If a 35 tonne catapult can be built, then Su-33 will be far superior to any other carrier based aircraft out there.
Ideal chinese carrier thread
- Thread starter Gollevainen
- Start date
- Status
Roger604
Senior Member
I think the Varyag was intended to be made seaworthy for training, but when work actually started they found that repairing the ship was harder than expected. At the same time, they figured that the progress on making the indigenous carrier was better than expected. So a decision was made to abandon the Varyag plan.
I think the Chinese naval flanker will be ready to be put into service soon, but it won't have a ship to fly on. They can train on land (for the next 5 years
) but it wouldn't be the same. It would be remarkable if they could sign a deal with Russia to train on the Kuznetzov, but I don't think the trust is quite there.
I do not agree. The Super Hornet will certainly more than give it a run for its money, and the Rafale is not far behind, if at all.
There is much more to air dominance from a carrier than the fighter platform itself, though that platform does need the range, performance, and agility necessary to engage one on one...but there is more that the Russians and others will not be able to couple with the SU-33. A strong AEW platform and the datalinks thereto to guide such aircraft onto target and control their weapons without them having to emit. Strong EW capabilities associated with either strike packages or fleet defense like the Prowler and Growler aircraft provied.
The technological capabilities, and quality and dependability of their weapons, particularly their BVR missiles.
All of these combine to add to the effectiveness of the fighter platform itself and in many of these areas, the super hornet will have the decided advantage.
Do not get me wrong, the SU-33 is a great aircraft, but in order to be far superior to any other aircraft out there, it has to have these other capabilities supporting it.
Just my opinion.
Popeye, I still believe the VAryag will be activated and commissioned as an operational PLAN vessel.
Too much work, too much upgrading. If they did not absolutely intend it, there would never have been any reason whatsoever to put that non-skid primer on and then cover it with the non-skid surface. That was expensive and completely un-necessary if the vessel was not intended to embark aircraft at sea.
Same for all the logistics facilities around the Varyag which remain in place.
I believe interior work is going on and that within a year to 18 months that we will see something substanitive from her.
If nothing occurs by then, I may well come off my own predictions...but until then, the PLAN has simply spent too much money on activities that are far beyond "studying" the Varyag and I do not believe they intend to waste all that money and time.
But, as always, that is simply my own opinion.
The SU-33 is also handicapped by not being catapult launched, so it is limited in it's payload and range when using the ski jump. If the Russians had fitted the Kuznetzov with cats then they would now be able to fully exploit the potential of the Flanker and that in itself would help close the gap between it and the Hornet; by extension AEW and EW aircraft would also be a possibility for the Russian Navy (the SU-25 Frogfoots would make a good platform for an EW type as things stand).
The Su-33 is from same generation as the F-18A/B. There's been various rumored Su-33 upgrades and product brochures, but I have yet to see them in operation.
The current generation of Su-33 is not really comparable to the Super Hornet. But if the upgrades described in these articles materialize, then it'd be a better comparison:
The current generation of Su-33 is not really comparable to the Super Hornet. But if the upgrades described in these articles materialize, then it'd be a better comparison:
Last edited:
Wouldn't they suffer from the same problems the Prowler did, wich is they might find it difficult to keep up with a Flanker package?
I think the Flanker with it's size should be able to carry a really powerfull EW suite and do so over distance and with speed. But then again there's the payload problem due to take off.
Fitting a AESA radar on their back for AEW duties would be an interesting concept...
The Prowler has been a great aircraft. All weather, huge payload...but it does suffer in spped. That's why the EA-18G Growler is such a great replacement. It will fly right with the Superhornets with the same speed, all-weather, and a decent payload.
The porcedures, equipment, technologies, service/maintenance, logistics, and policies regardging this level of support are all fine tuned and honed by the US Navy. Other nations, newly developing this level of support will have a tough learning curve to catch up.
The Russians had an EW version of Su-33 under R&D, called SU-27KPP. However no actual product has been revealed to date. If the Russians are serious about building additional aircraft carriers, I think we'd see more investment in the Su-33 product. But for now, the current generation Su-33's are rather dated, and the proposed upgrade in 1999 hasn't materialized.
Let's look at Indian Navy's upgrades to the MiG-29K:
MiG-29K (Product 9.31)
Modification was made for Indian Navy requirement featured Zhuk-ME radar, RD-33MK engine, combat payload up to 5,500 kg, 13 hardpoints (inclusive of the multi-lock bomb carriers), additional fuel tanks situated in dorsal spine fairing and wing LERXs, increased total fuel capacity by 50% comparing to first variant of MiG-29 and updated 4-channel digital fly-by-wire flight control system. With special coatings MiG-29K radar reflecting surface is 4-5 times smaller than of basic MiG-29. Cockpit displays consist of wide HUD and 3 (7 on MiG-29KUB) colour LCD MFDs and French Sigma-95 satellite GPS module and Topsight E helmet-mounted targeting system. Compatible with the full range of weapons carried by the MiG-29M and MiG-29SMT.[25] NATO reporting code is Fulcrum-D.
And the proposed Su-33 upgrade from 1999:
A 1999 Sukhoi/KnAAPO/Rosvooruzheni brochure described a Su-33 Upgrade configuration, though there is no real evidence that any such programme has been funded. The cockpit is to gain two large colour LCD multifunction displays, with a modernised flight control/navigation system and enhanced air-to-ground capabilities. The upgraded Su-33 is to be compatible with the R-77 (AA-12 “Adder”) AAM and with a range of air-to-ground PGMs, including TV-guided Kh-29, Kh-59N, KAB-500Kr and KAB-1500Kr and laser-guided Kh-29L, KAB-500L, and KAB-1500L. The use of the Kh-31P will give the aircraft an effective SEAD capability.
Su-30K-2/Su-33UB proposed variant:
...New 'glass cockpit' with five colour LCD displays (one 53 cm; 21 in diagonally; rest 38 cm; 15 in) with provision for central or sidestick and with helmet-mounted sighting system. Aircraft has OBOGS and OBIGGS and so does not need oxygen or nitrogen bottles. N014 solid-state, phased-array radar, with enhanced air-to-ground and over-water capabilities...
I'd make an educated guess that the baseline MiG-29K and Su-33 products are 1980s level technology, and didn't fit India and China's requirements. If Indian Navy required many upgrades before accepting the MiG-29K, we can expect the PLAN, should they ever import the Su-33, to ask for similar upgrades. Perhaps Russian Navy would piggyback on the Chinese Su-33 upgrade projects too.
When you look inside a Su-33 cockpit today, this is probably what you'd see:
Versus what China would prefer see instead:
If and when China gets Su-33's, expect many upgrades!
Let's look at Indian Navy's upgrades to the MiG-29K:
MiG-29K (Product 9.31)
Modification was made for Indian Navy requirement featured Zhuk-ME radar, RD-33MK engine, combat payload up to 5,500 kg, 13 hardpoints (inclusive of the multi-lock bomb carriers), additional fuel tanks situated in dorsal spine fairing and wing LERXs, increased total fuel capacity by 50% comparing to first variant of MiG-29 and updated 4-channel digital fly-by-wire flight control system. With special coatings MiG-29K radar reflecting surface is 4-5 times smaller than of basic MiG-29. Cockpit displays consist of wide HUD and 3 (7 on MiG-29KUB) colour LCD MFDs and French Sigma-95 satellite GPS module and Topsight E helmet-mounted targeting system. Compatible with the full range of weapons carried by the MiG-29M and MiG-29SMT.[25] NATO reporting code is Fulcrum-D.
And the proposed Su-33 upgrade from 1999:
A 1999 Sukhoi/KnAAPO/Rosvooruzheni brochure described a Su-33 Upgrade configuration, though there is no real evidence that any such programme has been funded. The cockpit is to gain two large colour LCD multifunction displays, with a modernised flight control/navigation system and enhanced air-to-ground capabilities. The upgraded Su-33 is to be compatible with the R-77 (AA-12 “Adder”) AAM and with a range of air-to-ground PGMs, including TV-guided Kh-29, Kh-59N, KAB-500Kr and KAB-1500Kr and laser-guided Kh-29L, KAB-500L, and KAB-1500L. The use of the Kh-31P will give the aircraft an effective SEAD capability.
Su-30K-2/Su-33UB proposed variant:
...New 'glass cockpit' with five colour LCD displays (one 53 cm; 21 in diagonally; rest 38 cm; 15 in) with provision for central or sidestick and with helmet-mounted sighting system. Aircraft has OBOGS and OBIGGS and so does not need oxygen or nitrogen bottles. N014 solid-state, phased-array radar, with enhanced air-to-ground and over-water capabilities...
I'd make an educated guess that the baseline MiG-29K and Su-33 products are 1980s level technology, and didn't fit India and China's requirements. If Indian Navy required many upgrades before accepting the MiG-29K, we can expect the PLAN, should they ever import the Su-33, to ask for similar upgrades. Perhaps Russian Navy would piggyback on the Chinese Su-33 upgrade projects too.
When you look inside a Su-33 cockpit today, this is probably what you'd see:
Versus what China would prefer see instead:
If and when China gets Su-33's, expect many upgrades!
I've been looking into that actually and i've concluded the payload and range limit can be almost negligable. Using the known figures for the deck and the plane, plus these equations
I've gotten some interesting figures. Assuming zero wiind over deck and ship speed, Flanker should be able to take off from the first take-off position with mtow of 23100 kg. That is not half bad. When assuming 45 km/h combined ship speed and wind over deck speed, that figure rises to 28600 kg. That's still all from the first take off position which is some 110 meters from the edge of the ski jump ramp. If we use the other take-off position, 200 meters away, mtow rises over the declared mtow, meaning it could take off with pretty much anything. Granted, perhaps the carrier won't always be able to enjoy 45 km/h wind over deck speed...
- Status