Wednesday, June 30, 2010

New weaponary for Su-34


A new video about Su-34 fighter-bomber. The main conclusions:
1) A new GLONASS-guided bomb 2 times more accurate, than last American one, - the tests were finished.
2) Net-centric system of information exchange gives the new options for attacks.
3) The cockpit look was shown
4) Su-34 simulator in work

51 comments:

  1. Hey Igor,
    Do you know if there are plans for an dedicated EW version of the Su-34 similar to the Growler? Or is a dedicated EW/Electronic Attack version of the SU-34 not needed in the Russian Air force. Also any news of potential exports??

    ReplyDelete
  2. What does 2 times more accurate then American ones mean , the American uses GPS Guided JDAM and Russian uses GLONASS guided JDAM'ski , so depending on the precision of GPS signals both JDAM and JDAM'ski should have the same accuracy

    ReplyDelete
  3. to Austin:

    The accurateness of a sat-guided missile is LIMITED by the satellite nav system characteristic, but never equals it. There are a lot of other factors for limitation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can can you give more details as how the Russian JDAM equivalent is better then American ones ?

    Just stating its 2x times better makes it just another unverified claim.

    ReplyDelete
  5. to Austin:

    I can only translate what the chief of GosNIIAS said. He said, they did develop the new GLONASS-guided bomb, which is as twice more accurate, than the current American GPS-guided bomb.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Igor!
    Thanks for the SU-34 update!

    With Russian army "modernization" in mind - is ordering only all together about (80#) new
    SU-34 (32#) and SU-35 (48#)
    is it limited by money of the Russian budget(planing) or limited by production capacity or both?

    Can this rhythm of "modernization" reach the target of 70% new/upgraded planes by 2025?
    I think it was mentioned about 800planes of 1500"aircraft's by than...
    Thanks in advance!

    ReplyDelete
  7. well i am from canada and well i also heard my prof saying that glanoss is much better and more accurate then GPS and a very less number of glasnoss will do the job more better then the GPS but the problem is glanoss is not a mature system as it cannot even cover the whole of russia for now well and he even explained why it was accurate but i didn't understand it completely he said the glanoss are placed vertically position or on the longitude so just 2 satellite are enough to figure out the exact position and GPS are placed and they pass or follow the longitude path and more then 3 minimum satellite are require to get a some what accurate result

    ReplyDelete
  8. First of all the term JDAM'ski is a little offensive, if you are suggesting that this Russian design is just a rip off of an American system then lets start calling the M16 AKMski, and the Bradley IFV BMPski, and of course the the Mk-19 40mm grenade launcher will have to be named after the 40.6mm Taubin grenade launcher invented before WWII but never entered service because the designer died, and even the BLU-108 would be called SPBE ski, the Soviet weapon entering service in the late 1980s on Smerch and Grad rockets and air dropped cluster bombs.

    Most arms makers define accuracy by CEP, so twice as accurate should mean the CEP is half the size.
    And accuracy of satellite guided bombs has as much to do with cross wind and manouvering surface control level as it does with the positional accuracy of the data it receives from satellites.

    ReplyDelete
  9. An update on India's MMRCA reproduced from India's leading media TOI:
    Race for `mother of all deals' for 126 fighters gets hotter - NEW DELHI: The race for the "mother of all defence deals", the $10.4 billion project to acquire 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) for IAF, is getting hotter.

    Defence ministry sources said the technical evaluation report of the gruelling field trials, during which the six foreign fighters in contention were tested by IAF pilots both in India and abroad under different weather conditions, was "virtually ready" now.
    "IAF is likely to submit the exhaustive report by next week. Subsequently, a shortlist of the fighters which have done well in the field evaluation test and the staff evaluation will be made," said a source.

    The commercial bids submitted by the six aviation majors -- American F/A-18 `Super Hornet' (Boeing) and F-16 `Falcon' (Lockheed Martin), Swedish Gripen (Saab), French Rafale (Dassault), Russian MiG-35 (United Aircraft Corporation) and Eurofighter Typhoon (consortium of British, German, Spanish and Italian companies) -- will be opened, examined and compared only after that.

