Folks now that there is talk about a new Barak SAM for the IN the ORIGINAL topic does make sense. May I humbly remind those who are still interested in the topic (unlikes other with axes to grind) that I had umm hinted at this in post 33.

Ummm….. IN Mig-29K=New Carrier=Newer Battle Group=Newer/Better Air Defence. So if them Mig-29’s are defending, them Su-30MKK riff raff will sure have their hands full with them newer long/medium range SAMs (we are talking about 5-10 years hence)…..

So NOW gentleman, jingos, infidels and al-keeda waddya think of the IN Mig-29K and the Chinese MKK? Off course I am making a super duper assumption there that the Ukeranians and Mogolians actually keep the chinese flankers viable.

Ya think them MKK (if they fly) will ever make it past a Barak 2? Lets for kicks assume its better than them Aster-30 (given that them Yehoodis have some fancy smancy terrestrial SAM already that Yindoos would like to get their hands ons).

Unless off course luminaries have serious doubts about India having a sparing factor of 7 or would still prefer to drag the IAF to the level of the PLAAF just coz all the ukeranians cant keep them chinese flankers afloat?

What BVK said…is exactly what I would have done to reply to this drone/admin with selective english comprehension. Thanks BVK, will buy you beer. Oh dont worry most ppl high on the street version of Fentanyl donno what trolling is.

I like the feature of post #. For further references on the ORIGINAL context of the 920 -FP engines.

Post # 193:

The sparing factor is as high as 7 engines per plane for the MKI fleet, there are no references for the K, but given that the K were far from being grounded when I was there (a week or so after your famous article) I dont see how what seems to afflict the PLAAF has anything to do with the IAF.

Also I am glad that now you konw what AWST stands for and that you think its a good magazine coz its in AWST 2001 that Pushpinder Singh told us about 140 MKI (of which 2 of the SKD are out) and 920 engines (knowing HAL they barely managed to assemble 16-18 additional by now from SKD). But they dont need to outstrip engine demand with engine supply, their priority is two-fold 1) to absorb the super complex technology of AL-31FP ASAP 2) produce defect free viable engines for the IAF MKI fleet to wean it off UMPO made engines.

Oh but I forgot….this discussion is about the -31F which are all 100% made in Ufa and sold to the the Indians with some fancy after sales agreement. Which is why IAF pulls them up for their premature failure and yet has enough engines to maintain its operational tempo…while the PLAAF has to ground and cannibalize its fleet and get its flankers pilots to notch up hours on other aircrafts.

Now what tanget are you gonna drag this discussion into, Todo? You are not in Kanwa Kansas anymore.

Ok let this be a lesson to you luminaries of AFM, some of us actually put a lot of weight on the sources. SO while CDF/SDF etc like to invent and photochop stuff on behalf of the PLAAF, and other who are delusional about knowing enough about “both countries”. Some of us do not say stuff (or make it clear that it cannot be backed up by open source so take it or leave it….well coz its directly from someone who really matter, unlike our brouchure sniffers…who dont get closer to a flanker than a photochopped pic). If know that AFM is Air Forces Monthly you should also know what AWST stands for. Its a sad commentary on your delusional drones that you really dont even know that.

I cant believe that even after re-quoting my own text, you have other luminaries that cannot deduce that the ORGINAL SOURCE is AWST and the author is Pushpinder Singh. Why else would have I tried to pre-empt your insipid reponse about Pushpinder being an Indian and that you only trust Ukeranians and Lyulka’s order book???? Jeee I donno how folks have discussions on AFM with these drones who can barely read or comprehend english.

For those who still dont believe that AWST is a magazine published by McGraw-Hill:

Note: You are looking for an article titled “Hindustan Aeronautics Sharpens Its Focus” by Pushpindar Singh in Aviation Week & Space Technology June 25, 2001.

Note the date and note the dates of EVERY OTHER story including the CII report that Hunting Hawk is referring to. Now you know. So much for BR being a fan site. After bringing IAF to the level of PLAAF you now want to drag BR to the same muck that populates CDF/SDF. Great, sour grapes??

I wonder if other native english speakers have problems comprehending what I am saying as much as our chinese luninaries. What part of the statement that IAF NEVER had to ground or cannibalize its Su-30K did you not understand? What did I ever say that IAF NEVER had to ground ANY planes? Heck I was the one to remind you guys about the Mig-29-RD33 fiasco! I may be an acolyte of the IAF but I strive to be as balanced as possible. If its true its true, if its not then its not…not matter what psedo-expert/soothsayers/oracles have to say about “both countries”.

