OT: Venezuela's new SU-30MK2's

[ViperEagle]

In all honesty?

 

I'm sure the decision was both militarily and politically influenced. Is the SU-30 capable? yes..is it what the Venezuelan Air Force really should have gone with? ...debatable. Considering what the VAF has been doing lately, perhaps something with a more matured and established strike ability, like the Rafale to fulfill their fighter/bomber needs.

 

It's fairly obvious that Venezuela wouldnt have gone with a US produced aircraft, alright..thats fine. I just think that perhaps the SU-30 isnt ideal, and it was purchased as a "spiteful" replacement for the aging Block 15 F-16's.

 

But you know what? Ok...thats fine. Lets hope that everything remains peaceful and calm, and US F-15's and F-22's can meet Venezuelan SU-30MK2's as friends and not 30 miles away throwing missiles at each other.

[RvETito]

The debate wether 1 or 2 engines is safer is still waged among designers and buyers. Pakistan has used F-16's in very adverse mountanious terrain and guess what, they are still flying even after the arms restrictions.

 

Some of the worst accident records hapened to 2 engined fighters, I think this is due more to the inherent design than the existence of 1 or 2 engines in that particular airframe. Ironicaly the F-14 Tomcat being one of the few designs to prevent engine damage from spreading to the other has been notorious for its blowouts. The rest have both engines side by side with reports of one engine malfunction bringing the aircraft down, so you figure it out.

 

Theres still people going arround the loss ratio of 1 and 2 engined aircraft with inconclusive results. In the end I think the psicological effect of having 2 engines gives a sensation of safety but its not actualy justified scientificaly.

 

So when you got planes like this, is the 2 engines issue even relevant to the table? I think not. If Chavez wasnt so after GWB patience, he would probably get another plane instead (or keep the falcons).

 

What do you mean by 'not justified scientificaly'? Try make some simple numbers. Which has bigger mathematical possibility- To land safely a single-engine or double-engine a/c in case of an engine failure(be it combat or not)?

 

Worst accidents had happned to 2-engined a/c? Where do you get this mythology? Forgot the F-104? 2 engines is not two but three or even more time safer than 1. The F-14 engines problem in the past has nothing to do with it's engine number. The TF-30 has been proved to have poor compressor performance and had been the reason for numerous accidents. Put the same engine on the F-16 and guess what will happen. I haven't heard of any engine problems after the TF-30 has been replaced by F100 or F110, not sure which one though.

 

If 1 engine is so much better how come all countries are building 4th and 5th generation fighters(including your beloved F-22) with two engines(except the F-35)?

[RvETito]

Back on topic.. Regarding which plane is more suitable for South American country.. It's very interesting to see what's going on in Peru. They bought MiG-29s and Su-25s and here comes the interesting part. The main interceptor of the small mountain-valey-sneaking Cessnas serving the drugs traffic is... the Su-25:D I read many interesting stories in late '90s that this dedicated ground attacker has been very successful in pursuing the trafficants. This is also pretty interesting subject IMO. I would say the Ka-50 could also be pretty good in such role. With it's top speed of 300km/h, great mountain performance and ability to target air targets with the Shkval it would be the nightmare for those bloody drug dealers:)

[Pilotasso]

The F-14 engines problem in the past has nothing to do with it's engine number. The TF-30 has been proved to have poor compressor performance and had been the reason for numerous accidents. Put the same engine on the F-16 and guess what will happen.

 

Precisly my point. Thats why I said specific design will account for accidents more than the number of engines an aircraft has.

And picturing the TF-30 in F-16 is a ficticional scenario made by you and therefore ilogical. When you want to buy a new plane you wont care what each plane would be like if both had the same engines.

 

If 1 engine is so much better how come all countries are building 4th and 5th generation fighters(including your beloved F-22) with two engines(except the F-35)?

 

Its a different matter alltogether. If you tried to put one engine to replace the 2 in each of these planes, either you would get underpowered aircraft or you would have to build the powerplant to produce impossible ammounts of thrust allowed on a single engine by current technology or economical feasibility. F-35's 40000 pound of thrust on its engine is about the limit today, the raptor has 65000, I know no single engine capable of this.

Requirements for those twin engined fighters you mentioned are set too high to be satisfied by a single plant, thats all theres to it. And it doesnt prove your point at all Im afraid.

 

 

[..](including your beloved F-22) with two engines(except the F-35)?

 

Its not "my beloved F-22", because its not flown or built by my country. I would rather prefer you moderated your remark, my opionion is an honest opinion, I dont let creed or looks be the determinant factor. If I say its better than X or Y is because Im convinced theres technical reasons for it. I dislike to be tagged as having bias torwards this or that plane when I can often see my critics say the same about their preferred planes frequently resorting to "what ifs" taken out of science fiction.