    This will be the first time that "life-cycle costs" will be taken into account rather than just pitching for the lowest bidder. The "direct acquisition cost", the cost of operating the fighters over a 40-year period, with 6,000 hours of flying, and the cost of the ToT will all be taken into account to arrive at a "verifiable cost model" for the commercial evaluation.

    Complex negotiations on the 50% offsets specified in the contract, under which the selected foreign vendor will be required to plough half of the contract forex value back into India, will also have to be conducted.

    IAF is keeping its fingers crossed that the actual contract, under which 18 jets will be bought off-the-shelf and the rest will be manufactured in India under transfer of technology to Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, is inked within a year.

    IAF obviously wants to get the fighters as soon as possible, grappling as it is with a sharp fall in the number of its fighter squadrons (each has 12 to 18 jets), which is down to just 32 from even the "sanctioned" strength of 39.5.

    ReplyDelete
  10. An update on India's MMRCA reproduced from India's leading media TOI:
    Race for `mother of all deals' for 126 fighters gets hotter - NEW DELHI: The race for the "mother of all defence deals", the $10.4 billion project to acquire 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) for IAF, is getting hotter.

    Defence ministry sources said the technical evaluation report of the gruelling field trials, during which the six foreign fighters in contention were tested by IAF pilots both in India and abroad under different weather conditions, was "virtually ready" now.
    "IAF is likely to submit the exhaustive report by next week. Subsequently, a shortlist of the fighters which have done well in the field evaluation test and the staff evaluation will be made," said a source.

    The commercial bids submitted by the six aviation majors -- American F/A-18 `Super Hornet' (Boeing) and F-16 `Falcon' (Lockheed Martin), Swedish Gripen (Saab), French Rafale (Dassault), Russian MiG-35 (United Aircraft Corporation) and Eurofighter Typhoon (consortium of British, German, Spanish and Italian companies) -- will be opened, examined and compared only after that.

    This will be the first time that "life-cycle costs" will be taken into account rather than just pitching for the lowest bidder. The "direct acquisition cost", the cost of operating the fighters over a 40-year period, with 6,000 hours of flying, and the cost of the ToT will all be taken into account to arrive at a "verifiable cost model" for the commercial evaluation.

    Complex negotiations on the 50% offsets specified in the contract, under which the selected foreign vendor will be required to plough half of the contract forex value back into India, will also have to be conducted.

    IAF is keeping its fingers crossed that the actual contract, under which 18 jets will be bought off-the-shelf and the rest will be manufactured in India under transfer of technology to Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, is inked within a year.

    IAF obviously wants to get the fighters as soon as possible, grappling as it is with a sharp fall in the number of its fighter squadrons (each has 12 to 18 jets), which is down to just 32 from even the "sanctioned" strength of 39.5.

    ReplyDelete
  11. GarrB for lack of proper designation that I could remember at that point of time I used the term JDAM'ski and it was not my intention to be offensive.

    But I found the known designation from APA website

    KAB-500SE satellite aided inertially guided bomb

    http://www.ausairpower.net/GNPP-KAB-500S-SE-1S.jpg

    More Details

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Regional-PGM.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. to anon July 2, 2010 11:32 AM

    GLONASS - Global Navigation Satelite System, no relation to Glasnost :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Austin, sorry for being a bit sharp about it, but I spend half my time on the internet talking to people who believe the Russians just copy and that everything the US uses was invented in the US, which is in my opinion just wasted time.
    I would much rather talk about Russian stuff than American stuff... even now you buy a book called Airborne forces and it will be all about British and US forces with no mention of the Soviets, unless they get a mention at the start.
    It is normally the first section talks about the origins of airborne forces and they talk about some American who had an idea of delivering airborne forces but never actually does anything about it, then they jump to the early 1930s and mention the Soviets were dropping forces 8,000-10,000 strong with equipment in front of foreign observers like the Germans and the US and then all mention ceases.
    Buy a book about the Il-38 and read a book that spends half the time talking about the PC-3 Orion. Buy a book about Migs and the last third of the book is pictures of Migs in the US in private hands.
    I will only buy a book or DVD if it has Russia or Soviet in its title.
    The discovery channel is the worst.
    Last week I sat down to watch a program that had a blurb that said something like "Stalin was shocked at the ease a recon aircaft could slip in an out of Soviet airspace in the immediate post WWII period... [talking about Canberra bombers of course] and created the PVO to deal with the threat".
    Excellent, I thought, a nice program about the PVO and its structure and operations, but it was all about US and British spy plane missions.
    Discovery Channel sucks.
    Very very occasionally they have a good program, like one program about stalingrad where they got a guy in a German uniform and sat him in a freezer at minus 20 degrees C for 20 minutes and tested his performance and then repeated with a Soviet uniform. (Obviously the Soviet Uniform was much better). They then did a similar test with bolt action rifles and they couldn't kick the bolt on the German gun out let alone fire it, while with some extra force the Soviet gun fired normally. Very interesting, but all too rare.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Discovery Channel and most of books out there are just part of Western Information Warfare to talk about and promote their own weapons.

