Nick_76In all fairness though, structurally you will struggle to find a single part that is common between EAP and Typhoon. Also, the wing planform is very different (double delta vs. pure delta). OTOH, the Su-30MKI should still include a fair number of unchanged components from the Su-27UB (inspite of the inevitable internal strengthening for higher MTOWs).
Well it should, but am told it doesnt. :confused: Almost everything was given a work over, in terms of avionics and even entire portions of the airframe since the avionics had changed, the weights had changed, different loadouts etc etc. The IAF people have some nice lists for their maintenance people, translated from Russian and with a hodge podge of HAL/ Indian commentary. Wish they’d let it be photographed along with the C/Ns for all of us freaks. 😀 😀
In fact, it seems to be pretty remarkable that the Russians managed to develop the MKI in the timeframe envisaged, given the horrid issues they were having with manpower and internal economy at the time.
Nick_76I’m sure the introduction of twin nosewheels demand completely different tactics and procedures. 😀
In a manner of speaking they do! The twin nosewheels were included on account of the heavier avionics upfront, especially the Bars PESA unit. So yes, the twin wheels can be tied to—–> completely different tactics and procedures, both in combat and maintenance, and even production! 😀 😀
Besides, the Indian AF hasnt operated the Su-27 before, so the Flanker series is as new to them as the EF is to the Brits, even if they had purchased some Su-27Ps.
Well, the entire business of the K acquisition was to familiarize them with the business end of the Flankers abilities. They became a well known PITA for other AF squadrons in terms of BVR etc. But yes, you are right, the MKI, with TVC and new avionics is a whole different ball game than the good old 90’s level K..
Nick_76OK – I was clutching at straws to list the differences. 😮
But I still stand by my assertion – that the addition of canards & TVC engines to the Su-30MKI makes it aerodynamically vastly more different to the baseline Su-27UB than the Typhoon is to the EFA (or even the EAP).
And if you factor in the avionics, then the MKI is nothing like its peers ..even most of the Russian kit is brand new and developed by Ramenskoye etc for this bird. Apparently the Ks and MKIs have very little in common in several key respects.
Nick_76But frankly the MMRCA is such a farce in terms of what the Indian MOD has made of it, that its shameful. They change their stand every two days, and the Indian press trumpets the same old BS again and again.
The MOD should shut its yap, get its butt into gear and get the job done. Instead of being shameful about the delay so far, they are actually bragging about just issuing the RFP. Now, some 6 years late.
Stupid fools.
Nick_76I asked a young IAF pilot at RIAT whether they differentiated between Irkutsk and HAL-built Su-30MKI’s – ie. ‘Mk1/2 or Mk3’.
His reply was that they did not – they were all the same to him.
Indeed he seemed confused by the question………..
I can only assume he knew what he was talking about :confused:
Ken
Were these chaps briefed to confuse all those who asked? 🙁
Or did he mean that all the MKIs were Mk3 std?
The MKI Mk1,2,3 may not have much difference in terms of structure and airframe performance, but the Bars is @ its full potential only in the last. That depending upon whether it was used to begin with during the exercise.
Nick_76Somebody is bragging okay.
One thing to note about this comment is how new the Typhoon is to the RAF. It is primarily experienced pilots flying it because it is a new type. Ab initio crews haven’t started training on it just yet. The pilots who flew were the pilots who were available.
Like I said, somebody is making an attempt to brag and failing.
Also note that the Typhoon is only just at IOC WRT the technology it is utilising. The Su30 is a mature design with years of operational testing and development behind it going all the way back to the Su27.
Perspective fellers. Perspective. Try to put your national colours away when posting.
Its not bragging old bean, it shows that the IAF is taking risks.
Normally, when an AF goes up against a professional AF like the RAF & with top notch kit, it would prefer to send its most experienced hands. Its Top Guns so as to speak. In the IAFs case, that would be its TACDE trained leaders FCLs and even a few FSLs. But the risk is that a) That limits this invaluable learning experience to a pool of already senior operators b) The issue of Squadron morale and esprit de corps demands that everyone get a chance c) There is also the risk of being termed as unprofessional for having loaded the dice, by coming only with a “to win” attitude and not teamplay. Lastly, d) There is the problem of not being able to evaluate own crew- after all, if a loaded “Indian team” wins against junior personnel, whats the real challenge or even accurate representation?
But these issues also need to be balanced against the fact, that conservatism demands that the best learn from their peers, return to TACDE and disseminate the info. In this case, by involving the junior team, the IAF has in a manner of speaking “used up” valuable slots.
