Su-30: News and Discussion

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 20 Aug 2010 08:23

HAL Proposes Upgrade for IAF's Su-30 MKI Fighters

18 Aug, 2010, 05.46PM IST

The First Squadron of the Su-30 was of the 'K' Variant but Later they were also Upgraded to the Latest MKI Version.

^^^ True That or FalseHood

& What of the Latest Satellite Photos

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 20 Aug 2010 12:25

No K were ever upgraded. They are held in open storage in Lohegaon.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 20 Aug 2010 13:16

Rupak Thanks for clarifying that.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 20 Aug 2010 14:19

Rupak wrote:No K were ever upgraded. They are held in open storage in Lohegaon.

No, MK1s were given(IIRC sold) back to Russia.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 20 Aug 2010 15:17

Gaur wrote:No, MK1s were given(IIRC sold) back to Russia.

They're still there, neatly aligned on turf at Lohegaon per latest wikimapia images. And they've not even been covered by a cloth. The electronic gibberish inside the cokpit must have been baked by now.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Aug 2010 16:51

those were k, not mk.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 20 Aug 2010 18:12

Dmurphy wrote:
Gaur wrote:No, MK1s were given(IIRC sold) back to Russia.
They're still there, neatly aligned on turf at Lohegaon per latest wikimapia images. And they've not even been covered by a cloth. The electronic gibberish inside the cokpit must have been baked by now.

Yes, I see that we are talking about different a/cs. My mistake, I misread the original post. MK1s were sold back to Russia but I did not know that Ks are still at Lohegaon. Can anyone pardon my ignorance and tell why are they not being maintained and used? Are they so flogged that they are beyond use? And what about MK-IIs and MK-IIIs? Were they also sold back to Russia like MK1s or are they still kept unused in India like Ks?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Aug 2010 18:20

gaur, no MK1 were sold back. we had 18 k's forming the No 24 'hunting hawks' at first which were originally intended to be upgraded to MKI standard (whether I or II or III). the first batch of MKI standard delivered were used to re-form the No 20 lightnings. as more and more MKI's were delivered, the original 18K's (SB001 to SB018) were taken off the roster. then it was decided that the K's had been flogged really badly and the upgradation to MKI would take more work than anticipated. IOW, it didn't make economic sense to go through the upgradation.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 20 Aug 2010 18:26

^^
Thanks for the reply. So MK-Is, MK-IIs & MK-IIIs were upgraded to MKI standard and are still in use? If so, that was a difficult feat indeed considering that they had difference in engine, avionics and materials.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Aug 2010 18:32

why are the 18Ks being held at lohegaon and not sold for scrap after salvaging all useable parts?
war reserve?

sum · Post by **sum** » 20 Aug 2010 21:44

Gaur wrote:
Rupak wrote:No K were ever upgraded. They are held in open storage in Lohegaon.
No, MK1s were given(IIRC sold) back to Russia.

Russia or Belarus?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Aug 2010 23:30

So the Su-30Ks are still in India? Are there any recent images testifying to this?

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 20 Aug 2010 23:39

^^^^

In my last visit to Pune, I could not spot any of the K's. FWIW.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 21 Aug 2010 00:37

Mohartama reports that CAG pulls up the IAF for buying UNPROVEN, UNDERACHIEVABLE RECCE POD! According to her report from CAG, the pods "did not meet performance parameters in trials in INDIA"

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Aug 2010 01:25

As long as the pods work, and provide a useful capability/outmatch those available with our adversaries, that should be fine.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 21 Aug 2010 02:48

Which recce pod is it ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Aug 2010 03:04

Good qn. Need to see what reports mention on whether it is optical or something RF based

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 21 Aug 2010 03:12

Is it for MKI or Jaguar ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Aug 2010 03:21

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/2010/08/a ... recce.html

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 21 Aug 2010 03:50

Most likely it is RecceLite from Rafael. Rafael RecceLite is not unproven. It is used by Spanish F-18s, Dutch F-16s and German Tornadoes. Israeli AF uses it as well.

Even Thales Reco NG is used by French Air Force, has been ordered by South Africa for their Gripen. So they are not unproven. Don't know how true that report is.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 21 Aug 2010 04:03

Besides why would IAF buy something if it failed its own requirements.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Aug 2010 04:38

Our ASR/GSQRs often tend to be a bit over the top. What counts is whether the pod works and the IAF is ok with it, rest whether it met x% or y% is academic. However, it does indicate the need to overhaul the procurement process and make the services more tech savvy viz realistic requirements.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 21 Aug 2010 06:01

^^Did you bother reading your posts? You think CAG pulls this out of their Musharrafs?? They compare the operational readiness with the ASR LAID BY IAF!!! So why question shit like does it meet x% or y % as being academic??? You think IAF would okay something when CAG would say no, because CAG somehow has some magic knowledge of what IAF wants or what will work when IAF will go to war??

