bangladesh
New Member
how to dowload the movie su33 d
Video of how SU-33 could work off of a PLAN carrier
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Now, one question which no one has asked yet, let alone answered: does the carrier need AShM's on its aircrafts?
It depends, the whole idea behind the Kutsnetzov was to provide a ship with that could provide air cover over vast distances, the striking edge of the Soviet navy was their huge CNG's. The USN on the other hand uses their carriers as their iron fists, being able to sink or destroy enemy facilitites, ships etc.
An interesting option is also if the Russians would come up with an armed sea-going version of their Su-25. Since its already is available in a (unarmed) carrier version, I suppose it could be a project if a cheap aircraft to supplement Kutsnetzovs aa-capability, attacking armored vehicles is surprisingly similar to attacking armored ships.
It depends, the whole idea behind the Kutsnetzov was to provide a ship with that could provide air cover over vast distances, the striking edge of the Soviet navy was their huge CNG's. The USN on the other hand uses their carriers as their iron fists, being able to sink or destroy enemy facilitites, ships etc.
An interesting option is also if the Russians would come up with an armed sea-going version of their Su-25. Since its already is available in a (unarmed) carrier version, I suppose it could be a project if a cheap aircraft to supplement Kutsnetzovs aa-capability, attacking armored vehicles is surprisingly similar to attacking armored ships.
To awnser to your question Lavi, yeas, you defianetly need AShMs for carrier brone planes. In Kuznetsov case you have to remeber the overall proplematic and development phases of soviet carrier development. Kuznetsov is great example of how too much compromising on different wievs end up oversize carrier wiht insufficient aircapapility. It was merely good luck that soviets were able to field Su-33s onboard carrier which lacked the basic launch mechanism for conventional aircrafts. (The Ski-jump was fitted becouse it was orginally decide to equip these ships with Yak-41 alone...) THe Uljanovsk was to be correction of these past mistakes but time was too late for her.
So the fact that Russians have no AShMs onboard Kuznetsov isen't a choise made freely, but forced fact by the cirqumstances. The STOBAR aircraft lauching system limits Su-33 to purely airdefence dutyes simply becouse the ski-jump limits the taking off aircrafts playloads. In effect Kuznetsov is oversized V/STOL carrier who's leghty flightdeck allows you to operate bit bigger planes.
So the fact that Russians have no AShMs onboard Kuznetsov isen't a choise made freely, but forced fact by the cirqumstances. The STOBAR aircraft lauching system limits Su-33 to purely airdefence dutyes simply becouse the ski-jump limits the taking off aircrafts playloads. In effect Kuznetsov is oversized V/STOL carrier who's leghty flightdeck allows you to operate bit bigger planes.
Well, I am still somewhat believing that already by providing air cover a carrier would do a great job, although of course the points Gollevainen made are true.
Another interesting thing when talking about the loads came to my mind however, wouldn't it be possible to launch a strike-aircraft on minimum fuel, and then top it up with the buddy-buddy air refueling visible on the video? I mean, in order to make damage today you don't actually need that many weapons, the Argentineans sank two British ships with five missiles, although of course the Conveyor wasn't armoured.
That is something to remeber, although anti-missile defence have developed today, so have the missiles themselves, and even if the USN probably is though to beat, perhaps grouping several AEGIS-ships in a CVBG, the vast majority of countries still don't posses that capabilit).
Another interesting thing when talking about the loads came to my mind however, wouldn't it be possible to launch a strike-aircraft on minimum fuel, and then top it up with the buddy-buddy air refueling visible on the video? I mean, in order to make damage today you don't actually need that many weapons, the Argentineans sank two British ships with five missiles, although of course the Conveyor wasn't armoured.
That is something to remeber, although anti-missile defence have developed today, so have the missiles themselves, and even if the USN probably is though to beat, perhaps grouping several AEGIS-ships in a CVBG, the vast majority of countries still don't posses that capabilit).
Gauntlet
Junior Member
Then again, how are you supposed to get alot of UPAZ-1 (buddy-to-buddy tanks) loaded Su-33 in the air? I'm sure the UPAZ have to weight alot since it, afterall, contains alot of fuel. However, the fuel loaded is probarly not enough to give the Su-33 full range.
Another thing. The lack of training for air-to-air tanking (especially the Su-33 pilots) would most likely make this impossible. They simple cannot give enough funding to allow this kind of training on regular basis.
Here's a pic of the unusual event in the Russian Naval Air Force (probarly taken on the same time as on the video):
Another thing. The lack of training for air-to-air tanking (especially the Su-33 pilots) would most likely make this impossible. They simple cannot give enough funding to allow this kind of training on regular basis.
Here's a pic of the unusual event in the Russian Naval Air Force (probarly taken on the same time as on the video):
J-10s and J-8Bs for the carrier? The J-10 will collpase on its intake on landing, and the J-8B, with its small wings? How will it do on take off?
But is it possible to place the stoppers (Well, the flap that stops the plane from flying off before getting full power on take off, as I think most people on this forum don't know about it.) farther back for more payload, reliability and speed?
As for AShM, it's a Chinese plane we are talking about, so it should be able to carry the C-80X instead. It was designed for planes anyway and is less than a ton.
PS:
But is it possible to place the stoppers (Well, the flap that stops the plane from flying off before getting full power on take off, as I think most people on this forum don't know about it.) farther back for more payload, reliability and speed?
As for AShM, it's a Chinese plane we are talking about, so it should be able to carry the C-80X instead. It was designed for planes anyway and is less than a ton.
??? Where'd you get that?
PS:
Good thing I don't either.