Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In real life, the su 33, being the carrier plane, had to have some type of armament against the ships. That's why the Russians gave kh 31 to it. It would be nice if we could have it.

The version of the kh31 is the A variants(anti-ship)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In real life the particular version of the Su-33 we have never got any anti-ship missiles.  Not the Kh-31 or 41.  Modernized variants may be able to carry some, but this is past 2010s IIRC.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

In real life the particular version of the Su-33 we have never got any anti-ship missiles.  Not the Kh-31 or 41.  Modernized variants may be able to carry some, but this is past 2010s IIRC.

Well, everywhere I looked up, It says that the su 33 can carry the kh31A.

This is something I found;

Armament

4 minutes ago, Aleksxy said:

Well, everywhere I looked up, It says that the su 33 can carry the kh31A.

This is something I found;

Armament

 

I cannot say that this is 100% correct.


Edited by Aleksxy
Adding extra facts.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aleksxy said:

Well, everywhere I looked up, It says that the su 33 can carry the kh31A.

This is something I found;

 

 

Yep, I understand.  It is pretty much the same copy from Jane's old report about potential upgrades to the Su-33 that was taken as 'this is what the Su-33 can do'.  IRL it can use the R-72, R-27 family and bombs and rockets.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kh-31A requires certain air to ground and sear search modes not present on the vanilla N001

You would need an N001 with "P" in the name as that denotes air to surface capability, so a N001VP/VEP equiped Flanker could use it (Think Su-27SM family or Su-30MKK/MK2s. They use these radars)

 

The Kh-31P needs the L-150 Pastel RWR to work with, the in game Su-33 is modeled after a 1990s one with an SPO-15.

Some time in 2004 they were upgraded with the L-150 but apparently not made fully compatible with the Kh-31P though people in the Russian forums do say it was trialed.

 

Although a humbler upgrade a noughties Su-33 with the better RWR, Glonas assisted SVP-24 CCRP and the ability to possibly carry LGBs for ground forces or friendlies to lase would be cool.

Or at least the R-73 RMD-2 and the one after that

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

The Kh-31A requires certain air to ground and sear search modes not present on the vanilla N001

Correct.

15 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

You would need an N001 with "P" in the name as that denotes air to surface capability, so a N001VP/VEP equiped Flanker could use it (Think Su-27SM family or Su-30MKK/MK2s. They use these radars).

Yup...either that or a newer radar design. Back in the 90'ies there was a proposed upgrade involving the "Zhuk-27" radar(same radar as on the initial MiG-29K, but with a larger antenna) and ever since, the prospective armament this could entail(such as Kh-31A and R-77) has incorrectly been stated for the in-service Su-33 on many web sites.....but the upgrade never materialised.

 

In the early 2000's Sukhoi developed the Su-27KUB two-seat combat trainer variant of the Su-33 - on one of the prototypes they installed the "Zhuk-MS" radar(Zhuk-M radar with a larger antenna) and reportedly later the Zhuk-MSF(Zhuk-M with a fixed phased array antenna), but again the Su-27KUB didn't enter production.

 

Maybe the Russian MoD will flesh out the cash for an -SM style upgrade(including N001VEP radar) for the Su-33, like you mentioned, but I have my doubts :) .

 

15 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

The Kh-31P needs the L-150 Pastel RWR to work with, the in game Su-33 is modeled after a 1990s one with an SPO-15.

Yes but no Su-27K/Su-33 ever had the SPO-15 though - something better was always the intention  :)

15 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Some time in 2004 they were upgraded with the L-150 but apparently not made fully compatible with the Kh-31P though people in the Russian forums do say it was trialed.

Later than that - there have been steps taken to introduce it as far back as that, but it didn't really become reality until after the MiG-29K/KUB entered service. Initially the Russian navy intended to retire the Su-33s at that point, but later changed their minds and decided to retain their Su-33s in service after an extensive overhaul, during which installation of the L-150 finally became reality.

 

15 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Although a humbler upgrade a noughties Su-33 with the better RWR, Glonas assisted SVP-24 CCRP and the ability to possibly carry LGBs for ground forces or friendlies to lase would be cool.

Or at least the R-73 RMD-2 and the one after that

Yeah - and probably the best we can hope for in terms of a "modern" counterpiece for the mid-2000s Hornet and Viper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seaeagle said:

Correct.

