Can LO FC Su-33 have these ?

[Alfa]

What really puzzles me, is the way some people downplay AG capability conisted of 'only' dumb bombs and rockets. Those planes can drop heavy bombs and therefore CAN be used for AG scenarios. It doesn't neccessarily includes fighting modern SAM systems etc. but say tanks, truck convoys, compunds etc.

 

SU33 can carry and successfully deploy 8 big sized cluster bombs (just for an example). Should we just say it's useless and not to be used in AG scenario because it can't deploy some fancy JDAM/laser guided/whatever missiles 2000$ bombs?

 

Hell no! :D

 

Hi Kenan,

 

GG is exactly right.

 

The Su-27K was designed to undertake the same role for the Russian navy as the Su-27 did for the PVO - the entire Su-27K(Su-33) development revolved around airframe changes to allow it to operate from a ship in the middle of an ocean. But it inherited the entire avionics system from the Su-27S with next to no changes....so as GG said, the unguided a2g capability came with the package.

 

The Su-27K was only one part of the naval airwing development back then - simultaneously with the Su-27K, the Soviet Union were developing two types of multirole fighters - the Yak-41 VSTOL for the smaller Kiev-class vessels and the MiG-29K for the Kuznetsov-class + projected larger "Ul´Yanovsk class" vessels. These two multirole fighters had advanced radars and the full air-to-surface/air-to-ground capability incorporated into their designs - that was NOT the case for the Su-33 simply because it wasnt intended for a purpose that would require it and, as I said earlier, nor were any serious attempts made to provide such capabilities for it later, despite there being both a suitable radar(Zhuk-27/Zhuk-MS) and weapons available for the purpose.

 

Secondly, whenever the subject of naval fighters comes up, everyone seems to forget everything about the ships from which they are operated - the nature of them and the naval doctrine under which they are operating. The Soviet aviation cruisers were designed to protect their submarine fleet from air, surface- and subsurface attacks, and their designs + airwing compositions reflect this purpose quite clearly.....two thirds of the Kuznetsov airwing consists of ASW helicopters for combating enemy subs, one third of fixed wing airsuperiority fighters for combating enemy ASW aircraft and helicopters + for intercepting enemy air raids on the friendly surface group itself, while surface-to-surface capability is provided by an insanely powerful onboard SSM armament.

 

Putting it a little square - the Kuznetsov has little need for air-to-ground capable fighters for the role in which it is operating and is in no desperate need(to say the least) for additional surface strike capability, but has relatively little room onboard for a fixed wing fighter compliment and thus desperately need the one it has for airdefence purposes.

 

In addition one should remember that the Kuznetsov is a relatively "small" carrier (compared to US Nimitz class anway) without catapults but carrying a very large fighter type - meaning that it quite simply hasnt got room for the number of Su-33 to make up a useful combined airdefence/strike airwing - nor is a huge heavy fighter making unassisted take-offs a very good choice for hauling heavy strike ordinance.

 

The Su-33 makes for a superb naval airsuperiority fighter because it combines long operational range with a powerful radar and lots of air-to-air missiles - but this is possible because the huge internal fuel load isnt competing with heavy external strike ordinance when it comes to keeping the take-off weight within the allowed limit.

 

No one is contesting the Su-33´s ability to deploy unguided rockets and iron bombs nor suggesting that this ability should be removed from it. All we are saying is that a scenario in which such a payload would be used is unlikely - because both the aircraft and ship it is operated from were designed for- and are operated in a capacity that makes the use of the Su-33 in the "ground pounding" role a highly unlikely occurance. The design of the Kuznetsov really makes it unsuitable for air-raid operations, although it could undertake them if its airwing was composed in such a way that it had the right type and number of aircraft(smaller multirole fighters) embarked....but the current composition with a single squadron of large and heavily air-to-air oriented airsuperiority fighters is not it - nor can the Kuznetsov+group afford to use it in such a way.....the Su-33 is a very important airdefence asset but an insignificant strike platform.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Kula66]

I only wish JJ that ships only operated in scenarios envisaged by their designers ... in RL things happen which are never thought of an real people have to make do with whats available - this means things like a/c designed for intercepting Bears in mid-Atlantic fighting Mirage 5s ... RL is different.

[GGTharos]

Yes. RL doesn't submit itself to people's 'envisioned scenarios' ... rather, it is a conglomeration of costs, politics, supply chains, operational research, and so on and so forth.

 

Desperation does not make the rule.

[Alfa]

I only wish JJ that ships only operated in scenarios envisaged by their designers ... in RL things happen which are never thought of an real people have to make do with whats available - this means things like a/c designed for intercepting Bears in mid-Atlantic fighting Mirage 5s ... RL is different.

 

1). is the Kuznetsov currently operated in a way not in envisioned by its designers(despite the "non-envisioned" end to the cold war)?.

 

2). has the Russian naval doctrine in regards to the use of their remaining aviation cruiser changed one bit?.

 

3). do any recent Russian naval exercises indicate the above?

 

Answers = no :) .

 

 

And far as the Bear interception goes,

 

Do you see a difference between...

 

a). using a dedicated airdefence figther against Mirage 5s instead of the intended Tu-95 Bears

 

and...

 

b)....using a dedicated airdefence fighter against shorebased bunkers instead of e.g. P-3 Orions?

 

Please also note that the situation in a). lead to the retirement of said dedicated airdefence platform, because the scenario envisioned by its designers no longer exists......and the attempt to turn it into a "bomb truck" deemed a dead end ;)

 

Bad, bad example Kula66 :biggrin:

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Kula66]

I think you just failed to understand the example ....

[Alfa]

I think you just failed to understand the example ....

 

No I understood the intention behind your example alright, but you just proved my point with it.

