Sukhoi Su-30MKI

screambowl

Senior member
Dec 19, 2017
2,468
1,144
switzerland
in that case why not just build more MKI's as the veteran suggests, all the tooling exists, the platform for commissioning costs 57 million. At twice the cost of LCA, gives you almost 4 times the capability of an LCA. also qualified for pretty much every possible ordinance in the inventory.

They want to save fuel. That's why SE MMRCA came into being.
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,176
2,799
United States
that adds capex, probably lesser in the lifecycle costs?
not necessarily, especially when you have to establish completely new training of service staff, house spares and consumables, PPE and other equipment for the ground crew, ancillary equipment like transfer pumps, air chargers, hand tools, carts, etc all adds to the service costs as operations expense. For established platform most of the infrastructure already exists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guynextdoor

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,176
2,799
United States
In sufficient numbers, no.
And is what is that magic number that MOD has calculated? pray not 36. And heaven forbid if we reach such a number with MMRCA, then the drive would be to much dependence on single type platform so now we should buy a MMMMRCA or a MMMMMMRCA.
 

screambowl

Senior member
Dec 19, 2017
2,468
1,144
switzerland
Then they should next try Bajaj Boxer, if it is still around. Back in the day it was known for mileage. ;)

They may try that soon. And I belive this is the region they developed kaveri engine. And that's the reason for upgrading F404 to F414. Fuel efficiency and higher thrust.
 
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
i fully understand the term "license manufacture".
Yet you make nonsensical statements like the one below!
So, Russians have no control over Su30 MKI unlike the USA.
.
.
.
You have been insisting that critical spares are imported despite repeated display of facts that the plane has got full ToT and even the engine is fully Indian made.

I never insisted anything, as it was not my statement. I've always quoted sources to backup my points (unlike you)

The pacts provides for an upgraded schedule for delivery of spares from Russia for these jets, local manufacturing of parts and a proposed logistics hub for the fighter jets in Bengaluru by HAL.
“With regard to maintenance and life-cycle support, it is our endeavour that
most of the components and spare parts required for maintaining the platforms, which have been procured from Russian companies, are manufactured by Indian companies through technology transfer or through joint ventures with Russian companies, so that the serviceability of the platforms is improved and we do not lose critical time in repairing and maintaining equipment,” said Defence Minister Arun Jaitley.
“We must take advantage of this opportunity to finalise some of the agreements or tie-ups for long-term supply agreements and manufacturing of spare parts/components in India. It is a unique opportunity where both Indian and Russian industries are present on a single forum in such a large number,” said Jaitley.

MARCH 17 2017
India, Russia sign long-term support pact on Sukhoi Su-30MKI

The Indian Air Force has been grappling with the non-availability of its frontline fighter Su-30 MKI due to delays in the import of critical spares from Russia.
The Indian government-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and United Aircraft Corporation and United Engine Corporation have signed the agreement for general terms and conditions governing the long-term supply of spares and rendering technical assistance for five years for Su-30 MKI aircraft.

17.03.2017
India Signs Spares’ Supply Pact With Russia for Sukhoi Fleet

The agreement will enable HAL to procure required spares directly from the original equipment manufacturers authorized by Russia's Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation.
"The deal will bolster the after-sales service and reduce the lead time of procurement of spares drastically. The agreement will result [in an] increase in the serviceability of the Su-30MKI fleet as spares would be available on time," Raju said. [T. Suvarna Raju, chairman of state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited]

2017/03/22
India's Sukhoi fleet faces problems despite Russian spare parts deal


You don't even have anything to back your statements- either logic or facts. I don't have facts but have logic on my side. So, explain

Yeah right. No logic nor facts on your side. (coming from the same guy who said IAF needed 1000 squadrons)
No one is going to spoon feed you and take the time to explain each & every point to your satisfaction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,687
8,933
India
And is what is that magic number that MOD has calculated? pray not 36. And heaven forbid if we reach such a number with MMRCA, then the drive would be to much dependence on single type platform so now we should buy a MMMMRCA or a MMMMMMRCA.

Minimum 3 squadrons, preferably 5.
 

