Nick_76And upgradation of original machines to final product was one facet. Wouldn’t u agree? Now if they signed the contract to do so and only realised after years that it’s not possible/feasible, it indicates that not enough work was done to start with, and hence incompetency.
No, all it means is that they moved forward with whatever data they had at hand, and incorporated suitable legal provisos to ensure that their requirements were met, at a later date. Is the IAF complaining about the MKI program, well- no. Is the IAF satisfied with the Irkut offer, yes. You have the simplefact that the IAF is moving forward with the MKI as it does not feel gypped by Sukhoi.
I would have to disagree. As someone pointed out earlier, LCA has achieved one of its primary objective by helping to establish/strengthning aviation industry in India. Whether it would be successful in its second main objective, i.e. replacing Mig-21, only time will tell. However, it has failed in the sense that it was meant to have been in operational service years ago and it clearly is not. Regarding the numbers in IAF service by 2010, considering previous timetables and deadline, only time will tell.
As has been repeatedly stated, Air Marshal MSD Wollen for instance, the original timelines were extremely unrealistic and partly borne out of inexperience. Given that, a more prudent (and realistic) estimate of 2010- and afterwards is sufficient to meet the project goals.
Nick_76Jeez, Sealord, please make up your mind:
In post # 353 you point out:IOW you seem sensible enough to suggest that the judgment on whether the LCA is a full success is still out (at least in the short term).
Then you totally contradict yourself by wholeheartedly supporting Scooter’s claim that
by sayingSo then what is it?
Man, if you are pro chinese just say it. No harm there. There is plenty to be proud of, no reason to throw dirt on others in order to buff up your position.
Regards,
USS.
Exactly. The fellow just muck rakes, but when cornered on it, keeps coming up with more and more silly excuses and more drivel. Pride in Chinas achievements is definitely valid, but all the sort of silly shenanigans he has indulged in, well surely he could have done better and comported himself more honorably.
Nick_76I would have to agree! Until the LCA is ordered in significant numbers and placed into service. I think you would have to call the program a failure……:(
Funny- all the details and records already prove you two wrong, but then again, why do records and details matter for you and Sea Lord.
I just did a search under your posts and realised you were saying the same drivel eons ago. Oh well, I should have known better! 😮
Nick_76Reason y i used multibillion dollar term was to emphasise what is at stake. Such contracts are normally looked through thoroughly to the minutest detail before signing them.
And what makes you think that the current swap is not amenable to the IAF, viz. contractual proviso?
Does the original contract call for such an upgrade or no???
The original contract predates the MKI Mk3’s development, and is from 1996. To assume that it would be correct for 2006, is stretching it.
Russia has also offered to swap Mig-25s for Mig-31 and etc. While its possible that Russians (with all their experience) didn’t realise how hard such a conversion would be, were the indians also as naive???
Incorrect analogy. The Su-30 MKI project was still on paper when the deal was signed in 1996, and still firmly under development in 2000, before it became clear that the IAF specific provisions could not be accomodated via the conversion of Su-30 K airframes.
Nick_76This is no argument. Although IAF started the purchase with simple MK1s, plans for MKI were most definitely there, and these original machines (different batches) were planned to be upgraded to final MKI standard at a later date. MKI was developed in accordance to IAF requirement, and i dont think IAF planners would be stupid enough to sign a multi billion dollar contract only to realise later that conversion of MK-1 to MKI is not possible.
If you read the original documentation- I have, its clear that both the IAF and the Sukhoi Corp were doing the best they could, with the information they had at the time. Which is why as issues came forth, and requirements changed, the timeline and plans were changed correspondingly. Whether you think IAF was “stupid” merely because the MK-1 conversion to MKI is impossible is beside the point, all it means is that subsequent developments proved it to be an incorrect solution, and new build MKIs were necessary.
