What's new

PAF can counter India’s new war doctrine, says air chief

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am surprised by your three previous posts with ref to the airframe, in the first one you claimed MKI is structurally different, in the next HAL has suggested and the next one is about the upgrade. lets not speculate to make MKI something it's not. I would be very proud if MKi did have RAM coatings or stealth characteristics as i assume is what you really are 'wishing' for but lets not get too excited about Carbon fiber composites.

Carbon fiber for the skin panels will not greatly affect the RCS due to the design of the aircraft. If you are referring to carbon fiber reinforced hybrid spar planks or AL-Ti honeycomb faced with CFRP, I wouldn't get too excited and probably stay away from it. CF is a big headache when it comes to repair. Plus if you have spar planks reinforced with carbon fiber there is fatigue delamination which is one of the major causes for crack propagation. This has been documented in the F35 air frame testing regime. To sum it up carbon fiber structures are largely non-serviceable, I would be much happier using known alloys and make it up in TVR using better engines.

MKI uses extensive amount of lithium - aluminium titanium honeycomb composites which are extremely advanced, perform at par or better than the range of available prepreg CFRP available in India, without the serviceability issues.

Yes structurally different from Chinese and Russian versions... and one of Its kind...


Next I said the material used and their composition is different for Russian/Indian and Chinese versions.. since the Chinese version is modeled for Ground attack and strike roles... and they use It in Navy...

No MKI uses CFC as of now..
But there were some news here and there about making a PT... rumors or reality you can confirm yourself.

There are many advantages of CFC air frame.... but as I said Its a different thing weather they are adopted or not.
 
Those Su30 might have helped getting the feel about the thing... the real machine is very different as you know... weapons, ECM, engines whatever you say... yes even the air frame and material used in the air frame.

Just two very short n simple points mate...

1. A plane with a different Airframe and Material is a completely different plane or else tomorrow F22 could also be made to be shown as a version of F18, which other than being wrong is attrociously ignorant... Su30 can not be "structurally" or "significantly different in material used" from Su30 MKI... Period

You can not re-define the basics of fighter plane industry without any real proof or by sharing pics, which are different views of same plane with different angles and in different colors... Undefendable logic can not be defended.

Russians have sold a lot of Junk to many countries yes those Iraqi Mig29s or the ones which were sold East European nations.. all water-downed and downgraded.. calling them junk was in respect to what is available today with most of the airforces around the who field Russian planes.

2. What you are saying is simply a deduced logic based on your understanding of Global Political dynamics... Really, it is pure speculation till you can substantiate it based on any fact that what Iraq got was anything less than what we have got... Fact is that only those Mig29s really ever got tested at the face of a real war and they measured short!

At the end of the day, if the Russian Harware, inspite of its qualities has issues then it really is not something out of this world and is the core reason why we are looking elsewhere for some quick and reliable solutions.

Plus, we can not assume that every other piece of inventory supplied by Russia out there is a piece of crap only and only we have the best posible configuration... The argument just will not hold water!

Let's get back to the topic...
 
Yes structurally different from Chinese and Russian versions... and one of Its kind...

Aren't They ?

Next I said the material used and their composition is different for Russian/Indian and Chinese versions.. since the Chinese version is modeled for Ground attack and strike roles... and they use It in Navy...

No MKI uses CFC as of now..
But there were some news here and there about making a PT... rumors or reality you can confirm yourself.

There are many advantages of CFC air frame.... but as I said Its a different thing weather they are adopted or not.

ok buddy ... tell me the difference between the airframe of SU27PU SU30M and Su30MKI...and please dont say canards.... Again let me reassure you that no modifications to "airframe" has been done by HAL... if a change is required, loading performance criterion is sent to KNAAPO and they figure it out what to do the structure.


And this airframe that you speak of what part of airframe are you talking about... which part? or do you want the entire aircraft made of carbon fiber??

