Russia’s Su-30SM2 Upgrade: The Clue to HAL’s Missing Su-30MKI Engine Plan

Su-30SM2 delivered on July 9, 2026. Photo by Rostec

On July 9, 2026, the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) announced in a press release that it had delivered an unspecified number of Su-30SM2 multirole fighters to the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS), along with a batch of Su-34 fighter-bomber aircraft.

It is widely reported that the Su-30SM2 features the more powerful AL-41F-1S (Product 117S) engine and the Irbis-N035 radar, both of which are fitted on the Su-35S. While the latter (radar update) is true, the former (engine upgrade) is most likely not yet the case. That may well be the reason why HAL’s current Su-30MKI upgrade plans do not include an engine upgrade.

Su-30SM2

The Su-30SM2 is an effort to converge the Su-30 family with the Su-35 series to the maximum extent possible in order to reduce logistics and maintenance overheads.

In addition to the new radar and engine, the Su-30SM2 variant is expected to feature improved avionics and an upgraded OLS. It will also be capable of carrying new air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons developed for the Su-57 fighter.

S-70 Okhotnik Integration

Notably, the Su-30SM2 is expected to feature secure radio communication channels that will allow it to exchange tactical data with the S-70 Okhotnik low-observable attack drone. The range of this communication equipment is reportedly between 350 and 450 km, potentially reducing the need for Russian fighters to enter airspace controlled by enemy air-defense systems.

Order and Operational Induction Status

At the Army-2020 forum, the Russian Ministry of Defense and UAC signed a contract for the supply of 21 modernized Su-30SM2 fighters for the Russian Aerospace Forces (RuAF) and the Navy.

The RuAF and Fleet Aviation are inducting the Su-30SM2 on two parallel tracks:

1. Upgrading existing Su-30SM fighters to the SM2 standard.

2, Producing new Su-30SM2 fighters.

In April 2021, Izvestia reported that the initial batch of Su-30SM2 fighters would be earmarked for the Russian Navy, with deliveries prioritized for the Northern, Black Sea, and Baltic fleets.

“Slightly more than two dozen aircraft” were reportedly scheduled to be handed over to the Russian Ministry of Defense by the end of 2022.

Flight testing of the aircraft began in September 2021.

Deliveries of the aircraft started in January 2022.

“The United Aircraft Corporation, part of Rostec, has begun deliveries of modernized Su-30SM2 fighters for naval aviation of the Navy,” Rostec said in a statement to TASS on January 20, 2022.

Batch deliveries containing an unspecified number of fighters were made in November 2022 and July 2023.

Deliveries to the RuAF likely began in late 2023.

The RuAF reportedly received two two-seat Su-30SM2 aircraft in 2023.

On August 10, 2024, RIA Novosti reported, quoting a UAC press release, that the Irkutsk Aviation Plant of the United Aircraft Corporation had manufactured and delivered new improved Su-30SM2 multirole fighters to the Russian Ministry of Defense.

The batch delivered on July 9, 2026, was the latest such delivery.

Radar Upgrade

Designed by the Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute (NIIP) in Zhukovsky, the Irbis-E radar is a direct evolution of the BARS radar, but is significantly more powerful.

The BARS radar is fitted on Indian Air Force Su-30MKI fighters and their Russian Su-30SM analogues. Both the Irbis-E and BARS are PESA hybrid radars.

The Irbis-E reportedly retains the hybrid phased-array architecture. Its noise figure is slightly worse at 3.5 dB, but the receiver has four rather than three discrete channels.

“The biggest change is in the EGSP-27 transmitter, where the single 7-kilowatt peak-power-rated Chelnok TWT is replaced with a pair of 10-kilowatt peak-power-rated Chelnok tubes, ganged to provide a total peak power rating of 20 kilowatts. The radar is cited as having an average power rating of 5 kilowatts, with a 2-kilowatt CW rating for illumination.”

The detection range has reportedly been increased by almost two times compared with the Su-30SM, for ground targets as well as air and sea targets.

AL-41F-1S (Product 117S) Engine Upgrade

As mentioned earlier, the Su-30SM2 is intended to be powered by the AL-41F-1S engine.

