Flanker Export Thread

S

STURM

Well-Known Member
According to what was written in an Indian blog a couple of years ago; after its MiG-27s were retired the IAF faced a shortage of aircraft able to perform the low level strike role; it was left to the Jaguars to perform this role. The writer goes on to mention that because the MKIs were originally based on the Su-27, which was designed as a high altitude interceptor, the MKIs are unable to perform the low level strike role as its air frame can't take the stress tolerance levels when flying at low altitude. Another problem is that the Bars radar apparently does not have a terrain hugging mode to enable low level flying. Is there any truth to this?

With regards to the air frame what comes to my mind is the F-15E which was also - like the Su-30 - based a design that was intended as a high altitude interceptor but which can perform the low level strike role. Do aircraft designed for the low level strike role [the Jaguar, MiG-27, F-111, etc] really have air frames designed to take the stress tolerance levels encountered when flying at low altitude?
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
STURM said:
According to what was written in an Indian blog a couple of years ago; after its MiG-27s were retired the IAF faced a shortage of aircraft able to perform the low level strike role; it was left to the Jaguars to perform this role. The writer goes on to mention that because the MKIs were originally based on the Su-27, which was designed as a high altitude interceptor, the MKIs are unable to perform the low level strike role as its air frame can't take the stress tolerance levels when flying at low altitude. Another problem is that the Bars radar apparently does not have a terrain hugging mode to enable low level flying. Is there any truth to this?
Click to expand...
Seems odd. I can't say for sure but in Syria both the Su-35S and Su-30SM (very closely based on the MKI) were recently spotted dropping S-8 rockets dive-bomber style, to provide CAS for the SAA in Homs. Also the Su-34 is distinctly designed for low-altitude flight and terrain hugging, and it's also based on the Su-27.

With regards to the air frame what comes to my mind is the F-15E which was also - like the Su-30 - based a design that was intended as a high altitude interceptor but which can perform the low level strike role. Do aircraft designed for the low level strike role [the Jaguar, MiG-27, F-111, etc] really have air frames designed to take the stress tolerance levels encountered when flying at low altitude?
Click to expand...
Someone with more experience then me will have to answer.
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
The IAF also has Fulcrums which although were originally designed as interceptors can - I assume - perform low level strike missions. Then again I suppose it would also depend on whether the Fulcrum variant has a radar with terrain hugging mode.

Feanor, here's what the writer mentioned -

''Let me explain how and why. Neither the Su-30MKI nor the MiG-29UPG/MiG-29K were ever designed as multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA). Their design and performance parameters were instead optimised for air dominance/air superiority, with standoff all-weather precision strike undertaken from medium altitudes being a secondary capability. It is for this reason that the erstwhile USSR had developed the Su-24 and Su-27IB/Su-34 as all-weather, terrain-hugging deep penetration strike aircraft (DPSA), and the Su-25 as a dedicated tactical strike/close air support aircraft. Consequently, neither the Su-30MKI’s nor the MiG-29UPG’s/MiG-29K’s airframes have the stress tolerances that are required for flying terrain-hugging flight profiles. Their existing X-band multi-mode radars or MMR (RLSU-30MK NO-11M ‘Bars’ and the Zhuk-M2E) therefore don’t come with low-altitude terrain avoidance mode or automatic terrain-following capability or weather-mapping mode, and neither are they equipped with low-altitude navigation pods''

''Consequently, the only true M-MRCAs that are operational today in an area between India and Japan is the Republic of Singapore Air Force’s Boeing-built F-15SGs, which come equipped with Raytheon-supplied APG-63(V)3 AESA-MMR, Boeing/ELBIT Systems joint helmet mounted cueing system (JHMCS), TIGER Eyes Sensor Suite comprising Lockheed Martin’s AAQ-13 LANTIRN-ER navigation pod (containing a mid-wave staring-array FLIR sensor and a terrain-following radar and forward-looking infra-red sensor), an AAQ-33 Sniper XR targetting pod containing a mid-wave staring-array FLIR sensor with a 40,000-feet laser and charge-couple device (CCD) TV, and the AAS-43 infra-red search-and-track (IRST) system containing a passive long-wave IR sensor.''

