Sukhoi Su-30MKI

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,174
2,792
United States
Dude, you're pissing over your own arguments! Earlier you said IAF MKI are costlier due to lack of supplier chain

When i pointed out that despite not having a supplier chain in the country, IAF Mirages cost less than AdlA Mirages to operate, now you're saying that it is because of the fleet size???
Supply chain is one of the factors not the only factor. It depends how those CPFh numbers were calculated by both parties, did the french distribute FAC over just the fleet that was operating or over the entire value stream.



So that means IAF, which has a smaller fleet of Mirages, should still be more expensive to operate than the AdlA Mirages!!
No, all it means is ammortization would be worse.
I have stated in my previous reply that the CPFH is calculated differently by different airforce. Hence calculating the CPFH for the same type of jet operated by different airforces should give you an accurate reference to calculate the CPFH for another jet which is being proposed and used by the same forces.

If different forces have different calculation methods, comparing two different set of calculation is not going to be an accurate reference. Like for example Sweedens CPFH calculation will differ from South Africa's. It would not give you an accurate reference. South africa's calculation for Gripen and BAE hawk will give a comparison of apples to apples between those two platforms as the calculation methods are same.





Combat turnaround time for air-to-air mission is 30 minutes for Rafale
In air-to-ground mission, it is 90 minutes
Dassault Rafale vs Saab Gripen
Aircraft turn-around, even with live weapons on board, requires only 90 minutes and an engine change requires one hour
Rafale in Combat: “War for Dummies”

Turn Around Time (Refuelling and 6 Air to Air reloading) 15 min for Mirage (less for the M2K because refueling takes more time on the Rafale)
Engine change requires 2 hours
news de la section - Le blog de lesmecanosduciel-lgm
As per your own source : Rafale may allow up to 81 hours per month in the air, compared to 65 hours for Gripen. Expenditure will be 1.336.500 USD per month for Rafale and 305.500 USD per month for Gripen.
i.e Rafale : $16500/hr
Gripen: $4700/hr
If you are buying the Combat Turnaround numbers from the source, I am guessing you will also endorse the CPFH from the exact same source, unless you want to pick and choose.

Now these numbers look very very similar to IHS Janes though. Let me know what is a good number for CPFH for Rafale.

You think IAF will run around advertising something like that? HAL, which deals with IAF, is in the perfect position to have access to accurate data and this values are from an official presentation.
Hopefully CAG would shed a bit of light on this, I am not sure about M2K's numbers from HAL, this info should be from IAF BRD, Not 100% sure how HAL would get this number on M2K whose spares, support, and schedule HAL does not manage.
 
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
Supply chain is one of the factors not the only factor. It depends how those CPFh numbers were calculated by both parties, did the french distribute FAC over just the fleet that was operating or over the entire value stream.

So now are you trying to say AdlA or any airforce for that matter, calculates CPFH separately for its active fleet and passive fleet??

No, all it means is ammortization would be worse.

And you've yet to prove your point, whereas I've shown how IAF's operational costs for the same type is lower!

If different forces have different calculation methods, comparing two different set of calculation is not going to be an accurate reference. Like for example Sweedens CPFH calculation will differ from South Africa's. It would not give you an accurate reference. South africa's calculation for Gripen and BAE hawk will give a comparison of apples to apples between those two platforms as the calculation methods are same.

Yes it is, if the two different sets of calculation is for the same fighter type!!
It shows how differently the IAF calculates CPFH for its fighters from AdlA. That means by extrapolating the difference in Mirage-2000's CPFH in both the airforces, we can get a rough figure of the Rafale CPFH that'll be operated by IAF.


As per your own source : Rafale may allow up to 81 hours per month in the air, compared to 65 hours for Gripen. Expenditure will be 1.336.500 USD per month for Rafale and 305.500 USD per month for Gripen.
i.e Rafale : $16500/hr
Gripen: $4700/hr
If you are buying the Combat Turnaround numbers from the source, I am guessing you will also endorse the CPFH from the exact same source, unless you want to pick and choose.

