SU-27

It really is a perfectly good fighter. Outstanding really, even though those old airframes are over twenty years old in the case of Australia and Canada. More up to date versions of the F-18 would be ideal. The F-18E and F Super Hornet models would be tremendous, with their increased range and payload capabilities.
 
The Sukhoi "Flanker" airframe (ie. airframe development project no. Sukhoi-T10-1 through 15, for example), is released in the various Flanker and Platypus models which include the 27, 30, 33, 34, 35 and 37 aircraft portfolios and their variants. They're all Su-27s in UB, K, IB and PU portfolio designations, among others.

So which Sukhoi "Su-27" are you talking about? The latest SuperFlankers are more than capable of going toe to toe with an F-22 and are likely to outmatch all other aircraft currently in service. The 1981 model clearly outmatches any fighters which were in service during that decade...or the next.

The basic airframe development itself was named for the first combat portfolio delivery which was earmarked, the Su-27 basic fighter to be offered for export.
The 15 T-10 prototypes were therefore named the Su-27 and they promptly started killing pilots. The "Flanker-A" never saw service for this reason.
A "Flanker-B" was developed through redesign and that became the Su-27. But that's not the one people saw in air shows like Farnborough.

A special P-42 development was used to test the airframe limitations and this is the one which set the 27 world records currently held by the Flanker airframe, including rate of climb to 40,000-odd feet in just over 55.5 seconds.

The Su-27PU (Su-30) is a specialised, two seat long range interceptor designed to slave rig up to four single seat Su-27 "Flanker-B" variants into its avionics via radio data link so they can switch off their radars and still target enemy aircraft with complete electronic invisibility. It's basically a redesigned Su-27UB orientated for 10+hr individual missions, the new generation AWACS you don't want to mess with as it's still fully combat capable and usually very heavily armed.

The Su-27IB and KU Flankers (Su-34 "Platypus") are a side by side two seat configuration that can deliver a deep penetration strike package on missions so long it has a galley in the cabin and retains the fighter performance of a front line interceptor for self defence. It's a 21st century F-111 and easily outclasses the deep penetration strike capabilities of the F-22A and its proposed derivatives (FB-22 delta wing tactical strike aircraft).

The F-22 has a released top speed of Mach 1.8 by the way, rated closer to Mach 2 by independant enthusiasts, and is designed for high load bearing, low-mid altitude performance (helped with 2D variable geometry engine outlets) and multirole capability (a feature built in to its ubiquitous avionics, it needs only a software tape to perform penetration strike roles, for example). Its main feature is supercruise, that is non-augumentation supersonic flight for increased range under combat conditions, and a high survivability (low radar visibility and EM emission).
Its air superiority feature was never designed to be a focus, but a capability. It is an excellent aircraft, but is ridiculously expensive and thus was fully intended to unify as many requirements as possible, including parts commonality with other new generation US aircraft.

The Su-35 Flanker ("SuperFlanker") has a rearward facing radar for over the shoulder missile fire (just like the movie "Firefox"), a triplane canard layout, higher rated engines (some 29,900lbs st aug. apiece), and a new avionics package. This is the basic air superiority variant and is easily en par with the most advanced fighters in the world.
When tacticians say the Eurofighter can take on a Flanker, they're most certainly not talking about this one. Introduced as a stop-gap for the Su-37 whilst its engines were under development.

Su-37 SuperFlanker has engines rated for Mach 3 (airframe design limits are still Mach 2.35), 3D variable geometry exhaust outlets and updated avionics again. It was probably conceived to counter the YF-22A, which it is likely to do, since such things were not in the engineering requirements of the YF-22 in the first place, the previous two decades of typical US military action was.
As the eventuation of a design concept begun in 1969, the SuperFlanker is probably the last true remnant of the Cold War era. It's deadly.

Su-47 Berkut is a different airframe, with forward swept wings, stealth features and 3D variable geometry outlets. Emphasis appears to have moved to high transonic performance against older and export aircraft as opposed to single purpose fighter-interceptors that can also lay waste to a small city.

As is typical of all the latest fighters of the 21st century, the SuperFlankers and Berkut series avionics can probably tell you how much an enemy pilot weighs, what he was thinking about last night and does better CGI than George Lucas. The thought that Flankers have poor avionics is ridiculous (this was a reputation given to early and export MiG-29S and SE Fulcrums which were not fly-by-wire, the latter as is typical of Soviet exports also had downgraded radar; resolved in the MiG-29M indigenous to CIS air forces).

