Sukhoi Su 30MKI

[sgarg]

As for single engine fighters, I am sure F-16 and Gripen are capable fighters in their own right. I would think the same of JF-17.

Your earlier posts have too many holes. However I am too busy today and not finding the time to reply in a comprehensive manner. Will do that later.

 

[sgarg]

I have decided to reply to p2prada point by point. p2prada seems to be a "brochure champion" - arguing over points based on advertising material. The actual capability of fighters will be known with comprehensive testing, something that IAF should have done in its evaluation.

You always evaluate what is available (or made available). You can never test things in labs or in development. The purchase decision has to be made based on the current fielded capability, especially in case of imported fighter.

I am linking a discussion from another board on IRST:

IRST vs Raptor - General F-22A Raptor forum

I have great reservation on IRST ranges of 130 km for Rafale or even 90 km for Su-30. These are passive sensors. The infra-red part of EM spectrum always has lower visibility compared to visible light. So whatever visible light sensor cannot see, infra-red definitely won't see. So when you are comparing TV camera to IR camera, the IR will have lower range.

Maybe very hot plume of missile or a plane using after-burner is detected by Su-30 at 90 km. But practically it is useless. The target has to be identified and tracked. This is unlikely to happen with IRST at such ranges.

I can accept that Rafale may have better IRST sensor compared to Su-30. Does it make a serious difference in real world - NO.

Ultimately Su-30 will use its radar as its primary sensor. If Su-30 is on a sneak attack mission, it may switch off its radar and switch to IR camera and TV camera, but then its ability to see would be significantly curtailed.

 

[p2prada]

1. Mountain strike corps - India is a continental power and is generally obsessed with land warfare. You have to understand in that context.

Just raising a corp will not guarantee that India can get deep into Tibet with this force. India has no overwhelming advantage vis-a-vis China that guarantees success of a deep thrust into China. However these additional soldiers can fill the gaps as perceived by army leadership to defend territory.

It doesn't matter if the army is stopped dead by the Chinese. The point is we are no longer a defensive military. Our objective is to strike deep in the heart of the enemy.

2. Capability maps etc. will not do any good if these are not in tune with country's industrial capability.

It is clear you have lost track of the discussion.

3. The twin threats of India and China require very significant growth in domestic military industrial base. Otherwise you will lose far too many soldiers in such a scenario. You will need a quantity of weapons that you can never import even in your dreams.

You are contradicting your own points.

4. Your "affordability calculations" are wrong. Even if you take average of 6B USD per year for IAF capital purchases for next 15 years, that has to be split over quite a few programs. Even if you take half of it for fighter purchases, there is no way IAF can dish out $22B just for Rafale.

That $22 Billion needs to be calculated over 30 to 40 years. Rafale's immediate purchase price is around $90 Million. For 126 jets that's $11.5 Billion. Add base infrastructure, training and maintenance, that's another $2 Billion over the next 10 years. Even if we assume all of this costs $15 Billion, we will still make the payment based on delivery of the aircraft, so it will still take 10 years. That's $1.5 Billion every year for the next 10 years. Then the remaining money, around $10-20 Billion will be spent over the remaining 20-30 years.

So are you saying IAF can't afford paying $1.5 Billion every year?

The capital budget for the IAF may be $6 Billion today, but in 10 years time this would have quadrupled to $24 Billion. So, IAF still can't afford to pay $1.5 Billion every year over the next 10 years? I have assumed we will take 10 years from the date of signing the contract for all 126 jets to be delivered.

The IAF's capital budget was a Billion in 2000, today it has increased by 5 to 6 times. What makes you think it will remain stagnant over the next 15 years?

Everything makes sense when you start breaking things up and then try to understand them piece by piece.

The MKI program as of 2012 was $12 Billion. In 2000 the defense budget was $10 Billion. The Rafale program will have costed us $15 Billion in 12 years. Our defense budget today is $40 billion. Are you still saying we can't afford it? Then how did we afford the MKI program when it was clearly four times more expensive for us at the time?

The strike corps will cost us $10 Billion in 8 years. Where is this money coming from? The submarine project is also worth $10-15 billion in the next 10 years. Where is this money coming from? Not even counting Arihant and SSN projects. The navy will also have another MRCA contest. Where is this money coming from? The army's FMBT, FICV and F-INSAS programs are as big or much bigger than Rafale. Where is this money coming from?

Attacking the Rafale program based on costs is simply an attempt to malign the IAF without really knowing the facts. It's just a harebrained attempt at discrediting the actual economic power of the country.

 

[p2prada]

I have decided to reply to p2prada point by point. p2prada seems to be a "brochure champion" - arguing over points based on advertising material. The actual capability of fighters will be known with comprehensive testing, something that IAF should have done in its evaluation.

You always evaluate what is available (or made available). You can never test things in labs or in development. The purchase decision has to be made based on the current fielded capability, especially in case of imported fighter.

I am linking a discussion from another board on IRST:

IRST vs Raptor - General F-22A Raptor forum

I have great reservation on IRST ranges of 130 km for Rafale or even 90 km for Su-30. These are passive sensors. The infra-red part of EM spectrum always has lower visibility compared to visible light. So whatever visible light sensor cannot see, infra-red definitely won't see. So when you are comparing TV camera to IR camera, the IR will have lower range.

