Su-30s Got A Little MiG In Them

StrategyPage.com
December 8, 2009

Su-30s Got A Little MiG In Them

For the second time this year, India has grounded its Su-30 fighters
because one of the aircraft crashed. This time, the grounding of the
98 Su-30s in service is expected to last only a few days. Earlier this
year, in May, its Su-30 fighters were grounded for a month after one
of them appeared to develop engine problems and crashed. One of the
pilots survived, but the parachute of the other failed to open. Four
days before the Indian Su-30 went down, a Russian Su-35 also crashed
because of engine problems.

The Su-35 is an advanced version of the Su-30, and uses a similar
engine. Earlier this year, Russia grounded all its MiG-29 fighters to
check for structural problems, after one of them came apart in flight.
All this is particularly upsetting to Indians, who had been assured by
the Russians that the Su-30 was a modern (built to Western standards
of reliability) aircraft. Such assurances were necessary because of
earlier Indian experience with the MiG-21, and Russian aircraft in
general. So far this year, India has lost twelve military aircraft,
most of them of Russian design.

India lost 250 MiG-21s to accidents between 1991 and 2003. When
consulted, Russia pointed out that India had insisted on manufacturing
many of the spare parts needed to keep MiG-21s operational, and many
of these parts were not manufactured to Russian specifications. While
Russia does not have a reputation for making the highest quality
equipment, their standards are often higher than Indias. It's no
secret that much of the military equipment made in India is pretty
shabby by world standards.

Most of the 110 pilots lost in these MiG-21 accidents were new pilots,
which pointed out another problem. India has long put off buying jet
trainers. New pilots go straight from propeller driven trainer
aircraft, to high performance jets like the MiG-21. This is made worse
by the fact that the
MiG-21 has always been known as a tricky aircraft to fly. That, in
addition to it being an aircraft dependent on one, low quality,
engine, makes it more understandable why so many MiGs were lost.

The MiG-21 problems were overcome by 2006, a year in which no MiG-21s
were lost. One of the main causes of many crashes was finally traced
to bad fuel pumps. India improved maintenance, spare parts quality and
pilot training to the point that the aircraft was no longer considered
the most dangerous fighter to fly.

But India was not the only one, besides the Russians, who had problems
with Russian made warplanes. During the Cold War, the U.S. had several
dozen Russian aircraft they used for training their fighter pilots.
Despite energetic efforts to keep these aircraft flying, their
accident rate was 100 per 100,000 flying hours. That's very high by
U.S. standards. The F-22 has an accident rate is about 6 per 100,000
hours, mainly because it's new. F-15s and F-16s have an accident rate
of 3-4 per 100,000 flight hours. India, using mostly Russian aircraft,
has an accident rate of 6-7 per 100,000 hours flown (compared to 4-5
for all NATO air forces.) The Indian rate had been over ten for many
years, and it is still that high, and often higher, with other nations
(including Russia and China), that use Russian aircraft designs.

New aircraft always have higher accident rates, which is how many
hidden (from the design engineers and test pilots) flaws and technical
problems are discovered. The F-22 is expected to eventually have an
accident rate of 2-3 per 100,000 flight hours. This is part of a
trend.

Combat aircraft have, for decades, been getting more reliable, even as
they became more complex. For example, in the early 1950s, the F-89
fighter had 383 accidents per 100,000 flying hours. A decade later,
the rate was in the 20s for a new generation of aircraft. At the time,
the F-4, which served into the 1990s, had a rate of under 5 per
100,000 hours. Combat aircraft have gotten more reliable and easier to
maintain, despite growing complexity, for the same reason automobiles
have. Better engineering, and more sensors built into equipment, makes
it easier for the user and maintenance personnel to detect potential
problems.

Aircraft used the computerized maintenance systems, currently common
on new aircraft, long before automobiles got them. Unless you have a
much older car that still runs, or a real good memory, you don't
notice the enormous increase in automobile reliability. But older
pilots remember, because such changes are a matter of life and death
if you make your living driving an
aircraft. And commanders know that safer aircraft give them more
aircraft to use in combat, and more aircraft that can survive combat
damage and keep fighting.

Unmanned aircraft have a much higher rate, which is largely the result
of not having a pilot on board. The RQ-1 Predator has an accident rate
of about 30 per 100,000 hours. Older model UAVs had much higher rates
(up to 363 for the RQ-2A).

