Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Su-27: News

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25982
    Points : 26528
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:20 am

    Mig-29 can compete but it is limited by its range and low amount of weapons.

    Of course, because if 8 missiles is not going to be good enough then obviously 12 is the magic number that will make everything OK. Rolling Eyes Smile

    Su27 can fire 10 r-27ER which gives it more chances to hit the mig than the mig has with its 2 r27R. It also has a better radar.

    The Su-27 can't carry 10 R-27ER missiles. It can carry a maximum of 6 R-27 type missiles, and can carry a maximum of 6 R-73 type missiles.

    If it was a dogfight with R-73 only missiles then the MIG-29 and Su-27 have the same weapon load potential.

    Interesting to note that all MiG-29s were shot down in close-quarters turning dogfights. All kills were by means of the R-73. R-27s fired by both MiGs and Su-s on various occassions failed to find their mark.

    Which means that potentially the MiGs had the same armament as the Flankers as both could carry 6 R-73s as their max weapon load of that weapon type.

    One uneventful incident occured when two Su-27s were intercepted over Eritrean airspace by four MiGs. The lead Su-27 was targeted by the MiGs which fired three R-27s head-on. The Lead evaded the missiles and then proceeded to engage all four MiGs by firing four R-27s in quick succession. The missiles missed and the MiGs left in a hurry.

    But I don't understand... the bigger more powerful Su-27s should not have been surprised by those MiGs like that... doesn't it have bigger radar and IRST and it will do all the attacking from long range where the MiG is vulnerable and useless?

    Although eritrean MiG-29As have numerical advantage, Ethiopians well use one importand advantage against MiG-29A. Data link and group networking. Su-27 fighters share their radar and IRST pictures and have good situational avarenes. Russian mercenary in Su-27UB back sit work as group commander and coordinate their work through data link. IAF also use well their IFDL group networking with their Su-30K well against USAF F-15C fighters in their first exercise.

    So the primary advantage of the Su-27 in this situation is probably hardware already built in to MiG-29M2 and MiG-35s... right.

    MiG-29 was aerodinamicaly and technologicaly the same as Su-27. But they were made by different paradigms of air combat. MiG-29 was designed by old paradigm of GCI directed interception point defense fighter, the same as MiG-21 and MiG-23 and in modern warfare this old paradigm doesn't work anymore.

    Of course it does... HATO still use it... the difference is that the guy in the van is in an AWACS aircraft...

    On the other hand MiG-31 and Su-27 were made by new modern paradigm of group networking and coordinating with AWACS and group leader through IFDL and data link networking with ground command posts as well.

    New paradigm my arse... they copied the Soviet system of ground control intercept, but because they wanted to take it to other countries because they are aggressive and invaders, rather than defenders they had to make it more mobile by putting the guy in the van into an AWACS aircraft instead... which the Soviets already did to defend their arctic and far east reaches...


    Russian AF is no more Soviet AF, which have thousand of fighters, used with old paradigm of GCI directed interception. RuAF decided for the new paradigm, because they have far smaller number of fighters available and MiG-29 simply can not fit in.

    Yeah, because while they can make Su-27s compatible it is too hard to make MiGs compatible even though they did it with the MiG-31....

    For goodness sake... the MiGs didn't have it because they didn't need it.... do you really think that is the reason they didn't buy more MiGs?

    Apart from this datalink sharing thing the Flankers did they were otherwise inferior to the upgrades MIG was developing and getting rejected by the Russian Air Force for.

    IFDL can be installed on modernized mig-29 with new computers pretty easily.

    Very easily... if that was a problem for Russia.

    It's like those iraqi t-72 using old steel made APFSDS when they could have sold them them some tungsten made apsfds to stand a chance against US tanks.

    I rather suspect if the Soviets had any idea the Iraqis would be using them against the Americans they probably would have given them better stuff...

    To be clear, I am not against the deployment of the MiG in the VKS, I just try to make sense of the fact that they, until now, have shown so little interest for it.

    If they were interested in cheaper simpler planes then they would be buying MiG-29M2s instead of MiG-35s... they are not.

    Yes, I said it is an acceptable range, assuming you also have other fighters with longer legs capable of neutralising similar enemy planes.

    Why do you need longer ranged fighters?

    In the middle of the arctic there will be nothing nearby to defend. In european Russia the next airbase wont be 1,000km away.

    The centerline tank goes with them essentially all of the time, maybe they have many of them, maybe they still like having that extra fuel for the initial climb.

    I would think operationally they would carry all their weapon pylons full of weapons and suitable jammers, but whether they carry the centreline fuel tank or not is another question... and also whether they come back with it in a war situation is another question too.

    It would make no sense to load the planes so much and wear missiles down in peace time operations or when missions do not demand a huge A2A loadout.

    That is exactly right but also applies to war time too... during combat operations you don't normally see them covered in weapons with every pylon being used for munitions... if four missiles don't work then 8 probably wont either and if four don't work why would you want the drag and weight of 8 more if your missiles are clearly being defeated and you need to use your gun?

    The original point was to show that ordnance carrying / range capabilities of Flankers and MiGs are so apart that it is understandable that the later are being actually replaced by the former.

    Or were they waiting for a suitable MiG to start buying and have only gotten till now to get one. They took the SMT fighters when they became available... they were not obliged to... they could have offered them to India or some other country at a reduced price if they really didn't want them. The Navy bought the naval Fulcrums pretty quickly when India bought theirs... it seems when they get the opportunity to get them cheaper they are taking them... but no matter how cheap they were if they didn't want them I don't think they would take them at any price.

