Su-27: News

franco wrote:

George1 wrote:

franco wrote:

mnztr wrote:Not heard much about the SU-27 recently. The last major upgrade was around 2004. Is there any plan to upgrade them again in parallel with the SU-30 MK2? I assume Russia still has a pretty huge fleet of them.

- 3 squadrons of the Su-27P's
- 3 squadrons of the Su-27SM's
- 2 squadrons of the Su-27SM3's

franco can you give us the numbers of all Su-27s by version? thanks

That's a job for our Italian friend, the airplane tracker

My take of those still operational would be:

- 43-46 -27SM's
- 22-26 -27SM3's
- 1 -27UBM
- 60-80 -27P/S/UB's

I'm afraid there aren't that many left in operation

there are only the next squadrons
- 2 Sqds. of Su-27SM3 at Krymsk
- 1 Sqn of Su-27SM at Belbek
- 3 Sqds of Su-27P at Belbek and Kaliningrad
- 1 Sqn of Su-27UB at Kuschevskaya (not clear if remains in operation but will be replaced soon)

689º IAP Kaliningrad:  24 Su-27P + 4 Su-27UB
38 IAP Belbek:  12 Su-27P + 12 Su-27SM + 3 Su-27UB
3 IAP Krymsk:  24 Su-27SM
790 IAP Khotilovo:  2 Su-27UB and as much a coupe of Su-27S
797 UAP Kuschevkaya: 8 Su-27UB
4 TsBP Lipetsk: 3 Su-27S and 1 Su-27PU (soviet Su-30)  
22 IAP Vladivostok: As much a couple of Su-27SM and one Su-27UB are still in use

in total 100 Su-27´s (72 in VKS and 28 in the Navy)
24 Su-27SM3
14 Su-27SM
36 Su-27P
5 Su-27S
20 Su-27UB
1 Su-27PU (soviet Su-30)

- 43-46 -27SM's

No, the squadrons of Besovets and Khotilovo are out of use after received Su-35
Those Su-27SM probably are in reserve for replace Su-27 in Kaliningrad in a few time, before the replacement with So-35 that probably will be about 2025 or 2027. Also those Su-27 SM could go to North Fllet for a time before the deployment of Su-35

- 1 -27UBM

this was never in service with RuAF
Only was one prototype that was tested in Akhtubisnk, later discarded and stored

Well I think about a thing. Su-30SM will get new engines and new radars so their own radars and engines which are still in good conditions could be given to the Su-27s.

That can easily give them another 10 years of operations or again export them more easily for low price.

There are quite a lot of arguing in MiG-29 tread about Flankers, so I think answering here would be more proper.

LMFS wrote:No indication until now that:

- MiG-35 will replace the Su-27, but Su-35, this was mentioned already, planes are on order and destination units are known.
- Nobody has said yet, outside of this forum, that Su-30 will be the AWACS... Su-57 have an electronic co-pilot, Su-35 too, both have very powerful radars... nothing against the idea of using big planes with powerful radars as command posts and I have proposed myself that light fighters can be made much simpler, very much as loyal wingmans are being developed, but still we need to see Russians going this way, creating mixed regiments and supporting our predictions and guesses with some facts...

No, it was quite some time ago decided, that Su-27 will be replaced by Su-35 and Su-57. MiG-31 will get its own replacement. MiG-29 was partialy replaced by Su-30SM, so most probably MiG-35 will go to regiments, which were equipped with MiG-29.

Nobody said in this forum, that Su-30 will be AWACS. I said, that SU-30SM2 could work as mini AWACS if needed. First Su-30 or Su-27PU was meant to be a command post of air defense group. Su-30SM2 will be exactly that, air defense or strike group command post, where WSO in back seat could work as group commander and working with data and situational picture colecting and sharing from his own and outside sensors, inside and outside his network and coordinating the work of other members in the group. Of course RuAF have A-50and A-100 AWACS planes and flying command posts, which will command and control air operation. If the AWACS is shot down, network will not disintegrate, but will goup command posts take control with connection to ground control bases and if needed work as a kind of AWACS with its own Irbis radar for the rest in the group, which will be in radar silence. Of course Su-35 and Su-57 have a big electronic help for the pilot, but this help is to concentrate on fighting inside group. But a single seater pilot could not at the same time control the plane, fight a battle and work as group command post. For that job WSO is needed. Work overload was the reason, why RuAF didn't went for single seater Ka-50 attack helicopter and instead decide for twin seater Ka-52.

They don't use their Flankers or Fulcrums for strike missions... that is why they weren't interested in SMT upgrades... guided air to ground weapons are expensive so only Su-24 and Su-34 units get them in any decent numbers... their Su-27s and MiG-29s carry AAMs 99% of the time.

Basic Flankers and Fulcrums were air defense fighters and they didn't have strike capabilities. RuAF weren't interested in MiG-29SMT the same as they weren't interested in Su-27UBM and Su-30KN upgrades, because Russia in that time didn't have money for them. When you don' have big number of such weapons, than they are delivered by priorities. R-77-1 AAMs first went to Su-35 and MiG-31BM units. Now, when RuAF have more money to buy armament in more significant numbers, all units will got guided weapons and new AAMs.

The air force uses MiG-29s and their variants and the Su-27 are interceptors and fighters... strike missions are done by specialist aircraft... Su-24 and Su-34 and Backfires...

MiGs main mistake was that their planes were multirole... ironically if the cold war had continued they would have been in every eastern european air force in large numbers because those air forces would not have Su-24s and Su-34, and would need to use them as multirole aircraft...

Su-34 come in armament far later and could be as well seen as multirole as it do strike missions, SEAD, ECM, recce missions and also have good air to air capabilities.

Which MiG plane was multirole? MiG-29 was point defense fighter, MiG-31 was interceptor and MiG-27 was attack bomber. Yes MiG later develop MiG-29M, which was multirole fighter, but in the same time Sukhoi develop multirole Su-27M, which later become Su-35 (not the same as today Su-35S). Both didn't come to armament, because Russia in that time didn't have money for them.

Actually the MiG-29S was the first Soviet fighter that could use R-77s, but they didn't order them in any numbers so it didn't matter that much... the MiG-29SM had the Gardenia self defence avionics suite... the MiG was often better than the Flanker, but that was rarely recognised in the west that saw the MiG-29 as the cheaper lighter simpler little brother...

