Kh-41 under a Su-33

[Groove]

Look how big the kh-41 is:

 

 

The guy is standing right in Front of a Yakhont/Onyx Anti Ship Missile

 

 

Can we get the Torpedos in Lomac too ? ;) I mean the Su-33 dropable ones:

 

 

[Alfa]

Groove,

 

The "Kh-41" airlaunched variant of the Moskit is not operational, so its inclusion to Lock-on is something of a "gameplay" feature :) .

 

Can we get the Torpedos in Lomac too ? ;) I mean the Su-33 dropable ones:

 

They are not "Su-33 dropable" ;) . The aircraft they are displayed with is the Su-32(Su-27IB, Su-34.....etc. :p ), which reportedly comes in a version(or equipment fit) that includes a MAD(Magnetic Anomaly Detector) for locating submerged submarines.

 

A a little pointless in Lock-on as long as submarines cannot dive below the surface :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Groove]

Hi Alfa,

 

i just wanted to show how big the kh-31 is in RL. There are very few pictures of the Kh-41 on the net imho.

 

Regarding the Torpedos. Its my error. They are for the Su-32 FN.

 

But i still think they had at least tests dropping them off the jet into water. I think there are better platform for ASW than the Su-32 when it comes to the detection stuff ( like MAD and sonar boyes ).

 

Here is a pic of a Su-32 FN with a jet propelled torpedo on display :

 

[Alfa]

Hi Alfa,

 

i just wanted to show how big the kh-31 is in RL. There are very few pictures of the Kh-41 on the net imho.

 

Well there aren't many that give a good impression of its size thats true :) . The thing is massive - some 9m in length and weighing ~4 tons!.

 

But i still think they had at least tests dropping them off the jet into water. I think there are better platform for ASW than the Su-32 when it comes to the detection stuff ( like MAD and sonar boyes ).

 

Yeah I would agree with that - submerged submarines are not easy to find and dedicated ASW platforms are usually large prop planes with huge operational range and payload capability.....and absolutely stuffed with sensors :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Groove]

I think they can send a Su-32 FN in there with torpedos when they have nailed the sub already and there are no Akulas in this area :)

 

Edit:

 

I had 2 rep points where are they ? :/

[Dudikoff]

Regarding the Torpedos. Its my error. They are for the Su-32 FN.

 

What about Su-27KUB? Somehow it would seem more logical to me if the naval strike fighter version was using torpedoes and not the land-based variant.

[Groove]

Maybe they are too heavy.

[Jester_159th]

I'm suprised that even a modern torpedo can survive the shock of impacting the water when dropped at the speed you average modern fighter flies at, let alone survive the impact in good enough condition to track a target and run straight.

[Force_Feedback]

I'm suprised that even a modern torpedo can survive the shock of impacting the water when dropped at the speed you average modern fighter flies at, let alone survive the impact in good enough condition to track a target and run straight.

 

That's why they use chutes/airbags/clamshells to slow it down, but even then, the forces are immense.

[Groove]

 

The kh-41 is just awesome !

[Alfa]

What about Su-27KUB? Somehow it would seem more logical to me if the naval strike fighter version was using torpedoes and not the land-based variant.

 

It is a good point, but the Su-27KUB is really a naval multirole fighter - sort of an upgraded two-seat version of the Su-33, while the Su-34 is a much heavier, slower and less agile dedicated strike aircraft.

 

Despite some superficial external similarities(in connection with the side-by-side cockpit arrangement), the Su-27KUB and Su-34 have very little in common and are as "unrelated" as the Su-33 and Su-34 :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Force_Feedback]

The 27kub shares like 65% of the airframe with the -33, I believe the KUB prototype was a converted su-33, you can see it on some pic of it, the "original" -33 parts are painted blue, while the new structual elements are yellow. Actually, the su-27kub is more agile than the su-33 because of the TVC engines, and better engine life (lets them do those nice tailslides, and post stall TVC tricks without wearing out the engines too much), and in combat capability it outperforms the su-33 in every role, due to the multimode radar, with simultaneous A2A and A2G capability, and some serious A2G weaponry, and our beloved, much debated RVV-AE missile :p ;)

The FCS needed some debunking after the left canard flew off during a test flight, damaging the canopy and cockpit section, but nothing crashed so far, so it's lookig good.

