Su-27 in USA!

[Haavarla]

Here is an update on those two Su-27UB from Pride Aircraft.

Sukhoi Su-27UB Flanker aircraft performs engine run-ups and afterburner checks in September 2009.

Holy sh*t!
Turn up the speakers on this one:D

It's almost like i'm standing next to the aircraft.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9By6bPn3DM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df3vW5HsPlc&NR=1

Thanks

[nevidimka]

who built this plane? and why is it in US?

[Haavarla]

who built this plane? and why is it in US?


Pride Aircraft is an privat company who bought, restorating & modificating two stripped Su-27UB from Ukraine.
As i understand it, these two UB have nothing to do with the US DoD or USAF per say..

But there have been some speculations about the USAF will lease them from time to time for some aggressor or interceptor missions.. However i find it very unlikly.

You can visit them here:

Pride Aircraft: Aircraft Restoration (http://www.prideaircraft.com/restoration.htm)

I think these are the one who will fly them:

The alternative to business as usual (http://www.tacticalairsupport.com/HOME.html)

More info here:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90501




Thanks

[Haavarla]

Found an interesting marketing point by TAC AIR:

"Additionally, by revamping the traditional decision-metric of cost per flight hour to a new metric of training or test missions per flight hour, greater cost savings can be realized. As an example, business as usual would involve a simple comparison of relative flight hour costs between adversary aircraft. By this metric, the SU-27 would appear to be more expensive than most other aircraft. However, if a customer looks at cost per training intercept or cost per test run, which is what they are really buying, then the SU-27 quickly becomes significantly cheaper because of its unsurpassed fuel payload (e.g., an SU-27 that can perform four supersonic training intercepts in one hour is far cheaper than typical adversary aircraft that have far less range and endurance, and can only perform a single high-speed training run before requiring refueling."

about our company (http://www.tacticalairsupport.com/About_Tac_AIr.html)


Thanks

[gf0012-aust]

Found an interesting market point by TAC AIR:

"Additionally, by revamping the traditional decision-metric of cost per flight hour to a new metric of training or test missions per flight hour, greater cost savings can be realized. As an example, business as usual would involve a simple comparison of relative flight hour costs between adversary aircraft. By this metric, the SU-27 would appear to be more expensive than most other aircraft. However, if a customer looks at cost per training intercept or cost per test run, which is what they are really buying, then the SU-27 quickly becomes significantly cheaper because of its unsurpassed fuel payload (e.g., an SU-27 that can perform four supersonic training intercepts in one hour is far cheaper than typical adversary aircraft that have far less range and endurance, and can only perform a single high-speed training run before requiring refueling."

about our company (http://www.tacticalairsupport.com/About_Tac_AIr.html)


Thanks

There is an obvious issue with using that metric in isolation. the fundamental issue on through life support is the maint and robustness of the components. if the engine has 1/3rd the availability rate of an F404 (for example), then the amount of time in the air relative to fuel is still subjected to wear and tear.

metrics are quite diverse and varied - its why we take so long in determining TLS for aircraft (or for any platform for that matter)

that metric could not be a baseline condition because it can not ignore the basic TLS and sustainment issues.

[Haavarla]

gf0012-aust;183718]There is an obvious issue with using that metric in isolation. the fundamental issue on through life support is the maint and robustness of the components. if the engine has 1/3rd the availability rate of an F404 (for example), then the amount of time in the air relative to fuel is still subjected to wear and tear.

I believe your post support just what they state.
If one look at the capability and mission of choice, there are very few aircraft that can perform longer intercept mission with out having to land to refuel or an mid-flight refuel.
Those UB clearly have that capability.
But i wonder who would pay up for mission like this..?
Its gonna cost lots of buck anyway..

metrics are quite diverse and varied - its why we take so long in determining TLS for aircraft (or for any platform for that matter)
Well metrics works, it's just what one choose to put in the equation.
And which requirements put up.

that metric could not be a baseline condition because it can not ignore the basic TLS and sustainment issues.
Its not that hard to calculate the metric of those UB, remeber they are not gonna perform under any airforce regulation and doctrine.
Hense they can skip many variables.


Thanks

[Haavarla]

who built this plane? and why is it in US?


I forgot perhaps the most crucial info here, those two Flankers are currently on sales for any qualified byer!;)

Here is the data sheet:

http://www.prideaircraft.com/SU27-specs-01.pdf

And here you can read what the purpose of the procurement of these two UB:

"Now, a few words about these aircraft. For quite some time, there have been rumors and whispers about these aircraft. We even released some photos of them as they arrived in the USA. This led to much speculation and incorrect reports by aviation press sources.

The aircraft arrived here in a completely de-militarized condition -- all weapons systems and military-related hardware had been previously removed, in full compliance with U.S. and Ukranian laws.

They were not brought here for any military purpose. They were brought here to be privately-owned and operated -- just like every other jet "warbird" in America. Because of the freedoms we enjoy here (as aircraft enthusiasts and "warbird" owners in the U.S. and elsewhere are keenly aware), private individuals and/or aircraft museums have the opportunity to collect and operate almost any sport aircraft they desire.

The Su-27 Flanker, while at first glance a serious piece of hardware (and it is!), is a 4th Generation fighter. It was designed beginning in 1972, and the first prototype flew in 1977. It entered service over 25 years ago, in the mid-1980s. Its abilities are widely known, and variants of it have participated in numerous U.S. military exercises against F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, and F/A-18s.

However, the new 5th Generation F-22 Raptor, and other aircraft now appearing on the scene, have rendered any discussion of "cutting-edge" fighter technology completely superfluous. It may seem harsh to say it, but because the Su-27 and aircraft of its generation are now becoming sport aircraft (warbirds) in the U.S., this is evidence that that technological improvements in fighter aircraft have continued to advance far beyond what was once considered "high-tech" and "leading edge." This is definitely not an indictment of the lovely Sukhoi Su-27. It is, and will remain, an extraordinary aircraft with superior performance. But it is now available to private individuals precisely because of these rapid advancements. We fly them for sport because we can.

Pride Aircraft is very pleased to be the only place you can get one (or two!) We look forward to hearing from qualified buyers."


D*mn.. is wish i had Bill Gates credit card:)


Thanks