Su-30: News and Discussion

nash · Post by **nash** » 29 Jul 2009 10:07

^^^^

I am not sure about MMRCA but LCA MK2 may got delayed.

So, may be we can see 300(app) MKI in IAF by 2014 in place of 230.

Also ,in this article IAF told HAL to step up the production.
300 figure might be in their mind.

It may be my wild thought.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 29 Jul 2009 15:02

nash wrote:So, may be we can see 300(app) MKI in IAF by 2014 in place of 230.

IMHO, If it has to be 300, then the prod'n WILL go beyond 2014. May be 2017-2018. We could install all the post 2014 Sukhois with AESA and everything else that comes with the MLU. Tejas Mk2 should be out by then for sure.

But to me, its bad news that they started publicising plan B already. It shows lack of faith in HAL's capability to meet the deadlines.

Ajay K · Post by **Ajay K** » 29 Jul 2009 17:21

Internal weapons bay on Su-30.
http://www.forceindia.net/images/cover-4.jpg

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 29 Jul 2009 17:56

By december 2014 we should be done with transfering 230th mki-mk3 to iaf. Thats the most urgent milestone now. I guess thats why iaf has started putting mental pressure on hal.

Timelines elcrucial...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2009 19:02

The IAF should also go in for two sqds.,about 24-32 of SU-34 Flanker bomber variant,to be the sharp edge of our strategic deterrent air delivered,as well as delivering LR tactical missiles like Brahmos.These long-legged aircraft along with refuelling and stuffed with advanced EW,should be used to deliver deep strikes far into enemy territory,to destroy key infrastructure elements of the enemy like bridges of the Tibetan railway,Karakorum Highway,and other targets.The IAF should also consider acquiring a few sqds. of the SU-35 single seat variant of the Flanker,which will be a 4+ gen. aircraft leading to the PAK-FA/5th-gen aircraft,of which our version will reportedly be a twin-engined single seater smaller than the SU-30.This is because there is a pilot shortage in the IAF and these aircraft can be tasked primarily for the air domination role while the existing two-seat SU-30s and extras ordered fulfil the multi-role requirement.

As posted in another thread,the Flanker according to US and other western air forces can only be countered by the F-22 with its superior stealth and AESA radar.When the later variants of the Flanker also come with AESA radar,stealth and other 5th-gen tech.,they will be able to deal with the Raptor on equal terms.The IAF should order the extra SU-35s and SU-34s from Russia to save time if local manufacture is difficult.

PLus,if the figures given are correct,we willl get about 240 Flankers for just $9.5 billion,while just 126 MMRCA aircraft will cost us nothing less than $10 billion! Oz is also buying an extra 24 F-18SHs at an official price of $100million per piece.When compared with buying the Flanker which can clobber the competition in style,it makes absurd economic sense to buy anything less capable for twice the price!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Jul 2009 19:11

I wonder if a modular LO RCS version of Su-35BM is possible something custom built for IAF , with NIIP 1200-1300 AESA T/R module and the AL-41F1A engine.

This will give lo RCS and supercruise capabilty with decent payload , a good match for F-35 type with lower cost , purchase 200 of these types

Logistically its a great advantage in having a common type in MKI and Su-35IN

If that can be done , we should scrap the MMRCA project altogether , and build our force on LCA , MKI/35 and upgraded M2k , 29 ,Jags .......till such time we get our own 5th Gen FGFA which will be like 2020 and in parallel start our work on MCA.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 29 Jul 2009 20:33

Austin sir are you hinting that .... russia is testing the pakfa engine using a su35bm ? Thats why so much interest in the su35bm. Kind of get some idea of the final engine that powers the pakfa ? And ofcourse the commonality advantage between the two.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 29 Jul 2009 21:44

Philip wrote:Oz is also buying an extra 24 F-18SHs at an official price of $100million per piece.

You are making an invalid comparison.

The Su price is the bare airframe while the Australia price includes support, training, spares, infrastructure, etc.

To compare like to like, the per-unit cost of the SH is $49 million, and that is manufactured in the US.

Once manufacture is switched to India, the price will be even less.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 29 Jul 2009 22:53

The MKI price including everything is 62-65 mil and fly away cost only 45 mil. Still way cheaper and better than sewer hornet.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jul 2009 00:53

Drevin wrote:Austin sir are you hinting that .... russia is testing the pakfa engine using a su35bm ? Thats why so much interest in the su35bm. Kind of get some idea of the final engine that powers the pakfa ? And ofcourse the commonality advantage between the two.

