Su-30: News and Discussion

nsarma · Post by **nsarma** » 02 Dec 2009 12:04

Similar coverage in Indian Express:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/iaf-g ... sh/548930/

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Dec 2009 13:35

DATE:01/12/09
SOURCE:Flight International
Indian air force suffers another Su-30MKI loss
By Radhakrishna Rao

An Indian air force Sukhoi Su-30MKI multi-role supersonic fighter crashed near the Pokhran range in the north-western Indian state of Rajasthan on 30 November. The pilot and navigator managed to eject to safety.

This is the second Su-30MKI incident this year after another aircraft crashed near Pokhran on 30 April. The air force has ordered an inquiry into the accident.

The latest loss came five days after Indian president Pratibha Patil flew in an Su-30MKI fighter near Pune in the western Indian state of Maharastra (see picture).

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -loss.html

jai · Post by **jai** » 02 Dec 2009 14:27

Refer latest snaps from Wikimapia

I could never understand why multimillion dollar planes are left out in the open to the elements and for all to see.....while services staff cars, jeeps, and other vehicle's get a garage / MT.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 02 Dec 2009 14:31

jai wrote: I could never understand why multimillion dollar planes are left out in the open to the elements and for all to see.....while services staff cars, jeeps, and other vehicle's get a garage / MT.

May be to complement them with VITAMIN - D..

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Dec 2009 23:36

From Orbat.Com:

Indian Air Force Sukhoi-30 wings of two squadrons each will ultimately be based at Ounee (first Su-30 base); Bareilley (second base); Tezpur (third base, four aircraft were sent as a first increment this year); Halwara (Punjab); Jodhpur; and Chabbua (Assam). This means four squadrons are slated for the China border

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Dec 2009 00:30

it could be some act by chinese.. they are seeing that the MKIs are nearing their borders.. somehow pull them down.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 03 Dec 2009 04:00

Cross Posting
HAL Probe On, Sukhois Grounded
The Indian Express

The fighter that went down was A Brand New Aircraft Manufactured by HAL and was part of a new squadron being raised in Pune for possible deployment in Jodhpur. Initial investigations suggested a fire in the engine.

“No flying operations have been carried out since the crash. In the technical sense, the fleet has not been grounded and the fighters will be available for operations In Case of Any Emergency,” an IAF officer said.

The IAF has close to 90 Su-30 MKI Fighters in its Inventory and has placed a total order for 230 aircraft.

The fleet was earlier grounded after the first-ever crash involving a Sukhoi on April 30. The fleet was grounded for close to a month after a pilot was killed in the crash. That crash could not be conclusively investigated as the black box of the aircraft was completely gutted. Though the black box was even sent to the UK for forensic examination, little data could be extracted. A preliminary inquiry had pointed to “likely failure of the fly-by-wire system” which led to the crash.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 03 Dec 2009 06:55

Week After Flight, President Wants To Know Why Su-30MKIs Are Crashing
Russian bhailogs have this to say....

"In India, this plane has become a symbol of national pride. It takes part in all military parades and aviation exhibitions held in the country, successfully represents the national air forces on the international military games. Its image is placed on the anniversary coin which has been let out to the 75th anniversary of the air forces of India."

Sree · Post by **Sree** » 03 Dec 2009 11:12

Aditya G wrote:
andy B wrote:I remember reading some article that said that the basic K's were sluggish when fully loaded with fuel and weapons but they became ferociously manoeuvrable once they started burning the fuel and especially around bingo fuel...
The source of this theory is quote supposedly by an IAF pilot who compared the Su-30 maneuverability to that of a Canberra (which is a very agile aircraft btw) when laden with fuel. Till date I am yet to see this article where this came from, neither any other source which can corroborate it. It has been recorded only in older internet forum posts.

Aditya:

The article that Andy B is mentioning is not available on the web, afaik; but I can confirm that I read it too. I have the hard copy, but will have to dig through dozens of back issues to find it.

