US built "Su-33"

[MigBuster 2,884]

after watching a show on the military channel about the top 10 fighters, the F-22 came in 10th. and according to all the guys that rated it, it is because it will be a "turkey". in other words they said that this plane is so incredibly expensive, can really only do one mission, can be brought down by other cheaper planes that have better pilots, and has a long way to go to even prove that it was worth the cost of making it. they said there should be no reason for this aircraft to even exist right now, other then the fact that technology must improve and go forward. thats the only reason for its existance. for the costs, they should have redesigned the current top fighters, and made them even better, such as a new F-15, F-16, F/A-18's, and the JSF.

 

 

 

:rofl:

 

 

That show must have been some comedy - whens it on again btw?

[MKopack 0]

As you said, it must have been a comedy.

 

The current 'flyaway' price of a F-22 (quoted from a Raptor pilot at Langley this afternoon) is 93 million dollars. Yes, that's a heluva lot of money, but look at it this way, I believe that the current quoted price of an F-15 is right around 65 million (based on bid prices for F-15K, S, or I's) and given a choice of a Raptor or 1.4 Eagles, I know what I'd get for an air superiority aircraft any day of the week.

 

Show me more than a handful of Raptors that have been 'lost' during excercises and I will show you literally thousands of engagements that have gone the other way. Right now it is currently running at well over 500:1 against the very best the USAF, USN and USMC can put up against them.

 

Don't believe me? Fine. But, if you are trying to find the truth about the Raptor from the Military Channel, good luck. If you want to really know what the F-22 is worth take a ride out to Langley, Tyndall, Elmendorf, or Holloman and ask them. Or better yet, go talk to the pilots at Eglin, Shaw, Oceana, Seymour Johnson, etc., who have to fight them every day. They are the ones who can tell you what a Raptor can do and does.

 

Nothing anywhere comes close, at any price.

 

Mike

Edited June 21, 2008 by MKopack

[tflash 3]

I guess this thread is a joke, but to play along, this "good idea" simply seems to miss some major revolutions in air warfare since the nineties? An Su-33 is completely obsolete.

 

Who needs a fighter with the S-33's non-existing avionics by today's standards?

 

- AESA ?

 

- Optronics? (the whole Litening/Sniper thingy that just every airforce wants?)

 

- ROVER datalink with JTAC?

 

- Electronic warfare suite ?

 

- MIDS?

 

- Stealth? (reduced RCS, LPI, RAM coating, Composite materials ...)

 

- GPS? Advanced INS?

 

- Secure IFF?

 

- Advanced defensive aids?

 

- integrated antenna/sensor design?

 

 

All of this combat-proven on current Super Hornets, and extremely underway with F-35.

Come on, the Su-33 does not even have a moving map, I even wonder if it has secure radio. You'ld have to go for Su-35 or Su-30 Mki at least for having somewhat closely resembling a modern-day fighter.

 

But what this completely absurd proposal totally misses is that much of the air will be filled indeed by cheaper aircraft, but not cold war relics but by UAV's.

 

F-35 + MQ-9 Reaper : that's an economic solution; With the fuel burnt by one Su-33 taking off the Reaper can stay 10 hours in the air at least!

Edited June 21, 2008 by tflash

[i90807065 0]

Don't believe me? Fine. But, if you are trying to find the truth about the Raptor from the Military Channel, good luck. If you want to really know what the F-22 is worth take a ride out to Langley, Tyndall, Elmendorf, or Holloman and ask them. Or better yet, go talk to the pilots at Eglin, Shaw, Oceana, Seymour Johnson, etc., who have to fight them every day. They are the ones who can tell you what a Raptor can do and does.

 

Nothing anywhere comes close, at any price.

 

Mike

Yeah good luck indeed they said it cost 226 Mil. Its expensive but not that expensive. I luckily live near elmendorf and have a good viewpoint of the airfield...and great binoculars(<---right spelling?) Awesome stuff

[MAKO69 186]

Its changed from America building Soviot SU series planes, which is ridiculous to the F-22 the apex predator in fighter combat. About that show top 10 fighters, its the top ten in "HISTORY" the raptor hasn't made history yet in any battles thats why it was rated 10.

I've read through this thread twice and I STILL can't figure out what it is the argument is apparently about?

