Su-30: News and Discussion

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 09 Sep 2009 19:03

Does not make sense

Have spent time at a SU 30 base as later as 2007 Dec and both the occupants were pilots.

The IAF has experimented with other approaches so thats probably what rohit saw.

Maybe they have decided on mission specific combinations -

I can check up on it.

NRao

. They KNEW what they were doing when they dreamed of the MKI.

Not fully correct. While the plane was not experimental - it was only when they started operating it they started realising the potential of the SU 30s. That then necessitated some further thinking and experimenting.

eg. The SU 30 now gave the potential for a Andaman sortie - but how do you configure for that, how do you train for that, best combo to staff that etc.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Sep 2009 20:43

Surya,

My point WRT "knew" was with ref to both seats being pilot capable. Agreed there was a component of experimentation, but that should have been beyond two pilots aboard the MKI.

RM,

Point accepted. However, even a "WSO" will be a pilot on some trips? I mean a damn good pilot, irrespective of the rank he holds.

The one place I am willing to accept without any argument is that the IAF originally expected to have, what, 90 (+40) MKIs. This sudden induction of another 140 or so I have to assume will create some issues - specially if they pick experienced pilots.

Anyways, not a big deal. WSO it is. End of story.

LL the MKI. And, all her pilots.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 14 Sep 2009 15:14

Sukhois’ full complement in Tezpur by October

http://www.morungexpress.com/regional/33169.html

A full complement of the MKI variant of the Su30 warplanes will be deployed at the front line Tezpur air base in Assam by October. Dismissing reports that infrastructure at the air base was inadequate to deploy the Su-30MKIs, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Air Command Air Marshal SK Bhan said, "the upgradation work at the air base has been completed and a full complement of the fighter jets would be deployed at the base by October."

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 14 Sep 2009 22:15

Which of these facts are confirmed?

1. Rear seat is for the Senior pilot, thus Commander of the mission

2. Rear seat is for weapons system operator

#2 is certainly true, given the limitation of the HMS.

(lets not confuse ourselves - it can be flown from the back but is that the normal WSO seat)

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 14 Sep 2009 22:40

^^^

The rear Seat is like a multipurpose.
It can substitute the pilot in the front seat.
It can act as a weapon systems controlling unit.
It can act as a controller station to guide other aircrafts( like an AWACS)

On long flights(over 5000km) when the front pilot gets tried ,he can sleep in his seat while letting the one in the back to take control of the stick.....

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 14 Sep 2009 23:53

What makes the range of MKI much greater than that of other Su-30 variants (say MK-1)?

I know there are some structural changes in the airframe of MKI including use of composites but the difference in their max range is huge.
Does AL-31FP guzzles much less fuel as compared to AL-31F?
Or is there some significant change to the airframe that I have missed?
I apologize if this has already been discussed. If so, could someone please direct me to the right location?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 15 Sep 2009 00:49

one more reason for having 2 pilots on a sortie is that it may make more economic sense as well..divide the tasks that are to be carried out on the sortie between the 2 pilots, both being qualified pilots, and not necessarily a Navigator or WSO. For a sortie lasting X amount of time, you can get 2 pilots having X time of the sortie logged, which would mean that from a pilot training/concurrency perspective, the costs are only slightly higher than having 2 single seaters flying for an equivalent amount of time.

for an expensive large two seater, it makes sense in 2 ways- for the novice pilots to get live experience with a more experience pilot and to log hours, and for the higher ranks (who may not fly as much anymore, with more administrative duties assigned to them) to maintain concurrency this way.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Sep 2009 09:41

Parijat Gaur wrote:What makes the range of MKI much greater than that of other Su-30 variants (say MK-1)?

I know there are some structural changes in the airframe of MKI including use of composites but the difference in their max range is huge.

The MKI has much larger fuel storage capacity. The fuel tanks extend into the tails. If composites are extensively used and contribute to a lesser weight, this could also translate into larger range.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 16 Sep 2009 10:42

What makes the range of MKI much greater than that of other Su-30 variants (say MK-1)?