Now these numbers look very very similar to IHS Janes though. Let me know what is a good number for CPFH for Rafale.

Sure, I'm willing to consider the CPFH values as well. But how do we know it wasn't taken from the same Jane's article?? Meanwhile the Rafale figures can be corroborated from the official French Senat reports.

Meanwhile we've also settled on the fact that SAAB has omitted some particulars while doing their calculations. I'm not inferring that the Gripen is more expensive to operate than let's say the F-16, but they've obviously been providing confusing data to make their product look more affordable.

Hopefully CAG would shed a bit of light on this, I am not sure about M2K's numbers from HAL, this info should be from IAF BRD, Not 100% sure how HAL would get this number on M2K whose spares, support, and schedule HAL does not manage.

You're not willing to believe the numbers from an official Indian source that isn't prejudiced in anyway wrt Mirage, but is willing to believe the figures provided by the OEM who's trying to sell the fighter?!
 

smestarz

Well-Known member
Nov 30, 2017
538
323
Actung Panzers
Sure the twin engine planes have their own challenges. but... what would you prefer losing an aircraft?
The points that you said.. I might not fully agree on it with the advances today.
Like I said my ideal plane (in terms of value etc) would be F-5. It was twin engine plane designed to ensure easy maintenance, It was cheap to buy and use (during its era, it was competitive to Russian MiG-21 in terms of value for money.

Longer service time.. would depend on the way the engine is, if its modular, it might not that much time. the difference between the two is mainly single engine vs twin engine, rest of the plane, the time taken might not be more.

Higher service cost. yes it would be higher but not more than 50% of single engine (depending on the plane of course) ideally it should be 20-30% higher cost. So if we compare it to Tejas, the twin engine Mk 2 concept that I think of, should have operating cost of say 130% of Tejas Mk 1A but in case of loss of an engine, the SE Tejas would crash and this might return to base. Dont you think having 30% higher operating cost would be a deterrent to go for twin engine plane. Let us consider the operating cost to be 30% higher and lets assume this difference is 3000$ per hour. The difference in operating cost for 240 hrs a year and for 30 years will be 21.6 million dollars, but this is like an insurance that even if one engine fails yet the plane and pilot would land safely. Would it be worth the difference?

Propellers?

I do not think that the fuel system of twin engine is so complicated that it stops being reliable,

Sorry, but I do not agree about your point. BTW F-5 was designed as an interceptor and these planes have to be ready to fly at moments notice.

But double engine air crafts have its own disadvantages.. longer service time, higher service cost, even the time taking for a quick response from a base will be higher than that of a single engine due to the complexity of synchronizing the propellers, complex fuel system than of single engine and many more. We cannot fully rely on double engine air crafts friend!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angel Eyes

Angel Eyes

Active member
Dec 1, 2017
199
116
Top of the world
Sure the twin engine planes have their own challenges. but... what would you prefer losing an aircraft?
The points that you said.. I might not fully agree on it with the advances today.
Like I said my ideal plane (in terms of value etc) would be F-5. It was twin engine plane designed to ensure easy maintenance, It was cheap to buy and use (during its era, it was competitive to Russian MiG-21 in terms of value for money.

Longer service time.. would depend on the way the engine is, if its modular, it might not that much time. the difference between the two is mainly single engine vs twin engine, rest of the plane, the time taken might not be more.

Higher service cost. yes it would be higher but not more than 50% of single engine (depending on the plane of course) ideally it should be 20-30% higher cost. So if we compare it to Tejas, the twin engine Mk 2 concept that I think of, should have operating cost of say 130% of Tejas Mk 1A but in case of loss of an engine, the SE Tejas would crash and this might return to base. Dont you think having 30% higher operating cost would be a deterrent to go for twin engine plane. Let us consider the operating cost to be 30% higher and lets assume this difference is 3000$ per hour. The difference in operating cost for 240 hrs a year and for 30 years will be 21.6 million dollars, but this is like an insurance that even if one engine fails yet the plane and pilot would land safely. Would it be worth the difference?