Well yes that is the case indeed , the AL-31(117S) also referred as AL-41F1A powers the Su-35BM , the PAK-FA will use the same engine with a new core which will give a higher thrust and will go by designation AL-41F1.

Yes the PAK-FA engine can well be used on Su-35 if need be , smart thinking by Russi great logistics advantage and an easy upgrade without flirting with aircraft design.

From what I have read the 117S already achieved supercruise on Su-35 , probably she may well supercruise with some useful external load like typhoon.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 30 Jul 2009 08:02

Why Su35, what is it that can't be done with Su30 which is worth the hassle and cost?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jul 2009 09:41

Katare wrote:Why Su35, what is it that can't be done with Su30 which is worth the hassle and cost?

May need flight testing and perhaps some slight performance penalty due to canard , materials , but it does not matter if HAL can build MKI they can the 35.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jul 2009 13:00

George,I'm only quoting the official OZ price which it is paying for 24 F-18F SHs,almost $100 million per piece.The total cost for Indian SU-30s is also well known, posted earlier in other threads which comes to half the price.Secondly,manufacture of any aircraft in India is going to be an arduous task,as all our existing prgrammes are delayed.Adding another new line of US tech. to HAL's groaning infrastructure and human resources is going to be very difficult.BUilding the single-seat SU-35 would be no problem as this Flanker variant will possess some of the tech being used in the 5th-gen fighter and can be built on the existing SU-30 Flanker line.I suspect that the future variants of the SU-30MKI being written about-with interbal weapons bay,AESA radar,etc.,would have similar capabilities to the SU-35,but are twin-seat aircraft.

If the EJ-200 is selected for the LCA project,it would give the Tyhoon an edge over the F-18SH,being a far more advanced aircraft and whose same engine would also be used in the LCA.

From all available info.,even from western sources,the Flanker is a "win-win" acquisition for India,able to defeat any western type,including the JSF F-35, other than the F-22 ,and the more we have of the type until the smaller single-seat 5th-gen fighter arrives,the stronger will the IAF be.It defies logic to buy an inferior,date aircraft at twice the price,or even around the same price!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jul 2009 15:24

Mig-35 is a good buy logistics ,customisation , cost effectiveness point of view will go a long way in streamlining the type that IAF operates and reducing maintenance cost.

Adding one more new Western type , will only aggravate the problem that the IAF is currently facing of operating so many different types , making it look like a circus.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 30 Jul 2009 17:03

Austin wrote:Mig-35 is a good buy logistics ,customisation , cost effectiveness point of view will go a long way in streamlining the type that IAF operates and reducing maintenance cost.

Adding one more new Western type , will only aggravate the problem that the IAF is currently facing of operating so many different types , making it look like a circus.

Mig 35 will do the job of handing the keys of Indian military to Russia. We need to build more sources of military hardware not just depend on mother Russia for everything.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jul 2009 17:18

abhiti wrote:Mig 35 will do the job of handing the keys of Indian military to Russia. We need to build more sources of military hardware not just depend on mother Russia for everything.

Its in our own interest of IAF both short and long term to stream line the types we operate and reduce logistic , weapons and operating cost , so its not the question of depending on Mother Russia , Father America or Lady France.

Its more in the interest of Mother India

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 30 Jul 2009 19:08

Philip wrote:George,I'm only quoting the official OZ price which it is paying for 24 F-18F SHs,almost $100 million per piece.

Which includes many things besides the base airframes so it's not a valid comparison.

I quoted the price for the base airframe ($49 million) which is a valid comparison, except that it's made in the US where manufacturing (labor) costs are higher.

Philip wrote:Adding another new line of US tech. to HAL's groaning infrastructure and human resources is going to be very difficult.

I think you overestimate the difficulty, but regardless, it will be a good learning experience. That is part of the rationale of the MRCA, to increase India's tech base.

Philip wrote:BUilding the single-seat SU-35 would be no problem

And likewise, no challenge equals no new learning.

Philip wrote:I suspect that the future variants of the SU-30MKI being written about-with interbal weapons bay,AESA radar,etc.,would have similar capabilities to the SU-35,but are twin-seat aircraft.

I suspect by the time any such fanciful aircraft was ready, the FGFA would already be flying.

Philip wrote:If the EJ-200 is selected for the LCA project,it would give the Tyhoon an edge over the F-18SH

If the F414 was selected, would that give the SH the edge?