You can dismiss the sparing factor of 7 coz you have not physically counted it yourself in Koraput for all I care. That does not mean that Koraput will not produce 920 engines (and Nasik will produce 140 ENGINLESS MKI as many seem to have implied :diablo:). Evidently our grounded chinese friends dont understand that 500 engines of whatever variety is diddly squat for the Russians unless you talk 1000’s like for the -31FP and the -55 its highly unlikely that they will even set up a respectable service center in your country, let alone give you a deep license. And then you will have to contend with ukeranians.

Pants down??? He he he well now the honorable moderator of AFM is getting very testy. If I recall he has previously used a lot of other invectives too. I merely commented on this being the year of the dog (which was duly removed by another moderator…in the spirit of being equal-equal). I see being a moderator on AFM means that you can go around using less than civil terms with impunity even if you donno what you are talking about. Right…and then ppl wonder why this forum is so Oraclized.

But coming back to “pants down” now that its been sufficiently proven (although the drones will not agree that it has been till they have counted 920 engines in Koraput….which is possible coz their own glossy brouchured -31FN are certainly out of bounds from their own contrymen) I dont see what else is there to be debated. Keeping with true traditions you have managed to drag IAF down to the level of the PLAAF (that the sixth time I guess), when IAF did not have to ever ground its flankers but luminaries on AFM seem to include the IAF planes when they talk about equal-equal groundings. IAF never had any problems with maintainance or spares. Su-30K has equivalent sparing factor as the MKI which has been documented but folks dont want to believe it till they have counted all of them themselves or seen HAL’s accounts. And its already been adequately proven that IAF flanker drivers are routinely doing nearly 300 hours as a norm (and then folks who could not digest this want to suddenly talk about the IAF as a whole).

ANd the funniest thing that seems to have come out of this discussion, not matter how eloquently you write, how witty you are, its like playing Mozart in front of a dog. The chinese will barely read what you are writing, let along comprehend it, they are out with their axes and they have grinding on their minds.
___________________________
Drone: To pass or act in a monotonous way. Thats EXACTLY what you are seeing here. No matter what evidence is presented it has been imagined that just coz PLAAF cannot fly its flankers the IAF also must be having the same problem.

Just a zimble question ……..Because my math say’s 920engines/190MKI’s is lesser than the 6.57 for the ’30 k/mk .(Or does the number reflect the higher lifetime ot the FP ?)

Tch tch tch….look what you ve dont to yourself. You have been totally oraclized. We are NOT making 190 MKI , we only making 140 and the 920 engines are meant for those birds onleee. The umm 32 planes are IAPO made and they will onleee use UMPO made engines. Remember we have some pretty good (non-Ukeranian) service facilities but the Koraput is faaaaaaaaar from even delivering the first of the -FP.

Now my mathematics tells me that (920/140)=6.571. What do you get? :diablo: Please dont ask me for the # for the -31F engines or the engines for the IAPO built MKI. And before you go about including the 18 + 32 + 2 a/c in your calculus you need to understand as of now there are no Indian made -31FP let alone -31F, but yet these planes are being flogged so they have to have come with spare engines right? And those are the engines are the root of this discussion: UFA made AL-31F engines. So you cannot count these airframes (or the 32 MKI) against the 920.

Crobato:
If you can be diligent enough to FIND and POST articles about the nicks in the AL-31F engines and hence CONCLUDE rather ummmm….quixotically that “both countries” have to cannibalize and ground their flankers. I am suuuuuuuure that you have the mental faculty to google for “MKI and 920 engines”.

Now if you cant find them or claim not to find them, it only proves your insidious desire to bring the IAF down to the level of PLAAF has not merit whatsoever. That….or whatever part of the world you dwell in does not like BR to come up on its searches. Now off course you will find it…and then you will conclude that AWST is not the best source or Puspinder Singh is an Indian so he does not know what he is talking about, only chinese and Ukeranians know what they are talking about and you want to see the Lyulka’s Balance Sheet to know for a fact that Indian indeed is making 920 engines (why else would the russians give us deep licensing?) while all the kings horses and ukeranians cant seem to keep PLAAF flankers aloft.

