China get Su-33!

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Without unassisted take off, they can only take a very limited load.

Just where in the world do you Pilotasso come up with claims like this? Where do you get ideas?

 

This is what I "know":

“”The Su-27 could take off easily with a full fuel and weapons load, using only 105 m (344 ft). The ski jump was set at 15 deg. and the normal glideslope angle was 4 deg.”

Source: Su-27 Flanker by Yefim Gordon and Peter Davinson, page 56.

 

Well, what is your source of information?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

You has wrong logic. Not at this moment. Today Su-33 are only air to air missiles (except FAB famiily and S-8, S-13, S-25 rockets).

Check post #45 on this thread.

 

Beyond that, I do have quotes from the Su-27 Flanker book that clearly state Su-27K carry 3M80 "Moskit" supersonic anti-shipping missile.

[bflagg]

I have to be honest , the only this I know about the 33, is if you put two of them together you get 66.

 

It's the political and military aspects of this purchase is what interests me most.

[Pilotasso]

Just where in the world do you Pilotasso come up with claims like this? Where do you get ideas?

 

This is what I "know":

“”The Su-27 could take off easily with a full fuel and weapons load, using only 105 m (344 ft). The ski jump was set at 15 deg. and the normal glideslope angle was 4 deg.”

Source: Su-27 Flanker by Yefim Gordon and Peter Davinson, page 56.

 

Well, what is your source of information?

 

Check post #45 on this thread.

 

Beyond that, I do have quotes from the Su-27 Flanker book that clearly state Su-27K carry 3M80 "Moskit" supersonic anti-shipping missile.

 

It is interesting how you cut my sentence leaving a crucial half behind to take it out of context. I wish I had referrence to a multirrole version of the Su-33 that does not yet exist . However it doesnt denny the fact that it is the same basic airframe and therefore cannot escape it phisical atributes. I confess I do not remenber where I read it, Im too sleepy to dig through all my books right now, but if you could find me pics of a Su-33 taking off unassisted with a full AG load such as the likes if F-18's and F-14's from catapult take off, be my guest, Ill eat my hat.

 

BTW, the Su-33 has never been fitted with the moskit, just beng proposed to. And I seen the same pics as you did. Your book needs to be updated or you just need to complete the quotes you take from it. I would like to see a flanker take off with that load, without getting rid of something else.

[Pilotasso]

This can get political very fast..and I will not dance with this devil here ...

I should've kept my hands on the other keyboard...

 

(but . I wish I could sound off...)

 

I have to be honest , the only this I know about the 33, is if you put two of them together you get 66.

 

It's the political and military aspects of this purchase is what interests me most.

 

Stop drinking! :D

I dont think I ever seen someone contradict himself so fast in so many posts before. I had posted another sequence of yours on the previous page.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

It can not land on any kind of carrier, now was it designed to, you're living in Flanker fantasies on that part.

You are right. I mixed Su-25UTG and Su-25TM(Su-39).

 

Su25TM(Su39) Kop'yo 25 radar can assist in ground mapping, looking for ground targets. Also Kop’yo 25 can track up to 10 air targets, and simultaneously attack two with R-77's. Now that’s the Frogfoot on steroids!

[Guest IguanaKing]

Just where in the world do you Pilotasso come up with claims like this? Where do you get ideas?

 

This is what I "know":

“”The Su-27 could take off easily with a full fuel and weapons load, using only 105 m (344 ft). The ski jump was set at 15 deg. and the normal glideslope angle was 4 deg.”

Source: Su-27 Flanker by Yefim Gordon and Peter Davinson, page 56.

 

Well, what is your source of information?

 

In light of Alfa's post regarding what steam catapults have to do with bring-back capability, which I agree with 100%...I also have to ask what the angle of the ski jump has to do with G/S angle. :D

[Ukr_Alex]

oh my... Alex...

We American's DO NOT have the world in check (nor should it be our goal)

 

Thats your opinion, not my'n. ;)

[Ukr_Alex]

[quote=SuperKungFu;255071 I remember the last aircraft carrier (i forgot the name) they purchased from russia was actually go into service. I think this is the picture of the carrier

 

 

They didnt purchase it from Russia. They purchased it from Ukraine. The name is "Varyag". Its a Kuznetsov class.

 

Some proxy company of the Chinese Navy bought it at an auction for 20million USD saying it will be used as a "casino".

 

Last thing known about is that its at a dry dock being sand blasted and painted. Thats as of 2005.

 

 

[Guest IguanaKing]

LMAO

 

Do you even know what I mean by "whole lotta brains" ?

