Russian Naval Aviation: News

LMFS wrote:The defense Ministry told about the modernization of the deck fighter su-33

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201903110119-lb54.htm

"The first round of upgrades done and now ready for a second, after which there will be increased engine power, improved detection systems, etc. su-33 will be truly multi-purpose",

They'll need a working carrier for it though.

I think he is referring the uncertain aspect of after the floating dock sunk. Little news since. Even though zvezda yard could handle it.

Russia already restarted production of new AL-31F3 engines for Su-33, so those engines will be installed. New engines are not the same as those from nineties, but upgraded as the new AL-31F engines, what means FADEC, lower fuel consumption, longer service life. Most probably they could also increase the power of engines. AL-31F3 is navalized engine with better anti corrosion protection. Regarding radar, there is a good question, if they will upgrade existing radar to N001VEP level or replace it with a new radar. Engines are strong enough to operate Bars-R radar from Su-30SM. I think there is enough space for it and that Bars-R os not that much heavier than old N001 radar. After all, Bars-R is PESA radar and far better than Zhuk-M radar in MiG-29K.

It is more than clear, that NAVY more prefer Su-33 than MiG-29K. But MiG-29K will be the one, which will operate from Kuz carrier. Modernization of Kuz is exactly for MiG-29K integration. Maybe just a small number of Su-33 will still serve on carrier, the rest will operate from ground airbases. They build airbases on Arctic islands and deep modernized Su-33 is the best fighter to operate there. It have stronger structure, better anti corosion protection, naval navigation complex for over the sea operations, folding wings for smaller shelters, etc.

I wonder what the updates for the Sukhois will be. Probably AL-41F1S TVC engines, maybe Irbis-E radar? Avionics should be revamped, probably unifying with Su-35S too? The resulting plane would be a naval fighter of serious capabilities.

Yeah, don't expect too much with the Russian Navy... they wont spend a lot of money on an upgrade to a fighter that will be land based for the next 2-3 years.

They could certainly spend a lot and make it a powerful fighter, but past experience suggests they just want a fighter that can reach out and touch and it can already do that pretty good.

It is more than clear, that NAVY more prefer Su-33 than MiG-29K.

Not sure how you can assert that... the Su-33s are getting an upgrade because they need one... MiG-29KR are not because they are still pretty much brand new...

It is amusing though because in the US Navy there was the same bickering regarding the F-14 and the F-18... same arguments... quite amusing... except in this case these two aircraft are of the same generation.

Aircraft one Mach: fighters induce hypersonic missiles

Navy pilots will be taught to share information about potential targets with each other, ships and headquarters in real time

The latest Russian missiles "Zircon", "Onyx" and "Caliber" will be aimed at the target deck fighters. Su-33 and MiG-29KR in real time will be able to transmit information about the likely enemy ships, ground bases and higher headquarters, as well as receive information from them, told "Izvestia" in the Ministry of Defense. Thanks to the new system, pilots will not only be able to hit air, sea and land targets on their own, but also direct cruise missiles to these objects. One fighter jet missile volley is capable of sending an enemy aircraft carrier to the bottom. The first phase of work will be completed at the end of this - the beginning of next year.

After the introduction of a new aviation system, sea fighters will become effective reconnaissance aircraft: they will be able not only to warn ships and air defense systems in advance about the appearance of an air enemy, but also to provide target indications for cruise missiles, S-400, S-500 air defense systems and naval anti-aircraft missiles. MiG-29KR and MiG-29KUBR have already received information exchange systems, the Su-33 is currently preparing for modernization, told “Izvestia” in the military department.

Full article
https://iz.ru/855829/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/avianosetc-odnim-makhom-istrebiteli-navedut-giperzvukovye-rakety

Well a floating carrier that operates along the northern route from the north sea fleet to the pacific fleet and back is an interesting idea... useful for training but also interesting because land based inflight refuelling aircraft could assist and support such aircraft too and extend their range along the northern Russian border.

An Su-33 with a Zircon missile could attack AEGIS class ships in the arctic out to useful distances too...

The fact is that they have them, so they might as well use them...

And with MiG unifying the design of the MiG-29KR and MiG-35 means as long as they keep producing MiG-35s they can relatively easily crank out more MiG-33s if they need any without the cost of having to set up production... a pretty clever idea...

