Su-30: News and Discussion

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 15 Mar 2009 16:22

soutikghosh wrote:Wonderful video of SU-30MKI doing Cobra manouver and vertical stall/spin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In3Jbpzw2OI

If someone wants this video for download(9mb file) pm me at [email protected]

Beautiful.... Marhabba... Afreen..

The name Rambha is just.. such an elegance in the maneuvers.. and of course, great photography and camera-work..

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 15 Mar 2009 16:53

Thank you soutikghosh that animation was a beauty to watch

The last few seconds - (the loop) appears to be real video - the early part appears like an animation.

..still - extraordinarily beautiful

Neilz · Post by **Neilz** » 21 Mar 2009 19:29

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photo/Russ ... id=1252724

Rambha can dance so close............

Few more

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photo/Russ ... id=1054897

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photo/Russ ... id=1015147

These Russian pilots have awesome skill ...... hats off to them

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Mar 2009 19:37

Neilz wrote:http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photo/Russ ... id=1252724

Rambha can dance so close............

Check OLD posts ................. this has been "discussed" plenty of times before.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 23 Mar 2009 11:16

HariC wrote:
I distinctly recall discussions on BR in mid-90s or so, including "accusations" that the MKI was nothing more than a Su-30 trainer in IAF colors.
they actually said Su-27 trainer

I believe that the first aircraft we got were actually the SU 27U trainer versions, grandly called SU 30K

K

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 23 Mar 2009 11:24

Rambha performing bideshi naatch:

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 24 Mar 2009 14:40

Today at about 8:45 am, I saw 4 Su flying very low with their undercarriage on, this is the first time I have seen them doing so. Are there any specific reasons for this ?

Thanks,
Avinandan

Anshul · Post by **Anshul** » 24 Mar 2009 18:01

Landing approach?

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 24 Mar 2009 18:31

Nope, my place is quite far from the Lohegaon air base to approach for landing.
Infact I am staying in the area for about 4 years, and have seen Su30 numerous times.
This is the first time I have seen like this, the odd part is all the 4 of them had their handing gears on, i guess they were training on something which required to have mandatory landing system on.

rsharma · Post by **rsharma** » 24 Mar 2009 18:43

Avinandan wrote:Nope, my place is quite far from the Lohegaon air base to approach for landing.
Infact I am staying in the area for about 4 years, and have seen Su30 numerous times.
This is the first time I have seen like this, the odd part is all the 4 of them had their handing gears on, i guess they were training on something which required to have mandatory landing system on.

Incidentally Pune's sky is full of birds; especially in the Vishrantwadi area just 2 miles west of Lohegaon u can see a lot of big birds( i guess they are vultures) loitering during most part of the day, hope the AF asks the municipal corporation to clear huge dumps of waste seen in the area..
Wud hate to see a "Rambha" being hit by one of these..

sum · Post by **sum** » 24 Mar 2009 19:31

Virtually every airport and AFB near major cities is a ticking time bom w.r.t birds...

Its the vote banking to blame since the netas do not allow the slums (and so indirectly the nearby garbage dumps) to be cleaned up....

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 24 Mar 2009 23:04

Why not blame the general hygiene levels that Indians keep (house is a temple, but willing to dump garbage right outside the front door).

How about the apathy of most municipal bodies? You don't need to walk far from centre of Delhi (or Mumbai or any other Metro) to see open garbage dumps. (Hyderabad had changed in Naidu's days. Don't know the latest).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Mar 2009 01:52

All hygienic places in desh are onlee found at mil establishments., and perhaps inside certain home and cultural places of interest.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 25 Mar 2009 13:32

Who said MKI has a rear facing radar?

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 25 Mar 2009 15:13

vavinash wrote:Who said MKI has a rear facing radar?

I didn't say MKI...

.

