Su-30: News and Discussion

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 18 Jan 2010 20:14

Just curious...what are the odds for Su - 30MKI to get weapon bay.........I saw some snaps of models shared at keypublishing forum.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Jan 2010 13:35

In WVR combat having a second pilot/WSO is of any advantage for MKI when facing say a single seater fighter aircraft or is it some form of distraction for the front pilot in WVR combat ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Jan 2010 14:18

why should it be a distraction. AFAIK the sura/r-73 combo is slaved to the pilot. the rear-seat crew can concentrate on counter-measures.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 Jan 2010 14:26

andy B wrote:Hmm...I was going through the Cam and Watson book of SU30 in Indian Service this morning and noticed a very interesting picture of a two seater IN Harrier being flanked by two MKI's on both sides now that would be a very interesting DACT excercise...wonder how would the WVR regime would unfold between the two...

"In Vectored Thrust we Trust.... "

Already been done with other aircraft.

The consensus is that initially the vectoring in forward flight business catches the opposing pilot unawares as he is unable to read and gauge the situation accurately.

But after a couple of such flights the opposing pilot quickly learns to adapt and the gap is very much narrowed, so much so that it is the harrier pilot who is hard pressed.

Don't see results that are very much different for the SU 30.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Jan 2010 16:30

Rahul M wrote:why should it be a distraction. AFAIK the sura/r-73 combo is slaved to the pilot. the rear-seat crew can concentrate on counter-measures.

Well if twin seat is such an advantage in any Aircombat ( not just WVR ) then most of worlds Air Superiority fighter like F-22,Typhoon,Su-35 or even PAK-FA would have been a twin seater from word go.

One can understand twin seater being a advantage in Strike mission for aircraft like F-15E, Su-34 ,MKI or MKK because of the heavy load and long hours , though these aircraft are quite capable in A2A mission.

Countermeasures/EW in A2A combat will mostly likely be fully automated unlike in Strike where one may have to deal with larger threat library from varied ground/ship and air based RF source and hence man in there selectively taking some decision to deal with EW/ECM or selectively cuing his ARM to deal with RF threat.

The only advantage I see of the 2nd guy in A2A combat is that now you have an extra pair of eyes to watch out of your cockpit , not sure if this really translates to any significant tactical advantage perhaps in 1 versus many boogies , but the down turn may be he may end up distracting the pilot with flooding the R/T calls

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Jan 2010 17:03

well I didn't say that 2 seat has some advantage in WVR. just that it will not be a distraction as you say. the mki's A2A performance is ample testimony to that.
regarding EW I don't think everything will be automated, at BVR ranges EMCON tactics play a significant part and I guess a dedicated pair of hands will give optimum results. also better battlespace awareness for communicating with AEW&C. in a complex and large air battle, that may well make the difference. this was even the original design feature of the su-30, to act as mission commander to a pack of su-27s.

as for the mki, even if we assume 2 seats don't play a role in A2A (it does I think) for a multi-role and swing-role aircraft I don't think they had any alternative. having a mix of 1seat and 2 seat effectively means they are dedicated a/c and not swing-role.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 26 Jan 2010 18:18

Google doodle on RDay. Such images are just an example of how this distinct looking fighter impacts the common man's image of the air force

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Jan 2010 22:00

chetak wrote:
andy B wrote:Hmm...I was going through the Cam and Watson book of SU30 in Indian Service this morning and noticed a very interesting picture of a two seater IN Harrier being flanked by two MKI's on both sides now that would be a very interesting DACT excercise...wonder how would the WVR regime would unfold between the two...

"In Vectored Thrust we Trust.... "
Already been done with other aircraft.

The consensus is that initially the vectoring in forward flight business catches the opposing pilot unawares as he is unable to read and gauge the situation accurately.

But after a couple of such flights the opposing pilot quickly learns to adapt and the gap is very much narrowed, so much so that it is the harrier pilot who is hard pressed.

Don't see results that are very much different for the SU 30.

WRT the bolded part;now how much DACT Trg with a thrust vectoring a/c in general and Harrier in specific have the Mirage 3/5 guys from across the border have done in their lifetime?And how much learning time will the PAF/PN pilot get?It sure will be baptism by fire

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 Jan 2010 22:10

rohitvats wrote:
chetak wrote:
Already been done with other aircraft.

The consensus is that initially the vectoring in forward flight business catches the opposing pilot unawares as he is unable to read and gauge the situation accurately.