FACT 1: In the early 90’s IAF got screwed with Mig-29 and RD-33 engines.
FACT 2: Indians signed up for 140 MKI and 920 FP in 2000.
FACT 3: Reports start emanating that Su-30 engines are failing in Dec 2003. Problem fixed under warrenty for the engines.
FACT 4: In 2005, it is reported that Lyulka finally warrented its engines for 1000 hours using bench test as per clients (IAF) specifications. So each engine MUST perform for a 1000 hours or else!!

So you draw your own conclsions about trust or no trust or undying admiration. All I am saying is that IAF has and WILL continue to get the OEM to perform ALL WARRENTIED REPAIRS necessary to prevent/remedy premature failure of engines as per contract. No a/c were grounded to the the foresight and money IAF invested.

Original engine life over, new engine put in, engines failed prematurely (not ALL only some and thats why there are no crashes to report)…it was take out of the flightline…engine taken off, new spare engine put in (not all fail) and off you go. OEM had to repair faulty spare engine due to premature failure, recertified and put back in the spare pool. Its as simple as that. No ukeranians, no cannibals, no groundings and no shanghai statistics.

So what part of the above statement do you not understand this time?

Wrong. I don’t think you need to cannibalize on the new planes but certainly you have to do so in the older ones. Don’t misquote me.

Bubba…why do I have the displeasure of reminding you that we are talking about the K (you keep dragging the MKI into this coz of some grand delusions you have). They were definately 7 years old and YET their engines were covered under warrenty…which is why your 3 years claim is totally BS with regards to the IAF. If you could think out of your indoctrinated box you would know what elements are and are not covered. Hence the question of cannibalization (i.e. taking working engines with low hours and putting them into viable airframes JUST DOES NOT ARISE…they have a very high sparing factor. Wheather you believe it or not)

………. If you think it’s some kind of degradement, you must be an adolescent. Like I said, it happens in all air forces. Even though they don’t say it, and the PLAAF does not say it either, it is assumed logically they do because that is common around the world.

There you go again…ASSUMING it happens….I didnt ask you for your assumption I was happily reading all the BS about MKK and Mig-29K even though everything stated in this thread was BS…then you decide to come along and poop on this thread by telling us what YOU think about “both countires” and someone has to set you stright. Also there is no logic in your assumptions and you know that too.

Wrong. I have always been talking about the broader sense. You just want to localize it on the Su-30MKI. Why did you think I brought up the examples in the first place. The general topic we are discussing is to justify the 240-300 flight hours you claim your pilots are getting and I am disputing that because of your operability rates. That is not singularized into one particular plane type.

I hate it when volatile pubescents forget what we are originally arguing about…This especially happens when they start loosing their ground. Just to remind you again…using your own words

KANWA reports nearly 250-300 hours, and there is an admittance in CCTV that confirms such for J-11 and Su-30 regiments.

I doubt that for both nations, you can maintain a 300 flight hour schedule for an Su-30. Sukhoi’s recommendation is 200 flight hours. Compound that with engine issues, maintenance issues—all of which results in planes in being grounded and cannibalized—and you have a fairly low operability availability of the aircraft. You have to be practicing some of the other hours in another plane.

China is throwing a lot of money into the problem, like having 7 personnel in charge of maintaining a single Flanker (where an F-16 only requires 2); hiring Ukrainians to provide assistance; and buying lots of spare engines.

What now??? YOU WERE MISQUOTED???? :dev2:

One of the things you BS me is the FOD issue. If your nicks are caused by FOD, then it’s not an engine design problem and you can use your spares. Problem solved. If the nicks are caused by factory problems, it is very likely your spares would also be affected too, in which case would need to be inspected or withdrawn. And if it is a serious technical problem on the part of the factory, the factory would have to make a design go around, manufacture the new engines before sending them to you again and that would take up much more time.

Do you WANT ME QUOTE the person who introduce FOD to this disussion again? I didnt say it was FOD, I told you WHY its not FOD….that tells me how much you read or are able to comprehend my posts. I dont wanna be repeasting things for a shanghai statistician like you, sit with a dictionary and re-read that post.

But I must commend you for trying to think out of the box for once. Its not really a FOD issue at all…coz the IAF makes sure that FO are not strewn on the runway or taxi ways. Maybe PLAAF does not do that…and thats why you like to drag the IAF to that level. Its a much deeper issue, and that why the whole question of WHAT THE WARRENTY SAYS, WHATS COVERED comes into issue.