The Su-30M can be equipped with a Phazotron N010 Zhuk-27 radar or a NIIP N011M BARS pulse Doppler phased array radar. The Su-30MKI is fitted with the N011M, which can track up to 15 targets simultaneously. The sensors include a rear facing radar installed in the tailcone.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su_30mk/

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 25 Mar 2009 15:18

And now I am not sure if MKI does a rear ward facing radar or not.
This link says it has :--
http://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/su-30.php

Su-30MKI: Version for India in four configurations, sometimes referred to as Su-30MKI, MKII, MKIII and MKIV. The first eight were delivered in March 1997 to basic Su-30PU standard (or even as Su-27UBs), with AL-31F engines. Eight delivery in 1998 were expected to have French Sextant avionics, Israeli electronic warfare (EW) equipment and a rearward-facing radar in the tailcone, but these were delayed by an Israeli embargo in wake of India's nuclear tests. The 12 deliveries planned for 1999 are meant to have added canards, as on the Su-37. The final 12 in 2000 will have AL-37FP engines, with single-axis thrust-vectoring nozzles inclined out 32° from the centreline. The AL-37PP is claimed to offer 3-D thrust vectoring. A further 10 aircraft ordered in late 1998 will be delivered to full MKI standards, with the first 28 aircraft being upgraded to a similar standard by Sukhoi under a rolling programme. HAL have an option to produce up to 120 aircraft under license within five years. On 29 August 1997, Indonesia signed for eight 'single-seat Su-30s' and four two-seat, but this was cancelled on 9 January 1998.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Mar 2009 15:21

No it does not it was wrongly put out and faithfully copied every where.

Only Su-34 Tactical Bomber has it and the new Su-35 may have it.

rsharma · Post by **rsharma** » 26 Mar 2009 10:30

But the question is, does the future "Rambha" MLU incorporate a rear-quadrant radar, and if yes, which one is it going to be?
Options available:
Su-35/T-10M : Phazotron N012
MiG’s 1.42/1.44 MFI : Phazotron N015,
Su-34 Fullback : Leninets V005

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 26 Mar 2009 10:33

Link

Su-30MKI: Version for India in four configurations, sometimes referred to as Su-30MKI, MKII, MKIII and MKIV. The first eight were delivered in March 1997 to basic Su-30PU standard (or even as Su-27UBs), with AL-31F engines. Eight delivery in 1998 were expected to have French Sextant avionics, Israeli electronic warfare (EW) equipment and a rearward-facing radar in the tailcone, but these were delayed by an Israeli embargo in wake of India's nuclear tests. The 12 deliveries planned for 1999 are meant to have added canards, as on the Su-37. The final 12 in 2000 will have AL-37FP engines, with single-axis thrust-vectoring nozzles inclined out 32° from the centreline. The AL-37PP is claimed to offer 3-D thrust vectoring. A further 10 aircraft ordered in late 1998 will be delivered to full MKI standards, with the first 28 aircraft being upgraded to a similar standard by Sukhoi under a rolling programme. HAL have an option to produce up to 120 aircraft under license within five years. On 29 August 1997, Indonesia signed for eight 'single-seat Su-30s' and four two-seat, but this was cancelled on 9 January 1998.

ovein · Post by **ovein** » 26 Mar 2009 14:33

Tezpur airbase to get Sukhoi-30 in June

http://www.indopia.in/India-usa-uk-news ... nal/1/20/1

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 26 Mar 2009 15:54

; Air Marshal Bhan said once the 126 multi-role combat aircraft deal with Russia is through, IAF would deploy some of the squadrons in eastern sector.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 26 Mar 2009 16:03

Slip of tongue

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 26 Mar 2009 16:59

krishnan wrote:Slip of tongue

Not necessarily though. As long as the statement is not in direct quote " ", it could very well be a statement of what the reporter interpreted his actual statement to be. The interpretation can be wildly incorrect as we know in case of DDM.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Mar 2009 21:44

He might have just spoken in private with the jurno and the jurno would have just put it , any ways there is no rearward looking radar on the MKI , the one which has it like the Su-34 has a larger tailboom.

May be the IAF thought its not worth having one , its just better to avoid 6'o clock type situation , and if you are unfortunately into it , use your TVC to best advantage to get out of it.

I would love to see the new Mig-35 with loads of Indian Avionics into it and Israel stuff to top up win the MMRCA race

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 14 Apr 2009 08:57

Moved here from PAK-FA thread.

Sajith_J wrote:Interesting is that the Su 35 was shortlisted in the Brasilian competition, but latest news reports said that they want to reinvite Su 35 and EF again. So what happened?