Nick_761)I never said that the MMRCA programme shows a lack of faith in the LCA? why do you put words in peoples mouths? I simply said that if the LCA is not ordered in comparable numbers to the MMRCA and MKI then it would suggest a lack of faith in the MKI.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
2)I never said it should be THE primary type, but that it should be one of the primary types.
Your opinions dont count for much, as compared to the explicit plans of the IAF.
3)How am I playing a crystal ball game- I am saying wait an see- not that the LCA will fail.
Your ranting speaks for itself.
A recap of what I have actually said as opposed to what you claim I have said.
1) At this stage the LCA can not be called a success, but if further orders occur then It can be considered a success. The LCA is in a position where India can do what it likes with it.- That pretty much covers it so I am lost as to why you need to make nearly page long posts full of very little.
Denial, is not a river in Egypt. And the twist, shake, shake should be left to Elvis. :p
Nick_76Yes I remember it well- I posted links to multiple news articles which included qoutes from the report by the comptroller and auditor general. Those who denied the reports failed to provide a single piece of evidence contradicting the reports. My favourite line was “wait for the report to be posted on the CAG website”- of course the CAG rarely posts any reports about military projects on its website and has only updated the civil section for the whole of 2006.:p
The CAG rarely posts reports on its website, ROTFL! Are you serious?
You do realise that you are merely reinforcing the perception of “open foot, insert mouth” when it comes to your posts? The CAGs website was down since they had a database error, and the entire database was offline, its but obvious that they’ll rebuild it. Nor did you post quotes- you posted news reports citing the CAG. When, in the past, these reports have been extremely dodgy. So please, be more serious.
Nick_76And to emphasize it further you should also have pointed out that it was originally intended to upgrade the Su-30K to MKI standard.:rolleyes:
Yes, at a point when not a single MKI Mk3 existed. The reality, as it developed, was different.
Nick_76My point stands that unless the IAF commits further to the LCA (ie numbers comparable to the MKI and the MMRCA) then it has failed to meet the role for which it was intended. At the very least a lack of further orders should raise very serious questions over the IAF’s real faith in the type.
Your point at this time is speculative hyperbole, given that you are insisting on playing the Crystal ball game, but with a focus on what you assume the result will be. Furthermore, lets see how each of your assertions have played out.
Lets have a recap –
1. First you implied that the MRCA deal implied a lack of faith in the LCA or that it should have been ordered in similar numbers
This was quite succintly rubbished via Wollens article which points out a realistic timeframe for the LCA development, as well as the official GOI data which proves that the MMRCA deal is intended for a different intent altogether, then there is also the fact that it was originally intended to field a mature platform as a counterpoint to the MKI/LCA. I can even bring in the GOI literature which specifies this.
2. Then you changed tack and claimed that the IAF was not supporting the LCA and only a few had been ordered hence it was a failure.
Again, you were shown to be wrong, when the GOI has indeed supported the program for full FOC, as well as key subystems by clearing the financial allocations for the same, and the IN and IAF have both plumped for as many aircraft as they can currently afford within their budgetary constraints.
3. Then you claimed that the MKI order was for more numbers and this proved that the IAF was somehow more supportive of the former than the LCA, etc
Again,you were shown to be wrong, when it was pointed out that when the MKI program was initially launched, the IAF only ordered 40 of the type, and the same track record holds for all in development, new build aircraft of similar complexity, including the Mirage 2000, of which the IAF only ordered two squadrons while it contemplated license production even at the time.
4. Then you ranted about how the LCA program had not contributed any meaningful spinoffs
Again, you were shown to be incorrect, with even the HAL chief openly stating that without the LCA, it would not have been even possible to launch the IJT program. You even refused to acknowledge the fact that the LCA was meant to develop such a capability, and it has indeed succeeded in doing so.
And now of course, you claim to have a point about the LCA and its numbers and how many should be ordered.
Are you in anyway, for real? How many bizarre theories will you come up with? Indeed, Victor is correct- the more one pokes holes in your claims, the more skedaddling you engage in, and try to recast your claims.
