should India have gotten Su-35 instead?

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 9,579

By: TR1 - 9th September 2013 at 09:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

India already has the Su-30MKI, no need to complicate things. The Super 30 upgrade will borrow much from the Su-35 program.
MMRCA is for a smaller bird, so it is a separate deal altogether.

Member for

12 years 2 months

Posts: 4,168

Send private message

By: halloweene - 9th September 2013 at 09:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

India already has the Su-30MKI, no need to complicate things. The Super 30 upgrade will borrow much from the Su-35 program.
MMRCA is for a smaller bird, so it is a separate deal altogether.

Some sense here :eagerness:

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 3,381

By: Rii - 9th September 2013 at 09:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

India already has the Su-30MKI, no need to complicate things. The Super 30 upgrade will borrow much from the Su-35 program.
MMRCA is for a smaller bird, so it is a separate deal altogether.

+1

But now that the subject is raised, is 'Super 30' going to incorporate the kinds of airframe refinements (aerodynamics, materials, wet pylons, etc.) found in Su-35, or is it more a collection of systems upgrades? Have they decided on engine + radar yet?

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 6,441

Send private message

By: haavarla - 9th September 2013 at 11:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

+1
But now that the subject is raised, is 'Super 30' going to incorporate the kinds of airframe refinements (aerodynamics, materials, wet pylons, etc.) found in Su-35, or is it more a collection of systems upgrades? Have they decided on engine + radar yet?

The Super 30 will most likely get the AL-31FM1 With the FP TVC ofcourse.
With that, nobody can say the MKI is underpowered.

I still think they will keep the airbrake and other Su-30 stuff. No point in making this Upgrade any more expensive than need be.
The Radar Upgrade will be a modernnized BARS for existing units. Dunno about the New build though..

Pretty sure there will follow an seperate weapons contract as well.

Member for

17 years 8 months

Posts: 4,951

Send private message

By: MadRat - 9th September 2013 at 13:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

You lose the air brakes to reduce component count. Fewer components is fewer failures. Fewer failures is more uptime and availability.

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 6,441

Send private message

By: haavarla - 9th September 2013 at 17:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Which in turn force IAPO to produce completly New set of vertical Stabz. Sinse the one on Su-35S have larger Control surface to make up for the Huge airbrake.
I'm just saying, if funding is tight.. stick With the Su-30 solution.

Member for

11 years

Posts: 2,040

By: Y-20 Bacon - 9th September 2013 at 18:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

India shouldn't go for the aircraft China is purchasing

but I understand Indian fears of China's sudden Su-35 purchase and the vulnerabilities of the Rafale.
the French would've never sold the Rafale to China (not because they don't want to but they can't).

Member for

12 years 2 months

Posts: 4,168

Send private message

By: halloweene - 9th September 2013 at 18:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

:stupid:

By: Anonymous - 9th September 2013 at 23:31 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31

Which in turn force IAPO to produce completly New set of vertical Stabz. Sinse the one on Su-35S have larger Control surface to make up for the Huge airbrake.
I'm just saying, if funding is tight.. stick With the Su-30 solution.

Actually, the IAPO canard Flankers have very similar extended-chord rudders. It could well be only a software upgrade that would be required for them to perform the airbrake function. In fact, I seem to recall that for low deceleration demand, they already do - there was a picture of a Su-30MKI flying in formation with another aircraft on this forum that appeared to show symmetric deflection (for station keeping off the wing of the leading aircraft in that case).

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 840

Send private message

By: Snow Monkey - 10th September 2013 at 09:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The Su-30 MKI is developed in the opposite direction of Su-35, IAF has strengthened the airframe to allow Brahmos carriage, Su-35 doesn't satisfy it's needs.
The current Su-35 was not available when they inducted Su-30, and any marginal difference in performance, clearly in areas not originally prioritized by IAF,
is just nowhere near justifying losing the fleet commonality. Worrying about future Chinese Su-35, when a contract may only be signed in 2014, so deliveries... 2017?
Just seems hyperventilating by those with little insight to the process except what is reported by mass media, IAF should be inducting PAKFA soon after, so no worries.
China has other fronts to station Su-35 on anyways besides the Himalaya, it's not all about India :-)

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 6,983

By: obligatory - 10th September 2013 at 09:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The current Su-35 was not available when they inducted Su-30(MKI), and any marginal difference in performance,

I think difference of opinion here from most that have followed the Su-35

Member for

12 years 2 months

Posts: 4,168

Send private message

By: halloweene - 10th September 2013 at 09:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Anw, Su30 MKI will be upgraded to "super sukhoi", no?

