Shouldn't the SU33 be able to carry 4x R27ET's?

[Kenan]

I know it may be an issue having these heat seeking babies on the belly paylons (because of the engine heat signature), BUT, why not have four of them under the wing ones?

 

AND, if that's an issue ie. if it's not possible to have ALL ET's on all pylons, how come it's possible to put all R73 on Naval/Standard Flanker?

 

Is it because R73's have smaller seaker heads so it's not such a big deal, or is something else?

 

Oups. I did it again. :D

[Pilotasso]

haha you wish...I have seen enough fooling around with those already...

[GGTharos]

Actually last I heard, the 33 isn't even supposed to HAVE the two extra pylons.

 

In addition, R-27's are pretty heavy and it may be a problem for the ejection racks or that part of the wing. Or, the wiring to launch them may simply not be there.

[Force_Feedback]

Actually, last I saw the su-27k had 4 underwing pylons, but I guess those pics were edited by an annoying kid with knowledge of Photoshop.

[Alfa]

Actually last I heard, the 33 isn't even supposed to HAVE the two extra pylons.

 

:confused: .

 

The Su-33 does have 12 weapon stations.

 

6x on foldable outer wing panels

 

2x on non-foldable wing parts.

 

2x on underside of engine inlet ducts

 

2x between engines.

 

On this photo:

...you can see the position of all 8 wing stations(and the two on engine ducts).

 

In addition, R-27's are pretty heavy and it may be a problem for the ejection racks or that part of the wing. Or, the wiring to launch them may simply not be there.

 

R-27 ejector racks(AKU-470) are only used for weapons attached between engines and on the engine ducts - in the case of the former because they are mounted one behind the other(and thus cannot "rail launch") and in the case of the latter to avoid missile plume to be ingested into aircraft engine inlets at launch.

 

R-27 rail launcher racks(APU-470) are used for wing stations.

 

As for the reason only 2x IR homing R-27s being carried, I think the simple reason is the intention behind the R-27T/TE as being a shorter ranged "follow-up" weapon rather than being a primary BVR asset.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Kenan]

Alfa, if it's just a matter of strategy, doesn't this mean SU33 can actually have (at least) four of those? Hell, if this is the case, we may be enabling this option on our 504th server.

[Alfa]

Alfa, if it's just a matter of strategy, doesn't this mean SU33 can actually have (at least) four of those? Hell, if this is the case, we may be enabling this option on our 504th server.

 

To be perfectly honest with you Kenan, I dont know exactly what the deal is with the R-27T/TE and how many can be carried, where and why.....except for two issues:

 

- they cannot be carried on the 4 most outer wing stations simply because they would be too heavy(same with R-27R/RE).

 

- they cannot be carried between engines because their IR homing head needs to be able to see and lock on to target before launch.

 

But for the remaining 6 stations I dont know :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

Actually, last I saw the su-27k had 4 underwing pylons, but I guess those pics were edited by an annoying kid with knowledge of Photoshop.

 

This one isnt... :D

 

(Photo from Sukhoi.ru - MAKS-2003)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Force_Feedback]

Damn photoshop kid removed the launch rail with a screwdriver. :p

 

How about adding that dual UB-13 rack in lomac?

[504 Wolverine]

Unless ED or a member of the community makes a dedicated model of the dual rocket rack (for both UB-13 & S-25) then it is not possible. Myself and Alfa have both tried this.

[Alfa]

Damn photoshop kid removed the launch rail with a screwdriver. :p

 

Yeah but the attachment blocks remain :)

 

How about adding that dual UB-13 rack in lomac?

 

What Wolverine said :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Force_Feedback]

You can add 4 new pylons to the su-33, and those 4 will feature only the s-25 and s-13 rockets. Then add some entry into the blockedpylons.xml, so that you can only add two of them and not 1. Sure, the rocket pods will be hanging on inisible struts, but it's better than nothing.

Too bad the aim-9x2 launch rack can't be used without the Aim-9s, but still, an invisible "rack" is better than none.

[504Goon]

Hell, if this is the case, we may be enabling this option on our 504th server.

 

hmmmm......

[Pilotasso]

LOL NO WAY. Dont even think about it.

 

Anyway, what JJ said is logic. While you cant have that missile on the outer stations. Loading more will force you use pylons that prevent the missile seeker from searching the sky due to airframe obstruction. It wouldnt be possible to slave to R-27ET by IRST then because the IRST is facing up and the pylons in question only allow down view or straight ahead. Side ways view is none existant in the inner pylons.

 

 

Besides right now F-15 drivers cant hit low level bandits because of the poor perfomance the AMRAAM has against the ground. I dont think Uberizing the sniping abilities of the flanker is a good balance when we dont even have the F-15's main missile and radar working fully ingame.

