Even More MKIs?

[Feanor]

The canards were removed because of RCS issues. It was allegedy made up for by making the nose section lighter.

The current Su-35BM is a comlete multirole. The original Su-27M was only a modernized Su-27M, so yes it was mainly an air to air fighter. The original Su-30 however was also an air to air fighter, meant to serve as a leader aircraft for units of Su-27s.

 

[Nysindhi]

The fact is that sukhoi Flanker was for air domination to have complete role the su-30 mki stands for multirole plue all weather and has to ability to carry future weapons on its weapons system that what makes it the best of the line---Su-30 is ones again Russia's temp answer to US-F22.

Thats Y china and India are not going for it now a days its all abut Multi role, Muti Weapons, and Multi objective's

 

[OPSSG]

The fact is that sukhoi Flanker was for air domination...

Indian press is pretty fond of throwing around phrases like 'air domination', without context and without really being able to understand defence matters. May I suggest that you start by reading up 'The Air Campaign' by Col. Warden, which deals with the concept of air superiority - rather than just using the term 'air domination' loosely, if we are to have a profitable discussion.

What do you mean by 'air domination'? I've listed a sliding sale below:

(i) air parity;
(ii) air superiority; and
(iii) air supremacy (which is very rarely used as a concept).

Where does your concept fit? Please also keep in mind that achieving air superiority is systems orientated and usually not just platform orientated.

su-30 mki stands for multirole plus all weather and has to ability to carry future weapons on its weapons system that what makes it the best of the line---Su-30 is ones again Russia's temp answer to US-F22.

The Su-30MK is a design developed from the Su-27UB (which was designed as a counter to the F-15). While the MKI is clearly an advance as it has major enhancements (such as, updated avionics, improved radar and a high proportion of non-Russian kit; canard fins; and thrust-vectored engines), it traces it's origins to the Su-27UB and the T-10UB. And Feanor will correct me, if I've got the Sukhoi model numbers wrong.

Edit: Turns out I did get the model number wrong and the post is amended to reflect Feanor's correction. [Many thanks]

IMO, the Sukhoi is in no way considered as a design that is an answer to a Fifth generation fighter. If you are going to make very counter intuitive statements, perhaps you might want to consider posting a source for your position and possibly an explanation on why you agree with that mis-informed source.

Thats Y China and India are not going for it now a days its all abut Multi role, Muti Weapons, and Multi objective's

Then you might want to explain why the JH-7 in service with the PLA was also seen carrying electronic warfare and countermeasures pods.

 

[Nysindhi]

Buddy you u need to make sure of your info, What person says does not make it the law of the land, neather does twisting, bending meaning.

Look in the the Soviet Defence and research files you will know the difference between the Lingo when u say air domination it means to rule the SKY i hope u know what it unless some one defines SKY as some catagory where the WILD things rome free.

MKI-tailer maid for IAF, Flanker might look like the later sukhoi model but thats because people in industry call it design and function compatability wich says if you want a plane to performe in a setain way it has to be a sertain shape, what makes is leathel is the system that makes it function for its goal.

So may be the Russian Scientist are wrong may be they had to much Vodka may he the Military officer is the Next Newton i dont know But u need to get back to the reality of logical concept not what some dude publish on his view or experiance thats not the law of the land.

 

[OPSSG]

Buddy you u need to make sure of your info, What person says does not make it the law of the land, neather does twisting, bending meaning.

I'm not your buddy and I really don't understand your spam like posts.

Look in the the Soviet Defence and research files you will know the difference between the Lingo when u say air domination it means to rule the SKY i hope u know what it unless some one defines SKY as some catagory where the WILD things rome free.

I see, no source and no links. Also an inability to read and to respond logically to another forum member. I have nothing further to say and I will not be responding to your future posts.

MKI-tailer maid for IAF...

Finally, one minor point in a very long and rambling post, which I note was also made in my prior post.

So may be the Russian Scientist are wrong may be they had to much Vodka may he the Military officer is the Next Newton i dont know But u need to get back to the reality of logical concept not what some dude publish on his view or experiance thats not the law of the land.

How is that relevant? Never mind. Please don't respond with more spam.

 

[the road runner]

Buddy you u need to make sure of your info.

Im sure if you read some of OPSSG posts you would realise he is a trusted and insightful person on this forum......whos posts are admired for the content and understanding of weapons and platforms.......

Feanor may i ask.........
All Su27++ are also known as the T-10 concept?

I ask as i am reading the Su27 Flanker story.....by Andrei Fomins,he refers to them sometimes as the T-10 series.Are they known as the T-10 in Russia or Su27 ect?

Making an su-30 Flanker

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIxr4PDT544"]YouTube - Making of a Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker[/ame]

Regards

 

[Bonza]

A UB is be definition a two-seater trainer. What you found on google is an Su-35UB from the Su-27M/35 model. That's why I was confused. The Su-35BM/S does not yet have a dedicated training variant as far as I know.

Ohhh, right. Cheers for clearing that up mate, I was wondering at the confusion. Silly me...

 

[PhysicsMan]

The canards were removed because of RCS issues. It was allegedy made up for by making the nose section lighter.

I've read a Sukhoi engineer explain that the canards were a significant source of air drag, as they are on most planes, so removing them is an improvement for top speed and fuel consumption. The maneuverability was made up by improving thrust vectoring and control systems.

 

[HKSDU]

I've read a Sukhoi engineer explain that the canards were a significant source of air drag, as they are on most planes, so removing them is an improvement for top speed and fuel consumption. The maneuverability was made up by improving thrust vectoring and control systems.

I would say having canards is redundant if you have TVC, or the other way around applies. As the stresses in the structure from the canards and reinforcement alteration of engine area, would far outway the minimal performance increase in having both TVC and Canards.

 

[Feanor]

The Su-30MK is a design developed from the Su-27S (which was designed as a counter to the F-15). While the MKI is clearly an advance as it has major enhancements (such as, updated avionics, improved radar and a high proportion of non-Russian kit; canard fins; and thrust-vectored engines), it traces it's origins to the Su-27S. And Feanor will correct me, if I've got the Sukhoi model numbers wrong.

Yeah you did... unfortunately the VVS is fond of having overlapping designations. Ok let me clear this up...


T-10UB Su-27UB Su-30MK Su-30MK2 Su-30MKK Su-30MKV
Su-30MKI Su-30MKA Su-30MKM

T-10 T-10S Su-27S/SK Su-27SM Su-27SM2
Su-27M/35 Su-35BM
Su-37

T-10K Su-33
Su-27KUB


T-10V Su-27IB/34 Su-34(MF)

So no, the MKI is not in any way based on the Su-27S. It's based, originally on the Su-27UB. Let me know if my flow chart doesn't make sense.

 

[PhysicsMan]

I would say having canards is redundant if you have TVC, or the other way around applies.

Have you ever seen a Typhoon do a Kulbit or a Herbst maneuver?..

 

[OPSSG]

Yeah you did... unfortunately the VVS is fond of having overlapping designations. Ok let me clear this up...


T-10UB Su-27UB Su-30MK Su-30MK2 Su-30MKK Su-30MKV
Su-30MKI Su-30MKA Su-30MKM

T-10 T-10S Su-27S/SK Su-27SM Su-27SM2
Su-27M/35 Su-35BM
Su-37

T-10K Su-33
Su-27KUB


T-10V Su-27IB/34 Su-34(MF)

So no, the MKI is not in any way based on the Su-27S. It's based, originally on the Su-27UB. Let me know if my flow chart doesn't make sense.

I'm always afraid I'll get the model numbers wrong and in this case I did. Thanks for clearing this up, much appreciated.

 

[Feanor]

No problem. I've gotten them mixed up myself in the past...

 

[localhost127]

I've read a Sukhoi engineer explain that the canards were a significant source of air drag, as they are on most planes, so removing them is an improvement for top speed and fuel consumption. The maneuverability was made up by improving thrust vectoring and control systems.

are canards also a significant source of radar return? it seems like having extra moving/dynamic vertices on an aircraft would wreak havok on trying to minimize return. would it be possible to see canards on a 5th+ gen aircraft?

 

[PhysicsMan]

are canards also a significant source of radar return? it seems like having extra moving/dynamic vertices on an aircraft would wreak havok on trying to minimize return. would it be possible to see canards on a 5th+ gen aircraft?

They can be made with RCS in mind by avoiding perpendicularity with the plane of the fuselage at the contact line (I guess depends on the shape of the fuselage,) and by aligning the edges. Shouldn't be much of a signal... The fact that they have to move, well, if they move, the aircraft moves at an angle at that point too and its signature increases/changes anyway, so I don't know if it's much of a problem...

 

[tphuang]

Hmmm

The MKI is supposed to be updated to a newer variant where the Bars radar is going to be upgraded to AESA mode, to enhance the situational awareness AESA T/R modules are being fixed on the aircraft’s wings. Also radar absorbent material for IAF Su-30MKIs is also being developed to reduce the otherwise large RCS image on enemy radars, apparently the airframes are also getting modified to make them stealthy. There was also a talk that the Avionics being developed for the PAK-FA/FGFA can be incoporated into the new variant as well. All in all looks to me that a advanced variant of the Su-30MKI when it comes out will not be sufficently unbalanced against a Su-35. Thanks for the info Feanor

Let's see, it would be great if MKI can upgrade an "AESA" mode, the problem is that Russia doesn't have an AESA radar ready. As for AESA T/R modules being fixed on aircraft's wings, I think you are talking about the new L-band AESA installations speculated on su-35, it sounds very much of a marketing ploy. All modern fighters have RAM, there is nothing special about what MKI is getting.

Can you pls enumerate the differences between the Su-30MKI and the Su-35. AFAIK the Su-35 itself was built after being motivated by the improvements the Indian side brought by way purchasing various components to be integrated into the Su-30 which became the Su-30MKI. While am sure there might not be advantages beyond the marginal between the two and hence India not tbeing interested in a diff platform for 50 fighters, i would still like to understand the major differences esp the advancements of the Su-35 over the Su-30MKI just to know what the IAF could be missing or facing in years to come

well, the biggest difference that might cause logistics issue is using 117S instead of AL-31FP. That could require different lines of maintenance. Also, su-35 will have bigger power supply, a much more powerful radar in Irbis and more advanced cockpit from the pictures I've seen. As far as aerodynamics go, I'd have to leave that to more knowledgeable folks.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Let's see, it would be great if MKI can upgrade an "AESA" mode, the problem is that Russia doesn't have an AESA radar ready. As for AESA T/R modules being fixed on aircraft's wings, I think you are talking about the new L-band AESA installations speculated on su-35, it sounds very much of a marketing ploy. All modern fighters have RAM, there is nothing special about what MKI is getting.

Agreed. Their 1st gen AESA isn't even operational in the MiG-35, Irbis isn't even ready yet. Basic AESA is two upgrades away.

 

[OPSSG]

Im sure if you read some of OPSSG posts you would realise he is a trusted and insightful person on this forum......whos posts are admired for the content and understanding of weapons and platforms.......

Thanks for the support and kind words. I'm sure your praise for me is not deserved. As Feanor has again demonstrated, I've got my Sukhoi model numbers wrong. Therefore, I have amended the post.

I feel that the key to getting along is to be willing to learn from others, especially if they know more than me.

Cheers

 

[dragonfire]

Let's see, it would be great if MKI can upgrade an "AESA" mode, the problem is that Russia doesn't have an AESA radar ready. As for AESA T/R modules being fixed on aircraft's wings, I think you are talking about the new L-band AESA installations speculated on su-35, it sounds very much of a marketing ploy. All modern fighters have RAM, there is nothing special about what MKI is getting.

Well as per earlier announcements the MKI will have a Mk2 and later a Mk3 variant, am not sure if this will remain on paper or will see the light of day, so the R&D is on to make the MKI a better fighter than it already is, which includes advancements to Radar - however i found it strange that it was stated that the exsting Bars radar which is PESA radar can be upgraded to AESA 'mode' I am not too sure if that is a possibility or how it can be done and if the final result will be a complete AESA Radar or just some addon modules. As far as RAM coatings on the MKI is concerned it is currently not operationalised AFAIK so any future implementation would definitely be welcome

well, the biggest difference that might cause logistics issue is using 117S instead of AL-31FP. That could require different lines of maintenance. Also, su-35 will have bigger power supply, a much more powerful radar in Irbis and more advanced cockpit from the pictures I've seen. As far as aerodynamics go, I'd have to leave that to more knowledgeable folks.

Perhaps if the upgrade to the BARS radar is succesful then it might be an equaliser to that of the Irbis. Like i said earlier i doubt if the Mk2/Mk3 variant of the MKI would be vastly outclassed by the Su-35

 

[Salty Dog]

The modernisation of the SU 30 MK1 aircraft is also expected to come up for discussion in the Commission’s meeting. The aircraft, contracted in 1996, are due for overhaul shortly and the Russian side has offered an upgrade of the aircraft with incorporation of the latest technologies during the major overhaul.

Extension of Defence Cooperation Agreement by Ten More Years to Top Agenda

It should be interesting to see the details of the proposed Su-30MKI upgrade package.