In my mind, what this testifies to, is that the IAF is reasonably confident that this isnt any make or break exercise, and that these exchanges will continue. So it has gone for the more long term approach of spreading the learning amongst both junior and senior personnel.
Time was, when personnel abroad – sent after intense wrangling with a notoriously tight fisted MOD, would be hand picked senior personnel, who’d come back with enough learning (presumably!) to assist/modify local SOP.
Times have changed.
In a nutshell, unless you keep things in context, you wouldnt understand what the above Press release’s salient points are.
I found it to be rather quaint, as well- and also a testament to the fact, how far the IAF et al have yet to go, in terms of media management.
The prose seems to be from Wren & Martin and some old school English textbook. Its neither crisp nor lucid.
Nick_76One question though: the Irkutsk-built Su-30s did the bulk of the flying, the HAL-built machines spent most time on the ground. I’ve heard from several people who noticed this.
Any word on this?
I havent heard anything of the sort yet. But one thing that I havent followed on- were the Irkutsk MKIs MK1/2 or Mk3? The HAL MKIs are all Mk3 batch.
Nick_76I’m not talking about the Il-78 aircrew.
The 20 Su-30 aircrew included “Wing Commander A K Bharti, the Commanding Officer of No.30 Sqn. and his Flight Commanders, Wing Commanders Asit and Assudani” as well as one Wg Cdr A C Chopra.
Gosh, you really are blowing sunshine..arent you? I bet you havent been to Waddington for looking over this exercise, Jack and this proves it.
AC Chopra led the IAF contingent, he wasnt flying the MKIs or taking part in the exercise as a pilot participant. By the way Chopra comes from Jaguars himself.
There are photos of the Indian aircrew on Bharat Rakshak, and you can count the number of ‘three-stripers’ and ‘two-and-a-half stripers’ for yourself – as anyone could at Waddington.
Yes, part of the entire detachment. Not necessarily as flight crew.
The composition of No.25 Squadron was typical of any Tornado F.Mk 3 squadron, while the breakdown of No.3 Squadron’s Typhoon pilots is exactly as described.
The Rhinos composition is also typical of any IAF new Sq raising.
It’s clear that the RAF contingent were not “their most-experienced and highly-qualified pilots” and, with 4 out of 20 Wing Commanders, and more squadron leaders nor were the IAF pilots merely “a mix of ‘young to middle-level pilots”.
The IAF pilots were a mix of young to middle level pilots if we count who did the flying. And given that the IAF crew were at Waddington, and know who flew against whom, I’d take their statement on this part, over yours, thankee very much.
You can well argue that vis a vis the RAF, there could be even more experienced and highly qualified pilots or whatever, but then everythings relative.
Nick_76The point isn’t that the Rhinos are led by a Wing Commander – that’s entirely to be expected – it’s that they have so many! And no UK observer would expect that.
An RAF Eurofighter squadron has one Wing Commander, a couple of squadron leaders (up to four) and eight or nine more junior blokes.
The Rhinos have four Wing Commanders alone – and a large number of Squadron leaders. They are a very top-heavy, very experienced bunch of operators.
Actually it shows how unaware you are of SOP. Any new a/c type inducted has a fair amount of midlevel personnel, to devise the a/c SOP and then pass the trained cadre amongst different squadrons. Secondly, not all the chaps you mentioned above are going to be flying in this exercise. They need senior folks to act as umpires with their RAF peers and have enough seniority to call it a fair play!
It’s interesting, but probably not worthy of comment until the Indian side claims that:
“the RAF fielded some of their most-experienced and highly-qualified pilots, some of them being very senior performance evaluators in active service, the IAF pilots were a mix of ‘young to middle-level pilots’ from the ‘Rhinos’ squadron.”
Which is an inversion of the truth.
No its not. Actually, unless you are certain that all these chaps flew in ID, and not as observers on AWACs and the like. Its pretty open news that the MKI team at ID had many Flt Lts et al in it, while many of the senior operators were sent to interface with the neutral eval team.
Nick_76If this is true, then the Navy is bailing out of the LCA project for all intents and purposes. They may not announce it as such, but thats what it will mean.
I wouldnt count on it. The Navy plans for the long term and has parked a lot of money in the LCA and MiG-29 K, and needs to replace its Sea Harriers as well. There is potential for some 4 squadrons easy, split between the LCA and MiG-29K. This is the reason why, the MiG-29 K deal has an option for another two squadrons worth.
The Rafale news is nonsense. There is no way that the Navy will acquire the LCA, MiG-29K and the Rafale, that too when it is already committed to the former two.