Su-33 modernization now come to logical conclusion. In phase 2 Su-33 will get new build AL-31F series 3 engines with increased thrust, FADEC, longer service life and lower fuel consumption. They will be operational for another 20+ years without a problem. Radar will be upgraded to domestic N001VEP version like in Su-30M2 and Su-27SM3. Radar N001VEP track 10 targets and engage 4 targets simultaneously, but this is oftenly mixed with older N001VE radar, which could engage 2 targets simultaneously. Export N001VEP, like that in Venezuelan Su-30MK2 have a range of 300 km, could detect F-16A block 15 at 160 km and another Su-30 at 220 km. Domestic one is for sure more capable and have some additional modes of working comparing to export ones. I hope they will olso replace old IRST with newer one with TV channel and laser target designator. TV channel could be also used for longer range visual ID of target. New guided armament, like long range missiles KH-35U for anti-ship role and KH-59MK2 (older or newer stealth) for air to ground role with range of around 300 km, will give quite a long hand strike capabilities comparing to MiG-29K.

Maybe in phase 2 modernization, Su-33 cockpit will become more similar to the one in Su-30M2 or Su-27SM with two or three MFDs.

Yeah, you are ignoring that this is the Russian Navy we are talking about, and long range strike is not what their carriers are for.

In terms of strike, the original 1980s MiG-33 (MiG-29K) was fully multirole, and therefore capable of air to air as well as air to ground and air to sea operations with a wide range of guided weapons, but the Russian Navy rejected it for the Su-33 which had no guided air to ground or sea weapons... just basic AAMs and dumb unguided bombs and rockets... it was purely an air to air aircraft... and did not even include R-77 like the MiG-33 did, but it had long range and lots of external pylons to put AAMs on.

The Indian order for MiGs created an opportunity where they could piggyback an order for new model MiG-29KR aircraft, which were again called MiG-29Ks, but are totally different with a different base aircraft design unified between single and twin seat models, and completely upgraded avionics and systems... they just paid the production costs and avoided the setting up production and tooling costs, which were basically paid for by the Indian order.

Their problem of course is such small orders makes aircraft purchases enormously expensive... a bit like getting 6 cars made... it is quicker and easier and cheaper to custom make each one. You could set up a production line to build them much cheaper per car if you were making tens of thousands of them, but not for such a small amount.

That is why I suggest the future fighter from carriers should be also land based and widely produced to keep costs down... I mean they both basically do the same thing, but one does it from the middle of the ocean... STOL is useful, STOVL is expensive and unnecessary for land forces simply because any stretch of motorway will do...

Actually there is one difference between now and Soviet times. Back than they need good air to air fighter to protect naval operations with submarines over North Atlantic and Su-33 have longer range, radar with longer range and missiles R-27ER/ET with longer range, than MiG-29K.

Now the situation is different, as Arctic sea become more important because of northern sea route. Russia build and rebuild new whole year air bases in Arctic islands, where new multirole Su-33 is best suited for them. They will be supported by Il-78 fuel tankers to increase their range. Il-78 is also planed to be stationed in Zemlja Aleksandra islands together with a group of fighters. Su-33 will not only give long range air to air protection as this role will be shared with MiG-31BM in Arctic bases, but also air to sea patrols with anti-ship missiles and to support arctic brigades with air to ground strikes.

Role of carrier Kuznetsov in Northern Atlantic air defense will now become lower as they will be covered by Arctic islands air bases, so multirole MiG-29K/KUB would be good enough for them, specially as MiG-29K is smaller than Su-33 and could be easily whole squadron of 12 jets on the carrier and in need whole regiment with enough weapons to do their tasks. Carrier's role nove will be support of naval group on longer voyage or to increase Arctic protection, where needed.

Actually there is one difference between now and Soviet times. Back than they need good air to air fighter to protect naval operations with submarines over North Atlantic and Su-33 have longer range, radar with longer range and missiles R-27ER/ET with longer range, than MiG-29K.

Actually I would say not.

The Su-33 certainly has a bigger radar and better IRST than the MiG-29, but the MiG-29K had the more modern multifunction air to air and air to surface radar, and it also had the better IRST with the TV and laser range finder included... but most importantly of all the MiG-29K could carry R-77s as well as the E model R-27 missiles too, so in terms of air to air it was actually superior to the Su-33 as it also had rather better self defence avionics too.

Its main problems were it had less flight range/radius, and it was more expensive than its simple larger competitor.

Another difference from Soviet times is that their ships will now be carrying land attack weapons so any strikes will be carried out by cruise missiles rather than strike aircraft...

