[ads11]

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

We can actually use this Russia-Ukraine crisis to almost fully upgrade the Su-30MKI at home with developed-in India components...

Wow, thanks for that, it was incredibly detailed and quite promising if true (and of course only if it all comes to pass as laid out). Choosing piecemeal upgrades makes sense especially if it's primarily indigenous components in each tranche. Besides breaking it down into smaller manageable chunks is beneficial, hopefully gives HAL more of a chance to deliver efficiently (anything that helps HAL avoid its worst tendencies is a must imo).

Found it particularly interesting to see the home grown pylons designed to turn the Su-30MKI into a bomb truck. Seems quite obvious now for a platform like that. Do any of the existing Flanker family have similar pylons? If no, seems like low hanging fruit in an export context for HAL to offer such an upgrade to Flanker operators, at least going by the fact you said the pylons will be interoperable with Russian and Western weapons systems too.

I'm not as well versed with the electronics architecture to AESA but to my limited knowledge it seemed that scaling up such systems should be pretty simple given there's no large scale mechanical gimbal, you just build a bigger array accordingly right?

IRST is the flavour du jour nowadays - even the USAF is seeking to equip its fleet with a technology they hadn't previously favoured. Again, seems a no brainer to have a domestic system. Is the plan to fit it to other platforms then? Does the Tejas have it or are there plans for it to have it?

I know GaN is increasingly becoming the charging tech of choice for consumer electronics for its better thermal properties but hadn't cottoned on that it wasn't used already in the military aviation world as much.

Quite curious to hear about being offered the AL-41, but more so the purported home brew AL-31 plan! Forget reverse engineering, just getting a grip on the metallurgy for a modern turbo fan is clearly no cakewalk (look again at how the Chinese have only just in small numbers started to field a domestic engine after having thrown enormous eye watering resources at the effort). I'd say more than building the AL-31 entirely using homegrown components, any domestic parts and maintenance efforts that increase the MTBO alone would be a major win.

Fingers crossed then, maybe the Su-30 picture isn't as bleak as feared.

[DrPriyankT]

I am also not very well versed with electronics, but from the limited knowledge I have, all the airborne AESA radars now being designed are being made modular right from the word go. You increase or decrease the size and number of TR modules as per your power limitations and operational need. Another interesting aspect of AESA radars is that they can also be used as jammers, the Americans are already experimenting with such a possibility in their F-35's, something I hope even we can replicate with the Uttam, given its modular architecture.

Yes, the pylon program is being taken forward under the Make 2 category, wherein DRDO, HAL, and an unnamed private partner are working to make a universal launcher for Su-30 series. Ads11, has rightly stated that we can market this to other Su-30 operators like Malaysia as a package deal with our desi weapons.

Yes, IRST will be offered to Tejas Mk1A, but in a podded format like how it is in the F-18 Block 3 upgrade, it will be integral from Tejas Mk2, given its slightly larger nose.

Yes, GaN are slowly taking over from Gallium Arsenide. Saab markets it's giraffe series of radars with GaN. I will infact stick out my neck and say, India is almost at par with the world's best now when it comes to radars.

Yes, mastering jet engine metallurgy is something even the mighty Chinese struggle at, till this date in spite of all their reverse engineering and industrial espionage. We have manufactured many AL-31's at Koraput now for our fleet, and I am sure we have also gained some knowledge of metallurgy by now. Also the new jet engine we will codevelop with either Safran or Rolls Royce for AMCA Mk2 is actually quite a shrewd move on our part as the IPR of said engine will also be there with us, and that will help us in development of future engines.

The atmanirbhar push of the current regime will hopefully bear fruits for all our defence programs. Also, involvement of private sector companies into this push will accelerate the programs and will help us leverage our industrial resources for various strategic programs for which hopefully we shall depend upon no one in the medium to long term future.