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 22 Aug 2010 10:37

Gentle beebul of BRF, was going through me old mag collection and found a gem: Aircraft Illustrated 2007 Sept Issue.

Has two articles on ze Rambha onlee.

One is about MKIs at Waddington and the 2nd one is by Watson and Camp on IAF MKI Force.

Rambha fanatics will recognise that the Watson and Camp article has pics that are mostly from their book.

Enjoi onlee...

P.S. the zip has both the files in Jpeg onlee.
http://ifile.it/vpuwy3a/MKI.zip

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Aug 2010 17:08

Craig Alpert wrote:Did you bother reading your posts? You think CAG pulls this out of their Musharrafs?? They compare the operational readiness with the ASR LAID BY IAF!!! So why question shit like does it meet x% or y % as being academic??? You think IAF would okay something when CAG would say no, because CAG somehow has some magic knowledge of what IAF wants or what will work when IAF will go to war??

I dont know whether "CAG pulled this out of its Musharraf", but from what i see of the vast majority of your poorly phrased, abusive, hyperventilating posts, they do appear to be pulled out of a "musharraf" without the slightest of thought given to them - eg MAVs being resistant to Ak and 9 mm bullets.

And then your hyperventilation in CAPS LOCK in every other post - that makes it look even more impressive eh? Are you even aware of the basics of mail etiquette and that CAPS LOCK is akin to SHOUTING?

Now, a lesson in reading comprehension for you despite your third rate gutter language - "so why question shit like does it meet x% or y % as being academic??? " - it is academic because all the CAG is doing is comparing what the equipment does vis a vis the IAF's ASRs. Thats their job and thats all they do. They neither engage in analysis of Opfor equipment or take into account what IAF perception, post acquisition is. Their profile is limited to procurement analysis based on set criteria.

And the conversation i was having with Sumeet, mentioned that the IAF often has very tough ASR's and it really does not matter whether the pod does not meet 1-2 ASR specific requirements as long as the pod is operationally viable and offers capabilities superior, or at worst, equal to those employed by our adversaries. That is what counts at the end of the day.

The CAGs comments would have acquired further urgency and been contentious, if ASRs had been flouted and one vendor preferred over the other, which then becomes a more serious issue. As compared to the IAF taking what was available to meet operational requirements.

Second, to make sure the IAF's ASRs are well versed and realistic is another kettle of fish and a discussion item by itself.

And here's a tip for you - next time, when you are unable to understand something basic being discussed and jump into a discussion with your abusive comments, do something better - either keep a civil tongue, or ask what the topic under discussion is

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 23 Aug 2010 04:21

Karan M wrote: I dont know whether "CAG pulled this out of its Musharraf", but from what i see of the vast majority of your poorly phrased, abusive, hyperventilating posts, they do appear to be pulled out of a "musharraf" without the slightest of thought given to them - eg MAVs being resistant to Ak and 9 mm bullets.

And then your hyperventilation in CAPS LOCK in every other post - that makes it look even more impressive eh? Are you even aware of the basics of mail etiquette and that CAPS LOCK is akin to SHOUTING?

Now, a lesson in reading comprehension for you despite your third rate gutter language - "so why question shit like does it meet x% or y % as being academic??? " - it is academic because all the CAG is doing is comparing what the equipment does vis a vis the IAF's ASRs. Thats their job and thats all they do. They neither engage in analysis of Opfor equipment or take into account what IAF perception, post acquisition is. Their profile is limited to procurement analysis based on set criteria.

And the conversation i was having with Sumeet, mentioned that the IAF often has very tough ASR's and it really does not matter whether the pod does not meet 1-2 ASR specific requirements as long as the pod is operationally viable and offers capabilities superior, or at worst, equal to those employed by our adversaries. That is what counts at the end of the day.

The CAGs comments would have acquired further urgency and been contentious, if ASRs had been flouted and one vendor preferred over the other, which then becomes a more serious issue. As compared to the IAF taking what was available to meet operational requirements.

Second, to make sure the IAF's ASRs are well versed and realistic is another kettle of fish and a discussion item by itself.