Maybe very hot plume of missile or a plane using after-burner is detected by Su-30 at 90 km. But practically it is useless. The target has to be identified and tracked. This is unlikely to happen with IRST at such ranges.

I can accept that Rafale may have better IRST sensor compared to Su-30. Does it make a serious difference in real world - NO.

Ultimately Su-30 will use its radar as its primary sensor. If Su-30 is on a sneak attack mission, it may switch off its radar and switch to IR camera and TV camera, but then its ability to see would be significantly curtailed.

This proves you have no idea what the discussion is about!!!

IAF evaluated all aircraft and came up with the conclusion that the Mig-35 is not even worth shortlisting. And Mig-35 is a generation ahead compared to the Mig-29K. So, what does that prove?

 

[p2prada]

As for single engine fighters, I am sure F-16 and Gripen are capable fighters in their own right. I would think the same of JF-17.

Your earlier posts have too many holes. However I am too busy today and not finding the time to reply in a comprehensive manner. Will do that later.

Don't bother. You don't know much about aircraft to discuss with. You can go ahead and sing your anti-national rhetoric.

 

[ersakthivel]

I have decided to reply to p2prada point by point. p2prada seems to be a "brochure champion" - arguing over points based on advertising material. The actual capability of fighters will be known with comprehensive testing, something that IAF should have done in its evaluation.

You always evaluate what is available (or made available). You can never test things in labs or in development. The purchase decision has to be made based on the current fielded capability, especially in case of imported fighter.

I am linking a discussion from another board on IRST:

IRST vs Raptor - General F-22A Raptor forum

I have great reservation on IRST ranges of 130 km for Rafale or even 90 km for Su-30. These are passive sensors. The infra-red part of EM spectrum always has lower visibility compared to visible light. So whatever visible light sensor cannot see, infra-red definitely won't see. So when you are comparing TV camera to IR camera, the IR will have lower range.

Maybe very hot plume of missile or a plane using after-burner is detected by Su-30 at 90 km. But practically it is useless. The target has to be identified and tracked. This is unlikely to happen with IRST at such ranges.

I can accept that Rafale may have better IRST sensor compared to Su-30. Does it make a serious difference in real world - NO.

Ultimately Su-30 will use its radar as its primary sensor. If Su-30 is on a sneak attack mission, it may switch off its radar and switch to IR camera and TV camera, but then its ability to see would be significantly curtailed.

AFAIK 20 to 30 Km is the best detection and tracking range for rafale IRST.

 

[sgarg]

This proves you have no idea what the discussion is about!!!

IAF evaluated all aircraft and came up with the conclusion that the Mig-35 is not even worth shortlisting. And Mig-35 is a generation ahead compared to the Mig-29K. So, what does that prove?

There were 6 contenders for MMRCA. They were selected based on certain technical parameters.

A tender is NOT about which plane is BEST; but which meets the given technical parameters and costs least.

Your whole hundreds of pages has been about proving Rafale is best. My point is different which you have not understood at all.

Your technical wizardry is useless for anybody who can add two and two.

IAF had an urgent requirement for a plane with certain technical parameters. It called a tender (mind it - the contenders were already pre-selected) to select the one that meets its requirements the best. Technical evaluation's basic purpose is to check manufacturer's claims. IAF ran a technical evaluation and came out with a conclusion that two planes met its technical requirements. I want to make my point clear again. The technical qualification is about meeting the specs already given IN THE TENDER. So it is not about who is best but who meets.

It then called financial bid from the two short-listed contenders. One was selected based on its LOWER price. However since then the tender is stuck in seemingly endless negotiations about role of Indian partner and what not and the price of the plane is steadily increasing in the meantime.

The role of Indian partner and the extent of TOT must have been decided BEFORE calling the tender. How can you compare apples to apples when the rules of the game are not known. If 100% TOT was desired, it should have been made known to all contenders before the tender. Why ANYBODY would waste his time?

 

[sgarg]

Discussing Rafale vs other planes requires a great deal of knowledge which is not in public domain. These are military technologies we are talking about which are confidential by their very nature.

If somebody asks me to engage in this useless arguments and counter-arguments which cannot be proven in any convincing way, how would I do it.

We can only hope and pray that IAF and MOD did their jobs and they care for Indian citizens and remember that India has millions of jobless youth and millions of under-fed children.

We want to equip our defence forces through Indian industry as it creates jobs which are needed by the citizens. It is not a rhetoric. It is a reality.

 

[SajeevJino]

.


So Sad to Hear this News

Su-30 Crash Site Offer Big First Clues ​

.

First photographs by my alma mater The Indian Express from the site of the Su-30 MKI crash today show a largely intact fuselage and airframe, indicating that aircraft didn't just dive out of the sky (probably didn't get very high at all), that pilots likely ejected after an engine malfunction/flame-out, and that aircraft was level when it ploughed into the ground -- possibly even a controlled crash. Nothing else explains the structural integrity of the airframe. Note the deployed flaps and tail chute.

