Against a formation of rafale of f-35 they will be falling from skies like moskitos.
The Su-33s massively out range both those types, and will be operating over Russian ships with Russian air defence systems.
An F-35 can carry how many AMRAAMs and how many Sidewinders?
Su-33s do have modern self defence avionics pods which will likely render AMRAAMs ineffective, have never seen any but would assume on the rear centreline pylon they could also carry pods with towed decoys and jammers as well... but how is F-35 going to deal with the missiles Su-33s launch at them?
An unknown really but you claim it will be like mosquitoes... you do understand mosquitoes probably kill more humans than humans have killed humans...
But why would it matter because any Rafale or F-35 shoots down one Su-33 then the ship it was operating from will get a Zircon up its arse and the entire flight of Rafales and F-35s already in the air had better learn to swim.
The boilers were changed before Syria. They changed only half of them. I don't see why only half would need to be change when the other half worked just the same time as the ones that needed to be changed so they were in the same shape. All of them should have been replaced.
Maybe you answered your own question... if they only changed half of them before Syria then that is perhaps because only half of them needed replacing as opposed to a clean up and overhaul.
Wasn't replacement of half the boilers part of what they did after they got it into dry dock after the adventure in Syria... which suggests all the boilers have been replaced with new ones?
We know :
-2 fighters lost.
-Arresting wires destroyed.
-Aviation operated from ground
-The ship was send for major upgrade at its return.
Nothing positive was learned.
What did you learn if I may ask ?
Two fighters were lost and that was not good. Arresting wires are trivial expendable nothings... don't give them a second thought... would be worrying about lost external drop tanks.
The problem they had was that they were in Syria to test new ideas and practise ground strikes and their arrester gear mechanism is broken and would need to get into dry dock to fix, so they changed plans... which is what you would expect from a military force with a job to do. Not beign able to operate aircraft from the carrier deck is no big deal... the aircraft on the ship could still take off and complete their mission, they would just have to recover to a land airfield and operate from their in future.
The upgrade after Syria experience was planned in advance because there were a few issues with propulsion with that ship that were ongoing, they replaced half the boilers before the operation and may have replaced the remaining boilers afterwards.... it doesn't matter... launching strikes into Syria did not involve steaming at full speed anywhere anyway.
They used the ship operationally... they received intel information on targets and they launched strikes on those targets and they followed those strikes up with recon missions to determine the results of the strikes... like they would if they were in the Falklands or Somalia or Yemen or anywhere else they might want to intervene.
It was excellent experience... the fact that they didn't launch and recover from the carrier is a meaningless technicality... once that is fixed it should be fine.
The reverse would be catastrophic... they could launch planes and recover them fine but couldn't find targets or attack them... that was the test and that is what they were trying out... to see if the C4IR system worked for the Kuznetsov... and it did... but it doesn't have super planes on it... well MiG-29KRs are actually pretty good and stack up quite well against any other operational carrier plane anywhere in the world.
Then they choosed to send a non fonctional carrier in Syria.
It wasn't me.
They struck something like 1,400 terrorist targets in Syria... the Kuznetsov has done more to defeat terrorism in the Middle East than the entire French Navy...
Su 33 sucks big time. That's why the Russian Navy opted for the Mig 29K.
You do understand that the Su-33 has a blind bombing system installed that allowed it to hit terrorist targets in Syria from 10,000m with dumb iron bombs with the precision an F-35 would get with guided weapons for 10,000 times the cost... but then of course the F-35s would be helping child killing terrorists, not bombing them.
Su-33 is generation behind F-35 Navy.
Just like the F-18 is, and the funny thing is that the Su-33 is a generation ahead of the F-14 which is better than the Hornet and the F-35.
Mig 29K sucks too. Old engine. Average EW system. Lack of BVR missiles.
The MiG-29KR has a new engine, an excellent EW system and can carry any of Russians latest AAMs including the R-37M which I believe out ranges any western AAM by a significant margin.
Even half wit Indians have realized it. So they are in the market looking for a new carrier based fighter.
Your respect for the people of India aside, only pro American posters have been talking about India buying hornets or F-35s.
