Su-30: News and Discussion

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 10 Oct 2008 18:35

Naah Murphy Sahib it is 230

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 10 Oct 2008 18:59

Sorry, its $12 million a piece

I stand corrected. We bought them at about $34 million a piece starting 1996 IIRC. We are supposed to have used them for extensive trials and pilot training since then. Plus we seem to have baked them out in the sun as the google earth pic suggests. so $12 million for one 12 year old/well used/well baked a/c seems alright.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 10 Oct 2008 19:02

And yes, to my sense of alleviation, that site also suggests the final number of sukhois as 230.

Whats more...I'm no more trainee on BRF

Mihir.D · Post by **Mihir.D** » 10 Oct 2008 19:13

fanne wrote:bUT $5 MIL is peenuts. Each 25 years old Mirage is going to cost $40 mil to upgrade!! The logistics should already be there, we flew it for 8-9 years. I guess if we can get into say 40 years long contract with the OEM for support, that should mitigate the risk. Countirs like Indonesia/Vietnam operate grand total of 18 Sukhois, that much big this number is. An 18 of them say in Assam would be good to restore some baance in that area.
rgds,
fanne

But going by IAF's current plan it wants to cut down on the number of different types , so going by that standard the K would an extra type to worry on.
We can't compare IAF with Indonesia/Vietnam airforces. 18 Sukhois is there complete inventory of that bird.

In fact we could have been better if we had acquired some more of the K' like about 3 squadrons worth so we could have upgraded them now with EL-2052 other Desi/French/Israeli ECM to make it a good air superiority fighter. It would have been good enough the handle the PLAAF MKKs etc in the NE and North (Leh).

Add another 230 MKIs to that and it would be a sizable inventory.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers.

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 10 Oct 2008 20:31

Folks,
Per the Su 30 book by Phil Camp and Simon Watson, the Su30K were packed and ready to be transported back to Russia way be in 2007. The Su30Ks served their purpose - apart from being the first for IAF's Su30 series aircraft, they helped the IAF to develop tactics using two crew members. IAF had flogged them so much that by 2007, they had consumed almost 40% of their fatigue life!!! The aircraft could not be upgraded to the MKI standards because of:
1. Different engine (significantly underpowered)
2. Different Radar
3. Airframe was not ready to support canards (the Su30MKI airframes have a special structure built into them for attaching canards)
4. Already used up Fatigue Life (up to 40%)
It was simply not cost effective or technically possible to upgrade them to the MKI standard. In fact, the IAF was already operating with two separate versions of Su30Ks (the first batch of 8 + the 10 additional bought later had different avionics!). Besides, the Ks had a very limited air to ground capabilities. In other words, while an upgrade option was not possible, using them in additional numbers also did not make sense as it would have meant IAF needing to support two different types of aircrafts (The Su30K and the Su30MKI)! I think IAF did some very smart planning with the Ks - they used the K to build pilot skills on the aircraft type until the MKI came - and got rid of them at a reasonable price. Please also note that while all of us jingos would like to see more # of aircrafts, it is strictly bound by the no of pilots the IAF can train! In 2004, the IAF had such a shortage of pilots that they were actively considering the backs seat Su30 driver to be a non flying person - an idea that has since been dropped!! Just my 2 cents

cheers,
Saumitra

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 10 Oct 2008 22:28

After we have completed our 230 SU 30mki mark,we shuold switch to SU 34 bomber production.So we can start talking to Russian right now so when time comes we will not waiste any time.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 10 Oct 2008 22:47

kuldeep, IAF will do no such thing.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 11 Oct 2008 09:28

kuldipchager wrote:After we have completed our 230 SU 30mki mark,we shuold switch to SU 34 bomber production.So we can start talking to Russian right now so when time comes we will not waiste any time.

When India already has around 130 + 130 Mig 27s and jaguars and tens of Mirages which make a formidable strike force for a long time to come, why go in for Su-34s?