[the test pilot 5]

all right, i just wanted to be a cassandra, somehow.

i mean, we should always think worse than normal.

back on main topic.... a US-33 could be good if filled with american avionics and with fly-by wire-controls, but, as it is now, his only good thing is the ability of taking off from the carrier without a catshot.

 

EDIT

 

i found out on an aviation magazine, that the price of a raptor is actually 183 millions of dollars.

Edited June 21, 2008 by the test pilot

[Caesar 305]

Well, the Navy already has a Su-33; it's called the F/A-18E and F Super Hornet. There. I said it. I dispise that plane, but cannot deny that is is a kick-ass 4.5-gen fighter. It lacks what the Tomcat and Intruder had in strike capability, range, and sheer fleet defense power, but it is also the only plane I know of that has defeated the Raptor in a knife fight. Doesn't happen consistantly, but the evidence has been posted before. If that plane can get the better of a Raptor, it can take a new-generation Flanker. AESA gives it a deadly mid-range fighting capability combined with the AMRAAM, massive alpha capabilities make it a b*tch to fight close in, and good weapons payload at range (again, not as good as its predecessors, but still good) means it can fight longer without needing to tank than legacy Hornets.

 

I don't think the US needs the Su-33 when the USAF has the Raptor and the Navy has the Super Bug, and both are getting the JSF. Two 5th gen aircraft and a good 4.5-gen, I don't see the point.

[Gunslinger One 0]

Its changed from America building Soviot SU series planes, which is ridiculous to the F-22 the apex predator in fighter combat. About that show top 10 fighters, its the top ten in "HISTORY" the raptor hasn't made history yet in any battles thats why it was rated 10.

 

you're right dude. i watched that show and it was only top ten because of its short military service.

 

on topic:

are those SU-33s even compatible with us aircraft carriers?

[+JimBeamer5 23]

That's true with any aircraft ever built, anywhere. Of course last summer Raptors dominated all comers at Red Flag with a roughly 150:1 kill ratio, and every Raptor pilot in attendance had less than 100 hours in the airframe.

 

I have had the opportunity to have talked to quite a few experts on the subject. They are Eagle pilots from Langley and Eglin, Viper pilots from Shaw, Hornet and Super Hornet pilots from Oceana, and Beaufort - these guys fight Raptors every day. Want to know what they think?

 

"Nothing else comes close." "It's not even fun to fight them." "I didn't even know they were there until I was dead."

 

Although the Eagles are getting old, I don't think anyone will doubt their capability, even today - especially working as a group and with AWACS support. I spoke to a group of Eagle drivers after and 8 vs. 1 fight against a Raptor, EVERY Eagle was killed and not a single aircraft ever got a visual on the F-22. THAT'S dominance...

 

...and it's also a typical Raptor engagement.

 

Raptor squadrons are having a difficult time scheduling training missions - why? The Eagle, Viper and Hornet squadrons just have a tough time justifying TDY's and the flights out to the training area to time and time again just receive the radio call "You're dead, return to back for the debreif".

 

Mike

 

You're right Mike. I bet Showtime calling "You're dead" over and over gets old real fast. Best part is you get to re-gen if you have the gas! (and get killed again...., and again...,and again)

 

JB5

[JediMaster 451]

While they could trap on a US carrier (a hook is a hook), I'm not sure about the takeoff. They use ski jump and we use steam cats, and the tie down/nose gear changes aren't minor.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

While they could trap on a US carrier (a hook is a hook), I'm not sure about the takeoff. They use ski jump and we use steam cats, and the tie down/nose gear changes aren't minor.

 

So far, it doesn't happen to have any catapult attachment for the nose gear, but with China still umming and ahhhing about whether or not to go down the steam catapult route with their carrier program, we may still see a Flanker that can be shot off the end of a carrier yet. Plus there's about 3 different planned naval variants being examined for the potential export market that haven't reached production.

 

 

Let keep this one on subject away from pissy, F-22 BS arguments. It's an interesting concept...