I know there are some structural changes in the airframe of MKI including use of composites but the difference in their max range is huge.
Does AL-31FP guzzles much less fuel as compared to AL-31F?
Or is there some significant change to the airframe that I have missed?
I apologize if this has already been discussed. If so, could someone please direct me to the right location?

Where exactly do you get the "huge" difference in range from? Can you please post a source? Current open sources tend to show range figures between the MKI and MK versions to be almost exactly the same - 3000km hi alt range on full fuel tank (10tons for mki and 9.4 to 9.6 for MK versions). Note the MKI is given as a much heavier fighter - 18400kg+ considering it has TVC and canards.

The MKI has much larger fuel storage capacity. The fuel tanks extend into the tails. If composites are extensively used and contribute to a lesser weight, this could also translate into larger range

Gagan,

The MKI does have a greater fuel storage capacity, but the difference of about 500kg of fuel is offset in by the extra weight of the MKI. Also, where did you get the idea that the MKI has tanks in its tails. IIRC only the original Su-35UB (the original triplane config. circa 1994) had these and the capacity was 10250kg, it had a range of 3200km on full internal fuel - 10tons. Btw, re. composite use on the mki, last i read was about 6% by weight (not that great, but better than the original flankers which did not use composites and relied on titanium alloys).

Guys, all of the above is from open sources - Fomin to Sukhoi's and Knaapo and Irkut's current websites. Do cite and link sources to the questions I raised as I too would like to know. Unless you guys know something that is simply not open source, do enlighten as to how there is a "huge" difference in range between various flanker variants, thx.

And no, don't give the BR MKI link as a source, I had brought this up earlier but the range figures on the MKI seem ridiculously high - 3000km on normal internal fuel would mean that it would fly further than an EF-2000 (with much smaller engines and lesser weight) on the same amount of fuel (5200kg) - sort of far fetched imho. The MKI @ NTOW weighs a nice 25 - 26.5 tons. the Ef-2000 with 5000kg fuel is cited to go about 2500km clean. The F-18E/F with full internal fuel (6500kg) goes about 2300km clean, the MiG-35 with 5500kg about 2200km. All the abovementioned smaller a/c weigh around 17-20 tons with ~ 5000kg fuel. Bu the MKI which weight a good 5-8 tons more flies a solid 500-800km extra with the same amount of fuel? I call it miracolo!

The most a flanker did was about 4000km on a v.special mission iirc.

CM.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 16 Sep 2009 12:00

^^Yes, I was confused by the range figures given at BR page. I was confused because AFAIK the fuel storage capacity of MKI was not that huge compared to that of MK.
Thanks for the explanation.

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 16 Sep 2009 15:15

a sneak peek into the new russian L-BAND AESA radar,,that can kill the stealth,,slated for modification into flankers and pak-fa.i think AIRPOWER AUSTRALIA has provided an extemely good article. su-30mki's NO11M bars will get the L-BAND aesa front end while IRBIS WITH aesa end will go to PAK-FA. HERE ARE TWO extremely good articles,,,L-BAND AESA is better in nullifying stealth compared to X-BAND aesa radars like,,apg-79,apg-80, zhuk-ae, rbe-2aa,apg-77,apg-81 etc,,,.

this one shows the capability of the NIIP L-band aesa and its role in flanker upgrades
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html

this one shows how stealth on f-35 is defeated by such an L-band radar
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-140909-1.html

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 16 Sep 2009 16:45

^^^ Guys lets be careful noting Mr. Carlo's articles. The perpetual objective of that website is to some how get the F22 for the RAAF and hence the constant incremental threat perception of the Flanker and any advancements made in this aircraft as it is now being operated by a lot of the South East and mainland Asian rim countries (Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, PRC) IMVHO. While I do very much enjoy the pictures that he posts (and he does have some darn good ones) any information from that site should be taken with a pinch of salt until proven otherwise...JMT

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 18 Sep 2009 16:33

Dr. Kopp may be a raving phanatic of the raptor, but his articles seem to be well researched and his case is borne out by events. If you take his desire for the raptor as a given, the other stuff is v.interesting. Tech and tactics wise. Tells you a thing or two about skinning the cat - the russkies (and indians) have their own ways. Furthermore, you don't see any excess in his information either - his graphs on radar ranges for example, seem to be pretty accurate based on open source.

