Sukhoi Su-30MKI

[_Anonymous_]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1484680600049303552

So as I speculated engines will be replaced with AL 41 or S117 with 144kn power. It will make su30mki supercruise....

He's reporting chatter from Russian forums. Apparently 2 yrs for trials , then 2 yrs of estimated negotiations following which a deal may get inked. MLU & upgrade to be done in India after an initial test lot undergoes the same in Russia.

All too speculative at this stage. But hey it's 2022 .

We've already some much optimism overflowing the brim out here irrespective of what it is in real life . Who needs another helping of this heady brew ?!

 

[Sathya]

He's reporting chatter from Russian forums. Apparently 2 yrs for trials , then 2 yrs of estimated negotiations following which a deal may get inked. MLU & upgrade to be done in India after an initial test lot undergoes the same in Russia.

All too speculative at this stage. But hey it's 2022 .

We've already some much optimism overflowing the brim out here irrespective of what it is in real life . Who needs another helping of this heady brew ?!

yesterday only he set off a rumour, Lca with RDmk3 engine.

 

[_Anonymous_]

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

This is a Question asked by someone on PKS Trishul Trident blog

It just shows the immense potential of Su 30 Upgrades

@randomradio

______________________________________

Can we make a su-30 platform into a sead fighter like the chinese by attaching several israeli stand off jammers to cover the entire spectrum?​

Directional X-band EW jamming can be achieved with AESA antenna. Su-30MKI can easily accommodate low-band, mid-band & high-band jamming pods as well as SIVA HADF pod to act in concert with NG-ARMs.

 

[randomradio]

This is a Question asked by someone on PKS Trishul Trident blog

It just shows the immense potential of Su 30 Upgrades

@randomradio

______________________________________

Can we make a su-30 platform into a sead fighter like the chinese by attaching several israeli stand off jammers to cover the entire spectrum?​

Directional X-band EW jamming can be achieved with AESA antenna. Su-30MKI can easily accommodate low-band, mid-band & high-band jamming pods as well as SIVA HADF pod to act in concert with NG-ARMs.

We have already done that with Russia's SAP-14 and SAP-518 years ago.

This basically India's Growler.

Basically the IAF has been operating Growler equivalent capability only a few years after the Growler was introduced.

The Siva pod was a failure, and the MKI doesn't need it since it now carries all the RWR and ESM hardware necessary internally. Instead the Siva pod now houses the MKI's new SAP-518 replacement.

 

[xxxxx]

We have already done that with Russia's SAP-14 and SAP-518 years ago.

This basically India's Growler.

Basically the IAF has been operating Growler equivalent capability only a few years after the Growler was introduced.

The Siva pod was a failure, and the MKI doesn't need it since it now carries all the RWR and ESM hardware necessary internally. Instead the Siva pod now houses the MKI's new SAP-518 replacement.

 

[xxxxx]

We have already done that with Russia's SAP-14 and SAP-518 years ago.

This basically India's Growler.

Basically the IAF has been operating Growler equivalent capability only a few years after the Growler was introduced.

The Siva pod was a failure, and the MKI doesn't need it since it now carries all the RWR and ESM hardware necessary internally. Instead the Siva pod now houses the MKI's new SAP-518 replacement.

Since there is no reasonable coordination mechanism between the three, it may cause: the front hemisphere threat warning will appear when the pod is activated to interfere with the RWR, and the airborne radar will be interfered again; The cabin automatically turned on active interference, and as a result, the three interfered with each other. Electronic warfare systems require a high level of RWR to identify pulses and guide active jammers to avoid local radar bands and waveforms to implement active jamming.

The above is the information I found on the Internet in China

 

[randomradio]

View attachment 22719

The first one really isn't an issue. The Growler also faces performance penalties. As for the second issue, we have developed our own jammer, and it also solves the first issue.

But you can bet that we will use it regardless, because it is still usable.

 

[Optimist]

The IAF said that one Rafale squadron could replace 2.5 SU-30 MKI squadrons so to replace 114 Rafales would require at least 285 SU-30 MKIs.

Could someone please correct this deceptive Frenchman. From memory I think it was the service time or similar, was longer on the SU-30.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Could someone please correct this deceptive Frenchman. From memory I think it was the service time or similar, was longer on the SU-30.

Russian products or sub systems aren't known for longevity. They come cheap , are rugged but maintenance intensive. That's the trade off. Ditto for the MKI . So technically speaking he isn't wrong.

