Posted on 11/15/2011 8:06:53 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Russia’s Su-30MK maker boasts order portfolio for 300 fighters
Russia’s Irkut corporation said on Tuesday it had secured orders for at least 300 Su-30MK fighters and that it had already delivered over half of them.
Orders have been placed by India, Algeria and Malaysia, Irkut’s marketing director Andrei Alyoshin said at the Dubai Airshow 2011.
Over 200 of the aircraft have already been delivered to customers, Irkut said.
The Su-30MK Flanker is a multirole twin-engine, two-seater for all-weather, air-to-air and air-to-surface deep interdiction missions.
Su-family fighters constitute the bulk of Russia's arms exports.
Your namesake.
I always thought it was a nice looking platform, but have no idea of its performance capabilites. Anyone know how it is regarded?
As long as they’re not being delivered to China.
The Su-30MK is a good aircraft if performance numbers are the sole criteria, but like all Soviet and post-Soviet aircraft, it has poor operational reliability and is expensive to maintain. Commonly, pilots flying such aircraft therefore do not develop a Western level of experience and skill and they and their aircraft are not expected to be capable of sustained operations. Nevertheless, being relatively cheap, the Su-30MK can be a good buy for countries that do not need or aspire to a Western style combat air force.
Good for ceremonnial fly by’s on national holidays or
bombing unsophisticated tribesmen.
"Now coming to the maneuvering. We did a lot of 1 to 1 fighting with it.... and we were very concerned, because in Cope Indias when we went over to India and fought them, they always had their best pilots. We always fought them at the 'Indian Nellis' and they always had their best pilots flying. We always had our operational unit based out of Kadena where the experience ratio is 80% inexperienced guys with less than 500hrs flying time and 20% experienced. The 20% were fairly experienced but they came back from a staff jobs so they really hadn't had a lot of time flying. Anyway at Cope India, we held our own, but the Indians pounded their chests - they said we beat them more than they beat us – and that was true there.
Now they come to Mountain Home, and the Su-30 unit that they bring was a regular operational unit – with an experience mix of about 50-50 (experienced vs inexperienced). Their experienced guys had all come off the MiG-21 Bison.. The MiG-21 bison is a pretty neat airplane. It is based on the MiG-21 as many of you guys know from the Vietnam (War) era, but upgraded with an F-16 radar built by the Israelis in the nose, active radar missile, and they carry an Israeli jammer on it would practically make them invisible to our legacy radar in the F-15 and F-16.
Remember days in 4477th (4477 Test and Evaluation Squadron)... MiG-21 had the capability to get into the scissors with you, 110 knots, 60 degrees nose high, go from 10,000 feet to 20,000 feet, very manoeuvrable airplane, but it didn't have any good weapons. Now it has high off bore sight Archer missile, helmet mounted sight, active missile, and a jammer that gets it into the merge, good radar, so that's the plane the SU-30 experienced pilots came out of and they were pretty good in the engaged fight.
Well we get them to Mountain Home and we let the operational guys fight... and then a couple of things happened. Amazingly, we dominated - not with a clean F-15 i.e. Without any wingtanks and other stores, but we dominated with an F-15 in wartime configuration i.e. 4 missiles onboard, wingtanks, and they're sitting there in clean Su-30s except for pylons which did not have anything on it except a ACMI pod. They were amazed, matter of fact they were floored to the point after the first 3 days, they didn't want any more 1 vs 1 stuff. Lets move on the something else (laughs). Funny 'cause in India, they wanted only 1 to 1 - cause they were winning at that.
A quick word on the airplane. Vectored thrust. The Raptor has vectored thrust, but its two dimensional and works only in the pitch mode. When the airplane pulls, and it gets past a certain AoA (Angle of Attack), the vectored thrust kicks in and drives the airplane around. In the Su-30, instead of having it in the pitch, it has TVC in a V. It doesnt have to be in a post stall manoevering.... the TVC would kick in and push the aircraft the direction when the pilot engages the switch on the stick. All this is formidable on paper but what you would know is that with the TVC kicking in, its a huge aircraft, and thrusting such a huge aircraft in that direction creates a lot of drag. It's a biiig airplane. A huge airplane. So what happens is when it moves its nose around, its sinking. We had enough experience with the F-22. which has up/down TVC nozzles.
What would happen is that the in a merge with the F-22... From our experience, that's the only way you would get the F-22. and the only way - this happens only if there is an inexperienced pilot because the experienced ones never make the mistake. You would be pulling in scissor fight hoping you would get the F-22 in your sights (laughs ). The F22 can sustain a turn rate of 28 deg per second at 20,000 feet while the F-15 can get an instantaneous rate of 21 and a sustained rate of 15-16 degrees. So you are pulling and hoping. Post stall, maneuver, the ass end drops and instead of going up, it just drops in mid air and the airplane will rotate with its nose up. This is where the Eagle or Viper pilot would pull up vertical, switch to guns, then come down and take a shot at the F-22. Of course you have to first get in close to do this, most probably the F-22 will kill you before that.