 

 

Alex, put "not a" before that quote, like your original post said, then you can understand why people got upset with you. Before continuing to support your viewpoint, and not apologizing for it, you might actually want to read what you wrote. Your original post said "...a lot of money, but not a whole lotta brains.". Now...maybe you meant to say something else, and a few too many words got left in on what you ultimately ended up posting, we don't know. But, the way it came out wasn't cool, dude...try reading what you ended up posting before continuing fighting with people who had a problem with what you said. If you screwed up in your editing as you were forming your thoughts, no harm done, man.

[Kusch]

Beyond that, I do have quotes from the Su-27 Flanker book that clearly state Su-27K carry 3M80 "Moskit" supersonic anti-shipping missile.

 

Only static display in airshow. This missile never integrated with Su-33 weapon system.

 

Zhuk-M equipping the MiG-29K.....only difference is the size of the antenna(624mm for the Zhuk-M and 960mm for the Zhuk-MS).

 

No smaller pasive Bars radar?

[Force_Feedback]

Also remember the su-27KUB looks freakin, freakin awesome, and it can land on carriers too. And it finally has the auto-coordinated ejection system, that ejects the crew away from the carriers path and structures. It also has an auto-eject mode, but I don't know the exact parameters of that one :( I guess when a collision either with the ship, or water is imminent, the crew gets to ride their massaged ejection seats and test those space suits :P

[Alfa]

Only static display in airshow. This missile never integrated with Su-33 weapon system.

 

Correct :)

 

No smaller pasive Bars radar?

 

You are refering to NIIP's "Bars-29"?.

 

To be honest I don't know what the deal is with that set - I think it is just a case of NIIP trying to get a foot in on the MiG-29K deal :) . The fact is that the MiG-29K design always had a "Zhuk" radar from NIIR associated with it - the N010 "Zhuk" radar in its 9-31 form(from 1990) and now the refined and modernized "Zhuk-M" for the 9-41.

 

What you have to consider is that:

 

a). RSK MIG is pursuing a common radar/weapons control system for all its latest MiG-29 versions - MiG-29M/MiG-29M2, MiG-29K/MiG-29KUB and MiG-29SMT-2 - for which the "Zhuk-M" radar is the central part.

 

b). Sukhoi traditionally used NIIP radars for its Su-27 design - N001 originally and upgraded N001VE(Su-27SM, Su-27UBM, Su-30KN and Su-30MKK) or N011/N011M "Bars"(Su-35 and Su-30MKI) for its advanced derrivatives. Yet they picked NIIR's Zhuk design for their naval Su-27 versions - first "Zhuk-27" for early proposed Su-33 upgrade and now "Zhuk-MS" for the new Su-27KUB.....and even, when going for a phased array set for the latter, they again picked a Zhuk("Zhuk-MSF") and not the N011M Bars.

 

Something tells me that the Zhuk-M design(including enlarged Zhuk-MS and phased array Zhuk-MSF variant) has superiour characteristics to the Bars design for naval purposes.

 

So no - I don't really believe that a "Bars-29" will find its way into India's MiG-29Ks :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

..I also have to ask what the angle of the ski jump has to do with G/S angle. :D

 

Hehe...not a whole lot. One thing has to do with the launching of aircraft the other with bringing them back onboard.

 

So yeah... "same difference" :D .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Only static display in airshow. This missile never integrated with Su-33 weapon system.

 

Correct :)

 

How can both of you with confidence say that Su-33 can not use Moskit? The book I have say it can. It looks like I have to buy more books for cross-reference.

 

Or, what is your source of information?

[HRZ]

How can both of you with confidence say that Su-33 can not use Moskit? The book I have say it can. It looks like I have to buy more books for cross-reference.

 

Or, what is your source of information?

 

His source of information is internet, which hardly can be compared to a Flanker dedicated book. Now, even if Su33 couldn't deploy Moskit, it's still a cold, undeniable FACT, that this very book has more authority then some unnamed and hardly confirmed internet sources.

 

I agree with Veljko here: unless someone points to a valid source stating SU33 cannot carry Moskit, I'll belive Yephim Gordon who has, afterall, written 'few' pages on the matter.

 

And all those saying they haven't seen pictures of SU33 taking off with Moskit, think again: have you seen SU33 taking off with full AA load? No.

 

Does it mean it CAN'T take off with fuel AA load? Of course not. In the worst possible case scenario, it could take off with half the full and refuel when airborne (that's what the tankers and TOPAZ fuel tanks are for).

[Force_Feedback]

It has the Brahmos now, big deal :/

[bflagg]

Stop drinking! :D

I dont think I ever seen someone contradict himself so fast in so many posts before. I had posted another sequence of yours on the previous page.

 

:drink:

 

...sometimes I just can't help myself.....

 

Remember.. you are without Lockon.RU sin also....

[GGTharos]

His source of information is internet, which hardly can be compared to a Flanker dedicated book. Now, even if Su33 couldn't deploy Moskit, it's still a cold, undeniable FACT, that this very book has more authority then some unnamed and hardly confirmed internet sources.