N001 radar for Su-27 also have option to be upgraded for R-77 missiles. Unfortunately only China got it. In the time, when MiG-29S got gardenia ECM complex, Su-27 got Sorbtsia-S ECM complex. But Su-27 have from the beginning IFDL complex for group working, what MiG-29 never had and it could use long range R-27ET/ER missiles, which MiG-29 could not.

Why would Russia need a two seat Su-35 in the form of the Su-30? Why would a Mini AWACS fighter aircraft operate with planes the same size and with similar running costs?

Because of netcentric informationa networking, where you dont have only one center in AWACS, but also lower tear command centers in those planes to secure networking even if the highest center in AWACS is lost. In USSR fighters were mostly short range point defense fighters and were controled by ground based centers (GBI), only Su-27 and MiG-31 in PVO use AWACS and group working over Siberia and Artics, where air space was not thet well covered by ground EW radars and GBI centers. Today operations, specially when outside Russia need networking from airborn centers and command posts. RuAF doesn't have so many AWACS planes and specialized command planes as USAF have.

Flankers have been indeed used for strike missions in Syria, that is what multirole fighters do.

All Flankers in Syria were multirole. From Su-27SM3 to Su-35.

VMF is equipping their Su-33 with SVP-24, suggests they do want to go from air defence only to multirole.

Navy also want deeper modernization of Su-33 and they restart production of upgraded engines for them. SVP-24-33 improve capabilities with unguided bombs and rockets and improve data link networking as Su-33 now not only share picture of air situation, but also got informations of ground and surface situation and targets.

I explained the reasons they didn't buy it... it was multirole and more expensive than the cheaper Sukhoi alternative despite being cheaper to operate, why spend extra money on features you don't want?

And they didn't.

But things are different now... they want multirole and modern and the upgrades for the Su-27 to make them modern and fully multirole are not cheaper than the MiG-35... but teh MiG-35 will be cheaper to operate over time.

MiG-29M and Su-27M were both multirole and Russia didn't have money for both. First real multirole fighter RuAF got was Su-27SM, later they buy ex-Algerian MiG-29SMT. Flanker simply have longer range with internal fuel, than Fulcrum with three fuel drop tanks. Flanker also have hard point, which could carry 1500 kg weapon load. Flanker could carry long range cruise missiles as Kh-59MK2 (new and old) and will be able to use Kh-50 and Kh-32 missiles. Flankers have missiles with far longer stand off range and with new small gliding guided bombs, they will carry them in larger numbers to overwhelm enemy air defense.

Isos wrote:Well I think about a thing. Su-30SM will get new engines and new radars so their own radars and engines which are still in good conditions could be given to the Su-27s.

That can easily give them another 10 years of operations or again export them more easily for low price.

Engines could be spares for Belarus, Armenia and Kazakhstan Su-30SM. Radars could be given to Su-33. Admirals want to upgrade them to Su-30 level and with Bars-R radars, they will got them. Maybe they are waiting with deeper modernization to got those radars instead of modernizing existing ones.

LMFS wrote:Yes, I am aware that VMF is slowly also implementing the unified information system, over the sea and without AWACS it is specially relevant to unify the information from all fighters. I would expect them re-starting development of serious naval strike weapons and also including the Su-33 in the re-engining program mentioned for Flankers, if one fighter would benefit from using AL-41F-1S that is the -33. Maybe you are aware of whether they plan to install them in the naval fighters too, or it is not considered worth the effort. Those planes are not new, the engine would probably need to be modified for naval operations. They told several times about retiring the planes, but I have the impression that is not going to be the case.

No, Russia restart production of special naval engine AL-31F3 for Su-33. It is modernized with latest technology and have FADEC, longer service life, higher trust and lower fuel consuption. This engine is specially treated for maritime operation and have better anti corrosion protection. Su-33 have stronger construction for carrier operations and better anti corrosion protection. They were very rarely on the sea as Kuznetsov was mostly parked in naval base and rarely went on the sea voyage. And even when it went, only a part of Su-33 were on bort and they have very low number of flying hours on carrier deck. They are produced in the nineties and with new engines they could still serve for decades, specially from ground air bases. Kuznetsov, when will be finished with repairs, will be loaded with MiG-29KR and when new carrier will be build, it will get new jets, most probably navalized Su-57. When Kuznetsov will go on the voyage, it will most probably have small group of 2 or 4 Su-33, the rest will be newer MiG-29KR. Su-33 would be better suited for protection of northern sea route in Arctic from airbases, where they will mostly fly over sea.

Which MiG plane was multirole?

MiG-29S could use some guided air to ground weapons, and the MiG-29SM expanded that with TV and laser guided weapons.

N001 radar for Su-27 also have option to be upgraded for R-77 missiles.

Any plane can be upgraded to use R-77 missiles... but the fact is that the MiG-33, MiG-29S, and MiG-31BM and probably the Su-25TM were the only aircraft able to use R-77s, which was a moot point because they only had a few for testing.

what MiG-29 never had and it could use long range R-27ET/ER missiles, which MiG-29 could not.

The early MiG-29s couldn't even use the shorter ranged R-27T, but the later models after MiG-29SM could use all the R-27s, as could the MiG-33s.

All Flankers in Syria were multirole. From Su-27SM3 to Su-35.

The Su-34s are Fullbacks, so most of the strike missions were Fencers and Backfires and Fullbacks. The Su-30 and Su-35 Flankers were used as fighter escorts most of the time.

MiG-29M and Su-27M were both multirole and Russia didn't have money for both.

They didn't have money for either... and even if they did they weren't spending on weapons so they would have only been multirole on paper anyway.

First real multirole fighter RuAF got was Su-27SM, later they buy ex-Algerian MiG-29SMT.

The MIG-29S was about as multirole as the Su-27SM, and they probably had a few Su-25T and Su-25TMs before they got their MiG-29SMTs.

Flanker simply have longer range with internal fuel, than Fulcrum with three fuel drop tanks.

Which means nothing at all when Flankers were operating most of the time on quarter tanks... because when operating with full internal tanks they have serious g limits which means they are not fighters till they burned off the excess fuel and lost some weight.

Flanker also have hard point, which could carry 1500 kg weapon load. Flanker could carry long range cruise missiles as Kh-59MK2 (new and old) and will be able to use Kh-50 and Kh-32 missiles.

MiG-35 has 2,000 litre fuel tanks as options on its inner pylons which means it can carry 2,000kg weapons there too... Kh-59MK2 is about 800-900kg or so and can easily be carried by MiGs as well.

