Sukhoi Su-30MKI

[Ashwin]

To keep the Nashik facility occupied, HAL hopes to overhaul the entire Su-30MKI fleet there. The fighter must be overhauled after completing 1,500 flying hours or 14 years in service, whichever comes first. The IAF calculates that its fleet of 272 Su-30MKIs would, at its peak, require 30 fighters to be overhauled each year.
It was planned that HAL Nashik would overhaul 20 fighters per year, while the IAF’s 11 Base Repair Depot, also located at Nashik, would overhaul the other ten.
“Now we are thinking differently. Rather than have HAL Nashik lying idle – with its 7,000 employees and 4,000 acres of real estate -- we should enhance our capacity and overhaul all 30 Sukhois ourselves”, says Raju.
Overhauling a fighter involves stripping it to its bare bones, checking each system and sub-system, replacing worn-out components, and then reassembling the rejuvenated fighter.
Over each fighter’s total service life of 6,000 flying hours or 30-40 years, it would be overhauled thrice – adding up to 816 overhauls for the 272-strong Su-30MKI fleet. Doing this in India is significantly cheaper than flying each fighter to Russia.

As Sukhoi-30MKI production nears end, HAL worries about future orders

 

[randomradio]

Big question for me is whether al-31 can power a huge AESA like su-30 nose size one will be.

Unlikely.

Even the Russians were talking about how the AL-31FP on Su-30SM cannot power the Irbis-E. A sufficiently advanced AESA radar with GaN will most definitely not be powered by the AL-31FP. Even with GaAs, it's going to be a tall task.

Hell, we may be forced to carry an APU just to power the electronics in case the engine is not changed, which is not a good idea.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

To keep the Nashik facility occupied, HAL hopes to overhaul the entire Su-30MKI fleet there. The fighter must be overhauled after completing 1,500 flying hours or 14 years in service, whichever comes first. The IAF calculates that its fleet of 272 Su-30MKIs would, at its peak, require 30 fighters to be overhauled each year.
It was planned that HAL Nashik would overhaul 20 fighters per year, while the IAF’s 11 Base Repair Depot, also located at Nashik, would overhaul the other ten.
“Now we are thinking differently. Rather than have HAL Nashik lying idle – with its 7,000 employees and 4,000 acres of real estate -- we should enhance our capacity and overhaul all 30 Sukhois ourselves”, says Raju.
Overhauling a fighter involves stripping it to its bare bones, checking each system and sub-system, replacing worn-out components, and then reassembling the rejuvenated fighter.
Over each fighter’s total service life of 6,000 flying hours or 30-40 years, it would be overhauled thrice – adding up to 816 overhauls for the 272-strong Su-30MKI fleet. Doing this in India is significantly cheaper than flying each fighter to Russia.

As Sukhoi-30MKI production nears end, HAL worries about future orders

Any report if the Astra is now being equipped? Or the manufacturing is still to begin?

 

[Milspec]

Big question for me is whether al-31 can power a huge AESA like su-30 nose size one will be.

easily.
The generators on an aircraft are carefully sized to meet the power requirements, so with the right gearbox, it is easy to uprate the power. There ample shaft power on tap.

 

[Milspec]

Unlikely.

Even the Russians were talking about how the AL-31FP on Su-30SM cannot power the Irbis-E. A sufficiently advanced AESA radar with GaN will most definitely not be powered by the AL-31FP. Even with GaAs, it's going to be a tall task.

Hell, we may be forced to carry an APU just to power the electronics in case the engine is not changed, which is not a good idea.

BS.
What it means is the generator is not adequately sized as the SU-30SM was designed for a low power PESA N011M radar. Not that the Engine cannot create enough power. A Cummins QSB7 engine will produce about 281 HP, but coupled to a genertor would produce 275 KW power. So essentially I can configure a Power module around that engine that can produce anywhere between 1kw to 275 based on my choice of the alternator setup.

There is enough shaft energy to produce more than adequate power for the deisgned avionics.

 

[randomradio]

BS.
What it means is the generator is not adequately sized as the SU-30SM was designed for a low power PESA N011M radar. Not that the Engine cannot create enough power. A Cummins QSB7 engine will produce about 281 HP, but coupled to a genertor would produce 275 KW power. So essentially I can configure a Power module around that engine that can produce anywhere between 1kw to 275 based on my choice of the alternator setup.

