Sure, an article about Col. Fornof's commentaryakshay wrote:As for hoipolloi, i do consider the archives semi official. Since you have more idea..
Since links are given importance i found this bout Cope 08..hopefully recent enough
Su 30MKI Arcticle Nov 08
should shut everyone up here 
I give up. Please can someone post the info card of MKI from Aeroindia. Thanks.Your post makes no sense!Anujan wrote: Sure, an article about Col. Fornof's commentary
I think the article is serious enough to merit a dhaaga on its own. Continue discussions in this dhaaga "Su MKI not fully successful: Colonel"
Nope but it does look like a F-15 fan is pissed off that the precious plane was turned into a Shitting duck by the MKI. Don't worry it happens. F-15 had a good run with almost no competition it had to get dethroned some time. American propaganda apart is the F-15 is even capable of taking on vanila MKK's than panda has? Singapore and Japan certainly don't think so.akshay wrote: Think I tread on lots of toes with my topic, nothing intentional for su 30 fans. As I seen the Archives thats what I got,you guys feel otherwise. my post said "Did we win 90%?"
Cuz that putting a big figure.
As for Mig levelling of thats because the M29 was built to respond to F15 threat. This ain't the forum for that.
As for hoipolloi, i do consider the archives semi official. Since you have more idea..
I found arcticles bout Cope 08..so i asked.
For the final time.......WHO SAID it was 13,300? Whoever said that has to prove it, BRF is not meant for people to start wild goose chases. And there are only THREE types of information that are considered proof (OEM/IAF/RMAF, OEM infoboard, OEM boss) even if you got this from Janes it's on THEM to tell us WHO said it? So if there is no evidence from any of the three then its not true. The corollary if ANY of the three claim something then it MUST be true...which is why even today we stick with N011M performance as stated by OEM, if they say it can track 20 and engage 4 then it MUST be true.krish.pf wrote:.........Still far from the 13300 thrust figure.
Krish, you are right - it is virtually impossible to find the infoboard with 13.3kgf AB thrust for AL-31FP. I feel your pain. At least I have not found said inforboard despite multiple searches. Rest assured though, the thrust is definitely higher than the what is seen in most open sources. It stands to reason; also there is have been noises about this from a few sources:krish.pf wrote:Searched a lot..
Thanks Jagan. It's interesting the infocard says Al-31fp and 12700 thrust. Still far from the 13300 thrust figure.
http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-30/s ... ations.htmSpecifications Su-30MKI Multi-Role Flanker
Powerplant: two 130 kN (29,400 lb st) Saturn Lyul'ka AL-31FP TVC afterburning turbofans
Dimensions: length 21.935m (72 ft 9 in) ; height 6.357m (21 ft 5 in); wing span 14.7m (48 ft)
Weights: empty 18400 kg (40,564 lb); Max Take-Off Weight 34000 kg (74,956 lb)
Performance: max level speed at high altitude Mach 2.0 or 2125 km/h (1,320 mph); at sea level 1400 km/h (870 mph); service ceiling 17,500m (57,410 ft)
Armament: one internal GSh-301 30mm cannon with 150 rounds; up to 8000 kg (17,637 lb) of ordnance carried on up to twelve external hardpoints, including R-60, R-73, R-27, RVV-AE (R-77) AAMs, freefall and cluster bombs, unguided rockets, external fuel tanks, guided bombs and air-to-surface missiles.
Specifications Su-30MKK Multi-Role Flanker
Powerplant: two 122.58 kN (27,550 lb st) Saturn Lyul'ka AL-31F afterburning turbofans
Dimensions: length 21.935m (72 ft 9 in) ; height 6.43m (21 ft 5 in); wing span 14.7m (48 ft)
Weights: empty 18400 kg (40,564 lb); Max Take-Off Weight 38000 kg (83,775 lb)
Performance: max level speed at high altitude Mach 2.0 or 2125 km/h (1,320 mph); at sea level 1400 km/h (870 mph); service ceiling 17,500m (57,410 ft)
Sleep easy mate, the IAF's got it covered!I could be wrong, but IIRC - an english version came out in 2004-05. I believe Fomin was "corrected" and went to the official figures in the later editionGeorge J wrote:Actually I am glad CM brought up Fomin. Only Fomin 1998 was published in English, Fomin 2000 was supposed to be only published in Russian. But even then unless Fomin is quoting Chepkin its pretty much moot, coz Chepkin's company still maintains 12,500 Kgf on NPO Saturn Website. http://www.npo-saturn.ru/!new/index.php?pid=53 (see you dont need to use a translator, they do have an English site...you just need to look)
So no matter what Fomin says (and he might be absolutely correct) if NPO says AL-31FP is 12,500 KgF then that's what it has.