Flankers have missiles with far longer stand off range and with new small gliding guided bombs, they will carry them in larger numbers to overwhelm enemy air defense.

Most of the missiles the Flankers are actually cleared to carry the MiG-35 can carry too. The ones they probably can't the Flanker has not been cleared to carry anyway. The airlaunched version of SS-N-22 Sunburn called Moskit is a 4.5 ton missile that was shown all through the 1990s at airshows next to Flankers, but was never operational... the newer Onyx or export Yakhont is about 2.5 tons and isn't integrated into Russian Flankers either AFAIK.

So yes, the Flanker can fly further... but because they operate at similar speeds to the MiGs, they don't.

They have the potential to carry much bigger weapons... but they don't... with better accuracy a 500kg bomb is normally good enough.

so most probably MiG-35 will go to regiments, which were equipped with MiG-29.

As more bases are built in the Arctic and populations increase having more regiments makes sense and having smaller cheaper to operate planes that fit in smaller hangars makes sense.

So I don't see the necessity of a WSO organising huge amounts of information, but I agree in the meantime and until the network is fully mature the WSO can be helpful.

An AWACS is not a radar in a plane or helicopter... a radar in a plane or helicopter is AEW. An AWACS needs to interpret that information and understand the disposition of friendly forces and make command decisions as to which friendly forces react and which are going to back them up and what the rest are going to be doing in the mean time... a pilot flying a plane can't be thinking about such things and I don't think AI has gotten to the point where it can manage that on its own reliably.

Su-57 is intended to command a UCAV group on its own, so I guess IA will take care of 99% of the tasks and the pilot should do little more than confirming them.

In a sense it is conceptionally slight different.... the drones he is working with are more extensions of his own aircraft... and introduce potential new concepts like distributed radar, where one drone might climb high and one drops down low and he remains in a medium altitude and send another drone off to the left and one off to the right and they can all use their radar to scan what is in front of them looking at their own radar returns but also each others returns as well... one purpose of stealthy shaping is to redirect radar waves in directions other than which they arrived from... sort of the opposite of a reflector on a car or bike that shines your headline beams right back at you to improve visibility... Radars spread around might pick up more of the scattered signal from low RCS targets.

In a sense then the drones had radar elements and could be used to simulate a radar thousands of metres wide like a bunch of radio telescopes can work together on the same data and effectively get the performance of much bigger structures that would be impossible to actually make.

The drones also add jamming and decoy capacity and also weapons to make the Su-57 effectively much better equipped than it actually is... sort of like self powered and free flying towed drones.

With the Su-30 on the other hand it is increasing the detection range of smaller lighter cheaper fighters so you save on operational costs but keep the performance.

They told several times about retiring the planes, but I have the impression that is not going to be the case.

The best solution would be Su-57Ks... the MiG-35s are dual purpose planes that can be used on carriers as well as on land so any short fall make a few extra when the AF gets them into production...

Any plane can be upgraded to use R-77 missiles... but the fact is that the MiG-33, MiG-29S, and MiG-31BM and probably the Su-25TM were the only aircraft able to use R-77s, which was a moot point because they only had a few for testing.

Chinese Su-27 regularly use R-77, not only for testing. Russia for sure use and tested R-77 on Su-27, before they integrate them on Chinese Su-27. Su-27M was also able to use R-77.

MiG-35 has 2,000 litre fuel tanks as options on its inner pylons which means it can carry 2,000kg weapons there too... Kh-59MK2 is about 800-900kg or so and can easily be carried by MiGs as well.

Nope, 2000 l external fuel tank is only in central position between the engines and there is instalation only for fuel tank, not for weapons. On inner pylons it carry 1150 l fuel tanks (860 kg). Kerosine mass is 0,75 kg/l. Anyway, three external fuel tanks bring 3 tons of weight.

The Su-34s are Fullbacks, so most of the strike missions were Fencers and Backfires and Fullbacks. The Su-30 and Su-35 Flankers were used as fighter escorts most of the time.

Yes, Su-34 are Fullbacks or Hellducks, but they are still Flanker family.

Most of the missiles the Flankers are actually cleared to carry the MiG-35 can carry too. The ones they probably can't the Flanker has not been cleared to carry anyway. The airlaunched version of SS-N-22 Sunburn called Moskit is a 4.5 ton missile that was shown all through the 1990s at airshows next to Flankers, but was never operational... the newer Onyx or export Yakhont is about 2.5 tons and isn't integrated into Russian Flankers either AFAIK.

MiG-35 is not using Kh-59MK missile.



Sunburn was not videly spread on the ships, so it was not realistic to use it from the plane. No Onyx is not integrated on Russian Flankers, although India is integrating their Brahmos in them. Russian NAVY find better solution and will integrate Kh-32 from Tu-22M3 on their Su-30SM. It is even better solution as it have 1000 km range and speed from 3,5 to 4,5 mach. If they succede to instal Kh-32, than they could install Kinzhal as well. Kh-50 cruise missile is also option for them.

Which means nothing at all when Flankers were operating most of the time on quarter tanks... because when operating with full internal tanks they have serious g limits which means they are not fighters till they burned off the excess fuel and lost some weight.

In Syria they don't need full internal fuel because of short distances. But full internal fuel tanks still doesn't have such G limitation as full internal tanks + 3 tons of fuel in external fuel tanks. In Syria Flankers with quarter of internal fuel its weapons load doesn't reach the weight of clean flanker with full internal fuel tanks. Quite a difference.

Up until 2008 they weren't multi role... the only multirole Flankers were exports... Russia AF Flankers for the most part have been single role and even the ones that got upgrades... they didn't start buying air to ground munitions till well after about 2012... only Su-24 and 34 units got guided air to ground weapons.

Su-27SM3 with guided weapons.

Chinese Su-27 regularly use R-77, not only for testing. Russia for sure use and tested R-77 on Su-27, before they integrate them on Chinese Su-27. Su-27M was also able to use R-77.

China was the main export customer of R-77, or RVV-AE, along with India. Russia didn't buy any for operational use, meaning teh capacity to use them or otherwise is not really relevant to a discussion about Russian Air Force choices in aircraft procurement.

MiG-29M could use R-77 too... the only ones seen in the 1980s and 1990s were on mockups of MiG-29Ms...