The Su-30? No problem. Big airplane. Big cross section. Jamming to get to the merge, so you have to fight close... he has 22 - 23 degrees per second sustained turn rate. We've been fighting the Raptor, so we've been going oh dude, this is easy. So as we're fighting him, all of a sudden you'd see the ass end kick down, going post stall - but now he starts falling from the sky. The F-15 wouldn't even have to pull up. slight pull up on the stick, engage guns, come down and drill his brains out."
Mike
The Indian pilots gave a different account of those exercises.
There’s little to suggest that the SU-30s have poor operational reliability unlike the Mig-29 which suffered from erratic and substandard spares.
Irkut does not manufacture SU-30s for China; another factory, KNAAPO does so.
I do believe airplanes are overpriced, but it seems to me that you would want to be in the best airplane in a dogfight. I’ll bet lots of fighter pilots are yelling, “Yeah, but it was a great buy!” when they pull the ejection lever.
Yes, the Russians really are that screwed up -- and so are even their newest and most advanced aircraft. For example, the Indian air force lost one of their Su-30MKs due to a mistake by the pilot in manipulating by feel critical switches located behind his seat. That kind of bone headed design flaw would not be allowed in a modern US aircraft, which go through tediously long -- and expensive -- development cycles before being released into service.
Arguably, based on performance in Red Flag and other joint exercises with the US and other Western air forces, the Indians may do better with the Su-30MK than the Russians, but such exercises do not always reflect how well an aircraft will perform in combat service.
Although not demoralized and less corrupt and inexperienced than the Russian air force, the Indian air force does not have a Western level of equipment, skill, and organization. They lost another Su-30MK due to foreign object ingestion on takeoff -- meaning that they did not keep the runway clean.
I doubt that the Indian Air Force could carry on an extended air campaign with the Su-30MK -- or any other combat aircraft for that matter. With the Su-30MK though they will experience the serious deficiencies of Russian aviation design, engineering, materials, and workmanship.
Thanks for the replies, guys.
I read the Indian forum, and it sounded like a bit of puffery. I can understand that, we do the same. That said, if I had to throw my lot in, I would throw it in with American infrastructure, training, tactics and hardware. If we are on the same side as the IAF, even better...:)
Is it chauvinist? Sure, but I have some experience in how we maintain and train our forces, and it takes more than a pilot sitting in an ejection seat in a fast moving plane to prevail.
Since that includes most countries in the world, a few Su-30MKs in the hands of an unfriendly neighbor can be intimidating. And that is why the phone number of the US ambassador is on the speed dial even for countries that do not particularly like the US.
Sorry sir-what you are referring to are tired cliches. The Russians, Chinese, Indians and pretty much everyone else have taken lots of notes on how wars have been fought since the 80s and how the Soviet-style doctrine of command guided mass wars got crushed. The Indian air force (like its Pakistani counterpart) is regarded as highly professional, both having originated from the RAF. You refer to 2 SU-30 accidents-the type has served with the IAF for 14 years; was it the only time that FOD has taken place-the kind of ‘clean’ runway you talk about won’t happen in a high intensity war or an landing ground in the Himalayas. The SU-30 can take a lot of damage, but it’s not indestructible.
So why did India not go with the US? India remains psychologically tied to their Cold War alignment with the Russians and fearful of getting caught in changing US strategic priorities. And, unlike the Russians, US military suppliers no longer pay kickbacks in arms deals.
Well, I don’t think I am referring to tired cliches but I don’t think you were referring to me. In any case, you ARE welcome to your opinion. You sound like there is something personal in this, but I would suggest you don’t take offense, because I did not denigrate the IAF in any way. I have respect for them.
Puffery is exaggerated or false praise, and it happens everywhere, as I implied.
I merely stated that I have first hand experience in military aviation, and out of that experience I think the training and support of our planes in the air is something I would put my own money and life on.
So, as I said, given a choice, I would select what I KNOW to be good. Wouldn’t you?
By the way, FOD damage is training and organizational. It is very, very preventable with disciplined, well trained and organized personnel. FOD damage, even one, reflects poorly on any organization. It taints the airmen walking shoulder to shoulder to the commanding officer. FOD damage is a failure in discipline.
So it is not a stretch if someone references FOD casualties and makes a direct link to unit performance. If this unit was operating from primitive bases, that would be more understandable. But if the FOD damage occurred at a well established modern facility, that is a different thing altogether.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.