[aim120]

Regarding the engine upgrade of the SU-30, at least the Russian version of the same jet SU-30SM, made in Irkut seems to already have a uprated engine with higher MTBO.
The proposed engine (AL-41/117s) which currently powers the SU-35, this aircraft is made in KnAAPO and the engine is larger in diameter. So not sure if its going to be plug and play fit to the Irkut manufactured SU-30MKI/M variants.

Also just because one goes more digital in avionics, doesn't necessarily means lower power consumption, while a radar with GaA and GaN increases power output with less heat and better signal to noise ratio. No air force in the world is going to settle for less. Considering the RCS of the SU-30, the pilot will want to see first and shoot first, so more powerful radar will be the need of the day.

A J10 or a J31 will have AESA and lower RCS, so we can use all the help from a more powerful radar with the LPI advantages of the AESA and the large nose cone of the SU series.

Lastly, I really hope HAL is really building engines and other materials from raw metals vs just opening a box and just doing a LEGO build.

[Gansan]

Is the airforce now considering 114 Sab Gripens due to their current enhanced perdormance and much lower costs compared to the rafale? There is some such news doing the rounds recently.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

It seems that the Su-30 MKIs won't get upgraded anytime soon. The main reasons given are:

I sure hope some way is found to keep the Flanker's capabilities viable over the next 15-20 years.

There is no other fighter in IAF fleet that can match the weapons carrying capacity and versatility of the Su-30MKI - be it air to air missiles, TV/Laser/unguided bombs, AShMs, ARMs, Jammer pods or Refueling Pods. It can carry anything and perform any role.




This hard earned capability and tactics for the Flankers has been built over nearly 25 years (counting induction of the early Su-30K/MKs and which just seems like yesterday!!!!). It must not be wasted because the Flankers cannot be upgraded without Russia's help. If the situation becomes dire, I hope Indian an/or foreign aircraft component alternatives are found to keep the Flanker fleet worthy of taking on the new generation threats in the neighborhood.

I hope Boeing's push, offering the F-15EX as a direct replacement for the Su-30MKI, is not considered - not only for the political & monetary expenses involved but also for the political strings that come attached with an American fighter purchase.

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by Gansan

Is the airforce now considering 114 Sab Gripens due to their current enhanced perdormance and much lower costs compared to the rafale? There is some such news doing the rounds recently.

This or similar news has always been in circulation since the original MMRCA evaluation phases. Maybe the iAF is considering, we won't know in public domain. But the so called news / articles in circulations - seem a lot like propaganda / sales pitches rather than realistic data.

Also - a small tactical fighter like the Gripen can be versatile sure - but cannot even imagine replacing a heavy (pretty much) multirole fighter like the Rafale. Gripen is comparable to the F16 and somewhat better than the Tejas in most aspects (on paper). But it will fall short in comparison with the Rafale. Then again - does the IAF need 116 Rafales? Or a light interceptor+fighter together with another tranche of Rafales is what they might settle for in the short term...

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by Gansan

Is the airforce now considering 114 Sab Gripens due to their current enhanced perdormance and much lower costs compared to the rafale? There is some such news doing the rounds recently.

God!!! I sure hope not!!! It will be a repeat of the MMRCA circus of the 2000s where only the Rafale and the EF2000 were shortlisted after passing all of IAF's requirements and tests. The other contenders - F-16C, F/A-18E, JAS-39 and MiG-35 failed.

The only Gripen-India related confirmed news is that the Brazilian Air Force(Forca Aerea Brasileira/FAB) is looking to arm their Gripens with the BrahMos missile and Saab & FAB are in talks with India for the same.

[Gansan]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

This or similar news has always been in circulation since the original MMRCA evaluation phases.

I know. But they were not seen for a long time after the purchase of the 36 Rafales. They are resurfacing now. Either the IAF is considering them or they are going to issue a new RFP for the remaining 110 or so fighters of the original MMRCA circus.

