Su-30: News and Discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Oct 2009 19:39

Rahul M wrote:baldev, the original flankers were really flogged around AFAIK. add to that the impossibility of the upg path to mki (IIRC) retaining a low performing different type didn't make much sense.

and do remember that we didn't just return it, we got mki's in stead.

True. They were in no condition to be upgraded either. IAF got their monies worth for them planes.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 09 Oct 2009 20:02

117S engine is going for serial production in 2010

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 09 Oct 2009 20:22

Rahul M wrote:baldev, the original flankers were really flogged around AFAIK. add to that the impossibility of the upg path to mki (IIRC) retaining a low performing different type didn't make much sense.

and do remember that we didn't just return it, we got mki's in stead.

although those su30k could not be upgraded to mki standard but it was more than worth to upgrade them and keep them

except TVC and canards everything else on those su30k would have been on par with su30mki standard
pero radar upgrade would have enabled those su30k as good as BARS and would enable su30k to carry all air to ground stand off PGM which mki carry

if those su30k were upgraded these aircraft would have been more capable than upgraded m2000 or upgraded mig29

we got mki instead but selling those su30k for 9 million each doesn't make sense

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 09 Oct 2009 20:24

NRao wrote:
Rahul M wrote:baldev, the original flankers were really flogged around AFAIK. add to that the impossibility of the upg path to mki (IIRC) retaining a low performing different type didn't make much sense.

and do remember that we didn't just return it, we got mki's in stead.
True. They were in no condition to be upgraded either. IAF got their monies worth for them planes.

even if mig21/29/27 or m2000 can be upgraded how can this not be possible for su30k

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 09 Oct 2009 20:44

Baldev wrote:even if mig21/29/27 or m2000 can be upgraded how can this not be possible for su30k

Moreover the upgrade cost of M2000 is more than what we get for a returned su 30.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 09 Oct 2009 22:39

rajeshks wrote:
Baldev wrote:even if mig21/29/27 or m2000 can be upgraded how can this not be possible for su30k
Moreover the upgrade cost of M2000 is more than what we get for a returned su 30.

thanks for reminding this

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 09 Oct 2009 22:49

IAF didn't return them they got brand new MKI as replacement for those K's?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 10 Oct 2009 01:17

Aditya G wrote:
Singha wrote:growler was testing a ram air pod with shrouded fan to generate organic power for jamming function. this should be something Russia can make fairly easily given their vast aerospace exp. a couple of dedicated ram air power generators for wing or fuselage pylons. we need to get proactive and fund/try such scams rather than wait for developments to overtake us.
Interesting. Something similar to the turbines on IL-78MKI pods? (AFAIK supplied by Israel)

The IL-78MKI has enough electrical power to spare and more.

The turbines on the pods drive the fuel pumps on the hose-drum units (HDUs).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Oct 2009 01:31

regarding 117s engine: until pak-fa happens, i guess most upgrades for MKI may not happen till the first pak-fa takes to skies. unless, we are to plan using mki as test bed for many of these engines and technologies., our MKIs will stay untouched by these engines.

furthermore what is more important is to fix MKI errors etc, and make sure these corrections are retrofitted into pak-fa as well. i understand, MKIs will start going on their upgrade path as mentioned here from 2020. not a bad vision at all.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Oct 2009 01:31

Baldev wrote:
NRao wrote:
True. They were in no condition to be upgraded either. IAF got their monies worth for them planes.
even if mig21/29/27 or m2000 can be upgraded how can this not be possible for su30k

Just goes to show how much they were beat up, for them to say it is not worth upgrading - which was the original plan.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Oct 2009 01:37

rajeshks wrote:
Baldev wrote:even if mig21/29/27 or m2000 can be upgraded how can this not be possible for su30k
Moreover the upgrade cost of M2000 is more than what we get for a returned su 30.

Since when did we get into the habit of comparing such things?

What MAY have been better than upgrading the M2Ks, just may be, is to replace them with Rafales? Tell the French they have to take all of them back.

UAE has made that a habit!!

But, seriously, the original plan was to use the Su-30K's frame, change a whole lot of things - including adding canards. Did not work out because the planes were too beat up - physically beat up.

George J · Post by **George J** » 10 Oct 2009 07:31

NRao wrote:...........But, seriously, the original plan was to use the Su-30K's frame, change a whole lot of things - including adding canards. Did not work out because the planes were too beat up - physically beat up.