    They do passing reference to Russian system and most of the times if there are comparison between Mig and F-xx it is with the sole purpose to how F-xx is superior to Mig and how in some war it out beat the Mig

    Most of the good material on Russian system are unfortunately in Russian language , some one should take an effort to bring it to larger readers around the world.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Evolution of Russian Long Range Aviation

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMEDv4qubiQ

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have had some questions on the naval version of this aircraft(Su-32FN) for some time now. It will apparently serve an anti-submarine role(like a maritime patrol aircraft) as well as surface attack.

    How exactly does Sukhoi intend to integrate ASW equipment like a rotating radar and sonobuoy launchers with the Su-32? Will they be mounted inside its nose and fuselage or will they be packed under its belly, in the space between its air intakes?

    Could you please provide pictures of the arrangement?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Gautam,
    You probably mixed Su-32 with Ka-32 helicopter, didnt you?

    ReplyDelete
  18. No. I'm talking about the Su-21FN maritime strike fighter, which will apparently be able to serve in the ASW role. I've even seen it advertised with air-launched torpedoes.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sorry I meant Su-32FN not Su-21.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Also, I have posted questions in the comments sections of both the 'Vikramaditya Combat Management System' and 'Universal VLS for BrahMos' articles. It seems you have not noticed since they are both old articles. Would you please mind answering them?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think the talk of the naval Su-32 was created when the Su-27IB was first seen doing a fly past of the Kuznetsov. Initially it was seen as being a two seat side by side trainer for carrier use (presumably replacing the Su-25 variant with something that could be armed and used as a two seat striker etc), however due to its weight there is no chance the Su-27IB could operate from the Kuznetsov without a catapault.
    Next talk came of there being two planned versions of the Su-27IB, one for naval use as you mention and one as a land based strike aircraft, with the designations of Su-32FN and Su-34 respectively.
    In actual fact the Su-32 name had already been used on a variant of the Su-26 sports plane.
    The nearest equivelent to the Su-32FN would be the Su-33KUB which has the same shape and is lighter than the Su-34 but can carry an array of weapons and includes an active wing design to improve flight efficiency.
    The fact that the Russian navy seem to have picked the Mig-29K because it is in production for India already suggests bad things for the Su-33KUB. When the new carriers are built and if they are nukes with cats then a heavy striker like the Su-33KUB might be an option to perhaps support a naval variant of the T-50, but that is a long time in the future.
    BTW the Soviets developed a set of special fuses that could be fitted to their standard dumb bombs so they can be used as sea mines in relatively shallow waters like ports or narrow shallow straights.
    I have also seen air launched versions of a sea mine the Russians use that contains a weight that holds the weapon in place on the sea floor with a torpedo tube sticking up that waits for passing ships and subs. When it detects a target with the correct signature that is in range it fires the torpedo at the target.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sorry for being terribly off topic, but I have just read an article on a replacement for Tunguska that uses a new low velocity 57mm shell based on the S-60 air defence 57mm cannon.
    Reduced velocity in this case is down to 700m/s which is actually still quite fast.
    Basically the extra space from removing some propellent is used to make the 57mm shell longer, fitting it with wings and guidance system for long range shots at aircraft out to 8km or so. For shorter range targets full velocity 57mm shells can be fired.
    With guided shells it means the vehicle has far more "missiles" ready to fire than a Tunguska, though the range is a lot shorter than with the newer Pantsir rounds.

