Sukhoi Su 30MKI

mayfair

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
6,032
Likes
13,109
Mig 21s, Mig 27s will soon be retired and Jaguars and Mirages and Mig 29s by 2030. then we'll be left with Su 30s, LCA, Rafale with a possibility of adding PAKFA and AMCA.

Eventually we will arrive at a smaller set of variants.
 

Sancho

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,035
Sputnik: In October, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa categorically stated that the emphasis on single-engine fighter jets was a cost-cutting attempt whereas the Indian Air Force actually desired twin-engine jets.

Vijainder K Thakur: Single engine fighters are claimed to have lower operating costs. However, the evidence to support the claim is not convincing. According to Forbes, the operating cost-per-hour for a F-16C is $8,278 and for the F/A-18E is $10,507. The difference is marginal...

Sputnik: Should the Indian Air Force order more upgraded Su30MKI and Su35 instead of going for the global tender on the single-engine fighter jet?

Vijainder K Thakur: The IAF has ordered 272 Su-30 aircraft, enough to equip around 23 — 24 squadrons. Considering that at one point in time the IAF was operating with around 30 squadrons of MiG-21 variants, there is scope to order additional upgraded Su-30MKI or Su-35s. The aircraft is currently under production at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) Nasik division. Also, the Su-30MKI is a perfect fit for the IAF doctrine, which advocates use of fighter aircraft that can perform any role.
He refered to a Forbes report for the operational costs, so I searched for it and and when I then asked him, that his own source shows 2 to 3 times the operational cost for heavy class fighters, compared to the F16 and why he then is advocating Su 30s? He blocked me. :lol:

When you put yourself in the media and give references, you should not have hurt feelings if somebody is looking up the infos you gave.



If cost is the driver for selecting SE MMRCAs, adding more heavy class fighters is not a solution.
 

sthf

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
5,327
Country flag
Nothing path breaking here but it is the sanest suggestion one could give to Imported Air Force. Nothing/nobody is stopping IAF from ordering two more squadrons of MKI.
 

Sancho

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,035
Nothing path breaking here but it is the sanest suggestion one could give to Imported Air Force. Nothing/nobody is stopping IAF from ordering two more squadrons of MKI.
True, but they don't want more:

India needs about 200-250 medium fighter aircrafts: IAF Chief Arup Raha
Dec 29, 2016

...“Over the next 10 years, we must have 200-250 aircraft. It has to be balanced out. In the heavy weight spect rum, we have enough. But in the medium weight category, we need to have more. Yes, about 200 will be very good,” the Air Chief said, adding that the Light Combat Aircraft with enhanced capabilities will be operated in large numbers soon.

The officer said that while the sanctioned strength of fighter aircraft by the government is 42 squadrons, the air force is keen on a capability mix that will consist of more medium category combat aircraft.


Virtually ruling out more orders for the heavy air dominance Su 30 MKI fighter, Air Chief Raha said that enough numbers were in service that will last for another 30-40 years...
https://m.economictimes.com/default_pwa.cms?article=56225487
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
The sputnik interviewing a retired personal, so much clarity ..
 

Sancho

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,035

That is the tragedy that an airforce with already disproportionate amount of heavy fighters, 17 squadrons wants us to believe that 2 more is way too much.
When the balance is bad, you don't have to make it worse, just because a foreign vendor doesn't play by our rules and the government is currently not sure what they want. At least IAF has to be the mature side here and stick to the plans, especially with even more costly stealth fighters in sight as well.
 

sthf

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
5,327
Country flag
When the balance is bad, you don't have to make it worse, just because a foreign vendor doesn't play by our rules and the government is currently not sure what they want. At least IAF has to be the mature side here and stick to the plans, especially with even more costly stealth fighters in sight as well.
Two or three more squadrons are not going to make the sky fall. Whatever operational or procurement costs IAF is creating hullabaloo over are a mere fraction compared to inducting an entire new platform. The new platform being the same ones that IAF rejected during MMRCA on technical grounds.
 