Propellers?

I do not think that the fuel system of twin engine is so complicated that it stops being reliable,

Sorry, but I do not agree about your point. BTW F-5 was designed as an interceptor and these planes have to be ready to fly at moments notice.
Well there must be some reasons russians operate only twin engine aircrafts
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,174
2,792
United States
Sure, I'm willing to consider the CPFH values as well. But how do we know it wasn't taken from the same Jane's article?? Meanwhile the Rafale figures can be corroborated from the official French Senat reports.

If you consider CPfh value of 16.5k, rafales become significantly more expensive than the MKI's.
 
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
If you consider CPfh value of 16.5k, rafales become significantly more expensive than the MKI's.

As i pointed out earlier, the CPFH will be considerably lower once it enters IAF service. Optimistic analysis puts the number between 8,000 and 9,000 USD.

Once MII starts and production begins in India, value will drop further.

Meanwhile govt has also taken steps to bring down the costs of MKI spares by signing a deal with russia for setting up a larger spares inventory and reducing the delays for its procurement. This will reduce its CPFH close to 10,000 USD.
 

smestarz

Well-Known member
Nov 30, 2017
538
323
Actung Panzers
One reason i can think of is as follows:-
Earlier during the Soviet era, the Soviet air force was as follows:-
MiG-21 was backbone of Soviet air force with other planes added, for example MiG-29 was the top most air superiority plane,
Su-15 Flagon was interceptor, Su-22 was strike craft. Su-24 was long range strike,
The numbers of MiG 21 produced by Russia was more than 10500 units, that time Russia had a lot of planes squadrons and mainly manned by MiG-21 as interceptors with MiG-25 being specialised interceptors. As Soviet union crumbled their defence crumbled too and slowly the MiG-21 were retired but were not replaced 1:1 by another plane.
The Russian air force changed its doctrine and rather than having many SE interceptor squadrons, they were able to replace them with lesser nos of twin engine planes as twin engine planes offer greater, range and reliability. In terms of missile carrying, Su-27 was able to carry more than twice the nos of missiles than MiG-21 and strike them at much longer range and distance. Thus a single Su-27 squadron replaced 3-4 MiG-21 squadrons,
Its for a long time that Russians have not produced a single engine plane recently they focus on twin engine planes as thats beneficial thanks to their big size


Well there must be some reasons russians operate only twin engine aircrafts
 

smestarz

Well-Known member
Nov 30, 2017
538
323
Actung Panzers
How would cost per flying hour reduce ones Rafale enters service. in India? I am curious to understand your elaboration.
I think you are confusing unit cost of buying the plane with Cost per flying hour.

As i pointed out earlier, the CPFH will be considerably lower once it enters IAF service. Optimistic analysis puts the number between 8,000 and 9,000 USD.

Once MII starts and production begins in India, value will drop further.

Meanwhile govt has also taken steps to bring down the costs of MKI spares by signing a deal with russia for setting up a larger spares inventory and reducing the delays for its procurement. This will reduce its CPFH close to 10,000 USD.
 
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
How would cost per flying hour reduce ones Rafale enters service. in India? I am curious to understand your elaboration.
I think you are confusing unit cost of buying the plane with Cost per flying hour.


I think there was a misunderstanding. What I meant was that the CPFH figure of $16,500 for Rafales is not applicable for IAF, as they have a different method for its calculation when compared to the AdlA. That is why I gave the CPFH for Mirage-2000 as a reference which is used by both the airforces.

Now, the CPFH will come down IF/WHEN Rafales are made here under MII. Lot of spares can be sourced from local vendors which will bring down it's cost, as well as the spare inventory can be more efficiently managed with lower capital.

The present Performance Based Logistics (PBL) arrangement for 75% availability depends on the fact that a huge spares inventory need to be maintained to reduce the down time for the jets, whose costs will be handled by DRAL while under the warranty period. But later will be under the purview of IAF BRD. As and when the MII spares starts to come, the size of the inventory can be reduced.
 
