Su-30 production aircraft

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I am reading the Sukhoi Su-27 book by Yefim Gordon from the Famous Russian Aircraft series. This book is true Flanker encyclopedia and I would certainly recommend it to combat aviation enthusiasts.

 

In part six, the Su-30 Family section of the book, Yefim is talking about five Su-30 production aircraft that were delivered to PVO's 148th TsBP and PLS at Savasleyka AB near Nizhniy Novgorod. Yefim even lists the Serial Number of the airplanes. It took three years to deliver five Su-30's to this AB.

 

I wonder what TsBP and PLS stands for? I assume “Ts” is “C” for center, but that is pretty much all I can figure out.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

BTW, this delivery took place in early/mid nineties.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Anybody?

 

THis would be prety interesting development since it would show that Russians had operationa advanced flankers, Su-30's, in operational squad, some 15 years ago.

[Laivynas]

TsBP - ЦБП

Military application center - Центр боевого применения

[GGTharos]

Advanced flankers? The original Su-30 was a mini-airborne command post. It was a Su-27P/S with another crewmember and some extra datalink and radio equipment to help the guy in the back control a flight of 4 (perhaps more) to help increase their SA and fight better.

[Alfa]

GG is right - the initial Su-30(Su-27PU) was a dedicated interceptor variant and little more than an Su-27UB with a retractable IFR probe, improved EOS(shared with Su-33) and extended data-linking capability - the other systems, including radar, were the same as those of the "baseline" Su-27.

 

The idea was that the crew member in the rear seat would act as radar operator to ease the workload for the pilot, so that the aircraft could link up to and act as mission controller for a flight of single seat Su-27s - i.e. to coordiante efforts and designate priority targets.

 

Only a handful of these aircraft were supplied to the PVO and only for front line testing - it did not enter actual service and the few supplied airframes were later reclaimed by Sukhoi.

 

Some of them were used as basis for further developments into the multirole Su-30MK - really more of an export concept than a particular aircraft type, which can be seen by the large diversity in configurations between the realised orders(Su-30MKI, Su-30MKK etc) .

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I guess, in your dictionary, the word "advanced" does not include the AEW&C.

 

I don't know what radar the Su-30 (Su-27PU) had? Alfa, where did you get the info on a Su-27PU radar type? And in incredibly detailed book, Yefim Gordon never mentioned that any original Su-30's were reclaimed by Sukhoi.

 

The first two Su-30's were delivered to test pilots aerobatic tem led by Kvochur.

 

Five more Su-30's were delivered PVO's 148th TsBP and PLS (whatever that 148th TsBP and PLS means). It took three years for delivery, from 94-97.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

TsBP - ЦБП

Military application center - Центр боевого применения

Thanks.

[GGTharos]

I guess, in your dictionary, the word "advanced" does not include the AEW&C.

 

Then here's a simple definition for you.

 

Basic flankers: Any Su-27P/S derivative that has maintained the cassegrain antenna

 

Contemporary flankers: Anything that uses a planar array radar or western avionics.

 

Advanced Flankers: Anything using some sort of ESA radar.

 

Should we call F-18's advanced because they're link-16 capable? ;)

 

I don't know what radar the Su-30 (Su-27PU) had? Alfa, where did you get the info on a Su-27PU radar type? And in incredibly detailed book, Yefim Gordon never mentioned that any original Su-30's were reclaimed by Sukhoi.

 

Perhaps your incredibly detailed book isn't all that detailed.

It's a Su-27P/S derivative ... ie. same radar. Here's some source:

 

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/su30-01.htm

 

I'm sure you could find others easily if you actually wanted ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Then here's a simple definition for you.

Thank you very much. Is there any other fighter/interceptor aircraft (other then MiG-31) that can act as AEW&C?

 

Should we call F-18's advanced because they're link-16 capable? ;)

No because they can not take control over other aircraft, can they?

 

Here's some source:

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/su30-01.htm

So you are indorsing Venik's web site now? Hmmm … So now this is factual as well?