JaiS wrote:
Sajith_J wrote:Did they get a chance to get a 5. gen Pak Fa if they buy the Su 35 now?
AFIK, no such deal has been proposed to Brasil.

andy B wrote:
Sajith_J wrote:Interesting is that the Su 35 was shortlisted in the Brasilian competition, but latest news reports said that they want to reinvite Su 35 and EF again. So what happened? Did they get a chance to get a 5. gen Pak Fa if they buy the Su 35 now? LM is using the same strategy to sell us F16 IN now and later F35.
AFAIK there was a lot of political pressure exerted that led to the tender being reissued and the 35 and EF being reinvited.

Austin wrote:The Su-35BM is turning out to be a wonderful aircraft , in every possible sense one notch about the MKI , they even manage to get a supercruise out of it and reduce the RCS.

The Brazalien tender is for 100 aircraft , it will be nearly as big as the MMRCA deal would be interesting to see who wins this , the carrot for Brazil seems to be a derivative of PAK-FA.

I am sure after PAK-FA they will build a single seater to replace their huge inventory of aircraft , they will eventually need a 5th Gen single engine , cost effective fighter as it is not possible to replace most of the 4 and 4++ gen fighter with PAK-FA , and most likely Mig will win this single seater contest.

NRao wrote:Austin Sir,

Anything coming out 10 years AFTER the MKI BETTER be better.

In another 10 years - a SU-XX with some PAK-FA techs - better be better than the 35.

BUT, with 10-20 years of experience with MKI, will a show cased 35/XX make it into battle and survive? Which country has fielded the Su-35 and in what numbers? Now, count the number of MKIs out there - with primed pilots.

George J · Post by **George J** » 14 Apr 2009 10:30

Actually the official answer to the N012 is still

Jan 2004

Me: Ungle does the MKI have rear facing radar?

Ungle (who does this sort of stuff for a living): "I am not at liberty to discuss such information".

Unless you guys have spoken to ungles who claim otherwise that is what I am going to believe.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Apr 2009 10:42

George there is no tail sting radar on the MKI period , these sting carry the chutes.

The only operational aircraft which carries the tail sting radar with a fatter boom is the Su-34.

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 14 Apr 2009 18:59

Austin, I have seen some pretty close up photos of the MKI's tail boom from Phil Camp and Simon Watson's book - the MKI does not have rear facing radar in those but there is massive space there - so even if one were to only fit a braking parachute, the real estate is quite large!

Having said that - what would be the utility of a rearward facing radar? With AWACS around one would be able to get a 360 view anyway. Besides, operational costs of maintaining two radars, CG changes, additional weight, etc etc - wonder if it has any real benefits...

sum · Post by **sum** » 14 Apr 2009 19:32

Just as a TD(maybe will come in handy when AWACs cover might not be available in some far fetched scenario)?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Apr 2009 19:57

saumitra_j wrote:Austin, I have seen some pretty close up photos of the MKI's tail boom from Phil Camp and Simon Watson's book - the MKI does not have rear facing radar in those but there is massive space there - so even if one were to only fit a braking parachute, the real estate is quite large!

Having said that - what would be the utility of a rearward facing radar? With AWACS around one would be able to get a 360 view anyway. Besides, operational costs of maintaining two radars, CG changes, additional weight, etc etc - wonder if it has any real benefits...

Saumitra good to hear from you

, I have seen these tail boom first hand and as massive as they might look , there is no way one can just fit a rearward facing radar on that boom , it does have those two huge chutes in there.

if you look at the tail boom of the only aircraft which has a rearward facing radar , it quite massive image1 image2
The MKI tailboom looks baccha image

As to what purpose it will serve , well it will give a tactical advantage in close combat/mid-range BVR type engagement with a suitable missile ( the R-73 for one was tested ) and can double up in threat warning function.

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 14 Apr 2009 20:21

Thanks Austin!

As to what purpose it will serve , well it will give a tactical advantage in close combat/mid-range BVR type engagement with a suitable missile ( the R-73 for one was tested ) and can double up in threat warning function.

