First of all, it wouldn’t be the same SVP-24 as on the Su-24M, but probably SVP-24-33 (or something in those lines) and thus it can be a subset of the SVP-24 features, depending on what the Su-33 base supports and how much time and money the Russian MOD was willing to invest.

Given all the details available for all the other upgrade projects (including e.g. the MiG-31BM which is definitely not for export) and new aircraft (like Su-35 and MiG-29K), why wouldn’t we have any on such a comprehensive Su-33 upgrade? Thus, it would be reasonable to expect at the very least some information that such a comprehensive upgrade program is approved and ongoing by the MOD. Or you think that the upgraded Su-33’s are Russia’s secret weapon?

Of course, a more comprehensive upgrade is still a possibility, but since you’re the one going way beyond the available information, it’s up to you prove that such things exist, not up to the rest to prove that they don’t.

About available information’s:

Just one simple possibility for the Su 33 has not been received an upgrade like the Su 27SM: maybe the Su 33 would not need this so far, once the Su 33 (Su 27K) could have been beginning its serial production in 1994 as multimode fighter, just like then current multimodes Su 30MKK and the Su 27SM1 in the early 2000s.

In the mid-’90s China had been opted for Su 30MKK with radar multimode N001VE with antenna cassegranian quite similar with the N001 from Su 27S/P/SK but this last ones without multimode capabilities. Indeed the N011 Bars with antenna planar array from the multimode Su 27M, as well as the N 010 Zhuk MiG 29M / K of the late 80s had not been chosen for China, instead this client requested the cassegranian antenna N001VE.

The radar N001VE of Su 30MKK has emerged as an option of lower cost than the N011 Bars with planar antenna array, but it were quite amazing how this N001VE had already developed in the mid 90s.

So the Su 33 (Su 27K) has been equipped with the radar N001, however this are not the same version of N001 from Su 27S/P/SK, since that N001 from Su 33 were designated as RLPK-27K by Sukhoi’s. However at least one strong reason the N001 from Su 33 it should have been quite resistant against maritime corrosion and humidity.

Just one example in the late 80s: the former Soviet Union had been producing the MiG 29S (9:13), and this was already compatible with the R 77 that were still in development during the 80’s, and proof of this is in the Peru Air Force bought the second hand MiG 29S from Belarus without the R 77, however in the late 90 the Peru Air Force has been equipped the MiG 29S with R 77 that were bought from Russia without any modernization program for the MiG 29S.

So it’s at least very questionable only to accept that version of the Su 33 (Su 27K) had been keeping in production for Russia in the mid-90s, and that it would have been equipped with same main systems of Su 27S/P from half of the 80s. While the radar N001VE from Su 30MKK were ready to be exported without the same had been already fully developed during the 90’s without any client to pay for this.

Such strong reason for Russia had not bought the R 77 would be a serious lack of financial resources during the 90’s, however in the case of Su 33 does not apply at this situation, since the Su 33 were purchased in the middle of the 90s. So I can not observing the cost of the multimode N001VE would be greater than the N001 to derail this acquisition from Su 33.

The MiG 29K has been developed from the MiG 29M since the early 90’s, while the Su 33(Su 27K) would have been developed from Su 27S/P due to the N001 , and it were not of Su 27M due to the radar N011 Bars from this last one.

Yet despite the Su 27K and Su 27M has been keeping canards, while the Su 27S/P does not have this, then we have been simply accepting this fact since the radar antenna from the Su 33 it has been the N001, after all: could someone be able to distinguish any differences through pictures between the antenna of the N001 from Su 27S/P/K and the N001VE/ N001VEP from Su 30 MKK/ Su 30 MK2 and those from Su 27SM1/2/3?!

Tomorrow we will just accepting that Su 33 could have been able to attack ground targets in Syria because the same received the SPV 24 system, then its suppose multimode capability in reason of the N001VE radar against ground and sea targets can remain into dark side of the Moon.

The dark side of the Moon its is not secret place, instead its impossible to see through direct sight from our planet, and without direct sight or others means we could follow all our pre-conceptions without any doubts about all we want to believe from Moon.

Today almost half the population of our planet does not believe that the man went to the Moon .
I believe without any doubts that the man went to the Moon, because if this had not happened since 1969, the former Soviet Union would have made a hell about it with the US.