As envisaged by the DRDO/HAL, we should concentrate on the MCA> And perhaps even PAK-DA which is a 5th generation bomber planned by Russia.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 11 Oct 2008 09:35

Neither the Jag/Mig-27 or M2k-5 can match Su-34 as a bomber but I believe Su-30MKI can do the job.

sum · Post by **sum** » 11 Oct 2008 09:51

In 2004, the IAF had such a shortage of pilots that they were actively considering the backs seat Su30 driver to be a non flying person - an idea that has since been dropped!!

Does it mean that the pilot shortage issue has been tided over?

kit · Post by **kit** » 11 Oct 2008 15:07

The chap at the 'back' is a Weapons officer right ? does he need to be a pilot ?

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 11 Oct 2008 15:20

kit wrote:The chap at the 'back' is a Weapons officer right ? does he need to be a pilot ?

IMHO, not necessarily so. The SU-30s don have separate trainers so i'm deducing the person sitting behind can fly the plane all by himself. But yeah, he'd best be a pilot himself you know, just in case...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Oct 2008 16:25

The chap at the 'back' is a Weapons officer right ? does he need to be a pilot ?

The MKI was DESIGNED so that the "chap in the back" could fly the AC as much as the chap in the front.

Just BTW, the chap in the front has a slaved helmet and could use it to fire missiles too, besides flying. I am not too sure, but, I THINK it is independent of the slaved helmet of the chap at the back.

Furthermore, the MKI has enough automation to leave most of the "flying" to actual combat situations. IF need be it can be programmed to fly - in auto mode - to all touch points, once it takes off it can be programmed to visit all point of interest until it is ready to land - all on auto. I once read that it can even align itself to land (the big deal is that this was thought of in the mid 90s).

The Indian PAK-FA is also based on the same rec.

Mihir.D · Post by **Mihir.D** » 11 Oct 2008 16:41

NRao wrote:

Furthermore, the MKI has enough automation to leave most of the "flying" to actual combat situations. IF need be it can be programmed to fly - in auto mode - to all touch points, once it takes off it can be programmed to visit all point of interest until it is ready to land - all on auto. I once read that it can even align itself to land (the big deal is that this was thought of in the mid 90s).

I thought the next thing you would say it will even fire a weapon if it identifies a target aka an UCAV.

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 11 Oct 2008 18:07

Does it mean that the pilot shortage issue has been tided over?

Yes IMHO, having used the aircraft for 11 years (Su30K+MKI), IAF feels pretty confident in taking in fresh pilots as MKI drivers as was evident some of the past exercises that the IAF did with the UK/US and the rest (not so sure about Red Flags though!) . The squads were always "mixed" IIRC....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Oct 2008 19:40

Mihir.D wrote:
NRao wrote:
I thought the next thing you would say it will even fire a weapon if it identifies a target aka an UCAV.

The point being it was a well thought out AC, recs being rather leading edge for that time, and many in the industry had a hearty laugh then.

The only feature that was much talked about (then), and I really wish it had, was the rear facing radar and associated missiles with a capability to turn 180 deg.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 11 Oct 2008 23:23

I remember reading a report somewhere that claimed that a Mirage did exactly that. That is shooting down a plane flying behind it. Isn't it posssible for Su30 to do it?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 12 Nov 2008 09:14

Su-32/34 scores over MKI in terms of range, lo lo lo performance, ability to land with higher weights, armour and pilot comfort. In Russia it is designated to replace both Su-24 and Tu-22M bombers.

Su-32 for the Indian Navy makes great sense ....

vavinash wrote:Neither the Jag/Mig-27 or M2k-5 can match Su-34 as a bomber but I believe Su-30MKI can do the job.

soutikghosh · Post by **soutikghosh** » 14 Nov 2008 03:09

Aditya G wrote:Su-32/34 scores over MKI in terms of range, lo lo lo performance, ability to land with higher weights, armour and pilot comfort. In Russia it is designated to replace both Su-24 and Tu-22M bombers.

Su-32 for the Indian Navy makes great sense ....

vavinash wrote:Neither the Jag/Mig-27 or M2k-5 can match Su-34 as a bomber but I believe Su-30MKI can do the job.

