Military Review

The hypothetical participant of the conflict: the shock capabilities of Su-33 fighters

48
The current fight against terrorism in the Middle East has several interesting features. In particular, it perfectly demonstrates the methods of combat work, preferred by different countries, and also illustrates the existing strategies. The use of current strategies and tactics allows participants in the fight against terrorism not only to solve existing military and political tasks, but also to raise the level of training of personnel, as well as to test in practice and work out various methods of combat work.


For more than a year, strikes on targets in Iraq have been carried out by US air forces. Combat sorties are carried out from the land bases of the region, as well as from aircraft carriers that regularly arrive in the nearby seas and ensure the operation of their aircraft. Since last fall, the French Air Force has been working in a similar way: part of the work was undertaken by the pilots of the "ground" formations, and in addition, they are supported by deck aircraft aviation. So, currently in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea is the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, with the help of which a noticeable increase in the intensity of combat work is achieved. As for Russian military aviation, it, due to objective factors, works only with land airports in Syria and Russia.

The main base of the Russian Aerospace Forces involved in the current operation is the Khmeimim airfield in western Syria. In addition, aircraft from the Engels and Mozdok bases participated in previous attacks. At the same time, despite the theoretical possibility, the Russian armed forces have not yet involved deck aviation in the operation. It is known that in the middle of last fall, the only Russian aircraft cruiser Admiral fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov ”performed combat training missions in the Mediterranean Sea. In this regard, it was suggested that a ship with an aviation group could be sent to the Syrian coast to participate in the operation.


Su-33 in flight. Photo of Wikimedia Commons


However, until now, carrier-based aviation is not involved in the performance of combat missions in the context of a real conflict. The most obvious reason for this is the lack of need. Combat aircraft and helicopters of the Aerospace Forces cope well with the assigned tasks and, apparently, do not need the help of colleagues from deck aircraft. It can also be assumed that deck-based aircraft will not participate in strikes due to a certain loss in performance. The basis of the Admiral Kuznetsov Aviation Group is the Su-33 fighter jets, which are noticeably inferior in their strike capabilities to the Hmeymim base.

And yet, even in theory, the Su-33 could help their “land” colleagues in the fight against terrorists. Like other domestic fighters, these aircraft have the ability to carry air-to-surface weapons and are capable of attacking ground targets. Naturally, in this case, they have less high performance in comparison with specialized strike aircraft.

For several reasons, the Su-33 is one of the smallest types of aircraft in the Russian armed forces. From the late eighties to the late nineties, only the 26 production aircraft of this model were built. At present, according to various data, no more than 14-15 of such machines are being operated. Several fighters were lost in flight accidents, the remaining are in storage. During the long voyages at sea aboard an aircraft-carrying cruiser, there is usually only a fraction of the fighters in service. The remaining aircraft while remaining on the shore.

As a further development of the Su-27 fighter, the deck-based Su-33 retained high performance. So, there is the possibility of flying at speeds up to 2300 km / h (at altitude), and the range reaches 3000 km. Due to the use of an additional boom for refueling in flight, the duration of departure and the combat radius can be significantly increased. Thus, when an aircraft carrier is located on the shores of Syria, it is possible to complete tasks in most of this state.

The main task of Su-33 fighters is air combat. Thus, in the light of recent events, these aircraft can be involved in the implementation of cover strike aircraft when performing combat missions. According to available data, when fighting against air targets, the Su-33 is capable of carrying payloads up to 3,2 tons. For close combat, the P-73 guided air-to-air missiles are offered. The main armament at the same time are medium-range missiles P-27 of various modifications. Aircraft ammunition can include up to 4-6 missiles of each type.

The Russian aviation group in Syria includes Su-27CM and Su-30CM fighters. These aircraft can carry several types of air-to-air guided missiles. At the same time, their range of weapons of air combat almost coincides with the list of missiles that Su-33 can carry. Thus, the combat capabilities of all these aircraft can be on the same level, although there may be some differences related to the composition of the onboard equipment.

