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 28 Jun 2009 22:23

They would need to thoroughly look at all these switches and than interlock them to ensure they can't be turned on by pilot or flight computers when MKI is in Air. Basic 101 of safety or any system design. Critical functions need several layers of confirmation and satisfying multiple interlocks before they can be turned on.

Alternately the can mark those switches as "commit instant suicide" with skull and bone sticker on top.

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 28 Jun 2009 22:34

Drevin wrote:What is the weight of the air-variant brahmos Any info will be welcome. Was there a brahmos2 also being planned Anyway its still a great plane.

The weight of Air-launched variant of Brahmos Missile is in the range of 2,500-3,000Kgs.
Weight, 3000 kg 2500 kg (air-launched). Length, 8.4 m. Diameter, 0.6 m ... whereas the aircraft-launched variant (BrahMos A) can carry a 300 kg warhead. ... The BrahMos missile has an identical configuration for land, sea,
Brahmos-2 is still in development phase. That is to say Brahmos2 Sea and land variants not the Air variant.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 29 Jun 2009 04:53

How are they sure that the pilots switched the thingies off? Could the computers have lost power somehow due to a failure which threw the aircraft into an uncharted trajectory.

John · Post by **John** » 29 Jun 2009 05:25

Nirmal wrote:
Drevin wrote:What is the weight of the air-variant brahmos Any info will be welcome. Was there a brahmos2 also being planned Anyway its still a great plane.
The weight of Air-launched variant of Brahmos Missile is in the range of 2,500-3,000Kgs.
Weight, 3000 kg 2500 kg (air-launched). Length, 8.4 m. Diameter, 0.6 m ... whereas the aircraft-launched variant (BrahMos A) can carry a 300 kg warhead. ... The BrahMos missile has an identical configuration for land, sea,
Brahmos-2 is still in development phase. That is to say Brahmos2 Sea and land variants not the Air variant.

It has small booster orginally Yakhont-M weight was listed IIRC at 2,300 kg, i am doubtful about Brahmos air launched variants' future however since it looks like it will serve just two platforms. Doesn't make sense to procure them in large numbers, it would intresting to see Harpoon is procured (if it wins IAF/IN AShM tender for helos and aircrafts) and whether that will be integrated with Su-30mki?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jun 2009 06:47

igloo style tents will also provide better cover against enemy satellites.

easiest soln to switch problem is perhaps a hard plastic cover with a small
lock that is always locked and only ground crew has the key.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 Jun 2009 07:15

A chain might be as solid as can be, but it is only as strong as the weakest link.

Those switches are probably required by ground maintenance to service the aircraft on the ground.
But allowing a design where a single point failure can lead to a catastrophe and a loss of an aircraft and endanger its crew, needs to be looked into. This has importance beyond merely preventing an accident, it extends to making the aircraft impervious to any attempt to sabotage it.

This looks like a weak link. It is probably being dealt with now.

The question is, did the FBW fail before the pilot pressed the re-boot or did it fail after?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2009 07:37

Vivek K wrote:How are they sure that the pilots switched the thingies off? Could the computers have lost power somehow due to a failure which threw the aircraft into an uncharted trajectory.

The switch is either "on" or "off". The investigation seems to have found (per news reports) that the switch was set to "off". The only person that could have done that was the pilot. It has never happened before, but it can happen again.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 29 Jun 2009 07:56

NRao wrote:The switch is either "on" or "off". The investigation seems to have found (per news reports) that the switch was set to "off". The only person that could have done that was the pilot. It has never happened before, but it can happen again.

Didnt Wing Commander Siddharth Munje survive ? His testimony might have provided some definitive answers.

I swear by our dear dog, Ma, I am safe: officer on crashed Sukhoi
“I panicked a bit when I heard about the crash. But around 1 pm I managed to contact Siddharth and he said he was safe,” said Aparajita Munje, mother of Wing Commander S V Munje (35), who survived the Sukhoi crash on Thursday morning.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2009 08:14

I am not sure what is so hard to understand, news report:

The Court of Inquiry (CoI) that went into the crash found that the pilot, Wing Commander S. V. Munje, inadvertently switched-off the four switches that control the power supply to the computer.

There does not seem to be any question about the switches being turned off.

There does not seem to be any question about why he turned them off. (It was "inadvertently". No issues there.)

The issue is about that the pilot could do it - obviously he should not have been able to do it.

During the flight, the aircraft is said to have experienced a technical glitch after a round of firing practice. The pilot, who was also under routine inspection by the DASI, is said to have then tried to switch-off the armament master switches, which are located just behind the pilot’s seat and in close proximity to the switches that control power to the flight control computer.

We need to move on.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jun 2009 08:28

Anujan wrote:
I swear by our dear dog, Ma, I am safe: officer on crashed Sukhoi
“I panicked a bit when I heard about the crash. But around 1 pm I managed to contact Siddharth and he said he was safe,” said Aparajita Munje, mother of Wing Commander S V Munje (35), who survived the Sukhoi crash on Thursday morning.

