US built "Su-33"

[cgold 0]

I thought of this and I was wondering what ya'll thought on this matter. If the US and the Russians got together and worked out a plan to "sell" the Su-33 plans to a US aircraft manufacturer ( Boeing / Lockheed / Grumman, Etc.), and build a Su-33-like aircraft but with all of the needs of the US gov't / military ( glass cockpit, defense mechanisms, missile systems, hardpoints, HUD, and other such items needed for the aircraft. ) In turn, the US would help the Russians somehow ( help re-work airbases, help develop an aircraft or just for the shear money.) Think in the capabilities of the aircraft and not in what we have already. If you think about it, as good as the Su-33 is now, think what one could do with Western technology.

Thank you for your input.

[MAKO69 186]

How bout we build them sell them to all the "bad AXIS of EVIL" countries, but put a self destruct chip in them. So if they ever decid to act up against a nation other than self defense we send the code to the chip to destroy the onboard systems such as engines, computers radar all the expensive stuff. We wouldnt use it if it ever happaned.

[FastCargo 412]

Russia doesn't really need our money...their healthy military export market and oil reserves mean money won't be a problem for the future. The only thing I could see them needing help on is the technologies to take maximum advantages of their oil resources...other than that...

 

Also, the Su-27 and it's derivatives are already considered 'previous gen'...that's why several countries (including Russia) have already proposed next-gen fighter aircraft that look a lot like a F-22. Any aircraft purchase that we might make that might be cheaper per unit cost would be more than offset by the logisitical tail costs.

 

FastCargo

[cgold 0]

Su-33 movie

 

Must see footage of Su-33 in action!

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

The Us hadtheir Su-33 I think it was called Tomcat :-P

[+Typhoid 231]

why go for second best missile fodder?

 

The F-22 is far better in all respects.

[Mannie 21]

why go for second best missile fodder?

 

The F-22 is far better in all respects.

 

Can you search your pocket for some 130.000.000$ for just one F-22?

How better is it in this respect?

[MAKO69 186]

Puts on a great airshow to bad that missle that just traveled some 100 miles took him out, he'd be dead before he knew what happend

Su-33 movie

 

Must see footage of Su-33 in action!

[cgold 0]

I'll have to admit that the F-22 is a VERY nice aircraft. I saw it personally at NAS Oceana's Airshow last year. Boy, did it kick a lot of a$$! I was thinking in the respect in that it was super-maneuverable, plenty fast, and could carry lots of weaponry. The F-22 (to stay fully stealth) has to carry an internal load. Thats good no one can "see" you, but if someone does, can you fight back sufficiently? To my knowledge (which is limited) is that the F-22 can carry 6 AIM-120's and 2 AIM-9's internally. If you were going all out, they would carry more, but they lose their stealth capabilities. With the "Su-33", even though that it wasn't ever stealth, can carry up to 12 A2A missiles (of all different sizes and ranges), go mach 2+, do a "real" Cobra maneuver, and land and takeoff from a carrier. It may be expensive, but it may put those "Cold War Grudges" behind us and may push us foward in relations with Russia and with world peace. Plus, if they thought that we would use these "Su-33's" against them, why would we fight the country that sold us the plans?

[eraser_tr 29]

The Us hadtheir Su-33 I think it was called Tomcat :-P

 

 

If it could be done quickly and cheaply, it might make sense to use newly built Sukhois to replace our (are they still grounded?) F-15s. But out of pride (and that sukhoi is barred from doing any business with the US government because of business relations with Iran) it would never happen.

 

Besides, if we built the same aircraft to American standards for American systems and weapons, it would wind up being the same price as building new F-15s or even modifying the design a little to match the flanker's performance.

[kukulino 1]

Well, I voted No in both qestions. Su-33 is good in soviet care. No improvements with western technologies are needed. It is good as is.

 

Donno which plane is planned for US carriers for close future. And donno if it is the same generation like F-22 (mean that planned plane). But is there better plane on US carriers than Su-33 in service?

Edited June 10, 2008 by kukulino

[+Typhoid 231]

Can you search your pocket for some 130.000.000$ for just one F-22?

How better is it in this respect?

 

good point

[Silverbolt 104]

O.o?

 

Doesn't make sense....US and Russian aeronautics ever was rivals and with different develop lines.

[+suhsjake 11]

 

If it could be done quickly and cheaply, it might make sense to use newly built Sukhois to replace our (are they still grounded?) F-15s. But out of pride (and that sukhoi is barred from doing any business with the US government because of business relations with Iran) it would never happen.

 

Besides, if we built the same aircraft to American standards for American systems and weapons, it would wind up being the same price as building new F-15s or even modifying the design a little to match the flanker's performance.

 

From what I read, the US govt already repealed the ban.

[+streakeagle 871]

No to question No. 1 from both a political and economic point of view:

Any such program would only further threaten already depleted F-22 funding.

For better or worse, the F-22 is now in inventory and would become even more expensive and wasteful if production were terminated prematurely in favor of an older cheaper less capable aircraft.

