Even More MKIs? [Archive] - Defence Talk Forum

Haavarla

October 3rd, 2009, 06:51 PM

Just ran into an ARMS-TASS article claiming that India wants another 50 MKIs on top of the 230 currently agreed upon.

ÀÐÌÑ-ÒÀÑÑ (http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=76363&cid=24)

Is this a mistake? A hoax? Or is this serious? If it is, what would those MKIs replace?

I'm not sure the 50 new MKI's will replace anything, just add to the MKI's fleet.
If this stand true..

It could also be that the Indian DoD thinks the HAL production of the MKIs are going to slow.

"IAF wants 50 more Sukhois to counter China, Pakistan

NEW DELHI: With both China and Pakistan bolstering their air combat fleets, IAF is now seeking another 50 Sukhoi-30MKI multi-role "air dominance"
fighters to cater for any contingency on both the eastern and western

fronts. These 50 new Sukhois will in addition to the 230 of these twin-seater fighters already contracted from Russia in three deals worth upwards of $8.5 billion.

Having inducted 105 of the 230 Sukhois till now, IAF has already begun to base these jets in the North-East in a clear move to counter China's rapid modernisation of its armed forces. Incidentally, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd has been directed to complete the manufacture of 140 of the 230 Sukhois under transfer of technology by 2015 at all costs.

India's "dissuasive deterrence" military posture against China, after all, revolves around the Sukhois as well as the 3,500km nuclear-capable Agni-III missile, which will be ready for operational deployment by 2011, and the 5,000km range Agni-V missile in the pipeline.

IAF chief Air Chief Marshal P V Naik confirmed to TOI on Thursday that his force was indeed "interested" in acquiring more Sukhois, which will be the mainstay of India's fighter fleet for the forseeable future, to further enhance its combat potential.

Bombarded by a spate of questions on the military equation vis-a-vis China on day the People's Liberation Army showcased its staggering military might to mark 60 years of communism, ACM Naik said IAF's acquisition of combat capabilities was not "country or adversary-specific".

While exuding "confidence" that a repeat of the 1962 conflict was simply "not possible", the IAF chief said, "We need to develop certain capabilities which are required or will be required in the future in tune with India's aspirations."

IAF, after all, needs to project power as well as have "strategic reach" from Hormuz Strait near Persian Gulf right down to Malacca Strait, which India visualises as its primary area of geopolitical interest. In its quest to emerge as a "strategic aerospace force", IAF has embarked on a major modernisation drive, which ranges from Israeli AWACS and aerostat radars to American C-130J 'Super Hercules' aircraft."

IAF wants 50 more Sukhois to counter China, Pakistan - India - NEWS - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/IAF-wants-50-more-Sukhois-to-counter-China-Pakistan/articleshow/5079417.cms)

Thanks

dragonfire

October 3rd, 2009, 07:59 PM

Feanor

October 3rd, 2009, 10:25 PM

It could also be that the request is going public as a way of putting public pressure on the decision making process. I'm not well versed on Indian internal politics, but in Russia that tends to be the main reason that debates about weapon purchases are made public.

PhysicsMan

October 4th, 2009, 12:14 AM

Scorpion82

October 5th, 2009, 05:05 AM

I bet the Russians are pushing SU-35s instead... And why would the indians not want the 35s anyway? It's an obvious upgrade to the capabilities vs the MKIs, and the planes are not that different for maintenance and training purposes.

The Su-35 might look similar to the Su-30, but there're a lot of internal differences, which would add seperate spares, logistics etc. It's almost like operating to entirely different types. It makes no sense for the Indians to adopt the Su-35, they should rather opt for introducing some of its tech into the Su-30MKI, and that is at least planned to a certain extent.

dragonfire

October 5th, 2009, 05:22 AM

The Su-35 might look similar to the Su-30, but there're a lot of internal differences, which would add seperate spares, logistics etc. It's almost like operating to entirely different types. It makes no sense for the Indians to adopt the Su-35, they should rather opt for introducing some of its tech into the Su-30MKI, and that is at least planned to a certain extent.

Can you pls enumerate the differences between the Su-30MKI and the Su-35. AFAIK the Su-35 itself was built after being motivated by the improvements the Indian side brought by way purchasing various components to be integrated into the Su-30 which became the Su-30MKI. While am sure there might not be advantages beyond the marginal between the two and hence India not tbeing interested in a diff platform for 50 fighters, i would still like to understand the major differences esp the advancements of the Su-35 over the Su-30MKI just to know what the IAF could be missing or facing in years to come

dragonfire

October 5th, 2009, 05:54 AM

what would those MKIs replace?

In all Probability the Mig-21 Bis/M/MF/FL and the Mig-23 which were grounded and in all practical sense has been retired, these fighters which were getting replaced as such will be replaced by the MMRCA fighters as well. In total about (if my research is correct) 191 Mig-21s (non bison variants) would be retired in 2011 and i think some of those Pilots have already applied for VRS (voluntary retirement scheme) rather than go on to newer models. Mig-23 count was about 221 but only about 80 were operational as of last year. So 80 fighters this year plus 191 Mig-21s by 2011 is 271 AC being retired against which so far the addition has been about 105 Su-30MKI and the rest is being planned and finalised and ordered and expected :)

No wonder the IAF chief is jittery with all these ACs being retired so close to each other and which is why he has instructed the HAL guys to complete delivery on schedule

Scorpion82

October 5th, 2009, 06:19 AM

Can you pls enumerate the differences between the Su-30MKI and the Su-35. AFAIK the Su-35 itself was built after being motivated by the improvements the Indian side brought by way purchasing various components to be integrated into the Su-30 which became the Su-30MKI. While am sure there might not be advantages beyond the marginal between the two and hence India not tbeing interested in a diff platform for 50 fighters, i would still like to understand the major differences esp the advancements of the Su-35 over the Su-30MKI just to know what the IAF could be missing or facing in years to come

I doubt the Su-35 was influenced by the Su-30MKI, as the the former one is a Knappo product, while the later one is an IAPO product and both are competing with each other to a certain extend.