 

If you look at kill scores youll see the R-27ETs alone are racking up half the kills already. ALso the game doesnt model cloud IR blocking. SO what we got here is a GOD all seing IR BVR missile.

[Kenan]

This is not true. ER are 350kg of weight. Same goes for EM versions and in LOCKON u can have those missiles on ALL pylons. So, how come u can't have 4xET's on 4 underwing pylons (which are somewhat lighter then ER's)? What's the difference? The view is clean so, what's the catch?

[Pilotasso]

This is not true. ER are 350kg of weight. Same goes for EM versions and in LOCKON u can have those missiles on ALL pylons. So, how come u can't have 4xET's on 4 underwing pylons (which are somewhat lighter then ER's)? What's the difference? The view is clean so, what's the catch?

 

Theres no catch, ED has advisors from the airforce wich certainly know more about this issue than you or me. BTW do you have a model kit of the Flanker? You could try adding a paper cone on the place the missile would be and see how much its cut off.

 

Ill search the web in half an hour to check on this.

[Kenan]

Theres no catch, ED has advisors from the airforce wich certainly know more about this issue than you or me. BTW do you have a model kit of the Flanker? You could try adding a paper cone on the place the missile would be and see how much its cut off.

 

Ill search the web in half an hour to check on this.

 

Ok., I'm talking about under WING pylons, not the belly of the aircraft.

AND, if R27ER has the SAME weight as R27ET, (at least in LOCKON), how come u can't have 4 ET's on the four WING pylons and can have 4 ER's on the same place?

 

BTW, Mig29S can carry an ET on two of his INNER wing pylons ie. the pylons closest to the side of the aircraft. Why shouldn't this be the case with SU33 which has a lot more resistant airframe?

 

It can't be a weight issue.

[Breakshot]

We are not talking about the Inner Pylons! Its the 2 extra wing Pylons that the Su-33 has, thus there is no obstruction for the seeker!! And those pylons have the same launcher that the ET missile requires (The ET is fully autonomous, u just launch it straight like a rocket, it doesnt need any guidance from the plane itself). So the only possible reason why its not modeled in the game to have Ets on those pylons is probably, real life procedure, like someone pointed out in the real life they rely on the ER/EMs to do the BVR job not ther ET, thus they carry more of the ER kind. Also the Mig-29 is able to carry 2 ETs on the inner wing pylons, so its obvios that the seeker is not obstructed in that position. In my opinion I see absolutely no reason for the missile not to be carried on those 2 additional wing pylons. Weight is also not relevant as if u carry Ers on those pylons the ET is even lighter I think.....

[Gazehound]

Theres no catch, ED has advisors from the airforce wich certainly know more about this issue than you or me. BTW do you have a model kit of the Flanker? You could try adding a paper cone on the place the missile would be and see how much its cut off.

 

Ill search the web in half an hour to check on this.

Knaapo indicates that 27SK, 30MK, 33, 27SKM & 30MK2 all can take maximum 2 ET.

What I am wondering is a) why; and b) why does the lockon su30 carry them all over its engines :D

[Breakshot]

Knaapo indicates that 27SK, 30MK, 33, 27SKM & 30MK2 all can take maximum 2 ET.

 

No Gaze, it only states that for 27SK, Not 33! It also states that the 27S can carry P77! So the info is pretty much a throw-out. The reason 27 cant carry it is because of seeker limit if u put the missile under the aircraft. But with the Su-33 because of those extra 2 pylons we are talking on putting the missile on the wing, where it is not obstructed!

[GGTharos]

Yeah uh ... so why can't I carry AIM-54C's on my F-15 again?

 

Let the slippery slope begin.

[Kenan]

Yeah uh ... so why can't I carry AIM-54C's on my F-15 again?

 

Let the slippery slope begin.

 

Your comparison is wrong and has nothing to do with the topic. What we're talking here about is something that actually makes sence. This is not about us trying to change payload just for fun, we just want all the possibilities explored.

 

And once again, we are yet to be proven wrong by anyone here. Untill then, we stick to our oppinions.

[Breakshot]

Aim-54 needs special radar on its frequency to operate it I think, Also it is so heavy that the F-15 doenst have the pylon holders to even hold the damn thing. So Tharos what are u talking about!

[Pilotasso]

I could consider that the F-15 could carry 2 more missiles in the lower underwing pylon and then we would be still here discussing sci-fi loads all night long. It doent matter what logic you think its correct. Reality is reality independently of our heart wishes...more on this later, searching web.

[S77th-GOYA]

Anybody want to talk about the real abilities of the Su-33 to take off from a carrier with full fuel/missle loads?