I fully expect that you will deny each of the above and insist you never said anything of the like. However, your words speak for themselves, and Muns and Victor & others have already pointed out how untenable your assertions were.
Why are you so obsessed with China- you always mention it?
I have not pointed to the PRC alone, but to other countries, such as Sweden, Korea, Israel etc, for a valid comparison of their local programs, and how they too, depended on foreign engines and other key subsystems. If you wish to ignore this, and only focus on the PRC, that merely goes to show your unifocal obsession.
Secondly, your touchiness when it comes to any topic viz China, merely illustrates your hypocrisy when it comes to China vis a vis India. Given how many barbs you have used against “posters of a particular nationality” – your exact words, to boot, in several threads, it behooves you to be put on the spot, and have your views out in the open, instead of the current passive-aggressive sort of silliness which you have indulged in. Support the PRC by all means, just play your cards out in the open.
Secondly,
If you realy want to know I do feel that the J-10 and the JF-17 suffer from a strategic perspective becouse as yet they do not use indigenous engines. I am sure you are aware that a huge amount of importance has been attached to the need for the LCA to be a completely indignous aircraft so that it is not affected by potential sanctions- at the moment it is a very long way from this.
You are once again, mistaken. For one, the LCA was always intended to have some amount of foreign content, with the aim to gradually indigenize over the long run. That intent has not changed, as is obvious from the $ 600 Million for instance signed off for the Kaveri alone, by the GOI.
And for the PLAAFs sake, it is good that their supporters wishes apart, they have had the common sense to go for prudent project management and import as and when necessary. If they had waited for the WS-10, not a single J-10 would have reached IOC till date. And the JF-17 performance would have been severely hobbled with a turbojet, and the Paks would have walked off.
Any sensible follower of the aerospace industry would tell you that cent per cent vertical integration is not only unlikely, it is unwise. There are bound to cost economic differentials that make selective imports attractive, and even necessary for project success, especially when technology challenges imply long product development timelines.
The reason the IAF has in the past only ordered small quantitys of combat aircraft was to keep a wide diversity of different types to try and reduce possible effects of any sanctions- if the LCA is indigenous then this becomes a mute point and there is no reason not to make the type one of the primary aircraft in the IAF.
Once again, you are mistaken. The IAF did not induct its present menagerie purely out of some belief in sanctions- it did so, because the Soviets offered practically rock-bottom rates at friendship prices, and because fiscal, political and bureaucratic considerations did not allow its more ambitious projects (such as license manufacturing Mirage 2000 H’s ) to take off the ground.
Secondly, the LCA will never be the primary type in the IAF. It was never meant to be the primary type, as is evident from the HCA, MCA, LCA concept. What it does provide is a fillip to Indias local aerospace production, and a robust, useful type that will fill the role of a decent multi-role platform.
I have not backtracked at all- you may want to calm down and read my posts and you will realise that I have been consistant through out. The LCA at this point is what India chooses to make it in the coming years. It may upset you but I actually rather like the LCA and the idea behind it and as such I hope it does have success but as yet it has not. If you look back through this forum you will see that on several occasions I have advocated that the LCA programme be speeded up and the the type enter large scale production and squadron service.
You have been backtracking, and you have been making all sorts of claims, each more incorrect than the other. Several other posters have also remarked upon it.
The LCA at this point, is going ahead with its development, that is a proven fact. Irrespective of how much you sledge, it is a fact of life that the GOI has committed itself to seeing it through, and has put its money where its mouth is.
Irrespective of how many strawmen you set up- IAF should do this, or do that- the fact is that at this point of time, the LCA is being supported by all parties concerned. And entirely in a rational manner to boot.
Nick_76What makes you think the LCA hurts me?
Your statements and prior record speak for themselves. You can well support the PRC without doing more of your usual.
The fact that the LCA relys on a foreign engine means alot- ie it has so far failed to be an independantly producable design.