 

[Optimist]

Russian products or sub systems aren't known for longevity. They come cheap , are rugged but maintenance intensive. That's the trade off. Ditto for the MKI . So technically speaking he isn't wrong.

Are you really Indian? Perhaps if you put up the link, we can go through it together. Having a longer maintenance time, doesn't equate to needing more planes. It means more ground crew. The SU does well in countries, where labour costs isn't a huge factor.

 

[Hydra]

Are you really Indian? Perhaps if you put up the link, we can go through it together. Having a longer maintenance time, doesn't equate to needing more planes. It means more ground crew. The SU does well in countries, where labour costs isn't a huge factor.

In which universe su30 performed better?

 

[Optimist]

The point is that the article was on maintenance times, as I recall. It wasn't on 'performance'. It is deceptive to say otherwise.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Are you really Indian? Perhaps if you put up the link, we can go through it together. Having a longer maintenance time, doesn't equate to needing more planes. It means more ground crew. The SU does well in countries, where labour costs isn't a huge factor.

Go through the entire thread & you'd definitely emerge as an authority on MKI by twitter standards or at least that of most defence forum . Hell , you can even be the resident expert of an Aussie defence forum on the MKIs if you're part of any such forum.

Long story short. If there was no IAF participation there'd be no Su 30 ever level aside the suffixes. The original plan , as per some commentators was to induct 350 nos. We stopped at 275 because maintaining it costs a huge part of the IAF budget. Trust that takes care of your equation where more ground crew = acceptable subject to low labour costs.

Out of it also emerged a few key learnings & operational doctrines put into practice for future procurements listed here in no particular order viz : the Idea that the MKIs aren't QR fighters , hence can't be based on frontline bases.

Out of this emerged the classification which was a salient of forthcoming tenders namely light , medium & heavy class of fighters . Hence the now scrapped MMRCA ( Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft ) tender which was bagged by Dassault . This notion was subsequently modified into the SE & TE aircraft.

Then you also had something called the LCC or Life Cycle Costs which is now an integral part of all tender documents & procurement processes apart from agreements when over a period of time the IAF & MoD discovered that while the USSR / Russian fighters were easy on the pocket , they weren't long lasting & cost a packet to maintain - a complete anti thesis of the the western doctrine of fighter construction operation & maintenance .

Of course the above was to a large extent a function of marrying eastern bloc fighters into a western doctrine of extensive training & usage minus the numbers which took a huge toll of the aircrafts in terms of attrition during peacetime apart from costing a bomb maintaining it & taking a huge toll on it's longevity which wasn't much to begin with .

So , you've the light fighters aka QR fighters used for CAS & BARCAP like the MiG 21 soon to be replaced by the LCA Mk-1 / Mk-1a Tejas.

You've the medium category / medium weight fighters like the Mirages , MiG 29 & the now scrapped MiG 27 & MiG 23 which'd be replaced by the LCA Mk-2 now christened the MWF - Medium Weight Fighter.

Then you have the Jaguars which though belonging to the above class has a different role of that of a DPSU - Deep Strike Penetration Unit . This role was supposed to have been fulfilled by the Rafale but we didn't induct the latter in sufficient numbers. Then we also have the AMCA project which is expected to augment the Rafales apart from opening the air conflict mich like the F-35 & F-22 is expected to or whatever replaces the latter.

Finally you have the heavy weight category which is occupied by the MKIs alone where hopefully you may get to see the Su 57 Mk-2 by the end of the decade ( for a multitude of reasons ) & an adaptation of which was the original plan named the FGFA - Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft before we dropped out of the project.

Trust that covers the most salient parts of the current doctrine of the IAF .

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Trust that covers the most salient parts of the current doctrine of the IAF .

And the IAF will discover that the Rafale is a QR Fighter, that it is Medium category and can replace Mirages, MiG 29, MiG 27 and MiG 23, that it is also a DPSU, and that although it is in the Medium category it has endurance and carries a load comparable to the Heavy category.

 

[xxxxx]

That's not how it works. Even if/though others may not attack, they will still test the resolve of the Chinese when there's a war. So the Japanese, Americans, Russians etc will fly almost like they are also at war with China and put pressure on them to react. This stresses out Chinese logistics and provides others with long term advantages, including training.

The Chinese build 250 jets in each batch, so they can distribute 50 jets to each of their 5 commands. So it's not really a lot for each command. And central command acts as reserve, so jets from there can be reallocated as per need.