Kshithij Sharma

Well-Known member
Dec 4, 2017
756
551
India
Yet you make nonsensical statements like the one below!

My statements that Su30 is fully made in India and hence Russia has no control other than "TRUST" stays valid.
I never insisted anything, as it was not my statement. I've always quoted sources to backup my points (unlike you)

The pacts provides for an upgraded schedule for delivery of spares from Russia for these jets, local manufacturing of parts and a proposed logistics hub for the fighter jets in Bengaluru by HAL.
“With regard to maintenance and life-cycle support, it is our endeavour that
most of the components and spare parts required for maintaining the platforms, which have been procured from Russian companies, are manufactured by Indian companies through technology transfer or through joint ventures with Russian companies, so that the serviceability of the platforms is improved and we do not lose critical time in repairing and maintaining equipment,” said Defence Minister Arun Jaitley.
“We must take advantage of this opportunity to finalise some of the agreements or tie-ups for long-term supply agreements and manufacturing of spare parts/components in India. It is a unique opportunity where both Indian and Russian industries are present on a single forum in such a large number,” said Jaitley.

MARCH 17 2017
India, Russia sign long-term support pact on Sukhoi Su-30MKI
Yes, the same thing was said in other site. Most of the spares are made in India while some are imported due to economy of scale and OEM authorisation.

The Indian Air Force has been grappling with the non-availability of its frontline fighter Su-30 MKI due to delays in the import of critical spares from Russia.
The Indian government-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and United Aircraft Corporation and United Engine Corporation have signed the agreement for general terms and conditions governing the long-term supply of spares and rendering technical assistance for five years for Su-30 MKI aircraft.

17.03.2017
India Signs Spares’ Supply Pact With Russia for Sukhoi Fleet
Yes, but this does not say whether India can manufacture these parts. The reason to not mnaufacture the parts might have been related to license rules rather than incapability.

The agreement will enable HAL to procure required spares directly from the original equipment manufacturers authorized by Russia's Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation.
"The deal will bolster the after-sales service and reduce the lead time of procurement of spares drastically. The agreement will result [in an] increase in the serviceability of the Su-30MKI fleet as spares would be available on time," Raju said. [T. Suvarna Raju, chairman of state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited]

2017/03/22
India's Sukhoi fleet faces problems despite Russian spare parts deal
The only reason to go for OEM spares is the guarantee offered by Russia on the spares as well as the entire plane made with authorised parts. The only problem is that guarantee will be void:

Defence Ministry to discuss lack of Russian military equipment spares today
To tide over the problem of non-availability of spares for Russian military equipment which form the bulk of country’s defence inventory, defence ministry has called for a meeting of Indian private defence industry next week. The meeting, which will be chaired by Secretary Defence Production (DP), will also be attended by Chairman of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and senior officers from the three defence services.

Since the early 1960s, India is estimated to have acquired military equipment worth $45 billion from Moscow which forms more than 60 per cent of equipment on the inventory of the three services. But the current serviceability state of this equipment, particularly those with the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the navy, is less than 50 per cent, sources said.

The problem is particularly acute in the case of Sukhoi Su-30 fighter aircraft which is made under license by HAL here. More than 200 Su-30 fighters are already in service with the IAF, and form the backbone of the country’s air power. The HAL is responsible for providing spares for these aircraft but is currently unable to meet the requirement, due to an unreliable and fledgling supply line from Russia. The state of spares with other Russian origin platforms such as the Mig-29 naval fighters, Kamov and Mi-17 helicopters is also not very encouraging. The IAF and the navy directly issue contracts for these spares but have complained to the defence ministry about the unreliable nature of Russian provisioning.

A couple of suggestions to overcome this problem were mooted during a similar meeting, chaired by Secretary (DP) in end-June but have not led to any concrete outcomes. One option explored during the June meeting was for the Indian companies to source the spare parts directly from Ukranian manufacturers. That proposal was shot down by HAL because the Ukrainian equipment is not certified by Russia. It means that the Russian guarantee on these platforms would become null and void, if they are fitted with Ukrainian spares.

