Within 72 hours of the fatal crash of an IAF Su-30MKI on April 30, it was theoretically deduced by experimental test pilots attached to Russia’s Sukhoi OKB that only a catastrophic failure of the aircraft’s digital redundant fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW-FCS) would have caused loss of flight control and the consequent crash. But what could not be explained until recently was under exactly what circumstances would a redundant FBW-FCS—designed to be a fail-safe system—not deliver as advertised. And the answer could not have come from Sukhoi OKB simply because it, in case of the Su-30MKI, was responsible for only prescribing the flight control envelopes of the aircraft for both conventional flight profiles as well as for those involving supermanoeuvrability. What the OKB could not monitor or enforce was the operational flight regime of the Su-30MKI. And if initial findings of the IAF-instituted Board of Inquiry (BoI) are to be believed, the crashed Su-30MKI’s loss of flight control can now be pinned down, with a high degree of probability, to the FBW-FCS (see the block diagram above) suffering catastrophic failure as a result of non-prescribed usage of the aircraft’s FBW-FCS regime, which in turn had probably caused loss of the aircraft’s directional control (attached above is a brief explanation of the Su-30MKI’s FBW-FCS as appearing in the aircraft’s technical manual).What now remains to be seen is whether the BoI will clearly disclose why exactly IAF HQ had not taken any disciplinary steps to curb at a much earlier stage the non-prescribed usage of the aircraft’s FBW-FCS-based flight regime during operational flying training at the squadron-level, and why exactly such uncompromising instructions were not made mandatory during the operational flight conversion phase. It also remains to be seen if IAF HQ will at last officially acknowledge the fact that had it procured Su-30MKI tactical flight simulators six years ago, it would have been better positioned to enforce operational flight discipline among those air warriors who were destined for the Su-30MKI squadrons. Therefore, the only consolation for those interested in the IAF’s well-being for now is that the Su-30MKI remains a reliable and formidable air dominance platform, but at the same time its end-user now needs more than ever to enforce a mandatory regime of operational flying discipline by whatever means possible, and acknowledging that even fail-safe solutions have a certain threshold of tolerance when it comes to sustaining abusive usage.—Prasun K. Sengupta
79 comments:
If the Sukhoi FBW-FCS could not monitor or enforce the operational flight regime of the Su-30MKI then how is the Sukhoi supposed to recover from stall and spin situations.
Prasun why can't you be direct in your analysis. Just what caused the failure?
Did the pilot pull of difficult manoeuvres with more that the prescribed G load?
How can you so easily conclude that the plane was abused by our pilots just because we don't have simulators. Sukhois cost a fortune and after every crash the guy commanding the squadron is pulled up before committees and grilled. If the guy is found to be wrong he will be shown the door by the IAF.
So no squadron commander will allow his guys to exceed limits. When an ordinary person like you can realise the dangers in system abuse, don't you think professional pilots with many hundreds of flying hours won't realise the danger.
When the B-2 spirit recently crashed in Guam, the BoI found out that one of the sensors in the FBW had been damaged during regular maintenance work. That lead to the sensor giving faulty input to the FBW computer and subsequently caused the crash.
Even the Sukhoi crash could be due to a fault in one of the systems developed during regular maintenance.
In your eagerness to beat the IAF with the stick of non-inductance of simulators you are jumping to conclusions and finding fault with IAF Sukhoi pilots when you don't even have access to all the data about the plane's crash.
To say the least this is not how a professional works.
Prasun,
Where is your evidence, any evidence, that the crash was caused by "abuse" of the FBW system?
Just a few pics of the FBW system wont do. I have to agree with the previous anon above, you are just attacking the IAF without any detailed knowledge of what occurred or did not occur.
It reflects poorly on you, please be more aware of the issue.
To Anon@1:31AM & 6:45AM: Firstly, the content of your comments leads me to conclude that both of you are neither aviators nor licenced aircraft engineers, hence the lack of any meaningful content to analyse the probable causes, which I had identified way back on May 3 in my thread on HUMS for Su-30MKI. Secondly, take this date as the reference point and the statement by the IAF 48 hours ago on the two likely probable causes being investigated by the BoI and then try to relate the two. That will convincingly answer the question of whether I'm in the know about this crash, or not. Thirdly, if you had any idea about how HUMS works, you would not have made an ill-informed statement about 'faults emerging during to routine maintenance'. The HUMS exists precisely to avoid such man-made errors being made, but you don;t seem to know this. Fourthly and lastly, you're obviously terribly ill-informed about the deep rot that pervades within the decision-making levels of IAF HQ. Why do I say this? Just ask any decision-maker within the Indian Navy's Directorate of Naval Aviation why Navy HQ decided to order the MiG-29 tactical simulator immediately after inking the MiG-29K procurement deal and why the simulator is being commissioned even before the arrival of the MiG-29Ks. That will give you the answer about where exactly the IAF has gone wrong with the Su-30MKI induction programme. Also, try to take the trouble to do your own research into the various types of simulators reqd for inducting 4++-generation combat aircraft into service and why countries around the world swear by such simulators and why therefore the IAF should not be the sole exception.
This is also the last time I will be tolerating such ignorant and insinuating comments. If such comments continue from any anons from now on, I will delete them. Queries are most welcome, but no holier-than-thou insinuations.
Prasun nice stuff , any update on Mig-35 data you were suppose to get ?
To Anon@11:05AM: Rest assured, the moment I obtain them I will upload them as they're all marketing materials, nothing classified or restricted in them.
To Anon@8:57PM: The functionality of the FBW-FCS is dictated by the FCS logic that is pre-programmed into the digital flight control computer. What the FBW-FCS is programmed to do is process the inputs from the pilot and fly the aircraft accordingly. But the FBW-FCS cannot enforce the operational flight regime, which means, for instance, how many times the aircraft performs post-stall manoeuvres and at what intervals and at what altitude. Most importantly, one has to have an acute and deep understanding of what exactly are the flight performance envelopes of the aircraft when employing a 2-D TVC mechanism. Based on my interactions with Sukhoi OKB's ETPs it appears that the Russian Air Force has very deliberately chosen to stay away from 2-D solutions in favour of a 3-D solution, which offers true supermanoeuvrability. According to them, 2-D TVC is good only for fancy aerobatics during aerospace expos and is at best of very limited utility during operational scanarios, but an excellent marketing gimmick. The ETPs' informed view is that it is for these reasons the Russian Air Force has not adopted the 2-D TVC solution for its Su-34 and upgraded Su-27s, preferring instead to rely on the combination of HMD/super-agile within-visual-range AAMs for close air combat.