    I didn't mix up anything. Su-33 have limited max take off mass when using carrier ski jump. From ground air bases Su-33 could take off with its max take off mass.

    But those takeoff masses are different for the different launch positions... why else would they bother with the longer waist position takeoff location... they could just make them directly behind the two short takeoff positions... those barriers raise up to protect things behind it from jet wash, so if there was a limit for weight for taking off they would free up a lot more deck space by having four positions at the front two tandem locations. At the moment the waist launch position is in the middle of the angled landing deck so when it is used it can't land aircraft. Using two tandem launch positions would mean landing could continue to take place while launching four aircraft at a time.

    Internl fuel is internal weights and have nothing to do with external weight. Planes are designed with full internal fuel, no one design plane capabilities with a quarter of internal fuel.

    Lots of planes cannot land at full or near full takeoff weights... the undercarriage can carry a plane for takeoff at MTOW but not the force of a landing at or near MTOW. Few of the 9g manouverable fighters can manouver at 9g with a full fuel and full external weapon load.

    Su-33 ca carry up to 6,5 tons of external weapon load, but usual load is far lower.

    Can it? Describe that payload for me... most likely the wing tips will be Sorbitsa jamming pods and the next four pylons will be R-73s, which leaves 6 weapons pylons left with about 6.1 tons to fit... it doesn't carry external fuel tanks and I have never seen it with anything bigger than a 500kg bomb, or a 350kg R-27 AAM.

    Let say 4 x 500 kg bombs is 2 tons, 4 x R-27 is 1,4 tons, 2 x R-73 is 0,25 tons and 2 ECM pods Sorbtsia-S brings to around 4,5 tons. Still cca 2 tons less than full capacity. But usually it is even lower.

    Never seen one with four x 500kg bombs and R-27s at the same time.

    Su-33 is a fighter, if they wanted a bomber the MiG-29K is actually much better equipped for the job.

    Engines were payed, produced and delivered. They could either install them in Su-33 or store them in warehouse and install them later.

    What a terrible waste of money at a time when they are talking about unifying avionics and engines and radar across the Flanker fleet they get some custom made engines for the tiny force of planes that will most likely operate from land bases anyway.

    According to general-major Kozhin, Su-33 will be with the second stage of modernization bring to the level of Su-30SM and in this stage, they will get new engines. This stage didn't start yet, so they most probably wait for Su-30SM modernization to Su-30SM2 level, where Bars-R radar will be replaced by Irbis. Those Bars-R radars could than replace old N001 radars.

    I can't be exactly the same as the Su-30SM upgrade because all Su-33s are single seaters.

    Hand me down systems... about what the Navy normally gets...

    Agree, both crashes were due to arrester gear problems. Difference was, that Su-33 land on the deck and capture the wire and in that case he could not save the plane.

    But that is critical... one ran out of fuel, but as you say the other one has tons of fuel always so it crashed because it is too heavy to land safely on that aircraft carrier...

    If pilot doesn't capture wire, he simply take off and do another circle.

    Should be the same for both aircraft but what has been said here is that the MiG pilot ran out of fuel, but the Flanker pilot crashed into the water because the wire broke... which should never happen... that is the whole point of the angled deck... the wire breaking should have led to the pilot essentially applying full AB and raising his nose and climbing away and then coming around to try again, but it sounds like the Flanker was not able to recover when the cable broke and ended up crashing into the water... which is a serious issue because even when the arrester gear is working fine occasionally the cables break... they simply don't last forever... they carry them in large numbers and they are easy to replace because they do break from time to time... but if you are going to lose a flanker every time it breaks when they land then you are going to lose a lot of flankers... that is just too expensive....

    In Syria Flankers did exactly this, loitering for hours over combat zones and drop bombs when and where needed.

    When did Flankers in Syria engage in dogfights?

    If MiG-29KR reach their expectations, than navy would simply retire Su-33 and wouldn't buy new engines and order second stage of modernization. They will simply use both.

    If that were true why would they by MiG-29s in the first place... they already chose the Su-33... why bother with a smaller lighter shorter ranged aircraft... like the USN did when they replaced their F-14s with F-18s?

    Point is, that MiG-35 have to leave behind old paradigm, by which MiG-29 was build and to be designed according new paradigm, which air force now use and to fit in it.

    You might be a bit confused... but Russia does not have enough AWACS platforms to control all her fighters and the ground based IADS is already very extensive anyway. Considering the Russians are working on super long range weapons to shoot down AWACS platforms how long before HATO does the same... does it really make a lot of sense moving from a ground based control system to a super vulnerable and super expensive air based one?

    For sure it will find its theatre of operation and work well with new Flankers, Su-57 and Foxhounds. After all MiG-31 is big and expensive, but fit well in their concept and are upgraded to BM level and will be in use for decades.

    The fact that the MiG-29KR already is fully integrated into the Navys SIGMA battle management system and can datalink information to ships and subs and satellites and other aircraft within the group I am not sure what else MiG can do to fix their stupid short range little pieces of shit...

    The MiG-29SMT didn't fit well into the force in Syria because they weren't integrated into the Russian mobile network system is no great surprise... they were designed and made for Algeria... why would they be linked in with Russian AF equipment... the real question you should ask is why are the RuAF so cheap or so stupid as to not upgrade the SMTS to operate with their other systems when they took them over... really sounds like a level playing field...


    Normal procedure would be to send a buddy-buddy refueling mig-29 and send them to Hmeimim or in a friendly airport like Cyprus or Egypt.

