Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E

[average american]

http://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=6nis2u9lq9vhf

Which Sukhoi? The SU-35 Platform


SU-35 ?


As one of our readers noted, DID's articles from 2005-2007 seem to describe 2 different SU-35s. One was a mid-life modernized SU-27 Flanker, but there's also a much more re-engineered "SU-35"³ variant with canards, thrust vectoring, etc. which has been confused with (and possibly redesignated between) the SU-37. So"¦ what do we mean by "SU-35"³?

Until very recently, only KnAAPO had listed the SU-35 as a product on its site; Sukhoi now does so as well, but Irkut does not. If this seems confusing, it's because Sukhoi subcontracts production to affiliate firms – IAIA (Irkut) and KnAAPO (Komsomolosk un Amur). Each has their own intellectual property, and their own interests. In addition, the designation "SU-35"³ has been used in several different contexts over the years. It has been referred to, and even photographed, in ways that referred to both mid-life Flanker upgrades, and canard-equipped next-generation aircraft. KnAAPO's site added the confusion by showing SU-35 pictures on its type page and gallery that display the aircraft both with and without canard foreplanes.

The current "SU-35"³, which has been definitively described by Sukhoi, appears to be something of a compromise between the upgrade and full redesign visions. Reader assistance, and sources from Sukhoi and various media, offer an outline of its key systems and characteristics.


SU-35 flight, 2008
(click to view full)

""¦(known as Su-35BM by some sources- ie. T-10BM to the original Su-27s internal T-10S designation). Differences and features largely speak for themselves in the video, but a short summary follows as related in various other sources follows:

1 – N035 Irbis-E PESA (Passive Electronically Scanned Array) Radar, a follow-on to the Bars-M.
2 – No canards
3 – Rear-looking self-defense radar in shorter tail sting
4 – AL-37FU/ 117S thrust-vectoring turbofan engines rated at 142-147kN
5 – Extended high-lift devices with large flaperon occupying the full trailing edge of the wing
6 – L175M Khibiny-M electronic-warfare self-defense system
7 – Reduced-area empennage
8 – Larger Air Intakes
9 – New and lighter systems, including quadruple digital fly-by-wire flight-control system.
10- New man-machine interface with fully-glass cockpit with two large LCD screens and helmet mounted display."



Movable nozzles
(click to view full)

Sukhoi says that the fighter's structures have been reinforced because of the increased takeoff and landing weight of the aircraft, and the front bearing has 2 wheels for the same reason. Performance is touted as 1,400 km/h (Mach 1.14) at sea-level, and 2,400 km/h (Mach 2.26) at altitude, with a ceiling up to 10 km/ 60,000 feet. Sukhoi has not touted loaded supercruise (Mach 1+, with weapons and without afterburners), which is likely to require improved engines. Thrust vectoring adds new dimensions of maneuverability, however, once pilots understand when to use it and when to avoid it.

The SU-35S will also depend on its sensors. It couples an electronically-scanned array radar with a 2-step electro-hydraulic drive unit, which creates a maximum radar beam deflection angle of 120 degrees. The NIIP Tikhomirov Irbis-E passive phased-array can reportedly detect and tracks up to 30 air targets, simultaneously engaging up to 8. It can also reportedly detect, choose and track up to 4 ground targets, and engage 2. Detection ranges of over 400 km/ 240 miles have been reported for airborne targets, which are the easiest, but resolutions are unspecified. Detecting a 747 passenger jet at 400 km is much easier than detecting a JAS-39 Gripen lightweight fighter, and information about the radar's resolution would be needed before its real capabilities would be clear.

Full stealth jets like the F-22A Raptor, of course, create drastic reductions in radar detection range that make them a special case. In an emerging age of stealth fighters, therefore, the 80+ km detection range of the SU-35S' IRST (infra-red search and track) system is very significant.

The SU-30 family has never been especially stealthy, and their overall airframe design limits what one can accomplish in this area. Nevertheless, Sukhoi cites an unspecified amount of "reduced reflectance" for the SU-35 in the X-band, which is a popular choice for modern radars, and in the angle range of plus or minus 60 degrees. Further improvements were made during testing by adding radar-absorbent materials, and removing or modifying protruding sensors that create radar reflection points.

The reported service life of the new aircraft is 6,000 flight hours, with a planned operational life of 30 years. The claimed service life of NPO Saturn 117S thrust-vectoring engines is 4,000 hours. Time will tell.
China is buying 25 SU35s.

 

[p2prada]

Ok, it couldn't make it to negotiation stage even when requirement was well recognized.

Scorpene negotiations began in 1999. It was in 2004 that Amur was offered. They had nothing to do with anything. Amur wasn't discarded in favor of Scorpene. Basically the Amur offer was nothing but smoke. The Russians merely offered it parallel to Scorpene. There were negotiations with L&T to set up a second line for manufacturing Amurs in parallel with Scorpenes.

I will repeat again. The Amur offer had nothing to do with Scorpene.

And still case like Rafale exists.

One out of 10000. It may never happen ever again.

Point was there is no rigid rule to say India always acquired unproven platforms.

Buying unproven systems is what first rate militaries all over the world do.

