MeInit: Flyable Su-30, why not?

[Kenan]

I realised vanilla Su-30 (not the upgraded versions) has almost identical front cockpit as the su27/33 variants. Of course, this is the 'oldish' version of the plane, and I have no idea how many of then in the RuAF have actually been upgraded with glas cockpit and stuff..

 

 

So, we could actually use this one as flyable in LOMAC, of course, not for precision guided AG strikes (no radar etc.) but for r77 AA engagements. :)

 

I also read somewhere, some of the front cockpit upgrades included only 1 MFD (in the place of the old HDD), and that was it.

 

BTW, how many of u guys (if any) fly SU30 in LOMAC?

[Alfa]

Hello Kenan,

 

Yes the Su-30 is really the only AI-only aircraft you can make flyable and get a fairly accurate representation of - like you said, the front cockpit of this version is virtually the same as that of the Su-27.

 

There were never any Su-30s in actual service with the Russian airforce - a handfull(5 or 6 aircraft) were operationally tested in the nineties, but were re-claimed by Sukhoi and their airframes used as basis for building the Su-30MK/MKI multirole prototypes, while a single one(bort # 302) was used as basis for the upgraded Su-30KN prototype.

 

The Su-30(Su-27PU) was an air-to-air only dedicated interceptor version developed for the airdefence forces(PVO). its weapons capability was the same as that of the single seat Su-27 operated by the PVO - meaning that its main weapon was the R-27RE. It did not support the R-77 and had no air-to-ground capabilities of any kind(not even unguided).

 

So the "Su-30" in Lock-on is incorrectly represented - either the extensive air-to-ground capability it is depicted with should be removed, or it should be re-named to "Su-30KN"(the upgraded prototype), for which this capability is correct.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Sharpshooter]

Hello Kenan,

 

Yes the Su-30 is really the only AI-only aircraft you can make flyable and get a fairly accurate representation of - like you said, the front cockpit of this version is virtually the same as that of the Su-27.

 

There were never any Su-30s in actual service with the Russian airforce - a handfull(5 or 6 aircraft) were operationally tested in the nineties, but were re-claimed by Sukhoi and their airframes used as basis for building the Su-30MK/MKI multirole prototypes, while a single one(bort # 302) was used as basis for the upgraded Su-30KN prototype.

 

The Su-30(Su-27PU) was an air-to-air only dedicated interceptor version developed for the airdefence forces(PVO). its weapons capability was the same as that of the single seat Su-27 operated by the PVO - meaning that its main weapon was the R-27RE. It did not support the R-77 and had no air-to-ground capabilities of any kind(not even unguided).

 

So the "Su-30" in Lock-on is incorrectly represented - either the extensive air-to-ground capability it is depicted with should be removed, or it should be re-named to "Su-30KN"(the upgraded prototype), for which this capability is correct.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

So the Su-30 really was the Su-27 but double-seat ? If it was being developed then it must have something new, what is it ?

[britgliderpilot]

So the Su-30 really was the Su-27 but double-seat ? If it was being developed then it must have something new, what is it ?

 

Another pair of eyes, another person to handle combat workloads. Don't underestimate how useful that can be.

 

 

The story in the Flanker 2.0 manual was that the Su30 was optimised for mini-AWACS and long endurance missions. Seems right to me.

 

 

Now if only ED would write some more dual-control code . . . . . :p

[britgliderpilot]

its weapons capability was the same as that of the single seat Su-27 operated by the PVO - meaning that its main weapon was the R-27RE. It did not support the R-77 and had no air-to-ground capabilities of any kind(not even unguided).

 

So the "Su-30" in Lock-on is incorrectly represented - either the extensive air-to-ground capability it is depicted with should be removed, or it should be re-named to "Su-30KN"(the upgraded prototype), for which this capability is correct.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

Can we just straighten this out - I thought the Su27 as operated by the Russian airforce DID have the unguided A2G capabilities, which is why we now have them in FC?

 

Was it a later model of Su27 we're flying now, or was a spec difference between the Frontal Aviation and Air Defence branches . . . . or was it something I've not mentioned or thought of?

[Alfa]

So the Su-30 really was the Su-27 but double-seat ? If it was being developed then it must have something new, what is it ?

 

Well the double seater Su-27 is the Su-27UB("UB" is the Russian abbreviation for "Combat Trainer") which was developed solely for training pilots to fly the single seater, but retaining the combat capabilities of this.

