multirole flankers and fulcrums

[upyr1]

I know that these aircraft have been shown with every thing under the sun at static airshow displays, but what variants of these aircraft are actualy capable of dilivering PGMs in an air to mud role?

[Alfa]

Heh - all the ones that are "multirole" ;) .

 

The first such Flanker version was the Su-35(Su-27M), then came the Su-30MK multirole export article which has been produced in varies variants tailored for specific countries(Su-30MKI, Su-30MKK, Su-30MKM etc). Most recently the Russian airforce has upgraded some of its baseline Su-27S and Su-27UBs to Su-27SM and Su-27UBM respectively - providing them with the ability to deploy guided air-to-ground munitions. Finally the first mentioned Su-35(from late eighties) has been "revisited" in a new version destined to enter service with the Russian airforce.

 

The first multirole Fulcrum variants were the MiG-29M(9-15) and the naval variant of this the MiG-29K(9-31) from late eighties. The first multirole upgrade for the baseline MiG-29 was the MiG-29SM(9-13M) followed by the further upgraded MiG-29SMT(9-17). Currently MIG is offering new versions of the MiG-29K(9-41 and two seat variant 9-47) and MiG-29M(MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 two seat variants) plus a new version of the MiG-29SMT upgrade(SMT-2).

 

That should just about cover it, but there are other more subtle MiG-29 upgrades that also includes PGM capability such as the Belorussian MiG-29BM to take an example.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Alfa

[Alfa]

Su-30 series most definitely....

 

Yes but excepting the initial Su-30 and the export version of this(Su-30K) which were pure interceptors.

[Cosmonaut]

Heh - all the ones that are "multirole" ;) .

 

The first such Flanker version was the Su-35(Su-27M), then came the Su-30MK multirole export article which has been produced in varies variants tailored for specific countries(Su-30MKI, Su-30MKK, Su-30MKM etc). Most recently the Russian airforce has upgraded some of its baseline Su-27S and Su-27UBs to Su-27SM and Su-27UBM respectively - providing them with the ability to deploy guided air-to-ground munitions. Finally the first mentioned Su-35(from late eighties) has been "revisited" in a new version destined to enter service with the Russian airforce.

 

The first multirole Fulcrum variants were the MiG-29M(9-15) and the naval variant of this the MiG-29K(9-31) from late eighties. The first multirole upgrade for the baseline MiG-29 was the MiG-29SM(9-13M) followed by the further upgraded MiG-29SMT(9-17). Currently MIG is offering new versions of the MiG-29K(9-41 and two seat variant 9-47) and MiG-29M(MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 two seat variants) plus a new version of the MiG-29SMT upgrade(SMT-2).

 

That should just about cover it, but there are other more subtle MiG-29 upgrades that also includes PGM capability such as the Belorussian MiG-29BM to take an example.

 

Great post:thumbup::thumbup:.

 

Just a few questions: what's the actual doctrine of the Russian carrier based jet aircraft. This is something I've been thinking about since I saw footage of a pilot in a Su33 simulator practicing rocket attacks on ground targets. If the purpose of aircraft on the Kuznetsov is just to protect the fleet then why would they set up the Su33 simulator for ground attack or indeed what would be the purpose of a Mig29K with extensive air to ground capabilities?

 

Have we got it wrong all these years and the Russian navy actually see it's multirole stike fighters as more than fleet defenders?

[DarkWanderer]

and the Russian navy actually see it's multirole stike fighters as more than fleet defenders?

Didn't get you clearly, but upgraded (or built after 2005) Su-33's are able to carry AGMs too.

[Alfa]

No we didn't get it wrong Cozmo :) .

 

The aviation cruisers themselves are considered multirole platforms(hence the variation in onboard armament) and the embarked aircraft were expected to have similar nature. The Yak-38 had strike capability(although with unguided munitions), while the projected successor - the Yak-41 would have had been a true multirole fighter just like the the MiG-29K.

 

Thats also why the MiG-29K initially was seen as the most obvious alternative to the Yak-41(same overall size and similar WCS including Zhuk multimode radar) once the Yak-41 development ran into trouble and it became clear that it would be possible to launch horizontal take-off fighters from medium sized carriers without the need for catapults.

