technically you still can. But you dont upgrade a dead fighter (ok F-5 in Iran is an exception ). Especially that you have a new one with perspective.
The only real difference between an Su-33 with Su-57 avionics and engines and radar etc, and an Su-57 is the latter has a stealthy design and internal weapons... if it is determined that new radars make radar stealth pointless then you save a lot of money putting Su-57 level equipment in the shell of an Su-33... they are cheaper and easier to make.
It is like a computer... modern ATX motherboards fit in ATX computer boxes from the late 1990s... you could buy a newer box, but at the end of the day the old big boxes have more internal space for extra things like water cooling systems and the like.
In fact a friend of mine had a mini tower desktop and his son (who was 3 years old) flicked the switch on the power supply from 240 volts to 110 volts. When he turned on the computer there was a flash of light and a puff of smoke and nothing. He was pissed off because the special power supply for the mini tower system he had would cost $700 to replace. As I said, though it was an ATX motherboard so a normal tower box including a new power supply ended up costing him about $110... and he just took all the bits out of his old computer and put them in the new box... it even had room for another DVD drive which he wanted but could not fit in his old mini tower box.
OK 70s looks cars look good and can drive with propper maintenance though most of people prefer to drive moderns ones.
Well that is the thing... old cars tended to look cooler but their handling and the quality of everything from brakes to headlights was usually pathetic... an old car shell with new powerful but fuel efficient engine and new modern brakes and headlights and electronics and you would sell a lot of cars to 40+ aged men... who like the old cars but don't have the hours to tinker and get a real old car working.
There was a time when you bought a brand new British car and after about 10,000km you had to redo the rings and bearings and replace all sorts of things... here in New Zealand we get second hand Jap imports and they are brilliant... warm comfortable reliable... I wouldn't touch a european or american car.
is being developed? In Us is also being developed new versions of BVAAM (longest existing AMRAAM AIM C-8 has range > 100nm)
Im not sure why do you think your enemy has inferior weapons? Isnt it better to assume they are more less on same level?
Their doctrine can be different true.
I am not making any assumptions about US weapons... I am saying that in addition to developing the Su-57, the Russians have been developing a new range of AAMs for that aircraft to use. These missiles wont be designed to be used against F-16s and F-15s... they will be intended to be used against F-22s and F-35s and indeed B-2s and later aircraft... so they will most likely be sensor fused seekers using optical and radar sensors for guidance... much like the Su-57 itself has several radar antenna in different bands, as well as EO systems in the form of an IRST as well as EO pods to detect targets... there is no point in developing sensors to detect stealth targets at 300km if you can't use missiles until they are within visual range.
Su-33 is dead. They need AWACS functionality but dont need Yak-44.
There is no Yak-44 anyway. And the Su-33 is perfectly fine... good range and wide range of AAM option and a new capability to use cheap dumb iron bombs to flatten mudhuts in third world countries... sounds rather better than an F/A-18 that would cost millions for each bomb that hits not that much more accurately...
Perhaps the best would be 200k tons with 200 fighters as it wont get via Panama Canal anyway.
They recently put into service a 200 trillion ton carrier... it can't leave the black sea but there is no way any NATO country could sink her... in fact they recently built a pier to improve supply and logistics to her... the road component is finished and working but the rail system wont be a go till next year...
ok so Su-33 is dead in current scenario. Great we agree. thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup AWACS functionality is needed, how it would be achieved this is another question thpugh.
If you add an AWACS support platform the Su-33 is perfectly adequate. The only thing that could be better would be a stealthy platform, but we really don't know yet the value of more stealth is... we do know the cost is reduced weapon capacity with internal weapons... or with external weapons when needed there is no stealth advantage but a huge cost in terms of purchase price and maintenance issues with a stealthy nonstealth aircraft.
ability to support own fleet you'd need to build 3. The bigger they are the less money you have for them.
Two new carriers is all they actually NEED. Emphasis on NEED.
They already have the Kuznetsov, which, with upgrades can be used to test new large radar and C4IR sets and equipment... two CVNs would be all they needed operationally... with their ice breaking capacity becoming quite extensive, they could have distribute the three carriers between the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet... with three carriers in an emergency they will always have two ships available and likely in refit... one will be near home port in training and one will be deployed on some operational mission like a visit to South America...
So the only difference between Air to Ground Missiles and Surface to Air Missiles is the Seeker, isn't it ? All other components more or less remain the same ?
Previously there was a lot of mixed use missiles... if you look at the AA-1 and the AS-7 and AS-10 and AS-12 the body shape is the same... with a rear facing antenna and side mounted rocket nozzles.
Pretty soon however, missiles started being custom designed for the role, so new shapes were developed to suit different purposes and different carriers.
Ironically now the requirements for small compact missiles for internal carriage on stealth aircraft and bombers has led to some crossover with compact missiles that are ground launched from tubes that have been made as compact as possible to allow multiple tubes per launcher.
The Kinzhal air to surface missile seems to just be a slightly modified Iskander surface to surface missile... and a new missile called 9M100 or Morfei is reported to be a small IIR guided missile for cross platforms intended to be fired from a ground vehicle, and a ship and an aircraft.
In the Army role it will be a point defence missile, while in the navy it will be a new CIWS missile, while the air force would use it in a range of roles... from internal weapon bay weapon for a stealth fighter, to self defence for bombers and helicopters and strike aircraft... possibly even an anti missile missile that could be used by otherwise unarmed aircraft to defend against SAMs and AAMs directed at them.
There has been talk of new AAMs based on the S-400 family of missiles including the two smaller missiles and the big missiles and one would assume if this is true there would be potential that they take this a step further and have an air launched S-500 for heavy interceptor aircraft and indeed anti satellite use... MiG-41???
(note a MiG-41 operating at 30km altitude at mach 4.2 with an S-500 missile should be able to target satellites in quite high orbits... and can be moved around Russian airspace rapidly to get a specific satellite quite easily...)