So ya, officially, the 12.5kgf figure stands for the most part. That's the one !!!!! Are you sure its on BR AI05 album?RaviBg wrote:I had taken this photo in Aero India 2005. Check out the board where it says the thrust is 12700 KGs each
I don't know if it is on BR AI05 album or not, but I remember Jagan or someone else asking me permission to use some of my photos in BR album to which I had consented.George J wrote:That's the one !!!!! Are you sure its on BR AI05 album?RaviBg wrote:I had taken this photo in Aero India 2005. Check out the board where it says the thrust is 12700 KGs each
It was BR. I clearly remember the 13300 fig in BR. After searching in vain, I finally got to the source BR/BRF.For the final time.......WHO SAID it was 13,300? Whoever said that has to prove it, BRF is not meant for people to start wild goose chases.
Thanks much Cain.Krish, you are right - it is virtually impossible to find the infoboard with 13.3kgf AB thrust for AL-31FP. I feel your pain. At least I have not found said inforboard despite multiple searches. Rest assured though, the thrust is definitely higher than the what is seen in most open sources. It stands to reason; also there is have been noises about this from a few sources:
eg. The phil camp/watson book on the flanker in IAF service does mention the need for a higher thrust engine (compared to the older ones of course) for the structurally beefed up MKI.
FWIW, here is one source that dates around from way back but puts the engine thrust @ ~ 13 tons, btw they get their info from Fomin (2000) i think
So later they went back to the 12.5 t thrust later on. Was the earlier fig a mistake or is it trying to heed IAF's request to not publish the actual thrust. So BR got that figure from Fomin/Milivia and used that fig in their site? I saw BR with 13300 many years ago and the forum links posts are old, so did BR update their site with the 12,500 fig later on? So many questions. But I think I'll stick with 12.5t for now. No... 130kn would be 29,225lbfThe difference between the MKK and MKI is v.clear. The MKK is as heavy (probly heavier considering the MKI has slowly been incorporating composites, 6% by weight iirc), but uses the regular AL-31Fs @ 12250kgN. The MKI is @ 13000KgN.
Also keep in mind KN > KgF even if only marginally, which would put the Al-31F at the oft published 12500kgf and the MKI's AL-31FP @ 13300kgf. Resident experts can explain the difference far better i am sure.
You could see the numbers. But I had to navigate to that page you know.see you dont need to use a translator, they do have an English site...you just need to look
It could be that Al-31f/fp can be said as a 28k lbf Class engine(27600 ~ 28k class, or a number with a 1000 multiple). 28000lbf = 12700.72 kgf ... accurate to the last digit excluding decimals.If these pics convey the same info then its 12,700 if not then we are back to 12,500 coz NPO and HAL say the same and IAF does not know the difference between 5 and 7.
Thanks Ravi!I had taken this photo in Aero India 2005. Check out the board where it says the thrust is 12700 KGs each
Now you know why I am a cranky old man who gets irritated when you kids still discuss the SAME thing that we have beaten to death five years ago. Trust me 99% of the stuff you find has already been dealt with. All you have to do is search and you will find it.krish.pf wrote:.........http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archiv ... 31898.html
I see a George J there, is that you?.........
He's taken enough of a break. He should return.George J wrote: If you ask me personally, I feel this is why Nitin left and I don't blame him.
To what? We are back to discussing things that we discussed 5 years ago....because janta don't know how to use Google. Every time a new jingo finds BRF its his fundamental right to regress the discussion back to what they care about...COPE INDIA/RED FLAG and You Tube Terry......Vivek K wrote:He's taken enough of a break. He should return.
Well, first I'm not registered in that forum and that is a multinational forum, and second I felt BR would have some explanation/inside info on the 13,300 fig, it was the fig which their site published afterall. Nothing beats asking the source directly, when the said source is reputed and deals with Indian defence extensively.Now you know why I am a cranky old man who gets irritated when you kids still discuss the SAME thing that we have beaten to death five years ago. Trust me 99% of the stuff you find has already been dealt with. All you have to do is search and you will find it.
