During tests of the Su-33 taking off from an aircraft carrier with a maximum take-off weight, the speed of aircraft carrier – 12 knots from the third position.

I know that, there is a video of it somewhere around, though i didnt know the speed of the aircraft carrier.

With the first and second positions 50% fuel and 50% of the weapons, speed carrier 6 knots.

With 20% of the fuel Su-33 taking off from an aircraft carrier anchored.

Is this an operational limitation or what was tested/observed? I ask because our calculations were more of theoratical ability then what was tested. It also contradicts with Yefim Gordon’s flankers book.

We can teorize but I dont know what conclusions we can draw from it. We only know the Su-33 is clean. We know pylon/adapter weights Su-33, but Su-33 can also carry 9.5 tons of fuel which we cant see. Thats a big margin for error. Perhaps numbers can explain better:

Lets assume one unarmed Su-33 is fully fuelled and weighs 30 tons, while other is lightly fueled at 22 tons. A very high estimate 240kN net thrust gives 7,66 m/s2 and 10,9 m/s2 respectively. With A low estimate of 180 kN, those values become 6 and 8,18. Remember we calculated 8,16 m/s2 acceleration value? It fits both estimates. Calculating it the other way around, this only helps us conclude “179kN< possible thrust < 249kN”. Even that depends on we guessed 22 and 30 ton possible weights right.

if the structure limit and pylon limit allows it, taking off with 6500 kg of ordenance isnt an issue. the issue would be taking off with that sort of payload on top of full fuel tank. That should be impossible from the first two take off positions. In theory, with very good headwind, the last takeoff position might enable such a load, though that would mean going a bit over the designated mtow, which naturally isn’t practiced.

I think its quite possible to take off from shorter stations with MTOW. I didnt want to turn the forum into physics lesson but here I go. Pair of AL-31F engines on Su-33 give 251 kN of thrust. Lets assume 21kN lost for various reasons to get a net force of 230 kN. 230/33 = gives 7 m/s2 acceleration -again assuming linear acceleration. We already know length of shortest take of run x = 105m, and V^2 = 2*a*x formula gives V = 38.4 m/s (138 km/h) the second Su-33 clears the ramp. More than that, 15 deg inclined deck also gives 9.9 m/s vertical speed. By the time that vertical motion comes to stop, another second is passed (G = 9,81m/s2). If we take its perfectly ok to descent to the same height as the end of the ramp, another second has passed. This assumes the object is in free fall and excludes the lift produced. In these two additional seconds, aircraft continues to accelerate with the same 7 m/s2. Vfinal = 52.4 m/s = 188.6 km/h.

Now go to technical specs; I dont have any solid info about stall speed or lift abilities of Su-33, but I do for Su-27 from the good old Su-27SK flight manual. On the operating limitations part, it says baseline Su-27 has max take-off weight of 33 tons (same as Su-33), if Kh-41 bus model 17a and bus model 2a with 156D are installed. It also says, minimum level flight speed is 200 km/h (Which maybe below the stall speed, as engine thrust at 25+ deg AOA also helps keeping the aircraft in air)

Theoratically, if we tried to launch the Su-27SK from the carrier, it would only need to be 11 km/h faster to get into level flight at the same altitude of the end of the ramp. (Again assumptions I made excludes the fact lift created at those speeds would reduce sink rate) In practice, its obvious Su-33’s two stage TE flaps, enlarged slats and lift from canards increase available lift a lot, not to mention vortex control from canards may also delay stall AOA, increasing it further. In Yefim gordon’s book it says, all those modifications reduced approach speed 1.5 times, and increased lift by 50%.

You know as well as i do, that an F-16 pilot would dump any DT prior to engagement. Its an lighter/smaller fighter so it will play on that advantage..

Yes, thats why I said NJJET (non-jettisson) “pylons”. Two pylons (with fuel tanks dropped) have drag index of 16. If there is also 16S951 centerline fuel tank pylon, it has a drag index of 7. an AIM-120 missile has drag index of 6. Drag from fuel tank pylons alone is not something ignorable.

ITR is overhyped, and equall to huge loss of energy in a tight merge, and that my friend is a sin for any fighter pilot..

That depends on the conditions of the merge. Also while energy state is important, so does relative position to enemy aircraft. At a high speed/high altitude merge, no aircraft will maneuver better than it does at slow speed/low altitude.

Lets stick flight manual data on clean Su-27 and F-16. After expending their missiles, both merged at M1.5+ 30k feet. Both have same G limited ITR. F-16 pilot knows his fighter has 5 deg/s STR, and he also knows if he slows to ~M0.9, he will have 7.9 deg/s STR. Su pilot also knows he has 5.2 deg/s STR at M1.5, and if he slows to 8.5 deg/s to ~M0.84 (1000 km/h). So logical move from both pilots is keep full AB, and to use ITR combined with high yoyo maneuvers to slow down to more favourable speeds.

Again, for larger heavier fighter like F-15 and Su-27, speed=life.

