Garry wrote:The Su-30MKI had foreign parts because the parts offered… ie cleared for export by the Russians did not meet the needs of the Indians.

This is wrong! The fact is that Russia simply didnt have comparable items at the time, either internally or for export, both.
It has just developed a RLG INS that too with French help. At the time of the MKI, it didnt have a proper LDP cum CCD/FLIR as the Litening, or integrated processors of the ability to crunch sufficient numbers for the Bars, or other items such as display map generators, advanced modular RHAWS built with 1553B interface or MFDs and even HUDs. The Russians didnt have a modern deception jammer either, they just displayed one relatively recently. There are many other items in the MKI which were sourced from third countries because Russia itself didnt have these items.
Russia has but recently developed a Su967 comparable HUD which is being used for the MiG-29 K program, but it bears remarking that the INS is still French, the HMD is French, and the RWR/ Offensive jammer are Indian. Even the Mission computer used on the MiG-29 K is a generation behind those developed by India for its follow on aircraft projects.

In fact India would have preferred to source these items from russia itself, third party sourcing increases complexity, timelines and cost. But the russians didnt have comparable items.

Thanks for the detail Nick.;)

You’ll like this! I have a 1968 addition of the Royal Air Force year book and it says that Concorde is been considerd as the RAF’s next nuclear strike platform ( remeber 1968 ) it has an artists impression with it carrying 3 Blue steel. I dont no how true this was

I used to have the same thing, apparently its was just an idea from some journo/analyst type person rather than a genuine proposal.

Sorry, I didn’t mean the OTO-Melara 76mm rapid fire gun but the 127mm OTO-Breda. That said, maybe I should have included smaller naval guns like the Italian 76mm or French 100mm. Of course your correct in that the larger caliber guns are better suited for naval bombardment. Really, I don’t see guns in the 100-130mm range being effective against fast boats or modern aircraft. So, why are they so common? Seems like most navies would want either smaller super fast firing guns like the 76 mm OTO-Melara or big 203mm class weapons?????

The Japanese initially went for the Oto-melara 127mm becouse it offered the same ballistic performance with a higher rate of fire than the American weapon. At the time the 64 calibre 5 inch gun did not exist. However IIRC on their new ships the Japanese use the US 64 calibre weapon as when it was selected Oto-Melara 64 cal was not ready. IIRC it is going to be used on the German F125 frigates. The extended range 5 inch ammunition has a massive range. The only country actively pursuing shipboard MLRS is China, and their efforts show the problems with it.

As to why this calibre is so common- history, most world war 2 heavy AA/DP guns were of this calibre so that is what has been retained. Incidently in the 50s the British planned on using a twin 3inch fast firing gun for their frigates but it wasnt ready in time so they stuck with the 4.5inch. I believe the canadians did use that weapon. It is interesting that DD-1000 will be using 57mm guns as CIWS!

What’s the best naval gun in service today?:confused:

Depends what you want it for- for sea control I would say the Russian dual 130mm used on the Sovremennys. Otherwise I would say the Oto Melara 127/64LW. However nothing on the horizon even comes close to the 155mm AGS for the DD-1000.:diablo:

If by “new tracking radar” they mean the GRAVE STONE engagement radar, it is already available and visible in the photo posted of the S-400 components. 96L6 should also be available for the EW role as well at this point. China and Vietnam have purchased the S-300PMU-2 system, we’ll have to see if they get either the 96L6 or the 9M96 missiles with their systems.

Samoderzhets does indeed make little sense, as the S-300VM is ALREADY a dual-role SAM/ATBM system (don’t confuse this with the S-300/400 with the ability to engage ATBMs in certain regimes, the 9M82 is a dedicated, designed ATBM kill vehicle). Perhaps they’re integrating the 9M82M with the S-400 in order to refine the system’s ATBM capabilities? This shouldn’t effect the 40N6 as that one is a long-range aircraft killer.

When Samoderzhets/S-500 was first mentioned it was initially decribed as a combination of the two missile familys. Based on what I have read about Russian plans to create a single massive nationwide air surveilance and air defence system it would not surprise me.

There were a couple of attempts to to replace the V-force with big bombers. The most famous being the Avro-730 which started of as a Mach-3 recon aircraft and evolved into Bomber. Apparently one prototype was under construction when it was cancelled but no photos seem to exist. Later on there was a proposal for a larger Vulcan-3 that would have carried Skybolt (there used to be a model a Duxford) but that never seems to have got of the drawing board.

Yes, it flew in Bort 712, T-10M-12, I know it pretty well.

And it used Ts100 series radar data processors with limited capabilities. It was not a full fledged system (that happened once the Indians PAID the R&D for the thing)…in fact it ended to be something less capable than it was intended…Chelniok TWT per example, was not integrated (it’s used on Irbis-E instead)…

About the “interchangeable engines”, sure, you can put a new engine (specially one with one ton more thrust at static IA conditions) without any modification…yeah…and this is based on your extensive experience on this topic, isn’t?…

No engine in this world is installed in an aircraft without full certification in such aircraft and the whole documentation prepared for it.

Yawn, face it- your country has bought the worst variant of the Flanker series when it could have had so much more. Just the classic nationalism we see here all the time.:p

I think the answer lies in the delivery schedule Venezuela was looking for – these aircraft were ordered and delivered within a very short timeframe. An all-Russian version of the MKI/MKM airframe would be no problem at all to develop since every piece of foreign equipment used in these variants has a decent indigenous analogue available that has already been proven in another Flanker variant. Same for Bars or Zhuk as an alternate radar on the MK2.

However, look how long it took for the MKM to reach Malaysian service inspite of being no more than a modification of the existing MKI, I seriously doubt Venezuela could have received its own version on such short notice. This was a very high priority deal, intended to send a political message and at the same time attain maximum military independence from US sources at the earliest possible date.

About the PLAAF’s opinion of the Su-30MKK, I doubt they are dissatisfied with its performance. However, with the JH-7A they now have an indigenous aircraft that has comparable avionics and adequate performance. If an indigenous alternative is available and good enough to get the job done that is quite sufficient to make it preferable over a slightly superior imported system, for obvious reasons. It’s a perfectly natural process as China’s own aircraft industry slowly matures, but objectively it is unlikely that the JH-7A would outperform the MKK.

There is not reason at all why Venzuela could not have recieved a Bars and AL-31FM1 equiped flanker in more or less the same time frame.