The Flanker is probably one of the projects which broke the Soviet economy, now the basic Su-27 Flanker-B and Su-27UB variants are available dirt cheap on the export market, along with the excellent MiG-29 Fulcrum (the detuned version as far as I know). It's less expensive and a much better prospect than equipping with used Eagles and export Vipers for a small nation, hence has been growing in popularity in the Asiatic region. The only decent thing about these yesteryear fighter exports from the US is the product support, which although ridiculously expensive (bit of a theme for the US military expenditure really, isn't it), at least it exists.

Here's a picture of an Su-37 SuperFlanker. Pray they never deliver them to the Middle East.
su370109de.jpg


Here's a Platypus variant.
su341mi.jpg


Here's the Berkut.
4bb341b03rw.jpg
 
Now to Australia's defence needs.

According to the RAAF (published in a service magazine), the F-35 purchased to replace both the F18's and F111's are utterly incapable of performing the task, however were a decision based on the greater inadequacy of the existing aircraft to do so effectively for the future and overall costs.
What the RAAF would have preferred in fact would be a compromise of relatively small numbers of F-22A and an F-35 force to take up the slack.

Part of the prime consideration was a long range penetration strike capability necessary for defending Australia's huge territories in a relatively sparse surrounding region. Whilst shorter range strike multiroles such as the Hornet and F35 were capable of coastal defence, the threat to Australian territories are likely to include conventional MRBM strikes from distant naval forces and land based locations.

Another consideration was the South East Asiatic region's increasing purchase of dirt cheap Soviet 21st century fighters like the Flankers and Fulcrums, the former which has a 4,000km range and full tactical strike capability plus air superiority performance and the latter which is considered one of the most manoeuvrable fighters in the world today and possibly one of the scariest dogfighting prospects a pilot might face.

F-22A's are considered to have an excellent air superiority characteristic and its supercruise ability is almost custom designed for deep penetration strike and supersonic interception alike. Their actual combat response range is spectacular.

The F-35 is a transonic multirole with supersonic dash and good all round modern performance. It was primarily designed as a cost saving exercise to capably replace Marines Harrier and Hornet, plus Navy Hornet and Air Force Vipers all in one swoop and combine it with "stealth" technological commonality (ie. more high survivability than actual stealth is involved in new generation "stealth" aircraft, any country with a good mobile phone coverage knows precisely where a stealth aircraft is flying at any given moment, but they're still hard to target with weapons guidence systems).

Due to the proposed gap in Australia's defence coverage by an F35 whole force, the F111's had been earmarked to continue in service until some time around 2015 but this is beginning to look unlikely. Although not officially decommissioned, most of them are already being mothballed and relatively few are actually airworthy (something like six I think).

Australia uses primarily F111C's by the way, often fitted with a vulcan although a small handful of used F111G's were bought when they were decommissioned by the US, so I think most of the C's are being used for parts.

There's new developments all the time mind you. Here is an excerpt from another aviation forum:
Defence Minister, Sen Robert Hill stated late yesterday that the RAAF F-111's will be kept on untill 2020 and cited the Indonesian purchase of Su-30's as the reason.

"The Super Flankers can take off in Java and strike at Alice Springs and then return without needing to refuel in mid air. This consitutes a problem in our defence force if we can not counter that" Sen Hill said.

He also went on to say that the only two planes that can counter such a aircraft in the region are the F-111 which is getting on now, or the American F/A-22 at least in it's bomber version (Refering to the FB-22, which is in the planing stages now).

As a result of the announcement, the RAAF will be sending a team to the storage site at Davis-Mothan (AMRAC) to acquire more parts for the fleet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like Australia will buy Raptors after all, if not in the FB role at least in the F/A role.
Click to expand...
Personally I had no idea the Indonesians had bought Su-30's, I thought they only had Su-27's. This is very bad, as it means you won't pick up their Su-27's without a dedicated search, as their radars will be initially switched off during a military action. Su-30's are as I mentioned in my last post are, apart from a very deadly combat aircraft, a new-generation sort of AWACS, very roughly speaking.

Here is a quote from a science and technology publication:
An issue has arisen with the Joint Strike Fighter where the Pentagon is not sharing technology sufficiently for nations that are contributing to the JSF program to bid on parts of the program. The US is paying the bulk of the development project ($27B vs $3.5B). The Joint Strike Fighter eventually entering the Australian Defence Force raises issues on just what project Australia should have and what the defence doctrine in the South Pacific should be.