[/quote]
A sparing factor of 7 engines per plane by the way, is abnormal and extremely high. You don’t spare that much unless you really think your engines are so crap. [/quote]

Go look up how many engines were contracted for the MKI (AFIK the K # is not public so you dont need to know). But the sparing factor is comparable. And YES FINALLY YOU GET IT. The IAF was/is really really scared of the russians engines thanks to what happed with the RD-33. And they know what happens when engines start failing and they know how hard it is to get these engines serviceable with little or no support. Thats EXACTLY what the PLAAF might be going through with its AL-31F. SO if you had stated that PLAAF was cannibalizing and ground its flankers like the IAF did with its fulcrum I would have actually bought you beer….not kicked you around like this.

Mind you, one of the problems the Russian factories face is to produce enough engines for both Indian and Chinese requirements. Build that much engines in a small time possible, and you’re rushing production that can only lead to quality problems later on.

You get your engines from Salyut and get the ukeranians to repair them coz your PLAAF guys donno the difference flat head and phillips head. Lyulka-UMPO comes to India and sets up service and production facilties. Big difference. But for the record the K’s engines went kaput it was all vendors fault for not being up-to-spec. You cannot even imgine why, all you need to know is that they were very well used.

And don’t give me that crap that Chinese technocrats can’t manage Sukhoi. Sukhoi understands they got a lot more income at stake in China compared to India, and if Sukhoi fails, China will simply stop buying from Sukhoi and make their own Flankers, which by the way, they are so doing already. Let us not forget China already has their own engines, which even Salyut believes will only be deployed in a matter of time. If Sukhoi and Salyut doesn’t clean up, they get replaced.

Thats not my problem, we dont have such issues. We are finally very happy with IAPO, UMPO, NIIP etc.

Wow man, don’t give that you act so superior. What’s with complex technologies stuff? Unlike you, China is actually building them and exporting them in droves (China now leads the US in IT exports).

All the software, soapboxes, underwear and shoes that you make and you still need the ukeranians to maintain a plane that YOU build. Tch tch tch.

Given that you don’t pay a high price on the MKI, I doubt that Sukhoi ever gave you such a sweeping warranties contract. Don’t give me the BS that the Russians love you so much, they’re willing to do a losing money business with you. You think that your warranties are forever? You honestly think that the Russian will maintain your stuff while they lose money?

Ummm…I dont think they are loosing money :diablo:, they are being handsomly compensated for what they are currently doing. Thats why I called your 3 years warrently as BS. I donno the details but from what I picked up….the IAF has gone to great lenghts, money and effort to make the flankers viable. The problem with you and many oraclites is that you dont see the MKI as a program. When you start seeing it the way its meant you will understand why they are NEVER grounded or cannibalized…like your PLAAF flankers.

…You must live in na-na land. But then, your posts seem to indicate you are….When the Su-27s first came to China…Now they have a particularly large complex to deal with them………..Let us not forget that China is capable of building a Flanker nose to tail alone without importing a single Russian component other than the engine (but that last one will be resolved soon enough)……… Just when you’re still importing your Su-30Ks, China was already on the way of assembling their first Flankers.

Boy I dont think the Indians are capeable of building their MKI from Nose to Tail. They are very happy seeing how fantastic their RC1/RC2, MC, RDP etc are doing perhaps the most technologically complex russian a/c in service. Sure you can build your basic flanker and go to town with it. HAL knows it has its work cut out for a long time. They know IAF wont accept riff raff stuff like the chinese, they will make sure IAPO, Lyulka and NIIP dont screw them over when they start assembling, and finally building their home grown MKI. Thats what they were PAID to do.

Finally to paraphrase your favorite face-saving phrase…”whey you were crashing/cannibalizing/grounding your home build 300 flankers…we got the OEM to come down and fix them under warrenty.”

You don’t seem to understand do you……….And here is something about nicks. They’re generally caused by debris, pebbles being sucked into the engine at high speed and hitting the compressor blades. Usually that’s not part of the warranty since you are considered responsible for clearing debris and birds (for bird hits) around the area. Warranty covers what is considered the fault of the factory, which is quality problems, and not debris or bird hits………… yes both are with the Russians, where contracts are done in a country to country level (politician to politician) and not per company…….And don’t give me that superior attitude about Chinese not reading contracts? …………Contracts would no doubt be under Russian and Chinese (contractor and contractee’s language), and there is quite a number of Chinese who are literate in Russian.