And here's a tip for you - next time, when you are unable to understand something basic being discussed and jump into a discussion with your abusive comments, do something better - either keep a civil tongue, or ask what the topic under discussion is

This is the best you got kid?? Try spending TWO hours on the front line, when a Mujhaid like yourself armed with an AK-47 and a sniper rifle shooting down a Raven UAV which one will can claim that being an MAV flying at 100-1000 ft high and at speeds from 45-100 mph, its like shooting a bird. ( which is 80 % true) I GOT NEWS FOR YOU KID, IT IS VENERABLE TO SMALL ARMS FIRE. MAV's typically fly a straight path, with little maneuvering, so when a sniper is taking aim at that they can very well know how/where to target that MAV's. It's a whole different issue that once you target the MAV, you are practically asking to be sent to meet your maker but nonetheless you'll be amazed how many MAV's have been shot down like that!!!

NOW let's give you some "hyperventilation e-mail etiquette and that CAPS LOCK is akin to SHOUTING" maybe that's exactly what one is trying to get a point across your thick ignorant head!! Sounding from the tone of your email it looks like you might be half my age, with NONE of my experience probably sitting in an itvity desk job thinking Google can give you all the information you need for a rebuttal. To put in perspective in a tone you understand let me give you a "third rate gutter language" thorough analysis with MAV's and with ASR'. ASR's are LAID BY IAF. THEY ARE THERE FOR ONE AND ONLY ONE REASON to be met by the company vying the pot of money. There is a thing called Threshold and Objectives, you would know this if you ever participated or wrote ASR's! Since I've done both and specifically for MAV's I'll share some insider tidbits and you won't need to go to wiki leaks for this so pay attention! Meeting Thresholds (minimally accepted performance) means meeting KPP's set by IAF exceeding Thresholds and achieving Objectives (max performance) means meeting and sometimes even exceeding design goals at the max! For an MAV, you would write an ASR as such:

Range: 2 Km (threshold) / 10 Km (Objective)
Duration: 30 - 45 Minutes (threshold) / 90 Minutes (Objective)
Speed: 60 Mph (threshold) / 100 Mph (Objective)
Payload: Flir (Threshold) / Flir + laser designator (Objective)
Weight: 6 lbs (Threshold) / 3 lbs (Objective)
Altitude: 100 Ft (Threshold) / 1000 ft (Objective)
Operational Temperature: 100 Degrees F (Threshold) / 125 Degrees F (Objective)
Engine Requirements expected to operate with winds NOT exceeding gusts of 80 Mph and with heavy grains of sand/dust, MTBO 2 missions (Threshold) / 6 missions (Objective)
and much more in depth which I can't share..

Now referring to your post with Sumeet and how "it really does not matter whether the pod does not meet 1-2 ASR specific requirements as long as the pod is operationally viable and offers capabilities superior, or at worst, equal to those employed by our adversaries." NEWFLASH

IT IS THE CAG, it is their RESPONSIBILITY to identify when the pod does NOT MEET THE LAID ASR's given to it BY THE IAF!!!!
Hope you understand WHY I'M SHOUTING NOW!!! because at the end of the day the "third rate gutter language" is what it takes to get a point across. Read your own sentence CAG is NOT TASKED with "OpFor or post acquisition threat perception!!! they are Comptroller and Auditor General NOT Intelligence and Strategic Planners!!!

O and as far as MAV's being resistant to 9 mm and Ak's don't be envious when you see one operating in your neighborhood (AFGHAN / PAKISTAN to be specific) as ASR's have been laid for JUST THAT!! You better hope Wiki-leaks can help you with the rest of the details ,or you can keep your tip to your self and wait and see more details as they emerge before going about and teaching me a thing or two on ASR's and MAV!!!

REST IS OT IN THIS THREAD!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Aug 2010 05:19

This is the best you got kid??Try spending TWO hours on the front line, when a Mujhaid like yourself armed with an AK-47 and a sniper rifle shooting down a Raven UAV which one will can claim that being an MAV flying at 100-1000 ft high and at speeds from 45-100 mph, its like shooting a bird. ( which is 80 % true) I GOT NEWS FOR YOU KID, IT IS VENERABLE TO SMALL ARMS FIRE. MAV's typically fly a straight path, with little maneuvering, so when a sniper is taking aim at that they can very well know how/where to target that MAV's. It's a whole different issue that once you target the MAV, you are practically asking to be sent to meet your maker but nonetheless you'll be amazed how many MAV's have been shot down like that!!!

