Alfa_Kilo Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 I just saw this photo of the -27KUB (will it eventually be called -33UB?). I like the engines... :music_whistling: Also check out this page Will the increase in area of ALL the aerodynamic surfaces and TVC engines make this the most maneuverable flanker variant, with a lower top speed? 1
Pilotasso Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Its a naval trainer. But never seen it with TVC nozzles before. .
hitman Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 My bet is that it flies like a pig. Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE | Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VPForce Rhino/VKB MCE Ultimate + STECS Mk2 MAX / Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | Virpil TCS+/ AH64D grip/custom AH64D TEDAC | Samsung Odyssey G9 + Odyssey Ark | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro | WinWing F-18 MIPS | No more VR for this pilot.
Alfa_Kilo Posted April 1, 2007 Author Posted April 1, 2007 My bet is that it flies like a pig. You mean like the 'vark? :smilewink:
hitman Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Almost... Thats a whole lot of airplane there and Id be willing to bet it would be on par with the F-15E. Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE | Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VPForce Rhino/VKB MCE Ultimate + STECS Mk2 MAX / Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | Virpil TCS+/ AH64D grip/custom AH64D TEDAC | Samsung Odyssey G9 + Odyssey Ark | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro | WinWing F-18 MIPS | No more VR for this pilot.
Alfa_Kilo Posted April 1, 2007 Author Posted April 1, 2007 I think its primary focus (apart from conversion training) is the A2A combat; the larger wings and control surfaces will make its low level ride a bit rougher, and TVC is not strictly needed for strike either. On the other hand, the larger wing should give it a greater carrier MTOW than the Su-33's 30 tonnes (33 tonnes from a land airfield), always useful for range and payload.
Aeroscout Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Hmm... cool, but i'm not sure i like the side-by-side cockpit configuration. makes a fighter look fat to me. But the TVC nozzles look sweet. DCS Wishlist: 1) FIX THE DAMN RIVERS!!! 2) Spherical or cylindrical panorama view projection. 3) Enhanced input options (action upon button release, etc). 4) Aircraft flight parameter dump upon exit (stick posn, attitude, rates, accel, control volume, control-surface positions, SAS bias, etc). 5) ADS-33 maneuver courses as static objects. 6) Exposed API or exports of trim position and stick force for custom controllers. 7) Select auto multiple audio devices
EscCtrl Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Another technology demonstrator maybe? e.g. the S-37/Su-47
Force_Feedback Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 It had them for a long time, also the eniges are uprated producing 13-something tonnes on AB, but it's kind of funny, the trainer is very advanced and has a classified cockpit configuration, the single seater lags like 20 years compared to the n00b friendly trainer. TVC improves low speed performance, and with a student pilot, you need control at the lowest possible speed. Also the Su-25UTG has very weak engines, again, less room for error. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
Alfa_Kilo Posted April 1, 2007 Author Posted April 1, 2007 The AL-31FP engines on the Su-30MKI are supposed to rated at 13.5 tonnes with reheat. The -27KUB seems to mount the powerplants. There was a new version shown at AeroIndia07, the AL-31FAL with 3D TVC. It is supposed to power the Su-35BM.
Alfa Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Another technology demonstrator maybe? e.g. the S-37/Su-47 No it is the "real deal" - and it is no more a "naval trainer" than the F/A-18F ;) . JJ
Disso Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Why would the equip the trainer variant with TVC? Seems like they're making the trainer version more advanced and capable in regards to the original airframe itself, the 33. SU-30MKI F/A-18F ...Beauty, grace, lethality.
Alfa Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Why would the equip the trainer variant with TVC? Seems like they're making the trainer version more advanced and capable in regards to the original airframe itself, the 33. They did - the Su-27KUB is a two-seat naval multirole fighter :) . Apart from airframe differences, the KUB has a new WCS including a phased array radar and can use the full arsenal of guided air-to-surface weaponry. JJ
Disso Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 Wait, lets get something strait here. So this isn't supposed to be a "Trainer" version of the 33, but a whole new naval strike aircraft? SU-30MKI F/A-18F ...Beauty, grace, lethality.
EricJ Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 Probably both, just like Alfa said, the F/A-18F is used both for the Fleet Replacement Squadrons as well as combat squadrons. The Russians just said "hey that'd be a good idea to give it combat capability". So they get a naval strike aircraft that's more capable than it's progenitor. Homepage | Discord | Linktree | YouTube 'Nearly everyone felt the need to express their views on all wars to me, starting with mine. I found myself thinking, “I ate the crap sandwich, you didn’t, so please don’t tell me how it tastes.”' - CPT Cole, US Army
Alfa_Kilo Posted April 2, 2007 Author Posted April 2, 2007 Any idea when its entering service? There seems to be just one a/c flying right now, the no. 717. (aka 21) Imagine if this was an AI a/c in LOMAC, with Zhuk MSFE & thrust veroring.....
Pilotasso Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 No it is the "real deal" - and it is no more a "naval trainer" than the F/A-18F ;) . What exactly is the "real deal" your talking about? .
Weta43 Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 Real deal as in all the bells & whistles work - not just mock-ups. Cheers.
EscCtrl Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 What exactly is the "real deal" your talking about? He was replying to my suggestion that the plane might only have been built for the sole purpose of being used to demonstrate the technology of Russian aircraft - by 'Real Deal' he is implying it was built for a real purpose i.e. to be used in the Russian Navy as a combat aircraft. Hope that makes sense
Pilotasso Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 ^^^^ still dont know what exactly "real deal" means. Need to get more specific. .
EscCtrl Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 'Real Deal' is a phrase - e.g. (talking about guitars here) A: I got my new Gibson guitar today B: I bet it is just another Korean made rip off again A: No, you are wrong! it is the 'real deal' this time, a true American made guitar. B: Wow! (Not that the Korean guitars are necessarily worse, only I hear this type of conversation a lot on another forum)
Alfa Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 Wait, lets get something strait here. So this isn't supposed to be a "Trainer" version of the 33, but a whole new naval strike aircraft? Naval multirole fighter :) Airsuperiority fighter, strike aircraft, trainer, tanker - same concept as with the F/A-18F. JJ
Alfa Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 What exactly is the "real deal" your talking about? What EscCtrl said :) ....not a "tech demonstrator", "mock-up" or simple "trainer", but a real multirole combat aircraft meant for actual service. JJ
Pilotasso Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 :rolleyes: LOL But what friggin "real aircraft"?! :doh: as in "make me aquainted to what this plane is all about and its background history" .
Alfa Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 :rolleyes: LOL But what frigging "real aircraft"?! :doh: Don't you understand the difference between an "X-plane" built solely for testing varies tech solutions and an aircraft designed, built and equipped for actual military service? as in "make me aquainted to what this plane is all about and its background history" Google is your friend sunshine :D JJ
Recommended Posts