Su-30 for Russian Air Force

http://lenta.ru/news/2014/02/12/su30sm/

Wow, awesome. Military will get 21 Su-30SMs this year.

So, 21 Su-30SM, 12 Su-35s, 16 (?) Su-34 + Su-30M2 = at the very least, 50+ brand spanking new Flankers.

That is nothing to sneeze at.

14 Su-30SM was the number before this one. 21 - Wow huuge increase

Also number of Su-30M2 and Su-27SM3 remain somewhat of enigma and they are in production.

LINK

During the inspection of aircraft factory produced combat aircraft Su-35s, Su-30M2 and Su-27SM3 Sergei Shoigu, together with the President of the United Aircraft Corporation Mikhail Pogosyan and Commander of the Air Force Lt. Gen. Viktor Bondarev rose Su-35s, who was in the assembly shop of the plant, and examined the cockpit.

14 Su-30SM was the number before this one. 21 - Wow huuge increase

Presumably, 16 Su-30SM for VVS and 5 for VMF this year? 
 
Oh and the mysterious Su-27SM3s again- not one single whif of them or Su-30M2s in the recent photo reports.   It appears they are after all upgrades for older Su-27P airframes, but have to wait and see.

So, 21 Su-30SM, 12 Su-35s, 16 (?) Su-34 + Su-30M2 = at the very least, 50+ brand spanking new Flankers.

Wish info on what MiG will deliver and delivered is as good as for the Sukhois: should we expect 10 MiG-29K/KUB and "some" MiG-29SMTs this year, thus totaling close to 70 brand new fighters and strikers for VVS and VMF? (not to mention upgrades like MiG-31BSM, Su-27SM3, Su-25SM3, maybe extra Su-24M-SVP24, MiG-25RBM etc. etc.)

And you forgot 20 or so YAK-130 ....    well anyway Pogosyan said 100 new planes will be delivered to Russian AF this year   

+ the modernized ones and we get a huuuge number per year

As I know Su-30M2 are new build planes.

Su-30SM have 2D or 3D TVC engines?

medo wrote:Su-30SM have 2D or 3D TVC engines?

I think 3D TVC.
Where there ever 2D TVC used in any Su-27 variant?

Basically in between- not fully articulated 3d like say MiG-29OVT, but more so than say Raptors TVC.

The vectoring is off set at an angle, not straight up and down.

TR1 wrote:Basically in between- not fully articulated 3d like say MiG-29OVT, but more so than say Raptors TVC.

So a 2.5D TVC?

And how exactly does it differes in vectoring between 2D and 3D?

3d TVC can articulate the nozzle anywhere you want. See the MiG-29OVT and its nozzles being able to do 360 articulation.

The 2.5 TVC cannot articulate the nozzles wherever it wants.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zhWKf82EHa0/UuHrnJgmx1I/AAAAAAAAFj8/DSLqO46ggts/s1600/su30mkidetail8.jpg

It is however off set, so you can produce a cock-screw effect and coupled with the flight control system, can get more agility than simply up-and-down nozzles.

EDIT: I should add, the Su-35 takes this farther, and can pivot both horizontally and vertically, but is also off-set like the Su-30MKI engines.

The OVT takes it the farthest however.

India hasn't got any modern specific purpose aircraft. So our MKI is supposed to play the strike plus air dominance role, and it does that with aplomb.


However, for a country like Russia, that has Su-35S( a superior air dominance aircraft than MKI) and Su-34 Hellduck( a better strike/attack aircraft than MKI), I fail to understand why they are ordering such large number of Su-30SM's. Because just like MKI it is more multi-role fighter.

Earlier they ordered 30, then another 30, and now 50 more birds of this kind. So obviously they will use it as a combat aircraft rather than just a trainer 2 seater.


Question is do they need the Su-30SM, when they have got a 4++ ultimate flanker in the form of Su-35S?

-Work for Irkut
-To get airframes into service faster. AF badly needs them, and NAPO and Knaaz would not be able to just produce enough airframes to skip the Su-30SM entirely. Irkut has a well worked out, fast production schedule.
-Navy I guess wanted something in between the two other birds, hence the intention for 50 SMs.

TR1 wrote:-Work for Irkut
-To get airframes into service faster. AF badly needs them, and NAPO and Knaaz would not be able to just produce enough airframes to skip the Su-30SM entirely. Irkut has a well worked out, fast production schedule.
-Navy I guess wanted something in between the two other birds, hence the intention for 50 SMs.

Is it true that Russian Air Force used few units of Su-30MKIs, which they had in reserve during the Georgia war 2008? Some reports say that, RuAF was damn impressed with the ability of these flankers, and hence wanted the Russianised version of the MKIs in the service!


