What's new

F-60 / J-31 stealth fighter aircraft for Pakistan Air Force?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Something called the Vietnam war. RoEs aside, US aviators had been misinformed about the strength of the missile. Where do you think the Ault report and Red flag came out from?
Enlighten me on both of these. Where were the ' scores' of the American lives lost in combat? I thought I knew all the details but you brought something very knew. Give references too? Btw, the Top Gun and the Red Flags exist with other names in virtually every air force. The US ones are famous for their international participation and almost war like scenarios.
 
.
Enlighten me on both of these. Where were the ' scores' of the American lives lost in combat? I thought I knew all the details but you brought something very knew. Give references too? Btw, the Top Gun and the Red Flags exist with other names in virtually every air force. The US ones are famous for their international participation and almost war like scenarios.
US Air-to-Air Losses in the Vietnam War

The Crucible of Vietnam

The North Vietnamese Air Force (VPAF) had between 60 and 75 aircraft in service at most points during the war. Yet the MiG-17s, MiG-19s, and MiG-21s shot down 67 USAF aircraft against a loss of 137 of their own, leaving the US Air Force with barely a two-to-one exchange ratio over the course of the war.

67 aircraft lost in Air to Air combat..against only 137 brought down otherwise.. that is a kill ratio of 2:1. .pathetic considering the USAF was supposed to be a technological powerhouse.

Poor weapons employment training, poor ACM practice. If you bothered to read through... the creation of the Navy Fighter weapons School.. or Top Gun as it was called came specifically after it was identified that not all fleet aviators were current weapons employment techniques nor in ACM. Sure there are plenty of such schools everywhere.. but I am referring specifically to the history of the USAF and USN schools. A little look at history would not go to waste.
 
.
Make up your Mind dude
- I don't think i was specifically referring to SU-30's airframe maintenance extensive. It's about the entire plane, engine overhauls, etc are usually needed much earlier than Western engines.

The SU's and overall Russian airframes and engines are ALWAYS known to be extremely high maintenance.





Now I am confused, i am I to believe that your earlier stated position of One dimesional computing which roughly translates into single dimension arrays or linear array in data structure is same as one dimensional modelling.
When you refer to reduced latency computing for predictive CFD, i can understand your position but how your relation between mainframes and single dimension arrays still confuses me. Now that you have thrown in another term One dimesional modelling, and that is how planes were designed, some disambiguation will indeed help.

They aren't big on nano-tech. But VERY sharp with one dimensional, older mainframe computing. And it is visible in their designs.

One dimensional modeling used to be how planes would get designed under mainframe environment as they weren't able to process three-dimensional or five-dimensional (known as multi-dimensional) design, simulation and tests





And more contradictions :woot:

- I don't think I ever said the staff requirements of anyone were insignificant. You don't want to understand how these deals work, so be it.

Flanker's "Evaluation" by IAF contractors means.....jack shi*t. These guys are paid and they want the deal done.







The US will always submit bids to all the RFP's out there. It is called business. What they need to understand is that you won't buy from us. That whole "Strategic Partner B.S" only exist as long as the benefit goes to India, whether that's American jobs or anything else. You guys are climbing on American shoulders to go on the top of the world. People giving you that shoulder don't quite understand that you are doing so and there really is no "strategic partnership" between the US and India once you reach a certain level with economy. These guys who came up with the idea will sure be upset in the next decade or two. I can bet my money on it!

cute
 
Last edited:
.
Dude, Honestly and really? You STILL didn't get the point behind each of my statements. Yet, you took a few pieces out that are similar in nature but referred to DIFFERENT topics in different times and tried to show the world that I was just trying to bash the SU-30.
Just to clarify a few points, when I was talking about SU-30 airframes and engines and that the Russians products are high maintenance.....it was meant for the SU-30 as a WHOLE system or Russian products as an entire system. Not JUST the airframe. You took one thing and went with it. Tells me right away that you are technical. An engineer or something who follow a line. That's just how it is, sucks to be too smart at times as one doesn't get to leave the little bubble they live in.
How many times I've said above that designing a plane means a PROGRAM. It is a SYSTEM. Not airframe, not separate engines and avionics. All parts have to come and create synergy for the plane or the program or the system to work together. When I refer to an airframe or an engine in a point of time from a product's standpoint, I am referring to a system. This is a forum, not a technical specification session that everything is written out of algebra with code in it.