Meanwhile, HAL attempted to overcome this problem by asking local MSME industry to start making these spares in India. This would, however, need a transfer of technology (ToT) from Russia which can only be done through the Russian government agency, Rosoboronexport corporation. Most Indian private industry officials are wary of working with Rosoboronexport, because of, what they say, is its “poor track-record and unprofessional attitude”.

“We have worked with Rosoboronexport which operates like a middleman. We paid the money to Rosoboronexport but the small Russian company never got the money from Rosoboronexport, and never sent us the parts. We are not alone, everyone has had complaints with Rosoboronexport which even the defence ministry is fully aware of,” Vice-President of a top Indian defence company told The Indian Express.

In the June meeting, Secretary (DP) had promised the industry that the issue of Rosoboronexport will be raised with Moscow at a ministerial and diplomatic level. That matter is bound to come up again in the meeting next week.

Indian private defence firms also assert that even if they were to somehow work through Rosoboronexport, it will be unprofitable for them to start a production line here in the absence of a firm order for a few years. Secretary (DP) had responded favourably to the idea and agreed to issuing a policy which gives firm orders to an Indian company for five years at benchmark price. These companies are expecting to hear from the ministry on the new policy next week.

Yeah right. No logic nor facts on your side. (coming from the same guy who said IAF needed 1000 squadrons)
No one is going to spoon feed you and take the time to explain each & every point to your satisfaction.

No logic on my side or yours? You are insisting that India "can't" make. The reality is that India can make but does not want to risk losing guarantee of Russia and break the trust. I have also been telling the same thing - India will lose the trust of Russia and won't get any more ToT like up-gradation to Al41F engine or FGFA technology.

India can make Su30 en-masse without taking Russia into confidence in case of urgency or large needs. But since there is no urgency, India does not want to antagonise Russia. So, where is Russia having control other than the factor of trust?
 
Last edited:

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,176
2,799
United States
Minimum 3 squadrons, preferably 5.
What in your opinion would be the savings total not just Opex but Capital (Cost of procurement platform+ weapons package+sims)+Operating costs+ mid life upgrade+support equipment over lifecycle of the new platform vs say adding same number of platforms that is already serving in the force say like MKI.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,482
2,901
73
France
transition.wifeo.com
"1T more" doesn't mean it's at 9T.

The aircraft should come down to 7T by the end of its development cycle.

So specification is 7000 kg and one t more is 8000 kg. It's more credible to increase from 6800 to 8000 than from 6800 to 7000.
 

Kshithij Sharma

Well-Known member
Dec 4, 2017
756
551
India
So specification is 7000 kg and one t more is 8000 kg. It's more credible to increase from 6800 to 8000 than from 6800 to 7000.
And the MToW of 16.5tons and 14tons are also seriously exaggerated. 100kN and 80kN don't give such MToW. The MToW must be limited to 15-15.5tons and 12.5-13tons
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,482
2,901
73
France
transition.wifeo.com
And the MToW of 16.5tons and 14tons are also seriously exaggerated. 100kN and 80kN don't give such MToW. The MToW must be limited to 15-15.5tons and 12.5-13tons

It's like mirage 2000
  • Crew: 1
  • Length: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)
  • Wingspan: 9.13 m (29 ft)
  • Height: 5.20 m (17 ft)
  • Wing area: 41 m² (441.3 ft²)
  • Empty weight: 7,500 kg (16,350 lb)
  • Loaded weight: 13,800 kg (30,420 lb)
  • Max. takeoff weight: 17,000 kg (37,500 lb)
It's credible.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,687
8,933
India
What in your opinion would be the savings total not just Opex but Capital (Cost of procurement platform+ weapons package+sims)+Operating costs+ mid life upgrade+support equipment over lifecycle of the new platform vs say adding same number of platforms that is already serving in the force say like MKI.

If you bring in LCC costs, then it gets simpler. A Rafale may cost 100M to buy, 100M to operate and 100M to MLU, that's $300M. Let's assume Gripen's the same when it comes to unit and MLU costs, but operation costs are half, so $250M.