Philip wrote:being a far more advanced aircraft

The EF won't even have AESA until 2014 at best, calling it more advanced doesn't fly.

Philip wrote:From all available info.,even from western sources,the Flanker is a "win-win" acquisition for India,able to defeat any western type

Any type is able to defeat any other type if the circumstances are right. That said, underestimate the SH at your own peril.

Philip wrote:including the JSF F-35

That's a joke, the F-35 will destroy any flanker variant.

Philip wrote:It defies logic to buy an inferior,date aircraft at twice the price,or even around the same price!

1. It's not inferior. I think they provide different, complementary capabilities.
2. It's not twice the price, it may even be less.
3. It will transfer new technologies to India that you don't have access to yet.
4. It adds diversity to India's supplier base instead of being so reliant on one.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 30 Jul 2009 19:09

Austin wrote:so its not the question of depending on Mother Russia , Father America or Lady France.

Its more in the interest of Mother India

And the interest of Mother India is not to be so dependent on one supplier that it allows them to apply undue pressure.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 30 Jul 2009 19:24

GeorgeWelch wrote:
And the interest of Mother India is not to be so dependent on one supplier that it allows them to apply undue pressure.

After months of reading and following def news ... I am not sure if we want to serve interests of Unkil or Russia or J state or lady franc. I am damn sure we would not hesitate to scriface interests of Mother India. All the kick backs, flawed weapons, creating hurdles for local produced defense products.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 31 Jul 2009 02:20

GeorgeWelch wrote: 1. It's not inferior. I think they provide different, complementary capabilities.
2. It's not twice the price, it may even be less.
3. It will transfer new technologies to India that you don't have access to yet.
4. It adds diversity to India's supplier base instead of being so reliant on one.

George: agree with you on the F-35 comparison. That and the F-22 are definitely better than SU-30 MKI, no doubt about it. But the SH is a different story. Since the MKI has not seen real combat against the SH, we cant know which will prevail under what conditions. But if you look at all the parameters of the 2 aircraft, its clear, at leas to me that the MKI is definitely a superior machine (maybe not by a wide margin, but still better).

Your point (2) is easily disputed - whether you compare the fly-away costs or the life-cycle costs, MKI is cheaper. The SH is costlier because of the American workforce. But that's of no concern to India.

Points 3 and 4 are gravy. We can argue about the merits of these points, but the key is that they come to play only if other things are equal (namely 1 and 2).

I think we are into OT territory here - because SH & F-35 discussion should be in the MRCA thread.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 31 Jul 2009 02:31

Prem Kumar wrote:But if you look at all the parameters of the 2 aircraft, its clear, at leas to me that the MKI is definitely a superior machine (maybe not by a wide margin, but still better).

You can't ignore the electronics and RCS.

Especially if you wanted to penetrate highly defended airspace, I know which one I would rather be in. The MKI is going to get lit up by any half-way competent IADS. The SH has an inherent advantage with a lower RCS plus a systems advantage in that NO ONE devotes more resources to penetrating SAM infested locations than the US.

If I wanted to buy a SAM I would go to Russia. If I wanted to buy a plane to penetrate that SAM I would go to the US.

Prem Kumar wrote:whether you compare the fly-away costs or the life-cycle costs, MKI is cheaper.

Fly-away costs are debatable, but what is not debatable is comparing some $30 million unit cost to the $100 million cost for Australia that included support, spares, training and all sorts of other stuff.

As far as life-cycle costs, there is absolutely ZERO evidence the MKI is cheaper. In fact I would expect it to be more if for no other reason than fuel.

Prem Kumar wrote: The SH is costlier because of the American workforce. But that's of no concern to India.

It is because manufacture will be switched to India, so you have to figure what sort of price break you can get when that happens.

Prem Kumar wrote: I think we are into OT territory here - because SH & F-35 discussion should be in the MRCA thread.

Agreed.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Jul 2009 02:40

^^^
WRONG THREAD !!

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 31 Jul 2009 05:18

Poor network hits Sukhoi deployment

NEW DELHI, July 30 – India’s plans to bolster its military strength along the border with China by deploying its potent Sukhoi fighter jets in Tezpur have been badly hit due to poor infrastructure at the front line airbase, reports PTI. “Tezpur’s infrastructure is inadequate to deploy and operate the heavier Su-30MKIs. The infrastructure development plan for the airbase in Assam is awaiting a nod from the Cabinet Committee on Security,” a top IAF officer told PTI here today.