If Su30MKI FCS cannot enforce the operational flight regime that would mean it does not have care-free handling characteristics. Which is strange for an aircraft of Su30MKI sophistication.
Prasun,
The deep rot is indeed a mild word. Recently amar ekta friend told me something that jarred me.
Apparently our mine detectors are several generations behind - only detect metal ones and not the new age polymer and plastic based.
There are detectors available that can do these, that will save many a soldier's lives / legs, yet the authorities that deal with them - yawn and put it in procedural files.
Are we really that f***** up?
To Anon@5.36PM: Perhaps there's a disconnect between what I'm trying to explain and what's been interpreted. The FBW-FCS's 'care-free' domain has been programmed by the aircraft's OEM. The regime, on the other hand, refers to how exactly the aircraft is put to use and under what conditions. It's like the brake-pads of a vehicle, which are certified for a certain number of hours when used on flat terrain. Now, when you use them to drive up and down over steep inclines, naturally the brake-pads' operational lives will be used up much earlier and the validity of the earlier certified life will then no longer be of any consideration. In the same way, if the Su-30MKI's OEM-certified flight performance parameters are being routinely exceeded during operational flying (this being the flight regime), then logically something's got to give. As they say, actions have consequences. But, had the tactical simulators been made available, all pilots converting to the Su-30MKIs would have been subjected to a much higher level of training regimen whereby any flight manoeuvre being attempted above and beyond the Su-30MKI's prescribed flight envelope would have been visible much earlier, and corrective steps could have then been taken before flying the actual aircraft. This is the most vital missing link in the existing Su-30MKI's operational conversion syllabus. But strangely, no one is taking notice of this acute deficiency, and is instead concentrating on aircraft reliability or maintenance-related flaws. However, this time it will be impossible to engage in any cover-ups, as the Su-30MKI's recovered flight data recorder will clearly identify what exactly caused the FBW-FCS' digital flight control and air data computers to malfunction.
To Anon@12:16AM: It is the higher-level decision-making process both within the Govt of India and the armed services HQs that's fucked up. The incessant delays in taking procurement decisions add to the fuck-ups. A clear example is the swiftness with which the Indian Navy (correctly) ordered the MiG-29K tactical simulator, while the IAF, seven years after inducting the Su-30MKI into service, is still twiddling its thumbs and has yet to commission its first Su-30MKI flight simulator. Need I go any further?
Anyway, the good news is, EADS has practically clinched the contract for supplying the A310-300 as the platform for the follow-on three PHALCON AEW & C systems. A formal announcement will be made soon. Both the MoD and IAF are totally unhappy with the delayed delivery of the modified IL-76 airframes to IAI, and they don't want this to happen again. That's what A K Antony was referring to when he spoke of his annoyance at the delayed delivery schedules of the first three PHALCONs.
The biggest threat to Indian security is not external but internal - bureaucracy!I am amazed that there is no revolution of some sort from appropriate quarters most affected by the bad decisions or indecisions in majority of cases.Year after year we hear delay in procurement of xyz caused such and such casualty/disadvantage/crash etc yet year after year the same thing gets done.It is a known adage that if you keep doing the same things you will always get the same results and to expect otherwise is insanity.Who will impress upon the decision makers that to not decide is to decide not to?Why isn't there enough pressure from the appropriate lobby groups that safeguard the families of the fallen military or is there none such lobby groups left?Just take 5 crashes in 2009.IAF pilots have proven their worth but why still the crashes?More personnal have been lost at peacetime than at war!It's no point buying top items and having such grandiose dreams if the basic inefficiencies and inactions are not addressed first.It seems to me that in India a great many people are happy to accept inertia even if it means compromising millions of lives.Their argument is like "oh well every arse stinks,but we still need 'em to crap". And yes that's what they keep getting without any boots ever kicking either to make some fundamental changes to the defence of the realm.
Pierre Zorin, we all can understand your emotions. Please take it easy on yourself.
Prasun, why not employ A330 as the Phalcon platform instead of introducing yet another type of aircraft to the IAF. Japan has a similar sized Boeing 767 AWAC in service. A330 will have excellent endurance and we able to stay longer on station with perhaps 2 crews thereby saving time with fewer trips to base. It wont need refueling and perhaps may even serve to refuel its own escorts.
according to them, 2-D TVC is good only for fancy aerobatics during aerospace expos and is at best of very limited utility during operational scanarios, but an excellent marketing gimmick
--------------------------------
then why the hell americans have
2d thrust vector on f22
thrust vector matters very well
how long it takes to fire BVR missiles no more than 4-5 seconds and BVR shots no reliable either
of for that matter even WVR missiles may miss this has been proven in past and most of the kill were done by guns only
To Anon@8:51AM: 2-D TVC on a F/A-22 Raptor and 2-D TVC on a Su-30MKI are two totally different issues, simply because even without TVC the Raptor outclasses the Su-30MKI and Su-35 due to superior thrust-to-weight ratio. With 2-D TVC the superiority factor of the Raptor increases even more. And during Ex Red Flag last year even F-15E pilots that had earlier flown simulated missions against the Raptors had no difficulty in engaging the Su-30MKI even after the Su-30MKI utilised its 2-D TVCs during post-stall manoeuvres. And FYI, since 1982 the great majority of air combat kills have been attributed to AAMs, not guns.
To Anon@7:19AM: The A330-200 platform will be an overkill in terms of size. The A310-300 on the other hand, was selected way back in the late 1990s by both Raytheon E-Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) to be modified as a PHALCON platform and offered for Australia's Project Wedgetail. Consequently, IAI has already completed all engineering design work and will be able to deliver an A310-300/PHALCON much faster than it has been able to with the A-50E/PHALCON. The A310-300s need not be brand-new: second-hand airframes can be acquired much much cheaper and then be sent to IAI's Bedek Aviation Division where the aircraft will be zero-lifed and then modified structurally to house the PHALCON mission avionics suite. All in all, an order for three A310-300/PHALCONs will be cheaper than a follow-on order for three A-50E/PHALCONs, and the former will be delivered much more quicker. Time-on-station/endurance won't be an issue with the A310-300/PHALCON at since since it will be refuelled in mid-air, but even with two sets of mission crew, an AEW & C platform, be it B.767-300-based or A310-based or A-50E-based, will not be able to stay airborne for more than 10 hours non-stop simply due to human limitations.