One of the things that is less apparent to failed-fighter pilots and armchair Marshals like me is that flying a fighter involves plenty of workload and stress - so much so that a little bit of combat along the way in a pilot's career does not add much to the overall stress.

In my day job (surgery) I have a reasonable guarantee that I can be totally relaxed - leave home in the morning and arrive back home in the evening without risking my life. However i can still make errors in moments of stress - while operating. But I will still go to work and arrive home safely. That is a given.

Mine is a cushy life compared to a fighter pilot's job. Once you take off and are flying - there is one minor detail that will not go away. The plane will fly only X minutes. Within those X minutes you have to be near an airfield and you have to point your plane's nose along the length of that airfield and descend at a particular speed and angle so that your wheels touch down gently at a point tens of kilometers away. You can't bang it down, and you can't keep on flying too much longer. The point I am making is that fighter flying itself is stressful an it is remarkable how training and technology have made it so safe.

So no matter how good or experienced a pilot is errors do happen. "Flight safety" is all about trying to avoid those errors. But they will never be eliminated. I have heard/read stories of all sorts of errors - many not fatal, and some not even reported. There is a famous story of a famous pilot who once pulled the eject lever while he was flying instead of something else. There is a well known story of canopy latch not being closed before takeoff. I have heard stories of helicopter takeoff with door swinging open and acrobatic maneuvers in the cabin to shut the door while in flight. So it keeps happening

sum · Post by **sum** » 29 Jun 2009 09:03

There is a famous story of a famous pilot who once pulled the eject lever while he was flying instead of something else.

Yup, remember seeing a show on Discovery where a USN co-pilot presses the eject button by mistake but to his bad luck, the firing mechanism didnt work properly leading half his body getting stuck outside the plane with the other half inside...

The man actually was in that position till the pilot landed the plane back on the carrier and they showed the video taken from on the carrrier with the pilot's face sticking out of the plane when it was approaching to land!!!

Aditya_M · Post by **Aditya_M** » 29 Jun 2009 14:32

How are they sure that the pilots switched the thingies off?

The Flight Data Recorder also logs manual actions - if you press a button to switch some equipment off v/s the supply or the equipment itself failing. Very easy to read.

Shiv, I can give another famous example. This crash was caused by the pilot moving the wrong lever in the cockpit (thrust instead of nozzle angle):

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Jun 2009 14:55

Gagan wrote:
The question is, did the FBW fail before the pilot pressed the re-boot or did it fail after?

There is quadruple redundancy on the FCS / FBW. All FBW hardware in this case is MIL STD qualified. Total FBW failure could have occurred only in this case where the power to the total system was mistakenly but nevertheless shut off. The pilot himself would have told the Court of Inquiry as much. Corroborated by the physical evidence of the switch in the off position as well as may be FDR data for switch position, if recorded. FDR would for sure have recorded the interruption of power to all channels of the FBW at a very specific time stamp.

No QUESTION of anybody pressing "reboot" at any time. The FBW / FCS system does not work like that on any aircraft.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Jun 2009 15:04

Aditya_M wrote:
How are they sure that the pilots switched the thingies off?

The Flight Data Recorder also logs manual actions - if you press a button to switch some equipment off v/s the supply or the equipment itself failing. Very easy to read.

Not necessarily true

and not so easy to read, specially with a badly damaged FDR which is more often than not the case after any accident.

The FDR usually has a fixed number of channels used for recording vital flight and engine parameters as decided by the designers.

All manual actions in the cockpit may not be recorded. For instance, the selection of the undercarriage lever either up or down will be recorded ( and can be cross referenced on a single time line with air speed, flap settings and engine lever positions as well as engine parameters ) but the switching on or off of the landing light may not be recorded.

Similarly, positions of radio switches and controls and mundane parameters like these will not be recorded.

That is why CVRs, ie Cockpit voice recorders are also a vital part of any accident investigation. This will generally record the last 30 minutes of conversation in the cockpit on an endless loop tape with recordings beyond 30 minutes being written over by the latest inputs. These are usually fitted on transport and commercial aircraft.

The ATC also maintains a complete recording of all transmissions to and from the aircraft with an injected time stamp. So the precise time, content and duration of transmissions can be accessed later if required.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2009 18:48

The question is, did the FBW fail before the pilot pressed the re-boot or did it fail after?

re-boot is not possible - at all - on the MKI (assume true for all air crafts) - per the article.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 29 Jun 2009 20:18

NRao wrote:shameekg,

I would think that each air craft will have different requirements. In fact, some may need air conditioned environments. The F-117 nighthawk cannot be exposed to rain!!!!

Are u sure about it, as i read that when Russians got hold of the shot down F-117 during the kosovo war, they found that the f-117 was covered by tiles used to cover submarines.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 29 Jun 2009 22:26

Apologies for OT (will also post this in the Flight Safety thread):

This FDR discussion got me thinking along the lines of "why cant the FDR transmit the data as a real time feed to a satellite and there-upon to a control center?". Would solve a lot of problems - black-box damage, problems in its recovery, possible real-time alerting of emergency situations (even alerting the pilot before its too late) etc. Something like the telemetry checks on space vehicles.

