Su-30: News and Discussion

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 Oct 2009 11:59

BTW, whats with the BR MKI page showing range on normal load of 5270kg ~ 3000km for the K -

Maximum Range: The Su-30MKI with a single in-flight re-fuelling can go a distance of 8000 km; (~5000 miles). The maximum flight duration can be 10 hours --> in terms of the crew capabilities. The Su-30K/MK-1 with a normal fuel load of 5270 kg (~11,620 lbs.) can go a distance of 3000 km (~1900 miles) and with an in-flight re-fuelling the aircraft go a distance of 5200 km (3231 miles).

OEM says 3000km max range with phull internal phuel of 9600kg. Perhaps the MKI does a bit more (iirc an ACIG discussion putting it @ about 3400km with 10 tons fuel). In either case, the above zimbly naat passable wonlee. Btw, another interesting thing to note is that the MKI is supposed to be capable of EFTs as per the source I posted earlier.

To Krish:

No... 130kn would be 29,225lbf
29225 < 13300(29321) ~ 29400

Splitting hair a bit aren't we? A 100 lbs is less than 50kgs.

Yeah, but MKI puts on a lot of weight than MKK in additional avionics, heavier radar(?), canards, thrust vectoring, strengthening for Brahmos. 6% isn't much to cover for all that weight. BTW, by what factor does Russian/our composites reduce weight?

Think about that source - it shows the MKI and the MKK weigh the same, that's despite carrying the TVC + Canards for the MKI. Who says composites don't make difference? 6% by weight on an 18 ton frame is quite a bit (1000kg approx). Even if they get gains by 40%, it'd still slice the weight by 400kg. The extra strengthening for Brahmos comes later - perhaps the composite structure will also increase.

CM.

krish.pf · Post by **krish.pf** » 27 Oct 2009 13:28

Splitting hair a bit aren't we? A 100 lbs is less than 50kgs.

lol.. no. You said KN > Kgf marginally, IIRC. But it was the other way around.

Think about that source - it shows the MKI and the MKK weigh the same, that's despite carrying the TVC + Canards for the MKI. Who says composites don't make difference? 6% by weight on an 18 ton frame is quite a bit (1000kg approx). Even if they get gains by 40%, it'd still slice the weight by 400kg. The extra strengthening for Brahmos comes later - perhaps the composite structure will also increase.

Each Al-31f weighs 1.6 tonnes! So 2 engines weight around 3.2 tonnes. Avionics, radar, Hydraulics, cockpit, TVC weighs around.. say.. another 2 tonnes.
So 18400-5200= 13200
13200 X.06 = 792
792 X .4 = 317 kgs weight saving.

I think the MKI's TVC alone will weigh that much. MKI most probably is heavier than MKK.
I heard MKK's tail section is different. So it may put on some weight there.

BTW, this page of Milavia does not quote Su-30mkk's weight: http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/s ... ations.htm
Even the 18400 is an educated guess I think, since generally Russians don't release empty weights.
Also the BR's page does not say anything about composites. The vayusena tripod page(a fan site?) says it's a rumor.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 Oct 2009 09:48

lol.. no. You said KN > Kgf marginally, IIRC. But it was the other way around.

What I meant was that 130kN will provide more thrust than 13000kgf. Thought the remaining part of the post should have clarified that, still should've been more clear i s'pose.

Each Al-31f weighs 1.6 tonnes! So 2 engines weight around 3.2 tonnes. Avionics, radar, Hydraulics, cockpit, TVC weighs around.. say.. another 2 tonnes.
So 18400-5200= 13200
13200 X.06 = 792
792 X .4 = 317 kgs weight saving.
think the MKI's TVC alone will weigh that much. MKI most probably is heavier than MKK.
I heard MKK's tail section is different. So it may put on some weight there.
BTW, this page of Milavia does not quote Su-30mkk's weight: http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/s ... ations.htm
Even the 18400 is an educated guess I think, since generally Russians don't release empty weights.
Also the BR's page does not say anything about composites. The vayusena tripod page(a fan site?) says it's a rumor.

Look at in terms of where the MKI is different from the MKK (at least cursorily) - canards, TVC, HUMS, OBOGS?. THese would add weight. At the same time advanced avionics components such as LCDs, processors and analog replacements should save weight, plus the addition of composites.

