Su-30SMs, Su-27M-2s, Yak-130, Pterodactyl-1 and much more exotic stuff you don’t happen to see too often.
Held between Jun. 2 and 5, 2016, the Kazakhstan Defence Expo (KADEX 2016) provided an interesting opportunity to have a close look at some rather rare Kazakhstan Air Force “hardware.”
The IV International Exhibition of Weapons Systems and Military Equipment brought to Astana some really interesting combat aircraft.
Kazakhstan Air Force were represented at KADEX 2016 by their Sukhoi Display Team the “Zhetysu” (Severn Rivers) from the 604 Air Base, Aktobe. They brought with them five Su-27M-2, numbered 07, 11, 14, 16, 17 yellow along with a single Su-27UBM-2 numbered 52 yellow.
Su-27M-2 # 07 did not fly at all during the show, and was probably the spare machine.
The Su-27UBM-2 was always the lead aircraft for the formation demonstration, and was always flown by Col. Timur Omarov, the Team Leader.
Solo demonstrations were flown by the two Su-30SM #02 and #03 red on a daily basis.
EC-145 helicopters took part in the flying display as well along with some Russian aircraft and helicopters: the Yak-130, the Mi-8MSB and the Mi-17V-5.
Other interesting participants in static display were the Chengdu Pterodactyl-1 UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle), the Kazakhstan Government Tu-134A and An-74, the MCHS Kazaviaspas (Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Kazakhstan) EC-145, Ka-32, Mi-26T and Mi-171E.
The Aviationist’s Tony Lovelock had the opportunity to visit Kadex 2016 and take the photographs you can find in this post.
Sincere thanks for the hospitality and attention of the Officers and Staff from the Ministry of Defence of ther Republic of Kazakstan.
Image credit: The Aviationist/Tony Lovelock
Related articles
Wow. Great pics of some good Russian gear. I have always loved the SU-27/30/34 etc look. It looks like what a A2A fighter should look like. Has crap range, but it handles “well”. Are the drones Press or some kind of Russian rip offs?
crap range??
I have always been under the impression that the Russian tactical aircraft model was based around what they called “Front Line” tactical aviation. They did’nt build their fighters with deep strike missions in mind (SU-34, a more recent design brakes this mold). But it seems that the Flanker family has better legs than I thought. Flankers and the more modern SU-35S are very impressive jets in terms of maneuvering, giving even 5th gen Raptors and Gen 4+ Typhoons are real handful in the dogfight department (a feature that will only come into play when the missiles have either been exhausted or failed). But a 2000+ mile combat range is impressive for such a small, slick looking jet.
Flankers are absolutely massive fighters.
To both you and the guy above. I guess it’s one of those perspective things. Likely the Flanker family has fuel everywhere and when you think of it that way, yup lots of gas and it is bigger than it looks. However I don’t know about “massive” cause I think the MIG 25/31 has set the benchmark on massive. I have no doubt they are bigger than I thought, but they wouldn’t handle so damned well if they were massive (pesky physics, weight is more important than size I get, but a larger airfoil doesn’t perform as well). Awsome jets those Sukhoi Flanker
This is all a distraction from my main point however. They look great.
Anyway, I am still a Flanker fan.
As am I. Just don’t think you appreciate how large they are. Bigger than an F-14 dimensions wise. Fully loaded they weight a tad less. Empty weight the F-14 weighs a few thousand lbs more.
https://www.google.com/search?q=size+for+the+flanker+compared+to+the+foxbat&rlz=1C1RNVE_enUS655US656&espv=2&biw=2133&bih=1087&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib-J-jm4rPAhUISyYKHTK7AT0Q_AUIBigB&dpr=0.9#tbm=isch&q=mig-25+su-27+side+by+side&imgrc=_eSd3M9ulFQ6AM%3A
Perspective can be deceiving. You have to stand next to one and/or have some people/things for size reference. Su-27 can carry 9.5 tons (~21.000lbs) of fuel, while the newer Su-30 can carry 9.75 tons (~21.500lbs) internally, they simply don’t need external fuel tanks. And the combat range is somewhere around 1000-1500 km.