    To read more see:
    http://www.kbtochmash.ru/press-centre/articles/articles_2.html
    or in translation:
    http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kbtochmash.ru%2Fpress-centre%2Farticles%2Farticles_2.html&lp=ru_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

    ReplyDelete
  23. J-Dam CEP is thought to be approximately 10-12m.

    The KAB-500S has been stated as 5-10m....which is were the claim of better accuracy comes from.

    -----------

    Some info from 5 years ago:

    Unlike the US Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), the KAB-500S is a newly built bomb, not a modification kit for existing bombs (as the JDAM is).

    The KB-500S has a warhead equivalent to 500-kg high-explosive bomb. The new weapon was integrated by OAO MKB Kompas (Moscow, Russia), a design bureau and research institute.

    The same company developed the PSN-2001 receiver (PSN – Pribor Sputnikovoi Navigatsi, or a device for satellite navigation) that is mounted internally in the bomb and uses two separate antenna systems.

    The 24-channel PSN-2001 receiver can cooperate with Glonass or Navstar satellites and has an automatic switch from one system to another.

    The bomb can be dropped from altitudes between 500 m and 10,000 m at speeds of 550-1,100 kmph. The hit accuracy is claimed to be within 5-10 m.

    Michal Fiszer
    Jul. 18, 2005

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hello Igor:
    I saw the following news. So Is Russia going to develop heavy-lift helicopters and fighter engines with China? I was surprised to hear this. Didn't Russia learn anything from the previous mistakes? J15 is out and it looks very very similar to Su-33.

    Could you give us your opinion?


    Russia and China will cooperate in jointly developing and manufacturing a heavy-lift helicopter, a Russian deputy industry and trade minister said on Tuesday.

    Denis Manturov said the new helicopter could be based on the Russian Mi-26 and that the two sides were currently discussing the new machine's specifications taking into account China's domestic needs.

    "This machine will be oriented toward the Chinese market and the project will be commercial," he said.

    The Mi-26 Halo, a heavy transport helicopter with civilian and military applications, is the largest and most powerful helicopter ever to have gone into production.

    Manturov also said Russia and China would cooperate in manufacturing aircraft engines

    ReplyDelete
  25. to anon:
    It's only a shot in the copyright war in my opinion. If I list you what was claimed during last 10 years about China-Russia tech cooperation, you would wonder. There were lot of articulated claims for joint civilian planes development, MS-21, 'future wide-body liner' etc including military sphere too. But all those publicly declared propositions had a 'little' condition for China at the end: to stop coping Russian hardware. Of course, China will not do this. So the chance for such deep cooperation is almost null. BTW, even the already declared direct sell of 300-1000 RD-93 to China is under a big question because Russia fear about competition with Chinese FC-1 on the mil marked and prob due to India pressure.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Of course having said that, money earned in joint ventures is used to further Russian technology.
    Indian money spent on developing the Brahmos basically developed new electronic that the Russian designers could then apply to their own Onyx missiles. (note the Onyx is for Russian use only and not for export. The export model of the Onyx is the Yakhont, so if an export customer wants a Yakhont with updated electronics then they can simply order Brahmos.)
    Joint ventures with NATO countries seem to be vetoed so the company has a choice... JV with China used to get current technology improved and use the funds earned to continue more advanced work, or sit and wait for government funding.
    A tough choice.

    BTW further regarding the Su-32FN I remembered that the Kuznetsov was getting a fairly significant upgrade soon, one that will last till about 2017. Perhaps along with a nuclear propulsion system (they have already said the new design carriers they want will be nukes) perhaps they will add Catapaults. This would make a naval Su-34 variant more than just viable. It will also make the Yak-44 viable too... with the reinvestment in the An-70 perhaps its engines could be used to power the Yak-44 carrier based AWACS aircraft?