There is little to doubt that composites have been used in the MKI - ithink production images show this, esp along the fins and on the fuselage. Moreover there are other sources apart from the Vayu site:

* Many of the sophisticated features of the Su-30MKI were to be derived from another advanced Su-27 variant, the single-seat "Su-27M", designed by a team under Nikolai Nikitin of the Sukhoi OKB beginning in the early 1980s. The idea was to build a single-seat multirole fighter that could excel as an interceptor, an air-superiority fighter, and a strike aircraft, to complement or replace the first-generation Su-27S in VVS service.

This was demanding, particularly because in many cases aircraft designed for multiple roles don't necessarily excel at any one of them. The Su-27M needed to carry avionics for air combat, strike navigation, and targeting of laser or TV guided smart munitions, and was to have an advanced FBW system for high agility. It was also to be fitted with canards and "wet" tailfins for additional fuel. The new kit meant an increase in empty weight and a corresponding degradation in performance. The Sukhoi OKB felt the weight increase could be dealt with though improved AL-31FM or AL-35 engines, and through reductions in weight using composite materials and lithium-aluminum alloys.

.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avsu27_2.html

More clearly, from ACIG and masterspy Harry:

HAL and ADA have tied up to chart out a programme that will dramatically increase the % of composites in the airframe, compared to the current 6 %.

http://www.acig.org/exclusives/aero/aci ... 5_su30.htm
Also, look up the article on BRD 11 - it was replacing OEM parts with composite panels and skins on the IAF BAAZ; with so much experience in working with the LCA composite structures, it would be strange if the MKI did not see good use of composite structures. IIRC.

CM

George J · Post by **George J** » 28 Oct 2009 11:04

The Su-30MKI has all metal structures like wing spars and wing boxes, air intakes, fairing skins and fairing blocks, co-cured and co-bonded fins and center fuselage components, elevators, rudders and its torque shafts, ailerons, belly fairings, landing gear doors, ceramic thermal barrier linings and ceramic brake pads.

krish.pf · Post by **krish.pf** » 28 Oct 2009 15:08

Look at in terms of where the MKI is different from the MKK (at least cursorily) - canards, TVC, HUMS, OBOGS?. THese would add weight. At the same time advanced avionics components such as LCDs, processors and analog replacements should save weight, plus the addition of composites.

There will be some weight savings there, but mostly only around 50-100 kgs. The computers/processors required to run the lcds, and the lcds themselves add weight too. Apart from that, I vaguely remember seeing some dials in the MKI cockpit... maybe its backup if the LCD/computer breaks down or dials not covered by the LCDs.

HAL and ADA have tied up to chart out a programme that will dramatically increase the % of composites in the airframe, compared to the current 6 %.

Nice! It does makes sense of using composites in future since the Org has experience dealing with composites in the LCA program, but it would be nice if the person who wrote that (harry?) could say where he got that 6% from. Did he get it from the vayu-tripod's site? There are no mention of composites(let alone a fig of 6%) in any official site ( http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/milita ... mk/history or http://www.irkut.com/en/services/production/SU30MK ) , even BR doesn't mention a word about composites. So how come it's 6%? Maybe they were referring to metal alloys since they can also technically be called composites, but there won't be much weight reduction. And the vector site says that for Su-35, not the MKI.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 28 Oct 2009 20:39

Russia Now: Interview with Mikhail Simonov - the inventor of the Sukhoi jet fighters

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/ru ... rs.html#at

Must read ....

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 Oct 2009 21:09

krish.pf wrote:Nice! It does makes sense of using composites in future since the Org has experience dealing with composites in the LCA program, but it would be nice if the person who wrote that (harry?) could say where he got that 6% from. Did he get it from the vayu-tripod's site? There are no mention of composites(let alone a fig of 6%) in any official site ( http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/milita ... mk/history or http://www.irkut.com/en/services/production/SU30MK ) , even BR doesn't mention a word about composites. So how come it's 6%? Maybe they were referring to metal alloys since they can also technically be called composites, but there won't be much weight reduction. And the vector site says that for Su-35, not the MKI.