More gibberish.

You made the claim in the other thread that the Indian MAVs were not bullet proof and this was some big thing.

First, the design itself vis a vis MAVs goes against wasting weight on bullet proofing (the M in MAV, see?) let alone larger flight vehicles like the Nishant or Searcher or even MALE UAVs. At max, certain systems are armoured, and not even that, with every ounce of payload being critical and weight optimization being critical.

Yeah, India should spend its efforts on BP'ing 2-3 Kg MAVs...excellent idea...lets have no payload but proof them against ground fire.

Should we BP this too? 77 gms?

http://francisbarnhart.com/projects/mav/

Then:
http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3073

"The target dimension for MAVs today is approximately six inches (15 centimeters)"

Yeah, lets armor them. Makes sense.

And second, MAVs fly a straight path? Gee, I guess, these MAVs have never heard of waypoints and preprogrammed instructions have they?

And I do wonder why MAV developers go to the trouble of developing LOS micro relays for MAV control & relaying instructions & why so many different kind of MAV designs are being explored.

Yeah, given how much success India has had in shooting down much larger UAVs, flying higher, with radar not even able to pick them up, I am sure MAVs are going to be very easy to target..

Sheesh. Lets get serious. The entire point of a MAV is to make a very light, small package, carrying a minimum optical payload that can be launched & if not recovered can be replaced in a cost effective manner.

And third, I doubt many MAVs have been shot down "like that" - given MAVs are still entering service & as such, the technology is still developing, and given prior experience with UAVs, the entire aim is to make these systems as cheap as possible.

And it is not VENERABLE but vulnerable. Apparently, in your attempt to use techno-jargon, your spellings also go for a toss.

OW let's give you some "hyperventilation e-mail etiquette and that CAPS LOCK is akin to SHOUTING" maybe that's exactly what one is trying to get a point across your thick ignorant head!! Sounding from the tone of your email it looks like you might be half my age,

If I am half your age, then you'd have to be pretty old gran'pa.

My "thick ignorant head" is probably functioning a darn sight better than yours, given:

a) you dont appear to have the foggiest of what you are writing about in thread after thread and tend to get abusive when countered

b) If CAPS LOCK is all you can do to get the point across in thread after thread, then its high time for you to accept that your communication skills are fairly pathetic

with NONE of my experience probably sitting in an itvity desk job thinking Google can give you all the information you need for a rebuttal. To put in perspective in a tone you understand let me give you a "third rate gutter language" thorough analysis with MAV's and with ASR'. ASR's are LAID BY IAF. THEY ARE THERE FOR ONE AND ONLY ONE REASON to be met by the company vying the pot of money. There is a thing called Threshold and Objectives, you would know this if you ever participated or wrote ASR's! Since I've done both and specifically for MAV's I'll share some insider tidbits and you won't need to go to wiki leaks for this so pay attention! Meeting Thresholds (minimally accepted performance) means meeting KPP's set by IAF exceeding Thresholds and achieving Objectives (max performance) means meeting and sometimes even exceeding design goals at the max! For an MAV, you would write an ASR as such:

Range: 2 Km (threshold) / 10 Km (Objective)
Duration: 30 - 45 Minutes (threshold) / 90 Minutes (Objective)
Speed: 60 Mph (threshold) / 100 Mph (Objective)
Payload: Flir (Threshold) / Flir + laser designator (Objective)
Weight: 6 lbs (Threshold) / 3 lbs (Objective)
Altitude: 100 Ft (Threshold) / 1000 ft (Objective)
Operational Temperature: 100 Degrees F (Threshold) / 125 Degrees F (Objective)
Engine Requirements expected to operate with winds NOT exceeding gusts of 80 Mph and with heavy grains of sand/dust, MTBO 2 missions (Threshold) / 6 missions (Objective)
and much more in depth which I can't share..

Now referring to your post with Sumeet and how "it really does not matter whether the pod does not meet 1-2 ASR specific requirements as long as the pod is operationally viable and offers capabilities superior, or at worst, equal to those employed by our adversaries." NEWFLASH IT IS THE CAG, it is their RESPONSIBILITY to identify when the pod does NOT MEET THE LAID ASR's given to it BY THE IAF!!!!

Thanks for letting me know what I already knew about ASRs - btw which Google search would have given, quite ironic, given claims about "sitting in an itvity desk job thinking Google can give you all the information you need for a rebuttal".