When the IAF acquires a new plane it sends instructors to Russia to learn to fly that plane from Russian test pilots. There those pilots would have surely told our pilots about the limits to which the Su-30 can be taken. Those guys come back here and teach our pilots on how to fly Su-30 by flying with rookie pilots on two seater versions. Isn't that why we have two seater versions so that the new pilots can fly the plane under the watchful eyes of the instructors and not make mistakes like exceeding limits.
Isn't that why we use two-seater versions. Can't two seater versions replace tactical simulators. please explain.
I read that the pilot who was involved in the Sukhoi crash was a sqdn. leader. So he must have at least 10 + years experience in flying. It is quite difficult to understand that such a pilot would make this mistake by being reckless.
Did we ever try asking USA for the wedgetail? can't we go for that if USA agrees? I heard it is a generation ahead of the Phalcon.
And I asked you a question long back on how Israel despite being a small country with very little resources was able to make it so big in defence. I am very curious to know that. please write something on that.
To Raghav: The IAF's Su-30MKI flight instructors were trained in Russia not by their Russian Air Force counterparts (since Russia does not operate this aircraft-type), but by experimental test pilots (ETP) of Sukhoi Design Bureau (OKB). Which means the IAF flight instructors were instructed ONLY on flight conversion and told about the do's and don'ts pertaining to FLIGHT CONVERSION only. When these flight instructors went back to India, it became their responsibility to write the OPERATIONAL QUALIFICATION manual (the tactical flying manual) under the auspices of, firstly, ASTE, and then TACDE. As I said earlier, the tactical manual was unable from Russia as the Russian Air Force did not induct the Su-30MKI into service. Therefore, this put an enormous responsibility upon the shoulders of the IAF's ETPs and flight instructors in terms of fully exploring and exploiting the Su-30MKI's operational flying envelopes. For doing this, the norm worldwide is to do such exploratory work on tactical mission simulators. Incidentally, that's the reason why the ADA has an engineering flight simulator where the experimental flight envelopes for the Tejas LCA Mk1 are first rehearsed before the ETP flies the very same flight profile in the actual LCA prototype. This then gives rise to the following question: if the ADA thinks it is mandatory to make use of the simulator before resorting to experimental flying with LCA prototypes, why was this practice not adopted for the Su-30MKI as well, especially since the ASTE and TACDE had to do and are still engaging in a fair bit of experimental flying with the Su-30MKI? Why this anomaly?
Now to answer your question about usage of tandem-seat operational flight conversion aircraft (like the MiG-21U or MiG-23U or Mirage 2000TH or MiG-29KUB), this argument does not apply to the Su-30MKI simply because it is a tandem-seat aircraft! Both the aircrews are engaging in operational flying and there's no space for housing separate supervising flight instructors. Therefore, all aspects of flight instruction and training-related oversight has to be done on the ground, i.e. on a tactical mission simulator. Even when it comes to single-seaters like the Tejas LCA, the tandem-seat variant of the LCA will be used for operational flying conversion only, but for maintaining flight proficiency of the pilot, a tactical mission simulator will be required as it is no longer financially viable (or even reqd) for each pilot logging in 25 hours of operational flying every month. With increasing sophistication of the platform comes a proportional increase in direct operating cost of the aircraft. Therefore, at least 12 flying hours of a pilot every month can be 'flown' or 'logged' in a tactical mission simulator. This is a worldwide norm and I don't see why the IAF should be the exception such such practices.
Project Wedgetail is an RAAF-specific project, it is not the name of the AEW & C system, which is a combination of the B.737NG platform and Northrop Grumman-built AESA, called MESA. I don;t see any reason why the US will not allow the export of such an AEW & C system to India. But for reasons for commonality, the A310-300/PHALCON solution will be more feasible, both operationally and financially.
Regarding the Israeli issue, all I can say is that it has developed an evolutionary and well thought-out roadmap regarding military industrialisation. In India, it is evolution-in-reverse!!! Which means: first develop a combat aircraft, a main battle tank, and a warship, and then think about developing far more simpler and far less complex weapons like pistols, assault rifles, sub-machine guns, intermediate jet trainers, infantry combat vehicles, and fast attack craft. Maybe you can make some sense out of such developments, because I can't!
To, Prasun da -
Hopefully, from recent year's bilateral & multinational exercises our AF gets mature experience about mew generation network centric aerial warfare.Incidentally all those exercises were held with western airforce even with RSAF but not with Russian airforce. Why? And at last when misson simulator of sukhoi will come in INDIA?
Why IAF is so reluctant to give information about the specific type & serial number of crashed sukhoi?
B.737NG AEW & C system is far better then PHALCON AEW & C systems in term of capability
just far example B.737NG AEW & C can track 3000 targets against 60 by PHALCON AEW & C
And B.737NG AEW & C will have commonality with P-8I
Wow
even paf erieye can track 2000+targes
Pn's P-3 Hawkeye 2000 AEW&C uses AN/APS-145 radar which also capable of tracking more than 2,000 targets
i dont know about KJ-200 though but that must have similar capability to erieye
ABHINABA, It has to do with our antiquated secrecy mindset.
Did you see the recent Swearing-At' ceremony of the new cabinet. The ministers swear not do disclose any information unless it is required to do their job. I guess the IAF doesn't think it needs to disclose any info to the public to do their crash investigations.
Even the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution said, "We should have an oath of transparency in place of an oath of secrecy."
The fig of 60 attributed to Phalcon is highly questionable. Even the Elta 2052 fighter aesa has advertised 64 tracking capability. Given our above described secrecy oath dont expect IAF to disclose or clarify anything.