Nick_76And thats where the K-8 comes in. The F-5 is no longer produced, and buying 50 K-8s is way more cost effective than 10 Gripens. Youll end up with much better coverage with much lower operating costs.
Dunno mate, spoke to someone who knows and should know, and he stated that the K-8 is positively “underwhelming”. Perhaps the AJT/LIFT equivalents the PRC is making will have better performance for this kind of role.
Nick_76Perhaps this could be a job ideally suited to the stop-gap SU-30K’s being returned to Sukhoi from the Indian Airforce now that the deliveries of SU-30MKI’s are picking up. The oldest of them date from about 1998 as I recall, so they should have plenty of hours left on them.
Not a good idea mate, not unless they go through a full refurbish at Irkut. Those Flankers are heavily flogged, sure they have life left, but not as much as you’d expect. The IAFs annual flying hours- std is 180 hrs, but thats more of a minimum limit, and the Su-30 chaps have flown as much as 250 hrs/ pilot and more. Those planes have been used extensively.
Nick_76India was also buying the Jaguar around that time (late 1970s for evaluation and 1980s for supply)..so its not just the French who were suppliers to India at that time- the Viggen did not end up with the IAF only because of its large American content.
India did have the option of buying American during window periods, reportedly even the F-16 was offered to India prior to Pakistan snapping it up, but it didnt take it up on different criteria- politics, cost, and the issue of strings being attached etc.
But OTOH, Ankush is quite correct- just check the amount of non Russian jet fighters in IAF service>
Dassault Mystere, the Ouragon, the Folland Gnat ( a derivative of which was the HAL Ajeet with wet wings), the Hawker Hunter, the Seahawks with the Navy, Vampires for the AF, then the Sepecat Jaguar, the Mirage 2000 etc etc .
India always preferred western, but was too cost conscious to buy them in the numbers it desired.
Nick_76He.
I had pointed out that given Indias increasing economic muscle it would finally start paying attention to local R&D funding in earlier debates. And its happening.
SHORAD- Trishul, Maitri LLQRM (with MBDA)
SAMs- Akash medium, Barak-2 (70 km with IAI), Barak-3 (150 km with IAI)
ATBM- Prithvi AD (80-50 Km alt), Axo Atmospheric Defence (~100 Km 30 Km alt)
SSMs/ AShMs- Brahmos (with NPO-Mash), as of yet unknown helicopter launched light SSM (in Penguin class)
ATGMs- Nag with IIR seeker (helicopter & ground launched)
Ballistic Missiles- Agni 1, 2, 2AT, 3 and now 4 to be developed. Prithvi-1,2 and Dhanush/ Prithvi Naval. Sagarika SLBM
Cruise Missiles- the above Nirbhay
Air to Air Missiles- The Astra BVR missile (for the LCA, M2K and MKI) & possibly the K-100-1/KS-172 with Russia.
I think it is reasonable to state that India has several programs underway for precision munitions as well which it will reveal over time.
What should be interesting is the amount of development that will take place in India in terms of radar development and performance. Making a GP equivalent with local Tx/Rx modules and components is no joke, and India has done that. That itself is a massive step.
Nick_76Scooter, looks like your boys have been speaking to the russians… 😎 :p
Almost word to word what the russians said…
U.S. military sale hit by cost overrun
Sandeep Dik****
NEW DELHI: The problem of cost and time overruns has also affected an American ship, INS Jalashwa (formerly USS Trenton), being sold to India.
The cost of the ship has increased by over 10 per cent and its delivery schedule extended because there was “more work than anticipated,” said senior U.S. military officers here on Saturday. They were here to “understand” Indian requirements for military hardware over the next five years.
The same problem is believed to have affected Russian aircraft Admiral Gorshkov (INS Vikramaditya) which would take two extra years to complete.
The cost of the ship had increased from $ 48.3 million to $ 53.5 million partly because “we did not know each other’s standards” and some work that was not in the original contract document.
Amphibious ship
Nevertheless, the giant 30-year-old amphibious ship has been refurbished to ensure several years of operation, said Rear Admiral Jeffrey Wiering, in-charge of international relationships of the US Navy,who is due to take over from Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler as the chief of the Pentagon’s Defence Security Cooperation Agency.
USS Nashwill
The two U.S. military officers also revealed that Washington wanted to sell USS Nashwill, another ship of the same class and design to India, the offer for which would be put to the US Congress for approval next year provided a positive response is forthcoming from the Indian Navy.
The officers did not foresee time and cost overruns in the transfer of this ship due to the better understanding of each other’s processes. :p 😀
Sign In