F-22, F-35, PAKFA, AMCA, FMBT, Armata, Zumwalt class, Ford class, Kolkata class, Type 052D, J-20, J-21/31, P-8 etc are all unproven systems and only first rate militaries will be the first to use these. Why don't you get this simple point?

Compared to the above, F-15, Rafale, EF, Su-35, Delhi class, Type 052, Arleigh Burke, Nimitz etc are all second rate systems today. But they are all proven and are cheaper compared to the newer systems.

You want a proven system it should have undergone anywhere between 5 and 15 years in the force. That's when it becomes a proven system. But such a system is made obsolete by a newer system. So, IAF will always go for a new, unproven system rather than stay a generation behind with a proven system which will take another 5 to 10 years for induction anyway.

I still don't know how you don't get it. Rafale is a proven system of the yester-years. It stands no chance against a 5th gen system. It is being purchased for two reasons, injecting technology into our industry and filling up the gap in numbers. Nothing more.

In that case, Govt should just keep pouring the money to have tomorrow's capability saying that what exists today is not capable enough.

Yes. That is how the world works. That is how the defence industry works. There should be R&D programs for new aircraft every 15 years or else our technology will be obsolete.

The US developed the F-15 in the 70s, F-22 in the 90s, F-35 in the 2010s and whatever comes next after that.

The Russians developed the Su-27 in the 80s, Su-35 in the 2000s and PAKFA in the 2010s.

The French and British may lose their aerospace edge if they don't start their own project, joint or not, in the next 10-15 years.

We are no different. LCA Mk1 took too long, but now we have LCA Mk2. As soon as Mk2 finished we started AMCA. Once AMCA is done we will think of a new project for the future. There would be parallel projects for the first generation of Scramjet based aircraft after that.

Progress is natural. Electronics become obsolete every 7 years. Aircraft become obsolete every 15 years. Ships becomes obsolete after every 25 years.

No wonder they did not dump mmrca tender to develop new mmrca.

Why would they dump the MRCA tender for a new MRCA development? We are actually doing both projects. We purchased Rafales and are having a parallel AMCA project for a new MRCA requirement.

It is simple. Get Rafales now, fill numbers, by the time production ends in the 2025 period we will start AMCA production. Once AMCA production ends sometime around 2040 we must start production of a new replacement aircraft for the Rafales and MKIs. This may be the non-existent, completely unproven 6th gen aircraft.

And where is Lada??

B-585 Sankt Petersburg, commissioned in 2010.

Oh boy! Navy does not favor putting attack missiles like Brahmos in VLS for new subs. Whole saga passed over it some time ago.

Right. You talk of new requirements for AIP without knowing that that Amur has AIP and now you are changing the requirements for LACM on P-75I. Heck the Kilo class subs were recently modified to carry and fire Klub missiles and you think Brahmos is not part of the P-75I.

Brahmos capability is part of the tender. We don't know if it will be for Brahmos 1 or Brahmos 2 because the timeframe is more suitable for Brahmos 2.

Amur 950 with VLS.

 

[p2prada]

http://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=6nis2u9lq9vhf

Which Sukhoi? The SU-35 Platform

SU-35 ?

As one of our readers noted, DID's articles from 2005-2007 seem to describe 2 different SU-35s. One was a mid-life modernized SU-27 Flanker, but there's also a much more re-engineered "SU-35"³ variant with canards, thrust vectoring, etc. which has been confused with (and possibly redesignated between) the SU-37. So"¦ what do we mean by "SU-35"³?

There are various Flanker versions with the designation Su-35. One is the Su-27M with Canards and was the basis for the MKI design. There is one called Su-35UB, which was the KNAAPO competitor to the MKI and was offered to Korea in 2002. The one offered to China is the Su-27M2 which is the Su-35BM (export name) or Su-27SM2 / Su-35S (VVS name).

None of these are mid-life modernizations. The Russian MLU for Su-27S is called the Su-27SM. It has nothing to do with the above aircraft.

Su-35BM offered to China is pretty much a new aircraft compared to the basic Su-27. You can say it is like what the Super Hornet is to the Hornet or the Super Fulcrum is to the Fulcrum. So it's like what a Super Flanker is to the Flanker.

 

[nrj]

Scorpene negotiations began in 1999. It was in 2004 that Amur was offered. They had nothing to do with anything. Amur wasn't discarded in favor of Scorpene. Basically the Amur offer was nothing but smoke. The Russians merely offered it parallel to Scorpene. There were negotiations with L&T to set up a second line for manufacturing Amurs in parallel with Scorpenes.

I will repeat again. The Amur offer had nothing to do with Scorpene.

Amur was offered all since 2001.

The proposal couldn't cut in because engine was crap too.

One out of 10000. It may never happen ever again.

You use words like always & never. And they contradict.

Buying unproven systems is what first rate militaries all over the world do.

F-22, F-35, PAKFA, AMCA, FMBT, Armata, Zumwalt class, Ford class, Kolkata class, Type 052D, J-20, J-21/31, P-8 etc are all unproven systems and only first rate militaries will be the first to use these. Why don't you get this simple point?