There is enough shaft energy to produce more than adequate power for the deisgned avionics.

Then one would wonder why the Russians said the AL-31FP cannot power the Irbis-E.

It was specifically stated they needed the 117S to power the Irbis-E, and that's why they made the choice of modernising the Su-30SM to SM1 in a rather expensive process compared to just a minor modification based on what you said.

Let's see what the IAF decides to do.

 

[Saaho]

The fact is the AL-31FP does not have the onboard electrical power necessary to power an AESA radar.

Its not as much a question of 'an', more a question of 'which'.

 

[randomradio]

Its not as much a question of 'an', more a question of 'which'.

I didn't get that.

 

[Saaho]

I didn't get that.

Its simple. Not all AESA radars have SAME power requirements. For instance, J-10C has SINGLE engine and yet has a AESA radar. A radar smaller than Su35S can still function on Su-30MKI. Or if it uses GaN modules which use lesser power for similar range.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Then one would wonder why the Russians said the AL-31FP cannot power the Irbis-E.

Please, do you have a link where the Russians have indicated that's not possible?
Because I thought the Su-30SMD retrofit with remotorization was all about standardizing equipment. And I'm interested.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Please, do you have a link where the Russians have indicated that's not possible?
Because I thought the Su-30SMD retrofit with remotorization was all about standardizing equipment. And I'm interested.

Actually its posturing by IAF. They don't want to pay full cost for this engine as it is an upgrade of AL-31 already installed in Su-30MKI. After some negotiations and price correction. IAF has already paid a heavy price to produce AL-31 in India and it makes no sense to pay again for a new engine when the engine is just an upgrade. IAF will go for the new engine later.

 

[Lolwa]

Actually its posturing by IAF. They don't want to pay full cost for this engine as it is an upgrade of AL-31 already installed in Su-30MKI. After some negotiations and price correction. IAF has already paid a heavy price to produce AL-31 in India and it makes no sense to pay again for a new engine when the engine is just an upgrade. IAF will go for the new engine later.

Everybody here claiming we will go for a aesa radar. It's BS the uttam is not capable enough to be used on the su 30. The Russians won't make a derivative aesa from their su 57 and we won't pay for developing an aesa with the Russians (could be a possibility). The most logical choice is irbis-e upgrade. And if we go for irbis then the al 41 comes. Their is no aesa offering on the flanker. The fga 50 could be a possibility but from what I've seen our uttam could do the same job as the fga 50 but we lose out on the monstrous range of the irbis or bars. All these twitter guys are claiming one thing or the other and we get a similar shock in procurement the way we got for the ak203 and sig 716 deal.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

The AL31FP itself has growth potential. The AL31FM1 derived from AL31FP to power the new built Su30SM and used to re engine the Su27SM has 135 wet thrust and same TV capability in pitch. Pretty much the same engine. That can be a prospect. As unlike when using AL41 which has a greater diameter than AL31FP/FM family, the FM1 has the same dimensions, so no need for structural changes actually.

Our upgrade package will be derived from whatever Irkut offers to Russian Airforce, and not what KNAAPO, which is primarily involved in SM1 upgrade on Irkut manufactured SM for Russian AF.

As for the radar, it has to be an AESA system. For the initial few batches, the radar will be Bars system only, we have paid a lot under for licencing fees for it, and we don't have the money to pay 2 times , once for Iribis and then for AESA system. It will be once and will be an AESA.

 

[Milspec]

Then one would wonder why the Russians said the AL-31FP cannot power the Irbis-E.

It was specifically stated they needed the 117S to power the Irbis-E, and that's why they made the choice of modernising the Su-30SM to SM1 in a rather expensive process compared to just a minor modification based on what you said.

Let's see what the IAF decides to do.

use logic. Think of how a generator works.
Remember thermodynamics; Energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can be changed from one form to another. Is AL31FP (123KN) underpowered by any means?

Remember, Single RD33, F404, F100, and F135 are all adequate to power AESA radars,
While AL31FP, two of them don't have enough power for an aesa radar.