The article was a very early one (from probably at least 8 years ago) on India's Su-30 programme, by iirc Jon Lake. It probably appeared in Air Forces Monthly, which I think Jon Lake was editing at the time. Andy B's recollection is almost word-for-word accurate - the passage definitely included the phrasing "ferociously manoeuvrable" under conditions of "bingo fuel".

Iirc, the article caused quite a firestorm on the BRF of that period, because of this comment and some other representations that many of us on BRF were unhappy with. Jon Lake, who had signed up briefly as a forum member here, and posted a few times, got tired of / burnt by the flames and didn't return.

From my own conversations with serving IAF personnel, the comment would not be wildly inaccurate - though admitting, I think, of different interpretations, as in, either:

- Wow, this bird is the size of a Canberra, and yet can be even more manoeuvrable under favorable conditions; or

- Shucks, this bird is the size of a Canberra, and manoeuvers much of its time like a big, heavy, first-generation twin-jet.

Iow, whether the IAF officer who said those words meant to be admiring or disparaging depends on a lot of elements (tone, expression, body language, context) that aren't obvious from the quote.

Overall, I thought Jon Lake's article was reasonably appreciative of the broader Su-30 project, though certainly not a fan-boy piece.

Btw, as you say, the Canberra is a reasonably agile aircraft - and in addition, I would add, many modern fast jets are not particularly agile - the MiG-27 for one, and the F-18, for another. The success of modern fighters is not always down to their manoeuvrability within visual range - the issue has usually been settled before then.

Regards

Sree

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Dec 2009 18:03

The sluggish part is completely nonsense, the reason pilots of any aircraft don’t aggressively maneuver with a full load is because the increased weight puts more stresses on the airframe that requires more preventive maintenance inspection by the technical personnel (they end up spending more hours on the job) and decreases type technical service life more than normal flying does. A pilot post sortie and debriefing goes for a drink and then the maintenance personnel slog starts.

Any maintenance personnel is loathe to see the aircraft fly with anything more loaded than the inboard wing hard points, that are structurally strongest.

A Sukhoi doesnt even load up its full fuel load because most training sorties, unless over the sea, arent that long and its stupid burning more fuel just by carrying fuel that you'll anyways bring back and probably have to de-fuel.

Even AAMs on wingtip hardpoints lead to more stress on the wings. That is why you’ll find budget airforces like Czech and Hungary flying their Gripens clean all the time.

In normal service, a ship or aircraft is expected to soldier for 20 years. Mid life refit extends it to 30 years.

In full blown combat, 6-12 months operations will decrease TTSL considerably, however this doesn’t matter since given the attrition in combat, new aircraft will have to be inducted anyways for operations exceeding 12 months.

A typical AAM can take single digit hours of maneuvering over 5 g before its service life expires. In full blown combat, it is expected that a missile will be fired within three sorties, so this tolerance limit suffices.

If you remember, most Sparrows fired in Vietnam didn’t work because of this reason. A medium range missile is used much less than short ranged missile. So carriage but no use ended up expiring its flight life faster than Sidewinders, that were used faster when US fighters were bounced by GCA guided VPAF aircraft.

I tried to get search for some data, however manufacturers don’t publish these facts. All I could find by googling was unfortunately from my best friend’s website,

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/S ... R-77-5.jpg

50 hours flight life and 3 hours when powered up. When maneuvering, its much less than 50 hours.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Dec 2009 19:33

JuggiG, Those bold comments has fish bone->HAL-QC. Is that the message we are trying to spike?

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 04 Dec 2009 09:32

What's wrong with IAF's Sukhoi?
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... ukhoi.html

Manoj-ji has brought up some interesting discussion here. Specially on what should be the structure of IAF fighteres as well on MMRCA requirement ....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Dec 2009 10:12

sheesh, manoj joshi has really lost his marbles over the years. to think he used to be the premier defence journalist of his day !

he should have stopped writing many, many moons ago.

consider :

Whatever be the case, it has led to a grounding of the super- capable, but very expensive aircraft.

right, and the example of a not so expensive aircraft would be ?