Nick caused by debries? There are three aspects about this assertion:
1) You SHOULD KNOW that all flankers have a grated FOD door so any pebble that can get ingested by an Su-30K (remember you seem to want to drag the MKI to the MKK level by insinuating that they too had this problem, which is just not the case, this episode is specific to the K) would be pulverized by the engine and not really cause “nicks”. Unless you know more than the IAF does about maintained the AL-31F engine and read in some shiny brouchure somewhere that any size pebble will cause the -31F blades to shatter.

2) You DONT NEED TO KNOW the real suspect cause for the nicks. Part of the dispute is “what did the IAF do with the Su-30K which caused the nicks to appear ? “

3) Why did the vendor think it was a matter for dispute? :dev2: Why did the IAF think that it has to put its foot down then with the Su-30K before this problem “reappears” with the MKI?

I dont think the IAF wants me to expound on this to volatile pubescents on the net (also I would be only inferring based on what bits and pieces they thought I was worthy enough to be told…..they hate being asked DIRECT questions).

Here is a point to ponder: Did the IAF suddenly realize that it has to keep its airstrips clean of FOD till nicks appeared on the -31FP blades. Lohegaon is a very old AFB they have flown several a/c before the -30K/MKI. How come these “nicks” not affect RD-33 on a supposed FOD strewn airstrip? How come this “nicks” problem seem to have disappeared now? They started sweeping the runway better? Or did the vendor correct the problem amicably under contract?

Finally, even the article you posted says “engines were withdrawn” that does not mean aircrafts were withdrawn (grounded), it also does not imply that aircrafts were cannibalized. Remember thats what you so eloquently asserted about “both countries” without having a clue about what the IAF does. Also if the chinese could read their contracts/put a clause into their contract that a/c and subsystems HAVE to be maintained/function according to warrentied period of time they wouldnt have this problem of grounding of the fleet and cannibalization to keep some a/c operational. IAF held the vendors to their word and got the problem resolved. LIke I ve said before, it affected the engines, but learning from the Mig-29-RD33 episode the sparing factor for the K/MKI is big enough to allow for complete failure of a lot of engines and yet keep the entire sqd fully operational. There was NO grounding or cannibalizing in the No.24 sqd or the No.20 sqd.

……. 😀

Nice, But how many Chinese Flanker Pilots have you spoken to ?
There’s a pic around somewhere of GeorgeJ sticking his nose into unnecessary places 😀

Err thats supposed to be a secret ya know. :diablo: It does not matter who you know in the IAF, or who you speak to, it does not matter even if you have stuck your head into the N011M (which I did too, but no pic allowed in that specific area). As long as there are volatile pubescents who can so confidently wax about “both countries” how flankers are cannibalized and grounded there is no point trying to talk sense to the Oraclites. They have been adequately indocrinated to believe otherwise.

Harry:
Be careful what you wish for, tomorrow someone will post an finely photochopped pic claiming that its them in an MKK cockpit and that MKK has self healing ablities along with a death ray. :dev2:

Seriously dude, and you don’t think China takes care of their Flankers too? Whether or not the planes are taken care off, that’s beside the point that problems did happen. And when the problems happen, the planes remain effectively grounded as the problems are being resolved……..If you don’t do what is needed then I guess you are less than responsible and will do anything just for a show of face.

Huh…I got into this discussion when YOU started venturing YOUR opinions about the state of the flanker fleet and pilot training for “both countries”. I dont care what the chinese do or do not. But to paint the IAF with the same brush when the that whole nicks thing was a trivial OEM-Warrenty issue and insinuating that that the No.24’s were grounded and cannibalized is patently wrong. Just coz stuff like that happens in China does not mean the Indians also faced the same problems, its not equal equal as often painted on other issues like the MKK and the MKI.

Without getting into too many details that you need not be knowing (coz I donno what the equivalent PLAAF procedure is). There is a very strong russian presence at the Flanker bases because thats what the contract stipulated. There has been no grounding of the fleet (I donno what happend during the sulphur content in the fuel issue, but definately no grounding when the nicks happened). There are a/c on the ground (not the entire fleet) that are always undergoing routine maintainance from the IAF crew and more complex avionic “maintainance” from civilian contractors/OEM specialists/PSU.

It is my understanding that you dont bring an a/c to the flight line if it worthy of flying.