[Cosmonaut]

When flying a low level CAS mission like we're seeing in the middle east I would assume a single Engine Strike fighter like the F16 to be not the best aircraft for the job. Weren't F16's limited to 10k feet in GW1 and 2?.. Better to send in F15E/18's or A10's.. Get one engine shot out due to small arms fire etc and the other engine will at least get you home or out of the area. And a country that can spend a few billion on its air defenses would surely be privy to more info regarding what it needs and what the capabilities are of the equipment its buying than anyone on these boards.

 

Back on topic.. Regarding which plane is more suitable for South American country.. It's very interesting to see what's going on in Peru. They bought MiG-29s and Su-25s and here comes the interesting part. The main interceptor of the small mountain-valey-sneaking Cessnas serving the drugs traffic is... the Su-25:D I read many interesting stories in late '90s that this dedicated ground attacker has been very successful in pursuing the trafficants. This is also pretty interesting subject IMO. I would say the Ka-50 could also be pretty good in such role. With it's top speed of 300km/h, great mountain performance and ability to target air targets with the Shkval it would be the nightmare for those bloody drug dealers:)

 

Now that's something I'd like to see.. heh although I don't think the Cessna would have much of a chance :smilewink:

[Pilotasso]

When flying a low level CAS mission like we're seeing in the middle east I would assume a single Engine Strike fighter like the F16 to be not the best aircraft for the job. Weren't F16's limited to 10k feet in GW1 and 2?..

 

No. where did you hear that?

 

Infact f-16's had one other funny probblem. They often started their bombing runs well over 20000 feet, during the dive they exceeded mach 1 and the CCIP woudnt compute a precise estimate anymore. They had to be upgraded by software, afterwords they were cleared for high altitude drops again but I never heard of a 10K altitude operations limit. Infact that altitude ceiling would be suicidal as they would be put right into range of the vast majority of the Iraqi defenses. So they flew very high like any other airplane.

[Colt40Five]

Medium altitude restrictions have been placed on most recent conflicts for one simple reason....MANPADS. Has nothing to do with what type of A/C it is. It has to do with the threats.

[RvETito]

Look Pilotasso, I'm sorry if you got offended. I've never wanted to insult anyone on the forums, I guess I just got "infected" by someone's attitude which I might have taken too serious and overreacted.

 

All I wanted to say is that from statistical point of view the more the engines are the bigger the safety is. That's all;)

[Pilotasso]

you understood Comonauts sentece the opsotie way :D hea means UNDER 10K.

[Pilotasso]

Look Pilotasso, I'm sorry if you got offended. I've never wanted to insult anyone on the forums, I guess I just got "infected" by someone's attitude which I might have taken too serious and overreacted.

 

All I wanted to say is that from statistical point of view the more the engines are the bigger the safety is. That's all;)

 

Im not offended, dotn worry. It takes alot for that. ;)

 

Just a bit puzzled how the human mind works in order to get individual points of view to be taken by others.

[Pilotasso]

Look Pilotasso, I'm sorry if you got offended. I've never wanted to insult anyone on the forums, I guess I just got "infected" by someone's attitude which I might have taken too serious and overreacted.

 

Im not offended, dont worry. It takes alot for that. ;)

 

Just a bit puzzled how the human mind works in order to get individual points of view to be taken by others.

 

All I wanted to say is that from statistical point of view the more the engines are the bigger the safety is. That's all;)

 

I know exactly what you mean, and it seems to make sense however it is not so simple. For example many of the new airliners built to have intercontinetal range have a new trend to have just 2 engines in place of 4. What I said about single engined fighters VS twin engined, is not something I decided on my mind to make sense. Its a trend that is real. I heard alot of people coment on Uni and on my new job as well and no one has come forward with decisive conclusions. whenever they stumble across loss ratios and their causes, there is no cause apointed to the fact of the number of engines it has but rather a specific technical aspect of the design.

[RvETito]

Yeah...My mind also says that it's 1AM and someone has to work in the morning so... see you later..;)

[Cosmonaut]

you understood Comonauts sentece the opsotie way :D hea means UNDER 10K.

 

 

LOL totally my fault I should have been more clear .. I meant above 10K ..:doh:

[ECV 56 Gorrion]

Congratulations by the NEW Adquisition a SUPERB Fighter, maybe can see it en Cruzex or other flights in my Country.

 

UN GRAN SALUDO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Y Felicitaciones nuevamente!!!!!!!

[Tomahawk674]

Saludos a voz! como ustedes dicen :D

 

Seguramente estaran en Cruzex 2007 o 2008, sera bueno...

 

Nos vemos!

[wsoul2k]

I hope so.... i wanna see how they will perform

 

and maybe we will have some Rafales in the next CRUZEX

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Everyone knows that the US military can't be beat and that's all there is to it.

I fully agree with you on this one.

They spend more on their military than the next 20 countries in the list put together …

Actually, USA spends more money on military then all other countries of the world COMBINED.