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.my/...00+05:30&max-results=7&start=57&by-date=false

If what he's saying is accurate its answers my earlier question about the Fulcrum.
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Haavarla said:
And I whom thought the Low CAS mission died back in DS..
Click to expand...
It certainly didn't die in the VVS. They not only continue to field Su-25s but are actively upgrading the existing fleet and developing further improvements for it. And the use of multi-role fighters for low-flying CAS with rocket pods indicates that Russia sees this as a relevant capability for the bulk of its fleet in at least some scenarios.
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
I'm curious as to the main reason the Russians still see the need for the widespread use of unguided rockets. Is it driven mostly by the fact that the Russians feel that unguided rockets are more useful/practical for the type of missions routinely flown and the type of targets encountered or are finances and the possible shortage of PGMs the main reason?
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
I suspect a low level rocket pass on anything like a neer-peer threat will be a brief and exciting experience - the Russians had plenty of experience vs MANPADS in their time in Afghanistan and everything with a pressurised cabin or oxygen for the pilots went to mid altitude and never came back down unless they were landing. Day one vs anything that isn't a bunch of blokes in flip flops with AK's is going to be a hard hard lesson if they're still keen on the idea of low level rocket delivery.
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
StobieWan said:
I suspect a low level rocket pass on anything like a neer-peer threat will be a brief and exciting experience - the Russians had plenty of experience vs MANPADS in their time in Afghanistan and everything with a pressurised cabin or oxygen for the pilots went to mid altitude and never came back down unless they were landing. Day one vs anything that isn't a bunch of blokes in flip flops with AK's is going to be a hard hard lesson if they're still keen on the idea of low level rocket delivery.
Click to expand...
It's a complicated question. The Su-25 for example is heavily armored, with the pilot literally sitting in a tub of titanium. The Su-34, at least originally, was supposed to have similar if not heavier armor not only for the cockpit but also for the engines. Additionally they're working hard on integrating advanced anti-MANPADS gear into their CAS both rotary and fixed-wing.

While I don't think swarms of Su-25s will be utilized against someone like the US, I can certainly see them getting used in a full scale war with an opponent like Ukraine. Another thing, in Syria there seem to be scenarios where all Russian planes stay above 4000 feet. And other scenarios where they brazenly use attack helos and dive-bombers. I suspect they might be relying on intel and recon work to assess the nature of the anti-air threat.
 
R

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Feanor said:
Seems odd. I can't say for sure but in Syria both the Su-35S and Su-30SM (very closely based on the MKI) were recently spotted dropping S-8 rockets dive-bomber style, to provide CAS for the SAA in Homs. Also the Su-34 is distinctly designed for low-altitude flight and terrain hugging, and it's also based on the Su-27.



Someone with more experience then me will have to answer.
Click to expand...
While there is no reason to stop aircraft designed for high altitude from doing low altitude attacks, it does shorten their fatigue life and they have a poor gust response making turbulence and weapon aiming a greater problem. Aircraft designed for low altitude attack like the Jaguar and MIG-27 have smaller wing area's and higher wing loading's as well as a stronger structure, this gives them a better and less violent gust response and makes them more stable weapons platforms in turbulence also making low altitude flight to a target less "bumpy".
 
Last edited:
Sandhi Yudha

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Rob c said:
While there is no reason to stop aircraft designed for high altitude from doing low altitude attacks, it does shorten their fatigue life and they have a poor gust response making turbulence and weapon aiming a greater problem. Aircraft designed for low altitude attack like the Jaguar and SU-27 have smaller wing area's and higher wing loading's as well as a stronger structure, this gives them a better and less violent gust response and makes them more stable weapons platforms in turbulence also making low altitude flight to a target less "bumpy".
Click to expand...
I have the feeling that you actually want to type MiG-27, right?...
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
On the MKI's Bars radar not having a terrain following mode; it seems it can do it but with a penalty.