 

The Su-30(Su-27PU - "PU" is the Russian abbreviation for "Interceptor Trainer") was a Su-27UB modified to be used as a long range interceptor. For this purpose it had an added in-flight refueling capability and the rear seat position previously occupied by a training instructor, would instead be occupied by a radar operator with a seperate cockpit display at his disposal. Additionally the Su-30 had the ability to upload threat data via datalink to other aircraft, and as such act as a mission controller or "mini AWACS" for a flight of single seat Su-27s.

 

In other words the initial Su-30 development was intended for a task similar to that of the MiG-31.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

Can we just straighten this out - I thought the Su27 as operated by the Russian airforce DID have the unguided A2G capabilities, which is why we now have them in FC?

 

During the Soviet era, there were(aside from a seperate naval airforce) two major "air arms" - the regular airforce(VVS) and the airdefence forces(PVO), where the latter would be tasked specifically with airdefence duties and as such was the branch operating the dedicated interceptor aircraft. Later the PVO and VVS were merged into a combined force.

 

Was it a later model of Su27 we're flying now, or was a spec difference between the Frontal Aviation and Air Defence branches?

 

Both I think :) - IIRC the Su-27 development as such was originally intended for the PVO forces and didnt include any air-to-ground capabilties, but had this added later with the Su-27S version for service with the regular VVS(perhaps in connection with the above mentioned merge).

 

So the Su-27 depicted in Lock-on V1.0X would corrrespond to the original PVO version(Su-27P?), while the one in V1.1 to the Su-27S :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[mig29smt_fulcrum]

 

 

 

The above 2 pics are the pilot's and the WSO's pit from the SU30MKI

Notice the difference between the MKI and the vanilla Su30 of the RuAF.BTW the most advanced Su30 is the MKI and serves only with the Indian Air Force.The Chinese have a less advanced SU30MKK

[Cobra360]

The rear Su-30 cockpit.

 

 

The Su-30MKK front and rear cockpits.

 

 

 

The real Su-30MKI cockpits. Bit different from the good mockups above.

 

 

 

 

Some day ED, Hopefully not too many years away. Less than 10 would be good.

[Pilotasso]

What a waste of MFD's... they just replace dials. I heard mechanical intruments are alot cheaper to maintain than using MFD's for the same exact tasks.

 

Either use MFD's for situational awareness or not use them at all. This is one major drawback of russian aircraft IMHO. Complete equipment would make the SU-30's the best aircraft anywhere in the world. Great looking birds but only half as good as they could be.

[Alfa]

What a waste of MFD's... they just replace dials. I heard mechanical intruments are alot cheaper to maintain than using MFD's for the same exact tasks.

 

Either use MFD's for situational awareness or not use them at all. This is one major drawback of russian aircraft IMHO. Complete equipment would make the SU-30's the best aircraft anywhere in the world. Great looking birds but only half as good as they could be.

 

Pilotasso,

 

"They just replace dials"

 

Let me get this straight.....you seriously believe that?! :biggrin:

 

If you do, you have absolutely no idea about the systems of the advanced Flanker and Fulcrum versions mate....trust me ;)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Pilotasso]

Thing is that I have seen alot of marketing movies and pictures of russian aircraft multi MFD cockpits. Thay almost always show dials. Sometimes an IR display for smart weapons or a map. I would like to see Tactical displays showing the positions of bandits and my wingmen and threat boards, all thanks to link systems onboard, all with waypoints and map if possible.

But when I say "equipment" I mean the works. Radar and ECM, capabilities and missiles to match.

 

You wont see dials and readers as primary functions on westerns MFD's. If there are any dials at all in them is for secondary purposes and rarely take up much space on screen like in the russian planes. Beacause if there are other modes why put dials on MFD's if your going to loose sight of them?

 

To make the Su-30 a real mosnter russians are forced to export them with western avionics. Even then Im a bit suspicious as to the missiles they employ. The R-77 is likely to be very "raw" since its barely even in russian service if at all. If they were convinced it was that much better then R-27's then 1 wonders why they dont just trash the alamos.

 

Advanced flanker owners will be tempted to buy other missiles such as the israeli Derby or south africas Denel R-darter and adpt their aircraft for them.

[Alfa]

Thing is that I have seen alot of marketing movies and pictures of russian aircraft multi MFD cockpits. Thay almost always show dials. Sometimes an IR display for smart weapons or a map. I would like to see Tactical displays showing the positions of bandits and my wingmen and threat boards, all thanks to link systems onboard, all with waypoints and map if possible.