The original plan was put on paper long before there was an MKI program. This probably had to do with the fact that they took an in-production Su-27UB and made a PU out of it and then did the same with Su-30K and MKI prototype. But when they finally put all the pieces together there was no way in hell they could make the MKI out of Su-30K. It had to be built from scratch with several structural modifications which pretty makes make the IAPO Su-30MK platform off which MKI is the first to be a very different a/c. Till today there is no open source reference of the actual empty weight difference between the K and the MKI.

And as we have already discussed back in early 2004.....even the IAF did not know what they were getting into. The Su-30K was a blessing in disguise they quickly changed "upgrade" to "exchange" and then they had to figure out what the depreciated value of the airframe was. And it depreciated very quickly, by the time the first MKI arrived in Sep. 2002 the No.24 boys had put in XX,000 hours on the Su-30K airframes. EVERY single original No.20 driver came from the No.24, so the Su-30K was de-facto SOFTU (Sukhoi Operational Flight Training Unit). As I have mentioned back in 2004 there were many (about 200 is what I recall) on-line changes recommend by No.24 drivers that were incorporated in the MKI. Nothing fancy just real bread and butter stuff for pilots.

Baldev:
I would like it if you refrain from spouting stuff you really have no idea about. BR has been around for a while....we have following the MKI very closely.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Oct 2009 18:18

Interesting info on MKI from GM HAL Nasik

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 10 Oct 2009 18:28

A new info about anti-radar covering which could be useful for MKI upgrade too.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 10 Oct 2009 18:53

Austin wrote:Interesting info on MKI from GM HAL Nasik

I think, the questions and doubts 'whether Russians gave the single crystal blade technology to India' can be closed after reading this article.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 10 Oct 2009 20:24

Igorr wrote:
Austin wrote:Interesting info on MKI from GM HAL Nasik
I think, the questions and doubts 'whether Russians gave the single crystal blade technology to India' can be closed after reading this article.

I am totally confused now. If the SC tech has been given to India then why is the Kaveri engine still not able to use it for better performance.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 10 Oct 2009 21:03

George J wrote: Baldev:
I would like it if you refrain from spouting stuff you really have no idea about. BR has been around for a while....we have following the MKI very closely.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 10 Oct 2009 21:12

AmitR wrote:I am totally confused now. If the SC tech has been given to India then why is the Kaveri engine still not able to use it for better performance.

You said it! I hence wonder if that technology has restrictions on it. Something like 'they can used for producing the MKI engines wonlee'. Can't be stripped down or reverse engineered to be studied and applied elsewhere.

George J · Post by **George J** » 10 Oct 2009 21:23

AmitR wrote:......I am totally confused now. If the SC tech has been given to India then why is the Kaveri engine still not able to use it for better performance.

Very briefly (please don't drag out this as a tangent on this thread):

1) SC tech is for the mfg of AL-31FP only.
2) SC tech has been given to HAL....specifically HAL Koraput....specifically HAL Koraput Sukhoi Engine Manufacturing Facility.
3) Kaveri is not a HAL responsibility, Kaveri is GTRE which is a GOI>DRDO>Research Lab. In the MKI context, DRDO Lab DARE designs stuff that BEL makes for HAL Nasik to integrate into the MKI.
5) India has signed Intellectual Property Rights with Russia, so it would be illegal at this point in time to simply pilfer the tech to a DRDO lab.
6) Even if India has the cojones to do it, there are still Russian "Supervisors" in ALL facilities that make MKI related components (including HAL Koraput) and the Russians will surely know. India does not want to jeopardize the TOT, Mfg and induction of IAF frontline fighter just to provide tech to the LCA. Right now MKI is badly needed.
7) Even if you assume that India has the cojones and it able to hoodwink Russian supervisors and transfer the tech to GTRE today then who is going to make the blades for the MKI? There are only a finite number of resources/machinary provided for the MKI contract and they are meant to make the AL-31FP blades. If you divert them TODAY there will be no AL-31FP engines....unless we are also capable of convincing the Russians that we "lost" their huge milling and forming machines.

Also IIRC unless there was some news about the AL-31FP when I was not around....we are still NOT making the engine we might still be the learning phase with sub-assemblies and absorbing the tech. When the first fully Indian AL-31FP rolls out (i.e with max TOT and max indigenous content) we will probably know.

