Max weight for SU-33 carrier take-off

Is there a max weight I should take into account for Carrier Take-Off?

With a full A2A weapons load and sorbytsa jammers I cannot take more than 40% fuel, is that also your impression?

(Of course using extra thrust and extra brake power).

In real life they prefer taking less missiles with half or more fuel it seems. You always see two R-73 plus jammers and two R-27.

However with a good headwind and starting from the rear most take off position, it is possible to take off at MTOW.

Are you only taking off from the front two spots? Becuase from there you need to limit your fuel, but in back unless it’s over 100 degrees F and there’s no wind you can take off fully loaded

I remember the campaign makes you take off quite heavy from the front a few times. With the right technique it's doable. Don't forget to open inlet grids, full flaps and wait for engines to spool up. Take off with high nose, on the edge of stall, quick gear up, boil the sea water with AB and go up retracting flaps like a pro ;)

Full payload and fuel take off ramp 3 full take off trim job done.

Thanks guys I'll give it a try!

Is there a max weight I should take into account for Carrier Take-Off?

 

With a full A2A weapons load and sorbytsa jammers I cannot take more than 40% fuel, is that also your impression?

 

(Of course using extra thrust and extra brake power).

I realise that you are asking for DCS figures, but in case you are interested I found an old chart(RL) for max carrier take-off weights, where the following is stated for the Su-33:

With a head wind of 0 m/s:

100 m take-off run: not supported

180 m take-off run: max TOW = 27,3 T

With a head wind of 15 m/s:

100 m take-off run: max TOW = 30,0 T

180 m take-off run: max TOW = 32,7 T

I also seem to remember reading somewhere that the maximum return(landing) weight is somewhere around 25 T.

Moreover, there is a two-way switch for controlling FOD inlet grids - "Auto/open" - which always seems to be in the "open"(FOD grids disabled) when operating from the carrier....it may also be required for use of the "emergency thrust" feature(in order to provide sufficient airflow to the engines).

I realise that you are asking for DCS figures, but in case you are interested I found an old chart(RL) for max carrier take-off weights, where the following is stated for the Su-33:

 

With a head wind of 0 m/s:

 

100 m take-off run: not supported

180 m take-off run: max TOW = 27,3 T

 

With a head wind of 15 m/s:

 

100 m take-off run: max TOW = 30,0 T

180 m take-off run: max TOW = 32,7 T

 

I also seem to remember reading somewhere that the maximum return(landing) weight is somewhere around 25 T.

 

Moreover, there is a two-way switch for controlling FOD inlet grids - "Auto/open" - which always seems to be in the "open"(FOD grids disabled) when operating from the carrier....it may also be required for use of the "emergency thrust" feature(in order to provide sufficient airflow to the engines).

That's really useful information, thanks for posting this :thumbup:

That's really useful information, thanks for posting this :thumbup:

You are welcome :) .

I don't know how well this relates to the DCS situation, but at least it should give some pointers. Keep in mind that these are the max weight figures, so it would probably be good practise to keep well below that. I also remember reading elsewhere that the front starting position is really only meant for aircraft in normal TOW configuration(which IIRC is less than the 30 T stated as max for the Su-33).

At any rate a head wind of 15 m/s corresponds to the carrier steaming ahead at full flank(29 knots), so for heavy loads/front starting position, you need either that or to set mission conditions so that wind speed and carrier travel direction/speed provide this in combination.

Sorry to bring up an older thread but been doing Su33 ME a fair bit lately and looked up a huge pile of operational footage and just found some interesting notes on loadouts during operational exercises; just posting it for interest sake.