IOWs, a raptor fan he may be, but he surely does not exhibit any bias or prejudice either for or against the potential threats.

CM.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 22 Sep 2009 10:56

Cain Marko wrote:Dr. Kopp may be a raving phanatic of the raptor, but his articles seem to be well researched and his case is borne out by events. If you take his desire for the raptor as a given, the other stuff is v.interesting. Tech and tactics wise. Tells you a thing or two about skinning the cat - the russkies (and indians) have their own ways. Furthermore, you don't see any excess in his information either - his graphs on radar ranges for example, seem to be pretty accurate based on open source.

IOWs, a raptor fan he may be, but he surely does not exhibit any bias or prejudice either for or against the potential threats.

CM.

Aaaah CM let me make myself explicitly clear to avoid any future confusions

I have never dissd the guy in anyway as a matter of fact I agree that there is a wealth of information on that website and most of the content is very well researched with information coming from different sources and I even agree that he doesnt exhibit any bias towards potential threats my only point is as you mentioned the underlying message about the Raptor that must be remembered (further proof of which is the analysis on the JSF vs potential SU-30 variants and the F18 E/Fs). I even check the site from time to time to check for any updates as he does seem to get his hands on some very interesting info, pics and videos of some of the most exotic Russian weapons.

My opinion is a mere observation borne from reading through that website I am not putting it out there to diminish his credibility in any way. I hope that this clears up my earlier post as I am going to stop here now on Mr. Kopp so as to not to OT and end up with a hellphr up me bum from one of the Flying Harbringers of bereavement that roam the threads of BRF.

Thanks,
Anand.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 22 Sep 2009 11:46

NRao wrote:
sir Different air force may have different requirements ,since IAF is first time using this concept in a fighter jet (Twin seater combat jets) other then the odd Trainers ,it will be good to explore WSO concept ,
The MKI was never an experimental plane from the PoV of the IAF. They KNEW what they were doing when they dreamed of the MKI. From day one the MKI has had BOTH seats configured to fly. I am not sure if there is any other air craft that can claim this (from day one).

What other AFs do they do.

instead of Training two pilots (anyways only one will be flying at a time and it is expensive), nor our enemies are thousand of miles away, WSO concept should be explored that's my take
The pilots that entered the MKI stream were already very well trained - both of them. Perhaps that seems to have placed some strain on the IAF.

However I have looked around, but have not found anything of substance that indicates that the IAF is moving to a WSO concept.

On distances, I do not know what made the IAF design a dual seater that houses a pilot in both seats. But, for sure, they did it with something concrete in mind. And, we cannot go by any assumptions.

SH too has both seats configured to fly, the navigator can take control any time of the day, i think all 4.5 gen twin seaters have this feature including f-16D, EF, Rafale etc.

bijit · Post by **bijit** » 22 Sep 2009 12:27

RameshC wrote: SH too has both seats configured to fly, the navigator can take control any time of the day, i think all 4.5 gen twin seaters have this feature including f-16D, EF, Rafale etc.

Only F/A-18 F is a twin seater, F/A-18 E (the majority ofthe SH) are not. Simillarly for F-16. (D is a twin seater, C is not).
In both cases the twin seaters are primarily meant to be trainers Ithough combat capable). Bulk of the combat tasks are meant to be carried out by single seaters. This is where its different from the MKI. EF also follows the follows the same ideas. Rafale was supposed to be the same initially. Now however there will be a almost equal mix of twin and single seaters (still no where near the MKI)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Sep 2009 08:30

KNIRTI SAP-14 “Escort Jammer”

A large centreline KNIRTI SAP-14 “Escort Jammer” support jamming pod. The new SAP-14 is analogous to the US ALQ-99E series pods, but employs a fundamentally different antenna arrangement optimised to suppress emitters in the forward and aft hemispheres of the escort jamming aircraft. The pod has been cleared for carriage on the Su-30MK Flanker G/H airframes and the Su-34 Fullback

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Sep 2009 09:06

SH too has both seats configured to fly, the navigator can take control any time of the day, i think all 4.5 gen twin seaters have this feature including f-16D, EF, Rafale etc.

