Sukhoi Su 30MKI

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
You should read the 2nd report that I have linked. Here is a direct quote from that report


And let me remind you it is a written report submitted in Rajya Sabha. Which means that either the minister is giving false answers in the parliament (highly unlikely) or you are wrong.

Have your pick.
I think I have been very clear- India does not have parts manufacturing units CERTIFIED BY RUSSIA and hence any parts used from such a plane will violate the terms of the agreement.

India has the technology but is refraining itself from manufacturing so as to uphold the contract and not void warranty.

In other words, if India decides that it does not need warranty or that it needs rapid build up of planes in emergency, it can make Su30 on its own by voiding agreement and warranty with Russia.

Don't irritate me with same blabbering again. India can make but chooses not to.
 

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
Source for the claim would be appreciated. And honestly speaking if it is true, then India is stupid.
I have replied on this several times but now I am not remembering the source I quoted. I am sure I have replied the source somewhere or even in many places before.

Anyways, I have tried googling and I found something:
http://indianexpress.com/article/in...fighter-jets-spares-defence-ministry-2960457/
To tide over the problem of non-availability of spares for Russian military equipment which form the bulk of country’s defence inventory, defence ministry has called for a meeting of Indian private defence industry next week. The meeting, which will be chaired by Secretary Defence Production (DP), will also be attended by Chairman of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and senior officers from the three defence services.

Since the early 1960s, India is estimated to have acquired military equipment worth $45 billion from Moscow which forms more than 60 per cent of equipment on the inventory of the three services. But the current serviceability state of this equipment, particularly those with the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the navy, is less than 50 per cent, sources said.

The problem is particularly acute in the case of Sukhoi Su-30 fighter aircraft which is made under license by HAL here. More than 200 Su-30 fighters are already in service with the IAF, and form the backbone of the country’s air power. The HAL is responsible for providing spares for these aircraft but is currently unable to meet the requirement, due to an unreliable and fledgling supply line from Russia. The state of spares with other Russian origin platforms such as the Mig-29 naval fighters, Kamov and Mi-17 helicopters is also not very encouraging. The IAF and the navy directly issue contracts for these spares but have complained to the defence ministry about the unreliable nature of Russian provisioning.

A couple of suggestions to overcome this problem were mooted during a similar meeting, chaired by Secretary (DP) in end-June but have not led to any concrete outcomes. One option explored during the June meeting was for the Indian companies to source the spare parts directly from Ukranian manufacturers. That proposal was shot down by HAL because the Ukrainian equipment is not certified by Russia. It means that the Russian guarantee on these platforms would become null and void, if they are fitted with Ukrainian spares.

Meanwhile, HAL attempted to overcome this problem by asking local MSME industry to start making these spares in India. This would, however, need a transfer of technology (ToT) from Russia which can only be done through the Russian government agency, Rosoboronexport corporation. Most Indian private industry officials are wary of working with Rosoboronexport, because of, what they say, is its “poor track-record and unprofessional attitude”.

“We have worked with Rosoboronexport which operates like a middleman. We paid the money to Rosoboronexport but the small Russian company never got the money from Rosoboronexport, and never sent us the parts. We are not alone, everyone has had complaints with Rosoboronexport which even the defence ministry is fully aware of,” Vice-President of a top Indian defence company told The Indian Express.

In the June meeting, Secretary (DP) had promised the industry that the issue of Rosoboronexport will be raised with Moscow at a ministerial and diplomatic level. That matter is bound to come up again in the meeting next week.

Indian private defence firms also assert that even if they were to somehow work through Rosoboronexport, it will be unprofitable for them to start a production line here in the absence of a firm order for a few years. Secretary (DP) had responded favourably to the idea and agreed to issuing a policy which gives firm orders to an Indian company for five years at benchmark price. These companies are expecting to hear from the ministry on the new policy next week.
I would not call India as stupid as the warranty from Russia is not just about maintenance but also about trust. Russia has been generous with giving ToT to India and India must hence behave like a trustworthy ally and not misuse the relationship
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
Why risking of layoff's..
Most of the plane is metallic,we can swap most of it with the composite..so we can reduce weight and radar signature
Because weight reduction worked so well for LCA? In fact all of our indigenous aircraft projects, suffer from weight issues, although the high content of composites, so that's just a myth that we keep telling us to distract from the failures.
Also the Russians added composites and RAM coatings in their latest varients of Flankers and Fulcrum too, so a RCS reduction will come with the MKI upgrade anyway, while the biggest advantage in that regard, is the full internal fuel carriage.

But an upgrade line is not the same as a production line for a fighter, so without new work, layoffs will be hard to avoid for HAL.
 