Here, knock yourself out: http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&cl ... +objective

Second: If you were less busy hyperventilating as versus understanding what I wrote, you'd realize my point to Sumeet was simple, that in several cases the SRs are excessive , the vendor claims to meet them, the delivered equipment cannot, but the IAF is ok with it at the end of the day, given they meet Operational requirements.

As simple as that. If you cant understand even that - then either you speak a different language or are being deliberately obtuse. Take a pick.

Hope you understand WHY I'M SHOUTING NOW!!! because at the end of the day the "third rate gutter language" is what it takes to get a point across.

If you cannot communicate your points in any sensible manner, then shouting apparently is all that apparently you have left. Standards apply to all. Would you prefer everyone chose to reply to you in the same manner? Or is it that you are coming up with a justification for your bizarre behaviour?

Read your own sentence CAG is NOT TASKED with "OpFor or post acquisition threat perception!!! they are Comptroller and Auditor General NOT Intelligence and Strategic Planners!!!

Yet another example of being challenged with reading comprehension. You quote what I told back to me, and then say it is as if it is something new!!

Of course I wrote that, with the simple point being that CAG reports need to be understood in context, given CAGs role!! All they do is evaluate whether the procurement standards were followed, but just because they say there were discrepancies is not cause for alarm unless more details are available.

As you seem to be completely unaware of the context, the CAGs observations, if deemed serious enough, are taken up by the PAC, which then can ask a variety of representatives from the MOD and services to bring forth more details on the CAG observations, and undertake corrective action.

Net, reading one CAG report and running around "Panic! Panic!" is pointless.

O and as far as MAV's being resistant to 9 mm and Ak's don't be envious when you see one operating in your neighborhood (AFGHAN / PAKISTAN to be specific) as ASR's have been laid for JUST THAT!! You better hope Wiki-leaks can help you with the rest of the details ,or you can keep your tip to your self and wait and see more details as they emerge before going about and teaching me a thing or two on ASR's and MAV!!!

Wow, so now you are releasing hush-hush stuff (how nice) and for the rest I have to rely on WikiLeaks?

I am shivering in anticipation, that you have seen fit to deign all of us with this amazing piece of information!!

This is beyond absurd..

REST IS OT IN THIS THREAD!

[/quote]

Hey, why stop now? Use different colors, different fonts, to make your points.

Go on - more colorful language, gutter talk (shit this, shit that), CAPS LOCK, "kid"...

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 23 Aug 2010 05:37

and yet you come around with the same excuses...
making a so called "BIG THING" in other thread, and then calling my reading skills technically challenged, I guess this is what you would expect from "third rate gutter language" reader... there is difference between making a statement and making it a "BIG THING" but since you are half my age, as I'm a grand pa I guess I'll have to let that slide.. Do accept my apologies as I don't know how to use a spell check, it happens with age!
How could I deign you of information, after all according to you I'm coming out with is gibberish, so don't worry I won't stoop to your level of using rainbow colors with CAPS LOCK to make you understand the point, after all it is CHILDISH as you still have a lot to learn KID!!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Aug 2010 05:51

Craig Alpert wrote:and yet you come around with the same excuses...
making a so called "BIG THING" in other thread, and then calling my reading skills technically challenged, I guess this is what you would expect from "third rate gutter language" reader... there is difference between making a statement and making it a "BIG THING" but since you are half my age, as I'm a grand pa I guess I'll have to let that slide.. Do accept my apologies as I don't know how to use a spell check, it happens with age!
How could I deign you of information, after all according to you I'm coming out with is gibberish, so don't worry I won't stoop to your level of using rainbow colors with CAPS LOCK to make you understand the point, after all it is CHILDISH as you still have a lot to learn KID!!

How impressive! Man, you sure have impressed everyone with your aweinspiring maturity and excellent grace. May we all "improve" to your standards.

Yeah, we sure have a lot to learn from you - including how to use third rate gutter language (after all, we speak as we think), and large rainbow colored posts with font sizes.

Oh wait, lets see some sample MAVs shall we?
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/02/in ... denal.html

Yeah lots of space, power there to add more useless weight to make them secure.

BTW, the poor, unfortunate, Indian Air Force's released a non hush hush RFI (dont tell Wikileaks anyone!!) about Micro UAVs. No mention of Bullet Proofing (what do they know!!).

http://www.ciidefence.com/pdf/RFI/RFI_M ... AERIAL.pdf

Let me quote something interesting.