On live missions always seem to be carrying sorbytsa and during all other exercises always have the tip racks bare, presumably because on live missions they will always be carrying sorbytsa. Here's a short list of some loadouts I've seen actually carried off the deck:

Exercise: tips bare, 2x R73, 2x R27R under wings

Live mission: sorbytsa, 2x R73, 2x R27R under wings

Exercise: tips bare, 2x R73, 2x R27R, 2x R77 under wings (fourth stations attached) - these were live missiles, not dummies but I don't know if actual R77 capability is installed or if propaganda photo staged during naval exercises

Exercise: tips bare, 2x R73, 4x B20 under wings (fourth stations attached)

Exercise: tips bare, 2x R73, 2x R27ER under wings, 2x R27ER under intakes

I haven't seen a photo or footage yet of actual carrier operations using all the weapon stations, most commonly it's just 2x R73 and 2x R27R, with sorbytsa if a live mission, without if exercise. Never seen one loaded up on the carrier the way an Su27 is from a land base.

I would like to see any links to more footage or photos of loadouts during operations, but these are the loads I've seen so far in a big hunt.

The impression I get is the large number of stations is more about weapon placement of light loads for the Su33 rather than carrying big loads like the Su27.

Might also be worth noting the main flight operation from Kuznetsov is ASW and SSM fire director rotaries, the fleet air defence role is primarily interception of missiles by the Kashtan/Kinzhal system. Technically the purpose of Su33 operations was intended as preparation for purpose built, catapult equipped carriers in future planning which were subsequently cancelled. Kuznetsov is a modified Kiev, never originally designed as a fixed wing carrier and just a way to get one quickly using Kiev hulls whilst purpose built carriers were being mooted, then cancelled. Hence abandonment of the future blue water naval plans are why the other Kievs were sold to China and India and similarly modified with through-decks and a ramp, although they don't have the shipwrecks and some other fit. Kuznetsov itself became more seaworthy with its modifications since they changed its seakeeping qualities but the Kiev are classes as green water cruisers that aren't particularly safe in the open ocean except in calm seas, intended for policing western approaches in the Soviet era, in fact mainly for a strategic proposal to secure the eastern-Mediterranean from NATO subs. Kuznetsov is mainly a fixed wing training ship retaining all other Kiev capabilities with technological improvements, but its better seakeeping qualities made it usable in blue water operations so whilst it was slated for Baltic and Black Sea Fleet operations it wound up becoming assigned to the Northern Fleet.

It doesn't in any way even remotely function like a NATO aircraft carrier, mainly it's an escort cruiser in SSM and ASW roles (4 tactical warheads carried for shipwrecks/torps in wartime IIRC), it doesn't perform any CC/flagship functions like NATO carriers as this is all done from the heavy cruiser flagships like Kirov and Slava classes, reflected by electronics fit carriers have a purely support/escort role in the Russian Navy. Mainly a ramp was fitted because of the international treaties in place at the time banning any catapult equipped carrier from entering the Black Sea, and the fact the 4th gen soviet jets are STOL types and capable of operating from a ramp in headwind, so basically it made the RFN the big boy on the block in the Black Sea since everybody else can only operate comparatively low performance V/STOLs and VTOLs from non-catapult carriers. But I don't think those treaties are in place anymore and it's a moot point anyway since Kuznetsov turned out to be blue water capable and thus sent to the northern approach.

It doesn't do night fixed wing operations at all and Su33 complement doesn't have any formal antishipping role (although Sukhoi OKB, through Jane's Information Group claims it had Kh31 capability at serial production and only the Su27K prototyping lacked this). The listed Kuznetsov air defence role is fleet air defence primarily against incoming missiles, primarily using the Kashtan/Kynzhal system. It really doesn't use its air complement the way NATO carriers do by any intention, although coincidences like the way Flankers were used in Syria will inevitably happen. Even at full war load, which I don't think it's ever been at, the complement is more than twice the number of Ka27 than Su33, most of the time it carries something like 10 Flankers and 35 rotaries plus a couple of development tests like the navalised Su25UTG and MiG29UB/K/M hybrids that India ordered.

From the RF Admiralty point of view it certainly appears the fixed wing side of Kuznetsov is really like a side project with limited combat capabilities, whilst the fleet role of the ship and its complement is all about missile interception, ASW and SSM support as an escort cruiser with a large number of rotaries.