Good to know.

One more good to know point: MKI was designed in the mid 90s.

Also, I am not sure the other Su family ACs have the same level of back seat capabilities (Austin/CM?).

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 26 Sep 2009 05:20

IAF has already begun to deploy its most-potent Sukhoi-30MKI jets in Tezpur after Pune and Bareilly. "After two Sukhoi squadrons in Tezpur, we will base another two squadrons in Punjab by 2011...they will certainly add to our offensive potential,'' said Air Marshal Browne.

By also basing Sukhois in Halwara (Punjab), followed by Chabua (Assam) and Jodhpur (Rajasthan), IAF wants to cater for any contingency which may arise on the eastern as well as the western front.

Source

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Sep 2009 10:27

NRao wrote:
SH too has both seats configured to fly, the navigator can take control any time of the day, i think all 4.5 gen twin seaters have this feature including f-16D, EF, Rafale etc.
Good to know.

One more good to know point: MKI was designed in the mid 90s.

Also, I am not sure the other Su family ACs have the same level of back seat capabilities (Austin/CM?).

mki's backseat capabilities originate from the su-30 which itself started from the trainer version.
these are the only twin seater flankers (barring the su-34 which is a different beast) and all of them have the same capabilites regarding back seat flying..

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 26 Sep 2009 11:34

The Su-34 pilots may sit side by side, but with a toilet in the rear the Su-34 comes with its own backseat capabilities

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 26 Sep 2009 14:15

Yogi_G wrote:The Su-34 pilots may sit side by side, but with a toilet in the rear the Su-34 comes with its own backseat capabilities

Yeah a toilet is a luxury fighter pilots dont have. Nice aircraft but i think MKI out macthes it. Besides MKI will be tthe first to get Brahmos.

George J · Post by **George J** » 26 Sep 2009 22:37

According to Fomin, in the late 80's they wanted to build a "long range" interceptor that also needed to perform as command post to control a group of "single" seat Su-27. They already had the trainer version of the Su-27, known as the Su-27UB and the pilots really like it: it was fully combat capable (i.e. whatever capability the single seat Su-27 had this trainer could do the same), it was "psychologically more comfortable" for long sorties to have two pilots.

So for long duration sorties they wanted to put an IFR, this meant the OLS-27 had to be moved. in 1988 they took a production -27UB, moved the OLS and put in the IFR this a/c was designated the Su-27PU and later the Su-30. The second -27UB converted to -27PU also had upgraded avionics-new communication and guidance equipments so that the "formation leader" can sit in rear cockpit "fitted with a large tactical situation CRT display"

and direct the action.

You kids know the rest of the story.

What is conceptually important to understand is that the Su-30 began life as a trainer that could do everything that its single seat counterpart could do but NEVER gave up that role. The current Su-30MK platform does not have a corresponding single seat version, unlikes the other a/c that also happen to have a trainer version from Tejas to F/A-18 to whatever. The Su-30 MK platform was always going to be a two man job to operate (again the keyword is operate not FLY..it can fly itself).

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Sep 2009 10:09

Dmurphy wrote:
IAF has already begun to deploy its most-potent Sukhoi-30MKI jets in Tezpur after Pune and Bareilly. "After two Sukhoi squadrons in Tezpur, we will base another two squadrons in Punjab by 2011...they will certainly add to our offensive potential,'' said Air Marshal Browne.