The Su-35 makes use of new material components, has a different internal structure, different avionics, different cockpit displays, different engines and different flight controls. Ofcourse I can't name you any single difference, but there are a lot of them in many crititcal areas.

Feanor

October 5th, 2009, 08:46 AM

Salty Dog

October 5th, 2009, 09:55 AM

Su-27UB->Su-30M->Su-30MKI/MKM/MKA.

It is difficult to pin down all the Flanker series designations. AFAIK the Su-30MK series was developed as an "export" version and are all distinctly twin seat (pilot/RIO). The Su-35 is single seat (although there is a Su-35UB twin seat). These are two different operational concepts which AFAIK the IAF logically would stay with the Su-30MKI variant.

IMHO the need for additional Su-30MKI arises not only due to concerns with China, but also with delays in the FGFA development.

dragonfire

October 5th, 2009, 11:02 AM

I doubt that the Su-35 will even be offered. KnAAPO has already received production orders for 48 Su-35S, as well as continuing modernization to SM for existing Su-27s. IAPO on the other hand could use some more orders, and it happens to be the one that builds the MKIs. India is also asking for the MKIs. It wouldn't make sense to push the Su-35 in those conditions. Though we have done stupid things before...

In a sense the revival of the Su-35 program (the original Su-35 was the Su-27M, and the current Su-35 seems to have taken features from the Su-27M as well as the Su-37 and Su-27SM) may have been stimulated by the success of the MKI. But the two are definetly not of the same lineage. The MKI is a development of the Su-27UB. The Su-35BM is a derivative of the Su-27S. They both go back to the T-10 prototype, but from there their paths split into the:
Su-27S->Su-35(27M)/Su-27SM->Su-35BM/Su-35S

and

Su-27UB->Su-30M->Su-30MKI/MKM/MKA.

It is difficult to pin down all the Flanker series designations. AFAIK the Su-30MK series was developed as an "export" version and are all distinctly twin seat (pilot/RIO). The Su-35 is single seat (although there is a Su-35UB twin seat). These are two different operational concepts which AFAIK the IAF logically would stay with the Su-30MKI variant.

IMHO the need for additional Su-30MKI arises not only due to concerns with China, but also with delays in the FGFA development.

Can either of you be able to help me to understand how the Su-35 (the curent one) has superior features (if any) over the SU-30 MKI, am unable to understand the same from the sources i have read. Currently India posses the most advanced Fighter in the Su-30MKI in the South Asia region (even if slightly so). Has China envinced any interest in the Su-35 ?. Although i think both countries were offered there havent been any orders

Feanor

October 5th, 2009, 11:05 PM

The Iribs should be a little ahead of the Bars. The Su-35BM has more advanced thrust vectoring. I don't know much about it's avionics, but it's suposed to be the platform to test early PAK-FA avionics on, so we can expect some new stuff to appear. It also allegedly uses advanced RAM, and other RCS-reducing techniques. The advantage does seem to be incremental, rather then principal.

It is difficult to pin down all the Flanker series designations. AFAIK the Su-30MK series was developed as an "export" version and are all distinctly twin seat (pilot/RIO). The Su-35 is single seat (although there is a Su-35UB twin seat).

I've never heard of an Su-35UB... is it something I missed?

Also actually it's not that hard to trace the Flanker lineages. All the two seats come from Su-27UB, and all the single-seaters from the Su-27S, with the exception of the Su-33 which came directly from the T-10K prototype, due to necessary body changes. The Su-30MK is just an Su-30M, that's getting exported. Where the real deviation starts is when India practically had the Su-30MK turned into a whole new aircraft, which was sold as the MKI.

dragonfire

October 6th, 2009, 12:35 AM

IAPO on the other hand could use some more orders, and it happens to be the one that builds the MKIs.

Does that mean that if the orders are given to IAPO for fighters in a fly - away condition they will be able to deliver in 3-4 yrs time or less from date of order ? . I ask beacuse i dont know about the production capability

dragonfire

October 6th, 2009, 12:46 AM

The Iribs should be a little ahead of the Bars. The Su-35BM has more advanced thrust vectoring. I don't know much about it's avionics, but it's suposed to be the platform to test early PAK-FA avionics on, so we can expect some new stuff to appear. It also allegedly uses advanced RAM, and other RCS-reducing techniques. The advantage does seem to be incremental, rather then principal.

Hmmm

The MKI is supposed to be updated to a newer variant where the Bars radar is going to be upgraded to AESA mode, to enhance the situational awareness AESA T/R modules are being fixed on the aircraft’s wings. Also radar absorbent material for IAF Su-30MKIs is also being developed to reduce the otherwise large RCS image on enemy radars, apparently the airframes are also getting modified to make them stealthy. There was also a talk that the Avionics being developed for the PAK-FA/FGFA can be incoporated into the new variant as well. All in all looks to me that a advanced variant of the Su-30MKI when it comes out will not be sufficently unbalanced against a Su-35. Thanks for the info Feanor

Feanor

October 6th, 2009, 02:09 AM

Does that mean that if the orders are given to IAPO for fighters in a fly - away condition they will be able to deliver in 3-4 yrs time or less from date of order ? . I ask beacuse i dont know about the production capability

Should be able to, yes. I know many plants have a backlog of orders, but I haven't heard of anything about IAPO being backlogged.

Salty Dog

October 6th, 2009, 08:43 AM

I've never heard of an Su-35UB... is it something I missed?

I recall seeing a photograph of a Su-35UB at an airshow (MAKS?) I do not have the source any longer. Perhaps it was an older model or the photo mis-labled?