The JSF will replace the F18 and F111 in Australia. The F111 alone currently accounts for sixty two per cent of Australia's strike throw weight. Adopting the JSF will result in a loss of Australian strike power by a third. The JSF is an American solution to the American strategic needs of global projection backed by the huge US military infrastructure. Australia requires regional projection with independence of operation.

The JSF is not a solution to Australia's strategic issues. The solution is for Australia to either develop a replacement for the F111 itself, or to partner with other Pacific Rim countries in similar strategic positions, such as Japan, South Korea or Taiwan, to create a long range, infrastructure immune strike aircraft.
Click to expand...
The full article, which is interesting is available here:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/1/8/74257/90039

I personally don't understand why Australia hasn't been buying Flankers and Fulcrums, it could certainly do so more cheaply than this F35/F22 US economic farce.
I'd rather have 80 Flankers than 25 F22's any day of the week. We developed our own F-18 "C" commonality avionics package (under ridiculously expensive license of course), so we could bring early Flanker B variants up to SuperFlanker scratch ourselves, the PU variant itself (Su-30) is already there.
Besides we've been sucking up to the east so much in the last decade I'm sure Russia would sell us fly-by-wire Fulcrums to boot, for less than the cost of a used F16 Viper (one day somebody will tell how that one figured out).
 
I personally never understood why the Aussies bought the F-111 to start with. As a strike aircraft, the F-111E and F versions were quite fast and very effective. Below 2,000 feet, there were no threats to the F-111F. It could fly very fast at low altitude. It was a huge threat to the USSR because of it's capability to hug the contours of the earth at a high speed. But while those capabilities were important during the cold war, they became less important after the cold war.

The F-111C was a capable aircraft...in the 70s. But by the late 80's, early 90's, the aardvark was an aging craft.
 
Three is nothing out there that can coutner a F-22. You say that the Su-37 had thrust vectoring to counter the F-22 which did not have it in the designs specs. The F-22 actually has better thrust vectoring than that of the Su-37. The Su-37 is a marvelous plane but the future is the F-22.
 
have to agree. the F-22 according to evrything I,ve read is the best of the best. Combat sim. prior to official purchase by the airforce pitted 6 F-15s against 1 F-22. F-22 pilots only concern was running out of missiles.
as to my home country, Australia. at the outbreak of war (hypothetically) john howards on the phone to george w. "help"
 
Australia has always been a marvelous fighting force and allways fought well on the side of there allies.
 
The F22 is likely to be hideously expensive and having some idea of your defence budget I would be surprised if you purchased any, whatever the politicians say now.
My guess is that you will be looking at alternatives to the F22. Typhoon springs to mind as does the Grippen as a backup.
The UK are getting concerned over the lack of transparency in the sharing of the technology for the support. No one has said anything officially as there is little alternative to the F35 for the Fleet Air Arm. For the RAF however, the Grippen would make a good partner for GA. We already have a share as the wings were designed and I think are built by BAE so financially that would be a good plan B.
 
One reason thrust vectoring is not a great idea is it advertises its infa-red signature all over the sky.

One of my friends was a project engineer at the old Mac-Dac facility, and he told me that when the powers-that-be saw how unstealthy the thrust vectoring is, they began rethinking the concept.
 
Once your in combat I don't suppose you mind being none stealthy as they know your there. Or do you know if was he saying that in cruise the thrust vectoring is non stealthy?
 
Being in cruise and not being stealthy is not a good idea these days. the IR wont be seen from way off, but having those huge steel thrust vanes sticking out is like turning on a searchlite saying "here I am".

One problem they had in a close up dogfight with thrust vectoring, is the IR was being directed everywhere, allowing the (then) next generation IR seekers a solid, almost impossible to break lock on it.

There was one other thing he mentioned too........ the thrust vectoring would give you astounding agility, but it was at the cost of high gee loads for the pilot, even higher fuel consumption, plus if you were at slow speeds and used it, you were a sitting duck for the AAM's.

Note - his project role was designing the actual thrust vane shapes and interfaces.
 