I told you what I knew... if you still want to believe in rumors that's upto you...

BTW look at some of the variants schematics and not pics from different angles

here
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Flankers-Aug03.pdf
 
Just two very short n simple points mate...

1. A plane with a different Airframe and Material is a completely different plane or else tomorrow F22 could also be made to be shown as a version of F18, which other than being wrong is attrociously ignorant... Su30 can not be "structurally" or "significantly different in material used" from Su30 MKI... Period

You can not re-define the basics of fighter plane industry without any real proof or by sharing pics, which are different views of same plane with different angles and in different colors... Undefendable logic can not be defended.

It has a bigger nose... to accommodate a larger Radar.. avionics are different, engines are different version from the basic model... If its the Su30 why did the airforce buy the MKI version...

In comparison to both Russian model to be Inducted and the Chinese one... you can argue that even the real thing came from Russian Irkut plant so.... there has to be a few PT there... but the production version for Russian Air force is again different.

I didn't say Completely different But Different from what they got their pilot to sit in.


2. What you are saying is simply a deduced logic based on your understanding of Global Political dynamics... Really, it is pure speculation till you can substantiate it based on any fact that what Iraq got was anything less than what we have got... Fact is that only those Mig29s really ever got tested at the face of a real war and they measured short!

At the end of the day, if the Russian Harware, inspite of its qualities has issues then it really is not something out of this world and is the core reason why we are looking elsewhere for some quick and reliable solutions.

Plus, we can not assume that every other piece of inventory supplied by Russia out there is a piece of crap only and only we have the best posible configuration... The argument just will not hold water!

Let's get back to the topic...

Sir Here I would like you see a few points about the Indian Mig29s and leave for you to decide...

1. The MiG-29 had intensive problems in operation and maintenance since its induction due to premature failure of engines, components, and systems. 74% of the engines failed within five years, were out of supply pipeline for three years, and reduced aircraft availability by 15, to 20%. This led to a decision to restrict flying efforts and therefore compromised operational and training commitments.

2. There were significant shortfalls in the performance of the MiG-29 fleet resulting in operational and training inadequacies. The shortfall ranged from 20 to 65% in respect to combat aircraft availability and 58 to 84% in trainers between 1987 - 1991.

3. There was a mismatch between induction of the aircraft (1987) and the establishment of its repair facilities (end of 1994). Until that time engines had to be continually sent to manufacturers abroad at great monetary cost, reduction of one-half total life, and a significant stretch of schedule.

4. Non-availability of critical radar components and spares resulted in the grounding of significant numbers of aircraft. Five aircraft were out of action for over six months while two were in the hanger for over two years. Unserviceability of computers and the inability to fix them cost excessive amounts of money to rectify.

5. The pilot debrief Ground Data Processing Unit, imported at high cost, was left lying around unserviceable and unused since its reception in August 1990.

6. The lack of nose wheel mud guards had to be solved by importing upgrade kits and expensive local re-design after material deficiencies could not be overcome.

With a regional support capability in place (regardless of how tenuous it was) and having one of the few respectable MiG-29 operating legacies, the Indian aerospace companies, especially Hindistan Aeronautical Ltd. (HAL), and the InAF became natural partners for MAPO in consummating the sale of MiG-29's to Malaysia. They were offered the opportunity to get involved with providing training and logistics support for the new Malaysian MiG-29 program. India, of course, gives greater credibility to MAPO in convincing customers that the MiG-29 is a viable fighter candidate for Pacific Rim nations. It remains to be seen, however, what solutions the new joint venture brings to the Indian Air Force problems.

And that's with IAF...
 
Threat is going off topic folks..
lets quickly end this debate on the Su-30 series and return to the main focus.
 
ok buddy ... tell me the difference between the airframe of SU27PU SU30M and Su30MKI...and please dont say canards.... Again let me reassure you that no modifications to "airframe" has been done by HAL... if a change is required, loading performance criterion is sent to KNAAPO and they figure it out what to do the structure.