But after a couple of such flights the opposing pilot quickly learns to adapt and the gap is very much narrowed, so much so that it is the harrier pilot who is hard pressed.

Don't see results that are very much different for the SU 30.
WRT the bolded part;now how much DACT Trg with a thrust vectoring a/c in general and Harrier in specific have the Mirage 3/5 guys from across the border have done in their lifetime?And how much learning time will the PAF/PN pilot get?It sure will be baptism by fire

Best not to underestimate the british contribution to other lesser civilizations. They are after all, a nation of shop keepers.

The guys across the border have been rumored to fly in most of the hot spots and doubtless have garnered a mixed bag of experiences.

sum · Post by **sum** » 26 Jan 2010 22:13

Best not to underestimate the british contribution to other lesser civilizations. They are after all, a nation of shop keepers.

The guys across the border have been rumored to fly in most of the hot spots and doubtless have garnered a mixed bag of experiences.

Pakis have flown a lot with almost all the latest planes which are which the ME countries. Also, they recently returned after a training session with the F-22 in the ME. So, is it wise to underestimate them?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Jan 2010 22:17

Rahul M wrote:well I didn't say that 2 seat has some advantage in WVR. just that it will not be a distraction as you say. the mki's A2A performance is ample testimony to that.
regarding EW I don't think everything will be automated, at BVR ranges EMCON tactics play a significant part and I guess a dedicated pair of hands will give optimum results. also better battlespace awareness for communicating with AEW&C.

Sure the MKI A2A performance is splendid , but so are that of Typhoon ,F-22 even F-16 , Gripen and Mig-29 A2A performance is equally good.

No one with practical experience in Air combat have thought of building a twin seater because of any tactical advantage or EMCON tactics or better awareness when communication with AWACS.

But if you look around at the role of strike fighter be it F-15E , Su-34 ,F-16I Sufa they are all twin seater , that is the key reason IAF opted for twin seater MKI because its key role will be strike where twin seater is a good advantage.

So though MKI performs well in A2A combat it is the strike capability and its advantage in long range deep penetration in the East which is where the Pilot/WSO will give tactical advantage. ( Interestingly the Chinese MKK is twin seater too which indicates they too visualise Deep Strike Mission against us and others , the AD resistance they will face where twin seater will give tactical advantage )

Reminds me the latest Jags procured by IAF are twin seater as well perhaps the IAF knows that DPSA mission over Pakistan will get complicated and twin seater will help in better work sharing.

The Russians on the contrary having designed the final derivative of Flanker Su-35S which is equally as multirole as MKI do not see the need of making it two seater inspite of operating Su-30 and Su-34.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 Jan 2010 22:25

Austin wrote: ....
The Russians on the contrary having designed the final derivative of Flanker Su-35S which is equally as multirole as MKI do not see the need of making it two seater inspite of operating Su-30 and Su-34.

Since they have the services of the awesome Su-34 at their disposal for strike purposes, I believe that the Su-35 BM will be used almost exclusively as an Air Superiority fighter. In India's case even after the DARIN III Jaguar upgrade and Mig-27 upgrade (and the proposed Mig-29 and M2K upgrades) nothing will ever match the strike potential of the MKI in the IAF ( unless we buy the SH or Rafale). So the MKI is much more likely to be extensively used in the strike role than the Su-35BM.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 26 Jan 2010 22:36

Austin wrote:The Russians on the contrary having designed the final derivative of Flanker Su-35S which is equally as multirole as MKI do not see the need of making it two seater inspite of operating Su-30 and Su-34.

"inspite" - i Hope you mean the opposite. The RuAF will build up Su-34 and mordenized Su-24 fleet as the strike fleet and Su-35S for A2A. The multirole nature of modern fighter aircraft is for granted.

Two seaters have traditionally been preferred for strike missions which is IAF's primary goal. However, we can see that in future single seaters will be able to perform A2G missions due to improved cockpit and weapon (JDAM) technology.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 Jan 2010 22:40

sum wrote:
Best not to underestimate the british contribution to other lesser civilizations. They are after all, a nation of shop keepers.

The guys across the border have been rumored to fly in most of the hot spots and doubtless have garnered a mixed bag of experiences.
Pakis have flown a lot with almost all the latest planes which are which the ME countries. Also, they recently returned after a training session with the F-22 in the ME. So, is it wise to underestimate them?

