Su-27: News

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.




MiG-29M from the nineties


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.

More of Su-27M aka Su-35

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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...  

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...

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...

Su-27M reverse missile launch using rear-looking secondary radar.



https://twitter.com/gunner_schmulke/status/1330580576034820096

Russia deployed far from the most efficient fighters in Kaliningrad

The Kaliningrad region of Russia is one of the most militarized regions in the country due to its potential vulnerability. It is separated from the mainland of the Russian Federation and is located on the Baltic coast between Poland and Lithuania, writes the American edition of Military Watch.

The enclave is home to the Baltic Fleet base, coastal anti-ship missiles, tank and artillery units, Iskander OTRK and S-400 air defense missile systems. From the air, this grouping is covered by the Su-27SM3 multipurpose fighters, which NATO hates most of all. They are armed with R-77 medium-range (up to 110 km) air-to-air missiles.

In December 2020, the Su-30SM multipurpose fighters also appeared there. In fact, Kaliningrad is a foothold in the depths of the Alliance's defenses.

Over the years, it was the improved Su-27s that brought the most trouble to NATO pilots. Su-27 entered service with the USSR in 1985. They were primarily designed for air warfare, so they had limited ability to land strikes. In terms of their capabilities, they surpass the American F-15 Eagle fighters, designed to gain superiority in the skies. The Russians still have 150 units of these combat vehicles.

Exactly how many Su-27SM3 are deployed in Kaliningrad now is unknown. It is also unclear why Russia keeps far from its most combat-ready fighters in the enclave, because the Russian Aerospace Forces has at its disposal modern Su-35S, generation "4 ++", which are a much more advanced version of the Su-27. This can probably be explained by the "stuffing" of the Su-27SM3.

They are equipped with the Irbis-E radar, like the Su-35, and can simultaneously track up to 30 air targets, simultaneously hitting up to 8 of them. In addition, they are capable of detecting targets at a distance of up to 400 km, and stealth aircraft at more than 80 km. The reinforced Su-27SM3 glider allowed to increase the payload by 3 tons, and the number of suspension nodes increased from 8 to 12, i.e. became 2 times more than the F-16, and 3 times more than the F-35.

Su-27SM3 received more economical aircraft engines AL-31F-M1 to increase the flight range and flight characteristics, as well as a fully glazed cockpit with four multifunctional displays. A new communication center was integrated into them and maintenance requirements were reduced. Most likely, these fighters will also be adapted to the use of more ammunition. For example, long-range missiles (more than 300 km) R-37M will appear on them. Consequently, the potential for modernization of these aircraft has not yet been exhausted.

Thus, the Su-27SM3 are not old Su-27s and can be safely considered a 4+ generation fighter with capabilities similar to those of the Su-35. They also gained the ability to deliver more effective strikes against ground targets. Their very use in Kaliningrad indicates that the Russian military trusts these aircraft.

How long they will continue to be deployed in the Russian exclave and whether the latest Russian fighters will appear there will depend on the state of relations between Russia and NATO, as well as on what funds the United States is deploying in this region, the media concluded.

NOTE: this is the first that I have seen mention of the Su-27SM3 in Kaliningrad. Perhaps they are only the Su-27SM's that were replaced by Su-35's in Besovets and Khotilovo or further upgraded aircraft??

franco wrote:NOTE: this is the first that I have seen mention of the Su-27SM3 in Kaliningrad. Perhaps they are only the Su-27SM's that were replaced by Su-35's in Besovets and Khotilovo or further upgraded aircraft??

Or it could just be that the author doesn't know what he's talking about
Afaik, they are Su-27's that are stationed there.

slasher wrote:

franco wrote:NOTE: this is the first that I have seen mention of the Su-27SM3 in Kaliningrad. Perhaps they are only the Su-27SM's that were replaced by Su-35's in Besovets and Khotilovo or further upgraded aircraft??

Or it could just be that the author doesn't know what he's talking about
Afaik, they are Su-27's that are stationed there.

Hard to imagine

There was to be a second squadron of Su-27's to Kaliningrad and there was the freed up Su-27SM that I mentioned. Like all things with tracking the Russian military, we will just have to wait and see!

franco wrote:There was to be a second squadron of Su-27's to Kaliningrad and there was the freed up Su-27SM that I mentioned. Like all things with tracking the Russian military, we will just have to wait and see!

Well, this is all I know of the SM3 upgrade program. Haven't heard of anything new, but interesting if continued. All 24 were based at Krymsk.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3550821.html

Traditionally they kept Su-27s there because they are in a fairly exposed and vulnerable position, and so as not to upset the neighbours, but I would expect their upgrade programmes will eventually lead to them being upgraded too... older systems are harder to support and have lower performance so you pay extra for worse capabilities...

The reinforced Su-27SM3 glider allowed to increase the payload by 3 tons, and the number of suspension nodes increased from 8 to 12, i.e. became 2 times more than the F-16, and 3 times more than the F-35.

??? Which model Flanker has 8 external weapon hard points?

slasher wrote:

franco wrote:NOTE: this is the first that I have seen mention of the Su-27SM3 in Kaliningrad. Perhaps they are only the Su-27SM's that were replaced by Su-35's in Besovets and Khotilovo or further upgraded aircraft??

Or it could just be that the author doesn't know what he's talking about
Afaik, they are Su-27's that are stationed there.

That's what he's saying. Nevertheless is the first time I've seen mention of modernised Su27s based at Kaliningrad; last I read was that at Chkalovsk, the Baltic fleet has the 4th Guards MShAP with the SU24M/M and SU30SM whilst the 689th IAP has the SU27P/UB.

Isos wrote:Lot of air traffic there so lot of interception. It's better to use su-27 than overuse new su-35 to intercept US spy planes.

Same reason also to use them to piss of NATO and oblige them to use their fancy fighters for useless interceptions off baltic states and increase the workload on them so that servicibility goes down.

I hadn't considered that. Could also be a reason why, rather than going for all Su30s/35s, there's a mix of Su30s and Su27ps and Sms at the fighter bases on or surrounding Crimea, i.e Odessa, Belbek and Krymsk; No Su35s are based at these currently, apparently.

Su-27 is not the freshest bird but it's fully upgraded which is enough for regular dick measuring in Baltic

They will be riding them out until their expiration date, no need to coddle them because Flanker production lines are hot and product has never been cheaper

They did the same thing with Su-24s in Syria, some had well over thousand sorties with multiple bomb strikes for each, it was insane

Now they are phasing them out and buying Su-34s in bulk

PapaDragon wrote:
Su-27 is not the freshest bird but it's fully upgraded which is enough for regular dick measuring in Baltic

They will be riding them out until their expiration date, no need to coddle them because Flanker production lines are hot and product has never been cheaper

They did the same thing with Su-24s in Syria, some had well over thousand sorties with multiple bomb strikes for each, it was insane

Now they are phasing them out and buying Su-34s in bulk

Yes it seems logical in terms of economies of scale to bulk-buy them, and that should include the ISR variant to replace the 24MR.