Nope, 2000 l external fuel tank is only in central position between the engines and there is instalation only for fuel tank, not for weapons. On inner pylons it carry 1150 l fuel tanks (860 kg). Kerosine mass is 0,75 kg/l. Anyway, three external fuel tanks bring 3 tons of weight.

They showed new design composite 2,000l tanks were shown on model aircraft for MRCA with India.

Yes, Su-34 are Fullbacks or Hellducks, but they are still Flanker family.

They might be capable of multirole missions, they are strike aircraft and do the same in Syria that the Su-24s do, which means they are not used for multiple roles.

MiG-35 is not using Kh-59MK missile.

The Kh-59MK is designed for two seater Su-30s. Su-27s can't carry it either.

Sunburn was not videly spread on the ships, so it was not realistic to use it from the plane.

Every Sovremmeny class destroyer had 8 as its standard primary weapon load. It was also used on one small missile boat I can't remember the name of.

It was of critical importance because it was the one missile the AEGIS cruisers couldn't stop reliably... it flew under their minimum 10m engagement height.

Russian NAVY find better solution and will integrate Kh-32 from Tu-22M3 on their Su-30SM. It is even better solution as it have 1000 km range and speed from 3,5 to 4,5 mach. If they succede to instal Kh-32, than they could install Kinzhal as well. Kh-50 cruise missile is also option for them.

Kh-32 is a liquid fuelled rocket... if it is anything like the Kh-22M then they don't want too many of them in service.

An air launched version of Zircon would be a scramjet powered mach 10 missile with a range better than any missile you mentioned.

In Syria they don't need full internal fuel because of short distances. But full internal fuel tanks still doesn't have such G limitation as full internal tanks + 3 tons of fuel in external fuel tanks. In Syria Flankers with quarter of internal fuel its weapons load doesn't reach the weight of clean flanker with full internal fuel tanks. Quite a difference.

But totally meaningless.... to use their range advantage they get more strict manouver limitations than a MiG with external fuel tanks because the MiG can drop their tanks if they get jumped... the Flanker just flys like a dog till the fuel is burned off...

But it doesn't matter because there will be Fulcrums there to cover the Flanker as it heads out to the place it will be operating... unless they go with an all Flanker fleet and then they are screwed.

Su-27SM3 with guided weapons.

Testing or air show. They didn't have any in units that needed or could use multirole.

Only Su-24 and Su-34 units got guided air to ground weapons...

The electronic assistant in the Su-35 already fuses information form the sensors and selects targets according to their level of threat, selects proper weapons, suggests attack procedure etc., many other Russian weapon systems are fully automated. For an AWACS to work today you don't need an operator in a plane to decide anything, there is a common tactical information & command space which is distributed. The command can come from Moskow or from an AWACS or from the headquarters of a military district, it does not matter.

If the decision could come from HQ or Moscow then why bother upgrading the Su-30s... just use Su-35s as the mini AWACS platforms.... and the A-100 could be much lighter and longer ranged with all those crew positions replaced with fuel because they don't need them...

Happy you see that too

Except it all works with all twin engined fighters...

MiG-35 on carriers? VMF explicitly avoided retirement of the -33 and instead created an additional squadron with the -29K, they have more than enough naval fighters, if only they had a carrier to operate from...

The MiG-35 shares the same shell and design as the naval MiG-29KR... a factory making the 35 could easily make KR if not a KR with 35 bits.

The design has been unified... so they could fit folding wings and tail hook and navy bits to the 35...

There is some extra weight the Flankers carry all the time because of their inherent big fuel capacity, but that is way better than having your fleet operating with EFTs or CFTs all the time

But in Syria they are not needing EFTs and CFTs... they are just using the bigger plane with half fuel tanks... MiG-35s could probably do a similar job using full fuel tanks.. but they don't have any on hand at the moment.

The penalty in ultimate dogfighting capacity vs. bare bones planes that have low internal fuel and ejected their EFTs the Russians have it covered with their work on extreme agility, besides the one who has more fuel has a better chance to control the engagement.

External fuel tanks can be dumped if there is a need to turn and burn... not so with full internal fuel...

The Flanker would be fighting with one arm tied behind its back, while the MiG pilot might need to call for inflight refuelling for his return journey... I know which I would prefer...

External fuel tanks can be dumped if there is a need to turn and burn... not so with full internal fuel...

The Flanker would be fighting with one arm tied behind its back, while the MiG pilot might need to call for inflight refuelling for his return journey... I know which I would prefer...

I think you are mixing few things here. The only Flanker problem with full internal fuel tanks and weapon loads is with Su-33 to take of from carrier ski jump. It was made as air defense fighter and it could take of with full tanks and some AAMs for air patrols. Problem become, when Su-33 take heavy bomb load and then it have to have less fuel in internal tanks that the total weight is not to big to take of. Operating from ground air base, Su-33 doesn't have a problem with full internal fuel tanks and full weapon load.

When we are talking about agility in the air, Su-27 is the same fully agile with full internal fuel tanks as MiG-29 is with full internal fuel tanks. This si the way, they are designed. Do you think Sukhoi enginers design Flankers combat capabilities with half of fuel in internal fuel tanks? No, they are all designed with full internal fuel tanks and basic weapon load. External fuel tans are additional mass and drag on the plane. MiG-29 with 3 external fuel tanks, which bring 3 tons of additiona mass on the plane for sure can not be as agile as Su-27 with internal fuel only. That is why MiG-29 have to drop external fuel tanks, while Su-27 doesn't have problems. When returning, MiG-29 have to refuel in the air, if it have IFR, while Su-27 doesn't need it.

The best example was seen in Syria, when MiG-29KR crash in the sea as it run out of fuel, when he could not land on the carrier because of the problems with breaking wires. Su-33 have no problem to turn around and land in Hmeimim. One Su-33 was lost, because breaking wire broke, when Su-33 catch it and fall from the deck, but none have problems to be too low on fuel. War in syria was actually easy for Flankers. Fuel only in body tanks, wing tanks were empty, low weapon load and no high G turns as there were no air battles. Actually cruising on the sky and droping some bombs. Less stress for structure than usual exercise. but this was Syrian theatre. Next time they could have to operate in theatre, where long range of Flankers and Foxbats could be crucial to succede and hardly needed. In that case MiG-29 could just protect the base and wish them luck.

But totally meaningless.... to use their range advantage they get more strict manouver limitations than a MiG with external fuel tanks because the MiG can drop their tanks if they get jumped... the Flanker just flys like a dog till the fuel is burned off...

