SU 27 bellow
Sukhoi Su-37 The Flanker story
The Su-37 made a fascinating debut at Farnborough '96 even though it had been known about for over two years. It is the latest in the line of many Flanker variants produced by Sukhoi, the leading member of the "dead" Russian aerospace industry. It is remarkable, not only from the standpoint that it represents perhaps our most dangerous threat and competitor, but also from the fact that it exists at all. The following is an attempt to summarize the design approach characteristic to Sukhoi fighters and with that some of the information learned about the latest of the line, the Su-37 Thrust Vectored Control (TVC) fighter.
The Flanker prototype was first photographed in 1977 by US reconnaissance satellites at the Zhukovsky flight test center, called Ramenskoye by US intelligence because they used the name of what they thought was the nearest recognizable village, unaware at the time that the test center was located in the center of a small town. It was given the provisional designation of "RAM K" and was observed to be a twin-engine fighter with sharply swept-back leading-edge root extensions and twin tails. In early 1984, Air Force Magazine and Jane's published retouched copies of the earlier satellite photo's of both the Su-27 (RAM-K) and the MiG-29 (RAM-L), but by that time, both aircraft were in series production and several variants of both were being developed.
The "Family Tree" of the Flanker started when the baseline research was carried out by the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI) in the mid 1970's. TsAGI is located in Moscow and presently run by Professor German I. Zagianov (7-7-09555-64153 with fax at 7-7-09527-10019). This resulted in the T-10-1 prototype, which was built during 1976-1977 and made its first flight on 20 May 1977, with Sukhoi test pilot Major Vladimir S. Ilyushin, the son of the founder of the Ilyushin OKB, at the controls. Thirty Eight flights were included in the initial test plan that ended in January 1978. Directional stability problems persisted with the narrowly spaced vertical tails at speeds over Mach 2.0, while comparative studies demonstrated that the aircraft would still be inferior to the US F-15 Eagle, having less than 75% of it's weapon system and performance capabilities.
The second prototype (T10-2) was built in 1978, but crashed on its second flight. Faults were found in the hybrid fly-by-wire (FBW) control system which eventually cost the lives of two test pilots, the first being the well known Evgeny Soloviev in T-10-2. These aircraft were configured with the Arkhip-Lyulka AL-21F-3 (11,200 kg/24,692 lbs) engines which carried additional oxygen bottles for afterburner and restart capability. Note that the Arkhip-Lyulka organization became the Saturn-Lyulka organization after the Cold War ended.
In 1978, the Sukhoi bureau built the third and fourth prototypes (T-10-3/T-10-4) which were modified to accommodate the new generation AL-31F engines and some aerodynamic improvements which unfortunately did not fix the stability problems and continued to cause concern. To make the necessary extension to the flight test program a small lot of five additional aircraft were produced (T-10-5/6/9/10 and 11). The seventh and eighth models were kept on the design boards as candidates for the radical changes that were now being expected to overcome the growing problems. The other prototype articles were each configured with a specialized set of electronic equipment because along with stability, the Russian Air Force was trying to fit a twenty pound goose into a two pound chicken pot. All single-seat aircraft were being manufactured at the newly renovated Sukhoi Yury Gagarin Aircraft Production Complex in Konsomolsk-on-Amur in the Khabarovsk Territory of Far East Russia. Today it is known as the Konsomolsk-on Amur (KnAPO) Aircraft Production Complex and Viktor Merkulov is the General Director (7-42172-63567 tel and fax at 7-42172-63451). The Irkutsk Aviation Production Association (IAPA) is the second production facility and specializes in the dual-seat variants such as the Su-27UB/PU and Su-30m/MK, and it is located in southern Russia.
Series production was of course denied by the Russian Air Force and the entire Flanker program went into a radical redesign phase. The aircraft simply could not meet the required specifications. The avionics package was much too heavy, the engines were eating up too much fuel, and the aero-stability of the platform was in great question, even after eight years of development. Hence, after a period of serious brainstorming and after heads rolled, a new design team was formed under the same General Designer, Mikhail Simonov, whose leadership carried the major redesign work through the next four years and resulted in the family of aircraft seen today.
The resulting T-10S prototype was described by test pilot Vladimir Ilyushin as the aeroplane he had waited all his life for. The new prototype, which was derived from the old T-10-7, had the following differences:
wing area increase from 639 sq-ft to 667 sq-ft.
fixed sweep outer wing section instead of the ogive one
tip air-to-air launchers
leading edge maneuvering flaps instead of fixed sections
lower wing chord camber
removal of ailerons and extension flaps for plain flaperons
smaller canopy and canopy rear-slope
smaller fuselage cross-section in front & rear of cockpit
larger fuselage cross-section just forward of fuel tanks
increased fillet radii between lifting body & forward fuselage
smaller cross-sectional area of dorsal fairing
engine accessory drive moved to the top to decrease frontal area, improved sectional area curve behavior, and to reduce aircraft wetted area decreasing subsonic & wave drag while lowering structure weight
introduction of an extended fuselage stinger section between the engines to recover and increase internal fuel capacity
engine intake screens for FOD protection and shutter suck-in doors under the inlet for additional air when needed
movement of vertical stabilizers outboard of the engines and allowed the stabilator actuators fairings to be blended reducing wetted area and drag while increasing stability
improved anti-flutter of horizontal stabilizers
main landing gear given skewed main pivot joints
air brakes were replaced with a single brake on top
improved wing planform that decreased drag & improved lift
a workable avionics suite that benefited from extended schedules and western technology finds
improved static-unstable hybrid electronic/hydraulic flight control system
high use of titanium to meet weight/strength requirements
radar diameter increased and lengthened 680 mm
The T-10S (T10-7) verified the new installation of the AL-31F engines but was lost in an accident on 3 Sept 1981. The second T-10S prototype came off the line as the T-10-12 because the new fire control system required an entire new airframe construction. But it too was lost on 23 Dec 1981 when it came apart during a high speed test flight killing the test pilot, Alexander Komarov. The T-10-8 prototype was completed in 1982 as the structural loads aircraft. This brought 14 aircraft into the test program.
The T-10S prototype design evolved into the production Sukhoi Su-27P ("P" for interceptor) during 1985. NATO considered the re-designed Su-27P the Flanker B, and some 200 were quickly produced for the Air Defense Forces (PVO). The basic production Su-27 continued to evolve with upgrades to its original avionics that would allow the aircraft to be more of a multi-role platform. During the last gasp days of the Cold War, Soviet thinking was envisioning a non-nuclear war with NATO that required long range fighter and fighter-bomber aircraft to strike deep into NATO's rear areas with large waves of attacking formations. The Su-27's tremendous range advantage over the MiG-29 and its great payload potential made it a natural for the tactical air forces. The Su-27"S", then "SK" models ("S" for improved and "K" for export commercial) were introduced for the Tactical Aviation branch which received around 150 aircraft up until the early 1990's. Because there were only subtle internal differences in the aircraft, NATO still referred to them as the Flanker B. From the Su-27"SK" became the export Su-27"SMK" ("M" for multi-role) that was exported to the PRC, Syria, and Vietnam.