Like I said - with AWACS around, the rear is likely to be well watched anyway - the idea of having two separate non AESA (one PESA, other probably a slotted array) radars on one aircraft sounds like a serviceability/ maintenance nightmare to me!

Unless one is looking at autonomous missions without any AWACS support, I seriously think that there's not much utility in a rear facing radar, for warnings from 12'clock a MAWS is good enough while rear firing missiles would loose a lot of energy while turning around. With the Su34 - it's a different issue as it has some pretty unique features (like a functional loo

) but not many are operational as of now (8-10 IIRC) and have a very different role to that of the MKI - so possibly the tactics of firing behind the back may make more sense .....although I will be keen on hearing about the Russian experience with maintainability of two radars!

John · Post by **John** » 14 Apr 2009 20:37

Rear facing radar is mainly for dog fights so that the pilot can perform a manuveur like cobra to shake off an aircraft in its tail/give heads up on any IIR based AAM.

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 14 Apr 2009 20:49

Rear facing radar is mainly for dog fights so that the pilot can perform a manuveur like cobra to shake off an aircraft in its tail/give heads up on any IIR based AAM.

Hi John,.
I not too sure about that. IMHO a wingman and sound tactics is a better and cheaper alternative to watching one's back for bogies at 12'o clock at a short range. What I am trying to say is that a rear facing mechanically scanned radar will seriously create serviceability issues while the tactical benefits may not be worth it! It might be useful if one is on an autonomous mission deep into enemy territory without any AWACS support - IMHO this is not a MKI mission - sounds more like a dedicated bomber's mission to me. Even in this case, radio silence will be of utmost importance and the only possible time I can see it being used is during the egress.....which is why I had said that it probably makes sense on the Su34.

cheers,

Saumitra

PS: On rear facing missiles I found this link with the following post from somebody called aktarian:

Soviets/Russians experimanted with this. There are 2 main problems with this:
-aerodynamics. If missile is facing forward it has it's front end pointed forward. And that is already cone shaped so there is little resistance. However if it's facing back it's rear end is facing forward. As they are flat this increases resistnace. You could put a coned chaped cap on rear end to reduce resistance but this would mean problems with engine ignition and separation
-sensors on plane. if you put them in front (where they are) they are facing in same direction as missiles and there is space for it (nose for radar). On back you have no place for them, so you would have to make it. And you can't put long-range radar there because it's too big and too heavy and another radar woudl require more power which in turn means more power generating devices (and more weight) or less operating time for both of them. Plus there are engines there so their "vision" will be obstructed by them. You could put it in underwing container but that would mean one less pylon for weapons and due to weight would mean problems for plane handling due to centre of gravity being shifted on one side (which is also the case if you put it in the back as CoG moves back). You could put IR missiles facing back but that means another set of problems. While IR sensors are lighter and could be put on the back (e.g. on tail). However air rear of the plane is heated due to engine exhaust so this could mean difficulty in tracking targets and distinguishing target's IR signature from your own. Not to mention that once you fire IR missile close to your exhaust it could mistake it for target and detonate. It might damage your engine and even if it doesn't missile is wasted anyway. Not to mention that in dogfight you will be dropping flares of your own to confuse enemy and as they are fired behind your plane your missile might home on your flares. Once again, wasted missile for no purpose.
So while this is theoretically feasible practically it brings so many problems it's not worth it. IMO best way is manuevrable planes with wide aspect tracking sensors on your missiles and helmet mounted displays for easier wider tracking.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Apr 2009 22:35

saumitra there is a valid point that MKI does not have a rear facing radar simply because IAF does not feel the need to have it.

The Su-34 is in a different class and different league although it has branch out from the Su-27/30 family and because of its autonomous nature of the mission envisaged for it having a rearward facing radar comes out of necessasity and some good thought gone over it from the design bureau and RuAF.

Personally I dont see a problem with having a rearward facing missile and radar executing in perfect manner , the argument of the gentle man you have posted does not hold ground as the tail boom which is quite large and is ahead of engine and can hold a PESA radar with a good aperture ( may be in due time you add AESA module and you get more flexibility and better range ) and the missile itself can do a 180 * turn which is proven in test.

considering these radars are quite powerful you can get a close combat ( ~ 5 km ) and mid-range BVR type engagement ( ~ 20 Km ) , what I think is once the missile does a 180* turn does not matter if its a IIR or ARH ,can be a LOBL or LOAL type engagement it can be guided and provided a mid course update by the rear radar till it gets close to the target where its primary sensor like IIR or ARH can get effective and go autonomous.