And this airframe that you speak of what part of airframe are you talking about... which part? or do you want the entire aircraft made of carbon fiber??

I told you what I knew... if you still want to believe in rumors that's upto you...

BTW look at some of the variants schematics and not pics from different angles

here
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Flankers-Aug03.pdf

Thanks for the document..

I guess you realize that that the MKI is made by the Irkut plant and HAL... so KNAAPO has little to do with its modification If it has anything to do at all... any modification Involves both parties and is based on the feedback received from IAF.

The Su35BM model which was supposed to enter the production lines in KNAAPO is very different from the MKI or any Su30 version as the fuselage is remodeled for flights in supercruise regime and to accommodate larger engines and heavier IRST in the nose along with far-better avionics as compared to any SU30 version..

About the CFC induction to MKI air frame I would post when I get some credible data until let the speculation and rumor with me.
 
@Darky,

Dont you have anything else to discuss other than IAF and SU-30? you are becoming more of Storm F**e. Read the topic title and if you cant comprehend, better discuss things in IAF forum.
 
@Darky,

Dont you have anything else to discuss other than IAF and SU-30? you are becoming more of Storm F**e. Read the topic title and if you cant comprehend, better discuss things in IAF forum.

this is true. the SU30 specific discussion needs to be taken somewhere else. Darky's obsession seems to have no limits. nothing bad about it but seeing it on every current running thread becomes very annoying and even the Indian members are showing fatigue. so please Darky, give it a break or people will be forced to have your SU30 posts deleted.

---------- Post added at 08:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 PM ----------

Threat is going off topic folks..
lets quickly end this debate on the Su-30 series and return to the main focus.

let see if Darky moves his discussion to IAF thread instead.
 
this is true. the SU30 specific discussion needs to be taken somewhere else. Darky's obsession seems to have no limits. nothing bad about it but seeing it on every current running thread becomes very annoying and even the Indian members are showing fatigue. so please Darky, give it a break or people will be forced to have your SU30 posts deleted.

---------- Post added at 08:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 PM ----------



let see if Darky moves his discussion to IAF thread instead.

That was Just for the points raised by a fellow member who said they are very similar... while we know different versions are made due to different requirements...

Continue with the "PAF can counter India’s new war doctrine, says air chief" topic... I think there are only half dozen posts on structure thing from my side... you can delete If you want.. Thanks...
 
What is the strategic oil reserves for Pak? And how long can they hold out in terms of any offensive operation? Going by the past, Pak forces will try to take the offensive to Indian territory and hope they are able to grab a bargaining chip. In this scenario, will the role of PAF still be just protecting airspace or will it be providing CAS to offensive formations? If its providing cas would that not mean a higher sortie rate backed by increasing operations in a dense and hostile ad environment. Also, will mean better rail infrastructure to transport logistics quickly. This will have to be done, while, protecting the sea flank at the same time from the IN.
 
What is the strategic oil reserves for Pak? And how long can they hold out in terms of any offensive operation? Going by the past, Pak forces will try to take the offensive to Indian territory and hope they are able to grab a bargaining chip. In this scenario, will the role of PAF still be just protecting airspace or will it be providing CAS to offensive formations? If its providing cas would that not mean a higher sortie rate backed by increasing operations in a dense and hostile ad environment. Also, will mean better rail infrastructure to transport logistics quickly. This will have to be done, while, protecting the sea flank at the same time from the IN.

I think offensive from PA might not be the best strategy...PAF may be able to hold IAF in their backyard(it would be very tough for them) but providing cover to their troops in indian air-space is asking too much from them...PA would be sitting ducks for IAF should they invade....Also keep in mind here locus of discussion is about PAF denying Air-superiority to IAF in Pak air-space...
 