    Normal procedures come from experience... there should have been a couple of fuel tankers operating near by in case they were needed or at least within 20 minutes on call if needed, but clearly they didn't plan for what happened... hopefully lesson learned...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1953
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  LMFS on Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:41 am

    GarryB wrote:If they were interested in cheaper simpler planes then they would be buying MiG-29M2s instead of MiG-35s... they are not.

    Or they had not yet brought the VKS to the point where buying more, different planes would make sense, or a mix of different reasons. By now they have only 6x MiG-35 on order for the swifts, given foreign buyers do not like being turned into guinea pigs and do not buy until the Russian services have debugged the plane, I don't feel the orders until now are proof of the deep love of the VKS for the MiG. Not yet at least, by the numbers bought when the state tests are over we will know whether the plane has a relevant place in the force structure or is rather an export model.

    Why do you need longer ranged fighters?

    If left unchecked they have advantage to control engagements, apart from obviously fighting longer further with more payload.

    In the middle of the arctic there will be nothing nearby to defend. In european Russia the next airbase wont be 1,000km away.

    That is changing, there are a lot of investments being made in the Arctic and they are only now starting to prepare the military infrastructure necessary to protect them. Norilsk, Novatek, new ports, then new Vostok Oil project will come online. Many billions are being spent, plus the safety of vessels at any point of the NS route needs to be guaranteed against air and sea threats maybe at big distances from the shore. No encroachment or even landing in the Russian shore can be made possible because the spot was too far for air support to help effectively. They are getting very serious abut developing the Arctic and until now air basing is extremely sparse.

    I would think operationally they would carry all their weapon pylons full of weapons and suitable jammers, but whether they carry the centreline fuel tank or not is another question... and also whether they come back with it in a war situation is another question too.

    That tunnel is a position where Flankers carry either big weapons (even two of them) or up to 4 AAM. All adds up to the planes capability to load armament. Before you say it is irrelevant, it is not. It is also not be all, end all argument, just a contribution to each plane's final capabilities we are discussing.

    That is exactly right but also applies to war time too... during combat operations you don't normally see them covered in weapons with every pylon being used for munitions... if four missiles don't work then 8 probably wont either and if four don't work why would you want the drag and weight of 8 more if your missiles are clearly being defeated and you need to use your gun?

    I would expect loadouts in high intensity conflicts to go well beyond the token ones seen normally. In the end the number of missiles depends on the number of enemies and pk expected.

    Or were they waiting for a suitable MiG to start buying and have only gotten till now to get one. They took the SMT fighters when they became available... they were not obliged to... they could have offered them to India or some other country at a reduced price if they really didn't want them. The Navy bought the naval Fulcrums pretty quickly when India bought theirs... it seems when they get the opportunity to get them cheaper they are taking them... but no matter how cheap they were if they didn't want them I don't think they would take them at any price.

    It is your interpretation, I still don't see the clear evidence that is the case yet. Some planes you mention were bought either by force (Algeria) or because someone else paid the biggest part of the effort (Indian -29K), or were simply upgraded because otherwise they could not fly...

    What a terrible waste of money at a time when they are talking about unifying avionics and engines and radar across the Flanker fleet they get some custom made engines for the tiny force of planes that will most likely operate from land bases anyway.

    It would have been maybe better to do things together with VKS, I don't know if their planing is completely separated. But in any case if you decide you need naval fighters, then you need to invest the necessary money to sustain their operation.
    medo
    medo

    Posts : 3918
    Points : 4002
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  medo on Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:37 pm

    But I don't understand... the bigger more powerful Su-27s should not have been surprised by those MiGs like that... doesn't it have bigger radar and IRST and it will do all the attacking from long range where the MiG is vulnerable and useless?

    Eritrea in mountainous region, so MiGs are waiting for them in radar shadow. but when they pop up, Sukhois pick them up and react. First they evade missiles and than fire back.


    Yeah, because while they can make Su-27s compatible it is too hard to make MiGs compatible even though they did it with the MiG-31....

    For goodness sake... the MiGs didn't have it because they didn't need it.... do you really think that is the reason they didn't buy more MiGs?

    Apart from this datalink sharing thing the Flankers did they were otherwise inferior to the upgrades MIG was developing and getting rejected by the Russian Air Force for.

    In the eighties electrinics take some space and have its weight. MiG-31 and Su-27 were big enough to install this equipment inside. MiG-29 have only standard Lazur complex for GCI guiding. This is not situational avarenes, only vectoring to position to launch missiles against designated target. MiG-29 was depending on its own radar to see what is happening around him, while Su-27 could turn off his radar and got picture from group leader or AWACS.

    I'm not sure, why are you comparing standard Su-27 with MiG-29M? Standard Su-27 should be compared with standard MiG-29. MiG-29M has his counterpart in Su-27M, which was developed in the same time. Su-27M was later renamed in Su-35 and 10 prototypes were built. The 11th prototype was the first with TVC and called Su-37. Su-27M was also multirole and the basis for Su-30 and today Su-35. Russian air force in the nineties cancel both, because they didn't have money for either. Money shortage was also reason to cancel MiG-31M.

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Photo_13

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Fulcru10
    MiG-29M from the nineties

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Su-35-10
    Su-27M from the nineties


    Or were they waiting for a suitable MiG to start buying and have only gotten till now to get one. They took the SMT fighters when they became available... they were not obliged to... they could have offered them to India or some other country at a reduced price if they really didn't want them. The Navy bought the naval Fulcrums pretty quickly when India bought theirs... it seems when they get the opportunity to get them cheaper they are taking them... but no matter how cheap they were if they didn't want them I don't think they would take them at any price.