But it doesn't matter because there will be Fulcrums there to cover the Flanker as it heads out to the place it will be operating... unless they go with an all Flanker fleet and then they are screwed.

Most probably Eritrean MiG-29 pilots think in similar way, when they went in dogfight with Ethiopian Su-27 fighters and lost 6:0. They were all shot down in doghfight with R-73 AAMs. Don't underestimate Flankers. They are incredibly agile and excelent dogfighters.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/that-time-flankers-fought-fulcrums-over-africa

On Feb. 25, 1999, in a pair of engagements, Ethiopian Su-27s would shoot down two MiG-29s. The next day, Eritrean MiG-29s shot down a pair of Ethiopian MiG-21s. Ethiopia would claim that a "Capt. Asther Tolossa" would shoot down a MiG-29, but the existence of Capt. Tolossa is disputed.

In March, Ethiopian Flankers claimed two more Eritrean Fulcrums.

The last encounters in that war between Fulcrum and Flanker would take place in May 2000. On May 16, Ethiopia claimed that one of their Flankers shot down an Eritrean Fulcrum. Two days later, another Eritrean Fulcrum was shot out of the sky by a Flanker. The war ended in June 2000 with Ethiopia re-claiming the seized territory, and holding on to it despite an international court ruling favoring Eritrea.

I think you are mixing few things here. The only Flanker problem with full internal fuel tanks and weapon loads is with Su-33 to take of from carrier ski jump. It was made as air defense fighter and it could take of with full tanks and some AAMs for air patrols. Problem become, when Su-33 take heavy bomb load and then it have to have less fuel in internal tanks that the total weight is not to big to take of. Operating from ground air base, Su-33 doesn't have a problem with full internal fuel tanks and full weapon load.

I think you are mixing things up. Like most aircraft with folding wings the Su-33 is limited to 8g no matter what the internal or external load, but Flankers, and I assume it is the same for the Su-33 were g limited when operating with full internal fuel tanks... it had nothing to do with take off or landing weights and it was nothing to do with folding wings.

The Su-33 would never have a heavy bomb load... ever.... it was a fighter/inteceptor and would carry R-27E and R-73 AAMs... that was its weapon load which is a fraction of the max payload it could carry, but with full fuel and full AAM weapon load out it could not use external fuel tanks and honestly the 500kg dumb bombs are not that much heavier than the 350kg R-27E model AAMs anyway...

AFAIK it could take off with full fuel and full AA weapons load (ie AAM or sorbitzer jamming pods on every pylon) from the waist launch position... that was its main purpose. The smaller lighter MiGs could do the same but also from the front launch positions because they normally carried lighter R-77s and R-73s, which are 175kgs and 105kg or 120kgs in the later models...

When we are talking about agility in the air, Su-27 is the same fully agile with full internal fuel tanks as MiG-29 is with full internal fuel tanks. This si the way, they are designed.

No it is not. The Flanker is the long range fighter and escort fighter and was never intended as a point defence fighter. With quarter tanks it could do the job though.

Do you think Sukhoi enginers design Flankers combat capabilities with half of fuel in internal fuel tanks? No, they are all designed with full internal fuel tanks and basic weapon load.

Half the fuel in the tanks is to get them where they need to be... if they don't need to go great distances they don't carry that fuel... the other half is for doing their job and if they launch with that they can do their job over the air field they are operating from... if they have to fly 1,000km to get to their area of operation then they carry more fuel, but can't tango till they get there.

They have high off boresight missiles and helmet mounted sights so not being able to pull 9 g is not actually that big a deal... down graded export MiG-29Bs used by the East German pilots fitted with the old belly mounted fuel tanks that meant the main cannon could not be fired and limited flight performance to 5 g or less didn't stop them killing F-16s and F-15s in close combat tests in the 1990s...

External fuel tans are additional mass and drag on the plane. MiG-29 with 3 external fuel tanks, which bring 3 tons of additiona mass on the plane for sure can not be as agile as Su-27 with internal fuel only.

You can drop those external fuel tanks if you need to be agile... burn that fuel first... Su-27 can't dump internal fuel so easily.... and trailing fuel you are trying to dump while manouvering in full AB is going to lead to a spectacular display... the sort of thing the Aussie F111s were famous for... saw them at an airshow here in Wanaka a few years back where they dumped fuel and ignited it with their AB... impressive...

That is why MiG-29 have to drop external fuel tanks, while Su-27 doesn't have problems.

The MiG-29 has the capacity to use three drop tanks... if it is using them all the time then you are not using them right.

When returning, MiG-29 have to refuel in the air, if it have IFR, while Su-27 doesn't need it.

Most Russian in service MiG-29s don't have inflight refuelling probes....

The best example was seen in Syria, when MiG-29KR crash in the sea as it run out of fuel, when he could not land on the carrier because of the problems with breaking wires. Su-33 have no problem to turn around and land in Hmeimim. One Su-33 was lost, because breaking wire broke, when Su-33 catch it and fall from the deck, but none have problems to be too low on fuel.

That showed lack of experience.... they should have had an inflight refuelling aircraft nearby to support operations... AFAIK they both tried to land but because the actual arrester gear was faulty or broken then there was no give so the cables will break... any cables will break in that situation... it has nothing to do with whether the cables are faulty or not because even brand new cables in perfect condition would break.

There is no excuse for either aircraft to have crashed, but even the cables breaking neither plane should have ended up in the drink... the planes should come in a low speed and as they touch down should apply full AB so if they miss the cable or it breaks... because they do sometimes, then you have the momentum to continue through and accelerate up and away and can come around for another go.

The MiG likely didn't start to try to land until it was low on fuel and so each time it tried to land it would come in and then full AB power try to catch the cable.... after the third break it becomes obvious it is not the cables because cables don't break that often... it is clearly something wrong with the mechanism.

The fact that they didn't get an inflight refuelling aircraft from a land base flown out to offer assistance just shows how green they were... I doubt they expected the arrester gear was at fault because you can't fix that at sea.

Arrester gear is like the tranmision in your car, but in this case it is designed to control the feed release of the cables so when 20-25 tons of plane starts yanking on it that it gives enough cable so that the cable doesn't immediately snap, but also feeds it out slowly enough to slow the plane down so it doesn't just drag all the cable out and drop off the end of the deck into the sea.

The arrester gear wasn't feeding the cable out so no matter which cable was attached it just snapped just like any cable directly attached to a fixed point on the carrier deck would.