India needs Kurt Tank back to build them right.

http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/

I once watched an Su-30 on fire, going off the runway with no brakes,
into the arrest barrier.
Indian government later denied the entire thing every happened, and
said that the entire incident was just a pre-planned drill...

"Ron" wrote in message
...

I once watched an Su-30 on fire, going off the runway with no brakes,
into the arrest barrier.
Indian government later denied the entire thing every happened, and
said that the entire incident was just a pre-planned drill...

I very much don't believe you now.

Glenn D.

Ron wrote:


I once watched an Su-30 on fire, going off the runway with no brakes,
into the arrest barrier.
Indian government later denied the entire thing every happened, and
said that the entire incident was just a pre-planned drill...



Now *that's* what I call a Chinese fire drill! :-)

Dennis

On Dec 10, 11:29*am, Dennis wrote:
Ron wrote:

I once watched an Su-30 on fire, going off the runway with *no brakes,
into the arrest barrier.
Indian government later denied the entire thing every happened, and
said that the entire incident was just a pre-planned drill...

* * * * Now *that's* what I call a Chinese fire drill! *:-)

Dennis

It was interesting how it all turned out. It could have actually
turned out a bit different and had me in the center of it all.

I was flying out of a Indian dual use air base that year, and I had
just finished leaving the runway after our mission was aborted. I
pulled off the runway, go down the short distance to the taxiway to
our parking spot. And just as I am about to shut down, one of their
Su-30s flies over the parking ramp rather low, and I was wondering
WTF?

That was shortly followed by the sight of the other Su-30, on fire
from the rear, and apparently with no brakes, going down the runway
where I had just been a couple of minutes earlier. I think the
runway was slightly downhill too, and so it went right into the raised
arrest barrier. There was quite a commotion after that, with fire
trucks, etc out there and a lot of people. Unfortunately, getting a
photo was highly illegal there, and I would have been arrested for
it. Usually photography at any Indian airport is taboo, and
especially someplace withe IAF pride and join, Su-30MKI.

So the next day in the paper, there is an article about an IAF Su-30
having making an emergency landing, which was true. Apparently an
engine failed badly, taking out hydraulics with it, which is what was
burning from the rear.

Two days later, that story has now evolved into it being a
precautionary landing,with no real emergency.

Two more days later, story changes once again to it not being either
one of those, but now it was just a drill, planned in advance, with no
aircraft problem at all.

Mike wrote:
...

yeah... i wonder if that b-2 on guam had a "little mig in it"... or
maybe even more than a little?

Ron wrote:
On Dec 10, 11:29 am, Dennis wrote:
Ron wrote:

I once watched an Su-30 on fire, going off the runway with no brakes,
into the arrest barrier.
Indian government later denied the entire thing every happened, and
said that the entire incident was just a pre-planned drill...
Now *that's* what I call a Chinese fire drill! :-)

Dennis

It was interesting how it all turned out. It could have actually
turned out a bit different and had me in the center of it all.

I was flying out of a Indian dual use air base that year, and I had
just finished leaving the runway after our mission was aborted. I
pulled off the runway, go down the short distance to the taxiway to
our parking spot. And just as I am about to shut down, one of their
Su-30s flies over the parking ramp rather low, and I was wondering
WTF?

That was shortly followed by the sight of the other Su-30, on fire
from the rear, and apparently with no brakes, going down the runway
where I had just been a couple of minutes earlier. I think the
runway was slightly downhill too, and so it went right into the raised
arrest barrier. There was quite a commotion after that, with fire
trucks, etc out there and a lot of people. Unfortunately, getting a
photo was highly illegal there, and I would have been arrested for
it. Usually photography at any Indian airport is taboo, and
especially someplace withe IAF pride and join, Su-30MKI.

So the next day in the paper, there is an article about an IAF Su-30
having making an emergency landing, which was true. Apparently an
engine failed badly, taking out hydraulics with it, which is what was
burning from the rear.

Two days later, that story has now evolved into it being a
precautionary landing,with no real emergency.

Two more days later, story changes once again to it not being either
one of those, but now it was just a drill, planned in advance, with no
aircraft problem at all.

While I'm sure the Indian military authorities would love to make an
incident like that disappear, I very much doubt the Indian press would.


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Dec 10, 5:13*pm, Korben Dallas wrote:
Mike wrote:

* ...

yeah... i wonder if that b-2 on guam had a "little mig in it"... or
maybe even more than a little?

And this F-117 has a ****load of MiG in it...
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...42126272667638