Now the situation is different, as Arctic sea become more important because of northern sea route. Russia build and rebuild new whole year air bases in Arctic islands, where new multirole Su-33 is best suited for them. They will be supported by Il-78 fuel tankers to increase their range. Il-78 is also planed to be stationed in Zemlja Aleksandra islands together with a group of fighters. Su-33 will not only give long range air to air protection as this role will be shared with MiG-31BM in Arctic bases, but also air to sea patrols with anti-ship missiles and to support arctic brigades with air to ground strikes.

Yeah, no, I think you are misinterpreting what they are doing... they don't have a lot of Su-33s and they are not likely to buy more.... if they want sophisticated Flankers to operate from airfields in the Arctic they will more likely be Su-30s and Su-35... if they ever had excess funding they would probably finance a few Su-32s.

Carrier's role nove will be support of naval group on longer voyage or to increase Arctic protection, where needed.

Eventually they were supposed to have two Mistral class helo carriers based in the Pacific fleet base... and I rather think the K would have provided air support for any mission they went on.

IMO the navy themselves are dispelling those doubts about strike role being required, and I am not even disputing that doing it 'USN-style' is not their primary goal at all. They want strike role for all their naval fighters and that is a fact, be it because of a doctrinal modification or simply because now the time is right to get such capacities at a relatively cheap price or because of re-deployment as medo submits. They are talking specifically about linking all their fighters and radars so that they can target enemy ships far from the fleet. They have talked about air launched versions of ASMs too. They are getting ready for naval battles where RuN sinks enemy vessels with direct participation of its naval aviation. And I don't see anything flawed in it to be honest, it is like having a battery tool and refusing to use it for drilling because you just want it to turn screws... bad used investment IMO.

You are confusing net centricity with an attack role... a MiG-29K flying on a CAP 500km away from the carrier group detects an incoming Tomahawk cruise missile and the ship that launched the missile... the MiG-29K transmits the information about both to the carrier group it is operating with but might not actually be flying around with an anti ship missile... in fact most likely not, so it will use a single AAM to shoot down the Tomahawk, but the data it sent back to the ships it is operating with leads a frigate within the group to launch an Onyx missile to fly to where the ship was detected and sink it... the fighter has not suddenly become a strike aircraft... the MiG-29K is a multirole fighter able to carry all sorts of air to ground ordinance, but it is becoming a recon JSTARS like platform now too passing information to the group for targeting by other platforms... the Ships and Subs will be the primary attack platforms... if that MiG detected 200 incoming Tomahawks then it could take down 8 perhaps, and his wingman and other two aircraft in the flight group 8 more each so 4 times 8 are 32, so the other 168 missiles are headed towards your ship... you might risk trying to shoot some down using cannon but the risk of the warheads exploding and destroying your MiGs means it makes rather more sense for them to climb and monitor the tomahawks and look for other lower RCS missiles and pass targeting data to S-400 systems on the ships... when they get within range the S-400 can start smacking down Tomahawks and newly launched MiGs from the carrier could also shoot some down too as they get close... The MiGs might climb and look for other enemy ships or enemy aircraft, but in general they would be heading back to their carrier to land and rearm when the replacement MiGs from the carrier arrive on station.

Besides look at the actual combat experiences. If you were a navy planer and look at your intended capabilities, you would necessarily see that despite all the air defence role, the type of mission that actually happened and can in fact happen relatively often is like the Syrian deployment. There naval fighters were actively used in strike role. It would be absurd to put 400 strike sorties on those airframes or include strike avionics in the Su-33 if such role was of no interest at all for the navy.

Yet the price of sending half a dozen aircraft deep into contested enemy air space risks hundreds of millions of dollars worth of aircraft... when an Onyx missile is much much cheaper, a Calibr missile has much better range, and neither need escorts or jammers.

Their might be situations where aircraft strike missions make sense, but most of the time a strike will be 20-30 land attack cruise missiles... you might send some fighters to provide cover from enemy aircraft interception, but I don't really see them risking aircraft in a strike like that... Zircon on the way and a mach 5 Onyx soon to be deployed... you might send an Su-33 or MiG-29K to look for targets and monitor the performance of the attack, but it looks pretty redundant to me... personally I would send a Yasen and attack from a different direction from where my carrier group is and launch a group of fighters towards the target from the wrong direction to distract the enemy... but I would think even an Onyx would be very hard to stop let alone a Zircon.