Was it written by Harry? Yes - sez so on the website. WHere did he get his information from? Dunno - but I hear masterspy's have their ways

Irrespective of what is written on SU.org or Irkut; and you must have noticed that they are very generic in their explanations - they hardly make reference to the structural strengthening or the increased fuel on the MKI (doesn't mean its not the case). That composites are used is beyond doubt - look at factory images if you can find them, the grey areas on the airframe are all composite.

BTW, the vectorsite link mentions the SU-35 as something the MKI derived a LOT from; there is little to doubt that. Iirc the 35 at the time was a v.similar triplane layout only with 14 ton engines and without TVC. The MKI combined the 35 design with 37's TVC (only bettered it).

Another way of looking at this is that the SU-30 variant (Su-27pu?) was about 1100kg heavier than the air superiority Su-27. THat made it @ around 17700kg. The MKI added canards, TVC, etc to get to 18400kg. Same as the Su-35. The MKK could be lighter @ 17700-18000kg.

CM.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Oct 2009 21:14

SanjibGhosh wrote:Russia Now: Interview with Mikhail Simonov - the inventor of the Sukhoi jet fighters

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/ru ... rs.html#at

Must read ....

sounds like the more we exercise, we would one day see the JSFs/ raptors fighting with our Rambas and future Trishas.

krish.pf · Post by **krish.pf** » 29 Oct 2009 00:09

Was it written by Harry? Yes - sez so on the website. WHere did he get his information from? Dunno - but I hear masterspy's have their ways Irrespective of what is written on SU.org or Irkut; and you must have noticed that they are very generic in their explanations - they hardly make reference to the structural strengthening or the increased fuel on the MKI (doesn't mean its not the case). That composites are used is beyond doubt - look at factory images if you can find them, the grey areas on the airframe are all composite.

BTW, the vectorsite link mentions the SU-35 as something the MKI derived a LOT from; there is little to doubt that. Iirc the 35 at the time was a v.similar triplane layout only with 14 ton engines and without TVC. The MKI combined the 35 design with 37's TVC (only bettered it).

Nah.. grey stuff doesn't necessarily mean composites, it could mean grey paint. For some reason grey is sometimes used as a first coat of paint in manufacturing. In any case, I do hope the rumor is true since Chinese are spreading their own rumors... I find rumors of composites on MKK in wiki.

It's better in avionics, but obviously it's not better than 35/37 in twr due to low powered engines.

Another way of looking at this is that the SU-30 variant (Su-27pu?) was about 1100kg heavier than the air superiority Su-27. THat made it @ around 17700kg. The MKI added canards, TVC, etc to get to 18400kg. Same as the Su-35. The MKK could be lighter @ 17700-18000kg.

I do hope the composites bridges the gap in weight since MKI being geared towards Air superiority wont look good with less twr.

Russia Now: Interview with Mikhail Simonov - the inventor of the Sukhoi jet fighters

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/ru ... rs.html#at

Nice!

George J · Post by **George J** » 29 Oct 2009 08:39

Hmmm....so I post the EXACT reference for co-cured co-bonded fins and co-bonded center fuselage and people still use riff raff links??? Nice....

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Oct 2009 09:22

krish.pf wrote: Nah.. grey stuff doesn't necessarily mean composites, it could mean grey paint. For some reason grey is sometimes used as a first coat of paint in manufacturing. In any case, I do hope the rumor is true since Chinese are spreading their own rumors... I find rumors of composites on MKK in wiki.

It's better in avionics, but obviously it's not better than 35/37 in twr due to low powered engines.

Rumors? Damn - I've already provided 2 excellent links apart from what George J has posted! And this is apart from the Vayusena one that you call fansite. Btw, it was not in harry to write crap, some of the best stuff came from him incldng. the excellent radiance of the tejas.

And thats despite the LCA, and what BRD #11 did for the fulcrum! Amazing. Btw, why would they paint only a few panels grey when the rest of the a/c is in yellow primer - camo?

Anyway, I guess its your choice to be skeptical in the face of the obvious.

George, you did not provide the link (is it Fomin?) and thats why I didn't mention it earlier. Or is it MSM?

CM.

krish.pf · Post by **krish.pf** » 29 Oct 2009 09:46

Rumors? Damn - I've already provided 2 excellent links apart from what George J has posted! And this is apart from the Vayusena one that you call fansite. Btw, it was not in harry to write crap, some of the best stuff came from him incldng. the excellent radiance of the tejas.