A few points i would like to make:
1. Please read this
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-05-371843035_x.htm
The B-2 spirit is THE most advanced aircraft in the world. Nothing comes anywhere closer to its avionics. So its FBW & HUMS must be among the best in the world. Still the B-2 crashed for so trivial a reason and even the HUMS could not alert the ground crew or the pilots about the faulty sensors. So it is possible for sensors to develop faults during maintenance by the crew and the faults going unnoticed even by the HUMS.
2. In any advanced system like the FBW-FCS of Su-30 MKI there will always be system redundancy. The computers, sensors, hydraulic pumps that help in TVC all have a redundancy built into them. So if any of them fails the spare system will takeover and the computer will alert the pilot that there has been a system failure. The pilot then brings back the plane to the base without engaging in any more fancy flying. So how come the Su-30's system redundancy failed and the FBW-FCS broke down completely without any warning to the pilots.
3. It was reported that the pilot who died had severe spinal injuries. Such injuries are likely to be sustained only when the pilot hits the ground after a low altitude ejection. So this shows that the Su-30 crashed at a low altitude either during takeoff or landing. At thee times the pilots can't definitely take the plane to its limits as they will not have enough altitude for such manoeuvres. So how can one say for sure that the FBW failure caused the crash when the crash happened during a time when the FBW was under least strain(takeoff landing phase).
"In India, it is evolution-in-reverse!!! Which means: first develop a combat aircraft, a main battle tank, and a warship, and then think about developing far more simpler and far less complex weapons like pistols, assault rifles.."I have wondered about the same thing..and u clarified that in a rhetorical way! ha ha!
I think we did take up challenges like IGMP,Arjun,ALH and LCA for glory and pride like Soviet Union istile..! But, anyway I guess all those are coming to fruition in 2010-2011 time period..albiet a half-a-century late..better late than never!
To Abhinaba: The principal reason for not conducting air exercises is the language factor: the Russians simply won't communicate in English. This is nothing new. Even in the days of the USSR one would have expected Indian military officers to have gone to higher command and staff colleges in the USSR for training and doctrinal appreciation. But nothing of this sort happened. The Soviets were far too paranoid to accommodate any foreigners to such establishments. Therefore, even throughout the Cold War, all Indian armed forces officers went various North American and West European military training colleges/universities for higher command courses. During the Cold War, every time India took delivery of any weapon system from the USSR, the Indian end-user had no way of knowing if the weapons being imported off-the-shelf were brand-new, or were simply refurbished pre-owned hardware, as the USSR never allowed any foreigner to visit any of its military-industrial facilities for on-site inspections. And when the USSR's OEM-related representatives arrived in India to assist with service induction, these reps had to be housed within totally isolated state-owned guest houses and were strictly prohibited from socialising with non-Soviet people in India. They were subject to only Soviet laws (even though residing in India) and even brought their own satellite dishes to view only Soviet TV programmes and listen only to Soviet radio broadcasts! Such was their paranoia, and India had to make various compromises on her territorial sovereignty when accommodating such 'Soviet guests'. Therefore, I'm highly astonished why all such compromises are now forgotten and everyone is aghast at the far less demanding intrusive inspections that the US Defense Dept is asking for, when it comes to US-origin military hardware being sold to India.
As for the Su-30MKI tactical simulator, the first one of three was due to arrive at AFS Pune last March, but till this day it hasn't arrived.
To Anon@4:43AM: Why should any AEW & C platform be capable of either detecting or tracking 3,000 airborne targets when there will no air combat scenario involving 3,000 targets at the same time? Detection, maybe, but tracking, never as no airborne display processor will ever be able to display the 3,000 targets being tracked. As far as the PHALCON's tracking capabilities go, whether it can track 60 or 200 is not a matter of the AESA's limitation, rather, it is an issue of processing power, which can easily be increased should the need arise. It all depends on the IAF's threat appreciation and should the IAF require greater target tracking capabilities, it will easily have it from the existing PHALCONs.
To Black Hawk: The HUMS can monitor up to 70 different parameters at a time, but it is up to the ground maintenance crew chief to decide how many of these parameters need constant monitoring and on average, only 30 to 40 parameters are constantly monitored. This is what happened in case of the B-2 Spirit crash, proving that the problem was not the hardware-specific, but a hardware-related error INDUCED by the human factor.
Regarding systems redundancy, not all systems are redundant on the Su-30MKI. While there are twin digital mission computers, there's only one analogue-to-digital converter and only one flight data transfer unit, and only one air data computer. All these are integral components of the FBW-FCS. Any one of these single-LRU components could have suffered failure.
Regarding the ejection-related fatality, it could also well be that the ejection took place at the correct altitude, but the K-36S-3.5E seat's ejection control system had a delayed activation. As I understand, this is the angle being looked into regarding the fatality.
Did we ever try asking USA for the wedgetail? can't we go for that if USA agrees? I heard it is a generation ahead of the Phalcon
----------------------------------
so what,what about the range and endurance of 737 compared to A50
and as well as cost
and phalcon isn't inferior either will serve its purpose very well
only difference between two systems is aesa modules tech but the detection range is almost similar 360 coverage
iindia will choose israeli stuff for aewacs only because more operational sovereignity is cheaper compared to american stuff
and there iso reason to talk about hypothetical situation a310 for aewacs
because whether someone likes or not A50 will be in IAF for next 40 years
There's nothing hypothetical about the A310-300/PHALCON. Over the next few months, the Cabinet Committee on National Security will OK the proposed contract, which has already been drafted. And over the next 20 years, AESA arrays will be mounted on UAVs and the present-day AEW & C platforms will be a thing of the past. Instead, they will be networked with the AEW-UAVs, and will handle the 'C' component, i.e. airborne battle management.