Compared with the Su-30SM’s AL-31FP power plant, the Product 117S offers a 16% increase in maximum thrust (14,500 kgf) and twice the service life (4,000 hours), while retaining the same weight and dimensions.

Importantly, the more powerful Product 117S facilitates increased electrical power generation, allowing more powerful radar and electronic warfare (EW) systems to be fitted on the fighter. The higher-powered Irbis radar of the Su-30SM2 consequently increases the detection range of air and ground targets.

Current Product 117S Status

The initial Su-30SM2 aircraft delivered to the RuAF and Navy were almost certainly not fitted with the Product 117S engine.

In January 2021, a source in the aviation industry told Interfax:

“Currently, special flight tests (SLI) of the Su-30SM aircraft with the AL-41F-1S engine are being carried out. It is planned that they will be completed by December 2023.”

In July 2024, a report published on the Rostec website stated that the Product 117S engine, which was then undergoing testing on the Su-30SM2, would enter mass production the following year.

The UAC press release covering the transfer of the latest batch of Su-30SM2 fighters to the RuAF stated:

“The powerful radar allows the fighter to ‘see’ much farther than the previous version and accurately strike a wide range of ground, air, and naval targets without entering the enemy’s air-defense zone.”

Notably, the press release made no mention of a new engine.

Russian forces have operationally deployed the Su-30SM2 without a more powerful engine in order to leverage the available upgrades to the radar, optical sensors, and weapon systems.

Conclusion

Russian official sources have previously stated that the Product 117S engine is undergoing tests on the Su-30SM2. However, there has been no confirmation that these tests have been successfully completed.

On November 30, 2023, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) granted Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) for the modernization of the Indian Air Force’s Su-30MKI fleet by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

As part of this upgrade, HAL will equip the aircraft with the indigenously developed Virupaksha AESA radar, an electronic warfare (EW) suite, and other advanced avionics. Additionally, HAL will integrate several indigenously developed long-range weapon systems into the aircraft’s weapon management system.

The modernization will also extend the service life of the Su-30MKI fleet by more than 20 years, with the IAF reportedly planning to retain the upgraded aircraft until 2055.

However, there have been no reports indicating that HAL plans to upgrade the aircraft’s engine.

It is possible that HAL is awaiting confirmation regarding the suitability of the Product 117S engine for the Su-30MKI before committing to an engine upgrade.

America Wants an Extreme-Range Air-to-Air Missile. India Already Has the Foundation.

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) reportedly plans to acquire a new air-to-air missile with a maximum range of at least 1,000 nautical miles (nm). It also wants the weapon to be capable of engaging ground-based targets and has consequently dubbed it the Air Force Long Range Weapon (AFLRW).

India Already Has It!

Most of us would consider the AFLRW concept bold and technologically ambitious. In the following paragraphs, we will examine the technological challenges that must be overcome to develop such a weapon. Before doing so, however, let me offer an intriguing observation: India already appears to have the basis for an AFLRW-like weapon in its inventory, albeit with roughly half the range sought by the USAF. Yes, Brahmos Aerospace has been working on an air-to-air variant of the missile for over seven years now! 

Current Air-to-Air Capability

Currently, the longest-range air-to-air missile in widespread USAF service is the AIM-120D-3 AMRAAM, which reportedly has a maximum range of 87 nm.

Lockheed Martin is developing the AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM), a next-generation beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) for the U.S. Air Force and Navy.

The JATM reportedly offers a significantly greater range (more than 108 nb) and a higher speed (around Mach 5), giving it an advantage over China's PL-15.

The missile retains the same general dimensions and form factor as the AMRAAM, enabling seamless integration with existing rail launchers and the internal weapon bays of stealth fighters such as the F-22 and F-35.

Production of the missile commenced in 2024. The missile is still undergoing flight testing and is expected to enter service later this decade.

Also, the U.S. Navy has already begun fielding an air-launched version of the multi-role Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), designated the AIM-174B. The missile, intended to arm the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, has a maximum range of 130 nm. It also retains secondary capabilities for anti-ship, land-attack, and counter-hypersonic roles.

Technological Challenges

Extremely long-range air-to-air missiles are primarily intended to neutralize high-value force multipliers such as aerial refuelling tankers and AWACS aircraft.