Bonza

October 6th, 2009, 09:19 AM

I recall seeing a photograph of a Su-35UB at an airshow (MAKS?) I do not have the source any longer. Perhaps it was an older model or the photo mis-labled?

Google is telling me it's a two-seat trainer. Any help?

Feanor

October 6th, 2009, 02:20 PM

Toptob

October 6th, 2009, 03:31 PM

I'm not sure, but wasn't the SU-35 a more specialised air to air fighter, and the SU-30 a true multi-role aircraft? I thought the second seat was to augment the long range strike ability's of the MKI.

And why did they scrap the canards on the 35??

Feanor

October 6th, 2009, 05:37 PM

The canards were removed because of RCS issues. It was allegedy made up for by making the nose section lighter.

The current Su-35BM is a comlete multirole. The original Su-27M was only a modernized Su-27M, so yes it was mainly an air to air fighter. The original Su-30 however was also an air to air fighter, meant to serve as a leader aircraft for units of Su-27s.

Nysindhi

October 6th, 2009, 10:38 PM

The fact is that sukhoi Flanker was for air domination to have complete role the su-30 mki stands for multirole plue all weather and has to ability to carry future weapons on its weapons system that what makes it the best of the line---Su-30 is ones again Russia's temp answer to US-F22.

Thats Y china and India are not going for it now a days its all abut Multi role, Muti Weapons, and Multi objective's

OPSSG

October 7th, 2009, 12:32 AM

The fact is that sukhoi Flanker was for air domination...

Indian press is pretty fond of throwing around phrases like 'air domination', without context and without really being able to understand defence matters. May I suggest that you start by reading up 'The Air Campaign (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/warden/ward-toc.htm)' by Col. Warden, which deals with the concept of air superiority - rather than just using the term 'air domination' loosely, if we are to have a profitable discussion.

What do you mean by 'air domination'? I've listed a sliding sale below:

(i) air parity;
(ii) air superiority; and
(iii) air supremacy (which is very rarely used as a concept).

Where does your concept fit? Please also keep in mind that achieving air superiority is systems orientated and usually not just platform orientated.

su-30 mki stands for multirole plus all weather and has to ability to carry future weapons on its weapons system that what makes it the best of the line---Su-30 is ones again Russia's temp answer to US-F22.

The Su-30MK is a design developed from the Su-27UB (which was designed as a counter to the F-15). While the MKI is clearly an advance as it has major enhancements (such as, updated avionics, improved radar and a high proportion of non-Russian kit; canard fins; and thrust-vectored engines), it traces it's origins to the Su-27UB and the T-10UB. And Feanor will correct me, if I've got the Sukhoi model numbers wrong.

Edit: Turns out I did get the model number wrong and the post is amended to reflect Feanor's correction. [Many thanks]

IMO, the Sukhoi is in no way considered as a design that is an answer to a Fifth generation fighter. If you are going to make very counter intuitive statements, perhaps you might want to consider posting a source for your position and possibly an explanation on why you agree with that mis-informed source.

Thats Y China and India are not going for it now a days its all abut Multi role, Muti Weapons, and Multi objective's

Then you might want to explain why the JH-7 in service with the PLA was also seen carrying electronic warfare and countermeasures pods.

Nysindhi

October 7th, 2009, 12:44 AM

Buddy you u need to make sure of your info, What person says does not make it the law of the land, neather does twisting, bending meaning.

Look in the the Soviet Defence and research files you will know the difference between the Lingo when u say air domination it means to rule the SKY i hope u know what it unless some one defines SKY as some catagory where the WILD things rome free.

MKI-tailer maid for IAF, Flanker might look like the later sukhoi model but thats because people in industry call it design and function compatability wich says if you want a plane to performe in a setain way it has to be a sertain shape, what makes is leathel is the system that makes it function for its goal.

So may be the Russian Scientist are wrong may be they had to much Vodka may he the Military officer is the Next Newton i dont know But u need to get back to the reality of logical concept not what some dude publish on his view or experiance thats not the law of the land.

OPSSG

October 7th, 2009, 01:05 AM

Buddy you u need to make sure of your info, What person says does not make it the law of the land, neather does twisting, bending meaning.

I'm not your buddy and I really don't understand your spam like posts.

Look in the the Soviet Defence and research files you will know the difference between the Lingo when u say air domination it means to rule the SKY i hope u know what it unless some one defines SKY as some catagory where the WILD things rome free.

I see, no source and no links. Also an inability to read and to respond logically to another forum member. I have nothing further to say and I will not be responding to your future posts.

MKI-tailer maid for IAF...

Finally, one minor point in a very long and rambling post, which I note was also made in my prior post.

So may be the Russian Scientist are wrong may be they had to much Vodka may he the Military officer is the Next Newton i dont know But u need to get back to the reality of logical concept not what some dude publish on his view or experiance thats not the law of the land.

How is that relevant? Never mind. Please don't respond with more spam.

the road runner

October 7th, 2009, 02:27 AM

Buddy you u need to make sure of your info.

Im sure if you read some of OPSSG posts you would realise he is a trusted and insightful person on this forum......whos posts are admired for the content and understanding of weapons and platforms.......

Feanor may i ask.........
All Su27++ are also known as the T-10 concept?

I ask as i am reading the Su27 Flanker story.....by Andrei Fomins,he refers to them sometimes as the T-10 series.Are they known as the T-10 in Russia or Su27 ect?

Making an su-30 Flanker

YouTube - Making of a Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker

Regards

Bonza

October 7th, 2009, 02:42 AM

A UB is be definition a two-seater trainer. What you found on google is an Su-35UB from the Su-27M/35 model. That's why I was confused. The Su-35BM/S does not yet have a dedicated training variant as far as I know.