Kay

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
1,029
Likes
1,354
Country flag
Just wondering if Su MKI operating costs can be brought down? F-18 is fairly cheap to operate in spite of being a twin engine plane.
 

gadeshi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,634
Just wondering if Su MKI operating costs can be brought down? F-18 is fairly cheap to operate in spite of being a twin engine plane.
Remove dumbs, slowpokes and corruptors - and you'll be fine :)

F/A-18 is not as cheap to operate as it should be as it is a medium weight fighter.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
 

smestarz

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
1,929
Likes
1,054
Country flag
Give IAF a free hand and they would go for 500 Rafales
there is difference between need and want, IAF needs lost cost and low maintenance planes that can be used for flying CAPS, what IAF wants is the most expensive plane available.
BTW IAF top brass in recent times were involved in trying to handicap the efforts of them DM to get lower price, for example when MMRCA discussion was going on and DM said that in case of Rafale not working out, we can order more Su-30 MKI this was supposed to help negotiations, but then Arup Raha went on record to say "there is no plan B" So these IAF top brass have been some how clandestinely trying to undermine the efforts of DM trying to hurt the negotiations as if they had share of the profit in sale of Rafale.
BTW Arup Raha is now ex-IAF chief.

 

Sancho

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,035
Just wondering if Su MKI operating costs can be brought down? F-18 is fairly cheap to operate in spite of being a twin engine plane.
Heavy class fighter with larger engines vs medium class fighter with smaller engines would be the first issue.

IAF needs lost cost and low maintenance planes that can be used for flying CAPS, what IAF wants is the most expensive plane available.
That's not correct, since the MMRCA requirements, are based on the initial MRCA tender, where the Mirage 2000-5 was part of the tender. IAFs basic requirements of a multi role capable fighter still remains the same till today in the SE MMRCA, what changes are limitations or additions depending on which fighters will compete. The MRCA had a MTOW limit of 20t, which just included the Mig 29, but no other twin engine fighter. The MMRCA had a limit of 30t and added AESA as a prime requirement, to have a level playing field with future potential in mind. The SE now, for the first time is limited by engine numbers and not MTOW.

BTW Arup Raha is now ex-IAF chief.
True, but current Air Chief Dhanoa repeatedly stated that IAF is adding 2 squads of MKI, that are on order and in production, while he just stated in October, that SE MMRCAs have priority.
 

Pandora

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
981
Likes
2,183
Country flag
Heavy class fighter with larger engines vs medium class fighter with smaller engines would be the first issue.



That's not correct, since the MMRCA requirements, are based on the initial MRCA tender, where the Mirage 2000-5 was part of the tender. IAFs basic requirements of a multi role capable fighter still remains the same till today in the SE MMRCA, what changes are limitations or additions depending on which fighters will compete. The MRCA had a MTOW limit of 20t, which just included the Mig 29, but no other twin engine fighter. The MMRCA had a limit of 30t and added AESA as a prime requirement, to have a level playing field with future potential in mind. The SE now, for the first time is limited by engine numbers and not MTOW.


True, but current Air Chief Dhanoa repeatedly stated that IAF is adding 2 squads of MKI, that are on order and in production, while he just stated in October, that SE MMRCAs have priority.
Hi sancho..its been long time mate..where were you?
 

Sancho

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,035
Making each and every Su-30MKI capable of launching the BrahMos A would be foolhardy in my opinion - especially since we are given to understand that it significantly increases both weight and drag.
True but that's not the aim anyway, so far we only know that around 40 new MKIs will be able to carry Brahmos A, while the future Brahmos NG should be able to be delayed from the entire fleet, as a replacement of Kh59 mainly and from the same 3 hardpoints. We also see SPICE 2000 being integrated now, most likely to replace KAB 1500. So Brahmos A is adding a crucial capability, that IAF lacked for far too long, while Brahmos NG is basically a replacement / upgrade of available capabilities.
 

vikata

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2017
Messages
160
Likes
366
Country flag
That's absurd, when CAG reports that IAF used Su30mki double the specified flight hours, you're complaining about crashes, didn't you forgot that F15 had a record of 1 crash every year since its induction to 2011.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk
i wish if we had F15 instead of su30 we would have been unbeatable,
infact govt should have ordered it in place of rafale
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top