Remember that we are ficused on single-seat machines, the dual-seat trainer Su-27"UB" evolved to the Su-27"PU" which became the baseline Su-30, then the export Su-30 became the Su-30"K", then it grew into the more advanced Su-30"MK" which for India, was designated the Su-30"MKI". But more on this later and it will be the focus of another Red File.
The Russian Tactical Air Forces (TA) are commanded today by General Nikolai Antoshkin, who is remembered as the Commander of the Moscow Air Defense District and the gentleman who led a formation of Russian Knights Su-27's to the Dutch Air Base at Leeuwarden in 1993 to participate in the F-16 Fighter Weapons Instructor Training (FWIT) Course. Antoshkin commanded an organization that frooze its MiG-29 resources, and in fact has been selling them off, and has come to rely more and more upon the Su-27 and its variants. In 1990, the TA received no new tactical aircraft, the first time in its history. Today it is receiving around a half a dozen new Sukhoi fighters each month, most of them Su-30 dual-seat aircraft.
Benjamin S. Lambeth, senior staff member at the RAND Corporation, who is a well recognized specialist on international security affairs and airpower, published a study, titled "Russia's Air Power at the Crossroads", that elaborated on the fact that Russian Air Force modernization has now come to a standstill. Paul Mann, from Aviation Week's Washington Office, noted that (AW&ST, 14Oct96, pg 28) from Lambeth's data only 23 new combat aircraft entered service in 1993 and 1994 combined. In 1989 the Russian air services had over 5,0000 combat aircraft, many of them spares to augment high intensity operations and there were nearly 450 new platforms being pushed onto the forces whether they wanted them or not. By the year 2000 they will be lucky to field 1,500 aircraft, however, the nature of the country has changed and the majority of older less sophisticated aircraft have transitioned to simple liability holdings years ago. But given miracles in budgets and economics despite the deep seated problems outlined in the RAND report, new modern MiG and Sukhoi fighters, even at those reduced numbers, could return the stature of the Russian Air Force to where it was.
During the PVO introduction of the Su-27, the T-10-3 model started its evolution as the Su-27"K" carrier-based prototype by making the first inclined ramp takeoffs in 1982. In 1983 it was equipped with a landing hook and started to make arrested landings at the development center in Saki, on the Crimea in the Ukraine. A new aircraft, the T-10-25 prototype, started to examine the structural and avionics preparations needed for the first carrier takeoffs and landings during 1984 and 85. The first ship-based prototype, designated T-10K-1, was completed in 1987 and flew on 17 Aug 1987. The second naval prototype (T-10K-2) was completed and flown in 1988. The first actual carrier landing, with T-10K-2 aboard the first angle-decked carrier "Tbilisi", whose name was later changed to the "Kuznetsov", was made by Viktor Pugachev on 01 Nov 1989. On the 21st of November, he made the first night landing.
The Chief Designer for the Su-27"K" (Su-33) Flanker Naval Strike Fighter was Constantin Marbachev, who is credited with Sukhoi's celebrated victory over the Mikoyan MiG-29"K" Fulcrum "K" competitor platform. More than 60 aircraft, designated the Su-33, were produced to fill two Carrier Air Wings from the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Factory. Both fighters competed in an exhaustive certification program. The Naval Su-27"K" (Su-33) offered many modifications to the basic Su-27 design which include a retractable refueling probe, folding wings and tail plane, improved flight control system, and numerous shipboard enhancements such as a reusable tail hook. The Naval Flanker can also carry an inflight refueling store on its centerline station to refuel other aircraft equipped with drogue and probe systems. The Russian Navy is committed to moving ahead with at least one carrier air wing for their navy which will be assigned to the Northern or Pacific Fleet.
The T-10-15 prototype, designated the P-42, was stripped of all unnecessary weight , configured with uprated R-32 engines, and prepared to challenge time-to-climb records. The project was headed by Chief Designer Rolan Martirosov. The aircraft weighed in at only 14,110 kg (31,110 lbs). On 10 March 1987 and 23 March 1988 (Air International, Sep89, pg 156) the P-42, flown by Sukhoi test pilots Viktor Pugachev, Nikolai Sadovnikov, Evgeny Frolov (who brought the Su-37 to Farnborough) and Oleg Tsoi. They established 27 new world time-to-height/climb records which were formally held by the McAir "Streak Eagle" F-15 on 16 January 1975 flown by Majors Roger Smith and Willard MacFarlane. The new records included:
ˆ 25.373 seconds to 3,000 meters (9,842 feet)
ˆ 36.050 seconds to 6,000 meters (19,685 feet)
ˆ 44.176 seconds to 9,000 meters (29,527 feet)
ˆ 55.542 seconds to 12,000 meters (39,370 feet)
ˆ 70.329 seconds to 15,000 meters (49,213 feet)
Linearly moving along, the Su-27 production life eventually included an operational trainer, designated the Su-27"UB" (T-10U-1), which was first produced in 1985 and introduced to service a year later. The T-10U-2 also flew in 1985 and the T-10U-3, which was fitted with the first Flanker air-refueling probe, flew in 1986. The dual-seat aircraft were put into series production at the Irkutsk Factory.
As with other air forces, the dual-seat began to interest commanders in its potential and the "UB" was strengthened into the fully qualified Su-27"PU" and its export variant was designated the Su-27"UBK". As air-to-ground munitions improved the range and payload versatility of the Flanker allowed the "PU" to evolve into the Su-30 which developed both "M" single-seat and "MK" dual-seat fighter-bomber variants.
The T-10S prototype also spawned the T-10-24 which began to explore in 1988 the world of advanced digital fly-by-wire flight control and canard surfaces. This was paralleled by improvements in computers and displays which resulted in the Su-27"M" prototype that led the way to the Su-35 production article. The success of the platform included the introduction of canards, more powerful engines, and air-refueling probes. As we have discussed in this paper, the Su-37 evolved from the production Su-35 when the AL-37FU thrust-vectored-control engine was installed.