Ohhh, right. Cheers for clearing that up mate, I was wondering at the confusion. Silly me... :D

PhysicsMan

October 7th, 2009, 03:10 AM

The canards were removed because of RCS issues. It was allegedy made up for by making the nose section lighter.

I've read a Sukhoi engineer explain that the canards were a significant source of air drag, as they are on most planes, so removing them is an improvement for top speed and fuel consumption. The maneuverability was made up by improving thrust vectoring and control systems.

HKSDU

October 7th, 2009, 06:15 AM

I've read a Sukhoi engineer explain that the canards were a significant source of air drag, as they are on most planes, so removing them is an improvement for top speed and fuel consumption. The maneuverability was made up by improving thrust vectoring and control systems.
I would say having canards is redundant if you have TVC, or the other way around applies. As the stresses in the structure from the canards and reinforcement alteration of engine area, would far outway the minimal performance increase in having both TVC and Canards.

Feanor

October 7th, 2009, 07:36 PM

The Su-30MK is a design developed from the Su-27S (which was designed as a counter to the F-15). While the MKI is clearly an advance as it has major enhancements (such as, updated avionics, improved radar and a high proportion of non-Russian kit; canard fins; and thrust-vectored engines), it traces it's origins to the Su-27S. And Feanor will correct me, if I've got the Sukhoi model numbers wrong.

Yeah you did... unfortunately the VVS is fond of having overlapping designations. Ok let me clear this up...

T-10UB Su-27UB Su-30MK Su-30MK2 Su-30MKK Su-30MKV
Su-30MKI Su-30MKA Su-30MKM

T-10 T-10S Su-27S/SK Su-27SM Su-27SM2
Su-27M/35 Su-35BM
Su-37

T-10K Su-33
Su-27KUB

T-10V Su-27IB/34 Su-34(MF)

So no, the MKI is not in any way based on the Su-27S. It's based, originally on the Su-27UB. Let me know if my flow chart doesn't make sense.

PhysicsMan

October 7th, 2009, 09:52 PM

I would say having canards is redundant if you have TVC, or the other way around applies.

Have you ever seen a Typhoon do a Kulbit or a Herbst maneuver?..

OPSSG

October 7th, 2009, 11:00 PM

Yeah you did... unfortunately the VVS is fond of having overlapping designations. Ok let me clear this up...

T-10UB Su-27UB Su-30MK Su-30MK2 Su-30MKK Su-30MKV
Su-30MKI Su-30MKA Su-30MKM

T-10 T-10S Su-27S/SK Su-27SM Su-27SM2
Su-27M/35 Su-35BM
Su-37

T-10K Su-33
Su-27KUB

T-10V Su-27IB/34 Su-34(MF)

So no, the MKI is not in any way based on the Su-27S. It's based, originally on the Su-27UB. Let me know if my flow chart doesn't make sense.

I'm always afraid I'll get the model numbers wrong and in this case I did. Thanks for clearing this up, much appreciated. :D

Feanor

October 8th, 2009, 12:50 AM

No problem. I've gotten them mixed up myself in the past...

localhost127

October 8th, 2009, 09:44 AM

I've read a Sukhoi engineer explain that the canards were a significant source of air drag, as they are on most planes, so removing them is an improvement for top speed and fuel consumption. The maneuverability was made up by improving thrust vectoring and control systems.

are canards also a significant source of radar return? it seems like having extra moving/dynamic vertices on an aircraft would wreak havok on trying to minimize return. would it be possible to see canards on a 5th+ gen aircraft?

PhysicsMan

October 8th, 2009, 05:12 PM

are canards also a significant source of radar return? it seems like having extra moving/dynamic vertices on an aircraft would wreak havok on trying to minimize return. would it be possible to see canards on a 5th+ gen aircraft?

They can be made with RCS in mind by avoiding perpendicularity with the plane of the fuselage at the contact line (I guess depends on the shape of the fuselage,) and by aligning the edges. Shouldn't be much of a signal... The fact that they have to move, well, if they move, the aircraft moves at an angle at that point too and its signature increases/changes anyway, so I don't know if it's much of a problem...

tphuang

October 9th, 2009, 02:27 AM

Hmmm

The MKI is supposed to be updated to a newer variant where the Bars radar is going to be upgraded to AESA mode, to enhance the situational awareness AESA T/R modules are being fixed on the aircraft’s wings. Also radar absorbent material for IAF Su-30MKIs is also being developed to reduce the otherwise large RCS image on enemy radars, apparently the airframes are also getting modified to make them stealthy. There was also a talk that the Avionics being developed for the PAK-FA/FGFA can be incoporated into the new variant as well. All in all looks to me that a advanced variant of the Su-30MKI when it comes out will not be sufficently unbalanced against a Su-35. Thanks for the info Feanor
Let's see, it would be great if MKI can upgrade an "AESA" mode, the problem is that Russia doesn't have an AESA radar ready. As for AESA T/R modules being fixed on aircraft's wings, I think you are talking about the new L-band AESA installations speculated on su-35, it sounds very much of a marketing ploy. All modern fighters have RAM, there is nothing special about what MKI is getting.
Can you pls enumerate the differences between the Su-30MKI and the Su-35. AFAIK the Su-35 itself was built after being motivated by the improvements the Indian side brought by way purchasing various components to be integrated into the Su-30 which became the Su-30MKI. While am sure there might not be advantages beyond the marginal between the two and hence India not tbeing interested in a diff platform for 50 fighters, i would still like to understand the major differences esp the advancements of the Su-35 over the Su-30MKI just to know what the IAF could be missing or facing in years to come

well, the biggest difference that might cause logistics issue is using 117S instead of AL-31FP. That could require different lines of maintenance. Also, su-35 will have bigger power supply, a much more powerful radar in Irbis and more advanced cockpit from the pictures I've seen. As far as aerodynamics go, I'd have to leave that to more knowledgeable folks.