Range & Endurance
Weight
LOS range be specified
Endurance in excess of 30 min
Less than two kgs preferable

Says it all about your commentary, despite the torrent of abuse you used to cover it up. If I am a kid, and if a kid can figure out where there are huge holes in your claims and logic, then it really doesnt speak too well about your statements to begin with. And no amount of hand waves, references to hush hush information etc, abusive language and CAPS LOCK AND MORE CAPS LOCK work in that case. They all come across as a rather large bunch of rigmarole.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Aug 2010 18:36

Singha wrote:I thought only some helicopters had dircm, but if fighters are getting it too, not a bad thing.

all our fighters need MAWS and wingtip towed decoy not just MKI. even the top of tailfin could be considered if wingtip is a issue.

India Seeks DIRCM Partners To Protect Aircraft From Missiles

Air Force sources said all the aircraft will be equipped with advanced DIRCM systems while the helicopters are equipped with protection against infrared-seeking air-to-air missiles.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 31#p929831

India's laser weapons can be deployed in the Navy's submarines and destroyers, and Air Force fighters and transport planes.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Aug 2010 18:47

vishnu.nv wrote:What all will be the upgrades for the weapons. will any of the new missiles being developed for the PAK FA will get to this upgrade? KS-172 ?

KS-172 is a 400 km class weapon falling under MTCR. Even if there co-operation don't expect them to be reveal this.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 30 Sep 2010 18:43

Sukhoi completes flight test of Su-30M2 fighter for Russia

The Sukhoi Company has completed factory flight tests of the first of four Su-30M2 multi-role strike fighter aircraft for the Russian Air Force. The long-range combat aircraft underwent the tests at the flight test station of the Komsomolsk-on-Amur aircraft production association named after Yuri Gagarin (KnAAPO), Sukhoi said.

Presently, the aircraft is being readied for certification test, it said. The Russian Defence Ministry had awarded a contract to Sukhoi to supply four Su-30M2 fighters during the international aerospace show MAKS-2009.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 30 Sep 2010 19:22

^^
I do not understand. Why buy Su-30M2? That too only 4?
RuAF had recently ordered Su-35S during MAKS-2009. So, why did they order '4' Su-30M2 before that when they knew that Su-35S would be soon available? I know that Su-30M2 is a capable fighter (comparable to MKI) but still...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Sep 2010 19:35

Indonesia plans to buy 180 Sukhoi fighter aircraft over 20 years ( JDW )

The Ministry of Defence of Indonesia in the next twenty years, intends to purchase 180 Russian fighter brand "su". Jane's Defence Weekly On this, as reported by Jane's Defence Weekly , Defense Minister Purnomo Indonesia Yustiangoro. According to him, these fighters will be formed ten squadrons, which would provide "protection of national sovereignty."

Currently, the Indonesian armed fighters are ten brand-soo ": two Su-30MK, three Su-30MK2, two Su-27SK and three Su-27SKM. In the near future to upgrade the MK fighters and UK versions of MK2 and to SCM. In mid-September 2010 it became known that the Government of Indonesia intends to buy six Russian Sukhoi Su-30MK2.

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 30 Sep 2010 19:39

Whopping order of 180 Su-30, well that was certainly a good news for Russian for their rising defence and aero industry. Certainly, we need to deploy some Mig-29s to our Andaman and Nicobar island to deal with so many flankers. This massive deployment will certainly force Indian Navy to divert its incoming Groshkov to deal with any contencies on our eastern shore.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 30 Sep 2010 19:48

^^
And why is that? The Indonesians have very strained relations with China. I think it is very good that they may buy so many flankers.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 30 Sep 2010 20:04

Indonesian flankers to be procured is to counter Australian navy and air force and not fighting India and in fact they will depend to a great extent on India to train and maintain their air force in the near future .By the time they finish ope rationalizing their 180 Su 30s expected to have in excess of 400 mkis -the procurement process is on going and one batch is delivered better versions are being ordered dont forget the FFFGA a coming along

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 30 Sep 2010 22:43

yes but its relation with Australia is quite strained -in ct Aussies are quite paranoid about a possible move by Indonesian to northern territories

They dont have any experience with Su 30 and getting all that support from Russia is expensive and logistic difficulty high

Maybe this is one way we can stop them from supporting Pakistan

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 01 Oct 2010 14:34

Indonesia Plans 180 Flankers Plus F-16s
Aviation Week

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Oct 2010 14:41

if these will be Su35BM, old Kopp sir will have a heart attack and must have barricaded himself in the basement already with his raptor comics.