[Russkie Raider 0]

Well, the Navy already has a Su-33; it's called the F/A-18E and F Super Hornet. There. I said it. I dispise that plane, but cannot deny that is is a kick-ass 4.5-gen fighter. It lacks what the Tomcat and Intruder had in strike capability, range, and sheer fleet defense power, but it is also the only plane I know of that has defeated the Raptor in a knife fight. Doesn't happen consistantly, but the evidence has been posted before. If that plane can get the better of a Raptor, it can take a new-generation Flanker. AESA gives it a deadly mid-range fighting capability combined with the AMRAAM, massive alpha capabilities make it a b*tch to fight close in, and good weapons payload at range (again, not as good as its predecessors, but still good) means it can fight longer without needing to tank than legacy Hornets.

 

I don't think the US needs the Su-33 when the USAF has the Raptor and the Navy has the Super Bug, and both are getting the JSF. Two 5th gen aircraft and a good 4.5-gen, I don't see the point.

 

 

I talked to some Raptor pilots at the NAS Oceana at last years air show. They believed that the JSF was a complete waste of money and that we should have learned from the Marines VTOL Harrier failure

 

They were also Tomcat > Bug kinda guys :)

[tflash 3]

I talked to some Raptor pilots at the NAS Oceana at last years air show. They believed that the JSF was a complete waste of money and that we should have learned from the Marines VTOL Harrier failure

 

They were also Tomcat > Bug kinda guys :)

 

Well, I understand they prefer sightseeing Hawaï with their luxury jet instead of helping out troops on the ground over Iraq or Afghanistan. I do not think many Marines out there share their feelings.

[tflash 3]

Well, I understand they prefer sightseeing Hawaï with their luxury jet instead of helping out troops on the ground over Iraq or Afghanistan. I do not think many Marines out there share their feelings.

 

Oops ... I should have put a smiley, since I meant it jokingly: F-22 obviously has other role than JSF and Harrier?

[gbnavy61 1]

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

 

Kinda like Super Hornet. Seems like a cheap solution to a bigger problem in Naval Aviation - lack of a high-tech, high-speed strike-fighter. The old 'band-aid' fix in action.

 

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

 

Anytime, Baby!

 

If Grumman had a chance to put their Tomcat 21 in action, we'd have a jet more capable than SH right now. With the 14's radar and IRST, plus some structural and engine upgrades (thrust vectoring included), I bet it would give even the 22 a run for its money - especially with a new AIM-54. As usual, though, cost shoots down that idea (though it doesn't help that the Navy's been pissing money away for R&D the last 3 decades).

 

I'd love to see a new Navy strike-fighter with the best attributes of the Tomcat (wing-sweep, radar/BVR missile system, endurance, strike capability, etc.), plus some upgrades. I think SH would play a great second fiddle to a jet like that.

 

I, personally, think JSF is a waste of time. It's too expensive for the limited capabilities it brings. VTOL is nice, but can that make it drop bombs better than a SH or current Block F-16? Stealth's days are numbered, too. Conventional aircraft can do the same job as well for much less money. Plus, for blue-water Navy ops, I'm a believer in the "two engines are better than one" concept (you can argue that one all you want, it won't change my mind).

 

Anyway, I agree with the general sentiment that a US Super Flanker would be a big waste of time and money. We should buy one and make use of Russian aerodynamic design techniques. Let's face it, US jets have technology in spades over Russkie jets, but they still have been able to compete with US designs up to the F-22.

[gbnavy61 1]

Well, I understand they prefer sightseeing Hawaï with their luxury jet instead of helping out troops on the ground over Iraq or Afghanistan. I do not think many Marines out there share their feelings.

 

 

Hey, it's not the pilots' fault that they can't fly their high-tech F-22's past the Internation Date Line to get to Iraq/Afghanistan.

[MigBuster 2,884]

If Grumman had a chance to put their Tomcat 21 in action, we'd have a jet more capable than SH right now. With the 14's radar and IRST, plus some structural and engine upgrades (thrust vectoring included), I bet it would give even the 22 a run for its money - especially with a new AIM-54. As usual, though, cost shoots down that idea (though it doesn't help that the Navy's been pissing money away for R&D the last 3 decades).

 

Nice - but would still be a 4.5 gen jet (like the SU-33) without Stealth.

 

 

 

I, personally, think JSF is a waste of time. It's too expensive for the limited capabilities it brings. VTOL is nice, but can that make it drop bombs better than a SH or current Block F-16? Stealth's days are numbered, too. Conventional aircraft can do the same job as well for much less money. Plus, for blue-water Navy ops, I'm a believer in the "two engines are better than one" concept (you can argue that one all you want, it won't change my mind).