They fly in large numbers in the ME air forces as instructors and even in combat as and when.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Jan 2010 22:53

Rahul M wrote:well I didn't say that 2 seat has some advantage in WVR. just that it will not be a distraction as you say. the mki's A2A performance is ample testimony to that.
regarding EW I don't think everything will be automated, at BVR ranges EMCON tactics play a significant part and I guess a dedicated pair of hands will give optimum results. also better battlespace awareness for communicating with AEW&C. in a complex and large air battle, that may well make the difference. this was even the original design feature of the su-30, to act as mission commander to a pack of su-27s.

as for the mki, even if we assume 2 seats don't play a role in A2A (it does I think) for a multi-role and swing-role aircraft I don't think they had any alternative. having a mix of 1seat and 2 seat effectively means they are dedicated a/c and not swing-role.

Something that will be of interest to those discussing why the IAF wants a twin-seat FGFA, is that the Israeli AF is also interested in a twin-seat F-35. You can read up on this at the FlightGlobal website. They are insisting on it and it appears that there are other countries that are also interested in the twin-seat configuration of the F-35, even though LockMart insists that with sensor fusion and presenting info on a "need to know" basis a single pilot will not be overwhelmed with workload. The fact is that many companies are not going for a twin seater simply to keep the volume of engineering workload down to manageable levels till the single seater has achieved FOC and is in production and to keep project costs down during initial development work. Later on, you can engage its designers to work on a twin-seat version. On the F-35, they already have 3 different variants work ongoing and the volume of work and testing involved is humongous, enough to already achieve delays. Israel hopes that when the twin-seat F-35 is launched, that IAI will get a good volume of work on it as well as the ability to use its own EW equipment and Elta radar.

So its not just the IAF which is showing keen interest in twin-seaters after its tasted the effects of being able to split the complicated tasks for each mission between 2 pilots. Even though the FGFA's sensor fusion and information display will be far better than that on the MKI, for complicated missions, to fully exploit a platform's swing-role capabilities and its AESA's inter-leaved modes, two pilots are better than one. Here I fully agree with you.

Besides, each air force has its own experience to count on, that formulate strategy. if the IAF feels that having 2 pilots is the best solution for a long-range, long-endurance Air Dominance fighter with built in swing role capabilities that can also be a mini-AWACS and battle command controller, then who are we to argue ?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 27 Jan 2010 05:31

chetak wrote:
andy B wrote:Hmm...I was going through the Cam and Watson book of SU30 in Indian Service this morning and noticed a very interesting picture of a two seater IN Harrier being flanked by two MKI's on both sides now that would be a very interesting DACT excercise...wonder how would the WVR regime would unfold between the two...

"In Vectored Thrust we Trust.... "
Already been done with other aircraft.

The consensus is that initially the vectoring in forward flight business catches the opposing pilot unawares as he is unable to read and gauge the situation accurately.

But after a couple of such flights the opposing pilot quickly learns to adapt and the gap is very much narrowed, so much so that it is the harrier pilot who is hard pressed.

Don't see results that are very much different for the SU 30.

Chetak saar danke for ze answer and apologies if this seems silly, however I also wanted to know if there has been speicific WVR DACT excercises between ze Rambha and that little devil of a fighter the Harrier as in IMVHO that would be a most interesting phenomena to watch considering both will be extremely manoverable in the subsonic/transonic regime...JMT

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jan 2010 08:28

Well i guess each AF decides for it self what is best suited to meet their requirement depending on their Platform/Tactics/Weapons/Sensors available to them , so a F-35 with the kind of sensor fusion and other broad capability at USAF disposal can perform the same strike mission with a single pilot while IAF may see the need to have 2 crews on a MKI to divide the task.

Twin crew also allows a safety margin , if one of the crew gets badly hit or gets disabled due to other reason even during normal peace time flying , the other chap can still get the bird back to base , considering each of these birds cost ~ $50 million or for FGFA ~ $100 million , perhaps the MMRCA bird will be more costlier than MKI , IAF cannot afford to loose these multi milion dollar bird if twin crew can increase the safety factor by 100 %.

Needless to mention it generates jobs

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 Jan 2010 10:58

chetak wrote:They fly in large numbers in the ME air forces as instructors and even in combat as and when.

IIRC, they claimed a couple of kills in one of the Israeli-Arab face offs, yeah they'll be good, no doubt about that.

CM.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Jan 2010 11:54

Austin wrote:
Twin crew also allows a safety margin , if one of the crew gets badly hit or gets disabled due to other reason even during normal peace time flying , the other chap can still get the bird back to base ,

Two crew does not automatically translate to two pilots.
In fact in such cases it rarely does.