I think offensive from PA might not be the best strategy...PAF may be able to hold IAF in their backyard(it would be very tough for them) but providing cover to their troops in indian air-space is asking too much from them...PA would be sitting ducks for IAF should they invade....Also keep in mind here locus of discussion is about PAF denying Air-superiority to IAF in Pak air-space...

Another "obsession never ends" story. What makes you folks think it will be hard for PAF to hold the IAF in its very backyard? When you present a point, it is plausible to elaborate on it otherwise stop shooting in the air. I asked a question few days ago, what is the advantage in terms of quality and technology that IAF enjoys as of today? What makes them so superior that they have reached invincibility according to Indian members?
 
Just two very short n simple points mate...

1. A plane with a different Airframe and Material is a completely different plane or else tomorrow F22 could also be made to be shown as a version of F18, which other than being wrong is attrociously ignorant... Su30 can not be "structurally" or "significantly different in material used" from Su30 MKI... Period

You can not re-define the basics of fighter plane industry without any real proof or by sharing pics, which are different views of same plane with different angles and in different colors... Undefendable logic can not be defended.



2. What you are saying is simply a deduced logic based on your understanding of Global Political dynamics... Really, it is pure speculation till you can substantiate it based on any fact that what Iraq got was anything less than what we have got... Fact is that only those Mig29s really ever got tested at the face of a real war and they measured short!

At the end of the day, if the Russian Harware, inspite of its qualities has issues then it really is not something out of this world and is the core reason why we are looking elsewhere for some quick and reliable solutions.

Plus, we can not assume that every other piece of inventory supplied by Russia out there is a piece of crap only and only we have the best posible configuration... The argument just will not hold water!

Let's get back to the topic...

Hi,

The russian hardware is the issue---ie they produced this BVR truck.
I had posted many a years ago SU 30 is a typical russian 'right in your face' kind of design---big bad and brutal. The su 30 was never known for its finness or for its dinner table manners----.

It is a BVR truck---it is like the FIRST MAXIM machine gun amongst single shooters----. As I stated in one of my post---what kind of numerical losses the iaf can take for the su30 to still operate at 110% of its capabilities---if it can absorb the losses and cares less----paf is toast---there are no ifs and buts about it----. No arguing the finer points---because there are none----. There are no delicate matters to be discussed here---there is no polish and no spit and shine over here----it is a beast---it is a monster---it has massive amount of armament and its radar is the strongest that is available in this arena---.

Its RCS matters diddly sh-it----it does not care what it looks like---because the adversary on the other hand does not have powerful radars on their aircraft to make the difference and neither do they have the numbers to with stand the onslaught.

The usaf colonel rightly said that there will be a merger of aircraft---but to whose advantage---the su30 launching 8 bvr's in the merger---the opponent has only two to respond to on equal grounds. In a sortie of two aircraft opposing two aircraft---each pakistani plane will be taking on 8 missiles as compared to 2 being launched by them---in the worst case scenario---so even with 25% kill ratio for the russian bvr's---the paf plane will be killed twice---and at a 50% kill ratio the iaf plane will die once---.

The su would not have to launch 8 missiles at each opponent---possibly 2 to 3 at the most----. The numbers game is against the paf----. The paf has never been out numbered like this time ever before---.

What it really needs is a couple of sqdrns of J11's, rather than the J10B's----you already have a better auircraft than J10B in the form of blk52 F16 and the mlu's coming in---so, why to get an inferior aircraft than the F16----.

Paf has fckued up one more time.

My comments in the previous post were simply---with blk 52---and aim 120 in store---at least the paf can shoot back to make a kill---.
 
Hi,

The russian hardware is the issue---ie they produced this BVR truck.
I had posted many a years ago SU 30 is a typical russian 'right in your face' kind of design---big bad and brutal. The su 30 was never known for its finness or for its dinner table manners----.