Having the su-27kub in lomac 3 would be such an overkill, as it got everything whiners dream about: carrier operations, TVC, MFDs, two pilots, A2G radar, phased array dish, refuel probe, and even massaging ejection seats. Oh, for the "special" whiners there is also a USAF skin and all-American cockpit, with everything in feet, pounds, gallons and inches (the stick is measured in inches ;)) and all-american weaponry and a fake catapult connector. :p

[RvETito]

Yeah I would agree with that - submerged submarines are not easy to find and dedicated ASW platforms are usually large prop planes with huge operational range and payload capability.....and absolutely stuffed with sensors :)

 

Hi Jens,

 

Don't forget the slow and very compact Ka-27PL, which is actualy the primary russian antisub aircraft in service. It's a very good piece of machinery I'll say, along with the Mi-14PL. Generaly speaking, helicopters are the biggest threat for the subs as for tanks. So I wouldn't mind if we see a detailed Ka-27 for naval operations, like the case with incomming Ka-50 for CAS. Not that it's going to happen but just a thought...

[RvETito]

The 27kub shares like 65% of the airframe with the -33, I believe the KUB prototype was a converted su-33, you can see it on some pic of it, the "original" -33 parts are painted blue, while the new structual elements are yellow. Actually, the su-27kub is more agile than the su-33 because of the TVC engines, and better engine life (lets them do those nice tailslides, and post stall TVC tricks without wearing out the engines too much), and in combat capability it outperforms the su-33 in every role, due to the multimode radar, with simultaneous A2A and A2G capability, and some serious A2G weaponry, and our beloved, much debated RVV-AE missile :p ;)

The FCS needed some debunking after the left canard flew off during a test flight, damaging the canopy and cockpit section, but nothing crashed so far, so it's lookig good.

Having the su-27kub in lomac 3 would be such an overkill, as it got everything whiners dream about: carrier operations, TVC, MFDs, two pilots, A2G radar, phased array dish, refuel probe, and even massaging ejection seats. Oh, for the "special" whiners there is also a USAF skin and all-American cockpit, with everything in feet, pounds, gallons and inches (the stick is measured in inches ;)) and all-american weaponry and a fake catapult connector. :p

 

Like our kind moderator :D I'll vote for MiG-29K. if ED is going to model a naval fighter in details. It would offer so much features that makes it a must-have. I doubt that ED is ever going to model a two-pilots plane, especially with side-by-side seats. MiG-29K is the answer.

[Cobra360]

Is there any real possibility that the Russian Navy will be able to afford the Su-33UB, right now it's the only possible customer. I don't think the carrier India is getting from Russsia is big enough for the Su-33UB and MiG-29Ks.

 

Production Su-34s, not sure how many, have been delivered to the airforce very recently, and the Navy does not seem interested or have the money for the land based Su-32FN.

[Cobra360]

It seems to be all painted now, unless there is more than one test airframe.

 

 

 

 

Note it has takeoff and landing flap positions.

[Alfa]

The 27kub shares like 65% of the airframe with the -33, I believe the KUB prototype was a converted su-33, you can see it on some pic of it, the "original" -33 parts are painted blue, while the new structual elements are yellow. Actually, the su-27kub is more agile than the su-33 because of the TVC engines, and better engine life (lets them do those nice tailslides, and post stall TVC tricks without wearing out the engines too much), and in combat capability it outperforms the su-33 in every role, due to the multimode radar, with simultaneous A2A and A2G capability, and some serious A2G weaponry, and our beloved, much debated RVV-AE missile :p ;)

 

That's a pretty good description there FF :) . I don't think that Su-27KUB prototype was built directly on an Su-33 airframe though(the -KUB is somewhat larger than the Su-33), but it was definately based on this and may very well, as you suggested, re-use varies structural elements from it. :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

Hi Jens,

 

Don't forget the slow and very compact Ka-27PL, which is actualy the primary russian antisub aircraft in service. It's a very good piece of machinery I'll say, along with the Mi-14PL.