And thats despite the LCA, and what BRD #11 did for the fulcrum! Amazing. Btw, why would they paint only a few panels grey when the rest of the a/c is in yellow primer - camo?

Anyway, I guess its your choice to be skeptical in the face of the obvious.

lol.. yeah. I'm a bit skeptical after finding out about the engines. I'm just being cautious.
What george posted, it did say all metal structures, so like I said before it could very well be metal alloys since they can be technically called composites. I did recall reading about aluminum and titanium alloys, and some alloys especially titanium cannot be wielded. And also those methods are sturdier when compared to wielding.
Forgot about the grey part... the grey areas could be new panels just added and hence didn't get painted yellow?

George J · Post by **George J** » 29 Oct 2009 09:52

Cain Marko wrote:........George, you did not provide the link (is it Fomin?) and thats why I didn't mention it earlier. Or is it MSM?.........

Fomin(1998) really does not say much about the MKI because it was still in gestation at the time Fomin (1998) was written/translated, but Fomin is VERY VERY good on Su-27 development till that time. If you notice Vectorsite...they do not refer Fomin they use Jon Lake. The beauty of Fomin is that its written like a Soviet Era publication which means the he will tell you who is running a bureau every time he talks about it. It's sort of funny but you gotta do what you gotta do to get extensive access. This makes Fomin the ultimate source Su-27 development, that guy is frigging thorough. Even today...that books is a treasure trove...e.g RVV-AE development completion date/AL-31F development cycle.

The reference I posted comes from OEM. Now with the MKI the OEM is IAPO or...... HAL. Just because there is nothing on IAPO or Sukhoi does not mean that HAL cannot talk about it.

The credit goes to Shiv? or Jai S? or some other nice jingo who took pains to scan "The Plane" HAL in-house mag from AI07.

S.M Kapoor and Team, in The Plane (AI07 special), in an article titled [i]The flying Conqueror[/i] wrote: The Su-30MKI has all metal structures like wing spars and wing boxes, air intakes, fairing skins and fairing blocks, co-cured and co-bonded fins and center fuselage components, elevators, rudders and its torque shafts, ailerons, belly fairings, landing gear doors, ceramic thermal barrier linings and ceramic brake pads.

S.M Kapoor was ED Nasik at the time of publication.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Oct 2009 10:03

George J wrote: Fomin(1998) really does not say much about the MKI because it was still in gestation at the time Fomin (1998) was written/translated, but Fomin is VERY VERY good on Su-27 development till that time. If you notice Vectorsite...they do not refer Fomin they use Jon Lake. The beauty of Fomin is that its written like a Soviet Era publication which means the he will tell you who is running a bureau every time he talks about it. It's sort of funny but you gotta do what you gotta do to get extensive access. This makes Fomin the ultimate source Su-27 development, that guy is frigging thorough. Even today...that books is a treasure trove...e.g RVV-AE development completion date/AL-31F development cycle.

I hear there is a new version of "the sukhoi story" by Yefim Gordon circa 2007 - any good? Wonder if I can get them from a local library. Will check to see what good stuff can be got.

S.M Kapoor and Team, in The Plane (AI07 special), in an article titled [i]The flying Conqueror[/i] wrote: The Su-30MKI has all metal structures like wing spars and wing boxes, air intakes, fairing skins and fairing blocks, co-cured and co-bonded fins and center fuselage components, elevators, rudders and its torque shafts, ailerons, belly fairings, landing gear doors, ceramic thermal barrier linings and ceramic brake pads.

Thanks; don't get any better than that.

CM.

George J · Post by **George J** » 29 Oct 2009 10:12

Again the credit for it goes to Shiv or Jai S or whoever was kind enough to scan the article and post it on rapid share. And since we keep regressing back to MKK vs MKI here is another DIRECT quote from the same reference

ibid wrote:........The MKI variant is a much more advanced fighter jet than the basic K and MK variant, and is considered a 4.5 generation aircraft. The most advanced fighter of Russian origin in service, it is regarded as superior in capabilities to all versions of the F-15 aircraft of the USAF. Though a variant of the Su-30, the Su-30 MKI is significantly more advanced then the basic Su-30 or the Chinese Su-30 MKK............