A third branch-off from the T-10S series of prototypes was the structural refurbishment of one aircraft that resulted in the Su-27"IB" (T-10V-1) side-by-side trainer for the carrier fleet which quickly demonstrated a great potential to be a deep-interdiction strike aircraft to replace the Su-24 Fencer. This development resulted in the Su-34 which was quickly adapted for long-range maritime strike duties as the Su-32"FN". Also unique to this variant is a new offset-tandem main landing gear to handle the increased gross weight which appears to be going well above 95,000 lbs, and an extended fuselage center-line stinger for extra fuel. The T-10-20 prototype first explored this modification and found it transferable to any Flanker. In fact it is worth noting that all Flankers are capable of being fitted with large external wing tanks or can be upgraded with the extended fuselage stinger, all of which could increase the onboard fuel by almost 100%. Combined with air-refueling, the Flanker has reached a range capability once thought for only with larger bombers.
So today, the Su-27, Su-27SK/SMK, Su-30K/MK, Su-33, Su-35, Su-34/32FN, and the Su-37 are all either in limited production, are being prepared for additional export production, have ceased production with tooling intact, or are tooled-up to go into production for the Russian Air ForcE, Navy, and at least four foreign customers. In the longest lead case, it has been estimated that Su-30/37 aircraft or a TVC variant of any Flanker model could be delivered within 18 months.
Nicolay Novichkov writes from Moscow (AW&ST, 26Aug96, pg 50) that Sukhoi and Rosvoorouzheniy plan to export thrust-vector capable fighters in the near future. The candidates being variants of the Su-35, Su-30, and MiG-29"M". These platforms or further variants of them are now being actively marketed to the PRC, India, Indonesia, Syria, Algeria, Pakistan, Vietnam, Burma, Iran, Libya, Brazil, Peru, Argentina, North Korea, South Korea, and in the long term, Iraq. At a price tag that appears to be above $30 million, sales are expected to be in small lots, although once purchased, several lots may be procured over time. Sales leverage is
obtained by the fact that a complete weapons inventory is offered with the aircraft, a complete support package is outlined (not demonstrated yet), counter-trade offers will be entertained, and that Russian debt payments can be applied towrds them.
India negotiated and bought 40 x Su-30"MKIs" for $1.2 billion ($30 million each). The deal was at one time in jeopardy because of political problems brought on by the ousted government of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Pao who made a $145 million advanced payment (AW&ST, 01Jul96, pg 54) just before leaving office. Even though a joint Indian Air Force / Defense Research & Development Organization Team found the Su-30"MK" to be superior to the Mirage 2000-5 in both range and payload, the election-eve decision of the lame-duck government was considered improper, but that was overcome by the new government. It was interesting to note that the original quote from the Russians before the difficulties was $1.8 billion which is twice the cost of previously produced off-the-shelf aircraft. To the French, it ended the quest to sell the Mirage 2000-5 in the region (Pakistan) and convinced them that to compete with the advanced Sukhoi's in Asia they would have to introduce the Rafale. The Dassault operations team announced in Poland that the Rafale would be offered to the Koreans in their next fighter bid.
Jane's Defense Week in October reported from Gdansk that Russia and India made an agreement for "the world's first operational thrust-vectoring combat aircraft". The 40 x Su-30"MKI" multi-role fighters will get vectored thrust control (VTC) engines and canards. The engine manufacturer has said that there are "kits" retrofitable to any Su-27 model. The Jane's report also said that bilateral negotiations on the aircraft's armament have begun and that an Indian export version of the Su-30"MKI", would be fitted with the advanced Phazotron Zhuk-27 fire-control radar. Previous versions of the "Flanker" family have been equipped with radars designed by the NIIP (Naucho-Issledovatelskiy Institut Pribostroyeniya) Bureau. The Zhuk-27, produced by Phazotron, allows for the operation of all current Russian air-to-surface and air-to- air weapons, including the R-77 (AA-12 "Adder") beyond visual range AAM. A prototype of the Su-30MK variant with canards and thrust-vectoring could make its maiden flight early next year and first deliveries are possible to India in 1999. The Su-30"MKI" has a 3,000 km range, and up to 5,200 km with one mid-air refueling.
The obvious insertion of capital from the PRC put Sukhoi back on track and additional cash from an Indian purchase could open up effort on several other advanced design projects. Likewise the TVC variant of the MiG-29"M" is still expected to be unveiled at the MAKS-97 show in Moscow.
Tom Orsos, from the International Fighter Pilot's Academy that flies both types can re-affirmed the MiG-29 and Su-27's capabilities and weaknesses. We must always keep a firm respect for their brute power and superior dogfight missiles used in conjunction with a crude, by successful, helmet sight. The F-16, F-18, Mirage 2000-5, and JAS-39 are overall much better fighters, but there is very little left for error.
Piotr Butowski wrote in Jane's (JDW, 10Jul96, pg 11) that Sukhoi estimated that the Su-37 would be 10 times more effective in dogfights against aircraft without TVC. Anatoly Kvotchur, test pilot with "LII" who contracts back to Sukhoi and Mikoyan on occasions, said that the MiG-29 TVC variant will be completed and fly in 1997. These statistical and simulation studies were meticulously done by both the Sukhoi and Mikoyan design bureaus and have been publicly made available.
Prior and during the Farnborough introduction of the Su-37, Aviation Week ran two editions (26Aug & 02Sep) with special articles. Actual flight testing of the Su-37 was expected to have utilized up to 50 sorties, all of which were to be completed in Russia at the Zhukovsky Test Center. On 18Aug96 the Su-37 made its first public display at the Tushino Airport in Moscow. The five-month testing program with the single prototype focused on the aerodynamic characteristics and handling qualities of the fly-by-wire flight control system. Flight testing was done by Yevgeny Frolov and Igor Votintsev, who brought the aircraft to Farnborough. Anatoly Kubochur said that since Victor Pugachev was deployed with in Mediterranean for 3 months with the Kuznetsov Air Wing, he would also be involved with the follow-on Su-37 "Super Maneuverability" flight testing at Zhukovsky. He said that initially, the aircraft did not fly because of financial shortages, but the agreement for the license production of 74 additional Su-27's for China (PRC) has made the flight test program possible. He also mentioned that he was promoted to the Deputy Director post of LII last December.
The term "super-maneuverability" was coined by Dr. Wolfgang Herbst, initiator of the X-31 prototype program, in defining controllability up to 60° to 70° Angle-of-Attack with transients of 120° or more. In a review of fighter thrust-vectoring programs, Piotr Butowski writes in Air International Magazine (Oct 96, pg 209) an examination of the parallel history of thrust-vector-control (TVC) where the West started with a modified old F-11F "Tiger" in 1988, to the F-15 STOL/MTD (Short-Takeoff-Landing/Maneuver Technology Demonstrator) demonstrator, F-18 HARV (High Angle-of-Attack Research Vehicke), and Lockheed Martin (General Dynamics) F-16 VISTA with MATV (Multi-Axis-Thrust-Vectoring). According to Butowski, Russian designers began analyzing vectored thrust nozzles in 1980 that resulted in two developmental programs. In 1989, the much photographed Su-27"UB" LL-PS "letayushchaya laboratorya - ploskoye soplo" (flying testbed - flat nozzle) was flown along with the more secretive Su-27 LMK-2405 testbed that had a manual-movable axi-symmetric nozzle installed in the right engine.