    RuAF buy MiG-29SMT, because Algeria reject them and Russia need planes in flying condition in the beginning of 2000. At the same time RuAF decide to modernize two regiments of Su-27 to Su-27SM and order 12 new Su-27SM3 and 4 Su-30M2 from KNAAPO. Later they buy additional 16 Su-30M2. Before that, they cancel program of Su-30KN and upgrading of Su-27UB to Su-27UBM from Irkut because of money shortage (war in Chechnya). Later RuAF buy 16 MiG-29SMT/UBT from MiG, which were made from unfinnished airframes. As you know, ex-Algerian MiG-29SMT are now retired and replaced with Su-30SM. Most probably they will be sold to India (21 MiG-29UPG).


    The MiG-29SMT didn't fit well into the force in Syria because they weren't integrated into the Russian mobile network system is no great surprise... they were designed and made for Algeria... why would they be linked in with Russian AF equipment... the real question you should ask is why are the RuAF so cheap or so stupid as to not upgrade the SMTS to operate with their other systems when they took them over... really sounds like a level playing field...

    Ex-Algerian MiG-29SMT was never in Syria. MiG-29SMTs, which went to Syria were from batch of 16, which were produced in MiG for RuAF from unfinnished air fames. They are not export, they are domestic ones and have some differences and updates comparing to export ones.


    If that were true why would they by MiG-29s in the first place... they already chose the Su-33... why bother with a smaller lighter shorter ranged aircraft... like the USN did when they replaced their F-14s with F-18s?

    MiG-29K was in production in that time for India, Su-33 was not in production anymore. KNAAPO in that time produce Su-30MK2 for export and Su-35. When Su-30MK2 is finnished, they remade that production line for Su-57. Russian NAVY want to replace Su-33 with new build planes, which will serve on carrier till the end of its life time. Navy use Syrian operation to test them both in real combat experience and decide to keep and modernize Su-33. Kuznetsov is now in process of upgrading and remaking for MiG-29K. When she will return to servis is another question. Kuznetsov is quite rare on the sea, so MiG-29KR will be just fine for her. Su-33 will most probably take other duties in the north and will go to Kuznetsov, when needed.

    USN didn't decide to replace F-14 with F/A-18. It was political decision from Bush government to retire and destroy them to prevent smuggling of spare parts for F-14 to Iran. USN still miss Tomcats, specially F-14D, as F/A-18E/F are not the best replacement for them. F-14D was practically the same or even better than F-15E.


    You might be a bit confused... but Russia does not have enough AWACS platforms to control all her fighters and the ground based IADS is already very extensive anyway. Considering the Russians are working on super long range weapons to shoot down AWACS platforms how long before HATO does the same... does it really make a lot of sense moving from a ground based control system to a super vulnerable and super expensive air based one?

    Absolutely RuAF is full integrated in IADS, but it is only in Russia and it doesn't cover well whole Russian territory. After the fall of USSR, IADS in Arctic, Siberia and Far East practically dissapear and now Russian military is building it again with placing new radars, command centers, SAM brigades, rebuilding of airbases, etc. Outside IADS air force is depending on AWACS planes and networking to share picture between themselves. Situation is improving and RuAF also learn important lessons from this hard times period.

    LMFS likes this post

    medo
    medo

    Posts : 3918
    Points : 4002
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  medo on Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:42 pm

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Su-35-12

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Su-35-13

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Su-35-14

    More of Su-27M aka Su-35
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25982
    Points : 26528
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 17, 2020 7:38 am

    Or they had not yet brought the VKS to the point where buying more, different planes would make sense, or a mix of different reasons. By now they have only 6x MiG-35 on order for the swifts, given foreign buyers do not like being turned into guinea pigs and do not buy until the Russian services have debugged the plane, I don't feel the orders until now are proof of the deep love of the VKS for the MiG. Not yet at least, by the numbers bought when the state tests are over we will know whether the plane has a relevant place in the force structure or is rather an export model.

    So the state tests have not finished but because they have not ordered any you think they don't like them.

    In that case the Army doesn't like any of its equipment at all and neither does the Navy and Air Force... things have to pass their tests to enter production before they order them.... that is how things work in Russia... backward I know, but it means you don't end up with 3,500 orders for F-35s or 1,500 orders for F-22s, or 100 orders for B-2s....


    If left unchecked they have advantage to control engagements, apart from obviously fighting longer further with more payload.

    Amazing.... there is no penalty for being bigger and heavier... so why do you care so much about small single engined light fighters?

    To make them useful you would need to make them expensive so the reduced size just means poor performance in all areas except numbers.


    That is changing, there are a lot of investments being made in the Arctic and they are only now starting to prepare the military infrastructure necessary to protect them. Norilsk, Novatek, new ports, then new Vostok Oil project will come online.

    You don't get better coverage by having air fields 2,000km apart and big super long range planes... you get better coverage by having more planes and more airfields.

    They are getting very serious abut developing the Arctic and until now air basing is extremely sparse.

    Every port or settlement or base needs an airfield for supply and can be used by MPAs with enormous range and endurance that makes Flankers look like skate boards...


    That tunnel is a position where Flankers carry either big weapons (even two of them) or up to 4 AAM

    Only ever seen that on the Su-34 to be honest, which has a slightly wider gap between engines.

    Missiles are not cheap and carrying 14+ weapons on every mission would make it enormously expensive just to load.

    All adds up to the planes capability to load armament. Before you say it is irrelevant, it is not. It is also not be all, end all argument, just a contribution to each plane's final capabilities we are discussing.

    We are talking about its real world use, not how fun it would be in a computer game. In the real world it is drag and it is weight and it is expensive new electronics getting vibrated and shaken for an hour or two or three every flight.