An ideal air force has a pyramid structure with its best cuttingedge fighter on top, a tier- two workhorse and, at the bottom, large numbers of less capable tier- three fighters. {ideal in say, 1939, not in 2009. he seriously needs to upgrade his knowledge of modern air forces. USAF --> two types F-15 and F-16, replaced by F-22 and F-35.
RuAF --> su-27 and mig-29, to be replaced by PAKFA and some smaller type} By their current plan, the IAF could end up with an inverted pyramid. It could end up with as many as 280 heavy Sukhoi 30- MKI and around 126 medium fighters for which a competition is currently underway.

as if those two will be the only aircraft types in IAF !

conveniently forgets to mention the mirages (50), bisons (125), mig-27's (100), mig-29's(50) and the jaguars (100).
even with the replacements coming in around the end of next decade, the FGFA will become the cutting edge toppling the mki from that place.

okay, forget all this. let's look at the logic : what if IAF following manoj joshi's idea had 500 odd tier 2 aircraft at this moment. what if a couple of those crashed and the fleet was temporarily grounded ? what would manoj joshi have said then, the IAF brought it on themselves ?
they should have bought 2 squadrons of every type available to prevent such an event ?

idiotic journalism passing off as expert comments knows no bound in India.

We have a total of about 250 Mig- 21s of varying vintages that should have been replaced yesterday.
Instead, they will be painfully slowly replaced by the LCA over the next 15 years.

with what ? where's the bright idea that solves all that ails the IAF ?
anyone can state the problems.

The large number of Sukhois are not only very expensive ( officially $ 45 million, in reality Rs 350 crore per piece) to buy, but they are horrendously costly to operate and their serviceability is poor in any case.

and where does this figure come from ? or should we just believe it because manoj joshi says so ?

and the last line is false anyway, it is costly to operate, being a large bird but their serviceability is excellent, easily the best in the IAF.
sad to see one of India's most respected def journalists resorting to lies and falsehoods in order to carry out his personal vendetta against Air HQ.

They have messed up their Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft ( MMRCA) competition by mixing apples and oranges, as it were. Instead of acquiring a Mig- 21 replacement - a light fighter like the Swedish Gripen, the American F- 16 or the Russian Mig- 29 - they have opened the competition for much more capable, heavier and expensive fighters like the Boeing FA18, the French Rafaele and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

wait, wasn't he arguing in the very last paragraph of the need for a 3 tier force structure composed of top-end, medium category workhorse and large no of less capable mig-21 types ?
now suddenly, filling in the medium category is a sin ?

Should, for example any of the last named win the competition, we will have an air force of only top- of- the- line fighters, no workhorses.

very worrying indeed !
should, for example an asteroid destroys the world, there will no one left to manufacture the aircrafts.
should, for example the Indian economy tanks we would have no money to buy any fighters as well.
should, for example manoj joshi stop writing, we would be spared from reading this tripe as well.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 04 Dec 2009 11:44

Rahul

shame on you

how dare you just refer to him as just manoj joshi

It is Prof Manoj Joshi!!!

and therein lies a hint of why some marbles are loose

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 04 Dec 2009 11:53

with what ? where's the bright idea that solves all that ails the IAF ?

Not in connection with Joshi's article, but just thinking out aloud.

In response to your question - No panacea I am afraid. However, I do think a few opportunities were lost in the last 10 odd years. Of course hindsight is a b****h but still. The MiG-21s could have been replaced with more MiG-21s, Bisons of course. Don't think the Babus could've argued against this since the whole thing would've been done in house. IIRC, india already had enough expertise in building the fishbed and it could've reopened the lines to churn out some more. A cheap, interim solution.

In fact the upgrade for the Bison could've had an engine change as well - RD-33.ser.3s would've helped. A bit more expensive, but had the decision been made around 2000 as a back up, the strength wouldn't be as dire today. It would've cost no more than $ 1-1.5 billion to get a nice 125 bisons. Whatsmore, iirc, HAL was pretty quick in churning out 21s in the old days.