Mikhail Simonov, Sukhoi's famous General Designer, truly believes that the Su-37 is a fifth-generation "super maneuverability aircraft". The Su-37 prototype was designated the T-10M-11. It was given the side numerals of "711", made its maiden flight on 02Apr96, first moved the nozzles in flight on the sixth sortie, and has evolved as one the most heavily modified Russian designs. As the Su-37, it is characterized as a single-seat, multi-role, all-weather air superiority fighter configured with the advanced AL-37FU (forsazh-upravlaemoye-sopo or "afterburning-articulating/steerable-nozzle") turbofan engines for thrust vectored control (TVC). The axi-symmetric nozzles are controlled by the MNPK Avionika full-authority, digital fly-by-wire flight control system (FCS). It can fulfill a variety of roles with its advanced avionics suite and new weapons.
Chief Designer of the Su-37 is Vladimir Konokhov and he has made a point to explain that despite the similarities with the Su-35, the Su-37 represents a new capability utilizing TVC and the new N-011M radar that simultaneously surveys both air and ground space while being tied into a high-precision laser-inertial / GPS navigation system. The electronically scanned phased-array radar will be traditionally positioned in the nose of the Su-37 which is also being redesigned to accommodate the fixed antenna array and more avionics boxes.
Russian designers have stated that they believe that the key to dogfight supremacy rests in the pilot's ability to engage the enemy in any position relative to their own aircraft. While TVC permits post-stall maneuvering and pointing which are impossible in conventional aircraft, they are convinced that a rearward facing radar and missiles that can be fired in the aft-quadrant all join to make an unbeatable integrated weapons system.
The Farnborough experience of the Su-37 took some time "to-get-off-the-ground", sort of speaking, because the demonstration flown by Yevgeny Frolov had difficulty getting approved due to the radical nature of the maneuvers. The first demo was flown on Thursday evening (29Aug) and it shocked everyone because it was too low, way forward of the foul-line, in fact almost over the first chalet row, and far too dangerous for the British Farnborough safety monitors. But to watch it was amazing, because it clearly showed what was in store. The next day saw a benign practice. The next day started with a "flat" show in the morning but a "vectored show" was performed in the late afternoon that experimented with various heights and directions to the show-line. The next day was more benign work. On 2 and 3 Sept, 45 minutes after the show officially ended, Frolov did a variation of the "vectored show" in an attempt to get certified. The final certified show on the 4th was tamer, but still representative of the vectored thrust capabilities and this carried through for the week.
Without a doubt, the Su-37 dampened the glory of the Farnborough favorite, the Eurofighter 2000, and its SAAB/BAe little sister, the JAS-39 Gripen. The F/A-18D was itself disqualified for scooping out of a dirty roll 50 feet below minimum altitude and left the show. Only the F-16C and Rafale were left to provide the Su-37 with a Western competitive example. This so excited Mikhail Simonov that he challenged the Americans to a dogfight over the Atlantic.
As said earlier, the AL-37FU engine is integrated into the digital fly-by-wire control system providing both pitch and roll inputs to the control system. Nozzles are hydraulically actuated with an emergency pneumatic system that aligns them in a neutral position if an onboard system or engine fails. The TVC is activated by a cockpit switch and operates in both AUTOMATIC (hydraulic) and MANUAL (emergency pneumatic) Modes. In the manual mode there is supposed to be a way that the pilot determines the nozzle deflection angle through stick-feel before initiating the pneumatics. The vectored nozzles utilize engine oil in the prototype and will be modified to use engine fuel in the production models. The nozzles are physically steerable to ±15° in any direction but are utilized in pitch only for this phase of evolution, but operate both together for ±pitch and differentially for roll. The engines are fully integrated into the aircraft's digital FCS, however the pilot's use of rudder has been maintained. The FCS optimizes the deflection of tailplanes, rudders, flaperons, canards, leading edge flaps, and engine nozzles to respond to inputs from the pilot. Except for the emergency system, there is no separate control for the thrust vectoring system in the cockpit.
The Su-37 is equipped with a side-stick controller located on the right horizontal console and a fixed throttle assembly on the left side. The side-stick controller is supposed to be able to move around one inch in all directions which is more like the JAS-39 configuration than the F-16 which is a more rigid assembly moving only around one-eighth of an inch. The amount of movement is quite debate especially since the pitch & roll commands are recognized as "rates" not amounts of deflection, that is degress/second and G's of pitch. Most pilots agree that inducing the measure of control stick deflection only complicates the factors involved with the flight control computers.
The unique fixed throttle is designed to adjust thrust settings according to the pressure exerted by the pilot's thumb on a switch similar to that used by any traditional speed-brake switch. To add thrust you put it forward and electronically the switch instructs the digital engine control to add thrust. When you let go of the button the thrust remains at the level set, but the switch re-sets to the neutral position. To reduce thrust you must push the button back. To utilize the afterburners, the pilot must squeeze switches on the grip of the throttle with his fingers and continue to manipulate the thumb switch to achieve the desired min to max burner setting. The throttle design, in Russian, is properly referred to as a "lift strain-gauge engine control stick", which of course makes us all feel better.
To start the engines there is a three position switch on forward surface of throttle (under the afterburner switch) which selects left-right-both. After hitting a position the digital controls continue the start sequence which includes the other engine. The switch resets in the center position.
The Thrust Vector Control (TVC) ability is engaged by an AUTO-MANUAL switch. The digital engine computer balances the thrust of both engines and the deflection of the nozzles is controlled by the flight control system. The MANUAL position allows you to use two switches found in the lower corner of the front bulkhead panel which when engaged fixes the exhaust nozzles to some predetermined angle. Not sure if it is the thrust-boresight of the aircraft or just where the nozzles work best at. Since there are two switches it is obvious that each engine nozzle can be secured independent of the other, but despite the switch labeling, there is no true Manual Override as we would know it.
This two-grip cockpit configuration was designed to prevent the pilot from flailing around when doing the exotic maneuvers associated with the vectored-thrust engines. Both the fixed throttle and the side-stick controller provide secure points to brace his hands while running the weapon system.