Ozzy Blizzard

October 9th, 2009, 03:22 AM

OPSSG

October 9th, 2009, 03:32 AM

Im sure if you read some of OPSSG posts you would realise he is a trusted and insightful person on this forum......whos posts are admired for the content and understanding of weapons and platforms.......

Thanks for the support and kind words. I'm sure your praise for me is not deserved. As Feanor has again demonstrated, I've got my Sukhoi model numbers wrong. Therefore, I have amended the post.

I feel that the key to getting along is to be willing to learn from others, especially if they know more than me. :)

Cheers

dragonfire

October 9th, 2009, 04:52 AM

Let's see, it would be great if MKI can upgrade an "AESA" mode, the problem is that Russia doesn't have an AESA radar ready. As for AESA T/R modules being fixed on aircraft's wings, I think you are talking about the new L-band AESA installations speculated on su-35, it sounds very much of a marketing ploy. All modern fighters have RAM, there is nothing special about what MKI is getting.

Well as per earlier announcements the MKI will have a Mk2 and later a Mk3 variant, am not sure if this will remain on paper or will see the light of day, so the R&D is on to make the MKI a better fighter than it already is, which includes advancements to Radar - however i found it strange that it was stated that the exsting Bars radar which is PESA radar can be upgraded to AESA 'mode' I am not too sure if that is a possibility or how it can be done and if the final result will be a complete AESA Radar or just some addon modules. As far as RAM coatings on the MKI is concerned it is currently not operationalised AFAIK so any future implementation would definitely be welcome

well, the biggest difference that might cause logistics issue is using 117S instead of AL-31FP. That could require different lines of maintenance. Also, su-35 will have bigger power supply, a much more powerful radar in Irbis and more advanced cockpit from the pictures I've seen. As far as aerodynamics go, I'd have to leave that to more knowledgeable folks.

Perhaps if the upgrade to the BARS radar is succesful then it might be an equaliser to that of the Irbis. Like i said earlier i doubt if the Mk2/Mk3 variant of the MKI would be vastly outclassed by the Su-35

Salty Dog

October 9th, 2009, 12:30 PM

The modernisation of the SU 30 MK1 aircraft is also expected to come up for discussion in the Commission’s meeting. The aircraft, contracted in 1996, are due for overhaul shortly and the Russian side has offered an upgrade of the aircraft with incorporation of the latest technologies during the major overhaul.

Extension of Defence Cooperation Agreement by Ten More Years to Top Agenda (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/108895/indian-minister-to-visit-russia%2C-extend-defense-pact-and-arms-deals.html)

It should be interesting to see the details of the proposed Su-30MKI upgrade package.

Feanor

October 11th, 2009, 12:20 AM

Just to clarify the 117S is now the AL-41S, with 96 of them ordered for the upcoming VVS Su-35 order.

hellfire

October 11th, 2009, 09:43 AM

Just to clarify the 117S is now the AL-41S, with 96 of them ordered for the upcoming VVS Su-35 order.

so does it mean that the PAK FA wil get the same engine.

Feanor

October 11th, 2009, 03:53 PM

Allegedly. Of course it will be modified, probably improved based on operating experience. Same with the avionics. That's essentially the point of using the proposed PAK-FA material on the Su-35BM.

Salty Dog

October 12th, 2009, 09:29 AM

AFAIK Phazotron (Zhuk-ASE) and Tikhomirov NIIP are developing AESA radars for the Su-35BM/Su-30MK. Any recent developments on these?

Haavarla

October 12th, 2009, 10:09 AM

AFAIK Phazotron (Zhuk-ASE) and Tikhomirov NIIP are developing AESA radars for the Su-35BM/Su-30MK. Any recent developments on these?

Zippo so far..
I imagine the NIIP N0035 PESA radar are much closer to service evaluation than those AESA..

I wonder if those 1996 prod Su-30MKI's that are slated for upgrades will get the N0035 PESA radar?

Thanks

Salty Dog

October 12th, 2009, 11:03 AM

Zippo so far..
I imagine the NIIP N0035 PESA radar are much closer to service evaluation than those AESA..

I wonder if those 1996 prod Su-30MKI's that are slated for upgrades will get the N0035 PESA radar?

Thanks
Thanks mate. The NIIP N035 Irbis-E AFAIK should be the production radar for the Su-35 as well as the upgrade radar for the IAF Su-30MKI. This is a PESA augmented with mechanical steering so is considered a "hybrid" ESA.

Haavarla

October 12th, 2009, 12:16 PM

Thanks mate. The NIIP N035 Irbis-E AFAIK should be the production radar for the Su-35 as well as the upgrade radar for the IAF Su-30MKI. This is a PESA augmented with mechanical steering so is considered a "hybrid" ESA.

Thx.
A few more question.

Do the NIIP N035 Irbis-E come with electronic scanning in elevation/azimuth on top of the mechanical steering?

With the power of this radar, it will undoutebly light up like a Xmas tree on the enemy AWACS screens if transmitting on full gain and so on.
Much like the radar on the Mig-31 do.

But this Irbis-E beeing a considerble newer radar with better software, different modes and better noise reduction filters/ computer power..
How much more jamming resistance will it be over the BARs on the current MKI's?

Will it have any mode where it can transmitt/receive in considerble weaker gain level, like training mode etc etc?
Edit: I was thinking more in a "passive search mode.."?

Thanks

Feanor

October 12th, 2009, 04:01 PM

Just to add a little detail, given that the Su-35S is entering serial production... I would imagine that the Irbis is ready for prouction also.

Haavarla

October 12th, 2009, 04:13 PM

Just to add a little detail, given that the Su-35S is entering serial production... I would imagine that the Irbis is ready for prouction also.

You say IS entering production.
Do you have any indication if the KNAAPO Su-35S series prod line have started?