I still think though that short-range fighters are next to useless in a country like Australia and stand by my comment that the US needs to pull its head out and start designing longer range fighters that can actually do something instead of short-range fighters. Australia is only purchasing those aircraft in my opinion to butter up the US. If there is a war with our Asian neighbours (like Indonesia who is very hostile), all the politicians like Howard will be out of here on a private flight to the US. Don't get me wrong Indonesia is an Asian country that has kept relatively peaceful with Australia, however there have been signs such a peace can't last... Australia needs to be able to defend itself and shove the Indonesian covert threats down their throats. Indonesia hates us for East Timor and a few other things. They will attack and when they do it will be the US's fault if Australia falls through inadequate aircraft to defend itself.
 
HealzDevo said:
it will be the US's fault if Australia falls through inadequate aircraft to defend itself.
Click to expand...

How do you figure? No one forced Australia to buy F-18s or -111s. I worked on the P-3 program and it was made clear to me on many occasions (By members of the RAAF) that if we (Lockheed) didn't produce, the RAAF would be flying Atlantiques within a year! :roll:
 
Glider said:
Once your in combat I don't suppose you mind being none stealthy as they know your there. Or do you know if was he saying that in cruise the thrust vectoring is non stealthy?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with stealth in combat. The heat signature needs to be reduced so that it is harder for a missle to track it.

HealzDevo said:
I still think though that short-range fighters are next to useless in a country like Australia and stand by my comment that the US needs to pull its head out and start designing longer range fighters that can actually do something instead of short-range fighters. Australia is only purchasing those aircraft in my opinion to butter up the US. If there is a war with our Asian neighbours (like Indonesia who is very hostile), all the politicians like Howard will be out of here on a private flight to the US. Don't get me wrong Indonesia is an Asian country that has kept relatively peaceful with Australia, however there have been signs such a peace can't last... Australia needs to be able to defend itself and shove the Indonesian covert threats down their throats. Indonesia hates us for East Timor and a few other things. They will attack and when they do it will be the US's fault if Australia falls through inadequate aircraft to defend itself.
Click to expand...

Oh my god I can not believe you just wrote that. Do you know how ignorant you just sounded by maked these statements: in a country like Australia and stand by my comment that the US needs to pull its head out and start designing longer range fighters that can actually do something instead of short-range fighters. Australia is only purchasing those aircraft in my opinion to butter up the US. and Australia needs to be able to defend itself and shove the Indonesian covert threats down their throats. and They will attack and when they do it will be the US's fault if Australia falls through inadequate aircraft to defend itself..

Lets see lets annalize this a bit:

You say the US needs to pull its head out of its ass and build fighters that Australia can use. Give it up. Why does Austalia not build its own planes. Infact why dont you design them because you know what Australia needs better than we do. If anyone needs to get there heads out there ass then it is Australia.

You say thatAustralia needs to defend itself, then design and build you own things to defend youself with, dont blame other countries for you own damn problems

You say it will be the US's fault. Hello it is not the US's fault that Australia needs help to defend itself. Grow up, get a better military and realize your own problems. The US has eneogh to worry about on its own than making sure you are happy. Australia is capable eneogh to build its own planes, dont buy from the US then. Infact write a letter to your governemnt telling them this because you obviously can do a better job than them. Oh and when Australia needs the US help, maybe just maybe we wont be there.
 
But the U.S will be there. I don't think the U.S or Australian governments pay attention to the simple minds of their population. That said, most government folk just don't have minds at all, let alone a simple one.

If Australia couldn't rely on the U.S for arms deals, it'd just build it's own. Either that, or it's screwed. You can't blame another nation for not producing your aircraft. It's the Australian government that gives the order. If it wanted a long-range fighter, it'd send the specifications out to all the U.S companies. If you're really bothered, blame your own government ...you can't blame the U.S.

Take a challenge in your life ...blame someone else but the U.S 'cos blamin' the U.S is so damn popular, and it's so easy to do from an armchair.
 
You hit the nail there pD. The Australian government puts the order. That ignorant post though just pissed me off. If you dont like the US products build you own damnit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

K
About the NATO reporting names for the Su-27SM and the J-7
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Nagumo
N
Stas1234
Su-30MK2 Venezuelan Air Force
Replies
5
Views
1K
Gnomey
Gnomey
GTX
Yikes!! Reckless Russian Su-35
Replies
5
Views
2K
buffnut453
buffnut453
N
Is the Super hornet much better than F-16?
Replies
12
Views
2K
BiffF15
BiffF15
tomo pauk
Su-24, Su-25, MiG-29, Su-27/30/34 - any signs of two-engined redundancy saving them during the war in Ukraine?
Replies
8
Views
2K
FLYBOYJ
FLYBOYJ
Back