Frolov mentioned that he was not a big fan of the electronic throttle switch, but it did not slow him down either. It appeared as if in his air show routine he would appear to be choosing the right set up to do his maneuvers and would "take it around" when things didn't look right. He caught on to what I was saying and explained that in the "Cobra or Hook" maneuvers with a conventional Su-27/30 or 35 aircraft, he would have to "seek" an essential speed start-regime of 205-215 kph to properly do the maneuver. With the Su-37, he could slam the aircraft around at any speed with only a possible "over-G" to worry about. His real problem during the first two days at Farnborough was that he was having a hard time lining up on the right show-line and since he was used to making a much tighter show he was having a hard time figuring out just where the British wanted him to stage his repositioning maneuvers.
From the first day of arrival it was an open rumor in the Press pool that BAe was pressuring the Farnborough Committee (FCC) to ground or limit the Su-37 so it would not upstage the Eurofighter which was making its "coming out debut" while still being forced to fly with a restricted flying envelope. The Committee apparently did not succeed totally. Katsu Tokunaga said that in an off-the-record interview with an FCC member, he was told that the FCC could not make a judgment on the Su-37's new maneuvers since they were totally unique. The member also joked it was especially difficult for them because most were over 90 years old. Katsu added that he felt there was a loss of the normal show pilot-bonding between the UK/BAe pilots and the rest of the participating airmen because of this attitude. The F/A-18 incident amplified things. For the Russians, they seemed to spend much more time with the Dassault team.
The first variable nozzle prototype that was seen publicly was installed on a developmental Su-27UB designated "T-10-16" or the "LL-PS" (flying testbed - flat nozzle) by Sukhoi in 1989. Piotr Butowski reported then in Jane's (JDW, 13Aug94, pg4) that Sukhoi and the Russian Air Force were still focused on developing thrust vectoring in the Su-35 and other aircraft, unmentioned and that the flat-nozzle was for something else. Plans to bring that aircraft to Farnborough 1994 failed. Sukhoi designer Nikolai Nikitim then told Jane's Defense Week (JDW) that the thrust-vectored rectangular flat nozzles would be a standard feature in the production Su-35, but as you know, that turned out to be wrong. The actual integration techniques and projected use of the variable flat nozzle were never discussed but they are considered to be for the advanced design "T-60S" Project, a competitor for the MiG 1.42, or for a new SST or medium sized business jet.
Design Bureau Chief Simonov is hesitant to discuss Sukhoi advanced military programs in any greater detail because they rest in a delicate state of negotiation with the Russian Ministry of Defense but, he has confirmed that there is a Project T-60S which is a new intermediate sized supersonic fighter-bomber or just bomber to replace the Tu-16 and Tu-22 families. The "T-60S" design was won by Sukhoi against the tough competition of the traditional bomber maker, Tupolev. Work on the program was reported in Interavia (Dec93, pg 61) as being well under way with in-service dates being projected to the year 2000. The T-60S concept was conceived in the mid to late 1970's, abandoned and subsequently was resurrected after Sukhoi better understood stealth technology. Its role is likely to combine tactical (pre-strategic) nuclear strike with shorter range conventional interdiction missions. The T-60S is expected to surface soon at the secret Sukhoi Research Facility at Novossibirst, Siberia.
In a quick summary, the Lyulka-Saturn AL-37FU can deflect its nozzle to a maximum of ±15° at a rate of 30°/sec. The 142.3 kN thrust AL-37FU engine gives around 16% more thrust than its 122.6 kN thrust AL-31F predecessor now in the Su-27 and 12% more than the uprated 137.4 kN AL-35F in the Su-35 aircraft (1 x kN = 224.707 lbs thrust). The vectoring nozzle is utilized primarily in the pitch plane. Magazine articles (Flight International 7-13 June and 16-22 November 1995) have mentioned that the nozzles use in the yaw plane would damage the fuselage stinger. In examining the aircraft at Farnborough, there appeared to be adequate room out to the 15 degree mark to use the nozzle. Frolov also mentioned that it is utilized just a bit in yaw to augment the rudders, but did not elaborate if it was him or the FCS that was making things happen. The important thing is that the entire nozzle assembly moves as a single unit as if on a hinge. There is no "deforming" effects to the flow as in the GE and Pratt candidates. The air flow is bent or pinched a bit when the nozzle deflects, but it apparently does no harm or create any significant losses.
In watching the video of Frolov's Farnborough display it was very hard to see a distinct bend in the air flow or nozzles as the Su-37 did one of its incredible pitch maneuvers. What was amazing was seeing the canards in full deflection helping to control the nose. Frolov mentioned that he took off with 4.5 tons of fuel (assumed to mean around 10,000 lbs) and landed with 1.5 tons. The accepted routine was much more organized but he did complete at least one somersault maneuver.
Victor Chepkin, Saturn's general designer of the AL-31FU, in a discussion with Butowski confirmed that the most difficult part of the design was sealing and insuring the structural integrity of the junction between the afterburner duct and the vectoring nozzle where temperatures reach 2000° to 2100° K at a pressure of 1.5 MPa (15 bar). In another interview with John Fricker the same points were made.
The advertisements say that the AL-31F is a twin-spool/two-shaft turbofan with a moderate by-pass ratio (0.6 to 1) that provides a low sub-sonic cruise specific fuel consumption (0.67 kg/hr/kg) and a high maximum thrust in afterburner while maintaining a reasonable sfc (1.92 kg/hr/kg). Maximum static dry thrust (military power) is given as 7600 kg (16754.85 lbs/74.56 kn.) and it grows to a maximum wet (afterburner) thrust of 12,500 kg (27,557.32 lbs/122.6 kN). The engine's thrust-to-weight ratio is around 8:1, which is very respectable. The AL-35F produces 14,000 kg (30,864.2 lbs/137.35 kN) maximum wet thrust and the AL-37FU produces 14,500 kg (31,966.5 lbs/142.26 kN). Russian literature also mentions the Saturn/Lyulka AL-31FM turbofan for the Su-35 that gives 13,300 kg (29,320 lbs/130.48 kN) in afterburner, but there is no explanation as to where this variant comes from.
The 12% more thrust of the AL-31FU is made possible by increasing the engine diameter by about 20 mm (0.78 in) over the AL-31F's 910 mm (36 in) and by raising the turbine inlet temperature to 1665°K. This increased the engine's specific fuel consumption at max speed without A/B to 0.068 to 0.070 kg/Nh.
The Al-31FU has a multi-segment convergent-divergent nozzle that has an adjustable cross-sectional exit area. There is a four-stage low pressure compressor fan and a nine-stage high pressure compressor driven by two single-staged turbines. Internal cooling air alows the turbine blades to maintain rigidity at temperatures exceeding the melting point of the blade alloy. Despite the larger fan and vectored nozzle, the AL-31FU's weight is 1600 kg (3,527 lbs).