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 3,381

By: Rii - 10th September 2013 at 10:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The Su-30 MKI is developed in the opposite direction of Su-35, IAF has strengthened the airframe to allow Brahmos carriage, Su-35 doesn't satisfy it's needs.

I heard that only 40 MKIs were to undergo airframe modification/strengthening to carry BrahMos on the centreline. Haven't heard anything for or against future 'Super 30s' being able to do so.

To be honest, air-launched BrahMos and integration on Su-30 seems more of an experience-gathering exercise than a real combat capability.

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 1,050

Send private message

By: Aurel - 10th September 2013 at 11:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

No, India should have chosen Gripen. Then they should have gotten it in production ASAP, dropping the ill fated LCA in the process. And they should have gotten in the drivers seat for the Naval Gripen with export chances to Brasilia while concentrating development resources on the FGFA/MCA.

Member for

12 years 2 months

Posts: 4,168

Send private message

By: halloweene - 10th September 2013 at 12:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Same thing, Gripen was dropped during technical evaluation... And sea Gripen is a pure paper plane.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 57

Send private message

By: vario2012 - 10th September 2013 at 13:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

This whole Su35 to China saga's ultimate goal is India. Just buy Su35, or Super Su30 whatever. Then we all can formally move on to the next saga: T50 sale to China.

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

Send private message

By: Vnomad - 10th September 2013 at 14:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The Russian Air Force has ordered 60 Su-30SMs with the Russian Navy looking another 12 or more.

The first contract between the Defense Ministry and Irkut Corporation for 30 Su-30SMs was signed in March last year. The Russian Air Force received the first two Su-30SM aircraft in November. In mid-December, a new contract was signed for an additional 30 jets by 2016.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130704/182061486.html

Su-35 orders stand at 48 units.

I think that says it all, at least as far as India is concerned.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 3,381

By: Rii - 10th September 2013 at 15:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Isn't Russia using Su-30SMs primarily for training purposes replacing old Su-27UBs?

The current Su-35 contract runs through 2015 and is almost certain to be extended to deliver another 50 units by 2020.

By: Anonymous - 10th September 2013 at 17:13 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31

It is hard to fault the Su-30MKI, it is a very good aircraft in its own right and one of the top selling fighters so far of the new millennium. Similarly, the Su-35S is a logical evolution of previous Flanker variants, addressing most of the few remaining weaknesses (certain avionics, empty weight). Nonetheless, it is a bit sad that the Su-35S and Su-30MKI (and Su-34) exist as separate programmes - it would have been more efficient for Russia to cancel their bespoke solutions (Su-34 and at the time Su-27M) and pursue what became the Su-30MKI as a joint procurement with India from the outset. As it is, the Su-30SM is as much a stimulus package for IAPO (a rather useful one, but still) as it is a genuine attempt to expedite modernization of the fighter fleet and that need to speed things up would also have been greatly mitigated if the cardinal elements of the Su-35S had already been incorporated into an earlier joint project with India.

Similarly, the Su-34 is a great long-range strike airframe, but payload/range capacity for strike is not something the post-Soviet Russian air force was ever especially lacking in. What they needed most urgently was not a new, expensive strike *airframe* but modern sensors and weaponry for existing long-range aviation, plus a cost-effective multi-role platform that could replace several aging tactical types as quickly as possible. The Su-30MKI and Su-35S may not be quite as outstanding performers in the strike role as the Su-34, but they're still among the best in the world and therefore plenty good enough - especially when teamed with upgraded Backfires and Blackjacks that are even better than the Hellduck could ever hope to be.

So, in an ideal world with more far-sighted leaders in Russian politics, military and industry it should have been comprehensive avionics upgrades for the strategic bombers and hundreds of "joint Super-Flankers" ordered by the middle of the 2000s and Su-34 (airframe) development canceled rather than a drip feed of three different types and little to no upgrading of long-range aviation by the end of the decade.

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

Send private message

By: Vnomad - 10th September 2013 at 17:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Isn't Russia using Su-30SMs primarily for training purposes replacing old Su-27UBs?
The current Su-35 contract runs through 2015 and is almost certain to be extended to deliver another 50 units by 2020.

Is it? Being a two seater its certainly eligible but 60 aircraft is far too many. I'd have thought the cost and simplicity of tacking on extra orders to Irkut's book would have been the driving factor.

The Su-35 production could be renewed yes, but unless the Su-35 has received any export orders in the interim, it would more efficient to augment Su-30SM orders (if required) and concentrate on the PAK-FA, a superior aircraft even in an immature state.