The fact that the Su-33 crashed to is more sinister... by now the MiG has ditched into the sea so when the Su-33 comes in it knows there is something wrong... the fact that it is trying to land rather than just divert to a land base suggests he had been low on fuel and had been waiting for all the MiG pilots landing attempts and now no longer could make a land base either.

I don't know what the actual details were... all the cables breaking makes it obvious it was an arrester gear system failure.... or that company in the US that makes special steel for US Submarines perhaps made them and faked test passes perhaps?

If the Su-33 tried to land and when the cable snapped went into the water suggests to me a much more serious problem... it should have been able to carry on through the landing attempt and turn on AB and when the cable snapped continue on and up and fly around again for either another go or be diverted to another landing option or inflight refuelling.

You saying it went into the sea because the cable snapped suggests it was either overloaded with too much fuel and or weapons... it might have been on its way out for a mission and the mission was scrubbed... but these guys know this... for goodness sake I know this and I have never even been on an aircraft carrier.

The Su-33 is a bigger heaver aircraft and if they can't recover from a snapped cable landing then I can see why they want to put them on land bases for the Russian Navy...

Snapped cables under normal situations is a very rare event... if you have two snap in a row then there is something else wrong.... but if you are going to lose an Su-33 with every snapped cable then that is going to get very very expensive...

War in syria was actually easy for Flankers. Fuel only in body tanks, wing tanks were empty, low weapon load and no high G turns as there were no air battles.

I agree, it wasn't a good hard test for them, but they were certainly useful, and if there were problems with the neighbours then I agree they were the right aircraft to have there.

In that case MiG-29 could just protect the base and wish them luck.

The fact that you think the MiG-29s are wives at home doing nothing but worrying about their heroes off fighting the war is amusing... if those MiG-29s fuck up those big heroic Foxhounds and Flankers will have nothing to come home to.

In order to defend the short legs of your beloved MiGs, you are starting to troll us with NATO-fanboy anti-Flanker arguments, do you realize that?

You are the one saying the Flanker is the only fighter they need... if anything you are being the fanboy... because war is all about dollars and cents... because those idiot Russians don't know... how... to... save... money... like ... us... guys... in ... the... west...

One air plane for everything... and lets make it cheaper by just giving it one engine... and we will change the designation from Su-35 to generic fighter number thirty five... the F-35 is borne... now we can jack up the price 1,000% and force all our allies and slave countries to buy them in numbers that will make us rich.... Mwahhh hahahahahaahahah....

The Flanker pilot would control the engagement until the MiG pilot had to refuel like the F-18 in the example before, and then it would either hunt it down or simply make it run.

That is the solution when you have both types working together, but in your ideal world the MiG should be eliminated and only Flankers used... so that means it wouldn't work, the flanker would have to use its excess fuel to turn around and go full AB and run away and burn up a few tons of fuel, before being able to turn around and engage the enemy aircraft on better than equal terms... to bad if those aircraft just obliterated the airfield he was operating from...

Calculate how many times per sortie a combat plane can engage in full AB mode to make a push or to outrun some missiles, with given mission range / profile and payload plus safety fuel requirements... you will see the -29 is badly below par, the -35 carries the minimum acceptable and the Flanker is head and shoulders above them.

But how can I make such calculations without actual figures and information... are we comparing using the same types of missions or are the Flankers missions long range ones and the Fulcrums shorter range ones the way they were designed to be used. The fact that you say the MiG-35 is OK with fuel fraction means the MiG-29M2 is also acceptable... and they are the only two MiGs the Russian Air Force is likely to put into service now, so doesn't that mean they are good enough?

They don't need better range... that is what the Flankers are for.

[qutoe] A MiG-35 with three big bags has 3000 km range and 6 stations left, of which only two are valid for A2G ordnance, while the Su-35S clean has 600 km range more and still 14 stations free... one of the MiG's worst "mistakes" is how good the Flanker is, I meant it... with other companion in the VKS, it would definitely look much better. [/quote]

The Tu-22M3 pisses all over both aircraft in terms of flight range and payload but WTF difference does it make... the MiG-35 is an interceptor fighter and most of the time wont be operating with wing tanks installed, and likely half the time not with centreline tanks either... it is a fighter plane that is used in a defensive role... the bad guys come to it, so carrying enough fuel to fly to Vienna is not really a critical thing... they also have inflight refuelling options too.

When was the last time you saw an operational Flanker with a full air to air missile load... and I mean real missiles... not dummy missiles for show.

Most probably Eritrean MiG-29 pilots think in similar way, when they went in dogfight with Ethiopian Su-27 fighters and lost 6:0. They were all shot down in doghfight with R-73 AAMs. Don't underestimate Flankers. They are incredibly agile and excelent dogfighters.

R-73 is a high offboresight agile air to air missile... a cessna 172 could have launched the missiles to shoot down any plane...

I rather suspect that in addition to spending more money on their aircraft (Flankers are more expensive than Fulcrums you know...) they probably also spent more on their mercenary pilots too... which perhaps showed. It is also likely the Eritreans didn't keep their planes or their missiles in good nick... I would rather have more information before writing off the MiG-29.

I rather suspect that in addition to spending more money on their aircraft (Flankers are more expensive than Fulcrums you know...) they probably also spent more on their mercenary pilots too... which perhaps showed. It is also likely the Eritreans didn't keep their planes or their missiles in good nick... I would rather have more information before writing off the MiG-29.

Eritrean MiG-29 jets were flown by Ukrainian mercenary pilots who were practicaly same trained and experienced pilots as those in Flankers. MiGs were also armed with R-73 missiles. They were bought shortly before the war from Ukraine, so they were in good shape as they were preparing for war.

Most probably Eritrean MiG-29 pilots think in similar way, when they went in dogfight with Ethiopian Su-27 fighters and lost 6:0. They were all shot down in doghfight with R-73 AAMs. Don't underestimate Flankers. They are incredibly agile and excelent dogfighters.

Depend on fuel, but with 50% fuel su-27 will beat the mig-29 and still have enough to go back to it base. The mig on afterburner in a dogfight won't have enough to back home in lot of situation. It burns too much too quickly.

If a su-27 with 80% fuel and 6 AAM meets a mig29 iin a dogfight it is probably dead.

Also it carries much more weapon for BVR engagement even with ECM pods. The mig 29 with ecm pods will be left with 2 r-27 and 2 r-73.