If these Sukhoi chaps have gone at great length to add those system on a tactical bomber they must have good reason and the AF guys the necessary tactics and reason to use it.

From what I have heard the new Su-35BM has been offered with a rearward facing radar

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Apr 2009 22:46

considering that IAF does not have a dedicated bomber type like the fullback, it's the mki's that will be tasked with long range DPS since only they have the legs/payload/self escorting ability needed to perform such a job.

so a rear facing radar on at least some examples might not have been such a bad idea. but then it doesn't look that important considering its regular role.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Apr 2009 22:54

John wrote:Rear facing radar is mainly for dog fights so that the pilot can perform a manuveur like cobra to shake off an aircraft in its tail/give heads up on any IIR based AAM.

Just before the MKIs landed in India this stuff about rear-facing radars + missiles was posted (do not recall where). The report stated that the missile would be fired normally - facing forward, but would immediately change course and head to the read, come under the guidance of the rear-facing radar, .................

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 15 Apr 2009 00:50

Rahul - is there an operational/doctrinal reason why the IAF doesnt have dedicated bombers? At least for delivering strategic payloads, wouldnt they be needed to complete one of the arms of the nuclear triad. The Jags/MKIs may serve this dual purpose, but they cant deliver anywhere close to the payload that a bomber can.

George J · Post by **George J** » 15 Apr 2009 07:24

Austin wrote:George there is no tail sting radar on the MKI period ......

Well I am inclined to agree with you: when I was at Lohegaon in 2004 with the No.20 and then later in 2006 with the No.30 I got almost the same answer when you ask this question "We are not at liberty to discuss that with you." And these are the same guys who will instantly rubbish all the shiny brochure numbers about the Bars all day long. You would think that they should keep their mouth shut about the Bars and R-73-Sura-TVC but no...dont ask them about the N012.

Unless some ungle told you otherwise the OFFICIAL ANSWER is that "they are not at liberty to discuss that".

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Apr 2009 14:41

George J wrote:
Austin wrote:George there is no tail sting radar on the MKI period ......
Well I am inclined to agree with you: when I was at Lohegaon in 2004 with the No.20 and then later in 2006 with the No.30 I got almost the same answer when you ask this question "We are not at liberty to discuss that with you." And these are the same guys who will instantly rubbish all the shiny brochure numbers about the Bars all day long. You would think that they should keep their mouth shut about the Bars and R-73-Sura-TVC but no...dont ask them about the N012.

Unless some ungle told you otherwise the OFFICIAL ANSWER is that "they are not at liberty to discuss that".

George I am sure those chaps are not at liberty to discuss many things and the N012 could be one of them , but that does not imply that MKI has a rearward facing radar and they are not at liberty to discuss it.

Nor do I think they can just fit a rear ward facing radar over night by some plug and play method , nor is this a case of built for but not with type.

The only way to figure that out is to look at the mother Design Bureau and the work they have done with Rearward facing radar on Su-34 and one can clearly see there is a good difference in the tailboom of these two system.

It may be possible to add a rearward facing radar with a modified/new tail boom but it may just not be worth the change and expense to the already formidable system that MKI is.

George J · Post by **George J** » 15 Apr 2009 20:13

Austin:
Actually I am not sure what the Su-34 has in its tail.

FlightGlobal wrote:.................The larger boom appears to contain an active stand-off jammer with a directional antenna mounted on the rear of the protuberance. The smaller boom used on previous versions normally houses the aircraft's electronic warfare self-protection suite.

And I lost all respect for FlightGlobal after their handling of the YouTube Terry and Two Faced Trimble Fiasco.

Let me reiterate, I am inclined to agree with you on the MKI but its just that the IAF has given me very crazy but consistent answers when you ask them about this. So officially they are not at liberty to discuss it. Unofficially you can fill up pages on this issue.