It looks like the message I've been trying to drill into the heads of HAL's decision-makers for the past four years has at last sunk in. VOL 3,ISSUE:79 of MINSK SQUARE MATTERS, HAL's newsletter (why Minsk, and not Irktusk!) carries an interview of HAL's Director Corporate Planning
and Marketing M. Fakruddin, where at last he admits that "...FAA or EASA certification is a must if you have to do exports. We find FAA a bit more difficult as compared to EASA, and we are working on both. There has been some progress in EASA certification. Hopefully in the next two to three years we should be able to get the certification. In the interim, we may go for country-wise
co-validation/certification. But we must aim for FAA/EASA, which is mandatory". It was in July 2005 that I had asked HAL when EASA certification would be forthcoming and was told "within a year". Now, it seems one has to wait for another three years! Why? The snwer is simple: HAL does not yet have the corporate autonomy to decide on its own such life-and-death issues. And yet, this Director Corporate Planning
and Marketing still refuses to address the core issue, and instead says: "I really don't think so. We have been given a clear and structured boundary to operate within, which gives us enough autonomy. If we need to cross the boundaries, we need to take the necessary clearances from the ministry. If our need is backed by clarity of thought and purpose, then I don't think we will
have any issues in getting the clearance. MoD has been very supportive in this aspect. At the end of the day, time and cost must be kept in mind in all our day-to-day dealings". What he doesn't say is exactly how long does the MoD take to accord such clearances. Judging by the EASA certification issue, my guess is 4 years and counting...with another three more years to go. Kannan and Raghav, hope you've taken note of this.
any idea about endurance/no of operaters B737AEW&C Vs A50AEW&C Vs A310 AEW&C???????????
Boeing's PowerPoint presentation states that the B.737NG-based AEW & C platform has 10 mission management consoles and the crew complement is 20 (two sets of 10 each) which works in alternating one-hour shifts. The endurance, backed up by aerial refuelling, is 12 hours. The IAF's PHALCON has 12 mission management consoles on board and crew complement is 24. Endurance is 12 hours as well. The A310-300/PHALCON's figures are identical.
However, one of the IAF's main problems when flying both the PHALCON and IL-78MKI AARs is lack of training airspace and air corridors free of civil aviation traffic. That's why virtually all AAR training sorties have to be carried out over the sea till today. For as long as India's national air traffic management is separately carried out by the AAI and IAF (instead of having an integrated joint airspace/air traffic management system in place), the IAF will be extremely hard-pressed to deploy its PHALCONs for extended hours on training sotries over the Indo-Gangetic Plain. The only airspace corridors available at present are over northeast India and in the southern peninsula.
It will also be interesting to see whether the US allows the PAF to operate its Saab 2000 AEW & C platforms freely over the Punjab or NWFP or Baluchistan, once they start arriving this October. I would very much doubt if the US will tolerate its Predator/Reaper UCAVs losing the element of surprise to the PAF AEW & C platforms. In all probability, therefore, the Saab 2000 AEW & C platforms will be limited to operating either over Sindh, or over southern Punjab, or over the Northern Areas.
prasun,
My aerodynamics knowledge comes from having grown up at an IAF AFB having family in the AF serving my nation and a depth of interaction with serving aviators which you cannot claim to achieve. So leave the personal abuse out, and learn to understand what informed criticism means. You have NO evidence so far that the IAF has in any manner abused the FBW or overdone the limits (soft & hard) to which the controls are set.
Instead you are just speculating.
And your data on HUMS is also wrong. HUMS on the MKI is used for first level LRU monitoring & logging & structural monitoring, not for FBW. That is again monitored by preflight FCS check which runs in automated manner once pilot initiates it.
Stop attacking posters who point out the simple facts to you, that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that the IAF has done anything wrong with the FBW so far.
Second, about simulators, they are on order & the IAF has set some strict conditions for all up, FM (not RM) simulators which the OEM is still unable to meet. Maint/Op task simulators are already there.
i dont know who made the comment about 60 targets being tracked, but you have to be joking. the phalcon can track MANY more targets. i think some media idiot has reported this and people are taking it to be true.
and coming to AWACS, Phalcon is now in service, what about wedgetail and its so superior system? word in the business is that the radar is subpar and the aussies are scrambling to save pride, downgrade specs and achieve operational capability at risk of original pie in the sky claims.
@prasun......i'm the same anon at livefist
Simple 2 reasons
1) brainless modernization (westernization) of training...they tried to copy their western partners in training methods...wherever it was easy (cost effective) but never checked on quality....they never thought of the fact that they don’t have the same people (diff working cultures) and machine (for using every machine there are limitations, which are obvious and should be carefully followed, in this case particularly in training)
2) Attitude of IAF to always blame it on machinery, and pilot error is always secondary...technical and maintenance staff are always considered inferior by pilots... whereas in the past it was always found 75% of crashes were caused due to a combination of pilot error and lapse of medical staff and in half of these cases technical problems played a role but it was wrong/untimely/slow response from pilot that caused the crashes...but almost NONE due to lack of spare parts, or due to manufacturers (even MiG 21, its easier to blame a non Indian entity )...mostly due to wrong maintenance practices .... Or rather due to systematically adapting maintenance procedures (read indigenization) without conforming to manufacturer’s standards…
In this case as you know a particular squadron is vested with training and ops doctrine blah...blah...where all soon to be SU 30 pilots from all over India came
Some things were done differently than before- Young pilots straight out of basic jet training were inducted and went through the gruels (ask any trainee pilot in AFA none of them want to fly the sukhoi, whereas IAF shows it as their best aircraft)....many senior pilots (non test-pilots) were trained on simulator...and flew on SU 30 directly solo…often having a non instructor on the back seat….
Pilots who had barely completed their training on this plane, were sent on sorties with trainee pilots…whereas in the past only qualified instructor pilots were sent…as Sukhois are twin seater…there is no need to have a instructor through out the training but the baby steps should have been guided by experienced hands….
the above led to a tendency by the pilots to explore the aircraft…doing maneuvers their own simple way…neglecting preflight checks…less emphasis on backup procedures in training(which once covered a major part of training, the original Russian training as well ).i’ve seen pilots not able to pass the blind fold checks, were guided by hand by the examiner , even laxity by medical staff to go through all tests… when caught they were let off lightly(sheer contrast with the past)….all this could be due to shortage of pilots suitable for this aircraft, cost effectiveness… and probably it suited the convenience of everyone concerned…..there were incidents when pilots disagreed…just for instance in indradhanush exercise 4 rhino pilots declined to fly when they came to know that they were asked to fly aircraft which was barely airworthy (maintenance was an issue and IAF went there without a full contingent)….thus IAF went with an inexperienced group of plots(they had to have a min. presence) in RED FLAG, young star eyed pilots…who would not only keep their mouth shut but would work like donkeys…
There were and are officers, who are against this kind of modernization…but were always sidelined, some were even sent back to the aircrafts they came from….