    Also BTW the Chinese FC-1 is competitive because it is so cheap to buy. Perhaps the solution to nullify it would be to design a single engine Mig-29 with the best of the previous generation but new weapons as a cheap to buy, cheap to operate aircraft that will be dangerous enough to be effective.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ...it could even be based on the Yak-130 with a single RD-33 engine or something.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Has anyone got definitive specs and information about the Su-25SM?
    Have read recently it is getting an EW upgrade, perhaps as a response to the conflict in Georgia in 2008?
    Any new topics in the pipeline Igor?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Igor, Hope you are doing fine.

    I was really sadden to hear this news. Could you please translate what this reporter says?
    http://nosint.blogspot.com/2010/08/aircraft-deals-with-friend-russia.html

    There were some recent news in Indian media about the sudden increase in price of Su-30MKI? Is Indian politicians involved in a new corruption scandal or this hike in Sukhoi price is similar to the hike on the aircraft carrier Gorshkov?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I would want more details of the deal before I jump to conclusions.
    It is very common to include upgrades with later purchases and also to buy extra munitions with new aircraft.
    It is certainly possible that 50% of the purchase cost is a range of precision guided weapons and other ordinance to go with the new aircraft and also to be used by existing aircraft.

    People often forget that despite spending 40 million on an aircraft some of its weapons actually cost more than a million dollars each, I would expect weapons like Club and new model digital R-77 are not cheap and over the life span of an aircraft such weaponry needs to be in stock ready to use and will cost several times the cost of the aircraft to buy.
    These claims of overcharging are based on the total cost divided by the number of airframes involved and we don't know that this is all they are getting.
    Another point of course is that currently with so much technology imported into Russia they cannot keep the prices down and their aim for high tech for themselves means their stuff will get more capable but also more expensive with only low labour costs keeping prices lower than the west. Remember it was foreign material in the Su-30MKI that was less than 40 percent of the aircraft yet was more than 70 percent of the cost of the Su-30MKI, and those costs wont have gone down and they are costs Russia can't control.
    The problem with the Gorshkov is that everyone made estimates before cracking the thing open and deals were signed based on what everyone thought it would look like underneath. The problem was that when they took it apart the internals were shot and needed to be replaced. If you think about it this carrier was made in the 1980s so think about taking the wiring of a computer system from the 1980s and trying to set up a network now using that wiring!!!
    The extra costs meant all that old crappy wiring was taken out and new stuff put in... think in terms of what this extra cost bought you... you went from maybe an 8 baud dial up modem speed to fibre optics.
    They didn't have to do that they could have sold you a lemon if you chose not to pay for better wiring. I am sure Indian sailors will appreciate the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  31. ...and where are you Igor?

    Hope you are OK.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I am the Anonym on Aug 4.
    Thanks GarryB for your reply.

    I know Su-30MKI is a fantastic fighter and I do not mind if the price of Su-30MKI has gone up for genuine reasons or for adding some other tech.

    But in India, now a days many news in the front line media (TOI, HT, etc) are paid news. So somebody might be paying news to see the people's opinion. So it is difficult to believe what is the truth.

    Even though I am an Indian, I do not trust the current govt in India. Our PM is highly educated, talented, but when it comes to controlling his govt, he is an utter failure; the situation is like a shepherd who cannot control his herds. So next year elections are coming in states and the party needs funds. This is the sad of democracy in India.

    Anyway, I really love to read your comments Mr. GarryB. Very informative. I think, you are probably one of the western persons who appreciate Russian fighters and military tech. So keep posting your comments.

    Igor, we haven't heard from you for sometime. I hope you are doing great! Did the Russian heat took your energy? Hope things are better in Russia now (on high temp).

    Praying for a peaceful day in this blue planet.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thank you for your kind words Anonymous and I share your good wishes for the future for both Russia and India.

    The link above you provided is a little on the harsh side:
    "The deal for aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov was hammered in 2004 for $974 million (Rs4,560 crore), but it was renegotiated in 2010 at $2.3 billion (Rs10,770 crore)."