Now there is an eventual benefit of the tech...........which is a tangent that is best addressed in the LCA thread.

sum · Post by **sum** » 10 Oct 2009 21:31

From the article:

The aircraft engine has single crystal blades which are capable of withstanding very high temperatures. Considering that the aircraft is huge and has to operate in hot conditions, and its twin engines have the 11,500kg thrust each, the single crystal blades ensure that the thrust remains optimum. The Russians have given this technology to us for the first time.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Oct 2009 22:24

George J wrote: 5) India has signed Intellectual Property Rights with Russia, so it would be illegal at this point in time to simply pilfer the tech to a DRDO lab.

I am made to understand that the IPR with Russia will come into effect for every deal signed post 2010 , and MKI TOT and deep TOT for AL-31FP was signed much before.

George J · Post by **George J** » 10 Oct 2009 23:41

Austin:
You are absolutely correct legally.

Here is another way to look at it:

1) According to Minsk Square Matter the Sukhoi Engine Facility has been operational since about 2004-5.
2) HAL Koraput is contractually obligated to absorb and mfg the AL-31FP under deep license.
3) They will need to finish the original MKI contract by 2015. That's 10 year of tech absorption and mfg.
4) We need their "supervisors" to supervise the production, you can have all the equipment and documents but Russian documentation is often "very brief" and unless you supervise their "supervisors" your supervisors will never learn whats going on.
5) Then they also have the AL-55I of IJT (IIRC that too is mfg deal).
6) Then depending on how the AL-41 (117S) performs it could be an MLU for the MKI and since we would have been making 900 + AL-31FP, this could be another engine for HAL Koraput.

The AL-31FP engine is probably the most technologically complex engineering task that HAL has ever undertaken. We are not reverse engineering...we are learning how to make an engine to OEM specs for what will become the backbone of the IAF. Also think about all the stake holders here, would HAL want to screw up its mfg line of -31FP and -55I for an engine that it has nothing to with, would IAF want its OEM for its backbone a/c screwed for an in-development a/c? Does GOI want to screw the IAF just to transfer SC tech to GTRE?

What do you suppose will happen if we flaunt that elegant legal fact IPR is not valid till 2010 and send the tech to GTRE today?

There are other pragmatic and benign ways for GTRE to absorb -31FP SC tech but it will not happen at the risk of screwing up the MKI program so it will take time. I am willing to bet its already happening.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 10 Oct 2009 23:45

I am confused here. One either has the ability to fashion turbine blades from a single crystal or not. If somehow this technology can be compartmentalized to the four walls where the AL-31FP is being made, why bother even "having" (and I am sure it didn't come free) the technolgy in the first place?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 11 Oct 2009 00:17

Okay I have a question.

What would the Chinese do/have done in this kind of a situation ( say for any strategic aerospace related tech) and how would the Russians respond/ have responded in the past?

Gentlemen,

Please note, nowhere do I advocate a path based on what the Chinese might have done/have done.

Just want to know a bit about the Russian-Chinese interaction in this context.

username changed to D Roy. Please post these questions in the international
aerospace thread.
welcome to BR.
Rahul.

George J · Post by **George J** » 11 Oct 2009 00:29

As of October 2009:

1) Do we have SC tech?
2) Does HAL know how to make the -31FP or does it know how to assemble it?
3) Does HAL feel that it knows enough to make the -31FP from scratch?
4) Has HAL MASTERED the know how to make a FLIGHT QUALIFIED -31FP from scratch?
5) Where is the AL-31FP engine overhaul facility???

If you kids feel the answer is YES to all of these then I got a Death Star to sell you.

If you kids feel that just maybe ..... I donno....this stuff will take TIME then TILL that time we don't have the tech that we PAID for. Call me cynical I don't expect HAL to make a flight qualified -31FP from scratch till 2012...2014. You can cry yourself hoarse by stating we have Deep License Tech but it does not amount to diddly squat if you cant make a flight qualified engine.

I have been looking high and low for the AL-31FP overhaul facility since last November's You Tube Terry and Two Faced Trimble incident. I am not as ambitious as you kids are, I would be very happy if we even have the overhaul facility full set up. If I read the PAC report correct thats another thing that we PAID for.

Once you mastered the tech you PAID for then perhaps you cant use the same facility to make another engine. But you will have an army of trained and experience personnel (probably a decade of experience) who are intelligent enough to critically evaluate what can be applied/improved to make another engine. Technology can be restricted Knowledge cannot.