By also basing Sukhois in Halwara (Punjab), followed by Chabua (Assam) and Jodhpur (Rajasthan), IAF wants to cater for any contingency which may arise on the eastern as well as the western front.
Source

Quick (and probly naive) question - why base the MKIs so close to the borders? One might think that such a heavy, long ranged, strategic platform might stay well within the interiors. Pune, bareilly, Kalaikunda, perhaps even Gwalior and Hindon apart from A&N. Close to the borders they may want to push middle tier, single engined or QRA type assets - possibly even pushing the M2k into that role along with the baaz and bisons. Plus assorted floggers and Jags. The MKI would be the heavy backup.

Is it simply because the IAF has no real choices? The bison/baaz/vajra ought to be v.potent in a defensive role backed by AWAC/GCI.

Secondly, were the MKIs ever considered as AAR platforms with EFTs? I believe they are capable of IFR but carry no EFTs any special reason that EFTs were left out?

CM.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 29 Sep 2009 11:13

It's probably better than pushing the MKI's right upto the front line In arunachal itself , with the right kind of mountain radars installed and the the excellent air surveillance which MKI offers they would be pretty safe from a pre-emptive cruise missile strike (if any) which would have to traverse the entire State of Arunachal to get to either of Tezpur and Chahuba and the terrain may well have an impace on Acuuracy of the missiles.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Sep 2009 11:26

the flankers don't have any wet points simply because they already have an insane amount of fuel.
coming to tezpur IAF does need potent fighters based in the NE. the chicken's neck area north of bangladesh can be potentially cut off by PLAAF in case of a conflict. and overflight over BD may not be an option for our politicos.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Sep 2009 22:09

In war time overflying BD should hopefully not be an issue - put 'em in their place too! Still, Tezpur I understand. WHat I can't understand is Punjab, and Rajasthan (Jodhpur). Are they planning on a preemptive strike and then imposing a NFZ over TSP?

AFAIK, it is TSP which normally takes the first step. If God forbid, they get together with the chini and do a massive first strike, there would be hell to pay. Worse than Vivek A's scenarios!

As far as the flankers not having wetpoints, this could change imho. Flankers have carried a tank or two before in Russia, the Su-35 still does (2X2000 ltrs). In a situation where IAF IFR assets are still to acquire strength, a squadron worth MKIs properly plumbed, could perhaps be an alternative,

CM>

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Sep 2009 22:17

Austin wrote:KNIRTI SAP-14 “Escort Jammer”

A large centreline KNIRTI SAP-14 “Escort Jammer” support jamming pod. The new SAP-14 is analogous to the US ALQ-99E series pods, but employs a fundamentally different antenna arrangement optimised to suppress emitters in the forward and aft hemispheres of the escort jamming aircraft. The pod has been cleared for carriage on the Su-30MK Flanker G/H airframes and the Su-34 Fullback

Any news on when it will get qualified for MKI ? This seems like a game changer for MKI. If it can carry multiple number of these, it will be able to provide escort jamming and wide area or stand off jamming for initial SEAD missions.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Sep 2009 23:39

RameshC wrote: SH too has both seats configured to fly, the navigator can take control any time of the day, i think all 4.5 gen twin seaters have this feature including f-16D, EF, Rafale etc.

I don't think that its true that bog standard SH are configured to allow the "navigator" (its actually WSO) to take control any time of the day. it may be something that a customer could ask for as an option though.

I quote from Boeing Frontiers (an internal Boeing magazine) article "Around the world in 82 days" which describes how 2 Boeing SHs from the USN's VFA 122 training squadron, supported by a Boeing-led team circled the globe performing demonstrations and flying at key air shows.