It's always the case, things appear bigger than they really seem. When you break down a large force into smaller chunks, you will notice that all big militaries all over the world are actually working with shortages. The US forces are also too small for their needs. Take the navy for example, unlike India and China that are dealing with 2 and 3 seas respectively, the USN deals with multiple oceans in multiple continents across the world. So their real world capability in a specific part of the world actually becomes very small. Their impressive 100 destroyers becomes just 12 destroyers in the IOR, 18 in the Western Pacific, 12 in the Eastern Pacific and so on. So China deals with the same issue when it comes to their air force, India does not.

If they feel 50 is not enough in each batch against India, then they will have to increase the numbers in each batch for the WTC. Or just increase the size of the reserve command so the strength of the WTC can be increased as per demand. Regardless it means the resources of other commands are unlikely to be transferred to the WTC due to pressur efrom other countries.

The numbers are sufficient anyway. If we assume each batch forms three tiers of advancements, ie, advanced, current and outdated, then 50 from each tier will be 150 jets. So 50 J-11A, 50 J-11B and 50 J-16 will give the WTC 150 Flankers with three tiers of advancements. Adding 150 J-10s will give them 300 fighter jets against India in WTC, which can be doubled using the reserve command during wartime. We will have 100 MKIs and Rafales in the NE and 160 MKIs, Rafales and Mig-29s in the North. With another 40 MKIs available to bolster either side.

First of all, you ignore China's most important requirement for the military, which is all-area operations. For example, the photos in 2020 show that the J11B from Guangdong has been transferred to Hotan Airport.
If a war really breaks out, we can easily transfer troops from the east to the west,
In fact, you are speculating on the military strength of China and the United States based on Indian military traditions.
For example, your example of the U.S. Navy, if you know a little about the U.S. Navy, you will find that aircraft carriers attached to the Atlantic Fleet are often deployed to the Western Pacific. This does not only happen in wartime, but also in peacetime. frequently,
If you read China's military news, there are often fighter units from the eastern theater and the northern theater that are transferred to Tibet for rotation training,
So you say that the western theater is smaller, so India has a quantitative advantage over China is extremely wrong

 

[xxxxx]

In any war, they need to preserve forces on all their fronts, which is the point of theaterisation. Since they use regiments instead of squadrons, they need more jets to make a unit. Furthermore, half their Flankers are too old to fight a war. Only their latest J-16s and J-10Cs are suitable for use against India. And these advanced jets have been theaterised, so they are unlikely to leave the theaters they are assigned to. Assuming they have 250 each, that's 50 for each theater, we can assume we are dealing with 50 J-16s and J-10s each, and another 50 each can be assigned from the reserve command during war, so that's 100 each. So we could very well be up against 200 advanced and 200 outdated fighters in the 4th gen.

Their Flankers need to deal with the Tibet handicap as well. In fact you can say that neither the J-11 nor J-10 are the answers to deal with India. Both jets over Tibet are only half as capable as the MKI. So their higher numbers do not actually affect us. Only the J-20 will eventually have the thrust necessary to operate in Tibet. Otoh, of the planned 13 squadrons, we can immediately use 8 MKI squadrons against China, and bring 2 more in from Pune. The 12 new MKIs can also be used to set up a 14th squadron if necessary.

So we already have more than enough when it comes to dealing with their 4th gen threat. The real problem is the next gen threat and adding more MKIs won't help.

Your evaluation of the Chinese Flanker fleet is also wrong. If you simply compare the performance of the fighters, I think the SU30MKI is roughly equivalent to the J11B. First of all, although the NO11M radar is PESA, according to the information I have at hand, the average power is 1.6KW and the peak power is 6.5KW. .Its power is only about 30% of the power of NO35

According to Sukhoi's data, the target detection distance of RCS=3 is 110KM, which is similar to the performance of F15C's APG63 (v1) and J11B's 1493 radar.

As for PL12 and R77, according to the Chinese pilot's speech to the Sino-Thai military exercise, the performance of PL12 is similar to that of AIM120C5, better than that of R77 and R27
As for WVR, although SU30MKI uses canard (to be precise, three-wing surface) TVC, but su30 ignores one of the most important issues, weight, according to this picture, SU30MKI weight is 18400KG, while SU27UK is 16870KG, and J11B passes The radar was replaced, composite materials were used, and the su27UK was reduced by 600KG, and the thrust of the two engines was the same, which led to a slight advantage of the J11B in the air battle between the two.

 

[xxxxx]

I don't get what's the point of others not attacking China in a war with India. Are you talking about them bringing all their jets into the fight?