Being a fighter, the Su-33 has limited air-to-surface weapons capabilities, but is still capable of destroying ground targets with unguided rockets and bombs. There is the possibility of using unguided C-8, C-13, C-25 aircraft missiles, etc. The number of blocks and missiles is determined in accordance with the task.

The composition of bomb weapons may include ammunition caliber 500, 250 or 100 kg. High-explosive bombs, one-time bomb cassettes, incendiary tanks and other ammunition with similar dimensions can be hung on their respective holders. When the 500-kg bombs are suspended, the aircraft carries eight ammunition: four each under the wing and under the fuselage. 250 kg caliber bombs can be suspended in quantities of 28 pieces. 100-kg ammunition - 32 units. The exact amount of ammunition is determined taking into account various factors, in particular, take-off weight of the aircraft should be taken into account.

It should be noted that the use of exclusively free-fall bombs seriously reduces the possible combat effectiveness. To increase the accuracy and, as a consequence, the success of the strike requires the use of guided ammunition or special sighting equipment. Any information about the possibility of using fighter jets Su-33 adjustable bombs is missing. Apparently, in the on-board electronics there is no equipment designed to work with such weapons. Sighting and navigation system has some other features that reduce the possible effectiveness of the bombing.

Currently, the Su-24M bombers are the basis of the Russian attack force in Syria. According to reports, these aircraft are actively using unguided bombs, but at the same time they strike with rather high accuracy. For the effective use of free-falling bombs, aircraft use special electronic equipment - a specialized computing subsystem SVP-24, created by Gefest and T. This equipment collects information about the location of the target, the location of the aircraft, flight parameters, atmospheric conditions, etc., after which it processes it and provides data for dropping bombs. The analysis of all the necessary information allows to increase the characteristics of bombing. In fact, the usual unguided bombs fall into the target with accuracy at the level of the guided ones.

To date, created several versions of the system SVP-24. Various modifications of this equipment are offered for use in the avionics of the Su-24, Tu-22М3, etc. aircraft. At the same time, however, there is still no equipment option for some other domestic combat aircraft, including the Su-33. Thus, the deck fighters, when attacking ground targets, are forced to use the standard aiming means provided by the initial project, but not able to compete with the development of the firm Gefest and T by their characteristics.

In the current state, domestic deck-based fighters are capable of solving, with sufficient effectiveness, the tasks of gaining air superiority or intercepting air targets, while their characteristics when attacking ground targets may be insufficient. This, in particular, may be one of the main reasons that Su-33 is still not used in the Syrian operation: Aerospace forces already have a sufficient number of high-performance aircraft, which is why it is possible not to engage in combat work aviation of the navy.

However, under certain conditions, the Su-33 might be useful in performing certain tasks as part of a strike group. It was previously mentioned that Su-24M with the SVP-24 system can work in the same groups with aircraft of its type that do not have such equipment. In this case, the bomber with the computing subsystem plays the role of lead, performing a search for targets and carrying out all the necessary calculations. At the right moment, he must drop his free-fall bombs and thereby give the command to the guided bomber. Due to the simultaneous discharge of bombs by several planes, the acceptable accuracy of the bombing of the entire group must be ensured.

In the same group with the leading Su-24M equipped with the SVP-24, not only airplanes of the same type can work, but also other equipment, including the Su-33. Thus, the task of finding targets and processing data will be assigned to the aircraft with special equipment, which will allow other equipment to do with existing avionics. Naturally, this is a compromise solution and does not allow deck fighters to work fully without the help of bombers with the necessary equipment. Nevertheless, it is possible to solve the tasks with the existing equipment without a long and complex modernization.


Variants of Su-33 bomb armament. Figure Navy-korabel.livejournal.com


Also, the joint combat work of bombers and fighters allows to solve another problem. In connection with the recent tragic events, it was decided to strengthen the destructive cover of strike aircraft. With the joint operation of the Su-24M and Su-33, it becomes possible to combine two tasks. Thus, fighters should receive air-to-air missile weapons, as well as a certain amount of unguided bombs. This will allow them to protect bombers from possible attacks, as well as help them when striking by increasing the number of bombs dropped.