Eritrean MiG-29 jets were flown by Ukrainian mercenary pilots who were practicaly same trained and experienced pilots as those in Flankers. MiGs were also armed with R-73 missiles. They were bought shortly before the war from Ukraine, so they were in good shape as they were preparing for war.

What support were each side getting... were the Flankers aware of where the MiGs were ahead of time... what actually happened...

Were the MiGs looking for Flankers and Flankers looking for the MiGs, or were the MiGs doing something else and were ambushed.

Were there even numbers of aircraft or did large numbers of Flankers jump individual MiGs like HATO did in Yugoslavia?

As I said the information isn't sufficient to make a call either way... which model MiG and which model Flanker would be a good start... an old down graded export MiG with essentially equipment from the late model MiG-23s vs a newer model Su-27 or was it the other way around...

Depend on fuel, but with 50% fuel su-27 will beat the mig-29 and still have enough to go back to it base. The mig on afterburner in a dogfight won't have enough to back home in lot of situation. It burns too much too quickly.

If a su-27 with 80% fuel and 6 AAM meets a mig29 iin a dogfight it is probably dead.

Also it carries much more weapon for BVR engagement even with ECM pods. The mig 29 with ecm pods will be left with 2 r-27 and 2 r-73.

Well that is good to know.... they can save a lot of money training pilots and all the infrastructure and IADS networks and new missiles and aircraft upgrades... they just need Su-27s because all its fuel and extra missiles means it can beat everything it seems.

Especially impressed you are so sure... will beat... because MiG-29s burn so much fuel in dogfights they can't make it back to base... in comparison an Su-27 Flanker with much bigger and more powerful engines and at 50% fuel only has slightly more fuel than a Fulcrum can fly around all day in Full AB no problems at all...

Do you work in advertising?

I agree the Su-27 is a good dogfighter, but a smaller lighter plane with basically the same aerodynamics can't compete is stretching it a bit.

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

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.

Little more about Ethiopean-Eritrean clash in 1999. Ethiopia use their Su-27 as strike planes as well and use them for strikes inside Eritrea. In that case they have either bombs or unguided rockets. Numerical ration was 2:1 in favor for MiG-29A and all air dogfights was in this ratio, i.e. 2 MiG-29A vs 1 Su-27.


https://www.oocities.org/~dagmawi/NewsMay2000/Airforce_SU27_Mig29.html

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.

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.

Ethiopia purchased 5 second-hand Su-27 Flanker-As from Russian. One was lost in a demonstration in Ethiopia. Eritrea purchased about 8 second hand MiG-29 Fulcrum-As from the Ukraine. AS it is five MiG were lost due to Su-27s.

Ethiopian Su-27 pilot Aster Tolossa is credited to shot down 1 Eritrean MiG-29.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-the-su-27-flanker-is-the-best-fighter-jet-in-the-world-only-in-video-games/

Now, to keep a long story short, the Ethiopians tended to operate their Su-27s in pairs during the war. A Su-27UB crewed by an Ethiopian pilot - often with Russian advisor in the back seat - was there to control the situation and help and advise the (Ethiopian-crewed) single seater. if a Russian was on board, the Su-27UB was strictly forbidden from going anywhere near the combat zone: it had to stay several dozens of kilometers away from it.

At least as unsurprising is that after the end of the Badme War, the Ethiopians placed a big follow-up order, though this time they demanded Su-27UBs only...

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.

After war Eritreans also buy Su-27 fighters.





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. 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. The pionir of this concet were Tu-128 interceptor and Tu-126 AEW&C plane, who were the first to wourk in groups and to be directed by Tu-126 through their data links, which now looks very primitive.

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.

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

Mig-29A/B were pretty simple and pur interceptors. Soviet had the ground equipment to use them correctly (plenty of P18 or OTH radars and good networking on the ground to share information and keep a radio connexion with the mig-29). African or arab countries don't have that.

A mig 29 attack would happen from behind, radar turned off, not head on which sugest that those mig29 were working with their radars turned on with no GCI help.

The export missiles also sucks. I don't understand why they make them so shitty. I understand why they don't give the same as the ones used by russian air force but that doesn't mean it needs to be downgraded. 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 think you are mixing things up. Like most aircraft with folding wings the Su-33 is limited to 8g no matter what the internal or external load, but Flankers, and I assume it is the same for the Su-33 were g limited when operating with full internal fuel tanks... it had nothing to do with take off or landing weights and it was nothing to do with folding wings.

The Su-33 would never have a heavy bomb load... ever.... it was a fighter/inteceptor and would carry R-27E and R-73 AAMs... that was its weapon load which is a fraction of the max payload it could carry, but with full fuel and full AAM weapon load out it could not use external fuel tanks and honestly the 500kg dumb bombs are not that much heavier than the 350kg R-27E model AAMs anyway...

AFAIK it could take off with full fuel and full AA weapons load (ie AAM or sorbitzer jamming pods on every pylon) from the waist launch position... that was its main purpose. The smaller lighter MiGs could do the same but also from the front launch positions because they normally carried lighter R-77s and R-73s, which are 175kgs and 105kg or 120kgs in the later models...

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.

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. MiG-29 also didn't have designed its capabilities with a quarter of internal fuel. Other thing is external load. Su-33 ca carry up to 6,5 tons of external weapon load, but usual load is far lower. 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.

The Su-33s don't need new engines AFAIK... a minor increase in performance and range isn't worth the cost of new generation engines...

http://bastion-karpenko.ru/?s=su-33

30.06.2017
Объединенная двигателестроительная корпорация (входит в Госкорпорацию Ростех) в обеспечение потребностей государственного заказчика возобновила производство турбореактивных двигателей АЛ-31Ф серии 3 для палубных истребителей Су-33. Партия двигателей уже выпущена ПАО «УМПО» (входит в ОДК) и поставлена заказчику.
Двигатели АЛ-31Ф серии 3 разрабатывались и производились специально для Су-33. С учетом того эволюционного развития, которое прошло семейство двигателей АЛ-31Ф с момента выпуска последних двигателей серии 3, новые двигатели для морских тяжелых истребителей производятся с внедрением доработок, которые уже применены на двигателях семейства АЛ-31Ф.
Для укомплектования самолетов Морской авиации Су-33 двигатели поступают после проведения всех этапов испытаний. ОДК также ведет работу по техническому сопровождению находящихся в эксплуатации «морских» АЛ-31Ф.
The United Engine Corporation (part of the Rostec State Corporation), in order to meet the needs of the state customer, resumed the production of AL-31F series 3 turbojet engines for the Su-33 carrier-based fighters. A batch of engines has already been produced by PJSC UMPO (part of the UEC) and delivered to the customer.
The AL-31F series 3 engines were developed and manufactured specifically for the Su-33. Taking into account the evolutionary development that the AL-31F family of engines has undergone since the release of the last engines of the 3 series, new engines for naval heavy fighters are being produced with the introduction of modifications that have already been used on engines of the AL-31F family.
For the equipment of the Su-33 Naval Aviation aircraft, the engines are supplied after all stages of testing. UEC is also working on technical support of the “sea” AL-31F in operation.