GarryB wrote:The Su-33 certainly has a bigger radar and better IRST than the MiG-29, but the MiG-29K had the more modern multifunction air to air and air to surface radar, and it also had the better IRST with the TV and laser range finder included... but most importantly of all the MiG-29K could carry R-77s as well as the E model R-27 missiles too, so in terms of air to air it was actually superior to the Su-33 as it also had rather better self defence avionics too.

Comparing to non modernized Su-33 absolutely correct. But now Su-33 will go through stage 2 modernization and its radar will be modernized to domestic N001VEP radar, the same as in Su-27SM3 or Su-30M2, which is in all parameters better than Zhuk-M in MiG-29K, although it still have old radar antenna. IRST could be easily replaced with the new one from Su-30SM or Su-35 and it is already fully networked with data link and IFDL to share informations for aerial, ground and sea targets, what we have seen in Syria. About self defense equipment they both have the same L-150 Pastel RWR and chaff and flare dispersers. Su-33 is already equipped with twin Sorbtsia-S ECM pods, but after stage 2 modernization, it could be equipped with newerm more capable Khibiny ECM pods.

Yeah, no, I think you are misinterpreting what they are doing... they don't have a lot of Su-33s and they are not likely to buy more.... if they want sophisticated Flankers to operate from airfields in the Arctic they will more likely be Su-30s and Su-35... if they ever had excess funding they would probably finance a few Su-32s.

And how many more MiG-29K they have comparing to Su-33? Russian NAVY is buying Su-30SM and they are standard ground based fighters. For now the groups in Arctic islads will be consisted by four fighters and they need 12 Su-33 to have 3 groups in 3 islands (Novaya Zemlya, Zemlya Aleksandra and Kotelny), while the rest are in reserve in Severomorsk base. In case of emergency, they could increase the number from reserve. Don't forget, that the same area will be covered by MiG-31BM and they could be as well stationed in Novaya Zemlya island. Carrier come and go, but groups based on islands will be constantly present snd will have support from A-50 AWACS, Il-78 refueling planes, Il-38ASW planes and Mi-8AMTSH-VA search and rescue helicopters as well as new ground based radar network.

Another difference from Soviet times is that their ships will now be carrying land attack weapons so any strikes will be carried out by cruise missiles rather than strike aircraft...

Actually they will use both plus strike helicopters like Ka-52K and UCAVs. Soviet NAVY actually never had real land attack capabilities beside nuclear ballistic missiles in submarines. Ships were armed only by anti-ship missiles and torpedoes, helicopters were armed for anti-sub operations and planes were mostly armed for air to air tasks (Yak-38, Su-33). Now Russian NAVY have full land attacl capabilities with ships armed with LACMs, multirole planes and helicopters, etc.

They have talked about air launched versions of ASMs too. They are getting ready for naval battles where RuN sinks enemy vessels with direct participation of its naval aviation. And I don't see anything flawed in it to be honest, it is like having a battery tool and refusing to use it for drilling because you just want it to turn screws... bad used investment IMO.

All their surface ships are becoming multirole because of their new systems and sensors and unified weapon launchers too, and I suspect occasionally they might find the use of aircraft for a strike mission might be useful, but I don't see them building 100K super carriers like the US... so while they will become multifunction aircraft I rather suspect the next gen fighters are going to act as much as recon and support aircraft as fighters... and likely UCAVs could carry the strike weapons against strong targets and Su-33s with dumb bombs will be used in Syria type conflicts where the actual enemy does not have open proxy support that could deal with that.

Carriers are for supporting surface ship operations and are primarily air to air in terms of fighters and AWACS type platforms...

“With the first phase of the modernization now complete, we are preparing for the second phase, centering on higher engine thrust, improved detection system, and the like so as to make the Su-33 a truly multi-role aircraft,” Major General Igor Kozhin, chief for aviation with the Russian navy, told journalists

Better detection systems and more engine thrust... that doesn't make it a better strike platform... it makes it better at detecting incoming threats like stealthy missiles, so you could say it has become a fighter/interceptor/recon aircraft that can shoot down threats but also detect threats for the battle management system to deal with.

It could always drop dumb bombs... so now it can very accurately drop dumb bombs too... not really suggesting they are going to use it as a substitute Su-34 or anything... the aircraft numbers on their carriers don't suggest enough for round the clock CAPs plus extra airframes available for strike missions and the various escort aircraft they would need to perform such strike missions.

