Sukhoi and Ministry of Defence not always in agreement over the development of the Su-30 programme

Published: 7/2/1999

Much has been made by the mass media of the spectacular crash of the Blue 01, the first-built prototype of the Su-30MK multirole fighter, on the opening day of Paris Air Show. Naturally, the focus of attention has been mainly on the potential causes of the crash had happened. But this overlooks some new, rather interesting developments concerning the Su-30M programme. Evidence before and during the Paris Air Show suggests that the Su-30 is now being studied more closely by the Russian MoD than it was in 1997 and 1998. Historically, MoD representatives have criticised Sukhoi for not treating MoD requirements sufficiently seriously. According to the MoD, Sukhoi has preferred to concentrate on more lucrative, international business, rather than the financially troubled MoD. Consequently, the MoD has turned to Mikoyan and, in particular, its proposals for the modernisation of the MiG-31 and MiG-29 fighters. These two projects, both of which have secured firm MoD commitments and even more or less stable budgetary funding, were diametrically opposed to those recommended by Sukhoi. Unlike colleagues at Sukhoi, Mikoyan specialists prioritised the cost-effectiveness of its upgrade proposals for the MiG-31 and MiG-29. The key objective of the upgrade is to increase combat capabilities of the two types in long and medium range combat engagements, by improving the existing radars and making the aircraft able to guide new-generation missiles, most notably the Vympel R-77. Although Sukhoi has also integrated the new R-77 missile into weapons control system of its new fighters, the focus of its efforts has been firmly on “super agility”. The latter was seen by the MoD as “impressive at air shows” but of limited use in real combat situations, and thus of a low value. Both Anatoly Sitnov, MoD Chief of Weapons Procurement Programmes and General Yuri Klishin, Russian Air Force Chief for Armament, repeatedly warned that a super agile Sukhoi fighter is likely to fall victim to long and medium range missiles, before it gets close enough to the enemy fighters to make use of its “super agility”. In addition, while Mikoyan, at the request of the MoD, has prepared a number of financially suitable proposals on the modernisation of in-service aircraft, Sukhoi has continued to experiments with newly built models, at the expense of the modernisation of in-service aircraft. This has further irritated the cash-strapped MoD. Now this situation seems to be changing. The first indications of this was in spring 1999, when Sukhoi finally submitted one of the two Su-30MK prototypes for evaluation tests to a Russian Air Force base, having kept it firmly under wraps as “an export aircraft”. The Su-30MK greatly impressed Russian Air Force test pilots, and prompted Mr Klishin to remark that: “Sukhoi people stroke our minds with this aircraft”. Both Mr Sitnov and General Klishin witnessed the Su-30MK crash, as well as the three evaluation flights before the final one on the show-opening day of 12 June. In an interview with journalists on June 13th 1999, Sitnov said that, “except for negative results, the crash brought about a lot of positive things concerning the evaluation of the aircraft, its concept, survivability and controllability.” He added that, in the three evaluation flights, the Blue 01 behaved well in all regimes at extremely low speeds and really impressed him with short takeoff with assistance from thrust-vectoring system. According to Mr Sitnov: “For the first time we had a case when the aircraft, after touching the ground, managed to execute a climb. This situation can not be simulated at test ranges. Of course, we appreciate the heroism of the Sukhoi test pilots, but nevertheless, this case showed the extremely high thrust-to-weight ratio of the Su-30MK. The high ratio allows to recover the aircraft from “cul-de-sac” situations.” He further commented that the aircraft did not explode after flying into the ground after the pilots had ejected: an important quality for combat aircraft. Mr Sitnov added that: “For the first time we saw concerted ejection procedure for two crew members in a short time from a crippled aircraft. We saw that the pilots ejected in different directions, and that the trajectories of seats did not coincide.” Mr Sitnov concluded that the information generated by the crash gave “explicit data for “homework”, for working out new, more demanding requirements to crew survivability, combat survivability and flight performance of future aircraft.” He acknowledged that: “The MoD regards the Su-30MK as a strike fighter for the first quarter of the 21st century.” According to Mr Sitnov, the MoD has recently received a governmental order to introduce corrections to the programme so extending it from 2001 to 2010. The MoD has already prepared a draft of the renewed programme, where the Su-30MK is present as a perspective strike fighter. Mr Sitnov said that this had been done as a result of analysis of experience of air war over Yugoslavia and Iraq. For the Russian MoD the most important fact was that these conflicts were a demonstration of a “remote contact war”, where NATO forces executed strikes keeping out of physical contact with the enemy. The Su-30MK is seen by the Russian MoD as capable of conducting such wars, but before entering service with Russian Air Force, it needs further imporvements. In particular, MoD would like to see the Su-30MK “as a platform for carrying guided stand-off munitions, including long-range cruise missiles, TV-homed missiles and laser-guided missiles.” Mr Sitnov said that the real combat usefulness of thrust vectoring was that it considerably improves the field performance of front-line fighters. He confirmed that: “Sukhoi has shown that the Su-30MK can effectively conduct air-to-air engagements using thrust vectoring and also that they have mastered technologies of short takeoffs and landings. We consider these achievements as features of the fifth generation combat aircraft”. Take-off weight of the Su-30MK is about 40 tons, but despite such a heavy weight, it proved able to operate from 250m strips. Mr Sitnov commented that: “By means of the thrust-vectoring Sukhoi has practically solved the problem of short takeoff and landing. In wartime this gives the front-line aviation the capability to operate from short, damaged airfields, or from semi prepared temporary airfields”. Mr Sitnov said that, now, priority should be given to the development of fifth-generation navigation and sighting systems. “When installed on the Su-30MK, they will make the aircraft a complete package. We want the Su-30MK to be a four-plus generation aircraft that will allow us to keep the parity and even be ahead of the foreign countries in heavy weight fighters up to 2015.” He added that the Su-30MK prototypes should be employed in developing technologies of fifth generation fighters, such as use of thrust vectoring, refinement of the respected math algorithms and handling qualities, as well as combat survivability. The extent to which this new support materialises into firm commitments, or whether it is merely a face saving device for Russia and its most famous aircraft manufacturer, remains to be seen.

Article ID: 642