On the Hot Air forum they often accuse neta/babu for not having foresight, I see that on the Mil Forum too foresight seems to be in short supply. But jingos can do no wrong, they can make a single crystal blade out of thin air.

No Chinese speculation please. Keep the discussion to AL-31FP.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 11 Oct 2009 00:52

Fine.

Posted the question in the intl Aerospace discussion thread.

Aditya_M · Post by **Aditya_M** » 11 Oct 2009 02:12

If you kids feel the answer is YES to all of these then I got a Death Star to sell you.

If anyone answers YES to the Second question, sell them a Wren & Martin

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Oct 2009 02:27

1) Do we have SC tech?
2) Does HAL know how to make the -31FP or does it know how to assemble it?
3) Does HAL feel that it knows enough to make the -31FP from scratch?
4) Has HAL MASTERED the know how to make a FLIGHT QUALIFIED -31FP from scratch?
5) Where is the AL-31FP engine overhaul facility???

If you kids feel the answer is YES to all of these then I got a Death Star to sell you.

the one who answers YES to #5 is geographically challenged !

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 11 Oct 2009 05:54

1) Do we have SC tech?
2) Does HAL know how to make the -31FP or does it know how to assemble it?
3) Does HAL feel that it knows enough to make the -31FP from scratch?
4) Has HAL MASTERED the know how to make a FLIGHT QUALIFIED -31FP from scratch?
5) Where is the AL-31FP engine overhaul facility???

If you kids feel the answer is YES to all of these then I got a Death Star to sell you.

you are asking these questions as if HAL never assembled or produced aero engines before,
HAL yet to indegenize AL31 engines and you asking these questions well in advance

engine not only has SC tech but also TVC,hot section tech,whether russia transferred TVC,hot section tech or not it remains to be seen

and when HAL starts producing al31 engines by itself and after indegenizing they will also be able to overhaul engines as well on their own

IAF flying su30 for last 12 years and i am sure there is overhaul facility most probably koraput(where these engines are produced) for al31 engine overhaul in india although engines are overhauled with russian supplied parts and russian assistance right now

but if russia has not supplied hot section tech then hot section is overhauled in india with russian supplied parts and same for future.

if HAL can assemble jet engines with parts supplied from abroad then they can also overhaul engine with parts indegenized or supplied directly form foreign country.

and yes where al31 engines are produced at the same place these engines can be overhauled

George J · Post by **George J** » 11 Oct 2009 23:55

[b]Statutory Orders laid on the Table of the Rajya Sabha during the period from March 3 - 7, 2008 ( 213th Session)[/b] wrote:..........seeking to exempt customs duty on capital equipment imported by M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for setting up facilities for the repair/overhaul of SU-30 MKI aircraft, its Avionics, accessories and for the overhaul of AL-31 FP engines and its accessories

Unless things move at light speed for HAL and they set it up in 19 months or less I am pretty sure we are not overhauling MKI engines yet.

Also some of you will find this shocking...but there is a website attached to BRF and in BR>Air Force Section there you will find a 1998 Hormuz Mama article about the LCA that states

GTRE says a growth version of the Kaveri will have a turbine entry temperature of 1 ,8500 C and single-crystal turbine blades being developed by GTRE with the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory. Directionally solidified blades are now used.

......which is ironic coz the last time we hit that reference was in October 2005 when we had a debate about deep license-SC blades on the Oracle Forum. Every time a new and improved jingo discovers BR we are back to square one. I guess in the twitter age, 11 year old BR articles are not good enough....man I am getting too old for this.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 12 Oct 2009 00:56

George J wrote: 11 year old BR articles are not good enough....man I am getting too old for this.

GeorgeJ, now getting technology to overhaul AL-31FP doesn't automatically mean getting the technology to manufacture SC blades, does it? Yes, it may as well mean, that we can have all the "technology" we want to manufacture the combuster, the compressors, the shafts etc etc. - without the technology to manufacture the SC blades and the required internal cooling tech. They can continue to be imported and "screw-driver" 'ed.