That's not gonna happen, at least to the extent you are assuming. Simply because if 150-200 advanced jets defeat the IAF, then a whole lot of their scrub jets, drones and bombers will take to the air and pound Indian forces. If 150-200 advanced jets do not defeat the IAF, then they will simply retreat and focus only on air defence, where they will try and prevent IAF scrub forces from bombing them. There is no real need to add more jets from elsewhere in either case, since that's needed only in a long war, where attrition is very high. Basically, just a handful of expensive air superiority squadrons will determine in which direction the air war will go.

Also, a theater command is a simple numbers game. A terrain fits these many ground units. To defeat these many enemy ground units from the air, I need these many air units. And in order to ensure these many air units can attack with these many bombs with this much success rate, I need this level of air to air capability in these many numbers. And if I fail, I need these many units to prevent the enemy from doing this much damage to these many of my own ground units to hold this much of ground to consider it a victory.

This is pretty much how theater commands are set up. The commanders have already pre-decided what they need to win and how much they are willing to lose before calling it a day. But if the enemy is much more capable than planned, then adding more jets from other commands will simply mean more losses to your own side. So if your own command and resources from the reserve command are not enough, then you're gonna call it a day with a loss. It means you have severely underestimated the enemy. Although units can be reassigned to your own command, it's gonna happen in very specific cases, particularly when you are losing really badly and need more assistance, at least for the sake of buying time until you gain an advantage somewhere.

Theater commands are for rich countries. Which is why, while the Chinese have theater commands for all forces, we will have a single command for the air force, since our resources are not equal to requirements. But if the Chinese are forced to do this during a war, then it means things are going really badly for them.

Your understanding of China's military system is also wrong. The most important thing in the reform of theater reform is joint command and all-area operations. Theater is not an administrative organization. It does not assume the command function of its subordinate troops in peacetime. They are only in wartime and military exercises. Responsible for commanding the assigned army, air force, rocket force, joint logistics support force,
And another role of the theater is joint command. In the past, an infantry battalion had to report to the military region, or even the center, to call for air support to deploy aircraft for you. Now it may be possible to call the air-ground coordination center by reporting to the brigade.
Another example is the Army's HQ16 and HQ17, which can share an air intelligence network with the Air Force's HQ9, S400, radar stations, and early warning aircraft to achieve better battlefield situational awareness.
Your way of understanding is the thinking of the previous era. It does not mean that theater reform is only applicable to rich countries. Any country that has a complete command system and can conduct joint operations of the three armed forces should carry out theater reform.

 

[randomradio]

First of all, you ignore China's most important requirement for the military, which is all-area operations. For example, the photos in 2020 show that the J11B from Guangdong has been transferred to Hotan Airport.
If a war really breaks out, we can easily transfer troops from the east to the west,
In fact, you are speculating on the military strength of China and the United States based on Indian military traditions.
For example, your example of the U.S. Navy, if you know a little about the U.S. Navy, you will find that aircraft carriers attached to the Atlantic Fleet are often deployed to the Western Pacific. This does not only happen in wartime, but also in peacetime. frequently,
If you read China's military news, there are often fighter units from the eastern theater and the northern theater that are transferred to Tibet for rotation training,
So you say that the western theater is smaller, so India has a quantitative advantage over China is extremely wrong

In my posts way earlier, I had already suggested that our main enemy TCs will be West, Center and South. So we will have to deal with the forces of three TCs. So moving forces from Guangdong into Tibet is well within the realms of what I said. But there is a limit to the numbers that can be transferred from other TCs to fight India because the PLA can't leave holes elsewhere. You can only fight with what you have today, not what you can potentially have 3 or 4 years down the line in a long war.

Also, quantitative advantage is relative. It's about what you need to attack us versus what we need to defend. Take the old numbers for example. An Indian mountain division has 16500 men, whereas a Chinese division has 8500 men. So an Indian division is effectively twice as powerful. And given Lanchester's law for mountains, the attacking force needs to have a 9:1 advantage over the defending force. So China would need 18 divisions just to fight 1 Indian division.

It's the same story with fighters. In order to pound enemy troops on the ground, you need to carry large payloads. So the fighters need access to plains. From the Indian side, the plains are just 100-150Km away, so fighters can quickly drop bombs, rearm and return. Whereas the Chinese aircraft have to travel hundreds of kilometers. We can say that the effective capability of the Indian jets will be at least 3 times greater than Chinese jets. So PLAAF needs 300 jets to match the IAF's 100 jets. The difference increases when you bring in the relative superiority of Western jets over Eastern when it comes to ground attack.