Saurabh_M · Post by **Saurabh_M** » 27 Jan 2010 12:04

Austin wrote:Well i guess each AF decides for it self what is best suited to meet their requirement depending on their Platform/Tactics/Weapons/Sensors available to them , so a F-35 with the kind of sensor fusion and other broad capability at USAF disposal can perform the same strike mission with a single pilot while IAF may see the need to have 2 crews on a MKI to divide the task.

Twin crew also allows a safety margin , if one of the crew gets badly hit or gets disabled due to other reason even during normal peace time flying , the other chap can still get the bird back to base , considering each of these birds cost ~ $50 million or for FGFA ~ $100 million , perhaps the MMRCA bird will be more costlier than MKI , IAF cannot afford to loose these multi milion dollar bird if twin crew can increase the safety factor by 100 %.

Needless to mention it generates jobs

I wonder how this is important, when we are facing a shortfall of pilots in IAF. Shouldn't the IAF first fullfill current requirements before going in for twin-seater aircraft.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 27 Jan 2010 12:19

chiru wrote:
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

No... i had a long time at the simulator at AI09... took it for quite a few whirls, and had to be transferred between people a couple of times to have my questions answered. The normal SH rear cockpit does NOT have any flight controls. (check my post from the AI thread... i think i have put up my SH simulator experience).

The rear seat has dual sticks, which do not move at all, and thus, cannot be used for flight control. One stick is used for A2A, and the other for A2G attacks.

I asked the pilot what'd happen if the guy in front had a problem, or there was loss of control in front, if there was any option for the WSO in the back to do something, and in typical pilot fashion, he went, "Sure, the WSO can do something to help... he just pulls this little lever right here, and his seat and the pilots seat will go 'whoom' into eject mode".

I'm guessing that the demo aircraft are from training squadrons, or are retrofitted as mentioned above.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jan 2010 13:33

chetak wrote:
Austin wrote:
Two crew does not automatically translate to two pilots.
In fact in such cases it rarely does.

Agreed , the 2nd guy is not a pilot but a WSO ( i think i saw a half wing on his apron but not sure ) , but incase of emergency he must be having some basic flying training to fly the MKI and get it down.

Saurabh_M the pilot shortage is another topic of discussion altogether , but in India like a Govt Job the Defense service also has a social obligation , so no doubt the WSO besides doing his task also is a source of employment to who so ever aspires to join the service.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Jan 2010 14:18

Austin wrote:
Rahul M wrote:well I didn't say that 2 seat has some advantage in WVR. just that it will not be a distraction as you say. the mki's A2A performance is ample testimony to that.
regarding EW I don't think everything will be automated, at BVR ranges EMCON tactics play a significant part and I guess a dedicated pair of hands will give optimum results. also better battlespace awareness for communicating with AEW&C.
Sure the MKI A2A performance is splendid , but so are that of Typhoon ,F-22 even F-16 , Gripen and Mig-29 A2A performance is equally good.

No one with practical experience in Air combat have thought of building a twin seater because of any tactical advantage or EMCON tactics or better awareness when communication with AWACS.

But if you look around at the role of strike fighter be it F-15E , Su-34 ,F-16I Sufa they are all twin seater , that is the key reason IAF opted for twin seater MKI because its key role will be strike where twin seater is a good advantage.

So though MKI performs well in A2A combat it is the strike capability and its advantage in long range deep penetration in the East which is where the Pilot/WSO will give tactical advantage. ( Interestingly the Chinese MKK is twin seater too which indicates they too visualise Deep Strike Mission against us and others , the AD resistance they will face where twin seater will give tactical advantage )

Reminds me the latest Jags procured by IAF are twin seater as well perhaps the IAF knows that DPSA mission over Pakistan will get complicated and twin seater will help in better work sharing.

The Russians on the contrary having designed the final derivative of Flanker Su-35S which is equally as multirole as MKI do not see the need of making it two seater inspite of operating Su-30 and Su-34.

Watch the movie "Top Gun" which I think shows a pretty good interactions between WSO and pilot during air-to-air combat in an F-14

If I remember correctly, there was an article about the WSO also being able to illuminate a target during WVR air-to-air combat through his HMD. So theoretically, the pilot's HMD and the WSO's HMD could lock-on different bogeys during air-combat; this would mean the plane could launch 2-AAMs at two different air targets simultaneously. Or if the pilot has to focus on aggressive maneuvers during air-to-air combat, the WSO could focus on his HMD locking on target at high off-boresight angles.