It should be noted that such joint work methods can be used not only in the case of deck aircraft. Su-24M with the equipment of the company Hephaestus and T can lead not only Su-33, but also any other combat aircraft with the possibility of carrying uncontrolled bombs. First of all, from such a point of view, the Su-27CM and Su-30CM fighters, which are already based on Hamim in Syria, should be considered.

As we see, in theory, deck aircraft Su-33 are quite capable of not only participating in the current operation as fighters and bombers, but also showing a fairly high efficiency, limited, however, by some objective factors. However, apparently, these aircraft will not be able to take part in the fight against terrorists in Syria. The fact is that the existing grouping makes it possible to accomplish the tasks that have been set, and its strengthening can be carried out solely by the technology of the Aerospace Forces. Involvement of naval aviation in operation simply does not make sense.

This can be explained by the fact that in October the aircraft carrier "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov", located in the Mediterranean, did not go to the shores of Syria and provide flights of its aircraft in this region. In addition, we can assume that this will not happen in the future, although it should not be excluded either. The Syrian conflict is a good ground for testing new aircraft equipment and weapons. It cannot be ruled out that in the foreseeable future, the command will decide to test not only ground aircraft, but also navy aircraft, in the context of a real conflict.

Recently, several aircraft carriers from a number of countries have participated in operations in the Middle East. For example, in late November, the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle arrived at the shores of Syria, whose aviation group added to the French Air Force grouping in the region. The United States Navy organized a full-fledged rotation, during which various aircraft carriers alternately arrive in the region. Russia, in turn, does not seem to use its only aircraft carrier and its aviation group in Syrian aviation. This assumption is supported by several facts of a tactical, strategic and technical nature. At the same time, in the context of strengthening the aviation group, the creation of new ground bases is most often mentioned, but not the use of carrier-based aircraft. However, as already mentioned, the participation of the Su-33 in the battles should not be completely ruled out. These aircraft, with proper use, may be useful for achieving the goals.


On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://tass.ru/
http://airwar.ru/
http://sukhoi.org/
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/
http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/
Author:
48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. oldav
    oldav 8 December 2015 07: 12
    -3
    In short, the Su-33 is not fish or meat. It makes no sense to upgrade because the old ones are already. To re-equip Kuznetsov for a moment 29k and send drying to the ground, and in no case run into the Mediterranean Sea, because there is a danger that they will close it and it won’t come out of there.
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 8 December 2015 11: 07
      +6
      The Su-33 is a good interceptor with great capabilities, but the mig-29k is really "not fish nor meat." A light aircraft capable of solving local problems. Small combat load, short range, weak radar.
      1. oldav
        oldav 8 December 2015 11: 33
        0
        Radius for Syria and the like will do. In addition, they are more placed on the ship.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 8 December 2015 11: 44
          +4
          Quote: oldav
          Radius for Syria and the like will do.

          Have you ever thought about how much more dangerous and difficult it is to take off and land from the deck compared to the ground runway? In addition, the armament of the carrier-based Su-33s simply does not have effective aircraft weapons for action against ground targets, except for the NAR and "cast iron".
          Of course, they can send our only aircraft carrier to the shores of Syria - it will be in the spirit of the times, but it should be understood that this will be just a demonstration of capabilities. The efficiency of our deck-based aircraft on ground targets is still very low.
          Quote: oldav
          In addition, they are more placed on the ship.

          Really? No. Typical composition of the aircraft carrier group “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov”: 8 Su-33 and 2 Su-25UTG.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 8 December 2015 12: 10
            +6
            Quote: Bongo
            Truth? Typical composition of the aircraft group of the aircraft carrier “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov”: 8 Su-33 and 2 Su-25UTG.