Compared to the above, F-15, Rafale, EF, Su-35, Delhi class, Type 052, Arleigh Burke, Nimitz etc are all second rate systems today. But they are all proven and are cheaper compared to the newer systems.

You want a proven system it should have undergone anywhere between 5 and 15 years in the force. That's when it becomes a proven system. But such a system is made obsolete by a newer system. So, IAF will always go for a new, unproven system rather than stay a generation behind with a proven system which will take another 5 to 10 years for induction anyway.

First rate militaries are not buying. They are developing. France did not buy Rafale. US did not buy F22 or B2 or Hornets.

I still don't know how you don't get it. Rafale is a proven system of the yester-years. It stands no chance against a 5th gen system. It is being purchased for two reasons, injecting technology into our industry and filling up the gap in numbers. Nothing more.

And you claimed that we always purchase in-development platforms of future.

Yes. That is how the world works. That is how the defence industry works. There should be R&D programs for new aircraft every 15 years or else our technology will be obsolete.

The US developed the F-15 in the 70s, F-22 in the 90s, F-35 in the 2010s and whatever comes next after that.

The Russians developed the Su-27 in the 80s, Su-35 in the 2000s and PAKFA in the 2010s.

The French and British may lose their aerospace edge if they don't start their own project, joint or not, in the next 10-15 years.

We are no different. LCA Mk1 took too long, but now we have LCA Mk2. As soon as Mk2 finished we started AMCA. Once AMCA is done we will think of a new project for the future. There would be parallel projects for the first generation of Scramjet based aircraft after that.

Progress is natural. Electronics become obsolete every 7 years. Aircraft become obsolete every 15 years. Ships becomes obsolete after every 25 years.

It is not as simple as you chose to put it in Cost Vs Capability before saying that "If you want reliability + costs then you buy a proven system" meaning proven systems come with more reliability. And that was my earlier point.

You are just agreeing with me here along with putting much unrelated OT.

Why would they dump the MRCA tender for a new MRCA development? We are actually doing both projects. We purchased Rafales and are having a parallel AMCA project for a new MRCA requirement.

AMCA is not answer for today's MRCA requirement. If India was so poised for in-developemt platform like you suggested, it would have had own MRCA instead of tender. But oh wait, reliability was factor.

It is simple. Get Rafales now, fill numbers, by the time production ends in the 2025 period we will start AMCA production. Once AMCA production ends sometime around 2040 we must start production of a new replacement aircraft for the Rafales and MKIs. This may be the non-existent, completely unproven 6th gen aircraft.

Yes, it is simple. Get reliable available platform.

B-585 Sankt Petersburg, commissioned in 2010.

Wonder how much can its engine pull? How much power requirement it is meeting?

Ask report by none other than Russian Navy Staff.

Right. You talk of new requirements for AIP without knowing that that Amur has AIP and now you are changing the requirements for LACM on P-75I. Heck the Kilo class subs were recently modified to carry and fire Klub missiles and you think Brahmos is not part of the P-75I.

Check the archives of P75 threads.

You are not keeping up these days, are you?

 

[gokussj9]

@p2prada

How does Super MKI matches up to Su-35 in layman terms? :cool2:

 

[nrj]

That is why they selling it to China, as retribution for not having a chance in India. It really is their own fault. Amur is a shoddy piece of work that can't even make 10 knots.

Amur's propulsion has failed to the stage that they are considering building more Kilos than putting money down the drain

Program is more or less suspended.

St Petersburg has miserably failed and couldn't meet even basic design characteristics.

 

[p2prada]

Amur was offered all since 2001.

The proposal couldn't cut in because engine was crap too.

Lol.

You use words like always & never. And they contradict.

Always depends on the context, never in practice.

First rate militaries are not buying. They are developing. France did not buy Rafale. US did not buy F22 or B2 or Hornets.

Okay, let me correct it. First rate militaries always buy. IAF buys, USAF buys, ALA buys, VVS buys. But it is companies which make. LM makes, Boeing makes, Sukhoi makes, DRDO makes etc.

First rate militaries always buy first rate, unrpoven systems.

And you claimed that we always purchase in-development platforms of future.

Pretty much it. MKI was developed for India. We were there throughout the development and flight testing in Russia followed by manufacture.

Mirage-2000 was introduced in 1982, we got our first jet in 1985.

Mig-29 was introduced in 1983, we got our first jet in 1986.

It is, oh, so obvious that we have almost always purchased unproven systems. As a matter of fact all our best systems today were unproven systems at first.

One small rare case like Rafale where we bought an old proven system and you are assuming all the wrong things.

It is not as simple as you chose to put it in Cost Vs Capability before saying that "If you want reliability + costs then you buy a proven system" meaning proven systems come with more reliability. And that was my earlier point.

Yes, but they become obsolete by the time they are inducted.

MRCA was a competition between obsolete aircraft. It is cost vs capability because when it is cheap you get lesser capability, albeit proven. In case of the unproven 5th gen systems, the costs are high but the capabilities are "many" times greater than 4th gen systems.

When LM says the F-35 is 400% more capable than Rafale in air to air combat, I believe them.

You are just agreeing with me here along with putting much unrelated OT.