Another option was getting Mig-29s from excess VVS stock. Of course this is hind sight and it could be argued that the Mirage 2000 was an almost done deal and the LCA was also promised by 2004-5; but even around 2005, when the MRCA was suddenly made a pie in the sky and the kaveri fiasco was clear; the Bison might not have been too bad a decision.

Even today, a 5-7 year run for a Bison production line might ease the pressure somewhat. What with the MRCA nowhere in sight. The rate at which they are blowing $$$$s, whats a billion for a quick injection of force levels?

Personally, I still don't get the deal behind this MRCA requirement! The IAF never had the need for so many multirole fighter before. All of a sudden, they feel the need for an entire force of multirole jets that too 4th gen birds! Drop the whole idea, restart the MiG-21s, add a few more MKIs until the Pafka and LCA come along. Invest in the MCA so it can be ready by the time the Jags, Mirages and fulcrums are ready to retire.
JMT

CM.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 04 Dec 2009 12:02

it is costly to operate, being a large bird but their serviceability is excellent, easily the best in the IAF.

Not in recent months from what I heard. So Manoj Joshi may have been right in this aspect.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Dec 2009 12:28

jagan, how recent is recent ? not what I heard a couple of months back.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Dec 2009 12:32

CM, all that is OK, do you remember the condition our funds were in during that period ?

that put paid to a lot of long term plans and was one of the reasons why license producing more mig-29s was not considered seriously.
blaming the MRCA on IAF is also not done, they had after all only asked for more mirages, not a 10 year long drama.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 04 Dec 2009 13:21

Rahul M wrote:CM, all that is OK, do you remember the condition our funds were in during that period ?

that put paid to a lot of long term plans and was one of the reasons why license producing more mig-29s was not considered seriously.
blaming the MRCA on IAF is also not done, they had after all only asked for more mirages, not a 10 year long drama.

Not really blaming the IAF for the MRCA fiasco, no doubt their good intent was undone by the Babus/Netas. Also not saying that they should've pushed for fulcrum production in the 90s. But even around 2005 - when the financial condition was pretty solid, and the M2k-5 bubble was just about to reach fantasy proportions, and the Kaveri bubble had pretty much busted; one might have thought that something reliable and in numbers might've been the order of the day as a back up at a relatively low price. Of course by this time, the VVS fulcrum transfer was probly useless as many of those birds were simply left lying around in the open. But in house production of Bisons? Why not a limited run? Everybody, probly even a Babu knows that this will only be a stop gap measure, but it'll be cheap and keep the strength from falling.

At the time the IAF had few real options - (since buying from abroad would've entailed DPP and what not), buy more MKIs, seek M2k-5 from Qatar, restart MiG-21 prodn. To their credit, they did indeed manage to squeeze some 40 MKIs out of the GOI thanks to Tyagi's gimmickry. They also got some Jags. But since numbers were an issue and knowing that 40MKIs were never going to be enough; especially considering that the MKI could've never replaced a fishbed and the qatari mirage purchase looked difficult; a strong push for reopening MiG-21 lines to Bison standards would have been a relatively feasible possibility.

A six year run from 2007-2013 for 150 Bisons might've been worth a try at least. Of course, this is not to say that the IAF didn't consider this; wonder why they didn't pursue it?

CM

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Dec 2009 13:36

the bis production line had already been coverted to produce mig-27's in the 80's. I don't know if re-opening the line was at all possible without costing as much as setting up a new line which in turn won't have made economic sense at all.
a lot of the experienced workers would have retired by that time too.

of course, the bison may be a good compromise because we already had the basic aircraft, buying new build ones won't have made sense IMO.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 04 Dec 2009 17:48

Rahul M wrote:jagan, how recent is recent ? not what I heard a couple of months back.