The idea of Flanker Ds loading up with full A-G stores off the Kuznetsov and heading out on strikes isn't really an operational one but far more a training proposal with light loads in preparation for catapult carriers to be built but now cancelled. The entire deterrence strategy of Kuznetsov and the entire blue water Russian navy is formally stated as completely revolving around the potential use of tactical warheads and not conventional force projection like NATO fleets.

My point, aside from redirecting any popular assumptions that Kuznetsov is just a poor attempt at a supercarrier by inferior Russians towards its actual intended fleet role as an AD/ASW/SSM escort cruiser and training carrier and not a flagship supercarrier by even a remote description; is that the Su33 isn't either, ie. intended for heavy munitions carrier operations from Kuznetsov, but is intended to do precisely that role from catapult equipped carriers which have been since cancelled.

Context really changes the way you might be loading and using Flanker Ds if you're doing the Tom Clancy plausible thing in missions. They just don't do Hornet missions off Kuznetsov, aren't meant to.

Sorry to bring up an older thread but been doing Su33 ME a fair bit lately and looked up a huge pile of operational footage and just found some interesting notes on loadouts during operational exercises; just posting it for interest sake.

On live missions always seem to be carrying sorbytsa and during all other exercises always have the tip racks bare, presumably because on live missions they will always be carrying sorbytsa. Here's a short list of some loadouts I've seen actually carried off the deck:

Exercise: tips bare, 2x R73, 2x R27R under wings

Live mission: sorbytsa, 2x R73, 2x R27R under wings

Exercise: tips bare, 2x R73, 2x R27R, 2x R77 under wings (fourth stations attached) - these were live missiles, not dummies but I don't know if actual R77 capability is installed or if propaganda photo staged during naval exercises

Exercise: tips bare, 2x R73, 4x B20 under wings (fourth stations attached)

Exercise: tips bare, 2x R73, 2x R27ER under wings, 2x R27ER under intakes

 

I haven't seen a photo or footage yet of actual carrier operations using all the weapon stations, most commonly it's just 2x R73 and 2x R27R, with sorbytsa if a live mission, without if exercise. Never seen one loaded up on the carrier the way an Su27 is from a land base.

I would like to see any links to more footage or photos of loadouts during operations, but these are the loads I've seen so far in a big hunt.

The impression I get is the large number of stations is more about weapon placement of light loads for the Su33 rather than carrying big loads like the Su27.

 

Might also be worth noting the main flight operation from Kuznetsov is ASW and SSM fire director rotaries, the fleet air defence role is primarily interception of missiles by the Kashtan/Kinzhal system. Technically the purpose of Su33 operations was intended as preparation for purpose built, catapult equipped carriers in future planning which were subsequently cancelled. Kuznetsov is a modified Kiev, never originally designed as a fixed wing carrier and just a way to get one quickly using Kiev hulls whilst purpose built carriers were being mooted, then cancelled. Hence abandonment of the future blue water naval plans are why the other Kievs were sold to China and India and similarly modified with through-decks and a ramp, although they don't have the shipwrecks and some other fit. Kuznetsov itself became more seaworthy with its modifications since they changed its seakeeping qualities but the Kiev are classes as green water cruisers that aren't particularly safe in the open ocean except in calm seas, intended for policing western approaches in the Soviet era, in fact mainly for a strategic proposal to secure the eastern-Mediterranean from NATO subs. Kuznetsov is mainly a fixed wing training ship retaining all other Kiev capabilities with technological improvements, but its better seakeeping qualities made it usable in blue water operations so whilst it was slated for Baltic and Black Sea Fleet operations it wound up becoming assigned to the Northern Fleet.