Note that the Saturn/Lyulka designers have developed a TVC retrofit kit for the AL-31F engine which is designated the AL-31FP ("FP" for "movable nozzle"). It is being produced now at the Saturn manufacturing facility at Ufa, Russia. This confirms the resolve of the Russian fighter industry to move towards TVC. Saturn/Lyulka General Designer Victor Chepkin confirmed to Piotr Butowski (Jane's) that work on a three-dimensional (axisymmetrical) TVC nozzle was underway but that it was not planned for the Su-37 in the immediate future.
The Mean Time Between Overhaul (MTBO) for the AL-31F is given at 1,000 hours with a full-life span of 3,000 hours. It has a conventional hydra-mechanical control system that is interfaced into the electronic flight control system which reacts to flight conditions. In the AL-37FU, the entire engine and nozzle operation is digitally integrated into the fly-by-wire control system. It is expected that the engine MTBO reflects the values experienced in the AL-31F.
The inlet diameter on the Su-37 is measured at 0.932 meters (3.05 ft) which is essentially the same in the Su-27 and Su-35. The two-dimensional variable geometry multiple-shock intakes utilize movable ramps deflected from the upper intake area. Air flow data, throttle settings, and flight parameters determine settings. Both the sidewalls and the upper movable ramp are covered with 96,000 holes that form a porous surface to bleed low-energy boundary layer air outboard, via the intake inner and outer side lourves. A meshed titanium screen raises from the bottom of the inlet housing to protect the engines from foreign object damage (FOD) during taxi, takeoff, and landing. The screens operate in conjunction with the landing gear. There are 12 independent spring loaded rectangular blow-in doors underneath the inlet that provides auxiliary air on demand and become an excellent primary air flow feed when under high angles-of-attack.
The weapon system of the Su-27"P" evolved to include some air-to-ground capability in the Su-27"S"/"SK", but the real change came in the Su-30 variant. The tandem dual-seat Su-30 "Command Fighter" was designed around the concept of providing "command and control" forward of the normal C3I infrastructure. In the air defense role it would serve as a mother-ship similar to the MiG-31 and in the air-to-ground role it would be the forward operating "recce-strike-complex" coordination platform. There is a Russian forces version and an export version under consideration and Flight International (27Mar-02Apr 96, page 19) reports that a canard equipped version of the basic Su-30 was being produced at the Sukhoi Irkutsk Plant in southern Russia. Publicly, Sukhoi managers deny the idea that a "Commadn Fighter" was ever under consideration but considering the continuing erosion of the MiG-31 force and the popularity of the dual-seat Su-30, the possibility will always exist.
The addition of a canard on the Flanker improves the aircraft's handling qualities, stability, and maneuvering performance. This is now seen on the Su-30"MKI" , the Su-27"M" (Su-35), and the Su-37. The Chief Designer for the Su-30"MK" is Alexcy Knyshev. The Sukhoi Design Bureau and Russian government took the export wraps off this model after its introduction at the '93 Paris Air Show as the newest member of the Su-27 combat aircraft family. According to Knyshev, the dual role Su-30"MK" advanced strike fighter is capable of performing all tactical tasks of the Su-24 Fencer deep interdiction tactical bomber and the Su-27 Flanker "A/B/C" air superiority fighter while having around twice the combat range and 2.5
times the combat effectiveness (Sukhoi numbers).
The Russian Su-30 is fitted with the improved optimized air-to-air N-001 Radar, which differs from the one being offered in the dual-seat Su-30"MKI" and has many ground navigation and attack modes. The primary PVO role would be to provide defense-in-depth, by utilizing its onboard systems and passing targets off to other patrolling aircraft via data-link. This "mother-ship" effect provides the time necessary to sample and sort out large numbers of targets. The Irkutsk Plant is thought to have produced around 40 x Su-30"M" and "MK" aircraft by the Farnborough Air Show (Sep 96). In theory, the Su-30 could be the forward sensor element for a formation of Su-37's and communicate the air situation, target track-file, identification status, instructions, and warnings via data link.
Su-30"MK" has strangely found itself in competition with the Su-27"IB" side-by-side configured Flanker prototype, but there may be a lot of disinformation with these claims. The Su-30 was reported as early as January 1993 (JDW, 02Jan93, pg4) as being "in service" with the Russian Air Force and in series production at the Irkutsk Factory. At that time a modified and beefed-up dual-seat Su-27"PU" was being tested on long range flights, one of which went from Moscow to Komsomolsk in 15 hours and 31 minutes with air refueling.
The dual-seat Su-30"K" has tandem in-line seating for the pilot and co-pilot/weapons officer. The yet improved Su-30"MK", that was first seen with side number "59", is equipped with an off-set IRST dome, similar to the Naval Flanker, and has the inflight refueling probe installed. At Paris 1993, the Su-30"MK" had on its right wing tip an electronic warfare pod, similar to those seen on the Su-35. At Dubai, the pilots admitted that the Su-30"MK" there (No. 59) was not a complete avionics prototype and that it would be in mid 1994 when they expected to fly an actual weapons system configured aircraft. Likewise at Dubai, the regular Su-27 flown by Pugachev was configured with an inflight refueling probe, something not seen on early production Su-27's before.
The Su-35 weapon system shares much with the Su-30"MK", but it lacks the large display in the back cockpit that is utilized by a weapons system officer (WSO). It represents a progressive development of the Su-27 that now possesses a genuine dual-role capability. It was first developed in 1988 as the Su-27"M" prototype. Features combined in the new fighter include all moving foreplanes, a digital flight control system in place of the analog system of the standard Su-27, four multi function cockpit displays instead of dial type analog instruments, an inclined (30-deg) pilot ejection seat and retractable flight refueling probe.
The production Su-27 Flanker B has a normal operating weight of around 22,000 kg (48,400 lbs) and has a maximum gross weight of 30,000 kg (66,000 lbs). It carries around 10,000 kg (22,046 lbs) of internal fuel, which changes by model, that gives at least a maximum range of around 4,000 km (2187 nm). The original production Flankers did not have an inflight refueling capability. Today, all production Flankers have retractable refueling probes. The aircraft has a 30 mm gun and twelve missile stations unless the tips are utilized for ECM pods. The radar dish is about 4ft in diameter, the aircraft length is 71.9 ft and it has a wingspan of 48.2 ft. Different from the Fulcrum, no composite materials are utilized in the Flanker, however Titanium alloys are widely used. Fuel management is digitally-electrically monitored for center of gravity control. The fuel tanks utilize polystyrene foam to reduce fire and explosion hazards. A maximum fuel load projects a range of 4,000 km (2,159 nm) which translates into a combat radius of 1,500 km (810 nm), or several hours of loiter at 550 km (297 nm). The supersonic interception radius should exceed 463 km (250 nm) (AFM, Nov92, pg34). Max speed is 2.35 Mach, max service ceiling is 18,000 meters (59,058 feet) with a max rate of climb at 305 meters/sec (60,000 feet/min).