Developing such missiles presents four major technological challenges:

1. Weight and size

2. High-speed propulsion

3. Warhead effectiveness

4. Targeting and guidance

Weight and Size

Achieving a range of 1,000 nm would require a very large propellant load, increasing both the missile's weight and dimensions to the point where most fighter aircraft would be unable to carry it. The AFLRW, for example, is expected to be launched from a bomber such as the B-52.

High-Speed Requirement

Against a target 1,000 nm away, even a hypothetical high-supersonic missile would require approximately 13–26 minutes to reach its target, depending on its average speed and the target's speed and flight path.

By comparison, current BVR engagements at ranges of 100–200 km typically involve missile flight times of just 1–3 minutes.

A weapon capable of reaching 1,000 nm would therefore require revolutionary advances in propulsion—likely involving hypersonic ramjets, scramjets, multi-stage rockets, or boost-glide technology—effectively creating an entirely new class of stand-off weapon.

Reduced Accuracy and Larger Warhead

The missile's large size and sustained high cruise speed would inevitably reduce its manoeuvrability. Long flight time poses tracking and guidance challenges. Tracking and guidance inaccuracies and lower terminal agility, combined with the large size of its intended targets, would necessitate a heavier warhead to achieve a sufficiently large lethal radius. The heavier warhead would, in turn, further increase the missile's dimensions and weight.

Targeting and Guidance

The greatest challenge in developing an AFLRW lies in target detection, tracking, and mid-course guidance over a 1,000 nm engagement.

Unlike shorter-range missiles such as the AIM-260, whose launch aircraft can often provide continuous radar updates, an AFLRW would remain in flight for 15–25 minutes. During this period, the launch platform would be unable to maintain radar contact with distant or manoeuvring targets such as AWACS aircraft or tankers.

Instead, the missile would depend on a networked "kill web" of off-board sensors—including satellites, drones, other aircraft, and ground-based systems—for initial cueing and continuous mid-course updates via robust datalinks. These links would have to withstand jamming, latency, and line-of-sight limitations while providing highly accurate updates to compensate for inertial navigation drift over such vast distances.

Achieving reliable, real-time coordination across multiple platforms in a contested electromagnetic environment represents one of the programme's greatest technical challenges.

BrahMos Air-to-Air Variant

In March 2019, speaking to Financial Express Online, Dr Sudhir Mishra, then CEO and MD of BrahMos Aerospace, spoke of an air-to-air variant of the BrahMos-NG. He stated that the missile, when launched from the Tejas or Su-30MKI, would target the enemy's "radar in the air" capability by engaging AWACS, aerial refuelling, and transport aircraft.

The BrahMos-NG is a clean-sheet design rather than a derivative of the current BrahMos. It is being developed to enable carriage by medium-weight fighter aircraft.

Dr Mishra's remarks suggest that an air-to-air capability for the BrahMos-NG is a qualitative requirement projected by the IAF.

There is no obvious technological reason why an air-to-air version of the existing BrahMos-A, the air-launched version of the in-service BrahMos missile, could not also be developed.

Such a missile would already possess sustained high-supersonic speed, carry a large warhead, and could eventually achieve a range of around 800 km. And we have the best possible platform to launch such as missile - the Su-30MKI!

The shorter range of the Brahmos-A would significantly reduce the complexity of establishing the required kill web.

India could further bridge gaps in its space-based surveillance capability by accelerating the development of relatively affordable High-Altitude Pseudo-Satellite (HAPS) and Airship-based High-Altitude Pseudo-Satellite (AS-HAPS) systems.

HAPS is a solar-powered unmanned aircraft designed to remain airborne for more than 90 days while operating at an altitude of approximately 65,000 ft. It is being developed by NewSpace in collaboration with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), which serves as the prototype development partner.

AS-HAPS is being developed for the Indian Air Force to provide persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, electronic intelligence, telecommunications, and remote sensing.

As an airship platform, AS-HAPS could potentially accommodate a radar capable of providing all-weather surveillance and target tracking.

In addition to long-range target detection, AS-HAPS could also provide a low-latency communications relay for long-range missile engagements.

Copyright © Vijainder K Thakur. First published on Thumkar.