June July, when the first birds went to Tezpur and new raisings were being done.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Dec 2009 18:00

but the point is@! brasstacks.

we need a total back up for the russkie systems /PERIOD. This is exactly what people try to hide... all eggs in one basket syndrome.

MMRCA sure is not for the russkies.

The faster the LCA, the better is the feel that perhaps help in the number crunching.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 05 Dec 2009 01:21

Now here is a confirmation ... it is due to engine fire

Sukhoi to fly again on Monday; crash due to engine fire
http://www.ptinews.com/news/408407_Sukh ... ngine-fire

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 05 Dec 2009 01:51

Sukhoi to fly again on Monday; crash due to engine fire

"The pilots had switched off the engine to control the fire and this led to the mishap," the IAF officers said. A probe team comprising IAF officers and HAL officials have recovered the black box, that holds its cockpit voice and
data recorders, which would be analysed soon, the officials said.

wtf.. Judging by this news report, sounds like Both engines were on fire, which is why they were turned off and then pilots bailed.. what still remains to be seen is the CAUSE of the FIRE in BOTH engines

The quote mentions "the engine" and if my english serves me right it only refers to ONE not BOTH the engine.. Clearly something is not what it seems to be....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Dec 2009 01:53

are they talking about a fire that is above 1700*C?

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 05 Dec 2009 02:01

not sure.. not mentioned in the article.. Here is a better link which mentions a fire in "IT's" engine, which again refers to ONE engine and not both.. so if one engine is caught on fire, turn it off and try to fly back to base with the second engine..More info is needed which will only be known when the BB is analyzed and until then no point in speculating, as these reports seem to be "half filled half empty"

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 05 Dec 2009 03:25

In all probability both engines were on fire simultaneously! if it was only one engine the pilots would have shut if off and turned around. Both engines on fire means something seriously wrong with the maintenance of the engines or an engine flaw. They say usually engine fires in turbofan engines take place outside the engine but within the engine housing. It might also have been a faulty fire sensor. They have to do a LOT better than simply determine that it was an engine fire. They have to determine the exact cause of the engine fire so the defects if any can be corrected.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Dec 2009 09:47

Fire in both engines simultaneously is unusual even for badly maintained engines. That has not happened even to Ethiopian airlines as far as I know. And badly maintained engines may not catch fire - they could behave in different ways like poor response, lack of thrust or flame out.

The other question is - can a pilot who sees warning lights for fire in both his engines fly on disregarding the lights - even if the warning lights have come on due to some software or sensor error. There has to be a standard protocol like shutting off the engine. Obviously if lights for both engines come on - even if it is false warning the pilot either has to follow protocol or ignore. And shutting off both engines==eject

We don't have any information about any of these things. In the absence of information everything is an assumption.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Dec 2009 10:00

On the subject of engine life and maintenance of engines - I was speaking to an old friend a test pilot in Bangalore (whom I am supposed to meet to continue the conversation - probably after I digitise a certain naval officers 78 rpm gramophone records

)

The air in India is dusty and actually has sand particles in the North through the summer months. European (and North American) air is pristine and clear. With turbofans turning over 10,000 rpm the things that sand particles do to blades (I am told) is to be seen to be believed. Also , a few hours operational low level flying over India causes turbine blades to be coated with grime. The US and European air forces are beginning to experience this in operational flying in Iraq and to Afghanistan.

When we curse our own for poor maintenance we do that without allowing for environmental factors that cause damage that does not come under a foreign manufacturer's warranty.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 05 Dec 2009 10:20

shiv wrote:On the subject of engine life and maintenance of engines - I was speaking to an old friend a test pilot in Bangalore (whom I am supposed to meet to continue the conversation - probably after I digitise a certain naval officers 78 rpm gramophone records )

The air in India is dusty and actually has sand particles in the North through the summer months. European (and North American) air is pristine and clear. With turbofans turning over 10,000 rpm the things that sand particles do to blades (I am told) is to be seen to be believed. Also , a few hours operational low level flying over India causes turbine blades to be coated with grime. The US and European air forces are beginning to experience this in operational flying in Iraq and to Afghanistan.