Now you did the same thing again on the subject of the IAF contractors. Contractor's evaluating something is different than the REQUIREMENTS to buy, create or build a plane. For example, I could be doing the work you gave me, and I will only tell you what you asked me to analyze. Beyond that, I don't care or its none of my business, either way. BUT, your requirements (in case the IAF), are something you know much better than I do. For example, suppose the IAF wanted a high speed interceptor - air superiority fighter for 75% of the price of the F-15 and at least with 75% of the capability of the F-15. These are now requirements. Now, they can go find contractors to evaluate 10 capable platforms. That's fine. But the contractors will just meet the criteria given.But then say the Indian Government gets a deal with Russia where they'd get SU-30 with tot or in-house manufacturing or other perks like further 20% price slash.....AND the SU-30 meets the requirements as defined above.......the contractors won't make the decision, they'll simply outline their details analyzed about the 10 products. The decision is made by the Indian Government (or whichever government has to make the call) based on many factors, relationships, price and future deals, etc, etc. As you can see....the REQUIREMENTS are a LOT different than the work contractors performed. I am not sure how clear I can be. I feel like I am arguing with a child who thinks he knows it all and is arguing with a professional. Going forward, you won't see a response from me. You can't get into an argument with a cardiac specialist and try to teach him cardiology.
 
Last edited:
.
Dude, Honestly and really? You STILL didn't get the point behind each of my statements. Yet, you took a few pieces out that are similar in nature but referred to DIFFERENT topics in different times and tried to show the world that I was just trying to bash the SU-30.
Sure! readers can go through your post and evalaute exactly what you claim!


Just to clarify a few points, when I was talking about SU-30 airframes and engines and that the Russians products are high maintenance.....it was meant for the SU-30 as a WHOLE system or Russian products as an entire system. Not JUST the airframe. You took one thing and went with it. Tells me right away that you are technical. An engineer or something who follow a line. That's just how it is, sucks to be too smart at times as one doesn't get to leave the little bubble they live in.
I called you out on air frame because you specifically quoted the air frame and engine to be high maintenance... Did you wonder why I did not say anything about Al31F? and I just emphasized the air frame... Because I know that is not true and I can absolutely refute such claim... instead of rectifying your claim on the airframe , you started generalizing your argument to the entire system. Now I am pretty sure, you were not part of the MKI or any HAL programs to claim the things that you claim like your contractor business that you floated which I will come to later. Instead you act pompous on being the oracle of aviation programs and everyone else to be merely a technician...

How many times I've said above that designing a plane means a PROGRAM. It is a SYSTEM. Not airframe, not separate engines and avionics. All parts have to come and create synergy for the plane or the program or the system to work together. When I refer to an airframe or an engine in a point of time from a product's standpoint, I am referring to a system. This is a forum, not a technical specification session that everything is written out of algebra with code in it.
I beg your pardon, but your rhetoric seriously suggests that you struggle to understand the difference between components and systems and very often are obfuscating terminologies on a system and component level.

Now you did the same thing again on the subject of the IAF contractors. Contractor's evaluating something is different than the REQUIREMENTS to buy, create or build a plane. For example, I could be doing the work you gave me, and I will only tell you what you asked me to analyze. Beyond that, I don't care or its none of my business, either way. BUT, your requirements (in case the IAF), are something you know much better than I do. For example, suppose the IAF wanted a high speed interceptor - air superiority fighter for 75% of the price of the F-15 and at least with 75% of the capability of the F-15. These are now requirements. Now, they can go find contractors to evaluate 10 capable platforms. That's fine. But the contractors will just meet the criteria given.But then say the Indian Government gets a deal with Russia where they'd get SU-30 with tot or in-house manufacturing or other perks like further 20% price slash.....AND the SU-30 meets the requirements as defined above.......the contractors won't make the decision, they'll simply outline their details analyzed about the 10 products. The decision is made by the Indian Government (or whichever government has to make the call) based on many factors, relationships, price and future deals, etc, etc. As you can see....the REQUIREMENT are a LOT different than the work contractors performed. I am not sure how clear I can be. I feel like I am arguing with a child who thinks he knows it all and is arguing with a professional. Going forward, you won't see a response from me. You can't get into an argument with a cardiac specialist and try to teach him cardiology.