 

Hi Tito,

 

Oh I didn't forget mate :D . I was merely comparing the "Su-32FN" with the more traditional long range airborne ASW assets.

 

Generaly speaking, helicopters are the biggest threat for the subs as for tanks.

 

Yup I agree completely - the Ka-27PL is even to be considered an integrated(and most important) part of the ASW capability of surface ships :)

 

So I wouldn't mind if we see a detailed Ka-27 for naval operations, like the case with incomming Ka-50 for CAS. Not that it's going to happen but just a thought...

 

Yes I would love to see the AI Ka-27PL given an "overhaul" along the lines of the Ka-50 too, and as you know, there are many common features which would make something like that quite feasible :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

Like our kind moderator :D I'll vote for MiG-29K. if ED is going to model a naval fighter in details. It would offer so much features that makes it a must-have. I doubt that ED is ever going to model a two-pilots plane, especially with side-by-side seats. MiG-29K is the answer.

 

Rep point inbound! :icon_lol: .

 

One thing I would like to add is that, unlike the Su-27KUB, a MiG-29K addition(being a smaller multirole fighter) wouldnt make the Su-33 an "obsolete" game entity, since the Su-33 would retain some advantages in terms of radar range, number of long range A2A missiles for CAP and air-intercept missions. So the MiG-29K would supplement the Su-33 with the additional strike capabilities and would make for an interesting choice between them for the player depending on mission type.....and different tactics in air-to-air only engagements :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Force_Feedback]

That's a pretty good description there FF :) . I don't think that Su-27KUB prototype was built directly on an Su-33 airframe though(the -KUB is somewhat larger than the Su-33), but it was definately based on this and may very well, as you suggested, re-use varies structural elements from it. :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

The last picture in that post was the one I was talking about, it's the first prototype, the parts in blue are from a vanilla su-33, the yellow ones are new structual elements. It now has TVC engines and some other refinements, I guess electronics wise.

[Alfa]

Is there any real possibility that the Russian Navy will be able to afford the Su-33UB, right now it's the only possible customer.

 

I don't know what plans the Russian navy have for the Su-27KUB/Su-33UB, but it is possible that it may be adopted for a combined "mission controller"/training asset for the current Su-33 single-seaters.....i.e. a handful of airframes to boost the capabilities their current Su-33 fleet :) .

 

I don't think the carrier India is getting from Russsia is big enough for the Su-33UB and MiG-29Ks.

 

No it is not nearly big enough for accomodating the Su-27KUB - the KUB is even larger than the Su-33 :) . Along with the 12 single seat MiG-29Ks the the Indian navy ordered the MiG-29KUB twin-seater(four units), which is the equivalent to the Su-27KUB :) .

 

Production Su-34s, not sure how many, have been delivered to the airforce very recently, and the Navy does not seem interested or have the money for the land based Su-32FN.

 

No that's what I heard too :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Groove]

Alfa do you know the maximum range of the MIG 29 K ? I mean with full A-A load starting of a carrier deck.

[504Goon]

Apparently 1850km on internal fuel and 3000km with 3 droptanks.. but we must not forget that it can do mid-air refuel!!:)

[Force_Feedback]

Any word of when the mig-29kub prototypes will be flying?

[Alfa]

Hi Groove,

 

Alfa do you know the maximum range of the MIG 29 K ? I mean with full A-A load starting of a carrier deck.

 

Well the ranges stated by Goon are the "ferry" ranges - i.e. as from "point A" to "point B" with no weapons - on full internal fuel and full internal fuel + 3 external tanks respectively.

 

For combat configurations ranges are normally not given as "point A" to "point B", but rather as endurance - i.e. how far from the ship the aircraft can reach for a particular mission type/with a particular payload and make it back safely :) .

 

According to RSK MIG:

The MIG-29K operated from an aircraft carrier will have an effective radius of 850 km for air combat and 1,150 km for antiship and strike operations (without refueling)."

 

....which BTW corresponds quite closely to the figures given for the F/A-18C :) .

 

I guess the lower combat radius for air-to-air missions(despite lower payload weight) comes from the expectation that this will entail more manouvering and use of AB.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.