Yup...either that or a newer radar design. Back in the 90'ies there was a proposed upgrade involving the "Zhuk-27" radar(same radar as on the initial MiG-29K, but with a larger antenna) and ever since, the prospective armament this could entail(such as Kh-31A and R-77) has incorrectly been stated for the in-service Su-33 on many web sites.....but the upgrade never materialised.

 

In the early 2000's Sukhoi developed the Su-27KUB two-seat combat trainer variant of the Su-33 - on one of the prototypes they installed the "Zhuk-MS" radar(Zhuk-M radar with a larger antenna) and reportedly later the Zhuk-MSF(Zhuk-M with a fixed phased array antenna), but again the Su-27KUB didn't enter production.

 

Maybe the Russian MoD will flesh out the cash for an -SM style upgrade(including N001VEP radar) for the Su-33, like you mentioned, but I have my doubts 🙂 .

 

Yes but no Su-27K/Su-33 ever had the SPO-15 though - something better was always the intention  🙂

Later than that - there have been steps taken to introduce it as far back as that, but it didn't really become reality until after the MiG-29K/KUB entered service. Initially the Russian navy intended to retire the Su-33s at that point, but later changed their minds and decided to retain their Su-33s in service after an extensive overhaul, during which installation of the L-150 finally became reality.

 

Yeah - and probably the best we can hope for in terms of a "modern" counterpiece for the mid-2000s Hornet and Viper.

No, you are wrong.

 

Mentions of the Su-33 having no RWR are hyperbole.

Russian Pilots say that early in its life some were delivered without it and some delivered with parts of the system installed (albeit non functioning) because of problems with the wing folding mechanism and wiring. 

It was after a period of overhauls it was made to work somewhat it seems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

No, you are wrong.

 

Mentions of the Su-33 having no RWR are hyperbole.

No its not.

 

2 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Russian Pilots say that early in its life some were delivered without it and some delivered with parts of the system installed (albeit non functioning) because of problems with the wing folding mechanism and wiring. 

How does that make not having a functional RWR "hyberbole"?.

 

Besides, from what I can gather it wasn't the SPO-15 - never saw an Su-33 with external antennas, nor a display in the cockpit for it.

 

The L-150 dates back to the late eighties, which coincides with the time the Su-27K/Su-33 was under development. So I think its much more likely that they are refering to the L-150(or something similar) - e.g. the bit about display options on both the HDD and a separate dedicated display(which was always a L-150 feature). I have read other accounts describing partial installation of the L-150, that sounded exactly like your quote - such as some airframes having external antennas(in the wings), but no internal components, while other had the opposite, some having items shifted around on the cockpit front panel to make room for a cutout for a dedicated display etc.  This was what I was refering to(early steps to introduce it) in my above post. 

 

 

2 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

It was after a period of overhauls it was made to work somewhat it seems.

Says who? - clearly not the poster you quoted.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Seaeagle said:

No its not.

 

How does that make not having a functional RWR "hyberbole"?.

 

Besides, from what I can gather it wasn't the SPO-15 - never saw an Su-33 with external antennas, nor a display in the cockpit for it.

 

The L-150 dates back to the late eighties, which coincides with the time the Su-27K/Su-33 was under development. So I think its much more likely that they are refering to the L-150(or something similar) - e.g. the bit about display options on both the HDD and a separate dedicated display(which was always a L-150 feature). I have read other accounts describing partial installation of the L-150, that sounded exactly like your quote - such as some airframes having external antennas(in the wings), but no internal components, while other had the opposite, some having items shifted around on the cockpit front panel to make room for a cutout for a dedicated display etc.  This was what I was refering to(early steps to introduce it) in my above post. 

 

 

Says who? - clearly not the poster you quoted.

 

No, you are wrong and I find it surprising how wrong you are given that you were a party to the discussions that threw the information around

It may not have been the Pastel because in this post he mentions the RWR in question he was talking about is the Freon.

On the topic of the Freon another poster shed's some light on what it was since you might've forgotten

It was an already existing RWR system that borrowed some of the SPO-15s components possibly the more sensitive and accurate antennas but was able to better process a wider range of threats and display it better. He explicitly mentions Ecran/HDD display of this information.