[robby0707]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Attachment 2306417

Attachment 2306418

Has anyone noticed that one of the nozzles is drooping down on the Su 30? This shows two opposite sides of the aircraft of the aircraft. On one side this shows the serviceability issues where in the engine has failed( leading to the nozzle drooping down) and on the other side, it shows how powerful the engines are wherein a fully loaded aircraft is flying on a single engine!!

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by robby0707

Has anyone noticed that one of the nozzles is drooping down on the Su 30? This shows two opposite sides of the aircraft of the aircraft. On one side this shows the serviceability issues where in the engine has failed( leading to the nozzle drooping down) and on the other side, it shows how powerful the engines are wherein a fully loaded aircraft is flying on a single engine!!

Read up on Thrust Vectoring Control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring

[ads11]

Originally Posted by robby0707

Has anyone noticed that one of the nozzles is drooping down on the Su 30? This shows two opposite sides of the aircraft of the aircraft. On one side this shows the serviceability issues where in the engine has failed( leading to the nozzle drooping down) and on the other side, it shows how powerful the engines are wherein a fully loaded aircraft is flying on a single engine!!

Good spot. I think most twin jets nowadays, civil or military, have enough grunt to fly on one engine (let alone limp home). Take the Canadian Air Force Hornet replacement programme - their top brass was incredibly reluctant to go with a single engine jet with frequent comments about how that second engine gives them redundancy if anything happens during missions over their large territory. Pretty sure in the original MMRCA first round, similar arguments were made (amongst other points) to dump the single engine contenders.

It does though seem here like it might be some wonky thrust vectoring - not sure why the port nozzle seems to be aligned so differently to the starboard one.

[locusjag]

Yeah, I think - as Smarcat has alluded as well - that a drooping nozzle doesn't point to engine failure. From what I've observed, the nozzles can be directed around (a full 360 degrees?), thereby contributing to thrust vectoring and hence enabling enhanced manoeuverability.

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by robby0707

Has anyone noticed that one of the nozzles is drooping down on the Su 30? This shows two opposite sides of the aircraft of the aircraft.

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Read up on Thrust Vectoring Control.

Hardly any doubt that it is thrust vectoring at play.

That said - the positioning is quite intriguing & good spot @robby0707. There is hardly any rudder / pitch / roll input visible in any of the visible control planes. Marginal starboard turn position on the rudder maybe.

But then - the thrust/exhaust opening is extremely different in both the nozzles (port is open much wider) & only one is in the process of vectoring direction (generally both of them vector, sometimes in opposite directions even, but both AFAIK, for obvious better results). That would mean different thrust output from the 2 engines right? Does the engine control / avionics suite even modify the throttle output autonomously while implementing the thrust vectors? I don't think the pilot will enjoy modifying thrusts of 2 engines variably during high maneuvering, especially in a dog fight.

[robby0707]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Read up on Thrust Vectoring Control.

Originally Posted by locusjag

Yeah, I think - as Smarcat has alluded as well - that a drooping nozzle doesn't point to engine failure. From what I've observed, the nozzles can be directed around (a full 360 degrees?), thereby contributing to thrust vectoring and hence enabling enhanced manoeuverability.

While the Su 30 MKI is a TVC capable aircraft, the image above shows single engine switched off. Other wise, both the nozzles would have been deflected to the same direction( the position of the canards shows that the aircraft is not in a high AOA situation wherein TVC would be used). Also, while the SU 30 can manoeuvre in 3D using TVC, the nozzles does not move in full 360 degree. The just move up and down. The 3D manoeuvering is achieved by the axis of this movement being offset wherein both the nozzles trace a V shape. Thus, synchronous movement results in 2D mano( up and down) and asynchronous movement results in 3D mano( sideways). Also the image in which the aircraft is on ground and the nozzles deflected in opposite direction shows the Fly By Wire test going on. The nozzles are never deflected like that while in air.

[aim120]

In that picture the SU30 has test missiles. So it must be a test for the flight control system with full weapons. Possibly simulating some failure.

We also don't know what fuel level is in the wings. If one side is heavy with fuel, the TVC nozzle could be compensating.