As I said generators are designed specifically to the requirements of the system. For example, If my car's power requirements are just to powers internal sensors, fans, and media players, then the alternator would be designed to power the required output. But if tomorrow I decide to install an auxiliary VFD and synchronous motor for an additional 100hp, guess what the existing power system will not work, same is the case here.

Again, repeat, there is enough shaft power to reconfigure the gearbox to deliver adequate power to power a locomotive; to the effect the idea was to stick the failed prototype of GTRX k1 in a locomotive.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Okay, please, I'd like some serious answers:

Actually its posturing by IAF. They don't want to pay full cost for this engine as it is an upgrade of AL-31 already installed in Su-30MKI. After some negotiations and price correction. IAF has already paid a heavy price to produce AL-31 in India and it makes no sense to pay again for a new engine when the engine is just an upgrade. IAF will go for the new engine later.

The Izd.117S is more than just an upgrade of the AL-31FP; new turbine, new compressor, new ignition system and finally 2 tons more thrust. Of course, the design is based on the AL-31FP, but the work is more than consequent; not to mention that the air intakes have been modified as well (greater air intake).

The AL31FP itself has growth potential. The AL31FM1 derived from AL31FP to power the new built Su30SM and used to re engine the Su27SM has 135 wet thrust and same TV capability in pitch. Pretty much the same engine. That can be a prospect. As unlike when using AL41 which has a greater diameter than AL31FP/FM family, the FM1 has the same dimensions, so no need for structural changes actually.

Our upgrade package will be derived from whatever Irkut offers to Russian Airforce, and not what KNAAPO, which is primarily involved in SM1 upgrade on Irkut manufactured SM for Russian AF.

As for the radar, it has to be an AESA system. For the initial few batches, the radar will be Bars system only, we have paid a lot under for licencing fees for it, and we don't have the money to pay 2 times , once for Iribis and then for AESA system. It will be once and will be an AESA.

1/ The AL-31FM1 is an "old" engine, especially in comparison with the AL-41F1S; on the other hand it does not equip the Su-30SM which are still assembled in AL-31FP for the moment.

The only AL-31FM1s that have been produced have been used to power the 12 newly built Su-27SM3s (as opposed to those upgraded to this standard but without the reactors).

The Su-27SM1s (modernized Su-27Ps) have kept their original engines (as a reminder, this is a low cost modernization dating from the late 1990s to give work in times of scarcity).

2/ The AL-41F1S is compatible on Su-30SM (this is the whole idea of the Su-30SMD by the way) so if there are modifications, they are minimal but the gain in performance and consumption is MORE than significant compared to the AL-31FM1.

3/ Your speech doesn't hold up; it's KnAAZ/KnAAPO who will work WITH Irkut, both of them being holders of technologies that the other one needs to modernize the concerned devices. Especially since, incidentally, it's the same owner above both entities (i.e. Rostec).

And forget the -SM1 standard, the latter consisted in replacing the imported equipment (the HUD in particular), we are at the -SMD standard (the -D coming from -Dvigatel / Rjet) to designate the aircraft equipped with Su-35S technologies.

Where I agree on the other hand is on the radar: there is no reason to keep the N011M Bars-M. Even if it is powerful and efficient, it is seriously marking time in 2020.

 

[vstol Jockey]

The Izd.117S is more than just an upgrade of the AL-31FP; new turbine, new compressor, new ignition system and finally 2 tons more thrust. Of course, the design is based on the AL-31FP, but the work is more than consequent; not to mention that the air intakes have been modified as well (greater air intake).

The present size of Su-30 intakes is fit for this engine. Al-41F1 will need bigger intakes.

 

[randomradio]

Please, do you have a link where the Russians have indicated that's not possible?
Because I thought the Su-30SMD retrofit with remotorization was all about standardizing equipment. And I'm interested.

Nothing I can find now. The sources are in Russian and are back from 2013 or 2015 etc, when the Su-30SM was first put into service.

 

[randomradio]

Actually its posturing by IAF. They don't want to pay full cost for this engine as it is an upgrade of AL-31 already installed in Su-30MKI. After some negotiations and price correction. IAF has already paid a heavy price to produce AL-31 in India and it makes no sense to pay again for a new engine when the engine is just an upgrade. IAF will go for the new engine later.