            This is despite the fact that these aircraft in comparison with the same SU-34 and even with the SU-30 are very mediocre able to work on the ground, and there are no aircraft at that time request
            1. dyksi
              dyksi 8 December 2015 16: 14
              10
              By the way, RSK MiG has a birthday today. MiG clear skies, more orders so that the conveyor is always loaded. The people of good salaries and career growth. Designers are inspired by new cool developments and that they were put into production.
          2. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 9 December 2015 12: 25
            0
            Su-33 with a full load of bombs simply can not take off
            from the springboard. Need a catapult.
            1. Lucy
              Lucy 12 December 2015 02: 00
              +2
              Not. Su-33 (27k) from 90 meters at 8 nodes takes off even with brakes.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Huyl6fAxn8
        2. FM-78
          FM-78 9 December 2015 00: 00
          0
          Yes, and as "clean" fighters - they are better.
      2. dyksi
        dyksi 8 December 2015 15: 31
        +8
        Have you ever read the TTX MiG-29K (KUB)? It is a multi-functional fighter, with a combat radius of up to 900 tons. The combat load can carry up to six tons and can be returned to an aircraft carrier with unused weapons. Drying will not do this. Why, then, the pragmatic and meticulous Indians abandoned Sushki and took MiG. Do not carry nonsense, for a start, study the issue, or not numbers, nor any specifics, specialist. And in order to increase the radius of action, Migi can be used as tankers, and how did you test them as melee fighters? No, then the air will shake, the MiG can carry all the modern weapons, this is not enough for you, Deck cracker cannot afford it. Explore the world's aircraft carriers, everyone comes to the medium multi-functional fighter.
        1. FM-78
          FM-78 9 December 2015 00: 02
          0
          And who needs it? We must blather as soon as possible.
      3. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 8 December 2015 16: 16
        +2
        AF-18 Normal dimension, means. And Mig-29-small?
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. goose
        goose 8 December 2015 17: 01
        +2
        Quote: ism_ek
        The Su-33 is a good interceptor with great capabilities, but the mig-29k is really "not fish nor meat." A light aircraft capable of solving local problems. Small combat load, short range, weak radar

        Sorry, the radius is rather big, it corresponds to the M2 modification, i.e. about 3000 km on internal tanks, there, even at the tail, fuel is poured.
    2. vladimir_krm
      vladimir_krm 8 December 2015 19: 51
      0
      Will Gibraltar be closed too?
  2. samoletil18
    samoletil18 8 December 2015 07: 17
    20
    By and large, there is nothing for our aircraft carrier to do there. Costly, and the effectiveness of the application is lower than that of land users. Kuznetsov’s appointment is protection, not attack. So it doesn’t come out of repairs, so it’s also a drive for ineffective actions - the resource is not eternal.
    1. goose
      goose 8 December 2015 17: 03
      -1
      As I understand it, he just went there for air defense, because has good radar equipment.
  3. Aleksandr21
    Aleksandr21 8 December 2015 08: 00
    +3
    And I think that Kuzya is not used for nothing. Sense of having an aircraft carrier if we are not going to use it? Russia is not often involved in such conflicts, i.e. when there is a need to use aviation outside our country. But such a need arose, and the strengthening of our group in Syria, and air escort in particular, is especially relevant in connection with recent events. Yes, and the possibility of striking at ground targets will definitely not be superfluous, everyone will have enough work there. And then Kuzya, either in training exercises or in repair ... there was a need for his services, why not use it? Plus, combat experience for pilots at the TAVKR will definitely not be superfluous, even if the Su-33 is replaced in the near future, the experience will remain. Of course, there are problems there, in particular in the field of supply (fuel, missiles, etc.), but for 1-2 months you can try to provide it with everything you need, even for such a short period, but it will strengthen our group there and get invaluable experience. .
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 8 December 2015 18: 10
      +2
      The war in Syria is not a childish mess with the Papuans. A confrontation with the latest heavy aircraft from NATO countries is planned. Su-33 is outdated for these purposes, and the MiG-29KUB is intended for local conflicts. Well, and money ... Already because of the war in Syria, the exercise plan for 2016 was cut in half, and Kuznetsov consumes more fuel a day than the entire Russian group in Syria.
  4. zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 8 December 2015 09: 02
    +2
    Up to this place I read with interest:
    Su-24M with the equipment of the company Hephaestus and T can lead not only Su-33, but also any other combat aircraft with the possibility of carrying uncontrolled bombs. First of all, from such a point of view, the Su-27CM and Su-30CM fighters, which are already based on Hamim in Syria, should be considered.
    Does the author understand what he is writing about?
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 8 December 2015 10: 50
      +5
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      Does the author understand what he is writing about?

      Olya, after talking with "Ancient" you became so smart, the author of this article apparently did not bother much with technical issues. No.
      According to reports, in the fight against air targets, the Su-33 is capable of carrying a payload of up to 3,2 tons.
      Where did the firewood come from? A typical weaponry for deck use is: 2 × P-27 + 2 × P-73.

      The picture is certainly beautiful, but can the Su-33 with such a bomb load from the deck be able to fly without using a catapult? The answer is obvious ... No. In addition, the use of Su-33 in the strike version in the same system as the upgraded Su-24M will not give the accuracy of bombing as on the Su-24M using SVP-24 equipment from Hephaestus T. Since this equipment during bombing takes into account the individual flight parameters of a particular aircraft, but not as a group.

      Apparently, the author was greatly impressed by the combat use of the long-range Tu-22M3 in Syria. But the Su-33 is not a heavy bomber and is not suitable for carpet bombing. The only viable option for using the Su-33 in Syria as a shock would be to mount adjustable bombs under it with a guidance system based on signals from a satellite positioning system, when striking stationary targets with known coordinates.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 8 December 2015 13: 11
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        The picture is certainly beautiful, but can the Su-33 with such a bomb load be able to fly off the deck without using a catapult?
        ... and with the current state of the power plant.
        Pomnitz, for the last 20 years, the main complaint about the Kuzya is the impossibility of taking off the Su-33 with a normal take-off weight when fully refueled.
  5. kig
    kig 8 December 2015 09: 23
    0
    Syria, no matter what they say about the sacred struggle against the Islamic State, there is also a good chance to test our capabilities. And therefore, an aircraft carrier would certainly be attracted, again for verification in real conditions. The fact that our air group is doing quite well does not play a role. But, obviously, something does not add up.
  6. Mhpv
    Mhpv 8 December 2015 10: 37
    +2
    Gentlemen, couch analysts, send your suggestions to Frunzenskaya Naberezhnaya, otherwise you have forgotten how to do it, they’re doing some garbage. Next time you will fantasize violently, ask yourself a simple question: Why aren’t you making love on Red Square? and give an answer, and then think about how to sculpt it.
    Every cricket, know your hearth!
  7. Namba Six
    Namba Six 8 December 2015 11: 35
    0
    With the outdated "semi-active" R-27 against the F-16, armed with AIM-120 with its own seeker (which will also be guided by AWACS), the Su-33 will not fight much. And to approach the launch distance of 73 ... who will give them something.
    1. goose
      goose 8 December 2015 17: 07
      -1
      Quote: Namba Six
      With the outdated "semi-active" R-27 against the F-16, armed with AIM-120 with its own seeker (which will also be guided by AWACS), the Su-33 will not fight much. And to approach the launch distance of 73 ... who will give them something.

      But nothing that the R-27 has 4 different types of GOS? There is also ARGSN, and even thermal.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. sinoptic
    sinoptic 8 December 2015 12: 36
    +2
    Su-33 - interceptor to cover the AUG from the air.
    He’s already out of date, or rather, not he, but his radar. Now everywhere they use more powerful radars with PFAR / AFAR.

    One gets the feeling that the next aircraft for the aircraft carrier will be the MIG-29K and T-50 ship version.
    And the Su-33 will not be modernized - "The Moor has done his job, the Moor can leave." :)
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 8 December 2015 12: 42
      +2
      Quote: sinoptic
      One gets the feeling that the next aircraft for the aircraft carrier will be the MIG-29K and T-50 ship version.

      There is information that the Sukhoi design bureau did not abandon the work and documentation on the SU-37 "Berkut" (with a forward swept wing), which was later developed as a deck-boat, and now the Sukhovites are going to develop a similar sea-based aircraft, taking into account developments on the SU -37 and PAK FA.
      1. sinoptic
        sinoptic 9 December 2015 10: 49
        0
        I don’t think that the topic of the reverse sweep wing will come up in the next 50-100 years (taking into account the obsolescence of the T-50).

        Sergei Bogdan (T-50 test pilot) expressed himself very clearly in this regard: "The controlled thrust vector gave us absolutely everything we wanted, and even more, so there is no point in developing an expensive forward swept wing."
  10. Kir1984
    Kir1984 8 December 2015 13: 20
    +1
    what drying is nevertheless beautiful !!!
  11. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 8 December 2015 16: 18
    +1
    For an aircraft carrier, the dimension of the Su27 is great. We need aircraft like F-18, Rafal, Mig-29 or Yak-141
  12. rubin6286
    rubin6286 8 December 2015 16: 52
    +1
    The article is intended to "warm up" readers' interest in the "aircraft carrier" topic. Many commentators correctly pointed out that our only aircraft carrier has nothing to do far from its home shores and supply bases. such a ship is much more needed by the Northern Fleet of the Russian Federation in the Arctic zone. There are opportunities to cover and support it, and SU-33 aircraft based on it can, if necessary, provide air protection for ships following the Northern Sea Route, thereby expanding the capabilities of continental air defense.
  13. Sasha_Sar
    Sasha_Sar 8 December 2015 17: 42
    +3
    Forging a suitcase without a handle. You can’t write off, they don’t understand, but there is no urine to keep it. So the people toil both on the shore and on it ....
  14. Rock616
    Rock616 8 December 2015 17: 56
    0
    What article was covered? It is quite an adequate article, (not counting minor technical gaps)
    P / S. "Kuzi" really has nothing to do there (the end does not justify the means), but Peter the Great should be there exactly so that the "allies" and "light elves" do not learn anything wink
  15. ism_ek
    ism_ek 8 December 2015 18: 08
    0
    Quote: dyksi
    Why, then, the pragmatic and meticulous Indians abandoned Sushki and took MiG.
    The Indians chose the MiG, because it is cheaper and less. Only 9 SU-33KUB would fit in Vikramaditya. Climbing from the hangars of the heavier Su-33 requires more massive lifting devices.
    With an unlimited budget and size of the ship, both a heavy and light aircraft are needed. But when the budget is limited, you have to choose and this choice will always be controversial.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 December 2015 21: 17
      0
      Quote: ism_ek
      The Indians chose the MiG, because it is cheaper and less

      The Indians chose the MiG, because no one offered the Su-33 :))
  16. 31rus
    31rus 8 December 2015 18: 26
    0
    Dear, this is just to talk, the use of an aircraft-carrying cruiser is possible, but not profitable in all respects, in Syria there are airfields, where you need to place mixed airborne forces and why is there an aircraft carrier? Cost-effectiveness is not in favor of the cruiser
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 December 2015 21: 02
      +1
      Quote: 31rus
      Cost-effectiveness is far from the cruiser

      Because they are discussing the use of a ship that is far from being the most successful in its class for tasks completely unusual for it. When the Kuznetsov was created, it was planned that it would be a carrier of fighter aircraft, whose task was to participate in the destruction of the AUG by air cover for the attacking forces - Tu-22M3 and so on. No one envisioned the use of the aircraft carrier as a mobile airfield for land strikes - it simply would not be able to provide a sufficient average daily number of sorties, even if the Su-33 had the ability to strike on land.
      Now, if we had a full-fledged aircraft carrier - then yes, another thing. And the pilot of the Su-24 would likely survive.
  17. huntsman650
    huntsman650 8 December 2015 21: 12
    0
    Kuzi has one significant drawback, the lack of a catapult. An airplane with full fighting load without an oncoming wind stream of less than 12 m. Sec cannot take off, so imagine you need to bomb, but there is no wind.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2015 11: 34
      0
      Well, firstly, a plane with full combat (you probably understand it as the maximum take-off, or am I mistaken?) Usually do not drive, and secondly, a ship that moves at a speed of 18 knots already creates an air flow of 9,28 m / s.
      1. huntsman650
        huntsman650 9 December 2015 13: 21
        -1
        If he develops a speed of 18 knots and doesn’t fall apart, I will eat my cap.
        Main weapon: "Eaglets learn to fly"

        Unclear; what is the main weapon on the carrier-based cruiser - aviation or attack missiles. “Kuznetsov” is still more aircraft carrier than rocket, therefore aircraft is considered the main weapon here. Theoretically, the ship can be based up to 40 Su-33. In fact, the country has forked up only on 24, and for permanent home base it prepared with great difficulty only seven cars.

        Our planes, unlike the more “backward” American ones, are capable of solving only air defense tasks (although there is a Su-35 universal plane in the Air Force), so the aircraft carrier's strike task is solved with the help of anti-ship missiles. Due to the springboard (instead of the ejection) take-off, the Su-33 is subject to limitations on the take-off mass. If we take into account that (partly, due to the fault of the GEM), flights are carried out on the b-8 hub, it becomes clear why they happen only in windy weather and, as a rule, without outboard armament and with a reduced fuel reserve.

        The ship has an automatic landing system, theoretically providing for the possibility of flying at any visibility, but in practice it was not checked. Therefore, flights are made only in good windy weather.

        In general, the basing of aircraft on the "Kuznetsov" is of some strange character. Aviation does not even appear in the hangar, but instead of aircraft there are peacefully standing: 25-ton truck crane, four towing vehicles, firemen GAZ-66 and ZIL, Gazel, UAZ-452, goat and a tractor with a jet engine installed on it (for cleaning the flight deck from snow and ice).

        Read in full: http: // Russian-force.rf/typhoon/1999/kuz.shtml


















        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2015 18: 13
          0
          Quote: huntsman650
          If he develops a speed of 18 knots and doesn’t fall apart, I will eat my cap.

          Then, I am afraid, it is time for you to start - according to eyewitnesses, after the last repair of 18 knots, the ship still issues. Not for long, but for runways there is a lot and is not necessary.
          Quote: huntsman650
          Unclear; what is the main weapon on an aircraft carrier cruiser - aviation or strike missiles

          And to read about the history of development - poorly?
          Quote: huntsman650
          "Kuznetsov" is still more aircraft carrier than missile, so aviation is considered the main weapon here.

          Correctly considered
          Quote: huntsman650
          Theoretically, up to 40 Su-33s can be based on a ship.

          Shoot the one who told you this with the Tsar Cannon. Even on the atomic giant Ulyanovsk, which was going to be much larger than Kuznetsov, the number of Su-33s should not have exceeded 36 (this is provided that there will not be a single MiG-29).
          Kuznetsov’s aviation armament under the project included 50 LAKs, including 26 carrier-based fighter aircraft (Su-27K or MiG-29K), 4 Ka-252 RLD helicopters, 18 Ka-27 or Ka-29 and 2 Ka-27PS.
          Quote: huntsman650
          In fact, the country forked out only 24

          How much, in general, should Kuznetsov have to bear
          Quote: huntsman650
          and for permanent basing with great difficulty prepared only seven cars

          Like 10 :)
          Quote: huntsman650
          Our aircraft, unlike the more "backward" American ones, are capable of solving only air defense missions (although the Air Force has the Su-35 station wagon)

          Rave. The Su-33 has been operating in the fleet since 1998, the Su-35 IS NOT in the fleet at all, the first aircraft of this type were put into operation in 2012. Ship what, they had to wait?
          Continue, or enough? :)
          1. huntsman650
            huntsman650 9 December 2015 22: 14
            0
            http://русская-сила.рф/typhoon/1999/kuz.shtml Эко разошелся, пройдите по ссылке и расскажите автору все, что написали мне, статья от 1999г. Сами то были хоть раз на Кузе? 18 узлов не на долго, это на сколько и почему не надолго. Работяги, которые постоянно его чинят, кузю, прозвали его железный капут.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 December 2015 08: 41
              0
              Quote: huntsman650
              Eco broke up, follow the link and tell the author everything that they wrote to me, an article from 1999.