On the other note, I remember reading about the French decision to change its Rafale order from single-seater to mostly twin-seater because it felt that it was a better work load sharing between the pilot and the WSO during critical high-stress combat situations. This provides a greater mission flexibility, especially during long-ranged strike missions where the pilot can focus on the flying while the WSO focuses on the weapons/eccm/etc.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jan 2010 14:46

srai wrote: Watch the movie "Top Gun" which I think shows a pretty good interactions between WSO and pilot during air-to-air combat in an F-14

F-14 is a 80's product where sensor fusion , AI and datalinks were not that great if at all they were there.

And Maverick had a chick to impress and lay down with her

If I remember correctly, there was an article about the WSO also being able to illuminate a target during WVR air-to-air combat through his HMD. So theoretically, the pilot's HMD and the WSO's HMD could lock-on different bogeys during air-combat; this would mean the plane could launch 2-AAMs at two different air targets simultaneously. Or if the pilot has to focus on aggressive maneuvers during air-to-air combat, the WSO could focus on his HMD locking on target at high off-boresight angles.

So in this scenario you have mentioned an F-22 , Su-35S or Typhoon would be far less effective than a twin seater MKI ?

On the other note, I remember reading about the French decision to change its Rafale order from single-seater to mostly twin-seater because it felt that it was a better work load sharing between the pilot and the WSO during critical high-stress combat situations. This provides a greater mission flexibility, especially during long-ranged strike missions where the pilot can focus on the flying while the WSO focuses on the weapons/eccm/etc.

That is something I can agree on , a strike mission involving twin seater is definitely better workload management specially if this is long hours sortie.

But the F-35 designer and USAF might just disagree with us.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Jan 2010 14:49

Here is the Top Gun final Dogfight scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPcZKn8xE7I

Enjoy!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Jan 2010 14:58

Austin wrote:
Agreed , the 2nd guy is not a pilot but a WSO ( i think i saw a half wing on his apron but not sure ) , but incase of emergency he must be having some basic flying training to fly the MKI and get it down.

A half wing is exactly that.

It don't fly. Not a little and not a lot.

The training is totally different.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jan 2010 15:01

So lets say if the 1st guy/pilot is badly injured or just gets into some medical condition where he cannot fly , the second guy will not be in a position to land the MKI ?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Jan 2010 15:13

Austin wrote:So lets say if the 1st guy/pilot is badly injured or just gets into some medical condition where he cannot fly , the second guy will not be in a position to land the MKI ?

Yes, if the second guy is the WSO type, a visual, ILS or RCLD is out.

The only sure possibility with some chance of survival is a martin baker let down, so to speak.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Jan 2010 02:00

k prasad wrote: No... i had a long time at the simulator at AI09... took it for quite a few whirls, and had to be transferred between people a couple of times to have my questions answered. The normal SH rear cockpit does NOT have any flight controls. (check my post from the AI thread... i think i have put up my SH simulator experience).

The rear seat has dual sticks, which do not move at all, and thus, cannot be used for flight control. One stick is used for A2A, and the other for A2G attacks.

I asked the pilot what'd happen if the guy in front had a problem, or there was loss of control in front, if there was any option for the WSO in the back to do something, and in typical pilot fashion, he went, "Sure, the WSO can do something to help... he just pulls this little lever right here, and his seat and the pilots seat will go 'whoom' into eject mode".

I'm guessing that the demo aircraft are from training squadrons, or are retrofitted as mentioned above.

Well I'd answered this question a long time ago, when I'd posted snippets from a Boeing article on the around-the-world tour of those F/A-18Fs alongwith crew. Those Super Hornets were specially modified to allow the rear-seater to control the aircraft. Once they returned back to the US, the rear control sticks were removed to return them back to their regular training duties. So, its quite obvious that such a functionality does exist in the SH, and if a customer were to require that the rear-seater be able to fly the aircraft in some eventuality, then they could ask for a change in the basic configuration itself.

r_subramanian · Post by **r_subramanian** » 07 Feb 2010 03:14

Is IAF going for more SU-30s?

Besides the talks on the aircraft, the military-technical team accompanying Mr. Sobyanin will hold discussions on more T-90 tanks, the naval version of MiG-29, Sukhoi-30 MKI and the multi-role transport aircraft project, said the sources.