Russians had twice given instruction regarding thrust vectoring usage after aircraft checks ….and I think ever since Sukhois are flying for IAF they said about repairing the runway at nagpur…and pune(now done) in particular…and all IAF fields in general. I know many of you would take this opportunity to criticize Russian machinery….but civilian aircrafts had engine trouble (in various forms) here ….ask any civilian pilot…pune had the maximum number of aborted takeoffs
another training based squadron that (I’ve heard, sukois are from personal experience) has almost identical problems is the IL 76 series at Agra…where a large no. of pilots are being trained in comparison to previous times…..I’ve heard there’s complete chaos …so much so that a pilots failed to even do basic turns during the check ride…but got the rating…
not only pilots….navigators(occasionally used) are also trained in similar manner(but it doesnot affects safety in case of sukhoi in a big way)
some pilots trained on hawks in UK……were inferior to their predecessors(Indian trained)… so much that they couldn’t pull enough g’s on the mirage(considered a pilot friendly aircraft)…and were sent to MiG 21 training squadrons….they just had tons of systems knowledge which can be learnt by experience, and the awkward accent…
Another thing regarding the MiG 29 escort….they are for ceremonial purposes only….no arms required….arms are not taken when not necessary to save fuel…
And MiG 29s are the silent heroes of IAF…they did the job in kargil, they are doing it now….the fact that IAF projects Sukhoi everywhere doesn’t mean it is the “backbone” of the air force…the mirages, mig 29, 21 and the attack jaguars and miG 27..are still the real backbone… and the first 2 aircraft do most of the quality work most of the time…
Never before in the IAF the entire fleet of 100+ of a aircraft was grounded….not even operational…and things went smoothly….there was non-stop patrol in the borders (armed for the sake of the person who question the capability of MiG 29) …. As a matter of factly 6 scramble operations were done in the eastern sector alone….Sukhois have never done scramble ops….
the pilots are trained on a khatara...always freezing sim.....
To Anon@4:34PM: A couple of chinks in your armour need to be highlighted:
1) The causes I've highlighted in this thread regarding the Su-30MKI crash are known in aviation parlance as 'probable causes'. I've never claimed to have pinned down the actual cause of the crash.
2) Your claimed knowledge of aerodynamics or FBW-FCS or HUMS may well come from your claimed interactions with aviators (retired or serving), and as such are second-source inputs. My knowledge-base stems from my hands-on involvement with HUMS, both for the Su-30MKI and Hawk Mk132.
3) As I've tried to explain above, the malaise is not about hardware deficiencies within the Su-30MKI, rather, it is all about the prevailing dysfunctional culture prevailing within the IAF's HQ Training Command.
4) Regarding the tactical mission simulators, I myself saw those for the Chinese Su-30MKKs in service three years ago, and the very same Russian OEM was contracted by the IAF to supply the Su-30MKI simulator. What remains unexplainable is why did the IAF delay the induction of such simulators? I saw the specs of both simulators (for the Chinese and IAF) two years ago at MAKS 2007 (JSC Kronsdaht is the OEM) and there are hardly any significant deviations of the performance parameters. Therefore, there's no reason to believe that the OEM is unable to meet the IAF's ASQRs. I know this for a fact and even as I write now, the very same OEM is now on the verge of commissioning the Su-30MKM full-mission simulator for the RMAF. In light of all this, the IAF's failure to ensure the timely commissioning of Su-30MKI full-mission simulators is an unpardonable sin.
To Anon@9:40PM: Many thanks for your valued inputs. What you've stated is exactly what I've seen first-hand over the past decade. The IAF's HQ Training Command has a very long way to go to match up to the flight-/mission-training requirements of the operational squadrons. Speaking of which, why no one from the IAF is briefing the Indian newsmedia on the mission management training requirements for the PHALCON? The IAF has not even confirmed whether or not a mission management simulator will be acquired for the PHALCON, or for that matter a flight simulator for the PHALCON. And when something will go wrong in future, the blame will again be laid on hardware/aircraft platform, instead of sorting out the prevailing human-resource shortcomings.
Prasun K Sengupta thanks for replying my question
Prasun K Sengupta said...
Boeing's PowerPoint presentation states that the B.737NG-based AEW & C platform has 10 mission management consoles and the crew complement is 20 (two sets of 10 each) which works in alternating one-hour shifts. The endurance, backed up by aerial refuelling, is 12 hours. The IAF's PHALCON has 12 mission management consoles on board and crew complement is 24. Endurance is 12 hours as well. The A310-300/PHALCON's figures are identical
Prasun K Sengupta just to be clear B.737NG-based AEW & C and IL-78/PHALCON and A310-300/PHALCON's has mission Endurance of 12 hours with one aerial refuelling?
or IL-78/PHALCON and A310-300/PHALCON's Endurance of 12 hours without aerial refuelling?
Predator/Reaper UCAVs fly from pakistani bases so no point of losing the element of surprise
To Anon@11:04AM: With aerial refuelling.
To Anon@11:07AM: Flying out of which PAF air base?
To Anonymous @Sunday, May 31, 2009 11:04:00 AM
IL-78/PHALCON is 12 hours with one one aerial refuelling
jsut take a look at following
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7829/ps90vsd30kp2.jpg
Prasun K Sengupta again thanks for quick reply
Prasun K Sengupta said...
To Anon@11:07AM: Flying out of which PAF air base?
CIA using Shamsi airbase to fly drones
The CIA is secretly using an airbase in southern Pakistan to launch the Predator drones that observe and attack al-Qaeda and Taliban militants on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.
http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/2009/02/cia-using-shamsi-airbase-to-fly-drones.html
Predator drones flown from base in Pakistan: US Senator Dianne Feinstein
http://thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=68438
Feinstein expressed surprise at Pakistani opposition to the ongoing campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets along Pakistan's northwest border."As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said of the planes.
The Shamsi airbase that is tucked away in remote Balochistan is located at a distance of 50 km from the Afghan border. Little known outside military circles, it is now commanding front page news due to the latest controversy surrounding US-led Predator attacks in Pakistan.This has resulted in a new twist in the debate about drone attacks, throwing the Pakistan government into disarray with many a strong denial being issued. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Chairwoman of the US National Intelligence Committee, revealed that the attacks were originating from within Pakistan.
