KAI T-50 is more advance than Yak 130, and it’s actually a Lockheed design. So advance that some potential customers think it’s too much for a trainer. So why they (the American) need to use Russian design, if they can use what actually Lockheed design ?

KAI T-50 is a single engined supersonic trainer where as Yak-130 is a twin-engined sub-sonic trainer. T-50 can be theoretically compared to the Su-54 supersonic trainer concept.

Designed in Russia, developed in Italy.

Put the two airframes side-by-side – and it would take a trained observer to tell them apart.

Ken

I’d say. Designed in Russia and customized in Italy!

The overall & biggest looser in the deal was only Russia and Yakovlev OKB. After tasting success with Yak-130 customization, the Italians have set their sights on something parallel taking the Amur submarine as the base and promoting a customized variant, S1000, to the Indian Navy.

I see.
BTW does anyone have [or point me to one] a picture of a Klub being fired from a ship?
cheers.

you should have asked that directly to the expert above who identified 9M317ME without an ounce of doubt and for whom you gave a thumpsup. 😉

So finally a good chance that Americans’ will be having trainers of Russian origin and undoubtedly the best trainer. Probably generation+++ ahead of the Hawk series.

Even China will be having a better trainer L-15 than the oldie Hawk series that IAF bought, which can take the trainees to higher alpha….

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/12/express-investigation-2-iaf-had-enough.html

EXPRESS INVESTIGATION: 2 | IAF had enough time to build shelters for Sukhois

By Anantha Krishnan M
Express News Service
Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Bangalore: Exposed Sukhois are in the danger of having nick marks on the engine blades, though the thrust vector part is generally covered. With a transparent (opaque) canopy, the heat gets settled inside, slowly, but surely impacting on multiple non-metallic parts, including those linked to ejection systems. While the Indian Air Force (IAF) failed to give a detailed response to our queries, sources flying and feeding the Sukhois told Express that the shelter-less state of affairs of a modern fighter is ‘shocking.’

HAL officials are amused as to why the IAF didn’t bother to provide shelters to the fighters’ biggest bases at Pune and Barelley. “The IAF had enough time from 2002 onwards to put up shelters in Pune. Weather has an impact on the fighters if they are parked outside,” sources said. HAL’s first official communication, expressing serious concerns, is said to have been sent to the IAF’s Maintenance Command in October 2010. The IAF operates over 150 Sukhois from its bases in Pune, Barelley, Chabua, Jodhpur and Tezpur.

Sources said that even lightning strike didn’t spare a Sukhoi in 2009 causing serious emergency. “The aircraft suffered structural damages, which is unheard of in modern times. All these are definitely pointing towards quality and design issues. If we don’t address them now and take corrective steps, it will be a bad publicity for the IAF, HAL, and to both friendly nations of India and Russia. At what cost are we losing them?” a veteran pilot, who were among the first to fly the Sukhois, said.

An official with the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC) says that the all Russian aircraft are designed for safe operations in minus temperatures. “If the Sukhois are parked outside, even with a canvass cover, it cannot escape from the trapped temperature inside, which will be very high as compared to the reflected temperature. We don’t have much insight into the Russian qualification process,” the official said. He claimed that for Indian military platforms (Tejas, Dhruv, Sitara) the rubber parts are tested and qualified to a maxim temperature of 71 degrees Celsius.

Air Marshal (Retd) T.S. Randhawa, an expert with Sukhoi platforms, said that the IAF is already in the process of getting shelters. “We understand that there can be an effect due to exposing the fighter to sun. The weather varies – like hot, cold, dust, breeze and over a longer period of time, YES, there could be an impact. But, these fighters are serviced as per the IAF SOPs,” he said.

SUNBURN: The possible damage to Sukhois due to prolonged exposure to the sun:

Flexing on fuel tanks leading to leakages
Effect on avionics resulting in premature failures
Impact on ejection system due to transparent canopy
Damage to fabric material of pilot seats
Wakening of harness units
Nick marks on engine blades due to dust particles

this wasn’t posted earlier…related to the Su-30MKI crash.
http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/12/sukhoi-crash-flaws-in-russian-design-or.html

SUKHOI CRASH: Flaws in Russian design or holes in HAL’s quality standards?
Crashed fighter was on a maiden ‘air test’ after servicing

By Anantha Krishnan M
Express News Service
Saturday, December 17, 2011

Bangalore: The Sukhoi (Su-30 MKI) that crashed near Pune on December 13 was on its first air test (fly test) after it underwent the mandatory servicing. The aircraft had already completed 400 hours of flying and had to do undergo a second servicing (after every 200 hours) as per the Indian Air Force (IAF) norms. Sources with the investigation team tell Express that the fighter crashed after oscillating – a rare phenomenon if the platform was not under control. “The pilots couldn’t control the aircraft and it crashed without any warning, clearly pointing towards system and quality issues,” sources said.