 

 

"Stealths Days are numbered??" - Thats a bit far - are you any relation to that bloke that turned down the Beatles in 1960 because he thought Guitar bands were on the way out? think I would take an F-35 anyday over a 4.5 Jet against a modern IADS and modern jet opposition - for the foreseeable future stealth is such a big advantage its unfair!

Edited June 29, 2008 by MigBuster

[tflash 3]

I still wouldn't think the Navy has a fighter problem ... it has rather a fighter gap problem waiting for the arrival of F-35.

Keep in mind an Aegis class destroyer can shoot about anything out of the air, even a sattelite!

 

What the navy is currently lacking is not a Su-33-like Tomcat replacement but an UAV. UAV's can loiter for hours and hours at any altitude being an "eye in the sky". Why take a human pilot in thin air with all the problems this involves when he can sit on the carrier in a relaxing seat driving an UAV from his armchair?

 

In this sense F-35 seems a waste: they'ld better invest in a solid UAV program like Mariner or Global hawk.

[MigBuster 2,884]

UAVs may have endurance - and they are ok bombing such foes as the Taleban - but anything that has to loiter at 200kts over a real ADS wont be loitering for long - let alone in a high ECM environment where the link back may just be jammed. The pilot will be safe - but it will be mission failed - the only UAV replacement for an F-35 would be an Unmanned F-35 that doesnt rely on being controlled from the other side of the world.

[sun111 0]

well, first thing: even if upgraded, a su-33 wouldn't be really revolutionary, but only a compromise between old and new...

Secondly: more fighters doesn't mean victory. The english pilots proved it during the Battle of Britain. Spitfire were better than Me, and the english radar system did the rest. Maybe if Me and He had been stealth... but luckly they were not! We can say the same about Su-33 which is vulnerable from this point of view...

 

Maybe the point is another one (maybe I'll open a topic on it): from 2030-2040 the US offensive line is going to be composed by two or three fighter types (F-22, F-35 and F-18E/F). That's means that if a great vulnerability is discovered on one, the other two types won't be able to replace it effectively, even if only temporarily... and this could be critical... Maybe this is the only reason to built SU-33.. just to gain more variability.

[gbnavy61 1]

"Stealths Days are numbered??" - Thats a bit far - are you any relation to that bloke that turned down the Beatles in 1960 because he thought Guitar bands were on the way out? think I would take an F-35 anyday over a 4.5 Jet against a modern IADS and modern jet opposition - for the foreseeable future stealth is such a big advantage its unfair!

 

No, I am no relation to that "bloke." I also don't think that's a valid comparison. But thanks for assuming you knew what I meant, rather than asking for clarification.

 

I believe it's naive to think that everyone and his brother isn't working on ways to defeat modern stealth systems. Therefore, I believe it's just a matter of time. Any countermeasure can be gotten around eventually.

Edited June 29, 2008 by gbnavy61

[MigBuster 2,884]

I believe it's naive to think that everyone and his brother isn't working on ways to defeat modern stealth systems. Therefore, I believe it's just a matter of time. Any countermeasure can be gotten around eventually.

 

 

Well most things becomes obsolete one day - but at the moment stealth is having its day so to speak - and its a massive advantage if applied correctly it would seem.

 

How long it lasts - who knows - but I doubt the US will be sitting on its ass waiting for someone to find a cure.

[JediMaster 451]

...enter "the cloaking device."

[cgold 0]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just some pics of loadouts of what may be employed on a "US-built" Su-33. The external tanks are F-18 tanks, but go well on this aircraft. The other pics show what loadouts do to affect landing gear motion, and other actions on an aircraft (flaps, etc.). Then there are pics of it just looking cool and such.

Edited August 3, 2008 by cgold

[eraser_tr 29]

Well most things becomes obsolete one day - but at the moment stealth is having its day so to speak - and its a massive advantage if applied correctly it would seem.

 

first they thought aircraft would be a fad. World War I proved otherwise. Then that dive bombing was obsolete. Hitler proved otherwise with the stuka. Then we thought guns were obsolete with gunless fighters like the F-86D/K/L and early phantoms. crappy missiles and the VPAF proved otherwise. Now people are saying manned planes are on their way out, they'll be wrong again. The current stealth technology will eventually be countered, but staying hidden will never be obsolete.