It would indeed make a great strike aircraft replacing Jaguar(Naval role) or even EW aircraft if fitted on the line of EA-6B or EA-18G. Infact it is also the only combat fighter aircraft equipped with luxuries like a toilet for the pilots, food warmer and coffee maker.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 14 Nov 2008 03:42

soutikghosh wrote: It would indeed make a great strike aircraft replacing Jaguar(Naval role) or even EW aircraft if fitted on the line of EA-6B or EA-18G. Infact it is also the only combat fighter aircraft equipped with luxuries like a toilet for the pilots, food warmer and coffee maker.

I remember doing a double take a few years back when I saw in Janes that the Su-32 had a toilet for pilots!

(do they throw in a magazine rack if you buy more than a dozen?!)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Nov 2008 03:53

and I remember the site where I read that first, way back in the 90's, it was called 'useless-facts.com' !

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Nov 2008 16:47

all questions you are asking have been answered in the redflag thread. kindly stop flooding this thread with inane posts, none of the points you are making are unique. go to the newbie thread if you must discuss these.

/no more redflag video briefing discussion here. I mean it.

asbchakri · Post by **asbchakri** » 14 Nov 2008 16:56

Rahul M wrote:all questions you are asking have been answered in the redflag thread. kindly stop flooding this thread with inane posts, none of the points you are making are unique. go to the newbie thread if you must discuss these.

/no more redflag video briefing discussion here. I mean it.

'M' has spoken, so Agent '005' and Agent '006' should stop their arguments

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 14 Nov 2008 22:13

asbchakri wrote: 'M' has spoken, so Agent '005' and Agent '006' should stop their arguments

I am waiting for the time when 'M' in James Bond movies wont be a stiff upper lip british with a name like Messervey but will be a dhoti clad Writer's building babu named Mukherjee chewing pan and giving 007 orders while enjoying lunch of shorshay maach (mustard fish for non-bengalis)

[ducks and hides behind Kashtan CIWS]

gogna · Post by **gogna** » 15 Nov 2008 06:41

Su-30MKI beats pants off of F-22

End Result

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Nov 2008 06:54

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 20 Nov 2008 09:15

NRao wrote:
The chap at the 'back' is a Weapons officer right ? does he need to be a pilot ?
The MKI was DESIGNED so that the "chap in the back" could fly the AC as much as the chap in the front.

Just BTW, the chap in the front has a slaved helmet and could use it to fire missiles too, besides flying. I am not too sure, but, I THINK it is independent of the slaved helmet of the chap at the back.

Furthermore, the MKI has enough automation to leave most of the "flying" to actual combat situations. IF need be it can be programmed to fly - in auto mode - to all touch points, once it takes off it can be programmed to visit all point of interest until it is ready to land - all on auto. I once read that it can even align itself to land (the big deal is that this was thought of in the mid 90s).

The Indian PAK-FA is also based on the same rec.

NRao saar and other gurus question time;

If the MKI is built so that the frontseater and the backseater can both fly it, then how come the front seat gets a proper HUD while the backseater's HUD looks quite rudimentary when compared to the front one?
You can see both the HUDs in the link below:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... g.jpg.html

Also if the MKI was on a SEAD/DEAD mission would it be using the HADF Siva pod for targeting the KH31s? Does it need a pod to target the KH31s?

Apologies if these questions have been asked before.

George J · Post by **George J** » 20 Nov 2008 22:47

The MKI was/is a self trainer (like the Su-30K). You can fly the a/c from compartment 1 (front) or compartment 2 (back). There is a switch that transfers controls between compartments. Now NRao is absolutely correct, the degree of automation on the MKI is very high (for a Russian a/c) it pretty much flies itself (it can almost land itself, but it does need some little pilot intervention there)

You can only conduct air-air combat from Compartment 1. This probably has to do with Sura HMS sighting hardware which can be seen on either side of the HUD. This means only the front seat guy wears the Sura.

The D in the HUD is D_I_S_P_L_A_Y. Which means it shows you info that you want to see and how you want to see it. The back seat guy can see whatever he wants to see on any of the three display. It does not take a lot of IT-Vity to do this but it can do it. So the back seat has a little glass window/lens on top which is a HUD repeater notice how the front HUD, HUD repeater and back seat "pilots" eyes are all in the same LOS. But that does not mean he has to see whats on the front seater's HUD, he can but he can also see other stuff on the three MFD.

