[Traben]

Su-33 "FLANKER-D"
- Naval Fighter -



Origin: (Real World)
Russia


Games Featured In:
Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation
Ace Combat: Assault Horizon

Operators:
Estovakian Navy
Republic of Emmeria Navy
Russian Navy

Ace Squadron Pilot(s):
Feniks / Estovakian Navy (AC6)
Strigon Tactical Fighter Squadron / Estovakian Navy (AC6)

Armament: (Special Weapons)
Gun / 1 x 30mm Gsh-301 Cannon
Missile / R-60 'Aphid'
QAAM / R-73 'Archer'
XMAA / R-77 AAM
RCL / UV-16-57


Ace Combat 6 Stats:
Speed: 73
Mobility: 75
Stability: 55
Defense: 61
Air-to-Air: 82
Air-to-Ground: 38


Background:
Full scale design development of the Su-33 started in 1984 as T10K, under Konstantin Marbashev. N.F. Sadovnikov was appointed the Design Bureau's chief test pilot for the programme. Conceptual design had passed critical design review by November 1984, with the detailed design finalized in 1985. The Su-33 first flew in May 1985, and entered service in the Russian Navy in 1994. An air regiment comprising 24 fighters of the type was formed upon the Russian Navy’s only operating aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov. Unlike comparable American carrier-borne fighters like the F-14 Tomcat, the Su-33 uses a ski-jump instead of catapult for carrier takeoff. This method avoids the massive stresses produced by the catapult method, and provides the aircraft with a positive pitch and climb angle upon launch. However, when using a ski-jump, the Su-33 cannot launch at maximum takeoff weight. The Su-33 sports canards that shorten the take-off distance and improve maneuverability, but required reshaping of the leading edge extensions. The canards counter pitch-down force generated by leading and trailing edge flaps reducing approach speed by 1.5 times; they also act as destabilizers in supersonic flight, by reducing pitch trim drag. The wing area was also increased, though the span remained unchanged. The wings were fitted with power-assisted folding, and the vertical tails were shortened to allow the fighter to fit in the typically crowded hangars of an aircraft carrier. The rear radome was shortened and reshaped to allow for the tail hook, as well as to save space inside the hangars. The IRST was moved to provide better downward visibility and an L-shaped retractable refuelling probe was fitted to increase range.

The Su-33 carries guided missiles such as the Kh-25MP, Kh-31 and Kh-41. The plane can be used in both night and day operations at sea. It can operate under assistance of the command center ship, or in conjunction with a Kamov Ka-31 (a variant of the Ka-27) early-warning helicopter. The R-27EM missiles provide it the capability to intercept antiship missiles.
Other than air defence, the duties of the Su-33 include destruction of enemy ASW, AWACS, and transport aircraft, anti-shipping strike, support of amphibious landing, escort, reconnaissance, and laying of minefields.[/i].


Specifications:
Crew: 1
Length: 21.94 m (72 ft)
Wingspan: 14.70 m (48.25 ft)
Height: 5.93 m (19.5 ft)
Wing area: 62.0 m² (667 ft²)
Empty weight: 18,400 kg (40,600 lb)
Loaded weight: 29,940 kg (66,010 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 33,000 kg (72,750 lb)
Powerplant: 2× AL-31F afterburning turbofans
Dry thrust: 7,600 kgf (74.5 kN, 16,750 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 12,500 kgf (122.6 kN, 27,560 lbf) each
Wingspan, wings folded: 7.40 m (24.25 ft)
Service ceiling: 17,000 m (55,800 ft)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.17 (2,300 km/h, 1,430 mph)


SOURCE:
Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation (The game itself)
Wikipedia.com
airforce-technology.com
fighterplanes.com


ACCREDITATION:

* Original Article By: Ice
Article Edited By: Berserker

[Zaku]

"it was destined for greatness"

Objectivity much?

[Tazuren]

The Soviets always dreamt big, but the West outspent them on everything.

[Grastens 7]

Well, if you look at it, the Su-33 is very close to a Su-35, and, to boot, it is designed for naval operations. It already exceeds the capabilities of the standard Su-27 Flanker. I agree that it adds a bit of a bias to the article, but the writer's not far off the mark.

If it could outperform the -KM variant...

[Zaku]

Well, if you look at it, the Su-33 is very close to a Su-35, and, to boot, it is designed for naval operations. It already exceeds the capabilities of the standard Su-27 Flanker.

...no it doesn't. Every other variant of the Flanker outperforms it, the Su-27 included; its airframe is very, very heavy and the canards don't add any maneuverability. All that they do it produce more lift on takeoff and landing to compensate for the added weight.