How can you doubt ED Nasik?

This needs to be put in as a sticky, not that it will stop jingos from saying....just slap a canard and TVC and you got an MKI.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Nov 2009 09:21

Flanker vs Eagle ( for the record via Ken )

http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/flanker_combat.htm

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 06 Nov 2009 22:16

Sukhoi jets in NE skies from next week

TEZPUR: Sukhoi fighter jets will start flying in the skies of the northeastern region from next
week.

According to defence officials, around six aircraft of the warplane's MKI variant have reached Tezpur air base in Assam a few days ago and a full complement of the warplanes is expected to arrive by the year end.

Flight training and operational sorties of the aircraft are likely to begin early next week and preparations were on in this regard, they said, adding that besides Tezpur, a full squadron of Sukhoi fighter jets would also be deployed at Chabua base in eastern Assam subsequently.

The IAF was also contemplating to deploy another squadron at Bagdogra air base in West Bengal, the officials said.

The Su-30s had operated from Tezpur air base when they were formally inducted in the base on June 15. Since then, the air base which has been upgraded to house the jets was also opened for civil aviation.

Four Su30s had landed at the base on June 12 for a symbolic induction and a fighter aircraft operated from the airbase after a gap of more than a year since MIG fighters were moved out of it, the officials said.

Having aerial refueling capability, the Su30 MKI multi-role combat jets have a combat radius of 1,500 km.

The MKI variant of the warplane which was inducted into the IAF in 2002 are said to have an impeccable safety record. The IAF already has three squadrons of Su-30 MKIs at Lohegaon and Bareilly.

arya · Post by **arya** » 06 Nov 2009 23:25

only three sqd.?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 07 Nov 2009 11:36

arya wrote:only three sqd.?

The IAF already has three squadrons of Su-30 MKIs at Lohegaon and Bareilly.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 13 Nov 2009 03:33

Samtel Cockpit Displays for Sukhoi-30MKI
Business Standard

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 15 Nov 2009 20:13

An interesting article about Su-35 fighter.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 18 Nov 2009 07:21

Lifting-Off > http://www.airfighters.com/photo/42346/ ... ker/SB050/
^^ This shot is the earlier frame & here's the next split second shot.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 21 Nov 2009 17:47

4 Su-27 vs 4 MiG-29 dogfight imitation in a training center
[youtube]yJl02345vgI&fmt[/youtube]

Su-27SM vs Su-27SM
[youtube]g9-gPXmDXCM&fmt[/youtube]

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 23 Nov 2009 09:51

I was out in Saturday evening at about 5:00 PM and saw 4 Su-30 MKIs doing low level practice sorties at low speeds. One engine of the 3rd Sukhoi was smoking like hell, I mean worse than a RD33

. Does that mean the engine is due for complete overhaul ?

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 25 Nov 2009 09:33

All set for Prez’s Sukhoi sortie

President Pratibha Patil is all set to fly into the record books on Wednesday by becoming the world’s first woman president ever to take to the skies in a fighter aircraft. She will fly in the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) most potent multi-role combat aircraft, the Sukhoi-30 MKI, from the Lohegaon air base here.

The IAF has chalked out a special rectangular pattern of navigation route for Patil’s maiden sortie that will last 30 minutes. The aircraft will touch a maximum speed of 0.9 Mach (700 to 900 kmph).

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 30 Nov 2009 19:27

IAF Sukhoi crashes in Rajasthan, pilots safe (Lead)
http://www.sindhtoday.net/news/1/76877.htm

Very bad news here again ....

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 30 Nov 2009 19:34

What in the hell

Thank GOD both the pilots are alright - http://www.ptinews.com/news/400891_Sukh ... ilots-safe

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Nov 2009 20:38

please continue crash related discussion in flight safety thread so that we can have all the info at one place.
thanks.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 01 Dec 2009 09:26

I saw this photo on Flickr & was surprised by lack of canards, initially i thought it might be a russian flankar but it has the IAF Roundel & tail number (SB018).
Do we have 18 MK's ?

Wiki says: "The first batch were 8 Su-30MKs , the basic version of Su-30. The second batch were to be 10 Su-30Ks with French and Israeli avionics. The third batch were to be 10 Su-30MKIs featuring canard foreplanes."