    First of all the deal hammered out was literally hammered out... this was supposed to be a carrier ready quickly yet the Indian side was happy to haggle the price for almost 10 years down to the last dollar. Clearly that was a waste of time with so many unknowns with the carrier just sitting waiting for the deal to be signed. There was no point starting work to refurbish if India decided to spend money on a new build carrier because it would probably just go to China as scrap.
    The offer was made in 1997 when materials were cheaper so finding the wiring and pipes were shot would be less of a problem.
    Second the initial deal included the price of 16 Mig-29Ks and the carrier was basically free.
    The sudden price hike to about half the price of a modern carrier results in pretty much a new carrier that is little like the carrier Gorshkov was.
    According to Ria novosti:
    http://en.rian.ru/world/20100818/160249535.html

    "Indian media reported in May that the modernization project, codenamed Super 30, would involve the installation of new radars, onboard computers, avionics and BrahMos supersonic missiles on 40 Su-30MKI fighters."

    So this isn't $100 million per plane, this is a purchase of 40 new aircraft and an upgrade for the 140 planes that India has in service including no doubt an AESA radar I would suspect and also weapons.

    I have read elsewhere that the Indian government will be spending something like 14 billion dollars on what will eventually be about 310 Su-30MKIs and I think that compares rather well with the current MRCA competition for 10 billion dollars for only 126 aircraft.
    I don't want to sound harsh but if you want cheap then important things to keep in mind are "don't ask to make it yourself... licence production makes things more expensive not less expensive", and of course if you don't want to spend money don't even think about aircraft carriers... a decent carrier alone will cost 5 billion and you will need to set aside about 500 million a year just to operate the damn thing let alone the 20 billion dollars you will need to spend on support ships and logistics... it is a money drain... but it gives you capabilities and options no other surface vessel offers. The battleship died at the start of WWII. The aircraft carrier is the only solution to having a surface fleet.
    (sorry... a little rambly...)

    ReplyDelete
  34. I am the Anonym @August 24, 2010 9:36 AM again. GarryB, Thank very much indeed for your comment.

    I was a student when the negotiation on Gorshkov was going on. So when the initial price of less than $974 million (I think around $800 million), I thought that it is difficult to get an A-Carrier at that price. So I felt there was something fishy in that. I cannot trust our politicians even in sleep. I thought that, this deal could be another 'Bofors' (155 mm Guns) in making.

    But, as I mentioned in the previous posting, Indian Media got a cake to taste when the price of Gorshkov raised to over $2 billions. It made a mess on providing the exact truth.

    Similarly the case of recent purchase of Su-30 MKI for $100 per plane. Somewhere it was written "the price of this 4.5++ Gen fighter plane is more than the 5th Gen F-35 price." So this clearly shows that, the reporter didn't follow the exact reason for price increase. This is similar to a proverb in my state that, "jumping in to get a rope on hearing the news that an ox has delivered a calf." Unfortunately the common people will believe that.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I am the Anonym @August 24, 2010 9:36 AM again. GarryB, Thank very much indeed for your comment.

    I was a student when the negotiation on Gorshkov was going on. So when the initial price of less than $974 million (I think around $800 million), I thought that it is difficult to get an A-Carrier at that price. So I felt there was something fishy in that. I cannot trust our politicians even in sleep. I thought that, this deal could be another 'Bofors' (155 mm Guns) in making.

    But, as I mentioned in the previous posting, Indian Media got a cake to taste when the price of Gorshkov raised to over $2 billions. It made a mess on providing the exact truth.

    Similarly the case of recent purchase of Su-30 MKI for $100 per plane. Somewhere it was written "the price of this 4.5++ Gen fighter plane is more than the 5th Gen F-35 price." So this clearly shows that, the reporter didn't follow the exact reason for price increase. This is similar to a proverb in my state that, "jumping in to get a rope on hearing the news that an ox has delivered a calf." Unfortunately the common people will believe that.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The problem is people jump to conclusions too fast. Defence reporting in India even in mainstream media is almost a joke. GOI has not released what that price is for planes or planes+weapons or something else and media will jump into their own conclusions and sensationalize it in order to get their ratings higher. These deals are only possible when both parties agree on that, and sometimes they wont even state in public media what exactly is bought, its a defence deal and certain amount of secrecy is always involved.