I can't post new links, but here is an excerpt from Flightglobal article:

It is understood that the decision to procure the Su-30SM was inspired by the successful use of industry-owned Su-30MKI/MKM operational-standard prototypes during Russia's August 2008 conflict with Georgia.

The SM is versatile and can be used for different purposes as needed.

For training and testing and experimenting it means two pilots can try things and both experience the results.

If there is a threat however the Su-35 would be the first choice to send to investigate and any ground threats the Su-34 would be sent, but for swing missions where a ground target is a problem but the enemy might send air cover you can send a flight of SMs with air to ground and air to air weapons... say two to three AS-18 (Kh-59M) missiles which can be fired from up to about 120km from the target and flown to the target area with the rear seater selecting the target and commanding the missile to attack in real time... then that aircraft can switch to air to air and look for enemy aircraft while other aircraft follow up their ground attack.

Some reports say that, RuAF was damn impressed with the ability of these flankers, and hence wanted the Russianised version of the MKIs in the service!

Impressed in what way? What are they supposed to have done?
Have heard rumours an Su-34 was rushed to the area but not MKIs.

The main feature of the SM is its low cost compared with the Su-34 and Su-35 so it can be bought in greater numbers yet still carry the same new weapons.

GarryB wrote:Impressed in what way? What are they supposed to have done?
Have heard rumours an Su-34 was rushed to the area but not MKIs.

That's why I asked TR1, if that report was apt? Perhaps those prototype MKIs did heavy ground plus A2A damage and hence managed to impress RuAF with their versatility.

The main feature of the SM is its low cost compared with the Su-34 and Su-35 so it can be bought in greater numbers yet still carry the same new weapons.

Low cost , all right! But it carries something precious when compared with Su-35S,i.e. an extra human life. And Su-35 is as multi-role as Su-30SM. Correct me if I'm wrong?

So, in my opinion, just low-cost explanation is not justified for more orders of Su-30SM. Russia should order and field more Su-35S over Su-30SM, whether in Navy or VVS.

The rumor was about a company owned Su-30MK (from Irkut, so presumably in similar config to MKI? Maybe? maybe not?), but the details have been pretty sparse.

Just look @ production. This year Irkut is delivering 21 SMs.
Neither NAPO or Knaaz can match that rate.
Knaaz is going to be loaded with other work as well, it will be a while before they can make that many Su-35s on one year. Plus...the Su-35 is still "raw" (as is Su-34), while the Su-30SM has the advantage of being worked out largely by both Irkut and oversees customers.

And like I said, Irkut wants a piece of that defense pie.

Its advantage would be the same as the Talwar/Kilo classes... mature design that has already been produced so they know what to do and how long everything takes and can plan much more accurately and therefore build quicker.

All the gear is proven and producable, rather than brand new.

Is Su-30SM, the first mass produced fighter jet for Russian Navy/Air Force to carry a neutral designation(0)? Generally Russians use specific planes for fighting(odd number-1,5,7 etc)), and for striking(even number- 2,4,etc).

And also does a number that ends with zero mean it is multi-role, right?

PS: Tu-160 excluded as it's a tactical bomber and not a fighter

No, the number Su-30 was originally for the PVO air-control variant of sorts, not really very multirole. Then they decided to market the Su-30 as an advanced export variant, and the rest is history.

I wouldn't look into the names too much, I mean originally Su-37 was just Su-35 plus TVC, it is just marketing all in all.

There are some general naming trends, but there are just as many exceptions honestly.

shouldn't pak-fa be getting an official name from ruaf soon? it's going to go into production within a year or two, after all... do past examples suggest that "50" may not be in its designation? After all, su27 was T-10.

Is Su-30SM, the first mass produced fighter jet for Russian Navy/Air Force to carry a neutral designation(0)? Generally Russians use specific planes for fighting(odd number-1,5,7 etc)), and for striking(even number- 2,4,etc).

On paper the odd number represented either a fighter or an interceptor, so Mig-21 and Mig-25 and Su-9,11,15,27 etc were all fighter interceptors. The Mig-27 however was a strike aircraft like the Jaguar, while the Su-17 could be called as being similar, with the Su-22 perhaps correcting that error.

the Su-25 and of course the Tu-95 being the obvious exceptions also as neither are fighters or interceptors.

The Su-30 and Su-30M were basically Su-27UB operational two seaters that were tested by the PVO as mini AWACS like aircraft that would operate with lots of smaller and lighter aircraft by providing target information for the smaller aircraft who would operate in radar silent mode with the Su-30s operating their radars and passing target data to the radar silent aircraft operating closer to the enemy.