This was the third crash of the elite Sukhoi jets of IAF, with the first one occurring on April 2009 following the pilots suspected to have inadvertently switched-off the fly-by-wire and the second one in November 2009, with fire being reported inside the aircraft.

Sources in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) say that there were quality related issues with the basic design (Russian). “The issues with the design are known even to the IAF and you can’t blame HAL alone. The current crash is suspected to be a fly-by-wire malfunction and we are investigating. The flight data recorder (FDR) along with some burnt parts of the aircraft have come to Nasik. We will decode the FDR to find the exact cause,” sources said.

The crashed fighter was manufactured at HAL’s Nasik division, during 2009-10 period, as part of the phase-3 production (partial raw-material, partial Russian). Two Russian specialists are now part of the investigation team, with one looking into the fly-by-wire systems and another the test-flight parameters. “There’s a lot of redundancy built in Sukhoi. There are four parallel wires and in case one fails there are three more that should have worked. Is it a question of the design flaw or HAL’s quality standards?,” sources ask.

HAL sources claim that they have made lot of improvements to the Su-30 MKI. “There were problems with the pipeline and looms (electrical harnes). Thirty (30) Sukhois were grounded a few months back due to defects in the assembly done by the Russians. They admitted the mistakes and identified 12 aircraft out of the 30 for rectification,” sources said. The recent crash cost the nation Rs 250-crore. HAL’s main profits come from Nasik Division.

42 ADDITIONAL ORDERS LIKELY: Amidst the question marks over quality issues, both from Russian and HAL side, India is all set to place an order for additional 42 Su-30MKIs. This is in addition to the initial order of 50 (which came from Russsia), plus the 180 (140 + 40) being done in various phases. “The additional order of 42 will be taken up for production from next year onwards. These may not be the upgraded versions (Super Sukhois). A final decision will be taken soon (upgraded or not) soon,” sources said. So far, the IAF has taken deliveries of 103 Sukhois built under license by HAL.

Currently India is also holding talks with Russia for the upgradation of the existing fleet. “The plan is to upgrade 100 aircraft. A team is already in Russia and we are sorting out software and radar-related issues,” source said.

(Copyright@The New Indian Express)

Russia could use two of these to replace the larger Kuznetsov.. would be more practical and give Russia something new w/o wasting too much time on developing something. just do a liscense build like Mistral.. fly some MiG-29Ks off them!

don’t you feel that it lacks sense?

On the contrary, it would be in India’s advantage if they can jointly work with Russia and get the Kuznetsov design or get an even further modified for N-propulsion….because, if looks like even India is looking for scaled up designs. Kuznetsov will be able to carry far more MiG-29Ks than what the IAC will be able to carry.

my personal view is that Mistral deal is a criminal wastage for Russian Navy and a few in the high places might have benefited from the deal. Those involved should face a firing squad.:dev2:

Parallel exists in IN also like plans for over 20 x P-8 at a great cost, when the Navy lacks surface combatants, diesel-electric submarines and combat supports. Any plans for the much needed N-sub is also not clear after the lease of INS Chakra, when more units of the same would have enhanced the sub-surface combat potential, considerably!

Does it seem a bit on the smallish side?
I think 2013 is very optimistic according to Indian shipbuilding standards.

smallish side…hmmm….. if the concerned officials & experts carry forward this theory, we’ll be seeing a project which is getting on track, getting messed up big time. My view is to continue this momentum and built 1-2 more hull of the same class. If we don’t ponder and keep this project on track and timeline…. by 2020, 2-3 x IAC can be definitely put to the sea with a total of 3-4 carriers. If we break this now, I can bet, it would be just IAC-1 and INS Vikramaditya by 2020.

You are wrong on the CSL w.r.t Indian shipbuilding standards….

The PSU, Cochin Shipyard Limited, have have been operating in the commercial ship building sector for long and they know to manage their orders properly and meet the deadline and deliver in the timeline.

Comparing CSL to the incompetent MDL etc is unfair. Even the largest yard in Europe had their chief sacked for mis management. We don’t see any of such basic “accountability checks” being carried out in India.

That said, I don’t expect them to carry out sea-trials of IAC by early 2013 because, the phase-1 (building hull) is the most “simple” part, the heavy task of injecting life into the hull is the most time-consuming and heavy task. If one understands what it is like fitting out the hull, one would easily understand what a herculean task it was for Sevmash to work on a carrier they did not built, and had to strip down the carrier and then rebuilt it.:eek: The positive side for the yard is they have gained tremendous expertise and knowledge working on INS Vikramaditya, which will keep them in good stead in the future!

moreover, in the case of IAC, it is the first of the class and first of the project of this scale undertaken by the CSL. So delays can be expected.