It also means that the J-10 and that the JF-17 have failed to be an independently producable design, since they too rely on Russian engines. It also means the same for the Gripen, the T-50 ALCA, the Ching Kuo IDF and several other designs.
Please use some common sense. In todays world, all high profile defence projects have some degree of interrelationship with other firms globally.
Just becouse further Su-30’s were ordered after the initial 40, it does not mean that more LCAS’s will be. Personally I expect and hope that they will be, but at this stage they have not.
Nice back track, but what it does show is that the current LCA orders have little bearing on its failure or a reflection of the IAFs lack of commitment, as you were so insistent upon harping. Especially given that it is IAF policy to only order a few squadrons of any new type, in this case, especially when funding is already available for the project under the GOI’s R&D head. Given these facts, your prior claims were shown to be wrong, as usual.
I am not saying that the LCA will fail, just that it has yet to succeed (as was originally proposed).
Nice backtrack, but your previous statements speak for themselves. Coming to your current revised benchmark (heh!), the LCAs success is also determined by the development of an indigenous aerospace industry. And one which has been achieved to a large extent. Something which you were incredibly loath to admit.
The IN may have commited to that N-LCA but they have also commited to the Mig-29K, and that has actualy flown which is more than can be said for the N-LCA, once again if and when it does fly and it enters service in a meaningful way I will happily regard it as an achievement. Obviously the fact that the IN has opted for it suggests there is at least some faith in it.
The IN has merely committed to 16 MiG-29 Ks at this point of time. By your own standards, that means the LCA is a more certain prospect than the MiG-29 K. I do hope you realize how untenable your cherrypicked position is.
Nick_76Nick, don’t worry about it. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. If people choose to ignore the reams of information on the Tejas’ capabilities and the IAF’s and HAL’s commitment to it, then there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to change their mind. So, don’t worry, have curry. 😀 Save your energy for people who genuinely care for information not the internet flotsam that wash into the thread once in a while.
Wise words, and I should have indeed resisted the temptation. Perhaps next time.
BTW, shifting the topic to AI07, anything in particular you are looking forward to?
Project Air Defence Details, including much more on the radars and C3I developed.
BEL will surely put out a huge display on all the C3I projects they have been working on.
I am hoping more info, especially a model of the CAT would be shown. Also, hoping for a more than just a half-assed LCH model. Any news on the IJT-Al-55I integration?
Amen, not much on the Al-55I yet.
Is the Gripen supposed to do a display?
My money is on it!
Nick_76what do I have to gain by thinking J-10 is better than flankers. It’s something that plaaf decided, not me.
These two statements are contradictory. You do feel good about the J-10 being better than a Flanker, and there is no shame in that, since it would be a good achievement. But we’re yet to see any valid technical details about where and how the J-10 is comprehensively better than the Flanker, apart from being a local design.
I have incredibly little information and a very limited sample set?
Not just you, but most of us. Which is why one should hesitate to draw the kind of conclusions you have.
I’m not going to comment on Cope India, since that’s totally a different issue.
Its hardly a different issue. If we were to take Cope India’s 9:1 victory ratio over the F-15Cs, then per your standards, I would draw the conclusion that every IAF aircraft type that took part in the exercise is superior to the F15. When they were anything but.
I think China has reported as much about a confidential exercise as you can possibly report.
If the exercises are confidential, you cant draw conclusions of the kind that you have.
But in this case, clearly J-10 was outnumbered in that scenario, so in a worse scenario. That should show you that they weren’t stacking up the odds against J-10 in this scenario.
Once again, without the exact details, your statements are meaningless. The J-10s could have been in a position of advantage, have had better instructors, this, that…simply put, you dont know.
Did you read? IOC has been reached, this is no longer the initial batch anymore, they equipped 131st regiment already.