[Grastens 7]

My mistake, then.

Still, the Su-27 has proven to be a very capable fighter, and the introduction of the Su-33 has essentially brought the Su-27 to the Russian Navy, if altered (as you said, by weight).

[Zaku]

...

The Su-27 has a thrust/weight ratio of 1.09; the Su-33's is 0.83. It was capable of doing that maneuver because the airframe is unstallable due to its layout (and before anybody asks, no, that does not mean you'll be seeing it hovering in midair because I just know someone out there is thinking that). Both use the same engines that only output 27000 pounds of thrust each. The Su-33 weighs 66,010 lb loaded because of its strengthened airframe and undercarriage plus the mechanisms like the arresting hook and folding wings for carrier operations, by contrast the Su-27 weighs 50,690.

I'm an effing pilot (...lol cessna), and I do know what I'm talking about and far more than the vast majority of you.

[Zaku]

This is entirely off-topic, but whatever.

The F-15 and F-22 both have the highest T/Ws of operational fighters, with 1.3. The F-22's is probably higher than we're led to believe, though; the airframe itself isn't designed for supermaneuverability, so the only way it can possibly do most of its demos is through sheer power.

[Zaku]

Well, what has the best T/W ratio isn't really an opinion, just a matter of looking at the max thrust divided by the loaded weight. I can't change that with my mind. Yet.

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

Ok, here's something on topic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=203xKIYfsnk...feature=related

It's a vid that shows the strenght of the Su-33.

[Zaku]

It's... just a video. It shows nothing, especially compared to the statistics above. Okay, it can maneuver; that's because it has an unstallable airframe like pretty much every military craft today. The only reason you don't see F-16s and F/A-18s doing cobras and such is because its avionics designers did the smart thing by not allowing the AoA limiters to be disconnected.

[Grastens 7]

I thought it was airframe limitations... but that may just be the F-14.

I for some reason was always under the impression that the Su-33 was a superior aircraft... now I know. The maximum loaded weights are somewhat similar, with both at 33,000kg, but the Su-27 is some 2,000kg lighter than the naval fighter when empty.

If only the Su-27KM existed... and unstallable?

Edit: Forgot the most important fact that the normal takeoff weight for the Su-27 is 6,000kg less than the Su-33... I should check these things...

[Zaku]

The LERX and canards keep air flowing over the airfoil at high angles of attack so the aircraft doesn't stall or spin as one normally would. F/A-18s and F-16s are the same way; even the F-14 is.

[RzB]

If only the Su-27KM existed... and unstallable?

The Berkut's not even done being tested..(which is likely all it will be used for) So we don't know if it could even be made into an Carrier Aircraft.. Not to mention it is a huge aircraft to begin with.. And if the FSW are even strong enough to take combat stress.. (ever watched the berkut fly look how much the the wings flex..)

And as good as that video is DLR most of those Su-33s were unarmed..

[Grastens 7]

I would imagine, though, that the FSW would offer some advantages with handling at low speeds associated with carrier approaches.

I saw the Berkut on several occasions, but I will check again for that flexing. I don't doubt you, given the nature of FSW aircraft, but it is just something I have to see to believe.

[Zaku]

You want a stable plane for carrier landings, FSW would be flopping all over the place. Not to mention like RzB said, the airframe is very fragile; keep in mind that the Su-33 needed 20,000 pounds added to its airframe to survive a carrier landing. The Su-47 would need so much more to support its flimsy wings that it wouldn't be worth the conversion.

[Grastens 7]

RzB- The Su-47 Berkut is only a technology demonstrator; its development was halted in favour of PAK-FA.

Zaku- It should still offer shorter take-off and landing distances than the Su-33. Flexing only seems to occur at higher-speed manoeuvres, though yes the wings would need more reinforcements. Given today's advancements in composite materials, though, a strong FSW wing should be possible to survive carrier landings.

Had the Su-27KM entered production, there would have been problems, but the cancellation of new aircraft projects following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 allowed time for a better aircraft, the Su-47, to be realized. The main fuselage is not of the Su-27 (though the forward component is), and, with better construction, should be tougher than the standard Flanker.

The FSW, besides better low-speed handling and lower stall speeds, also offers better anti-spin and stall characteristics, and today's fly-by-wire systems are more than up to the task of keeping the Berkut in line.

Heinkel, my point exactly, but if the Berkut was to be converted into a carrier aircraft... I don't think they quite expected it to supplement PAK-FA at first, but the Raptor changed everything... should this argument be moved to the Su-47 thread?