Here’s something to put in a true perspective. These technicians are between 5’7″ and 5’9″.
The flanker family is far from small, in fact, it is likely the biggest operative fighter jet to date. Big plane, big fuel tanks and big motors.
I replied to you and the guy below you in one post. And when I said small what I rrally meant was not chunky. F-15E has big Conformal Fuel tanks, F-35 is thick and chunky cause of fuel tanks being everywhere. The Flanker must have done a great job of stream lining.
Yes along with MiG-25/31
So here’s where you’re wrong… Flankers are BIG
http://previews.123rf.com/images/alexciopata/alexciopata1302/alexciopata130200016/17982463-High-detail-vector-illustration-of-modern-jet-fighters-size-comparison-Stock-Vector.jpg
They’re very comparable in size to an F-15
https://defencyclopedia.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/f15-and-su27.jpg
The real difference in terms of range is that the Sukhois have insanely large internal fuel tanks…
F-15C internal capacity is about (going off the top of my head here) 13500lbs. The Su-27s is about (again… going off the top of my head) 20000+ lbs of fuel… internal. F-22 and F-35A have roughly 18000+ lbs of internal fuel (if I remember correctly the F-35A has about 500lbs more fuel than the F-22).
Drones are Chinese.
Crap range? Flankers.. Whether 27, 30 or 35 all are capable of a well over 2,000 miles radius
one of a kind pictures!! especially love the Mi-26 and An-72 shots … nicely done
For an old plane, the Su-27 (series) isn’t a bad looking machine. But I have some bad news for some of you. It will never look as good as this did:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14/f14_21.jpg
And I’m sorry. No plane ever will!
PS. The F-14B/D (GE F110 powered) would have waxed any Su-XX. Don’t argue, just accept is as FACT!
I think the F-14 is an ugly hanger queen. Sukhoi’s 27 family of aircraft is much prettier, especially in Astana blue.
But so what? What matters is not how pretty an airplane is, but how well it accomplishes its mission. If its mission is deterrence, then both the F-14 and Sukhoi’s jets were equally successful [pretty?] because they deterred a hot war between powerful adversaries.
I wish the An-74 was available in the west. It is a well designed short take-off light transport unlike any western counterpart.
Lucky for Sukhoi they never met.
While you have every right to consider the F-14 ugly, calling it a “hangar queen” betrays your ignorance. Im pretty sure that the F-14’s service and combat record (at least 4 air-to-air kills, countless bombing missions in 3 conflicts, and decades of keeping the US fleet safe from agression) speaks for itself. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of aviation would laugh at the suggestion that the F14 was a hangar queen.
Depends on how they use the term. Navy maintainers have always referred to the F-14 as hangar queens simply because of the maintenance and cost nightmares they were.
If he used it like it’s tossed around in civil aviation, to denote an aircraft that sits around, looks pretty/scary, and not much else, then that’s obviously false.
It’s perfectly “available”. Russia will sell to anyone with cash. Nobody wants it.
Where do you get that the AN-72/4 was/is great? It was built in very limited numbers and didn’t export well. There’s a reason nobody really flys it. It’s too small and too slow for military use. The US military experimented with it’s type (the YC-14 and YC-15) and decided it was a waste. The YC-15 turned into the C-X program which evolved in the C-17. The C-17 has almost identical STOL capabilities while being far faster, with a larger payload, inflight refueling, and longer range. The Coanda effect created by the wings and engine has been since deemed not worth the trade off and later variants have engines on pylons under the wings.
We get Su-25, Uzbekistan get Su-25. We get Su-27, Uzbekistan get Su-27. We get Su-30SM, Uzbekistan cannot afford! Great Success!