Kh-59 uses an autopilot then TV, IIR, or Radar guidance depending on variant. It obviously cannot use TV or IIR versions, but radar guided Kh-59MK or MK2 look pretty usable to me.

Its radar has no air to ground mode and its WCS (unless severly upgraded which doesn’t seem to be the case) doesn’t support such weapons, so how would it provide the target data to the anti-ship missile?

TBH there would be some scenarios about its utility; Su-33 can carry 8 KAB-500Ss, instead of 4 on MiG-29K. MiG can do the sighting and Su-33 could drop the bombs. Operationally this isn’t a longshot, most PGM drops are conducted in this way; no fighter aircraft actually illuminates its own guided bombs as the aircraft flies is faster than the bombs they release, and its just safer to illuminate from the distance instead of trying to do so by flying straight in level just above the target and wait for MANPADS and AAA hits. Its mostly a theoratical discussion on whether Su-33 may be able to use it or not. In practice we are likely to see Su-33s with 4-6 AAMs because their airframes are probably too old to take-off with few tons of bombs.

“no fighter aircraft actually illuminates its own guided bombs as the aircraft flies is faster than the bombs they release”? Sorry, but this part is nonsense as the targeting pods are made in a way to cover some angles behind the aircraft as well. The PGM’s are also dropped from medium altitudes, above the range of AAA and MANPADS.

But, theoretically, yes, preprogrammed satellite guided PGM’s could be dropped dumb over some preprogrammed waypoint given a sufficient altitude (and if the INS drift is not too high), but you’d still need some WCS upgrade to support such bombs (e.g. to arm them properly, to have the ballistic data for the dumb drop, etc.), although this could be expected to be included with the supposed Gefest upgrade.

Su-33 was supposed to fire Kh-41, right? Even without ANY modifications, why it shouldn’t be able to drop a pre-programable munition like GLONASS bombs or Kh-59? Surely it can’t designate a target, but it can easily fly to a pre-designated waypoint and drop the bomb/missile againist a static target. Should not be any different than firing Kh-41.

It was never able to fire the Kh-41. That was just a mock up hung on it. AFAIK, the Kh-59 would at least require a proper display integrated with the datalink required, plus the weapon controls so I don’t see how should the Su-33 be able to use that?

As for satellite guided munitions, I already mentioned that you have no way of knowing whether the bomb is in the parameters to hit the target, plus you’d need another flight equipped with some proper sighting system to confirm whether a strike was made or not. So, why would anyone do that?

there is no such thing as hastily introduction.

No? How about e.g. TIALD pods or AMRAAM’s in Desert Storm?

Yes I agree , That is why mentioned what ever modernised Su-24 can carry , Although I see no reason why the Naval Flanker cant carry GB’s if required be it GLONASS or Laser Guided

I don’t follow this logic. Why would it be able to carry whatever the modernized Su-24 can carry? IIRC the SVP-24 upgrades the WCS, navigation and the interface systems of the Su-24M, but the Su-24M still has an A2G radar and a laser designator and an EO system which allow it to locate and designate ground targets for guided munitions.

The Su-33 would need at least a laser spot tracker and the upgraded WCS to allow to drop LGB’s at targets designated by another platform, which it doesn’t have. For satellite guided munitions, it would require upgraded WCS and a GLONASS system integrated (which I presume it wasn’t upgraded with?) plus some way of designating ground targets. It could in theory drop pre-programmed munitions, but without these upgrades, the pilot would have no way of knowing when it’s actually in parameters for a successful drop so that point is moot as well.

The Su-33 probably only got some WCS upgrade which improve it’s CCRP delivery mode precision and bring it to some useful level when dropping ordnance from higher altitudes or when lofting them in good weather conditions.

What, with 9670kg of fuel? Ofcourse not. But just remember the Su-33 has Inflight refueling probe.

It does, but if you don’t have an option of a friendly airbase in the theater to operate your tankers from, it has to be another Su-33 or MiG-29K which again have restrictions on max take off weight so that option sounds rather ineffective.

P-1000 Vulkan is rumoured to have land-attack capability, and it was claimed that Moskva attacked Georgian targets with them during 2008 war (though personally I believe the report is incorrect).
A rudimentary land attack capability wouldn’t be very hard to implement, on a basic level it doesn’t matter for the INS if the waypoints are over sea or over land. It’s well possible that Granit has always had this capability.

I don’t see this as a given. Simply having INS only would be rather imprecise for cruise missiles the longer the range gets. Not to mention the terminal homing part – against ships it’s relatively straightforward with their own radar seekers (if the navigation system brought them close enough with the help of some datalink updates), but the radar would be useless for ground targets. Modernization of these missiles also seems pointless given the much newer models becoming available, so I’d presume the information in the article is wrong.

IS came when the disbandment of Iraq Army when US invaded Saddam , Lakhs of soldiers became jobless and they joined terrorist like IS and since these were mostly Sunnis , they were funded and supported by GCC/Saudi Sunni bloc for their own political goals in ME.
The culprit for IS creation and sustenance lies with US and GCC/Saudi

After the US brough down Saddam, all sorts of radical Sunni Islamists poured into Iraq to fight them and Syria was in fact a conduit for them since the Assad regime used them hoping to kick the US out of Iraq fearing they might bring him down next (the regime also released its own radical Islamists from the prisons to fight the US in Iraq). IS known then as Al Qaeda in Iraq entered the same way. The US managed to defeat them by paying the local Sunni tribes to fight the Islamist groups in their areas rather than US or government troops (the “Sunni Awakening”). After being defeated, some fled to Syria to regroup, but most were imprisoned e.g. in Camp Bucca with a lot of non-Islamists. Here they actually organized themselves and formed the backbone of the future IS. When the US released all the prisoners en-masse, they went to their homes, but were actually waiting to be contacted when the IS comeback occurs. Later, when Maliki kicked the US out of Iraq, stopped paying the Sunni tribes and removed Sunni and Kurdish ministers from his government, the stage was set for an easy comeback of experienced and organized IS since the corrupt and inefficient Iraqi army simply melted away in front of them (with the Kurds and Sunnis deserting not wanting to fight for the Shia government).

The goal of terrorist is to cause civilian casualty so that they can hide behind civilians and call murder in full international press. They clearly want to mix up with civilian areas and fight it out……that helps them with twin goal of prolonging the fight as government would have to be cautious with civilian casualty and cause maximum civilian damage

I’d be curious to know how do you define terrorists here exactly? By this definition, every opposition to the current regime might be considered terrorist then, including e.g. the French Resistance, the Americans in the War of Independence, Kurds in Iraq under Saddam, etc. Or are they terrorists only when they are Islamists because we can’t relate to their ideals?