Should Iraq have bought the Su-30?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 11,742

If someone is intrested in some real fuel consumption of a fighter, he can do a look at the producers web-site. Here he will find the max fuel load and the related ferry flight range of the own fighter. The maximum range could be achieved under optimum conditions only. From the maximum of range in km/nm and the given fuel-load, a division will show either the kg per km/nm or km/nm per kg of fuel ratio. By that you get something reasonable to compare fighters about basic fuel consumption.
Let us see what the writer and his meaningful data selfclaimed will find out about that.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 9,579

You know irks me? When people sweep Soviet weapons design as if it constantly follows one "doctrinal method" and never deviates from it.
The simplicity of the AKM, the MiG-21, etc =/= all Soviet weapons, or even close to all, followed the motto of "reliable, simple, hard to break".
The USSR inducted the T-64 MBT FFS- incredibly complex and advanced for the time in essentially every single parameter, and even after mass production had reliability issues for many years to come.
Was the MiG-31 "simple and hard to break"? Please.

In terms of aviation engines the culprit for shorter service lives was as much the maintenance system, which AFAIK placed very little emphasis on aviation units doing much maintenance themselves and focusing on fighting and flying, with the serious work being relegated to more frequent visits to ARZs or the original factories.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

TR-1, that was not the point I was making. I agree with you on Depot level mantenance and the Soviet method of replacing parts at regular intervals over repair. That is exactly what I'm saying.

No, not all Soviet weapons were designed for a short service life: Tu-95, SSN (SSBN), Mig-31 come to mind. The T-64 is a case in point (that you brought up). It was a complex weapon system that had a higher maintenance and servicing requirement than the average conscript could provide.

I'd be happy to have this discussion (and support with documentation) but don't want to derail thread threshing this out further. But in short, there is a difference between people who claim Soviet weapons were low tech garbage (they weren't), and what I'm saying about the how the Soviet logistics and maintence system, their belief on survival/repair of front line weapons in a high intensity conflict, impacted design/engineering choices.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

TR-1, that was not the point I was making. I agree with you on Depot level mantenance and the Soviet method of replacing parts at regular intervals over repair. That is exactly what I'm saying.

No, not all Soviet weapons were designed for a short service life: Tu-95, SSN (SSBN), Mig-31 come to mind. The T-64 is a case in point (that you brought up). It was a complex weapon system that had a higher maintenance and servicing requirement than the average conscript could provide.

I'd be happy to have this discussion (and support with documentation) but don't want to derail thread threshing this out further. But in short, there is a difference between people who claim Soviet weapons were low tech garbage (they weren't), and what I'm saying about the how the Soviet logistics and maintence system, their belief on survival/repair of front line weapons in a high intensity conflict, impacted design/engineering choices.


Tu22/tu160/IL76/IL38/MIG29 and countless other will pass there 50 years life.
When do you think IAF MIG29UPG will get retired. ? They have far better safety rate than similar age F16C or M2K. They don't crack either like earlier F15s and very cheaply converted to multirole. Soviet and Russian military engineering is always superior

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

If someone is intrested in some real fuel consumption of a fighter, he can do a look at the producers web-site. Here he will find the max fuel load and the related ferry flight range of the own fighter. The maximum range could be achieved under optimum conditions only. From the maximum of range in km/nm and the given fuel-load, a division will show either the kg per km/nm or km/nm per kg of fuel ratio. By that you get something reasonable to compare fighters about basic fuel consumption.
Let us see what the writer and his meaningful data selfclaimed will find out about that.
Completely flawed logic... I'll explain..

F-16C - ferry range 2,275 miles on 1,055 gal internal + 2x 600 gal + 1x 300 gal external tanks = 0.89 mile/gallon
Su-27 - ferry range 2,375 miles on 3,116 gal internal fuel = 0.76 mile/gallon

Result: a fighter with 95% more weight and 97% more thrust installed only consumes 17% more fuel on ferry flights.. Why? because of added drag of the wet bags..

Outcome: ferry flights are by no means representative to assess the flight hour cost... they only represent very specific conditions with no regard on flight performance which is essential for aerial combat..

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

Tu22/tu160/IL76/IL38/MIG29 and countless other will pass there 50 years life.
When do you think IAF MIG29UPG will get retired. ? They have far better safety rate than similar age F16C or M2K. They don't crack either like earlier F15s and very cheaply converted to multirole. Soviet and Russian military engineering is always superior

MiG-29s do suffer from cracks on the vertical fins.. Early Soviet composites, you know.. :)
They are all getting strenghtening flanges in order to solve the issue.. Most of those look the same, only Poles seem to have adopted some indigenous solution..

[ATTACH=CONFIG]251283[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]251284[/ATTACH]

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

There hasn't been any crash due to cracks nor it prevent from being converted into multirole fighter. That idinir thing.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

Those are early production MIGs unlike late production F15C.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 9,579

TR-1, that was not the point I was making. I agree with you on Depot level mantenance and the Soviet method of replacing parts at regular intervals over repair. That is exactly what I'm saying.

No, not all Soviet weapons were designed for a short service life: Tu-95, SSN (SSBN), Mig-31 come to mind. The T-64 is a case in point (that you brought up). It was a complex weapon system that had a higher maintenance and servicing requirement than the average conscript could provide.

I'd be happy to have this discussion (and support with documentation) but don't want to derail thread threshing this out further. But in short, there is a difference between people who claim Soviet weapons were low tech garbage (they weren't), and what I'm saying about the how the Soviet logistics and maintence system, their belief on survival/repair of front line weapons in a high intensity conflict, impacted design/engineering choices.