    I would expect loadouts in high intensity conflicts to go well beyond the token ones seen normally. In the end the number of missiles depends on the number of enemies and pk expected.

    You only get a set time to use the BVR and super long range missiles before it gets close and you need a short range missile and gun... still carrying lots of bigger longer missiles impedes your capacity to use the short range missiles and the gun effectively and efficiently.

    It is your interpretation, I still don't see the clear evidence that is the case yet. Some planes you mention were bought either by force (Algeria) or because someone else paid the biggest part of the effort (Indian -29K), or were simply upgraded because otherwise they could not fly...

    There has never been any chance of the Su-33 going back into production... well unless China ordered some and they didn't.

    The MiG-29KR was the Russian Navies only chance to get brand new multirole fighters for her carrier and of course she took it.

    It would have been maybe better to do things together with VKS, I don't know if their planing is completely separated. But in any case if you decide you need naval fighters, then you need to invest the necessary money to sustain their operation.

    The Su-33 is essentially a corrosion resistant Su-27 with a tail hook and folding wings with larger flaps... they managed to cooperate with the Russian Army to develop a new 152mm gun and a range of new EM boosted ammo... why could they not talk to the Air Force as well?

    Eritrea in mountainous region, so MiGs are waiting for them in radar shadow. but when they pop up, Sukhois pick them up and react. First they evade missiles and than fire back.

    So tactics can be used to compensate for lack of radar range and the number of missiles they carry... I wonder how that conflict could have gone with the MiGs using R-77s... they could have launched from distance where teh Flankers R-27s would have been even more useless and out of reach of the R-73s... those Flankers might have been in serious trouble...

    In the eighties electrinics take some space and have its weight. MiG-31 and Su-27 were big enough to install this equipment inside. MiG-29 have only standard Lazur complex for GCI guiding. This is not situational avarenes, only vectoring to position to launch missiles against designated target. MiG-29 was depending on its own radar to see what is happening around him, while Su-27 could turn off his radar and got picture from group leader or AWACS.

    My understanding was that the MiGs were directed on intercept missions with the GCI programming their autopilots to take them to a position where they could attack the target outside the targets field of view and would not immediately see the attack as it was sprung.

    I'm not sure, why are you comparing standard Su-27 with MiG-29M? Standard Su-27 should be compared with standard MiG-29. MiG-29M has his counterpart in Su-27M, which was developed in the same time. Su-27M was later renamed in Su-35 and 10 prototypes were built.

    That Su-35 didn't enter service and was only seen at airshows. The MiG-29S was in service and for some time seems to be the only Russian aircraft able to carry and use the AVV-AE, or R-77 which they didn't buy anyway...

    Su-27M was also multirole and the basis for Su-30 and today Su-35.

    The Su-27UB was the basis for the Su-30, and was supposed to get an improved radar so it could operate in the PVO as a squad leader/AWACS type aircraft, but they never got new radars so it wasn't that great in the role... if it was used the way it was intended with a group of MiG-29s operating much closer to the target those MiG-29s would probably get a better view of the situation from their own radars, because they weren't that much worse than the Su-30 radar and they were operating much further forward.


    Ex-Algerian MiG-29SMT was never in Syria. MiG-29SMTs, which went to Syria were from batch of 16, which were produced in MiG for RuAF from unfinnished air fames. They are not export, they are domestic ones and have some differences and updates comparing to export ones.

    So clearly the fact that they were not fully integrated into their new networking system is either neglect or sabotage.

    The SMT model was for export to upgrade foreign older models to a modern standard... it was always intended to be applied to already built aircraft as an upgrade... they clearly did not expect the Russian AF to want some in a form that worked outside normal ground control networks.

    MiG-29K was in production in that time for India, Su-33 was not in production anymore.

    Su-35s weren't in production until they were... if they wanted more Su-33s they could have bought some.

    Russian NAVY want to replace Su-33 with new build planes, which will serve on carrier till the end of its life time. Navy use Syrian operation to test them both in real combat experience and decide to keep and modernize Su-33. Kuznetsov is now in process of upgrading and remaking for MiG-29K. When she will return to servis is another question. Kuznetsov is quite rare on the sea, so MiG-29KR will be just fine for her. Su-33 will most probably take other duties in the north and will go to Kuznetsov, when needed.

    Sounds to me like all these years the Russian Navy have been saying the Kuznetsov is too small and they want a bigger ship... I always thought it was because it could not carry enough aircraft to be useful for their needs but now I think it is because it is marginal for Su-33s to land safely and if a cable breaks then they will lose Flankers because they are clearly too heavy to operate from such a small ship.

    USN didn't decide to replace F-14 with F/A-18. It was political decision from Bush government to retire and destroy them to prevent smuggling of spare parts for F-14 to Iran. USN still miss Tomcats, specially F-14D, as F/A-18E/F are not the best replacement for them. F-14D was practically the same or even better than F-15E.

    The USN cooperated with the sabotage... they never bothered to upgrade F-14s to AMRAAMs and left them with old model sidewinders and Sparrows as well as Phoenix missiles.  The F-18 was more a light strike plane, but with better performance in every regard to the F-35 except in terms of stealth... it is certainly a better fighter than the F-35 and apart from the stealth it makes you wonder why they bother putting F-35s on board...

    Absolutely RuAF is full integrated in IADS, but it is only in Russia and it doesn't cover well whole Russian territory. After the fall of USSR, IADS in Arctic, Siberia and Far East practically dissapear and now Russian military is building it again with placing new radars, command centers, SAM brigades, rebuilding of airbases, etc. Outside IADS air force is depending on AWACS planes and networking to share picture between themselves. Situation is improving and RuAF also learn important lessons from this hard times period.

