Soviet aircraft carriers

Re the Su-33 use of UPAZ – there is a whole paragraph in Andrei Fomin’s book on the Su-33 titled ‘Toplivnaya Sistyema’ – fuel system.

It mentions the UPAZ pod – but my Russian isn’t good enough to read it properly.

If I scan it – can someone translate ??

Ken

Sure, post it.

4. the UAVs

advantages : ultra long endurance, no crew, can carry a big radar

drawbacks : needs automated carrier landings, unproven, needs datalink

In the future imho the UAV will be the best choice

Concur. Something like Globalhawk/Zond would provide outstanding endurance in an airframe that is actually more compact than an E-2 or Yak-44 while carrying the same sensor load. I don’t think the datalink is a problem either, it’s been done before. The automatic landings could well turn out to be a very big hurdle though.

Having an airborne early warning platorm with a range of up to 3,000km and perhaps more with both inflight refuelling and the potential for underwing fuel tanks to sell would be an excellent investment. I would imagine the Chinese and Indians and even other countries like Iran would appreciate a smaller cheaper gap filler for their air defence networks. It would be a very useful land based aircraft.

without refueling i doubt KUB can takeoff with that much fuel of Kuznetsov and KUB based aew is out of question for gorshkov since its incapable of handling something that heavy. Best option is to fit mig-29Kub with something like bars and utlize it for reconnasiance i believe thats what will end up happening.
It is intresting to note that russian navy is quite intrested in deploying mig-29k for their next generation carrier than the su-33.

A Su-33 based AWACS, what a crazy idea.

A fighter is not optimised for the boring long on station times typical for an AWACS. The 360° radar will add drag and probably reduce internal fuel.

There a better solutions available today :

1. the blimp

advantages : excellent endurance. High volume for a radar. Does not need to land on a carrier and cab ne refuelled from ships.

drawbacks : slow, not immune to harsh weather conditions

2. the helicopter

advantages : proven idea, can land and take-off on any ship big enough

drawbacks : slow, limited patrol alltitude, limited radar size, limited endurance

3. the conventional plane

advantages : proven idea, can carry a big radar, good endurance, can carry some operators

drawbacks : needs a special airframe for carrier operations, expensive, huge

4. the UAVs

advantages : ultra long endurance, no crew, can carry a big radar

drawbacks : needs automated carrier landings, unproven, needs datalink

In the future imho the UAV will be the best choice

Photo shows Su-30 with UPAZ;

Ken,

Unless Su-33 has been modified to include the plumbing – in which case – is it the only Flanker to have such a mod ??

The Su-30MKI is fitted out with necessary mods to allow buddy refueling. There were a couple of news stories on this though I cannot find a link now. UPAZ pods are already in the inventory.

Re the Su-33 use of UPAZ – there is a whole paragraph in Andrei Fomin’s book on the Su-33 titled ‘Toplivnaya Sistyema’ – fuel system.

It mentions the UPAZ pod – but my Russian isn’t good enough to read it properly.

If I scan it – can someone translate ??

Ken

Speaking of being a useful land-based aircraft, there was speculation a while back that the Su-33UB could overtake the Su-34 for the Russian Air Force if the avionics issues the FULLBACK was having weren’t sorted out.

If the Russian have the money to develope and field it I’ll be impressed……..

Having an airborne early warning platorm with a range of up to 3,000km and perhaps more with both inflight refuelling and the potential for underwing fuel tanks to sell would be an excellent investment. I would imagine the Chinese and Indians and even other countries like Iran would appreciate a smaller cheaper gap filler for their air defence networks. It would be a very useful land based aircraft.

You bring up some good points. Yet, USN AirWings keep getting smaller? If, they provided more F/A-18’s to make up for the losses in S-3’s for example. Well, maybe it would be a good idea? The main problem here is the AirWings keep getting smaller and the strike wings are having to tank themselves! (With there own strike aircraft no doubt!) Further, in the USN case there main aircraft are short legged Hornets. 😮

Smarter fighters with smarter weapons are no longer in need to compensate shortcomings through numbers. Except from some ‘Bombcats’ the Tomcats were single mission not counting the TARPs. The former A-6s and A-7s were in need of a CAP. The Hornet was good, but not good enough, so it will be replaced by SH till the F-35C comes.

Please give the ferry-range values for the Tomcat, Hornet and SH.

Could that take off via Kuznetsov’s ski-jump with sufficient fuel for a patrol of sufficient duration?

The ‘baseline’ Su-27KUB does…….

Dunno about the fuel load though….

Ken

PS – No-one has responded to my question about the Su-33 being the only Flanker that may be ‘plumbed’ for fuel tanks/UPAZ pod ??

Could that take off via Kuznetsov’s ski-jump with sufficient fuel for a patrol of sufficient duration?

If the Russian have the money to develope and field it I’ll be impressed……..

Imagine that in service…

Perhaps on dangerous missions AAMs like R-37Ms and R-77Ms could be fitted to add a self defence role perhaps…

[QUOTE=Personally I think a modified Su-33 with a dorsal antenna would be the best solution for the Kuznetsov and perhaps a airship or even AEW version of the Be-42 or Be-200 for the smaller Gorshkov..[/QUOTE]

Just such a scheme has been speculated – except using the tandem two-seat Su-27KUB (sometimes known as the Su-33UB).