Your this contractor dribble is complete bunkum because there are no contractors for IAF... You can try to satisfy your ego with all kind of claims of my lack of understanding of "system", the fact remains that there is no such thing as contractor of IAF who evaluate aircrafts, the evaluation of all RFP and joint developmental projects is done by engineering team from DGIFS and SME's from HAL DRDO, CRE/CRI. Oversight committee is formed of MoD and Aif Force Staff Hq and final approval is given based on the project by AOC M and AOC AS.

And as far as argument is concerned, there has been none....readers can read your posts and evaluate the professionalism that drips from the rhetoric.
 
.
J-31
"Project 310 will most likely be exported to Pakistan. After that, it will have to battle against F-35, PAK-FA and Gripen-E in the Middle East, South East Asia, Brazil and South Africa. Its main advantages are its cost and available production slot, but China will have to move fast."
 
.
J-31
"Project 310 will most likely be exported to Pakistan. After that, it will have to battle against F-35, PAK-FA and Gripen-E in the Middle East, South East Asia, Brazil and South Africa. Its main advantages are its cost and available production slot, but China will have to move fast."


Janes?
 
.
@sandy_3126, @Oscar : Here we go. There is a thread open on this topic. Check out the SU-30's air worthiness. Back to my point about the Russian tech being loewer quality. I think we are done with this argument. You can question people who wrote this:

A shocking 50% of the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter fleet is on the ground due to unresolved servicing issues with the aircraft's Russian manufacturers. This has also eroded the combat capability of India's frontline long-range strike aircraft and compromised even that part of the fleet which is capable of being flown.

The IAF and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) have rung the alarm bells about the repeated mid-flight failure of the Su-30 mission computer and the blanking out of all cockpit displays. The Russians have not responded to the repeated SOS' from the Indians for over a year.

These disclosures have been made in leaked communications between HAL and Russian agencies. These are in exclusive possession of The Sunday Guardian.

The managing director of HAL's Nasik complex, which is tasked with assembly and repair of the IAF Sukhois, has, in vain, desperately flagged "multiple cases of repeated failure of Mission Computer-1 and blanking out of Head Up Displays (HUD) and all Multi-Function Displays (MFD) in flight" with earmarked representatives of both Rosboronexport — the Russian government's arms export agency — and Irkut, the original manufacturer of the Sukhoi-30.

"As the displays blanking off is a serious and critical issue affecting the exploitation of aircraft (it) needs corrective action/remedial measures on priority," he pleads in a letter dated 28 February this year, reminding the Russians that he's been raising the issue since 7 March 2013 but to no avail.

Failures of the mission computer and cockpit displays are critical. The entire sortie is programmed on the mission computer, which is vital for managing requirements of aerial combat. The "blanking off" of cockpit displays distracts pilots and diverts attention away from the mission. The IAF is worried at the spearhead of its fighter fleet being hit by these nagging snags. The IAF has planned a Sukhoi-30 fleet of 272 aircraft, of which an estimated 200 have been delivered.

Air Marshal Denzil Keelor, one of IAF's most decorated fighter pilots, is dismayed. "In-flight failures such as the ones being reported render a fighter aircraft vulnerable. When a fighter is being flown below optimum capability, it becomes more vulnerable to an adversary. No aircraft should be flown unless it performing to 100% capability," he warns.

What seems even more worrying is the Russian go-slow, which has severely hit the maintenance and availability of the fleet. Even five years after the signing of contract for the setting up of Su-30 repair and overhaul facilities in India at HAL, there's no progress despite "agreements" and assurances even at the level of the Defence Ministers of the two countries.

"Due to non-availability of facilities for overhaul of aggregates (aircraft parts), the serviceability (availability for flying) of Su-30MKI is slowly decreasing and demand for Aircraft on Ground (AOG) items on the rise," HAL's Nasik division again pleads with Russia's Rosboronexport in a telling letter dated 24 December 2013. Even the revised deadlines committed the Russians to set up the repair-overhaul facility at HAL by December 2013, and overhaul the first aircraft by June 2014. This seems nowhere on the horizon.