Mikhail Pogosian, First Deputy General Designer at the Sukhoi Bureau, has insisted that the next generation of Sukhoi fighters will all be derivatives of the basic Su-27 and that the several new attack variants will continue to enter service with the new Russian Air Force despite grave shortages of funding. The first batches of these new aircraft were turned out at Sukhoi production facilities in July 1993. To his thinking, Pogosian felt that the Su-27"IB" (Su-34) would replace the MiG-27, Su-22, and some Su-24's. The new Su-35 would eventually replace all Tactical Aviation Flankers and the Su-27"K" (Su-33) would continue as the premiere and only Naval Fighter.
Maj Gen Alexander N. Yonov, Deputy Chief of the Air Staff and Director of Operations for the Russian Air Force, said that the Su-35 completed its flight test program in 1993. He noted in his analysis that it had a 4000 km (2187 nm) ferry range that extends to 6500 km (3554 nm) with one air refueling. Maximum payload was expected to be 8000 kg (17,600 lbs). Testing on its fighter maneuverability is complete with excursions in Alpha being made up to 120°. This was achieved by the new maneuvering canard foreplanes which factored in a 10% instability factor into the design.
Su-35 Radar, which can be assumed to be the starting point for the Su-37,has a range capability put at 400 km (220 nm) for air targets and 200 km
(110 nm) for ground targets. It has expanded its simultaneous track capability from 10 to 15 air targets and can engage up to six all at once. The radar also has a low altitude terrain following / avoidance capability. It will have the ability to operate in "group combat actions" which tells me it will have aircraft-to-aircraft data link in conjunction with the Su-30 or MiG-31. It also will undertake the "Effective suppression of current and future air defense electronic systems" which tells me that it will utilize on board defensive warning and active jamming systems as well as the capability to employ some or all of the many ARM air-to-surface missiles developed by the Russians.
The Su-35 and Su-37 are today the most attractive multi-role fighter products of the Russian aerospace industry. In the beginning of 1994 the Su-35 was procured for the Russian air force and deliveries are now being made. If foreign customers continue to fund the development of the VTCSu-37, as they appear to be doing, the Russian Air Force should switch to the Su-37 once an export production line is established.
The Farnborough Su-37 cockpit, which is the latest configuration in the development aircraft's life, bears little resemblance to the Su-35 cockpit. It includes two liquid-crystal wide screen MFD's in a balanced left & right arrangement. The center display just below the HUD was removed to accommodate a test-panel, but the lower moving-map/situation display remained. The actual aircraft did not completely match the picture shown in AW&ST (02Sep96, pg 125) that featured four displays. At the time of Farnborough, the cockpit was also being shared by the French Sagem Nav-Attack system that replaced the Russian HUD with their own.
The radome on the Su-35 differs from the basic hinged radome of the Su-27. It is slightly more evenly curved and the radar package is accessed by removing the entire nose section. There is a fairly sophisticated multi-lens MAK electro-optical warning sensor mounted in a dome shape on top of the Su-35 fuselage which is integrated with the SPO-15 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) system, similar to the one found on the Su-24 Fencer. One of the key characteristics of that system is that it can tell if the threat is above or below you. Other advanced variants of the Su-27 have a "dome" on top of the fuselage which is the size of a basketball. This is for the Russian version of GPS. The RWR dome looks like a half of a red-white
checkerboard soccer ball.
Production Su-37's are expected to be fitted with the advanced Phazotran N-011 Zhuk-27 slotted-array antenna pulse-doppler radar with an alternative configuration utilizing the already developed Zhuk-PH phased-array antenna radar which has been produced for the MiG-31. The defensive suite utilizes the Phazotran rear-hemisphere active threat warning radar, called the N-014, that claims to have a 3 to 5 km (1.2 to 2.0 nm) capability against missile sized targets. The first Su-35 prototype was fitted with a development version of the rear-facing N-014 (JDW, 29Feb93, pg6) in place of its drag chute. Major General Vasili Alexandrov, Chief of the Central Scientific and Research Institute of the Russian Federation Air Forces, said that the purpose of this radar was to provide an "over-the-shoulder" radar missile firing capability. The question of "how" they would arrange the missiles to fly to the rear quadrant so quickly has become an important discussion point.
One approach, noted in Jane's, was that the AA-10b shortburn IR ("Alamo B") missile would be mounted on the Su-35's wing on a backward-facing pylon. That would have left the rocket motor nozzle and large control fins facing the airstream. This was then reported to be unsatisfactory because the missile, which requires large aero-surfaces to fly, would have problems firing off backwards through the zero-velocity region as it went on its way. Also, there was damage reported in flight test to the missile due to it having the rocket motor nozzle directed into the relative wind. So the rotated pylon approach with the AA-10b appears to have disqualified itself. The answer was to use the very capable R-73 (AA-11 "Archer") in a simply reverse mount with a booster motor booster-pac attached to the back of the R-73's rocket motor but facing forward. This would allow the booster to rapidly stop the missile in flight from a negative (forward) velocity to zero in a very quick (less than one second). The missile motor then fires and the missile is on its way. The N-014 radar in conjunction with the optical warning receiver can then just pick up the threat, que the missile, and launch the missile.
The first photos taken at Zhukovsky of a Su-27 variant configured with a thrust vectoring system was by Wojtek Matusiak. His work appeared in Jane's (27Feb93, pg20) and showed a dual-seat Flanker with a large variable nozzle system fitted to the left engine while the right engine nozzle area remained unchanged. Siminov announced as far back as the Farnborough '92 air show that the vectored nozzle research would be part of the ongoing Su-27/Su-35 development program.
Su-37 Data
Length 22.2 meters (72.8 feet)
Height 6.4 meters (21.0 feet)
Wingspan 14.7 meters (48.2 feet)
Wing Area 62.0 sq-meters (667.4 sq-feet)
Wing Aspect Ratio 3.5
Wing Loading @ combat 548 kg/sq-m (112.3 lbs/sq-ft)
Max Takeoff Weight 34,000 kg (74,960 lbs)
Normal Takeoff Weight 25,670 kg (56,590 lbs)
Maximum Combat Payload 8,000 kg (17,640 lbs)
Normal Combat Payload 1,400 kg (3,090 lbs)
Max Speed @ Sea Level 1,400 kph (756 Kts TAS)
Max Speed @ Altitude 2,500 kph (1,350 Kts TAS)
Low Altitude Range @ 800 kph 1,390 km (750 nm)
High Altitude Range @ 950 kph 3,300 km (1,782 nm)
One-Air Refueling Max Range 6,500 km (3,510 nm)
Climb Rate 230 m/sec (45,300 ft/min)
Service Ceiling 18,800 meters (45,300 feet)
Maximum G-Loading 9.0 G's
Sukhoi has also developed a special Flight Instrument System (EFIS) equipped Su-27 off of its production line (AW&ST, 12Feb90, pg28). The EFIS aircraft has a side-stick controller in conjunction with its normal center-mounted flight control column stick. The aircraft is also configured with a developmental digital flight control system. Siminov is quoted as saying that they were also having problems defining the information that they want to show on the HUD and the cockpit monitors during combat and normal operations. This EFIS aircraft has been three MFD like monitors in the cockpit, all on its right side with two up on the main forward instrument bulkhead. The aircraft has been shown with the side number "707" painted on the fuselage.