All exact, only operative disadvantage of AESA when compared with PESA is that with radiator and modules attached one to the other it is very hard to put it on a steering plate.
Actually both F-22 and F-35 and Rafale use a fixed one thus limiting field of wiew to +/- 60° while only one having it, in a quite unusual form, is Gripen E-F.

The radar AESA Raven 05 from Gripen E / F has been deveolped from other radar AESA Captor-E from Typhoon, and both it has been used such AESA mobile antenna in 3D.

In fact the Captor E has been already conducting tests this year with the Typhoon.

Unlike a conventional MFI radar it doesn’t have the issue of disrupting RCS as it doesn’t need to steer continously, just to be inclined in the desired direction before emitting (the one of Gripen would instead necessitate to move continously instead).
A coulpe of planes will have them pointed respectively left and right and probem solved.
For the 5 gen it is different pair of shoes however and they opted for the definitive solution i.e. have added side looking radars.

As you can see in the video above the mobile antenna AESA from Captor E will allows to use the same as SLAR( Side Looking Airborne Radar) with SAR ( Synthetic Aperture Radar) among others several modes

However through the data fusion has been created for 5° generation fighter as well as the 4.5° Generation, those fighters from 5° generation that will be equipped with a smaller AESA SLAR radars on the side of the aircraft’s, those radar SLAR could have been expanded the range capability, if both the main radar with a mobile antenna AESA as well as the AESA SLAR would be working in cooperation through the data fusion.

In my humble opinion between the several missions of the PAK FA will be requested in future, the reconnaissance missions should be quite important for the PAK FA, in that case it could replace the the few remaining MiG 25RB in the Russia Air Force.

No clarity on Radar as there are conflicting statement , The Designer mentioned that it will have a new AESA radar not the one that was demonstrated to India but a larger version of it while at same time some are mentioning initial prototyle will have Zhuk-ME as on Indian Mig-29K

I guess that all those versions are correct so far, once the MiG 35 has been developed as an open platform or something like that, then the same airframe could be: a single seat or twin seat, the engines with TVC( Thrust Vectoring Control) or without it, as AESA( Active Electronic Scanning Array) radar and PESA( Passive Electronic Scanning Array) or even other more simple like the slotted planar array from MiG 29K or MiG 29M2.

The choice of the systems will be done be by the customers, while the airframe of the MiG 35 will be common from all customers.

So if a customer today would have been opted for a simpler and less expensive version of the MiG 35 without TVC and AESA as example, this would still have the option in the future to equip it with: TVC, AESA or even could turn a single sea into twin seat without major changes of the airframe.

In fact the possibility of the transformation from single-seat fighter into twin seat could be quite useful, since the twin seat fighter has been exhaust their useful life much faster than the single seat, because it has been accumulating more flying hours, as well as the loss rate from twin seat has been more increased than the single seat fighters.

About the possibilities all depends on the customer’s choice, so both new engine RD 33MKM with TVC or the new radar Zhuk AESA has been keeping as options for the MiG 35, but not necessarily the production of new MiG 35 has been conditioned for these systems, since there are the option of MiG 29K systems that has been currently remained in production.

I guess too that Russia could have been prioritizing the development of AESA radar N036 from PAK FA, and only when it will end this development process, then it should appears new versions of Zhuk AESA from MiG 35, as well as possibles IRBIS AESA from Su 35 and BARS AESA from Su 30 SM. Otherwise only if another customer put some order on them.

. Secondly, why do you keep referring to as Su-33 as Su-33K? Su-33 is the designation of the carrier flanker, there is no pure “land version” of Su-33. It is either Su-27K or Su-33, and the former designation is long dead.

Sorry to bring this post with other issue while you are talking about the S 400.

Around the year 2005 the Su 33UB had been received new engines Al 31FU with TVC( thrust vectoring control) as well as a new PESA radar Zhuk-MSFE, both because of the proposal of the 55 Su 33K/KUB for China Navy and for evaluation of the Russia Navy.

In fact I still really surprising that even MiG 29S(9:13) had been put into production in the late 80 with the capability to operate with R 77, while the R 77 were in development, but the Su 33 that were put into production in 1994 it has not received this capability into radar RLPK 27K (N001) from Su 33, even with all the development of multi-mode radar N010 Zhuk for the first generation of MiG 29K in the early 90s.

With the introduction of the new MiG 29K with radar Zhuk-ME, perhaps the Su 33 should have been received some kind of modernization about the radar.

After all it are quite strange that t Russia Air Force has been modernizing the Su 27 for the new standard Su 27SM3, while the Russia Navy which has been keep the Su 33 as the main means of air defense of the fleet with the aircraft carrier, now it has been shared with the new MiG 29K, in fact it has not been modernized its Su 33 for a standard at least similar to the Su 27SM3.

There were even talks about such supposed new missile R 27 EM that had been developed for the Su 33 years ago, so this mythical R 27 EM would be equipped with ARH( Active Radar Homing) just like the R 27EA, but this new version R 27 EM would be capable to intercept cruise missiles that could have been flying close to the sea at altitudes up to 3m over the top waves.

In fact I do this confusion with Su 33 (Su 27K) due to the ill-fated agreement with China in the mid-2000s that for some unknown reason this has been ingrained in my quite restricted memory, for those who does not know the fact there ware such proposal about a new designation to Su 33K that would be the version for China, as well as the Su 33UB (Su 27KUB) would have been designated as Su 33KUB for China.

One cant tell from that image that it is R-77-1. For that matter, that is in all likelyhood weight mockups so it doesnt even matter

The supplier of those likelyhood mock-ups from o R 77 (RVV-AE) missiles has must been keeping the Russian Navy as one of its best customers at all, since the beginning of the 90 the first generation of the MiG 29K had been exposed to view with those mock-ups.

This is just my silly doubts that the mock-ups of the original R 77 could not have been represented the new R 77-1, after all there might be small differences between it, as the weight thereof, then with the new R 77-1 could be necessary to develop new mock ups to represent the it.

After all I had never seen those mock-ups from R 77 ( RVV-AE) during the 90’s has been painted in such fancies colors as this with the new MiG 29K.

Have not seen this (older) pic:

Beautiful image.

In fact the MiG 29K appears in the photo had been equipped with the R 77-1, yet there is my doubts if the Su 33K could also been equipped with this missiles R 77-1, after all the Su 33K will be the main air defense asset from the fleet that own MiG 29K because the range of the Su 33K.

I’m curious if the MiG 29K has been tested on board the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetcov with PGM as :Kh 31A/P, Kh 35, Kh 29 and smart bombs.

In fact I guess that I am not the only one who is curious about this, since there are at least many insurgents in Syria that should be also curious too, however they are the lucky ones that maybe will discover this in firsthand.

In my perfect world they would have PAK-DA flying by 2020, started small serial production in 2024 and slowly replaced Tu-22M3’s with PAK-DA’s over the years til 2030 or so. Now instead they will basically be making Tu-160M2 and PAK-DA in parallel, at Kazan. How exactly they will manage that exactly is a mystery. Tu-160M2 isnt exactly cheap either and it is unclear what it will offer that PAK-DA won’t, other than the speed.

As far I know the Tu 95MS and Tu 142 had been produced in Samara until the production line were closed in 1991. While the Tu 160 had been produced in Kazan since 1981 until the production line were closed in 1995.

However the production line of Tu 22M3 had been located in Kazan too, and the same were paralyzed in 1991. So both Tu 160 and Tu 22M3 were produced in Kazan from 1981 at the 1991.

Because of this I found quite interesting your mention that PAK DA would first replace the Tu 22M3, once the Tu 22M3 has been not defined as strategic attack aircraft but instead as long range attack aircraft , which until now it has been prevented the Tu 22M3 to be equipped with refueling probes by SALT II agreement.

However the Tu 22M3 has been designed for missions such as maritime attack that has not been assigned for the Tu 160 and Tu 95MS, as well as the Tu 160 and Tu 95SM are not configured to carry such heavy missiles as Kh 22/32.