Worse, Russia has put on hold the posting of its Sukhoi specialists to India for helping set up repair and maintenance capability. Documents available with The Sunday Guardian suggest that the two sides are haggling over price. This goes against an agreement that posting of Russian specialists would not be disrupted even if price negotiations were not concluded. In the absence of these specialists, HAL has been forced to fend on its own, as Aircraft on Ground (AOG) are piling up.

"Huge quantities of unserviceable aggregates (parts) are lying due for overhaul at various bases of IAF," HAL states, disclosing that the number of Su-30s being grounded for want of quick repair is increasing. The Russians have been informed that five Su-30MKI fighters are already parked at HAL for extensive overhaul, and another 15 will be due for overhaul in the current year. This number is equivalent to an entire squadron.

Lamenting the Russian delays, HAL expresses even more helplessness: "It appears that Rosboronexport and Irkut Corporation (the main parties to the contract) have limited control over other Russian companies (which provide vital parts like engines)." Supplies and deputation of specialists by other companies are even more erratic.

While warning that operating the fighters without conclusively sorting out the recurring snags could affect pilot confidence, Air Marshal P.S. Ahluwalia, who recently headed the IAF's Western Command, also questions the Ministry of Defence and HAL for the sorry state of affairs. "It's an issue of mismanagement of maintenance arrangements. The Ministry of Defence's Department of Defence Production is responsible. They have failed to resolve the problems," he says.

As the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Western Air Command, Air Marshal Ahluwalia did not hesitate to ground the MiG-29 fleet for three months after suspicions of its airworthiness arose following a crash. He flew the fleet again only after the maintenance issue was nailed.

Figures reveal how serious the problem of availability of the IAF's Su-30MKI fleet is. Against the Sukhoi figure of just 50% aircraft fit for operational flying, statistics reveal just how much ground is to be covered. The availability rates of the IAF's French-origin Mirage-2000 and even the Russian-origin MiG-29 is about 75%. As India quibbles with Russia over maintenance arrangements, the larger question is: What good is a weapon if it cannot be used?

Defence News - Russians go slow, Sukhoi fleet in trouble
 
Last edited:
.
Your this contractor dribble is complete bunkum because there are no contractors for IAF... You can try to satisfy your ego with all kind of claims of my lack of understanding of "system", the fact remains that there is no such thing as contractor of IAF who evaluate aircrafts, the evaluation of all RFP and joint developmental projects is done by engineering team from DGIFS and SME's from HAL DRDO, CRE/CRI. Oversight committee is formed of MoD and Aif Force Staff Hq and final approval is given based on the project by AOC M and AOC AS.
.

I just posted a post from another thread about your SU-30 (50% of the IAF force) going through issues. So that should give you some peace about my knowledge about the Russian tech. Next, from the above, YOU and I used the word contracrors and you went with it just as much as I did. Now you'd turn around and tell me there are inernal IAF employees doing the work? Fine. But how does it change anything? Whether contracrors or IAF or yoru BJP employees right, the point was, they CAN'T make a decision for the governemnt. They just evaluate and submit their reprots on 3 or 5 or 10 many contenders. The Indian Government makes the call on WHAT to BUY and from who....from within the contenders evaluated. That was the point. Whtether contractor or full time employees......don't make a difference. Let's not stupid argue like a child over a fact based sensible discussion where you are ignorng the most important facts
 
.
67 aircraft lost in Air to Air combat..against only 137 brought down otherwise.. that is a kill ratio of 2:1. .pathetic considering the USAF was supposed to be a technological powerhouse.

Poor weapons employment training, poor ACM practice. If you bothered to read through... the creation of the Navy Fighter weapons School.. or Top Gun as it was called came specifically after it was identified that not all fleet aviators were current weapons employment techniques nor in ACM. Sure there are plenty of such schools everywhere.. but I am referring specifically to the history of the USAF and USN schools. A little look at history would not go to waste.

