The actual every day maintenance requirements for typical Soviet engines were much, much less than for Western engines. While any Western engines needs continuous checks on a very regulair basis, you can basically fly your Soviet engine without looking at it between the scheduled overhauls/rebuilds.

Comrade Hu, that is only true for the old turbojets. These were built with an eye towards inexpensive production and short service life. While they were deemed “alive,” they required much less maintenance.

The simplicity of Russian turboject engines, especially regarding the core, also means easier maintenance compared to, say, the J-79.

Now that is different with the Russian turbofans. The news on the Chinese forum about the PLAAF’s experience with the AL-31 is not all that encouraging.

Maybe it’s bad Chinese maintenance practices? But at any rate, they’re not so easy as the old Russian turbojets that the Chinese also use and operate in the same fashion (short lives, large quantities.)

The weakness in material science shows up in maintenance too with reports of pitting on the main fan blade (who knows what is happening in the compressor blades in the core.)

The operationally readiness of the Su-27 is considered rather low and a key reason is the engine.

I always thought it was the RD-33s that were fuel thristy and very expensive to operate which resulted in the early Mig-29As being very expensive to operate, so what is it?

Whether something is expensive to operate comes from the economy of the design (turbofans consume less fuel than turbojets and higher bypass ratios consume less fuel in different turbofans) and the need to maintain the engine in working order.

As with anything else, the more complicated the engine, the more maintenance is needed. Piston engines can be upkeep by civilians and would be cheaper to maintain in Mustang, Corsair or Sturmovik if your air force chose to fly those 🙂

Both the Al-31 on the Flanker and the R-33 on the Fulcrum are considered thirsty compared to western equivalents. I haven’t checked their bypass ratios compared to the PW F100 or GE-404.(1) That could be one reason why the they consume more gas and it would be by design to augment power over economy.

Another reason could be simple inefficiency in the compressor.

———————————————————————-
Notes:
(1)The lower the bypasss ratio, the more a turbofan acts like a simple gas-guzzling turbojet. But there are reasons why a turbojet-like turbofan is desired and that is prolonged high mach performance is needed.

Great picts on the 170! Looks like 8 rotary VLSs for 48 missiles or equivalent to a S-300 battalion of 12 TELs.

I always thought it was just the 6 batteries around Beijing. I figured 6-8 TELs per battery or about 200 missiles at the ready and another 100 or so for reload.

You’re reporting 10 battalions in three contracts.

$440m for 650 missiles and the associated launchers and radars by Google’s count is not overly expensive. A single PAC-3 missile costs over $2 millions.

From AFM, :p
“…Azaraksh…. reverse-engineered F-5F, scaled up by 10-15%, with Klimov RD-33……
deferred due to serious structural problems.”

Engine choosen, why not the aerodynamic master-piece with proven structure too? :confused:

???!! They chose the RD-33?

They turned the F-5 into a single-engined plane? Even if they scaled it up 15%, a F-5 still wouldn’t be able to accomodate two RD-33s.

Pictures of the twin-tailed F-5 certainly doesn’t look like it had a RD-33. Are they are talking about Azaraksh I?

AFM October 2004, p 18 🙂
“First Flight of Iranian Saeghe Fighter”

Oh yeah?! I haven’t gotten the Oct. issue in the states yet. This is definitely something to look forward to 😀

Actually China has purchased in the region of 1500 S-300 (5V55 and 9M96 and variants missiles) they bought from Russia.

That’s a new one to me :rolleyes:

There are about a half dozen batteries at the most in China with probably about 200-300 missiles.

GD, the F-5 was always twin engined 😉
And I believe that the twin tailed F-5 is called the Sa’ege.

Oops, I meant to say twin-finned, not twin-engined. The early hopes were that the Saeqeh 80 would be a F-14 derivative. It is still uncertain as to whether the twin finned aircraft is named Azarakarsh II or Saeqeh 80.

Typically Russian engines have lower life and are higher to maintain than their Western counterparts, especially when it’s pushing the state of the art hard(for it’s time). However the thing with Russian engines is that they’re much cheaper to build. Though even Western engines can sometimes be very problematic and a bitch.

It’s the old turbojets like the old Tumanskiis and Khachturovs for the MiG-21s and -23s that were much cheaper to build and were expected to be replaced after a short usage period. The modern turbofans like the RD-33s and AL-31s are not necessarily that much cheaper to build.