    Now that the ABM treaty is gone they can have OTH radars that look across Russian territory for managing ballistic missile defence, but the radars that look outwards have also filled in all the gaps, and pretty much anywhere there is a decent human settlement there are military airfields and radars and systems.

    They have the strongest IADS in the world and it is getting stronger every day but the primary components are ground based static and mobile radars and other systems. AWACS can fill gaps occasionally, but as shown in Saudi Arabia with that drone attack on their oil fields HATO got it exactly right... AWACS and fighters and JSTARS are brilliant for attack... not so good for defence however...


    Last edited by GarryB on Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
    medo
    medo

    Posts : 3918
    Points : 4002
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  medo on Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:44 pm

    There has never been any chance of the Su-33 going back into production... well unless China ordered some and they didn't.

    China buy Su-27K prototype in Ukraine and made their own J-15. China also produse twin seater J-15S and electronic warfare version J-15D.

    Su-27: News - Page 12 J-15_y10


    That Su-35 didn't enter service and was only seen at airshows. The MiG-29S was in service and for some time seems to be the only Russian aircraft able to carry and use the AVV-AE, or R-77 which they didn't buy anyway...

    Su-35 (Su-27M) were actually serialy prodused for Russian Knights acrobatic group. Small batch of 4 jets plus 1 prototype 703. 5 of them were in service. You have a picture of them. RuAF didn't buy any R-77, only for tests, so neither have them in armament. So the irony, the first fighter, who operationaly use R-77 was Chinese Su-27.

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Su-27u10

    Su-27: News - Page 12 J-11a_10


    So tactics can be used to compensate for lack of radar range and the number of missiles they carry... I wonder how that conflict could have gone with the MiGs using R-77s... they could have launched from distance where teh Flankers R-27s would have been even more useless and out of reach of the R-73s... those Flankers might have been in serious trouble...

    The same question could be given if Flankers were armed with R-77 AAMs and Sorbtsia-S ECM pods... As you could see on Chinese Su-27, they were integrated.


    The Su-27UB was the basis for the Su-30, and was supposed to get an improved radar so it could operate in the PVO as a squad leader/AWACS type aircraft, but they never got new radars so it wasn't that great in the role...

    Of course Su-30 was developed from Su-27UB. SU-27M was technological bases for Su-30MKI/MKM/MKA/SM and Su-35 with TVC, canards, Bars radar,...


    My understanding was that the MiGs were directed on intercept missions with the GCI programming their autopilots to take them to a position where they could attack the target outside the targets field of view and would not immediately see the attack as it was sprung.

    Exactly. GCI vectoring the interceptor to the position to launch AAM against the target. Fighter need its radar only in this last phase to guide missile on target. I read, that with Su-15 this system was so highly automated, that Su-15 almost didn't need a pilot. Problem was, that if pilot didn't use his own radar, he didn't know, what dangers are around him, he only know for the marked target.


    You don't get better coverage by having air fields 2,000km apart and big super long range planes... you get better coverage by having more planes and more airfields.
    Every port or settlement or base needs an airfield for supply and can be used by MPAs with enormous range and endurance that makes Flankers look like skate boards...

    Arctic is very rarely populated region. European part is now well covered with airbases in Zemlya Aleksandra island, Novaya Zemlya Island, Murmansk and Archangelsk bases. They are close enough to each other, that fighters as MiG-31 or Su-27 could cover the region. Problem is part in the east. RuAF renovate airbase in Tiksi. I hope air base in Kotelny island will also get concrete plates to be used for whole year. They have to renovate airport in Dikson, Air base in Cape Schmidt,... Airport Sabetta could be used as well.


    Now that the ABM treaty is gone they can have OTH radars that look across Russian territory for managing ballistic missile defence, but the radars that look outwards have also filled in all the gaps, and pretty much anywhere there is a decent human settlement there are military airfields and radars and systems.

    Russia is doing it. Thay are building more of big Container OTH radars, the second one will be in Far East, in the Arcit they are placing Resonans OTH radars as well as other radar stations with their bases. they are filling gaps, but the need time. Forming of new S-300 regiment in Tiksi is also a sign of building IADS in that region. I'm sure more of S-300 and S-400 will be stationed in the region.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1953
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  LMFS on Thu Sep 17, 2020 11:40 pm

    GarryB wrote:So the state tests have not finished but because they have not ordered any you think they don't like them.

    No, I just don't see prove they are very interested on them, not saying they aren't.

    Amazing.... there is no penalty for being bigger and heavier... so why do you care so much about small single engined light fighters?

    This argument can be mirrored to you, unless the only exact point which represents a perfect balance for a fighter (not too small, not too big) is the MiG-29.

    Only ever seen that on the Su-34 to be honest, which has a slightly wider gap between engines.

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Image_11

    We are talking about its real world use, not how fun it would be in a computer game. In the real world it is drag and it is weight and it is expensive new electronics getting vibrated and shaken for an hour or two or three every flight.

    In real world the suspended loads that generate the biggest drag index by far are the EFTs, not the AAMs...

    You only get a set time to use the BVR and super long range missiles before it gets close and you need a short range missile and gun... still carrying lots of bigger longer missiles impedes your capacity to use the short range missiles and the gun effectively and efficiently.

    If you check the developments and BVR exchanges, normally pk of those missiles are quite poor, the missiles are in fact rather used to steal the initiative from the other side. Russians have also the policy of launching salvo missiles with mixed warheads, that makes you needing to carry three or four missiles per target. At that pace, 12 or 14 missiles are not too many, not considering the IR ones that they may need to be used in close encounters or as self defence anti-missile weapon.