About Brahmos:
"We are working on the missile’s light version. It should fit the size of a torpedo tube and be almost 1.5 times smaller by its weight. It will be possible to mount our airborne missile on a wide range [of aircraft]. Of course, we’ll be developing it, first of all, for the fifth-generation plane but, possibly, it will be mounted on the MiG-35 fighter, although we have not carried out such developments,"

That is an Indian programme, it is not necessarily true that the Russian Navy wants these...

The Brahmos is cleared for use on Su-30MKI, but are not cleared for use on other Flanker types AFAIK... simply because the Indians paid for them to be adapted and tested and the Russian military did not.

— The new system will help you correctly choose the tactics of attack used ammunition. In the absence of ammunition to pass the target to another plane, to "highlight" it for the cruise missiles, — told "Izvestia" Dmitry Boltenkov.

Arming and equipping naval aviation is given special attention. Arsenal MiG-29КР/KUBRA will soon join missiles X-31. "Thirty-first" will be able to impress not only the court and the ships of the enemy, but to destroy the coastal radar station. Thanks to the supersonic speed of Kh-31 is virtually invulnerable to air defense and in military slang was called "supersonic death". To send to the bottom of the carrier, only one missile volley of a link of fighters.

Thanks to the new system, pilots will not only be able to hit air, sea and land targets on their own, but also direct cruise missiles to these objects.

Most of the time MiG-29KR and Su-33 aircraft operating from carriers will be armed mostly with AAMs... at times of tension perhaps fully loaded with AAMs, but most of the time it will only be specific missions where they carry Kh-31 or other air to ground weapons, so most of the time they will detect threats and pass those targets on to ship based weapons.

Obviously if an attack is intended against a country the fighters could fly to the approaches of the coastal area of the target ingress routes of the cruise missiles to be fired from the sea and they might detect some SAM batteries or HQs or comms centres that they might launch Kh-31 or Kh-35 missiles against to make the later cruise missile attack from sea more effective, but why send aircraft when you can send hypersonic missiles into a defended air space, and if the air defence is weak or non existent then why not send subsonic Kalibr-M

So, naval aviation is not only to shoot down missiles or enemy air wing. It is there to attack both naval and land targets, as it is logical in order to effectively defend the fleet by eliminating the enabling means the opponent is using to attack you.

I would say more to detect all sorts of threats and shoot down air threats, and alert other platforms to other threats that they can deal with.

If a CAP is operating and detects an attack, then it will probably only be armed with AAMs so any air threats can be dealt with but the information they collect about the attacking force can be used to reformulate the weapons of the replacement fighters sent out to support them... so four Su-33s on a CAP each armed with 10 AAMs and two jamming pods might be able to take down quite a few incoming anti ship missiles, but detects a few small sized ships approaching or perhaps an island with a SAM battery, and further out a couple of large ships that launched the anti ship missiles and a few aircraft... so the Su-33s can relay all this information back to the carrier group and start engaging the aircraft and anti ship missiles, while another flight or two of fighters loads up with weapons... Kh-31s to engage the radars of the SAM, plus a mix of Kh-31s and Kh-35s to engage the small surface ships, plus air to air missiles to help deal with that threat and in case any more missiles or aircraft are launched... in the mean time the real threat of the bigger ships further out can be engaged with Zircon missiles to deal with the main long term threat to the Russian surface ships, while the aircraft look for threats and deal with any in air aircraft or incoming missiles and also any smaller ships approaching the Russian force.

In fact I think it is indeed a matter of price. Each Kalibr costs like $1 million, and they are huge and scarce on any fleet to sustain a campaign. Imagine price of Zircon. Compare it to dropping dumb bombs on ISIS from the navy's fighters, there is no way you can match the cost an effectiveness of the later with such expensive missiles. The evidence is clear, Russia has launched some dozens
Kalibr in separated occasions over the years in Syria yet carried out thousands of bombing sorties. That is what aircraft are there for in the end.

But lets be clear, sending a dozen aircraft in to hostile territory on the other side of the planet is a serious risk and I don't think sending a group of fighters together with bomb armed aircraft will be all that much cheaper than sending one cruise missile.

I suspect often HALE or MALE type armed drones will come in to their own if equipped with this high altitude bombing system.

The MiG-25 was expensive, but the drone that used one of its engines that could only be used once was not affordable and not sustainable...

An aircraft carrier could be a tool to increase the defence and situational awareness of a group of surface ships, but also carry reusable strike weapons... they might be manned fighter aircraft, but could just as easily be drones of a variety of potential types...