Well, the new BRF has an ignore feature built in. Gurus can put newbies on their ignore list. Maybe some ity-vity guy can add a feature to add newbie posts on Gurus ignore list upto 500 posts etc. Also, Gurus do not have to respond to all the Newbie posts. Let him/her travel into cyber space for the answer. JMT.George J wrote: To what? We are back to discussing things that we discussed 5 years ago....because janta don't know how to use Google. Every time a new jingo finds BRF its his fundamental right to regress the discussion back to what they care about...COPE INDIA/RED FLAG and You Tube Terry......
.. shiv ji has a diff take. btw, i agree with the "other aspects" of gurus., and imho, leaving and joining are individual options as well, largely speaking /OT.Vivek K wrote:George J wrote: If you ask me personally, I feel this is why Nitin left and I don't blame him.
If its posted there then its THEIR job to tell you how they got it, its not BRs job to correct stuff that you pick up and you don't need to be registered to find archives from there.. That site also has the distinction of breeding the Oracles of Twu BVR, and the BR also contracted the same disease. BR has gotten to where it has due to meticulous moderators and strict entry criteria where people were supposed to do their own research and back up their posts with references and even in the references the same hierarchy applies 1) OEM website 2) OEM brochures/info boards 3) OEM boss direct quotes. Also we DO NOT discuss anything that is NOT OPEN SOURCE. It can be attributed to a Panwallah but you are not required to believe anything, in fact its best if you don't. You are not doing anyone a favor by posting NON OPEN source info.krish.pf wrote:..Well, first I'm not registered in that forum and that is a multinational forum, and second I felt BR would have some explanation/inside info on the 13,300 fig, it was the fig which their site published afterall......
I was referring to BR's site. The 13,300 fig was posted on BR's site.If its posted there then its THEIR job to tell you how they got it, its not BRs job to correct stuff that you pick up
By this logic quite a few of the threads will have to be locked down on the BR forum. Actually, come to think about it, why have BR at all? If *only* official specs are to be discussed and "you cant talk about anything else" (paraphrasing), all we need is the GoI website. No forum necessary.For example just because you saw the KAB-500, Kh-59 and Kh-31A on the MKI in Lohegaon does not mean you can talk about it till there is actually an open source pic/IAF reference of the same. Till such time there is no such thing as the Kh-59 or Kh-31 on the MKI. I onleee flies with dumb bombs and R-73/27/77 since that's the only open source pics released in 2003.
krish, when was that. I remember checking about a week ago, it was the accepted figure only.krish.pf wrote:I was referring to BR's site. The 13,300 fig was posted on BR's site.If its posted there then its THEIR job to tell you how they got it, its not BRs job to correct stuff that you pick up
It is armed with the latest RVV-AE air-to-air and Kh-31, Kh-29 and Kh-59 air-to-surface missiles, state-of-the-art avionics and phased array radars.George J wrote:For example just because you saw the KAB-500, Kh-59 and Kh-31A on the MKI in Lohegaon does not mean you can talk about it till there is actually an open source pic/IAF reference of the same. Till such time there is no such thing as the Kh-59 or Kh-31 on the MKI. I onleee flies with dumb bombs and R-73/27/77 since that's the only open source pics released in 2003.
Errrr! George.........! Nice way of giving info without giving it.George J wrote: Also we DO NOT discuss anything that is NOT OPEN SOURCE. .....
For example just because you saw the KAB-500, Kh-59 and Kh-31A on the MKI in Lohegaon does not mean you can talk about it till there is actually an open source pic/IAF reference of the same. Till such time there is no such thing as the Kh-59 or Kh-31 on the MKI. I onleee flies with dumb bombs and R-73/27/77 since that's the only open source pics released in 2003.
That's a long time back. I posted a couple of forum links before which posts BR's MKI page which talks about 29,400 fig.krish, when was that. I remember checking about a week ago, it was the accepted figure only.
You mean you STARTED a tangent...and accuse BR for it and CANNOT post a link to it?krish.pf wrote:.....That's a long time back. I posted a couple of forum links before which posts BR's MKI page which talks about 29,400 fig.
krish.pf wrote:What..? I saw the 29,400 fig in BR. Now BR is currently under maintenance and the specs are gone. I posted some forum links before which copy-pastes the BR's page validating what I saw. Since I saw it in BR I came to the source and asked about it.
hate to throw petrol into a flame but .....Unless you saw it like - five years ago..krish.pf wrote:So you guys did change the specs. That answers one of my questions. I saw the specs a while ago.
#Support up to 15 targets on the aisle in order to assess the tactical situation of group actions airplane without an end to search;
# Precise tracking of up to 4 targets for the use of weapons without an end to search;
I saw the "4" targets in wiki with a reference to the main Tikhomirov page.