    Last edited by LMFS on Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:39 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 499
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  mnztr on Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:15 am

    GarryB wrote:
    But I don't understand... the bigger more powerful Su-27s should not have been surprised by those MiGs like that... doesn't it have bigger radar and IRST and it will do all the attacking from long range where the MiG is vulnerable and useless?


    Why are you surprised, they may have been low. They may have been spotted visually and they may have been running with radar off. Also the MIGs may have approached using terrain to conceal their approach, then popped up where they expected to find them. All the BVR "my radar is better then your radar" falls apart when really smart pilots do their best to prevail. In the Falklands the Argies knew they were hugely outclassed, and they flew breathtakingly low, approached from islands etc to get lost in the clutter. And they succeeded quite shockingly often.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25982
    Points : 26528
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:17 pm

    So the irony, the first fighter, who operationaly use R-77 was Chinese Su-27.

    Customers get what they pay for... the Russian military didn't want to spend money on R-77s.


    The same question could be given if Flankers were armed with R-77 AAMs and Sorbtsia-S ECM pods... As you could see on Chinese Su-27, they were integrated.

    What... you mean if the Flankers were armed with R-77s and ECM pods they could have won.... but they already did.

    Not all systems and weapons are integrated by default... if the Ethiopian Flankers had pods and R-77 missiles then why didn't they use them?

    Problem was, that if pilot didn't use his own radar, he didn't know, what dangers are around him, he only know for the marked target.

    Any other enemy aircraft nearby would have their own Su-15s closing in on them, and once the target was destroyed they could surely use their radar to find other targets while they were there or be directed by ground control to other nearby targets. It is not like the GCI guy is sitting at a table reading the tea leaves in the bottom of his teacup to find the targets... most aircraft trying to penetrate Soviet airspace couldn't fly low because they didn't have the flight endurance to fly that far at low altitude.

    Arctic is very rarely populated region. European part is now well covered with airbases in Zemlya Aleksandra island, Novaya Zemlya Island, Murmansk and Archangelsk bases. They are close enough to each other, that fighters as MiG-31 or Su-27 could cover the region. Problem is part in the east. RuAF renovate airbase in Tiksi. I hope air base in Kotelny island will also get concrete plates to be used for whole year. They have to renovate airport in Dikson, Air base in Cape Schmidt,... Airport Sabetta could be used as well.

    The point I am trying to make is that the airfields they operate from and the human settlements nearby are probably the only things within 2,000km worth defending anyway, so flying off on long range flights out over empty tundra just means you are a long way from your base when it gets attacked.
    The best way to deal with bombers and missiles trying to slip through your defences between your airfields and ports is to make more airfields in those places and leave fewer gaps for enemy planes and missiles to try to sneak through.

    Russia is doing it. Thay are building more of big Container OTH radars, the second one will be in Far East, in the Arcit they are placing Resonans OTH radars as well as other radar stations with their bases. they are filling gaps, but the need time. Forming of new S-300 regiment in Tiksi is also a sign of building IADS in that region. I'm sure more of S-300 and S-400 will be stationed in the region.

    My point is that you don't get better coverage by putting fewer radars around the place that are further apart because they are bigger and longer ranged... smaller radar and smaller planes give more detailed coverage even though you need more... having more means being able to track more targets and engage more threats...

    No, I just don't see prove they are very interested on them, not saying they aren't.

    In any organisation you will get favouritism.... there will be Indian pilots who think all French planes are wonderful and Russian planes are junk and there will be Indian pilots who think the opposite. You don't hear that though, you will generally hear from that first guy about the problems with the Russian planes that he probably doesn't fly.

    In the USN there were some that like Hornets and some that liked Tomcats... can't really say the best plane won... certainly the youngest did...

    This argument can be mirrored to you, unless the only exact point which represents a perfect balance for a fighter (not too small, not too big) is the MiG-29.

    Surely the MiG must be the best balance... complaints the older MiGs didn't have enough range and the MiG-35 is adequate, suggests they have gotten it about right... how could a smaller aircraft match its range and performance?

    .... oh that is right... it just needs a much more powerful next generation engine is all.

    I wonder if these new next gen engines will be cheap or perhaps aircraft only get one because they can't afford more?

    In real world the suspended loads that generate the biggest drag index by far are the EFTs, not the AAMs...

    True but EFTs effect G loads allowed for the carrying aircraft, but it is AAMs and various other missiles that also have g limits and carrying hours before they need to be stripped down and inspected to ensure they will still work as advertised.

    Some have limits as short as 100 hours before they need to be either used or stripped down and checked...

    If you check the developments and BVR exchanges, normally pk of those missiles are quite poor, the missiles are in fact rather used to steal the initiative from the other side.

    Not really, BVR missiles have long had a poor record for kills... that is just normal for them.

    Most BVR missiles these days are used at near WVR anyway... at shorter ranges they tend to have more energy and better chances for a kill but even then they are not hittiles.

    Russians have also the policy of launching salvo missiles with mixed warheads, that makes you needing to carry three or four missiles per target.

    Mixed seekers, not mixed warheads, and that was done with bomber targets because a near miss would likely only damage a bomber sized aircraft.

    When firing two missiles the IR guided missile would have to be launched first to prevent its seeker being distracted by a SARH missile in front of it... which means to fire two missiles you needed to get within IR guided missile range... which for old ANAB AA-3 and similar type missiles that meant really close and from behind... something the GCI guidance provided for bombers and spy planes... but not always reliable for enemy fighters...

    At that pace, 12 or 14 missiles are not too many, not considering the IR ones that they may need to be used in close encounters or as self defence anti-missile weapon.