If not, when can we expect it to start?

Thanks

Salty Dog

October 12th, 2009, 05:57 PM

Do the NIIP N035 Irbis-E come with electronic scanning in elevation/azimuth on top of the mechanical steering?

The Irbis-E should have the same phased array electronic steering as the NIIP N011B BARS, +/-70 degrees in azimuth and +/-40 degrees in elevation. I do not know the mechanical parameters.

But this Irbis-E beeing a considerble newer radar with better software, different modes and better noise reduction filters/ computer power..
How much more jamming resistance will it be over the BARs on the current MKI's?

The Irbis-E is claimed to have twice the bandwidth and more frequency agility than the BARS, so yes it should have a better ECCM capability.

Will it have any mode where it can transmitt/receive in considerble weaker gain level, like training mode etc etc?

I do not know.

Feanor

October 12th, 2009, 08:37 PM

You say IS entering production.
Do you have any indication if the KNAAPO Su-35S series prod line have started?

If not, when can we expect it to start?

Thanks

The engines have already been ordered, and the delivery date is ~2011. So I'd imagine it's already started, to make those deadlines. I'll see if I can get anything more definite.

dragonfire

October 13th, 2009, 02:15 AM

The Irbis-E should have the same phased array electronic steering as the NIIP N011B BARS, +/-70 degrees in azimuth and +/-40 degrees in elevation. I do not know the mechanical parameters.

The Irbis-E is claimed to have twice the bandwidth and more frequency agility than the BARS, so yes it should have a better ECCM capability.

@ SD

Any ideas on the range on the Irbis-E as compared to that of the Bars on the MKI as well the diff in terms of no of targets which can be scanned and tracked ?

Thanks in Advance !

Haavarla

October 13th, 2009, 03:57 AM

@ SD

Any ideas on the range on the Irbis-E as compared to that of the Bars on the MKI as well the diff in terms of no of targets which can be scanned and tracked ?

Thanks in Advance !

The N011M BARS radar:

In the air to air mode:
The N011M Bars offers a true look down, shoot down capability with a detection range of 140 km against a target with a Radar cross section (RCS) of 2 m2. Up to 15 air targets can be tracked at once in track-while-scan mode with 4 of these engaged at once.
The N011M can use a number of short range and speed search modes and is capable of identifying the type and number of multiple targets.
The Bars radar is compatible with R-77 and R-27 radar guided missiles providing both illumination and data-link guidance as well as the R-73 IR guided missile.

In air to ground mode:
In the air to surface mode the radar is capable of detecting ground and naval based moving targets, determining their location and maintaining a track on two surface targets at once.
The N011 is capable of detecting a tank sized target to a range maximum range of 50 km and a destroyer sized target to a range of 150 km.
Bars also features a mapping mode using either real beam, dopplar beam sharpening or Synthetic aperture radar with a maximum resolution of 10 meters.
The Kh-31 anti-radiation missile is also compatible with the radar.
We can also add the Bhramos missile here.

IRBIS-E radar:

Air to Air mode:
The N035's computing system consists of two Russian Solo-35 processors. A new two-stage mechanical drive mounts the phased array. The passive electronic array scans 60° in azimuth and elevation, while the mechanical steering enables the array to rotate an additional 60° for a wider search zone.
The Irbis-E is capable of tracking of up to 30 aerial targets in track-while-scan mode and allows simultaneous engagement of two targets using semi-active radar homing missiles or up to eight targets using active radar homing missiles. The Irbis-E is advertised to be capable of detecting and tracking a fighter-sized target head-on at 350-400 km range using its long-range detection mode within a limited sector. It is also claimed to be capable of detecting 'super-low-observable' targets with 0.01 m2 RCS at 90 km range.

Thats 4 targets engaged at once, 15 tracked and 140 km target at RCS 2m2 on the Bars.

Thats 2 semi-activ homing/ 8 activ-homing target engaged at once, 30 tracked and 90km target at 0.01 m2 RCS on the IRBIS-E radar.

Feel free to correct me here, this is strictly wiki stuff..

Thanks

tphuang

October 14th, 2009, 12:39 AM

The N011M BARS radar:

In the air to air mode:
The N011M Bars offers a true look down, shoot down capability with a detection range of 140 km against a target with a Radar cross section (RCS) of 2 m2. Up to 15 air targets can be tracked at once in track-while-scan mode with 4 of these engaged at once.
The N011M can use a number of short range and speed search modes and is capable of identifying the type and number of multiple targets.
The Bars radar is compatible with R-77 and R-27 radar guided missiles providing both illumination and data-link guidance as well as the R-73 IR guided missile.

In air to ground mode:
In the air to surface mode the radar is capable of detecting ground and naval based moving targets, determining their location and maintaining a track on two surface targets at once.
The N011 is capable of detecting a tank sized target to a range maximum range of 50 km and a destroyer sized target to a range of 150 km.
Bars also features a mapping mode using either real beam, dopplar beam sharpening or Synthetic aperture radar with a maximum resolution of 10 meters.
The Kh-31 anti-radiation missile is also compatible with the radar.
We can also add the Bhramos missile here.

IRBIS-E radar:

Air to Air mode:
The N035's computing system consists of two Russian Solo-35 processors. A new two-stage mechanical drive mounts the phased array. The passive electronic array scans 60° in azimuth and elevation, while the mechanical steering enables the array to rotate an additional 60° for a wider search zone.
The Irbis-E is capable of tracking of up to 30 aerial targets in track-while-scan mode and allows simultaneous engagement of two targets using semi-active radar homing missiles or up to eight targets using active radar homing missiles. The Irbis-E is advertised to be capable of detecting and tracking a fighter-sized target head-on at 350-400 km range using its long-range detection mode within a limited sector. It is also claimed to be capable of detecting 'super-low-observable' targets with 0.01 m2 RCS at 90 km range.