Su-30SM2 Upgrade - Likely Base for HAL's Su-30MKI Upgrade

 

Su-30SM at MAKS 2019

Introduction

The Sukhoi Experimental Design Bureau in partnership with Irkut Corporation is developing a new modernized version of the Sukhoi Su-30SM Flanker-H that features upgraded engine, improved Radar and avionics and modern weapons. Designated as the Su-30SM2 (Earlier referred to as Su-30SMD), the aircraft leverages the operational lessons that Russia has learned during its operations over Syria. It is powered by the AL-41F-C1 engine. 

The Su-30SM2 is an attempt to converge to the maximum extent possible the Su-30 family with the Su-35 series to minimize logistics and maintenance overheads. 

Besides a new more powerful (AL-41F-S1) engine, the new Su-30SM2 variant will feature improved radar (IRBIS N035), avionics and OLS. In addition, it will be able to carry new air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons developed for the Su-57 fighter.  

Development History

Since 2015, development work has been underway to increase combat capabilities and import substitution of foreign components on the base Su-30SM, under a project designated "Adaptation-Su". 

Initially, the scope of the upgrade was restricted to making the aircraft compatible with newly developed weapons by fitting an improved avionics suite. The limited scope upgrade was designated Su-30SM1. In 2018, the Russian President Vladimir Putin sought maximum possible convergence of the Su-30SM and Su-35S platforms. Consequently, it was decided to power the upgrade with AL-41F-1S engines and replace the Bars radar with the much more powerful Irbis radar. The upgrade was named Su-30SM2.

AL-41F-S1

AL-41F-1S at MAKS 2019

The AL-41F-1S ( product 117S ) engine was developed by the Lyulka Design Bureau (part of the United Engine Corporation, UEC ). It is a twin-shaft variable bypass turbofan engine of modular design with thrust vector control and a digital integrated regulator. The engine powers the Su-35S platform.

Improved engine performance (lower SFC, higher thrust) is achieved through the use of a new low-pressure compressor with increased air flow and efficiency, as well as a new turbine with a more efficient blade cooling system.

Compared with the Su-30SM's AL-31FP engine, the product 117S engine features 16% increase in max thrust (14,500 kgf) and twice the service life (4000 hrs) while retaining the same weight and dimensions.

The more powerful Product 117S facilitates increased electrical power generation allowing more powerful radar and EW systems to be fitted on the fighter. The higher powered Irbis radar of the Su-30SM2 increases detection range of air and ground targets.

Work on the integration the Product 117S with the Su-30SM2 was jointly carried out by the Sukhoi company, the Irkut aircraft building corporation and the UEC-UMPO engine building association.

According to the developer, the new engine will not only increase the vehicle's capabilities in battle. The unification will simplify and reduce the cost of servicing the entire large fleet of aircraft and extend the service life of the Su-30SM already purchased by Russia and its allies.

IRBIS-E / N035 Radar

The Su-30SMD will feature the same IRBIS - N035 radar that is currently fitted on the Su-35. 

Designed by the Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute (NIIP) in Zhukovsky, the Irbis-E is a direct evolution of the BARS design, but significantly more powerful. While the hybrid phased array antenna is retained, the noise figure is slightly worse at 3.5 dB, but the receiver has four rather than three discrete channels. The biggest change is in the EGSP-27 transmitter, where the single 7-kilowatt peak power rated Chelnok TWT is replaced with a pair of 10-kilowatt peak power rated Chelnok tubes, ganged to provide a total peak power rating of 20 kilowatts. The radar is cited at an average power rating of 5 kilowatts, with 2 kilowatts CW rating for illumination. NIIP claim twice the bandwidth and improved frequency agility over the BARS, and better ECCM capability. The Irbis-E has new Solo-35.01 digital signal processor hardware and Solo-35.02 data processor, but retains receiver hardware, the master oscillator and exciter of the BARS. 

IRBIS-E Operational Capabilities

New Weapons

The Su-30SMD would be able use the entire spectrum of modern and under development high-precision air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons including KAB-250 glide bombs as well as X-59MK2 air-to-surface missiles.

Orders

During a visit to the Irkutsk Aviation Plant in August 2020, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said that by the end of the year RuMoD plans to sign a contract for the construction of 21 Su-30SM2 fighters and 25 Yak-130 trainer aircraft. The total cost of the order will be more than RUB 100 billion.

