Can LO FC Su-33 have these ?

[504MrWolf]

Twin rack S25 ! :D

 

Please ED add this in 1.11 ?

 

[Kenan]

Only if it's the case IRL. Otherwise, I don't see point adding it to the SU33 inventory.

[Cobra360]

The living proof.

 

[Cobra360]

I have also seen the S-8 rocket pods mounted in this configuration aswell.

[Alfa]

Only if it's the case IRL. Otherwise, I don't see point adding it to the SU33 inventory.

 

Still not much point in adding it to the Su-33 inventory - the Su-27 perhaps :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Pilotasso]

It could be handy if you dont wat to waste too may pylons with that weapon.

[Alfa]

It could be handy if you dont wat to waste too may pylons with that weapon.

 

Pilotasso - why would the Su-33 fly around with unguided rockets in the middle of the ocean? :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[bSr.LCsta]

I had also noticed this. Would be nice ;)

[Pilotasso]

Pilotasso - why would the Su-33 fly around with unguided rockets in the middle of the ocean? :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

...because their purpose is to be used in any scenario other than always over water, and because we (read: me) have been using it as a ground pounder.;)

 

And with all the dangerous oponents in the sky I can use as much AA pylons left as I can get.

[Alfa]

...because their purpose is to be used in any scenario other than always over water, and because we (read: me) have been using it as a ground pounder.;)

 

The entire purpose of the Su-33 is to operate as air-defense asset for a ship deployed far out at sea...which in turn means exclusively over water ;)

 

It really doesnt matter what the Su-33 itself can be used for - believe it or not, but the determining factor here is the ship.....not the aircraft :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[ALDEGA]

Pilotasso - why would the Su-33 fly around with unguided rockets in the middle of the ocean? :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

Attack the Turkish coast lines?

[Gazehound]

For shooting at boats?

[GGTharos]

The Su-33 wouldn't attack the Turkish coastlines - all it would accomplish would be getting shot down by a HAWK or Patriot battery.

 

It would also not be shooting at boats, since the ships it's protecting are ebtter equipped to do so. ;)

[Pilotasso]

Cant the Su-33 use the moskit missile? (BTW how does it work in the game, I cant fire it)

[Cobra360]

It can only carry dummy moskits, it has no software to launch a live guided missile. Money for the project ran out.

[GGTharos]

In fact the Moskit was never produced in an air-launched version for the 33 AFAIK.

[S77th-konkussion]

it's there for laughs as far as LOMAC is concerned. Fun to shoot in a well made mission.

[Alfa]

Attack the Turkish coast lines?

 

I was talking about the real Su-33.....which would operate in airdefence of the Admiral Kuznetsov on (mainly)the Atlantic Ocean :D .

 

The Kuznetsov was not designed for land attack operations, but quite exclusively for naval warfare.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

For shooting at boats?

 

what "boats" would that be? - I hope you arent suggesting the use of unguided rockets fired at point blank range for engaging a modern naval target.....there is a term for something like that - it is called "suicide" :biggrin: .

 

This is 2005 - not WWII you know ;)

 

Anyway, the Su-33 is a far too important(and scarse) airdefence asset for a Russian group to be used as a "bomb truck" - and, as GG said, the ship on which it is deployed is far better equipped for "shooting at boats" than the Su-33 will ever be :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

Cant the Su-33 use the moskit missile?

 

What Cobra360, GG and S77th-konkussion said :)

 

BTW how does it work in the game, I cant fire it

 

You need to pre-designate your naval target in the Mission Editor - then, in the mission, select air-to-ground mode("7") and then press "i" to switch on......eh "radar" :icon_conf .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[SUBS17]

The entire purpose of the Su-33 is to operate as air-defense asset for a ship deployed far out at sea...which in turn means exclusively over water ;)

 

It really doesnt matter what the Su-33 itself can be used for - believe it or not, but the determining factor here is the ship.....not the aircraft :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

That maybe what it says on paper but in real life the aircraft can carry such ordanance to hit targets costing less money than wasting a cruise missile. Such targets are obviously undefended from air attack. Falklands war is proof however that jet aircraft can still attack a partially defended ship successfully.

[192nd_Erdem]

Come on guys,you can't say it's nonsense to add an ordinance because it's rarely used.If it's the case IRL,it should be in game.

 

I don't ever use R-60,should we take it out? :)

[Guest Cali]

Still not much point in adding it to the Su-33 inventory - the Su-27 perhaps :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

Why not? I would use that, I love those things they make a big boom.

[Tracker]

Fictitious Su-33 Scenario Encouraging the Use of Twin Rack S-25:

In 1987 an unnamed transport vessel (carrying what was thought to be the entire stolen lab equipment, prototypes and documentation of a working 3 TerraWatt EMP system) Developed serious engine problems approx 245Km from the Kuznetsov. The captain realizing the value of the cargo placed it in several lifeboats and had them steer to a heading away from the Kuz Fleet and toward allied support. Satellite images of the cargo transfer were relayed to the Kuz. and an intercept mission was deployed to sink the lifeboats at minimal cost before the allied support reached the area. Two Su-33's equiped with the rockets in question satisfactorially reached the targets in record time, destroyed the targets and returned safely at a minimal cost.

 

Disclaimer:

Any similarity to actual events are purely coincidental and I disavow any knowledge of any real related data or related records on file with any agency including but not limited to the CIA, FBI, KGB, CSIS, ONI, AFIA, AIA, INSCOM, NRO, DIA, DMA, USSPACECOM or any other intellegence gathering entity.

[Alfa]

That maybe what it says on paper but in real life the aircraft can carry such ordanance to hit targets costing less money than wasting a cruise missile. Such targets are obviously undefended from air attack. Falklands war is proof however that jet aircraft can still attack a partially defended ship successfully.

 

Reversed reasoning Subs.

 

Being able to carry dumb bombs and unguided rockets for a scenario which is an unlikely occurrence in connection with the intended role of the ship and its associated aircraft is what it "says on paper".

 

The Russian Navy did venture into the use of shipborne airpower for surface strike purposes, but using different types of aircraft - namely the Yak-41 and MiG-29K multirole fighters. But as you know, these didn't materialise into operational aircraft for the Russian navy.

 

The Su-33 was developed as a dedicated airdefence asset and is operated as such onboard the Kuznetsov - not for carrying out surface strike missions. Its ability to carry unguided a2g ordinance is something of a curiosity almost along the lines of the bit about the F-15C being able to carry iron bombs.

 

If the Russian Navy had felt the need to operate the Su-33 in the surface strike capacity, I am sure they would have provided it with the type sensor capabilities necessary for actually finding such targets - as well as weapons suitable for engaging them.....they didn't. As a matter of fact the only such effort(the Moskit missile) was deemed impracticable and abandoned and no other anti-ship missiles were pursued despite there being other more obvious and practical options - such as the Kh-31A and Kh-35 - available for it.

 

The problem in Lock-on in this connection is not in coming up with "exotic" features and thought up scenarios for the Su-33/Kuznetsov, but to depict them properly in the capacity in which they would actually operate.

 

I hope no one thinks the Su-33 "quick start" mission in Lock-on is such..... :biggrin:

 

Cheers,

- JJ.