Su30MKK nothing to do with Su30M2, or rather that Su30M2 is a domestic version of SU30MKK/MKI combined. Su30M2 was developed after Su30MKK in late 1990s when Yeltsin’s economic stuff forced all the companies to look for work to survive, and in that situation Su30MKK based off T10-M4 prototype was produced as a transfer of the group originally working on Su35UB. SU30M was a domestic version latter produced for FRAF incorporating SU30MKK and MKI technology. SU30MKK was developed by KnAPPO MKI by Irkutsk, who are not related at this stage and Su30MKI was based off Su27UB. Su30MKI and MKK’s prototypes were 2 separate proposals to Soviet/Russian Airforce of multirole fighter.
Both MKI and MKK were solely developed with the intent of export for certain countries (Su-30MKK id tailored to PLAAF needs)
But the need for a ‘multirole’ fighter was up and both KnAPPO and Irkutsk went for it, so some sources say they simply ‘restarted’ this project and just based their upgrades on different aircrafts and suited them for different nations as Su30M, K for commercial, second K for china or I for india.
Su-30M2 — created on the basis of the Su-30MK2 export fighter, unified in cabin and instruments with the upgraded Su-27SM3…
Su27SM3’s instruments did use Su30MKI technology to improve multirole ability.
not quite possible, it’s the only SARH and IRCCM missile plane. it has it’s job on the TT, so though it’s a bad idea to make it in this place, it can’t move unless someone can take it’s place
No!..The unification of the equipment took place along the line (Su-35S/Su-27SM3/Su-30M2)…Su-30SM-has some equipment developed on the basis of the Indian Su-30MKI contract…
На сколько сильно отстаёт российская авионика и отстаёт ли вообще? Часть вторая. | Армия и технологии | Дзен (dzen.ru)
Do India have full ability to maintain the aircrafts or is it a bit dodgy, seeing all the crashes due to maintainence issues?
Also, regarding
Su30K has nothing to do with Su30MKK right? It is just a timeline as Su30MKK was not developed by OIAPO and KnAPPO never produced any Su27UB, and Su30MKK was rather a completely new aircraft.
- Индия наладила ремонт истребителей Су-30МКИ (livejournal.com)
- Not so.! The main thing in the development is the Sukhoi Design Bureau…Komsomolsk and Irkutsk plants are assembly plants …
It has the most direct relation (only serial aircraft are shown in the diagram)…
The first Su-30MK appeared in 1993…For several years, the Su-30MK aircraft was not mass-produced, although the IAPO had a full set of design documentation for it, the start of serial production was prevented not only by the absence of a customer, the Russian Ministry of Defense not only did not have the funds for a state order, but also did not really want to purchase this multi-purpose fighter…
- When the Su-30MK project for China began in 1999, the Irkutsk plant was busy with an export order for India, so the Sukhoi Design Bureau project was made under the technology of the Komsomolsk Plant…Nevertheless, this is a modification of the “thirty” - the Su-30MKK, which combines some features of the Su-30MKI and Su-35 (Su-27M) aircraft…
But if the KnAPPO never took part in SU27UB or any other double seat development, and their only other double seat aircraft prototype was Su35 UB then that should be what they based Su30MKK on. Also Su30MKK is massively different from what is in the 2 SU30MK, as it has ECM bods rather than wing tip pylons and the double wheel structure was not adapted.
- The Su-30MK (Komsomolsk) has increased the maximum take-off weight to 38 tons, therefore, a new nose landing gear.
- For electronic warfare systems, special terms of the contract are possible.
- The Su-35UB / T-10UBM is a Su-35 combat training aircraft, the first flight was on August 7, 2000. The aircraft was created on the basis of the Su-30MKK and differs from it by other engines, PGO, more advanced radar. The aircraft differs from the Su-30MKI aircraft with engines and keels of increased area (similar to the Su-35). The aircraft was supposed to be equipped with an N011M radar with the ability to work on ground targets. 12 weapon suspension points, in-flight refueling system. In 2001, the aircraft took part in evaluation demonstration flights conducted with pilots of the South Korean Air Force (completed on November 1, 2001).
It is not comparable to a Eurofighter or Rafale. They blow the J-10 out of the water. It is comparable to an F-16C.
1 Like
I can’t really see why they are not compariable.
J-10 and Rafale are similar. J-10 has slightly better transonic and supersonic manuverbility while rafale has slightly better subsonic manuverbility because the canards of Rafale is slightly closer to its wings.
Eurofighter is a lot different from J-10 and Rafale with its airframe being more optimized for supersonic manuverbility.
4 Likes
Just based off Airshow videos this looks to be untrue so i’d like to know how you came to that conclusion
To be fair J10 has had the upper hand against JAS 39 in dogfight simulations, but so did the J11 which still currently holds worse agility than the JAS in game so I don’t really know how to compare them. J10 have some what of a good engine (depending on russian 31 or Chinese WS10) but should have just over 10t of thrust, it has similar wing size and the difference is that J10 has less thrust. J10A should be worse than Eurofighter, but I am not sure about J10’s later variants as WS 10 specifics are unknown, AESA radar unknown FBW unknown, just a lot of speculations, but J10 is capable of getting vector thrust so I suspect the FBW is quite advanced although special mods could be given to that particular J10B. J10C should have superior capabilities overall but all is unkown.
they are 2 different size, J-10 is smaller, so it can’t be compared in this way. I saw a analyse before, about J-10C and newest F-16, the result is J-10C is better in almost all way(about air to air fight)
these aerodynamic words are hard to remember, and I’m not some expert about this. So I can’t say in air fight which is better, J-10 or EFT
1 Like
Airshow rarely shows the full capability of an aircraft.
This is simply an estimation based on the airframe. Both J-10 and Rafale utilize close-coupled canards, while Eurofighter does not.
The true performance of J-10 should be classified.
1 Like
Which means exactly diddly squat. The rest of the airframe, intake, engine, weight distribution are all entirely different. Its like saying the Bf-109 and P-51 are both low mounted wing designs with inline engines so perform similarly.
1 Like
That’s why it is an ‘estimation’, this is everything we have by looking at the airframe. Even J-10 variants have different intake, engine, weight distribution.
For example, J-10C uses DSI intake, J-10A uses wedge-shaped air intake. Some batches use AL-31F engines, while others use WS-10.
It is simply meaningless to account for these elements without stating the varient.
Therefore the estimation is only based on the airframe alone. If you have information of intake, engine, weight distribution without leaking classified millitary documents, you are free to post them.
If this conversation goes any further we should move to the J-10 thread:
1 Like
The Su35 should not be deployed in the coastal zone anymore, I have more experience in judging Chinese aircraft than most people in the forum, once I heard the engine of the Su35, but now it is not, he may be sent to those less important places His importance in the coastal zone in terms of tasks has been replaced by UAVs like the WZ series TB1 CH series