There is nothing that I have agreed with you in any of your posts here.

AMCA is not answer for today's MRCA requirement. If India was so poised for in-developemt platform like you suggested, it would have had own MRCA instead of tender. But oh wait, reliability was factor.

India wasn't capable of launching a MRCA program in the 90s. There is a huge difference between wanting the capability and having the capability.

You could have thrown $100Billion on LCA and still the problems wouldn't be solved.

We were not capable of even thinking of starting a MRCA project.

Tender was the only option.

Yes, it is simple. Get reliable available platform.

It will be obsolete by the time it is inducted.

Wonder how much can its engine pull? How much power requirement it is meeting?

So what? Teething problems and is part of development.

Check the archives of P75 threads.

You are not keeping up these days, are you?

LOL. Even if it is true I won't believe it. Every single submarine today is capable of firing missiles. It is a basic requirement.

Amur comes with fitment for Brahmos or is at least designed for it. Scorpene and other competitors don't. At least as of today.

Livefist: FIRST PHOTOS: BrahMos Underwater Variant Maiden Launch

 

[p2prada]

@p2prada

How does Super MKI matches up to Su-35 in layman terms? :cool2:

Depends on the engine.

MKI will have better avionics for sure. Right from radars and computers to self protection suite.

 

[p2prada]

Russia to Resume Construction of Diesel Subs | Defense | RIA Novosti

Russia will resume series production of non-nuclear Project 677 Lada-class submarines, Navy chief Vice Adm. Viktor Chirkov said on Friday.
Construction of two Lada-class subs, the Sevastopol and the Kronshtadt, was frozen because of the project's purported inefficiency.
Chirkov said the technical project has been adjusted and construction of the two subs will resume shortly.
The "fourth generation" diesel-electric submarine features quieter, new combat systems and air-independent propulsion.

 

[nrj]

Lol.

Wow! This is your response?

Admiralteyskiye shipyard promoted Amur to India when sub was laid down.

Always depends on the context, never in practice.

And both have contradicted.

Okay, let me correct it. First rate militaries always buy. IAF buys, USAF buys, ALA buys, VVS buys. But it is companies which make. LM makes, Boeing makes, Sukhoi makes, DRDO makes etc.

First rate militaries always buy first rate, unrpoven systems.

Told you to keep the development & Purchase separate.

Pretty much it.

Oh so from omniscient declaration like always we have come to pretty much?

Valid assessment.

Yes, but they become obsolete by the time they are inducted.

MRCA was a competition between obsolete aircraft. It is cost vs capability because when it is cheap you get lesser capability, albeit proven. In case of the unproven 5th gen systems, the costs are high but the capabilities are "many" times greater than 4th gen systems.

When LM says the F-35 is 400% more capable than Rafale in air to air combat, I believe them.

You are again agreeing with my point.

India wasn't capable of launching a MRCA program in the 90s. There is a huge difference between wanting the capability and having the capability.

You could have thrown $100Billion on LCA and still the problems wouldn't be solved.

We were not capable of even thinking of starting a MRCA project.

Tender was the only option.

And that is the specific case of India defying declarations you made.

It will be obsolete by the time it is inducted.

Doesn't matter. It stands up to the job needed.

So what? Teething problems and is part of development.

Amur is a failed program.

Construction of 2nd sub is indefinitely suspended because propulsion became joke when it couldn't even meet half of projection.

Powerplants have gone so bad in 1st sub (declared experimental even after completing hull) that 2nd sub if constructed won't be featuring AIP.

It is only after watching performance of st. petersburg it was determined that if practical AIP if to be implemented on Amur, it will need significant design change.

LOL. Even if it is true I won't believe it. Every single submarine today is capable of firing missiles. It is a basic requirement.

Amur comes with fitment for Brahmos or is at least designed for it. Scorpene and other competitors don't. At least as of today.

Livefist: FIRST PHOTOS: BrahMos Underwater Variant Maiden Launch

Okay, don't believe it. Fact is navy wants to utilize VLS for defese against ASW bodies in new line of subs while tubes can be used for attack.

So yes, Lada if constructed should feature SAM version of Brahmos

 

[nrj]

Russia to Resume Construction of Diesel Subs | Defense | RIA Novosti

Construction can be resumed if Rubin can come up with new powerplant instead of traditional failed batteries

You are giving link of July 2012.

Check Russian Navy's statement in later half of 2012.

 

[p2prada]

Wow! This is your response?

It was for the engine is crap declaration that you made.

Told you to keep the development & Purchase separate.

You are being silly. There is not a single force in the world that has developed a weapon. Every single army, air force or navy in the world only buys weapons. Development and purchase are the same. It is just that somebody else develops the unproven system for us, regardless of who buys it.

Oh so from omniscient declaration like always we have come to pretty much?

You are clutching onto straws here. You are only trying to save face in a lost discussion. Out of possibly 10000 purchases we probably made one which wasn't an unproven system. You have a black or white picture of this, what can I do if you are being stubborn about it.

Then again, there are a lot of technologies on Rafale which remain unproven. Like the AESA and the NG grade avionics. Russian AESA is also unproven but we still opted for it.

You are again agreeing with my point.