When we curse our own for poor maintenance we do that without allowing for environmental factors that cause damage that does not come under a foreign manufacturer's warranty.

An engine fire wouldn't be caused by dust or grime on the blades. Those kind of problems would result in Compressor surges or Flameouts or engine seizure or in extreme cases foreign object damage etc. As for air quality, the air in India is no more dusty than say Arizona or Texas or New Mexico or Nevada where the USAF regularly operates. Also, other air forces like the Saudi Airforce, Omani Airforce and lets not forget the Israeli Air Force also operate in very dusty environments that are comparable or exceed the dust conditions in India .

It might not necessarily be poor maintenance but poor components or poor manufacturing or even poor design itself, only the IAF knows the facts. The causes are numerous for an engine fire. And for this case, considering that both pilots are relatively well trained and have good experience with the aircraft, they should have had no trouble if it were only a single engine fire. However for them to take the drastic step of ejecting would seem to imply that they had exhausted all other options to control the aircraft, which seems to allude to both engines showing a fire. However, this is at best an educated guess from all the information released so far.

negi · Post by **negi** » 05 Dec 2009 10:41

Brando it is not appropriate to make categorical claims without knowing the details . The news reports just say crash due to fire in engine the news report in question does not quote any IAF personnel/source so one cannot rule out DDM's spin on this, given the way IAF or any of the services go about sharing info on such matters with the media I do not expect exact details to be shared with anyone outside of the IAF , basically media is only given the info/details on a need to know basis.

As for your post on causes of engine fire well your guess is as good as anyone's , in absence of any info it makes little sense to speculate on this , may be newbie thread is more appropriate for this kind of discussion.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Dec 2009 14:04

I still think it is a good idea to wait for accident investigation reports before reaching any conclusions.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Dec 2009 16:26

Indian conditions..."heat and dust"!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Dec 2009 01:46

shiv wrote:The air in India is dusty and actually has sand particles in the North through the summer months. European (and North American) air is pristine and clear. With turbofans turning over 10,000 rpm the things that sand particles do to blades (I am told) is to be seen to be believed. Also , a few hours operational low level flying over India causes turbine blades to be coated with grime. The US and European air forces are beginning to experience this in operational flying in Iraq and to Afghanistan.

No kidding, knew a U.S Army chap who worked primarily on helos. Said it it was a nightmare to maintain the birds in desert conditions. Sand gets everywhere it seems.

CM

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 06 Dec 2009 03:32

shiv wrote:I still think it is a good idea to wait for accident investigation reports before reaching any conclusions.

Agree, but I sit here and am left with a feeling of incompetance from the Indian defence industry. They always seem to get things wrong. First we had the flying coffins, then we had the Mirage problems, now a newly built MKI flames out. Accidents do happen. Usually it is due to pilot errors. However I think it is time that GOI starts to take a hard look at the way it is running its defence establishment.

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 06 Dec 2009 04:20

It calls for a thorough investigation by the NSA - the leaks may also have been induced by patriots of Indias enemies.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Dec 2009 05:14

Su 30 MKI: Fuel leak behind engine fire ???

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Dec 2009 06:24

Rishirishi wrote:
shiv wrote:I still think it is a good idea to wait for accident investigation reports before reaching any conclusions.
Agree, but I sit here and am left with a feeling of incompetance from the Indian defence industry. They always seem to get things wrong.

Well thank you for spelling out what you feel rather than saying this is what it is. Feeling that other Indians are incompetent is a national slogan for Bharat. We live by that and our ability to unite, cooperate and work together is based on this.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 Dec 2009 07:03

NRao wrote:Su 30 MKI: Fuel leak behind engine fire ???

That was the suspicion earlier. So it came true ? And the reason for that was probably known so the earlier decision of putting the machine back to skies.

Any stray bullet or other objects could have made that leak?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Dec 2009 09:33

any idea of how much pressure must these fuel systems be designed to handle?