rc135x
Topic Author
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:46 am

Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:21 pm

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

KC-135A, A(RT), D, E, E(RT), Q, R, EC-135A, C, G, L, RC-135S, U, V, W, X, TC-135S, W
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:10 pm

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.
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:38 am

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

Two Mig-23 wrecks and eight SU-25 wrecks. None will ever fly.
 
Eagleboy
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:29 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:16 am

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.
 
Cranehead
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:23 pm

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:58 pm

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.
 
rc135x
Topic Author
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:46 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:08 pm

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?
KC-135A, A(RT), D, E, E(RT), Q, R, EC-135A, C, G, L, RC-135S, U, V, W, X, TC-135S, W
 
Cranehead
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:23 pm

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:18 am

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.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7717
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:52 am

One would think Su-30 going to a country like Uganda is more about "male enhancement" needs than military needs.
 
tu204
Posts: 1423
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:12 am

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
 
Acheron
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:56 am

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.
 
Cranehead
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:23 pm

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:34 am

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.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:44 pm

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.
 
tu204
Posts: 1423
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:40 am

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
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:33 am

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.
 
Cranehead
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:23 pm

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:54 am

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.
 
Acheron
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:39 pm

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.
 
Triple Seven
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2000 10:04 pm

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:58 am

Is Uganda employing them more as bomb trucks? If you talk about cost and sophistication then Su-30MKM or MKI will fit the bill.
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2549
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:04 pm

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.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:20 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:27 pm

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.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5257
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:05 am

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
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:02 am

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.
 
Acheron
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Uganda Su-30 Threat Justification

Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:30 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DIRECTFLT and 6 guests