You never made such a point. If you did please point it out.

And that is the specific case of India defying declarations you made.

Like I said, it is a one off situation. If the tender was placed even a few years before, Rafale would have been an unproven system.

Btw, the IAF version of Rafale was an unproven system when the tender first started.

Doesn't matter. It stands up to the job needed.

It is a numbers filler and a backup in case LCA Mk2 program is delayed while infusing new technology into the country. So, yes it stands up to the job it is required for. Nevertheless it will eventually be obsolete when 5th gen aircraft are inducted in numbers. It is just that our enemies won't be any better off which gives Rafale survivability advantages.

Amur is a failed program.

Construction of 2nd sub is indefinitely suspended because propulsion became joke when it couldn't even meet half of projection.

You are reading too much in the media statements. China wouldn't be placing orders or even negotiation orders if they agreed with every media statement that is made, let alone it being a failure. Even if the propulsion is a failure it can be changed. At least the Russians are capable of doing it. And they are too.

Powerplants have gone so bad in 1st sub (declared experimental even after completing hull) that 2nd sub if constructed won't be featuring AIP.

It is only after watching performance of st. petersburg it was determined that if practical AIP if to be implemented on Amur, it will need significant design change.

Naturally, even the old Scorpene cannot have AIP in it. They are progressing to a newer design for the last two subs. You are reading too much into it. If IN has allowed design changes for the last two Scorpenes in order to get AIP, then what's the problem with the same not being done on Amur. Of course, the age old reason that all Russia haters have, Russia is not capable.

Okay, don't believe it. Fact is navy wants to utilize VLS for defese against ASW bodies in new line of subs while tubes can be used for attack.

It is the opposite. You use torpedo tubes for defense and VLS for attack. That is the concept for using VLS anyway, it frees up the torpedo tubes for defense while the Brahmos can continue with land attack and ASuW duties.

So yes, Lada if constructed should feature SAM version of Brahmos

What???

I think you are confused about what the VLS is meant for. Brahmos Aerospace wouldn't be claiming Brahmos is ready for the P-75I if they didn't plan for it.

You are giving link of July 2012.

Check Russian Navy's statement in later half of 2012.

Please provide this statement that came after July 2012. The last I heard construction would resume this year.

 

[nimo_cn]

I really don't uderstand how much difference it will make by importing 24 aircrafts. That figure is just too odd.

 

[nrj]

It was for the engine is crap declaration that you made.

Engine was crap. It has miserable failed. New powerplants are needed not because previous engine was well successful. And you keep denying with lol.

Amur did not cut in and India chose Scorpene in past.

You are being silly. There is not a single force in the world that has developed a weapon. Every single army, air force or navy in the world only buys weapons. Development and purchase are the same. It is just that somebody else develops the unproven system for us, regardless of who buys it.

You are clutching onto straws here. You are only trying to save face in a lost discussion. Out of possibly 10000 purchases we probably made one which wasn't an unproven system. You have a black or white picture of this, what can I do if you are being stubborn about it.

I already gave you examples of Scorpene, Rafale. I have eye for absolutes and will reject statements with always. If I am being silly then you are being omniscient. I will not pursue this further.

You never made such a point. If you did please point it out.

Point was, out-of-development platforms were chosen because of reliability.

It is a numbers filler and a backup in case LCA Mk2 program is delayed while infusing new technology into the country. So, yes it stands up to the job it is required for. Nevertheless it will eventually be obsolete when 5th gen aircraft are inducted in numbers. It is just that our enemies won't be any better off which gives Rafale survivability advantages.

MMRCA will be obsolete even when MK2 starts induction, if at all they succeed in meeting schedule.

You are reading too much in the media statements.

Russian navy is not media.

China wouldn't be placing orders or even negotiation orders if they agreed with every media statement that is made, let alone it being a failure. Even if the propulsion is a failure it can be changed. At least the Russians are capable of doing it. And they are too.

We don't know who showed interest first, Russia offered or China approached.

Both will be able to operationalize project if money keeps flowing in bags & deal is not time sensitive.

Naturally, even the old Scorpene cannot have AIP in it. They are progressing to a newer design for the last two subs. You are reading too much into it. If IN has allowed design changes for the last two Scorpenes in order to get AIP, then what's the problem with the same not being done on Amur.

For starters, Amur does not have power to run even half of its requirements. That is where Scorpene scores.

Of course, the age old reason that all Russia haters have, Russia is not capable.

And Russian lovers who believe in Russia delivering moon. Lets not go there.

It is the opposite. You use torpedo tubes for defense and VLS for attack. That is the concept for using VLS anyway, it frees up the torpedo tubes for defense while the Brahmos can continue with land attack and ASuW duties.

What???

I think you are confused about what the VLS is meant for. Brahmos Aerospace wouldn't be claiming Brahmos is ready for the P-75I if they didn't plan for it.

I will not be beating dead horse, definitely not here. VLS Brahmos, P75 design plans & clash of interests with Brahmos corp is well discussed over year ago. Check archives of P75, Brahmos threads. Check my posts. Check Nitish's posts.

Please provide this statement that came after July 2012. The last I heard construction would resume this year.