It doesn't in any way even remotely function like a NATO aircraft carrier, mainly it's an escort cruiser in SSM and ASW roles (4 tactical warheads carried for shipwrecks/torps in wartime IIRC), it doesn't perform any CC/flagship functions like NATO carriers as this is all done from the heavy cruiser flagships like Kirov and Slava classes, reflected by electronics fit carriers have a purely support/escort role in the Russian Navy. Mainly a ramp was fitted because of the international treaties in place at the time banning any catapult equipped carrier from entering the Black Sea, and the fact the 4th gen soviet jets are STOL types and capable of operating from a ramp in headwind, so basically it made the RFN the big boy on the block in the Black Sea since everybody else can only operate comparatively low performance V/STOLs and VTOLs from non-catapult carriers. But I don't think those treaties are in place anymore and it's a moot point anyway since Kuznetsov turned out to be blue water capable and thus sent to the northern approach.

It doesn't do night fixed wing operations at all and Su33 complement doesn't have any formal antishipping role (although Sukhoi OKB, through Jane's Information Group claims it had Kh31 capability at serial production and only the Su27K prototyping lacked this). The listed Kuznetsov air defence role is fleet air defence primarily against incoming missiles, primarily using the Kashtan/Kynzhal system. It really doesn't use its air complement the way NATO carriers do by any intention, although coincidences like the way Flankers were used in Syria will inevitably happen. Even at full war load, which I don't think it's ever been at, the complement is more than twice the number of Ka27 than Su33, most of the time it carries something like 10 Flankers and 35 rotaries plus a couple of development tests like the navalised Su25UTG and MiG29UB/K/M hybrids that India ordered.

From the RF Admiralty point of view it certainly appears the fixed wing side of Kuznetsov is really like a side project with limited combat capabilities, whilst the fleet role of the ship and its complement is all about missile interception, ASW and SSM support as an escort cruiser with a large number of rotaries.

The idea of Flanker Ds loading up with full A-G stores off the Kuznetsov and heading out on strikes isn't really an operational one but far more a training proposal with light loads in preparation for catapult carriers to be built but now cancelled. The entire deterrence strategy of Kuznetsov and the entire blue water Russian navy is formally stated as completely revolving around the potential use of tactical warheads and not conventional force projection like NATO fleets.

 

My point, aside from redirecting any popular assumptions that Kuznetsov is just a poor attempt at a supercarrier by inferior Russians towards its actual intended fleet role as an AD/ASW/SSM escort cruiser and training carrier and not a flagship supercarrier by even a remote description; is that the Su33 isn't either, ie. intended for heavy munitions carrier operations from Kuznetsov, but is intended to do precisely that role from catapult equipped carriers which have been since cancelled.

Context really changes the way you might be loading and using Flanker Ds if you're doing the Tom Clancy plausible thing in missions. They just don't do Hornet missions off Kuznetsov, aren't meant to.

Very interesting, thanks for posting this. I'd imagine that the relatively light loads for everything other than operational missions also reduces wear on the tyres, landing gear etc. decreasing the need for expensive maintenance.

On the subject of the R-77, the best information I've been able to find suggests that while the VKS (and possibly the Russian Navy) bought some R-77's the actual number in the inventory is tiny. I'm guessing the Russian ministry of defence is happy to wait and use existing R-27R / ER types until the K-77M becomes available for the 'Su-57'. I haven't read anywhere that the Su-33 is capable of using the R-77 so that might be a payload used for an airshow displaying what might be possible for a customer willing to buy upgraded avionics. Not sure the market for naval aircraft is large enough to support exported Su-33's but who knows. Maybe the Chinese will want them for their new carrier designs.

 

I haven't seen a photo or footage yet of actual carrier operations using all the weapon stations, most commonly it's just 2x R73 and 2x R27R, with sorbytsa if a live mission, without if exercise.

Any loadout configuration comes with its set of limitations in terms of allowable speed/G-loads. However, exactly the above( 2x R73 and 2x R27R) does not, which could be a reason why its so common.