Thats 4 targets engaged at once, 15 tracked and 140 km target at RCS 2m2 on the Bars.

Thats 2 semi-activ homing/ 8 activ-homing target engaged at once, 30 tracked and 90km target at 0.01 m2 RCS on the IRBIS-E radar.

Feel free to correct me here, this is strictly wiki stuff..

Thanks

those are the commonly mentioned numbers for Irbis. A while ago, China tested them and found they were able to track 0.1 m^2 targets from 100 km out. Theoretically, it's capable of tracking stealth aircraft at a reasonable range to use medium range AAM. It's no question a very good radar, but not exactly the most stealthy out there.

Also, I don't really like this x targets engaged spec. In most cases, you are not going to be engaging that many target aircraft at the same time. If a flanker carries 6 medium ranged AAM and 2 short ranged AAM (which I think is quite a lot already), how many targets do you think you will be engaging concurrently?

Haavarla

October 14th, 2009, 03:00 AM

those are the commonly mentioned numbers for Irbis. A while ago, China tested them and found they were able to track 0.1 m^2 targets from 100 km out. Theoretically, it's capable of tracking stealth aircraft at a reasonable range to use medium range AAM. It's no question a very good radar, but not exactly the most stealthy out there.

Also, I don't really like this x targets engaged spec. In most cases, you are not going to be engaging that many target aircraft at the same time. If a flanker carries 6 medium ranged AAM and 2 short ranged AAM (which I think is quite a lot already), how many targets do you think you will be engaging concurrently?

Right.
I was only compairing the two radars.
The most interesting feature will be the broader bandwith.
If they really can make the IRBIS-E more jamming resistance, and better nose/clutter filters.
It would indeed surpass the BARS radar.

Thanks

dragonfire

October 19th, 2009, 07:56 AM

The N011M BARS radar:

In the air to air mode:
The N011M Bars offers a true look down, shoot down capability with a detection range of 140 km against a target with a Radar cross section (RCS) of 2 m2. Up to 15 air targets can be tracked at once in track-while-scan mode with 4 of these engaged at once.
The N011M can use a number of short range and speed search modes and is capable of identifying the type and number of multiple targets.
The Bars radar is compatible with R-77 and R-27 radar guided missiles providing both illumination and data-link guidance as well as the R-73 IR guided missile.

In air to ground mode:
In the air to surface mode the radar is capable of detecting ground and naval based moving targets, determining their location and maintaining a track on two surface targets at once.
The N011 is capable of detecting a tank sized target to a range maximum range of 50 km and a destroyer sized target to a range of 150 km.
Bars also features a mapping mode using either real beam, dopplar beam sharpening or Synthetic aperture radar with a maximum resolution of 10 meters.
The Kh-31 anti-radiation missile is also compatible with the radar.
We can also add the Bhramos missile here.

IRBIS-E radar:

Air to Air mode:
The N035's computing system consists of two Russian Solo-35 processors. A new two-stage mechanical drive mounts the phased array. The passive electronic array scans 60° in azimuth and elevation, while the mechanical steering enables the array to rotate an additional 60° for a wider search zone.
The Irbis-E is capable of tracking of up to 30 aerial targets in track-while-scan mode and allows simultaneous engagement of two targets using semi-active radar homing missiles or up to eight targets using active radar homing missiles. The Irbis-E is advertised to be capable of detecting and tracking a fighter-sized target head-on at 350-400 km range using its long-range detection mode within a limited sector. It is also claimed to be capable of detecting 'super-low-observable' targets with 0.01 m2 RCS at 90 km range.

Thats 4 targets engaged at once, 15 tracked and 140 km target at RCS 2m2 on the Bars.

Thats 2 semi-activ homing/ 8 activ-homing target engaged at once, 30 tracked and 90km target at 0.01 m2 RCS on the IRBIS-E radar.

Feel free to correct me here, this is strictly wiki stuff..

Thanks

Wiki on the Su-30MKI page states that

N011M has a 350 km search range and a maximum 200 km tracking range, and 60 km in the rear hemisphere. The radar can track 15 air targets and engage 4 simultaneously. These targets can even include cruise missiles and motionless helicopters. The Su-30MKI can function as a mini-AWACS as a director or command post for other aircraft. The target co-ordinates can be transferred automatically to at least four other aircraft. The radar can detect ground targets such as tanks at 40–50 km.

Which info is taken probably from the bharth rakshak page on the IAF Su-30s (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Specs/Su-30.html)

The search range is mentioned as 350 km and a tracking range of 200 km, and they have some radar element fitted on the tail which enables a tracking range of 60 km in the rear atmosphere, which is significantly higher than from the info taken from the bars page on wiki..

Perhaps the range mentioned in the Bharath Rakshak page is about bomber / civilian aircraft sizes at those high ranges. AAP has a very detailed pictorial description on the comparitive capabilities of the radar (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html#mozTocId674405), which sticks to the detail mentioned by you in the post, wonder which is correct

Salty Dog

October 19th, 2009, 12:06 PM

Wiki on the Su-30MKI page states that

Which info is taken probably from the bharth rakshak page on the IAF Su-30s (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Specs/Su-30.html)

The search range is mentioned as 350 km and a tracking range of 200 km, and they have some radar element fitted on the tail which enables a tracking range of 60 km in the rear atmosphere, which is significantly higher than from the info taken from the bars page on wiki..

Perhaps the range mentioned in the Bharath Rakshak page is about bomber / civilian aircraft sizes at those high ranges. AAP has a very detailed pictorial description on the comparitive capabilities of the radar (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html#mozTocId674405), which sticks to the detail mentioned by you in the post, wonder which is correct

I agree at those ranges those targets are probably very large, also atmospheric conditions were probably favorable.

