How Ukraine is transforming its Su-27s into Western weapons platforms: tablets, adapted pylons, JDAM-ER, HARM, and electronic warfare against the S-400.
In summary
Ukraine is not modernizing its Su-27s in the same way that Western aircraft are modernized. It is repurposing them. Soviet airframes designed in the 1980s are becoming NATO weapons carriers thanks to workarounds: tablet interfaces, external computers, minimal wiring, and adapted pylons. The result: Flankers capable of carrying AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles, JDAM-ER glide bombs, and even ADM-160 MALD decoys to saturate Russian air defenses structured around the S-400. But this graft remains incomplete: no native data fusion, degraded user manuals, dependence on GPS, risk of jamming, and reduced margins on payload safety. The debate over a supposed “ADAM” sequel illustrates the gray area between tinkering, innovation, and operational secrecy. The real lesson lies elsewhere: rapid integration is paramount, and ‘closed’ architecture is no longer a protection. It becomes a cost, paid for in improvisation, testing, and more demanding piloting for already scarce crews.
The context that created a ‘Franken-Flanker’
The nickname Franken-Flanker is not a matter of vanity. It describes a reality of war. Ukraine had to quickly create capabilities that it did not have the luxury of waiting for. The promised Western fighter jets were slow to arrive. Stocks of compatible Soviet ammunition are running low. And Russian air defenses force strikes to be carried out from a distance, using guided weapons, at the risk of losing aircraft and pilots.
In this context, the Su-27 Flanker offers a paradoxically interesting basis. The aircraft is old, but it was designed to carry heavy loads, fly fast, and maintain energy during maneuvers. Its size and hardpoints allow it to carry significant external loads. Above all, Ukraine already has the tools, teams, and maintenance reflexes associated with this family of aircraft.
The key point is that the transformation does not involve “clean” modernization in the industrial sense. It involves grafting. The avionics are not being rebuilt. The obstacle is circumvented by accepting degraded operating modes. It’s crude, but effective when the goal is to create strike capability in weeks, not years.
The Su-27 airframe and its hidden limitations
The Su-27 is an air superiority fighter, designed for escort and interception. Its dimensions give an idea of the physical margin available: approximately 21.9 m (71 ft 10 in) long, 14.7 m (48 ft 3 in) wingspan, and a maximum speed of around Mach 2.35, or nearly 2,500 km/h (1,553 mph). Its operational ceiling is often given as around 18,500 m (60,700 ft). These figures are still impressive. But they don’t tell the whole story.
The limit in 2026 is not the airframe. It is the brain. The Su-27 was designed according to Soviet logic, where weapons, sensors, and displays communicate via internal standards that are often poorly documented outside the original industrial chains. This is not “bad.” It is consistent with an era and an ecosystem. But it complicates the integration of Western weapons, which generally rely on digital exchanges, software libraries, data buses, and formal validation chains.
Add another factor. In peacetime, weapons integration is controlled by ground tests, separation campaigns, stress measurements, and electromagnetic verification. In wartime, the scope is reduced. The essentials are retained: carry, trigger, survive, and repeat.
The principle that allows the original avionics to be bypassed
The core of the method consists of decoupling Western weapons from Soviet computers. Instead of requiring full integration into the mission computer, an external “island” is created. It takes over what the aircraft cannot do.
This is where three building blocks come in, simple on paper but difficult in reality: a closed Soviet architecture to bypass, a tablet interface to give the pilot a modern control layer, and custom-made pylons to carry the weapon and provide the minimum necessary power and signals.
The role of the external computer and added display
A modern aircraft can display dedicated pages, manage weapon parameters, and communicate precisely with the ammunition. A Su-27 does not natively “know” NATO ammunition. The solution is therefore to display it elsewhere. An added tablet or screen can be used to prepare the mission, select simplified modes, confirm settings, and guide the pilot on navigation points associated with the use of the weapon.
The nuance is essential. A tablet does not transform the Su-27 into an F-16. It replaces part of the ergonomics and firing preparation. It is less elegant, but it works if we accept more rigid usage scenarios: pre-planned targets, constrained drop profiles, and limited feedback.
The reality of mechanical and safety constraints
The other half of the problem is mechanical. A weapon is not just an “attached object.” It imposes forces, modifies aerodynamics, creates separation risks, and can interfere with sensors. Pylon adaptations must comply with weight, drag, vibration, and safety margins.
In several cases observed, the advantage lies precisely in modularity. The same adapted pylon can accommodate several families of Western weapons, provided that the mechanical part is standardized and the avionics interface requirements are limited.
Choosing HARM, or the art of silencing air defenses
The integration of the AGM-88 HARM marked a turning point. Because the mission is simple to state: target a radar emission. Because the desired effect is not only destruction. It is constraint. To force a radar to shut down, to move, to lose the initiative. In short: to create a window.
The HARM is designed to suppress air defenses. On a Western platform, it can be used with a high degree of precision, interacting with radar warning receivers, threat libraries, and advanced modes. On the Su-27, its use is more crude. US officials have explained that the adaptation took weeks to months, and that Ukraine did not obtain the full capabilities that a Western fighter would offer. This frankness is important. It avoids the myth of the perfect transplant.
In practice, the operational benefit is clear. The HARM is used as much to “punish” as to “push.” When it is fired, the ground operator understands that he no longer has time to “hold the antenna” for long. The benefit is indirect. Other weapons are more effective. Reconnaissance drones work longer. Precision strikes gain a few minutes of breathing room.