 

By the way, if this source is correct, it clearly states that the NIIP N001 Mech can engage two targets simultaneously? Is that correct as well? Also, this same link you provided states that Su-30 Armament includes R-77? If that’s the case and Su-27 “S”/P “with the same radar” as Su-30 should be able to use R-77 as well?

 

Also, there is T-10S (production designation) which is Su-27 and T-10S which is Su-27P (P – Perekhvatchik), the Su-27 without ground strike capabilities. There is no Su-27S.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP ;)

[GGTharos]

Thank you very much. Is there any other fighter/interceptor aircraft (other then MiG-31) that can act as AEW&C?

 

Any aircraft with a transmitting Link-16 terminal, and there are a LOT of them now, including F-15's, F-22's, F-35's, F-18's ... you could in theory count the smaller fighters too, but I don't think their radar range is quite as useful despite the data linking capability.

 

I don't know if MiG-29's have been equipped with FDL - flankers have this from the start, though it isn't a full fledged datalink terminal like link-16. The MiG-31's datalink, as I (barely!) remember it, is much more interesting.

 

No because they can not take control over other aircraft, can they?

 

If by control you mean they can order them around, you bet they can. It is a matter of doctrine and training. Link-16 functions are so automated that there's no requirement for someone steering your antenna remotely.

 

(that Russians wanted an airborne command post of this sort might indicate that they expected the flanker to either fight outside the GCI sphere, or that they expected the GCI to be relatively weak once a war broke out - on the other hand, it might indicate nothing other than Sukhoi wanting to sell more planes)

 

I would say no because an F-18C is already superseded by an advanced aircraft: The F-18E. Airborne control isn't anything to call an aircraft advanced over, IMHO. An advanced aircraft will have technological superiority over other aircraft in the same fleet and theoretically parity with the other guy's advanced aircraft.

 

So you are indorsing Venik's web site now? Hmmm … So now this is factual as well?

 

No, I am endorsing you doing some homework. You can find other sites and other documents to find this information in - I really don't have time to dig and dig and dig every time something comes up. There are better sources.

 

By the way, if this source is correct, it clearly states that the NIIP N001 Mech can engage two targets simultaneously? Is that correct as well? Also, this same link you provided states that Su-30 Armament includes R-77? If that’s the case and Su-27 “S”/P “with the same radar” as Su-30 should be able to use R-77 as well?

 

No. This source states that such a capability was offered, but probably never implemented. As for arming anything resembling a Russian Su-27S/P with R-77, I'd call that a joke ... if it's anything with a more advanced radar then I'd buy it. Note that for RUSSIAN flankers, active missile carriage has only recently entered service with the Su-27SM. Su-30MKI's etc already had this as a requirement (which is a little amusing, Russia held off on putting actives on its own aircraft - probably with good reason).

 

Also, there is T-10S (production designation) which is Su-27 and T-10S which is Su-27P (P – Perekhvatchik), the Su-27 without ground strike capabilities. There is no Su-27S.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP ;)

 

I'm pretty sure there's a Su-27S designation somewhere around there, indicating basically the Su-27P WITH ground strike capabilities, but it doesn't really matter at this point - we're talking about the same thing anyway.

[Alfa]

I guess, in your dictionary, the word "advanced" does not include the AEW&C.

 

Listen Hajduk - I didn't respond to your post to engage in a "word splitting" exercise. I percieved your post as a request for further information on the Su-30 and by your mention of "advanced Flankers", it appeared to me that you were confusing this aircraft variant with its more advanced multirole export derrivatives.

 

I don't know what radar the Su-30 (Su-27PU) had?

 

The NiiP-N001 - same as in the Su-27P/S, Su-27UB and Su-33. As I mentioned, the Su-30(Su-27PU) and Su-33(Su-27K) had an improved EOS though.

 

Alfa, where did you get the info on a Su-27PU radar type? And in incredibly detailed book, Yefim Gordon never mentioned that any original Su-30's were reclaimed by Sukhoi.