The Indian production of AL-31FP is set to end in 2022. And the aircraft itself has to operate all the way to 2050. So we need to bring in new orders or negotiate for a new engine. Either/or.

Its simple. Not all AESA radars have SAME power requirements. For instance, J-10C has SINGLE engine and yet has a AESA radar. A radar smaller than Su35S can still function on Su-30MKI. Or if it uses GaN modules which use lesser power for similar range.

Sure. But that's not keeping up with standards.

 

[randomradio]

The AL31FP itself has growth potential. The AL31FM1 derived from AL31FP to power the new built Su30SM and used to re engine the Su27SM has 135 wet thrust and same TV capability in pitch. Pretty much the same engine. That can be a prospect. As unlike when using AL41 which has a greater diameter than AL31FP/FM family, the FM1 has the same dimensions, so no need for structural changes actually.

Our upgrade package will be derived from whatever Irkut offers to Russian Airforce, and not what KNAAPO, which is primarily involved in SM1 upgrade on Irkut manufactured SM for Russian AF.

As for the radar, it has to be an AESA system. For the initial few batches, the radar will be Bars system only, we have paid a lot under for licencing fees for it, and we don't have the money to pay 2 times , once for Iribis and then for AESA system. It will be once and will be an AESA.

AL-31FM1/2 etc are from Salyut. 117S and 117 are from Saturn. And the AL-31FP is also from Saturn. So any upgrade will see us choosing Saturn over Salyut.

Even the 117 doesn't have changes in dimension compared to AL-31FP. That's the reason why SM can be reengined with it in such a short span of time.

 

[randomradio]

use logic. Think of how a generator works.
Remember thermodynamics; Energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can be changed from one form to another. Is AL31FP (123KN) underpowered by any means?

Remember, Single RD33, F404, F100, and F135 are all adequate to power AESA radars,
While AL31FP, two of them don't have enough power for an aesa radar.

As I said generators are designed specifically to the requirements of the system. For example, If my car's power requirements are just to powers internal sensors, fans, and media players, then the alternator would be designed to power the required output. But if tomorrow I decide to install an auxiliary VFD and synchronous motor for an additional 100hp, guess what the existing power system will not work, same is the case here.

Again, repeat, there is enough shaft power to reconfigure the gearbox to deliver adequate power to power a locomotive; to the effect the idea was to stick the failed prototype of GTRX k1 in a locomotive.

You can't really compare the equipment carried on one aircraft with another, especially when the classes themselves are different. Nor can you compare engines of different generations. For example, the RD-33 and F404 can most definitely not power the Irbis-E even with two engines, alongside all the other electronics, but the F-135 can most definitely do it easily with just 1 engine.

Take the difference between GaAs and GaN for example. GaAs peaks at 12-15W, but GaN can climb to hundreds of watts. Now, imagine a 12W GaAs radar with 1800T/R modules, your peak output is going to be 21.6KW, a little more than the Irbis-E. Add 50% power for power consumption, since AESAs are power efficient, and you need as much as 32.4KW. Now replace that with a GaN radar that emits 30W, now it emits 54KW and your power consumption is 81KW. What if 50W modules are used? After all HPM is going to be the next new fad. The idea behind using heavy aircraft is to use such radars that can spit out a lot of power and give you more detection range.

The problem is they are going to keep this data secret for a long time. If not today, maybe tomorrow, the MKI can come in with 50-100W GaN modules. But the LCA may come in with GaN modules with a power rating of just 10W. These things are not comparable.

Anyway, modifying the AL-31FP requires a whole new contract, which is easily traceable, and this will be a time consuming process, when instead the 117S is already available, and already reengined. And now I really wanna see what decision the IAF makes.

Where I agree on the other hand is on the radar: there is no reason to keep the N011M Bars-M. Even if it is powerful and efficient, it is seriously marking time in 2020.

We won't keep the Bars for MLU. The Russians are proposing Irbis-E for the sake of time (and profits), while IAF is more keen on waiting for AESA.

Our older aircraft will continue flying with Bars for a long time, especially those that were inducted in the last 5+ years.