Oscar - here we go. The following tells you all about the air to air losses. As you can see, not ALL top American jets were downed. The US was using low tech, older planes as well as F4's too. Unlike other people on here, I am not being egoistic about it as that's when you don't learn from your mistakes. But losses were high even with using older - low tech planes. The Mig was new and it was very agile compared to the American planes. This was what eventually gave birth to the F-16. The fighter weapons school and the facilities in Florida for Top Gun don't really train all pilots. They just train specific squadrons assigned to do interception roles. The idea behind that was to do simulation training as real as possible to pilots of heavier F-14's and F-15's. Later, the birth of F-16 changed a lot of it as it has been the most agile plane ever built and with entirely crazy unstable flight ability that makes it maneuverable like crazy.
This Vietnam wasn't so much so poor anything from a pilot's standpoint, it was the low end tech vs. a highly versatile and agile jet that the Americans had no idea about.
The F-4 or the older planes couldn't put a radar gun lock onto them Migs in every engagement as they were very maneuverable and fast. Plus, the radars and radar lock ranges were very short distanced back then. So you could only do so much. But as you can see, we learned from it.
The result was obvious even in some engagements by the F-86 against the Migs (even in India and Pakistan's scenario) , and later, this serious dog fight capability and agility was brought into the F-16. In real and close to real combat, the F-16's destroyed 69 targets without losing one. That's why it went sky high from a production's standpoint.
Since then and even after 40 years, the ratio of any jet made by anyone dog fighting with the F-16 and actually winning is almost none to super low. Pilots dread dealing with the viper. Whether its Migs or SU's or the F-15's. That's just reality.

US Air-to-Air Losses in the Vietnam War
 
Last edited:
.
Oscar - here we go. The following tells you all about the air to air losses. As you can see, not ALL top American jets were downed. The US was using low tech, older planes as well as F4's too. Unlike other people on here, I am not being egoistic about it as that's when you don't learn from your mistakes. But losses were high even with using older - low tech planes. The Mig was new and it was very agile compared to the American planes. This was eventually gave birth to the F-16. The fighter weapons school and the facilities in Florida for Top Gun don't really train all pilots. They just train specific squadrons assigned go interception roles. The idea behind that was to do similation training as real as possible to the heavier F-14's and F-15's. Later, the birth of F-16 changed a lot of it as it has been the most agile plane ever built and with entirely crazy unstable flight ability that makes it manueravble like crazy. This wasn't so much so poor anything, it was the tech and the training at that time. The F-4 or the older planes couldn't put a radar gun lock onto Migs as they were very manuerable and fast. Plus, the radars and radar lock sights were very short distanced. So you could only do so much. But as you can see, we learned from it and brought in the F-16. In real and close to real combat, the F-16's destroyed 69 targets without losing one. That's why it went sky high from a production standpoint. Even after 40 years, the ratio of any plane dog fighting with F-16 and actually winning is low. Pilots dread dealing with the viper. Whether its Migs or SU's or the F-15. That's reality.

US Air-to-Air Losses in the Vietnam War

If you look at the losses, it includes both low tech and high tech jets. Lost specifically bcause the aircrews were not prepared to fight the migs. The migs were more agile and manoeuvrable which was precisely the reason the schools of Top Gun were established to train key pilots who would later go on to teach their squadron what they had learnt. Yes the F-16 was brought in, but then it only proves my point. .. that the US made a mistake in relying too much on missiles and doctrine.. underestimated the enemy.. and suffered losses due to it.
 
.
@sandy_3126, @Oscar : Here we go. There is a thread open on this topic. Check out the SU-30's air worthiness. Back to my point about the Russian tech being loewer quality. I think we are done with this argument. You can question people who wrote this:

A shocking 50% of the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter fleet is on the ground due to unresolved servicing issues with the aircraft's Russian manufacturers. This has also eroded the combat capability of India's frontline long-range strike aircraft and compromised even that part of the fleet which is capable of being flown.

The IAF and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) have rung the alarm bells about the repeated mid-flight failure of the Su-30 mission computer and the blanking out of all cockpit displays. The Russians have not responded to the repeated SOS' from the Indians for over a year.

These disclosures have been made in leaked communications between HAL and Russian agencies. These are in exclusive possession of The Sunday Guardian.