If we are talking about 90 aircraft each, then the Rafale will cost $27B and Gripen will cost $22.5B, for a total of $49.5B.
But if we buy 180 Rafales instead, then we are paying $54B. So you can see that having two types saved us $4.5B.

Another important factor is if you have numbers like the MKI, then you can only perform MLUs in batches, like we did with Jaguar. So it's not comparable with a 90 aircraft force that can undergo MLU at once. Also Russian MLUs are different from European. The Russians expect us to pay for it, but in return they pretty much hand over the tech to us. The Europeans pay for the R&D themselves and pass on some of the cost to us when we procure it, so the numbers end up being similar for both jets.
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,176
2,799
United States
If you bring in LCC costs, then it gets simpler. A Rafale may cost 100M to buy, 100M to operate and 100M to MLU, that's $300M. Let's assume Gripen's the same when it comes to unit and MLU costs, but operation costs are half, so $250M.

If we are talking about 90 aircraft each, then the Rafale will cost $27B and Gripen will cost $22.5B, for a total of $49.5B.
But if we buy 180 Rafales instead, then we are paying $54B. So you can see that having two types saved us $4.5B.

Another important factor is if you have numbers like the MKI, then you can only perform MLUs in batches, like we did with Jaguar. So it's not comparable with a 90 aircraft force that can undergo MLU at once. Also Russian MLUs are different from European. The Russians expect us to pay for it, but in return they pretty much hand over the tech to us. The Europeans pay for the R&D themselves and pass on some of the cost to us when we procure it, so the numbers end up being similar for both jets.

But when you compare it to MKI, back in 2000, Maj Gen AK mehta, Published some numbers , Rs1.61Billion as unit price and lifecycle cost at rs4.5billion, which when converted to $ at the exchange rate of 46.88 of the year 2000, it comes to be around $23.46mil unit price and a lifecycle cost of around $95.98Mil Lifecycle cost. (evaluated in 2018)

Given that last known published cost of $57.65Mil (Which is an increase of 2.457 times) assuming the same increase in Lifecycle , it puts it around 235mill a pop. For 90 Additional that is 21.15 billion, which is still cheaper than both and the beauty is other than a fraction of licensing and some key components most of that 21.15 billion goes to HAL and stays in India.

And we dont have to wait for 3- 5 years to see the first , we can add 14-15 per year right now. With dropping sqdn strengths we can wait to buy gripen f16's or rafales or do another rounds of evaluations or what ever other mess IAF wants. Or we can add a potent, proven 4th gen aircraft to the squadron right now.


Also with MLU, given the fiasco of M2K, we ended up paying through our noses. Russian MLU and upgrades are much more in a system to the liking of the IAF, and they work with us to incorporate the systems that we need and like, bison, UPG, DareIII, etc and are far more cost effective compared to european suppliers, So much so we had to give up on any support from BAE/Dassult for Jaguars and had do pretty much most of DARIN by ourselves because of defunct Breguet and BAE structural changes. And yes if you have 180 rafales don't expect MLU happening in single trance either. It would not make sense to to do a Mid life upgrade in 2019 on an arcraft produced in 2018. If anything it gives us even more flexibility in progressively adding more technology in subsequent tranches rather than one single refit.
 
Last edited:

Bali78

Senior member
Dec 26, 2017
1,136
1,151
USA
But when you compare it to MKI, back in 2000, Maj Gen AK mehta, Published some numbers , Rs1.61Billion as unit price and lifecycle cost at rs4.5billion, which when converted to $ at the exchange rate of 46.88 of the year 2000, it comes to be around $23.46mil unit price and a lifecycle cost of around $95.98Mil Lifecycle cost. (evaluated in 2018)

Given that last known published cost of $57.65Mil (Which is an increase of 2.457 times) assuming the same increase in Lifecycle , it puts it around 235mill a pop. For 90 Additional that is 21.15 billion, which is still cheaper than both and the beauty is other than a fraction of licensing and some key components most of that 21.15 billion goes to HAL and stays in India.