''The NO-11M BARS is a PESA-MMR & like mechanically scanned radars, it has only 1 transmitter/receiver & therefore it cannot undertake simultaneous/interleaved operations in various modes. When operating in the terrain-following mode, the antenna has to remain tilted towards the surface, meaning it cannot do airspace scan/track. AESA-MMRs are different since they contain several transmit/receive modules & hence each module can perform a single mission. Together, such modules can at the same time operate in different modes like terrain-following/avoidance, airspace scanning & tracking, BVRAAM fire-control, directional jamming, collision avoidance & weather mapping.''
 
Ananda

Ananda

The Bunker Group
gf0012-aust said:
bear in mind that previous indonesian buys were also based on barter, and that one acquisition did not include any weapons fits as the indons "ran out of money"
Click to expand...

Dorong Ekspor, Pemerintah Wajibkan Skema Imbal-Beli…

Based on this article, the discussion on trade-off/barter deal for 8 SU-35 still on going between Indonesia Foreign Ministry and the Russian. 8 SU-35 contract USD 1.14 bio, whille under the dis ussion on trade-off, the Russian need to buy USD 570 mio of Indonesian export products. Seems the Russian interested on raw materials. With the contract of USD 1.14 Bio, seems the deal will include spare parts, support and weapon.

Whille the barter agreement is not uncommon, but interestingly with Western Supplier, Indonesia mostly talk on credit line or even G to G payment scheme. It's reported before the Russian talked about providing credit line to Indonesia, however Indonesian Government seems prefered to used trade off deal rather credit line with the Russian.

Considering that the Russian already talk in media that they are reluctant to provide tech transfer on SU-35 to Indonesia, due to Indonesia only interested on limited numbers of Su-35 (16 is the most on 2 batches), then trade-off/barter seems a way out, considering trade off can be a mitigating way in the weapons procurement that lacking tech transfer. Besides DI/IAe it self already shown reluctant to do tech transfer with Russian, due to they have to invest on different set of manufacturing facility set.

Again with Indonesian current administration..'talk is cheap'..implementation deal is another matter..
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
It appears that customers have been found for the 12 Su-30KIs sitting in Belarus. 12 are going to Angola, and 6 more to Sri Lanka.

https://www.slguardian.org/2017/09/sri-lanka-defence-deal-su-30-fighter-part-three/
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2858096.html

Also another 12 Su-30SM are going to Kazakhstan.Currently there are plans to halt production of the type post 2020 but I'm not so sure. Russia has clients around the world that continue to buy upgraded Flankers.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2843290.html

EDIT: CAST confirms the deal is being negotiated, and seems to be close to a signing.

Personally I think this is a questionable choice. They need something simpler but I strongly suspect political pressure from Russia, as well as the generous credit line, and influence from India, have a lot to do with this choice.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2864042.html
 
Last edited:
Sandhi Yudha

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
S
Haavarla said:
A little Update on Flanker export:

Ðлжир получил первые воÑемь иÑтребителей Су-30МКИ(Ð) по третьему контракту - bmpd

Algerie got their first eight Su-30MKA units from Irkut in accordance with the 2015 contract.
There could come as much as 16 more(24 total).

Kazagstan got 4-6 Su-30SM in 2016.
Belarus got 4 Su-30SM in 2016.

And straight from KnAAZ, China got the first batch of Su-35 in a contract on 24 total.


I'm still holding my breath on India ordering some Super MKI, and that large upgrade on their current MKI fleet.
Click to expand...
So Algeria has also ordered 12 Su-34s as the first export costumer, when will they receive the first batch?
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Sandhi Yudha said:
S
So Algeria has also ordered 12 Su-34s as the first export costumer, when will they receive the first batch?
Click to expand...
There is no confirmation. Algeria has been sniffing around the Su-34 for the better part of a decade but it's not clear whether a contract has been signed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top