Also, do we have any in this blue livery or all military grey/green ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Dec 2009 09:33

18 basic 2 seat su-30K's were delivered while the mki was being developed. all operated by No24 sqn 'Hawks'.
these were the birds that participated in the famous cope exercise in gwalior against the F-15s.

they were originally planned to be retrofitted to mki standards but that job was considered too involved and considering that they didn't have much life left on the airframe (IAF had used them up at a ferocious rate) that plan was abandoned and the aircrafts left at a corner of pune airbase when the mki started to come in from russia. russia later agreed to exchange the 18 k's for 18 mki's. reports vary about if the k's are still there at lohegaon.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 01 Dec 2009 09:42

Rahul M wrote:russia later agreed to exchange the 18 k's for 18 mki's. reports vary about if the k's are still there at lohegaon.

Thanks for the clarification but, russia agreed to exchange 18 beaten-up MK's for MKI's ? What was in it for them ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Dec 2009 09:48

the original agreement anyway required them to upgrade those. it would have cost as much if not more !
besides they got some customer from the CIS for those too IIRC.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 01 Dec 2009 09:55

thank you

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 01 Dec 2009 10:18

Rahul M wrote:the original agreement anyway required them to upgrade those. it would have cost as much if not more !
besides they got some customer from the CIS for those too IIRC.

Belarus IIRC

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 01 Dec 2009 10:26

Rahul M wrote:18 basic 2 seat su-30K's were delivered while the mki was being developed. all operated by No24 sqn 'Hawks'.
these were the birds that participated in the famous cope exercise in gwalior against the F-15s.

they were originally planned to be retrofitted to mki standards but that job was considered too involved and considering that they didn't have much life left on the airframe (IAF had used them up at a ferocious rate) that plan was abandoned and the aircrafts left at a corner of pune airbase when the mki started to come in from russia. russia later agreed to exchange the 18 k's for 18 mki's. reports vary about if the k's are still there at lohegaon.

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...

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 01 Dec 2009 16:18

andy B wrote:
Rahul M wrote:the original agreement anyway required them to upgrade those. it would have cost as much if not more !
besides they got some customer from the CIS for those too IIRC.
Belarus IIRC

And that never worked out. Russia objected to it.

My question is, why don't they let upcoming pilots familiarise with the Su-30Ks before they move on to MKIs? The commanlity between the two should be taken advantage of.

Refer latest snaps from Wikimapia

The MKs' positions have been since the last time i saw them.
The MKs seem to be placed as they are in an aircraft carrier, so as to help them take off without affecting the aircrafts near by. So they must be using it in some way.

Could somebody tell me what they must be using it for?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 01 Dec 2009 22:39

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.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 01 Dec 2009 23:22

Dmurphy wrote: And that never worked out. Russia objected to it.

My question is, why don't they let upcoming pilots familiarise with the Su-30Ks before they move on to MKIs? The commanlity between the two should be taken advantage of.

Refer latest snaps from Wikimapia

The MKs' positions have been since the last time i saw them.
The MKs seem to be placed as they are in an aircraft carrier, so as to help them take off without affecting the aircrafts near by. So they must be using it in some way.

Could somebody tell me what they must be using it for?

Interesting. I can count 13 Ks. Did we not get ~18? I can also see MKIs and Mig-21.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Dec 2009 23:41

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...

Its quite the same with the newer generation of jets as well..with full internal fuel even the Gripen isn't at its most nimble..as the internal fuel reduces, the g-limits increase and the fighter becomes more maneuverable. BTW, around bingo fuel, there would be no pilot who'd want to be aggressively maneuvering in combat..they'd be wanting to rush back to base.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 02 Dec 2009 09:23

I think this is the better place to put this ...

Day after crash, IAF grounds Sukhoi fleet for checks
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 288979.cms

Few interesting things to note ...

Defence minister A K Antony, in fact, had held that the April 30 crash was due to "a likely failure of the fly-by-wire system''. The Sukhoi fleet had then been grounded for around three weeks.
............... With both China and Pakistan bolstering their air combat fleets, IAF has asked the government for another 50 Sukhois -- each of which would cost around $45 million -- to cater for any contingency on both the eastern and western fronts.