… so if they want to invade your country they can and will and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it..

Well, you can fight. You must not give up to... You will suffer great loses, but you can fight.

Hell they don't even need a legal reason,..

True. As recently demonstrated in use of military over Yugoslavia.

[Hellcat61]

True. As recently demonstrated in use of military over Yugoslavia.

 

Need I remind you that they were slaughtering tens of thousands of people? Muslums ironically. It seems that America can't win for losing. We're damned if we do, and we're damned if we dont...

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Its not proven that 2 engines are safer than one, …

He, he, he … You know better then F-22 and Flanker designers? He, he, he …

You think you will match US aircraft with 24 airframes?! :lol:

Airplane is just a part of a weapons system. I am sure USA has stronger Air Force then anybody else in the world.

 

But keep in mind, it is not how powerful you are, but how you project your power. Sometime even a small but capable force can cause great political statement against brute power. So, 24 Flankers in Venezuela will not defeat US Air Force. However, if properly used, those 24 aircraft can make a difference in a balance of power in a regioin.

[RvETito]

For example many of the new airliners built to have intercontinetal range have a new trend to have just 2 engines in place of 4. What I said about single engined fighters VS twin engined, is not something I decided on my mind to make sense. Its a trend that is real. I heard alot of people coment on Uni and on my new job as well and no one has come forward with decisive conclusions. whenever they stumble across loss ratios and their causes, there is no cause apointed to the fact of the number of engines it has but rather a specific technical aspect of the design.

 

I know it's not that simple. I just tried to say it in one phrase unlike some of my previous posts, where I used too much of a verbal decoration:)

 

The only reason I see for such trend is economical. The more the engines are the more complex and hence more expensive the aircraft is. If you come across some air safety statistical data you'll see that aircraft with more engines are safer than others. And this is not because their components don't fail, actualy malfunctons happen more regularly on a multiengine a/c because of it's more complex nature. But the number of engines indicates the level of systems' back-up. So the point is that one and same failure has much smaller impact over the safety on a multiengine a/c because the failed system has multiple back-up by other systems, which commonly are engine powered.

[Pilotasso]

He, he, he … You know better then F-22 and Flanker designers? He, he, he …

 

Find your most powerfull jet engine in both those countries and replace 2 engines with 1 and then see what hapens to their T/W ratio and max speed. ;)

 

Has nothing to do with safety.

 

 

But keep in mind, it is not how powerful you are, but how you project your power. Sometime even a small but capable force can cause great political statement against brute power. So, 24 Flankers in Venezuela will not defeat US Air Force. However, if properly used, those 24 aircraft can make a difference in a balance of power in a regioin.

 

Well that is true, and perhaps why venezuela bought them. Every other need became second nature to them I guess.

[Stubbins]

Sweet planes, Tomahawk.

[Force_Feedback]

Come on, stop this 'I love plane X, so the su-30 sucks' routine, it's getting boring, if you want to troll, start your own thread, don't get this one closed. No matter what you think of Venezuela, the Su-27 series or wether there are Martians walking among us... Keep it civilized please, otherwise this will become some sort of international trolling forum, and since most of us are at or over the age of conscent, and still display childish behavior... You all get the point, I hope at least.

 

So, I'll ask it again, any news on the armament, the modifications Venezuela ordered, maybe some nice stats, something! All I know is that it's a MK2, nothing more, and it seems not to have TVC engines (not really needed for every day, non-warpath duties), what else?

The avionics, are they from 'Russian avionics' or from Sextant/Thales? And please, please tell me what the ejection seat mod it is, it looks like a K-36D Series 3.5E, but does it have the optional yaw thrusters?

[Pilotasso]

Come on, stop this 'I love plane X, so the su-30 sucks' routine

 

never said Su-30 sux routine. I just doubt about the reasons why it was purchased.

 

Su-30MKI (not venezuelas MKK2) actualy figures among my personal fav aircraft (about 4th or 5th :D ). However my personal favourite is not the same as the list I consider to be the most capable planes. I would take the same aircraft but shift their orders up. In this case the Su-30MKI goes down a bit. If you're interested to know these lists let me know, otherwise Ill keep it quiet for love and peace. :D

[Alfa]

I know it's not that simple. I just tried to say it in one phrase unlike some of my previous posts, where I used too much of a verbal decoration:)

 

The only reason I see for such trend is economical. The more the engines are the more complex and hence more expensive the aircraft is. If you come across some air safety statistical data you'll see that aircraft with more engines are safer than others. And this is not because their components don't fail, actualy malfunctons happen more regularly on a multiengine a/c because of it's more complex nature. But the number of engines indicates the level of systems' back-up. So the point is that one and same failure has much smaller impact over the safety on a multiengine a/c because the failed system has multiple back-up by other systems, which commonly are engine powered.

 

Yup :)

 

- JJ.