Construction resumption is subject to availability of new powerplant which can pull it enough.

Lada-Class Subs May Receive New Powerplants

 

[p2prada]

Engine was crap. It has miserable failed. New powerplants are needed not because previous engine was well successful. And you keep denying with lol.

That's fine. It would mean a new propulsion system over the old.

Nobody is denying this. It is your assertion that Amur was in some sort of a tender against Scorpene.

Amur did not cut in and India chose Scorpene in past.

India started negotiations for Scorpenes in 1999. No matter what was offered after that what's the point. The US can offer the F-35 today, a year after we started negotiations for Rafale. Do you think IAF will accept it. In 10 years you will say Rafale was chosen over F-35.

I already gave you examples of Scorpene, Rafale. I have eye for absolutes and will reject statements with always. If I am being silly then you are being omniscient. I will not pursue this further.

Scorpene and proven. Do you even know what proven means? Even today Scorpene is not proven. It exists in some small militaries and not even crossed 10 years in operational service.

Point was, out-of-development platforms were chosen because of reliability.

Yes, I accept it. But this is one off. For every one such transaction there will be 100 transactions for in development projects. When Barak 8 was chosen it was an in-development project. We had the Shtil-1, it is a well proven system, but still we are going for Barak 8 regardless of the 3 year delay for the Kolkata class. See the difference.

MMRCA will be obsolete even when MK2 starts induction, if at all they succeed in meeting schedule.

Yes, both will be obsolete. But both will fill numbers up and the enemy is not any better either. Even they will be inducting J-10Bs, Su-35s and JF-17B3s by then while waiting for 5th gen replacements for even older aircraft. All we have to do is buy a system that is better than what they can buy even if it is the same generation.

Russian navy is not media.

Even their quotes. You are reading too much into it.

We don't know who showed interest first, Russia offered or China approached.

Deals have to be mutual. Nobody can force the other. If Russia is willing to sell, China should be willing to buy. Russia advertises products during air shows, China would have offered to purchase after the Russian offer to sell. That's how it works for all products. It needs to be offered first.

It not like you will be banging on the doors of Apple Inc today for an Iphone 6. You gotta wait.

It is very rare that a product is not offered for export, but it is made clear during development itself when the system is not offered for export.

Like the F-22 is not offered for export. Brahmos 2 was not even in the development stage when officials announced it is not up for export.

Both will be able to operationalize project if money keeps flowing in bags & deal is not time sensitive.

The same for us. Construction of the first sub may start at the end of the decade for us, that is considering the RFP is sent out this year. Plenty of time for two large countries to fix issues, build them in decent numbers and then sell to us.

For starters, Amur does not have power to run even half of its requirements. That is where Scorpene scores.

These are not things that will affect the Indian deal. Fact is the Amur or the Lada class has interest in the Russian Navy, while France has no interest in purchasing Scorpenes for itself. They want to sell their old sub while they are working on the new Marlin class.

And Russian lovers who believe in Russia delivering moon. Lets not go there.

You still don't understand. Their requirements match ours in a lot of areas as compared to a smaller country like France. Their SSKs are more proven than the French. On top of that they can deliver the subs for a lower cost.

Heck you are clamoring so much for proven technology and and the same time you laugh at the Russian requirement for the Improved Kilos, which belong to a class of subs that was pretty much the best when it came out, functional in many militaries and a very well proven system. You contradict your own statements.

I will not be beating dead horse, definitely not here. VLS Brahmos, P75 design plans & clash of interests with Brahmos corp is well discussed over year ago. Check archives of P75, Brahmos threads. Check my posts. Check Nitish's posts.

P-75 won't be getting Brahmos. Everybody knows that. The Scorpene cannot carry the Brahmos as it is today. Only the last two subs will have AIP.

P-75A or P-75I is the new project. Brahmos is part of that. Here you can question the French ability to fit VLS in time and at lesser costs. Brahmos is part of the Amur package.

Construction resumption is subject to availability of new powerplant which can pull it enough.

You think Russia cannot deliver a new powerplant. Heck, for every one project they will have two or three powerplant options.

Anyway,
Lada-Class Subs May Receive New Powerplants

 

[nrj]

That's fine. It would mean a new propulsion system over the old.

Nobody is denying this. It is your assertion that Amur was in some sort of a tender against Scorpene.

Amur was offered to India, India chose Scorpene later.

Check notes of Aleksandra Gritskova or Konstantin Lantratov in 2005.

Scorpene and proven. Do you even know what proven means? Even today Scorpene is not proven. It exists in some small militaries and not even crossed 10 years in operational service.

I did not say it has passed proven stage. As faced with Amur, Scorpene scores well above on design characteristics. Because amur has failed to establish its worthiness even today.

Even their quotes. You are reading too much into it.

There is nothing much to read in facts.

Russia advertises products during air shows, China would have offered to purchase after the Russian offer to sell. That's how it works for all products. It needs to be offered first.

That exactly was the meaning of my post.

The same for us. Construction of the first sub may start at the end of the decade for us, that is considering the RFP is sent out this year. Plenty of time for two large countries to fix issues, build them in decent numbers and then sell to us.

If at all Amur can first pull itself enough to establish worthiness.