Last edited:

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,174
2,792
United States
As i pointed out earlier, the CPFH will be considerably lower once it enters IAF service. Optimistic analysis puts the number between 8,000 and 9,000 USD.

Once MII starts and production begins in India, value will drop further.

Meanwhile govt has also taken steps to bring down the costs of MKI spares by signing a deal with russia for setting up a larger spares inventory and reducing the delays for its procurement. This will reduce its CPFH close to 10,000 USD.
Just out of curiosity. what was the cpfh for rafale from the french.
 
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
Just out of curiosity. what was the cpfh for rafale from the french.

EUR 12,000-13,000 in 2008 (estimated) [Contrat d'entretien à long terme pour le Rafale]
EUR 14,000 in 2013 (Le coût de l’heure de vol des hélicoptères et avions de chasse français)
EUR 14,596 in 2014 (Rafale: 15.000 euros d'entretien pour une heure de vol)
EUR 12,500-15,000 in 2016-17 (EUR 3 Million per aircraft for 2016-17 while considering 240-200 hours of flying in that year) [2 pour cent du PIB : les moyens de la défense nationale]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: smestarz
T

Tarun

Various fighters of Flanker family

1. Sukhoi Su-27 (NATO reporting name: Flanker)


2. Sukhoi Su-30 ( NATO reporting name: Flanker-C)



3. Sukhoi Su-30MKK (NATO reporting name: Flanker-G)



4. Sukhoi Su-30MKI (NATO reporting name: Flanker-H)



5. Sukhoi Su-33 ( NATO reporting name: Flanker-D)



6. Sukhoi Su-35 ( NATO reporting name: Flanker-E)



7. Sukhoi Su-37 ( NATO reporting name: Flanker-F)



Note:image credits to respective owners
 

smestarz

Well-Known member
Nov 30, 2017
538
323
Actung Panzers
This would be a good explaination, but then the cost of operation of Su-30 MKI would come down drastically now that we have agreements with vendors so that spares can be maintained throughout. So it cannot just benefit Rafale here. but that benefit of lower cost will be for Su-30 MKI also

I think there was a misunderstanding. What I meant was that the CPFH figure of $16,500 for Rafales is not applicable for IAF, as they have a different method for its calculation when compared to the AdlA. That is why I gave the CPFH for Mirage-2000 as a reference which is used by both the airforces.

Now, the CPFH will come down IF/WHEN Rafales are made here under MII. Lot of spares can be sourced from local vendors which will bring down it's cost, as well as the spare inventory can be more efficiently managed with lower capital.

The present Performance Based Logistics (PBL) arrangement for 75% availability depends on the fact that a huge spares inventory need to be maintained to reduce the down time for the jets, whose costs will be handled by DRAL while under the warranty period. But later will be under the purview of IAF BRD. As and when the MII spares starts to come, the size of the inventory can be reduced.
 

Golden_Rule

Boundless Seeker
Dec 6, 2017
1,010
850
USA
Starting with Flanker (Su-27) to flanker-H (Su-30 MKI) and other variants in between (A thru G), is MKI the most advanced of all?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Falcon
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
This would be a good explaination, but then the cost of operation of Su-30 MKI would come down drastically now that we have agreements with vendors so that spares can be maintained throughout. So it cannot just benefit Rafale here. but that benefit of lower cost will be for Su-30 MKI also

True, and I've mentioned the same in one of my previous comments that you've quoted. The CPFH for MKI will come down from $12,500 to around $10,000.

Further reduction can be expected after the Super MKI upgrade, as more subsystems will be indigenized.
 

dadeechi

Active member
Dec 11, 2017
189
132
HYD
As i pointed out earlier, the CPFH will be considerably lower once it enters IAF service. Optimistic analysis puts the number between 8,000 and 9,000 USD.

Once MII starts and production begins in India, value will drop further.

Meanwhile govt has also taken steps to bring down the costs of MKI spares by signing a deal with russia for setting up a larger spares inventory and reducing the delays for its procurement. This will reduce its CPFH close to 10,000 USD.