Might also be worth noting the main flight operation from Kuznetsov is ASW and SSM fire director rotaries, the fleet air defence role is primarily interception of missiles by the Kashtan/Kinzhal system.

The Admiral Kuznetsov is basically a purpose built multirole heavy cruiser in much the same way as the Kirov class - using the same SSMs(P-700) for surface-to-surface warfare, but aircraft instead of missiles for ASW(Ka-27PL) and area air defence(Su-33).

The Kinzhal and Kortik air defence systems do not bring any AD capability to the fleet as such - with a max engagement range of 15 and 8 km respectively, they are much too short-ranged for anything other than protecting the ship itself from missile attacks.

Technically the purpose of Su33 operations was intended as preparation for purpose built, catapult equipped carriers in future planning which were subsequently cancelled. Kuznetsov is a modified Kiev, never originally designed as a fixed wing carrier and just a way to get one quickly using Kiev hulls whilst purpose built carriers were being mooted, then cancelled.

Completely incorrect.

There were always two schools of thought in the Soviet Union when it came aircraft carrying ships - one that favoured relatively small ships equipped with VSTOL aircraft because these didn't need costly and complex installations like catapults and arrestor gear - and another faction which favoured "the full monty" - i.e. much larger nuclear powered ships with catapults, arrestor gear capable of embarking a fighter wing and early warning aircraft config similar to that of US super carriers. Even so they were never intended to mimic US aircraft carriers(which were seen as overly expensive "means of imperialistic aggression"), but rather as centerpieces of surface groups operating in support of the submarine fleet on the large oceans.

The evolution from the first such assets(Pr. 1123 "Kondor") to Kiev class -> Kuznetsov class -> Ul'yanovsk class was down to a realisation that to be effective in the role - having sufficient endurance and ability to operate sufficiently capable aircraft/enough of them and having proper surveillance of the air space around them, they needed ever larger ships.

The Kiev class were obviously built for fixed wing aircraft - namely the Yak-38M, but this quickly proved inadequate, so initially the plan was to develop a more capable replacement for it and subsequently modify the existing Kiev class vessels for the purpose. The third ship(Novorossisk) was partly modified during its construction, while the fourth(Baku) was fully designed for the new aircraft(Yak-41) and also had considerable modernisation to its systems and armament.

Early on the Kuznetsov was intended to be just a fifth Kiev, to be followed by four full size(some 79k tons of displacement) nuclear powered ships with 4 catapults, arrestor gear for horisontal take-off fighters(navalised versions of the Su-27 and MiG-29) and a dedicated AEW aircraft(Yak-44)..

But this plan was changed(probably economically unfeasible) and instead the fifth and sixth ship were to be of mid range size with the same propulsion, but better endurance than the Kiev class and with a new under-deck SSM armament and thus more flight deck space, but still equipped with Yak-41 VSTOL fighter(but twice as many)......and then finally a seventh and eighth ship of full size with nuclear propulsion.

Kuznetsov was designed with a take-off ramp for assisting the Yak-41 on short take-offs(as with Sea Harriers/Invincible class). At some point MiG and Sukhoi came up with the idea of evaluating the feasibility of using this system for their horisontal take-off fighters(maybe because the economic situation of the time made the prospect of the full size carriers starting to look bleak). While the tests proved the concept, it quickly became clear that the initial ramp design wasn't optimal, so they joined forces with a naval research institute, which came up with a new ramp design, that proved so successful for launching the Su-27K and MiG-29K that it, apart from the Kuznetsov and Varyag, it was also incorporated into the design of the prospective full size carrier follow-ons......cutting the number of catapults from four to just two(on the landing run) and only for launching the Yak-44 AEW aircraft.

Hence abandonment of the future blue water naval plans are why the other Kievs were sold to China and India and similarly modified with through-decks and a ramp, although they don't have the shipwrecks and some other fit

The "Kievs" were decommissioned because the only applicable aircraft for them(the Yak-38M) were retired from service, while the development of their prospective replacement - the Yak-41 - was cancelled. The Kievs did not have "Shipwrecks", but all of them had P-500s on deck originally. The one sold to India(Baku aka Admiral Gorshkov) even had more(12) than the other, but they were removed in connection with the full-deck modification(for the MiG-29K).