The managing director of HAL's Nasik complex, which is tasked with assembly and repair of the IAF Sukhois, has, in vain, desperately flagged "multiple cases of repeated failure of Mission Computer-1 and blanking out of Head Up Displays (HUD) and all Multi-Function Displays (MFD) in flight" with earmarked representatives of both Rosboronexport — the Russian government's arms export agency — and Irkut, the original manufacturer of the Sukhoi-30.

"As the displays blanking off is a serious and critical issue affecting the exploitation of aircraft (it) needs corrective action/remedial measures on priority," he pleads in a letter dated 28 February this year, reminding the Russians that he's been raising the issue since 7 March 2013 but to no avail.

Failures of the mission computer and cockpit displays are critical. The entire sortie is programmed on the mission computer, which is vital for managing requirements of aerial combat. The "blanking off" of cockpit displays distracts pilots and diverts attention away from the mission. The IAF is worried at the spearhead of its fighter fleet being hit by these nagging snags. The IAF has planned a Sukhoi-30 fleet of 272 aircraft, of which an estimated 200 have been delivered.

Air Marshal Denzil Keelor, one of IAF's most decorated fighter pilots, is dismayed. "In-flight failures such as the ones being reported render a fighter aircraft vulnerable. When a fighter is being flown below optimum capability, it becomes more vulnerable to an adversary. No aircraft should be flown unless it performing to 100% capability," he warns.

What seems even more worrying is the Russian go-slow, which has severely hit the maintenance and availability of the fleet. Even five years after the signing of contract for the setting up of Su-30 repair and overhaul facilities in India at HAL, there's no progress despite "agreements" and assurances even at the level of the Defence Ministers of the two countries.

"Due to non-availability of facilities for overhaul of aggregates (aircraft parts), the serviceability (availability for flying) of Su-30MKI is slowly decreasing and demand for Aircraft on Ground (AOG) items on the rise," HAL's Nasik division again pleads with Russia's Rosboronexport in a telling letter dated 24 December 2013. Even the revised deadlines committed the Russians to set up the repair-overhaul facility at HAL by December 2013, and overhaul the first aircraft by June 2014. This seems nowhere on the horizon.

Worse, Russia has put on hold the posting of its Sukhoi specialists to India for helping set up repair and maintenance capability. Documents available with The Sunday Guardian suggest that the two sides are haggling over price. This goes against an agreement that posting of Russian specialists would not be disrupted even if price negotiations were not concluded. In the absence of these specialists, HAL has been forced to fend on its own, as Aircraft on Ground (AOG) are piling up.

"Huge quantities of unserviceable aggregates (parts) are lying due for overhaul at various bases of IAF," HAL states, disclosing that the number of Su-30s being grounded for want of quick repair is increasing. The Russians have been informed that five Su-30MKI fighters are already parked at HAL for extensive overhaul, and another 15 will be due for overhaul in the current year. This number is equivalent to an entire squadron.

Lamenting the Russian delays, HAL expresses even more helplessness: "It appears that Rosboronexport and Irkut Corporation (the main parties to the contract) have limited control over other Russian companies (which provide vital parts like engines)." Supplies and deputation of specialists by other companies are even more erratic.

While warning that operating the fighters without conclusively sorting out the recurring snags could affect pilot confidence, Air Marshal P.S. Ahluwalia, who recently headed the IAF's Western Command, also questions the Ministry of Defence and HAL for the sorry state of affairs. "It's an issue of mismanagement of maintenance arrangements. The Ministry of Defence's Department of Defence Production is responsible. They have failed to resolve the problems," he says.

As the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Western Air Command, Air Marshal Ahluwalia did not hesitate to ground the MiG-29 fleet for three months after suspicions of its airworthiness arose following a crash. He flew the fleet again only after the maintenance issue was nailed.

Figures reveal how serious the problem of availability of the IAF's Su-30MKI fleet is. Against the Sukhoi figure of just 50% aircraft fit for operational flying, statistics reveal just how much ground is to be covered. The availability rates of the IAF's French-origin Mirage-2000 and even the Russian-origin MiG-29 is about 75%. As India quibbles with Russia over maintenance arrangements, the larger question is: What good is a weapon if it cannot be used?