I was more addressing a certain chronic fanboy in this thread who was bringing up wholly irrelevant things like the AKM and the T-72 family to the entirely different question of engine maintenance.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 621

What is this "MiG-29 vs F-16 operating costs" about in this thread? Operating costs of those 1980's era MiGs tell us nothing about equivalent costs of MiG-29M, which is essentially a new plane, much less Su-30 which is completely different aircraft.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 11,742

Completely flawed logic... I'll explain..

F-16C - ferry range 2,275 miles on 1,055 gal internal + 2x 600 gal + 1x 300 gal external tanks = 0.89 mile/gallon
Su-27 - ferry range 2,375 miles on 3,116 gal internal fuel = 0.76 mile/gallon

Result: a fighter with 95% more weight and 97% more thrust installed only consumes 17% more fuel on ferry flights.. Why? because of added drag of the wet bags..

Outcome: ferry flights are by no means representative to assess the flight hour cost... they only represent very specific conditions with no regard on flight performance which is essential for aerial combat..

Look at your numbers given again.

It was between the Polish F-16C Block 50 and the MiG-29A (with piped wings of ex GAF examples). Ferry flight range gives the yardstick about fuel per mile in need.
OKB MiG gives
1500 km clean from 4365 l internal = 2,91 l/km
F-16C
**** km clean from 3994 l internal = *,** l/km

In the meanwhile I got an idea about the higher fuel bill of the Polish F-16C despite the lower fuel consumption in general when compared to the MiG-29. It is about the air-refuelling capability. Every galone received in the air is billed 35-50 USD compared to the more typical 4 USD when filled on the AB. To use that capabilty of the F-16C it has to be trained by the pilots whenever possible and rise the bill by that. The ones not looking into the related details will be surprised always. A MiG-29 used high up for air-policing in general is not comparable in fuel consumption with a F-16C used mainly with A2G weapons at medium and low height for training purposes at first.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

What is this "MiG-29 vs F-16 operating costs" about in this thread? Operating costs of those 1980's era MiGs tell us nothing about equivalent costs of MiG-29M, which is essentially a new plane, much less Su-30 which is completely different aircraft.

msphere is hoping to prove that Su-30 is roughly same operational cost as f-16

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

Look at your numbers given again.

It was between the Polish F-16C Block 50 and the MiG-29A (with piped wings of ex GAF examples). Ferry flight range gives the yardstick about fuel per mile in need.
OKB MiG gives
1500 km clean from 4365 l internal = 2,91 l/km
F-16C
**** km clean from 3994 l internal = *,** l/km

In the meanwhile I got an idea about the higher fuel bill of the Polish F-16C despite the lower fuel consumption in general when compared to the MiG-29. It is about the air-refuelling capability. Every galone received in the air is billed 35-50 USD compared to the more typical 4 USD when filled on the AB. To use that capabilty of the F-16C it has to be trained by the pilots whenever possible and rise the bill by that. The ones not looking into the related details will be surprised always. A MiG-29 used high up for air-policing in general is not comparable in fuel consumption with a F-16C used mainly with A2G weapons at medium and low height for training purposes at first.

ok, that at last is plausible and still keep the pilot honorable

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

msphere is hoping to prove that Su-30 is roughly same operational cost as f-16

First you'd have to prove that F-16 is cheaper to operate than an Su-30.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

msphere is hoping to prove that Su-30 is roughly same operational cost as f-16

Su-30 has much much lower operating costs. how a plane operates without properly train pilot and ground crews, maintainance parts. have you looked at those costs for new buyers of F-16. $300m per aircraft is realistic figure for initial operational capability for new buyer and close to $200m for repeat F-16 buyers. and those F-16 will not have IRST or big EW pods.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

In the meanwhile I got an idea about the higher fuel bill of the Polish F-16C despite the lower fuel consumption in general when compared to the MiG-29. It is about the air-refuelling capability. Every galone received in the air is billed 35-50 USD compared to the more typical 4 USD when filled on the AB. To use that capabilty of the F-16C it has to be trained by the pilots whenever possible and rise the bill by that. The ones not looking into the related details will be surprised always. A MiG-29 used high up for air-policing in general is not comparable in fuel consumption with a F-16C used mainly with A2G weapons at medium and low height for training purposes at first.
Well, that's an idea.. Now it's time to prove it somehow...

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

Su-30 has much much lower operating costs. how a plane operates without properly train pilot and ground crews, maintainance parts. have you looked at those costs for new buyers of F-16. $300m per aircraft is realistic figure for initial operational capability for new buyer and close to $200m for repeat F-16 buyers. and those F-16 will not have IRST or big EW pods.
$300 mil is too much, $200 mil a pop is the typical F-16 figure with all options exercised.. (Iraq, Bahrain, Oman). Typical export figure for a canarded Su-30MK is currently around $90 mil.

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/oman-f-16-aircraft

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

$300 mil is too much, $200 mil a pop is the typical figure with all options exercised.. (Iraq, Bahrain, Oman)

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/oman-f-16-aircraft


Those are either repeat orders or mostly old orders signed more than 5 years ago. new buyer for F-16 in 2017 with comparable system capability like Su-30 will be paying close $300m if not more. Even the so called Turkey cant upgrade F-16 with electronic scanning radars cheaply. Russia mid life upgrades are also cheaper and comprehensive.

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 555


No, not all Soviet weapons were designed for a short service life: Tu-95, SSN (SSBN), Mig-31 come to mind.

Airframe designed service life in hours:

MiG-31: 3,500
F-14A: 7,200. Wing carry-through box demonstrated to 12,000.

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 1,344

Airframe designed service life in hours: MiG-31: 3,500

Source?