"The team's 2 Super Hornets complete their around the world journey with a five-hour ferry flight from Hawaii to Lemoore. Cmdr. Chip Boogerd and Lt. Joshua Ensign have the distinction of flying the same aircraft on each ferry leg- each circling the world in one aircraft. The work is not over for the Boeing maintenance team, however, as control sticks added to the aft cockpit of each Super Hornet when the tour started in January, need to be removed to return the jets to normal training squadron configuration"

Keep in mind that these control sticks had to be added on for demonstration flights where guests and pilots were flown- the article has a pic of retd. Wing Cmdr Rakesh Sharma in the rear cockpit of the SH.

kedar.karmarkar · Post by **kedar.karmarkar** » 29 Sep 2009 23:46

There are no flight controls in the rear cockpit of the SH - they have pure WSO function. Just talked to a couple of trainee WSOs at NAS Fallon couple of weeks back - they confirmed that the rear seat does not have flight controls.

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 30 Sep 2009 00:02

kedar.karmarkar wrote:There are no flight controls in the rear cockpit of the SH - they have pure WSO function. Just talked to a couple of trainee WSOs at NAS Fallon couple of weeks back - they confirmed that the rear seat does not have flight controls.

at AI 2009 the SH mock-up cockpit also had the same thing - no flight controls (joy stick is stuck

)for the rear guy.....wonder if there are separate trainers coz that aus airpower guy said he flew the SH from the rear in his article ...it is still on his website

The aircraft flown, BuNo 165797, was one of a pair of production aircraft brought out to the Avalon airshow, and operated by the US Navy at NAS Lemoore for weapons delivery trials. In terms of configuration these aircraft were equipped with a unclassified software load, designated 18EI "V"

For takeoff, Dave selected full afterburner and rotated at 105 KIAS. Once airborne, we levelled off and accelerated to 370 KIAS for a 45 degree pull up and full power climbout at 250 KIAS. The RoC off the runway was around 27,000 FPM and we climbed to FL200 ft in about 1.5 minutes from brake release. We reached FL260 at 297 KIAS and Dave handed the aircraft over to me with the customary stick waggle, pulling the throttles out of afterburner.

this further adds to the mystery

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Sep 2009 02:18

Dmurphy wrote:
As earlier reported by TOI, IAF has already begun to deploy its most-potent Sukhoi-30MKI jets in Tezpur after Pune and Bareilly. "After two Sukhoi squadrons in Tezpur, we will base another two squadrons in Punjab by 2011...they will certainly add to our offensive potential,'' said Air Marshal Browne.

By also basing Sukhois in Halwara (Punjab), followed by Chabua (Assam) and Jodhpur (Rajasthan), IAF wants to cater for any contingency which may arise on the eastern as well as the western front.
Source

This is a great find!

So now we know where the 12 MKI squadrons will be based:

Primary bases (Wings)
Pune (SWAC) - 2 sqdns
Bareilly (CAC) - 2 sqdns
Tezpur (EAC) - 2 sqdns
Punjab (WAC) - 2 sqdns
-------------------------
Total - 8 sqdns

Forward Bases (additional)
Halwara (WAC) - 1 sqdn
Chabua (EAC) - 1 sqdn
Jodhpur (SWAC) - 1 sqdn
?A&N (SAC) - 1 sqdn (or could be another CAC base)
-------------------------
Total - 4 sqdns

As you can see, IAF has one wing per Air Command (expect SAC) and an additional operational base for each of the Air Command.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 30 Sep 2009 02:24

kedar.karmarkar wrote:There are no flight controls in the rear cockpit of the SH - they have pure WSO function. Just talked to a couple of trainee WSOs at NAS Fallon couple of weeks back - they confirmed that the rear seat does not have flight controls.

Then how does the training on SH take place, i mean the pilot directly moves from simulator to real one???

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Sep 2009 03:06

Cain Marko wrote:...

Quick (and probly naive) question - why base the MKIs so close to the borders? One might think that such a heavy, long ranged, strategic platform might stay well within the interiors. Pune, bareilly, Kalaikunda, perhaps even Gwalior and Hindon apart from A&N. Close to the borders they may want to push middle tier, single engined or QRA type assets - possibly even pushing the M2k into that role along with the baaz and bisons. Plus assorted floggers and Jags. The MKI would be the heavy backup.

Is it simply because the IAF has no real choices? The bison/baaz/vajra ought to be v.potent in a defensive role backed by AWAC/GCI.