Defence News - Russians go slow, Sukhoi fleet in trouble
Again extremely amateurish report by a reputed news site and even by all pages stating 50% of the IAF’s Su-30MKI fleet remains grounded because of multiple cases of repeated failure of Mission Computer-1 and blanking out of Head Up Displays (HUD) and all Multi-Function Displays. This is not all true and let us separate truth from fiction.

Firstly, it must be noted that the malfunctions are not across-the-board or affecting the entire fleet of Su-30MKIs, but only a limited number. At most, therefore, no more than 40 Su-30MKIs will be affected by such avionics-related malfunctions. (Two batches are affected) This then brings us to the probable causes of such malfunctions. There is only ONE probable cause: faulty hardware most likely wiring harnesses or cable connectors. What has to be established is whether these items came directly from Russian OEMs (in which case product liabilities will those of Rosboronexport State Corp and IRKUT Corp) or were they sourced from India-based OEM-licensed vendors.

This can easily be done PROVIDED HAL has its in-house required set of item-specific test-benches and ATE equipment. As another option, HAL can also make use of ADA’s test-benches and ATE equipment, while DARE can be approached for replicating a fully-functional mock-up of the Su-30MKI’s cockpit avionics architecture—since DARE is presently involved with a similar task concerning the cockpits of the projected Super Su-30MKI.

Lastly, a word on the so-called combat aircraft fleet availability rates in peacetime. No air force in peacetime boasts of combat aircraft fleet availability rates of 75%. Such high rates are mandatory for only flying training aircraft like BTTs, AJTs and LIFTs. In reality, the availability rate of combat aircraft fleets hovers between 50% and 60%. If the national security scenario worsens over a period of time, then the availability rates are increased progressively as was the case with the IAF in both 1999 and 2002.
 
.
Again extremely amateurish report by a reputed news site and even by all pages stating 50% of the IAF’s Su-30MKI fleet remains grounded because of multiple cases of repeated failure of Mission Computer-1 and blanking out of Head Up Displays (HUD) and all Multi-Function Displays. This is not all true and let us separate truth from fiction.

Firstly, it must be noted that the malfunctions are not across-the-board or affecting the entire fleet of Su-30MKIs, but only a limited number. At most, therefore, no more than 40 Su-30MKIs will be affected by such avionics-related malfunctions. (Two batches are affected) This then brings us to the probable causes of such malfunctions. There is only ONE probable cause: faulty hardware most likely wiring harnesses or cable connectors. What has to be established is whether these items came directly from Russian OEMs (in which case product liabilities will those of Rosboronexport State Corp and IRKUT Corp) or were they sourced from India-based OEM-licensed vendors.

This can easily be done PROVIDED HAL has its in-house required set of item-specific test-benches and ATE equipment. As another option, HAL can also make use of ADA’s test-benches and ATE equipment, while DARE can be approached for replicating a fully-functional mock-up of the Su-30MKI’s cockpit avionics architecture—since DARE is presently involved with a similar task concerning the cockpits of the projected Super Su-30MKI.

Lastly, a word on the so-called combat aircraft fleet availability rates in peacetime. No air force in peacetime boasts of combat aircraft fleet availability rates of 75%. Such high rates are mandatory for only flying training aircraft like BTTs, AJTs and LIFTs. In reality, the availability rate of combat aircraft fleets hovers between 50% and 60%. If the national security scenario worsens over a period of time, then the availability rates are increased progressively as was the case with the IAF in both 1999 and 2002.
But the news site did not carry the report, it was a supposed government memo.
 
.
But the news site did not carry the report, it was a supposed government memo.

Govt memo just shows the problem, but the news site saying it as it affected by whole MKI fleet and 50% is grounded.
A shocking 50% of the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter fleet is on the ground due to unresolved servicing issues with the aircraft's Russian manufacturers. This has also eroded the combat capability of India's frontline long-range strike aircraft and compromised even that part of the fleet which is capable of being flown.
 
.
Govt memo just shows the problem, but the news site saying it as it affected by whole MKI fleet and 50% is grounded.
govt memo only said about 10b and 11b configuration fighters means fighter produced Line year 2010 -2011.and general overhaul of fighters Problems are reported and hal monitoring actions i dont understand what is so Fuzz about it :frown::frown:
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom