How would you westernize the Su-33?

I am not sure what exactly “westernize” would mean. I would think it meant “Upgrade”.

– High power Next Generation Jammer (Laser, Radar All-In-One)
– Next Generation AESA and Long Range dual-seeker Scramjet A-2-A missile
– Three Conformal Weapon Bays
– Higher percentage of composites
– Inlet RCS reduction

Basically, turn it into an amalgam of Su-30MKM and Su-35 features. Give it a Su-35 nose job to accept the largest CAPTOR-M based swash-plate AESA the Flanker airframe can accommodate (pretty darn big, in other words!) and replace the IRST with PIRATE. Introduce wet hard points on the inner wing stations for 2000l drop tanks and fit 117S engines, again as per the Su-35. If NPO Saturn’s service life figures are to be believed, going for Western engines is likely a waste of time and money – a F110-GE-132 might last even longer, but integration with the Flanker airframe would be too costly to be worthwhile.

The rest of the avionics suite would mirror the Su-30MKM (HUD, MFDs, HMD, IFF, INS, LDP, MAWS, LWR), but replace the Russian RWR and RF ECM with RWS-300 by Saab Avitronics and a version of Gripen’s EWS-39 packaged into the existing wing tip pods. A podded variant has been developed and tested IIRC and the Flanker ECM pods should offer generous space, as for weapons, integrate Meteor, IRIS-T, AASM, Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Harpoon, westernise the Kh-31. For RCS reduction, use RAM coatings and treated canopy as found on the Su-30MKM, a new frequency selective radome and engine treatments as rumoured for the Su-35.

EDIT: Forgot to mention an important change, substitute a Link-16 terminal for the Russian TKS-2 datalink! In summary, the major risks associated with my suggestions are changing the weapons, radar, IRST and datalink – everything else has already been done on some Flanker variant or other.

Westernising the Su-33… I would go the same route as the IAF and Indian Navy(for MiG-29K) did and then some.

EL/M-2052 or Euroradar CAESAR replacing the old Phazotron N001.
Thates Topsight-E or Elbit DASH mk4 HMDS.
Rafael Litening II/Thales Damocles LDP
SPECTRA active cancellation system
The EW system from the Gripen NG, Eurofighter Tranche 3 or Rafale F3.
Inlet radar blocker like in the F/A-18E/F
HOTAS cockpit with MFDs from any major Western manufacturer

All this is assuming no budget limits.:D

😛 all this stobar/catobar terminology is new to me and I typo’d my quoted sentence, I indeed meant to say STOBAR for the Gripen, as in I like the Sea Gripen in a STOBAR config as an RN alternative to the F-35 or other.
My economic gears just think it has the best cost-benefit ratio, but admitedly in abstract as I’ve done no figures.

Your calculations above look good to me. 2700kg of ordnance seems right to me. Note, an Su-33 on a ground strike mission wouldn’t carry more than that, neither would a Hornet. And yes bombs or heavy air-ground generally aren’t ever brought home, kinda defeats the purpose of the mission, if a fault causes RTB then you’d jettison anyway for safety.

The Su-33 is a great advertiser for STOBAR operators, the only mission it has to compromise on really is heavy interdiction (anti-carrier) but anti-shipping is handled by the carrier itself, the Russian design philosophy of course combining the roles of heavy cruiser with the carrier, which mounts a deadly arsenal of advanced long range SSMs.

It just means the RN carriers have to operate with mandatory cruiser escort in the battlegroup for a surface action screening.

So as long as it can carryout a meaningful strike role I concede that the Sea Gripen operating of a STOBAR carrier, assuming that the changes to the airframe are as easy as SAAB say is a good alternative to the J-35 if you (i.e RAF/FAA) do not need an all signing and all dancing 5th generation fighter!

Seems I should have searched a bit more otherwise I would have seen this has all been discussed before – with some pretty good info from the Rank 5 Registered Users like Swerve! The answers appears to be STOBAR Sea Gripen only works in the strike role if you can top up its tanks by buddy refueling – which is the same as how the Su-33’s seem to work 🙂

This is no different to the Su-33 or any other CATOBAR operator, they can carry a heavier load from proper airbases than they can from the carrier, but were designed to carry enough from a carrier to be potent and useful.

Not sure how valid this link is (it was just the top one for a search of Payload of a Sea Gripen): http://www.stratpost.com/saab-offers-naval-gripen-to-india

Anyway the key paragraphs are:

“According to Peter Nilsson, Gripen’s Vice President of Operational Capabilities, the Sea Gripen is intended for both CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) as well as STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery) operations. “There will obviously be differences in the MTOW (Maximum Take-Off Weight). In a CATOBAR concept, the Sea Gripen will have a MTOW of 16,500 kilograms and a maximum landing weight of 11,500 kilograms. In a STOBAR concept it depends on the physics of the carrier. Roughly, the payload of fuel and weapons in STOBAR operations will be one-third less than the payload in CATOBAR operations. There will be no differences in ‘bring-back’ capability,” he says.”

“The Sea Gripen will be around 400 kilograms heavier than the Gripen NG, with the augmented airframe giving ‘an empty weight between 7500-8000 kg’.”

If I am doing the calculations right then the CATOBAR Sea Gripen will be able to carry 8,500 kg of fuel and weapons and a STOBAR Sea Gripen will be able to carry around 5,600 kg of fuel and weapons and I think that a full fuelled Gripen would carry around 2,300 kg of internal fuel http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/jas39.htm, possibly more (I think it should be 2,900kg of internal fuel), this would only leave 3,300 kg (or 2,700 kg) for ordnance, would this be enough ordnance for it operating in strike role, especially if it needed to carry drop tanks? – as Stormshadow weighs 1,230kg, Maverick ~300kg, Paveway II/III ~500kg, Paveway IV ~230kg, General Purpose Bombs either 505 kg or 312kg, ALARM 268kg, Litening III ~200kg of course a Brimstone only weighs 48.5 kg. Plus I have seen pictures of Gripen’s flying with 2 x 300 gal drop tanks which I think weighs around 900 kg a drop tank but I cannot find a definite source for this! (Would 2 x 300 gal drop tanks, and 3 or 4 Paveway IV and 2 ASRAAM be a reasonable configuration for the strike role?)

According to my first source the bring home weight is 11,500 kg which means that even if you dump all your fuel you would not be able to bring home more than 2,500 kg of ordnance – I guess this would be okay as Meteor weighs 185 kg, ASRAAM 85 kg so unless I am missing something (which I likely am) a STOBAR Sea Gripen would be able to carry out air defence and return to the carrier without dumping its weapons, and I would normally expect a fighter configured in strike role to have fired/dropped some of its ordnance before returning home.

So as long as it can carryout a meaningful strike role I concede that the Sea Gripen operating of a STOBAR carrier, assuming that the changes to the airframe are as easy as SAAB say is a good alternative to the J-35 if you (i.e RAF/FAA) do not need an all signing and all dancing 5th generation fighter!

PLEASE NOTE ALL WEAPONS WEIGHTS FROM WIKIPEDIA WHICH MAY EXPLAIN WHY THEY SEEM WRONG TO ANYONE!

According to de la Motte, the ‘land’ Gripen needs only rudimentary changes to make it carrier compatible. These include a strengthened undercarriage, bigger brakes and a tail hook (which the NG will have). The standard Gripen has a large number of the attributes for carrier operations, such as a high precision landing capability, a high pitch and roll rate authority and precision glide slope control, a reinforced airframe and enhanced anti-corrosion protection.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw100618_1_n.shtml

again, navalising an aircraft isn’t only about reinforcing its landing gear.

the structure needs to withstand continuous hard landings (high vertical speed and hook arrests every time), be treated/protected against corrosion much more than for a land version, etc..

It was essentially a coincidence the Gripen design requirements mirror “STOBAR” ones so the Gripen has been offered in Asia as a carrier based fighter (they were trying to temp India and I have my suspicions you might see China take an interest).

About the only modification would be a possible gear reinforcement and hook. Otherwise they’ll just be operated in their normal “dispersal” role, like the Viggen the Gripen was designed to operate from automotive highways with truck loaded logistical support in wartime. This doctrine is perfect for navalisation out of the box.
This is no different to the Su-33 or any other CATOBAR operator, they can carry a heavier load from proper airbases than they can from the carrier, but were designed to carry enough from a carrier to be potent and useful.

They will find the cash for them because they are not being paid for here and now, but rather 5 or 6 years from now when the financial situation is likely to be MUCH improved over the current situation.

Some of them won’t be paid for until at least 10 years from now.

Mostly because the only STOL fighter available is the F-35B and at it’s current stage of development and with the current economic climate it is hard to see how the Government will find the cash for the capital outlay for them unless the price and in service dates do not firm up soon. I accept over the life of the fighter/carrier CATOBAR costs more than STOL, but I think that if the more pessimistic cost estimates are true the Government will find it hard to pay $130 million a plane, especially if they are forking out a small fortune to keep the Harrier’s flying.

I just wish there was another STOL choice – a new generation Harrier, with AESA radar, new and improved engines, maybe a little bigger, able to land on the carrier with a full payload in hot climate, built with lots of composites and improved IR signature and reduce radar cross section.

They will find the cash for them because they are not being paid for here and now, but rather 5 or 6 years from now when the financial situation is likely to be MUCH improved over the current situation.

Besides, I don’t think Superhornet would be much cheaper to purchase, plus by the time you add in the cost of modifying the carriers it would probably even out. Cost of operation is much more important then cost of purchase on items that will be in service for more then a couple of years.

Edit: Oh, and current LRIP F-35 airframes are currently being produced for much less then the original projected cost (some reports saying 20% less).

Echoing StevoJH on that sentiment, adding the Gripen is pretty much good to go and by far the cheapest option with the most stick time to its credit.

It’s design requirements mirror those of STOL (ramp style) carrier operations. It’s so small you really don’t have a problem storing 30 on a fleet carrier too. Anything you give away in arguable “fantastic technology” to a JSF you more than make up for in reduced complexity and cost-benefit ratio with no real loss in relative potency.

The Superbug I wouldn’t even consider. You’re not going to start building supercarriers.

– Would the Gripen be able to operate of a STOBAR carrier, or do you still need to go CATOBAR? If it operates of a STOBAR carrier could it take of with a reasonable payload? If not, how much of re-design is needed? Personally I do not know the answer to these questions, but I would have thought that it would cost a reasonable chuck of cash to modify the Gripen to operate of STOBAR or CATOBAR carrier, and that makes it a risk.

– I had not appreciated how much of a beast the Super Hornet is, I guess it the lifts could handle them, you would still be left with ~30% reduction (my crude calc of the difference in size) in the number of embarkable fighters so you would see a drop from a maximum of say 36 fighters to around 24 – 26 fighters if you went with the Super Hornet (I guess that is one way of saving money 🙂 )

Why? Its much more expensive then STOVL and would require the Acquision of a dedicated fleet of aircraft for the RN rather then a Joint Force due to the increased training requirement for operating CATOBAR aircraft from a carrier..

Mostly because the only STOL fighter available is the F-35B and at it’s current stage of development and with the current economic climate it is hard to see how the Government will find the cash for the capital outlay for them unless the price and in service dates do not firm up soon. I accept over the life of the fighter/carrier CATOBAR costs more than STOL, but I think that if the more pessimistic cost estimates are true the Government will find it hard to pay $130 million a plane, especially if they are forking out a small fortune to keep the Harrier’s flying.

I just wish there was another STOL choice – a new generation Harrier, with AESA radar, new and improved engines, maybe a little bigger, able to land on the carrier with a full payload in hot climate, built with lots of composites and improved IR signature and reduce radar cross section.

You’re not going to start building supercarriers.

The Queen Elizabeth class are arguably Super Carriers.

Echoing StevoJH on that sentiment, adding the Gripen is pretty much good to go and by far the cheapest option with the most stick time to its credit.

It’s design requirements mirror those of STOL (ramp style) carrier operations. It’s so small you really don’t have a problem storing 30 on a fleet carrier too. Anything you give away in arguable “fantastic technology” to a JSF you more than make up for in reduced complexity and cost-benefit ratio with no real loss in relative potency.

The Superbug I wouldn’t even consider. You’re not going to start building supercarriers.

Firstly I should say (if it is not clear from my posts on various threads) that I think post SDSR that the UK will move from STOL carriers to CATOBAR carriers – this gives them four realistic choices for fighters – F-35C, Super Hornet, Rafale, and Gripen (you could also argue Tejas N and Mig-29K, but I think their are political reasons against those two)

Why? Its much more expensive then STOVL and would require the Acquision of a dedicated fleet of aircraft for the RN rather then a Joint Force due to the increased training requirement for operating CATOBAR aircraft from a carrier..

As for a good fixed wing STOL for the RN I would’ve thought a navalised Gripen would’ve been just what they were looking for. All the other choices seem poor by comparison, to my reckoning.

Firstly I should say (if it is not clear from my posts on various threads) that I think post SDSR that the UK will move from STOL carriers to CATOBAR carriers – this gives them four realistic choices for fighters – F-35C, Super Hornet, Rafale, and Gripen (you could also argue Tejas N and Mig-29K, but I think their are political reasons against those two)

The F-35C – will be the most advanced of the four, but it in service date is not guaranteed nor its price firmed up and I think the UK will want to fix the cost of the fighters for its carriers so I can see this as being a poor choice.

Super Hornet – would allow us to cross-train with the US, could negotiate a good price, will need some development work to incorporate full mix of UK weapons & systems (Litening III, Meteor and Brimstone for example). From a cost point of view the most likely.

Rafale – would allow us to cross-train with the French. Need some development work to incorporate UK weapons systems (Litening III, and current A2A missiles). If we persuade the French to buy an aircraft carrier I can see this being preferred over the Super Hornet.

Naval Gripen – Seems a fairly high risk as the plane has yet to be developed, I think it is only likely if Gripen NG is successful elsewhere and the development costs can be spread. If a naval variant already existed I think it would have been more likely.

Digitalisation, FSC, and fire control sets (more multirole capability) were all planned upgrades of the Su-33 (bringing it roughly in line with the Su-27M/35 initial multirole-optimised Flanker, actually one might virtually consider the first 27M/35 to be a refinement of the 27K/33 with a datalink difference from fleet use). I got the impression the AV-MF (naval aviation) had put the type on the backburner though, considering any program involving them is a fair bit of expense for less than 30 aircraft, the cost benefit ratio for such a small number is probably the same as just replacing them with new airframes.

If they chose a MiG over Flanker-update in this it maybe significant of a shift in naval doctrine for the carrier group.

As for a good fixed wing STOL for the RN I would’ve thought a navalised Gripen would’ve been just what they were looking for. All the other choices seem poor by comparison, to my reckoning.

Youre thread asks how to “Westernize” the Su-33, and by that I take to mean that you want to increase range and load carrying ability of this jet, as well of course to add to its weapons and sensors capability. If youre happy with the range and load carrying ability that the Su-33 already has, then you can ignore everything Ive said and just concentrate on new weapons and sensors for this aircraft. All Im saying is that increasing wing are of this jet wont work, so if you want a jet with more range and payload you have to start from scratch and design a new jet.

Well I do belong to the more is better club 🙂 – but I already conceded that a greater range and the capacity to carry more munitions was beyond anything you could do easily with the Su-33 – and if you were going to all that effort you would design it to operate of CATOBAR and likely tweak the airframe to reduce the radar cross section – thanks for clarifying your point!

TVC? What is that thrust vectoring?

Yes.