US congressmen have told India they have to stop buying Russian planes and SAMs if they want US stuff and they just bought some more MiGs and Sukhois.... you work out the math...
And you dare saying I'm talking like an amateur.
Do you understand the meaning of the word... you are either an amateur or you are paid... you know... like a troll is...
I said unless they upgrade it to su-35 level the su-33 sucks.
They have upgraded it, but there is no point in giving them a full Su-33 upgrade any time soon because when they do start spending money on their carriers it is likely they will operate with Su-57 and MiG-35s on their carriers.
They seem to agree with me since they send it for a major upgrade after Syrian fiasco.
If the ship was so good like you say they would have send it off Venezuela.
The upgrade after Syria was planned years in advance... it does not take three years to rebuild an arrester gear gearbox, and that was the only fault, yet they replaced more boilers didn't they and from the last report are doing a lot more than cosmetic shit.
Mention of an electronics upgrade and new portable catapult system or some such thing... a lot of work for something they think is useless and are going to get rid of... oops, no, that is what you think... they seem to want to keep it.
Su-33 got minor upgrades and is not produced anymore. It has no future.
What do you mean any more... they were only produced in one batch.
They are a fighter... they don't need a lot of upgrades.
Scrapping means no carrier which also means they will pay lot of money to get back that capability.
But if it is a disaster from which there can be no recovery or redemption why keep pissing money down a bottomless pit?
Major upgrade means having a nice carrier.
WHAT... PD and RTN will stop liking you for that sort of heresy...
They went with the 2nd option and failed. Now they are going with the 3rd option.
The K was in dock getting repairs when the opportunity to go to Syria presented itself... do you not think they might have decided to take it out of drydock to go and test it in a situation they might never get another chance to test it in and finish the upgrade and repair later?
I mean apart from the arrester gear problem it didn't have any other issues, but you still berate it as inferior to anything China or India have....
From what we saw it is a failure. Sure they learned some interesting things but at the end they surely were not happy with the results.
If you take away the failure of the arrester gear and look at everything else where did it fail... it completed missions and killed terrorists... good that one nation wants to get rid of people who cut peoples heads off, though I understand it doesn't really effect France so why would their military get involved... except to launch cruise missiles at the people fighting the terrorists of course.
Secondly, when talking about the air wing, you forget that Kuznetsov carries another 12 units:
Yes, Mach 2 sea skimming strike aircraft...
On the topic of Russia every fucking westerner is the final authority and they all claim that Russia = fail. This sort of
brain damage is why we have never ending drang nach osten.
Because western "experts" think carriers are strike platforms, while for the Kuztnesov it is a very secondary capability.
If they wanted it to be a strike carrier then they would have picked MiG-29Ks the first time round as they were fully multi role fighter bombers, while the Su-33 is a fighter interceptor. With upgrades it got a blind bombing capability with cheap dumb bombs which was successfully tested in Syria BTW.
Those people sent this ship for an upgrade after the fiasco in Syria. What don't you understand ?
The ship was sent from an upgrade to Syria to test it and it was always going back to the dry dock afterwards... or do you think they need a dry dock to replace arrester gear gearboxes?
Su-33 is outdated and they have 5 or 6 level of sukhoi aircraft above them. They suck.
As a medium range fighter air component operating above the equivalent of a Russian Armys air defence system it does not need to a be a super plane.
They are buying mig-29Kr to replace them.
Not enough to replace.
Those are facts. Not my opinion.
So in your opinion and based on your facts the things wrong with the Kuznetsov is the arrester gearbox and the Su-33.
Which of those can be fixed in dry dock?
rd-33mk is a heavy upgrade and besides Indians bashing it lately i have read thst it is a solid engine.
The Chinese seem to like it... in the RD-93 version with the gearbox moved they use it in their JF-17, so they must have some trust in it being a single engined aircraft...
Daesh gets F-35s and its own Ford class aircraft carriers perhaps such comparisons will have a tinge of meaning.
Don't say that... it could be creepy joes policy.... his version of Hilarys no fly zone bullshit.[/quote]