But let me put another spin to it (this is exactly what happens when one spends too much time lurking the new-clear rona-dhona threads) - if by some miracle, Russia is in the verge of handing us down the SC balde manufacturing (and the associated internal-cooling tech), does it not also indicate that we are that much closer to developing it indigenously. Both you and I know just how many times such technologies have been offered to us just in the nick of time to ensure indigenous technology development doesn't go beyond the realms of the laborotories to the the mass-manufacturing phases. After all there have been some media reports (IIRC '06-'07 timeframe) about how DMRL and MIDHANI have "grown" SC and are struggling to develop the required manufacturing tech.

So, IMVHO, we are never too old for such things - stuff keep appearing and we need to keep validating and updating our understanding, I guess.

JMT.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 12 Oct 2009 03:55

Betw, pls do not for a second think, that I'm trying to imply that ToT for AL-31FP is not going to help in any way the beleagured Kaveri programme.

For instance, it maybe worthwhile to remember what N^3 inferred in Kaveri thread, a while ago:

narayanan wrote:It's a lot better than that. Note that stage pressure ratio for Kaveri is onbly about 1.3. Long way to improve, and this does not require SCB. Just good aerodynamics, or maybe just good fabrication of the existing design (based on other things I've seen, I suspect strongly that the actual fabrication quality control is where they lose 50% of their design performance). If they can get even this improved, they can probably save a lot of weight on the engine. Or they can beef up the turbine blades with the saved weight, or add cooling and increase T.i.T.

Also, the T.i.T is still a long way from getting to the levels where SCB is needed.

IOW, a number of small improvements, whose cumulative effect is a drastic improvement. Just plain hard work and good management and coordination.

AL-31FP overhaul/manufacture ToT would definitely bring-on lots of learnings about fabrication quality control (as N^3 refers aove) and many other things - and these can't be restricted to one engine shop/unit/company. These type of expertise, once acquired, would surely impact the kaveri or any other indigenous jet-engine program positively, within or outside HAL.

So SC blade manufature ToT or not, AL-31FP overhaul/manufacture ToT would still a positive development - only if it get's done in time, to positively impact other programmes, especially before funding etc dries out for those programs out of sheer frustration/lack-of-progress.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 12 Oct 2009 05:24

to overhaul engine can also be done with parts directly supplied by russia,
just need to disassemble engine,overhaul various sections with new parts supplied by russia,reassemble engine
and ground test it and deliver engine to IAF

all the testing and assembling/disassembling facilities are present at koraput
right now HAL produces 14 su30mki means there is need of 28 AL31 engines every year so koraput plant assembles upto 28 new AL31 engines every year so plant also has enough time and resources to overhaul 28-30 AL31 engines every year

saying this because 14 su30 are delivered every year means these 14 aircraft complete their engine overhauling hours at almost same time and next 14 su30 will complete their engine overhaul hours next year and so on

but plant can also produce extra new AL31 engine also

engine overhaul takes time so instead grounding aircraft for several weeks another engine either new or overhauled is fitted to aircraft and aircraft is ready to go and the engine which requires overhaul is sent for its overhauling so extra new engines produced by koraput plant are for this purpose

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 12 Oct 2009 08:54

Sukhoi Upgrade on Antony Russia Agenda
Indian Express

George J · Post by **George J** » 12 Oct 2009 09:00

maitya:

Oh we are certainly getting SC blade tech and other tech for the MKI that's what "deep license" implies-mfg from raw materials. The point I was trying to make is that we are not even overhauling our AL-31FP engines yet, so to absorb the tech to make a FLIGHT QUALIFIED AL-31FP from scratch is still a long way off (even the Soviets took 11 years to make a flight qualified AL-31F that too a series 1). Since HAL is supposed to finish making 140 MKI by 2015 they are supposed to master ALL tech by 2015, that's ambitious at best. That should be their priority, given the need for MKI and pilfering tech (just because we paid for it) really is not our way of doing things.

After HAL has mastered -31FP production/overhaul from scratch it will have vast knowledge that will be shared with whomsoever it chooses or is instructed to do so. No one can stop you from putting up a power point presentation titled "Challenges in Single Crystal Blade fabrication-the Koraput experience" but people will have problems if you do a PPT titled "23 steps to make AL-31FP turbine blade, with original technical notes made on Canon Xerox". One is knowledge the other is technology. Use your imagination about the possibilities.

Rest:

Here is another whine fest topic for you kids......we are getting essentially 70-80's era SC blade tech....