Progress

On September 8, 2020, Izvestia reported that the Su-30SM fitted with a Product 117S engine would fly by the end of the year. 

Approval has been received for the first flight of the Su-30SM2 prototype with the AL-41F-1C engine "product 117S", sources in the Ministry of Defense and the military-industrial complex told Izvestia. According to the approved work schedule, which was reviewed by the publication, at the present time aircraft manufacturers have signed a contract to check the readiness of the newest aircraft for the first flight. The Super-Sukhoi is expected to take off before the end of the year.

***

It was earlier reported that Test flights of the Su-30SMD with the new engine should take place in 2020. The Russian military's official website announced in August 2019 that the first batch of Su-30MSD fighters equipped with the AL-41F-1C engines would be inducted in 2021. Eventually, the entire VKS Su-30SM fleet would be upgraded to Su-30SMD standard.

Su-30MKI vs Eurofighter Typhoon - The Truth is Nuanced, but the Brits Won't Like it Anyway!

IAF Su-30MKI and RAF Typhoon during Indradhanush-4

Did the Su-30MKI outmaneuver the Eurofighter Typhoon 12-0 within visual range (WVR) combat during Indradhanush 4, as stated by Group Captain Ashu Srivastav, who led the IAF Indradhanush-4 detachment to RAF Coningsby, to NDTV?

Certainly, yes! IAF pilots are not inclined to make false claims, or indulge in wanton exaggerate.

Does that mean the Su-30MKI is superior to the Typhoon in aerial combat? Certainly, not!

Aerial combat is replete with factors - ponderable and imponderable - that change its outcome. It does not fit a True or False scenario. The response to a question such as which aircraft is better in combat has got to be nuanced.

Ashu Srivastav's inputs to NDTV were precise and very professional. He said that the IAF Su-30MKI aircrew outperformed RAF Typhoon pilots in 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 1 WVR combat using close combat missiles (CCM) within a range of two miles.

The CCM restriction implied that the engagements involved low energy combat, a flight envelope in which the Su-30MKI excels because of  thrust vectoring.

An unnamed RAF source quoted by The Independent has countered Ashu Srivastav's statement saying, "There must have been some clouded recollection on the flights back to India. The headlines of the Indian press bear no relation to the results of the tactical scenarios completed on the exercise in any shape or form."

The response lacks precision and is characteristic of British vagueness and verbosity that gets accentuated in the face of embarrassing truths.

The Independent source went on to say, "The Su-30MKI is one of the aircraft that the Typhoon was designed to tackle and defeat, and no doubt in the right hands would present a potent challenge. Today [though] the aim would be to engage aircraft like the Su-30MKI from long-range before the two could come together in a dogfight."

The second statement by the RAF source is on the mark, just as Ashu Srivastav's 12-0 victory claim is on the mark.

A quick comparison of the Su-30MKI and Eurofighter Typhoon combat capabilities should put the apparently contradictory claims in the correct perspective.

IAF Su-30MKI with its IRST prominently visible during Indradhansuh-4 

Su-30MKI vs Eurofighter Typhoon

WVR Combat

Su-30MKI excels in WVR low energy combat because of thrust vectoring. The Typhoon outperforms the Su-30MKI in high energy WVR combat because of its better thrust to weight ratio and high speed turn performance.

BVR Combat

The Typhoon is superior in Beyond Vision Range (BVR) combat because of the following reasons:

1. Its Captor M radar emissions are more difficult to detect, track and spoof than those of the Su-30MKIs BARS radar.
2. Its Attack and Identification System (AIS) provides better situational awareness and threat handling.
3. It has a significantly smaller radar signature than the Su-30MKI.

Typhoon's AIS includes sensor fusion wherein data from multiple sensors  - the fighter's Captor radar, PIRATE Infrared Search and Track System (IRST) and EW suite, as well as off-board radars (AWACS, ASTOR, JSTARS, even other Typhoons) over datalink - is displayed on a single MFD, reducing pilot workload and confusion. AIS automatically exercises Captor radar emissions control (EMCON) based on the composite threat scenario.

The Su-30MKI doesn't feature AIS and sensor fusion, but has a weapon system operators to monitor and act upon inputs from on and off board sensors. A man in the loop can add value, or confusion depending on the training and emotional state, as well as the complexity of the threat scenario.

