Discussion in 'Military Aviation' started by gadeshi, Jan 25, 2014.
Now there is a special theme for Su-30SM and it is here.
Young pilots have started to learn to fly Su-30SM in Lipetsk Top Gun school:
Ð’Ð¿ÐµÑ€Ð²Ñ‹Ðµ Ð¼Ð¾Ð»Ð¾Ð´Ñ‹Ðµ Ð¿Ð¸Ð»Ð¾Ñ‚Ñ‹ Ð’Ð’Ð¡ Ð½Ð°Ñ‡Ð°Ð»Ð¸ Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ð³Ð¾Ñ‚Ð¾Ð²ÐºÑƒ Ð½Ð° Ð½Ð¾Ð²ÐµÐ¹ÑˆÐ¸Ð¹ Ð¸ÑÑ‚Ñ€ÐµÐ±Ð¸Ñ‚ÐµÐ»ÑŒ Ð¡Ñƒ-30Ð¡Ðœ : ÐœÐ¸Ð½Ð¸ÑÑ‚ÐµÑ€ÑÑ‚Ð²Ð¾ Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ñ€Ð¾Ð½Ñ‹ Ð Ð¾ÑÑÐ¸Ð¹ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ Ð¤ÐµÐ´ÐµÑ€Ð°Ñ†Ð¸Ð¸
The Home Defenders Day (February the 23-th) in Akhtubinsk GLITs weapons and tactics center:
Wow. 21 new Su-30SMs are to be delivered this year to VVS and VMF. VMF/Sukhoi signed the contract for 50 Su-30SMs too.
The first Russian Navy regiment in Crimea (Black Sea Fleet) will be fully complected by Su-30SM multi-role fighters (changing aged Su-24):
Why doesn't Russia just pick a single flanker variant and mass produce it, simplifying production and logistics considerably and saving major costs. Why Su-30SM over Su-35S?
It's because a monotyped combat aircraft park is not appropriate for a war with an adequate enemy like NATO (20-55% less effective in hard risky missions).
There is a medicine proven fact, that special designed bomber will be rather more effective in low altitude deep strike, then a generic fighter. In this 20-55% of effectiveness sits the plane and crew life or death and a mission success or fail.
If you aren't going to fight NATO or US or China, it will be much mor cheaper to you to have monotyped fighter park of multi-rolled middle-weighted fighters like Rafale, Typhoon or MiG-29M/MiG-35.
Russia cannot afford itself to have 20-55% less effective fleet for the sake of budget.
However, Russians have developed not a single type, but a single family of heavy fighters - a T-10 platform. It allows Russia to have specialized fighters, bombers and interceptors which have 70-85% of similar standardized parts. This park is 20-55% more effective than a monotyped park of multirollers, but only 15% more expensive.
It is quite a reasonable approach as for me.
A fighter park for Russian Navy shore-based aviation shows complete different approach due to relatively small numbers comparable to VKS and a demand to serve all missions by one type even on the 20-55% less effective cost. So we see a Su-30 deployment to almost Navy only squadrons in Russia as a result of this.
That's a very hyperbolic analogy. Compare flanker to flanker.
NATO countries including USA all have standardized platforms for a single plane type except where upgrades are ongoing. Su-35 is also marked multi-role as is Su-30SM. Then why make both?
1 - I've talked about Su-34 which has specialized roles - euro-strategic deep strike and SEAD/DEAD, all low altitude. No other plane from T-10 cannot endure hours on 15-30m and cannot fly loaded on supersnic speed on this altitude.
2 - Su-35 is much lighter and has better aerodynamics than Su-30SM/MKI, thus has better speed, maneurability and range which makes it an almost perfect interceptor and air superiority fighter. All the other missions are less priority for it.
3 - Su-30SM suits Navy requirements at best because it is 2 seater, which is rather more appropriate during long range missions under the sea waters. Also navigator/weapons operator is very helpful when you do anti-shipping operations with a goal to deestroy several different targets by the several ASMs at once.
So, Su-35S is and will be the main VKS heavy fighter, Su-30SM goes to Navy shore-based units and Su-34 is and will be the main and only tactical / regional strategic bomber and SEAD/DEAD platform.
Black Sea Fleet Su-30SM from Crimea have the first time hitted the ground targets during their first military drill:
Su-35 is single seat air superiority like F-15C. Su-30 is tandem seat strike fighter like F-15E.
No, Su -30SM is a multiroller for Russian Navy shore-based units.
Roles of F-15E, F/A-18, EA-18G and F/FB-111 is taken by Su-34.
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
Su-30 is half fighter, half strike. Su-34 is mainly strike as seen from its side by side cockpit configuration similar to F-111.
1st Pic shows Canards about to be deployed and TVC not engaged. Notice Angle of Attack.
2nd Pic for same aircraft. Canards fully deployed, no TVC engagement and Notice Angle of Attack is nearly the same.
My guess is that it is important to engage canards in that manner if you want to sustain that AoA for sometime.
@Yumdoot, it is the most likely that Su-30SM FCS uses canards all the time when the maneuver is possible without using TVC to save the rotating nozzles resources and lifetime.
Irkut has delivered 3 more Su-30SMs for Black Sea Fleet in Crimea:
The first 3 Su-30SM has arrived to 31-st Fighter Regiment of the 1-st mixed Air Division of the 4-th Airspace Army in Millerovo AB (Rostov on Don, Southern MD) - just not far from Ukrainian border :
So, the 31-st IAP was the last Regiment in VKS, that has pure MiG-29 fighters (not SMT multirollers) - Types 9.12, 9.13 and 9.51 twin sitters.
So, it can be stated that MiG-29 service in Russian VKS has been ended forever.
Another Su-30SM has made its maiden flight:
Separate names with a comma.