The shift to gliding bombs and the JDAM-ER logic
The integration of the JDAM-ER illustrates another philosophy. Here, it is not a question of reacting to radar. It is a question of striking a target. A JDAM is a GPS/INS guidance kit mounted on a conventional bomb. The “ER” version adds a wing kit. Boeing reports a demonstrated performance of over 40 nautical miles, or more than 74 km (46 mi). Open sources related to the conflict often cite a range of around 72 km (40 mi) depending on the profile.
For a Su-27, the advantage is obvious. The aircraft can remain at a relative distance, drop the bomb at the appropriate altitude and speed, and then disengage. It does not need to illuminate the target with a laser. It does not need continuous targeting. On the other hand, good preparation is required beforehand. The coordinates must be reliable. GPS synchronization must be accurate. And one must accept sensitivity to jamming and signal degradation, a factor that is particularly present in the Ukrainian theater.
The result resembles a form of “poor cruising.” Not in a pejorative sense, but in a pragmatic sense. A remote strike capability is created that is more accessible than a cruise missile but less flexible than a modern aircraft with a complete targeting chain.
The return of decoys, a modest weapon and a modern idea
The appearance of the ADM-160 MALD on Ukrainian fighters, including the Su-27, is another marker. The MALD is not there to explode on a target. It is there to deceive. Raytheon describes a range of approximately 500 nautical miles, or about 926 km (575 mi), for some versions. The idea is to saturate enemy sensors, simulate signatures, and force reactions.
In an integrated air defense system, the most dangerous surface-to-air missile is not always the one that fires. It is the one that forces the adversary to reveal itself. A well-used decoy can trigger radars, activate chains of command, and consume resources. It can also serve as a “spearhead” to open a corridor for other munitions.
The interest from a “Franken-Flanker” perspective is also industrial. Public images and analyses suggest that the MALD can be carried on a suitable pylon already used for other Western munitions. In other words, once the “base” for carrying it has been created, the catalog can be expanded.
The S-400 defense system and the real difficulty of jamming
The discussion on electronic warfare always comes back to the same fantasy: “we’ll jam the S-400 and get through.” The reality is harsher. The S-400 is a multi-layered system. Credible open sources describe a range of missiles, including the 40N6, announced for engagements up to 400 km (216 nmi), the 48N6 around 250 km (135 nmi), and shorter missiles such as the 9M96. These figures are theoretical maximums. They do not guarantee a maximum range shot on a maneuvering target at low altitude. But they structure the pilot’s mental space. They encourage flying low, masking oneself, reducing exposure time, and favoring long-range weapons.
Jamming a modern system is not a matter of “pressing a button.” It requires knowledge of the threat, its frequencies, modes, acquisition logic, and resilience. Above all, it requires surviving long enough for the jamming to take effect. In Western aircraft, these functions are integrated, tested, and coupled with the warning system. On Su-27s, adding a jamming pod is possible in theory. In practice, it requires electrical power, cooling, electromagnetic compatibility, mechanical integration, and viable pilot ergonomics.
The political nature of pods and threat libraries
This is where technology meets politics. Electronic warfare pods are among the most sensitive pieces of equipment a country possesses. They reveal methods. They sometimes contain libraries and signals which, if captured, become gifts for the adversary.
This is also why many elements remain opaque. The weapons visible under the wings can be photographed.
The jamming parameters, however, remain secret. When rumors mention a “French” or “British” pod on a Soviet aircraft, a simple question must be asked: who is taking the industrial and political risk of seeing this technology fall intact into the hands of the other side?
The ADAM story, between clandestine marketing and operational reality
The term ADAM (Advanced Digital Attack Modification) is used as a convenient label. It gives a proper name to a real phenomenon: the grafting of a Western digital layer onto a Soviet platform. But in open sources, there is currently no officially documented program under this name, with a technical data sheet, a clear scope, and identified equipment.
This vagueness is not a minor detail. It says something about modern warfare. Many useful innovations are not “programs.” They are sets of solutions. Workshops, mixed teams, interfaces, machined parts, rapid validations. Improvement comes through iteration. A weapon works. We make it work “better.” Another one arrives. We connect it to the same base.
If we had to describe what such a “kit” might contain, it would be less spectacular than the story. It would not transform the cockpit into a fifth-generation aircraft. Above all, it would add:
- a planning and display layer separate from the original avionics, which is more flexible and quicker to modify;
- minimal interfaces to trigger use, rather than to optimize all modes;
- gradual standardization of adapted payloads to expand the ammunition portfolio.
The sticking point would remain the same. The more detailed the integration, the more exposure to long testing cycles, security risks, and software dependencies. Ukraine has chosen the opposite approach: imperfect capability, but available capability.
The cold lesson of this Western transplant onto a Soviet aircraft
The operational conclusion is not that “old aircraft are sufficient.” It is the opposite. Old aircraft are expensive as soon as they are asked to play a modern role. They are expensive in terms of engineering. They are expensive in terms of pilot workload. They cost in terms of operational limitations. But they offer one huge advantage: they already exist, and they already fly.
The “Franken-Flanker” is therefore a lesson in tempo. In a war where range and precision dominate, an air force cannot wait for the perfect aircraft. It must build strike chains with what it has, then refine them. It is also a lesson in architecture. What was once called “proprietary architecture” is now becoming a strategic weakness. Not because it is bad, but because it slows down integration.
And that is perhaps the ultimate irony. The Su-27 was designed to take on the West. Forty years later, it is being used to fire Western weapons against Russian defenses. This reversal is not romantic. It is simply logical. War rewards those who shorten the chain between idea and effect.
Live a unique fighter jet experience