 

Since you didn't read it last time I will share again where he explicitly says there were blocks of the SPO-15 installed and later on talks about how some if it worked most of it didn't. This puts another hole in your partial Pastel theory.

Now I will be the first to say I am not infallible, I can get things wrong and I do not know everything.

But I do know more than to take dated 90s weapons expo info & Jane's to the bank as the word of god straight from mount sinai.

 

If any of what I said was wrong please go ahead, prove me wrong.

It would make my day to learn something new.


Edited by TaxDollarsAtWork
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

No, you are wrong and I find it surprising how wrong you are given that you were a party to the discussions that threw the information around.

Really?.

8 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

It may not have been the Pastel because in this post he mentions the RWR in question he was talking about is the Freon.

 

All respect to CiberAlex and other forum members on the Russian side, but they are not the know-it-all experts that you seem to think. Besides, what exactly is it that you are arguing? - I said that the Su-33 never had the SPO-15 and that for most of its service life, it had no functional RWR(which you called "hyberbole"). I also said that the partial installation of an RWR didn't concern the SPO-15, but that "something better was always the intention" - "the L-150 (or something similar)".

 

Anyway, people keep refering to this mythical "Freon" system, but have no information about it other than it apparently never worked.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seaeagle said:

[..] most of its service life, it had no functional RWR

 

That is interesting, do you have a source for that information? Any articles or books, I would like to read more about that.

[sigpic][/sigpic]



Flanker driver since 1996

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CTR said:

That is interesting, do you have a source for that information? Any articles or books, I would like to read more about that.

Well its something you have to dig out, but just look a couple of posts up in this thread:

 

I have read something very similar by someone who IIRC visited the Severomorsk-3 base(home of the Su-33s) in recent years and came away with the same impression of a W.I.P. situation - i.e. unfinished RWR installations.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Really?.

 

All respect to CiberAlex and other forum members on the Russian side, but they are not the know-it-all experts that you seem to think. Besides, what exactly is it that you are arguing? - I said that the Su-33 never had the SPO-15 and that for most of its service life, it had no functional RWR(which you called "hyberbole"). I also said that the partial installation of an RWR didn't concern the SPO-15, but that "something better was always the intention" - "the L-150 (or something similar)".

 

Anyway, people keep refering to this mythical "Freon" system, but have no information about it other than it apparently never worked.

 

Obviously being Russian doesn't make them experts on Russian RWRs and what they are installed in.

 

One still needs to look at the historical context of the information at hand, through out the 1990s western discussion and knowledge on the Flankers was mired in myth legend and rumours of projected capabilities being standard in the fleet.

 

People were believing things as nonsensical as rear-facing radar, backwards firing missiles, and Flanker launched Buk missiles to shoot down AWACS.

 

Might I remind you we're having this discussion because of something some one possibly pulled from an old Jane's publication from the peak of flanker hysteria.

 

Given how often it comes up in the Russian forums I'm more inclined to believe the Su-33 was partially receiving a more sensitive SPO-15 based complex 'Freon' with the ability to display on the IPV or Ecran, than I am to believe it was the L-150 all along.

And that because of its issues it was quickly superseded in service and relegated to being a brief footnote in history.

Though it doesn't hurt to be skeptical of this claim as well I'm more skeptical of yours for the reasons I laid out here.

 

What am I arguing? You said partial SPO-15 installation wasn't a thing (instead that it was partial L-150 installation) when it is explicitly mentioned it was SPO-15 Blocks.

 

If you meant to say, had no functioning RWR then say that, it is a different statement from 'had no RWR' as part of the set was in the aircraft albeit in a mostly non-functioning manner

 


Edited by TaxDollarsAtWork
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Obviously being Russian doesn't make them experts on Russian RWRs and what they are installed in.

Not automatically anyway 🙂 .

 

Quote

One still needs to look at the historical context of the information at hand, through out the 1990s western discussion and knowledge on the Flankers was mired in myth legend and rumours of projected capabilities being standard in the fleet.

 

People were believing things as nonsensical as rear-facing radar, backwards firing missiles, and Flanker launched Buk missiles to shoot down AWACS.

 

Might I remind you we're having this discussion because of something some one possibly pulled from an old Jane's publication from the peak of flanker hysteria.