...
link

sum · Post by **sum** » 07 Feb 2010 11:00

IIRC, the more Su-30 MKI mentioned is the 50 extra Su-30 being planned since that deal has not yet been "signed" though it has been talked about a lot since a long time.

anand_sankar · Post by **anand_sankar** » 24 Feb 2010 12:36

Looks like th early birds have been flogged quite a bit now. Check out SB 023 at Vayushakti '10. The radome looks sand-blasted and the paintjob elsewhere on the aircraft skin is literally peeling off. Worse, the brake chute looks battered and frayed. Is the first lot of aircraft overdue for an overhaul?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 709321.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 710977.JPG

prasadha · Post by **prasadha** » 24 Feb 2010 13:18

Isn't it astounding that our "Noobies" are able to pass judgement about the maintenance of the aircraft, just by taking a cursory look at the aircraft. Battered Chutes, Peeling paint... is that all or do you also see Weary Pilots, Non-working radars, useless IAF maintenance guys who were sitting on their backs instead of maintaining the aircraft?

Kindly don't add responses just to increase your post count.

Thanks in advance.

Prasad

anand_sankar · Post by **anand_sankar** » 24 Feb 2010 14:13

@Prasdha:
First, I see that you too are a "Noobie" as your BR forum designation says.
Second, I am not a "Noobie", when it comes to aeronautics. I honestly don't care what my BR forum designation is.

Finally, I never passed a judgment on the IAF's maintenance practices. I have merely said in my post that it is possible the first lot of flankers might be overdue for a overhaul. When a fighter is close to a major overhaul, visible fatigue is one of the signs.

Please read the post, take a breath, and then respond.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Feb 2010 14:59

anand_sankar wrote: Worse, the brake chute looks battered and frayed. Is the first lot of aircraft overdue for an overhaul?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 709321.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 710977.JPG

I am unable to spot this. Could you please show me what I seem to have missed?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 24 Feb 2010 15:05

shiv wrote:
anand_sankar wrote: Worse, the brake chute looks battered and frayed. Is the first lot of aircraft overdue for an overhaul?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 709321.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 710977.JPG
I am unable to spot this. Could you please show me what I seem to have missed?

Shiv saar if I may hazard a guess

The paint fade effect seen in these pictures is very similar to the ones in the Flanker IAF book by Camp and Watson.

I have read that book back and for quite a few times and you can clearly see this same effect between new and old examples.

It was mentioned that due to the MKIs being parked in the sun the paint merely fades and becomes lighter...might not necessarily mean that they are due for overhaul...but then again I am no aero injuneer...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Feb 2010 15:13

andy B wrote: Shiv saar if I may hazard a guess

The paint fade effect seen in these pictures is very similar to the ones in the Flanker IAF book by Camp and Watson.

I have read that book back and for quite a few times and you can clearly see this same effect between new and old examples.

It was mentioned that due to the MKIs being parked in the sun the paint merely fades and becomes lighter...might not necessarily mean that they are due for overhaul...but then again I am no aero injuneer...

No I mean the frayed chutes.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 24 Feb 2010 15:16

shiv wrote:
andy B wrote: Shiv saar if I may hazard a guess

The paint fade effect seen in these pictures is very similar to the ones in the Flanker IAF book by Camp and Watson.

I have read that book back and for quite a few times and you can clearly see this same effect between new and old examples.

It was mentioned that due to the MKIs being parked in the sun the paint merely fades and becomes lighter...might not necessarily mean that they are due for overhaul...but then again I am no aero injuneer...
No I mean the frayed chutes.

I dunno what really is wrong with the chutes sure they look a little muggy and dirty but then again one would look like that if they had to hold back a 30 tonne stallion and then get cramped into an area that is tens of times smaller than their orignal size when deployed...again this a observation onlee.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Feb 2010 15:51

yeah, only china has beautifully painted and non-muddy gear. I have seen pix of the 3rd ID on the march to baghdad and man some of those humvees, trucks and tanks sure looked on the verge of falling apart. there would be a point where frayed chutes get replaced, being dropped
on the runway daily is not good for spit and polish.

but the "business end" of those ugly 120mm cannons sure left a swathe of mayhem.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 24 Feb 2010 16:08

Singha wrote:yeah, only china has beautifully painted and non-muddy gear. I have seen pix of the 3rd ID on the march to baghdad and man some of those humvees, trucks and tanks sure looked on the verge of falling apart. there would be a point where frayed chutes get replaced, being dropped
on the runway daily is not good for spit and polish.

but the "business end" of those ugly 120mm cannons sure left a swathe of mayhem.

Just pain the Su30MKI's after every flight.. keep the jingos "sexy and brand new paint" happy !!!!

Bloody hell -- the bortnumber 023 means it is Russian make... We cant even blame HAL for that crappy paint job !!!