More like the Su-30MKI was developed with the IAF as its only customer and HAL as a primary integrator. How many other production aircraft are out there with canards and tvc as a standard fit today with avionics integration with other Indian systems, used on the LCA, etc.

The canards and TVC integration was done completely by Sukhoi. How the plane flies and performs is Sukhoi’s work. Indian/Israeli/French work are with sensors, EW, and navigations, not flight performance.

If the Indians – who are the only other ones besides the Russians with a deep manfucaturing liscence don’t know the MTOW – and the IAF ACM as the principal user doesn’t know- then you are in trouble. I would trust these sources more than some brochures that are inconsistent.

Which is why I am using the factory website.

The inconsistency among the brochures do reflect changing requirements. It may mean that the planes being delivered now has the current Irkut specs, and that your 39mt spec is probably for future planes to come.

And yup, you’re in trouble.

More like the IAF ACM knows more about his aircraft capabilities than Irkut as it has a signficant Indian, Israeli, and French components. And that MTOW would be a IAF requirement and wold be known upfront.

Not to mention that HAL has a deep liscence, something that the Chinese do not have for full manufacture of the Su-30MKI – including the engines. Also the Su-30MKI is pretty custom in terms of its fit.

So I guess the people ordered the plane knows more than those who designed and engineered the plane. Since Irkut finished the plane, they would have integrated the so called significant Indian, Israeli and French components (all avionics by the way, which has nothing to do with the MTOW or the airframe). Right? Or did they deliver the plane without the avionics for HAL to put it themselves?

If you have a situation like that, you’re in deep trouble.

SINCE HAL IS LICENCE MANUFACTURING THE AIRCRAFT UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE IAF IAR CHIEF, they should know, and no Crobato dot twist what I am saying, do u have exact dimensions from the factory talking about the Su-30MKI, READ MKI FIGURES THANKS?

HAL hasn’t said a word yet either.

Have you tried this? A most recent website?

http://www.irkut.com/en/services/production/SU30MK/

Take-off weight (normal / maximum), kg 24,900 / 34,500 Fuel reserve, spec. weight 0.785 g/cu.cm (normal / maximum), kg 5,270 / 9,640 Max flight range, km: with internal fuel reserve 3,000 with one in-flight refueling, km 5,200 Maximum take-off run at normal take-off weight (afterburner), m 550 Maximum landing run at normal landing weight, with drag parachute 750 Service ceiling, m 17,300 Maximum G-load, g 9 Dimensions (length / wing span / height), m 21.9 / 14.7 / 6.4

They don’t have any other “Su-30MK” other than the MKI and the MKM which is directly derived from the MKI. Look at the pic of the Su-30MKI at Aeroindia 2003 which they also called Su-30MK if you like to play semantics.

Old Zhuhai show material.

But in the Indian vs (anybody) scenario, that will be a MAJOR concern especially in the merchant clogged Indian Ocean. The fact that the IN made an intentional decision to go for long ranged supersonic AShMs shows that they either (a) have the capability to discretize targets at stand-off ranges or (b) will get the ability to discretize targets at stand-off ranges. What good is a missile stand-off missile if the platform and the system cant take advantage of that stand-off feature?

It’s easy to distinguish between a merchant ship and an aircraft carrier. You probably don’t need SAR for this. Beam sharpening is enough (good enough for TERCOM use also). SAR is better suited for tank sized targets. SAR for a missile sized seeker would mean it has to get pretty close (5km like that—fighter plane radars use SAR within 20-30km of the target).

What would be most difficult to distinguish is merchant vessels between neutral and the enemy. Not even the USN has this or has done this from stand off long range. Stand off attacks tend to be against fixed targets on port or on ground, and these targets have been reconned first. Without very precise INS (GPS) and confirmation via datalink, stand off attack is indeed going to be a total dirty war.

But then again, a large missile like this is only meant to destroy a large shipborne target, not a small one. If you want to target small fry, use a smaller missile. It only needs to distinguish between large vs. small, then attack the large one. Find out whether a target will be neutral, friendly or hostile is the job for the launching ship before the missile is launched.

Can anyone explain me why the mirage 5 (or 3) is not comparable with Jaguar or Fbc1? Thanks.

Actually I’m not very sure about the whole point of these ‘comparisons’.

Try to find the one eh?

International Air Power Review Vol. 8

(Feature article on the Su-27/30 family)

Page. 42-44. Author: Thomas Andrews.

In addition, China wanted the upgraded ¡§Flanker¡¨ to have greater range and endurance. To meet the requirement, the aircraft was to be equipped with an in-flight-refueling system and somewhat larger internal fuel tanks.
Special emphasis was put on the aircraft being capable of taking off with full external combat load and full fuel. The Su-27SK¡¦s existing take-off weight (28000kg for the first batches and 33000kg for later versions) limited the number of bombs the aircraft could carry with full fuel. Alternatively, if taking off with a full fuel load, the fighter could not carry the full 8-tonne payload. The maximum take-off weight of the upgraded variant with an 8000 kg payload and 9640 kg of fuel could amount to 38800 kg, which would require stronger landing gear and a reinforced airframe.