Because of its significantly larger size, the Su-30MKI has a bigger radar signature. The larger cross-sectional area of the fuselage in front of the cockpit allows the Su-30MKI to carry a more powerful radar, but the high radiated energy of the radar allows it to be passively detected and identified at longer ranges giving the adversary an advantage.

RAF's Eurofighter Typhoon with its IRST during Indradhanush4

Hypothetical Combat Tactics

In view of the above, here is how a Typhoon pilot would engage an adversary Su-30MKI in war.

The Typhoon pilot would attempt to leverage to the hilt his aircraft's superior BVR combat capability. He would keep his CAPTOR radar on automatic EMCON and focus on passively tracking a Su-30MKI using its BARS radar emission,  or in case the Su-30MKIs BARS was switched off, an offboard radar. A Typhoon could track a Su-30MKI with a radiating radar from 300-km. A Su-30MKI with its radar switched off could be tracked from around 180-km using AWACS data link.

When in range, the Typhoon would engage the Su-30MKI with BVR missiles. Adversary Su-30MKI would remain oblivious to the presence of the Typhoon till he sees the missile coming at him!

In case initial BVR missile engagements are thwarted by Su-30MKI jamming or decoys, the Typhoon would try and acquire the adversary Su-30MKI on his PIRATE IRST and use his BVR missiles. Close to a merge, the Typhoon would disengage and getaway, choosing to fight another day.

When faced with adversary Typhoons, a Su-30MKI pilot would keep his BARS switched off and rely almost exclusively on an off-board radar (AWACS or another radiating Su-30MKI) to passively track the Typhoon and engage it with its BVR missiles. If BVR missiles fail to score, he would keep closing in to a range where his IRST picks up the Typhoon, and then take more shots at the Typhoon.

The Typhoon's ability to automatically fuse inputs from multiple sensors would facilitate more accurate tracking of the target and guidance of the BVR missile, giving the Typhoon a definite advantage over the Su-30MKI during BVR combat.

Because of the Su-30MKI's bigger radar signature, an AWACS supporting the Typhoon would pick up the Su-30MKI before the AWACS supporting the Su-30MKI picked up the Typhoon. This would give the Typhoon more advantage.

Without AWACS on both sides, IRST detection ranges will prove critical to the outcome of the combat.

With AWACS, the game will be one sided in favor of the Typhoon till IRST pickups. In case of a merge and WVR combat, the game will rapidly become one sided in favor of Su-30MKI.

What we have looked at is a 1 vs 1 scenario. In real life air-combat tends to be a melee. If the BVR engagements are ineffective due to EW and other countermeasures, there will be accidental merges galore, whether the Typhoon pilots like it or not!

The question really is - How effective would be BVR engagements between two well trained adversaries in the prevailing scenario?

Additional Observations on Indradhanush 4

The Su-30MKI's IRST reportedly proved to be a distinct advantage for IAF aircrew during WVR combat during Indradhanush-4.

It appears that IAF aircrew used their IRSTs more than their eyeballs to track their adversary while maneuvering in WVR combat, which helped them avoid the pitfall of bleeding energy levels excessively, as they reportedly did during the last Red Flag exercise.

A training exercise such as Indradhanush is aimed at improving pilot skills. It would involve some leveling of the playing field so as to keep the focus on skill development. For example, it could be assumed that both the sides have close combat missiles with similar off bore-sight capability. Missile capabilities - CCM or BVR - differ. In a war the outcome of an aerial combat would depend a lot on weapon systems employed, in addition to aircraft capability and pilot skills.

To summarize

Su-30MKI excels in WVR low energy combat, Typhoon in standoff & WVR high energy combat.
The equation could be significantly altered by EW surprises, giving an adversary temporary advantage.

AWACS backed IAF Su-30MKIs adhering to strict EMCON could negate some Typhoon BVR combat advantages, but overall the Typhoon is a better BVR combat aircraft.

The IAF Su-30MKI have regained a lot of the respect that it lost in Indradhanush 3 and the last Red Flag exercise in the US. It appears that the IAF has put in a lot of thought and training to regain confidence in the Su-30MKI.