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

По словам начальника Морской авиации ВМФ генерал-майора Игоря Кожина, все истребители Су-33 Морской авиации России пройдут модернизацию и будут доведены до уровня новейших самолетов Су-30СМ.
«Половина парка самолетов Су-33 получила новые системы боевого применения по морским и наземным целям. По сути, их потенциал повышен до уровня Су-30СМ. Все самолеты Су-33, состоящие на вооружении Морской авиации ВМФ, пройдут такую модернизацию», — сказал он.
Кожин уточнил, что до конца 2017 года 60% всего авиапарка будет соответствовать современному уровню требований к авиационной технике Морской авиации.
According to the chief of the Naval Aviation of the Russian Navy, Major General Igor Kozhin, all Su-33 fighters of the Russian Naval Aviation will undergo modernization and will be brought up to the level of the latest Su-30SM aircraft.
“Half of the Su-33 aircraft fleet has received new combat systems for sea and ground targets. In fact, their potential has been increased to the level of the Su-30SM. All Su-33 aircraft in service with the Naval Aviation of the Navy will undergo such modernization, ”he said.
Kozhin said that by the end of 2017, 60% of the entire fleet will meet the current level of requirements for aviation equipment of the Marine Aviation.

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.

That showed lack of experience.... they should have had an inflight refuelling aircraft nearby to support operations... AFAIK they both tried to land but because the actual arrester gear was faulty or broken then there was no give so the cables will break... any cables will break in that situation... it has nothing to do with whether the cables are faulty or not because even brand new cables in perfect condition would break.

There is no excuse for either aircraft to have crashed, but even the cables breaking neither plane should have ended up in the drink... the planes should come in a low speed and as they touch down should apply full AB so if they miss the cable or it breaks... because they do sometimes, then you have the momentum to continue through and accelerate up and away and can come around for another go.

The MiG likely didn't start to try to land until it was low on fuel and so each time it tried to land it would come in and then full AB power try to catch the cable.... after the third break it becomes obvious it is not the cables because cables don't break that often... it is clearly something wrong with the mechanism.

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. If pilot doesn't capture wire, he simply take off and do another circle. MiG-29KR didn't went landing as he was informed before for arrester gear problems. He simply doesn't have enough fuel to land in Hmeimim. Su-33 didn't have problems to land there. After arrester gear problems both MiG-29KR and Su-33 operate from Hmeimim base as they could not land on the carrier.

Half the fuel in the tanks is to get them where they need to be... if they don't need to go great distances they don't carry that fuel... the other half is for doing their job and if they launch with that they can do their job over the air field they are operating from... if they have to fly 1,000km to get to their area of operation then they carry more fuel, but can't tango till they get there.

Not neccessary. Full interna fuel tanks doesn't mean to fly long distance to combat zone. It could as well mean to fly to near combat zone and loitering there for a longer time and this as well mean to go to dogfight with full internal tanks. Planes are designed with full internal fuel. In Syria Flankers did exactly this, loitering for hours over combat zones and drop bombs when and where needed.

The MiG-29 has the capacity to use three drop tanks... if it is using them all the time then you are not using them right.

Палубные истребители Су-33 с авианосца «Адмирал Кузнецов» применялись в радиусе более 300 км во время средиземноморского похода корабля к берегам Сирии. Об этом на круглом столе, посвященном опыту применения войск в республике, рассказал начальник Главного штаба ВМФ вице-адмирал Андрей Воложинский.
«В ходе выполнения задач боевой службы проводилась опытовая эксплуатация палубных самолетов МиГ-29К/КУБ и Су-33. Для поражения удаленных целей в радиусе более 300 км, находящихся в районе Дамаска и Дейр-эз-Зора, использовались самолеты Су-33», — сказал он.
При выполнении поставленных задач с «Адмирала Кузнецова» самолеты МиГ-29К/КУБ применялись в радиусе до 300 км от корабля для поражения назначенных целей, находящихся в районе таких населенных пунктов как Идлиб, Алеппо, Пальмира.
Su-33 carrier-based fighters from the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" were used within a radius of more than 300 km during the ship's Mediterranean cruise to the shores of Syria. Vice-Admiral Andrey Volozhinsky, Chief of the Main Staff of the Navy, spoke about this at a round table on the experience of using troops in the republic.
“In the course of fulfilling the tasks of the combat service, experimental operation of the MiG-29K / KUB and Su-33 carrier-based aircraft was carried out. Su-33 aircraft were used to engage remote targets within a radius of more than 300 km, located in the area of ​​Damascus and Deir ez-Zor, ”he said.
When performing the assigned tasks from the "Admiral Kuznetsov", the MiG-29K / KUB aircraft were used within a radius of up to 300 km from the ship to engage designated targets located in the area of ​​such settlements as Idlib, Aleppo, Palmyra.

When operating from Kuznetsov, both MiG-29KR and Su-33 were used to bomb terrorists. Difference was in combat radius. MiG-29KR was used in range shorter than 300 km, while Su-33 operate in ranges longer than 300 km. When operating from Hmeimim, both have longer combat range.

We could argue for a long time, but we could not change decisions neither for Russian Air Force neither for Russian NAVY. They have their own reason, but it seems MiG-29 didn't impress neither air force neither navy. 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.

MiG-35 is still in phase of state tests. Air force give their expectations in front of them and it will depend if MiG-35 will succede and reach them. Of course we all wish MiG will succede and MiG-35 will be accepted in air force. 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. 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 MiG likely didn't start to try to land until it was low on fuel and so each time it tried to land it would come in and then full AB power try to catch the cable.... after the third break it becomes obvious it is not the cables because cables don't break that often... it is clearly something wrong with the mechanism.

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.

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.

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...