Livefist: Photos From Su-30 Crash Site Offer Big First Clues

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Su-30MKI engine failures worry IAF

The Sukhoi-30MKI fleet of the Indian Air Force has been encountering mid-air engine failures for the past two years. India has officially flagged the matter to Russia seeking a correction.

Repeated engine failures and the newly introduced precautionary measures have affected the availability of planes for various operations. The IAF has a fleet of 200 Sukhois.

After a failure, the engine is replaced after testing before allowing the plane to fly again. The process of removing and replacing an engine usually takes four-five days, but can be extended depending upon the damage.

The number of single-engine landings by planes in two years is high and not healthy. It lowers the operational ability of the fleet, besides raising questions about war readiness, said sources.

The exact number of such engine burnouts and percentage of fleet that is not available for flying at any point of time are being held back from publication in the newspaper as it would adversely impact national security.

Source : The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Main News

 

[Patriot]

IAF must seriously review options to replace this engine. We can not afford to be paralyzed due to such engine failures of our front line fighter. Despite IAF reduced the service hours IIRC from 1000 to 700hours engine failure hai occurred again.

117S or PAK-FA's upcoming engine should be on the cards for the replacements.

I hope we take up domestic engine development program seriously on war footing and infuse sufficient money to develop our own engines for different classes of fighters.

 

[Illusive]

IAF must seriously review options to replace this engine. We can not afford to be paralyzed due to such engine failures of our front line fighter. Despite IAF reduced the service hours IIRC from 1000 to 700hours engine failure hai occurred again.

117S or PAK-FA's upcoming engine should be on the cards for the replacements.

I hope we take up domestic engine development program seriously on war footing and infuse sufficient money to develop our own engines for different classes of fighters.

Wouldn't new engine mean airframe redesign, question is, are other su30's in different airforce around the world say RUS or China facing the same issue cause if not then it may be due to faulty parts or manufacturing defect.

 

[Patriot]

117-s in Su-35 is of same class hence not much modification might be required as base of both flankers is SU-27. This engine problem is putting big question mark on the availability of 200 ACs fleet that is almost 40% of IAF ACs . And this particular AC is made in Russia, hence we can not blame HAL for any quality issue. The issue is reliability and far lesser performance of the engine in terms of it's service life and failure during flights. Obviously the performance of the engine is far lesser than promised by the Russians.

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

A very bad condition of the IAF. IAF has to do something. HAL is lacking credibility..........

HAL must be penalized.....

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

HAL is responsible as they have not been able to develop own engines so far. India is also not putting pressure on Russia, unlike China which is getting class A stuff from the Russians.....

 

[Patriot]

HAL has nothing to do with these crash mishaps. This AC was made in Russia. Also HAL is not responsible for engine development as same is the job of DRDO and GTRE. But the engine development is something requires huge investment from GOI in R&D of high end alloys for single crystal blades, testing platforms and other testing facilities and it is one of the most challenging high end technology system to develop.

The development of jet engine must be our top priority national mission.

 

[halloweene]

AFAIK 20 to 30 Km is the best detection and tracking range for rafale IRST.

Better revise...

 

[sgarg]

HAL's work culture leaves a lot to be desired. High tech manufacturing is possible only with very high sense of responsibility and expertise.

It requires disciplined labour force.

Technical problems can be fixed IF there is a desire to fix. There is no dearth of engineers in this country. If you know the working of an engine, qualified engineers will be able to solve problems and fix it.

Please read Tuesday, October 14, 2014
IAF Operational Failures in Retrospect
Thum! Kaun Aata Hai?: October 2014

This piece strikes the nail on the head.

The worst mistake in India has been giving aviation to public sector. Aviation needs cutting edge in technology and manufacturing. The slow decision making, lack of discipline, politicization of labour force and unprofessional attitude have killed the potential of local industry.

I have no kind words for HAL. We must focus on the country, not on a company.

No amount of licensed manufacturing will solve our problems. We need to get into the mindset of DESIGNING and BUILDING, even if requires reinvention of the wheel.

Full praise for the designers of LCA. They have faced the worst and mostly un-needed criticism yet stood through it all.

if India stands on its two feet today, that is due to modern industries built by entrepreneurs and hard work of millions who have brought India to positive fx cash flow. They are paying the taxes that are ending up into swiss accounts due to foolishness and greed of some. The socialist economy of this country had made the country bankrupt by early eighties. People have forgotten all that now but I remember when 50% of top engineering graduates found no jobs.

 

[sgarg]

I advise converting HAL and OFB to joint sector companies. OFB must be reconstituted with professional management and outside directors on its board.

We need two companies in private sector of the size of HAL. This needs to be achieved quickly and the government can play a big role in this.

We need a dedicated company focussing on fighter aircrafts (not HAL).

Another company is needed focussing on SAM systems and air to air missiles.

HAL can focus on helicopters, trainers and transports.

 

[Patriot]

Who is going to invest in production line set up thousands of crores for a dicey customer like IAF which places paltry orders. In addition which group has the competence to do so. Such things cannot happen in short time, it is going to take lot of time for any new entrant in aerospace sector manufacturing.