The obvious problem of course is now aircraft have become multirole to the point where the Su-24 replacement can perform the medium range strike mission as well as the high speed recon and jamming mission as well as offering decent interception performance with a range of powerful air to air and air to ground weapons in the form of the Su-34.

And also does a number that ends with zero mean it is multi-role, right?

PS: Tu-160 excluded as it's a tactical bomber and not a fighter

Technically even numbers mean it is not a fighter or interceptor, but as I mentioned above there are a few exceptions.. Su-25 is not a fighter, nor is Mig-27, or Tu-95, or the Su-17. Equally the Tu-128 was an interceptor.

The Tu-160, Tu-142, Tu-22M3 are not fighters or interceptors just like Il-76, An-124, An-12, Il-78, Il-86, etc etc.

shouldn't pak-fa be getting an official name from ruaf soon? it's going to go into production within a year or two, after all... do past examples suggest that "50" may not be in its designation? After all, su27 was T-10.

Codes are generally sequential and also given by the Russian Military rather than the design bureau itself (which are often marketing related).

GarryB wrote:On paper the odd number represented either a fighter or an interceptor, so Mig-21 and Mig-25 and Su-9,11,15,27 etc were all fighter interceptors. The Mig-27 however was a strike aircraft like the Jaguar, while the Su-17 could be called as being similar, with the Su-22 perhaps correcting that error.the Su-25 and of course the Tu-95 being the obvious exceptions also as neither are fighters or interceptors.

Thanks Garry for another fantastic reply.

The Su-30 and Su-30M were basically Su-27UB operational two seaters that were tested by the PVO as mini AWACS like aircraft that would operate with lots of smaller and lighter aircraft by providing target information for the smaller aircraft who would operate in radar silent mode with the Su-30s operating their radars and passing target data to the radar silent aircraft operating closer to the enemy.

I have read some conflicting reports about the inception of Su-30. Some reports say that PVO wanted a plane that has similar dogfighting/ A2A ability of the Su-27S, but should have a longer range. Hence they chose the 2 seater derivative of Su-27 i.e. Su-27UB, because it had a very similar aerodynamic performance like the Su-27 and had 2 pilots, which simply meant less load for the pilots for a long mission.

However, there are some other reports which say that they wanted a mini-AWACS sort of plane that would lead other fighters towards a target.

While some reorts say that Russia unvelied this plane in 1996 as a swing-role fighter.

Even China uses its Su-30MKK as a ground attack striker than an interceptor. Correct me if I'm wrong!

Anyway, the final result aka Su-30MKI/SM of this project is good, nay, superb in literally every category. So full marks to who ever conceived this project at first

However other projects like Su-27K(33), with its modified LERX/canard; Su-37 Terminator with its TVC etc, also made their contribution in this project known as Su-30SM/MKI

I have read some conflicting reports about the inception of Su-30. Some reports say that PVO wanted a plane that has similar dogfighting/ A2A ability of the Su-27S, but should have a longer range. Hence they chose the 2 seater derivative of Su-27 i.e. Su-27UB, because it had a very similar aerodynamic performance like the Su-27 and had 2 pilots, which simply meant less load for the pilots for a long mission.

The two seat Su-27UB has less range than the standard single seat Su-27 because the second cockpit reduces fuel capacity, but retains full radar and air to air capability.

However, there are some other reports which say that they wanted a mini-AWACS sort of plane that would lead other fighters towards a target.

they are the PVO... and the Su-30 they had in service had no air to ground capability beyond dumb unguided bombs and rockets. the PVO is the air defence forces... they would have no interest with dealing with ground targets. that would be frontal aviations business.

While some reorts say that Russia unvelied this plane in 1996 as a swing-role fighter.

Its standard armament is AAMs only... it can't even carry external fuel tanks. It was not a multirole aircraft.

Even China uses its Su-30MKK as a ground attack striker than an interceptor. Correct me if I'm wrong!

there is an enormous difference between the Su-30s the PVO had in service and the multirole Su-30M they developed from it for export.

A bit like the difference between a Mig-29A and a Mig-29SMT... the former is pretty much an air to air fighter, while the latter had multirole capacity.

However other projects like Su-27K(33), with its modified LERX/canard; Su-37 Terminator with its TVC etc, also made their contribution in this project known as Su-30SM/MKI

And a lot of what they learned making the Su-30Mxx for export planes went in to the development of the Su-35 and the PAK FA.

If the situation in Ukraine should escalate, the Su-30SM would be the ideal fighter aircraft to use.

The Su-30SM possesses serious attack capabilities and supermanoeuvrability, both in one aircraft. The pilot-operator combination should exclude any mistakes by the human factor.

Still Su-35S could patrol over the Crimea/Black Sea to ensure a deeper look into the Ukrainian airspace.