Spares issue could be resolved if GoI provides assurances



Russian firms want purchase assurance from India: Official
PTI|

Dec 07, 2017, 02.36 PM IST

0Comments

Kaldov said Indian officials have told them that Russian manufacturers to participate in international tender exercise if they want to sell their products to the Indian armed forces.

India should assure Russian companies that it will buy their India-made spares and not go for cheaper purchase from a third country to address its armed forces long grievance of delays in procuring critical defence equipmentfrom Moscow, a top Russian official has said.

Viktor N Kladov, director for international cooperation and regional policy, Rostec, a state-owned Russian defence and industrial group, said Russia has chalked out a strategy to build technical service centres in India dedicated for specific equipment.

"India has bought a lot of Soviet and Russian made defence equipment and a bulk of these equipment requires modernisation, upgrade and repair and this can be done in the country (India).

"The way to address this problem is to set up facilities with our partners. We also need assurance from the Indian side that their products will be used by the end user," Kaldov told PTI here.

It has been a long-standing grievance of the Indian armed forces that supply of critical spares and equipment from Russia takes a long-time, affecting maintenance of military systems procured from Moscow.

Terming it a "complicated issue", Kaldov said Rostec was cooperating with Indian defence ministry to address the problem and manufacturing company Russian Helicopters plans to create service in India on the principle of "one window", which will simplify and accelerate the work in this direction.

"This is a pilot project and India is the first country where it is being implemented. India is interested in the implementation of this project, as it is operating the largest fleet of Russian helicopters," he said.

Russia has been a major supplier of military platforms to India.

Kladov said Rostec companies were interested in increasing the efficiency of after-sales service and simplifying the procedures for supply of spare parts to India.

"About a year ago, the Government of Russia decided to grant the right to a number of major Russian defence industry companies to directly conduct after-sales service, repair and modernisation of previously delivered military hardware.

"Now Russian Helicopters, United Engine Corporation, Techmash, Schwabe and High-Precision Weapons can directly interact with Indian customers on these issues," he said.

Kaldov noted that the very sophisticated defence equipment needed to be addressed in a specific workshop and licensed parts and spares should be used and technology of repair should be controlled by the manufacturer and the chief designer of the products.

"This is an issue which is both sided. And our rule is to provide life time support for the equipment. Sometimes the end user becomes opportunistic and its looking to buy spares elsewhere to make it cheaper. So they are outsourced in other countries," he said.

Kaldov said he had pointed out the concerns of the Russian companies regarding production of spares in India in his recent meeting with an Indian minister.

He said the company was offered a space to set up a facility to produce components, spares for electronics, machinery, engines and helicopters in Maharashtra.

Kaldov said Indian officials have told them that Russian manufacturers to participate in international tender exercise if they want to sell their products to the Indian armed forces.

"We will set up facilities and this can only be done if the Indian government assures that the Russian products will be purchased," he said.

Speaking on the issue of India inching closer to the US and Israel in terms of defence deals and procurement, Kladov said he did not see it as a threat, but as a challenge for Russia as the market is becoming more competitive.

"We don't see it as a threat rather as a challenge. It gives us thrust to do better and be more innovative and proactive. We don't fear competition. Let's look at the broader picture, its industrial cooperation, strategic trust which gives us a cutting edge," he said.

Calling the relationship between India and Russia a "privileged strategic partnership", Kladov said it meant "we trust our Indian partners with most sensitive defence inventions and achievements".

"America has many competitive products to offer. It's for Indian government to choose. It's up for the Indian government to build up balances. I can only speak on behalf of the Russian side. We are firm friends and strategic partners of the Indian republic," he said.

Russian firms want purchase assurance from India: Official
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashwin

Golden_Rule

Boundless Seeker
Dec 6, 2017
1,010
850
USA
As i pointed out earlier, the CPFH will be considerably lower once it enters IAF service. Optimistic analysis puts the number between 8,000 and 9,000 USD.

