Is the su-33 available for export and what makes it different from su-27 and su-30?
The Su-33 was essentially an Su-27 with air to air capability but iron bomb and unguided rocket only capability... just like the original Su-27s.
It was modified to detect and shoot down targets over water and had R-27 and R-27E missiles optimised for engaging targets over water for that purpose.
I have read they also had compatibility with the Kh-31 missile intended for anti ship use but have never seen that confirmed.
Otherwise increased strength undercarriage and folding wings and horizontal tail surfaces allow it to fit into spaces not much bigger than a folded MiG-33, and of course the tail hook.
Recently they have had some upgrades, reportedly with the Gefest & T bombing system, and there may have been other upgrades, likely including R-77 compatibility... but they haven't been built for a rather long time and their upgrades are primarily based around adding minor unguided air to ground capacity and expanding its air to air capacity, because it is primarily a fighter.
The original Su-30 was just an Su-27UB two seat Su-27, but the Su-30 family have been upgraded into fully multirole fighter bombers and the Su-27SM3 aircraft have also been adapted to carry a range of guided air to ground munitions... the Su-33 is very basic in that regard because it is a fighter, that is what they want their carriers for... air defence.
Note they rejected the fully multirole MiG-33 because it cost more than the Su-33 and had less flight range and payload capacity and the air to ground capacity didn't really interest them... they had enormous anti ship missiles launched from ships and subs for that role and they had no land attack roles at all.
So they bought the cheaper simpler Su-33s.
When India bought some MiGs however production was set up and paid for so they tacked on the end of the Indian order their own order and saved a lot of money.
The MiGs were able to replace the Su-25s on board which were used purely as trainers, so they added two seat trainers and also a ground attack air capability that the Kuznetsov previously didn't have.
they have 1 carrier ….
that seems a bit small for heavy fighters like the Su-33 ?
Mig-29 probably better suited ? but lacks range …
With a full air to air missiles weapon load they are not that heavy.
The purpose of the carriers is to provide aircraft for detection (AWACS) and defence/attack of air threats like incoming missiles or aircraft.
Flight range is useful as it extends the protection ring, but right now cannot be fully exploited because the AWACS is currently AEW in the form of the Ka-31, which is vastly better than nothing of course for low flying threats.
meanwhile ….. land-based squadrons - they seem to be replacing Su-24s with Su-30s …. makes sense to me
but does that mean that Crimea and Kaliningrad are like "aircraft carriers" ?
I think so …. ??
In a sense yes, but the point of aircraft carriers for the Russian navy is to allow them to operate beyond the reach of Russian land based forces.
They wont be invading countries left and right, but they do need to project power and for that they need ships and subs and those ships and subs need to be protected from enemy air power and missiles.
meanwhile the Su-57 is a bit smaller than an Su-27 …. perfect for a future carrier ?
Bit smaller, much more powerful engines and most of the time no external weapons drag...
seems …. just wear out the current Mig-29s and Su-33s …. get rid of everything else for shore based work
and just use Su-30s ….
Not every mission requires a big huge plane... even the USAF couldn't afford an all F-22 based airforce and thought the solution was a lighter cheaper aircraft that could replace all the fighters in the western airforces... F-35.
The point is that the logic was sound but the implimentation was all wrong and was too driven by people who lost touch with the whole point of a smaller lighter aircraft.
Generally as a rule of thumb a smaller lighter aircraft is cheaper than the equivalent bigger aircraft, but when you try to pack the same or better performance into the smaller aircraft what you end up is a smaller lighter aircraft that is much more expensive and complicated than it needed to be...
and get carrier based Su-57 variants later
Well any new CVNs they build could use them but MiG-35s are of a unified design to the MiG-29KR so continuing to use them on land and at sea makes sense, and I certainly suspect that a navalised Su-35 could fairly easily be developed... the last offering from Sukhoi was the Su-33KUB which looked like an Su-34 to be honest but with the round nose radar of the Flanker family rather than the flat nose of the Fullback. Certainly the Su-57 makes a lot of sense even if it costs 50 million dollars each...
and make an AWACs aircraft for the new carrier ?
Il-112 variant ? … seems a reasonable choice to me ? quite compact ...
An AWACS platform will either need enormous power or enormous lift or both... something like a twin engined An-2 or an Il-112 with the engines of the An-12 equivalent... perhaps turbofans rather than props...
I am sure they know what they are doing.
The Russian Ministry of Defense has formulated tactical and technical requirements for the creation of an Arctic version of the Ka-65 Minoga combat helicopter, Izvestia reports.
Interesting it mentions amphibious capability which would be good... Helix could land in water but unlike the Mi-14 was not intended to operate in water very much...
I always thought the idea of an anti sub helo that was amphibious that could land in the water and lower a dipping sonar would be more efficient than hovering for long periods with the same dipping sonar...
Also in terms of rescue it would be easier too.
The other article also mentions an extra engine for heating the cabin and allowing starting and extra energy for the main engines, which sounds to me like a gas turbine APU with extra functions of perhaps heating the main engines before their start up, and providing heat for the crew and likely main rotors via electrical deicing perhaps.
The fact that this new aircraft needs to operate from existing ships and helipads suggests it can't be much bigger than the Helix design which means it might look very similar to the Helix but perhaps with a rear ramp exit and a tail mounted propulsion system to boost forward speed, and with this information a ship based hull for operations in water...
One article shows this picture:
Which could be a useful replacement design for the Mi-14 and the land based Mi-17 for naval roles, but it is too big to fit on ships or to even land on their landing spots safely which reduces its capacity to hop from ship to shore etc.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
SeigSoloyvov
You've been reading too much LM sales literature....