              For what? Admonishing every illiterate author on the internet is not part of my plans. You quoted me, I answered you.
              And since 1999, do not believe it, 16 years have passed.
              Quote: huntsman650
              Have you ever been to Kuzza yourself?

              No, I talked with people who were directly related to its repair :)
              Quote: huntsman650
              18 knots not for long, how much and why not for long

              According to those same people, 18 knots (in my opinion even 20 knots were called, but here I can lie) Takr can give without the risk of ES failure. More - not worth it. Well, if you call a certain maximum speed that a ship can hold without the risk of failure, this a priori suggests that it’s better not to go on it for more than two or three hours in a row.
              Quote: huntsman650
              The hard workers who constantly repair it, Kuzyu, nicknamed his iron cap

              At the neighbor's shed, SUCH is written (and painted), and there are only firewood laughing
            2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2015 11: 34
      0
      Well, firstly, a plane with full combat (you probably understand it as the maximum take-off, or am I mistaken?) Usually do not drive, and secondly, a ship that moves at a speed of 18 knots already creates an air flow of 9,28 m / s.
  18. iouris
    iouris 8 December 2015 23: 10
    0
    An aircraft carrier is needed to demonstrate power to the enemy, although the enemy understands everything.
    Most likely, the Su-24 from extremely low altitudes does not work, but for this it was created. In addition, flying such an aircraft at low altitude at high speed creates serious psychological discomfort.
    In this operation, an airplane (bomb carrier) flies at an altitude of about 5000 m along a programmed route and scatters bombs on objects previously explored from space. I wonder if the coordinates of the target are entered in flight or only during preflight preparation. In the case of using the KAB, the target can be illuminated from the ground by special forces or from an UAV. If only GLONASS equipment is used for bombing, then the type of bomb carrier and crew qualification do not greatly affect the result.
    However, if serious missiles appear on the area (for example, S-125), then this method of warfare will become quite dangerous for bombers. You can deal with this phenomenon only by promising to deliver a series of attacks on Turkey, Qatar and the SA in advance.
    What will happen if the Turks want to arrange a no-fly zone is difficult to judge. Perhaps it would be better to arm the Syrians or the Syrians could ask for help and provide a base for Iraqis on the Su-30.
  19. huntsman650
    huntsman650 10 December 2015 12: 08
    0
    .
    Quote: huntsman650
    Have you ever been to Kuzza yourself?

    No, I talked with people who were directly related to its repair.

    Repeatedly went to sea at the Kuz, ascribed, old-time my classmate at the moment. In general, the ship is not bad, only stingy and deaf. There is something to work on. Much has been done in 16 years.
  20. skymit
    skymit 10 December 2015 13: 55
    +1
    28 pieces of FAB-250 weigh 7 tons! Somehow this does not correlate with 3.2 tons of load)))
  21. Lucy
    Lucy 12 December 2015 01: 46
    +1
    Quote: ism_ek
    The war in Syria is not a childish mess with the Papuans. A confrontation with the latest heavy aircraft from NATO countries is planned. Su-33 is outdated for these purposes, and the MiG-29KUB is intended for local conflicts. Well, and money ... Already because of the war in Syria, the exercise plan for 2016 was cut in half, and Kuznetsov consumes more fuel a day than the entire Russian group in Syria.


    MIG-29KUB is designed for UB flights.
    Kuznetsov eats fuel oil. And there is 100 tons of kerosene - this is less than 2 regimental shifts. Su for the flight deck of Kuznetsov large aircraft, long take-off intervals after the departure of the 1st troika. Wretched, RTO in the far zone. In fact, Kuznetsov is a barge for practicing take-off and landing, and when maintaining a database, a mass grave.
  22. Lucy
    Lucy 12 December 2015 02: 07
    +1
    For the raised topic, the author has allocated a lot of text. The Su-33 has no shock capabilities, except throwing cast iron. Even when the Su-33 was called the Su-27k, the shock functions of the cruiser AG were theoretically assigned to the MiG-29k, which were accompanied by the Su-27k.