In the end is not my opinion on the matter what I try to convey but the simple facts that proof what RuN thinks about their strike capabilities. Regardless of what we think, they want it and are actively developing it.

But what are they trying to develop... everything is becoming multirole... fifth gen fighters are sometimes called omnirole because they perform all sorts of missions at once... and it is mentioned specifically that when sent out on a mission that any intel they collect makes them recon aircraft with their powerful sensor suite no matter what the purpose of the original mission actually was.

In a net centric force all the elements have a data collecting role as part of the team, but I would suggest that what they are wanting is not an Su-24 deep strike capacity with manned aircraft because they already have a deep strike capacity with missiles that is only going to become more impressive over time.

If they can't afford Kalibre missiles then why are their new ships carrying so many UKSK launch tubes.

I would suggest what they want is the equivalent of MiG-31 and Su-27 for the PVO supported by ship based SAMs and ship and sub based attack missiles for long range attack/strike instead of Su-34. For shorter range or surprise threats they have tactical air to surface weapons like the Kh-31 and Kh-35 and probably Kh-38 as well... but I suspect only very occasionally will they drop bombs from manned aircraft... bombs from UCAVs would be even cheaper... with fighter escort would be more secure too.

Comparing to non modernized Su-33 absolutely correct. But now Su-33 will go through stage 2 modernization and its radar will be modernized to domestic N001VEP radar, the same as in Su-27SM3 or Su-30M2, which is in all parameters better than Zhuk-M in MiG-29K, although it still have old radar antenna.

Are you suggesting they have updated the Su-33, but that the MiG-29K is the same aircraft from the late 1980s?

IRST could be easily replaced with the new one from Su-30SM or Su-35 and it is already fully networked with data link and IFDL to share informations for aerial, ground and sea targets, what we have seen in Syria.

Everything could be replaced to make it an Su-57, but it isn't and that is the issue... now, near the end of the operational life of the Su-33 it is getting an upgrade... to make it as good as the MiG-29K they didn't buy in the 1990s...

About self defense equipment they both have the same L-150 Pastel RWR and chaff and flare dispersers. Su-33 is already equipped with twin Sorbtsia-S ECM pods, but after stage 2 modernization, it could be equipped with newerm more capable Khibiny ECM pods.

Are you suggesting the MiG-29 can't use ECM pods?

What else could they do to this plane that they have never bothered to do with it before?

And how many more MiG-29K they have comparing to Su-33?

The MiG-35 is in production... they can make as many as they want without having to pay for tooling and production start up...

Russian NAVY is buying Su-30SM and they are standard ground based fighters. For now the groups in Arctic islads will be consisted by four fighters and they need 12 Su-33 to have 3 groups in 3 islands (Novaya Zemlya, Zemlya Aleksandra and Kotelny), while the rest are in reserve in Severomorsk base.

Hang on... first you say the Navy ground based fighter is the Su-30 and then you talk about land based Su-33... so which is it?

Fighter groups on three islands would mean you would need rather more than 12 aircraft... a fighter group of four aircraft would be pretty bloody useless in a 24/7 operational tempo... you would at least need three groups on each island for three shifts to operate three 8 hour shifts a day so one shift was always ready... so that means a bare minimum of 36 aircraft for three islands.

The other aspect is that even despite these minor upgrades... the Su-30 is a rather much better and more modern and capable aircraft than any model Su-33 and the folding wings and tail hook are completely irrelevant for island basing... the Su-30s will be in much better airframe condition with much younger aircraft and the capacity to produce a couple more if needed, whereas there are no new production Su-33s and not much chance of any in the future, so it makes rather more sense to keep the existing Su-33s in training in the black sea area using the Nitka training facilities while the K is in dock and put them back on the ship when it is back in the water because if you use up the air frame hours of the SU-33s in the far north then you will only have MiG-29Ks left to operate from the K when it is back in the water.

In case of emergency, they could increase the number from reserve.

In case of an emergency in the north they could send Su-35s and any Su-57s they might have in service... why use Su-33s as a fire brigade... they are not the best they can send.

Carrier come and go, but groups based on islands will be constantly present snd will have support from A-50 AWACS, Il-78 refueling planes, Il-38ASW planes and Mi-8AMTSH-VA search and rescue helicopters as well as new ground based radar network.

Indeed when when the carrier is available only the MiG-29K and Su-33 can operate from her... when it is not there Su-30 and other flanker types offer better performance than any upgraded or not upgraded Su-33.

