It’s too big. It’ll annoy people with dialup modems everytime they try and load a page 🙂

And the Sukhoi officials themselves said so.

This is somewhat of an article of faith on keymags.

Seeing the article itself would be a refreshing change. 🙂

First, do not forget that Su-27IB has two radars. Maybe, Phazotron made rear-looking one?

A possibility, the N012 radar by NIIP may have been supplanted by a Phazotron derivative, IIRC they’re pushing Kopyo for sting radars.

Su-30MKK has N001VE radar by NIIP
Su-30MK2 has N001VEP radar by NIIP
Su-30MK3 – there is no such airplane, just words

There is no Su-30MKK2, only MK2. You may be misleaded by small inscription ‘MKK2’ on the air intake cover of ‘502’ aircraft shown at MAKS in Zhukovsky last year. But this only means ‘second aircraft of MKK type’.

Zhuk-MSF = Sokol is fitted to 27KUB only as yet.

I find Su-30MK2 a confusing designation (no K = China there)- Su-30MKK2 makes more sense, but oh well, whatever the Russians want! 🙂

If we say “fighter aviation” then that’s certainly arguable. However, aviation in general, no way. No one but the US and Russia can design and then build modern strategic, or even medium continental, bombers of any real worth.

you are missing the point with german example. at time, they were pushing the limits of their technology to the every edge of what is practicle and even beyound. that is the problem they had.

No- even the pilot seats of German Bf-109s were made of ridiculously expensive material. This was an endemic problem with most of their hardware, not just experimentals.

however there is a difference from choosing not to give a plane the ‘perfect’ finishing because of cost implications and not being able to do it at all. purhaps i should have emphysised this a little bit more to avoid confusion.

if a plane doesnt get a good finishing because the manufacturer wants to cut down on cost that is one thing, however if a manufacturer simply cant make a plane to that quality level, then that is a very different matter, and that lack of quality will be reflected in every part of that ac.

It’s quite obvious now that the Russians are capable of producing planes with a nice finish, don’t you think?

totally agree with that, however you are forgetting one crutial thing – the world is not at war.

That’s now, I’m talking then.

IMHO, that was what helped the russians to loose the cold war. they designed and built all their weapons so that they are ready to fight a war the next day, and most likely would have won a conventional conflict. problem was there never was a war, the west had a simple but effective solution, just use nukes if they were about to be overrun/warn out.

The Soviet solution was always nukes as well. The reasons for the collapse were many and complex- how they made their weapons has little impact.

as a result, in the long term, all those weapons that were cheap to mass produce wasnt as durable or relable as the more expansive western weapons, so needed more maintanence and needed to be replaced more frequently. and that eat into the defence budget.

I don’t see how this is the case. I can name a myriad of highly complex Soviet equipment that remain in various countries inventories for decades, no need for replacement. Requirement for replacement due to obsolescence is another matter, and reflects Western aircraft as well.

Three Mile Island caught and contained a potential meltdown, Chernobyl didn’t.

That’s because they ignored prescribed safety procedures. It never would’ve happened if there hand’t been human error involved.

and i have to agree with crobato on the belief that looks also reflect on the build quality of the whole machine and not just the surface.

if you cant match the finishing on the outside of the plane, chances are you wont be able to match the quality of the build inside the plane, and that has a baring on performace; if your workers dont pay enough attention to their work to make the outside of the plane look good, then that lack of dedication my also be reflected on the workmanship of the rest of the plane and also performance and reliability.

The above paragraph is pure slothful generalization fallacy, and to me implies some sort of quaint, outdated “home carpentery” ethic to the massive, standardized production line of military mass production.

This philosophy was carried to its absurd extreme by the Germans in WW2, who over-engineered useless, non-critical parts with expensive materials and inordinate amounts of resources. None of the other allies had such extravagances as German aircraft- Specific parts have specific, exacting requirements that they must *meet*, and if the part doesn’t have to meet a certain requirement, it makes no sense to overengineer it for pure aesthetic value- in a war environment, which is what the context of the Su-27 etc. is. E.g. The maintenance system in the USSR was totally different to anything in the West.

well there is a difference between planes being grounded as a result of design flaws and built problems.

So you’re saying that a problem with a few Su-30s was one and all the problems with Western aircraft are another? Come now.

All tanks look like they’re welded or cast out of metal. I don’t see much difference from one tank or another.

That’s simply because your passion is not tanks. German tanks were well built by comparison to both American and Soviet tanks, Soviet being the most crude, yet their external appearance had no effect on combat capability or reliability.

It leaves me with major question on the very flyability of that particular plane.

And where the plane was at the time.

They are *required* as part of today’s modern commercial climate.

So? What has that got to do with it’s combat capability i.e. it’s ability to do it’s job unencumbered?

Better quality machine tools does make better cannons. The better your tolerances are…

That’s what I said.

It goes across the board—better engines, more reliable and smoother working mechanisms.

That’s internals. Not skin, which is what we’re talking about.

IIRC, both the PLAAF and IAF had problems with their Su30s’ quality, especially with the engines.

And Western aircraft have never had quality problems? How many times have we heard about x or x plane being grounded because of any number of reasons? Their nice skin didn’t help them there.

The second MiG looks much better, but it’s no doubt it’s from an airshow,

It’s a normal MiG-29SMT, by definition upgraded from an existing 9.12 or 9.13 airframe of Soviet manufacture.