Again, please be serious and read up on how professional AFs operate. The PLAAF will be no exception. All the way uptil FOC, and even after that, for any new type, an AF prefers to have as many experienced hands as they can spare. Given that, its entirely possible that the first few J-10 regiments will be “top-heavy” in terms of pilots. FYI, even the IAF’s first Su-30 squadrons were likewise. Its SOP.
That’s plaaf numbering scheme, whether you like it or not. Just because IAF doesn’t use this kind of scheme, doesn’t mean plaaf cannot.
Which still doesnt mean that the J-10 is automatically better than the Flanker in each and every aspect. This is something you are ascribing to the J-10, without any detailed specifications on the type.
hmm, it’s kind of strange don’t you think. Immediately after that exercise in 2004, they stopped J-11A production and didn’t make the expected follow up purchase for next batch of mkk.
Nations and AF’s dont make decisions on the spur of the moment. If you think one exercise led to immediate cessation of the J-11A production, you have to be kidding. The decision would have been made prior to that, and the factory and management informed. Such force planning takes months, even years to decide.
CCTV is not good enough for you either, huh?
Delhi Doordarshan was talking of the worlds best fighter, the Su-30K. Does that mean the Su-30 K is better than the Raptor?
yep, but these people have seen all those flight envelopes you talked about. I’m sure the plaaf flight demonstration officer have seen more than his share of mkk and J-10 flying. Maybe you can go to Chengdu and check it out?
What people, and what Chengdu? Werent you supposed to provide the data to back up your claims? Ok, that must make me racist, I presume. How dare I ask you for data to back up your statements with, and not rely on the statements of third hand folks who are supposed to have seen all the details, but cant share it with us- because its secret.
hmm, 131st regiment was flying J-6s before they got J-10. How senior do you think they are? The 3rd division where su-30mkk is in is plaaf’s top division. 18th division was at least flying J-7s and J-8s before su-30mkk. What does that tell you?
All that tells me is what I myself stated, that any new type is put through an Opeval where qualified personnel can handle it. And it also tells me that a J-6 squadron would be happy to get a J-8 or a JH-7, or a J-10.
PR doesn’t make an event any less truthful. If something happened, it happened.
Sigh…propoganda and reality are often different things..
10:1 kill ratio is a pretty lopsided score no matter how you look at it.
9:1 in Cope India. Obviously, the Bison, Mirage 2000-H and MiG-29 A are better than F-15 Cs. Really, really.
If you get detect first, lock on first and shoot first everytime, that’s pretty lopsided no matter how you look at it.
Sure, especially, if one side gets GCI and the other doesnt. Or if one side gets more experienced instructors.
Considering we already know about a scenario where su-30 outnumbered defending j-10s, plaaf clearly wasn’t trying to restrict su-30.
What do we know about the J-10 bar what China chooses to let us know? Care to tell me the serviceability of the J-10? Or its cost? Or its key items MTBF?
One thing to consider, who benefits and looses from J-10 winning? CAC is the winner here and SAC is the looser because it produces J-11s. And SAC had always been the big brother in AVIC1 over CAC, but it got demoted due to the success of J-10 against flankers. You think SAC, which historically had more influence in pla would allow plaaf design an exercise where flankers are clearly marginalized and restricted?
Who knows- a CAC feller could have got more influence with the Party. After all, the J-10 is “indigenous” and a symbol of PRC pride, the J-11 is foreign. Strategic independence. Could be many reasons.
I was very calm then, as I am now. But look, we can ask all the non-Indian and non-Chinese poster of this thread. I’m sure Scooter and SeaLordLawrence are tired of your antics.
Funny- I seem to remember several other posters have also disagreed with their conclusions. Must have made them “racist”, as well. Face it, you are making a joke out of yourself by crying racism, when somebody does not believe what you say without being shown evidence.
But think about it this way. If I tell you “your source should not be used just because it’s Indian”. Would I be a racist? Why should China be any different?
I would love to see any Chinese source that is open about the program, and audits the process of development. Do you have one like that?