These are not things that will affect the Indian deal. Fact is the Amur or the Lada class has interest in the Russian Navy, while France has no interest in purchasing Scorpenes for itself. They want to sell their old sub while they are working on the new Marlin class.

Russian Navy has suspended program. They have interest because they don't have any other option. Otherwise they are back to old design.

You still don't understand. Their requirements match ours in a lot of areas as compared to a smaller country like France. Their SSKs are more proven than the French. On top of that they can deliver the subs for a lower cost.

Told you won't pursue this further.

P-75 won't be getting Brahmos. Everybody knows that. The Scorpene cannot carry the Brahmos as it is today. Only the last two subs will have AIP.

P-75A or P-75I is the new project. Brahmos is part of that. Here you can question the French ability to fit VLS in time and at lesser costs. Brahmos is part of the Amur package.

Navy's requirement in new subs is well discussed in threads I mentioned before. Brahmos is part of Amur, not P75A/B.

You think Russia cannot deliver a new powerplant. Heck, for every one project they will have two or three powerplant options.

Yes they will deliver, nobody knows when

 

[p2prada]

Amur was offered to India, India chose Scorpene later.

Check notes of Aleksandra Gritskova or Konstantin Lantratov in 2005.

Scorpene predates Amur. If we started negotiations for Scorpene in 1999, then we were offered the sub well before that.

You still don't get it, you don't know how MoD functions. Just to start negotiations for Scorpenes in 1999, do you even realize how much longer it would have taken the Navy to get the project approved first, get RFI done, send out RFP and then begin contract negotiations. Even the submarine construction approval came from MoD in 1997.

How many years has it been since P-75I was first mooted? Things came to light only in 2007 or 2008 and who knows how many years before that. Even today they are only thinking of sending out RFPs. Who knows how many years it will take for contract negotiations. In the light of these simple facts do you think a 2001 Amur offer means anything.

Like I said, if US offers the F-35 instead of Rafale today, in 10 years you will claim F-35 lost out to Rafale. An offer has nothing to do with actual negotiations.

In the end I would also say that in 1997 MoD approved two submarine projects. One was the Scorpene project and the other was Arihant. So, why would we give everything to the Russians when Rubin was asked for cooperation with Arihant. So one project for the French and the other for the Russians. Not that Amur was offered before that.

I did not say it has passed proven stage.

No need to backtrack. Or you wouldn't have put Scorpene and Rafale in the same sentence.

As faced with Amur, Scorpene scores well above on design characteristics. Because amur has failed to establish its worthiness even today.

That's nonsense. I would agree with the failure in the propulsion system. But you are assuming everything on the Amur would be faulty because of that. You are also assuming the Amur would continues to have problems when our contract comes up for processing.

There is nothing much to read in facts.

Yes, there is. Here is another little fact for you. The Amur they are testing today may not even be close to the version the Russians are offering to us. The stuff on the Chinese sub could be entirely different compared to what India may get. Heck there could be big differences between the subs Russia, China or India may get. India wants AIP, Russia does not. So that requirement alone will need design changes which will make our sub different from that of the Russians. China, I don't know.

The Russian submarine projects are "massive." The sub they operate may not even be close to the sub we may operate. Only the name may be the same. Still there are so many sub classes within the same project which remain secret.

You are thinking of submarine projects like it is the case for aircraft. You are assuming all the wrong things.

That exactly was the meaning of my post.

Then what was your point?

It is the same for every project, not just Amurs. The exporter needs to offer first. Purchase offers and interest comes after that.

If at all Amur can first pull itself enough to establish worthiness.

Wait and watch then. China wouldn't have show interest if that was the case.

Russian Navy has suspended program. They have interest because they don't have any other option. Otherwise they are back to old design.

Suspension is different from cancellation.

Navy's requirement in new subs is well discussed in threads I mentioned before. Brahmos is part of Amur, not P75A/B.

Brahmos is part of P-75I/A. It is not part of P-75. Are you confused between the two?

What is P-75B? Never heard of it.

LACM is an integral part of the requirements with the Kilo class submarines and also P-75 Scorpene. Kilos fire Klub-N while Scorpenes carry Exocet. P-75I will expand in order to carry Brahmos.

Anyway, this is the difference between the two subs.

It is a speculative design but shows the subs size in relation to the size of the Brahmos. Also shows why the Amur is a better anti-ship platform compared to Scorpene P-75.

Unlike Scorpene, S-80 will be needed with modifications to carry Brahmos. S-80 is really a well modified Scorpene, perhaps the French can deliver one in the future for the P-75I. Size is the constraint for why Scorpene from P-75 won't carry Brahmos, that much is obvious.

In case the French are unable to fit VLS on a Scorpene redesigned to carry it, then it will fall behind the Amur.

Yes they will deliver, nobody knows when

The Scorpenes being offered by France are not developed as of today either. So we need to see when France delivers the same too. This will be a much bigger version compared to P-75 Scorpene. Supposed to come with Brahmos VLS because the sub's length needs to be extended by at least 10m.

We also need to sit back and think what were the exact reasons Spain cancelled the Scorpene project and went with the S-80 instead. Of course we don't know and won't know. But the S-80 is something like what the Scorpene will be in the P-75I.