 

His source is word that has come down from the Russian Navy cancelling the moskit program, along with the other upgrades for the Su-33 as pertaining to the Russian Navy.

It is a COLD, UNDENIABLE FACT that the Russian Navy has more authority than some book written by some guy.

I have 'dedicated books' about a few aircraft which haven't gotten all their information right, or made assumptions based on 'future projects', including US jets.

 

I agree with Veljko here: unless someone points to a valid source stating SU33 cannot carry Moskit, I'll belive Yephim Gordon who has, afterall, written 'few' pages on the matter.

Believe whoever you want ;) Fact is that no Su-33 has had any FCS modifications made to enable use of this missile, and no Kh-41's have been BOUGHT by the Russian Navy for use.

I understand if the author was quite hopeful - we have found out, however, that even Jane's ... JANES ... got things wrong when it comes to the Su-33, way back when.

 

And all those saying they haven't seen pictures of SU33 taking off with Moskit, think again: have you seen SU33 taking off with full AA load? No.

 

Does it mean it CAN'T take off with fuel AA load? Of course not. In the worst possible case scenario, it could take off with half the full and refuel when airborne (that's what the tankers and TOPAZ fuel tanks are for).

You're very likely looking at 'the worst possible scenario'. The R-27E versions weight some 350kg a piece. You might well be taking off with 2000kg less than full fuel, which isn't so bad (and yes, then you can top up) so I don't understand what the big deal is with not taking off 'with a full load of weapons'. And if you have to tak-off quickly, you probably don't /want/ that fuel anyway since the Su-33 is a cow as compared to the Su-27S as is (thanks for those two extra metric tonnes of airframe!)

 

 

And here's an interesting little thing about the state of the Russian Navy:

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/2-2004/rat/sfd/

 

And note that they have referenced their statements.

 

More stuff still:

http://www.idsa.in/publications/strategic-analysis/2004/jan/R%20Sukumaran.pdf

 

If they're having issues with Brahmos NOW, what would make one thing that airborne moskit hadn't issues THEN?

[D-Scythe]

His source of information is internet, which hardly can be compared to a Flanker dedicated book. Now, even if Su33 couldn't deploy Moskit, it's still a cold, undeniable FACT, that this very book has more authority then some unnamed and hardly confirmed internet sources.

 

I agree with Veljko here: unless someone points to a valid source stating SU33 cannot carry Moskit, I'll belive Yephim Gordon who has, afterall, written 'few' pages on the matter.

 

And all those saying they haven't seen pictures of SU33 taking off with Moskit, think again: have you seen SU33 taking off with full AA load? No.

 

Does it mean it CAN'T take off with fuel AA load? Of course not. In the worst possible case scenario, it could take off with half the full and refuel when airborne (that's what the tankers and TOPAZ fuel tanks are for).

 

You guys are questioning *Alfa's* knowledge of Russian naval weaponry?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

You guys are questioning *Alfa's* knowledge of Russian naval weaponry?

In the post #45 on this thread, Alfa said the following:

Quote

"The Su-33s in the configuration currently operated by Russia are air-defence assets only - a radar/weapons system as that of the Su-27KUB would, apart from being much more advanced and make them much more capable in the air-to-air role, allow them to search out and engage naval targets with anti-ship missiles."

End of quote.

So here, Alfa is clearly stating that Su-33 can engage naval targets with anti-ship missiles.

 

And then in post #63 he stated the opposite.

 

My question to him was about the source of information.

 

Do I question Alfa, sure I do. I question everybody and everything. I am technician, I am looking for facts.

[Pilotasso]

You should have put the word "would" in bold as well like this: WOULD ;)

[D-Scythe]

In the post #45 on this thread, Alfa said the following:

Quote

"The Su-33s in the configuration currently operated by Russia are air-defence assets only - a radar/weapons system as that of the Su-27KUB would, apart from being much more advanced and make them much more capable in the air-to-air role, allow them to search out and engage naval targets with anti-ship missiles."

End of quote.

So here, Alfa is clearly stating that Su-33 can engage naval targets with anti-ship missiles.

 

And then in post #63 he stated the opposite.

 

My question to him was about the source of information.

 

Do I question Alfa, sure I do. I question everybody and everything. I am technician, I am looking for facts.

 

Um, what? Read his post carefully again. He EXPLICITLY states that IF the Su-33 got the upgrades (like the Su-27KUB), THEN it would be able to use...whatever we're talking about.

 

Never, never doubt Alfa on Russian naval equipment ;)

[HRZ]

You guys are questioning *Alfa's* knowledge of Russian naval weaponry?

 

Well I'm very much new around here. Is he in the Navy or something???

[Pilotasso]

No, hes a die hard fan of anything the russians embark. He probably read more on it than I did the whole aviation of the rest of the world.