Kuznetsov itself became more seaworthy with its modifications since they changed its seakeeping qualities but the Kiev are classes as green water cruisers that aren't particularly safe in the open ocean except in calm seas, intended for policing western approaches in the Soviet era, in fact mainly for a strategic proposal to secure the eastern-Mediterranean from NATO subs. Kuznetsov is mainly a fixed wing training ship retaining all other Kiev capabilities with technological improvements, but its better seakeeping qualities made it usable in blue water operations so whilst it was slated for Baltic and Black Sea Fleet operations it wound up becoming assigned to the Northern Fleet.

[headshake] Vanir....every one of the aircraft carrying cruisers - from the very first "moskva class" to the definitive Ul'yanovsk class were meant to support the submarine fleet on the large oceans. They were more or less capable of doing this of course, but their very purpose was to bring air power to a place, where this could not be provided by land based aviation......there would be zero reason for this in the Black Sea or in the Baltic. All these ships began their life in the Black Sea for the simple reason that they were built(and tested) there, but they were never meant to operate there.

It doesn't in any way even remotely function like a NATO aircraft carrier

Yes it does - it just doesn't have the "force projection" function - i.e. the ability to conduct large scale land attack operations, but is more of a hybrid between an aircraft carrier and multirole cruiser for all aspects of naval warfare.

...it doesn't perform any CC/flagship functions like NATO carriers as this is all done from the heavy cruiser flagships like Kirov and Slava classes, reflected by electronics fit carriers have a purely support/escort role in the Russian Navy.

nonsense - the Kuznetsov very much does function in the flagship role and is every bit as well equipped as the Kirov class for the purpose......I really don't understand what "electronics fit" you think it lacks in comparison with the Kirov class.

Mainly a ramp was fitted because of the international treaties in place at the time banning any catapult equipped carrier from entering the Black Sea, and the fact the 4th gen soviet jets are STOL types and capable of operating from a ramp in headwind, so basically it made the RFN the big boy on the block in the Black Sea since everybody else can only operate comparatively low performance V/STOLs and VTOLs from non-catapult carriers.

LOL. The ramp was fitted for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Your impressions of what the "international treaties" stipulate are so far off that its just funny. The treaty in question(Montreaux) deals with "capital ships" as a max of tonnage, how many naval ships may transition into the Black Sea at a time and how long they may stay etc.

Aircraft carriers were not even mentioned initially. They were added later as an entity, but just as a sub-category of "capital ships" for which the same max tonnage applies. The only definition made in regards to aircraft carriers was that any ship that carries more aircraft than needed for its own protection(2-3 max) was to be considered an aircraft carrier and thus subject to the limitations set out for capital ships. Nothing at all about the means of launching or recovering them.

In other words its all about tonnage - whether a battleship or an aircraft carrier and there is no specific ban on aircraft carriers(although the max tonnage would indirectly).

Anyway, all this is a moot point, since the limitations set out in the treaty for the most part only concern non-Black Sea nations and the Soviet Union was a Black Sea nation......which in turn was the reason why the US never signed the treaty(as it gave the Soviet Union an unfair advantage).

But I don't think those treaties are in place anymore

Yes they(it) are.

... and it's a moot point anyway since Kuznetsov turned out to be blue water capable and thus sent to the northern approach.

Its a moot point because the treaty didn't really affect Soviet ships and because their aircraft carrying cruisers weren't ever meant to operate there anyway - only exiting after their construction and occasional re-entry for repairs and maintenance.

It doesn't do night fixed wing operations at all

What?

....and Su33 complement doesn't have any formal antishipping role (although Sukhoi OKB, through Jane's Information Group claims it had Kh31 capability at serial production and only the Su27K prototyping lacked this).