Once MII starts and production begins in India, value will drop further.

Meanwhile govt has also taken steps to bring down the costs of MKI spares by signing a deal with russia for setting up a larger spares inventory and reducing the delays for its procurement. This will reduce its CPFH close to 10,000 USD.

{ Cost of acquisition ( # of aircraft + operational + maintenance tools/infrastructure + spares + interest on investment) amortized over the lifespan of the aircraft
+
Cost incurred for flying (fuel, cost of owning/training a pilot, etc) }
/
# of aricraft
=
CPFH ??
 
T

Tarun

India's Jet Fighters Now Equipped with Nuclear-Armed Missiles
India’s nuclear command has begun receiving fighter jets armed with the country’s most advanced, supersonic cruise missile. According to media reports,




India’s nuclear command has begun receiving fighter jets armed with the country’s most advanced, supersonic cruise missile.

According to media reports, India’s Strategic Forces Command (SFC) has begun receiving 42 Su-30MKI air dominance fighters modified to carry air-launched BrahMos supersonic cruise missile. This will significantly enhance the striking power of the air leg of India’s nuclear triad.

“Individually, the Su-30 and BrahMos are powerful weapons,” Russia and India Report noted . “But when the world’s most capable fourth generation fighter is armed with a uniquely destructive cruise missile, together they are a dramatic force multiplier.”

The Sukhoi Su-30 MKI is a twin-seater, highly maneuverable, fourth-generation multirole combat fighter aircraft built by Russia’s Sukhoi Design Bureau and licensed to India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. The plane will serve as the backbone of India’s Air Force through 2020 and beyond. Delhi has already acquired around 200 jets, and eventually plans to acquire 282 of them.

The Brahmos is jointly developed by India’s Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and Russia’s NPO Mashinostroeyenia. Capable of traveling at speeds of Mach 3.0, the Brahmos is the fastest cruise missile in the world. As Russia and India Report explained, “The BrahMos’ 3000 km per second speed – literally faster than a bullet – means it hits the target with a huge amount of kinetic energy. In tests, the BrahMos has often cut warships in half and reduced ground targets to smithereens.”

The same report notes that the Su-30 will add to the Brahmos’ already deadly effect. “The Sukhoi’s blistering speed will add extra launch momentum to the missile, plus the aircraft’s ability to penetrate hardened air defences means there is a greater chance for the pilot to deliver the missile on to its designated targets.”

Pairing the Su-30 with the Brahmos missile will also drastically expand the striking power of the air leg of India’s nuclear triad. The Su-30 itself has a range of up to 1,800 kilometers while the Brahmos missile can strike targets nearly 300 kilometers away. Thus, the newly modified Su-30s will allow India’s nuclear aircraft to strike deep in the heart of China or Pakistan, Delhi’s two main adversaries.

The plan to modify the Su-30 to carry the Brahmos missiles was first hatched back in 2010 when the SFC submitted a proposal for two squadrons of Su-30s to be put under its command. Later, in 2012, India’s cabinet approved the project to modify 42 Su-30s to carry 216 Brahmos missiles. According to the Times of India , the integration project was mostly carried out by BrahMos Aerospace, with HAL also contributing crucial modifications.

The first of the new planes was handed over to the SFC in February and is believed to have undergone tests last month. Production on the second of the modified Su-30s has already begun. It is unclear when the SFC expects to receive the rest of the planes.

The Brahmos-armed Su-30s is only one of the ways that India is strengthening its strategic deterrent [5]. It has also been busy testing the Agni-V, which is three-stage solid-fueled intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) with a range of about 5,000 km. When the Agni-V is inducted into service, India will have the ability to strike any part of China with nuclear weapons for the first time. Furthermore, India is currently testing ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), which will complete the nuclear triad.

source: www.scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Indias-Jet-Fighters-Are-Now-Equipped-with-Nuclear-Armed-Missiles-109840332

@Hellfire

Note: news is still not verified on ground. Take it as a news bite
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Falcon