To follow it up, a leading Pakistan newspaper published satellite images of the predator aircraft at the Shamsi airbase that were taken from Google Earth
http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/2009/02/whos-lying-on-pakistans-drones.html
To Prasun K Sengupta and Anonymous @ Sunday, May 31, 2009 11:14:00 AM
Can you provide link about Endurance of IL-78/PHALCON @ 200NM,500NM and 1000NM
1)will PN be able to fire nuclear Babur cruise missile from its submarines like A-90B or future subs like U-214SSK?
2)When PN will get its first of four P-3 AEW&C
3)How may Saab-2000AEW&C paf is getting 4 or 5
4)I have calculated from pictures that the length of radar used in KJ-200 is about 11 meters which is 2 meter larger than that of saab-2000AEW&C, do you have any information about its range and endurance
Prasun K Sengupta anything new in JUNE forceindia by you?
iguess K-172 are sufficent take care of all these AEW&C of paf
Mr. Sengupta, is there any truth in India funding and procuring the R-172 or KS-172 or R-37 air-to-air missiles for the Su-30MKI ?
Humm
Saab-2000AEW&C have Endurance of 9.5 hours without aerial refuelling
and KJ-200 have Endurance of 10 hours without aerial refuelling
and to To Anonymous said...
Mr. Sengupta, is there any truth in India funding and procuring the R-172 or KS-172 or R-37 air-to-air missiles for the Su-30MKI ?
Sunday, May 31, 2009 12:39:00 PM and To Anonymous @ Sunday, May 31, 2009 12:30:00 PM
----------------
india dont have KS-172 or R-37
To Anon@12:18PM: The Babur cruise missile is presently deployed with the Pakistan Army only as a surface-to-surface cruise missile. The Pakistan Navy operates the shore-to-ship variant. The no of Saab 2000 AEW & C platforms being acquired by PAF is only 4. The KJ-200 has not yet been approved for export, but the aircraft is like a C-130J, therefore it will be able to cruise at higher altitudes and will carry more fuel than the Saab 2000. Although Saab claims that the Saab 2000's max endurance is 9.5 hours, in reality the endurance will not be more than 6 hours as it cannot be refuelled in mid-air and also because of human limitations, even when carrying two sets of mission management crew.
To Anon@12:39PM: In the history of air warfare in the 20th century the only time AEW & C aircraft were destroyed was in early 1991 when the USAF destroyed on ground the Iraqi 'Adnan'. I very much doubt if long-range BVRAAMs will be used to destroy airborne AEW & C platforms, since AEW & C platforms will have adequate self-protection systems. The only viable way of neutralising hostile AEW & C platforms is by either destroying them on ground, or effectively making their host air bases inoperable through sustained counter-air base air campaigns.
To Anon@12:23PM: Yes, the IMDEX Asia 2009 show report in which IAI showed the VL-Barak-8 naval MR-SAMm while RAFAEL showed the Barak-NG land-based LR-SAM for the first time. The Barak-NG is being proposed as a replacement for Singapore's existing MIM-23B I-Hawk MR-SAMs. The show report also details the Indian Navy's plans for acquiring two SSGNs.
is there any plan to use Proplers like C-130J on P-3 by any country?
i mean 8 blade against current 4 blade proplers
i thought that they had one traning aircraft and they will get four saab-2000AEW&C along with one traning aircraft that will be later converted to full capability?
Indian Navy's planed two SSGNs will be locally produced or russians
Prasun, how is that Turkey's Boeing Wegtail AWAC is coming along well when Australia's is struggling?
Is there some difference between Turkey's and Aussis systems. Turkey is sure paying a lot less.
If the Wedgetail succeeds we should go for it. At least the small Boeing 737 having 1/3 fuel consumption of IL76 will have a much lower operating cost.
To Anon@3:44AM: Locally-built. Russia cannot and will not build them due to NPT.
To Anon@4:34AM: Well, the Aussies have a peculiar way of complicating things, largely due to their institutionalised policy of insisting on 50% direct industrial offsets. As a result, wirk quality suffers as locally available human resources are insufficient. Thus, Australia first had the problems with the Collins-class SSKs, followed byb the Kaman SH-2G Super Seasprite, the Eurocopter Tigre, and now the Wedgetail. It must also be said that the RAAF is the launch customer for the B.737NG/MESA AEW & C system and will therefore be expected to become the guinea pig for Boeing and Northrop Grumman to sort out all the bugs from the first production batch. The Turks will of course benefit enormously as they will now be taking delivery of a system that has largely been debugged and will be relatively trouble-free. India too could possiblt face such a problem with the P-8I, but all such problems are surmountable.
But if I were to choose between the B.737NG/MESA and A310-300/Phalcon, I will choose the latter for obvious reasons.
Mr. Sengupta is it true that the intention is to gradually improve the LRSAM range through a number of variants from 120km to 350km ?
Prasun , is it true that IAF jags will get radar as part of their upgrade ?
Who are the contenders and what is part of the upgrade ?
Can you do a blog piece on Jags and Mig-27 upgrade ?
Thanks
Prasun,
Contrary to earlier statements made by the RMAF, the defence minister has confirmed that the Fulcrums will be retired. Something tells me this comes as no surprise to you?
Also, it seems a report appeared in JDW that delivery of the final 6MKMs have been delayed due to integration problems with western stuff.
any idea about the rel range of PL-12/SD-10?chinese are saying that it has a range of 110km
Prasun K Sengupta is it possbile for pakistn to incease the range of babur to 1000km or 1500kms like Russian KH-55
Prasun, how effective are AWACs in mountainous regions specially in the north east where average peak exceeds 20,000 feet. G550 CAEW high altitude capability may be better suited to look further behind the mountains.
Also, will the IL76 Phalcon be deployed on 24/7 surveillance? In that case they would be spending much of their life staying airborne like commercial airliners do. But in this case the IL76 will be extremely expensive to operate.
A rough calculation shows that over a 30 year period an IL-76 will need approx $1.2 billion worth of fuel against $400 million for the smaller Boeing 737 and $200 million for G550.