Soviet NAVY actually never had real land attack capabilities beside nuclear ballistic missiles in submarines. Ships were armed only by anti-ship missiles and torpedoes, helicopters were armed for anti-sub operations and planes were mostly armed for air to air tasks (Yak-38, Su-33).

Primary armament of the Yak-38 was rocket and gun pods, AA-8 AAMs, and AS-7 Kerry air to surface missiles.

Main Soviet Navy strike power was Su-17 and Su-22 to provide air support for landings... but it was not very convincing.

Now Russian NAVY have full land attacl capabilities with ships armed with LACMs, multirole planes and helicopters, etc.

Indeed, multirole aircraft and ships and subs... but if they wanted to use air power for their primary strike role against land and sea targets, then why all those UKSK launchers on everything from corvettes and up?

Why convert all anti ship missiles to add land attack capability if they want to use aircraft with dumb bombs?

Garry, there is a reason, why Russian MoD more prefer Flankers than Fulcrums. No one ever said, that Su-33 will be a substitute for Su-34. Russian NAVY said, it will be modernized to the level of Su-30, i.e. true multi-role fighter. Major General Kozhin clearly said, that radar will be ugraded to the level of domestic N001VEP, like the one in Su-27SM3 and Su-30M2, which are true multi-role fighters with all needed air to air, air to sea and air to ground modes. Su-27SM3 is better than MiG-29SMT and naval MiG-29K is on the level of MiG-29SMT as it use the same Zhuk-M radar, IRST and self defense equipment. Early MiG-29 didn't have any ECM equipment, only with MiG-29S they got Gardenia ECM. It is true, that Russia tested SAP-418 ECM pod for MiG-29, but up to now, non of MiG-29 have any ECM pod, while Flankers got Sobrtsia-S and now even more capable Khibiny pods, as you could see on Su-27SM3.

Yes, Navy is receiving Su-30SM, but it is the same as those for air force, so mostly for continental operations. They are there for defense of naval bases, not for long range over the sea patrols. For this job is Su-33 and this is the difference between Su-33 and other Flankers. Naval navigation and special maritime anti-corosion protection of the plane and engines. For better understanding you could look at other big user of Flankers - China. China produce J-11B in two version. J-11B for air force and J-11BH for NAVY. Difference between them is exactly in that anti-corosion protection and maritime capabilities and same difference will be between air force J-16 and naval J-16. Russian Arctic islands bases could be easily compared with Chinese bases on their artificial islands in South China Sea. In both cases fighters will do long range over the sea patrols, so they have to be naval variants. Actually if you look at Chinese Su-30, you could see, that air force use Su-30MKK and NAVY use Su-30MK2, which not only have more capable N001VEP radar with air to sea modes, but also additional anti corosion protection and navigation like that one on Su-33, as it was requested by Chinese NAVY. Similar are Vietnam Su-30MK2, which are also used for maritime patrols over South China Sea islands.

> VMF wants multirole aircraft that valid for A2A and A2S/A2G roles, that is the core of my point. It is not aircraft excluding LACMs or viceversa, they will be used complementary depending on the mission and theater.

Right now the situation is that they want the land based equivalent: MiG-29SM and Su-27SM that can fight aircraft and hit ground targets with tactical weapons like Kh-31 and Kh-35, while long range targets will be hit with heavier deep strike aircraft like Su-34 and Tu-22M3M... the difference is that while the Su-33 and MiG-29K are the equivalent of the SM modified land based aircraft they have no long range strike aircraft alternative away from Russian air space, so the deep strike... the sort of strike the US uses its 100K carriers for, will be carried out with cruise missiles in the Russian Navy.

The multi role performance they are talking about will mostly be air to air first, and recon second... with a backup air to surface role if they know in advance what is happening... most of the time they will be CAP equipped and the next wave might have other air to ground weapons, but the first responders might have been in the air for a while so they will be armed with a lighter AA loadout, rather than lugging around heavier air to ground weapons just in case... and in that situation the first aircraft there will be used against air threats and will pass details of air and surface threats to follow up forces.

Any deep strike mission will be missile based most likely.

> The point of using the air wing relies not on it being manned or not, or A2A or A2G, it relies on platforms being reusable, that is where cost reduction and flexibility comes from IMO.