    Su30MKI is a flagship fighter in India and is quite advanced and this "super30" upgrade will give it even more teeth since advanced technology is already available through Su35 program in Russia. More so because countries around India will be operating Typhoon(KSA), Rafale(UAE) and F15 latest version(Singapore), and even F35 in near future. Not that we are likely to go into war. But latest defence equipment acts as a good deterrence.

    OK enough offtopic

    GarryB
    If Su34 canbe launched from a carrier in future, that will be great because of its range. That is a sort of a platform that should operate from a carrier. Ok Mig29K is a good interceptor but it has somewhat limited range. Su34 loaded with a missile like Oynx/Brahmos (if possible) launched from a carrier would be simply lethal for any ship/carrier or any deep surface/land targets. That type of attack will be quite difficult to intercept and extremely difficult to stop.

    H.D.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The problem of journalists jumping to the conclusion that a purchase of 40 aircraft plus upgrades and plus other weapons and stuff that you can work out the per aircraft price by dividing the total cost by the number of aircraft is really the fault of the editor.
    The editor should be able to tell right away that the money gets more than just 40 extra planes the same as previous models when radar and avionics upgrades and weapons are mentioned as part of the deal.

    @HD the Mig-29K with a couple of Club missiles and a couple of underwing droptanks and a centreline droptank and the remaining 4 weapons pylons with R-77s and R-73s or their respective replacements is not a bad payload and has a range comparable with an Su-35 with no external tanks.
    Even with a catapault launch the Su-34 would probably be slightly on the heavy side for a carrier launch and recovery... at 38 odd tons MTOW it would probably have to operate at a reduced load or reduced fuel to get airborne.
    I have seen footage of what I believe to be an Su-33 launching a Moskit, which at 4.5 tons is heavier than either Yakhont or Brahmos, though I am not sure how long the latter are I seem to remember the Moskit being 9.5m long.
    I say I believe it was an Su-33 because there was a dark area where an arrester hook might be and it had canard foreplanes.
    The advantage of Brahmos is that you need just that much better defences to stop it.
    A Harpoon or even Tomahawk can be engaged with conventional air defence systems... a subsonic low flying target that doesn't manouver too much is exactly what they were designed to stop.
    A supersonic manouvering missile on the other hand is a much more difficult target.
    If scramjet technology can be perfected a hypersonic version will be even more potent.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hi GarryB and others!

    Was too busy, also the extremely hot weather makes additional foible for a snowman like me ;)

    Now gonna be easier, so can add to the discussion my two pence. Really it's a bit strange calculation with the new order for 42 Su-30MKI, since no official confirmation nor explain was followed. Methinks they too became lazy , after so many false reports in Indian media on the political background of MMRCA tender. So let's wait and see.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Igorr, by Su-32 I was referring to the 'maritime strike' version of the Su-34, designed to replace Russian Navy Su-24s and which was advertised as being capable of performing the ASW role. Do you have any information on that?

    ReplyDelete
  40. to Gautam:

    Su-32 was tested but didnt recommended for Su-33 complements on 'Kuznetsov' carrier. 24-26 MiG-29K/KUB will be contracted instead, the negotiations between the Navy and UAC are under way.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I know that: the Su-32 was supposed to be a SHORE-BASED fighter like the current Russian Navy air arm Su-24s. But what happened to it? Can you please investigate?

    ReplyDelete
  42. to Gautam:

    Su-32 is NOT a shore-based variant of Su-34, but the export variant of it. See the Sukhoi's site http://sukhoi.org/planes/military/su32/ Sometimes the designation Su-32 is used instead of Su-34.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hmm... then what is going to replace the Su-24?

    Well, I'm more interested in the concept of ASW warfare from a fighter. The Su-32 was at some point advertised in this role. What I want to know is the feasibility of such a thing.

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Fullback.html

    "he result of these pressures was the Su-32FN, devised for the AV-MF to absorb the roles of the AV-MF Su-24 Fencer regiments, and include the 'new' ASW role. It is essentially a supersonic, highly survivable land based equivalent to the Lockheed S-3 Viking.