The plan includes strengthening the tarmac of the airbase, which had till recently operated only MiG-21 variants, so that it can handle the Russian-origin Sukhoi air superiority multi-role fighters, the officer said.

India had on June 15 formally inducted four Su-30MKIs in Tezpur in anticipation of having a full squadron of 18 Sukhois at the airbase this year.

But now the plans have been postponed till mid 2010, when the infrastructure project would be completed, the officer said, adding the full squadron currently based in Lohegaon near Pune will move to Tezpur only then.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2009 21:59

Newbie question perhaps, but can't help it. From BR - IAF section:

Maximum Range: The Su-30MKI with a single in-flight re-fuelling can go a distance of 8000 km; (~5000 miles). The maximum flight duration can be 10 hours --> in terms of the crew capabilities. The Su-30K/MK-1 with a normal fuel load of 5270 kg (~11,620 lbs.) can go a distance of 3000 km (~1900 miles) and with an in-flight re-fuelling the aircraft go a distance of 5200 km (3231 miles).

Doesn't that seem a bit much for the Su-30? 3000km @ 60% fuel? The tiffy/rafale for eg with the same amount of internal fuel have ranges around 2200-400km only; they are of course a lot lighter (7-9 tons difference) and have pretty tiny, fuel efficient engines.

The sukhoi and irkut websites put the number @ 3000km for max range (full internal fuel? 9.5 tons). Am I missing something?

Another thing - what exactly is the MTOW/Empty of the MKI? Many sites (such as the above) suggest 36tons : 18.4 tons. But I have seen some IAF boards suggest 38.8 tons. In fact iirc, sukhoi used to suggest a similar 38.8 tons as a second MTOW (apart from the 36 ton figure)!

Conphuzed and conphounded wonlee! What am I missing?

CM

Aditya_M · Post by **Aditya_M** » 01 Aug 2009 02:57

Where do you get the 60% figure from?

Regarding the MTOW, it will be hard finding the right number because of the customization done by India, the weight differential (positive or negative) will be hard to estimate by those of us not in the know.

I suspect the MKI won't ever operate at *max* TOW because it will probably do a mix of A2A and A2G - swing role, what the French call it. This means that the wings will most likely not carry their full load. This is a lot like the F-15E - theoretically they can carry tonnes of stuff but practically size and role restrictions are a major influence. I tend not to care much about the max take off weight for non-light fighters.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Aug 2009 10:20

Where do you get the 60% figure from?

I assume 5200 kgs of fuel for NTOW as around 50-60% of 9500kgs max internal fuel based on the Sukhoi.org webpage. I have seen other sources (relatively reliable too) putting the max fuel cap between 10 - 10.5 tons as well. But was just being conservative.

Point is - 3000km for 5200kg is incredible! If thats approximately MKI range on NTOW (with about 6 aams), what in the world is its ferry range on full internal fuel? Even at its best, the Su-27 (air sup version) did about 3600km although whatsisname hero of the russian fed, flew his "595" Su-27 for over 4000km ferry range!

Regarding the MTOW, it will be hard finding the right number because of the customization done by India, the weight differential (positive or negative) will be hard to estimate by those of us not in the know.

Ya it sure looks like that. I was just hoping that someone in the "know" might shed some light to this discrepancy thats all.

I suspect the MKI won't ever operate at *max* TOW because it will probably do a mix of A2A and A2G - swing role, what the French call it. This means that the wings will most likely not carry their full load. This is a lot like the F-15E - theoretically they can carry tonnes of stuff but practically size and role restrictions are a major influence. I tend not to care much about the max take off weight for non-light fighters.

You are probly right, thats the whole point of a self escorting a/c i guess.

CM

George J · Post by **George J** » 02 Aug 2009 23:28

Aditya_M wrote:Regarding the MTOW, it will be hard finding the right number because of the customization done by India, the weight differential (positive or negative) will be hard to estimate by those of us not in the know.

The MTOW for the Su-30MKI is 38.8T...this is what has appeared in print and this is the # that has been confirmed by those who do this sort of stuff for a living (unless this too has changed since we last discussed it). However they also noted that MKI can do 38.8T but operationally speaking any sort of mission that requires max payload would probably be supported by AAR so it would take off with max payload and nominal fuel. Also the OEM will void warranty if you do MTOW more than the stipulated Xx times...since the the Xx number is not open source please fill in any number between 10 and 99. MTOW puts a lot of strain on the airframe, which the a/c can take but not meant for routine use.