The Kh-31P is A-G radar homing. How does that jive with HADF? Simple the HADF is High Accuracy Direction Finder. So rather the rely on other airborne assets to know where the offending GROUND BASED emissions are coming from, you can do it yourself and eventually.....pass this info along to other airborne assets.

Details on SIVA HADF from JDW 21st Feb 2007 by Robert Hewson, Posted by Sumeet in BR.

* HADF locates ground based emitters -- AD and SAM radars.
* Underwent trials with IAF in 2006. DARE says will be in service Mid-07.
* Use to cue Krypton.
* Locates, identifies and targets hostile emitter at 150-200 kms.
* Target coordinates down to 1 deg accuracy even at max range.
* Interferometer design makes it immune to outside disturbances.
* Incorporates 6 passive antennas adopted from Tarang RWR.
* Range is 1 -- 18 Ghz. For range & accuracy HADF has narrow look angle.
* Initial cueing by DARE's R-118 Integrated MultiSensor Warning System.
* Flight-line programmable & radar threat library of needed to identify targets.

etc...

Weight 100kg, Length 2.244m and Diameter 40.6 cm

The Krypton mentioned is AS-17 Krypton or the Kh-31P. There is some details on wiki on how the actual cuing happens you can read it yourself.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 20 Nov 2008 23:02

But that does not mean he has to see whats on the front seater's HUD, he can but he can also see other stuff on the three MFD.

There are actually four MFDs in the rear cockpit one larger one top and three in a row below that. The top one acts as the HUD - projects exactly what is there in the HUD of the front seater.

(See thats why everyone is recommended to buy books coming out of india)

George J · Post by **George J** » 20 Nov 2008 23:19

This is some old school BRF jingo stuff.

What is the data link on the MKI?

On the archived Red Flag thread, Maitya had posted a really good link to the K-DIAE/K-DIUE sytem from OEM. http://polyot.atnn.ru/prod/prod_04_02_en.phtml

The system comprises of:

The complex comprises:
# 2 VHF-UHF radios
# HF radio
# Data transmission equipment
# Intercom equipment
# Built-in computer
# Integrated control panel
# Control unit
# Voltage changer

The Second link he posted was April 2007 Janes MKI communication suite link which says:

POLYOT Research and Production Company produces the communications system for the Su-30 MKI, comprising:Simultaneous voice and data communication between air and ground, using HF, VHF and UHF frequencies. Automatic data transfer of targeting data. Anti-jamming capabilities. Two-position control of communications and intercommunication functions. Emergency frequency monitoring. Automated BITE.

HAL says the INCOM1210A consists of:

INCOM-1210A-Integrated Radio Communication System-ECCM Facility-Communication in AM/FM/Data/ECCM Mode

The same Janes in May 2006 describes this as:

The INCOM-1210A is an airborne, secure, jam-resistant V/UHF communication system designed for air-to-air and air-to-ground voice/data communications. The system incorporates ECCM for tactical communications. INCOM-1210A is compact and of moderate weight, suitable for all fighter applications and compatible with MIL-STD-1553B and ARINC 429 data transfer.

So if the MKI carries the K-DIUE then it cannot carry the INCOM 1210A. The 1210A is a DARIN-II/Mig-27 development and never made it to the MKI, even though it is referred as an Indian component on the MKI. Or does it carry both? Or does it carry some of each?

Now this WHOLE discussion is about the data links on the MKI. So that MKI can talk to each other. When the Phalcon comes that has a whole different set of problems. For any a/c to see what the Phalcon see's and know what the Phalcon knows, it needs compatible equipment be it the MKI, Mig-29, Mirage, Jag, Tejas. So what will this "common" Desi LINK-16 be? For that you will have to wait till AI09 I guess.

Jagan:
Nope its old age.