...

CM.

As per my previous post (couple of posts earlier on this page), it looks like IAF will have 2 airbases assigned to MKIs per Air Command with the exception of the SAC. One of the airbases will be the primary (with 2 squadrons) while the 2nd airbase (with 1 squadron) will serve as a backup for each of the Air Command. As far as the SAC, it may get 1 airbase in the A&N - Car Nicobar - which may have a regular detachment of MKIs (or for a permanent full squadron IAF will need 1 more squadron of MKIs - total of 13 instead of current 12).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Sep 2009 07:37

SAP 14 Jammers for MKI ?

The SAP 14 has already been exported, according to a Knirti brochure. The brochure shows the pod fitted to what it describes as an Su-30MKI (pictured below). The aircraft, side number 02, is believed to have been involved in the Su-30MKI development for India, suggesting that the SAP 14 may have at least been on offer.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 30 Sep 2009 09:36

Rahul saab, you mentioned a few weeks back about Indian ordering more MKI's ... so far no official confirmation seems to have come. Do you have any update on that?

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Sep 2009 11:23

arunsrinivasan wrote:Rahul saab, you mentioned a few weeks back about Indian ordering more MKI's ... so far no official confirmation seems to have come. Do you have any update on that?

If that story of 50 additional MKIs is true, that would bring the MKIs total to around 280 units which is around 15 squadrons (280 units / 18 a/cs per sqdn).

Since SAC doesn't have MKI bases in the current plan (with 12 sqdns), the addition of 3 more squadrons would mean SAC may also be getting its own MKIs and setup like the other 4 Air Commands - 2 airbases (one with 2 sqdns and the other with 1 sqdn). As per recent IAF reviews, it was felt it needed more assets in the South for better overall protection of the whole country. The tri-service command at A&N also recommended a permanent basing of MKIs at Car Nicobar. So if additional MKIs are ordered, it is likely SAC will get its own set of 3 MKI squadrons.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Sep 2009 11:38

arun, no update. I guess files are being relayed at the moment.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 02 Oct 2009 05:48

IAF wants 50 more Su-30 MKIs to counter China, Pak
The Air Chief has said that IAF is 'interested' in acquiring more Sukhois.

Incidentally, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd has been directed to complete the manufacture of 140 of the 230 Sukhois under transfer of technology by 2015 at all costs.

1. Wasn't there a directive from the Cabinet in late 2002 that HAL would complete the production of 140 birds by 2013 instead of 2015, due to declining force levels? Has that been revoked since? Any info......

2. If they did delay the completion to 2015, it makes sense for Russia to build these 50 MKIs. Any info on whether India or Russia is going to manufacture these additional 50?

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Oct 2009 03:16

Nikhil T wrote:IAF wants 50 more Su-30 MKIs to counter China, Pak
The Air Chief has said that IAF is 'interested' in acquiring more Sukhois.

Incidentally, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd has been directed to complete the manufacture of 140 of the 230 Sukhois under transfer of technology by 2015 at all costs.
1. Wasn't there a directive from the Cabinet in late 2002 that HAL would complete the production of 140 birds by 2013 instead of 2015, due to declining force levels? Has that been revoked since? Any info......

2. If they did delay the completion to 2015, it makes sense for Russia to build these 50 MKIs. Any info on whether India or Russia is going to manufacture these additional 50?

If HAL can only complete the production of the 140 MKIs by 2015, then IAF will go for Russian built 50 additional MKIs because it will have these 50 by 2015 (in 6 years). IAF needs these more on an urgent basis to counter its depleting force and also to project power.

Besides, HAL will be busy from 2015 onwards with the license production of 108 MRCAs and not to mention 5 squadrons worth of LCA MK IIs. Also, IAF can give small orders of attrition/reserves MKIs after 2015 to keep the production line running at HAL for a few more years and by 2020 expect to see major MKI mid-life upgrades (MLU) with AESA and other improvements. Most of these work will be done by HAL. So there is plenty of work for HAL in the near future.