From Yefim Gordon’s ‘Flankers the new generation’………….

“The koobik (Su-27KUB) is to be developed into several new versions, including a dedicated reconnaissance aircraft and a shipboard mini-AWACS (the latter is now under development).
According to preliminary reports, the AWACS version will have a fat tail ‘stinger’ housing the surveillance radar set; the phased-array antenna will be located in an elongated pylon-mounted pod above the fuselage, in the manner of the Ericsson PS890 Erieye radar of the SAAB 340AEW and the Embraer EMB-145.SA. This will require the fins to be made of composites so as not to impair radar operation.”

Ken

The opposite is correct. Every naval flyer has to do an amount of carrier-landings to keep his profiency. In peace time, that is more than 90% of service time, there are no real combat sorties at all. The pilots are well trained at all. Why not use up some of the flights/landings to support the daily routine. A F-18 is multirole, having done some top-up work it can perform some time of carrier-cap too if that need arise. A carrier is always space and personal limited. There is no constant need of an mono-task arial tanker, which itself use-up that valuable space and personal. There is never a 24 hour need to fly non-stop attack-missions with all fighters on board, even in wartime. This are limited battle days in a full scale war. You can draw from a pool of F-18s as much aircraft as you need for most missions. So there will be no real shortage of arial tankers as such need arose. If you need much F-18s for CAP, you have it. If you need a max number of F-18s for an all afford strike mission, you will have it. As you can see, the gains are much more. Just to remember again. Every carrier-wing pilot has to do a minimum number of carrier landings, when the other part of that mission is much less important and most times an excuse to justify the launch at all. So that multi-use approach gives high flexibility and an optimum use of limited resources.

You bring up some good points. Yet, USN AirWings keep getting smaller? If, they provided more F/A-18’s to make up for the losses in S-3’s for example. Well, maybe it would be a good idea? The main problem here is the AirWings keep getting smaller and the strike wings are having to tank themselves! (With there own strike aircraft no doubt!) Further, in the USN case there main aircraft are short legged Hornets. 😮

Using all your fighters to maintain fuel levels for your AEW is not a great idea if you actually want to do anything with those fighters based on what the AEW finds out.

Personally I think a modified Su-33 with a dorsal antenna would be the best solution for the Kuznetsov and perhaps a airship or even AEW version of the Be-42 or Be-200 for the smaller Gorshkov.

The Kuznestov and other Russian carriers have had in the past an anti sub focus and the current Kuznetsov has an anti air focus. The Russians don’t perceive a need for long range dedicated strike capability from an aircraft carrier. Its role seems to be just fleet defence for which fighters and a few anti sub helos is sufficient. They have no empire to protect and no markets to dominate.

The supersonic anti ship capability of the 12 missiles under the Kuznestovs deck offer far better antiship capability than most weapons fitted to aircraft.

Seems like a better solution than using tactical fighters! I don’t see the point of India and the United States using there Mig-29K’s and Super Hornets as tankers? Any Aircraft Carrier is limited in the amount of Strike Aircraft it can carry. Using them as tanker seems like a complete waste………….expensive too! :confused:

Well the problem is that loading the E-2 (or C-2 would be better) with fuel for refueling would make the aircraft to heavy to launch. An just relying on standard internal fuel for transfers offers no advantage over a buddy tanker but the tanker is larger (takes up more hangar/deck space) and is slower (more difficult for fast jets to station keep).

Daniel

The opposite is correct. Every naval flyer has to do an amount of carrier-landings to keep his profiency. In peace time, that is more than 90% of service time, there are no real combat sorties at all. The pilots are well trained at all. Why not use up some of the flights/landings to support the daily routine. A F-18 is multirole, having done some top-up work it can perform some time of carrier-cap too if that need arise. A carrier is always space and personal limited. There is no constant need of an mono-task arial tanker, which itself use-up that valuable space and personal. There is never a 24 hour need to fly non-stop attack-missions with all fighters on board, even in wartime. This are limited battle days in a full scale war. You can draw from a pool of F-18s as much aircraft as you need for most missions. So there will be no real shortage of arial tankers as such need arose. If you need much F-18s for CAP, you have it. If you need a max number of F-18s for an all afford strike mission, you will have it. As you can see, the gains are much more. Just to remember again. Every carrier-wing pilot has to do a minimum number of carrier landings, when the other part of that mission is much less important and most times an excuse to justify the launch at all. So that multi-use approach gives high flexibility and an optimum use of limited resources.

Don’t forget that modern carrier aircraft are complex machines and even though reliability has improved over the years there will always be aircraft that are not mission capable for one reason or another. These unavailable aircraft are probably still capable of flying a tanker mission though. So most of the time the maximum available number of for strike taskings will not be affected directly by tanking taskings as these can be drawn from this pool of a/c unavailable for other reasons.

Daniel

Here Scooter, a F/A-18E configured in the tanker role during Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. I read it can carry more fuel in the tanker role than a S-3 as well.