But in this case the IL76 will be extremely expensive to operate.
A rough calculation shows that over a 30 year period an IL-76 will need approx $1.2 billion worth of fuel against $400 million for the smaller Boeing 737 and $200 million for G550
---------------------------------------------
there will be no need for countinous survillence only except in war time and no country uses their awacs 24/7
and your comparision about fuel is totally wrong over next 30 years fuel prices likely to change
and comparing fuel consumption of 737 or g550 is mere foolish ,these aircraft have only two engines and thrust od single ps90a engie is more than thrust in engine used in 737,g550 so definitely A50 uses more fuel because of 4 engines and each rngine gives more thrust compared to engine used in 737,g550
AWACS are meant to be used 24/7. Can you ever switch off the radars at the borders? The fuel comparison is meant to compare the life cycle cost of IL76 Phalcon against Boeing 737 Wedgetail and G550 CAEW.
What is the point of having the IL76 Phalcon if we cant afford to fly it?
The fuel comparison is meant to compare the life cycle cost of IL76 Phalcon against Boeing 737 Wedgetail and G550 CAEW.
What is the point of having the IL76 Phalcon if we cant afford to fly it?
----------------------------
il76 is a bigger compared to 737 anf g550
and for your info this aircraft has better/reliable engines than older d30 /if we can afford those il76 for last 2 decades than we can also afford this aircraft very well
there is no country which uses awacs 24/7,only except war time or war like situation
Sure IL76 is big, that is why Wedgetail's life cycle cost would be much less even though initial acquisition cost of all three systems is comparable.
An AWAC or MPA sitting at the base is no good. Threats don't go away at peacetime. Once you have raised the shield you cant afford to bring it down. 24/7 surveillance is done to check surprise attack and air-space violations that may go unnoticed at peace time. Aerostats can also be used but because of their limited range you cant have enough of them to cover the entire frontier.
To Anon@4:27PM: There are no such plans to have an extended-range LR-SAM.
To Anon@9:29PM: Yes, the to-be-upgraded Jaguar IS interdictors will have airborne radars. But since the Jaguar is not meant to be a multi-role combat aircraft, and instead remain a dedicated tactical interdictor, the to-be-selected radar will have to be compact, be capable of ground moving target acquisition-cum-tracking in all weather conditions (i.e. in the synthetic aperture radar mode), and should also be capable of undertaking directional jamming for self-defence. In addition, operational data links will be installed in order to communicate with the PHALCONs. Although HAL did display an upgraded Jaguar's cockpit equipped with the DARIN-3 suite at Aero India 2009, this is still not the definitive design and I'm told the final glass cockpit will closely resemble that of the Tejas LCA Mk2. The new RLG-INS navigation system will probably be the same as that on the Su-30MKI (the Sigma-95). The nose-mounted laser rangefinder will not be reqd anymore as the Litening-3 LDP will be carried.
The MiG-27M upgrade package is much more modest as the airframe's upgrade potential has peaked, and the IAF is not in favour of re-engining it with the AL-31F turbofan, which was earlier jointly proposed by HAL and Russia's United Aircraft Corp.
To Faris: RMAF HQ had decided last February decided against upgrading its MiG-29Ns and instead wants to acquire another six Su-30MKMs to have a full-strength No.11 Sqn. The last six Su-30MKMs are now being uploaded with new operational mission software related to the THALES-built Damocles LDP in Russia. It was earlier planned to do this work AFTER taking delivery of the aircraft, but RMAF HQ last year changed its mind and wanted to have this software upgrade work done in Russia itself, so that once they're delivered they won't have to be grounded subsequently and as a result of this, these six aircraft will be available for tactical flying training. The existing 12 Su-30MKMs already delivered are now being grounded
in a staggered manner so that their software upgrading can be done. In conclusion, the JDW report was speculative, as there are no fundamental software integration problems. In the meantime, negotiations continue with Russia for acquiring the Vympel R-77 BVRAAMs.
To Anon@8:31AM: The PL-12 BVRAAM's range is 64km.
To Anon@4:17AM: For airspace surveillance and military air traffic management over both flat terrain and mountainous terrain for extended durations on a non-stop basis, it will be highly uneconomical and operationally unviable to use any kind of AEW & C platform. This work can instead be done much more cheaper and efficiently by aerostat-mounted AESA radars of the type already acquired by the IAF and being acquired by the Navy. The PHALCON is best used as an early warning and airborne battle management platform ONLY when the IAF will be engaging in offensive air campaigns, during which superior situational awareness will be a must. And as I said earlier, even with aerial refuelling, the PHALCON will not be able to stay airborne for more than 12 hours due to human factor limitations.
prasun is right that it is highly uneconomical to fly awacs all the time whether its plateform is il76 or something else
for countinous survillence there r aerostat radars
these aerostat radar are tied to ground but they are high in the sky and thats why provide excellent low level detection ranges compared to radar on ground
and yes its much more economical than flying awacs all the time
and an aerostat radar can also be placed near paki border and it will give excellent coverage well inside paki border
Aerostats can see at most 100km from their altitude(1000m). The Tibetan plateau is 15000 feet above sea level. To get any kind of coverage in the north eastern theater we will have to practically climb up the hills and ask the Chinese sentries to hold the balloon. Check the geography of the region. Also how many Aerostats you think will be required to cover our borders.
to anon above
aerostat radars can aslo be used at 15000 feet as well and we don't need to ask chinese as we also have 15000 feet above sea level areas along chinese borders and there aerostat radar can be used easily
u are talking about china and china is too big and what will the 300km range of phalcon will do in this
and phalcon will be flying 100kn inside border and the range will then be only 200km inside chinese border
and yes there is no need to fly awacs 24/7,and there is no country fly their awacs 24/7,till now we have lived withoput awacs coverage and still we get early warning
and how many phalcons needed ????
and an awacs cost 400million and 150-200 aerostats can be bought in this price which is good compared to use awacs all the time
Aerostats can see at most 100km from their altitude(1000m)
------------------------------
what is the source of this info
now a gound based radar can see upto 250-300km high altitude and 25-40 km low level altitude and a radar at 1 km altitude can see much farther than 250km with very good low level detection range
did mig-21 ever fired R-77 beyound 18km launch?
Post a Comment