 

I think I have pointed out varies short comings with Yefim Gordon's publications on previously occassions - it might simply be that the information wasn't available at the time he wrote his books.

[Alfa]

 

..that Russians wanted an airborne command post of this sort might indicate that they expected the flanker to either fight outside the GCI sphere, or that they expected the GCI to be relatively weak once a war broke out - on the other hand, it might indicate nothing other than Sukhoi wanting to sell more planes.

 

As dedicated interceptors the Su-30 and MiG-31 were expected to patrol along the borders of the Soviet Union and intercept enemy bomber formations. I think anyone who is familiar with the geography of the SU(and now Russia for that matter) would realise the difficulty in covering it all through GCI :) . One of the main features of the MiG-31 is its ability to link up with other MiG-31s into an integrated surveillance system covering a huge volume of airspace.

 

As far as realising the weakness of GCI, I think the response to this was more along the lines of the A-50, which is capable not only of air surveillance/fighter control, but also of integrating and acting as complete command central for air, sea and ground forces within an area of operations.

 

 

No. This source states that such a capability was offered, but probably never implemented.

 

I don't see how you could engage two targets simultaneously with a cassegrain radar and SARH missiles :) .

 

As for arming anything resembling a Russian Su-27S/P with R-77, I'd call that a joke ... if it's anything with a more advanced radar then I'd buy it. Note that for RUSSIAN flankers, active missile carriage has only recently entered service with the Su-27SM.

 

Quite - the Su-27SM retains the N001 radar, but in upgraded form(N001VE) exactly to allow for use of ARH missiles. However, Russia has operated the MiG-29S(9-13S), which through similar radar upgrade(N019M) has the ability to deploy ARH missiles, but there is little evidence that such missiles were actually surplied for them - possibly because the RVV-AE(for export) is using electronic components of foreign origin.

 

Su-30MKI's etc already had this as a requirement (which is a little amusing, Russia held off on putting actives on its own aircraft - probably with good reason).

 

Yes shortage of cash :) . The upgraded N001VE radar was developed and certified for the Chinese Su-30MKK order - thus funded via this.

 

Another reason could be the one I mentioned above - namely that while Russian arms manufactures could use foreign components for their export products they must, as far as I understand, be "fully Russian" in order to be considered for domestic forces.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Alfa

[Fox One]

whatever that 148th TsBP and PLS means

 

ЦБП и ПЛС = Центр боевой подготовки и переучивания летного состава

The centre of combat training and (type) conversion for crews

Edited September 28, 2008 by Fox One

[Esac_mirmidon]

The translation could be " Centre of Combat Training and Refresh Training por Crews " ?

[mvsgas]

... Also, this same link you provided states that Su-30 Armament includes R-77? If that’s the case and Su-27 “S”/P “with the same radar” as Su-30 should be able to use R-77 as well?...

Sorry Hajduk, I'm trying to understand this statement. I take it that you think because an aircraft has the same radar it can carry the same weapons? If I'm mistaken, and you had different meaning, sorry. My point is that the radar system is just one part of the equation for an aircraft ability to carry a certain weapons. You most also consider the wiring on the weapons pylon, the wing and the aircraft. The voltage that weapon may need and the software on the aircraft to guide that weapon or the ability for the aircraft to utilize that weapon correctly. Also the pilots training to be able to use that weapon, etc.

Sorry just trying to follow the thread, cool info guys thanks.

[Teknetinium]

My big question is why Russians want for upgrading the MiG-29 instead of Su-27, mig could be supported by A-50 because its short operation range,while Su-27 need to go be on that like Mig-31, I Guise the strategy was for defending not aggressing?Or for the Market?

Edited September 29, 2008 by Teknetinium

[MoGas]

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html

[nscode]

My big question is why Russians want for upgrading the MiG-29 instead of Su-27, mig could be supported by A-50 because its short operation range,while Su-27 need to go be on that like Mig-31, I Guise the strategy was for defending not aggressing?Or for the Market?

 

They're upgrading both.