    Their R-73s and even R-60s were much better missiles than their SARH missiles against fighters... most of their big heavy SARH missiles of all types were intended for use against bombers and high speed spy planes.

    Why are you surprised, they may have been low. They may have been spotted visually and they may have been running with radar off.

    I am not surprised... small light fighters have been sneaking up on bigger "more capable" ones for decades... the big ones are presumed to be superior and then in tests or in combat the little one surprises them.

    In these cases the small ones surprised the big ones and then flew away. In other situations the big ones managed to shoot down some small ones.

    All the BVR "my radar is better then your radar" falls apart when really smart pilots do their best to prevail. In the Falklands the Argies knew they were hugely outclassed, and they flew breathtakingly low, approached from islands etc to get lost in the clutter. And they succeeded quite shockingly often.

    When you know the enemy are good you have to use tactics to survive, but that does not mean the big planes are the best and that small planes always lose.

    The missiles are the things that are used to secure the victory and having the right ones can make an enormous difference... but in the cases given how could an AESA radar and Meteor AAMs have made any difference?
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6219
    Points : 6211
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  Isos on Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:30 pm

    Not all systems and weapons are integrated by default... if the Ethiopian Flankers had pods and R-77 missiles then why didn't they use them?

    Both had the shittiest su27 and mig-29 Russia could make.

    Those african countries are more likely to let US put their hands on them. China on the opposite is more trustfull but also there was always the risk that they copy it so they also got a shitty flanker.

    Their performances in that war are meaningless and can't be used to describ real flanker and fulcrum.

    R-77 isn't exeptional and r-27ER outclasses it. Only R-77-1 is worth something.
    medo
    medo

    Posts : 3918
    Points : 4002
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  medo on Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:23 pm

    Not all systems and weapons are integrated by default... if the Ethiopian Flankers had pods and R-77 missiles then why didn't they use them?

    Neither Ethiopia neither Eritrea have R-77 and ECM pods because they don't have money for them. Both have basic armament of R-27 and R-73.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1953
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  LMFS on Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:53 am

    GarryB wrote:Surely the MiG must be the best balance... complaints the older MiGs didn't have enough range and the MiG-35 is adequate, suggests they have gotten it about right...

    Hahaha, now my "completely taken from the rear" criterium is rock-solid to you, my carefully checked numbers are trash lol1

    The current reported range of the MiG-35 is the minimum acceptable range a fighter needs, that is why I said it is acceptable, because other small-ish fighters are not much better. But it depends, F-35 has almost 50% more range and can carry the loads internally, which further improves its comparative advantage in real operations... just giving this detail to you because I know you love the F-35 Wink

    how could a smaller aircraft match its range and performance?

    Its range, rather easily.

    I wonder if these new next gen engines will be cheap or perhaps aircraft only get one because they can't afford more?

    The future, at least for advanced militaries, is adaptive engines... they are not going to be cheap... at all!

    Most BVR missiles these days are used at near WVR anyway... at shorter ranges they tend to have more energy and better chances for a kill but even then they are not hittiles.

    True, they are actually used within 50 km or so, beyond they turn into miss-iles. I am curious about Meteor's performance on long BVR shots though...

    Mixed seekers, not mixed warheads, and that was done with bomber targets because a near miss would likely only damage a bomber sized aircraft.

    Sorry I mixed words.

    When firing two missiles the IR guided missile would have to be launched first to prevent its seeker being distracted by a SARH missile in front of it... which means to fire two missiles you needed to get within IR guided missile range... which for old ANAB AA-3 and similar type missiles that meant really close and from behind... something the GCI guidance provided for bombers and spy planes... but not always reliable for enemy fighters...

    We would talk about R-27 with thermal seeker, it has a substantial BVR range.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25982
    Points : 26528
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:39 pm

    The current reported range of the MiG-35 is the minimum acceptable range a fighter needs, that is why I said it is acceptable, because other small-ish fighters are not much better. But it depends, F-35 has almost 50% more range and can carry the loads internally, which further improves its comparative advantage in real operations... just giving this detail to you because I know you love the F-35

    Well they should obviously copy the F-35 exactly because as I keep saying the max range of a fighter is the most important feature.... way more important than anything else... except I guess if that were true they might be flying interceptors the size of the Tu-128 Fiddler perhaps?

    Its range, rather easily.

    Yeah, it is always the aircraft with the best range that win all the time...   Rolling Eyes


    We would talk about R-27 with thermal seeker, it has a substantial BVR range.

    They are putting an IIR seeker on the Hermes missile for use against ground and air targets that has a two way datalink and a lock on after launch guidance system.... fitting such a seeker to an R-27E missile... or even an R-37M missile would be rather interesting don't you agree?

    With an imaging seeker and a 3D library of IR images of targets it could find and select its own targets... in the air and on the ground...

    How will billions of euros spent on RCS shaping of your fighters help make them invisible to an IIR seeker?

    A 300km range IIR guided Brimstone...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1953
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  LMFS on Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:01 pm

    GarryB wrote:They are putting an IIR seeker on the Hermes missile for use against ground and air targets that has a two way datalink and a lock on after launch guidance system.... fitting such a seeker to an R-27E missile... or even an R-37M missile would be rather interesting don't you agree?

    Sure!

    How will billions of euros spent on  RCS shaping of your fighters help make them invisible to an IIR seeker?

    There are already many countermeasures against IIR, like masking, decoys or DIRCM. The trend in seekers is to make them multispectral for that reason, that means higher cost and less space for fuel or warhead...

    Sponsored content

    Su-27: News - Page 12 Empty Re: Su-27: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:46 am