Obviously it depends on the target and who is helping them, but most of their best land attack weapons will either be stealthy subsonic long range, or very high speed long range, so the need for cheap simple strike capabilities appears on paper to be an Su-33 with iron bombs at 10km altitude where the target has no major SAMs or air force... except if that is the case then a lighter smaller semi stealthy platform that can carry dumb bombs and uses the same avionics systems for accuracy make even more sense... a 15 ton unmanned aircraft with one engine that can fly at 950km/h, but can carry 3 tons of dumb bombs up to a 3,500km radius at 10-15km altitude all the way and then land on a carrier would be much much cheaper still if you could reuse it hundreds of times...

And not risk pilots over enemy territory... a lightly armed model could be used for recon, while a version with loads of AAMs could be launched towards incoming anti ship missile threats and just be a missile carrier that datalinks with a fighter and launches its missiles at targets the fighter indicates, so the fighter can engage dumb targets like Tomahawk or Harpoon missiles while retaining its own AAMs in case enemy fighters appear.

Garry, there is a reason, why Russian MoD more prefer Flankers than Fulcrums.

What they prefer is irrelevant... what they have is some old fairly worn Su-33s that seriously needed upgrades and now are actually getting them, and some practically brand new MiG-29KRs that don't need upgrades to act all net centric like F-35s can and other western fighters can't.

Su-27SM3 is better than MiG-29SMT and naval MiG-29K is on the level of MiG-29SMT as it use the same Zhuk-M radar, IRST and self defense equipment.

The MiG-29KR is based on the MiG-35 and could be upgraded with any of the systems used in that aircraft, which means if they wanted they could upgrade it to 95% of Su-35 level if they wanted.

Early MiG-29 didn't have any ECM equipment, only with MiG-29S they got Gardenia ECM. It is true, that Russia tested SAP-418 ECM pod for MiG-29, but up to now, non of MiG-29 have any ECM pod, while Flankers got Sobrtsia-S and now even more capable Khibiny pods, as you could see on Su-27SM3.

Up to now the Su-33 hasn't had ECM pods either... do you think they will upgrade their Su-33s with ECM pods... the MiG-29KR has ECM capability... it is the Su-33 that hasn't up until now so about time they fixed their favoured child...

Yes, Navy is receiving Su-30SM, but it is the same as those for air force, so mostly for continental operations. They are there for defense of naval bases, not for long range over the sea patrols. For this job is Su-33 and this is the difference between Su-33 and other Flankers. Naval navigation and special maritime anti-corosion protection of the plane and engines. For better understanding you could look at other big user of Flankers - China. China produce J-11B in two version. J-11B for air force and J-11BH for NAVY. Difference between them is exactly in that anti-corosion protection and maritime capabilities and same difference will be between air force J-16 and naval J-16. Russian Arctic islands bases could be easily compared with Chinese bases on their artificial islands in South China Sea. In both cases fighters will do long range over the sea patrols, so they have to be naval variants. Actually if you look at Chinese Su-30, you could see, that air force use Su-30MKK and NAVY use Su-30MK2, which not only have more capable N001VEP radar with air to sea modes, but also additional anti corosion protection and navigation like that one on Su-33, as it was requested by Chinese NAVY. Similar are Vietnam Su-30MK2, which are also used for maritime patrols over South China Sea islands.

So what are you trying to say... the Russian Navy are fucking idiots and are buying Su-30SMs for the job of long range patrol missions over sea water but because they are too stupid to get them with corrosion resistance they can't actually use the Su-30s they bought for the role and will have to use Su-33s instead?

Corrosion resistance and good navigation equipment can be applied to any upgrade or new build aircraft... aircraft operating from arctic islands make more sense to be land based unless you are suggesting they are based on islands and fly out to carriers operating in the arctic ocean and then fly back.

It is pretty obvious that if the Su-33s are going to operate in the Russian navy and be useful they need serious upgrades because right now they could detect enemy aircraft or incoming missiles but would have not much chance of detecting ships or threats on land... which means they would be fine in their primary role of defending the fleet, but bloody useless in collecting information on the enemy.

Carrying around air to surface missiles is not good because they are generally heavy and large so they shorten flight range and speed and there are limits as to what payload or more accurately what weights it can safely land at... you don't want to have to dump expensive air to ground missiles so you can land safely... so 90% of the time they will operate with AAMs and targeting pods and jamming pods. Once a threat is detected it can look for all sorts of targets and if a range of radars are detected near the shore it might make sense to send some more fighters with AAMs and ARMS, or even a load of Hermes air to ground missiles... but anything serious is more likely to be engaged with cruise missiles.... with those Su-33s and MiG-29KRs monitoring with radar and IRST etc.