V. Chepkin in 26 Jun-2 Jul 2001 in Flight International wrote:....AL-41......The blades are to be "a step forward from singles crystals", and made of dispersed alloys of higher heat resistance. "We now have the technology to enable us to grow fibres in crystals that improve the internal structure of the crystal, akin strengthened concrete," Chepkin says. The fifth-generation engine will be an integrated piece in the fifth-generation fighter as it will be controlled by an integral control system. A step in that direction has been made on the Su-30MKI, where control inputs to the engine are generated with the help of the aircraft's central flight control system. The AL-41F is said to have three-dimensional blades to aid efficiency and a new combustor type able to withstand higher temperatures............

Maybe Igorr has some more up to date info on the new dispersed alloy blades on the AL-41.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Oct 2009 09:37

George J wrote:people will have problems if you do a PPT titled "23 steps to make AL-31FP turbine blade, with original technical notes made on Canon Xerox". One is knowledge the other is technology. Use your imagination about the possibilities.

George , why do you think Russia will have problems if we lets say transfer technology for SC blade for Kaveri after we understood it and assimilated it well during TOT and Mfg phase of AL-31FP engine.

Does the agreement explicitly mentions any TOT for AL-31FP will only be restricted in the manuf of AL-31FP onleeee and no other engine or organisation in India can get that tech via HAL ( or for that matter any other AL-31FP derived technology ) and use it in their own project ? ( exclusion being TOT for AL-31FP or SC to 3rd country ).

If we pay for it and got the technology and manufacturing know how , and there is no legally binding agreement that we know of , it is our decision to make use of that know how in our own best interest for other projects.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 12 Oct 2009 12:44

Many years back when i was just out of college and started working for an IT company, i had a crazy idea. The guy sitting next to me was working for GE AE. I used to wonder if we have so many guys working on GE AE - IT dept why cant we steal engine technology related docs from their servers and give it to DRDO. Hmmm...

Please dont fire me.. I was Alice in Wonderland

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Oct 2009 13:28

even if someone gave you the mountain of docs, without the manpower , technology base (machinery, suppliers) and scientists who understand the field from ground level work - its all useless. like someone giving us a plan to build a vulture droid from *wars.

thats why the TOT business is rubbish, just like 'innovation' word in IT. if we do 80% we can buy the rest 20%, if we do 20% nobody will supply rest 80% and in a sense its possible because much is just raw knowledge.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 12 Oct 2009 13:36

Of course, the transferred technology can be used for production of every other things in India without restriction. Otherwise what could ToT mean ? I wonder. It doesn't allow to just replicate Al-31 and sell it abroad, it's obvious. Giving the SCB technology to DRDO is not a legal problem, since using the technology for other things apart Al-31 is not a problem too. The only problem would be, if India wants to sell the SCB technology imported from Russia to China for example.

Some facts about the Su-30MKI agreement, which I repeated many times before:
1) ToT for all manufacturing processes needed for Su-30MKI production in India from the raw materials was contracted, period. This includes the engine with 2D TWN.
2) ToT for Al-31FP - is a prolonged process, which will be finished in 2011, when according to the agreement Indians will be learned to make the engine from the raw materials domestically. So till 2011 a part of the transferred technologies can be in stage of learning. It's obvious too. Of course the overhaul skills and rights are being transferred too.
3) Single crystal blades technology is transferred too.
4) Fibers-strengthen crystal blades technology is not transfered since it's a 5th gen technology and is absent on the Al-31. The same - other 5th gen technologies, which are not implied on Al-31FP, are not transferred with according to Su-30MKI deal.

Then I don't know, what are problems with Kaveri but it can be million other problems apart with SCB. Usually each gas-turbine engine is an unique engineer solution with very few plug and play devices that could be transferred directly from another engines. Look, it took them 8 years at least for re-dimensioning Al-41 into 15% lighter 117S, and Saturn has developed Al-55I from Al-31 with only a marginal improvements in technology during more than 3 years while the help of a new super-computer was needed. And it was happen with Saturn's own engines, not with an reverse-engineered or ToTed foreign engine.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 12 Oct 2009 13:59

Igorr,

There is lot of noise regarding MKI upgrade being discussed in AK meeting with Russian scheduled shortly.

While most of them speak that it will replace bars with more powerful radar,Brahmos capable, and other fifth gen tec developed for PAK FA, no one is specific.

Can you please enlighten us on what exactly (ofcourse with decent margin of error) this upgrade package is?

-Nitin