I can't even remember that its 3 front, 4 back. It's not a new development you can see pics of it on the Vayu Sena MKI page.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 21 Nov 2008 00:17

George J wrote: Jagan:
Nope its old age. I can't even remember that its 3 front, 4 back. It's not a new development you can see pics of it on the Vayu Sena MKI page.

Ofcourse - but get the 20 sqn book and take a look at page 11 - it shows an IAF sukhoi';s cockpit with all MFDs lighted up and not from a brochure

George J · Post by **George J** » 21 Nov 2008 00:19

Errr do I really need a book to know an Su-30 cockpit? Why just No.20, why not No.30 and No.24 ?

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 21 Nov 2008 00:25

George J wrote:Errr do I really need a book to know an Su-30 cockpit? Why just No.20, why not No.30 and No.24 ?

you said yourself - old age is making you forget. you definitely need one on your desk.

George J · Post by **George J** » 21 Nov 2008 00:37

What does the book say about data link? Does it say INCOM 1210A anywhere? If so then I would be inclined to believe that book over anything that Jane's has and I guess in my old age I really need it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Nov 2008 01:44

Talking of old age,

You can only conduct air-air combat from Compartment 1. This probably has to do with Sura HMS sighting hardware which can be seen on either side of the HUD. This means only the front seat guy wears the Sura.

I was under the impression that both had HMS and were slaved independently. Certainly do not have THE book and am a little lazy to google or search my loot right now. What am I missing? TIA too.

However, coming back to the basic issue of "flying", both are able to do so to allow the other to "rest" (which is one reason for the emphasis on dual cockpits - and I have to assume that is the same reason for the PAK-FA). Also, to think of the rear pilot being a Weapons Officer is not right. Although he could perform that function, in the MKI, he does a lot more. One indicator of what level of capability the rear pilot has to be is indicated in the rank of these rear pilots. Front and rear are pretty much the same rank, if not all being of the same rank.

On HUD, etc. moving forward, I really do not think any source is going to be authoritative, with the exception of the air-crafts themselves. I would expect things to change from batch to batch. For example if the Israelis can supply a far better component than what was provided in 2006, I would like to think that the IAF would approve the better and newer product. That would make ALL sources old instantaneously (not a fault of any author).

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 21 Nov 2008 03:38

George J wrote:The MKI was/is a self trainer (like the Su-30K). You can fly the a/c from compartment 1 (front) or compartment 2 (back). There is a switch that transfers controls between compartments. Now NRao is absolutely correct, the degree of automation on the MKI is very high (for a Russian a/c) it pretty much flies itself (it can almost land itself, but it does need some little pilot intervention there)

George J thank you for answering that question, did check up wiki it all clears up a bit. I did know about the wiki page, I am a bit sceptical when referring to wiki.

Thanks again.

George J · Post by **George J** » 21 Nov 2008 05:06

NRao wrote:I was under the impression that both had HMS and were slaved independently. Certainly do not have THE book and am a little lazy to google or search my loot right now. What am I missing? TIA too.........

Umm nope, only the front seat wears the optics and I am pretty sure only the front compartment has the optical scanner boxes on either side of the Israeli HUD (with the word "SURA" on the side). Maybe the new book has a picture of the MKI HUD. If the book does not have it (which means it cant even support this thread

) then I will dig up a pic.

You can't have two HMS for the simple reason coz you might send conflicting inputs to the same seeker. The HMS sees what the pilot sees-which is what the OLS-30 sees-which is what R-73 seeker sees. Also remember in a knife fight compartment 1 is doing the flying, the back seat guy acts as a second pair of eyes and and has the most thrilling ride of his life once the TVC join the party.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Nov 2008 05:35

You can't have two HMS for the simple reason coz you might send conflicting inputs to the same seeker.

Understandable. But, I was under the impression that they were "independent".

Thanks anyways.

and I am pretty sure

Ran out of film I guess.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Nov 2008 05:38

The pilot in the second compartment or WSO , imo has a limited FOV as compared to the pilot in the front perhaps this rules out the HMS for him.

kapilrdave · Post by **kapilrdave** » 22 Nov 2008 11:53

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=4uTfZLQdkHo

The famous cobra maneuver

You see, MKI has just too many options to "drill his brain out"