It is a BVR truck---it is like the FIRST MAXIM machine gun amongst single shooters----. As I stated in one of my post---what kind of numerical losses the iaf can take for the su30 to still operate at 110% of its capabilities---if it can absorb the losses and cares less----paf is toast---there are no ifs and buts about it----. No arguing the finer points---because there are none----. There are no delicate matters to be discussed here---there is no polish and no spit and shine over here----it is a beast---it is a monster---it has massive amount of armament and its radar is the strongest that is available in this arena---.

Its RCS matters diddly sh-it----it does not care what it looks like---because the adversary on the other hand does not have powerful radars on their aircraft to make the difference and neither do they have the numbers to with stand the onslaught.

The usaf colonel rightly said that there will be a merger of aircraft---but to whose advantage---the su30 launching 8 bvr's in the merger---the opponent has only two to respond to on equal grounds. In a sortie of two aircraft opposing two aircraft---each pakistani plane will be taking on 8 missiles as compared to 2 being launched by them---in the worst case scenario---so even with 25% kill ratio for the russian bvr's---the paf plane will be killed twice---and at a 50% kill ratio the iaf plane will die once---.

The su would not have to launch 8 missiles at each opponent---possibly 2 to 3 at the most----. The numbers game is against the paf----. The paf has never been out numbered like this time ever before---.

What it really needs is a couple of sqdrns of J11's, rather than the J10B's----you already have a better auircraft than J10B in the form of blk52 F16 and the mlu's coming in---so, why to get an inferior aircraft than the F16----.

Paf has fckued up one more time.

My comments in the previous post were simply---with blk 52---and aim 120 in store---at least the paf can shoot back to make a kill---.


Mastan Jee,

The question is if the J-10B comes with AESA, is it still an inferior aircraft to BLK 52?

:coffee:
 
Hi,

The russian hardware is the issue---ie they produced this BVR truck.
I had posted many a years ago SU 30 is a typical russian 'right in your face' kind of design---big bad and brutal. The su 30 was never known for its finness or for its dinner table manners----.

It is a BVR truck---it is like the FIRST MAXIM machine gun amongst single shooters----. As I stated in one of my post---what kind of numerical losses the iaf can take for the su30 to still operate at 110% of its capabilities---if it can absorb the losses and cares less----paf is toast---there are no ifs and buts about it----. No arguing the finer points---because there are none----. There are no delicate matters to be discussed here---there is no polish and no spit and shine over here----it is a beast---it is a monster---it has massive amount of armament and its radar is the strongest that is available in this arena---.

Its RCS matters diddly sh-it----it does not care what it looks like---because the adversary on the other hand does not have powerful radars on their aircraft to make the difference and neither do they have the numbers to with stand the onslaught.

The usaf colonel rightly said that there will be a merger of aircraft---but to whose advantage---the su30 launching 8 bvr's in the merger---the opponent has only two to respond to on equal grounds. In a sortie of two aircraft opposing two aircraft---each pakistani plane will be taking on 8 missiles as compared to 2 being launched by them---in the worst case scenario---so even with 25% kill ratio for the russian bvr's---the paf plane will be killed twice---and at a 50% kill ratio the iaf plane will die once---.

The su would not have to launch 8 missiles at each opponent---possibly 2 to 3 at the most----. The numbers game is against the paf----. The paf has never been out numbered like this time ever before---.

What it really needs is a couple of sqdrns of J11's, rather than the J10B's----you already have a better auircraft than J10B in the form of blk52 F16 and the mlu's coming in---so, why to get an inferior aircraft than the F16----.

Paf has fckued up one more time.

My comments in the previous post were simply---with blk 52---and aim 120 in store---at least the paf can shoot back to make a kill---.

wdidnt got your point that opposition force doesnt have good enough radar to pick up large RCS.
both thunders and f-16s can pick up su 30 mki at their maximal firing range..infact well beyond their max firing range. and i am not counting the role of AWACs

i think PAF being toasted will depend more on our approach..as if PAF can maintain 1/3 strength..it shouldnt get toasted..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom