Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification  
User currently offlinerc135x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9243 times:

Other than the traditional issues of prestige, ego, balance of payments, corruption, and "arms imperialism," what is the threat justification for Uganda to acquire Su-30s?

Which adjacent nations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Kenya, Rwanda, or Tanzania have comparable aircraft that justify this level of aerial sophistication AND are a national threat to Uganda? Which nations geographically beyond these, if any, constitute a threat and merit the use of Su-30s?

I recognize the presence of low-level conflict, insurgency, and "warlord armies" justify a national capability to strike ground targets, but is this just a deal that is too good to pass up?



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Melting Tarmac Images



22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9074 times:

Ethiopia has Mig-21s, Mig-23s, and Su-27s. Angola also has the same type of fighter force. Kenya has upgraded F-5E/F/EMs. Sudan has Mig-21s (actually F-7Ms), Mig-23s, and Mig-29s. The DRC has Mig-23s.

All of these Gen 3/4 fighters could be a challange to the Su-30, depending on tactics used and the quality of the individual pilots. Of all the Air Forces in that part of Africa, I would think Kenya has the best military trained pilots. But that is just my opinion.


User currently offlineiakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3312 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8885 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The DRC has Mig-23s.

Two Mig-23 wrecks and eight SU-25 wrecks. None will ever fly.


User currently offlineEagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1795 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8829 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Combat Aircraft had a feature on this last month. It seems that in the last 2-4 years the ability of the Mig-21 was shown to be insufficient. When ops took place against the Lords Army insurgent/warlord force the Mig-21s were unable to operate due no bad weather capability. Mi-24's had to substitute for them in the multi-national operation.

Uganda has a large geographical area with 2-3 possible points of conlict, so they wanted an aircraft better able to deal with any/all flash pints from a central area, apparently the Mig-21 did not have the legs to do so.

In addition Sudan make attacks against 'insurgents' into Ugandan territory at a time when the Mig-21's were unable to response, so there is your Pride motivation.


User currently offlineCranehead From Uganda, joined exactly 3 years ago today! , 6 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8788 times:

I am Ugandan and a military aviation enthusiast of sorts but even I think that this was not the wisest choice for our military. For the 740 million dollars spent on these jets we could have possibly acquired twice the number in MiG 29s or even more in terms of helicopter gunships. The MiG 29 is not as capable a platform as the Su-30 but I think it would be more than adequate to cover both conventional air to air and air to ground missions. However, these fast jets are definitely not the sort you employ against unconventional rag-tag rebel movements of the sort that Uganda has been plagued with since the 80s. I think a mix of helicopter gunships and a strong SAM/AAA combination would work better for us.

User currently offlinerc135x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8648 times:

Quoting Cranehead (Reply 4):
However, these fast jets are definitely not the sort you employ against unconventional rag-tag rebel movements of the sort that Uganda has been plagued with since the 80s. I think a mix of helicopter gunships and a strong SAM/AAA combination would work better for us.

An astute and thoughtful observation.

Perhaps this is a cogent example for the ongoing debate of the value of weapons systems such as the Su-30 in current and future conflicts. If the military requirement is to "move mud" by striking non-governmental actors such as the LRA, then Su-30s, F-22s, and other next-generation fighters are of little value. For example, is the A-10 or AH-64 the real future of airpower?


User currently offlineCranehead From Uganda, joined exactly 3 years ago today! , 6 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8441 times:

Quoting rc135x (Reply 5):
Perhaps this is a cogent example for the ongoing debate of the value of weapons systems such as the Su-30 in current and future conflicts. If the military requirement is to "move mud" by striking non-governmental actors such as the LRA, then Su-30s, F-22s, and other next-generation fighters are of little value. For example, is the A-10 or AH-64 the real future of airpower?

Judging from the realities of combat that are faced by troops in places like Afghanistan and other hotspots the world over, it would seem that conventional warfare of the sort where fast movers like the Su-30 would be deployed is not as clear and present a danger as that posed by insurgents like the Taliban, Al Qaeda and in Uganda's case the LRA. Such insurgents inevitably must be dealt with up close and personal and in such situations air power must be precise enough to move mud in close proximity to friendly troops without risk of the so-called 'blue on blue' incidents. There is definitely a lot that can be said for platforms like the A-10 Warthog and the Apache gunship. Their slow speed helps them loiter over the battlefield a lot more effectively than the fast-movers. Actually in Uganda's case, I believe that aside from gunships, the Su-25 Frogfoot attack jets would have made even more sense both practically and financially than the Su-30 or even the MiG 29.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8426 times:

One would think Su-30 going to a country like Uganda is more about "male enhancement" needs than military needs.

User currently offlinetu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 1169 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8202 times:

Quoting Cranehead (Reply 6):
Actually in Uganda's case, I believe that aside from gunships, the Su-25 Frogfoot attack jets would have made even more sense both practically and financially than the Su-30 or even the MiG 29.

I wonder if the Su-34 was considered or offered? It is also capable of air to air (unlike the Su-25) and is a very capable air to ground aircraft.



I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1599 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8186 times:

Quoting Cranehead (Reply 4):
The MiG 29 is not as capable a platform as the Su-30 but I think it would be more than adequate to cover both conventional air to air and air to ground missions.

Thing is, MiG-29's are almost as expensive to operate as Flankers, so might as well go the whole mile.


User currently offlineCranehead From Uganda, joined exactly 3 years ago today! , 6 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days ago) and read 8134 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 7):
One would think Su-30 going to a country like Uganda is more about "male enhancement" needs than military needs.

LOL! Unfortunately that may be the case!

Quoting tu204 (Reply 8):
I wonder if the Su-34 was considered or offered? It is also capable of air to air (unlike the Su-25) and is a very capable air to ground aircraft.

It is a fast attack jet unsuitable for the kind of low intensity conflicts Uganda tends to experience. I also believe it is likely to be just as expensive as the Su-30 in terms of acquisition cost and maintenance.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 9):
Thing is, MiG-29's are almost as expensive to operate as Flankers, so might as well go the whole mile.

Did not know this. I just figured that since the MiG 29 is an older platform, it might be less costly and spare parts more widely available.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 7810 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 7):
One would think Su-30 going to a country like Uganda is more about "male enhancement" needs than military needs

Thats the way I read it.

Both for the Ugandans and the Russians.

Uganda needed to show they had the biggus diccus around and russia needed to show that they could sell their aircraft anywhere. Plus I think Uganda is a raw material rich country and would love to have the trade.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinetu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 1169 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7429 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 11):
and russia needed to show that they could sell their aircraft anywhere.

You make it sound like we are selling a substandard product for double the price. Well half the world would disagree with you.

Quoting Cranehead (Reply 10):
It is a fast attack jet unsuitable for the kind of low intensity conflicts Uganda tends to experience. I also believe it is likely to be just as expensive as the Su-30 in terms of acquisition cost and maintenance.

If you look at the specs, the Su-34 is capable as replacement to a Su-25. The fact that it's maximum speed is M1.8 does not mean that its stall speed is much higher than the SU-25's. The Su-34 would probably cost more than a Su-30. The Su-25 would much cheaper than both. My point was an addition to yours that if you were going to spend all the money on a 4++ Generation fighter, buy one that can fill both functions.



I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7411 times:

Quoting tu204 (Reply 12):
Quoting L-188 (Reply 11):
and russia needed to show that they could sell their aircraft anywhere.

You make it sound like we are selling a substandard product for double the price. Well half the world would disagree with you.

Other way around, a standard product for a bargin price. Which is why you see Uganda, Algeria picking them up.

I don't mean that to be offensive by any means, but Russian aircraft did stagnate for about ten years from 91 to 01 due to economic reasons. They are in a catch up mode now. I would remind you that the SU-27 made it's orginal appearance in the west at I think the 88 Paris Air Show.....I used to have the Flying magazine that featured it.

The perception of russian equipment being being the times isn't really a new one. The Russian-American Company back in the 19th century had to ban the residents of Russian America (Alaska) from trading with Americans comming up the coast because it was cutting too deeply in their sales of tools and supplies. While the russian manufacturing at the time for an axe per say was by a blacksmith over a had forge, the american traders had machined tools from the new factories in the states. Needless to say the former couldn't compete with the latter in terms of cost or quality.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineCranehead From Uganda, joined exactly 3 years ago today! , 6 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7382 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
If you look at the specs, the Su-34 is capable as replacement to a Su-25. The fact that it's maximum speed is M1.8 does not mean that its stall speed is much higher than the SU-25's. The Su-34 would probably cost more than a Su-30. The Su-25 would much cheaper than both. My point was an addition to yours that if you were going to spend all the money on a 4++ Generation fighter, buy one that can fill both functions.

Problem is that we never had the money to begin with. The purchase used up a significant amount of our forex reserves. The issue of a Su-34 choice versus a Su-25 choice for a third world country is like buying the latest Mercedes S-600 when you are living in a mud hut! You get to show off for the neighbors for a few days but after a while you run out of money for gas and spares and then you probably have to sell it at a loss. When you are poor you have got to be practical. As a Ugandan and a military aviation enthusiast nothing would thrill me more than seeing my country acquire a squadron of F-22s or some similar super-jet but when that comes at a price of neglecting critical issues like healthcare and education then I have got to draw the line.

Regarding the application combat application of the Su-25 and the Su-34, I do not have the specs up to scratch but I would think that the Su-25 having a straighter wing than the Su-34 would tend to be far more maneuverable in slow speed situations such as those required in Close Air Support operations. The Su-34 is definitely a very capable platform but I am not sure that it beats the Su-25 in terms of ruggedness, survival and maneuverability especially in a slow speed low-level attack role. Employing a Su-34 in that role would seem like a misapplication of an otherwise capable aircraft. Regarding the air to air option, I still hold the view that a decent SAM/AAA network would serve to deter any threats from potentially hostile neighbors. I do not know of many African countries save for the Egyptians and maybe the South Africans that have significant capabilities in terms of Wild-Weasel or anti-SAM/AAA air assets.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1599 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7248 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
They are in a catch up mode now. I would remind you that the SU-27 made it's orginal appearance in the west at I think the 88 Paris Air Show

By that time, it had been in service for a while and at that point even had an incident with a Norwegian airforce P-3B which managed to get quite few decent images of the Flanker.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll105/jg54Grunherz/Su-27%20Flanker/pict4720tp1.jpg

Quoting tu204 (Reply 12):
If you look at the specs, the Su-34 is capable as replacement to a Su-25.

Thing is, the Su-34 is not meant to be a replacement of the Su-25 or be anywhere close to that role.


User currently offlineTriple Seven From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 530 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7053 times:

Is Uganda employing them more as bomb trucks? If you talk about cost and sophistication then Su-30MKM or MKI will fit the bill.

User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2578 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6915 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Acheron (Reply 15):
Thing is, the Su-34 is not meant to be a replacement of the Su-25 or be anywhere close to that role.

Correct. The Su-34 is in fact meant to replace the Su-24.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6877 times:

Africa should be a prime market for Saab to sell Gripens. Cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, cheap to use. It should be good enough for landlocked nations with small air forces?

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6829 times:

Quoting iakobos (Reply 2):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):The DRC has Mig-23s.
Two Mig-23 wrecks and eight SU-25 wrecks. None will ever fly.

Thanks, I didn't know that.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4781 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6672 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 18):
Africa should be a prime market for Saab to sell Gripens. Cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, cheap to use. It should be good enough for landlocked nations with small air forces?

Would even be ideal for a small archipelago like ours were it not for the giant dragon breathing on our back. It was proposed back in '96 in response to an RFI which was cancelled due to the Asian financial crisis.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6610 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 20):
Would even be ideal for a small archipelago like ours were it not for the giant dragon breathing on our back.

The best option for all these small nations facing the dragon is to form some sort of alliance like NATO. A common enemy is easier to handle if you can put some weight behind the words.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1599 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6516 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 18):

Africa should be a prime market for Saab to sell Gripens. Cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, cheap to use.

And the political baggage associated with having an american engine and subsystems.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Sukhoi SU-30 Acrobatic Demonstration posted Wed Mar 14 2007 01:04:31 by TomB
Chavez's 30 New Su-30's... posted Sun Jul 23 2006 07:04:03 by AirRyan
SU-35 Vs. Su-30 Mkiii posted Thu Nov 18 2004 23:44:39 by PPVRA
An SU-30 In Malta posted Tue Feb 19 2002 00:19:55 by LMML 14/32
India Su-30 posted Fri Nov 16 2001 16:16:02 by Warlord
"Stars Of Sukhoi" Video (Su-27, 30, 33, 47) posted Tue Nov 21 2006 04:47:29 by BEG2IAH
Eads Offers Raaf 6th KC-30 posted Mon Apr 2 2012 06:11:43 by KC135TopBoom
IAF Su-30MKI Crash posted Wed Dec 14 2011 07:36:34 by Devilfish
Usaf Gets New 30,000lbs Bunker Busting Bomb posted Wed Nov 16 2011 19:50:48 by LAXintl
EF2000 Vs Su-30MKI posted Mon Jul 25 2011 01:27:21 by epten

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format