So quantitatively we are not in the same situation.

 

[randomradio]

Your evaluation of the Chinese Flanker fleet is also wrong. If you simply compare the performance of the fighters, I think the SU30MKI is roughly equivalent to the J11B. First of all, although the NO11M radar is PESA, according to the information I have at hand, the average power is 1.6KW and the peak power is 6.5KW. .Its power is only about 30% of the power of NO35
View attachment 22724
According to Sukhoi's data, the target detection distance of RCS=3 is 110KM, which is similar to the performance of F15C's APG63 (v1) and J11B's 1493 radar.
View attachment 22725
As for PL12 and R77, according to the Chinese pilot's speech to the Sino-Thai military exercise, the performance of PL12 is similar to that of AIM120C5, better than that of R77 and R27
As for WVR, although SU30MKI uses canard (to be precise, three-wing surface) TVC, but su30 ignores one of the most important issues, weight, according to this picture, SU30MKI weight is 18400KG, while SU27UK is 16870KG, and J11B passes The radar was replaced, composite materials were used, and the su27UK was reduced by 600KG, and the thrust of the two engines was the same, which led to a slight advantage of the J11B in the air battle between the two.
View attachment 22726

You can't make an apples to apples comparison like that. Although the Bars has less power, it still has 1700+ receivers. So its method of signal processing is similar to that of an AESA, we call it hybrid PESA, very different from mechanical scan radars. A figure from 15 years ago put the Bars at 185Km vs 5m2 target, so it was as good as entry level AESA radars on smaller fighters like the F-16 today. The 110Km for 3m2 target was using Russian radar computers 20 years ago. With an upgrade to Indian computers in 2007 the range increased to 160Km for 3m2. Since then the Bars radar has had 2 computer upgrades, so we do not know its current range. An AESA upgrade is pending.

The canards provide lift, so it compensates more than enough in performance. As per the Russians, the Su-30SM is only beaten by the Su-35 in WVR combat, so the TVC matters a lot. That's more than enough to showcase its superiority over older Flanker models.

An IAF pilot said this in exercises with Singapore.
The strongest adversary that we could possibly face in our life as a fighter pilot was the F-16 of PAF (for obvious reasons). So the excitement of facing an F-16, even in a mock combat was unbelievable. The weight of the mission was overbearing! Perhaps that’s what makes it special. As the combat commenced, we manoeuvred for our lives and in very little time the situation was in our favour! The desperate calls from the F-16, “Flare, Flare, Flare!” are very distinctly audible in my ears even today! From that day, the anxiety that prevailed over facing an F-16 in combat was gone forever…. Vanished! It was clear what the outcome would be!”

“Another mission that stand out is a group combat mission that was pitching a Su-30 & one MiG-21 BISON against three F-16 . As luck would have it, the BISON did not get airborne and now the game was one Su-30 vs three F-16 in a BVR scenario. Again, we pushed the envelope, manoeuvred between 3000 ft to 32000 ft, pulling up to 8 g, turning, tumbling, firing and escaping missiles in a simulated engagement. The crew co-ord between us in the cockpit and the fighter controller on the ground was the best that I have ever seen! The results in a mock combat are always contentious but with ACMI, they are more reliable. End score one F-16 claimed without loss. When we got out of the cockpit we were thoroughly drenched in sweat and tired from the continuous high G manoeuvring but all smiles for the ecstasy that we had just experienced.”

Your understanding of China's military system is also wrong. The most important thing in the reform of theater reform is joint command and all-area operations. Theater is not an administrative organization. It does not assume the command function of its subordinate troops in peacetime. They are only in wartime and military exercises. Responsible for commanding the assigned army, air force, rocket force, joint logistics support force,
And another role of the theater is joint command. In the past, an infantry battalion had to report to the military region, or even the center, to call for air support to deploy aircraft for you. Now it may be possible to call the air-ground coordination center by reporting to the brigade.
Another example is the Army's HQ16 and HQ17, which can share an air intelligence network with the Air Force's HQ9, S400, radar stations, and early warning aircraft to achieve better battlefield situational awareness.
Your way of understanding is the thinking of the previous era. It does not mean that theater reform is only applicable to rich countries. Any country that has a complete command system and can conduct joint operations of the three armed forces should carry out theater reform.

Erm... I am talking about something else entirely.