I see that CM is asking about empty weight of MKI, that is not open source....and probably never will be. That is why the most folks confuse the MKI with the other Su-30 platform. It looks like an Su-30 but its NOT.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Aug 2009 23:45

I see that CM is asking about empty weight of MKI, that is not open source....and probably never will be. That is why the most folks confuse the MKI with the other Su-30 platform. It looks like an Su-30 but its NOT.

Drat! thought i'd try anyway. But yes, i've been trying to find out for some time now, no luck! Absolutely nada. I've heard of an IAF or HAL infoboard showing it somewhere, but have not found it yet.

There are even hints dropped time to time about higher powered AL-31s on the MKI, again no open source confirmation here either. I hope in time we find out.

Btw, does the MKI have those fuel tanks in the tail fins and the extended wingarea to increase fuel (like in the original Su-35, circa 1994?).
CM

Aditya_M · Post by **Aditya_M** » 03 Aug 2009 01:54

....I'd replied to your post about the 60% but BRF hiccuped. Anyway, I'm with you on the figures.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Aug 2009 02:33

I was thinking they need to up the SU-30 numbers. Good that they asked HAL to ramp up.
What are the limitations? Engines?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Aug 2009 03:01

ramana wrote:I was thinking they need to up the SU-30 numbers. Good that they asked HAL to ramp up.
What are the limitations? Engines?

Limitations? Hard to say. Compared to other 4.5 gen a/c, very few imho. Also it is a work in process.

Engines are a tricky thing - if published specs on the NTOW, engine thrust are the "truth" then a little extra thrust won't hurt. But one feels what they have now is more than adequate.

CM.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Aug 2009 03:03

No I mean to make more of the same to support the ramp up.

munna · Post by **munna** » 05 Aug 2009 03:10

ramana wrote:No I mean to make more of the same to support the ramp up.

Although I am an agyani in terms of military matters I guess the biggest problem should be the availability of trained hands for mass production. India has a shortage of skilled labour in high-tech sectors and in my view HAL/ADA/DRDO all must be suffering from it too. JMTP

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Aug 2009 07:16

munna wrote:
ramana wrote:No I mean to make more of the same to support the ramp up.
Although I am an agyani in terms of military matters I guess the biggest problem should be the availability of trained hands for mass production. India has a shortage of skilled labour in high-tech sectors and in my view HAL/ADA/DRDO all must be suffering from it too. JMTP

Possibly this. Also "procedures".

HAL is divided into many divisions - Nasik, Kanpur, Koraput, etc. Ramping up might mean ordering more machinery through the usual government method of tendering and processing the applications. The saga of delays of LCA is illustrative. The latest story on that one is shortage of pilots, and ADA not supplying the necessary computers to HAL.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Aug 2009 08:32

###Deleted #####

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Aug 2009 08:35

austin, please take your reply to the correct thread and post a link here if need be.
and kindly delete this post after you do so.
thanks.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 05 Aug 2009 17:17

Why the F-22 is needed - Su-30MK Beats F-15C �Every Time

http://www.kxmc.com/News/Nation/415501.asp

And what gave the Indian Air Force the competitive edge needed to best American pilots, driving the F-15C? The Sukhoi Su-30 of course.

m mittal · Post by **m mittal** » 14 Aug 2009 02:33

Are there any pics available of Su30MKI production line??

malushahi · Post by **malushahi** » 14 Aug 2009 09:51

JaiS wrote:malushahi, thanks for your very valuable post which ofcourse highly contributes to the signal-to-noise ratio in this thread.

Glad that got noticed. Anything more sophisticated gets trammeled courtesy the moderators that infest these boards of late.

I'm glad too. Somehow the perm ban last time wasn't initiated.
Bye !

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Aug 2009 10:13

tezpur moftu was closed for atleast 18 months and the entire base kept free to
upg the infra for the Su30, its amazing why this was not done with more resources to complete the task quickly - instead another one yr delay just to move a squadron there.

we are like this onlee

they might as well base another squadron in guwahati which has the runways
and parking revetments in place with plenty of old hangers used by transport
sqdn. the sole heli sqdn based there is too small for such a big base. plenty of
spare land on military side of base to built whatever is needed to make it happen.

runway, atc etc is already there to accomodate upto A330 size.