Wait, you dont even have the actual technical details of the aircraft- but you insist that everyone else is a racist. Not only do you devalue the term, but you go to show why your statements cant be taken seriously. I am not even offended, more like amused at your antics.
Why should China release these info? To satisfy you? It releases whatever information that is relevant.
China releases whatever information makes it have its best foot forward. The Chinese Govts restrictions on the press are well known, and I have no wish to engage in a flamewar on the matter, but you have to be joking if you think that everything is hunky dory.
The information is J-10 is the best fighter in China. Its actions like ordering exceedingly high number of J-10s and not buying any more Russian flankers follow that logic.
Already replied to earlier.
It’s interesting that US DoD compared J-10 to the EuroCanards.
Funding. T-72 supertanks, anyone?
Interesting that Pakistani gov’t chose J-10 ahead of Gripen and F-16.
Reliable supply from China, and sanction proof.
But you, for some reason because you don’t get a few number on paper, can’t give this plane any respect.
This is hilarious. It dont get any respect, huh? And that makes anyone who asks for more conclusive evidence = dont give it no respect, racist.
I can easily proof why those numbers are incorrect. Just check the empty weight of J-8II and compare its size to J-10 and you will see that empty weight for J-10 is wrong. Just take a look at the thrust level for WS-10A and AL-31FN-M1, you will see that the thrust of engine is wrong too.
Still not conclusive, kindly show the actual figures.
Well, clearly you are not interested in find out more about J-10, but just bashing it. btw, I’m actually interested in reading more about LCA rather than bashing it. What does that say about you and me?
Please be serious. Saying that there is no clearcut evidence of the J-10’s superiority is not bashing it. Its being prudent.
It does not mean that the J-10 is not a significant achievement for China.
What your comments do say about you is that you are an enthusiastic young man, who uncritically swallows all the PR about the J-10 and anything Chinese. Every nations youngsters feel that their locally made fighters and military equipment are the best in the world. But you will grow more cynical with time. 🙂
But hey, there is no point for me to post any longer in this thread, since I will just be repeating my point from now on. And you, just keep up your anti-J-10 spirit. Congradulations.
My “anti-J-10” spirit is presently out of town. This is my pro-J-10 spirit. 😉
Nick_76You are right there is alot of information on the LCA here- and the facts it presents are that the LCA is currently relying on an imported engine and an imported radar and only 35 aircraft have been ordered compared to over 200 MKI’s and potentially 126 MMRCA’s). Thus it has failed as a project to create an indigenous aircraft and the type has so far failed to become an important type in the IAF.
Blathering the same screed over and over again does not make you a sage, or for that matter correct. All it does is show that you are clutching at straws (after the “spinoff” issue and similar claims).
As Air Marshal MSD Wollen remarks, the LCA will only come about by 2010 and thereafter, so there is little account of the IAF wasting its capex by ordering more than the current 35 aircraft at present. Sensible observers would also note that the same process was followed by the IAF with the Su-30 MKI project as well, with only 40 aircraft ordered till the IOC – since you seem to think its a valid comparison.
The MRCA project has already been remarked in detail, about how it met an entirely different requirement, and the details are available.
Coming to an imported engine, you wear your ignorance on your sleeve again- as Wollen and Rajkumar (and all credible sources) remark, the LCA was always intended to have the Ge404 for its prototypes. Furthermore, the Indian Govt has already committed the funds for fullscale Kaveri development, in a JV with any company GTRE so chooses. Similarly, the GOI has also committed funds to seeing the MMR through, and has also committed funds all the way upto the FOC, for FSED Phase-II, to the tune of Rs 3302 Crores (700 Million $). The Govt of India has also cleared the development of the Naval LCA, at a cost of $ 210 Million dollars, with part of the money coming from the IN. Apart from this, the IAF has also parked funds for the 20 IOC (which they didnt have to, it could have come purely from the R&D head), as well as cleared the production of 8 LSP.