BTW the AN/AWG-9 on the F-14A in the 1970's could acquire air targets up to 210 km, track (24) and engage (6) simultaneously. The final version of the AN/APG-71 on the F-14D increased these ranges up to 370 km.

Haavarla

November 6th, 2009, 03:27 PM

NPO SATURN

The 117С engine is a deep modernization of the AL-31F engine (generation 4++)

The 117С is an aircraft turbofan engine with a variable thrust nozzle of generation 4++ developed by NPO Saturn to the Sukhoi Design Bureau order for the export Su-35 fighter.

The 117С engine is a deep thrust-life modernization of the AL-31FP, which will be installed on the latest Sukhoi Su-30/Su-30MKI aircraft.

The modernized engine thrust has been increased by 16% compared to the base AL-31FP engine, and has reached 14500 kgf, the lifetime has been doubled, up to 4000 hours.

Such high parameters, on retention of the overall dimensions and weight, are attained due to application of an absolutely new high-tech low pressure compressor with increased air flow and efficiency, a new high-performance turbine of increased reliability with an improved blade cooling system and digital engine control system integrated with the aircraft control system.

The declared parameters have been confirmed in the course of the demonstrator engine bench and flight tests. A special NPO Saturn achievement is a stable and reliable operation of the engine at Mach number exceeding 2, which was obtained in the course of the demonstrator flight tests.

As for geometry and attachment points on the aircraft, the 117С engine conforms to its predecessors, generation 4 AL-31F and AL-31FP engines. This makes it possible, with slightly developed engine nacelles and equipment, to use the 117С engine for modernization of the entire aircraft fleet of previously manufactured Su-27/Su-30, operational both by the Russian and foreign Air Force.

On 19 February 2008, a new 117С-powered Su-35 aircraft successfully performed its first test flight.

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/!new/index.php?pid=156

When will the Su-30 series be equipped with these engines?
Could it be the four Su-30 that will emerge in the RuAF procurment deal?

Thanks

SkolZkiy

November 10th, 2009, 09:34 AM

May be - but nobody knows it right now. I think yes, because there are no other engines to build.

Haavarla

November 10th, 2009, 11:39 AM

Also, I don't really like this x targets engaged spec. In most cases, you are not going to be engaging that many target aircraft at the same time. If a flanker carries 6 medium ranged AAM and 2 short ranged AAM (which I think is quite a lot already), how many targets do you think you will be engaging concurrently?

Sure, but what about the networking capability of the Su-35 new radar?
Lets say if one Su-35 are transmitting on full active mode followed by four Su-27SM transmitting in passive mode.
Couldn't the Su-35 get fire solution for the other flankers as well?

I'm not sure how far the Russian gotten on the networking, but i think thats why modern radars today can fire x missile..

Thanks

johnny.hoffman8

November 10th, 2009, 12:37 PM

I bet the Russians are pushing SU-35s instead... And why would the indians not want the 35s anyway? It's an obvious upgrade to the capabilities vs the MKIs, and the planes are not that different for maintenance and training purposes.

I can answer to your question. Indian Air Force simply called for TWO-seater version for their operational doctorine for air-superiority mission in long range. Two-seaters will help their pilots to relieve the mentally exhaustive and effectiveness in team working and networking. Even British Royal Air Force pilots are very impressed with Indian pilots for their aggressiveness and intelligence in superior fighter, Su-30MKI. There are Su-MKI mk.3 version that will intergrate 5th generation technology for their own FGFA seperately from Russian's Pak-Fa. FGFA is also two-seater stealth air-superiority fighter as request of operational doctorine of Indian Air Force.

SkolZkiy

November 11th, 2009, 03:40 AM

Sure, but what about the networking capability of the Su-35 new radar?
Lets say if one Su-35 are transmitting on full active mode followed by four Su-27SM transmitting in passive mode.
Couldn't the Su-35 get fire solution for the other flankers as well?

I'm not sure how far the Russian gotten on the networking, but i think thats why modern radars today can fire x missile..

Thanks

This mode was in MiG-31 in 80-s. MiG-31 and Su-30 (it was planned that Su-30 would be a fighter of targeting and control) are capable for the control of a group of 4 Su-27 or MiG-29.
Su-35 have all this systems.
I don't know about "remote control" of the fighters in a group but transmitting information about current observerd situation it of course is able

Andracottus

November 11th, 2009, 08:59 AM

The su 30 is one of the finest crafts .the more the better.

dragonfire

November 11th, 2009, 09:05 AM

The su 30 is one of the finest crafts .the more the better.

Welcom to DT. Pl read the rules of the forum, generaly one liners are not accepted. Your post would fall into that category. Read the rules and your stay would be pleasant

Andracottus

November 11th, 2009, 09:13 AM

i dont understand

dragonfire

November 11th, 2009, 09:21 AM

i dont understand

Click on the link below it is the link to the page detailing this forum's rules. Read that page completely. Read up different threads that interest you and then start posting releavantly and in a manner which is in accordance to the rules

http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

Feanor

November 17th, 2009, 05:55 PM

Haavarla

November 18th, 2009, 05:32 AM

There were earlier questions about the production line for the Su-35 starting up, it's starting up right now. "?????" ????? ????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ????? ???????????? ??-35? | ??????? ? ???????????? | ????? ???????? "??? ???????" (http://rian.ru/defense_safety/20091117/194121777.html)

And the final delivery date is apparently 2015, not 2011, which means these fighters were purchased with special budget allocations, outside the regular 2009-11 budget.

Ok, so that would equal to about 9 aircraft a year.
Which mean we'll see at least 4-9 Su-35S next year.
Thx for the update.

Edit:
Are there any more info on what the upcoming batch of 12 Su-27SM will contain?
Radar, engines, ewe, jammers etc etc..
Perhaps a SM2 upgrade?

Thanks