Steven Rogers

NaPakiRoaster
New Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,537
Likes
2,417
Country flag
Because weight reduction worked so well for LCA? In fact all of our indigenous aircraft projects, suffer from weight issues, although the high content of composites, so that's just a myth that we keep telling us to distract from the failures.
Also the Russians added composites and RAM coatings in their latest varients of Flankers and Fulcrum too, so a RCS reduction will come with the MKI upgrade anyway, while the biggest advantage in that regard, is the full internal fuel carriage.

But an upgrade line is not the same as a production line for a fighter, so without new work, layoffs will be hard to avoid for HAL.
It's no myth, had those parts metallic, LCA would have been heavier than what it is today.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
It's no myth, had those parts metallic, LCA would have been heavier than what it is today.
Because it's badly designed and developed, while other fighters in the same class have the same or even less weight, with far more metallic parts in it. So composites are no weight reduction factor for LCA.
 

Steven Rogers

NaPakiRoaster
New Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,537
Likes
2,417
Country flag
Because it's badly designed and developed, while other fighters in the same class have the same or even less weight, with far more metallic parts in it. So composites are no weight reduction factor for LCA.
It has far more fatty fuselage and wider wing than the aircrafts of its class.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk
 

Spectre

New Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
46
Likes
27
Country flag
What are the SEAD and DEAD capabilities of the su 30 mki.
Also, are FOD engines sent to Russia for repair (as was the case in the 2008)
What is the status of super 30?
Any chance we developed our own J16 D analogue?
 

scatterStorm

New Member
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
2,243
Likes
5,360
Country flag

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
What are the SEAD and DEAD capabilities of the su 30 mki.
They can use Kh31 anti radiation missiles and the long term goal is to add DRDOs own missile too.

Interesting, but should we design a tactic that is very obvious, i.e. Adversary like PLAN entering through Malacca strait. They won't be so dumb right. Further, MKI taking a air launched Brahmos under it's belly, would make it vulnerable, correct me if I am wrong but we can't fit any 2x A2A missiles with Brahmos right?
That's basically a "show" of force, we have the capability, but in war times it might not be deployed like that. The most likely scenario would be taking off from A&N in support of IN operations to counter a PLAN fleet, but no IFR by the simple fact that we have not enough tankers to spare them. IAF would focus on the land borders and refuelling AWACS and Air defence fighters.

Also Brahmos only works against PLANs surface fleet, while the real threat is their submarine fleet.

MKI can carry AAMS and if necessary other anti ship missiles too, but with the heavy Brahmos, the flight performance would be reduced of course , so a limited number of AAMs (2 x WVR + 2 x BVR missiles at least) for self defence would be likely.
 

indiatester

New Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
5,915
Likes
20,439
Country flag
They can use Kh31 anti radiation missiles and the long term goal is to add DRDOs own missile too.



That's basically a "show" of force, we have the capability, but in war times it might not be deployed like that. The most likely scenario would be taking off from A&N in support of IN operations to counter a PLAN fleet, but no IFR by the simple fact that we have not enough tankers to spare them. IAF would focus on the land borders and refuelling AWACS and Air defence fighters.

Also Brahmos only works against PLANs surface fleet, while the real threat is their submarine fleet.

MKI can carry AAMS and if necessary other anti ship missiles too, but with the heavy Brahmos, the flight performance would be reduced of course , so a limited number of AAMs (2 x WVR + 2 x BVR missiles at least) for self defence would be likely.
You are only thinking of sea denial by PLAN for IN. Infact we should be looking at choking Communist Navy's sea trade on which they are very much dependent.
While IN's surface ships may be bogged down because PLAN's submarines (tough ask in itself), we can use our air wing to choke their trade and oil in our sphere of operation.
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
You are only thinking of sea denial by PLAN for IN. Infact we should be looking at choking Communist Navy's sea trade on which they are very much dependent.
While IN's surface ships may be bogged down because PLAN's submarines (tough ask in itself), we can use our air wing to choke their trade and oil in our sphere of operation.
Well, you can't provide Sea Control from the air, all IAF could do in that regard, would be surveillance flights, but that would be a waste of the most advanced fighter in the fleet.
Also we surely won't attack civilian ships, unless they pose a threat to India, but even then, you wouldn't need a Brahmos to attack a non armored vessel.
 

indiatester

New Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
5,915
Likes
20,439
Country flag
Well, you can't provide Sea Control from the air, all IAF could do in that regard, would be surveillance flights, but that would be a waste of the most advanced fighter in the fleet.
Also we surely won't attack civilian ships, unless they pose a threat to India, but even then, you wouldn't need a Brahmos to attack a non armored vessel.
Su-30 will ensure that PLAN surface ships will not be able to operate within the area they can control. You are now only left to handle the sub-surface fleet.
Also don't think of the ships as "civilian ships" they must be considered as their supply lines and must be controlled accordingly. During hostilities, if they don't take orders from IN, then they must be disrupted. I'd be surprised if military thinking will designate them as "civilian" and not take appropriate action.
 

Articles

Top