During mid 1993 at a Russian air base at Akhtubinsk, near Astrakhan, on the Volga River, a display of aircraft was permitted and only a few journalists new about it to come. Yefim Gordon, of the Polish aviation magazine "Skrzydlata Polska" managed to take excellent photos and report on his findings. JDW, 6Nov93, pg37, covered his work. Akhtubinsk Air Base up until this point was a "closed" facility for the testing or air weapons. Gordon reported on the Su-27, Su-35, and upgraded MiG-31 with its new R-37 missile.
At Farnborough, Frolov told Chris Pocock and I that he uses a combination of stick, throttle, and rudders to do his maneuvering stunts. His version of the "Cobra" is called the "Stop Cobra" since he translates to around 140° and then holds it there for around 4 to 10 seconds, all this at around 500 to 800 feet AGL, or higher depending upon who is watching. With rudders or through the slight asymmetric run of the thrust, the nose will start to drift. He can simply counter the drift with stick action or roll to match the axis of drift and then pull back up, or roll inverted and pull down, or hold his nose position. He could easily follow and point his nose at any conventional aircraft flying the "egg" around him and never have to extend his relative turn radius more than 200 to 500 meters. All this while manning his weapon system, helmet sight, gun, and missiles. In other words, the ultimate "knife-fight". If he is attacked from multiple directions his defensive warning system and rear-firing Archers are expected to work the problem.
Taking his show routine higher to around 2000 feet AGL, Frolov would enter a series of freewheeling aerobatics somersaults, called "Kulbits" that went to three consecutive revolutions in his first practice show. This was intended to demonstrate the absolute freedom he has in executing his maneuvers. As free as the Su-26 (light acrobatic aircraft), so he says.
Now I wrote from Farnborough that I had a "religious experience" watching Frolov do his thing, and believe me I did. It was not like experiencing a Harrier "WHIFF" for the first time or watching the X-31, it was seeing a giant war-fighting beast translating in all directions and spitting fire like a dragon with many arms. Those of you who are immersed in stealth will easily say, and have said, "so what" to the Su-37. The Royal Air Force leadership dismissed it suggesting that it would be too hard to train a pilot to use the Su-37. I am not sure that the same stealth you are depending upon or the same buffer of training sophistication the Brits are depending upon will be there all the time. And little things like external fuel tanks, missile bay doors, turning on your radar, and the enemy not being afraid to take losses make my point in bit. You also have to agree that even though the Russians do not, or can not, totally subscribe to stealth from a materials, manufacturing, and shaping standpoint, their progress in "cloaking" technologies is there. Also, if an old Su-27UB from IFPA can get a 50km IRST track on an L-39, the more advanced capabilities have to be something to think about. Other things, like AMRAAM vulnerability to ECM, who needs to debate it, it uses an active radar and sooner or later it can be jammed or deceived. What about numbers, what about old systems that don't respond to new techniques, what about the fog of war, a blown fuze, an uncorrelated track, and millions of things like these. And then there is the super obvious, "just seeing you at random", an approach taken by Ken Freeman in his RUSI analysis that shoots the B-2 in the knee.
It is clear that somehow, somewhere, someone of our pilots will encounter the Su-37 or a Su-30 with TVC within the next few years and the answer today that gives him the edge is not totally there. On top of all of this, we also know that the enemy can loose many, but we can only loose the first one, and then we implode upon ourselves politically. At Farnborough Frolov demonstrated the Su-37 with no coordinated "yaw" control from left-rigth nozzle action or roll induced from differential nozzles. By Paris 1997, that had been changed, and more on that later.
Note that Red China bought or is buying 26+24+70 Su-27/SKSMK/UB plus a full array of BVR and WVR missiles. Vietnam bought 6 and wants more. India is receiving their Su-30MKI's and has MiG-29's. Syria bought 24 basic Su-27"P"s and also has MiG-29's. Peru received 26 x MiG-29's from the Belarus, Iraq is still flying over a dozen MiG-29's, Iran has MiG-29's, MiG-31's, and is getting Su-27's, Burma is getting MiG-29's, and North Korea has MiG-29's. On the friendly side German and most of our C&EE allies have MiG-29's as well as Malaysia with its SE's and Indonesia just purchased Su-30's. All of these countries have taken a serious look at the Su-37 and the upgraded VTC Su-30 and have asked questions about the Mikoyan VTC candidate. Brazil, for instance, was reported to have asked GE if they could put the 404 into the MiG-29. This is an interesting twist after the South African Air Force just placed the MiG-29 engine in its Mirage F-1's. Now all of these countries are looking and into their eyes has come the reality of Vectored Thrust.
Perhaps we had better realize that we are potentially up to our necks in RED and GREY threats, and despite the Russian aerospace industry's death notice, in a short while at least two countries, other than the USA, will introduce and use vectored thrust engines. We owe it to ourselves to know what we are talking about when it comes to dealing with them. There are two first steps that I would suggest. One... make sure that advanced Western aircraft continue on their way to becoming a TVC platforms and look seriously at retrofitting the engines on as much of the older inventory aircraft as possible. The X-31, and F-16/F-15/F-18 prototypes apparently are only developmental and the F-22 is the only near-term response to this threat, let us make sure that happens. Somehow however, I still choked on my Kabassa standing along side the runway during the show at Farnborough.
Secondly..... since we really do not know everything there is to know about the Flanker or Fulcrum we need to get back on track with having our test pilots fly these aircraft to provide first hand inputs to our design teams. By being arrogant about it we just shot ourselves in the foot. Finding out just how pilot-friendly, capable, and functional the basic Su-27 weapon system is, right now, might just focus us on the advanced systems in the Su-30/35/37. The Russians are always trying to get more automated with the intent of expanding the envelopes of their weapons and systems, but can their pilot's employ these systems in this increasingly extended environment which reaches beyond the boundries of their warm & fuzzy command and control. In the end, joint training programs and commercial alternatives such as the IFPA can make that happen.
Make things happen......