Upon Googling, found the following links of interest:

A discussion of some of the challenges of this approach (key ones seems to be data volume & cost):

Air France crash sparks black box debate
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090618/wl_ ... blackboxes

Many military aircraft already use data streaming, sending flight information real-time via satellite to ground stations.

But the massive bandwidth and sophisticated infrastructure needed to manage and process data from tens of thousands of commercial flights per day could make it prohibitively expensive.

Bruce Coffey, President of the Aviation Recorders division of L-3 Communications -- the world's largest supplier of crash-survivable recording units -- told Reuters the use of data streaming in conjunction with traditional recording units could provide a "belt and suspenders" approach.

Another company that is trying to do this:

Beyond the Black Box - Live Flight Data Analysis
http://finance.alphatrade.com/story/200 ... C8011.html

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Jun 2009 22:30

NRao wrote:
The question is, did the FBW fail before the pilot pressed the re-boot or did it fail after?
re-boot is not possible - at all - on the MKI (assume true for all air crafts) - per the article.

Brother,

Once the FBW has shut down, the aeroplane will very violently and instantaneously depart from controlled flight.

All modern FBW fighters are inherently unstable by design. That is why they are so agile. The Su-30 aerodynamic configuration is an unstable longitudinal triplane, formed by the canard, wing and tailplane.

They fly and remain airborne only because of the artificial stability provided by the FBW. The FBW actually makes thousands of tiny aerodynamic corrections every second to impart this artificial stability. These thousands of corrections per second are continuously made through out the entire duration of the flight.

No pilot in the world is capable of making such corrections manually, even for the short duration.

If the FBW is not operational, the aeroplane cannot even take off.

There is no concept, forget "possibility", of even rebooting such a system because the aeroplane would have gone completely out of control.

Sean Wilson · Post by **Sean Wilson** » 30 Jun 2009 22:56

rakall wrote:What though seems to have been on order for Jaguars is EL/M 20600 RTP which is a radar targetting pod.

Is the EL/M-20600 RTP intended to replace the Litening targeting pod?

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 02 Jul 2009 10:36

Sean Wilson wrote:
rakall wrote:What though seems to have been on order for Jaguars is EL/M 20600 RTP which is a radar targetting pod.
Is the EL/M-20600 RTP intended to replace the Litening targeting pod?

No.. Both are for different purposes..

EL/M-20600 RTP can be used in wartime/peacetime surveillance & reconnaisance operations to get realtime picture of enemy territory from stand-off distance coverign huge swathes of area...

Litening pod is used for target designation purposes..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Jul 2009 11:25

That makes me wonder , why have a FBW at all , no FBW , no Computer , no Switches to off those computer

At office or aircraft I realised the evil computer was main source of most problems

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 02 Jul 2009 11:34

Austin wrote:That makes me wonder , why have a FBW at all , no FBW , no Computer , no Switches to off those computer

At office or aircraft I realised the evil computer was main source of most problems

Its a necessary evil..

As long as you use it properly, with care, it works wonders for you.. and, makes your life easy..
When you start mis-using or abusing it, it revolts (hangs) on you.. and, takes your life..

Have your pick..

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 02 Jul 2009 11:38

Austin wrote:That makes me wonder , why have a FBW at all , no FBW , no Computer , no Switches to off those computer
At office or aircraft I realised the evil computer was main source of most problems

Austin-saar
Ofcourse its a joke, I get it. But actually thinking along those lines, FBW is not the culprit here, relaxed stability is. If there is a flight computer and is switched off in a stable platform, no worries. The pilot can fly it and land it safely. The major problem in this case seems to be the pilot being unable to control the aircraft without the flight computer because relaxed stability of SU-30 is so hard to control.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 02 Jul 2009 11:49

rakall wrote:
Sean Wilson wrote: Is the EL/M-20600 RTP intended to replace the Litening targeting pod?
No.. Both are for different purposes..

EL/M-20600 RTP can be used in wartime/peacetime surveillance & reconnaisance operations to get realtime picture of enemy territory from stand-off distance coverign huge swathes of area...

Litening pod is used for target designation purposes..

Both are for same purpose using different technologies - IR & EM.

RTP is equipped to deal with the complete kill sequence.
http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/files/6/36836.pdf

Similarly Litening can do the same using IR technology. Of course both complement each other -- think of sensor fusion and how you can combine the individual benefits of IR and Radar technologies to knockout their individual disadvantages.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 02 Jul 2009 12:00

regarding the su-30 crash, got two basic questions,

1) FBW is lost, the pilot is (probably) trying hard to pull the aircraft up from its free dive, there's no effect on the plane's trajectory even after major correction? minor trims aren't being performed at this stage

2) Isn't spin recovery part of FBW solution? a switch off-on operation mid flight cannot recover the flight?