Same speed=life also goes for smaller fighters like F-16 or MiG-29. You need Lift to make turns. You need higher L/D not to waste energy. Put wavedrag aside, you need less AOA to achieve same turn rate at higher speeds. Less AOA = higher L/D. Its not about weight or size, its just physics.

An Su pilot would have lots of internal fuel, which will give penalty in tight corners.

On the contrary, if Su-27 and F-16 pilot are equally distant from their home bases, F-16 pilot will have a lot higher percentage of fuel: An F-16 flying 400km from its home base would require close to 100% of fuel at take off. When it reaches its destination and merges, it will have around 60%. To cover same distance Su-27 would require 75% fuel at take off, and have 45% fuel at the merge. Considering all the ITR/STR values i write are for 50% fuel, I imagine Su pilot would be eager to get into a turning fight.

Su-27 have a better slow speed handeling, but it does not help hanging in the air when your jet is not turnin..

I think you and I have a different understanding of slow and high speeds. What I define as high speed is M1.3+, typical speeds at BVR combat to boost the missiles range. What I call “slow down” and enter CAC, its speeds between (and around) the plane’s highest ITR and highest STR, so that with high and low yoyos pilot can quickly prioritize energy maneuverability or aircraft position at will. I’m not talking about dead slow supermaneuverability speeds. (Though I see how TVC also provides many advantages even at transonic speeds)

As for Su-35S, lets leave it out of this for now, it hasen’t entered a full Sq service yet..

That, and we dont have any solid data about how it turns or climbs etc.

But one thing about the non-catapult take off method of the ‘carrierized’ Flankers (whether it be Russian or Chinese) is that as powerful and capable the Flanker, its fuel/weapons capability has to be somewhat limited on take off.

In Yefim Gordon’s book Flankers – The New Generation it says “Even using the station which afforded the shortest take-off run of only 105m, the Su-27K could take of easily with a full fuel and weapons load. The ski jump was inclined 15 deg; the normal glidescopre angle during final approach was 4deg.” and “The naval Flanker had 12 hardpoints instead of ten; still the ordnance was limited to 6500 kg because of the fighters higher MTOW.”

@totoro. Difference between installed thrust and uninstalled thrust depends a lot on engine/intake design. The loss can be as much as 40% with turbojet engine and a fixed inlet optimized for high supersonic speeds, as little as 3-4% on big turbofans on airliners. Its hard to guess without CFD analysis and knowing engine flow demands. Others are rough estimates but sound about right.

MSphere, you are right. What I was trying to say is, future upgrades to make it multi role was not as critical as in Rafale. Without Rafales carrying out strike missions, Charles de Gaulle as a carrier would have little to no use. Kuznetsov on the other hand can use its Su-33s solely for fleet defense and conduct anti-shipping roles itself. This may limit, but not remove its usefulness as an aircraft carrier. With limited money Russian Navy had, priority went to making more ships operational reliably.

You dont have to go as far as Su-30MKM. Basic Su-30 had same RLPK-27 as fire control suite, a N001 derivative as radar and very same IRST, and it could carry anything from KAB series LGBs to Kh-29T/L to Kh-31 anti-ship/anti radar missiles. So -theoratically- what Su-33 needed could be as simple as few avionics and software upgrade to match A/G capabilities of Su-30 or Super Hornet. Also note that Su-30 entered into service in around 1994, even before first flight of Su-33. So I dont see a technical reason why Su-33 would not have better A/G capabilities if the Russian Navy demanded it.

IMHO, replacement with MiG-29K is also related with changes Kuznetsov will recieve during its planned refit. IIRC, P-700 missiles are to be retired, and launchers will be removed from the ship. Without having its own missiles, an airwing with decent strike capability is a must. Like you said, Su-33 are too old to be upgraded, and MiG-29K is already there to be purchased.

Also, while Su-33 is big, its not THAT big when its wings are folded.

Also, increasing number of missiles affects wavedrag. After a point, reaching and sustaining ANY supersonic with a useful fuel efficiency becomes a problem. For example an F-16 can go up to M1.2 @ 40k feet with drag index 200, but it cannot even break the sound barrier while flying in level.

You would be surprised how much the drag index increases due to interference drag from just two SRAAMs.

I dont think so. On an F-16, an AIM-120 or AIM-9 missile on wingtip pylon with 16S210 launcher has no impact on drag at all (drag index = 0) On pylons 2,3,7,8 same missile/launcher and 16S301 adapter has drag index of just 6. F-16 blk50 with drag index 0 at S/L has ITR and STR of 24,8 and 21,5 deg/s respectively. With drag index 12 (having 2 AIM-120s on wingtips and 2 AIM-9s on 2 and 8), those values drop to ~24 and ~20,2 deg/s (interpolation from drag index 0 and 50 graphs)

So I have to disagree, having just 2 AAMs should be less draggy than having a larger airframe with WB. If it isn’t why any 3rd or 4th gen fighter didnt have WB?

Also am I wrong to assume Typhoon with larger wing area (less % increase in wing loading) and greater empty weight (less % increase in weight) would get even less performance drop than F-16?