Yeah I agree completely. It was also fueled by official sources like Knaapo, who at one point stated all sorts of prospective features for the Su-33, rather than the actual ones for the in-service aircraft......I guess as part of a marketing effort for potential export orders.

 

Quote

Given how often it comes up in the Russian forums I'm more inclined to believe the Su-33 was partially receiving a more sensitive SPO-15 based complex 'Freon' with the ability to display on the IPV or Ecran, than I am to believe it was the L-150 all along.  And that because of its issues it was quickly superseded in service and relegated to being a brief footnote in history.

Though it doesn't hurt to be skeptical of this claim as well I'm more skeptical of yours for the reasons I laid out here.

Fair enough - and it may well have been the case. The problem I have with it though, is that there is so little information to support it other than hazy mention of a system called "Freon" and features which might as well concern the L-150.

 

In the following article (posted at: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/soviet-russian-rwr-sirena-beryoza-pastel.48/#post-20864 ) by an official of the company(TsKBA) that produced both the SPO-15 and L-150 "Pastel" systems, there is a brief mention of a digital version of the SPO-15, so I guess its possible that "Freon" is related to this. But as you can see nothing about functionality or any mention of it in connection with the Su-33, whereas I think you will agree that the description of the Pastel sounds more in line with the few features mentioned in connection with the "Freon". Its also worth noting that both systems(SPO-15T and L-150) were in development in the late 80'ies and that the L-150 was flight tested on the Su-25T, so I don't think its a stretch to suspect that the same company(Sukhoi) would look at the L-150 for the Su-33 being developed at the same time 🙂

 

Quote

TsKBA Avtomatika were originally OKB-373 and specialised originally in tail warning radars. The NII-17 originated PRS-1 was passed to them, and they then developed further with PRS-2, PRS-3, PRS-4 tail warning radars.

From the 1950s they became involved with development of the first radar warning recievers, the SPO-1 and SPO-2. In 1957, the design of the SPO-3 was finalised, which for the first time had full coverage angular coverage, visual indication of threat direction and audible warning tones.

In 1965-66 the SPO-10 was created as a modernised version of SPO-3 with new microelectronics.

In 1976, design of the SPO-15 was finished [design started in 1969], and by 1978 it was in production. This could produce warning on hostile search as well as tracking, determine type of threat and level of danger.

In 1982 SPO-15M added an automated link to the chaff dispensers.

In 1987, a digital SPO-15Ts was prepared, passing plant tests in 1989 and test flights on a MiG-29 in 1991.

From 1981, work was ongoing on a new generation RWR, Pastel. The frequency range of received signals was substantially extended, digital processing of information with the automatic determination of the type and mode of RLS used, and generation of commands for onboard ECM equipment added. A new clearer display was displayed on cockpit MFDs. Flight design tests of “Pastel” were passed in 1987 on the Su-25T. At the same time began work on SPO “Pastel-K” for the aircraft of other types.

In 1999-2000 SPO “Pastel-K” passed tests as part of the Su-30MKK avionics systems. The first deliveries of series of stations this type to Komsomol'sk-na-Amur for Su-30MKK began in 2001.


(Article by TsKBA)

 

Quote

What am I arguing? You said partial SPO-15 installation wasn't a thing (instead that it was partial L-150 installation) when it is explicitly mentioned it was SPO-15 Blocks.

No I said SPO-15, as installed in the Su-27, wasn't pursued for the Su-33, that "something better was always the intention" and that this better solution only came into realisation very recently with the L-150 finally being installed. You are right that I didn't pay too much attention to the mention of "SPO-15 blocks" specifically, because this could very easily be a mistake - "SPO" is the general Russian term for "RWR". 

 

Quote

If you meant to say, had no functioning RWR then say that, it is a different statement from 'had no RWR' as part of the set was in the aircraft albeit in a mostly non-functioning manner.

I think I have said repeately that(evidence suggests) the Su-33 had no functioning RWR through most of its service life. I never said that it wasn't supposed to have one - on the contrary I said that there clearly were steps taken along the way to install one, but that it wasn't the SPO-15(basic one like on the Su-27) as depicted in DCS, but something else.

 

So the only real point of contest is what we believe that intended something else was - it may have been different sets at different times or it may have been the same all along.


Edited by Seaeagle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...