Furthermore, the fact that the LCA relies on the Ge404 does not mean squat in real terms, since if the GOI were to so wish, it could also come up with an arrangement similar to the one between Volvo Flygmotor and GE, for the RM-12 for the Gripen. The “indigenous Ching Kuo”, currently relies on a variety of imported components, including its APG-67 derivative radar, as well as its powerplant. The T-50 ALCA, likewise. So please dont bandy semantics.
It may hurt you even more to know that the Indian Navy has already committed itself to 20 Naval LCA’s for their first batch, equipped with the Ge404 to cut down on project time. Erm, that adds upto 48 confirmed LCA orders already, from two services even whilst the type is still under development. Apart from the 7 prototypes.
So you may continue blowing sunshine out of your wazoo, and keep ranting about project failure and yada yada (as you did with the drivel about spinoffs, wherein we have a HAL chief to show your comments as they deserve to be seen), but the fact speaks for itself. That the GOI and the IAF, and even the IN have committed to seeing the project through.
Of course in the future more examples may be ordered and the Kaveri and indigenous radar may be adopted- at which point it will become a succesful project.
No, it will become a successful project the moment you declare it so. After, all whats the point of being a Sea Lord, if you cant lord your opinions and fantasies around. :p
Nick_76Right…lets take a look at an article from BR, which talks about the original contract.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Specs/index.htmlSo the first batch was standard SU-27SK (SU-30MK-I), second would have uprated avionics, while third would also feature canards and new engines. Please note that according to the above article these machines delievered in different phases were later to be upgraded to the MKI standard. To me it indicates that its possible to take up a SU-30K and upgrade it to MKI. Feasibility of doing so is a totally irrelevant issue. Of course, while it may not be economically feasible to upgrade SU-30K into MKI (or F-16A into F-16E) that was not the point. These are not new desings but upgrades based on their predecessors, and i would like to quote Dr. K G NARAYANAN (Former Chief Adviser DRDO & Director)…The Su-30MKI is considered to be the ‘ultimate’ evolution of the Su-27 originally developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau in 1982
A well reasoned answer and you make valid points.
However, the more basic fact is thus- that over the course of its development, the MKI has so many significant differences from the basic Flanker, that its simply not practical to even attempt to convert one a standard Flanker into the MKI.
Simply put, its an all new aircraft, with its own development path. Which is the exact point I was making to Sea Lord, whose glib reply would make it appear that the differences are but a matter of subsystems and new engines and fancy gizmos.
In a recent submission to the Indian Standing Committee on Defence, the Ministry of Defence has clarified, that the Indian Su-30 K’s cannot be converted into MKI Mk3s. Simply put, external similarities apart, the MKI Mk3’s internal structure has been extensively beefed up (for instance), to make it take the Al-31FP’s and the Bars radar. You can well imagine the stress on the airframe when the MKI goes through its TVC routine.
That is the basic point, that a full blown MKI Mk3 is not a simple transition with plug and play canards, TVC engines and whatever Russia threw in.
Nick_76The MKI is not a ‘new’ design. It is just a modified Su-30. fitted with the best equipment that was available at the time of its definition. Russia is already offering a new generation of engines on the export market with higher thrust, longer life and true 3D TVC (as opposed to the X configuration of the MKI’s engines) Granted the MKI’s X configuration offers a higher degree of movement, but it is not true 3D. Incidently the upcomming Su-35 which will, according to Sukhoi, fly this year will abandon the forward canards and only use the TVC (again true 3D). Also China has ordered the new engines (AL-31FM1) for both the J-10 and the Su-27.
This reminds me, what is Indias participation in the Irbis radar? Are they actually cooperating with the Russians on it?
*Yawwn*, answer his original question will you. Can you take the stock Su-30K’s in IAF service today and convert them into Su-30 MKIs? And how feasible is it to do so?
Sign In
