We should be more than happy just for installing our own Uttam radar..
Altering everything except Engine and Frame is massive...
Sukhoi Su-30MKI
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
We should be more than happy just for installing our own Uttam radar..
Altering everything except Engine and Frame is massive...
If that money well spend, then mki will become again a formidable aircraft in region. But its HAL doing the work,probably they will be charging a premium for the work.
The main attractive part of MKI was it's maneuverability & it's Radar. There is nothing left inside that airframe to boast about. Now we are changing the Radar & probably adding few EW pieces.
Absolutely.
Heavily indigenised AL-31FP is almost a lock. As per some reports AL-31FP with MIDHANI developed parts has better TBO and performance too. So even if we don't change the engine(HVT confirmed it years ago), we're going to go with updated/uprated AL-31FP whether Russians like it or not.
Even if basic frame is not altered, new radar and avionics would mean new FBW mechanism. We could also change the outer aluminium skin with CFC composite skin without actually altering the inner titanium spars/frame. We have developed some cutting edge RAMs too that absorb almost 90% RF waves in X-Band. MKI UPG. will have much lower RCS than current one and is going to be much harder to both detect and track than now.
All in all the update is going to be comprehensive making MKI at par with 5th gen fighters sans VLO stealth.
Does that mean India may soon be able to produce its own engines, or it is Russians doing the modifications?
Indian hot parts to replace the Russian ones on the AL-31FP.
We have our own engine, Kaveri, it just doesn't yet have an aircraft. There's one coming up though, by 2025.
More than that, would probably need OEM permission or similar technicality, certification issues, might even hamper insurance cover.
Ideally if we replace the structure with suitable composite made parts it might even increase performance theoretically due to lesser all up weight. But OEM permission needed for that.
ACM was giving projection for the whole part of the deal imo, ie maybe the full lot they intend to upgrade & not just the first 85-90? Yes the cost maybe in phased manner like the upgrade itself.
I think FBW codes must be rewrite with any significant change in weight. For that we need Russian assistanv or complete dependence. @randomradio @vstoljockey can tell with authenticity in this
For the whole fleet its a very low number. For overhaul itself, it costs around ~$25 million. It cannot-be below that.
Its part of IAF budget, and we know they do upgrades in phased manner but the budget needs to be allocated for the overall program and submit a report.
It's just avionics, so the next batch could have entirely different ones.
I've read various estimates, so this is not set in stone. The last one I read was 30k Cr for 84. This could be for 150 jets, or it could include something else. We won't know the actual price until the contract is signed.
Yeah that is true. I expected an estimation of the entire project cost (which will be done in phased manner) in current pricing structure valid for a certain period of time, like how Govt tenders ask to quote price. Actual value of the deal will definitely be different after quoted price negotiation when it finally happens. Bit like the shipbuilding projects, you start with an estimated overall figure project cost which eventually gets overrun.
Never say never , but unlikely even for the contract. Only post election maybe.
I remember Dr Kota showing us some ADA slide of likely development timing of the jets, there is huge chasm between academic, political and industrial level of scheduling/timing , none match with each other.
No Russians are not involved in AL-31FP upgradation except certification. They are pushing for AL-41F-1S ala Su-30SM2.
@marich01
Replacing metallic skin and spars with CFC ones was always part of the original MKI program/plan/deal/concept. I think the MLU will include that, of course with OEM permission.
Stuff like that's meant to be just read and forgotten. It's like they say they need 5 years to do something, so that's considered 2028. But they are actually saying 5 years from start date, not 5 years from right this minute. But people just take that and run with it. The media's created that demon.
Timelines haven't changed a lot, only the start date has. I only concern myself with the start date. So when someone shows up and says we will have AMCA by 2032, I do a 2032-2023 = 9 years. "Okay, so they need 9 years to get it done," and then adjust the dates accordingly. So next year it's gonna be 2033, and the year after it's 2034 and so on.
Same with LCA Mk1A. They said 2022 back in 2019, but I added 2 more years as I waited until the signature in 2021 and a 2024 date was a no brainer to me.
So the graph makes sense to me.
LCA Mk1A = 2022, but is now 2024, this is pretty much set in stone. Add 2 years for LCA Mk2, AMCA Mk1 and AMCA Mk2 and we get 2028, 2031 and 2034. And we know these dates are more or less correct. If AMCA is delayed to next year, we get 2032 and 2035. And then I proceed to add 2 extra years to cater to delays beyond that. So 2030, 2034 and 2037.