 

However, as you know the Su-33 was ultimately chosen. I believe this first and foremost had to do with the economical situation in connection with the break-up of the Soviet Union. Knowing that the Su-33 was challenged by its larger size in comparison with the MiG-29K in terms of the practical matters connected with carrier operations, Sukhoi concentrated their efforts on airframe modifications and just adopted the systems of the original land based Su-27S with only few modifications to the NAV system(to enable it to operate safely at sea). This simplistic approach in turn meant that the Su-33 was the most(only) realistic option to pursue at a time where funds for the carrier program had all but dried up.

 

With the doctrine aviation cruisers were to operate under and subsequent emphasis on airsuperiority, you could also claim that the Su-33 arguably was the better suited given its larger size - i.e. ability to employ more powerful radar, more a2a missiles and more fuel. Even so there were clearly plans for upgrading it to some level of multirole capability later - which, among other things, would involve the use of the same Zhuk radar slated for the MiG-29K(although with a larger antenna) and as you know it was also seriously considered to employ the huge 3M80 Moskit ASM.

 

However, none of these upgrade plans materialized(except for a recent Pastel RWS upgrade). So its hard to imagine that the Russian navy would consider its Su-33s as actual "strike fighters" given their very modest virtues in this respect and the apparent lack of interest in upgrading them - but of course that doesn't mean that they wouldn't bother training with what little a2g capability they do have :) .

 

If we return to the doctrine bit - it is not so much a question of the aircraft themselves, but more about the overall naval doctrine under which the ships that employ them were to operate. As you know, the aviation cruisers were meant for providing "safe areas" for the Soviet navy's main "fist" - the submarine fleet - supporting and protecting them on the large oceans - primarily against airborne ASW assets as well as other submarines(hence the large ASW helicopter contingent onboard), but also against enemy ASW surface assets.

 

It is really only in connection with the latter that you could argue a need for the fighters to have strike capability, but then as you know the aviation cruisers themselves have a very powerful onboard SSM armament for this purpose and it is also a question how much of an offensive "punch" you could obtain through the fighter wing without adopting a US style carrier approach - i.e. much larger and much more expensive vessels.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Alfa

[Alfa]

Didn't get you clearly, but upgraded (or built after 2005) Su-33's are able to carry AGMs too.

 

The Su-33s in operational use retain their original SUV-33 WCS - neither the N001 radar nor EOS provide the ability to locate/engage surface targets nor does the WCS support guided munitions for the purpose.

 

The only Su-33 upgrade so far involves the Pastel RWS, which in theory means ability to guide ARMs, but this would require deeper modifications to the WCS(to use associated weapons) and I doubt this was done.

 

As mentioned above, there were plans for upgrading the single seat Su-33 with "multirole" capability, but so far no such aircraft has materialised even in prototype form - the closest to this is the Su-27KUB(Su-33UB), but this is a radical two-seat modification(really a new aircraft altogether) and exists only in two(AFAIK) prototypes.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Alfa

[Cosmonaut]

Another great post Alfa..

 

Trying to keep some semblance of realism I only use the Su33 for CAP missions, fleet defense etc .. Although I do let wishful thinking get in the way and blow stuff up on the ground with the Su33 from time to time. However my real hope is that one day we see a Mig29K in DCS, I think that's more likely than a su33 even though my favorite is the Sukhoi.

[Alfa]

Trying to keep some semblance of realism I only use the Su33 for CAP missions, fleet defense etc .. Although I do let wishful thinking get in the way and blow stuff up on the ground with the Su33 from time to time.

 

Me too :)

 

However my real hope is that one day we see a Mig29K in DCS..

 

Amen brother! :D

 

I think that's more likely than a su33 even though my favorite is the Sukhoi.

 

Well I don't know about that - the Su-33 is a lot simpler system-wise and with the improvements to the radar routine that came with FC, Lock-on had a pretty good grip on the system representation of the Su-27/Su-33, while the MiG-29K will require a lot of new developments - not least in the radar department :) .

[Cosmonaut]

Me too :)

 

 

 

Amen brother! :D

 

 

 

Well I don't know about that - the Su-33 is a lot simpler system-wise and with the improvements to the radar routine that came with FC, Lock-on had a pretty good grip on the system representation of the Su-27/Su-33, while the MiG-29K will require a lot of new developments - not least in the radar department :) .

 

 

Two out of three aint bad.. :D .. hopefully we'll see both :thumbup: at some point but that Mig 29K cockpit is just pure aviation porn :P .

 

[Guest etendard]

Here is a link which may be of interest:

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html

Edited August 30, 2008 by etendard