 

Marketing movies do not show things like the advanced Pastel RWS threat display on the MFDs because aspects of it is classified information - just to pick one of the things you mentioned in connection with your lack of "situational awareness" perception :)

 

But when I say "equipment" I mean the works. Radar and ECM, capabilities and missiles to match.

 

So do I :)

 

To make the Su-30 a real mosnter russians are forced to export them with western avionics.

 

"The Russians" are "forced" to export their aircraft with the equipment the customer demands. Anyway, so far the only such customer I am aware of is India - and there can be several explanations for it.

 

1). India operates a multitude of aircraft types originating from varies countries - if these were all equipped strictly with equipment of their native countries, they would be impossible to integrate into a combined force. You will find that much of the "foreign" equipment integrated with the Su-30MKI is of a supportive nature, while the main items such as the radar(NIIP N011M) is very much Russian :)

 

2). India is itself a developer of high-tech equipment - for this reason alone they will want to incorporate their own developments into their fighter fleet - if for no other reason to cut costs and support their own industry....or even joint-ventures in which it is represented.

 

Even then Im a bit wary as to the missiles they employ. The R-77 is likely to be very "raw" since its barely even in russian service if at all. If they were convinced it was that much better then R-27's then 1 wonders why they dont just trash the alamos.

 

In my book that is a case of unsubstantiated speculation - and if you wonder why they "dont just trash the Alamo", you might consider:

 

a). that the R-27 range of missiles have very different characteristics to the R-77, and while the R-77 development as such might be considered a replacement for this, there is currently no operational R-77 version that resembles the characteristics of the R-27RE(that may come with the development of a RAM-jet powered version).

 

b). that integrating the R-77 with the current fighter fleet isnt merely a matter of producing the missile in numbers, but requires the radar/weapons control system of these aircraft to be modified to support it.....this upgrade program is currently taking place and will add the R-77 to the armament of the upgraded MiG-29 and Su-27 versions. The simple reason why it hasnt occured earlier is......lack of money for it.

 

You wont see dials and readers as primary functions on westerns MFD's. If there are any dials at all in them is for secondary purposes and rarely take up much space on screen like in the russian planes. Beacause if there are other modes why put dials on MFD's if your going to loose sight of them?

 

They are not primary functions on Russian MFDs either - get a grip pilotasso :biggrin: . If anything the Russians are much less inclined to go for fancy MFDs than the "western" manufactures.....if they do integrate them, you can be sure that there is a very good and sound reason for it. If you study the nature of modern Russian multifunctional radars and threat warning systems, you will see that multiple MFDs are necessary interfaces for them and not just cosmetic cockpit additions. The fact that secondary systems information is seen displayed on them in PR material does not provide any indication of their range of functions at all.......which BTW is one of the major problems a flight sim developer would have in trying to model newer or upgraded versions of the Su-27 and MiG-29 ;)

 

Cheers.

- JJ.

[Pilotasso]

Marketing movies do not show things like the advanced Pastel RWS threat display on the MFDs because aspects of it is classified information - just to pick one of the things you mentioned in connection with your lack of "situational awareness" perception :)

 

 

 

So do I :)

 

Believe it or not I already saw this classified comment coming a loooong way.

 

While its a nice comment to have in the pocket it realy makes no sense to hide it all. You can see lots of stuff on western aircraft and still not see any actual classified stuff. It has been for a long time now. On top of that russians are such adepts of praising spectacular vapourware breakthroughs to try show they are not lagging behind. They would rather do a much better job showing stuff that realy exists without comprimising anything secret.

 

Russsian fighters may have cute toys on them (at least when compared to the baselinve versions still in service everywhere) but truth is that they are at least late in time. Multi engagement capability for example is very recent in russian multi role fighters, the west has had it for 20 years, surely you can see that if there were the funds and technical capability on place the Su-30 and others would be much much better than they are.

 

 

So when someone tells me this particular suckoi or mig is the best fighter in the world, my doubts are dissipated when I look inside the cockpit: A million dials and 10 buttons for each, and a rather rugged layout that ressenbles WWII types. And you still have to trim the aircraft even with FBW... o_O

If the mainstay of russian flanker fleet is still like LOMACs representation I would hate to even drop iron bombs with it, Its kinda distracting to have to trim the plane during the run and then the bombs wont drop immidatly when I press the trigger even at low altitudes.