As Russia has been keeping the intention to produce almost 50 Tu 160M2 in parallel with the PAK DA in Kazan, and the PAK DA could have been replaced first the Tu 22M3, so as mere supposition perhaps the PAK DA will be designed with similar dimensions and weights to Tu 22M3 than the equivalent Tu 160 and Tu 95MS, and the Tu 160M2 could have been replaced first the Tu 95MS and for last the Tu 160M.

As Psychologists has been describing that we are looking all the time for facts that could meet our pre- conceptions, and my pre-conception have been that long-range aviation were so important to the former Soviet Union as the strategic aviation, if not more important than the latter.

In fact it were quite impressive (or maybe financial irresponsible?) that former Soviet Union had been put into production many highly complex and expensive types as well as to produce those in large quantities during the 80’s as: Tu 22M3, Tu 95SM, Tu 142 and Tu 160.

[URL=”IAF Kicks Off Contest to Make Single-Engine Fighters; Competition likely between American F-16 Block 70 and Swedish Gripen E“]IAF Kicks Off Contest to Make Single-Engine Fighters; Competition likely between American F-16 Block 70 and Swedish Gripen E[/URL]

If this information has been accurate in this text above, in fact it seems that there are an interesting contradiction in it, since this competition for a fighter with only one engine while there are several possible competitors with two engines in the category of medium fighters has been restricted the same.

In reason of this boundary I would guess that neither F 16 Block 70 or the Gripen E should be the favorites in this new competition, because there are at least two aspects that can put the single engine and medium fighter as the F 35A/B/C in highly evidence:

It may be as possibility that the new competition could put such new candidate against the FGFA (PAK FA) from HAL, in this case would be the F 35A/B/C as well as a joint venture that could produces the same in India.

After all there are few countries in the world that could afford to conduct a competition between the PAK FA and F 35, and both the US and Russia had been huge interest in winning this supposed competition.

Also irrelevant because while Gripen-E can operate from most any flat surface that can handle its footprint, F-35B requires reinforced surface or special landing mats because of the downblast.

Also, not even Lockheed claims that you could turn around an F-35B with as little support as needed by Gripen E.

Even a fighter has been designed for STOL as the JAS 39 Gripen C / D needs a strengthened and suitable runway for landing and take-off, once the Gripen has not been equipped with strengthened landing gear and low pressure tires to use stretches of road in any place.

About Gripen E should be important to remember that it not made a single flew until today despite those 14 years that has been developed since 2002, and its STOL characteristics has not been proven so far, once the Gripen E is more heavier than the Gripen A / B / C/ D.

It would be important to keep in mind that even the STOL JAS 39 Gripen has been depended for a runway from 800m ( 2,650 ft) that could give the necessary means to reach a speed of 240 Km/h( 149 mph) for take off, as well as a runway that allows the JAS 39 to touch the runway at 235 km/h( 146 mph) for landing.

Those high quality extension from 800 m( 2,650 ft) in Sweden roads has been prepared for this task , since it were built for this purpose in case of war, and some of those airfields had been used for others legacy fighters as STOL AJ/SK/ JA 37 Viggen.

In others countries the Sweden system from dispersed airfields could be such harsh problem to be implemented, once due at the lack of this structure from roads, or then its structure should be built for this purpose, so this also would be an additional cost for it fully implementation.

Just to illustrate a video about the unprepared airfields had been used by MiG 27 from former Soviet Union, even this fighter bomber as MiG 27 it were designed with reinforced landing gears and low pressure tires to operate on unprepared airfields still requiring several conditions to suit those ‘unprepared runways’.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=csflXVhCQAo

However today should be considered others factor to measure the effectiveness from dispersed and alternative bases for STOL fighter, since that sky has been increasingly filled with reconnaissance satellites as the UAV, and it will be very common the stealth UAV’s in the near future, which would complicate the task to disperse the fighters in those alternative bases, once this fighters could be already detects the by those reconnaissance means before the enemy attack.

So this high capabilities in real time reconnaissance could decrease or even nullify the effectiveness of the these alternative bases, and also could expose more those fighters in ground for the destruction by the enemy air strikes, in case those alternatives bases has not been equipped with armored shelters as HAS.

Even the best hardened HAS could be vulnerable for air strikes as it had demonstrated in Iraq in 1991, but aircraft’s under the open sky are even more vulnerable as were highly evident since the Six Day War in 1967.