IAF's Sukhoi Su-30MKI (2 Viewers)

SU 30 is bested by SU 35s in every respect. We don't know much about F 15 Ex & won't know until it takes part in live combat.
No. Su35 doesn't have lift capacity of su30mki. On full internal fuel, su30mki has 11.5 tonnes lift capacity. On full internal fuel, su35 has a 4 ton lift capacity.
It's a plane designed to be better in air dominance than su30 but it's ground attack role is woeful due to low lift capacity.
 
No. Su35 doesn't have lift capacity of su30mki. On full internal fuel, su30mki has 11.5 tonnes lift capacity. On full internal fuel, su35 has a 4 ton lift capacity.
It's a plane designed to be better in air dominance than su30 but it's ground attack role is woeful due to low lift capacity.
The question is do you want the fighter jet for ground attack or it's over all capability. The SU 35S is lighter, faster, more agile, has a better radar, has stronger engines, greater range, & smaller RCS. In a Air to Air battle the SU 35s will prevail over SU 30 MKI.
 
The question is do you want the fighter jet for ground attack or it's over all capability. The SU 35S is lighter, faster, more agile, has a better radar, has stronger engines, greater range, & smaller RCS. In a Air to Air battle the SU 35s will prevail over SU 30 MKI.
As i said, su35 is a SLIGHTLY better air dominance fighter than Su30mki but Su30 is a massively superior ground bomber.
As for weight, on mtow, Su30mki and Su35 are both identical : 34.5 tonnes.
For range, on full internal tank Su30Mki has range of 3000kms, while su-35 has range of 3600 kms.
Yes, its greater, but how often do Fighters actually fly to their max range in combat anyways at that long distance ? to my knowledge, air dominance action 1500km from airfield is rare scenario and in that, air refuelling negates the loadout factor.
You are correct, Su35 has significantly better radar signature, but both are pretty visible to one another anyways.
As for radar- well radars can be upgraded if you got the power-output for it.
Su35 is also a bit more agile than the Su-30mki but in combat operations, Su-30 being twin seater and su35 being single seater does narrow the gap a bit.
Both planes are hyper-manueverable, i highly doubt their difference in manueverability will actually matter in head to head because i dont think humans can tolerate the max manueverability modes of these machines in the first place - we cant do more than 9Gs and these airframes can actually pull well over 12Gs in thrust-vectoring manuevers.

Su35S will have a longer shelf life than Su-30 as air dominance fighter, that is true, but once its role for air dominance is gone, it will go obsolete a LOT faster, since it wont be useful in a air to ground role as Su30 would be.
What i am saying, is Su30 will easily out-survive the Su-35 and pretty much all non stealth planes except the F15 maybe, because ability to deliver 11.5 tonnes of hurt in hyper-manueverable jets that can go 1600km combat radius is nothing to sneeze at.
When Su30mki goes obsolete in A2A roles, it will find a new life as Jaguar replacement. Su-35S or Rafale, wont because once they go obsolete in A2A roles, they are done.
 
i had a doubt to experienced and technical people on the forum

we are going to replace almost all all of the internal electronics and reprogramming it for new cog and weight

but can we replace the metal parts which are nearly the whole aircraft build, so can we replace them with composites to increase the life of these birds???
 
1750783517247.webp
 
i had a doubt to experienced and technical people on the forum

we are going to replace almost all all of the internal electronics and reprogramming it for new cog and weight

but can we replace the metal parts which are nearly the whole aircraft build, so can we replace them with composites to increase the life of these birds???
Simple answer, not without a complete redesign of the fighter jet. In fact it might be easier to design a fighter jet from scratch instead of making whole scale changes to somebodies else's design without having the knowledge of every parameter and design choices made.
 
Simple answer, not without a complete redesign of the fighter jet. In fact it might be easier to design a fighter jet from scratch instead of making whole scale changes to somebodies else's design without having the knowledge of every parameter and design choices made.
But atleast the surface metal build can be replaced with composites?
 
A additional layer of composite radar absorbing material can be applied.
Additional layer would be too heavy for an aircraft with such a large surface area. Hal and drdo should think about the rcs issue due to metal surface, atleast the exposed surface can be composite fied
 
Additional layer would be too heavy for an aircraft with such a large surface area. Hal and drdo should think about the rcs issue due to metal surface, atleast the exposed surface can be composite fied
IMO waste of money as it won't improve things much . SU30 MKI is I think to be used as as stand off fighter shooting things from long distances . Even the Russians have been using their Su variants this way in the Ukraine war . Radar tech is too advanced now to try and mak the SU jet family . And it was never meant to be a low RC craft to begin with .
 
IMO waste of money as it won't improve things much . SU30 MKI is I think to be used as as stand off fighter shooting things from long distances . Even the Russians have been using their Su variants this way in the Ukraine war . Radar tech is too advanced now to try and mak the SU jet family . And it was never meant to be a low RC craft to begin with .
with the crippling squadron strength, su30 would be scrambled to intercept, we have them in bulk, rafale is only 28+8, mig29 is old now, mirage 2000 is also low in no. jaguar is for ground strike, tejas mk1 is in south

so we cannot ignore upgrades for su30, we need to make it the best flanker to counter chowmein flankers, they have heavily upgraded their flankers while we preferred to do screwdrivergiri of kits from vodkapuram
 
with the crippling squadron strength, su30 would be scrambled to intercept, we have them in bulk, rafale is only 28+8, mig29 is old now, mirage 2000 is also low in no. jaguar is for ground strike, tejas mk1 is in south

so we cannot ignore upgrades for su30, we need to make it the best flanker to counter chowmein flankers, they have heavily upgraded their flankers while we preferred to do screwdrivergiri of kits from vodkapuram
Upgrades yes , to carry more weapons or better radar .

If you want to use composites , sure if the need is to reduce weight .

But if the main idea is to reduce radar signature then it is a waste. It sounds like one of the never ending programs which will waste a lot of money for very little gain .
 
IMO waste of money as it won't improve things much . SU30 MKI is I think to be used as as stand off fighter shooting things from long distances . Even the Russians have been using their Su variants this way in the Ukraine war . Radar tech is too advanced now to try and mak the SU jet family . And it was never meant to be a low RC craft to begin with .
Su35 has frontal rcs of 1-1.5m2 in clean configuration.


View: https://x.com/Flankerchan/status/1889701208023290197.

View: https://x.com/Flankerchan/status/1697011762338648456.
 
But atleast the surface metal build can be replaced with composites?
It's fundamental aero engineering. The material change will have all kinds of new numbers for the aero parameters. Unless we are working with the designers (SU design bureau) doing wind tunnel testing iterating over the nos. no way you get this right. The Russians have moved on to SU 35s. I don't think unless you pay them huge sums of money to upgrade a dated fighter jet they are not interested. They will offer us the standard SU 30 SM2 upgrade package - a redesign using composites is not part of it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Latest Replies

    Featured Content

    Trending Threads

    Back
    Top