And we dont have to wait for 3- 5 years to see the first , we can add 14-15 per year right now.
Why do you think IAF is not doing that?
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,176
2,799
United States
Why do you think IAF is not doing that?
No matter how much I convince my wife that buying a Accord makes sense, She made me a BMW 335Xi. Same is with IAF.
So no matter how much we discuss pricing capabilities etc. IAF will buy what it wants. It doesn't want any more MKI, because it knows its not hard pressed for any contingencies and has enough to cover itself in a short conflict or a flare up. Now if Pakistan was more like in aposition of say a South Korea or a even a Turkey, then the story would be quite different with a 500 MKI's sitting in the hangars.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,687
8,933
India
But when you compare it to MKI, back in 2000, Maj Gen AK mehta, Published some numbers , Rs1.61Billion as unit price and lifecycle cost at rs4.5billion, which when converted to $ at the exchange rate of 46.88 of the year 2000, it comes to be around $23.46mil unit price and a lifecycle cost of around $95.98Mil Lifecycle cost. (evaluated in 2018)

Given that last known published cost of $57.65Mil (Which is an increase of 2.457 times) assuming the same increase in Lifecycle , it puts it around 235mill a pop. For 90 Additional that is 21.15 billion, which is still cheaper than both and the beauty is other than a fraction of licensing and some key components most of that 21.15 billion goes to HAL and stays in India.

And we dont have to wait for 3- 5 years to see the first , we can add 14-15 per year right now. With dropping sqdn strengths we can wait to buy gripen f16's or rafales or do another rounds of evaluations or what ever other mess IAF wants. Or we can add a potent, proven 4th gen aircraft to the squadron right now.


Also with MLU, given the fiasco of M2K, we ended up paying through our noses. Russian MLU and upgrades are much more in a system to the liking of the IAF, and they work with us to incorporate the systems that we need and like, bison, UPG, DareIII, etc and are far more cost effective compared to european suppliers, So much so we had to give up on any support from BAE/Dassult for Jaguars and had do pretty much most of DARIN by ourselves because of defunct Breguet and BAE structural changes. And yes if you have 180 rafales don't expect MLU happening in single trance either. It would not make sense to to do a Mid life upgrade in 2019 on an arcraft produced in 2018. If anything it gives us even more flexibility in progressively adding more technology in subsequent tranches rather than one single refit.

In terms of capability, the Rafales are a massive step up compared to the MKI. We need the Super MKI to keep up, and are expensive. And the Rafales are proven too.

In terms of service life, the Rafales are already at 7000-8000 hours and can be doubled again. MKI's at 6000 hours and you can expect another 2000 hours after service life extension. So I would recommending calculating the LCC based on a per hour flight basis.

The maintenance requirements for MKI are ridiculous. Apart from the extensive downtime due to regular maintenance, the MKI requires 3 expensive overhauls which costs $10-15M each time and takes many months. And that's without counting the 30 hours it stays on the ground for every hour of flight. The Rafale doesn't need overhaul and stays on the ground only for 9 hours for every hour of flight.

There are also a whole host of other advantages like quicker turnaround and greater sorties/day. In the same conditions, the Rafale will fly more than the MKI can. And in case something goes wrong with either aircraft, I can put the Rafale back in the air much faster than the MKI. For example, Rafale's engine can be replaced in 30 minutes, it takes 8 hours to do the same on the MKI.

The MKI is not cheaper than Rafale. The CPFH of the MKI is $12000 according to HAL. Rafale's CPFH is much lower at $10000 when being sourced from France, it will become much lesser once DRAL starts supplies from Indian factories.

You can't compare Russian upgrades with French. We paid almost $1B for the Mig-29s and that's only for 10 years of extra flying time, 1000 hours extra. We paid extra for the engines in a separate contract. We paid $2.5B for the M-2000s and are getting 5500 hours of extra flight time, so we can fly it for another 30-40 years. Mig-29s will have to be retired by 2030, we can use M-2000s until 2050-60 at least if necessary. So they are not the same.
 

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
807
789
A Place
we can use M-2000s until 2050-60 at least if necessary
Keep in mind that the longer an aircraft is kept flying, the more expensive its maintenance becomes as parts become rarer and rarer. I doubt India will find it cost-efficient to keep Mirage 2000 in operation past 2040.