 

Thanks mate :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[MBot]

Of course Alfas explanations are both very competent and extensive ( and highly interesting ). I think that the case of the russian naval doctrine and the application of the Su-33 in it is very clear.

 

But Kula66 brings up a very good point with an excellent example. Roles and doctrines change and sometimes units are used for purposes they were not intended for.

The british Invincible class carriers were designed to hunt soviet submarines in the north atlantic. For this purpose they were equipped with a deckload of ASW helicopters. Additionaly they had a small number ( 6 ) of Sea Harriers to drive off sniffing soviet martime patrol aircraft. But trough some weird events in history the HMS Invincible was loaded up with Sea Harriers in 1982 and send out to launch strike and CAP sorties against the invaded Falkland islands, completly against its intended role. And the valueable Sea Harriers, of wich the RN only owned a very limited number, were risked in very dangerous attack missions against highly defended targets, something the SARH was not intended for either.

 

So while the current doctrine of the russian navy is cristal clear, no one knows what could happen and for what roles units would be redirected in the future. The Invincible is a real nice example of such a development with some interesting simmilaritys to the Kuznetsov ( but also with differences ).

[Kula66]

My statement didn't prove anything - try reading it again s-l-o-w-l-y ...

 

Ok I'll spell it out for you: a/c get used in ways that were never thought of ... Sea Harriers FRS1 were primarily designed to hunt Bears, they ended up doing CAS, bombing runways, dogfighting Mirages, dropping bombs on spy trawlers ... If an incident happened in a distant arena, and politics dicated a naval response - who knows what the Russians would send ... every available unit.

 

I'm sure the Russian Navy is just as gutsy as the Royal Navy.

 

If that required CAS/Interception/Anti-surface strike then I'm they would hang bombs/rockets on them and get and use what liitle strike capabilty as required.

[BearF_CO_159th]

In the Falklands example do not forget that the RAF Harrier was also employed for most of the 'mud moving' freeing the Sea Harrier for what it was built for..CAPs.

 

Of course, you *could* argue that the RAF Harrier was never designed to operate from a Royal Navy ship...I would say the aircraft was, just not the pilot.

[Kula66]

In the Falklands example do not forget that the RAF Harrier was also employed for most of the 'mud moving' freeing the Sea Harrier for what it was built for..CAPs.

From memory that was after the initial strikes on Stanley Airfield ... weren't they ferried down on the Atlantic Conveyor most of the way?

[Alfa]

My statement didn't prove anything - try reading it again s-l-o-w-l-y ...

 

Ok I'll spell it out for you:

 

And I suggest you quit the smartass attitude.

 

- JJ.

[MBot]

In the Falklands example do not forget that the RAF Harrier was also employed for most of the 'mud moving' freeing the Sea Harrier for what it was built for..CAPs.

 

The Harrier GR3 didn't arrive on the carriers until 18th May, the 18th day of the shooting war. And even then only 4 units for that moment ). So in the first 2 weeks the Sea Harriers were fighting the airwar alone.

[MBot]

Of course, you *could* argue that the RAF Harrier was never designed to operate from a Royal Navy ship...I would say the aircraft was, just not the pilot.

 

Not want to sound like a smartass :) But the GR3 wasn't realy that well suited for carrier operations. It's INS could not be aligned on a moving ship and therefore could not be used in the Falkland campaigne. Still it proved as a welcome reinforcement for the british airpower.

[504MrWolf]

Cant we all just get along !?? :D

[Sharpshooter]

If I could ask only one question, it would be:

 

Does the Kutznetsov even carry some A2G ordenance for their Su-33s ?

 

I think that if someone could answer that question we would know if the Su-33 was intenden for some emergency A2G mission or if it was not intended to fulfill that task at all.

 

Sorry if this has already been answered, I try to read all posts :)

[BearF_CO_159th]

From memory that was after the initial strikes on Stanley Airfield ... weren't they ferried down on the Atlantic Conveyor most of the way?

 

Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by an Exocet ASM. Her most valuable cargo, Chinook helicopters, went with her. I dont honestly know if she carried any Harriers.

 

Funny how threads wander isn't it? Oh, and thats a very valid question Sharpshooter.

[MBot]

The Atlantic Conveyor did indeed carry the first batch of 4 GR3 to the taskforce. Together with a load of additional Sea Harriers and helicopters. Fortunatly all fighters did leave the Atlantic Conveyor to their carriers before the ship was sunk. The other GR3 where either flown down to Hermes directly from Ascension Island ( with the help of fastly equipped IFR probes ) or aboard the Atlantic Conveyors sister ship Contender Bezant.

 

Sorry for going OT, but the Falkland airwar is one of my pet subjects. As soon as I read somewhere "Falkland" I dig out my books and start throwing around meaningless infos :)

[Kenan]

Hi Kenan,

 

GG is exactly right.

 

The Su-27K was designed ...

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

I have nothing else to say, 'cept to thank you for your extensive reply! ;)

[Kula66]

And I suggest you quit the smartass attitude.

 

- JJ.

 

Or what?

[504MrWolf]

Kula66........m8........keep the thread attidue free.

 

Is it really needed ? If it goes down the wrong path the thread get locked and someone gets told off.

 

I started the thread for purposes of adding a little fun mod not for a full blown arguement about RL and virtual life :)

 

Lets keep it constructive to the topic.

 

Cheers

Dave

[Alfa]

Or what?

 

Check your PM please.

 

- JJ.

[bSr.LCsta]

Since the S-25's appear to be too contreversial,how bout just some B-8's instead :P

[Csmag]

The S-8's would be cool butt I think lomac could use some of these:

:D :D :D :tongue:

[Kula66]

Check your PM please.

 

- JJ.

 

Ok you win ...

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

PWND ?