 

[nrj]

Scorpene predates Amur. If we started negotiations for Scorpene in 1999, then we were offered the sub well before that.

You still don't get it, you don't know how MoD functions. Just to start negotiations for Scorpenes in 1999, do you even realize how much longer it would have taken the Navy to get the project approved first, get RFI done, send out RFP and then begin contract negotiations. Even the submarine construction approval came from MoD in 1997.

First sub was laid 1997. It was promoted since then by the shipyard to India.

No wonder even after so many years Lada can not meet its projections. Good thing India did by not go with amurs.

No need to backtrack. Or you wouldn't have put Scorpene and Rafale in the same sentence.

Look at Amur & Scorpene together. Tell me which submarine can pull itself today.

That's nonsense. I would agree with the failure in the propulsion system. But you are assuming everything on the Amur would be faulty because of that. You are also assuming the Amur would continues to have problems when our contract comes up for processing.

Sonar is poor, power can not match half of requirement. Amur has failed in today's date.

Yes, there is. Here is another little fact for you. The Amur they are testing today may not even be close to the version the Russians are offering to us. The stuff on the Chinese sub could be entirely different compared to what India may get. Heck there could be big differences between the subs Russia, China or India may get. India wants AIP, Russia does not. So that requirement alone will need design changes which will make our sub different from that of the Russians. China, I don't know.

The Russian submarine projects are "massive." The sub they operate may not even be close to the sub we may operate. Only the name may be the same. Still there are so many sub classes within the same project which remain secret.

You are thinking of submarine projects like it is the case for aircraft. You are assuming all the wrong things.

You are talking all irrelevant to cover reading into Amur program suspension due to failure in such a stage where st.petersburg would be last sub in class to be kept as experimental prototype.

Then what was your point?

It is the same for every project, not just Amurs. The exporter needs to offer first. Purchase offers and interest comes after that.

Read earlier posts. You are going round.

Wait and watch then. China wouldn't have show interest if that was the case.

And you know China has shown interest themselves.

Suspension is different from cancellation.

Amur was rejected for acceptance by Russian Navy.

Brahmos is part of P-75I/A. It is not part of P-75. Are you confused between the two?

What is P-75B? Never heard of it.

LACM is an integral part of the requirements with the Kilo class submarines and also P-75 Scorpene. Kilos fire Klub-N while Scorpenes carry Exocet. P-75I will expand in order to carry Brahmos.

Anyway, this is the difference between the two subs.

It is a speculative design but shows the subs size in relation to the size of the Brahmos. Also shows why the Amur is a better anti-ship platform compared to Scorpene P-75.

Unlike Scorpene, S-80 will be needed with modifications to carry Brahmos. S-80 is really a well modified Scorpene, perhaps the French can deliver one in the future for the P-75I. Size is the constraint for why Scorpene from P-75 won't carry Brahmos, that much is obvious.

In case the French are unable to fit VLS on a Scorpene redesigned to carry it, then it will fall behind the Amur.

The Scorpenes being offered by France are not developed as of today either. So we need to see when France delivers the same too. This will be a much bigger version compared to P-75 Scorpene. Supposed to come with Brahmos VLS because the sub's length needs to be extended by at least 10m.

We also need to sit back and think what were the exact reasons Spain cancelled the Scorpene project and went with the S-80 instead. Of course we don't know and won't know. But the S-80 is something like what the Scorpene will be in the P-75I.

You are talking too much of OT.

VLS Brahmos is not part of 6 submarines (known to you as P75-I) to be inducted post Scorpene under construction. I told you about Navy requirement already. Rest of the discussion is in relevant threads.

 

[p2prada]

Read earlier posts. You are going round.

You need to read your own first.

And you know China has shown interest themselves.

I don't get your point. That statement is as natural as they come. China has to show interest themselves.

Amur was rejected for acceptance by Russian Navy.

No. Lada was rejected, for a propulsion system that won't be the same as on the Amur version for India.

You are talking too much of OT.

Of course you have no arguments against it.

VLS Brahmos is not part of 6 submarines (known to you as P75-I) to be inducted post Scorpene under construction. I told you about Navy requirement already. Rest of the discussion is in relevant threads.

I would like a source claiming this.

 

[nrj]

You need to read your own first.

I don't get your point. That statement is as natural as they come. China has to show interest themselves.

Then don't ask for the same point again & again.

No. Lada was rejected, for a propulsion system that won't be the same as on the Amur version for India.

Yes Lada was rejected by Russian Navy. Amur was not selected by India.

You are claiming different propulsion on Amur & Lada as if they exist or you know them. Tell us about those two different propulsion.

Of course you have no arguments against it.

Your ignorance is ridiculous. You refuse to look in relevant thread about information you don't know about & accuse others of having no argument? Rich coming from you.

I would like a source claiming this.

Everyone likes the source. It is there. It has been there. One needs to open threads and read it. Oh and yes it is there outside this forum too.

Prasun K Sengupta, Trishul 2009

Frontier India 2010

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-navy/12181-project-75-i-next-gen-subs-rfp-issued-16.html