Thats correct. The Soviet navy really wanted the Su-33 and MiG-29K to operate in a way similar to the US navy's F-14 and F/A-18, with the Su-33 being the "fleet defender"(for air superiority) and the MiG-29K as the multirole strike fighter. Sukhoi clearly had their own ambitions for turning the Su-33 into the latter, but there is no indication that the navy shared this.

The listed Kuznetsov air defence role is fleet air defence primarily against incoming missiles, primarily using the Kashtan/Kynzhal system. It really doesn't use its air complement the way NATO carriers do by any intention, although coincidences like the way Flankers were used in Syria will inevitably happen. Even at full war load, which I don't think it's ever been at, the complement is more than twice the number of Ka27 than Su33, most of the time it carries something like 10 Flankers and 35 rotaries plus a couple of development tests like the navalised Su25UTG and MiG29UB/K/M hybrids that India ordered.

Again - there is no way the Shorads of the Kuznetsov could act as "fleet air defence". The purpose of those systems are solely for protecting the ship itself from saturation attacks by missiles(ASMs and SSMs).

The roles of the Kuznetsov are:

1). air defence - controlling the airspace over the fleet's area of operation. Equipped with(at least intended) an AEGIS style radar system(Mars-Passat) and Ka-31 AEW helicopters providing surveillance and Su-33 air superiority fighters dispatched for interception.

2). anti-submarine warfare - equipped with a powerful sonar suite it can detect submarines at range and dispatch a small airforce of ASW helicopters to combat them.

3). AsuW - mainly via onboard armament of long range supersonic SSMs, but also via MiG-29K strike fighters.

From the RF Admiralty point of view it certainly appears the fixed wing side of Kuznetsov is really like a side project with limited combat capabilities, whilst the fleet role of the ship and its complement is all about missile interception

[headshake]

The idea of Flanker Ds loading up with full A-G stores off the Kuznetsov and heading out on strikes isn't really an operational one

No that was not the initial idea behind putting the Su-33 on the ship, but rather merely as an air superiority asset. However, "loading up with full A-G stores off the Kuznetsov and heading out on strikes" is nevertheless exactly what the Russian navy did with the Su-33 in the first ever combat mission the ship was on(in Syria). Not only that, but of all the useful(air-to-air capability) upgrades they could have made to the Su-33, the first one they applied was the SVP-24 bomb delivery system........enabling it to drop unguided free-fall bombs with greater accuracy.

... but far more a training proposal with light loads in preparation for catapult carriers to be built but now cancelled.

The design of the now cancelled "catapult carriers" Pr. 1143.7 and 1143.8 featured a ramp for launching the Su-27K and MiG-29K, while the two remaining catapults were only for lanching Yak-44 AEW aircraft. So I am afraid that your entire idea the Su-33 being just a training asset on the Kuznetsov in preparation for some future catapult launched strike role is faulty - just as I have to say that I find it more than a little funny that you apparently think the Russians built the ship just for this - basically for shits 'n giggles.

Regarding seeing P77 missiles on Su-33. Is there any video of this in operation? As in, with them actually carrying it in combat/training sorties?

S

Exercise: tips bare, 2x R73, 2x R27R, 2x R77 under wings (fourth stations attached) - these were live missiles, not dummies but I don't know if actual R77 capability is installed or if propaganda photo staged during naval exercises

A picture of this would speak a thousand words?

Regarding seeing P77 missiles on Su-33. Is there any video of this in operation? As in, with them actually carrying it in combat/training sorties?

I've never seen a P77 fitted to an Su-33 except on a ground stand aircraft at an airshow. This was probably a demonstrator for some proposed Su-33 export version with upgraded avionics. Haven't seen any evidence that the Russian navy ever went down this route or bought any P77's for their aircraft.

Only MiG-29K/KUB is capable of carrying R-77, but not the ones you think of IMO. Those are R-77-1, god knows when will they be added into dcs