Economically, if the US is going to build fighters, they should be based on US designs.

If you don't use a capability, you lose it.

Better to keep our own engineers busy upgrading existing designs like the Hornet rather than buying someone elses design and shrinking the US industrial base even further.

An upgraded F-15 would be as good as any Flanker based design: new radar/avionics, new engines, canards, and maneuvering flaps would make it more capable than an F-22 except in stealth capability, keep the 2nd seat and it simultaneously becomes the best fighter and strike aircraft in the world if you aren't worried about stealth.

[+Gocad 26]

cgold, are you serious? Because nothing you stated in your initial post made any sense to me...

[Guest Vlamik]

Puts on a great airshow to bad that missle that just traveled some 100 miles took him out, he'd be dead before he knew what happend

Not if the plasma shield is turned on...

[JediMaster 451]

An Su-33 wouldn't compete with an F-22 or F-15, it would compete with the F-35C and F/A-18E/F. If you want an F-15/22 competitor, you go with a 30/35/37/47/53/64/96/974x10^57 or whatever Sukhoi is going to call it today. ("Sukhoi, we don't believe in letters, we believe in numbers!")

Anyway, I said no for the first question because a total redesign like that to make it work for the USN would cost so much more than just making more Super Bugs.

As for the 2nd question, well, the answer is yes, because it WOULD improve relations. However, it is a bad idea in almost every other respect, so it won't ever happen.

 

Here's a question that's never been answered--the F-22 and F-35 are supposed to be so stealthy as to be almost impossible to detect by other airplanes. They also have AESA radars that are supposed to be very good at detecting stealthy cruise missiles. So, can an F-22 see another F-22 on its radar before any other plane could?

[cgold 0]

cgold, are you serious? Because nothing you stated in your initial post made any sense to me...

 

Yes, I am serious. The Su-33 is a very nice aircraft and - with the help of western technology- it could be a very capable naval fighter. The Air Force has the F-22. It doen't need much else. The F-22 can do anything that the Air Force needs. I was thinking purely about the physical being of a "US built Su-33" and not the politics behind it...thats not saying that the politics aren't to be ignored.

Check these out.

 

 

 

 

[MigBuster 2,884]

Is that diagram from that paper by an Australian (forget his name) that wants Aus to have the F-22 at all costs over the F-35?

 

Well id be interested to know who made up those figures - considering the F-35 isnt in service yet - and even if it was the above would still be a guess based on ??? nothing.

 

I would suggest ignoring the bit at the bottom that says Lockheed Martin, US Navy and Sukhoi data because the only credible info on there is the shape of the planes and their names

[Silverbolt 104]

Is that diagram from that paper by an Australian (forget his name) that wants Aus to have the F-22 at all costs over the F-35?

 

Carlo Kropp, and i didn't take it serious...

 

btw, look this notice:

Washington 09 July 2008 <-something makes me belive this model of date isn't right

 

Official State of Washington

Note Dassault Rafale.

 

The U.S. government has raised interest the purchase of about 250 Dassault Rafale fighter for the Navy, according to General David Eduard Ballman, the French game, proved to be much higher than the current F-18 Hornets used in the U.S. Navy, by what is the fighters have a pleasant technology to American eyes, thereby giving a spread the navy of the United States on its partner England, which uses the EF2000 Typhoon fighters that are slightly lower than the French models.

According to the general, the pilots of the U.S. Navy were amazed by the French multirole hunting.

 

Editor: Mark Brounder

It's fake?

 

I don't even think it's true....but who knows?

 

EDIT:Nvm this is confirmed fake!

Edited June 11, 2008 by Silverbolt

[+Gocad 26]

I don't even think it's true....but who knows?

 

It definitely beats the idea of an US built Su-33....

[eraser_tr 29]

Obviously fake....It's only june.

 

It has been exceedingly rare we ever buy aircraft from another country and then only the british since the 1920s. Beyond the B-57 canberra and the Harrier in the jet age. With our own highly developed aerospace industry, why would be?

[MAKO69 186]

To do this would be like Ferrarie building a pinto why would the US lower their standards, moving on now Next Topic

[+Jug 99]

To do this would be like Ferrarie building a pinto why would the US lower their standards, moving on now Next Topic

 

Answer: Numbers. We can acquire many more because they are cheaper. How do you think WWII was won? It was not quality of equipment, it was numbers. License built, means we build them completely here (Martin license built the B-57 and McDonnaldDouglas license built the Harrier). No dependencies, just manufacturing rights. We just improve them. Brits never heard of VIFFing in a Harrier until the Marines showed them how. The Harrier tech order listed it as a prohibited maneuver, but, you gotta love the Jarheads. Not a rule made that can't be broken. AV-8B came, in large part, from the American improvements. Ever heard of an RB-57 (forerunner for the U-2 in high altitude recce). I see lots of bad Russian jets with US avionics and weapons. Consider the Peoples Republic of China. The name of the game is Numbers.

 

Bye the way, comparing the Su-33 to a pinto may be a little off the mark. Comparing the price tag seems to me a little more appropriate.