    "The principal deviation from the baseline Su-32MF/34 was to be the addition of the 'Morskaya Zmyeya' (Sea Snake) maritime patrol avionic suite, since then to be fitted in the reported to be collapsed Indian Navy Bear F avionic upgrade, and a suite of maritime strike and ASW weapons. The suite is claimed to include an Electronic Support Measures receiver and Magnetic Anomaly Detector. "

    "The more interesting stores are lightweight ASW torpedoes, carried in pairs on stations 8 and 9, for a total of 4 rounds, and a conformal centreline pod which can be loaded with up to 72 sonobuoys of various types. An ASW patrol weapons mix would probably involve a mix of these stores, drop tanks and depth charges. "

    ReplyDelete
  44. So what happened to the plan above? Similar to the above example, would it be possible to fit ASW gear like torpedoes and sonobuoy launchers on fighters like MiG-29K and Su-30 for maritime strike roles?

    ReplyDelete
  45. The real issue is that the Russian military decides on the code of an aircraft they introduce into service... Mig was calling the Mig-29K the Mig-33 for a while and it might get that designation now that the Russian military have ordered it and will put it into service.
    The Sukhoi designations are a mess with Su-32 originally being a potential designation for the Su-25TM. Later the two seat trainer model of the Su-26 aerobatic plane was going to get the Su-32 designation.
    The reality is that the designation that the Russian military calls a plane is what it is rather than the marketing department at Sukhoi.
    I would expect the replacement for the Su-24 will be the Su-34 because they like to do that with their numbers. 34 sounds like a replacement for a 24... they sound related.

    There is no reason why anything suggested that could be fitted to the Su-32FN couldn't also be suggested to be fitted to a Mig-29K or Su-33 or Su-30 for that matter. Of course a helicopter is better suited to such roles as it can still outrun any naval vessel but it can also hover and loiter and out manoeuvre a naval vessel as well.
    I have read that the Soviets developed tail fuses for their standard dumb FAB series bombs that allows them to be used as sea mines, so a Tu-22M3 with up to 24 tons of bombs becomes a powerful ASW aircraft in shallow waters.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @GarryB
    will the russians make/design a 500lb gps/glonass bomb? with a glide kit for use on tactical aviation, or something similar to the american sdb/sdb2. also have there been any talk of integration of gps/glonass 1000lb bombs on the mig31bm, with the high altitude and speed of this aircraft these munitions will hold huge amounts of kinetic energy, which will in turn provide long ranges and impact force. i remember an article which i read a very long time ago of mig25rb's abillity to drop 500kg bombs from very high altitudes at high speeds the impact force was so great that they penetrated 30m deep or more of earth, pls share if you know of any information. i would be most greatful.

    ReplyDelete
  47. AFAIK they certainly are working on glide kits for bombs that are designed to fit existing bomb types.
    Also AFAIK there are currently only 500kg satellite guided bombs that have been revealed, but would suspect that in the future a whole family of such weapons would be developed perhaps even including a FAB-50 50kg HE bomb for UCAVs.

    Regarding the Mig-31BM most of the information I have is rather old and speculative. Talk of not 1000lb bombs but 1,500kg bombs is associated with the Mig-31 in the original swing role SEAD aircraft (with AS-11s and AS-17s etc). The normal bomb load being 6 1,500kg bombs with two under the belly and four under wing for a total of 9 tons payload.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I’m really impressed with your writing skills and
    also with the layout on your blog. Is this a
    paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Anyway keep up
    the excellent quality writing, it is rare to see a nice blog
    like this one today.

    Also visit my web page ... gardening tips

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ηellο! ӏ simрly would like tο give you a big thumbѕ up foг the great infо yοu have got right here on this pοst.
    I ωill be соming baсk tо уour blοg for moгe soon.


    Feel freе to ѕurf to my web page losіng weight aftег 50 (http://youvaa.com/tiki-index.php?page=UserPagerobertoschulteqlszz)

    ReplyDelete
  50. Russian air-force getting more powerful by adding another gem called Su-34 (Su-32) fullback fighter bomber.It is a twin seat fighter bomber.It is going to replace the Sukhoi Su-24.There is no doubt that it is the most powerful fighter bomber in the world at this point of time.To know more details :

    ReplyDelete
  51. and now Armoured version of Su-34 is coming.

    ReplyDelete